… don’t.

Nothing sucks more than really digging a comment thread only to have some idiot jump in and show off his shiny new tinfoil hat… unless it’s having an otherwise sane and usually interestinr commented start feeding said asshat’s ego.

These shows succeed because they are restatements of the cases of Sherlock Holmes.

Vincent D’Onofrio as Bobby Goren, with his Watson, Eames, played by Kathryn Erbe, on Criminal Intent.

William Petersen as Gil Grissom, a fount of arcane information, his team devoted to him on CSI.

The main characters of Psych fit the Holmes mythos.

The Mentalist, of course.

Bones, where the main character espouses reason and rationality to the point where it makes her an excellent detective but an inept person. Booth is her Watson, emphasizing physicality and action, rather than mere deduction.

And of course, House, who has James Wilson, not John Watson. Since Hugh Laurie’s cowardly shot at W, I’d say that House is not a Holmes.

All these shows adapt Holmes’ surpassing intellect, but to complicate the character, to bring these people who are so adept they might alienate themselves from us down to our level. Doyle made Holmes a drug addict who was uncomfortable with women or even men when it came to emotional attachments. All these characters are made close to us with their various problems. Grissom seems emotionally barren, spending his time with his bugs; Shawn in Psych is eternally glib; House has his injury and his hatefulness; Jane has money but has experienced deep loss, which wounds him.

So, DavidN, I don’t think the idea is new, but the new shows have a fine ancestry. I definitely agree with your first paragraph, TV is the medium where shows like “The Mentalist” and “24″ have a chance. It’s why I rarely go to movies anymore.

Andrew, keep up the good work.

Yes – a MENSA membership is the only qualification of intelligence. Actually, I have a PhD in engineering, and no, I feel no need to prove it to you. You’ve asked me for proof before, but sorry – I’m not scanning my diploma and posting it online.

You were probably banned on Huffington Post for your petty, personal attacks. You whine like a little girl whenever I say anything, and yet all you can counter with is calling me a liar. I highly doubt your ban on Huffington (and all those other sites) had anything to do with your quality (or lack thereof) of arguments.

As for courage, I don’t believe you were ever in the military. If so, send me your discharge papers. See? It goes both ways. You were never in the military. You’re a pathetic liar and you insult our fine troops by claiming that you were. You’re not worthy to polish their boots.

I’ll wage dollars against donuts that you can’t show me proof that you were in the military.

haha – this is far too easy, Chuck(le). You throw me cowardly arguments, and I throw them right back at you.

Regards,

Someone75

We all know that left-wing media organisations are going bust all over the World. The problem is that they are not commercial enough. They let their ideological bent get in the way of their profit motive.

The classic exampleis Hollywood. The biggest selling films are all right wing and usually based upon British literature : Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, James Bond. Yet Hollywood continues to make crappy lefty films starring George Clooney, that don’t really make much money at all.

Here in Oz the Daily Newspapers are all leftish. They are laying off staff at a rate of knots, because they are losing A and B class readers. The right wing mags, such as the Spectator, thrive whilst the left wing ones close down with monotous regularity. Let’s face it, being a lefty is being a prat. lefties are not free-thinkers, but moronic, follow-my-leader twits, who don’t think so much as feel.

….I have to wonder when it was that Someone75 developed that trait sufficiently enough jump out of a perfectly good airplane in flight at the behest of our rich Uncle Sam…..

“I’d love to see people like Chuck develop the courage to go to Huffington Post and start trying to talk to people. No need to worry about that though. His type is too spineless to even tolerate the possibility of conflicting ideas.” — Someone 75

I’m not allowed to post on Huffington’s blog. Something, I guess, to do with being too cogent and effective.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you can't beat them, 'kick/ban/kill' them.]

“You could construct the most cogent argument ever, but Chuck is always already unwilling or unable (the latter is more likely) to understand.” — Someone75

Show me your Mensa membership ID number…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’ll wager dollars against donunts that he/she can’t.

And that’s Krispy Kreme donuts…..

haha – so, was I right about Chuck? Man alive. You could construct the most cogent argument ever, but Chuck is always already unwilling or unable (the latter is more likely) to understand.

I’ve gone through the same good-faith invitation to dialogue, but it always ends up with the pre-adolescent fingers-in-ears LALALALALA-ICAN’THEARYOU nonsense.

I’ve had maybe three or four interesting discussions with people on PJMedia over the last year. I think you’re dead on in your critique of right wing extremists and their hesitancy to enter into thoughtful dialogue. However, as much as I hate to say it, I think the left is guilty of that as well – at least sometimes.

I’d love to see people like Chuck develop the courage to go to Huffington Post and start trying to talk to people. No need to worry about that though. His type is too spineless to even tolerate the possibility of conflicting ideas.

Someone75