West Wing S1

[coalescent]

I finished watching the first season of The West Wing the other night and it occurs to me that this is a show that by rights should not work.

If you watch a lot of episodes back to back, the narrative flow can be really weird - plot points can get mentioned one episode, disappear for half a season and then reappear, complete, as a fait accompli, or get dropped altogether. Not only that, but there's almost zero dramatic tension. No world-changing events can ever really happen and no political crisis can be too damaging, to the point where in almost every single case resolution is anticlimactic.

And yet, it works. Not only that, but it works very well.

I think a big part of the why is down to the humour and the characters, and the fact that you can watch the show just for those things. Almost without exception the characters are charming, and intelligent, and (as a general rule) incredibly good people. That last point can be hard to swallow to start with (it certainly was for me), but it's really the crux of the show. The West Wing is about aspiration; We admire these people. We want to be these people (*cough*Sam*cough*) because they're better than ourselves, and because they live in a world that is better than our own. Even when they make mistakes, these characters are never going to lose their shine; as a viewer you have to accept that, and once you do, it's a joy.

For me, though, the most important thing about The West Wing - and the thing that makes it almost unique in current television - is that when you get down to it, it's about ideas. It's not really about the characters, and I've already said that it's sure as hell not about the plots - but the ideas are front and centre. As immortalradical once pointed out, the characters are basically personifications of ideology. They exist so that they can debate with each other.

Aaron Sorkin, the series creator who's written at least as many episodes of The West Wing as J Michael Straczynski wrote of Babylon 5 (but with significantly better dialogue) left the show at the end of season four. This means that not only have I now seen all the Sorkin-penned West Wing in existence, but I've seen all that there will be. It's hard not to think that with the departure of that single strong authorial voice, the series is going to suffer.

I hope it doesn't. I hope it goes on, just as before, for a good few years yet. But even if things do fall to pieces, those first four seasons are still a remarkable body of work. Everyone should watch them.

Comments

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I'm going to try to write a proper reply to this post later, when I have time to do it justice (which it deserves). In the mean time, I rather pathetically feel the need to point out that you just wrote "almost unique". Which made me smile, 'cos I don't tend to think of you as the sort of person who writes that :-)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

What's wrong with 'almost unique'? 'Most unique' or similar would be pretty bad, I grant you. But 'almost unique' is just equivalent to 'rare'.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

uh-huh - unique is (to quote Toby on this week's West Wing) "a binary state" - something either is unique (like The West Wing), or it isn't (like most other poorly written, ill-conceived, mass-market drivel on TV these days). It can't be a bit unique, most unique, or almost unique. It can be rare though :-)
I promise I'll stop nit-picking and post something less shallow later, honest.

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

What she said.

Apart from the posting something less shallow later.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Here's another reference (The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English, 1996):

Unique may be the foremost example of the absolute term—a term that, in the eyes of traditional grammarians, should not allow comparison or modification by an adverb of degree like very, somewhat, or quite. Thus, most grammarians believe that it is incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else, though phrases such as nearly unique and almost unique are acceptable, since in these cases unique is not modified by an adverb of degree.

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

still don't like it

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Well, that's fine. Had I been thinking about what I wrote, rather than scribbling in the fifteen minutes before I left work, I'd probably have changed it to 'rare' because it's a simpler construction.

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

btw, agreed with a lot of what you said about tww

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :)

(New grammar nit! Is my last sentence correct, or should it be 'everybody should watch it'? Too tired to work it out for myself, and I need to go back to the flat and eat...)

[ajp.livejournal.com]

"them" is correct; since you are talking about the four seasons; rather than the "body of work" directly.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought, but I've been looking at it and it looks wrong. Mind you, I've been thinking about it for long enough that both options look wrong.

Oh, and I asked our subediting department about 'almost unique' today. The verdict: Allowable, but ugly.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about it for long enough that both options look wrong.

