Oh Snap! It's Mr. Chair's comic book pick of the week!
Whew. Is it hot in here? A little tension in the Lounge. Let's just chalk it up to holiday stress.
I guess this is actually last week's comic book pick, since I just finished reading em all. A lot of decent stuff, but nothing really stood out. I'm going to go with "Fables," just because it's consistently good. Fables came out the same time Y did, and they both were pretty hot for Vertigo. The concept is basically that all fairy tales, legends and myths are real, and have traditionally lived in a hidden away land. Since driven out of their homelands centuries ago in a great war with the "adversary," the surviving Fables have relocated to a hidden burrough of New York City. The non-human characters live on a farm in upstate New York. Adventures ensue as they try to blend in and face internal struggles.
It's similar ground as the unmatched "Sandman" series, but the books have nothing else in common. Fables has great fun with the hidden world it has set up. An early storyline had all of the animal Fables staging a revolution on the farm. Prince Charming is a smarmy social climber who can't keep a wife. The big bad wolf is a shape-shifting sherriff who keeps the criminal element in line. The Beast can hold human form only as long as he's in good relations with his wife, Beauty. Sleeping Beauty wears gloves, since she goes into a magical coma whenever she pricks her finger on anything. Bill Willingham is also not afraid to make radical changes within the storyline (the anti-Spawn), making each issue refreshing and fast moving. And Bigby Wolf is the coolest character in comics since Jesse Custer.
Damage Control In my own defense, although I fully walked right into ridicule with my last post about a solitary weekend night, I didn't mean it as any sort of diss on anyone but myself and Julia Roberts. A bit of explanation: George and I are a couple, we aren't fighting, but she is currently living in Canada. And no I don't masturbate to pictures of Jean Grey. I don't read any X-Men comics.
Finally, a public apology. "Enourmously arrogant" was a bit harsh when mocking Finnagain's slam on all television programs. I stand by my point, though, that to criticize all works within a medium in one swoop is also a bit harsh. It's not the same as someone's opinion about one book compared to another.
15 Comments:
Chair and I are not fighting -- I was just teasing him across the web since I'm not there to give him a half-hearted punch in the arm. Sorry for the confusion (It was a little too mean, I have to admit). Also, for anyone who doesn't know, I'm in Vancouver working on a movie -- I will post with tales of Canucks and movie stars soon, but on another blog to be revealed soon.
I half-heartedly accept the apology because the apology is half-hearted.
Why? Why? Why can I not just douse flames on a whole medium? Who says I can't? Why does everybody stand up for television. And so what if I'm wrong? Why do I get this reaction for not liking television? If I said I didn't like NASCAR or fish or Romania, I wouldn't get this reaction.
Why can you dismiss an entire sport, species, or country and not encounter such defense as when you criticize the medium of television?
Anyone may reply.
In my opinion, your argument fails in the fact that your examples are not equal in spectrum. Saying you hate NASCAR is like saying you hate law dramas. Saying you hate tv is equivalent to hating all sports. Also, if you hate fish, it's one thing, but if you hate food, that's different. It basically all comes down to a matter of taste. As long as you try it, I have no problem with you hating it. I've watched NASCAR on tv. I do not enjoy it. But I can appreciate how others may get a rush from the excitement. I can't say I hate watching NASCAR in person because I have never been. I may love it. On the same token, I love to eat fish. But I can understand how some people may not like it. I do not tolerate people who have never tried fish and say they hate it, but if you've tried a really good piece of salmon and halibut and lobster and shrimp and you still hate it well, as I said, it's a matter of taste. Which returns us to television. If you watch every show out there or at least every show that people you respect recommend, then you can say you hate tv. But I will still feel sorry for you. Just as I feel sorry for people who miss out on really good sushi or the thrill of enjoying a live sport. And just as I'm sure some people feel sorry for me when I don't enjoy shows like CSI or According to Jim. But I've tried them and therefore know that I don't enjoy them. But Finnigan, if you don't want to try shows like Arrested Development and Six Feet Under and Curb Your Enthusiasm, that's your fault. I DO think it's extrememly arrogant and ignorant to dismiss an entire art form, but I'm entitled to that opinion just as you're entitled to yours. (I didn't acknowledge your hypothetical use of Romania, because -- unless you had hypothetically been all around that country and had a horrible time -- it is just as dismissive as your declaration of hate towards television. I would debate against you in the exact same fashion about that blanket statement as this one.)
