A post about something loathesome
Mar. 16th, 2004 06:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fiat_knoxOkay, so I haven't posted on this board for some time. So sue me if I speak my mind - which means to say, not that often.
Today's rant ... soaps. And why they, and most television, are the closest thing I have to something I hate.
Soaps are loathesome shows. They predate the cheap and cheerful fashions of modern day Daytime TV, all camp gardening, camp home and beauty makeover shows, camp auction and car boot sale bargain shows and camp and tawdry chat shows by some years.
Soaps predate the obnoxious fad of docusoaps, "World's Best," "World's Worst," "World's Scariest", "From Hell" and ghastly "reality TV" shows by as many years. They have a pedigree, like old and mature gut worms.
And, like gut worms, soaps are a cultural parasite.
A true parasite keeps its host alive, while at the same time sucking out more than its fair share of nutrients which would otherwise turn the host into a healthy specimen. The host becomes slow, sluggish and often bloats out - all the better to allow predators to catch and kill the host, thus allowing the parasite's eggs to spread to the next part of its cycle.
Soaps fulfill all of the criteria of parasites. The money that would otherwise be used by TV programmers to come up with genuine, culturally relevant TV shows is siphoned off by the soaps to produce more of the same tired old plots.
Of which there are three, endlessly recycled: births, marriages and deaths.
More frequently seen than the others, the Great Soap Marriage is the staple of many a soap plotline, because it is the easiest to put together, it requires no additional cast members to be added to the cast list and it requires no current actor to leave the soap ("be written out of the script.")
It allows the audience to sit back and weep sentimentally into hankies when the priest utters the same, tired, boring f*cking words; it allows the obligatory moment of so-called "drama" when someone invariably pops their head up to object to the marriage the moment the priest states "If there is anyone present who objects to this marriage, please say so now or forever hold your peace."
Soap marriages become an excuse for the most tired - sounding, tedious marriage vows in all of human endeavour, as the scriptwriters fumble to put words in the mouths of their puppets and, instead, come up with lines of unutterable cheesiness such as:-
- "You are a part of me, you complete me, like the stars in the sky, the wind beneath my wings."
- "I swear to you, I will always love you."
- "As the ocean is to the shore, so I shall be to you,"
etc. etc. yadda yadda pass the f*cking sick bag.
Another loathesome thing, as far as I can tell, is the way that one particular soap uses sexualised poses and images in the opening credits to grab the viewers, mostly male, and lure them in to watching the damned soap alongside women. The soap is an Australian abomination called Home and Away, and its opening theme sequence shows all the cast's faces drifting lazily across the screen.
What really sets my teeth on edge with this sequence is that, as the images of the universally pretty women are just about to leave the screen, they are always shown dipping their heads slightly, looking askance at the camera and giving it that "come f*ck me" look. Just as they are going off screen, mind you: and no, there's no sign of the same behaviour in the blokes, or in the old biddies who also populate this abhorrent piece of Aussie excrement. Only the women, some of whom are supposed to be barely legal, even sometimes f*cking underage.
Frickin abominable.
What's my point in all of this? My point is very simple.
Soaps con women into believing that everyone has a soulmate waiting for them Somewhere Out There.
I've met women who strongly believe that Their Great Soul Mate lies just outside of sensor range, waiting for them to wander around a corner and Bump Into Them. This ... fiction ... is about as realistic as tales of Bigfoot or Nessie. Yet still millions of women are conned, daily, into believing that this myth is true.
And the most dangerous perpetrators of this ghastly myth are soaps.
Yeah, soaps have a lot to answer for.
Do I have any answers for this? Not as yet, beyond the usual "Switch off the bloody TV set and go and use your time in an interesting way."
Today's rant ... soaps. And why they, and most television, are the closest thing I have to something I hate.
Soaps are loathesome shows. They predate the cheap and cheerful fashions of modern day Daytime TV, all camp gardening, camp home and beauty makeover shows, camp auction and car boot sale bargain shows and camp and tawdry chat shows by some years.
Soaps predate the obnoxious fad of docusoaps, "World's Best," "World's Worst," "World's Scariest", "From Hell" and ghastly "reality TV" shows by as many years. They have a pedigree, like old and mature gut worms.
And, like gut worms, soaps are a cultural parasite.
A true parasite keeps its host alive, while at the same time sucking out more than its fair share of nutrients which would otherwise turn the host into a healthy specimen. The host becomes slow, sluggish and often bloats out - all the better to allow predators to catch and kill the host, thus allowing the parasite's eggs to spread to the next part of its cycle.
