I think. I also feel.

[jlh]

When I was 17 and a senior in high school, Cary Grant died. Unlike most of my classmates, I'd grown up watching his movies; when I was 9 I wanted to be in His Girl Friday. I was sad that day, and happy to see that the local channels were putting on plenty of Cary Grant movies for me to watch and be sad.

When I was in college, Jim Henson died very suddenly. We were a generation of kids brought up on Sesame Street and I remember the entire campus that day was very somber. We were all sad, and we all grieved.

I think that you can be genuinely sad if someone whose work you admired died. I'm sure that Cary Grant means little to the great majority of you, given that most people flee at the sight of a black and white film. I'm sure that Jim Henson meant little to my professors who hadn't watched Kermit when they were three. But I'm not sure that expressing sadness over the death of someone whom no, you didn't know but yes, made some kind of impact on your life is the act of someone unstable.

Actually, I'm not sure why the expression of emotion necessitates such immediate mocking. Is it really so dangerous to express emotion publicly? Is it a cultural cue that I'm just not picking up from my British cousins, who on my flist seem to be doing more of the mocking? Is it simply "not done" and my willingness to do so, like my accent or my education or my laugh, another thing that marks me as an Ugly?

Because this summer, it really seems to me that the mocking has been everywhere. God forbid anyone actually like something, express pleasure, express genuine emotion about anything other than maybe their mother, and even then only in certain circumstances. I see glimmers of hope here and there; metafandom has certainly been a light in the darkness for me this summer. It dismays me to see discourse reduced to a barrage of sarcasm and contempt so unrelenting that those who might speak of something else are afraid to do so, lest they be the next one in the pillory.

Comments

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Jim Henson, Kurt Cobain, Gene Roddenberry. For Canadians, Pierre Trudeau. None of us were ready for that one.

*rubs noses* No shame, baby.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

River Phoenix. That one still feels v. wtf to me - I have to keep reminding myself that he's dead.

This was beautifully put, Clio.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, he seemed like such a clean liver, so that one really was out of left field. We share a birthday, actually; he was a year younger than me.

Interestingly Anderson Cooper is on the radio right now and is talking about people making fun of him for having cried on camera and he's like, you know, there are a lot of people on cable news putting out lots of vitriol every day but if someone expresses a genuine emotion people are taken aback. I'm like, sing it, brother.

Thanks!

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

I still remember waking up to that and it's been, what, 13 years? 14? I remember him from the Seven Brides tv series, and that's pushing 30 years ago.

Meh, am old.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

HOW COULD I FORGET RIVER?!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

yeah, Gene Roddenberry came out of nowhere. And Trudeau always seemed so young.

It isn't that I care about Steve Irwin; I don't. But I dunno, all the mocking. Too much mocking. And you KNOW how sarcastic I can be. But the need to be constantly disrespectful is really irritating.

What y'all said.

[innostrantsa.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's as though... expressing enthusiasm or passion for something makes others too vulnerable so mocking is in order so they don't have to feel deeply or see someone else feel deeply (which speaks to the mocker's twisted unspoken yearning to feel anything at all.)

Um. Hope that made sense. Steve Irwin's death was jawdroppingly shocking, as was Kurt Cobain's and Jim Henson's... and so many others.

Re: What y'all said.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

That makes a great deal of sense, and I think you've hit at one of the cruxes of the matter, and very well said! Thank you!

[ladyjaida.livejournal.com]

When George Harrison died my mother let me take the day off school and we sat around and listened to all my old records and cried and cried. That was a biggie for me.

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

That was a tough one for me too.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

That day I made a mix of all his Beatles songs and listened to it over and over at work. Lots of woe.

Thanks for sharing! Say, where is that icon from?

[scrabble.livejournal.com]

That one was probably the celebrity death that's hit me the hardest, or at least that I've been old enough to be affected by. My mom woke me up at 7 am to tell me and I cried, and for some reason, she didn't understand why I was crying.

[folk.livejournal.com]

I'm having those mocking reactions right now, and I think for several reasons:

1. Irony. Taunting dangerous animals and being blasé ábout it, and then OOPS ONE STABS YOU THROUGH THE HEART. It's got something of a sketch comedy show about it, even if it'd be a very dark comedy show (which, of course, I like, and which many other Brits like*, and which many Americans find distasteful or otherwise not to their liking*).

2. The Outpouring of Grief. Brits don't show their emotions*, and we think it's faintly embarrassing and certainly slightly amusing when others do*.

3. To many Brits (particularly those of us who consider ourselves intelligent and non-mass-media-y), Steve Irwin was an irritating chump. Now, while I'm very sorry that he died etc., etc., it doesn't mean that I automatically think he was an irritating chump. I had the same reaction to the Martyrdom of Saint Diana, too.

4. People who can't spell/type/punctuate leaving ill-considered eulogies across the Internet. Lynne Truss made mocking that even more acceptable and popular than it already was.

