Flanderization(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Flanderization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanderization
136 comments
As you age, the rewards you get from social conformity become less and less important because your social role starts to be squeezed in general. Pop culture stops catering to you as much, you are less likely to multiply intimate partners or discover new friends or change your circle to a great extent, though obviously this is a vague trend and there are tons of exceptions to this.
From your own perspective, you have less of an interest in pursuing entirely new projects because the horizon of good experiences from those gets shorter, and as you have said you also gravitate more experience towards the things you have pursued, which unlocks other experiences on its own.
Orson Scott Card once said that Asimov was one of the few writers who kept improving in old age, because most others would fall into the trap of indulging in their eccentricity and assuming that the image people had of them was already set in stone.
I'd say it's helpful to always keep a slight distance, even from things that become increasingly foundational to your life. True bitterness comes when you cease to believe that new generations are actually capable of enjoying their things the same way you did yours in your youth. As long as you don't lose your capacity for theory of mind or refuse to believe that time goes on, you'll be fine.
From your own perspective, you have less of an interest in pursuing entirely new projects because the horizon of good experiences from those gets shorter, and as you have said you also gravitate more experience towards the things you have pursued, which unlocks other experiences on its own.
Orson Scott Card once said that Asimov was one of the few writers who kept improving in old age, because most others would fall into the trap of indulging in their eccentricity and assuming that the image people had of them was already set in stone.
I'd say it's helpful to always keep a slight distance, even from things that become increasingly foundational to your life. True bitterness comes when you cease to believe that new generations are actually capable of enjoying their things the same way you did yours in your youth. As long as you don't lose your capacity for theory of mind or refuse to believe that time goes on, you'll be fine.
> you are less likely to have multiple intimate partners
Fun fact: STDs are common in young adults and in 55+ communities - the reason behind this is left as an exercise for the reader.
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/news-05-20...
Fun fact: STDs are common in young adults and in 55+ communities - the reason behind this is left as an exercise for the reader.
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/news-05-20...
simple 55+ no longer have children at home (if they ever had them), menopause has removed the fear of unexpected pregnancy, divorces have already happened if they were going to and death has started claiming partners from devoted couple meaning you have a large number of financially secure single people with time on their hands.
STDs are common in young adults and in 55+ communities - the reason behind this is left as an exercise for the reader.
According to my mother, is because nobody in her retirement village is afraid of getting pregnant anymore.
According to my mother, is because nobody in her retirement village is afraid of getting pregnant anymore.
Here is a simpler explanation:
When you are younger, you have a community of people and friends who push, pull, and otherwise shape you.
When you are older, there is no community. That’s an oversimplification, but it’s close enough.
So there’s no pushback about “hey man, that’s enough about your hobby.” There’s no influence to curb any parts of your personality. It’s just you, instead of being in a health community, living in a kind of void, in between your interactions w others.
Now it’s true there are people (say, your parents) who continue to exert influence. But it’s like the number of people actively involved w you falls from 100, to like 5. In terms of true peers who are your age - they number may very well fall to 0. So the amount of eccentricity, or really indulgence of personal preference above every other consideration, skyrockets.
When you are younger, you have a community of people and friends who push, pull, and otherwise shape you.
When you are older, there is no community. That’s an oversimplification, but it’s close enough.
So there’s no pushback about “hey man, that’s enough about your hobby.” There’s no influence to curb any parts of your personality. It’s just you, instead of being in a health community, living in a kind of void, in between your interactions w others.
Now it’s true there are people (say, your parents) who continue to exert influence. But it’s like the number of people actively involved w you falls from 100, to like 5. In terms of true peers who are your age - they number may very well fall to 0. So the amount of eccentricity, or really indulgence of personal preference above every other consideration, skyrockets.
> Orson Scott Card once said that Asimov was one of the few writers who kept improving in old age
I'd like to believe this was true, but much of Asimov's late works, particularly the final "Gaia" sequels to Foundation, were terrible.
The sheer breadth of his output (which went way beyond robot scifi) is impressive though.
I'd like to believe this was true, but much of Asimov's late works, particularly the final "Gaia" sequels to Foundation, were terrible.
The sheer breadth of his output (which went way beyond robot scifi) is impressive though.
Sadly, I don't recall the exact words or source, but it was 'improving' in the sense of continually experimenting.
I agree that a lot of late Asimov isn't as great as some of his foundational (heh) works.
I agree that a lot of late Asimov isn't as great as some of his foundational (heh) works.
> I've thought about this idea (without knowing there was a term for it!)
I used to call it the "Kramer Effect", much like you, without knowing it was called Flanderization and was using it in the early 2000s to describe my displeasure with the character Joey from Friends.
Joey went from kind of low intellect to full retard by the end of the show and very inexplicably.
I used to call it the "Kramer Effect", much like you, without knowing it was called Flanderization and was using it in the early 2000s to describe my displeasure with the character Joey from Friends.
Joey went from kind of low intellect to full retard by the end of the show and very inexplicably.
I don't think Kramer is a good example of this. The Simpsons characters, and I suppose most Friends ones as well, gained depth (or at least the audience's affection) over the course of several seasons, whereas Seinfeld stuck to its original formula of, "No hugging, no learning." Kramer was never supposed to take on interesting dimensions like the Flanders of the nineties did.
Ross also became more and more neurotic.
Just spend a week on tvtropes.org and you'll instantly become a better writer I think.
It's not to say that tropes are bad but it's important to use it as a repository of easily accessible writing mistakes so you can quickly learn from the past and contextualize them for your own synthesis.
It's not to say that tropes are bad but it's important to use it as a repository of easily accessible writing mistakes so you can quickly learn from the past and contextualize them for your own synthesis.
I don't think tropes are mistakes. In fact, looking at tvtropes you see lots of examples from the most popular and successful movies, TV shows, books, etc.
If you're a writer you should be trying to say something new, but you shouldn't try to make everything new. People would be confused and put off by something that was violating and subverting every trope in fiction, but they would be amused by something that subverts one or two tropes in an interesting way. And subversion isn't even necessary to be good fiction, you could imagine a well executed work that isn't pioneering, but is still quite satisfying.
