This is a major theme of my writing, that our civilization is disconnected from its roots and can only make increasingly faded copies of things that once had real spiritual and emotional resonance. My project as an educator is to encourage a return to the well, with the Bible and myth as the foundation of a new renaissance. It’s what happened before and it can happen again.
As a 20 year old zoomer all the books I read are at least 10+ years old, all the video games I play are at least 15+ years old, I don't think I've even seen a movie made in the past 5 years, and I could not care less about contemporary music. While I am admittedly not the best representative for the typical zoomer It still is the case that young people like me are not that interested in art coming out today. Every zoomers favorite x is not of their generation.
Yeah, you aren't original, you are basically exactly how I was growing up in the late 90s early 2000s. I had no interest in the bleached spiky hair, baggy pants, shitty numetal, Korn, Limp Biskit, and Paris Hiltons of my generation, a generation that people look back as great. I was all about The Cure, Morrisey, Joy Division, 80's Punk and New Wave. Every generation has its cultural dissidents, welcome to the club.
The problem is demographics, it is women. Western media isn't made by white men for white men anymore, it is made by women and minorities for the "modern audiences" (women, lgbt, and foreigners). Constantin is entirely out of touch as to what is actually happening. But yes, I do also think a serious spiritual deficiency is at fault.
Currently hard at work Dave Greene, on our generation's great literary masterpieces, ;) so there's definitely good reason to remain hopeful as literature is turning a corner. After 30 years of decline in literature and fiction some of us are hard at work imbuing it once more with themes, motifs, ideas and glory.
The key is to aim after Shakespeare, Tolkien, Howard and Dumas in my view over that of more recent authors of 'pop literature' as I tend to call it these days.
So I'll just say I do agree that slop isn't for everyone, it's certainly not for me which is why I've long since tuned out of modern cinema after superhero movies caught on.
To be fair, I enjoy a superhero movie and can laugh off a fair amount of slop. But at the same time, as an avid bookworm and lover of bygone literary norms, I see more and more of my fellow authors striving to return to an older standard, writing books that children can read while not alienating older generations.
Think Andrew Peterson or Chuck Black, as published authors, or even some unpublished authors or new authors, such as Josiah DeGraaf with his new book. Their goals are to challenge their younger readers with themes of sacrifice and Christian virtue imbedded in brilliant fiction.
I'm glad we're not all pessimists about the direction of art. We just need more people to wake up and start learning the old way again.
"Almost invariably, these guys are looking for things in their hobbies that they have every right to desire but which modern society no longer provides. These are things like a friendly but adversarial way to compete with other men, a connection to a heroic tradition, a story that they can really feel is their own, and a feeling of spirituality (although nerds rarely mention this part). You might think that nerd hobbies are juvenile, but they are a surrogate response to replace an entire world of masculine cultural energy that used to exist in the West but is absent in the modern world.
Sure, maybe that 28-year-old seems “infantilized” when he looks for a symbol of masculinity in a plastic GW Space Marine. But, to be fair, where else is he going to look for that kind of ideal? Books? Movies? Music?"
You comment about music way rather eye opening. I essentially only listen to bluegrass and folk music m, both genres mostly explicitly opposed to modernity, and both have remained doggedly creative spinning out new and interesting artists that continue and expand the ideas and forms of their predecessors. This is often incredibly gay but also often deep and impactful. Further I think it is no coincidence that these genres maintain a vigorous and active love scene that caters mostly to sub500 person venues.
It’s getting worse certainly especially as the millennial acts start to really rev up and hit their strides. I do have hope that this is just a blip not a trend that is going to kill the genre
That being said, I think Constantin's point comes close to something that neither of you touched upon, but is somewhat similar to infantilization.
In many ways, Hollywood is in decline, but it's still the driver of a great deal of what's considered mainstream and vital in our modern culture. And what are the most popular Hollywood movies of the last 15 years or so?
