I hadn’t seen this before, either, probably because I’m averse to any and all questions about presidential candidate taste, because it’s a silly question most of the time and even if it weren’t, it becomes silly because the candidates will make super-safe picks 99.9% of the time. But for once, a candidate did not make a safe pick—when TV Guide asked the candidates about their favorite TV shows, Clinton picked “Grey’s Anatomy”, Edwards picked “Law & Order”, and Obama picked “The Wire”.
Pardon me while I straighten out my non-existent hat. Clinton is clearly girling it up, and while “Law & Order” is a fine show, it’s as politically cowardly as a show about the police and the courts can get. But “The Wire” is not only unabashedly political, it’s political in an extremely provocative way. Everyone praises its quality, and they should, since it really probably is the best TV show ever, but it’s worth noting that the politically faint of heart cannot stomach that show, since it tackles very controversial topics and doesn’t do it in a light and fluffy, all-resolved-but-the-sad-look-on-the-D.A.’s-face way that “Law & Order” does. The War On Drugs, which is politically unassailable by any major candidate left or right, is rightly portrayed throughout the series as a noble failure at best, and usually more as a racist institution where the destruction in poverty-stricken black communities is a feature, not a bug. We’re watching season 4 here, which continues the theme from season 3 of the Democratic-specific failures to really represent the people’s interests in face of the allure of corruption. (No one expects the Republicans to actually do right by the people, of course, since their job is to instigate and maintain corruption. But that Democrats can’t resist on the whole is a great tragedy.) We’re early in season 4, but it seems to me that it’s going to be about the failures of the public school system in face of forces that are beyond their powers, a slightly more politically safe topic in theory, but in practice equally as likely to cause despair. You don’t have to agree with the politics of the show to watch it, of course, but you have to have the nerve to be assailed with some damn hard questions.
I like both the willingness to break the safety rules when answering the empty “What’s your favorite?” questions, and then picking an answer that signals to fans of the show a willingness to engage the hard questions. I was frustrated both during Obama’s speech and debate performance with the way he would talk up the hard questions but then give pablum answers about hope (without much in the way of specifics). What are those hard questions? Say what you will, but “The Wire” definitely gives you a taste of what those hard questions look like. Must. Resist. Being. Charmed. By. Asinine. Question. One. Candidate. Just. Happened. To. Make. Interesting. But dammit, I’m charmed. And in light of my recent rethinking of the Obama question, this sort of thing has an impact.
That said, I’m sticking by Edwards, because I think that the pressure on Obama to pick Edwards as V.P. should stay high. I suggest, especially if Obama seems to be pulling ahead by a lot, casting your vote with Edwards to make him a lot more appealing to Obama as the V.P.
Amanda, I thought about you this weekend because my boyfriend and I finished up Season 4.
This one will really break your heart.
Funny. It’s like reverse dog whistle. Obama could be telling a select group of people, “I’m not stupid, and I can stand looking at difficult situations with no easy answers.”
That’s one take anyhow.
For better or worse, he really, truly believes that stuff. It’s downright intergral to how he sees the role of leadrship in the political sphere. There’s a very informative article I’ve been pointing people to from ‘95, when he was beginning his political career, that really explains, to me, a lot of his core philosophy and approach.If he’s not giving hard answers, it’s in no small part, I think, because the format doesn’t allow his kind of professorial/lawyer discussions, the kind that meander and wander for a bit — the couple of Q&As I’ve viewed of his do much better in that regard. And yet, you read something like the Foreign Affairs article that really engaged me, or this recent post by a Economics Prof, and you start to grasp the depth of his intellect and thoughfullness. And that’s what really captures me — he’s really trying to grasp the core of the issues, and not just recite the same substance of concepts past.
I don’t agree with everything Obama thinks or says. I’m just happy to have someone running who actually cares about the big picture, and does so from what is, from all accounts, a very ground-up, power to the people posture — and who can actually, y’know, WIN.
That’s exactly what he’s doing. But I like being whistled to. No one ever thinks about the smarty-pants out there. It’s kind of a new, exciting feeling.
Obama is good on issues at the intersection of civil rights and law enforcement. He has worked hard as a state legislator on reducing false confessions, improving transparency of the interrogation process, and things along those lines. I’m still wary of him as far as the possibility that he might make compromises in the name of bipartisanship (worst case - making nice on supreme court nominations).
Edwards is my man, but Obama is his understudy.
I’d bet that few if any of the candidates actually have time to sit down and watch much TV and therefore answered with “cool” sounding responses fo their constituencies of choice. I’d pay good money to actually be able to question empty-suit Obama on some relevant plot points re: The Wire to see if he actually watches it.
Just to show off what a stupid question that is, I would have loved it if one of the contenders had responded with It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. The fainting and clutching of pearls amongst the pundits would have been beautiful to watch.
But you’re right: for some reason, we’ve come to demand that our leaders be as dumb and bland as can be (so we can feel better about ourselves, maybe?), and it’s nice to have a candidate indicate that they might looks at things as more complex.
Maybe I’m giving this too much credit, though. I was up a little late last night watching American Gladiators.
I am so freakin’ annoyed. Now I’m going to have to go put “The Wire” on my Netflix queue. I was trying to avoid getting sucked into anymore TV shows. I already have “Battlestar Galactica” keeping me up at night.
Thanks alot Obama and Spike Lee.
This is one of the things that has charmed me about Obama over the past year or so since I got beyond “OMG, he’s so cute! Yay possible black president! Please don’t assassinate him!”
He seems to actually be clued in about things, in a way that very few politicians at the national level ever are (well, sometimes in congress, but those are the congress-members we never hear about).
I especially got this from his book Dreams From My Father, which was written long before he had political aspirations, and put out in new editions with new introductions when he entered the Illinois state legislature, and then again when he ran for Senate. It really outlines what kind of political background he has, and what issues he is aware of.
Of course, things change between life as a post-grad school freshly minted attorney (though it’s remarkable he got through Harvard Law with his politics intact), and life as a presidential candidate. But in the 2004 introduction basically said “OK, so there’s a lot of material here for the Right. All my political dirty laundry is in this book. I take nothing back. This is who I am.”
The only disappointing part is that he unfortunately downplays this stuff in major policy questions, and tries to come off as boringly moderate. Maybe he is, now, and probably this indicates the stance he will take in office: “OK, heck yeah to all those nice feminist sentiments, but unfortunately I am going to have to keep the Global Gag Rule in place for yet another term…”
But it’s still refreshing to know that he’s aware of this stuff, and in his heart of hearts is on our side.
Sheesh, I don’t think that’s fair. I bet TV is actually the preferred entertainment for famous politicians—you can take it in at home, in small chunks. It’s precisely the sort of thing that you prefer if you’re busy and have to wedge your pleasures into small amounts of time.
Not to mention that in the age of laptops and entire series being issued on DVD (and even available to watch on your iPod), you can take it with you.
