by Diane Wild | Aug 11, 2008 | Uncategorised
Oh, did I mention I’d be away? I was away. I’m back. I have nothing to say though, since my brain is still on holidays, so I’ll link to the blog of a former coworker who quietly amazes me. She’s started a project of auctioning off homemade bags to raise funds for a family member’s adoption (a subject close to her heart), and has had tremendous success:
Bags for Zaza is a fundraiser I’m conducting on behalf of my brother-in-law and his family. They are in the process of adopting a little girl from Colombia; we don’t know her name yet, so we call her Zaza. My family and I are using the fabric and scraps we already have, as well as donated fabrics and thrift-store finds, to create unique and original messenger bags, totes, and purses. 100% of your purchase price will be donated towards Zaza’s adoption.
Bidding starts on Mondays and closes Saturdays – check out the latest crop of bags.
by Diane Wild | Apr 6, 2008 | Uncategorised
Artist Todd Goldman is, um, a tad controversial, but before I knew that I got a huge laugh from an exhibit of his works in an LA gallery. And I’m sure I still would have laughed if I’d known:
He founded David and Goliath, which sells funny t-shirts and other merchandise, or his artwork is available here. I’ll leave the plagiarism issue to you and your conscience.
by Diane Wild | Jan 22, 2008 | Uncategorised
I’m not sure I understand quite why this post from Pamie.com made me laugh so much. Well, not even just so much, more like I giggled on first reading it, and then stealth laughter crept up on me later.
I think it has something to do with the fact that I can totally relate to the big faux pas she describes. Her inability to tell a short story feels pretty familiar, too. The anecdote also happens to combine the sneaky hilariousness that is Pamela Ribon with a fun — yes, fun! — anecdote about the decidedly not-fun WGA strike, mixes in some House writer name-dropping, and features some other random famous people (because everyone in Hollywood eats lunch together).
No excerpt will do it justice –you’ve got to read Name Dropping… and Shattering in its entirety for the ultimate payoff. But here’s a taste:
Recently, Sara, Liz and I decide to get post-picket lunch. We end up meeting at a sushi place where we’re informed it’s closing in five minutes, so we have to order quickly. We agree, and as I walk to the restroom to wash my hands, I see the only other occupied table in the restaurant. It’s Jimmy Kimmel, with some friends.
When I get back to our table, there’s some light, quiet joking that the women dressed in full-on Strike gear could potentially end up in a rumble with Kimmel and his co-workers. (“That’ll get Nikki Finke posting again!”)
After we’ve placed our order, Jimmy Kimmel and his friends get up to leave. We quietly watch them go, wondering if this is awkward or just Hollywood these days.
“Jimmy Kimmel looks tired,” Liz comments.
“Jimmy Kimmel drives a nice car,” I say, watching him climb into his vehicle.
The waitress approaches us. “By the way,” she says. “That man just paid your check.”
There’s a moment of stunned shock as the three of us stare at each other. Then I ran out to the parking lot, waving my hand, shouting, “Thank you! Seriously! Thank you!”
He laughed, said no problem, and drove away.
You gotta read the whole thing though.
by Diane Wild | Jan 8, 2008 | Uncategorised
For The Metaphorical Medicine of House on Blogcritics, I interviewed Polite Scott, the doctor behind the reviews at Polite Dissent. Here’s the unedited Q&A of our pre-Christmas e-mail interview:
Where do you think House falls on the accuracy scale compared to other medical shows?
House is probably the most accurate of the current crop of medical television shows, and definitely well above average for the genre.
Do you think it’s important that a fictional TV show gets the medicine correct? Why or why not?
It would be nice if television shows were entirely accurate, but that’s not a realistic expectation. Real world medicine and dramatic television medicine are significantly different – real life is rarely as dramatic as television. For example, in real life, tests results often take days to come back and the results are rarely as clear cut as House (or other television shows) make them out to be. It’s true that there is an art to medicine and most of the television shows are good at showing that, but the art is built on a solid foundation of science, and this is the part most television shows have problems with.
Some people say shows like CSI or House, even if they don’t get everything right, help to create an atmosphere of respect for science. Others think that some of the erroneous impressions they leave viewers with do more harm than good. Where do you fall in that spectrum?
For most people, these shows are more beneficial than harmful, but there are a significant number of viewers who cannot always discern what is real and what is fiction. This can be especially difficult on some of today’s medical and science dramas, which freely mix fact and fiction. Every doctor has had patients come in complaining of a disease they saw on Grey’s Anatomy or desiring some treatment they saw on House.
I know some people can’t watch a fictional show that hits too close to their expertise, because they can’t overlook any cheating on the facts. But from your reviews, you seem to appreciate House despite the flaws you find. Do you have lower expectations of what level of accuracy to expect than the can’t-watch kind of people, or how do you manage to still enjoy despite seeing (and because of the reviews, I presume even looking for) those flaws each week?
I would say that I am more realistic about what to expect from medical dramas; it’s simply not possible for them to be 100% accurate and remain a finely tuned drama. When I point out errors, especially the smaller ones, it is not so much to detract from House as it is to let my readers know what they should expect in real life (like doctors and nurses wearing eye protection in the operating room).
Medical shows seem to draw out the armchair doctors: non-physician fans who seem to revel in pointing out errors, both real and perceived. Do you think there’s a certain element of fun in playing spot the inaccuracy? Or is it a sign that the show is taking people out of the world of the show?
There’s certainly fun — or at least an enjoyable challenge — in looking for errors, at least in a certain segment of viewers. One does not get to be a good doctor (or even a mediocre one) without developing a good eye for the details. This nitpicking doesn’t detract from the show, or break the suspension of disbelief because it is possible to watch the show on two different levels: the fan, and the doctor. The Star Trek series has had nit-picking fans for years, there’s even been several “Nitpicker’s Guide to Star Trek” published – but remember that the books are not written by critics, but by fans of the show.
I’m going to throw out a couple of quotes from my interview with House writer Lawrence Kaplow, and wonder about your thoughts on the issues he raised:
Kaplow: “The writers are just having fun, telling stories. But then because it’s a medical show, people sometimes are watching it not just to see the characters and who’s kissing who, but for answers.”
How do you feel about people watching a medical show for answers? And knowing that some do, what kind of responsibility do you think that puts on the writers?
I wish patients wouldn’t watch medical shows for answers, but many do. This has been going on since the first medical shows appeared, and will continue as long as there are medical dramas. It’s something we have to bear in mind, both as doctors and writers. The most important aspect of this for the writers (as far as I’m concerned) is that they not give false hope to patients with a serious disease, and conversely, that they don’t exaggerate the seriousness of other diseases.
Kaplow: “Sometimes we get criticized from doctors who say that would never happen. And the truth is, in your practice that would never happen because this is not the norm, but we have documentation from here backed up to NBC Universal showing that this is possible, this is what can happen. But we can’t tell you the 15 steps it took to get there, because that would be really boring.”
Do you think some of the inaccuracies people point out are actually medically possible? Do you think accuracy should be sacrificed for drama, or does a medical show needs to think about more than entertainment?
Some of what I call inaccuracies may be possible, or at least theoretically possible. There are thousands of medical articles, studies, and case reports published every month and buried somewhere in there could be anything. Most of the time, if something is unlikely, but possible, I’ll mention it, or if I miss it, one of my readers will catch it.
—
Later this week I’ll post the transcript of my interview with Dr. Lisa Sanders.
by Diane Wild | Dec 13, 2007 | Uncategorised
Quite a while ago, my brother posted a hilarious couple of photos of products with silly warnings, like the peanut butter jar labelled “Caution – Allergy Warning – Contains peanuts.” Today, I saw this article about the contest winner of the 11th annual “Wacky Warning Label Contest,” sponsored by Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch. Here’s the winning photo from a small tractor:
