Season 8 Musings

[devilbk]

It's why I shake my head at the insistence of maintaining the flagship idea--Lenny--even when much more viable and more importantly *entertaining* scenarios were at play in the beginning. Perhaps this upheaval we've seen is necessary because reality sure had to warp in order for Leonard and Penny to become a legitimate couple. Just watching the opening of s8 the Lenny are depicted as having their 'problems' but are in no way as whacked out as Shamy and no where near as psychotic as Howardette. Massive holes like Penny having nothing in common with Leonard are glossed over with an 'awww' moment about being scared together, which may pluck at the heartstrings but in no way addresses the problem! It's like saying they're homeless and Leonard takes Penny's hand and says, 'with you, I'm always home.' Well, buddy, you're still getting snowed on as you freeze your asses off.

There have been fundamental changes to the show but one of the biggest to me has been the need for justification.** They have a relationship agenda and in order to support it they're willing to manipulate or plain ol' ignore continuity in order to make their relationships make sense. I've always viewed Sheldon as the canary in the coal mine as he is such a precise character (for lack of a better term) and the way his quirks and mannerisms have turned on and off like a light in order to fit the moment accurately foreshadowed the 'jump the shark' moments of the show itself as it tries to right the (relation)ships.

So in essence there is a framework and everything else is arbitrary. This is what makes the current show so clunky. Early seasons had a basic frame--four scientists friends meet a female neighbor--and from there the possibilities were endless. Even Leonard's drooling over Penny was a possibility; it's that it somehow surpassed the Shenny Jim/Kaley chemistry which makes it unbelievable. The later seasons have a frame that'd rival an M-1 tank and is just as maneuverable. BBT in its early seasons isn't a sketch comedy but there was a feeling of the absurd as the group could be doing anything from secret agent laser chess to bouncing a laser off the moon. Nothing needed to be justified. They did it because it was f-u-n and that's what made it fun for the viewer. Anything was possible.

**The justification need is seen in the Arctic episode as Sheldon being a jerk is reason enough for Leonard et al to do what they did. It's part of what makes this episode insufferable--there's no penalty for their action, no punishment, and in fact Leonard gets the girl in the end. The answer 'because it's Sheldon' as justification for doing shitty things was a stand-by that got even more sinister as the scripts got meaner.

Yup. Leonard acts like an asshole and is rewarded for it. Now, to be honest, I've seen this dynamic play out in RL way too often. Assholes tend to do quite well in our world and they often do get the girl. However, that's a reality we prefer to escape in our entertainment. We shouldn't have do have it beaten into our heads. If CalTech were a real university Leonard, Howard and Raj would have found themselves out on the street and blackballed from academia and not walking around campus blaming their victim and fucking the prom queen.

[Louise]

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?"

[Trust No One]

Another gem Louise. Regarding Sheldon going away last year, even my friend from work mentioned they sent Sheldon away and did nothing with it? He thought it was a big waste. Regarding the canon Ships, the canon's see these Ships as their chance and they are way too invested in this Ships that the canon's flip out at any mention of change. Any thought of Shenny is a real danger to their perfect world.

[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.

[Louise]

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.

The "Letter" episode was like that, IMO. And it is weird and unsettling. But yes, I'm sure they'll do it again.

As for "growth", Larry David, one 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.

Exactly. That's what makes Seinfeld so revolutionary and special. (Personally, I don't believe that the characters were sociopaths or totally unlikeable.)

Have you been reading my old posts in the Swamp?

Glad to hear that great minds think alike

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.

Wow. I guess they really, really, REALLY identify with Amy, on a personal level. Why would they be so infuriated by this simple fact? Sounds like they really have an issue with separating fantasy from reality...

[Trust No One]

The "Letter" episode was like that, IMO. And it is weird and unsettling. But yes, I'm sure they'll do it again.


Exactly. That's what makes Seinfeld so revolutionary and special. (Personally, I don't believe that the characters were sociopaths or totally unlikeable.)


Glad to hear that great minds think alike


Wow. I guess they really, really, REALLY identify with Amy, on a personal level. Why would they be so infuriated by this simple fact? Sounds like they really have an issue with separating fantasy from reality...

Love those comments from Larry David. I do not need a comedy to be like a nice warm blanket. I need a comedy to be fresh and surprise me once in a while and entertain. As much as I love Ship, I do not need a comedy to be heavy on Ship. If the Ship works than fine. Otherwise I can live without it.

[Louise]

[Louise]

Couple of stray thoughts:

1. What is people's evidence/justification/explanation for the assertion that this show would've been cancelled after S2 or S3 if A and B weren't added and changes weren't made? I'm guessing "diddly squat", because that's the Canons' usual level of skill at debating/persuading...but maybe another HQer has some insight into this.

2. Why do they assume that this would be a bad thing? If someone told me "this show would've ended after two or three years if it didn't change", my answer would be a resounding "GOOD." This idea that a sitcom should run for 10 years seems to have become a deeply, deeply ingrained cultural belief, in America, whereas in many other countries, TV series often last for just two or three seasons, no?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of *any* long-running sitcoms that added new *major* characters unless there were special circumstances, like another castmember left, was fired, or died, and therefore needed to be replaced. Something like "The Office" doesn't count, because that was truly an ensemble show which had a large cast from the start. Jim and Pam were usually the POV characters, supported by a rotating group of secondary characters.

