[nagdu] My commentary regarding a TV show well discussed

[sheila]

  now that is a great and thought provoking post. I'm very interested in 
blindness issues but I have my days when blindness is the last thing 
that I want to think about, read about, and otherwise communicate about. 
It is one part of who I am and because of that, lightening up is 
sometimes in order. I can't claim that I've never fed human food because 
I have not in public but Oh well my first dog loved cheese and he knew 
what it was before I got him. and also being to serious can be 
excruciating or at the very least not much fun. I love my dog and 
wouldn't do anything to hurt him and I wouldn't deliberately hurt anyone 
else blind or sighted.
On 2/27/2014 1:00 PM, Hooper, Robert M. wrote:
> ¡Hola a destinatarios de correo electrónico!
>
> Sorry, I finally got my multilingual input issue fixed, and I enjoy the ease with which I can now type diacritical marks and special punctuation.
>
> Anyway, onto the subject matter of this message. Some of you may have noticed that there is a new show centering on a blind man, his acquisition of a furry companion, and how that affects his family, specifically his eleven-year-old son. Before moving on to the specifics of the show itself, I feel that some preemptory material is in order.
> First, to address some terminology I use in the following section. When I say "comedian," I am referring to any entity from which a joke or humor emanates, whether it be a TV show, an actual comedian, a writer, etc.
> 1: On Comedy in General
>
> Comedy is hard to define. What makes a joke? Why do we laugh? These important questions are addressed in detail in other works, so I won't be so obscurantist as to try and organize a quasi-philosophical discussion on laughter, comedy, and the social aspects of such. However, if you enjoy comedy in any form-from basic stand-up to an everyday sense of humor-you've probably reflected a bit on comedy. If you haven't, then take a few minutes to ponder the questions that open this paragraph-do a bit of googling, if you need more than your own thoughts for inspiration. For now, I will skip to an issue of comedy that seems to be most prominent in a show like this.
>                I'd like to emulate, if I may be so bold, the British comedian Jimmy Carr, who stated once in an interview that you don't give offense, you take it. I believe that this underlines very neatly the issue I am about to discuss, which is this: humor rarely exists without something being targeted. Put more plainly, someone is usually the butt of a joke. Most forms of humor are derived from reflection about an attitude, behavior, belief, etc. of a person or a group of people. For example, if you make a joke about vegetarians, all vegetarians are the butt of that joke. As responsible consumers and curators of our own sanity, it is up to us to "take" offense. For example, imagine for a second what it would be like if all forms of humor that could theoretically cause offense became illegal. Every comedian, comedy writer, etc. would quickly be put out of business. There are countless cultures, people, beliefs, attitudes, thought processes, things, and so on with which people identify. Every time a comedian makes a joke, that comedian is risking making light of a particular (or many) group, club, society, etc. For simplicity, we will call all these things targets. So, as an example, blind people can be targets of comedians. Before moving on, I think it important to emphasize that when I say "target," I am not speaking of malicious intent, but rather the subjects of comedy, or what comedy "targets."
>                Comedy can be as important a tool for analyzing and speculating about the world around us as more serious approaches. It can highlight the bizarre, point out contradictions, and provide perspective about different situations. I would think that occasionally being the target of comedy is a small price to pay for this wonderful phenomenon. It's important to remember that everything is fair game to a well-balanced comedian. Blind people, religious people, parents, politicians, and countless other targets form the basis of comedy. The chances are that any given person belongs to few enough of these categories so as not to constantly be the targets of comedy.
>                Being sensitive about a particular topic is completely acceptable. As a hypothetical situation, let's take someone who suffers from some sort of hair loss condition. Although they enjoy having hair, the best option for them is to go bald. This person may grow weary of hair or baldness-related humor because they have a stronger emotional connection to the situation. This is fine. However, does it give that person the right to demand that a comedian not make jokes relating to this condition? If it is a question of somebody interacting directly with this person, they do have that right-if somebody is saying things that make you uncomfortable, of course it can be addressed on an individual basis. But should they demand special treatment from one whose materials are aimed at the public?  No-having such expectations is unrealistic. If this bald person can write to a network about a show and have the portrayal of baldness or hair loss modified to put it in a better light, then everybody could do this. Anybody is a fair target for humor-there are no sacred cows, nor should there be. The bald person must suffer through the joke about hair loss, the blind person must suffer through the joke about furniture rearrangement-it's part of the price we pay for humor. It's only fair-we, in our humor, use other targets, so it's only fitting that we be targets as well.
