On Monday, January 13, 2003, at 08:56 AM, Kevin Robert Dean forwarded the following article:
> Such pessimistic outcomes may explain why each of the four
> series discussed in "Strange TV" failed to fulfill their
> subversive reputations. While their portrayal of capitalist
> culture may not have been flattering, neither was it
> particularly revolutionary, Booker concludes.
right, these are the choices? merely unflattering vs. revolutionary? geez. talk about a put-down.
>
> "Mere criticism of the negative consequences of capitalism
> cannot strike telling blows against it," he writes in the
> book. "To be truly effective, any critique of capitalism
> must also contain a utopian dimension that gets beyond the
> capitalist order and thinks thoughts that are, within the
> confines of capitalism, unthinkable. Aesthetic innovation,
> in itself, can certainly never do this."
at which point people say, "that's utopian! it's not practical! just like those commies, no sense of the real world."
and they have a point, too, btw. i wonder what this guy makes of the vaguely socialist utopia of star trek.
maybe we don't have to reduce a partial critique to mere "aesthetic innovation" and maybe can say that a show that doesn't offer "Capital" and "The Communist Manifesto"rolled up into a 30-minute ball (minus commercials) is still a good thing.
j