On the prevalence of US tropes in storytelling

[KatG]

The umbrella doesn 't suck because every kind of story is under the umbrella.

This is where we get into issues of style versus form. That there are American styles of film-making, etc., there's no question and we've talked about some of them here -- Disney, color saturation versus not, camera angles, etc. And since America does dominate film-making, those influences are clearly present, though the influence of other styles, such as martial arts Asian films and various European techniques get worked into American styles and blended.

But form becomes a different matter because form is more basic and atomic to story-telling. Greco-Roman and Celtic Gothic (which comes really from Germanic Gothic,) are styles essentially. The forms of the stories are not endemic but instead universal across nearly every kind of culture, as we've also already discussed. So then it's a matter of America favoring some forms, as well as styles, over others, because of its culture, and those favored forms presumably make up the American Canon.

Which is certainly something you can look at. Except that the American Canon in film -- and t.v. and literature, etc. -- is again apparently every form. Instead of one form, it's, as I said before, every form with main characters. There is virtually no way for any foreign filmmaker to escape the American Canon because all basic forms of story are declared part of the American Canon. If you kill off the protagonist at the end -- American Canon. If you make the protagonist a bad person -- American Canon. If you make the protagonist inexperienced and incompetent -- American Canon. If the protagonist is gifted and uber-capable -- American Canon. If you have action and suspense -- American Canon. If you have family drama -- American Canon. If the guy is a lone wolf -- American Canon. If he has a team of pals or temporary allies -- American Canon. There is no way to get out from under the umbrella. DeBodard certainly isn't. Because you've handed the whole of storytelling over to being American, which perhaps makes sense since most of the films are American made or financed but does not make for much comparison.

So you have the form -- musical story, which certainly has not been dominated by the U.S. across the world as film has. But instead of that form that then has American styles, the musical -- all its different themes, characters, etc. -- is declared part of the American Canon. So Bollywood cannot be a separate beast, having matured from American styles of musicals because style is demoted. Indian styles that effect Bollywood stories don't matter apparently. It can never escape because all forms and characters it can do as musical stories are American preferences and thus American Canon.

If the American Canon was a clear thing of certain forms, then foreign storytellers would have a chance. But because the American Canon includes everything from The Godfather to My Little Pony, there's no way to be out from under the umbrella because the age-old atomic forms have been ascribed to one country culture as their power preferences, a culture that had a large population, enough of it affluent and tech supplied (till recently,) and was non-war devastated enough to domestically support a large film industry and not need to import (unlike we did with our fine arts.)

Protectionism then means nothing because Canada can do Canadian style, but it can't do a Canadian form, because all the forms are American. Regional differences also, like say between Alberta and Quebec, and the Deep South and New England, you already said they don't mean anything awhile back.

And then when we move away from film to other mediums, the situation is more complicated. In comics, it is perhaps closest since America has dominated, except the Japanese and English cannot be so easily discounted. In literature, America now imports far more than it did twenty-five years ago, and other countries are not in the same situation with written fiction as they are with film. In t.v., America relies a lot on American product, but other countries have far more of a field than they do for film.

But again, this doesn't matter because the forms are American Canon. So DeBodard's police procedural thrillers with the specially skilled hero protagonist who stands up against corruption and politics to do what's right and solve the mysteries and placate the gods and save the world when no one else can, even though Mom always liked his brother best are American Canon, the exact thing she's railing against. And that's me being specific along the gung ho independent line. If I go with the full American Canon, it doesn't even matter what her protagonist is like or what she does with him.

It's very easy for "American tropes" to prevail in film and elsewhere if all the "tropes" are American. It's not really distinguishing anything. Which makes it perfect for aiming and lumping. It can be American when a person wants and not American when that person doesn't want. (Except it can't because everything is really American.) And for writers, does it matter what language they choose, symbolism, imagery, character inner struggles? The "American way" is every way.

Looking at how American domination of film has culturally and stylistically influenced other filmmakers and how they have influenced American filmmakers in turn is a lot more interesting to me. Looking at the interaction of atomic, basic forms and themes with different cultural aspects and styles is more interesting to me. That America has been a very successful exporter -- even that can be interesting, certainly historically so. But, again, it's difficult for me to take any meaning from the idea that everything is a simple reflection of my country's id.

Look at this, you got me going long again.

 

[Fung Koo]

Greco-Roman and Celtic Gothic (which comes really from Germanic Gothic,) are styles essentially.

I'll grant you the Gothic, but not Greco-Roman. I mentioned the Greco-Roman tradition because it is a similar example to a supersized umbrella under which every sort of story is contained. Nonetheless there is a flavour to the storytelling: a cultural style, as opposed to a generic style (generic as in pertaining to genre).

So then it's a matter of America favoring some forms, as well as styles, over others, because of its culture, and those favored forms presumably make up the American Canon.

Which is certainly something you can look at. Except that the American Canon in film -- and t.v. and literature, etc. -- is again apparently every form.[/quoted]

I think we're arguing relatively along the same lines but coming out the other side with a different conclusion. Style is a treatment of a form -- I think we both agree there. Where you say form, I refer to the handful of master stories that are told around the world. A culture selects certain of those master stories to do more often than the other, but still does them all. The style, then, is either aesthetically based (genre) or value based (culture).

My point with respect to film is that there is a standard set of forms (master stories) that have been preferentially developed in America, and that those forms factor heavily into the developing forms which are being explored in other cultures. America has tended to prefer certain forms over others, causing those preferred to be highly developed and specialized while leaving those others comparatively underdeveloped and much more vaguely defined. (In other words, the forms that are neglected/ignored/passé in America open up possibility for development in subcultures and foreign cultural industries, which is a recurrent trend in the arts throughout history.)

