entirely ruined her disposition with books

I have watched two seasons of TV in the past couple of weeks. One was uniformly excellent. The other was generally bad but with a few things that really worked.

So of course the one I have to say a whole bunch about is the bad one.

But first the good one: like literally everyone else who has watched it, I enjoyed the heck out of Our Flag Means Death. I did not reach the level of obsession that some of my other friends have reached, but I loved it lots and I can't wait for S2.

A deliriously wonderful cast, sharp and funny and moving writing, a tone that guarantees enjoyment--it's just such a fun show! (Until it's emotionally devastating. This show has almost nothing in common with Ted Lasso, and yet I think of them in similar ways--delightful to start with, then surprisingly emotionally upsetting, and everyone who watches them loves them.)

People keep comparing it to the other queer pirate show (Black Sails), which is silly. BS is a very serious show about empire and queerness and storytelling and compromise. OFMD is a very funny show about figuring out what you want in life and how to get it without hurting the people you love (though the characters are very bad at the latter). And queerness.

It kind of reminds me more of Los Espookys, my super super weird comedy fave that is also about queerness. LE has more women, though. That's the one bad thing about OFMD--not enough ladies! Though the ladies that exist are great and the writers do right by them.

Anyway, highly recommended! My crush on Taika Waititi continues apace! (I don't think you can say "continues apace" about a crush but I'm saying it anyway.) I'm so glad that weird queer people with big hearts are getting to make TV these days. It's so nice.


Now for the other show. Yes, I gave in and watched S2 of Bridgerton (well, I haven't yet seen the final two episodes, but I'll watch them tonight). You have to understand that I dropped S1 halfway through because it was driving me crazy. So I was Not Going To Watch S2. I really wasn't.

But then people I trust (I'm looking at you, Meg) were losing their mind over the main pairing, so I was like, "What the heck, I'll give it another shot. I can always stop if it's still bad."

Well, friends, it is still bad. It's got all the same flaws as S1. (And is aggressively, aggressively straight.) And yet I did not stop watching. Because despite all of its flaws, it had one thing going for it: the main couple this time actually have chemistry and personalities!!!!

Regé-Jean Page, leading man of S1, is an obscenely beautiful man, but his character was underwritten, and his love interest was dull as dishwater. Their chemistry was lacking, too. I guess I could understand that they were physically attracted to each other, but I never really understood why I was expected to think that they liked each other. Who are these people? Why should I care about them? I super did not, so I dropped the show.

But in S2, Simone Ashley's Kate and Jonathan Bailey's Anthony actually have personalities! Admittedly, I'm not always crazy about Anthony's, but at least it exists. And I do love Kate. And it's easy to see how these two people would work together--that if they ever got over themselves (and the stupid positions they keep putting themselves in), they could really make each other laugh and work as a team and just generally have a great partnership (in addition to wanting to bang each others' brains out).

So that main pairing is enough to keep me watching S2. Unfortunately, every other problem that was present in S1 is present in season 2. Now is the time to rant about them. You are warned that this is both long and incredibly negative.

+ The dialogue is excruciatingly, embarrassingly awful. Sometimes it doesn't even make sense on the sentence level. ("I heard you and the king had many trials during your happy courtship." Um. What?) The writers want the characters to sound formal and old-fashioned but they have zero idea of how language worked in the Regency period so it just sounds stupid and they throw in a bunch of "fancy" words that they don't actually know how to properly use. It is so infuriating.

The voiceovers (more about that later) are especially bad. They're supposed to be insightful or witty or something, but instead they're banal at best and downright nonsense at worst. This show is so dumb, y'all. Like, insult-your-intelligence level dumb. The actors and the production design are carrying everything. The writing is doing absolutely nothing.

+ Speaking of bad writing, it is also insanely inconsistent. Characters' motivations and desires change from one episode to the next without any reasons. I think we're just supposed to not notice? That a character who wants X in one episode now is totally opposed to X in the next episode??? Writers might have been able to get away with that sort of thing in the old days of weekly episodes, but in this era of streaming and binging, it is so noticeable. It makes me want to attack the writer's room with an axe.

The writers don't even know who all the characters are. Who the hell is Benedict? What is his personality? Who the hell is Daphne? What am I supposed to be drawn to about her? Is Penelope supposed to be kind or a manipulative jerk? What the heck is going on with the Queen?

And the characters who do have somewhat consistent personalities are often shallow. Eloise should work (more on Eloise later, I have SO many feelings), but she doesn't. Why does Violet only care about marrying off her children and nothing else? Adjoa Andoh as Lady Danbury is a delight, but...I'm not sure who her character is and what she wants.

Kate and Anthony as leads manage to have decently developed personalities even if their motives and desires shift from episode to episode. Kate has Big Sister Syndrome bad, and Anthony is even worse with his feelings about duty and his martyr complex. But I also really like Kate and find her understandable, and I like that Anthony likes Kate. So they're the only two characters who mostly work. And they work well enough to keep me watching.

