Furious 7 made a billion dollars in 17 days.
Better than the Iliad, I heard!
I am still trying. Okay, how about: primitive humans developed a taste for fat, salt and sugar because they were in scarce supply, but needed. Now that we can mass produce those cravings, we overindulge.
Something like that for stories?
Vin Diesel as Achilles, roll it out.
So what? While more than ten years passed between the airing of the first and last episodes of MASH*, one could easily binge-watch the entire series (256 episodes) in a couple of months. And while MASH* was literally about the Korean War it seems obvious that it was to some extent symbolically about the Vietnam War, which went on for more years than MASH* was on the air.
If you want to argue that MASH* was repetitive or unrealistic or something then go ahead, but it seems dumb to criticize the series just for having a long run.
Yes, and with lots of individuals dreaming of being “great” suppliers of these things and tons of companies required to push them lest they go under.
I hear Colin Farrell already knocked that one out of the park. Oh, that was Alexander, nm.
It’s not a criticism of MASH per se. Along with the example of serial killers, it was an example of how we can get into the story to such an absurd degree that the story can outdo an aspect of the thing upon which it is based. Thus, MASH lasted much longer than the Korean War itself, and there are more stories about serial killers than there are serial killers.
When the printing press became available, suddenly the number of writers and publishers exploded. I am sure there was a contemporary Aeschines, looking at this overload of books being produced by hacks and cranks with a sense of fatigue.
In other words: is this “same as it ever was” and you happen to be thinking about it while standing in the middle of it?
I certainly believe that the Internet represents a pivot point in our development of equal significance to other huge Tech innovations like the printing press, agriculture, steam engines, etc.
Yes, but the real importance of the Internet isn’t in the entertainment field, even if pics of cats and porn and streaming movies account for 95% of all Internet traffic (a statistic I just made up, believe it or not!). The real importance of the Internet is the access to information it has given scientists and engineers. I’m seeing new tech innovations just about WEEKLY now that would have provided a year’s worth of Gee-Whiz! back in the 60s. The entertainment is nice, but is of very minor importance relative to that.
I think it’s a consequence of “95% of everything is crap” combined with there being a far greater amount of everything than ever before.
It’s really easy to drown in a sea of knock-offs, remakes, reimaginings and just bad stuff, while searching for that 5% that’s actually good.
I mean, look at it this way- TV has always adhered to the 95% is crap rule, but back in say… 1977 when (in my case) there were 3 network stations, 2 UHF stations, and a PBS station to watch, and all of them only broadcast from about 6 am through about midnight or so. So you only had a grand total of 108 hours of TV per day that could even be programmed, and during the 7 pm - 10 pm prime time block, you had 18 hours total per day.
Contrast this with today- my satellite system has something like 290 channels, all of which program 24 hours a day. So during prime time, there’s nearly 1000 hours of TV being programmed.
And that’s not including the content available through Netflix, Hulu, etc… or novels (of which I suspect there are more than ever), podcasts, message boards, video games, social media, etc…
There’s just an overwhelming amount of content out there to spend your time consuming these days- the trick, I think, is to be very judicious in what you do and don’t consume, and to be aware of how much you are consuming and in what formats.
To my knowledge, the invention of the printing press did result in a huge outpouring of entertainment literature. The novel wasn’t even invented until the late 1700s.
I don’t think “story overload” was reached until sometime in the 20th century. Even most genre fiction probably seemed pretty fresh until sometime in the 1970s. I think the Xanth books by Piers Anthony began to mark the beginning of the end. 
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m actually saying the opposite of “same as it ever was.” My thesis is that we have collectively become used to glutting ourselves on pop culture and feeling that we will be able to keep eating at the same pace forever, since the demand for content of all types has greatly exceeded supply until recently. We are well past that pivot point, to use your term, but still haven’t collectively processed or perhaps even noticed that fact.
I agree.
Basically, yes. But one important point I’m adding to that: Even good-quality content causes burnout. The Western genre would have gotten burned out regardless of the percentage of crap: there was just way too much content produced in that genre. And that’s just a setting in which virtually any kind of story could have taken place (The Wild, Wild West being a good example of shoehorning in a different genre, the spy genre, into the setting). Something like serial killers already necessitates a pretty narrow range of plots and characters and should have even less in the way of legs.
Yes, and the shaky economics of the producers dictates they will overload the system with whatever is selling, thereby burning out whatever is popular even faster.
Zombies. Need I say more?
It means that, stripped down to the basics, all stories share a few basic themes. Like the old literature class examples: **Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Society, and Man vs. Self. **
The storytellers will continue to tell stories and the rest of us will listen to them. We’ll appreciate the good stuff and tune out the rest. just like always.
Yeah, but those categories are so broad as to have no real explanatory power. It’s like what I saw recently about movies having an 8-act structure: it was written to be too inclusive so that no real insights were provided.
Well, the point of my thesis, as murky as it may have been at first, is that we are not in a “just as always” situation.
Our relationship to food changed somehow in the 20th century so that we got noticeably fatter as a society, despite countervailing trends such as increased awareness of nutrition and more people consciously undertaking exercise. There is a hot debate as to why that is the case.
I’m saying that we have a veritable story smorgasbord in front of us, and that will causes changes in us and probably already has.
