Good, Bad, Binary: How we think about Media and the World
Recently, I dove into a book series that my roommate had been nagging me to read for months. She insisted it was one of her favorites, but it took me months of making excuses before I finally broke and decided to give it a try. I consider myself a well-rounded reader, and am usually not this adamant against a particular book. My resistance in this case was entirely a matter of personal bias, and I knew it. The series of three was written and released in Kindle version on Amazon during a two year period. It was self-published, and obviously a young aspiring author’s first finished work. Truthfully, I just didn’t expect it to be any good; this is coming from a young aspiring writer.
So I read the books, and the writing was poor. Aside from a multitude of grammatical errors and repetitive phrases which in and of themselves left me perturbed, they also had questionable plot details and frequent ‘info-dumping’ that I was sure would not have survived any professional editor. But I read all three. Obsessively, in fact. My roommate eagerly checked in with me over the course of a week in which I devoured the series, during which time I repeatedly explained to her all the reasons why these books were most certainly terrible. After every one of these discussions she said the same thing, with a knowing look on her face:
“For someone who thinks they’re poorly written, you’re talking about them quite a lot.”
She was right, of course. I was more obsessed with these books than with any classically well-written American literature sitting on my bookshelf. Not that I didn’t enjoy Jane Eyre or the even more recent The Book Thief, but my love of these books came partially from my awe of their profoundness or influence. This series didn’t have that. It was just awful, and I loved it.
I know what you’re thinking, this experience is not revolutionary. In fact, I’m sure many of you indulge in this kind of entertainment on a regular basis. It isn’t even just a written thing, although the appeal of ‘trashy’ fiction, grocery store romance novels, and Wattpad stories do have a place in this. It can be anything, for anyone: movies, television, art, even those questionably ugly salt shakers you purchased because hey, you just have a soft spot for that kind of thing.
We generally label these things ‘guilty pleasures’: things we enjoy despite knowing they aren’t highly regarded. The core idea being that, while not ‘good’, people like it anyway. The term has become quite popular today, with frequent use in podcasts (see Trypods new guilty pleasure podcast), clickbait journalism (“21 Guilty Pleasures we won’t be giving up anytime soon”!), and even playlists (Spotify deemed guilty pleasure songs, anyone?). A simple search on just about any platform can bring torrents of ‘guilty pleasure’ lists for any kind of content you please.
One of America’s most beloved examples of this can be found with the Hallmark Channel, which has exploded into a cultural icon of its own since its 1995 debut. The channel was one of the most watched cable networks in 2020, according to The Futon Critic. Anybody who has watched Hallmark knows that after the third Christmas movie special, you may begin to get major déjà vu; stuck in an endless addictive loop of happy endings and obnoxious ‘small town charm’. With a network full of the same five storylines reused year after year, its rating should come as a surprise, but it seems that this structure has only added to the channel’s appeal.
Cinema has their own version of this. You’ve heard of the cult classic? This was the case with the Rocky Horror Picture Show, the 1975 film about a cross-dressing alien that has somehow led to a full-blown cultural phenomenon of yearly risqué dress-up and odd traditions. I remember what I thought to myself after I watched Rocky Horror for the first time: This film should not be this popular. Yet annual midnight viewings of the film have led it to holding the record for the longest running theatrical release, according to Screenrant.com. All for a 46 year old movie with outdated themes and little real cinematic value.
The definition of a guilty pleasure itself reinforces the idea that there is a category of things which are prestigious and somehow ‘better’. As Jennifer Szalai puts it in her essay speaking out against the term:
“The guilt signals that you’re most comfortable in the élite precincts of high art, but you’re not so much of a snob that you can’t be at one with the people. So you confess your remorse whenever you deign to watch “Scandal,” implying that the rest of your time is spent reading Proust.”
There is certainly a cultural belief surrounding the superiority of prestige, perhaps left over from the age of enlightenment. There has also recently emerged a type of counter culture to this, encouraging people to read, watch, or listen to whatever they want. This rebellion can be seen in articles like this one by Adam Sternberg aptly titled “All of the pleasure. None of the Guilt.”
