Tag: The Cultural History of Television

PUB DAY REPOST: Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History by Matt Foy and Christopher J. Olson: They Riffed, so the Internet Could Snark

Cover to Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History by Christopher J Olson and Matt FoyMystery Science Theater 3000:
A Cultural History

by Matt Foy and Christopher J. Olson

DETAILS:
Series: The Cultural History of Television
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Publication Date: August 20, 2024
Format: eARC
Length: 182 pgs.
Read Date: August 6-8, 2024
Buy from Bookshop.org Support Indie Bookstores

What’s Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History About?

This is a retrospective of the show—its history, development (highs and lows), spin-offs, and latest formats. It’s also an examination and consideration of the impact the show has made to its viewers and on the industry of entertainment, and the ripple effects it has had on pop culture.

It looks at how MST3K was shaped by the upbringing of its cast and writers—focusing on the tone and style of the hosts—as well as the network (or lack thereof) that brought the show to the audience.

It wraps up with an Appendix listing twenty episodes that best capture the show for new viewers—between the riffs, the movies themselves, and hosting segments—with each host being represented. They truly picked some gems—good for new viewers and established fans to go back and revisit some highlights.

The Worst We Can Find

“Hey, wait a second, H.C.,” I can hear some of you thinking, “you talked about this book last July.” Well, no. But I can understand the confusion. That was actually the book, The Worst We Can Find: MST3K, RiffTrax, and the History of Heckling at the Movies by Dale Sherman.

I haven’t done this a lot, but every now and then I read a book that is someone taking all/part of their doctoral dissertation and reworking it/part of it for a wider/popular audience. In many ways, that’s what this felt like—Foy and Olson’s work was the technical/academic book for those of a more scholarly persuasion, and Sherman’s was the version for the wider audience. Except that Sherman’s was longer, and it usually goes the other way.

This is not a criticism of either book—at all. They both over their respective emphases and quirks. They’re both dependent on interviews and articles produced by others; both are written by fans who’ve dedicated a good deal of time to both the research and production of the book—propelled by a greater deal of time developing an appreciation of MST3K; and both are the kind of things that die-hard fans will sink their teeth into. One’s just a bit more highbrow than the other.

Dissecting Some Frogs

Analysts have had their go at humor, and I have read some of this interpretative literature, but without being greatly instructed. Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the purely scientific mind.

The idea has been variously ascribed, but it seems that E. B. White and Katharine S. White first put it into print. Whoever said it first, the idea floated through the back of my mind at more than one point while reading this book.

There were repeated explanations of various jokes throughout the book—and not one of them was necessary (if you ask me, anyway). Maybe one or two of them will help younger readers who are not familiar with the pop culture of the 90s or earlier, but I think context alone will take care of the questions a reader will have. And you understand the authors’ impulse to explain them and maybe even admire their attempt while rolling your eyes at the outcome.

Flirting With Semantic Satiation

The term Intertexuality appears so often in this book, that you can imagine Tom Servo and Crow riffing on it. But it’s not like there are a lot of synonyms available, and it’s a real focus of the authors and a strong point of the book. Still, the SOL crews would hammer them on it.

The consideration of how MST3K has trained a couple of generations in approaching intertextuality, media consumption, and responses to them is the intellectual core of this book. The show, in all its various incarnations, has shaped both the viewers and other shows, internet content, and general internet discussion in ways that are larger than the show’s ratings may suggest. The cultural footprint is oversized given viewership (the tapes did keep circulating, at least metaphorically).

I, for one, had given this very little thought until Fry and Olson pointed it out—along with their discussion of MST3K and its spin-off projects being at the forefront of newer delivery systems for media and programming. Given their humble beginnings, it’s really quite remarkable.

So, what did I think about Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History?

I’ve read two other books in this series (and keep meaning to read others), Friends and Gilmore Girls, comparing this to those, I’d say it captures the strengths of both and avoids what I recall as the shortcomings of the Friends volume and the spirit of the Gilmore Girls book. If nothing else, the diversity in these three installments demonstrates a strength of the series. You’re not going to get cookie-cutter approaches to the various series in consideration. Each author/team of authors is going to approach the show in question differently, reflecting the preferences and focus of the authors.

The only shortcoming I can think of (outside the attempted academic explanations of humor) is the lack of space given to Emily’s hosting/riffing style compared to the other hosts. I’m certain that this is a function of how few episodes she has appeared in, but it would’ve been nice to get a little more about her.

