http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kareem-abduljabbar/kareem-abdul-jabbar-girls-review_b_2615824.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment&ir=Entertainment

Here's an exclusive news scoop: I'm finally coming out.

Sorry, sports fans, but it's true. After all these years, I'm ready to admit the truth: I do have many interests other than sports.

Whew, there. I've said it. Man, it feels good.

Last week I wrote a blog for The Huffington Post in which I commented on the HBO series Girls. My conclusion: Although the show strives to be a voice of its generation (or even if it doesn't, some consider it to be -- see the current cover of Entertainment Weekly), it isn't quite there yet. But it's still a worthwhile show, with a worthwhile point of view.

There was much reaction. Some questioned why a man my age would watch a show about girls in their twenties, as if they'd just discovered me hanging around a school playground with a shopping bag full of candy in one hand a fluffy puppy in the other. Of course, these critics are right. When I read Moby Dick I first had to convince the bookseller that I was a former whaler named Queequeg. When I read the poetry of Sylvia Plath, I had to pretend I was a depressed white woman with daddy issues. Don't worry, I used a fake ID.

Why did I review Girls? As I said in the review, we should all be intently listening to voices of the next generation, hearing what they have to say and, when they are struggling to say it, help them to articulate better. That's the advantage of growing older in this youth-centric society -- maybe the only advantage.

The overwhelming reaction to my review was complimentary which, because it was my first foray into pop culture reviewing, made me feel both appreciative and humbled. But even among some of the positive response was an underlying head-scratching theme: isn't it amazing that a former jock can have opinions on pop culture and articulate it with words and references to books and movies? Some mentioned my height, as if I was so tall that the air up here could not support intellectual development. It was as if, after climbing the Empire State Building and swatting bi-planes all afternoon, I suddenly decided to write a fashion article critiquing Ann Darrow's dress ("The tattered jungle look is so five minutes ago.").

What do people expect when an ex-jock discusses pop culture? "Hmmm. Magic light box have good shows. Me like some. Others make me puke Gatorade. Me give it three jock straps."

Maybe this will help: I have a degree from UCLA. I'm an amateur historian who has written books about World War II, the Harlem Renaissance, and African-American inventors. I read a lot of fiction as well as non-fiction. I watch TV and movies. I have acted in both. I have been a political activist and an advocate for children's education. How should an aging, black jock like myself know anything about pop culture? Man, I am a living part of pop culture and have been for nearly 50 years. Beyond that, I think pop culture expresses our needs, fears, hopes and whole zeitgeist better than some of the more esoteric and obscure forms of art.

What can I say to those critics except, "Don't judge me by the color of my team jersey, but by the content of my articles."

I'm just asking for a friend though.

Yesssss!

He might be my favorite athlete ever.

He is one of the most impressive, fascinating people
in the history of anything.

I've read a good chunk of several of his books. They are
good. VERY fucking good.

He routinely hangs out at Ivy league libraries, just
studying, comes completely unannounced, no interest
in celebrity whatsoever. Be in the stacks finding
books, doing his research.

Dude is just a marvel of a person.

pretty impressive package.

the only way jordan had a better career than kareem is selling sneakers.

i don't give a fuck about win shares, save that faggotry for baseball

jordan was never that good.

http://www.lionsdenu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/enhanced-buzz-10651-1311198419-12.jpg

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

argument is retarded.

and are easily brainwashed.

like extracurricular as fuck. nothing to do w the shit we were learning in school. just for him.

i remember the first 3 we got assigned were malcolm, soul on ice, and kareem's autobio giant steps. i was maybe 10 or 11. been a huge fan ever since.

i just related to the cat from jump. and that affinity only continued to grow as i got older. he was a thinker. brooding. sort of a loner, standoffish. cerebral. moody. sarcastic. bit of an asshole. gave a shit about things that actually matter. a kindred spirit. reminded me of me.

most of my favorite athletes are from that era. jim brown. russell. ashe. ali. kareem is right up there on that list. def one of my all timers.

the crazy things sports make us do...

His "I'm an annoying white Boston fan" thing has
charm and it did show in that book.

Like, his Russell vs. Wilt debate...he was wrong
(as is everyone who picks Russell), but I appreciated
his point even though his bias was clear.

But dissing the Cap?

Nah.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

this is kind of like three young bols schooling all comers on the playground all day, then they hear a deep, dignified, quiet voice say "yo, i want to run with THEM."

and they turn, and it's Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

that's what this is like.

this ain't a surprise. they come from an era where being smart was encouraged and absolutely necessary.

i'd be far more impressed if spree wrote those articles.

that's good.

Its not just that he's a curious, scholarly guy.

That you're right about -- old black men are
like that.

But Cap that has quirk, and sense of humor, and is
self reflective...all that uncanny shit that this
young generation of black "look at me, I'm so different"
folks tries so hard to have.

He has it, despite being one of the greatest athletes
to ever live, with no reason whatsoever to be humble
at anything (even more than Cheese -- ain't no gambling
problems with Cap. Ain't no sucking at baseball with Cap.
Cap been good forever and ever. Like, all the time).

Dude is just a beast.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

but, i think the fact that he can write at all, and on subjects other than sports, is a shock to people....because he's a black athlete. actually, you know what....heavy emphasis on ATHLETE. people just think athletes are dumb, dogg. period.

he's clearly a very good writer. i'm just saying if bill russell had written it, i wouldn't have been shocked.

or bob gibson
or coach thompson
or the big o
or dave bing


old black men just do not surprise me with the depth and scope of their interest and the displays of their wit and intelligence.

this simply isn't a surprise, dogg.

now, SPREE? oh, i'd be partying.

>but, i think the fact that he can write at all, and on
>subjects other than sports, is a shock to people....because
>he's a black athlete. actually, you know what....heavy
>emphasis on ATHLETE. people just think athletes are dumb,
>dogg. period.
>
>he's clearly a very good writer. i'm just saying if bill
>russell had written it, i wouldn't have been shocked.
>
>or bob gibson
>or coach thompson
>or the big o
>or dave bing
>
>
>old black men just do not surprise me with the depth and scope
>of their interest and the displays of their wit and
>intelligence.
>
>this simply isn't a surprise, dogg.
>
>now, SPREE? oh, i'd be partying.

I'll be on there humpin with a doo-rag on, making
Crisis on Infinite Earth references between grunts

I even got tattoos

Everybody will be happy

Ratings will soar


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

That caught me of guard

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

but this entire exchange slayed me

nigga said crisis on infinite earths.

lmao @ dat jahidi.

And the closest I've come to seeing this show is boning a girl who looks like long hair Lena Dunham.

malcolm, soulon ice, and giant steps. that's three the hard way.

and all that shit you dug about kareem... ditto.


peace & blessings,

x.

www.twitter.com/poetx

=========================================
** i move away from the mic to breathe in

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs4/1931376_o.gif

After Holiday Sale, take advantage of 25% off www.karmaloop.com w/ rep code JR9103 | Nike, G-Star, Spiewak, etc.
+ a full line of Women's wear (Jeffrey Campbell, etc.)

would be a nice little topic for yall to talk about on fiyastarter though--better than the AI bad dad shit if you were thinking about it.

Thanks for the shoutout last week.

No message

This had me howling.....

"What do people expect when an ex-jock discusses pop culture? 'Hmmm. Magic light box have good shows. Me like some. Others make me puke Gatorade. Me give it three jock straps.'"


^^^That's good satire, folks...

Like him, sitting at home in his PJs on a Thursday night with a bucket of ice cream, receiving and ignoring texts from Bill Walton, watching episodes of Girls like "this some bullshit".

But I have huge, huge respect for the man, one of the great Bruins of all-time and one of the most fascinating people ever.

> one of the great
>Bruins of all-time and one of the most fascinating people
>ever.

People seem to have forgotten how good Cap is


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

*runs away*

It was more of a nod to guys like Jackie Robinson and Arthur Ashe as well. College athletics has a lot of bullshit associated with it but I'm proud UCLA has produced some guys that are well rounded as people.

>It was more of a nod to guys like Jackie Robinson and Arthur
>Ashe as well. College athletics has a lot of bullshit
>associated with it but I'm proud UCLA has produced some guys
>that are well rounded as people.

n/m


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

More along the lines of "they don't make them like that anymore".

There's no Ali's. No Jim Brown's. No Bill Russell's. No Kareem's.

But who exists today, that might ever say some thoughtful shit, even if it's about something as ridiculous as the show "Girls"?

The only one I could come up with is possibly Arian. Maybe Joakhim.

I don't have much else.

from????

And

Would Bosh demand respect of others to read it?

Cuz everyone takes shots at Bosh. People who don't even watch sports.

And he's always doing weird shit like that money shot when they won the chip.

http://i.imgur.com/6LJDz.gif

Low key

Any race, any sport

There's a reason they are overrepresented in broadcasts
and shows...they get into interviews and destroy their
competition

Compare Schilling and Kruk to Barry Larkin and Chris Singleton
and Doug Glanville on ESPN

No competition whatsoever

And even current players: Rollins and Sabathia and
Hunter...all are remarkably smart guys

Black baseball players are also the most race conscious
for various reasons.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

I don't know how it came about, but the Jeff Kents and John Rockers seem to outnumber the Greg Maddux's about 2 to 1.

a white person can make it to the professional level without spending a lot of time with and around black people.

