In light of recent discussions, some people might be wondering if there’s anything that I would find myself saying, “No, that’s not right; that’s not funny, that’s a bad idea for humor.”
Well, yes, as a matter of fact. It happened just recently on an episode of a series that I absolutely adore: “30 Rock.” They had a storyline that I thought was not only offensive but exceptionally ill-advised, and if I’d been in any sort of creative authority on that series, I would have made sure to smother the concept before it emerged from the writer’s room. I cannot conceive how in God’s name it made it onto air.In the February 11th episode entitled “Anna Howard Shaw Day,” numbskulled actress Jenna (the always-brilliant Jane Krakowski) discovers that, as Valentine’s Day rolls around, her perennial stalker isn’t anywhere in sight. A normal person would be relieved that a stalker isn’t in the vicinity, but Jenna is actually nuts enough to go to her stalker’s place of employment and demand to know what the deal is. He informs her that the court orders and such have simply taken their toll and he’s no longer interested in harassing Jenna.
And Jenna is devastated. She is actually aggrieved that she’s lost her stalker. She even has a montage of wistful recollections in which she’s repeatedly startled and terrified by the guy. Is the resolution of the episode that Jenna is sent into some much-needed therapy? No. Instead the accommodating Kenneth the NBC page (Jack McBrayer, totally let down by the writers this time) concocts a fictitious stalker so that Jenna thinks someone is after her once more and is again content.
I understand what they were going for. The episode shows us that her ego is so fragile, her need for attention is so monumental, that the source of that attention is secondary to the fact that she’s receiving it at all. It’s a commentary on Jenna’s personality. Except: We get it. We’ve been with the character for four years; we’re not learning anything we don’t know. So if that’s the reason they’re doing it, that mission was accomplished by midway through Season 2.
The thing is…stalkers aren’t funny. They’re just not. They’re sick people and they’re dangerous people. They put celebrities in fear of their safety, in fear of their lives, and–oh yes–they’ve occasionally killed the ones they were stalking. The pathology of stalkers is such that they delude themselves into believing that their attentions are welcome. That their activities are just a means of expressing their love and adoration and that the objects of their affections would really appreciate them if only they got to know them. Or that the celebrities really do appreciate them and even love them, and are just reluctant to reveal that.
This story line fed right into that. And yes, it was over the top, but so are stalkers. Anything that gives them the slightest hope that their view of the world in general and their targets in particular is a correct one is inherently wrongheaded and ill-advised and, yes, even dangerous. Even relatively sane people confuse fiction with fact (ask any soap opera villain who was assaulted by an outraged fan because of actions they took on the TV series). We really don’t need some nutball thinking that Jane Krakowski, or any actress (or actor for that matter) secretly welcomes that kind of attention. It was an insult to the tragic memory of Rebecca Schaeffer and it never should have aired.
On the other hand, at least I watched it before passing judgment, so…
PAD
• 
There is a current fast food commercial that dangles on the edge of stalking. A guy walks up to the counter and asks for a certain worker by name because she was so nice to him and gave him a special deal. Yeah, she did. Trouble is, she and all her co-workers offer the same deal to every customer. This guy is just so mental he thinks she is being nice solely to him.
.
Am I the only one who has seen this aspect of the commercial?
If i had seen it, i probably would have seen it that way; but i haven’t watched commercial TV in i-don’t-know-how-long – we shut our cable off six months ago, and i hadn’t watched any for a while before that.
.
But, yeah – stalkers aren’t funny.
Hmmm. Well, I’d have to see the commercial and how the guy played it. There’s lots of ways to act that so that it’s not stalkerish. I mean, if someone seeks out the same hair stylist by name, that doesn’t make them a stalker. Just means they like the service. So if they’re playing it that it’s a satisfied consumer who wants the same person waiting on them, and is surprised to find that what they thought was a special bargain was just an ongoing part of the service, that could be pretty harmless. On the other hand if the guy is wide-eyed crazy, then I see the creepy factor.
.
PAD
I’ve seen the commercial I didn’t really get a ‘stalking’ or even attraction vibe. He’ all nervous about being able to get the same ‘deal’ he got before and he thinks she gave him a sweet deal, but I didn’t get the impression that he thinks she did it because she’s sweet on him.
I think the version Alan is referring to is the extended cut of the commercial in which he first approaches the cashier on-duty and says he’s specifically looking for this other cashier. When she finally comes up front to see him, she seems confused and a little uncomfortable with his familiarity. And the commercial ends with him still not getting that there’s no special relationship between the two of them. There is a shorter version of the commercial where it just starts with him asking about the “special deal” so that lessens the stalker aspect of it. I wonder if that was conscious change on Taco Bell’s part.
.
I think one thing to remember is that it can be hard, at least initially, to tell the difference between someone who is dangerous, and someone who’s just socially awkward. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, because some people are just bad at “taking hints” and need you to be a little more explicit with them, for example, when you are trying to end a conversation.
I don’t agree with your opinion of the episode in question. I thought it was funny and creepy at he same time. I haven’t seen season one or two and am barely starting to watch the series. As you know, like in comic books, each episode is the first one for somebody. I didn’t know much about Jenna’s character and appreciated showing her need for attention. It’s obvious from the episode that she was horrified by the stalker’s actions, and so should we as the audience be horrified by the stalker’s actions (cutting her hair, leaving doll heads in her fridge.) But even I as a viewer with a short history with the show can see that the world 30 Rock takes place is not the real world. It’s a cartoony world where cartoony things happen. Where character’s traits and personalities are magnified for comedic effect and for jokes and punchlines. The world they live in is an absurdist world where they can mock and parody show business. In the end, it really wasn’t about the stalker, he had reformed and moved on, but it was about Jenna’s need for attention especially on Valentine’s Day and her need to be noticed and loved.
That’s an interesting point, PAD. I didn’t really get that impression from the show, though. I’ve only watched 30 Rock sporadically over the years, so I’m not quite in the same place you are when you’re talking about seeing a point that was well made by season 2. Still, that just seems like it would make the story redundant, not more or less appropriate.
.
I think part of the reason it didn’t bother me is because I have a hard time imagining that anyone wouldn’t see the satirical message about Jenna being wrong that the writers had in mind. However, I can see your point about some people confusing fantasy with reality. Jason Alexander said that after the rape scene in Pretty Woman, little old ladies would stop him on the street and hit him with their bags.
.
On the other hand, you could make the same argument about *any* villainous act in fiction. There are a lot of charismatic bad guys in comics, movies and TV who murder people without a thought, so wouldn’t the same argument apply to any villain? I know that this is different because this was an example of the victim welcoming it, but for people who can’t distinguish fantasy from reality, just the fact that the villain is sympathetic in some way could lead them down the same line of thought.
.
I think I’m also used to the joke from other examples of it. What do you think of the song “Every Breath You Take” by the Police? Did you have the same reaction when it came out?
I know that this is different because this was an example of the victim welcoming it, but for people who can’t distinguish fantasy from reality, just the fact that the villain is sympathetic in some way could lead them down the same line of thought.
.
To me, that’s all the difference in the world. It was Jenna’s attitude, more than anything, that I took issue with. There is a world of difference between arguing that villains shouldn’t be sympathetic because that’s encouraging to potential criminals–which is extreme and untenable–and arguing, as I am, that producing a story line that comedically encourages the twisted thinking of stalkers–which is inherently an unfunny subject–is irresponsible.
.
What did I think of “Every Breath You Take?” I thought it was creepy. It was a twisted look inside the psyche of some guy obsessed with a girl, and the fact that it was this wonderful melody was what made it a brilliant contrast. It’s a fascinating song because basically this is what the sick bášŧárd singing it thinks love is. It’s a fascinating art piece. It’s something that’s supposed to make you uncomfortable, and anyone who dances a slow dance with his girl and sings along and thinks he’s being sweet doing so is just clueless.
.
PAD
I’ve been to three weddings. “Every Breath You Take” played at two of them. I was creeped out both times. (On the other hand, during the “father-bride” dance at the third, I don’t remember what song they played – some country garbage I couldn’t stand, I believe – but I distinctly remember thinking ‘Well, *this* is rather inappropriate…’)
.
