The croutons in our cultural broth
You know when, in the course of a day or two, you see several unrelated things that all put the same thought in your head?
That's happened to me, and the thought is "advertising and its unintentional contributions to culture".
Exhibit A is this xkcd cartoon. It's one of those cartoons that is not just only funny if you get the reference, but where most of the humour derives from realising that it's a very obscure reference to make a comic about. Burma-Shave, for those of you who don't get it, was a product that was the subject of a series of roadside ads in the former half of the last century. A series of billboards would form a short rhyming message, with "Burma-Shave" at the end. Not much, but it made me smile.
Also, my status as a sinister, culturally ignorant outsider was confirmed when, after seeing the comic, I had to check, not what Burma-Shave was, but what Twitter is. Sigh.
Exhibit B is the atheist bus. If you can't be bothered to read the article, it's about a campaign to put a short, cheery, atheist message on the side of London buses. I think I'm broadly in favour of this, in a freedom of speech/British sense of tolerance, fair play and not hogging the scones way; the message ("There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life") is inoffensive enough to any believers who might see it, whilst still getting the point across. Also, the campaign came about as a riposte to a new series of ads for Alpha courses, and that's a phenomenon that's ripe for riposting, if you ask me.
Of course, just because I agree with the principle doesn't mean I can't nitpick some of the stupid things people might have said about it.
Richard Dawkins: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Whilst I'd agree that thinking is anathema to religion, I'm not sure what thoughts that slogan is supposed to inspire. A bus with "Where did Cain's wife come from? Eh?" on the side, or "So a few years ago, Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Friday, but now it's okay for them to eat meat on Friday... What's the deal with that?" or perhaps even "Transubstantiation? What the FUCK?" might get people thinking, but "stop worrying and get on with your lives" sounds more like an injunction to stop thinking than anything.
Anyway... enough of that.
Exhibit C is something Neil Gaiman posted on his ever-entertaining blog:
I saw a bumper sticker I approved of yesterday in an airport parking lot, although possibly not for the reasons the people who put it on their car intended. It said,
EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE FICTION
and I thought, of course it is. Science fiction isn't just monsters and space rockets. It's where I learned about Evolution, for a start. I thought, there should be a whole line of those, saying things like,
LINGUISTICS IS SCIENCE FICTION
ECONOMICS IS SCIENCE FICTION
and even, for the Zelazny fans,
THEOLOGY IS SCIENCE FICTION.
Probably people would assume that means they aren't true, though, rather than that the definition of science fiction is a very broad one...
This amused me, and is true. And also is a nice illustration of how words (e.g. "science fiction") should be used with care as they may very well not quite mean what you think they mean (I'm willing to stake a substantial amount of money that whoever owned that car hadn't read a huge amount of science fiction).
Finally, a heads-up. The BBC is showing an adaptation of Little Dorrit pretty soon. This is one of my favourite Dickens novels and, as it's adapted by Andrew Davies (he of Pride & Prejudice and Bleak House fame), it should be good. Also, Andy "Gollum" Serkis plays Rigaud, the dastardly French villain (a character whom I would have thought any self-respecting adaptation would leave out- oh well) and Freema "Martha Jones" Agyemann is in it, as Tattycoram. Whilst I (understandandably) remember that name, I can't remember anything about the character. Heigh ho... here's hoping it's a Bleak House and not an Oliver Twist.
That's happened to me, and the thought is "advertising and its unintentional contributions to culture".
Exhibit A is this xkcd cartoon. It's one of those cartoons that is not just only funny if you get the reference, but where most of the humour derives from realising that it's a very obscure reference to make a comic about. Burma-Shave, for those of you who don't get it, was a product that was the subject of a series of roadside ads in the former half of the last century. A series of billboards would form a short rhyming message, with "Burma-Shave" at the end. Not much, but it made me smile.
Also, my status as a sinister, culturally ignorant outsider was confirmed when, after seeing the comic, I had to check, not what Burma-Shave was, but what Twitter is. Sigh.
Exhibit B is the atheist bus. If you can't be bothered to read the article, it's about a campaign to put a short, cheery, atheist message on the side of London buses. I think I'm broadly in favour of this, in a freedom of speech/British sense of tolerance, fair play and not hogging the scones way; the message ("There's probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life") is inoffensive enough to any believers who might see it, whilst still getting the point across. Also, the campaign came about as a riposte to a new series of ads for Alpha courses, and that's a phenomenon that's ripe for riposting, if you ask me.
Of course, just because I agree with the principle doesn't mean I can't nitpick some of the stupid things people might have said about it.
Richard Dawkins: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Whilst I'd agree that thinking is anathema to religion, I'm not sure what thoughts that slogan is supposed to inspire. A bus with "Where did Cain's wife come from? Eh?" on the side, or "So a few years ago, Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Friday, but now it's okay for them to eat meat on Friday... What's the deal with that?" or perhaps even "Transubstantiation? What the FUCK?" might get people thinking, but "stop worrying and get on with your lives" sounds more like an injunction to stop thinking than anything.
Anyway... enough of that.
Exhibit C is something Neil Gaiman posted on his ever-entertaining blog:
I saw a bumper sticker I approved of yesterday in an airport parking lot, although possibly not for the reasons the people who put it on their car intended. It said,
EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE FICTION
and I thought, of course it is. Science fiction isn't just monsters and space rockets. It's where I learned about Evolution, for a start. I thought, there should be a whole line of those, saying things like,
LINGUISTICS IS SCIENCE FICTION
ECONOMICS IS SCIENCE FICTION
and even, for the Zelazny fans,
THEOLOGY IS SCIENCE FICTION.
Probably people would assume that means they aren't true, though, rather than that the definition of science fiction is a very broad one...
This amused me, and is true. And also is a nice illustration of how words (e.g. "science fiction") should be used with care as they may very well not quite mean what you think they mean (I'm willing to stake a substantial amount of money that whoever owned that car hadn't read a huge amount of science fiction).
Finally, a heads-up. The BBC is showing an adaptation of Little Dorrit pretty soon. This is one of my favourite Dickens novels and, as it's adapted by Andrew Davies (he of Pride & Prejudice and Bleak House fame), it should be good. Also, Andy "Gollum" Serkis plays Rigaud, the dastardly French villain (a character whom I would have thought any self-respecting adaptation would leave out- oh well) and Freema "Martha Jones" Agyemann is in it, as Tattycoram. Whilst I (understandandably) remember that name, I can't remember anything about the character. Heigh ho... here's hoping it's a Bleak House and not an Oliver Twist.