MARVEL / LIVEBLOGGING THE 90s / CELEBRITY FACTS / MINDHOLE BLOWERS / NETFLIX



Why Do People Argue About 'Girls' More Than Any Other TV Show?

By Daniel Carlson | Think Pieces | January 22, 2014 | Comments ()


Girls-large.jpg

My wife doesn’t really like Breaking Bad. She watched with indifference as I sped through the first three seasons on iTunes, mainlining the show and turning into a huge fan. When I was able to watch new episodes as they aired weekly on AMC, she’d usually open up her laptop and watch something else on Netflix. She’d occasionally glance up and see part of the action — she was there for the grisly end of the fourth season — but she didn’t really have any interest in watching the show. It’s not because she’s averse to onscreen violence or grim stories; this is a woman who can watch Casino or the BBC’s Luther as comfort food. And it’s not because she thinks it’s a bad show. She just didn’t feel like it was for her, and she didn’t want to watch any more than she had.

That’s pretty much all there was to it. I really liked Breaking Bad, my wife didn’t, and it couldn’t have mattered less. I liked it so much I wrote about it weekly for a couple years, and I’m at the point where I think weekly TV write-ups are doomed to be flawed and grasping and incomplete attempts at criticism. That’s how much I liked the show. But I never took her lack of interest in the show as a personal affront, nor did I view it as an assault on my character when she opted not to join me on the journey to Walter White’s bitter end. I didn’t define myself through liking Breaking Bad, and I didn’t think it said anything about my wife that she didn’t like the show. We just accepted our differing opinions and moved on.

It’s almost impossible to find discussions like that about HBO’s Girls: talks defined by calm but firm disagreement, where two parties come to understand they feel differently about the show and simply accept it. People don’t just praise Girls, they defend it. Google “in defense of Girls or something similar and you’ll see what I mean. We’ve even run pieces like that here on this site. More than the opinions in those pieces, I’m fascinated by their existence in the first place. Why does this show inspire such fervor? What is it about the series that inspires such animosity from detractors and defensiveness from fans? Why would “defense” pieces even be necessary?

Take a look at the first big scene of the first episode of the season: Hannah (Lena Dunham) is with her boyfriend, Adam (Adam Driver), when he’s confronted by a woman he used to date. The scene is awkward, darkly funny, fast-paced, and bitingly written:

The show itself is totally normal. It’s a dramedy about screwed-up people who make big mistakes, who confuse selfishness with basic self-interest, and who delude themselves in a variety of ways re: their careers and relationships. In other words, it follows what’s been one of the most popular fiction templates for eons, no matter what age group you’re talking about. The show has its ups and downs, good moments and bad, weak characters and strong, great moments and off-kilter ones. It’s a TV show. It’s a lot like most shows. Yet for most of its brief run — it premiered in April 2012 and has aired just under two dozen episodes since then — it’s been plagued by allegations of racism, nepotism, and egotism. Why? What’s happening here? What am I missing?

I’ve been thinking about this for weeks — months — and I don’t know if I’m any closer to figuring it out. I think a big part of it is that some people bought into the show’s marketing, which posits the series as a kind of bittersweet seize-the-day story and not a black comedy about confused misanthropes. Hannah’s line in the pilot in which she wonders if she might be “the voice of (her) generation, or at least a voice, of a generation” is pretty clearly a character defining moment that’s equal parts hubris and insanity, one of those things young people say when they’re trying to figure out how hard they can push against the world. It’s a textbook example of post-grad blind aspiration, but most importantly — and this is the part that seems to slip through cracks — it’s a statement being made by a character. Not the person writing or playing the character, but a fictional construct. It’s a good line because it’s the kind of thing people always say at that age. Author Thomas Wolfe, born in 1900, said when he was 23: “I don’t know yet what I am capable of doing, but, by God, I have genius — I know it too well to blush behind it.”

Yet things like that line become talking points because we buy into the illusion that’s being sold by HBO’s marketing department. That bit of dialogue becomes a mission statement, an m.o. for the show’s very being, which means if you buy into this line of reasoning, then liking the show stops being an expression of taste or interest or recognition and starts being a statement about who you are deep down. It becomes a way to define yourself. Marketing is always about triumph and resilience, and every story has to be about winning in some way. (There’s a reason every movie trailer looks the same.) Accordingly, it’s possible to wind up responding to — sometimes actually critiquing or making the focus of our conversation — the marketing and other things that are peripheral to the show, and not the show itself.

What’s more, marketing can be tricky because most people don’t like being told what they like before they like it. When ads say “This is a great thing,” you want to join in; when the tone shifts to “This is a life-changing thing that defines you, and you will feel dumb for not watching,” then the pitch runs the risk of alienating more people than it wins over. Viewers become willing to project bigger problems onto the show based on those campaigns, so instead of saying “This show isn’t really for me,” people indignantly declare “This show doesn’t speak for me!” As if any one piece of art could capture the voices of a generation, or even a fragment of it. As if a pitchman would ever tell us the truth.

But that’s only part of it. That’s why people misread the show; it’s not why people get so defensive about liking it. And the truth is that some things are just more personal. When you make a series that a percentage of your audience can strongly relate to — about young people going through trials and spirals more real than anything they ever saw on Friends — then you have the potential to engage people on a deep level in such a way that they come to identify with the story. They don’t just relate to it; they project onto it. This isn’t inherently good or bad, either. It’s just the way it goes with some stories. It has a lot to do with where someone’s from and what’s happening in their lives right this moment. Catch them a year one way or the other, and you wouldn’t mean anything out of the ordinary to them, but hit them on the right day and you’ll be with them forever. Something like Girls, which is very much about those moments of vulnerability, is more primed than another show might be to forge such a connection.

And — maybe the toughest of all — we’re primed to fight. Over everything. Not a day goes by that some branch of the Gawker empire doesn’t pass out the pitchforks and call readers to arms. Not a day goes by we don’t see people pilloried on Twitter for crimes no one remembers. Not a day goes by we don’t look for something to get upset about just so we can get upset. It’s an age of irony and second guesses, of doubt and fear, of curiosity coming out as anger. An athlete said a thing. A celebrity said a thing. A TV show talked about a thing. In the middle of all this, you’ve got a show that resonates powerfully with some of its audience, that’s also widely misread by a number of its opponents, and its being produced and distributed in a climate that prizes hostility. It’s the perfect setup for a seemingly endless cycle of antagonism and recrimination. It lets naysayers feel superior for bucking a trend they felt was forced on them, and it lets supporters play the role of valiant underdog. It becomes about the viewers, not the thing they’re viewing.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society and the Online Film Critics Society. You can also find him on Twitter.