First off, I don't think you can effectively argue against an entire country. To take that metaphor further, a lot of people say America sucks. They often say this in an attempt to sound worldly and of high culture, well-traveled and selective. The same can be said of people who say TV sucks. Basically, it sounds good to say America and TV suck. And in both cases, such statements are losing arguments because the things under attack are too complex and diverse to be written off at face value. That's not to say that it's not an opinion one can hold. You can hold a whole lot of opinions. A lot of people in this country hold the opinion that the French suck. A lot of people hold the opinion that books suck, or plays suck, or Puerto Ricans suck. Opinions people are entitled to have? Sure. Valid or relevant in any way? No way. Even something as fair as saying pop music sucks is pretty flawed when you think about perfectly good pop bands like Jimmy Eat World, or Modest Mouse. Everyone has their own opinions, but when you extend them beyond a reasonable, informed scope, they lose all relevance.
I think I've figured it out. I understand why I think I'm being unfairly crucified for my opinion and you think I'm being extroardinarly/extremely/enormously arrogant.
Scale.
To me, TV is a minor form of entertainment. It's a choice of something to do, and I don't find what it offers to be particularly entertaining, weighed against hundreds of other ways to entertain myself, inform myself, share an activity with friends. I can't remember the last time I watched TV and enjoyed it.
To you, TV is an entire universe of entertainment with many choices and varieties and sub-categories. You see huge diverse possibilities among the offering of television and don't understand how a person could not find at least something that pleases them. To deny the whole panoply is to deny everything and its opposite.
I'm telling you, I have an ENTIRELY different view of television. I will explain to you as clear as I can why I think it sucks.
I don't like commercials. There are already very, very few programs on television that don't get interrupted by commercials. If the program has commercials, I'm already having a bad feeling. I don't like being pressured to buy things. Commercials are annoying when they get stuck in your head. Commercials attempt to subtly transform your values so that you become more materialistic and equate material goods with happiness.
I don't like sitting down and doing nothing. When you watch television, if you're really partaking in the medium, it's pretty necessary to be somewhat stationary. I can be stationary and watch a movie or a play, but I can't be stationary just watching television. It has something to do with other lights being on, and the option to change channels and the amount of choice negated by the obligation to stay seated. Even when you read a book, you have chosen your activity and you're doing it for a reason. With television, it's too easy to be aimless, and I just don't enjoy being aimless especially when I'm just sitting doing nothing.
Most television shows, including sitcoms, dramas, news, and documentaries present a simplified view of people and the world that I find neither entertaining nor informative. While this is true of other media, I can at least choose movies that I think go deeper. With television, I wouldn't know where to find a well-defined character.
So now you will tell me to watch the Sopranos or something. Well, I've never had HBO and I've never seen these fascinating shows you talk about. I saw my friend's DVD of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". The premise and writer sounded promising, but I was deeply disappointed by what I saw. The show annoys me.
As to my "ignorance", I watched a regular amount of television between the ages of 4 and 18. So that's 14 years of experience with the medium. I don't think I need that many more to decide that it's not for me. I've seen alomst every episode of "Saved By the Bell". I watched He-Man and Thundercats and Pee-Wee's playhouse growing up. I saw most of the first three or four seasons of Friends. I know lots of Seinfeld. I watched Saturday Night Live religiously from age 10 to 17. I've seen infommercials. I had Comedy Central. I know Simpsons, Married With Children, pretty much any "normal" shows seen with typical viewing habits through the late 80s and 90s. At a certain age, I stopped enjoying it. I took a more critical look at the role television played in my life. I decided that in fact, television sucks.
When the notion came upon me, it took me by surprise because like you are saying, I figured television can't be all bad... just maybe sometimes there's nothing good on. But in fact, as television grew, as it went from 30 basic cable channels to 60 to 180, I found that there was actually less and less that I liked.
I think my point of view is less possible now than it was before television got so huge. And it certaily stirs stronger reactions. Obviously in 1955 you could argue that television sucks. It was brand new and eiter you liked it or you didn't. Certainly at the time there was much to say about the preferability of radio in many people's minds. For a long time with the three main channels, and later expanded to some more and then cable, you simply had a majority of people who liked television and a smaller number who thought it sucked. It is my belief that in the last five or seven years as cable television and mass culture in general has exploded and commercial society has merged all areas of entertainment, public discourse, and group-identification functions, that television has become so intertwined into so many aspects of life that to reject television is to reject almost everybody and everything. Oooh, I just thought of a cool phrase... Before, people watched television, now, television watches people. Television is bigger than us in some ways (if you believe in television, and I think you do) and to reject it is to reject all the people it encompasses. I don't see it that way, though.