...type of human being on the planet. Doesn't matter what region of the country they're from, they're almost uniformly stupid.

>Chris Singleton

No.

>>Chris Singleton
>
>No.

He's not articulate?

I don't think he's smart. Maybe he was, once. But he worked for the White Sox for awhile and they don't tolerate intelligence in their broadcast employees.

But "articulate" and "smart" are different qualities. So, carry on then.

maybe not quite this level of writing with tone and nuance...but Kobe's actually a pretty smart dude about a lot of different things in that "historian of the game" sense. Similar to Mike Tyson.

Like he'll try to come off as smart by speaking Italian or name dropping something foreign, but really has nothing thoughtful to add.

More pretentious than intelligent.

He's never really come across as particularly
intelligent

I think its just a class thing -- his family had
money, he went to a good school, speaks several
languages

That shit is all circumstance

Lebron is more insightful when you compare him
comment for comment

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

tried to get at him for sneaker pricing and he told Bron, "He'd rather own than be owned."

jump passes are the right way to set their centers up.

He's humble, doesn't say much but is clearly an
incredibly insightful guy.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

he may be insightful, don't really know, but he's gonna have to go back to school for a while at least. i mean he has a certain ignorance about him, not to say he's dumb, just needs to get more worldly i guess. i mean he's been quoted as being confused by the existence of the franc, never heard about prohibition, & never heard of atlantic city.

He would just use the adjective "good" repeatedly until the review mercifully came to an end.

he may speak like shit, but this may be the gulliest tattoo in sports... http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8njmjwAcx1rwq7s3o1_500.jpg

'Cept Deng

Duke should be a slam dunk for Nigerian kids though

Maybe Duke engineering program not good enough
or something

IN all honesty, I think the issue is that Nigerian
parents didn't play basketball and so aren't
immediately impressed by K and Duke's resume.

Like you said -- all black prospects who are children
of athletes have Duke in the top 5, no question


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

he's on that renaissance tip in the Bay, fucking with the "art crowd" here ever since he cut his dreads...

shit besides basketball, it's probably not in his top 5 of things to do or discuss

maybe not in the social commentary sense but i could see him funding some tech startups and shit.

But most of ya'll hate that dude.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make Money: http://jamesjenkins.acnrep.com
Save Money: http://jamesjenkins.acndirect.com

player

-----------
It's only funny till someone gets mad. Then it's hilarious.

.

but I did enjoy reading a few of Cap's one-liners in here.

thats valuable. thanks, Cap!

Sure, he chile graped the SHIT out of Dong Lover's appearance, but he said he likes it for the most part.

than the praise

I forget who wrote that Girls is like Seinfeld if none of the Seinfeld writers were aware that the characters were assholes. I like that. Although again it gives Girls credit by mentioning them in the same breath as Seinfeld. Sigh.

when there's so much other tv out there more worthy of their time & effort.

yet for some reason, Girls really gets people going.

Mostly because it's written, produced and stars a woman, and a young one at that.

Unless that's just a HUGE coincidence.

But it's not. That's why.

And sequence matters, particularly since it doesn't look like effort really played much of a role at any point. An affirming review of a television show by a (celebrity, but still) reviewer is followed by a largely unnecessary snarky comment about said show by a random poster on a messageboard.

Everything seems in its place.

Speaking of sequencing, I think you're also talking around the Hegelian Whiplash for "Girls" into which our man Bomb is inserting himself. It can be a fine TV show* without being an important cultural landmark, and people don't like being told that a sitcom that's fewer than two dozen episodes# in has accomplished something culturally transformative. "The Mindy Project" meets your criteria for shows-created-and-starring-women and it doesn't inspire nearly the same amount of teeth gritting. It's just a plain, old pretty good sitcom. And an improving one. Last night's episode was stellar. Ditto for "Whitney," which possesses an absolute quality ceiling of "eh" but will sink or swim based on the public's willingness to swallow that mediocrity just like a mostly shitty sitcom created by a man.

Everything in its place.

There's a few things that are different about "Girls" and being created by and starring a woman is only one of them. I rather wish it were seen just another sitcom so we could avoid the vigorous hand-waving that seems to accompany any discussion of it. But, since before it even existed on air, it's been something bigger and more important for no discernible reason.

*and it is

#semi-relatedly, my wife's family is crazy into British television and they always bring up the superiority of these six episode seasons (series?) on BBC. They are wrong. I appreciate the desire for some kind of editorial restraint, but good TV characters and storylines have shelf lives of much, much longer than a handful of episodes. I'd much rather have a show overstay its welcome like "How I Met Your Mother" than bow out quickly like Gervais' "Office."

That's the whole point of it.

It wouldn't last two weeks pre-blogosphere, hyper
self-aware hipsters.

'The Cosby Show' wouldn't last as long in today's
environment, where a piece of entertainment is an
opportunity for the AUDIENCE to feed their narcissism
by creating "original" take on show X or Y.

I'm not judging anything:

If people think television's purpose is to create fodder for
blog or message-board banter, than fine*.

Television used to be created so that the audience can
sit, laugh, think, cry, or be engaged by the character
and stories.

Its still the case with many shows, but its definitely not
the case with 'Girls'.

You close the message boards, 'Modern Family' still exists.

Close the message boards, nobody watches 'Girls' anymore.



*We used to call those "Soap Operas" and they did their job
quite well

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>People watch it so that they can come on message board
>and blog original thoughts about it. Not so that they
>can enjoy a good story, good characters, etc. Has nothing
>to do with its appeal.

I missed this memo, but it would explain a lot.

It kind of sucks because I've rather enjoyed the show more often than I haven't. And though I think he's inverting cause-and-effect a bit, smuts isn't wrong about the reaction. But it seems more like a lot of jealousy in the form of "why did Lena Dunham get this opportunity?" (as though we were HBO's second choice) becomes "Why did that bitch get this opportunity?"

Also, please don't let the answer be "because of 'Tiny Furniture.'"

Nobody asks for Mindy Kaling's credentials, because they're both obvious and impossible to question. And her show is better.

edit: I should add that those questions are also not necessarily related to whether "Girls" is any good, but rather serve a rough analogy between the two programs. And also that I think you're being slightly uncharitable to the show's creation in the sense that I really don't believe that Lena Dunham has approached any of this with the sort of cynicism that you're pointing toward.

>And also that
>I think you're being slightly uncharitable to the show's
>creation in the sense that I really don't believe that Lena
>Dunham has approached any of this with the sort of cynicism
>that you're pointing toward.

Anytime a show is full of "nods" to certain issues, or passive-
aggressive references/answers to things that internet critics
have said, the show becomes about something other than the
experience of sitting down and watching the show.

The show becomes more about inserting stylistic vaccines against
internet memes (on blogs and discussion boards) that could
destroy it.

For example, the cutesy black republican guy does not enrich
the TV watching experience. That character vaccinates the show
against two potential insults:

a) that the show has no diversity

b) that the show put a stereotypical black guy in the show

Again:

That the guy is black is a vaccine for criticism (a)

That the guy is republican is a vaccine against criticism (b)


There are *no* good TV shows that have done this, because its
impossible to make a good TV show that is constantly shape
shifting its approach to meet these kinds of demands.

Don't get me wrong -- television shows adapt all the time,
respond to outcries, etc. But not at the pace, nor the depth that
'Girls' has.

Hell, not even 'Sex in the City' did this. It was discussed
to death, but the people who liked it did so because they
enjoyed sitting down and watching it. Thankfully, that show
was *just* ahead of hipster epidemic, because it would have
suffered.

So yeah, 'Girls isn't about the audience, because most of the
audience aren't art critics, and most the audience didn't need
to see a black guy love interest, because most people who are
that sensitive about race don't watch 'Girls'.

Seriously -- how many *more* people watch the show *because*
of a quirky black republican?

The answer: a fraction as many as those who now watch the
show to see how the writer of the show responds to the hipster
critiques of the show.

I mean, I care a lot about race. I didn't complain
about lack of diversity on 'Girls' because I find the show
worthless and would rather it be a bunch of white women.
I, in fact, find the "quirky black guy" as tool to be ironically,
more offensive than the lack of diversity.

Weird, I know, but so is life.



----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

In case it wasn't already obvious, I haven't seen any of the second season yet. So that was about as convincing a case of built-in cynicism as I could possibly imagine. Nicely done.

>That character vaccinates the
>show
>against two potential insults:
>
>a) that the show has no diversity
>
>b) that the show put a stereotypical black guy in the show
>
>Again:
>
>That the guy is black is a vaccine for criticism (a)
>
>That the guy is republican is a vaccine against criticism (b)

>Also, please don't let the answer be "because of 'Tiny
>Furniture.'"

Because that film proved that she could produce a NYC-centric "realistic" piece of visual entertainment that still looked GOOD* (or at least professional-quality) for very, very cheap.


*And any misgivings you have about how terrible the film's main character and her friends are, the film is, from a visual aesthetic standpoint, on another level from a lot of certainly brilliant films from her contemporaries. And Judd Apatow is excellent at spotting directorial talent (those who can't do, teach, and all that).

It just seemed... I'm going to go with "deliberately insignificant."

