the lovable loser aesthetic

I guess this is a modern take on hamartia? I seem to have a great fondness for this aesthetic. works that come to mind are the films of wes anderson (esp. bottle rocket, but I also love rushmore and the royal tenenbaums), the 'mats, rocky. what are other works that I should check out? do you like it or is it just bullshit twee weepy self-sabotage?

i like those three films but as an aesthetic (or trope which begets a particular emo-twee aesthetic) it could happily be left in the last decade

"lovable" and "loser" are words that do not go together imo

I was waiting for you to say that. predicatableLAD

damn yr playing hard to get again lex

hamartia has nothing to do with this

Is this actually an aesthetic though or what? Is it a recent thing? I'm trying to think of narratives from history that incorporate this, but it seems like something that kaboomed int he last ten years. Is it a hangover from grunge/generation X self-deprecation? Or is it a trickle effect of indie/alternative now having infiltrated the mainstream?

TV ads now feature people with geek specs and badly-fitting sweaters - people with aspirational appeal, because in the last ten years the most aspirational jobs for many are those working in creative media. It runs a viscous gamut of Creative = Arts = Outcast = Loser = Lovable = Popular = Success. The indie aesthetic fits in there somewhere.

But in recession times, when print media is flailing and people are starting to wake up with a hangover from the Hoxton/Williamsburg slumber party, public aspiration is going to shift and I can see strong-willed and steadfast characters and role-models replacing the meeker, lily-livered outsider types.

I misread this thread title as 'the lovable loser acoleuthic' and was shocked at you, dayo.

:}

jon arbuckle

re: dog latin, I kinda differentiate this from the larger twee/indie/emo current by virtue of, well, strong-willed characters who keep on running up against inherent character flaws (which is why I kind of see this in hamartia-like terms). I don't see this aesthetic as being indulgent in self-pity/self-deprecation, moreso in self-sabotage.

people are starting to wake up with a hangover from the Hoxton/Williamsburg slumber party,

mad <3 for your skewed state of the nation posts, dog latin

think we could use some examples not from the work of wes anderson before speculating further...

I was in Wakefield not all that long ago and definitely saw signs of people waking up

bertie wooster?

Del Boy?

Wile E Coyote?

Dunno if Bertie Wooster's a loser though. He basically always breaks even, and is perfectly happy with this (and rather than a strongly willed desire, it's often his generosity and loyalty that set his troubles in motion).

candide

job

http://pinstripebindi.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/bridget-jones_265_153147a.jpg

Is this like people who might have the Beats and Bukowski etc as some kind of semi-role models but have ditched the unlikable/alcoholic/egomaniac bits?

Also Charlie Brown.

haw, I can see Bukowski fitting right into this

and yeah why didn't I mention Charlie Brown in the OP to counterweight the wes anderson.

Wasn't exactly lovable though right? xp

http://i.imgur.com/2udCj.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/rPuso.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qskaSRkns8A/SQpzUsH41AI/AAAAAAAADyQ/yONRO2ucJAM/s400/BukowskiGrave112898A1.JPG

is that max fischer cosplay u_u

xp to nickB, not really, but I still love him

the picture of the boxer - perfect. thought about bringing up on the waterfront as well

charlie chaplin

dostoevsky's idiot

i think it's max fischer cosplay, tho the english private school system is basically one big max fischer cosplay

red buttons

Those fuckos in High Fidelity

isn't jarvis cocker the ne plus ultra of this in england?

don quixote

don quixote otm

I've never seen any of his work but do ya'll think w.c. fields would qualify

http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/wimpy2.jpg

I guess as well as Del Boy it's a necessary component of swathes of sitcomland - protagonist/s have strong desires, almost achieve them, are undermined by their own greed/vanity/pride, and back to the beginning: Rising Damp, Cheers, Steptoe etc etc etc

father ted

prince myshkin vs homer simpson

Thank god this conversation veered away from indie flick losers so rapidly.

not so fast

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/2771429/Adam+Sandler+PunchDrunk+Love.jpg

protagonists in paul auster novels

god i hate everyone mentioned in this thread

lucifer

god i hate everyone mentioned in this thread

Even Prince Myshkin?

