Update: I confess to having done massive editing to this post and done it in a rush… And as a consequence the first publishing of it, some sentences made absolutely no sense… (I wish I could attribute this lapse to being drunk… but it was not the case).
Some of us over forty and sort of needing maintenance more often, sometimes chemical, sometimes mechanical may be grateful to the gods of science, technology and medicine. We all worship them somehow, some of the time. I am beyond worship at this point, although I had what could be considered by my standards a very religious day today.
By the way, Nietzsche, and I do love him, but he was wrong on a whole lot of issues. My love is going more and more towards dead men these days, but I am keeping a close eye on the younger ones still kicking and producing. Entertainment is a branch that I do follow, especially the film industry.
I do wonder how many contemporaries of Nietzsche considered him vulgar. I had an interesting little interlude of a conversation this week with an esteemed scholar and we ended up discussing Quentin Tarantino’s newest flick. This person was not into Tarantino, and I can get that. I have fallen asleep several times trying to watch Pulp Fiction. Two lessons here: one is that there are still a few films for me to make an effort to watch, and that comfort in academics is not always a good guiding principle. Actually, I often have to go through material that the best sentiment that I can develop about it is indifference, and that is really good.
Back to Tarantino. This scholar mentioned the word vulgar in our discussion, and I offered that indeed he creates works that can be considered vulgar, but not offensive. I thought that was a strange thing on my side to say. Vulgar, yes; offensive, no. So what is it that I consider vulgar? What is it that I consider vulgar about Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds?
If you are in my media criticism class, you just got your assignment. Find instances of vulgarity in Tarantino’s work that are not offensive.
If you think that the two positions are untenable in parallel, do reason your conclusion and provide sufficient evidence with specific examples to ground your argument.
Just pulling your leg, am I?