There's some metafandom-ed posts about Supernatural and class, and at least one flocked post on my flist thinking about it in the abstract, and it's gotten me to revisit my thoughts, because class really does color the way I view fictional characters quite deeply. Well, maybe not class per se, since I've said things like that in the past and been
(
Read more... )
I think all three are acceptable. Bizarre, perhaps, and limiting one's potential enjoyment, but perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is RL prejudice against those groups - saying you don't want to work with them or send your kids to school with them. But personal preferences in entertainment are something else. I freely admit to being less interested in female characters than in male ones, partly because I am a woman and know how they work already, partly because as a straight woman I can't fantasise about them. Many of my students won't read books or watch TV shows about old people, whom they find boring. They'll change, as time catches up with them, but right now their preference is understandable and their own affair.
Reply
I'm middle class and from the 'burbs. So the trails of blue collar life don't really ring true with me. But I don't think that my not watching "The King of Queens" makes me a snob. I think it makes me someone who can look at a show and go "I don't think this one is for me."
Also, what would really be the solution here? People watch a lot of TV shows that they don't want to and don't like just to be PC? Also, if minorities don't watch shows with white people in them aren't they guilty of the same thing? What about poor people who don't watch shows about well off folks? Is not liking the rich because they're rich in some way better than not liking the poor because they're poor?
Lastly, isn't the most important thing in ALL of TV the question of if the show is actually any good to start with?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I suppose a 50/50 split across the board is unrealistic. I can think of a fair number of shows with an odd number of main characters, after all.
Reply
It's an interesting question; it'd take charts and graphs to find out.
Reply
I'm still not sure about that much even. I'll have to think about it. (Excuse to watch TV!)
Reply
In "Dharma and Greg," Dharma and her family & friends are supposed to be outcast hippie-freaks in SF. Setting aside the notion of several outcast hippie-freaks having their own nifty apartments in neighborhoods where Greg's family isn't terrified to visit... none of them seem to be employed at supermarkets or record stores (or three different shops); none of them are wearing oversized, ugly secondhand clothes when they're just hanging around the house; their kitchen appliances all work... I thought there must be some kind of trust fund involved.
*tries to think of other "working class" tv shows; I don't watch much network tv*
Hell, what are the "working class" shows?
Reply
As for "blue collar" shows, well, I just take that as meaning shows where the characters don't have much money. But, honestly, that's a pretty shallow way of looking at it. Since not having much money or having a traditionally blue collar job doesn't mean that the person acts in ways typically connected to the blue collar lifestyle.
Reply
"Married With Children"... another fine example, even setting aside the size of the house (maybe there's a housing code issue with the place, and the landlord knows that if he kicks them out, he'll have to fix it before he can rent it again), of writing that has no idea how a family can survive on a single salesman's income.
not having much money or having a traditionally blue collar job doesn't mean that the person acts in ways typically connected to the blue collar lifestyle.
I dunno about that. Poverty shapes people's lives in ways that are frighteningly consistent. And while TV, especially sitcoms, are going to show a distorted, mocking view of that (and I don't have a problem with that), it'd be nice if I got the idea that ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment