Book Review: Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade
While not as all-encompassing as Jared Diamond's Third Chimpanzee or Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene, I must say that this book left a very deep impression on me. As someone who has been interested in the unrecorded prehistory of man for a long time, I found this book to be something of a welcome update of what was started by the two titles I mentioned earlier. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976, The Third Chimpanzee in 1991. Since the mapping of the human genome in 2003, the results of many new studies have been released, shedding light onto what were once murkier areas in the gaps of what we know of the gene's influence on man and man's prehistory respectively. I really recommend this book for anyone interested on the subject.
The first couple of chapters consist of an introduction and then quick summarization of what would be a basic anthropology course. A highly accurate visual system was needed to help judge distances between trees properly and safely make leaps, such that nearly all primates view the world more or less exactly as we do. Opposable thumbs for a good, strong grip on branches and boughs of many sizes and shapes. Bipedal movement allowing a farther, more commanding view, the ability to carry things while moving, and also just a more energy efficient way of getting around when compared to the knuckle walk which was the common mode of movement before.
It is the following chapters, however, where the book really separates itself from the others, and while it does draw on past disciplines like archeology and paleolinguistics -again Third Chimpanzee but also Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel- for some of its historical conclusions, the recent genetic findings are what really distinguish it. An early example, the approximate dating of when humans first began wearing clothes, demonstrates how we can learn what was never before possible, provided we ask the right questions.
Dating the Development of Several Uniquely Human Charateristics
The louse, a parasite which cannot survive more than six to eight hours away from the warmth of a human body, was once confined to the tiny island of hair on the human head for a period of time between when man lost his body hair and began wearing clothing. This advent, it seems, gave rise to the body louse which had adapted its claws specifically to grasp clothing. By comparing either the Y chromosomes on males -which are passed unchanged and directly from fathers to sons- or mitochondrial DNA -passed unchanged from mothers to daughters- geneticists can now to come up with an approximate date for when species split into new branches. In this particular case, DNA from the body louse and the regular louse were both analyzed, showing a split of the two branches about 72,000 years ago, thus giving scientists that approximate date for the adoption of wearing clothes.
There were several other interesting revelations as well. An obvious next question might be to ask about the loss of body hair. A few possible reasons are given as to why it might have happened -the need to sweat to cool down the body, ridding oneself of parasites, preferences in sexual selection- but one thing that might be a little more certain is that darker skin developed from this advent as protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays which destroy folic acid, an essential nutrient. While our forebears' skin was almost certainly pale originally, as it is in chimps, dark skin would have been necessary to survive in the African sun without body hair to protect oneself. The melanocortin receptor gene which regulates skin pigmentation provides the key. By dating the divergence of this gene towards darker skin, an approximate date of 1.2 million years ago seems to be when humans lost most of their body hair.
The original ancestral population of humans who left Africa would've almost certainly had black skin. Paler skin confers an advantage to colder climates because it lets in more sunlight and allows for better synthesis of Vitamin D. It appears to have come about much later, after humans had left Africa and some were living in far colder temperatures to the north which would become even colder during a glacial period 20,000 years ago. The emergence of lighter skin, which occurs in both Asians and Europeans, developed twice, each time independently of the other.
New Data on the Human Diaspora out of Africa
Genetics have also allowed scientists to estimate that the approximate size of the original human population in Africa when some finally began their exodus out of the continent was about only 5,000, and that this occured about 50,000 years ago. From that number all people on this planet have emerged. Unlike previously believed, humans appear not to have taken the northern route out of Africa past Egypt and through the Fretile Crescent, but rather to have gone across the lower portion of the Red Sea which would've been about 100 feet lower at the time. The reason for this, probably would've been that the Fertile Crescent was already inhabited by Neanderthals who would've provided fiercesome competition for the early ancestors of man, and consequently had boxed them in, unable to leave Africa until that point.
Testing the genetics of modern societies shows that people in general have had a tendancy to live, marry and raise children in about the same area, a trend that has continued to this day but was even more pronounced before 100 years ago and the advent of modern transportation. From this data, early man seems to have crossed the Red Sea, then the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula to India, then continued southward on landbridges existing at that time and primitive boats to Australia, populating on the way what are now some the Pacific Islands, the Phillipines, and New Guinea. The Australian Aborigines, New Guinea Highlanders and jungle dwelling Negritos of the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Adaman Islands appear to be the closest relatives of the Khoisan, who themselves represent one of the longest, most ancient branches of DNA amongst humans who stayed in Africa.
