« ixnay on the ugsdray | Main | long sleeved »

digging out

i have been taking mucho shit since last week's episode of Six Feet Under, which everyone in the world seemed to hate except for me, the wife and O'Connors suds-man Bart. oh, and Heather Havrilesky from salon.com. fortunately, she's back this week to answer some questions about the show and stick up for the episode in question (the "David Gets Tortured" episode). a few select passages (you'll have to watch the ad to get the whole story):

I really have to say that, if anything, David's suddenly having to pay for his carelessness -- and it was his carelessness, and not his gayness, that got him into that mess -- is a truly unforeseeable twist. Most of the time on "Six Feet Under," there's seemingly very little rhyme or reason for the shit that hits the fan, from Nate's brain ailment to Lisa's drowning. If God strikes the Fisher family with misfortune a little more often than seems reasonable, maybe that's because the Fishers are so entertaining when they're suffering....

Plus, I thought it was cute how David tricked himself into thinking he wasn't cruising. As I see it, "Six Feet Under" is mostly concerned with punishing those who fool themselves and rationalize their behavior in ways that don't honor their ideals. What's wrong with a morality play that punishes those whose lack of self-awareness leads them far from their beliefs and their calling? Sounds like real life to me. Nate, for one, continues to suffer because he's starting to build his whole personality around suffering.....

"Six Feet Under" does such a great job of overturning stereotypes (while working within the bounds of reality, mind you -- this isn't the typical "Free to Be You and Me" P.C. fantasy) that it's not exactly fair to attack the writers the second they stumble on a story that doesn't topple the common wisdom on a subject. Look, self-loathing, drug-abusing gay men who are gay bashers certainly exist, and I really felt that the story fit into David's unpredictable emotional trajectory well. Here he is, in a good relationship, he's finally safe, and he not only insists on feeling insecure anyway (sounds familiar, doesn't it?) but invites disaster into his life out of that insecurity. People who feel tremendously needy do stupid, stupid things in an effort to get rid of that feeling, and often end up knocking down the walls of their happy little Hobbit holes in the process.

now get off my back everybody. and if you saw last night's episode, keep it quiet 'cause i missed it and hope to catch it tonight.

Comments

I didn't see it yet either, and no matter what some fancypants Salon writer says, last night's episode better have been a damn sight better than that piece of crap folly of last week, or I'm replacing Six Feet Under with The King of Queens on my top 10 current shows list.

Put Angie and I down on the list of people who liked that gruesome episode. One thing I do feel will be an unfortunate byproduct for all SFU viewers is that none of us will ever, EVER, stop to help anybody who is in distress on the side of the road (or anywhere else for that matter).

It's still just a tv show, right? That's a lot more analysis than this debate merits. Seriously, who would have thought that the people at Salon have more free time at work than tsoa does? Because there is no way that this is what Salon's writers get paid for.

Sunday's episode was WAY BETTER!!! A tottal return to form which made my heart warm. Also episode 2 of Entourage was better.

i did see this week's epsiode last night and I agree that it was better. i enjoyed it so much i was ready to say that anyone who didn't like it is no longer my friend. but that's a tad ridiculous. still it was the type of episode that i could "feel" for a while after it had ended.

and Salon's TV column has always been written from a cheeky, guilty pleasure sort of perspective. not "fancypants" at all.