[KS] spies and thrillers

Fri Mar 24 13:03:22 EST 2006

Aidan, okay, thought it was clear ...

Point 1:  FILM CLASS, that's a lecture/class about film. A film class 
is about film, not history. Film is a new developing area of study 
that is on the way of developing its own methodology, just like 
sociology, history, psychology, etc. I was trying to point out that 
teaching a FILM CLASS (class about film) as if it where a history 
class with additional visual material (and that's what the question 
aimed at) would be a very problematic approach. Interdisciplinary 
teaching should not be mistaken for the same chicken soup all week.

Point 2:  If I rely on the most stale and overused joke for the title 
to my academic or journalistic informative book, do I ask to be taken 
serious? And if I publish a book, do I need to perform a strip dance 
in front of the public because that's  what publishers demand? All 
publishers? Fact is that EVERY country and culture has so very many 
layers of reality that are worth to write about, to know and 
understand, that we do not need to focus on our own pre-conceptions 
of that country or culture. Shall we even on a Korean studies 
discussion list repeat all the three wisdoms about North Korea the 
world knows for decades, and "discuss" them?  Are we really that 
self-constrained? Has anyone here any doubts about the crimes and 
mishaps etc. in North Korea. I don't think so. We don't even have any 
formal opposition to that from Eastern Europe anymore. Can we then 
maybe go beyond the black/white broadcasting and get some color on 
the screen? Color means not just to get more information on the 
always same issues (human rights violations, prison camps, Communist 
party, etc.) but to do more and different things with information, to 
establish and follow different connections between pieces of 
information, and to consider the fact that we live in a late-modern, 
post-avantgarde, post-cold-war period. There are so many wonderfully 
developed fields within the so-called humanistics, and also natural 
sciences. We can say a lot of fascinating things about North Korea if 
we do not limit ourselves to the same old soup day in day out, if we 
stop talking about "North Korea" and talk about the various aspects 
of culture, economics, daily life.

Frank

>Dear Frank, and all,
>
>Your big frown of disapproval is unmistakable.
>But your precise reasons for this are less obvious.
>Might you kindly elaborate?
>
>A. As I read it, you could be saying any (or several)
>of the following:
>
>Accusations that North Korea engages in espionage,
>terrorist bombings, and other bad things, are:
>
>1. False; or exaggerated; or no longer true.
>2. So well known as to be not worth discussing.
>3. Impolite or impolitic to highlight, even if true;
>because this may perpetuate hostile attitudes and
>so prevent the Koreas from making peace.
>4. Bad pedagogy, for a teacher. (But why, exactly?
>What, instead, would you regard as "good questions"?)
>5. Somehow morally bad to repeatedly dwell upon,
>(the curious porn analogy).
>6. Stereotyped; intellectually stale, unchallenging.
>7. Made by people whose company one does not
>want to keep (eg Bush, neocons, ROK cold-warriors)
>
>
>B. On shelf shopping, Bo Diddley's wise words spring to mind.
>You really can't judge a book by looking at the cover.
>
>1. We live under capitalism. Books are commodities. Cover and
>title in particular are designed to grab you; to win readers.
>Like newspaper headlines, these are often not of the author's choosing.
>Thus I don't think Gavan Mccormack chose to call his excellent book
>Target North Korea. Blame the publishers for this.
>
>2. Ergo, title and cover may be misleading as to both the nature,
>scope and quality of what lies within. You're surely not seriously
>suggesting that it suffices to read with "one eye closed", "from a
>secure distance" - and dismiss a whole literature a priori, unread?
>
>3. As one of the few in the North Korea field who has not written
>a book recently, I must spring to the defence of my colleagues.
>All hail Kim Jong-il's nuclear defiance! - which has created a
>market for at least two or three dozen new books on the DPRK
>in English in the past three years, which might otherwise have had
>difficulty finding a publisher and readers.
>
>Frank's dismissiveness of these riches is unfair, and unwarranted.
>Regardless of title, almost all these books are useful. Some, like
>Bradley Martin's, are exceptionally good. I can think of only one
>really bad one, which (sadly) is Jasper Becker's Rogue Regime.
>
>4. If Frank objects to terms like "fatherly leader", surely he should
>address his complaint to Pyongyang. Brad and others are only using
>and reporting the DPRK's own official discourse and terminology.
>If this sound ludicrous to our ears, whose fault or problem is that?
>
>best wishes
>Aidan
>
>AIDAN FOSTER-CARTER
>Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea, Leeds University
>Home address: 17 Birklands Road, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD18 3BY, UK
>tel: +44(0)  1274  588586         (alt) +44(0) 1264 737634 
>mobile:  +44(0)  7970  741307
>fax: +44(0)  1274  773663         ISDN:   +44(0)   1274 589280
>Email: afostercarter at aol.com     (alt) afostercarter at yahoo.com 
>website: www.aidanfc.net
>[Please use @aol; but if any problems, please try @yahoo too - and 
>let me know, so I can chide AOL]
>
>____________
>
>In a message dated 24/03/2006 06:10:47 GMT Standard Time, 
>frank at koreaweb.ws writes:
>
>>Subj:Re: [KS] spies and thrillers
>>Date:24/03/2006 06:10:47 GMT Standard Time
>>From:<mailto:frank at koreaweb.ws>frank at koreaweb.ws
>>Reply-to:<mailto:Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>>To:<mailto:Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>>Sent from the Internet
>>
>>
>>
>>Fatherly leaders and good articles about carnages -- hmmmm...
>>With all due respect, are you planning to teach a Korean film class
>>like a history class with documentary visual material, including
>>North Korea related spy movies from the South? I would find this a
>>problematic approach that likely leads to the usual answers that
>>anyone here is able to anticipate and that might hinder students to
>>develop good questions; and I even find your request to the list
>>confusing. We all know the situation as regards to such kind of
>>information and what is involved politically. The reply you got was
>>to be anticipated.
>>
>>--QUOTE--
>>>"Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader" by
>>>Bradley K. Martin is a recent book that often offers
>>>quite deep examination of this subject (...)."
>>---------
>>
>>On TV, I remember, an interviewee was asked about watching porn
>>strips. His short and cute reply: "Well, you've seen one, you've seen
>>them all -- why bother?" Recently doing some window (shelve) shopping
>>in bookstores that very sentence came to mind when gazing at the
>>KOREA section, from a secure distance, one eye closed. Why are there
>>20 books on North Korea all with the same stale and totally unsexy
>>joke as title? Are these all funded by the same known source, edited
>>by the same editor, published by the same .... or is there only one
>>reader?
>>
>>Frank
>>
>>--
>>--------------------------------------
>>Frank Hoffmann
>>http://koreaweb.ws

-- 
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreaweb.ws