I’ve heard that Sting wrote “Every Breath You Take” as a response to his *own* stalker. Whether or not that’s true, I’ve no idea, but it certainly is a good song… even after you listen to it closely.
The reason I pointed out “Every Breath You Take” is because it’s a song that both you and I think is acceptable, but some people don’t get the message and think that kind of behavior is acceptable. So if we’re going to call something inappropriate because the someone might miss the real message and take fantasy for reality, that’s a gigantic can of worms.
Lot’s of songs are creepy and/or incredibly stupid if you actually listen to the lyrics. “Micky” is about a girl harassing a gay guy for a date, even offering to take it up the Chatanooga Choo Choo if that will make him more comfortable with a woman of the female gender, which makes the fact that people send out their 12 year old kids to dance to it at cheerleading camp somewhat disturbing. “Young Girl” by Gary Puckett is disturbing on more levels than most songs have levels. “Better run, girl!” he says, like every serial killer does, knowing full well she won’t get far in this weather and anyway, he has the night vision goggles.
The guy in the commercial is not a stalker. He’s doing what he’s doing because he is too stupid to realize he’s not getting a special deal from the fast food worker. The point is that the price is so good that it can’t just be the actual price.
I watch 30 Rock all the time and love it. Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey both play against type, Baldwin as an arch-conservative and Fey as a love-lorn loser. Jane Krakowski, Tracy Morgan and Jack McBrayer are the real caricatures so I didn’t really consider Jenna’s stalker storyline from any other view than how desperate, insecure and needy she is. Yes we’ve been shown that from the beginning but the writers can’t just stop reinforcing that image. Every show is someone’s first after all.
Watched the episode (love the show too… so much I download it a few days after it airs in the USA just so I don’t have to wait months and listen to the horrible dubbing… specially when it comes to Tracy)…
.
…and found it funny.
.
I mean, I get the angle PAD is seeing it, I just don’t think its off limits. It might feed some of these guy’s delusion but even the most stupid things feed those kinds of delusions; from “she smile to me from my TV screen” to “he sent me an autographed photo”. I doubt this episode of 30 rock will push anyone from the cliff of fanatical adoration into the sea of creepy stalking. And if it does I am pretty sure anything else could have done the trick.
.
Let’s not allow the wackiest, creepiest among us dictate how we live. Maybe I have a very dark sense of humour, but I’ve been laughing my whole life about murder, suicide, drug abuse… as I am sure PAD has done too.
.
On a related note… I was watching an episode of “Two and a half men” today (third one I watch, actually, cant really say I enjoy that show). Charlie Sheen’s character was kind-of-stalking a woman while receiving stalking tips from his own stalker, like always carry a pee jar and snaks. I take PAD took offense in 30Rock’s portrayal of stalking because thats a show he loves… still, its been used for some time.
Let’s not allow the wackiest, creepiest among us dictate how we live.
.
I’m not saying that, and that is a wildly over the top characterization of my position. I’m saying depicting someone enjoying the sick attentions of a stalker isn’t funny, particularly because that’s exactly what stalkers believe is the case. I’m saying stalkers aren’t an inherently funny topic, and if you’re going to try and do a comedic take on it, it has to be smarter than this.
.
PAD
Hummm… that’s true, it’s over the top. I actually wrote something in the line of “…letting the terrorists win” but I though maybe not everyone would understand the humour.
.
The thing is… I did found the whole thing funny. Not hysterical but amusing and Jenna-like. I also enjoy how usually Tracy validates Jenna’s crazy concerns as a normal part of beign famous. But then humour is subjetive, as I said, I have a pretty dark sense of humour.
.
And I think it’s funny because what crazy people believe and think is usually funny if viewed from a sane perspective. And scary. Scary and funny in a creepy way. Should it be off limits because it might encourage some of those nutjobs? Hëll no. As I said earlier, anything can push these guys over the line, so we can either worry about everything its said and done or we can enjoy living in such a fûçkëd up world by laughing at whats funny in it. Stalkers included.
.
For all we know Tina Fey, the brain behind the show, might have a handful of stalkers of her own.
Reminds me of the late, great Barry Morse, who played Lt. Phillip Gerard on “The Fugitive”.
He’d been heckled by teenagers, been hit on the head with purses from old ladies, and other such moments.
“I was the most hated man in America… and I loved it!”
Alison Arngrim, the actress who played the spoiled little brat in pigtails on Little House on the Prairie, tells a similar story. I saw an interview where she said she was in a parade once where the crowd started booing her, so she decided to play it up like a professional wrestling villain. She sneered and growled at the crowd and had a great time of it.
.
On the one hand, that’s hilarious. On the other hand, I hope there’s never an actor who tells a version of that story that ends with, “and that’s when the bricks started flying.”
I haven’t seen the episode, but in general, I don’t think there is any subject, at least in theory, that cannot be made funny or lampooned, or at least be alluded to in a humorous context. And this isn’t the first time a comedy has poked fun at stalkers with a dimwitted actor character that sees having a stalker as a good thing. I remember that episode of Tom Arnold’s show in which his then-wife Roseanne played a stalker, and he was okay with it, and hooked up with her for a time. And then there was that episode of Friends in which the same thing happened with Joey, whose stalker was played by Brooke Shields, who IIRC, won raves (no pun intended) for her performance. (It may have even helped her get Suddenly Susan, for all we know.)
.
Peter, you say that Jenna’s character was already established, so nothing new was established. But who says a sitcom has to? Most character-oriented stories in sitcoms centers on the same recurring trait, and not establishing new ones. Joey, for example, was a dim-witted, horny omnivore in Season 1, and so he was in Season 10. Ditto for all the other characters. Sitcoms don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but just be funny.
.
Ultimately, the reaction you had was the reaction you had, and there’s nothing wrong with that. To each his own.
Phoebe also had a stalker (played by David Arquette), although that was played more for sympathy than comedy.
.
And I agree, any subject can be made funny. Sarah Silverman can even make the Holocaust and AIDS funny. When it comes to comedy, anything goes, as far as I’m concerned.
I thought it was funny, and it didn’t bother me at all.
You can’t censor things, or even self-censor, simply because of how insane people might misinterpret them. Once you start doing that you quickly run out of topics you can cover. And I don’t think any subject should ever be off-limits for comedy. Sure, there are subjects that might really bother me, but why should that stop other people from enjoying them? And the truth is, humour has very important psychological effects. It involves seeing things from a new perspective, and oft times it’s the only way to remove one’s mental blinders on some issue. If you can’t make jokes about something, you probably can’t discuss it rationally.
I thought it was funny, and it didn’t bother me at all
.
Tell me something, Mary: If they do a story where someone questions Jenna’s revealing outfit and she says, “I’m dressing this way because I’m hoping that some guy gets so turned on that he drags me into an alley and has sex with me. Maybe him and a couple of friends. And sure, I’ll scream and cry and shout ‘Rape!’ but really, I’m asking for it and want it…”
.
Still funny? Still not bothered? Still think it’s a story that should be done?
.
PAD
If it’s executed in a way that causes laughs, yes. And why not? George Carlin, in one of his HBO standup specials, did a routine in which he responded to learning of a story of someone who had raped an elderly lady. Is such a real-life phenomena funny? No. But his remarks on it were funny as hëll.
.
If whether the topic used as the basis for the material is funny in real life is used as the standard for whether something should air, then most topics used for humor by comedians and works people like or think are brilliant goes right out the window. From the cartoony murder seen in animated kids’ cartoons, to the use of Hitler seen in The Producers (to say nothing of those funny College Humor riffs on that clip from Downfall athttp://www.collegehumor.com/web-celeb-hall-of-fame/hitler-gets-banned-from-xbox-live/tribute:1918506)
.
Am I bothered by some popular humor? Yes. But I’ve observed that I tend not be bothered so much by whether the reality behind the topic used is funny in real life, but when I have trouble with the execution, as when, for example, I trouble detecting irony when comedian do racial humor. This is why, I suspect, I like Sarah Silverman’s standup material, find some of the material Dave Chappelle’s Show hit or miss, dislike much of Lisa Lampanelli’s act, and dislike all or most of Andrew Dice Clay’s stuff, even though all of them utilize racial humor. And even by that criterion, it’s ultimately a question of personal aesthetics and emotional reactions that cannot be pinned down to an objective standard of right or wrong.
.
When Barbara Walters, in (first, I think) interview with Eddie Murphy, asked him, in regards to his politically incorrect humor, when does such humor go too far. He responded, “When it’s not funny.” I think that’s the only standard I can apply when pondering whether I’m bothered by some bit of humor.
It reminds me of the black comedian who does the bit about a white couple seeing a black man walking towards them in the alley. The white guy is thinking “boy, I’d like to turn around and run, but that might make me look racist.” The white girl is thinking, “boy, I hope that black guy doesn’t grab me, in his strong black arms, and push me up against the wall…”
Very similar to the hypothetical comedy joke PAD put up, and it was hilarious. I’m in the camp that 30 Rock was funny, and just as Tracy Morgan’s made the joke that he and his wife play rape, and tried to start a dog fighting ring, no subject is off-limits for its humor. Besides, the bit where the stalker ran up to her and cut her hair was pretty funny, and Jenna’s usually the least funny character on the show.
There’s also the character of Rose in the first few seasons of 2 and a Half men. who relentlessly stalked the Charley Sheen character. Eventually she left the show and he missed her.
.
I have no problem with using bad taste for laughs, unless it is done maliciously. Once we start worrying about how every nut will interpret stuff we start down a dangerous and, worse, very dull path.
.
Tell me something, Mary: If they do a story where someone questions Jenna’s revealing outfit and she says, “I’m dressing this way because I’m hoping that some guy gets so turned on that he drags me into an alley and has sex with me. Maybe him and a couple of friends. And sure, I’ll scream and cry and shout ‘Rape!’ but really, I’m asking for it and want it…”
.
In fairness, PAD, Mary did say that there are subjects that might really bother me so even if she did find your example unpleasant and awful, it would not change what she’s saying.
.
And your example sounds like it could have come from the Sarah Silverman show. My biggest objection would be that, at first blush, it just isn’t funny (not that you were trying to be). And if the 30 Rock episode wasn’t funny then yeah, I can see complaining that they have sent a bad message out there for nothing in return.
And your example sounds like it could have come from the Sarah Silverman show.
.
A relentlessly unfunny program. Oddly, I’ve always liked her stand-up. I even like the commercials for the show. But every time I watch it, I don’t even crack a smile.
.
Oddly, I don’t feel the need to try and drive it off the air or root for it to be canceled. I just don’t watch it.
.
PAD
Peter, I think it’s fine that you didn’t find the joke funny, and while you’re not calling for the episode to be pulled, scolding others who did laugh is problematic.
The bit in question in question is dark (dark enough that I’m impressed they got it to air on network TV), but black humour, by definition, pushes boundaries and puts some people off. Your rape joke scenario is unfair because any dark joke can be broken down in the same way. It’s the equivalent of someone telling me I shouldn’t laugh at the last scene of The Life of Brian because the realities of crucifixion involved breaking bones and slow asphyxiation. That’s the territory you’re wandering in.
No one in the series or the audience views Jenna as rational. The show takes great pains to portray her as demented. Earlier this season Jenna ripped out a female intern character’s earring because the girl said she wanted to be an actress and Jenna thought she was too pretty. That doesn’t sound funny in writing either. The humour in the stalker situation arises out of how twisted Jenna is (the montage was especially good at making the viewer’s skin crawl), and I can’t imagine anyone seeing it as an endorsement of the stalker’s behaviour.
I feel like I’m getting singled out here. I wasn’t the only one here who found it funny.
.
Well, the rape joke as you describe would be very difficult to pull off, but I couldn’t rule it out beforehand. The most similar thing I can think of is the early part of ‘Little Big Man’ with his sister who kept waiting for the Cheyenne to rape her and was disappointed when it never happened. That was mildly funny, I thought.
.
Dark humour like this is difficult to get right, but it can be done. It requires just the right amount of emotional detachement.
Actually, the comedy that offends me the most is stuff that deals with embarassment or humiliation. That can really get to me sometimes. It can be done well sometimes, and when it is it can be extremely funny, but when it’s done badly my face gets warm and I shrivel up in my seat and I just want to run away.
That story has been done. Many times. Sometimes it was funny.
30 years ago in Iva’s “Maki Navaja”, a comic depicting the everyday life of crooks, one of the main characters robs a pharmacy. While he conducts bussines as ussual, the pharmacist (a woman) is repeating “but are you going to rape me?”, seemingly scared. When he leaves, the woman keeps repeating her line, now in a dissapointed tone. This was later in the film version of the comic, and I believe in the TV show too.
30 years later, if someone simulates a mugging attempt at his friends, it wouldnt be uncommon for one of them to respond “But are you going to rape me?”. Yes, wanting rape can be depicted in a funny way.
.
Benny Hill used to have a gag somewhat like the one El Hombre Malo mentions that popped up in his skits from time to time as well.
I find the Sarah Silverman Program to be a good 10 minute show. I’ve found that if I switch over to something else during the first commercial break, I enjoy it more than if I watch it all the way through.
.
Theno
On once sketch comedy show I saw focused on two prisoners in a jail cell. the one prisoner asks his cellmate with eager anticipation in his voice, “Are you going to rape me tonight? He responds, “Not tonight, I have a headache.”
Lots of priosner rape scenes (Which I think is inherently unfunny)are played for laughs.
The don’t drop the soap/don’t flatter yourself scene in Tango and Cash
“Bend Over” “Nice to meet you, Ben” from Fletch.
It’s all in the delivery.
I can only think of one, possible justification for this storyline: The page gets so into his “role” that he actually becomes a real stalker.
Didn’t they do something similar on Will & Grace when Jack was stalking Kevin Bacon? I understand that (to some people) it’s a severe line to cross, I understand why you’re offended, and I fully understand how easy it can be for an unbalanced person to think this makes it OK to commit a heinous act. Still, I wouldn’t keep it off the air because that’s just plain censorship based on “what if someone takes it out of context”; something that can happen with ANY television show, even the news!
Peter, is it possible that, as a celebrity, this just hits to close to home for you? If we draw the line here, where do we stop?
oops, make that “too close to home”.
Peter, is it possible that, as a celebrity, this just hits to close to home for you? If we draw the line here, where do we stop?
.
It’s nothing I’ve ever had to deal with myself, although it’s concerned me. But I’ve certainly had friends who have had to deal with it. I’ve been in the presence of one who physically attacked a friend. Back in her stage managing days, Kathleen had to help a very notable actor dodge a stalker by putting herself in harm’s way. So yeah, my view is going to be somewhat different from others.
.
You seem to have confused me with someone who declares particular topics to be off limits, lest vengeance (and black lists) be the result. This isn’t a matter of, “Oh, my gentle sensibilities have been offended by distasteful subject matter.” I think as a general rule of thumb that encouraging dangerous people to do dangerous things by making it seem as if the victims of those actions are okay with it is a bad idea.
.
But I think it’s worth making note of what I am NOT saying or doing.
.
1) I’m not going to stop watching “30 Rock.”
.
2) I’m not declaring that the producers of the series or NBC should offer apologies or never rerun it.
.
3) I’m not suggesting that the episode be deleted from the eventual DVD release.
.
4) I’m not wondering how Tiny Fey’s husband could marry someone like her.
.
5) I’m not contacting “30 Rock’s” sponsors and informing them that I’ll be boycotting their products.
.
I tend to draw the line at drawing lines.
.
PAD
Phew! Thanks for the clarification.
You had me scared there for a minute!
There are few lines to drawn anymore, and whenever someone thinks there should be, people will always say ‘what can’t you take a joke?’ or ‘ I thought it was funny’.
What Peter is saying isn’t that jokes about stalking are off limits, just that jokes that show people *enjoying* stalking (or rape, for that matter) are very ill-advised.
I thought Peter was crystal clear about that, but thanks for chiming in!
But why? Ever see “Straw Dogs,” the classic Peckinpaugh film with Dustin Hoffman? The film featured a rape scene with Susan George enjoying it at parts. People wrote to him and stated that the film revolted them and made them uncomfortable, etc. Peckinpaugh’s response was “good.”
