Season 8 Musings

[FlyingMonkey]

I hope that Sheldon turning up without his pants and being humiliated has not set the tone for this season, but seemingly it has. It's like that Whack-a-Mole game; each episode is a different character being slapped down: first Sheldon, then Howard, then whoever, then start again.

It would've been cool if Sheldon had traveled the world, met all different kinds of people, had all different kinds of new experiences, acquired all kinds of new knowledge, and came back with some insights. *That* would be character development. But no, let's have slapstick...

I was reading some FB comments, and it really *does* seem like a significant number of people disliked these first few eps of S8 and are noticing the decline. (Why didn't they notice sooner, though???)

What still makes me angry are the usual suspects who claim that the characters have made progress psychologically/emotionally and that any return to the old style would be a devolution.

On a purely practical level, it's probably better for Howard's everyday life if he's not trying to flirt with every woman he meets, but I see little evidence that he or Raj actually feel more comfortable around women or understand them better, now. These changes are all on the surface.

(And who could understand these Gorgons like A and B...or Emily, who enjoys cutting people's skin? Lovely! Watch your back, Raj. Sleep with one eye open...)

Canons: you just want Howard to be lonely and pathetic and be rejected by women!

Nostalgics: and you're fine with him being rejected by an entire baseball stadium full of people, including his "best friend"? And this is better? How?

I'd actually say it's much worse. How is this any better than watching Howard get turned-down by a woman in a singles bar? At least he seemed to bounce back quickly from those encounters. He was irrepressible. The Canons don't know what the heck they actually want. They don't want to watch Howard trying and failing with women...but it's okay to watch him trying and failing at other things?? It's okay for Sheldon to fail and be humiliated, as long as he's not technically "alone", because Amy exists?

They don't really want the characters to succeed. They just want the characters to keep their mouths shut and not say anything that might make the viewer feel stupid, or say anything that's un-PC or challenging or contrary to the viewer's delicate sensibilities.
All they want is for these guys to be de-fanged. They don't care if they're happy.

There is a major disconnect going on, here. I really think the Canons are in denial. On the one hand, they seem to want everything to be nice, "safe", pleasant, uncomplicated, soft and squishy. But then...the actual episodes are so *unpleasant*.
The actual episodes ARE NOT heartwarming and sweet and pleasant, yet the Canons say they are more heartwarming and sweet and pleasant than the older seasons.

The older seasons and the classic characters were too edgy, too thorny, too difficult, too un-PC for the Canons, who claim to want warm and sentimental "feel-good" stuff...but then the later seasons don't deliver that.

Yes, there have been some moments in recent seasons where the characters have bonded and shown affection for each other...but that's usually undone in the very next episode or the very next scene. The feel-good moment is followed by a crude joke or another session of them being horrible to each other.

Canons: You just want the characters to be miserable.

Nostalgics: They're miserable *now.*

The Canons are like Dolores Umbridge, wanting everything to be sugary, cute, sweet, and fluffy...but only on the surface. Underneath, there's something darker.

Actual quote from FB: Do you want the old funny Howard with the sex jokes?

Do I? Yes. Yes, I do. I'm not embarrassed or apologetic about it, not a bit. But I want all the other fun aspects of his personality, too.

Notice that this FB person used the word "funny" in a derogatory way, like the word "funny" is actually something negative, something worthy of disdain.

It's no longer PC to expect a sitcom to be funny??? Where is this bizarre snobbishness coming from? It's like there's something low-class or uncouth or gauche about wanting a sitcom to be funny!

Again, I think the canons and other show-defenders are in denial. The propaganda is "These characters have grown as people, their lives are fuller and happier now, this show is now more warm-hearted and human and full of love and friendship." The Canons have swallowed that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

They've also completely swallowed the notion that every story should be about the characters "becoming better people." They've swallowed this so completely that they seem unaware that other types of stories can even exist. I would bet that these people don't read much, or watch a wide variety of TV and films. Their denial is abetted by their ignorance of storytelling as a medium and how it's supposed to work.

