Susan Boyle

Actually Cueball it seems to be you that is trying to pick a fight for no reason.  I don't really disagree with anything you've said.  For a time I was helping out with someone trying to make it in the music business.  That was a lot of years ago, but I doubt much has changed.  However, some of the other posters have been unable to contemplate why a lot of people might think - good for her, even if their idea of good music has little to do with showtunes!

You know just because I post something doesn't mean it is critical of you!

Cueball wrote:

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.

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.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

However, some of the other posters have been unable to contemplate why a lot of people might think - good for her,...

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).

 

You don't have to agree with Tanya Gold's analysis, but you might at least acknowledge that it's a tenable one.

 

Daedalus wrote:

Fidel wrote:

With currently existing capitalism, usually only the best of the best are rewarded for their talents.

 

Are you saying that the bloated, juvenile ursine parasites and overgrown toddlers who are running this society are the "best of the best"? I'm surprised we're not in more dire straits than we really are, if so.

No. I believe I used the word elitist in describing our western societies. Britain is a bit like Canada, however, in that actors and entertainers arent marketed and worshipped like they are in the USA. In the USA, there are Hollywood stars, Nashville singing elites, MTV idols etc, but not a lot of talent recognized or rewarded nearly the same in between those higher plateau's of talent. We sometimes hear the typical rags to riches stories from people whove made it big time. Living in motels and sometimes their cars one day and playing the Grand ol Oprey the next kinda thing. And I'm thinking many a talented entertainer have given up because the road to fame and fortune, the elite level, is just too difficult. Perhaps there are some number of talented people who were forced to give up their life calling due to a lack of money at a time when it could have made all the difference in their lives.

Quote:

Personally I think that things get very nepotistic, not meritocratic, as one rises into the social stratosphere. The cream rises a little, but nowhere near as high as simple advantage.

Absolutely. I think there are a relative handful of people, king-makers and queen-makers so to speak, deciding who makes it and who doesnt.  And it's not very democratic for sure.

Unionist wrote:

You don't have to agree with Tanya Gold's analysis, but you might at least acknowledge that it's a tenable one.

Never said a word about tanya's analysis actually, however now that you have mentioned it, I do disagree with portions, while agree with others,  but I find her every bit as condescendingly lookish, as those others she accuses of being so.

First of all, I do no think Ms Boyle is ugly, in fact if something was done with her hair and her eyebrows had a narrowing, she would be attractive. Not stunning, but attractive for a middle aged woman. Nor do I think she looked like a lump of pork on a doily,  nor is her face squashed in. As such,  I really have no use for Tanya's critique of Ms Boyle's appearance.

remind wrote:

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.

Sure, that's one part of it. But it's not the only part. If you can't feel sad or angry that anyone should be surprised she had talent, I think you're missing another aspect of the whole thing - one that's not at all a criticism of her or of anyone who finds her inspiring.

And, well, it [b]is[/b] a Cinderella story. That's exactly what Cinderella was about - a woman at the bottom of the pecking order being recognized for her talents. Heck, according to wikipedia, "The word "cinderella" has, by analogy, come to mean one whose attributes are unrecognised, or one who unexpectedly achieves recognition or success after a period of obscurity and neglect." Not just wikipedia either: Webster's dictionary says much the same.

remind wrote:

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

 

Cinderella had more personal merit than her advantaged stepsisters, which only becomes obvious when she's put on an equal footing with them. It holds out this fantasy for people brutally shoved down to the bottom of the pecking order that someday, by freak chance or magic or whatever, they'll get a shot at competing on an equal, meritocratic footing. That's why it's been around for over 2000 years, because that's a powerful and alluring fantasy - one that's seen in other social myths and fairy tales (eg the "rags to riches" one a la Dick Whittington). Even religions have appealed to that underlying fantasy.

There are lots of things wrapped up in any fairy tale, and I agree that the objectification aspect is probably one of the things in Cinderella. But that's true of this case, as well. Ms. Boyle is portrayed to us in a way as if to say she is utterly worthless, apart from her saving grace. Which is supposed to be a big shock. She is presented to us as having no inherent value worthy of respect as a person other than her ability to please and amuse the audience - that much is clear by the way she was greeted when she appeared on stage.

"Cinderella had more personal merit than her advantaged stepsisters..."

Oh... and why is that, Daedalus? Because she was submissive enough to do the housework without protest...?

Quote:

it is about courage to strive when you are a middle aged woman who does not fit societal stereotypes

You don't think Ms. Boyle is complicit in perpetuating those stereotypes? Not consciously, but by allowing herself to be manipulated by the machine, she is playing her part.

I'd like to see a youtube video of her on Oprah, Leno, or whatever venue she's given to offer a critique of the poisonous cultural expectations that propelled her into the spotlight.

 

remind wrote:

OFFS

Exactly!  

martin dufresne wrote:

"Cinderella had more personal merit than her advantaged stepsisters..."

Oh... and why is that, Daedalus? Because she was submissive enough to do the housework without protest...?

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 ...

 

Daedalus wrote:

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.

No...for most of the time it has been circulating it has been used as an operant conditioning tool against women for patriarchy and I repeat it does not indicate prevailing on equal terms with social superiors, it depicts women as either greedy grasping and mean, or subserviant pliant objects. Hence it tremendous appeal, to men, to use against women. Which I am sure you recognize as you state  Romans would have had a hard time comprehending it if the charater were a male. That it is because of course it was geared to defame women and make them objects of service, awaiting their prince charming. As such, it is not hard to comprehend the so called "tremendous appeal" as it is pure propaganda imposed upon women over and over again throughout history by patriarchy. The damage it has done to women is significant.

aka Mycroft wrote:

At this point if she loses the judges will be lynched so unless the public mood changes she will win.

