h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i really enjoyed this article....

something you should/could check out (as a laugh) is:

http://www.gothic.net/~luvcraft/tamagothi/tamagothi.html

basically it moves thru the possible stages of goth in a very amusing spoof off of tamagotchi (the electronic pet that was everywhere several years ago..)

it always surprised me *how* scared non-goth people were afraid of goth peoples... as if being a walking advertisement for the gap isn't scary..

but i also like the seperation of goff from goth... ummmm, i knew people who were only into the look aspect (that people would be afraid of them, and that they would be beautiful in all black) but personally, i could never be bothered to fit in some set dress code of all black (black is great, black is wonderful.. but that isn't me) i just liked the music.. the clubbing expirience... from the warehouse that everyone who had never been there told me stories of what they "had heard went on there" (ummm, things "like someone injected a person with an aids infected needle.. that people are very violent... they'll try to have sex with you.." people are afraid of the fringes of society or people who are different from yourself...) to dancing in an old church converted into a dance club with the old religious relics still hanging from the walls.. there is just something about old churches/cathedrals.. mmm.



peace love and empathy
~keledy

Glad you like the article. And yes, the tamagothi's good, fell over it some time ago... Without wanting to push you into some drawer/label: would you consider yourself a Goth and by doing so agree that it's not the black gear which defines a Goth but the state of mind?

Actually re-reading the tamagothi-thing I realised that it pretty well fits in with the article, not?

I know the question wasn't directed at me but I figured I would field an answer in the spirit of open-discussion. I consider myself to be goth. Though not neccesarily gothic. I've always found it handy to make a distinction between those two terms. Being goth implies, as you pointed out, the mindset. Respecting and valuing all things beautiful (even those things considered taboo). Being gothic is more along the lines of surrendering to the asthetic (all black, lace, PVC, latex, velvet, leather, silver jewelry, black make-up, etc.). Any given person could be either one, or both. I personally, while goth, do not really dress the part. Though my wardrobe contains predominantly black articles, the chances of finding my in jeans and a green tank-top come club night are just as high. In fact, my "dress-code" is more aligned towards comfort and coolness than anything else (a common thing in the goth scene here in San Antonio, TX, USA ... when the temp reaches 100 fairly regularly, wearing constricting or heavy clothing is not just impractical but dangerous). So, yes, I am goth ... though I wouldn't say I am gothic.

I'm a bit puzzled regarding sections 5 and 6 of the article.

I'm not a goth, but to call yourself an "individual" when you are clearly aspiring to be accepted by a group - in this case, the roup being that comprised of goths, automatically undermines that claim. How many goths would go around dressed as they do if they hadn't seem somebody else wear something similar and went "hey, that's cool". Bang goes a small chunk of individualism out of the window. Same goes for music, same goes for a lot of attitudes. So in the end you find that goths tend to be just as alike as other groups of people.

Also this backlash against people liking things that are "cool". What's wrong with that? If it parodies or mocks the way I choose to live and be, I might still like it. Take Marilyn Manson as an example, I'm sure there must be goths - if they are as individual as you make them out to be - who actually LIKE the guy, his image, and his music. How does liking somebody who's "falsely" seen to be gothic by the "outside world" automatically disqualify you from being a goth?

Armagod those are interesting points and you are not the first to notice them (just the first to voice it here). My response to you is the same response I give to everyone else who points this out.

The Gothic Subculture is basically a macrocosm. It is a smaller representation of what our society as a whole is. This can be said for almost any other small society or subculture. In some way, they still mirror, represent or sometimes mock the larger whole.

One of the similarities that the goth subculture has with almost every other culture is the answer to your question:

Hypocracy.

And lots of it.

The question is whether you got into contact with a (group of) Goth before you concerned yourself with the ideas/questions/emotions of which I claim that they make up (a large part of) the "Goth-Concept" or after. Again I can only speak for myself (but please read the thread I mentioned at the beginning of the article). Years ago (and two years before I met a Goth at a dreadfully mainstream party) when I was listening to Black Sabbath, Depeche Mode and Sisters of Mercy I was looking for some music to accommodate my feelings. I could not describe what exactly it was. I could only term it by saying that it should be "darker" than Sisters the way that Sisters is darker than Depeche Mode. No-one seemed to understand what I meant by that or was not able to point me to the music I desired. (I'll just keep only talking about music here, and leave other aspects aside.)
And that Goth at the party introduced me to all that wonderful music that fitted and fits my emotions/character (calm, melancholic and soothing) and she showed me where to shop for e.g. the black cape I had been thinking about for some long time before. The rest is history.
So no, I did not become a Goth (and a "gothic" one at that, to use Tenebros' wording) when or by aspiring to be accepted by or part of a group. And the Goths I've been talking to about this (ie how they came to being gothic (ie appearance or hanging out with Goths and doing Goth things and listening to Goth music...)) said that they found "that's me", "that's where I fit into" and suchlike.
That's what I'm trying to express in para 5 and 6.
Your sentence "How many goths would go around dressed as they do if they hadn't seem somebody else wear something similar and went "hey, that's cool"." Could be answered in two ways. 1. The meaning of the word "cool" is "hip/up to date" or "that's something that suits my feelings". If you meant the first, the answer would be: Few (see below). If it's the second the answer would be: Many.
2. If that person runs around dressed like a Goth because and only because he thinks it cool, he'd be a Gothwannabe since lacking the state of mind.