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


Peter Dinklage's T-Shirt Delivers the Perfect Message to George R.R. Martin | Mindy And Danny: The Question Isn't "Will They, Won't They?" It's "Should They?"





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • soniadelvalle

    I decided Girls was not for me during the pilot, when she steals the hotel's maid tip. It made me so angry that the writers were asking me to like this horrible selfish person, like the audience is stupid or like we need to validate the doucheyness of young people. Maybe if I was an American priviledged white girl, I would understand the appeal of Girls, but I can tell you right here (from my desk at my lame gov. office job in a developing country) that Girls doesn't comunicate anything universal. It caters to a very specific, very loud and very self-centered audience and those are the people who deffend it. And I bet there's a whole lot of common folk like me who feel somewhat insulted by the arrogance that is the premise of this show, and there you can find it's most vocal detractors.

  • saramok

    Actually, I get a lot of shit from people when I say Breaking Bad is not my thing. Your argument still stands, it's odd Girls gets argued about so much compared to other shows people choose to not like or be indifferent about, but I feel Breaking Bad fans are pretty damn sensitive and not at all accepting about me not liking BB... which just makes me want to watch that show less and less.

  • Rodney Holston

    Ugh, this show and that lead actress. I don't know, something about all of it is very off-putting. I've caught a few episodes and while it wasn't bad and had a few funny moments, I wasn't in a huge hurry to really, really sit down and watch it. Have a friend who's all about it, but Lena Dunham is his spirit animal. I personally find Mindy Khaling much more pleasant.

  • googergieger

    They don't. You just can't shut up about it. Sorry. Just call em as I see em. Whale Biologist.

  • They don't. It only seems that way because the side that gives a --- about "Girls" won't stop writing articles like "Why Do People Argue So Much About Girls"?

    (I realize that I am somehow proving your point by arguing about the arguing. Damn you, Evil Genius. I refuse to click on any more GIRLS posts, even non-TV pieces about female juveniles who just wanna have fun.)

    EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm not at all annoyed by Girls recaps and discussions of episodes or even Dunham's celebrity doings/speakings. This site isn't "Things Lemondrop Likes"; the show is pop culture and this is a pop culture site. No quarrel there. But enough is ENOUGH already with the navel-gazey meta-debates about how debate-ridden the show is. It's become the blog version of an annoying co-worker who melodramatically announces "GOD, I can't believe EVERYONE is asking about XYZ...it's SO minor, really!" and uses your quizzical look as platform to launch the first - and last- XYZ mention of the day.

  • Lauren_Lauren

    . . . it’s a statement being made by a character. Not the person writing or playing the character, but a fictional construct.

    I would agree with you, if Lena had not written a series about herself, starring herself, co-starring women with the same privileged backgrounds as their characters. I would agree with you if Lena did not consistently display the same tone-deaf unawareness in real life as Hanna does on the show. I would agree with you if Girls offered any criticism of its characters or consequences for their selfish actions, but it doesn't.

  • Thank you. Really, bottom line is this is all that needs to be said.

  • Papillon

    Stop it please, seriously.

    Also, please recap Almost Human or True Detective.

    Thanks, bye.

  • Tinkerville

    Oh, here we go again. I fall into the category of people who hate it. However, I've come to realize that it's not entirely the show's fault. True, Lena Dunham grates on my nerves like nothing else but normally I can just not watch the show like I do Real Housewives and that wouldn't be an issue.

    The hatred comes from my peers (I'm a twenty-something lady) telling me the show does speak for us, those girls are us onscreen, and I'm stupid if I don't understand the show's genius. I'd be happy to agree to disagree with people who like the show and find it an accurate portrayal of my generation, if it weren't for the condescension that comes out of the woodwork whenever the topic is brought up.

    Just to be clear, I recognize that Lena herself isn't calling herself a voice of a generation. It's the bloggers, fellow twenty-somethings (that probably aren't far off from the spoiled brats on the show) that have truly made me reach a point of hatred with it. And let's face it. Bloggers love to bring the show up because it's so divisive, but that just adds fuel to the fire because I'd love to go a week without seeing yet another article talking about its genius. It's a vicious circle and the more it's written about the more I want to punch the show in its whiny face.

  • I don't care about the GD SHOW because I don't watch the GD SHOW. What enrages me--yes ENRAGES me--is the GD amount and character of the GD attention and analysis it receives, seemingly out of all proportion to the quality and content of this GD SHOW and especially in comparison to a far superior comparable production like SHAMELESS.
    While every teevee writer out there is rooting around in Lena
    Dunham's privileged white navel like pigs in sh*t, Emmy Rossum's stunning perf
    as a real human woman with real human problems is all but ignored. And
    when writers DO take note of Shameless, they can't see Fiona's victimhood [this season she's being sexually harrassed by a controlling bf/boss but does anyone notice or care? GD NO! PROOF: ww.uproxx.com/up/2014/01/shame...]
    whereas the least bit of a woeful burp or drunken hiccup or the vaguest hint of a new narcissistic neurosis out of Dunham's
    crew of miserable dunces elicits long-winded, never-ending, over blown,
    sympathetic analysis. It's incredible, and incredibly enraging. I can't
    let go of the classism and stupidity on display. NO I WILL NOT GODDAMMIT, I will not.

    The inequality of coverage is especially galling and baffling when you consider that SHAMELESS is not only real and human and alive with real human characters of all colors and stripes played by fantastically gifted young actors, [none of which GIRLS could say on its best GD day] it's also screamingly funny!!!

    I have to HUNT DOWN recaps of Shamless but I cannot fucking escape not only recaps of GIRLS, but endless discussions of minute details, boring side issues nobody but middle class teevee writers care about, and breathless psychological profiles of fictional characters who should just fucking go away for the good of mankind. Please.

  • I love you for this, I think. TEAM FUCKING FIONA.

  • loo shag brolley

    Please allow me to sum up your rant with this fabulous Bunheads GIF:

    http://i.minus.com/ikhdZhIcTJb...

  • abell

    Aw, now I miss bunheads.

  • I would pay SO MUCH MONEY to see Fiona do that to Hannah. She totally would, too.
    Wait, scratch that. I wouldn't want my darling Fiona to have to put up with the endless mewling about how mean and sexist she is for being so mean to the defenseless Hannah. Fiona has enough to deal with. Here, let ME do it.

  • Michelle

    I passively avoided this show for awhile simply because of all of the talk about it. Then, one very hungover day, my (nearly 35 year old, male) friend and I powered through the first and second seasons. At first we weren't sure about it - he hated Adam in the first season, for example - but kept with it and even though it's uneven, sometimes glaringly obvious in choices the characters make, it does feel true to life. Not everyone's life, sure, but I think most people can at least recognize or identify with a self-obsessed young person, sure that things will just magically work themselves out, and is coasting along in life for better or worse.

