Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
One issue that irritates me is not that they're all ultra-glam but that there are practically no straight people in the universe. Are we incapable of holding an important--even central--place in a show unless 90% of the characters are gay? The show ends up feeling like this weird little bubble.
I hate the way it separates the women from the rest of society instead of showing them as a normal part of it. I'm just tired of seeing gay people portrayed as aliens. The longer that goes on, the longer that (mis)conception will remain.
I hear you. It was the same way with Queer as Folk, the obvious inspiration for this show. To be fair, I think there is a worry that if straight people are featured prominantly, then their issues will be featured prominently, and gay issues will be shoved to the side even on a specifically gay drama. The trouble, of course, is that the choice they made promotes the illusion of a a "gay ghetto" that acts as some kind of social bubble outside of which gay characters rarely venture. And this is not the case. Plus, it implies gays don't have strong relationships with straights, another falsehood. But I understand the need to pare things away and simply for the sake of a dramatic series.
I was disappointed by Queer as Folk, with its one-dimensional characters (I gave up in the middle of the third season; it was just so ridiculous), and I was disappointed by Will and Grace, with its stupid, cartoon characters. But I just tell myself "It's television. It's not art. It's commerce. And usually generic." And remember to be grateful that Six Feet Under was the rare exception to the rule.
There was a gay teen dealer in the first season -- his arc lasted exactly 1 and a half episodes. I've watched every episode -- there is no gay FBI agent.
Tomringworm clearly saw maybe 2-3 episodes, and has a crappy memory.
That was uncalled for. I'm tired of the media's constant Czech bashing. And never a mean word about Hungary. Hmmmm.
You're kidding, right? Have you ever HAD a Czech beer?
I get it now.
Sorry, folks, I know it's not couth to just berate a letter writer, but come on.
Biff, you read Salon. You know how to use the internet. How hard is it to type "on the nose dialogue" into Google? I mean, sure, at first I thought it was lame that you'd never heard the idiom "on the nose", but then I realized maybe you're not a native English speaker and thus haven't had exposure to clichéd phrases like that. But please.
Here, I'll save you the typing. Copy and paste:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22on+the+nose+dialogue%22
I thought it was ridiculous that you asked your question in the first place. But to get all huffy and annoyed that the "community" isn't rushing to the aid of your laziness and/or stupidity really belies your true inner loser.
Yes, Biff, everyone knew, and you are so clueless that we all thought it wasn't worth wasting time responding.
Now, can someone please tell me why tomreedtoon reads Heather's column? And why he feels the need to toss insults out of left field when there's nothing substantive for him to criticize?
(Biff, you know what to do now to learn what "out of left field" means.)
--dak
I wouldn't normally stoop to responding to such a petty attack, but I'm in a nasty mood after having worked overtime for no other reason than management's insecurity over a new newscast.
Y'know, although Havrilesky's supporters are a foofy lot (foofy doesn't mean "gay," it means "would-be gay but that would take too much effort and committment") they couldn't understand a bit of hyperbole. That is, hyperbole intended to make a point, rather than intended to boost Havrilesky's deservedly low self-esteem.
The gay FBI agent and gay drug dealer in "Weeds" was a hypothetical invention. It was intended to point out how some people see every gay character on TV as either a great advancement in gay culture, or a betrayal of that culture. It's almost as if having a blonde attorney on "Boston Legal" was something intended to affect the potential of all blondes everywhere, until the end of time.
I'm considered a geek and a nerd because I like comics, science fiction, comedy music and animation. I am thought to be intellectually bereft because of my affections, as if I didn't read or do anything else. But when I read letters like the one by tvnourishesme, I feel as adept and versatile as Benjamin Freaking Franklin by comparison. How limited is your perception, dude?
And hopefuly, this will be the last post in this thread, so we can all await whatever bit of backwash Havrilesky will produce next Saturday. Unless that other foofy person wants to ask what "Google" is, and how it's spelled.
The gay FBI agent and gay drug dealer in "Weeds" was a hypothetical invention. It was intended to point out how some people see every gay character on TV as either a great advancement in gay culture, or a betrayal of that culture.
Sorry, but if that was your intention you utterly missed. It looked only as though you hadn't watched the show. Even now, knowing what you say your intention was, and even agreeing with that point, I don't see how it points out anything of the kind.
As a youngish lesbian in Los Angeles, I was so excited when the L Word first came out. (ha) The first two seasons had their flaws, but at least they were interesting - and there was a moral center that revolved around friendship, loyalty and the stubborn voracity it takes to live a normal life when you're gay.
Sadly, the show has deteriorated-and not in a fun crazy way like Melrose Place. I blame the Betty themesong primarily. Not only was that the beginning of shameless product placement/band placement/magazine placement - it was the beginning of this "vibe" that went along with the song. "This is the way that we live" became a selfish hipster type anthem that disconnected with the tone of the show at the time.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, was the departure of writer Guinevere Turner, who also had a brief role in the show as Gabby. A proven soulful writer- her contributions were obvious in different storylines- and the void she left was followed by questionable storylines.
On the face of many plot points-the situations seem plausible. But there is no character continuity on The L Word. Characters don't evolve, they either stay the same, or change at breakneck speed. There seems to be a sad underlying theme that certain negative personality traits are permanent, even after soul searching and personal growth (Shane is a womanizer & druggie, Tina goes back to men, etc). The worst of it? There isn't even one character left with integrity. The loyalty and love is gone, and in its place is cattiness and reluctant friendship. I don't believe any of the characters respect or like each other--and that has rubbed off on me.
I still watch the L Word--but it makes me sad that straight people watch and might think there is a speck of reality to it. So, why do I watch? Well, it's my Sapphic duty to know my pop culture... and sadly, there isn't a lot of it. Niches and festivals and so forth, yes. But when I'm at the lesbian water cooler, the L word is going to be a topic that comes up---and when I roll my eyes, I want to be able to follow it up with an informed complaint.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
