McNulty may not be a hero in the traditional sense (he certainly does not succeed in the task at hand), but I think he represents a type of integrity/honesty to strive for. Watching the Wire, it was apparent that McNulty was one of the few characters with a strong moral code. He is typically more concerned with solving crimes and murders than blindly attempting to advance his career in the police force. McNulty’s strong moral character and drive is something that I immediately identified as a heroic element. The article does mention that The Wire likes turn its conventions inside out to address the issue of justice in television and in the real world, but I don’t think we can discount that McNulty is one of the most sympathetic characters based on his desire to do what is right. Unlike in other shows, McNulty’s desire for justice is ultimately unfulfilled, but that does not mean we can discredit his philosophy.

This sentence captures a goal of Simon throughout his production of The Wire; the idea that there is no purely good or purely evil character in modern society, nor has there ever. With most modern ‘cop’ shows, there is a clear protagonist and a clear antagonist, and these characters do little to diverge from the cliché attributes we assign to a generic protagonist or antagonist. This is not the case in The Wire, where the characters are developed with such complexity that it is difficult for the viewer to, in good conscience, classify McNulty as a protagonist due to his treatment of his wife, kids, and dissenting co-workers (personally or professionally). Of the same accord, it is difficult to fully characterize Avon as the antagonist due to his love and desire to provide for family as a core motivator for the actions he takes. This is confusing to the viewer, who expects to be able to easily classify TV characters as either good or evil, and makes the show so much more mentally taxing than normal television because viewers experience mixed emotions about the characters. This is all part of a larger message Simon is trying to convey in that, through roundabout logic, any character can conceivably be deemed to be taking the best possible action given their circumstances. It is often the circumstances (upbringing, etc) which shape the personality and goals of the characters in The Wire, and that begs the question: can any individual be considered purely good or purely evil given what we know of their upbringing and current circumstances?

Under Aristotle’s definition of drama stated here, The Wire does an excellent job of separating itself from other crime shows, as listed by Walton. As we have discussed in class, one of the show’s strong suits is its ability to rationalize the antagonists, which it does by examining motivations, desires, reasons, etc… We have also discussed The Wire’s brutal honesty, contrasted by the fact that it is a fictional television series. Later, this article deals with grapples with idea that someone could watch this show and remain unaffected by these underrepresented communities. How much does The Wire use dramatization, as defined here, to make this point? Does the fact that the show is fictional “let the audience off the hook?” Should upper and middle class audiences, totally unfamiliar with the worlds depicted in the series, view the show as a fair imitation of reality, or a dramatization of reality? How does that affect the call-to-action of the show?

Intricacy; is this what makes The Wire one of the best drama shows ever on television? It has been mentioned repeatedly that The Wire does not define the bad guy or good guy and that the show blames social structures and not individuals for the predicaments plaguing the city and the individuals of Baltimore. Where most dramas try to simplify their plot and characters for their viewers, The Wire does the complete opposite. The Wire develops its characters and plot in such a complex and intricate way that it takes on the role of a drama but defines it differently.

I like the fact that this article refereed back to Western films because many of the traditional story structures we have for viewing media comes from Westerns. The idea of a clean cut hero, villain, beginning, middle, end way of make films and tv series can all trace their roots to Westerns but The Wire takes on the challenge of portraying a non perfect, undefined world, lost world. Some place where "the America left behind” is(9). Those conditioned by poverty and neglect for generations. But does that make it more authentic because it takes on that challenge or does it merely pose as just another show on tv that centers on crime and happens to have a good plot

The Wire attempts to give audiences an objective portrayal of urban life—no matter how bleak or unsatisfying this might be in terms of our deeply ingrained desire for poetic justice—and yet relies on constructing a web of characters with complex subjectivities in order to do so. It is important to recall that the compassion or affinity we feel for the characters does indeed affect the way we perceive “the game” and together compound to deliver a particular message, namely that in urban Baltimore, “corruption is the state of things.” While The Wire is certainly light years ahead of traditional crime dramas in analyzing the institutions that impact urban crime, police and politics, it may emulate the documentary mode, but it is still a fictionalized construction. How might the subjectivities of the various characters deter from an objective portrayal of urban life?