Art, entertainment, comedy, film, it’s all expression and nothing’s off limits in that realm. I’d prefer no lines be drawn and works like “The Lost Girls” and “Ken Park” be released and easy to find in the land of the free.
Daniel, I’m sorry if I just repeated the obvious. PAD made it clear. I suppose I was just reinforcing that I didn’t think he was like the usual censors that want bans on entire subjects in fiction.
No need to apologize! I know you were only trying to help. It’s all good discussion to me.
See, that’s what I don’t get. If an actor likes her stalker, is he really a stalker? Isn’t he really just, y’know, a (possibly overzealous) fan at that point?
.
I didn’t see since I never watch 30 Rock, but it did remind me of a twist on the gag that was done on the original “Coupling” with the Jane character. She was written to be alternately having a fragile ego sometimes and having the biggest ego on God’s green Earth at other times. In one episode she was discussing her “stalker” problems with the others and how she was going to have to deal with them. When she was asked about having a stalker it became clear that her definition of a stalker basically any random guy she had walking behind her.
.
So needy was her ego that she was making up stalkers on the spot to validate her view of herself as a celebrity and an attractive woman. I think there was even a throwaway line one time about confronting or getting one of the “stalkers” in trouble as well, but it’s been a while since I watched the series.
Bad Jerry, pick up the DVDs and watch it again, simply the funniest series ever.
.
I have the DVDs. Well, not the last season… I’ve just been kinda busy, I have a ton of DVD sets I’m still trying to get around to watching and I keep winning DVDs off of Fangoria Radio.
.
I just finally got around to watching Not Quite Hollywood a few weeks ago. That film is awesome.
Daniel beat me to the WILL & GRACE episode where Kevin Bacon actually invited (who he thought was) his stalker in because, as he explained, once your stalkers lose interest, you’re losing your popularity.
George Carlin said that humor doesn’t come from a controversial topic, but the exaggeration of that topic. In the 30 ROCK, the exaggeration is that Jenna is so upset about losing the attentions of “her” obsessive, potentially dangerous psycho that instead of celebrating she winds up pursuing (stalking?) him.
And I thought it was funny. I loved the montage of his scary behavior set to Sarah McLachlan’s “I Will Remember You,” I liked how Jenna reinforced her superficiality and need for any sort of attention (her character is basically a caricature of the shallow, vain celebrity), and I liked how Kenneth pretended (at least I hope he was pretending) to become the new stalker — and seeing her happy reaction.
Will this encourage stalkers? A stalker has an irrational belief in the perceived relationship between them and their target — and *anything* can be interpreted by them as proof of that “special” relationship. I doubt anyone was on the fence about whether they were truly meant to keep pursuing someone, but they watched that 30 ROCK and realized yes, the celebrity really did want their attention. Such people can find “proof” that they are meant to be together in a published interview, the shape of the clouds at 4:35, an ad that appears on a passing bus, etc. They don’t need encouragement; they created it themselves, and they’ll continue to create it to feed their delusion.
Daniel beat me to the WILL & GRACE episode where Kevin Bacon actually invited (who he thought was) his stalker in because, as he explained, once your stalkers lose interest, you’re losing your popularity.
.
Never liked Will & Grace. I found the characters relentlessly annoying.
.
PAD
As we digress… I always found WILL AND GRACE too shrill and I hated the character of Karen (she’s a pill-popping alcoholic! how wacky!), but I did like the way they had “both types” of gay men. Jack was as big a flamer as one could ever see, while Will could (and sometimes did) pass for straight unless he told people he was gay. Considering I’ve heard complaints about portrayals of gay men that they’re either too stereotypical (why must they always be so dramatic and love disco?) or too mainstream (why do they seem like any straight man?), W&G did succeed at showing both ends of the spectrum.
As far as someone getting the idea that stalkees (new word) may actually want to be stalked – do you think this is so ridiculous that no one could really go there?
Let me tell you a story…
In college, I had a roommate who’s central to all my best college stories. In deference to the hope that he eventually matured and moved on, let’s call him Brent.
When Brent came back from Christmas break, he had a problem. He’d suffered a head injury over the break, and had amnesia – couldn’t remember anything about the people he emt in his first quarter at college. Almost everyone was very nice to him, and tried to help him. Except one of our other roommates, who (being a more cynical soul than most) refused to believe Brent. Naturally, this guy was correct; Brent was fine. You see, he’d seen TV shows where people have amnesia, and it’s funny – so he thought it’d be funny in real life too. He was unprepared for the care and concern his friends showed for him, and was unable to extricate himself from his lie. He finally was forced to admit the truth when his mother threatened to start calling people and telling them herself.
Note that he lived in the honors dorm, and was in Naval ROTC (facts that continuously marveled some of us, but still).
I’m not saying that I completely disagree with what PAD is saying, but consider this:
In Captain Marvel issues 9(44)-12(47), the appeared a storyline called Coven, which featured a serial killer of the same name. Said psychopathic serial killer, among other things, bragged to a widow about killing her cop husband when he (the cop) pulled him (Coven) over with a dismembered corpse in the trunk. At the story’s start, as Coven was to be executed he confidently predicted that he would come back to life, as he was special, better than everyone else. In the story, Coven did indeed turn out to be able to come back from the dead, and his “delusions” of alien parentage proved true.
This is exactly what these lunatics can believe, that the voices in their heads have told them the truth, they are special and selected for a mission.
An early issue of Young Justice featured an aside about a late-working security guard, who had years early murdered his wife and gotten away with it. It had no bearing on the story, he continued to get away with it. Exactly like murderers believe they’ll be able to get away with their crimes.
Soulsearchers & Company featured a gold-digger taking advantage an innocent young man who came into money by marrying him. The story had a happy ending, when they divorced and she kept part of his money, but he didn’t mind since he had plenty. That’s not at all encouraging to anyone. (Of course, gold-digger marriages hardly equate to the severity of stalking, I fully admit).
Supergirl also skated along some dodgy territory with the relationship between Buzz and Linda, depending on your point of view.
Obviously, everyone on this board can guess who wrote all of those stories. My point is not that PAD was wrong to write them, or that he’s wrong to complain now. Just that questions like this always involve a lot of personal opinion. PAD can, no doubt, provide a laundry list of reasons why those stories are all totally different than this 30 Rock story. Since he’s a professional writer (big fan, by the way), and I sell pools, his will probably sound a lot better than mine too. But I bet I could still comb through X-Factor, Hulk, Soulsearchers, Supergirl, Young Justice, Captain Marvel, New Frontier, Sir Apropos, the Knight trilogy, etc. (all of which I enjoyed) and come back with another list of potentially objectionable storylines. And again, PAD could explain why I’m wrong, and none of them equate to this thing on 30 Rock.
All I’m saying is that whenever entertainment touches upon serious issues, there is the risk that the offense outweighs the funny for some people. Clearly this passed that threshold for PAD, and for good reasons, but I don’t think that makes it a provable or universally wrong decision.
And again, PAD could explain why I’m wrong, and none of them equate to this thing on 30 Rock.
.
Because by and large they weren’t being played for laughs, and the victims of the crimes weren’t enjoying being victims. The one exception was “Soulsearcher” and, yes, gold digging isn’t on par with menacing or violent crimes.
.
PAD
There’s a certain justice to someone turning the tables on a stalker. Jenna’s going to the guy’s place of employment was in itself. stalkerish. However, the whole bit just doesn’t strike me as terribly funny.
At least it’s a reaction to something on TV of questionable taste that doesn’t refer to Sarah Palin and the Wasilla Hillbillies. I can’t take anymore feigned outrage from that doofus.
For the most part, I find myself going back and forth over this (I haven’t seen the episode.)
Out of curiosity PAD, what are your thoughts about this compared to the movie “There’s Something About Mary” ? Pretty much all of the guys in the movie were stalking her (and Chris Elliot’s character was more of the “classic stalker” than the rest, a restraining order and everything.)
