« Citizen Reading: 13 March 2017. | Main | Citizen Reading: 20 March 2017. »

15 March 2017


Yes, yes, yes! CR you speak for me!

I told a friend a while back that I'm currently boycotting all the brilliant asshole shows. I'm just tired of them. Right now, that means Dr. Who and Sherlock.

However, I have watched all the shows in the book's title, but it was almost in spite of the "Difficult Men" at the center. I actually got bored with Sopranos and Mad Men but persevered out of a mix of curiosity and stubbornness. I liked The Wire for the communities it was about, but the man who could be considered the lead drove me nuts and was never any fun to watch.

As for Breaking Bad, I adore that show, but I watched it from the point of view of his wife. She was way more interesting than he was. Actually, all of the supporting characters were more interesting than the lead, although Cranston acted the part brilliantly. And Vince Gilligan seems like a good egg, although I'm basing that on a mere handful of interviews.

Well, one does get a bit tired of all the male angst, doesn't one? :)

Tee hee. "Brilliant Asshole Shows" as a genre. I love it.
Yeah, Sherlock. I just was not feeling this last season, I'll admit it. And I've totally lost track of Dr. Who!

Yeah, you know, this wasn't a bad book, and I know there's a lot of well-plotted TV out there currently. I think it was more a question of mood (and me not being in the right one) for such a male-centric take on TV. I vastly preferred the more inclusive works I've read recently, like "The Platinum Age of Television" and "TV (The Book)."

Vince Gilligan: you've got to love anyone who had something to do with The X-Files, don't you? Where they were smart enough to balance Mulder with Scully?

>>>But at the end of the day I think I'm just kind of tired of everything that men touch and watch and create, particularly when such creations focus on such traditionally "male" worlds as crime, advertising, the mob, etc. (I'm also really tired of no one but men rating movies and doing TV writing.)

YESSSSSSS. Me too, number one? And number two, that was my big problem with this book. Not only did it focus on that type of show and showrunner, but it was also weirdly dismissive of women who were involved in them. It got really frustrating. I also hate the idea that geniuses are necessarily jerks. Nice people (and women ffs) make awesome art too!

Yeah, Jenny, I think we're arriving at pretty much the same place these days, even when we take slightly different roads to get there.

I'll say to you what I say to my sister when we need to shout something at each other for encouragement:


I think your comment on the failure of this book to explore women's roles in some of these shows (and women were involved, both in creation and in acting, as Teresa points out) is right on. Thank you for making it.

One other thing I totally did not understand about this book was its use of timelines. In the very beginning, it would list a show like "Sex and the City" on a timeline, and then there would be like a sentence about that show in the chapter, when I was expecting more. (I think that happened with "Oz" and some other programs too.)

Yeah, let's hear it for nice people making art. They're out there, I know, but as is typical for nice people, they're not getting all the loud and adoring press.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Citizen Reader

  • WWW

Readers' Advisory Blogs

Blog powered by Typepad