AudioShocker

"Seriously Pete, don't you ever have anything nice to say?"

I'm not sure what exactly compels me to respond to Neal's renewed accusations (see the comment line of Culturology 23)--it's certainly not out of respect for his ideas, so I would suppose that, basically, I've got nothing more pressing to write about this week, and generally don't like it when there are casually negative things floating around about me. This, of course, stems from last week's discussion of Watchmen, and Neal's charge (in paraphrase) that I was being elitist and not appropriately considering the movie's audience. Now, I am unapologetic about my elitism; frankly, I think I've earned it, insofar as I never claim to be an elitist, as such, but don't argue about it, necessarily, when such accusations are applied. I reckon that its in the nature of all human cultures that there will be elitists, and if not intellectual elitists, then certainly there are humans that excel at what they do. Intellectual elitists, who I think, more or less, are what Neal was griping about when he was griping about my culturological approach, then, are no different from anyone else that is good at what they do. The problem is that America, for several decades now, has been breeding a generally anti-intellectual culture which a) encourages people to be idiots and b) recommends that they resent it when other people are more educated than they are.

But I'm not going to let this post get out of control; I have no intention of just soap-boxing here like some righteous nerd. Again, though, I think that I do have plenty of nice things to say, and I have said them (my commentaries on both Coraline and Push, for instance, were quite positive). Which still isn't quite the point...

Neal's argument that I failed in my criticism to consider Watchmen's wider audience before panning it (I didn't pan it, Neal accused me of panning it) is a perfect example of how fundamental American anti-intellectualism leaks into the thought processes of (we presume) a (relatively) educated commenter such as Neal:

1) Consider the appeal to an "everyperson" audience for the movie: my criticism was unnecessarily negative (and, indeed, blinded by its negativity) because I failed to be aware of the fact that I was watching it from the vantage of a comics-fan, thereby failing to consider how "normal" "movie-goers" would feel (I use "feel" here over "think" since we can't be certain that this everyperson "thinks" at all, insofar as it is my thinking which problematizes my "feelings" about the movie). First of all, I said at the top of my post that I had no intention of writing a review. It's not my job, as a culturologist, to let "people" know if the movie is good or not. I'm here to provide a well-considered interpretation of any given cultural artifact. If a given artifact sucks, but doesn't completely suck, I'm under no obligation to say "but it didn't completely suck" unless that incompleteness is culturologically interesting. To extend that and then accuse my criticism of being incomplete due to its lack of "nice things to say" misses the point entirely.

2) Neal's implied concern for the "everyperson" is itself a brand of elitism. He, and the thousands of other (we presume) (relatively) educated Americans like him have absorbed enough American pop culture to believe that there's something to this idea that smarty-pants people like myself are just bored assholes with too much time on our hands. Which is not to say that I'm not, to some extent, an easily-bored asshole, but rather that the "audience" for most culturological investigations is going to be primarily made up of people who are similarly easily-bored. The fact that we might hate on things that less easily bored people might like in our boredom does not disqualify our opinions, it merely points out a difference in demographics. There certainly are "critics" who consider themselves to be writing for a "mainstream" audience (once I get around to those X-MEN and philosophy things, I'm sure this portion of the conversation will be extended), but I would argue that either a) their goals are different from mine, in so far as they are evangelical about their elitism, whereas I am preaching to the already-converted or b) they are failures as critics, and are simply producing more populist swill, rather than anything of critical merit.

3) Since Neal's concern for the "everyperson" is itself an elitist action, he's actually worse than I am, since he's condescending to the people who he is apparently trying to protect. He is out amongst the sheep, shouting and smacking their asses with a stick, trying to get them to move to the next pasture, whereas I merely place a block of salt in the next field, knowing that they will flock thither upon thirst for salt (that is, I'm leading by example, he's an idiot). Though, we must also consider the notion that Neal considers himself to be an "everyman." Does this complicated my accusations? It may, but I think I would have an easier time demonstrating his elitism than he would have demonstrating his "normalcy." But, is it ever possible for an elitist to genuinely concern for the intellectually inferior?

Yes. And it's that answer of "yes" that keeps most culturology worth doing. It comes back to what I was saying at the top of this post: intellectual elitism is no different from the multitude of other elitisms and specialties that abound in all cultures, it just so happens that smart people have been vilified in the current cultural epoch. But I freely admit that my intellectual specialization has common at the cost of lack of expertise in other areas. We are all members of our cultures, even our personal identities are more the result of other people than ourselves; this is what allows us to specialize in the first place. In becoming a critic, I understand, and count on the fact that other people will become readers, creators, or whatever else. We all have our roles to fill. Mine is to be a culturologist, and apparently, Neal's role is to be an idiot.