+ The family stuff should be the best part of the show, and on the rare occasions when it's well-written, it is. But most of the time even that doesn't work because of bad dialogue or inconsistent writing.

( I guess I'll put the rest of this post behind a cut for spoilers, both for the show and also for the books )

I will give Bridgerton one final compliment: the costumes are really beautiful. They're better this season than they were last season. Kate, especially gets to wear lots and lots of gorgeous costume sin incredible vivid colors (I am not a pastels person, so this was a major upgrade for me) and she looks incredible in them. (My sister and I had an argument the other day over whether Simone Ashley or Charithra Chandran is more beautiful. This is a pointless conversation because they are both gorgeous. But for the record, I'm team Simone.)

And the settings are so fun too--beautiful countryside, every Georgian or Palladian building in Britain (many of which are instantly recognizable if you've seen them in real life), the beautiful interiors. It really is lovely even if it's also shallow.

The things I watch just for the sake of het couples who actually have chemistry!

Knowing me, as soon as I hit post, I will probably think of fourteen other things I wanted to write about and come back and add them.

A thing I have discovered about myself lately: I hate sports, but I really enjoy sports documentaries.

This surprised me, but I guess it shouldn't. My lack of interest in sports has always been about a) my completely disinterest in--actually, often it's stronger than that and becomes outright antipathy towards--competition (I just want everyone to win! Why can't everyone win???) and b) I find it boring to watch people do physical things--even things I can admit are very very impressive--unless those things are artistically-driven (think rhythmic gymnastics and figure skating, both of which are about artistic expression even more than they are about what bodies can accomplish).

If you don't care about competition or watching people do impressive things with their bodies...of course you're going to be uninterested in sports. Add to that the fact that sports are essentially narrative-less until they're over and you know who won (and which point people will construct a narrative around them) and I just get bored.

But sports documentaries are about people! Their relationships to each other! Their relationships to themselves! What you're willing to sacrifice to accomplish something extreme! (Even if I often think that they're crazy to sacrifice what they do, it's an interesting part of the human experience.) They're about society! And what things are important to us! And who we admire! And who we turn on!

All that to say I have watched a few sports documentaries lately and enjoyed the heck out of them.

Untold: Malice at the Palace is about...a riot at a basketball game? I guess? But it's about what caused that riot and how the narrative about it was constructed by the media and how the players involved ended up suffering for it even though they were far less culpable than the fans. I don't even remember this situation though I think it was back in 2004 and presumably it was all over the media at the time. Goes to show you how much I block out sports-related stuff from my mind.

Untold is apparently a 30-for-30 style sports documentary series on Netflix, and I've started one about a mob boss who bought his teenage son a minor-league hockey team (I don't think that's how they describe it? but that's essentially what it is) to run after he hurt himself and couldn't play hockey anymore. It's wild. I haven't finished that one yet, but I'll get around to at some point.

Last night during my dinner (the only time I really watch TV these days except when I'm on my treadmill) I started The Last Dance about the last season where the Chicago Bulls were any good. THE DRAMA, Y'ALL. This is like imperial palace level drama. At least the characters in this one I've heard of--as a kid growing up in the 90s, I of course could not escape Michael Jordan and Dennis Rodman and the Bulls' omnipresence. I had no interest in anything but Space Jam and its soundtrack at the time, but it's interesting revisiting that era.

And then there's Athlete A which is only...kind of a sports documentary. It's much more a systemic sexual harassment/fighting for justice documentary as it's about the girls/women who were abused by Larry Nasser, but it does involve sports. I can't say that I enjoyed it, because it's harrowing. But I appreciate it and was deeply moved by it. I cried a lot while I watched it, is what I'm saying. I do recommend it if you're in a mental space where you can handle something so deeply upsetting.



Here's where my post splits off in two directions.

Direction 1: Rachael Denhollander is prominent in the film as she was the first woman to come forward and accuse Nasser. She's also been making occasional appearances in a podcast I'm listening to called The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. If you were evangelical or evangelical-adjacent in the early 2000s, you instantly know what that podcast is about just by the title. If you weren't, it's about how a sexist, homophobic, egotistical, combative guy started a megachurch in Seattle, became one of the most famous Christians in the world, and then was "brought down" when people came forward and said, "You know what? That whole church culture was really abusive."

I knew a lot of the stuff in this podcast because we were all watching it happen via blogs (the late, great Rachel Held Evans was a major voice pushing back against Driscoll. In essence, it was blogs that held Driscoll responsible and resulted in the pushback against him). But the scope of this podcast is compelling. It's as much analysis of What's Wrong with White Evangelical Culture as it is about this specific church. If you're at all curious about evangelical Christianity, I think it's a great podcast to listen to.