ESPECIALLY prince myshkin - absolutely infuriating character

lucifer may, in fact, be patient zero

ignatius j. reilly

Icarus

http://www.fire-serpent.com/post/lucifer.jpg

obviously my favourite character in the idiot was nastasya filipovna - it was never going to be any other way

ignatius j. reilly is not lovable imo (had to delete a more strongly worded post)

Also no way are Auster protagonists supposed to be "loveable losers". They're supposed to be normal dudes to whom bad things happen, except Auster doesn't actually understand normal dudes.

i am amused by ignatius, and that makes me love him, though yeah, he'd be horrible irl

tiny tim

i know ive read like four paul auster books but i cant remember anything about any of them. i think one had a dog in it?

i'm talking specifically about moon palace - protag there is DEF supposed to be someone whose inherent character flaws prevent him from acting like a normal person and makes him a helpless, whiny loser entirely dependent on others. infuriated me so much i've never read any other auster works.

"oh i can't hold down a job because i'm too good for it! oh i have no money and my long-suffering gf has to bail me out again!" GTFO

lex what males do you hold as role models (honest question)

i've never had "role models" - they're for people who can't figure out who they are by themselves. anyway, patrick bateman

stuart out of queer as folk

http://markgorman.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/osborne-bullingdon.jpg

tennis is like the ultimate lovable loser aesthetic sport, aptly enough

i hate most of those kinda players tho

not an auster fan, but i've read a few of his novels. can't think of a single character who seemed as though he (and they're pretty much all hes) was supposed to be likable, much less lovable. he deals in blankness, the lack of affect, people as surfaces, things tossed about by events and drives. but yeah, a lot of them are losers.

in the i.j. reilly vein: horse badorties

things tossed about by events and drives

people who act as though they're tossed about by external factors when it's ALL IN THEIR POWER TO CHANGE THINGS. fucking pathetic. and in MP i got the impression you were meant to support - or god help us identify with - the protag, even if he wasn't "lovable" as such

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/stillsx/2007/11/james-bond-22-villain.jpg

tennis is like the ultimate lovable loser aesthetic sport, aptly enough

KMT no way, what's "lovable loser" about serena williams or roger federer

lex u r such a weird dude

tssscchhhh uhm try picking some players who aren't serial winners why dontcha

ignatius j. reilly is not lovable imo (had to delete a more strongly worded post)

― dayo, Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:28 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

Yeah, he's kind of an asshole iirc though it's been a long time.

would have placed boxing ahead of tennis nakh

tssscchhhh uhm try picking some players who aren't serial winners why dontcha

in any sport 90% of players aren't serial winners - the point is that all of them are striving for self-improvement at every turn - it'd make no sense to say sport, generally, is for losers, lovable or not

well, that's true of every sport, right? people who don't win a lot are losers, some lovable.

lex is probably the irl person who comes closest to my own personal conception of an ubermensch

i mean sure you get the "realist" journeymen but most pro athletes are genuinely convinced of their capacity for improvement to the point of delusion

the lovable loser storyline runs pretty strongly in golf though right - john daly?

yeah, but baseball too - cubbies, etc

the prevalence of knockouts in tennis lends itself to this - one winner and two hundred and fifty-five losers of various degrees of putative loveability

boxing is the LEAST apt example nowadays - a single loss (unless it's maidana style ferocity leading to narrow points loss) seems to finish a boxer's marketability

john daly is of another kinda sub-falstaffian archetype alogether iirc

I think there's a place for weakness - I'm not even sure that weakness and strength are valid descriptions of character - I'm not even sure that character is a valid description of human beings and their actions. The problem here is loveability. Weakness become fecklessness stops being loveable, obv. There's always characters (using the word to include IRL characters) who need a fucking slap. But strength become callousness still seems worse, somehow. Maybe just equally bad.

Strength become callousness is hi Nu Capitalism, with its triumphs of the will and survivals of the fittest. Weakness as fecklessness is a ploy to steer thru this shit, the soft cell, the pan-handler's patter. Somewhere in between the two is a kind of weakness which is dayo's self-sabotage I think, an inability to play the rules properly NO MATTER HOW HARD THE PROTAGONIST TRIES that only leads to their own defeat. And there's also a kind of strength which refuses to mope or beg but doesn't spit on the other side. This good strength in the end is directed more against callousness than fecklessness, because it recognises that we all have no choice in the hand we're dealt but it's better to be kind than be a cunt.

