CCBC-Net Archives
pop culture
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: michael santangelo <msantangelo13>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Kelly, I very much appreciate your reply. It adds a dimension I had not thought about. I was thinking of multiple intelligence theory, and how your response makes sense in view of a reader with a word based intelligence and a reader with a more image based intelligence. Coincidentally, I saw that the Boulder Public Library has a book discussion group in which parents and children read a book and later watch the film adaptation. The book group could be seen as bringing two intelligences together with children more inclined to text and others more inclined to image. I am curious to know how the children analyze the differences.
In my posting, I was more concerned not so much with the film adaptations of favorite books, but more with merchandizing and marketing from the film adapatations, and how that aspect may affect children's publishing. This was the only real facet of popular culture I was aiming at, yet I realize I used this aspect as a synecdoche for all of popular culture. Popular culture is obviously very complex and multifaceted, and I hope I did not demonize it too much, as I am probably just as much a part of it as anyone. There sometimes is a great showmanship to popular culture, in which things can be given larger than life representations and a fun, inviting big production element. This is wonderful in how it can attract young readers and viewers, and sometimes there is a great communal aspect to popular culture, in which kids can connect to kids they may never have thought to. What worries me are the more manipulating parts of pop culture.
(Yet, I can see my own hypocrisy, having, without remorse or embarassment, bought Madeline dolls, Curious George dolls, etc. for my nephew and niece or eyeing a Davey and Goliath t-shirt for myself or trying to get ideas out of a Trading Spaces book I received as a gift.)
There is a point I feel when merchandising and marketing impose on the work or attempt to substitute for a work instead of being extensions of the work or invitations back to the original work. There is a difference between the passing excitement over a recent cultural phenomenon, Harry Potter, and a great set of books with a character named Harry Potter. Looking over my posting, I think I was more upset with how Hollywood, MTV, et al were using some stereotypes, racial or body type, in casting characters or in marketing books, especially books I love. This is making its way into our culture stronger and stronger every year. Marketing is essential to contemporary children's publishing, and it can work great magic in getting readers in. What I dislike is when the marketing is attempting to create a merchandising scheme and not trying to introduce a cool new book or a talented new writer--when it is trying to enter a new book into the popular culture and not into the hands of hungry readers. While there certainly are kids and teens who have great media savvy, there are others who do not. Perhaps I need to heed some cliches and teach my kids not to judge a book by its cover and also, for myself, not to underestimate the power of children to resist stereotypes.
I think too Meg Rothstein's post on some merchandising being a form of communication between readers to signify some comraderie was another point I had not thought about. I realize I do it all the time when I am in the streets, whether I see someone wearing a t-shirt of a group I belong to or from a place I have been to or espousing a political position I agree with. It probably is good that this extends to reading and viewing interests as well.
Now I have to pack the books I checked out for the weekend, Arthur Slade's Tribes and Sue Stauffacher's Donuthead, into my Sigmund Freud bookstore tote bag and go home.
Michael Santangelo Children's Librarian Brooklyn Public Library Pacific Branch
Received on Fri 09 Jul 2004 04:47:36 PM CDT
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Kelly, I very much appreciate your reply. It adds a dimension I had not thought about. I was thinking of multiple intelligence theory, and how your response makes sense in view of a reader with a word based intelligence and a reader with a more image based intelligence. Coincidentally, I saw that the Boulder Public Library has a book discussion group in which parents and children read a book and later watch the film adaptation. The book group could be seen as bringing two intelligences together with children more inclined to text and others more inclined to image. I am curious to know how the children analyze the differences.
In my posting, I was more concerned not so much with the film adaptations of favorite books, but more with merchandizing and marketing from the film adapatations, and how that aspect may affect children's publishing. This was the only real facet of popular culture I was aiming at, yet I realize I used this aspect as a synecdoche for all of popular culture. Popular culture is obviously very complex and multifaceted, and I hope I did not demonize it too much, as I am probably just as much a part of it as anyone. There sometimes is a great showmanship to popular culture, in which things can be given larger than life representations and a fun, inviting big production element. This is wonderful in how it can attract young readers and viewers, and sometimes there is a great communal aspect to popular culture, in which kids can connect to kids they may never have thought to. What worries me are the more manipulating parts of pop culture.
(Yet, I can see my own hypocrisy, having, without remorse or embarassment, bought Madeline dolls, Curious George dolls, etc. for my nephew and niece or eyeing a Davey and Goliath t-shirt for myself or trying to get ideas out of a Trading Spaces book I received as a gift.)
There is a point I feel when merchandising and marketing impose on the work or attempt to substitute for a work instead of being extensions of the work or invitations back to the original work. There is a difference between the passing excitement over a recent cultural phenomenon, Harry Potter, and a great set of books with a character named Harry Potter. Looking over my posting, I think I was more upset with how Hollywood, MTV, et al were using some stereotypes, racial or body type, in casting characters or in marketing books, especially books I love. This is making its way into our culture stronger and stronger every year. Marketing is essential to contemporary children's publishing, and it can work great magic in getting readers in. What I dislike is when the marketing is attempting to create a merchandising scheme and not trying to introduce a cool new book or a talented new writer--when it is trying to enter a new book into the popular culture and not into the hands of hungry readers. While there certainly are kids and teens who have great media savvy, there are others who do not. Perhaps I need to heed some cliches and teach my kids not to judge a book by its cover and also, for myself, not to underestimate the power of children to resist stereotypes.
I think too Meg Rothstein's post on some merchandising being a form of communication between readers to signify some comraderie was another point I had not thought about. I realize I do it all the time when I am in the streets, whether I see someone wearing a t-shirt of a group I belong to or from a place I have been to or espousing a political position I agree with. It probably is good that this extends to reading and viewing interests as well.
Now I have to pack the books I checked out for the weekend, Arthur Slade's Tribes and Sue Stauffacher's Donuthead, into my Sigmund Freud bookstore tote bag and go home.
Michael Santangelo Children's Librarian Brooklyn Public Library Pacific Branch
Received on Fri 09 Jul 2004 04:47:36 PM CDT
