[lbo-talk] Re: lbo tv guide poll

[John Thornton]

I read James Harolds essay "A Moral Never-Neverland: Sympathizing with Tony 
Soprano" and found it unconvincing. He does a good job explaining the 
differences between the audiences connections with the characters in films 
like The Godfather or Goodfellows and characters like Tony Soprano but in 
the end falls back to refuting the idea that watching The Sopranos is not 
morally wrong. It would have been a better (but different) essay had he 
chosen to tackle the question of whether is was morally right? Morally 
neutral? Rather than refuting the obviously false conclusion that it is 
morally wrong. More interesting perhaps would be tackling the idea that 
watching The Sopranos as an isolated event is certainly not harmful but 
when taken within the context of other factors it might be.

John Thornton

At 02:30 PM 10/5/2004, Michael Pugliese wrote:
>The Sopranos and Philosophy: I Kill Therefore I Am (Popular Culture and
>Philosophy)
>by Richard Greene, Peter Vernezze
>
>Book Description
>Tony Soprano and the gang meet classic and modern philosophy in these
>witty, provocative essays. Covering everything from Aristotle to ziti, 17
>wiseguys (three of them gals) explore such irresistible topics as: Is Tony
>Soprano a good man? Is Carmela a feminist? Morally speaking, who is the
>worst person on The Sopranos? Is watching the show harmful to one's moral
>health? And what if Tony had read Sun Tzu instead of Machiavelli? This
>collection of essays by philosophers who are also fans does a deep probe
>of the Sopranos, analyzing the adventures - and personalities - of Tony,
>Carmela, Livia, and the rest of television's most irresistible Mafia
>family for their metaphysical, epistemological, value theory, Eastern
>philosophical, and contemporary postmodern possibilities. No prior
>philosophical qualifications or mob connections are required to enjoy
>these musings, which are presented with the same vibrancy and wit that
>have made the show such a hit.