Meta Analysis and Narrative Infrastructure Thread

[CousinMerl]

Well since I was so courteously invited I'll add my thoughts here!

Personally, I love Lisa and Bart as a pairing and one thing I think makes them work so well together is that they actually have a well-observed, realistic sibling relationship. As was being talked about in the other thread, anyone who has brothers/sisters in real life knows how things can go from normal, to great, to terrible, to just normal again between you in the blink of an eye.

Plus, there is something very important when we're talking about Lisa and her big brother. No matter how bad it gets between them, we know they love each other and care about each deeply, so it's never too disturbing to see them fight, because we can always be sure the next hug will come before we know it.

Reading all of your post there (not just the quoted parts), it makes me all the more sad the current showrunners and writers are missing out on doing more in terms of Bart & Lisa's sibling relationship in a way that harkens back to that of the classic era, with how the situation can get really ugly sometimes and they have a falling out, but at the end of the day they come back to reconcile, which is inevitable even when it does get really dark (such as in My Sister My Sitter) and as I've already spoken of, I wish the HD era should take more risks of doing real sibling relationship & rivalry episodes with the two, which make the resolution feel a lot more earned.

I do like them being on the same team every once in a while, working together to solve some problem or issue or conflict (outside of their own), which the show still can do, but it lacks the realism and down to earth nature of their relationship as seen in the classics. There was more to it back then, not to mention how it felt more nuanced (which I've already said) with things going both (or more) ways, so I hope there'll eventually be another episode that puts them and their bond to the test (and then pay it off with them reconciling).

 

[I Love Lisa]

Reading all of your post there (not just the quoted parts), it makes me all the more sad the current showrunners and writers are missing out on doing more in terms of Bart & Lisa's sibling relationship in a way that harkens back to that of the classic era, with how the situation can get really ugly sometimes and they have a falling out, but at the end of the day they come back to reconcile, which is inevitable even when it does get really dark (such as in My Sister My Sitter) and as I've already spoken of, I wish the HD era should take more risks of doing real sibling relationship & rivalry episodes with the two, which make the resolution feel a lot more earned.

This is all making me try to think of when was the last time we saw Lisa and Bart's rivalry explored in a deeper, perhaps darker way like this? The most recent I can think of is Flanders' Ladder, which definitely went very dark with Lisa nearly killing Bart as part of their fight, but that was over five years ago now itself. I did really like the episode and Lisa's role in though, with how she tried to get back at Bart for humiliating her thinking that she was just being harmlessly petty, then becoming distraught and desperate to fix it when she realised how bad what she was doing actually was. So it does show to me that exploring this side of them can still work in more modern episodes.

I do like them being on the same team every once in a while, working together to solve some problem or issue or conflict (outside of their own), which the show still can do, but it lacks the realism and down to earth nature of their relationship as seen in the classics. There was more to it back then, not to mention how it felt more nuanced (which I've already said) with things going both (or more) ways, so I hope there'll eventually be another episode that puts them and their bond to the test (and then pay it off with them reconciling).

Teaming them up does work equally well for me as having them against each other (I'm thinking of things like them joining forces to try and stop Sideshow Bob and things like that, which is always fun), but yeah I agree that if you only show the more friendly side of their relationship you are missing the nuances and things that make that relationship so realistic and relatable. With Lisa and Bart, you need some balance of the good and the bad (which makes the nicer moments feel more earned like you say).

 

[CousinMerl]

The most recent I can think of is Flanders' Ladder, which definitely went very dark with Lisa nearly killing Bart as part of their fight, but that was over five years ago now itself. I did really like the episode and Lisa's role in though, with how she tried to get back at Bart for humiliating her thinking that she was just being harmlessly petty, then becoming distraught and desperate to fix it when she realised how bad what she was doing actually was. So it does show to me that exploring this side of them can still work in more modern episodes.

Oh that's right. I really liked 'Flanders Ladder' and that role reversal of Bart & Lisa, with her being in the typical Bart role and being overly mean to him (even as he's in the hospital bed) but coming to regret it (much like Bart, realizing how much of an ass she was and for such a petty reason) and repent by supporting him and being by his side, which really paid off well in terms of drama and the ending, showing that these kind of more dramatic sibling conflict episodes can still be done way past the show's classic era (and heck, now that I think of it, her ending up being the aggressor really was the show doing something a bit new, as usually it's always Bart's role).

But yep, that episode was so long ago (almost can't believe there's been five years already since that one) so there could and should have been more such stories showing the darker sides of their relationship by now, given that they do end with them reconciling with each other and the wrong party (evne if both) learning something to make it all feel like there was a point to it and have them learn from it, ultimately strengthening their sibling relationship to some degree, which has no doubt given a lot of great moments.

I agree that if you only show the more friendly side of their relationship you are missing the nuances and things that make that relationship so realistic and relatable. With Lisa and Bart, you need some balance of the good and the bad (which makes the nicer moments feel more earned like you say).

I think that we really need a new 'Flanders Ladder' episode that dare go a little more serious and dramatic with their relationship, not only for having more than just tgehm on fairly amiable/good terms and to have the good and nice stuff feel more earned, but for a bit more of a variety of bart & Lisa stories. As I said, their teamwork plots are nice and all, but there's been a lot of those (and a lot of them as more or less separate characters) but not nearly enough episodes that test their sibling bond and its strenghts and weakenesses: Even a plot about them having some petty sibling disagreement and it causing a falling out could be fascinating if done well.

 

[I Love Lisa]

You know now that I think of it, I don't know how widespread this is or what the general reaction to the episode was (since I haven't seen it talked about that much), but I have seen Flanders' Ladder get some negative reactions for being too dark a bit like we were talking about how My Sister, My Sitter does from some people. In this case it's Lisa I've seen complaints about for being too cruel rather than Bart (my answer to that is that she genuinely didn't know what she was doing. She was ticked off with Bart so thought she was just messing with him by scaring him and never would have done it if she'd had any idea how dangerous it was), but it's a similar sort of criticism, which does lend some weight to the idea we mentioned before that there are people who just aren't used to seeing the two of them fighting like that and don't like it when it happens. Another one that seems to be at least somewhat controversial is On a Clear Day I Can't See My Sister and that covers a similar topic as well, so maybe the whole theme of their rivalry carries some level of controvery?

