Sanitizing Language or Fighting the Good Fight? Guidelines for Determining and Dealing With Offensive Language

Some feminist blogs have started having frequent kerfuffles over commonly used words that can be etymologically traced to negative attitudes towards categories of oppressed people. I used to be really caught up in dismantling subtle forms of discrimination in language, too, but I moved past that when I realized how exhausting and largely pointless it is. While it would be ideal if we could move away from problematic language, but because "problematic language" is such a wide category, I think it's wiser to pick our battles, both to avoid activist burnout and alienating potential allies.

The invocation of "alienating allies" is used to silence radical criticism by suggesting that we must dilute our advocacy to make it palatable to dominant classes of society. Yet, it is also a real concern - when a movement gets up in relatively minor issues (compared to larger structural concerns) with a mostly symbolic impact, and which provoke a high degree of hostility, it is worth considering whether this victory is worth the risk that people are turned off from the cause. In the case of language I think this is a particularly relevant concern - while it may be useful as a tool for illustrating the ubiquity of objectionable mindsets or for framing a policy debate in an advantageous way, it can backfire, especially when the language is the sole problem at issue rather than an indicator of a biased mindset affecting a larger point.

For example: If a person is arguing for a ban on abortion and decries the use of "abortion as birth control" by "dirty sluts," this indicates that their misogynist ideas about women who choose to abort is a reason for their anti-abortion views on policy. Drawing attention to this might illustrate that this person's opposition to abortion is less about "saving the babies" than punishing women for sexual expression this person does not approve of. In contrast, calling out a social-justice blogger who uses a potentially objectionable yet mainstream word in a sentence where it signifies its dictionary definition (such as "People who believe in this sexist idea are idiots!") is far less useful.

My general rule these days is that a word with problematic etymology is only objectionable if it is being used to convey the full weight of that problematic history. So, if a man calls a woman a bitch, as an insult and intending to hurt her, merely for having an opinion that it would be acceptable for her to have if she was a man, that's problematic. In contrast, non-serious sayings like "Bitch, plz!" are relatively harmless. Similarly, the word "crazy" is okay if it's being used to in the context of "Wow, what a crazy story!" but not if it's being directed at a person with a mental disorder to mark them as different/inferior and minimize the value of their opinion.

There are a couple of words that are in a place where their meaning is contested. The word "retarded" is used both to describe people with mental disabilities (in a serious fashion, by ignorant but not always unsympathetic people) and as an insult. Similarly, "gay" is both a self-descriptor by some LGB people and a generic negative taunt a la "that's so gay!" I think this is where we should concentrate our focus - the fight over the meaning of these words is still up for grabs, and most people are cognizant of both meanings, which means we can actually have an impact. But words like "idiot" no longer predominantly signify a medical condition, but is instead used as a generic synonym of "stupid." Combating the use of this word will likely do little to alleviate negative impressions of mentally disabled people, yet will aggravate many people who are not even aware of this word's previous denotations.

So there are two categories of words I object to: insults that directly carry unfair historical and oppressive baggage, and are used in that way towards an oppressed person; and (2) words whose meaning is still in flux, where the new meaning piggybacks off a negative connotation regarding the oppressed person the word previously described. I also tentatively add a third category - if a person IRL is bothered by my use of a word I do not consider offensive, I cease use of this word in front of that person. This rule doesn't translate well to online discussions, however, because anybody can be a party at any time. This is why the blog wars over language often result in circumscribing language in an escalating fashion, to the point where we have only one or zero words to describe a negative condition (such as only being able to say that a person lacks a positive quality such as judgement or intelligence).

This method of determining what to worry about and what to let slide has saved me an endless amount of anger and anxiety over relatively less important linguistic battles.

Queer Theory Spotlight: Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

Here's a paper I wrote on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet. Note that I obviously haven't dealt with every awesome thing she says, because she says a lot.

----

In the Epistemology of the Closet, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick presents a subtle investigation of the cultural binaries underlying the modern definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality. Her critique is situational, exposing the limits and possibilities of our conceptual tools for understanding homosexuality in the context of specific works of literature. She explores contradiction, revealing modern notions of sexuality to be far less stable than they appear at first glance. Yet, her intricate analysis is also performed in reference to the practical reality of gay and lesbian lives, creating space for her academic specificity to coexist with the movement’s larger political goals. Additionally, her lengthy cases studies of canonical literary works allow her to extrapolate her critique to encompass Western thought more broadly. In exploring the tensions and contradictions in modern understandings of sexuality, Sedgwick captures the nuanced character of the modern relationship to same-sex desire.