It wasn’t a celebrity stalking, but I remember this blog awhile back asking the question of whether or not a man stalking a woman had ever been played for laughs (or could be) vs. a woman stalking a man. (It may sound as though I’m trying to play “gotcha” but I’m not, I really don’t know how to separate the two; Cameron Diaz may not have ever encouraged the stalkers in the movie, but this topic seems to me to be about whether or not any jokes about stalkers can ever be funny.)
None of this changes whether or not a person finds a joke too offensive to be funny. I’ve known people that have been raped, and I never find rape jokes funny (I generally don’t find Sarah Silverman’s “jokes” about it funny, or her funny in general.) I don’t find 9/11 jokes funny at all either. I just generally say, “not funny” vs. “offensive” becuase it seems to me that a certain type of personality finds that term rewarding. “Awesome! He said it was offenisive! I got him! I got to him! This proves that I must be doing something right for people to care about my jokes that much!”
Never saw “Something About Mary.”
.
PAD
But Marlo and Moondragon have!
“but this topic seems to me to be about whether or not any jokes about stalkers can ever be funny”
.
I disagree.
.
I thought the topic was, “Something PAD found offensive.” Now, maybe I misunderstood what that “something” was, but I thought it was the execution as much as the topic. He even said:
.
“I’m saying stalkers aren’t an inherently funny topic, and if you’re going to try and do a comedic take on it, it has to be smarter than this.”
.
I got the impression that PAD finds that some topics should be done well and with care, or not at all. And, that stalking is one of those topics.
.
Theno
Part of the joke of THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY is that Mary seems to automatically attract every man she bumps into — and she’s blissfully unaware that she has this effect on the male world around her. This was so exaggerated that she not only attracted two stalkers (Chris Elliott and the old guy with the rifle at the end) but also inspired one person to create a whole fictional handicapped persona just to be around her.
I understand PAD’s discomfort with the subject matter, and somewhat believe his assurance that he would never call for censorship of this sort of thing – but am at a loss as to what he wants. There is bad, unfunny television 24 hours every day; There are shows I refuse to watch, because I think they are stupid: It goes on, and will for a long time. Don’t watch what you don’t feel like watching. Topics will be raised, whether any of us wish so or not. While I can’t recall anything from PAD’s fiction which outrages me, there are others who would be outraged. Earthbound or fallen angels? Good Israelis? Bad Israelis? Flying people, stomping people, violent people, people who aren’t violent when the reader wants them to be violent? Opinions of any sort? People write about war, violence, rape, disaster, sex – whatever topics and stories they want to. PAD does it, as should be expected. Others also do it.
“…but am at a loss as to what he wants.”
.
What he wants is for you to go the fûçk away, stalker, but he is too polite to say it.
.
And I say this with all the malice the words seem to have.
Gee, that seems a bit harsh. I didn’t think Jeffrey Frawley’s comments were stalkerish at all. And I could presume you were being sarcastic if not for your last line.
Old Jeff has a history on this site going back years, you don’t want to defend him…
Well, yes, but do you have any opinion about PAD deciding for the world what can be televised? I know how to say “fûçk” too, but it adds very little to the discussion.
I think PAD’s point was that his defense of people like Amanda palmer is NOT based on the fact that nothing offends him or that he rejects the idea that any storyline could be rejected as being in poor taste. So he gave an example. I thought that was pretty clear.
“Old Jeff has a history on this site going back years, you don’t want to defend him…”
Well, that may be true; I don’t keep up on these things. But even so, the comment in question doesn’t seem controversial.
.
Yeah, but that’s just how Jeff starts out. Once he gets going he just mostly tends to get increasingly asinine and deliberately obtuse. He actually got to a point where half of the posters here stopped responding to most of his posts anymore so he decided to to ratchet up some of his garbage.
.
He topped his prior moronic actions by heading over to Kath’s blog and showing his ášš in a thread memorializing the passing of Gary Gygax. It was at that point that most of us stopped responding to him at all.
You can call that column “memorializing Gary Gygax” if you feel like it. I call it making an easy and unamusing joke. On this site, it would not seem very out of the ordinary, but that site has generally done better.
“Showing his ášš”? Ah, yes, generalizing your means to speech to mine, but I talk out of my mouth. Just keep talking out of your ášš as long as it’s comfortable, Jerry Chandler.
Peter, as I understand you, your general argument here is, “It’s not that I find this fictional portrayal offensive (but gee, I do) but that it could be contributory to someone’s real life deliquency, particularly because the portrayal is so cavalier about the subject matter.”
I think that makes sense, but it’s somewhat hard to reconcile that viewpoint against your near-universal defense of the right of comic book creators and merchants to reference sexual situations involving minors in comics.
It’s certainly fair to complain about the double-standard in terms how comics and other media are are treated, especially from a legal standpoint, but your complaints weren’t couched in those terms. (In point of fact, this whole argument is a double-standard, just expressed in a 180 from the “norm.”)
Your comments regarding 30 Rock emphasize an obligation, an onus, for self-censorship, which means that the creators and purveyors of such stories should be extremely mindful that any such portrayals are done with the utmost responsibility and necessity, something I’ve never heard you explicitly express regarding comics. Your stance has been (and I generalize), “If you have problems with it, that’s fair. But since it’s fictional, you can’t treat it in absolute real terms. Let the people decide whether it’s art.” Which is VALID, but in contrast with what you’re saying now.
Frankly, as much as I agree with your issues with overzealous prosecutors that the CBLDF has had to deal with, I’ve always felt it somewhat exculpatory not to at least discuss that some of the stuff being presented in comics isn’t just nude statues of David. It’s important that art is defended, but it’s also important that art is DEFENSIBLE, too.
I think BOTH viewpoints, freedom from external censorship and the obligation to be responsible with that freedom (self-censorship), are correct, and can and must be unified, but can only be so when EXPRESSED in unison. So I just find it interesting that, even though you haven’t been WRONG (and certainly not hypocritical — you’re neither calling for a boycott of 30 Rock nor saying that you like cartoon kiddie pørņ), all you’re doing is switching the side of the equation you normally emphasize instead of tying the equation together.
I think that makes sense, but it’s somewhat hard to reconcile that viewpoint against your near-universal defense of the right of comic book creators and merchants to reference sexual situations involving minors in comics.
.
I think it takes a massive and tortured logical jump to try and draw a connection between not liking a badly executed stalker story on “30 Rock” and my activities as a board member on the CBLDF, which is the only thing I can think of that you’re referring to.
.
In any event, it’s a specious comment. I may not have liked the episode, but I will defend their right to write it and air it, as I have already made abundantly clear. Just as I support the CBLDF and defend various comic book properties that I find personally offensive. So not only are the two stances not mutually exclusive, but they’re actually complementary. Speech that everyone likes requires no defense.
.
PAD
PAD saying that “30 Rock” should not have aired a program he finds in poor taste is not particularly outrageous, but his insinuation that “a badly executed stalker story” is not worthy of protection is dangerously close to the traditional argument that comics are trash, devoid of value, and therefor not protected by the First Amendment or any other law. No, he doesn’t really WANT censorship, but his argument is conducive to that effect. If I understand him correctly, his primary objection to the episode (beyond it not amusing him at all) is that it could encourage some foolish person to think or act wrongly. There is always some risk of people imitating what they see or hear: Why someone might read PAD’s initial post and think it’s a good idea to prevent these silly television networks from putting on tasteless and offensive programming! If PAD takes seriously his caution against setting a bad example, then I suppose he would have to tell himself to be quiet. Whoever would want that?
Hmmm. Okay, I’m beginning to see where Bladestar and Jerry Chandler were coming from. It was Alan Coil’s immediate escalation that threw me.
PAD of course said nothing close to what you say he said: that 30 Rock shouldn’t have aired that particular episode. He only started this thread to prove that there was something he personally found in bad taste. That’s it.
For you to claim otherwise does make it seem as though you are simply trolling.
My point is not that a defense of an artist’s right of expression equates to an implicit approval of the works he creates, nor that I’m saying defending free speech isn’t vital. I’m merely stating, in that your appropriate defense of the right of artists, you rarely discuss the equal onus on artists themselves to accept their responsibilities in being, for want of a better term, socially cognitive, and I’d welcome more of it.
Your words introducing the Christopher Handley settlement of May 24, 2009:
“I know obscenity when I see it. And in this instance, the obscenity is the persecution of people under child pørņ laws–laws that were designed to protect real life children being photographed, not drawings of them–simply for owning manga.”
The works in question, according to a news source, contained cartoon drawings of minors engaged in sexually explicit acts, and depictions of bëšŧìálìŧÿ.
My reading of the articles suggest that this was just some manga collector who got caught up in some overzealous prosecutors cluches (apparently the books were found during a customs search of a large manga order — the poor guy never even read them, and they were completely unrepresentative of his collection).
But still, this material likely also found its way into hands of people less innocent, just as potentially dangerous as any stalker, and you didn’t make one reference in your comments to that.
I’ve never seen you take a fellow comic book creator’s feet to the fire like you just did Tina Fey (whether the work was involved in a CBLDF case or not) and I don’t think it’s because comics have done no wrong.
If it’s fair to ask a good person like you to defend a controversial work based on the overreaching priniciple of free expression, it’d be nice if the same person asked you to do it based on the merit of the work itself. If the two aren’t compatible, I also think it’s fair to make the distinction, and negligent not to.
You can call out someone who wants to organize a book burning AND call out the author of said book for writing an piece of crap who’d rather exploit a controversy than incite a genuine thought (not to mention making you leave your comfy home to go break up a book burning of a really crappy book).
Your writings give a lot more weight, proportionately speaking, to the rights of free speech than to its responsibilities. That may not be a reflection of your actual thought process; just what seems to make it onto the website. But I think the responsibilities of artists are VERY important, and I would enjoy more discussions like this about them. (Or, to paraphrase your review above: “We get it. Censorship is bad. But can we talk about what the hëll [fill-in-the-blank] was doing writing something like that?”)
Jeffrey,
“PAD saying that “30 Rock” should not have aired a program he finds in poor taste is not particularly outrageous, but his insinuation that “a badly executed stalker story” is not worthy of protection is dangerously close to the traditional argument that comics are trash, devoid of value,”
.
No, the only thing that’s trash and devoid of value is the content of your posts.
.
PAD has NOT insinuated that “a badly executed stalker story” is not worthy of protection. He has not even said anything close to that. Instead, he says he would defend to the death their right to air it IN THE VERY SAME POST YOU TOOK THE “BADLY EXECUTED STALKER STORY” QUOTE FROM.
.
Really, Jeffrey. At this point it seems all you want to is provoke people – PAD especially – and start pointless fights based on reasoning that is not even sound.
.
In fact, you have become the venom of this board. what do I mean by that? Glad you asked.
.
When David Micheline first came up with the idea for Venom, he figured what made him unique was that Venom’s sole motivation in battling Spider-man is that he hated him and wanted to kill him. All the other classic villains usually wanted to gain money or power or notoriety and in the course of their plans, they may try to kill Spider-Man. But venom’s sole mission in life was to target and kill Spider-Man. he had no larger goal than that.
.
Likewise, there are many of us here who get into heated arguments. I know PAD and I have gotten into heated ones, to the point where both of us were angry. But it was always a byproduct of having a legitimate debate. In fact, I don’t think anyone here posts with the specific intent of pìššìņg each other off. It just happens.
.
You, however, seem to post here for the expressed intent of aggravating people In particular, it is obvious you are trying to pick a fight with PAD every time you visit here, even to the point of trying to get a reaction from him this time by responding to stuff he hasn’t even said!
.
Can’t you be civil and try engaging in a reasoned and intelligent discussion Jeffrey? And if you can’t, don’t you have anything better to do with your time?
.
Yes, I can be civil and try engaging in reasoned and intelligent discussion, Jerome. In fact, I have never responded to a reasoned and intelligent post by telling someone to “go the fûçk away” – something for which there is some precedent here. Take from that what you will.
If you want a less heated discussion, that’s fine. Let me try. Let’s drop the censorship issue, because PAD is adamant that he hates censorship and means nothing of that kind. He excoriates this episode of “30 Rock” because it has a character who welcomes a stalker. Certainly it is very foolish to welcome a stalker: Stalkers really exist and really do harm to some people. So what? In fiction there are any number of villains, bystanders and victims. Novelists, screenwriters and other creative people from time to time write characters who do foolish, evil or incomprehensible things. Not every character is a stand in for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and the LaLeche League. Sometimes a writer might happen to have a character who murders people, is an immortal demon, robs banks or leads an international society of supervillains. Sometimes there is a character who beats his wife and child. Sometimes – lots of things. These are just a few drawn from the work of PAD! He was fairly clever to write them, but is completely off base decrying people for setting a bad example…
I’m merely stating, in that your appropriate defense of the right of artists, you rarely discuss the equal onus on artists themselves to accept their responsibilities in being, for want of a better term, socially cognitive, and I’d welcome more of it.
.
Except it’s irrelevant to my responsibilities as a board member of the CBLDF. My duty in that capacity is to defend the First Amendment. In fact, I feel it’s my duty to defend the First Amendment in my capacity as an American citizen. And I am consistent in that regard in that nothing in my comments on “30 Rock” addressed their right to produce the material. In fact, in my subsequent posting I went on to enumerate all the things I did not believe were proper responses…responses that would be the first embraced by those who genuinely believed in curtailing freedom of expression.
.
Your words introducing the Christopher Handley settlement of May 24, 2009: “I know obscenity when I see it. And in this instance, the obscenity is the persecution of people under child pørņ laws–laws that were designed to protect real life children being photographed, not drawings of them–simply for owning manga.”
.
Yeah. So? It was true then and now. The specific penalties of child pørņ laws were designed to protect real life children from being exploited in damaging ways. To use those laws to prosecute someone for owning drawings, not photographs, is a misapplication.
.
The works in question, according to a news source, contained cartoon drawings of minors engaged in sexually explicit acts, and depictions of bëšŧìálìŧÿ.
.
Drawings aren’t photographs.
.
But still, this material likely also found its way into hands of people less innocent, just as potentially dangerous as any stalker, and you didn’t make one reference in your comments to that.
.
You’re telling me that I should have commented on the specific creative nature of material I haven’t read–something that I excoriate others for doing–when it’s completely irrelevant to the cause at hand, namely someone being prosecuted under laws that are being clearly misapplied. Uhm…no.
.
I’ve never seen you take a fellow comic book creator’s feet to the fire like you just did Tina Fey (whether the work was involved in a CBLDF case or not) and I don’t think it’s because comics have done no wrong.
.
Funny thing: It’s because I tend not to read material that would make me react that way.
.
PAD
“Drawings aren’t photographs.”
No, they certainly are not.
Depictions of stalkers on TV are not stalkers.
No they are actors who are being paid to say and act the script as direction and has nothing to do with anything Peter said.
Mr. Frawley,
I am asking politely as I can, please knock it off. You’ve done this before and, as sure as I am that the sun still shines in the sky, you’ll do it again because honestly I don’t think you can help yourself because you must have your say.
Kathleen David
aka
The Wife
I am at a loss as to whether Peter or Kathleen David wrote that last post. When the names at the top and bottom do not match, that seems sloppy or even deceptive.
Addressing this to PAD (as he considers criticism aimed elsewhere ungentlemanly): You seem to believe that depiction of a situation involving a stalker is outrageously inappropriate. Do you believe that depiction of situations involving murder, theft, rape or other nasties is outrageously inappropriate, or is stalking a special case? I’m not trying to trick you or use weasel words: This is very direct. You are offended that someone makes a plot point of stalking. Should someone else be offended that you make a plot point of raging beasts, fallen angels or organized crime? Stalkers hurt and frighten people. Raging beasts hurt and frighten people. Some people believe fallen angels do all sorts of objectionable things, although I will reserve judgment. Organized crime hurts and frightens people. Are you (or “is he,” if I am addressing someone else) being outrageously offensive, or just doing what a writer does? I will go out on a limb and guess that PAD thinks what he writes is amusing, intriguing or otherwise appropriate. It may be that other writers feel the same way about their own work, shocking as that idea may be.