The way I look at it, television sucks, and it's not a big deal.
I really think you ought to reconsider calling me arrogant because you yourself may be arrogant to assume that a person HAS TO enjoy television. This is not a universal truth. Don't we all seek to open our minds? I'm presenting you with a brand new point of view. The point of view that television is worthless entirely. I'm not even going to attack it from a "lifestyle" point of view, because I don't want you to interpret this as a personal attack. And it is not. I know that many people can do passive activities longer than I, so I'm not calling anybody lazy, but I'm just saying that I cannot sit very long in front of a television. I get bored by it superfast and commercials annoy me. I can't last very long. I can't concentrate long enough to play video games either.
(This may sound backwards, because video-games are supposed to be meccas for those with a short attention span. But I've got friends here who can play video games for six or seven hours without stop. I could not spend that much time doing the same activity. Especially ones that are so repetitive. And especially I can't do things like that when you do it all by yourself. I prefer interacting with other people.)
Anyway, returning to the main point, it is an issue of scale most of all. To me, television is a tiny option among ways to entertain yourself and I don't find it that entertaining. It's one of millions of things to do with other people, and I'd prefer almost anything else. It's one way among many to learn about the world or about history and I don't think it's the best in any way. The commercials, the simplified presentation of ideas, the abundant short-hand style of acting, the highly uniform and uncreative style of directing, the obsessive pop-cultural cross-referencing, and the stationary nature of television watching all make it a medium that I do not enjoy. So open your minds, accept this as a very valid point of view. I'm not trying to be cool. I'm not proving anything to anybody. I'm not saying I'm above anything or anybody. I'm just saying my view on the matter based on my experiences and my priorities in life.
Television sucks.
I understand your point of view on the matter. But I still must defend the medium. And I am not coming to this argument from a lifestyle standpoint. I admit, I do watch a lot of television, more than I should. But -- and here's where the cult comes in -- I use Replay TV. It gets rid of the commercials, allows me to watch whenever I like in whatever conditions I like (ie -- while I'm cooking, in the dark or in the light, while I knit, etc.)
I agree that commercials are terrible. But (despite the fact that I don't watch them anymore) that's the same as saying you don't like paintings because of all the people always milling around in galleries. I can't condemn the art form because of the extenuating circumstnaces surrounding it. Especially today when you can go to the video store (I'm assuming that you do not mind sitting and watching movies on a television screen, since you mentioned doing just that) and rent an entire series and watch it commercial free in any time frame that you chose. You can see an entire series in a day. Or you can watch the shows 15 minutes at a time.
There are many people who abuse the medium and ignore other aspects of their lives for it. But that doesn't mean everyone does. I enjoy numerous other forms of art every day.
I am not insisting that you must love tv. And I am definitely not saying that you must love television to validate my appreciation for it. As I said before you are completely entitled to your opinion. But I will not accept it as an educated one when you dismiss an entire medium based on a teenager's consumption of Saved by the Bell.
Well, I think Face has just effectively ended this debate by asking us to define art. (I am noblely ignoring the comment on Buffy, because that could get heated and lengthy.)
If I may, I have one last comment before I end my side of this discussion. It struck me earlier today why Finnigan's remarks moved me to write. Anyone can hate anything. Finnigan, feel free to hate tv. Face, feel free to hate Buffy. I feel free to hate Randy Newman (just kidding Face). It's when you make your feelings toward something into an If/Then statement that I have a problem. "If I hate TV, that means it sucks." "If I hate Buffy that means it's trash." I went through a conversation similar to this one over the summer. A friend brought up a comparison of Hemingway vs. Steinbeck. Now I personally would take Stein over the Hemi anyday. But that doesn't mean that I think Hemingway is a hack. For the above mentioned friend, he felt differently. He hated Hemingway and couldn't admit that his personal feelings didn't change the fact that the man is a respected author. I feel we are having the same argument only broader. I mean obviously more than ninety-five percent of the shit on tv is bad. But it's still art in the basest sense. Just like those stupid paintings they sell by elephants and monkeys with paintbrushes. It's still art even if the idiots making it don't understand that fact(the people being idiotic, not the animals, I mean.)
Also, I don't understand how someone can classify motion pictures as art but not television -- it is essentially the same exact thing, just projected differently (especially now that movies come with ten minutes of commercials before previews begin.)
So, basically -- art is impossible to define, we agree to disagree, all is good in the time and space lounge and god bless us, everyone.