I believe that the judges make the decision as to whether or not someone progresses to the next round but the final winner is a function of popular vote [pay your dollar and dial the relevant number].  However, even that is subject to manipulation simply by choosing the order the contestants appear in.  Whoever appears last has a decided advantage.

It's frightening how easily we are all manipulated by mass media. In this thread, people are getting emotionally involved in a non-event. The entertainment industry tells us what to discuss, sets the terms of the debate, and off we go.

Already the narrative has coaleseced around the theme that Ms. Boyle is the underdog for whom we must cheer, facing off against a nameless, facesless foe that strives to keep people like her (like us) down. If we depart from that view, we are either defending the patriarchy, envious and spiteful men whom hate to see women "succeed" (as if the mere appearance on that insipid two-minute hate is a success), or we just don't have the emotional depth to appreciate or understand the music. Bullshit.

It's a great example of totalitarian control. We have a manufactured event in which we must take a side; an event that is essentially meaningless and irrelevant to anyones' life.

Simon Cowel is laughing his ass off at us all, while he rolls naked upon piles and piles of cash.

remind wrote:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Why?

Daedalus wrote:

 

ElizaQ wrote:

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 .... 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.

This doesn't really strike me as resembling Ms. Boyle at all. Did she undergo any sort of personal realization prior to coming on the show? She's been singing for quite some time, she just hadn't been discovered by corporate media yet. I think the impression of transformation is part of the spectacle served up by corporate media - the frumpy middle aged woman transformed, before your very eyes, into an international star by the magic of the "Britains Got Talent" television show.

 

 I wasn't really talking about Ms. Boyles personal realizations or that the show was her 'transformation' point that made her 'realize' something about herself or was  something that she needed for such realization. If her actions before hand and some interviews I saw after she's well aware she's had it rough, that she isn't percieved as MSM beauty (not a duck) and none of that mattered. She just wanted to sing because she liked singing and knew she was a decent singer.    I was commenting more about using Cinderalla as a metaphor and the disscussion about the methaphorical points of that story. Namely the difference between needing to outwardly change who you are and what you look like to get the metaphorical prince (Cinderella) vs just being who you are and any change coming from within rather then without (Ugly Duckling) because it's already there and it's always been there.   Both fables have aspects of the outside world imposing their perceptions and bias and the protaganists struggling with that but in the first story Cinderella ends up meeting the expectations of the outside world in terms of changing her looks and station in a superficial magical manner and wins whereas with the ugly duckling it's more the outside world that's has the bigger problem and the 'duck' pretty much ends up the way he always was and wins.

 

 

ElizaQ wrote:

Both fables have aspects of the outside world imposing their perceptions and bias and the protaganists struggling with that but in the first story Cinderella ends up meeting the expectations of the outside world in terms of changing her looks and station in a superficial magical manner and wins whereas with the ugly duckling it's more the outside world that's has the bigger problem and the 'duck' pretty much ends up the way he always was and wins.

Yeah ... you're right. It is more apt. At least, more apt than the modern version of Cinderella. In the original version there is no magical transformation at all.

 

remind wrote:

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.

 

I presume thats a dig at me. It's a clumsy and obvious misrepresentation, as I clearly agreed - in plain language - that women had been indoctrinated by that particular fable.

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;

Quote:

t's a good criticism of the story, but a poor analysis of its appeal - you seem to be mixing the two things up. In terms of the latter, I think you're being overly ideological. It wasn't just foisted on little girls by their fathers, in fact I suspect that would've been rather unusual to say the least, and it certainly wouldn't explain why it appealed to little girls; if what you say were true, they should've regarded it as a boring, chore-like sort of thing that they endured for their parent's sake, but they do seem to have independantly enjoyed it. I imagine, in actuality, it was mostly introduced to little girls by their mothers.  Keep in mind that for about 90% of its history, most transmission would've been oral since the masses weren't literate, so its difficult even to argue that male publishers were foisting this on women until quite recently.

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.

 

I agree with Remind, ElizaQ, Unionist and anyone else that agrees with them about Cinderella.

(sarcasm) I mean when you view the story in modern times it's's easy to see how society no longer tells women they don't need to look pretty so they can attract a man and then go home and wait to be rescued by him, I mean in today's world EVERYONE knows that's bad (/sarcasm)

Please Daedalus, when you are in the feminist forum put down the keyboard and pick up the mouse so you can learn from people who live these issues.

Say whatever you want, but this Susan Boyle business is good TV and is bound to sell many viewers to advertisers.

Suppose that a plain middle-aged woman with cats got up and sang -- showing courage, pluck, fortitude, charm -- and just sounded ordinary: a little off-key, not too awful, sort of like a middling karaoke singer. Would we still be as impressed by her courage as we are in this case? (We should be.) Would we count her as role model for women everywhere?

torontoprofessor wrote:

Suppose that a plain middle-aged woman with cats got up and sang -- showing courage, pluck, fortitude, charm -- and just sounded ordinary: a little off-key, not too awful, sort of like a middling karaoke singer. Would we still be as impressed by her courage as we are in this case? (We should be.) Would we count her as role model for women everywhere?

Impressed with her courage, perhaps, yes. But what's impressive about Susan Boyle isn't  that she she had the courage to get up and sign in front of a large audience. Plenty of completely talentless people get up and sing on American Idol-type shows and make fools of themselves. What makes Susan Boyle a role model and worthy of admiration is that she obviously worked incredibly hard to develop that level of talent through many years of practice. There were no doubt many people who discouraged her, told her she'd never make it, that she was wasting her time but she refused to give up or to let her dream die and had that drive to succeed.

Is is "un-feminist" to commend a women for saying "screw you" to all of the naysayers and steadfastly pursuing her dream?