Is a 65-hour story better than a 3-hour story?

Jane Dark writes here about movies taking only 100 minutes whereas, on TV, “The Wire is about 65 hours long, divided graciously into five location-based chapters. Movies are now the short form, television the long form.” I’ve never seen The Wire (we live on the 7th floor, no reception) so I can’t comment on this example, but the discussion reminds me of the fractal nature of soap operas: in any couple of episodes, so much is happening, but then if you tune in a year or two later, everything’s still at the same place. Presumably this is to make things interesting to people who watch every day, while still allowing people to miss an episode.

I’d also comment, regarding length, that single novels are generally agreed to be better than series novels. There are exceptions, sure, and you could argue that some sets of novels (for example, Charles Dickens or Anne Tyler) have enough common themes that they function as series. But Dark is specifically talking about the ability to develop character over the long form. For some reason, you don’t usually see novelists doing this (again, you have exceptions such as Richard Ford, John Updike, and Philip Roth). One reason, perhaps, is that part of the fun of a work of literature is the chance to meet new characters. Much as we’d like to see our favorites reappear in future books, there’s something that seems to be missing in a mere continuation. So I think there is something missing in Dark’s argument.

We live in an age of literary abundance. There are so many great storytellers out there, we don’t need to rely on a few characters over and over again, as we have to do in a bedtime-story world in which one’s limited power of invention invariably results in the same few characters and formulations shuffled around like a deck of cards.

P.S. It appears that in 1997 Jane Dark apparently saw 52 movies more than I did, so I defer to her expertise.

P.P.S. She also amusingly analogizes Dubai to Michael Jackson, loosely adapting the economic theory that free money corrupts the soul (to which I generally agree, but it doesn’t stop me from taking government grants, on the theory (which I sincerely believe to be true in this case) that I’ll do thing differently).

P.P.P.S. Hey, I like bread and water. If it’s good bread, that is.

P.P.P.P.S. Jenny points me to this.

3 thoughts on “Is a 65-hour story better than a 3-hour story?

  1. The Wire is an interesting example – it is more like a 65 hour movie than it is a soap opera.

    Although it consists of self-contained episodes I don't think that 'Presumably this is to make things interesting to people who watch every day, while still allowing people to miss an episode.' applies to the Wire.

    If you watched, say, a mid-season episode from Season 2, I don't think you would be able to work out what was going on; in the same way that you would be confused if you watched 15 minutes from the middle of a movie.

  2. I wouldnt call the Wire a 65 hour movie, but rather a novel in visual form, with each episode like a chapter in a great novel. Each season lasts about 13 episodes, and each season is jam-packed with great scenes, characters, dialogue, etc.

    Andrew, I REALLY encourage you to watch the Wire. It is close to being the best piece of American literature produced in the past decade.

    Its perspective on urban power and institutions is rock solid (though open to debate). I was *this* close to adapting my Urban Politics course to include in depth viewing and discussing of the Wire. Its that good.

    As for your comment about reception on the 7th floor … I don't understand – The Wire was only available via cable/sat on HBO. However, now the DVDs of seasons 1 – 4 are available, and probably the best way to view the series. Watch 2 – 3 episodes at a sitting if possible.

Comments are closed.