Gilmore guy

Most shows today seem to be dumbed down to the point of monotony.

---

Weekly Three

HEAR: One of the most beautiful tunes I’ve ever heard: A rendition of Debussy’s “Clair de Lune” arranged for the Theremin (an electronic instrument played without physical touch) and Voice by Carolina Eyck.

READ: An interview with Werner Herzog.

VIEW: An interview with a homeless 11-year-old living on Skid Row.

---

No. 75: Gilmore guy

In my humble opinion, Gilmore Girls is one of the best shows in the history of television.
​
Random? The show is on my mind because my girlfriend and I been watching it regularly. I can hear it playing in the room behind me as I write. Grace is inconsiderately watching an episode without me. Highly uncool.

I watched bits and pieces of Gilmore Girls during college, and it was great. Over the last few weeks, Grace and I have made a nightly ritual of watching Rory and Lorelai do their thing in the idyllic town of Stars Hollow, and it’s still great — if not greater.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: this is not an “old is better” argument. Media today has every right to be as good as anything in the past. In fact, at first glance, the tools available today should guarantee that every show, movie, song, or book should outmatch anything made in years gone by.

The problem is, this is almost never the case, maybe because of the groundbreaking tools that are supposed to help creators reach new heights. Whenever something from the past — for example, a show like Gilmore Girls — is better than what’s available today, we’re reminded of what’s most important in creative work: new, brave, and progressive ideas. No amount of technology can replace ideas as the root of any great artwork.

So it’s a little concerning that TV shows like Gilmore Girls don’t exist anymore, at least not that I can tell. You know, shows that are smart.

Smart?

Yes — not simplified, dumbed-down, formulaic, or slow. When watching Gilmore Girls, it’s clear that the show’s writers have thrown their whole selves at every episode, coming up with creative scenes one after the other after the other. The dialogue is fast, witty, dense, sharp, funny, and full of references — a handful of which fly over my head. This is refreshing, enriching, and entertaining in world where Emily in Paris is considered a good show. No modern production would ever write pop culture references into character dialogue if there was any chance the audience wouldn’t grasp each quip.

Smart — we need more of it in our media and culture, and less simplification. Really, we should be insulted by the quality of media coming from the biggest media makers. Do publishers and creators think so little of us that everything must be reduced to its most basic form? Shows like Gilmore Girls, on the other hand, treat their viewers respectfully by taking it for granted that they are smart enough to follow along with clever dialogue.

Perhaps this is why I like books and writing so much. Writers, generally, treat their audience respectfully. I try to do this, too. In all my writing, I assume I’m addressing an intelligent reader, an assumption that has never done me wrong. This is the benefit, for both consumers and creators, of following self-published platforms like newsletters and YouTube channels: there are no gatekeepers or editors to change or dumb down ideas. You get the raw, real thing. It's direct-to-consumer, farm-to-table, desk-to-screen (?).

On the other hand, TV shows, radio, movies, etc. generally treat me like the village idiot. And it goes further. Pick any form of popular media for an example.

The news? Once upon a time news articles were expressive and in-depth, capturing all sides of the story: the black, the white, and the gray area in between. Book reviews were long and contemplative. The writers assumed their readers were focused and interested in the topic, and they delivered a feast of information on all sorts of topics: world news, business, arts, sports, etc. But today brevity trumps all. I’ve seen it as a wrier for big publications. Make it short, or the editor will do it for you. Reviewing a 10,000 page novel? You’ve got 500 words, max.

Music? Before the 2000s, songs were frequently 5 minutes long, if not longer. Then it was 4 minutes. Then it was 3 minutes. Now, it’s common to find sub 3-minute songs. With the emergence of TikTok, the 16 second song may not be far off.

Movies? They almost always follow the same formula, ensuring you get your dopamine hits in measured, not-too-long intervals. Art films? They exist, but they’re extremely hard-to-find.

This hard-to-find situation is maybe the most important, because it applies to all forms of media, and it can be easily remedied if media makers thought it worthwhile to do so. Yes, good stuff can be found, but it won't be found easily, and it very rarely comes from the Netflixes and Spotifies and New York Times of the world.

But why is this bad?

When there are limits on how long or how intelligent or how “out-there” a work of art can be, the variety of what’s produced is inherently cropped, leaving consumers with a bunch of stuff that pretty much feels the same.

And it gets worse.

Since mass media creators view us as (their audience) as stupid people with short attention spans, the media that's made is boring and brief, leaving us feeling ambivalent, which reinforces the idea that we are stupid people with short attention spans. We are not engaged because the content is not engaging, so we scroll on believing we have a problem when, in fact, the problem is the sub-par content designed to be sub-par.

All of this to say: Go watch Gilmore Girls. ♦

---

Mailbox

Have a question or response? Hit reply. Write-ups and questions from readers will be published here each week.