I’d also wonder at thinking “oh, come on, this is obviously scripted” with a choice like The Wire. If this was meant as an empty-suit answer, he’d have said ‘NCAA Basketball’ (which seems to be the stock answer for all the candidates besides Clinton in any of these media taste questions). There are PLENTY of empty suit PR-laden answers to this question. This is not one of them.
Haven’t watched TV since Deadwood ended. I wasn’t aware that HBO offered other programs. It probably wouldn’t be a good idea to admit to liking Al Swearengen if you were running for political office.
As much as I like John Edwards, and would love to see him at the top of the ticket, he doesn’t work as number 2 on an Obama ticket. And I am coming around to climbing whole-hog onto the Obama train. This is all tremendous gun jumping of course, but if the argument for supporting Edwards is to get him Obama’s VP slot, it’s a bad argument. Obama needs to round out his ticket with experience and authority on foreign policy. In the post-Cheney era, nobody can credibly argue anymore that the VP does not matter from a foreign policy standpoint. Someone like Wes Clark would fit the bill — experience while signaling a clear change in direction. (I’d rather see Clark as Secretary of State or Defense, but cabinet appointments don’t win elections.) Edwards just doesn’t pull any weight in countering a McCain argument of experience, regardless of how wrong McCain’s policies are.
“There are PLENTY of empty suit PR-laden answers to this question. This is not one of them.”
It is if you’re trying to appeal to a young, hip, brainy (yet edgy) crowd. It’s exactly the type of answer you’d give if you were trying to pull all those wide-eyed college kids who think they know everything there is to know about the world because they took a semester of Humanities.
Hang Dei, Todd, Hang Dei.
I would have loved it if one of the candidates would’ve responded with the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.
And I agree with both Amanda and Mighty Ponygirl, the presidential candidates can be very bland.
As for me, I watched the second half of American Gladiators, since Desperate Housewives was on from 9-10:02 p.m.
Thinking on it further, though, I guess anything that gets college kids off their lazy pizza-eating asses and out to participate in the political process is a good thing. I sometimes have trouble trying to decide whether Obama is a centrist fundie who’ll sell us down the river or a really smart politician telling the right people what they want to hear. Hell, maybe he’s both. *shrug*
It’s because I do think Obama believes all the platitudes that he’s speaking that I’ll continue to support Edwards. I think Obama is just dead wrong on the need for “hope” vs. the need for “fight.”
That being said, Law & Order was certainly a predictable, and safe, answer - and I admit I’m a bit surprised Edwards went in that direction.
I’ve never seen The Wire, so I can’t comment on that choice. Grey’s Anatomy? As a smart politician, that was a dumb choice for Hillary to make, true or not.
I have to agree with opoponax. I’m not as busy as a presidential candidate/senator, but I hadn’t watched TV in years until they started releasing whole seasons on DVD. My schedule wouldn’t allow me to stay connected to a show before. But now I can watch them on my own time. Of course I’m always a season behind everybody else and have to avoid spoilers at all costs.
I would have loved it if one of them had said, “Hogan’s Heroes”. But actually the only answer that would have impressed me is, “Nothing. TV sucks.”
@broce
The fact that Iowa went to Obama and Huckabee made me start thinking of Obama as a bit of an idealist in the negative sense of the word. “Hope” started sounding like “faith” to me.
I sometimes have trouble trying to decide whether Obama is a… fundie
UMMM?
I don’t wholeheartedly support Obama, and I’ll admit that his willingness to play into the Person Of Faith bullshit kind of annoys me, but ?????????
How can anyone think he’s a Christian Fundamentalist?
He doesn’t espouse any of the beliefs those people do (pro-choice, seemingly at least OK with Teh Gey or at least has never uttered the words ‘Gay Agenda’, not particularly interested in The Downfall Of The American Family or The Ruination Of Traditional Morality, etc. etc. etc. etc.). He’s not a member of any church known to have fundamentalist leanings (in fact, correct me if I’m wrong but he’s a member of one of the more liberal mainline protestant denominations). He doesn’t have connections with any known religious fundamentalists. He doesn’t have a history of working politically with Fundamentalist Christian groups. He doesn’t use fundamentalist dog-whistle expressions. He talks about his own faith in a way that is rational and seems to understand that God is all well and good and everything, but OMG ShutTheFuckUp Stupid People Who Believe in Teh Powur Uv Prare.
The only way I can see you intending that is if you tar all people who openly believe in a higher power as “fundie”. Which is completely idiotic, and that’s all I’m going to say about it in hopes that I can avoid an atheist vs. believer war, because those really bore me.
@opoponax What I was saying in my previous comment is I’ve started thinking of Obama as a bit of a fundamentalist also. Not in the sense of a Christian Fundamentalist but sort of like us lefties refer to “free-market fundamentalists.” Someone who strictly adheres to set of basic ideals or principles. More and more I’m thinking that it’s this attachment to ideals (and not the ideals themselves) that is the real problem with the current administration. And I’m not sure that it will be any better if the administration holds the same ideals as I do. I’m more interested in a president who’s policy comes from intelligence and practicality than “hope” and belief.
If watching grey’s anatomy is girling it up should I return the dvds or suck it up and be girlie? lol
I’m not sure how a TV show makes one girlie or not. It’s kind of like a color. A simple dye that has no power to actually make anyone anything.
I’ve always been a fan of crime shows, so yes I still watch law & order, L&O CI, L&O SUV, CSI and NCIS.
I don’t have any of the premium shows but I read about them on the blogs and quite a few times I will purchase the dvds or rent them on net flix to watch. The Wire is one such show.
So what do each of these shows tell me about the candidates? Simply that they like some of the same shows I do and Obama watches I show I plan on watching. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sorry about commenting so much.
But I just realized that my previous comment sounded very down on Obama. Don’t get me wrong. If he wins the primaries I will be proudly knocking on doors and volunteering to support him. Much happier than I was with John Kerry. I still think Obama is an intelligent guy. But in the mean time I think it’s important to start pressuring him to show some more honest and practical ideas and less platitudes.
Okay, I will go away now and stop hogging so much space.
I wonder what their real favorite shows are? It would be nice if something like C-Span was.
“The only way I can see you intending that is if you tar all people who openly believe in a higher power as “fundie”. Which is completely idiotic, and that’s all I’m going to say about it in hopes that I can avoid an atheist vs. believer war, because those really bore me. ”
Not really all people who believe, so much as people (or “politicians” specifically) who want to jump the line of church and state and use their religion as a campaign tool. Which is pretty much all of them to an extent, but nowhere near as much on the Dem side as Obama has been doing (which is both distasteful and worrying to non-Christians who think we’re already have a hard enough time keeping the government secular).
Someone who strictly adheres to set of basic ideals or principles.
This is not the currently accepted definition of ‘fundamentalism’, and this is not the way I’ve ever heard anyone use the term. If some leftists are starting to use “long-standing commitment to beliefs” to mean “fundamentalist” I’d suggest that said leftists make use of a dictionary, postehaste.
