Murky Waters of Soapland

I had anticipated difficulties when deciding to embark upon this #Postaweek blogging challenge; finding suitable content, making the time to meet each deadline, but more importantly writing what I wanted to write about in a coherent and concise way. I wanted to also challenge myself by writing something that maybe I would have steered clear of, by giving my opinion on something that people may disagree upon and have their own views, but then isn't that part of what writing a blog is all about?

Over the past few weeks, more and more has been written about Eastenders and the controversial storyline involving a newborn baby's death and the subsequent aftermath, in which a grieving mother swaps her dead child for her next door neighbour's healthy one without them knowing.

It may sound like something from a nightmare, but the reality is, these scenes are being played out in lounges across the nation on a near nightly basis and we are living through each characters eyes as they come to deal with, on one side a false bereavement, the other the loss of a long desired child. Whilst us, as viewers, have the added benefit of an insight into the truth.

Television is, by and large a fictitious medium. We watch television programmes as an escape, as entertainment, or in watching soaps, view a social commentary to what is supposed to be happening in peoples lives across contemporary Britain. We are supposed to be able to relate to the characters successes or failures, happiness or disappointments and in some cases are actually able to use these situations as guidance for our own lives.

Every once in a while a "shocking" storyline hits the screen, whether it be a lesbian kiss, or an incestuous relationship. A storyline that is deemed to be too controversial for the Great British public, who aren't quite ready for the discussion of a sensitive subject and would rather it be buried away where they think it belongs. It hits the screens, a manner of complaints are made, OFCOM get involved and newspaper scribes are quick to mount the high horse and feed us opinion telling us how wrong it all is and that the world has gone to pot.

A lot of the criticism aimed at Eastenders is the reaction Ronnie had to finding that her baby had passed away. By her swapping babies as a defence mechanism against her grief it is alleged to give a bad impression on those people who genuinely have lost a child. It may be just me, but does anyone genuinely believe that? Or that in some way, when a baby is a victim of SIDS, blame should be held at the feet of the parents?

Are we then to take the world of Eastenders seriously? If so, could we offer a plausible reason for her actions? A look at the characters back story will tell you that somehow in the past twelve months or so, her daughter was run over and killed moments after discovering she was actually her long lost child. She then proceeded to get herself pregnant again and lost the baby at the hands of her evil father, who only went and got himself murdered the next day.

In no way am a justifying the storyline, which I find particularly crass, uneasy to watch and unnecessary. There have been several rather disturbing scenes, none more so than when father Jack showed grieving Alfie a mobile phone photo of 'his' baby son. The faint look of recognition was haunting and sent a shiver down the spine.

Being a father the very thought of losing a child, through any circumstance, fills me with dread. In fact, the only way to comprehend the idea is to not discuss it, don't even entertain the thought, take the "it'll never happen to me" approach. But then, so does the thought of my wife having an affair, or my parents being murdered by a deluded vicar, all story lines which have frequented our screens in the not so distant past.

At what point does acceptable become unaccepted? If soaps are supposed to represent contemporary Britain shouldn't they be tackling issues that we read about daily in the newspapers, despicable and desperate acts such as those committed on Baby P for example, albeit an extreme one? Would the perpetrators have managed to commit such evil deeds had a soap been bold enough to bring such topics into our front rooms?

The point is. Soaps don't represent contemporary Britain, they are representative of a group of peoples' imagination, a voyeuristic look into people's lives who don't actually exist, written by 'creative' people who take a subject matter to the extreme. Call it entertainment, drama or content suitable for the trash. But if something can evoke an emotion, a powerful one, or provoke a reaction, a negative one then should we restrict it or encourage it? Or maybe do what I'm going to do. Concentrate on real life.