Susan Boyle

I also typically enver get caught up in these sort of "viral sensations" but this one really did live up to the hype. Truly a wonderful little moment. I remember yesterday walking around the office and hearing this constantly on peoples' computers.

Her composure even before the song began, when everyone was snickering at her was inspiring.  She said she'd never been given the chance before, in response to being asked why she hadn't yet realized her dream of becoming a professional singer.  It seemed that with every note that she sang, it towered over all the obstacles and societal limitations that had ever been placed in her way.

I loved it when she just walked off after her song as if she was thinking "I've shown you and I don't need to stay around so you can pass judgment on me". Of course, she wasn't thinking that but wouldn't it have been great if she hadn't turned around and just walked off the stage.

Call me cynical but I feel she's being used.

It's funny, I read the article that Mycroft linked to above, and from the description of the woman, I thought when I watched the video that she was going to be absolutely ogrish, like, really out-of-the-ordinary ugly.  And then I saw the video.  I mean, she's kind of plain (by conventional standards - I'm not a big believer in those), but she's not horribly ugly or anything! 

In fact, from the interview beforehand, she seems quite charming and funny.  I'd say that most people aren't all that great looking, but it's their personality lighting up their features that make them attractive.  Which is why so many people aren't "photogenic", or feel like they look way worse in pictures than they do in real life.  Because in real life, your personality is mitigating your visual flaws, or perhaps even highlighting them in a way that makes them attractive.

I've been with guys before who, when people asked me if they were "hot" or "good-looking", I hesitate.  Because if you just go by looks completely, most of them have been kind of average (although a few have been quite nice looking by society's standards), and one or two have been downright plain.  And yet, I thought they were all the most beautiful people when I was with them, and loved their looks because of their facial expressions, their mannerisms, their laughter, etc.  And I don't mean that I liked them in spite of their looks - I mean that I felt as attracted to their looks as I would had they had model looks, and felt good whenever I looked at them because they were THEM.  So my hesitation would come in because I would think the guy was absolutely lovely, but I knew that without knowing the guy, others might just sort of shrug and think he was plain.

People are beautiful.  Interesting how, the older I get, the less I get asked that sort of question when talking about someone I'm seeing.  I used to get that question all the time when I was in my 20's and the subject of boyfriends or spouses came up.  I think as people get older, though, the "model" type of good looks becomes much less important.  If anything, I find that people in my life generally think about other people's looks, if they're in the judging mood at all, in terms of whether the person is making the most of what they've got, as opposed to whether they've got model looks to begin with.

I also often wonder whether my feelings about this would be different if I were conventionally gorgeous or had "model looks".  Sometimes I think it's a blessing in disguise to be ordinary or plain, because as you grow to accept yourself and even see some beauty in yourself, I think you see beauty in others who are not conventionally beautiful.  And life is so much more pleasant when you can see beauty in all the people around you, as opposed to feeling like everyone is ugly or plain. :)

I think this Susan Boyle thing is a sad commentary on our society.  It constantly amazes me how, even in this day and age where it is commonplace for women to be out in the workforce and many are working alongside men doing the same jobs, that this blatantly sexist drivel continues.  For goodness sake, she is a good singer; but these talent shows are full of good singers!!  Is Susan Boyle an exceptionally good singer or is all the hype really about a less than conventionally attractive woman having a singing voice that could realistically land her a recording contract, world tour and/or long career on British Broadway?  I suspect the latter, hence my disgust at our so-called educated society continuing to treat people like Ms Boyle as though they were circus freaks-- but neither am I a musical expert so I may be missing something here?   

I agree with you overall unionist. This episode did not warm my heart or anything like that. I found her voice grating and the worldwide amazement that someone who is supposedly "ugly" can carry a tune very revealing.

Your human rights proposal might cause problems for modelling agencies, strip clubs, escort services and Hooters when trying to hire - would it not?

Hopefully, yes, it would.

But no more than the already existing (but unenforced) prohibitions on age discrimination.

Guaranteed-- but only if she doesn't get that makeover she's apparently considering.  It's too bad we will not see the same woman on her next appearance   And, I went back and watched both performances on You Tube-- and now firmly believe that a latter-day Andrew Lloyd Webber or even Lord Andy himself, will be calling Susan very soon.  She is a wonderful singer!!  You Go, Girl!!   