Not to mention the fact that A) I though adherence to a set of basic ideals or principles was a good thing, B) most Democratic politicians’ refusal to do so is part of why we don’t like them, and C) the reason many leftists say they DON’T like Obama is that he refuses to commit himself to any particular set of principles and thus comes off as “an empty suit”.
You can’t have it both ways. Not to keep harping on this, but a part of me thinks this is yet another way for well-meaning white leftists to dismiss Obama so they don’t have to feel guilty about supporting the true empty suits named Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (it’s OK, though, because they’re white and thus all their promises have to be true).
I’d vote for a candidate who names as their favorite TV show, but ain’t nobody dumb enough to do that. Second Choice would be Firefly.
I wonder what their real favorite shows are? It would be nice if something like C-Span was.
Actually, when asked what his favorite reality show is, Obama said that the only thing resembling reality TV he ever watches is C-Span. Which I thought was cute, but kind of a gimme answer. Not to mention, who doesn’t watch This Old House or something every once in a while?
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/148909.html
A month ago, John Edwards was a “Boston Legal” fan, Obama a SpongeBob fan, and Hillary’s all-time fave was “The Ed Sullivan Show”…
I swear you could ask these people their favorite flavor of ice cream one a month and get a different answer, based on the local demographics.
I’ll admit that I use “fundie” in my mind as a slur towards someone who wears their religiosity on their sleeve and/or uses it as a tool to serve their ends, versus strictly describing Christian Fundamentalists. I guess I need a better derogatory term for that sort of thing. Anybody got suggestions?
To be fair to Edwards, he said “Fred Thompson on Law and Order,” which was a bit tongue in cheek, no?
Interesting that Obama ran the risk of not being seen as a man of the peepul, because The Wire is carried on the premium channel HBO. (Moreover, if I recall correctly 20% of Americans still use an antenna as their only source of broadcast programs. So they know about Law and Order and Grey’s Anatomy, but not The Wire.) Unless he rented the DVDs, in which case he’s in touch with the average Joe once more.
I swear you could ask these people their favorite flavor of ice cream one a month and get a different answer, based on the local demographics.
Yes, because adherence to a favorite flavor of ice cream is exactly the same as adherence to a policy stance.
I’m no politician, but my tastes in movies, music, TV, food, etc. change. I mocked Buffy mercilessly when it came on, but was later converted by friends and now it might be my all time favorite show. I adored The Sopranos for the first two seasons, and now I hate it. I was a long time fan of Cookies n Cream, until Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough went mainstream. I don’t have a list of favorite movies on Facebook, because aside from Singin’ In The Rain, they change based on what I’ve seen lately.
You can’t base a candidate’s shifting answers to Human Interest questions on your opinion that they won’t be consistent on the big issues (not to mention that NO president has ever been particularly consistent from the campaign to the white house).
Obama/Carcetti ‘08!
But actually the only answer that would have impressed me is, “Nothing. TV sucks.”
That would have made me roll my eyes, as it always does when I hear people say it. Denouncing all TV, as if great shows like “Buffy” and “The Wire” are just crap is a way of saying, “I’m too lazy to actually seek out quality stuff, but I want you to think I’m intelligent, so I’m going to grab at some cheap pretension.” It’s similar to people who say, “I like all music but country.”
@opoponax”I’d suggest that said leftists make use of a dictionary, postehaste.”
Luckily I always keep my dictionary on my desk.
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary
Has this as the third definition of fundamentalism: “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.”
From wikipedia (maybe not the most authoritative source, but just to point out that the term is out there and I didn’t just make it up):
The term “fundamentalist” has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity
Have you never heard the term “free-market fundamentalist?” It’s fairly common and has absolutely nothing to do with evangelical Christians.
And I’ll have to take exception to the insinuation that criticism of a presidential candidate indicates a subconscious mistrust of black people.
I think it’s a fair assumption that a politician’s answers to just about ANY question while running for office are going to be targeted towards a certain audience. It’s just how the game is played and they all do it. The most valuable thing you can take away from such answers is learning more about the specific groups they are trying to target at a given time.
What these people will do once they’re actually in office is pretty much a crapshoot, anyway.
Silver: Enjoy or don’t or whatever. I don’t know if it’s good, bad, or eh. But I do know that it’s coded as the TV version of a chick flick, and that Clinton is trying to paint herself as very feminine (and certainly no ball-buster, no siree!). If I were trying to convey that image, “Grey’s Anatomy” would be my pick, too, even if I’d never seen it.
My point was that “The Wire” is a shocking answer, if you’ve ever seen it. It’s not a show that invokes any sort of mild response, like “Law & Order” or “Grey’s Anatomy” or “Spongebob”. If you were going to ask me what show would probably be treated like poison by a candidate, it would be this one. If nothing else, the show is relentlessl brutal to the Democrats, painting them as sniveling cowards to the very last one. Republicans don’t even register, both for real world reasons and because the writers aren’t interested in blatant evil so much as corruption.
Which is why the dock workers of season 2 are more interesting than the Russian gangsters they work for. The latter are just evil people, and what makes them interesting stops at examining their skill at evil. The dock workers, however, are genuinely decent people sucked into crime. The drug dealers of Baltimore aren’t interesting because they do bad things, but because they find ways to rationalize it to themselves, characterizing themselves as businessmen and soldiers, two occupations that are valorized in America. And over time, you begin to realize that these rationalizations are hardly unfair—the drug-based warfare on the streets of Baltimore is no different than the international wars that are invariably economic waged by various governments. It’s a matter of scale, not kind. Democrats, even the Republican-lite ones like Lieberman, fall into the moral ambiguity area much more easily. Most are decent people that get corrupted by the system and their own egos.
One of these days, I need to remember to pop silly little
thingys on my smart-assed answers… I actually like the laid-back questions occasionally; it humanizes these folks a bit and relaxes them. Goodness knows, the entire process is exhausting for them!
The only answers to that might really impress me would be “The Sarah Silverman Program” or “Lucy, Daughter of the Devil.”
Don’t grownups ever get tired of telling the kids that sure everything is screwed up, but it would all be better if they’d just be part of the process? Just because these aren’t the college kids of the sixties (many of whom were plenty disengaged - my friends dad went to Kent State and was in class during the massacre ) doesn’t mean they’re lazy, doesn’t mean they don’t care, and doesn’t mean they’re less virtuous than you were. Get over yourself.
Amanda, have I told you lately that I love you?
Saying “TV sucks” is like saying “Novels suck.” Ignorant.
++++++++
There’s always the possibility they actually DO like those shows.
“Not to mention, who doesn’t watch This Old House or something every once in a while?”
{raises hand}
++++++++
“It’s not a show that invokes any sort of mild response, like “Law & Order” or “Grey’s Anatomy” or “Spongebob”.
{cackles}
FWIW, “Battlestar Galactica” would have ensured my vote.