Soaps fulfill all of the criteria of parasites. The money that would otherwise be used by TV programmers to come up with genuine, culturally relevant TV shows is siphoned off by the soaps to produce more of the same tired old plots.
Of which there are three, endlessly recycled: births, marriages and deaths.
More frequently seen than the others, the Great Soap Marriage is the staple of many a soap plotline, because it is the easiest to put together, it requires no additional cast members to be added to the cast list and it requires no current actor to leave the soap ("be written out of the script.")
It allows the audience to sit back and weep sentimentally into hankies when the priest utters the same, tired, boring f*cking words; it allows the obligatory moment of so-called "drama" when someone invariably pops their head up to object to the marriage the moment the priest states "If there is anyone present who objects to this marriage, please say so now or forever hold your peace."
Soap marriages become an excuse for the most tired - sounding, tedious marriage vows in all of human endeavour, as the scriptwriters fumble to put words in the mouths of their puppets and, instead, come up with lines of unutterable cheesiness such as:-
- "You are a part of me, you complete me, like the stars in the sky, the wind beneath my wings."
- "I swear to you, I will always love you."
- "As the ocean is to the shore, so I shall be to you,"
etc. etc. yadda yadda pass the f*cking sick bag.
Another loathesome thing, as far as I can tell, is the way that one particular soap uses sexualised poses and images in the opening credits to grab the viewers, mostly male, and lure them in to watching the damned soap alongside women. The soap is an Australian abomination called Home and Away, and its opening theme sequence shows all the cast's faces drifting lazily across the screen.
What really sets my teeth on edge with this sequence is that, as the images of the universally pretty women are just about to leave the screen, they are always shown dipping their heads slightly, looking askance at the camera and giving it that "come f*ck me" look. Just as they are going off screen, mind you: and no, there's no sign of the same behaviour in the blokes, or in the old biddies who also populate this abhorrent piece of Aussie excrement. Only the women, some of whom are supposed to be barely legal, even sometimes f*cking underage.
Frickin abominable.
What's my point in all of this? My point is very simple.
Soaps con women into believing that everyone has a soulmate waiting for them Somewhere Out There.
I've met women who strongly believe that Their Great Soul Mate lies just outside of sensor range, waiting for them to wander around a corner and Bump Into Them. This ... fiction ... is about as realistic as tales of Bigfoot or Nessie. Yet still millions of women are conned, daily, into believing that this myth is true.
And the most dangerous perpetrators of this ghastly myth are soaps.
Yeah, soaps have a lot to answer for.
Do I have any answers for this? Not as yet, beyond the usual "Switch off the bloody TV set and go and use your time in an interesting way."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 12:53 pm (UTC)As for the dilemma of the soulmate issue, well, unfortunately, it's because the idea of having only one soulmate is pushed over the idea of perhaps having more than one. And women (and some men) wander around for years passing up men that could be the one (or even one of the ones) because they don't immediately feel "right". I think the idea of soulmates is a good idea. I think it exists. But I sadly think that a lot of people miss out on some wonderful time with people who could make them very happy simply because that person isn't the one.
Re: Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 02:44 pm (UTC)But within the context of soaps, this is the sort of baseless myth that's allowed to fester, giving women everywhere the fervent hope that the ending of "Pretty Woman" will happen to them, before dashing those hopes with the inevitable "torrid scheming love rat husband" plot that follows the Great Soap Wedding with the same tired, cliched inevitability as the ad breaks.
And I reserve my special loathing and cynicism towards the soaps which, after forty years, turn their eyes towards the teenage audience all of a sudden, creating plotlines of lurid lesbian sexual awakening at fourteen and underage sexual dramas for the sole purpose of catching the pubescent kids just as they're just starting to turn into adults.
Let me share a small but salient point about the makeup of my personality on this lj which explains the cause of my cynicism. No, wait: I'll make it the topic of a full brand new post ...
Re: Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 03:38 pm (UTC)And I would see nothing wrong with a 14 year old girl discovering that she is a lesbian as a bad thing. And if they show it in media that other teens can see where they can realize that they aren't wrong for finding themselves different from the "norm", then there will be, IMO, healthier teens. Certainly better that they say, "Hey, I'm gay, no big deal. I love myself for me," rather than putting a bullet in their brains for feeling that they're sinful and wrong and evil for being gay.
You can dislike soaps all you want. But you really ought to be careful judging others harshly for liking something you dislike. Otherwise, you're going to find yourself equally judged as harshly for liking the shows you like. It's a battle with hypocrisy. You might want others to like what you do, but not everyone will. And no one is forcing you to like what they like. It's simply a matter of turning off the t.v. if you see something you don't want to watch.
Re: Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 06:25 pm (UTC)> Okay, you might have a point there. But
> teenagers are going to be hormonal and they're
> going to fall in love with other teenagers and
> they're going to express themselves sexually with > other teenagers and there is nothing wrong with > that.
Except that, cariad, it's breaking the law for both parties, no matter how much they want it, if they indulge in sex below the age of consent in whatever country they are in.
Doesn't matter how romantic it seems, underage sex is illegal as all hell, and participants in it are technically known as paedophiles (even if they are both 14) because, below the age of consent, they are still regarded as children in the eyes of the Law.
And soaps do little or nothing to actually point this truth out to the audience. Where are the cautionary tales? Where are the STIs? The unwanted pregnancies at age thirteen? The heartache of being the promising student being forced to leave school before her time, to bring up a child unwanted and unacknowledged by her own parents?
These consequences are never mentioned in any soaps, because they're not glamourous stories. They are not romantic stories. And they do not, generally, have happy endings.
And where are the ratings in that, eh?
This is about the topic of soaps, not about underage sex.
It's about how soaps glamourise topics and never explore consequences; it's about how they show entirely the wrong sorts of people becoming undeservedly successful, while the intelligent, driven individuals are quickly written out of the script and replaced with more unimaginative drone characters whose motivations could have been generated by a computer program, like RPG character generator software.
"Okay, so the English Professor who really gives his students motivation to study ... he's out. Word from on high is, the audience doesn't need to actually hear lines from Yeats and Shakespeare. Long hair stuff's bad for the ratings."
"Okay, then. Schedule the fatal car crash for next Friday's episode. Who've we got to replace him?"
"Er, what's the next character on the Rolodex?"
"Single Mum, blonde, pretty at 21, baby boy, looking for love. Gets married to the Lonely Bachelor."
"Oh yeah, we've got one of them, working down the pub. Had him since three months ago. I've been looking for a plot for him."
"Good one. We'll hook him up with her. All right, schedule the wedding plot for ... oh, Autumn."
"Good idea. New season starts then. Reel 'em in with yer standard happy weepie wedding show."
"Er, didn't I start that guy off on a plot where he explores his sexuality and discovers he's actually gay?"
"Did we do that?"
"Sure. he got a gay kiss scene last Monday. Ratings through the roof."
"Sure, but that was last Monday. He can recant now, turn straight again."
"Gays don't recant out of the blue. It's genetic."
"The viewers wouldn't know the difference. You think anyone smart enough to figure that out's going to be watching drivel like this?"
"Okay, then ... Lonely bachelor loses his boyfriend ... *inspiration dawns* ... as boyfriend runs off with the English Professor. Kid always fancied the old screamer after all."
"Oh great. Lots of flames, too. Make it look like the flames of Perdition."
"Great. That's a wrap. Where's the cocaine?"
And so on.
Re: Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 07:33 pm (UTC)And the laws that were made indicating that 14-year-olds having sex is illegal were made by right-wing conservatives who Bible-thump their beliefs right beyond the Separation of Church and State deal. It's ridiculous. It's one thing to protect a child from an actual real pedophile. It's another thing to impede the exploration that all teens go through in growing up. If they're taught that sex is illegal and a sin, then they're more likely to grow up with hang-ups about sex and never have a truly happy and healthy life. They'll either freeze up and fear sex and life or they'll go completely the other direction and take chances with their health by fucking around indiscriminantly. Rather if teens were taught that sex is a beautiful and wonderful thing between responsible parties, done safely and carefully, then there's no reason why teens shouldn't engage in sex.
The law, most of the time, was made merely to hold people back under control. Law is abused right and left by the people who are supposed to be enforcing it.
You're entitled to your opinon...
...as I'm entitled to mine.
Re: Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 07:11 pm (UTC)> liking something you dislike.
Oh hells, luv, it's not the viewers I'm judging. It's the soaps, for being the thieves of time and of life that they are.
Every half hour stolen by a soap is a half hour you could have spent doing something for yourself, seizing the gift of life, sharing it with others in a meaningful way, instead of allowing some stranger to spend it for you.
> Otherwise, you're going to find yourself equally
> judged as harshly for liking the shows you like.
I don't watch soaps. I read books. I write. I'm online during the Soap Hour on TV, chatting to real people whom I love instead of staring goggle eyed at fictional people on the screen. Judge me on that.
> It's a battle with hypocrisy.
One of the biggest British soaps had a young lad discover that he was gay. He had a gay kiss scene - the first one the show had dared to exhibit. The company explained, with all solemnity, that they were going to show the scene with dignity and respect for the gay community.
Fourteen million viewers watched it.
Two weeks later, out of nowhere, he recants. He's straight all along. Not only that ... he never was gay in the first place. The gay scene was apocryphal.
Who's being hypocritical?
> You might want others to like what you do, but not > everyone will.
The TV companies certainly would not. I object to them taking money I give them, and wasting it on stuff I do not want to watch.
I fight this by boycotting the brand name products they advertise during their ad breaks. If I don't spend on Persil and Ariel and Adidas, I don't pay the companies, and I can spend my money on things I choose to enjoy, like books or having a good time with my (admittedly) tiny circle of friends.
> And no one is forcing you to like what they like.
Says who?
On the average, 25% - 35% of prime time programming on British TV is soaps. Coronation Street, EastEnders, Neighbours, Home and Away, Family Affairs, Doctors, Hollyoaks, and the late and unlamented Brookside and High Road - not to mention Byker Grove and Grange Hill, bloody kiddie soaps that start them off before they've even been given their dole cards.
And then there are the second repeats, the omnibus editions, the "Specials," the faux soaps like Dawson's Creek, Six Feet Under, ER etc etc.
> It's simply a matter of turning off the t.v. if
> you see something you don't want to watch.
Or, indeed, not turning the bloody thing on in the first place.
Re: Well...
Date: 2004-03-16 07:47 pm (UTC)The same can be said of any t.v. show. Including those that you so religiously follow. Trust me, CSI (either of them) are no more "real" than any soap out there. This has been confirmed for law students (one of whom is a close friend of mine) by professors who are lawyers, judges, cops. While I may not trust the legal profession, I will say that from my experience with the justice system, there is no technology out there that even comes close to those faerytales they show on dramas like CSI or any of those other shows.
I don't watch soaps. I read books. I write. I'm online during the Soap Hour on TV, chatting to real people whom I love instead of staring goggle eyed at fictional people on the screen. Judge me on that.
You tape various shows and watch them religiously. You share each detail of each episode with me. You get as jazzed about what's on those shows as some people get over soaps. And before you react, I'm not judging you for this. Those shows are your interests. I think it's great you like them. Just allow others to like what they like, even if it's something you don't care for. You may read and be online during the soap time. But you also have t.v. shows you like and watch. As is your right to!
Two weeks later, out of nowhere, he recants. He's straight all along. Not only that ... he never was gay in the first place. The gay scene was apocryphal.
Who's being hypocritical?
He's an actor. That's his job. To play a role and make it believable. He doesn't have to be gay to play a gay role. In fact, a show that I very much like now Queer as Folk has just such a person. One of the main gay guys is played by a very straight man. He's a great actor. He kisses other men in the show (very convincingly) and is in scenes that depict very homosexual sex. Also very convincing. He's straight. I don't think that anyone holds that against him. In fact, if anything, he's to be respected and commended for not being so insecure about his own lifestyle to be afraid to play a very homosexual character. He's an actor. He's playing a character.
The TV companies certainly would not. I object to them taking money I give them, and wasting it on stuff I do not want to watch.
But other people watch those shows by their choice. And it's every bit as much their money paying for what they want to see. And you are paying for shows that you like that others may not want to see. Not everyone likes CSI, luv. But they pay for it just the same as you pay for the soaps.
Says who?
Seriously, luv, no one is forcing you to watch these shows. Would you force people to watch only the shows that you like? I'm sorry, but I choose not to watch CSI and the other shows similar to it. They're not my cup of tea. There are a lot of shows like it on t.v. So, basically, I don't watch t.v. if that's all that's on. I put on a movie. I put on music. I watch channels that don't have those types of shows. And if that's all that's on, I find something else to do. I don't stress over it. No one is forcing me to watch those shows. And I hope that it stays that way. But it's ultimately my choice as to whether or not I actually watch it.
Or, indeed, not turning the bloody thing on in the first place.
Exactly. Therefore, you can hate soaps all you want. But they clearly have a place within society as they give pleasure to some people. That's why t.v. is so blissfully diverse. To please all the viewers at some point or another. That's the beauty of being individuals. Our individual tastes. Means we can appreciate all the forms of art out there...even those types of art that some people can't stand.