Better stories might not be better entertainment: that is a point worthy of close attention. I think it is true, but it has real implications for what is meant by a 'better story', perhaps for what is meant by 'story', and certainly implications for any attempt to change anything with stories.
'Every story is about power' is true, but it is also a lie, and not only in the sense that stories aren't just about power. That is, however, my mystical side chattering; so I'll leave it at that for now.
New subscriber here--I really like what you’ve said about the importance of our stories and the impossibility of ideological neutrality. I recall Charles Eisenstein writing at one point about seeing one of the Marvel movies (does it even matter which one??) and the underlying values it exposed about our society (the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, bigger is better, etc). We need more conversations about the vitality of stories, and so I thank you for this post. Looking forward to reading more!
hey, thanks Amy! it's really remarkable how much things change when you stop assuming that entertainment can be ideologically neutral. it's nearly impossible for me to watch TV anymore, because i can't switch off my analytical mind and let it be "just" entertainment. i guess that's probably a net benefit—although it does make me insufferable at parties :)
thank you so much for reading and subscribing and commenting. i hope you continue to enjoy these essays.
Thanks for this. i couldn't agree with you more. I am wrestling with these topics myself and am a very new writer on here. My real interest is in oral storytelling. In my latest effort I have looked at the issue of what makes a myth different from a story. My latest post just published "when the debt falls due" may interest you as I have offered some sort of an answer. Quite a coincidence that I read your post just now. Jeff (Deep South)
It could be that my perspective is slanted by a terminal case of growed-up-on-the-internet, but I feel like we're many years past the last time excesses of ink were spilled in defense of almost *anything* as supposedly untainted by ideology. That's a pretty unfashionable take nowadays, on both sides of the culture war split (but on one side more than the other, granted).
Since at least the dark ages of 2016, of which you speak with such justified affliction, one of the new terms of participation in the culture-at-large seems to be a kind of compulsive, recursive self-censoring--an unspoken requirement that every form of self-expression should be ready, willing, and able to account for the worst possible interpretation of the motives which impelled its creation. If the personal is political, then to reveal the limitations and imperfections of your Self through your art (knowingly or otherwise) is to serve as a reflection on the broken state of the world; and to decline to condemn yourself for being insufficient compared to a critic's imagined ideal is to maintain that the world doesn't need changing. (Not to overstate the scale of the issue here by invoking matters of "the world.")
It's not only about needing better, more meaningful stories to consume; it's about changing the way we, collectively, regard what is supposed to be accomplished by choosing to tell a story at all. And that will demand a very dramatic philosophical shift which encompasses far more than just the narratives we (consciously...) acknowledge as fiction.
>we're many years past the last time excesses of ink were spilled in defense of almost *anything* as supposedly untainted by ideology.
are we really, though? i guess it's more of a lacuna in the discourse than spilling any ink... i feel like there are a many, many people who would claim that their objections to [X] aren't based on any particular ideology, but on common sense or objective truth or something being "just" a movie/comic/book/whatever. you're right: it's pretty much universally acknowledged that most things are ideologically loaded—but i suspect it's usually acknowledged or brought forth as a criticism when it comes to something Those Other People like.
for example—ah fuck, here we go, god preserve me—i doubt that most (not all, but most) fans of *either* Ghostbusters 2016 or the new Top Gun would cop to the fact their enjoyment of either product was ideologically driven, and that any criticism of those products was valid on ideological grounds. anybody who likes what they like is just enjoying some good clean fun at the movies; anybody who doesn't like what they like is obviously some sort of politically-motivated Fifth Columnist. i think you could find that same trend pretty readily throughout our culture.
That's well-said; having an example to work with does make it easier to conceptualize (but sorry for making you do that). I jumped automatically to focusing on the critical rather than appreciative perspective, because that's where my political priors are entrenched. These days I've evolved little feet to crawl on land, but leftish-ism will always be the water I emerged from; I'm downright unaccustomed to the idea that anything ever *could* be considered generally apolitical, because in those circles, nothing ever really is. I should reread the essay with this in mind.
Can't wait to see where you go with this topic next!
too cautious for my own good :) and i'm right there with you: little webbed feet, vestigial gills, on the lookout for predators in the big wide world outside of our lefty spawning pools. we'll make the journey together.
Better stories might not be better entertainment: that is a point worthy of close attention. I think it is true, but it has real implications for what is meant by a 'better story', perhaps for what is meant by 'story', and certainly implications for any attempt to change anything with stories.
