mtv lifer writing a Joss Whedon biography to come out in 2013. i watch a lot of television. a lot. and i talk about fandom and television in general lot. New photos from the next episode of Parks and Recreation “Are You Better Off?”
Chris Traeger, I am fascinated and excited to see what you have in store!
(answering this several days late!)
They really do indicate a lack of better ideas and the fact that they’re mushing two into the season makes me wonder where they are planning to take the series. The less said about Ann’s arc the better, and I get that the discussion would come up with Ben and Leslie now that they’re married. You have put much of my issues with the writers taking this tack so perfectly: “Even though they’re married now, it would be refreshing to see the show choose a less obvious route for what’s next for her.”
Parks hasn’t always taken the easy, obvious route for their characters even if things generally do work out for everyone. And for the most part, they have given us fairly unconventional characters that are believable and relatable, that we care about and want to follow them through their journey. I know that Mike Schur’s original plan was to have Leslie go through a number of bad dates/relationships until they developed the Ben Wyatt character* — so they have leanings to go superpredictable but it gives me hope that they respond and react creatively to unexpected changes and chemistry. (After this season, I’m hopeful but not holding my breath.)
* “When Greg Daniels and I were designing the show originally, we thought instead of putting Leslie in one significant relationship, we were going to have her date a lot of different people and learn different things from different types of guys. It’s why we introduced Louis CK’s character and Justin Theroux’s character. We wanted her to date guys who were different shapes of wrong for her and learn slowly what kind of man was right for her. And then Adam Scott was cast and we put them on-camera together and we thought, well, we’re not going to beat this.” — Mike Schur on Vulture
Amy Poehler might be a little short to be an Asgardian, but she’s definitely got the moves down.
I agree with some of this, but I read the more in that line more like wanting to make time for her family (Ben now, and maybe kids later) in addition to her accomplishments, not that she wanted to give up one for the other.
I disagree that the “I want…
Based on Leslie’s love for Parks, children’s concerts and being the caring loving person she is, I think having children is an easy trait to believe in her. However, since Leslie’s dating life was always awful and fleeting, prioritizing the tangibles in her life (friends, waffles and work) made more sense for where her character was at that time. Now that she is married and has had an epiphany that wow, kids are something she can have and seeing first hand how fulfilled Jerry is with his has sparked a desire to have her own. I don’t think if she’d stayed single she may never have focused on it or felt that she was missing that in her life necessarily, but now that it’s within reach what’s so wrong with her deciding she’s ready and wants that in addition to her career? She’s advancing her career and there’s no reason she can’t add another layer to her happiness by having kids. I think it’s a very in character growth arc for Leslie.Funnily enough, I agree with both you and Amy. I don’t think it’s wildly out of character for Leslie to want kids. I think there might have been hints before (like that End of the World freakout moment), plus there have been no indications to the contrary, and she’s in her mid to late thirties and for maybe the first time (?) in the kind of lasting relationship where it would make sense to talk about having kids.
But I also definitely agree that the phrasing of “Accomplishments are great, but I want more than that” is more than a little unfortunate. I don’t know if it necessarily undermines her whole character, though I also agree that she has been all about accomplishments and wanting to be president up to this point (with a slight detour when she was willing to get herself fired for Ben). But Leslie is impulsive, so the line about accomplishments and the throwaway line “We’re always going to work” could have been said under the temporary influence of the Gergich breakfast and might not indicate a complete sea change. Nevertheless, even though I don’t see it as an irreversible change in the character, I still don’t think it was very well thought out by the writers in terms of the narrative the show usually has re: women and careers. In that sense, it’s somewhat comparable to Leslie calling Ann a “beautiful spinster”, IMO.
Above all, for me, Leslie and Ben having kids is of no interest, not because it doesn’t make any sense for them, but precisely because it makes so much sense. It is the expected narrative: marriage and then kids. If they weren’t thinking about kids, then what else would they be doing? That question, the what else, is far more interesting to me than being fed the easy narrative. I’m not a fan of spouting various and sundry writing “rules”, but in this case I think the following applies: rule of screenwriting—your first idea will probably be too obvious, so think again. The way I see it, this is where the show could mark itself once again as original and fresh, by not picking the easy route on where to go next. But it is, and that’s disappointing.
Agreed on most of this. Not to disparage anyone who has or wants kids— a group that includes most people I’m friends with, and my parents— it’s just frustrating to see yet another female character want kids. Wanting kids is fine, and I’m all for the continuation of the species, and please don’t take anything I’m saying as a slam on those people, but—
It would’ve been nice to see a childfree character. Someone who explicitly told the audience that she didn’t want kids, and then stuck by it. As someone who doesn’t want kids, I’d like to see more of that reflected on screen. And yes, I also get that there are loads of underrepresented groups missing from the media, but this doesn’t have to be an either/or thing.
