Cross

I did A-Level Media Studies.

You probably assumed that was the case, given my media savvy. I can turn on any television in the country. Not from here, but if I'm close to it. It's almost always obvious where the "on" button is. Occasionally, the TV might be unplugged, in which case I'll plug it in and then turn it on.

If the sound is too loud, I can turn down the volume. I barely have to look at the remote control. It's like an instinct. I'll never press the '4' by mistake.

I'm adept at all things medial (and remedial).

All kidding aside (and I mean all kidding - don't try to keep some tucked into your waistband or muff), Media Studies was by far the most difficult subject I took. The others were:

1. A-Level Government and Politics
2. A-Level English Literature
3. AS-Level Critical Thinking

(These three taught me what the West Lothian Question was, how to spell "onomatopoeia", and how to hate myself.)

It really annoys me that Media Studies is seen as a joke subject. People use it as shorthand to refer to the dumbing-down of society and contrast it with higher pursuits like Latin and bayonet proficiency.

It isn't seen as a proper subject. It's a soft option. It's a Mickey Mouse class. It's the choice for skivers and graffiti artists with broken wrists.

Part of the reason I hate this lazy reasoning is that I did Media Studies and I want people to think I'm cleverer than I am.

But the main reason I hate it is because it's FUCKING. STUPID.

What is it about the study of media that people think is so easy? It's the MEDIA.

The media is pretty big and pretty important. You may have noticed it. It's covers a vast swathe of art and culture and technology and intellectual thought. It's almost a wonder that it's not split into more subjects.

English Literature is seen as legitimate. That's the study of books.

Media Studies looks at film and television and journalism and the internet. It looks at language and text and still images and moving images and sound and the interaction between all of these.

Analysing a scene in Once Upon a Time in The West is just as interesting and thought-provoking and difficult as analysing a John Donne sonnet. Different, but still valid.

I'm not trying to defend it as a noble pursuit. I'm just saying that it's clearly very broad and complex. Why should the study of the media be so disrespected? Stop disrespecting it. You're making yourself look like an idiot. (Not you - you're fine - I was talking to that straw man over there.)

I suppose it's just that the modern media is quite new. Literature was not considered an academic discipline until relatively recently. Before that, it was probably thought of as a bunch of lazy idiots reading storybooks. Far from the traditions of classics and philosophy and the study of which demons live in which parts of the anatomy. You know, real subjects.

But now it is seen as legitimate. The same will happen to Media Studies.

In the future (and, for all I know, in the present), there will be a subject called Internet Studies. And though this subject would be really useful and wide-reaching and complex and important, it will still be mocked as a soft option for people addicted to Facebook.

It takes people a long time to understand things, and if you don't understand something it's easy to marginalise and mock it.

My Media Studies qualification should be just as respected as any of my other, more "serious", ones.

Even if part of the course involved me creating an ad campaign for a drink called Seaman's Brew.

***

My knowledge of the media has given me a keen eye. We looked at advertising and marketing as part of the course. So I'd like to talk about Jesus.

More specifically, I'd like to talk about Jesus, King of the Jews.

This won't be a theological or historical discussion. It won't be based on any truth or insight. It will just be an analysis of a table in the above Wikipedia entry.

INRI is the inscription which appears above the cross of Jesus. It stands for Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum. It means Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews. Pontius Pilate put it there because... well, because he was a bit of a dick, really. Controversial, I know. But I think - and I may be alone here - that Pilate was a nasty piece of work. There, I said it.

The grand inscription above the crucified Christ becomes a symbol of mockery. Probably. I don't know. I basically just read the Wikipedia entry, as I said.

What I'm interested in is the various translations of the inscriptions. There's a helpful table summarising the subtle differences between the gospels.

And whilst these differences may be related to the nuances of language, or social norms, or personal experience, I like to think of it in terms of a marketing slogan.

Imagine Mark, Luke, Matthew and John each having a crack at a snappy summary. In reality, I suppose it would be their interpretation of what Pilate wanted written there. But that gets in the way of my analysis.

So as far as I'm concerned, the Four Evangelists are writing the sign themselves. That's heretical and incoherent. But it's Friday. I should get some leeway.

Mark's version is just:

The King of the Jews

Nice and simple. The King of the Jews.  No room for confusion there. The King of the Jews. Nice, neat, functional. A good sign. People will look at that sign and think, "Oh. The King of the Jews has been killed. That's a shame/blessing." (Depending on their personal beliefs)

Luke, on the other hand, seems to generally approve of the expression, but feels it needs a touch more clarification. His reads:

This is the King of the Jews

Luke's attempt has the core of Mark's, but he's added a "This is" to the beginning. And you can see why. Even though the legend is attached to the cross of a specific man, there's no guarantee that people will associate the sign with the dead man beneath it.

If it's just "The King of the Jews", they might just think that it's a non sequitur.

"Hey, that man has been horrifically killed. Hey, there's a sign about the King of the Jews. Why have they put that there?"

By adding "This is", Luke has made the connection clear.

"Ohhhhh. That's the King of the Jews. I thought he looked familiar."

Spinal Tap later used the same technique when naming their documentary.

Matthew decides to up the ante. He goes for:

This is Jesus, the King of the Jews

He clearly owes a debt to Mark and Luke (even though I'm not sure which came first). He likes "King of the Jews". He's not messing with a winning formula. He likes the introductory "This is". But he feels that it's not quite specific enough.

It's important to include not just his title (it could be any King of the Jews), but his Christian name as well. (People forget that Jesus, in addition to all his good works and miracles, was also the inventor of the Christian name)

Matthew has covered: a) who it is, b) his job title, and c) the relationship between the sign and the dead man beneath it.

Finally, John takes it on even further:

Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews

He, like Matthew is keen to impart information. He has the Christian name. He has the job title. But he doesn't feel that this is enough. What they really need is the home town.

There could be dozens of Kings of the Jews called Jesus. It's important to geographically narrow-down the candidates. Also, it's important to attract the attention of any Nazarenes that might be nearby. I know that I personally would only be interested in a dead messiah if he (or she) shared my postcode.

But with all that information, it's getting a bit unwieldy. It's not going to be a big sign. This is Golgotha, not Vegas. So Matthew has opted to cut the "This is" from the beginning.

I suppose he thought it was unnecessary. He must have assumed that people would put two and two together. Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews is probably that guy there. The guy under the sign.

That's how signs work in the modern world. If you see a shoe shop, and above it, the sign "Bill's Shoe Shop", you tend to assume that the shop above which it sits is, in fact, Bill's Shoe Shop.

You don't need "This is Bill's Shoe Shop".

So, what's your favourite?

I feel that 'The King of the Jews' is better from Pilate's point of view. It's so sneering and dismissive. 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews' is too wordy.

I think Matthew's version is best: "This is Jesus, King of the Jews". It's informative enough to be clear to the neophyte, it's snide enough to appeal to Pilate, and it's dignified enough to provide a genuine epitaph.

Well done, Matthew. You win a £10 book token (which was worth a lot more back then).

***

I'm bailing out of this blog post.

I don't think I've done either of these topics the service they deserve. Actually, the second one doesn't deserve any service. Service on that topic is just flippant - like a sarcastic waiter. Any service whatsoever is underserved.

But never mind.

...

That's it: never mind.

I haven't got any further justification.