Well, Marvel movies, Star Wars movies, live-action remakes of older popular Disney cartoons, live-action movies based on a popular 80s cartoon (Transformers), a dinosaur-themed movie series that started in the 90s (Jurassic Park), a sequel to a 80s action movie (Top Gun Maverick), a movie based on a popular product for young girls that is decades old (Barbie), and Cameron's Avatar films. Of all of these, the only one that isn't based around something over 20 years old are the Avatar films. All the core characters in Marvel movies arise out of superhero comics that go back several decades, many rooted in the 60s.
Our culture is simply *drenched* in nostalgia. Our most popular movies increasingly speak to our childhoods, not merely because of target demographics, but because they're reboots/sequels/re-imaginings of the exact movies and stories and characters *older* audiences loved as kids.
So why can't our culture escape the past? Why does it struggle to create anything truly new, not rooted in pre-existing IPs?
Constantin has a point on infantilization, though I think you, Mr. Greene, are probably correct on the importance of spirituality here. Most of the modern west is not spiritually healthy, and I think we know this at a deep level, and so we cling to cultural creations that arose out of a more healthy time. Yes, 9/11 is a great demarcation point here. You are completely right on how too many in the west failed to meet the challenges raised by 9/11, failed to sense the need for greater spirituality and religious rootedness in the face of growing culture clash on a world level.
I find that most rhetoric about things being infantile are irrelevant because everything will seem childish to someone. I struggle to think of anything in this world that is completely immune to being perceived as immature. There is a childish equivalent to everything adults do; fraternities are glorified school clubs, interest in sports is obviously adolescent. There are adults, many respectable ones who are determined to master games like chess or go, but they can easily be written off as children’s games. Many, many people think religion is inherently childish, but our Lord Himself warns that you must inherit the heart of a child before inheriting Eternal Life.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t age-inappropriate activities for adults, and that these interests can’t go too far, but there is such a daily wire conservative insecurity about being caught enjoying something not deemed masculine or mature enough for (usually internet spurned) peer approval these days. Some are likely going to bite the bullet and say that adults shouldn’t even have hobbies, but once we cross that bridge discourse is going to be so miserable that the entire movement might completely unravel.
I like the counterpoint your making, that art/culture is supposed to unite generations rather than silo them. No doubt a particular group can be targeted, but the end of unification is always desired.
I have been reading little house on the prairie to my kids, various ages up to 8. The one story presented by Ingalls through her perspective as a child has elements each kid can grasp and understand at their own level. Frankly there is even enough in this story that as an adult, you perceive the story of the adult world beyond the perspective of a young Laura Ingalls.
Pretty sure this is an effect CS Lewis spoke about directly somewhere and aimed at with his own works. To paraphrase it was something like, just because it's for kids doesn't mean it has to suck.
Another extreme example of the unification of ages in art, the Morte de Arthur was written by Mallory for a generation of men that could not be more alien to our own. It still has an audience however and is much loved by many often for this very strangeness. It is also not clear to me what "age bracket" Mallory was writing to, as many of those stories were folk tales told to varied groups and peoples. My assumption is that he assumed a varied group.
This — Substack — is the high point of contemporary culture as far as I’m concerned. I generally go back at least a decade, more often many decades, when looking for books, movies, and music to enjoy.
Though the seeming dearth of quality cultural output in the present era is at least partially to be blamed on the consumer. We can no longer rely on the large entertainment industry institutions to bring the best of books, music, art, and movies to our attention. Quite the opposite. As you note, they bring us slopification and infantilization.
But the good stuff is surely out there. We just have to put a lot more effort into seeking it out for ourselves.
The quality of essays around Substack, for instance, is nothing to sneeze at. I’ve read stuff from online anons here that can rightfully be compared with significant writing from decades and centuries past.