And I don't think we have a choice in the hand, which is dealt by genetics and socialization, but a lot of people love to tell themselves stories about how it could be different and what great fucking captains of their own souls they are.

the prevalence of knockouts in tennis lends itself to this

yup, it's braver - more at stake

Lex, sometimes you sound virtually Randian.

Have to say I wrote that without reading lex's last few posts and no antagonism was intended but there I am, I can only think in my own terms.

people who act as though they're tossed about by external factors when it's ALL IN THEIR POWER TO CHANGE THINGS. fucking pathetic.

― lex diamonds (lex pretend), Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:40 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, but if all stories concerned driven, well-adjusted quest heroes aiming their will-to-power at the crosshairs of their dreams, it'd get old fast

thanks for that post NV

i'm actually avoiding reading rand for fear that i might really like it :/

lex is probably the irl person who comes closest to my own personal conception of an ubermensch

― dayo, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 13:44 (2 minutes ago)

can we get a summary of the latter pls

btw lex I think your vitriol is kind of misdirected at this thread? as I've mentioned I'm not interested in people who wallow in self-pity and sadness, but more as NV said, people who keep throwing snake eyes but try anyway

And there's also a kind of strength which refuses to mope or beg but doesn't spit on the other side.

this is so well put

i'm actually avoiding reading rand for fear that i might really like it :/

― lex diamonds (lex pretend), Tuesday, 11 January 2011 13:48 (2 minutes ago)

appresh the honesty but i gotta say, what are your political affiliations (if any)?

the lovable loser archetype is predicated on the idea that the world is cruel and kind in equal measure, and that if one is predominantly kind, one will more often than not end up beneath the wheel. assumes that there is a certain nobility in this, so long as one's fate is borne with cheer, a lack of angst or peevishness. not the same thing lex is railing at, but then again, auster novels probably arent' the best place to go looking for lovable losers.

i guess NV just said some of that...

george bailey

obviously if these guys were out there actively trying to garner sympathy points they wouldn't be lovable, would they

xpost. The consistency of the Lex aesthetic does fascinate me though, from characters in novels to sports to the differing vocal techniques of indie and R&B singers. It's alien to me.

Reminds me - I had an interminable, depressing argument about Ayn Rand with an old friend just before Christmas. His gist was: "Loving Atlas Shrugged doesn't make me creepy. It's just inspiring!" Then he proceeded to make lots of creepy generalisations about the weak always trying to sabotage visionaries and prevent them from realising their glorious potential.

don't really have a problem with the idea of the loveable loser per se but i can't really think of any offhand

kind of think a loveable loser isn't someone who is a loser the whole time but someone who just happens to lose in one particular situation but then is like ah well and then has a beer

has anyone mentioned HAMLET yet

http://shopping.syncweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/the-big-lebowski-bridges-dude.jpg

appresh the honesty but i gotta say, what are your political affiliations (if any)?

ehhhh liberal left i guess - i'm instinctively individualist but what works as a personal self-improvement philosophy doesn't really work on a governmental level obviously. plus uh compassion and shit, i guess.

The Dude's a pretty good example.

Back on topic, I wonder where Milo in Sam Lipsyte's The Ask fits in? He's not really lovable but the depths of his loserdom allow him a degree of candour and wit that makes him compelling and sympathetic (well, to me) anyway.

like they're loveable not because theyre a loser but because theyre a regular person and then they do something which they might lose in but hey why not could happen and if not then have a beer and maybe also smoke a cigarette

Reminds me - I had an interminable, depressing argument about Ayn Rand with an old friend just before Christmas. His gist was: "Loving Atlas Shrugged doesn't make me creepy. It's just inspiring!" Then he proceeded to make lots of creepy generalisations about the weak always trying to sabotage visionaries and prevent them from realising their glorious potential.

this is why i'm not gonna read rand - fear becoming that person. it's martina navratilova's favourite book yo, and she's as lefty activist as you get

the dude doesn't really commit to anything or put himself out there? yeah he was invested in the rug but only half so.

xp she's really not

they can look into the middle distance while smoking the cigarette but probably look directly at you when drinking the beer

losing is fine, but making the characteristics that cause you to lose - or the fact of the losing itself - into a virtue is NOT FINE. i don't believe we should be beholden to character flaws - or at least we shouldn't accept them.

