This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
rbloom: I submit this summary is slanted, because it's the opinion of some that after Wayne Rogers and Maclean Steveson left...well to quote Bart Simpson, I didn't know it was possibly for something to blow and suck simeultaneously.
"First of all, uh, war is bad, mmmkay. You shouldn't do war. And, uh, prejudice is bad. You shouldn't be prejudiced, mmmkay. And, uh, as for hate, well, hate is bad. You shouldn't hate people. Okay, that about wraps up my introduction, now uh, are there any questions?"
Looney Toons: <shrug> Given that the summary was written by a dozen different hands over several months, with numerous incremental changes, I'd say its point of view was something of a consensus. If you feel that an alternative opinion needs to be expressed somewhere in the article, by all means go in and add it.
Space Ace: As long as we're discussing this, I'll just say I've always found Alan Alda's (Hawkeye) antics hilarious. War is bad. We shouldn't kill other people, etc. etc. You know the drill. But Korea is a war that did turn out to be for the better (at least, I'm sure the South Koreans would agree). The show is, of course, about Vietnam rather than Korea, but it's just one of those little things I enjoy.
Ununnilium: The show is still about Korea, isn't it?
Space Ace: It's set in Korea during the Korean War, but it mostly comments on the war in Vietnam (which was on when M*A*S*H was on TV). But in the Korea context Hawkeye's whining is just funny.
Looney Toons: U, just like Star Trek used SF to make the occasional undercover comment on issues of the day in the 1960s, the folks who made M*A*S*H deliberately used it to transmit a weekly villification of the Vietnam war in disguise -- at least in the beginning, when that war was still happening. Whatever. It was still funny.
HeartBurn Kid: Hey, just because the war is justified, and we win in the end, doesn't make it any less hellish for the guys on the front lines.
Morgan Wick: It was a Union general, after all, who is reputed to have said "war is hell".
Space Ace: I never considered the show to be particularly funny. Especially not with the Anvilicious anti-war attitude.
Kilyle: Yes, the anvils were excruciating, but if you lay that (major) aspect aside, the show was above and beyond what mainstream television has shown itself generally capable of. The characterization was key, I think. You can read more of what I think on my User page (not here, 'cuz it's kinda long).
I cannot find the trope about the way television treats men of faith. What's the name for that again??
James: I disagree strongly with the final paragraph of the MASH summary:
"Considering that the original novel consisted mostly of young doctors boasting about how much sex they have and shows a truly awful degree of sexism ("Trapper" got his nickname after allegedly trapping and raping his prom date in a train toilet, and nobody seems to care whether this was rape or not as long as he 'got some' on a moving train; 'Me Lay' is famous for using his absurdly crass pick-up line to aquire a stupendous 'batting average'; the doctors' only interest in the epileptic whore down at the local brothel is in how much fun it is to have your penis inside her when she has a seizure; the reputation of the unit depends in part on the size of the dentist's male organ; the list goes on) to produce such a long, successful and at times thoughtful series is a fine example of Adaptation Distillation, a very nice change in a world full of Adaptation Decay."
First, the part about Trapper is just interpretation. In the book, all that happened was that Trapper was caught having sex with a girl and she suddenly blurted out "he trapped me!" That doesn't mean he raped her--it could just as easily read as it being consentual, but she got embarrassed at being caught in a position and thus threw up an excuse.
The "epileptic whore" wasn't really epileptic--rather she goes into a sort of hysteria every time she has sex. Considering that she continues working as a whore despite this, one can only assume she's not bothered.
The rest of that paragraph fails to account for the fact that the novel revolves around MILITARY PERSONNEL, in the middle of nowhere, in the 1960s. Boys will be boys, especially in situations that lend themselves to the degradement of the civilized mind, and especially in an era where feminism was just taking off. Also, what about the character of Knock Mc Carthy (who gets her name from how well she handles herself in a fight)? Nothing sexist about her, though she is admittedly a minor character.
I just wanted to complain about the rather unfair dismissal of Richard Hooker's original novel. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity.
