For this week’s installment of Thursday’s Top 5 List, I felt it fitting to pick up on Monday’s post about what makes a reality television show watcheable.

And while I am clearly biased in my pick for number one, I would still pick Survivor even if I hadn’t been on the show. Though The Real World is the true grandfather of reality television (which is why I have awarded it my #2 spot), Survivor is what made reality television an actual genre. In other words, The Real World is the DJ Kool Herc to Survivor‘s Grandmaster Flash. It’s the Tunisia to Survivor‘s Egypt and Libya. The Mikey Gonzalez to Survivor‘s AC Slater.

(Anyone…?)

So, with number one and number two already given (and explained), here is my list:

1. Survivor
2. The Real World
3. American Idol (come on, whether you like it or not, AI has created some hugely successful pop and country stars)
4. The Amazing Race (12 Emmys)
5. Rob & Big (the most compulsively watcheable reality show ever)

* I have heard some great things about A&E’s Intervention, but I have never actually seen it.

Yesterday morning my friend Ryan sent me a link to an article in Grantland about how sportsfans have no right to use the term “we” in reference to their favorite team. It was an interesting and humorous article, and it caused me to think about something Don Miller writes in Searching For God Knows What.

Miller says that studies have shown that people are likely to (unconsciously) refer to their favorite sports team as “we” when the team wins, but as “they” when they lose. In other words, people will say “We won last night” if winning, but will say “They lost last night” if losing.

This, to me, is very interesting. Primarily because I know it’s true– I’ve witnessed and been guilty of it countless times, myself.

Miller’s point in telling the story is to show how human nature– riddled with insecurities and handicapped by the fear of being insignificant– is incessantly driven toward competition. Miller contends that we associate with winners and dissociate with losers because we want those around us to perceive us as valuable, thereby supplying us the sense of security we were originally wired to receive from God.

I love Miller and I love that book, and reading the Grantland piece yesterday made me want to share both the thought and the book– along with my highest recommendation– with you this morning.

I am currently teaching my 10th grade students how to write a cause and effect essay (yes, I am responsible for doling out that same piece of boredom we all so acutely remember).  And today, while trying to teach an introductory paragraph, I created this mock prompt for the students to answer:

“What effect does Facebook have on teenagers?”

I hadn’t premeditated the prompt; it just occurred to me in the moment, so I put it on the board. As the students began writing, though, I began wondering how adults would answer the same question. Clearly, Facebook has been a wonderful aide in allowing us to reunite and reopen lines of communication with people we’d, otherwise, likely never speak with again; however, it’s also been proven that Facebook has been the cause of a staggering number of divorces. Meanwhile, I heard a report last year on NPR about how young adults today, just out of college, are often being denied jobs because their prospective employers are catching wind of inappropriate pictures that have been posted to Facebook.

That said, there are undeniable benefits to being on Facebook.

So, all in all, I’m curious as to whether people perceive Facebook as being a good thing or as being something problematic. Sure, it’s addictive, but does the gratification of seeing everyone’s personal information (which, thanks to the new update, now reads like the Dow ticker) outweigh the potential– and unforeseeable– problems Facebook can present?

Let me know your thoughts; I will anxiously be checking my Facebook to hear your replies.

Last night, after speaking for a local church, I was asked a specific question about Survivor. My answer led into a discussion about reality TV in general, and I found myself opining on something I’ve given (far too much) thought to: why some shows work and some don’t.

This seems like it would be obvious; logic would suggets that the more compelling and credible the individual in question, the better the show will be.

But this is simply untrue.

Take, for example, Snoop Dogg. Snoop is undeniably talented; in fact, he is among the top 5 best rappers of all-time. But his reality show sucked.

Meanwhile, two previously unknown personalities, Rob Dyrdek and Christopher “Big Black” Boykins busted on the scene around the same time, and their show was a resounding success. Years later, people still pine for a new season of Rob and Big.

Then, consider Britney Spears’s reality show vs. Jessica Simpson’s. From a career standpoint, Britney was a far bigger star than Jessica (let’s face it: Britney was a far bigger star than everyone from her era). However, Jessica’s show was a phenomenon, while most don’t remember that Britney even had a show.

Another case in point: there is a show on Lifetime called Dance Moms that just finished its first season, and, even though its a show about preteens and dancing (two hugely uncompelling subjects), it’s a hit. However, there is a show on ET about soap opera stars (i.e. legitimate television personalities) and the show is unwatcheable. Honestly; it’s woefully bad.

