I'm just going to get this out of the way. The writing of Mac Taylor on CSI:NY has been a travesty in S3. A lot of folks on TalkCSI have put forth the idea that the radical shift in behavior from S1 to S3 is nothing more than a logical progression, an evolution meant to show us that he's finally trying to cope with Claire's death.
Bunk.
Mac, like every other heroic character on TV, bends the rules whenever it suits, and because he's the hero, no one much minds. But Christ on a cracker, the inconsistency is mind-croggling, and it only becomes more evident when you watch S1.
In "Man a Mile", Danny has a "gut feeling" that a Sand Hog is involved in the murder of a fellow Hog. Mac loftily tells him that gut feelings are good, but they need hard evidence. As late as late S2, he admonishes Lindsay that instinct isn't enough. So far, so good. Consistent.
Then in "Sweet Sixteen", he tells Flack not to arrest a teenage suspect despite a mountain of circumstantial evidence because "he just knows he didn't do it."
Bzuh? Flack handled it better than I would've. I'd've had my Indignation Belt strapped on so tightly that I strained something.
In "Murder Sings the Blues", he reams Hawkes for not disclosing that he briefly encountered the victim in a diner for three minutes-in front of Lindsay and various lab Woozles, no less. Now, in an upcoming episode, he's going to continue working a case that involves his dead wife's son.
Hello, hypocrisy much?
Some have pointed out that maybe Mac is loosening up. I'd buy that argument if the Hawkes excoriation had happened in S2, back when Hawkes was still learning the ropes. But it happened in 307; the stepson drama happens in 316. Nine episodes. That is not enough time for radical character realignment. The only explanation for this is that the writers are twisting the characters to fit on the Drama Llama of the Week.
A poster whose father is a detective claimed that their is no law barring friends or relatives from working the case as long as the friend is only a victim. Fine. But that's the real world, and as she so helpfully pointed out, this is a TV show, and on this show, if we ascribe to the ethics of S3, you don't work a case if you know the victim, even if that knowledge is limited to three minutes at a diner. Therefore, by its own internal logic, Mac is violating his own ethics. That makes him either a staggering hypocrite or a badly-written character. Period. And all the excuse-making in the world won't change that.
I'm done now. Really.
Bunk.
Mac, like every other heroic character on TV, bends the rules whenever it suits, and because he's the hero, no one much minds. But Christ on a cracker, the inconsistency is mind-croggling, and it only becomes more evident when you watch S1.
In "Man a Mile", Danny has a "gut feeling" that a Sand Hog is involved in the murder of a fellow Hog. Mac loftily tells him that gut feelings are good, but they need hard evidence. As late as late S2, he admonishes Lindsay that instinct isn't enough. So far, so good. Consistent.
Then in "Sweet Sixteen", he tells Flack not to arrest a teenage suspect despite a mountain of circumstantial evidence because "he just knows he didn't do it."
Bzuh? Flack handled it better than I would've. I'd've had my Indignation Belt strapped on so tightly that I strained something.
In "Murder Sings the Blues", he reams Hawkes for not disclosing that he briefly encountered the victim in a diner for three minutes-in front of Lindsay and various lab Woozles, no less. Now, in an upcoming episode, he's going to continue working a case that involves his dead wife's son.
Hello, hypocrisy much?
Some have pointed out that maybe Mac is loosening up. I'd buy that argument if the Hawkes excoriation had happened in S2, back when Hawkes was still learning the ropes. But it happened in 307; the stepson drama happens in 316. Nine episodes. That is not enough time for radical character realignment. The only explanation for this is that the writers are twisting the characters to fit on the Drama Llama of the Week.
A poster whose father is a detective claimed that their is no law barring friends or relatives from working the case as long as the friend is only a victim. Fine. But that's the real world, and as she so helpfully pointed out, this is a TV show, and on this show, if we ascribe to the ethics of S3, you don't work a case if you know the victim, even if that knowledge is limited to three minutes at a diner. Therefore, by its own internal logic, Mac is violating his own ethics. That makes him either a staggering hypocrite or a badly-written character. Period. And all the excuse-making in the world won't change that.
I'm done now. Really.
