How NOT to write twists

I hope you and your family are all well during this awful crisis. Be safe, wash your hands and be kind to one another. Now, onto the blog post…

I’ve been watching a lot of classic episodes of The Simpsons recently (thank you, Disney Plus) and I wanted to discuss a topic that has frustrated me about the show for a long time – namely one episode that understandably polarises the audience. I’d say it’s a spoiler but the episode has now been out for over twenty years and so feel like if it bothered you, you’ve probably already seen, or at least know about it. The episode aired in 1997 and it’s called “The Principal and the Pauper.”

The basic premise of the episode is that Seymour Skinner is an imposter, his real name being Armin Tamzarian, and that he stole the identity of the real Seymour Skinner. The episode is written by Ken Keeler who, for both The Simpsons and Futurama, wrote some great episodes. I have a large issue with this, though, and it essentially comes down to the answering of two questions: why was it written and what purpose does it serve.

The episode itself seems to flip-flop between what it’s actually trying to do. It exposes Armin as the imposter and he’s rejected from the townspeople. The real Skinner then takes over working at Springfield Elementary School until the town realises that they prefer Armin over Skinner. The rest of the plot then breaks its back to reinforce the status quo that had just been torn apart by the episode. They run the real Skinner out of town, reassert Armin as Seymour Skinner and state that no-one is allowed to discuss this matter over the penalty of torture.

Keeler has openly admitted that the episode is about “a community of people who like things the way they are.” It certainly is an interesting topic and one that could be explored in other avenues. However, the episode is structed in a way that is self-serving. In readjusting back to the status quo, it shows that the twist itself lacked all meaning. It is purposeless – to serve as the sole plot point of one episode. Also, by claiming that the episode is about people who don’t like change, Keeler has now created an automatic defence in case people don’t like the episode.

Audience: We didn’t like this. We felt that the Skinner character that we’ve come to know and love for eight years has now been tarnished.

Keeler’s defence: That was the point!

I kind of understand what Keeler was trying to do but it leads us down a rabbit hole of issues. Firstly, we now need to look at any flashback about Skinner both before and after this episode as a lie because the fact that he is Armin is never brought up again. Secondly, why aren’t the audience allowed to feel cheated by this? Skinner isn’t a small character; he hasn’t only been introduced to the show – we’re talking about eight years! The episode is pulling the rug from the audience’s feet, then replacing the rug at the end of episode and stating how the point of the episode was to show how everyone loves rugs. That’s not the point! The point is that when you build a character and create a story, the audience understandably don’t like feeling like they’ve been conned by the writer. It isn’t just the one episode that’s the problem – it’s the fact that we, the audience, now need to question everything about the character that has come before or since.

And, again, I repeat, for what? What was gained by this episode? Even if you liked the episode, don’t you feel a sense of distrust with every bit of information we now learn about Skinner? Or, hell, let’s take it further. If the writers are willing to do this with Skinner, why not with every other character? In this you see the real issue – the trust between the writer and audience has been broken. I imagine it’s similar to the how audience members felt regarding the infamous Dallas twist. It’s fine having a character that’s untrustworthy if the audience are aware of that. But, to have spent hundreds of hours building a character only to tear it down and then, when understandable outrage is created, to turn back to the audience and state that the episode is a comment on the reaction is lazy.

As far as I’m concerned, the episode clearly shows where the line is regarding twists. I love a good twist, personally, and, in fairness to Keeler, having watched a lot of his other work, I can genuinely say he’s an excellent writer. The problem is really from the very foundation of the episode. It’s fine to subvert expectations and shock people. But, in my mind, a good twist gives the audience breadcrumbs beforehand. Why? Two reasons: to give the twist weight and meaning. In the instant moment of the twist, the audience should understand and appreciate its importance. The weight and the meaning of it are interlinked – the meaning of it is what comes before (breadcrumbs) in that it shows the audience why the twist happened, the weight of it is the potential ramifications of it going forward. Think about The Sixth Sense. Amazing twist. Why? The weight and the meaning of it are completely interlinked. It’s one of the greatest twists I’ve ever seen for that very reason and it makes you re-examine the entire film through a different lens. Why is it not a twist in the same vein as “The Principal and the Pauper”? Because the clues are there, the impact of it is instantly felt and it actually has meaning because it has massive ramifications.

There’s a difference between misdirection and misleading the audience. Misdirection is absolutely fine and critical for a twist to land. Misleading is a different game. It’s where you’re deliberately feeding wrong information to the audience only to show them later that they’ve been lied to. I don’t like twists like that because it breaks the trust created by the writer and the audience. I want to be thrilled, shocked and entertained. I don’t want to be lied to and the issue with “The Principal and the Pauper” is in attempting to critique that instinct without having anything to say afterward.