As far as books, movies, and music, I for one admit to being lazy about finding good contemporary stuff. Given the abject failure of the entertainment industry (we need a shorthand like “BigEnt” or something) to bring quality to our attention, I rely on the Lindy rule to sort the wheat from the chaff. If it’s old and still relevant, it’s more likely to be worthwhile. But unfortunately this means I’m not supporting contemporary high art, wherever it is, besides some Substack writing.
Haven't listened to the OG podcast but him bringing up music is a bad example. By the 00s music was already slop and the new wave of indie/online music has made the scene more competitive. Slopification is definitely a thing and it's basically hit every culture, including video games, movies, television, and even anime.
Music is more or less the easiest artform to quantify. There are analyses of chart topping songs going back 100 years showing that hit singles are converging on a particular archetype. It's like that image of basketball shots comparing 2000 to 2020 where the whole thing has been refined so much that it's had the real life squeezed out of it.
While I find both articles to be very good, and true in their own respect, I think the scope of Constatin's article is narrower than yours. Replacing slopification with infantilization just limits the scope of time to the last 100 years, give or take. I would argue that infantilization is the natural outcome of spiritual unmooring, especially when you factor in the effects of mass media and market pressures.
Constatin is incorrect in his assertion that childrens stories and fairy tales are merely introductions for more sophisticated taste. No one reads Alice in Wonderland and thinks, "wow, what great mashed peas!" They are more like foundation stones than stepping stones, micro stories of the macro narrative.
I think most pop cultural critique falls in the category of category error, as was mentioned. People who lament the latest video game slop being woke or having bad gameplay misunderstand the role of the video game. Entertainment has been elevated to near spiritual importance but it's too much effort for most to escape its appeal. It is the water in which we swim. We should then be humble and not arrogant that we are somehow enlightened by our noticing.
I remember the days when being an actual mutual virtuoso was what would make one a superstar, provided you were willing to make sacrifices to the industry's demands. Nowadays, loyalty to the industry is the PRIMARY qualification, not actual ear-splitting guitar solos or vocal prodigies of yore. No, today, if you know the right people and show your devotion, they'll write the songs, computerize instruments and music, teach you to dance and give you a fancy new costume.
I like both of your arguments. I don't agree 100% with either though. It's nice to share in a gentlemen's disagreement. That's how it should be done. But i will say i think Dave's argument is more correct and more comprehensive.
When was that day Bacon, because the majority of amazing artists form the past were industry creations. Entire scenes like Motown, boy bands, early rock bands, girl groups, and scenes were created by people like Phil Spector.
We are living in a great era of music. With a bit of cash, a laptop, and knowledge, a teenager can create studio quality music and share it with the world from his bedroom. No producers, no contracts, no having to sit on the rape couch in some music studio executive's office.
Off the top of my head, i'll just say the 60's-70's-80's for sure. The superstars had actual talent, buckets and buckets of talent. Were they beholden to the industry and its satanic ways? Yes. They were the chosen ones. But the superstars put in front of us now don't have that pure raw talent, and they don't need it. It's all image, synthesizers and lip sync. The music industry has always been a vector for social engineering, same like hollywood and MSM "news" shows.
Frankly I think the entire point could be made with board games alone. It seems clear to me that board and card games, sum total, have always been an all-ages pursuit. The difference between something like Warhammer and Chess, Shogi, Bridge, etc. is in how it is designed and why (the latter largely being "to sell more product", though there are knock-on effects to this). These shifts also produce a measurable change in how the work is interacted with. There is a layer of revealed preference
As such, it's easier to lean on than something like television or music, where most critiques are based in the qualitative (Greek hero's journey good, Californian hero's journey bad is an invitation to play silly games of degrees, even if the difference ought to be obvious). It can even be seen within the evolution of tabletop roleplaying games, which shifted from being an extension of wargames to low-risk, self-indulgent storytelling, in which the DM is always something of a babysitter, and never an adversary.
