Catfish (2010)

After viewing the film and seeing the filmmakers discussion on the DVD extra features, carry out some further internet research into the film (at least an hour or so). Start with the official movie website
 and wikipedia page and see where it takes you.
Then tackle the question below.
Essay question:
"To what extent is postmodernism a useful theoretical framework to analyse Catfish"
Essay due Tuesday 5th April.

Postmodern Comedy - Comic Relief

After reading the article I understand what Tina Dixon is trying to say, that being able to understand postmodern terms such as bricolage, parody and intertextuality, one can enjoy and be able to analyse/critise texts much easier. However I also believe that this should all be taken with a pinch of salt, as saying that a text contains bricolage for example isnt always what the creator of that text wanted, but of what reviews have labelled it as.

Comic texts...

For many years now Comic Relief has used humour to generate money for charity. Many high end comics have donated their time and effort into creating a wide range of vairous different acts. Many of these acts can now be viewed as being postmodern, by breaking the boundaries and pushing the limits between being funny, and taking it one step too far.

The first thing that springs to mind when thinking postmodern comedy is French and Saunders, as they are well known for pushing the boundaries. For Comic Relief 2009, French and Saunders produced a sketch of Mamma Mia, their own take on the film.

How is this postmodern...?

Firstly PARODY...
What is parody?
Parody refers to an imitation of a text in a ridiculous manner. A typical parody adopts the style of the original and applies it to an inappropriate subject to a humourous effect.

This sketch by French and Saunders is therefore a parody of the film Mamma Mia, over exagerating the characters and movements within the film. Its a parody because it takes everything that is in the Mamma Mia scene, such as the costumes, the actresses which appear, and even the song and turns all of these into a comical context.

Secondly Intertexuality...
What is Intertextuality?
Intertextuality is the idea that a text is a response to what has already been written, be it explicit or implicit. It's the multiple ways in which a text is entangled with or contains reference to other texts. However on the surface it can appear to be new and unique.

This text follows this 'intertextuality' as not only is it mirroring the film Mamma Mia, but also the band ABBA, of which Mamma Mia is based around there music.

Below is the link to watch the video...
Watch and enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq-FX1ced8g&feature=watch_response

Postmodern Comedy - IT Crowd

There are a number of cases of the IT Crowd being postmodern. The show's success is largely due to its parodical take on what is widely known as 'Geek culture' - a supposed fragment of today's society. It pays homage to 'geek culture' through its dialogue, setting and props. For instance - Roy is often seen wearing shirts featuring acronyms that reference 'geek culture' such as 'RTFM' and 'OMFG', a number of 'in' references (only appreciated by those who understand the culture) are made and the office it is set in features all types of retro computing props.


Intertextuality is also often used. The DVD menu for Season 1 of the IT Crowd is stylized after isometric adventure games such as Knight Lore and Head Over Heels. The same can be said for the opening title sequence, which is intended to look as though it is computer generated, until it malfunctions and displays that familiar blue screen.

There will also be the occasional skit or scene which can parody melodramatic texts which are usually associated with seriosity.

Postmodernist Comedy: The Office

An example of a postmodernist comedy is The Office, one of the most successful UK comedies of all time and has been remade in 8 different countries. It has several postmodern features such as it's "mockumentry" style, with heavy emphasis on parodying documentaries. Several times"The office" breaks conventional sit-com conventions, such as breaking the fourth wall, with Tim and David looking at the camera on several occasions.

It also uses bricolage by mixing genres and media texts such as "Sitcom", "Drama","Rom com" and obviously Documentary. These make it postmodern as it is hard to categorise the Office into one genre. It could also be seen as postmodern by it's use of fragmentation, this meaning it is hard to differentiate between David Brent and Ricky Gervais.

There is also examples of intertextuality in the Office, especially in one scene where Brent finds out that his nicknames are "Bluto" (The bad guy from "Popeye") and "Mr Toad" (a character from "The Wind and The Willows").  Here Merchant and Gervais are referencing other texts to create humour. Below is the video link of this scene:




The Office also uses mundane and boring topics like business appraisals and makes them funny by using subtle humour. This is an example of mixing high and low art together and is a very postmodern feature.


Written by Ruaraidh, Davide and Hannah

Postmodern Comedy

Response to the Media Magazine article;

I think that, to see a comedy programme as postmodern you actually have to enjoy it and find it funny. (You also have to watch it in the first place.) I think it often comes down to personal preference as to whether the programme is postmodern or not.

From my point of view, I couldn’t really comment on whether these texts are postmodern:

·   I’ve never watched ‘Gavin & Stacey’ as it’s just not my thing.

·   I’ve never watched ‘The Inbetweeners’ but from seeing the trailer it looks, to me, like a load of rubbish.

·   I really don’t like ‘The Mighty Boosh’ – I don’t find it funny, it’s boring, it’s rubbish and I’d rather not have to watch it in my Media lessons.

If you like something then I’m sure you can see the postmodernism within it when you look for it but, to be honest, how many of the viewers of these programmes actually sit there and think, “yeah, I am watching something postmodern”? Not very many, I shouldn’t think. It’s not until they’re asked that they really think about that aspect.

A postmodern text ~ ‘Let’s Dance for Comic Relief’;

I think BBC One’s ‘Let’s Dance for Comic Relief’ can be seen as postmodern comedy. A bunch of celebrities performing iconic dance routines to raise money for ‘Comic Relief’ – now how can you not find that funny?!

I think is programme includes, and is largely based around, intertextuality, homage, parody and pastiche.

Intertextuality:- Each dance routine is based on the original, whether it be from a musical or a music video, and the celebrity is dressed up to look like the artist. For example, Kate Garraway and Richard Arnold dressed up as Danny and Sandy from ‘Grease’ to perform ‘Born to Hand Jive’ in series 2.

Homage:- Each song that is performed is chosen by the producers in homage to the original artist. For example, in series 3, Michael Jackson’s ‘Bad’ was chosen for Andi Osho to perform.

Parody and Pastiche:- These 2 go together where ‘Let’s Dance for Comic Relief’ is concerned. The celebrities perform the routines as pastiche because they are fans of the artist, song or musical, but they end up turning out as a parody because they are often funny – especially when it’s a male comedian dressed up as women and having a really good time. For example, Paddy M^cGuinness and Keith Lemon dressing up as Johnny and Baby from ‘Dirty Dancing’ and performing ‘(I’ve had) The Time of my Life’.

