Friday, October 1st, 2010
99

'The Social Network': The Old Constructing Heroes For The Young

IN YOUR NETWORKEach day I pass the glossy posters vaunting that actor's face who I recognize from somewhere as a prettified stand-in for the CEO of that company that's supposed to be changing the way I think, his visage of slack-jawed moronism a lame-ass stand in for profundity as decided by some group-tested marketing-teamed tautology of whatever it is that passes for brainstorming nowadays, covered in words that purport to represent the names he has been called by his (or my) peers, to be played by earnest, attractive actors who also call up feelings of vague recognition, actors conversing intently with each other in topical settings that show the world I inhabit in roughly the same way that "Jersey Shore" shows the actual Jersey shore, words whose variety and brevity (Punk. Genius. Douchebag.) claim to indicate the strength of emotional response generated by this simulacrum of somebody I have never met and give, at best, a damn about, I feel intensely ticked-off and spurred to action both, to a degree that hits and surpasses the level of guileless eagerness to shell out $12.50 that the film seeks to find in me and so wholly misses, in tandem with my sheer fed-up-ness with the presumption that this is what I most deeply care about, and hand in hand with the suspicion that not only are they missing the point, but that this shit blows.

Yes, I am on Facebook. I am part of the 176% on twentysomethings who exist online, who have friends and post on each other's walls and have status updates and stuff. Now let's talk about something else.

The complacency this film assumes that I have grates on me, hard. It's like a suggestion of what I would find interesting, one that is all the more frustrating for the laziness with which it wasn't developed. The thought process behind the movie, the one all the way at the back-because I bear no ill will towards Aaron Sorkin or David Fincher (though guys, I thought you were awesome but you have seriously let me down here man) or even Mark Zuckerberg, whose legacy is so far up in the air that my computer-trained eyes can't even find where in the sky it was flung-is painfully, insultingly apparent: young people are on Facebook. No, young people like Facebook; young people go to see movies about things they like; QED, The Social Network. The sheer and blind underwhelmingness of this idea, its power to cajole some of the cultural power players with greater caché and artistic cred is evident in every frame of the film's immaculate and preposterous trailer. It is an alluringly simple pitch, almost seductively thoughtless. I cannot blame the people involved. They have careers to support. I try to refrain from placing blame, because I feel guilty about it afterwards.

But has the creation of our own heroes (and villains and villain-heroes) been taken out of our hands entirely? Do we no longer rise to the occasion? Is the premature canonization of someone whose nominal status as a prophet for the young springs almost entirely from the pens and minds of thinkers whose most immediate tie to that generation-no, to me, because this is more than abstract when you're one of those twentysomethings we hear so much about and happen to have something to say and the wherewithal to know that even if it doesn't link to Foursquare, sometimes it just doesn't matter-when their immediate tie is hereditary, is that all there is? I would hazard a "no," but emphatically: perhaps it is all that has been given to us, but we are better and more complex than that, and if we are only just finding the adamance and defiance that push our talent from sanctioned accomplishment into the realm of getting shit done, it is because only now have we found the thing that we can be against wholly and with every ounce of audacity, with all due respect: this notion of the future. Not so much that we will Facebook and tweet and whatnot (I appreciate a well constructed series of 140 characters as much as the next aspiring intellectual), but that we can be told what defines us. We reserve that right, even if we have not yet used it in full.

If this claim seems overblown, well, there may be some truth in that. There is no blame to be placed, because it is just a movie, after all. No lives will be unmade, no tectonics will shift, just because a shiny cultural product from the world's leading producer condescends to its audience; that is nothing new. Nothing is to be gained by seeking a foothold for attack when the geography doesn't permit engagement.

We cannot expect the professionals to be the revolutionaries. Pros (which actors and filmmakers often are) are too dedicated to the thoroughly excellent completion of the task at hand to partake in the extravagant sacrifice of talent that leads to new things. Here perhaps is part of Zuckerberg's appeal as a deeply fictionalized biographical subject, particularly by a group of seasoned professionalss, one that contains some truth: he seems insistently and alluringly amateur. Amateurs exude in full the inefficiency necessary for invention, while pros tend towards innovation's efficiency. In the context of people who know exactly where they are headed, the ambiguity and superfluousness that are a part of invention seem deliciously exotic.

