Talking with Stephen King

From an interview in Time: Q&A: Talking with Stephen King.

Do you actually think Britney and Lindsay should be on our cover? Yeah, I do.

Sort of a, 'This is what the media's actually interested it, so let's just put it out there' thing?
I think there ought to be some serious discussion by smart people, really smart people, about whether or not proliferation of things like The Smoking Gun and TMZ and YouTube and the whole celebrity culture is healthy. We've switched from a culture that was interested in manufacturing, economics, politics — trying to play a serious part in the world — to a culture that's really entertainment-based. I mean, I know people who can tell you who won the last four seasons on American Idol and they don't know who their f------ Representatives are.

But you've been well in the public eye for decades now. Is it pretty blatant how much worse it's gotten?
It's worse every year. And the guy says to me — the Nightline guy — I didn't get the guy's name. Granted, I haven't been feeling real well and it was a long day of interviews. But he said to me, "If we didn't cover cultural things, we wouldn't be covering you and The Mist, and promoting the movie." And I'm like, "Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan aren't cultural." They aren't political. They're economic only in the mildest sense of the word. In fact, if I had to pick somebody, some celebrity who has had some impact this year, some sort of echo in the larger American life, I would say Hannah Montana. That whole issue of online ticket sales and scalping fascinates me. There are [legitimate] issues there about the Internet, so that actually does seem to have some cultural significance. But Britney? Britney Spears is just trailer trash. That's all. I mean, I don't mean to be pejorative. But you observe her behavior for the past five years and you say, "Here's a lady who can't take care of her kids, she can't take care of herself, she has no retirement fund, everything that she gets runs right through her hands." And yet, you know and I know that if you go to those sites that tell you what the most blogged-about things on the Internet are, it's Britney, it's Lindsay. So I think it would be terrific [to have them as TIME Persons of the Year]. There would be such a scream from the American reading public, sure. But at the same time, it's time for somebody to discuss the difference between real news and fake news.

True, in terms of Britney Spears, she's still fairly young. When you were young, fame sort of screwed you up a bit, didn't it?
The difference is that Britney is now famous for being famous. Her sales have gone down with almost every album, bigger and bigger jumps, so that nobody really cares about her music anymore. They care about the tabloid headlines and whether or not she's wearing panties. I mean, is this an issue that the American public needs to turn its brainpower on? Britney Spears' lingerie, or lack thereof?

This reminds me of something Paul said last night as we drove back from Boston (through 3 different, miserable, climate weirding storm systems--snow, ice, and rain even though it was 29 degrees). He said he thought my revolution fantasies are way to optimistic. Even after the buildings are stormed and the warlords are tried and hung as the traitors they are, not much would change. People like their pablum, their soma.

Neoliberalism and neoconservativsm give them what they want: all sorts of goodies and pleasures, all sorts of luxuries we can't afford but now can't seem to do without. And, then the neoconservatives spank us, call us naughty, evoke the possibility of rule and order that neoliberalism sweeps away. We get pleasure and a semblance of restraint. Of course, we don't really believe the restraint any more--but we enjoy the spectacle of others getting punished. They provide us with opportunities for cruelty.

Strands of thought discuss the decadence of the people, when the people are unfit for self-government, when they become too corrupt to rule themselves.

Comments

[Bob Allen]

On the one hand, the idea that the people are too corrupt to rule themselves is the gateway to conservatism, the abandonment of the socialist project. On the other hand, it occurs to me that we have already achieved utopia, if we have time to sit around pontificating on the politics of "virtual reality" or phony happiness that most seem to eat up like candy, therefore the conservatives are right, even the poor love their station so relax and enjoy the show. Trouble is, I don't have the stomach for it...

[Alain]

It seems ironic but this was the criticism of traditional conservatives - the masses cannot be trusted to govern themselves. While there is a lot of evidence to support this claim, I am not sure if it is true. Of course titilation appeals to people - Britney and Lindsy are train recks, and people always enjoy that. And with the proliferation of media there are more venues to make money from this sort of thing. So I think it is more about the medium being the message than about the failure of democracy. The political process in America is pretty divorced from the lives of most people (Iowa and New Hampshire are the exceptions every 4 years).

I have been watching quite a bit of the campaigning of the presidential candidates on CSPAN (I know I am a geek). While most the candidates say the things you would expect - I hear alot of regular folks ask intelligent questions about all sorts of things. For example, Mitt Romney was answering questions in Iowa and an older gentleman asked him how he would be able to get the deficit under controll and continue to cut taxes over and above what Bush has already done. Romney's answer was nonsense and I think most of the people there knew it.