For my money, the best answer to a “What’s your favorite…” question was when Al Gore picked “The Red and the Black.” I adore that book—it’s one of the very few I can read in French—and I was thrilled that a presidential contender would actually pick a work of such depth and complexity. It made it all the more painful when Gore lost (or, more accurately, was the victim of fraud).
So are you saying that by not watching TV I am being pretentious? I guess I’ll throw away my library card because I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m intelligent.
And what is so wonderful about being consistent? Wouldn’t it better to have a president who was willing to learn from his mistakes and change his position instead of one who thinks his opinion is the only one that matters?
Tom–it’s not choosing not to watch TV that’s pretentious. It’s the attitude that saying “TV sucks” is impressive in any way.
Sorry to burst your righteous indignation bubble there, but I wasn’t alive in the sixties and I’m *in* college (seems like I’ll be there forever sometimes). Trust me, for the most part they could care less about politics (and this is a common phenomenon among the young, which is part of why the numbers in Iowa for youth turnout were so nuts…I’ll say this much about Obama, he’s effective at GOTV if nothing else).
I’d be heartened if the Iowa numbers mean young people are finally getting involved, but considering the fact that I have to explain who some of these people even *are* to classmates (without even getting into deeper discussions about the issues), I’m not optimistic.
I watched This Old House back when Bob Vila was on it. I didn’t even know it was still on. I have never watched American Idol or Survivor or any of the reality shows out there. I watched bits and pieces of the Giants game yesterday when I wasn’t playing with my son or driving my daughter to the mall. That is about the limit of my TV viewing. I’m sorry if that makes me pretentious or too lazy for you.
So are you saying that by not watching TV I am being pretentious? I guess I’ll throw away my library card because I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m intelligent.
I think what she’s saying is that people who are quick to denounce All TV Ever, or TV As A Concept are often pretentious.
I don’t watch (much) TV, don’t have cable, and often go months at a stretch without turning the thing on. I can still admit that Six Feet Under was a beautiful, beautiful thing.
I also think the comparison to novels is particularly apt — let’s not forget that when novels appeared on the scene, they were considered lightweight hackery of the worst kind, fit only for bourgeois young women who weren’t busy with work and yet also weren’t worth educating.
Kind of like when MA Republican Gubanatorial Candidate William Weld copped to his last book read being “The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul” rather than some ponderous tome on serious subject like his opponent.
He served two terms, and Jesse Helms hated him to vendetta levels for actually making life easier for gay teens and refusing to be a peeping perv about the sexuality or potsmoking of others.
I watched This Old House back when Bob Vila was on it. I didn’t even know it was still on. I have never watched American Idol or Survivor or any of the reality shows out there.
This is my point. There exist shows which are technically “reality TV” (i.e. non-narrative), which are not Survivor. I’ve never seen Survivor, American Idol, and the like. But I’ve seen No Reservations, This Old House, Iron Chef, and other television which is a part of the “reality” genre while not being exactly what we think of when we use that expression.
“I think what she’s saying is that people who are quick to denounce All TV Ever, or TV As A Concept are often pretentious.”
Exactly. A knee jerk “TV sucks” statement makes no more sense than a knee jerk statement such as: “Movies Suck”, “Books Sucks”, or “Comic Books Suck.”
It goes beyond simply saying you hold no personal interest in the medium–it’s shorthand for saying “I’m deeper than those people who enjoy that crap.”
I also think the comparison to novels is particularly apt — let’s not forget that when novels appeared on the scene, they were considered lightweight hackery of the worst kind, fit only for bourgeois young women who weren’t busy with work and yet also weren’t worth educating.
I don’t believe that this is true. Are you saying that Chaucer, Cervantes, Defoe, and Machiavelli were aiming towards a female audience? Certainly the gothic novel of the late 1700’s that Jane Austen so wonderfully satirized could be described that way but I don’t see how you could describe novels in general as ever bing “hackery”.
Certainly people who are embarrassed or ashamed of their entertainment choices may feel that they are bing mocked. Most people more comfortable with themselves would simply say, “that person doesn’t like TV.”
If I wasn’t a little embarrassed about some, and let me make that clear, some, of my entertainment choices, I wouldn’t be human, ha ha. (Survivor, ahem)
But you protested about not being pretentious twice already after your initial comment–doesn’t speak volumes about your comfort with your own pop culture choices.
Tom:
To say “I don’t watch TV; I’ve never seen a show that engages me” isn’t pretentious. Hell, “every show I ever saw sucked, so I don’t watch TV anymore” isn’t pretentious.
But “TV sucks” is at least pretentious sounding. You don’t have to like anything on TV, but there’s good stuff out there.
I agree 100% with the attractiveness of The Wire response. And the possibility that this is an intentional dog whistle (see Bush’s invocation of Dred Scott or “wonder-working power”) is fascinating…though it’s worth remembering that the group most frequently dog-whistled by the GOP–evangelical Christians–often don’t get the treats they expect when they come running.
At any rate, this…
And yet, you read something like…this recent post by a Economics Prof and you start to grasp the depth of his intellect and thoughfullness.
…is precisely what worries me about Obama. The linked post by the Darmouth Econ prof concerns Greg Mankiw, who was Bush’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and is perhaps most publicly famous for scoffing about concerns about outsourcing and suggesting that we shouldn’t distinguish between manufacturing and service-industry jobs (McDonald’s workers make hamburgers, don’t they?). Mankiw apparently thought that Obama’s answer to a question about a carbon tax was far superior to the others in the debate.
When Greg Mankiw says someone got something just right, red flags go up for me. Intellect and thoughtfulness aren’t everything. Values and political commitments matter, too. There are plenty of intellectually brilliant right-wingers, especially in the field of economics.
So are you saying that by not watching TV I am being pretentious? I guess I’ll throw away my library card because I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m intelligent.
If you insist that reading and watching television are mutually exclusive, I fear no one will make that mistake. In all seriousness, you are missing out on great TV. And that’s fine and a matter of taste. I didn’t have a TV for awhile, and that was just fine. Sometimes I go for periods of time when I don’t read novels, and then I go back. It’s a matter of time and taste. But don’t play the fool and pretend that very intelligent shows are not in order to get some cheap superiority.
You know what else the “All TV is dreck” people remind me of? Those who dismiss all modern art by saying, “My 5-year-old could do that,” and then think they’re being so damn clever.
I think what she’s saying is that people who are quick to denounce All TV Ever, or TV As A Concept are often pretentious.
I’d say always. I can’t think of a way to dismiss an entire medium that doesn’t fall into the always-pretentious category.
And no one noticed that I wanted a candidate to pick “Hogan’s Heroes”!
I don’t believe that this is true. Are you saying that Chaucer, Cervantes, Defoe, and Machiavelli were aiming towards a female audience? Certainly the gothic novel of the late 1700’s that Jane Austen so wonderfully satirized could be described that way but I don’t see how you could describe novels in general as ever bing “hackery”.
While I know you can’t believe this, since I watch TV, I actually know something on this subject. And oppo is right; novels were denounced as frivolous, and demeaning especially to women, who were considered too weak-minded to resist the allure of the trashy medium. And yes, that includes, um the “great” writer Defoe.