*generalisation

[folk.livejournal.com]

3. above should read "automatically think he wasn't an irritating chump". Silly fingers.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

I think that, for me, the place where it becomes tack is in that space between continuing to think he was an irritating chump and only being reminded how badly you needed to proclaim that upon news of his death. Of COURSE his death doesn't make him suddently fascinating or worthy of adoration - but to use it as an excuse to state your dislike for him, less than 24 hours after his death, is (to my sensibilities, which may be v. culturally bound) extremely tasteless. (I don't mean your comment here, obviously - I'm referring to other things that have popped on my flist in the last 24 hours.)

(That's not to say that I don't see the irony. It's gorgeous, but I think it requires ripening - maybe even just a couple of days. I was just talking about this ripening period with M. last week regarding something v. different - the five year anniversary coming up. When can 9/11 be funny? Ever?)

[folk.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that's probably true. I'll snigger about it when people post IM IN UR OCEANZ KILLIN UR NATURLISTZ icons, and even send a couple of those in response to text messages or when people engage me in conversation about it.

I think that the Public Reaction to it, though, is immediately amusing in a "people, stop it, you're making my species look stupid" way. Working through it mentally and comparing it to a death of a public figure that did affect me (Linda Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Smith_%28comedian%29), I think it's because I feel intellectually superior to the people who are making the "ur gon but nevar forgoten" type of comments, and also because Linda Smith was a Thinking Person's Celebrity. Intellectual elitism FTW, I suspect.

9/11 probably won't become funny in and of itself for a while, if ever. (The Vietnam War isn't funny, and I'm not even going to tempt Godwin's Law either.) I think that Teh Gubamintal Reactification, though, is funny in an "if I don't laugh I'll cry" way. What do you and M think?

[locumtenens.livejournal.com]

When can 9/11 be funny?

I don't know. How long did it take Titanic[1] to become funny? (That's meant to be a rhetorical question, obviously.)

[1]That reminds me of last Halloween. L & I took Monkey to a fair and they had a huge blow-up slide in the shape of Titanic sinking. So, you know, the kids could slide down the length of the deck into the "ocean" (a foam pit). Because *that's* entertaining. o.O

[jlh.livejournal.com]

1. I'm so with you, and that was my own reaction. I never liked him, at all, so whatever.

2. Embarrassing, fine. Amusing feels condescending, which feels like judging people who aren't like you, and I'm not down with that. I don't like it when I find myself guilty of it, and I don't indulge other people doing it.

3. (Does intelligent = non-mass-media-y?) No, he was still an irritating chump. But I'm sure there are things you like that other people think are silly, and I wouldn't support those people making fun of you for liking something silly, like modern musicals which a lot of Overly Serious Music and/or Drama types dislike. But then, I don't believe in guilty pleasures. It seems the height of pomposity to say, "You are a moron because you liked something moronic." Like, who fucking cares?

4. Sometimes I understand the difference between being unable to spell and being unable to know whether to use lie/lay/lain, but I'm not sure your average grammar cop does. I think the Internet brings into written conversation those who were not able to engage previously, often people who simply do not write or read that often in their daily lives, and I'm not sure that their contributions are necessarily the worse for not being entirely proper in their syntax.

That said, this comment has been spellchecked and I apologize in advance for any errors therein. See, this sort of thing just makes me feel hinky about writing anything thanks to my crapass rural American primary and secondary education, and no amount of Harvard Radcliffe gloss will ever change that, or make me feel confident about writing once the grammar cops show up.


I'll admit, there is just so much anglophilia in the American upper classes and intelligentsia that every time I find myself not wanting to be British it feels like another mark of Cain on my soul created in my rural lower middle class childhood that must be overcome! Or I can hear some one or other castigating me for being too emotional. But I dunno, I guess that's who I am? I'm not sure being emotional is the opposite of being intelligent since I manage to do both.

[folk.livejournal.com]

2. Condescension is terribly British, though, isn't it? And really, in the British sense, it's judging people who are inferior to you, which is why it's rankling me enough that I'm perhaps overanalysing it on LiveJournal.

3. (Yes, in the UK. Radio 4 [primarily spoken word with news, comedy, etc. -- sort of NPRy] is okay [a sort of modern-day U (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English)]; Radio 2 is not, really, because it's more nouveau-riche [non-U], and Radio 1 isn't unless you are under 16. ITV [our primary non-BBC free-to-air TV network] is similarly non-U. Tabloids are non-U. And so on.)

3 (continued because that got long). I think there's a much more acceptable level of snobbery that's associated with intelligent satire here. The Now Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Now_Show), for instance (which airs on Radio 4!), has a ball mocking James Blunt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Blunt), David Blaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blaine) and other aspects of popular culture they deride. Derision, I think, is a huge part of the intelligentsia comedy/satire culture. I haven't decided yet whether or not this is class-based. I tend to think not, primarily because I like the aforementioned Linda Smith, who mercilessly mocks posh people and the middle classes, but I've not analysed it enough yet.