'Every story is about power' is true, but it is also a lie, and not only in the sense that stories aren't just about power. That is, however, my mystical side chattering; so I'll leave it at that for now.
New subscriber here--I really like what you’ve said about the importance of our stories and the impossibility of ideological neutrality. I recall Charles Eisenstein writing at one point about seeing one of the Marvel movies (does it even matter which one??) and the underlying values it exposed about our society (the good guy/bad guy dichotomy, bigger is better, etc). We need more conversations about the vitality of stories, and so I thank you for this post. Looking forward to reading more!
hey, thanks Amy! it's really remarkable how much things change when you stop assuming that entertainment can be ideologically neutral. it's nearly impossible for me to watch TV anymore, because i can't switch off my analytical mind and let it be "just" entertainment. i guess that's probably a net benefit—although it does make me insufferable at parties :)
thank you so much for reading and subscribing and commenting. i hope you continue to enjoy these essays.
Thanks for this. i couldn't agree with you more. I am wrestling with these topics myself and am a very new writer on here. My real interest is in oral storytelling. In my latest effort I have looked at the issue of what makes a myth different from a story. My latest post just published "when the debt falls due" may interest you as I have offered some sort of an answer. Quite a coincidence that I read your post just now. Jeff (Deep South)
thanks for reading! i'm checking out your stuff right now; looks like we're definitely co-workers, metaphysically speaking :)
It could be that my perspective is slanted by a terminal case of growed-up-on-the-internet, but I feel like we're many years past the last time excesses of ink were spilled in defense of almost *anything* as supposedly untainted by ideology. That's a pretty unfashionable take nowadays, on both sides of the culture war split (but on one side more than the other, granted).
Since at least the dark ages of 2016, of which you speak with such justified affliction, one of the new terms of participation in the culture-at-large seems to be a kind of compulsive, recursive self-censoring--an unspoken requirement that every form of self-expression should be ready, willing, and able to account for the worst possible interpretation of the motives which impelled its creation. If the personal is political, then to reveal the limitations and imperfections of your Self through your art (knowingly or otherwise) is to serve as a reflection on the broken state of the world; and to decline to condemn yourself for being insufficient compared to a critic's imagined ideal is to maintain that the world doesn't need changing. (Not to overstate the scale of the issue here by invoking matters of "the world.")
It's not only about needing better, more meaningful stories to consume; it's about changing the way we, collectively, regard what is supposed to be accomplished by choosing to tell a story at all. And that will demand a very dramatic philosophical shift which encompasses far more than just the narratives we (consciously...) acknowledge as fiction.
>we're many years past the last time excesses of ink were spilled in defense of almost *anything* as supposedly untainted by ideology.
are we really, though? i guess it's more of a lacuna in the discourse than spilling any ink... i feel like there are a many, many people who would claim that their objections to [X] aren't based on any particular ideology, but on common sense or objective truth or something being "just" a movie/comic/book/whatever. you're right: it's pretty much universally acknowledged that most things are ideologically loaded—but i suspect it's usually acknowledged or brought forth as a criticism when it comes to something Those Other People like.
for example—ah fuck, here we go, god preserve me—i doubt that most (not all, but most) fans of *either* Ghostbusters 2016 or the new Top Gun would cop to the fact their enjoyment of either product was ideologically driven, and that any criticism of those products was valid on ideological grounds. anybody who likes what they like is just enjoying some good clean fun at the movies; anybody who doesn't like what they like is obviously some sort of politically-motivated Fifth Columnist. i think you could find that same trend pretty readily throughout our culture.
That's well-said; having an example to work with does make it easier to conceptualize (but sorry for making you do that). I jumped automatically to focusing on the critical rather than appreciative perspective, because that's where my political priors are entrenched. These days I've evolved little feet to crawl on land, but leftish-ism will always be the water I emerged from; I'm downright unaccustomed to the idea that anything ever *could* be considered generally apolitical, because in those circles, nothing ever really is. I should reread the essay with this in mind.
Can't wait to see where you go with this topic next!
too cautious for my own good :) and i'm right there with you: little webbed feet, vestigial gills, on the lookout for predators in the big wide world outside of our lefty spawning pools. we'll make the journey together.
hey, thanks! like i said, i'm still struggling to articulate it for myself. good to hear that it's making sense to other people.
I find an exciting new substack just as he's getting rolling, and you're already chilling in the comments. Man, your antenna are good.