Watching the television bloggers unleash the expected criticism on Rubicon I’m reminded once more that criticism in the television realm still has a long way to go.

A guest-blogger over at Alyssa Rosenberg’s blog wrote about Rubicon echoing the common complaint, that the show is too slow. My issues lie not with her distaste for the pace, but with a tack-on statement that feels very wrong to me:

Rubicon needs some adjustments if it’s going to attract and keep viewers.

I think it’s true that Rubicon will likely draw a meager audience — though the inherent sexiness of conspiracy theories will probably entice a few people who would not otherwise watch a show of its caliber — but I think a better question is, “Is it any good?”

I understand that ratings are what keep shows alive, but I don’t think it’s too much to expect criticism of a show to be based on the merits of the show. Any related punditry about the politics of television renewal is similarly valuable — TV by the Numbers is one of my favourite television blogs — but they are two wholly separate endeavours.

There are certain shows and types of shows that will simply never be a huge success¹. Rubicon is not a common denominator show, and probably wouldn’t get big ratings even if it were the best conspiracy theory show ever made. Critics should be judging it from within that rubric, not aiming to nudge it into another. Movie critics don’t argue that slow cerebral thrillers should have more action sequences, why should television critics?

If you don’t like a certain genre or style or aesthetic, that’s fine. Make that preference clear. If you think a show is moving slowly, say so. Explain how your suggestions would improve the show’s quality. But don’t argue it needs to change in order to increase its ratings.

---

Footnotes

1. Exceptions like Lost and The Big Bang Theory, both shows that seem targeted at niches small enough that they have no right to be so successful, are obviously exceptions to the rule. [↩]

So here’s a fun thought that happens to run counter to all the laws of nature and has absolutely no way of being true, but is still kinda neat. We all talk about the Big Bang Theory (the scientific theory not the CBS sitcom) and it’s generally accepted that it is the way the universe came about. Its cause remains mysterious because, well the catalysing event occurred before time itself so its hard to verify in any way whatsoever. But the theory itself is widely accepted.

Because we started small and grew big, there are basically two ways the universe can end; it can either fall back in on itself creating a Big Crunch (which could potentially instigate a subsequent Big Bang), or the universe will continue to expand faster and faster ultimately spreading itself so thin that all the energy will be too spread out to be of any use to life, often called the Heat Death or, for symmetry, The Big Freeze.

At its surface, the Big Freeze seems to be a less than optimal way to go. At least with the Crunch there’s the possibility that life could start over in the new universe the Crunch might create. But what if that weren’t the case? What if, at some point in the very distant future, the universe has spread so far out, the spaces between space so remote, that space-time itself ruptures? The universe would shatter across an infinite number of vertices with each atom, each quark, each gluon being torn apart by the universe’s expansion. And each particle ripped apart becomes a brand new Big Bang. A trillion new universes. Neat idea, right?

Seriously? Chuck’s ratings keep dropping despite each new episode being better than the last. Chuck is demonstrably better than almost everything else on Monday nights. CBS’ comedy pairing of The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother is good, but I don’t think it surpasses Chuck. And the execrable dreck that is Dancing with the Stars is an unstoppable juggernaut of ratings, overpowering everything in its path. Why? I have no idea.

I don’t want to encourage viewers of TBBT or HIMYM to stop watching those shows because they’re both decent shows and HIMYM was on the verge of cancellation every year prior to this. And quite frankly, if you’re stupid enough to actually watch a full episode of Dancing with the Stars, I don’t want your eyes anywhere near Chuck. I’m afraid the stupid might leak. But there is one other show that pulls down strong numbers reliably that probably isn’t totally deserving of them.

I’m going to let the world in on a secret. House isn’t that good. I loved the first season. I have it on DVD, even though it’s shitty non-anamorphic widescreen. I liked the second season. The show had lost some of its charm, but House seemed to be developing as a character. By the third season I started to notice that despite every second episode ending with some significant moment implying that House would be changing nothing ever really changed. The show’s plot got tediously formulaic. House had to do more and more outrageous things to maintain his edginess. And the idea that House, no matter how brilliant he is, could keep his medical license after all the atrocious actions he’d commited more than strained credulity. So, near the end of season three I stopped watching it. When season four started up, I started to watch the premiere and I’m pretty sure I didn’t even make it through the whole thing.

I’m not against episodic television, where not much really changes from episode to episode. Obviously, I prefer serialized television because it allows bonds to be made between the characters and the audience, but I do watch a few shows with very little ongoing story. That said, I do not like shows that pretend that they’re serialized. It insults my intelligence and demeans the characters. And that’s what House does. The ongoing “developments” amount to nothing but the same cardboard cutout characters getting reset back to the status quo nearly every episode.

So stop watching House and give your television time to a show much much more deserving. Seriously.