Wilson’s idea of innocence as a threat to the status quo within the world of The Wire is a compelling concept. Within the confines of “The Game” (however one may choose to define it), it becomes obvious that the players must constantly be on their toes, aware of the action around them. Those who are unaware of the threats that face them tend to be the ones who serve as catalysts for eventual death, damage or destruction. In season four, McNulty innocently springs Bodie from jail and takes him out to lunch, unaware that his actions would directly lead to Bodie’s death. Also in season four, Randy serves as a snitch in a seemingly innocent way, simply trying to free himself from the trouble he was to face in school. The actions of the boy lead to his removal from school, the death of Little Kevin, the burning of his foster home and the hospitalization of his foster mother. Even though Wilson states that there is no good and evil, I wonder how the actions of the supposed innocent and their effects on others would weigh on this scale. Are these individuals naively good, or inherently bad through the destructiveness of their actions?

Alvarez explains that innocence is a threat to the status quo. This notion is demonstrated in the confines of the Baltimore Police Department. Corruption in the department is accepted as the inherent nature of the system. Officers look for scapegoats, try to maneuver around difficult cases, and protect high clearance rates. McNaulty has the potential to challenge corruption. He can make a difference and so can other detectives, if they took notes from him. The absence of heroes in The Wire forces the audience to accept the tragic fates of main characters. As we learned in the Mokos reading, the audience is learning how noble a character is based on how they react to good and evil in the game. The audience learns about characters based on how long it takes them to challenge the status quo and in what ways, if ever.

The problem for me with this sentence is how McNulty and D’Angelo are so similar in their roles for their institutions – yet D’Angelo is killed for his change of heart while McNulty is still allowed to fight for his cause in a “Jimmy against the world” type of relationship. We see McNulty fail and have all of these shortcomings, yet he is allowed to stay. Does race play a role in this decision? Why is it that despite the similar roles they play the two characters have such drastic impact on the show?

The use of the term catalyst here is very interesting – someone who sparks the chain but may or may not be part of the actual process by which the events come to fruition. The chain of events started by a catalyst, in the ways I’ve seen it used, is also usually a change of some sort. What changes do we see (in season one or any other season) as a result of McNulty and D’Angelo’s decisions? If these men are the catalysts to set change into motion, who are the agents of this change?

On the flip side – what is the message of The Wire in terms of the efforts needed to engender true change? As the Vest reading mentioned, the closing montages of each season seem to suggest that despite everyone’s best efforts, the overarching powers of corruption and inequality still persist. Even if an individual is a catalyst for a chain of events, does The Wire suggest that it’s possible for that chain to bring change?

The author states that he kept expecting a certain sort of justice to be played out at the end in The Wire. Did you have similar expectations when you began watching the show? Do you think this is caused solely by the narrative structure of the majority of entertainment television, or do you think there are other factors? How do you think these preconceptions influence the way we frame events in our day-to-day lives?

What makes The Wire so compelling yet so frustrating at the same time is the fact that it shows the back story and heart of every character. It not only shows McNulty’s vulnerabilities and desires, it also illustrates, for example, how Wallace struggles for a better life while taking care of his younger siblings. D’Angelo is not just a hardened drug dealer, he’s a father with a conscience. Every character is treated with respect in that they are explained beyond surface-level assumptions. The Wire shows us that people are people. Because characters are humanized in this way, viewers have an easier time developing compassion for not just McNulty, but also for D’Angelo, Omar, Wallace, and others.

The Wire does elicit compassion form viewers towards people regardless of race, class, occupation, gender, and even sexuality. But it does so in a way that isn’t “preachy.” It allows viewers to come to their own conclusions, thereby strengthening the feelings of compassion viewers have towards these different characters. We are not told to have compassion, we are simply guided to come to that conclusion ourselves. That is what I think is one of the show’s main strengths.

I take issue with Wilson’s statement that there is a concept of right and wrong in The Wire. I understand that what he is arguing is that there are ideas of right and wrong since actions do have consequences, but when examining the individual actions of characters through out the series, is there really a clear right and wrong answer- especially when assessed from the viewpoint of the individual?

One of the things I love most about The Wire is that there are consequences, but these consequences are rarely neat and clean. They are often unexpected and frequently spiral out of control. Seasons tie up most loose ends, but often in a way that’s unexpected. Brianna Barksdale’s continuing questions about her son’s death are a great example. Deangelo’s murder might have provided a sense of conclusion, but it really opened a new narrative line with consequences that continued to reverberate into later seasons of the show.

