Anthropology of the Big Bang

[wellplayedpenny]

There's an implication that perpetual adolescence is a bad thing. Retaining a sense of wonder, idealism and hope for the future is a lot better than becoming cynical, world-weary and hopeless. If that's what being an adult means I'd rather remain an overgrown teenager.

Hence why I distinguished between childlike and childish. At least here I'm seeing far less of the former and too much of the latter in those who are in their 20s,30s,40s+.

And I disagree that becoming cynical, world-weary and hopeless is a rite of passage into adulthood. Taking personal responsibility is. And I'm seeing less and less of it.

I mean look at the show--Leonard and Amy and Bernadette take no responsibility for their actions, in fact the writers make it that there are no repercussions for their actions. Are they well-adjusted adults or whiny self-centered egotists? Howard and the rest of the guys have become incompetent and infantile as opposed to their previous incarnations. IMO they were childlike, for sure, in the early seasons but they were also adults. That's what made them attractive, at least to me. As my niece would say, they 'grew up in the right way'.

It's this idea TPTB are pressing that A/B are 'adults' and that the guys need to 'grow up' that I find repulsive, frustrating and Hulk smash-y. The guys are adults, and when TPTB took that part of them away it made their interests in comic books, etc seem infantile because only infantile people would have hobbies such as this--which, as we know, is dead wrong.

[ricardo shillyshally]

Okay presuming we're still animals, normally mammals stay with their parents for about a third of their life. It took that long to learn everything. I think the way the mothers in BB treat their sons is appalling, it's as though they had no independence. As if they were still boys, and that slows down their development, and confidence. Is adolescence increasing with life expectancy. Is culture stuck, recycling the culture of past decades. I think it's good to be cynical of corporations who monopolises programme production, but optimistic that independent producers will be challenged into maybe making online shows. Who knows!

[Louise]

Okay presuming we're still animals, normally mammals stay with their parents for about a third of their life. It took that long to learn everything. I think the way the mothers in BB treat their sons is appalling, it's as though they had no independence. As if they were still boys, and that slows down their development, and confidence. Is adolescence increasing with life expectancy. Is culture stuck, recycling the culture of past decades. I think it's good to be cynical of corporations who monopolises programme production, but optimistic that independent producers will be challenged into maybe making online shows. Who knows!

Nobody is arguing that the parent-child dynamics on this show are stellar. They're flawed. Beverly may be an amusing character, but the way she treated Leonard is chilling. That may not excuse his later antics, but I doubt any BBT viewer would choose *her* as their mother. Howard and Mrs.W are kinda codependent and enmeshed, that's pretty clear.

The real question is, *if* the guys were given the chance to be more independent, would they rise to the occasion, or fall apart? Would they welcome that opportunity, or refuse it? New!BBT would have us believe that Howard is searching for a mother-substitute and expects women to take care of him, and that's demonstrably a retcon, as is the idea that Sheldon learned everything he knows from Amy.

The guys' flawed upbringings have indeed caused some emotional damage, or at least some questionable outcomes. But they're not incapable of learning or adapting, which is what New!BBT would have us believe. They'd have us believe that the guys are incapable of learning or adapting without being yelled-at and threatened and emotionally blackmailed by their "girlfriends." That's the objectionable part. These are smart, creative, resourceful people. They're not going to roll over and play dead. "The guys are socially awkward" has become "the guys are utterly useless at everyday life."

You can comb through S1 and S2 and you will not find examples of Howard being *this* helpless. I know he's my fave character and I admit to being biased in his favor, but I'm giving specific examples from the show which back-up my argument, here. Howard did not ask Leslie or Stephanie or Christie to cut his pancakes or do his laundry or dust his room. For that matter, we never specifically hear him ask his Mother to do those things, either, although I'm sure she did some of it. He doesn't seem reluctant to go places and be away from his mother's care for a period of time. He's not in the Arctic asking L, S, or R to do things for him. It's objectively, demonstrably true that New!Howard does things which Old!Howard didn't. Vintage Sheldon is very self-sufficient, saves money, etc, and finds workarounds for his limitations. He doesn't let his tics and phobias cripple him.

