A show about nothing?

Harry Scherer
Class of 2022

(8/2021) The 16th day of this month marks the much-anticipated National Tell a Joke Day. In preparation for this solemn occasion, I thought it would do us well to consider the big joke in the sitcom that essentially lacks a punch line.

I have watched Seinfeld for years. The show about nothing captivated the attention of the nation and has been the subject of books written through the lenses of philosophy, sociology, and cultural commentary. The show, then, surely must have accomplished something, perhaps in spite of its less than lofty goals.

Seinfeld is a continual justification of the rightful reliance of comedy on common experience. Is it possible that Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld produced the show in an effort to relay the endurance of our common humanity in the face of monotony and occasional persecution? I really doubt it. In fact, I think David and Seinfeld would be insulted by the accusation of humanitarian aims. After watching accounts of writers and actors on the show, it has become clear to me that the Brooklyn Jews did not write their comedy in an effort to relate to Indiana farmers; instead, their comedy seems to have been written on the strict criterion of making each other laugh.

For those who have not seen the show, you are not missing much, but you are missing something. The plot revolves around four friends who often hang out in the apartment of their comedian friend Jerry, played by Seinfeld, in Manhattan’s Upper West Side, and a humble coffee shop right down the street. Eccentric "hipster doofus" Cosmo Kramer lives across the hall and is often joined by the self-centered George Costanza and their common feminist friend Elaine Benes. In almost every episode, one or more characters devotes much of their attention to maintaining or ceasing a relationship with a new sexual partner. Each one is horrified of the responsibilities of marriage, blames their faults on their closest friends, and engages in, but rarely admits to, the manifestations of blind selfishness.

It makes for a great comedy and the motor of the show is biting observation on everyday situations. David and Seinfeld were certainly risk-takers but simultaneously wholly uninterested in the ramifications of the consequences of these risks. The show worked on multiple levels at the same time. For example, many episodes in the fourth season are dedicated to the plight of Jerry and George as they pitch a show to NBC for a "show about nothing." This fictitious show obviously refers back to the show itself and almost forces the viewer to ask the question, "is this really my life?"

David and Seinfeld like to brand themselves as apathetic nihilists, indifferent to the concerns of their neighbor and eminently more invested in their own personal satisfaction, let alone personal gain. I would suggest, though, that the two were successful in confirming an even deeper reality in this attempt to divorce their experience from base-level empathy. The characters in Seinfeld are morally reprehensible, apparently content with their lives of promiscuity, instability, and relative independence. This contentment, though, is a moral lesson for the viewer in that nobody actually wants to be content with those states of life. The promiscuity they practice results in sexual frustration, the instability results in a lack of appreciation for wholesome stability, and the apparent independence results in a penetrating resentment in the mandatory experiences of life that require dependence.

Ultimately, no one seeking happiness wants to be like the four secular Manhattanites. I do not think David and Seinfeld are moral guideposts; on the contrary, their disinterest in their fellow neighbor, feigned or not, does not seem to me to be praiseworthy. Out of their own search, though, they were able to produce a television program that touched at some enduring questions that are worth consideration. Jerry, for example, thinks that he has reached the pinnacle of his romantic search when he meets an equally sarcastic woman who urges him to say, "Now I know what I’ve been looking for all these years. Myself!" This rather unfortunate solution to romantic yearning, though a common experience, proved to be nothing more than an exercise in narcissism.

In another instance, Elaine breaks up with one of the most gentlemanly men she has ever dated because she found out that he is against civil legal provisions for abortion. This scenario highlights the preeminent position that is granted to political ideology in the dating world and the ultimate priorities that people require of their romantic partners. Miraculously, Kramer is frequently the most insightful in the group and can often serve as the voice of reason; his idiosyncrasies are more perpetual than they are situationally identifiable.

Finally, George casually lights a cigarette in front of his fiancé out of the slim chance that her disgust will force her to end their relationship. In other words, George would rather rely on the initiative of his fiancé, of whom he is deathly afraid, instead of ending a relationship that will lead to a lasting marital union. This situation brings up topics of the infantilization of men and the steps that people in general will go through in order to avoid a decision that they know must be made.

While slightly unusual, these situations are not that surprising to me. This is part of the genius of the show about nothing: it floats very delicately between the relatable and the absurd. This balance was certainly a priority for the show’s founders and also a priority for its faithful viewers, who had many other options on the primetime dial.

What is the joke of this show about nothing, then? You are. You, the viewer, will subject yourself to the humorous but life-depleting musings of two Brooklyn comedians. I have a feeling that David and Seinfeld knew that the attention to and obsession with the minutiae of daily life would strike a chord with the workaholic American viewer. This situational accuracy, though, serves as an effective hook to the consideration of deeper matters that the secular four would probably consider ridiculous.

Read other articles by Harry Scherer