Both Sorkin and Fincher are filmmakers whose past work has something of a top-down aesthetic, consisting of sensational pieces of mass entertainment in which their will is always present, and often subtle, elegant, and thoroughly convincing. They deal largely in ideas and moods of their own that find a place in created worlds, rather than finding worlds ripe for the recording. That's happened here again, but because this time it's about the now instead of the then, news instead of history, and the usually subtle superimposition mutates into a mesmerizing disconnect between speaker and subject, infusing the story with an epic, overwrought, even Grecian air that feels fascinatingly inappropriate for its subject. They're calling down from the peaks to all those kids at the bottom who haven't decided if the mountain's worth the climb, totally missing the point that this heroic narrative is rendered insufficient by the very thing they purport to understand. It's old-school marketing meets new-school possibilities: to quote Joey Lucas quoting a French revolutionary, they did their best to figure out where we were headed so that they could lead us there. In classic fashion, they've made the guy a hero, when the term doesn't ring true anymore.

It is perhaps not the responsibility of the young, or their culture, to consciously manifest the values that will lead us forward; that tends towards the canonical in a way that defeats the fundamental inventive impulse. But it is clear enough what we should be against, where we are coming from and what we should leave behind, if not where we are headed. I may see The Social Network. I am not sure if I want to, and depending on how much pocket change I have in October I may find myself in a theater, watching a film that I am sure will be better than I would wish. But still, the question I ask now, heedless of the film's quality and to spite the notion that it matters: is this the best we've got?



Matthew Wollin lives in New York. He has no other pertinent personality traits.

99 Comments / Post A Comment

Murgatroid (#2,904)

Mind you, I haven't seen the film yet (matinee screening this afternoon by myself!), but from everything I've read about the film, Fincher and Sorkin have made Zuckerberg everything but a hero. Not even an anti-hero.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

Such an angry Young…

woozlewuzzle (#7,707)

Apparently if Fincher/Sorkin really wanted to capture the essence of the youngs, they should have made a movie about the astounding assumptions they feel comfortable making based on seeing a poster.

doubled277 (#2,783)

ouch

metoometoo (#230)

It sounds like you're getting yourself worked about about something that has nothing to do with this movie.

The story of how Facebook was invented is interesting. The script is good. That's all.

MikeBarthel (#1,884)

So was this the review of a film poster? Interesting!

Adouble (#1,300)

I think maybe he also watched a youtube trailer.

zidaane (#373)

Does this mean I shouldn't send Choire my review of of the cover of the new Jamiroquai album?

MikeBarthel (#1,884)

On the contrary!

Very interesting post…but I wonder if Sorkin would rather us compare Zuckerberg to an artist than an epic hero, making Facebook today's equivalent of "Howl". See the link for more thoughts on this…

http://reviewstk.blogspot.com/2010/09/products-of-howl-fathers-of-facebook.html

Miles Klee (#3,657)

eh?

Joey Camire (#6,325)

Ditto. You lost me at the 5th hyphenate.

HiredGoons (#603)

Do they mean 'punk' like 'punk' or like 'young whippersnapper'?

Cuz this kid is a lot of things but 'punk' ain't one of them.

HiredGoons (#603)

"infusing the story with an epic, overwrought, even Grecian air"

But enough about Oliver Stone…

djfreshie (#875)

I'm dubious of the praise for this movie, only because I did see Benjamin Button, by 'the Fincher', which had similar praise, and I discovered, a mere 20-30 minutes in, that I was watching the worst, nearly most-nonsensical movie in the world, ever. As if we needed Forrest Gump 2 with a side-narration story that involved Hurricane Katrina for no apparent reason. I don't understand how a human being was ever entertained by it, but there's Justin Bieber who exists and makes money, so.

So my guess is that the great reviews will continue to rack up, and I'll go see it, and it will disappoint me in ways I never thought I could be disappointed in. Remember Alien 3? The good ol' days.

