I can’t wait to see the next episode of Girls because a) I’m not jealous of Lena Dunham and b) I’m not jealous of Lena Dunham and c) I’m not jealous of… Oh look there’s only one reason why anyone wouldn’t want to watch the next episode of Girls. The only reason why Girls (a show about city-dwelling girls in their mid-late 20s) has got so much backlash from city-dwelling girls in their mid-late 20s is because they’re not the city-dwelling girls in their mid-late 20s who are currently enjoying the success of Girls. Namely they’re green with envy. Lena Dunham is the writer, director and starring character in Girls and she’s smashed it (well she has so far… most of us have only seen one episode FFS, all this premature commotion is like bleedin’ LANA DEL REY ALL OVER AGAIN). I mean, apparently she’s “privileged” so doesn’t deserve to be loved. Who gives a… shit, looks like you’ve got something on your shoulder there.
It’s hard when you’ve ached, when you’ve dreamed that YOU and YOUR friends would make the perfect Sex And The City: The College Years (I’m tiring of this description) style sitcom and you just didn’t beat Lena Dunham to it (I only got the first episode of mine written) but you sooooooooo could’ve done a better job. Sorry to burst your bubbles but… just don’t go down this road. Envy is no catalyst to female empowerment; spiteful jealousy between women is to the promotion of feminism what Sectarianism is to the safety of Glasgow City Centre. Credit where it’s due: the pilot of Girls was simply so heart-warmingly hilarious I could watch it again and again and again. Hold me, kiss me, squeeze me, Girls. I have not felt this in love since The OC.
[Girls: it was interesting searching for this image in Google]
I am nothing if not fair, though. So let’s look at the things you’re all criticising Girls for:
1. Girls is shit because I don’t like any of the girls in Girls.
Since when do you have to like a TV character to judge that there’s a good TV programme in front of you? Have you even seenThe X Files. Plus, I didn’t think the girls were that hideous. Actually (shhhh) I know these people. All of them.
2. Lena Dunham is a self-indulgent, pretentious prick.
Lena Dunham is writing about what she knows. Which FYI is the opposite of pretentious. Also, this is TV, not Nobel Prize Literature. It can afford to be a little self-serving and inward-looking. Also, HELLO! We’re all self-indulgent! It’s 2012. You found out about this post on Twitter; a social network where you’re sometimes (in my case almost every time) being self-indulgent. Not necessarily in a bad way – a lot of your collective self-indulgence entertains me massively (thank you by the way, I don’t say that enough). I think if this is your beef then Girls might be smarter than you.
3. Girls is racist because there are no Black people in Girls.
4. Girls is not funny.
YOUR MUM. Let me expand. Main character Hannah during the pilot episode sits down opposite her parents and requests two years’ worth of additional allowance so that she can write a book based solely on the belief that: "I think I might be the voice of my generation. [Pause] Or at least A Voice. Of A Generation." This is precisely what I was getting at in point 2: this is Lena writing about what she knows. This is self-awareness. This is saying, “Hey I’m a narcissist, but I know I am, and aren’t we all in a way, and isn’t everyone so lost now, and hahaha.” This made my heart burst… But no, you’re absolutely right, not everyone has the same sense of humour. Let’s put an episode of Who’s Been Framed on… Girls is not funny? It’s too funny.
There are also some whisperings about how it’s not feminist enough and is thus a massive disappointment (presumably for not nailing such an easy subject matter…) What’s not feminist enough is this RIDICUMULOUS BACKLASH that will cause feminism to implode (I am prone to a bit of exaggeration).