I think I’ll let them show you themselves…

Videos: Robert Webb performing ‘What a Feeling’ from ‘Flashdance’ in series 1 and Rufus Hound performing ‘Fight for this Love’ by Cheryl Cole in series 2 (and both rightfully winning).

Spamalot The stage show

Postmodern features largely contribute to (and arguably form the foundation of) the comedy within this stage show. Here is why...

PARODY!

• The title itself is a parody of the 'Lancelot' Myth in that it integrates the legendary knight's name with the branding of a notoriously 'low-brow', processed meat. This in turn also links to Strinati's theory of 'the breakdown between high art and popular culture'.
• The popular song; "The Song That Goes Like This" parodies the conventional romantic ballad often found in musicals. Follow the link below to watch it :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-fG8c-CMoU&NR=1&feature=fvwp

AWARE OF IT'S OWN CONSTRUCTION!

• The plot basically encapsulates a play within a play. To complete the quest and pass through the forest, the characters are ordered to make a show. Towards the climax of the play, the characters publicly announce that they are aware that they are already in a play!
• There are a number of moments of direct address in the show, where actors engage with members of the audience. This therefore breaks the fourth wall and destroys the verisimilitude of realism.

HYPERREALITY AND SIMILACRA!

• Being on a stage, the characters are 'real' beings that can be touched by the audience. As a TV show, actors can be readily separated from their roles due to the distinction between reality and the intangible programme; however, the lack of a 'silver screen' makes deciphering person from imaginary persona all the more difficult.

INTERTEXTUALITY!

• Frequent references to popular celebrities (Britney Spears, Cheryl Cole etc) and social networking sites such as facebook immediately engages the audience. These very modern features also contribute to 'Confusions over time and space'. Although the play is set in 936 AD, the characters are aware of such things as the internet and pop music - adding a modernist ironic twist to the plot. Follow the link below to view the particular song that mentions Britney Spears.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJqAYUAJbTk

BRICOLAGE!

• Being a staged production bricolage could not come in the form of film stock of a mix of old and new footage. However, bricolage is still evident in the play's vast range of genre types and styles. The plot includes conventions of action, adventure, romance, comedy and musical.

By Gemma Sandry and Jade Sharpe-Welsh

Postmodern Comedy - Garth Marenghi's Darkplace

Garth Marenghi's Darkplace was a Channel 4 comedy series made in 2004 and written by Richard Ayoade (best known for his role as Moss in The IT Crowd) and Matthew Holness. It can be seen as Postmodern for a number of reasons:

• It is highly intertextual, as it parodies aspects of 1980's low budget television, for example fashion, special effects and music.


• It creates a state of hyper-reality as the show is filmed in a documentary style, with characters commentating on their role within the show.

Intertextuality:



This clip shows an example of how this show parodies the late-night, low budget shows of the 80's with deliberately bad continuity (the coffee cup turning into a spade) and wooden acting.


Hyper-Reality:

As with promotion for their earlier Perrier Award-winning stage show, Darkplace's creators confounded media by producing promotional material in-character. The official website speaks of Garth Marenghi, and other characters as though they were real people, while making no mention of the real actors. Press releases also contained realistic looking fake back stories for Marenghi and the other characters instead of making any mention of what the real cast have appeared in, and an article by 'Garth Marenghi' appeared in The Telegraph discussing his "groundbreaking television series" in Comic's Corner...Link Here

At the beginning of every episode they use a 'retro' Channel 4 logo from the 80's to further heighten the hyper-real state of the 'show' that they make, within the show itself.

By Rachel and Roisin

The simpsons can be suggested as a postmodern comedy.
There are many reasons for this, which make it undeniably postmodern.

Firstly it follows a non linear narrative, creating confusions over time and space. Every episode is a new start, and ends with a narrative resolution. This is a very postmodern trait, and is quite typical of these sorts of comedy programs, for example Family Guy. They make the audience aware of this when one of the characters claims "ohh don't worry, it'll all be alright by the next episode". This is just one of the example of when the 4th wall is broken in the Simpsons.

In addition to this, a conscious decision has been made not to localise The Simpsons to any distinct region besides America, nor to any one period of time besides the postmodern era… What’s more, the Simpson children never age or progress in school. In 17 years Maggie has not learned to walk or talk, and still uses her dummy. The family are timeless as well as placeless. The Simpsons are nowhere, living at no time, and representing no specific family – but paradoxically they are every family everywhere at any point in the postmodern era.

The decline of the meta-narrative is a frequent theme throughout the entirety of the Simpsons, and they are constantly poking fun at religion, government, and other influential characters. Examples of this are, when Homer gives his soul to the devil for a doughnut, when he is killed by some brocolli and goes to the gates of heaven, and is told he cannot enter until he does a good deed. When he does St peter misses it because he was reading the newspaper. Another example is when homer tries to vote for Obama, but the vote goes to Mcain, suggesting that the votes were rigged. The video is available through the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ
The video also shows a specially made "Fat Booth" highlighting the rising problem of obesity in the united states, making light of pressing social issues.

The show’s refusal to adhere to the norms of accepted sitcom subject matter is one of its foremost postmodern traits. It is an attitude that corresponds well to postmodernism’s aim to celebrate cultural differences and bring them to the surface. The Simpsons is a testament to the postmodern decentering of contemporary mass consciousness, by embracing diversity of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and socio-economic status.

By Emma, Dan and Jake

Task for Thursday 17th March

1. Read the article below from Media Magazine about comedy - what do you think?
2. In small groups - create a blog post on what you might consider another example of  postmodern comedy. It does not have to be a TV show. It should NOT be something you have posted on previously.

• Give a couple of specific examples, like the author does below for The Inbetweeners, Gavin and Stacey and The Mighty Boosh
• Try to include some video
• Try to include reference to one or more of the concepts below:
• intertextuality
  parody 
  pastiche 
  homage 
  bricolage 
  simulacra
  hyperreality
  fragmentation

Lots of possibilities but here are just two examples you might consider:

Alan Partridge - from Pete Fraser's blog



The Young Ones - wiki page

Ha ha ha ha – can postmodernism make us laugh?

Tina Dixon explores the nature of humour in three postmodern TV comedies.

