The Gilmore paradox

In the National Review, Catherine Seipp discusses the Gilmore Girls, a show that, she claims, "constantly pushes the envelope back and forth between wholesome and edgy." The National Review isn't an especially edgy or even pro-edgy publication, and yet Seipp is praising GG. So in this context, what, then, constitutes edgy? With nothing racy left, things that no one reasonable would ever give any thought to suddenly become controversial. A high school student drinking coffee, or a college student witnessing nudity? Next thing you know, women will be seen on TV shows with their heads unveiled. Things are not looking good.

Seipp appears to be arguing that the Gilmore Girls is a positive, family-friendly show, despite its racier elements, and reassures the reader that the only thing the show can be faulted for is that it is at times unrealistic. But why must TV shows depict exact replicas of ideal family life, down to a David Brooksian early marriage and a diet following current federal guidelines? Was this why Strangers with Candy went off the air? And is it really so unrealistic that Rory and her mother are skinny but eat greasy diner food? It's far more realistic that two women might have fast metabolisms than that, say, a man resembling Jerry Seinfeld, who's portraying not himself as a wealthy sitcom star but himself in his past life a moderately successful comedian, could be having sex with a new gorgeous girlfriend every weekend.

If TV shows are expected to depict only the realistic and the admirable (with attractive casts, no doubt), options will become limited indeed. We may all be forced to, like, read books or something.