such a classic girl

[originally posted on myspace on August 4, 2009]

I wasn't much a fan of the Gilmore Girls. My mother actually watched the show regularly and eventually got me into it. When I first started watching, I liked the alt-music references, some of the snappy dialogue and the whole Rory-Jess thing. I liked Jess when he was first introduced, as the moody, rebellious boy who liked cool music and who actually read books and put him with Rory, in the whole 'they are so perfect together...will they or won't they ever get together' scenario...then the writers, as they tended to do with all of Rory's boyfriends (Dean, Logan) quickly turned him into a jerk.

Anyway, I watched an episode over the weekend, back from around the time I would have been Jess-fixated and ooh, they made a Belle and Sebastian reference-oriented time, but, now, since it's been some six or seven years since seeing this episode, one of the storylines was almost relatable. Lorelai, a character I never really liked much during the course of the show, a character I tended to find grating, was going through something (I almost felt sympathy towards her character, though I continue to find her grating) and if I did not say to myself, 'geez, everyone must go through that at least once, then.' It was oddly nice to know a fictional character was feeling comparable pain. And it made me laugh out loud.

And I've log wondered, what does my mom get out of that show? Insight into the mother-daughter relationship? Or is she just a sap for the Lorelai-Like relationship, like me?

So, what makes a 'classic' a classic?

This is something I've been thinking about (as I enter another inward philosophical period) - just the overall idea of what makes something (book, movie, television show) beyond good, what makes it beloved and worthy of multiple readings/viewings...because if there are such distinct traits, I want to know them and incorporate them in my work (I just hear Stewie's voice in my head, when he rails on Brian's never finished novel, 'a richer experience for the reader...').

Gilmore Girls, to me, is a classic, in that, much like the movie Singles, besides being entertaining with each viewing, it is multi-layered, you can get something different out of it, just depending on where you are at when you watch (is that what a critic means when he/she says something has 'depth'?).

So, can a classic just be something you are familiar with, that you can watch over and over, recite the lines out loud, like a reliable friend (or a comfort dish of mac and cheese), with predictability and known patterns/outcomes when all else seems upside down? Or does that just make something good? Does adding to it the layering, making it so that someone can get something different out of it each time, raise it to classic value?

And does someone who has no favorites (no favorite movie or book or - what I hate - no favorite bands or songs, even) just someone who needs the novel, who needs something new at every turn (one could also argue that nothing is new - that all things, books, movies, music, etc, is repeated/influenced by something and therefore, not 'new') or someone with an attachment disorder?

A person's television/movie/book preferences as it relates to his/her interpersonal relations. I've got my next research paper.