If you're a writer you should be trying to say something new, but you shouldn't try to make everything new. People would be confused and put off by something that was violating and subverting every trope in fiction, but they would be amused by something that subverts one or two tropes in an interesting way. And subversion isn't even necessary to be good fiction, you could imagine a well executed work that isn't pioneering, but is still quite satisfying.
There's a trope for that! https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TropesA...
> Just spend a week on tvtropes.org and you'll instantly become a better writer I think.
Maybe, but from my experience I find the more time I spend on browsing through tvtropes in a certain week, the more I overthink my writing and get absolutely fuck all done.
Don't get me wrong, it's worthwhile to understand tropes, but its not going to make you a better writer instantly. And repeated exposure to an attention-sucking site like tv-tropes doesn't help. It'll maybe make you a slower more methodical writer, but that's not necessarily a good thing. You can always fix quite a bit in editing.
Maybe, but from my experience I find the more time I spend on browsing through tvtropes in a certain week, the more I overthink my writing and get absolutely fuck all done.
Don't get me wrong, it's worthwhile to understand tropes, but its not going to make you a better writer instantly. And repeated exposure to an attention-sucking site like tv-tropes doesn't help. It'll maybe make you a slower more methodical writer, but that's not necessarily a good thing. You can always fix quite a bit in editing.
Don’t go there for the tropes; go there for the examples. Look up the things you’re thinking of doing, and then consume the media where people are saying that thing was done well. It’s like reading highly-cited journal papers, for fiction.
Just spend an hour on TV Tropes and you'll realize you spent a week on TV Tropes.
is there a trope for this?
tvtropes is fun, but it's the cultural analysis equivalent of overfitting a model.
My father in law used to describe this as “the older you get, the more you are boiled down to your true essence”
As time goes you might find your eigenvectors. Sometimes it takes a change of norms, sometimes it takes a change of bases. But things might be simpler when you live your eigenvectors :)
Thank you for yes-anding the linear algebra metaphor :)
After I wrote the original comment, I started thinking, even if you accept that hobbies / skills / preferences are a vector, what is the model where it makes sense to multiply vectors together? Then I thought, what if every time people encountered each other there was a kind of vector multiplication, about the salient aspects of their vectors? And this resultant "encounter vector" served to motivate the encounter, and potentially update each person's original "personality" vector? And day-to-day life could sometimes result in self-multiplication, depending on what you're doing.
That seemed fruitful, though obv very incomplete. I mention it in case you want to return volley :)
After I wrote the original comment, I started thinking, even if you accept that hobbies / skills / preferences are a vector, what is the model where it makes sense to multiply vectors together? Then I thought, what if every time people encountered each other there was a kind of vector multiplication, about the salient aspects of their vectors? And this resultant "encounter vector" served to motivate the encounter, and potentially update each person's original "personality" vector? And day-to-day life could sometimes result in self-multiplication, depending on what you're doing.
That seemed fruitful, though obv very incomplete. I mention it in case you want to return volley :)
There might be some tricky bits to that: most people's domains aren't going to be the same and the projections will result in empty results. In some cases a few bases are shared and there's something to work with, in other cases it might be possible for one party to find.. I guess some homomorphism, that would enable some projections to be non-null.
It could be the case that it's not the usual way things go however, and instead of finding a perfect transformation instead an imperfect one loses some of the information (for example if you and I were to have this exchange in a language where one of us isn't comfortable and the other is). And I guess there's also the question of what to do with the resulting projections we get when we do get some.. are they part of feedback loops around the measure of engagement between people, perhaps? Can the measure of that projection become actionable in any meaningful way to either party? etc.
It could be the case that it's not the usual way things go however, and instead of finding a perfect transformation instead an imperfect one loses some of the information (for example if you and I were to have this exchange in a language where one of us isn't comfortable and the other is). And I guess there's also the question of what to do with the resulting projections we get when we do get some.. are they part of feedback loops around the measure of engagement between people, perhaps? Can the measure of that projection become actionable in any meaningful way to either party? etc.
Do you need to prevent it? I think it's related to optimal stopping / the secretary problem.
In the beginning, you explore. Later, you exploit by doing more of the things you found fruitful.
In the beginning, you explore. Later, you exploit by doing more of the things you found fruitful.
It's a good question. My take is that the quote from one of the sibling comments -- where someone's dad talks about aging as 'boiling down to your own true essence' -- is actually wrong. I think there's a lot less 'true essence' and a lot more path dependency. In my example, is woodworking and European travel true essence? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think so. I think it could have just as easily been something completely different.
If all else were equal, it might be fine to pick something you like and just exploit the hell out of it till death. But I don't think all else is equal. Perspectives on the world, skills, knowledge, versatility, resilience -- an anti-caricature penalty on all this stuff seems good in a whole bunch of ways, even if I concede that you might be leaving some unexploited fun on the table.
Like I said, I am open to being argued out of this opinion; but that's where I am so far.
If all else were equal, it might be fine to pick something you like and just exploit the hell out of it till death. But I don't think all else is equal. Perspectives on the world, skills, knowledge, versatility, resilience -- an anti-caricature penalty on all this stuff seems good in a whole bunch of ways, even if I concede that you might be leaving some unexploited fun on the table.
Like I said, I am open to being argued out of this opinion; but that's where I am so far.
I think it depends on the person and there's no good answer. For some folks it will be sticking with what they know and trying to "exploit" it as deep as possible, while for others it will be "exploring" as wide as possible trying everything out, and for everyone else it'll be some mix of both.
To counter the anti-caricature penalty, there's also the stereotype of the older person that never found something to anchor them in life. This stereotype of an older person never found a hobby, friends, community, or partners and travels from place to place constantly searching and consuming. Most people are probably in the middle and most people relative to themselves probably become more focused with age.
To counter the anti-caricature penalty, there's also the stereotype of the older person that never found something to anchor them in life. This stereotype of an older person never found a hobby, friends, community, or partners and travels from place to place constantly searching and consuming. Most people are probably in the middle and most people relative to themselves probably become more focused with age.