>*And any misgivings you have about how terrible the film's
>main character and her friends are, the film is, from a visual
>aesthetic standpoint, on another level from a lot of certainly
>brilliant films from her contemporaries. And Judd Apatow is
>excellent at spotting directorial talent (those who can't do,
>teach, and all that).

Wait. Did it look "professional quality" or "on another level... from her contemporaries"? Because it sounds like there should be a pretty big gap between those things, unless I'm misunderstanding her contemporaries.

edit: And I'm curious about the Apatow point. Is the parenthetical there a nod to the frequent knock against him that his visual sense is "indifferent" but that he does a good job of teaching/unearthing people who are good at that? I wasn't aware of that reputation. Kind of cool.

Because, as I understand it, one way to get selected for the bigs is to stand so far out from your contemporaries at a young age (and I'm talking about filmmakers who were 22 when Dunham made Tiny Furniture) that you get earmarked by scouts who know, no?

>Because, as I understand it, one way to get selected for the
>bigs is to stand so far out from your contemporaries at a
>young age (and I'm talking about filmmakers who were 22 when
>Dunham made Tiny Furniture) that you get earmarked by scouts
>who know, no?

That'll work. I'm out of my educated element here. Just an asshole with opinions.

>edit: And I'm curious about the Apatow point. Is the
>parenthetical there a nod to the frequent knock against him
>that his visual sense is "indifferent" but that he does a good
>job of teaching/unearthing people who are good at that? I
>wasn't aware of that reputation. Kind of cool.

based largely on how good Freaks and Geeks was versus how slight Undeclared was, though the film analogues are similar, IMO.

This is pure guessing on the mind of somebody whose work I sort of admire, but it seems clear that he's completely aware of how self-indulgent the stuff he writes/directs is lately. He earned it, mostly.

.

much less a blog -- so where do they fit into your 'the show only exists because of hyper-responsive internet culture' narrative?

is it *that* impossible to believe that there is a slice of society that really, really responds to what Lena Dunham is pushing in that show without having to freak out about the 'response' to it?

you dudes acting as arbiters of what women should and should not like -- it's a poor look, really.

glad to see at least our man Kareem is comfortable enough in his manhood to simply shrug and say, 'I guess it has something...'

>is it *that* impossible to believe that there is a slice of
>society that really, really responds to what Lena Dunham is
>pushing in that show without having to freak out about the
>'response' to it?

... I'm going to go with "yes". If 100% of "Girls" fans aren't capable of operating a cellphone, then I think freaking out over the show's reception is a pretty justifiable response.

I know precisely one statistical principle and damned if I'm not sticking to it.

Though, in fairness, I did slightly misread him. He said the three biggest "Girls" fans he knew, so it's possible we're dealing with a larger sample but there is some kind of scaling to be done on precisely how functionally insufficient fans of the program really are.

I'm a humanities guy, so I'll tap out at that point. Still, that post hardly covered the demographic in glory, so I have a hard time understanding how people who snark on the show are the anti-progressive ones.

i.e. that television shows that function for the pure purpose of entertaining rather than prompting discussion are far superior.

But then, 50 years from now, the Grammy academy is far more likely to be giving a lifetime achievement award to Chuck Lorre than Dan Harmon. Which makes me sad, because I know whose shows I'd both enjoy artistically and be more entertained by.

That this show in particular functions (and makes plot and casting choices) to generate discussion in a pretty cynical and self-serving way. The thesis was defined at the outset, limited in scope (though potentially valid for broader applicability), and came freighted with well-developed examples.

Now I feel like a total asshole for treating a post like I teach composition (which I don't), but it struck me as an unusually well-argued point for pretty much anywhere on the internet. I'm kind of a jerk and don't change my mind lightly.

The idea seems to be that discussion wasn't generated organically. And that idea was supported.

>But then, 50 years from now, the Grammy academy is far more
>likely to be giving a lifetime achievement award to Chuck
>Lorre than Dan Harmon. Which makes me sad, because I know
>whose shows I'd both enjoy artistically and be more
>entertained by.

I like that Chuck Lorre serves as the go-to for vile mediocrity of inexplicable popularity here.

>i.e. that television shows that function for the pure purpose
>of entertaining rather than prompting discussion are far
>superior.

And part of my point is that 'Girls' doesn't *really*
prompt discussion any more than 'Living Single' did,
and the only reason it does is for reasons that have
nothing to do with the content or quality of the
show. Its all ambiance and circumstance.

Art criticism exists under the assumption that said
piece of art was produced for artistic, aesthetic purposes.

That's where the thousands and thousands and thousands of
pages of literary criticism come from: people deciphering what
T.S. Eliot was really saying. T.S. Eliot was certainly
commenting directly on some things, but was mostly just
writing a book.

'Girls' was produced so that art critics can talk about
it. That is the reason why its made. Not for expression.
Not for exposition. It was made for the discussion after
the show is over.

This doesn't make it *worse* but it does make it *different*



----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>And part of my point is that 'Girls' doesn't *really*
>prompt discussion any more than 'Living Single' did,
>and the only reason it does is for reasons that have
>nothing to do with the content or quality of the
>show. Its all ambiance and circumstance.

and the fans of the show I know would agree with this, too, if you talked to them about it.

>'Girls' was produced so that art critics can talk about
>it. That is the reason why its made. Not for expression.
>Not for exposition. It was made for the discussion after
>the show is over.

this, they wouldn't agree with. they would say (and have said to me) it's finally a show which shows just how horrible so much sex with dudes is and that's funny to me. it shows how ridiculous girls are and that's funny to me. they tell me they see versions of people they know in the characters in the show, because they have the sense to recognize bad behavior even if they occasionally engage in it themselves. just because they laugh at Hannah and like the show doesn't mean they want to BE Hannah, O_E.

I mean, damn, give the ladies some credit, huh?

>this, they wouldn't agree with. they would say (and have said
>to me) it's finally a show which shows just how horrible so
>much sex with dudes is and that's funny to me. it shows how
>ridiculous girls are and that's funny to me. they tell me
>they see versions of people they know in the characters in the
>show, because they have the sense to recognize bad behavior
>even if they occasionally engage in it themselves. just
>because they laugh at Hannah and like the show doesn't mean
>they want to BE Hannah, O_E.
>
>I mean, damn, give the ladies some credit, huh?

I've literally heard that precise explanation for why
educated women watch reality TV in general.

Word for word, exactly.

Of course, its bullshit.

Same way I lie and say that I enjoy watching a knuckleballer
as much as I do a power pitcher because I "appreciate the
nuances to the game."

People like TV shows for all kinds of dumbass reasons.

The difference: people intellectualize 'Girls'.

And they intellectualize it because its author recognizes
how to throw that crowd a bone.

Its no smarter than 'Jersey Shore'. It just has a hook
into the people who award Golden Globes

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

even though I know for a fact my friend J doesn't give two shits about pro sports, probably couldn't name more than three pro athletes, thinks sports fans and sports culture in general sucks, is probably disturbed by the brainlessness and ultimately pointless sea of cash that it represents, and generally loathes the entire sports industrial complex at all levels -- I know *deep down* she thinks all those things.

but she doesn't try to tell me how I should feel about sports even if she thinks that.

she will just say, "that's cool" when the topic comes up and will let me know it's boring to her, we should probably talk about something else. when we're at the bar and I say, "oh I gotta get the bartender to turn a game on for me!" she doesn't roll her eyes and start lecturing me about how inappropriate my sports obsession is. she doesn't troll blogs and write angry screeds about why Sports represents some kind of blah blah blah. she doesn't "hate-watch" the Super Bowl or something. she just says, "oh yeah -- he likes sports. that's his thing." and then when she sees an old school vintage Pittsburgh Steelers shirt at the thrift shop, she recognizes it as "sports," thinks it's cute, and then buys it for me as a gift, even though I am not a Steelers and she doesn't even realize it's NFL which is a sport I don't own any apparel of because I don't follow it like that. she just does that because she knows I like sports and she wants to get me a gift.

see the difference?

and I get where you're coming from with the Golden Globe angle (I know I've pissed some people off here in PDX getting angry cuz The Wire never won an Emmy while Mad Men rakes them in) but that's a separate discussion than the value of the show. that's a discussion of the RESPONSE to the show. I trust you're smart enough to recognize the distinction.

>but she doesn't try to tell me how I should feel about sports
>even if she thinks that.

And MLB hasn't been called an intellectual/artistic voice of
my generation.

Sports is an interesting paradigm because everyone seems
relatively at peace with it being dumb. In fact, the attempts
at making sports smart get ridiculed more than attempts to
make it stay dumb. Its dumbness is part of it its appeal,
and no one will ever clown a fan of MLB for simply saying:

"I like it because its fun."

This is actually the exact opposite of 'Girls':

That its "smart" and "socially relevant" is being forced
up me, is the status quo, is the reason its popular.

You get criticized (like I do) when you say that it actually
*is* dumb and has no artistic merit.

Any and all attempts to intellectual 'Girls' is a farse.

Its no smarter than 'Jersey Shore'.

More smarter than Major League Baseball.


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

edit: and aren't you also "intellectualizing it" in some kinda way by devoting so many posts to decrying it?

I'll take Jeff Francoeur.

Eckstein is incredibly popular with old white men and inexplicably wins awards.

Dan Harmon is the Kevin Appier of show-runners.

That means Harmon's going to fade away over the next three years, doesn't it? =(

... and nobody will believe us. Like it never happened.

