Meta Analysis and Narrative Infrastructure Thread

I know I said it once, but I honestly don't think the problem is the marital crisis premise (I think both positive and negative portrayals are equally valid), but rather the fact that they don't add anything new to your relationship. I mean, yes, I'm just as apprehensive of that episode template as you are. But I think there is a line where both sides of their representation can co-exist. Idk, I feel like Jean's episodes often seem to stick strictly to the premise, in a way where it feels like it doesn't really contribute to anything (just feeling like a "catch-all for when we don't have episode ideas"). It's strange because the classic series only had four episodes distributed in its first 8 seasons that were strictly focused on that (and it is worth saying that two of them are a window into other conflicts; i.e. The two episodes of focused on a new love interest revolving in the lives of Homer and Marge).

So I don't think it's completely wrong to portray a less favorable side of their relationship, but I think it's a matter of perspective. The longevity of the series and the number of times they have resorted to this trope also seems to work against the series; How many times can you make Homer and Marge have problems in their marriage before it becomes a toxic marriage dynamic. It's an interesting question, but I think what the classic series achieved (and I say in advance that this is a question of balance), is the fact that they never fully compromised the foundation of the characters, much less the closest representation and true to real life couples. Homer and Marge are a dynamic that has always been presented as more bittersweet: a common theme of the series was the fact that Marge was too good for Homer and, you know? It is valid. Not everything is a bed of roses and at the end of the day they have their differences even if at the end of the day it is shown that they still love each other. So what did I mean that it is a matter of perspective? Well, the fact that, a lot of these "conflicts" between Homer and Marge are so artificial is because they have no creative basis to explore (and this isn't really a surprise to any of you), the struggles that Homer and Marge's episodes of marital crisis from the classic era gave the series that realism and fidelity to its world: carnal temptations, dependency and the concept of the soul mate are struggles and questions that any couple could go through and they are all represented through through both sides of the coin (Secrets of a Marriage is a fascinating example of this dilation). At the end of the day these were faithful and genuine to what the characters (in this case Homer and Marge) were. They were realistic, measured and in a sense there was a genuine pathos and humanity in these conflicts (even in more "outside" concepts like Misteryous Voyage they had a respect for that side of the characters).

Part of the reason Pixelated and Afraid had such an impact on Homer and Marge's relationship is that it saw their marriage through a different lens; one that shows *why* they love each other even despite their ups and downs. It's a simple question but... I think you can only play with the marriage crisis a few times until it becomes redundant and that greatly affects the opinion people have about them ("ugh, ANOTHER, marriage crisis episode? "). Hell, contrary to popular belief. I think Selman actually makes very heavy use of this trope as well, and that's fine. And I think the difference is in small details: the point of extracting and telling something new about their dynamic, but in a way that does not follow to the letter the worn-out cliché of the marital crisis. Have you noticed how the Selman episodes often rebut the "crisis" part, with friction between Homer and Marge? Like the episodes that see them wage a battle of beliefs and ideals like Steal This Episode and Night of the Living Wage? And I think it's not necessarily a bad thing, I think a lot of the difference is in the contexts. Friction may not really be something new, but it's a different perspective that opens up new perspectives on their relationship (is Homer's love for food more than his wife? Equally valid questions), or heck, a Jean episode I think What has worked the most for me is an episode of this type I Won't Be Home for Christmas. Granted, Marge is irrational, it's still a marital crisis and Homer is punished for something that wasn't in his way. But do you know why I like it? Because it really delves into Marge's perspective, something that is often ignored in these types of episodes (since they tend to focus more on Homer and it's another problem on the one-dimensional side in these types of episodes). At the end of the day it's refreshing, but refreshing because it can be more than just "a marriage crisis." You can see another side of the dynamic and that would be refreshing, you can have other types of questions in your relationship without having to go completely to "we make them fight over x thing." It's just that... The execution of the story.
 
Sandboy said:
It's just that... The execution of the story.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That sums it all up aptly. I thnk they have missed the mark on having variations of the marriage crisis/conflict plots. Like some of us already argued, it is not that they do these kind of conflict stories between Homer & Marge, but indeed the fact they (namely Jean) do so many of them and there is rarely any direct difference between them but seem to use pretty much the same template of "Homer does something bad/messes up/ends up in a compromised situation, Marge's loses her composure and throws a fit about it, has Homer pay for it by being cut off from the family in a sense & he has to make it up to her before the issue is solved". Rinse and repeat.

