a generation of idiots

i'm convinced. we really are a generation of idiots.

blame it on tv. how else can i account for the fact that, not so long ago, a couple of million women, and men, wet their pillows in gay abandon simply because an actor from a popular soap opera kicked the bucket? did you know that there's actually a discussion group for fans of the bold and the beautiful?

what draws crowds endlessly to soap operas, i ask myself, every time someone switches channels to cry over douglas marrying gary, or sunita leaving vikram for gaurav's brother manik?

considering soaps evolved from american radio dramas of the 30s, you'd think there was nothing much left for any of them to say by now. just try telling that to a couch potato though.

leaving aside soap operas, what about the rest? like star trek, for one: gene roddenberry's 30-year-old phenomenon. one of the reasons for this success could be that, irrespective of how futuristic the sets are, everything else about the show is safely contemporary. the message that comes across loud and clear is this -- there may be lots of unknown terrors out there, but none that a bunch of american men can't control. hidden under this subtle goal are subliminal messages encompassing homophobia, sexism and racism.

does anyone really care? i doubt it. they're all too busy watching captain kirk live long and prosper.

star wars and jurassic park work on the same principle of fear, with a few minor arguments against biotechnology and genetic engineering thrown in. all of which is conveniently ignored in a mad rush for free t-shirts.

there's more. take friends, a.k.a. three guys, three women, and a lot of jokes. if none of the six are what we call 'normal,' do we identify with them simply because they remind us of our own repressed abnormalities? no comment.

the x-files? yes, its success would put most hollywood blockbusters to shame. no, it's not as innocuous as you think. two f.b.i. special agents investigating unexplained cases with a pretty good rate of success. the guy is, surprisingly, intuitive; the woman -- surprise, surprise -- logical. so, what we get is a man who appeals to women (thanks to his ability to be irrational), and a woman the men adore (thanks to her ability to adopt 'male' attitudes of scepticism and rationality).

and you thought these were simple tales about the paranormal? what have you been smoking?

also ignored here are the barely disguised sexual undertones between the two main characters. more points to ponder: why is scully most vulnerable to infiltration by alien beings? could it be because of our archetypal fear of a monstrous feminine sexuality? marina warner, help us all.

and speaking of sexuality, it's impossible to avoid buffy the vampire slayer, that show about a nice, simple world where everything's clearly demarcated into good and evil. saving us all from wickedness is a slim, single woman -- the slayer -- with a lot of martial arts, and an annoying smile to boot.

by the way, do i even bother mentioning baywatch at this point?

another single woman taking on the men is that 'warrior princess,' xena. she doesn't wear much, which is good; smiles a lot, which is better; and fumes in a manner more seductive than threatening, which is best. for the men, that is.

i suppose it doesn't really make much of a difference. psychology be damned. the ratings will remain, new shows will arrive, newer stars will be born, and boxes of popcorn will continue to be consumed. me, i'll grow up to become a cantankerous old man raving on street corners.

i'm off now. what're you going to do? go home and watch tv?