A Note on the Process of Crime Solving

    Thinking about the similarities in the structuring of various TV shows. Some patterns and whatnot.

There are hundreds of different shows about solving crimes out there and I'm constantly reminding myself this every time I see a new one. The ideas and plot lines behind them are abstracted into many other types of shows that we might not otherwise connect to them. Most obviously related are the medically based shows but I would even say shows as seemingly different as Doctor Who share many plot styles.

    What I think is the main theme behind these shows is the continuous stream of impossibly improbable, often life-threatening crisis occurring repeatedly to the same group of people with unusual regularity as if every day was an action packed story. You will never watch an episode to find that they guessed it on the first try, the end (which is why we watch them). By the end of the episode, there is only ever a single solution but in the beginning, there might be none or several. Often, the final solution isn't even included in the starting options (as is often the case in House). I would imagine that most, if not all, of the different patterns that these conflicts follow were pioneered in the old detective novels like Sherlock Holmes and other whodunits. While they aren't always the most original, the writers still have to go to a lot of effort to keep their viewers from guessing which direction they will take. Will it be the first person you saw? Will it be the person who waited silently to the side of the main suspect? Will it be the person actively trying to appear innocent? By changing out the idea of a person being the antagonist and replacing it with any sort of problem, you can get the structure for a lot of other shows.

    The characters in these shows have varying levels of deduction that determines the feel of the show. Some shows always seem to have an expert ready to analyze the clues as they appear (like in Bones or House). In many of the more detective, single character shows (Monk, Psych, Sherlock Holmes), the characters specialize in connecting the dots and having initiative. 

    In addition to their utility, the characters have differing levels of personality. Despite seeming to be constantly updated and developed, once you think about it, most characters remain fairly constant. Many have that single episode per season that adds to a character or the unsolved mystery that is a part of the character's past and drives the show (Monk discovered something new about his wife's murder every season, allowing the writers to eventually end the series). These overarching stories are like glue that hold the individual episodes together. The reason the characters remain constant is because they are made specifically to appeal to the viewer. Scrubs wouldn't be interesting if the characters stopped being funny, yet they have revelations (serious moments) in quite a few episodes.

    The reason I think of a show like Doctor Who being at all similar to detective shows or CSIs is because it really does fit the descriptions I've just given. The Doctor is a fairly consistent character (though the series is designed with unique ability to switch its actors out every few years) who finds new things out about himself and his past. Ultimately, it doesn't change him that much and he's back to himself by the next episode. In addition, he faces a new, impossibly improbably, life-threatening crisis every single episode. The main difference, in this case, is that the series has a lot less deduction involved in solving the problem, or not directly. Instead it is more like the detective shows. There is definitely a feel that there is only one answer to the problem if you can only connect the dots and figure out what it is.

Shows I watch: Monk, Psych, Bones, House, Sherlock Holmes, whatever is on...

    After thinking a bit about the similar structure of such shows, it is also possible to try and figure out which parts I like or dislike about them. For me, the more serious the show looks at a glance, the less likely I am to watch it without knowing its characters. At that point, it just looks like the same thing I've already seen a hundred times before. I also tend to like the quirkier characters rather than the serious ones. I still haven't really got into shows like CSI (A-Z), NCIS, 24, and most anything with an abbreviation, partially because their images of justice and science they use to add depth to the series doesn't agree with me (it's easier to ignore that all of these shows constantly break the law if you don't mention the law). It's also harder to see the unique plots at a glance because they will always look like the same cop show.

    Really, what I've described is just TV in general. Writers need to put that level of action into every show if it is going to be successful, and if not, they need good characters to make jokes.