He left off a couple of important points. Because The Wire is drama, you get to know the characters as people. There is a huge difference between looking at "urban, ethnic and impoverished" on paper and getting to know and appreciate the characters as individuals.
<insert spoiler alert here>
Season 4 follows the youngest generation and ends by showing you how each character steps into the place vacated by a character from the older generation. This was the most painful season for me to watch, seeing young people being trapped and molded into another wave of failure. This cycle is a topic dear to my heart, and one I believe would not require mountains to break. The cycle perpetuates because we're all afraid to touch it... myself included. The subset of our society that is undereducated and economically, socially and emotionally depressed is a component of the whole. And if we own the whole, we own all of the problems, including those of the subset.
This is a course I would love to take, if only because I have some very, very strong opinions on the phenomenon. But I'll spare HN the details.
I'm also a huge fan of the show...For the interested who want nonfiction but also want a compelling narrative arc, there's a great documentary by Stacy Peralta ("Lords of Dogtown," "Riding Giants") on gangs in LA, "Crips and Bloods: Made in America." It's part history, part interviews with current and former hardcore gangbangers.
Two great nonfiction books on similar subjects that are highly readable:
A Hope in the Unseen, Ron Suskind (based on Suskind's Pulitzer-winning newspaper series)
Makes Me Wanna Holler, Nathan McCall (an ex-hood turned WaPost reporter)
I can't find a link right now, but I remember an interview with David Simon where he mentioned that Omar was originally supposed to appear only in a short arc (and then be killed). The actor (Michael K. Richards) was so good that they had to keep him. (Still can't find a link to the David Simon interview, but here's a link to an interview with the actor. He says 7 episodes was the original number.[1])
My point being: that character had to die. As awful as I found it to watch his last episodes, there was really no other end for him.
Having Omar die also allowed them to emphasise the whole thing starting over again and nothing really changing - Michael taking Omar's place, Dukie taking Bubble's and so on.
In what seemed a preemptive nod toward any outraged Omar fans in the audience, Simon also leaned on the same source to explain the fate for some of his show's most popular characters. "Those who want to know why Omar had to die, why Stringer had to die," he said, "Strap on a helmet, get in the game and read Antigone. Read Medea. It had to happen."
The one truly great thing about the last season was that they reincarnated his character. He was the one character whose arc was perfect from season 1 through season 5.
Not that you are wrong. But when do we start & stop using 'spoiler' tags?
A week after the episode was on TV for the first time? A month? A year? And with movies?
I guess it's right to not use the tag when talking about Star Wars, for instance.
I guess too that The Wire's 5th season was enough years ago to don't use spoiler tags. I've learned this the hard way (Dexter 5th season finale, amongst others) and stopped worrying about this. It's the Internet, there will be spoilers no matter how careful you browse.
Again, the only thing I can think of where using spoiler tags was absolutely necessary is in unreleased shows/movies/narrative
Disclaimer: I have never seen a single episode of The Wire.
Am I alone in thinking that this is a complete waste of time? Why would I go to Harvard to hear learned commentary on a TV show? Granted, this is a critically acclaimed TV show, but it's still just meant to entertain.
If I paid the exorbitant Harvard tuition, I would be incensed to be made to study a TV show.
Maybe others wouldn't? Does anyone here feel like it's a positive instead of a negative?
EDIT: I see that I have apparently angered some people by asking this question, judging by the downvotes. I didn't mean to offend - I just wanted to see what made this show different from other TV, which several of you have explained. Again, my apologies.
You're deriding the course based on medium, not message. Perhaps we also shouldn't use a 'common' language like English and revert to being taught in Latin.
Additionally, If you'd actually seen The Wire you probably would not be arguing against this course. The Wire isn't just any piece of entertainment, it's the result of David Simon's years of observations as a journalist in Baltimore, a thesis covering his observations of how institutions fail individuals, in particular the black urban poor in Baltimore.
While The Wire may be fictional, it's quite pointed in its messages, and as the author says, it weaves together many connected threads into a unified whole in a way many academic texts lack.
Lastly, it doesn't just tell you what's going on in a dry, disconnected tone like an academic text. It makes you truly grok and indeed FEEL what's going on. In my view, that definitely elevates this course.
First: it is a single course, and it does not appear to be a required one. No one is being made to study it. Students are being given the option of studying it.
Second: All manner of art is studied in college, from novels, to sculpture, to film. TV is but another genre, and while it an unfortunate history of being a "low art", a lot of recent tv definitely rises to level of a lot of the films that are studied in college today.
