Introducing Viktor

I actually saw someone say on Facebook that season three of the Umbrella Academy was ruined by having a transgender character, and that's stewed with me a while. I have some observations to make about this subject, and it doesn't matter if you watch the show or not.

Season three of the Umbrella Academy was definitely its weakest season, but if someone thinks that's because one of the main characters came out of the closet as transgender, they're deluding themself.

The actor who plays Viktor, Elliot Page, himself came out of the closet as a transgender man, I think sometime during season two. This presents a bit of a challenge for the producers of the series. Do you have someone who identifies as a man continue to play a female character? Do you find a new actress to take over the role? I don't think either of those are a very satisfying choice. So, why not make the character transgender? It's a risk, but how did that really play out?

I've seen it done before where an LGBTQ character comes out of the closet on a comedy show (and while Umbrella Academy is a mix of genres, the tone is generally comedic) and the show has to stop the comedy to address the serious issue of coming out. That in itself can be jarring, but Umbrella Academy made what I thought was a very bold choice to not go down that road. Viktor's coming out takes considerably less time than a single episode. He gets a masculine haircut, changes his clothing, and then, as the plot continues to unfold without stopping for his transition, he confronts each member of his family one by one, informing them, "I'm Viktor now."

I think this way of introducing the change in the character simultaneously dials the "woke" factor up to 11, while giving transphobes zero basis to reasonably complain. Why? Because something understated but beautiful happens: everyone...just...accepts him. It's no big deal. They pretty much just say, "Okay," and the plot moves on.

What a beautiful world it would be if every transgender person had a coming out experience that was so unremarkable. Just, "Okay, I believe that you are who you say you are." And that's over.

There is absolutely nothing to complain about this quick and simple transition in the series other than, "Well, I don't want a transgender character in my show." Which really is no reason at all. It's, "My bigotry won't let me enjoy this piece of entertainment. I can accept people who have superhuman powers, but I can't accept this moment that occurs in real life." I truly believe that if Viktor's transition ruined the show for you, that's entirely on you, and not the show.

Season four is looking much better.

Hail to the Blog

I've been a lifelong Democrat (although earlier this year I tried to register Republican in order to vote in the GOP primary, but that doesn't count for much, especially since my registration didn't go through as far as I am aware), but I'm obviously not so taken with partisan politics as many people are in this country. In particular, I recall back in the day thinking that there was something wrong with the way mainstream media seemed to be criticizing the Bush/Quayle administration. I would often tell people, "If the best people can come up with to pick on Dan Quayle is that he spells 'potato' wrong, he must be doing pretty good!" I mean, think about it; our current Veep is shooting people in the face while on a break from supporting a highly immoral war that's funneling money to his friends at his old company. Could we get the guy who's a bad speller back, please?

So just this week, Anna Quindlen writes a column explaining how horrible it is that John McCain doesn't use the Internet. She points out that she herself goes online to see people's reactions to her work and, "...she's already been told many times that she's a left-wing idiot." This is what she calls being informed, or "tak[ing] the people's pulse." I was glad to be informed of this, as I myself have considered writing her many times to tell her that, and look! I managed to get informed about the issue without going online!

Quindlen is actually a very interesting writer, in no small part due to the fact that she is so very liberal. She's the sort of writer who can spout the liberal view on issues of the day in a very eloquent manner, far more eloquent than I can, and she can do it whether she's saying something insightful or spouting a load of crap. I remember clearly her saying many years ago that she was surprised there was controversy over the RU-486 pill; after all, it was a safe method of terminating a pregnancy without an abortion, and isn't that what everyone wanted? Seriously? Was she so dense that she thought the abortion issue was at heart about a surgical procedure? Crazed pro-lifers standing in front of abortion clinics are known to call abortionists "baby killers", not "questionable surgical practitioners". It was the first time I was tempted to write Quindlen and tell her she was an idiot, but not the last.

Of course, as I also hinted, she's written a lot of stuff that's come across as very intelligent, but I'm short a good example, mostly because we tend to remember things that upset us rather than things that are generally agreeable. Newsweek chose well when they signed her on as a columnist, I think. They seem to do very well in that respect. Even as someone who considers himself fairly liberal, though, even when George Will says things I don't agree with, he still doesn't ever seem to sound stupid.

