Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture
Contents:
Return to Book Page. Preview — Hop on Pop by Henry Jenkins. Hop on Pop showcases the work of a new generation of scholars—from fields such as media studies, literature, cinema, and cultural studies—whose writing has been informed by their ongoing involvement with popular culture and who draw insight from their lived experiences as critics, fans, and consumers.
Editorial Reviews
Proceeding from their deep political commitment to a new kind of populis Hop on Pop showcases the work of a new generation of scholars—from fields such as media studies, literature, cinema, and cultural studies—whose writing has been informed by their ongoing involvement with popular culture and who draw insight from their lived experiences as critics, fans, and consumers.
Proceeding from their deep political commitment to a new kind of populist grassroots politics, these writers challenge old modes of studying the everyday. As they rework traditional scholarly language, they search for new ways to write about our complex and compelling engagements with the politics and pleasures of popular culture and sketch a new and lively vocabulary for the field of cultural studies. The essays cover a wide and colorful array of subjects including pro wrestling, the computer games Myst and Doom, soap operas, baseball card collecting, the Tour de France, karaoke, lesbian desire in the Wizard of Oz, Internet fandom for the series Babylon 5, and the stress-management industry.
Broader themes examined include the origins of popular culture, the aesthetics and politics of performance, and the social and cultural processes by which objects and practices are deemed tasteful or tasteless. The commitment that binds the contributors is to an emergent perspective in cultural studies, one that engages with popular culture as the culture that "sticks to the skin," that becomes so much a part of us that it becomes increasingly difficult to examine it from a distance. By refusing to deny or rationalize their own often contradictory identifications with popular culture, the contributors ensure that the volume as a whole reflects the immediacy and vibrancy of its objects of study.
Hop on Pop will appeal to those engaged in the study of popular culture, American studies, cultural studies, cinema and visual studies, as well as to the general educated reader. Paperback , pages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Hop on Pop , please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Mar 30, Jason rated it really liked it Recommends it for: Read about 6 of these essays, including the two opening introductory pieces by the editors -- which, avoiding manifesto, nonetheless map out a great, concise history of the field and in their view necessary complexities of cultural studies.
Then, picking about, I read a few selections that enacted the best kind of stuff. Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours. Finding libraries that hold this item Hop on Pop looks at pop culture as the water we swim in, as a muscular change agent, as the mirror held up to human nature. You may have already requested this item.
Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway. WorldCat is the world's largest library catalog, helping you find library materials online. Don't have an account?
Your Web browser is not enabled for JavaScript. Some features of WorldCat will not be available. Create lists, bibliographies and reviews: Search WorldCat Find items in libraries near you. Advanced Search Find a Library.
Hop on Pop | Duke University Press
Your list has reached the maximum number of items. Please create a new list with a new name; move some items to a new or existing list; or delete some items. Your request to send this item has been completed. Citations are based on reference standards. However, formatting rules can vary widely between applications and fields of interest or study. The specific requirements or preferences of your reviewing publisher, classroom teacher, institution or organization should be applied.
The E-mail Address es field is required.
Freely available
Please enter recipient e-mail address es. Having established that, the problem then is that the definition of popular culture becomes simply 'everything that's not high culture'. It's all defined in relation to high culture. Which is silly - why would you make high culture - or 'art' - the centre of your definitions and models of culture? In practice, that means that 'popular culture' then includes everything that isn't high culture - even minority cultural practices that most people would have a problem with the casual gay sex of cruisingforsex.
Borchardt Library, Melbourne Bundoora Campus. For book covers to accompany reviews, please contact the publicity department. Proceeding from their deep political commitment to a new kind of populist grassroots politics, these writers challenge old modes of studying the everyday. United States -- Civilization -- -- Study and teaching. Page numbers if excerpting, provide specifics For coursepacks, please also note: Some features of WorldCat will not be available.
It doesn't really make sense to lump together everything that isn't art as though it were all the same. A better approach, I think, is to think lots of different 'subcultures'--including 'art' as just one more subculture - alongside mainstream entertainment as another particular subculture, alongside sexual subcultures, alternative experimental subcultures, radical subcultures and so on. And so there are indeed multiple aesthetic systems for interpreting different kinds of culture.
Even within a given community, there will be competing aesthetic systems. And I'm not sure that we can pull out any general rules about them. From reading the chapters in this book, a few things stood out for me. You can find some continuity with literary aesthetic systems, in a concern for characters which are psychologically believable. And there's an element that came through in several writers that many consumers like to find the less popular and less well known examples of their genre, the whole 'I like their early stuff' approach to evaluating culture - the connoisseurs of popular culture can be terrible snobs just as much as art fans.
But I don't think there's such a thing as 'the' popular aesthetic system.
SearchWorks Catalog
You refuse to draw sharp lines between popular and high art here. This is a conversation we've been having on the blog -- whether we can be "fans" of high culture or whether the aura and institutional practices surrounding it tends to restrict how we engage with its contents.
What can we take from the study of "Beautiful Things in Popular Culture" that we might apply back to the study of traditional high culture? I know that this is a bit controversial, but personally I don't believe there's any difference between the fans of popular culture and the fans of high culture. I've recently been doing some research into Theory fans - people who read cultural Theory for pleasure.
- Big Easy Heat.
- Hop on Pop | Duke University Press.
- THE ADDICTION PART 3: BUFFY THE BLACK MAN SLAYER.
- The Lie;
- iPad: per i modelli 2, display Retina, mini, Air (Pocket color) (Italian Edition).
And their practices and pleasures seem to be exactly the same as Star Trek fans, for example. Theory fans buy the books. They buy books of 'fan writing' - books written by other fans who really like Theory and want to tell people how good it is. They read all of this for pleasure.
Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture. Editor(s): Henry Jenkins, Jane Shattuc, Tara McPherson: Contributor(s): Henry Jenkins, Elayne. Hop on Pop showcases the work of a new generation of scholars—from fields such as media studies, literature, cinema, and cultural studies—whose writing has.
It's all just fan behaviour. I found a great example recently, of a flyer advertising a Derrida conference, where the organizers said quite explicitly that the conference would 'celebrate the enduring and urgent political significance and relevance of his work'. You can't get more fannish than that. And you can see the same thing for Shakespeare fans, and classical music fans, and performance art fans, etc etc etc. Of course, there are differences about how such fandoms are treated in culture. As a fan of high culture, one is encouraged to think of oneself as a 'connoisseur'.
The myth is that there are real, 'rational' reasons to like high culture because it is, 'really', 'good' , while fans of popular culture are somehow excessive or misguided in their loyalty. But I can't find any evidence to support this view - I'm pretty sure it's just prejudice. Many of the essays in the collection are deeply personal: Much academic work seeks to expel such autobiographical impulses; what do we gain by including them in the study of popular culture?