Comments on: Uncritical Self-Criticism, Or a Teachable Moment

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:12:34 +0000

agreed Sean, esp. when they are passionate about what they do.

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:12:23 +0000

agreed Sean, esp. when they are passionate.

By: Memles

Memles — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:16:20 +0000

First off, this blog is by far the most researched and thorough source of television analysis I've found, and the sheer amount I've learned from it over the past few years is kind of insane – so, on that front, I don't think there's a concern about whether the site's critical apparatus is misplaced in being either too critical, too uncritical, or too nostalgic.

Second, as someone else who gets very few comments, I like to think that it's about adding a new perspective more than necessarily creating a discussion in this space: I can't count how many TV theme songs you've gotten stuck in my head, or how many times I've found articles here or elsewhere that get worked into Twitter conversations or elsewhere. Things spread beyond the confines of the blog, and that's part of the fun of the interwebs.

As for being critical of bad shows, or writing more about good ones, I think every critic is guilty of this – I tend to treat Entourage like it's more serious than it is because I think it has the potential to be a better show than it is and can't seem to stop writing about this fact. I think there's nothing wrong with that, at the end of the day, as long as critics are self-aware (as you clearly are) and not delusional about the nature of their critical apparatus.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:08:34 +0000

I'm another frequent reader who enjoys, but rarely comments.

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:58:00 +0000

There's a guy who comes on CBC Radio One for the mid day call in, once per month. His name is Steve Brannan, I think – he's an appliance repairman, and is so bloody enthusiastic and knowledgable that I try to listen whenever he's on. I don't really care about Ann fom Timmins' washing machine that's making a funny clunk noise, but the fellow is so engaging I listen closely.

Interesting smart people are compelling, regardless of the topic – I find.

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:50:05 +0000

p.s.: one thing I really like about your writing (among many things) is your knowledge of the technical, production, financial/pragmatic dimensions of television. It's easy forget that there's constraints to every project, and I always find your explorations of those interesting.

By: SisyphusThis

SisyphusThis — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:47:12 +0000

I read all your posts. Rarely comment because, well, I don't find TV very interesting.
But I usually find your posts about it interesting. Funny,that.

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:47:00 +0000

Same here. I've never thought about the history, evolution and 'meta trends' of television enough to feel like I have anything to say of worth, but I always read your posts. Like BrainDrain XP above, I've never seen you as cheering for shows so much as documenting the context and cultural arcs they inhabit.

A lot of my friends – and I'm probably guilty of this myself from time to time – tend to downplay the extent to which they watch TV and enjoy it, and treat anyone who celebrates it as somehow lacking. I think many of us have an ambiguous relationship with the medium, and that might result in fewer comments. I have certain shows I love to watch and many that are touchstones to my youth. but at the same there's moments when I'd like to toss the damn thing out the window for being such a time waster. (When I could be wasting my time here, instead. lol).

I wonder if there's any parallels to writing about television and the earliest rock and roll journalists. I bet they had to struggle with some of the same things.

By: Not Stephen Colbert

Not Stephen Colbert — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 00:33:57 +0000

Oh, if you keep reading novels it won't be long until you come across some headache-inducing editing.

Anyway, add me to the chorus of people who read you regularly but apparently only comment on your posts when we feel like you're under attack.

By: Jaime Weinman

Jaime Weinman — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:31:09 +0000

Sorry for being mean…I’ve got 300 channels and there was absolutely nothing worth yesterday evening. I had to read a book!

I myself have been reading “He Knew He Was Right,” by Anthony Trollope. This “novel” thing is great — it’s like serialized TV without the headache-inducing editing!

By: Thwim

Thwim — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:26:26 +0000

Also, there's very little to debate. Weinman does his research, at least to a depth that's further than I'm willing to go about the subject, generally. So rather than waste people's time with a "Uh-huh. I agree completely" I just let it go uncommented.

By: Anon

Anon — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:18:02 +0000

See? I managed to shake things up. You're welcome.

Sorry for being mean…I've got 300 channels and there was absolutely nothing worth yesterday evening. I had to read a book!

By: Mike T.

Mike T. — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:37:20 +0000

The mean poster could have meant critical in the sense of important.

I read most of what you put up here, although that is true of most Macleans writers. I think sometimes you focus on a phenomenon or tic or practice that is a little too small to carry its own column, and it might be better to briefly mention it in another post instead.

I think your low comment count is because it's mainly a political website and not a place people come to read about TV.

By: Kat

Kat — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:05:40 +0000

I enjoy your blog too. And often I don't comment because I am considering your points, and maybe don't have a lot to say about it myself. You give really interesting perspective that I don't think most of us consider when watching tv. Thanks and keep it up.

By: Officerfarva

Officerfarva — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:59:09 +0000

No comment.

By: Alan

Alan — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:56:47 +0000

I read your posts every day. I think for me, the difference between what you write and what some of the other 'more critical' blogs write is kind of the difference between a debate and a discussion. When I read your post, I feel more like we're having a good discussion about tv on the whole, rather than the other critics who just tell me what to think.

By: anonish

anonish — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 14:23:39 +0000

To be completely honest, I think your columns would be better if they were shorter, more acerbic, and less random. Otherwise, not a bad read.

By: BrainDrainXP

BrainDrainXP — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:26:50 +0000

I read your column on a regular basis because I believe you lean towards the side of TV Historian-Sociologist than critic. If I want a critic, I'll read People Magazine, but I don't because I appreciate the knowledge you share in your posts.

By: rockfish

rockfish — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:27:17 +0000

I think its also cathartic to exhume the curious and failed shows of the past in a sense – when we identify ourselves or our appreciation for something that is out of the considered centre of popularity (not that there aren't any failed and curious delinquents in the centre) it is saying something about us. While nearly everything that could be said about Get Smart has been said,while the similar roots but absolute commercial failure of When Things Were Rotten remains unmined.
And that many of your posts are about nostalgia, the open-ended invitation is to either join you down in the well of fuzzy navel gazing about things we recall, or scratch our head wondering 'What the hell did he see in that?'
Either works for me.

By: Diane

Diane — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:08:50 +0000

I've culled the TV critics I read regularly from my RSS/Twitter because I was getting a steady stream of very similar opinions – Friday Night Lights/Mad Men will cure cancer, snobbishness about shows people actually watch. (I still get that steady stream, but from slightly fewer places now.) I could never get rid of this blog because you're one of the few critics who writes about shows in a way that doesn't tell me whether I "should" watch a show – I can decide that for myself – but gives the kind of analysis of shows and their context and history that I would never, ever have thought of myself, and that makes me think about television – not just a certain show – in a different way. You're far from being uncritical, and far from seeming to endorse bad shows – you nailed it in saying that what you do is reflect the TV culture in which shows exist, and that's exactly why this is one of my favourite TV blogs. Even if I'm usually too lazy to comment.