A Meathead Watches Gilmore Girls (“Kill Me Now” and “The Deer Hunters”)

Avatar

Sam Wilkinson

According to a faithful reader, I'm Ordinary Times's "least thoughtful writer." So I've got that going for me, which is nice.

Related Post Roulette

22 Responses

  1. Avatar Chris says:

    Oh man, I better start watching (we eschewed TV for Edge of Tomorrow from Redbox last night) so I can catch up. I see a GG weekend in my near future.Report

    • Avatar Chris in reply to Chris says:

      OK, I’m 15 minutes into the first episode, and it’s… rough.

      “There are several chapters from a Stephen King novel I’d reenact before I’d consider that option.”

      Tell me it gets easier.Report

      • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to Chris says:

        The promise that has always been made to me is that the show only hits its stride in the second season. If the first is awful, try the first few in the second and see if anything is better. If not, abandon ship.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Chris says:

        The first episode ended OK, but the dialogue, to the extent that it can even be called that (it’s more like a series of monologues with each character throwing out lines that can be taken as responses to the other characters lines or just considered by themselves), is just sooooooo awful. The only moment I even chuckled was when the father fell asleep at dinner as the mother and daughter were arguing over a conflict that he’d exacerbated with obvious jabs at his daughter earlier in the meal, but this is such an easy trope (the clueless old father/grandfather who’s not at all interested or entertained by women’s drama) that the chuckle quickly turned into annoyance at that as well.

        Hell, I’m not even sure these are good, likeable people, at all. In Episode 1 we see Lorelai the Elder make a joke about the Menendez murders to her daughter, place her kitchen staff (and perhaps the entire inn) at risk by not firing an obviously dangerous chef because that chef is her best friend (“Ooooh, she almost set the place on fire, again. Heh… that’s so Snooky”), treat the French dude shitty (though the French dude is an ass too, because he’s French, and the French are asses, right?), make fun of the guy who works at the cafe, etc.

        I think I’ll take your advice and watch Season 2, Episode 1, and if I can’t make it through that one without throwing my shoe at the television at least 3 times, I’m going to give up.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Chris says:

        There’s plenty of room over here in the the naysayers section.

        Nay, we say!

        Also, we have chips and dip.Report

  2. Avatar Glyph says:

    arriving at her test late, a violation of Chilton’s honor code. …an entirely arbitrary rule

    Is it? If the point of school testing is to see that material has been learned within a specified timeframe, then why is requiring that testing be point-in-time arbitrary or unfair?

    If you have only 5 days to study for the test, but I have 6 (or 5.5, or…), is that somehow less arbitrary, or more fair?

    (I’m not even WATCHING these, and I want to get involved in the controversy. No Child Left Behind! Common Core!)Report

    • Avatar Sam in reply to Glyph says:

      She arrives for her test a few minutes late. Having less time to finish the test would be one thing. Not being able to take it all is stupid. One is a natural consequence. The other is capricious.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Sam says:

        I won’t argue ‘stupid’, but I will continue to contest words like ‘entirely arbitrary’ and ‘capricious’. Assuming Rory was (or should have been) aware of the Code, then the rules are the rules. You may think that 5 minutes more to study is fairly offset by 5 minutes less to take the test, but the instructor may not.

        If I’m 5 minutes late to a job interview in which the employer has stressed punctuality, due to my oversleeping because I was up late prepping – then he’s not being “arbitrary” or “capricious”, to deny me the interview.

        I mean, LIFE is “arbitrary” or “capricious”, but that’s not what we’re on about here.

        This is the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten. 😉Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Sam says:

        Also, school vouchers!Report

      • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to Sam says:

        To my mind, arriving late should involve the obvious reduction in available time to complete the task, not the elimination of the ability to attempt the task at all. That’s true of somebody late for an interview or late for a test. I simply do not know what exactly is accomplished by implementing an all-or-nothing standard as it relates to a real world in which human beings exist.Report

      • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Sam says:

        In a case of people taking a test, it can discourage interruption of those taking the test who showed up on time?Report

      • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to Sam says:

        Will,

        I will note first and foremost that I am entirely unsympathetic to the claim that it is burdensome to simply hear somebody come into a room five minutes late.

        Supposing that I was sympathetic to the sort of busybody who’d make that claim, I’d say that the classroom door should have been locked. It wasn’t. If you’re going to let the student into the room, let her take the test, but only allow her the limited time that she left for herself.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Sam says:

        I’m taking Professor Wilkinson’s class, I hear he’s a marshmallow.

