Consultants or Non-Police as Detectives

NateSean said:

Temperance Brennan is a forensic anthropologist working for a university. Cal Lightman has made a career, studying human behavior and facial expressions to hone his skills as a living lie detector. It makes sense that these people work with the police and FBI to solve crimes.

Castle stretches plausibility a bit, being a murder mystery writer who helps the NYPD solve crimes as a part of his book research. But at least having a degree in psychology makes his contributions believable.

Are there modern day Miss Marples and Leroy Browns? When does it become too much of a stretch for the average John Everyman to solve a crime like murder?

Click to expand...

For something light and fluffy like CASTLE or THE MENTALIST, we don't need to work too hard to make it real-life-plausible. We just need the sleuth to be brilliant and charismatic - the reader/viewer is going to happily suspend disbelief. The justification for Castle hanging around is initially that he is pals with the mayor, and quite soon becomes that he is too useful to get rid of. The first is a pretty flimsy contrivance, but by the time the second takes over we don't care that much.

LIE TO ME and NUMBERS spring to mind as examples of fairly fluffy dramas where the sleuth has a particular scientific competence that actual law enforcement agencies might use from time to time (and then spin that plausible premise out to a series where every crime gets solved with algebra, or something, which can get a bit wearing.)

Sliding towards the grittier end, you do see journalists or lawyers as sleuths - people who might plausibly interact with law enforcement etc. - but it is probably going to be difficult to write a realistic series in which, say, I solve crimes without having to keep solving the mystery of why I keep end up getting tangled up in murders (maybe, like Jessica Fletcher, I'm a brilliantly cunning serial killer.)

NateSean said:

When does it become too much of a stretch for the average John Everyman to solve a crime like murder?

Click to expand...

I think Torgo nailed it: entertain your audience, and they'll let you justify almost anything. Write it well - sell it to your reader - and it'll work.

Personally, things that tweak me are too many coincidences, and the "real" investigators being too stupid. But a few coincidences, a understaffed/corrupt/otherwise distracted police department, and an interesting protagonist, and I'll keep reading.

Castle-wise, I figure once you get past the mythology of the millionaire mystery writer, you can accept pretty much anything.

lizmonster said:

Castle-wise, I figure once you get past the mythology of the millionaire mystery writer, you can accept pretty much anything.

Click to expand...

LOL! I think of Castle as a really fun romantic suspense with some crime and forensics thrown in. I love watching it, even as it stretches my credibility limits. Really, Nathan Fillion can stretch anything he likes!

I have read all kinds of civilian-sleuth mysteries, starting with Nancy Drew and those lawyer's boys, and I think you've got it - we can believe anything for the duration of the story as long as it is well-written and the protags aren't stupid.

lizmonster said:

Personally, things that tweak me are [...] the "real" investigators being too stupid.

Click to expand...

Oh, this bugs me too. Silent Witness (long-running UK forensic investigation series focusing on heroic pathologists) has this all the time - the police are too stupid / narrow-minded / interested in themselves to see the truth.

I can take about one episode a series like that, but when it gets to be every single time it's just lazy writing.

Well, Castle is not there to help the police solve crimes. It simply turns out that he's pretty good at it, so they listen to him.

I don't keep a file, but I've read a fair number of cases over the years where a determined friend or family member solved a murder when the police couldn't.

The police will probably jump down your throat if you mess with an active murder investigation, but if you go about it right, cold cases are fair game.

And, of course, a pretty fair number of police departments have turned to psychics to help solve crimes, and when they do this, nothing else is out of bounds.

The biggest difference between real life and Miss Marple is that in real life, an opportunity to solve a murder is probably a one time thing. Someone gets murdered around Miss Marple every darned week. Personally, I'd stay the heck away from her.

IMO this would only work as a one-time thing. For a series it'd have to be like Castle, which so obviously doesn't take itself seriously that even my police officer husband can watch it without yelling at the TV. If Castle was a serious drama it'd be ridiculous.

Sherlock?

asroc said:

IMO this would only work as a one-time thing. For a series it'd have to be like Castle, which so obviously doesn't take itself seriously that even my police officer husband can watch it without yelling at the TV. If Castle was a serious drama it'd be ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I think Castle is a serious drama. Just because there's some humor doesn't mean it isn't.

I adore Castle too but I'm with Kate: it's really a romantic suspense like a Harlequin turned into TV. Very fun and especially for fans of Firefly like me.

One of the running jokes I thought about when reading your post was Murder She Wrote where and male in-law or distant cousin became an instant victim or suspect every week. It was really popular but also implausible ... but then implausible is quite common in cozies. I wouldn't worry too much as long as you entertain them (as Liz said)

I would think Sherlock would fit in the same category as a psychic consultant that the cops would use regularly.

Have fun and don't worry.

Even though Castle and Bones are often cited as analogous, there's a world of difference between the two, in terms of the plausibility of Bones in contrast to Castle.

PaulLev said:

Even though Castle and Bones are often cited as analogous, there's a world of difference between the two, in terms of the plausibility of Bones in contrast to Castle.

Click to expand...

Yes, I find the romances on Bones pretty unrealistic.

Kate Thornton said:

Yes, I find the romances on Bones pretty unrealistic.

Click to expand...

I find Temperance Brennan pretty unrealistic. But as something of a nerd myself, I get touchy about how women in science/tech are often portrayed on television.

lizmonster said:

I find Temperance Brennan pretty unrealistic. But as something of a nerd myself, I get touchy about how women in science/tech are often portrayed on television.