I sang in choirs when I was younger, and met a few folks along the way with considerable vocal ability and talent whose entire careers were spent in local groups (usually church related).  They did it, in part, for the enjoyment of their community but mostly because they felt a need to sing.  I allowed them to say things they could not articulate any other way.

I expect that whatever training Susan Boyle has had over the years came from a similar experience. It is clear that she is a shy person when speaking, and uncertain of how to respond.  She was so petrified she had to grope for the word "villages" while being questioned by Simon What's-it. 

I pity those who listened to her and were unable to hear what she expressed.  The piece she performed is a lament for dreams unrealized by someone whom fate has scorned.  It was sung by someone whose whole heart was in its expression and who understood its meaning in ways that are more fundamental than mere analysis. I expect that there is no point in discussng this with anyone who would describe Ms. Boyle's performance or her voice as grating. You are deaf in ways you cannot imagine.

I hate these stupid shows for reasons others have already articulated.  I am glad, however, that Susan Boyle saw this spectacle as a chance to be heard and risked ridicule and contempt to get in front of the cameras.  Of course she is being used; the system uses us all. But every so often the bastards end up having their smugness thrown back in their faces.  This is one of those times and I am grateful to her for that almost as much as for the extraordinary gift of her singing.

I am not sure why it is so surprising given the last internet sensation from this very same show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k08yxu57NA

Is the man humourless in addition to being rude? Tune in next week for the answer.

To follow up to Makwa's point...there seems to be a divide between those singers (or actors or whatever) categorized as 'stars" versus those who are "talented". I mean, look at opera, the very originator of the idea of "fat lady sings...". Luciano Pavorati wasn't much to look at but is revered as an insaely talented singer in a way that some boy band singer never will be. You get the same with actors and actresses. Philip Seymour Hoffman is well regarded as a terific actor but he's unlikely to get "leading man" roles that will go to people with half his talent but who are more handsome.

For those who are being critical of her singing abilities it is worth noting that she is an amateur who is singing live not only in front of an audience that is much larger than I would imagine she has ever faced but also in front of Cameras for a National television show.This would be daunting even for a professional. Most singing that we tend to hear is not live and professionals have had the training coaching and experience that is necessary to shape talent. There are also a number of voice modulating technologies that are utilized by many pro's usually those with weaker voices but even those with amazing voices depend on getting the right mix, effects etc that highligts there voice, someone coming on a show like this is not going to have that luxurey.

Having said that I find her voice gorgeous powerful and deeply soulful even though I'm not a fan of show tunes. I don't get the grating comments but I suppose taste is taste. Personally I don't find a powerful and evocative expression of the human soul as ever being grating.

I'm also not (for a change) being overly cynical in terms of peoples response (beyond the idiot judges) to this song, I think many people were genuinely moved not only by her powerful voice but also by her pluck. I agree with Michelle I was found her charming and endearing before she ever sang. I also like Makway believe that people long for genuine authentic creative expressions from the heart and it is rare in the mediated manipulated culture to experience that so when we do we are genuinely moved.

I don't think anyone is really crititiquing the technical aspects of her singing, which is obviously first rate. I didn't actually find in remarkable in terms of its delivery, but rather to be standard fair for people who have trained that kind of voice for themself.  I personally preferred the torch arrangement in her earlier recorded preformance to the televised one, it had way more charchater. Even then it's rock solid. But, as in the Stanley Cup playoff's, as solid performance is always safer than a flashy one, so I can see why she used the stock delivery in televised piece.

Wow. very revealing debate. Bookish Agrarian introduced us to the previous winner above, and its good that he did because we can see the that the trope is repeated, complete with the point where the smirking derrision of the judges is overcome in the miraculous moment of "discovery". I am sure the show also takes care to make sure that there are enough "wannabes" and embarrassed blooper clowns to make fun of in order to make the diamond in the rough Cinderella theme believable, as well was entertaining.

Fact is that Susan Boyle doesn't have a chance, and never had a chance and is only useful in as much as she plays to the set up trope of the show, and it definitely is a set up and a trope, and Susan, and her B+/A- rock solid but not too adventurous MOR singing voice is only useful in as much as it plays to the trope, and the chimera of rags to riches super stardom, which is regularly doled out by the corporates media as an example to others that "anything is possible," even when we are talking about frumpy middle aged women from Scotland.

