I intensely dislike the unknown, unnamed, unseen Big Bad character.
I despise Big Bad story lines where the Big Bad controls everything and everyone.
The problem? The approach makes nonsense of the other episodes. If everyone is a potential enemy--if every law can be broken--if every piece of evidence can be sabotaged--if every arrest is a potential conspiracy--
How can anything be real?
I know there are writers who like to ask that question. Frankly, I find it pedestrian and dull. I also think it sabotages mystery shows. Mystery shows rest on the premise that clues lead somewhere. A crime was committed. A villain committed the crime. The villain left evidence. The detective finds the evidence. The villain is arrested.Various writers have challenged the premise of one set of clues meaning one result, including Pierre Bayard in Sherlock Holmes was Wrong. But even Bayard concludes his analysis by proposing a different result using the same clues or text. (Using this approach, many fans have fun imagining Jessica Fletcher as the greatest serial killer of all time.)
In the end, what matters is that clues have meaning. If one insists on the existentialist approach, what matters in the end is that clues are given meaning.
Strip away meaning--who cares? It would be as if Forensic Files was renamed, Everything was Imaginary, so Nobody Went to Jail and each episode was renamed, "The Episode Where Nothing Happens."
That
disclaimer is important. Jessica Fletcher believes at a fundamental level that villainy is wrong. People should report crimes. The police--however flawed--are necessary authority figures. Villains ought to be caught. The law exists, and breaking the law is a problem. She steps in out of moral obligation.
The mystery, Jessica believes, must be resolved and resolved properly and fairly.
Great character with a clear belief system = viewable mysteries.
No comments:
Post a Comment