I have that problem all the time. It's nice to see that actual writers have the same problem... :-)

[(Anonymous)]

I'm with Niall. It seems reasonable to quantify closeness to uniqueness as the number of things you would have to destroy to make something unique. For example, there's exactly one Koh-i-Noor, so it's unique; if there were several it would not be unique, but if there were two (closeness = 1), it would be closer to being unique than if there were a million (closeness = 999 999).

-- Tom

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Toby, in this case, is not keeping up with modern english usage. Unique can't be modified by many adverbs, but 'almost' is in a different class of meaning to 'most' and 'a bit'.

'Most unique' is wrong because it is redundant; if something is unique it is already by definition one of a kind.

'A bit unique' is wrong because it is contradictory; something is either unique or it is not.

'Almost unique' is allowable because it is not redundant and it is not contradictory; it means that The West Wing is not unique (therefore not contradicting that uniqe is a binary state), but it also means it is in a very small class (adding new information, so not being redundant). The West Wing approaches uniqueness but does not attain it.

'Rare' would probably have been the better choice on grounds of simplicity, but the two are synonymous. 'Almost unique' is not inherently wrong. See here, for instance:

Unique means "one of a kind," so something cannot be very unique or quite unique. (It is possible, however, for something to be almost unique.) In such cases, use the word distinctive instead, e.g., "Barry Sanders' running style is quite distinctive."

(Although since I disagree with them about the use of 'their' as a singular pronoun... :-)

(I vaguely remember Toby's rant on this topic, but I don't remember the episode. It wasn't this week's, though, was it? At least, I can't find it in a transcript.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

I vaguely remember Toby's rant on this topic, but I don't remember the episode. It wasn't this week's, though, was it? At least, I can't find it in a transcript.

The President "educates" a bad NASA writer, in the episode "Galileo" (2x09); and there is a conversation about "surgeon-generals" (sic) vs. "surgeons-general" in "17 People" (2x18). In the latter Toby is present (I can't recall the details though); whilst the former, is the one containing "very unique".

[deccasanta.livejournal.com]

You know what I think is fun? Remembering when "The West Wing" first started and we were all raving about it and penning eloquent tributes not unlike the one above, that Niall just sat there with his "I don't get it and it's not Angel" hat on.

:-)

There's no zealot like a convert. That aside, "preach it, brother!"

[pikelet.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of Niall in an 'Angel' hat.

It could be in the shape of a large novelty owl, with a particularly constipated expression.

That is all.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Play your cards right this weekend, and you never know.

...

Swear to god, my fingers just have a will of their own.

[pikelet.livejournal.com]

Those two sentences are things that I never, ever want to hear again.

Just when people stop writing me/you slash, you go and open it up all over again, don't you?

So to speak.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

TIMFLUENCE!

[brassyn.livejournal.com]

we are not all subjected to it.

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Feel free to explain it to us then.

[brassyn.livejournal.com]

way delayed (cause i didn't read this thread much, and yep, just sauntered over from tts today) but have to say: <3's you for appreciating the constipated owl comment.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

You know what I think is fun? Remembering when "The West Wing" first started and we were all raving about it and penning eloquent tributes not unlike the one above, that Niall just sat there with his "I don't get it and it's not Angel" hat on.

That never happened! Not least because I never exchanged posts with you until The West Wing had finished its second season on E4. Then you were amongst those trying to convince me to watch on C4. :)

But yeah, I'm happy to admit I took a while to convert. Hell, I'm a sceptic more often than I'm an enthusiast, historically; Angel is just about the only show that's ever had me at 'hello'.

Mind you, I think the reason I was a reluctant convert was that most of the posts tried to sell me The West Wing on the basis that it was 'good TV, like Angel' or 'witty, like Buffy'. Which is a good way to sell a TV show, but the wrong way to sell this show, I think.

[scribeoflight.livejournal.com]

Angel is just about the only show that's ever had me at 'hello'.


Is that a vaguely obscure (heh - taking note of earlier digression, can something be "vaguely" obsure?) reference to a line of dialogue in Jerry Maguire?