We frequently hear it said that ‘we are living in a postmodern world.’ Are we? How do we know? And how is postmodernism as a theoretical perspective applicable to Media Studies? And, so that we can have some fun with this, how is it applicable to ‘what makes us laugh?’.
Where do we start? How about some definitions? George Ritzer (1996) suggested that postmodernism usually refers to a cultural movement – postmodernist cultural products such as architecture, art, music, films, TV, adverts etc.

That definition seems to encompass what we need to look at, if we stick to comedy on television. Ritzer also suggested that postmodern culture is signified by the following:

•            The breakdown of the distinction between high culture and mass culture. Think: drama about Dame Margot Fonteyn, a famous prima ballerina, on BBC4.

•            The breakdown of barriers between genres and styles. Think: Shaun of the Dead a rom-com-zom.

•            Mixing up of time, space and narrative. Think Pulp Fiction or The Mighty Boosh.

•            Emphasis on style rather than content. Think: Girls Aloud.

•            The blurring of the distinction between representation and reality. Think, Katie Price or Celebrity Big Brother.

The French theorist Baudrillard argues that contemporary society increasingly reflects the media; that the surface image becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from the reality. Think about all the times you have heard an actor on a soap-opera say, that when they are out and about, people refer to them by their character’s name. Look at The Sun’s website and search stories on Nicholas Hoult when he was in Skins: he is predominantly written about as though he is ‘Tony’, his character in Skins.

Key terms

Among all the theoretical writing on postmodernism (and you might like to look up George Ritzer, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Frederic Jameson and Dominic Strinati), there are a few key terms that you’ll find it useful to know. These terms can form the basis of analysis when looking at a text from a postmodern perspective:

•            intertextuality – one media text referring to another

•            parody – mocking something in an original way

•            pastiche – a stylistic mask, a form of self-conscious imitation

•            homage – imitation from a respectful standpoint

•            bricolage – mixing up and using different genres and styles

•            simulacra – simulations or copies that are replacing ‘real’ artefacts

•            hyperreality – a situation where images cease to be rooted in reality

•            fragmentation – used frequently to describe most aspects of society, often in relation to identity.

So, what has all of this got to do with comedy? Pretty much everything, I would argue, and I intend to show this by analysing a cross-section of contemporary TV comedy: The Inbetweeners, Gavin and Stacey and The Mighty Boosh.

The Inbetweeners

Although it can be argued that comedy is subjective, a good deal of comedy on our television screens draws on universal values and beliefs. Let’s start with The Inbetweeners (made by Bwark Productions, and shown on E4 and Channel 4 from May 2008). When first shown, the pilot episode attracted an audience of 238,000; the series as a whole averaged 459,000 viewers. Series Two, Episode One attracted 958,000 and the series averaged just over a million. The producers must, therefore, have done something right. The situation is set around four male A-Level students attending a local comprehensive school; however, the focal point of the comedy comes from Will (Simon Bird) who joins the school, when his wealthy parents divorce and his mum can’t afford private school fees.

The situation is ordinary enough. It happens to lots of people, starting a new school and making friends with an existing friendship group. However, for all of its ordinariness I would argue that this sitcom is quite postmodern.

Firstly, in some respects it parodies previous school-based texts such as Grange Hill (1978-2008) in that it sets the drama/action around characters at school, but makes those characters all the things the Grange Hill characters weren’t. They swear (frequently), they constantly talk about sex and bodily functions, and appear naked in several episodes. None of which would ever have happened in Grange Hill, which was much more wholesome and moral, as appropriate for its young adult audience. I would also argue that it uses bricolage, in that it mixes comedy, drama, romance, realistic issues and slapstick. A scene where Will is thrown in a lake in his underpants by the mechanics at the garage where he is doing work experience, is pure slapstick. The love of Simon (Joe Thomas) for Carli is quite touching and romantic. The representation of Jay’s father as an absolute monster, never missing an opportunity to humiliate him, is quite realistic: it provides a psychological reason as to why Jay is such a liar, as a result of a huge inferiority complex. Neil (Blake Harrison) has an almost surreal spin on life. And the Dickensian Head of Sixth Form Mr Gilbert is a sadist. All of which creates a rich bricolage or layering of meaning.

Series One, Episode Three, ‘Thorpe Park’, parodies the archetypally sleazy male driving instructor, turning it on its head: Simon is the object of the female instructor’s desire.

Any episode (for example, ‘Will’s Birthday’ )reveals numerous intertextual references, such as posters in the common room for ‘Run DMC’ and ‘NWA’. The boys discuss porn on the internet, and use Live Messenger. There are other references to Russell Brand, Take That and Supersize Me, all of which, like bricolage, create layers of meaning. They are there to be read by the audience if they get the reference, but it does not matter if they do not see or hear them. The reference to Supersize Me makes the joke funnier if you know what they are talking about, but is still funny, even if you do not.

Gavin and Stacey

If we look at another successful contemporary comedy, Gavin and Stacey (written by James Corden and Ruth Jones, 2007-2010, produced by Baby Cow Productions for the BBC), we can see further elements of postmodernism to analyse. Like The Inbetweeners it started out on a digital channel (in this case BBC3) before moving to BBC1. An audience of 543,000 watched the first episode, and 8,700,000 the last one. Again, though ordinary in its situation, a young couple Gavin (Matthew Horne) and Stacey (Jo Pope) who work for companies in Essex and Wales strike up a telephone friendship, decide to meet in London, both bringing along a friend, Smithy (Corden) and Nessa (Jones). They fall in love, get engaged and then married. The comedy derives from the situations that their friends and families bring about. And, again, for all of its ordinariness, there are numerous ways to apply postmodernism.

Firstly, you could argue that as a consequence of their fictional characters Gavin and Smithy, Matt Horne and James Corden go on to host their own comedy show Horne and Corden, as themselves – never really escaping their fictional personas, creating both a hyperreality and simulacrum. There are other such instances as this with the character who plays the Wests’ neighbour ‘Doris’, the blunt and vulgar-mouthed pensioner who also appears in Little Britain as an incredibly blunt and vulgar-mouthed pensioner in the sketch based around ‘the only gay in the village’.

Taking one particular episode at random, in this case Series Three, Episode Four, there are a huge number of intertextual references, including references to Twitter, Facebook, Angelina Jolie, Om Puri, The Blues Brothers, Puff Daddy, Patch Adams, Beaches, Doubt, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, The Boat that Rocked, Smack my Bitch up, Fix You, and Ben. These intertextual references help construct layers of meaning within the text, making the comedy richer.