They need to find new and creative routes to take with the marriage crisis plots and add in that abeformentioned depth and nuances and/or just move away entirely from the uglier and toxic conflicts and do the already suggested of finding other ways to do a conflict or disagreement between the two, which can lend itself to an entertaining and actually fun & funny story (unlike the ugly toxic ones). And as we've indeed seen with Selman, he tend to come up with the better ideas for these Homer-Marge conflict stories, having more of a three-dimensional view of the two characters and their marital relationship than Jean, whom is more two-dimensional by far. Jean should learn from him.
 
Wow this thread is so freakingly amazing I haven't been myself capable to participate because the level of discussion is so high. I regret myself because I haven't expressed myself on some closed topics but I'll chime in regarding the marriage crisis topic.

I think my biggest problem with this kind of episode is that they generally show that Homer and Marge's marriage is toxic and unhappy. Marge seems to deeply hate Homer, Homer seems to be awfully insensible to Marge. It seems they hate to each other, that they are together only by inertia... ans that means that both characters are badly portrayed, or at least one of them, because they are supposed to love each other, to take care of their partner, to do anything to the other one instead of looking for reasons to be mad and distant with the other as they seem to do. I think Homer and Marge are supposed to be a happy couple. Maybe with some discrepances for the convenience of the plot, maybe tempted by a third person if necessary, but always looking for the best and with the best intentions.

Another problem I have is that the recurrence of the plot is not only detrimental for us as an audience. It damages the episodes because most of the times they are in a disagreement it's due to little things that shouldn't have the consequences they have. In I'm Dancing As Fat as I Can, Homer watched a TV show without Marge and that ended up with Homer learning to dance and preparing a big fest for her. There's no correlation between the causes and the consequences, and that makes that Homer is unfairly punished and presionated for a little thing.

Besides, Homer is almost always the one who has to be regretted and Marge the one who leaves a positive image, which is repetitive and derivative, and it's one of the reason why Dangers on a Train is not a trainwreck (pun intended) – because Homer is not a jerk to Marge and for once Marge was the one who acted badly.
 
But what annoys me about the execution of the episodes is that no matter how monstrously Marge acts, she’s never called out on it. Never admits she’s wrong, even though she always holds out for the grandest apology to salve her wounded feelings and ego, she hardly ever apologizes. Not once does she admit to overreacting or acting like a jerk. And on the rare times she does apologize, it still manages to whitewash her actions or get overshadowed in some way.

Take for example That 90s Show—not technically a marriage crisis, but still on topic. “I got so wrapped up in college life that I forgot how important your love was” wasn’t exactly what happed: she just dumped Homer for her professor and claimed it was because Homer resented her “flowering.” A better apology would’ve acknowledged that.

Then there was the infamous “Apparently you didn’t do anything wrong, but I was still right to be mad at you!” from Friends and Family. Enough has been said about that.

If you want to show Marge in the wrong, fine. But the writers need to see it through and have her own up to her actions. Don’t give us the same old “Marge is still a wonderful person and can do no wrong” spiel. It’s trite and tiresome, and it denies her agency as a character.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting - despite the overwhelming focus on Homer throughout most of these, the first one, Life on the Fast Lane, is indisputably about Marge's feelings concerning her marriage. Indeed, it's Marge's first story in the series, one which speaks to Season 1's artistic intent as being a less "idealistic" take on family sitcoms (the traditional housewife and mother contemplating adultery as a result of her unsatisfying marriage), but also one which also sets a kind of awkward precedent in the series regarding how Marge herself is handled. I discussed in much earlier post how the show pretty consistently struggled to develop her as a character compared to the other three protagonists, and that is something that seems to have trickled down into these sorts of domestic dispute stories; they're very rarely stories which seem to really see any value in actually fixating on her perspective in any way.

Making this all the more curious is when you consider that, of the five "significant" stories along those lines (the aforementioned Life on the Fast Lane, War of the Simpsons, The Last Temptation of Homer, Secrets of a Successful Marriage, and The Mysterious Voyage of our Homer), only Secrets actually has the real danger of divorce presented as a possibility and threat. In the others, the conflict never progresses such that it never really edges the subject (Homer/Marge never properly learns about the existence of Jacques/Mindy, Marge never goes beyond being frustrated at Homer wasting Lovejoy's marriage retreat, Mysterious Voyage is 100% an internal crisis of faith), and indeed, the episode seems purpose built to explore the exact scenario that would push their marriage to the absolute breaking point. Take note of this scene, which specifically highlights the impact their divorce would have on Bart and Lisa, and consider how this is something these stories don't typically too. The episode is effectively the exception which proves the rule, because it presents the very concept as something sufficiently jarring, in stark contrast to the general status quo of them being happily married.

