Cartoons and Culture Shifts

I wanted to address something that I'd been thinking on some recently. Those who know me (or even those who've read this blog before) will know that I watch cartoons. And not just cartoons geared towards 20-somethings (Seth MacFarlane's shows immediately come to mind), but those cartoons that still make up the bulk of Cartoon Network or Nickelodeon's programming--though I'm well aware that many of their offerings are shifting away from that model and more towards the Disney Model of live-action, "culturally" "diverse" teen dramedies. Granted, much of what I still watch comes down to shows that would have been on when I was the target age, but still (see Spongebob, the show that never dies).

Anyway, I think I initially fell victim to the thought that a lot of us have as we age, that the things we grew up with were "best" and somehow inherently different than those of the younger generation. It's the same logic that leads newspapers to write every couple of years about how the newest generation is the worst one yet. By their count, the Greatest Generation was just that, and by now we're down to young adults who can't tie their shoes. But cheer up Millenials and Gen Yers, in a few decades you can all point at the newest generation coming-of-age and lament how terrible they are. But I digress. This sort of resistance to acceptance of new things beyond our own formative years extends into all aspects of pop culture that we consume, most notably with music but also, as I'm focusing on today, with TV programming.

I like to think I'm somewhat impartial, at least more so than average. So I wanted to give some new cartoons a chance, even though my inclination would be to pshaw on anything that I haven't watched before (one of human nature's biggest ironies is its ability to judge the quality of something without ever having encountered it, apparently). I have to admit that this post is really only about one cartoon in particular, but I like it enough to defend all that is new through this blog. Anyway, that cartoon is The Amazing World of Gumball, found on Cartoon Network. After watching one episode, I actually found I enjoyed it (Step 1: give something new a chance!), and after a few episodes, I found myself wanting to watch as many as I could. It's really very clever and--surprise--not much different from the shows I would have watched growing up (this is a fairly representative clip of the show, for those interested).

The Gumball title sequence

The point of this is twofold. First, shows may change over large periods of time as the culture itself changes (for example, Looney Tunes obviously had a different culture to them than today's shows), but I would argue that the age of the Nicktoon (i.e. 1991 and on) began a new generation of cartoons we still see today, and within that generation cartoons tend to have a certain stylistic similarity. I don't think, on balance, today's cartoons meant for 7-10 year olds are any different than those made in 1993, at least in level of sophistication or general humor. Gumball contains the same number of jokes that are meant for the grown-up audience that Rocko's Modern Life would have had 18 years ago.

Second, I think the bias we all have for things that we grew up with, even when they're substantially similar to things that come about once we're adults is easier to overcome than one may think. Obviously, the longer a person goes without encountering an "update" on a cultural area they knew growing up, the more likely they will be to have severed all connection between the two and simply reject the new version outright (I'd call this the "get off my lawn conflict"). But so long as we occasionally refresh our views of a cultural area during our lives, I think we can maintain the connection with the updated version and appreciate the evolution of the thing, rather than see it as an abrupt change. This is why those of us who grew up with some form of computer technology are not subsequently baffled by new technological developments, even as we reach adulthood and on, rather than suddenly being lost in new technologies as we age. Having maintained that connection as technology progressed allowed us to see the evolution and build on it, rather than suddenly waking up to a whole new world.

Obviously there's a bit of a gap between keeping up with cartoons and keeping up with world technology, but I think the idea is the same. No, you don't all need to quickly watch episodes of Gumball to avoid falling behind in the development of culture (though I do recommend the show), but we should all consider that, while the world does change and generations do have their differences based on the climate of their formative years, most things change in an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, fashion. If we keep an eye on something as it changes, we won't feel so hopelessly lost in our old age (and will potentially avoid the "get off my lawn conflict").

When is a Family Guy Joke Canon?

I've always been interested in the the field of canon as a part of a story or series that has an ongoing development schedule. I think the easiest way to think of this is a seasons-long TV series where each episode tells an individual, generally unrelated story, while overall maintaining some semblance of linearity in the characters' development. Another area where this is highly visible is in video game series' where the user is given some level of choice in outcomes from event to event. If the exploits of that character are referred to in subsequent games, the developers must either stick only to events that they required the player to complete (hence, canon), or else risk the possibility of creating canon out of something that didn't necessarily happen to a particular player in a particular game.

Focusing on the development of canon in a TV series, this concern occurs most often, as far as I can tell, in comedies, particularly animated ones (I'm looking at shows like Family Guy, Futurama, and I suppose non-animated shows such as Seinfeld). Each of these shows has a general character development timeline throughout the series. In essence, there is a linear backstory to the character that develops on each character both through revelations made during various episodes and through certain events within episodes that the writers decide will become part of the character's, and hence the series', canon. Here arises the distinction between canon and non-canon within episodes.

