jamie are you still watching this? i've only seen like the first four episodes, but i was curious why you've connected with/praised the believability of multiple characters. from the ones i saw i got the impression that most of the characters outside of the main one herself (and her love interests i guess) are sort of peripheral in the sense that they mostly seem present to interact with dunham's character and little else. like, her three friends all have much less fleshed out personalities than her and her roommate in particular seems... pretty one dimensional.

i stopped watching because a) dramedy detailing the lives and struggles of upper-middle class white people whose problems are limited by the sheer amount of resources thrown at them their entire lives seems a little self-indulgent, particularly when all the characters are deeply oblivious and self-involved, and i'm a little suspicious the only reason it's on the air is because its target demographic has enough money to buy things and is self-indulgent enough to think it's raw and insightful, and b) for a show about women most of the female characters seemed pretty flimsy. does it get better? because my girlfriend kept watching it and she says the characters more or less continue to be tropes used in service of dunham's character development.

idk maybe it is raw and insightful. but it's also a lot of other things that i can't really get past, and it seems sort of ironic to me that a show championed as a response to the disenfranchisement of women in television (which is, to be clear, something i agree merits a response) manages to so thoroughly disenfranchise, ignore, or otherwise alienate virtually every group/experience outside of the exceedingly narrow slice of life it represents. i'm not saying their problems aren't legitimate, but i wanted to know how you watched it and thought "yeah, good. good." instead of "finally, a show about REAL women. who are white. and have money. and college degrees. and robust support systems."

 
i don't think raw is a word i'd ever use for anything, and it isn't necessarily that it is insightful than i think that two characters on the show in particular just really remind me of myself. it makes me laugh when hannah is acting like a big spoiled baby, and i feel like I'm gonna be able to work through my weird bullshit if there is someone else out there who has it. the two characters are hannah and adam. adam by far the most, but hannah's narcissism is relatable and funny to me. i like ray, too. i could myself ending up like ray, so it's nice to have that held up in front of me so i can try not to end up like him.
 
i don't think it needs to do anything politically admirable in order to have a right to exist. it just has to not be despicable, and it isn't. there are ways it could be better, and i think it is good, not the best. it's funny sometimes and it makes me feel less alone when i watch the good episodes, that probably sounds stupid, but it's true. it's an accurate reflection of a certain section of society, and it doesn't matter how narrow it is. the problem isn't that rich (and they aren't all rich) idiots are represented at all, it is that other people who aren't are not being represented. so it isn't about shutting down things which i don't find to be perfect in their political content, especially when not everything in that area is bad (nobody seems to understand that this show is self-aware, or for some reason think that is remotely a justification for how terrible hannah is when it totally is). it's about widening what gets represented - here's a show about people who are 20-25 years old, want to do something creative and important with their lives, but don't really know what, and are slowly coming to terms with the fact they aren't special or maybe one of them will get lucky and be a success. yes, they're surrounded by opportunity but i'm surrounded by opportunity and that doesn't mean i don't give a fuck about my life. it's like dietcoke said, when people are getting really pissed off at the show for being about basically themselves. it isn't an important show, well okay, it's important to me because of adam.
 
i totally understand 'this isn't really for me' because i think it's a specific kind of show not just because of blah blah white rich women but because there's a particular type of self-loathing to it that if you've never really experienced then you probably can't really bring yourself to give a fuck about it. it annoys me when it just bristles people up, and i've got my own ideas about why that is but i can't really be bothered getting into that.
 
the reason it is on air is because lena dunham made a movie called tiny furniture about post-art school ennui and it resonated with enough people that judd apatow helped her get a show on hbo which is basically the same thing. lena dunham is like 26 or 27 years old, this bullshit is all she knows and she's written some good stuff about it. some of it not so good, but that's tv. not even breaking bad or whatever is always good. there's no conspiracy, there's nothing to be suspicious about, she's just a mildly intelligent film student who got lucky with a marketable sensibility. i think she'll might get more interesting as she gets older and lives more/makes more thngs.
 
well i've written this now. i can't really be bothered defending this show, i just like parts of it.

i mean maybe i just use this kind of thing as a substitute social life. i don't know, i get really fucking frustrated every time i try to talk to anyone about this show, even people who like it. i think i just don't want to talk about it. i dunno why that is - i feel like i can talk about everything else just fine, and always have my reasons straight

also i always took the frivolous situation of the characters to be the result of doing an arts degree. scotland so college = free i've never had any money did an arts degree for the Art and it was a big old waste of time. well, a year left. i'm gonna finish it but i didn't need to do this so it's like late stage capitalism + no real skills and narcissism with shitty economy and fake jobs that help no-one. DARK comedy, combined with a few moments where they are still humans even though they are not whatever group of people. not sticking it to under-represented minorities obviously i just don't get why this is THE issue only with this show.

but saying there's nothing to be suspicious about seems sort of misguided maybe? like, it's not a coincidence that the subject matter of most television shows mirrors that general experiences and preferences of valued advertising demographics. this is less of an issue with hbo of course but i don't think it's fair or wise to simply say "there's no conspiracy." i absolutely think decisions of what makes it onto television or into theaters reflect broader political/economic power dynamics. i don't think that makes me a conspiracy nut! sorry if that sounds combative, i really don't mean it to be. i maintain my suspicion tho.

 
yeah, okay. there's a net brigade who thinks the only reason the show happened is because all the principal actresses are involved in one way or another with rich showbiz types, like alison williams is brian williams daughter or something. the news guy. just something some of the hateful losers out there say because they want some way to delegitimise a creative effort by a young woman, that it's a fake show paid for by Dad

I liked reading what you have to say about the show jamie. although I've never seen it or anything about it outside this thread I'm catching ur drift
 
by the way - sticking with the art degree was probably a good plan. I wish I had finished my first degree and did LA for grad school, but my family has no college-people so I guess it never really occurred to me. like I didn't even know of this academic world that sees undergrad as "learning to be a person" and post-grad being the real deal. sorry for the derail . . .
 
and ya, it's on HBO? HBO knows really really really well what current & prospective HBO subscribers will pay to see

"learning to be a person" and post-grad being the real deal. sorry for the derail . . .

 
yeah i guess so. i made it into honours but i really don't give a fuck and my grades are slipping so i'll need to pretend to care pretty hard for my final year. the post-grad thing - i might do it, but probably not right away, just sometime before i'm 30 if things aren't happening. i don't think it is really a de-rail.
 
i dropped out of my first degree too. didn't know any better. shoulda just done it, but it isn't a big deal.

~the revolution will not be televised~

Quote

"learning to be a person" and post-grad being the real deal. sorry for the derail . . .

 
yeah i guess so. i made it into honours but i really don't give a fuck and my grades are slipping so i'll need to pretend to care pretty hard for my final year. the post-grad thing - i might do it, but probably not right away, just sometime before i'm 30 if things aren't happening. i don't think it is really a de-rail.
 
i dropped out of my first degree too. didn't know any better. shoulda just done it, but it isn't a big deal.

I mean, I don't want to be a big advocate for grad school. I realize that most people who think that (learning to be a person, career) in the US probably have it made financially and come from pretty strong academic backgrounds. it's probably completely different in europe. 
 
I dunno if I'm going to grad school, it only stands a chance if I can get a really good deal on it tbh! sounds like a lot of fun tho.

yeah maybe so. idk, something about that sort of sweeping Yeah But Who Cares type of argument deals with dissent a little too tidily for me sometimes

well it's just that I kinda see it as a pseudo-critique. what if everyone was equally and fairly represented in the media? we'd all be unoffended while passively consuming images that condition and represent our roles and identities. neat, an equal-opportunity spectacle.

frankly i'm more comfortable with people just enjoying it than the 'cultural critics' objections of "nope! not real enough, too much white traditionally-abled cis-female-assigned persyns, doesn't intersect enough with asexually-queer afro-pagan discourse with oppressive colonial ontology." There's a point where it all becomes more of a veiled plea for accommodation with a radical posture rather than actual critique; and that's valid i guess but i wouldnt really call it dissent.

PUUUUUUKE

because it's something i made up dada, jesus fucking christ, I thought that was pretty clear. but if there's any asexually-queer afro-pagans having a hard time with oppressive colonial ontologies that are reading this out there then my sincere apologies i'll check my privilege and consult my Oppression-Metric in that regard from now on. seriously though, i'm not a big fan of identity politics or the academic post-structuralist liberalism which gave rise to them and I'm not-so-subtly invoking existing critique of "intersectional" analysis with statements like that.

if you'd bother to follow my point i more or less said that such concerns are valid, but it's more of a plea for accommodation(a desire for HBO to repackage and sell an image of their own life experience and identity back to them) than critique and shouldn't be confused as such.