And Face, thanks for the good wishes towards Chair and myself earlier. I hope to see you soon too!
I subscribe to the 90-10 rule in just about everything. That is, 90 percent of what's out there is pretty lousy, in everything. That's very rough and not true in many circumstances, but speaking generally, 90/10. It's just more visible in TV.
It's a simple fact that in television, the writer has more power over what hits the audience than in any other medium, save maybe standup comedy. The demand for content is greater and faster than any other, and therefore relys heavily on the artist. This leads to a lot of crap, but it also leads to great volumes of good work untarnished by producers, focus groups, editors and so on. Hours and hours of story and character development and directing. It's got a really big advantage. The Simpsons is one of the greatest satires of modern entertainment. It has steadily siphoned the top comedy writers from the top learning institutions in the country. It's a hysterical, intelligent form of ART in quantity and quality greater than any director will ever produce on film. Deny it.
I have no problem accepting the fact that someone may "not like" watching TV. Big ass difference. Finnagain seems to have several, mainly logistical problems with TV. I fully accept that reality. Many don't like reading because it hurts their eyes. Others have a fear of crowds and can't go to the movies. To each their own. But TV sucks.... that's another story.
I think I can agree than when someone attempts to decide once and for all what art is, it's like bringing up Hitler - the argument must end. The extreme has been called upon.
I've sadly been, and for now, continue to be too busy to really dig into this debate, because I feel quite strongly about television, and frankly, am starting to think that it is my favorite medium, despite most of it being shitty. But maybe it's for the best, since people are obviously trying to move past it.
So instead of saying blah blah blah sorry you feel "crucified" blah blah blah sweeping generalizations are too reductive blah blah blah... I'm just going to say this:
Congrats to Brett Christensen (who a few of us know) who just finished filming an episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent which should air some time in February. I'm not personally into procedurals (expect maybe The Wire which is possibly the greatest piece of anything I've encountered recently), but I'm excited to see this.
Thanks for all your comments.
I don't think my statement was an If/Then. There's no reason to take it that way. My statement was simply this: "TV sucks." I later gave some reasons why I made that statement, but it's not an if/then. That's not the right analytical path.
Congrats to Brett.
I appreciate your POV, EWF.
As for my "ignorance" on the subject, I can't believe you won't let me off the hook because I only spent 14 years watching TV regularly, and the most impressionable years of life at that. If you had spent 14 years dancing ballet and then decided that ballet sucks, I would certainly let you say so. I may disagree with you, but I wouldn't call your opinion arrogant and uninformed.
I believe that art is whatever you perceive to be art. It's in the perception, not any objective reality, so, indeed, that argument would not go anywhere.
By the way, how come bringing up Hitler has to end an argument? What's that about?
I noticed something in George's argument that shows George may have misunderstood my meaning.
You gave the analogy of not liking paintings because I don't like the atmostphere of the galleries.
What I am trying to say about television is that, yes, I mostly think the "paintings" are bad (but that goes for most books, films, poems, etc. anyway), but the stronger reason I really can't stand television is because I hate "being in the gallery". Yes, I do not like the nature of the medium.
Incidentally, I don't like galleries very much either. I prefer open-air art, things put on public walls, statues in gardens.
...inside the museums infinity goes up on trial voices echo, this is what salvation must be like after a while...
I wish I could write something like that saying how I feel about the nature of television.
I was born in a hospital where the fathers did not come into the delivery room, they sat in the waiting room and watched TV. I think my dad's first words to me were, "the 49ers won."
Okay that was so not true it's almost funny.
But I'll just say... I love TV. And I really want you to know why.
One day, I was with my brother. It was a Monday night and we both had the day off. Which was pretty amazing. Buffy came on. We thought it was the movie, but it was actaully a new show called Buffy. It was the first episode and we both hung out and talked about it later. It was a two person round table discussion about what we saw... very social and great because it was with my brother. We watched it every Monday after that.
That's only one small reason. And I do think Buffy is good... But anyway.
I love the medium. I love the structure of TV. Okay I love all mediums, from books to painting to musical theatre. I love expressions of emotion and ideas.
Okay, TV has limits. They have comercials, but no one can say movies don't have comercials, and I don't mean the previews. Watch MATRIX. It was a fun movie and I'm sure everyone has it or knows someone who has it. When NEO gets the first phone call and goes out on the ledge of the building, he drops his phone. The film actaully slows down. It practicly stops on the Phone. You can see the name brand. That's advertising. They actaully have a feature about the phone on the second DVD. All mediums have some form of advertising, Dare I say that that Warholl was a big soup junky and did a little advertising himself.
