Let’s try another poll. Whether it is Phil Leotardo on The Sopranos, or Joffrey Baratheon on Game of Thrones, or Nellie Oleson on Little House on the Prairie, or Thomas (not to mention Mary) on Downton Abbey, or Smoking Man on The X-Files, television producers have always known that a surefire way to keep viewers interested and involved in a series is to offer them a character to hate. But it is not enough to simply make the viewer hate a character, as that can be easily satisfied by killing him off. No, to maintain interest, the series must create a longing in the viewer to see a villain get his or her comeuppance.
Once the villain is introduced and the desire for comeuppance is elicited, what remains in the hands of the producer is deciding how long to make the viewer wait for it. That brings us to our poll. Feel free to comment on your answer.
RESULTS
How long must a viewer wait for the villain to get his/her comeuppance?
- The villain should be defeated in one or two episodes (a la original Star Trek). (17%, 1 Votes)
- The villain should be disposed of in the same season (a la Dexter). (67%, 4 Votes)
- The villain should be given two or three seasons to cause trouble (a la Game of Thrones). (0%, 0 Votes)
- The villain should meet his end in the finale (a la Smoking Man on X-Files). (17%, 1 Votes)
- The villain should die but return to cause havoc another day (a la Godzilla). (0%, 0 Votes)
- There should be no comeuppance ever (a la Mr Burns on The Simpsons). (0%, 0 Votes)
A long-term annoyance of mine is how The New York Times decides who is important and who is not. The latest example involves the victims of the Malaysian airplane shot down in the skies over Ukraine. Here is the opening sentence of their profile of the victims:
“Among the 298 people aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were a renowned AIDS researcher, a Dutch senator and an Australian novelist.”
That may be true. But the majority the victims were ordinary folks like you and me who do not have celebrity credentials and so did not “rise to the top” of their report of the murder victims.
This kind of reporting has got to stop. While the New York Times should be free to decide who should merit one of their full-blown obituaries, it should not be in their power to discriminate among those killed indiscriminately, in their front-page news.
The next time I board a plane, should I look at those in the seats around me and wonder, how many more important people than myself are on this plane, and does The New York Times know about them, so that in the event that I am killed, The New York Times can be sure to mention them and their accomplishments instead of my own trivial life?
Whether The New York Times changes or not, we can. We can do something about our own addiction to celebrity. We can scale back our worship of accomplishment and the length of people’s Linked-In profiles. We can give The New York Times a reason to treat the murders of each of those passengers and crew members on an equal basis. How? By visiting that article (linked here) and submitting a comment that expresses our disgust for such reporting.
I am no Senator. I am no AIDS researcher. In fact, I hate labels. I am exactly the kind of person who would never warrant a mention by The New York Times if my plane crashed.
I want The New York Times to mention everyone or no one.
The problem is not The New York Times. The problem is in our culture. Cultures change, one revolution of the hour hand at a time. They change as you, I, then your friend, and my neighbor, and then one person after another after that, decide that some ways of thinking don’t work anymore. Because they don’t do justice to humanity.