>                I find myself baffled at the expectation that a self-professed comedy show be asked to shoulder the enormous responsibility of accurately portraying every aspect of any portion of life, let alone blindness. It's sort of akin to going to McDonalds and expecting a candlelit ambience and a menu with a wine list and no prices. It's not going to happen, nor should it. When I watch Better off Ted (a canceled ABC comedy), I don't expect a realistic portrayal of office life in a massive corporation, I expect an excellent satire and commentary on the dangers of corporate greed and monopoly-and I expect to laugh. And guess what? I do-often. Yes, I know that Growing Up Fisher was "based on real events," but the keyword is "based"-the real events may have inspired the creation of this TV comedy, but nobody associated with the show claims that it is anything but a comic, fictional show. Furthermore, it's not the job of producers, directors, writers, actors, etc. to provide us with breath-takingly accurate depictions of anything-as it is their show, their money, and so forth, it is also their prerogative. If it's education one wants, it can be found elsewhere. People shouldn't expect to find much in the way of accuracy in a TV show, unless it claims to be able to provide such. Think of all the things that have been inaccurately represented in any medium, and you'll know why I find it hard to get upset about any inaccuracies that may exist in Growing Up Fisher.
>                Finally, before I leave the exploration of comedy and move onto things relating more specifically to the TV show, here's one last point in the favor of comedy. The world is a horrifying place. It is full of pain, violence, misfortune, disease, starvation, oppression, ignorance, intolerance, prejudice, and any number of other awful things. Many of these things have thus far been beyond our abilities to solve-in fact, the nature of life makes these issues things against which we must perpetually struggle. One of our greatest weapons against the cacophony of the world is comedy. To this day, I remember a particular figure as being a hero of mine. He could expound at great lengths about the woes of humanity, and I never felt happier listening to his careful, calculated attack on all things relating to the human condition. Although George Carlin is no longer amongst us, I will treasure forever the gift that he gave me-the ability to think critically and objectively; the ability to analyze the world from a more external standpoint; and the ability to enjoy comedy-all this done in a way nobody else ever could have done. So, pause for a minute-especially if you're a fan-to raise a proverbial glass to the memory of one of the greatest entertainers who lived. If you're not a fan, or if you are unfamiliar with Mr. Carlin, I would call his influence on comedy analogous to the Beatles's influence on music. So thanks, George.
> "Just when I discovered the meaning of life, they changed it."
> -George Carlin
>
> 2: Matters Pertaining to Growing Up Fisher
>                I will admit that my hopes for this comedy were not high. However, this has little to do with the show's content, but rather my past experience with NBC's line-up of comedy shows. I find that they stray into the dangerously sentimental, trying to please everyone. This makes for bland comedy that takes no chances (the antithesis of comedy) and whose strongest component is one's attachment to characters. So, I generally avoid NBC's standard excuse for funny. However, as this is a review, I will refrain from further comment on the quality of the network (at least I shall try)
>                Also in the spirit of a review, I will give the bottom line first. I chuckled. So, the essential aim of the show was accomplished. I found the plot a tad bit weak, but I generally excuse pilot episodes a great deal of problems. These are shows that have yet to find an audience, shows that need to "find their voice." However, as an introductory show to a series, it wasn't too bad. I am well pleased with the casting choices, even though I recognize none of them. I believe that the strength of the characters will help get the show over any weak portions in the coming episodes. Unfortunately, as this is a pilot, I believe that I will hold off on further speculation about it until I see some future episodes. I will now shift my focus to criticisms I've heard regarding the show.
>                I think it's important to realize that none of the cast is visually impaired, and this shows somewhat in the writing. The only person associated with the show (aside from GDF) who has experience with blind people (to my knowledge, anyway) is the director. Once his ideas get past around a board of writers, the format department, marketing, etc. they aren't going to remain unchanged. The ratings department ensures that aspects of the show follow popular patterns and trends; the writers all have their contributions to make; and the network has sponsors to consider. All of these things-and many more-are factors that influence how any show ends up being conveyed to viewers.
>                As an exercise in critical thinking (and possibly humor, depending on your television viewing habits), count all the inaccuracies, stereotypes, clichés, potentially offensive portrayals, and other semantic shortcomings in a television show. Seriously-pull out a laptop (or your preferred means of note-taking) and write them all down (although not during the advertisements-trust me, you can't type fast enough for that). Put yourselves in the shoes of those who are "misportrayed." Count the vulnerable, slightly confused but nice and naïve old person; count the vulnerable, slightly confused and naïve woman-or the opposite cliché-the hard, ambitious, power-hungry woman with a personality so strong it can be nothing but contrivance (the media's nod to affirmative action, but still a potentially harmful stereotype); count the easy emotional targets (you'll find lots of them in crime-based shows)-children are the champions of this group; and I could go on lengthening this semicolon-rich sentence, but I think you get the point-and if not, take my challenge. You will soon be overwhelmed, if you are a standard viewer of network television. But that's okay-those with critical thinking faculties and an open mind shouldn't be harmed by such inaccuracies and misportrayals. If one worries about stereotypes and prejudice taking hold, then turn to the education system-the system whose responsibility it is to teach objective, critical thinking skills.
