David Simon and the Audacity of Despair

Reihan Salam critiques The Wire: "David Simon thinks he’s constructed a critique of capitalism, but in fact he’s prepared an elaborate, moving brief for despair and (ultimately) indifference."

I think that's right. What's more, based on what I've heard David Simon say about politics, while he and I are clearly "on the same side" in some sense, I don't really agree with him about very much in detail. Fundamentally, I think his vision of the bleak urban dystopia and its roots is counterproductive to advancing the values we hold dear. That said, I think the show succeeds not in spite of these lacunae in Simon's political vision, but almost because of them. Trying to do a piece of extended drama that embodied the values of pragmatic progressive reformism would be impossible. The results, if serious and true to the spirit, would be deadly dull. Moderate optimism about human nature and the possibility for change is, if done in an entertaining way, the stuff of light romantic comedies, not big-time drama.

And I think everyone recognizes that on some level. But part of what gives The Wire such great power is its creator's conviction, wrong though it is, that his tragic vision constitutes telling it like it is. While departing from both reality and realism in any number of ways, The Wire is resolutely committed to verisimilitude in a way that almost no other show is. The result is the creation of a world -- Simon's Baltimore -- that feels eminently real, but is imbued with all the artifice of Greek tragedy.

In political terms it's a dark vision that, like Dostoevsky's, veers wildly between radical and reactionary and that exists, fundamentally, outside the lines of "normal" arguments about policy. Simon believes that we are doomed, and political progress requires us to believe that we are not. But aesthetically it's an extremely powerful conceit. And at the end of the day, it's a television show not a treatise on urban policy. If some viewers are taking it too literally as a statement of truth, that's on them much more than it is on Simon.

Comments

watched the season 5 premier on demand last night. shockingly, it was very good. felt more like a continuation from season 4 than other season premiers have vis-a-vis the preceding season.

Posted by Goldberg | January 2, 2008 4:46 PM

Yup.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 4:49 PM

Enterprising computer-savvy types can find new episodes already leaked to a certain file-sharing protocol that starts with the letter 'B'. I've seen the first and second episodes there already, and one can expect that the first seven will be up shortly, courtesy of the screener DVD sent to TV critics.

Wire-blogging here and here.

MIA from the first episode? Omar.

Also, Dukie is about twice as big as he was in Season Four.

Posted by ethan salto | January 2, 2008 4:56 PM

...adding, just read Reihan's post and the comments. I think the quote Matt picks up is correct, but a lot of the rest of the post is oddly wrong. (also, what does it mean to "reluctantly" admit that the Wire is the best show on TV?)

In any event, it's worth reading Reihan's entire post and the comments (although feel free to ignore the one racist rant by some guy who's never seen the show but knows better than all of us what it's about).

Posted by goldberg | January 2, 2008 4:58 PM

Matt, you don't know the first thing about urban decay or the failures of capitalism, because you just aren't interested in how poor people live. You spend no time at all writing about the kinds of broken systems depicted in The Wire, whether they're the police, the prison system, the drug trade or education policy. To the extent that you have any contact with these issues, it comes through blogging about a TV show you periodically watch on HBO.

If you had spent any time actually reading about this stuff you might have something to say in response to David Simon's ideas other than "I don't like them." Instead, you reject Simon's message out of hand, not because you can answer it with a counterargument, but because it's a structural critique of capitalism, and you've decided not to consider structural critiques of capitalism.

Posted by Christmas | January 2, 2008 5:00 PM

sadly, even David Simon can't prevent pubescent boys from growing.

Posted by Goldberg | January 2, 2008 5:01 PM

This is badly wrong.

-The story of the union in the second season clearly views the loss of structural workers' power as a bad thing. While this organization has been corrupted, and inevitably so, this does not mean that no collective action is possible or to be wished for - the audience is meant to root for that investment in the docks, which would allow for a small extension of economic justice.

-The story of Hamsterdam is about radical change producing radical good. It is not an unblemished good, but the elderly folk on their front steps and the previously drug-running kids playing pick-up basketball at Carver's court are beautiful dramatic expressions of the possibility of radical change. Simon is pessimistic about the possibilities of maintaining such change, and very clear that change is dangerous, but we see possibilities here, and we wish it would continue.

I think of a great Foucault quote from the later interviews. He said, "It's not that I think everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous." This led him to engage in what he described as pessimistic hyper-activism.

The fact that Bunny's revolution and union power don't solve all the world's problems, and don't remain pure and clean, simply shows that Simon understands the way that power and domination and struggle are essential parts of modern life.

I guess one way of putting it is - of course you and Reihan don't understand - you're not radicals. He's a neoconservative, you're a traditional liberal, you're both moderate technocrats. A wide-ranging critique of capitalism, and the way that power, particularly economic power, insinuates into all aspects of our society, looks to a technocrat like despair.

To a radical who really does view power that way, it looks like a diagnosis and a spur to further action, to fight for those moments of radical success that are possible, to lay the groundwork for hoped-for greater change, and to fight even though our best hopes, and even our own actions, are never pure and free from the depredations of capitalist power.

Posted by DivGuy | January 2, 2008 5:01 PM

"Fundamentally, I think his vision of the bleak urban dystopia and its roots is counterproductive to advancing the values we hold dear."

Can someone summarize what Simon views as the "roots" of the urban dystopia? Thanks.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 5:02 PM

Simon's vision isn't totally bleak and hopeless, because it leaves room for individuals to find small but meaningful outside-the-bureaucracy ways to help one person at a time. E.g. Dennis's gym, or Bunny adopting Namond.

Simon's bleakness/hopelessness are directed at the ultimate failure of structured institutions, and the near-certainty that they will continue to fail due to the flaws inherent in their structure -- their vulnerability to being undermined by individuals seeking their own advancement, good intentions hamstrung by blanket regulations, hierarchies of power, etc. Maybe I'm just under the spell of the show, but I have a hard time seeing where he's wrong about that.

Posted by live | January 2, 2008 5:07 PM

DivGuy,

Are the sort of policies you are alluding to similar to what Chavez has enacted in Venezuela?

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 5:09 PM

Moderate optimism about human nature and the possibility for change is, if done in an entertaining way, the stuff of light romantic comedies, not big-time drama.