I know I've said this in several other posts, but I strongly believe that we'd have higher-quality television and more enjoyable things to watch if this concept of the long-running traditional sitcom would die. People don't question this idea that a sitcom should just keep running and running indefinitely. Apparently it's become so commonplace that they just accept it, uncritically.

Three seasons would be 60-70 episodes, no? Is that really not enough for some people? That's a hell of a lot of episodes, from where I'm standing. Do people really think that a show ended prematurely if it doesn't make it to 8, 10, 12 seasons?

This idea that a sitcom should last for ten years needs to be broken. Again, the general viewing public is not smart enough to even realize there might be other formats, other ways of doing things. I would like to see more "mini-series" of maybe 15-20 episodes and then done.

I will choose quality over quantity every single time. If you really examine it closely, a typical Canon statement like "Shows need to change or die" is very self-contradicting. That's some type of logical fallacy, although I'm blanking on what exactly to call it. It's one of those Yogi Berra-type statements that doesn't make sense. If a particular concept has been exhausted, if there's nothing left to say about that particular situation and those particular characters, then surely that means the show in question has reached its natural ending-point. If the story is over, if a show has explored all the territory and all the plots that it can explore, then continuing it beyond that point is like putting a dead thing on life-support.

Of course, I *don't* believe that TBBT had exhausted all possible plots and all possible situations with the original 5, at all. That's part of the reason why HQers are so frustrated, right? Because so many great and funny stories COULD HAVE been told, but instead we received romcom.

If you have to change pretty much everything about a show: cast, premise, tone, structure, format, then surely on some level it ceases to be the same show. Now they've even changed the setting, to some extent, because some of the characters no longer live where they used to live, or work where they used to work.

"Shows must change or die" and "Characters must grow and mature" are like pieces of religious dogma. They're not any type of logical argument, because you can't produce *any* evidence or examples or adequate explanations, to back it up. "This is true because everyone says so, and everyone says so because it's true." It's just a widely-accepted and deeply ingrained cultural value, not a fact.

This is Internet debating at its worst and lowest level: "this is true because I say so."

I dunno, I'm sleepy right now and I'm not explaining myself very well, but something about "This show would've died if it didn't change" reminds me of "When did you *stop* beating your wife?" It's that same type of circular reasoning. The reality is not "the show continued *because* changes were made", it's "changes were made *and* the show continued."

How can you KNOW the show would've ended? You'll never, never know. There is absolutely no way of knowing, because it *didn't* end. And it continued for the sake of $$$, not because TPTB had some kind of master plan or grand artistic vision, or because they're hopeless romantics who want to see everyone paired-up. Really, the Canons give way, waaaay too much credit to TPTB, if they think the show's continued existence has anything to do with character-based, plot-based, story-based reasons, like "Oh, we love these characters and we don't want to say goodbye."

No, it's filthy lucre, bitches!

I'm unhappy because of the destruction of these beloved characters, not because I didn't get X number of seasons. I'd jump for joy if all copies of S3 or 4 onward were somehow destroyed by Nostalgic Terrorist Guerrillas.

TL;DR: why do people believe that a sitcom needs to run, and run, and run, for as long as it possibly can? When did this become standard practice? And why do people get away with statements like "This show would've been cancelled if didn't change", when there is no possible way of proving that?

ETA: some nitwit on IMDB is telling Nostalgics to "curl up in the fetal position in your Mom's basement and watch S2 on continuous loop." But, he/she used the word "feral" instead of "fetal", so I don't think much of their writing skills

ETA again: prior to the 1970s, most TV shows did not have "story arcs", and most episodes were self-contained. There were PLENTY of very successful and very popular long-running sitcoms where *nothing* ever changed and there was little or no attempt at "character development." Fashions come and go in TV, just like fashions come and go with clothes or music. I'm not saying that I want zero character development, ever, or that modern TV shows should be like "Gilligan's Island", but the statement of "A show will be cancelled if it doesn't change" is easily disproved. Hogan's Heroes ran for six years and won Emmys, and that's a show where every episode is literally the same.

Also, as we've all noticed, the phrase "character development" is not being used correctly, now. It's being used to mean "radical changes made arbitrarily, in a very short time-span." I'm not opposed to *all* character development, but my idea of what that concept actually entails, bears no resemblance to the definition used by the Canons.

[Louise]

The Seven Deadly Sins:

Sheldon: Pride
Penny: Sloth
Howard: Lust
Amy: Envy
Leonard: Greed
Raj: Gluttony
Bernadette: Wrath

What do you think?

ETA: Oh, and Stuart: Despair, which is sometimes considered the 8th Deadly Sin.

[Tuesday Pajamas]

The Seven Deadly Sins:

Sheldon: Pride
Penny: Sloth
Howard: Lust
Amy: Envy
Leonard: Greed
Raj: Gluttony
Bernadette: Wrath

What do you think?

ETA: Oh, and Stuart: Despair, which is sometimes considered the 8th Deadly Sin.

Perfect! This so deserves to be illustrated, but I have no access to the tools at the moment. I can't play with pretty pictures anymore...