One of Sedgwick’s most revolutionary ideas is her reconfiguring of coming out as a process, rather than an event. She points out that even the most “out” gay person must constantly decide how much to reveal and when to reveal it upon encountering new people (Sedgwick 3). Whether mostly closeted or mostly out, gay men and lesbians must constantly assess whether or not the people in their lives are aware of their sexual orientation due to the cultural assumption that everyone is heterosexual until otherwise indicated [ie, compulsory heterosexuality or heteronormativity]. By definition, the problem is worst for those who wish to keep their sexual orientation a secret, because they cannot know who they have effectively hidden their sexuality from and who is simply pretending not to know (Sedgwick 4). This epistemologically disadvantages those whose sexual orientations fall outside the mainstream, because it places the burden of disclosure upon them while constraining their knowledge of what others’ potential reactions will be. This uncertainty causes the closet to be a source of anxiety, since identifying as gay marks a person as “different” from the presumed heterosexual norm and potentially renders that person vulnerable to homophobic violence.

From this analysis of the closet, Sedgwick proceeds to argue that the definitions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are not nearly as discrete as we assume (Sedgwick 3). She casts this binary means of understanding sexuality as contingent upon our present historical location, and contrasts it with previously held paradigms for understanding sexuality. For example, in ancient Greece, sex was considered appropriate when a person with more power penetrated a person with less, so “manly” sex incorporated the penetration of women, slaves, and younger boys (Edwards 21). Sodomy was conceived under legal and moral codes as a set of nonprocreative acts that constituted sexually deviant behavior that could be engaged in by anyone, not as an identity (Edwards 20). Under the “inversion” model, a man who desired other men was considered to have been born in the wrong body; on the inside, it was presumed, his soul was female (Edwards 27). Each of these models presents its own tools and drawbacks for those identifying with counter-normative sexualities, and its own interpretation of same-sex desire that can be contrasted with those of the present day. This historical exercise exposes the instability of the homosexual/heterosexual binary, because they demonstrate that the exact set of same-sex desires have been understood much differently at other times in Western civilization.

The homosexual/heterosexual binary model is further complicated by its internal inconsistencies. On the one hand, these definitions are presumed to be important only to the “homosexual minority”; but on the other, they are argued to be at the heart of a cultural conflict over societal values (Sedgwick 1). Sedgwick describes the former view as “minoritizing” and the latter as “universalizing” In her view, both sides of the binary are problematic but also provide space for liberation (Sedgwick 2). The minoritizing view is necessary to some extent because it is what allows gays and lesbians to identify as such, but it is also dangerous because the ability to compartmentalize same-sex desire onto a distinct minority feeds conservative fantasies of gay genocide. Similarly, the universalizing view saps the power of gay self-identification, but it also provides the opportunity to normalize same-sex desire as the natural impulse of many people across the spectrum of sexual orientation.

The recognition that sexuality is complicated and contingent allows Sedgwick to proceed with her analysis of Western culture. If sexuality is defined based on changeable historical and cultural factors, an analysis of homosexuality in Western culture must necessarily include a broad range of ideas, identities, and acts (Sedgwick 31). This argument provides the foundation for Sedgwick’s detailed exploration of the binaries constructed in literature by allowing her to cast subtle imagery, omission, and homosocial desire as intrinsic to the understanding of homosexuality in Western thought. Thus, she is able to argue that Nietzsche’s writings constitute homosocial writing by a man for other men, pointing out that he was quite clear that his idea of the superman did not include women (Sedgwick 133). This re-interpretation of male-male desire in Nietzsche’s writing makes her comparison between homosexual desire in Nietzsche and homosexual desire in Oscar Wilde possible (Sedgwick 134). In essence, the broadening of our understanding of sexuality is what allows Sedgwick to elucidate the complexities of Western culture’s relationship to same-sex desire.