I don’t believe that this is true. Are you saying that Chaucer, Cervantes, Defoe, and Machiavelli were aiming towards a female audience? Certainly the gothic novel of the late 1700’s that Jane Austen so wonderfully satirized could be described that way but I don’t see how you could describe novels in general as ever bing “hackery”.
Chaucer did not write novels. The first recognized novelist in English is Defoe, and even he had to pretend that Robinson Crusoe was a real person until it was a success, because people didn’t think you should write entire books about made-up things.
Most novels, in general, are hackery. We certainly don’t come close to reading every novelist from a particular era. Only the cream of the crop survive. Most novelists in Cervantes’ time are not remembered, because they didn’t write as well as Cervantes.
Seriously, take a look at the NY Times top 10 list and tell me that all novels are written by geniuses, as opposed to the hacks who write TV.
And what Mnem said. Chaucer was something held up to belittle novels, because he wrote poetry, not novels. I would suggest getting the library card out some more, but I’m sure there’s a TV documentary out there that covers the same subject….
Are you saying that Chaucer, Cervantes, Defoe, and Machiavelli were aiming towards a female audience?
Chaucer and Dante never wrote any novels, sweetie.
Neither did Machiavelli, either, I forgot him.
And no one noticed that I wanted a candidate to pick “Hogan’s Heroes”!
Al Gore should have said his favorite novel was The Bridges of Madison County instead of The Red and the Black. After all, a novel’s a novel and they’re all exactly the same, just like all TV shows are exactly alike, right?
“But “TV sucks” is at least pretentious sounding.”
No, it IS pretentious, no ’sounding’ about it.
Next stop would be “I only listen to NPR.”
Wow! I seem to have struck a chord. I certainly didn’t mean to belittle you no matter how trivial your entertainment choices are.
But since you know so much about novels then you also know that until the introduction of cheap paper to Europe in the 15th century, all novels were written in verse in order to save parchment.
I personally would have loved it if Gore had answered that question by saying, “Novels are frivolous pablum. I read only the Greeks!”
And I should add that it was the combination of the printing press and cheap paper that made the ability to print cheap novels possible.
What the FUCK?
So, let me get this straight: black man watching show that depicts gritty blackness is way COOL.
Woman watching show that caters to female audience is so 1982 and IMMATURE!
Nice.
Really, WTF?
Black man plays his blackness for your vote and you gobble that shit up as if it had neutral face value (which it should, but it doesn’t), but a female candidate is a tool if she even says, does, or even remotely thinks of her own femininity.
I like Obama. I like Clinton. I don’t like feminists who decide to terra farm the playing field into unrecognizable shapes. Obama’s answer was JUST as political as Clinton’s. No shit sherlock. But look who you slammed for their choice? And on what grounds you did so.
introduction of cheap paper to Europe in the 15th century, all novels were written in verse in order to save parchment.
*giggling so hard I can’t type*
Verse literature predates prose literature by millenia. In fact, even the “romances” (written by the folks you cite above as having written “novels”) started out in verse because prose just wasn’t respectable.
What was so revolutionary about the novel in the first place was that it was in the sort of language (prose) that just any old halfway-literate idiot could read. Sometimes it was even in *gasp* the actual language spoken by the local population!
I imagine all of the candidates watch the Wire, if they actually watch a tv show. It is political catnip, especially for Dems, and people do like to watch things about themselves. I also think it is the best thing ever on tv.
So I liked Obama for saying it too, but obviously, to please us library card users who he has evidently pissed off, he should have said Godard’s Histoire(s) du Cinema. I mean, really, does tv get better than that?
Tom, the idea that “striking a chord” makes you right is beyond rationalizing nonsense. Your pretentiousness is irritating, sure, but I’m not defensive about my tastes or intellect. I knew, for instance, that Chaucer didn’t write novels.
I wasn’t aware that “Grey’s Anatomy” was a gritty examination of the politics of sexism, etc, Q. In fact, I’m so unaware of that, I am deeply skeptical that it is. I was under the impression that it was a semi-soapy, semi-comic nighttime hospital drama. You’re reacting like I dissed Clinton for saying “The L Word”, which she did not do.
I’ve been curious about “Grey’s Anatomy” for a long time, so now I have to put it on my Blockbuster queue (soon to be my Netflix queue if there aren’t any good new movies to watch soon…).
I like “Law & Order”, but have you noticed that no matter which version of the show is on, it usually finds a way to blame a woman for the crimes? SVU doesn’t do that quite as often, but often enough.
I would have been more impressed if one of the candidates had named “Nip/Tuck”, “Reaper”, or “Psych”, but I doubt any of them would stray THAT far.
No, I’m reacting to your “girling it up” comment, which is wrong no matter how you spin it. You’re an eloquent writer and well-thought out, which just makes this type of swipe/snipe seem all that more shallow and rooted in sexism.
Hell, Clinton might just like the show because it’s the one hour of inane down time she has, regardless of her biology. Go figure.
Sometimes it was even in *gasp* the actual language spoken by the local population!
As opposed to Dante and Chaucer who only wrote in Latin and Greek. I hope you realize how silly you sound and I hope, Amanda, that you realize that a sense of humor can now be purchased at any Walmart.
That would have made me roll my eyes, as it always does when I hear people say it. Denouncing all TV, as if great shows like “Buffy” and “The Wire” are just crap is a way of saying, “I’m too lazy to actually seek out quality stuff, but I want you to think I’m intelligent, so I’m going to grab at some cheap pretension.” It’s similar to people who say, “I like all music but country.”
This may be my favorite thing you’ve ever written. Which is saying something.
And everyone beat me to it about Chaucer and Machiavelli not writing novels. So I’m going to pile on another part of that statement: Certainly the gothic novel of the late 1700’s that Jane Austen so wonderfully satirized could be described that way but I don’t see how you could describe novels in general as ever bing “hackery”. S/he wasn’t describing them as hackery; s/he was saying that that was how they were considered at the time of their emergence as a genre. Which is true.
I’m not sniping at women, Q. I’m sniping at Clinton for thinking that she needs to kow-tow to sexist fears about her authority by invoking cultural touchstones that signal harmless femininity. Basically the opposite of what you’re suggesting. And more importantly, the opposite of what Obama’s answer suggests. If he were going to invoke the black equivalent of “Grey’s Anatomy”, I’m thinking it would be “The Cosby Show”, not “The Wire”.
I think we touched a nerve in Tom, made him defensive about his cheap pretentiousness. What do y’all think?
The “romance” is separate from previous forms precisely because it was in the vernacular. It was considered kinda-sorta OK because it was at least still in verse, so not 100% super easy for just anybody to read. It was also really long, and very few could afford something in a lot of volumes.
Then The Accursed Novel came about, which was accessible to anyone with basic comprehension of the written vernacular (Dratted Females!), and to add insult to injury, could be bound cheaply in only a single volume which made it easily affordable by The Lower Sorts Of People.