HiredGoons (#603)

'…Benjamin Button' is a cultural abortion.

deepomega (#1,720)

@goons: A rare movie that both is and ends with abortion.

djfreshie (#875)

@deepomega: What about Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

Kevin Knox (#4,475)

@djfreshie: Or "The Last American Virgin".

djfreshie (#875)

"Into the Wild." Think about it.

heroofthebeach (#2,280)

I pretty much stop going to the theaters during Oscar season because of all the bad "good" movies, and then I catch up with the actually interesting ones later.

mrschem (#1,757)

I am a huge fan of Alien 3. Its that two hours' plus-Rob Zombie/Danzig/Nine Inch Nails music video that killed my interest in Fincher.

@freshie: Into the Wild was utterly atrocious.

djfreshie (#875)

@Mantooth:

Whenever someone tells me they enjoyed Into the Wild I grit my teeth and say "Huh." but secretly in my brain, it crosses that person's name off the list of "People whose opinions ever matter in my life." Because, christ. First of all, the scene where he breaks the 4th wall. Second, Eddie Vedder's SUPER LITERAL soundtrack. He might as well have added lyrics, saying "I'm going…into the wild" and Third, it's a story about that rich dude you went to high school with that became a stoner in college and nobody gave a shit about him then, and nobody gives a shit about now. Oh he dies eating berries. THAT'S HOW HE DIES. FUCKING COULDN'T PICK THE NOT POISON BERRIES. That's your hero? Go to hell.

@mrschem: I do the same thing to people who say mean spirited things about Alien 3. They killed the child actor IMMEDIATELY in the first scene. And the Postlethwait was in it. SO underrated.

djfreshie (#875)

Also so unrelated to this thread now, but Alien 4 is equally underrated. I will take, and accept, heat for this. But Jeunet + Perlman. It has aged better than you are probably thinking.

@freshie: True story: I still have a note on my phone that I passed over to The Honey about halfway into our viewing of that piece of shit that reads, "In retrospect, License to Wed was a pretty good movie."

balsa_wood (#465)

"…that I was watching the worst, nearly most-nonsensical movie in the world, ever."

This is such ridiculous hyperbole, I don't know where to start. I mean, I know it's just "hyperbole," but still.

Though it is very original of you to not like Benjamin Button, perhaps the most popular whipping post for the culturally astute. (Which, if they're commenting on a blog, for some reason usually means really liking Sleigh Bells.) Something The Kids Today do a lot of online: deem whatever the last movie they saw was either The Best or The Worst. Ugh. Benjamin Button is much, much better than that–though I suppose I should be embarrassed to say this?

Also, it took place in New Orleans. It ended in the middle of the first decade of the 2000s. So, Katrina–wiping away a city, wiping away a place and time, fit pretty poignantly in with the movie's other themes, which I'm sure you just rolled your eyes at.

Doing the work of interpretation is uncool, I guess. I suggest you skip a lot of other "bad" movies by Douglas Sirk, John Ford, et al. Your eyes'll fall out from all the rolling.

balsa_wood (#465)

"First of all, the scene where he breaks the 4th wall."

Totally. This is exactly why GOODFELLAS is such a piece of shit.

I don't understand your criteria at all. The lead character can't die from eating poison berries? Even if that's how the real person died? Wha? You've migrated from "picky" to "weirdly intolerant."

djfreshie (#875)

@balsa:

I'm sorry the movies you like are terrible.

My criteria is simple: I don't like the same terrible movies that you clearly do.

It is possible to break the 4th wall in film effectively. Goodfellas does this. Into the Wild did not. IN MY OPINION. Chill out.

I'm not an "Eye-rolling-kid-these-days."

I spent most of the 3 hours of Benjamin Button in deep interpretation. My interpretation is that the themes were non-existent and that the Hurricane Katrina side story was exploitative and in no way related to whatever theme you think there was. What were these themes by the way? I have no idea. I'm sure you have some great ones.

Yeah, I skip all sorts of movies. I'm busy rolling my eyes. Thanks for imagining who I am. I sound great!

HiredGoons (#603)

Sleigh Bells sucks royal cock: http://www.boiledjewels.com/?p=1357

balsa_wood (#465)

Did you see the Fincher movie before Benjamin Button? Zodiac? It's good too! I highly recommend you Netflix it right now, before you go to sleep. Right now.