Sedgwick’s project in Epistemology of the Closet is a foundational pillar of modern queer theory precisely for its usefulness in parsing historical and cultural definitions of homosexuality. However, like queer theory as a whole, this also opens Sedgwick’s work to the criticism that it is too dense and too academic to be applicable or useful in daily life. Marilee Lindemann summarizes these objections clearly, stating that “lately queer cultural work in the academy has come to seem a bit complacent, insular, and stuck in a rut” (Lindemann 761). Yet, despite her dense language and obscure literary expertise, Sedgwick is attuned to the real dangers faced by those whose sexualities are repressed, and to the manifestations of the queer movement on a political level (Sedgwick 4). Even Lindemann acknowledges Sedgwick’s profound effect on the way homosexuality is understood in contemporary American society, at least within academic and activist circles, pointing out that “Sedgwick has been the most visible proponent and theorist of queer critical style…that transform[s] cultural criticism into a performance art that is unabashedly personal and devastatingly political…Sedgwick deserves immense credit for helping to build a queer intellectual community within literary criticism.” Even if this opening of intellectual space for gay and lesbian thought were the sum total of her accomplishments as a critic, it would be an impressive intellectual legacy. Loosening the constraints on thinking sexuality, as well as opening space for actual gays and lesbians at American universities, is important work because this history remains largely unthought.

Works Cited:

Edwards, Jason. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. 1st ed. USA & Canada: Routledge, 2009. 175. eBook.

Lindemann, Marilee. “Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Witch? Queer Studies in American
Literature.” American Literary History 12.4 (2000): 757-70. Project Muse. 30 Nov 2009.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. USA: University of California Press, 1990. 258. Print.

Blogs, Questions, and Privilege

There is a developing norm on some feminist websites where it is considered an abuse of privilege to question a disadvantaged person about issues and experiences pertaining to the group they are considered a part of.

I believe that this norm is based two good points:

1. It is exhausting to constantly answer the questions of ignorant, argumentative, privileged persons when you're trying to have a discussion about a specialized minority issue. For example, it's super-annoying to have to explain why men and women should be treated equally when you're trying to have a tactical discussion with other feminists about, say, whether or not you'd support the passage of healthcare reform if it included the Stupak language on abortion.

2. Expecting to get your questions answered in detail if a person wants to get you on their side of the issue is a manifestation of privilege. It's not a minority person's responsibility to educate you every single time an issue relevant to them comes up, because they are not a spokesperson for their group, and their privacy should be respected. Just because a commenter notes that they are transgendered does not give anyone the right to inquire about how sex reassignment works and whether or not that person has had said surgery.

But the other side is also based on good points:

1. It's extremely frustrating to try to navigate a complex issue you have no personal experience with unless you dialogue with someone who does have that experience. Sometimes talking to another person and hearing personal stories can clarify things for you in a way that reading a book or a website can't.

However, I don't think it follows from this that asking questions should be prohibited. Rather, I think a better remedy would be to freely allow the asking of questions, provided they are respectful, and simply allow people to choose whether or not they would like to answer it.

This allows the clueless privileged person to seek answers, and possibly learn something, without placing an undue burden on the underprivileged person. The beauty of things like comment threads is that we can decline to continue participating at any time. We can decide where to use our resources, and what wastes of time we'd like to indulge in. People belonging to an oppressed group should get these same rights to not participate in conversations or portions of conversations which they consider trying and basic. I sometimes choose not to argue with people once it's established that our worldviews are drastically different because I don't always feel like going through the entirety of my ethical and political values every time a political issue gets mentioned. I feel like this is a reasonable recourse - if you're offended or annoyed by a basic question, just skip over it or link the person to the relevant resource. I think we should all try to keep the conversation from being derailed by not responding to a sincere comment just to snark about privilege.

This allows the underprivileged person to determine the ground rules for interaction - they can decide to engage only with people who have certain basic assumptions in common with them. This can be done on a case-by-case basis - sometimes people have the patience to explain the basic tenets of feminism or whatever movement is at issue, and sometimes they don't.

But we all need to be a little more compassionate, and a little more personally strong. Everybody carries some kind of privilege, so we should all think before we ask and be reasonable in our expectations of others. We should try to recognize that even if we feel bad when people are abrasive to us for asking a question we think is reasonable, that anger probably comes from valid sources. However, it's not just the question-askers that need slightly thicker skins - it's also the questioned. Recognize that it can be painful to learn that what's normal for you hurts many groups of people. Recognize that it is extremely difficult to begin processing the life knowledge, history, and diversity of a minority group you have never closely encountered. A lot of people who speak offensively do have a kernel of interest under their aggressive language. Why is this person trolling your forum, instead of another? Probably because the topic is interesting to them (at least to fight about), and probably also because it's easy to get a strong reaction.