"Once upon a time, some people grew up and learned their lesson. The End." This is the only type of narrative they comprehend. It's like an episode of Full House. Everything's a morality play, everything's a fable with a lesson at the end, every story needs a message that's simple enough to fit in a fortune cookie.

These people need to go read some Sweet Valley High books and leave the rest of us alone. Like I said in one of my other posts, they are on the wrong side of history. That is an outdated, simplistic, childish type of storytelling.

There are three different issues at play, here:

1. The Canons want everything to be "safe" and "nice" and PC, because *authenticity* is sometimes scary or complicated or prickly or challenging.

2. They claim that the later seasons have fulfilled this desire to watch good people doing good things and being nice.

3. The later seasons don't ACTUALLY show that, so what the hell is going on?

Conclusion: the Canons are in denial. Cognitive dissonance all over the place.

The Canons are thunderingly literal-minded. I know I've said this before, but it's like they have no understanding of what fiction *is.* They don't know the difference between an effective *character* and a morally good person. They act like they've been personally insulted by Sheldon or harassed by Howard. "A good character" = a nice person I would like to have coffee with and be besties with.

These characters are fictional. This is fiction. Their actions do not affect you. And when the show ends, the characters are not doomed to a lonely life if they don't give up their bad habits and become "better people." They cease to exist. Sheldon is not going to be living in Leonard and Penny's attic, Howard is not going to be laying in a ditch with a copy of Playboy.

It would be different if the later seasons actually *did* show some character development, but were also less funny as a result. That would be more a matter of taste. But these later seasons *aren't* warm-hearted and lovely, they're more vulgar and snide and mocking than ever.

"The characters are supposed to grow and mature!" is a phrase that's been repeated so many times that it's become almost a meme, a mantra, something that people repeat by rote without actually understanding what it means. When they say it, it makes them sound very...not-smart. It shows that they have no critical thinking skills and they just parrot whatever they've heard. It's the Tumblr mentality: saw it, re-blogged it. No effort involved.

I really, really want to know who started this notion that the proper subject-matter of a sitcom is "becoming a better person." That is bizarre. And yet this idea is so entrenched, so widespread, that nobody questions it.

I will concede that there have been some H/B moments that are caring and loving and cute...but for me, they're *too* sugary-sweet and it's unconvincing and OOC.

"The Cornhusker Vortex" is about Howard learning to have more empathy for Raj and more respect for their friendship, and to prioritize their friendship over his girl-chasing. THAT is character development. It's undone in the final scene, but I'll accept that as just a sitcom convention. You *can* have character development and still be funny. And character development does *not* mean caving-in to your significant other's demands, or changing your whole personality.

The only way people "learn and grow" is through experience. I have learned this myself, the hard way. They don't do it because their girlfriend tells them to, or because the writers say "Make it so." Talk about a deus ex machina...

If the characters had actually "grown", they'd be confident and self-assured and happy now. Maybe that's beginning for Penny, who knows. But there's been no self-discovery or self-actualization. Damn it, I'd be thrilled to see some self-discovery and self-actualization and self-respect from these characters, to the extent that's feasible for a sitcom. I'd also be thrilled if this show had ended after S2 and not a damn thing had changed. But what we're seeing now just *isn't* character development. It's not.
What exactly do the canons WANT, for crying out loud? "The old seasons were creepy and icky and mean-spirited...let's have stuff that's EVEN MORE creepy and icky and mean-spirited, but call it better?"

Have you been reading my old posts in the Swamp?

One thing that really infuriates the canons is pointing out that the characters are fictional and NO ONE is going to die old and lonely in their apartments. They take it very personally, especially the Amy fans.

As for "growth", Larry David, one of the co-creators of Seinfeld, said one thing he insisted on for the show was NO GROWTH. The characters are what they are and are not going to change. It's a comedy show, not real life.

One thing I dread is coming is the "Tonight on a very special TBBT......". One of the characters will have some kind of a personal crisis and the gang will rally around and will end up with everyone hugging and the studio audience awwwwing. My guess is that it will be related to AFF, and Sheldon will suddenly realize how important she really is to him and blah blah blah

It WILL happen. But I won't be watching.