Another rich vein of comedy comes from the fact that all of the characters are named after serial killers, for example: Gavin’s family are the Shipmans named after the serial killer Dr Harold Shipman. Stacey’s family are the Wests, named after Fred and Rosemary West, notorious serial killers. And the characters Dawn and Pete Sutcliffe, are named after Peter Sutcliffe, otherwise known as ‘The Yorkshire Ripper’. There is also an interesting mixing up of time and space, in that though the Shipmans live in Essex, these scenes are actually filmed in Cardiff.

The Mighty Boosh

Finally, I want to look at The Mighty Boosh, a more surreal comedy written by, and starring, Julian Barratt and Noel Fielding, and made by Baby Cow Productions for BBC3. The Mighty Boosh started life as a stage show, moved to radio, then TV in 2004. Unlike The Inbetweeners and Gavin and Stacey, Boosh is anything but realist. Drawing on previous comedy of a surreal nature such as The Goodies and Monty Python, it is about two main characters – Howard Moon (Barratt) and Vince Noir (Fielding), and various other strange characters, including Bollo the Gorilla and the enigmatic Naboo. It is not set in a regular location like other sitcoms but each series is set in a different place. It could be argued that everything about The Mighty Boosh is postmodern. Noel Fielding’s character Vince has an extremely fragmented identity: his mixing fashions from various periods and sub-cultures, for example Glam Rock, Punk, Goth and Emo, is compounded by his references to the rock stars he also emulates (Mick Jagger, David Bowie and Gary Numan).

Time and space boundaries are blurred as the characters travel to other places, usually other worldly places, and through time.

To understand some of the jokes you have to recognise the intertextual references. For example, in Series One, Howard discusses his favourite heroes such as Livingstone, and Vince asserts that Mick Jagger is his hero. When challenged on this by Howard as to what Jagger would do when staring into the abyss, Vince does an imitation of Mick Jagger’s stage dancing. This is extremely funny – as long as you are aware of Mick Jagger’s stage persona.

Bricolage is used, referencing numerous styles and genres, such as fashion, musical genres, surreal humour. And it could be argued that the female audience’s attraction to Noel Fielding is in part as a result of his character’s fashion creations as Vince, blurring the distinction between the real and the hyper-real.

By way of a conclusion to this look at contemporary comedy from a postmodern perspective, I think it is fair to say that it is almost impossible to imagine contemporary comedy without these intertextual references; they are peppered throughout the narratives. And being able to read them certainly enhances our experience of the comedy. I would also argue that understanding bricolage, parody, hyperreality, simulacrum and fragmentation help us to enjoy the comedy at a deeper level. It only remains to be said that whatever you watch, enjoy; but try to go below the surface really to get the most out of it.

Tina Dixon teaches Media Studies and is an Examiner for AQA.

This article first appeared in MediaMagazine 32, April 2010.

top

postmodernism

After trawling the internet to find some sort of logical, clear, or easy to understand definition of postmodernism and what it's all about, I can see why it is critisised, and why people resent it. In my opinion, it is plain, completely pointless nonsense, conjured up by a small group of influential theorists, who clearly have nothing better to do with their days than to sit around and think about things to say to oppose any generally accepted theories in fashion at the time. What do theorists do with their days? do they really just sit around and do nothing apart from try to think this s*** up? sounds like a pretty unfullfilling life in my opinion, clearly they are of no benefit to anybody. They don't actually DO anything, and yet somehow they are praised? anybody else sitting around on their arse all day would be told to get a job. So to all of you theorists out there, please stop wasting everybody's time and go and do something constructive with your own.
In my opinion postmodernism is a trend. It's a completely obscure, fashionable term with no real meaning or relevance to anybody. There IS no point to it. why does anything need to be defined by a theory? why do things need to be deconstructed and applied to theories? the answer - there is no need.
Nobody needs to know about it, it's hardly going to affect the lives of anybody is it? "uhh yeah, so the doctor told me all about postmodernism yesterday, and when i woke up this morning, i was cured of all my problems" - (bit of a random scenario i know, but i'm just trying to illustrate the fact that there are far more important things to worry about than if something is "postmodern" or not) if this was the case, however, then maybe i would accept it as some sort of useful existence, but...as it stands, this clearly is never going to be the case, and as such - my conclusion is: it's pointless and nobody really needs to know about it to further them in life.

Postmodernism : Its so old, its new.

"Postmodernists claim that in a media saturated world, where we are constantly immersed in media, 24/7 and on the move, at work and at home - the distinction between reality and the media representation of it becomes blurred or entirely invisible to us." Basically media reality is reality.

Since THEORIES began about postmodernism there has been opposing opinions to this such as seen in the article below by Mark Ramey. Some of the biggest question marks when it comes to Post-modernism is the fact that it offers no solutions to the problems created in our society. It is not clear to define and has different meanings to different postmodernists.

There are some critics of Post-modernism such as Alex Callinicos. Callinicos attacks notable postmodern thinkers such as Baudrillard and Lyotard, arguing postmodernism "reflects the disappointed revolutionary generation of '68, (particularly those of May 68) and the incorporation of many of its members into the professional and managerial 'new middle class'. It is best read as a symptom of political frustration and social mobility rather than as a significant intellectual or cultural phenomenon in its own right."


So basically Callinicos says we shouldnt take it serious and should consider it more as a interesting IDEA.

Anti Postmodernism

Post modernism is a theory of a time after postmodernism, therefore, the fact that it is a theory shows that people can have an opinion on it, which this article obvious does. However, no body can actually say that postmodernism is wrong, as its only a theory, someones opinion.

Opposition to Post Modernism:

Formal, academic critiques of postmodernism can be found in works such as Beyond the Hoax and Fashionable Nonsense.

The term postmodernism, when used pejoratively, describes tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality.


Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy, and Culture is a book by Alan Sokal detailing the history of the Sokal affair in which he submitted an article full of "nonsense" to Social Text, a critical theory journal, and was able to get it published.
Beyond the Hoax is Sokal's second book on this topic, the first being the 1997 Fashionable Nonsense, in which Sokal and coauthor Jean Bricmont examine two related topics:

1 ) the allegedly incompetent and pretentious usage of scientific concepts by a small group of influential philosophers and intellectuals;
2) the problems of cognitive relativism, the idea that "modern science is nothing more than a 'myth', a 'narration' or a 'social construction' among many others"[2] as seen in the Strong Programme in the sociology of science.

