Pogo
I love this. There are those who think that people like me who insist, whether petulantly or earnestly or flintily, that Shakespeare (as it might be) is quite a good writer and better in many ways than quite a few other writers, are ‘elitist’ and snobbish and mindless enemies of all of popular culture. But ’tis not so. It’s just that I insist in the same kind of way there too – some of it is better than other of it, that’s all. I don’t love all of popular culture. But then I don’t love all of the putative ‘canon’ either – some of it I think is over-rated. Gatsby, for instance.
But one bit of popular culture I do love, though I hadn’t given it much thought for some years, or decades, is Pogo. This article in the Boston Review attracted a post at Crooked Timber and the post has attracted fans, fans with more knowledge and better memories than I have, and both the article and the comments have made me all in a sweat to read it again. It’s hilarious stuff, and very American – but in a good way. Not the usual sappy mushy silly goggle-eyed irony-free way that people seem to think is so typical of us – no, in a Twainish, Menckenish, W C Fieldsish, Grouchoish, Ring Lardnerish, self-mocking way. Not bad for red paint.
I think that what is often neglected (except in my classrooms, where I harp on this issue frequently) is that Shakespeare, like Pogo, was pop culture. He wrote for large and diverse audiences; he wrote for money and didn’t linger over flops; his work was popular, probably mostly for reasons that make centuries of literary analysis irrelevant. Shakespeare was only sporadically original, but his presentation was sufficiently new and different to catch people’s attention and spawn imitators of his own. If he lived today, he’d probably be a writer-producer for Fox (the only network today truly capable of handling his violence, sexuality and low humor, though his political stuff would probably end up on HBO).
I like Shakespeare well enough (though I enjoy Marlowe more; if I’m going to sit through that language I may as well have something really interesting to think about), and he’s historically important. Walt Kelly is similarly important, and a great deal more fun.
Yes, Pogo is American but it’s themes and concerns are universal and it is adored by at least one over here in the UK – thrilled to see that the strips are being reprinted, and as it’s Fantographics the books may even be widely available.
I believe that the science-fiction writer Stanislaw Lem (of “Solaris” fame) was thrown out of an association of such writers for arguing as follows:
Most of the time science-fiction authors moan that their work is not taken seriously by highbrow literary critics. Then when such a critic looks at their work and finds it wanting they complain that it is only for entertainment and should not be taken so seriously.
Good point about the ‘Shakespeare was popular culture thing, Jonathan. I was going to say that (I harp about it too) but then went for the simple version. That is, said one thing instead of several.
Mind you, I disagree about Fox, and about Marlowe. About Fox because although he was popular that’s not all he was, and although he wanted money that’s not all he wanted. As Gabriel Harvey pointed out at the time, he did both. Or to put it another way, he did violence sex and low humour along with a good deal more. And he wasn’t always entirely accessible even then. Especially in the later plays (The Winter’s Tale for instance) his language gets very complicated and tortured – very difficult. If he’d been a purely popular writer he would have thrown those bits out.
It’s interesting that all this was discussed at the time – in the Parnassus plays for example, and by Gabriel Harvey, and by Jonson, Richard Greene etc. Was WS a ‘mere’ crowd-pleasing hack or was he someone who could duke it out with Aeschylus? Jonson seems to have thought the first for a long time, then either changed his mind or pretended to (but that’s considered rather unlikely, if only because out of character) when he wrote the poem for the Folio.
Now, me, I don’t enjoy Marlowe more. I love his mighty line, but his stories are so damn simple and linear and high concept. They bore me. Shakespeare’s stories wander all over the place. I like that.
Chris, by American I didn’t mean ‘therefore closed to other people’! Monty Python is very UK but that certainly doesn’t make me like it any less.
No wonder those writers threw that Lem guy out. If I want to complain that the food is awful and the portions are too small, I don’t want some pedant raising an eyebrow, do I.
snicker
Ophelia: I think we’re talking about different Fox’s (Foxes?)….
I’d appreciate Shakespeare’s meandering more, I think, if he held it together better: outside of the histories (most of which are political hack-jobs, even if they are great theater), his plays seem to be unified only in the sense that they share a stage.
I think my preference for Marlowe was formed when I saw Dr. Faustus and realized that it encapsulated the entire Renaissance and Reformation, and the historian in me was very impressed.
Pogo!?
Over here that´s a punk rock dance that consists in people bumping with force into each other whilst under the influence of alcohol. A good pogo ends when the champion succeeds in crashing into the stage (after successfully hitting an, alas, imaginary co-dancer that has long since joined the friends at the bar) & the beer is slowly being absorbed by his shabby clothes.
I knew this too had to be an American invention!
Slightly offtopic, but what recent pop cultural products do you think will stand the test of time? I take it Jerry admires Buffy, which I also like (but probably not as much as he does). I myself think The Simpsons (seasons 3 through 7) and HBO’s “Larry Sanders Show” contain some of the best satire of American life.
One of my candidates would be ‘Northern Exposure.’ That had some really remarkable stuff in it.
I would nominate the police dramas of Steven Bochco, Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue for work that has psychological realism, interesting issues and themes, novelistic storytelling, and immense entertainment value.
Babylon 5 in the science-fiction genre was a five year masterpiece, a series whose creator, J. M. Stracyzinski, knew beforehand what the story was and how it was going to go, so that details from the first season are fundamentally important in the fifth season, and most of the major characters are truly changed (some improved, some seriously harmed) by the passage of time. Psychological and historical realism, and damn fine storytelling.
I like Buffy a lot, but I don’t think it will age particularly well. It is too steeped in a specific time and place (not least part of its attraction is the way in which it references popular culture; stuff which isn’t going to make a lot of sense in ten years time).
I second the nomination of The Simpsons, although the last four seasons have become rather lame and dull. Monty Python is pure genius. I used to think it was wildly surrealistic until I lived in Britain for a few years–then I realized it was pure documentary. Although I’m addicted to Law and Order (the original, not the sleazy spinoffs), I doubt it will age well, but it might make an interesting time capsule item (all those hot-issues-of-the-day). By far the most overrated pop-culture item is The Sopranos. It’s an amusing show, but the critics would have you believe it’s King Lear, Oedipus Rex, and War and Peace all rolled into one. As a former grad student specializing in 19th-century American history, I was fascinated by Deadwood, and thought Ian McShane’s Al Swearengen character the most interesting and plausible villain in recent memory. (The characters, however, were implausibly eloquent and given to occasional anachronisms: e.g., the use of the word “motherfucker”)
I remember being impressed with the first two seasons of Hill Street Blues. I haven’t seen those episodes since, so I wonder if they’ll still hold up. I’m generally allergic to sci-fi, but since both Professor Dresner and my literate, intelligent father love Babs 5, maybe I’ll give it a try. I watched a few episodes of Northern Exposure and found it a bit twee for my taste. The one episode I might have liked (on the effects of satellite TV) was a watered-down rip-off of a much darker short story by Brian Fawcett called “The Huxley Satellite Dish.” But a literary scholar of my acquaintance who studied under Northrop Frye thought NE was the most exquisite thing ever made for television. So you’re in good company with your choice, Ophelia. And yes, Ian McShane was mesmerizing in Deadwood, the only real reason to watch the show, IMHO.
I can’t make up my mind about Seinfeld. Some episodes are a delighfully absurdist comedy of manners, a sort of neurotic New York version of P. G. Wodehouse. But too much of it missed its target or felt formulaic.
Karl: Interesting. I once knew a grad student in Medieval Lit who took notes on all the hidden mythological references in Northern Exposure and compared them later on with fellow devotees. The Comb of Berenice came up a lot, for some reason. I wondered then (and wonder now) if this was just some kind of parlor game for bored Lit students. The show was certainly very popular in the English department.
Yeah, Seinfeld could be pretty funny, but you’re right about the intermittent nature of its inspiration. The most remarkable thing about the show was that situations that seemed over-the-top would repeat themselves later on in real life. For instance, the episode where Jerry’s possessive mechanic, hurt that Jerry allowed another mechanic to work on his car, kidnapped the car because only HE really cared for it and could take proper care of it. Utterly implausible. Yet three months later, something very similar happened to my sister.
Definitely agree about twee parts of Northern Exposure. That’s why I specified that it had some remarkable stuff in it – it was very stripey. Very curate’s egg. Parts of it just blew me away, but other parts left me cold and others again I actively disliked. But the good parts – well, they were good. Some of the stuff with Adam and Eve. When pregnant Shelley meets Medea, Alexander’s mother, and mother Nature in the woods having a chat about motherhood. When Maurice has his childhood house transported to Cicily and encounters his (long-dead) younger brother there, and confesses to hiding the brother’s beloved toy somethings (forget what they were but there were four and they had names, one of which was Spalding, though they weren’t dolls or people or animals). The one where Joel’s uncle dies and he needs a minyan but there aren’t enough Jews around Cicely so Maurice advertises for more. The one where Chris does a solstice art thing for Cicely and it’s a secret and turns out to be all about light, as we discover in a stunning last five minutes or so. The one where Marilyn wants an adventure so goes to Seattle to have one – not least because some good friends of mine, to wit a couple of elephants, play a part.
Oh dear, excuse me. I could go on and on. Its survival is probably compromised by the stripey quality, the unevenness, but the brilliant bits really were brilliant.
Maybe I should start trying to convince Jerry he needs the DVDs.
OB: Hmm. You make me want to check out those Northern Exposure DVDs. Do you know which season and episode numbers your examples are from? Could I jump right in or would I have to start from the beginning of the series to make sense of them? Will this be habit forming?
Connie, I don’t know – I’m not sure the DVDs even exist. Jerry tells me he doesn’t need persuading, but he’s not sure he can find the DVDs. It’s an outrage!
I would start at the beginning, yeah. It’s a cumulative show, and it definitely helps to understand the premise.
Actually the bit about actively disliking parts was too strong – I only disliked them on second or further viewings; they were fine the first time, they just didn’t wear very well. So on first viewing it’s not even very stripey – it’s pretty much all good.
And those good bits – that’s only a tiny sample. As I said, I could go on and on. But I shouldn’t whet your appetite if they can’t be found!
