7/28/2019 Int Blog Post 4-14

1/2

Thomas Franks piece on the seemingly vapid undertones of political dramas was so

on par with the reality of their structure that I found myself laughing out loud and

saying, Wow, hes right a fair amount of times.

Franks piece finds the comfortable middle ground between succinct plot summary

and pithy commentary, which both dismantle the notions propped up by the over-the-top drama of these storylines, but also explain why they exist in the first place.

All of this is done, of course, in a slightly angry sounding tone. It isnt angry in the

frank, brooding sort of way, but reads almost like a bourgeoisie irritation. His syntax

isnt an airtight vacuum of academic scrutiny, but rather carries with it authoritative

foreknowledge while still scowling and finding the most literary way to say, this

shit is stupid, and heres why.

One thing that detracts from this overall top-notch piece, however, is the ending.

Frank walks to the finish line, and right before breaking the ribbon, he skews off

instead to some tangential direction. While he does make frequent, yet passing

references to the overall disfunctionalism of government and uses that as themeasurement for the archetype that these shows are supposedlybased on, his

eleventh hour shift to actuallytalking about the plagues of a lack of faith in

government really leaves the reader hanging. It ties in to his opening remarks about

the ordained stereotypes of the hoity-toity Washington businessman not being liked

by the public, but there isnt much closure. Theres no bow on top. As a reader, I was

left wondering what I was supposed to take away.

Throughout the rest of the piece and through his gradual winding down, Frank

answers whatever questions he proposes and brings the conversation full circle in

terms of the political dramas. He discusses their shortcomings, where they stem

from, why they exist, whatcouldremedy them, and how those remedies wouldntactually be commercially possible. There is the thread of governmental incompetent

laced into the piece, but was it really worth using as more than just a stationery

support beam on which he could fall back on for the sack of a consistent theme or

transition?

The ending, as it stands, jumps to another topic before its ready to do so. If this piece

were longer and more expansive, then yes, the work as it is would have been an

excellentintroduction and frame of reference. But to just dash out the door and run

off into the sunset talking about larger than life issues and using comparisons and

criticisms of television dramas as the opening bit isnt enough. Frank should not

have just left that dangling in front of the readers faces.

His choice to do so almost reminds me of the kind of cheap trope that would be used

in a political drama. The stage is set with an introspective dissecting of petty issues,

and that is supposed to suffice as enough background to begin to tackle huge,

philosophical or legislative policy issues. Its as if knowing why these television

shows plot lines are archaic and based on commercialized stereotypes is enough to

understand some of the grandest governmental shortcomings in recent years.

7/28/2019 Int Blog Post 4-14

2/2

That isnt how it works. You cannot assume that the reader can bridge those gaps,

those some can. I understand what he is getting at, but I dont like how he tried to

convey it. Its pretty demanding, and I think that it risks falling short of its potential

by relying so heavily on the readers understanding of a flimsy and weak connection.

Perhaps the general readership ofHarpers is smart enough to do it, in which casemy arguments are invalid, but really? Dont just leave that stuff hanging. Thats not

cool, man.