David Simon is the Kevin Brown of pitchers. Talented, contrarian, and kind of an asshole. Also, curiously without hardware for his awesome efforts.

And Vince Gilligan Roy Halladay?

Well done.

The fight in baseball has been to get people to
recognize that its actually smart.

(remember poor Brad Pitt ostracized for wanting to
bring calculators to scouting meetings in 'Moneyball'?)

The fight with 'Girls' is to get people to recognize that
its actually dumb.

(Check PTPs 'Girls' discussion. Me, Shellz and Basa
treated like Debbie Downers for pointing out the
obvious)


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Both this and the GD post would be like 50 replies, IF THAT, without you trying to fight that fight. And then you could spend those 150 or so replies promoting something you deem worthwhile.

So who's really dumb?

Those things just don't go plat because no one wants to get into a crazy debate about Talk to Me or Ken Burns.

Historical documentaries make me want to set my library on fire.

At one point, he had the back grown out and quasi-feathered, which worked way more than the helmet hair.

I don't understand how somebody almost sixty years old can make a low hairline look like a problem that needs to be solved.

Or the inexorable single-path march?

Those make me grit my teeth.

to his father, telling his father he was going to die and asking him to put his affairs in order and where he wanted to be buried that I found particularly moving. But yeah the letters thing is generally overdone, but that one really stood out to me (that was Ric not Ken though, but same difference really)

Y'all outing yourselves up in here

There is nothing wrong with Ken Burns

Just stop

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

My parents insisted he run non-stop on our TV when I was a kid because I liked history. Turns out, I don't care for public history and even less for public history that makes people famous. When my incredibly boring dissertation is finished, I want it to die and decay into a big, fat conversation, surviving as a footnote in a piece by somebody much, much smarter than me. At best.

I like the arguments. I think Ken Burns skips the arguments and puts topics behind glass.

So you have an alibi

Plus you are perhaps the least hipsterish person
on this board


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Except sweater vests. Historians love sweater vests. Even the young ones.

I've done BEEN a hipster.

And I enjoy Ken Burns, but you can't say dude doesn't have a template.

>Y'all outing yourselves up in here
>
>There is nothing wrong with Ken Burns
>
>Just stop

also, that was Ric Burns, not Ken. guess you were making a general response post and not specifically responding to me though.

Despite me talking to y'all directly, I actually
wasn't, and I expect y'all to know the difference
because y'all know me by now

I was making a general point about how Ken Burns
bashing is a hipster pastime

Same way Nas bashing is a hipster pastime

Everybody need to just STOP


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>And MLB hasn't been called an intellectual/artistic voice of
>my generation.

again -- good point. it's just been called the game which defines our American-ness. a Golden Globe + EW cover seems downright paltry when compared to plaudits such as that. perhaps Lena Dunham needs to be more ambitious.

or do we really want to argue over the amount of ink spilled over baseball compared to the amount of ink spilled over Lena Dunham? because I think we both know which is leading in that category...

>That its "smart" and "socially relevant" is being forced
>up me, is the status quo, is the reason its popular.

oh right, because I don't regularly hear Jalen Rose (or any other # of talking heads) tell me that 'sports are a reflection of society.'

really?

because last I checked, society wasn't 100% male.

>Any and all attempts to intellectual 'Girls' is a farse.

and yet here we are in 2013 and Barry Bonds can't get into the HOF because of why? and you're really going to tell me that it's useless to create meaning out of the 'Barry Bonds' controversy? I just don't see that being you, O_E

so yeah -- anything written about Girls outside of the show is a fabrication of the critic's mind, same as anything written about why Barry Bonds wasn't amazing at swinging a stick at a ball is a fabrication as well. but people still write about that shit, don't they? sheeeeeit -- Congress spends their time and money calling baseball players to the Hill! fucking holla back when Lena Dunham is getting Congressional hearings because of a plotline gone wrong on her show.

lmao @ calling that shit a false anology

we don't even disagree that much on this one, prolly a good point to lay it down, but if you're really gonna say Girls:Sports is false, then I know you're just in full bullshit mode...

I don't think Lena Dunham put fingers to keys consciously saying "people will TALK ABOUT IT," but she's part of an era* that is hyper self-aware, oversharing and implicitly vain (that's not to say that there aren't young people who do good things- but a) and b) make them SEEM vain about their involvement). So her writing's going to come from that perspective.

*I was going to say generation here, and then I realized that there's a ton of self-centered media and political discourse coming from the two precedent generations right now(see any Tea Partier complaining about why their taxes are paying for "x program" and 30 Rock, which did reactive writing long before Girls hit the screen)

It doesn't matter why/how she did what she did.

She did it.

Why she does it would matter if I was trying to place
a moral judgment on her or her work. I'm not.

Its artistically bankrupt to me, but again, I don't
think she's an artist.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

You're talking about the show as a cynical exercise in audience manipulation. I'm talking about it as expression. Intention is everything in that distinction.

>You're talking about the show as a cynical exercise in
>audience manipulation. I'm talking about it as expression.
>Intention is everything in that distinction.

You think she's an actual artist who is sincerely
trying to say something of worth

I think she's an internet entrepreneur with powerful friends
and an understanding of stupid people

If we can't agree on that, we can't agree on much of
anything, and I'm fine with that.

I mean, if you can sit through episode of this show
and not wish you were watching youtube videos of old
people fist fighting instead, then you don't see
eye-to-eye with me.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>You think she's an actual artist who is sincerely
>trying to say something of worth
>
>I think she's an internet entrepreneur with powerful friends
>and an understanding of stupid people
>

Because Terry's photos are one hundred percent designed to sell things to stupid/"half-sophisticated" people.

And yet, he's capable of some truly beautiful artistic work, from time to time, and he has a signature aesthetic.

*as in, being someone who decides what programs to air and when, not like how to work a tv.

On the first day of class, the professor asked us what the purpose of television programming was. after a few answers about entertainment, culture, etc from the class, he said "you're all wrong. the purpose of television programs is to deliver an audience to an advertiser. every show that is selected to go on the air is done with the purpose of attracting a specific audience that a group of advertisers will be attracted to"

U-S-A! U-S-A!

whatever other shit people put on that, it's their own creation.

who watch the show as part of their trashy tv fix.

People ask me to blog and write down my thoughts all the
time, and replies like yours is why I won't bother. Nobody
reads, and ultimately, the best points go unread or misunderstood.

>much less a blog -- so where do they fit into your 'the show
>only exists because of hyper-responsive internet culture'
>narrative?

Like Walleye alluded to, there are/haven been dozens of
shows that do the exact same thing as 'Girls', even better,
on free television.

'Girls' is not groundbreaking because of the dialogue.
Its not groundbreaking because of the characters.

It doesn't win Golden Globes because its a fun show about
women or tells us anything interesting about anything.

The controversy is 95% of the reason that the show is
on HBO to begin with.

To your female friends who watch the show: sort of my
point. If you put a show with a bunch of dumb white
women who talk about dick, it will attract millions of
views off jump, just because.

Hell, Jersey Shore's ratings went through the root just
because people like to see meatheads fight and fuck.

So that people watch it isn't really the point (its ratings
actually aren't that great). Of course some people will
watch it.

The question is why the show exists to begin with, why it
got an HBO slot, why its constantly being written about,
and why I have to waste my time debating dumb shit like
this.

Its remained popular because its creator is the child of NY
art royalty, and automatically attracted a gathering of high
brow fan/critics from the beginning:

The people who liked it called it "generation-defining" and
handed it a Golden Globe.

The people who disliked it called it offensive and indicative
of everything wrong with post-racial America.

^This is what the show is really about. The show is about
discussing what the show is about.

Let's compare it to an old show...like...'Living Single', 15
years ago.

In all seriousness, it told a much more provocative story
about a fascinating demographic:

African-American women in Clinton's America, the first time this
demographic made true professional strides in the history of
this country. This happened concurrent with the War on Drugs/end
of the War on Drugs, which created a vaccum of African-American male
counterparts, which fed an increasingly unsuccessful dating
dynamic between black men and women (that persists).

'Living Single'-lifestyle women were relatively rare in the
90s. Now there are cities with buildings full of single black
women with law and business degrees, all with wild stories
of unsuccessful dating escapades.

So this has been done before. Its been done with other white women
in shows. Its been done with men and women with shows.

The reason these shows didn't end up on HBO is because they were
about being watched, not being discussed, and didn't have the
arthouse starpower to attract a critical mass (and I mean "critical"
in the denotative sense). That is what 'Girls' has that other
shows does not have. The controversy.

And that is why it wins 'Golden Globes'.


>is it *that* impossible to believe that there is a slice of
>society that really, really responds to what Lena Dunham is
>pushing in that show without having to freak out about the
>'response' to it?

Absolutely not. There's a huge slice of society that will
pay $20.00 to watch Snookie talk about her struggles with
body image.

Same crowd that put Jersey Shore's ratings through the
roof.

And good for Snookie and Jersey Shore.

But that's the thing -- people watch Jersey Shore to see
dumb people fuck and fight.


So I'm not sure what your point is.


People like things for all kinds of dumbass reasons.


I used to sneakily watch Shannon Tweed movies as a kid
because I liked her nipples.


>you dudes acting as arbiters of what women should and should
>not like -- it's a poor look, really.