It's also sometimes very frustrating because it's created by Christianity Today, which used to be THE big respected centrist evangelical magazine (think Billy Graham) but, as evangelical culture has shifted so far to the right, it's become increasingly under attack for being too liberal. Even though they are in no way liberal. So sometimes the approach in this podcast could be off-putting to someone who isn't an evangelical Christian. The criticisms from the left are legitimate and understandable. I still think it's worthwhile, and I'm glad it exists.

I'm so glad that CT is tackling this. I'm heartened by how willing they are to say, "Abusive dynamics are really common in evangelical culture today, and we absolutely have to understand why that is and do something about that." What I worry is that no one's going to learn anything from the story they're telling because progressive Christians will say it's too conservative and conservative evangelicals will say it's too liberal (compromised by the world, influenced by the culture, etc.). Which is a shame because I do think that most of the time the reporting is really good. There are moments, as I mentioned, that frustrate me, but the reporters are talking even to people who've left the church entirely and explicitly saying, "We can learn from these people's experiences." Which I so appreciate.

And I want to mention Rachael Denhollander again. I find her fascinating. She's still firmly in the evangelical tradition, but she has become a lawyer and committed herself completely to rooting out institutional abuse wherever she can find it including in churches (which is why she's often interviewed in the podcast). I admire the heck out of her work even if I wish she didn't still believe some of the things she does. I don't really understand how she can be so completely committed to protecting women and children the way she is and not go full-on feminist, but people are complicated. Her relentless work will save lives, and white evangelicalism desperately, desperately needs voices like hers. I'm sure she gets unbelievable amounts of hate and death threats, but I think she will make at least some kind of difference.



Direction 2: To pivot back to problems with sports and especially children in sports, I've been thinking a lot over the last couple of months about how absolutely gross it is that we let children participate in high-level and even professional sports. FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLDS SHOULD NOT BE AT THE OLYMPICS OMG. Part of my thoughts about this were prompted by Athlete A, which is a pretty compelling argument that this level of intensity in children's sports is always going to result in abuse. (Why did this go on for as long as it did? Because parents were so desperately for their children to succeed in the world of gymnastics that they trusted an institution they never should have trusted, and that institution was so committed to protecting itself that it was incapable of rooting out abuse.) The other thing that's got this on my mind is all the teenagers winning in tennis lately and also how frank all of them (and older athletes, too, Naomi Osaka in particular) are about the incredible pressure they're under and how their mental health is affected.

I have long, long believed that sports in the US should be severed from education. Schools from kindergarten through university should only have intramural-type sports. The sports complex in our culture is absolutely insane and I hatehatehatehatehatehate the way it warps education, especially higher education. I hate the way all these horrible white dudes are making millions of the work of teenagers (many of whom are black and/or from poor backgrounds). It's disgusting.

But I'm becoming even more radical re: sports and I think that there just shouldn't be these intensely organized sports for kids. They just shouldn't exist. You should have to be 18 to compete at the Olympics or go professional or anything like that. Children should only be playing loosely organized kinds of sports like your municipal soccer program that practices like an hour or two a week and is mostly about having fun.

So I really appreciated Anne Helen Petersen's article against youth sports. There are a bunch of negative things about the professionalization of children's sports that she doesn't even touch on, but what she has to say is good.

I don't know. Maybe elsewhere in the world other cultures have healthy relationships with sports for kids. Maybe it's possible for kids to compete at high levels without it turning abusive. But we certainly haven't figured that out here in the US.

Totally random icons. I really super hated the Queen's Gambit and Discotrek ones when I made them because they were so so so so so hard to color. But I'm feeling a bit better about them now.

01-15. The Queen's Gambit (Beth)
16-25. Star Trek Discovery (S3 Michael)
26-27. Fiddler on the Roof (the sisters)
28-36. It's Okay Not to Be Okay
37-45. Portrait of a Lady on Fire
46-48. Anya Taylor-Joy


Preview:


( Read more... )

Sudden thought:

Is it possible that with television getting better and more prestige-like, it's draining the format of the very things that made TV fandom so fun???

Like I think about the best (by best I mean most active and interesting) TV fandoms I know of and they're like BtVS obviously and classic Trek and the X-Files and Doctor Who and those shows are all really great and iconic but also really, really messy? And sprawling and hence fun to explore? And they have monster of the week episodes and plotlines that get dropped or not fully developed and maybe that's why they inspired good fandoms?

I love The Expanse. I love Black Sails. They are so very, very good. But I have never felt the need to look for fic for either one of them. Is it because they're so tightly written?

Is it possible that the TV is so good now that I don't need fanfic? And if so...where can I find some good-but-also-messy TV again? It seems like that only exists in comedies (like, idk, Schitt's Creek or something), but I am not really super into comedies? I enjoy watching some of them, but they have never made me feel fannish. I need something speculative (or at least far away from the my real life like The West Wing or something) with an interesting world and enough loose ends to run wild.

I think I may be on to something with this. I need to think about it further...

