A Scholarly Critique of Gilligan’s Island

Last updated on: October 15, 2012 at 6:15 am by Joe Carter

A Scholarly Critique of Gilligan’s Island 2012-10-15T06:15:55+00:00 Joe Carter

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Almost every American who owned a television from the late 1960s to the early 1980s has watched an episode of Gilligan’s Island. And if you were a child during that era—in a time before cable and console video games—you probably watched all 98 episodes more than once.

It shames me to consider it now, but I suspect I’ve seen each episode at least a half dozen times—over 8,000 hours engaged with this single cultural artifact. Even more embarrassing is the that despite spending so many hours watching the show I never considered whether there was a deeper meaning in this “text.”

Because Lewis Napper is much smarter than I am—or perhaps because he felt the need to justify the time he wasted watching the show—he has put a lot of thought into the situation of this sitcom and produced a short essay titled, “Here On The Island: A Scholarly Critique of the Style, Symbolism and Sociopolitical Relevance of Gilligan’s Island.”

The entire essay is quite delightful and surprisingly astute. Here, for example, is his take on the perpetually underestimated Mary Ann:

The most fascinating and delicious twist of Schwartz’s tale is the relative obscurity of its central character — Mary Ann. Her name is not in the title and as compared to the other characters, she is not often seen or heard. This lack of input is the very essence of the Mary Ann character. Some may think this kind, level-headed, lovable symbol of the heartland is insignificant to the story, but nothing could be further from the truth. In many ways Mary Ann is the story. More precisely, in times of critical decision making, Mary Ann’s absence is the point.

Mary Ann is easily the most well-adjusted of the characters. She exhibits a healthy sexuality, yet she is unquestionably moral and at the same time not hurtfully devout or judgmentally pious. She is the only truly competent individual on the island. She provides all that is necessary and essential for life. Full of blue-collar know-how, her rugged instincts move her to farm, cook and provide health care and other critical services.

Her lack of self-confidence and doubt of self-worth coupled with an overly-inflated opinion of the others is all that keeps Mary Ann from asserting her rightful place as leader. This revolutionary theme of Mary Ann as most vital yet least compensated, most important yet least revered, most adept yet least trusted, is crucial to understanding the series. It is an attempt to show the common person the folly of their institutionalized reverence of traditional leadership and their legitimate legacy as masters of their own destiny.

Pop Culture

Television

Previous Post

October 15, 2012

Religion is Wasted on the Young

Next Post

October 16, 2012 How Fairy Tales Make Children Better Humans

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anecdotes Art Biblical Studies Bioethics Books Christianity Conservatism Economics Education Evangelicalism Family History Language Arts Military Misc. Moral Philosophy Movies Music Oddities Philosophy Poetry Politics Pop Culture Quotes Science Self-Improvement Shameless Self-Promotion Signs of the Times Technology Television Theology Thirty Three Things Videos Virtues Worldviews

Select a Month December 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

My reign brought prosperity until pride led me to burn incense in the temple, resulting in leprosy. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Hezekiah Uzziah Asa Josiah