The Liz Friedman Interview: A Few Thoughts

[readingrat]

 I read the Liz Friedman interview that Barbara Barnett posted and found it very insightful. Read the interview here. Some things, such as the way the writers work on an episode were new to me. Some of the thoughts they had on the characters, how they saw the break-up, etc. were interesting, because they partly mirrored mine. In some instances there were, of course, divergences. I did have two points of criticism, both not so much in matters of content (which is a matter of taste, I guess), but in the manner of the writing process itself.

Character Continuity

House MD is a show that prides itself on showing how people interact with their surroundings. It sets on character exposition and development, one of their main creeds being, according to Liz Friedman, that characters don't change in a major way. As such, it must be the aim of the show to achieve character continuity, and if a character does change, there has to be a valid explanation for it. There can't be inexplicable jumps in behaviour or actions that violate what we know of the characters.

This is, however, an aspect that is being violated by the writing process as described by Ms Friedman. Writers are apparently given an aim for an episode and left to their own devices on how to achieve it. If they work as a team, there are at least two of them discussing what a character is like, but all too often a single writer is responsible. Now I don't doubt that the writers discuss a lot of things in bigger meetings, but there doesn't seem to be anyone who has an overview over what has been decided for certain characters. There seems to be no basic standard to which everyone sticks, a sort of blueprint of each character that may not be violated.

Take for instance the episode 'Two Stories'. We are shown a House who has to 'try tremendously hard to do simple things like taking out the trash or not using [Cuddy's] toothbrush', according to Ms Friedman. Ah, so House is a bit of a slob. It's possible. In theory. There's a lot of fanfic that works with that premise. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence so far to support this character trait, but quite a bit to refute it. Whenever we have seen House's apartment from the inside, it has not been in a huge mess. His bathroom has always been pristine. His coffee table is cluttered, but it is not a rubbish dump. There are no left-overs lying around, the trash is not piling up. (Anyone who is a 'messy' themselves or has a teen in their household will appreciate that House doesn't come anywhere near qualifying for the epithet.) When he was living with Wilson, Wilson started a fight with Sam because he thinks she put cups on the coffee table without coasters, put the milk in the wrong place and loaded the dishwasher inefficiently. Would Wilson even have noticed if House had been causing the kind of mess that he was making at Cuddy's place? Would he not have attributed these things to House straight away? Would he be bothered at all after being subjected to House's mess for over half a year?

Now if House MD were a sitcom the question of character continuity wouldn't matter. Sitcom characters don't have to make sense, they have to be funny. If the sloppiness were a trait that is irrelevant to the plot (as it was till now) it wouldn't matter either. Unfortunately, the question of whether he can clean up his own mess or not has become a central issue with the aforementioned episode. Before I watched the episode I had decided in my mind that House was no Mr Messy based on the evidence I cited. So when I watched 'Two Stories' I came to the conclusion that House is no overtaxed stereotype male, but a compulsive teen who needs to see just how far he can bend Cuddy before she breaks. Teens are like that - they do (or don't do) a lot of stuff because they need to see whether they can get away with it. Now teens can be made to see sense - it's hard work and a challenge, but it can be done. Slobs are a different issue and it probably isn't worth the bother. If House is a troublesome teen who overdoes the provocation bit, both Cuddy's reaction ('I need time off from you') and House's attempts to right matters make sense to me (teens can be wonderfully contrite once they realise they've broken you). If not, if he's just a slob, then the thing to do is to figure out how to work around it - tell him that if he can't get rid of his own mess he'll have to pay someone to do it or whatever - but slamming phones on his fingers doesn't get anyone anywhere.

I'm sure that whoever wrote the episode was thinking along the lines that Ms Friedman depicts - after all, they will have been discussing episodes that close together with each other. Hence my interpretation was erroneous. But - my erroneous interpretation was based on solid facts as seen in previous episodes; the writer's assumption that House is a slob is based on nothing. And this is where I lose patience with the show. I'm not asking for much: a basic knowledge of previous episodes; that he writers sit down together to discuss each other's scripts and to figure out whether the new script fits into canon or not; someone who keeps track of canon. As I see matters, either the writers are paid so much that one can reasonably expect them to have an overview of what has taken place so far, both in terms of timeline and character development, as part of their job description, or they are paid so little that one can carve another job out of the huge budget that House MD commands for some poor would-be writer whose only job it would be to ensure continuity. I don't care whether Wilson's time line defies the theory of relativity or whether Cuddy's sister has an everyday name and another one for special occasions, but if there is something that becomes an issue for a character, such as House's pain or now his homemaking skills, then if the show wants to keep its claim to being a character-based show, it sorely needs to buckle up.

