The Exception that Proves the Rule*

Yesterday I wrote a piece about a theory of mine, that basically declares that a television show, no matter how good it may be, should be cut off after 3 seasons to avoid ruining the story.

Today I'd like to talk for a minute about a show whose third season finale and fourth season premiere have left me with the impression that I might have found the exception to my wide sweeping rule, ABC's cop procedural romance Castle.

Most shows have a central storyline with an arc that can only be sustained for 2 or 3 seasons before the plot line either has to draw to a close, or be given up on completely. In a romance, this central arc is usually the building and forming of a relationship between the male and female leads. Castle is no exception. It's a fairly simple premise though, and you'd be correct in thinking that if the conclusion of a series' core plot is dependent only on two attractive people sleeping together, a series shouldn't last more than a few days in TV time, or maybe two or three episodes in ours.

Most romantic television shows try to draw out this simple storyline with what is colloquially known as "will they won't they" drama. It's a lot like watching middle school children try to form a real, lasting, meaningful relationship, and it's every bit as obnoxious and annoying. I'll point to another of my regular shows, NBC's Chuck, to illustrate this point. In the very first episode, it becomes obvious that the title character, lovable nerd Chuck Bartowski, has fallen in love with his female CIA handler, Sarah Walker. Within three episodes of the series premiere, it becomes obvious to the viewers that Sarah has also fallen in love with Chuck. So by episode four, they should be sleeping together, right? Well we all know that isn't how this game is played on television. Instead, it takes Chuck and Sarah all of three seasons before they finally acknowledge their love for each other and sleep together. By the end of the first season, all but the most die hard Chuck fans had grown tired of the "will they won't they" and those who still watched the show only did so because of the quirky spy capers that were the bulk of individual episodes and basically served as a backdrop to throw Chuck and Sarah into awkward situations that would make Chuck realize once again just how much he loved Sarah.

Back to Castle, whose show runner has publicly stated that his comedic crime procedural is, at its heart, a love story. What's amazing though, is that there is none of the "will they won't they" tension we see in Chuck. I've already written about this aspect of Castle though, and if you're interested, you should check out February's post entitled "Castle's Couple."

Instead of focusing on the central romance, Castle focuses on the crime stories in the individual episodes, and uses the mystery of Beckett's mothers death as the seasonal through-line. Rick Castle's love for Kate Beckett drives a lot of his actions and decisions, but his affections are rarely highlighted and even more rarely spoken of aloud. With that in mind, it stands to reason that this mystery would replace the romance as the central plot device, and therefore have played itself out after three seasons. What's interesting though is that Kate's mother's death in Season 1 was not necessarily a plot point, but rather, simply a character device. It was a little piece of background for Detective Beckett's character, not anything that motivated anyone to move from plot point to plot point. It wasn't until season 2 that her mothers' death became an actual storyline.

Castle survived its first season by relying on Nathan Fillion (who plays the title character, Richard Castle) and his quirky charm and considerable fan base. Essentially, season one was a gimme, and the show really started in season two. So here we are at the start of Season 4, but plot wise, it's really the start of Season 3. The mystery of Kate's mother's death has led Beckett and Castle to a conspiracy that extended right into their daily lives with the season finale reveal that Captain Montgomery was partially responsible. It even felt like a second season finale. The main story comes to a head, and we've got one more season to wind it down and tie up the loose ends. I'd put money on the fact that by the end of the fourth season, Beckett's mother's murder will have been resolved, or if it hasn't it will have started to feel unnecessarily drawn out. And Beckett herself has stated that the internal walls she put up after her mother's death are the only thing keeping her from a true and lasting relationship, which means once the mystery resolves, so should the romance.

By keeping the romance at the heart of the show, but never in focus, Castle's writers have managed to extend the life of their show beyond my law of diminishing quality. It's fourth season premiere was darker than what Castle fans are used to seeing, but it eased nicely out of the high drama that the third season cliffhanger left us with. Now we've got another season of goofy Nathan Fillion and stoic Stana Katic crime solving to tide us over while little pieces of the major mystery pop in at the end of each episode to tie them all together into a season. The question is, what happens at the end of Season 4? Will it prove my rule, assuming we ignore the misplaced first season?

Here's hoping that Castle's writers either know when to quit, or know how to prove me wrong.



*I feel it is worth mentioning that there are some exceptions to my rule that don't prove it, they are actually true exceptions. Any chapter of the Star Trek franchise is a good example, as is BBC's Doctor Who, both of which survive beyond the three season limit by not trying to be anything more than what they are, a niche market guilty pleasure, and I say that as a huge fan of both. What do you think? Are there other exceptions?