You're correct that the parents on this show perhaps caused their sons to be more sheltered than most, and that they often don't treat them with the dignity an adult deserves. And people behave according to how you treat them, so it's a vicious cycle. Mrs.W tells Christie that Howard is not a man, which is pretty cringe-worthy.

But there is no plausible universe in which the characters from S1 refuse to feed and clothe themselves without a woman holding a gun to their head, psychologically. A person with that attitude doesn't graduate from college, or work at Cal-Tech, or accomplish much of anything.

Watching the guys become more independent would be *real* character development, not this phony-ass character development we've been presented with, which is actually character *atrophy.* It would be funny and cute and meaningful, and a very natural direction to take, instead of this "Pair the Spares" crap. IMO *all* these people needed to get away from their parents for a little while and maybe have a few sessions with a sympathetic counselor. Replicating the parent-child dynamic was the furthest thing from what they needed, but TPTB think that's hi-freaking-larious. But the ships are actually much *more* toxic than the parent-child relationships, IMO. They make the parent-child relationships look good, by comparison.

TPTB apparently believe that "learning and adapting" means surrendering your personhood, when really it means coming more fully into your personhood and understanding yourself better. I'm about the same age as the BBT characters, and I think I've changed massively over the past six or seven years, but my interests and tastes and preferences haven't changed.

[wellplayedpenny]

The relationship that has attempted to address this is the one between Mary Cooper and Sheldon. When she returns and refuses to go to the lecture with Sheldon she says to him that he's no longer a child and that their relationship dynamic has to change.

What makes this hard to judge as to the success of the new dynamic is that Sheldon has regressed so much over the later seasons. His heavy-handed childishness automatically tips the scales into a parent-toddler dynamic. E.G. s8 episode with Beverly and Mary--Sheldon was so Jim Parsons-bouncy he was a distraction from the humour because he couldn't hold a coherent conversation.

As the seasons go on and the guys become more infantilized this will put the 'adult' roles further askew as the writers seek to balance over-the-top childishness with overbearing bully tactics.

Isn't it funny that the message in s1 with Kurt was something like Leonard and Sheldon and Howard and Raj weren't 'men' because of their hobbies and overall 'geekiness' and now TPTB have fully realized this by taking away all notions that the guys are emotionally and intellectually adults even within their own areas of expertise (Howard picked on by the other astronauts; Kripke pulling the radio prank on Sheldon).

Maybe this is why I find the later seasons characters so fundamentally sad.

[Louise]

It's this idea TPTB are pressing that A/B are 'adults' and that the guys need to 'grow up' that I find repulsive, frustrating and Hulk smash-y. The guys are adults, and when TPTB took that part of them away it made their interests in comic books, etc seem infantile because only infantile people would have hobbies such as this--which, as we know, is dead wrong.

Thisthisthisthis!

[ricardo shillyshally]

Yes they did move to that point where Mary acts like a separate adult, to Sheldon, and he does act like a petulant child. Unfortunately she gives in when he gets sick. It is a symbiotic relationship, often prolonged if the father isn't around. It's also in the early seasons, one of the main sources of humour, the socially awkward boys meet the worldly woman. I think they would have been more confident if they'd separated at normal age. I think this show is obviously way behind the curve, on what it is to be male in 21 cent.

[ricardo shillyshally]

I have thought, the writers use scenarios as catharsis. I think Leonard's moment then must have been when his mother hugged him. He probably realised that was the best he'd get. Howard and his mother, where to start! It'll definitely make the top ten of Bizarre Maternal relationships. I don't think Howard would have left home on his own. Catharsis! I think it would have been great if he'd broke the cliche. But it's strange what they manage to make funny on BB. Robots to organise his house, would have been interesting. I wish they had forgotten their pasts, and employed their strengths. Take down the guy who took Glen, in the game, and online. Show intelligence as strength, and desirable.

[ricardo shillyshally]

^Was researching Tupac. This is the problem; humans idealize. Tupac is a complicated person. So are characters. But if we idealize them, we filter out what doesn't fit, we are no longer seeing the character as conceived by the writer. We have taken the character off at a subjective tangent. It's duality. Also I think people who are nerdy/geeky were outsiders, before the likes of these guys. But TBBT has cemented the stereotype of 'nerd' fully into popular culture. In fact the drummed it home with endless references. Although I despise alot of the cliches, it seems like a good base camp, just need to expand the identity, and ditch the stereotypes.

[ricardo shillyshally]

Just to trash those nerd stereotypes. There's an argument that altered consciousness has inspired the greatest works of art, literature, and science. Intelligent rebels, who fully embraced the counter culture, and had insights that have changed the way we interact with, and visualise the world. From Steve Jobs and his contemporaries, to Francs Crick(http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_...a_lsd.html). Lennon wrote I am the Walrus, and Chuck Lorre............

[Kimk26]

Just responded to a comment I found in another forum. After writing my response, though, it felt like it could be better served here, as it's mostly about the genesis of the show and the character development the creators seemed to have in mind at that time. I'm copying and pasting the original comment (in italics) with my response underneath. The original thread was about the misunderstandings present between fans/ships when it comes to fanfiction and their reviews. Cited is a quote from someone defending canon in their review of a fanfiction that was written by an author who misses original Sheldon, before all the changes to his character that have taken place over recent seasons. Following that is the opinion of someone here arguing for just the opposite. This is just my take on what I think is at the root of these misunderstandings that lead to arguments between the fans devoted to canon stories as opposed to those interested in alternate universes/stories..why we're pulling in these opposite directions:

"I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer the emotionally/socially handicapped Sheldon but some do, I guess."

Odd, but I never saw Sheldon as being 'handicapped'. Eccentric, yes. Naive, in some respects. But he had a job, loved his Meemaw and Mother, had a best friend, etc. A lot of the time Sheldon wasn't 'in the know' of something social because, frankly, he didn't give a shit about it and so wouldn't waste his time learning about it and going through the hoops. What describes Sheldon to a 'T' is the 'non-optional social convention'. He's more aware of things than the canons give him credit for--he just chooses to avoid things as much as possible as they are not important in his world. BUT even he is aware that there are some social responsibilities that cannot be dismissed, and, when he is confronted with them, acts accordingly.

Perhaps the problem is that the canons don't like Sheldon not giving a damn about what's important to them and see his independent actions/opinions as a direct assault on [what they feel comfortable with]. Who knew someone could march to his own drummer and be happy and successful without submitting to (often) trite social convention and opinion?

I think my response to [that person] would be: "I find it hard to believe that anyone could overlook the multifaceted and multi-layered brilliance of the early seasons Sheldon and prefer the emotionally/socially/intellectually handicapped Sheldon in the later ones. But some do, I guess."


Howdy, I'm totally new here, but am loving reading the threads. This last comment, in particular, is especially interesting to me. Because I agree. I don't see early Sheldon as "emotionally/socially handicapped", he just wasn't naturally interested in such things. He had other values. What's wrong with that?

See, one of the things I love about this show is that the characters/writing inspired me to really dig deep into personality studies. It's fascinating, actually, especially observing characters like these as individuals, seeing how their different personalities interact with each other, based on their individual traits. Sheldon, for example. He was just such a unique character that I found him immediately interesting. He made me want to understand him. As he is, and not how I or anyone else want him to be. So..I got a few books from the library, about developmental psychology. One in particular really seemed to resonate with my interest in the characters of this new show, in that it in large part examined personality differences based on a theory developed by psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, called Male Brain Theory. Individuals are evaluated on an E-S (Empathy-Systematic) scale, with those scoring on the far right/systematic generally considered to be Aspergers or Autistic. They think more in systems as opposed to empathy/feelings. Therefore, they can be super-literal, like Sheldon. So they lack tact, say whatever's on their mind, because they're not capable of realizing that their words may be hurtful. Yeah, a lot of these people can't/don't drive, either, because they're so aware of every possibility, of everything that can go wrong. This could account for Sheldon's germ phobia, as well.

