I think a little bit of empty meaningless entertainment is legitimate. Parts of Hipforums - for instance. Hence posting silly comments - for instance. Hence watching Dr Who. Although it is a good spring-board for more.
yet the act of reading itself is non-constructive, being moved or inspired in itself is not producing anything. what you do afterwards may well be coloured by what you have read, for example, if you read something which inspires you and then, so inspired, go and write something of your own, then that would be a constructive act as a result of reading, but that doesn't make the reading of the book constructive. EDIT: ah no, forget it. wrong definition of constructive, i think lol
Books can, clearly, be constitutive of attitudes and ideas, can expand your knowledge, awareness, empathy, imagination. Those attitudes and ideas can affect how you react to and behave in the world. To suggest that reading the book is not constructive but that acting in a different way after having read the book is constructive is mere quibbling. Can you really tell me that you act or think in a different way using the knowledge you've gained from the Harry Potter series? No. You've just wasted quite a lot of your time. I think this idea gets to the heart of why Harry Potter and Dr Who are such a deleterious force in society. We could be spending our time reading great novels, watching great dramas, genuinely changing the way we think and understand. Instead, we choose to watch and read cheap, simplistic, unimaginative rehashes of ideas we already know, we escape our tawdry existences staring at inoffensive, unchallenging wallpaper...
i disagree with parts of this, although i'm supposed to have been reading for my lecture tmrw, so i'll have to respond tmrw.
We have amply demonstrated the sheer originality of the worst of Hi-5 compared to the derivative mash of copycat ideas in the best of Dr Who. I would suggest that we have legitimatised this, if I thought that was a word.
Obviously you're wrong to disagree with parts of this, and I will disagree with what you say when you reply. However, I look forward to reading your response tomorrow so I can then formally disabuse you of your mistaken notions.
autophobe2e, what do you get out of watching childrens programmes (i.e Dr who)? For children the references are new and they can obviously take onboard the ideas and continue with them. Adults are supposedly already aware of all the references, and it's all rather simplistic.
there IS a joy in recognition (in fact a lot of people would argue that it is the most important joy) so, although i do not enjoy something, consciously, for "the references" i won't deny that that's part of what makes up my enjoyment. (tbh, thats pretty much the entire reason i watch anything by quentin tarantino these days) it isn't really a valid criticism to accuse a creative work of being "derivative" unless it's derivative of a very limited range of source material. given that "originality" is essentially non existent, art does not and cannot exist in a vacuum and is, at best, a sum of its influences, one can only create an illusion of originality by borrowing from either a diverse range of sources, or from as obscure a source as possible. "derivative" can only be a derogatory description if the work in question borrows obviously from ONE or, an extremely small number of ideas. a "derivative mash" of several ideas is a descriptor which could fit almost any good creative work. there are, after all, only 7 stories ( kind of) it is difficult for me to explain why i like doctor who just as it would be difficult for me to explain why i like anything, but, given that "because i do" seems to be an explanation somewhat lacking in creativity, i'll try something a bit more erudite. i enjoy doctor who, to a certain extent (although, as i've already said, i've found the latest series' a bit rubbish) because, although i won't deny that it IS derivative (to do so, as i've already said, would be absurd) the sources which it borrows from/rips off (depending on your point of view) are not contemporary to it, and it therefore represents a refreshing break from current SF trends (although, with each passing episode, it becomes more steam punk-y, which, although that movement in literature has been fairly prominent for quite a while, has only broken into the mainstream fairly recently). I.E. At its BEST doctor who borrows from: hammer horrors (particularly the quatermass series, which would seem to be one of DW's primary influences), 50's B movies, the twilight zone, Alfred Hitchcock presents and tales of the unexpected, but perhaps the biggest influences are the works of HP lovecraft, John Wyndham, HG Wells (in particular) etc. in fact, the series'obsession with this kind of victoriana points to an obsession with the first birth of SF, post industrial revolution, a time when the world and universe were still uncharted worlds knowable only to a few brave explorers, when science brought the mysterious closer to our understanding, and both inner and outer worlds' foundations were shown to be not quite as solid as we once thought (this era brought us both Freud, who questioned our pre-supposed rationality, and Marx, who questioned the validity of our systems of governance, which led to uncertainty and speculation about how the human race would proceed into the new century) and, although it also borrows occasionally form Arthur C. Clarke and that lot, DW has always managed to stay true to the spirit of early SF, even in the face of the hollywood SF "scene", which is becoming more and more homogenised and dull. remember when depictions of dystopian future societies used to have a fucking political point to make? now it seems like just grey/brown derelict cityscapes post some kind of nuclear holocaust are just the go-to backdrop for hollywood's latest piece of "SF" diarrhea. Doctor who has not moved with the times. i like it for that. plus, the plot essentially gives the writers the opportunity to do whatever the fuck they want, and take the protagonist wherever they want. few shows afford writers that ammount of artistic freedom. I should stress that literally everything i just said only goes for GOOD episodes of doctor who, which are few and far between, and even in most of those, you're watching a whole lot of schlock for the brief flashes of inspiration. but yeah, when i hear about another shitty action film set in a miserable, generic, brown dystopian society, my first thought is often "i'd rather be watching doctor who" even if it's shit, at least its varied shit.
