30 September 2015

+JMJ+

Early Edition: Ads and More

Let's add my series on Early Edition to the list of blog-related things TO CLEAR this year. With only four more episodes to go, it's a realistic goal!


Forget about "cat people" and "dog people" for a minute. I'm starting to wonder if, among Early Edition fans, there are "Cat people" and "Paper people." I mean, I can totally see cat lovers tuning in just because Gary has their favourite animal as a pet their favourite animal has Gary for a pet. Since I tune in for The Paper, I've always found The Cat rather superfluous. But I have to admit that the writers make a halfway good case for the latter here, where it seems to have even more agency than it did two episodes ago.


Isn't it interesting that in all Gary's months of saving people whose potential misfortunes he reads about in The Paper, he has never really focussed on the obituaries? It does make some sense: the people mentioned there normally die of natural causes--and there's only so much a saviour who isn't The Saviour can do. But what if someone who is about to die of natural causes needs another sort of saving?

There is no way that Gary would have taken an interest in Eunice Fadiman if The Cat hadn't decided to show up at her house instead of his hotel room for several mornings in a row. (Well, The Cat and The Paper) And if Gary hadn't been a regular visitor of Eunice's, he would never have had the chance to help her with the sort of problem that is never really newsworthy.

If you're wondering why Eunice gets to be helped out, when hundreds of people must have died with unresolved issues since Gary first received The Paper, well, it's personal. As personal as a cat can get. It turns out The Cat and Eunice are old friends of a sort. And this is the first time we see some bias beyond the sort we learn about in Journalism 101. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Let's hope all the days spent with Eunice were slow news days!


Your Turn to Be the Hero: What advice would you give a person whom you knew would be dead in twenty-four hours?

2 comments:

Brandon said...

One wonders about chains of consequences. We see that with the opening teaser -- although I don't know if it's intentional -- in which a very trivial intervention on a very trivial matter of movie criticism heads off an even that would be newsworthy -- but once it's prevented, there is no way anyone would know that the newsworthy event would have taken place. (One wonders how many newsworthy disasters Shredded Cheddar has prevented!)

Enbrethiliel said...

+JMJ+

Brandon, until you sketched the connection out, I thought the teaser was nothing but a chance to slip Roger Ebert into a cameo!

We'll never know how many disasters any of us prevent, but as long as I never directly cause a disaster, I'll be happy. ;-)