Sorry, and I know you're speaking through your INTERNET PERSONA OF DRYNESS, but the themes of Benjamin Button were "non-existent"? Wha? Oh, come on. I understand the argument that the Katrina side-story might've been exploitive (because Katrina hasn't reached its expiration date, really…when tragic events become fair game…which sounds icky, but is actually kind of true, isn't it, People of the Titanic?!) but surely it was narratively appropriate and, um, thematically consistent? (Theme hints: "time" "slipping" "away")

And why shouldn't I imagine who you are? Your language is so angry and visceral! In my mind, you look like a Ramone!

balsa_wood (#465)

@Goons, thanks for that link. So cathartic–flexing deeper knowledge than mine he helps me think through why this band annoys the shit out of me. Me being me, I could've used more "They just fucking suck, alright"'s, but still…thanks.

@Goons/Freshie: You won't do this, but a friend of mine recently rewatched Benjie Button after initially hating it, and he was reduced to tears. He loved it. I can only recommend that sometime, perhaps in the far-off future (far-off past?!?), you take another look. Beneath the slick and sometimes corny contrivance, there is a very haunting, very lovely movie there.

djfreshie (#875)

I've seen all his movies. Zodiac was not bad. That one, I would rewatch.

I'm curious. Tell me what you think the themes are, specifically. 'Time slipping away' does nothing for me. There was a massive looming allusion to an allegory for Button as the United States, but it eludes me, and I don't think it exists. And without any deeper meaning, I find the movie excessively unrealistic. And I recognize he ages backwards, which is already something that doesn't happen. I found the relationship stale…these were two people with nothing in common but good looks, and so I could relate not at all to their love for one another. I found the acting mediocre. And even the treatment of what I feel is a CGI gimmick was done halfheartedly. He aged backwards, but his memory remained. So he's a regular guy. He lives like everyone else, only his face goes from old to young. But he developed in his mind the same way everyone else does. This bothered me from the onset. He collected friends, collected family, created memories and maintained them like every other human being. I didn't find anything interesting about that story either. So with a non-existent allegory, a love story that I didn't relate to, and bland character development, I didn't see anything worth raving about. That's all. I shan't watch it again, at least not unpaid.

Sleigh Bells are as boring as Benjamin Button.

jfruh (#713)

I'm just looking forward to the soundtrack album, full of nostalgic hits from 2003. "In Da club!" "Jenny From The Block!" Woo!

MikeBarthel (#1,884)

It will be available only on Napster! (Also: that would be a great album!)

deepomega (#1,720)

Time to go make Jenny From The Block my ringtone!

theletterc (#7,709)

This is the most poorly written thing I've read on the Awl.

"That's happened here again, but because this time it's about the now instead of the then, news instead of history, and the usually subtle superimposition mutates into a mesmerizing disconnect between speaker and subject, infusing the story with an epic, overwrought, even Grecian air that feels fascinatingly inappropriate for its subject."
And such is your writing style, Mr. Wollin.

Yeah. This was a letdown. I think there may be an interesting point somewhere in this, but its well disguised behind all of the adjectives and all of the seething.

LondonLee (#922)

Glad it wasn't just me. My brain crashed trying to follow some of those sentences.

Grant G Brown (#3,366)

Was there more than one sentence?

I'm sorry, I appreciate the effort, but I couldn't keep up. I've failed this piece.

carpetblogger (#306)

That lede is astounding.

Joey Camire (#6,325)

Intentionally esoteric.

srosenb (#7,568)

"I'm angry because I don't want to buy into the hype of something I want to be above, but I can't help myself. Adjectives!"

frabjous (#7,401)

as noted this essay is rather critically hampered by the author's failure to see the film he is discussing.

nevertheless, the more interesting question is whether the film, which, from what I have read, highlights the sordid origins of facebook as well as the vacuous nature of "social networking", will cause people to reconsider their participation in such activities. as opposed to the author's reflexive (or defensive): "Yes, I am on Facebook. I am part of the 176% on twentysomethings who exist online, who have friends and post on each other's walls and have status updates and stuff. Now let's talk about something else."

this film, to its credit, doesn't want to talk about something else.