The primitive technology of early man was comparable with that of the Neanderthals, and due to that groups larger body size and stronger muscles, they would've made more than a formidable match. But the forebears of modern humans had a capacity for higher intellect, and perhaps coupled with their ability for more advanced language (a subject the book dwells on much more extensively), eventually were able to shape for themselves a more successful package of subsistence, environmental adaptation, weapons, and other artifacts. Thus the long struggle between the two began to turn against the Neanderthals as modern man began to slowly expand his territory, occupying more and more space that once belonged to Neanderthals until their extinction.
The question of whether humankind's early ancestors mixed and interbred with the Neanderthals has long vexed those who study them, but now at last seems to be finally getting put to rest. By extracting and examining a small sample of DNA from a Neanderthal specimen, a team from Munich managed to show that extremely little to no interbreeding occurred between the two species.
Some Final Considerations on Man's Evolution
In light of what new, genetic testing has taught us, the book makes many conclusions along the way to its destination. Of these, the most important is the thought that modern man has continued to evolve on the genetic level even since leaving Africa and all the way up to the present. It has long been generalized that the most important changes occurred before 50,000 years ago, at which point, man became "anatomically modern" and has remained in a state of genetic stasis ever since. This argument proceeded from the idea that man hasn't needed to adapt any further to his environment. But to assume this would be to assume that no other kind of strife plagued mankind up until today, and that no other accustomization was necessary.
The book delves further into the idea that mankind didn't just need to be "anatomically modern" to scale the heights of today, but also "behaviorally modern". In examining this, one has to consider that many aspects to the behavior of man had to be adjusted (the ability to trust others and consequently work with them, give up the individual freedom that a state of nature provides, adjust to sedentary life, etc...) One also has to begin considering how and what genes have an influence on these behaviors. Genes don't just determine physical characteristic like strength, height, skin, hair, and eye color, but also things like susceptibility to diseases, level of aggressive behavior, propensity to lie to others or cheat on one's partner, things some of which have traditionally been more associated with psychology than biology.
That mankind hasn't ceased to evolve on the genetic level might be most evident in the world of difference between how we lived 50,000 years ago and how we live now. How we shall proceed to evolve into the future might just depend on to what extent we are willing or able to harness genetic manipulation to further achieve our goals.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Men and Gods
I remember once being asked why I thought Akira was such a great movie, and while the groundbreaking animation and extreme violence certainly made it an influential film to this day, that all has to take a back seat to the central idea it posed: What if men were actually able to create a god?
I suppose before anything else, one should ask: What is it that makes someone or something a god? A being that doesn't die of old age seems to one criteria, though the word immortal probably addresses this more specifically (and you certainly seem to see a lot of immortals in comics, movies and TV shows making claims of godhood). It would seem that wielding immense amounts of power would be a prerequisite as well, though just what kind of power we're talking about would get called into question. Past kings, pharoahs, and emperors wielded incredible power, and some were considered gods by their subjects, though nowadays most probably would not since that power generally was derived from military might based on wealth or sometimes even just claims of divine right alone. If we're talking about physical power and ability than are strongmen like Arnold Schwarznegger or athletes Barry Bonds gods?
A lot of modern, monotheistic religions seem to pile on the things their gods can do: they are undying, everywhere, everyone, everything, are all-powerful, can see everything before it happens and if they want to, can change whatever they want whenever they want (although they generally, just... don't) and that's why they're the greatest and all the other gods bow down to them. But I think when it comes to the generic, general-use sense of the word, a "god" is best described as a being who lives for an extremely long time, and has incredible powers or abilities (when compared to a normal human being of course). The gods depicted by the ancient Greeks like Apollo, Hermes, and Zeus, readily come to mind as convenient examples but what's strange is that almost every ancient civilization and culture really seems to have had a similar concept of multiple gods championing different, various things (god of love, god of war, god agriculture). The Mesopotamians had Ishtar, the Indians have Shiva and Vishnu, the Japanese had Amataseru, etc... Moreover, different localities and territories used to champion different gods hoping they'd be favored over their neighbors in things like harvests, trade, warfare, and basically every other type of competition they had with those neighbors. Those who were more successful than others (or "favored by the gods" they'd probably put it) were able spread the worship of their gods around, while the gods of those who had smaller harvests, lost at military endeavors, or were simply less successful, fell by the wayside. While all this seems on one hand to lead to a giant "My god can beat up yours" sort of situation, I sometimes wonder what'd it be like if such gods actually existed, lived with their worhipers/subjects and provided leadership for them.
