Yes, but porn is a genre, South Park is a show. And you don't see porn stars' faces on the backs of cars and on t-shirts and coffee mugs and you don't see innumerable references to them in popular culture.

An exception worth evaluating would be Playboy magazine. Mainstream or no? Everybody knows the Playboy Bunny. Does that mean Playboy is mainstream, or does it simply mean the Playboy Bunny as a general icon is mainstream?

The more I think about it the more it becomes clear that there's tons of gray area, no doubt about that. But in regards to the profanity thing, isn't Eminem mainstream? I mean, I listened to a trio of relatives in their late 70s discuss him over the holidays. (And *that* was entertaining, let me tell you.)

Hmm. I should probably find something better to do now.


K

I don't see why Stern isn't mainstream: one of the most listened to talk shows, a top 5 box office movie, and at least 2 best-selling books. His ideas are obviously simpatico with many people out there. In fact, his politics and tastes are moderately conservative and fairly pedestrian.

He also only reads superhero comics, to bring us full circle.

Have you ever BEEN to Vermont Pat? It's as rural as all get out! Burlington is fairly cosmopolitan (Though small as hell) but most of the state IS rural and most people I know who watch south park live in towns where everyone knows everyone. I'm not talking tweedy intellectuals here, I'm talking people who work in factories, have kids, own homes and are about as middle america as they come.

Face it: You're intellectually dishonest and move the goal post back any time the opposite team gets close to it. By your standards the Beatles weren't a success because not EVERYONE over the age of 40 was a huge fan.

I guess because it doesn't seem like he's saturated popular imagination in quite the way or to quite the degree some of the other examples have. I mean, you see or hear references to him now and then, but I don't see him on coffee mugs and magazine covers and such. He's more analagous to Sock's porn example, but to refine it, let's make it specific and say Deep Throat. Lots of people know what it is but it seems odd to call it "mainstream." It's not a big part of everyday entertainment culture, just an item of notoriety.

I tend to agree with Sock insofar as Stern's flirted with mainstream status, but hasn't quite achieved it. But I'm just thinking out loud on this one, going with my instinctive understanding of the spirit of the word. Maybe I'm wrong -- at the moment, I forget why it even matters that the term "mainstream" be strictly defined for the purposes of the discussion, but I'm sure there's some reason or another.

(OK, *now* I should find something better to do.)


K

That's the problem I have with this discussion. It's hard to argue what type of comic is more mainstream when the medium as a whole is entirely non-mainstream. On more than one occasion I have had individuals express surprise when told that the comics industry still exists. And most others I have come into contact have only the flimsiest familiarity with comic books. The picture they have of what comics are and the reality are often far removed. Only a handful of super heroes have mainstream recognition and it would seem to be more as general cultural icons than as popular comic books.

Back when I was senior in highschool I had to give a presentation to my Honors English class and assorted guests. I decided to talk about comics, focussing mostly on works ranging from Crumb and Spiegelman to Watchmen, Sandman, and Dark Knight Returns. This was a distinctly non-comics reading crowd so I was quite surprised by how strong a positive reaction I recieved and a genuine interest from many of the students.

I think that if most people could be convinced to actually pick up the right comics (right comic for them that is) they'd probably start reading them. But who can really predict what tastes would prevail given a level playing field and what would gain that elusive "mainstream" status? Super heroes dominate the comic industry and many sh fans consider indy stuff weird or unappealing yet at least a few posters here have cited examples of people responding quite positivelly to indy and alternative-style work.
Until a large enough portion of the public does suddenly rise up to read comics how can you really have a discussion like this?

I think I've figured out the real problem here:

All the people arguing that stuff like South Park or, for that matter, the typical indy/alt comic book, is "mainstream" are convinced that they and their like-minded friends represent the mainstream of American culture.

Self-delusion, of course...but the problem with the self-deluded is that it's nearly impossible to relieve them of their delusion.

I'm not sure that a true "mainstream" can really exist in a large, culturally fractured society like North America. I think that it's a artificial construct that tends to be confused with mass acceptance, where the critical mass is reached when "merely" at least a million people are paying customers. I don't think "most" North Americans buy into any same set of cultural products.

From where I'm sitting, anything on regular television is mainstream, even the so-called late night "cult" shows like the X-Files and South Park. At the very least, anything that gets mentioned on Entertainment Tonight could be considered mainstream, no? The kind of celebrities featured on the magazines sold in supermarkets are surely mainstream, yes?

Does "mainstream" necessarily involve active participation in the marketplace? How many Frank Sinatra records are sold every year? What about Elvis (outside of regions of the US where he's still revered as something of a god)?

Is Celine Dion mainstream? I always thought the people who buy her records are women in their late twenties and early thirties. I mean, she sells a hell of a lot of records, but I've never met anyone who owns one, despite working with people who seem to fit the profile of the "mainstream" consumer.

Is Britney Spears mainstream? Isn't her audience pubescent girls? Will the great masses of humanity remember her in a decade from now, or will she join the ranks of Samantha Fox and other short-lived fads?

Were the Beatles mainstream in the sixties? The Doors?

A handful of superhero characters are generally known to everyone, but an insignificant fraction of them actually buy and/or read the comics that feature them every month.

What about drugs? I seem to remember seeing statistics that indicated that there are more Americans who have used marijuana than there are Catholics. The last US president used it when he was in college, and the present one used cocaine. Are US presidents not, if not by definition than by common understanding, the most mainstream people in the country?

What Pat seems believe, if I understand him correctly, is that for something to be legitimately mainstream it must not just be familiar to but actively appeal to a staggeringly large percentage of the population, regardless of age, gender, socio-economic class, ethnic and language group, and life experience in general. Something, that like food, sex, and clothing, everybody needs. Something that truly has something for everybody. In other words, something that appeals to the lowest common denominator, not just this group of tweedy intellectuals, that group of rowdy teenagers, or those scary-looking weirdos in torn clothing lurking over there. The problem is that he has gone on record as stating that the concept of the "lowest common denominator" is nothing but a cruel fiction invented and perpetuated chiefly by insecure snobs in order to feel better about the fact that few others share their unpopular taste.

This addresses none of the many examples or questions issued.

Why would alt/indy kids be arguing that their tastes are "mainstream"? Alt/indy tastes are characteristic of those who are not interested in the mainstream. Which, incidentally, probably renders them the better able to discern the borders.

You seem to have this odd notion that anything which appeals mainly to, say, people more than a handful of years younger or more liberal than yourself is automatically disqualified from being "mainstream." Because ... I'm guessing ... you don't happen to hear much about it. Or don't like it. Or both.

Hell, I don't care if South Park is mainstream or not, but do you have cable TV? And exactly how old are you, anyhow? Do you regularly read entertainment magazines? Watch entertainment news? Do you often interact with younger people? Do you live in a vaguely metropolitan area? Do you get out at all? I'm just curious what you feel your qualifications are as Spokesman of What Qualifies As Mainstream. Some concrete examples with specific reasons would be helpful, too. Is Britney Spears mainstream? Is Eminem? Is Spawn?


K

I'd love to hear Pat's thoughts on Adorno. I doubt he'd ever recover if he actually encountered real intellectual elitism.

Pat, how can we be snoots about the mainstream while thinking we are the mainstream? This thread might be an all-time record for contradictions on your part. If only you could get the synthesis down, you'd be this board's Hegel.

For the record, if anyone's actually in doubt, I haven't been discussing my favorite artists in this thread.