Who needs Sorkin, anyway?

In general I’ve been pleasantly surprised with The West Wing this season. Writer Aaron Sorkin’s departure does not seem to have doomed the show, in my opinion. But last night’s episode, dealing with the political realities of an appointment to the Supreme Court, was the first since Sorkin’s exit that actually felt like a Sorkin episode. A lot of the old Sorkin touches were there: the idea that public service is an honorable thing, and that committed people on opposite sides of the aisle can still have a constructive debate; rapidfire dialog with occasionally humorous results (twice involving the ever-amazing Lily Tomlin); badmouthing of conservatives until one actually shows up and makes them realize that they’re not actually demons-in-disguise; and the old trick of having a character come up with an idea that couldn’t possibly work, although in the end it works perfectly.

Basically, what happened is this. Earlier in the season, there was an episode involving the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and his troubling health; in a closing scene, that Chief Justice — apparently a giant of Earl Warren stature in the West Wing universe — bemoaned the fact that Washingtonian hyper-partisanship now means that only bland moderates can get confirmed. To start last night’s episode, then, a SC justice has died (not the Chief Justice, though, which becomes an important point). The White House staffers gather a list of nominees, leaning toward one guy who’s exactly the kind of bland moderate they don’t want to have to settle for, and for window dressing, they interview a firebrand liberal justice (played by Glenn Close). Problem is, Josh Lyman falls in love with the idea of getting this woman onto the court, which is clearly not possible.

Except that Josh comes up with an idea: if he can talk the Chief Justice into stepping down as well, thus creating two vacancies, the White House will name as its second nominee whoever the Judiciary Committee picks — and the Committee is, of course, run by Republicans. In comes a very conservative justice (played by William Fichtner — some great casting in this episode), and in the end, President Bartlet ends up nominating both judges to the Supreme Court, under the idea that the Court produces its best work when it has both a brilliant liberal and a brilliant conservative to battle each other.

This was just a really good episode that had that first or second-season feel, the message that “Yeah, there’s lots of partisanship down there, but Washington really doesn’t suck”.

The only downside, as far as I could see, was a bit of a continuity error: the episode oddly makes no mention at all that President Bartlet already has made a Supreme Court appointment. One of the major story arcs of the first season involved the confirmation battle to get Judge Roberto Mendoza (Edward James Olmos) onto the SC. I don’t recall if anything in last night’s episode specifically contradicts that, but it seems an odd fact to not come up at all in the show.

Share This Post

Come on, Minnesota!

Aaron is incensed that his state has begun the process of amending its constitution to permanently ban gay marriage. His position mirrors mine almost exactly.

But more than that, I resent the Rick Santorums of the world who insist that “straight” marriages will suffer if gay marriage is allowed. The idea that my commitment to my wife could be shaken by someone else’s desire to show equal commitment to yet someone else is revolting.

Anyway, that’s that.

Share This Post

Best Quiz EVER

I rarely do those online personality quizzes — you know, “Which Biblical prophet are you?” and the like, but I couldn’t resist this one, based on the work of Edward Gorey.

Don't Trip
You will be smothered under a rug. You’re a little anti-social, and may want to start gaining new social skills by making prank phone calls.

What horrible Edward Gorey Death will you die?
brought to you by Quizilla

That’s pretty funny, I think. And if you don’t get it because you’ve never read The Gashlycrumb Tinies, well — here you go. I once owned a poster with the entirety of The Gashlycrumb Tinies upon it; it provided many moments of humor in college as I watched midwestern Lutherans grapple with the bleak humor of twenty-six alphabetically-named youngsters meeting their doom in horrible ways.

Share This Post

Let me turn down the lights, dear….

Darth Swank opens a post thusly: “Last night, my lovely wife and I sat down to watch our new DVD of Dawn of the Dead.” Suddenly, I’m wondering what their first date was like!

“Hey, I hear there’s a midnight showing of Guzzlers of Blood III: Bring Your Own Bucket down at the Bijou this Friday. You wanna go with me?”

“Will you be embarrassed if I wear my black wig and vampire teeth?”

“Oh baby….”

Share This Post

The Jack Bauer Power Hour

For a variety of reasons, Lynn Sislo is frustrated with 24. Some of her reasons deal with the show’s writers, and some deal with the FOX Network, which has historically tended to make really goofy decisions regarding programming. (Witness their cancelling of The Family Guy, only to see that show set records as a DVD release. Now there’s a strong possibility that FOX may bring the show back. Now, that’s a show that I can’t stand, but axing it was a pretty dumb move.)