But there was the one where Ed and Chris did the crane dance with the crane, and the one where Ed and Ruth Anne danced on Ruth Anne’s grave site that Ed gave her for her birthday, and the one where Maurice and Holling went up into the mountains to bury an old friend, and –
Stop, stop.
According to Amazon.com, the first two seasons of Northern Exposure are available on DVD. No excuses, Jerry.
Ah, good.
Meanwhile Jerry’s been showing me ‘The Office.’ Good stuff.
I was thinking about the shows that I listed, and realized that the real common thread between them is character growth over time. Sometimes even character decline (Bochco has a thing for addictions, clearly), and many of the characters, over time, get to be more complex without being inconsistent.
And sometimes they die. And not just because their contract is up. And the effects are very real.
I agree about the character arc thing. That’s usually what keeps even the best television series from attaining real greatness (too many cooks, and all that). But the new short-run series appearing on premium cable lately have the potential to avoid the rambling, haphazard, fizzling-out quality that mars even the best commercial TV shows.
How about the one where Chris is doing his PhD [or is it Masters] and the two Lit professors have it out in a snowy outdoors wrestling match between deconstructionism and “traditional” interpretation?
(If I remember it correctly).
And to add to the list, I don’t care what anyone says, South Park is some of the best darned satire on American attitudes there is. One can argue that a lot of the celebrity p***-takes make it too topical to last, but I haven’t lived in the States regularly since 1995, and I still think it’s hilarious even with celebrities I’ve never heard of.
That sounds brilliant! I’m not sure if I have a very faint memory of it or only think I do because I can imagine it from what you say. Not absolutely sure I ever saw that one.
Hear, hear. “South Park” was the only show with the guts to give “The Passion of Christ” the right good rogering it deserved. Trey Parker and Matt Stone skewered everything perfectly: the utterly clueless Christians, the neo-Nazi exploiters, the obsequious or panicky Jews, and a flamingly batshit Mel Gibson. If Parker & Stone never did anything else, they would have earned my eternal gratitude for that.
“That sounds brilliant! I’m not sure if I have a very faint memory of it or only think I do because I can imagine it from what you say. Not absolutely sure I ever saw that one.”
It’s starting to come back to me, now, but I believe the fight began as a game of baseball and I believe an interpretation of one of the rules like the infield fly degenerated into the wrestling match…It’s been so many years and so many brain cells ago…
Karl, I have yet to see the series beyond the 4th season, but look forward to buying the subsequent ones. It’s so hard to catch here in the UK without satellite.
“Trey Parker and Matt Stone skewered everything perfectly”.
OT but they are about to do the same on the war on terror (not to mention dissenters from that war as well) with a film involving marionnettes!!! Coming to cinemas soon. Whatever one’s view on the war on terror, there is bound be something to offend the sensitive of any political stripe. I would have loved to have seen the passion of the christ episode of SP.
ChrisM: Just last night I saw their new puppet movie, “Team America”. I suppose it does have something to offend everyone. The Americans are portrayed as a bunch of trigger-happy dolts (at the beginning of the movie they blithely blow up the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, and the pyramids at Giza in order to get a handful of terrorists). The terrorists are portrayed as a bunch of gibberish-spouting ethnic stereotypes straight out of central casting. But their most vitriolic characterizations are reserved for liberal Hollywood “actorvists” Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, and Susan Sarandon, who are portrayed as evil minions of Kim Jong Il. Michael Moore makes a guest appearance as a junk-food-addicted suicide bomber. Mostly, though, the movie is a spot-on parody of those schlocky Jerry Bruckheimer action flicks. The funniest scene is the notorious puppet sex scene, which apparently had to be severely cut to avoid an NC-17 rating.
Thanks, I had forgotten the name. Is it out in the US already then? I had heard a bit about the actorvists bit. Apparently there is a line where an actor say (paraphrasing) “I think its really important that actors read other peoples opionions in the paper and present them as there own views”. And taking the pee out of the vulture Michael Moore; its batting a thousand with me already.
I caught the SP marionette movie this afternoon. Funny in parts, but you’d better have a taste for raunchiness and cynicism if you hope to enjoy it. Myself, I preferred the less political parts, especially the acting lessons and the montage song. The quotation ChrisM paraphrased came from the Janeane Garofalo puppet. I don’t know if she is a familiar figure in the UK, but here in the states she is a well-known character actor who always plays Generation-X slacker types. I must admit that the Sean Penn puppet had some hilariously stupid lines about how he visited Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and found a happy land of kite-flying people where the children drank from delicious chocolate rivers and smiled gumdrop smiles. It is refreshing to find people who are even more contemptuous than I am of our pathetic Celebrity Culture.
I saw Shaun of the Dead tonight and found it quite amusing. I take it to be a social satire of Britain. What do the British readers here think of it? I’m also wondering about the Christmas reunion special of The Office. I’ve been told it’s a letdown and that I should bother to watch it.
“I’ve been told it’s a letdown and that I should bother to watch it.”
It is definitely not a letdown. It has a relatively upbeat ending; I think that irritated a few people, but it is actually a perfect finish to the series.