Keep on dreaming folks!

That said I like Susan and if she can get some headway here for herself against the tide of corporate class warfare in the UK and some respect, all the more power to her. That personal achievement should not be underated.

My ex-Scotish, Celtics fan, ex-gf, once made the comment in reference to one of my relatives that the "empire was founded on old battleaxes like that". This episode reminded me of that for some reason: Respect.

Back in the day, when pre-packaged music was not delivered up in every possible nook and cranny of our society from elevators to bars, people had every reason and opportunity to hone their talents, and many did so. Not so long ago music was indeed the domain of the ordinary person, and it only became commodified with the advent of radio and TV, which has literally drowned out the voice of the ordinary man or woman, and even the institution of the "local" band, and replaced the local pub hero with an easily commodifiable star system, where the "talent" is centralized and commodifiable.

It is even a material fact, enforced by the way music is disseminated: All other voices simply can not be heard above the cacophany eminating from every possible electronic conduit availalble.

The music industry is predicated upon controlling the media in such a way that corporations can control the "talent'. In order to do so it limits the access to choice in the market place by forwarding "talent A" over "talent B". By eliminating "talent B" from the market place by not allowing it access to the radio, or to distribution in stores, or to promotion on television, the consumer is not aware even of the existance of "talent B". Profit is about strategically positioning the company so that it controls the market, and offering limited choice for selection.

In fact, the whole show is premised on the "suprise" and "shock" caused by the idea that such "talent B" could even be possible in the form of a frumpy middle aged villager from Scotland, outside of the label system. That is how succesful the industry has been at positioning itself as the arbiter of taste through controlling the market. No one would have been shocked or suprised 100 years ago at the appearance of a voice enabled middle aged Scotish villager. They would, indeed, expect such a person.

 "Contracts" essentially guarantee nothing in terms of promotion or payment, but instead offer a "partnership" model where the label is lending the money to the artist predicated on the basic principle that all costs incurred in the production, distribution and marketing of the product will be recouped against the future profits of the CD. This is a very convenient arrangement since essentially other than covering the costs of inhouse production facilities, and salaries of a few people the label actually invests nothing, while at the same time assessing the value of those services way above the actual costs incurred by the label.

It is not as if the A&R people just throw up all the sticks in the air and say: "pick what you want!". No they select talent, and then the marketing department then exclude as many competing options as possible. It is even a known practice to deliberately sign artists that are competative in a particular market precisely for the purpose of gaining the rights to an artist work so that their work can be controlled and then submerged in the market simply by not promoting the product, something which essentially costs the label nothing since they invested nothing other than the basic cost of making a recording. This is done in order to preference the work of artists established in a particular genre which the label also controls, by promoting one and not the other.

Susan Boyle does not have a chance of being a succesful music star, except, as I pointed out, as she plays to the set up trope of the  Cinderella routine. She might be able to get some milage out of that I suppose, but the music industry is not interested in Susan Boyles voice, they are interested in controlling it.

She was tartly dismissed even, when the third judge instructed her that: "you can go back to the village with your head held high".

I suppose that deserves some analysis in terms of how class relationships are overtly expressed in Britain as opposed to the US and Canada where the myth that class doesn't really exist in the realm of the social is more essential to the ruling ideology.

Thanks for answering Cueball. I'm more clear on what you are saying now.

To my chagrin, I realize that my contribution is not even remotely feminist in thought.  Oopsy, sorry.  Just wondering, why couldn't Ms. Boyle find some cross-over success like Rita MacNeil?  Every singer doesn't have to be young and conventionally attractive.

There are an incredible amount of untalented people who go on these glorified talent shows  to make nothing but a mockery of the program. Good on them, but I think it is rediculous for folks here to criticize the judges or audience for being apprehensive about Ms. Boyle or her ass wiggling episode before her audition.  Talented she was, and good on her to take the step that may offer her a more prosperous futures.

