RIP, bitches!
January 4, 2007 at 4:21 pm | In breaking news, pop culture, timesuck | 19 Comments 
Was I the only one who didn’t get swept up into the Ultimate Timesuck that was The O.C. in 2003? That shit was like Harry Potter, which I also stay the hell away from. But seriously, what was it with this show? Were the 90210 reruns on FX not good enough for you people? Now that was some quality rich crybaby bullshit.
Anyway, this crappy ass substitute is finally getting canned, now that Mischa ‘I love my Keds’ Barton let her yacht-and-matching-headband sail. I know some of you watched it, though, so here’s the Popsugar quiz to help you quantify your lameness. Who knows, maybe I’ll watch the finale; it’ll be right after my visit to the real O.C. and a certain Newport Wannabe.
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blogroll
- A Woman’s Ecdysis
- AfroSpear
- Angry Black Bitch
- Angry Brown Butch
- Big Window
- Black Looks
- brown rab girl fish
- Chicks Dig Me
- Crazy from the Heat
- Crunk + Disorderly
- Dlisted
- elle, phd
- Fetch Me My Axe
- Flip Flopping Joy
- fourfour
- Girl Detective
- Harrietsdaughter
- Having Read the Fine Print…
- Hermana Resist
- Hobocamp
- I’d rather be making balloon animals
- Imitate a Cat Puking
- Jane Awake
- KitKat’s Critique
- La Chola
- Laila Lalami
- Latina Lista
- Love Songs (Are for Losers)
- Mamita Mala
- Mediahacker
- MFA Bitch
- Modern Mitzvot
- My Private Casbah
- New York/New Zealand
- No Snow Here
- Off Our Pedestals
- Our Bodies Our Blog
- Pinko Feminist Hellcat
- Posthegemony
- Problem Chylde
- Rachel’s Tavern
- Racialicious
- Reginald Shepherd’s Blog
- Rien d’extraordinaire si ce n’est le quotidien
- Say Something, Sister
- She who stumbles
- Slow But Steady
- Sly Civilian
- Sublunary Limins
- Superbabymama
- Taking Steps
- Team Rainbow
- The Angry Black Woman
- The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum
- the f-word
- The Field Negro
- The Fine Art of Free Speech and Dissent
- the free slave
- The Gimp Parade
- The Kugelmass Episodes
- The Silence of Our Friends
- The Unapologetic Mexican
- Thomas Devaney
- Tigera Consciente
- Uncomplicatedly
- Vox ex Machina
- Womanist Musings
- Women Against Poverty Collective
- Women’s Health News
-
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
not the only one. i’ve never seen it.
Comment by Nezua Limón Xolografik-Jonez — January 4, 2007 #
heh, I was in college on the Left Coast then, so, many people were from the actual high-end OC…and many, many people loved the show surprisingly much, with only a few dissenters. All I will say is that I can personally attest to the existence of a real-life parallel to the television show in the OC for some people, in the spirit of “the whole world exists to be just like me and wish they were friends with me!” …yeah.
I remember seeing a TV commercial for The OC last year and thinking how the allure of the ad was in how all the kids’ eyes looked terrified even as they were busy being suave and perfect. Like the whole undercurrent of what it takes to be “OC” cool was a sort of barely-masked terror.
Comment by namaroopa — January 4, 2007 #
I beat you all, kids: I DON’T HAVE A TV, AND DON’T EVEN WANT ONE!!!!! (and don’t you dare finding me pathetic)
Comment by French Boo — January 4, 2007 #
I’ve never seen it. Never particularly wanted to. But my husband did get me hooked on 24.
Comment by Rootietoot — January 5, 2007 #
Why do you stay the hell away from Harry Potter?
Comment by Jane Awake — January 5, 2007 #
Jane,
Excellent question. I have a healthy skepticism towards any worldwide literary ‘phenomenon’ that only requires a fourth-grade reading level; of which each installment, for some reason, is 34373243 pages long; that is primarily directed at children, that has a film franchise starring many wide-eyed, smug children, and reminds me of the existence of wide-eyed, smug children; and that adults read because then they are participating in the renaissance of children’s literature and, thus, don’t have to admit they think Tom Clancy is a challenging read.
In short, I think Harry Potter is teh stoopid. And yes, I am basing this on zero personal research, because every person I know who has read one of those shiny purple books or watched one of those wretched films with the wide-eyed kiddies has become an insta-convert, incapable of recognizing their own fall into thinking shitty kids’ books are good literature. And I say this as a person who recently received the Caldecott-winning children’s book Click Clack Moo for Christmas.
Comment by petitpoussin — January 5, 2007 #
petitpoussin,
How elitist and hipster of you to say! (Was that redundant?) You think it’s stupid because so many people enjoy it? Is the Cinderella stupid? How about The Little Mermaid?
As someone who has actually read all of the books, as a poet, a writer and avid reader of many different kinds of literature, as a person who has written an extremely long analysis of the plot of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (including charts and tables), I can tell you the books are not, in fact, “teh stupid.”
I don’t know any adults who read Harry Potter because they are not literate enough to read books that do not also appeal to children. Do you?
Comment by Jane Awake — January 5, 2007 #
I don’t know any adults who read Harry Potter because they are not literate enough to read books that do not also appeal to children. Do you?
Yes, Jane, sadly I do know many, many people who read Harry Potter, and love Harry Potter, and that’s because they are not smart enough to read anything more complex than Harry Potter. I would name names but no one’s signed the release form yet.
At any rate, you are certainly an intelligent, well-read person, and while you seem to have joined the Harry Potter cult, I regret to inform you that ‘elitist’ is, in this regard, the highest compliment you could pay me. Which, in fact, is the only way I would ever read Harry Potter — if you paid me.
Meanwhile, back to my highbrow pursuit of determining whether or not Justin is finally single!
Comment by petitpoussin — January 5, 2007 #
Although I have to say, how could you bring Ariel into this?! She’s sixteen years old, Jane! She’s not a child!
Comment by petitpoussin — January 5, 2007 #
You mentioned your “highbrow pursuit of determining whether or not Justin is finally single!” Listen up, you pop culture whore. I’m not so sure if you can maintain your whore status without joining the possessed legions of Harry Potter fans.
Also, forgive me for mentioning Ariel, I only did so because the Little Mermaid, like most fairy tales (Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Snow White), is an excellent example of a simple story that both children and adults can enjoy, that has been made into a shiny shiny Disney movie, shiny shiny picture books, and lots of other shiny paraphernalia.
Comment by Jane Awake — January 5, 2007 #
I read every single one of the Harry Potter books, would do any kind of criminal stuff to get the manuscript of the next Harry Potter … admittedly, I have the mental age of a six-years old tomboy. And admittedly I am not a great specialist of anglo-saxon literature. But I am not a pop culture whore at all (cf. above > I don’t have TV and I am proud of it); usually never follow any kind of world-phenomenon, fashion-craze or other last-trend-that-everybody-must-follow-at-the-risk-of-looking-stoooopid (you say ‘Friends’? You say Britney Spears? You say Tamagoshis? You say leggings + jeans mini-skirt? You say cow-boy boots? Whatev’). But I am a HUGE fan of the Harry Potter books (certainly not the HP movies though). Sorry.
Comment by French Boo — January 6, 2007 #
I have to say, I am an English Ph.D. student and I like Harry Potter. I am also not a rabid, creepy fan, nor am I currently contemplating criminal action to obtain an advance copy of the forthcoming installment. I read the first book when it came out and was disappointed by its simplicity, read no more, then by the time I saw the third movie the story was complex enough that I figured I ought to give the 4th book a shot before the 4th movie came out. I was pleasantly surprised, and then read the 5th and 6th books and liked them. The books really do get better as Harry ages; the charitable interpretation of this is that Rowling’s intention all along was to have the plots get more complex and the ethics get hairier as Harry approaches adulthood and all the equivocation therein. The uncharitable interpretation is that it took her 3 books to learn how to write.
My point here is that it’s entirely possible to enjoy Harry Potter without drinking the proverbial Kool-Aide, and furthermore that the later books are in fact quite enjoyable! They are far from highbrow literature, but when it’s 2:00 in the morning and I’ve been beating my brains out against obscure Modernist writers all day and all night, sometimes a girl needs a break.
Comment by uncomplicatedly — January 6, 2007 #
What is most hilarious about this is that I was about to jump into the comments section just to say something like, “The OC is going to amaze and delight you,” only to find myself dunked in a debate over Harry Potter.
OK, first of all, Jane Awake, clearly you need to provide us with the complete analysis, including charts and graphs. Not only does that sound endearing and amusing, but — it would change the nature of the debate over the novels.
I did read the first book, and thought it was very bad. Not only was the plot clunky and mechanical, but a great deal of the story was about money and things — the heap of gold in Gringott’s, the new broom or new wand, the candy and trading cards — in short, the kind of boring acquisitiveness that gives Christmas a bad name.
In addition, the book compared unfavorably to the Earthsea books by Ursula LeGuin, and the Dark Is Rising books by Susan Cooper (a point which has been made admirably well by A. S. Byatt here).
Byatt’s point is that the early Potter novels lack any sense of the uncanny — the capacity of myths to seem haunted or larger-than-life. (My recent quotation of Keats was inspired by Byatt’s essay on Harry Potter.)
Back in high school, when I was first getting into electronica, I realized that some electronic songs are so minimalist that the introduction of a single new sound (say, a flute loop) will feel like an epiphany. Something similar is at work in the Potter books. As they move towards a more mature style, and describe a more mature character, they are apparently gaining in profundity. This is fine, but I question whether they will ever possess the maturity of a Marilynne Robinson novel, or whether they will move us as deeply as the Little Mermaid of Andersen’s story, whose every step in the human world feels like “walking on knives.”
