Personally, I'm all for seeing every facet of Greg House they can give me. If House is in a sunnier disposition these days, fabulous and huzzah for that! But my complaints about the general quality of season four have little to do with House being in a better mood and everything to do with the fact that the transition from losing his team to getting a whole gaggle of people I don't give a shit about was an awkward one. For me, seeing the clunky narrative devices they've chosen to employ greatly reduces my viewing enjoyment. This has nothing to do with the fact that I think House is OOC (I don't) and everything to do with removing complexity and quality from the show and replacing it with quantity. IMO, there is a vast difference between episodes that are "light" and those that are "lightweight." My reading of the episodes have been that they fall in the lightweight category. I don't think it makes me resistence to change to openly admit that I miss the thorny ethical dilemmas that made House a hallmark program and kept me engaged. The only ethical charge I've gotten lately was whether or not it's okay to poison a patient with something that mimics polio only to "cure" polio later that same episode. Is there even a counterpoint to this? I won't go point by point over the things that I haven't enjoyed about this season. Frankly, I started to notice things getting a little wonky towards the end of last season but was hoping season 4 would be a fresh start. As a viewer, I'm willing to embrace change. But if I start off watching a really thrilling crime drama only to see it become a musical in it's 4th season, isn't it okay that I'm upset by this evolution without it just being a case of me not being a faithful enough fan or not clapping loud enough? There's been several jesting (I hope) comments about House going into season 6,7,8, etc. The though of that makes me laugh. At the pace they're going, it's just not feasible.

Just so it's clear, I never intended to imply lack of intelligence or impune people who do not like the season. I merely gave my opinion as to complaints of "out of character" moments, and my opinion as to why I'm enjoying seeing these different sides of the characters.

If a character does something then it can't be OOC. It's canon and we must incorporate it into our interpretation of the show – but that doesn't mean that we have to like a character or the choices the writers take. Does that make any sense whatsoever? First a general comment on the season overall. As far as I can remember (and don't count my memory as a testament to the quality, I happen to have a truly sucky memory), the only episode I've actively disliked this season is the last one -Whatever it Takes (?). I loved Alone. Completely and utterly loved it. I even loved Wilson, and I generally don't like Wilson. The other episodes have elements that I've liked. Right now, Alone is the only episode that I've out and out loved. Okay, now on to the specifics of what I've quoted. I don't think OOC and canon are completely contradictory concepts. I'm a writer (in the amateur, never been published variety) and I think writers can write their own characters out of character. I have the power to do what I want with my characters, and it would be canon -but that power also includes ignoring my own characterizations of characters and writing them OOC. If, for example, a writer has a character do something purely because they need it to happen to make the plot work -forcing character into plot, without considering whether they feel the character would actually do it -or actually believing that the character would never behave that way, but still making them act that way for the sake of the plot, that would be OOC-even if it is their character. Of course, without being i n the heads of the writers, there's no way to know that they don't feel an action that seems OOC actually does fit into their vision of the character. I also think that traits can't just be thrown on to characters late in the game and that it can be completely attributed to a different side of the character. I'm not saying that this is what's happened with the characters here, just a general comment. Yes, people do ooc things, but I don't think they just start acting different out of the blue for no reason. If a character starts behaving differently from how they've been established in past episodes, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think there needs to be some indication of how they got there. Not necessarily heavy handed, just a hint. I don't know if I'm making any sense. And, it's not an exact science, I can't say it's a fact (and I'm not actually arguing that anyone on the show has been written OOC) that a character is OOC by their creators. But, I do think holding the opinion that a character is OOC can be a valid one, even when I disagree, and the fact that the person writing the character is the creator doesn't invalidate it. Um, short version, I don't believe that canon and OOC are necessarily mutually exclusive. Sorry it took so long to get to that point of my post. And, to make this even longer, I have a question for people who say that they didn't realize the formula was stale until they actually changed it. How did you find out that you found it stale after the fact? Was it that you found yourselves enjoying the changes more than you expected? Or that looking back in hindsight, you find the old formula more tedious than you had? I'm a little confused on the idea of finding that something is stale afterwards, but not finding it stale while it was going on, so I'm curious as to how you realized that you did feel that way.