4. I realise that this is issue incredibly personal and value judgment-related, so here's a pinch of salt. I think there's a certain level of discourse that permits me to engage with arguments without being jarred from them by the way they're presented (IMO, the "bad" way). If there's netspeak? or !!!!!!!? or no capital letters? or spelling mistakes? or no commas? Then I'm jarred out of the arguments that the writer is making, no matter how valid those arguments are. Now, I thoroughly realise I'm speaking from the point of privilege here, because, um, hi boarding school. I have broken through the barriers to entry and now I'm sitting here and casting thunderbolts around. And part of me makes me think that I shouldn't, because I'm perhaps missing lots of interesting perspectives, but then I start thinking that there's only so much effort that I'm able/willing to make to approach arguments before I get tired of suppressing my irritation.

I find it interesting that you tag yourself (or acknowledge others' tags of yourself) as "emotional", and I'm feeling painted into the "non-emotional" corner, especially since you're the ENTP and I'm the ENFP. I'm very much in agreement that "emotional" and "intelligent" aren't mutually exclusive, and really do go very well together. I wonder if it's the LJ/geek/British culture that tends to be more reserved/MBTI ST/antisocial/more inclined towards dark mocking that's the crux of this.

This is really interesting! Thanks for hosting it on your LJ. *love* BTW, do you want me to send Ali back from London with anything for you?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

2. Cue inferiority complex, I reckon! That, I admit, I need to work on; leftovers from a bad entry into Harvard with a lot of right-brain young men (and who is more superior than that?) who didn't think I belonged there. Unfortunately as my roommate (and still dear friend) S tended to attract them, they were tough to avoid.

3. Hmm. I'm trying to think of why something like, say, The Onion or The Daily Show doesn't hit quite as hard in terms of that, but still is pretty cutting. (So is Colbert.) I guess there's an underlying, "Look, we love you? But come on!" to what they're doing. It's poking fun but it isn't derisive unless you're in a position of power. But I don't know; I'll have to think on that some more.

Of course, here, what makes this complicated is, again, the American anglophilia where you know, I can just say that I don't like something from any other country, but one is supposed to understand that all things British are by definition superior to all things American.

4. I agree. I think that for different people that comes at different points, and the conversation makes me feel self-conscious about my bad commas and homophone difficulties. Like, are people reading my entries and wincing at my occasional use of the word "one" instead of "won" because I process language orally? There is a huge difference between being unreadable and having some flaws, and I think some people who scream about grammar online lose sight of that, and want everything that is written to be copyedited. It's intimidating, to me, to read Morri or Amy or anyone else posting about how much they hate bad grammar and think, woe, my LJ must provoke them to much eye sporking! And really, communicating online should not have to lead to my being filled with so much trepidation about lie/lay/lain that I just never use those words.

I am really interested that you see me as ENTP as I am NFP all the way, baby. The I and E go back and forth; I think I'm more naturally an E but I don't maintain that, or something. I think that you are pretty emotional, really, and I get that you were explaining a generalization rather than necessarily owning it within yourself, so I wouldn't put you in a non-emotional corner. I think because I preceive myself as so emotional I try very hard to be open about it here on my LJ and not really keep my emotions out of my arguments, because I don't think they have to be, but keep my arguments thoughtful as well as emotional, and at least calm. It's when I get all het up that I make arguments full of holes.

I find that this key difference between the British and American geek cultures gets us into trouble often enough. What is MBTI ST, please?

Toffee. I want toffee. Mmmmm. That shop in Heathrow, where they sell all those boxes of toffee and those weird little crunchy candy bars in 25 flavors?

You know, I love that my flist is so normal, and decent, and when I say, what is up with this? someone always says, that, and then we have an actual CONVERSATION about it. It's awesome. *loves right back*

[folk.livejournal.com]

2. Entirely possibly.

3. I find it interesting that you raise the Onion and the Daily Show, because I find the Daily Show boring and puerile compared with British satire (although not quite as bad as, say, the Simpsons). I like the Onion in small doses, but its humour doesn't change much. Is there an element, perhaps, of my favorite British satire (Radio 4: The News Quiz; I'm Sorry, I Haven't A Clue; The Now Show. BBC: Have I Got News For you) having revolving panel/cast members, so that the jokes are always different, although there's an element of injoking among the regulars?)

Obviously, I'm in an odd position with the Anglophilia, what with being mostly British these days. I don't think I've ever perceived it existing in the strength that you're communicating now, but that might be a reaction to my own personal "the grass is always greener on the other side of the Atlantic" baggage (until 2004, that is). Is it really so "everything British is great!"? Because I've personally experienced being in NYC on St Patrick's Day and being verbally abused and reasonably concerned for my physical safety. Perhaps that sort of experience is gone now, what with the late-90s and 00s increase in Anglophilia, particularly among the US left?