This may be too simplistic - and it certainly isn't radical - but I think alot of the problem with "politics" in the US is that no one is held accountable for the consequences of policy. And I do not mean impeachment or violent revolution - I just mean that if you spend money on a war you have to find a way to pay for it. If you are going to cut taxes (especially on investment income for the wealthy) you have to cut spending to offset the cost. These are basic things that ordinary folks understand - The reason we do not hear most democrats speak plainly in this way is they lack courage - they think the electorate will punish them for being honest. I believe they are mistaken - while some people will never be convinced that government should do anything other than defend the country, most people want and expect the governent to do lots of things (social security, medicare, roads, education).

So I think it comes back to politicians treating the electorate as adults and not as children. Until the electorate demands the respect of the political class, we will continue to be pandered to like spoiled bratz.

[patrick j. mullins]

The Britney/Lindsay/Paris stuff is more subtle than that. It doesn't need to be compared to economics and manufacturing, but to the fact that there are really great things going on in pop culture. I do surveys so methodically and systematically that I have to work through a large piece of a single domain at a time--in the last two years ballet and then Broadway musicals--before I am satisfied, and in the meantime I miss all sorts of developments in other domains. So I only discovered the Dixie Chicks this weekend, and they've got the best act there is going right now. Dejan has caught me up on some old Deborah Harry which is the only one he's given me that I also think is stellar--Madonna's show with the S & M pigs is pure garbage, and also recently listened to Britney's syrup sound, although it's not really terrible. But the Dixie Chicks are simply different from what came before, but so even though you get closer to the real comparisons, which are not just opposed juxtapositions like politics, poor people, what have you, you've got these gorgeous girls who aren't strung out and they can really sing and play--but they don't interest the scandal-mongering because they haven't become interested in proving they can get photographed without panties (which would be okay if she weren't stoned and got disapproval for it). Even so, 'Britney is not culture' is not true. It's all culture, and most of it is shit, but as recently as 2001, even B'way had 'Urinetown', which is a masterpiece in the same way 'Mahagonny' or 'On Your Toes' were in the old days, and better than anything Sondheim ever came up with, IMO (I'm skipping that 'Sweeney Todd', Xmas-movie offering with ridiculous cast, but also think it is the most over-rated piece in the last 40 years.)

As for getting depressed about the future, it's definitely an option.

[John Reeve]

"Neoliberalism and neoconservativsm give them what they want: all sorts of goodies and pleasures, all sorts of luxuries we can't afford but now can't seem to do without."

Huh? I thought that these neos gave folks wants-in-themselves, not "what" they want. And this want is usually only what the markets can deliver, not something that has a rela basis.

That is why when folks are are focused on popular culture, it is typically limited to the now of Brit and Lin-- the now that is so unsatisfying it has to be fixed or give folks a fix continually-- instead of longer lasting things like Debbie "Queen of the Underground" Harry.

If these things were truely satisfying, wouldn't they last a lot longer?

So in response to the "isn't this just what people want if left to their own devices" line, I think the answer should take into account the fact that whatever it is that folks want, it isn't satisfied by Star Magazine.

[Alain]

I agree with John. This reminds me of the old left's question: "Why do the masses desire their own repression?"

[Jodi]

I think the old left question--why do the masses desire their own repression--is vitally important. And I think the answer is that 'it's easier than freedom' and that ideology works by producing subjects; current subjects want ease without responsibility, pleasure without sacrifice, stimulation without end.

Yes, there is an overlap with some conservative positions here. But, perhaps this is because some conservatives diagnosis the problem but fail to identify the cause. And, perhaps it is because the mainstream Democrats don't have the courage to tell people something they think people don't want to hear.

[Alain]

I generally agree with Jodi with one exception - I think there are plenty of people who want to be spoken to like adults - despite the moral and intellectual decadence that the free market promotes.

[roger]

Well, Stephen K. doesn't know crap about Britney Spears. Far from being trailor trash, she was a mouseketeer. She's been working forever. And like so many people who start as child stars - Judy Garland and Michael Jackson come to mind - being raised in a world in which your cuteness is manufactured all the time, it is what you do, it is how you earn your living, is, well, damaging. Is it really that hard to see this? I am going to bet that when Stephen King was 11, he didn't have a workday. I bet you he wasn't trying out for anything at 8, wasn't taking dance lessons, didn't know to the decimal what his calorie count was when he was twelve. He was just lounging around being a fat kid. Screw that guy.

[patrick j. mullins]

Lindsay Lohan, because of her age I guess, is the only thing in 'Prairie Home Companion' who doesn't speak the unspeakably stupid language and feel the stupidity of sensation that Keillor produces (and what there is of Altman is a mere shadow and barely noticeable)--it's not that she's some bright star or that she's even good, but rather she at least doesn't know the impossibly negative and dead situation that's going on. Never expected to have a word to say about her--and she couldn't have known she was in something that is much like the Overlook Hotel in Kubrick's version of King's 'The Shining'. Someone mentioned The Star--scandal sheets full of Lohan rehab are nowhere near the nightmare of masochism Keiller produces with something that is not even 'country' or 'homely values'. There's a weird kind of sickness to it.