 Cueball. So what? Take away the contrived editing, the 'story' that was created for the 'showbiz' aspect of that segmant and you still have Ms. Boyle getting up on that stage in front of millions of people and singing her heart out because despite it all that's what she wanted to do and she was good. Really good.  That's what many are responding too. With all of the numbers of people who are now viewing that segmant around the world due to the wonders of the nets I don't expect that the majority have even, will even watch the whole show or really care much about the show. People aren't responding to the whole thing in the context of the show but to the single performance and if the commentary that follows those viewings is any indication, for a myriad of different reasons. The biggest conclusion it seems is that people want to hear her sing more whether it's on the show or somewhere else because for whatever reasons her actual singing touched them.

I'm not sure about last years winner. I didn't see it. The year before that's winner, awkward car phone sales guy who had the crazy desire to sing opera,  won and went on to have a pretty decent career doing what he wanted to do and is still doing it, with success, two years later. He's sold over two million records world wide, tours in some pretty major venues (for Opera) , has won some pretty major awards just this year and his first record was ranked the number four classical record in the world. Mainly though, he gets to sing and people like to listen to him sing. Why is that such a bad thing? Sure he's not going to change the world, or provide some sort of profound statement on the state of society and the 'showbiz' industry but why does he have too. He just wants to sing because he loves it.  I don't think you can base his success and people wanting to listen to him only on the fact that he played under dog guy on some two bit talent show two years ago. One of my relatives got his album last year, loves it and until yesterday didn't have a clue that he even was on that show. They just heard him somewhere, liked it and got it.  My husband, who likes Opera for some reason, after viewing some youtube videos yesterday when I discovered them after looking at Boyle, loved him and now has his album on his B-day wish list. He could care less about the stupid show. He just likes what he heard.

Back to the OP and the whole question of Susan Boyle story. Since I read about it hear before I ever watched it I couldn't get a full honest reaction myself to what I saw. I knew when she walked out on stage that she was going to do well and wasn't one of those people that they put into shows like this for the audience to mock and cringe at in the OMG that's painful way.  Even so I was still surprised when she opened her mouth. I liked her singing and it did move me, beyond just, wow decent singer who can carry a tune. 

So anyways I tried my own experiment with two people who hadn't heard of Boyle or the story.  When they got home I had the Cry Me a River song just playing in the background without comment. They both like that music and both commented on that song and asked who it was because they really liked it. I said I wasn't sure it was just some random music I found on the nets. They then tried to figure out who it was and went through a bunch of well known singers but couldn't place it.  Then about ten minutes later I loaded up the Susan Boyle segmant and said with a big grin, "Oh hey you gotta check this out."   Well they both laughed when they saw her, one raised a eyebrow and the wiggle brought some rolling of the eyes. Before she started singing, one did say "Is she any good, cause I can't watch these shows that purposely put people on to embarass them. I hate them."  I just shrugged. Then she started singing and both were floored. "Holy shyte that's amazing," was one comment and then just a bunch of smiles and grins and really when it came down to it they just enjoyed it and enjoyed her singing.  After it was over I filled them in on some of the background and more smiles and grins. Really it just made them happy.   I did say, 'well look both of you laughed and giggled and acted much like the people on the show did."  One was a little embarassed and the other said 'yeah, but that's what a lot of these shows do on purpose and it stinks but it's hard not to think that way. That's one of the reasons I hate watching these type of shows because I hate thinking like that. It makes me feel horrible."  We talked some more about manipulation of the medium, shows like this and what they do, about looks and perception verses talent, ageism and a whole bunch of other things similar to some of peoples comments here.  It's not that they were mistaken on how it all works or didn't get what was going on, or that in the background there was production manipulation or any of that.  They just really liked Susan Boyle, connected with her when she was singing, despite all of the background noise and crap and were glad that someone like her, who normally wouldn't have a chance because she doesn't 'fit' with mainstream music norm,  to get up on stage because they liked and really enjoyed hearing HER sing, so much so that they played the song part over three times.

After all that I told them that the song I was playing when they got home was actually her ten years ago. More surprise, but happy surprise. That's great. I'm glad she's getting a chance. If she continues to sing like that I hope she does more. I hope the music people don't screw her up too much because I really liked it.

I think that meta type analysis has it's place. I think that talking about 'why' is important. I think that a certain level of cynisim is warrented in this media contrived age but I also think that sometimes despite it all it really is just about heart, passion and singing and people responding to that, despite the venue that they hear it from.