Overall I think you're correct though, and I would even suggest that whatever infantilization can be measured is simply the sugar that makes the slopification go down easier. It can be difficult to critique media "for kids" for the average person, and there's a knee-jerk need to simply dismiss spiritually/intellectually-bereft works despite their greater harm among the youth
I haven't listened to the podcast (yet) nor read Alexandru's reply but to me there is a third thing missing between 'slopification' and 'infantilisation' called 'simplification'. Both slop and infantilised things are simple but simple things are not necessarily either slop or infantilised. Star Wars is simple, and more recent entries are slop, with some middle entries being infantilised, but having watched quite a few Lucas interviews it is clear he was trying to say something with Star Wars and not "merely" entertain, whether he succeeded or the fans know this is neither here nor there for this discussion.
Simple ideas spread further than complex ones. Look to how successful memes are compared to essays which say the same thing (compare a John Carter essay to a "if only you knew how bad things really were" meme - similar message but the meme is simplified to a vibe that may or may not have lasting impact whereas a John Carter essay is long, wordy (and very readable), and sits with you afterwards). Repetition of simple ideas, such as memes, can have an impact in behaviours and attitudes it builds connections between people and becomes the bedrock of communities. I'm not saying memes exactly but look how we all go to church and listen to passages from the Bible, the complex book is broken down into chunks that almost everyone can listen to and try and understand while very few Christians actually sit down and read the Bible cover to cover. Can we not simply the complex and, as Librarian of Celaeno says, return to our roots that way without the idea/media becoming slop or infantised?
Humans actually have hard limits to how much complexity we can process at a time. Someone with an excellent understanding of the Bible got there by constant study. The Sunday sermon cannot be a cover-to-cover reading of the Bible, & it never will.
Besides, the foundations of even the most complex things are fundamentally simple.
This is a major theme of my writing, that our civilization is disconnected from its roots and can only make increasingly faded copies of things that once had real spiritual and emotional resonance. My project as an educator is to encourage a return to the well, with the Bible and myth as the foundation of a new renaissance. It’s what happened before and it can happen again.
As a 20 year old zoomer all the books I read are at least 10+ years old, all the video games I play are at least 15+ years old, I don't think I've even seen a movie made in the past 5 years, and I could not care less about contemporary music. While I am admittedly not the best representative for the typical zoomer It still is the case that young people like me are not that interested in art coming out today. Every zoomers favorite x is not of their generation.
This is what I hear commonly from men your age.
They don't make stuff for (straight) men, so the young guys look backward to when they did. Makes sense.
Yeah, you aren't original, you are basically exactly how I was growing up in the late 90s early 2000s. I had no interest in the bleached spiky hair, baggy pants, shitty numetal, Korn, Limp Biskit, and Paris Hiltons of my generation, a generation that people look back as great. I was all about The Cure, Morrisey, Joy Division, 80's Punk and New Wave. Every generation has its cultural dissidents, welcome to the club.
Because the stuff we are producing today sucks and has no lasting value.
Smart kid.
There's more to culture than just pop, don't forget about snap and crackle.
Seek and you shall find
The problem is demographics, it is women. Western media isn't made by white men for white men anymore, it is made by women and minorities for the "modern audiences" (women, lgbt, and foreigners). Constantin is entirely out of touch as to what is actually happening. But yes, I do also think a serious spiritual deficiency is at fault.
Currently hard at work Dave Greene, on our generation's great literary masterpieces, ;) so there's definitely good reason to remain hopeful as literature is turning a corner. After 30 years of decline in literature and fiction some of us are hard at work imbuing it once more with themes, motifs, ideas and glory.
The key is to aim after Shakespeare, Tolkien, Howard and Dumas in my view over that of more recent authors of 'pop literature' as I tend to call it these days.
So I'll just say I do agree that slop isn't for everyone, it's certainly not for me which is why I've long since tuned out of modern cinema after superhero movies caught on.
To be fair, I enjoy a superhero movie and can laugh off a fair amount of slop. But at the same time, as an avid bookworm and lover of bygone literary norms, I see more and more of my fellow authors striving to return to an older standard, writing books that children can read while not alienating older generations.