Charlie Brooker explained the series' title to The Guardian, noting: "If technology is a drug – and it does feel like a drug – then what, precisely, are the side-effects? This area – between delight and discomfort – is where Black Mirror, my new drama series, is set. The 'black mirror' of the title is the one you'll find on every wall, on every desk, in the palm of every hand: the cold, shiny screen of a TV, a monitor, a smartphone."

It's going to sound like typical Lauren hyperbole when I say that Black Mirror is the most important television show I've ever watched. But it isn't exaggeration. I mean that.

Are y'all familiar with Charlie Brooker? I'm sure my British friends are. He's a comedian--sort of--he's extremely funny, but that isn't his endgame. He's a writer and a social commentator. He's cynical and smart and more than one TV show where he talks about TV and how it's messed up society (is there a better name for a television show than How TV Ruined Your Life?) but he also loves TV. And in Black Mirror, he uses a TV show to ask huge, important questions and do it with really, really great style.

The show is...like The Twilight Zone for the 21st Century. It's speculative fiction in its purest form--by which I mean built around speculation, asking "What if?" I actually can't say much about it, because the best way to watch it is knowing next to nothing about it. But I can say that each episode is a stand-alone story, a mini-movie, and that the through-line of the show is the 'black mirror'--the screens in our lives: TVs, computer screens, phone screens, whatever.

It's a show about our relationship with technology, actually. A show about how we use technology and what our using it does to us and reveals about us. And it's far and away the most disturbing show I've ever seen.

I am not usually a fan of disturbing. Too many creators use it as an end unto itself; they think 'edgy' means 'important' and so they make things as edgy as possible for its own sake. I hate that. But there is a way to craft stories that are disturbing because they have to be. Because they want us to think. Because there's no other way to ask the questions we really need to ask, no other way to create the urgency that needs to be present in these conversations. And Black Mirror is so adept at doing that that I can't think of another piece of art that even comes close.

And this is art: from a technical perspective, the show is flawless. Perfect casting, perfect acting, perfect production, perfect music use, perfect direction. It uses the potentialities of the television medium to the utmost degree. But what really makes the show so important (I keep using that word; if you watch it you'll see why) is the content. It's the ideas. Each episode takes one central idea (sometimes a very simple one) and fully explores one potential manifestation of it. That's about all I can say without getting into spoiler territory.

I don't recommend this show to everyone. If you're the kind of person who prefers your media intake to be escapist or even just thought-provoking but not to this extent--and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that; we all use media for different reasons--then you will not want to watch this. You need to know going in that it's going to upset you, and that every episode (except perhaps the last, which is definitely messed-up, but not as much so as the others) is...horrific.

But if you're willing to go there, you should watch this. It's available on DirecTV now, as well as findable on the internet, and I really invite those of you who are intrigued to check it out. I'm going to talk some more under a cut, but if you're thinking of watching it DO NOT READ WHAT'S UNDER THE CUT. It will spoil you, and I have never, ever seen anything that would lose so much power by viewing it spoiled as this show. DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU THINK YOU MIGHT WATCH IT.

I think the thing that impresses me most about this show is that it is so completely about how we choose to use technology. Brooker (who wrote or co-wrote 5 of the 6 episodes) is no Luddite. He likes technology. He thinks it's great for a lot of things. He's just super super super aware of the potential it has for evil.

But that potential is always the result of human choice. This isn't "we created robots and the robots adapted and now they're killing us all!" (not that that can't be good). Every episode--even the ones that don't seem like it for most of their running time--explores the horrors that can result because of human choices of how to use technology. Sometimes those choices are on a very individual level, one single person making decisions that (supposedly) impact only themselves. Sometimes these choices are on a macro level, a result of society making choices collectively. Always they're not the result of one single decision by anyone. Both the ones that are based around individual choices and the ones that are based around societal choices are always really about a series of choices, usually small ones, that pile up, leading in one direction. Several of the trajectories feel almost inexorable, inevitable, like there was no way any other series of choices could possibly be made. Others feel like tiny, conscious concessions that someone makes thinking things won't be so bad.

Technology (in this show and, I would argue, in the real world) is not an outside force, the man-made equivalent of 'acts of God' like a volcano or an earthquake or something we can't control. It is a tool, always a tool, neutral in its morality, only possible as a source of evil when human beings choose to make it so. Brooker seems to think that some of these nightmares are inevitable, and I agree with him the sense that I think that when it comes to technology, humans will always choose to use it for terrible things. Always. And yet that's still a choice. I'm not quiet about my belief in free will. I find the idea of destiny or even providence morally insulting. But what's so scary for me, and what this show underlined for me, is that even though human choice is the most important force in life, individual human choices doesn't always matter, not in the face of collective human choice. This is why we have systemic injustice. And sometimes it would be so much easier to throw our hands up and say "That's just the way things are; this is destiny" because the force of inertia in culture is so unfathomably heavy. But we can't do that. Because it's always human choices. Change for the better is always possible. It is. But sometimes it is so, so, so unlikely, and that's one of the most tragic things of all.