As a small example, I will use Family Guy situations because it's a great example of the seemingly arbitrary distinction between what becomes canon and what is ignored. Because Family Guy consists of both "cut away" jokes and plot-based, situational jokes, each provides an opportunity to either create or ignore canon. As a rough rule, "cut away" jokes tend to not become canon, and often can ignore past canon in making the joke. A good example is where Peter is shown in Vietnam during the Vietnam war, dressed as a clown. Peter is somewhere between 43 and 44 years old, and so would have been too young to serve during the time of the Vietnam War.

This age discrepancy is actually a running issue throughout the series, as well as with many other animated shows that don't show characters aging (an example of the rare story where animated characters do age is the comic strip, For Better or For Worse). In Family Guy, the lack of aging becomes an issue that requires the suspension of disbelief as the series progresses. Two of the most egregious examples consist of Stewie being perpetually one year old, and Bonnie Swanson being pregnant "for like six years." Both situations are referenced by other characters at some point in the series--Stewie, when Brian asks him why he still has a stuffed animal and is surprised to hear Stewie is still one, and Bonnie when Peter calls her out for having a six-year pregnancy. However, these age impossibilities are still canonical, as each is an element that transcends individual episodes and becomes part of the show's fabric. I wonder, though, how they can fit together, as Bonnie having a child who becomes a functioning baby would seem to conflict with Stewie never aging (though he does at one point have his first birthday). This concern is better left for another post, however.

Returning to the distinction between plot-based jokes and cut away jokes, even when a plot-based joke appears to be believable and likely to transcend the specific episode in which it occurs, often it is not later referenced in any way, leaving it up to the viewer to guess whether it was indeed made canon or not. To contrast, often cutaways are easy to spot when they are non-canonical because they involve an outrageous situation that is impossible to reconcile with an ongoing story (such as when a main character dies in the scene). However, when something that occurs in a cutaway is plausible, but very unlikely to occur, it is more questionable.

A few things that occur in episodes and become canon later on are, for example, Kevin Swanon's presumed death in Iraq (which is later made into a plotline in an episode, where Kevin miraculously returns unharmed). His participation in the Iraq War was only briefly noted in an single episode, but is cemented as Family Guy canon when he returns. Another is the death of several secondary (but recurring) characters in the episode, And Then There Were Fewer, which are later confirmed (mostly through the simple fact that they are no longer in the show). As a further tidbit, James Woods, who was one of the victims in the episode, later returns in another episode, attributing his apparent resurrection to medical science and his status as a famous actor. This canonical fact in itself illustrates the distinction I'm trying to make. Had the deaths in And Then There Were Fewer not been canon, no reference would have been made in the later appearance, because non-canon events don't need to be referenced, and often aren't allowed to be, by definition. The simple fact of an explanation for James Woods' return in a subsequent episode stamps the events in the earlier episode as "canon" in the Family Guy story.

Tracking the differences between jokes that produce canon and those that don't is difficult without explicit references later on. Are we to believe that Peter has had dozens of jobs in recent years outside of the few that are certainly canonical (Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, Pawtucket Patriot brewery, even freelance fisherman for a period)? Did Stewie and Brian really fight in the Iraq War?

I think that because a lot of the situations are far-fetched and seemingly disjointed, it makes the determination of what is canon and what is not all the more interesting. Peter probably has not actually been addicted to the various hard drugs that we see him face throughout the series, but we are to believe he has repeatedly destroyed the front of Cleveland's house, as well as many other structures (as his propensity for mayhem was referenced in an episode where a contractor asks Lois whether she had any house repair needs in a given week). The suspension of disbelief and the distinction between what is "real" and what is simply for extended comedic effect are difficult concepts to reconcile, but they make shows of this type more interesting to piece together beyond the simple entertainment of an episode.

In essence, the problem with canon vs. non-canon helps this kind of show. On one hand, those who have never seen it can pick it up in a given episode and follow along with near-full entertainment (in contrast to heavily storied shows where a new viewer must be clued in to every relationship and scenario in order to understand much of anything); and on the other, a seasoned viewer can pick up on nuances and subtle character-background developments that are referenced, left up to that viewer to determine whether it is canonical or else used simply for entertainment value at that moment, to make a joke work.

I'm going to leave this discussion here, with TV shows, rather than carry on into the video game series examples. Long posts can get tedious, and I would likely double the length of this one if I continued. Perhaps I'll address it in a later post.