think "genre" first came up around here: Kat "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Aug 20, 2003 9:37:46 am PDT as a consolidating term.

GAH! In my head, each time this comes up, I'm always bitching about the moron who came up with the word genre to signify sci fi. HA to find out the moron is me.

I have no strong opinions about how to subdivide TV. In reality, I think it's a sort of hat trick with the, as ita aptly put, desire to talk about the shows one wants to talk about with the people one wants to discuss with, which is a very amorphous categorization in my book.

As it is, I don't discuss TV here as I only watch 3 shows. So discussing in natter suits me just fine.

Can the people in Premium who think these types of shows would be a good fit maybe take a step back and take a stab at defining why they fit?

To me they're all post Homicide shows in the same sense that Charmed and Roswell and Veronica Mars are all post-Buffy shows.

Homicide is the template though: gritty workplace dramas specializing in complex storylines, moral ambiguity, no easy resolutions, harsh and violent.

Most also have a big Sopranos influence which manifests with a charismatic, violent, male anti-hero and tosses in a lot of Shakespearean intrigue with family and betrayal and power struggles.

Between those two I think you can hit on shows which are on the H:LotS end of the spectrum (The Wire) and those which are further over towards Sopranos (Deadwood, Rome). But both Rescue Me and The Shield combine elements of both. Hell, even Dexter has the violent male anti-hero.

Six Feet Under would be a bit anomalous in this mix - more of a family drama with a stronger female focus.

So far it looks like what's wanted is a thread where everyone inside knows why, and those outside don't.

Frankly, that's what it sounds like to me, but I'm an outsider.

As someone just starting to have time to watch more tv, I'm only now learning how the tv threads work. From where I stand, the categories are muy confusing. Oddly, what looks tempting to me is either bon bon's suggestion (although I tend to agree that Drama is too broad, may need to be pruned back a bit) and/or the Premium/Basic/Network divisions.

But I have a suspicion that there's a bigger set of issues going on here that are not being discussed directly this time around and that have to do with how this board is changing. I think we need to find a way to better tv discussion. More threads, with more easily understood categories, would probably help.

I think we need to find a way to better tv discussion. More threads, with more easily understood categories, would probably help.

We should be careful about going for categories that are too easily defined. Some of the suggestions the last time we got into this felt like the equivalent of alphabetizing the kitchen (spoons with the salt, forks with the fondue pot).

I think if we take the time and do the more difficult work of answering brenda's question and find a way to boil it down to a cogent slug for each new thread we'll have much more interesting discussions and all be happier for it. It may turn out that the resulting thread descriptions will still need to include a show list in order to be clear enough to everyone.

I don't feel we need to answer this question for all television all at once. There is value in discussing how shows fit together and dealing with one or two groupings at a time will lead to better groupings.

really it isn't all that hard to find a thread for discussion. You pop your head into Natter and say "Where are we talking about Rome" and somebody points to the Premium thread. Or you try to talk about Rome in Boxed Set and somebody redirects you.

Think about the opposite situation. I sometimes lurk in Premium, largely because it’s low-volume and I’m aware of the shows, even if I’ve hardly ever watched them. If I wander in because I'm goofing off at work, and I learn all about what's happening on The Shield this season, I'll be pissed. Because I love the show, but I’ve watched it on DVD and right now I’m several seasons behind.

That's why I want to have at least a fighting chance of understanding what I'll find in a thread before I go into it.

I don't think there's an argument in favour of inaccurate thread descriptions and slugs that I could buy. I am all about the metadata.

I don't think there's an argument in favour of inaccurate thread descriptions and slugs that I could buy.

I insist on less accurate thread descriptions and completely misleading slugs! You have to earn your way into a thread. None of this candyass reading and then choosing. There's no vetting! Anybody who's literate could immediately go to the proper thread.

I don't think there's an argument in favour of inaccurate thread descriptions and slugs that I could buy.

Heh. I hope you don't think my post was an argument for inaccuracy. If it reads that way then I really need to sleep before I post again.

I may be putting words in her mouth, but I think what ita was arguing against is letting the thread go to where it wants to go, and then figuring out how it fits together after. In the meantime, before the figuring out, the slug and discription will not reflect reality, and will risk the situation Strega is worried about (and duly so, IMO).

That doesn't have to happen though, because SA and the others in favor of this expansion have listed the show titles they'd like included.