>You don't get it. What's wrong, artistically, with a
>show that glorifies gangsterism? Why do you adopt this
>absurd prudish puritanical socialist realist view that
>art -- yes, TV shows can be art, high or law -- must
>not romanticize Bad People Doing Bad Things? You and
>Tipper Gore, this stuff requires Warning Labels. Quel
>bore.
>
>I have only seen one episode of the Sopranos. I
>thought it was pretty good, and people I like say I
>should watch more, but my hours are limited. I'd
>rather watch The Godfather again -- a film that
>certainly romanticizes, if not glorifies, gangsterism.
>(Godfather II does not.) Or Goodfellas, where, after
>depicting a lifetime of conscienceless viuolent crime
>and theft, the Henry Hill character stands down in a
>fantasy scene on the witness stand to explain the
>glories of the thug life -- no irony intended. Or I
>might like to reread some Elizabethan revenge tragedy,
>glorifying motives and actions that are hard to even
>conceive.
Fuck! Why does The Sopranos have to be either the best thing ever on TV as has been claimed (not by all) and anyone who doubts that is a "prudish puritanical socialist realist"? I called one of my students and am going to borrow her boxed set of DVD's and watch the damn show then I can make up my own mind rather than rely on the impressions of others. Remember, my original post was a question not a statement. For the record I never suggested the show should be banned or given a warning label or censored in any manner. It's great that you can argue that is a silly position but what is less great that this is a shitty critique of anything I've written. Your inability to understand this coupled with the fact that you would rather make a weak attempt to link my position on the show to Tipper Gores nuttery is quite sad. How is it that you, having seen exactly one episode just as I have, are somehow more able to hold any position on this program than I am. Maybe several people on this list will chime in about how silly you are to think the show is "pretty good" based on such little information?
John Thornton