  • Paddington

    Over at AV Club I once got into a discussion with Tod Vanderwerf about the race critiques of Girls. TVD argued that because the show had such a small audience and the problems of race are structural that he didn't see why this show should be a target of the critiques compared to other shows. Now the comment section was responding to one of the longer think pieces they do over there, the For Your Consideration feature and he was arguing about why Girls is an important show. Do you see the disconnect? If the show is important then you have to accept the serious criticism leveled against it. If the show isn't important then why even bother with the hundreds of words you labored over?

    There is a vocal minority of detractors who are seriously sexist and hateful. They are the loudest, most annoying but also the most easy to dismiss. There is another strain of critic who has done what many commentators of the show have explicitly or implicitly requested of us, seeing this show as something different and important. When we approach it on those grounds, we get told we shouldn't because it's just a dramadey and isn't that big a deal. This is the Jon Stewart defense of wanting your prestige when you receive praise but not when the feedback is negative. It's insulting and for people who maybe don't even feel strongly in their dislike, when they get dismissed like they're idiots that leads to anger. Especially if the most prestigious, talked about, serious shows are generally almost exclusively white. Girls got all kinds of love out of the gate. Scandal became a cultural force almost entirely because of "black twitter". People notice things like that.

  • Yossarian

    I agree that the (lack of) portrayal of race in Girls a legitimate criticism. I think the problem is keeping that criticism in perspective. In the rush to make a point I think people overstate the significance of criticism like this with regard to a single show. As if the ability to make a race or gender or queer or class or age based critique of a show suddenly invalidates everything that show is trying to do. It can't work like that because nothing can stand up to that scrutiny. The conversations about race/class/gender/age/orientation/culture/etc are still important, but they are more criticism of culture in aggregate than they are criticism of individual works.

    Girls can be, and I would argue is, an important show, That doesn't mean that Girls has to be all things to all people. There has to be room for a show like Girls to exist, to be valid and important, to come up short in it's portrayal of certain issue, and yet to still be a valid, important, quality show.

  • Paddington

    I disagree, I don't think people overstate the significance of the criticism. It does exist in a larger context but that actually harms it because we are still celebrating the creation of near exclusively white spaces as important, and meritorious and are being told it's exclusivity shouldn't impact how you view its quality.

  • Yossarian

    It's exclusivity shouldn't negate how you view it's quality. It's a valid criticism, it does have an impact on how you view the show. But it doesn't mean we can't enjoy and celebrate the show, despite the omission of adequate treatment of black characters. (we can even take the omission as part of the text, that the lack of diversity is part of the story, that in one of the most racially diverse cities in America subcultures still tend to segregate and live and work in homogeneous communities. That the bias of the creator is reflected in the work. That's what criticism is supposed to be doing, elucidating. Not passing judgement and sentencing things to irrelevance for failing to meet the criteria for progressiveness)

    Because as I said above, if we start to apply that standard to everything how many things are we going to have left? How many works of art are completely immune to cultural criticism and criticism of omission? It's an impossible standard. And a standard that invalidates everything is of no use.

    Can you name one show or film that can't be criticized? Orange is the New Black comes closest, I guess. And for that it should be praised. But even that show can be and has been criticized. And does anything else even come close? Does that mean we can't celebrate or acknowledge any work of art, or that we can't talk about any flawed thing as "important". Of course not.

  • Paddington

    But that criticism is being made against a show that is being treated as more than entertainment so your charge that no show can survive that treatment is moot. A lot of shows exclude a lot of people and in the aggregate that's problematic but how many shows came with the kind and the amount of critical fervor that Girls did? How many shows reach that level of importance that this show is often treated as having? There's levels to this and when a show is treated as being more than just entertainment then it opens itself up to a different kind of critical reception. The exclusivity is subtext that the viewer adds, not something the show really grapples with so trying to articulate a defense for it is dishonest.

    If Girls is just some show then fine. It's racially exclusive but so are a lot of shows, whatevs. If it is suppose to be progressive or feminist and has a perspective that is fresh and new and wholly different than what much of the entertainment structure is producing, then its achievements and its flaws hold more weight. Lena's own response to the criticism of the racial exclusivity of the show, essentially she didn't know how so didn't, is reflective of a racial segregation that is almost entirely at the behest of white preferences and actions.

    Her world was racially segregated and she created a show that reflected that. She only became interested in remedying it when criticized. That means she was comfortable to create a world that didn't include me. And I'm suppose to appreciate or allow space for works that not only don't include me but in world where I was never considered. And I was happy to just be indifferent to the show. It isn't funny to me and the drama doesn't move me. But when people are like... well, yea it doesn't include minorities or whatever but its still great... How much celebration of white privilege are minorities suppose to tolerate before we're just tired of all of it?

    Yes, this is a structural problem. Lena Dunham didn't start it and it isn't hers to end. But she engaged in it, the same as other white show runners. She benefited from the system and were perpetuating a culture where your ignorance of others can be validated.

  • Yossarian

    And see, I think that's worse. I believe you but I think that your approach is very harmful and may even be worse than the people who hate the show because they are outright sexist. At least those idiots make a spectacle of themselves and reveal how stupid it is to think that way.

    But what you're doing is shutting down any work of art or any artist who tries to make something important or meaningful by holding them to an impossible, higher standard. How is that constructive? How is that encouraging of progress? If any ambition into meaningful/important art is picked apart mercilessly for it's failings.

    Again, show me an example of something, anything that succeeds in meeting the disparate political objectives of all the different liberal factions that are all waiting to prove their worth and relevance by pointing out what we do wrong. In your world, by your standard it's not safe to try. It's discouraging. It shouts down anyone who makes a flawed attempt.

    Because otherwise we would have to acknowledge that even though Girls isn't perfect, even though it has flaws and they shouldn't be swept under the rug, it's still a step in a progression that gets us closer to where we want to be and for that it's worth encouraging, and it's worth making our criticism constructive criticism (not show quality criticism, I know there are people who hate without pity, but the cultural criticism should be measured, constructive.)

    I mean, I've seen the alternative. I've been to those other web sites where nothing good is allowed to survive because we think it's so fucking important to point out the flaws and imperfections and tear things apart for getting it wrong. It's not good. It's not healthy. And it only slows progress down when we're not tolerant of incremental steps, when we hold Girls to a higher standard than Dads.