Yeah, it’s a real tough puzzle. You’d have to be some kind of deductive genius to figure it out. But let’s try:
.
1- Kathleen has often posted under PAD’s name.
.
2- The post refers to Peter in something other than the first person tense “has nothing to do with anything Peter said”
.
3- It is signed “Kathleen David aka The Wife”
.
Wow, I guess I’m stumped too. Just can’t figure it out. That’s a level of deception not seen since Clifford Irving. We may need CSI level forensics to solve this one.
It seems to me that what PAD is doing here is simply a case of one creative person telling other creative people that he thinks their joke was in poor taste. That’s all.
While we are all believe in freedom of speech and freedom of creativity, and we appreciate creators who push boundaries, we can agree that we might find certain jokes (or other creative stuff) to be in poor taste for a variety of reasons.
Rape jokes were mentioned above, i.e. jokes that had the rapist wanting to be raped. These kinds of jokes were more common in the past, and are now rightfully considered in poor taste. Racist jokes were very common. Today they are considered in poor taste in their basic form, so they evolved into jokes that are more at he expense of the racist, or as inside jokes told by the a member of the group that is being prejudiced.
As a free society we tolerate tastelessness, and at times we might even enjoy it, but we still believe in the concept of taste.
Hi, all. It’s been awhile. Hope you’ve all been well.
.
I think it’s futile to try to shame Jeffrey Frawley, and any attacks against him — despite being well-deserved — will ultimately be counterproductive. Mr. Frawley is a bit like the X-Men villain Sebastian Shaw of the Hellfire Club, who gets more powerful every time you strike him. Every response, admonition, criticism, or outright attack feeds Frawley’s need for attention. The more you give him, the more of his posts you’ll see.
.
If you like Frawley’s posts, then by all means engage him. If not, I suggest shunning him is the better tactic.
While I do not entirely agree with Bill Myers’s point of view (very obviously), his suggestion is intelligent. Name-calling and use of words they don’t allow on network television are not very much on-point, nor are they persuasive. It is better to write coherently.
Bill, that’s certainly what I do. It’s amusing watching Frawley continue to address questions to me since he hasn’t yet wrapped himself around the fact that I shrouded him ages ago and will not respond to him. Kath can do what she wants; it’s a strange glitch of the program that if she tries to post on my board it insists on putting it under my name. She compensates for that by signing her name in a way that no one can miss. And no one ever has…until Frawley, just now. Which speaks volumes of his mindset.
.
Speak to him or not as you see fit. I won’t bother.
.
PAD
I’m always flummoxed whenever a criticism of a creative work is interpreted as attempted censorship, and why opponents of censorship are branded as hypocrites when they openly take offense at something. The selfsame First Amendment rights that PAD champions on behalf of others give him the right to say he finds something offensive and a very bad idea. Where’s the contradiction? For the life of me, I can’t see it.
I think buried somewhere in Jeffrey’s oh so predictable attacks on PAD (for the crime of besting him in all of their previous encounters) is the germ of a valid idea. It’s that PAD criticizes the stalker plotline because in part it may encourage deviants in society to use it as an excuse for their psychosis while he at the same time defends others for producing art that could do the same.
.
Of course, in his rush to go on the attack, he misses the point that these are NOT mutually exclusive. We 30 rock the target of an organized boycott, were the writers being arrested on the grounds that they were contributing to the corruption of society (etc. etc.) I have no doubt that PAD would be fighting on their side. Defending the right of someone to won vile Japanese tentacle pørņ is not the same as defending vile Japanese tentacle pørņ.
.
He said he was offended by the plotline. If someone can point out where PAD has said that it is wrong and immoral to ever be offended by fiction, then you have a case. I cannot recall any such statement.
.
My only disagreement with PAD here (Since I did not see the episode in question) is that in his replies to Mary he comes close to suggesting that he thinks others should be as offended as he was. She found it funny, he didn’t. And there is nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with her for reacting differently. Is there anything more subjective than humor?
.
That said, there is nothing wrong with his reaction either, despite any attempts to try to make it so. Once again, PAD benefits from opponents who just can’t keep their powder dry for when he rally does say something worth a few lashes with the wet noodle.
.
(BTW “showing his ášš” is a pro wrestling term (at least that’s where I heard it) usually referring to when the bad guy displays his inherent cowardice in the course of a match).
I think PAD’s approach to the stalker issue is incongruous with his stance as a creative writer and defender of the CBLDF, or at least much too self-defeating.
Is creative writing an honoroable and worthwhile activity?
I think so. It can be, at least.
Is the creative writer bound to do no more than confirm his readers/viewers preconceptions?
I don’t think so. Creativity is sometimes acceptable.
Is it against the interests of society for a writer to challenge or tweak preconceptions?
I don’t think so. Individual thought sometimes is a good thing.
Is irony so difficult to comprehend that it should always be avoided?
I don’t think so. Some people are fairly smart.
Must all characters in fiction be uniformly bright and politically conscious – doing no more than agreeing with each other?
No, that would be useless and far from entertaining.
I don’t watch “30 Rock,” but my impression is that the character who welcomes the stalker is written as stupid and self-absorbed. That kind of character seems to be the sort that would act stupid and self-absorbed – just as she did in this episode. It seems like better writing than having her recite Marcus Aurelius or join the ACLU.
She found it funny, he didn’t. And there is nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with her for reacting differently. Is there anything more subjective than humor?
.
I don’t think that PAD is telling anyone they’re “wrong” for finding the 30 Rock episode in question funny, but asking them to consider the implications of that kind of humor. The analogy of a story portraying a rape victim enjoying the violation is a sound one: most of us would recoil at the very thought.
.
Pat Sajak of all people once made an interesting point: people in Hollywood are quick to take all sorts of credit for the supposedly positive things their work can do, yet recoil at the idea that that same work could conversely cause harm. Generally, I’m not fond of the whole “monkey see monkey do” theory of media cause-and-effect because I think it’s much more complicated than that. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s a contradiction to say that some messages are just too offensive and are therefore ill-advised, as long as we don’t then decide that the answer is censorship. Because it’s not.
Oh, and nice to see you back here, Bill. Been busy doing all that home owner stuff like cleaning out frozen gutters and shoveling the snow off the sidewalk? I’d sympathize but, alas!, it’s a problem we here in the little ol’ South seldom confront 🙂
Bite me.
I’d sympathize but, alas!, it’s a problem we here in the little ol’ South seldom confront
.
Yes, but you more than make up for it in the entertainment value you provide Northerners on the rare occasions that inclement weather hits you. Snow falls that Northerners would simply brush off their shoes causes Southerners to go fetal. Drop a inch of snow on them and the cities shut down.
.
PAD
.
“I’d sympathize but, alas!, it’s a problem we here in the little ol’ South seldom confront :)”
.
Yeah, rub it in. See if you get anymore free Monster Madhouse stuff from me.
Yes, but you more than make up for it in the entertainment value you provide Northerners on the rare occasions that inclement weather hits you. Snow falls that Northerners would simply brush off their shoes causes Southerners to go fetal. Drop a inch of snow on them and the cities shut down.
.
Ah but I am and always will be a dámņ Yankee from upstate New York. Which gives the best of both worlds; I get to enjoy pretty much snow free winters sipping mint juleps while watching news reports of new york buried under gobs of snow while at the same time laughing with much merry mirth at my adopted brethren here in NC when they run around like crazy people at the mere sight of a snow flake.
.
Alternatively, one could point out that this attitude just makes me that much more hated but I’m a glass is half full kind of guy.
.
See if you get anymore free Monster Madhouse stuff from me.
.
An empty threat. i know you want that pristine copy of ZAAT (aka BLOOD WATERS OF DR Z), quite possibly the greatest giant monster walking catfish movie ever made in Florida. Possibly..
Bill Myers,
Your analysis is not bad, but I still say Jeffrey is like Venom, which I stated earlier and are just as valid now. This has gained more plausibility with his increasing snarkiness toward him PAD, his intentionally wanting to provoke him and his indirect swipe at PAD’s wife.
