If you took the writing staff of House as a representative sample, it would seem there's an epidemic of lawyers fleeing Toronto for Hollywood, all named David. Never mind the qualifiers: looking at that writing staff, there would seem to be an epidemic of lawyers making a break for the glamorous world of television.
"Four writers have law degrees on the show, and one of our assistants has a law degree," confirmed David Hoselton, one of those ex-lawyers named David, during our interview at the Banff World Television Festival, where earlier he had presided over a session about the craft of writing.
The other David, of course, is House creator David Shore, a University of Toronto law school friend of Hoselton's who hired him during season three of the successful show. Peter Blake and Leonard Dick are the non-David law school alumni on the 15-member writing team, and that assistant is a former San Francisco District Attorney now aiming to become a writer.
Before even making the connection to Shore's previous life, I'd had a pet theory that House often acts as a pseudo-defense attorney for his patients in what he thinks of as an adversarial medical system, advocating for them even if he doesn't believe they're "innocent" or deserving, even against hospital rules designed to fairly allocate resources or organs, for example.
Is that a crazy idea, I wonder, or is there a subliminal legal vibe to the show?
"That's crazy," Hoselton deadpanned. Though he was probably also serious. Whatever. Don't think I won't write that article eventually.
He does believe law school is a decent training ground for a future writer. "One thing law school teaches you is to be analytical and to problem solve and to see both sides of an issue. You can't argue a case unless you can anticipate the other side's argument."
"That helps in House because in any given scene there are at least two completely divergent viewpoints," he continued. "In fact, in any scene in any given drama, the idea is that two people walk into a room and they've got conflict. To properly write it, you've got to be able to see two sides of that conflict. Being analytical helps and seeing two sides of the coin helps."
Hoselton was sworn to secrecy about season five, stonewalling any questions about how far they can push the finale's biggest shock, that House — the man whose motto could be "I'm OK, you're not OK" — acknowledges he's miserable and wants to change. How will that play out without altering the character beyond recognition, or at least beyond the audience's tolerance?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Mary
Always a pleasure to read anything you might have to say about "House M.D.," DeeKay.
2 - Habitusa
Diane, please please tell me that you will start writing about House again next season. I have been missing your episode reviews dearly - they are the most thoughtful, intelligent, analytical, and impartial writing about the show available on the Internet.
3 - Diane Kristine
Thanks so much. I've never exactly stopped writing about House, and won't, but I can't see myself going back to weekly episode reviews. I appreciate the kind words, though (however I'm not sure I can take credit for being impartial - I'm pretty partial to this show! ;)
4 - c.
I also have to chime and thank you for this interview and to say that I also miss your reviews for the show.
5 - sue
I have read interviews with TPTB, and I have read about these interviews. David Shore does not care what viewers think. Many people who participate in House message boards don't like the new team. I rarely read a post where anyone says they "like" the new team. They do pay attention to how many people click on their website, but they don't care if the opinions are good or bad.
I have decided not to post on Fox's message board anymore. I will not buy the DVDs with 16 episodes when they are priced the same as a 24 episode season. I won't watch reruns on Fox or USA. This is my way of protesting the poor decisions TPTB have made this season. I DO NOT FAULT THE WRITERS! They do an excellent job. It is the decisions made concerning casting and the direction of the show that I am unhappy with.
Why should we care so much? Because we had the perfect storm, and now the bow of the boat is almost under water. Ratings are down. Fans know how good the show "can be." Why should we be satisfied with less?
They made dreadful casting decisions this season. Excluding Amber and Scooter, there was not one actor of the 27 House fired that was worthy of being on this show. They would have had a better show if 13 left because of her Huntingdon's test, and they gave the spot to Amber. Will we have to wait two more years to get rid of these untalented actors?
The character changes in House were not worthy of him. He became a chauvinist, and he became crude. Many people were not happy with that. It was unnecessary. We lost the pensive, caring character who touched our hearts. I don't know if it was the writers or TPTB who were responsible for that, but it lowered the show's prestige. Thankfully, they did not carry that throughout the season. Without Hugh Laurie to elevate the character, they show's ratings would have plunged further.
I do enjoy your reviews of the program. Perhaps you could write an article about how fans feel about the new team based on posts on Blogcritics and other message boards. Your reviews and Barbara's have a lot of clout.
6 - Diane Kristine
I wouldn't help your cause much, I'm afraid. For one thing, like many people who don't feel the need to complain on message boards, I have no problem with the Survivor arc or the new cast members and was bored with the old team. For another, "clout"? No. We have as much clout as anyone else - none. Ratings were down after the strike and the switch to Mondays the way ratings always go down when it doesn't follow American Idol. House was the 2nd highest rated scripted series of last year.
7 - Jair
Excellent interview DK! I also enjoyed the Survivor arc and like the new characters. I like the old ones, too--well, Chase much more than Cameron--but their old arcs were well wrapped up. I'm hoping the writers find a new interesting one for Chase, because I like the character and the actor's rapport with Hugh Laurie, but it won't make or break the show for me.
8 - Susanne
It is funny that I like the old team more and I find the old ones boring with the exception of Kutner.
I was also pondering over Tritter last season with the way they wrote the legal system ok I was fuming because I work for the prosecution and there were several things that Tritter did that broke laws and was abuse of power but yet he got away with them. I know of vigilante cases with cops and people taking the law in their own hands but the Tritter arc was a real stretch. Surely the writers who have law degrees would have noticed this.
9 - Diane Kristine
To quote House himself: "As opposed to shows that represent the world exactly the way it is, like ... can’t think of any. Good thing because they would suck. And be redundant." :) They're more interested in entertainment. I should have a bit more on Hoselton's session in a few days that gets into that a bit.
10 - Grace
I agree with Sue 100 %. Well, I did like the scene where House comes out wearing a bandana and carrying a torch...that was funny. And I liked the older guy who wasn't really a doctor.
I wish he could have stayed instead of 13. Sorry, but 13 is about exciting as watching paint dry. We were told that Chase and Cameron would remain on the show. We just weren't told that they wouldn't have many scenes or that they'd have one scene lasting a minute or two. That was a bit unfair I think.
Whatever happens, as long as Hugh Laurie is there, AMAZING as he is, I will continue to watch because I can not take my eyes off of that man.
IF there is ANY justice in this world, Hugh will win the Emmy finally this year. What more does the poor man have to do anyway?????
Please forgive House, Wilson? He didn't mean it. And, you HAVE BEEN enabling him for some time now. You are going to have to take some of the blame too.
11 - ann uk
Dear DK, I haven't read your House commentaries before, so was interested in finding a new viewpoint on a show that I think is unique in TV drama.
I particularly liked your suggestion that House often acts as a " pseudo defence attorny ...in an adversarial medical system " Living in a country where 99% of the population is cared for by the National Health Service,there are several things I find puzzling about the system that House works in, eg: who owns Princeton Plainsborough hospital ? It is clearly not a charity, is it a business?
House often implies that he is not happy with the system and, given his fundamental integrity, I am sure he couldn't be. Of course the show cannot make overt political points- especially on Fox TV - but I would love to know what the writers think House really thinks !
12 - Diane Kristine
Thanks Ann. I'm not in the US either but yes, the hospital would be more like a business. I heard David Shore speak at the Banff festival a couple of years ago and someone asked him the question about that. He basically said he had no real interest in exploring those issues - they kind of assume for the sake of the show that all that expensive health care House subjects his patients to is free. He's more interested in the show as a character study, exploring issues of right and wrong.