Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The other night we were watching a re-run episode of Bones. It was a case involving a vintage arcade game and an autistic boy, and at one point, the main character, Dr. Brennan, noticed that the victim had been killed in the exact same manner as the monkey is dispatched on the final level of the game. When the plot reached its climax, and the murderer was revealed, that fact was insignificant. A red herring? Maybe, but I don't think so. Ever since I've been dabbling in writing that novel, I've found that I'm more aware, and usually more appreciative, of how writers develop their plots. It happens when I read, and when I watch TV and movies, too. It's like some kind of literary spidey sense. Anyway, regarding the Bones episode? I have a tingling that they changed the ending. The only way the detail about the killing makes sense is if the culprit was going to be the kid, but who thinks an autistic child murderer is good TV? Much better if his dad did it instead, right?
Posted by Tracey at 11:29 PM