In Defense of Soap Operas
I’m no devotee of soap operas, and I never have been, but I’m rather saddened to hear that ABC has canceled two of its remaining three daytime dramas, All My Children and One Life to Live. Only General Hospital survived this latest purge, and it seems only a matter of time before it too is jettisoned. The other networks have been canceling their soaps as well.
This is a shame, I think, because despite their cheap production values, often-salacious content, and largely superficial treatment of their topics, the daytime dramas brought something important to their audiences: a real concern for the choices individuals make and the continual tension between liberty and order in a relatively free society.
Declining audiences were of course cited as the reason for the cancellations. According to ABC, the average daily viewership of All My Children dropped from about 3.2 million in 2006 to approximately 2.4 million today. That’s a 25 percent decline in a half-decade. (Of course, the networks’ news shows have had similarly precipitous audience declines over the years, but they continue to pollute the airwaves.)
One Life to Live has been on the air since 1968, and All My Children since 1970. Reuters reports: ”An average of 6.5 million people regularly watched daytime dramas in 1991, compared to about 1.3 million last year, according to Nielsen figures.” That number, however, is rather deceptive. So many of the shows have been canceled in recent years that the total audience would naturally decline by a great amount.
However, the reality is that daytime dramas no longer sustain a sufficient audience to make them profitable for the network, and thus they must go. The Reuters story quotes an ABC executive as saying the shows no longer appeal to audiences as they once did:
“Viewers are looking for different types of programing these days,” said Brian Frons, president of daytime programming at ABC, adding they wanted “informative, authentic and fun shows that are relatable, offer a wide variety of opinions and focus on ‘real life’ takeaways.”
And what “informative, authentic, and fun” shows will replace them? Reuters quotes the network as follows:
ABC said the new shows would be “Chew,” which focuses on food “from every angle,” and make-over series “The Revolution,” with fashion mentor Tim Gunn.
These replacements do not seem likely to elevate the national discourse, to say the least. Daytime dramas were never very sophisticated or intelligent, to be sure, and some people would find their pursuit of racy, sexually charged story lines to be morally suspect (I would recommend applying my critical precept that depiction does not imply advocacy). Yet they had one thing going for them that I truly believe made them edifying to at least a small degree: they were indeed dramas. Fiction exercises the mind in ways nonfiction does not, and the exploration of personal relationships, even when not done on the deepest level, is a valuable endeavor.
I guess I never contemplated soap operas as you describe them. But, on the other hand, I will turn off the TV rather than watch any kind of “reality” show. We all know that every TV show is a vehicle to sell advertising but at least with the soap operas and, in previous eras the evening shows, there was some content there as well. But the current crop of reality shows are just filler between increasingly long,numerous and obnoxious commercials.
The networks will probably replace the soaps with some cooking shows or more talk shows like Oprah. I’m just surprised any people still WATCH daytime television. I get this feeling the Internet will get even more popular in the coming years.
That’s why I write my novels the way that I do – no great pretensions to highbrow lit-ra-chure, just a long, and evolving story about people; what they want, and what they will do to get it, and what happens to them along the way. (Mostly a lot of historic events in Texas, some of them minor, and some of them very well-known!) I’ve often thought of the Adelsverein Trilogy and the other books set in the same time (19th century Texas) as a kind of soap opera, even as I was writing them. I’d rather have readers get involved, as fans did with General Hospital in the Luke-Laura years, than get any high-brow prizes!
What an excellent defense. I miss them already, although I never watched them in the first place. My husband watches them, still. And yes, he is more emotionally more warm and involved than I will ever be.
The author of Foolscap, one of the most pleasurable and clever novels written in years, was recruited to write soaps. I regret that I was never able to see his daily fare on the soaps.
We may hope, as well, that univision does well on cable, so that we can all get subtitled telanovelas, which are completely awesome. They actually travel better around the world, than american soaps.
Great insight!
Personally, I would rather have the two soaps moved to night time and get rid of all the Reality shows. I want real actors!
Thus you have described the rise of shows like Deadliest Catch, Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, Dirty Jobs, Survivorman… real people going through the drama of everyday life is compelling television. The expansion of so many cable television networks has allowed for simplicity to creep back into programming, so just as the three letter networks were grasping at ‘reality’ TV, actual reality was coming back into focus as it is readily available, unscripted and spontaneous, and rooted in lives we can understand. Its amazing to think that these sorts of programs could have been made any time in the history of TV, and yet only show up when there is such a desperate search for content that it is real life that provides something that is cheap and yet vitally compelling.
Popular, too, given how many countries show some of these programs. Who would have ever thought that actual lives could yield up such drama, such emotion and often such insanity that it would outstrip what writers could think up?
You forgot to mention about the abundance of video game consoles in America. Video games offer interactive experiences you can’t get with TV as well as the added ability to stream services like Youtube, Netflix, Hulu and Quriosity directly to your TV w/o waiting.
Fiction (especially lowbrow, entertainment fiction) is sometimes valuable in a way that anything consciously academic or message-laden can’t be. I learned a lot about morality, intelligent decision-making, and what it means to be a useful human being from my childhood reading, but it wasn’t because I was handed a book that said “Here’s How to Be a Solid Citizen”; it was because these messages were the incidental byproducts of interesting characters that dealt with outer and inner conflict.
I admit I’ve never been a fan of soap operas, since they tend to be heavier on the drama than my preferred entertainment. But it saddens me to see that one more form of popular fiction is passing–especially one that is focused so closely on the choices that people must make, and by necessity asks the viewer what they would do in such a situation. Too many modern shows (and books, and movies, and . . . ) either use people as an object of gross fascination or just plain talk down to you. Anything that simply aimed to give you a good story is invaluable, and its passed is to be mourned.
Well, another Democ-rat has been debunked!
Remember when Newton Minnow, Adlei Stevenson’s law partner, called the television of the 1950s a “vast wasteland”?
It was this “vast wasteland” that gave us “Omnibus,” “See it Now,” “Playhouse 90,” “Your Show of Shows,” “I Love Lucy,” Ed Sullivan, Steve Alan and other greats.
It seems to be that the stronger the Democ-rat Party becomes the worse the culture becomes and it’s no accident that the culture vultures are, along with the union thugs and the tort and criminal defense shysters, the great source of cash for the Democ-rat Party!
Reality TV is Highbrow??????? Who knew. Nothing on Reality TV is in fact “Real”.
Something has to be done. This show has helped me bond with my mother. I love the Ford brothers and Starr and Viki and Dorian and Rex and Gigi and Todd and Tea.
The soaps have long been undervalued, both by the general public and the higher-ups in the media itself, especially those actually in charge of daytime programming. Dismissed as “women’s fiction,” they suffered from low funding and lowered expectations, trading around burnt-out head writers from one failing show after another, until the bad writing has now almost killed the entire medium. And it’s a shame, because when done well, soaps have the ability to connect with audiences in ways that aren’t available to shorter-lived programs. I grew up watching soaps with my mother and grandmother. My grandmother acquired her love of soaps from listening and then watching with HER mother. These were intergenerational programs, which addressed sociological changes at work in the culture of the day; they were a useful vehicle for addressing controversial and difficult subjects. But underneath all the drama were sound conservative principles; the triumph of good over evil, the importance of family bonds and history.
It’ll be a very sad day when the last of the soaps leaves the airwaves.