Put together, what all this suggests to me is that the use of marriage crisis plot is quite likely at least in part done less out of an inherent desire to portray realism (which seems....odd, given what show we're talking about), and more as a fallback method on finding a means to "use" Marge without creating actually significant narrative settings that would risk upsetting the pre-established statue quo. Because there is an arguable point to be made how Marge's role in the classic series often does come down to her role as an emotional counterpart and foil to Homer less than it does on her individually, as reflected by the comparative lack of focus on her relationship with her children and inconsistent focus of the relatively few episodes set from her POV (despite a number of them being really good). And this, in turn, also influences the immense use of her in Selman's stories as well, taking advantage of her lack of development to use her as a more malleable semi-blank slate (to both good and bad results), ironically making her something of a pseudo-successor to Scully's interpretation of Homer.

Food for thought, I think.
 
MisogiKurakawa said:
Food for thought, I think.
Click to expand...

Just an observation, but I've noticed that you tend to using variants of that statement at the end of your (lengthier) posts in this thread.

But yeah, I do agree with your points, obviously. It's disappointing that Jean tend to, essentially, drag Marge down to Jerkass Homer's level in terms of being portrayed as a negative figure while Homer, even when he's actually kind of decent or good, tend to made out to be in the wrong on principle of being, well, Homer Simpson with all his fallacies. There is a big lack of care going into crafting natural conflicts between the two nowadays, at least in the Jean episodes (as Selman tend to be more varied and justifying Marge's bad mood and points better).
 
Let’s not pretend Jean is the only one that writes crappy marriage episodes and/or Marge as a jerkass. Werking Mom was an Omine episode. Just saying…
 
Spartan Girl said:
Let’s not pretend Jean is the only one that writes crappy marriage episodes and/or Marge as a jerkass. Werking Mom was an Omine episode. Just saying…
Click to expand...
FYI, this doesn't actually mean much. The credited writer for an episode only actually writes the first draft, not the finished episode. Everything after that is the collective work of the writers room, directors, and most primarily the showrunner. Marge being the subject of Strong Arms of Ma for example wasn't even Omine's idea - it was supposed to be Homer until Jean wanted the "Marge becomes a bodybuilder" angle. (Which means he can be blamed for the rape joke)
 
MisogiKurakawa said:
FYI, this doesn't actually mean much. The credited writer for an episode only actually writes the first draft, not the finished episode. Everything after that is the collective work of the writers room, directors, and most primarily the showrunner. Marge being the subject of Strong Arms of Ma for example wasn't even Omine's idea - it was supposed to be Homer until Jean wanted the "Marge becomes a bodybuilder" angle. (Which means he can be blamed for the rape joke)
Click to expand...
I did not know that. Explains so much.

So that whole forced third act marriage crisis in Werking Mom probably has Jean’s fingerprints all over it too, huh?
 
MisogiKurakawa said:
Marge being the subject of Strong Arms of Ma for example wasn't even Omine's idea - it was supposed to be Homer until Jean wanted the "Marge becomes a bodybuilder" angle. (Which means he can be blamed for the rape joke)
Click to expand...
It's pretty surprising how well the first half stands on its own two feet when you now that this situation was basically forced onto Omine. I also want to believe she did the best she could with the material she had in the climax because I really like how Marge's rampage is caused when someone reminds her of her feminity, as if at this point she believes being feminine is being weak, because of the trauma of her past agression. It's interesting. But the execution, well... Let's say it's so close yet so far to be a very good episode.
 
I'd say Life on the Fast Lane, Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes On Every Fish and a few others like, of course, A Brush With Greatness, did show Marge really had more potential. Actually it goes for a lot of female characters that existed during the S1-2 period where Groening/Simon/Brooks were running the show. And of those three, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's mostly down to James L. Brooks. He's in a way the real creator of Lisa Simpson as she's shown past the Tracy Ulman shorts. Noted in one David Silverman post that they basically had nothing to work with for her and it was up to Brooks to give her more of a character.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1187965930912923651
And regardless of what anyone thinks of Lisa, it's safe to say it was a big success!

Brooks was also a co-creator of the Mary Tyler Moore show, credited as groundbreaking for having a lead that was not only a woman but one who wasn't married or dependant on a man at all. And if he also had a hand in some of the side characters at the time, it'd explain a fair bit. They actually had some cool female characters that even if they might've had some connection to a male character, weren't truly defined by them. Except Maude, I spose. Brooks seemed like a pretty cool fella for the time! But they were always gonna be fighting against Sam Simon enforcing a boys' club in the writers' room in particular. And imo, the effects felt pretty quick once Brooks was no longer a showrunner (probably compounded by one of the new showrunners being out ol' buddy Al Jean).
 