Maybe you should speak for yourself Unionist.  Are you connected to the minds of all adults and youth who are or have at one time been in that situation?  I don't think so but yes I get it, you just know somehow. If her example doesn't speak to you fair enough but you don't speak for everyone. 

The message to me is that some people can hear things that others can't, or won't.  Strip away the TV program and the personalities of the hosts and audience in all it's ugliness, and just listen to the voice and the message contained within the choice of the song.  Emphasising appearance in the debate just plays into what everyone else is discussing, which shows were we are really at with it, not far removed from what we are condemning.

Some people just refuse to see the forest for the trees.  Yep it is all contrived clap trap.  But Ms Boyle is real.  That's what people are responding to.  In a world of fakery, a real person was able to shove her foot in the door and flip them all the bird.  Good for her, and the rest of us get to imagine for a moment we had her courage to try to do it too.

I think that the attention given to Ms Boyle is a sign that our capitalist societies are on the verge of realizing that things in general are broken. With currently existing capitalism, usually only the best of the best are rewarded for their talents. And then those elite groups of people are paid ridiculous amounts of money and tends to reflect the overall elitist structure of our socieities.

And the tiny few who do manage to enter into professional entertainer stardom, good looks also tend to be a factor. Economist Richard Florida appeared on CBC's The Hour a week or two ago. And he talked about how some of the largest cities in the USA  "get it" while the flyover states don' seem to get it. He says major change is needed, and that we should nurture a creative class of people. Perhaps in a more modern and progressive economy, talented people like Ms Boyle will be encouraged a lot moreso than now.

Some of you might recognize the source, but it is from here.

I don't think anyone is missing that point. Some people can see that the forest is made up of trees. What you seem to be missing is that raising objections to media manipulation, classism, or deconstructing the social relations surrounding the show itself, is not necessarily an objection to what you are saying. It is as if you are insisting that the only thing that is relevant is Ms. Boyles temerity to stand up for herself, and that any wider discussion is some kind of insult to that, and we should all shut up therefore. If you had bothered to read what I wrote, for example, my postings fully acknowledged her personal achievment, as when I said:

You are just picking a fight for some reason only known to yourself. At one point I considered taking up the issue of the John Lydon case, and the discovery that even a grass roots reaction against corporatization of music, one that directly challenges it, can be commodified. Punk is the perfect example. I laugh every time Henry Rollins tells everyone to "turn off your TV's now!" on national televisions -- its makes for great TV.

Very observant. One notes the same emotional reaction throughout this thread. I think it shows the power of the manipulation which took place. Once the paradigm is posed: "You're either for Susan Boyle or you're against her", the manipulators get off scot free.

Remember the racist expression, "a credit to his/her race"? In the over-the-top praise and defiant defence of Ms. Boyle, there may be more than a touch of condescension.

There is a social issue, and it needs to be addressed. Let discrimination and harassment on the basis of personal appearance be ostracized, socially and legally, the way it is for other prohibited grounds that the person cannot control (race, sex, colour, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, etc.). That is a cause worth fighting for. Not any individual.

Oh, I have my theory on that. It's akin to the impoverished nice selfless working-class senior who buys a lottery ticket and wins. "Good for her!", we all say, or feel! It's not a deep emotion, nor necessarily a very worthy one. It salves the conscience. It leaves the defective world as is, but hails the exception which proves the rule (as Tanya Gold aptly said).

So much for feminist analysis, so far it is just a bunch of men getting their feelings hurt and a critique of the music industries exploitive nature. :rolleyes:

Ms Boyle, is at a stage in her life where women are completely devalued. For her to take this step and expose herself to the world at large, is a significant role model action for middle aged women who want to pursue their dreams still,  in the face of patriarchial society wanting them to be invisible. It will dispense courage and confidence to other middle aged women, and apparently,  from what I can gather from some of the male voices in this thread, it bothers them, though perhaps on a subconscious level.

I don't think anyone is taking issue with that.

The criticism has to do with the reactions and presumptions involved in those reactions. Why should surprise be other than a shameful confession of prejudice against people like Ms. Boyle? So many seem elated and euphoric to express surprise, and it really shouldn't come as a shock that a middle-aged working-class woman like Ms. Boyle could have talent.

