Raven wrote:MikeC wrote:
You could argue that the media is giving people what they actually want rather than what they ought to want.
And is it an
improvement, now we've got rid of all those pesky single plays, great dramas, current affairs programmes, documentaries and comedy series? Or is it less good than it was?
None of those things have gone away. Looking back at fifty years of tv history concentrates the memorable and excises the mediocre. I'd guess there is just as mucg good material now as ever, it's just split over many many more channels/media and takes more effort to find. And I didn't say it was an improvement, either - I just posited the idea that many people do not want high-brow entertainment, they want Masterchef, or as you say, Jordan, and that the media satisfy that desire, which is every bit as valid a desire as the desire for the material you lament passing.
MikeC wrote: Whether it is what you want, or what I want, is immaterial.
Why's that? Why is what intelligent people want of less value than what people who want to see Jordan eating earwigs want?
I didn't say it was of less value - you imply the desires of "intelligent" people are more valuable. My point is that people have different desires and the media do not discriminate about which audience they satisfy, only about whether the audience is big enough to be worth satisfying (sadly, in the case of somehting like the BBC).
MikeC wrote: (no crtiticism, I can't ignore the patrician in your posts!).
"You highfaluting types with yer breeding and fancy talk. I suppose you'd 'ave all children's comics like Look and Learn, run by vicars and with comic strip serialisations of the life of Berlioz ... "
But I speak well of previous comics that were edgy, pushed the envelope and had subversive intent, as long as there was thought and intelligence and good writing and inspiration behind them.
So you agree? As I said, I'm not making a criticism, just pointing out that your view is patrician or (in a benign way) patronising in that you desire to influence the lives of others through your view of what is right or good.
MikeC wrote: Children love The Simpsons because it includes slapstick, stupidity, naughty kids and adults, gross humour, funny voices and funny drawings. Adults like it because of all of these and the witty writing. As you age, you appreciate the writing more, but the other stuff is still funny.
But where's the copious snot, farting and turds in The Simpsons? If they have 'gross' bits, it's not lazy hackneyed obvious stuff, is it?
I was making the point that kids do not watch The Simpsons for the searing wit. They like to see stupid fat men falling over - I'm being reductive, but it was a very simple point.
MikeC wrote: Children see farting in comics as a breaking of a taboo, just as you see unwitting self-inflicted embarrassment in your examples (although you could argue it is the crueller "it's funny because it isn't me" arm of comedy which is present in those instances) - it's something they are taught to apologise for, so when it is done recklessly or with joy (as children themselves do when left in the company of their peers!), it amuses them.
More infants than children, I'd assume, but I don't think it is really taboo as much as common currency and expected several times per issue in that particular comic.
I think you're wrong. Infants are less likely to laugh at fart jokes because they remain unaware of its taboo nature. On the other hand, get a gang of boys aged ten or so together and they will think fart gags are funny.
What comic? This is a debate about gross humour and whether it is funny or not. For kids who are taught to apologise if they fart, of course it is a taboo, and the wilful or accidental breaking of such taboos is amusing.
I think it's not-the-best comedy writers who automatically assume gross = funny.
Gross = gross and funny = funny; they're not the same thing. Sometimes they do blend but not always and automatically, and taboo/gross stuff does tend to work best when the overall writing is *very* good indeed (as with, say, Monty Python).