4. It's hard to be an aural processor in a visual medium. I suspect that you're projecting a bit to Morri's and Amy's journals on the grammar thing, because I'd bet money (and not just US dollars in today's exchange rate!) that it's not aimed at you. And I'm pretty sure I get lie/lay/laid/layed wrong as well.

MBTI. I thought you self-identified as ENTP! I'm pretty strongly EN_P, and I tend to process things more on the F side of T initially, although that could be a reaction to the work environment in which I was taking the MBTI. I see us as remarkably similar in that way, except that I turn I when I need to do anything _STJ -- which I tend to call the "ISTJ shadow" of ENFPs, after I read that somewhere. Have you ever thought about/experienced that side? I find that it comes out when I need to concentrate and require almost absolute silence, for example. When I say MBTI ST I mean _ST_ -- so ISTJ, for example, which is the opposite of both of us, or even ESTP or ISTP. The two centre letters are theoretically supposed to identify how we analyse things once we've processed them in the outer two letter ways. (So, an I__J will process in a markedly different way to an E__P, although an INFJ and an ENFP will have more in common. Theoretically; I've not encountered enough of those people in an MBTI setting to check that.)

Geek culture, I completely agree.

What's that shop in Heathrow called?

...and this sort of post was one of the reasons that stimulated my "I <3 LJ" post just now. *loves* When are you coming to London?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

3. Well, I do have a mad pash for Jon Stewart and did long before TDS. But I don't know; maybe a lot of what goes on here is boring and puerile compared to what goes on over there. Which is the source of the Anglophilia I think.

St. Patrick's is a rough day because you know, Irish-Americans can be really ridiculous in their IRA fervor. But I think yes, in the left and especially in the upper middle class super educated left there is a general, "everything English is always better" whether it's music or TV or movies or star culture or cars or whatever. You're supposed to be able to go to England and live there and be the good American who makes your British friends forget you're even American because you are so whatever. It's sort of insane. But then, among that upper middle class left is a lot of discomfort with being American generally, and thinking that people who grew up mostly outside the country are cooler. It's a whole big pile of not wanting to be American that I find sort of confusing since I don't really mind it most of the time and anyway I am, so there's no point in being ashamed of it.

OMG, I have so many INTJ friends it isn't funny. Not so much ISTJ, though. I see what you mean, though. I think I plug into that ST side when, as you say, I need to be really clear about something, but before arriving at that point I've been all NF. Like, my actual thought process is NF but I've learned to communicate in a much more ST way so I don't sound too much like a space cadet, and also to help bring other people along. Not everyone can follow those intuitive leaps that I make so I've learned to break them down into a chain.

London depends on some things. I need to go to LA because my dear friend there needs a visit, so that's January. If I go to PR then I won't have $$ to go to London this year, but then I'll make it my priority for a trip next year, probably in January. If I decide not to go, then it's about timing because I'm ambivalent about going to London in the summer, really. Thoughts?

OMG, I am loving on LJ friends of late, especially the more I am baffled at the behavior of others, and then I feel so lucky especially for hanging on to people. Hurrah LJ!

[folk.livejournal.com]

I grok you on the "not wanting to be American" thing, and we've talked about this before, particularly how I have an easy escape route (rule Britannia etc).

I think that a great part of the "functional NF" experience is learning, in a business context, to think and act as an ST. That's sort of what I meant by the ISTJ shadow thing -- it's learning to function in that sort of way without actually being most effective that way. It's that sort of thing that made me quit the civil service, actually -- the entire organisational culture is ISTJ, and I can play that for only so long before I start climbing walls.

London sucks in January anyway. I'm sorry I won't be able to make PR, but my best friend is getting married then so I need to be the bridesmate. :D London is...okay in summer. When it's really hot it's miserable because no AC ever, but come late August/early September it's usually changeable enough that it's good for most days without being miserable. COME TO LONDON IN SEPTEMBER.

Hurrah LJ indeed. <3

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Brits don't show their emotions*, and we think it's faintly embarrassing and certainly slightly amusing when others do*.

So I guess it's fair play that the rest of us think the rather cruel-edged mockery that inspired this post is more than faintly rude.

[adjudicated.livejournal.com]

I agree with your counterpoint.

[folk.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, insofar as you (plural) acknowledge that "rather cruel-edged" is a value judgment, and that the other side of it is "realistic" or "insightful".

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

I was just thinking about Jim Henson today myself, in connection with steve irwin, isn't that weird?

He died the weekend of Penn 250, and we were all talking about it at the events and parties and I still remember finding out from the TV in my mom's hotel room. And I don't personally feel the Steve Irwin mournfulness but I know those who are 12+ years younger probably will understand the resonance from him more than I would.