Are you trying to make a point about stories or about TV scheduling? MASH* was on the air for much, much longer than the length of its actual story because this story was told in half-hour increments, once a week, for six or seven months out of the year. The total running time of all 11 seasons of MASH* only adds up to about 125 hours. Had it been aired soap-opera style, an hour every weekday, it would have been over in a single season or about half a calendar year. Had it been aired 24/7 (the actual Korean War was a 24/7 event) then it would have been over in less than a week.
I agree. Your ‘diet’ analogy is a good one. In the case of the human craving for sugar-and-fat, just as in the case of the human craving for story, we are dealing with tendencies present in our species for millennia–but our relationship with those cravings and the day-to-day influence of those cravings on our minds and bodies is quite different in 2015 as compared with 1015.
This is another excellent point. Gutenberg’s movable-type press is generally dated to about 1439. Mass consumption of printed fiction had to wait another five hundred years until the Industrial Revolution gave the masses (!) both the means to purchase stories and the leisure time to consume them.
I think you’re on an interesting track with your discussion of supply and demand in connection with our desire for and consumption of stories. But I would place a somewhat differing emphasis on the concept: I believe the supply is as great as it is precisely because the financial reward of coming up with product that meets the Demand (about which, more later) is so very, stunningly, unprecedentedly huge.
And the reason we are flooded with tediously-similar stories is that the story-production gatekeepers have no real idea of why one story meets with indifference, while another story makes its creator richer than the Queen of England.
(I find this entire topic fascinating, but will refrain from publishing my own book on the subject in this thread. ^_~)
I agree with everything Aeschines said. I also disagree with everything Aeschines said. I feel like a magic eight ball.
I think I’m at an extremely similar place. We are seeing an overabundance of story, and especially an overabundance of specific types of stories. Primal to the core of the entire entertainment industry is give 'em more of what they just bought. A million vampires. Then a million zombies. Then a million superheroes. Just swap out the noun and do it again.
The question becomes whether the number of nouns is infinite. Or if finite, whether the list can go on so long that what’s old becomes new again. Sometimes I think it is; sometimes I think that entries get permanently deleted.
Westerns are an interesting example. You say that the novel wasn’t invented until the late 1700s. Let’s accept that despite the quibbles. What happened then? We think of the 19th century novel as a series of great literature meant to edify. That isn’t remotely true even if you count Dickens as high art. By the middle of the 19th century high speed presses made novels available to the masses, called penny dreadfuls in England and nickel novels (later dime novels) in the U.S. Hacks churned them out and they sold by the cartload, much better than high art did. Exactly like today. Adventure stories predominated, though there was also lots of romance. The Western was a subgenre of adventure, and almost immediately became a subgenre of the historic novel. Westerns were far more likely to be about a romantic past than a realistic present even during the decades we now think of as the Wild West.
Yes, the western played itself out. But adventure novels and historic novels didn’t; they shifted subjects. And future novels were invented, not just science fiction but technothrillers and dystopias and apocalypses and all the other might/could/shouldn’t happen scenarios.
We’re beating those into the ground too, of course. Still, we retain all of history and all of the future to mine. And all of emotion. Crime novels are emotion. Romances are emotion. Even porn is emotion. Subgenres of those get beaten into the ground as well, but we can’t run out of emotions as long as there are people. What robots will write about is harder to say.
So I vacillate. Some moments I despair about torrent of feces that is modern entertainment. Some moments I thrill to a well-done program/book/song/artwork. Some moments I realize my own jadedness. Some moments I realize that young people are just discovering all of culture for the first time, so that it re-emerges as something necessarily new.
Reply hazy try again.
All good and interesting points. I would say, however, that seasons are not meant to seem very short. Those actors aged considerably over the 12-year run, and you had two different colonels and whatnot. I grew up when MAS*H was on TV, it felt like it was on forever and a palpable part of pop culture for over a decade.
Ultimately, yeah, it was not about the Korean War. It was about those characters, wanting to make their world our world. There is an edifying and nourishing aspect to Story, but of course there is escapism. I prefer my escapism and entertainment in feature-film-length bursts. To me, the Robert Altman film covered the bases and was a cool and artistic look at the Korean War through the early 70s countercultural lens. The TV show ended up being a 70s entertainment time sink. I know because even as a kid I sank a lot of time into watching that show.
Thanks for the kind words!
Quibble on this. I think the situation changed rapidly over the course of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, since both literacy and leisure time were expanding rapidly. If you could write, you could get published and find an audience pretty easily. It might just be your local paper or regional literary review back in the 1800s, but so few people could write well that you could sell your stuff.
There was a sweet spot in there somewhere, I would say 1910-1960, when the mix of competition and demand was just right for novelists, screenwriters, etc.
Today, however, it’s feast or famine, with the vast majority of writers coming up famine. Everyone and his/her dog/cat is a writer now. At the same time, demand has fragmented with the Long Tail and a glut of entertainment options. There just aren’t that many J.K. Rowling slots. If you can make a middle-class living from your writing, you are lucky.
At the same time, I don’t think the content companies are in a good position at all. It seems like a very tough market, and they’re almost forced to play me-too-me-too because the risk is so high. (That’s true for stuff that costs big bux, like movies, video games, etc. Apparently the market for fiction is just pretty crap overall.)
Yes, that’s become a huge problem in the world of movies, in which consumers demand big spectacle but are extremely fickle about what they like.