Think Andrew Peterson or Chuck Black, as published authors, or even some unpublished authors or new authors, such as Josiah DeGraaf with his new book. Their goals are to challenge their younger readers with themes of sacrifice and Christian virtue imbedded in brilliant fiction.
I'm glad we're not all pessimists about the direction of art. We just need more people to wake up and start learning the old way again.
Agreed, I know I’m striving to write in that old manner and it’s a challenge but is undeniably quite fun.
"Almost invariably, these guys are looking for things in their hobbies that they have every right to desire but which modern society no longer provides. These are things like a friendly but adversarial way to compete with other men, a connection to a heroic tradition, a story that they can really feel is their own, and a feeling of spirituality (although nerds rarely mention this part). You might think that nerd hobbies are juvenile, but they are a surrogate response to replace an entire world of masculine cultural energy that used to exist in the West but is absent in the modern world.
Sure, maybe that 28-year-old seems “infantilized” when he looks for a symbol of masculinity in a plastic GW Space Marine. But, to be fair, where else is he going to look for that kind of ideal? Books? Movies? Music?"
Well said, sir. And even that is going away.
You comment about music way rather eye opening. I essentially only listen to bluegrass and folk music m, both genres mostly explicitly opposed to modernity, and both have remained doggedly creative spinning out new and interesting artists that continue and expand the ideas and forms of their predecessors. This is often incredibly gay but also often deep and impactful. Further I think it is no coincidence that these genres maintain a vigorous and active love scene that caters mostly to sub500 person venues.
It’s been a while since I have been on that scene. I was worried it was devoured by the great awokening.
It’s getting worse certainly especially as the millennial acts start to really rev up and hit their strides. I do have hope that this is just a blip not a trend that is going to kill the genre
I got that vibe from Aoife O'Donovan and Sara Watkins even though I was a huge fan of their music.
Good article.
That being said, I think Constantin's point comes close to something that neither of you touched upon, but is somewhat similar to infantilization.
In many ways, Hollywood is in decline, but it's still the driver of a great deal of what's considered mainstream and vital in our modern culture. And what are the most popular Hollywood movies of the last 15 years or so?
Well, Marvel movies, Star Wars movies, live-action remakes of older popular Disney cartoons, live-action movies based on a popular 80s cartoon (Transformers), a dinosaur-themed movie series that started in the 90s (Jurassic Park), a sequel to a 80s action movie (Top Gun Maverick), a movie based on a popular product for young girls that is decades old (Barbie), and Cameron's Avatar films. Of all of these, the only one that isn't based around something over 20 years old are the Avatar films. All the core characters in Marvel movies arise out of superhero comics that go back several decades, many rooted in the 60s.
Our culture is simply *drenched* in nostalgia. Our most popular movies increasingly speak to our childhoods, not merely because of target demographics, but because they're reboots/sequels/re-imaginings of the exact movies and stories and characters *older* audiences loved as kids.
So why can't our culture escape the past? Why does it struggle to create anything truly new, not rooted in pre-existing IPs?
Constantin has a point on infantilization, though I think you, Mr. Greene, are probably correct on the importance of spirituality here. Most of the modern west is not spiritually healthy, and I think we know this at a deep level, and so we cling to cultural creations that arose out of a more healthy time. Yes, 9/11 is a great demarcation point here. You are completely right on how too many in the west failed to meet the challenges raised by 9/11, failed to sense the need for greater spirituality and religious rootedness in the face of growing culture clash on a world level.
