Charleston

I learned about the shooting last night. I hesitated to write this post, because there is an undeniable racial element to this story and as an extremely privileged white man, my best-case scenario in any racial conversation is to understand the issues at an intellectual and emotional level, but I can, by nature, never fully grasp them at an experiential level. Usually, in the wake of tragedy, I wait for somebody smarter than me- usually Christopher Priest or Jon Stewart (who all but dropped the mic last night)- to articulate things much better than I ever could. Still, this time is different; I don’t’ have anything intelligent to add about race, but I might about tragedy.   

Much has already been said- better than I could say it- about the big issues, so I’ll touch on them only briefly here. The physical details of the crime are unimportant; it is monstrous in both its motivation and execution. There is no conceivable justification for the environment that fosters and creates this sort of abomination. Those who are trying to remove the racial component of this story, or who are trying to use it further some political agenda, are the lowest form of slime and I won’t dignify them with a colorful metaphor about what they deserve. The only details that really matter to me are the victims.

I spent about an hour last night reading about the victims. Not the crime itself, the people it was done to. I believe that in the face of a tragedy like this it is important to feel it as deeply as possible, and to put upon that tragedy a human face. Nine dead means very little, emotionally, by itself. It’s a statistic. But Cynthia Hurd was an 81-year-old librarian who dedicated her life to educating others, loved books, and had her first job in an ice cream parlor; the world is a sadder, darker place without her in it. The profiles of the other victims similarly paint a picture of impossible loss. This is a beyond grievous tragedy, and Stewart’s outrage is admirable and dead-on.  

His frustration with the systemic unwillingness of our country to progress- to become a place where this does not happen- is perhaps his most important thought. But I’m troubled by the way people seem to be taking it. It is not an expression of hopelessness. It is not license to stop fighting, to surrender, to accept the inevitability of evil. It can’t be. It must not be.  The sentiment that nothing will change in the wake of this disaster may well be an accurate one, but it is also a completely unacceptable one.

Look, I know a lot about cynicism- I’ve quite literally written a book on it- and I understand the impulse to say “yep, the world sucks and no matter what we do, it’s still gonna suck tomorrow.” It would be so easy. But I can tell you that when it is easiest to be cynical- by which I mean now- is the only time when you absolutely cannot. Cynicism- and its bitter older brother Despair- breed weary acceptance. Futility. The correct response here is outrage- followed by hope. If you can’t manage hope, then go with what I go with: spite. Responding to this tragedy by bitching about it on Facebook or Twitter and then resigning yourself to what it means about the world is complicity. The second you accept this evil as a Thing That Happens, you have become part of the problem.

So hope. Or spite. And fight. I don’t mean throw a punch or draw a gun. I mean rally against everything that is wrong in this story. Against systemic oppression and corrupt media. Against wearied acceptance. Most of all against inaction. Against evil.

If evil destroys, then good must necessarily create.  We are a species defined by our capacity for passionate creation. If you’re a singer, then sing. If you’re funny, tell a joke. If you write books, go write a book.  If you’re not a creative type, then just go start a conversation with somebody that leaves the world a little more interesting place. If you have money, obviously use it for good, but even if you don’t, find a way to contribute. The only rational response to tragedy on this scale is the spiteful creation of beauty and joy. To plagiarize a classic, “
Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.” It is impossible to do enough good to make what happened go away, but is imperative that we try.

I know it’s hard. It is never more difficult than right now. A few years ago, I was working as a comedy writer the day Sandy Hook happened. I have never in my life felt less like writing comedy…and I have never in my life felt it was more important to do it anyways. Today I feel the same way; it may not be comedy, but I will respond to this destruction with creation. You should too, whether or not it makes any difference. Perhaps especially so if it doesn’t.

As for me, for all my cynicism, I do not agree that it is hopeless. That the world will not change. Millions of people were affected by this, and the pain those people- us- feel will drive them to create a world in which this shit does not exist. It will not happen quickly. There will be other tragedies in between. It will eternally be easy to be cynical, and being cynical will eternally make it easy to do nothing. But those who do something will do something. I truly believe that.

But even if I’m wrong, it hardly matters. You still must create, you still must fight, you still must live. Every second of your life you allow to be spent defeated by this tragedy is a second that could have been spent fighting against a world that allowed it. It can be difficult to figure out what, specifically, to do in the face of this sort of evil; the only answer I can offer is to simply contribute to a world that makes it more difficult for evil to exist; not everyone can smash the oppressive and corrupt systems that govern this country- this world- but every kind word, every beautiful drawing, and every act of acceptance, creation, or criticism is a blow against it. Some of you have been doing this your whole lives. Some of you need to get off your asses and get started. Most of us are probably somewhere in between.

Perhaps I’m naïve. I probably am. I certainly have no specific answers. But if I am naïve, there is a certain nobility in that naiveté; I do not mind being a fool who believes that art is stronger than evil, that change is not only possible but inevitable, that with every day the forces of bigotry, oppression, and hatred grow a little weaker.