Style can be both cultural and generic. A trope, with respect to culture, means the metaphors a culture tends to repeat -- not merely the stories (master stories) it tells. Master stories can be manipulated into any aesthetic consideration, thus genres. However, tropes -- cultural metaphors -- tend prefer certain master story forms before the aesthetic genre considerations come into the picture. While it is true that America has produced a lot of films in various generic styles, it also employs a cultural style and therefore there is a tendency toward those genres that serve America's metaphorical and existential interests.

Thus, I suggest the American tendency is to place an individual into conflict with a larger force. An master story is employed that descrbes an individual confronted with an uncaring, depersonalized force that cannot be reasoned with. The individual first must learn that this is the nature of that force, come to grips with it, and then ultimately rise against it. Because the force cannot be reasoned with, it must typically be overcome by violence or else the individual is overcome by its violence.

It seems disingenuous to me to suggest that this, as a master story form, captures most of every story ever told. But, I do think it captures a large number of the stories told in American film -- and that's not just because it's a master story form, but a preferred cultural treatment of that story form. Aesthetically, you're absolutely right -- the stories told are various and employ all sorts of different tricks and features to explore the message. The individual can competent or not or super powered -- that's an aesthetic issue, a dressing-up of the master form. But the culture seems to prefer these sorts of tales, and so it must be cultural.

Other cultures' films are marked for their lack of preference for this story form in film. Sure, the Brits do it well, and the shared history of English speaking cultures is a large part of that. But the Brits also tell a lot of other story forms in greater measure than it appears America does (I say "appears" because I currently get mostly cultural export here in Turkey, whereas in Canada we get a lot of domestic American media). In fact, I think there is a greater emphasis on the destined hero in British/European film, where the conflict is an inevitability or the birth right of the hero, and the hero must come to grips with their fate, rather than individually rise through self- reflection and determination.

the American Canon includes everything from The Godfather to My Little Pony

There's an awesome argument here: the story form of The Godfather is the same as that of My Little Pony.

The plot summary to the first My Little Pony feature, from wikipedia:

The story begins as the peaceful ponies of dream valley are attacked by monsters who kidnap several ponies and take them away to Midnight Castle. Enraged, Firefly, a Pegasus pony, takes to the skies to try and find someone who can help them defeat Tirak, who plans to use these ponies to pull his chariot of darkness. On her way, she crashes into Megan's well and asks her for her help. Megan is at first reluctant to go but after being confronted by the monsters, she sets out with the ponies to rescue them.​

The plot of The Godfather form fandango:

A few months later at Christmas time, the don barely survives being shot by gunmen in the employ of a drug-trafficking rival whose request for aid from the Corleones' political connections was rejected. After saving his father from a second assassination attempt, Michael persuades his hotheaded eldest brother, Sonny (James Caan), and family advisors Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) and Sal Tessio (Abe Vigoda) that he should be the one to exact revenge on the men responsible.

After murdering a corrupt police captain and the drug trafficker, Michael hides out in Sicily while a gang war erupts at home. Falling in love with a local girl, Michael marries her, but she is later slain by Corleone enemies in an attempt on Michael's life. Sonny is also butchered, having been betrayed by Connie's husband. As Michael returns home and convinces Kay to marry him, his father recovers and makes peace with his rivals, realizing that another powerful don was pulling the strings behind the narcotics endeavor that began the gang warfare. Once Michael has been groomed as the new don, he leads the family to a new era of prosperity, then launches a campaign of murderous revenge against those who once tried to wipe out the Corleones, consolidating his family's power and completing his own moral downfall.​

So, a time of peace is interrupted by a tragedy leading to a conflict with a nefarious, uncaring villain shrouded in mystery. A hero takes up the cause and rights the wrong.

No doubt in My Little Pony there isn't the question of revenge and moral downfall and more of a happy ending where evil is a little more absolute, but as far as the actual form of the two stories go, the differences between them are basically aesthetic.

BAM.

It's very easy for "American tropes" to prevail in film and elsewhere if all the "tropes" are American.

See I don't think all the tropes are American. I think a few of them are (and I think other cultures share some of the tropes with American, too).

The "American way" is every way.

I submit that this is an American cultural myth. Much like the myth of the polite Canadian. Canadians are neither more nor less polite than anyone else. America has ways, as does every culture. No culture has all the ways.

In film, America has had most of the ways because of an economic reality where it was almost the sole producer of a given form of media. But that doesn't mean those are all the ways -- they are simply now the normative ways, and seem like all the ways there are because there is a comparative lack of alternatives. That situation is changing.

Look at this, you got me going long again.

That's what I'm here for!

 

[KatG]

I think it should be noted that I got Fung Koo to rationalize The Godfather and a My Little Pony movie as virtually the same thing. I don't think I will be able to top that for awhile.

America's metaphorical and existential interests.

This is where we start getting into trouble -- building block forms that become assigned metaphors believed to be valued in a specific culture's psyche rather than valued in all cultures.

Thus, I suggest the American tendency is to place an individual into conflict with a larger force.

That's not a style. It's a form. You reduced it slightly. At first it was an individual in conflict with a force, which was virtually all stories. Now it's an individual in conflict with a larger force, with "larger" being liberally applied, and so it now describes nearly all stories, from facing a natural phenomena to getting fired from a corporation to stampeding cows to war stories. It is particularly part of the suspense form, which is an individual in a situation of risk. And Americans do indeed like all kinds of suspense stories and they are the biggest group. But suspense is also the biggest group in every other country culture because it is the favorite form of story. So again, there's no place for foreign authors to go to not be American using because what you're placing as an American favored cultural metaphor is the same favored form for universal storytelling, (even if they aren't doing suspense, but are doing a story about a mother-daughter conflict, etc.)

