It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is the darker, more offensive, and more political version of Seinfeld. Instead of Jerry's house, the show takes place at the bar. Otherwise both shows are full of hilarious selfish bad people. Always Sunny ventures outside the basic sitcom format and is constantly pushing the limits. Later seasons are more hit and miss, but it's still my favorite TV show all time. I look forward to and watch every episode.

Why the List?

My friend Mo was a big part of me getting into It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. After recently recording for the pilot "The Gang Gets Racist," I was shocked to hear that Mo, and Drew, have lost touch with Always Sunny since returning from the Peace Corps.

This list is for Mo, Drew, and any one new or returning to Always Sunny.

Newbies, below is a nice starting point to guide you into Always Sunny. There is no right or wrong way to watch Always Sunny (really the order doesn't matter) as long as you're watching. Starting at season one is fine, and the pilot is strong, but like many shows, the writing and characters evolve and developed a lot over the seasons. Also Frank, Danny DeVito's character, joins the gang in season 2.

My suggested gateway episodes.

1. "The Gang Goes Jihad" s02e02- this is the first season with Frank. You really could just start with season 2.
2. "Dennis and Dee Go on Welfare" s02e03- like many of the episodes the title explains it all.
3. "Sweet Dee's Dating a Retarded Person" s03e09- this is a prequel for "The Nightman Cometh." See where the musical, dayman, and nightman were born.
4. "The Nightman Cometh" s04e13- this was my intro to the show. We watched it over and over one weekend, and I fell in love with these scumbag characters. Charlie writes and directs a musical.
5. "Mac and Charlie Write a Movie" s05e11- this could very much be titled "Mac Gets Racists again." The Gang makes a Lethal Weapon movie which is actually pretty good.

Welcome back Mo! 

This is the best of what Mo and Drew missed the last few years. These are the episodes that keep me full of that special feeling I got watching Always Sunny in the Peace Corps.

• Stack these two bad boys together, both episodes are The Gang playing Chardee MacDennis: "Chardee MacDennis: The Game of Games" s07e07 and "Chardee MacDennis 2: Electric Boogaloo" s11e01.
• "Reynolds vs. Reynolds: The Cereal Defense" s08e10- classic gang nonsense and dynamics!
• "Flowers for Charlie" s09e08- very cool parody of Flowers for Algernon, and this episode was written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the creators of Game of Thrones.
• "The Gang Makes Lethal Weapon 6" s09e09- this is a sequel to the above mentioned "Mac and Charlie Write a Movie" s05e11.
• "Dee Made a Smut Film" s11e04- this episode is such an awesome critique of art. Dennis' conclusion on art is the best.
• "The Gang Turns Black" s12e01- a parody of Quantum Leap turned racist musical, it's The Gang at their best once again.
• "The Gang Goes to a Water Park" s12e02- horrible people doing horrible things at a water park with a fun Usual Suspects reference.
• "Hero or Hate Crime?" s12e06- Mac officially comes out of the closet!
• "A Cricket's Tale" s12e09- this is a Cricket solo story (just for Drew). It actually takes place within the other episodes of the season every time Cricket meets up with The Gang.
• "The Gang Escapes" s13e02- The Gang does an escape room challenge.

Suggestions are welcomed!

Who Has the Right to Tell Stories?

Once again, my disagreement with Jessica Gao has inspired another rant. This time, who has the right to tell certain stories. Spoiler, I do have a personal bias. My podcast, Pilots and Petards Podcast, discussed this issue at the end of our Episode 24 The Crown. We ended up in a disagreement regarding Dana Schutz painting. This rant is my response to my cohosts Mo and Drew.

I'm arguing people have the right to any story they want to tell. It can be done in bad taste, but they still have the right. I fully support freedom of speech even for the most despicable speech. Let the audience decide.

Tolstoy is famous for being a man who can write women characters. Should he have never written Anna Karenina because he isn't a woman? Should Harriet Beecher Stowe never have written Uncle Tom's Cabin? Or the king of white men telling other people's stories Howard Zinn.

Dana Schutz, last year, received a ton of criticism for her painting "Open Casket" of Emmett Till (Bob Dylan also wrote a song called The Death of Emmett Till in 1962). From the articles I read, the main problem is Schutz is profiting from black suffering. The protesters claim that the painting is wrong and should be censored because Schutz has no right to that story because neither her nor her family experienced Till's suffering or similar. Many protesters requested the painting be destroyed.

Schutz responded saying, she doesn't know what it is like to be black in America, but she does know what it is like to be a mother. Schutz paints, and as a painter she was inspired by Mamie Till's experience. Like Beecher or Zinn, her painting may reach people that wouldn't learn about this story, and those viewers may gain a greater understanding of race, injustice, and the cruel history for people of color. I see those potentials as positives.

I don't think Schutz painting was in bad taste. I browsed the Whitney Biennial 2017, (it appears they did switch Schutz's painting) but if you look, I think you would agree the diversity of artists is well represented. This leads me to disagree that Schutz is stealing black artists jobs by painting Till's experience. I see her as spreading the story.