That being said, I'm a little leery of the context in which the show is being studied. The course is on urban inequality. Even though the wire is very well researched, it's still fiction. If you want to talk about the realities on which the wire is based, why not study those realities directly? Why let an intricately plotted work of fiction serve as your primary window into that world? I'd be fine with showing some scenes from the Wire in a course on urban inequality, but I'd really hate to give students the impression that the Wire is the final authority on what life in Baltimore is like.
" I'd be fine with showing some scenes from the Wire in a course on urban inequality, but I'd really hate to give students the impression that the Wire is the final authority on what life in Baltimore is like."
Hopefully, students will be smart enough to realize that "The Wire" is a work of fiction (as you and others have pointed out). However, the difficult thing about teaching just from research and theory is that it is extremely difficult to gain a concrete understanding without a concrete presentation.
When I was going through the teacher education program in college, we read a lot of (what I thought were very compelling) scholarly articles explaining how current practices (regarding instruction, assessment, and so on) were flawed and then proposing better practices.
The discussions we had were often of the "Okay, I see what the author is saying" variety, but ended up with very little actionable follow-through. I remember getting in trouble for trying to heed the advice of the research ("I don't care what the research says, we're doing it this way and that's final.")
What I am trying to say is that research and statistics are all fine and dandy, but the students at Harvard are mostly white and mostly from reasonably affluent families who live near other reasonably affluent families. Ideally, we could study those realities directly via fieldwork, but that's simply not a possibility for most. So, in lieu of giving these students a completely abstract understanding without any lived experience (even if it is vicarious and fictional), "The Wire" comes in.
Smart enough to realize it's a work of fiction? I often hear college educated people claim "The Jungle" and "The Grapes of Wrath" are historical documentaries.
I've heard the same thing about "The Da Vinci Code". Doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of people hold such a view (that said: a sizable enough minority is not too far from being a majority).
While "The Wire" is fiction, it's based on the book "The Corner", which is not. It was not really written to entertain, and it really is not that entertaining, if you by entertaining you mean "fun to read".
If I paid the exorbitant Harvard tuition and they made me study a romance novel I'd be pissed too. The Wire isn't pulp. It's the television equivalent of literature. The writing is really that good.
The Wire is based off multiple people's journalism careers in the city of Baltimore. It's fictional, but it's fiction intended to synthesize David Simon's worldview about the failure of institutions (of all kinds) in modern American cities; it's a more effective communicator of that message than his raw reporting would be, and that raw reporting is clearly fair game for a class.
If it makes you feel better, check out _ Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets_ and _ The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood_ --- both great books, as gripping as The Wire, and used throughout the series as source material. Both totally nonfic.
I was going to point out both books. The Corner is one of the most soul-crushingly depressing books I've ever read. I could only read a few pages at a time. The knowledge that these were real people made it feel like I was actually watching these people's lives either fall apart around them, or get even worse than they already are.
Disclaimer: I believe 'The Wire' is the greatest TV series I have ever seen
Well it seems to be a class on urban inequality that uses characters from The Wire as examples. The show was critically acclaimed and many of the characters are based off people known by the creators (a Balitmore Police Officer/School Teacher & Baltimore Sun Reporter)
"Our seminar was designed for 30 students; four times that many showed up for the first class last week."
Using the show to promote a class discussing a real sociological problem seems like a good idea.
Disclaimer: I have never read a single page of "1984".
Am I alone in thinking that this is a complete waste of time? Why would I go to Harvard to hear learned commentary on a mere novel? Granted, this is a critically acclaimed novel, but it's still just meant to entertain.
If I paid the exorbitant Harvard tuition, I would be incensed to be made to study a mere novel.
Lets make an analogy with books. Most books are, in the end, "just meant to entertain", but it would be ridiculous to argue that universities shouldn't study them. Why? Well, some books go beyond just entertainment into a further realm: commentary on the human situation, raising and questioning of philosophic questions, etc.
I think that the Wire fits into the same mold as an excellent book. Saying that it's just to entertain misses the bigger goals that it's trying to accomplish. It has brilliant script writing and direction, and it really raises questions into the areas that it portrays (the drug war, corruption in legal areas, etc) that I had never considered before.
I'm not really that clued up on the different schools of Harvard, but from the website the course appears to be run from their Government division. So this sort of thing would be suitable for use in an undergraduate politics programme as it gives some of the dry academic theory that places NO emphasis on the human aspect of poverty a bit more life in the form of studying modern literature, or in this case film.
From the article: "Of course, our undergraduate students will read rigorous academic studies of the urban job market, education and the drug war. But the HBO series does what these texts can't. ... With the freedom of artistic expression, 'The Wire' can be more creative. It can weave together the range of forces that shape the lives of the urban poor."
It's not simply commentary on a TV show. The show illustrates points from a wider academic course.
It's a TV show about real issues. I'm guessing the course focuses on the core issues represented in the show more than the entertainment value. I would compare it to using Greek mythology as a framework for learning about ancient Greek civilization and culture.
I think you should have read the linked article before criticizing the idea. They make the reasons for teaching The Wire quite clear in the article and provide a good argument.
I strongly disagree with your initial reaction (as do most people, it seems), but I upvoted you and am a bit perturbed that you were downvoted so heavily. Nothing in your comment was offensive or silly. You asked good questions respectfully and clearly gave lots of people the impetus to post their own thoughts.
Love that show! the entrepreneurs here would truly appreciate Stringer Bell and perhaps, Marlo Stanfield, but everybody'd love Omar!
Just one course? the fans of "The Wire" know that there's enough complex storylines and richness of characters for somebody to do a PHD thesis on the show.
The trouble with the specifics is since it's a work of fiction, there is no way to tell what is real and what is made up. Hence, reputable historians and sociologists should study reality from reputable sources.
One thing every historian learns early on is that there are no perfect sources, no single narrative. (Go watch the film Memento if you want to see some fantastic philosophical musing on this topic: we can’t ever completely trust things written in the past, especially after we’ve lost the full context of an author’s motivation) The real world is big and complicated and messy. One thing a show like The Wire gets to do that would be nearly impossible for an academic paper is follow dozens of characters, their relationships, their private lives, their motivations, their interactions with public institutions.
One thing a show like The Wire gets to do that would be nearly impossible for an academic paper is follow dozens of characters, their relationships, their private lives, their motivations, their interactions with public institutions.
Sounds like an ethnography, actually. This is exactly what anthropologists do in the field.
My parents are anthropologists, and you’re certainly sort of right. I maintain though that tracking dozens of drug dealers, cops, high-level city officials, newspaper reporters, unionized dockworkers letting drugs through as a side business, junior high students, etc. etc. would be almost impossible to do to the level of detail portrayed in The Wire – it would be difficult and dangerous work and you couldn’t get that kind of access (public officials don’t admit illegal activity as a rule), etc.
Of course, you’d be getting a glimpse at some real people, instead of a complete in-depth view of fictional ones.
It’s a pretty strained analogy either way, but it’s much more like saying studying protein folding is hard so we use some mix of (only roughly accurate) mathematical models and (imprecise, difficult to collect) experimental data, and hope we get close enough to still draw some meaningful conclusions.
Well, since the point of this TV drama is to make people think about the problems of urban life, the ways in which institutions behave, etc., it doesn’t have to be a perfect depiction of events to achieve that purpose; and indeed it could never be: a real city doesn’t only live in hour-long chunks, and has millions of people, not dozens.
But one pretty good way to get feedback is to see what people say who have been in similar circumstances and social situations. Everything I’ve heard suggests that the Wire is extremely believable.
The Wire was written by people with intimate first-hand experience and they worked really hard to make it as accurate as possible. Of course the characters are fictional but the world they inhabit is real.
So, there was an amsterdam experiment in Baltimore? A cop inventing a serial killer? No? It belongs in a literature class, not a sociology class. It's like learning physics by watching Star Trek.
Yes, The Wire was a great TV show. I enjoyed watching it. But let's not pretend it is a documentary.
Does the book confirm that the way to learn about physics is to study Star Trek's warp drive, transporter, subspace communications, telepathy, food replicator, telekinesis, parallel universes, force fields, gravity generator, dylithium crystals, time travel, vulcan death grip, etc., all based on no known scientific principles?
The article addresses that. The idea is that fiction writers have the ability to address questions that professional sociologists can't touch, due to their own agreed-upon taboos.
Terrible idea. Should do a class on "The World According to Jim" or "How I Met Your Mother" instead. ;)
Actually, it's very cool; I love the Wire. However, I am a little surprised it's not the Harvard English department touting a course on The Sopranos...
<insert spoiler alert here>
Season 4 follows the youngest generation and ends by showing you how each character steps into the place vacated by a character from the older generation. This was the most painful season for me to watch, seeing young people being trapped and molded into another wave of failure. This cycle is a topic dear to my heart, and one I believe would not require mountains to break. The cycle perpetuates because we're all afraid to touch it... myself included. The subset of our society that is undereducated and economically, socially and emotionally depressed is a component of the whole. And if we own the whole, we own all of the problems, including those of the subset.
This is a course I would love to take, if only because I have some very, very strong opinions on the phenomenon. But I'll spare HN the details.