Then, I think it’s honorable to say “this just isn’t for me” without appealing to moral norms.

So, um, essentially what Jordan said.

@Sheely
Last!!!!!111!!!!1 indeed. We can’t run a podcast about sociology if we have to defend the show every week. So we’re going to table this discussion for now. When we get forums, it can go on forever.

However, in general, the more relevant comparisons in such reviews are going to be between pieces of software that share similar feature sets- excel vs iWork numbers, or final cut vs. Adobe Premiere. If a piece of software is being sold as “movie making software”, the presence (or functionality) of the video editing function is crucial to your evaluation of whether or not it is a good piece of software, but it isn’t going to be relevant to your discussion of spreadsheets (unless, over time there is a shift in what it means for a piece of software to be a spreadsheet software and that comes to include video editing capability).

Understood in this way, I think the important question then becomes whether or not continuity is a “feature” that can be absent without decreasing the ability of a TV show to be a TV show, or whether it is a deeper aspect of the form (more like GUI), without which the TV show can’t be said to performing well. The tricky thing about continuity is that I think it might be both- I do agree that some amount of continuity is intrinsic to the form of serialized fiction, but I think that above that threshold, the extent to which the writers are slavishly devoted to following though with every single plot and character element that is brought up is an optional feature.

I like shows that have vastly different approaches to continuity- Mad Men and the Wire are both pretty detail oriented and pretty much don’t waste a single gesture, line, or scene- anything that happens will most likely come back in a later episode or season, while on the other hand shows like Arrested Development and Glee play much more fast and loose with continuity. I have no problem liking both of these types of shows, as I have no one strong preference with respect to continuity. I think the key is how consistent each show’s use of continuity is within my general expectation of what kind of show it is and what it is about. By this yardstick, I would probably be upset if Mad Men started doing the sorts of things that you guys are criticizing Glee for (unless they substantially, credibly, and rather transparently changed my expectation of what kind of show it is). Similarly, I might actually like Glee less if they tried to be substantially more conscientious about continuity (again, unless they really shifted my perception of what kind of show it is).

So I guess a question that I have for Belinkie and Lewis is when you say that Glee’s writing is lazy (or that it has continuity problems), what is your benchmark or reference group? What show or set of shows do the things well that you think Glee does poorly?

I think this discussion also relates to some of Lewis’s earlier comments (and some of Belinkie’s specific gripes) pushing us to elaborate on how we can tell whether plot elements introduced in one episode will apply later in the series (or even within the same episode). I think a show that plays fast and loose with continuity can still provide a lot of clues about which plot and character developments matter for the larger plot and which ones don’t. I think Arrested Development has a good example of this- the “On the next Arrested Development” device. Occasionally the things mentioned there became major plot arcs or permanent features of the overarching narrative (George Sr.’s conversion to Judiasm, Buster’s hand getting bitten off by the loose seal), but just as often (or probably more often), the things mentioned in that segment never came up again. However, I was rarely confused about this as I was watching the show. If something mentioned as happening on the next arrested development actually did happen in the following episode, I assumed it was permanent. If it wasn’t mentioned, I assumed that it was a throwaway joke. I can’t think of any examples where something was introduced at the end of an episode, was ignored in the subsequent episode, then was reintroduced several episodes down the road.

I think Glee has signaled which plot and character developments are permanent in two ways. First, Glee started using a “Here’s what is happening on Glee” device, where Finn (I think) gives a voiceover narration of a selection of previous plot points. My assumption is that if something is mentioned in any of these (Quinn being pregnant, Terri being fake pregnant, Emma being engaged), it is important to the larger narrative. I don’t remember, but has anything that has been mentioned in one of those “previously on Glee” segments later been just ignored or forgotten? I don’t think that has been the case- if that had happened, I think it actually would have bothered me a bit. Similarly, I assume that if a plot point isn’t brought up for an episode or two, it isn’t important to the overarching plot. Again, I think they’ve been pretty consistent about this. However, if we start getting things like the restricted setlist being brought back up with no explanation in a few episodes, I might be more inclined to agree that the show has some more fundamental continuity problems (and possibly lazy or just inept writing).