There's so much more to be said here, about the importance of feelings/emotions in making decisions. You must have an emotional investment in outcomes in order to make decisions. So I can see Sheldon agonizing over courses of action in many instances, 'cos maybe he doesn't have so much of an emotional investment, and is mainly plagued with the multitude of probabilities/consequences in how a decision could play out. Also, it makes total sense in considering the hierarchy among the guys within the group in this show. First we have Sheldon, with the most degrees and achievements, then down the line with Leonard, Raj, and then Howard, who has just the Masters. Flipping it over, Howard is the most social of them all, the one that's been MOST interested in women and sex. And it goes down the line back to Sheldon. Which just proves how much research and work went into the development of these characters. Something so explored and written about in psychology would not be stumbled upon by accident.

So yeah, my whole point..I think the people who miss the original characterizations on the show can really appreciate this stuff. Like, we were drawn to the series BECAUSE of the complexities, their unusual ways of thinking. How the boys processed everyday social problems in the ways that only systematic/scientific minds CAN. The problem with the fans that want to do away with these intricacies in the characters--who seem to be so laser-focused on and devoted to the romantic relationships alone--is the fact that they seem to have no understanding or appreciation for what the creators of this series originally set out to do. In my mind at least, the original concept for a show counts for something. Those of us that miss the remarkable aspects of the characters seem to me to be the ones that really "got" what Chuck Lorre and Bill Prady were going for with this new series. So where it did it get away from them? Where did the brilliance and extraordinary singularity of their original concept go? The only reason I can account for this baffling turn of direction leads me directly to showrunner, Steve Molaro. And no, he doesn't get "it". He never did. And what I can't "get" is why Chuck and Bill handed the reins over to him in the first place, as he very openly demonstrated his main interest in 'evolving of the characters', focusing on relationships and emotions, which seems to be just so diametrically opposed to the original idea. Remember Baron-Cohen's findings on empathetic vs. systematic minds? These are SCIENTISTS. Scientists score lower on empathy and higher on systems. Hence why Penny stumbled upon these brilliant 'misfits' in the first place! The creators made us love science--love these "beautiful minds". So why put a guy in charge that has no understanding, appreciation, or interest in following those kind of storylines (and there would be PLENTY--as even Jim Parsons admitted in one of his early interviews with PBS talk show host, Tavis Smiley)??

Molaro has screwed us all. Or more probably Chuck and Bill have, by putting someone like Molaro in charge of such an important production, dealing with subject matter he understands so very little about.

The most precious part of this whole thing? And why many of us have been reeling by this loss of direction? That they wrote a show where intellectuals REACHED a tv audience. Made a connection. The writing was STELLAR. It showed great intelligence, ingenuity. It didn't dumb itself down for the possible limitations of it's audience. They took a big risk, and it WORKED. It made people want to take out their dictionaries, open up their search engines, just to keep up with what the characters were talking about. It raised the bar. It raised the standards for television. It inspired a secretary to go out and read up on psychological development, just to learn how to best appreciate these characters that made her openly laugh (and laugh HARD) on every showing, and the writers who actually showed respect to a viewing audience by expecting something more from them.

So yeah, the Molaro factor.. But somewhere along the line, too..did it become too hard to sustain? They got the syndication, that big money rolling in. That made a big difference. And if you want to understand anything about television, understand this: when a series goes into syndication, they're set for life. Guaranteed royalties from then on for everyone. But the writing. I'll give them this, the standard they were writing at the first three seasons..you try to uphold this kind of gold standard on a weekly basis.. Well, I wouldn't blame someone for burning out. But that's why they add new writers each year. But my guess is..if Steve Molaro is the showrunner, he's probably in charge of hiring the writers as well. So of course he's going to bring on people who share his vision. That's his job. Too bad his vision has so little to do with the original concept of the show..

So my take on it? Syndication brought new viewers. And so many came on under the Molaro administration. They had no real idea of the origin of the show. His vision appeals, I'm afraid, to the lowest common denominator. Romance, relationships. This kind of stuff is easy to write compared to the brilliance of what Chuck and Bill were writing in the beginning. Why bother pushing for excellence when writing "just good enough" is pleasing audiences enough to keep them high in the ratings? The money keeps rolling in, no matter what. So, art becomes a commodity. Happens all the time in television and other media. But why does it have to be with a great show like Big Bang Theory?

