blahg, blahg, blahg…

Last summer I took advantage of a special offer from my cable company, upgrading my service to include, among other things, all of the Showtime channels. Thus, I have spent the better part of the last year catching up on some of the original programs they produce. I watch very few, if any, weekly dramas (or any other genre, for that matter) on network television, but Showtime has a reputation – along with HBO – of producing some darlings of the critics, so I decided to tune in.

I watched “The Tudors” first season, enjoyed it, and look forward to Sunday when the next chapter will begin. I caught a couple of episodes of “Brotherhood”. It wasn’t my cup of tea. I passed on “Californication”, the title alone a turn-off for me. And regardless of whether it appears as a toned-down version on CBS or in its original format on Showtime, I simply will not watch a serial show about a serial killer. “Dexter” crosses some line with me and I can’t seem to find any redeeming value in the subject matter.

During the last few weeks – after I belatedly discovered the convenience of “Showtime On Demand’ – I watched the entire 3rd season of “Weeds”. As I said to a co-worker who asked if the show was any good, “If you check your moral barometer at the door, you’ll get a lot of good laughs from it.” It has the combination of a very good cast and very good writers who are able to give a story that is in many ways so inconceivable, believable. Not to mention, enjoyable.

Contrast this with the other Showtime drama I’ve watched this season, “The L Word”. “L” for ludicrous. Or laborious, leaden, lecherous, licentious, lascivious, lustful, lurid. Take your pick. So why did I watch it each week (With the exception of the episode that stooped to girl-girl mud wrestling. I just couldn’t take that.)? Maybe I kept hoping for a glimmer of something recognizable, something to reaffirm the reality of lesbian life that I know. But alas, the season finale came and went last week, leaving me and my hopes unfulfilled.

I can understand Hollywood’s desire to not create a showcase of lesbian stereotypes, but in their attempts to avoid such it seems they completely tilted off the other end of the scale. The women of “The L Word” are more a collection of bisexual porn stars. With all the frilly dresses and long hair, they ooze femininity (certainly in and of itself NOT a negative thing), yet they engage in sexual behavior to rival any gang of twenty-something males. Not surprisingly, the opening credits show a scene of two women making out behind the tinted glass of a men’s room door. Sure, lesbians enjoy sexual relationships, but by creating a show where women who love women literally do little more than “make love” to other women, the folks behind “The L Word” have inadvertently bolstered a very distorted and over-hyped stereotype of the GLBTQ community.

I know it’s only entertainment, but couldn’t there be just a hint of realism? These women don’t have any semblance of normal jobs. There are no teachers or social workers or nurses or librarians. And even with all of the focus on work in the entertainment industry, there’s not even a single folk singer!

There’s one couple who have a toddler together, yet the child is rarely seen and her mothers have all of the time and energy to go to parties every night, romp around in bed at 4AM, workout at the gym, and hang out at the coffee shop. Honestly, what child-rearing couple – straight or queer – is this couple supposed to represent? The make-believe one, I guess. Most, if not all, of the couples (or single parents) that I know who are raising children are (1) totally exhausted and (2) have little of their lives left for themselves.

A couple of weeks ago, the two somewhat stars of the show who have struggled all season with the rekindling of a past relationship, summed it all up for me when one said to the other that they connect because they share the same values… art appreciation and interior decorating. Evidently, this is my community. At least in the eyes of some. It’s more than a little bit sad (and revealing of something) that the entertainment industry can produce morally depraved, gun-toting, foul-mouthed, gangster drug dealers on “Weeds” that are more substantive and interesting than the lesbians of “The L Word”.

I was just over on the MLA 2.0 101 blog, yammering on with comments about the use of social networking tools in libraries. This is kind of more of the same, mostly because it’s now 2:30 in the morning and I’m still awake. And still thinking. And all of this late night thinking has kind of led me to perhaps an answer to one of the questions I was posing in those aforementioned comments, i.e. what’s the missing piece I sense in the act of online social networking? I think perhaps it’s this… it is 2:30 in the morning and all of the people, plants and animals in my home are sleeping. All but me. I am alone – all alone – with all of these thoughts ruminating ’round in my head. I can fool myself into thinking I’m sharing them with someone right now by putting them here on my blog, but really I’m not. I’m really just thinking out loud to myself. Or better put, typing out loud to myself. (I’m not actually speaking at the moment.)

So I think the answer, in part, to my question is that in our world of virtual communication, too often we’re doing just that… virtually communicating. In other words, almost but not quite. I had a good friend move away several months back and we keep in touch often via email. We’re still a part of each other’s lives, still share thoughts about work and life in general. And in many ways, our virtual communication seems to make it virtually so much easier to stay in touch. Almost, but not quite. No amount of email and no amount of blogging and no amount of wall postings on a friend’s Facebook site will ever adequately substitute for a couple of hours together over lunch or dinner. The latter is real, the former a mere surrogate.

In the strangeness of 2:54 in the morning, I even can’t help but begin to think that the words I type here in this virtual space are virtually words, too. Not quite real. They’re not ink from a pen on a piece of paper. They don’t reside in my notebook. They just appear on the glow of my screen, sitting on some intangible space somewhere. And perhaps this is the crux of the matter, perhaps what remains most unresolved for me in my understanding and acceptance of these newer forms of communication. It is the blurring of the lines between the real and the virtual that I find slightly unsettling. The confusing of one for the other. The substituting of one for the sake of the other.

I’ve read that people experienced similar fears when telephones first gained popularity. It’s probably nothing new. And that thought virtually makes me feel better. Almost. Not quite.

(3:19AM)

Last week, the Red Sox players organized a protest during their spring training game with the Toronto Blue Jays. You see, they were upset that their coaches and staff weren’t going to get the same $40,000 stipend each of them was receiving for the hardship they were about to incur by traveling to Japan for a couple of exhibition games, followed by their regular season opening games. The media was very kind to them, what with how they stood together for the “little guy” and all that. And while that’s all well and good, pardon me if I’m having a hard time imagining the likes of Woody Guthrie or Pete Seeger leading labor-organizing rallies for such behavior.

Terry Francona was quoted as saying, “For some (of the staff), the money is equivalent to two fifths of their salary for the year. I don’t believe coaches are second-class citizens. It doesn’t sit well with me, and continues to boggle my mind.”

The manager really hit one out of the ballpark with that statement. It’s mind-boggling, for sure. According to the U.S. Census (2006), the median household income in Massachusetts is $59,963. Men working full-time, year-round jobs make an average of $51,960. Females, $40,174 for the same. Mr. Francona believes coaches aren’t second class citizens, but as for the rest of us… well, I guess one can draw his/her own conclusion.

Team captain Jason Varitek said, “There are other people that are involved who are being forgotten.” I hope for the Sox’ sake that the guys continue to be so on-target with their swings this season, because right now they’re hitting homeruns galore!