I was entertained by the book—both due to the authors’ style and the memories it conjured. I thought about the show and its legacy in ways I hadn’t before. I kicked myself for not taking part in the crowdfunding efforts I didn’t participate in. I was inspired to watch a couple of episodes I’d somehow missed—and just to make time for the show in general. Mostly this was an exercise in getting to know more about old friends, and seeing them in a different light.

I’m a sucker for anything MST3K related, so you know this worked for me. Do I know if you’ll appreciate this book if you’re not a fan or a media studies student? I doubt it’s for you. But if you’re either of those things—you’ll get something out of it.

What do you think, sirs?

Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from Rowman & Littlefield via NetGalley—thanks to both for this.


4 1/2 Stars

This post contains an affiliate link. If you purchase from it, I will get a small commission at no additional cost to you. As always, the opinions expressed are my own.
Irresponsible Reader Pilcrow Icon

Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History by Matt Foy and Christopher J. Olson: They Riffed, so the Internet Could Snark

Cover to Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History by Christopher J Olson and Matt FoyMystery Science Theater 3000:
A Cultural History

by Matt Foy and Christopher J. Olson

DETAILS:
Series: The Cultural History of Television
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Publication Date: August 20, 2024
Format: eARC
Length: 182 pgs.
Read Date: August 6-8, 2024
Buy from Bookshop.org Support Indie Bookstores

What’s Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History About?

This is a retrospective of the show—its history, development (highs and lows), spin-offs, and latest formats. It’s also an examination and consideration of the impact the show has made to its viewers and on the industry of entertainment, and the ripple effects it has had on pop culture.

It looks at how MST3K was shaped by the upbringing of its cast and writers—focusing on the tone and style of the hosts—as well as the network (or lack thereof) that brought the show to the audience.

It wraps up with an Appendix listing twenty episodes that best capture the show for new viewers—between the riffs, the movies themselves, and hosting segments—with each host being represented. They truly picked some gems—good for new viewers and established fans to go back and revisit some highlights.

The Worst We Can Find

“Hey, wait a second, H.C.,” I can hear some of you thinking, “you talked about this book last July.” Well, no. But I can understand the confusion. That was actually the book, The Worst We Can Find: MST3K, RiffTrax, and the History of Heckling at the Movies by Dale Sherman.

I haven’t done this a lot, but every now and then I read a book that is someone taking all/part of their doctoral dissertation and reworking it/part of it for a wider/popular audience. In many ways, that’s what this felt like—Foy and Olson’s work was the technical/academic book for those of a more scholarly persuasion, and Sherman’s was the version for the wider audience. Except that Sherman’s was longer, and it usually goes the other way.

This is not a criticism of either book—at all. They both over their respective emphases and quirks. They’re both dependent on interviews and articles produced by others; both are written by fans who’ve dedicated a good deal of time to both the research and production of the book—propelled by a greater deal of time developing an appreciation of MST3K; and both are the kind of things that die-hard fans will sink their teeth into. One’s just a bit more highbrow than the other.

Dissecting Some Frogs

Analysts have had their go at humor, and I have read some of this interpretative literature, but without being greatly instructed. Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the purely scientific mind.

The idea has been variously ascribed, but it seems that E. B. White and Katharine S. White first put it into print. Whoever said it first, the idea floated through the back of my mind at more than one point while reading this book.

There were repeated explanations of various jokes throughout the book—and not one of them was necessary (if you ask me, anyway). Maybe one or two of them will help younger readers who are not familiar with the pop culture of the 90s or earlier, but I think context alone will take care of the questions a reader will have. And you understand the authors’ impulse to explain them and maybe even admire their attempt while rolling your eyes at the outcome.

Flirting With Semantic Satiation

The term Intertexuality appears so often in this book, that you can imagine Tom Servo and Crow riffing on it. But it’s not like there are a lot of synonyms available, and it’s a real focus of the authors and a strong point of the book. Still, the SOL crews would hammer them on it.

The consideration of how MST3K has trained a couple of generations in approaching intertextuality, media consumption, and responses to them is the intellectual core of this book. The show, in all its various incarnations, has shaped both the viewers and other shows, internet content, and general internet discussion in ways that are larger than the show’s ratings may suggest. The cultural footprint is oversized given viewership (the tapes did keep circulating, at least metaphorically).

I, for one, had given this very little thought until Fry and Olson pointed it out—along with their discussion of MST3K and its spin-off projects being at the forefront of newer delivery systems for media and programming. Given their humble beginnings, it’s really quite remarkable.

So, what did I think about Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History?

