I’m not so sure there is anything to worry about. The agent who creates the machine in the first place must be intent on replication and proliferation. And once something is “published” (i.e. made public) it automatically gestures towards emulation. So the publication of Catcher in the Rye automatically creates Holden Caulfield as a communitarian figure. The “outsider” is always-already romanticized.
If you want to remain excluded, never create anything. Or, I should say: “Never publish anything.”
Sure, the outsider is already romanticized by its nature, but it’s certainly possible to overdo it — art might not be communal, but it is (like basically everything) socially interdependent. We kinda have a situation in which everyone wants to ride out on their Batcycle in the role of the Blametaker. But we don’t need very many Blametakers, and most of us aren’t cut out for it — most of us just fantasize that we’re Blametakers and wind up as bitter, moody gits.
Anyway, this is a really funny one, though I wonder how Girl thought she could avoid over-romanticization combining Catcher, Heathers, and Boy? YUM.
I’d wager that the vast majority of people who refer to Madame Bovary have never actually read the novel, and envision Emma Bovary as a tragic heroine in the classical mould. And to sever “actual” character from the public perception of that character strikes me as somewhat illegitimate.
I might suggest a more ambiguous and less canonical figure: Frederic Moreau from “Sentimental Education,” the outsider who can’t prevent himself from becoming an insider. And unlike Emma Bovary (spoilers), he is not afforded the privilege of dying in the course of the novel.
I suspect there’s something in human nature that feels attraction to “other” — it’s a minority impulse to be sure, but Romeo and Juliet have plenty of historical companions.
Does anybody else expect a twinkling vampire to emerge from the machine?
In the future please remember that by the time people have registered the fact that you have stuck the word spoilers (in parenthesis) in the middle of a sentence, they have already finished reading said sentence. And they might then be a bit peeved that you were dropping plot points to a book they were saving to read on a rainy day.
I mean you don’t really go around looking out for spoilers to ‘L’Education Sentimentale’ do you? It’s not the sort of thing you expect.
I wonder if there’s a statute of limitation for spoilers. If someone downloads the final episode of a show and comments about it on Facebook before it’s even screened in your country, that’s extremely poor etiquette. I read about the ending of ‘Ashes To Ashes’ this way, and I’m still very annoyed about it. ‘Lost’ is probably the only other recent franchise in which the viewer is deliberately kept in the dark over the course of half a decade.
On the other hand, if a work is more than a century old, I think the plot details become more or less public domain. Personally, if I was determined to read ‘Madame Bovary’ with a fresh mind, I would have stopped reading when the book was first mentioned, which was before Mr. F. Corpse even said anything about it. As it is, I have no current intention of reading Madame Bovary, so would have already forgotten the ‘spoiler’ if a big deal hadn’t been made about it.
Also, I’m not entirely sure I understand the fire department/Bruce thing. Is it really Bruce Wayne, as Yachris suggests? I’m not sure Batman is big on fire safety and prevention. It might be Bruce Springsteen, who sings that he IS on fire?
I hate when people ruin Flaubert online. Happens to me all the time!
For unromanticized outsiders, are we just going for fictional characters? Because if we extend it to real people, I’d like to bring up H.P. Lovedcraft. People may like the stories, but no-one romanticizes his life.
@David – I’ve struggled with the Statute of Limitations question myself. My general policy for pop culture is seven years; if you don’t know by now what happened to Keyser Söze, are you really going to take the time to find out on your own? Other acceptable spoilers include the meaning of “Rosebud” and relationship between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Then again, some classics seem to have their own rules. Final Fantasy VII was released digitally in 2009, twelve years after its debut, and rumors frequently swirl about a hi-def remake; long-timey gamers know all about the big plot twist, but younger players might not. /Doctor Who/ first aired in 1964, but it still attracts new fans who might want to backtrack through the Doctor’s earlier adventures. /Little Women/ was published 142 years ago, but it still serves as a literary rite of passage for teens and young adults. While I’d like to be able to use those works as cultural reference points, I wouldn’t want to ruin the surprises and the heartfelt moments for anybody else.
re: Bruce – given that Cat has the Fire Department on speed dial, maybe he calls them so often that he knows the firefighters by name. I don’t think “Bruce” has any more significance than “Lou” or “Sarah” would.
@ David Matthew- Perks of Being a Wallflower was practically just MTV Generation rec-creation of Catcher in the Rye. They’re essentially the same thing, just in different time periods
YAY Heathers!!! I love that movie, and the return of the crazy novel-making machine
June 11, 2010
I’m not so sure there is anything to worry about. The agent who creates the machine in the first place must be intent on replication and proliferation. And once something is “published” (i.e. made public) it automatically gestures towards emulation. So the publication of Catcher in the Rye automatically creates Holden Caulfield as a communitarian figure. The “outsider” is always-already romanticized.
If you want to remain excluded, never create anything. Or, I should say: “Never publish anything.”
June 11, 2010
What, no “The Perks of Being A Wallflower”?
June 11, 2010
Sure, the outsider is already romanticized by its nature, but it’s certainly possible to overdo it — art might not be communal, but it is (like basically everything) socially interdependent. We kinda have a situation in which everyone wants to ride out on their Batcycle in the role of the Blametaker. But we don’t need very many Blametakers, and most of us aren’t cut out for it — most of us just fantasize that we’re Blametakers and wind up as bitter, moody gits.
Anyway, this is a really funny one, though I wonder how Girl thought she could avoid over-romanticization combining Catcher, Heathers, and Boy? YUM.
June 11, 2010
I’ll vouch for Madame Bovary as an outsider who is not romanticized.
June 11, 2010
@Dorothy
I’d wager that the vast majority of people who refer to Madame Bovary have never actually read the novel, and envision Emma Bovary as a tragic heroine in the classical mould. And to sever “actual” character from the public perception of that character strikes me as somewhat illegitimate.
I might suggest a more ambiguous and less canonical figure: Frederic Moreau from “Sentimental Education,” the outsider who can’t prevent himself from becoming an insider. And unlike Emma Bovary (spoilers), he is not afforded the privilege of dying in the course of the novel.
June 11, 2010
I suspect there’s something in human nature that feels attraction to “other” — it’s a minority impulse to be sure, but Romeo and Juliet have plenty of historical companions.
Does anybody else expect a twinkling vampire to emerge from the machine?
June 11, 2010
A punchline about over-romanticising the outsider! This is why I love this comic.
June 11, 2010
Oh boy, this reminds me of the old days of Cat and Girl. Great stuff.
June 11, 2010
Wow, Cat and Girl has been especially en fuego lately.
June 11, 2010
dang. i love this one.
June 11, 2010
“Bruce? Bruce WAYNE?”
June 11, 2010
Dear Mr. Future Corpse,
In the future please remember that by the time people have registered the fact that you have stuck the word spoilers (in parenthesis) in the middle of a sentence, they have already finished reading said sentence. And they might then be a bit peeved that you were dropping plot points to a book they were saving to read on a rainy day.
I mean you don’t really go around looking out for spoilers to ‘L’Education Sentimentale’ do you? It’s not the sort of thing you expect.
Sincerely yours,
David
June 12, 2010
I wonder if there’s a statute of limitation for spoilers. If someone downloads the final episode of a show and comments about it on Facebook before it’s even screened in your country, that’s extremely poor etiquette. I read about the ending of ‘Ashes To Ashes’ this way, and I’m still very annoyed about it. ‘Lost’ is probably the only other recent franchise in which the viewer is deliberately kept in the dark over the course of half a decade.
On the other hand, if a work is more than a century old, I think the plot details become more or less public domain. Personally, if I was determined to read ‘Madame Bovary’ with a fresh mind, I would have stopped reading when the book was first mentioned, which was before Mr. F. Corpse even said anything about it. As it is, I have no current intention of reading Madame Bovary, so would have already forgotten the ‘spoiler’ if a big deal hadn’t been made about it.
Also, I’m not entirely sure I understand the fire department/Bruce thing. Is it really Bruce Wayne, as Yachris suggests? I’m not sure Batman is big on fire safety and prevention. It might be Bruce Springsteen, who sings that he IS on fire?
June 12, 2010
I hate when people ruin Flaubert online. Happens to me all the time!
For unromanticized outsiders, are we just going for fictional characters? Because if we extend it to real people, I’d like to bring up H.P. Lovedcraft. People may like the stories, but no-one romanticizes his life.
June 12, 2010
To quote the great English poet Roger Waters:
“Did you exchange a walk-on part in a war, for a lead role in a cage?”
June 12, 2010
Don’t worry, D.TC, the book is still worth reading. I mean, Star Wars is still worth watching if you know who Luke’s father is, right?
June 12, 2010
I thought we agreed: no more spoilers…
June 13, 2010
Andrew didn’t say WHO Luke’s father was, but I’ll give you a hint. Definitely not C3PO.
Who is Bruce!
June 14, 2010
Jar Jar is Luke’s father.
June 14, 2010
your mom is lukes father
June 16, 2010
True, Jeff, but I did imply that Luke has a father, which is surely a heart-breaking spoiler of some sort.
June 17, 2010
@David – I’ve struggled with the Statute of Limitations question myself. My general policy for pop culture is seven years; if you don’t know by now what happened to Keyser Söze, are you really going to take the time to find out on your own? Other acceptable spoilers include the meaning of “Rosebud” and relationship between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Then again, some classics seem to have their own rules. Final Fantasy VII was released digitally in 2009, twelve years after its debut, and rumors frequently swirl about a hi-def remake; long-timey gamers know all about the big plot twist, but younger players might not. /Doctor Who/ first aired in 1964, but it still attracts new fans who might want to backtrack through the Doctor’s earlier adventures. /Little Women/ was published 142 years ago, but it still serves as a literary rite of passage for teens and young adults. While I’d like to be able to use those works as cultural reference points, I wouldn’t want to ruin the surprises and the heartfelt moments for anybody else.
June 17, 2010
re: Bruce – given that Cat has the Fire Department on speed dial, maybe he calls them so often that he knows the firefighters by name. I don’t think “Bruce” has any more significance than “Lou” or “Sarah” would.
January 26, 2011
@ David Matthew- Perks of Being a Wallflower was practically just MTV Generation rec-creation of Catcher in the Rye. They’re essentially the same thing, just in different time periods
YAY Heathers!!! I love that movie, and the return of the crazy novel-making machine