Yes, I have seen WordFreak, and also read the book. They are both informative and entertaining at the same time.

If you haven’t watched WordFreak yet, add it to your NetFlix queue today. I think G.I. Joel was a little more loved than the main point of this post implies, though I certainly agree with your premise.

Great job.

In Shakespeare’s time, perhaps the entity we (the peasants) loved to hate was the king (or queen), duke or lord. It strikes me that part of the reason that we love to hate Starbucks is that it has considerable power. The Quebec commenter got at this by pointing out the monopoly piece. Monopolists are hated because they are unresponsive to their customers, inefficient and powerful.

I think the last bit is significant. From Starbucks to Metallica to the Duchess of Kent, those with power are envied and this envy can manifest as hate. By the way, I’m a lawyer whose clients have included large multinational companies as well as individual clients without the money to pay me. In defense of myself and my brothers and sisters of the bar, lawyers for Starbucks, GM or Joe Schmoe are typically doing what is in their clients’ best interests; at least they should be.

The idea being that the other side’s lawyers are doing the same, and that an impartial decision-maker judge or jury will sort out who’s right. Lawyers for big corporations, in my experience, are no more ethical nor sleazy than big corporations versus small ones.

Metallica was great when they were small, and they were great as they got bigger, and then they got involved with Bob Rock, who homogenized their sound. They did not need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to be successful, as they already were successful. Then they sued Napster (toss up if they were right or not), attacked their fans, etc… essentially lost touch with reality and deserve the animosity they get.

Slayer, on the other hand, have kept the same set of values throughout their career, are hugely successful, and did not “sell out” their values for a little more cash. They could’ve easily watered down their product to make more money, but didn’t. Instead, they explored new artistic territory and were able to keep their old fans happy and still find new ones.

Bands/musicians fail when they act like a corporation instead of an artistic entity AFTER they become famous. Trying to find a niche where one can be successful when you’re an unknown is one thing: Watering down your product to sell a few more albums when you’re already making millions is disgraceful.

Reading your comments together reminds me that I went to the Starbucks in Taipei (Taiwan) last summer while spending a couple of days on the island. In a way, it was “just like home” but it was also cool that you could get bean curd pastries and other Taiwanese snacks along with the ubiquitous tall latte.

As to when the world “becomes one homogeneous entity,” well, that is a subject for a longer essay. I have added it to my list.

@ Danny -

Thanks (merci bien) for your comments about Quebec. That is all very insightful. I have noticed that countries, or regions in the case of Quebec, that have a lot of nationalism also tend to have a number of monopolies just as you describe.

It doesn’t mean nationalism is by itself a bad thing; it just means that there is often some kind of correlation.

I’m a reader from Taiwan, a lovely small island on the other side of Atlantic.

I noticed something also interesting, in a island country somewhat closed. When something popular in the U.S. is easy become popular later in here. There is a funny motto we have, “The moon is always rounder in other countries.” Therefore, when something starts getting popular, the “early adopter” will actually become “second hand early adopter.” These “second hand ones” will always be blamed by something such as “so what?”, that thing is already old-fashioned in the U.S. (or European countries, or Japan).

Everyone loves to hate a winner, and maybe we all want to be the winner who bears the most hate.

Oh! I just found a correlation. It’s easier to hate a successful company or person when we have a direct relation with him/it. Only workers of Alcan would hate Alcan. Only clients of Starbucks and their competitors would hate Starbucks. Interesting!

Note : I can’t relate to Starbucks since I never saw one. We have lots of Tim Hortons though. Great chance you won’t be able to related with Quebecor since it’s not present outside the Quebec. Just replace it with any company who happens to own a TV channel, newspaper, many magazine title and being “cablodistributeur” all at the same time and you’ll see the big picture.