But still, I wish - I just *wish* - that people would spellcheck their tributes on the news sites, as they give me a headache with their lack of initial-capping...

[didi75.livejournal.com]

You truly are the voice of conscience in fandom - well, at least on my flist. What you described here - the fear of mocking at expressing any emotion - reminds me of the way junior high school children behave. It's hard for me to believe that educated adults would mock someone else for their heartfelt emotion, especially in such a blatant manner. I mean, even if it's not your passion or cup of tea or whatever, do you really care that much to make a spectacle of yourself and the other person? I know I don't. But I do care about many things, and anyone who wants to mock me for that can go fuck themselves.

For instance, if Madonna died, I would probably cry my eyes out. I'm not a hard core fan, but I've always loved her and her music, and I can't imagine an entertainment world without her!

[didi75.livejournal.com]

...and I cried when Princess Dianna died. So sue me!!!!!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I don't know why people care so much about what other people are doing with their time, but then again, I made this post about what other people are doing so there you go. But I guess, you know, stupidity will out, and without my help, so sort of whatever. I'm not down with huge self-conscious histrionics, but the internet really rewards that, so why should this be any different?

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

I think the last time I cried when a celebrity died was for George Harrison. But I'm an elderly Beatlemaniac, and George and the boys hold special places in my heart. I don't get the mocking, though. I haven't seen any mocking on my flist, so maybe mine is unusual that way.

[roadnotes.livejournal.com]

I am nodding vigorously in agreement, and want to point to posts in my partner's journal, and one in my own, which are on similar/tangential concepts:

http://baldanders.livejournal.com/79528.html
http://baldanders.livejournal.com/79646.html (this one, in particular)
http://roadnotes.livejournal.com/145117.html

I am adding your post to my memories on grief here, as it's very well-written. Thank you.

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

Lemme guess, people are mocking people who are sad that Steve Irwin died? *reads comments* Yep. That doesn't surprise me, given how so many people mocked him when he was alive, although I do think it's tasteless and small to do the mocking now. I wasn't terribly bothered when Ronald Regan died, and I thought he was a ding dong when he was alive, but I wasn't so self-superior that I thought it was right or funny or appropriate to run around mocking him or people who were affected by his death.

But snarkiness is such a commodity, and there are people who are so wrapped up in themselves that they don't know when to turn it off, so, eh, whatever.

For my own part, I thought Steve Irwin was fingernails-on-a-chalkboard annoying until I he became my four year old's hero. And I'm sad that he's dead because my son is sad, and because I've gotten to the point that I recognize that Irwin was a pro-active, passionate, un-self-conscious, freaky force of nature. Annoying or not, I feel bad for the kids he won't be there for, and I do think that the conservation movement has lost somebody important.

I appreciate this post, particularly as you're not a fan of his. You're one of the...I don't know the words. But this kind of post, I'm never surprised when I see it from you. The world would be a much nicer place if there were more people like you in it.

[cazling.livejournal.com]

*here via folk*

Actually, I'm not sure why the expression of emotion necessitates such immediate mocking. Is it really so dangerous to express emotion publicly? Is it a cultural cue that I'm just not picking up from my British cousins, who on my flist seem to be doing more of the mocking?

I think something that many people outside the UK wouldn't necessarily be aware of is the way this kind of thing is informed for a lot of Brits by the aftermath of Diana's death. I don't know if I can explain coherently, but I'll try. What I've seen on my own flist today has been a mix of people going "Aw, no, the Crocodile Hunter died - that sucks" (close to my own reaction - I thought he was silly but fun, and my kids loved watching clips of his shows as a treat when I was a teacher), and then people mocking not Steve Irwin so much as some of the more overblown "OMG this is so tragic and I am crying my eyes out!!!1!1" reactions to his death on the net (some prime examples are on the often moronic 'Have Your Say' section of the BBC's website).

It's hard for me to understand how people can be so very upset by the death of someone they didn't know at all. I can see being sad, sure, the way I felt a bit sad when the last Pope died, or the Queen Mum - regardless of my feelings about them as individuals, they were parts of my cultural landscape for a long time. I remember a lot of people on my flist being very upset when George Harrison died, and I didn't feel anything at all about it because the Beatles were never anywhere on my cultural horizons, but I understood the idea that someone's work or deeds could have meant a lot to your own life, and you might be sad they were gone. What I don't get, and have never really got, is the reaction that goes way beyond that, to an outburst of what purports to be the full-blown agony of grief. Now, to me, the first time I ever remember seeing those kinds of public expressions of 'grief' was when Diana died. The media basically whipped the whole thing into a frenzy, but for a little while there there was this crazy widespread sense that if you weren't crying and laying flowers and writing poems about how tragic her death was, there was something wrong and suspect about you. I remember my dad, who is a fairly stolid middle-class Yorkshire bloke, saying to me in bewilderment that he felt the country was just unrecognisable, and I knew what he meant. The whole thing smacked of hysteria, and so much of the 'grief' was so ersatz. Ever since, it's like the floodgates have opened, and suddenly certain sectors of British society think it's compulsory to weep and wail and rend your garments over the deaths of celebrities, or of small children, and words like "tragic" and "shocked" and "grieving" have become very devalued in popular currency, I think.

