Previously On

I was inspired to write this post by an article I read recently by a television blogger whose opinion I tend to respect. In it, he makes the case that television viewers have become caught up in serial continuity to the detriment of their favorite shows. Using Fringe as an example, he points out that sometimes abandoning established plot points or character choices in favor of better/stronger ones later in the series is too often attacked by the viewers as a flaw, when it should be embraced as a part of the medium. Basically, the author says that because television show writers are limited by several factors unique to the ongoing medium of television including fluctuating actors, changing writing staff, and an uncertain end time, sometimes continuity is all but impossible, and the inevitable changes should be embraced as the writers' attempts to better the shows that we love within the confines of their serial structure. Pulling a quote from the article that I feel pretty well sums up its central argument, "If a show like 'Fringe' nails the structure while missing the character, then it's little more than a hollow artistic exercise."

The article really got me thinking. As I read it, I was struck by the truth of what he wrote. I called to mind shows, like my often critiqued Glee, that make changes to established characters and plot lines with reckless abandon for the sake of episodic simplicity. I then compared these to shows, like the aforementioned Fringe that make slight and calculated alterations to plot lines in later seasons to strengthen the story and better the characters and their relationships. The difference was clear, and I found myself agreeing with the author, that faulting shows that fell into the latter category for making changes was a little mean spirited, and perhaps even a bit unfair. Despite my acceptance of his argument, though, something still didn't sit right with me.

Something about that nagging doubt kept pestering me for days until now, several days later, I finally decided to sit down and think about what it was that was irking me. In other words I stopped trying to ignore the part of my brain that so desperately wanted to play devil's advocate, and instead chose to confront then embrace it.

Thinking about all the shows I watched, and how they ranked in my personal hierarchy of favorites, I noticed a trend developing. The more a show managed to conserve its continuity over the course of its run, the higher it ranked. Was I, therefore, one of the people that the blogger was criticizing in his article? As much as I hated to admit it, I absolutely was. This is what had been bothering me the entire time since I had first read the article. Either the author was right and my own opinions were deserving of criticism, or the author was wrong and my opinions were valid. Having an overly inflated ego, and knowing myself to be infallible, I became determined to find the flaw in the author's argument. 

What I realized is that he was oversimplifying the idea of continuity (or maybe I was oversimplifying his argument) by giving only two categories to serialized television. Shows like Glee that didn't care about continuity in the least, and shows like Fringe that cared a great deal about continuity, but couldn't maintain it. Both of these categories are definitely valid, and I'm sure you can find several shows that fit into either from your own repertoire of followed shows. The problem was that an allowance for a third category of shows wasn't being provided. The shows that care about continuity and successfully manage to uphold it.

The reason was obvious. This third category is pitifully small. The number of shows that manage a fully continuous storyline over the course of more than a season or two without any errors in characterization or plot elements is dangerously small. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any that fully meet the criteria, but the one currently on the air that comes closest, in my mind, is White Collar.

Interesting, is it not, that my favorite serialized drama happens to be the show that most successfully maintains its continuity?

So here, finally, is my counterargument. A show that nails the structure and misses the character may indeed be a hollow artistic exercise, but a show that nails the structure and the characters is still leaps and bounds above a show that scores with its characters but misses the structure of continuity.

Television is a medium limited by unforeseen complications, uncertain end dates and an inability to rewrite the beginning if you think of a better ending halfway through, yes. All of these points, made in the article, are true. But accepting these limitations only to forgive writers for mistakes made as a result is like forgiving a sailboat captain who scuttles his ship on a reef because the wind was blowing in the wrong direction. A skilled captain would use even a shifting wind to his advantage to keep his boat afloat. In a similar sense, a skilled writer (or team of writers) should be able to use the fluctuating rules of their medium to improve their storytelling.


A continuous story in television, where it is so difficult to pull off, is all the more impressive. It should be something writers strive for, even if we, as viewers, shouldn't be too upset when they occasionally fall short.


For those of you who would like to read the whole of the article that inspired this post (and I assure you, it makes some good points worth reading) you can find it here.