Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA20345 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 10 May 2000 13:47:42 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB167@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:45:55 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Well, I'd sort of agree but that doesn't prove the point.
The point I'm trying to get at is not why romance or horror as entire genres
are popular, memetics doesn't really add anything here to what's been said
many time before in the industry and in academia, but why within those
genres particular texts and/or authors are very successful. So why, in
pornography, for example, probably the most obvious of the primal factors
being explored, are there 'stars'- both performers and directors, whose work
is more widely viewed, and more highly regarded by fans/industry?
Normally, studies examine either the author, the text, or the audience, they
don't consider the situation holistically, whereas I think memetics requires
that you do that. The problem is, as with sociobiology, is that we might
end up being reductive to the point where observations aren't helpful in
better understanding the nature of media content if we start reducing things
to the most rudimentary aspects, besides which there are innumerable
Hollywood movies that include sex and violence but bomb, whilst others
succeed. Why?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Richard Brodie
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2000 11:46 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics
>
> Vincent wrote:
>
> <<The problem is Richard that it is far from 'easy' to predict what
> audiences
> are going to be interested in at anything more than a very general level
> of
> primal interests that you talk about. Rather like saying women pick men
> based on high mpi, it is quite a reducitve argument.>>
>
> Have you taken a look at the romance-novel section of a bookstore lately?
>
> I think those primal factors are hugely important. Beyond that, if you
> want
> to create a smash hit that captures the heart of the nation, it's more
> difficult. You have to stack some other resonances on top of the basic
> ones.
> But I think it's fairly easy to predict what WON'T be a smash hit...
> something difficult to understand, without human interest (characters that
> the audience identifies with), void of tension...
>
> Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
> http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 13:48:14 BST