No, my dear reader, I am not going to bore you with details of how my personal life has been dulled due to the lack of a sustained love interest. I am quite certain you already know enough people who do that. But if you came here led to believe that I was going to do so and interested to hear what I had to say, I am sorry to disappoint.
In fact, I am going to discuss how the lack of a sustained love interest can make life better... albeit for TV shows (sitcoms to be more specific) and their characters (and for the networks too). If you do not possess a reasonable amount of information on sitcoms, I advise you to stop reading on.
Almost every sitcom's cast is made up of characters that include various stereotypes. This of course, is understandable. It is much easier to produce situations that can generate laughter by including stereotypes. We see many cultural, gender based and racial stereotypes, mostly - but not exclusively - for the purpose of comic relief.
What spoils most sitcoms for me is the presence of a sustained love interest for the protagonist. If the protagonist finds himself (once again, I request you to consider "he", "him", etc, to cater to all genders) in a durable and prolonged relationship, I feel that the character's story line becomes very limited and predictable.
There are only so many situations that can arise if the protagonist is in a long term relationship. Yes, the possibilities are infinite, but most of them are just sideways, backwards or slightly altered versions of a handful of possible outcomes - break up, make up (sex), jealousy and the eventual unification or parting of ways. There have been so many sitcoms exploring these already limited possibilities, there is now even less space left of creativity and innovation.
Let us use the American sitcom Friends (or F.R.I.E.N.D.S) as a guinea pig to test out my theory. The most irritating and painfully obvious character is Ross. You know that eventually, he is going to bounce back to square one (i.e Rachel). He might stray, but will return.
Chandler probably was my favourite character of the "Friends". Before they (the creators/ writers/ network executives) decided to hook him up with Monica. From then on, Chandler also became a boring character. Thankfully, not as much as Ross, though.
By the time the series came to an end, I felt that Joey was by far, the best and most interesting character and probably because his character developed the least over the nine seasons. He still is what he was - an outrageously poor actor who can woo any woman by saying "How you doin'?"
Three of my favourite TV shows all lack a sustained love interest - "Seinfeld", "Sherlock" and "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". I shall not discuss Sherlock in this post as the subject here is sitcom shows.
In both Seinfeld and Sunny, no character is predictable. This, in part at least, is down to the lack of a sustained love interest.
By the word predictable, I am referring to the characters' story line. Sure, Kramer is still going to be a hipster doofus who will mooch food from Jerry. But you don't know if he decides to be a nudist or a lion whisperer. With Ross, you know this is NEVER gonna be possible.
Some people might argue that the "waitress" from Sunny is a sustained love interest for Charlie. Yes, I agree. Intentionally or otherwise, the writers do not curse us with he presence in every episode. She appears maybe two times in every season and more importantly, she is not in a relationship with Charlie. Never has been and you get the feeling, never will be.
You could also argue the same about Susan and George (in Seinfeld). I admit I found those few episodes rather disappointing. But, George trying to get out of her web and how it all came to an end more than made up for it all.
So, people, don't limit your characters by throwing them into a long term relationship.
Oh, and I should say, these thoughts apply to TV shows and probably not in real life.
In fact, I am going to discuss how the lack of a sustained love interest can make life better... albeit for TV shows (sitcoms to be more specific) and their characters (and for the networks too). If you do not possess a reasonable amount of information on sitcoms, I advise you to stop reading on.
Almost every sitcom's cast is made up of characters that include various stereotypes. This of course, is understandable. It is much easier to produce situations that can generate laughter by including stereotypes. We see many cultural, gender based and racial stereotypes, mostly - but not exclusively - for the purpose of comic relief.
What spoils most sitcoms for me is the presence of a sustained love interest for the protagonist. If the protagonist finds himself (once again, I request you to consider "he", "him", etc, to cater to all genders) in a durable and prolonged relationship, I feel that the character's story line becomes very limited and predictable.
There are only so many situations that can arise if the protagonist is in a long term relationship. Yes, the possibilities are infinite, but most of them are just sideways, backwards or slightly altered versions of a handful of possible outcomes - break up, make up (sex), jealousy and the eventual unification or parting of ways. There have been so many sitcoms exploring these already limited possibilities, there is now even less space left of creativity and innovation.
Let us use the American sitcom Friends (or F.R.I.E.N.D.S) as a guinea pig to test out my theory. The most irritating and painfully obvious character is Ross. You know that eventually, he is going to bounce back to square one (i.e Rachel). He might stray, but will return.
Chandler probably was my favourite character of the "Friends". Before they (the creators/ writers/ network executives) decided to hook him up with Monica. From then on, Chandler also became a boring character. Thankfully, not as much as Ross, though.
By the time the series came to an end, I felt that Joey was by far, the best and most interesting character and probably because his character developed the least over the nine seasons. He still is what he was - an outrageously poor actor who can woo any woman by saying "How you doin'?"
Three of my favourite TV shows all lack a sustained love interest - "Seinfeld", "Sherlock" and "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia". I shall not discuss Sherlock in this post as the subject here is sitcom shows.
 |
| It's fun, alright. |
In both Seinfeld and Sunny, no character is predictable. This, in part at least, is down to the lack of a sustained love interest.
By the word predictable, I am referring to the characters' story line. Sure, Kramer is still going to be a hipster doofus who will mooch food from Jerry. But you don't know if he decides to be a nudist or a lion whisperer. With Ross, you know this is NEVER gonna be possible.
Some people might argue that the "waitress" from Sunny is a sustained love interest for Charlie. Yes, I agree. Intentionally or otherwise, the writers do not curse us with he presence in every episode. She appears maybe two times in every season and more importantly, she is not in a relationship with Charlie. Never has been and you get the feeling, never will be.
You could also argue the same about Susan and George (in Seinfeld). I admit I found those few episodes rather disappointing. But, George trying to get out of her web and how it all came to an end more than made up for it all.
So, people, don't limit your characters by throwing them into a long term relationship.
Oh, and I should say, these thoughts apply to TV shows and probably not in real life.
Comments
Post a Comment