Cyberpop is an analysis of cyberculture and its popular cultural productions. The study begins with a Foucaultian model of cyberculture as a discursive formation; and explains how some key concepts (such as virtuality; speed; and Connectivity) operate as a conceptual architecture network linking technologies to information and individual subjects. The chapters then each focus on a particular cyberfiguration; including Hollywood films (GATTACA; The Matrix); popular literature (William Gibsons Neuromancer; Scott Westerfelds Polymorph); advertising for digital products and services (Apple Computers 1984/McIntosh campaign; ATTs mLife campaign); digital artworks (including virtual females such as Motorolas Mya and Elite Modeling Agencys Webbie Tookay; and work by visual artist Daniel Lee for Microsofts Evolution campaign); and video games (Tomb Raider). Each close reading illustrates the ways in which representations of digital lifestyles and identities - which typically fetishize computers and celebrate a high tech aesthetic encourage participation in digital capitalism and commodity cyberculture. Matrix argues that popular representations of cyberculture often function as forms of social criticism that creatively inspire audiences to think different (in the words of Mac advertising) about the consequences of the digitalization of everyday life.
#3824574 in eBooks 2013-01-03 2013-01-03File Name: B00CWZ5U0G
Review
25 of 26 people found the following review helpful. Male bonding and the "gay coded" character in 50s-90s mediaBy Bob LindLike many of my generation; I can trace back some of my earliest same-sex attractions to teen characters I saw on TV shows or in films of the early 1960s. Frankie Avalon had Annette Funicello as a girlfriend; but why did he seem to be so much happier when he spent all of his time with his surfer buddies? Why was Dobie Gillis (Dwayne Hickman) always starting the show by telling the audience that "I really like girls"; but then spent most of his time with his best buddy; Maynard (Bob Denver); and only chasing one girl; Thalia Menninger (Tuesday Weld) who obviously didnt like him? And why did I always prefer Ricky Nelson; even though he seemed to be a bit of a sissy compared to his athletic big brother David?In his comprehensive study of homoeroticism and subtle portrayals of the (few and far between) "gay-coded" characters on the big and little screens in the last half of the 20th Century; Jeffrey P. Dennis explores the prevailing subliminal trends and intentional messages made by writers; directors and agents of the time. He explores how masculinity was portrayed and protected in each genre of teen films over the years: films about juvenile delinquents; monster movies; hippie-biker films; psycho-slasher flicks; and all the way to the Brat Pack. He also explores the filmography of popular teen idols; putting in perspective his take on why certain roles were taken; perhaps to quash rumors of his sexuality. Lots of background on popular sitcoms of the periods; from "Father Knows Best" (Did you know there was a whole series of episodes where teenager Buds lack of masculinity or interest in girls was a concern for his family?); through "Happy Days" (Why did Fonzie seem to always prefer the company of teen boys?) and all the way past "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (Xander confronts a character he suspected of hiding the fact that he is actually a werewolf; but is more unnerved when he finds out his secret is that he is actually gay!)The content is not just the authors theories; but indexed with source footnotes in most cases. (I found more than a half dozen films with gay content I never knew about; which I intend to explore on cable or via DVD.) I also found out about long-forgotten films TV series that were made to play up the masculine charms of aging teen idols (such as 1965s "Never Too Young" in which Tony Dow played an auto mechanic who never seemed to have a shirt on; after having never appeared shirtless in 6+ seasons as big brother Wally in "Leave It To Beaver".)Recommended reading for all ages; though "baby boomers" who remember early TV shows will especially get a kick out of the revelations about their favorite shows. I give it four stars out of five.