    I know it sounds like I think everyone has to love Girls and support Girls and say "you go, Girls!" That's not my point. There's a middle ground between unconditional support and tearing things apart for being flawed. Like I said in my first comment, I think the problem is keeping that criticism in perspective.

  • Paddington

    You're engaging in a strawman. I'm not establishing an impossible standard but you keep insisting I am for some reason. My point is if we're going to engage with her work and her perspective as important then you have to accept the good and the bad that comes with that. That includes deep racial critiques of the work and the perspective that gave birth to it. But your mileage may very with it. Someone who checks out or sees it as ultimately a worthless show due to its exclusivity isn't wrong nor are they being dishonest in their treatment of the show. I don't see how it's any less fair than saying it isn't as funny as community, or doesn't do dramady as well as Orange is the New Black. And I think people who are systematically excluded get to point out how the brand new, critically acclaimed show of import that continues that trend don't have to be "fair" and recognize the other neat things the show is doing because it really speaks to you.

  • I don't watch Girls because people talk about it. I watch because I like the characters (mostly) and because it's usually good for a few solid laughs. It's a 30 minute sitcom/drama about 20 something white women and their men in New York City. That's it. All of the characters are moderately to severely fucked up and the show seems to be about them healing themselves and becoming better people through their friendships. Or worse people in some cases. Although I wish to hell they would figure out what to do with Marnie because holy shit is she a mess.

  • The problem from where I sit is that the show/its marketing/people talking about it conflate Lena Dunham with the show. You have an opinion of Lena Dunham, and then it gets transferred onto the show, 1 to 1.

    Before seeing the show (and after the fifteen minutes of Tiny Furniture I could manage before ragequitting), I thought that she was the embodiment of a cultural narrative about my generation that I absolutely can't stand, and she's another example of privilege winning out in every possible way. And that's exactly what my opinion of the show was. Then I watched the first season and thought it was... fine? It's not capital-g-Great, but it is nice to see something that doesn't look like anything else out there, that shows real(-ish) sexuality, etc etc. I've had enough of shows that're primarily about horrible people being horrible, and about how dumb/incapable/narcissistic women are, so I haven't seen the other seasons, but I guess I will when that meter isn't so full.

    Reminds me of the Sex and the City backlash, too -- it hit the existential gag reflexes people who outwardly resemble the characters in the show but who wanted nothing to do with those lifestyles.

    It'd also rankle a lot less if people like Hannah and co didn't actually exist (coughWilliamsburgcough) and if there weren't so many essays everywhere about how millennials are the worst.

  • cruzzercruz

    Because it's supposed to mean something, and does to some people, despite the fact that it's not very funny and all of its characters are irritating. Not like "Oh, she's the worst!" around the water cooler, but like, "I feel personal aggravation every time one of them speaks." That goes for the males on the show as well. I feel like I'm living in a parallel universe every time Adam Driver gets praise heaped upon him.

    But, being an early 20s post-grad in NYC, I begrudgingly catch up on the show because somehow watching it feels less painful than hearing my peers cry "OMG you HAVE to watch. So relevant!"

  • Cree83

    I've never seen Girls. I'm guessing that part of the reason fans defend the show in such force is because some of the criticism is just based in blatant sexism and ageism. However, plenty of the criticism is probably valid. A lot of the criticism leveled against Sex and the City was just sexism and ageism too. I enjoyed that show. I thought it was funny. But it's not like I denied the fact that it was materialistic, shallow, had an unlikable main character, and employed entirely too many puns. I denounced critics for saying shit like SJP looked like a horse or Samantha was too old to act like a "slut," but I understood when people called the show out for its many faults. I'm not sure why Girls fans find it so hard to do the same thing, why they feel the need to push this show in everyone's face, but I'm sure millennials are to blame somehow. Or facebook or something.

  • Rodney Holston

    Carrie Bradshaw unlikeable? More like, Carrie Bradshaw: Spirit Animal.

  • Yossarian

    One difference is that Girls is more aware of the shallow and privileged nature of it's characters. Sex and the City celebrated fashion and materialism ironically and whatever flaws the characters had looking good was not one of them. The addition to $800 shoes was played for laughs, not as social commentary. It's completely valid to criticize Sex and the City for the constant high-end fashion product placement and glamorous portrayals of unrealistic lifestyles. Carrie Bradshaw was not really being presented to us as an unlikable character in the same way the cast of Girls is.

    And so it doesn't make sense to lob the same criticism at Girls. The show is aware of the privilege and self-importance of its characters, that's the whole point of the show. Using that criticism to detract from Girls is like complaining about Breaking Bad because meth is bad. That doesn't mean Girls is beyond reproach, you can legitimately not like the show, but you have to do better than faulting the premise unless you are saying that no show about self involved 20-something girls can possibly be good. And that's just ridiculous.

  • Cree83

    Like I said, there are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Sex and the City.

    In the same way, I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Girls. Lack of diversity seems to be one, though that's a criticism that can be leveled at many (most) shows, including SatC. There are probably other reasons - no show is perfect. I haven't seen it, so I don't know. My comment wasn't really comparing Girls to Sex and the City, it was more comparing fan response to Girls' criticism with fan response to Sex and the City's criticism.

  • Yossarian

    The problem is that so much of the criticism about Girls is unrelated to the show itself or else it is based on only a superficial understanding of the show.

    Yes, of course, as you and several other people have pointed out it is theoretically possible to criticize this show and the fans of this show can not claim that all criticism is invalid. If that's the point you want to make, I award it to you. (however I'd still allow for differing opinions and criticism of your criticism)

    But I really don't think that was ever in question, was it? Is there anyone saying the show is immune to criticism? If there is, they're wrong.

    Mostly though, this is an idea that is thrown up in lieu of an actual point, as if all we are trying to do is make the world safe for criticizing a television show.

    Other than a few overtures at diversity and what basically boils down to "I didn't get it, it didn't work for me" is anyone here actually talking about the show? Or are they complaining about how the people who like the show are bullies (and, is anyone besides me even aggressively defending the show in these comments?)

  • Tinkerville

    Yes, we actually are actually talking about the show. You're throwing out the "they're insulting it because they must not understand it" card, and frankly that's insulting.

    What many of us are trying to say is that it goes beyond disliking the fans, and I don't see them as bullies anymore than I did the people who were shoving Breaking Bad down my throat prior to my watching it.

    Girls brings up the discussion of what an entire generation is like. It goes deeper than diversity and deeper than feminism, and that isn't the show's fault but it falls into those conversations because it features the types of characters that many believe speak for them. This in turn always will lead to a much broader talk about whether Girls really is accurate in its portrayal, and that's when the real divisiveness happens.

