Elizabeth J Repress wrote: > >Before anyone has a chance to say "But I thought Malcs didn't >watch TV. > How does he know so much about Seinfeld?" Well, I have a >friend who is a > TVholic and I go to his place once a week to watch >the Mariners on TV. > the description of sienfeld was not your own. Wrong, Missy. But I haven't seen any current episodes for the past year or so because, uh, I don't watch TV. > i cannot imagine you > beleiving george was sensitive. 8) > Well actually none of the characters on Seinfeld are sensitive. I was exaggerating their microscopic attributes for the sake of arguement. They're all pretty smug and emotionally unadventurous and just generally capture the gestalt of a 12 year old boy pretty royally. Why aren't the shows "about" anything? Because their lives aren't about anything. No one knows where they're going or is in any passionate hurry to get anywhere. They've doused any flicker of desire from their lives and replaced it with sarcastic detachment as a form of emotional armor against maturity. If any of the characters would actually stay in a relationship rather than just see who they can manipulate into bed perhaps they'd have a chance at growth. Since they don't they just become escapist characters which serve to remind the viewer of what life used to be life before emotional responsibility. In light of all that, George is the only character who even comes close to having any sort of sensitivity even though (ironically enough) he's oblivious to it. It's a wonder these characters can even feed themselves. > >Robbie Coltrane (famous Scottish comedian for all you Yanks who've > >never heard of him) > > one of my faves - don't underestimate us. I wasn't underestimating "us," I was underestimating "them" 8) Malcs