Though I’ll admit that I was wrong about Machiavelli — he did write novels. Of course, I couldn’t find more than a listing of titles, since none of them are considered important in the international canon or even available in English translation nowadays. Oh, yes, Every Novel Ever Written Is 100% Precious To All.
Obama’s answer doesn’t suggest much either though, other than a certain hipness to pop culture. “The Wire” is an excellent show, but we don’t know that he watches it or even if his own life is more like “The Cosby Show”. His answer was just as calculated as Hilary’s, but you find it an acceptable position for a black candidate to take because it fits your view of what a black, progressive, democratic candidate *should* like. So Obama panders to his voter base *just* like Clinton does, but you find her pandering distasteful because it invokes a certain “harmless femininity” that you don’t particularly like. She does need to kowtow to sexist fears. I mean, you did, no? And that’s not a dig. That’s politics. That’s especially true for women in politics.
Maybe Clinton isn’t “kow-tow[ing] to sexist fears about her authority by invoking cultural touchstones that signal harmless femininity.” Maybe she just likes the show.
As opposed to Dante and Chaucer who only wrote in Latin and Greek. I hope you realize how silly you sound and I hope, Amanda, that you realize that a sense of humor can now be purchased at any Walmart.
Didn’t Chaucer write in middle English?
As opposed to Dante and Chaucer who only wrote in Latin and Greek. I hope you realize how silly you sound and I hope, Amanda, that you realize that a sense of humor can now be purchased at any Walmart.
Didn’t Chaucer write in middle English?
Well, depending on where he’s going to college, his pretentiousness may not be all that cheap….
It’s famously hard to define The Novel, but it certainly emerges from a cluster that includes the long European prose adventure tales (some of the Arthurian stuff, Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, everything Cervantes is deriding in DQ), high society gossip (usually with aliases), true crime, saints’ lives, spiritual autobiography, and many more forms of popular print. And it takes a lot of work to “elevate” novel-reading, in William Warner’s words.
And yes, that includes, um the “great” writer Defoe.
I’d probably say that Defoe was self-conscious about the idea that The Novel was trashy entertainment, so he experimented with ways of making it serious and Christian — especially in Crusoe — but didn’t quite let go of the woman-acting-up side of the novel genre, either, in _Moll Flanders_ and _Roxana_.
Anyway, back on the initial topic, I don’t think that saying “The Wire” is really such a bold or risky choice, because it’s _such_ a critics’ darling. Good choice, and probably heartfelt, but still seems pretty safe.
If he were going to invoke the black equivalent of “Grey’s Anatomy”, I’m thinking it would be “The Cosby Show”, not “The Wire”.
How about “Soul Food”?
I still say Homicide: Life on the Streets is the heart and soul of television. Baltimoreans know that that show was the one with the real heart. Nothing against the Wire, but you cannot get past Pembleton and Giardello.
As opposed to Dante and Chaucer who only wrote in Latin and Greek.
Chaucer wrote in Latin and Greek? Then why the hell did they make us read “The Canterbury Tales” in ye olde English or whatever the hell it was instead of translating it into modern English?
Oh, and turns out you’re wrong about Dante — he is famous for breaking the conventions of his time and publishing in the vernacular.
Really, do you actually know anything at all about literature other than a handful of names that you like to spout at cocktail parties?
Mnemosyne, Tom was being deadpan there. Yes, vernacular literature predates The Novel, but I’m truly not sure what’s being debated anymore.
the black equivalent of “Grey’s Anatomy”
Huh? One of the striking things about Grey’s Anatomy when it first came out, was the number of black people in positions of authority. (Then the one actor revealed himself to be homophobic, but the series had gone downhill even before that point.) The black equivalent of Grey’s Anatomy would be … Grey’s Anatomy, in my opinion.
It’s pretty clear that a sense of humor doesn’t exist in here so I recommend that you switch off the TV and read that late 14th century novel, Without Feathers by Sir Woody Allen. I am sure that a good translation from the ancient Ukranian is available at your local bookstore.
Well, depending on where he’s going to college, his pretentiousness may not be all that cheap….
Tom graduated from college before most of you were born, you young whippersnappers!
His answer was just as calculated as Hilary’s, but you find it an acceptable position for a black candidate to take because it fits your view of what a black, progressive, democratic candidate *should* like.
Did you actually read Amanda’s post?
She’s not happy he likes “The Wire” because she thinks it’s what black people should be watching, or even because she thinks he’s being ultra-sincere and is simply happy they have the same taste. She’s happy because, assuming all the candidates’ answers are heavily calculated, it indicates a deeper awareness of certain key issues than is usually appropriate for most presidential candidates to admit that they hold.
It’s a rare instance of dog whistling at the left, which is an interesting tactic even if you don’t think the candidate himself is particularly exciting.
One of the striking things about Grey’s Anatomy when it first came out, was the number of black people in positions of authority.
Not surprising, since Shonda Rimes, the show’s creator and executive producer, is (IIRC) the first black woman to be a showrunner on a network series.
I would almost be tempted to watch if I hadn’t already reached my lifetime RDA of soapy hospital-based shows.
Mnemosyne, Tom was being deadpan there. Yes, vernacular literature predates The Novel, but I’m truly not sure what’s being debated anymore.
Tom seems to think that no guy has ever shown up on this blog determined to show The Ladies that they’re, like, totally wrong about everything. He’s not even the only guy in this thread to do it.
It’s like when Bobby Hill got all of his jokes from Stormfront. At least on the show, he came to understand why having a member of the dominant group reinforcing a stereotype isn’t really a great basis for comedy.
So, Tom, you should probably read that Woody Allen book a little more closely before you attempt comedy again. You weren’t coming across as anything other than the prototypical BS-spewing MRA who shows up here to show The Ladies they don’t know what they’re talking about.
It’s similar to people who say, “I like all music but country.”
Amanda, you’re really the last person who should be talking about music snobbery.
Slide guitar + line dancing = torture.
Amanda wrote:
“I think we touched a nerve in Tom, made him defensive about his cheap pretentiousness. What do y’all think?”
Bingo. Tom’s defensive geezerhood is indeed tiring. Sure he can lecture us, incorrectly AND inanely, about paper prices and Gutenberg, but can he name the two ACTORS who revolutionized television production through their technical innovations? Y’know, the DOMINANT medium of our time?
I thought not.
That’s a good episode…
Sometimes I forget that there were early novels centered around men at all. All of my faves are about women behaving scandalously and often getting away with it. Seeing everyone chime in with the idea that the novel used to be considered trashy and woman-centered was heartening.
[That last was supposed to be @ Mnemosyne.]
Hector, you’re missing my point. Deliberately, it seems. “Grey’s Anatomy” is coded in the public mind as being a woman’s show. Perhaps one with a warm feeling towards feminism, but a woman’s show. Oppo gets my point about “The Wire” in comment #99. Perfectly. I have nothing to add to that.
