Semisagacious Meditations
of an Autodidactic Polymath

This started out as a comment on Summertime's post about science fiction, fantasy, and the definition of art, and I ended up going a little long for just a comment, so I made it into a blog. This project is supposed to be rhizomatic in it's own way, too, so I hope this is alright.

I think a good story (fantasy or not) is like good design: the design never calls attention to itself, but fulfills a duty to the content by either being subservient to it (as the right font does for book reading) or complementing it (as most modern magazine layouts do). All that "visual icing" in movies is what helps absorb us into their stories. It's an elaborate illusion which we choose to believe so that we can meet other people or visit other worlds. When it's done well, we forget that it's a camera trick or that we're watching a movie and we focus on the story—the content.

I guess I just can't see that kind of a difference between fantasy/sci-fi and mainstream films or even independent ones. To me, believability comes from character and plot development, not genre.

You could also make an argument from theories of communication. A message is not simply the barebones content but includes the medium, among other factors. If we look at The Lord of the Rings trilogy then we could say that J.R.R. Tolkien's message of loyalty, courage, and friendship could not have been told another way. If it were set in the Middle East rather than Middle Earth, it would be a different message. We could not take away the same meaning from the two, much less the same story. Even the movie and the books provide two different experiences for the story, and thereby two different ways for each receiver of the message to understand it's meaning.

So, in short, I agree with Summer that it's "someone else's vision" that we can appreciate. Copyright issues aside, each creation is art in it's own right.

Also, the division between people on what is considered "art" is as old as postmodernism (or older, I'm sure). One group believes in a distinct division between high and low culture. The other sees no division in terms of artistic and influential value.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (second set on dictionary.com)"

A pox on the nay-sayers! Damnit, it's art!

I ended up going long replying to a comment of Sara's regarding the rhetoric of online educational adverts. WARNING: this one is going to get ugly.

These for-profit universities make me—so—mad!!! RAAAAAAGE!! &%*# &^%@#$ *& ^%$##!@ ^%!! ME SMASH!! ME SMASH!!!

GYAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!

*I'm now bald from tearing my hair out . . . inhale . . . exhale . . . mount soapbox*

I studied these schools because, like so many, many people, I was seriously considering one when I was ready to come back to school. I'd heard some warnings from friends, but I didn't take it seriously until I saw it in the news myself: many of these "universities" have been raided by the FBI and the Federal Board of Education for fraudulent claims and abuses against students.

• a 60 Minutes exposé
  
• a report on for-profit school's reputations, problems, and possible solutions
  

Sara discusses the rhetoric, and that very well. I want to discuss the psychology:

Their advertising isn't so weak. It's very directly focused on those individuals who have just hit or passed their "quarter life crisis"—that time of panic and depression that comes from realizing that life isn't lining up to the grandiose ideal you had in mind as a youth. The "believe it and achieve it" mantra becomes a guilty reminder of one's own perceived failings as finance and responsibility find their way into reality. 

But soft! Here comes our fairy god-professor to wave his magic mouse and grant our fondest dreams. These for-profit organizations are a dark Disneyworld for adults, their pandering promises as true as Tinkerbell, and their financial failues as real as taxes. It's too good to be true, and common sense should help one recognize that. However, their target audience—the disappointed failures (though only in their own mind)—are so desperate to recover their lost sense of self-worth, they will eat it up. What better way to snare them than to say, "It's not your fault. It's the system. You aren't responsible. You're special."

The end result common among "graduated" students is a cruel double-whammy. Not only are they left jobless and no better off in their education than when they first enrolled, they now owe thousands and thousands of dollars in student loan debt, of which there is no way out from paying in full (see report, above).

I completely agree with those who say higher education as it stands needs serious change, but moving to the digital age is only one part of it, and even then it has two great battles to face: 1) ensuring the quality of education within new media and 2) defying the horrid reputation that for-profit companies are setting up for online education.

Wait . . . what's wrong with donuts and coffee?