But to speak to Quindlen's point, is it really so bad to have a President that doesn't use the Internet? Quindlen is right about a number of things. It makes McCain look old. But then, what doesn't? The guy's in his 70s, after all. Is it bad to look old when you are old? Hmm, maybe. I'm still out of work, and sometimes, on the few days I have an offer of an interview, I briefly consider buying some sort of hair product to get rid of my grey. Having grey hair is something I've actually always looked forward to oddly enough, but now I realize ageism happens, and I'd rather look my age or younger, not older. Ageism happens in politics, too. This is a year where one of the issues is that one candidate seems too old to be President, while the other seems (to some) to be too young. We like our presidents old, but not McCain old.

The more important issue, though, as Quindlen points out, is that McCain seems to be OUT OF IT, and may actually be so. Is it enough to have aides "take the people's pulse" for you? Heck, doctors do it. I can't remember the last time I had my pulse, temperature or blood pressure taken by an actual doctor! I think it's more important to have aides that will be honest about their findings. Often it seems the current administration is suffering from the problem of a President surrounded by aides that refuse to tell him anything is wrong. Imagine going to the doctor and having the nurse find you with a fever, but he tells the doctor you're at a perfect 98.6°F no matter what the thermometer actually reads! But is being "connected" necessarily going to change that in any way?

The Internet is like television, but moreso. You can sit and watch television and be blissfully unaware of what's going on in the world quite easily. There was a time not even so long ago when I'd have gladly watched the Cartoon Network 24/7, but will that make me any more or less informed than spending all day at icanhascheezburger.com? I happen to know for a fact that when Dick Cheney isn't busy shooting people, he spends a fair (and balanced?) amount of time watching Fox News. Would he really be more connected with reality if he took some of that time and spent it perusing foxnews.com?

The Internet is what you make it, both as a writer, and as a reader. From the long list of people who will probably never read my blog, we can guess the inclusion of John McCain, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and Anna Quindlen herself, who probably is more "connected" than any of the others just named, and named more times in this entry than any of the others. It has nothing to do with being OUT OF IT or what amount of time one spends on the Internet. And if any of these people happened to come across my blog and read it, it's unlikely it would deeply change their lives in any way. We hear what we want to and see what we want to (and write what we want to!). When on rare occasions, a person reads my blog, they will come away from it with the same sort of benefits they come away from in reading a column in Newsweek: either "That's so insightful and true!" (because I agree), or, "What a (fill-in-the-blank-)wing idiot!" (because I disagree). Furthermore, as so many have observed, including Tim Berners-Lee himself, the WWW is largely a repository of crap, my own blog not excluded from that assessment. The Internet's new world of "pushbutton publishing" (is that Blogger.com's motto?) has some potential for changing the world, for people have observed that cream floats to the top. Crap floats, too.

In the modern world of politics, is the new rule "He who eats the most crap wins"? I guess you are what you eat, so why not? We know politicians are full of crap, so why not give them the Internet to help them mainline the stuff in its true, unadulterated form? (Did I just refer to "crap" as "unadulterated"? Man, I hope I'm single-handedly bringing blogging to a new low...) It's crap. Crap, crap, crap. The Internet has left-wing crap, right-wing crap, Christian crap, atheist crap, crap art, crap photos, crap news, crap fiction, crap discussions of current events, and of course just plain crap. Man, I feel better now that I've gotten that out.

Is it really such a handicap for a potential President to not be on the Internet? I'm on the Internet every day, and I have no idea what's going on in the world until Jon Stewart makes a joke about it, and I see the clip a few days later. Of course, then I still don't know what's going on, but at least I can laugh about it. Can I be President? I'm obviously not busy with anything else at the moment...

American Idolatry

So, tonight's the big night that the new season of "American Idol" starts (or maybe last night, by the time I get this posted), and everyone will be tuning in to see wave after wave of people who really want to be stars. I seem to recall that I attempted to write about this topic at the beginning of last season, when a young woman came on the tryouts with (like so many) virtually no singing ability whatsoever, but unlike most of the other bad singers, she knew that she could not sing! She explained to the judges that it would be really cool if the next American Idol was someone who had no singing ability at the beginning, but in the course of the show, learned how to sing!

Like so many who are clueless in other ways, she was tossed out. The thing that's odd about these people to me is how surprised they are to be tossed out! I mean really, don't most of the people watch the show before they try out? I consider myself to be a pretty good singer, but I know I'm not destined to be famous for my singing ability, because it's slightly above average at best. I know I wouldn't make it, because despite being not awful, I have a realistic view of my own abilities, and a realistic view of Simon Cowell. How do these people not know that they're horrible singers? How is it that they think they can stand before those judges and be praised when even many good singers get booted, and more than a few of those who are good enough to make it on the show get told by the judges that they've got some serious work to do have a chance to be the winner? So many people come out of the room with the judges with tears streaming down their faces, crying out something along the lines of "I can't believe that they were so mean!" Seriously, have you watched the show before you tried out?

But as usual, I'm taking a circuitous route to my main topic. While my first admonition for would-be idols is a tiny dose of realism in the form of (1) realize you probably don't sing as well as you think you do, (2) expect to be told that you are the worst singer in the world and be made fun of on national television, there are some things I would also like to say in comfort to the losers.

What portion of the people in the world today who are famous for their singing got their start on "American Idol"? I think I heard it said that this is season seven, so at most, if everyone who made it as one of the 12 contestants (I don't watch the show, only the tryouts, so sorry if I'm getting details wrong) became famous, that's only about 70 people out of hundreds and hundreds of recording artists. Being on "American Idol" is not the normal way to become famous. Just a few years back, the show didn't even exist, and there were still people singing for a living. If you really want to be a professional singer, and you really have the talent to do it, you don't need reality television to get there.

The thing that I pause to mention, but only a little because in some ways it's the most important point of all, is that you don't even really need singing talent to become a star. I remember back in the '90s, I heard many a deejay comment after playing a Sugar Ray song, "Crap, if that's what a rock star sounds like, I could do it!" That was just one band out of many that could be listed. Rage Against The Machine, Cake, Bob Dylan, Violent Femmes, all of these and many more are great bands/musicians that don't sing pretty, but it's not about singing pretty, is it? I'm a big fan of Johnny Cash, and towards the end of his life, when health problems caused his voice to start to fail him, he did some powerful work in the studio. Sure, you can't be completely tone deaf (well, a rapper could be, I suppose, but that's a musical form with its own challenges), but what really counts to most people who listen to music is that it speaks to them emotionally. Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins has the ability to sing beautifully, but a lot of his songs are little more than screeching and yelling into the mike, and his fans love it all.

Last year during the tryouts, there was also a teenage boy who when kicked out complained through tears that all he wanted to do was "be famous". This is the biggest mystery of all to me, and yet, it is the thing that makes the title of the show seem so particularly apropos. In the end, although one has to be a great singer in order to be the next American Idol, the show isn't about people who want to be singers. No, the show is people who already are singers trying to show that they are better singers than other contestants. For both those who can and cannot sing, the show is about people who want to be famous. Face it, there are a lot of people in the world today who would much rather be the next William Hung than be an unknown face who sings beautifully in their church choir or local musical theatre. There's this odd draw to being a person who, when they go down the street, people point and shout, "Hey, it's that famous person!"

Why? Why do people want that? Because it works out so well for Britney Spears? Because fame brings out the best in Amy Winehouse? Because of the great way that fame changed the life of Kurt Cobain? When I look at the way famous people live their lives, it seems like the definition of it is having thousands of people in the world who care about the way you live your life, but don't really care about you. Famous people have the whole world following their every move, but never really knowing them in a personal way. As for me, I would rather be given a hug by one person who really knows me than have a standing ovation by 50,000 complete strangers. Does that make me weird? How many famous people are there that not only have a successful career, but a stable personal life? It seems pretty rare.

I guess what I'm saying is that for those who really want to be a famous singer, don't bother with "American Idol" unless you're prepared to have your ego crushed. And if you think you are truly willing to lay down your life as a sacrifice on the altar of fame, be sure, because you may very well have to give up your life. As for me, I'm just happy if my kids like my singing.

TV or MTV? That really is the question!

Today over lunch, a friend of mine mentioned that today is the 25th anniversary of MTV. He joked, "I wonder how many people know that MTV stands for something?"

Of course, what he meant is that MTV is an abbreviation of "Music TeleVision". Most people know that MTV stands for something, although it's not always clear exactly what. The point that the "M" stands for music seems like it ought to give a hint that MTV stands for bringing music to cable television, but anyone turning on MTV at any point in its history might have reason to doubt that.

In its early days, I'm sure there were many people of varied ages and backgrounds who, upon tuning in, could be found to declare, "THAT'S not music!" While these people might be written off as "fuddy-duddies" (and I fear only a true fuddy-duddy would actually use the term) there is an innate problem with music in that few people like all kinds of music, so a radio or video station can play a little bit of everything and manage to find something to turn everybody off some of the time, or play a very specialized selection of music and therefore turn somebody off all of the time. Back when I was in high school, and I actually had MTV, I wasn't a big fan of either rap or metal, which made up a large portion of what music was played on MTV. Although I've since grown to appreciate both of these musical genres in their own ways, I probably still wouldn't sit and listen to either kind of music for extended periods of time.

The real issue of why MTV fails at actually being a music channel (the real point of this train of thought) isn't the genres they choose to air. If that were true, 95% of the music radio stations that are out there would cease to exist. Stations play nothing but metal, rap, R&B, "classic" rock, "oldies" rock, "alternative" rock, "hard" rock, "soft" rock, classical, jazz, or polka, and they get along just fine. The problem isn't the kind of music, it's the fact that it *is* music.

It seems like it was just a few years ago that MTV launched this major ad campaign in which they heralded the forthcoming "MTV2" which was going to be a cable TV station dedicated to (catch this...) music. It was a funny moment in the history of MTV for myself and many of my friends who looked nostalgically back on MTV's early days; MTV was essentially admitting that MTV wasn't music television. Tune in to see what's on MTV at any given time in the last ten years or so (maybe longer) and rather than catching a music video, you might see the latest episode of "The Real World", "Cribs", "Pimp My Ride", or "Celebrity Deathmatch". This is what MTV stands for, they stand for a lifestyle of some sort, and that lifestyle may or may not have anything to do with music. There's nothing wrong with this per se. These days, most cable channels (and even a few traditional broadcast channels) stand for a lifestyle, and it may even be admirable. If you're really into food, you watch the Food Network. If you're into partying and having a really great car, watch MTV. If you're gay, I think you watch Bravo. Your television watching habits become a part of your culture, and helps you build identity.

So, MTV2 was supposedly for people who like music, right? But wait, they're showing "Celebrity Deathmatch" too? A cartoon called "Where My Dogs At?" and "Wonder Showzen", which is not the first phenomenon I've heard called "Like Sesame Street on crack", but seems to fit it better than anything I can recall. Where did the music go?

See, the real problem, I think, is encapsulated by something from the early days of another cable channel, Comedy Central. They used to have a show in the early days called "Short Attention Span Theater" which was hosted (at the time I used to watch it) by Jon Stewart. While it was an apt title of that show--which, like many early Comedy Central shows, played short clips of stand up comedians around two to four minutes long--sometimes it seems like an appropriate description of the original format of MTV.

Less like your standard sorts of television, with hour- and half-hour-long shows, and more like radio, with a constant stream of five-odd-minute musical presentations, MTV was in a way the ideal television for people with short attention spans. Can't get yourself to concentrate on a complicated 24 minutes of "WKRP in Cincinnati"? Maybe you'd rather watch six minutes of Billy Idol rocking out to cool special effects shots and light shows? Maybe Madonna's latest attempt to be shocking that only further numbs you to the very concept of "shocking"? I know, how about Van Halen's "Jump" for the five hundredth time? That one never gets old!

Well, the way I see it, MTV ends up being the solution for viewers with short attention spans, and thus at the same time, their own downfall. If they had existed in the days before TV remote controls, maybe they would have stood a chance, but the attention-span-deprived viewer is also the one whose itchy trigger thumb is ever hovering over the channel-changing buttons, waiting for any excuse to bolt. When that first commercial comes on five minutes into "The Cosby Show", you're going to hang around because you want to know how Theo's date turns out. On MTV, when the commercial kicks in, the "show" you were watching is already over. In fact, even if the video you were raptly watching is followed by another video, it may be one you don't care about, and off you go! While with regular TV, if it can get you hooked, it's got you for thirty minutes, MTV can only keep you enthralled until the current song ends. Maybe not even that long, if you've already seen the video and don't care to see it again.

Viewers love the early MTV format, but it doesn't suck them in the way a successful television presentation really needs to. Witness the success of daytime soap operas and prime-time miniseries: what else can account for such notoriously mediocre TV having such a devoted following except the fact that these are designed to drag you back, glued to the screen, day after day? Bring the viewers back, make them watch compulsively, and the advertising dollars flood in. The only reason radio stations work is that most people listen to them in their cars, or at other times when they are stuck someplace for an indeterminate amount of time.

For there to be a station like the early MTV that's just about the music, there has to be a company that doesn't care how much money they make in producing a cable TV channel. I don't know who's out there like that.