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Gay ideology triumphs over historical accuracyBy John HamiltonThis is the sequel to Jeffery Dennis ldquo;We Boys Togetherrdquo;; in which; as in the first volume; the author continues to display the egregious disregard for factual accuracy which has become his hallmark. The blurb on the back cover boasts two quotes from an ldquo;Associate Professor of Womens and Gender Studiesrdquo; (hardly an academically rigorous subject!) and an ldquo;Associate Professor of Sociologyrdquo;; both of whom make the usual exaggerated claims for the book; that it is an ldquo;important bookrdquo; that ldquo;bravelyrdquo; tackles gay issues and will ldquo;forever change how we viewrdquo; popular culture; and similar guff. As an ex-academic; I know how this works. An academic gets a couple of their colleagues ndash; perhaps people theyve networked with at an academic conference ndash; and gets them to write some blurb (or endorse some blurb theyve already prepared); and then they return the favour when these other academics publish their own works. Such endorsements; then; are hardly worthy of respect.Dennis main vice; apart from his characteristic disregard for anything as inconvenient as fact; is that he takes ldquo;gayrdquo; sexual orientation as an absolutely rigid and transhistorical category that can be applied to all epochs and cultures; rather than (what in fact it is); an identity which only emerged in the course of the late 60s in order to define homosexuals as a ldquo;minorityrdquo; who could therefore claim rights along the model of the black civil rights movement.Dennis curiously ahistorical approach to history frequently leads to egregious error. For example; when writing about the ldquo;Leave It To Beaverrdquo; episode ldquo;Beavers Doll Buggyrdquo; (1961) he says the following:ldquo;Beaver needs some wheels for his soapbox car; and a girl donates her old doll buggy. As he wheels the buggy down the street; everyone assumes the eleven-year-old is playing with dolls. His peers laugh; tease; yell; and pick fights; and an adult recoils in homophobic panic: The new generation has gone sissy on us! Eddie Haskell is too stunned to wisecrack; and Wally solemnly advises that he discard the buggy in order to make it home alive. Guys always pick on someone whos different; he says; quietly considering the possibility that his little brother might be gay.rdquo; (p. 26)Now; anyone who is familiar with American film from the silent era to the 1960s will know that in America the word ldquo;sissyrdquo; did *not* mean ldquo;homosexualrdquo;. It stood for a mollycoddled or *effeminate* boy. ldquo;Leave It To Beaverrdquo; was a mainstream family TV show. It is inconceivable that such a show would allude; even obliquely; to homosexuality in 1961; let alone suggest that its central character was homosexual. Thus the adult is not ldquo;recoiling in homophobic panicrdquo; when he says that boys have gone sissy; hes saying that boys are behaving in a *girlish* or effeminate manner - he is not claiming that they are sexually attracted to other boys. When Wally says that guys always pick on someone who is different; the difference he is referring to is Beavers behaving like a girl; not his being a homosexual. He is not; therefore; ldquo;quietly considering the possibility that his little brother might be gay.rdquo; Dennis never shows any true sensitivity to the past; or any real wish to understand it; since such sensitivity would not advance his agenda of finding a hitherto suppressed ldquo;gay subtextrdquo; in everything.The authors indifference to fact is also shown in his assertion that; in the Beavers world; ldquo;Friends; classmates; and co-workers would backstab you in an instantrdquo;; and that the reason for the world being portrayed in this way is that ldquo;The myth of the nuclear family requires such a menacing world...with outside friendships casual; tepid; and suspicious; and the only strong emotional ties between Dad; Mom; and Kids.rdquo; (p. 24) Now this attitude is indeed highly characteristic of contemporary society; but it was far *less* true of society half a century ago; as indeed ldquo;Leave It To Beaverrdquo; demonstrates. Dennis seems to have overlooked Gus the Fireman; an adult mentor to whom the Beaver goes for advice and emotional support throughout the series. This sort of relationship ndash; between a juvenile or adolescent boy and an older man ndash; would now be regarded with deep suspicion and hostility. This would suggest that in fact boys enjoyed considerably *greater* emotional freedom in 1961 than they do today. Dennis constantly misses the really important stories; since he is so bound up in portraying the past as oppressive in comparison with the present.Dennis also claims that the Beavers parents display an anxiety that ldquo;Beaver might not adequately discover girls; abandoning childhood same-sex bonds for girl-crazy adolescence.rdquo; (p. 26) But this is wholly false. On the contrary; in the (very few) episodes where the Beaver evinces attraction to a girl; the characteristic response of his parents is anxiety that his interest is coming ldquo;too soonrdquo;; and that their son is not yet old enough to be thinking about heterosexual relationships. This continues until the very end of the series; and it is obvious that so far as the Beavers parents are concerned; it will never be ldquo;timerdquo; for the Beaver to date girls. Not that the Beaver shows much interest anyway. On the rare occasions when he does find himself attracted to a girl; his attraction always backfires; and it seems far more likely that he will grow up a bachelor. Up until the very end; heterosexual entanglements are presented as just that ndash; entanglements ndash; and girls are treated as untrustworthy and not worth bothering about (see; for example; the episode ldquo;Beaver Sees Americardquo;; where the episode ends with the Beaver very decisively rejecting girls in favour of his best pal Gilbert). It is inconceivable that any family TV series made today would portray girls or heterosexual attraction as negatively as ldquo;Leave It To Beaverrdquo; did back in the late 50s and early 60s. Dennis; however; ignores this because it conflicts with his prejudice that any cultural product from this era *must* be heterosexist; whatever the appearances to the contrary.Dennis tendency to veer into subjective fantasy is also displayed in his tendentious claim that Ward (the Beavers father) approaches his sons with an ldquo;undertow of hostilityrdquo; which; Dennis speculates; is caused by ldquo;anger over dreams deferred by his entrapment in suburbia.rdquo; (p. 24) These assertions are not supported by any evidence; and for those familiar with the show; the idea that Ward is unloving; or even ldquo;hostilerdquo;; towards his offspring; will seem like total nonsense.Ive concentrated on Dennis comments on this one TV series; in order to make my criticisms concrete; but similar comments can be made about everything Dennis touches. Dennis; as readers of his earlier book will be aware; has a Theory. His Theory is that in films and popular culture generally; up until about 1940; adolescent boys were never portrayed as having a romantic interest in girls; only when they became adult men was such interest thought appropriate - until then they bonded with each other. Then; around the time of Americas entry into the Second World War; according to Dennis; a homophobic anxiety swept America; and boys were only allowed to display affection towards the opposite sex (though some writers; according to Dennis; nevertheless suggested that their characters were gay in a coded way; which Dennis claims to reveal). Dennis sharp contrast between pre- and post-war culture; however; is not really supported by any evidence. Again; those familiar with pre-War American films will know that the romantic interest of boys in girls was a frequent trope of such films; even when very young boys were concerned (consider the onscreen puppy-love between Mickey Daniels and Mary Kornman in the ldquo;Our Gangrdquo; silents; for example; continued later on in Hal Roachs ldquo;Boyfriendsrdquo; series). More importantly; it is hard to detect any evidence that after the Second World War boys ceased to be portrayed in strong emotional relationships with each other. On the contrary; such portrayals seem to have continued unabated. What finally changed all this; in fact; was the rise of a visible gay movement in the late 60s; which made it more problematic to portray boys as loving and loyal towards each other. Dennis misses this; because it would conflict with his progressivist belief that the present is more enlightened; tolerant and civilised than the past; and that the gay movement was responsible for this improvement.The inelegant neologism which Dennis has coined for the books title - ldquo;Queeringrdquo; - suggests a *distortion* of the past; rather than an attempt to truly understand and appreciate it on its own terms. In this respect; at least; the title of the book does not mislead. This volume is useful in suggesting material that those with a homoerotic sensibility might want to view (which is why Ive given it two stars rather than one); but in the end Jeffery Dennis is just another academic who has decided that the idea of objective truth as something independent of the enquirer is an outmoded concept to be swept aside in the interests of promoting an ideology.5 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Not a bad bookBy D. R. SuggsI found this a very interesting book. I have seen many old shows and always thought some of the character were closeted lovers. I could relate to many of the bonds between characters. The adolescent age period is consistent with the chum stage of Harry Stack Sullivans psychological developmental stages.As the book entered into more current media; it seemed to be reaching to stay with the point; I personally believe the lack of actual same sex bonding is due to public awareness of gayness and the major attempts society makes to supress this lifestyle.