I’ve read two other books in this series (and keep meaning to read others), Friends and Gilmore Girls, comparing this to those, I’d say it captures the strengths of both and avoids what I recall as the shortcomings of the Friends volume and the spirit of the Gilmore Girls book. If nothing else, the diversity in these three installments demonstrates a strength of the series. You’re not going to get cookie-cutter approaches to the various series in consideration. Each author/team of authors is going to approach the show in question differently, reflecting the preferences and focus of the authors.

The only shortcoming I can think of (outside the attempted academic explanations of humor) is the lack of space given to Emily’s hosting/riffing style compared to the other hosts. I’m certain that this is a function of how few episodes she has appeared in, but it would’ve been nice to get a little more about her.

I was entertained by the book—both due to the authors’ style and the memories it conjured. I thought about the show and its legacy in ways I hadn’t before. I kicked myself for not taking part in the crowdfunding efforts I didn’t participate in. I was inspired to watch a couple of episodes I’d somehow missed—and just to make time for the show in general. Mostly this was an exercise in getting to know more about old friends, and seeing them in a different light.

I’m a sucker for anything MST3K related, so you know this worked for me. Do I know if you’ll appreciate this book if you’re not a fan or a media studies student? I doubt it’s for you. But if you’re either of those things—you’ll get something out of it.

What do you think, sirs?

Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from Rowman & Littlefield via NetGalley—thanks to both for this.


4 1/2 Stars

This post contains an affiliate link. If you purchase from it, I will get a small commission at no additional cost to you. As always, the opinions expressed are my own.
Irresponsible Reader Pilcrow Icon

Friends: A Cultural History by Jennifer C. Dunn: The One Where I Liked 2/3 of a Book.

Friends A Cultural History

Friends: A Cultural History

by Jennifer C. Dunn
Series: The Cultural History of Television

eARC, 288 pg.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019

Read: November 15-December 3, 2019

Grab a copy from your local indie bookstore!


I’ve only read one other book in this series (Gilmore Girls: A Cultural History), which led to me expecting a few things from this book—most of which I didn’t get (which is both a positive and a negative comment). I’m going to try not to spend too much time comparing the two books because it seems unfair—but it’s inevitable, so . . .

When I requested that Gilmore Girls book on Netgalley, I noticed the publisher had a similar title about Friends available—and who doesn’t like Friends? So, I requested that one, too—really diving into The Cultural History of Television. Granted, Dunn has more episodes to work from, but she does a better job of getting examples from all over the series—using different episodes/lines/characters to make related points rather than grabbing the same episode/line/character over and over and over again. One of the biggest strengths of the book is the depth of examples she musters for almost every point, reading this book is almost like binge-watching the entire series.

She begins with a chapter describing the success of the show, its place in the history of sitcoms—building on what had come before and shaping its successors. Then she moves on to looking at the impact of the show, its characters, and its actors on mainstream American pop culture—I do think she tried to make a little more hay than was warranted with some of the intertextual links she made in this chapter, but it came across as a quirk rather than a flaw. The third chapter discussed the way that the show replaced a biological family for a found family of friends as the core relationships for the characters. I really appreciated this section of the book and it gave me high hopes for the rest.

The third section of the book explores the legacy of Friends on American—and global—pop culture, as seen in fashion, music, memes, the way we talk (e.g., try to tell someone to pivot without invoking Ross trying to get his couch up the stairs), and the actors’ future roles and shows. This part wasn’t as strong as the first part of the book, but it was entertaining and an interesting way to think about the show. Dunn follows that with her list of the best 25 episodes, including an episode synopsis and a few sentences describing why that episode made the list. Fans will quibble over this list (for example, I think she got 15-18 of them right, and I can’t understand why she picked the others)—but I can’t imagine any fan not enjoying reading it.

The thing that makes me reticent to heartily recommend the book is the second section of the book, which includes the chapters: “Friends Happy Not Doing Too Much,” “Friends Happy Not Thinking Too Much,” “Thin, White, Upper-Middle-Class Friends,” and “Stereotypes, Sexuality, and Friend-ly Tensions.” Dunn states that this section “interrogates cultural identities represented on Friends.” There is a lot of interesting material presented in this section—whether you ultimately agree with her analysis or not—and most of it is well-presented. However, it’s a pretty problematic section. First, it assumes the readers will share her Progressive views (or at least hold ones close to hers) and that 2019 Progressive positions ought to provide the basis for evaluating the shows portrayal of characters/issues/themes, rather than the standards of the time the episodes were produced.