Or am I reading too much... into... it.

But it leapt out as being a Jerry Maguire reference. :o)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Is that a vaguely obscure reference to a line of dialogue in Jerry Maguire?

Yep.

(heh - taking note of earlier digression, can something be "vaguely" obsure?)

I vote we don't open that can of worms. :)

[brassyn.livejournal.com]

Everyone should watch them.

No.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I would think the slash fan in you would appreciate this show, if nothing else. ;-)

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

's true. The only slashfic I've ever liked was high-quality WW. You want link? ;)

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I do.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

enjoy :)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link - that's really very good.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

(belated) glad you like it :)

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Well, I think the wheels will fall of the wagon. TWW is all dialogue (or 99% anyway :P) and needs that Sorkin touch.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Quiet, Eeyore. :-p

[snowking.livejournal.com]

My badger is tiny in your LJ style. TINY!

Also LJ is eating my comments emails.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Also LJ is eating my comments emails.

I just got an email comment from you from the other day again. Weird.


All references to the size of your badger have been removed from this post.

[(Anonymous)]

The whole thing looks hella mashed up to me, icons all over the place ('ikanzmey', the Klingons would say); i'm using Netscrape Crummunicator 4.77 on MacOS 9.2.2, which probably has something to do with it, but if you'd heeded by harsh but sage advice about using plain HTML all those years ago, all would now be well (if monochrome) </pred>.

-- Tom

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Obviously this is only an interim style until I learn enough programming to provide a style that's got some serious feng shui going for it.

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

aww, baby badger.

[scribeoflight.livejournal.com]

Talking about wheels falling off wagons, Mr. W. Ellis wrote a piece about the new Sorkin-free The West Wing the other week.

The image he paints of a silent West Wing is... eerie.

It won't all fit here, so... I'll post a link:

Ellis on Sorkin-free TWW

Mmmm. It'll look crap, when you load it up - but y'all can cut and paste ;o)

I don't think BadSignal is archived anywhere...

Hmmm....

[xsabx.livejournal.com]

I hope it doesn't. I hope it goes on, just as before, for a good few years yet. But even if things do fall to pieces, those first four seasons are still a remarkable body of work.

If you had written 'The first two seasons are exemplary, the third suffers as it concentrates too much on the individual and not enough on the whole and the fourth is clearly the work of a man who is losing both his direction, his impetus and his mind' I'd probably agree with you...

However, what is true is that as a whole the word 'remarkable' is not one you would apply to a great many Genre TV shows in the last 10 years. Yes, it is genre TV, as like Buffy it defined it's own genre.

Plus it's the only show that ever inspired me to write about it, and in 35 plus years that counts for something special.

Re: Hmmm....

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Ah, but I think S4 ('The Long Goodbye' excepted) is the best of the four.

And of course it's Genre. It's alternate history, obviously. ;-)

[danmilburn.livejournal.com]

'The Long Goodbye' isn't actually bad, in fact I rather liked it, it's just not a West Wing episode (in rather the same way as 'The Body' isn't a Buffy episode).

Overall, I agree that S4 is very good.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but...nah. I can't see it. TLG isn't nearly as well-written as 'The Body' is. It's just cliched, emotionally manipulative tripe, really.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

*moving swiftly past the grammatical questions, and on to the analysis*

*it shouldn't work, but it does*
This is a good assessment of the program, but can equally be applied to most other shows - the protagonist doesn't die [1]; heroes are shown to be heroic, even if flawed; friends make up with each other rather than drifting out of each other's lives forever; bullies are brought down; killers are caught. You amy have to wait an episode or two, but storylines are resolved - otherwise the basic premise of the show is damaged. I'm struggling to think of any show I regularly watch that has seriously flouted those kinds of narrative rules.
[1] OK, so there was that one time on Buffy....

