Letters to the Editor
onelaw
Published Letters: 7 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Love this show
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "The Shield"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've really got to disagree with this comment:
"The only discernable message of The Shield’s infantile morality play would seem to be that the ends always justify the means, and if yee-haw police brutality happens to predominate in the process, so be it. Just so long as loyalty prevails."
The Shield is definitely not a morality play. It's genius lies in the fact that it refuses to moralize on either the side of law and order a la Claudette or for Vic's vigilantism. The sympathy that a lot of viewers have for Vic is because Vic's motives are so understandable. He wants only two things: 1) To cover his own ass and those of his team and their families, and 2) To keep the streets as violence-free as possible. Isn't that what everyone wants? But on the other hand, the show's writer's go to great pains to demonstrate that Vic's plans often result in tragic collateral damage like the man Vic killed as mistaken vengeance for Lem or the very innocent Terry Crowley. It's just that the moral, by-the-books method doesn't always achieve better results.
The Shield does not advocate Vic's methods. It's writers present his methods and show their consequences. They pose a question, but never give an answer. In the end, it is the viewer's job to decide whether Vic or Claudette is right. In an unwinable battle against crime/ violence, who poses the best solution?
I appreciate The Shield's refusal to tell its viewers what to think.
And on another note, I adore to the show's casting directors. The Shield's cast is full of actors that are real world attractive instead of Hollywood perfect. And imo, many of them are sexier than the vast majority of famous leading men-types.
-
More Simple Kid songs
[Read the article: Song of the Day: "Lil King Kong," Simple Kid]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, yes, the other songs on the album are that good. Better, in fact, imho. Simple Kid's U.S. label, is offering two other SK mp3s in conjunction w/ "Lil' King Kong" at their website: http://www.yeproc.com/news.php?articleId=4308 .
Be warned: it is impossible to download the tracks individually-- all three come bundled together in some weird zipped folder (which I had to renamed the folder to get the songs to work properly). So if you've already downloaded "Lil' King Kong," you'll have two copies.
I'm loving "Serotonin" live. (And the album version sounds good, too.)
-
Ah, rejection.
[Read the article: I'm an interesting, talented artist but I can't take the rejection!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, I know, the LW is luckier than he thinks he is and all, but honestly, rejection and self-doubt effect even the most successful or brilliant among us. At least at times. And that includes all of the creative types writing these "What do you have to cry about?" letters. So what is a creative person to do? I've thought about it a lot and come to two basic conclusions:
A) No matter what kind of "art" you make-- paintings, poems, media instillations, etc., *someone* will like it. Good? Bad? Doesn't matter. Someone will like it. Someone else will hate it. Hopefully more of these people like it than not. Maybe they won't. That doesn't matter. You made what you made and if I or my friends or the Boston Museum or God or Random House or anyone else doesn't like it, then please feel free to tell us all to fuck off in capital letters. You should not ignore constructive criticism, of course, but acceptance by any museum or publisher is dictated by a very small number of individuals who may or may not share your tastes, who may or may not like you personally, who may or may not want to give "your" slot to a friend, who may or may not be more concerned about market forces than they are about your message/vision/spiritual communion with your audience. This type of acceptance is neither entirely subjective or objective; acceptance is by no means a guarantee that you are good.
B) What if your art really is bad? At least some of it? Who cares? You have a right-- yes, a right-- to make bad art. Everyone does. Part of that is the learning process. Part of that is just process. Do you love every story that Willa Cather ever wrote (or at least published)? Is everything Picasso ever painted brilliant? And if your idols are allowed to screw up, then why aren't you? And what you consider to be their worst work is probably beloved by others as some of their best. . . And do you even like Willa Cather at all? . . . .