Meanwhile, Paris Hilton, whose personal brand was among the biggest of the decade, has been the focus of several failed reality shows, while her stylist, Kim Kardashian, went on to have the most viewed reality show on television. (And what’s most ironic about this is that, while Kim is the “star” of her show, the reason the show works has nothing to do with Kim. In fact, she is the dullest part of the show. Keeping Up With the Kardashians works because of the quirky personalities of her otherwise unnoteworthy family members).

So the key to having a successful reality show has nothing to do with talent or credibility; rather, it has everything to do with having an intangible, ineffable ”it-factor.” The word that most closely explains this factor is “charisma,” but charrisma is not it. I mean, each of these doofs on the ET soap opera show have undeniable charisma, but when filtered through a reality show, they have no “it factor;’ they are just a crowd of boring, pretty people. Meanwhile, a show following  a group of bayou alligator hunters does have this “it factor,” but these people are missing numerous teeth and struggle to form polysyllabic words.

So when it comes to reality TV, everyone gets a fair shot: either you are interesting, or you’re not. (… and, if we’re being honest, having much tolerance for alcohol while having little command of subject-verb agreement always seems to help.)

Last night I chaperoned the homecoming dance for my high school. Sonically speaking, it was– as one might imagine– an event filled with hip hop, pop, and R&B.

In fact, a quarter of the way through the event, one of my colleagues remarked, “Do you think we will hear a single guitar tonight?”

Which made me realize: while guitars are still, of course, prevalent in today’s popular music, they no longer have a place at Millenial dance functions.

Perhaps this conversation is why I immediately, as the final song of the night began, keyed in on the electric guitar featured in the first few bars of the song. I looked at my colleague and said, “Here’s the guitar you were looking for.”

It was Prince’s “Purple Rain.”

“Purple Rain” was the song the homecoming dance ended with last year, as well, and while I’m left to assume that the DJ chooses to end with this song because our school color is, in fact, purple, and while I do like Prince’s music and believe him to be one of the greatest talents of the past thity years, still— I can think of about fifty songs I personally would end with if I were the DJ and if I were selecting an 80s/90s ballad to bring the night home.

The first song that comes to mind for me is “On Bended Knee” by Boyz II Men. I would close with that one, and somewhere in my set I would include Pearl Jam’s “Yellow Ledbetter” and/or “Daughter.”

How about you?

With so much discussion given to the notion that print media is in a moribund state, I’ve grown curious about what people are still reading and/or subscribing to.

I know that People and Us Weekly still have a wide circulation, simply because I see it at many people’s houses (addressed to them). Outside of those two magazines, though, and outside of the local newspaper, I want to know what print media people are still interested in.

So I ask you: what magazines do you (a) subscribe to and (b) buy in the store, and also: how many of you subscribe to (a) your local newspaper and/or (b) a larger national newspaper (and if you do subscribe to a national paper, which is it)?

I read an interesting article last week in Mother Jones about how, in New Hampshire, a group of Libertarians is actively trying to take over the state. They call it the Free State Project, and the stated goal is to turn the entire state into a libertarian paradise.

After reading the article, it just so happened that I stumbled upon an interview Rachel Maddow conducted with defected evangelical Frank Schaeffer, the son of evangelical pillar Francis Schaeffer, wherein the younger Schaeffer suggested that, at the very root, Tea Party evangelical voters are currently engaging in “religion masquerading as politics.” Schaeffer went on to suggest that the Tea Party Evangelical agenda—whether conscious or not—is not to persist with democracy, but rather to turn America into a theocracy.

I’ve read books by both Schaeffer senior and junior, and I find them both to be very sharp, very compelling thinkers. And while I am not certain whether I agree that the end goal of Evangelical voters is to turn the nation into a theocracy, I do think there is truth to the idea that some Tea Party Evangelical ideology is in fact “religion masquerading as politics.”

But for the point of this post, let’s assume for a moment that Schaeffer is right: let’s assume that the end goal of Evangelical Tea Party voters is, like the aforementioned Libertarian group’s goal with New Hampshire, to turn America into the living embodiment of its own particular ideal.

Now then, here’s my question: if this agenda were to prevail, should this be perceived by Christians as the realization of heaven on earth, or should it be viewed as violating the very idea of Christianity?

In other words, on this side of eternity, do you feel it is biblical for a Christian to live in a removed and/or cloistered environment wherein everyone subscribes to the same set of beliefs, or is it biblical to live in a society where people have differing views?

Through the ages, this seems to be a question Christians can’t seem to agree on: some groups prefer to remove themselves from the world; some prefer to live in and embrace it. In fact, Tim King mentioned this very binary (which he insightfully called “paradigm[s] of engagement”) in his recent column for Sojourner‘s God’s Politics blog.

It occurred to me after reading the Mother Jones article and after watching the Frank Schaeffer interview that, in answering this question, one learns just how and in what ways faith dictates his life’s motivations.