Are you not describing The West Wing here?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 2, 2008 5:09 PM

A wide-ranging critique of capitalism, and the way that power, particularly economic power, insinuates into all aspects of our society, looks to a technocrat like despair.

All well said.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 2, 2008 5:12 PM

Ha - yes, I was gonna describe this post as Reganesque but the sappy romanticism characteristic of the West Wing is much more accurate. (I am starting to see how Matt came to vote for Mitt Romney.)

I'm not really sure what details Matt disagrees with Simon about. The real objection that Matt puts forward here is actually rather general: Simon claims to be telling it like it is but The Wire really isn't how it is. Now while it is true that The Wire is a work of fiction I do think that the problems that it portrays are real - and who can really argue with that? In this sense, Matt's right that The Wire is "outside the lines of "normal" arguments about policy" (gasp)but this doesn't mean that the show is bad or even wrong.

So, again, what's the show really wrong about? Despair? Difficult problems with no easy answers?

Posted by berger | January 2, 2008 5:25 PM

but in fact he’s prepared an elaborate, moving brief for despair and (ultimately) indifference." I think that's right.

Simon continually indicates that achieving some measure of success is possible. At a minimum, that's true of Season 1 (slow the negative effects of the drug trade by targeting the top people), Season 2 (dredge the port, as I recall), Season 3 (Hamsterdam), and Season 4 (the special class led by Bunny). Perhaps Season 5 is different.

while [Simon] and I are clearly "on the same side" in some sense, I don't really agree with him about very much in detail.

While as regards Salam and yourself, it appears to be the reverse. Salam acknowledges that individual characters are able to change their lot, if only marginally. Simon clearly believes that there are potential policies--Hamsterdam, education policy, etc.--that could improve things. Salam's concern lies elsewhere, it seems. To be unreasonably uncharitable about it, Salam seems disappointed that Simon hasn't shown the "benign" in "benign neglect" that was the neocons' favored urban policy. Is that really your position as well?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 2, 2008 5:27 PM

I agree with live, Simon's vision is really not all that bleak - institutions will fail us, but individuals may not. Most of the individuals seem to have a core of decency, even if it's corrupted by the institutions they serve. By contrast, the Sopranos was a far, far bleaker show - the essential premise often seemed to be that without exception we are all - priests, lawyers, gangsters, doctors, yuppies, professors, actors, writers, whatever - in the final analysis venal hypocrites no better than Tony. The Sopranos is the show that encourages cynical nihilism, "The Wire" is like a ray of sunshine by comparison.

Posted by vanya | January 2, 2008 5:36 PM

I agree with DivGuy. I'm a DC local like MY and am a little surprised that he'd criticize someone for having a pessimistic take on what daily life is like for a lot of people in Baltimore. Are you kidding? Some of the stuff in The Wire and the old Homicide book and show is goddamn documentary stuff. To the extent that Simon is plumbing this stuff and rubbing our noses in it, maybe he's trying to wake us up from the "everything's fine, just a few problems around the margins" mindset that conservatives and not a few establishment liberals have. Why can't we look at this as a goad to discussion and action as opposed to tsk-tsking over how much a downer Simon is? Just saying.

Posted by scott | January 2, 2008 5:44 PM

"Trying to do a piece of extended drama that embodied the values of pragmatic progressive reformism would be impossible."

Three words: The West Wing.

Posted by Kyle Orland | January 2, 2008 5:48 PM

institutions will fail us, but individuals may not.

For a technocrat, the difficulty with this sentiment is that institutions are how you conduct policy. I think its debatable whether Simon ackowledges that there is a chance for lasting improvement from better policy, but whether individuals can make small things better is pretty much besides the point.

Posted by mpowell | January 2, 2008 5:53 PM

DivGuy: Where's your blog? I want to read it.

Posted by Laertes | January 2, 2008 5:55 PM

So is this the backlash? I think you're wrong, for reasons already noted upthread. Individuals do have agency and some do keep their heads above water. It's just damn hard. And DivGuy's point about radicals and technocrats is right on.

Posted by ogged | January 2, 2008 5:55 PM

Three words: The West Wing.

The West Wing wasn't about "pragmatic progressive reformism." It was a loving ode to executive power and the cult of the Washington consensus, with generous helpings of Aaron Sorkin's patented faux-smart dialogue to pad the whole thing out. The actual ideology of the characters in question never really mattered; you could easily swap out Josh and Toby's various neoliberal legislative projects for traditional conservative ones and the heart of the show would be very much the same.

Posted by Christmas | January 2, 2008 6:00 PM

It all circles back to the Democratic primary.

Obama has worked in the communities shown on the Wire. He knows what's involved.

Discuss.

I predict three-way tie in Iowa, btw.

Posted by Peter K. | January 2, 2008 6:02 PM

It all circles back to the Democratic primary.

Obama has worked in the communities shown on the Wire. He knows what's involved.

In real life, he made a grand bargain with the police union to allow videotaping of interogations to protect the lower class innocents. That's getting things done and changing things for the better, in spite of the despair-inducing relatity.

Discuss.

I predict three-way tie in Iowa, btw.

Posted by Peter K. | January 2, 2008 6:04 PM

And yeah, what DivGuy said. The Wire's message isn't one of despair, where there's no solution to the problems on offer; it's just that the problems it describes are structural, and the solutions are radical solutions.

Posted by Christmas | January 2, 2008 6:07 PM

The Wire is resolutely committed to verisimilitude in a way that almost no other show is.

You are so street, Matt.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 2, 2008 6:10 PM

I do, however, have to disagree with Yglesias about the boring TV part, though. I think there is an awesome documentary waiting to be made about the difference between drug use in Amsterdam and the US. Just think about the potential conflict of images and interviews. A nice quiet heroin addiction facility in Amsterdam, accompanied by a slowing dropping heroin addiction rate. Then some visceral images from the US 'justice' system accompanied by some rates on drug use, rehabilitation and prison rape. There's a progressive reform idea that could be the centerpiece of a pretty gripping show. It would be like that movie Traffic with the other option shown.

Posted by mpowell | January 2, 2008 6:11 PM

Enjoying this.

