WhatTheDickens?

Our recent conversations about our final projects and current social problems has me thinking about what Dickens would say of the 21st century, both of the continuation of the problems he attempted to tackle, and the new ones that he might tackle if he were alive today.

In terms of the problems of Dickens’ times, would he be disgusted that we are more mechanized than ever (in terms of reliance on technology), or thrilled to see the ways in which people are often using technology to foster creativity? Our technological revolution, though it may not have the same economically crushing results, can be seen as similar to the industrial revolution in how it has altered society. In our society, technology and “fancy” are not necessarily at odds, as they are in Hard Times. Though I suppose there are people who might argue that studying subjects that do not lead to lucrative careers is simply pursuing “fancy” still. However, teachers are finding ways to use technology to enhance the learning of people with learning disabilities (a new font has even been developed that is said to be easier for dyslexic people to read), and rather than making education more rigid, the possibility exists for technology to render it more flexible than ever.

Turning to issues of our time, what would Dickens care about? The defunding of Planned Parenthood? Institutionalized racism? The Starbucks cup scandal? Dickens chose issues to discuss that pervaded society: poverty, industrialization, colonization. I can imagine he would gravitate towards large-scale issues such as the Syrian refugee crisis, though I don’t know if he could churn out installments fast enough. Would he be publishing articles for big-name newspapers the the New York Times about the discontent of college students with the administrations of their universities? In my head, I am trying to project Dickens into a room full of students tired of experiencing everyday micro-aggressions, and to imagine what he would say. I like to think that he would have been on the side of these students, refugees, Planned parenthood supporters, as he most often seemed to be advocating for the oppressed, but we can’t really know that for sure, either. Writing this has created a lot more questions for me than it has answered, but thinking about the 21st Century Dickens has been intriguing all the same.

Maybe it’s because I’m taking this course and therefore extra vigilant about hearing his name, but another TV show I watch had a Dickens reference!

This is the conversation that took place in Season 2, Episode 5 of FXX’s You’re the Worst:

(JIMMY is watching NCIS: LA, as GRETCHEN enters the room.)
GRETCHEN: Ooh, I love dumb procedurals. Wash over me, garbage. Numb my brain. Make me feel nothing.
JIMMY: Okay, that is elitism, Gretchen. Would you have dismissed Dickens for being popular?
GRETCHEN: David Copperfield…didn’t even do any magic. Ooh, ya burnt, Dickens!

I thought of our class discussion on how we decide which specific pieces of art/entertainment are considered “great” and certain pieces get dismissed or don’t get consideration in that discussion of being great. It’s interesting that Gretchen identifies NCIS: LA as doing the work of entertainment and providing a comfortable reliability for her. I think there is a sense now that something truly great has to be provocative or challenge/disrupt our views. Other types of stories, like romantic comedies or even superhero films, seem to reach a ceiling, in which they can’t be considered as great as other works because we know how the structure will work out. In romantic comedies, the lead couple will end up together. In superhero films, the hero will ultimately prevail and save the day. However, I think this line of thinking is flawed because being able to enjoy something, despite knowing how the story will generally play out, is a powerful indicator of storytelling ability.

Dickens, in context, is an interesting case study. On the one hand, his work was loved by the masses, so there exists some sort of natural desire to want to be more dismissive of his work. However, his attention on social reform and ability to provoke thought seems to mean that more people consider his work great than would otherwise. It seems interesting to me that the overlap between something being popular and something being of high quality seems to be perceived as being so small. We could also think about things that aren’t popular to the masses; a number of them are of high quality, and a number of them are not. I’m not sure how we even should judge what’s great. Personally, I know there are a few works that are absolutely powerful for me, but often times I take just as much pleasure in watching something that is comfortable and than I do watching something that Rotten Tomatoes says is 89% “fresh.” Maybe we should be more generous about embracing works that are popular; they don’t all have to be “guilty pleasures.”

Over Thanksgiving break, I went shopping on Black Friday, though only for a couple of hours, in a smaller city. There was no rush, but there was lots of advertising, and lots of sales. I ended up at Ulta, the makeup store. I generally do not have heavy objections to their marketing, but as my cousin and I were in line at the checkout, an advertisement taller than I am had a photo of a woman with obviously accentuated cleavage, big eyelashes, and a mascara wand. What the viewers eyes are first drawn to is the woman’s chest, and then to the slogan: “They’re real, we promise!” referring to the big eyelashes, though the more sexual association is clear. Now, to a female viewer, to whom the company is presumably trying to sell the product, what does it matter whether the woman’s chest and eyelashes are conflated?

This got me thinking about who the audience for marketing strategies really is. Around the holidays, people are buying gifts for loved ones, and more men, usually, can be found in makeup stores buying gifts for the women in their lives. This marketing strategy of sexualization very clearly appeals to the men caught at the register, who may or may not know a single thing about makeup. If one mascara is the same as any other, why wouldn’t men buy the one that had clever advertising?

