Furthermore, Nygaard and Lagerway mention that ‘Transparent features a transgender parent whose gender transition in body is the feminization of many HWP men who become obsessed with their homes, domesticity, and excessive emotions’ (p. 110). This blatant misgendering seems to belie a misunderstanding of trans identity, going so far as to hint at “emasculation,” a hurtful narrative associated with trans women. The remaining two chapters are the strongest, synthesizing the authors’ argument around racial identity and feminism throughout. In Chapter 3, the subject of “Girlfriendship” is thoroughly examined as it is one of the main subjects of HWP programming. These friendships are largely contextualized through the notion of post-feminism and its explicit failures. Discussing such interrelated concepts as the privilege needed to be able to refer to yourself as a “girl,” the mixed-bag feminism of messy female friendships, and the attempted inclusion of racial minorities into these “girl squads,” the authors make the cogent point that focusing on the “woman” aspect of white womanhood does little to question, and much to avoid the question of the very real “white” aspect. Chapter 4 takes the focus off HWP programming and onto that of “Diverse Quality Comedies,” which the authors define as ‘a programming cycle running alongside HorribleWhite People shows and born from the same historical conjuncture of social, economic and entertainment industrial change.’ These shows are ‘generically aesthetically, and narratively similar’ to HWP shows and the authors make the argument that the aesthetics that these shows embody ‘an aesthetics of Whiteness,’ albeit with a more diverse face in front of and behind the camera (p. 155). In conclusion, this book is a welcome addition to the canon of Television Studies, Trump-era scholarship, and politically focused pop-culture critique. Graduate and undergraduate students alike would find the analysis this book generates useful while the discussion of some of the most popular and acclaimed television shows of the day would make this an accessible read to seasoned critics as well as the avid watcher. For white people who have shows like these waiting in their streaming queues, the book is a much-needed shout-out about how far they would identify with the liberal characters of this programming cycle.

中文翻译：

---

书评：现在完全不同：Monty Python 的关键方法

此外，Nygaard 和 Lagerway 提到“透明的特点是变性父母的身体性别转变是许多 HWP 男性的女性化，他们变得痴迷于他们的家庭、家庭生活和过度的情绪”（第 110 页）。这种公然的性别错误似乎掩盖了对跨性别身份的误解，甚至暗示了“阉割”，这是一种与跨性别女性相关的伤害性叙述。剩下的两章是最强的，综合了作者关于种族身份和女权主义的论点。在第 3 章中，对“女朋友”这一主题进行了深入研究，因为它是 HWP 编程的主要主题之一。这些友谊在很大程度上是通过后女权主义的概念及其明显的失败来背景化的。讨论了诸如能够称自己为“女孩”所需的特权、混乱的女性友谊中混杂的女权主义以及试图将少数族裔纳入这些“女队”等相互关联的概念，作者使这篇文章很有说服力指出关注白人女性的“女性”方面几乎没有什么问题，而且很大程度上避免了非常真实的“白人”方面的问题。第 4 章将重点从 HWP 节目转移到“多样化质量喜剧”上，作者将其定义为“与 HorribleWhite People 节目并驾齐驱的节目周期，并诞生于社会、经济和娱乐产业变革的同一历史结合点”。这些节目“一般是美学上的，并且在叙事上与 HWP 节目相似，作者认为这些节目的美学体现了“白色美学”，尽管在镜头前后有一张更加多样化的面孔（第 155 页）。总之，这本书是对电视研究、特朗普时代的学术和以政治为中心的流行文化批评的一个受欢迎的补充。研究生和本科生都会发现这本书产生的分析很有用，而对当今一些最受欢迎和最受好评的电视节目的讨论将使经验丰富的评论家和狂热的观众更容易阅读。对于在流媒体队列中等待此类节目的白人来说，这本书是他们急需的大声疾呼，他们将在多大程度上认同这个编程周期的自由主义角色。