For me, part of the reason that sort of overblown insta-grief is so distasteful is that I can't help but feel it's terribly disrespectful to the families and friends of whoever's died: those people are actually grieving, most likely, and yet everyone wants a piece of it, and wants to appropriate their grief and intrude on it. I'm not talking for a minute about people saying "Steve Irwin died and it sucks, he was a fun guy and I feel bad for his wife and kids". I'm talking about people going semi-hysterical and melodramatic all over the shop, all "I will miss him soooo much, he was truly loved, I will never forget him" and so forth.

Grief, real grief, is still largely a private thing in this country, I suppose, and I don't really have a problem with that - cultural conditioning, maybe. I was brought up to understand that when someone suffers a loss it's important to be sympathetic, and also to be respectful of their loss and their right to grieve for it in as much privacy as they wish. I get that not all cultures see grief as a private thing. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't have a problem with the expression of genuine emotions in public, and I don't think the majority of British people do either. I do feel deeply uncomfortable witnessing the expression of 'emotions' that actually ring hollow and seem assumed for the occasion.

YMMV, of course.

[folk.livejournal.com]

Oh, absolutely. That's what I wanted to say before I got into the self-analysis and the transatlantic moment (and the wine).

[treehavn.livejournal.com]

You speak the truth, young grasshopper.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is pretty much exactly what I want to say about the invasion of privacy and mass media appropriation of grief that is really personal to Terri Irwin and the kids and his mates and colleagues, but Caz pretty niftily sums up exactly where I wanted to come from. Clio, I'm sorry if my post yesterday rankled you, I really am, especially in light of how I feel about people like Kirsty and to a lesser degree, Linda Smith, who John already mentioned. At the same time I'd like to think you know me well enough to know that there was no malice directed towards the dead dude (despite the fact that he irritated me in life) or you personally on any 'cultural superiority' level.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

No, it really wasn't your actual post—although I always feel badly about the making fun of the poorly SPAG'd because (a) it's like shooting fish in a barrel (2) it's a bit classist (III) it makes me paranoid because my own SPAG is not what you'd call publication-ready; I'm no copy editor. There are definitely times when people do grammar pet peeve posts when I think, "alas I do that!" and realize that the class stamp bonked on my head by my crappy lower middle class pre-college education will never really go away while I continue being confused about commas and mixing up the occasional homophone. I know that most people only get annoyed with the unreadable, and I agree with them to a certain extent, but there are lots of inflexible grammar cops around who like to feel superior to the rest of us, and I'd hate to feel like I'm causing general sporking of the eyes every time I post. I think it can close off discourse from different voices, as well.

As to the overblown—everything online is overblown; the internet rewards hyperbole and overstatement. I think also that folks want to feel that they are part of something Important and so inflate the importance of whatever is going on. Additionally I noticed certainly with Sept 11 and also with the 7/7 that the people closest to whatever is going on are usually the quietest because there is just so much else you need to think about. But public people—particularly those who are public by choice—give up a certain amount of that privacy when they go public; they have made a bargain that allows everyone else to comment.

Anyway, it wasn't your post, it was frayer's comment in your post that "one can't give a shit" about a famous person dying. I mean, I certainly have, so I was sort of stunned by that comment and the "it is not done" feeling that seemed to be behind it.

Also, you know, I have a reflex against condescension. It gets my blood up infinitely more than any sort of stupidity. But no, I know that you certainly, not so much with the cultural superiority.

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

FWIW I never recall you making a single mistake, homophone or whatever, on LJ, although I have to say I've never bothered to look, and I know I do it as well. I actually edited that post several times because I spotted my own errors in my text, but that's beside the point.

I think also that folks want to feel that they are part of something Important and so inflate the importance of whatever is going on.

With this I think you hit the nail pretty squarely. I dislike the feeling among people that they are entitled to involvement in an event of this type beyond the respectful 'I enjoyed his shows, I feel bad he died so horribly, I feel bad for the kids' which is pretty much what I felt when Diana kicked it, and have to make it into a grande mal, chest beating, hand wringing eulogy when, really, the guy made not-especially-good documentaries. I think that even though Diana died before the net really hit the mainstream, this is essentially an Internet media-driven phenomenon that in all honesty, blogs aren't helping. But whatever, it really irks me and this is why, like you go on to say, I've tried to keep silent on, say, subsequent 9/11 anniversaries - apart from wishing my NY chums lots of love - because I wasn't there, didn't see it in reality, wouldn't wanted to have done, and don't want to intrude on whatever feelings you have about the whole thing. It was why I got so privately upset with the LJ-er who posted 'Panic on the Streets of London' on 7/7 because it was nothing of the kind (and also because I hate Morrisey). So yes, in agreement on that.

