today my little exposition is going to be about my two new and favouritest obsessions: dog the bounty hunter and survivorman. no – they are not in any way related (aside from being reality television shows) but that is not going to stop me from including both in this posting. and no – i don’t care if you don’t care.
so what i am going to do here (if only i could be this clear in the writing of my dissertation) is compare/contrast the shows and generally tell you what i love about them. and in the spirit of valentine’s day, add another random (and let’s face it) not-that-attractive guy to my list of “celebrity crushes.” you guessed it – leland chapman – or dawg jr to you b*tch.
here goes.
1. i love leland. not cause he is a hawt dawg or because he seems especially smart or engaging. i love him because he says “how’s it” the cutest out of all the members of his much-too-large family. also, he looks nothing like the rest of his family (save possibly his uncle. i’m not making any accusations…i’m just sayin’)
2. i love when survivorman (let’s affectionately call him les, yes?) becomes kind of a whiny b*tch on his show. the premise – for those who don’t know - is that basically he gets dropped somewhere remote and has to survive for 7 days – without food, water, and (sometimes) shelter. he survives by his wits and sometimes looses his shit. those episodes are my favourite. like the man hasn’t eaten in days, bathed, been warm (or dry, or cool – depending on the climate), had water in some cases, or talked to anyone and the minute he starts complaining about his situation i’m all like – “what a baby!” then i try – but don’t always succeed – in telling myself i seriously wouldn’t last an hour. and i would definitely be dead in two.
3. this season dog has gotten much more violent. dog himself routinely yells “motherf*cker” at his ‘prey’ upon catching them and then he tries to save their souls. this is a somewhat welcomed change from the highly anti climatic run-up to someone turning themselves in and then getting asked if they have jesus in their lives. just my opinion.
4. les – on survivorman, stay with me here – kills at least one wild animal a show. every time he does he gives the same spiel – “i hate the thought of killing any animal. but when survival is at stake, any life is fair game” or something to that effect. every time he kills the animal though i judge (against the cuteness of the animal of course) which one of them i would rather see survive. les buddy, you are like losing three to ten. sorry dude.
5. beth’s breasts are seriously distracting. so are her nails. but i love her insofar as she subscribes to my motto: go big or go home b*tch.
6. okay both shows are highly gendered – just give me this moment’s ranty pants. oh yeah – and classed. oh yeah – and racialized. firstly, beth and baby lisa (can you believe they call their 27-year-old daughter this? but then again, my mother does still introduce me as her baby. so horrifyingly embarrassing. *shudder*) are always sent in to homes to talk to women in order to extract information by the very nature of their womanliness. dog himself is what i like to call a neo-sexist – you know, the older guy who likes to couch sexist (and sometimes misogynist – but always essentializing) comments in ‘joking’ terms – like “women can’t drive” and “men are the boss.” also, beth uses slang with racialized people but talks ‘normally’ with white hawaiians. also, i think the very notion of putting yourself – voluntarily – into survival situations is very gendered – read: ‘masculine.’ the notion that you can survive in the wild reminds me of the rugged (and misogynist) individualism expounded by certain men’s rights groups. also, it is *such* a classed activity. it is like how we go camping to ‘rough it.’ only a culture of plenty seeks to deny ourselves for leisure. k. rant over.
7. 90% of dog is about driving around in suvs and talking shit. it is like the perfect road trip.
8. 90% of survivorman is talking about fire. or making fire. or carrying fire from one place to another. or crying over fires gone out. producers: give the guy a lighter so i can hear him bitch and moan more. cause that is what that show is missing. drama.
9. i might have had a dream where leland and les get it on. first in the bc backwoods, then in a suv filled with people.
10. naw. i’m just messing with you. i’m just hoping to have a dream like that. i’ll keep you posted.
please share your own insights and/or fantasies about the shows. and don’t say that you don’t watch them.
cause i know you’re lyin’ b*tch.
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm
robinmasters
alright, now i’m starting to get a bit worried with these weird celebrity crushes. also, i’m going on record as saying that these latest additions do not fall under the “freebee” celebrity shags – it’s just too damn possible. now if you were to have a crush on tomas magnum, i think i could let that go as a freebee – who could blame you, really?
February 11, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Heather
i think survivorman is great because it makes us feel like we might have some innate shreds of skill left in us. it’s like outsdoorsman(person)ship is prized for being some ‘pure’ human skill that we all know a little about, but have ‘lost’ over the course of our city lives. we can watch the show and make judgements: “yes, that’s a GOOD idea to find a place to sleep lower down the mountain”, or “my god NO! do not, i repeat, not try to find safety by cutting through the jungle. stay on the beach retard!”
February 11, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Tom
I think for marital harmony’s sake the celebrity freebie has to be vetted by the spouse. Personally I would have no problem vetting the bounty hunter. I’m confident that a few minutes of getting pounded by that Drakkar-soaked turd would definitely put me plus one in the “W” column.
Both shows present a version of “life gone wrong” to which all of us here, in our culture of overextended plenty, are much closer than we care to admit. For me, that’s where the frisson happens — when I realize, holy shit, how close am I to that? If I lost my job and got kicked out; if I got in trouble and had to run; if my debts got the best of me; where would I rather be? The hunter or the hunted? Easy. Making fire and eating rats.
We should talk more about the class issues involved in voluntary survival situations. Does pregnancy count?
February 12, 2009 at 9:25 pm
jscholmes
so what you’re saying t-bone, is that leland might respond to my topless fan email? AWESOME!
hez – please let me just say that i appreciated both the use of ’scare quotes’ to indicate that while you are making a controversial point about the ‘nature’ of humanity, you recognize the controversial nature of your statement and therefore qualify it with said qualifications AND your use of the word ‘retard.’ i believe that sums up some of les’ decisions insofar as they are ‘retarded, ‘ that is, ‘intellectually limited.’ but man, does i love it when he uses his ’slow-witted’ insights to take him through the jungle (because at some point they are going to need to give him/allow him to get an injury – otherwise it isn’t ‘believable’ enough).
oh tom – teehee: “getting pounded by that Drakkar-soaked turd” – the stuff of fantasies…but seriously, i think i have a good shot at leland (see above).
i actually originally thought you were going in another direction with your insightful comment. i thought you were going to say something about life ‘gone wrong’ insofar as we try to call on nature as a ‘escape’ from culture in a feeble attempt to first, make a distinction between the two and second, to construct a space for ourselves that is untouched by human culture (whether it is deep in nature or deep in our ‘biologies’). but instead, you make a more interesting point – that culture is just a collective fantasy that is mitigated by the distribution of resources that can be taken away from us, loss, gambled, or bartered. we are all just living above subsistence when you calibrate the world that way. and possessions come to mean nothing. however, what is most profound about your comment is that do not make a nature/culture distinction – you simply point out how culture has developed in such a way as to mask ‘what lies beneath’ which is hand-to-mouth. (this is not to suggest that cultures of poverty are closer to nature or that they lack culture but rather that culture is perhaps a thin veneer on what is otherwise the mundane-ity of survival).
say more about pregnancy – what were you thinking?
February 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Tom
I don’t think we are all necessarily “just living above subsistence” — that comes from a worldview based on scarcity, on expulsion from the Garden, on getting whatever we can scratch from the unforgiving dirt. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, to assume we have to rape to get what we need. And in that context, our “possessions” actually come to mean very little. We throw them away. We belittle or deny their origins, forcing others into poverty so we can afford them. They are not infused with the same kind of meaning that we could expect if we saw them as transmutations of Earth’s bounty. A culture focused on distancing itself from an imagined “subsistence” cannot see those things as gifts. That is the root of our poverty, and our collective mindset keeps us trapped there.
About pregnancy — and take this with a grain of salt, because I’m planning a wide berth around parenthood — the only good “reason” to breed is no reason at all. It’s life-threatening, consumes a lot of resources and drastically cuts in on the choices you can make. The only answer anyone can give in good conscience to the breed/ not-breed question is “love.” The only possible reward is love, and that’s not even guaranteed. Giving a reason — a good, solid, logical, practical Protestant argument — to bring another life-death into the world is utilitarian and perverse. Life is above reason.
So the classic ‘why climb the mountain/ because it’s there’ holds. HIStorically it’s been framed as a battle, but those who do it best do it as a dance. To put myself into closer relationship with the wild world is beyond reason, beyond judgement, and the only decent justification is love, wonder, joy. It’s a way, no less valid, to leap into the mystery of what’s greater than and beyond us, to merge with it for a while, and then come back to the culture a little less flabby.
February 13, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Brenda
Uhhh, I thought this was about hot guys on reality TV. I’m confused.
February 13, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Brenda
Yeah, hey! what the!? …I just got hoodwinked into bloviating!
February 13, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Brenda
(Tom impersonating Brenda)
February 15, 2009 at 12:33 pm
jscholmes
i love everything you just said tom (as yourself and as brenda;) ). i love the notion that scarcity is a problematic notion and i want you recommend what i can read about that (since i know nothing about theories of nature or environmentalism. at all). also, i love your use discourse on “to breed or not to breed.” very provocative. and mostly, i love the idea of dancing with nature. mainly because i love dancing.
oh, and were you aware that you and brenda both rawk at rockband? it’s a fact. just like on kids in the hall.
February 15, 2009 at 4:32 pm
roro
Dear Jacks. Please come over soon for Games Night. I’m worried about you and The Dogs.
February 16, 2009 at 12:23 pm
jscholmes
dear roro,
thank you for your concern. please save me from myself. preferably by kicking my ass in some kind of board game. i am this close (*fingers an inch apart*) to frenching the TV. t-bone ain’t gonna like that.
sincerely,
jacks