You're almost wearing a good sensitive-thoughtful-on-matters
-of-gender-man costume.

Almost.

But not.

Because you're not being sensitive or thoughtful on gender
at all.




----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>The question is why the show exists to begin with, why it
>got an HBO slot, why its constantly being written about,
>and why I have to waste my time debating dumb shit like
>this.

the show exists cuz HBO pays for it and people respond to it (you could have saved yourself a lot of typing).

I'm not even bullshitting, I have *no idea* why that warrants such the response it does. you wanna know what TV makes me mad? "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" makes me mad. Girls? I think Girls is funny. there's not too much else I need to worry about that show with.

now if I was talking to a person who was trying to tell me Girls was an artistic revolution? well yeah, that would be a different discussion. the only Girls fans I've talked to so far just tell me, "I REALLY LIKE IT!" because they don't feel the need to go around arbiting the taste of others (like, let's be honest here O_E, so many men do).

AND

that's Kareem's gift in this post -- he says "Girls has something?" it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, and Kareem sees that because he's confident, self-assured, and unthreatened by a white girl telling white girl stories.

>now if I was talking to a person who was trying to tell me
>Girls was an artistic revolution? well yeah, that would be a
>different discussion. the only Girls fans I've talked to so
>far just tell me, "I REALLY LIKE IT!" because they don't feel
>the need to go around arbiting the taste of others (like,
>let's be honest here O_E, so many men do).

Because I could counter with my anecdotal examples of girls who were angry at me for saying the show "doesn't interest me" and called Dunham "the voice of a generation."

And even if the general public's ability to define an artistic revolution is not statistically measurable, the media's perception and its ability to announce an artistic revolution is unquestionable. And I'm staring at the new EW, with Lena Dunham grabbing her head pensively, with the headline, "The Brilliant, Dirty, Twisted, Beautiful Mind Behind Girls: How Lena Dunham Became The Voice Of A Generation." Not the first publication to announce her coming (or staying... or whatever).

Furthermore, the point made above how backlash against Dunham is less about her being a woman and more about the media's insistence of her brilliance is on the money. Anything that the media insists is amazing gets loved or hated on an equal scale. Anything the media generally ignores that was created by a woman isn't hated, or if it's hated, then no one accuses that hatred to be founded in misogyny.

>And even if the general public's ability to define an artistic
>revolution is not statistically measurable, the media's
>perception and its ability to announce an artistic revolution
>is unquestionable. And I'm staring at the new EW, with Lena
>Dunham grabbing her head pensively, with the headline, "The
>Brilliant, Dirty, Twisted, Beautiful Mind Behind Girls: How
>Lena Dunham Became The Voice Of A Generation." Not the first
>publication to announce her coming (or staying... or
>whatever).

Wow.


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>Because I could counter with my anecdotal examples of girls
>who were angry at me for saying the show "doesn't interest me"
>and called Dunham "the voice of a generation."

you could, and I would agree with anyone and everyone who would want to call those girls obnoxious. but were we talking about the critique those girls were offering or the show Girls itself? it's a worthwhile distinction.

but as long as we're judging shows along the rubric "how does it make you feel?" then every single response is equally valid. it's The Problem with 'reader-response' critiques (it's also why so much modern pop criticism is intellectually bankrupt, so much of it has no real bearing in any substantive form of critical thinking -- and yes, the 'blogosphere,' twitter, message boards et. al. have only exacerbated this problem)

>Furthermore, the point made above how backlash against Dunham
>is less about her being a woman and more about the media's
>insistence of her brilliance is on the money. Anything that
>the media insists is amazing gets loved or hated on an equal
>scale. Anything the media generally ignores that was created
>by a woman isn't hated, or if it's hated, then no one accuses
>that hatred to be founded in misogyny.

right -- and while we bicker over exactly how we all should feel about some privileged white socialites in NYC, wholly exploitative, truly disturbing, unquestionably intellectually bankrupt shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo come to take over entire cable channels (not just buttress an already quality range of offering like HBO) and people let such actual creative atrocities pass without comment. if we're going to bicker over what a 'valid response' is to TV and its mainstream criticism, I would say the deafening silence over the moral bankruptcy and wholesale exploitation of a clearly sick state of affairs like Honey Boo Boo is much more damning than anything anyone has written about Lena Dunham and how much they like her show.

but that's just if we really want to take this discussion to a 'moral' place.

I'm fine leaving it as viewer-response, in which case telling someone else (we'll just leave gender out of it in this clause, even though it's obvious to anyone with eyes that gender is a key factor in this whole Girls phenomenon) what they should and shouldn't like is asinine, and you'd be better off focusing your energies on talking about what you like (i.e. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali etc.) than 'hate-watching' and judging the tastes of others.

>>Because I could counter with my anecdotal examples of girls
>>who were angry at me for saying the show "doesn't interest
>me"
>>and called Dunham "the voice of a generation."
>
>you could, and I would agree with anyone and everyone who
>would want to call those girls obnoxious. but were we talking
>about the critique those girls were offering or the show Girls
>itself? it's a worthwhile distinction.

Since I think the critique is exactly what makes people both drawn to Girls and drawn to hate on it. If Girls aired on Starz on Tuesdays at 11 PM, and it wasn't on the cover of magazines, it'd be cancelled like so many other "this is how people are today" shows that cable television offers.

>but as long as we're judging shows along the rubric "how does
>it make you feel?" then every single response is equally
>valid. it's The Problem with 'reader-response' critiques
>(it's also why so much modern pop criticism is intellectually
>bankrupt, so much of it has no real bearing in any substantive
>form of critical thinking -- and yes, the 'blogosphere,'
>twitter, message boards et. al. have only exacerbated this
>problem)

There's only so far that pop criticism can remove itself from how it makes the writer feel, though. Isn't one's view of the zeitgeist and of the term "culture" itself not much more than a feeling, that the fashionistas in any artform define the "next big thing" by what FEELS important? How does one accurately provide critical analysis of something like popular culture without delving into personal feelings or the personal feelings of others? (I realize "criticism of the art or lack thereof within pop criticism" is an entirely different conversation that doesn't necessarily need to be on the Sports board.)

>>Furthermore, the point made above how backlash against
>Dunham
>>is less about her being a woman and more about the media's
>>insistence of her brilliance is on the money. Anything that
>>the media insists is amazing gets loved or hated on an equal
>>scale. Anything the media generally ignores that was created
>>by a woman isn't hated, or if it's hated, then no one
>accuses
>>that hatred to be founded in misogyny.
>
>right -- and while we bicker over exactly how we all should
>feel about some privileged white socialites in NYC, wholly
>exploitative, truly disturbing, unquestionably intellectually
>bankrupt shows like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo come to take over
>entire cable channels (not just buttress an already quality
>range of offering like HBO) and people let such actual
>creative atrocities pass without comment. if we're going to
>bicker over what a 'valid response' is to TV and its
>mainstream criticism, I would say the deafening silence over
>the moral bankruptcy and wholesale exploitation of a clearly
>sick state of affairs like Honey Boo Boo is much more damning
>than anything anyone has written about Lena Dunham and how
>much they like her show.
>
>but that's just if we really want to take this discussion to a
>'moral' place.

Ah, but since morality is subjective, one could easily dismiss Dunham's sexual commentary as "cheap shocks" and put it on a similar plane of existence as Honey Boo Boo. I'd be willing to bet there's a large subset of society that would prefer their teenage daughter watch Honey Boo Boo than Girls based primarily on the foundation of comparative "morality."

Furthermore, one could also argue that the levels of exploitation between Honey Boo Boo and Girls are similar, as that family is equally aware what they're getting themselves into as Dunham is when she takes off her clothes and subjects herself to awkward sex scenes. One is marketed as a "reality show" and the other is marketed as "a show about reality." Granted, I'm merely (and probably annoyingly) playing devil's advocate here, as I also despise Honey Boo Boo, but embracing one's capacity to engage in stupid behavior is the point of many reality TV shows... and doesn't seem to be terribly far from the point of Girls. Girls just broadly adds some shades of grey to the mix.

It just depends what you're offended by and what you find morally and/or artistically bankrupt. Those things are all subjective as well.

>I'm fine leaving it as viewer-response, in which case telling
>someone else (we'll just leave gender out of it in this
>clause, even though it's obvious to anyone with eyes that
>gender is a key factor in this whole Girls phenomenon) what
>they should and shouldn't like is asinine, and you'd be better
>off focusing your energies on talking about what you like
>(i.e. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Jim Brown, Muhammad Ali etc.) than
>'hate-watching' and judging the tastes of others.

I went on a quasi-rant in PTP about the zeitgeist and how tricky it is to avoid watching shows that everyone in your circle watches, as if I don't watch it, I "need to try it," and if I try it and don't like it, then I'm "a hater." In general, I totally agree that hate-watching is pointless (and I too haven't watched Girls since the first season, nor Walking Dead, nor many of the shows my friends insist I should watch), but I understand the desire to watch something in order to have a fully informed opinion.

For instance, I feel weird having written so much considering I've watched, like, five episodes of Girls. I'm mostly just trying to distract myself from my work.

Just what we need: another male commenting on everything, telling people what to like (or why), and telling others not speak on a topic.


>Like Walleye alluded to, there are/haven been dozens of
>shows that do the exact same thing as 'Girls', even better,
>on free television.