    Allowing the show to be the trigger for that kind of divisiveness I think usually falls on the shoulders of bloggers who love poking that bear. But when every article about Girls inevitably implies that all twenty-somethings really are that way, it leads to anger being directed at the show instead of at the people making the implications.

    Let's not pretend that this is about "I didn't get it, wahhh!" It does a disservice to those that are trying to have real conversations about the show and what its real merits are.

  • Cree83

    Yes, the last thing. I believe that is most people's problem with the discussion of this show. You may be the only one aggressively defending the show in this particular set of comments, but both Dustin and Sarah Carlson have done so in their articles, and I've seen it quite often on Jezebel and Slate. I wouldn't call it bullying, but fans of the show sure seem insistent on telling everybody else that the show is criticized unfairly. Fine. Tell that to the authors of the articles that actually ARE sexist. Tell that to the jerks criticizing Lena Dunham's body. Tell off the people dismissing the show because its creator is in her mid twenties. Or at least save these comments for articles actually discussing the sexism and ageism leveled against Dunham and the show. But this article isn't even about that. The article is about how people can't dislike this show, or even be indifferent to it, without the fans of the show getting upset and taking it really personally. And it's understandable that some fans take it personally when it hits so close to home, but I can still be sick of hearing about it.

  • For the detractors, it's the Tim Tebow effect: there's a disconnect between Girls' hype/accolades/perceived greatness, and it's actual quality.

  • Yossarian

    Which means that it has nothing to do with the actual thing itself and it is entirely about the perception of that thing (and the surrounding media attention) from the perspective of the observer?

    I completely agree. I would only modify that last phrase to be "perceived quality"

  • Jezzer

    Like you could ever distill something down to just two words.

  • I like you.

  • Quatermain

    I've heard you use that a couple of times, and I still can't think of a better way to explain it to someone who has only the vaguest idea about the show and all it's attendant hoo-ha.

  • It's patent-pending

  • John W

    Why? Because it's four chicks instead of four dudes. That why.

  • Adam

    Bullshit. I hate when people use the gender card to deflect legitimate critisism. Entourage (a show about 4 overprivledged dudes, sound familiar?) got just as much hate as Girls.

  • John W

    Did Entourage generate as much discussion as Girls? Because I don't remember hearing or seeing the kind of discussion that Girls generate. I mean besides the usual recap. Shows about four dudes are a dime a dozen. Usually when you see a show with four female leads its usually as couples.

  • Jezzer

    Yes, Entourage got all kinds of scorn. Non-stop, even. It continues to this day.

    Sorry to head off your righteous indignation there. :(

  • John W

    Yes it got scorn. I understand that, Big Bang Theory gets all kind of scorn. But was anyone from Entourage touted as the voice for masculinity the way Lena Dunham is touted as the new voice for feminism? Or the worst thing to happen to feminism depending on your point of view. Girls, has touched on a cultural nerve.

  • Adam

    I'll give you that Girls gets more coverage, because their aren't many shows with female ensembles. But if you actually read the legitimate criticism, the things being said are not much different then what was said of Entourage.

    Almost exclusively white cast, check.
    Homosexuals being portrayed as stereotypes, check.
    A show ignoring the world around it and expecting the audience to sympathize with people born into opportunity, check.

    It's pretty much the same show and bad is bad. Orange is the New Black is getting universal praise, and guess what? It has a female ensemble cast. It succeeds because it's a good show, with great writing. Girls is and has neither.

  • John W

    Well I'm not commenting on whether the show is good or bad. I watch it and happen to like it. What I'm saying is that this show gets and unusual amount of coverage and it's because it's not the usual standard fare that we're used to seeing.

  • Adam

    Agreed. But the legitimate criticism being used against it, is not sexist.

  • Yossarian

    But the sexist criticism being used against it, is.

    And the people who comment on it even though they haven't seen it and the people who complain that people won't shut up about it need to get together in a room and work that shit out among themselves.

    The show has flaws, sure. It's a hell of a lot better than Entourage but I'll concede that some of that is my subjective opinion. Legitimate, thoughtful criticisms of the show can certainly be made, and no one should have a problem allowing that to be part of the conversation. But that makes up an incredibly small part of the conversation right now, most of which is just conversation about the conversation by people who don't watch the show with only a passing mention made to the few parts they saw before deciding they didn't like it.

  • Adam

    I'm referencing the legitimate criticisms of the show. The racism and classism specifically. Which has nothing to do with the gender of the shows main characters. Are their people who hate on the show just because Lena Dunham isn't a model? Yes. Are those people morons? Yup! But that doesn't mean all critism of the show is invalid.

  • Cree83

    I don't think people who have never seen the show should criticize the show, but I think people who've never seen the show are still entitled to comment about the show's coverage and fan commentary. We sure have seen plenty of that.

  • Quatermain

    'Cause bloggers gotta blog, that's why.

  • Tammy

    I'm only willing to weigh in on my experience, which is that the superfans of GIRLS with whom I am acquainted don't think of it as "a dramedy about screwed-up people who make big mistakes," they think of it as "OMG IT'S SO MY LIFE, she IS the voice of our generation!!!!" With no apparent irony or self-awareness. Add to that the endless op-eds trying to convince me of its feminist credentials, and you have a toxic cocktail of zeitgeist that I find difficult to ignore.

    It makes me ragey, simply put, because the Fans in my life explicitly DON'T view the show as a funny look at terrible people, they are seeing it as a validation of their own navelgazing.

    Believe me, I DESPERATELY wish I could ignore GIRLS. I tried to watch 3 episodes, saw what she was doing but found all the characters unpleasant to endure and it elicited zero laughs from me, so I stopped and was prepared to never think about it again. But, it INSISTS upon itself--or, more accurately, the folks in my life insist that I'm missing something.

    I assure you, America, I am not. I understand irony, and dramedy, and narrative structure, and also feminism, and gender politics, and also intersectionality [which is why the lilywhiteness of the whole endeavor remains an added frustration--seriously, everyone you know and encounter in your daily life is that white? REALLY?].

    I GET it. I see you winking at me, Lena, I really do. Please put down the Irony Hammer.

    But I can't help but audibly roll my eyes when the people in my life behave as though GIRLS were a documentary wherein the events unfold in real time. The temptation to comment about it is just. too. great.

  • It makes me ragey, simply put, because the Fans in my life explicitly
    DON'T view the show as a funny look at terrible people, they are seeing
    it as a validation of their own navelgazing.

    Yes times 10 thousand. This is just one of the enraging problems surrounding Girls and the attention it gets. Not only this, but nobody but nobody can tell me that Dunham and crew TRULY believe these characters are SUPPOSED to be unlikable. If they're so knowing then why do Dunham and crew spend so much time defending the indefensible racism/sexism of the miserable little shits?