> Finally, now that I've gotten a slice of my views on comedy and television served, let me address a couple specifics mentioned in other critiques of this show.
>
>
> 1.       The dog eating veal chops. There is currently in existence a show in which a talking dog is arrested for the possession of a quarter ounce of marijuana. This dog's other numerous escapades include writing both a flop of a book and a best seller; visiting many points in the past (and future) with an intelligent, evil infant; and consuming countless martinis. Hopefully, the viewers of that show (Family Guy) don't put their pets in charge of their children or give their pets alcohol. Judging by the sparse news coverage on this issue, that doesn't seem to have happened yet. Also, how is somebody feeding a dog anything on a TV show harming anyone? It's just as rude now to walk up to somebody and feed their dog without permission as it ever was; is anyone going to think that "I saw a man feeding his guide dog veal on TV" is a valid excuse? I think not-also, this type of person is probably dumb enough to blunder in some other major way without the help of any TV show. Let's judge this by whether it had the intended effect (and whether that effect is noteworthy), not whether feeding a dog veal is a good thing to do. Also, on a note I hesitate to call related, it isn't necessarily the end of the world to feed a dog things other than dog food. I use food all the time in obedience exercises and distraction-based exercises with my Seeing Eye dog, and we both think it's fantastic.
>
> 2.       The conclusion that some people make that this fictional man is a bad handler. He doesn't exist, and every aspect of his fictional existence is calculated to bring laughter (and the money that comes with it) to those involved with the show. Maybe the actor would be a fantastic handler. Regardless, it's beside the point-it's like going to a movie and complaining that the credits at the end were not formatted well.
>
> 3.       The son knew nothing of the dog until the father returned home with it. Unrealistic? Yes. Inaccurate? Most definitely. Is it significant to the plot or purpose of the show? Not likely.
>
> 3: The Best Cat in the Dog Show
>                After reading criticisms (mainly on the blindness-related lists of which I am a part), I have concluded that many are judging the show on the wrong criteria. Much like one should only show dogs at a dog show, one should judge Growing Up Fisher by the criteria that apply to it. I judge it based on the fact that it is a comedy shown at a certain time on a network of whose comedies I am wary. That's it. I care little that it has anything to do with blindness; to me, it might be an additional half-hour of commercial-laden entertainment, assuming I continue to like it. It does not espouse anything with which I vehemently disagree, and it's not insulting or needlessly degrading. But it's also not a documentary. Others seem to judge it with the criteria that it is the only show that has the opportunity to display blindness with excruciating clarity and accuracy; that it is (or should be) an instruction manual for families with guide dog users. It's neither of those things, doesn't claim to be either, and won't be assumed to be either by those who can think well.
>                I do value accuracy and internal consistency, but only where I am assured that I will find such. I don't expect to learn any educational information by watching Family Guy, nor do I expect consistent plots. I expect the shows I watch to avoid the pitfalls and errors of that medium. In a movie or show that is supposed to have a strong plot, I don't want continuity errors, unconvincing coincidences, and other obvious examples of blatant plot manipulation. I want the entertainment I patronize to be as clear from the pitfalls and errors associated with the medium. Thus far, I find Growing Up Fisher reasonably free of such. Although it's slightly above mediocre (thus far), I believe that the criticism leveled at it is disproportionate to most aspects of the show. From me, it garners mildly warm approbation. In fact, my motivation to (1) watch the show and (2) write about it is derived from the strong expectations and attitudes some people seem to have about this show or things like it, as opposed to any strong feelings I have (or don't have) regarding the show itself. It's just as detrimental to be overly sensitive as it is to be completely insensitive. Humor can be a shield-a way to appraise something without being influenced by or swept up in it. It's a way to take a step back and ask about what it is you wish to accomplish.
>                I know that there has been a wealth of discussion about Growing Up Fisher already, and all the major points have been covered. Nevertheless, I welcome any feedback anyone has about this and other views of comedy (and as these are guide dog lists, how it applies to this show or the portrayal of guide dog use in popular media, generally). I apologize for any semantic ambiguities or syntactic errors in the above rhetoric. I am currently busier than I have ever been, and I have been writing this in small snatches of free time during the last two sleep-deprived days. Nevertheless, I am, as always, open to discussion and/or comment, whether it be on or off list. I will try to respond to any such, however as I just mentioned, I am very busy, so it may take a while. Regardless, I read everything. I hope that you are not too full of this admittedly over-discussed topic to make room for a bit more.
>
> Buenas tardes,
> Robert Hooper, Undergraduate Research Assistant, HDFS Early Childhood Development Lab
> Hooper.90 at buckeyemail.osu.edu<mailto:Hooper.90 at buckeyemail.osu.edu>
> The Ohio State University, Department of Psychology; Department of Neuroscience
> 166H Campbell Hall
> 1787 Neil Avenue
> Columbus, Ohio 43210
> Cell: (740) 856-8195
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sleigland%40bresnan.net
>