The Times wrote that “Sokal's essays - and his hoax - achieve their purpose of reminding us all that, in the words of the Victorian mathematician-philosopher William Kingdon Clifford, ‘It is wrong, always, everywhere and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’” Michael Shermer praised the book as “an essential text” and summarized the argument, writing that:
There is progress in science, and some views really are superior to others, regardless of the color, gender, or country of origin of the scientist holding that view. Despite the fact that scientific data are "theory laden," science is truly different than art, music, religion, and other forms of human expression because it has a self-correcting mechanism built into it. If you don't catch the flaws in your theory, the slant in your bias, or the distortion in your preferences, someone else will, usually with great glee and in a public forum — for example, a competing journal! Scientists may be biased, but science itself, for all its flaws, is still the best system ever devised for understanding how the world works.

The term postmodernism, when used pejoratively, describes tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality.

Habermas' argument has been extended to state that postmodernity is counter-enlightenment. Richard Wolin in his book The Seduction of Unreason argues that key advocates of postmodernity began with a fascination for fascism. The view that Romanticism is a reactionary philosophy and that Nazism was an outgrowth of it is widely held among modernist philosophers and writers, who argue that the cultural particularity and identity politics of postmodernity, the consequence of holding post-structuralist views, is "what Germany had from 1933-1945"[citation needed]. They further argue that postmodernity requires an acceptance of "reactionary" criticisms that amount to anti-Americanism[citation needed].

This debate is seen by philosophers such as Richard Rorty as between modern and postmodern philosophy rather than being related to the condition of postmodernity per se[citation needed]. It also grows out of a common agreement that modernity is rooted in a rationalised set of Enlightenment values.

The range of critiques of the postmodern condition from those who generally accept it is quite broad and impossible to summarise. One criticism levelled at postmodernity from within is expressed by author David Foster Wallace, who argues that the trend towards more and more ironic and referential artistic expression has reached a limit and that a movement back towards "sincerity" is required on which the artist actually speaks with an intended, concrete, static meaning.

Certain criticisms also focus on the fact that postmodernism lacks a coherent rhetorical theory. "Consequently, a theory will always fail to make good on its claim to provide a set of rules independent of the practice it describes; and because a theory will always fail in its goal to guide and reform practice, it therefore, by definition, can have no consequence."

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-Post-Modernism/76813487566
I found this facebook page on Anti-Semitism. Which I found very ironic, as surely facebook is a factor of postmodernism, combining the confusions over time and space, as I am able to talk to my friends abroad, who are at a different time zone from England. Also, Facebook is a good example of the decline of the meta-narrative, as many people would prefer to use the internet than be going to church, for example, following the bible.

I believe that although the article had some good ideas, and statements about why postmodernism we are so past postmodernism, some of the statements were a bit irrational and unreasonable. As no one can say for sure that Postmodernism is true, as it is just a theory, a very broad one to say the least.

I don't believe that this article is accurate, as I believe that some of the theories which theorists, such as Strinati and Baudillard came up with make sence, and can be related to every day life, as well as being linked to media texts of today, such as the film 24 Hour Paty People.

what is Postmodernism and how can you be against it?

A postmodern time is a time after modernism. That is concrete. When the postmodern time begins and ends is up for debate. Theorists like Lyotard can only propose theories about post-modernism’s supposed concepts because there is nothing concrete in a theory until it has been proved. Yes, there is substantial evidence to suggest these theories are true, such as the decline of a grand narrative, as religion and science continue to be questioned. I personally believe postmodernism is only just a possibility, not pure fact. For example, yes the grand narratives are dissolving but only in light of awareness of difference in the world. There is still a universal belief or morality and human rights etc and these ‘micro-narratives’ form the grand narratives. You can’t put a label on an ever changing society without sounding ignorant.

From this article, I take it that the writer has a chip on his shoulder because these new apparent beliefs are affecting the way New Media is created and the ways audience receive it. According to him, the passivity of today’s culture breeds a willingness to indulge in the latest technologies and tacky media items has created an era of ‘idiots’, which he therefore concludes is not postmodern. He conveniently forgets the diversity of the media in today’s society also creates many items for those active audiences. This diversity has created the new narrative in the shape of questioning the truth of everything. But the belief and awareness that creates the new narrative within a post-modern world doesn’t create ‘idiots’ but individuals of a more diverse nature. So what if people want to believe they’re living in a post-modern era, it isn’t for the theorists or anyone else to decide otherwise, it’s their personal preference. If they want to watch or create mind-numbing reality shows such as Big Brother, so what? It certainly doesn’t them idiots. The only idiots involved in the postmodern argument are those too ignorant to recognise how a society is constantly changing and will therefore have different ideas.

I think this writer has got it wrong in his last paragraph, the society may not have a set of narratives collectively but individually via their own beliefs they’ve created new ones. There is no such thing as the consumerist ‘idiots’ in a postmodern culture. Who can actually say ‘I thouroughly understand what a postmodern time involves and it occurs/ed from here to here’. If we could say that, we wouldn’t have theories about it which is why I don’t think he can be ‘over’ something nobody quite understands. It’s ignorant.

Anti-Postmodernism

The period we now live in is called postmodernism. Jean-Francois Lyotard has said that in postmodernism one has given up the idea of a grand narrative. Belief in universal criteria, like those in the Enlightenment, has been replaced by the postmodern relativism and pluralism. The idea now is to accept a number of different perspectives, and not exclude any expression or perspective from the culture or information stream. Postmodernism is the philosophical equivalent to New York City: Embracing pluralism, combination and diversity. As Lyotard claims, a unified culture has now been replaced by a culture full of many small stories, many different critieria – a polyphony of voices.

An argument against postmodernism is that is has no set definition and is therefore is very hard to define. Postmodernism tends to argue for situated knowledge (knowledge embedded in a particular discipline with a history etc.). It tends to reject any idea of truth that claims we can have access to some ahistorical knowledge of objective reality (what is sometimes mocked by post-modernists as the God's eye view).

It is hard to tell exactly what some postmodern philosophers are talking about because they tend to be so obscure in their writing.

"I'm SO over postmodernism" - I think I might be!

