Splinters

Off the Telly

Intelligent reflection on popular culture seems to be very popular itself. Off the Telly is a site dedicated to talking about, er, telly. I first noticed it during the Big Brother phenomenon over the summer. The long reviews of each week?s events were a welcome contrast to the sneering or hysterical coverage of the printed press. Whoever wrote it wanted to understand as well as to enjoy. To me, they go together anyway.

However, the standard seems to have fallen if the review of the recent BBC2 series "The Greeks" is anything to go by. The episode on Socrates was one of the depressing examples of dumbing down I have ever seen. Yet the reviewer found it ?insightful, accessible and utterly absorbing?.

Despite engaging a top thinker like Alexander Nehamas to talk about the philosopher, his words were reduced to soundbites merely reiterating the portentous narration by a sleepwalking Liam Neeson. Apparently, Socrates is a great philosopher because ?he questioned the fundamental beliefs of Greek society.? Right. OK. How did he do that? There was no mention of the Socratic Method. There was no mention of the fact that Socrates didn?t actually write anything down and exists only through Plato?s writing. Indeed, there was no mention of Plato. On the other hand, there was plenty of detail on the horrible effects of drinking hemlock. And there was even more on the wars between different Greek islands. Accessible maybe. But to what?

The reviewer worried that the series would be ?perceived as a dry exercise in academia, permitting no true entry point to the casual viewer.? The casual viewer, of course, is unlikely to enter anything other than the fridge. Yet, have you noticed how experts can discuss sport on telly, combining deep understanding with passionate engagement, without being labelled ?dry academics?? So why is sport allowed this privilege? Is it because it is ?insightful and utterly absorbing? yet doesn?t ?question the fundamental beliefs of society??