Lynn’s primarily annoyed that 24 has been off the air for several weeks now, and will remain so until next week. Here I think the show’s structure (an entire season telling a single day’s events in real time, one episode per hour) clashes with the realities of a TV season. FOX needs to time 24‘s climactic episodes with May sweeps, but they can’t just do like other networks with hit shows and have a new episode here, and a new episode there during the non-sweeps months, because 24‘s unique story structure would likely suffer if they do that. It’s actually a lot easier, probably, to recall where things are right now and then plow through the last nine episodes of the season; and this way, we’re spared the annoyance of saying, “Hey, is 24 new this week?”

So I can’t fault FOX for the programming, believe it or not. Now, I will grant that the show isn’t as good this year as last year, but that’s a writing thing, not a FOX thing.

Share This Post

NOOOOOOOO!!!

I’d like to take a moment to offer a piece of advice to all my wonderful readers. If you ever find yourself working in a position in either a restaurant or a grocery store that involves a lot of cleaning and “grunt work”, there is one question to which the only proper response is to run away, screaming.

That question is this: “Hey, could ya give me a hand cleaning this grease trap?”

Aieee!

Share This Post

Templates galore….

By sheer happenstance — it was listed under the ten most recently published blogs on Blogger’s main screen — I found this blog, which is nothing but a clearing-house of new templates you can try, if you’re on the prowl for new templates. The most recent ones posted there may be of interest to Matrix fans.

Share This Post

Two Observations

ONE: I just saw an ad for The Passion of the Christ which is one of those “Our movie’s been out for a month now, so here are some catch-phrases from our critics” ads. At one point, the portentous announcer says something like, “Roger Ebert calls The Passion powerully moving!” Which made me think, wouldn’t it be funny if someone made a movie of the Christ story that critics found “strangely uninvolving”?

TWO: Years ago, one of the ESPN guys on SportsCenter defined disappointment as “Sitting down to watch NYPDBlue, noting with excitement the warning about partial nudity, and then discovering that it’s Detective Medavoy who gets nude.” Well, that’s exactly what happened tonight. Yeeesh….

(Medavoy, for those uninitiated, is the portly, middle-aged cop on the show. No, not Dennis Franz. The other one.)

Share This Post

Portable Writing

In comments to not one post but two, John Scalzi is encountering opposition to his apparent belief that writers who go to Starbucks or the like and set up camp with their laptops are really just poseurs who aren’t really writing but want to be seen writing. I guess I can see his point, sort-of. But not really.

I’m one who used to enjoy writing in different places, back when I was still doing all my first drafts in longhand. I’d estimate that I did about, oh, 75% of my writing at home, at my desk, with the headphones delivering high-quality classical or film music to my eardrums, but sometimes, I just plain wanted a change of scenery. So I’d pack up my papers and my pens and go off to the cafe at the grocery store or maybe the library, and I’d sit there and write.

I’ve always been pretty good at shutting out the outside distractions of the world and attending to my writing (an ability that I cultivated much to the chagrin of more than a few of my teachers through the years), and those abilities came in pretty handy when I just wanted to sit somewhere other than the same exact chair in front of the same exact desk and work on the same exact manuscript. If I’m really losing myself in the writing — and you’ll have to take my word for it that I am — well, what difference does it make where I’m doing it?

And yes, I’ll admit that when I sit at the cafes and libraries of the world, I do tend to put the pen down and “people-watch” a bit, which I think is part of what John interprets as indicative of “poseurness”. (Poseurity? Poseurdom? Hmmm….) But that doesn’t mean that, if I were sitting at home, I’d be that much more productive. You know why? Because my desk is surrounded by my books. And believe me, the tendency to just look up “a passage or two” from Tigana or The Return of the King or any other book is, at least for me, one hell of a lot stronger than the tendency to watch the cute girl in the black turtleneck and baggy jeans who’s mixing all the cappucinos.

(In fact, since I don’t own a laptop, I can’t blog anywhere other than here!)

Some writers subscribe strongly to the idea that you should have one place where you do all your writing, and that’s it, and it should be your place and it should be the only place where you ever get any real work done. Well, if that works for them, great. Not all writers work that way, just as some writers insist that you should outline your novels, and others resist outlines religiously.

Now, since I pretty much stopped doing first-drafts longhand in favor of typing, all of my writing activity that involves stringing words together has to take place right here, at this table in my living room. But I can still edit my manuscripts elsewhere. And I have, and will continue to do so.

So there!

Share This Post