Carrie from Sex and the City is annoying

[Zergling]

I've been watching the last season of the show, and it continuously jumps out how this character has not seemed to grow and develop, and is not faced with situations in the show that challenge a character weakness. (unlike the other three, where a lot of the stories as the show went on seemed to be about putting the characters into situations they would not have wanted to be in)

Carrie seems to be, in MBTI function terms, an Fe Fi with everything else underdeveloped who makes a lot of decisions based on personal values/emotions and "what should happen", but has difficulty with using outside information, logic, common sense, etc. in figuring out how to handle different sorts of situations.

(I have mentioned this stuff in a post before, I think, but I'll mention it here to use my blog for something aside from "ho-hum, day to day" stuff.)

i do have a couple guesses on how the character ended up the way it did, one is that show politics made it harder to write the character into tougher situations. The other is that there weren't as many pressures to put the Carrie character into odder situations. The creators of the show apparently wanted to use several archetypes to create the characters, but also wanted to make them "feminine", so Miranda as the last femalish ended up getting "softened". The show is about the people having lots of sex and relationship issues, so Charlotte had to get softened up a bit in her traditional views to be able to fit in, plus her views and Samantha's views on sex/relationships provide a much more obvious way to stick the characters in odd situations, while the Carrie character didn't start with such an obvious reason to have to face weaknesses, and also had less pressure to be changed around a bit.

 

[heart]

That is a good analysis of it. That show really got tedious as it went on. It might have been better for them to let the characters get married and into parenthood for more challenge ideas and the challenge of having romantic/sex life and career with parenthood, than what they did which seemed like stretching dysfunctionality into the unbelievable.

When Carrie dumped Aiden (sp?) I just lost all patience with the show.

 

[Guest]

I've been watching the last season of the show, and it continuously jumps out how this character has not seemed to grow and develop, and is not faced with situations in the show that challenge a character weakness. (unlike the other three, where a lot of the stories as the show went on seemed to be about putting the characters into situations they would not have wanted to be in)

Interesting thread. Very retro.

One of the most basic premises of a typical sitcom is that the characters shoudn't grow or mature from one episode to the next. At the end of each individual episode the characters typically learn some important life lesson, but by the start of the next episode they're as clueless as before and still playing out the same conflicts and problems as all the previous episodes and seasons. All the previous life lessons from all the previous episodes have been conveniently forgotten.

Though not a typical sitcom, the same rules pretty much applied in the case of "Sex and the City." The women stumbled and bumbled from one toxic relationship to the next, presumably learning important lessons about relationships and life with each new failure, but ultimately making the same mistakes over and over again.

It was only when they finally settled down with someone for good in the last couple seasons that that the characters in "Sex and the City" really seemed to grow. But that also killed off the premise of the show--stumbling and bumbling through relationships. In the last season or two the characters were settling down, the men in their lives largely turned into supportive non-entities, and the characters began to grapple with other kinds of life problems: for example, cancer (Samantha), baby-rearing (Miranda), Alzheimer's (Miranda), sterility and adoption (Charlotte). But I think that this change in approach also killed off a lot of the show's fun. On the plus side, the growth of the characters gave the show depth and brought it up to date; but ultimately it also killed a lot of the fun. Part of the fun of the early seasons was the fact that these women were bubbly, giddy, and indestructible. By the later seasons they became more human and even tragic. The last couple seasons were darker and less fun.

It also left Carrie as the last character still working out the original premise of the show. And like you said, in comparison to the problems of the other women, Carrie and her problems began to seem increasingly shallow and silly. The other women had grown (but also violated the premise of the show that characters aren't supposed to grow). Carrie remained true to the premise of the show, but hadn't grown.

I'm sure many people will argue that growth is good. But I'll just reiterate that there's a good reason that characters should not grow on sitcoms: Growth tends to kill off the fun of the original premise. (Again, "Sex in the City" wasn't exactly a sitcom, but it basically worked according to the rules of sitcoms.)

So I'm basically agreeing with the OP. But I'm disagreeing that growth is automatically good. In fact, I would say that growth made the last couple seasons darker and more dramatic/tragic than the earlier seasons, and basically growth ruined the last season outright by making the lead character look out of place and silly.

 

[Guest]

When Carrie dumped Aiden (sp?) I just lost all patience with the show.

Aidan was an interesting character. The show usually spelled out the various ways that the men or the relationships were toxic. But the show didn't spell out the way that Aidan was toxic. So in the end, Carrie took the hit as the toxic partner in that relationship, i.e., cheating on Aidan, refusing to commit, and in general being too shallow to enjoy a good thing.