But if you don’t get why I said it was a calculated move on Clinton’s part, you’re not going to get it at this point in the conversation, so probably best to move along and maybe suggest that Chaucer wrote in Chinese, ergo TV sucks.
It’s pretty clear that a sense of humor doesn’t exist in here
Oh no, Amanda, he’s on to you! Who leaked the schematics showing that feminists have no sense of humor?!
For my money, i’m stoked that Obama likes The Wire. That makes him guy i’d most like to have a beer with, but it doesn’t make him the best presidential candidate. I already thought that.
Answering these questions with a reverse-dog-whistle is pretty special. I think it’s different from picking Grey’s Anatomy, for one, because you have to actually be uh, smart, to use The Wire as a dog whistle, whereas anyone could go after the “ladies, you don’t need a deeper examination of sexism from TV” vote. I’m not sure what the goal is if we’re not supposed to ever go after smart people. Like, how dare you pander to… people’s actual well-thought-out-beliefs-based-on-critical-thinking? Obama’s home life is probably much, much more like The Cosby Show, he’s a middle class black SENATOR. Anyone in this race lives a life much more like the Cosby Show than, well, Grey’s Anatomy for that matter.
FIXED!
What the crap? HTML failed me!
Novels don’t interrupt me with banal advertisements every four minutes. There are a lot of TV shows I like, but TV does suck. The format sucks hard. I’d probably be happier with a DVR, but even if I had one, TV would still suck; I’d just be skipping the suck. I’d also be happier with broadcast deregulation and pirate stations.
In my city, all the for-profit stations play Top 40, Christian programming, or classic rock I’ve heard too many times to enjoy any more (still basically Top 40, too, very little variety). The college radio stations don’t have enough wattage to be heard clearly through most of the city. When I get tired of the CDs I have stocked in my car, I only listen to NPR. It’s nice to know that you have a wider selection where you live. On the other hand, with our five different NPR stations, the variety at any time of day is pretty good.
Grammar RWA, TV sucks a hell of a lot less with TIVO and NetFlix. I wouldn’t watch TV at all if I had to deal with the commercials.
You weren’t coming across as anything other than the prototypical BS-spewing MRA who shows up here to show The Ladies they don’t know what they’re talking about.
So if I had posted as Susan then you wouldn’t have acted like an ass? Since other than Amanda I haven’t a clue who is and who is not female here, trying to paint me as a sexist shows that you have simply run out of intelligent things to day. Have a nice life.
Awwww, pack up your ball and go home, Tom!! You didn’t accomplish your mission.
i miss the x-files. 99% of tv SUCKS these days. i don’t waste money on cable…that goes to cable internet instead. just give me “the simpsons” and “house” and i’m set.
I thought my mission was to get people to watch “Hogan’s Heroes” reruns. Do you know of some other mission?
Novels don’t interrupt me with banal advertisements every four minutes.
Yeah. Nobody ever published a novel in parts, with advertising stuck in each part.
Nobody ever published such a novel that I read. I thought the gist of this discussion was relating to our own experiences, hey?
The point is - if you discount TV because the shows have commercials, even though they’re available in lots of commercial-free formats, then you’ve got no basis for claiming the superiority of say, Dickens, simply because the copy you pick up at Barnes & Noble doesn’t have the ads that originally came with the serialized edition.
So if I had posted as Susan then you wouldn’t have acted like an ass?
No, I still would have assumed you were a conservative troll under a woman’s name. I just would have thrown in more Malkin/Coulter/Althouse references.
And, yes, declaring that you don’t watch TV has been recognized as cheap pretentiousness at least since Harvey Kurtzman and Mad Magazine mocked it in the early 1960s.
Maybe switch to Wodehouse if you’re trying to really get mockery of pretentiousness down. Allen is a little too desperate to be taken “seriously” to really be a good guide.
Grammar RWA, what you’re really saying is that you hate commercials. I’m with you there, that’s why I watch my favorite shows on DVD.
But, the bits between the commercials are a part of the TV format as well. In fact, the actual content is what we’re talking about when we talk about the shows, books, and other things things we like.
The content can’t be completely separated from the medium, sure; you can’t deny that a part of the pleasure of reading comes from the tactile sensation of holding a book in your hands. But in the end, we’re still judging the substance of the thing, not the way it’s received.
If you’re objecting to the idea that gold can be sifted out of mass media produced quickly for profit, well, tell that to the great pulp writers, or the kinetic Hong Kong movie industry of the 1980’s, for a couple of examples: lots of trash, but a few choice nuggets are always there.
Lastly:
I love movies, but I don’t like going to the multiplex. I love music, but rarely see it live anymore. Both of these activities have annoying things about them that at times outweigh my willingness to endure them.
However, that’s not that same thing as saying that cinema as a format sucks. Or that I hate live music on principle. Different nuances.
Of course the novel IS a worthless form for any artistic merit. Authors can MAKE A LIVING at it. Sure, you can SAY it was all about the artistic vision and you just got lucky that people liked it, but when you make a profit, how can prove it? You’re a sellout by implication.
Starving poets and short story authors? THOSE people have artistic worth. You can tell because of how they mooch change for coffee off you.
But nevermind how obnoxious and pretensious “TV sucks” is. that’s been covered at length.
two ACTORS who revolutionized television production through their technical innovations?
TELEVISION actors? I’m curious who you’d pick. I’m drawing a blank, honestly Dick van Dyke, maybe.
I’ll spot you one: Desi Arnaz, originator of the three-camera sitcom.
Amanda, I did take your point. I was just commenting on that bare phrase, as mentioned in the post comparing it to Soul Food. By then it was completely stripped of the Hillary/Obama/et al. context.
Getting pedantic for a moment: the Cosby Show was about the family: parents, children, grandparents, in-laws, grandchildren; while Grey’s Anatomy is about hospital action and who’s sleeping with whom, along with the relationship between Meredith and her parents and between Meredith and her half-sister. But they both have black people in positions of power and authority, more so than other network shows I can think of.
Dr. Locrian, well, I was responding to someone who said it was ignorant to simply say “TV sucks”. And I maintain that even though there are shows I like to watch, and the TV is often on during much of my waking day, TV still sucks.
It isn’t just the ads, though the other problems are mostly related. Advertisers are by default economic conservatives; they’re almost all corporations. Their values cannot be too often attacked or they will not sponsor; there’s a barrier to free speech. They are reluctant to fund shows that might offend the wider society, so they prefer shows that are slightly more conservative than the mean; there’s another barrier.
The profit motive inevitably marches toward more and more advertising time; shows I used to enjoy can’t even be fully rerun these days because they’re longer than modern timeslots; writing for shorter and shorter slots is yet another barrier to free speech.
A show is a vector for advertising; this means news programs have to be entertaining or terrifying or otherwise captivating first, and informative only second, if at all. Any show, news or otherwise, that can utilize emotional tricks to keep me watching what I would otherwise flip away from will make more money; consequently, I am beset by emotional pollution far worse than piped music in shopping centers.