Click to expand...

I can relate to this, pretty much for the same reasons. I guess I find the field of characters on Bones to be always embroiled in romance (with the exception of Booth's boss, and there's a lady I'd love to see in a romantic situation! Write that, TV writers!)

I love it that Temperance Brennan is portrayed as the smartest person there, with her female support characters also very bright in different ways - but they all seem to be preoccupied with their romantic interests. Maybe that's just what I get for binge-watching it.

As someone with high functioning autism it can be incredibly difficult to watch Temperance Brennan on Bones (not to mention the stupid stupid mAgIcAl ScIeNcE). For being supposedly brilliant with a high level of education in anthropology, the character expresses almost zero knowledge of actual human anthropology beyond memorized facts about socially isolated ethnic rituals. Part of what frustrates me is that they make her an asshole. You can have Aspergers and actually know how to not be an asshole. Her character is explained (but never quite shown) as pretty brilliant and capable of inference, so it bothers me that they are so willing to make her a caricature of autism rather than a nuanced character.

The Lie To Me show is based on a guy, and one of his students actually does a lot of traveling to help teach law enforcement all over the country about reading people. She's very heavily involved in lecturing the FBI and a variety of groups, but began her career as a civilian who simply was discovered to be highly skilled at perceiving and identifying microexpressions.

elinor said:

The Lie To Me show is based on a guy, and one of his students actually does a lot of traveling to help teach law enforcement all over the country about reading people. She's very heavily involved in lecturing the FBI and a variety of groups, but began her career as a civilian who simply was discovered to be highly skilled at perceiving and identifying microexpressions.

Click to expand...

Although I'm pretty sure they've tried to test the efficacy of the Ekman technique for lie detection in various ways, and it's still very contentious. They tried to train the TSA and I think it didn't go terribly well. (I seem to remember that it's kind of hard to test in a research setting, because it's a very artificial situation.)

Jamesaritchie said:

I think Castle is a serious drama. Just because there's some humor doesn't mean it isn't.

Click to expand...

Castle is billed as comedy-drama. To me, shows like True Detective and The Wire are serious drama and Castle is light years away from those. Much of the dialogue is of the witty banter variety, the depiction of police work is... unrealistic, to put it mildly, and many of the cases of the week are really just excuses to satirize some pop culture phenomenon.
Castle does have serious moments but I wouldn't apply that label to the show as a whole.

Torgo said:

Although I'm pretty sure they've tried to test the efficacy of the Ekman technique for lie detection in various ways, and it's still very contentious. They tried to train the TSA and I think it didn't go terribly well. (I seem to remember that it's kind of hard to test in a research setting, because it's a very artificial situation.)

Click to expand...

That's the infamous SPOT program. The GAO reviewed it and found it has no scientific basis, is ineffective and should be defunded.

NateSean said:

Though I haven't seen past season two yet, I think it's established that Temperance's main issues stem from abandonment and being mistreated by the foster care system.

Click to expand...

The character changed quite a bit between seasons one and two. I liked her a lot in season one; in season two she seemed flattened into caricature. I gave up on the show when they wrote in the actress' pregnancy (in the stupidest possible way, modulo aliens).

But even though the character began annoying me, I stuck with the stories for several years. Which brings us back to the lesson for the OP: As long as you are entertaining your audience, you can stretch things all over the place.

Jamesaritchie said:

I think Castle is a serious drama. Just because there's some humor doesn't mean it isn't.

Click to expand...

Not so much.

CSI (at least the early Vegas editions) were about the crime and the method. NYPD Blue is a serious drama based on the crime and the method, AND the results those crimes had on investigators.

Castle is more a dramedy in the vein of Ally Mcbeal. Yes, there's drama, but it's just a canvas in the BG on which the lighter, fluffier, comedic scenes and lines play out. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Castle. But true drama--though it's an hour long--it is not. Most current cop shows are about the serious nature of the business and the consequences (regardless how believable they may or may not be) often with some light comedy thrown in.

The brilliance of Castle is that is a lite comedy masked by mysteries and crimes. I can't tell you how many times the murder of the week was solved in a Scooby Do-like fashion in the final minutes with a sudden realization by Castle and/or Beckett of what really happened in a rapid-fire conversation. If this were a true drama (hence, making details and procedure tantamount) I would hate it. But because it is more of a comedy, I can give a lot of these last-minute brilliant guesses a pass, since it's about the journey, not the details.

ETA my least favorite Castle episodes are those in which they attempt to appear more serious and less comedic--at least a couple per season. I understand the urge to switch things up but they don't pull it off in those episodes. Without the comedy, this is a ridiculous, boring show. But with the comedy, and the well-defined character interplay, it's highly entertaining.

I love Bones, but, yes, The Jeffersonian is the Fleetwood Mac of scientific institutions.

I never had an issue with her being on-scene, for what it's worth, I thought it was pretty well covered -- she's a Federal asset on-loan to the FBI because she has significant experience. I know she mentions several different third-world genocides/hotspots that she's worked at, identifying human remains. It wasn't too much of a stretch for me -- probably a sign of my own ignorance.

Jamesaritchie said:

The biggest difference between real life and Miss Marple is that in real life, an opportunity to solve a murder is probably a one time thing. Someone gets murdered around Miss Marple every darned week. Personally, I'd stay the heck away from her.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I once had a friend who used to joke that the Angela Landsbury character on Murder She Wrote was actually a fiendishly clever serial killer