You then try to further refine it in suspense to a larger force that cannot be reasoned with and so must be overpowered by violence. This is the form of suspense of higher risk and action, and so it is a form utilized in an action story. It is also a form that is universally popular, not simply in America. It is not a form that is simply used by cultures -- it makes up a major chunk of every country's cultural storytelling. It is preferred worldwide. The "cannot be reasoned with" part also becomes one of those difficult points. A storm clearly can't be reasoned with. But other, human forces may be declared not to be reasoned with by some and not others. This is where we get ignoring a lot of layers and declaring various stories -- like comic superheroes -- a straight cartoon of black and white or at least implacable opposition, when that's not really what's going on (and when it is going on, is often satiric.)

Be that as it may, there is again little room for foreign authors to move because it doesn't matter if they're using tragic forms, comic forms, cops or fish or a guy fighting with his neighbor -- they are using an atomic level of opposites, with an antagonist of some sort that will likely be declared as implacable, and that is present in the majority of stories throughout history. Yes, America uses it a lot. So does France. Yes, America makes a lot of the films, but the reasons for that are not simply chasing after suspense. It's not an American influence. It's basic storytelling. If you want to talk about an American style that effects the use of that basic form, you'd need to go beyond it into something much more specific.

And DeBodard isn't working from this idea in any case. Again, she writes about an individual in conflict with a larger force that leads to violence, etc. So if that was the issue, then she again would be trashing herself for writing a basic form of high risk suspense. What DeBodard instead was griping about -- initially -- was the individual hero protagonist who relies on him/herself, who is sure of himself or at least feels he must do something and proceeds forward with a lack of moral doubt. Essentially, she was saying that American storytelling has a Jesus complex. (And again, describing her own work.)

For her, the perfect example of this is the superhero, who she casts as reliant on his powers to be a non-doubting saviour against the bad guys. This is for me a very superficial view of superhero stories and comics, and again, does not have a great deal to do with SFF written fiction. She gets into fetishing of serial killers, again not of much relevance to SFF, and various other things she doesn't like and seems to not be sure exactly where she's heading. The presentation is that the "American cultural metaphor" is militaristic, jingoistic, can-do ego and that this is not a preferred notion of other countries and their war and suspense stories, but is maybe becoming so because of overbearing American art product, despite considerable historical data and current data to the contrary. A moralistic value is assigned to a basic form and declared a particular cultural value. The most popular type of story in the world is declared America's most popular type of story, one that makes money for an America-dominated film industry and so is a principle of American storytelling that's taking over.

Frankly, she'd have a lot more luck with romantic comedies, because there are things that American filmmakers, etc. do distinctively with boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl again that you're less likely to find in other countries' romantic comedies, and ditto the British, etc. Which is why those movies don't travel as well internationally on average, although the British seem remarkably good at getting it to work.

The "American way" is every way.

-- I was not saying that the American way is every way. I was saying that what you were presenting made your message be that what you called the American way was all the ways in storytelling. You were at that point identifying as one path what encompassed nearly every path -- an individual dealing with something.

seem like all the ways there are because there is a comparative lack of alternatives. That situation is changing.

Again, really vague generalities that are claimed to be specifics. My specific complaint was that the way you were framing the "American ways," no alternatives could much exist under your definition. America has a culture made up of a palette of sub-cultures and it does not encompass all cultures, but that is not the same thing as basic story forms. And what you are claiming to be the American style of selecting those forms doesn't work for the reasons above. When you say that things are normative ways -- what are those? It can't be as basic as an individual deals with a big obstacle to be overcome. And when you say the situation is changing, do you mean simply that other countries are building bigger film industries or action movies are dying off or something else?

And just for you, a piece of satire that I thought seemed fun re this discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE8C1WWixgc

 

[Fung Koo]

Back from a ramble to Paris and Amsterdam. And now, back to beating the dead horse!

This is where we start getting into trouble -- building block forms that become assigned metaphors believed to be valued in a specific culture's psyche rather than valued in all cultures.

This is where in your argument I have to come back, again, to the question of the legitimacy of the entire notion of "culture." Is there such a thing, or isn't there?

This line of reasoning where you refute "America's metaphorical and existential interests" by essentially removing the idea of those interests being peculiarly American is a stone wall. If a country does not have its own metaphorical and existential interests, but in fact shares those same interests with everyone from everywhere, then we get back to HE suggesting that the entire notion of culture is a straw man.

That's not a style. It's a form.

I know, and that's what I said it was. I said there are two parts: 1) a preferred selection of forms (master story types); 2) a preferred cultural treatment of those forms.

Form: individual vs. larger force
Style: e.g, competent or incompetent individual, benign or malignant force, etc.

Q: How is this culturally American?
A: America tends to tell this story (form) a lot and in a variety of ways (style). Other cultures also tell this story (form), but it seems to occupy a smaller proportion of their media. They may prefer instead ensembles vs. each other, for example.

with "larger" being liberally applied, and so it now describes nearly all stories, from facing a natural phenomena to getting fired from a corporation to stampeding cows to war stories.

Hey now, be specific. What movies are those?

It is particularly part of the suspense form, which is an individual in a situation of risk.

I would not call suspense a form. Mostly, I would call it a style. Genre is primarily a stylistic question in long form prose and fiction film.

You were at that point identifying as one path what encompassed nearly every path -- an individual dealing with something.