xpost. Also, her books are incredibly long and badly written so not reading them is win-win.

lol the other night i literally wagged my finger at a friend across the table and told her to stop being beholden to her emotions, they are there to be CONQUERED and overcome

lex - the key here though is that the characters themselves don't accept their flaws - we the readers do

b/c the word "ubermensch" was mentioned, I can't resist a few words from famous lovable loser Friedrich Nietzsche:

Knowledge kills action; action requires the veils of illusion: that is the doctrine of Hamlet, not that cheap wisdom of Jack the Dreamer who reflects too much and, as it were, from an excess of possibilities does not get around to action. Not reflection, no — true knowledge, an insight into the horrible truth, outweighs any motive for action, both in Hamlet and in the Dionysian man.

but honestly I find the whole concept of this thread kind of abstract & difficult to pin down — ppl seem more invested in complaining about other ppl's reception of this archetype (nb this is my perennial beef with the lex)

well, another way to look at it, lex, is to see the "loserdom" as a divergence in values. the lovable loser seems a failure when judged according to conventional measures of success, but may be successful (or at least commendable) in other senses. and perhaps this is just a thin mask thrown over the unpleasant face of real failure, an attempt to make it seem charming, but better that than all darwin all the time.

Too many different types of loser. The Dude isn't a loser, he's an accidental winner. Prince Myshkin is a loser but the point is that that the rules he's losing by are written and maintained by cunts. Hamlet is just lame. The indie flick glorification of losers even lamer obviously.

Anyway, Gazza.

contenderizer OTM about the definition of "loser" depending on certain values. The Dude in Lebowski is a happy guy - I don't remember him thinking of himself as a loser.

there is no one archetype for loveable loser, bernard –– i think that is what a lot of posters are asserting. loserdom in terms of broader american culture is a lot different than loserdom in terms of american film-making traditions. i.e. the basic expectations of comedic dramaturgy often necessitates oddball, quirky, characterization that begins LOW(/losery) and ends HIGH(/less losery), and benefits from large and noticeable change.

are there any kafka characters who would fit into this?

favourite "loveable losers" of recent TV land: Michael and George Michael Bluth (altho they are from a wealthy family and are funny in spite of their relative misfortune so this doesn't really work).

@ dayo, i don't think anybody in kafka is loveable at all

http://www.glennsasscer.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/rocky.bmp

yeah but they always lose xp

multi-xpost "funny in spite of their relative misfortune" seems like as good a qualification for this role as any!

Remy OTM

chichikov probably would have ended up as one had gogol finished dead souls

@ dayo, i don't think anybody in kafka is loveable at all

― they call him (remy bean), Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:15 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

I prefer examples of losers who are totally incapable of mastery over their environment and are STILL intended to be hateable even when everyone surrounding them is worse. Peter Kien in Auto De Fe springs to mind.

the replacements are the example i'm feelin most so far — appeal seems inseparable from their failure to 'break out' and find a mainstream audience, which is itself inseparable from profound 'character flaws' (drunken shambolicness). then again, they're so universally well-regarded among ppl 'in the know' that it's hard to really think of them as losers at this point.

woody allen in practically every role ever? (xp)

yeah - and self-sabotage through drinking was a part of their m.o., at least that's what I've gleaned from ILM xp

okay let's run with the "self-sabotage" thing, cuz that seems like the most promising so far.

obviously it can't just be any kind of self-sabotage — like john rocker is not a lovable loser for alienating fans thru racism+homophobia, mel gibson is not a lovable loser for calling a cop "sugartits", etc. — but there's still some kind of connection with 'compulsive behavior'?

fictional characters get a bit more leeway b/c they can have "rich interior lives" and "quiet reflective moments" and all that shit that nobody ever knows or sees or cares about irl, where you have to deliver on at least a little bit of yr potential or there will be nobody watching the self-sabotage

rich interior lives also allow for ways of eliciting sympathy for the character w/o such appeals coming from the character herself

btw started thinking about this today because I've been listening to 'first place loser' by diddy-dirty money nonstop and the only phrase I can understand in the song is 'first place loser'

does Pavement's career trajectory (buzzworthy unpolished 1st album --> catchy accessible 2nd album --> offputting stonerjam 3rd album) qualify them for lovable loserdom?

would it change anything if they were like "yeah we worked our asses off on Wowee Zowee and genuinely thought we had a masterpiece on our hands; not sure what happened there"?

i.e. how delusional can you be while remaining lovable?

http://bayougirlblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/hang_in_there_kitty.jpg

pavement can gtfo, they never cared in the first place

Once you start to revel in it you become a punchable loser and Pavement went way over that line.

