Speaking of first to worst – I caught a rerun of Psych, season one, and was reminded how awesome the show was when it began. The first season is well written, tight, funny, and smart. Sean is likable, Gus has plenty of lines, the cop-psychic interplay is fun, and the pacing is fantastic.
By season three, the protagonist (Sean) is a smarmy asshole, Gus has basically disappeared, product placements are overwhelming the plot, and the show feels stale. Once again, the old adage holds:
In season one, the actors work for the writers
Season two, they work together
By season three, the writers work for the actors
As a case study in this truism, see the behavior of Heigl, Katherine.
When Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson testified before the Senate banking committee last month about Paulson’s proposed bailout bill, a demonstrator in the audience held up an 8.5-by-11 piece of paper with one word scrawled on it in block letters: “FAIL.” Earlier in September, Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson was dubbed by some bloggers an “epic fail.” Grist magazine invoked the phrase when John McCain told a Maine TV reporter that Sarah Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States.” And just last week on the Atlantic’s Web site, Ta-Nehisi Coates found the theory that Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Barack Obama’s memoir so “desperate” he called it an “Epic Fail.”
In memory of David Foster Wallace (he committed suicide a month ago), I present to you his essay on the genius of Roger Federer – Roger Federer as Religious Experience. Wallace wasn’t a sports writer, he was just a good writer who happened to write a piece on Federer.
Almost anyone who loves tennis and follows the men’s tour on television has, over the last few years, had what might be termed Federer Moments. These are times, as you watch the young Swiss play, when the jaw drops and eyes protrude and sounds are made that bring spouses in from other rooms to see if you’re O.K.
The thing is, it’s true. Fed is freaking amazing, but in a way the seems unreal. Nadal’s more likeable and fun and exciting, but Federer is the better player, perhaps the best of all time. Tennis frequently seems to have these dynamic polar opposites, see also, e.g., Agassi and Sampras, Borg and McEnroe. Typically, the ice queen/king is the better player, the emotional one the more charismatic.
No matter, it’s all great tennis and this is a great article. Rest in peace, David.