TV, Books, and Brains: The Oompa Loompas vs. Marilla Cuthbert

Oompa Loompa doo-ba-dee-doo, I’ve got another blog here for you…

“Don’t watch so much TV,” your parents might have told you. “You’ll lower your IQ.”

Many studies confirm television can have a negative effect on child development. Kids become more violent; their IQ scores are generally lower; their reading skills diminish. I may love sitcoms, but even I have to admit it’s smart to turn off the tube and get outside once in a while. Spending time with a friend, for instance, is far more stimulating to me than a Friends rerun.

But if the little green-haired, orange-faced men from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory taught us anything, it’s that children aren’t perfect. They can have a slew of problems even before they hit their teens. So sang the Oompa Loompas, “If you’re not greedy, you will go far,” and you would “live in happiness” if you took their advice.

Assuming you’re familiar with the 1971 musical, you’ll remember the unfortunate demises of Augustus, Violet, Veruca, and Mike, the four bratty kids who found Golden Tickets along with Charlie. Augustus was too fat, Violet too rude, and Veruca too spoiled. And then there was Mike Teevee, who was so glued to his set that, according to his proud mother, he never once came to the table for dinner. After Mike got himself shrunk and was carried off in his mom's purse, the Oompa Loompas sang:

What do you get from a glut of TV?

A pain in the neck and an IQ of three

Why don’t you try simply reading a book?

Or could you just not bear to look?

You’ll get no commercials

These lyrics reflect a common idea in our society: Books are better for your brain than television is. Now, I’m no psychologist, so I can’t be the one to judge if the claim is absolute truth (my personal belief, supported by these two articles, is that it depends on the content and how you choose to respond to it). But it is widely accepted that novels inherently trump sitcoms. The attitude is if your child is a reader, do not discourage him because nothing bad can come of incessant reading. TV, on the other hand, strains their eyes and inhibits brain development.

However, if the characters in Anne of Green Gables are any indication, the fears we have today about TV-watching are the same fears people at the turn of the century once held about book-reading. Consider this excerpt:

“This is my little girl Diana,” said Mrs. Barry. “Diana, you might take Anne out into the garden and show her your flowers. It will be better for you than straining your eyes over that book. She reads entirely too much—” this to Marilla as the little girls went out—“and I can't prevent her, for her father aids and abets her. She's always poring over a book. I'm glad she has the prospect of a playmate— perhaps it will take her more out-of-doors.”

Mrs. Barry didn’t want her daughter straining her eyes over a novel, and preferred that she go outside and play with a friend. Here is another example, spoken after Anne announced she had started a writing club:

“I think this story-writing business is the foolishest yet,” scoffed Marilla. “You'll get a pack of nonsense into your heads and waste time that should be put on your lessons. Reading stories is bad enough but writing them is worse.”

Thus, Marilla disliked Anne’s reading because it filled her head with “nonsense,” as did creative writing, apparently. To Marilla, fiction had no educational value, and Anne’s time was better spent on schoolwork where she would really be learning something. Books, it might be said, inhibited her brain development.

Isn’t that interesting? These days we tell kids, “Turn off the TV and go read.” But back in 1908, parents were saying, “Put down the book and go play,” or “go study.” What we think of as a stimulating activity today, back then was a waste of time.

But if we had to choose between them, are books better than TV, inherently?

Sorry, I don't have the answer, and I'm not sure it's even a testable question.

But what I do believe is that whether you're reading a novel, watching a sitcom, riding a bike, or talking to a friend, in many ways the constructiveness of the activity is up to you. It can be a waste of time, or it can be beneficial to your growth. It's your call.

That's what I think, anyway, and I certainly invite dissenting opinions.

What do you think?

Should They Stay or Should They Go?

Rumors flew last year when Alec Baldwin reportedly said he planned to leave 30 Rock at the end of the 2012 season. Some reports said the show would end if he left; others said Tina Fey was leaving too. The latest reports bring it all back into perspective. As far as executive producer Lorne Michaels knows, Fey’s not going anywhere, Baldwin may or may not leave, and no matter what Baldwin decides to do, the show will go on.

