You readers have often heard Roady talk about arse-combers and arse-combing in his drunken and cynical rants, but he has no doubts that very few of you know what an arse-comber really is. So in an attempt to define and clarify arse-combing in a clear, erudite and consensual manner, I have granted him the privilege of travelling to Baltimore to interview Professor John-Thomas Dick Jr. Professor Dick Jr is chair of the department of cultural studies at Johns Hopkins University and has researched extensively on the phenomenon of arse-combing. His ground-breaking book The Dialectics of Arse-combing – a critical re-assessment of the post-modern alternative (Oxford University Press, 2009) offers a penetrating account of what makes an arse-comber in society through a cross-field perspective of history, sociolinguistics, psychology and comparative literature. With a genuine hope that this verbatim transcript will incite you to read the book, here are some Professor Dick's key findings.
Roady: Professor Dick, first of all, many thanks on behalf of myself but also my readers who have only a vague idea of what I really mean by arse-comber.
Professor Dick: Not at all, Roady. The pleasure is all mine. And please call John-Thomas!
R: All right, then, John-Thomas. My first question is quite straightforward. You began taking interest in the phenomenon of arse-combing quite a few years ago, as I understand. What is it that brought you to this fascinating subject?
JT: Well, actually, my interest in arse-combers goes back way longer than you'd think. I did start actual researching about four years ago, but my initial questions and thoughts go back to when I was an undergraduate student at NYU. We had this local film festival and one guy had made this zombie flick that I'd really enjoyed. You know, the B-grade, tongue-in-cheek type movie where the special effects are corny, but you forgive them because they're full of goodwill and low on budget.
R: A bit like George Romero's early stuff?
JT: Oh, dear God, no! That's highly sophisticated in comparison! Anyway. So, after the film, I went up to him and told him I'd enjoyed his film and we sat down at the local university bar and had few beers. I told him that I was also into these kind of movies and that I did a bit of scriptwriting myself. “Oh, yeah, he says. Nice. Maybe we should get together and discuss this a bit more, right?” So, I revised my script and the week after, we met again and gave it to him and met again the next day after going through it. And to my astonishment, he thought it was extremely cheesy. There were a few ideas for shots that he found good, but the script – a story of a group of kids who get slaughtered in the woods by vicious school teachers – he found really tasteless. At first, I was really disappointed and found it a bit humiliating. But after a while, I thought: “now wait just a minute! What is this guy's problem?” And then I realised that what I'd taken for a tongue-in-cheek movie was in fact intended dead serious!
R: Gosh!
JT: Yeah! The guy thought that he'd made something really sophisticated and deep, when, in fact, it was really corny! So I thought, how can he take his stuff so seriously?
R: Do you know what became of him?
JT: Oh, well, it's going back a few years now, but the last time I heard he'd managed to get a scholarship in cinema at Berkeley, I think it was, so unless it was a joke, someone must have thought he had talent!
R: So is that when you began to formulate your key concept of the “broken mirror”?
JT: That came a little later, but that story was the premise, yes.
R: Could you explain the metaphor of the “broken mirror”?
JT: Sure. You've all seen a broken mirror, right? If you need to shave or to brush your hair, it's not convenient. It's not an accurate reflection of reality. The arse-comber, then, systematically uses a broken mirror whenever he needs self-examination. The broken mirror suddenly becomes very convenient. Because the mirror image is never going to be accurate, the arse-comber can interpret it the way he wants and never thinks that he could look silly.
R: By silly, you, of course, mean taking himself too seriously.
JT: That's right. That is the key concept to understand arse-combing. The arse-comber never takes a look in a regular mirror.
R: Why is that?
JT: The factors are manifold. In some cases, he is just scared to look at himself in the mirror because he might find out that he is a phony. The broken mirror can be a form of self-denial. In other cases, if the arse-comber is part of or at least very close to a reasonably large group of arse-combers, then the group solidarity factor overrides any form of self-criticism.
R: A bit like a group of religious or political activists?
JT: Yes. When the truth becomes absolute within the group, there is no need to question your deeds.
R: This is, I think, the main factor.
JT: Oh, definitely. The feeling of being in the right and not caring what others might think of the arse-comber.
R: The origins of the word “arse-comber” are disputed. When was the first time you came across the word?
JT: It was an article in the New York Times about an artist from the Haight-Ashbury who was suing one of his models because she'd called him an arse-comber. Some academics like Dick Johnson or Fannie Beaver trace its origins to the post-war Bohemia in the East Village, but I have found some evidence to support Peter Shaft's thesis that it began in New Orleans, probably in the late 19th century.
