Tuesday, September 29, 2009

"Mad Men" & Memory

Unless you've been living under a rock or have had more productive things to do, the interwebs have been agog about the AMC series "Mad Men." I admit to being sucked in as much as anyone else. I tore through the 1st 2 seasons on DVD in a couple of weeks and now am fully engrossed.

What I find most interesting, however, is the current cultural reaction to the show. Much like The Sopranos, the show particularly excites the comments of cultural critics (these are just 2 that I particularly like), while at the same time seeming to engender a longing for the unmitigated cool of the late 50s & early 60s. Hilton and Banana Republic, among many others, are 2 companies actively promoting tie-ins to the show, playing explicitly off that cool factor. You can even "Mad Men" yourself. Yes, that's (kind-of) me up in the corner... Anyway, this seems to be borne out by the demographics of the viewership - relatively young (majority under 50) and quite wealthy (many making more than $100k/ year).

That's what interests me.

What excites me about the show is how you have to pay attention to really get it. It shows you how cool Don Draper is, how neat martini lunches were, how wholesome family life in the late 1950s and early 1960s was, and how simple life seemed. It takes you in, makes you inhabit those memories, evokes nostalgia for this simpler time, and then (pardon my language) poops all over those thoughts. This is a society on the cusp of something transformational. The Civil Rights movement and Vietnam particularly stalk this seasons' shows. The thing is, the main characters are all on the wrong side of that transformation. They're standing in the way of progress. If you're paying attention, if you think about what they're doing and why they're doing it, you're not supposed to like any of these characters. You may well be able to understand them but it's hard to really like them.

I write here quite a bit about nostalgia, how we today are as guilty of it as our predecessors ever were. I try to warn about the dangers of nostalgia. It leads us to ridiculous positions, like lionizing certain periods and peoples by fossilzing them by only 1 of their many characteristics. Nostalgia makes you say dumb things like calling one group of people "the greatest generation," thereby eliminating their many foibles and utterly negating the contributions of others.

I don't think "Mad Men" is playing into that (even if others, like Hilton and Banana, are trying to profit off of it anyway) but I began to worry that people aren't paying attention -- much like many viewers who don't understand that "The Colbert Report" is satire. But, then I took another look at those demographics of "Mad Men's" viewers. If the majority of the viewership is under 54 (or even under 49), they would likely only hazily remember this period. Most of these viewers wouldn't remember this period at all. But if they did, they were Don and Betty's kids -- Sally, Bobby, and Gene -- who are little more than window-decoration for the adults (not a surprise then that the actors who play the kids aren't even listed on the "Mad Men" website). Sally's emotions when her grandfather died are ignored. Bobby's little more than a nuisance to his parents. We haven't seen Gene in a number of episodes now. The parents do anything and everything but spend time with them or show any interest in them at all. Certainly, this isn't to say that all parents from this period ignored their children but it complicates the picture.

And the show overall does this well, stripping off the superficial veneer that nostalgia paints the past with, forcing you -- if you're paying attention -- to ask some tough questions about people, behavior, and events that we might not otherwise question. And doing that, I think, can only be a good thing.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

South Carolina as the New Byzantium

This past Summer, the me and the family took a little beach vacation to Hilton Head, SC. Beautiful beaches, upscale community, nice time had by all.

Getting there from I-95, you have to take some relatively small roads. Indeed, getting from Hilton Head to anywhere else requires a number of small-ish roads. On those parts of the drive I was struck by the stunning number of abandoned cars we saw on the side of the road. None, however, were burnt out or were missing tires. All were in pretty good condition, almost like the rapture had finally come. I was utterly confused by what I saw until I remembered this:



I was in Le pelerinage de Charlemagne and South Carolina is the new Byzantium! Those cars weren't abandoned but were simply left there to be reclaimed later by their rightful owners, who would have no reason to fear that anything would happen to their cars. A resurrected, imaginary paradise...

But, wait. Does that make me Charlemagne? And what does that make Gov. Mark Sanford?

UPDATE: and now, which character's Cong. Joe Wilson (R-SC)?

Monday, September 7, 2009

Carolus Redivivus: He's Baaaack...

I have just now been informed (by Jeff Sypeck) that Charlemagne may be coming back. Like, soon. This is a subject of which I'm somewhat familiar, having written a blog post on this subject comparing Charles & Tony Soprano, edited a book about the legend of Charlemagne, and now completing a different book on said subject. So, I feel compelled to comment...

First of all, I do not encourage regular reading of The Philadelphia Trumpet or, at least, I don't suggest getting your history from it.

Right. So, the article in question leaps -- and I mean leaps -- from a comment made by Bernard Connolly that the Euro struggles between German and French bureaucrats, each working "under the banner of Charlemagne." From there, well, I don't really follow it honestly. Something about the money being controlled by Germany and then them taking over the EU and reducing the number of countries involved to 10. I don't know how this will happen. The author doesn't say, but he does use another quotation that has the word "Charlemagne" in it.

Now, the history lesson begins, taking us down to today:
  • "Historians call [Charlemagne's] rule the First Reich—even though Charlemagne was the second ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Adolf Hitler’s rule became known as the Third Reich." (Wait, so which was the "First Reich?" Maybe Constantine? Dunno. Not explained.)
  • Charlemagne's coronation in Rome in 800 CE was important because it resurrected the Roman Empire in the West, thought by many biblical commentators to be the 4th world empire spoken of in the Book of Daniel. (actually, true. Adso of Montier-en-Der re-popularized this interpretation in the 10th c. and it was a powerful apocalyptic trope throughout the medieval [and later] worlds).
  • This last world empire would, "according to biblical prophecy," have 10 resurrections and the last 7 of them would be called "Holy Roman Empires." (not actually in the Bible)
  • Charlemagne was very violent and forced the Saxons to convert. (yes he was and yes he did)
  • Germany today is still working to continue the legacy of Charlemagne. (uhh...)
  • Then, there's some stuff about Hitler. He either ruled the 3rd or 6th Reich. The author can't decide. Hitler did, however, like the example of Charlemagne.
  • Maggie Thatcher knew the truth! So did FDR & Churchill who wanted to stop the legacy of Charlemagne from pervading Germany again! (Except, none of them ever talked about Charlemagne. Oh, well...)
  • This all means that the Bible talked about Charlemagne!
QED. Take that, logic!

CFP: Medieval Romance Society

Posted on behalf:
-----
The Medieval Romance Society has proposed 2 sessions for Kalamazoo 2010. The sessions are entitled “Once Upon a Time:” Romance Temporalities, which explores the uses of time within medieval romance, and Temporal Touching: Medieval Romance and Popular Culture, which is a roundtable discussion reconsidering medievalism and the uses of the medieval in the modern. Here are the descriptions:

“Once Upon a Time:” Romance Temporalities
Critics have long acknowledged the “once upon a time” trope at work in medieval romance, but we are increasingly uneasy with the innocence and “merely” fantastic or escapist motivations assumed in its deployment. This session invites reconsiderations of what kinds of temporal systems are at work in medieval romance (and why), how romance makes use of revisionary chronologies, how it imagines its pasts and futures.

Temporal Touching Roundtable: Medieval Romance and Popular Culture
Although medieval romance and popular culture are distinct genres, scholars increasingly recognize the productivity of blurring the medieval/modern divide in order to examine the relevance of the medieval to the modern. This roundtable session aims to explore the transmission of medieval romance into modern popular culture and to investigate the benefits of diachronic research to medieval studies.

If interested, please contact Amy Burge before the deadline of Sept. 15, 2009.