When less is more

or why too much of a 'good' thing can be bad for you

We seem to live in an age where more is more when often what is needed is less is more.

The concept of less is more rests on the principle that a little bit goes a long way and that applies to food and fiction. It is also about subtlety, a word many can no longer spell or even understand. A message delivered in small, subtle doses is more likely to adhere and be retained than one rammed constantly down the public throat. That is because humans instinctively fear change and need to be comfortable to embrace change and differences. Most people are decent at core and do the right thing. Telling them they are not but constantly pushing your social agenda will not win them to your cause.

Perhaps it was always this way but modern technology magnifies and exaggerates the effects. Or perhaps people no longer comprehend that a message can be more powerful when delivered in moderation rather than a constant ramming of it down people’s throats.

We know that if we eat too much of something we will end up vomiting and we can drink too much, including water, and kill ourselves. Knowing when enough is enough is a skill which every artist and communicator should master.

What am I talking about? Modern-day agendas in the name of ‘good’ which are now factored into everything as a modus operandi for entertainment, creativity, art, education, science even - in fact every human system but none more so than the field of entertainment. For example, take British television and film and carefully observe, well, it does not need to be careful because it is so blatant, the number of actors with African or Indian ancestry and the ever-increasing number of homosexual couples.

On the basis of social ratio one would conclude, from a place of ignorance, that 50% of British have African or Indian ancestry and that a quarter of them were in homosexual relationships, male or female. Neither is the case. The figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, is 3% for both those with Indian or African ancestry and those who say they are in homosexual relationships. The ancestry figure for London is higher, around 19%, but London has always been a migrant city and even here the representation in film and television is double at least the reality.

So why the over-representation and the force-feeding to the general public? I am sure those pushing it mean well and think that greater exposure to non-Anglo and non-heterosexual Britons will mean greater tolerance and acceptance. They mean well and they think it is a good idea to put such social agendas front and centre. As my father so often said to his children, you know what thought thought. In other words what you thought was not right or relevant.

Such force-feeding will not create greater tolerance and acceptance but will instead have the opposite effect, because it is a false depiction of the society and an artificial and agenda-driven construct which some people, a minority, actively dislike and which most do not want constantly rammed down their throats. The more agendas contained in the medium the less entertainment there will be. Nothing destroys creativity and condemns the creation of art than agendas. It is the rules which cripple the artistic soul.

The goal of entertainment is to draw people into the world you are depicting and for that, it has to be believable. The more credible the story the more engaged the viewer, listener or reader. Constantly smacking people around the head with the ball of social politics just makes them dizzy.

And when they do a remake of Anne Boleyn and cast a clearly African origin actor in the role they are not going to win hearts and minds but just piss a lot of people off bigtime.

There were no blacks in British society in the 16th century and certainly none in the Royal Family or the Aristocracy. Same for Jane Austen’s England in the late 17th and early 18th century. There was, apparently in these times, two females with some African ancestry in the aristocracy, no doubt the result of a liaison where the English father decided to do the right thing, but absolutely nothing like that depicted in the farcical series of Bridgerton.

It is the worst kind of historical dishonesty to play games with one of the greatest writers Britain has produced, Jane Austen, and to pretend that this reflects her work or her world. How does a false and impossible remake of English/British history help anything?

The British have always been a generally accepting and tolerant society and had high levels of immigrant intermarriage, as indeed do many Western countries, so the constant shoving of the agenda is unnecessary. People integrate, accept, tolerate, adjust, adapt pretty well in general so why make a fuss about it?

The irony of course is that most of the promoters of the more is more would be shouting from the rooftops about what they call cultural appropriation even as they appropriate, remake, re-invent, re-manipulate the culture, society and history of a country. Do as I say not do as I do seems to be the way of it.

The gay agenda is the same. In many cases there is not one gay couple in the show but two or even more. This does not represent the culture or the society so why pretend that it does? There are four gay characters in the British crime drama, Annike and it is not even a big cast.

Most people for at least half a century and perhaps more, have been generally tolerant of homosexuality and yet, it seems, the more acceptance, the greater the tolerance or even embracing of this sexual proclivity, the more it is misrepresented as being common in society. It isn’t and we should hope it does not become so for the simple reason that only with heterosexuality can the human race survive.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being gay, but there is something wrong in pretending this is common and a large segment of the population.

Why does such misrepresentation matter? For the simple reason that racism is easy to breed in humans and the more annoyed they become in regard to a particular group the more they are likely to develop racist attitudes, consciously and unconsciously.

The approach is very Western goody-two shoes in nature. You will not find Asians or Africans making shows where a high percentage of the characters are anglo-european or gay. They want to depict their society as it is, not as some agenda-driven writer wants it to be. And in truth, the only thing we can ever offer is our own unique reality - note that word, REALITY - to others. Our fantasies are a different matter and sure, make a movie or television series where everyone is gay or black but do not pretend it is historical or real. Imagination is fine but it needs to be recognised as such and not misrepresented as if it were a social norm.

But this is the problem of our age. The belief and desire to force people to accept, embrace and champion various agendas whether they believe in them, care about them, or even think about them. When you write your story to sell an agenda and select your cast for the same reasons, you will never produce quality.

And why would the average Brit not take offense at such manipulation of their society? Some do. A lobby group in the UK has suggested that the BBC features too many LGBT characters in its programs, while also over-representing people of colour and different ethnic backgrounds.

The review conducted by The Campaign for Common Sense has not been publicly released on its website yet, but details of the report have been published by conservative news outlets. 

The Daily Telegraph has reported that the group say the BBC is at risk of “warping modern Britain” by having a political bias in drama and comedy programs.

One show criticised by the report in the thriller Vigil which features Rose Leslie and Suranne Jones as police investigators, and a gay couple, looking into a cover-up on a British nuclear-powered submarine.

The drama The Responder which looks into corruption in the police force was also in their firing line. They argue that the drama starring Martin Freeman included too many Black or Asian characters with half of the cast coming from diverse backgrounds. In reality the ranks of the Merseyside Police Force only have 0.5 per cent of their officers who are black, and 0.4 per cent are of Asian descent.

Eastenders, Sherwood, Industry and The Capture were also accused of social engineering.

A spokesman for the Campaign for Common Sense said: “Too often in BBC dramas you can see only one side of an argument presented.

“And it’s usually the side of a liberal, left-wing, woke viewpoint that has more in common with the echo chambers of Twitter than the majority of licence fee payers who are forced to fund the BBC’s output.”

An occasional meal of agenda-driven messages can be tolerated, and probably should be because the goal is a worthy one, acceptance of difference. But a constant feast of them just makes everyone feel sick and defeats the purpose.

I believe a tolerant society is a good thing and that means tolerance and acceptance of differences. I think sexuality and ancestry are personal matters which while fascinating to the individual are not relevant to who they are as a human being or as a citizen. The over-representation and the misrepresentation of a society or culture to push the agenda of a particular group does not lead to more tolerance and acceptance but has the opposite effect. To promote a particular group for any reason sells them as being other, and the more it is done the more crassly that case is made. In other words, in trying to force acceptance a situation is created where intolerance is the result. That is what I reject, nothing else.

A little bit, a very little bit, of what you fancy does you good is a message which should be engraved on the wall of every writer, particularly those writing for film and television.