Author: Douglas

Posted on

The BBC’s Coupling

Think of this as practice for techniques other than the exposure of a great television program(me).

I year or so back I became absorbed by a BBC America “Coupling” marathon. In the middle of a work day I sat down to eat a late lunch at my in-laws–where the TV is always on–and began flipping channels. I probably watched three episodes and could have watched more. I returned to work vowing to find that show when I got back home.

Last week I remembered that vow and fired up the search and record feature on the satellite to accomplish my aging goal.

I’ve either heard or read that “Friends” was based on, derived from, or just often compared to “Coupling”. I can see how either of those first two might be true and I can understand why the last certainly was true. My simple opinion is that the British program was both more and less what the American one was.

The first five shows I’ve seen were more extreme in their sexuality. I guess in Europe they can get away with just a touch more than we can here. Friends limitations forced very topical crude humor when it came to sex. [place examples from episode here when you think of some]. Coupling’s story propelling dialogue is what I’ll call intellectually bawdy. Maybe it’s just the accents. Maybe it’s just that I’ve watch so few episodes in comparison. That’s just my take on it.

Coupling’s characters are less than Friends. Stylized and compartmentalized characterizations mark American sitcoms’ mainstay. If Joey is a womanizing playboy in season one, he’ll be one in season eight. Along the way he may have become more lovable, but he won’t have become more like Chandler or Ross. Coupling’s characters are already more like each other than we are used to here in the States. While you can make out the general distinctions between the three male characters, there doesn’t seem to be any rule why one can’t be as sarcastic or as athletic or as kooky as another is the plot calls for it. In all that they still maintain enough of a distinction that the roles aren’t interchangeable.

Word count: 345
Day 191

Posted on

The 200 Day Hump

It is fair to say that a fourth daughter is taking it’s toll on my daily writing habit. When I haven’t been writing short things or bad things or reworking old things, I’ve been writing nothing. While the first three styles don’t conflict with what I do here at 1000 Days that last one directly opposes my goal to write every day. Incidentally I’m not normally pleased by short, bad, or reworked writing.

I didn’t assign this new habit to any particular hour of the day. Initially I wrote in the mornings with the occasional effort falling late in the evening. My longest runs and most interesting content occurred in the early stages when I focused in the morning. Not all the encouragement on the Internet insists on a specifying a time of the day along with their admonishment to write daily. Those that do, put such specifications on par with frequency as part of a successful strategy to form a writing habit. I’ll rededicate the 8 o’clock to 9 o’clock hour to this purpose in order to get over this hump.

Let me make explicit what I feel my be only implicit to some readers. This morning hour isn’t just a range to start in, it will be a duration to write for. Stick around to see what part fails first.

Word count: 221
Day 190