Some of these things could happen tomorrow--"The National Anthem," "The Waldo Moment," heck, even "White Bear' could happen now if there was enough money put into it (and laws were changed). Others, like "The Entire History of You" and "Be Right Back" aren't possible just yet, but are clearly coming down the pike; I think it's very possible we'll live to see a world like "The Entire History of You" and the first part of "Be Right Back" (even if the second section--the body grown in the bathtub--is probably quite a distance in the future). "Fifteen Million Merits" is the most obviously sci-fi episode, the only one where the bulk of the world the characters are living in doesn't really look like our world, but the thing is that all the elements of it are already in place. They haven't been assembled all together in this way, and it's entirely possible they never will. But they could, and I think this vision of a possible future for us is a realistic, if improbable, one.

I really admire the way that each episode commits to one central premise and pursues it completely--unrelentingly--to its inevitable end. And that end is inevitable. By which I mean: we can't have a world in which people will contribute money to Stephen Colbert's SUPERPAC and that world not also be a world in which people (if provided the option) will not vote for a cartoon character for MP. We can't have a world in which we have the potential to record each and every moment of our lives and not have people do just that. We can't have a world in which people have the possibility of creating a synthetic version of a dead loved one and not have people take advantage of that possibility. This isn't because, again, technology is a force of its own. It's because of human nature. And human nature is such that, when a possibility exists, at least some people will choose to embrace it. Not everyone would vote for that cartoon MP. Not everyone would grow a synthetic version of their dead boyfriend in a bathtub. But some people would. And that's horrifying enough all on its own.

One of the things that scares me most about human nature is how we're always, always pushing forward when it comes to innovating. This is also one of the things that most delights me about human nature. We don't need to go to the moon. We can get along perfectly well without it. But like George Mallory said of Everest: it's there. And because it's there, we'll pursue it. When people figure out that they can invent something, can achieve something, we always then do so. There may be individuals who look to the future possibilities of this invention and say, "The risks are too great. I'm passing on this one." But someone else is always going to choose to do it anyway.

This is why we need bioethicists and scientists who try to think of all the ways in which new innovations can be used for evil. Sure, those who originally worked to split the atom may have just wanted to do it to see if they could--or they may have wanted to use it for good, for nuclear energy that will help people. But as soon as it became a possibility, anyone with a brain should have known that it would eventually be used to kill people. If something can be used for evil, it will end up being used for evil. By someone who makes a choice. This is what people do.

I'm not sure what to do with that. I'm not sure of what the answer is. When I watch something like "The Entire History of You," my reaction is to tell myself, "If you ever have that option, the option to record every single moment of your life, don't do it." And I think that I could hold to that. But other people will choose it. They will. And so does that mean that the people who are working to make that technology possible are not supposed to make it? Should they just stop working on it because they know how it will be used to twist people? I wish they would, honestly. I think there are areas in which the risks outweigh the benefits. And yet people don't stop. They still do it.

What Black Mirror brings into clear relief is that human nature doesn't change because of technology. The ways in which we can exercise human nature do, but people have always been and always will be people. There is nothing new that a technology creates inside humans. It only creates new ways for people to flex their will. The desperate ugliness of humans using other people's suffering for entertainment in "White Bear"--and exonerating ourselves of anything like blame because, hey! the person was a bad person! this is just justice, you know!--is just exactly like people throughout the millenia throughout the world gathering and watching public executions like they're entertainment. The human desire to cling to what we've lost instead of learning to live without it, like in "Be Right Back," is equally present in parents turning their dead children's rooms into shrines or ancestor worship. All of these things are in us already, and we display them generation after generation. All that really changes is how we do that. And Black Mirror knows that more than any other show I've ever seen.

Sidebar: At first glance "Fifteen Million Merits" appears to be the odd man out. It's the most "futuristic" looking, the most sci-fi-y. But I really think that "White Bear" is the anomaly. All the others were horrifying because you knew exactly what was coming (if not in the particulars, certainly in the generalities). You had a clear view down the road of the episode, and you knew the darkness you were headed for, and that is its own kind of horror. But "White Bear" pulled the rug out from under me. I don't think it's my favorite episode or even the most important one, but it is the one that shocked me the most. I was deeply confused during the first 2/3 of the episode; up until now, the show had been all about, as I said, individual choices, not technology as an out-there force, but technology as a tool used by human souls. "White Bear" seemed not to be. It was terrifying, sure, but it didn't have that overwhelming sense of Free Will hovering over everything that the others did, and that created a sense of distance between me and the episode: I could not figure out how this fit in with the others.

As it turns out, it fits in with the others perfectly, but you don't know that till the big twist 2/3 through the episode. It was a positively shocking plottwist. I did not see it coming. And yet it was not a plot twist for its own sake. There's nothing wrong with those, but the majority of huge plot twists in our media are there for drama's sake. This one served a completely different purpose, and that was purpose was to get past our prejudices.