Quote from: Barack Obama on April 02, 2013, 06:01:06 pm

because it's something i made up dada, jesus fucking christ, I thought that was pretty clear. but if there's any asexually-queer afro-pagans having a hard time with oppressive colonial ontologies that are reading this out there then my sincere apologies i'll check my privilege in that regard from now on.

oh, I got your point, and I got the fact that your example was fictitious. ironically, you don't seem to have gotten my point. my point is: you don't get to flash your supposed revolutionary credentials like a police badge to justify making fun of legitimate complaints, whether or not you think they're just radical poseurs. you don't mimic the abuse they get hurled at them by the status quo for daring to speak out on issues like representation for the sake of what you deem a more useful critique. and you're doing exactly the same thing, making fun of the language, in the same breath that you use to complain about being unfairly called out by me.

to do that sort of thing is imo harmful and divisive, and I think it's obvious that it would be. it helps no one.

 
i don't think you're "unfairly calling me out" and i'm not flashing any badges, this isn't about me in spite of how much you would like to make it about me. I'm not making fun of the complaints(the example i used was simply the furthest away from the "GIRLS in NYC" premise I could think of) and I'm not abusing anyone aside from suggesting that the line of reasoning is a dead-end. I mean if you have a point about why it is serious critique rather than desire for accommodation, then make it. 
 
what it comes down to is that you're just hopelessly moralizing. "The media ought to be representative." Is just a platitude divorced from any serious assessment of the structure, origin, history, and function of the media as it exists today. A platitude that comes from more or less valid concerns, but a platitude nonetheless.

Quote from: Barack Obama on April 02, 2013, 07:23:43 pm

i don't think you're "unfairly calling me out" and i'm not flashing any badges, this isn't about me in spite of how much you would like to make it about me. I'm not making fun of the complaints(the example i used was simply the furthest away from the "GIRLS in NYC" premise I could think of) and I'm not abusing anyone aside from suggesting that the line of reasoning is a dead-end. I mean if you have a point about why it is serious critique rather than desire for accommodation, then make it.

again I don't think you're getting my point. I've deliberately not said anything on whether you are right or wrong to call it a desire for accommodation or a critique because it's not what I'm talking about at all. the line you added in your edit just now, however, was what I was looking for:

Quote from: Barack Obama on April 02, 2013, 07:23:43 pm

>seriously though, i'm not a big fan of identity politics or the academic post-structuralist liberalism which gave rise to them and I'm not-so-subtly invoking existing critique of "intersectional" analysis with statements like that.

whether you are a fan of it or not, I hope you'll at least agree there are a lot of well-intentioned people active in those circles today. I don't see why you have to take and misuse their language specifically to get a rise out of them. you can't not expect that that's what's gonna happen if you do that. you do this and then you claim "well, but you're wrong to call me out, I've got legitimate criticisms of them too" as if that makes it all right.

again, if you have real, legitimate criticisms, make 'em. that last thing I quoted at least has substance. you don't really expect everyone here to roll their eyes and grin when you sarcastically talk about "checking your privilege", do you? that's not criticism, that's just you flippantly making fun of other leftists you don't like. and I don't think that's helpful.

Quote from: Barack Obama on April 02, 2013, 07:23:43 pm

what it comes down to is that you're just hopelessly moralizing. "The media ought to be representative." Is just a platitude divorced from any serious assessment of the structure, origin, history, and function of the media as it exists today. A platitude that comes from more or less valid concerns, but a platitude nonetheless.

you say you don't like identity politics, but identity does exist and I think identity is still a valid concept. I don't think it necessarily interferes with preexisting ideas about, say, class. it's true that when we talk about representation in context of the mass media, we're sort of conceding its function as a means of propaganda and social control. but I don't think doing that serves to validate that function. I don't think saying that mass media ought to be representative is the same thing as saying "the media is fine but it needs more PoC". I said, everyone I know of who makes this complaint also realizes its limitations, and that the problem goes beyond something so simple as representation. as you yourself have said, the concerns themselves are valid.

I did make a critique. see the conversation prior to your addition to it. I'm not saying that anyone is "wrong" to call me out and I don't really give a fuck how well-intentioned people are; I don't feel obligated to placate every disagreement I have with "they're good people with their hearts in the right place" Sorry, not interested in that the most you'll get is an acknowledgement that the concerns are valid. If that makes me insensitive or kind of a dick, so be it. Why not discuss the point I made rather than deliberately avoiding it to take shots at me personally or my tone?  

re: media
again, you're not getting past platitudes. The mass media as it exists today can't and won't be equally representative and even if it could, I'd question if that's really how it "ought" to be. Again, it's a pseudo-critique, it has the form sans the content of an actual critique of the media. The line of argumentation ends in a request for an equal-opportunity spectacle, a desire for universal accommodation in the community of capital... is that what "ought" to be?