#chinonshou

aH THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! IM HONORED!!! honestly, i never expected to love a character for this long and so intensely T___T our precious children deserves all the love!! I have so many drawing ideas that I’ll def prob try and churn out more soon!!!!!

Hi! So, this is going to be a long answer, and I hope that’s all right, haha. As someone who loves both The Office and Parks and Recreation (though I actually like The Office a bit more, even though I think Parks & Rec is more consistent across the seasons in terms of quality), I have a lot of thoughts on both.

So, here’s the thing:

Although The Office and Parks and Recreation were created/produced by the same guy (guys? I know that Michael Schur for sure worked on both, though I think there was one other person working on both as well), they’re very different in tone. Whereas Parks and Recreation tends to be more optimistic and idealistic (in that even when things go wrong for the cast in the short-term, in the long-term they’re almost guaranteed to succeed, and even when there’s squabbling and bickering, for the most part the characters tend to be optimistic, and idealism---particularly Leslie’s idealism---is rewarded), The Office tends to be more caustic and cynical. Things very often don’t succeed for these characters in the short-term (long-term projects don’t happen as often, and even then there are a few big long-term failures), and they’re much, much more prone to being snarky and cynical. Additionally, whereas snark and cynicism are often “punished” on Parks and Recreation (in that the cynics are usually proven wrong/converted to idealism, again, usually by Leslie), this isn’t the case on The Office. Not only is The Office a world of snark, but since things don’t tend to magically work themselves out on The Office due to it arguably being a more realistic setting (I mean, Pawnee, Indiana isn’t even an actual city that exists, whereas The Office takes place in the very real Scranton, Pennsylvania), cynicism isn’t punished here because having a more idealistic outlook---particularly without the experience or power necessary to back it up---is more likely to backfire than it is to succeed. (i.e., although Michael very often wants everything to magically work out . . . it usually doesn’t.) And that’s not to say that The Office is a depressing show where everyone always loses, because that’s not true, but it is to say that while the antagonists on Parks and Recreation are caricatures of people rather than opponents that actually exist (and as such our idealistic protagonists can more easily overcome them), the problems and antagonists on The Office are more grounded in reality and, as such, reality tends to ensue.

So with that said, I first want to address something you said about the early episodes, which is here:

“The first few episodes are just like... the punchline that everyone is racist just happens too often for me to swallow.”

I actually find it interesting that this is your viewpoint, because my opinion is that The Office, as a whole, actually tends to show this attitude in a negative light!

The episode I think you’re mainly thinking of happens in season one, and it’s episode two (I believe)---“Diversity Day.” In it, corporate has sent an ethics counselor to the Scranton branch of Dunder-Mifflin (where our main cast is employed) to give a diversity seminar because Michael, the boss, imitated a Chris Rock routine and was rather ignorantly racist while doing so. Michael, of course, hates the idea that anyone but him could be in charge (and is also too ignorant to realize exactly how and why he was being racist), and as such he not only ruins the seminar, but then proceeds to make everything more offensive by having “diversity activities” throughout the day. This culminates in him being slapped for real by Mindy Kaling, who was playing Kelly Kapoor.

Now, with that being said, I can understand why that would be hard to swallow! It’s not easy to see a character acting like that. But the thing about The Office is that we’re not supposed to be laughing with Michael, or sympathizing with him; it’s very intentionally framed (in my view, anyway) that he is in the wrong when he does things like this. We see this via the more heroic characters in The Office finding what he’s doing wrong, offensive, awful, and very often calling him on it (especially as the series goes on). For instance, in “Diversity Day,” it’s clear that no one there really approves of what he’s doing. They’re all going along with it because they have to, but while there are some characters who do hold bigoted viewpoints as well (e.g. Dwight and Angela, who are also not shown in a heroic light, especially at that point in the show), the characters that we’re meant to sympathize with (e.g. Jim, Pam, Oscar) don’t agree with what’s going on, and usually say so. (e.g. Pam says, “Based on stereotypes which are not true and that I do not agree with . . .) So in this case, it’s not, “haha, racism is funny!” but more, “my god, this guy is such an ignorant ass, and yet there are people like him out there, and people like these office workers who have to suffer through it.”

And that’s the thing: Parks and Recreation has a lot less of that (once they stop trying to have Leslie be Michael near the end of S2---because she made quite a few ignorant/racist comments toward Tom in the first two seasons), but it was also more of an idealistic show. The Office shows that people have prejudices, bigotry, et cetera, but always in a negative light. We’re never supposed to sympathize with Michael when he makes comments like that, and we’re certainly not meant to sympathize with disgusting characters like Todd Packer (who I believe is introduced in S2, but he might make an appearance in S1). Granted, Packer’s scenes are never funny to me regardless, but he is important to show Michael’s growth later on, so. Regardless, although The Office does include things like that, they’re never meant to be the punchline. It’s not, “laugh at the racism!” but rather “isn’t this awful? and isn’t it awful when things like this happen in your workplace? because we know they do, we’re sure of it, even if we’re exaggerating it a tad for comedic effect.” Especially later on, that sort of behavior is always framed as wrong.

WITH ALL OF THAT SAID! (I told you this was going to be a long response, haha, I have a lot of feelings.)

Just like how Parks and Recreation’s first season was so horrible that even the cast denounces it (“Don’t bring up those shitty episodes!” said Aziz Ansari during a cast panel), it’s pretty much agreed upon that the first season of The Office is the weakest season as well, due largely in part to the producers trying to create the British original. In fact, the first episode is pretty much a shot-for-shot remake of the British original. In season two, however, they break away from the U.K. formula and become their own thing, and from then on it’s pretty much unanimously decided that the U.S. The Office surpasses that of the British original. The characters become fleshed out, the storylines become deeper, and overall the show vastly improves.