When Ursula LeGuin was writing her Earthsea series, she purposefully didn't reveal till well into the first book that the main character was a man of color, not white. She wanted to give white readers a chance to live in this guy's head before she revealed that fact; she knew that if white readers had known Ged wasn't white right off the bat, they would have manufactured a distance between themselves and the character that didn't have to be there. By choosing to hold off on letting us know that conversation, she ensured that by the time we found out he was a man of color, we were already so close to him that we couldn't manufacture that distance.

That was a 'trick' created to sneak around prejudice. "White Bear" does the same, only it's much more vital here. If we knew from the beginning that Victoria had helped to murder a child and that this was all just a perverse 'justice' operation, we would have been grossed out at people turning it into entertainment--A THEME PARK. BROOKER IS A GENIUS--but many of us would have been thinking, "Well, the entertainment stuff is gross, but it's actually a kind of fitting punishment for this person since she's bad." It would have allowed us to label Victoria from the beginning as bad, creating a distance between us. By not telling us who she is, we don't have that 'bad' label creating distance between us: we identify with her immediately, plunging fully into her perspective in a way that we would never allow ourselves otherwise. If we'd known she was a criminal, we would have held back. We would have been observers. Since we don't know that, though, we could relate to her, latch onto her, and enter into the action and emotions completely via her perspective. That was vital not only to making the episode work emotionally, but it also ends up raising a question that would not be as pressing in other circumstances: are there punishments so terrible that not even people who have done horrific things deserve to go through them?

If we had been viewing Victoria at a distance for the whole episode, our focus would have been on the audience and how gross their actions are. Victoria would have become a cipher there instead of a person. But because we see her as a person before we see her as a murderer, the question then becomes: is it wrong to have this be her punishment? You can argue that it's far less than she deserves--she doesn't have to die like the girl she watched be killed. Often when I think of evil people, I wish the sort of things they'd done would happen to them, so they would have to suffer as their victims suffered. This seems like justice: the punishment fitting the crime on a very literal level. And yet because we see Victoria as a person, it seems wrong. Inhumane. It's a stunningly-crafted episode, and I'm going to be turning the questions it raises over and over in my mind for years.

Sidebar number two: I think the one misstep the show made was the little coda at the end of "The Waldo Moment." It became too futuristic and made Waldo's untouchableness too literal. That was the one part of the show that didn't work for me.

Frankly, I think Charlie Brooker is a genius. I think this show is genius. I think it should be required viewing for any and every media studies student. While my reaction to the stories it contains is usually revulsion or horror, my reaction to the show itself is sort of giddy, because it uses media so brilliantly to critique media. That's hard to do. But that's the essence of this show. And it's amazing.

Two dramas to rec to you, both of them ensemble shows with amazing young casts!

School 2013

So I did love this drama. It’s not perfect and I have some complaints about it (see below), but it’s one of the best depictions of community and how it actually works that I’ve seen onscreen. It’s honest about our responsibilities to each other and how they are and aren’t affected by our feelings for each other. It’s honest about the limits of those responsibilities and how no matter how hard you may try to help someone, people are ultimately responsible for their own decisions and you can’t place their burdens entirely on your own shoulders. And it’s honest about how sometimes we reach out and help each other and it’s so beautiful because it makes the world better—but sometimes we do the same thing and it doesn’t change anything because the world is still harsh and unforgiving—but the reaching out is still beautiful. It’s always beautiful. Hope isn’t futile and while we can’t always save each other, we can make a difference in each others’ lives.

It’s also really honest about how messed up education systems are (Korea’s is messed up in different ways than, say, the US’s, but they’re both messed up) and how teachers are in a bind and how students all have different motives for how they behave in the classroom. And there’s room in the world for hardasses who lay down the law in an attempt to protect the community and also for people who are endlessly encouraging and patient and generous and forgiving.

So I think it’s a really solid show. It’s certainly nothing lovely to look at cinematography-wise, but honestly maybe that feels more realistic? My one major complaint is that I think in the second half it got too bogged down in the boys’ stories and didn’t pay enough attention to the ladies. I LOVE the Nam Soon/Heung Soo friendship/enmity plotline so much and I also really like the Jung Ho storyline, especially how they handled the ending. But the ladies were SO EXCELLENT and I just feel like their storylines got sidelined so the boys could have more screentime and it hurts my heart. I especially wanted more Ha Kyung/Kang Joo ladytime bonding and to see In Jae interact more with the young women she could have mentored. That didn’t really happen, and I’m disappointed by that. The female characters were FANTASTIC, they just didn’t get enough attention. The lack of romance was okay, though. Though I totally think Se Chan and In Jae are going to get married and be adorable and have lovely babies at some point.

A word on the ending: I thought it was a realistic but hopeful ending. Jung Ho still has problems, problems that can’t be solved easily (the “what about next month? And next year?” speech he gave Se Chan was PERFECT), and for all the teachers’ laboring to help him, they couldn’t get him on the road most kids are on. But that’s okay, because not everybody has to go down that road, and school might not be the place for him. More importantly, they showed him enough kindness and compassion and that he mattered enough that I do believe him when he says he’s going to try to live his life—whatever life that is—as a decent person. I think he can do it. I may have wanted him and his bffs to move in with Nam Soon and Heung Soo because I kind of want a Go Nam Soon Home for Wayward Boys now, but ah well. They’ll still be bros.