@Matt – I think there are three questions we can always legitimately ask. 1: What is the show trying to do? 2: Does it succeed? 3: At the end of the day, is this something I’m interested in? And then for all three, why or why not?

At the end of the day you’re saying that you want your shows to have either no continuity or perfect continuity, and something like Glee that falls in the middle is a dealbreaker, no matter what else it gets right. That’s… fine. But I find it so weird! Honestly, how much pleasure do you get out of continuity? I have never, ever tuned in to watch any show and said to myself “Wow! They’re picking up on the plot threads from last week! Good job, writers!” And I quite OFTEN think something like “Wow! Look at that production design!” or “Wow, listen to that snappy dialogue!” or “Wow, that’s some surprisingly mean-spirited social commentary!” or “Wow, that was an awesome Motown arrangement!” Okay, maybe that last one only happened with Glee. But the others are things that I value in TV in general.

But Wrather, you and Jordan raise some interesting points on how we judge art. Can you EVER accuse a television show of being “lazy,” or “bad”… or “good,” for that matter? You guys believe: “The writers of Glee obviously aren’t TRYING to be consistent, so calling their writing ‘lazy’ is imposing your own value system on them.” And I’ll admit, there’s something to that. If you accused the writers of Family Guy of being unrealistic, you’d be totally right, but also missing the point and judging the show on ridiculous criteria.

But the problem with this is, doesn’t it mean that as long as the people in the writer’s room are happy with a given episode, viewers have no right to judge it? Like, WE may not find “Home Improvement” that funny. But I’m sure Tim Allen thought it was the funniest show on television. So who are WE to call it unfunny? Aren’t we just imposing our own value system on the show? Or to take “Showgirls” as an example, if the guys who made it enjoyed watching it, then how, exactly, is it a “bad” movie?

I’m sort of worried that if I agree with you that there’s no such thing as a universal expectation of continuity in a serialized show, am I pretty much saying, “There’s no way to judge a TV show, period.”

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature” is actually not a bad way of putting it. I feel like I’m the guy at tech support, and you’re calling up to complain that the new version of excel doesn’t let you edit video. My response: “Yeah, that’s not what it was designed to do.” I don’t relish the lack of video editing capability. I suppose it would be nice if it was there, in case I ever needed it. But I don’t miss it, either, and I think you’re letting your focus on video editing ruin your enjoyment of a perfectly good spreadsheet application.

@Mlawski – that’s a good way of putting it. Glee’s plots are wildly inconsistent both within the individual episodes, and even more so between episodes. If that’ a deal breaker for you, consider the deal broke.

But we can have an argument later on about whether it’s possible to judge art by objective principles. Obviously art is a social construct, so it isn’t “real” and can’t be judged objectively in that sense… but I’m one of those whackadoos that will tell you that numbers are also kind of a social construct, they’re just one that we agree on universally. So while Showgirls may not be “objectively” bad, you could argue that people who believe that it is good are functionally insane.

The question is, can anyone judge art based on any sort of objective principles? If the answer is no, then we can’t call Glee bad or lazy (and nor can we call, say, “Showgirls” bad or lazy), but I do think we can characterize it as “inconsistent.” Then it’s a matter of taste. Quite frankly, I think I’d be happier with The Simpsons if it was more consistent about its plot and character developments. But that’s just me.

Here’s the challenge I think legitimate to offer to you:
Since the show has some ongoing narrative, in which some events from earlier episodes have persistent effects on later episodes, and some character traits are clearly intended to be reasonably consistent for a character across episodes, can _you_ provide a rough description of which sorts of events are to be treated as persistent, and which effects are not to be treated as persistent?

Insofar as the season of Glee, as a whole, can be construed as telling a story (and I don’t think you would deny that there is an ongoing story), there are clearly some constraints on the overarching coherence of that narrative. If an episode started with everyone in College (and no explanation or even implied time-jump), I assume you’d take issue with that.

Some part of the overall evaluation of an episode _has_ to be dependent on how well that episode contributes to the overarching narrative. That is where a lot of Belinkie’s concerns seem to come from, attention to the overarching narrative. If you think that story is being well told, that’s one thing. But your comments and evaluation of the episodes seems to simply disregard that aspect of the individual episodes.