Character Credibility

If the lack of character continuity is carelessness, then a lack of character credibility is a sign of thoughtlessness. I frequently have the feeling that the writers make characters do things that advance the plot without fully anticipating the impact on the viewers. The action causes the viewers to attribute some intention to the character that the writers perhaps never intended. At that moment the writers may not care much, because creating tension, drama, and angst has priority. But many viewers take these actions very seriously and incorporate them indelibly in their view of that character.

Take for instance Wilson leaving House in a pool of vomit in 'A Merry Little Christmas'. In all probability we were meant to see a man at the end of his rope, despairing of his friend ever making the right decision and deciding that his friend would have to deal with the consequences of his own actions. Unfortunately (again), there are a lot of viewers who happen to know that from a medical point of view, leaving someone who has OD'd lying in his own vomit is somewhere between 'failure to render assistance' and 'homicide'. In most countries either is a criminal offence, and a doctor who leaves someone in that state can't plea ignorance, as you and I perhaps could. As I said, I doubt that was the intention. From the writers' pov Wilson had to leave so that House would make his way to Tritter of his own volition - an important point, because we're supposed to see that House has come to his senses and is not acting solely because Wilson is bullying him. However, by not considering the moral and legal consequences of their story arc for Wilson, they sabotaged Wilson's character.

It's the same with Cuddy at the end of 'Bombshells'. Her decision to dump House can be admired or despised, depending on where one is coming from. (I happen to accept it as a rationally good decision, but I reject it on moral grounds. I'm sure there are as many opinions as there are viewers.) What no viewer, regardless of where he or she comes from, has condoned so far is Cuddy leaving House alone after dumping him, although she knows that he's got vicodin and that he is likely to be devastated enough to take it. It's marginally better than what Wilson did - House hasn't taken anything yet and there's no sign that he'll OD -but that's about it. Now this is something that neither Ms Friedman nor Ms Barnett consider worth mentioning when they discuss Cuddy's behaviour. Maybe they simply didn't see it. But others did. Ms Friedman, who wrote the episode, should have seen it, but if she did, she decided to ignore it because if she hadn't, she would have had to forgo that wonderful final scene where House sits in the bathroom like at the end of 'Help Me' hoping that Cuddy will come back and 'save' him. Having Cuddy call Wilson or Nolan and one of them arriving would have been a tad too shallow and undramatic, so the writer duo basically sacrificed the credibility of a supporting character (once again) just to keep their plot angsty and dramatic. Whether they intended it or not, Cuddy abandoning House to relapse is now an indelible part of canon that cannot be rescinded.

A third instance, is House intending to use his CIPA patient as an illegal organ donor. What he does - suggesting a dangerous procedure that could impair her health severely - simply to benefit himself is no better than what people who buy illegal organs from third world countries do. Actually, it's worse. People who buy livers or kidneys are usually dying; House isn't. House finally allows Wilson to dissuade him from his course of action, but so what? He intended to do it and he would have done it, had his team and Wilson not run massive interference. How does this fit with the man who puts patient well-being first, who decides to abort a working pain management regime (methadone) because its mellowing side-effects endangered a patient of his? Few viewers seem to have noticed the moral implications of House's deeds in that episode - it is rarely cited as an instance of House's lack of values - but whenever I think of that episode I quail inwardly: a doctor taking advantage of a patient's helpless situation, and the patient a minor at that, for his own gain. Morally it puts him in the same league as Ezra Powell, the cancer researcher who experimented on children without informing the parents of the risks. Had the writers intended that? I don't know. Perhaps they really did, but somehow I have the feeling that the person who wrote the episode (a) didn't have a particularly well-tuned moral antenna and (b) was not supervised sufficiently.

