Adrien Monk and Gregory House are the protagonist of the TV Series Mr. Monk and Dr. House. Is it chance that these two are so similar? How do small differences in these lead characters progogate throughout the story and generate so many differneces. These are the subjects of this critique?
The protagonist of these two series have many parallels. In what ways are they similar and in what ways are they the same.
The writers create sympathy for these protagonist by making them the best at what they do. Their essential gift is a prodigious intelligence. Monk is blessed with a eidetic memory, uncanny intelligence, where as House's gifts are rather more whimsical he is a storehouse of trivia as will have new hobbies every other episodes.
To counter balance their inhuman talent each is given a psychological flow to evoke empathy in the viewer. Monk's psychological fragility is the manifestation of his character flaw. House's condition is less obvious. His suffers from chronic pain but his condition may well be psychological too since it miraculously vanish when he is forgets about it. Both of them are emotionally immature and unhappy. Their gift is also a curse in this regard for neither protagonist can use his well honed perceptions when it comes to his own situation, and this usualt impedes his ability to make any real progress.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde could hardly be more different than Dr. House and Mr. Monk. Were the two to ever meet the Dr would cure the detective and probably end up behind bars.
Shared Points Of View
The similarities in both these protagonist's world views stems from their innately rationalist approach. Plato placed high value on a doctor's diagnostic capabilities may have even appreciated his Socratic method of "teaching" his staff.
Monk's astute powers of observations and deduction though similar to the doctor's are rarely transfered to a his colleagues. His ability is portrayed as a knack that is barely under his control.
Moral Premise and Values
In Monk the series there is always a child like distinction between right and wrong. The villeins are evil just as Mr Monk can do no wrong. Monk judges everyone by his own uncompromising standard. As a rule, the antagonists are remorseless murderers. They will generally compound their initial crime with one of hubris - return to the scene of the crime, commit a second murder or practically confess that they left behind no proof.
House the series does on occasion appear to explore moral issues. But Dr House thrives in the region of moral uncertainty and has no use for any moral code that stands in the way of his "puzzle". When ever he get the chance he play god, manipulating his patients to take the decisions he prefers regardless of their own free will or even best interest. Is it therefore less surprising that they will see god's hands where house has chosen to interfere. He will preserve life regardless of the cost to the individual. In the end though Dr House is a always lucky when grumbling with his patient's life.
Both approaches have their issues. Monk's lack of moral conflict is rather simplistic and keeps the story too safe. In the case of House the the moral relativity which he practices ultimately robs the story line of real meaning. The viewer can be shocked once or twice as house gambles with a person's life to see how his supporting cast reacts but as this process repeats over and over it looses all of its power. Within the hospital Life and Death pf the patients trumps the politics or relationships in importance.
Active and Reactive
House's format shifts from active to reactive keeping story events well balanced.
Both shows offer plots that are severely limited by the constrains of their format.
Character Arc
House will have opportunities to learn many lessons about life more so when he meets people who see his unhappiness and are better able to understand the solutions to his deficiencies. Such encounters will only pacify Monk momentarily and he appears unable to make real lasting change.
Seasons come and go and monk undergoes no real change he is functionally no different from the man we meet in the first chapter, not withstanding meeting his personal nemesis in the form of a former lover; being put in his place by a bigoted cop version of himself; or even having had a complete nervous breakdown.
Monk takes the other path. His arc appears to be asymptotic to progress. He progresses ever more slowly and reverts once he crosses the threshold of recovery.