Writing to affirm what people are saying about my faith in individuals to rebel against rigged systems and exert for dignity, while at the same time doubtful that the institutions of a capital-obsessed oligarchy will reform themselves short of outright economic depression (New Deal, the rise of collective bargaining) or systemic moral failure that actually threatens middle-class lives (Vietnam and the resulting, though brief commitment to rethinking our brutal foreign-policy footprints around the world). The Wire is dissent; it argues that our systems are no longer viable for the greater good of the most, that America is no longer operating as a utilitarian and democratic experiment. If you are not comfortable with that notion, you won't agree with some of the tonalities of the show. I would argue that people comfortable with the economic and political trends in the United States right now -- and thinking that the nation and its institutions are equipped to respond meaningfully to the problems depicted with some care and accuracy on The Wire (we reported each season fresh, we did not write solely from memory) -- well, perhaps they're playing with the tuning knobs when the back of the appliance is in flames.

Does that mean The Wire is without humanist affection for its characters? Or that it doesn't admire characters who act in a selfless or benign fashion? Camus rightly argues that to commit to a just cause against overwhelming odds is absurd. He further argues that not to commit is equally absurd. Only one choice, however, offers the slightest chance for dignity. And dignity matters.

All that said, I am the product of a C-average GPA and a general studies degree from a state university and thirteen years of careful reporting about one rustbelt city. Hell do I know. Maybe my head is up my ass.

If The Wire is too pessimistic about the future of the American empire -- and I've read my Toynbee and Chomsky, so I actually think a darker vision could be credibly argued -- no one will be more pleased than me as I am, well, American. Right now, though, I'm just proud to see serious people arguing about a television drama; there's some pride in that. Thanks.

D. Simon
Baltimore, Md.

Posted by David Simon | January 2, 2008 6:12 PM

I do think that Mark Bowden is somewhat compromised in his critique because Simon is plainly attacking Bowden's former colleagues and current friends. He admits as much in his review, and his criticisms of Simon's worldview are well constructed and persuasive, but it does seem that he is defending his friends, his profession, and his worldview. I would be more compelled by his arguments if he were a dispassionate observer. I officially nominate Michael Kinsley to ponder Simon's world view and political disposition.

Posted by Birch Bayh | January 2, 2008 6:13 PM

Salam writes: , and of course we’re never shown the depredations of Chavez’s Venezuela where petrosocialism has fueled new inequalities and new repression.

And on Friday Night Lights, we're never shown the inner workings of a Chicago-based Emergency Room.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 2, 2008 6:18 PM

I hate to get all fanboy on you and shit, but I must tell you that I read Homicide: Life in the Streets last year on the recomendation of a friend (who was a cop and called it the best book he ever read) and I have to agree - it is a great book and, having lived an interesting life, the type of book I would love to write but don't have the talent.

I have to say that I think the anecdote about Snot Boogie that appears in the middle of Homicide and is the opening scene of The Wire is all you have to know about who Americans are and I can't put my finger on why.

Posted by calipygian | January 2, 2008 6:20 PM

I know from the latest DVD that Simon acknowledges that the wire isn't realistic. I know from reading the article that matt linked to the other day that one guy--some expert, who wrote a really great piece that is linked ot on the page called The COde OF the Streets--said that the show was too bleak in that it didn't depect enough "decent" people in the ghetto.

I would really like matt to further expand on how he thinks the show is not realistic and what he disagrees with Simon on. I suspect it's the total corruption of the institutions in Baltimore. A guy who like liberal politics has to believe that politics can do some good.

I personally have had some experience with inner city schools and the attitudes and of urban black youth and from what I have seen, I think what is portrayed on the show is a smallish subset of black experience across america. There's a danger in drawing conclusions that are too broad. There's a lot more Dukies and Randies (in their personalities rather than their outcomes) than there are Bodies and Webays. Having said that, the attitudes of the hard core inner city knuckleheads (read COde of the Streets) is spread to other black (and white and hispanic and asian) youth living in less desperate circumstance. Sometimes these attitudes results in violent tradgedies that you read about in the newspaper, but usually these attitudes lead to poor performance in school, jail for petty offenses and jobs clearing tables at the mall food court.

Posted by cw | January 2, 2008 6:26 PM

Right now, though, I'm just proud to see serious people arguing about a television drama; there's some pride in that. Thanks.
D. Simon
Baltimore, Md.

And thank you for The Wire.

Posted by live | January 2, 2008 6:34 PM

Holy $hit.. did Simon really just post here? All hail to the ninja warrior and his eye in the sky.

Posted by Birch Bayh | January 2, 2008 6:39 PM

Slightly off-topic, but related, we often hear that the media exhibit political bias against, say, businessmen or clergy because the businessmen are influence peddlers, scam artists, or a suspiciously high proportion of Lt. Columbo's homicide caseload, and the clergy are hypocrites. It may be possible to make a commercially successful movie or TV series about an honest, successful businessman who heads a company that treats its workers well, produces good products, and contributes to economic growth and the good of the surrounding community, or about a clergyman who consistently acts as his religion would seem to demand, but it would take an artist of a high order to do it. In the hands of the usual hacks (no offense to the Senior Mr. Yglesias, who does not seem to be one), such shows would be deadly dull. By comparison, any Hollywood hack can write moderately diverting stuff about the JR Ewings and Adam Chandlers of the world. And would Lt. Columbo's schtick be anywhere near as effective playing against young, poor, dark-skinned gangbangers as the murderers? A lot of what passes for political bias is just the cliches of show business.

Posted by CJColucci | January 2, 2008 6:41 PM

said that the show was too bleak in that it didn't depect enough "decent" people in the ghetto.

This I don't get at all.* Season three is expressly about the fact that the inner core of the city is mostly decent people. The whole point of setting up Hamsterdam is to give the rest of the city back to the decent people. In many ways, season four is the same thing applied to the schools: lots of decent stoop kids whose lives can be improved if you segregate the corner kids. It's made explicit in both cases.