Nothing's wrong with being "cool" (as in hip/up to date, see para 6). But if we can accept the concept that I am presenting (in accordance with the sources named in the very beginning of the entry) that Goth is first and above all a state of mind which involves a dis-association with/from (mainstream) society (para 9), is it not understandable that everything that's hailed by the mainstream, every new "hype" is eyed with disagreement? Everybody can be as hip/cool/up to date as he/she likes (see last sentence of para 8), but should not expect praise and applause for that from a Goth. Is it not mindless to follow every new/hip idea/fashion etc. just because it is new and hip? Is there thought behind the ones that do so, do they think or *Feel* that they found what they have been looking for? Is it "them" / "their selves" to follow the mainstream or just the way of least resistance?

Ok, you brought Marilyn up here .... If we end up with one of these fruitless discussions about him, don't blame me
There can be/will be a whole bunch of Goths as "defined" in the article who listen to MM. That does not make MM a Goth (band) or the Goths any less Goth. The "definition" only requires the state of mind. If you spend you days listening to HipHop and Techno (and MM hehe...) wearing pink a lot but have the mindset you "qualify". Point is that when you do have the mindset the chances of you wearing pink are uh, slim. Pink does not fit feeling a back cave with a slowly moving lake in it within you.

As for the hypocrisy, Tenebros: Hypocrisy in what respect? If you refer to the dis-association from the mainstream now and "ending up" in the mainstream ten years down the road, when the kids are born and so on... I agree. The number of people who stick with their views and ideals of all their adult life is small, and the number of those who live up to them is even smaller.

Sorry for the error in spelling, its of course "Pink does not fit feeling a *black* cave with a slowly moving lake in it within you."

The hypocracy I refer to is as follows ...

Almost the entire Goth subculture is made of of individuals, seeking to be individuals while still desiring acceptance by even a small group. When they "discover" that the Goth subculture is what they have been looking for they are elated. Once integrated into the culture, I have noticed, many people begin to deny acceptance of others. Ie. proclaiming some things "goth" and others not. *I* am even guilty of this. I'm saying that it is hypocratic to seek acceptance where none was found before, recieve it, and then turn around nad deny acceptance to those who are seeking it just like you were before.

What you described, Lube, (opposing mainstream only to end up there) sounds more like Irony.

These are, of course, just my opinions.

DOH! I apologize profusely. I hate embarrasing typos. I meant Tube ... not Lube ... Grr...

::runs off in shame::

I agree with a lot of your points, but to me it seems you and other goths are being excessively judgmental when it comes to disliking things simply because a lot of people you dislike happen to like them. In fact, in this respect you are actually being as judgmental as those who you claim to be unfairly judging goths as a whole!!! To a non-goth this seems unnecessarily arrogant on your part.

So what is it that most German or whatever Goths have against Marilyn Manson? What's non-gothic about him? Or about those who call themselves goths and listen to him? Sounds like you're singling somebody out to vent out some feelings of gothic frustration!

Oh, that hypocrisy! I reckon it stems from the Goths being vain and considering themselves "above average" and elite which in turn makes it neccessary to not let anybody enter the sacred circle. Maybe amplified by the Goth scene becoming "in" and hip which of course crashes with the ideas outlined before. Some other explanation for that can be found at http://www.h2g2.com/F19476?thread=20777 first couple of postings. Oh yeh, there's that hypocracy as well... ;-)