By no means does this one path of "an individual dealing with something" encompass "nearly every path." It is one path amongst many, and in other cultures is of lesser importance than in American media.

Perhaps the very fact that you think it encompasses nearly every path is a signifier of your Americanness. No? My charge is that American tends to tell that story a lot, almost the exclusion of other story types, and you (an American no less!) are telling me that that's almost all the stories there are! Hmmm....

And when you say the situation is changing, do you mean simply that other countries are building bigger film industries or action movies are dying off or something else?

I mean that other countries have been developing stronger domestic film industries which are coming into maturity, which in turn is leading to greater export into the foreign film market. This is changing the economic shape of the markets and the proportions of viewership are shifting.

 

[KatG]

U

I'm having problems finding a block of time to beat the dead horse properly, but will try shortly. Oh, and:

Back from a ramble to Paris and Amsterdam

I hate you. Did you look up De Bodard while you were in Paris?

 

[Hereford Eye]

...then we get back to HE suggesting that the entire notion of culture is a straw man.

If I didn't say it before, then I shall gladly say it now: Culture at the national/state level is a straw man. For example, the Turks are the blood thirstiest people extant. In the 60s, I saw good reason to accept that thought. I would have been wrong, of course, but I would have accepted it as true. Anything above tribe and religion is a cultural straw man. If not, then pray give an example of a cultural phenomenon common to all the varieties of humanity.

 

[KatG]

I would not call suspense a form. Mostly, I would call it a style. Genre is primarily a stylistic question in long form prose and fiction film.

This is where we are getting to the heart of the confusion. You keep trying to use form as master stories. And as I said, forms are much more basic than that. Suspense is not a style and I'm not even talking about murder mysteries. Suspense is a form, a basic building block -- an individual put at risk in some way with the suspense of what will happen with that risk. It can be used in any type of story, from a suspense crime novel with violence to a comic farce. Forms can be used with any style, structure, language choice, imagery and metaphors, and theme.

A genre as a literary movement -- which suspense fiction is not (suspense fiction which is not the same as the basic suspense form,) nor are science fiction and fantasy -- means a particular style, with specific uses of language, structure, symbol and theme. These movements are culturally related, although they may spread out and then vary further by culture. So I can write a magic realism thriller, and that means that I will have a particular style that is magic realist -- I will be using dreamy, rich imagery laden narrative, fantastical elements (forms) built into ordinary life, particular themes about identity, love, spiritual awakening, and symbolic plots. I must also, according to some, be Latino to be magic realist, from where the genre style originated, and be writing about Latino culture. That's the cultural style. I can write a cyberpunk story -- which is a literary movement -- with suspense forms -- ones that may or may not be violent, and I will have the themes, symbols, made up slang and tech language, etc., of cyberpunk style. Cyberpunk chooses to make use of science fiction forms, but the forms themselves can be used for many other types of stories that are not cyberpunk and in no set story structure or style.

I can have a prince in my story -- that's a form, not a style. I can have a cubicle worker in my story -- that's a form, not a style. I can have an imaginary land -- that's a form, not a style. A dragon is a form but it is not set in how it is used or presented; it is not a set symbol. It's a building block. The suspense form is the most popular for use by American storytellers. But it is also the most popular for all other cultures. It is not a smaller proportion of their media, storytelling or mythology. So claiming it for America just because they use it a lot is simply not workable; it's too basic and prevalent everywhere and it is not a style/genre literary movement. An individual facing a force larger than himself -- i.e. an individual at risk -- is the basic suspense form. It's just too broad.

This is also where we get into the not-SFF SFF people. They try to take commercial genres -- categories -- and declare them to be some sort of style (literary movements,) with the argument that since the story in question doesn't have that supposed needed style, then it cannot be SFF, even if it is using SFF elements (forms.) The fact that many of the commercial genre publications regularly use the supposedly not-SFF style gets deflected one way or another. It's an artificial division that people try to make real by wishing. And that in itself is a cultural reflection of those people but it does not change the forms into styles.

De Bodard was actually trying to nail down a style, not a form, but she just didn't go about it in a particular coherent way, for me. She was complaining about a type of character she feels is endemic to American storytelling thematically, but she tried to do it by lumping about 15 different categories together and not really dealing with styles at all. She sort of got on to some themes, but it was scattered. She was going for the cultural image of the white hatted cowboy, but it spilled every which way and didn't really get into the different thematic layers and different styles of all the things she was throwing into the net. Culturally, she herself is interesting. An American born, multi-racial person in France who feels alienated by types of American art and is writing mystery fantasy thrillers about the Aztecs is indeed a cultural situation. It would have been more interesting to me if she'd talked more about that, about her personal frame of reference stylistically and in relation to her own work.

Culture is not defined by metaphorical and existential interests. It is first off geography -- mountains, deserts, etc. -- and historical and from that language and experimentation. Assigning a basic metaphor per culture is not going to do the job. So there is culture, but there is also universal human culture that we see in basic building blocks of storytelling. Your argument is that Americans use particular building blocks a lot which produces an American style peculiar to it, a style (choice of building blocks) not as often chosen by other cultures and so not their style. I'm saying that other cultures choose those buildings blocks just as often and they don't make a style, so they don't make an American style. The building block of a character facing something is so vague and so often used by everyone that claiming it is the favorite of only America doesn't work. Reducing it to the suspense form -- an individual facing something that puts the individual at risk -- still cannot be said to be the favorite of only America. It is the favorite of everybody. My pointing that out is not the same thing as saying that culture does not exist. That's a misdirection.

