Tangential to that, recently I was reflecting on our move from an “open” society to a “permissive” society. In the open society, everything which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. In the permissive society, everything which is not expressly permitted is forbidden. To give an example: when I was a lad, many years ago, my university library was open to the public. Students, of course, were the only ones permitted to check out books, but anyone could wander the stacks. Now, at the university I work at, only those with university IDs are allowed to even enter the library building, let alone check out books. Increasingly, much of the internet is turning into a gated community, where only those explicitly permitted may enter, as opposed to the relatively lawless Wild West internet of my youth. Paywalls are going up, or people are retreating to social media platforms. Media now works on a rental model, rather than an ownership model–see, for instance, Best Buy’s recent announcement that they will cease to carry DVDs and Blu-Rays, as everyone uses streaming. But of course, you only have access to the content provided the service permits you access.
Returning to the libraries: in a profoundly shortsighted move, my undergraduate physics department decided not long after I left to scrap their quite amply stocked physics library and instead put in a computer center. The reams of journals, the stacks of books, were all transferred to the main undergraduate library. But of course, once you no longer have your own departmental library, you no longer have control of those texts, and it wouldn’t surprise me were the undergraduate library to have disposed of many of those texts on the grounds that they were unnecessary due to Interlibrary Loan. And of course, the physics department would have justified their actions by pointing to the availability of, for example, journals via online subscription services. But when you junk your physical copies of journals in favor of subscription to digital copies, you’re not merely subscribing for future editions but also past editions, which means that if you lose your subscription for whatever reason, you also lose access to not only all subsequent issues but also all previous issues, leaving you with no journals at all. You only have access to those journals which the subscription service permits you to access, rather than the total access that comes with ownership. More and more these days, we live in a tenant society, rather than an owner society.
Hopefully he is reimagining the History section with the shared, lived experience of invisible communities disproportionately affected by colonial narratives and compounded by the carceral system.
I also lament that all commerce seems to be switching to the “subscription model”. It seems like a gateway to the “you will own nothing and be happy” vision of the future.
Katharine Eyre
6 months ago
…and the late Matthew Perry seemed to be the tragic, unexpected product of that 90s dream. At the time, it was all wisecracks, killer one-liners and neverending laughs. What was going on underneath was so much darker, and now we have the awful conclusion to it.
May he rest in peace.
Unlike Mary, I did watch and love “Friends” as a teenager. Sitting with my mum and being in stitches about Chandler’s latest pun are some of the nicest memories of the 90s – which, as a decade, I disliked at the time but now look back on with a sort of longing. We were all so busy laughing at the joke and hadn’t yet realised that the fun was all just a thin veneer that we’d eventually fall through back into a darker reality.
Mary might well have liked the show – but that wasn’t her point…
Tyler Durden
6 months ago
To a certain extent, Fight Club only came into being as a reaction to the cultural phenomenon of Friends, book then film.
I see The Matrix as a Gnostic red herring, much like the transgendered fate of its directors.
Thesis, antithesis but no synthesis here. Gen X has remained trapped in the corporate value system needed to rear families and pay mortgages, while their bemused generational heirs have pursued identity politics driven by the enormous cultural power of the higher education sector since the 1990s.
The Matrix is really just Plato’s Cave allegory is it not?
Stephen Wright
6 months ago
Friends was pretty lame. Its popularity now makes me sad, because it suggests the need in people for that comforting connection and acceptance which as Mary says, doesn’t exist anymore (if it ever did)…
Mathew Perry was getting 20 million a year from residuals at the time of his death. I presume all the other “friends” are getting that because they each got one million an episode when it was taped.
Roddy Campbell
6 months ago
It was a TV series. Nothing like real life. Designed to be entertaining, nothing else! In the age when people were allowed to enjoy chocolate just because it tasted good, not because of its theobromine percentage.
Although it’s good to be introspective, sometimes it’s OK to like something simply because it’s, well, likeable.
And the writing and characters were very well crafted, It was a good ensemble. What a life-changing opportunity those actors got.
andy young
6 months ago
I tried watching it once, but gave up. Twee beyond belief. It bore the same relationship to comedy as Agadoo does to music.
I don’t mind a bit of escapism, but that just wasn’t any sort of world I’d want to escape into.
Yes, it’s just a kind of TV up with which I will not put.
Ben Hopkins
6 months ago
Unherd – please publish a compilation of all Mary’s articles as a book. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to read them again and again.
Samuel Ross
6 months ago
I have fond memories of 4:3 screens …
Last edited 6 months ago by Samuel Ross
Thor Albro
6 months ago
Mary wrongly puts the Friends zietgist in the context of several subsequent generations, whom have their own issues to deal with. Who cares? My wife and i enjoyed Friends in the Nineties, and still chuckle or laugh out loud when we see a rerun (there’s an old term!) occasionally. We sort of identified with the Friends dynamic then, and have not declined into some sort of post-modern ennui, or whatever fall from grace this article suggests. The younger generations can figure out what makes them happy, I don’t really care that much.
Last edited 6 months ago by Thor Albro
J Bryant
6 months ago
Re-reading this article I’m reminded why I was so impressed with MH’s work when I first encountered it on Unherd.
V Reade
6 months ago
‘This Life’ was miles better than ‘Friends’…just sayin’…
Dumetrius
6 months ago
Glad to find the promise was empty, since I’ve never seen any of it.