The way I see it, no one should be expected to answer questions, and no one should be derided for asking them, either. But if it happens, either way, people should move on instead of making a big deal out of it. Because big fights over "censorship" derail the thread far more than the original question, lowering the level of dialogue and increasing frustration all around.

An End to the Feminist Sex-Wars: the Pornography Edition

I decided today that I see porn a lot like I see vegetarianism. The meat industry currently mistreats animals in a number of horrific ways, and produces an unhealthy product full of additives. Even if you don't think there's anything wrong with killing animals, these are issues that need to be dealt with and there are a number of personal choices one can make in order to make their relationship to this problematic industry more ethical. The meat eater can choose to stop eating meat, or to consume only free-range organic meat. The farmer can choose more ecologically sustainable and more humane ways to farm. In fact, every person at every level of the meat industry can do something to minimize the worst consequences of that industry.

Likewise, the porn industry is a problematic business in its current manifestation. The current mainstream porn industry puts out some pretty fucked up materials, IMO, and outside the mainstream porn industry there's still the problem of sex trafficking. These things are problematic even if you don't object to the basic idea of videotaping people having sex. And like the meat industry, people with all levels of involvement with the product of pornography can shape the way the industry operates.

We should all do what we can, from whatever our social location, to change the dynamics of the contemporary American pornography market. To the extent that it is possible, everyone should try to maximize enthusiastic consent and subvert the currently heteronormative and misogynistic themes of mainstream porn. In some cases this will mean working against the current industry; in other cases it might mean working with the people currently involved in the industry. (Notice the difference in phrasing - work AGAINST the INDUSTRY, but work WITH the PEOPLE involved in that industry.)

Performers: Consider your motives for being involved with porn, and how they relate to feminism (ie, the liberation of people currently being unfairly fucked over by society). Use this self-reflection to identify things in the industry that are screwed up, and things that rock. Discuss these issues with your fellow sex workers. Speak up when you can, so that those of us on the outside can listen, become less ignorant, and be better help to both you (the freely choosing sex worker) and those who are less fortunate (those who are trafficked or coerced, including by economic circumstances). If you have an interest, get involved in producing porn that's to your tastes and the tastes of others not currently represented. Refuse to work projects which make you feel uncomfortable or which you think contribute to negative representations of sexuality. Above all, make sure you are treated with respect, and that your work treats others with respect. We can't all always do these things, and as a non-sex worker I'm sure there are some things I'm way off about, but what I'm saying is - do what you can (just like we should all do what we can to make our own work environments better places!).

Directors/Producers: Go above and beyond to make sure you're responsive to your workers' needs and that your work environment is non-coercive. Compensate your workers fairly. Listen to them. Produce visions of sexuality which are erotic for their transformative power, appeal to markets traditionally less engaged in the porn industry, and which creatively break the script of misogynist and heteronormative traditional porn.

CEOs: Give your directors and producers the latitude to do those things. Make sure your company is in compliance with the relevant laws (for example, on child porn or access to porn for minors) AND with the spirit of those laws. Make donations to organizations that support the victims of sexual abuse.

Retail: Be a "feminist sex shop" that makes sure to sell a range of products, which means remembering women and LGBTs when thinking about what people might like to buy. Stock "feminist" porn, or at least only buy from companies who best fit your progressive standards.

Consumers: Evaluate your use of porn. If you can get your fix by writing erotic stories, daydreaming, drawing your own sexually explicit images, making your own porn videos, etc. do that instead of buying it! If you believe that your use of mass-produced porn is necessary or inevitable or whatever your reasons are, vote with your dollars. Vote for companies that respect their performers. Vote for films that are hot for reasons besides domination. Even if you also vote for some of the stuff that's around now, make the extra effort to seek out more progressive versions. Or better yet, pirate the objectionable porn and spend your money on the films you think contribute positively towards human sexuality.

Porn outsiders: Listen to the people inside the industry. Listen to porn users. Try to integrate those experiences into your analysis of porn. Do research. If you don't need or want to use porn, or think it's wrong to do so, then don't use it. Don't use the law or the weight of academia to further silence marginalized people. Promote the acceptance of healthy human sexuality through means other than porn, like in your own sex life and the way you talk to others about sex. Discuss porn with others and explain why you choose not to use it, or at least healthier ways of using it.

