My name is Robin Pierson and I love television. It’s my favourite art form.
For many a reason I love TV shows more than books, movies, sculptures, paintings, plays, operas and ballets. While this makes me pretty strange, what makes me even stranger is how seriously I take my TV. I’m a natural critic in life, wanting to know why anything was done and questioning whether it could have been done better. And so now I spend my time applying that critical thinking to television shows of all kinds.
What I do
Unlike most TV critics I don’t write a blog style with my thoughts about each episode. Instead I aim to build up an episode guide to the shows I cover, so there is a strict review structure in place which I follow for each episode. I do this because I loved episode guides growing up. They used to come in magazines like SFX (over in the UK) and cover whole seasons of shows, episode by episode. I really enjoyed reading someone else’s thoughts on the episodes I remembered, whether I agreed with them or not. By reading someone’s analysis of whole season’s it became clear what they valued in a TV show. It was fascinating to me to see that someone else could look at the show and have a completely different philosophy on why the show existed, what it’s “purpose” was or which of its characters were admirable or despised.
What I believe
I hope that by providing reviews (in text and audio) I too can share with you my philosophy on each of the shows I cover. And hopefully you will get enjoyment out of agreeing or disagreeing with me. Or maybe just by thinking about what you are watching in a different light.
In general my whole philosophy on television is based around whether it appears believable.
There is so much about TV shows which is obviously manufactured. Cliff hangers come at the end of episodes, witty lines are stated before commercial breaks, plots are restated by characters just for the viewers benefit. But it doesn’t take a lot for most people to suspend their disbelief and become absorbed in the world which the show creates. For me, good television is when the writing and acting help you forget that this is a show. When the show can suck you in even for a minute and become totally absorbed in what you are seeing – that’s good television.
I also know that TV shows are there to serve a master. They exist primarily to make money for the networks who produce them. I will never castigate a show for serving that master, but I will hold them to account for doing it in an implausible way.
The big but
One thing I always try to make clear whenever I explain to people what I do is that I believe firmly that there is no good or bad art. Art is a subjective creation and there is no acceptable external judgement about what is good and bad. Art will speak to you on a personal level and so what one person likes another may hate. If “Old McDonald had a Farm” is your favourite song, who am I to say another song is better?
My opinion on TV shows is just that. An opinion. No more accurate or important than anyone else’s. All I can hope to do is provide you with a consistent, interesting and thought provoking review which hopefully will enhance your enjoyment of any show.
As for you
I hope the website can be a space for anyone to come and share their thoughts and feelings on TV shows. Obviously I will always look at shows from my own specific serious eyed perspective, but that’s no reason that the site can’t be a forum for all kinds of different viewpoints to exist. I hope that ultimately it can be a place where people gather to share their excitements and disappointments over this most infuriating of art forms.
Finally
I would like to say that I have a huge amount of respect for those who make television shows. I would not hope to suggest through my reviews that in any way I could have done a better job than any of those who participated in them. Though I may slate an episode, I am well aware of the different audiences which shows are trying to please and the myriad of pressures and constraints that are involved in creating something for public consumption. I would like to thank everyone involved in the creation of these shows for giving me so much entertainment to enjoy.
Notes about the reviews
1. I generally refer to people by their character names. It becomes a real drag trying to talk about both the actor and the character. There is also the problem of who to give credit to. In a review I might say (words to the effect of) Chandler is excellent in this scene. It is cumbersome to switch from writing about Chandler’s character to suddenly praise Matthew Perry for his performance. But more than cumbersome it is inaccurate. Behind his acting is the director who may well have told him what to emphasise or express. Behind him is a team of writers who scripted the line and behind them the producers who structured the overall direction of the show. So I hope you will understand that when I write “Chandler is excellent” you will naturally give first credit to Matthew Perry and then a mental nod to all those who went into making that performance so good.
2. I use the word cheap a lot. The definition which best describes what I mean by cheap is “of decreased value.” In the context of comedy I apply this to jokes which require less effort or are in some way appealing to the lowest (or cheapest) common denominator. Practically I mean that there are jokes which we all know from childhood will elicit a reaction in others. These include bodily functions, insulting people’s appearance and someone falling over or being vulgar or rude. When jokes like this are written I often refer to them as cheap. Meaning that joke has less value to me than a joke which relies on more nuance. However if you consider these jokes to be really funny then by all means construe cheap as a compliment.
