The Most Intriguing Character in The Wire

The character in The Wire that catches people’s attention the most is Bubbles.  Bubbles is a troubled man who faces hardships and is very affected by his addiction. The audience sees many sides of Bubbles and they desire justice for him in every episode.  During the beginning of the season, the audience sees Bubbles mentoring his young intern, Sherrod.  Sherrod is a struggling kid and Bubbles takes him under his wing, gives him a place to sleep and provides him with an opportunity to make some money. This relationship is noteworthy because Bubbles is currently troubled by his own issues and addiction. Not only does Bubbles mentor Sherrod, he also re-enrolls him back into school so that he can better his math skills in the hopes that it will make him a more effective businessman on the streets.  A man who has no reason to help a struggling teen does so and it shows great character. The audience begins to have respect for a person who, at first glance, may not have deserved it.

Another relationship that becomes toxic, but entails many respectable underlying characteristics is between Bubbles and Thomas Hauk, aka Herc.  Bubbles agrees to help locate Herc’s stolen camera and help find a witness to Fruit’s murder.  However, the audience sees the relationship unfold when Herc repeatedly lets Bubbles down by not living up to his word. Herc promises to stop the man that constantly harasses and abuses Bubbles. Unfortunately, Herc ignores Bubbles when he calls for help.  However, the worst part of the relationship is how many times Bubbles goes crawling back to Herc because of the promises bestowed upon him.  Herc manipulates Bubbles into agreeing to help him out, yet Herc never once returns the favor.  The most Herc does for Bubbles is bring him some fried chicken and soda, but only because Herc needs another favor.  Bubbles’ faith in humanity is a very respectable characteristic that should not be overlooked.  It shows how much trust he has in people and how willing he is to give someone multiple chances.  The audience sees this when Bubbles takes in Sherrod and gives him an opportunity to make something out of his life. Later, that same notion is evident when Bubbles continues to see the good that can come from trusting a police officer.  Bubbles shows that even though he has a terrible addiction and is treated poorly, he still believes in humanity and all that it may possess.

Serial: Entertaining Storytelling

     

        When it comes to entertaining the public, there is a fine line between what is appropriate and what isn’t. The entertaining storytelling of Serial steers clear from crossing that line and is deemed appropriate, despite dealing with murder. The podcast is appropriate because the contemplation of the accuracy and efficiency of America’s justice system is important and the narrator does her best to account for the entire dynamic of the case without bias. There are times when the storytelling crosses the line of inappropriateness, but it is miniscule in comparison to the bigger picture of injustice within America’s criminal justice system.

           There are so many stories of innocent people being convicted of crimes and serving a ridiculous amount of time in prison only to have their case deemed a mistrial. There is nothing in this world that could make up for the damage done to a person who has suffered from a mistrial. Serial takes the murder trial of Hae Min Lee and provokes the audience to think about conviction injustices in America. Now, some may believe that Adnan is innocent and others may believe the complete opposite. The point is not to argue for his innocence, or lack thereof. The point is to get the audience thinking about the bigger picture. The sub-point of the podcast provokes the rhetorical question, “Is America’s criminal justice system serving an ethical purpose or is it just finding a convenient solution?”.  Serial’s entertaining storytelling gets the audience thinking about this idea. This question is important because there is a fear that comes with mistrials. If there are enough instances of injustice and mistrials within our system, then who is to say that it won’t happen to you? Americans put their faith in the power of truth. They believe that truth will prevail and trump all other things, but there is no point in having that faith if the criminal justice system defaults to what is convenient. This active contemplation throughout the podcast makes the entertaining storytelling appropriate because it is highly relevant in American society.

           Serial also does its best to present all accounts of the story. Relating this back to previous assignments, Serial tells multiple accounts of the story and refrains from telling a one sided story. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie discusses the dangers of a single story and Serial makes sure that it steers clear from this danger. This aspect makes the entertaining storytelling of Serial appropriate. Koenig and the rest of the Serial cast appropriately format their production to tell a story without overstepping their position on a murder trial that happened over 15 years ago.

Serial: Sarah Koenig & Adnan Syed

       

       This particular conversation in the Serial podcast is very interesting. The most interesting part is the end of the conversation. Adnan is upset that people keep saying that they think he is innocent because he is a nice guy. He mentions that very few people think he is innocent based on his case. His frustration is reasonable because people’s opinion of his character does not help his case much. Instead, Adnan wants people to believe his side of the story. In a trial, a case’s facts will usually triumph over a suspect’s character. If a lawyer makes a decent case against someone, then their character/personality is somewhat irrelevant. Frequently, there are cases where a nice person is convicted or a bad person is set free. Adnan wants to prove his innocence with his case rather than his character. Perhaps, Adnan is under the impression that people do not believe his case. It is reasonable to expect his supporters to mention the faults in his case if they saw potential issues with it. By people mentioning his character exclusively, maybe they do not truly think he is innocent. This idea could be an alternative root of his frustration.

        The other interesting part of this conversation is when Koenig mentions that she knows Adnan. In a way, Adnan disagrees with her assessment of their relationship. It is surprising that Koenig thinks she knows Adnan. Koenig only talks to Adnan on the phone about the case. In addition, they have only talked on the phone for approximately 30 hours. Koenig makes it seem like 30 hours is plenty of time to get to know someone. This does not seem like enough time to truly get to know someone. Also, it seems like Adnan is giving extremely safe answers. When Adnan is talking about the case, it is apparent that he thinks carefully about his words. Some people might think that Koenig is getting a censored version of Adnan.

       Perhaps, Koenig realizes that she does not really know Adnan. However, she understands that this can be exploited because Adnan comes off as a nice guy. Koenig might be trying to convince the audience that Adnan is a nice guy. By portraying Adnan as a nice guy, Koenig is creating a character that people feel bad for. In any story, having a nice guy that is wrongly convicted makes for a very entertaining plot. Would the audience still be addicted to the podcast if Adnan were a bad guy? The answer is no. Koenig may or may not really know Adnan. However, she can manipulate his portrayal to create a more interesting narrative.