  • Yossarian

    But that's not a criticism of the show, it's a criticism of (a segment of) the audience. It's not Brian De Palma's fault that dumb people glorify the violence in Scarface. It's not Vince Gilligan's fault that some people wish Walt would kill his wife and become a drug kingpin. You can't judge a show by it's tumblr following.

    And Girls is not meant to be satire or farce. The characters are intentionally flawed but not completely beyond redemption. The audience is supposed to sympathize with them but not excuse their flaws. The people who like the show appreciate the complexity. It doesn't work for everyone, fair enough.

  • Although I reserve the right and have certainly seen fit to criticize the audience, my above comment was a criticism of 1. The amount of attention it gets from bloggers and 2. Lena Dunham.
    I trust we're allowed to do either of those things, in your estimation, and are not being scolded to confine our comments to the show itself and nothing but.

    Look, I don't care if you love the show so much you want to marry it. I'm just sick of seeing articles about it on the front page of every entertainment site I frequent. Girls is impossible to avoid on the internet, and it feels exceedingly pushy, and it feels like it's all happening at the expense of more worthy shows and most of the analysis consists of teeth grindingly irrelevant navel gazing.. which, come to think of it, seems to fit the tenor of the show to a t.

  • Jezzer

    Yes, OMG, so much this. The hyperbole of the show's super-fans is what made it become so insufferable to me. I don't mean people who like the show, I mean the people who got fucking exalted about it. I mean, specifically, the people who thought Hannah stealing the maid's tip in the first episode was a defensible action.

    Add to that the fact that when you say you don't like the show, you get bombarded with "Oh, you just haven't watched enough episodes!" or "OMG YOU HATE WOMEN YOU MISOGYNIST!!!111!"

  • Add to that the fact that when you say you don't like the show, you get
    bombarded with "Oh, you just haven't watched enough episodes!" or "OMG
    YOU HATE WOMEN YOU MISOGYNIST!!!111!

    Yes, another of the problems I have with this GD show is how legit criticism is ALWAYS conflated with misogyny, not only by the superfans but by Dunham and crew as well.. It is so clearly an attempt to shut people up that it makes me want to shit talk it even more.

  • Yossarian

    But what is the value of basing your personal reaction and many, many comments on the "insufferable" response from what is by definition a very vocal minority? Your basically admitting that it's not about the show at all, but some kind of reaction to the reaction, an opportunity to engage in petty shit-flinging with anyone who likes the show because you don't like the tone of the extreme defenders of the show.

    Why? Doesn't that just make the superfans react louder, which makes you dig in deeper? What's the point? Why feed the thing you profess to not like? Or is that the point, and you really do like it?

    Can you explain the difference between someone like you who dislikes the show because of the distorted positive reaction of the superfans and someone you hate who defends the show tooth and nail because of the distorted negative reaction from the trolls and misogynists?

  • Tammy

    Jezzer, correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe you are saying you'd otherwise like the show, if not for the Superfans. It sounds like you already would have disliked it, and then the rabid defensiveness of the SuperFans compounds the dislike because there is such a disconnect for you between how you perceive the show's quality and the indignation of the people who think you SHOULD like it if you just "GOT IT."
    Am I wrong?
    I can only really speak for myself, Yossarian, and my response to you is: I hated the show when I watched it, and I hate it more every time someone tries to convince me why it's so relevant. It isn't relevant to me, and I don't feel it's as important as it wants to be, and insisting that it is does not help your case. Also, you keep speaking of "vocal minorities," but I think that depends on your circle, no? Your perception of the quality, quantity, and sources of GIRLS criticism does not match my experience in the slightest, for what it's worth.

  • Yossarian

    I'm saying once you start basing your criticism on a personal reaction to the cultural fervor, one way or another, you are losing the ability to say it's about the merits and detriments of the show. That may be part of it, but the conversation you're having is about something else entirely. It's the difference between Fox News and Edward R. Murrow

  • Tammy

    Though I think it's a really low blow to liken me to Fox News, I'm gonna try and stay civil here:

    I hear what you are saying, I really do, but I think you are reducing significantly. If one is (as I am) critiquing the idea of a piece of art's cultural importance as well as its perceived quality, the fervor for which people defend or detract is perfectly within the scope of appropriate criticism, if it is taken hand in hand with considering the piece of art itself. Unless a piece of art is conceived in a vacuum, the public's response to it is part of the experience of the piece of art. No audience=no art. I don't think you can, actually, consider one without the other. To take a classical example, when you read about "The Rite of Spring," you ALWAYS hear about the riots that happened the first time it was played live. Always. The public's reaction is an integral part of the piece's history.
    If someone based their criticism of Rite of Spring SOLELY on the riots, without listening to the piece itself, yeah, they'd be a douchebag. But if someone already had feelings about the piece as they heard it, and then discussed the piece alongside the public controversy, I don't see the problem at all.

  • Yossarian

    That conversation can be valid. In fact, I think that's the only conversation we're actually having, over and over again, since very few comments are tied to the actual show itself.

    But even that conversation has to have standards. And I reiterate my points above. If it's all so much emotional, partisan bickering and characterizing everything as a defense against an extremist position that no one seems to actually be defending then what's the point?

    You have a perspective. Everyone has a perspective. Mine is that this show is good, and these comments are mostly mindless emoting from people who think that talking about something is a worthwhile outlet for their resentment that the thing is talked about too much.

    If there were a single person here who said that all of you were misogynist idiots and the show is brilliant and perfectly realized and beyond criticism then maybe I could understand it. But where is that person? And if they aren't here, then who the fuck are all you detractors talking to and about? What are you defending yourselves against? And maybe the reason there are so many stories about this show has something to do with the fact that you keep reading them and manufacturing outrage about the Teflon showrunner and her imaginary clothes out to trample your god-given second amendment right to free speech.

  • Tammy

    Yeah, dude, I pretty clearly said in my very first comment that the SuperFan people I was talking about are people in my actual life, outside of Pajibaland. It's hard to cite actual IRL conversations on a blog's comment page, so you'll just have to take my word for it, unfortunately. Not sure what you're after at this point: the article asked "Why do we like to argue about GIRLS?" In answer to Carlson's question, I came on to say, I argue about GIRLS because it's ubiquitous among my circle of NYC 20-35somethings in various degrees, and I happen to know quite a few of those 20somethings who don't see it as a commentary or critique of their lives, but instead as a reinforcement of their life choices--and that pisses me off, and makes me want to talk about it and its social context.