Almost twenty percent of women in the US end up childless, either by choice or by circumstance. And yet, in my own media-heavy life, I can only think of two characters (Robin Scherbatsky and Samantha Jones) who purposefully chose not to have children and discuss it on-screen.
Leslie Knope wanting kids doesn’t seem out-of-character to me, necessarily, I think they left her open-ended enough that either decision would’ve worked for me. More than anything, I want to see the character ultimately be happy.
But I do wish her personal decision that’s brought her happiness could’ve lined up with my personal decision that’s also brought me happiness.
Reblogging for diaphenia and herbalsmoothie’s commentary, especially:
But I also definitely agree that the phrasing of “Accomplishments are great, but I want more than that” is more than a little unfortunate… I still don’t think it was very well thought out by the writers in terms of the narrative the show usually has re: women and careers. In that sense, it’s somewhat comparable to Leslie calling Ann a “beautiful spinster”, IMO.
Above all, for me, Leslie and Ben having kids is of no interest, not because it doesn’t make any sense for them, but precisely because it makes so much sense. It is the expected narrative: marriage and then kids. If they weren’t thinking about kids, then what else would they be doing? That question, the what else, is far more interesting to me than being fed the easy narrative. I’m not a fan of spouting various and sundry writing “rules”, but in this case I think the following applies: rule of screenwriting—your first idea will probably be too obvious, so think again. The way I see it, this is where the show could mark itself once again as original and fresh, by not picking the easy route on where to go next. But it is, and that’s disappointing.
I agree with some of this, but I read the more in that line more like wanting to make time for her family (Ben now, and maybe kids later) in addition to her accomplishments, not that she wanted to give up one for the other.
I disagree that the “I want more” is about spending more time with Ben. I totally realize that it sounds like i’m arguing semantics, but to quote the whole scene:
“Accomplishments are great, but I want something more. I want what Jerry has. I mean, we’re always going to work but I think we need to fill this scrapbook too. [holds up FAMILY ALBUM scrapbook] Maybe we should take a real day off and talk about starting our family.”
The “more” is in direct relation to “accomplishments,” and then she says that she wants what Jerry has — a partner and several children “Starting our family” just means “starting to have children.”
(And I feel like “we’re always going to work” is completely a throwaway line.)
I feel like if Leslie already had kids and her career wasn’t as successful, she’d be saying it the other way, My family is great, but I want more than that I think it was poor phrasing.
But that is not the character that the show was built around. If this show was about a mother who had kids and didn’t feel like she had a successful career and wanted to get involved in politics/government, it would be a completely different situation.
ashisfriendly replied to your post:
But hasn’t Leslie talked about their future children before? I know that a bfast at Jerrys to switch her is hard to believe but she’s talked about it before just not DEEP.
herbalsmoothie pointed out that Leslie mentioned Ben’s future kids in “End of the World,” but I really don’t recall her talking about wanting/having kids herself until “Partridge.” I’m not saying that she hadn’t, I just don’t remember any examples.
Thank you! The whole “all women want to be mothers” narrative is something I’ve been looking at critically for a long time and I’m especially fascinated by how it’s perpetuated and portrayed in the media.
I completely agree with you that the line CAN be taken in to mean that we are more than our accomplishments. However, in this case, she says it SPECIFICALLY in the context of having a baby. “Accomplishments are great but I want more than that… Maybe we should take a real day off and talk about starting our family.” If the context was “I want to take time off and travel around the world” or “I’ve decided that I no longer want to be President and instead I want to work on X project in Pawnee to make life better for everyone,” I’d fully be on board with your suggestion of the line.
Also — this is Leslie Knope, who was so excited that she got her first subcommittee before she was 34 and is determined to be the President of the United States. One breakfast with the Gergich family undid her lifelong ambition and drive for those accomplishments? Is that an emotional arc that is true to the character — that in ONE moment, everything that has defined and excited her about everything she can and will do in life has been relegated to “yeah, they’re nice and all, but they’re nothing compared to having babies!” I don’t think so, and in a way, I think that’s what bothers me the most about this declaration.
What I would LOVE is if Leslie and Ben actually do have a talk and decide that they don’t need to have babies to be a family. That they can be an amazing family with just the two of them. That would be awesome but I HIGHLY doubt Parks would do it.
Has that ever been shown on TV? A couple talking about it and making the decision together not to have kids? I can’t think of any examples right now — it seems like in most cases, one person wants kids and the other doesn’t and it is a constant underlying tension that erupts into huge fights from time to time. But a coherent, respectful conversation in which two people decide that they don’t want to be parents? Oh, hell no.
I wanted to repost this to address some of the comments that I got on my issues with Leslie having a baby. (And suddenly being all “i want to be a mom, despite never addressing it for five seasons up until going to Partridge.”)
rikyl replied to your post: unpopular opinion
I see your point, and I wouldn’t have minded if Leslie and Ben never kids, but I don’t know why wanting or not wanting to have a baby needs to be tied to the value of one’s accomplishments. It doesn’t devalue anything else Leslie has done.
ashisfriendly replied to your post: unpopular opinion
Nope! This is THE popular opinion. I hardly see what is wrong with wanting to have children or how that effects all over accomplishments. Leslie loves to take care of people and values her relationships to a high degree, seems in character to me.
In this scene, Leslie says, “Accomplishments are great, but I want more than that.” Which is basically the narrative that no matter what a woman has accomplished in her life, it is always held up as being fairly unimportant and inconsequential compared to having a child.
It IS the popular opinion that Leslie and Ben should have a baby — which is a character development that came out of nowhere as she hasn’t mentioned it until “Partridge.” As it’s always the popular and mainstream opinion that ALL WOMEN WANT TO BE MOTHERS and if they don’t, there is something wrong with them. “You’ll change your mind.” “Your life will be so empty and lonely.” “I found the meaning of my life when I became a mother.” “I learned how to be truly selfless when I became a mother.” It all denotes that a woman is WRONG and incredibly selfish for not wanting kids.
I’ve never said that there is anything wrong with having children, or wanting to have children. And I have been very candid about my own biases around this topic. I said in an earlier post that I know that it’s unfair for me to hang my hopes and expectations for a representation of my desires and experience on a character that someone else has created and has their own vision for their life path. But the narrative for women characters almost always includes motherhood and I would love to see more lady characters that are very happy and complete with their lives and don’t feel that they are a personal failure for not having children.*
I brought this question of childfree tv ladies to more people and it’s been a fascinating discussion and debate. So far, there are 24 ladies, and that’s going back to the 1970s American television. I fully expect to be missing some (and I have some on a list of “potentials), but that’s a tiny fraction of all the female TV main characters in the past 40 years that do not have children by choice.
(*Rant for another day: How we attack ladies who have kids and yet DON’T think that motherhood is their ultimate achievement and are equally/more proud of other things they’ve done. See Felicity Huffman on 60 Minutes.)
(Source: amypoehler, via kyrie-anne)
rikyl replied to your post: unpopular opinion
I see your point, and I wouldnt have minded if Leslie and Ben never kids, but I dont know why wanting or not wanting to have a baby needs to be tied to the value of ones accomplishments. It doesnt devalue anything else Leslie has done.
I’m willing to bet paper money that when Leslie has a baby, she will say something along the lines of, “I know I accomplished my dream of doing amazing things for Pawnee and being elected councilwoman/Mayor/President but nothing compares to THIS, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT I HAVE DONE.”
It’s the narrative, it always is — especially on television. No matter what a woman has accomplished in her life, it is always held up as being fairly unimportant and inconsequential compared to having a child. She could singlehandedly unite all peoples and countries in a new world peace, develop a formula to save and create more ice caps and give every person a grumpy cat of their own and yet she will essentially proclaim that none of that was worth anything when measured up to being a mother. Sometimes we get the bonus of her being utterly unfulfilled and feeling like her life will not be complete unless she has a child.
I love Leslie. I love that she is this unapologetically geeky, confident person who has accomplished much, who cares deeply for people and who makes mistakes but is not shown as this goofy, overly emotional buffoon who defines herself by her (lack of) lovelife. I have always loved Leslie because I AM Leslie without all the accomplishments and ability to get by on four hours of sleep a night. Seeing what high regard that not only her friends and colleagues in the series have for her, but also Parks fans and critics, has given me hope in my own life because I see myself reflected on that screen and it makes me feel okay that I’m on this path in life. And now that her new arc will be making babies and having a family with Ben, I have lost my touchstone, my role model that reminds me that it’s okay not to be married by 30 and have kids by 35.
I would feel bad about that and my own personal expectations but isn’t that why we watch tv shows and movies? To connect with the characters and their journeys because they help us through our own.
Like I said, I know that I have a knee-jerk reaction to such things which makes me very sensitive and aware of how this narrative is so pervasive in media and in RL. Did you read Rachel Dratch’s book Girl Walks Into a Bar? It starts out mocking the whole “omg, my life is so much more meaningful now that I’m a mother and I can see that everything i did before was stupid and pointless” commentary and yet ends with her pretty much saying that whole thing. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that my life will be pointless and that I will be a lonely old woman if I don’t have children. And one of my best friends once told me that my life is worthless compared to hers because she has three kids and I have none. (She is no longer a friend.)
And I know that it’s unfair for me to hang my hopes and expectations for a representation of my desires and experience on a character that someone else has created and has their own vision for their life path. But I would love to see more lady characters that are very happy and complete with their lives and don’t feel that they are a personal failure for not having children, and if they do have kids, that they are equally as proud as their non-babymaking accomplishments.
