GIRLS: BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE HAS DISCUSSED IT, WE WILL TOO (Part 2)

As epsiode 3 came and went, our discussion of GIRLS may have been at its peak. We decided to pay homage to Shoshanna’s earnest assessment of her own “Sex and the City” character match in Episode 1 by playing the same game with GIRLS. (Side note: if this were the Sex and the City game, Carolanne would totes be Carrie with a touch of Miranda, and Matt is def Samantha with a bit of Charlotte’s country club aesthetic). Anyway, this game would prove difficult with GIRLS, mostly because by this point none of the characters were particularly redeemable. They were all still slightly absurd embodiments of some real life (probably atypical) situations and relationships, but as individuals didn’t feel well rounded or grounded in any discernible pasts (which, obviously, as viewers we knew nothing about yet). And to further complicate this vain attempt at locating ourselves in these irritating fictitious beings, the one of us who is not a GIRL was left with an even bleaker set of abysmally portrayed male characters.

GIRLS: BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE HAS DISCUSSED IT, WE WILL TOO (Part 1)

Most often on the internet and in print, TV shows are evaluated episode to episode, and if done on Twitter, minute to minute. Typically a writer is assigned to a particular show because of his or her background - maybe a distinct knowledge that would help in evaluating the program, such as having read the source material (good for a show like Game of Thrones), or because they have worked on writing a high-minded concept show (which should be required to evaluate Community).  Conveniently, we have no background in evaluating a show like GIRLS (the show’s caps lock button appears broken, so ours will break for unity’s sake) unless you count growing up in Manhattan and New Jersey (i.e. near brooklyn) and the fact that half of the analysis comes from a GIRL.  This will not stop us from analyzing, don't worry.