And should that be any surprise to us? That a popular series would carry on without one of its major stars?

After all, this season we have not one, but two successful, long-running series continuing without important members of their casts. Steve Carell’s Michael Scott character will be replaced by Robert California (played by James Spader) in The Office, and Ashton Kutcher will replace Charlie Sheen, whose character will be literally killed off, on Two and a Half Men.

It’s a gimmick as old as Dick Sargent playing Darrin #2 on Bewitched. The new characters are sure to add a splash of novelty to these old shows, but come on, how much longer can they possibly last without their main characters?

Let’s look at TV history, shall we? When Cindy Williams left Laverne & Shirley in 1982, the series only lasted one more season before getting cancelled.

When Gabe Kaplan and John Travolta left Welcome Back, Kotter, appearing as occasional guest stars in the fourth season, the show was canned after one year. (Beau De Labarre a Sweathog? Really?)

When Phil Hartman passed away, NewsRadio brought in a replacement, but ultimately the series only lasted—you guessed it—one more year.

And when Howard Hesseman left Head of the Class… well, you get the picture. Let’s not beat this dead horse—the networks are already taking care of that.

So again I ask, with their stars gone, how many more seasons can we expect from The Office and Two and a Half Men, which are entering into their eighth and ninth years, respectively? If the trends of the past are any indication, one.

I understand the mantra that “winners never quit.” But when applied to a TV show, that philosophy has a tendency to turn winners into losers. It’s a popular trap for sitcoms to fall into: the longer they go, the more outlandish they get. And by the final season they’re hollow shells of what they used to be.

The first example that springs to mind is the ABC sitcom Family Matters. It went through quite the metamorphosis in its nine-year run. Though early on it was fairly realistic—about as realistic as slapstick ever gets—by the end, Steve Urkel had cloned himself, transformed his clone into the cool Stefan Urquelle, gotten engaged to Laura Winslow, and invented dozens of impossible gadgets and gizmos that could easily have made him a billionaire if not for the inevitable kinks they always came with. The show became science fiction and beared little resemblance to its earlier years, when Steve was just the annoying neighbor and Laura wanted nothing to do with him.

Another classic example is 7^th Heaven. Come on! That show wouldn’t quit! Our family stopped watching after season six, when Robbie was practically adopted into the Camden family, Mary and Lucy were fighting over him, Matt married a Jewish girl he’d known for one day, and Simon was involved in a televised police chase because his grandpa told him to keep driving. The show was nonsense and we were sure it wouldn’t last much longer. But it kept going. Five more years.

What I’m saying is, too many good shows refuse to pull the plug until they’re already past their prime. They drag on for so long that they become laughingstocks, losing the respect they worked so hard to obtain.

That’s why I admire the few series that keep their integrity and end on a high note. Jerry Seinfeld was reportedly offered $110 million to do a tenth season of Seinfeld, but he declined the offer because he wanted to go out on top. (His show was #1 in the ratings—how do you top that?)

The first series to go off the air at #1 was I Love Lucy in 1957; the second was The Andy Griffith Show in 1968. And after a 30-year gap, Seinfeld became the third and last series on the list, which goes to show that when a sitcom hits #1, the last thing networks want to do is cancel it. Instead, they exploit it.

Can The Office function without Michael Scott?

Sure, winners never quit, but when you’re receiving Emmys and topping the Nielsens, the race is over and you’ve already won. So take your medal and go home. Challenging your opponents to multiple rematches will only tire you out, and eventually you’re going to lose, especially with the extra hurdles of departed cast members.

At some point you've got to ask, can this show really get any better? And if the answer is no, then end it while you're still proud of it.

Two and a Half Men has lasted eight seasons, and that’s a feat for any series. What do you think? Is the race over? Should it and The Office be put out of their misery before they ruin themselves? Or will the new cast members be a change in pace that fuels them to the finish line?

Only time will tell.