Adouble (#1,300)

I agree that this is badly written, but in a way that evokes a precocious freshman trying too hard, so I guess it's appropriate for an essay about "the youth" responding to "the olds".

Pitchfork reviews reviews movies

saythatscool (#101)

Exactly. I am getting bored with this now.

freetzy (#7,018)

"I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism. That way you get both the novelists' ideas as well as the critics' thinking. With fiction I can never forget that none of it really happened, that it's all just made up by the author." — Tom Townsend

HiredGoons (#603)

I am so glad this quote was brought to my attention.

What is a Tom Townsend?

saythatscool (#101)

Is that from Metropolitian?

Oh I see. Well done.

HiredGoons (#603)

wait… am I an idiot? I mean, more so.

Alexmcelvain (#7,718)

lol cheers

BadUncle (#153)

Much as I admire any text that can demonstrate how a tautology blows, I think the first sentence could have used more clauses.

Joe Gallagher (#4,773)

This isn't a movie review, everyone is reading this wrong. I think "The Social Network" looks stupid for the same reason Wollin thinks it looks stupid. Stop trying to make Jesse Eisenberg the spokesman of our generation and stop trying to use Facebook to define us.

deepomega (#1,720)

You think it looks stupid because you don't like Eisenberg? Or because you don't like broadly written ad copy?

LondonLee (#922)

Would you prefer if they used Tumblr?

frabjous (#7,401)

it's an essay prompted by, and in effect about, a film. waiting a day or two to see the film in question might have yielded numerous dividends. as for people "trying to use Facebook to define us" — this is inevitable.

widespread participation in social networking websites is a certifiable fact of life for many young people, with implications that are well worth discussing. the negative implications are in particular worth discussing. For example, it's interesting to note that in the the discussions of Tyler Clementi, most people blamed his roommate and his friend for the suicide, rather than questioning the pervasive online communications network that played such a crucial role in that fiasco.

lotsoftreble (#2,715)

Jesse Eisenberg is the shiznit, people.

I kind of sympathize with the author's creeped-out prejudice about how the film is being marketed as "generation defining" right out of the gate, but all be damned if I'm going to let it make me this huffy.

LondonLee (#922)

I could care less about Facebook but I still want to see the film. Though as I'm an "old" with kids I'll be watching it at home on DVD. Anyone want to make a movie about how Netflix is defining my generation?

freetzy (#7,018)

Oh, to feel the existential dread of knowing your waiting to return a DVD until Thursday means you won't have anything but HGTV to watch until Monday evening.

HiredGoons (#603)

I really only go to the theaters anymore to see movies that are more than 20years old.

LondonLee (#922)

Oh I know, I have a DVD of 'The Runaways' sitting at home still un-returned so no movie for us Saturday night.

"A Prophet" had been left unwatched for weeks, until last night.

HiredGoons (#603)

@ContainsHotLiquid: best movie of last year ANYONE SAYS OTHERWISE AND I WILL CUT YOU.

@ I didn't realize until the end that it was by the same director as "The Beat That My Heart Skipped," which I also liked.

deepomega (#1,720)

@Lee: You might not want to admit to being an old with kids who has The Runaways on permanent loan from Netflix.

mrschem (#1,757)

this.

Tao Lin reviews movies now?

Is Matthew Wollin Keith Gessen's new pen name?

mishaps (#5,779)

You kids are SO adorable!

dntsqzthchrmn (#2,893)

Cachet.

Ok, thanks for letting me get that out of my system.

It's even worse because of the accent, n'est ce pas?

The writer is misunderstanding the aim of this movie the same way many people have misunderstood the trailers. The use of that cover of "Creep" is not to imply that the Facebook generation is "creepy" (they are, but that's another matter), Mark Zuckerberg is the "creep" in question. Likewise, Zuckerberg is not portrayed as a hero, or even as a particularly admirable person in the movie. You aren't really supposed to like him at all. He is, however, meant to symbolize an emblematic creature of this era and especially this last decade, and that doesn't seem to be too far off the mark.

heroofthebeach (#2,280)

I'm going to break with popular opinion and say that this article was worthwhile for the vicious comment section, which made my day. I think we need some bad writing once in a while.