* Simon--see his comment above--seems to agree that the show is extremely bleak. I'm not even sure I see that. The show continually indicates the vast majority of characters have value and suggests that most are redeemable, if only in part. The only two exceptions I can think of are Avon and Marlo. If the show is depressing, it's because the show suggests that there is something worth saving and savable out there that is not being saved.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 2, 2008 6:42 PM

DivGuy,

I've never seen the TV show you are discussing (not a big TV person) but I would certainly agree with you that I don't see much hope for any kind of social progress within the American system. The solutions that I would envision involve the replacement of the institutions of American capitalism themselves.

I would certainly call myself 'radical' more than 'technocratic', and someone who believes in replacing rather than reforming the system.

Posted by Hector | January 2, 2008 6:43 PM

Writing to affirm what people are saying about my faith in individuals to rebel against rigged systems and exert for dignity, while at the same time doubtful that the institutions of a capital-obsessed oligarchy will reform themselves short of outright economic depression (New Deal, the rise of collective bargaining) or systemic moral failure that actually threatens middle-class lives (Vietnam and the resulting, though brief commitment to rethinking our brutal foreign-policy footprints around the world). The Wire is dissent; it argues that our systems are no longer viable for the greater good of the most, that America is no longer operating as a utilitarian and democratic experiment.

We get Simon himself to chime in!

This here highlights the heart of the conflict: if the oligarchy isn't going to reform itself short of crisis, isn't that despair? I do not believe that middle-class America feels threatened, yet. And I think a lot that needs to change is no where near changing. But I've believed in ending the war on drugs for nearly ten years and I think that idea is gaining ground. So I see cause for hope.

Posted by mpowell | January 2, 2008 6:47 PM

i hate to pull this, but i think baltimore is the kind of place you can only understand if you've lived there. that is what i think is missing from the critiques i've been reading that say simon paints too dark a picture.

Posted by bmore joe | January 2, 2008 6:52 PM

Even Avon has some redeeming qualities, as shown when he respected Cutty's decision to leave the game and gave him the money to fix up the gym.

Marlo would have had Cutty shot because he might become a threat someday.

Posted by Mike | January 2, 2008 7:08 PM

The obvious rebuttal to Ygz and Reihan is the character of Carver, who went from being a self-involved schemer (albeit a very funny one) to a really good guy out to make things better (thanks to Bunny, of course). Of course, his newly found good intentions don't make everything better, but that really is life.

I'll burn my clothes if that really was David Simon. Gawd I'll miss the Wire.

Posted by berger | January 2, 2008 7:16 PM

I've got a match if you need one, berger. This isn't the first time he's posted on a blog.

Posted by Andrew | January 2, 2008 7:28 PM

This is too easy. Virtually every episode of The Wire contains obvious rebuttals to Yglesias and Reihan.

Although it is pretty funny to watch Yglesias try to tell Simon what Balitmore is "really" like. Preach on Matt! Tell it like it is! Have you ever even been to Baltimore? Wait, don't answer that.

Posted by Johanna | January 2, 2008 7:39 PM

i hate to pull this, but i think baltimore is the kind of place you can only understand if you've lived there.

I think if the Wire were that specific to Baltimore, it would probably only be of regional interest. It's often clear in the show that what's happening in Baltimore is tied into to what's happening in NYC and Philly and DC. Getting details right and making it feel "real" certainly helps give dramatic consequence to events. As far as policy goes, I think the biggest contribution is probably just giving more people an idea of the scope of the problems. I'm probably less skeptical of the ability of institutions to make a difference than Simon is, but the Wire certainly gets the point across that you're not going fix things by tossing a computer in the back of a classroom or increasing some agency's budget by 3%.

Posted by MattT | January 2, 2008 8:04 PM

Re Matthew's comment "Trying to do a piece of extended drama that embodied the values of pragmatic progressive reformism would be impossible. The results, if serious and true to the spirit, would be deadly dull. "
--------------
Not necessarily. It could be pretty fucking lively.

Depends on how "pragmatically" progressive you wanna be. heh heh heh

Say if you merged "Sleeper Cell" with the Wire.
Look at the movie "The Bourne Ultimatum".

Progressivism isn't dull --just some progressives.

Posted by Don Williams | January 2, 2008 8:12 PM

I find Omar and Prop Joe to be characters who somehow bode well for change, in the face of multiple and deep systemic compromises. Omar in part because he operates so well between punitive systems, as an out gay man at that, and Prop Joe for his lyricism and clear-eyed pragmatism. With people like that--and Bunny Colvin and Prezbo (who does change some lives) and Carcetti--it is possible to watch the Wire hopefully. To see the show as otherwise is to be tendentious with a very complex narrative....

Posted by underwritten | January 2, 2008 8:35 PM

If you guys think The Wire is depressing, you should have seen this documentary I stumbled upon over the weekend about a female judge and a female prosecutor in Cameroon. Perhaps there are some Cameroonians who watched it and thought that their system had failed them, and only radical populist reforms would stop the child beating and rape that seemed to comprise most of the court's caseload.

Posted by Fred | January 2, 2008 8:47 PM

SCMT: I'll put Burrell (the Deputy) and the Colonel of Homicide, whose name I'm forgetting, on the stand as people with as few redeeming values as Avon or Marlo -- which is not to say zero, just not enough to be really meaningful.

While it's obviously true that Namond represents a triumph against a bleak background, I think that the message of season 4 is not hopeful. You have Namond, Dukie, Michael, and Randy. All of them are basically smart kids. All of them have a concerned, well-meaning, capable adult (or more) looking out for them. All of them get special attention and time in a way that's not scalable. Only one of them looks, at the end of the season, like he'll escape the corner life. And he was the least promising of them to begin with.

25% is a pretty bleak success rate if you're supposed to understand that as the practical best that we could do, rather than run-of-the-mill. And I think we are supposed to take that as the best possible.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | January 2, 2008 8:58 PM

People in real despair don't make art.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 2, 2008 9:16 PM

"Writing to affirm what people are saying about my faith in individuals to rebel against rigged systems and exert for dignity, while at the same time doubtful that the institutions of a capital-obsessed oligarchy will reform themselves short of outright economic depression (New Deal, the rise of collective bargaining) or systemic moral failure that actually threatens middle-class lives (Vietnam and the resulting, though brief commitment to rethinking our brutal foreign-policy footprints around the world). The Wire is dissent; it argues that our systems are no longer viable for the greater good of the most, that America is no longer operating as a utilitarian and democratic experiment."