I think I will have a further think and post more thoughts in an LJ post later, but thank you for the ideas.

I have to admit I'm not following the 'grammar = class' thing in perhaps the way you'd like me to, but maybe that's a discussion we need to have in real time rather than on a comments page.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

This strikes me as a very sane post. And it feels a little ghoulish to start getting cerebral about styles of public grief, but having been exposed to both sides of it on my flist today I was sort of thinking about it a little.

I agree with you that it's perfectly reasonable to get emotionally invested in public figures, under certain circumstances. And who's to judge whether the other person's investment is less meaningful than mine, even if I can't see it? But I also think there's a phenomenon here that's a little squishy and uncomfortable, that can lead to nervous laughter and, by extension, even to mockery -- of certain people's reactions, I mean, not of the death itself. It's one thing to feel stricken by the death of an actor who taught you something permanently valuable about style, or a puppeteer who was a cherished part of your childhood. But when people get into this wierd celebrity-culture identification with people who are famous for being famous, who were basically clowns and performers and sponsors of catchphrases, then you start to wonder, "what is this grief about?" And there's a nagging sense that the grief is as inauthentic, as self-regarding, as sentimental and narcissistic as the celebrity identification in the first place. And then you look at the overwrought expressions, the melodrama, the bathos, of so many of the "memorials" that, for instance, titanic_days found on the BBC website, it's reasonable to be a little creeped out by that, and to recoil from it.

For the record, I don't think I ever saw Steve Irwin on TV or knew anything about him except the second-hand parodies that turned up from time to time. But I felt sad reading about his death, like I would about anyone who was vital and energetic, and who died so relatively young and in such a freakish and unnecessary way. I mean, I hope that's a sound instinct, to be sorry for that sort of death, and to have all the usual philosophical reflections on the fragility of life, the unfairness of things, etc. But I have trouble believing he meant much more than that to anybody who didn't actually know him. He wasn't an artist or a leader or an inspiration to great things, he was just a familiar part of the cultural background noise. To actually mourn him is like mourning a change in the Diet Coke formula. There's just something confused and muddled there, and something ridiculous because of what it suggests how some people are structuring their emotional lives.

That sounds cold, and I want to be clear that I don't think his death itself should be mocked. I'm talking about some of the grotesque forms of grieving, not the death itself. folk suggests that the British style in these things is only cold-blooded and rational. But I think to distance yourself from the death (by pointing out the irony of it, or making it into a joke) is itself a kind of voodoo by which people pretend they aren't vulnerable, are never ridiculous, could never suffer that sort of accident themselves. I'm not sure that that is any more "realistic" or "insightful" than the opposite, "American" extreme.

[folk.livejournal.com]

I found myself nodding vigorously through your first two paragraphs, but on your third I wasn't so much in agreement.

For me (and, casting aspersions, for British people), I think it's not so much a pretense of invulnerability as much as a method of coping that is closer to the equilibrium of emotion and thinking. (Clio and I have been talking about this above in terms of MBTI F vs T). What I mean is that we cope with a lot of things through humour -- perhaps we always have; we certainly did through WWII and the Blitz, which we tend to see as our formative generation -- and in particular with dark humour, which is the way that we've always dealt with particularly difficult times in our history. By extension, it's sort of our default operator in that way.

I certainly didn't mean, in my slightly tongue-in-cheek reply to ivyblossom above, that people's reactions that didn't match my own were un-"realistic" or not "insightful"; just that I think that we should recognise that everybody's value judgments in this matter (and, taking it meta, in every matter) are worthwhile, reasonable and to be valued in the spirit of diversity.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

but on your third I wasn't so much in agreement.

I thought you might not be! :) And I honestly wasn't meaning to bash your comment, just citing it as an example of a "correction" to the melodramatic style of grief that does seem to me to go too far. It was an irresistible example.

a method of coping that is closer to the equilibrium of emotion and thinking

Now, see, I would question the "thinking" part of this. I think your own argument focuses more on humor as a coping strategy, as a way of maintaining one's practial emotional equilibrium in the face of upsetting events. And it works, it's a better strategy for preserving people's ability to function, and I think we both happen to respect functioning more than emoting so that's a good thing. But it works by selecting and filtering, by turning a distressing event into a story, an attitude, a posture, that doesn't cut as raw and deep as the truth, and that provides a familiar (even if ghoulish) sense of closure, so that people can preserve some emotional distance from what happened.