Similar to the way that advertising was placed in the context of Dickens’ stories in the advertisers that preceded them, advertisers today are also contextualizing their marketing, and though it may be frustrating to those who are critical of marketing, it’s a smart move on the part of the companies trying to sell. The ways in which Dickens revolutionized advertising seem to be alive and well today, not the least at the holidays!

In class, we discussed Dickens’s performances of his own works, specifically his performance of Nancy’s murder scene in Oliver Twist. An article from the British Library website entitled “Dickens the Performer” gave me more insight into Dickens as a theatrical persona. Dickens’s daughter claims that when he was writing his novels, “he would often speak the characters’ words out loud, and run to the mirror to check the expressions on his face” (Callow). This kind of expressiveness and connection with his characters can be seen in Dickens’s works in the often script-like dialogue and scene direction that can easily be envisioned by the reader. His writing was clear enough to allow him to perform scenes, which he often did. The scene of Nancy’s death was terribly taxing on Dickens’s health, and most likely led to his death. Callow writes that Dickens acted the scene “with such brutal realism that people fainted; he seemed possessed by the characters and the story, now thuggish as Bill Sikes, now helplessly vulnerable as Nancy, pleading with God for forgiveness.” He was often unable to speak after these performances.

This kind of commitment to delivering the scene as realistically as possible adds a new layer to Dickens as novelist and businessman. Dickens wasn’t just out to make money; he was a true artist, and committed himself to his art fully to the point of death. In his final performance, Dickens told the audience “I have always tried to be true to my calling” (Callow). Afterward, “Backstage, he wept bitterly, knowing that he would never again know the joy of losing himself in a role, or of connecting so intimately with his readers” (Callow). We’ve spoken so much about Dickens’s success at generating income from his novels and the role that advertising played in his career that it was refreshing to re-envision him as a true artist totally committed to his calling.

http://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/dickens-the-performer

To my surprise, while watching a recent episode of Jane the Virgin, there was an Oliver Twist reference! The protagonist of the series, Jane, is deciding whether or not her son should have access to a trust fund. As she imagines him growing up destitute, this scenario gets created on-screen:

The next episode of the show I watched featured Jane and her family going to shop on  Black Friday at Target, one of the show’s big sponsors. Because I was thinking about both Dickens and advertising while watching this show, I wanted to learn more about the show’s relationship with Target. (The brand has been prominently featured multiple times in this show).

I found a cool article that went more in-depth into the show’s relationship with its sponsor. The article cites a Target spokesperson, who says, “The writing comes first. And then products/integration ideas are woven into the content/scene. This is definitely an editorial process to ensure the integration is as organic as possible.” Thinking about our discussion of The Mystery of Edwin Drood‘s unresolved ending and the speculation about the relationship Dickens might have had with his advertisers, it is pretty remarkable that this creator/advertiser relationship has, in some ways, stayed the same, despite its many obvious changes because of technology.

I thought this line of the article was especially provocative: “But on Jane the Virgin, the Target placement is part of a long game for the brand, not a quick money grab by the network. It feels a lot more pointed. Target isn’t a character quirk like Liz Lemon’s obsession with junk food. It’s a corporation’s attempt for Jane to represent a huge chunk of American women.” Product placement that isn’t just a quick awkward use of a non-iPhone smartphone but is instead something that is essential to a character is a rather new concept, and it got me thinking. On the one hand, of course a 23 year old, middle-class, American woman shops at Target, so Target is a natural fit for product integration. On the other hand, does Target being associated with characters like Jane create and perpetuate the idea that this association is natural? Do we think these things mainly because advertising has told us to, causing us (being of that demographic) go out and shop at those stores we’ve been told people like us shop at? Or it an actual reflection of consumer habits in our society that advertisers play up in ads?

South Park is my favorite show on TV and has been for some time. While some of the content is vulgar and inappropriate I think the creators of the show, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are two of the best and most creative satirists in recent memory. While they seemingly have nothing to do with Charles Dickens, I think the two actually share a lot of similarities with the famous novelist. The first link I have attached is a documentary called “6 days to air” which is an interesting look into the making of South Park and the creators’ struggles with deadlines, something we know Dickens struggled with as well. The show first aired in 1997, and yet it took until 2013, 240 episodes later, before Trey Parker and Matt Stone missed a deadline.  Dickens would appreciate such creative efficiency.

6 days to air

The second link I want to share in this post is a clip from South Park’s most recent episode which interestingly enough was about the prevalence of advertising in today’s society. It is obvious that Trey Parker and Matt Stone believe the amount of advertising present today is out of control, but I wonder what Dickens would think if he were alive today?

Ad clip

In class we talked about the various endings to The Mystery of Edwin Drood that critics and fans have come up with and attempted to prove. However, as we all agreed, some of these theories were simply not supported by the text. Today, the internet is riddled with fan theories that often times seem ridiculous, however every once in a while there is a really good one that takes the internet by storm. Recently, a new Harry Potter fan theory, in which Dumbledore is actually Death, has been receiving a lot of attention and I have to say it is my favorite one so far. I attached a link to an article from businessinsider.com that explains the theory. It is interesting how fan theories can reignite the public’s interest in books, but I think this is simply because it really is fun to look at a past favorite from a new perspective.

