"It's just a show."

[author_by_night]

 

I see that ^ statement a lot in discussion spaces, mostly in Reddit and Facebook groups.  And I wanted to tackle that.

I do think that you have to acknowledge that a work of fiction is a work of fiction. You can't expect storylines to be 100% realistic when they're very much reliant on plot. To quote a song from Crazy-Ex Girlfriend: "If you watched a movie that was like real life, you'd be like, 'what the hell was that movie about?'" The same applies to all works of fiction. 

At the same time, the characters do not know they're fictional. There should still be some rationale behind their actions (unless they're meant to be incredibly impulsive and/or irrational people). Storylines can push the boundaries of reality, but should still follow a somewhat logical course, unless they're meant to be absurdist shows where logic doesn't apply. Characters should still act consistently with who we understand there to be, unless, again, they're meant to be inconsistent, or we're seeing a side of them the show has always hinted at but never tapped into. Of course, fans are bound to disagree on what works for them. One person might think a storyline is too contrived, while another person thinks it makes perfect sense. The issue, then, isn't "it's just a show", but whether or not even within the context of fiction, XYZ worked for that person. 

I also think that "it's just a show" is often said by VERY casual fans who aren't really up for discussing TV, but have still entered those spaces. There are a lot of people who take a very casual approach - they watch something, they like it or don't, that's it. So it is very easy to say "it's just a show" when your investment is minimal. The problem is, they're not bearing in mind that it's a discussion space, meaning people will want to discuss. Another example might be joining a bird watching group, despite not wanting to bird watch. It's fine if you're good just listening to birds chip and smiling when you spot them in the bushes, but a bird watching group is going to take it to the next level. (Which is why I'd never join one.)

IMHO, anyway. What do you guys think?

Comments

[yourlibrarian]

I know I wrote about this before in a meta but I can't recall which one! The phrase is one which has always bothered fans I think, and to me is more a sign of anti-intellectualism and dismissiveness of pop culture than anything else.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to examine or discuss in depth a particular text. Given how many we're exposed to I think it would be exhausting to do so for all of them! And I think that looking "behind the curtain" can lessen the enjoyment for some fans even as it increases it for others.

At the same time, there are always people who want everyone else to enjoy (or dislike!) a thing exactly the way they do, which leads to the whole "you're doing fandom wrong" pathway. There are also people who believe any sign of criticism for a thing tarnishes it and insinuates that they are bad or wrong somehow for liking that thing.

So to me, this comes down to people's individual differences more than anything else. But the phrase bothers me for one big reason -- it suggests that there are texts that don't say or mean anything vs those which do. (Or for some people, even the extreme that no TV show or movie could ever say anything meaningful). And I vehemently disagree with that. To me all texts say something about the culture they were created in, not least the pathway in which they got commercially released in the form they did. It may not be anything novel or unexpected, but the idea that things people create are somehow neutral because of intention or disposability does not change the influences of what led to its creation.

[author_by_night]

and to me is more a sign of anti-intellectualism and dismissiveness of pop culture than anything else.


That's a good point. And I'm sure there's defensiveness in there as well, if you feel bad that people pulled something deeper out of it than you. When there's no real need to feel bad. Everyone looks at different things.

And I think that looking "behind the curtain" can lessen the enjoyment for some fans even as it increases it for others.

Good point.

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to examine or discuss in depth a particular text. Given how many we're exposed to I think it would be exhausting to do so for all of them!

Yes. I have things I watch very, very casually, and I don't have the deepest thoughts about them.


nd I vehemently disagree with that. To me all texts say something about the culture they were created in, not least the pathway in which they got commercially released in the form they did. It may not be anything novel or unexpected, but the idea that things people create are somehow neutral because of intention or disposability does not change the influences of what led to its creation.

I agree! Media is always saying something, even if it's not necessarily deep. Though some things are deeper than they seem, IMHO. But again. That's me.

[rocky41_7]

I would agree with this! It seems very odd to me to enter a space where people are discussing a show and then try to demean the idea of discussing it with "it's just a show." I feel like I don't generally see or hear of anyone saying "it's just a book" about literary discussions...not every show is geared towards producing thoughtful discussion, but a lot of them are and while no one's obligated to engage with them on that level, it seems a bit unnecessary to me to discourage people from being invested.

[author_by_night]

You're right, I haven't either. I've certainly encountered readers who clearly weren't as into the book(s) as I was, but they haven't necessarily been snide about it, I just realized very quickly that we were on different wavelengths. And of course, the reverse has been true, as it has been with certain movies and TV shows.

[fred_mouse]

The related statement I've seen is "it's just a [genre] book" to be dismissive. Mostly romance I think, but also chick-lit, cosy mystery, presumably others that I can't think of. And those are all very gendered.

[delphi]

I also think that "it's just a show" is often said by VERY casual fans who aren't really up for discussing TV, but have still entered those spaces.

I've noticed that too, particularly in the spaces where different kinds of fans (people who want casual water cooler chat, people who want to do deep dives, theorycrafters, character admirers, transformative fan types, curative fan types) all end up in the same tag or general forum because that's how modern mainstream social media rolls. Those are all perfectly valid ways of enjoying media, but wires can get crossed when people have different expectations about what talking about a show will look like, and when they think their expectations are universal or the default.

The funny thing is that I feel like I see a lot of people say "It's just a show" while counter-intuitively discussing something like it isn't a show. It's part of what I vaguely think of as the Found Footage Approach, which to be fair I've seen from both people who are casual fans of something and people who are intense fans of something—but either way, where someone rejects the idea that conscious choices were made by multiple people in the writing, directing, acting, and editing of a show, and the idea that different choices could have been made. Not just Death of the Author but Death of the Medium. A show is instead something that just is, sprung into existence fully formed, and talking about how it got there or how it could have been different is as weird as going on about why the sky isn't a slightly different shade of blue.

[author_by_night]

Those are all perfectly valid ways of enjoying media, but wires can get crossed when people have different expectations about what talking about a show will look like, and when they think their expectations are universal or the default.



Definitely part of the problem. Now that I think about it, I once had the opposite problem, where I was the only one in a community who wanted deeper conversations, and I definitely thought my stance was the default. I hate to admit it, but I was actually a bit of a brat, because I was like "what do you mean you all want to discuss the actors, and not the deeper motivations of each character?" So, it makes sense that some people may not even be trying to be rude or miss the point, their "point" is just different. You say tomato, I say tomato.

where someone rejects the idea that conscious choices were made by multiple people in the writing, directing, acting, and editing of a show, and the idea that different choices could have been made.

Yes! This has occurred to me as well. Okay, I get that they're fictional characters, but people actively sat down and wrote those characters. Then, yes, someone directed them. Sometimes actors are part of the writing and/or production team, too.