In my mind, Walton’s statement in this sentence raises further questions regarding a potential solution to certain crime issues. If Anthony Walton is accurate is his assessment of “the game” and its infinite human cost, then what are the policy implications to deal with drug dealing, for instance? How does one go about exposing/remedying political corruption – if it can even be done? What does this limitless cost as indicated by Walton say about the decision of the police department (Season 3) to focus their resources on lowering the number of murders? In my opinion, Walton implies that this focus is futile.

The fact that McNulty is not the ultimate hero who cleans up the city or Carcetti is the ‘savior’ of the corrupted city of Baltimore makes The Wire stay true to the history of the city and allows it to be called a show more than merely a ‘crime drama’. But with a complicated cause and effect of every part of the society intertwined in the show, it makes me wonder whether there is an end to the game at all. I think the fourth season was trying to portray what kind of radical changes the city of Baltimore would need to start fixing the problems from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. First of all, new mayor has to be elected, and the school curriculums have to change, then the police enforcement will have to be turned upside down, etc. Even through all these changes, kids like Michael will be missed from getting special attention and officers like Burrell will get through with their original plans in the game. In addition, even after destroying one dominating gang, Barksdale’s in the first few seasons, a new and even worst gang, led by Marlo, then dominates the west side in the fourth and the fifth season. Although Baltimore is cleaning up and ‘getting better’ over the years, in this ‘fallen society’ could there be an end to the game?

“In none of these various permutations of crime is there ever an end to the human cost involved…”

Part of the shock favor – and thus maybe even appeal – in The Wire is the fact that nobody is safe. In essence, every character has something to gain and lose in most situations, and the prices and stakes are always high. From Greggs being shot in season one to McNulty’s banishment to the docks in season two to Randy in season four facing death threats and bullying, characters in The Wire must evaluate seriously the pros and cons of many of their choices to simply “get by” in the world and sometimes even stay alive.

With that in mind, how do these extreme scenarios and choices translate into terms we can understand? Can a viewer relate well to someone like Randy in the 4th season as he is shuffled from foster to group home? Or is identifying with these characters difficult because of their unique circumstances? What do we learn from these characters as well as the resulting outcomes and costs of their hard decisions?

One of the teachers at my predominantly-white, middle class preparatory high school used to make fun of us for living inside of a bubble. He didn’t simply mean that we were living a cushy life in comparison to those in lower socio-economic classes; he literally meant that we never leave a certain geographic area. He would say- as he waved his arms mockingly and started out, “God forbid!”- that certain streets might as well be walls because his students were never crossing those boundaries. It was hilarious. It was also incredibly true. The idea of social mobility is also somewhat funny then because when you move across class structures, the lines on a map showing where you spend your time also shift. Just as Walton recounts Wallace’s “if it ain’t West Baltimore” line, the fact of the matter is those of us from the comfortable backgrounds kind of live- in a geographic sense- the same way. Well that is, of course, until we go on our family vacations. Which is what, as Walter shows, The Wire provides as value added: it forces the middle class to see this game in action without some redeeming heroism at the end allowing us to forget any accumulated guilt.

D’Angelo’s use of chess in his explanation to Bodie and Wallace is symbolic of the hierarchical structure of"the game." Simon is using the game of chess to help the viewer better understand the drug trade in the series—the familiarity of chess helps us to better understand our unfamiliarity with “the game.” When D’Angelo first comes up to Bodie and Wallace, he asks them why they are playing checkers on a chess board. This scene before he goes into his explanation of the game carries tremendous symbolism. It shows that the boys are unaware of the larger context of “the game” they are involved in and see it in a very surface level way. The pawns have no overall significance to the game and see “the game” as one dimensional. The pawns fail to understand the big picture of the game and have no understanding of the complexities. This scene in The Wire really stood out to me, showing that the game of chess in this scene is symbolic in more than one way. The scene is representative and really sets the stage for the overall themes of the entire series.

Walton claims that The Wire’s greatness rests in the fact that it makes us question our attitudes towards problems many justify through assumptions of what we think we know of urban life. The show, he says, illuminates that good and evil aren’t black and white, which is proven as we cheer for both McNulty and Avon Barksdale to come through. It proves that the individuals aren’t always responsible for things like drug rings, questionable policing, and being forced out of work. The Wire points to the bigger picture and asks the audience to question what they hold as truths, making it a truly impressive feat for television. In its effort to show the “larger game” and call to attention how people are affected by institutions, does it leave out any other important elements? After watching it, did it succeed in asking you to question your stance on these issues?