Which brings us to our dilemma: those of us who are heartbroken at the loss of the early great characterizations we came to love, trying to coexist with the newer fans, those that boarded the ship when the command changed. What gets at us who miss the vision of the original series..we IDENTIFIED with these guys. We related to them somehow, in that we "got" them, despite the fact they were geniuses. I think they kinda made us want to be geniuses, too. The beginnings of this show were not rooted in mediocrity, as I believe it's sadly devolved to today. The general audience now is eating table scraps. And are loving it 'cos they see no reason not to. They don't know that there was, at one time, steak and lobster on the menu.

Another reason, I believe, the newer folks (who prefer the current canon) feel defensive toward those of us who are more rooted in the past seasons (and therefore open to alternate universe stories in fanfiction) is because the things we suggest and long for are outside of their comprehension. They are one kind of fan, and we are another. It's like there's two BBT's, as after Molaro took over, the show changed so drastically, focusing on interpersonal relationships rather than on humor found in the intellect. Someone else here suggested they crave security, and that's why they can't entertain different ideas, different ways of thinking. As we thrive on possibilities (which, now that I think of it, is exactly how scientists think--hence why we love the original series, so!), they prefer hedging things in. They want/need their characters to make sense to them where they are--which, in actuality--is a sort of 'projecting their own limitations' on characters trying to be so much more. Those of us that love the original concept..because the writing then was so stellar, them striving so hard to impress us/make us feel like we're 'smart enough' to understand and appreciate the characters..it makes sense. I could be totally baffled as to why people not interested in things of the intellect could be drawn to a show like this, but well, I think I've answered my own question. A big part of it, too, goes back to the introduction of the female characters/permanent love interests. And the character of Amy, most especially. But that's another discussion.

In a nutshell, those that focus on the romances don't want a Leonard that processes the complexities of relationships by applying the principles of how light behaves. They want it in plain English because they're disinterested in trying to grasp abstract or unfamiliar avenues of thought. Which I admit is daunting, and can take some work. But the beauty of the show--they made us WANT to do that work. Which now that I think of it, the fault lies in the writing, and of course, back to the vision of the head writer, Molaro. We who want to rise to meet the challenges of the original vision..well, we like puzzles and trying to wrap our minds around new concepts--(something not generally found in sitcoms, so all the more precious)--we got that from the original writers. But those who want to just feel nice, go with the flow, because it's secure and it's easy--they've been influenced by the later vision--and are it's casualties. This is why our two groups will never be on the same page.

A quote that comes to mind that PERFECTLY illustrates the whole problem..in the words of actor John Larroquette: "In drama, ordinary people are put in extraordinary situations. But in comedy, it's the exact opposite." And it's no more true than in BBT. Except it seems that there's a third idea, which those of us who uphold the excellence of the original concept of BBT find unthinkable--It starts at the top with TPTB/Molaro, and trickles dangerously down to the fandoms: wanting to make our EXTRAORDINARY characters ORDINARY. Scientists, capable of all these great things, fresh and unusual storylines, taking us in exciting and hysterically funny new directions, and not weighted down by the demands of these tiresome and routine relationships. The guys love Star Trek, right? "To boldly go where no man has gone before!" BBT had this chance (and still does, 'cos it ain't over yet!) Take these scientists, these comedic geniuses, boldly where no sitcom has gone before. They started out that way, why restrain them by tying them down to the mundane that surrounds the rest of us, the rest of everybody else in SitcomLand? Let other people get married and have babies and all that. But let our guys explore their greatest potentials. People like them, they're meant for something more. That's why they are so smart, why they have such unique passions and perspectives!

What we're feeling from the fandoms that embrace canon, is that we who think differently are being run out of town on a rail. I could understand it in just about any other sitcom. But Big Bang Theory? It just doesn't add up. Picture Kirk and Spock tied down to Earth. Who would go on the adventures? Someone's gotta go on the adventures, right? And if you don't "get" that, than I have to seriously question if you really "get" The Big Bang Theory at all. I mean, it's not called "The Big Nag Theory", yet you wouldn't know it by looking at it these days. PEOPLE, don't let Steve Molaro win--make him do these characters (and the rest of us who are tethered to the ground) the justice they and we deserve. Chuck and Bill need to take the reins back, or at least give them to someone who understands Smart People with Big Potential. (And yes, that includes Penny!)