I think it goes something like this: Spiritual decline > Infantilization > Slopification>Complete Stagnation>Cultural Collapse
I find that most rhetoric about things being infantile are irrelevant because everything will seem childish to someone. I struggle to think of anything in this world that is completely immune to being perceived as immature. There is a childish equivalent to everything adults do; fraternities are glorified school clubs, interest in sports is obviously adolescent. There are adults, many respectable ones who are determined to master games like chess or go, but they can easily be written off as children’s games. Many, many people think religion is inherently childish, but our Lord Himself warns that you must inherit the heart of a child before inheriting Eternal Life.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t age-inappropriate activities for adults, and that these interests can’t go too far, but there is such a daily wire conservative insecurity about being caught enjoying something not deemed masculine or mature enough for (usually internet spurned) peer approval these days. Some are likely going to bite the bullet and say that adults shouldn’t even have hobbies, but once we cross that bridge discourse is going to be so miserable that the entire movement might completely unravel.
I like the counterpoint your making, that art/culture is supposed to unite generations rather than silo them. No doubt a particular group can be targeted, but the end of unification is always desired.
I have been reading little house on the prairie to my kids, various ages up to 8. The one story presented by Ingalls through her perspective as a child has elements each kid can grasp and understand at their own level. Frankly there is even enough in this story that as an adult, you perceive the story of the adult world beyond the perspective of a young Laura Ingalls.
Pretty sure this is an effect CS Lewis spoke about directly somewhere and aimed at with his own works. To paraphrase it was something like, just because it's for kids doesn't mean it has to suck.
Another extreme example of the unification of ages in art, the Morte de Arthur was written by Mallory for a generation of men that could not be more alien to our own. It still has an audience however and is much loved by many often for this very strangeness. It is also not clear to me what "age bracket" Mallory was writing to, as many of those stories were folk tales told to varied groups and peoples. My assumption is that he assumed a varied group.
This — Substack — is the high point of contemporary culture as far as I’m concerned. I generally go back at least a decade, more often many decades, when looking for books, movies, and music to enjoy.
Though the seeming dearth of quality cultural output in the present era is at least partially to be blamed on the consumer. We can no longer rely on the large entertainment industry institutions to bring the best of books, music, art, and movies to our attention. Quite the opposite. As you note, they bring us slopification and infantilization.
But the good stuff is surely out there. We just have to put a lot more effort into seeking it out for ourselves.
The quality of essays around Substack, for instance, is nothing to sneeze at. I’ve read stuff from online anons here that can rightfully be compared with significant writing from decades and centuries past.
As far as books, movies, and music, I for one admit to being lazy about finding good contemporary stuff. Given the abject failure of the entertainment industry (we need a shorthand like “BigEnt” or something) to bring quality to our attention, I rely on the Lindy rule to sort the wheat from the chaff. If it’s old and still relevant, it’s more likely to be worthwhile. But unfortunately this means I’m not supporting contemporary high art, wherever it is, besides some Substack writing.
Haven't listened to the OG podcast but him bringing up music is a bad example. By the 00s music was already slop and the new wave of indie/online music has made the scene more competitive. Slopification is definitely a thing and it's basically hit every culture, including video games, movies, television, and even anime.
Music is more or less the easiest artform to quantify. There are analyses of chart topping songs going back 100 years showing that hit singles are converging on a particular archetype. It's like that image of basketball shots comparing 2000 to 2020 where the whole thing has been refined so much that it's had the real life squeezed out of it.
While I find both articles to be very good, and true in their own respect, I think the scope of Constatin's article is narrower than yours. Replacing slopification with infantilization just limits the scope of time to the last 100 years, give or take. I would argue that infantilization is the natural outcome of spiritual unmooring, especially when you factor in the effects of mass media and market pressures.
Constatin is incorrect in his assertion that childrens stories and fairy tales are merely introductions for more sophisticated taste. No one reads Alice in Wonderland and thinks, "wow, what great mashed peas!" They are more like foundation stones than stepping stones, micro stories of the macro narrative.
I think most pop cultural critique falls in the category of category error, as was mentioned. People who lament the latest video game slop being woke or having bad gameplay misunderstand the role of the video game. Entertainment has been elevated to near spiritual importance but it's too much effort for most to escape its appeal. It is the water in which we swim. We should then be humble and not arrogant that we are somehow enlightened by our noticing.
