Okay, I'm a L&O junky. My wife, too. We watch it religiously, and catch the reruns on A&E. We're hooked precisely because of its formula, which includes a not always (but usually) predictable twist, and because it addresses social issues in a truly warped way, although sometimes insightful. I like seeing the interplay of liberal and conservative judicial ideologies. I like the cartoonish portrayals of defense counsel. I love Lenny. And Sam Waterston's shrieking and blustering is wonderful self-righteous buffoonery, albeit not always intentional. I'm also attracted to its portrayal of Manhattan and greater New York life, the class system, the ethnic diversity, the art scene and so on. For all of its reliance on stereotypes, the writers know New York to its bones and reflect it well in numerous local details (my wife, a native, pops with joy at the sight of coffee cups, even) and the dialogue. More than one can say for imitators like CSI:Miami.

First of all, many of the argument presented against Law and Order are just not true. The detective DON'T always "get their man" and the show is rarely divided into even 30 minute blocks. One of the things that I find most intriguing about Law and Order is its ability to mix up the emphasis on the detectives and district attourneys from show to show. Another point I'd like to make is: it's TV. It's not going to appeal to everyone. If you aren't impressed by the show, then why do you take the time to bash it online? Finally, there merely is not enough evidentiary support to substantiate your claims that Law and Order is a bad show. Case dismissed

There's this thing people do which is very strange to me: they take the time to google, they take the time to read and they take the time to write - and then they take the time to make direct response or contact impossible. Why are people so afraid of contact?

Kitsy, I don't bite. I'm certainly not going to try and ram my interpretation of L&O down your throat. I already have a forum for my opinion - which is my web-site. I'm glad you commented and I'd have been delighted to send you an e-mail saying as much.

Kitsy, I wasn't arguing "against" L&O, I don't believe I ever said it was a "bad" show. Rather, I discussed what I perceive as aesthetic flaws that detract from the potential power of the show. I see those flaws as stemming from the narrative structure of the show, which you seem to feel that I have mischaracterized or misemphasized. However, what I have said about the show is consistent with this description of the show's premise:

" Law and Order is a two-tiered legal drama following a single crime through its police investigation and prosecution in each episode. In the first half of each show, police investigate the crime and apprehend the suspects; in the second half, the district attorney's office prosecutes the offenders. The show follows the crime elements of the story almost exclusively -- the personal lives of the characters are only rarely alluded to, and the camera almost never follows them home. "

I think it would be more accurate to suggest that you do not find the narrative structure of the show annoying while I clearly do. As Kevin points out above, there are other compensations in L&O as well. And my comparison of the show to Balzac, while admittedly a throw-away line, was not idle - and does not, in truth, work very well as an insult. In all seriousness, if you are a fan of L&O, you would probably like Balzac's works. Start with something from the "Scenes from Parisian Life" like Father Goriot or A Prince of Bohemia.

As for taking the time to "bash": on the one hand, it is my web-site and I can write what I wanna, and on the other, television is important! It is ubiquitous in the lives of Americans, much of our current culture consists of it, and we export it in abundance. Therefore, TV demands thought.

My wife is a L&O fan. I think it contributes to the dumbing down of society. However, I end up watching it quite a bit because when it's her turn to choose, that's what she chooses. Sure I could leave and go do something else, but I'm often too lazy or prefer hanging out with her on the couch.

Anyway, why the hell does every court case they prosecute end up in the Supreme Court?!

Please help! I think there are many problems with the show, but this one keeps we awake at night. It's just not right.

Could someone please email me an answer?

Thanks for being there. I feel better already.

Belden

I never thought googling "I Hate Law & Order" would come up with a hit--but who knew?

My only beef is how self-righteous everyone is. It's as if they modeled everyone after Judge Judy. There's a certain voyeuristic thrill to watching someone backhand the guilty party, but after a while it's just predictable and old. And with all the spin-offs, it's predictable and old nearly every night of the week.

I never thought googling "I Hate Law & Order" would come up with a hit--but who knew?

My only beef is how self-righteous everyone is. It's as if they modeled everyone after Judge Judy. There's a certain voyeuristic thrill to watching someone backhand the guilty party, but after a while it's just predictable and old. And with all the spin-offs, it's predictable and old nearly every night of the week.

Question: Whatever happened to shows about heroic defense attorneys battling corrupt prosecutors attempting to railroad the wrongfully accused? Why are we encouraged to assume that the forces of "law and order" are ethically superior to the defendant? Remember Matlock? Bad TV also, but much better for the soul.