<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on A Book About Shows About Nothing</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:14:28 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Eric Olsen</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/10/201434.php#comment-14699</link>
<description>Fascinating and important Ed, great job. I would add that &quot;being&quot; about nothing isn&#039;t the same thing as &quot;believing&quot; in nothing, which is the actual meaning of nihilism, and even seemingly amoral picaresques like Forrest Gump may not take a stand on the big issues, but certainly do on interpersonal issues, celebrating friendship, loyalty and family, while dramatically demonstrating the instant karma results of a life led nihilistically.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">14699@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:14:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Ed Driscoll</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/10/201434.php#comment-14649</link>
<description>Bob,

You&#039;re absolutely right--there&#039;s a long tradition of comedies &quot;about nothing&quot;. You could include the anarchy of the best of the Marx Brothers&#039; pictures, or Bing and Bob&#039;s &quot;Road&quot; movies to the list as well. 

But there&#039;s also a long tradition of American television sit-coms having certain formulas: the characters usually try to &quot;grow a little&quot; by overcoming some sort of moral dilemma in each episode, and the shows were usually oriented around a family environment. This tradition runs through all-American shows from &lt;I&gt;Ozzie &amp; Harriet&lt;/i&gt; to &lt;i&gt;Happy Days&lt;/i&gt;, and even an apparently subversive show like &lt;i&gt;M*A*S*H&lt;/i&gt; played by those rules as well. 

Hibbs argues that Seinfeld&#039;s creators and writers&#039; deliberately dynamited those rules, as simultaneously, numerous movies flirted with nihilism in the 1990s as well. 

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nd.edu/~observer/12031999/News/5.html&quot;&gt;Here&#039;s an article&lt;/A&gt; that focuses a little bit more on Hibbs thoughts about the &lt;i&gt;Seinfeld&lt;/i&gt; TV series, than I apparently did above.

In any case, while I&#039;m not sure I fully agree with his conclusions, it&#039;s an interesting book, and an enjoyable read. 

Regards,

Ed</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">14649@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:13:29 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Bob Hawkins</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/10/201434.php#comment-14643</link>
<description>The Jack Benny radio show was a show about nothing. Exactly as much as &quot;Seinfeld&quot;, since they&#039;re the same show. (Star: a stand-up comedian playing himself. Regular cast: a gang of neurotics, including one beautiful woman. Recurring one-joke characters. Repeat a joke 3 times in a show. Admittedly, the Benny show was more anarchic and post-modernist.) The Benny show was top-rated in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Was the audience nihilistic all that time?
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">14643@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:10:13 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>