A crazy right-wing wacko crystallizes why abortion rights MUST be part of the feminist agenda

Can we all basically agree that feminism, however you may define it, must include the freedom to choose our sexual and romantic partners freely, the freedom structure ourrelationships according to how they work for us, and the freedom to decide whether or not we want to have children? Because, to me, the freedom to make those choices is so intimately tied with the meaning of feminism that calling a world where women's sexual/romantic partners are chosen without their consent, or where women are forced to have children they don't want, "feminist" is a mockery of the concept of women's liberation. I just can't see how you can be in a relationship arrangement you don't want and can't get out of, or subjected to a relationship dynamic you feel is oppressive, or forced to carry and bear children you actively object to having, and be "free."

Feminist pro-lifers will probably point out that those things are not a package deal; that adoption is sufficient to give women choice over whether or not they want to have children; that there is a humane, feminist agenda which protects both women and ensures almost all fetuses.

That's something I can respectfully disagree about in theory, but in practice those sorts of gray shades seem to evaporate before me. Practically speaking, the anti-choice movement pushes a strong norm of the traditional, nuclear family. They push conservative sexual norms, and a large faction pairs that with suspicion of condoms and other forms of birth control. It is really, really hard to figure out how to get along with people who want to force-fit everyone into such a small mold.

This is well-documented in Christina Page's How The Pro-Choice Movement Saved America. It's visible in every public political debate over abortion, reinforced by TV ads, news coverage, crisis pregnacy centers, conservative school districts...everywhere. But I had an "ah-ha" moment when I saw it written as in the plain, nasty language only a commenting web-troll is willing to use. FYI, this is what I see when I look at the pro-life movement in the United States.

The context was of a discussion of some jackass's remarks about how people should get married between 22 and 27, and how cohabitation is teh evilest thing ever. Some troll jumped in to suggest promoting the view that cohabitation is immoral in the interests of ultimately getting the government to break up cohabitating couples for the sake of teh children.

The "for the sake of the children" argument is itself problematic, because it carries the risk of marginalizing the worthiness and humanity of the mother (whose interests must be subordinated to her children, we are constantly reminded, or she is not a good mother). It also makes the ass-backwards assumption that the endpoint of all relationships is children, which is oppressive because it makes the choice to be a child-free, independent individual suddenly seem hostile to basic social life (even though, in reality, not all people make good parents, not all people want to be parents, and people who do not want to be parents often do not make as good of parents).

A Troll on Feministing will be our example. He says (emphasis mine):

"While I am more or less opposed to no-fault divorce, I don’t see it as being the big issue. If two people absolutely cannot get along, they should be able to break up. While I don’t think it should be a fast and easy process, it should not be made difficult by making the parents fight against each other. My problem is really more with remarriage after divorce; did you read the paper I linked to about the Cinderella effect? Besides, premarital cohabitation does not make couples less likely to divorce. I don’t think that the end of any romantic relationship is necessarily children. I would like to think that the end of any sexual relationship is. Things work out better when this is the case; the out-of-wedlock birth rate is extremely low, far more children are born in-wedlock and get to grow up with both parents, fewer children are put up for adoption, etc."

See how two people in a marriage automatically become parents in his mind? This erases couples for whom marriage is not about procreation (whether by choice or economic necessity or due to to heterosexist legal codes), and also, by elevating procreation to an imperative, contribute to dissapproval of family structures that don't abide by this rigid definition.

And that's a lot of people. Think about it. Every divorced parent, every remarried parent doubly so, every couple who chooses not to have children, every unmarried couple with children, every single parent. And implicitly, every gay parent (because the nuclear family requires a father and mother) and potentially any lower class or non-white parent (because the nuclear family is supposed to be middle class and located in suburbia - everyone knows those inner city minority kids have broken homes!).

Inevitably, people will arrange their lives in ways that don't fit this nuclear family model, and we can see that it's currently a whole fuckton of people. So what could they possibly propose to do about this grave problem of families that look different than the traditional American norm? You can see the clear logic of patriarchy: Control reproduction. How? By controlling sex (because birth control just lets people do what they want). But this seems impossible. How could you possibly enforce something done behind closed doors like sex? Well, if it's to be enforced, the population has to police itself. But how do you make people police sex? Well, everyone's got to be really fucking afraid of what's going on in everyone else's bedrooms, for one thing, which means amping up the scare tactics about STDs is a good place to start (bonus points if you can scare people out of using condoms, to ramp up STD rates and hopefully stop sex!). Except, it's hard to be really concerned about your neighbor's sex life unless it affects yours. So maybe we should start talking about the women in your life. And even better than just having you police women's sexuality, we should get women to police their own sexuality...