I think that we really need a new 'Flanders Ladder' episode that dare go a little more serious and dramatic with their relationship, not only for having more than just tgehm on fairly amiable/good terms and to have the good and nice stuff feel more earned, but for a bit more of a variety of bart & Lisa stories. As I said, their teamwork plots are nice and all, but there's been a lot of those (and a lot of them as more or less separate characters) but not nearly enough episodes that test their sibling bond and its strenghts and weakenesses: Even a plot about them having some petty sibling disagreement and it causing a falling out could be fascinating if done well.

Yeah, there certainly are more episodes about them teaming up than ones where their bond is tested and I would certainly like to see more of those. Although I always just want to see more episodes about Lisa in general of course! Your plot idea about a falling out over something petty does sound fascinating though and I would love to see something like that.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

Really, most of the problem comes back to Bart.

I think it's a pretty clear-cut statement to say Bart has been almost completely shelved in the Selman seasons. Of the 40 or so episodes since the start of S33 (and excluding the Jean episodes), Bart is a focus of maybe a fifth of them, and that comes with a stretched definition of what actually counts as focus, since most of those are either B-Plots or really about one of his parents (or, in the case of Poorhouse Rock, Hugh Jackman singing about capitalism). If you actually focus on the episodes with him as the actual protagonist of the A-Plot, then the only episodes to remotely qualify are Boyz N the Highlands, My Octopus and the Teacher, Game Done Changed, and arguably Ae Bonney Romance (since his stuff is the part actually related in some way to Willie). Indeed, this is something @Sandboy pointed out to me which is worth pondering - Notice how, counting Thanksgiving of Horror, none of the now three Selman Treehouses focus on Bart? Marge, Lisa, and Homer each have a segment in all three, but Bart is at best stuck playing second banana to Lisa, or in the of Ei8ht, being dead. He is, very consistently, treated like an afterthought.

From this, question becomes the why: Why is Bart so side-lineded nowadays, while the rest of the family remain in prominence? I have my own ideas I'm still unpacking, but I'm curious what others think.

 

[B-Boy]

My cursory assessment is that it has something to do with Selman's recent pivot away from Bart being portrayed as an objectionable, unwanted hellraiser. Episodes like My Octopus and a Teacher, Bartless, and A Mid-Childhood Night's Dream (and even Wad Goals) have re-framed Bart and his instincts as more admirable and desirable. This isn't a bad thing per se (I'll take it over sociopathic Bart any day of the week), but it has sanitised and displaced him, making it harder to tell stories about him.

 

[Sandboy]

In any case, it is interesting how the change of roles of Marge and Bart are a mirror of each other in a certain sense.

Since Selman's first episode (both as writer and showrunner) has that interpretation of the characters very much in mind - Homer as the fun but less foolish and much more emotionally mature father, Marge as the house mother who actually has a lot to do. say and Bart and Lisa, well... Both episodes are very consistent with their characterization as infants. The most prominent use of both children in Selman episodes is usually in the relationship episodes with their parents (see "The Food Wife" and the early Selman episodes as, for the most part, the adults are the central focus of the stories. ), making the context behind Bart's lack of roles even more noticeable. Starting in s32 (or even much earlier), when the show seemed to make an effort to paint Bart much more positively (much of this also a variation on how Homer was noticeably sanitized), taking note of the examples mentioned by @/B-Boy of stories that more or less actually plays into that image of Bart ("Boyz N the Highlands" effectively calling his rebellious behavior a mere act or "Bartless" which is basically a declaration of the new direction they've taken with Bart). As a result, later episodes like "A Mid-Childhood Night's Dream" reinforced that idea and therefore reconfigured the Simpsons' nuclear family a bit.

Note also how starting with the s33 production cycle is where that focus took hold, which also leads to the next point about Marge's notoriety becoming a more important player in the Selman episodes. UABF and OABF for example both making a big difference between the number of episodes where Marge is presented in some kind of role (both main, secondary and as an important influencer of the narrative). With UABF featuring *at least* 9 episodes featuring Marge in some type of role and OABF featuring 12-13 episodes (which is directly revealing since it puts her in second place alongside Homer), what my A more superficial observation could also be due to the promotion of the Homer/Marge relationship (it is worth mentioning that 4 of the 16 Selman episodes in the UABF make use of it to highlight his pairing with Homer and highlighting her as a positive attribute ), along with the healthier interpretation of Homer with small details such as the removal of the choke gag (continuing on the above; those 4 episodes where Marge is used as a positive emphasis - both share the similarity of Marge as a colorizer in the face of Homer's insecurities. Homer cases such as "Bart the Cool Kid", "Poorhouse Rock" and "Habeas Tortoise" as expositors of this idea). As a result, promoting Marge as a character as something with more sense and logic behind it: making her technically the most defined character in the family currently given that she is still technically a blank slate that is open to many explorations, also mentioning The show's recent effort to explore her past in a more serious way (with episodes like "Marge the Meanie," "Homer's Adventures Through the Windshield Glass," or "Iron Marge" actually contextualizing a little more of the character in general) (which is arguably still a change considering that previously Marge's past was mostly explored as a joke.)

The dimensions of how this relates to Bart is actually a potentially interesting topic of discussion (and revealing in itself considering that the loss of identity of both characters is harbored from the Scully era), especially now. that Marge is the main force of conflict of the program, starting to gain more potential with 35ABF (note how so far we only know of 7 episodes and in 5 of them she has already been/will be an important force?). The Jean era actually highlights the more anachronistic state of both of them, like, see how "Marge the Meanie" was also the last episode to directly play up this quality of Bart as a prankster (not counting "Bartless" although they're both different), treating it as a very important part of his character ala Dennis the Menace? Or basic tropes like Marge often being characterized as the "sacrificing stay-at-home mom" or "nagging, kill-joy mom" (which also starts to become a bit noticeable in the first half of s8 with Scully's era being notable for this characteristic due to his heterosexual man archetype and a much more extravagant and erratic characterization by Homer). Being also a consequence of Bart's reduction to being simply "Homer's sidekick." You know. Homer becoming the number 1 chaotic force on the show led to Bart losing his job because that WAS his original role on the show.

Explaining the absence of Bart and actually Scully always highlighted that he had that particularity with respect to the children (seen again with "Iron Marge" written by him), stripping him of his own narrative as a character and as the semi-antagonistic force ( many commas in this) of the program. Overall, Marge went through the same thing when the Jean era was where the staff had become stagnant in Marge's plots, starting to go a lot "by the book" when it came to devising episodes for her (keep in mind that the interpretation of The Homer/Marge dynamic here made this problem more noticeable, given that there is very little effort in coming up with new premises as far as her stories are concerned. And with its most important episodes being a paint coat of the "Homer is a competent idiot", a theme that was used from the beginning but here it is much worse since it is noted that much of Marge's screen time from the Jean era was spent on marital crisis plots). Observation that someone actually already noticed about how Marge is really only used in this topic of episodes, therefore Selman highlighting her lack of use of this type of stories (another argument because Marge feels much more comfortable in the Selman era).

Could we really call Bart the macguffin of some of the stories centered around him ("Boyz N the Highlands", "Bartless", "Poorhouse Rock"), where he feels more like an NPC or the bridge to another character's exploration? . We could say that Marge has taken her son's place from her as a conflict-catalyzing force, she simply replaces the previous role of "chaotic force" and we basically have Marge's summary of her there. There are still some things that are still in the "loose thoughts" stage but if we go to a more superficial analysis; I have a feeling that the reason Marge, Lisa and Homer still have prominence is because of the satirical/social focus of Selman's episodes ("The Food Wife" is not only poetic in its portrayal of the family, but also in their interest in niche cultures). Lisa actually still gets most of the prominence because of that (although I admit it's not all of it either), while Bart is, well, oblivious to it for the most part which makes him an out-of-place character for certain types of stories. (thinking a bit about the discussion I had about "Night of the Living" and now it makes even more sense to me why this is a Marge story).

 

[CousinMerl]

From this, question becomes the why: Why is Bart so side-lineded nowadays, while the rest of the family remain in prominence? I have my own ideas I'm still unpacking, but I'm curious what others think.

it really is the big important question about Bart these days. I do think that they, Selman in particular, has gotten so content about portraying Bart as a lot more positive and generally more likeable figure than he has been used to (as @B-Boy pointed out already), and it absolutely limit him and his role on the show: As I've already been saying, ideally they should reach more of a balance with the character, with the character both being a troublemaker underachiever who does pranks etc. and a sympathetic person with postive and admirable traits, which I do think can be done if the will is there, which would open up for more Bart in the modern episodes

I don't think the door to not only more "serious" conflict plots with him as well as Bart plots in general (as aside from Maggie who often tend to be ignored these days, he really is the least utilized Simpson which is a shame and doesn't make a lot of sense, especially as he's still likely the most multifaceted of them) is all closed, but it's just a door that the showrunners (Selman & Jean and seemingly the rest) don't really want to open up fully, choosing to have the door leaning against the doorframe as if it almost was actually closed.

They really could and should do, much better with Bart, whom so often feels like an afterthought (added in late), playing second fiddle to another character or maybe even a MacGuffin (as suggested by @Sandboy) or worse: Rendered sort of a glorified plot device. Bart should be such a good fun character for them to play with in terms of writing and stories. but they are just too satisfied with having him essentially a good guy or having his bad side exaggerated (at worst enjoying causing damage and pain). So yeah, more of a balance is needed here (give Bart his fangs back but keep in mind to not go too far and keep his humanity and heart, which is essential).

 

[Nitsy]

The Bart problem is an interesting question, and I don't have an all-encompassing explanation for it, though I do broadly agree with the above answers that Bart's main characteristics that defined him in previous seasons have been at least partially abandoned, leaving nothing else for him to do. The episodes where he does shine are ones where these characteristics (prankster, "underachiever and proud of it", Homer's sidekick, entrepreneur) are allowed to flourish. The entrepreneur element in particular I think is becoming Bart's main new facet. It's been present since earlier seasons (such as Bart creating a museum in his treehouse in The Regina Monologues), but it's really been ramped up in recent seasons. Wad Goals, Game Done Changed, and Lisa Gets an F1 are three recent episodes where Bart figuring out how to hustle and make money are shown to be special talents of his, and they make for entertaining plots. I don't know what the general feeling on this forum is toward "hustler Bart", but I've generally liked it and enjoy seeing Bart succeed. Of course this alone can't sustain his character, but the writers seem to have come up with something new for him to do.

It's interesting to note that this reluctance to utilize Bart more in the Selman seasons is coming off of perhaps what was the nadir of Bart's character: seasons 28-31 or so. In Season 29, we have multiple episodes where Bart is shown to be a loser with no redeeming qualities, unwanted and personally disliked by his own family. Season 31's Go Big or Go Homer, in which Bart is viciously mocked, laughed at, and then cries miserably in front of his family in reaction, was probably Bart's lowest moment since wetting his pants in public in Love is a Many-Strangled Thing (the lowest moment before that being The Boys of Bummer). "Bart the loser", unsurprisingly my least favorite characterization of Bart, seems to be something the writers really leaned into recent seasons, and Bartless was, to me, a repudiation of it. But the question is where to go from there? They got a lot of mileage out of almost making Bart the Meg-like butt monkey of the family, and while they ostensibly will steer clear of that in the future, they seem to be having trouble with coming up for an alternate use for Bart (apart from the aforementioned "entrepreneur" role, which is a role all the family members fill sometimes, and the recent unfortunately named "incel Bart", which we really only saw explicitly in Ae Bonny Romance, though Bart's behavior in this episode mirrors that of My Octopus and a Teacher, in which Bart's relation to romance and his feelings of attachment sometimes express themselves as rage/madness).

These are just my scattered thoughts. I obviously don't really know why Bart is being under-utilized in favor of Homer, Marge, and Lisa, but I do think Bart has been done dirty in the latter HD era, and I don't think it's too late to give him a better, more coherent role.

 

[B-Boy]

It's also worth pointing out that Bart's original role in the show was intended to be counter-cultural, but the show has become increasingly institutionalised over time and he's probably the most anachronistic member of the family now. Additionally, most of the writers on the show are 50+ years removed from being 10 years old and have often betrayed their ignorance of modern youth culture.

