I’m going to be honest right from the start of this post, a great deal of what I say runs contrary to what I wrote in my previous post. 2 Broke Girls is the oposite of Grandma’s House– it’s loud, has canned laughter and has a fairly obvious gimmick. Yet I still love it, and not in that now tedious ‘oh it’s such a guilty pleasure’ way. More in a full-on ‘this is really good why arn’t you guys giving it more credit?’ way.

Yet perhaps the two shows arn’t that different. If you took away the canned laughter, would 2 Broke Girls be less funny? No. The jokes are still there. In fact, the laughter is blocked out by your own, proving that taped reactions are only noticeable when the writing and acting isn’t good enough for you to have one of your own. Morevoer, both shows are about people who are trapped, Grandma’s House by a self-destructive psyche (and a problematic family), 2 Broke Girls by finances. Perhaps where the Atlantic divide is most evident is that Americans encourage their audience to root behind the characters attempts to break free of the trap, in a way British audiences perhaps arn’t. Britain has perhaps had too many high and low-water marks in it’s history to be anything but cynical about success. America as we know it is still youthful enough to enocurage a dream. The fact so few acheive it is deemed irrelvant. For now.

But then what’s wrong with a show that is so positive? Does TV have to be about miserable people having a miserable time? And, if we are all going to be truthful, isn’t it nice to see a comedy full of decent people for a change, instead of caricatures of human frailties?  The saying goes ‘why have a burger when you can have fillet steak?’ I would argue that whilst we all aspire to enjoy fillet steak, sometimes the burger is the more satisfying option. in fact, it is the quality of the meat that matters, not how it is cooked or served. Good quality comedy will always have an audience, and 2 Broke Girls is doing a good job of defending the traditional sitcom.