Noir crime is a style, a literary movement, and it is culturally American. Writers and filmmakers in other cultures have made use of it and frequently, but it is arguably not as popular with them as it is with American ones. There are other types of noir that stem from other countries developing their own style of noir, and that is a cultural adaptation (experimentation.) But hard-boiled noir is a style that stemmed from American cultural interests, history and art. The Disney-esque family story is arguably a style, and it is certainly American. It is part of the culture and more connected for Americans than most things. Other countries have their versions of it, of family stories, and these may stem more from their own cultures. But there is the American Disney style. If you look at the way American films are fast cut for action, as opposed to Asian film techniques, Bollywood, or the European's slower cut, focus on an image and hold for thirty seconds techniques, that's definitely an American film-making style -- whatever the type of film. But a person facing a sticky situation is not a style, not a theme, etc. not a specific metaphor, and it is again used too often by everyone to be declared an American cultural preference.

Essentially, I'm saying that you're overreaching and you're going to have to go a good deal more specific, beyond forms and beyond categories into styles. More, we keep hearing that the other countries don't do this same thing a lot. In my experience, they do. So what is the essentially favored plot structure/building block choice of France, for instance? Or England? Because their favorite also seems to be an individual facing something and often at risk.

 

[Fung Koo]

If I didn't say it before, then I shall gladly say it now: Culture at the national/state level is a straw man.... Anything above tribe and religion is a cultural straw man. If not, then pray give an example of a cultural phenomenon common to all the varieties of humanity.

Class.

One of the granddaddies, really. And, an issue particularly salient to the topic at hand. Class is, in many respects, at the heart of the tropes de Bodard is on about. It's a key issue at the heart of American ideals. It's also a primary distinguishing cultural feature between the English-speaking countries of the former British Empire, making it a cultural element for which there are several contrasting cultural interpretations and legacies that have arisen from a common, shared history.

 

[Hereford Eye]

With your opening, I first thought you were about to give a lecture: now, class. But, then, I thought, no, he is addressing me as one of the granddaddies. But, then I finally saw that you meant class as something common to all the varieties of humanity.

Request for clarification: If I propose to exemplify with the first peoples on the American continent, am I disqualified for not operating at the nation/state level? If I talk about the Muslims of Mohammed's time, can a class then be one boss and all others followers?

How about I propose that class is not common to all varieties of humanity but is common to all modern nation/states?

 

[Laer Carroll]

Class is ... a key issue at the heart of American ideals.

I have to go along with Fung Koo on this one. Class IS common to all cultures. But the values associated with class within each culture are NOT.

The American idea of class is the opposite in many ways of the British, though time has eroded the differences. In the UK lower and middle class efforts to better themselves culturally still have some of the stigma of clumsy plebian efforts to ape their betters. With emphasis on the APE as an image of a hairy smelly ugly inferior.

In the US, a nation of immigrants, the ideals of the immigrant are a big swath of the cultural tapestry. The self-made man is the hero to many Americans. The lone entrepreneur who burnishes the American streets of gold and husbands his scraps from them. Who builds a business empire (or at least a corner bodega) and brings his family over from the old country, and maybe some cousins too. Who goes to school at nights, or works two or three jobs, to better themselves. And whose children go to college, or become professionals in some other ways. And who a century later become (some few of them) the Rockefellers and Carnegies who endow universities and opera houses.

In short, social climbers in the UK are looked down upon. In America, they are the national heroes.

Other immigrant cultures such as Australia and Argentina share this meme, though each with their own twist. And the meme is only part of any culture. I like to use the metaphor of the tapestry to evoke the complexities of every culture.

So in America stories have more of the meme of the lone hero. It is shared by other cultures, and is hardly an independent invention. As Odysseus and Agamemnon and many others show. But it's proportionately more used in American stories. Comic book heroes are a mostly American invention. The Western with the lone gunfighter coming to town and cleaning out the black hats, then riding into the sunset, is mostly an American invention. (The Australian white hat is more often an outlaw such as Ned Kelly, Australia having many transported criminals among its earliest inhabitants.)

So de Bodard's criticisms were scatter-shot. It was a venting of steam. But if we completely ignore it we ignore a core truth about literature in this country.

 

[Fung Koo]

...

I've got to admit, I'm kinda stumped where to go with this one. As usual, we're operating on very different versions of what genre is, what style and form are in literature and film, and are approaching the concept of culture pretty much from polar extremes in the spectrum. I wouldn't say you're wrong -- I just think I'm more right

Yes, suspense has a formal component. It is the delay, or suspension, of the release of important/essential information. It's a question of the linearity of information release, and it can be used for a variety of effects -- though of course it is most noticeably used to build anticipation, excitement, or anxiety about the outcome of a given action or decision in a story. It can be used in every sort of story, yes. I thought you were on about the thriller (the suspense genre -- synonyms), following the question of The Spectacle. In that case, I'm basically talking about the heavy reliance on the formal trick of suspense as the issue of style.

But what you're calling form sure isn't what I would call form. Prince or cubicle worker is characterization. It has implication for form, yes, but it is not form. It's dressing up your story agents (or non-agents) with cultural signifiers that operate within a field of other cultural signifiers.

Form, function, and style.

I don't quite get what you're calling style either, actually.

And I don't see what Risk has to do with suspense as a form, nor as a style. Likewise, the notion that Risk does have something to do with it strikes me as an American way of seeing it -- you have to be willing to lose to win. It seems like that "Live Free or Die" all-or-nothing thing. I think de Bodard might have mentioned that...?

More thinking....

 

[txshusker]

I've said my piece before and have been following and holding my tongue... fingers... but here I am.

