Anybody else watching House?

[BobT]

@Mycroft H.

I love it so far. Maybe just because it’s fun to see how far Bertie Wooster has progressed. (Or, for Blackadder fans, the daft Prince Regent. I’ve always been a sucker for actors in roles totally different from ones I’ve pigeon-holed them into.)

I wonder how long the interest can be maintained. An irritating and sarcastic but ultimately likable doctor and a different extremely rare condition every week - will it soon just all get annoying? The stories seem to be interesting and well written with doses of wry humor decently mixed in. A pleasant change for now from the rest of TV’s drek.

I wonder how many really unusual cases like they get in “House” come into a hospital in a year? He’s just working at a more or less regular hospital, not a high profile one. He’s not at the Mayo Clinic. He’s in Princeton, NJ!

[Snooooopy]

@Podkayne

Nope. I’m I’m well aware that the General Public doesn’t know a bacterium from a virus from the ghost of my Aunt Fanny, and I would have expected a line like that if they were explaining it to a non-medico. It was definitely in their little meeting room with the whiteboard, no parents present.

I thought he said it for rhetorical effect.

[Podkayne]

@Snooooopy

I thought he said it for rhetorical effect.

I think he said it so that the audience would know that viral infections are harder to treat than bacterial infections. The line just seemed clunky to me. Struck a false note. But maybe as I remember it I’m inflating it into something more than it was, so I’ll just shut up about it now. (Really. I promise.)

[dropzone]

@Podkayne

That bugs me about CSI, too. The need to have some “mad scientist’s daughters” around to explain stuff to, so they don’t have to tell each other, “Now I’m going to dust the surface with fingerprint powder. This will adhere to the oils left behind by the ridges on the suspects’ fingerprints and make them visible to us.” Gah!

That could be avoided if TV shows weren’t written not just for the cognoscenti but also for the people who have tuned in for the first time and don’t know fact one about medicine or crime scene investigations or whatever other technical subject is at the center of the program. Until they invent Hypertext for TV and people can interrupt their viewing to learn more about an unfamiliar topic we who know all about everything will just have to put up with the explanations.

I don’t get to watch many medical shows since the premier of “St Elsewhere” in which somebody was doing CPR wrong and the voice next to me said, “Turn this off! People will watch this and think that’s how it’s done and people will die because of it,” so I’ve been pleased so far with “House” because when I consult with that voice on a point of medicine, as in “Does Echovirus 11 work like that?” or “Can humans get some forms of Parvo?” she doesn’t say, “What BS are they feeding you?” and instead says, “That’s sounding more like (names a virus I cant’t remember at the moment).” I say, “It’s on the list and they haven’t ruled it out yet,” and she’s happy.

[Podkayne]

[QUOTE=dropzone]
That could be avoided if TV shows weren’t written not just for the cognoscenti but also for the people who have tuned in for the first time and don’t know fact one about medicine or crime scene investigations or whatever other technical subject is at the center of the program. Until they invent Hypertext for TV and people can interrupt their viewing to learn more about an unfamiliar topic we who know all about everything will just have to put up with the explanations.

[quote]

But there are artful and artless ways to do the explanations. Take for example the classic “mad scientist’s daughter” of classic science fiction. Hero arrives on the secluded island / alien planet / advanced spaceship to find the scientist (mad, naturally) and his daughter (beautiful and naïve in the Ways of Love, naturally). The mad scientist never talked to his daughter about his work, because she is Just a Girl. So when the mad scientist really goes off the deep end and the Hero and the Girl go wandering around attempting to save the day, the Hero has somebody to whom to explain any the strange natural phenomena and diabolical inventions. Really, of course, he’s explaining them to the audience so they know what’s going on, but he has a plausible in-character reason to be explaining it, because the Mad Scientist’s Daughter is a clueless as the audience.

So, doctors explaining basic medical facts to the patient or his family who do not know these facts: Fine. Doctors explaning basic medical facts to each other: Generally lame.
Similarly, on CSI: CSI explaining some forensic do-what-cha-ma-jigger to Brass: Fine. CSI explaining how a pH strip test works to another CSI: Lametastic.

(So I lied about shutting up about it. You knew I was lying. I fooled no one. And yes, my pants are on fire. Thank you for pointing that out.)

I don’t get to watch many medical shows since the premier of “St Elsewhere” in which somebody was doing CPR wrong and the voice next to me said, “Turn this off! People will watch this and think that’s how it’s done and people will die because of it,” so I’ve been pleased so far with “House” because when I consult with that voice on a point of medicine, as in “Does Echovirus 11 work like that?” or “Can humans get some forms of Parvo?” she doesn’t say, “What BS are they feeding you?” and instead says, “That’s sounding more like (names a virus I cant’t remember at the moment).” I say, “It’s on the list and they haven’t ruled it out yet,” and she’s happy.

That’s cool. Good to know. Somebody on the writing staff knows their bidness, eh? I notice that the Slate article didn’t criticize the factual elements, either.

[BurnMeUp]

I refuse to watch it because it looks kinds good, looks like it might lead to a s-fi premise and it’s on fox.

Last three shows that met these criteria i know of were cancelled as soon as i gained a lot of interest and watched them.

I have lost all trust in Fox.

[Snooooopy]

@Podkayne

I think he said it so that the audience would know that viral infections are harder to treat than bacterial infections. The line just seemed clunky to me. Struck a false note. But maybe as I remember it I’m inflating it into something more than it was, so I’ll just shut up about it now. (Really. I promise.)

Your interpretation is certainly valid. I was just trying to think up an explanation that would possibly make it a little less clunky for you.