I think the 'strong-willed desire to achieve something that's thwarted by an inherent character flaw/some act of compulsive self-sabotage' is the key here

I'm gonna go ahead and disqualify the royal tenenbaums, btw

so caring = prerequisite? what about like, a reluctant child star who seems unable to just get out of showbiz, so instead withdraws into increasingly obscure/artsy/unappealing vanity projects?

university of virginia fratboy = not loveable loser

I haven't seen the royal tenenbaums, i hope that doesn't put too much noise into the communication channels

feel like sincerity counts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5KWI71s3DY

- can "just not getting it" ever count as a compelling character flaw?
- what about "talented artist who toils in hopeless obscurity only to achieve posthumous success"? (this one's kinda weird cuz it involves a near-total disconnect between the persona and the works)
- ed wood?

I prefer examples of losers who are totally incapable of mastery over their environment and are STILL intended to be hateable even when everyone surrounding them is worse.

this is a thing i do not get - why is it considered such a good thing to read novels/watch films/etc about hateful people being hateful? at least with the loveable loser aesthetic you get to engage yr capacity for human sympathy.

"sincerity" wd tie the LL into Japanese notions of the noble failure I think - tho with differences. A lot of noble failures didn't do much loveable in the Disney sense of the word, but inspired a higher kind of love or honour thru their sincerity in defeat?

this is a compulsive subject for somebody convinced that they veer well to the feckless side of the LL archetype to be mulling on. but I'm very interested in the notion of overcoming and shaping one's destiny. those ideas seem like the mainstay of fictional arts, and the LL is the obvious negation of them or counterargument. I feel like Odysseus or Achilles display LL characteristics before turning it around thru slyness or suicidal adherence to honour.

haha Phil D. that song is the first thing I thought of. It makes me think of me dad!

why is it considered such a good thing to read novels/watch films/etc about hateful people being hateful?

It feels closer to a kind of felt truth than yr conventional heroic epic I guess

Cf Martin Amis, imo.

Could also look at this as an attempt to solve the "if human beings are motivated only by selfish impulses, however submerged, then how does goodness happen?" equation

http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/Dean%20Venture.jpg

you thought oh he's a loser, a bum, someone the str8 community wouldn't give a fuck about
well aren'tcha????
well yyyeahhhh

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3066/3027232436_1a222168b4.jpg

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Feel like George Costanza is some kind of commentary on this idea: he's situated as an LL, but actually shows the bitterness, festering resentment, rage, self-delusion that irl LL's may be prone to.

george bailey was the one i was going to say.

this is probably wrong (and it's hard to tell since he has so much sex) but tyrone slothrop might be one of these people? i dunno if anyone loves him. he certainly loses though.

one of the reasons i loved the scott pilgrim movie was that it seemed to be undermining the indie-film lovable loser archetype: scott pilgrim is a weak and sensitive boy whose weakness and sensitivity are revealed to be methods of emotional manipulation, and movie over and over again reminds us how alone he is in his own barren head. the accuracy of that picture is why it's hard to think of people for this thread.

also i get george bailey confused sometimes with elwood p. dowd so maybe him? but things work out pretty well for him.

Feel like George Costanza is some kind of commentary on this idea: he's situated as an LL, but actually shows the bitterness, festering resentment, rage, self-delusion that irl LL's may be prone to.

― portrait of velleity (woof), Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:58 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

oh totally! huh never thought of it that way

yeah that's a rly interesting reading. makes sense tho

I prefer examples of losers who are totally incapable of mastery over their environment and are STILL intended to be hateable even when everyone surrounding them is worse.

e.g., http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Confederacy_of_dunces_cover.jpg

Holden Caulfield?

woof OTM re: george costanza. nice deflation of a too often sentimentally conceived character type.

and DLH OTM re: scott pilgrim, though that's a more conventional characterization, in that he seems to "learn his lesson" in the end, softening the blow somewhat.

and yeah, it's impossible even to like kafka's characters. pity's about the best you can hope for there.

sometimes its nice to see what you become when you get to know people