This drama didn’t end with a big fluffy group hug—there are still people in the classroom who don’t like each other, people who are still selfish and weren’t particularly changed by what In Jae (and Se Chan) tried to do for them. But they weren’t untouched by what they experienced—it’s still going to be a part of them, just maybe not in the way they expected.

In Jae and Se Chan are going to be back, together, helping another classroom full of kids to figure things out. And it’s going to take a while to do that figuring, because as Nam Soon and Heung Soo learned, you can’t just fix all your problems immediately. You need time to think really hard on where you’re headed and what you’re going to do. This show gave us closure, but it didn’t solve all the problems the kids’ have and it definitely didn’t tell us for sure where they’re headed. We just know that now that they had that year with their teachers, they’re on a steadier path than they were before. And that’s beautiful. THE LACK OF EPILOGUE WAS THE BEST THING ABOUT THIS ENDING LBR.

And In Jae still waiting for him at the end? I don’t think he’s going to walk in at the last minute. That’s not going to happen. But the waiting is beautiful, because it shows her heart. The waiting is important itself and it isn’t a waste. And Se Chan understands that now. And that’s amazing.


Summary: Seungri High School ranks as one of the worst of the 178 high schools in Seoul based on academic scores. Seungri High School is now busy preparing presentations for its new students. Class 2 is at the bottom of grade 2 at Seungri High. Nam-Soon is elected class president for grade 2, thanks to the support of Jung-Ho, who is a member of the school gang.
Se-Chan is the top Korean language teacher at a famous institute in Gangnam. In order to improve the student's scores at Seungri High School, the school hires Se-Chan. - asianwiki
Starring: Lee Jong Suk, Jung Na Ra, Choi Daniel, Park Se Young, Hyo Young, Kim Woo Bin, Kwak Jung Wook
Watch it if you like: stories about high school, stories about community, examinations of idealism versus cynicism, enemies learning to appreciate each other, honest but sympathetic characterizations of teenagers, explorations of different ways of approaching education, honest depictions of friendships where people hurt each other but forgive and become even better friends later, realism, stories about the ways we help and hurt each other just by being in proximity to each other, lots of twists and turns in the plot that never really go into the realm of melodrama, hopeful but not tidy endings.
Why you might not like it: If you really want a female-driven show, this isn’t the one for you. What ladies there are are EXCELLENT, but they don’t get nearly as much of a focus as the guys. Also if you have no desire to revisit the hell that can be high school, might want to steer clear of this one. It’s full of hope, though, so that may help to know.


White Christmas

Those of you who follow me on tumblr might know that I did a marathon watch of White Christmas over the holidays and fell all over myself with love for it. It’s shot to VERY close to the top of my favorite-dramas list; the top five or so are really impossible to rate in order because I love them all so much. But at any rate, it’s completely excellent and unique and I very much recommend it.

Let’s start with the synposis, because it does a better job of explaining than I would:

Susin High School, nicknamed "Prison High," is an elite school attended by the top 1% of students in the country. Their stellar marks are the result of constant pressure and a strict punishment system, to the point where students avoid from any activities outside of studying. It is in this atmosphere that seven students and a teacher remain at school for the winter break, joined by Kim Yo Han, a psychiatrist who was forced to take shelter with them after he was involved in a car accident nearby. At a time when everyone else is celebrating Christmas Eve, the students realize that the anonymous letters they each received were not the result of a harmless prank; there was a murderer in their midst. A question lies unspoken: Are monsters created, or are humans born monsters?

This is a drama full of plot twists and surprise reveals and characterization porn. It’s basically about what happens when you lock nine people up in this giant school building that’s half labyrinth, half jail of glass and then put them in danger. Someone’s writing threatening letters. Someone is a killer. No one knows who, and since they’re trapped, they only have themselves to rely on. Who’s going to trust who? Who’s going to turn on who? Who’s going to snap under the pressure and strike out at anyone?

There’s a touch of Lord of the Flies in this—there are moments when you feel like any sense of humanity’s going to break down and it’s going to turn into a bloody free-for-all (and there is blood spilt in this one). You’re not sure as a viewer who to trust or even who to like, half the time. There’s questions of guilt and responsibility, the nature of humanity, trust and retribution, misunderstandings and lack of communication weaving through the whole thing. Everyone has layers, everyone has secrets, everyone has scars. And everyone will surprise you at some point. That’s what people do.

