Welcome to a new Wildcard Wednesday! This week, I’ve got another Q&A entry, where I answer questions submitted by readers. Thanks to everyone who sent in something — if you don’t see your “Q” here, I just may “A” it next time. (And keep them coming — any related topic on which you want my opinion and/or a little research? Just let me know!)

Issa Kelly wants me to expand on… What makes for a well-defined sitcom character?

In a word: expectations. The situation comedy as a genre is unique because, by definition, it’s an iterative form of comedic storytelling predicated on a fixed, mostly unchanging “situation” – the vital elements of which are inherently promised to the viewer in every episode and therefore must be designed and cultivated in ways that guarantee their reliability. First among these elements of a situation, always, are the characters, the proxy-humans who either are a premise (in low-concept shows) or uphold a premise (in high-concept shows), for in the process, they perform the heavy-lifting of establishing these expectations about what a specific situation is and how it promises to be explored every week, both comedically and narratively. In this form, well-defined sitcom characters are thus as the form prescribes: they’re characters who provide their series with some of those well-founded expectations, based on how they can continuously, and therefore fruitfully, help earn laughs and inspire stories – a communicated understanding that’s reinforced, typically, by regularly presented personality traits and many individualized corroborating details (often involving but not limited to: attitudes, objectives, flaws, quirks, histories, relationships, attributes, interests, beliefs, etc.), which collectively contribute to a series’ overall promise via their consistent application, both comedically and narratively. So, in brief, well-defined sitcom characters are reiterated comic, narrative forces who form and inform a reliable situation, mirroring and actualizing the special appeal of the sitcom genre as a whole.

Bob Richter is thinking about the 1970s… Jackson, in the 78-79 season […] CBS placed Rhoda and Good Times back to back on what was once an invincible Saturday night and ratings plummeted for both shows. Despite considering Rhoda the higher quality show, it was cancelled abruptly mid-season-rare for a long running show- while Good Times was brought back late season and given a proper series finale. Any reason why the two shows would be treated differently?

Simply, Good Times had been renewed for a full season, while Rhoda was only contracted for 13. That is, CBS cancelled Rhoda in fall 1978 but merely shelved Good Times because, unlike Rhoda, the latter had plenty of forthcoming product — perfect for a summer burn-off, where the schedule needed content anyway. As for why Rhoda only got 13 episodes in the first place (and didn’t even have its few remaining entries burned off) – by 1978, the network was unenthusiastic about the show in its post-Joe malaise, a sentiment seemingly shared by many, including Valerie Harper herself, who was vocal about wanting to leave at season’s end. So, even though it did well in 1977-1978 thanks to a cushy time slot, it was considered a waning prospect, no longer “higher quality.” Its terrible ratings in fall 1978 only provided an excuse for the network to do what it had wanted for the last two years: pull the plug… In contrast, Good Times’ issue was a bit different – its recent dip was directly attributed (rightly or wrongly) to Esther Rolle’s departure on the heels of John Amos’ firing. By reengaging Rolle for 1978-1979, CBS was hoping to genuinely improve the show’s fortunes, which were not yet written off like Rhoda’s. Of course, rehiring Rolle was very much a “hail, Mary” – Good Times had also fallen, which is why it wasn’t given the same chance as the relatively unsullied The Jeffersons to survive this fallow period and rebound, as The Jeffersons finally did, in 1979-1980.

James Heath is on the hunt… I have an odd query regarding Cheers. I have been looking for a list of cold opens for my own TV project but I cannot find one. In particular, I am trying to identify the episode (could be season 10) where Rebecca tries to introduce Cliff and Norm to healthy bar snacks but they just end up using vegetables to sip their beer. Any idea which one this is?

That’s the cold open from Season Nine’s “Rat Girl” — a hilarious entry for Frasier and Lilith!

Charlie asked this question on a recent post about The Office… Do you feel that The Office’s decline is on par with that of other sitcoms you’ve covered here? I think the decline from the Michael years to this is the greatest sitcom decline of the 21st century, in part because The Office’s best days were sublime. It reminds me of All In The Family’s decline in its later seasons.