A.R. Chrisman (#2,964)

Where's the final "tweeted from my blackberry" on this post?

As a young, I have to say that I'm not offended by The Social Network. I'm also not investing the whole of the future of my generation on this movie. I'm not claiming Mark Zuck as a hero and I don't really give that much of a shit about facebook. I play bejeweled on it and harass my grandparents.

I'm looking for a follow up post to this called "Rebel Without a Cause: The Old Constructing the Heroes for the Young". The whole article would be about how James Dean is too slick for the screen and, really? Is this the best we can do? Come on Baby Boomers! We aren't a bunch of slack-jaw, cool cat rebels!!!!

Alexmcelvain (#7,718)

u kno i hate old people they claim to get me but they dont, they think they can focus-group movies that will resonate with me but they cant psh u wanna kno how lame these dumb old fucks r? so lame i kno this movie sucks without even having 2 see it man. take it from me man don't buy into this shit. do what i do: write articles on the internet about it and juxtapose wordiness with swears so that people will get the message that ur rle cool (like yea u took some rhetoric or maybe semiotics classes in college but that doesnt mean u cant tie one on on the weekends u no?) and that way when u DO tie one on and someone at the bar sez 'hey man u gonna see that fb movie?' u can be like: listen bitch i write for the awl, ever heard of it? yeah it's a cool blog on the internet and u kno what's more? i fuckin trashed that movie man, opened with a whole huge paragraph that was really one sentence because that's how much that movie fuckin blows man. but no i haven't seen it.

On the real: You know what my takeaway from this article was? This: It's fucked up that our generation is still so sensitive about marketing. Grow up/thicker skin. Literally anything is more interesting/compelling than being upset about an ad campaign.

doubled277 (#2,783)

Sorry, but ad campaigns have become so ubiquitous and such a part of the movie experience (because by the time you actually watch the damn thing you've been bombarded with enough images and thematic elements preparing you for what the movie is about that you experience the film in a far different way than if you had seen it without knowing anything about it – an almost impossible experience for a widely released movie) that it is completely, totally, 100% fair to have this kind of critique of it. (Whether or not you agree and whether or not you think its well-written etc etc are different matters all together.)

Alexmcelvain (#7,718)

Right but what I'm saying is for this stupid kid being this pissed off by a slight misstep in their media planning (i.e most people enjoy the campaign and have a positive opinion of the movie) is basically the web2.0, 20something disaffected new yorker (the bad half) version of MAN PARENTS JUST DONT FUCKING UNDERSTAND SO IM GONNA GO GRAFFITI A COP CAR

man SONY thinks they get me, but they don't, so i'm gonna rip em a new one on THEAWL.COM

I guess that's part of it, for me: this made-up issue is so bullshit that this article is almost pointless and it strikes me as being more about the author positioning himself against the hype than anything else.

the movie has a 98 on rottentomatoes. everybody who sees it, except for armond white who is mostly a cockbag anyways, loves it, and this obnoxious prick found the one thing he could use to say something bad about it.

balsa_wood (#465)

Sorry. How are ad campaigns any more "ubiquitous" now than they were, say, ten years ago? Is it because there are more opportunities to watch trailers? I don't get this. Movie posters and trailers have been around forever. Movies have been publicized on TV forever. What's new, exactly?

And yeah, re: this critique–it might be "fair," but that doesn't mean it's not kinda narrow and stupid.

doubled277 (#2,783)

@balsa_wood – I never said they were any more ubiquitous than ten years ago. But they have become increasingly more and more ubiquitous since movies became America's primary form of "serious" artistic entertainment. Since WWII, films have been more and more important to American culture. And although they may have recently reached their tipping point in terms of cultural significance, they are still the most respected art form for the masses (having usurped the Novel long ago). And as they have taken this position, their ad campaigns have – yes – become more ubiquitous (no scare quotes required). So while movie posters and tv publicizing have been around "forever", they certainly didn't spend the same amount (yes, accounting for inflation) as they do now compared to say, the 60's, the 70's, the 80's. Each year ad spending increases relative to the budget of the film. That says something.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