The advertising now seeps into the shows themselves, via product placement. One can rarely separate the show and the ads, even with a DVR. More widespread use of DVRs just drives further product placement.
The whole bundle is always, always geared to make me discontent with what I have, and desiring of more. I have no doubt that this effects at least a subtle detriment to my mental health.
The above could all be resolved by different funding schemes; I would favor a mixture of patronage and pirate broadcasting. When you consider all the possibilities of the technology that are stunted by the constraints of the profit motive, it becomes clear that TV does suck hard in comparison with its potential. And jfpbookworm will note that several of these issues were not present in the clumsy and sincere, amusingly outrageous adverts of olde timey print magazines and serials.
I have other bitchings and moanings too. Sight and sound easily become very concrete memories, and my head gets filled up with countless stories that I did not experience and which should have no emotional meaning for me. Throughout my actual life experiences, I find events involving my friends and loved ones reminding me of television shows! These damned canned memories are highjacking my personal narrative. I don’t always object to this; if a particular show is truly a masterpiece and taps into some archetype such that it actually helps me better understand humanity, I’m not necessarily bothered to see my life through these artists’ lenses. But most shows are trite shite, and they all get stuck in my head, regardless of quality. The worse ones, then, actually degrade my quality of life.
The nonstop barrage of sensory input easily tricks my lizard brain into thinking there’s real information there that needs to be attended to (it’s right there in the room with me, so it must be relevant). I get caught up in watching crap I don’t even like, just because it came on after something I did like, and I can easily waste a half hour or more. If I’m trying to read or write or work in a room where someone else is watching television, I have a hard time focusing on my exclusive tasks. That noisy box of colors is damn captivating. I’ve got pounds around my midsection that are solely attributable to my time in front of it. I am sure that I am lazier, greedier, more fearful, less informed, and less sociable than I would otherwise have been without this box in my life.
I’m not certain that I’m saying that it is a net detriment to me, but I could not imagine being sure that it’s a net benefit. I wouldn’t be so ambivalent if TV didn’t suck, in its myriad own special ways.
Well done: Desi Arnez (sp?) for 3 camera (& other innovations, but mostly administrative) production, and Jerry Lewis for the invention of the video tap (which greatly sped production).
Another interesting actor-invention: Hedy Lamarr worked on a torpedo radio-guidance system that, to my knowledge, had no effect on television/film production.
If someone brings up Mickey Dolenz’s mom inventing Liquid Paper, i’ve got Bingo.
Good one Davey! I was gonna go in this direction:
From Tom: “… until the introduction of cheap paper to Europe in the 15th century, all novels were written in verse in order to save parchment.”
But paper was scarce in the New World, so Pilgrims continued to use verse.
What, you never heard the one about “There Once Was A Lass From Nantucket”?
“The whole bundle is always, always geared to make me discontent with what I have, and desiring of more. I have no doubt that this effects at least a subtle detriment to my mental health.”
“I am sure that I am lazier, greedier, more fearful, less informed, and less sociable than I would otherwise have been without this box in my life.”
I disagree with a lot of your post: let’s just call it a difference between subjective experiences.
But I disagree most strongly with the above snips: I personally don’t feel any discontent in my life that’s based solely on TV stimulation, and I am sure that I’m not lazier, greedier, more fearful, less informed, and less sociable than I otherwise would have been without this box in my life.
Grammar RWA:
“Sight and sound easily become very concrete memories, and my head gets filled up with countless stories that I did not experience and which should have no emotional meaning for me. Throughout my actual life experiences, I find events involving my friends and loved ones reminding me of television shows! These damned canned memories are highjacking my personal narrative.”
Oh, and this point is also something that could be applied to any fictional storytelling medium. To me, a book feels a lot more like telepathy and supplanting memories than the external sensory bath of TV and cinema–it’s absorbed through the more intimate internalizations of written text.
Is it any different in principle to compare your life to a character from a novel or a movie or a TV show? I don’t think so.
Prose just offers a different kind of stimulation, but one that’s no less potentially insidious. That’s why the stories of Ramsey Campbell, for example, give me chills of a different kind when compared to watching Night of the Living Dead–the horrors are experienced in a different way, more like a cold hand under your shirt than an axe blow to the head.
LOL, Dante and Chaucer wrote novels in Latin and Greek? Now I’ve heard everything! ::cracking up:: Dude, Caltech students know more about literature than this guy!
Gotta admit, though, I don’t watch TV. I don’t have a good reason, though; I’m just a poor college student without time to watch or money to buy a TV set. Problem is just that I read really fast, but I can’t watch TV any faster than anyone else, so it comes down to efficiecy a lot of the time. Although speaking of Wodehouse, I did just borrow the first season of Jeeves & Wooster, though, and oh man is that a good show.
And nobody had better be dissing trashy serialized-format novels. I just largely prefer picking up old novels better than new ones because the really bad ones tend to get filtered out over the course of a century or more. As someone said upthread, we read Cervantes and not all the other people who published at the same time because Cervantes was writing good novels. Of course, there are exceptions and the way to do that seems to be to find people whose taste you like and read what they recommend. I may end up taking a similar approach to television, and only watch the stuff that is still being recommended after 10 or 20 years.
To be fair, this is also partly because Baltimore is a heavily Democratic city. The mayoral race portrayed in season 4 is actually the Democratic primary, but everyone in the city knows it’s basically the mayoral race, because the city’s something like 90% Democrat (I’m pulling that stat from memory, so anyone feel free to correct me). That’s pretty much what I remember from living there, as well. Nobody really cares about the actual mayoral race; it’s the primary that’s important. I’m not disagreeing with your overall point (in an interview that’s on one of the the season 4 DVDs, David Simon basically says, “we’re not interested in questions of good and evil”), just wanted to point out this little demographic hiccup.
I don’t own a TV. I’ve considered going the TiVo route, but, basically, I’m really cheap. I also don’t like accumulating physical things that I don’t use often. I also hate, hate, hate being advertised to. I’m not very good at visual media because I have a lot of trouble recognizing faces — this makes following a TV show or movie very difficult for me. Also, as mentioned above, I’m cheap — so I don’t want to spend the money to buy a TV when I have all these issues. Basically what I want is a TiVo that connects to my laptop and also adds little nametags to each character in a show. Is this possible? : )
I know I’m a little late to the thread and all the commenters have left. But, late to this game as I am, as an avid fanboy and advocate of this brilliant series, I just have to drop a word or two in response. I’ve been undecided among the top three since the field filled out. Reading this post and watching the first episode of The Wire’s fifth season has put me firmly in the column for Mr. Obama. (Such a shame that my primary vote comes in around the third week of April.)
Obama’s community advocate work (post-Harvard Law degree, even) and inner city Chicagoan ties have long been my favorite part of his resume. If, as some commenters suggest, his answer to the TV show question is a dog-whistle to a certain base, I have to say I am incredibly proud to be smack in the middle of h