My reaction was mostly anger and sadness at the crowd. I was very impressed with Ms. Boyle, although I really didn't find it surprising. I wasn't just impressed with her talent, but also her stoicism - how could she not show so much as a trace of resentment when she walked out to be met with rolling eyes and dismissive airs? I would've just flipped them the bird and walked off, I don't have that kind of fortitude or dignity. But I didn't really find that surprising either. I have long known the kind of fortitude of character that people like Ms. Boyle possess. I know some people like her who strike me as similar to Atlas holding up the sky.

One can be angered at the surprised reaction of those who obviously don't identify with Ms. Boyle, and still commend her and be pleased that she will give strength to those who identify with her. I don't see these things as being mutually exclusive.

Yeah that is what its about Remind. As far as they are concerned this is just a good marketing angle, and maybe 10 minutes of good tv. They will sell anything, and Cindrella is a classice fairy tale. Even bettter if you can float it with some postive social politics. I guess I'll be off now since 8 years in the music industry watching peoples dreams being shattered or exploited (usually both) has been trumped by identity politics.

"Susan: You are a little tiger aren't you. You can go back to the village now with your head held high."

This show is over. G'night.

You just don't get it. It is not about a cinderella story, it is about courage to strive when you are a middle aged woman who does not fit societal stereotypes. The show, nor the industry have sfa to do with it actually. And you always bring out the "identity politics" red herring when called  on your flawed analysis.

Alrighty then, I guess I as a woman have no clue, what the cinderella complex means to women, and I am not angry nor sad, that anyone was surprised, it is just fucking typical is all.

Cinderella did not have talent, she got dressed and objectified to catch a rich man.

Which brings me back to  my analysis, that you are still failing to get, along with Cinderella and its negative use against women. This is the feminist forum afterall.

I don't think anybody is criticizing Ms Boyle and I'm sure everyone appreciates what a boost of courage she is to some people. She inspires the disempowered and defies a stereotype. Not just the disempowered; I'm sure even young, spoiled upper middle class urban women derive some comfort: "Hey, if that frumpy old village peasant can do it, surely I must be able to!"

OFFS

Well, yeah. It's a 2000 year old story. Historical context, please! They weren't all that progressive at the time, you know. Not all of her qualities would be considered positive today. You'd have to believe in universal moral truth to think that an ancient Roman author could have the same ideals of personal merit as we do, particularly in women. The author portrayed a woman with what were considered to be good personal qualities at the time (stoicism, submission to the social order, forgiveness, hardworking etc - only some of which can be seen as positive when viewed from a modern perspective) and it was, for most of the time it's been circulating, read as a fantasy of a meritous but unrecognized individual getting the opportunity to compete with less meritous social superiors on an equal footing, and prevailing. It's difficult to read it that way today, because in a modern context, alot of things that were intended to be personal virtues are now seen to be personal failings and character flaws.

Without historical context, a modern reader has as much trouble comprehending and relating to the underlying fantasy as a Roman would have if the character were a male. To understand the essence of the story's appeal to historical audiences, it's necessary to view it in an appropriate historical context. Viewed through modern eyes it just seems archaic and barbaric, and the underlying fantasy and its tremendous appeal for two millenia cannot be comprehended.

Might explain why some are seeking an updated version ...

The reason the Susan Boyle clip is so compelling is because it adheres so closely to the human desire to see the underdog triumph - a narrative that is a recurring element of fables going back centuries. I don't think she should be criticised for that or accused of complicity - she is not in a position of power and she has a completely reasonable desire to have her talent recognized and to make a "success" out of her life. It's even more compelling because she's a middle aged "frumpy" woman whose performance challenges sexist and lookist assumptons. (As if Britain's Got Talent couldn't afford professional hair and make up people to ensure that people looked their best for their minute in the spotlight - I'm certain Susan was left the way she was because doing so provided a better story - even if the producers weren't aware of her talent and didn't know if the story would end up being comedy or drama) The show was actually taped several weeks ago but only aired last weekend so what was aired was not a live happening but had an element of production including the selection of audience reaction shots.

Yes, she is being exploited by the media and by Simon Cowell (who owns Britain's Got Talent) who I'm sure was well aware of the great story Susan provided them and how profitable it could be to them, particularly during a period of deep recession and growing antipathy towards the elite when people are looking for working class heroes, underdogs and fairy tales.