So be foolish with me. Fight. Create. If you’re reading this, there’s about a 90% chance I know you personally, and there is something special about you. Take that special thing and do it. Do it out of hope, or do it out spite, or do it just to keep from crying, but go do it. It is an absolute moral imperative.

Still, for all that, we mustn’t underestimate evil. The enemy is numerous, powerful, and cunning beyond measure. Evil does not play fair. The battle may well be unwinnable.

But a good fight is never clean, and unwinnable battles are almost always the ones most worth fighting. If evil is in fact to win the day, let’s at least make sure it knows it was in a fight.  Go down swinging, and die a warrior’s death knowing you punched evil in the dick at least a couple of times. First round in Valhalla’s on me. 

NVTV Special Edition: A to Z "M is for Misogyny" (also, some Bad Judge stuff)

"H is for Hostile Takeover" is the most interesting episode of A to Z so far, but not for a good reason. Early on in the episode, the narrator explains, in detail, the Bechdel Test. For those of you wise enough to skip the episode, the Bechdel Test has been around a while as a media evaluation tool, and it basically boils down to this: do two female characters, who have names, ever have a conversation that does not either include or revolve around men? While it's of course possible to make good work that doesn't pass the test- and pretty easy to do in romantic stories, where the men may similarly only discuss women- in general, it's worth aspiring to. While the concept may be a source of mockery for show runner and head-writer Ben Queen, women do occasionally talk about more than us good 'ol dick-havers. 

Over the course of the episode, the two primary female characters Zelda (Cristin Miloti) and Steph (Lenora Crichlowe) speak to each other only twice. The first time, they discuss whether or not Zelda is too controlling of her boyfriend, Andrew (she is, but Andrew's a cardboard cutout at this point so who gives a shit?). The second- the episode's tag during the credits- has the two of them discussing whether or not two women discussing the Bechdel Test counts as passing the Bechdel Test. They decide that it does, then rapidly change the subject back to men. It's an attempt at a joke, and in a better show that treats its female characters with any measure of respect, it might even be a good one. This is not that show. 

Pointing out that your show explicitly doesn't pass the Bechdel Test as some kind of fuck you to mouthy critics like me- I've been bemoaning the show's treatment of women in almost every episode for months now, and Ben Queen  knows it, having replied sarcastically to one of my tweets on the subject- doesn't help anybody. It's just petulant, and it's making light of something that isn't funny, and isn't even funny in a "ha ha" way. Making light of the idea of that women deserve to exist in film and television as anything more than the objects of male desire isn't edgy or daring; it's outdated and misogynistic.

Look, maybe I'm overreacting. It's one joke, and at least the writers are talking about equality, right? Wrong. Think back over the previous seven episode of A to Z. Can you think of a single moment between two women that didn't revolve around men? I can't. I can think of a bunch of moments between various male characters that do, though. This episode alone has Andrew in two separate conversations with two separate men that are about whether or not anyone would ever say "Who am I?" aloud. He and Stu have talked many times about their childhood, or their work, or any number of other topics. Zelda has never had a conversation in the show that wasn't either with or about Andrew, unless she was talking to Stephie about Steph's man-trouble. Now, I know there are some women (and men) out there who are totally incapable of talking about anything but their significant other, but I hate those people and so should you. 

A to Z doesn't hate those people. It hates women. Over the first eight episodes, Stephie's primary characteristic is that she's boy crazy to the point of letting them control her behavior. This trait is played for laughs. This episode's main plot is about the idea that Andrew allows others to control his behavior, and how that's a big problem. While the show ultimately decides that it's ok that Andrew is littler more than a cipher (unlike the audience, who ignored the dull main character from the jump and sentenced the show to a much-deserved cancellation almost immediately), but that's not the point. The point is that the exact same problem is funny when it happens to woman, and a huge deal when it happens to men. 

This isn't the only idealogical problem in the show, of course. Zelda invariably rewards and encourages Andrew's stalking of her, the otherwise powerful Lydia is routinely to be deeply insecure, the very funny and underused Hong Chau never appears in a scene without her make compatriot Danesh… but Danesh gets several scenes, and even his own plot line, completely separate from Chau. And Zelda? Zelda the high powered lawyer is shown again and again to be a creature totally without conviction, desperate for male guidance and support.

It gets darker for Zelda.One episode's plot revolves around her loving Andrew because he crashes a relative's funeral. As mentioned, she rewards stalking. She enables Stephie's behavior to the point of risking her job (taking a case solely to get her friend laid and violating a bunch of COI polices and laws in the process), ensuring that Stephie will never outgrow the need for Zelda's consoling when her superficial relationships invariably combust. She also more or less orders Stephie to make peace with a guy who tricked her into bed by lying about literally everything about himself; whether or not that's technically rape is an open-question, but it's certainly something that a real human wouldn't ask a close friend to just "get over."  