I used to like asking people, "If you were a god, what kind would you be? Would you be the type who was benevolent and generous to their people, or the kind who was vengeful and cruel?" Kind of a fun question, I got a lot of different answers, but thinking on it all again, I have to wonder if it's the addition of a human element that makes it interesting. Is a human that possesses incredible powers and has obtained immortality really a god? Or are they just a human you fear enough to obey and even worship if they're demanding it?
I have to admit, the gods of the ancient Greeks seemed pretty human when it came right down to it. They were constantly changing into animals, running wild enjoying themselves, taking mortal lovers at a whim to satisfy their own lusts (often leaving their baseborn, half-breed children to become lesser gods), and punishing arbitrarily any they felt had insulted them (occasionally raizing whole cities or even kingdoms in the process).
Most religious people would say that gods created men. Non-believers would say that men created gods. But a theological discussion is not what I'm aiming at and so while the latter of these two is most certainly meant figuratively (that men created gods within their own minds and imaginations), I have to wonder what if men, now wielding modern science were literally able to create a god?
The anime "Akira" explored this concept in an interesting way. In this story, scientists attempting to bestow humans with advanced psychic powers, succeeded in doing so, giving several test subjects just that, albeit with varying degrees of success. One of the subjects, a young boy named Akira (in this story, the young it seemed, were able to wield this new ability with much greater ease) attained such a high level of power, that he destroyed Tokyo by accident. Unsure of what exactly happened or if he still existed, but having heard he had great power, small parts of the populice had actually began to worship him as a god, forming cults, and prophesizing that he'd return someday. Although it is all just a story, I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to believe scientists might actually research this, or that if they succeeded, people would react by deifying a test subject for that matter. And though ostensibly the scientists of this story were experimenting with increasing human ability, one can't help but wonder if what is secretly desired by such a thing is the creation of a god. Is man's desire for a real, physical god truly so great that he'd one day seek to actually make one? Perhaps more telling than all of this even, however, is the reality that confronts the scientists of our story when they actually succeed...
If a "god" really is nothing more than a human with incredible powers who commands fear and awe in others and demands obedience and worship, then one should certainly hope that anybody who obtains such power would on some level or another be a "good" and benevolent person. The reality of power such as this, is that anyone who has it could simply do whatever they want.
The newest "god" in Akira was Tetsuo, a troubled, angry adolescent who gains his powers from experimental drugs scientists working for the government give him, and up until about a few days before the story begins, was a member in a violent biker gang. Along with his powers, he also gains a nearly constant splitting headache, a side-effect of the drugs. How's that for a candidate in a new god? He was troubled, angry and a bit violent before, now he has immense power and a constant headache making him more or less always pissed off. The scenes of him running amok, marching on downtown Neo-Tokyo, causing massive destruction and killing countless bystanders while he fights the army single-handed can be a pretty churning experience the first time you see. It also begs the question: Even if the person possessing godlike power genuinely wanted to do good, what's the likelihood that they at some point or another would simply get mad, find themselves in a bad mood, and destroy someone or something in their anger? Perhaps for the the sake of speeding up the plot, Tetsuo suffered from unending migraines and was more or less always ready to snap, but regardless, a being possessing untold amounts of power is not someone you'd want to see the angry side of. Imagine if your ruler was a god who lived amoung you and your fellow subjects in a city, and one day got angry and simply butchered everyone who happened to be in the main city square at the time.
Another work which examined the idea of godhood in an interesting and realistic way was "The Watchmen", specifically through the character of Dr. Manhattan. True to the form of many characters in comics, Dr. Manhattan is the type of person who decides to do everything he can to help out civilization after obtaining god-like powers. He creates a cheap, efficient, easy source of renewable energy, does his best to keep peace, devotes much of his time to further research. Yet, after a time two things become apparent to him. First, that his powers and wisdom have isolated him from other human beings who regard him with a mixture of not only admiration and awe, but also envy and suspicion. Second, that for all the good he's tried to achieve and succeeded at, many people still suffer and others are ungrateful for what they receive after they become used to it. For all his benevolence, the people turn on him at one point with blame and accusation. Unlike Tetsuo, however, Dr. Manhattan flees rather than hurt others, but this leaves humanity to its own devices of war and destruction, particularly as a power vacuum has opened in his absence.
