Anzadula and Hooks

When I write, it tends to not be a physical experience. I'm a strong visual learner first, auditory second, and kinesthetic third. For more reasons than that, I cannot relate to the experiences of Anzadula, but it's interesting to know how certain storytellers for works of fiction can gain inspiration from experiences of others or experience out of necessity (telling her sister stories). However, her comparison of writing to creating a piece of art is interesting, and she uses terminology in that description that I would not know had I not taken an art history class. For example, when she uses the word "texture" I have a better understanding of what that means in the context of a painting.

"Living in a state of psychic unrest, in a Borderland, is what makes poets write and artists create. It is like a cactus needle embedded in the flesh." While she uses this blanket statement to reflect her own experiences and perhaps the experiences of her associates, there are times when the creation of something beautiful doesn't evolve from an agitated mind that projects itself. However, and she states this, writing can be a good technique for relaxation because it's an outlet to release negative energy in a productive way. Referring specifically to my project, while some people who contributed to the making of Doctor Who haven't lead the best of lives, I wouldn't be able to work with her thoughts and ideas quite as much. I could compare them to an actor, for example, creating their character in a way that reflects their personality. Perhaps I could link a certain kind of character development to it, but it doesn't relate as much to what I'm trying to do with it.

Bel hooks actually explains succinctly why I lean towards unintentionally thinking about anti-intellectualism while thinking about Doctor Who. "Contemporary cultural critics, particularly those of us who write about popular culture, must be ever vigilant in our work because it is all too easy to end up writing in an ethnographic self-serving manner about topics that do not engage us in a sustained dialogue with the cultural producers and audiences providing us with the 'texts' we discuss." It's possible and all-together likely that the BBC does not think about intellectualism when thinking about Doctor Who. Sure, maybe they think of The Doctor as an intellectual, but are audiences aware of what that means and can he really be defined as such? Is he an intellectualist, then? I would argue that he is because so much of what he does in the television show (and this is probably the first thing to be aware of when beginning to watch it) is in pursuit of gaining knowledge of all different types of cultures by ethical means and helping them in a non-invasive manner. If he finds he is being invasive, he finds ways to call himself out on it because he is a flawed individual like anyone.

If a critic were to pick up this topic and engage in a conversation with the BBC and audience members about it, I think it would be meaningful and useful. Hooks addresses pop culture directly in terms of the critic thereof. Some "critics" aren't as aware of the history of the piece of media they're working with, so they make their job a "learn-as-you-go" type of thing. Also, anyone can be a critic by posting a review on a website like Rotten Tomatoes and people will take that criticism to heart. So, I wonder, what would hooks' response be to information like that?