Zelda is motivated entirely by attention, and feeds on dependence. It is no coincidence that her only two friends- Andrew and Stephie- are both easily dominated pushovers, both impossibly needy and insecure. Zelda needs to feel needed, and she molds the people around her into her dependent slaves, and then brushes off any idea that they should be otherwise with a dismissive hand wave. She's a controlling, manipulative super villain who is happy to casually destroy the lives of those around her to feed her own need for attention and dependence. 

Because that's what Ben Queen thinks women are. 

Let's boil it down a step further. Here are the four recurring female characters on that show: 

Zelda- a controlling, co-dependent wreck who has yet to have a conversation with another woman about anything other than men. 

Stephie- an insecure wreck of a woman completely dependent on male attention for her personality and/or meaning in her life, up to and including abandoning her "friend" Andrew mid-crisis this week to hook up with the roadie for ZZ Top. 

Lydia- a ball-busting super-bitch who is explicitly an enemy of love. She is, despite being the highest ranking on-screen member of her company, completely obsessed and defined by other people's perceptions of her. 

Whatever Hong Chau's Name Is- She only appears as her ex-boyfriend's sidekick. Has not appeared in a scene without him, but has had maybe a quarter as many lines. 

Congratualtions, A to Z. You're the first show- of ten- to convince me to stop watching. I put up with Manhattan Love Story until the day it was pulled off the schedule, but your rampant misogyny is too much even for me. 

Meanwhile, over on Bad Judge (a show that passes the Bechdel Test more weeks than not despite featuring only one female main character), things are much as they've ever been. It's a messy, sloppy, and yet deeply endearing wreck with a heart of gold. It often makes poor decisions, but it makes them in pursuit of laughter, and joy. It is its own main character, and I continue to mourn its passing. I mention this mostly as a point of contrast; Bad Judge is a show about an explicitly "bad" woman, and yet she's warmer, more human, and more likable than anyone on A to Z

Look, I'm nobody special, and I'm one of the least qualified people I know to talk about this kind of thing (at the very least, the 50% of people I know who are women would have me beat). I just write books- granted, books that feature women who occasionally say and do things that don't revolve around men- and I watch basketball. That's about it. I'm no crusader. Whether or not I'm even technically a feminist depends largely on definition- I believe in equal pay and equal rights, and I'm pretty sure women are people (with brains and dreams and flaws and goals and all that other people stuff), but I also cling to the idea of chivalry, and depending on who you ask that keeps me firmly behind the velvet rope of the feminist club. But, regardless of whether I am or whether I'm not, and despite this being my blog, this really isn't about me, and it isn't really even about feminism. It's about a woman-hating jackass getting six and a half hours of primetime airtime to demean fifty percent of the population while shows like Don't Trust the B in Apartment 23 - featuring a mostly female cast and often spending entire episodes without having a single female-to-female conversation about men- rots six feet under in the TV graveyard. 

If you like women, or even if you just like TV, don't watch A to Z. Don't watch anything Ben Queen ever produces, and if you happen to be a network or studio decision maker, don't take his fucking meetings. I said above that Zelda is a super villain, and that's true, but at least she's fictional. Ben Queen is a real live person who apparently hates women- and quality- so much that he's co-opted a major broadcast network to defame them, and he's so goddamn cocky about it that he feels compelled to point out he's doing it and thumb his nose at his victims. He's a bigot with millions of dollars behind him and an insidious plot to harm billions of people. And he- like all cackling, hate-spewing supervillains- must be stopped. 

Somebody call James Bond.

Wait. No. Not Bond.

Somebody call Sydney Bristow.  

NVTV40: Marry Me

New job means no time for an extensive review, but this week's episode didn't much deserve one. After a few strong weeks, Marry Me took a dip this week, watchable only for its cast, with poor setups and worse payoffs. Cannot recommend, and it kills me to say it, but I miss Selfie

NTV 39: Cristela

Meh. More of the same. I have literally nothing fresh to say about this show this week, as it's the same mix of semi-clever social commentary and playing to the cheap seats, all of it carried almost entirely by the title character's enthusiasm. 

 

NVTV 38: Bad Judge, A to Z, and McCarthys

Gotta be quick today as I have company.

Bad Judge had another very funny episode this week. After focusing on Rebecca's positive attributes the last few weeks, this week we got her self-destructive, paranoid, neurotic side, and it worked very, very well. Her final comment during her storm out in the restaurant paints a picture of the tone the show probably should have gone for from day one, but as we know it's likely too late now. At any rate, good- though still uneven- episode this week that did work on both a character and comedy front. 

A to Z remains a complete waste of a talented cast and a thinly veiled insult to the female gender. Don't watch it. 

The McCarthys is still improving, on both a comedy and character level. The format still isn't for me, and there are definitely still some groaners, but it's a solid show that I can't say nearly as many bad things about as I'd expected I'd be able to. Laurie Metcalf and Tyler Ritter do most of the heavy lifting, but the rest of the cast is rounding into shape.