Hammers and Nails

It did not make me angry. The “eight hours for what we will” has always been the fuel for an economic engine unrivaled in the world. That doesn’t change the fact that what “eight hours for work” has become is highly problematic, at least for this professional who has seen real earnings for the work that I do decrease on the order of 40% over a career spanning 35 years. I’m still doing well enough to have the luxury of not needing a side hustle to be comfortable, but prosperous/comfortable and comfortable/not are two very different things.

Was the author wielding a hammer? Sure he was. I still think that it’s safe to say that the possibility that some of the subtleties of the economic forces driving the growth of the gig economy could be lost on Ms. Parton is a more apt description of his major premise. I’m firmly in the camp of those who believe that the relentless reduction in the benefits accruing from “yay, productivity!” is right at the top of the list of things that need to be BTFD rather than normalized.

I agree that it was just a commercial, and a fairly clever piece of advertising at that. Not much about the game was as well conceived and executed.

This reminds me of a trend I noticed in the world of movie criticism a while back. Forgive me for the length here, but I think it dovetails nicely into what you’re saying.

Movie critics are of course a sad and morose bunch. No one denies this. But the good ones, the ones who make a full fledged career out of reviewing films, have an eye for detail and subtlety that perhaps most of us don’t. Unfortunately the supply of people willing to write about movies far, far outweighs the actual demand. No matter. Demand will be created artificially (or in the case of most failing, cash-burning websites) it will be ignored altogether. That set of circumstances resulted in a flood of clickbait-hungry “critics” flooding the culture with their smoldering hot takes. And many of those takes had the same format. Here is a recreation:

Critic: Well, I enjoyed parts of this film–especially [nod towards some technical aspect that was at least passable] but I feel like [director/writer] could have taken a different direction overall.

Critic: The ability of [director] to achieve [some pedestrian task] is laudable, but he missed the chance to tell [whatever story the movie wasn’t telling] and for that I cannot recommend you see this.

There are other variations, but they all end up in the same place. And that place is summed us as “Yes, it was a good movie, but it wasn’t the movie that I would have made.” Critics didn’t used to be encouraged to come right out and say “why didn’t they make this movie the way I wanted it to be made?”, yet that is an acceptable critique of a film in the year of our Lord 2021.

This is an extension of the overall lurch towards narcissism as a form of currency. (I’m almost shocked someone hasn’t figured out how to tokenize the self-centeredness of bloggers) The NBC article upon which this note is based is merely the logical extension of that economy of Narcissistic Takes at Scale. “Dolly Parton did a commercial I don’t like, here’s 700 words about it”. We’ve always been ok with cultural criticism, it’s a vital part of, well, culture. But when we shifted from the technical–this film failed to develop an important subplot, that album drowned out the vocals, this play is too long and why the Hell is it about a bunch of cats?–to the personal we lost the plot entirely. No longer can a movie (or Super Bowl ad) simply be a thing that exists as the work of those who made it. It must be dissected and rearranged in the minds of bored would-be wine moms (if only all men weren’t TRASH) or crabby incels (if only all women weren’t mean and scary) and then their musings, which have no cultural purchase outside of the scant few people who edit them, are foisted upon us as if they are of some value. If I didn’t know better I would say that the corporate media conglomerates who own vast chunks of the Narcissistic Takes at Scale business were doing it on purpose, knowing that dumbing down the culture is as much a contribution as building it up can be, but alas that is too clever by half. Instead I suspect that this is the natural course of evolution. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Thanks for writing, John! I’m in the same camp as you on “yay, productivity”, although I am a believer in the dignity value of work in the non-memeified version of the idea. That said, that isn’t really the point here. The point is, in my opinion, that the author was very clearly determined to force a square peg of an event (a silly, harmless, perfectly reasonable commercial for a web host) into that circle. It is when we deeply believe in that circle (the hammer) that I think we are most prone to see everything as a nail.

Yep. Affinity archetypes, you might call them, if hammers doesn’t suit - content which auto-tunes to a template that scratches an itch for some self-sustaining sub-set of the population. Somewhat related to Ben’s rage/mirror engagement framework for social media in particular.

Narcissistic Takes at Scale is feels a bit damning of the genre for my taste, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Just a bit depressing.

If the commercial was promoting a (blank) night school from 5 to 9, that would have been bad too?

I believe a ripple effect of this type of article is to muddy the waters for people / groups that are advocating in good faith for change around an issue. Labor issues merit serious discussion by serious people, and broader participation (or higher-quality participation) in the benefits of capitalism is a worthy aim.

The underlying issue not withstanding, this article is weak. When positions in important debates are backed by weak “evidence,” the positions can be correspondingly weakened, which is a disservice to those trying to advance the issues.

I read this Hammer and nails piece and am lost even though I’ve been reading your essays for months. Define your terms, please.Epsilon Theory has developed it’s own specialized vocabulary and the meanings are not self-evident. Is it on me to read a dozen previous pieces to get vague idea of your meaning? I suggest you put your specialized vocabulary in one document that can be used as a reference for newer people.

Hammer? 
Nails? 
Some examples would help. Are you referring to motivation toward a particular narrative??

OK, impatience finished. Does this make you my morning nail?

Pat W

The phrase hustle and flow comes to mind. If we swim in financialization, and it’s always been about flow, not price, this is the effect. Especially after the Telecommunications (Monopolization) Act funneled the gates.

“57 Channels and Nothing’s On” came out in 1992. How many “channels” now? Is it even possible to put a number on it? Content for an “infinite” number of channels can get a bit wonky for sure but how about the argument used for drugs, pornography, guns etc. that the supply of these items is due to an overwhelming demand by consumers?

Throw out a narrative like chum on the water wait for the fish to come to the boat.

What is it that is actually being fed?

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Not about the Hammer and Nails. As usual, your main thrust is impeccable. It is about this particular choice. Sure, it’s much ado about nothing, and who knows what NBC’s angle is? But Dolly’s trajectory is indeed changed by this add, for whatever it may or may not be worth.