I've downloaded this, haven't had time to read it yet, looks interesting. From a quick scan of the first page, it seems to want to discuss the fact that portraying something is not the same as celebrating or even condoning it and could be the exact opposite. I always think the film Trainspotting is a classic example of this tension: it got grief for portraying drug use, yet it seems unlikely in the extreme that anyone would come out of that film thinking that trying heroin might improve their life! Same thing is true of Sorted.

I was randomly surfing the web as you do a few few weeks ago, following some links relating to TiH when I ended up on this American militant feminist forum where they were slagging each other off really nastily because one of them had the temerity to suggest that TiH wasn't a mere trashy celebration of pornography and that maybe there was some kind of thought and substance behind it (shock, horror). It descended into accusations of lack of othodoxy on the part of some members due to their ability to comment on porn clearly indicating that at some point they had clearly looked at some, even if it was with their Mary Whitehouse head on. It ended up, pretty much literally, not my attempt at satire, with them claiming "my legs are hairier that yours". This is the most extreme end of a legalistic application of the norms a particular sub-culture which does not appear to do anyone any favours.

Sorry, this has turned into a ramble. I suppose what I am attempting to get round to is that there is a lot of complexity in life and acknowledging that and engaging with it entails uncertainty and that can be threatening, so the comfortable or safe option may seem to be to define a rule and not go anywhere near breaking it, but in reality this seems less safe rather than more so as whatever you are trying to keep in the pressure cooker will inevitably explode. But the minute you try to suggest anything is complicated, you are accused of trying to pull the wool over people's eyes - I should know, I am a climate scientist!

 

Can't wait to read this! Haven't checked into the forum for ages as have been v busy at work and am now in hospital. So I look forward to having the time to read it as I'm having a couple of weeks off work to recover.

I'm ok - had minor surgery reconstructive surgery related to my cancer treatment on Friday, which went well. But have developed a problem with my lungs (they think I have moisture on them), which has caused my oxygen levels to drop so I'm still in hospital and am v bored! It's a good opportunity to catch up with everything Pulp-related!

Do you think someone could upload to the Pulp Wiki? And yes Deborah, hope your treatment is doing its thing. I know what its like to deal with cancer and its a terrible business.

-- Edited by cutcopy on Sunday 13th of November 2011 10:18:43 AM

Forget that, watch The Fisher King!

Nothing to do with Pulp... I just love it.

Haven't read the article yet, but here's the abstract:

In 1998 Pulp released the highly anticipated follow-up to their breakthrough album Different class (1995), an album-length critique of the British class system. The album, entitled This is hardcore (1998), sees lead singer and songwriter Jarvis Cocker taking sex rather than class as his primary subject. The cover image on the CD is a photograph of the naked upper torso of a woman face down on a red leather cushion, in an awkward and ambivalent posture, with lipsticked, half-open mouth. Emblazoned across the center of the image are the words 'This is hardcore' in pink capital letters. In the press and among the public there was an immediate backlashposters promoting the album and featuring the cover image were defacedand the Independent on Sunday ran a headline 'This is violent. This is offensive' above an article that interpreted the image as a demeaning, sexist, and violent representation of women. This critique, however, completely overlooks the album's lyrical and musical content: an art-damaged mixture of Serge Gainsbourg, Scott Walker, cabaret, disco, cock rock, and lounge-pop conventions. But how is it possible to attribute social contentin this case qualities such as 'violence against women' and 'offensiveness'to music? Furthermore, how might music be identified as having either a critical or an affirmative stance towards any such content? In answer to this question, through a musical analysis of the title track examining the song's form, melody, harmony, and stylistic points of reference, it is demonstrated that the music does indeed have a critical quality, albeit of a rather uncomfortable kind, and that the media's verdict on both the album and the poster was both superficial and hasty. Both the song and the image display a similarly disturbing ambivalence towards their subject mattera mixture of collusion and critique. This is not a sign of confusion or incoherence, but rather a deliberate tactic in which critique of a particular ideology (constructions of sex and gender) takes place with, and within, the forms of that ideology (its images and music). Thus it is necessary to be familiar with, to be a part of the culture of and in some sense therefore to identify with, the conventions of those very phenomena against which the critique is directedin this case hardcore pornography.