#i'm only part of the way through the section on somerton

[sizablelad]

the hbomb video has inspired me to think a lot about the video essay culture on youtube and, in general, the academic institution of Queer Theory. there's a lot to be said about how Queer Theory as an academic pursuit has a very different and much more rapid ascent to prominence than a lot of other disciplines that affects the work done in it today. a badillion scholars, particularly scholars of color who because of their positionality might recognize these things out of the isolation of Queer academia, are presently discussing the state of Queer Theory as an academic pursuit and what the goals of this research can/should be, but that's a huge and complicated topic that others know more about.

at a more basic level, i feel like the sheer popularity of the video essay format as academic scholarship but for the Masses has inspired a lot of people without the basic training on how to do research to do research. i mean i'm only a frackin undergrad, but in high school i participated in a program specifically designed to teach us the basic foundation of how to do quality original research. and, simply put, it's a lot less glamorous and a lot more rigorous than people realize (including me-- i've only had a taste of what this research involves from a program that obviously has a limited scope; also only from a humanities perspective). there's a really important part at the very beginning of your research when you figure out the gap, then scope of your research. you have an idea of "oh this topic interests me and i think i want to add to the knowledge around it" and then you figure out a gap in the research that could be addressed by your own research. so i was interesting in queer characters and the potential differences when queer characters are written by queer authors vs non queer authors. so then you conduct a literature review to find out, okay, what research has been done on this topic? what has already been done, how useful would my perspective be on this research, what hasn't been addressed, how can i adjust my research goals so that i am not just conducting a review of others' research, but adding something new to the field. which, conducting a literature review and stopping there is fine! that's okay! but that is different from a goal of doing original research which says something new, and doing that requires a very symbiotic process of review and adjustment between your own research goals and the reality of the research that's already been done.

so i guess in a case like somerton's, he might genuinely want to add something to the field. maybe he loves the ideas he talks about and wants to be like the people that put those ideas to paper. but either he doesn't know how to do research so he gets stuck at doing a historical literature review, or is embarrassed that he might be "not as smart" as the community of people he admires and wants to be a part of, or maybe he just wants to make a quick buck. i don't know. but even if that's the case, him and people like him have demonstrated that they do have the skills to at least find past research, so why not just acknowledge the reality of what you're doing and say "hey look at this research i found and find interesting, i'm going to introduce you, my audience, to these people's work" and emphasize collaborations with the people who's work you're talking about. like with the internet historian video, obviously the video was very well done and funny and enjoyable to watch, and his methodology is different from someone like illuminaughtii's content mill production, which obviously requires a way different approach. what would've headed the WHOLE thing off is if he reached out to the og journalist and said "i read your article and am thinking about doing a video on it, want to endorse (.....and profit from) it?" but that would be assuming a lot of these people are good faith actors, which they aren't.

i don't really know what my point is here. maybe experts in their field are experts for a reason? the academic institution and it's scholarship have it's problems (boy does it), but at least there's processes in place to ensure academic integrity? the video essay as a genre is a cursed hellscape that is a great idea in theory but has been taken over by bad faith actors? misinformation is a plague partially perpetuated by people claiming they act in good faith and audiences can't be expected to constantly be on alert for the myriad of ways creators can take the good will of their audiences and manipulate it for their own personal agendas?

on a side note, this is why (at least, during my more intense youtube days) i tended to be suspicious of youtubers who would either 1) make a lot of research-intensive essays about a lot of different topics in a relatively short amount of time, or 2) make videos about things completely unrelated to their background. i have a hard time believing that jimbob the youtuber was able to become an expert and produce high quality of research in a topic they'd never previously publicly expressed knowledge or interest in. obviously there are exceptions, but with the proliferation and popularity of the video essay it seems like the well has been poisoned in that so many bad faith actors, realizing it's potential, have entered and been proven as bad actors on the video essay scene that it's impossible to see it as a genre with blanket integrity. i don't know the exact history of the genre, but i have to believe that this was not nearly as big a problem as it was before now.