I think that the writer is trying to say that postmodernism is over-rated and now ‘past it’. Postmodernism isn’t defined to a time period and doesn’t have boundaries of any kind, therefore it’s a sketchy area. To be postmodern, something needs to be before its time – but what is that ‘time’? The writer seems to be saying that this ‘time’ is the when the product is made, so that it is an advancement that hasn’t yet been seen.

“Postmodernists do not attempt to refine their thoughts about what is right or wrong, true or false, good or evil. They believe that there isn’t such a thing as absolute truth.” Why is this? To be honest I think it’s because they don’t know it themselves - they won’t define postmodernism because they can’t. I can see why some people think that postmodernism is a load of rubbish. I’m not really sure if anything can be truly defined as being postmodern when there is no real, straight-forward definition for the idea. Yes, there is various theories on this idea but they’re all different – no-one really knows the real answer.

Modernism started just after World War 2 and that’s now in the past so even this idea doesn’t even relate to the present day (like the word suggests). So if postmodern means a time after modernism, does that mean that we’re in the postmodern era now? But then that surely means that postmodernism can’t be something which is before its time, like the writer is trying to say.

I wouldn’t go as far to say that postmodernism is a load of rubbish but I’m not far off saying it. When somebody actually gives me a proper definition of postmodernism that seems to me to be a good one, and not just your average dictionary definition, then I might start coming round to the idea. Until then, a lot of hard work is required to convince me, I think. (Good luck with that!)

Response to Anti-Postmodernism by Rachel and Roisin

(we couldn't post a comment on the blog post!)

We have found a number of arguments against Postmodernism, which include:

'Some critics have interpreted postmodern society to be synonymous with moral relativism and contributing to deviant behavior.'

'Josh McDowell & Bob Hostetler offer the following definition of postmodernism: “A worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn’t exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.”… Truth is “created by the specific culture and exists only in that culture. Therefore, any system or statement that tries to communicate truth is a power play, an effort to dominate other cultures.'

'Criticisms of the postmodern condition can broadly be put into four categories: criticisms of postmodernity from the perspective of those who reject modernism and its offshoots, criticisms from supporters of modernism who believe that postmodernity lacks crucial characteristics of the modern project, critics from within postmodernity who seek reform or change based on their understanding of postmodernism, and those who believe that postmodernity is a passing, and not a growing, phase in social organization.'

'Author David Foster Wallace argues that the trend towards more and more ironic and referential artistic expression has reached a limit and that a movement back towards "sincerity" is required on which the artist actually speaks with an intended, concrete, static meaning.'

We believe that, although it is a good concept and undeniably sums up the state of modern society, especially the media. However, people can get too 'wrapped-up' in it and some aspects are quite confusing (for example, the political and religious viewpoints).

Nathan Barley...



In the article, we believe that the author feels strongly that Postmodernism has become more a way of life than a concept. People are too consumerist to understand the postmodern condition that we are all 'suffering' from. However, some could argue that being against Postmodernism, like Charlie Brooker, is Postmodern in itself...

Postmodernism...A load of Rubbish?

Although the interlectual concept of Postmodernism seems far-reaching and deeply philosophical at first, it brings with it a host of hostility and opposition in its wake. Opposition not only towards the values/era it represents, but also in relation to its credibilty as a label...can postmodernism be defined or is it merely 'a word'?

Charlie Brooker is one of these individuals fighting against its imposing existance. The article, 'Snorting Barley', by Mark Ramey clearly illustrates this point; it discusses Brooker's sitcom (titled 'Nathan Barley') that satires postmodernism as a 'war against' the idiocracy of the 21st century media consumer. In our quest to be new, exciting and different; we have fallen into a vast pit of conformity and mass-production - highlighted in the article by the 'ipod, ipad and iphone' example.

"Man the lifeboats. The idiots are coming."

'The idiots' in question are Brooker's message on the building culture in the UK. That of 'self-regarding consumer slaves, oblivious to the paradox of their uniform identity' who are bound by Style-over-Substance and Materialistic Obsessions. Brooker also expesses a clear fear about the decline of the meta-narrative and the subsequent loss of defined guidence in society. He claims that 'in a world without rules [without religion or grand political ideology], there is only nonsense and then only the idiots make sense'.

In conclusion, we believe that although a loose term for labeling an era of change, 'postmodernism' as a term is largely empty and without substance. Instead, it purely depends on what the individual interprets as pushing the boundries of the new and modern, NOT what a group of academics dictates.

At the end of the day, our opinions are irrevelant...in the true style of postmodernism, if everything is relative, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

By Jade Sharpe-Welsh, Gemma Sandry, William Kellett and Chris Walker.

Postmodernism Criticism:

Many theorists have been very critical of postmodernism and what it says about society. For example many people have said it does nothing to help society: Noam Chomsky claiming that postmodernism is "meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical knowledge." Richard Dawkins also says that it has "nothing to say". I believe that some of these statements could be true because postmodernism is mostly used to critise the origonality of many texts, not to add anymore analysis of it.

There are also many theories that say postmodernism is very pessimistic, Timothy Bewes saying it's a "cynical reaction". I also believe that this idea could also be considered truthful because it claims that there are no more origional ideas anymore and that every media yext has been influenced by another. However, whether this is entirely a bad thing is another case because each media text inspiring one another could benefit some texts.

Another criticism of post modernism could be it's lack of set rules and structure as it is a very broad subject and can be hard to define. One critic argues that the "theory will always fail on it's claim to make good on it's claim to provide a set of rules...it therefore, by definition, can have no consequence."

Though I agree with many of these statements, I believe that postmodernism as a theory isn't "a load of rubbish" and can be a good theory to apply to a lot of recent media texts. For example, it applies very well to the film "24 Hour Party People."

Some people think postmodernism is a load of rubbish. Why is this?

Do some internet research into some of the arguments against postmodernism and post a personal response to this idea as a comment to this blog post BY THE END OF THE LESSON (not shouting, really.)

READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU START - what do you think the author is saying about postmodernism and why?

After reading this article it appears that the author is conveying postmodernism in a negative light. It discusses various cases of postmodernism, the reality TV show were people are marooned on an island and other episodes are futhur discussed. I think the author has inferred whilst trying to convince us the negative outcomes in which postmodernism has created, using events which have occured in reality TV shows as evidence of the negative outcomes of postmodernism and the effects it can create through media.