This passage nicely exemplifies the point Ygz is trying to make. It offers a pessimistic, darkly beautiful vision that, from a policy perspective, is simply wrong. Broken institutions do sometimes get reformed--not often, but it does happen. Mandatory minimums are slowly being fixed, the crack-cocaine disparity may be reduced, and a bunch of cities just released very low murder stats. As a factual matter, The Wire's pessimism, valid within the confines of Baltimore, cannot necessarily be extrapolated to a pessimistic diagnosis about the country as a whole. If the problem is simply that Baltimore has a particularly shitty set of institutions, than the back of the appliance isn't on fire and liberal knob-twiddling might just do some good.

However, even if we accept The Wire's broad factual portrait, it isn't clear that the show points us in the right direction, not because it proposes the wrong cure, but because the show itself argues that a cure is impossible. Although Simon focuses the majority of his ire on the "institutions of a capital-obsessed oligarchy," to my eye The Wire is a brief against institutions as such. So while DivGuy and others castigate Ygz as myopic about the importance of power relations, it is far from clear that a reconfiguration of power relations would do anything at all. The problem in the universe of The Wire is the existence of power relations in whatever form. Upending the snowglobe would just entrench a new oligarchy, because oligarchical careerism is the natural consequence of human interaction in an institutional setting. The back of the appliance has been, is now, and always will be aflame.

To avoid fatalism, Simon's anti-institutional diagnosis has to walk a knife edge: the root of the sickness must far deeper than the individual, the neighborhood, the city, or even any given national institutions, but not quite deep enough to be a congenital defect in the human condition. That's the only way to preserve the possibility of any systemic victory in Simon's Baltimore. The Wire, with it's proles-eye view of institutional jackboot, does not and can not make the case for a thesis of that scope and abstraction, at least not while remaining good television.

Posted by salacious | January 2, 2008 10:07 PM

thank you, mr. simon, for your comments.

and i disagree with the gentleman who said that "people in real despair don't create art." our culture alone is littered with people experiencing vast amounts of pain expressing themselves in art.

Posted by jayare20k | January 2, 2008 10:08 PM

"The Wire" isn't specific to Baltimore. I live in south St. Petersburg, Florida, which many people would not envision to have the sort of issues Baltimore does.

They would be wrong.

I was actually sort of mourning the ending of "The Wire" to a friend of mine the other day, when she pointed out I could just go outside and take a walk around the neighborhood if I missed it too much.

Posted by Dave | January 2, 2008 11:02 PM

"The Wire" isn't specific to Baltimore. I live in south St. Petersburg, Florida, which many people would not envision to have the sort of issues Baltimore does.

They would be wrong.

I was actually sort of mourning the ending of "The Wire" to a friend of mine the other day, when she pointed out I could just go outside and take a walk around the neighborhood if I missed it too much.

Posted by Dave | January 2, 2008 11:05 PM

People in real despair don't make art.

Bullshit. People who create taxonomies of the despair of others don't understand art because they're a bunch of bitchy teenagers who need to be too cool for most stuff to live with themselves.

The link-with-in-the-linked article by Mark Bowden seems pretty stupid, but I guess I'll have to wait to see the Fifth Season to judge for sure. You can laugh off that papers started chasing the lowest common denominator and switching out column space for ads, coupons and puzzles, but you should at least try to explain why this isn't having exactly the effect that Simon claims. It appears to be true to me that no one cares that things are really bad for many people in many respects, in a country where the vast majority spend more time programming their electronics than spending any time try to help another person. Seems the onus is on Bowden to show otherwise.

Bowden talks out of both sides of his mouth through out the piece: one the one hand, acknowledging that the newspaper business has been slashing staff and increasing in its media irrelevance in the modern technological age, on the other, attacking Simon for taking his views to another medium where he's succeeded in making his case.

And if Simon's wrong, say how he's wrong. The only substantive critique in the article was patently stupid--of course it shows that there are good people in the ghetto. What were the seven hundred scenes of Bunny and Carcetti at the town hall meetings supposed to convey, exactly? Did I just imagine Randy's mom, or the other teachers at the school, or Cutty, or the Deacon?

Otherwise the point seems to be that Simon's going to grind some old axes in the new season. I think we had all assumed as much. It's understood by a large segment of the show's audience that the co-creators are particular figures from Baltimore with their particular backgrounds. I'll let you in on a secret, Bowden: I'm guessing a lot of the McNulty stuff and/or the Lester stuff and/or the Prez stuff may have been biased toward Ed Burns and against other who were involved in those stories. But that doesn't matter because they didn't work as editors at a newspaper?

Notice Bowden doesn't defend these decisions his friends made by disagreeing with the merits of Simon's critique of capitalist distortion--quite the opposite, he affirms it. He says: "Declining circulation means declining advertising, which means declining revenues, so corporate managers face a tougher and tougher challenge maintaining the high profit margins that attracted investors 30 years ago. These are just facts, and different people and organizations have handled them with different measures of grace and understanding." AKA, that's the way the system works, some deal, some don't, and Simon don't. Who daes that sounds like...oh, I know:

"the powerful obstructionists [in the newspaper business] aren’t simply evil people, the way they might have been in a standard Hollywood movie. While some are just inept or corrupt, most are smart and ambitious, sometimes even interested in doing good, but concerned first and foremost with their next promotion or a bigger paycheck. They are fiercely territorial, to a degree that interferes with real [reporting]."

It's a great quote because it reveals so much. Smart, ambitious people are more admirable than the merely inept, when, despite their clear understanding of the problems in their line of work, they obstruct change because they won't risk their promotion or raise. And who were those territorial guys at the Sun who insisted on devoting all those resources to their Pulitzer candidate's lead paint story? Sorry, but just because you identify with the villians doesn't mean that others are wrong to condemn them.

Posted by MSB | January 2, 2008 11:05 PM

"Simon believes that we are doomed, and political progress requires us to believe that we are not."

Which is the fundamental error of "political progress" - that it exists.

It's like believing you can cure cancer by having more of it.

"Broken institutions do sometimes get reformed--not often, but it does happen."

Name one.

"Mandatory minimums are slowly being fixed, the crack-cocaine disparity may be reduced, and a bunch of cities just released very low murder stats."

