I'm interrupting my Independence Day viewing of the Monk marathon on the USA network to comment on that series' continued emphasis on its main character's adherence to critical thinking, at least when he's on a case. I've discussed the series extensively elsewhere. In the episode "Mr. Monk and the Other Detective," which is part of today's marathon, the "other detective", Marty Eels, played to perfection by Jason Alexander, claims to be able to figure out the perpetrators of a murder and theft by, among other things, sniffing a dog's breath. Adrian Monk objects to his methods even though he doesn't yet know how Eels gets his results, because he senses that something other than pure reason and deduction is at work here. His friend Captain Stottlemeyer tells him, in effect, that even though Monk doesn't understand the man's methods, he shouldn't automatically assume that Eels is a trickster. The name "Eels" is ironically wonderful for this detective, implying slipperyness, slickness, and the ability to evade capture, to be here and gone--precisely what Marty cannot do, since he was and is a bumbler. Stottlemeyer tells Monk that he, Stottlemeyer, often thinks that Monk's methods are magic when they are just due to superior deductive reasoning and observation. But he believes in Monk anyway. Stottlemeyer's reaction puts me in mind of Arthur C. Clarke's third law of prediction: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Here, any sufficiently advanced deductive ability is indistinguishable from magic--think of USA's companion series Psych. Note, though, that Monk never claims psychic ability--in fact he disclaims it loudly (as does Eels). But I'll leave that for another post. Why couldn't that be the explanation here? Says Monk, firmly, but so far without foundation, "He's cheating." Stottlemeyer's response is, "This isn't fourth grade." In other words: Monk shouldn't be so competitive and jealous. But Stottlemeyer should think for a minute: whenever Monk finally reveals all--usually at the end of the episode, he always patiently gives a rational explanation for all of his deductions. Eels doesn't have this kind of track record.
Of course, events eventually prove Monk correct. Eels is cheating, although only Monk's circle of close friends finds out, even though the script suggests that the reason for his success needs to be disclosed to the district attorney--it's a big hole in the story, considering that he also gives a press conference hyping his role in the solution of the case. Eels ends up with the teaching position that Monk has briefly considered accepting (after Eels' success made Monk doubt his powers). And that ending puts me in mind of another saying: those can, do: those who can't, teach. Gee, I hope not.
Comments