As always really fascinating Sam! On the question of storytelling I'm not sure where I stand. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of scale which is the problem as one audience member suggested. After-all, novels are stories and they're not without purpose, or rather their purpose is not neutered or lessened simply because they've managed to create significant popularity. So, for me at least, it's less the amount of people engaging in the story but rather why we're creating the story in the first place.
The couple with brunch is the perfect analogy for this. Their demand to 'make a story' ensured it was not organic and lessened its impact beyond the mere aesthetic of a lovely brunch in a fashionable place to eat. Technology itself is not the problem- we may for instance imagine the couple getting a camera out quickly to take a video or a photo of one of their children which could make for a memorable moment in the future. Rather, it is the use of technology to 'brand' ourselves as something which is desirable for others that is the problem.
This discussion reminded me a little of Althusser's notion of interpellation and whether that may be a useful way for us to look at the grip of not simply capitalism of why we tell our stories but also the cultural framework for how stories playout.
The whole question also made me question about experience and how today we increasingly substitute experiences for perceived progress. One example of this is vaping. Vaping emerged as a 'safer' alternative to cigarettes- that if we vape we can have the nicotine fix without necessarily the severe health consequences. But does vaping really give satisfaction in the same way a good cigarette does? Somehow, I cannot see someone ever having a really good vape after sex and feeling completely satisfied in the same way someone smoking a cigarette would.
I'm also not sure I entirely agree about the historical labelling argument presented by your guest. Many of the actors in the French Revolution absolutely knew and understood they were living through a revolution. If you read the dialogue from the convention on whether to execute Louis XVI, Thomas Paine makes it clear that by executing the king they risked morally subverting the revolution in the first place. There are definitely times where this is not true- where participants aren't truly aware of the consequences of their actions but this is not always the case.
Finally, on the question of control, pluralism, and existentialism it sounded like the big question was ultimately one of connection. I think pluralism and connection can easily co-exist providing we have a background story to which we can mutually agree upon. If we don't have that shared access point, or at least understanding, then I can see how everything else trails off. This isn't just true for marginalised communities but also for majority communities.
This is in part what maybe we are now struggling with as societies develop more sophisticated and complex forms of storytelling with ever greater pluralism- we lose that foundational thing which brings us all together. This is somewhat the problem I find with existentialism, for sure I think we can on some level choose our own perceptions and value sets but when put into practice I'm not sure this makes much sense on the very fundamental questions. Mutual agreement of living together is the necessary beginning which appears to me like it is fraying a little at the seams.
As always I loved this episode and looking forward to the next one! As a subscriber, I just want to reiterate how much I appreciate all the effort which goes into making this content! :)
I think that Hannah conflates “main character energy” with “main character syndrome” - which are distinct concepts. If you need a Gen Z internet language consultant, I’m open for business.
“Main character energy” = generally positive. Associated with being bold, independent, and care-free. Example: leaving the party early to go on a romanticized solo night walk is totally “main character energy.”
“Main character syndrome” = generally negative. Associated with being self-interested, expecting others to accommodate your needs or failing to consider their needs. Example: demanding that all your friends meet you at a bar that’s only convenient for you and nobody else is totally “main character syndrome.”
As always really fascinating Sam! On the question of storytelling I'm not sure where I stand. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of scale which is the problem as one audience member suggested. After-all, novels are stories and they're not without purpose, or rather their purpose is not neutered or lessened simply because they've managed to create significant popularity. So, for me at least, it's less the amount of people engaging in the story but rather why we're creating the story in the first place.
The couple with brunch is the perfect analogy for this. Their demand to 'make a story' ensured it was not organic and lessened its impact beyond the mere aesthetic of a lovely brunch in a fashionable place to eat. Technology itself is not the problem- we may for instance imagine the couple getting a camera out quickly to take a video or a photo of one of their children which could make for a memorable moment in the future. Rather, it is the use of technology to 'brand' ourselves as something which is desirable for others that is the problem.
This discussion reminded me a little of Althusser's notion of interpellation and whether that may be a useful way for us to look at the grip of not simply capitalism of why we tell our stories but also the cultural framework for how stories playout.
The whole question also made me question about experience and how today we increasingly substitute experiences for perceived progress. One example of this is vaping. Vaping emerged as a 'safer' alternative to cigarettes- that if we vape we can have the nicotine fix without necessarily the severe health consequences. But does vaping really give satisfaction in the same way a good cigarette does? Somehow, I cannot see someone ever having a really good vape after sex and feeling completely satisfied in the same way someone smoking a cigarette would.
I'm also not sure I entirely agree about the historical labelling argument presented by your guest. Many of the actors in the French Revolution absolutely knew and understood they were living through a revolution. If you read the dialogue from the convention on whether to execute Louis XVI, Thomas Paine makes it clear that by executing the king they risked morally subverting the revolution in the first place. There are definitely times where this is not true- where participants aren't truly aware of the consequences of their actions but this is not always the case.
Finally, on the question of control, pluralism, and existentialism it sounded like the big question was ultimately one of connection. I think pluralism and connection can easily co-exist providing we have a background story to which we can mutually agree upon. If we don't have that shared access point, or at least understanding, then I can see how everything else trails off. This isn't just true for marginalised communities but also for majority communities.
This is in part what maybe we are now struggling with as societies develop more sophisticated and complex forms of storytelling with ever greater pluralism- we lose that foundational thing which brings us all together. This is somewhat the problem I find with existentialism, for sure I think we can on some level choose our own perceptions and value sets but when put into practice I'm not sure this makes much sense on the very fundamental questions. Mutual agreement of living together is the necessary beginning which appears to me like it is fraying a little at the seams.
As always I loved this episode and looking forward to the next one! As a subscriber, I just want to reiterate how much I appreciate all the effort which goes into making this content! :)
I think that Hannah conflates “main character energy” with “main character syndrome” - which are distinct concepts. If you need a Gen Z internet language consultant, I’m open for business.
this is a hugely useful role. Please offer full explication of distinction.
“Main character energy” = generally positive. Associated with being bold, independent, and care-free. Example: leaving the party early to go on a romanticized solo night walk is totally “main character energy.”
“Main character syndrome” = generally negative. Associated with being self-interested, expecting others to accommodate your needs or failing to consider their needs. Example: demanding that all your friends meet you at a bar that’s only convenient for you and nobody else is totally “main character syndrome.”