I’m not going to get into a point-by-point evaluation of these chapters, that’s not what this post is about, I’m just looking at this broadly. For example, Dunn begins her chapter on the anti-intellectual bent of some of the humor by pointing to the re-election of George W. Bush as president as one bit of evidence to the rise of anti-intellectualism in the era. I’m not sure I see the wisdom in insulting conservatives, Republicans, or moderates who voted for Bush and who enjoy discussions of a beloved sitcom and might be reading the book.

Yes, the writers couldn’t have made many of the jokes they did if the show was being produced now—but I’m not convinced that means they shouldn’t have then. At one point (at least) Dunn does concede that 2019 standards are different from those of that era, but it doesn’t stop her from criticizing aspects of the show for being products of their time. It seemed to me that at any point where she judged the show’s treatment of something in these chapters, she condemned it rather than look for an opportunity to be charitable. Now, there is a certain amount of intellectual stimulation and pleasure to be found in arguing with a book—and my notes indicate that I did a lot of that during these chapters—but at a certain point I started wondering why someone who clearly disapproved of so much of the show would watch it as much as she clearly has. To me, that detracts from the overall experience.

I’m not trying to suggest that Dunn’s criticisms are baseless, or that I disagree with everything she said in this section. I just think she comes across as unexpectedly antagonistic to the show and doesn’t do herself any favors with many of her readers.

It’s annoying that I had to spend that much time attempting to explain my problems with that section—it’s dicey so I tried to do a good job of that, but now that’s taken the majority of my space here. By importance, it should be about 1/3 of what I say about the book (maybe 40%). But to expand my comments on the rest would render this too long to read (and write, honestly).

I had one other stumbling block with the book—but this is more stylistic and is easily forgettable. You’ve probably read or heard the line: “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.” I’ve seen it variously attributed, but E. B. White seems the most likely candidate. It’s a trite observation by now, but mostly because it’s true. Dunn explains too many jokes for little profit—generally, they’re jokes that don’t require an explanation in the first place (especially for fans who know the joke, but I think it’s true regardless) and her explanations frequently border on condescending. White (or Twain or whoever) would probably have been willing to say “Explaining a joke or a meme” had they been aware of the concept. Neither one of these things is a major issue, but it grates on the nerves and makes the experience less positive

Ultimately, while I enjoyed the Gilmore Girls entry more, I think this book makes the series seem more promising and will likely lead me to read more of it. On the whole, this was a very enjoyable read and die-hard fans will easily dive into most of the book and relish the experience. And even on those points, a reader will disagree with her on, they’ll enjoy ransacking their memories for counter-arguments. Really, this is an excuse to think deeply about a favorite show for however long it takes you to read 300 pages, not much wrong with that.


3 Stars
Disclaimer: I received this eARC from Rowman & Littlefield Publishers via NetGalley in exchange for this post — thanks to both for this opportunity.

This post contains an affiliate link. If you purchase from it, I will get a small commission at no additional cost to you. As always, opinions are my own.

Gilmore Girls: A Cultural History by Lara C. Stache and Rachel Davidson: Oy with the Poodles Already

Of course that headline doesn’t say anything about the book, I’ve just never had an excuse to use that line, and this is as close as I’m going to get.

Gilmore Girls: A Cultural HistoryGilmore Girls: A Cultural History

by Lara C. Stache and Rachel D. Davidson

Series:
The Cultural History of Television

eARC, 248 pg.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019
Read: August 16 – 23, 2019

I’m a huge fan of the show Gilmore Girls, and am a bigger fan of Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino. So when I saw this title, I had to jump on it. A cultural history of the show? 200+ pages about the show in more than just a raving-fan mode? Sign me up! The authors are big fans of the show, it must be said, but they can be critical of it, which makes all the difference. This book is an examination of both the show’s reflection of the culture around it as well as what impact it had on the culture—the medium of TV, the casual viewers, and the fans. For a show that depends so heavily on pop culture, the former is easy to demonstrate (it’s more of a question of how to focus the examination and when to stop), but the latter is just as important.

In Part I of the book, the authors look at the various relationships depicted in the show—mothers and daughters; fathers/father-figures and children; romance (with mother/daughter relationships, this is obligatory for the show); and friendship. I thought they were spot-on when it came to mothers and fathers. The romantic relationships they concentrated, and the points they raised about them, were what anyone picking up the book expected (although there was a stronger anti-Logan/pro-Jess bias than one might expect)—I did like the way that Dean and Luke were paralleled, and didn’t appreciate the way that Christopher and Logan were (mostly because I think they were right, and I had to lower my regard for Logan if he’s Rory’s Christopher-equivalent). I thought the looks at Lorelai/Sookie and Rory/Lane and what they said about female friendships was just fantastic.