They say being the boss isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are responsibilities and duties to go along with the power. And if godhood implies not only immortality but also leadership, then hmm... What have we gotten ourselves into here? An eternity full of responsibility, listening to endless complaints, and constantly fixing the problems of people who are only human? How tiresome... Perhaps godhood, as well, really wouldn't be all it's cracked up to be either. One has to wonder if that's why the ancient Greek gods took little or no responsibility in running things even in the cities that bore their names, and instead were always out and about enjoying themselves.
Getting back to the question earlier, "What kind of god would you be?", imagine for a second if anyone one of your friends, co-workers, or just anyone you knew suddenly became a god, and what would they do? Would we all suddenly have a stable renewable, energy source, or would the streets be running red with blood? It's been often said that no man was ever meant to have the powers of gods, and perhaps with good reason. In the beginning we'd say that in the wrong hands it could be disasterous. Thinking only a little further we'd have to ask "Exactly whose hands are the right ones at all?" History is littered with cases of kings, emperors, and dictators, all men with too much power, absolutely abusing those they rule. Considering their power all comes from their legions of followers, how scary would a real-life, living god be? A being like that wouldn't even need legions of followers to commit horrible acts, but would still have them anyways because people would fall in line from fear or just a desire to try and curry favor. Throughout the ages and all the way up to the present, people have fought for equal rights for all of mankind. Is a god really what humanity wants at all?
I suppose before anything else, one should ask: What is it that makes someone or something a god? A being that doesn't die of old age seems to one criteria, though the word immortal probably addresses this more specifically (and you certainly seem to see a lot of immortals in comics, movies and TV shows making claims of godhood). It would seem that wielding immense amounts of power would be a prerequisite as well, though just what kind of power we're talking about would get called into question. Past kings, pharoahs, and emperors wielded incredible power, and some were considered gods by their subjects, though nowadays most probably would not since that power generally was derived from military might based on wealth or sometimes even just claims of divine right alone. If we're talking about physical power and ability than are strongmen like Arnold Schwarznegger or athletes Barry Bonds gods?
A lot of modern, monotheistic religions seem to pile on the things their gods can do: they are undying, everywhere, everyone, everything, are all-powerful, can see everything before it happens and if they want to, can change whatever they want whenever they want (although they generally, just... don't) and that's why they're the greatest and all the other gods bow down to them. But I think when it comes to the generic, general-use sense of the word, a "god" is best described as a being who lives for an extremely long time, and has incredible powers or abilities (when compared to a normal human being of course). The gods depicted by the ancient Greeks like Apollo, Hermes, and Zeus, readily come to mind as convenient examples but what's strange is that almost every ancient civilization and culture really seems to have had a similar concept of multiple gods championing different, various things (god of love, god of war, god agriculture). The Mesopotamians had Ishtar, the Indians have Shiva and Vishnu, the Japanese had Amataseru, etc... Moreover, different localities and territories used to champion different gods hoping they'd be favored over their neighbors in things like harvests, trade, warfare, and basically every other type of competition they had with those neighbors. Those who were more successful than others (or "favored by the gods" they'd probably put it) were able spread the worship of their gods around, while the gods of those who had smaller harvests, lost at military endeavors, or were simply less successful, fell by the wayside. While all this seems on one hand to lead to a giant "My god can beat up yours" sort of situation, I sometimes wonder what'd it be like if such gods actually existed, lived with their worhipers/subjects and provided leadership for them.
I used to like asking people, "If you were a god, what kind would you be? Would you be the type who was benevolent and generous to their people, or the kind who was vengeful and cruel?" Kind of a fun question, I got a lot of different answers, but thinking on it all again, I have to wonder if it's the addition of a human element that makes it interesting. Is a human that possesses incredible powers and has obtained immortality really a god? Or are they just a human you fear enough to obey and even worship if they're demanding it?
I have to admit, the gods of the ancient Greeks seemed pretty human when it came right down to it. They were constantly changing into animals, running wild enjoying themselves, taking mortal lovers at a whim to satisfy their own lusts (often leaving their baseborn, half-breed children to become lesser gods), and punishing arbitrarily any they felt had insulted them (occasionally raizing whole cities or even kingdoms in the process).