Both of these beliefs rely heaving on the sorting of media into binary categories of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. On the one hand, we have people striving for prestige and perhaps boasting about all the benefits of reading literature and having good taste; on the other we have the “I don’t care, this is more relaxing/fun/whatever and I'm going to do what I want” crowd.
So, who’s right? Probably both. The biggest flaw I see in either argument is the incessant urge to sort this media into categories at all. Even I, a reasonably well-rounded media consumer, have labeled things good or bad quite a few times since the beginning of this essay. But do I really mean that? Obviously most of what I’ve read or watched has been good for something, or I wouldn’t have wasted my time. So where do these labels come from?
The most apparent reasoning for the classification of media into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is a simple matter of differing taste. The concept of sociological taste has evolved far from its various origins throughout history. It shares roots most directly with the idea of aesthetics and aesthetic taste, ideas popularized by Greek philosophy as well as later during the 18th century enlightenment era in Europe. At the time, these terms were most commonly used to describe art or music. Today, society relies heavily on taste to categorize and market all kinds of media and products. This can be seen especially with fashion, where terms like ‘grunge’, ‘cottage core’, ‘preppy’ etc. have emerged and gained popularity in order to label different clothing tastes.
The explanation of taste is valid in certain contexts, for sure. But even under these circumstances, much more may go into our inherent like or dislike of something. Have you ever really thought about why you like or dislike the things you do?
One of the largest intellectual contributors to this idea is Pierre Bourdieu. In his book Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, the French sociologist proposes that the development of these tastes is a result of societal class structure. In a study he conducted of various French citizens in different social classes, he found that participant’s tastes within different aspects of French culture corresponded to their professional and educational social status. He also explains how taste is used as a means of competition in which those of a ‘superior’ class use it to push those below them further down on the class ladder.
It isn’t that all of this isn’t relevant, because it is. But still, this excuse of things being a ‘matter of taste’ seems oversimplified. The distinctions between different people’s taste are hardly so black and white. Many people can enjoy a mix of different media, from the most well regarded novels to the trashiest television shows. Mood and intent can often dictate media consumption in a way that is beyond someone’s taste.
In the case of the Hallmark Channel, they may fall into the category of ‘comfort media’: movies, books, or television with relatively familiar stories that require little effort or stress to understand. Maybe they remind someone of what they used to read or watch as a kid, or allow them to escape into another world. Unlike a dense classical novel, they’re relaxing.
Other media, like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, are simply fun. Their high levels of comedy or entertainment allow people to look past a lack of quality. Leire Zalakain sums this experience up nicely in her review of the film:
“Let’s face it: The Rocky Horror Picture Show is not a “good” film. It’s not the kind of film to win prestigious awards or have its subtext delicately analyzed by critics. It’s not the kind of movie you go see on a first date to prove how cultured you are, or watch with your parents as an example of the intellectual high ground you have gained since going away to university. Rocky Horror, in all of its low-cost, tacky, campy and unabashedly queer glory, is so much more than that.”
It just feels good to read or watch things like this sometimes. And it is good for us too.
The benefits behind popular media were explored extensively by a cultural studies scholar named Janice Radway in her book Reading the Romance. Reading the Romance is a study of middle-class female romance readers and the value of this kind of literature for these women. The study finds that in many cases, this kind of reading provides benefits beyond simple entertainment, as a review of the book by David Gary finds here:
Taking the Smithton women and the genre seriously, Radway discovers their reasons for reading romances are quite complex. While the genre is formulaic, they have very strong opinions about certain novels and authors. Some novels are very good at offering the emotional sustenance they crave, and others fail. The Smithton women read voraciously in order to escape the burdens and loneliness of housework and childcare, carve out their own space and time in a culture that demands they nurture others and deny themselves, and to find hope and confidence that the men in their lives can be loving even when they do not always show such emotion.
Radway concludes that the reasoning for this consumption of ‘lower quality’ media goes beyond simple escapism to also include the easing of psychological burdens.
Science agrees. A study by the journal of communication suggests that those suffering from ego depletion (i.e. exhaustion or depleted willpower), are more drawn to entertaining or fun forms of media. The study also concludes that the consumption of this kind of media can be very beneficial psychologically, but only if the consumer allows themselves not to feel “guilty” about it.