If one answers the question by saying that he feels it would be nice to live in a community with only Christians and with only those whose theology matches his, it suggests that he values faith because it gives him security on earth and hope for the afterlife. Meanwhile, if he answers by saying that he feels it would be better to live in a world with people who see things differently, it suggests that he believes the afterlife has already begun and that, prior to dying, he is responsible for helping bring love and justice to those in need.

And while this might sound either (a) obvious or (b) irrelevant, it is hugely important, because it is entirely possible for one to go through life allowing “Christianity” to be the foundational force in his life and, all the while, not know how or why that force is directing his steps.

So ask yourself: do I fancy the idea of a state where everyone believes the way I do, or do I fancy a world of diversity and ideological conflict? Your answer should tell you something about yourself.

For this week’s Top 5 List, I felt it fitting to follow up on my recent post pitting Zach Morris and Brandon Walsh in a fight.

Therefore, today’s top 5 list concerns the best television shows centered around the lives of high school students.

1. Saved By the Bell
2. Dawson’s Creek
3. Beverly Hills 90210 (the original)
4. The OC
5. One Tree Hill

* Honorable mention goes to Degrassi (the original)

** My wife says I’m a fool for not including Glee

Am I overlooking something?

About two years ago I tweeted asking my followers what writer, if they could steal his or her career, they would most want to steal. The question was designed to elicit answers from both writers and non-writers.

Since many of my followers  are (a) under the age of 40, and (b) read a lot of religious nonfiction, the answer I received most was Donald Miller.

This was unsurprising; Donald Miller single-handedly changed the direction of postmodern Christian writing and, moreover, has enjoyed noteworthy commercial success while maintaining a distinctively independent, authentic brand.

It was also unsurprising because, in all honesty, Miller was at the top of my own list too.

I had several people weigh in saying John Grisham. I had a few say Nicholas Sparks and Rob Bell.

Outside of those, I can’t remember who else was mentioned. But I do remember who wasn’t mentioned: Dave Eggers.

If Donald Miller changed the direction of postmodern Christian writing, Dave Eggers changed the direction of postmodern writing, itself. In other words, Miller’s Blue Like Jazz was the Christian answer to Eggers’s groundbreaking A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. Both of these books were (are) very important in my life.

So, two years ago, when the question was redirected at me by my Twitter followers, I answered with two: Dave Eggers and Donald Miller.

I thought about this today because I was checking out Dave Eggers’s non-profit company 826 Valencia. 826 Valencia is a writing/tutoring center that aims to empower under-resourced children with opportunities to express themselves through writing. The program is based around celebrating creativity, and it is completely free for all students who participate.

As I mentioned, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius was an important book for me, just as it was for countless people of my generation. In Eggers’s (tragic) story, we were shown how writing– by someone our own age, nonetheless; by one of us– could be beautiful. Could be cool.

In the years since, Eggers has used his literary celebrity to focus his written work on celebrating the human spirit while raising awareness of important world issues– his last two books, What is the What and Zeitoun, are based on Sudanese struggle and Muslim-American relations in post-Katrina New Orleans, respectively. He founded a publishing company (McSweeney’s) that celebrates high quality writing (much of which, like his own debut, proves that it’s cool to be young and literate and talented). Meanwhile, he has dedicated himself to promoting public education and providing opportunities for underprivileged children to find a way to express themselves through the written word.

He truly is a remarkable dude, and he is doing what a writer is supposed to do through his craft: he’s making a difference in the world.

The other night I saw Kevin Kline in The Emperor’s Club, which is a film adaptation of a short story by one of my favorite writers, Ethan Canin.

I had seen the film in 2002 soon after its release, but I had not thought much about it since. I highly enjoyed this second viewing. It really is a solid film and a solid story, one I recommend you check out.

That said, this isn’t the point of my post.

Instead, while watching The Emperor’s Club, it occurred to me how underused and underappreciated Kevin Kline is as an actor.

Now, the fact that he is underused is likely due to Kline’s own wishes; I suspect that he takes on so few roles by choice.

However, this doesn’t explain why he is so underappreciated.

The guy has been great in countless quality movies, the first ones coming to mind being A Fish Called Wanda, Life as a House, French Kiss, The Big Chill, and, in my opinion, Dave. I also saw him in Redford’s The Conspirator last weekend and thought he did a wonderful job in a limited role.

Point being: dude is a hugely talented actor who’s seldom mentioned in the conversation about great leading-man-caliber-character-actors. In other words, people like Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti usually steal the headlines in this conversation, but I feel Kline deserves some of this love, too.

Do you agree? Who else belongs in this conversation?