The dominoes start to fall. Calling women whores doesn't stop anyone, and it's becomming less effective since this obnoxious feminism thing. So, declare feminism dead. So, support rape apologist culture to teach women to fear all but their one special protector man. So, take away condoms and ostracize people with STIs. And then, make every instance of sex a possible instance of procreation, literally realize the agenda of sex-for-procreation-only by taking away all forms birth control. Condoms are already gone, so take hormonal birth control, take the morning after pill, take away abortion. Because what else could underpin this empire? What punishment could possibly be more extreme in the disincentive it places on women having sex than risking forced pregnancy for every sex act?

And then the picture starts to look really clear. 'Cuz it's all part of the same big picture. All those things are perpetual causes and symptoms of patriarchy, and of the controlling narrative of the American nuclear family. Abortion's not just a fragment of it. It's one of the biggest, baddest tools for controlling sexuality and the family, specifically demolishing women's freedom, and also marginalizing anyone else who doesn't fit the mold. But equally importantly, it is part of a system of oppression that reinforces existing societal power dynamics, at the expense of women. It makes the reduction of women to biological vessels possible, or rather it literally manifests the already-existing sexist narrative.

So what's a possible solution? I think things might get better if feminists shape the discourse on both sides. Pro-life feminists could push hard for contraception and comprehensive sex ed, lots of exceptions (for rape, for the mother's mental and physical health, for the mother's life) - and find ways to make these exceptions workable and accessible for those who need it, economic support to women financially unable to care for children (or heck, all women - if you're going to make us have them, why should we have to pay for them?), universal access to pre-natal and post-natal care for the mother and child, along with the whole rest of the feminist agenda. Because it will take a lot - a LOT - of work to rehabiliate the anti-choice narrative into a compassionate, wholesome, women-respecting movement, or even to make it just a bit better.

I'm willing to compromise with pro-life feminists, but the feminism had better be there in the pro-life part too, because if it doesn't I'm not budging. In order to create a feminist society, feminist pro-lifers have to get a hold on the pro-life movement's discourse and agenda, or us crazy leftys have to win on this issue. Because it's not just one issue - the debate over abortion reflects every facet of the feminist conflict with the patriarchy in a light to glaring for me, at least, to ignore.

Cross-Post: The Filthiest Book Report You’ll Ever Read, or My Artifact Selection: Grant Morrison's The Filth

Here's another cross-post from my lit class blog. In this short essay, I present research questions for cultural artifact I will study for the semester, and justify my choice of artifact.

-------------

Grant Morrison’s The Filth is a graphic novel that comes with a warning label. Covering nearly the entire back cover and the first two pages inside, The Filth’s warning is almost clinical in its rigorous coverage of the many reasons you might be better off if you opt to return this book to the shelf. Although the book’s warning is more mocking than genuine, it is still a text any sensible censor would strike from a reading list intended for polite society. With its grungy artwork, repulsive characters, and sadistic plotlines, at first glance The Filth might seem to be a low-culture artifact with no redeeming qualities. However, a more thorough reading turns up questions deserving of further inquiry.

For instance, why is it that the most cherished fantasy the protagonist can dream up for himself is the life of a lonely old man named Greg Feely, who spends his days feeding his beloved cat and masturbating to hardcore pornography? And even if this rehabilitation of the despised archetype of the neighborhood sex offender is for good reason, why is it so important as to merit the novel’s opening panels? From this inauspicious beginning, The Filth continues to wade further into the muck. Rather than complementing Greg Feely with more noble characters, it highlights people like Anders Klimakks, the pornstar famous for shooting black sperm, and Tex Porneau, the wealthy hardcore director who engineers giant sperm monsters for his latest flick. A sex scene is never more than a chapter away, and neither is graphically illustrated violence.

Yet, although The Filth glorifies its own power to provoke disgust in the unsuspecting reader, it is also fascinating. Each sub-plot is carefully constructed to reveal an insight about human nature or the society we have built. The unattractive Greg Feely somehow moves from pathetic to likeable as he grapples with his identity as an agent of the sketchy organization known as the Hand, whose mission is to preserve the Status Q. Even the novel itself is a subject in its far-reaching critique, with an entire storyline premised on drawing attention to the eerie realness of absorbing comic book worlds by repeatedly breaking the fourth wall.