As for being arrogant, well, maybe yes, hybris maybe? See my last post to Tenebros (Hypocrisy) for more on that part. And the excesive (?) judgmentalness ties in there perfectly well. How else to stay elite if not by defining what is not part of your scene. And I want to stress that I'm not saying that all Goth traits (esp. this one) are good or sensible. In the article I tried not only to present my personal point of view but rather a consolidated version of what Goth is/might be (that's why the article's called an attempt).
Sorry, I might have misunderstood or overread, but who's supposed to judge Goths unfairly as a whole?
As for MM (I didn't want to enter into this): I've got nothing against him. I just don't like his music. That's just my taste. I perfer Joy Division, Fields of The Nephilim and Diary of Dreams and such. What is non-gothic about him? The obvious (and boring/plain/shallow) answer is that he doesn't wear enough black.
The other thing is that I have never seen a song by him on any of the Goth samplers I led my hands onto, neither on the metal ones nor on the EBM/Electro ones. I haven't seen any of his mercandise in any of the catalouges, online-stores and stalls at different Goth events. I haven't heard his music being played in the clubs I go to (ok, I admit that I probably would not recognise a lot of his pieces). Sorry, but that makes him non-gothic from *my* point of view and, as it seems to me, from the point of view of most (German/European (?)) Goths as well.
(And MM is hip to a broader mass of people ie he's played on MTV and such. That of course makes him mainstream and places him out of bounds. HIM (His Infernal Majesty) had to battle that problem at this years M'Era Luna festival. A lot of people left the stage area when he got on for, as I felt, sheer showing that he's mainstream and that they would not stand for it (I admit that I left as well, partly for that reason, ashes on my head). That's the way it goes when a scene considers itself "above raverage" and against-mainstream. As I said: not all traits are good)
Sorry. If you think him to be Goth, ok. I won't be able to change you mind (wouldn't want to, too) and vice versa. And as it says in para 27, every goth has his/her own perception of what Goth is.
And as for the ones who listen to him, I'll just quote myself: "There can be/will be a whole bunch of Goths as "defined" in the article who listen to MM. That does not make MM a Goth (band) or the Goths any less Goth. The "definition" only requires the state of mind."
Cheers

I agree that MM is not neccesarily goth because some goths listen to him. (I don't own any of his albums but I listen when he is on). Heck, my favorite band of all time is Pearl Jam. They certainly aren't goth, and the fact that I consider myself goth has no bearing on that either way. So, therefore, why should that have any bearing on MM also.
For the record, my favorite goth bands are Switchblade Symphony, Sisters of Mercy, and Depeche Mode. I'm starting to like Apoptygma Berzerk (sp?), VNV Nation and Frontline Assembly more and more. I also like anything (pretty much) by Danny Elfman.

I'm not saying MM is a goth. I'm just trying to understand why you're so vehemently critical of him and of those calling themselves goths who like him (in the article).

Right... let's see:
para 3: It has attached the tag to the black metal and industrial rock scenes, meaning that hordes of Marilyn Manson and Cradle of Filth fans identify themselves with the Goth movement.
para 27: In the US there seems to be an ongoing discussion about whether Marilyn Manson is 'Goth' or not. In Germany this discussion never started for real as he's just not taken as a Goth.

These seem to be the only points, where MM is mentioned in the article. The part in para 3 is taken from A148079 so that the wording is not mine, but as I quoted it I also stand for it. IMHO it does not say anything bad about MM and/or his fans. As I like the Goth movement, I can't see anything being wrong with identifiying oneself with it
Para 27 picks up the influence of the music press again, as the ongoing discussion is in/fuled by the music-press. My statement that he's not taken as a Goth in Germany has already been explained before. Sorry, but I don't see any sentence that says something bad about MM himself or his fans.
If you'd point me to the parts which are (implicidly) *vehemently* critical of MM and fans, I'll either explain or (if neccessary) amend them.

Sorry, the "in the article" bit referred to just the last phrase. But in general, the article implies that mainstream music is a little "beneath" the taste of the true Goth. And the general disparaging tone you've used when talking about the discussions among American Goths regarding his status implies that German and other "real" Goths look down more on MM than other "pseudo-Goths". Why?

Ah, right. Mainstream refers to a/the main part of society. Society is a failed experiment (para 9). Goths dislike anything that's hip since anything that is hip is mainstream (para 8) and thus a/the main part of society. Mainstream Music is hip/up to date (if it was not hip it would not be mainstream; it would be 'out' and no-one would care). from that follows that Goths also dislike mainstream musik. They dislike mainstream clothing, mainstream aktivities, mainstream shoes, mainstream haircuts and mainstream music (Generalisation! ). I'd even say that every Sub-Culture dislikes just about anything mainstream. Yes. You are right. All the music you hear on the radio stands a great chance of not being Goth music and/or being disliked by a Goth. The/a major point about Goth is that is is Anti-mainstream.
As for MM once more (and I said that I didn't plan to discuss that at length at the beginning of the discussion ). I tryed to keep the statements bout MM as factual as I could. I said that there seems to be a discussion about it. I don't know if there (still) is one. I don't look down on MM, I ignore him, I don't care. What the difference in conception of MM in the US/Germany only goes to show is that there are different ideas about what Goth is or not is. See para 27:"Perhaps unusually for a social subculture, there's no real fixed ideal of being a Goth, no checklist that you can use to measure your Gothness. Every Goth has a different opinion of what being a Goth is." You like MM and consider him Goth. Fine. That only shows that you perception is differned to mine.
De gustibus non est disputare (spelling?).
I don't see that the tone I used should be disparaging, but how about this: you take these sentences ("In the US there seems to be an ongoing discussion about whether Marilyn Manson is 'Goth' or not. In Germany this discussion never started for real as he's just not taken as a Goth.") and re-phrase them so that they are not disparaging any longer and I'll think about replacing.

Nah, keep the sentences as they are. I think they provide an insight into the Goth mindset as a whole.

Now, that's not nice!