And that can all be reversed within the next decade, depending on economic circumstances. We're about to head into another severe recession by all accounts. Not to mention the possibility of a war with Iran which will simultaneously spike the oil prices and possibly cause China to dump the US dollar, which is already falling.

Check the stats in five years and see if things are getting better in the inner city after all that.

"To avoid fatalism, Simon's anti-institutional diagnosis has to walk a knife edge: the root of the sickness must far deeper than the individual, the neighborhood, the city, or even any given national institutions, but not quite deep enough to be a congenital defect in the human condition."

The problem is that it is indeed a congenital defect in the human condition.

Someone once said that things get better for the human species under only two conditions:

1) Someone gets a boot up their ass.

2) New technology.

You're about to get both.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 2, 2008 11:15 PM

1) Come to think of it, I retract my earlier reference to the Bourne Ultimatum --because, in the end, that movie argues that insiders can cause government /institutions to be held to account. And I think that is increasingly unlikely.

2) US citizens got a decent economic break in the 1950s because the US elites were scared shitless that the Soviet Union would be able to recruit more spies like the Rosenberg and Cohen atomic spy rings.
Afro-Americans got some redress for historical oppression in the 1960s for similar reasons. Once the Soviet Union fell, the US went back to the pre-Marxist days of the Robber Barons.

3) I suspect that radical sects of Islam will spread among America's poor --just as Christianity overwhelmed the Roman Empire. Because our current system is as vicious, greedy and corrupt as was ancient Rome. Note that I'm talking about the adoption of Islam by native Americans not from Middle Eastern ethnic groups.

An argument can be made that some neighborhoods of our country have similar grievances to Al Qaeda.

4) Anyone ever notice that most of our broadcast TV is utter trash? That the production money only goes to a few watchable shows, in which the hero is always a government agent who always
conquers and subdues the enemy of the government ( terrorists, criminals,etc.) via great intelligence and invincible means.

5) That's not art -- that's propaganda intended to intimidate and instill a feeling of helpfulness in a herd of sheep.
Year after year, a constant message: Do what you're told. Rebel and the geniuses at CSI will track you down and Jack Bauer of 24 will shoot you.

True art would clearly look at -- and show -- the ugly reality of our world.

Posted by Don Williams | January 2, 2008 11:16 PM

Vis-a-vis "Bourne", keep in mind that movie shows how somebody as trained in the same ruthless techniques as the oppressors can change things by going outside the system.

It says nothing about how some liberal blogger like Matt could change anything - which is fundamentally next to impossible - even if he wanted to change anything radically, which is also not the case.

I'm reminded of a radical - I forget whether it was a Situationist or a Yippie - who said, "Ask any one of the 'radical' pundits what they want to preserve of the current society. It will turn out to be just about everything." That sure applies to Matt and his other wannabe pundit friends. Attack Iran? Sure - just be sure we get "universal" health care - somehow.

As for the TV shows, hell, look back decades. First they had spy shows and Westerns and private eye shows. Then the weenies complained about "TV violence" - so it became all cop shows where the TV cops beat up suspects and violated their rights regularly (movies, the same - "Lethal Weapon", anyone?). So the government shut up about "TV violence" because it was working for them.

Now we've nothing but cop shows, lawyer shows, and government agent shows - and "reality shows" demonstrating how fucked up the average person is. The last "anti-government" show was "Lone Gunmen" - and it was a comedy, except for the pilot episode that precisely predicted 9/11 six months before it happened. (Guess Condi never saw that episode before babbling about how "no one could have guessed" that terrorists would use planes as weapons.)

The most critical movie ever made - and it was watered down, since the main character in the book was explicitly an anarchist - was "V for Vendetta." It clearly demonstrated two truths:

1) Government is an extortion/protection racket. ("I want EVERYONE to remember WHY THEY NEED US!")

2) Government is built on the back of individual fear (Evey's scene where she loses her fear is the most powerful scene I've seen in decades.)

And that was produced by two guys, one of whom is some kind of transsexual... and originated in a graphic novel, i.e., "comic book."

Somebody needs to take Howard Chaykin's revisited "Challengers of the Unknown" or Warren Ellis's "Reload" (where an agent like Bourne starts out by assassinating the President on the first page - because she realizes the country is being run by organized crime) and make movies out of them.

Something like "The Wire" might be helpful in trying to get people like Matt - otherwise clueless about the inner city and the institutions oppressing it - to get a slight clue, but it will never go deep enough to challenge the real basic issues of the state, religion, and human nature.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 2, 2008 11:49 PM

Bourne Ultimatum --because, in the end, that movie argues that insiders can cause government /institutions to be held to account. And I think that is increasingly unlikely.

That movie is simply liberal wish fulfillment. The Bush administration has committed far worse crimes than anything the CIA does in the Bourne Ultimatum, those crimes have been publicized, and precisely nothing has happened. In real life the second a secret program like the one that created Bourne were revealed the right wing noise machine would immediately defend it, Bourne would be discredited and the whole issue would be forgotten inside of a month. And people think Simon is "too dark", for fuck's sake...

Posted by vanya | January 3, 2008 12:23 AM

You people need to get out more. If the sign of failure of a political system is that black neighborhoods tend to be crappy, then The Wire is an indictment of every country that has cities with black neighborhoods. From Detroit, to Sao Paulo, to Johannesburg, to the outskirts of Paris, it's all the same: poor black neighborhoods are cesspools of crime and violence. This is an issue that transcends politics.

Posted by Harry | January 3, 2008 12:23 AM

I suspect that radical sects of Islam will spread among America's poor --just as Christianity overwhelmed the Roman Empire. Because our current system is as vicious, greedy and corrupt as was ancient Rome. Note that I'm talking about the adoption of Islam by native Americans not from Middle Eastern ethnic groups.

This is ridiculous. The radical sects spreading among America's poor are various forms of radical Christianity, predominantly evangelical protestantism and pentecostalism (to the extent that those are distinct, which I'm not completely clear on).

Posted by John | January 3, 2008 12:42 AM

Re John's comment "The radical sects spreading among America's poor are various forms of radical Christianity, predominantly evangelical protestantism "
---------
You mean like Joel Osteen? The multi-millionaire? See http://www.cultlink.com/ar/osteen.htm .

