I was watching reruns of "House" this afternoon when I realized that there were absolutely no normal people in the entire cast. Every single character has some manner of disorder, character flaw or other quirk. Even the supposedly staid and boring Dr. Wilson evolved very quickly into a mass of quirks and foibles. (Not to mention that from the start he was abnormally tolerant of House's own quirks and abuse.) I wondered for a moment whether it was unique to this show, but I quickly realized that most modern shows, and even shows going back quite a while, are filled with abnormal individuals.

At first this inspired me to write a short post, focusing on this observation. I was thinking it would be a rather amusing observation to point out that television and movies are such poor reflections of ordinary life, and are filled with so many extremely abnormal people, because we have to rely upon writers, and writers are, as a group, quite abnormal people. (Before any aspiring writers get up in arms, I am an aspiring writer myself, so just as I can criticize lawyers as a law school drop out, I feel perfectly fine calling writers out for their quirks.)

However, a little thought told me that it probably was not really the fault of the writers. After all, there are plenty of mercenary writers out there who would be happy to write normal if there was money in it. And in the past there had been plenty of television featuring relatively normal individuals and families, written by writers just as abnormal as they are today. No, the reason for today's excess of quirkiness is quite simple, our modern culture finds nothing of interest in normality, we think only extremes, quirkiness, evil, depravity, and other excesses will reveal any true "insight" into life. We are fascinated only by the most excessive behaviors, we revel in serial killers, are fascinated with the insane, and are intrigued by the unusual and bizarre. So it is not really the fault of the writers, but of the viewers. In fact, it is a good parallel to my post on politics, "Don't Blame the Politicians", as voters are to blame for politicians' actions, viewers are to blame for writers'. But that is not my topic today. It is interesting, but something else struck me as more interesting.

Writers might be appealing to viewers by adding countless quirks to their characters, by making each more bizarre than the last, but there is also a trap hidden in that pandering, giving too many nods to abnormality always, given enough time, results in a show going under, and, while every show eventually outstays its welcome (unless stopped early by choice or chance*), shows which focus on quirky characters in almost every case**, end much more quickly than others.

The reason for that tendency to self destruct is the focus of my post, that is the way that quirky characters impose a need to continually "top" themselves, forcing a continual escalation of oddity, until viewers tire of the peculiar antics. If this sounds familiar to my regular readers, it should, the process is, in many ways, similar to others I have discussed in earlier posts. But we will get to that in a moment. First, let us look at the problem of using too many quirky characters.

The basic principle is pretty simple to understand. Writers imagine viewers are bored by simple stories about ordinary individuals. They believe that to retain audience interest they must include characters who have quirks, flaws or other aberrations, making them ostensibly amusing or fascinating. However, there is a problem. After living with a given quirk for a time, it ceases to be interesting, becomes familiar, even ordinary, in a way, and no longer attracts interest. As a result, the writers of these series must find ways to add new quirks to the characters, to maintain interest by piling one deviant behavior on the other.  In addition, as the interactions of the characters require complications, to add some sort of movement to the plot, the writers have to add traits which will cause turmoil. Since they are already dealing with aberrant individuals, the sources of strife tend to be more aberrations. And so, over time, the characters become more and more abnormal. And, eventually, become so abnormal they are no longer sympathetic, or even intelligible, to the target audience, resulting in the show's rapid demise.

Beyond that obvious problem, there is another issue. Many times, a single character, sometimes the main protagonist, but often a a secondary character, or a character originally conceived as secondary, will attract considerable public attention. Once that happens,t he writers tend to focus more and more attention on this character, exaggerating those traits which made him or her interesting. And so, over time, what started as a minor, somewhat peculiar supporting character turns into a mass of quirks. I think the best examples may be found in the two shows I mentioned in the footnotes, "The Simpsons" and "Seinfeld". In both, secondary characters (Homer and Kramer), developed into major audience draws, and so, over time, their personality traits, mostly peculiar to say the least, were exaggerated until the characters became almost parodies of their original personalities***.

As I said, this may be interesting, but it is not, in itself, important enough to support a post. However, it is an interesting parallel to something I observed before. In "The Fascination with Change", "Pushing the Envelope" and others, I discussed the way our changing values led to the elimination of old limits on behavior and resulted in an ever escalating set of behaviors. This is quite similar. Generally, characters in fictions are intended either to portray a real personality type, or to illustrate an ideal (either positive or negative). In a few cases, comedic characters are intended to display absurd traits, but even then the absurdity is usually just an exaggeration of a human trait, and is constrained by the need for a character to be believable. However, once we dismiss those ideas, and instead focus only on "stimulating" the audience, that is putting something before them which is novel or unusual enough to shock or startle them, we have no standards. And worse, because novelty can only exist for so  long with the same material, there is a constant need for innovation, resulting, as I said above, in the ever more peculiar behaviors of those characters.

Yet even that is simply a repetition of what I wrote before.What truly makes this fascinating is to apply the same logic to another area and see what happens. For example, government.

Government, in my conception, exists entirely to protect man's rights, to defend him against force, theft and fraud, as well as to provide binding fora to settle disputes that arise honestly between men. It is easy to measure whether the government is meeting those goals, and to say whether or not a given function falls within that scope.

Once we drift away from governmental minimalism, into the modern theories of government, the interventionist models which try to "fix" other problems, we have a situation similar to the lack of a moral constant in modern culture, or the lack of constraints on entertainment. We know government is supposed to "make things better", but there are many problems with that standard. First, and most significant, what is "better"? There is no fixed "better" with which everyone agrees ("Absolute Values", "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism", "In The Most Favorable Light"), so how do we know if government is reaching that goal? And, even if we can find a goal most people accept, we have other problems. Is the government reaching the goal in the most efficient way? Without profit and loss, government is inherently impossible to evaluate ("Bureaucratic Management and Self-Policing"), and even if it were, the hidden costs would make any perception of success or failure suspect. ("Adaptability and Government", "Inflexibility and Bureaucracy") All of which means that, once again, we have a system with no way to determine success, with nothing to rein it in, and, as expected, we also see the consequences of such a condition, mostly out of control growth.

Let us take a simple example, say the department of social services, my former employer. How can we tell if it is doing its job? They give out money to people who need it, distribute food stamps, and provide medical assistance, child care vouchers and other aid. But are they doing it efficiently? And, if they are, is the solution itself too much, too little, or just enough? The answer is, we can't know. Any answer would be based upon the values of one individual, and would only apply to him. For everyone else, with different values, the answer would be different, and so there is simply no way to tell if a solution is good or bad, right or wrong.

And so many government offices try to substitute volume and activity for proof. They try to touch as many aspects of the economy as possible, do as much as they can, and be seen as much as possible to seem that they are doing their job. Let's face it, an office which does little, which sits by and does the same thing over and over seems dull and unimportant, and is likely to be the first to go when cuts come. So many government departments, lacking a measure of success or failure, try to be seen as dynamic, try to increase their scope, and bloat their staff so they seem to be significant. They hope the size and energy of their staff will make them seem relevant.

Not that all of the motives are so ignoble. As I wrote elsewhere ("Why We Need Adults", "All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events", "Some Thoughts on the Media", "Liberalism, "Idealists" and Internal Contradictions", "In The Most Favorable Light"), many think they are doing the right thing, that their department is important and their actions essential, and so they seek more power to do good. Not all efforts to expand government power are mercenary, true believers can do the same.

And there are other motives, that fall somewhere between. For example, offices which are not growing offer few opportunities for promotion, or scope for learning new skills. And so many encourage the expansion of their department so that they, and others, will have professional opportunities as well. In some ways this is mercenary, but in others it could be seen as altruistic, or, at worst, pragmatic.

But, the motives are, in themselves, irrelevant. What is most interesting is the way that a lack of goals allows, even demands, continual growth of government power. Without a way to determine success or failure, without a way to tell if we have met our goals, if we have enough government, the government will continue to expand. Growth is unavoidable in such circumstances. And so even the most modest government interventions, if allowed to continue, will eventually lead to a government reaching into every aspect of our lives.

=================================================

* The BBC is well know for the former, ending series while still popular. Though in some cases they face criticism for ending things TOO soon. The latter is best illustrated by the death of Phil Hartman, after which "Newsradio" simply fell apart. Or the similar sudden end of "Chico and the Man" when Freddie Prinz Sr. died. There are clearly other reasons for unexpected ends, the folding of a network or studio, a sudden change in public taste resulting in cancellation, or the habit of some networks (notably Fox) of canceling series without any clear reason, even when ratings are fairly strong.

** The two exceptions that come to mind are "The Simpsons" and "Seinfeld", though both began to receive much more criticism after a few seasons of almost uniform praise. And, in the case of "The Simpsons" I think the success is more the result of a continual influx of new young viewers who replace the old fans who tire of the show, creating a unique situation, which is not comparable to any other show.

*** Unfortunately, the old "Jump the Shark" site was bought by TV Guide and no longer has the original content visible, or else I would direct readers to comments by myself and others there. Many of us complained about these shows, as well as others, which had exaggerated secondary characters' personalities so much that they grew simply absurd. (Some other examples would be Jack and Karen from "Will and Grace", Al from "Married with Children" and Lowell from "Wings", though in the last case he left before it went as far as the others.)

======================================================

POSTSCRIPT

My conclusion is similar to those I reached in "Inescapable Logic", "Recipe For Disaster", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" , "The Cycle of Compassion", "Slippery Slopes", "The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Management in Government Enterprises" and "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences".