That book that is now done. I'm going to skip out on my usual editing process tonight.

So around 1am last night I set out to do some reading. After fifty pages I thought I'd go for a hundred. And after a hundred, I thought I may as well keep going- two hundred and thirty pages later and at 6am and I finished the book.

Again, this is the book Rebel Sell, which I believe I've talked about twice already here. Now that I'm done, this'll be my, you know, final thoughts.

The principal* idea is that counter culturalism is a myth. If you are against the "mainstream", then instead of buying cheerios you go find joy-os. But all you've done by your disavowal of what was popular (and, very often, popular for a reason) is allow for a new market to grow. Not only that, but once enough people decide that joy-os is cool, it becomes the new mainstream, and the cycle goes on. So mainstream versus counter-culturalism is a false distinction.

*MAN it took forever for me to decide on principal instead of principle. I think arguments could be made for either one. Or, another possibility, I'm an idiot. Or tired, let's go with that.

The problem I have is how little effort is taken to explain what the authors mean by counter-culturalism. What they describe as counter-cultural is to me just another side of the mainstream, so with every point they try to make there's a huge degree of dissonance. If they'd come up with a new term for the phenomenon they're describing, say the "trend-stream", I'd very often be agreeing with the authors comments.
Of course that degree of niche discussion, belaboring what is to many an obvious point, wouldn't sell as well.

Similar to that difficulty with describing their terms, the authors would introduce a number of philosophers before pronouncing them short sighted and wrong "for obvious reasons".

Er, actually, what are the reasons? These renowned dudes you're citing actually sound pretty good.

By not taking the time to address those philosophies you only end up sounding arrogant.

Special notice goes to the "Voluntary Simplicity" movement mentioned towards the end of the book, apparently the origin point for the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally". Everything mentioned about them sounded great- but the authors dressed them down because of their idealism (a lack of tangible movement towards their impossible goals) and also because (for whatever reason this was emphasized) of the lack of traditional western religious values amongst their members ranks.

In fact when it came to any "counter-cultural" political movement, if they resisted ANY type of helpful legislation because as a counter-culture group they are against all rules and government- then the authors summarily disregarded them as useless.

Thinking the group is altogether useless and unworkable, despite some (at the very least) good ideas that could really just use the tempering of compromise- the authors are treating the counter-cultural groups in exactly the same way they accuse the counter-cultural groups of treating the government. That's pretty lame.

At the beginning of chapter 7 "From Status-Seeking to Cool Hunting" they tell a story about going to school one day with what they thought was a cool pair of shoes, only to realize they were "so yesterday".

"Everyone has a story of this type." they say. They're really barking up the wrong tree with that one, I can't remember ever getting made fun of for a purchase of mine, or clothing. Not everyone is interested in status games, and that, I think, is where the real counter culture lies.

...

Okay, moving on- from the library today I've got "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Story" by Robert McKee. Should be good stuff.

My head hurts, I'm bouncing on out.