Try reading Matthew 25. Then point to me where Joel ever indicated that he gives a hairy rodent's
posterior for the poor. Show me where Joel ever criticized social injustice.

Joel isn't real religion. Joel is paid to be what Marx called "the opiate of the masses".

Posted by Don Williams | January 3, 2008 1:16 AM

Jesus Christ, matt. This is the first time I've been tempted to question your bona fides. OOOOhhh! Simon's view of capitalism is "bleak"! Yeah, man. If this had come from a David Brooks column, you'd be all over the self-interested statis-quo bs. Clue to you: Dostoevsky and the like: they're good cause they're bleak. They're good cause THEY FRIGGIN CHALLENGE YOU. They're good because they make the status quo vomit. Man... don't get all bougie on me.

Posted by Brian | January 3, 2008 1:29 AM

Man... don't get all bougie on me.

You just figuring that out now about Matt?

Posted by um | January 3, 2008 1:39 AM

It's not "too bleak" because I love it, and I hate the "everything sucks and then it out-does itself to suck harder" movies [you don't get tv shows like that ever] such as, to name the last one I saw, Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. I have no patience for that genre.

Ok, that point got proved, where was I?

Also, looking at the upshot of the kids at the end of Season 4 -

Dukie: Prez was the thing that made his life better, and when Prez got worried about Dukie leaving school he went to the school to ask what to do - the school told him not to get involved, even though it's exactly his involvement thus far that made a difference for Dukie - and Prez obeyed and Dukie goes back to the corner, because Michael is still there for him.

Randy: Carver tried and tried to do what he could for that kid, and could not because of the system. I was a child protection lawyer in Alaska, and Carver COULD have been approved for emergency foster placement in AK, and would have, but if it's different in Maryland, then there we have it.

Namond: Bunny succeeded where Carver failed, by appealing to Weebay, who had Namond's interests at heart.

Michael: Michael did not place his faith in the institutions that we recognize, but when being a lone wolf stopped working for him because a bigger wolf came to the door, he allied himself with another institution that he had been shunning before, Marlo's crew. He resorted to this because he did not trust social workers to keep him and his brother together. Given what happened to Randy, this lack of trust was not altogether unsound.

So yeah, the failure of our government institutions is a big fat problem. The individual people working in those institutions are the only hope, because sometimes they grab the right books from the basement, snag a computer, divert budget money, legalize drugs, or whatever else they have to do to make things better for the people they see in front of their faces.

So it's not entirely bleak, unless your whole happiness depends upon faith in institutions that are remote from the people they serve. If you're willing to give up on that shattered dream, then join the club, we need you to get to work on actually fixing things.

And I can't believe that I'll be the first to point out that The Wire is Obama's favorite current tv show. Mr. Hope and all.

Posted by Phoebe | January 3, 2008 4:50 AM

People in real despair don't make art.

Bullshit. People who create taxonomies of the despair of others don't understand art because they're a bunch of bitchy teenagers who need to be too cool for most stuff to live with themselves.

I know you're wrong on one of your points and think you're confused with another.

Depression isn't despair, although they're closely allied. Depressed people can make art and usually do.

I haven't been a teenager for seven brazilian years.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 3, 2008 9:14 AM

4) Anyone ever notice that most of our broadcast TV is utter trash? That the production money only goes to a few watchable shows, in which the hero is always a government agent who always
conquers and subdues the enemy of the government ( terrorists, criminals,etc.) via great intelligence and invincible means.

To be fair, this doesn't describe Heroes at all. It was only half-true at best of The X-Files: Mulder and Scully were in the FBI, but they were unimportant and disrespected within the organization. It's not true of any of Joss Whedon's shows: The Initiative was well-meaning but ineffective in the end, as was the police department of Angel's L.A., and the crew of Firefly were secessionists. And getting outside of TV for a minute, Batman is an odd case: he relies on violence and fear like any fascist, but he's also outside the law or any other legitimate power structure, and he's reluctant to kill.

Moral of the story: geeks less likely to be fascists than most people.

Posted by Cyrus | January 3, 2008 9:55 AM

How ironic is it that a few journalists who praised the show are bitching and moaning because they feel that David's got some personal vendetta.

The show was an honest depiction of the streets, docks, docks and school system -- about which I'd guess these people have not one fucking clue -- but now that it's their own, it's an exaggerated piece of fiction.

Institutional self-preservation is a motherfucker ain't it?

Posted by Nadum | January 3, 2008 10:11 AM

3) I suspect that radical sects of Islam will spread among America's poor --just as Christianity overwhelmed the Roman Empire. Posted by Don Williams | January 2, 2008 11:16 PM

Nope. It offers too little and is at root, much like mormonism, a false religion.
However, because it is so politically charged right now, I suspect some upper middles class idealistic nihilists will convert, form a cell and promote acts of spectacular violence, much like the Red Brigades of 1970s Germany. They will be caught, some will be killed in the inevitable shoot out with the balance going to standard jails and one or two ringleaders spending the rest of their natural lives in ADX Florence, Colorado. A few remaining true believers will demilitarise and hold vigils and issue petitions to free the 'Cooperstown Five'.

It will be another dead end that reinforces the enemies of progressivism. Pity, but it seems as inevitable as a sunrise.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 3, 2008 10:22 AM

Probably should take into account that "bleak urban dystopia" literature/movies/shows can have substantial impact on changing things for the better. Probably more so than literature/movies/shows apparently less despairing.

I clerked for a very conservative federal judge who was known in our district as the "hanging judge." He was a huge Wire fan and his sentencing/judging really changed for the better since he started watching the show. Of course, I don't know if it was the show for sure; but his view and treatment of the people coming before him changed dramatically.

Similarly, I think recent changes in people's views on "the war on drugs" (sentencing, etc) can be attributed in part to The Wire.

Posted by duffy | January 3, 2008 10:40 AM

I suspect some upper middles class idealistic nihilists will convert, form a cell and promote acts of spectacular violence, much like the Red Brigades of 1970s Germany>/i>

Quibbling: the Red Brigades were Italian. The Germans had the Red Army Faction (aka Baader-Meinhof gang).