R: The French connection you refer to in your book.
JT: The French writer Louis Pergaud, who wrote la Guerre des boutons (the War of the Buttons) in 1913 uses the word “peigne-cul” (arse-comber) as an insult in his novel and, according to Professor Désiré Dugland at the Sorbonne university, there is evidence that the expression appeared in the late 18th century French countryside.
R: So it would mean that the word is a cultural import.
JT: Yes, that is correct. Towards the end of the 19th century, there was still a sizeable French-speaking community in New Orleans that may very well have literally translated the expression. “Peigne”means comb in French, and “cul” is arse. So it's someone who combs an arse, an arse-comber.
R: Other scholars have since refuted your thesis.
JT: Oh yes, absolutely and it has been a source of embarrassment. Here in America, an “arse” is of course an “ass” or a “butt”, but not an arse. If the word “peigne-cul” had been translated literally into American English, then it would most likely have become something like “ass-comber” or “butt-comber”.
R: So what do you make of this?
JT: The sociolinguistic and historical work undertaken by Konrad Bigtitz and Joseph Bollocks certainly does a good job challenging my views. Right now, I'm investigating the possibility that some wealthy French families were employing British tutors for their children, which was a fashionable thing to do in those days. Maybe one of them translated the word literally. But for now, it's all quite hypothetical.
R: Well, we hope to hear from that front very soon. Without getting too technical, could you give a few examples of some of the key arse-combers you worked with during your fieldwork?
JT: I'll try and keep it simple! An endless source of arse-combers can be found in the alternative and indie rock scene. Those who vaguely have some kind of audience often think the world of themselves and that they have talent. Often, their music is neither good, nor bad. It's just nothing new. But they really think it's great, when it's just plain average.
R: Do you support your claims with aesthetic arguments?
JT: Yes, but also with more down-to-Earth evidence, such as comparing a garage rock band with early Nirvana. It's speaks a lot more than speculative philosophical arguments. But I have tried to offer both approaches.
R: Any other important characteristics?
JT: As I said earlier on, the main factor is the broken mirror. But they can often be very flamboyant, eccentric and emotional, and feel compelled to share their feelings with other people, who never asked for it.
R:Also, and quite surprisingly, they seem to listen to their music only.
JT: How about that for a paradox?! An artist should presumably want to listen to a rather broad spectrum of music, in order to find inspiration. But the arse-comber seems to find inspiration within his own art, and not elsewhere.
R: You also argue that the arse-combing musician is not interested in music for its own sake. That is quite a statement!
JT: Not really. The arse-comber is essentially self-centred, so he is interested in music because it gets people to admire him. To this effect, he will be interested in offering merchandising such as t-shirts, badges or hooddies. He will even be happy to wear them, hoping that people will ask him about it. He would rather spend the better part of his day updating his facebook or myspace accounts, than making new, original songs.
R: You have also spent considerable time working with academics, which could, at first, seem quite surprising.
JT: Indeed. But academia is full of arse-combers, if you know where to look for them. Try comparative literature, philosophy or generally any subject that enjoys using the words “post-modern”, “paradigmatic”, “dialectical”, or “sub-textual” and you'll be in business! One of my undergraduate students once came up to me and told me that one his lecturers had given them Orwell's “Politics of the English Language” as part of their coursework. Great read, by the way. It tells you to systematically use short, simple, English words instead of long, pompous and French/Latin/German words. But the irony was that his lecturer was precisely using these pompous words, such as “auteur”, “montage”, “oeuvre” or “doyen”!
R: John-Thomas, we are unfortunately running out of time. My final question, then, is quite provocative. I have noticed that throughout your talk, you always used a male gender-qualifiers for your examples. Isn't that a bit offensive to women? It's now a widely-accepted convention to use “he or she” instead of “he”.
JT: I was secretly hoping you'd spot this. The reason is quite simple: the vast majority of arse-combers are males. Whilst I did come across and interview some females, they were just not as interesting as their male counter-parts, so I have boldly – and provocatively – generalised on that basis. I do, though, leave a door open at the end of my book, by saying that a female-specific analysis would be most welcome in this rather new sub-field.
R: I hope some of your post-graduate students will give it some thought. John-Thomas, thank you for a most interesting talk.
Copyright by Roady, 2011
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire