Purge the Idea of the Guilty Pleasure Sam Stecklow Columbia College Chicago, Class of 2017
I don’t believe in “guilty pleasures.” I don’t believe labeling one thing you enjoy as “guilty” and another as “wholesome” contributes much. I don’t believe classifications of qualities of art are fair, either; Keeping Up With the Kardashians has as much artistic merit as Breaking Bad. The only difference is perception. I’m in esteemed company here. This American Life host Ira Glass decried “guilty pleasures” in a New York Times Book Review interview last year, saying “I don’t believe in guilty pleasures, I only believe in pleasures. People who call reading detective fiction or eating dessert a guilty pleasure make me want to puke. Pedophilia is a pleasure a person should have guilt about. Not chocolate.” Sports and pop culture writer (as well as New York Times Magazine ethicist) Chuck Klosterman took a similar stance in Esquire in 2004: “Labeling things like Patrick Swayze movies a guilty pleasure implies that a) people should feel bad for liking things they sincerely enjoy, and b) if these same people were not somehow coerced into watching Road House every time it's on TBS, they'd probably be reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Both of these assumptions are wrong.” There’s nothing wrong with enjoying Swayze more than Joyce. I know I do. I know I enjoy The Jeselnik Offensive far more than I enjoy The Walking Dead, which enjoys far more critical plaudits even though it’s listless and dull and flat. Anthony Jeselnik’s comedy schtick is insult comedy (it’s called the Offensive for a reason and delivers on that), and I very much doubt that his show will pop up on any end-of-year lists outside of comedy specific sites or Tumblrs. And that’s OK! What other people think of things matters so very, very little.
“Keeping Up With the Kardashians has as much artistic merit as Breaking Bad. The only difference is perception.” I love reading and writing criticism but none of it means a good goddamn outside of instigating conversation. One of my favorite film critics, The New Yorker’s Richard Brody, called Watercooler Journal
Dec. 2013
1
Leslye Headland’s Bachelorette “loud and inconsequential.” It happened to be one of my favorite movies of 2012. So what if Brody didn’t like it? I appreciate his input, because he’s an excellent writer and I love reading him even when we disagree. But should I (or anyone else) feel guilty for liking that which a respected critic hated? Why should we?
There is no obligation on the side of the consumer to feel guilty for enjoying things that fall outside of mainstream tastes. There’s no shame in preferring Miley Cyrus’ “Wrecking Ball” to Beethoven’s 5th, like I do. Justifying being addicted to Scandal by calling it a “guilty pleasure” doesn’t change your relationship with it, aside from stigmatizing the show to yourself. Will you still watch it and enjoy it? Of course. Take pride in what you consume. Throw Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance on your top twenty movies of the year list. Put it right next to Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master. Someone will make a comment about it. Ignore it. Take pride in that list. Own it.
Watercooler Journal
Dec. 2013
2
works cited Brody, Richard. Rev. of Bachellorette, dir. Leslye Headland. The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 2013. Web. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/bachelorette_headland Glass, Ira. “Ira Glass: By the Book.” Interview. By The New York Times. The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 16 Aug. 2012. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/books/review/ira-glass-by-thebook.html?pagewanted=2&hp&pagewanted=all&_r=1& Klosterman, Chuck. “Guilty Pleasures.” Esquire. Hearst Communications, 1 Nov. 2004. Web. http://www.esquire.com/features/chuck-klostermans-america/ESQ1104-NOV_AMERICA
image credits, in order: ©Comedy Central Watercooler Journal
Dec. 2013
3