Reminds me, I accidentally saw the first Die Hard movie the other night. Funny that the bad guys in a movie could be German terrorists -- seems pretty quaint now. And Italian terrorists? There's a dark comedy waiting to be made.

Posted by hum | January 3, 2008 11:15 AM

i hate to pull this, but i think baltimore is the kind of place you can only understand if you've lived there. that is what i think is missing from the critiques i've been reading that say simon paints too dark a picture

I have to second this. the Wire is very real if you live in Baltimore as I do. Our institutions really are that f*cked up. I know people whl really do live "up the way" and it's a bleak as anything that you can imagine. There was a bit of an opening in the late 90s and the oughts, but those improvements have largely benefited the upper middle class and the expats from Washington, DC.

The rest of the city is as dysfunctional as ever. i was talking to a former PD who is now in private practice the other day and he told me that while sharing a smoke with a cop on a loading dock outside Circuit Court, that the cop told him that he though at least 10% of the cops were dirty. He think that the guy was lowballing it and put the number closer to 30%. Hell, down in the SW district they busted a bunch of cops for keeping drugs in their lockers and having sex with teenage girls in lock up.

Posted by Sharon | January 3, 2008 11:26 AM

This is random, but David Simon, will you marry me?

Anyway. I think one of the big reasons The Wire works so well, aside from Simon's and Burns' careful reporting and writing, is because the actors involved are SO GOOD -- I've read some critics' comments that many of The Wire actors look more like normal people than is usual on crime shows, but even if that's true, these actors are all so amazing -- during Seasons Three and Four I was just spellbound by Robert Wisdom's work as Bunny Colvin; he was by far my favorite actor (and I like all the actors a lot) and he brought such thoughtfulness and humanity to the role. When he expressed frustration after the meeting at the mayor's office in Season Four -- "every time I open my mouth" something goes wrong -- I wanted to cry, he was so moving and it felt so true, that he had these good intentions to reform the educational system and yet it wouldn't happen.

That Robert Wisdom hasn't really been recognized (or Andre Royo as Bubs) is appalling. I wish every actor on The Wire could get an Emmy.

Posted by Mary | January 3, 2008 11:35 AM

One other random comment -- I think it's intersting that on Matt's blog there are all these intricate intellectual discussions about "the system," and then on YouTube's comments board and the HBO Wire blog, there are tons of people posting who claim to be from the inner city or rough cities like Baltimore, and their comments tend more towards the "Wallace should've been shot because he was snitching," "Marlo hard as fuck," variety (those are both comments I've seen on those boards, though who knows if the posters are actually from the inner city or some suburb). I'd love to see a "book group" about The Wire that brings together the two groups of Wire watchers that the recent New Yorker profile about Simon guessed about -- the intellectual critics would meet the people who are from (or claim to be from) tough neighborhoods that The Wire features. I think the difference in opinions about the killings that take place in The Wire, and the way people act, would be startling.

Posted by Mary | January 3, 2008 11:45 AM

Late to the party but I'd like to associate myself with my comrade DivGuy's comments. He should really have a blog.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 3, 2008 12:49 PM

This is a pretty interesting discussion, but I think it would be useful for those interested in a deeper understanding of Simon's views (and, I would argue, a deeper understanding of the inner city, law/drug enforcement, and Baltimore), I highly recommend you read both Homicide and The Corner.

They've been a great complement to The Wire, as they seem to bridge the gap between the reported reality and the imagined Bawlmer.

On a somewhat unrelated note, as a native New Orleanian I'm especially excited about the possibility that he's working on a project involving the local music scene down there (read about this in the Oct. New Yorker piece). Has anyone heard anything more about this?

Posted by Jerry Medium | January 3, 2008 1:16 PM

I read both The Corner and Homicide after seeing The Wire; it's interesting how connected they are to the show, and how many scenes from Homicide are repeated in The Wire.

Michael Massing had an interesting review of The Corner in the New York Review of Books in 2000 (I think you have to log in to read it though).

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=981

I look forward to the New Orleans project, though I know nothing about it.

Posted by Mary | January 3, 2008 1:54 PM

Tying this thread back to the blog's usual subject matter for the moment, one thing that's struck me particularly is how well the show documents the failure of modern politics. It comes through most clearly in the Hamsterdam story -- both Royce and Carcetti see the good in what Bunny's done, but they're persuaded by their political advisors to think and act small. In season 2, the whole story is driven by the fact that the union can only get people to take action to save their jobs if they can put together the money to buy off the right people in Annapolis. Troughtout the series, the special invistigation's units good work to look at crime more smartly gets overwhelmed by the department's need to focus on the overall picture is another.

Of course, politics is just one of the failed systems. But it's still striking how much of everything is driven by elected officials'self-interested priorities and their fear of trusting the public to support changes that make sense.

Posted by ds in sf | January 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Tying this thread back to the blog's usual subject matter for the moment, one thing that's struck me particularly is how well the show documents the failure of modern politics. It comes through most clearly in the Hamsterdam story -- both Royce and Carcetti see the good in what Bunny's done, but they're persuaded by their political advisors to think and act small. In season 2, the whole story is driven by the fact that the union can only get people to take action to save their jobs if they can put together the money to buy off the right people in Annapolis. Troughtout the series, the special invistigation's units good work to look at crime more smartly gets overwhelmed by the department's need to focus on the overall picture is another.

Of course, politics is just one of the failed systems. But it's still striking how much of everything is driven by elected officials'self-interested priorities and their fear of trusting the public to support changes that make sense.

Posted by ds in sf | January 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Matt, sometimes bleak is necessary. Sometimes you have to rub the dog's nose in the business it left behind on the carpet for it to understand exactly why you're angry.

And sometimes, a show is more than just a show. David, I would recommend your show (and books) to anybody who wants to understand what's going on over any number of dry, number-filled, arcane treatises. Hell, I have. If you haven't read The Corner, you don't understand drug policy, full stop.

You've made something Good and Necessary. Its inconvenience to political flacks and journalist hacks doesn't change that one iota

Posted by Demosthenes | January 3, 2008 2:51 PM

"Reminds me, I accidentally saw the first Die Hard movie the other night. Funny that the bad guys in a movie could be German terrorists"

That wa