In the 70s I liked Kojak. I saw an episode recently and it was soooo boring. Not enough going on. That's why shows have added other content like forensics (CSI, Bones), more history (Cold Case, In Justice) and even math (Numb3rs).

I watch a lot of cop shows, (obvious from the above) and this trend is clearly visible here. It's probably visible elsewhere, but I haven't given it much thought.

Anyway, my point is that viewers have been changed by the increased volume of info we absorb every day, and TV is changing to keep our interest.

Just found your blog, and will add it to my blog rounds.

I think it's about relationships. Like you, I've resisted getting involved in too many complex TV shows because I don't have time for the relationship! Complexity in the narrative makes these characters more real, gives us more to work with as we come to care about them. The new availability of whole seasons of TV shows on DVD helps cement the relationship. Personally, my rule is one TV show at a time. Besides college football I currently only watch "The Gilmore Girls." It's not as complex as "Lost" or "24" (both of which I shy away from, as you do!). But it's smartly written with dialogue so fast and snappy you have to get the DVDs just to see what references you missed as they went whizzing by on the first broadcast.

It's possible that time scarcity is actually part of what's driving the shift to continuity. Because we have less time, we change the way we watch: people are less inclined to just flick the TV on and see what's on, than to plan to set aside time for specific shows. The former demands a format that catches the attention for half an hour to and hour, something that's impeded by continuity/complexity. The latter demands a format that hooks people in for the long haul, and keeps them coming back for more, wondering what will happen next time, or the time after that. That's the sort of show you give a slot in your diary (which also fits with the DVD/technology factor).

Anyway I'll toss my hat in the ring on this subject now, even though I know I should think about it more. But, what the heck, I am DEFINITLY not an anthropologist… I haven't watched TV since March 25, 05. No GREAT story there, other than it was a challenge and I had become addicted to TV. More HBO than anything else.

How I see the trend – HBO started it. They needed to be innovative to get viewership, and somebody got creative and determined that I needed to be exposed to characters actions and responses that were totally unfamiliar, while at the same timepart of a history that I was familiar with.Because they were so unfamiliar they became somewhat dangerous –Killing, cussing – real life exposed in the raw. I was ready for it because my life – the uncertainty of my future, the lack of "specialness that I felt about myself" – drew me to be attached to the so called seamy side of life (Sopranos, Wired, OZ, Carnevale,etc.) And for a change, reality became a litte more safe to discuss. Compared to these shows my reality was safer.

Plus, our global world is growing and I need to be part of it, and to grow I need to be a little more exposed to variations on life. Just like you said somewhere that I read, "Where once the most important product was the guarantee of sameness and uniformity, what sells today increasingly is variation…"

It was refreshing to think about the topic.

Grant McCracken over on his TBSA anthropology/culture blog asks why popular culture has got so complicated. If our hectic of time poverty, attention deficiciency, and information overload, Grant wonders why there is a trend towards shows like 24 and Lo…

"niche cultures" is one answer.
will shared cultural platforms disappear? that would be the next question.

with thomas schelling's "dynamic models of segregation" in mind – one might thing so
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/12/tribes_of_the_i_1.php
the internet does not bring us closer together – it brings us further apart, is what nicholas carr says

and on a personal note: my significant other would definitely agree with that.

Kevin, Thanks for the head's up on the Johnson book. This is one of those things I can be relied upon to pretend I've read when it comes up in cocktail conversation. I guess now I'm going to have to. I thought he made the case for complexity more than continuity. And actually come to think of it, Robert Thompson at Syracase makes the argument that TV is actually better at certain kinds of narrative than say the movies because it has so much longer to dwell upon character development. Thanks, Grant

Juri, nice thinking, I have a friend who recently "caught up" with Lost by watching all of season 1 on a trip to London. And Debbie (above) is doing the same. And I like the idea that with websites and blogging we are effectively "watching together." Someone out there is this world of exquisitely connected strangers can supply essential knowledge in the event we miss an episode. Thanks, Grant

Ken, Great points. Yes, I always thought that Stephen Botchko (sp) helped to demonstrate that narrative connotation was actually more interesting than narrative denotation, not least because it gave us room to fill in on our own, and we are all now pretty talented suppliers of the cultural feed. Thanks, Grant

Carol, splendid, reality programming is all about the continuity, with an open ended ness that means that even when we supply analysis and predictions the show has an element, a capacity, for surprise that even ambitious writers could probably not supply. Thanks, Grant

As Kevin mentions above, Johnson cites the opportunity to market DVDs as incentive to create content that stands up to repeat viewing; earlier on, syndication provided that incentive.

One other interesting tidbit in the article: it points out that while many credit Hill Street Blues with starting this trend towards complicated multi-thread narratives, the structure was actually used first on TV in soap operas.