I like this framing. The sweet spot would be finding a balance between having enough to cohere / give purpose / motivate, but not enough to capture all activity. So you'd want to monitor the situation and course-correct depending on what was happening.
And, like you said, some people would be happy being totally captured by woodworking / European travel, and wouldn't see it as a problem. And maybe some people would be happy in the anchorless, 100% drifting way, although I personally am suspicious of that -- if you have to choose, being a caricature is probably better than being completely un-anchored.
And, like you said, some people would be happy being totally captured by woodworking / European travel, and wouldn't see it as a problem. And maybe some people would be happy in the anchorless, 100% drifting way, although I personally am suspicious of that -- if you have to choose, being a caricature is probably better than being completely un-anchored.
The stopping problem is a big part of it but I think also the older you get the less concerned you are about social conformity. You just do the things that make you happy regardless of what the young people think.
Of you want to generalize a medel you need smaller batch sizes with more varied nature. Maybe that applies somehow to people?
> how would you prevent such a thing? And should you?
I once had a chat with an exec-level nurse. Don’t remember how it came up, but she mentioned that growth comes with leaving a practice area once the butterflies in your stomach leave and comfort sets in. Her experience was this came at about a 5-year cadence. My experience so far is this advice was spot on.
I once had a chat with an exec-level nurse. Don’t remember how it came up, but she mentioned that growth comes with leaving a practice area once the butterflies in your stomach leave and comfort sets in. Her experience was this came at about a 5-year cadence. My experience so far is this advice was spot on.
Sounds like a memetic black hole.
There is a tendency for this to happen in real life with influencers. Certain aspects resonate with an audience and so they overemphasize them.
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capt...
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capt...
I watch an youtuber that makes videos about life in Japan and he mentioned recently about how this drives the direction of his videos against his will. Despite producing extremely high-quality videos, every video is accompanied by clickbait titles and the classic "=O" idiotic face thumbnail. The quality contrast between the cover and the video is immediately clear once you start watching the content.
He mentioned that he despises this with every inch of his being, but is forced to do so because YouTube's algorithm would dump the video otherwise.
He mentioned that he despises this with every inch of his being, but is forced to do so because YouTube's algorithm would dump the video otherwise.
I feel sorry for him, and I even think I know which channel you mean, but I've never clicked on one of his videos because I absolutely refuse to click on any video with a clickbait title or a clickbait thumbnail.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one.
Linus Tech Talks has a whole video explaining that they hate making YouTube Face thumbnails, but their numbers are dramatically worse when they don’t.
Lots of UK tech magazines used to use scantily clad women on the cover (holding up some piece of tech).
When challenged on it they responded that when they didn't their sales went down by a significant percentage.
When challenged on it they responded that when they didn't their sales went down by a significant percentage.
I've pretty much refused to watch any of his videos because he looks lone of those open mouthed clowns you throw balls into at the carnival.
As another commenter on HN said yesterday, sell people what they want, but give them what they need.
If it's abroad in Japan, I would say he's found a great way to hit mass appeal but still maintain his authentic and snarky takes on the country.
If it's Paolo from Tokyo, I'd say he's defensively changed over the years and has become much more focused on clicks over real substance.
If it's neither of them, then still give those two channels a watch, especially the stuff from several years ago.
If it's abroad in Japan, I would say he's found a great way to hit mass appeal but still maintain his authentic and snarky takes on the country.
If it's Paolo from Tokyo, I'd say he's defensively changed over the years and has become much more focused on clicks over real substance.
If it's neither of them, then still give those two channels a watch, especially the stuff from several years ago.
Ah, the YouTube face! It's so weird that video creators have to have a shot of themselves making a stupid face to get viewers. Are we the consumers that stupid?
It's only natural. Expressions convey a lot; they drive curiosity and makes the content seem more important to watch ("what made them make that face?").
I avoid any and all videos using the tactic because it feels crude, tho..
I avoid any and all videos using the tactic because it feels crude, tho..
While we see this a lot with influencers (and I think Joe Rogan is another great example). The phenomenon isn't exactly new.
News anchors, writers, country singers, etc. have all been doing the exact same thing for decades. Doubling down on simple characteristics that resonate with their target audience.
News anchors, writers, country singers, etc. have all been doing the exact same thing for decades. Doubling down on simple characteristics that resonate with their target audience.
Yeah, people seem to forget that a ton of their favorite celebs didn't start out the way they are today. Most people in the spotlight get distilled into a singular image - the weed-loving country singer, the "hated by many" frontman who most people don't even really care about, the horror writer whose adherence to Maine is a meme at this point. This type of stuff isn't necessarily bad as long as it doesn't completely overtake the character/person. Playing up a part of yourself to become more interesting is a viable marketing strat.
Here’s something crazy.
Rewatching early Simpsons episodes as someone who first saw Flanders post Flanderization: He’s a less compelling satire because it’s so nuanced, complex, and narrow.
He’s not the obvious bad person that Marcy D’Arcy is, but he’s also not the aspirational zen master that Wilson from Home Improvement is either. He’s just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who’s not a compelling foil to Homer.
Take his funniest characteristic (calling reverend Lovejoy at night) and make him a broad vehicle to satirize American Protestantism, and he’s actually a compelling character.
On the other hand, Lisa’s evolution kind of sucks.
Rewatching early Simpsons episodes as someone who first saw Flanders post Flanderization: He’s a less compelling satire because it’s so nuanced, complex, and narrow.
He’s not the obvious bad person that Marcy D’Arcy is, but he’s also not the aspirational zen master that Wilson from Home Improvement is either. He’s just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who’s not a compelling foil to Homer.
Take his funniest characteristic (calling reverend Lovejoy at night) and make him a broad vehicle to satirize American Protestantism, and he’s actually a compelling character.
On the other hand, Lisa’s evolution kind of sucks.
