Most recent public comments by Kathryn Rust https://nowcomment.com/users/1340 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11310?scroll_to=93569 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11310?scroll_to=93569 Adding onto that, another (rather cynical) question I have is that even if the resources came into existence to support a real effort at changing social conditions in poor urban areas, would true widespread change really happen? Or would the underlying structural discrepancies carry on through? Like they said in the This American Life report, everyone who attends Harper high school carries an almost innate gang association due solely to the location of their mailing address. Even if Chicago city officials suddenly got the money to fix all of the underlying problems in this area - poverty, lack of access to jobs, underfunded education, prevalence of a drug culture, etc - would the gang activity between inhabitants of different city blocks and associated gun violence cease to be an issue, or would it merely be transposed to another area of social life? Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:40:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11310?scroll_to=93510 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11310?scroll_to=93510 I think the root of this problem of disregarding poor people as filth also goes back to what we've talked about multiple times with the tendency of many people to default their expectations to Horatio Alger-type storylines rather than forcing themselves to perform the more mentally challenging work of recognizing where privilege exists and where it doesn't. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that a large number of people today still hold true to the idea that if they can make it so can anyone else, when all available evidence points to the contrary. While I know being aware of that fact could be a privilege of education in and of itself, there are many well-educated and high-profile people in America who cling to this ideal of the exception rather than the rule. As cynical as it may be, I don't think there's any real hope of convincing people that their company's money should be spent helping the poor rather than simply pushing them away unless they first understand that poverty is not a choice nor a generalizable punishment for personal shortcomings - while I'm sure there are individuals who lose their jobs/homes/etc due to laziness or ineptitude, that's not the norm throughout the country, or even on the East Side of Manhattan. Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:44:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11236?scroll_to=92337 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11236?scroll_to=92337 I think what's also important to add to what you're saying is that even if underprivileged people do manage to reach college, that doesn't guarantee them anything. People often assume that having access to a college education automatically removes any other barriers to success someone might encounter, which is obviously not true. Even if an underprivileged individual figures out how to raise the money and visibility for themselves to gain entry to a collegiate institution, they haven't automatically found a leg up; they still have an upward battle to face against students who have grown up with more advantages and therefore are better prepared for the environment and against teachers who may or may not have their own biases. Knowing this, it is even more understandable why when faced with the option of fighting hard to get into college and then continuing to fight hard to get through it and graduate or the easy entry and possibility for advancement through the drug trade, many individuals will opt for the latter. Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:39:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11236?scroll_to=92311 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11236?scroll_to=92311 I definitely see the parallels, and it also makes me think of the description of work in the drug trade being addictive. I think the same can be said for high-level white collar jobs - this is exactly what we think of when we hear the term "workaholics." I think for both sets of workers, their jobs become much more than just a career; they become a way of life, and carry with them an entire host of expectations, styles, and behaviors that create a subculture within whatever context the business works in. While I think it would be safe to say that leaving the drug trade game would pose greater personal danger to those who try to do so (which I guess is to say, poses a danger to those who try to do so and either fail or are caught before they are successful), I think this idea of the game can be extended across all sorts of career tracks. Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:37:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11235?scroll_to=92144 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11235?scroll_to=92144 This is an interesting twist on the typical American rags-to-riches trope. Just as Anderson said earlier in the article that the street culture has taken clothing styles that were once considered "white" and translated them into its own symbol, this is a permutation of sorts of the traditional ideal pushed by many white Americans that anyone who works hard enough will rise to the top. The Wire shows that just like the Horatio Alger tales, people who are truly long-term successful in the drug trade are few and far between, even though many people may be working hard. Regardless of this ratio, though, the availability of this ideal drives up the level of competition in the drug trade, making it even more lucrative for those who do manage to be successful. Does a thriving economy, in the context of the drug trade or anywhere else, require an adherence to lofty ideals even when reality proves to be different? Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:51:50 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11235?scroll_to=92142 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11235?scroll_to=92142 This description of the drug trade as addictive struck me, because it looks at it from a different standpoint than any we have discussed from thus far. We've looked at a number of structural and situational factors that drive someone to find this sort of work - lack of access to other jobs, insufficient education, need for large sums of money quickly, etc. We've also talked about social conceptions on the local level about what it means to be "decent" on the street and how that leads many parents to direct their kids into lifestyles that often facilitate entrance into the drug trade. We haven't really touched on this on an individual level yet, though - what personality or other traits make someone not only more likely to succeed in the drug trade, but more likely to actually want to be involved in it? It seems like in this context, having a somewhat addictive personality is a positive trait, because it's the people who get caught questioning their involvement that are discarded as pawns the quickest. Looking at drug selling activity in this way also makes it easier to understand why certain individuals don't do things that might get them out of the game when it seems easy to do so from an outsider point of view. For those who are the most addicted to the trade, would it matter if there were other options available to them? Tue, 09 Apr 2013 08:20:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91830 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91830 This idea also goes back to our class discussion on the bystander effect. During that class period, we talked about the difference between standing back from the action when it means refraining from hurting yourself in some way (in this case putting yourself in physical danger) and standing back because you don't care enough to do something about the problem. I think you're absolutely right that we do not see a whole lot of outsiders stepping in during The Wire, although I think part of the reason for this might be the show's message that within all of these institutions, there are very people who aren't insiders of the game in one way or another. At the same time, though, as you said, most people only step in once the area has been made more safe. Is the gang/drug problem in Baltimore or any other area something that can be solved without putting bystanders/outsiders at physical risk? Or to put it another way, does this violent problem necessarily require violence in response before anything can change? Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:17:13 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91829 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91829 This sentence of all the things Ronny grew up without struck me, and I would assume it is in no way exhaustive. Ronny himself seems to think that his childhood without parents was made up for at least in part by being cared for by his grandmother, but is that the case? Different people grow up without certain lifestyle amenities/necessities all the time and across race/class levels. Is there a breaking point, though, for how many things you can grow up without before getting lost in the system of gang lifestyles and poor living conditions? On the other side, are there certain important life lessons that can be gained by growing up "without" that those who grow up "with" will not understand? Wed, 03 Apr 2013 23:50:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91827 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91827 I think this analogy is also interesting because of what it means for the other side - not just for how the police think of the black gang members, but also of how the police think of themselves. They have the privilege of being on the "good" side of the law, which gives them the advantage of having their actions be right until proven wrong rather than the gang members who are wrong until proven right. Because of this, it is easy for the police to discount any of the work that people like Khalid might be doing and to opt out of the mental work of separating individuals from stereotypes. This is not to say that all police are bad or lazy, but just that the demonization of certain groups on the one hand often brings with it a sort of reification of other groups that is similarly dangerous. The police get to think of themselves as the noble officers fighting for good, which has the potential to mask their underlying grudges and personal motives. Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:49:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91826 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11181?scroll_to=91826 I was also surprised (though maybe I shouldn't have been with all we've talked about in this class) at the advice to "go, as soon as possible, to a funeral, any funeral." It's shocking to think that in areas such as the LA county described in this reading, funerals are something that are so common place you can just pick any one out and go to it. This also reminds me of the children in The Wire not having a 10-year plan. If you grow up in a place where funerals happen every few days, and the people being buried are your relations of some sort and not just complete strangers, why would you bother planning that far ahead? Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:19:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11157?scroll_to=91740 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11157?scroll_to=91740 I think the risk for Brianna is more a personal emotional one than a physical one, which differentiates her from the male figures in the series. Even though she can assume the masculine roll when needed, she still has the other male characters to protect her and perform the external work that is likely to put them in the line of fire. Because of this, though, her work behind the scenes requires her to maintain not only her own emotional ties to people, but also their emotional ties with the rest of the group. This means that whenever a human loss occurs, Brianna has a much higher risk of being personally affected than others who are less involved with the maintenance of the network have. Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:18:59 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11157?scroll_to=91732 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11157?scroll_to=91732 While I was watching The Wire, I got more of an impression that there isn't anyone in the community who doesn't have a specific role to play in the game than of a commentary on the role of women in gender dynamics. I think the article is correct in its assessment that women act in ways to further the men's priorities, but I understood this depiction to be showing how everyone works in a different way to achieve the ultimate goal of their group winning the game. Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:31:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11157?scroll_to=91721 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11157?scroll_to=91721 Is the difference between Brianna and the matriarchs talked about at the beginning of the chapter that while she fulfills the traditional maternal role, she is still ultimately subject to the rule of Avon and the other male Barksdales? This paragraph states that she is not bound to poverty like the lower ranks of the chain and that she can move easily in and out of the Terrace, but is this true? It seems to me that the next few paragraphs go on to prove that she is just as constrained by the game as any of the male characters, with the difference being that her role is more of a supporting character than a main actor. While this lack of real agency might differentiate her from previous stereotypes of black women, she is ultimately subject to the decisions of others, which makes her an example of the general stereotypes of both women and minorities having less power. Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:51:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11074?scroll_to=90992 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11074?scroll_to=90992 As much as I wish it wasn't true, I definitely agree that having a black president for two terms isn't going to change much about the prison system. I was shocked by a lot of the campaigning I saw against Obama during this last election season on facebook and twitter, and it seemed like any advancements that might have been made in terms of our country's conception of race and ability to rise to power with his first election have been met with even stronger convictions on the other side that he doesn't belong in his position because of his race. I'm absolutely not saying that anyone who voted against Obama in either election did so because of his race, but just that it surprised me how quickly some people turned complaints about his policies into failures of him as a minority president in this day and age. All of this is to say basically that while I think Obama's election did champion better relations for the people who were likely to improve these circumstances in the first place, it also served to reinforce the discriminatory mentalities of people who were not predisposed to consider a new social era, and because of this I don't think any sweeping changes within institutions like the prison system on a large scale are likely to occur. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:40:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11074?scroll_to=90986 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11074?scroll_to=90986 I think part of the reason Affirmative Action gets so much attention is that it targets the education cycle at a level that remained an exclusively white privilege for the longest time. Someone can correct me on this point if I'm wrong, but I think it has been the norm for children of all ages to attend school through the elementary years, and later middle and high school, than it has been for minority students to attend college. Because of this, people probably have a tendency to push back on affirmative action for one of two reasons; either they assume that whites and minorities have historically had the same access to educational institutions at all levels (or at least have had the same access for long enough that it shouldn't matter any more), or there is some traditional thought remaining from early American history that minorities do not need to be going to college. Beyond this, I think the reason the media targets affirmative action so much is that it's a more concrete thing to talk about than general race relations and the disadvantages racial and economic minorities face on a daily basis. That's not an excuse for them at all, but I think that when faced with the choice between presenting an item like these policies that are relatively easy to explain quickly versus problems that have underwritten the development of our country for its entire history, the media are going to take the easier route of picking the policies. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:29:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11074?scroll_to=90983 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11074?scroll_to=90983 In response to your question about loosening the laws on certain drugs, I think doing that would just open the doors for other drugs to take the place of the ones that are legalized or punished less harshly. At least in theory, it seems like the drug dealers will make the most profit selling things that are more risky for themselves, and if more drugs become legalized then it might be harder for the dealers to charge a premium price for their stashes. Because of this, they will probably start looking for other things to sell that are in shorter supply than the now-legalized choices. Taking it in another direction, I think lowering the consequences for certain drugs might lead to fewer arrests on current drug users, but I don't think it would lead to a long-term reduction in drug-related arrests. While there are a variety of reasons why individuals turn to using drugs, one of them at least for some people is the thrill of beating the system and doing something that isn't allowed. Lowering the costs for using certain drugs, then, would just cause these people to turn to something else that had previously not been considered, and I think the cycle of arrests and their implications on race relations would continue as is. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:07:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11075?scroll_to=90962 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11075?scroll_to=90962 This article has presented a lot of eye-opening statistics about incarceration rates, including the relatively high imprisonment rates of both uneducated whites and uneducated blacks. Because of these stats, this last sentence really jumps out at me - why is it that when we think of a population likely to be in jail, many people automatically jump to an image of a minority category rather than an age group or a cohort of a specific education level? Is this because it's easier for us to differentiate people by skin color more quickly than things like age differences or education status (which could be hard to see), or is there something else? Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:27:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11075?scroll_to=90954 https://nowcomment.com/documents/11075?scroll_to=90954 I think that we could even take the argument one step further and say that in the context of the street in The Wire, getting arrested and being able to hold your own in the questioning/jailing process is a type of cultural capital that increases someone's status when they return to the street (or takes away from it if they end up snitching). It's almost as if going through this rite of passage is a sort of currency in itself in this environment, in that it pays off to prove you can get arrested and make it back to the streets by rising through the drug circle ranks. It's almost like accumulating credit - people who have gotten into and out of jail seem to be trusted with more sensitive tasks than those who have never gone (or who have gone and cooperated with the police). Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:19:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10939?scroll_to=90463 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10939?scroll_to=90463 This paragraph reminds me of the child being asked his plans for 10 years from now and responding that he might be dead. This shortened life expectancy is something I think is very real to individuals living in poverty but is not something others are likely to take into account when making judgments about why they aren't doing more to educate themselves or find job opportunities. Poor living circumstances such as overcrowding, bad ventilation, and a lack of nutritious food combined with the incredibly high costs of proper medical care make the chances of living to see your 60 or 70th birthday very slim, and that isn't even taking drugs or street violence into consideration. I think The Wire does a good job of showing this fact to audiences who have probably never considered it. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:18:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10945?scroll_to=90454 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10945?scroll_to=90454 One of the problems this paragraph highlights is the cyclical nature of the obstacles faced by people in and around these poor neighborhoods. Because the only jobs available are the low-paying retail jobs, poor individuals can't make enough money to better their circumstances. They also have less money to spend on any sort of non-essential goods, so the economy of that area as a whole suffers. This in turn means that new job opportunities are not being created for financial reasons, and the cycle continues. I think this is where the debate stems from about whether or not poor people are to blame for their own misfortunes, because if you look at any part of the cycle without examining it in its entirety, it would be easy to argue one way or another. Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:37:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10939?scroll_to=90430 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10939?scroll_to=90430 I think that a season on public health definitely would have been very interesting. Season 3 touches on that just a bit by showing the declining health of the people in Hamsterdam but does not go very far into it. I think the problem with continuing to examine other institutions, though, is that it would add fuel to the people who already think The Wire has created a bad image of Baltimore. Since one of the themes in every season is the underlying corruption that pervades many aspects of the city, it would be hard for the show to examine any additional institutions without people assuming that it is suggesting this corruption about them as well. That's not to say that there aren't other corrupt institutions in Baltimore or anywhere else, but I think viewers and critics might get tired of what they see as the show attacking every aspect of life in Baltimore. Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:25:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10939?scroll_to=90418 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10939?scroll_to=90418 I think the point of The Wire, like Kristen said, is to show the parts of the city that don't get a lot of media attention normally. At least in my opinion, the show does a good job of balancing how pervasive the issues of the drug traffic are throughout a number of levels in the city, but it doesn't go so far as so suggest the are the entirety of the city's composition. That's not to say that I think it necessarily balances positive and negative aspects, but just that as I watched I didn't feel like the city was being completely reduced to its drug problems. This might be partly because in my own visits to Baltimore I've seen a much different view of it, so maybe if I was watching the show as someone who has never been there that distinction might not be as clear. I think the statement that the show introduces the world to Baltimore should be revised to introducing one part of Baltimore. Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:16:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10945?scroll_to=90412 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10945?scroll_to=90412 On one hand, The Wire does a really good job of humanizing the people in these neighborhoods by refusing to simply label the individuals involved in the drug trade as bad. Because it shows many of them struggling with a variety of difficulties and makes it clear how hard it is to get out of the game once you're born into it, it complicates the idea that being poor or living in these areas is a choice made by those individuals and forces people to think about the structural issues. On the other hand, though, the show demonstrates multiple time that real lasting change is almost impossible to attain. Because of this, it would be easy for viewers to come away with the opinion that nothing can be done to fix these conditions in real life and that to try would be a waste of time. However, if the show were to depict some sort of grandiose change occurring that somehow solved things it would be labelled unrealistic by critics, so I don't think that would be the solution. Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:00:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10945?scroll_to=90365 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10945?scroll_to=90365 That's a really good point about the collapse of the economy taking the focus away from the plight of poor urban areas in particular. Most of what we hear in the news now is about the problems facing people who were previously in the middle class losing their jobs and falling into lower classes, which allows the media to largely ignore the people who have been living in economic stagnation their whole lives. Focusing on the widening gap between the middle and upper classes also allows the media to cover areas that in many cases are considered more safe than urban centers like New Orleans and Baltimore. If another disaster hit similar to Katrina that forced urban plight into the national spotlight, the situation would probably change in the short term, but I think in the long term as long as focusing on the downfall of the middle class is an option that's what the media will choose to cover. Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:35:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84812 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84812 I find the idea presented throughout this reading that decency and the streets are polar opposites to be very intriguing, particularly in light of all of our conversations about good vs. bad in The Wire. To begin with, it implies a middle- to upper-class lens through which these social phenomena are being explored and seems to assume a position of superiority over the people it's describing. Further, the choice of the word "decent" goes beyond the typical good vs. bad debate, because it suggests something deeper about the moral character of a person beyond their actions. In a great number of instances, people who might be considered "bad" by legal authorities do things that I would consider to be decent. Is decency something categorically separate from the code of the streets, or is it intertwined here as in the context of a middle-class neighborhood? Is there an argument that decency, in terms of following rules like not hitting another person in the face and not killing on Sunday, plays an even larger role on the streets than in other contexts? Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:20:45 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84787 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84787 I think what we see with D'Angelo and Avon and this greater issue of creating a family on the street goes back to the idea of choice, or a lack thereof, that was talked about earlier in the article. From a young age, D'Angelo's choice was to either distance himself from his family and accept the physical danger that would come when he had no one to look out for him, or to remain in relative physical safety under Avon's watch but accept whatever role that placed him in within the family structure. Understandably choosing the supposed physical safety at the beginning, then, changed the options he would have for the rest of his life, because he was forever indebted to Avon and the rest of his family for the help they provide. This also goes back to our conversations about social mobility and the misconception that people can make choices to gain themselves a better social position, because in reality these individuals do not have the wide range of options available to them that outsiders often assume they do. Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:39:59 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84776 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84776 This idea of code-switching is really interesting. In linguistics, code-switching is what happens when individuals shift between different dialects or complete languages based on their audience to create a connection both verbally and on a level of personal understanding. Here, though, it's being used in a behavioral way, saying that the children have to learn the change their actions based on their physical context. In what way is this played out in The Wire? It seems to me that the code-switching seen there is more a group effort than something practiced by individuals - certain members of Avon's gang are the street people responsible for maintaining the group's honor and respect, while others like Stringer are responsible for portraying a decent exterior when McNulty and other authorities come to talk to him. Other characters, like Bubbles, deal with both the street gangs and the authority figures, but he does not change his personality much when dealing with either. Are there characters that obviously code-switch themselves during the series? Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:18:28 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84748 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84748 I think a possible answer to the question of whether or not a choice actually existed/why he felt he had to choose to face the situation comes in paragraph 113. Is says there that "the code is seen as possessing a certain justice, since everyone supposedly has the opportunity to learn it, and thus can be held responsible for being familiar with it." What this seems to be saying is the fact that there may or may not be a choice ends up meaning nothing in the long run in this context - regardless of whether an individual wants to live by the rules of the code and establish a place for themselves, sooner or later they will probably run into a situation where others involved expect them to know the code. Even if Tyree had run in this situation or had refused to attempt to incorporate himself into the bols group altogether, when the point came that he was forced into an interaction with them, he would not be able to use the excuse of not knowing how the code works. Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:50:17 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84745 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10377?scroll_to=84745 With this last sentence, Anderson is drawing a connection between manhood/physicality on one hand and respect/psychological well-being on the other. Is this link something singular to the lower-class setting this reading is concerned with, or is it something experienced by all classes? It seems to me that this is another interest of middle- and upper-class privilege that I had not considered before - that physical safety and psychological safety can be somewhat separated from another, and danger to one is not necessarily a danger to the other. In The Wire, this connection seems particularly clear for D'Angelo, who comes into the physical danger of being killed because he is psychologically in danger of walking away from the game. Is the same true for other characters? What about the police officers and politicians? Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:31:26 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10314?scroll_to=82204 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10314?scroll_to=82204 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? Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:22:12 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10314?scroll_to=82198 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10314?scroll_to=82198 Expanding on Alvarez's explanation, I think this web of intricate relationships is something that sets The Wire apart from other crime/cop dramas. When watching shows like CSI and Law & Order, each episode is self-contained for the most part - seasoned viewers might gain certain insights by having watched the seasons in their entireties, but someone just flipping through the TV channels could watch an episode with fairly good understanding. This is not the case in The Wire, which not only serve to make it a more engaging show for those who do watch from beginning to end, but also better mirrors the way these institutions play out in real life. Politics and education and the economy and the drug trade are not things that can be isolated from one another. Because it is easier to do so, we often choose to ignore the chains that link each of these institutions together, and this is what The Wire makes visible. Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:38:13 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10313?scroll_to=81315 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10313?scroll_to=81315 A few paragraphs above talk about the considerations to be taken in the fact that McNulty is the closest thing to a main character on this show, and he's white. Dominic West says he was cast as McNulty because of his race, but paragraph goes on to say that a large percent of the cops Simon encountered in his observations were also white and this drove the casting decision. This paragraph, though, directly addresses the fact that Bubbles had to be black to play in this role. If both casting decisions mirror the observed reality, why is McNulty's race so much more troubling than Bubbles'? Is it simply a reflection of our desire to believe any individual can achieve any status/occupation in America regardless of things such as race, or is there something else going on? If McNulty had been played by an actor of another race, what would the ramifications have been on the show's overarching plot line (if any)? Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:57:23 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10313?scroll_to=81313 https://nowcomment.com/documents/10313?scroll_to=81313 This paragraph stuck out to me too, particularly the failure of the idea that "average people who work diligently while fulfilling their civic responsibilities not only will find a place in American society but also 'will not be betrayed.'" Clearly this show does a lot to work against normative ideas about working hard and making it to the top as a part of the American dream, but I think its this refusal to discount betrayal that sets it apart from other texts. The classic trope in other instances is that the people who work hard to do the best they can with the circumstances they've been given would lead us to expect that even if they don't rise to the top of society, the members of the various drug circles who work the hardest will gain respect and safety within their own cohort. Because this is not true, as we see time and time again, it causes us to not only question the myth, but also to question the nature of competition faced at all levels and sectors of society today. Mon, 25 Feb 2013 00:36:10 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/8618?scroll_to=66622 https://nowcomment.com/documents/8618?scroll_to=66622 How does he define "decent people"? It seems to me that one of the biggest strengths of the show is that it does not have specific characters labelled as the "good" ones, which is a sentiment echoed by others in this article and something that has been said in class numerous times already. That's not to say, though, that decent people aren't present - they're just not decent to the point of not having flaws. I think it's exactly because the show isn't afraid to hide these flaws that the decency of some characters is able to shine through. Further, by refusing to label individual characters as good or bad, the show allows various characters to have decent moments at different times throughout the show, making them much more rounded. Although I don't have experience in this context personally and therefore I can only conjecture, this seems like a much more representative example of the nature of individuals in these situations than it would be to have one or two shining decent characters in a mass of others doing things wrong. Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:30:06 -0500 https://nowcomment.com/documents/8618?scroll_to=66596 https://nowcomment.com/documents/8618?scroll_to=66596 Is it possible to place an artistic work that seeks to speak to real-life issues - a novel, TV show, movie, etc - in an existing location without audiences automatically searching for connections with current-day political figures or other celebrities? On the one hand, I think the possibility of these connections helps strengthen the show's claims that the issues faced by the characters are much more true to life than the good vs. bad plotlines of similar shows. However, it seems that looking for the real-life dopplegangers of these characters and events could lead some audience members to miss the overarching themes in favor of identifying individual plot points. Does one or the other of these possibilites play out more strongly for audiences of The Wire familiar with the political/institutional history of Baltimore? Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:41:00 -0400