House MD portrays a man's search for truth. If that search is meant to be credible to the audience, then writers and producers need to sit down together and define a few core truths on which they base the series.

Comments

[tauwja.livejournal.com]

Well said, I completely agree with you. I hope there's some way TPTB might read this too, although I doubt it would matter much at this point.

[flywoman.livejournal.com]

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.

Liz Friedman Interview

[housedailydose.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping that it is acceptable to you that I have posted your thoughts in their entirety on this interview on HDD.

Your thoughts are not only insightful, thought provoking,clearly and respectfully presented, but express what many in the [H} fandom are feeling.

I was very impressed with the piece and have given all due/owing credit to you. I hope that everyone has an opportunity to read these well presented thoughts and by doing so, has greater clarity about this season, the writing process and character development.

Thank you!

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Excellent analysis.

I think that whether or not we're able to express it this well, this is what is bothering most of the fans/viewers at this point. This is what we have consensus on. I've seen shippers and non-shippers alike rather annoyed at this episode (and everything leading up to it - these problems have been building for a while now, as you noted, they've just come to a nasty head and burst).

I don't think we'd be as upset if they didn't do so many things well. But it's confusing for them to do a lot of amazing things - and then let basic character continuity fall into the toilet. (The sister's name thing - holy COW, that should have been caught long before it was. It wasn't that long ago that the sister was mentioned and named...and perhaps the ep writer can be cut some slack for not knowing it, but the script's got to go through a chain of command eventually, right? You're saying that that no one thought 'hey wait a minnit...let me go look this up'? And that's not even a particularly important issue, story-wise...it just highlights the utter carelessness that appears to be expressing itself more and more.)


I also wish the writers/showrunners would stop to understand this. That it's not just 'oh, fans just want kissy-face, and they can't understand what goes into making a good dramatic story'. We *do* understand it, which is why we're so frustrated.

[fabouluz.livejournal.com]

Can I post this on the house_cuddy livejournal community? i think every House fan should read this, since there is a lot of truth too it.

[maya295.livejournal.com]

Thank you! thank YOU!!

every example you chose to illustrate your point is spot on. And most of all, I really appreciate the objectivity in it, as you (intentionally?) chose not to solely focus on one character.

so very well done!

I wish Liz Friedman, and every writer about to pen the upcoming episodes would give it a look! Writing can be a selfish, self-rewarding process, but at some point writing - especially with for an audience that large - must be about giving and sharing, and that requires to have respect, for what you write, as well as for whom you're writing it for...


you are my favorite rat in the House lab... :-)

[tanyarej (from livejournal.com)]

those are really good points that you mentioned! i understand it all better now...and I completely agree! everyone writing the show´s episodes should do better work!I am really deeply disappointed at some of their lame moves!

[switman.livejournal.com]

Your article was brilliant and right on point. Thank you for sharing.

[tree]

How does this fit with the man who puts patient well-being first,

house does not put patient well-being first. he puts the diagnosis first. patients are basically incidental to him, as evidenced by (a) his lack of interaction with them and (b) his willingness to put them through dangerous, painful, potentially deadly, and usually unnecessary procedures and/or treatments.

the argument that the show has always put forth, and that the character has voiced several times, is that he can solve the cases other doctors can't precisely because he's not concerned with the patients.

[barefootpuddles.livejournal.com]

A very insightful post - as always. I agree with nearly everything you said, only feeling perhaps stronger or less strong on certain issues you touched on, but I feel you really captured the underlying disquiet of the fan base regardless of shipping. There are serious issues with consistency and that comes from varying writers viewpoints being inconsistent with one another. That seems almost like an insurmountable flaw in a series like this one.

A few thoughts on parts of your post and a few added thoughts of my own:

leaving someone who has OD'd lying in his own vomit is somewhere between 'failure to render assistance' and 'homicide'.

The bluntness of this made me laugh. Of course you are correct, but this actually is the type of thing that bothers me least. The entire world of House is totally exaggerated. Outside of Houseland that level or sexism and racism would get you sued, the medical ethics violations would cost your license, the break ins and soap star kidnapping would get you jailed, and the pranks that involve cane sawing, trip wires and exploding toilets would leave you friendless. So I give Wilson and Cuddy a pass for homicide. What I think gets me the most is that what both did - besides being homicidal - was cruel. Wilson sometimes is cruel to be fair, but I hadn't ever seen that before with Cuddy, and it felt wrong.

