During the weekend our comments were down, we got a
pleasant little e-mail from a woman named Sandra. She was responding to Jonathan's post that gave five reasons to kill
the CSI character Nick Stokes.Sandra's eight-point missive told us a number a different things that we didn't really know about ourselves; namely, that we were "presumptuous", "shallow", and "stupid". At least our arguments were characterized that way. But what really struck me was this statement:
"7. Your website is pretty bland. This was my first time coming here and probably my last since I don't think I've met such a group of cantankerous writers in my life. I hate whiney writers."
She then signed off by calling us "Scrooges" and "Grinches." At least she was in the holiday spirit.
Whiney? Cantankerous? Us? Well, maybe, but we're only that way because we care.
Actually, I don't really agree with Sandra; I personally think my fellow TV Squadders and I are more positive about TV and its contents than your average beaten-down newspaper TV critc, who's seen it all and thinks that things aren't as good now as they were when Norman Lear had eight shows on at once. No, I think we have a healthy appreciation for the different genres that TV offers, and we each have our own preferences: some of us like sitcoms, others drama, others reality. Heck, some of us even like game shows (well, Bob and I like them, at least).
When a show delivers the goods, like Arrested Development's been doing all season, it's a cause for celebration; we laugh hard if it's a comedy, or are emotionally engrossed if it's a drama. If there's suspense, our hearts pound in anticipation, and if there's something to cheer about, we applaud. If I watch a particularly satisfying episode of a series, for instance, I will do just that: applaud like I would if I was in a theatre watching a fantasitc play (yes, I need to get out more).
But when a show falls flat, especially one that we've relied on for quality entertainment, we're sorely disappointed. Not just because the show wasted our time, or that we're kicking ourselves for tuning into the show in the first place. Our disappointment stems from the fact that we remember the feeling that that show, or one like it, gave us when it reached its creative peak. We were happy that we spent a half-hour or hour with those characters and writers, and wanted to see more as soon as the show was over. When we don't achieve that feeling, we walk away disheartened. And, because we have a platform in which to do this, we vent about the letdowns our favorite shows give us.
Saturday Night Live is the best example of both the highs and the lows. In its good years, viewers like us would repeat lines from sketches like they were favorite songs. That's why, when it sucks like it does this year, we rag on the show so much; we want it to be good, we want to laugh. So when something comes along that is as funny and entertaining as "Lazy Sunday", we get excited, perhaps to the point of overpraising it. But we do it because it reminds us of how good SNL can be on the (now infrequent) times that it reaches its potential.
So, dear Sandra, we might be a bit grumpy about our TV at times. But it's only because we don't like being let down by it, whether we're watching Masterpiece Theatre or Beauty and the Geek. If you remember that, you'll like what we have to say here a whole lot better.
We bitch because we care. Maybe we should put that on a t-shirt...
[P.S. I got the cool baby photo from BBC.co.uk. Thanks, Beebsters!]
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-03-2006 @ 4:40PM
Trav said...
Sounds like Sandra's the whiney one.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 4:51PM
elf said...
I don't suppose you'd care to publish the letter verbatim? Just leave out any last names and e-mail addresses. It would be interesting to see the range of this woman's thought pattern.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 5:07PM
Joel Keller said...
Elf, I didn't want to post the entire e-mail because the post was getting long as it is. But here it is in the comments if you want to peruse it:
I am going away for Christmas, so I can't wait for your site maintenance to
make my comment about your 'Five Reasons To Kill Nick Stokes'
Here is my feedback..
1. First of all, if both writers hate the characters so much then don't watch
the show. Simple enough.
2. Nick is the only character on the show who gives the show any emotions. The
rest are so detached that at times they remind me of DATA from Star Trek: The
Next Generation
3. Any show with a Nick storyline usually has some of the highest ratings such
as Grave Danger with 31 Million and Gum Drops with about 29 Million.
4. Killing him off to give Greg more screentime is frutile since they would
probably replace the character. So that's a pretty presumptious argument.
5. George Eads is a great actor. I'd like to see one of you guys take on that
role and do better. Since you probably couldn't, don't make such a stupid argument.
6. The argument about the mustache for a reason was very shallow as if any of
you are as good looking as he is.
7. Your website is pretty bland. This was my first time coming here and probably
my last since I don't think I've met such a group of cantankerous writers in my
life. I hate whiney writers. I will probably make one more trip here to see if
that stupid article is still there and if it is, then I will make another
comment and be done with you.
