From: larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.bh90210
Subject: Re: Are you serious
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:17:15 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: saturn.sdsu.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Matthew S. 'Opie' Warren (warren-matthew@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
> larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
> >Matthew S. 'Opie' Warren (warren-matthew@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
> >>                                         It's well-nigh impossible to
> >> maintain willing suspension of disbelief in this kind of environment,
> >> and the fact that we can't means that we can watch the show more
> >> casually, and with less emotional damage, than we could otherwise.
> >
> >The existence of this type of attitude was used to vilify George
> >Bush, who putatively did not accept the "reality" of the recession.  His
> >perceived inability to empathize with the average American was a major
> >contributing factor to his loss in this year's Presidential election.

> Okay, sure.  But I'm not sure how that relates to willing suspension
> of disbelief.

Me either! :)  I was relating this to the "watch the show more casually,
and with less emotional damage" part.  I wasn't sure how much context
to put.  I guess I put too much!


> >So yes, if we can't empathize with something, we will perceive it as
> >"unrealistic," and that gives us the freedom to have attitudes towards
> >it that we wouldn't feel comfortable with if we could relate it to
> >our reality.
>
> I disagree.  There are plenty of people I with whom I don't empathize,
> but I don't consider them any less real.  I wouldn't go around lopping
> heads off people I thought were asses because I didn't think they were
> real.

If you can touch them and see them right there and hear them talk, you
will perceive them as human beings like yourself, and I think if you
can empathize with them to that extent, it would probably preclude you
from lopping their heads off.  At least I hope so in my case!

But I don't mean so much to be saying "real" as "realistic,"  where the
distinction is that I'm thinking that something "real" is something that
actually exists, and something "realistic" is like something that
actually exists.


> However, that's not what I meant to discuss in my original message.  I 
> was more interested in the willing suspension of disbelief, a crucial
> element of all theater and drama.  I think 90210 deliberately skates the
> edge of willing suspension, so that we can look at the characters more
> aloofly (uh, that's not a word) that we would if they were less, well,
> unrealistic.

Well, maybe it's just me, but sometimes I have a hard time
distinguishing between shows which present re-enactments of things,
like on (I think) America's Most Wanted, and Rescue 911, versus shows
like COPS, which is not a re-enactment.  One is real - the other is
not, but to me they are both "realistic."  Now heck if I know if any of
it REALLY happens, but I don't have any suspension of disbelief because
it's all believable to me.

This is the sense in which I perceive 90210 as "realistic."  Of course
there are some aspects of some episodes that are unrealistic, but the
show is not predicated on the realism of those aspects, and I don't
think they come up that often, and most importantly, I don't think they
affect the characters and relationships on the show, which are what I'm
claiming are "realistic."

In case there is a question about distinguishing between fiction and
non-fiction, I think there is some fiction which is just non-fiction
that didn't happen or hasn't happened.  To me that's "realistic"
fiction.


> >Inability to empathize with the characters or the relationships on 90210
> >does not make them "unreal."
>
> Are you saying that Kelly is as real as my pile of clean laundry on
> my bed over there?  If so, can you send her over here -- I'll have the
> laundry folded and the bed cleared off by then...

She is to me.  I have no knowledge of or experience with your laundry.
To me it is even more unreal than Kelly.  If I did see it right in from
of me, it would be more real to me than Kelly is because I've never seen
her in person, and because a pile of laundry can be empathized with to
its fullest extent (which is practically none) without much effort.  But
if I do see Kelly in person, I'll send her right over as soon as I'm
finished with her (or vice-versa).

I think you're right though about the use of the word "unreal."  I should
have said "unrealistic."  I know Kelly isn't "real," but I think that
she is "realistic."



Larry
Newsgroups: alt.tv.bh90210