Schutz is on our side too. If I had to display a Emmett Till painting, I'd look for an African American artist. But if I had to display a Schutz painting, I wouldn't rule out "Open Casket" because she is white.

Here's the rub. I wrote a poem with a voice of a Mamie Till type character. It was inspired by my love of African American Lit, social injustice, and scientific speculation for a cure of aging. I could have made my characters white trash, but voices came to me from characters like the one I wrote. I tried to be thoughtful and respectful in my portrayal, and I spent several hours writing, revising, and thinking about my short poem to get it right at the time.

I didn't live the experiences I created, but I have witnessed aspects of it. Poor people gain access when profits are right. My characters could have had any poor person's voice, even a poor voice my family personally knows. Maybe if I rewrote this poem today, it would. But at the time, I felt and I was motivated by the voice I choose. This is, in my opinion, my best poem. If someday I should publish a poem or collection, I'd hate to have to leave my best work out because I didn't have the right skin.

I didn't even really argue my original point. But if you are here looking for guidance, write whatever story moves you, and attempt to do it in good taste. Research, empathize, think, and do your best to make a piece of art worthy of engagment.


Jimbo out!

Apu and "No Good Read Goes Unpunished"

Background

 

The Simpsons finally addressed (kind of) the issues of Apu's character being racist stereotypes in episode 15, season 29, titled "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." The response is more than likely to the uproar from the 2017 documentary titled The Problem with Apu. NPR, along with many other sources, wrote articles condemning the simpsons' "No Good Read Goes Unpunished."

I watched the Simpsons episode in full; I read the NPR article, "The Simpsons To 'The Problem With Apu': Drop Dead;" and I listened to the latest Whiting Wongs episode called "He's Brown and Everyone's Yellow." I didn't see the documentary which is fine for my current purpose.

My responses were motivated by Jessica Gao's response because I feel she overlooked a few things from the episode. NPR certainly dropped the ball in their article. Below are my talking points that were ignored by Whiting Wongs and NPR.

 

The Title

The title is "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." In general, the simpsons are implying that offending people is part of entertainment. I disagree. I do get the point and I think it is a valid argument that could be made. I will not be addressing that argument.

Throughout the episode there are several allusions to this topic from both positive and negative points of view. As Gao mentioned, the simpsons tried to be South Park, and I agree they missed.

What punishment are the simpsons referring to? A punishment for past offenses? Or their current punishment after the airing of this show? Or even a future punishment to come?

Apu's Presence

Apu was in the show twice and both times was voiceless. That's interesting to note. I'm avoiding a interpretation because it could be interpreter many ways.

The Art of War

The Art of War is one of the most iconic war books ever written. It is philosophical and I would argue very much a source of Asian wisdom. Both Homer and Bart read The Art of War in this episode. The simpsons writers could have chosen any book to solve Bart and Homer's feud. Was the Art of War picked because of its mainstream popularity, or are they focusing in on the deception idea towards Apu? The topic of deception is a focal point in the first chapter of the Art of War.

This is a clever deeper meaning into Apu and apologizing, but the point is too ambiguous. Which viewers/characters are the simpons trying to deceive?

With No Apologies 

With No Apologies is a memoir by Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a senator who ran for President in 1964. He is famously remembered for opposing the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is a tasteless reference, surprisingly NPR and Ms. Gao missed it.

Lisa is reading this book prior to Marge coming into her room. This is a big foreshadow that the simpsons will not be apologizing. Using a book that represents an old racist white guy not apologizing... Well that does sounds a lot funnier now. Still, it is a very cheap shot. One people won't even notice. Seems odd. I'm sure someone is getting a big kick out of it.

Marge's Rewrite 

We cannot rewrite all the wrongs of the past. As viewers we can accept or reject the works in the context of their time and place in history and or society.

Marge's book is boring because the characters are too perfect due to her attempt to make the story inoffensive.

The simpsons are addressing the larger issue of not offending anyone. This simpsons think there is always someone who will be offended, that's a fair point. Writers, comedians, and entertainers have to decide how many people they are whiling to offend to produce their performance/product.

Homer's Victory

Ironically, Homer becomes like Ned to win the war against Bart. This could be interpreted as a psuedo apology. Ned is boring and inoffensive. Homer becomes Ned. Homer beats Bart by being inoffensive. This is where South Park would have killed it. Stan or Kyle would have made a soliloquy about what they learned and it'd be funny

Conclusion

If you don't like the simpsons don't watch and don't talk about it. 

What is the balance between entertainment and offensiveness? How many liters of brown tears are worth x amount of laughter?

I don't know the answer. People can and should be able to say whatever they want. If you or I is offended we should judge the person accordingly. In a show, such as the simpsons, we can ignore it if it is too boring or too offensive. If the simpsons cannot find the correct balance they will seize to be on TV in the future.

The simpsons have zero moral duty to its viewers. The question is how many people are they willing to piss off vs please.