This drama’s got a really great cast of young actors, almost all of whom are models, but they’re all competent (and most of them are incredibly striking, too. Plus, you’ll recognize a lot of them from lots of other shows—quite a few of them have gone on to have really fantastic careers. Yay this cast!). The setting, in this labyrinth-like school of glass and staircases all by itself in the mountains, is perfect for the plot. The writing doesn’t lag and the focus is always on the characters and their interactions. It’s basically a thriller meets character porn. You won’t like everyone, but by the end you’ll feel like you know them. And what’s mindblowing about the way this drama is made is that so much attention goes into every single detail. Almost every single thing onscreen is important. There’s SO MUCH richness and texture—so many motifs and symbolism. I’m sure I could watch this a dozen times and not pick up on everything. You really get the feeling that the creators were absolutely committed to every detail. How often do you feel like that with a show?

That said, I do have some quibbles with the final episode. Up until then, I think it’s perfectly written, but the last episode isn’t quite so perfect. It’s still a satisfying ending and certainly not enough to ruin the whole ride—this is still going to be one of my all-time favorite dramas. But there are a few things to touch on.

First of all, are we really expected to believe this killer’s been running around the hospital the whole time they’ve been back? SERIOUSLY? I can’t handle that. There are quite a few plot holes related to that whole thing that are just DUMB. I LOVE the kids killing him on the roof—that was perfect and the only way it could have ended. But how they ended up on that roof? Was pretty stupid imo. Like I said, it doesn’t ruin the show for me, but I’m not pleased by it.

I also wish we could have seen the other kids’ parents. I feel like a few of the character examinations were just dropped at the end and I don’t like that. There was more to learn about some of them, and I missed out on that.

I do think Angel killing himself was the right decision writing-wise, though I still don’t understand 100% what was going on with him and the lady and his mom and the other little boy. Confusing stuff. And it hurt so much that he died, but it worked as far as the story goes.

Summary: Susin High School, nicknamed "Prison High," is an elite school attended by the top 1% of students in the country. Their stellar marks are the result of constant pressure and a strict punishment system, to the point where students avoid from any activities outside of studying. It is in this atmosphere that seven students and a teacher remain at school for the winter break, joined by Kim Yo Han, a psychiatrist who was forced to take shelter with them after he was involved in a car accident nearby. At a time when everyone else is celebrating Christmas Eve, the students realize that the anonymous letters they each received were not the result of a harmless prank; there was a murderer in their midst. A question lies unspoken: Are monsters created, or are humans born monsters? - asianwiki
Starring: Kim Sang Kyung, Baek Sung Hyun, Kim Young Kwang, Lee Soo Hyuk, Kwak Jung Wook, Hong Jong Hyun, Esom, Kim Hyun Joong/Kim Woo Bin, Sung Joon, Jung Suk Won, Lee El
Watch it if you like: psychological thrillers, suspense, complicated plots, characterization porn, small groups of people who don’t know/like each other forced to interact and get to know each other, symbolism, plot twists, Sung Joon’s everything, examinations of the nature of humanity and of evil, tight writing, perfect soundtrack choices, Kim Woo Bin’s beautiful devil face, attention to detail in every shot.
Why you might not like it: If you don’t like stories that go dark, this is not the story for you. And there aren’t enough ladies, which is one of the few weak points of the show. But the few ladies are fascinating, so.

I am back from vacation! And while it's nice to be home with my bed and my internet and my TV shows, it's also cold here and I do not like that one little bit after a week of lovely warm weather (on the upside: I don't have to slather on sunscreen in the mornings now. I managed not to burn! Just some freckles! Yay me!).

I had a very good time with my family and renewed my devotion to EPCOT. Harry Potter World is smaller than I thought it would be, but what's there is absolutely adorable. (Lil Sis is upset they don't make everyone wear robes when you go inside 'because then it would feel like you really are in Diagon Alley!') I thought of all of y'all while I was there. I seem to have developed planatar fasciitis over the course of the trip, which is NOT fun, but I'm hoping it'll heal up soon. Other than that, it was a great trip. :D

I read a couple of books on the drive back and forth and ended up sobbing my eyes out in the back seat of the car over Code Name Verity and getting teased by my dad about it. And I now have about 10K words of Infinite Star Trek AU fic because this is my life now. I'm all caught up on School 2013 for the new episode tonight and I can't remember the last time I watched something that put my heart through the wringer EVERY EPISODE like this. I watched White Christmas (the kdrama) over Christmas break and LOVEDLOVEDLOVED it (expect a rec post soon). My husband Dongwoo has pink hair and is starring in music videos with Hoya and being irresistible. And...that's pretty much it with me.

I hope y'all are all well--feel free to tell me about anything going on with you and also to link me to anything I missed. I missed y'all!

THIS IS THE BEST OF ALL IDEAS. Basically it's to get us to share the things we love with each other: you make a wish-list of things you wish more people would watch/listen to/read/write, and then you go through other people's lists and say, "I can totally watch ____!" or "I will definitely read ____!" and make each others' dreams come true! Could anything be more delightful? Y'all should all head over there and join! And then come back here and read about why you should give these things I love a chance.

( MY LIST! )