Although there are obviously exceptions I found that the following was generally true:
George does something stupid and something bad happens to him.
Kramer does something stupid and something bad happens to someone else.
Jerry behaves reasonably and something bad still happens to him.
Elaine shows signs off all three behaviors.
I think it’s about the level of ambivilence towards other individuals. It was rare, but not unheard of, for the characters to say (in effect) “I hate this person and I’m going to completely fuck with them.” That’s evil. It also usually resulted in the whole thing blowing up in one of the four’s faces.
What usually happened is one of the four would say “I want what I want and I’m going to get it” without a care in the world about how this action would affect someone else. That’s self-centered and it usually resulted in exactly that. Pain and suffering for someone else involved which the four really didn’t care about because they’re self-centered jerks.
An example of the self-centeredness is “The Wait Out”. George accidentally makes a comment that starts a married couple towards breakup. Jerry and Elaine want the couple to break up so Jerry can date the wife (Debra Messing) and Elaine can date the husband. Jerry and Elaine don’t actively do anything to break the couple up, but they seek to gratify themselves with the results.
I didn’t think anyone ever identified with Kramer: he’s too weird and too lucky.
EDIT: I think it was the Bizzaro episode that clued me in that they were all supposed to be jerks and not just George. I mean, I didn’t notice any compassion, but I didn’t notice it was missing, either. And I saw the finale nearly first–I just thought the shtick was just that bad stuff happened to them, not that it was all their fault.
You have to realize they styled the show as a “show about nothing”, because the early episodes were not really plot driven. The show was really taking Jerry’s observational humor from his standup act and then demonstrating it, acting it out. So Jerry would be out on stage and make some observation*:
“You ever wonder why people say “Bless you” after someone sneezes? What’s that about? Why do we say “Bless you” after a sneeze, but not after a yawn? A yawn also opens the mouth, and can make a funny noise. Yawns put a stupid expression on a person’s face. Ever seen someone while they yawn? No wonder they’re trying to cover their mouth - they want to hide their face. And you see some of the faces people make right after they sneeze? It’s like their wits are rattled, they can’t think straight - they’re eyes cross and they squint and go cross-eyed. Personally, I think we need a phrase to say after people yawn. I think we should say, “Wazzup?!””
Then they would act out that skit, where Jerry would run into someone, and we’d see a sneeze, a “bless you”, Jerry get annoyed by it, someone yawn, and a “wazzup!?”. And generally the whole preposterousness of the whole thing would be demonstrated. That was Jerry’s standup act, and that was the show.
Then they started shaping the show to be about the cast being selfish and petty, and the situations that would cause. It was an extension of the same kind of observational humor, just cast in a different light. “People are like this and do this, and wouldn’t it be funny/great/whatever if this happened to them for it?”
A self-centered jerk doesn’t put any thought into the effects on others. He just thinks about himself and his desires. A truly evil person seeks to harm others. He wants to cause sufferring, to make someone else experience something bad. Maybe for his own gain, maybe just to enjoy watching the suffering.
A self-centered jerk can be blissfully unaware of the suffering caused, or just not care. A truly evil person cares, and likes that the suffering is occurring. YMMV.
*Don’t recall actual examples. Making one up.
There was also an episode somewhere in the middle of the run where all of the characters plots came together. They started doing that from then on.
I don’t recall the exact episode, but it was fairly early on, because I only have the first couple (three?) seasons on DVD. In the commentary, Larry David talks about being stuck for an ending, and somebody thought of using an element from the B plot to help wrap up the A plot. A light bulb clicked on, and thus the “dovetail” was born.
I think that was the Marine Biologist epsode.
Though that might be the ideal example of the dovetail, the first use was well before that. Reading over the episode recaps, I want to say it was The Busboy, because I seem to recall it had something to do with Elaine’s ex-boyfriend getting into a fight with the busboy, or something.
ETA: My memory is better than I thought. The Busboy - Wikipedia
This is probably a mad old thread, but the question interests me because I consider it a classic sitcom, so here goes:
The Classic sitcom of all time was the Honeymooner. Ralph Kramden was kind of a buffoon, loud mouth, bungler etc., but was he a bad person decidedly no.
This whole about them being bad people started with the finale, and I imagine, Larry David. David, someone fundamentally uncomfortable in his own skin was, I believe never comfortable with the shows success. For why just consult a garden variety shrink or groucho marx. However, people did indentify with the show, and not just New Yorkers or Jews, the character were really beloved after all. The whole grafting of a moral onto the final show is kind of an insult to the audience, a little like the last
episode of the sopranos. Television is not conventional art in that its sameness is really what keeps people viewing. in this sense it is more realistic than novels movies plays where character have and ‘Arc’. Maybe as human beings over the course of a lifetime there are changes in character of this kind but they are unbelievably gradual and slight. We don’t see ourselves growing or changing. Even Oedipus takes place over the course of years, so in a weekly show we’re really getting a slice of life. The supposed immorality of the characters does not have to do with their relatability or likeable familiarity (they weren’t murderers or thieves) just bunglars, and watching their schemes blow up in their faces is a catharsis for the rest of us. “Oh look George is having a hard time with another woman…his lie has gotten him in trouble, will he ever win?” We sympathize, we empathize. So really the finale was kind of a giant middle finger to the audience, a display of contempt. Why I really believe because Larry David could not take the idea that he was so much like everyone else. So finally in the end, he had to totally reverse himself so he could say look, you were wrong to invest your time and emotions in this characters, they’re bad people, ergo you are fools for having watched, ergo I am superior to you still, even though you like what I have wrought. That’s my opinion. I don’t think they were bad people, I just think one of their creators had a problem being liked.
Classic Show. I still laugh.
Welcome to the SDMB, jalolly. You’re right, this is an old thread, and some of the participants are no longer around. You may be interested in this more recent thread, along somewhat the same lines:
Wow, The Seinfeld characters really were assholes!
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure I agree with your theory, but I do find it interesting.