Tangential to that, recently I was reflecting on our move from an “open” society to a “permissive” society. In the open society, everything which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. In the permissive society, everything which is not expressly permitted is forbidden. To give an example: when I was a lad, many years ago, my university library was open to the public. Students, of course, were the only ones permitted to check out books, but anyone could wander the stacks. Now, at the university I work at, only those with university IDs are allowed to even enter the library building, let alone check out books. Increasingly, much of the internet is turning into a gated community, where only those explicitly permitted may enter, as opposed to the relatively lawless Wild West internet of my youth. Paywalls are going up, or people are retreating to social media platforms. Media now works on a rental model, rather than an ownership model–see, for instance, Best Buy’s recent announcement that they will cease to carry DVDs and Blu-Rays, as everyone uses streaming. But of course, you only have access to the content provided the service permits you access.
Returning to the libraries: in a profoundly shortsighted move, my undergraduate physics department decided not long after I left to scrap their quite amply stocked physics library and instead put in a computer center. The reams of journals, the stacks of books, were all transferred to the main undergraduate library. But of course, once you no longer have your own departmental library, you no longer have control of those texts, and it wouldn’t surprise me were the undergraduate library to have disposed of many of those texts on the grounds that they were unnecessary due to Interlibrary Loan. And of course, the physics department would have justified their actions by pointing to the availability of, for example, journals via online subscription services. But when you junk your physical copies of journals in favor of subscription to digital copies, you’re not merely subscribing for future editions but also past editions, which means that if you lose your subscription for whatever reason, you also lose access to not only all subsequent issues but also all previous issues, leaving you with no journals at all. You only have access to those journals which the subscription service permits you to access, rather than the total access that comes with ownership. More and more these days, we live in a tenant society, rather than an owner society.
Are you currently busy de-colonising the catalogue and restricting access to ‘problematic’ texts in the interests of student mental health ?
Hopefully he is reimagining the History section with the shared, lived experience of invisible communities disproportionately affected by colonial narratives and compounded by the carceral system.
I also lament that all commerce seems to be switching to the “subscription model”. It seems like a gateway to the “you will own nothing and be happy” vision of the future.
…and the late Matthew Perry seemed to be the tragic, unexpected product of that 90s dream. At the time, it was all wisecracks, killer one-liners and neverending laughs. What was going on underneath was so much darker, and now we have the awful conclusion to it.
May he rest in peace.
Unlike Mary, I did watch and love “Friends” as a teenager. Sitting with my mum and being in stitches about Chandler’s latest pun are some of the nicest memories of the 90s – which, as a decade, I disliked at the time but now look back on with a sort of longing. We were all so busy laughing at the joke and hadn’t yet realised that the fun was all just a thin veneer that we’d eventually fall through back into a darker reality.
Mary might well have liked the show – but that wasn’t her point…
To a certain extent, Fight Club only came into being as a reaction to the cultural phenomenon of Friends, book then film.
I see The Matrix as a Gnostic red herring, much like the transgendered fate of its directors.
Thesis, antithesis but no synthesis here. Gen X has remained trapped in the corporate value system needed to rear families and pay mortgages, while their bemused generational heirs have pursued identity politics driven by the enormous cultural power of the higher education sector since the 1990s.
The Matrix is really just Plato’s Cave allegory is it not?
Friends was pretty lame. Its popularity now makes me sad, because it suggests the need in people for that comforting connection and acceptance which as Mary says, doesn’t exist anymore (if it ever did)…
Poor you!
Theater is life, film is art, television is furniture.
attributed to many; remembered by few
“…desperately trying to stay afloat in a world he found increasingly incomprehensible.”
Yes!!!!! That’s me.
You’re not alone, small consolation, perhaps.
The “Friends” were constantly hooking up and breaking up sexually. With no long-term psychic scars.
What I thought most interesting about the series was the early decision of the core cast to bargain collectively for their salaries.
Pretty good metaphor for the relationships on-screen, come to think of it: transactional.
Mathew Perry was getting 20 million a year from residuals at the time of his death. I presume all the other “friends” are getting that because they each got one million an episode when it was taped.
It was a TV series. Nothing like real life. Designed to be entertaining, nothing else! In the age when people were allowed to enjoy chocolate just because it tasted good, not because of its theobromine percentage.
Although it’s good to be introspective, sometimes it’s OK to like something simply because it’s, well, likeable.
And the writing and characters were very well crafted, It was a good ensemble. What a life-changing opportunity those actors got.
I tried watching it once, but gave up. Twee beyond belief. It bore the same relationship to comedy as Agadoo does to music.
I don’t mind a bit of escapism, but that just wasn’t any sort of world I’d want to escape into.
Yes, it’s just a kind of TV up with which I will not put.
Unherd – please publish a compilation of all Mary’s articles as a book. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to read them again and again.
I have fond memories of 4:3 screens …
Mary wrongly puts the Friends zietgist in the context of several subsequent generations, whom have their own issues to deal with. Who cares? My wife and i enjoyed Friends in the Nineties, and still chuckle or laugh out loud when we see a rerun (there’s an old term!) occasionally. We sort of identified with the Friends dynamic then, and have not declined into some sort of post-modern ennui, or whatever fall from grace this article suggests. The younger generations can figure out what makes them happy, I don’t really care that much.
Re-reading this article I’m reminded why I was so impressed with MH’s work when I first encountered it on Unherd.
‘This Life’ was miles better than ‘Friends’…just sayin’…
Glad to find the promise was empty, since I’ve never seen any of it.
Aside from the Smelly Cat song.