We’re shifting away from readings about the social issues portrayed on The Wire toward readings on the show itself. Note that it’s hard to find readings that don’t contain any reference to things we’ve yet to seen, so you may want to read with a “mental fast-forward” when you see a reference to future events. I’ve tried to avoid sequencing anything too early that contains major spoilers, but there will be minor references at times.
Please post comments here on what you’ve read and whether you agree or disagree with various authors’ arguments.
Of the readings that we had for today, I especially enjoyed Mittell’s piece and the article from PopMatters. I think the parallels that Mittell draws between The Wire and the medium of videogames are particularly fascinating – and speaking of The Sims and the show’s “simulational rhetoric”, I couldn’t help but think of a connection to Second Life, because the degree of complexity and realism that The Wire treats its characters and institutions with resembles more closely the infinitely intricate universe created by Second Life. Also, I really liked the discussion of diegetic games (both sports games and “THE game”) in the context of the ludic style of The Wire, and I think that parallel between content and form was extremely original.
Huston’s article from PopMatters was really effective at extracting certain conclusions from the development of the show and the character arcs – I feel we’ve noticed many of the things he mentions as we’ve been watching the show, but didn’t quite contextualize it within the entire series like the article did so well. One perfect example of this is the character arc of Carver, that Huston discusses. I have definitely been following Carver’s transformation throughout the seasons, as he is, in my opinion, one of the richest and most meaningful characters on the ensemble. Not to mention that he’s damn hot too, which also helped focus my attention on his character, I guess. And while it is clear that Carver grew immensely, professionally speaking, since the beginning of Season 1, I hadn’t thought about it in terms of the polarity between good police-work (thinking in terms of the big picture, forging personal relations and attempting various forms of reform) and bad police-work (straight up head smashing on the corners and easy buy busts). Whereas in the beginning, he was exactly the same as Herc and enjoyed that kind of violent street-level enforcement – and we were not spared of seeing him brutally beat up dealers both on the streets and at the police station – by Season 3 he was willing to put his job on the line to hide the body found in Hamsterdam, just so that a reform experiment (whose rationale was diametrically opposite from Herc and Carver’s previous approach to policework) would be allowed to survive a little longer. I’m really curious to see how his character will continue to develop, especially now that he has just gotten involved with Randy – I am hoping that he will step up and perhaps take on a role model function, similar to Cutty’s. And finally, I also wouldn’t mind getting a glimpse of his personal life too, because I feel that his character is so complex and so central to the life of the series, that the creators’ decision not to penetrate into his intimate life seems almost odd. It seems to me that no other central character is denied that dimension: we know at least something about the personal life of McNulty, Daniels, Kima, Carcetti, Omar, Beadie, Freamon, Pearlman, Nick Sobotka and all the characters who undergo major arcs or play significant roles within the diegesis. One exception here might be Bunk, but even in his case, although we never see his wife, at least we know that he has one and that he’s a cheater. But about Carver (and Herc, for that matter) we only know he once had a girlfriend who liked going to movies…
In continuing yesterday’s pre-screening discussion about reorganizing the course, I think the Mittell article should be assigned in the first or second week of the semester. I feel like the article’s strongest function is as a means of exploring the different ways one could (and should) receive The Wire. As such, it might be best to read and discuss it at the beginning of o the semester and then be able to approach the whole series with that knowledge. Obviously, spoilers are a big concern – no one wants the material ruined for them. But Mittell’s article reveals less super-secret information than the other three we read this week (I’m particularly irked about Dana Polan’s reference to the series’ last scene…). In fact, the only real spoiler to speak of is the line about Stringer Bell line on page 4, and that could be blacked out without any real detriment to the article. It just seems to me that Mittell’s emphasis on the sort of meta-level of viewership and narrative reception belongs at the beginning of the semester so that we can have it in the back of our minds as we progress through the series.
Sorry about the Polan one – I actually thought I’d put that in the last week, but clearly my syllabus-creating brain goofed up!