We have reached the point of "increasingly more and more ubiquitous," people. GET OUT OF THE RABBIT HOLE WHILE YOU STILL CAN.

doubled277 (#2,783)

touche

Mary HK Choi (#1,469)

you guys. this movie rules so hard. you should totally watch it. it's super fun. kinda long. *shrugs*

balsa_wood (#465)

Kinda long? I thought it could've gone on for a half-hour more.

balsa_wood (#465)

"That's happened here again, but because this time it's about the now instead of the then, news instead of history…"

I guess if the little nipper here had actually been able to, ya know, see the movie, he'd realize that, in fact, the movie is history–recent history, but not "the now," exactly. There's just no pleasin' some people.

zidaane (#373)

Critiquing what you already hate on principal is wanky.

Michael Dunford (#4,984)

"Is the premature canonization of someone whose nominal status as a prophet for the young springs almost entirely from the pens and minds of thinkers whose most immediate tie to that generation-no, to me, because this is more than abstract when you're one of those twentysomethings we hear so much about and happen to have something to say and the wherewithal to know that even if it doesn't link to Foursquare, sometimes it just doesn't matter-when their immediate tie is hereditary, is that all there is?"

Yes, that's all there is.

Did I answer that correctly? I will mail a loaf of bread to anyone who can summarize the above question for me.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

What kind of bread? I hope homemade!

George Ellis (#7,733)

this article is so stupid. the author is clearly in over his head from a writing perspective. this article is so overbloated with crazy inept metaphors and similes. moreover, it's basic point, who has the right to define the millennial generation, is silly in the extreme. everyone has a right to their take on this or any other subject. it's that simple and if he disagrees with their conclusion, he doesn't have to watch the movie. period. but this whiney response seems really quite self-indulgent.

KenWheaton (#401)

Hey Millennials, leave the anger to us Gen-Xers. You're embarrassing yourselves.

DoctorDisaster (#1,970)

I'm good enough at anger to compensate for a thousand misfired hissy fits by other Millenials. It averages out.

erikonymous (#3,231)

yeah, this seems like an awful lot of projection on a movie poster.
but then, of course, navigating the self-centered prose, I realized that to the (defiantly young! exaggerating!)writer, the marketing world IS OUT TO GET YOU, and that everything external becomes part of a narcissist's internal dialog, which means that simply by writing this essay, the author has completely validated all the overblown ego-tripping defensiveness on display. which is kind of a mindfuck.

windowless (#7,778)

Each day I read a shitty article written by a shitty writer who's name I don't recognize on a web site that doesn't change the way people think, whose inane and sesquipedalian prose lead me to believe that he is nothing but a slack-jawed moron with a cocksure manner who is determined to be recognized as an intellectual, who is filled with regret at the horrible names he has been called by his peers, to be written by pompous, unattractive writers who I don't recognize at all, writers intently talking to themselves alone in their rooms, which describes the world I inhabit in about the same way as "Any film ever made" describes real life(so it is obviously of no value whatsoever, because it doesn't relate to me, personally), words whose truth and incisiveness (Loser. Genius(lol). Dick-wad.) perfectly describe this "writer" whom I have never met , and to tell the truth, don't give a shit about, I feel both intensely amused and paradoxically frustrated, that this writer seems entirely and blissfully unaware of his lack of intelligence and, in tandem with my sheer amazement that someone would use the "word" fed-up-ness while trying to appear competent in this poorly written sentence/paragraph by a writer who "mis-underestimated" his writing ability, and hand in hand with my knowledge that this writer clearly suffers from illusory superiority, he will always remain unaware of how much his writing blows.

windowless (#7,778)

On a more serious note, is this a user submitted article or something? This lacks any discernible structure, and is extremely verbose (why use 75 words when 5 will do?). Honestly, this reads like it was written by a 12 year old who just discovered the synonym button in MS:Word.

windowless (#7,778)

On a more serious note, if you want to improve your writing, you should know that it's pretty obvious when some kid overuses the synonym button in MS:Word. You

Post a Comment