Specialists in Whodunnits

I was underwhelmed when I finally got around to watching an episode of Castle. The Halloween episode, mind you. The formula was there, the acting good, so what was wrong? Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but I started looking deeper into the issue of current programming. There is seemingly a current trend on television for cop shows and what appears to be an off-shoot—specialists. Cop shows have enjoyed a long and glorious run of TV programming, but their roots reach further back to the detective novels and mystery stories of the Victorian era. They developed into film noir private eyes in the forties and in 1990 culminated in Law and Order. But L&O and similar shows have deviated from the detectives and private eyes who operated in a limited number community of aristocracy, clergy, servants, and the mysterious stranger. Criminal Psychology has advanced, but where they notably depart from the old form is by use of officers, lawyers, judges, forensic experts and anyone involved in the practical world of crime-stopping. Previously, the detective spent an evening snow-bound in a mansion (or on a train) and had solved the mystery by morning solely through his “little gray cells”. The curtain closed with the knowledge that law enforcement was on its way, conviction a certainty. In those days who could have foreseen an arraingment (fraught with peril) would be a staple of prime time entertainment?

Judge and lawyer shows are now their own offshoot hardly connected with the mystery solving lineage. Similarly, medical dramas have root in searching out the culprit, in this case disease. Obviously, these shows are popular, with spin offs and copy-cats. Because a popular formula is guaranteed money, and if each iteration is more banal than the last, we can at least be sure of the iron-clad formula (the butler did it). Now, cop shows are less episodic with season thru-lines— This Season’s Bad Guy!— and when pressed for ratings tend to drift to the soap-y side of television This is more true of medical dramas, who have built in high stakes and are adaptable to multiple formulas. The truest to the mystery form is, of course, Dr. House, a crusty Holmes to Wilson’s Watson.

But what about some good, old-fashioned, no-holds-barred bit o’ detectin’ like the formula started with Poe's "The Murders in Rue Morgue" in 1841? If you find cop shows too reality based, despite their best efforts to spice things up, never fear, there is an entire sub-genre truer to the old form that is so prolific right now, which I have dubbed specialist shows.

There are 3 types. The first is the specialist or professional. He or she may be a retired LEO or an expert in a field of science or an expert in crime. He is hired to work with the agency or department for certain types of cases. Examples past and present: Columbo, Magnum PI, Monk, Bones, Numbers, White Collar, Dexter. I don’t count CSI. That is a cop show heavy on forensics. Dexter may work for The Man, but all his real work gets done after hours. Our specialists operate outside of departmental restrictions, solve cases single-handedly, and defy authority, making for good television.

Secondly, and more spectacularly (read ‘spectacle-based’), are the “specialists”. These people have NO business solving crime. They should not be allowed in a police station, let alone at a crime scene. But it so happens that solving crime is what they are preternaturally good at. Examples: Murder, She Wrote, Diagnosis Murder, Psych/The Mentalist, Castle (updated Murder She Wrote?), Medium….. so on and so forth. At first the cops try to enforce some sort of boundaries, but as a series progresses, our “specialist” is allowed full run of all facilities, few questions asked. Now, supernatural or psychological, they do earn their keep, but they commit enough crimes along the way that should have gotten them locked up.

And third, the rogue specialists. This is (apparently) what happens when the first 2 groups get kicked out of the station/agency/what-have-you. They are the Robin Hoods of our day. There’s no veneer here; they ARE committing crimes to stop evil. Any cops, etc. on these shows tend to be villains. Examples: A-Team, Burn Notice, Leverage. Royal Pains get an honorable mention for being the only rogue doctor show currently airing that I know of.

I love these show, for the most part. I have seen at least one episode of almost every current “cop show” on TV. But like sequels, each iteration has a tendency to decay, especially if you know the formula and are in danger of getting bored with it. Here is my specialist formula (may it stay confined to only already airing shows for awhile):

Specialist: Hey, I know who the murderer is!

Cop: Cool! That’s helpful, now scram.

Specialist: But I could help you. Please be won over by my charm and good looks.

Cop: Look we have rules and procedures.

Specialist: Look a murderer!

Cop: Darn. I guess we should start paying you. As long as you do what we tell you.

Specialist: You can trust me. I have no secret dark past and no agenda in helping you. See my disarming smile?

Cop: How do you know so much about crime?

Specialist: I read detective novels (or write them, let’s be honest). Look a murderer!

Cop: What were you doing while my back was turned?

Specialist: Nothing you need to worry about.

And so forth. So my problem with Castle? I already watch the same show, for one. And while I could watch just for the sake of Nathan Fillion, I already paid my penance with years of watching One Life To Live with my grandmother. Or, maybe I’m just still upset that Dollhouse has been cancelled.

Foreword

My name is Sarah and I was an English minor, much to my father's disappointment. He wanted, and still wants, me to be a literary critic. He seems to think I have a natural gift for criticism. I love literature, but struggled to get through my upper level college classes. Here's the problem: I want to read what interests me, discuss it, and not have to put that discussion in MLA format by the end of the semester. I enjoy learning for the sake of learning. I also have a problem with the concept of criticism as a field. Mainly the part where people get PhD's in order to write editorials about dead authors, expecting to change the popular conception of the piece. Because criticism is opinion— highly educated opinion, but still.

To clarify, I am not cynical of literature, just criticism. But because of my tendency toward it, regardless of my refusal to pursue it, I find I am in need of an outlet. And where better to air my opinion than the internet? Everyone else is doing it...

What you can expect:

Very little research. I'll try to make dates accurate and give an idea of where I came by facts, but I promise nothing.

Eclectic genres. When I have time to read something classic, it'll make an appearance, but anything I see, watch, or hear is fair game.

Tangents. I never really liked trig enough to let the concept soak in. If you don't get it, prepare for trouble in the future.

Logic leaps. See tangents. Though to be fair, I try to explain, but my explanations don't always break down the leap enough.

Thinly veiled attempts at wit. See above.

Literary and movie allusions without source reference. Be prepeared.

Good grammar and vocabulary.

Not so good punctuation. Every time I go into a book store I think about buying a book on punctuation, but I am usually waylaid by the Scifi section.

And now, I'll leave you with a few definitions.

Cynic- a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view
  -OR-

one of a sect of Greek philosophers (4th century bc) who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity. (dictionary.com)
  -Also- 
 a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. (The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce)