[ SECRET POST #2350 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2350 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 135 secrets from Secret Submission Post #336.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

12. http://i42.tinypic.com/2zpmxl2.jpg

[feotakahari]

It's an issue of how you approach it. If you say "It makes me a little uncomfortable that there's so much more focus on how other characters react to the lynching than there is on the character who very nearly got lynched", that's a fair statement that can lead to discussion. What a lot of people would say is "The show is racist," which tends to raise tempers and prevent meaningful discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

pretty much, yeah

[intrigueing]

Tbh, I kinda really hate the phrase "it makes me ~uncomfortable" when it comes to issues like this. It always sounds so passive aggressive and fake.

Can't we just honestly say "it's too bad they didn't focus more on the character who nearly got lynched. They had an opportunity to do something different with the portrayal of black characters and they missed it in favor of taking the old tried-and-true route instead"? That's the truth, without saying OMG this show is totes racist!!11

[(Anonymous)]

ah much better

[(Anonymous)]

So... damned if they do, damned if they don't?

[(Anonymous)]

Aaaaagh I know. So much about that show drives me crazy, but especially the way the show presents women and minorities - the way that they're always interposed against a white man, usually Josh, in order to justify themselves and tell them How It Is. and usually, Sorkin's vision of How It Is is some variant of "here is the reason why my fairly moderate compromising sensibility is the right way and everyone who thinks otherwise is a crazy radical idiot". The important thing in the show is the white protagonist's judgment and his understanding of political necessity, and everything a minority might bring up is filtered through that lens. And it's definitely also true in the case of the Charlie plot you're talking about. Because it's pretty much true of every plot involving a woman or a person who's not a white heterosexual male.

There's so much about the show, and Sorkin's writing in general, that I can hardly stand, but I can't stop watching the show and I still have a ton of affection for parts of it and for the characters. I just notice all these things and once you see them, you can't stop seeing them.

So hopefully this'll give you an opportunity to bitch about how someone is too sensitive, even if it's not directed at Mark Watches (god, I can only imagine what his West Wing reviews look like)

[(Anonymous)]

The important thing in the show is the white protagonist's judgment and his understanding of political necessity, and everything a minority might bring up is filtered through that lens.

Uh...you do realize proving political necessity is basically the entire premise of how the American government operates, and that's what the characters are completely and unequivocally constrained by, right? They can't pass a damn thing without convincing a majority of both houses of Congress that it would help them get re-elected. You're bitching about politics dominating a show about politics!

It IS a show about American politics, American politics is dominated by white men, and American politics is democratic, meaning the only way - and I mean the one single ONLY way that has ever worked for every single civil rights movement in America since the Civil War - to affect change in American politics and the American government and America in general to help women and minorities IS for those women and minorities to convince white men of their importance and political necessity.

It could have been done better and portrayed as more problematic - Sorkin was waaaay too "yay the political system is totes awesome!!" - but at the end of the day, the show is about national politics in a nationally-elected political office, not NBC's Primetime Guide to Social Issues, and everything you just bitched about is, unfortunately, exactly what politics is.

The moderateness, OTOH, I think is Sorkin's (or NBC's) way of trying to make sure the show didn't fall into a niche following, given how moderate the general American population (and TV viewing audience) is. In fact, I'm still a bit baffled how the show's ratings managed to get so high given how much to the left it was (which is not even that far to the left at all).

[(Anonymous)]

Um...I don't disagree that the concepts you describe are problematic, but its problematicness is due to these silly little things called "facts about the real world."

I mean, The West Wing is far from perfect, especially with Sorkin's obsession with tacking moral righteousness (rather than simple practical expediency, which is usually the case) onto every political issue, but...really? Did...did you actually, seriously just bash a show that is 90% about the President of the United States' staff trying to convince Congress to pass their agenda because they dare to make their arguments based on minorities' political necessity? Seriously?

I don't mean to be rude, but how exactly do you think Congress passes things in favor of minority rights? Out of the goodness of their hearts? In order to get the warm fuzzies as a reward? Because the President tells them to? Yeah, good luck. Of course minorities have to justify themselves to powerful white heterosexual men every single fucking minute in order to get political gains. They would get nothing done without it.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not just a matter of political expediency, though. If it was a show that was full of harsh realism, I wouldn't have an issue with it. The staff doesn't just decide what is politically possible and expedient; whatever position they take (or whatever position the Reasonable Minority Person takes) is usually the position that is, from the point of view of the show, the position that is true, just, and reasonable. The staffers don't just make decisions based on what is politically expedient and possible; they decide when political necessity is the most significant consideration, and when idealism is appropriate, and what kind of idealism is appropriate. They decide when idealism is fine and something to fight for, and when the concerns of others are pie-in-the-sky foolishness that simply can't be achieved, and the show agrees with them - only the views that they approve of, in the form that they approve of them, are reasonable and acceptable. The staff doesn't just judge what is possible; they judge what is acceptable.

I mean, you say it right there - Sorkin tacks moral righteousness onto political expedience. That's my issue, in a nutshell. Political expedience is mostly brought into the picture to justify times when the idealistic positions of people other than the staff have to be dismissed. Alright - that's simplistic, and I admit it, and there are times when the staff also gets too idealistic, but still. I mean, you see where I'm coming from. I don't have any problems with a show taking place on the basis of political necessity (if I did, I probably wouldn't love The Thick Of It as much as I do) and I don't want everything to be a liberal wonderland. I have an issue with the fact that the show continually chooses sides and it almost always comes down on the side of the staff and any issue that is not within the narrow lens of what the Bartlett administration staff approves of can safely be dismissed.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't even watch this show but I love you and your meta-analysis.

[(Anonymous)]

same anon here - wanted to clarify / expand on one thing: I think this dynamic (the combination of expedience and moral righteousness) is something that's present throughout a lot of the show, but I think (in regards the topic OP was talking about) it's especially odious and difficult to watch when Sorkin is dealing with minority issues and representation. It exacerbates an already existing problem.

[(Anonymous)]

And Sorkin has only gotten worse in that tendency on his tv projects since then. I'm actually a little bit reluctant to rewatch The West Wing now.

Transcript

[(Anonymous)]

Background is of various characters from The West Wing

Text: I was really disappointed that when The Midterms rolled around at Mark Watches The West Wing, nobody went crazy over 98 percent of the episode being centered around how a bunch of white dudes felt about seeing a black kid nearly lynched and 2 percent was spent on the black kid who was nearly lynched.

But while I can definitely recognize that point, I can't help but feel like if anybody there HAD raised it, I just would have been bitching here about how they're all just too goddamn sensitive.

[(Anonymous)]

Charlie's in the main credits, but really, he's never been more than a secondary character. It's not, like, out of the question for a show to build its episodes around the people perceived as "the main characters." It doesn't make anyone racist.

But mostly, a light-hearted FU, OP, for putting that EMinem song I committed to memory as a punk-ass teen back in my head.

"I say you're all just too goddamn sensitive, it's censorship, and it's downright blasphemous, let's sing this shit down for this, and Christopher Reeves won't sit for this either, and let's clear this up too, I ain't got no beef with him neither, he used to be like a hero to me, I even believe I had one of those 25-cent stickers on my refrigerator, right next to Darth Vader, and Darth must have put a hex on him for later. I feel like it's my fault 'cause of the way that I stuck him up in between him and Lex Luthor, I killed Superman, I killed Superman, Mmm how ironic, that I'd be the bad guy Kryptonite the green chronic..."

THis does not need to be in my head.

[(Anonymous)]

But then you have to ask the question -- why is he in the main credits, if he's not a main character?

[(Anonymous)]

Or the question -- why are all of the characters that are perceived as the 'main characters' white?

[intrigueing]

IIRC, the casting department wanted CJ to be black, but Allison Janney wowed them so much they took her instead. But yeah Charlie was definitely rather token. Even the producers admit it, I think.

(Personally, I would have kind of enjoyed Charlie rather than Sam being the de facto audience lead-in during season 1. Wouldn't that have been awesome? I think it would have been awesome. Charlie's story would have fit a semi-POV character so well. I love Sam, but his character was too polished up to be a POV character. Not that they ever took a chance to make Sam look like an idealistic newbie or whatever they were going for. He was always a super-geeky expert who explained things to everyone else. Which worked for him, although it also led to stuff like the sheer ridiculousness of an ex-Hollywood marketing expert not understanding the census. *facepalm*)

[(Anonymous)]

Mark Watches/Reads is just the place that won't quit, isn't it? Do people still pay him to record himself watching TV shows?

[(Anonymous)]

Yep. Ad $25 a pop, he's made $700 off the first 1.5 seasons of The West Wing alone, and will make more from the last half of season 2, at least half of season 3 and random episodes from other seasons. And really, it wouldn't surprise me if people end up claiming all of seasons 3 and 4.

Not to mention all the other shows and book chapters he reads. Good gig, if you can get it. I mean, obviously he's not making a killing, but I'd love to point a camera at my face and watch some shit and have people give me money for it.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't decide if that's awesome or awful. But I wish I could do it.