Paralleling the podcast is the idea that season 2 is a re-pilot show that reintroduces characters in an organic way. Both episodes of the podcast work to humanize TV and Hollywood, like West Wing might do with politicians (idk though, I don’t watch it). We listen and learn about how commercials affect viewer perception or hear actors revisit their own learning experiences on set. We’re so often only consuming the finish product. But Sorkin challenges the idea that a finish product even exists. He considers his writing as comprised mostly of first drafts. He insists rewriting is only necessitated by production. However, it can also be rewritten by the interpretation of actors, their body language, their costumes, etc. We understand this more clearly through Emily Procter’s experiences. How may outside factors, besides professor/ peer suggestions, compel us to rewrite? Do you have concrete examples? I think we can also apply revisitation to people and the narratives we tell about ourselves. What have we encountered that compelled us to create a new narrative about ourselves? Where do we encounter these thins? And is that something we can somehow use to inform our writing decisions when we are attempting to be persuasive? Perhaps it’s a deep interrogation of ourselves we experience when we encounter competing arguments that represent generous listening. If we’re not doing that interrogative work, maybe it’s a sign that we’re not witnessing a balanced argument.
In some ways we can interpret “not knowing how it will end” vs. “knowing how it will end but not what’s in the middle” as inductive versus deductive reasoning. A concept in the scientific method has manifested itself in writing and the arts. This may help us think about the interdisciplinary nature of our world, similar to the spirituality Tippet brings into her conversations. We can use this as inspiration for our own projects when we’re seeking to engage in writing in a different way.
Sorkin believes that if an episode ends up being important it just turns out that way. I interpret this as a call to action. It’s an invitation to take risks. When we think about success, we might see it as antithetical to doing something are unfamiliar with. We face what seems like inevitable failure. But failure is what challenged Sorkin.
Sorkin provides us with a blueprint for being brave by encouraging risk and humanizing those we may disagree with. But where do we draw the line between humanizing groups of people/thinking of them as individuals and normalizing something we may think is toxic and oppressive? How do we accomplish this?