Early Simpsons did satirize Christianity a bit but didn't go full blast with it because they already had their hands full with just satirizing the idea of a "normal", wholesome American family that ironically corresponded less and less to the way people were living their lives at the time. We now see satire of American Protestantism as a desirable thing, but it wasn't as desirable as it is now in the early 90's even though people obviously wanted to see some of it.
Flanders looks like a poor foil because we no longer see Homer's family as scandalous. He is indeed a good 'straight man' (in the comedic sense) but early Homer is no longer as goofy so we fail to see it.
Flanders looks like a poor foil because we no longer see Homer's family as scandalous. He is indeed a good 'straight man' (in the comedic sense) but early Homer is no longer as goofy so we fail to see it.
I would disagree. Both of the examples of other characters that I gave were coincident with the Simpsons original run, and those characters feel more relevant today than the Ned does in Dead Putters Society.
He still is shitty to Tod, so it’s not like he’s a satirically perfect dad; he lives in a roughly equally sized home to Homer, so it’s not like some inequality comment. Everything is just a little off all in. Even within the context of Bush’s America.
He still is shitty to Tod, so it’s not like he’s a satirically perfect dad; he lives in a roughly equally sized home to Homer, so it’s not like some inequality comment. Everything is just a little off all in. Even within the context of Bush’s America.
> He’s just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who’s not a compelling foil to Homer.
I’ve heard that the idea behind Flanders was to invert the “wacky neighbor” trope (think Kramer) that was prevalent in sitcoms at the time.
Being a normal and competent father is what makes him a foil to homer. I think both versions of the character are good.
I’ve heard that the idea behind Flanders was to invert the “wacky neighbor” trope (think Kramer) that was prevalent in sitcoms at the time.
Being a normal and competent father is what makes him a foil to homer. I think both versions of the character are good.
But he’s not that good of a father. Dead Putters Society Ned is a villain for doing the exact same thing to Tod as Homer does to Bart.
I’m not saying it’s bad, it’s just a little off and somewhat muddy, because the character is still so undeveloped.
I’m not saying it’s bad, it’s just a little off and somewhat muddy, because the character is still so undeveloped.
I wonder how this differs though from refinement. Particularly for real people such as musicians, an element of it is also surely removing cruft that just wasn't interesting.
I think the difference is that refinement is when the core aspect improves through effort and in Flanderization the core stagnates or degrades through lazyness.
Interesting post, though two of the examples have always been oddities.
Louise Mench was leading anti-bullying campaigns on Twitter and bullying people on Twitter for example.
And Quilliam are the ex-extremist Muslims who did a 180 and parroted whatever the weird anti-islam movement after 9/11 wanted to hear.
These were not sober thinkers led down a path by their audience.
Louise Mench was leading anti-bullying campaigns on Twitter and bullying people on Twitter for example.
And Quilliam are the ex-extremist Muslims who did a 180 and parroted whatever the weird anti-islam movement after 9/11 wanted to hear.
These were not sober thinkers led down a path by their audience.
There’s a YouTuber I like whose early work included a lot of genuine excitement and enthusiasm when he’d get a project working. Recently it feels like the energy is a little manufactured, for the audience. I still like his stuff, but sometimes it feels a little off.
That's pretty common to see. I immediately thought of several examples like Great Scott who I don't watch anymore.
The article starts out interesting but the author lacks courage.
> I knew there were limits to my desired independence, because, whether we like it or not, we all become like the people we surround ourselves with. So I surrounded myself with the people I wanted to be like. On Twitter I cultivated a reasonable, open-minded audience by posting reasonable, open-minded tweets
Every influencer sees their audience as reasonable & open-minded, every influencer thinks they only speak reasonable and open-minded thoughts. Meanwhile his pinned tweet is https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1545510413982474253, a smorgasbord of insight porn that's addressed to "his friends".
The article focuses on an extreme & obvious failure in weak authors and audiences; it's telling that he did not use his insight to dissect the relationship between he and his own audience.
> I knew there were limits to my desired independence, because, whether we like it or not, we all become like the people we surround ourselves with. So I surrounded myself with the people I wanted to be like. On Twitter I cultivated a reasonable, open-minded audience by posting reasonable, open-minded tweets
Every influencer sees their audience as reasonable & open-minded, every influencer thinks they only speak reasonable and open-minded thoughts. Meanwhile his pinned tweet is https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1545510413982474253, a smorgasbord of insight porn that's addressed to "his friends".
The article focuses on an extreme & obvious failure in weak authors and audiences; it's telling that he did not use his insight to dissect the relationship between he and his own audience.
Almost sounds like a form of Stockholm syndrome… the audience is their captor.
That seems very, very sad.
Well, it's a sad part of culture in 2022 - an enormous abandonment of creativity or authenticity for clicks.
Even sadder that it works.
Even sadder that it works.
It reminds me of the ancient concept of patronage. If you were a patron, you housed and fed your client, and in return, they were expected to act the part out. So if you had a garden hermit, they needed to act their part out, and act grateful and glad to you. If you treated them badly, say, giving them a crappy house to hermit about in, they were expected to still act grateful to your face, but damage your reputation behind your back.
Somewhere today the concept of cultural patronage is still a thing. We the audience give you clicks and attention and see the ads that make you dollars, you the influencer play the role of an entertainer that gives us enjoyment for giving you our entertainment. We've identified what parts of you entertain us, so play your part, client.
And thus the influencer is in some ways the influenced.
Somewhere today the concept of cultural patronage is still a thing. We the audience give you clicks and attention and see the ads that make you dollars, you the influencer play the role of an entertainer that gives us enjoyment for giving you our entertainment. We've identified what parts of you entertain us, so play your part, client.
And thus the influencer is in some ways the influenced.
Is there an estimate somewhere of how many garden hermits there were in history?
Authentic people exist and always will; you just have to work to find them and support them.
If all you see are the click-optimized, by definition you are looking in the clicking arena where they will be the most present.
If all you see are the click-optimized, by definition you are looking in the clicking arena where they will be the most present.
> Even sadder that it works.
As B.F. Skinner might have predicted.
As B.F. Skinner might have predicted.