I don't care whether Wilson's time line defies the theory of relativity or whether Cuddy's sister has an everyday name and another one for special occasions,

See, this drive me bonkers. It is laziness at best, and at worst it is telling fans, "Hey, you know those characters YOU love? Well, we don't really care if our timeline suggests that Wilson attended med school alongside preschool." A sleepy, drive by fan can point out that sort of error, so why can't anyone on staff? Anyone? Maybe the actors, the writers, the directors, or producers, or the lighting guy? Come on people - hire a fan and pay them in autographs for goodness sake. And then one of the producers has the audacity to make a DVD extra piece to talk about how they are so careful about setting each camera angle perfectly and every chess piece reflects the window glare correctly and then this is the SAME show that has House going to possibly three med schools, Wilson married to two women simultaneously, Cuddy's sister having two names, and a main character who in one episode can't lean weight on his leg and in another steps off a chair directly onto the leg. Sheesh!

(to be continued - sorry for the length of this!)

[vicpei.livejournal.com]

Your so-well argumented, thoughtfull and balanced piece should have been tweeted to TPTB along with some others, if you are OK with it. One of the mods at House-Cuddy volunteered to do it. They need to hear why the fans are so dissatisfied with this episode, and not by hateful tweets, but by clearly stating what was wrong in this ep.
Surprisingly enough, fans from all ships and non-shippers all seem to agree that it was plainly wrong, in term of writing and, above all, with the various interviews we were given afterwards. It has much more to do with the characters shaking and the inconsistencies that seem to grow.
Reading from you is always a pleasure, and a comfort.

[binsoup.livejournal.com]

first of all -- bravo!

with almost 150 episodes behind it, the process will only get harder for the House writers. you are right, someone has to be on top of continuity and credibility. i've always assumed this role is filled in by David Shore himself.

the adjective "game-changing" has been bandied about by the more media-visible production people of House. i've read this as a sign that the House producers are hell-bent on finding a way to keep the audience guessing about where the story is headed, what's going to happen next. this is all fine and good, because 7 years of telling the story of one character -- no matter how singular the character -- is bound to hit a plateau. they have to be reminded though that since they're the ones who built the characters, they shouldn't torpedo them for the sake of the whatever storyline they are in a haste to pursue.

[brighidsfire.livejournal.com]

Excellent points as always, and agreed on all of them. Glad to see your elegant, rational thoughts and views are getting out to a larger audience who will appreciate them. :)

It is simply incomprehensible to me that a show as complex as this one doesn't have a writer's bible for timelines, names, and a very basic backstory for each of the main and recurring characters. To brag about the lack of one tells me a lot about the attitude in the writers room: they're making it up as they go along. Okay fine, do that, but KEEP TRACK OF THINGS FOR GOD'S SAKE. I've endangered the well-being of our television set on numerous occasions because of simple mistakes obviously made because no one's paying attention. On a show that prides itself for its technical brilliance, that's just crazy. The writing should match the physical production and nowadays, it just plain doesn't.

I think another mindset that's causing all sorts of problems is the idea that every story arc/cliffhanger has to be bigger than the one before it. Newer! Better! With more explosions! as they used to say on South Park. While I'm sure that's great fun for the writers and the production crew, it leaves fans bewildered and angry when characters are turned into one-dimensional cardboard cutouts to be moved around the set and made to speak lines that either get the writers out of a corner they've painted themselves into, or advances the plot without pushing the characters to move forward in any realistic way. Yeah, it looks good in the script but on screen, not so much.

IMO, first season got it right: intriguing medical mysteries, brilliant and often troubling insights into medical and personal ethos, little glimpses of character backstory, and plenty of witty snark. It worked then; it could still be working now. I'm suggesting the writers use the formula as their template and have fun experimenting. The template's been broken for several seasons now, and it really shows. Quality writing has, for the most part, been replaced with grandstanding and big crude tropes drawn with crayons.

Thanks for the brilliant comments, RR. Much appreciated. :)