yes i can. of course i can, everything i read, see, hear changes my outlook and the way i percieve the world, no matter how incrementally. the distinction you seem to imply is whether or not you are CONSCIOUS of having your outlook changed by a creative work. that is not the arbiter of great fiction, and it CERTAINLY isn't the arbiter of a good story. to a certain extent, the second you, when reading/watching a narrative, go "wow, this has totally changed my life and my outlook on the world, i will act differently from now on" that narrative has FAILED TO DO ITS JOB. you aren't supposed to be aware of yourself as an individual, or of the stories effect on you. unless you're watching like, Brechtian theatre or something,in which case reminding you of yourself is the point. we DON'T know what will inspire people, we simply can't predict it, and if people are only encouraged to read/watch "the classics" then art will stagnate and become insufferable (do you really wanna watch films by people raised on a diet of citizen kane and faulkner? i fucking don't) plus art is (almost predominantly) spurred on by reactionary movements. therefore shit, whether you like it or not, serves an extremely important purpose. encouraging people to imbibe a certain kind of culture becuase someone somewhere has deemed it "worthy", or because others have been inspired by it in the past is absurd. people are different, they find inspiration where they may. they seek it out. that's how art keeps changing and evolving.
This point is trivial to the point of banality. How did Harry Potter change your outlook other than by having the realisation that you've wasted your time reading hundreds of pages of rubbish? Who formulated this rule?
i can't explain it, of course, i fear you may have missed my trivial, banal point. don't worry about it though, it was clearly beneath you. ta ra.
autophobe2e I think when people hear about a show such as 'Twin Peaks' the often quoted part is about the 'great coffee'. I thought this was a David Lynch quirk, and was only present in 'Twin Peaks'. It turns out it was a quirk of Alfred Hitchcock. So, David Lynch has 'stolen' something form Alfred Hitchcock. It doesn't feel like that, though. To some, every supposed original quirk of Dr Who, is infact 'stolen' from something else. If done well, even if you are aware it has been 'stolen' - you can enjoy it, anyway. Like you say, there is only supposedly seven stories to be told. I think we can all agree Dr Who is derivative. It really does not matter. Most things are. It's how it is 'pulled off' and if it is done well. Imho, to a seasoned movie goer or reader etc - Dr Who is very derivative. This can be seen as derogatory. But, it can also be seen for what it is - and judged on how well it is executed. I think to the younger audience unaware of where certain devices come from - Dr Who is brilliant. It does not devalue the experience and they can enjoy it for what it is. For others more aware - you can either dismiss it or appreciate it for what it is, also, and hope it is derivative in a good way. I'm really not a fan of culture snobs who think everything has to be original, you must gain some grand spiritual knowledge, it must change your perception, change your outlook, and it must be 'worthy' on every level. Some things are well done and are fun - THE END. I think Dr Who is well done and is fun - THE END.
+1. Additionally, who's to say the "crap" doesn't inspire the people who go on to greater things? The Beatles originated from skiffle bands and the old concert halls with blokes playing banjos. Even if you don't like the Beatles, they then went on to inspire countless others.
I used to absolutely love Doctor Who as a kid, watched it religiously and had over 60 Doctor Who books. However I agree with plutonium in that I see it as a child's programme and don't watch it now. btw odonII why have you got a pic of that arsehole Ronald Rayguns in your sig?
I wasn't aware that this had been stolen. I used to like David Lynch, I thought his work was highly original, but to be honest I've now gone off him a bit. I wonder if this is even a copyright violation. I do think there should be a regulatory (perhaps government) body that monitors these things and can bring violations like this to court, for the good of the wider culture. I think it's a shame particularly that things like Dr Who, that steal ideas from great films like Back to the Future and Jurassic Park, are allowed on the BBC. ITV, fair enough - it's for the classes who may not know better - but the BBC, as a publicly funded body, should do better. Perhaps the same government body responsible for overseeing the theft of ideas from great culture in low art could monitor and supervise the BBC's output and veto derivative, cheap and poor quality output like Dr Who and Cash in the Attic.
