After Theory: Literary Criticism and High/Low Culture

Mickey Hess

Ryder Univ.

mhess01@ius.edu

Tramp Sensibility: Camp, “Trash,” and the Afterlife of Showgirls

Nicholas Salvato, Yale University

Tramping is a performative style indebted to the techniques of camp and “trash” but ultimately distinct from and irreducible to either practice. Like camp, tramping is a form of queer parody; and like self-conscious “trash,” it complicates the idea of bad taste. Tramp performance articulates itself in the negotiation of three paradoxes: degraded elevation, constrained freedom, and deceitful truth-telling. This paper analyzes the tramp sensibility as expressed in a few recent off-off-Broadway plays, most notably the comedy, Showgirls. The Best Movie Ever Made. Ever!, and suggests further areas of critical inquiry in the investigation of this complex aesthetic.

By defining tramping with reference to previous critical formulations of camp and “trash,” I seek to explore the continued relevance of high theory (if judiciously applied) to mass and popular culture. Perhaps more importantly, I consider the methods through which a young generation of artists raised on both “theory” and “low culture” negotiate the interplay between the two in their creative work. How can and ought we read a play, for instance, that yokes together Showgirls (arguably one of the worst movies ever made) and the scholarship of Andrea Dworkin? In focusing on such a text (and its performance), I trace the ways in which theory still matters in the interpretation of popular culture—as well as the means by which an analysis of popular culture can offer new insights to critical theorists.

Carnivalesque Literature and Modern Television Satires: How Ridicule Promotes Intellectualism in Young Adults

Jessica Elliott, Indiana University Southeast

In medieval Europe, Roman Catholics held carnivals in the days preceding Lent. These carnivals were a time of public celebration in which all members of society were temporarily equal. During the carnival celebrations, lower classes were not controlled by church or state -- they were free to express and celebrate their own opinions.

Literary theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin, was interested in these medieval carnivals. He saw them as a period of time in which people were able to ridicule their governing bodies. This ridicule promoted both free thinking and new ideas in the minds of the public. Bakhtin then applied this idea to certain forms of literature, calling them carnivalesque. Carnivalesque literature encourages both free thinking and new ideas through humor and ridicule.

This paper will apply Bakhtin’s theory of carnivalesque literature to modern satirical television programs. These programs, such as South Park, use the carnivalesque elements of absurdity, satire, and exaggeration as a means of appealing to young adults who are immersed in popular culture. The carnivalesque elements combined with the sociopolitical content of these shows encourage young adults to develop new ideas toward set societal rules and beliefs. This paper will argue that, by applying Bakhtin’s theory of carnivalesque literature to modern television programs, one can view these programs as a means of promoting intellectualism among America’s young adult population.

Paranoia Strikes Deep:  Why the Government Has Been Out to Get Primetime TV Viewers since 1993

Mike Smith, Daymar College

This paper suggests that like wrestling fans and Trekkies, the paranoid TV viewer represents a distinct subculture that started with the premiere of The X-Files in 1993.  The huge success of that show caused TV producers to capitalize off this paranoia and rip off The X-Files with shows like Nowhere Man, The Burning Zone, The Pretender, and many more.  These shows were all different, of course.  Not all of them revolved around aliens.  Some revolved around viruses, serial killers, and geniuses.  But these shows were all the same, as well, because they all ripped off The X-Files' shadowy government agents chasing after innocent people and that's what this paranoid subculture seems to identify with most.  Not all of these shows survived, however.  Many didn't even make it past an episode or two.  This paper seeks to learn more about this paranoid subculture and its ever-changing attitudes toward X-Files-like TV shows with recent hits like 24.  Why do some shows make the cut while others do not, even though they are all providing this distinct group of viewers with virtually the same programming? They watch almost the same scenes of people being chased by men in black suits and they continue to put up with ridiculous subplots that go on for sometimes years at a time. Why do viewers tolerate such repetitious paranoid presentations, suspending their disbelief, week after week?