...in the last paragraph. A lot the stuff I enjoy watching (House, Dexter, etc) are guilty pleasures. When I recommend them to others and they don't enjoy them, it's kind of hard to defend them as high art (or morality).

Tim Roth with a sexy cast and decent writing? Suspend a little disbelief and it should be fun ;-)

I remember the "private eyes" of the 70's. They were all, for the most part, equipped with emotional or physical gimmicks. Cannon was the fat detective (a slightly more mobile Nero Wolfe), Barnaby Jones, the old detective. Longstreet, the blind detective. Ironside, the wheelchair detective.

Most of their cases were identical. Most of their deductions were identical. With the minor adjustments of their gimmicks, they all behaved the same way. In the early 70's, the FCC was willing to trade violence for sex, so some of their detectives like McMillan and Wife or Cool Million had unprecedented sexual involvement. But by the late 70's, sex had reached its limit, so the detectives mentioned in the first paragraph were all single and sexless. You could barely hear their deductions over the mechanical clanking of the plot.

Now we have a bunch of egotistical psychos like House and this new one. And Monk, a PI with so many debilitating psychological problems that someone should have shot him out of mercy years ago. Perhaps it's another vain attempt to spice up the genre. Outside of the expensive CGI simulations, the CSI shows are also mechanically plotted. The human factor counts for nothing or less in the solving of these crimes.

It's a slippery slope, saying that ordinary people are morons and only people who should be in straightjackets can effectively solve crimes. Or maybe it's ingenuous. It's the same philosophy of "genius" that explains away drug abuse and sexual problems of stars and studio executives. Why bother stopping Keith Ledger? He takes drugs, he must be a genius!

If I was pitching shows to Jerry Suckhammer, or whatever that producer's name is, I'd send him a DVD of the 1960's series Checkmate. At least the detectives in that show had personalities, not mental quirks randomly selected from an issue of Psychology Today.

I think it's a fair point that a lot of recent (and past?) shows substitute a scenery-chewing "genius" lead character for well developed, believable (and consistent) plots and supporting characters.

Take "House", for example. I found the first season or two good value. From then on House himself has been more of a characterisation than an actual character - his "eccentric" behaviour seems inconsistant and artificial, obviously designed to cause "conflict" alone. Additionally, ridiculous allowances are made for his behaviour.

There's nothing new under the sun, I suppose. Then again, if it were easy to realise interesting shows based on "normal" characters and good scripts, wouldn't everyone be doing it? ...and would us moronic masses watch it if they did?

Vincent D'Onofrio is the star of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, not SVU.

For those, including the article's author, listing reasons House et al. are so tired, why not mention Sherlock Holmes as the original neurotic genius detective? Or perhaps the first detective, Poe's Dupin? The detective genre has always relied upon the preternaturally perceptive individual; even Miss Marple was such. And they are often arrogant, as in House, Dupin, Holmes, Poirot, and from some angles Monk.

For my money, Monk and House are worth watching because of the cast. Perhaps Roth can make this new show work, but it's premise sounds frankly stupid, full of somewhat frightening Total Security Awareness-y pseudo-science. (Maybe I like House because I don't have enough knowledge about medicine to see through it? And Monk, well, has serious continuity and other problems, like empty semiautomatic pistols continuing to fire while the slide is locked back. D'oh!)

I think it's really a nice homage that House lives in apartment 221B and that his best friend is a Dr. Wilson, not a Dr. Watson, and that, like Holmes, House is a drug addict with a musical talent.

I am glad "Lie to Me" has witty lines and attractive actors, but doesn't the show's premise merit any more analysis than stating that the psychologist it was based upon has done "years of research." All sorts of quacks have done years of research. There is simply no science that establishes when persons are lying based upon facial ticks, sweating, or speech patterns. This propoganda is even more insidious than those shows that tell their audience all crimes can be proven by DNA or that psychics solve crimes. Many people are going to see this and think it is real. These crime show fans then come to jury service thinking they can read minds. Peer reviewed studies show that even professionals (cops, lawyers, judges) are no better than a coin-flip at spotting prevarication.

Ah, well--at least CRIMINAL MINDS is on across from this. :)

House - Brit

Tim Roth - Brit

The entire cast of Without a Trace - Brit or Aussie

... thank Ms. Havrilesky for watching all these ultimately repetitive, derivative new shows so the rest of us don't have to. And here's hoping she'll come across a few more gems, because she deserves it.

¡Gracias!

I like the actor Tim Roth so that will get me to give it a shot.

@space alien:

The actor who plays House is a Brit, his character on House is not. For some reason, a Brit (accent and all) wasn't OK for the role(?)

@Federal Public Defender:

Those who are able to fool lie detectors in general would also be able to fool anyone who bases his/her judgement of truth or lie upon mere gestures and tics. Any sociopath would have no problem lying without any visible evidence at all.

The only TRUE unbeatable lie detector is functional MRI while being questioned. No one, not a sociopath nor just a very good liar can alter the portions of the brain required to recall memories vs fabricate a fantasy. This wouldn't be terribly interesting for a show, if it were the focus, and it would be unusable in court so...

I nevertheless like Tim Roth, the actor, and will give a bit of belief suspension a chance just like I have for Lost.