As Plato predicted in fact.
[deleted]
This is great article. Thank you for sharing!
My first guess was that Flanderization might mean the process where a region’s capital city outgrows the region and becomes culturally an entirely separate entity, as in the Belgian region of Flanders whose capital is Brussels and its inhabitants mostly don’t identify as Flemish.
Usage example: “London is undergoing strong Flanderization accelerated by Brexit.”
Turns out the Wikipedia definition is something pretty different!
Usage example: “London is undergoing strong Flanderization accelerated by Brexit.”
Turns out the Wikipedia definition is something pretty different!
[deleted]
I found one particular example of the opposite change quite annoying. In the TV Show “Suits”, the premise is that a character Mike has incredible photographic memory, can to read books and evidence at unbelievable speeds. As the show went on, this unique trait was almost completely removed. I think by season 3 it was just gone completely, turning the show into a regular law drama.
Also a very common fictional theme. The "Forgot about his powers" trope.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgotAboutHisPo...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgotAboutHisPo...
Too many shows go on for too long and end up "killing" the writers. When the juices arent flowing, best to fall back on tried and trusted.
just like what happened with Hulk
I‘ve noticed this happening not just with characters, but with narratives as well.
Mythbusters used to be my all time favorite TV show for almost a decade. They had such interesting myths (lead balloon!), authentic characters and real builds that also went wrong at times, with some pretty random occurrences.
And then someone from Discovery‘s analytics department figured out they got the best ratings on some of their explosions.
Which lead to this incredibly thought-diverse show jumping the shark by pivoting to basically „let‘s find yet another excuse to blow stuff up“ in the last seasons. Yawn.
I guess it‘s really due to catering to the mainstream. Who said it so well again: A one-size-fits-all solution barely fits anybody.
Mythbusters used to be my all time favorite TV show for almost a decade. They had such interesting myths (lead balloon!), authentic characters and real builds that also went wrong at times, with some pretty random occurrences.
And then someone from Discovery‘s analytics department figured out they got the best ratings on some of their explosions.
Which lead to this incredibly thought-diverse show jumping the shark by pivoting to basically „let‘s find yet another excuse to blow stuff up“ in the last seasons. Yawn.
I guess it‘s really due to catering to the mainstream. Who said it so well again: A one-size-fits-all solution barely fits anybody.
[deleted]
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization
^ for anyone who wants to go on a deep dive!
^ for anyone who wants to go on a deep dive!
Well there went an hour of my life.. Thanks for sharing the link!
It's almost like "specialization" or some sort of natural selection process. Characters accentuate specific unique aspects of themselves because otherwise they would have no reason to exist; the show could have anyone stand in to express generic qualities. Their quirks are what at first works with audiences, then writers keep going back to the well. The common aspects get selected out over time. A/B testing taken to it's logical conclusion.
I also don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It feels like many of the examples given are the more extreme cases where it goes too far, but looking at the pilots of most TV shows (especially sitcoms), the characters are fairly generic and uninteresting, and they slowly build up their personas over time as writers write to the actor and to what works.
Community is a good example of that, all the characters definitely developed a lot, though some maybe went too far like Britta. Parks & Recreation is another one, some of the characters were actually just background extras like Retta and Jerry. The whole woodworking part of Ron also came from Nick's own background and built into the character.
Community is a good example of that, all the characters definitely developed a lot, though some maybe went too far like Britta. Parks & Recreation is another one, some of the characters were actually just background extras like Retta and Jerry. The whole woodworking part of Ron also came from Nick's own background and built into the character.
The tropes page mentions there's a bit of distinction between writer's figuring out the character; flanderization is addressing the point after the character is basically fleshed out, then accentuating whatever they are, often past the point of caricature as time goes on. So more of a long term process. I agree it doesn't have to be bad thing, I'd go so far as to say it is inevitable to large degree. It is writers jobs simply to manage this natural/inevitable dynamic, be careful with it, and eventually end the show before it loses it's appeal. Sort of a lifecycle of "success" of writing interesting characters especially in sitcoms where personality/humor dominates story, and there will be diminishing returns as character evolves to self parody.
This applies to more than just cartoons. Look at Seinfeld. First 3 seasons, the characters were real, each w/ their own personalties, quirks, etc. By the final season, each character became so extreme, so one-dimentional in it's characterization and personalities it was entirely unwatchable (at the time) for me.
Many shows seem to fall into this. Silicon Valley is another example where it happened to almost all characters except erlich and jian yang who were already extreme caricatures
After Larry David left the show it went into a depressing tailspin. At least J. Seinfeld had the sense to mercifully kill it off before too long.
Today's sitcoms just jump straight to it. The Neighborhood, for example.
It's interesting how this happens IRL as well, particularly on newcomers to an already established group of people.
Said newcomer is expected to behave in a certain way to fit into a particular spot that the group needs/allows, so it could become molded to that; while other (valuable) personality traits are just ignored/lost in the dynamic.
Said newcomer is expected to behave in a certain way to fit into a particular spot that the group needs/allows, so it could become molded to that; while other (valuable) personality traits are just ignored/lost in the dynamic.
I argue that this is closely related to superdeformed versions of more serious contemporaries (SD Gundam and Teen Titans Go as popular examples in the West).
You could draw a line from chibi in the 80s to flanderization. Of course flanderization ties in with a lot of other concepts related to positive feedback loops that others here mention. I just think it's interesting that there is a history of the cartoonization of cartoons and that character features are chosen to match appearance/vice versa.
You could draw a line from chibi in the 80s to flanderization. Of course flanderization ties in with a lot of other concepts related to positive feedback loops that others here mention. I just think it's interesting that there is a history of the cartoonization of cartoons and that character features are chosen to match appearance/vice versa.
My sense is that this, along with a lot of other writing decisions in shows like The Simpsons, is a form of “cashing in” on the investment of developing a character.
By Flanderizing a character after eight or nine seasons, you unlock a whole new set of jokes and plot points for writing another thousand shows.