*why it works*
You're absolutely right - almost every character has been shown to have at least one or two redeeming features (except, IIRC, a couple of right-wing Christian fundamentalist women - the one who kicked Josh's ass all over the first ep, and the "Doctor" who Bartlett ripped apart at the radio presenters shindig or somesuch). All of the staffers are, as you say, good people, inspirational, principled, flawed, but essentially decent. However, one of the main attractions for me in these characters is that they aspire to be better. Not one of them seems to be wholly comfortable with who they are now, they all drive themselves to be the person they can be. The one most resistant to this on a week-by-week basis I think is Leo - but undercutting the bravado, the near-pomposity of his character, is the knowledge that he is an alcoholic, who every day confronts his own weaknesses. And to be inspired by fictional characters who are themselves inspired by each other, and by their own heroes, is a rare, and rather lovely thing.

*the best thing*
Yes, the ideas. For me the West Wing is at it's absolute best when ideas and issues are presented, discussed, debated, but not decided for us. Is Sorkin pro or anti capital punishment? I'm not sure, but Sam is anti, Toby's more or less anti (on the advice of his rabbi), CJ is pro-ish, Charlie knows how he would react to his Mother's killer, and Bartlett is anti although POTUS won't stop it happening. I loved it - that show didn't try to tell me "it's always right", or "it's totally wrong"; I heard more informed, calm, impassioned, intelligent discussion of the issue in that 42 minutes than I'd ever heard before. Yes, the show can get too preachy - especially when discussing America's role as leader/police/inventor of the "free world", and especially from mid-season three onward (an understandable, if unfortunate, reaction to the significant shift right of American politics following September 11th). But becasue, as you say, it's about the ideas, The West Wing is instantly standing head and shoulders above nearly every other popular television show around.

*Sorkin leaving*
I've only seen as far as has been shown on E4, but the one episode that I later found out had little or none of Sorkin's writing was definitely flat. In fact, in AJP's five-star poll on umtww, it scored lowest so far, with 3.40 against a season average of 4.06 after 10 episodes. I hope to god they pull it together, otherwise it'll be a sad ending for a once-great show.

And finally.... I totally agree with you - everyone should watch The West Wing :-)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think 'it shouldn't work' is more true for TWW than for other shows simply because it breaks so many story rules. For instance: It tells, it doesn't show. Events are always reported, never seen. People complain about Angel Investigations not ever seeming to have any clients, but in terms of what we have to assume is happening offscreen because we never see it TWW knocks Angel into a cocked hat. And you're not supposed to be able to do that on television - it's supposed to be a visual medium, after all.

Then there's narrative and character development, both of which are largely conspicuous by their absence. The characters become more rounded over time, but they don't change - not in the way that Buffy changed over seven years, not in the way Wesley has changed. And that, too, breaks the rules of serial TV. TWW is incredibly static.

(As for preachy, I thought S1 was noticeably more preachy than any subsequent season, to be honest.)

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

It tells, it doesn't show.

Yes. It struck me at one point that essentially The West Wing is a top-class radio show made in a television age. It wouldn't have got an audience on radio, so to be any kind of success it had to be made into a television show. But I think its real nature is to be almost exclusively verbal and non-visual. The fact that they overcame these non-televisual tendencies to make it work outstandingly on television is a testament to the show's strengths.

As for Sorkin leaving and possible slide in quality: I am of the opinion that no TV show should ever go beyond around three or four seasons. I can't think of a single show that shouldn't have retired gracefully at season 3/4. I don't think they'll be able to sustain the same kind of quality of writing with Sorkin gone, and I'm sceptical over whether Sorkin himself could have sustained it. I'm happy to take the good stuff we have already got and appreciate that.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm happy to take the good stuff we have already got and appreciate that.

I can live with it, although obviously more would be even better!

My only real objection is that S4 ended (as did the previous three seasons) on a cliffhanger, and I'd like some reasonable end-point. I can pretend Buffy ended with S5 if I need to, and if Angel goes down the pan this year then 'Home' makes a good enough last episode of that. But TWW doesn't really have any kind of resolution right now (unless you drew a line in S4 just after the election. But that would miss a whole bunch of good stuff).