Blue, thanks for your sympathy! Sorry for the late return to the forum. Your points, as well as those subsequent are all well-taken. I suppose mourning was/is best done in another thread, and I typically mourn in private, not online, but it just seemed to me (in my hyper-hyper-sensitive, chip-on-shoulder mode) that recently some people who are vocally not so happy with the way things are going (and yes I know it's not really "our" show) were being told that somehow we are not understanding the higher concepts of the show and were bringing other readers/posters down by their negativity. In reading some of the recent comments since my previous post, I don't think I'm alone in this perception. However, if I'm inferring this perceived slight in error, I stand corrected. Thinking more rationally, I'd like to believe our members are respectful of all viewpoints. But every once in awhile, those of us who are occasionally thought to dwell at the shallower end of the pool because of the character or story line we are interested in do need the opportunity to vent, even though on occasion we MAY whine a bit too much. I'll step away now, get back to my private mourning and others carry on about more substantive issues. Thanks for the ear (and eyes).

Let's see if I can say this without opening a can of worms in regards to OOC and canon .... I believe that even in real life people sometimes behave uncharacteristically. They act, as it were, out of character in terms of how they're perceived. However, regardless as to whether it's an uncharacteristic thing, it's still something that happened, no matter how odd or how vile. It's true, even if it's never seen again. It may be something that the person never would have done under normal circumstances, but it happened. To me, it's more intriguing to wonder what else this now means that I don't know about this person, and what may have caused them to behave this way. And as to: I have a question for people who say that they didn't realize the formula was stale until they actually changed it. How did you find out that you found it stale after the fact? Was it that you found yourselves enjoying the changes more than you expected? Or that looking back in hindsight, you find the old formula more tedious than you had? Yes to both. I actually cringed at the early spoilers of how the fellows would be replaced, but at first I was pleasantly surprised by how it worked out, then enjoyed it more and more until by "Guardian Angels" I was outright loving it. In retrospect, I looked back and I could see how by changing things up, the writers exposed their own shortcomings with the previous formula -- and in fact it felt more like a formula in comparison. Now I'll certainly agree that in the vast numbers of cast right now, they've created something unweildy, but I don't believe this is a bad thing as long as they don't plan on keeping six potential fellows around forever.

Is it okay to respond? I find the discussion of OOC interesting and I have some more comments in response, but I don't have any specifics to the House characters in season 4, so maybe it's become too off topic for the thread. And, I can discuss/debate/beat a dead horse until people just want to slap me to shut me up :twisted: So, if you just want to drop the discussion on OOC behavior, that's fine. Like I said, I don't have anything actually on topic.

I don't think there's any doubt that writers are capable of having a character do or say OOC things. They forget things they established or think something got cut which wasn't... With the character of House, the most glaring OOC moments have been physical. They seem to forget that his physical limitations are not simply a result of the pain. He is missing muscle. The running after the Ketamine was OOC as was the duck walk in Mirror Mirror. House's personality is so expansive, however, that most behavior fits his character. He is a romantic and a cynic. He is cultured/aesthetic and a boor. He is gentle and harsh. He is witty and sophomoric. He is egotistical and insecure. Because of all this, most behavior fits somewhere in his personality. I think, of all the characters, Cuddy is the one who ends up OOC most often. Being a professional who is so good at her job that she became a Dean in her early 30s does not jibe with her being House's doormat. Nor does thinking he's the most brilliant doctor in the history of medicine fit with her always second guessing him and hiring someone solely to report to her on his actions. She commits perjury for him and expects him to follow orders. She has become a plot device in a low-cut top, who dons whatever personality TPTB need her to have each week to move the episode along. When she allowed House to hire 40 people because, after 3 years he wouldn't have spent more than he would on 3 and then hired Foreman to keep an eye on him, it became clear that her multiple personality disorder was going to continue in S4.

I have to say that I’m disappointed with S4 so far, and it hasn’t just been the lack of Chase. The reason I started watching House right from the pilot was that I was intrigued with Hugh Laurie playing a serious, bitter leading man, since I’d only known him previously in his comedic roles. Being somewhat of a fan of English actors, I was looking forward to what he would bring to the role—and he didn’t disappoint me at all. The other thing that kept me with the show long before I became a Chaser was the sheer, impressive intelligence of the scripts. Yes, the medicine could be painfully unrealistic, but it was more than made up for in the brilliance of the character dialogue. After last night’s episode, I was ready to cry. The writers made House sound as crude and unfunny as Denny Crane from Boston Legal. Don’t get me wrong; I’m fond of Denny Crane, but his lines make me cringe, and he gets an equally contemptuous reaction from the females he propositions. The point is, though, that Denny is losing his mental faculties and so acts ridiculous and inappropriate. How that is supposed to be true of House, I don’t know. Really, I’d like to slap the writers. Since when is House’s wit about using “naughty” words like vagina and penis? He sounded like a junior high boy going snerk, snerk. I’m no prude, but I am annoyed by stupid uses of unfunny terms. The thing that struck me in the past, even during the painful Tritter arc, is that House’s insults and diatribes always served a purpose: he used them to expose the hypocrisy of the people around him who would rather “talk nice” than actually do anything effective, or to get under the skin of someone (like Foreman) to find out what made them tick. In this last episode, the writers made House look stupid, and THAT’S what has me so honked off. He was merely skirt-chasing and doing it in a very juvenile, mindless way. I’m willing to wait for more Chase, and I’m fine if the writers want to show House as suffering or happy or any state in between. But when the show takes away House’s intelligence in favor of cheap sitcom laughs, that’s when I get angry and feel the need to vent in forums.

If a character does something then it can't be OOC. It's canon and we must incorporate it into our interpretation of the show – but that doesn't mean that we have to like a character or the choices the writers take. Pretty much what Bessie Mae said on this subject. Just to clarify my understanding, if it happens on the show it's canon and must be incorporated in our interpretation the show--absolutely! But to me, that doesn't not mean it cannot be deemed out of character. It just means you can't discount it as if it never happened because it's ooc. In a way, talking about canon is done within the show and ooc is outside the show. Does that make any sense?

In reading over the excellent comments here about the quality of the show, I thought back to my expectations at the end of season three. As the final guitar chords were strummed at the end of "Human Error," my belief was that House thought he had weathered a major storm in the break-up of his team. He seemed surprised at his own ability to handle this upset and he seemed quietly optimistic that he would be alright in the next phase of his life. I felt quite sceptical about this and I assumed that House was just in denial about how deeply he had been traumatized by the departures of CCF. I assumed that the start of season four would show House in a major funk, lost and adrift in a sea of misery and angst, as usual. I was completely wrong. I think the first six episodes of the new season have borne out House's initial self-analysis of his reaction to the dissolution of his original team. I think now that all the changes we have seen this first part of season four may reflect a shift in House's circumstances. Perhaps in fact he is lighter in attitude and outlook precisely because he is free of his team. Without the whining (Foreman), pining (Cameron), and supine (Chase) behaviors of his fellows, House is unburdened rather than bereft. So far this season we have noted that House takes fewer Vicodin pills, he is physically lighter and able to move more gracefully around the hospital and even up those daunting stairs. House is playful, flirtatious, energized by the demands of hiring new fellows, innovative in his teaching style, undaunted by the administrative challenges of the array of new personalities, and eager for adventure. As namaste noted above, isn't it possible that these aspects of House's character -- which seem "new" to us -- are in fact indigenous to him. Perhaps they are characteristics as deep-seated and original to him as the bitterness, the insecurity, the suffering, and the pessimism. Maybe these lighter elements have been largely suppressed by the cumluative overlay of all the traumas of infarction, romantic disaster, addiction, shootings, ketamine failure, and legal persecution? Why is it so hard to believe that as a younger, healthier man House was not always the grim, brooding, angst-ridden figure we first met in season one? I find it quite easy to imagine that when he was the legend Cuddy met at Michigan, or the young colleague Wilson first encountered, or the abrasive genius Stacy shot at the paintball war, House was much like we have seen him at the beginning of season four. Perhaps we are simply uncovering that other House for the first time because his circumstances have changed now that his original team has moved on.