I read as much of the original article as I could, and believe I read all of the essential parts. I think that his analysis makes some good points, but is largely off mark.
First of all, he starts off by saying that his task of watching the entire series began as a quest to determine where the show lots its appeal, which he believes was somewhere around Season 14/the early 2000s. He argues that the show began to decline in quality after losing its focus as an "absurdist comedy," and moving towards more complex character development. This is the first problem: the Simpsons is not primarily an absurdist comedy. It is fundamentally a sitcom, and adheres to all of the major hallmarks of the sitcom genre. Sure, it makes absurdist jokes which are memorable and meme-worthy, but that does not nearly explain its original or enduring appeal to audiences.
The main hallmarks of the sitcom genre are:
- Stable setting and small cast of recurring characters
- Episodic, circular narrative structure, in which the same premise undergoes tension, only to be returned to normality
- An overall aesthetic which underlies the text's artificiality (I think the absurdist jokes play into this. The show also makes use of breaking the fourth wall moments, and other devices to achieve this aim. A laugh track is another common example in sitcoms.)
- Comedic impetus/jokes, obviously
Another important function of sitcoms—and all successful comedy, at that—is to address the many contradictions, frustrations, and anxieties of life, and offer us some release from these through humour. The sitcom episode's structure typically goes like this: there is a premise of a (relatively, relatably) mainstream social/living situation; some kind of disruption is introduced which destabilises the norms of that premise; this leads to some kind of climax which may end in success, but usually defeat; and in the conclusion, things are ultimately resolved and returned back to the premise.
The author of the article is correct when he says that the following happens to Lisa. His summary of Lisa's plight is also a summary of the typical sitcom narrative structure.
Local Man said:
- Lisa is Gifted.
- Lisa is Punished for her Gift.
- Lisa Needs Help From Others to Escape her Punishment.
- [Lisa Tries to Share her Gift with the World.]
- [Lisa’s Gift is Rejected.]
- The Status Quo Ante is Restored; Everyone’s Pain is Healed Except for Lisa’s.
I think he's a bit off mark with this, however:
Local Man said:
You start to notice how often Lisa features in the show as the victim of unjust or even meaningless punishment – that is, how often she suffers for no real reason, and how seldom her suffering is redressed in any meaningful way. The other members of the central family – Homer, Bart, Marge, even Grandpa and Maggie – are generally rewarded for their troubles with growth, or love, or with the approval of the community (no matter how many times Homer gets fired, his job is always waiting for him when he makes amends; no matter how many times Bart hurts people, his friends stick with him; etc); or they’re rewarded with a helpful amnesia, so that they never have to fundamentally repair their flaws. In this new Simpsons paradigm, almost all of the main characters find their needs met at the end of each storyline: Bart is reunited with Milhouse; Homer is reunited with Marge. As the show goes on, it becomes clearer and clearer that Lisa is the only member of the Simpson family who almost never gets what she wants and needs.
The author seems to think this only happens to Lisa, but I would argue that all of the principal characters, as well as a lot of supporting characters, undergo the same pattern of aspiring for something greater or different to the status quo, subsequently going through an ordeal or quest to achieve that, and then ultimately returning back to their original place, either with relief or some sadness. I don't have a mental rolodex of Simpsons knowledge, but I recall that episode where
Marge tries to re-alter the same old suit into different outfits, so that she can maintain a social calendar with a group of wealthier women. In doing this, she aspires to escape her social class. She also ultimately fails, and there's a return to the status quo. I guess Homer and Bart's aspirations for something beyond the norm are a bit more idiotic at times, but they are still aspirations towards something greater or different. I think Lisa's plight is more heartbreaking (this author seems to think she's essentially the show's punching bag) because compared with the other characters, she is the most earnest, hardworking, pure, and "good," and it seems that those traits, at least in the real world, should ultimately reward you, lead to happiness, and allow you to rise above mediocrity.
Lisa's character might be somewhat atypical in this way. Although, I can think of some other Smart Girlâ„¢ characters in other sitcoms who suffer in similar ways (e.g., Alex Dunphy in
Modern Family). I don't think Lisa's plight is pointless and defeating though. Without Lisa, it's possible that audiences would not identify with the Simpsons family much at all. She is a crucial part of the family's address to the mainstream, and an important foil to the more idiotic characters around her. It's also entirely possible for sitcoms to defeat their characters in a way that superficially seems to reinforce the status quo, yet simultaneously (and perhaps more covertly) challenge the status quo in ways that are quite progressive.
When the author says the following, I can't help but draw parallels between Lisa's narrative structure and the classic sitcom,
I Love Lucy.
Local Man said:
This pattern recurs with such frequency that it raises some disturbing questions about how The Simpsons represents both intellectual achievement and women. But first let’s look at some examples of what I mean when I talk about the pattern.
Local Man said:
Another reason for Lisa’s suffering is that The Simpsons endorses a deeply conservative view of the role of women in society. To be an unmarried childless woman, in The Simpsons, is to be pathetic. Look at Patti and Selma, or Edna Krabappel, or (in the later seasons) Lindsay Nagel. Happiness and normality, for the women of The Simpsons, reside in being married and having children, no matter how miserable this might make them.
[…]
The Simpsons, fundamentally, can’t accept the idea of a genuinely intelligent, self-determining woman who doesn’t shape her life around the needs of a man.
I Love Lucy was an enormously popular sitcom which ran in the 1950s. The sitcom focused on a working class married couple, housewife Lucy and her husband, Ricky. Across the show, Lucy aspires for something greater than her domestic role. The episodes typically focus on her attempts to break out of the domestic sphere, only for things to go horribly and hilariously wrong. Lucy fails, and the narrative returns to its premise with the Lucy and Ricky both returning to their respective gender roles in a truce. One of the main reasons why this sitcom was so popular was because it was successful in addressing the specific cultural/social contradictions, frustrations and anxieties of that time. In 1950s America, women were entering the workforce in greater numbers than they were in WWII. While the show's set-up might seem sexist by today's standards, the show challenged a lot of other social norms in ways that were progressive. While Lucy continues to fail, she's very persistent in her goal, and when you view the series as a whole, there's a greater critique of the domestic role of women. Lucy is also absolutely antithetical to the feminine housewife ideal of the 50s. She's completely disruptive, argumentative, impulsive, gluttonous, and a total clown. There was also a lot of off-screen stuff too. Lucy and Ricky were married in real life, and their romantic and creative partnership was shown to be quite egalitarian. Lucille Ball was also 40 when the show began its first season, and had her first child that same year. Her husband was a Cuban and 6 years her junior.
The thing is, while
I Love Lucy was enormously successful in the 1950s, it wouldn't have had nearly as much appeal 10 years later, and certainly not 20 years later. In many ways,
The Mary Tyler Moore show picked up where
I Love Lucy left off later in the 1970s, by depicting a single, working woman in her 30s. By the late 90s/early 2000s, audiences were ready for
Will and Grace, a sitcom with a principal gay character. In the 2010s, we have
Modern Family.
The author thinks that the Simpsons has lost its popularity over the years because its writers have chosen to invest in more meaningful character development. I think they needed to do this out of necessity. The show needed this complexity to endure and maintain audience investment in its characters. The Simpsons is almost 30 years old. A dysfunctional white (or yellow, I guess) family does not quite address the unique social/cultural contradictions of our times quite like they did back in the 90s or early 2000s. I think that the writers have tried to compensate for this somewhat by padding the show with pop culture references, or introducing new situations which reference political or cultural events.
On the animation front, they are also now competing with a plethora of other far more subversive animated series, most of which are available on major streaming services, where viewers prefer to watch them. I think that striking a deal with a major streaming service could certainly improve things, but negotiating those deals can be far more complex than many people appreciate, and the Simpsons is literally the longest running scripted television show of all time.
My personal feelings on this, however, are that the original premise of the show has expired in its ability to address the cultural/social moment in a way that is fresh and satisfying. It will always be an iconic show and a giant in American pop culture, but I think it's time to retire. I don't think any animated show will come close to eclipsing its shadow.
