epic

Though, that said, that it's nice you appreciate what a melodrama truly is, as a sociolingustics student I also feel the need to point out that the meaning of the word 'melodrama' and what it refers to has changed since it was first coined to describe a play with simply plot, simple characters, and a focus on incorporating music (the lower class version of opera) and effects into a story.

Use of language develops and shifts over time: melodrama as you're describing it is how it was used (essentially) over two centuries ago. Sure, you've adapted your definition to fit new literary forms, or how they've changed over time. But you haven't considered the usage of the word changing. I mean, compare Australian English and British English. They've roughly been separated from each other as long as the time period between melodrama first being used and now. The difference in how words are used is phenomenal, especially in common speech.

And then there's globalisation to consider: how other literary forms of non-Western countries (or, even, just non-English speaking) were similar to melodrama, and thus the English term was applied to that, although there are slight differences. Melodrama today is a term that encompasses more than 'simple plotline and characters where good triumphs over evil in the process of saving the damsel in distress.'

Haha my mind is totally split over issues where words change their meaning in contemporary society. I feel so narrow-minded if I insist that the original usage is how you should use it, but yet, what's the point of having a definition of the word if you're going to change it to whatever you want? alkjdg;KHEG;kjdgalsjdbglJB

Novels can't be melodramas because narrative writing depends on things such as characterisation. So, ignore all novels that claim to be melodramas. It'll make you less annoyed at idiots. [=

And on Harry Potter! It has too many characters, and blurring of good and evil (Malfoy, Snape, even Dumbledore) to be a melodrama! But yes, the first four, probably five, movies fit into this category. Not so much the 6th, and the 3rd has Remus, and Pettigrew's patheticness and viewer sympathy for that kinda detracts from the melodramatic elements a bit. But the whole thing is that being a novel originally, the characterisation matters, a LOT. Thus it doesn't really fall into melodrama.

Actually I take back that novels can't be melodramas. GOOD novels can't be melodramas.

But other than that. You need to know how much I love you for posting this.

God. Just. I don't know. Under normal circumstances, I'd say I loved it. But this elicits a rather unnormal reaction, and puts me in an unnormal circumstance. I think this is what people mean when they say their vocabulary is insufficient. 'Love' doesn't quite cover it...I'm gonna print it out and turn it into my wallpaper. Yeah.

So, thanks for helping me understand melodrama, allowing me to realize my vocabulary's...er...insufficientness, and providing me with a new wallpaper.

I don't remember coming across any stories on this site labeled as melodramas, so I won't comment on that. This two-parter was somewhat informative; I hadn't looked into the history behind the term melodrama before. However, I think you simplify the term too much.

"(That’s because they have to show that they’re really, really evil or really, really good.)" - Yes, I imagine melodrama does draw a heavy line between good and evil, but that isn't the only reason for the extravagance and overemphasis on emotions. Highly emotional dramas simply appeal to many people (and have throughout history), not solely for the sake of delineating good and evil.

Also, given the definitions you've adopted for melodrama, I would hesitate to casually label movies like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. They both have happy endings, the evil side -does- lose, and they're heavily plot-driven, but the characterizations are by no means stereotypical or overly dramatized, and I do think the stories themselves are quite complicated. Not to mention, the meaning of the term melodrama has changed throughout history, and it would be difficult to apply the original definition to today's culture.

To be honest and without intending any offense, I felt very uncomfortable reading this, as if I were repeatedly running headlong into a wall. Your voice comes across as aggressive, narrow-minded, even belligerent, if partially informed.

Good for you in exposing what melodrama truly is; I thought it was just a general definition of dramatic stories until I read this. So, thank you for that. However, you used Lord of the Rings as an example of melodrama. Frodo does not resist the temptation of the evil ring very well (in most cases, he doesn't resist it at all, and not at the pivotal moment in the story). This therefore means he is not completely 'good' - he has some elements of 'bad' in him, therefore making it not pure melodrama. My apologies if I'm wrong in saying this, and I sound like a complete idiot, but that was just a thought. I'll leave my email so you can reply to me if you want. If you don't want to, don't.

hm...that may be the colloqial definition is the one used most often.

Ah Natey, how I've missed thee.

~Sasa

And here I thought that you going to college would actually give you a life. For shame, Nathaniel. For shame.

Yeah, you seem to feel quite strongly about that.

Melodrama was just a play with music and song, literally melody drama. In London the liscensing laws meant only a few theatres were allowed to put on straight plays, hence the rise of melodrama and Music Hall as entertainment for the massive flux of new urban poor during the Industrial Revolution.

And seeing as it was entertainment for the proles the stories would always be sensationalist and often simplistic, although ultimately moralistic in tone. In many ways they were equivilent to the medieval mystery plays. And the contempory equivilent is the soap opera.

Now as far as I can see the stories claiming to be melodrama on here are still entertainment for the sub-literate. Mostly they're still sensationalist and simplistic, and more often than not (controversial as their writers would like to imagine) moralistic. So I don't begrudge them the phrase. And unlike my experience of melodrama none of them involve me cackling on stage dressed as a man. Which, I assure you, is a good thing.

I'm not quite sure I agree with you, sir. And I don't think that your way is the only correct way.

"melodrama: n. 1 Originally, a drama with a romantic story or plot, sensational incidents, and usually including some music and song. 2 Any sensational and emotional drama, usually having a happy ending. 3 Behavior or language of a theatrical nature" --Funk and Wagnalls "Standard Dictionary: International Edition"

"melodrama: n. An extravagantly theatrical play in which action and plot predominate over characterization" --The Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"melodrama: noun [C or U]a story, play, or film in which the characters show stronger emotions than real people usually do" --Cambridge Online Dictionary (http[colon]//dictionary[dot]cambridge[dot]org/)

Melodrama may not be synonymous with angst, perhaps, but whenever I read those angsty stories or meet those angsty people, I sure as hell think they're pretty melodramatic.

much applause.

But you should note that, whether or not it was originally so, the word "melodramatic" has come to mean something somewhat different from the original melodrama. Just like "hopefully."

This needed to be said. Bravo.