The idea of the lone hero is not an American trope. As said by many before it's the oldest type of hero story. The argument that it's become an American trope because America puts out more movies than everyone doesn't make sense: Tuna is the most populous fish in the ocean, so it must, then, teach all the other fish to swim. I've seen many foreign action/hero films... I don't recall them having multiple equals winning the war.

(disclaimer : I have no idea whether or not tuna is, in fact, the most populous fish in the oceans... I'm too lazy to research it... But, since it's the chicken of the sea, I used it for my metaphor.)

And I put it to you, individual heroes of the Die Hard kind are not the prevalent type of movie that comes out of Hollywood. There are plenty, surely, but fewer this decade than last and so forth. For every single hero movie, there are many more buddy hero ones or group hero ones... even a lot of superhero movies emphasize the main hero's success founded in his reliance upon his compatriots/helpers/sidekicks/friends - aka - his team; although as alpha, that hero plays the largest part in the outcome. (Cap'n America, for one). (The reason Thor and Cap'n America were made was to get to The Avengers). Well... that and make money.

The most watched media in the US are team sports and shows about groups of people working together to solve a problem. For every Jack Bauer, there are four CSIs (literally). For every sports hero worshipped in the US for his/her individual abilities, there are two beloved because of the team concept they play under and believe in. (i.e. Terrell Owens vs Andre Johnson or Larry Fitzgerald in US football... I have no idea of international equivalents. Most people like Dirk Nowitzki, they marvel at Kobe's and Lebron's abilities, but don't really like them). The most played sports in America are teams sports, not individual sports.

And I say that the US enjoys teams' accomplishments more than individuals'... don't get the US stance on individual rights mixed up with the concept of the individual accomplishments in movies, business, etc. Our NFL team in Houston has lost it's best 4 players to injury, 3 for the whole year. Houstonians are more excited by the fact the team is overcoming those injuries than what any individuals are accomplishing within the team. I've been a part of bowling teams where the worst bowler is one who actually wins more matches than the best. It's awesome.

All that said, I do not believe the US is the beginning and end all of lone wolf/individuals heroes... because the truly underlying theme behind most of those hero movies is the underdog theme... the David vs. Goliath. (and since, judging by the most commonly used euphamism for underdog theme is what I said above, it's not like even that is the US equivalent of jazz. Meaning, it's not originally from here.)

America loves it's underdogs. In sports, in media, in movies. And I would say that most individual hero's/buddy heroes'/group heroes' stories made by everyone nowadays is an underdog story. Everywhere. Beowulf wasn't. Gilgamesh wasn't. Most Greek stories weren't really, either. Those were about powerful beings overcoming obstacles at the height of their power; not of them overcoming something clearly its better.

High Noon, Die Hard, Mean Girls, Dodgeball : An Underdog Story, Stripes, these are movies about down and outs or people taking on something much larger than themselves. Even in cartoons - Fred Flintstone, Homer Simpson - blue collar nobodies without any special abilities, but who overcome obstacles - many put in motion by their own stupidty, granted - but in the end, overcome them and show us certain family/social values while doing so.

So if you want to say that the US worships underdogs in some form more than other places, I have no problems with that - (though, I have seen films/read books from other countries who also use that theme - Harry Potter, for one). For decades, one of the US's most beloved hero was the 1976 US Olympic hockey team - whom most Americans couldn't name a single person from, but who were caught up and proud of their accomplishment.

I believe that's the real underlying theme in most action movies, and what Americans love most about them. Not how many people win the day, but who they all are, and from whence they came. John McClain got buddies in the 3rd and 4th movies who had nearly equal parts in the successful outcomes. (should I have put that in a spoiler alert box?)

I'm not saying that Americans don't enjoy individual accomplishments. I'm saying enjoying individual accomplishments is not unique to America.

And lastly, I'll say this again... and it was said by others. If other countries didn't like it, the US producers couldn't sell it. So obviously, whatever the US exports is hitting some nerve with the international audience. And if it's successful, other people will want to look at why... and I doubt it's all about the pyrotechnics. (Though what they can do these days is mindblowing, isn't it?) It's likely more about some core theme that Everyman Everywhere can relate to, not something that's being shoved down their throat. So I still don't get her grief.

 

[Chuffalump]

In the US, a nation of immigrants, the ideals of the immigrant are a big swath of the cultural tapestry. The self-made man is the hero to many Americans. The lone entrepreneur who burnishes the American streets of gold and husbands his scraps from them. Who builds a business empire (or at least a corner bodega) and brings his family over from the old country, and maybe some cousins too. Who goes to school at nights, or works two or three jobs, to better themselves. And whose children go to college, or become professionals in some other ways. And who a century later become (some few of them) the Rockefellers and Carnegies who endow universities and opera houses.

In short, social climbers in the UK are looked down upon. In America, they are the national heroes.

Actually we would never call a 'self made person' a social climber. A social climber is someone who desperately tries to move in 'higher' social circles because they want to be seen in higher social circles, because they think it makes them better than Jones they went to school with or Smith that they work with. Otherwise known as an arse licker. Someone who's come from the streets, made millions and has otherwise stayed the same kind of person as first started out, gets a lot of admiration.

So, yes, social climbers ARE looked down upon in the UK, because they are embarrassing.

 

[Fung Koo]

Request for clarification: If I propose to exemplify with the first peoples on the American continent, am I disqualified for not operating at the nation/state level? If I talk about the Muslims of Mohammed's time, can a class then be one boss and all others followers?

If you focussed on the First Nations people's of North America without discussing the nation/state level in which they currently find themselves, it would be a tremendously incomplete discussion wouldn't it?

First Nations societies have always had their own social stratification systems which really weren't/aren't altogether than different in form from the usual sorts of stratifications you see in every society. So you could discuss them in isolation, I suppose. But without contextualizing them with what happened to them from 1500 up to today, it would be a fairly meaningless discussion, wouldn't?

As for Islam... The Priesthood in any society is itself an example of class. The Priesthood holds arcane knowledge, held only by an elite class, and special actions are required to join that class. That's the entire basis of power for the Priesthood class as it functions in virtually any society. There is also stratification within the Priesthood, when considered as its own social system. So yes, the leader:follower dynamic of a religion is an element of class.

How about I propose that class is not common to all varieties of humanity but is common to all modern nation/states?

I would disagree. Non-modern-nation societies (I don't quite know the right term), such as Amazonian tribes, Nomadic peoples in Mongolia, and other people who live outside of the unifying governing systems that control the geographic regions where they live... these peoples have social stratification systems in their societies, informed by and infused with ideals and values.

 

[Hereford Eye]

When I was thinking of the First Nations I conveniently forgot about slaves/captives, a fact I recalled at a later time. What I had in mind at the time was a hereditary class system, a system not common to those peoples.

I am not aware of a hereditary class system among the First Nations of North America but then I haven't read deBotard so the Mayan culture is an unknown to me. Without inheritance, the roles may exist but the fact the roles are open to all players dilutes the notion of class to something beyond the idea of class I assumed we are discussing.

 

[KatG]

The dead horse refuses to be beaten quickly. So I'll tackle my line of discussion with Fung later. Which is only fair as HE has taken him into hereditary class stratification. (Should we seek a grant?)

 

[Fung Koo]

The dead horse refuses to be beaten quickly. So I'll tackle my line of discussion with Fung later. Which is only fair as HE has taken him into hereditary class stratification. (Should we seek a grant?)

Ah, but two are deeply related!

And yes, I think we deserve a grant.

When I was thinking of the First Nations I conveniently forgot about slaves/captives, a fact I recalled at a later time. What I had in mind at the time was a hereditary class system, a system not common to those peoples.

Hereditary rulership is probably the most common form political power in the world throughout history.

I am not aware of a hereditary class system among the First Nations of North America

From The New Georgia Encyclopaedia:

A chiefdom, ruled by a hereditary and often semi-divine chief, was typically a multiple town organization, with a population in the low thousands. The chief resided in a capital town, with other towns paying tribute to support him and his family, part-time craftspersons, and military expeditions. Chiefdoms typically built impressive monuments. In the Southeast, Native Americans constructed large earthen mounds as platforms for the homes of their chiefs and the temples to their gods.

the Mayan culture is an unknown to me.

From Wikipedia:

A typical Classic Maya polity was a small hierarchical state (ajawil, ajawlel, or ajawlil) headed by a hereditary ruler known as an ajaw (later k’uhul ajaw).

Without inheritance, the roles may exist but the fact the roles are open to all players dilutes the notion of class to something beyond the idea of class I assumed we are discussing.

I thought we were talking about hierarchical social division as an example of a cultural phenomenon that exists throughout humanity. Even America has classes, despite the fact it purports not to (which is a belief that is part of the American general culture). Class can be defined in all sorts of ways, and every definition produces different observations of class. The more complex a society, the more complex its class system. But that don't mean she ain't there.

 

[Laer Carroll]

I see a lot of posts in this thread where people commit the BLIND MEN fallacy, the same one committed by Rudyard Kipling's seven blind wise men of Hindustan when confronted by the elephant. Touching its leg, one says it's like a tree. Touching its tail, another says it's like a rope. And so on.

So we have posts which say, for instance, "Americans exalt the LONE HERO." Others say "Americans exalt the TEAM PLAYER."

And they argue for one OR the other. The truth is that in any complex culture - American, French, Chinese, whatever - people in the culture exalt the lone hero AND the team player.

Cultural anthropologists long ago resolved this problem by realizing that it is not a question of WHETHER a particular meme/trope/stereotype is in a particular culture. Instead it is a question of HOW MUCH the meme exists in a culture. And where it exists, where it came from, what variations it has, and so on.

To shift from the Olympian to everyday concerns, writers can use the lone/team dichotomy in many ways. One is to write a story about a loner who learns to trust and expand hi/r world beyond hi/r own individual concerns. Or one can go from the other direction: the perennial team player who learns to stand on hi/r own two feet.

Ahh, my breakfast warm-up writing is done. Now I have to do one last polish of THE SUPER OLYMPIAN before I put it up on Amazon and Barnes & Noble. G'dy, mates!

 

[KatG]

Okay, I went long again. I don't promise complete deftness here. On the class system thing, I'll just say that yes, class is always part of culture and societies, including false assumptions about social classes, and otherwise stay out of it.

FK, we just come at it from different reference frames that overlap. It's like the eye exam machine with the lenses.

You're using form as plot form. I'm using form as component, something much more basic. So let's switch to component and see if that helps. Prince and cubicle worker are not characterizations. I can have any kind of prince I want. Prince and cubicle worker are components that can be used to build characterizations -- and stories and settings, etc. They can be used in any type of story with any kind of theme and presented in any method and style.

Style is style of writing, how the work is written -- language, word choice, sentence structure, narrative structure, metaphor and imagery methods, viewpoint format, symbolism and how themes are presented, etc. which develop character and author voice.

Sometimes a cluster of authors, usually connected by location and culture, around the same time period, often deliberately riffing off one another, explore a particular approach of style and theme – a thematic style. And we call that a genre, a literary movement. These movements may often extend beyond the original cluster and the time period, to other countries and cultures which may do variations of it. Noir, for instance, was a movement that developed in the first part of the 20th century in America, with writers largely working in pulp magazines and short novels, but noir stretched considerably beyond that and is a wide ranging stylistic influence. Sometimes a new movement partly descended from a former one or in reaction to a former one may arise with a new cluster -- New Weird off of New Wave SF for instance, or post-modernism in reaction to modernist fiction.

Beyond these thematic style genres, as we’ve often discussed, we also group narratives by very general components they hold in common. These groupings are also called genres, the original meaning of the word, down to the basic, original ones such as prose, poetry and drama. In the market, grouping genres are used as an organizational method to quickly communicate info about basic type – components. These grouping genres are not organized by style or theme. They are broad baskets that contain numerous themes, style, and structures including movement genres.

So if we go with stories in which an individual is in a situation, that’s too broad to be a specific cultural marker, because every story, in myth, the past and the present, has this in all cultures.

Reduce it to stories with an individual in a situation facing a force. That’s almost every story in every culture.

Reduce it to stories with an individual in a situation facing a force that creates a conflict. Still too broad to be a cultural marker – that’s nearly every story in every culture. (Some would argue that it’s every story.)

Go down further to stories with an individual in a situation facing a force that creates a conflict that puts the individual at risk. This is the basic suspense component (not to be confused with suspense fiction or the q&a structure that makes up every fictional story.) This component is in the majority of stories in every culture, past and present and folklore, so it is again too broad to serve as a specific cultural marker.

Reduce further – stories with an individual in a conflict situation with a force that puts the individual at serious risk – life, imprisonment, loss. This is the basic component for suspense stories -- all kinds including SFFH, not just the category market. These suspense stories with serious risk make up the majority of the stories with the basic suspense component and thus, still the majority of stories in all cultures in all time periods. So still too broad.

Drop another layer to stories etc. with serious risk that may or does turn violent. That’s a bit more directed, but still too much spread because violent serious risk is still the majority of stories across cultures.

 

[KatG]

Chuffalump jumped further down and went to the underdog, a more distinctive component. And certainly a popular one for American writers. It is, however, also one of the most popular ideas for all the other cultures. As a cultural marker, the underdog does not alone suffice. (And no, it’s not a case where whatever the level, I’ll say it’s too broad. I’ve already talked about noir, how it was an American thematic style genre that then extended, and as such, noir is an American cultural marker that is quite specific and trackable.)

De Bodard was not, in any case, writing about underdogs. While underdog material threads through some superhero stories, you can’t really call characters like Iron Man and Superman underdogs. What De Bodard was going after is the Chosen One component. This is not the official, prophesied Chosen One of some fantasy fiction and myth, though those are included. It is instead the general character who feels destined, responsible to be the one to attempt to solve or help with a (serious, violent risk) problem, above others, against an antagonist who the character is certain must be thwarted.

De Bodard tries to thread this, with some inconsistency, through a whole bunch of story groupings and different mediums to which it may or may not be applicable to one degree or another, ignoring aspects of moral ambiguity at the heart of many stories she’s criticizing. Also, again as has come up many times, De Bodard herself uses this idea in her fiction, in which she writes about a Sherlock Holmesian Aztec priest whose particular skills and connections with the realms of the gods makes him the Chosen One to solve the violent risk situation and go up against the forces that he is certain must be stopped. Essentially, De Bodard worries that the way she writes may be influencing and wiping out the cultural views of other non-American writers.

The attempt to make this an American cultural marker – that this is the preferred selection of American culture/writers so much that it is theirs and so not as much preferred by other cultures that it is not theirs – is based on a view of American cultural psyche as Americans identifiably egotistical, thinking importantly of themselves and their skills or inner strength, pushing themselves forward as the problem solvers who are responsible for the job and certain in their ability to judge opposing forces and mete out kindness, punishment and effective action. It is also a view that believes other cultures do not have that outlook or not as indelibly as Americans do. Such beliefs are based on myths of nationalities and their main mentalities and on the feeling of influence from these. As such, the myths are cultural but so too are the cultural realities counter to that myth, the more complicated and layered aspects of cultural identity and cultural interaction and borrowing. And claiming that writers adhere in the majority to the cultural identity myths is an enormous extension that doesn’t scan well, especially if you are not using specific stylistic aspects, like noir or magic realism, as distinct cultural markers surrounding the basic components.

De Bodard’s best shot is the American dominance of movies, particularly spectacle movies. Spectacle/visual thriller movies, for many of the reasons we’ve discussed – time limit, visual nature of the medium, etc. – do favor/require Chosen One components, although again moral doubt as to whether the person is the Chosen One and the certitude of taking out the opponent are frequently threaded through these films, sometimes into full reversals. And because the main characters of many of the action films are American and the films made mostly by Americans or partly Americans, that provides a pool of “American” Chosen One creations, with the claim that non-American stories of similar hue are aping American culture, instead of the reality that any adventure film coming from any culture is likely going to need to structure around the basic Chosen One component and that this is common, again, in all cultures’ storytelling and as such not sufficiently a marker.

De Bodard tries to parlay action movies, where she’d make a better stylistic argument, into vast generalized claims about SFFH writers, swipes at television things that annoy her, components she doesn’t like such as serial killers, comics and superheroes, etc. She’s trying to write about what she feels is a thematic thread effecting storytelling; it just for me does not have a lot of coherence except to say those dratted Americans seem to be everywhere, making comics, books, movies, etc. And that’s true, they are, and you can look at that. And if you adhere to the dog-eat-dog view of art and particularly written fiction, that’s very threatening. If you view art as something that is always exploring and extending, it isn’t necessarily.