Wile E. the Brain said:
It's pretty surprising how well the first half stands on its own two feet when you now that this situation was basically forced onto Omine. I also want to believe she did the best she could with the material she had in the climax because I really like how Marge's rampage is caused when someone reminds her of her feminity, as if at this point she believes being feminine is being weak, because of the trauma of her past agression. It's interesting. But the execution, well... Let's say it's so close yet so far to be a very good episode.
Click to expand...

I have heard about how Omine had her hands forced (or rather tied) regarding 'Strong Arms Of The Ma'. It really is one of those episodes that I wish was one where the writer had full creative control and didn't have stuff forced on them to put in the episode, since the core story is really solid and interesting (Marge getting agoraphobia and learning to come back stronger than ever is such a good premise) but it devolves into a lot of wacky and tasteless Jean nonsense toward the end (and I don't think it is hard to see which jokes and bits weren't by Omine).
 
Last edited:
Venomrabbit said:
Brooks was also a co-creator of the Mary Tyler Moore show, credited as groundbreaking for having a lead that was not only a woman but one who wasn't married or dependant on a man at all. And if he also had a hand in some of the side characters at the time, it'd explain a fair bit. They actually had some cool female characters that even if they might've had some connection to a male character, weren't truly defined by them. Except Maude, I spose. Brooks seemed like a pretty cool fella for the time! But they were always gonna be fighting against Sam Simon enforcing a boys' club in the writers' room in particular. And imo, the effects felt pretty quick once Brooks was no longer a showrunner (probably compounded by one of the new showrunners being out ol' buddy Al Jean).
Click to expand...
Thing is, Maude wasn't really intended as a character. She was practically speaking far more along the lines of Homer and the TV, she's important to Ned's character insofar as she shows that he's happily married, but there is literally nothing more in the intent than that. And this applies to pretty much all the wife characters - Luann (pre-Selman), Bernice, Sarah, and Brandine all exist not to be actually interesting characters with dynamic relationships, but to establish Homer isn't the one non-bachelor in Springfield (or, for Luanne, that Milhouse didn't spawn from the primordial aether).

Generally speaking, there's a curious metatextual importance which Maude's death has taken in the fandom consciousness. Much of the reason why she was killed off was that she "didn't matter", something even blatantly expressed in the episode itself. Yet, because of the dramatic effect it had on Ned's character and the substantial amount of attention that was given to the episode in marketing, the character has taken on a retroactive degree of importance that she literally never had, both in the show and outside of it. That "Does Marge have friends" poem which Raphael Bob-Waksberg exemplifies this - Maude's contradictory importance as "Ned's dead wife" (especially noteworthy given that event is well after any point in which the Classic series ended) and irrelevance as an actual character means she has taken on a level of significance massively disportionate to her actual development, thus requiring that development to "filled in" with theoreticals. She is a "character" whose text is dependent on the lack of text, and the resulting ambiguity therewithin.

All of this, incidentally, makes Helen the very conspicuous outlier in being an actual character with her own personality separate from her husband. We really were robbed on getting stuff with the Lovejoys, huh?

1715113530892.png
 
CousinMerl said:
I have heard about how Omine had her hands forced (or rather tied) regarding 'Strong Arms Of The Ma'. It really is one of those episodes that I wish was one where the writer had full creative control and didn't have stuff forced on them to put in the episode, since the core story is really solid and interesting (Marge getting agoraphobia and learning to come back stronger than ever is such a good premise) but it devolves into a lot of wacky and tasteless Jean nonsense toward the end (and I don't thnk it is hard to see which jokes and bits weren't by Omine).
Click to expand...

I always wondered if Omine came up with "stupid sexy Flanders" :lol:
 
CousinMerl said:
I have heard about how Omine had her hands forced (or rather tied) regarding 'Strong Arms Of The Ma'. It really is one of those episodes that I wish was one where the writer had full creative control and didn't have stuff forced on them to put in the episode, since the core story is really solid and interesting (Marge getting agoraphobia and learning to come back stronger than ever is such a good premise) but it devolves into a lot of wacky and tasteless Jean nonsense toward the end (and I don't thnk it is hard to see which jokes and bits weren't by Omine).
Click to expand...
It does have me wondering how often this happened, not just for Jean, but for other showrunners where they force a writer to put something in that they don't like, or put in something a writer didn't.

As for Jean specifically, I am curious about each instant of this happening, I have a feeling Mona Leaves-a is another example, but that might just be me.
Nitsy said:
I always wondered if Omine came up with "stupid sexy Flanders" :lol:
Click to expand...
tbf, that is a good joke, so regardless if she did put it in or if it was Scully, I will still like it regardless.
 
MisogiKurakawa said:
Thing is, Maude wasn't really intended as a character. She was practically speaking far more along the lines of Homer and the TV, she's important to Ned's character insofar as she shows that he's happily married, but there is literally nothing more in the intent than that. And this applies to pretty much all the wife characters - Luann (pre-Selman), Bernice, Sarah, and Brandine all exist not to be actually interesting characters with dynamic relationships, but to establish Homer isn't the one non-bachelor in Springfield (or, for Luanne, that Milhouse didn't spawn from the primordial aether).

Generally speaking, there's a curious metatextual importance which Maude's death has taken in the fandom consciousness. Much of the reason why she was killed off was that she "didn't matter", something even blatantly expressed in the episode itself. Yet, because of the dramatic effect it had on Ned's character and the substantial amount of attention that was given to the episode in marketing, the character has taken on a retroactive degree of importance that she literally never had, both in the show and outside of it. That "Does Marge have friends" poem which Raphael Bob-Waksberg exemplifies this - Maude's contradictory importance as "Ned's dead wife" (especially noteworthy given that event is well after any point in which the Classic series ended) and irrelevance as an actual character means she has taken on a level of significance massively disportionate to her actual development, thus requiring that development to "filled in" with theoreticals. She is a "character" whose text is dependent on the lack of text, and the resulting ambiguity therewithin.

All of this, incidentally, makes Helen the very conspicuous outlier in being an actual character with her own personality separate from her husband. We really were robbed on getting stuff with the Lovejoys, huh?

View attachment 9054
Click to expand...

Speaking of this, I've always found it interesting how over time Maude's death has been seen as an attack on a beloved character instead of a simple twist on Ned to give him some new plots.

Maude's image since she died has been transformed in the popular imagination to the point that it is surprising when she appears in current episodes as a mean person (as in Manger Things) when the truth is that in all of her few important roles separated from her husband and family in the classic episodes (those being Itchy & Scratchy & Marge, Marge in Chains and The Twisted World of Marge Simpson as far as I know), she clearly has the role of the villain. Maude hired the Yakuza to take down Marge in season 8, arguably a much more serious act than anything she did to Homer in season 32. So why this creation of an imaginary "good old Maude"?
 
Quilloughby said:
Speaking of this, I've always found it interesting how over time Maude's death has been seen as an attack on a beloved character instead of a simple twist on Ned to give him some new plots.

Maude's image since she died has been transformed in the popular imagination to the point that it is surprising when she appears in current episodes as a mean person (as in Manger Things) when the truth is that in all of her few important roles separated from her husband and family in the classic episodes (those being Itchy & Scratchy & Marge, Marge in Chains and The Twisted World of Marge Simpson as far as I know), she clearly has the role of the villain. Maude hired the Yakuza to take down Marge in season 8, arguably a much more serious act than anything she did to Homer in season 32. So why this creation of an imaginary "good old Maude"?
Click to expand...
I actually would say those claims are in themselves a misconception. While Maude is indeed one of the villains in The Twisted World of Marge Simpson, this applies to all the Investorettes, even Edna (ordinarily one of the most likable, sympathetic secondary characters in the classic series). And outside of that, it's important to remember that the Classic series quite frequently grouped the Flanders and Lovejoys up as "the Christians" (see Team Homer) - in all the cases people cite of Maude being a moralizer, it's always just her silently (or mostly silently) tagging along with Helen and their husbands on any issue the more conservative side of Springfield objects to, never once expressing a perspective of her own. Maude being like Helen if anything would actively go against the entire point of Ned's character, which is that he's the literal nicest, darn-diddly-goodest guy in town.
 
Well, she would be the non-genetic Flanders of the flock...

Also was checking the page for Alone Again Natura-Diddly on the Simpsons Wiki and

1715123214381.png

I don't think that was meant to be a joke and boy I feel like a bitch for finding it funny but...
 
MisogiKurakawa said:
I actually would say those claims are in themselves a misconception. While Maude is indeed one of the villains in The Twisted World of Marge Simpson, this applies to all the Investorettes, even Edna (ordinarily one of the most likable, sympathetic secondary characters in the classic series). And outside of that, it's important to remember that the Classic series quite frequently grouped the Flanders and Lovejoys up as "the Christians" (see Team Homer) - in all the cases people cite of Maude being a moralizer, it's always just her silently (or mostly silently) tagging along with Helen and their husbands on any issue the more conservative side of Springfield objects to, never once expressing a perspective of her own. Maude being like Helen if anything would actively go against the entire point of Ned's character, which is that he's the literal nicest, darn-diddly-goodest guy in town.
Click to expand...

I still think my point remains true. Whatever the reason they had to use Maude as "Helen II" in those episodes, the fact is that she's used in that role as much as in the role of "Mrs. Flanders". It's a very important part of her character in the classic era, in contrast with Edna.

Also, I don't see how that could affect the character of Ned in the slightest. If anything, is a good answer maybe to the question of why Flanders start to act as a crazy Christian in season 12, with the characters of Maggie Roswell having almost disappeared.
 
Quilloughby said:
I still think my point remains true. Whatever the reason they had to use Maude as "Helen II" in those episodes, the fact is that she's used in that role as much as in the role of "Mrs. Flanders". It's a very important part of her character in the classic era, in contrast with Edna.

Also, I don't see how that could affect the character of Ned in the slightest. If anything, is a good answer maybe to the question of why Flanders start to act as a crazy Christian in season 12, with the characters of Maggie Roswell having almost disappeared.
Click to expand...
Except, as I pointed out....Maude didn't have a character, nor was she intended as such. After all, if it's actually relevant to who she is, why isn't it at all emphasised at all in Ned's stories? Just for a record, here's a rundown of all of her appearances in Ned's five major classic stories:
Notice the pattern here? Not only is Maude's dialogue completely incidental and not stuff relevant to the story, but literally every line she gets just suggests she's....a female duplicate of her husband. Because, again, Maude's entire purpose isn't to be a character, it's to accentuate Ned's status as the happy and perfect family man, just as much as Rod and Todd exist to be overly cliche "good Christian boys" who are saccharine to the point of irritating both the audience and Bart (that's a nuance I don't see people bring up often - Bart dislikes the Flanders sons almost as much as his father dislikes Ned). That Maude is often packed up as a fundamentalist isn't indicative of purposeful characterization, it's just the show expressing its dislike of Christian fundamentalists in general.

Also, while I have seen the claim that it was the loss of Roswell's characters which prompted the shift in Ned's characterization (in part due to Simpsons Theory), I really think don't that holds up. Remember, being hyper-pious was always Ned's main running gag, and a major part of what set him as Homer's foil. But what changed was the context of religion in society; In the late-80s/early-90s, Christianity wasn't at all tied to political factors, and instead was mostly tied to ideas of "good morals" for Americans, hence the general portrayal of the Flanders and Lovejoy families as differing saterizations of this ideology. It was only with George Bush Jr's campaign and subsequent two-term tenure as POTUS that this perception hard shifted to conservative voting patterns, and consequently to reflect this Scully and later Jean shifting to portraying Ned, the nicest man in Springfield, as having explicitly homophobic, anti-vax, and anti-science beliefs that ran entirely contrary to the character he was designed to be....but made him an incredibly good target for cheap jokes about conservative Christians (as for why they didn't just use the Lovejoys more, I suspect that they were cagey about depicting a minister in that light). There's really nothing more to it than that.
 
I still think that some more Maude lines as "I was at Bible camp learning how to be more judgemental" paints a character, if not very rounded, more flawed that classic Ned (in part due to misoginy, of course) but that's okay. You have good points, I still don't see any character assasination in Manger Things because, like with Sarah Wiggum, there's no character to assassinate. The episode has other problems though.
 
Maude being changed into more of an openly judgemental and hostile character in the HD era episodes do bother me. There were some signs of it in the classic era but they never crossed any lines with it and kept her an all right side character to Ned and who had a bunch of fun moments, even though she was pretty one-dimensional, but as soon as they started essentially demonizing her in a sense (such as in 'Manger Things' pretty uch openly hating Homer in spite of him not having done anything to earn it but for merely existing), it started to go too far.

I think they could've done a much, much better job at trying to add more character and development to Maude than essentially making her a posthumous Helen Lovejoy V.2 by giving her a nasty streak (but then again, seems like most of the Springfield women, ranging from Helen to Luanne to Bernice etc. fall into the stereotype of "judgemental women criticizing Marge and her family/kids", which I've noted before).
 