In Part II the authors switch to themes addressed in the show—feminism, class, pop culture and small-town life. I’ll talk more about the chapter on feminism in a moment, but I thought it was exceptional. The Pop Culture chapter was fun and insightful. I appreciated the Class/Wealth examination, but thought they could’ve done more with it. This is part of the book that you probably can’t find much of in discussions about the show—you can’t swing a LOLcat* online without finding someone talking about Luke and Lorelai or Dean and Rory, but thoughtful takes on the greater cultural themes are rarer (not impossible to find, but harder.) The book doesn’t shine as brightly as it could in this Part, but it handles the subjects deftly.

* I feel like I should apologize to Babette for using this expression.

The chapter examining the show’s depiction of feminism features an extended look at Episode 1.14, “That Damn Donna Reed.” This is at the same time the best and worst part of the book. Let me explain: the authors examine this episode and the main storylines in detail and while reflecting about what those stories say about the feminism of Gilmore Girls and the contemporary American culture (and our contemporary culture). I was entertained and satisfied with the book, but when they hit this high point*—and didn’t accomplish anything like it in following chapters—I was disappointed. If we’d gotten that kind of examination of popular culture and class as shown in particular episodes, I’d have probably rated this book higher. I may have rated it higher if that chapter didn’t have the 1.14 section, too—it just made everything else seem a little more shallow.

* I’m not saying I agreed with all of the analysis, but I appreciated what they did.

Chapter 8, “Small-Town Livin’,” is—like most of this book—a look at the depiction of something and a celebration of it. In this case, it’s Stars Hollow as an ideal small town. We’re shown many examples of the peculiarities of Stars Hollow (taken in every sense of the word)—notably some of the characters, the way the community acts as a large family, how it supports (and doesn’t support) each member, and so on. Then the authors talk about how it represents something in our contemporary culture that many, many feel is missing from our communities and how we yearn for it. I don’t know what it was about this chapter precisely that struck me the way it did—but I didn’t expect it, and the sentiments expressed really resonated with me. Perhaps it’s because the rest of the book focuses (as it should) on Lorelai, Rory, Richard, Emily, Luke, etc., and it’s only here that we focus on everyone else that made this show delightful.

My main complaint is that the authors depend on the same handful of examples too often. Luke did X, or Emily said Y are each trotted out to support 5 or 6 (or a dozen) points rather than finding 5 or 6 (or a dozen) other examples to show the same kind of thing. Luke didn’t just act in a certain manner one time in one episode to cite repeatedly, he does repeated things along certain lines that could be used in a variety of contexts. I don’t want to get bogged down in the details on this, so I’m keeping it vague, but it often felt like I could sing along with Stache and Davidson when they started to illustrate a point with one of the frequently used points. I can understand that it’s easier to keep going back to the same well so that they don’t have to explain the citations as much each time, but it got a bit tired.

There’s an appendix (of sorts) wrapping up this book that is worth the purchase price—”The Episodes: An Opinionated Compendium.” The compendium lists every episode, with a one-paragraph synopses (some are short, some aren’t) and a Best Line (except for in Season 7, which almost doesn’t count for the authors as a real season—like the mythical second and third Matrix movies, the fourth Indiana Jones, or third X-Men). I don’t recommend reading that straight through, you’ll burn out—but it’s a great way to revisit the episodes and refresh your memory. I don’t know the page count on this section, but it’s not inconsequential—it’s 27% of my eARC. Any fan will appreciate this part, even if they’re unimpressed with the main text (and I doubt many fans will be unimpressed with anything in these pages).

This is a fun read, a thought-provoking read, and a comfort-read. It’s like spending a couple of hours talking with some pretty intelligent friends about a TV show you all really like. It’s impossible to watch the show without thinking about it in the terms the authors choose to focus on—relationships, feminism, wealth, community, family—but most fans probably haven’t focused on it to the extent this volume does. I wanted more, but not much more. Not only is this a good book and a good way to examine a beloved show, it’s a great introduction to this series of books. I know I’ll be picking up more of them.

Disclaimer: I received this eARC from Rowman & Littlefield via NetGalley in exchange for this post—thanks to both for this opportunity, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

—–

3.5 Stars

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén