Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
There have been many sweeping pronouncements about the new revival ofRoseannein the last two weeks.
There is this idea that drama series are serialized, and comedies, specifically sitcoms, are not.
But theres a truth to it, too.
Nor do we come at it with charges ofnarrative complexity.
Thus,The Good Placeis complex;Roseanneis not.
I think thats mostly true, and Ilovethe TV episode as a stand-alone form.
But the sense that a sitcom can be reduced to a single episode leaves us ill-equipped to talk aboutRoseanne.
The easiest way to see this is in the endless attempts to align newRoseannewith oldRoseanne.
Are they the same show?
Is the new Roseanne Conner the same as the woman from the original series?
Are they at least ideologically consistent?
How much does that even matter?
Has new Roseanne Conner betrayed her original self?
How can these be the same character?
Apparently sitcomscanchange over time.
But that break is also easy to dismiss.
Call nu-Roseannean entirely separate fictional object, resembling but bearing no connection to the original series.
The problem of continuity and serial storytelling disappears, right?
In truth, both versions are right (sitcoms, like light, are both particle and wave).
In one image she looks vulnerable.
In another shes a bully.
Theres another where shes an advocate.
And for critics with access to one additional episode, the picture looks even stranger and less coherent.
There may not be one.
