So today I logged in to WordPress for the first time in weeks, and I found something amazing: there are still people reading. Not many, mind you, not like when I was posting fun stuff daily, but there are a few die hard readers who check up with my little blog damn near daily.
To those of you who kept coming back: thank you. Hopefully your patience and persistence will pay off.
Now, to talk about TV.
Last night, after my internet went out, I visited a couple friends and helped them eat up some habanero chile they’d made. Afterward, while we were sitting around the living room, Everybody Loves Raymond came on the tube, and, since no one wanted to stir themselves to pick something else, we watched about half an episode. Before I go any farther, I should point out that not everyone loves Raymond; I sure as hell don’t. Towards the end of the episode, Ray (lo and behold) fell blithely into a trap set by his wife who (lo and behold) was shocked and angry that Ray behaved exactly as she knew he was. There was an argument and a reconciliation, and I made a comment that I really didn’t like the show for that reason.
Judy took it as me defending Ray, which, to be fair, I do tend to side with him. Part of it is that he’s almost like a puppy; he just responds to stimuli without thinking, and he fails to understand when this causes problems. On the other hand, I think it’s stupid and cruel for his wife to go “God, Ray always does X,” set a trap where he will, remarkably, do “X” (X changes every episode, which I’m going to get to later), and then she’ll get all high and mighty and chew him out for behaving exactly as she predicted he would. That said, I do like her character; I just think that she’s setting herself up for disappointment, and after umpty ump years, she should know better.
Anyways, I tried (and failed) to explain that the reason I hate Raymond isn’t because of the gender politics; I hate the show because the writing quite simply sucks. Every episode falls under one of two stock plots. Plot one: Ray’s wife makes an observation about something Ray does or fails to do that irritates her, she sets a trap to confirm the behavior, Ray confirms the behavior, Ray’s wife gets upset, hilarity (supposedly) ensues, and at the end Ray apologizes (though he never knows what for), and everyone is happy(ish). Sadly, plot one is the “better” of the two stock plots; it has some variation on how it plays out, and sometimes the traps are interesting and fun(ish). Plot two, however, is just this: Ray’s parents irritate Ray and his wife, hilarity (supposedly) ensues. In plot two, nothing is resolved, no one makes any advancement as characters, and no one really communicates.
So yes, I hate Raymond, but hopefully you can see why. However, as I was driving home last night, I started to wonder what other shows trade heavily on stock plots, and then I began to wonder why such shows don’t leap out at me like Raymond does. So here are two notable shows (that I love) which use stock plots, and why I feel the show is still OK despite that.
Star Trek (any iteration)
Star Trek is probably the most obvious contender. They have one stock plot they fall back on, and it’s relatively simple. 1: Crew discovers anomaly/entity/location with properties that no one has ever encountered before. 2: Crew and/or ship disabled by anomaly/entity/location. 3: Technobabble. 4: Resolution where we learn a moral lesson. By all rights, I should find this show unbearable, but I don’t (well, DS9 and Enterprise are a different story). The Next Generation was on for something like ten years, and each season had liberal helpings of this plot, yet we as viewers kept eating it up. To me, there are three reasons why they got away with it.
The first reason they got away with it was the characters. Despite the boring plot, the writers knew how to use their characters to make each usage feel fresh; they switched up character pairings, isolated characters, put characters in situations completely uncomfortable to them, and in general made the characters react to the plot. In Ray, every character reacts exactly the same every time the show plays; in Star Trek, the characters changed the way they acted based on their situation. In my mind, Star Trek has always been about the characters; the shows we love were the ones with the best characters and the most thoughtful treatments of them. By the time the show was over, you cared about Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Chekhov, Uhura, Scotty, Bones, Picard, Riker, Data, Geordi, Troy, Crusher, Crusher Jr. (if not cared, then at least you felt strongly about him), Worf, and even poor, short-lived Tasha Yar.
The second way Star Trek did it was in making the anomaly/alien/entity cool. There were weird lights, nightmares, time distortions, and a myriad of other ways in which it could incapacitate crew and ship. I can’t think of a single episode in which the Enterprise is trapped by a pair of socks in a nighty (well, maybe Riker was, one time on Risa).
Finally, tying into the first escape clause, the characters grew. If they encountered Q or the Borg or any other recurring fiend, they use the knowledge they gained from their previous encounter. In short, even though the PLOT was recycled, the circumstances weren’t. As a result, the show felt like an ongoing saga instead of an existentialist hell.
Frasier
Last night, I mentioned that I really don’t like the sitcom model at all. It encourages static stock characters, flat recycled plots, and halfass jokes that really aren’t funny.
The reason I love Frasier is that it takes the sitcom model, subverts it, deconstructs it, and ultimately delivers something that, while technically a sitcom, is head and shoulders above the rest of the genre. That said, it tends to fall back on a certain stock plot as well. 1. One or both of the Crane boys behaves like a Crane boy in a city of normal people. 2. Hilarity ensues (on a regular basis).
They get away with it for many reasons. The first is, of course, that as far as stock plots go, that’s about as broad as you can get and still consider it a stock plot, especially when you consider how damn bizarre Niles and Frasier are. By centering on two snobbish, disconnected weirdos, and planting them in a crowd of relatively normal individuals, the show highlights just how weird most sitcom characters would appear in the real world. Ray and his family get away with behaving strangely because they’re surrounded by other weirdos; the Crane boys, surrounded by normals, have to acknowledge and confront their oddities (usually by ignoring everyone else).
This leads into the next reason Frasier gets away with stock plots: character growth. Frasier and Niles (and to a lesser extent Marty, Daphne, and Ros) DO have to face and address their issues, and they DO try to surmount them. In a way, they’re aware of the existential hell they live in, and the show is about them trying to make something of it while searching for meaning in it. I think the show ultimately leaves it to the viewer to decide if the characters find such meaning.
Related to that is another one: continuity. The show has several overarching plots going on, and each episode moves these plots forward bit by bit (or, in some cases leaps and bounds). Niles has a crush on Daphne, but he’s too shy to say anything; Niles and Maris are having marital troubles, and then getting a divorce; Frasier is trying to make a name for himself in Seattle radio; Marty is coming to grips with his injury and working on finding meaning for his retirement years; Ros is looking for love in all the wrong places; Eddie tries to learn new tricks. In this show it matters what season you’re watching; in Season 3, Niles is still married (technically) to Maris, but by Season 4, he’s found a lawyer who wraps it all up for him, but then the lawyer starts dating (and eventually proposes to) Daphne. The characters, and the plot, grow as the show goes along.
The final point I need to make about Frasier is actually really important to the discussion: it’s funny. The writers know how to come up with funny situations and milk them for all the comedy they’re worth, while the actors, who are skilled in their own rights, play their roles for maximum laughs.
Who is Caleb G? 