Print

Print


Reality TV is just the latest in a long string of popular
entertainment varieties whose appeal has nothing to do with literary
merit.  From the gladiator ring to the soap opera, you're really
outside the scope of literature, because quality of writing (when
there's any at all) is not the point.  So comparing "American Idol" to
"Kings" is apples and oranges.

But I agree with the larger point about TV programming.  It's a crime
that "Pushing Daisies" is now self-descriptive and "Better Off Ted"
just barely escaped the ax.


On 7/5/09, Paul Hartzer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Oh, sorry.  That certainly wasn't how I meant it, but it was
>> unnecessary, in retrospect.  My apologies.
>>
>> -David
>
> Fair enough. I realize there's the possibility that I appear to be bashing
> anything that's called "literature," and if so, I'm not. And for whatever
> it's worth, I share your opinion about "Twilight" (for instance). To switch
> to TV examples, it disappoints me that the excellently written Kings was
> canceled after a few episodes but American Idol continues to march forward
> after 7 years. Obviously, more people find the latter entertaining than the
> former, although I'm not in their numbers. I tried to read "Twilight" and
> got bored, although I reckon the stuff I most often read these days is not
> much more likely to be destined for Twenty-First Century Literature courses
> in 2309. I've been a fan in the past, though, of stuff that qualifies as
> literature, such as Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley (staples of the Angry
> Young Man that I was ;) ).
>
> -- Paul
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>