Anna Holmes

You are currently browsing articles tagged Anna Holmes.

The decentralization of media has given us the Kardashians, holy fuck, but it’s also opened up an infinite number of channels for new voices, many of them comic. In the Guardian, Anna Holmes points out that the Internet has provided women a platform for feminist-tinged wit, which is great because comedy stems from dissatisfaction and the must put-upon people are often the funniest. An excerpt:

“This outpouring, which can be found in print, pop culture and all over social media, has been fuelled by any number of things. Among them are the democratising nature of the internet, the inclusion of new and previously marginalised voices and the fact that many women are not only very tired of being treated like second-class citizens but are very funny about it.

This may come as a surprise to some, because feminism and discussions of gender politics have rarely, if ever, been celebrated for their embrace of the farcical or the witty. In fact, an accusation of humourlessness has remained one of the most pervasive accusations levelled against those involved in agitating against sexism and misogyny.

You might recall Christopher Hitchens’s infamous essay ‘Why women aren’t funny,’ published in Vanity Fair. The late polemicist ended up undermining his own argument for male superiority by explaining that ‘humour, if we are to be serious about it, arises from the ineluctable fact that we are all born into a losing struggle.’ And last year, in a disappointing interview with The Daily Show host Jon Stewart, the normally perceptive comedian Louis CK alleged that comedians and feminists are ‘natural enemies.'”

Tags: , , ,

mmmmm

In a world of centralized media, critics were given too much importance. In a time of algorithms, they’ve been reduced. No one waits for the “emperor” to offer a thumbs up or down anymore; the spectators do it themselves. Even TV critics, who’ve rode to new prominence thanks to a wave of popular shows and binge-watching Americans gripping tablets and smartphones, have very little real impact. From a New York Times discussion about literary criticism and Twitter by Adam Kirsch and Anna Holmes, a passage by the former:

“At first glance, it seems that critics, in particular, should relish a tool like Twitter. Criticism is a kind of argument, and Twitter is excellent for arguing back and forth in public. Criticism is also a kind of reportage, and Twitter is an ideal way of breaking news. With many major events, from presidential debates to the Oscars, it is more informative and entertaining to follow them in real time on Twitter than it is to actually watch them. For all these reasons, journalists have been especially avid users of Twitter.

Critics, however, have been surprisingly reluctant to embrace the tweet. Many of the most prominent are not on Twitter at all. Those who are tend to use their feeds for updates on their daily lives, or to share links, or at most to recommend articles or books — that is, they use Twitter in the way everyone else does. What is hard to find on Twitter is any real practice of criticism, anything that resembles the sort of discourse that takes place in an essay or a review.

This absence, like the dog that didn’t bark in Sherlock Holmes, may be an important clue to the true nature of criticism. Never in history has it been easier than it is today to register one’s approval or disapproval of anything. The emblem of our age is the thumbs-up of the ‘like’ button. If criticism is nothing more than a drawn-out version of a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be made obsolete by the retweet or the five-star Amazon review. Cut to the chase, the Internet demands, of critics and everyone else: Should we buy this thing or not?

Tags: ,