What's the deal with the media obsession with "Girls"?

I watched the first episode and thought it was boring, and stopped watching it. But I can't get away from it. Wherever I turn, the media won't stop shoving it own my throat, from gawker (which posts about it almost every other day) to the NYTimes. Why is the media so obsessed with this loser show? It's not good, the performers are not attractive, and it's not doing very well in the ratings. And unlike something like "Mad Men" it's not even a critical darling. I don't get it.

• I feel as similarly as you can get while having a nearly opposite critical opinion. I think it's pretty funny and clever in a way that reminds me of the similarly little-watched, creatively messy, and fantastically-white HBO Brooklyn fantasia Bored To Death, and so it's kind of crazy to me that it's such a hot topic for bloggers, like someone commissioned a TV series based on a Salon article that kicked up a meaningless controversy for a week. In terms of critical response it really interests me to read the thoughts of, for example, women of color who are part of the rich-girl hipster Brooklyn culture this show draws on but are not represented in the show itself. I think Lena Dunham is a very smart girl but she's pretty sheltered and very young and it's interesting to see how that manifests itself in a show that is generally clever and well-crafted - she always gets one or two things wrong in each episode. Having said that I think Gawker's critical reviews are kind of embarrassing. John Cook is a smart guy and a good writer but I just cringe seeing a 40-year-old straight white guy go in on that shit like he's a Something Awful poster with a lot of time to kill and they're part of the same generation and media moment, like he's the boy and she's the girl in "Common People." His stuff gets a little misogynistic at times but mostly I'm just purely offended by the Old Man Yells at Cloud nature of the writing - hire an angry young wo/man to do that shit!

• This show will be renewed and improve, just like Sex and the City. I don't really love entire episodes so far, but there are moments that I have liked. When "Dancing on my Own" came on, and she slowly started getting more into it, says "Wassup?" to her friend, and rocks out on her own. It's impressive that she wrote, directed and starred in that scene which seemed so effortless and natural.

  Robyn

• To answer your question, OP, Lena Dunham is connected. Google her and you'll find out the specifics. The 1% pushing one of their own, basically. She's TV's ugly duckling version of Lana Del Rey.

• Our Daddies run the media!!!

  Girls!

• It portrays an insanely specific part of NYC culture that, for whatever reason, resonates with those in the NYC media. That's why it's getting so much coverage.

• [quote]This show will be renewed and improve, just like Sex and the City. No, it will get another season and be forgotten like HBO's other "edgy" show "The Flight of the Conchords".

• I don't get a lot of media obsessions.

• There was an article about Lena Dunham in a recent issue of Rolling Stone, in which the journalist (who admits she'd hung with Dunham in social settings prior to the show) all but said that if you don't like Girls, there must be something wrong with YOU, because the show shits rainbows and unicorns - none of the criticisms leveled at it have any validity whatsoever, and in fact people are 'looking' for things to find fault with. Please, bitch. She also poo-pooed the similar backgrounds of the actresses, chalking it up to 'coincidence'. Dunham herself assured us that in her real life, she interacts with lots of different races. Sure you do, Lena... There has *got* to be something better for HBO to use this show's budget for.

• They want to get the straight girl market so they are pumping this show

• "There has *got* to be something better for HBO to use this show's budget for." Yeah, like that POS "Entourage". Shows starring mostly women draw much more ire than shows starring mostly men; it's pretty bizarre.

• I think the show is smart, funny and well-written. And on that point, the girl writes what she knows. If she started putting in random minorities just for the sake of pc diversity, well that would be tokenism and therefore disingenuous. It would make the whole thing seem false and inauthentic. I know, it's sad to say - but part of what makes the show authentic is the milieu: hipster Greenpoint/Williamsburg/Bushwick. That scene is overwhelmingly white. And as for her family connections? Gimme a break. Her mom and dad are artists. Not even famous ones (outside a very small circle). If you think that's what kicked the door open and got her a meeting with HBO and Judd Apatow, you're on crack.

• Not intended for flyovers. Stick to you Real Housewives boys.

• I'm black and I don't get the obsession with people trying to force diversity on this show. The first rule of writing is write about what you know. That is what she's doing. And the people who are complaining, need to look at their own social circles. How diverse are they? I bet, not very.

• media obsessions are created and designed. They don't just happen. Having said that Lena Dunham is a uniquely talented 24 year old woman and the last episode of GIRLS demonstrated some pretty refined skills for anyone, let alone someone of her age and limited experience. If you don't get the show, you won't like it. It isn't for everyone. There is clearly some backlash because she is so young and relatively inexperienced. The feeling is "why should SHE have all this" Added to the mix is the fact she is physically unremarkable which seems to really confound and upset plenty of people who see television as a resource for envy objects. She frequently appears topless and beds men "hotter" than she. And she isn't phsycially very remarkable. Huge crime for many.

• white girls.

• I like it enough to watch it every week, but it's really work to do so. The writing shows no evidence of (real) self awarenes, and it consistently feels like we're being asked to feel sorry for characters who consciously screw their lives up. The women invariably see sex as a chore, except for Jessa (whose point of view the show has not yet taken). There is very little ability to inhabit any other perspective than the aloof, drifting, over-it-all attitude of the creator. Sometimes it works - when Marnie dumped her boyfriend while having sex with him, even after begging him to take her back. That was true, and it made you feel for both of them. But Hannah's attempt to seduce her boss in order to quit her job was clumsy and really false. And my joy at seeing her Glad bag of clothing split after getting off the airplane was muted by the fact that only her father noticed it at all. When you start to truly hate the central character, and root for the side characters, it's not a good show.

• I'm with R16. I'll keep watching, but ... yeah. And was there a media obsession with the show? If so, I haven't noticed. But then, I spend zero time on Gawker (I spend a lot of time on io9 and Gizmodo though)

• All of the main cast have super connected parents and BFFs who want to see Lena & Co. get, like, totally ultra famous. The criticisms of the criticisms reek of junior high school pettiness.

• Lena Dunham is so fucking ugly. She would NEVER have a career if it wasn't for nepotism.

• First of all, you admit you only watched the first episode. So you can't say the show isn't good. You also can't say it's not a critical darling, since it has gotten great reviews. It's funny, it's interesting, it's different. And it has been renewed for a second season.

• A face only a mother could love

  http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01408/lena_dunham_gir_1408964cl-8.jpg

• "Not intended for flyovers. Stick to you Real Housewives boys." I actually agree with this. This show is perfect for unlikable, unattractive people who think they're made special and interesting by zip code alone.

• I start out watching each episode thinking I'm going to love it, but then half way through I can't wait for it to end.

• link below

  http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DnIVa9lxkbus

• What R11 and R14 said. The show is obviously not for everyone, but it's miles better most of the other stuff HBO has spent money on, and Lena Dunham IS a brilliant writer. P.S. Her parents are anything but powerful in the industry. There's no "nepotism" going on here.

• how old is she? 55?

• Her mother is a sculptor. How much power can she really pull in Hollywood?

• [quote]Lena Dunham is so fucking ugly. She would NEVER have a career if it wasn't for nepotism. That's the point, sweetcakes. The one with connection is the actress who plays Hannahs best friend (the one with the boring boyfriend). Her family is friends with Judd Apatow and she begged him for a role.

• I live in another country, but am curious about the show. What do they do, or talk about on this show? The comments I read here and elsewhere are mostly about the nepotism, or how she is ugly, or it's all white people - but what do they actually do or talk about on this show?

• [quote]Lena Dunham is so fucking ugly. She would NEVER have a career if it wasn't for nepotism. She's the creator and writer so she was able to cast herself in this as well as Tiny Furniture. If she weren't producing her own material I doubt she would get hired as an actress (other than the chunky best friend). But kudos to her for making her own path. And she's certainly no uglier than the fugos who usually inhabit a Judd Apatow movie. In the context of the show Lena's looks work.

• R21, is that a man or woman? Is that one of the boyfriends on the show?

• the cute boyfriend that her friend is dumping is so fucking awesome... I would KILL for a boyfriend like that. It really makes me hate the cunt that is dumping him.

• I like Lee Taylor Pucci. He's so cute.

• Allyson Williams (Marnie)'s dad is NBC anchor Brian Williams and her grandfather on her mother's side is a head honcho at HBO. Go figure.

• [quote]First of all, you admit you only watched the first episode. So you can't say the show isn't good. Once a young author send George Bernard Shaw a copy of his novel to review, and he glued the edges of two pages together to see if Shaw had actually read the entire thing (a common trick young authors used to do). Shaw returned the book to the author with the pages unstuck, and said the novel wasn't good enough for him to review it. The author complained that Shaw clearly had not read the entire book, and Shaw wrote back, "One does not have to eat the entire apple to know that it is rotten." If someone hated the first episode, why the fuck would they ever go back to watch more? What ridiculous thing for you to bitch about.

• she's a homely cunt.

• I'm a BIG fan.

  Tavi%20G.

• It's natural the media would love it - the media is self-obsessed, and so are the New Yorkers on the show.

• What annoys me is the 'it's better than Sex and the City' comments. No it's not, it will never be better or as sucessful as SATC. The nepotism behind the whole thing is pretty sickening too.

• I read somewhere that Andrew Rannells is doing a nude scene next season. Sorry, that's not going to get me to subscribe to HBO.

• [quote]This show will be renewed and improve, just like Sex and the City. SATC got worse every season until it was nearly unrecognizable by the vomit-inducing finale.

• Love that Lena got $3.5 million dollars to publish a book. Good for her.

• I don't care for Dunham, but I love Girls and can't wait for the next season. To me, it's a much, much better show in one season than SATC was in its entire run. However, saying that it's as culturally important as SATC in terms of zeitgeist is ridiculous. SATC is up there with ANY sitcom in history for that honor.

• I actually feel the exact opposite for R43. A lot of SATC (especially towards the end) was a lot of self indulgent rubbish, but at it's best, it was about loneliness and trying to find your place in the world - something that all people can associate with whether you live in Manhattan or not. Granted, I am older than the targeted demographic for "Girls", but I haven't seen anything about that show that spoke to me on a human level (other than I wish my parents could have afforded to indulge my whims after I got out of college).

• SATC was/is a pop culture phenomenon. All these years later, it's still relevant. Here in NY, girls in their 20's know the show and try to "act" like the characters. They were in grade school when the show was on. It amazes me how popular SATC still is. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is the subject for another thread.

• R44, I, too, think most of SATC was indulgent rubbish. But it was a cultural juggernaut nonetheless. I'm 33 and every girl I know, literally, wanted to move to NYC and became some version of one of the four main characters post college. As far as the universality of Girls, well, I think a whole generation of 20 somethings will disagree with you. That generation (and I guess in part mine) is rife with the feeling that life not only won't be better for them than it was for their parents, but it will be worse than worse: It will be pointless. Girls hits that really, really well. What is the point of even trying when there's nothing to try for? All relationships end, art is basically dead, success is something only our parents could achieve, the world, America, is ending. But hey, we have youtube and the interwebs and our own niche cleverness to pass the time... The very fact it's irritating and annoying for someone older is the very reason it nails the generation it's representing.