Most religious people would say that gods created men. Non-believers would say that men created gods. But a theological discussion is not what I'm aiming at and so while the latter of these two is most certainly meant figuratively (that men created gods within their own minds and imaginations), I have to wonder what if men, now wielding modern science were literally able to create a god?
The anime "Akira" explored this concept in an interesting way. In this story, scientists attempting to bestow humans with advanced psychic powers, succeeded in doing so, giving several test subjects just that, albeit with varying degrees of success. One of the subjects, a young boy named Akira (in this story, the young it seemed, were able to wield this new ability with much greater ease) attained such a high level of power, that he destroyed Tokyo by accident. Unsure of what exactly happened or if he still existed, but having heard he had great power, small parts of the populice had actually began to worship him as a god, forming cults, and prophesizing that he'd return someday. Although it is all just a story, I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to believe scientists might actually research this, or that if they succeeded, people would react by deifying a test subject for that matter. And though ostensibly the scientists of this story were experimenting with increasing human ability, one can't help but wonder if what is secretly desired by such a thing is the creation of a god. Is man's desire for a real, physical god truly so great that he'd one day seek to actually make one? Perhaps more telling than all of this even, however, is the reality that confronts the scientists of our story when they actually succeed...
If a "god" really is nothing more than a human with incredible powers who commands fear and awe in others and demands obedience and worship, then one should certainly hope that anybody who obtains such power would on some level or another be a "good" and benevolent person. The reality of power such as this, is that anyone who has it could simply do whatever they want.
The newest "god" in Akira was Tetsuo, a troubled, angry adolescent who gains his powers from experimental drugs scientists working for the government give him, and up until about a few days before the story begins, was a member in a violent biker gang. Along with his powers, he also gains a nearly constant splitting headache, a side-effect of the drugs. How's that for a candidate in a new god? He was troubled, angry and a bit violent before, now he has immense power and a constant headache making him more or less always pissed off. The scenes of him running amok, marching on downtown Neo-Tokyo, causing massive destruction and killing countless bystanders while he fights the army single-handed can be a pretty churning experience the first time you see. It also begs the question: Even if the person possessing godlike power genuinely wanted to do good, what's the likelihood that they at some point or another would simply get mad, find themselves in a bad mood, and destroy someone or something in their anger? Perhaps for the the sake of speeding up the plot, Tetsuo suffered from unending migraines and was more or less always ready to snap, but regardless, a being possessing untold amounts of power is not someone you'd want to see the angry side of. Imagine if your ruler was a god who lived amoung you and your fellow subjects in a city, and one day got angry and simply butchered everyone who happened to be in the main city square at the time.
Another work which examined the idea of godhood in an interesting and realistic way was "The Watchmen", specifically through the character of Dr. Manhattan. True to the form of many characters in comics, Dr. Manhattan is the type of person who decides to do everything he can to help out civilization after obtaining god-like powers. He creates a cheap, efficient, easy source of renewable energy, does his best to keep peace, devotes much of his time to further research. Yet, after a time two things become apparent to him. First, that his powers and wisdom have isolated him from other human beings who regard him with a mixture of not only admiration and awe, but also envy and suspicion. Second, that for all the good he's tried to achieve and succeeded at, many people still suffer and others are ungrateful for what they receive after they become used to it. For all his benevolence, the people turn on him at one point with blame and accusation. Unlike Tetsuo, however, Dr. Manhattan flees rather than hurt others, but this leaves humanity to its own devices of war and destruction, particularly as a power vacuum has opened in his absence.
They say being the boss isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are responsibilities and duties to go along with the power. And if godhood implies not only immortality but also leadership, then hmm... What have we gotten ourselves into here? An eternity full of responsibility, listening to endless complaints, and constantly fixing the problems of people who are only human? How tiresome... Perhaps godhood, as well, really wouldn't be all it's cracked up to be either. One has to wonder if that's why the ancient Greek gods took little or no responsibility in running things even in the cities that bore their names, and instead were always out and about enjoying themselves.
