From: walkerjo@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: OFF getting dehumanized and Cynical
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:10:13 PST

In article <1992Oct6.221429.4593@desire.wright.edu>, psantucci@desire.wright.edu writes: 
> 	The last three episodes, while funny and especially filled with erudite
> referneces, have begun to dehumanise OFF. Homer has gotten stupider and meaner,
> Bart is out of character (ref. "he's such a bitch" in streetcar) Marge is more
> helpless and Lisa is going from precocious to downright existential.

I don't see any of this being true.  Homer's recent crudities are certainly no
worse than some of the things he did in the first season, and by the end of
"Streetcar" he had proved once again that he's not a total waste.  "He's such
a bitch" is perfectly in character for Bart--I really don't understand why you
would think otherwise.  And Marge helpless? Ha!  Better watch what you say
or she'll twist a bottle in your face!

> 	Does anyone else notice this almost post-modernist trend toward
> increasingly referential, intellectual snob humor at the expense of the lovable 
> charchters of OFF? The cynicism level is going way up, and the "redeeming"
> moments are fewer and farther between.

 
> 	I would say that at least half of the Simpson's audience like it
> because they see themselves therein, and the lower middle class losers always
> seem to pull through somehow. Lose that aspect, make OFF helpless pawns, and
> you lose your ratings too. Then there wont be simpsons for anyone.

I think you're vastly underestimating the intelligence of the average American.
What you seem to be asking is that  the show stop expecting its audience to
be reasonably well-informed, observant people and start pandering to the lowest
common denominator.  In other words, become a standard sitcom.  I for one
would STOP watching if this happened, and so would a lot of other people. 
Look, I'm the only member of my family to have gone to college--and we all love
the show, precisely because there's so much more there than in the average
TV show.  Maybe everybody doesn't get the Ayn Rand reference--so what?  Not
knowing who she was or what she said (I myself have only the vaguest of ideas)
doesn't take away one bit of the pleasure of watching Maggie try to get her
pacifier. 
As for the 'lower middle class losers' and the 'helpless pawns'--I think you're
way out of touch with the audience.  Where do you see the Simpsons as helpless
pawns in this episode?  Marge gets a part in a play, does well and earns 
claps and cheers, and Homer learsn something.  More importantly, making the
Simpsons winners all the time just so the audience can identify with them and
feel good would take all the bite out of the show.  Again, this is exactly
what most sitcoms do--and exactly why we don't watch them.

> 	How do you feel? Post replies - perhaps the netter with studio
> connections could pass them on?

This isn't a flame; I just think you need to lighten up.  OFF is the same as
they've always been, and the audience is still there.
 
> PATMAN
> 
> P.S. - Come on now - how many people can get a joke that requires both
> familiarity with Ayn Rand and fanatics who deliberately misunderstand her work?

Very few--but how many are going to turn the show off or not enjoy the rest of
the scene because they didn't get ONE JOKE?  Realistically, if you're not in
a position to understand a joke like that you're probably not even going to
notice that it's there.  If you get it, fine; if not, it takes nothing away
from the rest of the show.
Joe Walker
walkerjo@cgsvax.claremont.edu

 
>