 

[CousinMerl]

It's interesting to note that this reluctance to utilize Bart more in the Selman seasons is coming off of perhaps what was the nadir of Bart's character: seasons 28-31 or so. In Season 29, we have multiple episodes where Bart is shown to be loser with no redeeming qualities, unwanted and personally disliked by his own family. Season 31's Go Big or Go Homer, in which Bart is viciously mocked, laughed at, and then cries miserably in front of his family in reaction, was probably Bart's lowest moment since wetting his pants in public in Love is a Many-Strangled Thing (the lowest moment before that being The Boys of Bummer). "Bart the loser", unsurprisingly my least favorite characterization of Bart, seems to be something the writers really leaned into recent seasons, and Bartless was, to me, a repudiation of it.

Yeah, I do think it may stem out of how horribly the writers treated Bart around the late 20's & early 30's (speaking in terms of seasons, mind you): That good for nothing loser approach with him being treated as worthless, useless, pathetic, mentally deficent (even by his own parents, mind you) and having nothing good to look forward to in his future (and yeah, let's not to mention his meaner, unlikeable side being grossly exaggerated, treated as a sociopathic manipulative devil child enjoying causing mayhem: Remember toddler Bart stabbing Kirk in the hand with a fork and pouring salt in the wound? Yeah, I think we all would rather forget that nonsense).

That scene in 'Go Big Or Go Homer' was really the kicker that really summed up how little the writers and showrunners thought of Bart back then (and seeing Bart literally lose it and just break down crying all night long really upset me when I first saw it). I mean, they probably didn't intend for it to look as bad (but it did), but they went too far (in my opinion) and the way they had been writing Bart for several seasons made that scene come off as in bad taste, especially for the Bart fans out there who wanted them to not continue the nadir of writing for him as a character, feeling disheartened about this. The timing of that "joke" was not good, to say the least.

Truly the worst Bart characterization (good riddance!) and much like you, I thought that 'Bartless' (lovely episode by the way, absolutely a S34 favorite of mine) was an affirmation that Bart still matters as a character and has a place both on the show and in the Simpson family itself: That episode, to me, actually came off as an apology for all those times they treated him so poorly (even though I'm not sure that was the main intent by the episode), but it still came off as a strong and interesting plot with a lot of heart.

But the question is where to go from there? They got a lot of mileage out of almost making Bart the Meg-like butt monkey of the family, and while they ostensibly will steer clear of that in the future, they seem to be having trouble with coming up for an alternate use for Bart

Like I've been saying, they could tap into that darker sibling conflict side of his and Lisa's or, well, just have more of his pranks and shenanigans and causing general mischief. While the more positively-inclined portrayal he's getting nowadays is good and all (again, so thankful we're not getting that worthless loser Bart portrayal anymore, which was an insult and mockery of the character), they need to bring back some of the edge of the character from before and not play him so safely, so the abeformentioned are ways they could take him.

But like I've been saying, they are clearly way too content with Vanilla Bart and prefer to use him suprisingly little these days (or play up his negative sides a bit too much, like yeah, we saw with the scarily incel-like Bart in 'Ae Bonny Romance'), but there are still instances of them putting him to better use ('Game Done Change' was one that worked out decently, having that mischief-maker Bart again and kind of a fun teamup dynamic with him and Skinner, his ol' school nemesis) but those are far and few between.

It's also worth pointing out that Bart's original role in the show was intended to be counter-cultural, but the show has become increasingly institutionalised over time and he's probably the most anachronistic member of the family now. Additionally, most of the writers on the show are 50+ years removed from being 10 years old and have often betrayed their ignorance of modern youth culture.

The thing is, even though the show has lost its counter-cultural streak and gone a lot more institutionalized overall, there is still more than enough room for Bart and his bad boy rebel archetype, even if he look more anachonistic these days (and they could do more with his more creative and inspirational sides, taking some cues from 'Bartless' and its opening, where he inspired little kids to read).

Sure, a lot of the writers on the show are more or less out of touch older fellas and know and/or understand little of youth culture these days (though they do seem to try harder with Lisa, unlike with Bart, so there is a clear pro-Lisa bias, I guess due to them loving the character), but they could still easily find more usages and roles for Bart that ring true to his character, without defanging or milking him down or exaggerating his negative sides (like they loved to do back in season 28 through 31), but they simply aren't interested in doing more with Bart than they are currently doing, which is a shame. And they do prefer do stuff with Lisa, even giving her roles that would kind of make even more sense with Bart, but he's left playing second fiddle or with an even more minimized role.

It's like they just ran out of ideas of what to do with Bart, kinda revealing he's not a favorite character of most of the staffers.

 

[I Love Lisa]

(though they do seem to try harder with Lisa, unlike with Bart, so there is a clear pro-Lisa bias, I guess due to them loving the character)

And they do prefer do stuff with Lisa, even giving her roles that would kind of make even more sense with Bart

Okay you found me out. I'm secretly in charge of The Simpsons.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

On the contrary, I would say that the portrayal of Bart in Bartless is representative of the exact problem. Specifically, it comes right in the inciting incident, when Homer and Marge are yelling at Bart for the library incident, and Bart complains about how they "never take his side" and that he was only trying to help the kids. Which is something Classic!Bart would never do, because Bart, generally speaking, does not acts on altruistic impulses. He has moments of kindness, yes, and he's fully capable of remorse when it concerns people he knows, but going out of his way just to help a bunch of little kids, and openly protesting about being punished for vandalizing books in the process? Yeah, no. Bart isn't a good kid who's misunderstood, he's a bad kid who is still sympathetic on the basis of how he's still just a kid. To claim otherwise isn't just wrong, it's actively missing the entire point of the character.

 

[B-Boy]

Bart isn't a good kid who's misunderstood, he's a bad kid who is still sympathetic on the basis of how he's still just a kid. To claim otherwise isn't just wrong, it's actively missing the entire point of the character.

Ooo, ahhh, hmmm.

I'm not so sure about this. Classic Bart is clearly neurodivergent, but exists in a world that continually refuses to recognise let alone accommodate his differences, isolating him in the process. It seems reductive to me to simply call him a 'bad kid' - his transgressions are a by-product of a dysfunctional home and an apathetic education system. He is misunderstood.

 

[CousinMerl]

Okay you found me out. I'm secretly in charge of The Simpsons.

Didn't think you were one of the showrunners, but there we have it folks: @I Love Lisa confessed!

 

[CousinMerl]

On the contrary, I would say that the portrayal of Bart in Bartless is representative of the exact problem. Specifically, it comes right in the inciting incident, when Homer and Marge are yelling at Bart for the library incident, and Bart complains about how they "never take his side" and that he was only trying to help the kids. Which is something Classic!Bart would never do, because Bart, generally speaking, does not acts on altruistic impulses. He has moments of kindness, yes, and he's fully capable of remorse when it concerns people he knows, but going out of his way just to help a bunch of little kids, and openly protesting about being punished for vandalizing books in the process? Yeah, no.

Um, I think that looking it in that absolute way of "Bart would never ever ever act on altruistic impulses" feel like kind of a narrow-minded, bit of conservative view of Bart's entire character and characterization. Sure, classic Bart would not typically act this way, but I don't think there's anything that says that he absolutely, under no circumstances do something nice like this.

Just like @B-Boy said above this post, Bart is rather the "misunderstood kid" than purely the "bad kid" and as we've discussed before in this thread and in the very unpopular opinions thread, Bart definitely has a penchance for kindness and good deeds, but tends to hide it deep down under his bad boy surface and image, rarely letting this softer and nicer side come out, but sometimes it breaks free and can show in some admirable ways (and the way the episode wrote and directed this part iwth him encouraging the kids to read by drawing in the book was done in a way that I feel ring true to his character, doing something that was technically destructive as those school books the kids started to draw in are not cheap, but was his way of actually trying for once, which he has done more than a few times).

That is not to say he still can be the prankster troublemaker hellraiser, but he will indeed have his a lot more positive moments and when he does let that side shine and he's misunderstood, he will kind of obviously protest as he did try (for once) to play by his view of school rules end up doing something inpirational (in his way) and expected more credit from that (as that's of course that he expects from Marge & Homer when he does make an effort and it ends up being kind of an unexpected success).

I don't think anything says that this representative of the problem with modern Bart, but more show that there is much more to him than being the "bad kid" everyone assumes him to be (something we also saw examples of in the classic era) so he is the misunderstood character who can do well and good when he put his mind to it, which 'Bartless' showed. And it was handled in a tasteful way that doesn't go against his character (I rather think that him being portrayed as a sociopath liking to cause pain & suffering and actively ruined HOmer & Marge's lives in '3 scenes And A Tag From A Marriage' is more representative of this problem, actually).

Feel free to totally disagree, but that's the way I see it, so in short, I see nothing particularily wrong about 'Bartless'.

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

Ooo, ahhh, hmmm.

I'm not so sure about this. Classic Bart is clearly neurodivergent, but exists in a world that continually refuses to recognise let alone accommodate his differences, isolating him in the process. It seems reductive to me to simply call him a 'bad kid' - his transgressions are a by-product of a dysfunctional home and an apathetic education system. He is misunderstood.

Obviously, this is true (though I am hesitant with the interpretations of Bart as neurodivergent - speaking as someone with autism, some of the implications of such an angle are kinda weird), but it's never really used to excuse his actions, just contextualize why he acts the way he does. There's no real question when Bart attempts to steal Bonestorm that he is committing a serious crime, but what Marge Be Not Proud explores is his attempts to rationalize his actions and how he deals with the repercussions. He's a very multi-faceted character in that sense, but I would say calling him "misunderstood" isn't accurate at all; he definitely isn't in the likes of Summer of 4'2 or My Sister, My Sitter, even if he does apologize to Lisa for his actions in both.

I will admit that I haven't seen even close to every Jean story, but I'm a little skeptical also on to the idea of "sociopath Bart" being a major trend as much as a misunderstood attempt to recreate the classic angle of "Bart does wrong". As I alluded to in my bit on love interests, the broader trend from what I've seen is for Bart's darker tendencies to be just ignored entirely in favour of making him a generic "kid" character who just does pranks because that's what the series' iconography demands. He's not really a complex or even defined character in any of these proceedings; rather, it just comes off as kinda pathetic because that's what you're left with when you don't have Bart as the anti-authority hellraiser.

 

[B-Boy]

(though I am hesitant with the interpretations of Bart as neurodivergent - speaking as someone with autism, some of the implications of such an angle are kinda weird),

Bart Gets an 'F' strikes me as a very obvious and deeply empathetic exploration of a boy with ADHD combined-type, almost a decade before he was actually diagnosed with it in Brother's Little Helper. I admittedly relate to his struggles as depicted in that episode, which I think is a formative one for the character.

There's no real question when Bart attempts to steal Bonestorm that he is committing a serious crime, but what Marge Be Not Proud explores is his attempts to rationalize his actions and how he deals with the repercussions. He's a very multi-faceted character in that sense, but I would say calling him "misunderstood" isn't accurate at all; he definitely isn't in the likes of Summer of 4'2 or My Sister, My Sitter, even if he does apologize to Lisa for his actions in both.

I mean to say that he's misunderstood in broad strokes. Indeed, Bart himself laments this in Marge Be Not Proud when he says "everyone thinks I'm the black sheep".

I'm a little skeptical also on to the idea of "sociopath Bart" being a major trend as much as a misunderstood attempt to recreate the classic angle of "Bart does wrong".

It's an emergent trend as his traits became increasingly exaggerated and flanderised (like most characters in the post-classic era).

 

[Nitsy]

"Sociopath Bart" rarely takes up an entire episode (with the possible exception of the travesty that is Love is a Many-Strangled Thing), and is often confined to individual scenes (or best exemplified by them). I agree that it is a failed attempt to replicate "bad boy Bart", as Bart was never a sociopath in the classic era, even if he made bad decisions and sometimes took a while to understand why he did so (e.g. Bart vs. Thanksgiving).

This is an interesting discussion, and I don't have much to add at this point. I will say that I do think Bart feels misunderstood from time to time (as any kid does), though I don't know if it's a key defining trait the way it is for Lisa (though the later seasons are guilty of exaggerating this as well, hammering in how tragically misunderstood Lisa is, even if I'm not really buying it in the context of that particular episode). Bart is certainly misunderstood by the writers often enough; "sociopath Bart" is the product of a gross misreading of the character.