I remember the days when being an actual mutual virtuoso was what would make one a superstar, provided you were willing to make sacrifices to the industry's demands. Nowadays, loyalty to the industry is the PRIMARY qualification, not actual ear-splitting guitar solos or vocal prodigies of yore. No, today, if you know the right people and show your devotion, they'll write the songs, computerize instruments and music, teach you to dance and give you a fancy new costume.
I like both of your arguments. I don't agree 100% with either though. It's nice to share in a gentlemen's disagreement. That's how it should be done. But i will say i think Dave's argument is more correct and more comprehensive.
When was that day Bacon, because the majority of amazing artists form the past were industry creations. Entire scenes like Motown, boy bands, early rock bands, girl groups, and scenes were created by people like Phil Spector.
We are living in a great era of music. With a bit of cash, a laptop, and knowledge, a teenager can create studio quality music and share it with the world from his bedroom. No producers, no contracts, no having to sit on the rape couch in some music studio executive's office.
Off the top of my head, i'll just say the 60's-70's-80's for sure. The superstars had actual talent, buckets and buckets of talent. Were they beholden to the industry and its satanic ways? Yes. They were the chosen ones. But the superstars put in front of us now don't have that pure raw talent, and they don't need it. It's all image, synthesizers and lip sync. The music industry has always been a vector for social engineering, same like hollywood and MSM "news" shows.
Frankly I think the entire point could be made with board games alone. It seems clear to me that board and card games, sum total, have always been an all-ages pursuit. The difference between something like Warhammer and Chess, Shogi, Bridge, etc. is in how it is designed and why (the latter largely being "to sell more product", though there are knock-on effects to this). These shifts also produce a measurable change in how the work is interacted with. There is a layer of revealed preference
As such, it's easier to lean on than something like television or music, where most critiques are based in the qualitative (Greek hero's journey good, Californian hero's journey bad is an invitation to play silly games of degrees, even if the difference ought to be obvious). It can even be seen within the evolution of tabletop roleplaying games, which shifted from being an extension of wargames to low-risk, self-indulgent storytelling, in which the DM is always something of a babysitter, and never an adversary.
Overall I think you're correct though, and I would even suggest that whatever infantilization can be measured is simply the sugar that makes the slopification go down easier. It can be difficult to critique media "for kids" for the average person, and there's a knee-jerk need to simply dismiss spiritually/intellectually-bereft works despite their greater harm among the youth
I haven't listened to the podcast (yet) nor read Alexandru's reply but to me there is a third thing missing between 'slopification' and 'infantilisation' called 'simplification'. Both slop and infantilised things are simple but simple things are not necessarily either slop or infantilised. Star Wars is simple, and more recent entries are slop, with some middle entries being infantilised, but having watched quite a few Lucas interviews it is clear he was trying to say something with Star Wars and not "merely" entertain, whether he succeeded or the fans know this is neither here nor there for this discussion.
Simple ideas spread further than complex ones. Look to how successful memes are compared to essays which say the same thing (compare a John Carter essay to a "if only you knew how bad things really were" meme - similar message but the meme is simplified to a vibe that may or may not have lasting impact whereas a John Carter essay is long, wordy (and very readable), and sits with you afterwards). Repetition of simple ideas, such as memes, can have an impact in behaviours and attitudes it builds connections between people and becomes the bedrock of communities. I'm not saying memes exactly but look how we all go to church and listen to passages from the Bible, the complex book is broken down into chunks that almost everyone can listen to and try and understand while very few Christians actually sit down and read the Bible cover to cover. Can we not simply the complex and, as Librarian of Celaeno says, return to our roots that way without the idea/media becoming slop or infantised?
Humans actually have hard limits to how much complexity we can process at a time. Someone with an excellent understanding of the Bible got there by constant study. The Sunday sermon cannot be a cover-to-cover reading of the Bible, & it never will.
Besides, the foundations of even the most complex things are fundamentally simple.