None of this is a judgement against people who read and enjoy the novels. For example, uncomplicatedly is slotting Harry Potter as a form of light reading to be enjoyed at 2 a.m. That seems like a fair assessment, and one that provides reason enough for others to avoid young Harry entirely in favor of another diversion like dlisted.
Comment by Joseph Kugelmass — January 7, 2007 #
One more thing: could somebody explain to me the use of the word “teh”? Is it basically a trendy way of making the definite article more definite, as though it were capitalized?
Sincerely,
Ignorant in Irvine
Comment by Joseph Kugelmass — January 7, 2007 #
Pretty much, Joe. It comes from nerd-online culture, the same folks who brought us “n00b” and “suxor.” Originally a common typo, now it is used for emphasis. It also has the power to change a verb into an adjective, as in, “This movie is teh suck.”
Comment by uncomplicatedly — January 7, 2007 #
Hi Joseph,
I’m glad to see you’re back in action.
I think that we are all comfortable to ignore or even poke fun at the division between “high and low art” (in film, TV, music, etc), and especially the assertions of those egoistic snobs who might say something like, “Timberlake is crap because he isn’t J.S. Bach,” except when it comes to literature.
I think the argument that the Harry Potter books aren’t good because they aren’t some other book or series of books that are more highly regarded among certain members of the literati is more or less meaningless.
I might think Shel Silverstein poems are crappy and simple compared to Robert Hass poems, but that doesn’t mean children (and adults) shouldn’t read and enjoy Shel Silverstein.
I’m curious to find out exactly what you thought was “clunky and mechanical” about the plot of the first Harry Potter book. I’m also interested about the source of your standards for determining whether a young adult novel is well plotted. Also, you said, “a great deal of the story was about money and things — the heap of gold in Gringott’s, the new broom or new wand, the candy and trading cards — in short, the kind of boring acquisitiveness that gives Christmas a bad name.” I assume you are only kidding, because this critique makes no sense to me.
Aladdin is also about money and things. Pretty Woman is also about money and things. Pride and Prejudice is also about money and things. The Prince and the Pauper is also about money and things. Need I go on?
Harry Potter is basically a “lost heir” plot. Of course it’s about money and things and social class and education and rank and discrimination and alienation and posturing.
I think that if the Harry Potter books hadn’t made such a huge splash, jealous writers and insecure critics would never have taken issue with it. In my experience, the more secure a writer becomes, the less apt he or she is to dismiss literature like Harry Potter as “simple” or, better yet, “for stupid people.” And in my experience, critics rarely become secure.
I would be happy to provide a few excerpts from my Harry Potter paper here in the comments if petitpoussin doesn’t mind. I won’t include all the charting though, because my fiction professor is writing a book about plot and she asked for my paper.
Comment by Jane Awake — January 8, 2007 #
I think that if the Harry Potter books hadn’t made such a huge splash, jealous writers and insecure critics would never have taken issue with it. In my experience, the more secure a writer becomes, the less apt he or she is to dismiss literature like Harry Potter as “simple” or, better yet, “for stupid people.” And in my experience, critics rarely become secure.
Well, Jane, what is probably my main issue with Harry Potter is, in fact, not specific to Harry Potter or even literature. It also extends to music — I have avoided the Dave Matthews Band, and even Ani DiFranco, because I have a problem with the general aesthetics of their fan base. (This was also part of my problem with the O.C.) As with any generalization, this leaves out of my assessment of ‘fanbase’ the many intelligent, fabulous people that might like Dave Matthews or Ani DiFranco, and it precludes me really learning much about their music, just like I don’t know much about Harry Potter beyond what is unavoidable in the media. Are jealousy and insecurity part of this personal aversion? An excellent question for my next therapy session. Of course, one might note that a lot of stupid, lazy, boring people read Harry Potter, just as a lot of stupid, lazy, boring people do plenty of other things. Friends, you take Harry Potter, I’ll take (as Joseph notes) Dlisted. Potato, potentate, let’s call the whole thing off.
Comment by petitpoussin — January 8, 2007 #
Petitpoussin, if this is true, “Of course, one might note that a lot of stupid, lazy, boring people read Harry Potter, just as a lot of stupid, lazy, boring people do plenty of other things,” I think that it is only a correlation.
1. I don’t think that stupid people reading a book means that the book itself is stupid.
2. I don’t think that reading a stupid book makes a person stupid.
3. I don’t know why you think “a lot of stupid, lazy, boring people read Harry Potter” unless you just means that so many people read the books, some of them must be lazy, boring and stupid.
You want to call the whole thing off? Okay. But I just have to say, before we do, that I think you specifically would enjoy the books if you did deign to read them, because of (if nothing else) the lost heir plot that we talented, misunderstood people love so well. The idea that: This can’t possibly be my real family.
Comment by Jane Awake — January 8, 2007 #
[...] Labyrinth is closely tied to the phenomenon of Harry Potter. I think Jane Awake put it well in a recent comment over at Truly Outrageous about Harry: “I think you specifically would enjoy the books if you did deign to read them, [...]
Pingback by 2006: Not Believing The Hype « The Kugelmass Episodes — January 11, 2007 #