Getting back to the question earlier, "What kind of god would you be?", imagine for a second if anyone one of your friends, co-workers, or just anyone you knew suddenly became a god, and what would they do? Would we all suddenly have a stable renewable, energy source, or would the streets be running red with blood? It's been often said that no man was ever meant to have the powers of gods, and perhaps with good reason. In the beginning we'd say that in the wrong hands it could be disasterous. Thinking only a little further we'd have to ask "Exactly whose hands are the right ones at all?" History is littered with cases of kings, emperors, and dictators, all men with too much power, absolutely abusing those they rule. Considering their power all comes from their legions of followers, how scary would a real-life, living god be? A being like that wouldn't even need legions of followers to commit horrible acts, but would still have them anyways because people would fall in line from fear or just a desire to try and curry favor. Throughout the ages and all the way up to the present, people have fought for equal rights for all of mankind. Is a god really what humanity wants at all?
Friday, November 13, 2009
"Reality" TV
I had a dream once that all of TV had been transformed into a strange version of reality television, every channel was a different person, and you could just turn it on and watch it anytime you wanted to 24/7. It was peoples' source of everything from entertainment and diversion to porn. In left me all in a strange way, and wondering what to make of it. A vision of what the collective secret desires of society as a whole could be at times, with its most honestly voyeuristic confessions granted. To surf through channels was to pick a random stranger and watch them. Some people were very popular and had many people watching them, others probably none at all. But it was all there if you wanted to see it, anyone else's life at the click of a button. Like all dreams there were gaps in the logic of it all. The idea of strangers watching them did not leave anyone unsettled, frightened, or trying to hide from it all.
Back when I was still going to State and studying communications, I took a class on the history of radio and television. I remember one of the teachers I had back then told our class that reality TV was the result of a writers' strike that made producers begin to consider alternative programming that wouldn't require scripts. While reality TV has certainly been around in some form or another for much longer than this actual event, I do believe it was a writers' strike that caused the real boom in reality TV in the sort of form we most commonly see it now.
Just where I stand exactly on reality TV is tough to say. I watch it very rarely, but in the end, I guess I am still watching it. On the one hand it often serves its purpose as a diversion. It can even be entertaining and sometimes even instructive, actually teaching its audience new things or making them aware. Usually, however, it's hard for me to look at it as anything other than the epitome of popped, disposable entertainment at best, the opium of the masses at worst. Too often it feels like, well, turning on the TV and watching a random stranger no different than in the dream I had.
Have the television producers won? I honestly haven't got a clue what those writers were striking over, but as a generally over worked, underpaid group of artists who have to endlessly come up with stories and characters and scenarios to try touch our hearts and minds, I have a hard time not siding with writers over producers who tend to see the whole thing as more of a means to make money.
No one ever seems to doubt that the invention of the television has enriched our lives. With it we don't just see how tomorrow's weather will be, find out if our favorite team won, or what's happening in remote parts of the world but still affect us. Through programming we learn what it is like to have a brother or sister even if we don't, to be in love before we ever are, to experience death and loss before we ever do. While I won't argue that the scripting on many TV shows doesn't get stale after a while, when I look at unscripted programming like what I see on reality TV shows, it's sometimes hard for me not to think: "They would kill off the writers altogether if they ceased to be profitable, while they simply dream up situations to put real people in rather than write up the dialogue themselves..." Who wouldn't argue that it is not only much cheaper to bypass hiring a writer but also easier to simply let the cameras roll on some ordinary people and record them unscripted?
I wouldn't claim that the unscripted aspect of it all doesn't offer an otherwise unavailable opportunity to young and just-starting-out filmmakers in the form of the documentary. The documentary often stands at the height of what realism has been captured on film. It is a form which seeks to analyze what it takes in, to record it for genuine understanding and reflection. Some reality TV shows, such as "The Real World" has certainly done its homework when it comes to this aspect, and as such has tried its hardest to model itself after the documentary, even if its subject (in this case, young, uninitiated kids just barely old enough to even live alone basically) doesn't in actuality have a whole lot to teach us.
While even dull documentaries are plagued by shallow subjects, what's outright annoying is just how engineered the "drama" in "Reality" shows actually is. We decry movie writers for coming up with contrived situations, we would call foul on a documentarian who tries purposely to influence what they record just to make things interesting rather than observe it naturally, and yet we basically let reality TV get away with exactly this all the time. Part of the ability of reality shows to achieve any kind of an engaging narrative out of hours and hours of raw footage comes from editing. It isn't just an art of piecing together crucial and important moments and adding appropriate music. If one of the people filmed never manages to say anything truly offensive or edgy while drunk if not sober, it can always be edited it in such a way as to make it seem so, in essence "caricaturing" the person for the audience.