Anyway, the comercials are part of the medium and a very valid part. It adds drama. When you have to wait the extra few minutes to find out what happens, that adds something to the story, SUSPENCE. I watch shows on DVD and its not the same. There's so much less drama. It's just there in front of you.
But I have to say that my favorite part of TV is the serial form. They get to tell multipart stories. Characters can evolve, and yes, some shows do show amazing characters. Stories can change. Things happen that affect the characters later.
Serial is an amazing part of story telling, look at Dickens with THE TALE OF TWO CITIES. That wasn't a novel at first. It was a serial in a magazine and later brought together in one book.
TV has the abilty to tell grand stories and have amazing characters. The medium is art or what ever. Does it take advantage of all it's possobilities?
NO
The majority of TV is crap, but that doesn't mean that TV sucks, it just means that the medium isn't being used as well as it should be.
And neither is cinema or music or literature. It is all about a dollar, but you will get people that do more. They have ideas and you can see it barely through the capatalistic ideals of the media.
But my biggest arguement for TV is this, it's just fun. Have we forgotten that some things aren't about art, they're about fun and laughing or crying or whatever. I watch TV because i think it can be fun. I watch really bad shows because they're fun. I do a lot of things, because they're fun.
I don't need art all the time.
My Dad used to play catch with me when I was a kid. It wasn't art. It never helped me expand my mind. It was just me and my Dad throwing a ball back and forth and having fun...
J. Batlin
It's enormously arrogant for you to say that TV is fun.
It's like you're just ignoring the fact that TV kills 78,000 people each year and permanently maims millions more.
What's so fun about that?
Don't throw the numbers at me. I've read all about the deaths in TV guide. All they do is catologue the deaths the TV leads to. I still think it's fun... and that is because of the deaths. Nothing brings a smile to my face like a little kid that gets a bad case of the WIGGLES. Or maybe an older person that gets GOLDEN GIRL syndrome. My favorite is when some unexpected college student wakes up one morning and all they can say, "What the hell happened to Lyndsay Lohan's chest?" And then their head explodes.
Yes, I loves me some TV and the deaths that occur because of it.
I hate to say this, but I'm beginning to agree with Finnagin (or who I lovingly call THE FIN).
I hope when he said that TV will be dead, he actually meant that TV is DYING.
I'm beginning think that's true and it hit me one night.
I was watching TV with a buddy. We were watching a show with hot chicks in very little clothes. They were dancing for one guy and trying to seduce him. The show is called BIG MAN ON CAMPUS.
My buddy turned to me and asked, "Would you let your daughter do this?" And it HIT me.
NO
I would never let my daughter do this, but I said that I hope I raise a daughter that is strong and won't have to do something like that, but really I was crawling about in my skin. These girls are somebody's kids. And, OH MY GOD, somebody approved this show.
TV IS DYING!!!
But to say TV is dying is to also say it was alive at one time, that means that TV was once a valid medium. It was art with structure, much like sonnets or classic sculpture.
TV at one time was amazing.
Shows like I LOVE LUCY, which seem corny to us now, but changed how TV was made and produced.
Hithcock had a TV show and told amazing stories, same with Rod Sterling.
But now who do we have? David E. Kelly?
I don't know. There are a few valid shows, that embrace the Medium of TV. I'm thinking of DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES. And regardless of what you think, that show is using TV and all it's power. Same with LOST. This is a show that is told in serial form. The characters are changing. The have pasts and now we can see a hint of their futures.
I don't have cable, so I can't say anything about SAPRANOS or SIX FEET UNDER or NIP/TUCK.
I hear all of these are great shows, but that's all I can think of.
THAT'S A PROBLEM.
If I can only think of a half dozen great shows, that means that this medium is actually DYING.
AND THAT KILLS ME.
I was a bastard kid of the eighties. TV was my babysitter, best friend and secret lover. And now that Being is dying, and there's nothing I can do about it.
FIN, I wish I could laugh at TV like you seem to do, but I just get a chill and maybe a fever. This makes me physically sick.
How can AMERICA'S great medium of story telling be dying?
Maybe it says something about our country? Actually, I'm pretty sure it does.
Where are we now? What the fuck are we doing? Do any of us even know? DOUBTFUL!
I've NEVER felt so alienated from my people. I thought I was an AMERICAN and now I think... maybe I'm NOT.
Post a Comment
<< Home