8. If you don't like CSI, then don't watch it..it's a free continent. I hate the
West Wing, but I don't expect everyone else too and I'm not going to waste my
time writing about how much I hate the show.
So I think I 've come up with more reasons to keep Nick Stokes on the show then
you guys came up with to kill him off.
Merry Christmas to a bunch of Scrooges and Grinches. Actually, those two
characters are much nicer then you guys.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 5:22PM
Lyndon said...
I thought the original post was interesting. Sandra's just upset, because she's probably a huge fan of George Eads. The only one being whiney is her.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 5:25PM
MW said...
Hey, I like game shows too. Jeopardy, anyway.
And I get the distinct impression that this "Sandra" actually is George Eads, or maybe his publicist.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 5:30PM
MW said...
Hey, I like game shows too. Jeopardy, anyway.
And I get the distinct impression that "Sandra" is actually George Eads. Or maybe his publicist. Though the arguments of "You do better" and "None of you are as good looking as he is" are quite compelling.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 5:34PM
Bebop said...
if she's using words like "cantankerous" I think it's safe to say she's being quite the curmudgeon.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 5:48PM
elf said...
Thanks Joel. Seeing it supports what I'd suspected: The first six items are all CSI-related. She doesn't really get around to criticizing the site and/or contributors until item #7.
I agree that she's missing the point that you only post negative things (or things that areonly perceived by some as negative) about shows you really care about. Nobody is offering suggestions on how to improve "According to Jim" because nobody gives a crap about "According to Jim."
Of course, some of her arguments are specious and subjective, such as the one about the ratings. Hasn't their highest rated episode been the one featuring the dead transsexual? Further, if "Grave Danger" was the highest rated episode, I'm pretty sure it was due to the director, not the central character.
It's often easier to initiate a conversation by making an outrageous statement (i.e. CSI should kill off Nick Stokes) because of the potentially wide variation of opinions that will ensue. Had this Sandra been able to contribute when commenting wasn't down, she might have posted those same things, and we'd have seen useful rebuttals such as "Why do you think Nick is the only one to show emotions? Remember when Catherine did such-and-such?" and "Isn't the whole idea behind the show that these people are supposed to be passionless investigators looking for the truth?"
So go ahead and make whatever kind of statements you want in the writeups and the comments that follow will either lend credence to your opinion or help convince you why you're wrong. And if Sandra wants to start her own site, say www.nickstokesistheonlygoodthingaboutCSI.com, more power to her.
elf
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 7:03PM
LC said...
For someone who is unimpressed with the site and it's writers, she seems unusually drawn to it as is evidenced by her saying she will make another visit and possibly reply.
Apparantly she doesn't appreciate others opinions about a character on a show, but has no problem pointing out the faults in other characters on the same show.
Personally I don't want to see Eads go precisely because I think all the characters work well off of each other as none are detatched. If they had to absolutely let someone go for good it should be that female CSI that became a detective and just appears for 2 minutes on most episodes.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 7:19PM
Zarquon said...
This email illlustrates one of my pet peeves -- too quick to comment! In my opinion, one of the rules of internet courtesy is to lurk a little before posting. If she can come out with an eight point missive on her first visit, she's at best over-stimulated and at worst, a troll. And one should never feed trolls.
Reply
1-03-2006 @ 9:56PM
Tammy said...
If I were to follow Sandra's advice by not watching any ensemble show because I disliked one character, have to find a hobby because all my evenings would be free.
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 9:30AM
SamMalone said...
If you're not supposed to comment on shows you're critical of, then why is she emailing about a site she isn't likely to visit again???
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 10:15AM
Joe said...
I know this is kind of dead, second page and everything, but check out the funniest part of her e-mail:
"I hate the West Wing, but I don't expect everyone else too and I'm not going to waste my time writing about how much I hate the show."
Looks like she wasted some of her own precious time telling you (in writing) that she hated the West Wing. Oh, and if you're reading this Sandra, write in RTF next time. These damn whiney TV Squadders are too lazy to change your e-mail. :D
Reply
1-04-2006 @ 11:04AM
Emily said...
Expression of one's opinion is what makes TVSquad great! Just because a writer's opinion differs from your own shouldn't make you pout, Sandra. How boring would TV be if we all liked the same thing?
Re: George Eads. I don't get personally involved with television characters so I could care less if one of them is written out so long as it makes the program better. People that get personally insulted when Nik didn't win ANTM or George Eads possibly leaving CSI kind of scare me since it appears they can't discern the difference between TV and real life.
TVSquad whiney? Nope. Irreverant? Yep Controversial? Sometimes. Entertaining? Always!
Reply