By Flanderizing a character after eight or nine seasons, you unlock a whole new set of jokes and plot points for writing another thousand shows.
>My sense is that this, along with a lot of other writing decisions in shows like The Simpsons, is a form of “cashing in” on the investment of developing a character.
I wouldn't even quote cashing in, the effect is just an artifact of chasing demand signal to improve revenue. It's the same as iterative agile development that chases short term demand signals and over time tries to optimize the aspects that bring in money. The underlying driver for all these effects is capitalism.
You see characters take on bigger or smaller roles over time depending on audience response often. Jar Jar was cut back drastically Star Wars 2 and 3 compared to 1. Some characters even get spin off shows, like Young Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.
I wouldn't even quote cashing in, the effect is just an artifact of chasing demand signal to improve revenue. It's the same as iterative agile development that chases short term demand signals and over time tries to optimize the aspects that bring in money. The underlying driver for all these effects is capitalism.
You see characters take on bigger or smaller roles over time depending on audience response often. Jar Jar was cut back drastically Star Wars 2 and 3 compared to 1. Some characters even get spin off shows, like Young Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.
Yeah that’s a strong point. I think I’m revising my mental model of this phenomenon along those lines.
I feel like most of the characters on Big Bang Theory were Flanderized pretty quickly.
I think the opposite happened in this show. Penny was a dumb midwestern actress wannabe and evolved into a complex character, for example.
In essence, they were all conceived as extremely flanderized and acquired complex traits over time.
In essence, they were all conceived as extremely flanderized and acquired complex traits over time.
Penny is an obvious case of reverse-flanderization because she was the opposite of the typical nerds. When the show started appealing more to the common crowd and had to go beyond its original plot, it was obvious Penny had to be more than just a plot device centered around looks. Same happened to the guys.
Most of the later episodes where the focus isn't on Leonard and Penny, they are mostly about sex, or Penny asking Leonard whether something Sheldon said was a burn.
Howard is another obvious case. Goes from stereotypical creep to a more complex character and gets a crazy amount of screen time to deal with his issues. Then later on, he's mostly a whipped husband (largely caused by Bernadette being flanderized), but they give him some screen time where he's more than just a doormat for wife and a snark to every other male character except Leonard.
Most of the other main/recurring cast members have similar cases or go straight from A to C and skip B.
Most of the later episodes where the focus isn't on Leonard and Penny, they are mostly about sex, or Penny asking Leonard whether something Sheldon said was a burn.
Howard is another obvious case. Goes from stereotypical creep to a more complex character and gets a crazy amount of screen time to deal with his issues. Then later on, he's mostly a whipped husband (largely caused by Bernadette being flanderized), but they give him some screen time where he's more than just a doormat for wife and a snark to every other male character except Leonard.
Most of the other main/recurring cast members have similar cases or go straight from A to C and skip B.
Is Flanderization just synecdoche - where one attribute becomes the reference for the whole, or is it a new co-oridnate on the spectrum of metonymy and simile?
The comment about Rick and Morty actively avoiding the flanderizing of their characters seems a bit off, as the whole season 5 finale was the flanderization of Morty, where he (a version of him) self actualizes as blandly malevolent, likely acting on urges that Rick identifies a few episodes prior in Morty's weak dad (Jerry) as not nice, but predatory:
> "You act like prey, but you're a predator! You use pity to lure in your victims! That's how you survive! I survive because I know everything. That snake survives because children wander off, and you survive because people think, "Oh, this poor piece of shit."
If they were avoiding flanderizing Morty, they would seem to have just backed right into it.
The comment about Rick and Morty actively avoiding the flanderizing of their characters seems a bit off, as the whole season 5 finale was the flanderization of Morty, where he (a version of him) self actualizes as blandly malevolent, likely acting on urges that Rick identifies a few episodes prior in Morty's weak dad (Jerry) as not nice, but predatory:
> "You act like prey, but you're a predator! You use pity to lure in your victims! That's how you survive! I survive because I know everything. That snake survives because children wander off, and you survive because people think, "Oh, this poor piece of shit."
If they were avoiding flanderizing Morty, they would seem to have just backed right into it.
Rick And Morty really took a nosedive for me the last couple seasons. It's always just been a fun-when-high recycling of Star Trek episodes and well-known sci-fi ideas to me, but it always had its own style, clever writing and great acting(especially Sarah Chalke).
Lately the writing has felt a lot lazier, and I guess they ran out of good Star Trek episodes(understandable since none have been made for almost 20 years now...) to "steal" because a lot of the episodes felt like gimmicks based on some action anime I never heard of, fucking Ocean's 11, superheroes, dragons(seriously?), etc.
Lately the writing has felt a lot lazier, and I guess they ran out of good Star Trek episodes(understandable since none have been made for almost 20 years now...) to "steal" because a lot of the episodes felt like gimmicks based on some action anime I never heard of, fucking Ocean's 11, superheroes, dragons(seriously?), etc.
I don't think they ran out of sci-fi tropes so much as they ran out on the core idea of the show. They took two established characters (Marty and Doc Brown) and explored/deconstructed the inherent absurdity and great dynamic between those two that was never fully exploited by the original films.
The decline started once they had done what they could with it.
The decline started once they had done what they could with it.
Right, that makes sense. I honestly wasn't aware of the Back to the Future inspiration, I watched it as a kid and it was never really my type of movie.
Also Rick and Morty is an incredibly nihilistic show. The character dynamics are terrible (to each other), and that limits the long term capacity for stories.
They were able to pull a good few seasons, but it starts looking as the same destructive jokes over and over.
I still watch it and enjoy it, but I feel a bit empty inside, it’s such a bleak view inside humanity…
They were able to pull a good few seasons, but it starts looking as the same destructive jokes over and over.
I still watch it and enjoy it, but I feel a bit empty inside, it’s such a bleak view inside humanity…
There were defiantly some weaker episodes, but some are still really good. The new season ep 1 was pretty good. You can't keep peak quality consistently, no show really can.
You are gone have some stinkers in there, like dragons. Their take on heists was pretty damn awesome I have to say, very nice spin on the traditional heist. The dragons thing was terrible.
