What can I say? I agree with you - House has never been a slob, just a provocateur. Wilson walking out on his friend and patient was a criminal act, no matter how much reason he had to feel fed up. Cuddy going to House's place to break up with him and then leaving him there alone to resort to who knows what self-destructive behavior isn't much better. House scheming to take advantage of his CIPA patient was ridiculous and insulting to those of us who do believe in his "deeply buried humanity" based on precedent.
Carelessness with character continuity infuriates me, and I agree that sometimes it seems like the writers are just trying to deliver the most dramatic episode possible without considering whether the actual characters, as previously established, would behave in particular ways. I suppose that they can get away with it because the various writers on the show have held, and depicted them based on, such different perspectives that they can always point back to SOMETHING to say, Oh, but s/he did something similar in that episode!
Personally, I feel like only the first season of the show really stands out from the rest in this respect. The characters are painstakingly introduced, critical aspects of their backgrounds sketched out, their beliefs and M.O.s made clear. Then starting with Season 2, it was like DS et al stepped back and said, "Hey, we did it! We have a hit show! Let's loosen up and see how far we can run with it!" And don't get me wrong - lots of episodes from subsequent seasons are great, and most have at least brilliant bits. But I don't think they ever achieve the same kind of integrity again.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-12 08:04 pm (UTC)Carelessness with character continuity infuriates me, and I agree that sometimes it seems like the writers are just trying to deliver the most dramatic episode possible without considering whether the actual characters, as previously established, would behave in particular ways. I suppose that they can get away with it because the various writers on the show have held, and depicted them based on, such different perspectives that they can always point back to SOMETHING to say, Oh, but s/he did something similar in that episode!
Personally, I feel like only the first season of the show really stands out from the rest in this respect. The characters are painstakingly introduced, critical aspects of their backgrounds sketched out, their beliefs and M.O.s made clear. Then starting with Season 2, it was like DS et al stepped back and said, "Hey, we did it! We have a hit show! Let's loosen up and see how far we can run with it!" And don't get me wrong - lots of episodes from subsequent seasons are great, and most have at least brilliant bits. But I don't think they ever achieve the same kind of integrity again.