Also, J.K. Rowling recently went on twitter to debunk various theories from the internet, and I attached a link to some of her responses. She says that the Dumbledore as Death theory is her favorite because “it is beautiful and it fits.”

-Brian

J.K. Rowling twitter

Dumbledore as Death

It’s amazing how Charles Dickens has become like Old Saint Nick himself, the father of Christmas. The name Dickens for wider audiences is less associated with some great work like A Tale of Two Cities and more intimately associated with the jovial, heartwarming festivities of Christmas. Many cities put on a Dickens themed Christmas festival each year, like my hometown of Franklin, TN and its Dickens of a Christmas festival downtown. I researched a little, and found one festival in San Francisco that really takes the cake for over-the-top Victorian Christmas celebrations. The festival is called The Great Dickens Christmas Fair and it runs from the week before Thanksgiving until right before Christmas. Here is the blurb describing the Fair on its main page:

“The Great Dickens Christmas Fair is a one-of-a-kind holiday adventure into Victorian London –  an elaborate party with hundreds of costumed players performing and interacting with patrons in over 120,000 square feet of theatrically-lit music halls, pubs, dance floors, and Christmas shops. It’s a twilight evening in Charles Dickens’ London Town – a city of winding lanes filled with colorful characters from both literature and history. Enticing aromas of roasted chestnuts and hearty foods fill the air. Cries of street vendors hawking their wares ring out above the bustling crowd. Dozens of lamplit shops are filled to overflowing with Christmas gifts. The Dickens Christmas Fair is a treasured Bay Area tradition since 1970 and a splendid way to celebrate the holidays.”

It is really interesting to me that one of the main features of the fair is its “enticing aromas of roasted chestnuts and hearty foods.” This immediately called to mind the scene from A Christmas Carol where the ghost of Christmas present is sitting in a room filled to the brim with mouth-watering food. Dickens uses almost a whole page to describe in great detail the food items present. In class we discussed how Dickens did not include advertisements with his release of A Christmas Carol, but instead used the work itself to advertise items that consumers could buy around the holidays, such as roasted chestnuts. Dickens’s hidden advertising has now become a primary selling point for getting crowds to come out and–you guessed it– purchase things! The Great Dickens Christmas Fair is basically a large arena to spend money, from the $25 ticket price to the various array of food and drink, toys and ornaments, ceramics, leather, candles, and other “Victorian” items that might make a more festive and Dickensian Christmas celebration for families across the bay area.

Here is a link to a video describing the fair:

The Great Dickens Christmas Fair Promo Video

Yesterday was one of the biggest shopping days of the year, with people lining up outside stores hours before they open in order to get the “best” deals. As someone who can only handle shopping in small doses, why people show up and camp out year after year in order to shop in massive crowds is unfathomable to me. Much of the hype may be due to ads like this one that paint Black Friday as a rare, unmissable opportunity to save money:

Naturally, stores see this shopping day as a way to capitalize and earn large profits and may use advertising to exaggerate opportunities for savings in order to attract larger crowds. However, the deals advertised by stores may not be wholly accurate. For instance, even though this ad claims that Black Friday “only happens once a year” (which is technically true), the deals offered may be no better than they are at any other times during the year. Some stores are even known to mark up their prices just before Black Friday and then lower them back to normal on the shopping holiday under the guise of “savings.” Moreover, stores often advertise “doorbuster” deals for products that are heavily marked down but available in very limited quantities (sometimes as little as 2 items), meaning that most shoppers will not have access to them. Additionally, many stores leave most of their stock un-discounted, but the massive shopping crowds are still drawn to browse through these items, often purchasing many things that they don’t need and aren’t on sale at all. While there may be some actual deals to be had on big ticket items on Black Friday, this is largely a shopping phenomenon to capitalize on shoppers and trick them into thinking they are saving money when they really aren’t.

In class we have discussed how advertising can be focused towards men or women. For example, with A Christmas Carol, the advertising within the story seemed directed at families. In conversations about contemporary advertising, it is impossible to ignore the abundance of advertising for the new Star Wars movie. I’ve seen advertising for this all over the place, from music shows, to sport’s commercials, on apps, on television, on billboards, it’s everywhere. One particular part of the advertising that has been surprising to me is the fact that they have very targeted advertisements, but with the large number of advertisements they are producing, they are advertising to several different groups.

The most interesting to me is the advertisements targeting women. They have created a makeup line by Covergirl and a fashion line available at Hot Topic for the new Star Wars film.  I have included images of both below.

What was previously viewed as a franchise for Males, has begun targeting their women audience as well. An article from Forbes.com discusses this current change in advertising at the following link http://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinecusumano/2015/11/11/why-gender-disparities-in-star-wars-product-promotion-really-matter/

I have a feeling this new advertising is really going to increase the amount of money that this new film makes off of both ticket sales and merchandising. Targeting particular groups has always been a method used by advertisers, but this change in who advertising addresses could really alter the future of advertising and merchandising as a whole.