Seen with Elvis!
|
 |
And the rise of Shitocracy
By
Mitzel
While at the local drugstore, I always check out the rack of tabloid rags, a quick slide through sleazeland. Usually something about the elder of the English princes, lots of Hollywood
and entertainment types, maybe an update on Jesus and, in its cycle, predictions of the end of the world. Sad to note, the tabloids have been in decline since they got off-mission and started doing
the celebrity beat. The old rags had UFO reports, world's fattest person, miracle garlic cures, religious icons that really cried, profiles of professional wrestlers, and feature pieces on last week's
lucky lotto winner. Big News For The Little People. With the ascendancy of the criminal RayGun regime, the conflation of "entertainment" and "news" was complete, matched by the demise of
any barrier between the serious and the sleazy. Criminal regimes,
ą la RayGun and Pinochet, need Big Lies to appear legitimate-- that's entertainment. The tabloids got into "breaking news"
about politicians and other public figures.
One regular obsession is the "gay" thing. "Hollywood's Gay Secret," is a regular hole-filler. Rosie's romantic life gets the workover. Is Tom gay? has been a recent obsession.
These screaming headlines about peoples' sexual orientations and behaviors seem to me queer. Does anybody in the world give a fuck? I will never fully understand the mentality of the
right-wing or the conventional. Why does mucking about in someone's behavior have either "news" or "entertainment" value-- or some sort of enforcement effect? Must everyone be straight? That
would be a dull world, wouldn't it? Charley Shively once noted that an entertainer should keep them guessing; if you're as straight as, say, Pat Boone, you're a bore right out of the box-- no matter
how many "pink" carnations (a code word for the head of an erect penis?). Whereas with someone like David Bowie-- keep them guessing. Having a little talent helps, too.
The underlying culture of the tabloids is the same as the culture at large, just emphasized by differing degrees of vulgarity. And that is the Culture of Resentment, the idea that someone
else, someone perhaps privileged by status, is getting away with it. Resentment is the central common thread in our culture-- it gets particularly prickly when the economy tanks and scapegoating is
the order of the day. Right-wingers are especially formatted by this culture of resentment-- the hatred that someone else might be doing well, getting ahead, Getting Away With It. And the culture
of resentment is the perfect MO for the ownership class, pitting group against group, denying solidarity, and working old canards about the "special rights" and "special privileges" of gays,
blacks, Jews, and others. The end product of which is shooting abortion doctors in their houses, dragging black men to their deaths behind fast moving cars, and crucifying young gay college students
in distant wastelands.
The issue of status in our culture is a fascination one. Our culture poses as a meritocracy. In fact, there is little mobility, and promotions are rarely for talent. (As Gore Vidal noted
about Hollywood, in a discussion about the French concept of the
auteur in cinema: "The director was the brother-in-law.") If not a meritocracy, then what? I'd say a shitocracy-- the elevation of
the smelliest.
Two names of gay scribes come to mind with regard to this discussion. I don't mean to focus on them alone-- there are others; it's just that they have recently been involved in
controversies-- David Brock and Andrew Sullivan. Brock has a book coming out saying how he had been "duped by the right"-- yes, the debbil made him do it. Andy Sullivan is in the sheets because--
well, actually, I can't recall what the fuss is about. Sullivan, alas, has never had the propulsion to make it onto my screen. Connie Francis, yes; Andy Sullivan, no. The point is: by what selection
process did these guys get to be such famous queens with such easy access to the publishing machine. Brock was a movie reviewer for a really sick-o right-wing rag and then went on a
wholly-subsidized (by the vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) lying tear to smear Anita Hill-- propelled by resentment, no doubt. Andy is a Harvard-educated Brit Catholic quean who baits "the left" and has the
temerity to announce, "AIDS is over." Oh, really? Was there a world-wide search for the most talented, thoughtful, social-justice advocating gay writers to put before the public-- only to come up with
these two? Hardly. The shitocracy went a'hunting; its olfactory sense is particularly keen for the odour of the freaky-deaky (I think the hunt and launch of Camille Paglia had all these elements to it).
They find them, they get launched-- culture as a tabloid phenomenon. Kow-towing to the right-- if not actually being one of its water bearers-- seems to be the cost of fame, eagerly paid by these two
and others. We'll wait and see where it gets them-- while busy with our more important work.
You are not logged in.
No comments yet, but
click here to be the first to comment on this
Common Sense!
|