 

[B-Boy]

I will say that I do think Bart feels misunderstood from time to time (as any kid does), though I don't know if it's a key defining trait the way it is for Lisa

I think they both are! It's interesting and ironic to me that, for all their sibling rivalry and animosity, Bart and Lisa are very similar. Both are anti-authoritarian, iconoclastic, overlooked, and isolated from many of their peers. The difference is in their idiosyncratic reactions to that. When they align with each other, they're a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Sandboy]

"Bartless" in my opinion still points, at least in some part, to Bart as a child with great potential within him.

This is obviously my own impression, but I feel like the book incident reinforces that; He is not a malicious child. In any case, he is just someone who is in a season of life where he is just flourishing. Of course, that doesn't deny that he's still a complicated kid, he certainly doesn't tend to think things through (especially in moments when the pot is boiling - as demonstrated by many of his stories with Lisa), but that doesn't mean he's a bad kid. And on the contrary maybe there is in him that his parents are not willing to see beyond because they only stay on the surface (automatically receiving a call from the school for something Bart did and automatically thinking the worst of him ).

To me a lot of the point comes from that - it's not just that Bart is misunderstood (which he really is because "Bart Gets An F" is a representation of his academic struggles, or things like "Bart the Genius" which is a criticism of how the school system does not benefit a restless and hyperactive child like him), but it is also easy to pigeonhole him into the position of "bad and problematic boy." Again, there is no doubt that he cannot become a bad child, but we also have to look at the other side of the coin. Has Bart done pranks that have caused great damage? Yes, that is something that is not denied, but... What would happen if this time a prank was not done simply for "evil" purposes? What if this time what Homer and Marge think is another "property damage" done by their child, is not, instead, going around and this time being something that caused good? (and I honestly can see that Bart's intention was to help the kids). I mean, he may be disinterested, but not completely apathetic. He may be the "bad boy" of his school, but that doesn't mean he's the complete archetype (and we've been shown many times in the series that Bart HAS a sensitive side that he can let on at times. Again, let's just take some examples from his relationship with Lisa in the classic series).

To me, "Bartless" is less of "'they never hear my side of the version" and more of "gee... Maybe we're not seeing the whole picture" - Bart is a kid with a lot of energy and, maybe, he could benefit of it if someone is really willing to see the potential and help him channel that energy into something productive and that can become something good (not only for him, but for others. Something that cannot be seen while Homer and Marge are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt). If we also look at the context of the series, Bart has also demonstrated notable creative quality and artistic talent. Or, hell, things like "Separate Vocations" also show that he can improve when it's mentioned to him that he might have a future (literally a lot of Bart's genesis in the classic series was about this idea of how Bart is someone who is destined to be a loser).

So I disagree about that "Bartless" position. Even if I understand where you're coming from, I still think it's a bit of a reductive position on the character.

It's interesting to note that this reluctance to utilize Bart more in the Selman seasons is coming off of perhaps what was the nadir of Bart's character: seasons 28-31 or so.

This is a bit quaint, but in any case it is interesting to note how the last episode with a characterization closer to "bad boy" of Bart would be "Bart the Bad Guy" also from s31. Noting how after that was when they started with the more "sanitized" characterization of Bart (in fact with an episode of Jean, "Diary Queen", which began to reframe this thesis about Bart having potential).

How ironic. Bart the Bad Guy really was the end of "Bart the Bad Guy", huh?

 

[Nitsy]

this idea of how Bart is someone who is destined to be a loser

Which I think in the classic era was brought up as a cautionary tale, i.e. if Bart doesn't change his behavior, he may end up a loser. But then when we do get a glimpse into a possible future path for him (in episodes like Separate Vocations and Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie), we see that Bart has a potential role in law enforcement (obviously intended as an ironic counter to his anti-authoritarian, bad boy ways), and that he may be quite successful as an adult. This seems to have been abandoned soon after, with Bart in "future episodes" shown to have fallen quite short of this success and being the divorced, living-at-home Kirk-like loser that he was always warned he would turn into. (I won't be too hard on these episodes, as having Lisa and Bart both be successes would be dull, and Lisa's life is never shown to be perfect either; the later future episodes are often more about the complexities of adulthood. That said, I would like a little less "loser" characterization in them for Bart).

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

To me a lot of the point comes from that - it's not just that Bart is misunderstood (which he really is because "Bart Gets An F" is a representation of his academic struggles, or things like "Bart the Genius" which is a criticism of how the school system does not benefit a restless and hyperactive child like him), but it is also easy to pigeonhole him into the position of "bad and problematic boy." Again, there is no doubt that he cannot become a bad child, but we also have to look at the other side of the coin. Has Bart done pranks that have caused great damage? Yes, that is something that is not denied, but... What would happen if this time a prank was not done simply for "evil" purposes? What if this time what Homer and Marge think is another "property damage" done by their child, is not, instead, going around and this time being something that caused good? (and I honestly can see that Bart's intention was to help the kids). I mean, he may be disinterested, but not completely apathetic. He may be the "bad boy" of his school, but that doesn't mean he's the complete archetype (and we've been shown many times in the series that Bart HAS a sensitive side that he can let on at times. Again, let's just take some examples from his relationship with Lisa in the classic series).

To me, "Bartless" is less of "'they never hear my side of the version" and more of "gee... Maybe we're not seeing the whole picture" - Bart is a kid with a lot of energy and, maybe, he could benefit of it if someone is really willing to see the potential and help him channel that energy into something productive and that can become something good (not only for him, but for others. Something that cannot be seen while Homer and Marge are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt). If we also look at the context of the series, Bart has also demonstrated notable creative quality and artistic talent. Or, hell, things like "Separate Vocations" also show that he can improve when it's mentioned to him that he might have a future (literally a lot of Bart's genesis in the classic series was about this idea of how Bart is someone who is destined to be a loser).

I mean, Bart isn't really doing "good" in Separate Vocations, he just decides that acting as hall monitor would be a fun outlet that carries the benefit of getting Skinner off his back - Lisa goes as far to call him a fascist. His only really good act in the story is willingly taking the fall for Lisa so to save her future, which is one of the strongest examples of how his sister is able to bring out the best in him just as much as bring out the worst.

Anyway, while I don't entirely disagree with that reading of Bartless, I feel like it's not really how the story frames it. There's never a call out to the many legitimately bad things Bart has done or an appeal to the capacity for good inside him - it's that Bart was always good in how he's brought vibrancy to their lives, and Marge and Homer simply don't realize it because they lack the proper perspective (My Octopus and Teacher is similar, if anything). Which rings hollow to me, because it kinda voids the question of why Bart is like this - if his family is pretty much entirely functional and he doesn't have any overt problems with school (which he really doesn't - Peyton is nice, the bullies are basically never seen harassing him now, and Skinner is so ineffectual so to pose no threat), then why is he misbehaving at all?

Which I think in the classic era was brought up as a cautionary tale, i.e. if Bart doesn't change his behavior, he may end up a loser. But then when we do get a glimpse into a potential future path for him (in episodes like Separate Vocations and Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie), we see that Bart has a potential role in law enforcement (obviously intended as an ironic counter to his anti-authoritarian, bad boy ways), and that he may be quite successful. This seems to have been abandoned soon after, with Bart in "future episodes" shown to have fallen quite short of this success and being the divorced, living-at-home loser that he was always warned he would turn into.

Yeah, I'm always a little puzzled why people act like Bart being portrayed as a loser in the future is a post-classic development, when Lisa's Wedding depicts him as twice-divorced white trash who still lives with his parents (Odd aside, but was that line intended as a nod to Laura and Jessica, his two love interests to that point? Just a thought). Maybe it's less overt because Bart isn't in focus and isn't actively depressed, but the idea of him being a future failure was something always persistent. If anything, they seemed to embrace it a lot more in the latter half of the classic series, Bart shows a lot less concern about his future, at any rate.

 

[B-Boy]

Which rings hollow to me, because it kinda voids the question of why Bart is like this - if his family is pretty much entirely functional and he doesn't have any overt problems with school (which he really doesn't - Peyton is nice, the bullies are basically never seen harassing him now, and Skinner is so ineffectual so to pose no threat), then why is he misbehaving at all?

This is actually a very interesting question to ponder, once again revealing how recent changes to the show have displaced him. I wonder if it will be addressed?

 

[Nitsy]

The recent changes all being of the "softening" type. Removing the edge makes a Bart a bit aimless since he was always an "edgy" character. That's not to say that some of these changes aren't good or inevitable, but they do present a problem.

 

[Sandboy]

Yeah, if anything I think it's simply the changes the show has gone through that have pretty much (if not all) destroyed what Bart's original role in the series was.

I have the feeling that there are three factors involved; one (already mentioned by B-Boy) that the original role was "countercultural" and very much in the vein of "fuck the system and its rules!". Two: that Bart's love of pranks registers as somewhat anachronistic to the series, like, just think - "Marge the Meanie" was the last episode (to date) to play with that characterization of Bart as a prankster. And the third and this is more of a personal interpretation - the development of Lisa as Homer/Marge's "favorite daughter" and that would become something more noticeable in the HD era (for me it is from "Lisa's Sax" where the show began with this interpretation of the characters and technically it is here where an explanation is given for Bart's penchant for pranks).

And when we think about it, both of those things are no longer part of his character - the show has effectively become institutionalized (honestly to me this is notable in s5 given the fact that there are no less than three stories that put Bart through a crisis of identity), his love for pranks being something that is getting older and basically that development of the Bart/Lisa relationship is no longer played because Jean has fewer episodes and Selman and co have moved away from using children. Which may seem hollow in the context of "Bartless" and his new characterization, but it's technically necessary if they still want to use the character - so what else can you do with a character with virtually all of his character build gone (let's also add the Edna's departure from the program)? I'm not defending this characterization and I understand where people are coming from about the problems with his more "sanitized" version but it's necessary - basically retconning him is the only way they were able to inject new light on the character, for better or worse (another tangent ; but let's also note that this characterization of Bart originates in "Diary Queen" which is basically the writers' last goodbye to Edna).

I mean, it's the same reason why we also recently talked about how the Selman seasons have been focusing more on Marge - because she's basically the only intact and least affected member of the family because she's not, to begin with. she had no defined text in the classic series and that's why it's easier to come up with stories about her (unlike her son... Which is something I think I addressed in how both cases I feel they reflect).

 

[MisogiKurakawa]

One interesting nuance I think to add to the subject of how Bart's handling in the classic series pesudo-warped over time is in how many of his stories in S5-S8 remove him from the more grounded settings of the series in favour of stories which placed him as the lead far more out-there stories (Bart Gets Famous, Lemon of Troy, Bart on the Road, basically any Sideshow Bob plot), not unlike Homer. The nuance however lies in that many of Homer's more fantastical Classic stories (Homer's Barbershop Quartet, Deep-Space Homer, Homer the Great, You Only Move Twice) were grounded by his own character arc and everyman status (if anything, Homer's worse tendencies were usually expressed in the more grounded plots), while Bart generally doesn't get that - he's an entirely static character in most of these episodes (Bart Gets Famous is an exception), and is more just as a vehicle to get rounded up in excessive plots.

This isn't to say there aren't still stories more in line with actual development (Bart's Girlfriend, Bart Sells His Soul, Marge Be Not Proud, a lot of the Lisa stories in a secondary capacity), but all of this does generally point to an emerging disinterest, if nothing else, in meaningfully utilizing Bart's character in any substantive way. Rather, the general reasoning seems to be a more mechanical use of Bart as something of an all-purpose "kid" POV - technically not losing his unique traits, but having them flattened to where he is more easily malleable; because Bart is a character dependent on narrative context in order to function. He needs the story specifically to interact with his chaotic nature to act in a meaningful way, and if the story is already chaos, then he kinda has nothing to do but....exist.

If anything, this is in part why I'd quantify Laura and Jessica as such missed potential on the series' part, because both represented very interesting dimensions to his character that the show simply does not have otherwise: A cool older girl whom is able to relate to Bart in a way that adults simply can't, and a female counterpart to him whom is both more extreme in what she is willing to do and fully capable to wrapping him around her finger, yet is also contextualized in what is heavily implied to be similar circumstances to himself. Those are actually interesting relationship dynamics that are able to reflect and inform Bart himself, but instead of actually capitalizing and iterating on these kinds of nuances, the show takes effectively the "easy" way out and instead falls back on having Bart pal around endlessly with Milhouse. Milhouse being, as I unpacked, a complete and utter narrative dead end insofar as actually developing Bart as a character. There's really no relationships strong enough amongst the secondary cast to actually play off of him, even Edna and Skinner were played in a somewhat limited factor.

Fiction is, in a sense, driven by iteration. It's driven by the premise of conceptual ideas, basic settings, which are linked together and thus form a larger worldview, a worldview which in fiction expresses the kinds of ideological truths we find valuable. And in the creation of new fiction, new truths, the process is dictated that new settings, new links, must be constructed. Think of it, how much in the way of true "new" is created in the endless cycling of pre-described "facts"? How much can you create with just what you consider sacred, pre-set cycles? Because I have to wonder if the true cause of The Simpsons' cultural decline isn't just in the staff's only failure to view their fiction as a living organism - that they need to continue ever-developing ideologically and creatively to survive. Because, from the way Bart as been handled, it sincerely seems to me like that is the ultimate case here.

Just food for thought.

 

[B-Boy]

Just food for thought.

This is such a great post, full of fascinating observations and insights. Thanks for sharing!

 

[CousinMerl]

To me, "Bartless" is less of "'they never hear my side of the version" and more of "gee... Maybe we're not seeing the whole picture" - Bart is a kid with a lot of energy and, maybe, he could benefit of it if someone is really willing to see the potential and help him channel that energy into something productive and that can become something good (not only for him, but for others. Something that cannot be seen while Homer and Marge are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt). If we also look at the context of the series, Bart has also demonstrated notable creative quality and artistic talent. Or, hell, things like "Separate Vocations" also show that he can improve when it's mentioned to him that he might have a future (literally a lot of Bart's genesis in the classic series was about this idea of how Bart is someone who is destined to be a loser).

I think that summing Bartless up more or less aptly, this is the part that stuck out of @Sandboy's reasoning. And he's correct. I can understand where someone like @MisogiKurakawa is coming from with the reasoning that bartless is an exemplification of the problem, but it is really incredibly reductive (that's the word I was looking for in my last post, now that I think of it), as Bart is a much more complex character than just being "the bad kid/boy" of the show. He has a lot of positive qualities such as his artistic and inspirational side (as shown in Bartless, regarding the latter) and he sure as hell has the abilitiy to improve when he sees that things can turn out well in the future=.

But take all of that away and he comes just a pathetic character whom essentially doesn't care, takes pride in being a loser and don't minding being talked trash about, something we also got during that period in the HD era where the writers and showrunners didn't think much of him at all, and that is just as bad as them gettng him wrong and playing him up being a remorseless sociopath.

How ironic. Bart the Bad Guy really was the end of "Bart the Bad Guy", huh?

Yeah, it is ironic and noteable how that was essentially the start of the end of him being the bad guy.

But what makes it even more interesting and maybe a bit more ironic is how that really, in that episode it wasn't even them playing him up as a sociopath, but more doing what is more or less typical of him to do when being especially conniving and destructive (considering he was weaponizing spoilers) without making him a despicable character, so there was kind of a restraint in that sense.

The recent changes all being of the "softening" type. Removing the edge makes a Bart a bit aimless since he was always an "edgy" character. That's not to say that some of these changes aren't good or inevitable, but they do present a problem.

As I've said before and I'll say again, they need to give Bart his fangs back and let him be a bit more edgy, as you put it. I don't technically mind the changes of him becoming a more likeable character and have his positive sides shown a bit more, but they are a problem when the writers play too much into them and discard his bad boy persona altogether, never letting him be a prankster and causing property damage, which brings my case back to 'Bartless', which while it had him be more of a positive figure with depth, they still played into his destructive (drawing in the schoolbook and inadvertedly inspiring the little kids to do the same) and more rambunctious (him causing a ruckus in the "what if?" fantasy) sides and show how he adds a lot of color and that final touch to the Simpson family and show, kind of having various qualities, both good and bad, from both Homer, Marge & Lisa, hence why he's a multifaceted character whom should not be pigeonholed into just a certain role, be it good kid Bart or bad kid Bart, as that definitely is limiting and holding him back.

 

[CousinMerl]

How much can you create with just what you consider sacred, pre-set cycles? Because I have to wonder if the true cause of The Simpsons' cultural decline isn't just in the staff's only failure to view their fiction as a living organism - that they need to continue ever-developing ideologically and creatively to survive. Because, from the way Bart as been handled, it sincerely seems to me like that is the ultimate case here.

This is maybe one of the most intriguing questions that has been asked on this board, not just limited to this particular discussion but also working on pretty much any questionable development or direction the show has taken in the last two decades or so (especially in the HD era I'd say). And the case of how Bart has shifted so much over the years, bit by bit, and lost much of his edge, reached a bottom point during seasons 28 through 31-ish and now is a fairly tame character (and surprisingly downplayed if not outright ignored) is kind of an ideal example of how they failed to recognize the show properly and let it grow naturally, while staying true to the characters and their ideals.

Developing ideologically and creatively is obviously not a bad thing, but there are right ways to do it and wrong ways to do it, and the show's staff hasn't really always done it so well, choosing to warp and shift this or that around to fit certain plots or episodes and the like, just due to them playing this and that fairly safely and/or limiting themselves to what worked before (yet they have been flexible when they choose, of course, but they have not always been flexible in such ways that have been good choices such as either narratively or characterization-wise, in which latter case we have Bart having much of his edge" removed; sure the "nicer" Bart is better than something like him being a socio and proud, but him being more or less solely "safe" has very much been limiting the character & his potential.

So yeah, I think they should learn from before and try tap into why someone like Bart need to have his fangs and let be a bit more of a troublemaker again once in a while. Plus to to tie back in with the sibling relationship that pretty much started this discourse, let him end up in sibling conflicts and rivalries with Lisa (even let it turn more serious once in a while, though if it still meant they'd reconcile).