Soap operas, as you probably know, originated as serialised dramas on American radio in the 30s and got their nickname from their earliest sponsors.
"A fictitious narrative or tale presenting a picture of real life, especially of the emotional crises in the life-history of the men and women portrayed..."
A fair definition? Well, barring me leaving out "prose" before the word "narrative", that's actually the Chambers Dictionary definition of a novel.
They define "a soap" as "a sentimental, melodramatic serial broadcast on radio or TV written around the lives of the members of a family or other small group, and chiefly concerned with the emotional involvement of the characters" which seems fair enough, if a little negative.
The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory is similarly scathing about soap operas, describing them as "facile, shallow and melodramatic and, though superficially realistic, often bear little relationship to the actualities of most people's lives". Its entry on the novel, tellingly, runs to over three dozen pages - but the introduction could equally refer to soaps: "a (prose) narrative about characters and their actions in what was recognisably everyday life, and usually in the present, with the emphasis on things being 'new' or a 'novelty' ... " (an older meaning for the novel was "tale, or piece of news ... ") It carries on "a form of story or prose narrative containing characters, action and incident, and, perhaps, a plot ... "
All of which could apply lock, stock and barrel to soap operas. Remove the references to "prose" or "TV" and a heap of sneering, and the definitions quoted could work either way.
But why should our cultural establishments direct so much bile at soaps? Why should they be so defensive about the novel? It's all about class - divided and conquered. There are unseen forces at work driving high culture and popular culture apart. The people - perhaps best described for the purposes of this proposition as "the reading classes" - who go along with the western idea of high culture being important and better than the populist variant, have invested heavily in the novel, and they have their social position to defend.
We can all sense the powerful peer pressures at work. The reading classes can't admit to watching TV soaps, instead they talk about novels ... especially the popular ones suggested by said high culture's critics or conveniently packaged up by literary prizes and, even better, join the boom in reading groups and clubs.
All, surely, because fundamentally it's fascinating to compare how everyone else thinks and acts emotionally and, perhaps more importantly to test the limits of what's allowed to be said and thought about others in your peer group.
Now, what's the difference between that and watching soaps?