Last edited:
I think Quilloughby does have a point as far as Maude being "Helen II" even before her death. No matter how a character is "meant" to be, what's actually shown of them is important. How an audience engages with the work is important. And it's especially interesting if it actually differs from the intent. I love that, people can be such awkward buggers and sometimes it's in such wonderful ways!

So yeah, Maude wasn't meant as a Helen II but she acted like it anyway. Being told to make nothing of it or acting like she was perfect actually makes it stick out even more. If someone snaps at you, you're probably going to be more forgiving if they own up and apologize vs if they act like they did nothing wrong and get offended that you brought it up. It's kinda like that. That's actually a pretty common problem with most characters that are treated as purely-good, they usually aren't in practice, but also unlike the jerks or the morally neutral won't even own it, let deal with consequences or make up for it.

I wouldn't know for sure how Maude could be best handled, admittedly, but I do like the idea of focusing on how she's the one non-genetic Flanders. Sure she wasn't truly intended to be more than "Ned's wife" but tbh, being stuck on rigid framing or whatever else is poison for creativity. I doubt the problems in the Jean era especially would've gotten so bad if they weren't so laser-focused on intent and framing and all that junk. Sure it's interesting to look at it as a means of examining why things turned out like they did but treating intent and stuff as some unbreakable golden rule just leads to characters flattening & acting unnaturally or looking worse than they should or storylines being stale and repetitive. A lot of problems feel like they could be summed up by only looking at what is vs what could be.

Agreeing with what @CousinMerl said about most of the women being treated as very samey, the show has had a real problem when it comes to writing independent female characters, especially after S2 and the holdovers. And the ones that would pass that test tend to be the unpopular or forgotten ones. Probably because they have their own personality and exist for themselves instead of revolving mostly or entirely around male characters or boys/men in general...
 
Venomrabbit said:
Sure she wasn't truly intended to be more than "Ned's wife" but tbh, being stuck on rigid framing or whatever else is poison for creativity.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree with this! The way a character was conceived and originally introduced doesn't mean they have to stay in that initial box forever. Characters develop and their roles in the series can change and expand as the series itself develops and that's a very good thing! You already mentioned this in a previous post and I know I'm comparing the shorts and the series here (which are quite different things), but if they'd stuck rigidly to the original intent of Lisa as nothing more than a vague sidekick for Bart's mischief then we wouldn't have Lisa as we know and love her (well I might be talking more personally there :P ) so I think she's the best example of how letting characters grow as people really is the best policy.

On the topic of Maude specifically though I do agree that there was a bit more to her than just being Ned's wife even if we didn't see much too much of it. There are moments like this
862244.gif

which paint her as someone with strong feelings about what the "right" and "wrong" approaches to motherhood and family life are which gives her a way to potentially be in conflict with Marge similar to how their husbands are. There's little things like her usually being seen with Helen that makes me imagine her as the potential number two in that group and stuff like that as well. I do think it makes it more of a shame that she was killed off really because of all the "wife" characters (besides Helen of course who doesn't really fit into that category) she did seem like the one with the most potential to stand on her own two feet with enough development since there were some fleeting signs of an actual character there. Certainly a lot more so than someone like Bernice for example.
 
While there is a good point in how Maude was essentially a Helen Lovejoy even before she was killed off, I think a question is still whether or not it was a good idea playing up her negative, if not outright hostile, character traits (?).

Like, I think there could've been a lot more made with the character even with her having a similar critical judgemental snippy mindset like Helen than to have her negative traits exaggerated, such as openly hating Homer for existing even when he's not done anything wrong (Manger Things) & criticizing Marge's upbringing of Bart (Fland Canyon). Like, sure, there was much potential with her even if she wasn't the nicest wife character in the room, but I think there should've been a limit when it came to Jean increasing her critical and hostile sides.

I think they could've had her be judgemental in the same sense as we saw in the classic era, but still have her remain a decently nice and caring person with limits, such as being more vocally outspoken regarding the Simpsons' buffoonery and Ned being her better half, for instance. But no, the only really noteable thing they did with her in the flashback stories is making her Helen Lovejoy traits more pronounced (and at worst getting even more personal toward Marge than Helen and the others have been).

I think they blew a good opportunity at breaking away from the sterotypical view of most Springfield women regarding Maude as a character (even posthumously) instead of furthering the negativity we've seen from them, pronouncing the writers' disability in writing independent female characters and instead lumping them together in the "Let's all attack Marge & her family!" folder.
 
CousinMerl said:
While there is a good point in how Maude was essentially a Helen Lovejoy even before she was killed off, I think a question is still whether or not it was a good idea playing up her negative, if not outright hostile, character traits (?).