No there haven't.

I can't think of a single show that was written, produced AND stars a woman. Which was the point Walleye responded to.

It is significant for that alone. Let alone your misplaced theories about why this show was created and what value it offers, as if it has anything to do with you.

>I can't think of a single show that was written, produced AND
>stars a woman. Which was the point Walleye responded to.
>
>It is significant for that alone. Let alone your misplaced
>theories about why this show was created and what value it
>offers, as if it has anything to do with you.

Well, shit -- if we like 'Girls' for FEMINIST reasons,
I'm FINE with that. Problem is, that isn't why it wins
a Golden Globe. That isn't why we call it a "defining
piece of artwork for this generation."

'Amos and Andy' was one of the first with an all-black
cast. You don't see it revered as fine art, do you?

Soooo


Shush

It is hilarious that at times you forget the value of the show has little do with your tastes.

It is hilarious that you are commenting on why "women" would like the show.

>Well, shit -- if we like 'Girls' for FEMINIST reasons,
>I'm FINE with that.

No, you're actually not. In fact you went so far as to cheap shot a couple males for speaking on gender.

You wrote literally hundreds and hundreds of words and didn't acknowledge value in terms of gender or feminism ONCE, in fact repeatedly you EXPLICITLY ignored or criticized its feminist value.

So stop lying. You think it is no better than Jersey Shore. I think it is important because it is the only show I can think of that is written, directed by and stars women.

Keep it moving.

Is there a reason you replaced "produced"?

but yeah, "Directed" is new. And they're both taking the similar "low-rent, less together version of me" approach to their breakout creative children.

>but yeah, "Directed" is new. And they're both taking the
>similar "low-rent, less together version of me" approach to
>their breakout creative children.

>but yeah, "Directed" is new. And they're both taking the
>similar "low-rent, less together version of me" approach to
>their breakout creative children.

Though Mindy's job isn't low-rent there, I suppose. She's got writer, actor, and executive producer credits there. And the show is named after her, which is worth something if the argument is that neanderthals are reacting poorly to autonomous women ruining our story time with their own ideas.

I don't know what else I was watching on Tuesday nights, maybe the dearly departed "Don't Trust the B," but I really like her show after a kind of iffy pilot.

Whitney Cummings has the same three tags as those two on her own terrible show, and two of them for the similarly wretched and women-starring "2 Broke Girls." At the very least, it's an impressive energy level for miserable television.

And I rather like the catch-all "creative children" here. I don't want to be uncharitable to what smuts is doing here, but the three-fold crediting process he's brought up is doing more to exclude shows that are unambiguously the product of women's creative efforts than it is to highlight something unique about "Girls". I don't think Tina Fey's apparent disinterest in directing made 30 Rock any less *hers* and I don't think any viewer ranging from casual to moderately serious would point to the list of directors for that show (which include a ton of women) and say that somehow muddies its from-a-woman-ness.

This whole thing is starting to be less fun. I kind of like "Girls." Not enough to pay for an HBO subscription, but enough so that when I was staying someplace with HBO this summer I sat through the end of a lot of shitty movies because an episode of "Girls" was only about forty minutes away. I just don't really think it's a big deal, and though I'll entertain an argument on that point I'm also pretty comfortable being a jerk when people guess at retrograde motives for not thinking it's a big deal.

Says the allegedly enlightened white football scout.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

the article about him trying to comeback mentioned his "unlimited athletic talent."

uh, no. he ain't fast or elusive. he has 40 fucking career rushing attempts for 175 yards.

All he's got is a big arm. but because he black, he must have unlimited athletic talent.

especially because the people authoring it are telling
me that I'm sexist




----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>
>especially because the people authoring it are telling
>me that I'm sexist

I'm just disagreeing with you on a straight-up artistic evaluation.

Please note that I'm not saying Girls is a great show. I'm saying it's enjoyable, and a perfectly valid artistic expression (see my "Terry Richardson territory" response vis-a-vis art and commerce).

And I thought Tiny Furniture was technically well-made, but awfully characterized film(again, we differ greatly on being able to call a film well-made if the writing isn't there, but I digress). The characters are similar on Girls, yes, but have at least a little bit of forward motion sufficient to set it apart (having Shoshanna and Marnie as main characters so that Lena and Jemima Kirke's characters aren't just having an indifferent-off also helps).

My goodness

*WhOOOOSSHHH**


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

And that's what I'm saying is that they run their shows and express different things.

Fey is fast-paced, incredible to watch, and inventive.

Dunham is successful and competent if unspectacular, but capable of a surprise every now and then.

So how am I wrong in making that analogy?

>And that's what I'm saying is that they run their shows and
>express different things.
>
>Fey is fast-paced, incredible to watch, and inventive.
>
>Dunham is successful and competent if unspectacular, but
>capable of a surprise every now and then.
>
>So how am I wrong in making that analogy?

My goodness.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

My golly.

EDIT: Also, Dunham straight up said she was influenced by Tina's work (or at least ability to helm a writing staff) at the Globes. So the analogy ain't altogether off.

>My golly.
>
>EDIT: Also, Dunham straight up said she was influenced by
>Tina's work (or at least ability to helm a writing staff) at
>the Globes. So the analogy ain't altogether off.

Question: you haven't, for a second, thought to sit and
re-think your position on some of this?

Just curious if you're just going to concede that your
attempts at being understanding are strong-armed and
chauvinistic, or if you're going to be keep being...
chauvinistic.

Because you are.

Carry on.


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Especially when I raised the Tina Fey point BECAUSE smuts said Girls was "the only show" where a woman held all of that power.

Fuck, I don't even know why you and I are arguing on THIS point.

when they're both successful and supremely put-together.

>when they're both successful and supremely put-together.

And now that I think about it: 3/4 of all comic-dramatic
writers, who poke fun at themselves, put their insecurities
on full display, write about the little things that people
don't notice.

Seinfeld, Jerry did that.

Even Hart, Kevin and Pryor, Richard and lots of other
non-white, non-woman.

But remind me:

You're progressive and open-minded because you've grouped
Lena Dunham and Tiny Fey based on the fact that they are quirky
comic writers who are self-deprecating?

Lol

Here's a tip: that is called sexism. You've incorrectly grouped
individuals based on a perceived similarity that isn't unique
to the two of them at all.

My goodness.



----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

THAT whole part of the conversation doesn't interest me. The only reason I even brought Tina up, again, is because Smuts raised the point that Dunham is breaking barriers, and I wanted to give respect to Tina.

And I don't know where you're getting that I'm trying to position myself as open-minded and progressive. I just think that, even if it is mostly commercially driven, being a television program after all, Girls is a perfectly valid artistic expression. You might not LIKE what it expresses, but it *is* artistic, just as 30 Rock is, just as Community is, and just as the latest Chuck Lorre Joke Delivery Engine is. Now, if you think it's BAD art, then that's cool. But to dismiss it as NOT art is an invalid criticism to me.

Keep your debate opponents straight, man. You're having the sexism fight with Smuts. GAWSH.

But hey, if you want to lump Lena in with Seinfeld, Woody and Kevin Hart, I'm sure she'd take that compliment.

If I'm going to fully jump in, can we call her willingness to embrace the living-trainwreck model of Fey/Dunham at the same time as casting herself as somebody organized and focused enough to finish medical school and deliver babies a little bit of a wink and nod at this practice?

Because I'm probably going to call it that. Just... FYI.

And I think, having not seen an episode of that show, that I can be on board with your call.

so I was ready to watch the show but never got around to watching a full episode (which basically these days requires me setting the DVR for it in order to fastforward & watch on my schedule).

As a result I just see the opening segments from the overlap of 'New Girl' recordings (that show is pretty decent, shout-out to Big Nick) and the results looked kinda 'eh' to me.

It's not perfect and took awhile to shrug off the common early-in-series problem of over exposition. "Mindy is all like this!" "But her friends are all like this!" "And her eccentric co-workers are just wacky/sarcastic/etc."

I think if a show manages to avoid that, that's a sign of a good show. But not all good shows manage to avoid it. A Venn Diagram would be helpful.

I think there's a chance it could overreach to 30 Rock level. As it is, she's done a nice job of twisting the conventional work/relationship sitcom aspects in some small but fun ways. I hope she stays right there for awhile until they settle into a nice rhythm.

SO given how good that's become and with your endorsement, I think I might give Ms. Kaling a shot.

I will say it's pretty slight. If it's not for you, nobody's going to harangue you in a decade like you just skipped "The Wire." The past few episodes have been the best, so if you don't like one of those then you probably don't need to proceed much further.

>The characters are similar on Girls, yes, but have
>at least a little bit of forward motion sufficient to set it
>apart

"Tiny Furniture" was aggressively tedious. Even that "little bit of forward motion" goes a long way to make something watchable.

really I should have said all four: stars, directed, written, produced

to which I would add: the cast is majority women

Fey & 30Rock was significant for similar reasons, but at the same time, I think the fact that Tracy Morgan and Alex Baldwin were central characters (and the reason a lot of people watched) deflected the kneejerk reaction people have to largely female-created/executed/alloftheabove productions.

If a show doesn't get the reaction you expect from a public you clearly think very little of, it must be that there's something different about that show.

do you actually disagree?

don't paint my observation as some kind of smug, broad, empty condescension towards "the public"

Unless that's all you think I'm saying. In which case, um, more power to you. We'll have to disagree.

Not specters like Hollywood or TV. And I don't think you've made an effort to engage us in good faith.

The circular reasoning above is part of it, but you've also been aggressively interested in characterizing your live opponents here as sexist from your initial post.

wasn't really given proper due in this discussion, which was all a sub-point of my point: that Girls is under a tighter microscope because of gender, and that is why it gets talked about so much more than one would expect.

That does not mean I think the people in this discussion are sexist.

Otherwise, can you reference a specific post?

... neatly excludes any space where somebody can disagree with you for a reason that isn't misogyny. It's fundamentally uncharitable.

that I became "aggressively interested in characterizing your live opponents here as sexist from your initial post."?

I thought your initial post came in awfully hot, but considered the chance that you'd try to talk through it. That's not what happened, and two-nineteen is what made me believe that wasn't your objective.

>You wrote literally hundreds and hundreds of words and didn't
>acknowledge value in terms of gender or feminism ONCE, in fact
>repeatedly you EXPLICITLY ignored or criticized its feminist
>value.
>
>So stop lying. You think it is no better than Jersey Shore. I
>think it is important because it is the only show I can think
>of that is written, directed by and stars women.


And IM THE FUCKING SEXIST!?!?!?

Bwahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahah


My take: the show is dumb. Just like lots of shows. It
doesn't deserve any more criticism than a lot of other
dumb shows, but I'll be damned if I call it the defining
show of our culture

Your take: it doesn't matter what's in the show; its
important solely because it stars, is directed and produced
by a woman.



Guess who the fucking sexist is?


Bwahahahahahahhaha


Yup! You barely even pay attention to what's going on
in the show. You like the show to fulfill your chauvinist
guilt.

(and I don't have to spell the shit out of for you,
but you bet there's a perfect race analogy in here)

I give women more credit than that. There are literally
thousands of talented women writers. I buy their shit.
I big up their shit. I support their shit.

Why?

Because I read it/watch it and its fucking good.

Because women are at least as talented as men in most
arenas.

And why do you read it/watch it?

Because they are women and you feel like you're sensitive
and understanding if you like it because they are women.

My god.

Having already slaughtered race, hipsterism now invades
gender....I didn't know people like you existed.



----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

par for your course, though.

it's an important show.

read a feminist blog or two. there's tons of criticism/discussion about what it means.

>par for your course, though.
>
>it's an important show.
>
>read a feminist blog or two. there's tons of
>criticism/discussion about what it means.

You are everything that's wrong with gender
discussion.

It really is an embarrassment and it sets WOMEN
back even further.

You are authoring the most sexist commentary in
this entire post and then run back to feminist
blogs for street cred.

Just stop it.

You know less about women than I do, support women
artists less than I do, and are more sexist than
I am.

Lena Dunham does not want you to like her because she's
a woman. She wants you to think her writing is clever,
smart, funny, telling a unique and interesting story
about a relatively new demographic in this country and
world.

I think her writing is bad, her jokes aren't funny and
that's she mostly famous for being a member of NYC arthouse
royalty. And she'd respect my opinion more than yours,
because you don't take the time to appreciate *her* or
the nuances to what she's trying to do.

YOU HAVE OBJECTIFIED HER into a woman. Not me.

Shame on you.



----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

carry on.

That's where you went wrong.

You are the biggest women-hater in this thread.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

and your hurt that your understanding may not be all there is to something.

I never said you were sexist. Nor do I think you are sexist in this discussion.

all I said was that using the same techniques used in discussions of race or privilege, you tried to silence the two of us males who tried to speak on gender. It's a pretty standard strategy by a dominant person trying to drown out criticism of status quo. Google it if you want.

Also I said you largely ignored the feminist aspect of the show's significance until I pointed it out.

^objectively true^

And now you're trying to present the complicated aspects of affirmative action and underrepresented voices as some kind of profound insight, as if that's not part of every gender and race discussion EVER. So I hate to ruin your fun, but it is actually something I'm aware of.

Since you've managed to derail yet another discussion, I'll recap my 4 main points. Feel free to respond if you having something new to say or if you're done making this discussion about YOU. Otherwise I personally am done here.

1. There's a lot to criticize Girls of, from its lack of people of color to its navel gazing and narrow socioeconomic representation of life in NYC.

2. As a show, the quality of its jokes and characters is largely a matter of personal opinion. Personally I think the show is pretty good but I don't love it. (reread for emphasis, as you seem confused about that last point)

3. The production itself is a significant (careful not to twist that word into something i'm not actually saying) solely because of how female-dominated it is, from cast to writing to production to directing. (Again I ask for an example of another show similar in ALL of those areas, but nobody can name one.)

4. Because of (3.), Girls is under a much tighter microscope than almost any other show. And that is why discussion of it is far out of balance compared to the show's significance otherwise.

Watch how easy this is:

>1. There's a lot to criticize Girls of, from its lack of
>people of color to its navel gazing and narrow socioeconomic
>representation of life in NYC.

So, there is a lot to dislike about the show.

(weird, Orbit_Established doesn't even care about this)

>2. As a show, the quality of its jokes and characters is
>largely a matter of personal opinion. Personally I think the
>show is pretty good but I don't love it. (reread for emphasis,
>as you seem confused about that last point)


You don't like the show.



>3. The production itself is a significant (careful not to
>twist that word into something i'm not actually saying) solely
>because of how female-dominated it is, from cast to writing to
>production to directing. (Again I ask for an example of
>another show similar in ALL of those areas, but nobody can
>name one.)


So, there's a lot of reasons to shit on the show, you
don't like the show, but it deserves to be watched because
of the female presence, independent of the fact that you
don't actually like it.


That is called being "sexist."


You've objectified her and the show. You are characterizing
it by its "woman-ness" ahead of any other potentially
essential characteristic.


>4. Because of (3.), Girls is under a much tighter microscope
>than almost any other show. And that is why discussion of it
>is far out of balance compared to the show's significance
>otherwise.

Okay, so the show has lots to dislike about it, you
don't like it, you watch it because it has women, and
because it is woman it gets more credit and criticism
than it deserves.

Point #4 is irrelevant, by the way. And almost nobody
gives a shit about the fact that its totally woman run.

People like it because they think its smart and funny.

People don't like it because they think its dumb and unfunny.

And that's what Lena Durham would prefer.




----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

nothing new.

>Lena Dunham does not want you to like her because she's
>a woman. She wants you to think her writing is clever,
>smart, funny, telling a unique and interesting story
>about a relatively new demographic in this country and
>world.

>I think her writing is bad, her jokes aren't funny and
>that's she mostly famous for being a member of NYC arthouse
>royalty. And she'd respect my opinion more than yours,
>because you don't take the time to appreciate *her* or
>the nuances to what she's trying to do.

basically.

>Maybe this will help: I have a degree from UCLA.

yep

sheesh

stall em out man

when he was Lew Alcindor.

You jelly?

Mad?

Both?

"we should all be intently listening to voices of the next generation, hearing what they have to say and, when they are struggling to say it, help them to articulate better. That's the advantage of growing older in this youth-centric society -- maybe the only advantage."

----------------------------
Same as it ever was!

well done.

but he rubs a LOT of people the wrong way. I've seen him do some supreme dick head shit...BUT..i understood it.

Thats my dude tho

After Holiday Sale, take advantage of 25% off www.karmaloop.com w/ rep code JR9103 | Nike, G-Star, Spiewak, etc.
+ a full line of Women's wear (Jeffrey Campbell, etc.)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li62avWmFu1qb619to1_500.jpg



http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

Earth is Earth.

Kareem said something, then suddenly a discussion of semiotics vis-a-vis Lena Dunham's filmography.

Mostly cuz Walleye engaged OE first, and gave him thoughtful responses, which then trickled down from there. Usually in PTP when OE says something is bad, people just shout at him about godknowswhat for reasons beyond my comprehension.

>when OE says something is bad, people just shout at him about
>godknowswhat for reasons beyond my comprehension.

If I had to guess, you know.

>when OE says something is bad, people just shout at him about
>godknowswhat for reasons beyond my comprehension.

>>when OE says something is bad, people just shout at him
>about
>>godknowswhat for reasons beyond my comprehension.

Seriously, people put their dukes up the INSTANT
they see me posting over there

There are more working Y chromosomes in OKS and so
people back down off jump

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

and I was referring to the "for reasons beyond my comprehension" part.

I'm such a fair, honest, cool ass nigga

>I'm such a fair, honest, cool ass nigga

Read all the posts in this thread.
Won't watch show.
Not for me.
Amused and amazed by the back and forth reaction this show gets.
Continue on folks.

it ain't the voice of my generation, but i've heard that shit before, so close enough. lena can do lena and it ain't my business to care if people think that's worth watching.

it's just kinda there, which on HBO is usually enough to get a few views from me unless it's some fantastical period piece like Rome/Carnivale on the drama side or 'Enlightened' which stresses me out just looking at a wild-eyed Dern in the promos.

It's a 'comedy' without any real laughs, drama without any arc or character or event you feel invested in.

It's a harmless half hour navel-gazing dramedy that's become a hot-button issue for purely external reasons.

I'll let you know if that ever changes but this far in I doubt it, so far the discussions on it here have been more entertaining than the actual show & you don't need to actually watch to appreciate that.

but if it can bring Kareem, OE, and Walleye together in a post i'll just be happy it exists.