Very loud, quick to anger, overt, people are casted purposely because they make for memorable personalities, even if we wouldn't ever wanna talk to someone like them in real life. I often wonder though, just how much the "characters" on reality shows are actually encouraged to confront or fight one another or confess their attractions just for the viewing audiences' entertainment. Generally in real life we tend to keep things bottled up inside rather than say things we can't take back, and the whole thing also seems to get heightened even more by having bystanders (if not other cast members then at the least rolling cameras and camera men) present at all times to witness what would otherwise take place privately behind closed doors. People tend to get much more emotional when they know they're being watched. People often feel like they're being ridiculed or are losing face if they become embarrassed in front of others. In fact, people pretty much stop acting the way they really are the moment you put a camera in front of them which in itself seems to defeat the whole purpose of calling it "Reality" TV. They have a tendency to try and be amusing or charming or lively even when there's nothing really going on, nothing worth saying, until you just basically wanna tell them to shut up.
Perhaps most agitating of all are some of the "stars" to be born of this whole medium. I'm not gonna try and disguise this one at all. I honestly can't stand the idea of society having celebrities purely for the sake of having celebrities. So often people like these have no real, discernable talent at all whatsoever, and yet they rise. They achieve fame as result of notoriety, luck, advertising dollars, and I'm sad to say, the public's lurid desire to see more. And far too often it is from the crucible of reality TV that impurities such as these rise to the surface to be first glimpsed by the public. I don't know how many times or with how many people I've collectively wondered exactly why Paris Hilton is a "star" or "celebrity" or whatever else you'd call her (the word "celebutante" was at one point floated around to describe the ones likes her but it never seemed to catch on). Too often the general consensus was that she basically screwed on camera and that gave her her big break. Regardless of wether she meant for it to get out to the public or not, it's hard not to argue that it was the best thing which could've possibly happened for her career. More troubling, however, is the thought that by doing this, she may in a way have just been giving the public what they wanted. To stare and gawk and talk badly about the whole thing while secretly wanting more.
Sometimes I wonder if they really have won. Nobody has any interest in what's going on in the world, the politicians run wild while we're all distracted, bad things happen, we don't pay attention, we get lied to and cheated, and all the while we're just more concerned about the next episode of American Idol than any of that. The public is completely hooked and has an insatiable appetite for what has become the new opiate of the masses, and it's even cheaper and easier to produce than something that actually requires writing and imagination. They say there is truth in dreams but the logic is missing, and I now begin to wonder how different we are from those in the dream I had. Perhaps we are all just luridly obsessed with watching and people like Paris Hilton are just indulging us, giving us what we want without having to channel surf till we can find other people acting shallow, crazy or bitchy or having sex just so we can watch them. When we're not doing that, we are just watching total strangers, and in a way, the producers just selling us our own lives back to ourselves and we're actually paying them to carry a camera around and follow people so we can watch...
Back when I was still going to State and studying communications, I took a class on the history of radio and television. I remember one of the teachers I had back then told our class that reality TV was the result of a writers' strike that made producers begin to consider alternative programming that wouldn't require scripts. While reality TV has certainly been around in some form or another for much longer than this actual event, I do believe it was a writers' strike that caused the real boom in reality TV in the sort of form we most commonly see it now.
Just where I stand exactly on reality TV is tough to say. I watch it very rarely, but in the end, I guess I am still watching it. On the one hand it often serves its purpose as a diversion. It can even be entertaining and sometimes even instructive, actually teaching its audience new things or making them aware. Usually, however, it's hard for me to look at it as anything other than the epitome of popped, disposable entertainment at best, the opium of the masses at worst. Too often it feels like, well, turning on the TV and watching a random stranger no different than in the dream I had.
Have the television producers won? I honestly haven't got a clue what those writers were striking over, but as a generally over worked, underpaid group of artists who have to endlessly come up with stories and characters and scenarios to try touch our hearts and minds, I have a hard time not siding with writers over producers who tend to see the whole thing as more of a means to make money.
No one ever seems to doubt that the invention of the television has enriched our lives. With it we don't just see how tomorrow's weather will be, find out if our favorite team won, or what's happening in remote parts of the world but still affect us. Through programming we learn what it is like to have a brother or sister even if we don't, to be in love before we ever are, to experience death and loss before we ever do. While I won't argue that the scripting on many TV shows doesn't get stale after a while, when I look at unscripted programming like what I see on reality TV shows, it's sometimes hard for me not to think: "They would kill off the writers altogether if they ceased to be profitable, while they simply dream up situations to put real people in rather than write up the dialogue themselves..." Who wouldn't argue that it is not only much cheaper to bypass hiring a writer but also easier to simply let the cameras roll on some ordinary people and record them unscripted?
