"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.