Hacker News Reader

Comment by naringas | Hacker News Reader

because this period of history is being rewrriten in the public culture to reifnorce myths about the present and so influence (softly control) the future

edit: the first sentence gets downvoted. I both expected and felt bad about it.

View on HN

#BLM has challenged that period in the UK and US. And it was a terrible period, with those vast idyllic country estates being built on the backs of slavery abroad and Enclosure of common land at home.

Slavery is being acknowledged now, but the Enclosures still don't figure in the national narrative.

But Regency Romance has been a money spinning genre for a very long time, and it's not more popular now than it used to be.

Nor is there any evidence of conscious narrative control by editors and publishers. There's far more evidence of that elsewhere - for example in both the mytho-feminist and techno-dystopian ends of contemporary SF.

But it's actually most obvious in period and class-specific movies and soaps, which the UK specialises in, and which are a very different genre to romantic fiction.

Here's the creator of Downton Abbey. He's now working on a US equivalent called - unsurprisingly - The Gilded Age. Could he possibly have an angle to sell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Fellowes

The Highland Clearances are certainly remembered in Scotland - one of the reasons why there is a lot of support for community buy outs of estates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

That explains nothing whatsoever as to what's so special about the Regency period? As the article notes, it's nine years. Why not when George III was still in command? Why not during Victoria's reign?

because the constituencies involved (of both the characters in the book, and the modern audience that consumes them) prefer the absence of a strong federating remote figure, to the ability of being able to imprint/insert themselves as participatory observers of the events.

lack of a strong central nexus gives fantasy writers and readers the opportunity to engage with the story and period on their own terms, instead of being subjugated to what some accidental monarch wants the era to have been.

There really wasn't much of a difference for them in terms of actual actions aside from more gentry officers actually being in the field. They still could and did have those parties before and after. It would be a matter of being upshown instead of controlled.

Definitions vary. The formal Regency period was nine years. But, from Wikipedia: "The term Regency (or Regency era) can refer to various stretches of time; some are longer than the decade of the formal Regency, which lasted from 1811 to 1820. The period from 1795 to 1837, which includes the latter part of George III's reign and the reigns of his sons George IV and William IV, is sometimes regarded as the Regency era, characterised by distinctive trends in British architecture, literature, fashions, politics, and culture."

Can you elaborate? Which myths are being reinforced, how can they be used to influence the future, and who is trying to influence it and for what?

I'm not asking for hard references, like your other comment implied. Just trying to make sense of your comment.

I'm not talking about myths under a precise definition (as in stories to make sense of the world), rather mythology in the rougher sense of the way we think about our ancestors and people from the past (in the vein of "the good ol' days" or in contrast "the dark ages")

also, "who is trying to influence" seems to imply some sort of distinct actor (with agency) doing it based on some definite agenda.

but I don't think this is the case; as some other comments point out, it's closer to a dynamic. it gets fashionable so everybody does it never mind the fact that the next generation of people will inform their beliefs about our ancestor's lives based on this romanticized versions. so in a sense "cultural ideology" is the "agent" behind this.

finally, answering how does this affect our future is not so easy. I said it because knowing our past (our history) allows understanding our present circumstance. and based on this we are able to visualize our future. If I could explain this better I could probably also answer why is there historical revisionism

But how does this relate to the article?

my original post answers the question posed by its title (but in an unrelated way)

> the first sentence gets downvoted.

Pretty sure that's because it's a mix of unsubstantiated, controversial, and incoherent.

Indeed. It's startling how much entertainment is actually social engineering. It's worth reading Propaganda by Edward Bernaise if you're interested in better understanding these coordinated approaches.

I'm not sure how much I'd say that's why so much romance is set in a particular era, but I'd buy that's why they are promoted so much and heavily influences their tone and themes.

"Who control the past controls the future. Who controls present controls the past." essentially.

You can take anything and try to claim it is social engineering if it differs from your viewpoint. That sort of tripe has been applied to boring uncontroversial dry Newtonian physics textbooks being called "cultural imperialism".

It is absurd black and white thinking to declare that anything which reflects its source culture is propaganda even if it embeds the bullshit influnces of propaganda of the day like the classics obsession of the Enlightenment.

Calling a work propaganda merely because it reflects a source culture is propaganda in itself. Used to justify suppression of anything not actively promoting their world view as actively in service of evil. That has been used by amongst many others evangelical fundamentalists and the Party in basically every nation which called themselves Communists.

I was surprised this article didn't mention British colonialism at all.

Why would it be worth emphasizing in a very home island bound setting which doesn't even address the middle class residents of the isle. Colonialism went on for over a century before and after.

It would be like emphasizing that Edgar Allen Poe married his thirteen year old cousin when discussing his horror influence. Terrible but hardly germane to the topic.

"Le bon ton" likely had a very direct hand in shaping colonialism, given that they were aristocrats and landed gentry, and given the "season" spent in London was shaped around political networking.

However, I also meant that it was a sort of cultural neo-colonialism: that the British are allowed to present the history of this period as a romantic drama.

People are free. This notion of collective guilt - "the British are allowed" - is terrifying.

Bridgerton at least was written by an American novelist and then made into a TV show by an American director / writer / producer team for an American media company.

so I expand:

but of course, this is not an answer; it's an explanation in the style of the surreal way in which I have chosen to make sense of the larger world around me.

however, who am I to chose how to make sense of the world? who am I to say that mytholgy-engineering has anything to do with the reason for the creation lots and lots of romances set in the british pre-victorian era?

in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently. I must show other ideas that support what I say. I must acquire a reputation and then, only then, I can say whatever I want.

But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.

HN, for all of its claims of intellectualism, is pretty unforgiving to any thoughts that don't fit one of a couple of echo chamber themes. I hang around because I think it's important for people (including me) to hear other ideas, but you should expect to be downvoted.

I've only been coming to this site for maybe 5 years now (not under this account in case people do the lame reddit thing of checking your account history at the drop of a hat), but I feel like even in that time things have become noticeably more echo-y here.

Hacker News is just Reddit plus a thesaurus.

Some americans went insane after Trump won in 2016 and the media fed that insanity for harvesting clicks.

As a reaction, the "with me or against me" mantra was increasingly strong for the last four and a half years.

I hope people calm down again now that that its over.

It takes long, hard work to accumulate the knowledge and experience to be able to consistently say things that matter. It’s impossible to fake, and an astute crowd will always spot it.

The Luke-in-Yoda’s-hut scene pops to mind.

I wonder how many people in this thread had heard of Georgette Heyer but not "The Luke-in-Yoda’s-hut scene".

Even after looking up the script, I have no idea what you are saying.

The commenter above asked: "But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir."

Yoda challenged Luke by telling him he was too old to begin the training, and that a Jedi "craves not" things like adventure and excitement. People have varying degrees of awareness about how much work it is and how long it takes to gain meaningful knowledge and experience. They are impatient, they want shortcuts, they think "likes" are important, they give up. Luke says: "you want the impossible", but of course it's not impossible, just profoundly abstruse.

Which thoughts? Are you talking about the liberal echo-chamber downvote squad, the americana/patriot downvote squad, or something else?

> is pretty unforgiving to any thoughts that don't fit one of a couple of echo chamber themes.

sounds better in ther converse: "it's pretty forgiving of thoughts that do go along the predilect tropes"

Man, you really hated Bridgerton huh

Without providing sources or backing, it would be useful to be a bit more explicit. You could mention the myths that are being re-inforced, that would be interesting.

You alleged that Georgian romances are part of a conspiracy to control the future. That's a surprising allegation that you made no attempt to justify nor explain, cogent or otherwise.

Under those circumstances, it's perfectly coherent for strangers to dismiss the allegation if it doesn't conform to their preconceived view. It is also perfectly coherent for strangers to agree with it if it does.

Now, if you wish for strangers to come to agree with your world view then you'll have to make some effort to convince them. Whether or not you can be arsed to do that is, of course, up to you.

> in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently. I must show other ideas that support what I say. I must acquire a reputation and then, only then, I can say whatever I want.

No one here is actually asking for your sources, so far as I can see. The people who are taking umbrage at your comment are most likely (like me) those who do not see your explanation as cogent but instead an assertion that doesn't even fully explain what is asserting. You're promoting a conspiracy theory--a shadowy "They" who are conspiring to do something--without explaining what the conspiracy actually is. What are the myths being enforced? Why are "They" doing this? Who even is "They"?

> But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.

In my experience on HN, that reputation is gathered mostly by being seen to speak authoritatively on topics. The highest upvote comments I have gathered are generally when I can put together thorough, concise explanations quickly. It doesn't have to agree with the current zeitgeist, but you do generally want to provide stronger argumentation for your viewpoints in that situation.

There doesn't need to be a shadowy "they" for this to be true. It can be purely the result of a dynamic in the system that results due to certain feedback loops and hierarchies in the organisation of media institutions. This is essentially the thesis of Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" -- that the only media that gets put in front of you has been selected by a process which is emergent and not controlled by some "cabal" but nevertheless results in a form of, essentially, propaganda which supports the power structures of the system.

I honestly am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here, I think the reason you are encountering so much resistance isn't necessarily because of what you are trying to say, but how you are saying it.

> in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently

You must at least provide reasoning, for the thoughts to be cogent. Your assertions are vague - you allude to things without clarifying what you mean, and why you believe it to be so.

> in order to be taken seriously I must...

> I must show...

> I must acquire...

You must do theses things? According to who. again, assertion without explanation. Understand, your thoughts don't explain themselves!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com