Shakespeare and MTV

(Pop) pop. (Popular) pop-culture philosophy. That's what I'm calling it. What does it mean?

Example: In a literature class reading Shakespeare, the professor asked that we address a quote from Alexander Pushkin about Shakespeare, "Shakespeare felt for all humanity, and he was the creator of an entire humanity. After God, Shakespeare is the greatest creator of living beings." To break this down is no easy task - famed literary critic Harold Bloom has written an expansive work titled Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, which deeply explored that very theme. Is it that Shakespeare was able to create real people in writing? Or that his characters were so recognizeable that they were human? Or that before his writing, no one took such an introspective approach to the human emotion and motivation, and so (as the author of the article linked to above, as well as here, suggests is Bloom's final conclusion) has re-created the way that we see the world, and by that means re-inventing humanity?

I suggested they look at an essay from the book Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs discussing the implications of MTV's "The Real World". The author makes the point that the first season of "The Real World" was the most real, becuase there had never been anything like this on television, at all, and the characters didn't know how to act in front of the camera. By the third season, however, the show's cast members would settle into a role, rather than just be themselves. He discusses how stereotypes such as "the militant black guy" or "the virginal southern girl" became the singular dimension of the cast member's personality. It wasn't long after that, though, that he also noticed that even the people he met every day slipped into one of the stereotypes. He ceased to meet multi-faceted, dynamic personalities. He would meet a "Julie" or "a Kevin" or "a Puck", or what have you (read the book -the guy is a certifiable expert). People became one-dimensional. In that way, for his generation (and perhaps mine as well), "The Real World" began to create humanity.*

When I introduced that passage to the class, my thinking was that this was what happened in Victorian times - English men suddenly found themselves meeting "a Falstaff" or "a Cassius", or themselves slipping into those roles. Even today we call a romantic a "Romeo". One other guy in the class seemed to get it, but not everyone bit. The professor himself tried to politely talk the discussion away from that example. Obviously, the idea of comparing the greatest playwright, and perhaps greatest student of human nature (and, in his time, a (pop) pop poet) with something as vulgar as anything on MTV is more than any lover of literature should expect to be asked to condescend to entertain during what should be a serious discussion of the bard's works. However, it should be relevant to any discussion of culture's place in and effect on modern life, so that we can understand what culture does to us, for better or worse.

The author of Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs is named Chuck Klosterman, the poster boy of the (pop) pop mindset. He has constructed the image of "Generation X", which may forever be remembered as the transitional pop-culture generation, by largely writing about the way he feels when taking part in the most banal of activities. The introspective aspect of his discourse is, to a large extent, what keeps it (pop), rather than truly academic. But this is also what makes it an apt means of advancing the study of pop culture: it is reflective of, and part of, what it discusses.

Suggesting that "The Real World" has created humanity is disturbing because it signals a fundamental change in how existence is viewed. But the proliferation of cameras, recording devices, and electronic communications--often sold for their ability to help you "create"--have put a premium on "capturing" rather than creating. Of course, this questions what it means to create, what it means to be "an individual" in so many senses of the word (are you an individual because you have a witty facebook page? Or because you don't have a facebook page? Does facebook allow you to express your individuality, or does it reinforce that you are only a part in society?). And more than this, it takes away the exclusivity of "genius". What once meant the ability to write a book about a man with a great personality, or express and interpret from written words that man with a great personality, now only requires having a great personality. Being the character has become more important, and in the name of equality and respect and individualism more adequate, than creating the character. Performance has been reduced to nothing but spectacle, where it is not interpretation that is on display, but only what draws attention. This is why I say Shakespeare was (pop) pop, because didn't he say that "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players"?

But now I feel stuck in a corner, because I've suggested that by writing about myself, I'm not creating, not even eligible to touch genius. Which is true, mostly. But that is what (pop) pop is. It's us telling us what's wrong with us.


*NOTE: The distinction that needs to be made for the sake of Bardolators and the like is that his writing ability is beside the point in this argument. That simple fact - that he is a creator, not only an observer - will forever distinguish him from, really, anyone to whom he is compared. So leave that behind; it is safe. It is only made safer by the medium - dramas must be re-performed over and over, while the nature of the camera is capture. That is, something that seems spontaneous when done by a character in a play must be written, crafted, remembered, and thoroughly rehearsed in order to be reproduced. If caught by a camera, though, it is a happy accident. Which is really what most of "TRW" is, a series of happy accidents. Because what has been suggested that "The Real World" has done on accident (or its cast members have done on purpose for often disturbing motivations), Shakespeare did somewhat on purpose--and that is creating characters that do not reflect the world, but are reflected by the world--what Shakespeare did was in so many ways greater.