So, with all of that said?

I do still recommend toughing it out through the first season since it’s only six episodes long, and there are some great little subplots in the first season as well (such as Jim and Dwight’s alliance). Plus, there are a few nuggets of plot in the first season that continue into the second (such as Jim’s temporary girlfriend, Katy). But if you’re having trouble with the first season (and I don’t blame you!), then I would recommend skipping the first two episodes (“Pilot” and “Diversity Day”). That leaves you with:

“Health Care”

“The Alliance”

“Basketball”

“Hot Girl”

The most important episode here is “Hot Girl” (which is the last episode of season one), due to the fact that Katy is introduced in it, and she makes reappearances in season two. That said, I think the others are worth watching as well. “Health Care” has some great shenanigans in it, shows how ineffectual Michael is as a boss/how desperate he is to be liked, and is good for Jim/Pam content; “The Alliance” has the hilarious subplot of Jim and Dwight’s alliance, which, trust me, is more hilarious than it sounds; “Basketball” does have more of Michael’s ignorance (he’s ignorant a lot, it’s a marked character flaw, but he’s never rewarded for it and he develops through it as time goes on), but I feel that it’s still important for Jim/Pam content; and “Hot Girl” is necessary for reasons started above.

All of that said, again: There is a noticeable quality jump from the very first episode in season two, “The Dundies,” which is where some of the most notable quotes from the show come from (e.g. “I feel God in this Chili’s tonight”). So if you really want to you can skip straight to that, but I recommend at least watching “Hot Girl” first, as well as the others noted in the bullet list.

Oh, okay. This is fine. It’s not a weird question at all, haha.

Essentially, a character becomes OoC when they’re doing something that isn’t in line with how they would believably behave at that point in the narrative. Characters can develop and change; they, just like real people, can and should grow, and this can include anything from changing their opinion on something to modifying their behavior. For instance, on The Office Pam comes out of her shell over the course of the show, to the point where she’s able to stand up for herself, speak her mind, and go after what she wants about midway through the series, whereas that would have been unthinkable for her in the first couple of seasons. This doesn’t mean that Pam is OoC; it means that Pam has made some changes in her life that have given her new confidence along with her newfound happiness, and so she’s able to make a stand and say what she’s feeling without backing down. Moreover, there are times in later seasons where she still behaves passive-aggressively or doesn’t necessarily say what she’s feeling, which goes to show that Pam, like anyone, still has brief moments of faltering or believable “regression.” It’s a process, not a bullet list.

However, sometimes “development” can come out of nowhere, or be forced for the sake of the narrative. In other words, rather than the characters dictating the narrative, the narrative dictates the characters. Using the same show as an example, Andy Bernard’s character is pretty inconsistent over the course of the series. At first it seemed as if they were going to move him along a believable character development track; he started out as a high-strung, over-ambitious Yes Man with anger problems, went to anger management, and came back a better, much friendlier individual. He still showed shades of being a Yes Man and desperate to be liked, but it was also clear that his time in anger management had helped him. He was doing better, and his development was believable.

As the seasons went on, however, it became clear that they were changing Andy’s writing on a dime in order to fit whatever narrative they needed for him. They made him an ultra sympathetic nice person in order to better set him up to be with Erin, but then later made him into an insensitive, emotionally manipulative jerkass so that they could have a reason to break the two of them up and put her with a new character named Pete instead. They showed him as being able to tolerate people not necessarily liking him when he was a salesman, but then made him into a Michael Clone once Michael left the show in an effort to fill the gaping hole that Michael left (and then zigzagged that yet again by taking the company away from Robert California and giving it back to David Wallace). And so on and so forth; Andy’s writing was all over the map, but since his character wasn’t one that was meant to be an unpredictable enigma (unlike Robert California), it came off as very OoC at various points. It wasn’t believable development; it was the narrative twisting his character to be whatever suited the plot, to the point where no amount of Connect the Dots could explain it. (Contrast this with Jim, who many said was OoC for his intense focus on his job in Philadelphia at the temporary expense of his marriage. This was actually not OoC for Jim, who Pam tells us all the way back in season two, “When Jim gets excited about something, he gets really into it […] The problem is he works here, so that hardly ever happens.” Jim’s hard focus on Athlead was not OoC. Nor was his realization at what it was costing him, and his decision to then quit that in order to recommit himself to his family, considering that he once gave up a serious promotion at Dunder-Mifflin in order to go back to Scranton and ask Pam on a date. Both of these things were very in-line with Jim’s character.)

Essentially, what you have to do is you have to look at who the character is, and look at how their experiences in the narrative have shaped them. If you can connect the dots and see how they got from Point A to Point H—and if you can explain it with examples if necessary—then you’re fine, and they’re developing naturally. But if you can’t, and they’re behaving a certain way to make the plot work, or to make a ship you like work, then you need to scrap and start over. Remember, the characters are how the plot happens. The characters are how relationships happen. The narrative should be modified to suit the characters, not the other way around. Your plot can be very interesting, but if your characters can’t sell it to the audience, it’s no good. You’ll have to go back to the drawing board.

YES!!! They recently changed how its formatted, I guess??? So it’s more like the app??? And its total garbage now?????

[[Wait so it's intentional and it's gonna stay that way forever ??? But how do we even get our activity ? I can literally NOT see my posts, activity, drafts or queue at all ... Did they just block everything out to make us use the app ?

Im so confused what was this question for what does this mean

No i feel you lol