    No, these people who exist in my actual life do not comment on Pajiba: but please, by all means, continue to assert that my outrage is manufactured or that my comments have no connection to the show, despite me assertion that I have, indeed, watched the show and found it wanting as a piece of art, as well as problematic as a piece of culture.

  • Yossarian

    Well see now we have something substantive to talk about and that makes things much more productive.

    The annoying endless internet coverage shouldn't be blamed all on the show. That finger has to point back to the society and internet culture that can't stop clicking and commenting. To hold that against the show is, I think, unfair, and anyone who takes the bait of a "Why do we like to argue about GIRLS?" post surrenders the right to complain about too much arguing about GIRLS. (but that doesn't mean you have to like the show; you don't have to like the show)

    If large numbers of 20-35 women in NYC identify with the show, albeit uncritically and missing the point that the characters are flawed, doesn't that mean the show is doing something right in how it portrays this reality? Or do you think it is an unrealistic fantasy projection of idealized 20-somthingness that they are identifying with, and Dunham is doing a crappy job of staying grounded?

    Which raises the question, do you think Dunham realizes that her characters are flawed and unlikable, and do you think that this show is partially a criticism of the self-absorbed characters being portrayed?

    Because if it is, then I don't see how you can blame Dunham for people failing to get what she is doing. That's like blaming the Onion for irresponsible journalism. Or blaming Grand Theft Auto video games for being irresponsible in encouraging violence.

    I think the show is obviously not endorsing or validating all the decisions of it's characters any more than Breaking Bad is forgiving the decisions made by Walter White. I do think it is asking us, or challenging us to sympathize with and root for those characters, and sometimes (in season 2 especially) it goes too far in pushing us away, but ultimately I find it a very enjoyable show, and a valuable piece of culture.

  • Tammy

    I wanna believe you don't hear how condescending your tone is here--to wit:

    "anyone who takes the bait of a "Why do we like to argue about GIRLS?" post surrenders the right to complain about too much arguing about GIRLS. (but that doesn't mean you have to like the show; you don't have to like the show)" --> My initial gut reaction to this is "PLEASE TELL ME MORE ABOUT WHAT I DO AND DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ARGUE ABOUT WITH YOUR BLESSING." Rational brain kicks in, however, and I'll respond by saying, uh, I'm not complaining about people arguing about GIRLS, I'm complaining about GIRLS. So, again, not sure where you're going here.

    You also led with: "Well now see we have something substantive to talk about" [which elicits a similar "THANKS FOR THE PERMISSION, DUDE!" reaction in my gut], so my desire to continue to engage after that is pretty much nil.

    I leave you with this: You're asking for answers to different questions than I am presenting. You're complaining that I'm complaining about people arguing about GIRLS, which I don't believe I ever did. You also ask if the fact that 20-35 year olds identify with GIRLS is an indication of its success in achieving what Dunham wants. But if I fundamentally dislike what Dunham is trying to do (and I promise you, I GET IT, I just think it sucks), why would it matter if she's successful at it or not? I don't like the premise/characters/situations of her show, so her execution of those elements is not going to sway me.

    You can serve me a beautifully constructed shit sandwich, but it's not going to convince me that I like the taste of shit.

    I'm out.

  • Yossarian

    I don't mean to be condescending. But then this is the internet, and crazy spiraling arguments about meaningless pop culture stakes with strangers from around the world are hard to keep grounded and civil.

    And, actually, I don't think we disagree that much. I mean, we have completely different opinions about a television program but that's no big deal. Of course you can complain about it (not hat you need my permission), you can hate it, you can think it's awful and socially irresponsible. I can disagree and you can have no interest in discussing it further. You aren't taking any of the positions that I was attacking so, yeah, that leaves me without a point. And I am sincerely sorry if I attributed other people's vitriolic comments and poor logic to debating you and your position. That's not fair or productive.

    And there you have it: agree to disagree*

    *that was meant to be condescending, but aimed at Jezzer

  • Jezzer

    "I don't mean to be condescending..."

    *proceeds to be condescending, with a soupçon of pompous*

  • Jezzer

    Yossarian is physically incapable of agreeing to disagree. He thinks every fucking thing is up for hours of debate.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Hence the name. (though I thought this Yossarian is a she?)

  • Yossarian

    boy

    And what are the comments for if not endless hours of debate? You looking for work from home opportunities or something? I hear that Jessica's co-worker's Mother-in-law is doing quite well for herself

  • Tinkerville

    I am completely on board with you and posted something similar down the thread prior to seeing this.

    When I say I hate the show, I say that with full understanding that it has as much to do with the fans as it does with the show itself. I'd say it's an even 50-50.

    I'm more susceptible to hating Girls because it's a show that supposedly represents my generation, and that's a very touchy subject (at least for me). When I get irate with people for telling me that I need to watch it because it truly is the voice of our generation, it's an instant blow because they're saying that those whiny, spoiled brats onscreen are speaking for us, even if the show isn't saying it itself. For that reason it becomes impossible to ignore it because oftentimes their opinions are being said directly to me and are invading every area of the Internet. It's a deeper issue than "boo, I don't like the fans so I don't like the show!" It's about what people are saying it represents and what it means for those it purports to represent.

    The personal reaction becomes part of the criticism because the two are intertwined, and I don't think that's limited to Girls and I don't think it makes me in any way an idiot for falling prey to that. In this day and age, fan response can become a part of a show's cultural narrative.

  • Mrs. Julien

    This right here is where things are going find themselves careening in places where they should not let them go.

  • StellaOliver

    You nailed it.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    She nailed it with the Irony Hammer.

    (I like the show, but mercifully, don't know people who claim it as validation of their lives.)

  • Tammy

    Thank you! And for the record, for those of you bringing up Sex & The City, I had EXACTLY the same problem with it when it came out. I was in college when SATC was a thing, and we can talk all day about how the show was aware of how unrealistic the lifestyle it portrayed was, and how that was part of the "joke," but I ACTUALLY KNEW WOMEN who went into $6K or more of debt buying Jimmy Choos because they bought into this idea that that was how real ladies lived.

    These were otherwise smart women. With real degrees from actual schools and everything. Going into massive credit card debt because a show they liked seemed to justify 20something lust for an exotic life they had no ability to afford.

    I see no difference between this blind acceptance of the SATC fantasy and the blind acceptance of the GIRLS worldview by the fangirls I know, and the biggest lesson it has taught me is that you CAN'T assume your audience is as in on the joke as you think they are. Just ask Dave Chapelle--why do you think he quit his show at the top of his game? Because he got sick of dudebros quoting his own show's racial jokes sans the irony or worldview with which they were originally written. Watch "Dave Chappelle's Block Party;" he explains it better than I ever could.