Postmodernism is highly debated even among postmodernists themselves.
The period in which we now live is called postmodernism. Jean-Francois Lyotard has said that in postmodernism one has given up the idea of a grand narrative. Belief in universal criteria, like those in the Enlightenment, has been replaced by the postmodern relativism and pluralism. The idea now is to accept a number of different perspectives, and not exclude any expression or perspective from the culture or information stream. Postmodernism is the philosophical equivalent to New York City: Embracing pluralism, combination and diversity. As Lyotard claims, a unified culture has now been replaced by a culture full of many small stories, many different critieria – a polyphony of voices.

Some propose what they calls an extreme simplification of the "postmodern" as an 'incredulity towards meta-narratives'. These meta-narratives - sometimes 'grand narratives' - are grand, large-scale theories and philosophies of the world, such as the progress of history, the knowability of everything by science, and the possibility of absolute freedom. Lyotard argues that we have ceased to believe that narratives of this kind are adequate to represent and contain us all. We have become alert to difference, diversity, the incompatibility of our aspirations, beliefs and desires, and for that reason postmodernity is characterised by an abundance of micronarratives.

Postmodernism offers a different way of both constructing and deconstructing ideas. Therefore creating opinions that differ from eachother, causing arguments for, for and against postmodernism.

By Harry Hosking and Sophie Dolan!

"I'm SO over postmodernism"

Some people think postmodernism is a load of rubbish. Why is this?

Do some internet research into some of the arguments against postmodernism and post a personal response to this idea as a comment to this blog post BY THE END OF THE LESSON (not shouting, really.)

READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU START - what do you think the author is saying about postmodernism and why?

Snorting Barley – postmodernism, Charlie Brooker and Nathan Barley 

Mark Ramey introduces the cult satire that takes the P out of Post-modernism

Unless you’ve been walking around with your eyes nailed to your eyelids, and your head encased in a slab of tarmac you can’t but have noticed Charlie Brooker waging righteous war on our idiotic postmodern culture. Brooker’s weapon of choice is savage satire unleashed on the media using a full armoury of print, TV and web-based content. Along with occasional colleagues and kindred spirits like Chris Morris (The Day Today; Brass Eye; Four Lions) and Armando Iannucci (The Thick of It; In The Loop), Brooker is fighting against facile postmodern surfaces and dumbed-down media practices. It is a war against an enemy secure in its profound, self-satisfied emptiness – a war against ‘the idiots’.

Perhaps inevitably, he is losing. As Brooker himself notes: ‘Man the life boats. The idiots are winning’ (The Guardian, 7.4.2008). The fight he is staging is, nevertheless, a magnificently futile gesture: a Mac-hating, sofa-bound David versus a Goliath armed with a satellite dish and iPad. However, unlike Mike Tyson’s flabby, pathetic cameo in Hollywood’s 2009 idiot-triumph The Hangover, Brooker can still deliver a punch and a line: a lethal combo that can cripple pretension and deflate egos. And 2005’s Nathan Barley, a six-episode C4 sitcom written by Brooker and Chris Morris (who also directed it), remains the moment war against the enemy was formally declared. Fans of Brooker’s earlier online work and journalism may disagree; but then anything as mainstream as a ‘toned-down’ sitcom would always distance hardcore fans and so it proved: Barley is a cult.

As is usual with anything touched by the hand of Brooker and Morris the satire is so sharp its victims often fail to notice the cuts until too late. Brass Eye (C4, 1997) provoked an outcry at its infamous 2001 spoof on the media-amplified moral panic surrounding paedophilia. Brooker was one of the writers of the show, which was clearly ahead of its time, as indeed was Morris’s 1994 news spoof, The Day Today (BBC2). Nathan Barley was a glorious failure because it too was ahead of the zeitgeist. The insular London-centred media world it satirised has now become our world. The ‘rise of the Idiots’ that Brooker warned us about in the show’s first episode has now spread beyond the radical-chic of the London-based media hubs. The idiots are everywhere.

The rise and rise of Charlie Brooker

Nathan Barley, the eponymous poisonous heart at the show’s centre, describes himself in hyperbolic terms as a ‘self-facilitating media node’. Brooker isn’t a media node but he isn’t far off it. After taking a Media degree he got a writing job on PC Zone magazine in the early 90s and in a recent interview for an online video-games trade magazine, MCV, he agrees that he was the lucky one who escaped the ghetto that was gaming journalism:

I think it’s like a nerdy stink of shame that hangs around me … the TV critic that plays games. (Oct 2009)

His passion for the New Media led him to develop an online parody of the staid TV listings magazine Radio Times. Calling his guide, TVGoHome (1999 -2003) he continued in the biting satirical tradition of Chris Morris to produce listings for fake shows that were surreal, pretentious, sexually explicit, vulgar, banal and, here’s the point, all quite recognisable. For example there was Daily Mail Island – a reality TV show where ‘normal’ people are marooned on an island and only given access to one media source, the hysteria-mongering rag, The Daily Mail. Needless to say their right-wing tendencies are inflamed as the series progresses until at one point a teenager caught masturbating is sealed into a coffin filled with broken glass and dog shit, and thrown over a cliff. Brooker’s satire is never subtle.
It is in the online archives of TVGoHome that we can still find Nathan Barley’s first appearance, in a new fly-on-the-wall documentary series, bewitchingly titled, C*nt. The show is described as:
…following the daily life of Nathan Barley, a twenty something wannabe director living in Westbourne Grove. This week: Nathan meets Jemma for lunch at the Prince Bonaparte and receives another cheque from his parents. (14.05.99)

Later episodes detail the Barley we will come to hate:

an odious twenty-something toff and media wannabe (11.6.99)

…who finds himself writing a barely literate monthly column reviewing leftfield websites and genuinely starts to believe his endeavour makes him a worthwhile human being rather than a meaningless strutting cadaver… (25.6.99)

In another episode we meet Nathan’s peers after he lands a regular DJ spot in a venue in which loud-mouthed members of London’s self-appointed young media elite strut about like a pack of trainer-obsessed peacocks, ordering expensive beers and braying insincere, ignorant horseshit at one another over the sound of Nathan’s utterly pedestrian mixing.

And finally in the edition of 12.11.99, ‘the Idiots’ are born:

While visiting the office of a new media design agency run by a school friend, Nathan Barley joins a small group of upper-middle class twenty-somethings as they gather round a monitor to snigger and point at a web site displaying photographs of wolves fucking the bodies of mutilated prostitutes.

Brooker on screen and page

In 2000 Brooker co-founded a TV and online production company, Zeppotron, which is now part of the mighty Endemol empire. Zeppotron produces most of Brooker’s TV work plus the quiz shows 8 Out of 10 Cats; You Have Been Watching (Brooker-hosted) and the Brooker-scripted, BAFTA-nominated, Big Brother horror satire, Dead Set (E4, 2008). Brooker also began writing a TV column for the Guardian in 2000, ‘Screenburn’, which has led over the years to a number of book-length collections such as Dawn of the Dumb: Dispatches from the Idiotic Frontline (2007). Brooker’s topical insights and witty cultural commentary plus a flair for presenting naturally led to TV work. Media-savvy shows like Screenwipe, Newswipe and Gameswipe are anchored by his pervert-next-door, guerrilla-style delivery plus a deadpan deconstruction of the media’s worst excesses. And just when you thought his head couldn’t get any bigger, in 2009 Brooker won the British Press Awards for Columnist of the Year and The Best Newcomer at the British Comedy Awards. Arse.

The life and work of Nathan Barley

As we have seen, Nathan Barley (Nicholas Burns) is a wealthy idiot who has found like-minded idiots to interface with in the media playpens of trendy East London. He is a

webmaster, guerrilla filmmaker, screenwriter, DJ and so convinced that he is the epitome of urban cool that he is secretly terrified he might not be, which is why he reads the magazine style bible Sugar Ape. (Zeppotron biog)

Sugar Ape’s reluctant star columnist, Dan Ashcroft (Julian Barratt of The Mighty Boosh), is one of Nathan’s idols but Dan despises Nathan and all of his feeble-witted kind … the idiots. Episode 1 swiftly sets up the conceit that Ashcroft has penned his greatest article to date, ‘The Rise of The Idiots’: unfortunately for him the very people it aims to pillory think the article is cool. Here’s Ashcroft in his own words:

Once the idiots were just the fools gawping in through the windows. Now they’ve entered the building. You can hear them everywhere. They use the word ‘cool’. It is their favourite word. The idiot does not think about what it is saying. Thinking is rubbish. And rubbish isn’t cool. Stuff n’shit is cool. The idiots are self-regarding consumer slaves, oblivious to the paradox of their uniform individuality. They sculpt their hair to casual perfection, they wear their waistbands below their balls, they babble into hand-held twit machines about the cool email of the woman being bummed by a wolf. Their cool friend made it. He’s an idiot too. Welcome to the age of stupidity. Hail to the rise of the idiots.

Now for the fun stuff! Postmodernity is said to characterise our age and if you are a student of Media Studies then you have probably hit your head against the term with such ferocity that an intellectual coma has swiftly followed. Ouch!

Nathan Barley and postmodernism

For brevity’s sake and without collapsing into the impenetrable mire of such theorists as Lyotard and Baudrillard, I understand postmodernism to describe an intellectual position typical of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The postmodern world of this period is one in which the ‘grand narratives’ of Marx, Freud, organised religion and the modernist impulse of scientific discovery have all run out of epistemological steam: we have stopped believing in their deep and epic truths. One effect of this in terms of cultural products like film and TV is a heavily ironic and detached sense of engagement with the work or text: ‘creatives’ no longer see themselves as tortured souls wrestling truth from their medium; now they are ‘facilitators, installation artists, entertainers or ironists’. Their purpose now is to play with truths, to break down the barriers between the text and the reader, the TV show and viewer. New buzzwords like ‘interactive, self-referential, inter-textual and hybrid’ reflect this distrust of rational statement in favour of a playful delight in surface meanings. How natural then that gossip magazines, reality TV shows, celebrity culture, prankster TV, unreconstructed sexism, reflexive genre homage and infotainment (to name but a few postmodern manifestations) should now dominate our cultural lives as they did five years ago, the prescient life of Nathan Barley.

Add to this postmodern brew the digital revolution, increasing globalisation and the triumph of consumerism (despite the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s) and we have the possibility of mass-producing ‘the idiot’. But maybe now Dan Ashcroft and his nemesis Nathan Barley can help us.

Nathan is ‘a self-regarding consumer slave’. In other words he enjoys his own image; he is a narcissist – and there’s plenty of them on YouTube and Facebook. Nathan is also a punter who thinks he is free to buy, but is actually conditioned to consume. As Brooker later comments in his infamous ‘I hate Macs’ article (Guardian 5.2.2007):

If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that ‘says something’ about your personality, don’t bother. You don’t have a personality. A mental illness, maybe – but not a personality.

Consumption as lifestyle choice is literally and metaphorically a manufactured lie and the idea that we can ironically consume is a fantasy – wages and debt and waste are not ironic, they are real. The only irony in consumerist values is the tragedy that consumption never satisfies: fast food, fast TV, fast news, fast facts. Fast is the new black … on crack!

Ashcroft (Brooker’s alter ego) also reminds us that idiots are blind to their ‘uniform individuality’. Apple put the ‘i’ into pods, pads and phones and ‘we’ all bought into it. A postmodern world is meant to blur boundaries, emphasise difference, explore hybridity and the margins; but in fact we merely walk around in a circle and end up staring up our own sphincters or into the face of a Z-list celebrity.

In my view, modernism’s utopian quest, ‘to boldly go where no man has gone before,’ may be flawed but it certainly isn’t over. If it was, Brooker’s satires wouldn’t work – and they do. We recognise the banality of so much of postmodern surface culture – all sheen and self-confident noise but something which, like a Happy Meal, ultimately lacks substance. It is like one of the idiots in Nathan Barley who uses the valediction, ‘Keep it foolish’. This throwaway line reveals a depthless problem with postmodernity: it is so afraid to say anything (uncool) that it says nothing (cool) and so plays into the hands of the vacuous idiocracy.

So next time you look into a self-proclaimed, postmodernist’s ironically twinkling eyes, ask yourself this question: is he or she an idiot? In a world without rules, there is only nonsense and then only the idiots make sense. Only an unfashionable critique of postmodernism’s negative impact will start to arrest its influence. Fight the fight people. Brooker needs our help.

Mark Ramey teaches Media Studies at Collyers College, West Sussex.

This article first appeared in MediaMagazine 32, April 2010.