In this case, I think the opposite of "emotion" here isn't so much "thinking" as it is "form" or "gesture." By using the word "thinking," I think you tend to slip in an unsupported claim that this approach is more firmly grounded in objective reason, closer to the truth of things, than the sentimental extravagance we both enjoy making fun of.

But I don't think it's that easy. It would be pedantic to point out that the irony of Irwin's death lies not in his tendency to tempt fate, but in the fact that stingrays are relatively harmless compared to crocodiles. Arguably, the overwrought mourners are closer to some aspects of the truth than those who would fit his death into a tidy and meaningful narrative, as a punch line -- their shock and horror reflect the unruly and irrational and threatening fact that Irwin's death had nothing to do with his tendency to court danger.

we should recognise that everybody's value judgments in this matter . . . are worthwhile, reasonable and to be valued in the spirit of diversity.

Hmmm. I don't think either of us actually believes that, though. ;) The whole fun of this is in pointing and laughing at the crazies, which requires some effort at making carefully invidious distinctions, hopefully making sure that people we like remain on the right side of the line. I think you and I are basically 3/4 on the same side. I'm just suggesting that your "black humor" approach is grounded in style preferences, rather than in objective reason, and that excesses in that direction may be as culpable as excesses in the other direction.

[folk.livejournal.com]

It was an irresistible example.

...and one that was a rather sarcastic counterpoint that wasn't intended to contribute to the debate other than highlighting the value judgment that I thought that ivyblossom was making.

--

I'm not sure I follow what you mean in your second and third paragraphs. I don't understand what you mean by "form" or "gesture".

I also disagree that we both respect function more than emoting, but that may be my self-identification as an ENFP (although I'm on the border with ENTP). In my opinion and experience, emotion colours all that we do in a way that is inextricable from the objective facts. (reference: constructivist international relations theory, a branch of postmodernism: 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_in_international_relations), 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology), 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Wendt), 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism); not that I'm agreeing with the wikiarticles -- they're just in case you're not overly acquainted with pomo-esque arguments.)

I also think that there are more ironies than just those you mention. Personally, I think it's wider: more the "here's this dangerous lethal sea creature that ARGH DIE" aspect than the "killed by something that's not a crocodile" aspect. Both are ironic, true, but the first is more accessible, I think. (And funnier.) I do very much like your final sentence there, though.

Lastly, I actually believe in IDIC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDIC) theoretically. I just think, in a good Constructivist way, that our reactions to and filters of the infinite combinations are just as valid (and, perhaps, more interesting). I will certainly concur that we're 3/4 (or more! 7/8, perhaps) in agreement, although I think that the most interesting discussions and arguments are among people who are otherwise in agreement with each other apart from those few things. And I suspect that those few things are the important ones.

As for style preferences, I agree. I recognise that other people like things that I don't like -- and, indeed, that more people like things I don't like than like things I do like. And, really, I'm fine with that -- as long as I have a place to grouse about that.

You should post more. I find your insights fascinating.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I find that I make these posts and I am not clear enough when I've left the specific that I'm talking about and wandered off into overarching-point land. So some of what I was saying, about the mocking, was a reaction to all the shit that has happened this summer, or at least in part.

However, I will say that what this post was specifically in reaction to was a comment that someone left on Alex's entry where they said that all one should feel about the death of someone you don't know is to feel sorry for their family and I was thinking, um, no, there can be more to that. And then I saw mahoni's post about how her four-year-old son was very sad because he loved watching that show and I thought well, okay, there probably are some people who loved Steve Irwin as a kid and then went off and became zoologists. It's very tricky to figure out any figure's cultural contribution.

There is a great deal that goes on online that is performative, so much so that we don't even notice it half the time because it's so rampant. I think of all this as just a part of that, and wanting everything to be bigger and more important somehow, because then it will justify paying attention to it, instead of just, this is a small thing that I happen to care about. In that way I think that the mocking leads to a sort of spiral, where the more people mock, the more others exaggerate in order to justify, which leads to more mocking.

But for the most part, I'm not sure why anyone cares. I mean, what do I care if people are behaving sort of silly or putting more meaning into something than I feel is justified, especially when I'm sure that I do the same in the POV of others? This gets back to how I don't believe in guilty pleasures, which is a whole 'nother thing.

Or it could just be that I'm mocked out.

[kokopoko.livejournal.com]

Princess Diana. That death was shocking and tragic. Those who didn't care mocked those that did. But it was hard for those of us that admired her just like it's shocking now for those of us that liked Steve Irwin.

[locumtenens.livejournal.com]

Well, I think anyone who has mourned the loss of a fictional character, as we all have at some point or another, should understand other people's (sometimes irrational) mourning at the loss of a TV personality whom they have never met.

*shrug* It's what makes us human.

Psst, Clio. Did you see this (http://allysonsedai.livejournal.com/63954.html)? You never said, so I wanted to make sure you got it. ♥