So, you may be thinking, the “all pleasure, no guilt” crowd has a pretty good argument after all. If this kind of media is fun and psychologically beneficial, why try to read or watch anything else? After all, the concept of good taste was a classist idea to begin with, right?
But traditionally well-regarded media can be beneficial too. In terms of novels alone, studies have identified a variety of benefits within reading more sophisticated literary fiction or classic literature, many of which can be summarized in articles like this one by Ian Welfley. Among these include increased empathy, higher writing complexity, and increased brain flow.
Much of this kind of media also explores more serious themes. Think about the 2016 film Moonlight, directed by Barry Jenkins, which depicts what it means to be not only a black man growing up in 1980s Miami, but a member of the LGBT+ community at the same time. The film received universal acclaim after premiering at the Telluride film festival and later going on to win the Academy Award for best picture.
In fact the film nearly lost the title to La La Land (2016), which had also gained incredible popularity and was nominated for a slue of other awards. La La Land is arguably more upbeat, fun, and colorful. But in the words of Mark Duplass, who vouched for the film to win:
The film is important because it is a beautiful, sweet, open love letter to the core human values that connect us all. It is important because it reaches beyond its specific characters and tells the story of all of our dreams and collective life experiences. It simultaneously tells a harsh truth and, miraculously, does it with an air of hope
I watched Moonlight after hearing about how fantastic it was, not for fun or comfort in the way that I would watch a romantic comedy or action film. The film itself actually left me feeling quite heavy and frustrated. I am not a black man and I certainly didn’t grow up during a drug epidemic in the middle of Miami. A lot of people probably haven’t. But watching this and films like it help people to explore topics and issues they may otherwise never come in contact with. In this case, the attention to detail, accuracy, and quality are important at conveying this story.
We see this similarly through the prevailing prevalence of classic literature, which provides insight into other time periods, issues, and contexts. There are times when reading or watching something isn’t always fun, or even because we like it at all, but because its worthwhile for the perspective and knowledge that we gain from it.
We spend far too much time thinking about whether something is good (even if just to say we will indulge in it anyway). Moonlight is good. So is the Hallmark Channel, Rocky Horror Picture Show and, yes, even the series that my roommate had me read. Let’s remember that I nearly didn’t read it at all, and even when I did my own pre-determined judgement blinded me from seeing why it was actually ‘good’ after all.
The argument of taste and the guilty pleasure in particular encourages this kind of binary thinking: ‘This is good’, ‘That is bad”. But focusing on this masks our ability to determine how things can benefit us differently depending on our needs or intents. Without “good” and “bad” in the mix, classic literature is just what I choose when I want to learn about the past, hard-hitting memoirs are what I reach for when I want to look beyond my own perspective, and at the end of the day I may settle down with an easy read that will give me the comfort I’m looking for. Even media that we may not like or may not agree with for one reason or another can be good for something.
If we tend to fall into binary thinking patterns about something as simple as books and movies, what about everything else in the world? Unsurprisingly, we do this with that, too. Human beings are fantastic sorters. Everything goes into little boxes with bright binary labels painted on them. The foods you eat? Health foods are the gold standard and carbs are the most evil thing imaginable. What about people? The rise of things like cancel culture embody the rising extremes coming from our labeling compulsion. Think about all the labels we create to classify people by political affiliation, education, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation et cetera.
And what if we didn’t do that? If we didn’t stop at a simple label, or divergence into two opposing categories. Maybe we would realize that we can gain a little something from every different thing or perspective after all. This might be a tough transition to make. But maybe it’s worth it.
Bibliography →
Aesthetics, Ancient | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/anc-aest/. Accessed 14 Dec. 2021.
Alex Meyers. Why Do We Love Bad Movies? 2020. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-vrX-YBhQU.
Book Recommendations | Groups | Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/groups/bookrecommendations/?multi_permalinks=6693607097380713. Accessed 23 Nov. 2021.
“Bourdieu, Mailer, N+1, and Us.” Harvard University Press Blog, https://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2010/11/bourdieu-mailer-n1-and-us.html. Accessed 3 Dec. 2021.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction : A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984. General Stacks DC33.7 .B6513 1984, EBSCOhost, https://arcadia.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat08437a&AN=land.594563&site=eds-live.
davidjgary. “Review of Janice Radway’s ‘Reading the Romance.’” Function Follows Forme, 3 Apr. 2013, https://davidjgary.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/review-of-janice-radways-reading-the-romance/.
Film Review — So Bad It’s Good: The Rocky Horror Picture Show. 22 Dec. 2019, https://qmunicatemagazine.com/2019/12/22/film-review-so-bad-its-good-the-rocky-horror-picture-show/.
Gilbert, Sophie. “Why You Can’t Stop Streaming ‘Seinfeld.’ Or ‘Frasier.’ Or ‘Bones.’” The Atlantic, 22 Mar. 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/03/seinfeld-frasier-and-the-psychology-of-comfort-tv/608497/.
Greif, Mark. “The Hipster in the Mirror.” The New York Times, 12 Nov. 2010. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/books/review/Greif-t.html.
Gronow, Jukka. The Sociology of Taste. [Electronic Resource]. Routledge, 1997. EBSCOhost, https://arcadia.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat08437a&AN=land.2211992&site=eds-live.
“Guilty Pleasure.” Wikipedia, 17 Nov. 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guilty_pleasure&oldid=1055677439.
Laura, Rebecca. “All Pleasure, No Guilt: Why You Should Read What You Want Without Apology.” Medium, 10 Apr. 2021, https://baos.pub/all-pleasure-no-guilt-why-you-should-read-what-you-want-without-apology-7d0e5af49304.
“Los Angeles Review of Books.” Los Angeles Review of Books, 18 May 2021, https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/academic-affects-a-conversation-on-guilty-pleasures/.
Matthews, Jessica. “Studying the Romance Reader, Then and Now: Rereading Janice Radway’s <em>Reading the Romance</Em>.” Journal of Popular Romance Studies, Oct. 2014. www.jprstudies.org, https://www.jprstudies.org/2014/10/studying-the-romance-reader-then-and-now-rereading-janice-radways-reading-the-romancejessica-matthews/.
Nast, Condé. “Against ‘Guilty Pleasure.’” The New Yorker, 9 Dec. 2013, https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/against-guilty-pleasure.
Page, Danielle. “There’s a Reason You Can’t Quit Those Corny Hallmark Holiday Movies.” NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/here-s-why-it-feels-so-good-watch-those-hallmark-ncna1080841. Accessed 23 Nov. 2021.
Radway, Janice A. Reading the Romance. [Electronic Resource] : Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. University of North Carolina Press, 1991. EBSCOhost, https://arcadia.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat08437a&AN=land.2275642&site=eds-live.
Ratings — Hallmark Channel Closes Out 2020 as #1 Entertainment Cable Network in Fourth Quarter and #2 for the Entire Year | TheFutonCritic.Com. http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2021/01/07/hallmark-channel-closes-out-2020-as-number-1-entertainment-cable-network-in-fourth-quarter-and-number-2-for-the-entire-year-998100/20210107hallmark01/. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021.
Reinecke, Leonard, et al. “The Guilty Couch Potato: The Role of Ego Depletion in Reducing Recovery Through Media Use.” Journal of Communication, vol. 64, no. 4, 2014, pp. 569–89. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12107.
Sternbergh, Adam. “All of the Pleasure. None of the Guilt.” The New York Times, 7 Feb. 2014. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/all-of-the-pleasure-none-of-the-guilt.html.
“Taste (Sociology).” Wikipedia, 4 July 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taste_(sociology)&oldid=1031858180.
The Foxhole Court (All for the Game, #1). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17259690-the-foxhole-court. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021.
“The Science behind How Literature Improves Our Lives.” The Science behind How Literature Improves Our Lives, https://news.osu.edu/the-science-behind-how-literature-improves-our-lives/. Accessed 3 Dec. 2021.
TryPods. Twilight Is A Horny Masterpiece — Guilty Pleasures Ep. 1. 2021. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoeZL9Q5N4E.
Writer, Ian Welfley |. Contributing. “Opinion | Why People Need to Read More Classic Literature.” The Breeze, https://www.breezejmu.org/opinion/opinion-why-people-need-to-read-more-classic-literature/article_7b8d006a-6145-11e9-98ac-3b9838f998cb.html. Accessed 5 Dec. 2021.