For me, The Filth is interesting because of the complex ideas woven into the words and images that make up the graphic novel. Although the “filthy” subject matter may be titillating, the elusive hypotheticals posed by each of the book’s chapters are far more worthy of study. The first time I flipped through The Filth, I was both appalled and fascinated, unable to look away until I had devoured the entire graphic novel. Subsequent re-readings have not yet failed to uncover new material to ponder, and the opportunity to investigate the text for a class allows me to delve further into these questions.

Although The Filth is not widely recognized by anyone besides comic book aficionados, it is still relevant. Its medium, the graphic novel, is a cornerstone of mass communication. It was published in late 2002, and its commentary actively engages and responds to contemporary society and mainstream culture, if only to subvert them. The author, Grant Morrison, has worked with both DC and Marvel, writing issues of classic series like Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman. For these reasons, The Filth qualifies as pop culture.

Covering issues as blurry as the nature of reality, the role of authority, and the sanity of our collective desires and anxieties, The Filth presents a surreal study of the way we have designed our world. By choosing this book as my artifact, I hope to shed light on a text I find extraordinarily challenging and appealing. From the first few lines of its warning label to the last panel of the last page, The Filth is a puzzle waiting to be unraveled.

Cross-Post:: Pop Culture Favorites

I'm currently maintaining a blog about interpreting pop culture for my literature blog. I'll be cross-posting everything I write for that class here, since I think it's mostly pretty interesting stuff.

This first one is just a warm-up analyzing elements of pop culture I like and interact with often. These favorites were picked off the top of my head in class, so they're not necessarily my all-time favorites, just stuff I like.

-----------

Favorite Movie: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

What attracts me to this movie is that there is so much detail and so many strange situations to analyze. The more one watches it, the more there is to see. It made the list because it's a movie I've watched several times recently, so it was fresher in my mind than Fight Club, which is the other movie I was considering. It influences me because I think the representation of gonzo journalism is interesting, which probably makes me more inclined to like other movies about crazy countercultural figures.

Favorite Music: Fiona Apple

I'm attracted to Fiona Apple's music because her voice is beautiful and her lyrics are expressive. I can feel the rhythmic pulse of her music, and I love the way her clear, deep voice cuts through the rest of the music and stays with me. It influences me because it influences my other musical tastes - almost anyone who makes music which is similar to who is likely to be someone like. Lily Allen and Tori Amos are good examples of this, because they are talented female singer-songwriters who remind me of Fiona Apple in some ways.

Favorite TV Show: Law and Order

I like Law and Order because it's a serial crime drama that I can have on in the background while I'm doing other things, but also because it poses some interesting questions about society. The original Law and Order creates many scenarios where what was originally a criminal trial becomes a political show trial, or where police action falls in a gray area constitutionally. I like pondering these situations, because it gives me an opportunity to test out what I think.

Favorite Ad: Freecreditreport.com sing-alongs

I love this commercial! It's so catchy. The lyrics are extremely clever, the music is simple but stays in my head all day. There's also something about a sad bicyclist singing about how a credit report could have gotten him a car, or a depressed waiter dressed like a pirate mourning his dead-end economic situation, that catches my attention when it comes on TV. This commerical influences me because it's effective, and I spend the rest of the day with "F to the R to the E to the E to the C to the E-D-I-T. Re- to the -port to the dot to the com, baby" stuck in my head.

Favorite Comic: Dilbert

I used to read this in the Sunday paper every day. I like how it mocks corporate culture, and demonstrates the sheer meaninglessness of many requirements of work. Although I don't have an office job like Dilbert, I do go to school. While college is much better than high school, sometimes activities and classes still seem like they won't be relevant to daily life, and sometimes dealing with administrative people is annoying and time-consuming. Dilbert is a fun outlet for these feelings, pointing out the absurdity of official bureaucracies and mindless assignments.

The List Overall:

I'm not struck by any major commonalities between the things I chose, but there are some slight trends. I chose to interact with all of these pieces of media because the resonate with some experience I've had, or because they are unique enough to fascinate me. Sometimes I read or watch things simply because they are readily available, which is definitely the case with Dilbert, Law and Order, the Freecreditreport.com commericals, and even Fear and Loathing (because we own the DVD, so it is cheaper and easier than renting a movie).