But the episodes contained a lot of symbolism about the way Aidan was toxic. He was a smothering Earth-father, bulldozing into Carrie's life, judging her, mentoring her, and trying to change everything about her. There were lots of visuals of Carrie being smothered, being stifled, Aidan physically lurking over Carrie and invading her space, Aidan jackhammering through her bedroom wall, etc. And in turn, Carrie spent most of that relationship on the run, fleeing, sneaking, engaging in little and big infidelities, and generally trying to get out from under Aidan's thumb.

One can argue that Aidan's influence might have been good for Carrie in the long run. But the show basically portrayed Aidan as a smothering, toxic, controlling figure, i.e., not a good match for a "free spirit" like Carrie.

 

[heart]

No one is perfect, man will be without some flaws. For Carrie to prefer chasing after the cold and selfish Big really made me lose any sense of reality about her character. The suspension of disbelief was gone for me. She reminds me of all the women in my life who whine about the bad boys they chase who end up hurting them over and over.

 

[Guest]

^^^

Well, that sort of gets back to what I said in my earlier post: Really, all of the relationships were supposed to be toxic. (And Aidan was just as toxic as the rest.) It killed the show when the basic premise of the show was abandoned and the women finally began stumbling one by one into decent long-term relationships.

 

[heart]

It could be argued that with Aiden, Carrie didn't push back enough. All relationships will go toxic if one person allows themselves to be disrespected. She also allowed Big to disrespect her time and time again. Maybe it could even be argued that she short changes the men who love her by being too soft with them, they are never forced out of their own perspectives to give and take in the relationships. Maybe Big was hesitiant because he became bored at some level and didn't understand why.


It is a good point that Zergling makes that the character herself is based on a total F type archetype with no grounding T to help her stand her ground. The other characters need softening but Carrie needs hardening.

 

[Guest]

^^

Good post, Heart. It's fun to play around with the premise of the show and try to figure out which characters needed to do the growing, which characters were irretrievably toxic, and what the show was saying about relationships.

For example, I think that the show was saying that Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha needed to do growing before they could find good relationships.

1) Miranda had Steve available to her all along; they even drifted in and out of a relationship together. But she was too "independent" and resented giving up her autonomy for the sake of boyfriends. But then she started having increasing paranoia and even panic attacks about being alone all the time; when she accidentally got pregnant, she welcomed the opportunity to have the baby in her life. But then she realized she couldn't raise the baby alone; she made room in her life for the housekeeper and then eventually Steve and a house in the suburbs. So the growth occurred on her part--trading independence for a family.

2) Charlotte's story is more or less the same. She spent most of the series chasing an ideal of love and crashing and burning when the reality didn't live up to the ideal. Growth occurred when she gave up the ideal and accepted the reality of the bald, Jewish, hairy, socially awkward divorce lawyer.

3) Samantha is the same. Growth occurred when she got cancer and one of her boy toys stuck around and supported her. So she gave up the ideal of always being young and fabulous and accepted that she could be loved for herself.

So each of the first three characters had to go through a fundamental change before they could find love, and in each case love was more or less right in front of them; they had just been too caught up in their own ideal of love or life to see it.

Carrie Bradshaw seems different, though. She is a stand-in for the author of the original book on which the series is based (Candace Bushnell), and she's a love/sex columnist and thus is assumed to have some additional insight (she is in a position to observe everyone else's relationships and comment on them and point out what's wrong with them).

In Carrie's case, it's usually the guys who are the problem; they are usually still emotional children, and they're the ones who need to grow up in order to be functional for a long-term relationship. Berger is a neurotic who can't handle Carrie's success, Big can't commit to relationships, Aidan is a control freak, Petrovsky ("the Russian") is self-involved, etc. So Carrie is put in the position of giving them a chance, finding out what's wrong with them, and then waiting them out and seeing if they'll grow up. Big is the most obvious example of this: Carrie is fully aware of what's wrong with him, but she tries to make the relationship work a couple different times in the hope that one day he'll grow up and really commit to the relationship.

Zergling didn't say if he has finished the last season, so I don't want to say how the problem is resolved. But in the end it's not Carrie who grows and changes. So the assumption of the series is that Carrie was actually a mature woman all along and the men were the ones who were immature and unworthy of her. In the final episode, one of the men had to undergo a sort of trial (the meeting with the friends) and prove that he had sufficiently grown up in order to claim her.

There are some indications in the series that Carrie could do some growing herself. In one episode she visits a psychologist and is diagnosed as "always falling in love with men who are bad for her" or something like that. So presumably she's at least partly to blame in for choosing immature men. But that theme isn't pushed, and the final episode of the series kind of vindicates Carrie and her approach to men.

As for Aidan and pushing back: As NFs, you and I can maybe see where it might be possible to negotiate with Aidan and turn a toxic relationship into a workable one over time. But clearly Carrie is no NF; it's just a bad match. Aidan overwhelms her physically and emotionally, and Carrie is simply crushed by him. In fact when Carrie does try to push back and postpone the wedding, Aidan agrees initially; but then Aidan provokes a big fight over it and insists that they fly out to Vegas and get married immediately, and that's when they break up. Aidan simply refuses to relinquish control.