There’s a lot to think about here. For one thing, I agree that The Office and All In The Family are comparable as long-running idea-driven (or somewhat idea-driven) sitcoms that were at one time the best examples of this genre on air, before they both accelerated their own natural declines by fundamentally downplaying and then losing key aspects of their situations, so much so that they inevitably ended up uncompetitive, qualitatively, with their major contemporaries. Now, a lot of this is true for so many long-running shows of a once-high quality – most sitcoms decline in a similar fashion: they exist beyond their ability to satisfy their premise — but what makes this comparison more apt is the fact that these two shows were both a) at one point TV’s best sitcom, and b) actively lost central tenets of their situations in an explicit way, thereby making their falls seem more definitive and severe, with an actual impossibility of ever ending even near their peak sensibilities. There aren’t many other shows that satisfy both of those unique conditions — while also living long enough to be physically comparable — so, under these terms, The Office is almost guaranteed to be the closest analog from the past two decades to All In The Family, and I thus agree with your association of them on the matter of their trajectories… although, for that same reason, I can’t say they’re on par with many other sitcoms’ declines, for most are never #1 before also suffering the same huge, obvious losses within their situations… As for the 21st century specifically, I have some solid ideas but no formal conclusions yet about what the best sitcoms of the 2010s are, but as it’s become more and more unlikely for worthwhile shows to even have nine-season runs (of 22+ episodes each!), I must note that it may be possible for The Office’s decline to be called “the greatest” of this era simply because so few shows now get the opportunity to run long enough to outlast huge parts of their situations, which means everything, both their highs and lows, get minimized via compression.

With regard to quality, while I agree with your comparison of The Office and All In The Family based on the practical facts of their declines, I don’t think they actually end at the same value. Even setting aside the dreadful Archie Bunker’s Place that extends the drudge of All In The Family’s final season, I think the latter is itself the crowning example of how Norman Lear’s overly idea-driven comedies floundered when no longer able to offer the kind of ideas around which their situations were built; when there were no more sociopolitical debates or topical taboos to break, its scripts devolved into mediocre sitcommery (at best) with a lot of trite and/or try-hard hokum. The Office, in contrast, always took more time in its Golden Age to foster its low-concept character elements outside of its idea-driven high concept, so even with the loss of Michael, the show could still be at least something of a workplace comedy, with funny characters who stayed generally well-defined. What’s more, The Office spends its final season actively restoring its idea-led high concept in a way that, okay, maybe can’t yield true greatness anymore (due to the loss of cringe), but is still far more exciting and affiliated to its original premised conceit than All In The Family’s final season redevelopment, which tries to keep Archie’s prejudice centralized via his de facto adoption of a Jewish girl but fails to deliver more than, say, three ideas with the same comedically charged political tension and earned emotional weight that he actually enjoyed with Mike and Gloria (and everything they were built to represent). All of this is to say, I like the ninth season of The Office, for all its flaws, better than the ninth season of All In The Family, and accordingly, I think The Office’s later days are better than Family’s when it comes to textual quality and health, even if they share the same type of big fall – and from an esteemed #1 spot that might indeed make their declines the “greatest” of their respective eras, with the widest gaps between their top and bottom. It’s just that, for All In The Family, its top is higher than most and its bottom is lower than most. That’s also why it’s a great fall. For The Office, its top is higher than most… and its bottom, while certainly low, might be nearer in value to the lows from other long-running shows — even those without a huge loss inside their situations to blame.

Mark Kirby has a request… Do you think you’ll ever review MOM?

I don’t know if I’ll ever get to sitcoms that premiered in the 2010s on this blog, but if I do, Mom is a must-include — as I’ve said, it’s probably the best new multi-cam of that decade!

Have a question for me? Submit it at the “Ask Jackson (Q&A)” link.

Come back next week for another Wildcard! And stay tuned Tuesday for more Old Christine!