>it's just kinda there, which on HBO is usually enough to get
>a few views from me unless it's some fantastical period piece
>like Rome/Carnivale on the drama side or 'Enlightened' which
>stresses me out just looking at a wild-eyed Dern in the
>promos.
>
>It's a 'comedy' without any real laughs, drama without any arc
>or character or event you feel invested in.
>
>It's a harmless half hour navel-gazing dramedy that's become a
>hot-button issue for purely external reasons.
>
>I'll let you know if that ever changes but this far in I doubt
>it, so far the discussions on it here have been more
>entertaining than the actual show & you don't need to actually
>watch to appreciate that.


I don't hold it against them. For all the greatness they've put out there are some shows I've watched that just don't move the meter for me. This looks like it would be one of them. But i will be checking for G.O.T. when this ends.

----------------------------
Same as it ever was!

It's not for everyone, but, for me, it's calibrated **just** right so that it manages to be really well done and highly entertaining, at least for me.

There's no way I'm entering into clusterfuck discussions about whether or not it has any merits though. I just give my opinions on an episode or plot development, and move on.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs6/2018857_o.gif

I'm so feminist that I sort of cycled back around and was chauvinist for while before continuing on and becoming even MORE feminist.

>I'm so feminist that I sort of cycled back around and was
>chauvinist for while before continuing on and becoming even
>MORE feminist.

So I don't add water to my approach to dealing
with diversity issues. I can unpack them and
discuss them appropriately.

To say that the most important component of Lena Dunham's
success is gender is sexist.

Dunham would hope that she is appreciated on the basis
of merit. That is factually and actually why people
watch the show -- they think its good.

Not to mention that minority women laugh at the
first assertion, and say that she's famous because
she comes from a family of NY arthouse royalty,
which gave her a distinct advantage that outweighs
the "disadvantages" of gender.

Same way even young WHITE WOMEN were voting for
Obama in the 2007 primary: many thought that Hilary's
self-righteousness about being a woman was ironic,
given that she wasn't hiding the "Clinton" part
of her name (or legacy).


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Congratulations. You've come full-circle.

Y'all discussing shows I will almost certainly never see.

I'm just saying that I'm the most feminist poster. In the world. Ever. So I win, I think.

*shrugs*

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

AND don't have cable, but find ways to watch the show (occasionally). My hipsterism in this post reigns supreme (though I do come down with the widest definition of "art" in the whole "art vs. commerce" debate. Hmmmm."

OE is forever railing against them, and I tend to agree on general principle, which is that I enjoy being suspicious of groups to which I do not belong, but I really have no idea what a hipster is.

This morning, at the convenience store, a dude, mid- to late-20s, was in line wearing a Rollie Fingers mustache and a plaid short-sleeve button-down shirt about three sizes too small, and I thought to myself, "that must be a hipster." But you're talking about homebrew and cameras, and I don't know how that fits together.

>This morning, at the convenience store, a dude, mid- to
>late-20s, was in line wearing a Rollie Fingers mustache and a
>plaid short-sleeve button-down shirt about three sizes too
>small, and I thought to myself, "that must be a hipster."

Man, if I could describe a hipster to you, that'd be my choice of attire/facial accoutrement

>But
>you're talking about homebrew and cameras, and I don't know
>how that fits together.

There's some overlap. Some, but not all, hipsters are into extremely vintage stuff and the maker movement.

so like urban beekeepers, woodworking, light metalwork, etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I hate hipsters. Like, a whole lot.

Why not just live life earnestly and in full?

I don't think beekeeping is something that a man should know how to do.

http://gawker.com/5980261/artisanal-manliness-for-fun-and-profit

That word makes me want to punch people in the face.

Is it a product of young Paultards or is it that hipster lumberjack thing? Either way, I should feel a little squicky about enjoying him.

>Is it a product of young Paultards or is it that hipster
>lumberjack thing? Either way, I should feel a little squicky
>about enjoying him.

ironic manhood for a generation of hipster boys who have a hard time admitting to their g/fs they prefer sex to cuddling.

The writers periodically try to make the case that his enthusiasm for traditional manhood doesn't exclude women but, at its best, rather functions as an invitation to something authentic and universal. The episode where he and Leslie had competing scout troops was the purest example of this effort, but they also laid it on pretty thick in his relationship with Lucy Lawless' character.

Doesn't always work, but I think they're trying to do something more interesting than a reactionary crank.

as in who reacts to him and how people react to him.

it's not too unlike the Girls discussion above -- the show is one thing, the response is another. I see too many hipsters who only revel in the ironic manhood angle of Ron Swanson's mustached, meat-loving ways and are totally blind to the very real heart he still possesses (as you mentioned above).

the point to me with Ron Swanson is that there is value in the rugged, masculine individualist and it takes a hero like Leslie Knope to be able to respect and learn from that. too many people I think only see the irony of the mustache, meat.

I get that distinction. Carry on.

>the point to me with Ron Swanson is that there is value in the
>rugged, masculine individualist and it takes a hero like
>Leslie Knope to be able to respect and learn from that. too
>many people I think only see the irony of the mustache, meat.

When, in fact, the proper reaction to the mustache is jealousy. I don't want one myself, but it feels somehow unfair that I can't have one.

is this 'maker movement' really really a thing? I haven't heard of it here in Portland but now I'm worried...

Here's the first results on Google for "maker movement"

http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/21/make-techshop/
http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/01/making-new-green/
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/newtechcity/blogs/new-tech-city-blog/2012/oct/02/maker-movement/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/the-ripening-of-adafruit-and-the-maker-movement/2012/12/20/d18f0ec8-4aad-11e2-8758-b64a2997a921_blog.html

Because if not, I hereby state that Veronica Mars deserved to get cancelled, and I was happy when it was.

(I actually never watched it)

((Also, I dig your efforts to make this post go triple plat after the arguments fizzled out a little))

>(I actually never watched it)

Go take care of that now, before it's too late.

Sartre-ing it up in here. Tu n'es rien d'autre que ta vie.

truthfully, I have never seen Veronica Mars. This is not a boycott but a reflection of the fact that I watch very, very few shows. Like, I didn't get around to watching The Wire until Fall 2011. I have no doubt that it's good.

My wife passed me in just under a year and is defending her dissertation in a month. I'm grouchy that I'm so up for this bait, but good on you for knowing the weirdly correct buttons to push so I'll be:

a)mad
b)not so mad that I wont just stop

For your next trick, you can somehow loop an explanation of how Joe Mauer isn't on a Hall of Fame career trajectory into whatever this thread is now.

>For your next trick, you can somehow loop an explanation of
>how Joe Mauer isn't on a Hall of Fame career trajectory into
>whatever this thread is now.

While it's entirely likely that he'll end up with a career closer to Mickey Cochrane's (to whom he most compares), that possibility that he Kendalls through his 30s is always there.

It's scary, but increasingly less relevant to the Hall of Fame discussion. Kendall's bat only had about two seasons where it would have really played at a star level anywhere but catcher. Meanwhile, an average Joe Mauer year (.323/.405/.468) is basically Will Clark. He's already logged the peak years where Kendall didn't, so the worry is that he'll Kendall (good call on verbing that) in his 30s. Which actually wouldn't make him Jason Kendall, but Dale Murphy - who still gets Hall of Fame votes.

The suddenness that defines Kendall-ing is the worrisome thing here. A normal decline doesn't look like the foreign application of dark magicks, so hopefully Mauer will settle into catching less in his decline years and the early 30s will look like an old man settling into a warm bath instead of Jean-Paul Marat settling into a warm bath.

On the other hand, the Twins training staff has looked like the Charlotte Cordays of sports medicine lately, so... fright accomplished.

Partially because baseball writers are dumb, as the class of 2013 proved.

And give him some black ink like three batting titles and even the present batch of BBWAA chuckleheads might not be able to pass him up.

*still 155 away, but it makes a nice round number

To say nothing of the overimportance those idiots* place on being a "first ballot" hall of famer.

*Idiots is a strong word for people who have been able to make a living out of going to baseball games and getting free everything. But then again, they've also found a way to suck a lot of joy out of baseball.

>But then again, they've also found a way to suck a
>lot of joy out of baseball.

Which makes them way worse than idiots.

When we're all dead and rotting,* Veronica Mars' pilot will be the best television that any of us could have possibly watched. Any English-speaking human cannot offer any opinion besides over-the-top affirmation of that show's greatness without being fairly accused of operating with insufficient mental faculties.

And the rest of the show didn't disappoint even a bit, until season three - parts of which fully retained it's original greatness.

Seriously, not being completely in love with "Veronica Mars" is a sure sign of an irretrievable dumbass.

*except for whatever saints walk among us, obviously

*except for whatever saints walk among us, obviously
>
>

The incorrupt bodies are my second favorite kind of saints behind cephalophores.

So if I see you in the streets carrying your own, non-putrified head two centuries after your death, then I'll be really impressed.

>So if I see you in the streets carrying your own,
>non-putrified head two centuries after your death, then I'll
>be really impressed.

it can't possibly merit this much discussion. it just can't.

If you can't get with that, you're behind the
8 ball G

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>If you can't get with that, you're behind the
>8 ball G

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/puddy-8ball.jpg