Also, the series seems to demonstrate some rules for relationships. One of the big ones is that you shouldn't try to change the other person (all of the women ruin relationships by trying to change their men, and that's the mistake that Carrie keeps making with Big--she occasionally tries to change him and just ends up ruining whatever relationship they have). So according to the rules of the show, it would never work for her to try to change Aidan.

Just my opinion, of course. There's a lot of room for interpretation here.

 

[heart]

What type do you think Carrie is? On the board they were thinking she was NF.

Yes, I am glad you know I am just playing around with ideas, shooting my opinions off, lol. I just don't much like Carrie's character to begin with, too squishy for me,irks me, so I don't have the best view of her to start from, I admit that.

 

[Guest]

I think she comes off as pretty ESxx. As a commentator (sex columnist), a lot of her role is as earth mother--the glue holding her group together, a non-judgmental, supportive presence no matter what kind of predicaments the others get into. In fact, one of her problems in her relationship with Big is that the other women are quick to condemn her, and she can't get the kind of support in return that she would provide to them.

But that role makes her more reactive than proactive--"squishy." Her job is simply to observe and try to figure out the rules, so she doesn't judge or steer.

On the other hand, she is into rules. She parses each new situation carefully and with a lot of attention to developing details. Ultimately, at the end of the show, she pronounces and establishes the lesson to be learned from the situation. In some ways, she comes off as J. As far as she's concerned, love has a rulebook and she is trying to decode it. She gets very persnickety when boyfriends don't observe basic rules of dating courtesy.

She also doesn't try to work out patterns, per se. Her friends are individuals, their predicaments are taken in isolation, and Carrie doesn't try to determine repetitive themes in their lives or diagnose them. All the situations are examined through a microscope, close up and immersed in the experience, rather than from a broad overview.

OTOH, it's hard to say much more than that. Carrie is the most chameleon-like of the characters. She becomes whatever the role requires. As commentator she floats above everything and reflects rather than judges or steers. She's a story-teller who loves the heroines of the stories she tells in her column (her friends), and she simply tries to portray them honestly and in detail; and in turn Carrie herself is one of Carrie's own characters to be portrayed in the column as well.

Just my quick, off-the cuff evaluation.

 

[heart]

That is a good observation of her, really.

 

[Tigerlily]

I like Carrie but I never liked Aiden. I avoided all of the shows with him in it the second viewing time around.

I suppose Miranda would be my favorite character because I can relate to her cynicism. I relate to Charlotte because I too was looking for "the one" who I finally found when I was 28. Samantha's alright, but I've never been one to sleep around so I really don't have anything in common with her.

Zerg you probably don't like Carrie because she is somewhat materialistic. I can't see an INTP involved with a women with an $800 shoe fetish.

I'm glad Carrie ended up with Big. He's so sexy.

 

[Zergling]

It's not the materialism that get me, I just accept that as a premise of the show.

It's more how the character handles interpersonal situations that get annoying after awhile, even outside relationships. there are a lot of times watching some Carrie scene in the show when it's uncomfortable to watch, thanks to me thinking from the other person's point of view.

for some examples: when trying to get back with Aidan, it never seemed to occur to her, or stick in her mind when mentioned, that Aidan might be angry at the affair. there's also the aidan and Steve bar opening, where it doesn't seem to occur to Carrie that trying to duck out of the bar opening because of an ex could be kind of rude for the person going to the bar despite there being an ex there. When talking to Petrovsky about his friend with cancer, it never seemed to occur to her that this person probably had more life experience with these types of things, and that it could be useful in helping her deal with it. (There are others as well, of course).

 

[Zergling]

Though not a typical sitcom, the same rules pretty much applied in the case of "Sex and the City." The women stumbled and bumbled from one toxic relationship to the next, presumably learning important lessons about relationships and life with each new failure, but ultimately making the same mistakes over and over again.

I'm wondering if seeing the show on DVD vs. T.V. effects how well the "characters never change" ends up being viewed. On DVD, it got pretty repetitive a bit into season 2, (which is why I skipped a bunch of the shows, instead just reading the general stories that went on to get important information for later shows), on T.V. the longer time between shows may take care of this somewhat.

Having said that, I like the later shows about as much as the earlier shows, they are slightly different, but they are still fun to watch just to see the characters handling situations out of their element. (This is a matter of taste, though)

Carrie does seem to present a lot of "typing" difficulties, she does seem to fit a strong F type, but also seems to fit fineline's descriptions, which seem to not fully fit together as descriptions. (I suppose ESFJ would be the one to pick, though this is as likely as not a case where other character traits are more important than "type" ones".)