ThinkProgress Logo

Alyssa

Entertainment therapy: A&E’s "Heavy"

Last night’s post about the Real Housewives of Atlanta got me to thinking about reality television in general. It’s easy to watch these people as part of a “cast,” as opposed to plain old regular folks, because they’ve bought into the adage that all the world’s a stage. In Kim Zolciak’s mind, she is a talented, stunningly beautiful woman whose charms are finally being appreciated. While viewers might not see her that way, she’s got an audience–so we’re sort of complicit in her fairy-tale making.

Then, flipping through the huge library of DVR’ed TV my husband and I have, I saw a commercial for an upcoming show on A&E called “Heavy.” This completes a trilogy of shows about addiction and self-destruction, shows that turn the struggles of ordinary people into entertainment.
Do we need another one? 
That isn’t to say that these shows don’t help people–”Intervention” does follow-up episodes every season, and the therapists on the show are committed and professional. But I wonder why so many of us tune in to watch people try (and sometimes fail) to overcome an illness. These aren’t the rouged and staged Real Housewives–these people could be our neighbors, co-workers, relatives. Can watching people triumph make us feel better about ourselves? Does the success of an addict give us hope about our own lots in life? Or…do we just like knowing there’s something that has it worse than we do?
Reality TV is supposed to be an oxymoron–shows like “Jersey Shore” and “Celebrity Rehab” are as far from real life as Hollywood can get. Shows like “Heavy” give A&E an uncomfortable edge in reality entertainment. 
But I can’t say I won’t watch it. I’m curious. 

Paradise Lost

As a YA lit nut and Milton nerd, I suppose it’s somewhat embarrassing that I hadn’t ever finished Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy before now. I’d read The Golden Compass several times, but if I finished The Subtle Knife, I can’t remember it, and I’d never cracked The Amber Spyglass. So over the Thanksgiving break, I decided to read them all again.

And is it me, or are these novels awful? I think my expectations were shaped by how much I love the Sally Lockhart trilogy, set in a world that’s Dickensian in its nature but without any of the heaviness of Dickensian prose, full of brilliant and convincing characterization. My quibbles with His Dark Materials lie along those lines, not with Pullman’s atheism. And I was shocked by the difference in quality. Spoilers galore in the discussion that follows.

First, the world-building is just terrible. Asriel goes from hanging out in a schmancy prison to building a major fortress, with precisely no explanation of how he built his coalition or got the resources for his rebellion. It’s just stupid to assume that you can waltz off into a different world, an alienated scientist in your own, and suddenly acquire world-destroying powers. It’s condescending to readers. Same is true for the deus ex machina declaration that using the Subtle Knife creates the Spectres. It makes no sense at all, there’s no explanation for the mechanism by which that would work, and the plot turn essentially seems to exist because Pullman decided he needed to separate Will and Lyra. Which is incredibly dumb, from the point of his argument, but I’ll get to that in a second. And then Intention Engine? That seems like pure Mary Sue technology to me. It’s not plausible, or sensible, it’s just meant to be cool, but there’s no reason for why it should work at all.

If Pullman wants to build rigorous literature for children, he can’t just give them absurd concepts and expect them to just accept them. It’s the antithesis of critical thought. Pullman should respect his readers by giving them concepts strong enough to live up to scrutiny.

Next, I didn’t buy the process by which Will and Lyra fall in love. To me, it seemed the person Lyra really loved was Roger: he was the person she’d go across the world to save, the person she’d venture into limbo to try to speak to again, he is the Eurydice to her Orpheus, the mother to her Odysseus. I’m just not sure I see the basis for the relationship between Will and Lyra other than shared trauma, and it didn’t feel to me that it was enough for this to be an epic, cosmos-saving love.

Finally, and perhaps this is intentional, but the Authority and Metatron are just as flat and invisible in The Amber Spyglass as God is in Paradise Lost. But in Paradise Lost, that flatness serves to illuminate Satan. It’s not just authority he’s rebelling against, it’s crushing boredom. In The Amber Spyglass, on the other hand, we’re stuck between boring tyranny and boring rebellion.

As Satan, Lord Asriel’s hugely unconvincing as a leader. He’s cold to Lyra, it’s not remotely clear why he loves Marisa Coulter, he has no clear allegiances, there’s no one moment when we see his charisma. Pullman tells the story of Lyra’s birth in a way that drains the motivating energy out of it. If we’d really seen Asriel’s passion for his lover and his daughter, and seen his rage for freedom grow out of the denial of that love, it might have been convincing. But it’s a cold, colorless freedom Asriel’s fighting for. He doesn’t seem to want anything except to destroy the Authority. And that lack of desire makes him a deeply unconvincing champion.

But maybe even more egregious is the ending. Lyra and Will, having experienced a sexual awakening and restored order to the world, don’t get to experience the joys of freedom. Instead, they’re separated, sent back to their own worlds, bound by the rules, and required to be ambassadors of the new virtue of freedom. They might as well have lived under the Authority as under the new order for all the good it gets them. Freedom from the Authority and the Magesterium doesn’t seem to enrich anyone’s lives any, except that Lyra finally is going to get an education. It’s a failed case for a different ending. Paradise is still lost.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up