The article expresses through a similar attitude from an ironical voice what the essay's topic critically analyzes, and self-reflexively self-awarely -- Postmodernist. The anti-hero archetype is also discussed ironically and a degree disparagingly. A character and voice study worth a graze.
Perhaps, also, because the article wants the end, not of toxic "Gen Xers," though of stale, outworn, two-dimensionally flat, hard-boiled-cynic antiheroes' adventures in bleak settings (noir -- toxic events, settings, and characters), which is a prominent motif of Gen-X media, the article touches on but doesn't develop a clue of method for rounding out characters three- or four-dimensionally: character transformation, personal moral growth or decline at great personal cost, in other words. Also Bildungsroman: maturation novel, novel in the Italian sense of fiction narrative of whatever length. Not per se classic Aristotlean tragedy or comedy, Bildungsroman is usually somewhat tragedy and somewhat comedy; comedy to mean favorable and fortunate outcomes.
Wikipedia hosts a comparable, insightful, and less disparaging article about defining characteristics of "Gen Xers," though broad and globally generic definition. How does a birth-year range define a generation, let alone individuals? Of note, "Gen X" is presently the key entertainment and culture marketplace demographic. ("Generation X" Wikipedia)
[ January 27, 2015, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
My opinion: just ignore them in the hope they explode in a mist of self-induced apathy and schadenfreude.
Phil.
Posted by Denevius (Member # 9682) on :
Perhaps I missed it, but I only see one question mark here:
quote:How does a birth-year range define a generation, let alone individuals?
My answer to that is I have no idea. I'm not entirely sure what generation I'm born into, nor do I particularly care. Though I do think that if any description describes the new age in a most apt way (and of course, we're only talking about Westerners, specifically Americans), then I would go for the Microwave generation. The generation that can't wait for anything and has the attention span of gnats.
But even this is a generalization, sometimes true and sometimes false. If the point of this thread is to ask how do you write for a generation (particularly if it's a generation you're not a part of), my answer is don't worry about it. Odds are always heavily against you having any kind of real success in writing, anyway, no matter who you think is the major consumer of whatever art you're producing. Generation X, Microwave generation, Golden Age generation when everything was peachy (if you weren't one of the very many for whom it wasn't peachy), it doesn't matter. As many writers failed then as now, if not more since there weren't as many cheap but reliable avenues to success.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
The point of the article's reference is to share a trend, a voice, and a character study worth a graze. The article expresses how Generation X was shaped by and shapes culture across the globe, and how the toxic personality and cynicism motif has become worn out.
Posted by Denevius (Member # 9682) on :
Ah. So I was right, there isn't a question in the thread itself. Posted in the discussion section of Hatrack.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Offered for insight and discussion of trend, event, setting, character, and voice as pertains to a media demographic and writing motifs related to hard-boiled cynical antihero Generation-X media.
The topic is open for contributory discussion, not criticism of the contribution or the contributor, as are Hatrack's rules of conduct.
Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :
Each generation has different expectations based on the generations that went before and the alleged discoveries they had made in personal and professional rings of influence. We're products of environment, and its ever-changing milieu. I'm "old school" and would just tape up and injury and finish the job, whereas the kids today look for any excuse to sit home on the x-box. We have much more to take up our time nowadays than our parents and their pat=rents before them, and some of that which takes our time up has changed our lives and what we view as acceptable.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Okay. I suppose a criticism of a generation is a hot-button topic. I offered the article for its value as writing method study. Jensen uses a toxic, hard-boiled cynical voice to critique several television narratives of toxic, hard-boiled, cynical antiheroes.
The cynical voice of an older generation deploring a younger generation or a younger generation deploring an older generation is as old as human procreation. I intended no political debate or discussion of generational politics: young buck and old stag or young maiden and old matron supremacy contests. Generations have always contested inter-generationally. Naturally. That's human nature.
The overstatement voice of the article is to me signal enough the article is intended to be ironic; the surface meaning and the actual intent are ironically counter-posed as well, a verbal irony. Jensen's central assertion is, not a generational clash, a call for stronger and more satisfying character development. Enough already with flat and static, cynical, toxic antihero characters.
Posted by Denevius (Member # 9682) on :
quote: The topic is open for contributory discussion, not criticism of the contribution or the contributor, as are Hatrack's rules of conduct.
This is a somewhat ironic statement considering the very name of the thread is 'Generation-X *Criticism*'.
I think, as writers, we need slightly thicker skins so that someone asking, "So what's your point?", isn't seen as some type of slight. I'm pretty sure the original post here doesn't have a point in which to begin any type of discussion.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
I'm not criticising Gen-X, I just don't give a fig about them and their angst. Which, btw, members of Gen-X can't apparently understand. I know a number of members of this sub-group who all want to be my bestest friend and who are affronted when I literally tell the to, "Sod off!. I don't want to know you and I don't want to talk to you." You'd think I'd just de-friended them on whatever it is.
They were never my friends in the first place.
No doubt a crop of authors will arise to pander to the tastes of these representatives of a generation, it just won't be me and I don't care.
Phil.
Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :
If I understand extrinsic correctly, and I might not, the OP offered the Entertainment Weekly piece as an example of the use of irony from which, by study and analysis, we might learn how better to use irony in our own writing.
I think writing off millions of kids as toxic, and therefore deserving of death is puerile.
Invitation to, as I understand it, analyse the use of irony in the piece, and offer constructive contribution respectfully declined, because neither this piece nor irony is something I wish to study in depth.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Criticism is analytical and interpretive, more than just negative evaluation, which is the least of the art. Jensen critically analyzes and interprets media created by, for, or about Generation Xers and from an entertaining voice.
Generation X by more consensus definitions than not is the birth years 1961 through 1981 or roughly thereabouts otherwise. They are of ages 44 through 24 or so, in the middle-adult age years of entry-level skilled workforce to management, almost old enough for high-level political office. Older Generation Xers are about to enter their midlife crisis years. Technological, scientific, social, and cultural innovations of a generation's formative years, birth through 25 or so, and often a war shape shared peer cohort identity within a generation.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
My apologies to Gen-X, I was thinking of the even bigger and more vacuous waste of space, Gen-Y. However, it was the Gen-X generation that deemed me too old to understand how to walk and talk at the same time from the moment I reached 55 years of decrepit age. I should probably go and join the que waiting for euthanasia now, as I'm obviously such a waste of space and resources.
Phil.
[ January 29, 2015, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I read something awhile back that pointed out that the music much beloved by the Baby Boomers was not, in fact created by those same Boomers. The creators of it were all born before World War II or during it, and therefore could not be considered Boomers. And, in the seventies, when the Boomers started making their own music, the music took a nosedive in quality...
If this statistic holds for the "Gen-X" movies, perhaps they can't be held accountable for how lousy their movies are because they aren't the ones who created them. It would go back to the previous generation---the Boomers!