At this point if she loses the judges will be lynched so unless the public mood changes she will win. After all, Cowell is a businessman and he's not oblivious to the fact that meeting a public demand is a good way to make coin (it must be great to own the show and be a judge on it - makes you wonder whether the whole "reality show" concept is fated to one day strike an iceberg shaped like the 1950s quiz show scandal). Reportedly he's already "negotiating" a recording contract for Susan. Let's hope a friend of hers pulls her aside and tells her to get an agent to defend her interests rather than let Cowell take care of everything for her.

 I pretty much agree with you about the Cinderella story. While I do suppose that there is some analogy that can be derived from it in a metaphorical sense,  in the end of it all her victory is really still based on looks  and winning the love of the prince through having a magical makeover due to the intervention of someone else.  Sure there's aspects of her inner beauty finally being allowed to show through but it was also matched with incredible outer beauty that in the story was one of the aspects that was put down. She was an incredible beauty to start with both outwardly and inwardly.  Would the prince have been enchanted by her if she hadn't actually matched the conventions of what is outwardly beautiful as well?

At one time as a young girl I could say that this story had some meaning to me. It's great to dream of a fairy tale becoming a beautiful princess and living happily ever after. The thing with Cinderella as an example though that mean't trying to change outward appearances and station. If only I could get the right and in fashion haircut, if only I could wear the right clothes, if only I could get my makeup just right, if only I could get my body to match what society and the 'beautiful important' people (the Prince) to see me as beautiful and then fall in love with the inside, if maybe I tried to fake something I was not on the outside.  Where in the hell is my fairy godmother to help me! Gah.  This of course was well before the days of 'extreme makeover'  type shows on the tee vees. The modern day versions of a fairy godmother.

If there's a fairy tale or metaphorical story that would fit better here I would say that the 'Ugly Duckling' is a better fit. Not perfect but better. This story was one that I personally indentified a whole lot more with growing up then any of the magical makeover princess stories where success depended on some sort of magical intervention and finding that prince.  In that story the duckling didn't fit and was made to think he was ugly and weird by all those around them and felt like an outsider.  He internalized that derision and after getting beat around an firghtened decided to hide himself from the world. That hiding almost killed him. He did get some help from a farmers family but the thing was that he didn't change himself. He didn't get a makeover to try to fit into what all of those other people said he should look and be like.  In the end he discovered that the main problem was he never was a duck to begin with and was trying to be something he was not and trying to meet that ideal imposed on him.   His change came when he eventually discovered and understood who he actually was, found a place of acceptance both inwardly and outwardly and it ended up being beautiful.

Excellent observation about a more accurate fable in respect to Ms Boyle..

Another person who does not get conceptual frameworks below the surface of this stupid show.

I dunno, I read that she was pretty good at housework.

Say, does anyone here have Diana Krall or Shania Twain records?

Why?

good points Eliza, and I see exactly what you are meaning, however, feminist analysis seems beyond some people, in as much as they love to tell women that we have not been indoctrinated by patriarchial society by cinderella stories.

Whether any Cinderella/Ugly Duckling figure is saved by hard work snd bootstraps athletics, or redeemed by accepting their true station in life - and what about The Prince and the Pauper, eh? -, these stories certainly deserve both a class analysis and an examination of who is telling them to whom, with what usual reaction and to what purpose. It is often by looking at cultural variations of similar narratives that their politics become more evident.

(Don't drop the thread, Daedalus, you'll find your way out...)

No, Daedalus, you clearly stated women had indoctrinated  themselves and that women really enjoyed it, and exonerated males from having any part, not once, but twice, as follows;

making sure to cover the home front, and the publishing world and thus  wrongly trying to exonerate men from any culpability. You are  espousing premises that are completely devoid of feminist analysis, or even sociological/psychological, analysis of  indoctrination and operant conditioning of women, historically to present day, patriarchial norms.

It does not matter if it wasn't written as a indoctrination tool,  it has been used as one for a very long time, and it spawned other templates of the same sort. Man rescues poor helpless, ditsy female who cannot even keep track of time, nor her shoes, and is willingly compliant and exploitable. Then with the opposite twist of an evil woman exploiting the other woman, or being jealous, etc etc. 2 conceptual frames of reference for a woman, either evil or stupid.

