Thanks to many of the suggestions made below for something to write about. Caroline wanted to suggest I offer my take on U.S. networks' programming moves over the last little while, and make predictions for mid-season and stuff. I kind of think that's pretty well trod ground out there, and I'd probably just lean on some of the sites y'all are probably reading already. Goodness like The Futon Critic or EW or South Dakota Dark or Zap2it.
Diane's still bugging me to check out Everything Bad is Good For You, which is definitely on my list, if not that high up on it yet. Mostly because I'm thinking I'll probably agree with most of what he has to say. (I certainly have in all the excerpts I've read, and that's kind of where my quixotic media television - Citytv/Moses Znaimer - Marshall McLuhan - Nicholas Negroponte - Wired - Cory Doctorow kind of mind drift has always been. Old habits die hard.)
Dix wants me to play network programmer, which is a grand idea, but too much brain for what I've got available right now.
Mef asked me if there's anything that everyone likes that I just don't get. (He asked it better than that in the comments below.) It's an interesting question, but it sounds a bit like something I've written before in a few places. The slow answer is: sure, there's plenty. That happens to everyone who consumes art. But the difference when you're a writer is that you try your damndest to see the thing that people like, and at least figure out why it's possible. If you don't, you run the risk of losing touch with the culture. Which in some circles is referred to as "getting old." There are things that you don't have to think too hard on, like the singing careers of Jessica Simpson or Hailee or Hillary Duff. And there are other things that you would do well to study, like why Corner Gas connects, and who the hell all those people watching NCIS are.
But the reality is that here we are in a week where I have a fairly well regulated schedule of stuff I need to accomplish. And at 1 pm Monday I just feel...bleah.
Yeah, I lost at Poker yesterday. And that Grey Cup game was a snooze. What's your point?
I've got scripts to review before I start writing mine. I'm coming off not much of a weekend, notable mainly for the fact that I got to see my Mom, in from Florida and my sister in from D.C. -- neither of whom I get to see enough.
So I'm backending into the week with a little bit of jazz hands for you. So maybe instead of a well thought out post, maybe I'll just link to my friend Marvin writing about the new David Milch show. He speaks for me in this, if not all things.
EDIT 5:01 p.m. to add the link to the NYTimes article on David Milch in question, which Marvin didn't even bother to link to. Jesus, Marvin, pick it up a little there, guy...)
I'll get back at you when I have pages in the can, clearness in the head and fire in the belly. Feel free to taunt me in comment form.
6 comments:
Yeah...I knew that wasn't really a question/topic - it was a 'job'.
I do play that game myself sometimes when the grumbling gets too loud and imagine life on the other side. Easy to bitch, wouldn't be as easy to do.
Another time.
Yeah I was just baffled at my inablity to get Ren and stimpy and I was young at the time, well 22.
There are lots of things that are popular that I don't like, but I can usually understand why they're popular.
I'm going to let it go now.
Mmmmmmmmmm... Milch.
Having read some of Kem Nunn's books, in particular Tapping the Source I'd say the show would be a doozy even if Milch wasn't involved.
Shame the John pitch to HBO apparently put the kibosh on a fourth season of Deadwood.
But... Surf noir and Milch. Mmmmmmmmm...
The SO loves NCIS.
I don't get it, but he does.
Minion, I am with your SO. I can't explain why, but I am compelled to watch both NCIS and The Unit. Some peculiar fixation with military shows.
DMc, sorry you lost at poker. Hopefully the salad and veggie chili eaters tidied up before they left to get their eight hours. Happy reading/writing.
I am getting crankier by the minute. Pink eye is no fun, only because I am dying to go out and be amongst people because I know I can't (well, I could, but that would be wrong). On the upside, I've sent out about a dozen emails and made like ten calls that I've been putting off so it isn't all a loss, I supposedr.
Bugging? Bugging?! Geez, no one appreciates harassment nowadays.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything he said too. But what I found really interesting is what's not in the book. He pared down his theory so as to eliminate the actual content of pop culture, which is fair enough - he defines his hypothesis tightly and it opens up some interesting discussion.
But ... maybe the structural complexity of pop culture (he actually focuses on gaming as much as TV) is making us smarter in a particular way, but to what end? Smarter sociopaths? Kids who can crack Grand Theft Auto? Rabid TWoP posters? People who spend their entire Tuesday evening writing about a TV show?
I'm not all that interested in the debate about whether pop culture has a duty to be morally good for us ("no"), but while I found the book entertaining and convincing, it left me with the question - so what? Assuming he's right, what's the real-world value of our increased cognitive complexity?
Anyway, this isn't another attempt to convince you to read it, just some of the questions it raised for me, even though I was completely sold on his theory. Besides, I said I could take rejection. Now I'm going off to cry.
Post a Comment