    All this to say: You can't assume who is or isn't in on the joke.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    wtf. That bit about SATC makes me sad. I hated the show when it came out, because I was living in NYC and resented the shallow depiction of life here. When I watched it in reruns, a little older, I found some of it more funny, some of the relationship stuff more honest than I'd expected to. But none of the characters were people I would emulate. ESPECIALLY not in their shopping habits. Ew.

  • Girls doesn't care if it's audience is in on the joke. Girls asks it's audience to do just exactly what it is doing: validate the narcissism of it's creator.

  • libertyftw

    I'll take a swing at answering that, and the alarms go off as soon as "bitingly well-written" and "Girls" are in the same article.

    Here it goes: The writing and acting in the show is all sorts of average. It's not good in the way that Breaking Bad captures the nuances of a character like Walter White through the seasons nor does it display solid pacing like the Wire, Breaking Bad, The West Wing, the Sopranos, or Sex and the City. I mean...it doesn't. You slog through the second half of Season 1 of that show much like you slog through the second half of Season 2 of True Blood.

    I'd rather not write a novel in this comment and cite a million scenes, but there are very few examples that stand out as smart pieces of writing. In season 1 when Hannah meets her ex-boyfriend and doesn't know he's gay? That's solid writing. Most of the rest of it was entertaining and fun, but just like Hannah, I wouldn't confuse Dunham's writing with ANYTHING of a generation.

    It's a fun show deserving of an audience, but isn't worth critics using words like 'genuine,' 'millennials,' 'post-college angst'. It's just not written well enough to analyze on a granular level.

    I wish I could avoid the commentary on this show because it's really not bad to have on in the background. It's amusing, entertaining, and a great TV snack on a lazy Sunday morning. But I understand the internet's frustration when critics confuse a 'snack' for an 'entree.'

  • BetterCallSaul

    I'm so excited that we're at the stage where we argue about why we're arguing about Girls.

    Liked the article though. I don't really dig the show, but it does get annoying when so many continue to write about why you should dig it or, even more irritatingly, why you're wrong if you don't. Reminds me of an avclub article that derided breaking bad during its last half season. I think the commenters would've burned the author at the stake of bad taste if they could have.

  • Kate at June

    When something presents itself as progressive, it is more harshly criticized when it isn't.

    Girls is presented as a feminist show. It gets called out on racism and classism all the time because
    A. Those are huge issues within the feminist movement
    B. There's probably hope that if a show strives to be progressive, that they will want to improve where they are failing.

    Sex and the City suffered similar issues, but wasn't met with nearly as much vitriol about it because the argument for it being a feminist show was really weak.

    eta: I have no opinion on it as I've never watched more than a few clips online....but this is my guess.

  • Yossarian

    That might be true of the criticism that is coming from the "more feminist/progressive than" crowd, of which there certainly is some. But there is also a ton of criticism coming from people who seem to resent the show for existing at all, and for getting so much "undeserved" attention. And I don't think that backlash has much to do with constructive criticism of the multicultural shortcomings of the feminist aspirations in Girls.

    I think that has more to do with the distorting and amplifying effects of hating things anonymously on the internet. The internet is talking about the show and paying attention to the show, and people want to be part of that and they want attention so they jump in with an opinion and the whole thing feeds on itself.

    Some of it is rooted in misogyny and sexism, and the people who resent the fact that Dunham is getting too much praise just because she's a woman and that's not fair. Some of it is rooted in that mindset that in order to be cool you need to distance yourself from anything that is getting too much attention and put down the thing that other people are paying attention to in order to put yourself above it.

    Add to that the defensiveness of the people who legitimately like the show and take the bait of the bullying and trolling in anonymous comment sections and the desire of bloggers to write high-minded think pieces examining the sexist overtones of that discussion and the fact that so many people who don't watch the show will still click on the stories about the show because they're drawn to the controversy and they continue to feed it even while they resent it for being so ubiquitous and the whole thing just keeps spiraling on.

  • JJ

    I agree with the sentiment, and I think that a major component is revealed when you add the phrase "on the internet" to the end of those sentences. "It’s almost impossible to find discussions like that about HBO’s Girls [on the internet]." You can find similar polarized arguments about Breaking Bad both here on Pajiba sometimes and on other sites. I've had conversations with people about Girls just like you've had with your wife about Breaking Bad. For me, those in-person conversations go much the same take-it-or-leave-it kind of way. But those extreme, polarized conversations are the ones we remember, right? Unless we're past the point where "Wow, I just had a surprising civil conversation" is the exception.
    /on in the internet

  • I don't watch Girls. I don't hate Girls. I'm the very, very tiny group of people who are nonplussed about it.

    I guess this is what it must feel like to not care about Game of Thrones and have every site dissect it every single day it's on.

  • I wouldn't even care if the dissecting went on ONLY during the season but this is not the case--the blathering and droning on and on and on about Girls goes on year 'round. I don't care if the fans are doing it on their own blogs, tumblrs, twitters whatever because these are easily avoided. but pieces are published seemingly every day by front page authors on one entertainment site or another, to the point you simply cannot avoid talk of Girls if you care about entertainment, tv, culture, etc.

  • idiosynchronic

    Since I don't do GoT or Girls, I can verify this.

    Now, when the fuck is someone going to start the Almost Human weekly recaps??

  • ERM 275

    I only watch Girls because people talk about it so much. It's not great, but it's slightly entertaining and each episode is only 30 minutes...

  • Jessica J. Castillo

    my co-W­­­­­­ο­­­­­­r­­­­­­Ker's mother-in-law Μ­­­­­­а­­­­­­K­­­­­­е­­­­­­ѕ $­­­­­­­­86 an հ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ս­­­­­­r on the і­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­е­­­­­­τ. She has been unemployed for 6 Μ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ but last Μ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ her check was $­­­­­­­­16628 just W­­­­­­ο­­­­­­r­­­­­­King on the і­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­е­­­­­­τ for a Ϝ­­­­­­е­­­­­­W հ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ս­­­­­­rs. check my source,... WWW.youtubecelebrations2014wat...

    ✼✼✼✼ ✼✼𐑤✼✼ ✼✼✼✼ ✼✼✼ ✼𐑞✼ ✼✼✼It lets naysayers feel superior for bucking a trend they felt was forced on them, and it lets supporters play the role of valiant underdog. It becomes about the viewers, not the thing they’re viewing.

blog comments powered by Disqus



film / tv / lists / guides / box-office / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / TV Podcast / books / cbr




Trending


Follow Us



Related Posts




Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins