I'll Draw My Own Lines, Thank You
My friend Tom Berg, a law professor, is not stupid. Nor does he support governmental censorship, for the most part. But a recent post of his over at Mirror Of Justice suggests he doesn't think much of the violence and casual sex in our media, and would be more than happy if bluenoses of the right and left made common cause in fighting against it.
I don't think much of this approach. There simply is no reliable measure of what violence or sex is "good" for the art, but it's certainly my experience that those who think there's too much are the worst critics around. (Tom is also against "mindless consumerism," the existence of which I question. If it is a problem, I'd say it's pretty small compared to mindless religious belief, which I think someone like Tom could perhaps write about with a lot more depth and usefulness.)
Tom quotes, approvingly, someone who thinks going after Sex And The City and Desperate Housewives is a good idea. I've actually never watched Sex And The City (though I know some of the writers), but enough people I respect have found it a witty, enjoyable experience that attacking it, even for its message (whatever that is) seems like an exercise that'll make the world worse, not better. As for Desperate Housewives (on tonight), I've only seen a few episodes, but it's clearly (among other things) a satirical approach to soap opera, and attacking it for all the casual sex almost certainly seems to be missing the subtlety (as bluenoses almost always do, and then get mad when you note it, claiming the subtlety's not there, after which they follow with some cheap rhetorical trick like saying "you wouldn't support racist material, would you?").
Historically, of course, sex (especially adultery) and violence have been two of the major themes of drama. Just because some modern art is seen as mere entertainment rather then "important" is no reason to attack it. Why not attack the actual casual sex you oppose, and not representations of it that you don't fully appreciate?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:25 AM
2 Comments:
Mr. Berg's posts seem to deal more with the tactics of some teen group in this obscure group and I can't realy really tell fro hte post if he is against gay marriage, consumersim , desperate housewives etc... though I will take it from the context LA Guy's personal knowledge that he is.
While I presume I would not agree with Mr. Berg on his positions (I think some mindless consumerism in Iraq for example would do a world of good- give'em pay per view and they'll be too busy with baser desires to engage in theology & violence), there is a good point buried in those ramblings--If evangelical Catholics are so worried about modern morality, there are seemingly a lot more serious issues to attack then gay marriage. But they don't because bashing gays is an easy headline grabber and the other "problems" are too ingrained for them to make any headway. Mr. Berg seems to be saying that the case indicating that its the current hot issue & a stage in a larger conflict (I guess you could say thats why Nixon and Kennedy spent so much time on Quemoy and Matsu).
Tom has a perspective that's somewhat different from most, since he shares many of the socially conservative views of the religious, yet (I think) is a Democrat. That's why he's making the argument that certain groups, rather than shouting at each other, should realize how much they have in common.
I'm not interested in his wider argument. I'm simply concentrating on the specific socially conservative views that Tom and others support and I don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home