I wouldn't claim that the unscripted aspect of it all doesn't offer an otherwise unavailable opportunity to young and just-starting-out filmmakers in the form of the documentary. The documentary often stands at the height of what realism has been captured on film. It is a form which seeks to analyze what it takes in, to record it for genuine understanding and reflection. Some reality TV shows, such as "The Real World" has certainly done its homework when it comes to this aspect, and as such has tried its hardest to model itself after the documentary, even if its subject (in this case, young, uninitiated kids just barely old enough to even live alone basically) doesn't in actuality have a whole lot to teach us.
While even dull documentaries are plagued by shallow subjects, what's outright annoying is just how engineered the "drama" in "Reality" shows actually is. We decry movie writers for coming up with contrived situations, we would call foul on a documentarian who tries purposely to influence what they record just to make things interesting rather than observe it naturally, and yet we basically let reality TV get away with exactly this all the time. Part of the ability of reality shows to achieve any kind of an engaging narrative out of hours and hours of raw footage comes from editing. It isn't just an art of piecing together crucial and important moments and adding appropriate music. If one of the people filmed never manages to say anything truly offensive or edgy while drunk if not sober, it can always be edited it in such a way as to make it seem so, in essence "caricaturing" the person for the audience.
Very loud, quick to anger, overt, people are casted purposely because they make for memorable personalities, even if we wouldn't ever wanna talk to someone like them in real life. I often wonder though, just how much the "characters" on reality shows are actually encouraged to confront or fight one another or confess their attractions just for the viewing audiences' entertainment. Generally in real life we tend to keep things bottled up inside rather than say things we can't take back, and the whole thing also seems to get heightened even more by having bystanders (if not other cast members then at the least rolling cameras and camera men) present at all times to witness what would otherwise take place privately behind closed doors. People tend to get much more emotional when they know they're being watched. People often feel like they're being ridiculed or are losing face if they become embarrassed in front of others. In fact, people pretty much stop acting the way they really are the moment you put a camera in front of them which in itself seems to defeat the whole purpose of calling it "Reality" TV. They have a tendency to try and be amusing or charming or lively even when there's nothing really going on, nothing worth saying, until you just basically wanna tell them to shut up.
Perhaps most agitating of all are some of the "stars" to be born of this whole medium. I'm not gonna try and disguise this one at all. I honestly can't stand the idea of society having celebrities purely for the sake of having celebrities. So often people like these have no real, discernable talent at all whatsoever, and yet they rise. They achieve fame as result of notoriety, luck, advertising dollars, and I'm sad to say, the public's lurid desire to see more. And far too often it is from the crucible of reality TV that impurities such as these rise to the surface to be first glimpsed by the public. I don't know how many times or with how many people I've collectively wondered exactly why Paris Hilton is a "star" or "celebrity" or whatever else you'd call her (the word "celebutante" was at one point floated around to describe the ones likes her but it never seemed to catch on). Too often the general consensus was that she basically screwed on camera and that gave her her big break. Regardless of wether she meant for it to get out to the public or not, it's hard not to argue that it was the best thing which could've possibly happened for her career. More troubling, however, is the thought that by doing this, she may in a way have just been giving the public what they wanted. To stare and gawk and talk badly about the whole thing while secretly wanting more.
Sometimes I wonder if they really have won. Nobody has any interest in what's going on in the world, the politicians run wild while we're all distracted, bad things happen, we don't pay attention, we get lied to and cheated, and all the while we're just more concerned about the next episode of American Idol than any of that. The public is completely hooked and has an insatiable appetite for what has become the new opiate of the masses, and it's even cheaper and easier to produce than something that actually requires writing and imagination. They say there is truth in dreams but the logic is missing, and I now begin to wonder how different we are from those in the dream I had. Perhaps we are all just luridly obsessed with watching and people like Paris Hilton are just indulging us, giving us what we want without having to channel surf till we can find other people acting shallow, crazy or bitchy or having sex just so we can watch them. When we're not doing that, we are just watching total strangers, and in a way, the producers just selling us our own lives back to ourselves and we're actually paying them to carry a camera around and follow people so we can watch...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)