And now we come to our final conclusion, where like all good writers, theories, and essays before me I must lay out my conclusions for all to see. And yet I feel that  the argument has already been said.

In my first post I laid out  not only my intention for this blog series, but also established  the disturbing changes to the story that came through the simple act of writers trying to fill out their expanded episode run. An argument therefore could be made that when introducing the concepts of ‘hell’ and heaven’ as real places that defiantly exist, into the lore of the show little thought was given to the implications of that particular form of afterlife being made the real one. Particularly when there were characters who were not Christen in life.

In my second post however, one could say I lambasted this theory of thoughtlessness by examining the character of Thorfinn – a Viking raider that died by being hit by a bolt of lightning – and his role as the ‘scapegoat’ or ‘the one who is always in the wrong’ within the series. Although it is still unlikely that the writers of Ghosts CBS, are  extolling the virtues of a Christian faith, as actually being a baptised Christian is never once mentioned as a possible requirement for being ‘sucked off’.  Instead what we seemed to be seeing are the lingering effects of Christianity upon the afterlife depiction of American pop culture that still wishes to distance itself from the complication of religion in general. Wherein it is not vital to have been a Christian in life to get into ‘Heaven’ so long as you were a good person – but a ‘good person’ as defined by whatever the value system of America at the time. I am not saying that shows depicting the afterlife made in countries outside the US do not do this as well, merely that as Ghosts CBS is a very American show, it would naturally use the current American values, or at least a specific set of American values, as what defines a good person. And as Thorfinn is the character most stark opposed to the level of bland niceness held up by the character deemed ‘the moral centre of the show’ it is only logical that he would become the punching bag of the writers.

This was highlighted to an even greater degree when we dissected the chosen heart of the show – Scoutmaster Pete. Who while certainly not an inherently evil man, was more than capable of displaying his own cruelty and hard heartedness towards his fellow ghosts. Which in a vacuumed would be fine, every character needs at least one flaw, but the fact that this goes entirely unmentioned by the narrative implies that the writers aren’t even aware that they gave him this flaw at all. And therefore it’s really hard to swallow when he starts lecturing both the audience and the other ghosts on the writers chosen moral of the week. And this was a shame as the BBC version of Ghosts showed, characters like Pete could be interesting and provide top quality story opportunities when you allowed them to acknowledge  their flaws, instead of holding them up on some kind of pedestal which any character, even the most virtuous is going to enviably fall from, even if it’s without the writer’s consent.

And in our two final posts we delved into the disrespect  this handholding, and over explaining of almost everything – but particularly, and most annoyingly the chosen “morals” of the episode shows towards the audience. The writers don’t trust that we are able to pick up on their moralising from the actual story they’re telling, but rather have to pause the action midway through so Pete or sometimes Sam can give a little speech on what we’re supposed to be taking away from this. And how when a writer disrespects the audience so throughly it naturally translates to disrespect for the characters as well.

So, what have we taken away from this? Well, I hate Pete. But more than that, I think we can safely say all this certainly demonstrates the dangers of trying too hard doesn’t it? Strictly speaking most of the the audience will already have  the “modern” values the show is espousing down flat before they watch a single episode. No one particularly thinks pillaging is a good idea anymore, or that you should hire children to work in your factories.  And as for the morals they actually bother to have a character lecture you on, well it just speaks to the writers insecurities in their own work. Ultimately when you have to be that blatant, to the point that you actually have a heaven and hell to send the characters off to depending on what side they took on your argument, how well did you actually show that argument in the first place? It becomes even shakier  when the morals you are apparently espousing as right are actually disgusting, or morally flawed themselves.

Ultimately what I feel we’ve learned here is when it comes to assigning a set moral centre in your ghosts sitcoms ,starring people from a wide variation of different times and cultures, the best and easiest course is just not to.

If you’ve enjoyed this post, and would like to see others like it as soon as they come out, remember to follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t already. And hop on over to X, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, TikTok, Youtube, Goodreads, Kofi , Spotify, and Facebook where I am also active.  Until next time Wee Readers, stay safe and happy, and have a very bonnie day.