Gleeful ignorance

There are far too many reasons for me to hate “Glee” than I can express in the space given.

For the sake of time, let’s cast aside the repugnant auto-tuning, the half-assed plot, the weak dialogue, its misguided costuming, its misogyny, its bi-phobia, Gwyneth Paltrow’s regrettable reappearances and the largely unsettling mash-up (for both Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Michael Jackson fans) of “Heads will Roll” and “Thriller.” 

“Glee” gets far too much attention for its own good, and while we may have thought this musical TV show was accessible to younger audiences as well as old, the show has climbed into a danger zone where you no longer know what you’re supposed to be watching anymore.

Through upbeat pop songs, the show reels in the likes of the Disney-wooed audiences, but as of recent, underage drinking, troubling sexuality and untactful attention to gay-hating plotlines beg for teen soap seriousness.

Never could I condemn a show for wanting to tackle more real issues or a more accurate picture of peer pressure. At a certain point, however, the show needs to get out of this unnerving middle ground where it can’t decide whether it wants to be “High School Musical” or “Skins.”

Now don’t get me wrong. I watched the whole first season and a chunk of the second. I am constantly checking updates, and I value learning about what I hate before I hate it.

In fact, creator Ryan Murphy defended the show recently: “You can make fun of ‘Glee’ all you want, but at its heart, what we really do is turn kids on to music.” I would argue that it does far more than turn “kids” on to “music” (i.e. bad covers of the top-40 charts).

It seems to me that as soon as “Glee” breached from the world of happy-go-lucky singing high schoolers, it suddenly wanted to tap into student reality.
The show is not only leading its younger audiences into unwanted territories, but it is also fudging an altogether inaccurate illustration.

The writers can’t seem to write a decent character without exploiting a radical stereotype.

Whether it is the bitch cheerleader, the gay-hating jock, the sad-he’s-a-virgin kid in a wheelchair or the silver-suit-sporting homosexual, these characterizations are contemptible versions of their real-life counterparts.

While some people call it progressive, I call it irresponsible.

These portrayals are steps in the opposite direction, exploiting stereotypes in the worst way and gearing younger minds to fulfill the misrepresentations they see on television. While “Glee” is free to delve into its morally flawed self-importance, one thing I won’t tolerate is its lazy sense of character when doing so.

If you’re thinking about adding new cast members, “Glee” powers that be, I suggest adding a few more writers first.

­— ftirado@indiana.edu