Jerome Maida,
I do not wish to provoke PAD (although doing so does not distress me): I wish to disagree with him. They are not the same thing. Let’s try an analogy: You do not to convince me that your elementary education was inadequate (although you do): You to say I am wrong, cruel and offensive, daring to find fault with a pronouncement from PAD. What you do and what you intend are not the same thing.
I don’t intend any indirect swipe at PAD’s wife. She means what she says, I suppose. I did not find the pseudo-PAD post responsive or convincing. PAD made a distinction between a pornographic photograph and a presumably artistic drawing. He had previously condemned “30 Rock” for its stalking storyline, so my response was that a stalking storyline is no more “really stalking” than a nude drawing of children engaging in intercourse is “really pornography.” The pseudo-PAD post acknowledged that – sure, it’s not stalking, but a bunch of actors reading lines: So what? Here is what. It is not stalking. It is a television show. PAD didn’t REALLY zap anyone with gamma rays and make them into the Hulk.
It’s a story. A drawing is a drawing. A TV show is a TV show. It’s not real, and no reason to raise PAD’s blood pressure.
…and of course I left a few typos in there, so the elementary school line becomes foolish…Oh well.
I think Bill Mulligan may be missing my point, so perhaps irony IS a dangerous thing. When I read an entry with the name “Bill Mulligan” at the top, I suspect the person who has previously written under that name is the author. If I saw another name at the end, I would think someone was trying to be deceptive. PAD is opinionated enought that it is a particularly good idea for his name to be linked with his own posts, and not with someone else’s.
“Jerome Maida,
I do not wish to provoke PAD (although doing so does not distress me): I wish to disagree with him. They are not the same thing. Let’s try an analogy: You do not to convince me that your elementary education was inadequate (although you do)”
Really. In what way? You know, all many of us here – especially Kathleen in the post you have spent several posts criticizing, is for you to conduct yourself with civility and class. Yet you seem unable to grasp these concepts.
George Haberberger —
.
My apologies if my post offended you. It was not meant to offend you. And while it is true I sometimes offend people in some of my posts, I mostly do not try to do so…except for this one particular case.
It’s unfortunate that your sentence construction suggests you meant to offend George Haberberger, rather than me. This is something that might not be obvious without context.
Alan,
Don’t worry about. I addressed this issue a bit up the thread. Apparently I stepped into something without the necessary background info.
.
Geez you almost need a primer to post here.
.
Nah, no primer needed, George. We really only have two trolls with long histories here and, thankfully, we haven’t seen the other one for a while now.
.
Most of us here are reasonably civilized, and even when we seem to be getting heated it’s not always as bad as it may seem. Not everything, as I was reminded just the other day while discussing the blog with someone just the other day, reads as it was intended since there’s no voice other than the reader’s and some of the actual tone of the post can be lost.
.
Hëll, perfect example would be in a couple of recent threads. Jerome and I have been having some… fun… political discussions. If you weren’t familiar with some of our other postings you may think the posts are worse than they are. Truth is, politics aside, Jerome strikes me as someone I would probably like and would offer to buy a drink for if we ever crossed paths at a con. I actually enjoy some of the discussions he and I have had.
.
Other than stuff with Jeffrey or the occasional thread that gets a lot of hit and run flame posters (and maybe one or two people here who really seem to rub each other the wrong way at least once a month) you could probably read most discussions here like people spending Friday evening after work and at the pub.
Maybe we need a FAQ.
Maybe we need a FAQ.
.
Feel free to write it, Bill.
.
PAD
.
Maybe we need a FAQ.</B.
.
Feel free to write it, Bill.
.
PAD
.
And thus did one of the requirements for using Peterdavid.net becoming “knowing and loving your horror films from Anthropophagus to Zaat!”
And thus did PAD, in his wisdom, hit upon a way to keep that idiot Mulligan busy for a long time.
“Hëll, perfect example would be in a couple of recent threads. Jerome and I have been having some… fun… political discussions. If you weren’t familiar with some of our other postings you may think the posts are worse than they are. Truth is, politics aside, Jerome strikes me as someone I would probably like and would offer to buy a drink for if we ever crossed paths at a con. I actually enjoy some of the discussions he and I have had.”
.
Likewise, Jerry, likewise.
A bit off topic, but Peter this thread made me wonder what your opinion is of the movie THE FISHER KING. It’s a film I love, but sometimes when I look back on it, I think what a chore it must have been to keep Robin Williams’ obsession with Amanda Plummer from coming across as being of the creepy, stalky variety.
I saw it many years ago, and only once, and most of what I remember is his interaction with Jeff Bridges. Mostly he adored Plummer’s character from afar, didn’t he? And he only interacted with her when Bridges’ character set up a date. Something like that. As I recall, it came across to me more in the spirit of Don Quixote, adoring a woman from afar, based in the traditions of knightly honor and that sort of thing.
.
PAD
I feel the need to point out that Don Quixote was a violent lunatic. Sure, “tilting at windmills” sounds all romantic and stuff, but when you think about it, it’s just a guy galloping full speed at a wall. The modern equivalent is an old guy driving into a farmer’s market.
I feel the need to point out that Don Quixote was a violent lunatic.
.
Yes, but kind of not the point. I was simply referring to Quixote’s “obsession” with a woman being something idealized and not threatening to the lady in question. In fact, in the book, Dulcinea is a non-character. She never appears at any point in the narrative.
.
Actually, one of my favorite moments in the book is that after following Quixote on one mad adventure after another, Sancho–for his own reasons–tries to convince his master that a woman riding toward them on the road is Dulcinea. It seems a safe strategy; after all, Quixote sees windmills as giants and taverns as fortresses. But in a rare moment of lucidity, Quixote takes one look at the woman, turns to Sancho and basically says, “What are you talking about? This homely woman is some scullery maid. Have you lost your mind?”
.
PAD
“Yes, but kind of not the point.”
.
I actually meant it kind of tongue-in-cheek, not as a serious rebuttal to your point.
.
I would be interested in continuing a discussion of Don Quixote vs stalkers, but I’m afraid it’ll get things off topic without being as amusing to others as it would be to me.
“In fact, in the book, Dulcinea is a non-character. She never appears at any point in the narrative.”
Well, seeing as how Don is barking mad, does Dulcinea even actually exist?
Well, seeing as how Don is barking mad, does Dulcinea even actually exist?
.
In the book, you mean? Yes and no. There’s a specific girl that Quixote has in mind. She’s a peasant girl in the nearby village. But he’s never spoken to her or even, I’m pretty sure, met her. He’s seen her from a distance and only in passing. But when the madness embraces him from having become an obsessive fan of medieval literature (and tragically, not having the Internet to channel his energies into) Quixote fixes on the mental image of the girl and concocts basically an entire backstory and identity for her to serve as his inspiration.
.
PAD
OK, so she may have been purely concocted by his mind, the “ideal woman” crafted from the good qualities of several different ones. Or since he’s never met her, so may not be as perfect as he thinks she is.
OK, so she may have been purely concocted by his mind, the “ideal woman” crafted from the good qualities of several different ones. Or since he’s never met her, so may not be as perfect as he thinks she is.
.
When you get down to it, she’s no different than the windmills. He sees the windmills and believes them to be giants. He sees the simple peasant girl and believes her to be a lady of great goodness, purity, and inspiration. But since all the books he’s read indicate that such ladies are to serve as knightly inspiration only, that’s all she can be to him. He would never dream of making overtures to her; it would be unseemly. Like the song says: To each his Dulcinea.
.
PAD
i agree that the episode was wrong for it sends the wrong message to some one who may have watched the episode and be on the verge of stalking like behavior. for was Tina off on the day that episode was shot or even written. for there was nothing good about it not to metion Jena tracking down her stalker and asking him why he does not contact her any more is wrong. for if some one is being stalked the last thin they want is the stalker to continue the relationship. that episode was wrong as for the commercial thnik the guy was so happy getting the deal he felt he needed the same cashier again for he felt okay with her though creepy
I don’t know. Stalkers are stalkers. They are already fûçkìņg mad and dangerous. Do you think if the episode had the message “stalkers aren’t funny, they’re dangerous” it would’ve made any difference?
These people are so deluded that it doesn’t matter what information they receive, their brain will translate it to what they want to hear.