Then as a male you tell me, I have poor analysis of the appeal of Cinderella and  then further tell me I am clumsy and obviously misrepresenting you, get a grip, eh, I know full well where you are coming from and the story of Cinderella in its latter day formas too! In fact, in its earliest format it was also the male rescuing the "poor" female slave, from her "female" owners.  Ya right, the Pharoh owned the women of his court, and their slaves.

No, Susan Boyle empowered herself to take the national stage, what happens, or happened, after that is irrespective to the initial action of hers, whereby she siezes her life and puts herself outside of her comfort zone, to take a chance on HERSELF, not a man.

I never stated that women enjoyed being indoctrinated - I stated that little girls appear to have enjoyed the story of Cinderella. I very much doubt anyone even realized the sorts of things that are wrong with the story until quite recently.

Did they assist in indoctrinating their daughters? Yes. How can you find anything startling or controversial about that, when, even today, there are women who are brainwashed into promoting patriarchy and indoctrinate their daughters with it? There are plenty of women in the religious right who do just that.

I didn't exonerate males either. Or publishers. I mentioned that publishers couldn't have been behind any conspiracy to foist the story on the masses for its first 1800 years or so, because only a tiny proportion of the populace was literate. That doesn't exonerate them from the last couple of centuries. It just notes a factual impossibility.

No, I'm putting things in historical context. You're trying to apply a modern feminist perspective to historical populations who didn't have one. They didn't understand or perceive the elements of the story that way. In fact, the elements that we find so offensive didn't even exist until the story was about 1700 years old. They're quite recent.

Your analysis of its flaws is fine, but it really doesn't offer anything in the way of explanation for why the story persisted for so long. It has a history in European culture that is older than the Bible. I don't think it's exceptional among many other folk myths which persisted for a similar length of time (such as the Tortoise and the Hair). You certainly haven't provided any reason why it would be, other than your desire to perceive it that way.

Yes, it definately has always been an indoctrination tool, but it originally had a very different purpose.

 In its original form, its actually a dig on the supposedly superstitious and barbaric nature of the Egyptians. The heroine is a Greco-Roman slave and the story is meant for a Greco-Roman audience; obviously . She gets abused at the hands of the dirty Egyptians until one day she loses a slipper, a bird snatches it, and drops it in the lap of the Pharoah. He thinks the bird is Horus and it's a sign from heaven. He's no Prince Charming - he's a supersititous cretin with a foot fetish, and he seizes her as his queen. She is attributed with building the pyramids during this time - before she charms a merchant, relieves him of his gold, and flees back to Greece where she takes up a life as a hetaera, who were independant, educated women - they were courtesans, but they also took part in academic gatherings as scholars.

It's a comical polemic that employs stereotypes to take a shot at Egyptians and promote ideas of Roman cultural and moral superiority. The heroine represents Greco-Roman civilization enduring and outwitting the stupid Egyptians and eventually going on to demonstrate their superiority in engineering, academia, cleverness, etc etc.

So, yes, I find your sophomoric and dogmatic interpretation of the historical context to the story severely lacking.

Yep.  Bums in seats.

Nice to see something uplifting via reality tv for a change.

Now, if you really want a discussion on feminism/patriarchy/sexism and reality tv, try The Cougar on for size. 

ETA:  Link!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEW8bZ5_S2E

Thankyou torontoprofessor, I have been trying to figure out what it is that bothers me about the world's reaction to this event in particular and to others that are similar.  You just nailed it.

Is that the sound of feminist and mass media analysis whooshing over SSC's head?

The answer to your question is 'no' and the answer to mine is still 'yes'.

Well said, Maysie. There may be a fascinating, inspiring, depressing, educational, etc. story called "The life and struggles of Susan Boyle". But we haven't heard that story yet, and we may never do. There is a very separate story called, "Manipulation and exploitation through reality TV". That's an ongoing series, and we have just witnessed one of the more revolting but incredibly clever examples IMO. Our youngest daughter reported that "it made me cry", which seems to have been true for many many other people. She also praised Tanya Gold's article when I referred her to it. Is this a contradiction? Yes, but it's not inconsistent. There are lots of Hollywood flicks that aim for that same effect. The feelings on the part of the viewers/listeners are likely genuine and human. The manipulators have very different aims. I'd like to see someone (feminist preferably) with more expertise than I have (i.e. zero) analyse this contradiction.