You are gone have some stinkers in there, like dragons. Their take on heists was pretty damn awesome I have to say, very nice spin on the traditional heist. The dragons thing was terrible.
To the best of my understanding, no. Part for whole thing is like an extended symbol and as a poetic device short lived at that, while flanderization is appears to be characterized as a longer term process that effectively focuses on a specific part without excluding the rest ( its importance is just progressively diminished ).
<<If they were avoiding flanderizing Morty, they would seem to have just backed right into it.
I am not sure if I agree. The show is not even. Some episodes are absolutely brilliant and some are very forgettable at best, but I can't really cast Morty as being flanderized since it is not main protagonist's sidekick, but 'evil morty'. And even then, it is not Umbrella Corporation level of evil, where it is apparently written somewhere down in the business plan, mission and strategy to be evil. He is evil based on the goals he chose for himself and what it takes to get him to those goals.
<<If they were avoiding flanderizing Morty, they would seem to have just backed right into it.
I am not sure if I agree. The show is not even. Some episodes are absolutely brilliant and some are very forgettable at best, but I can't really cast Morty as being flanderized since it is not main protagonist's sidekick, but 'evil morty'. And even then, it is not Umbrella Corporation level of evil, where it is apparently written somewhere down in the business plan, mission and strategy to be evil. He is evil based on the goals he chose for himself and what it takes to get him to those goals.
> Is Flanderization just synecdoche - where one attribute becomes the reference for the whole, or is it a new co-oridnate on the spectrum of metonymy and simile?
Not quite; it's a character development process, not a figure of speech. The final result might lead to the attributes being the sole reference for the whole, but what matters is the process.
Not quite; it's a character development process, not a figure of speech. The final result might lead to the attributes being the sole reference for the whole, but what matters is the process.
I don't know about TV Tropes "coining" the concept, I had already discussed this 5+ years ago wrt to computers and we even had a pitch for the "Flanders Threshold"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353106
I'd accept that Flanders Computing is an offshoot of the overall much-later-coined flanderization process.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353106
I'd accept that Flanders Computing is an offshoot of the overall much-later-coined flanderization process.
'Flanderization' as a term was on TV Tropes as early as 2006:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060512061148/https://tvtropes....
https://web.archive.org/web/20060512061148/https://tvtropes....
Well then, I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids.
Also a TV trope: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouMeddlingKids
It seems like the term has a negative connotation in the article but I think it could go either way.
In some cases you could interpret it as the fact that early is a series the audience has very limited experience with a character’s personality. What seems like a minor trait could seem that way only because we haven’t had the opportunity to see more of a character and once we do it is shown to be a defining trait.
In fact this is not that different than real life. When you first meet someone you have no idea who they are, but after a few years in may be that initially minor (seemingly) aspects in fact run very deep. Using Ned Flanders as an example here actually fits real life perfectly: I have known people who are extremely religious with much of who they are, especially in their own minds, defined through their faith. Rarely is this obvious upfront. Like anyone else, the more I got to know them the more they revealed about who they are and how strong their beliefs are.
In some cases you could interpret it as the fact that early is a series the audience has very limited experience with a character’s personality. What seems like a minor trait could seem that way only because we haven’t had the opportunity to see more of a character and once we do it is shown to be a defining trait.
In fact this is not that different than real life. When you first meet someone you have no idea who they are, but after a few years in may be that initially minor (seemingly) aspects in fact run very deep. Using Ned Flanders as an example here actually fits real life perfectly: I have known people who are extremely religious with much of who they are, especially in their own minds, defined through their faith. Rarely is this obvious upfront. Like anyone else, the more I got to know them the more they revealed about who they are and how strong their beliefs are.
Sounds a lot like in music when dealing with RIAA labels and their business model:
“YES! That was a massive hit! Now do it again!”
…and Sir-Mix-a-Lot has said routinely in interviews the more of the novel element but turned up wasn’t the best idea as a follow up to “Baby Got Back” the legit smash.
Let’s just say his next album’s lead single became a punchline in Aqua Teen Hunger Force as spoken by the Moonenites.
“YES! That was a massive hit! Now do it again!”
…and Sir-Mix-a-Lot has said routinely in interviews the more of the novel element but turned up wasn’t the best idea as a follow up to “Baby Got Back” the legit smash.
Let’s just say his next album’s lead single became a punchline in Aqua Teen Hunger Force as spoken by the Moonenites.
I first came across Mix-A-Lot by winning a single of his at a school dance before "Baby Got Back" dropped. It was called "One Time's Got No Case" and was about being harassed by the police.
Such a talented fellow doesn't deserve to be an effective one-hit wonder.
I think PSY suffered from the same problem: the world (outside South Korea) wanted another Gangnam Style.
Such a talented fellow doesn't deserve to be an effective one-hit wonder.
I think PSY suffered from the same problem: the world (outside South Korea) wanted another Gangnam Style.
Thankfully I’ve got great news!
He moved into production and I learned he’s pretty close with the two main guys of Presidents of the United States of America (band - “Peaches” - “Lump”) and they make a living that way as studio cats & hired producers.
Too much talent for pop stars and touring!
He moved into production and I learned he’s pretty close with the two main guys of Presidents of the United States of America (band - “Peaches” - “Lump”) and they make a living that way as studio cats & hired producers.
Too much talent for pop stars and touring!
[deleted]
Years ago, I was talking to a friend about IASIP, South Park, and Arrested Development, and why they had held up so well. I argued that it partly had to do with the fact that the characters were already so extreme, they were resistant to Flanderization.
IASIP dived deep into Flanderization. Mac being gay, Dennis being a psychopath, Charlie being an idiot, etc. They have all gotten more pigeon holed as the show has gone along.
Wouldn't you still call that character development?
I mean Charlie was always an idiot, except for maybe season 1.
I mean Charlie was always an idiot, except for maybe season 1.
I never knew this had a word to it, but it is definitely a strange phenomena itself.
Especially with content creation. People become the X person. The writing person. The growth hacker person. The data science person.
It almost pigeonholes you into being a one-trick pony. Platforms like TikTok and LinkedIn especially push flanderization in this light and good luck getting out to diversify yourself without a new account.
The more obvious example is politics though. There are certain exaggerated traits you associate with the most popular candidates because of how often you are exposed to them.
Especially with content creation. People become the X person. The writing person. The growth hacker person. The data science person.
It almost pigeonholes you into being a one-trick pony. Platforms like TikTok and LinkedIn especially push flanderization in this light and good luck getting out to diversify yourself without a new account.
The more obvious example is politics though. There are certain exaggerated traits you associate with the most popular candidates because of how often you are exposed to them.
A real life example from Computing Science is Edsger Dijkstra. His contributions to the field were extensive, but from talking to people and Google search results he’s now just the minimum spanning tree guy.
I'd say he's the cranky hot takes guy, because outside of academic writing, that's what people quote the most.
In the case of Von Neumann, his contributions are so extensive that he ends up flanderized even though the flanderization in question still pegs him as a multifaceted person
Collapsing multi-faceted contributors to a single algorithm considered harmful?
Part of why I could never really get around to starting a blog is because I have too many topics I’d want to talk about from so many different interests that there wouldn’t be much of an audience for it except for people who just want to know about my life, which is no one. You either flanderize or talk to the void.
Instead, I write comments everywhere across several different threads in many forums. I am an expert in many topics. I find it more satisfying, and I have small micro audiences within each thread.
Instead, I write comments everywhere across several different threads in many forums. I am an expert in many topics. I find it more satisfying, and I have small micro audiences within each thread.
Write because you have something that you want to talk about, not for the sake of an audience.
This is coming from someone whose blog has zero readers.
This is coming from someone whose blog has zero readers.
Another example is Luanne from King of the Hill
Can you provide an example? She didn't end up all that different from when she stared. Just matured a bit thanks to her man.
In the first season she wasn't book-smart but wasn't dumb. In season 1, episode 8 she fixes a problem with Cotton Hill's car on her own in a way that implies she is mechanically inclined and competent. She got dumber as the seasons went on. So did Peggy Hill. So did Dale and Bill. Hank didn't really become dumb but he was seriously Flanderized by way of his love affair with propane.
I have seen many characters in different comedies get dumber over subsequent seasons. Presumably this is because it's easier to wring comedy from people making bad decisions. Even Malcolm in the Middle -- a series centered around a boy with an in-show IQ of 165 -- had Malcolm making absolutely stupid decisions in the later seasons.
I have seen many characters in different comedies get dumber over subsequent seasons. Presumably this is because it's easier to wring comedy from people making bad decisions. Even Malcolm in the Middle -- a series centered around a boy with an in-show IQ of 165 -- had Malcolm making absolutely stupid decisions in the later seasons.
Still annoyed that Runkle in Californication went from a quirky but excellent publicist into just a generic loser
> Some works have consciously attempted to avoid flanderization, such as Rick and Morty.
I am not sure to phrase my disagreement with such a statement because Rick oscillates between a few crazy states but Jerry has been pretty one-dimensional for most of the show's life.
I am not sure to phrase my disagreement with such a statement because Rick oscillates between a few crazy states but Jerry has been pretty one-dimensional for most of the show's life.
Well, you can't fladerize if you start in final flanderized state
In some contexts this another expression of positive feedback loops and where there are few negative feedback loops, or they are ignored because they are annoying (like dismissing the high pitched alarm)
Whether induced by the audience (external) or by the creator(s) internal.
Whether induced by the audience (external) or by the creator(s) internal.
For topics like this, TV tropes is great: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization
I liked this a lot.
As someone who's writing a series of increasingly-fictional books (see https://www.albertcory.io), I can see how easy it would be to flanderize the characters. Fortunately, I haven't had too much reader feedback about them, but I can imagine that if a whole lot of people said "Oh, I love Janet, she's so <trait>!" I'd be SO tempted to make sure that <trait> appeared every time she did. Give the people what they want.
At the same time, you know that if Janet ever displays <anti-trait> you'll get complaints that "Janet wouldn't do that." It's gotta be tough for a TV writer.
In the end, she has to make sense to you the writer, and if you have readers who only want <trait>, well... they'll have to come along with you, or leave.
As someone who's writing a series of increasingly-fictional books (see https://www.albertcory.io), I can see how easy it would be to flanderize the characters. Fortunately, I haven't had too much reader feedback about them, but I can imagine that if a whole lot of people said "Oh, I love Janet, she's so <trait>!" I'd be SO tempted to make sure that <trait> appeared every time she did. Give the people what they want.
At the same time, you know that if Janet ever displays <anti-trait> you'll get complaints that "Janet wouldn't do that." It's gotta be tough for a TV writer.
In the end, she has to make sense to you the writer, and if you have readers who only want <trait>, well... they'll have to come along with you, or leave.
Not to be confused with bowdlerization: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation
Like that guy, Khalid Lame.
There aren't enough examples for this to be considered a meaningful progression. Even the wikipedia page is struggling to prove its worth.
Whoa. That's a lot of examples.
I've thought about this idea (without knowing there was a term for it!) wrt aging in real life. So many people seem to become increasingly caricature as they get older. The guy who likes woodworking and European travel becomes the embodiment of woodworking and European travel. It's all he talks about. His kids roll their eyes at Thanksgiving -- there dad goes again. Etc.
I've been playing around with metaphors, trying to get the flavor of this. I like the one about multiplying two vectors together, where small vector elements shrink, larger vector elements get (relatively) bigger. The vector becomes a more exaggerated version of what it was. And it makes intuitive sense: he spends more time wordworking, wordworking activities crowd out non-wordworking activities, his social engagements intersect wordworking, more of his friends become woodworking friends, and slowly the gravity of his internal world pulls everything in that direction. Nothing sinister about it.
I thought: how would you prevent such a thing? And should you?
Anyway, I'm rambling. But I would welcome any further pointers that could enrich my thinking about this idea.