        Is there any hard limit of students arriving whenever they want to (one arrives 5 minutes late, the next 10, the next 15, and so on) that you would consider potentially disruptive or distracting to the punctual test-takers, who deserve the entire allotted time and minimal distraction? Some people experience extreme anxiety when taking tests, and unlimited random arrivals probably don’t help with their ability to concentrate.

        Is it incumbent on the instructor to lock the door, if he doesn’t want students to enter late; or incumbent on the student to arrive on time, as they should already know?

        If I arrive at a store 5 minutes after its posted closing time and find the door still unlocked, should they be obligated to let me shop? After all, they didn’t lock the door, and I am a real human being who needs socks.

        What about the tasks that you, as instructor (or interviewer) hoped to complete in that allotted test time? No worries that starting them late, or continually interrupting them to hand out another test, might mess up your schedule; or that it’s rude of the late person to show up whenever they like, rather than at the appointed time?

        Rory wasn’t in a car accident, or something out of her control – she stayed up late, and overslept/missed an alarm. And I am working under the assumption that the Code is something she did know, or should have known.

        I get this rule/teacher being the ‘villain’ within the context of fiction, and we all naturally identify with the ‘rebels’; but similar to the EPA guy in Ghostbusters, in real life people like this have a job to do, and part of that job is enforcing rules that are theoretically there for everyone’s benefit; and sometimes IRL, the ‘rebels’ are the ones acting like entitled jerks.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Sam says:

        I think you’re all wrong.

        The rule isn’t arbitrary but it has nothing to do with the test. It’s a way to begin preparing kids for the uncaring and competitive world that parents send kids to that kind of school to prepare them for. Schools like Chilton aren’t there to make kids smarter, they’re there to give kids a leg up on being editor of the Harvard Law Review or interning the summer of your junior year as the personal assistant of the CEO at Universal Petroleum. Teaching kids to drive themselves crazy about grades, schedules, peer ranking and so forth is exactly what parents shell out big money for schools like Chilton to do.

        This episode reminded me of nothing more than Paper Chase, and the headmaster nothing more than John Houseman’s Prof. Kingsfeild.Report

      • Avatar Sam Wilkinson in reply to Sam says:

        Glyph,

        It should be noted by somebody – maybe the person writing the reviews? – that there was an accident on the way to the test. A deer manages to run into Rory’s Jeep as she’s driving to school. She stops to investigate briefly.

        As for arguing about the test, how about we agree to disagree? I’m not going to think that it makes sense to deny a person a chance to take a test just because they’re a few minutes late, and you guys are officious animals who probably cheer when police departments arrest jaywalkers. Cool?Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Sam says:

        NO WAY, TO THE DEATH, WILKINSON!

        Just kidding. You know I only argue this hard when it doesn’t matter. If I am going to tilt at a windmill I prefer it to be completely imaginary and irrelevant.Report

  3. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Depictions of wealth are irrestible to the movie and television industries because it is very attractive. Beauty and bling attracts viewers. Poverty isn’t that attractive, making it difficult to portray unless your going for the gritty set. If you show Lorelai Gilmore, Sr. and Lorelai Gilmore, Jr. in more realistic material surroundings than the Gilmore Girls would be less people of a show.

    The D thing isn’t that unrealistic though. I had a friend in high school that was really brilliant and got into Yale. She was floored about how much more well prepared the students who went to elite private schools were for Yale than she was. Elite private schools can get really intense because they have the luxury to.Report

    • Avatar Kim in reply to LeeEsq says:

      McCain’s wife is not attractive. I’m not sure who the heck thinks the wealthy are attractive, but they’re really not.

      Of course, you couldn’t pay an actor to have that sort of plastic surgery, so you get pretty people pretending that they’re wealthy.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Kim says:

        Kim, I wrote depicstion of wealth are attractive not that wealthy people are attractive. I’m referring to things like houses, apartments, clothes, cars, and jewelry, and well laid out tables.Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird says:

    I’m surprised that Richard didn’t tell Rory that he pushed to have Rory killed.Report

  5. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Its the stiff upper lip in action.Report

  6. Avatar NoPublic says:

    Sookie is one of the most positive female characters on TV in the last few decades IMNSHO. She’s allowed to have faults but not be defined by them. Ditto relationships. She is darn close to an actual human being. Which shouldn’t be nearly as uncommon as it is.Report