Like, I think there could've been a lot more made with the character even with her having a similar critical judgemental snippy mindset like Helen than to have her negative traits exaggerated, such as openly hating Homer for existing even when he's not done anything wrong (Manger Things) & criticizing Marge's upbringing of Bart (Fland Canyon). Like, sure, there was much potential with her even if she wasn't the nicest wife character in the room, but I think there should've been a limit when it came to Jean increasing her critical and hostile sides.

I think they could've had her be judgemental in the same sense as we saw in the classic era, but still have her remain a decently nice and caring person with limits, such as being more vocally outspoken regarding the Simpsons' buffoonery and Ned being her better half, for instance. But no, the only really noteable thing they did with her in the flashback stories is making her Helen Lovejoy traits more pronounced (and at worst getting even more personal toward Marge than Helen and the others have been).

I think they blew a good opportunity at breaking away from the sterotypical view of most Springfield women regarding Maude as a character (even posthumously) instead of furthering the negativity we've seen from them, pronouncing the writers' disability in writing independent female characters and instead lumping them together in the "Let's all attack Marge & her family!" folder.
Click to expand...
Oh you're absolutely right that it's not for the best to just play up her negatives and nothing else! I can't remember the two episodes you mentioned very well (I have seen them, but only once), but yeah having her just be another Helen isn't reall the best direction for her (especially since we already have Helen) even if she does have those tendencies. The point of my post really was just to say that there was enough to work with I think for her to make a more "proper" fleshed out character than just another personality-less wife character, but I can't really say how that might have turned out since she did unfortunately die for really petty nasty reasons.

I have to say I like your reading of her as a "decently nice and caring person with limits" though! That fits very well with how I see her and what I would have wanted explored a bit more if she hadn't been killed off, rather than just making her more negative and hostile. Maybe like a softer member of Helen's "gang" perhaps who's in it, but doesn't always agree with all that Helen says and has her own convictions (probably based on her religion)? Would certainly be a more interesting angle than just lumping all the female characters wholesale into the "attacking Marge" clique anyway.
 
I Love Lisa said:
The point of my post really was just to say that there was enough to work with I think for her to make a more "proper" fleshed out character than just another personality-less wife character, but I can't really say how that might have turned out since she did unfortunately die for really petty nasty reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understood the point of your post well and I agree about there being enough as there was for Maude to be a fully realized supporting character than essentially a one-note wife to Ned, but I just wanted to add that there could've been more, or something different, than just plaiying up her negative traits and doing nothing with the positive ones, which would be essential for a well-balanced character. If there's too much negativity, which we ended up getting, it just feels wrong and makes her really annoying and unlikeable, really.

I Love Lisa said:
I have to say I like your reading of her as a "decently nice and caring person with limits" though! That fits very well with how I see her and what I would have wanted explored a bit more if she hadn't been killed off, rather than just making her more negative and hostile. Maybe like a softer member of Helen's "gang" perhaps who's in it, but doesn't always agree with all that Helen says and has her own convictions (probably based on her religion)? Would certainly be a more interesting angle than just lumping all the female characters wholesale into the "attacking Marge" clique anyway.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear you agree with me on that statement.

The more I've thought about what I said about her having reservations such as of the Simpson family and their buffoonery or the like, I think they really could've gotten a lot of humor out of that, with her being the "traditional neighbor annoyed by the antics of the main family" and Ned balancing it out some by downplaying things and calming her down; I can imagine there being some good stuff coming from that, if also a few good fun plots with her being a central character; could also work well in flashback story plots).

Her being a softer variant of Helen and her cohorts, with a sense of being more decent and accepting & not always agreeing with them, such as finding the Simpsons to not be all that bad (when push comes to shove), could've been perfect and a whole lot more interesting than making her kind of a smug jerkass like the rest of them, which only makes her a whole lot less interesting.
 
Last edited:
Yeah you could have had fun interactions with Marge and Ned being the peacekeepers and Maude and Homer annoyed by the neighbors.

Example scene:
(Homer is loudly setting off fireworks a week ahead of 4th of July. The Flanders can see the flashing lights from their bedroom.)
Ned: Now Maude, you know the Lord says love thy neighbor.
Maude: Yes, but did he have to make it so hard?

Just a little thing, that maybe Maude is more uptight but she's not a mean person (which unfortunately is how she comes off in Flanders Ladder and Manger Things.) You could still show that she's similar to Ned but maybe she has to work a little harder to tolerate Homer's buffoonery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top