The Writers of Criminal Minds: Our Scribes

[Old Dog]

I think it must be possible to be original yet credible in writing for crime procedurals without lifting practically identical stories from other shows. I see the news and read the papers and while crimes may have similar motives, every crime is pretty unique. I don't want them to dream up really outlandish and over the top storylines in an effort to be original but neither do I want to see the very same story just replicated across procedurals. The capacity for humanity to hurt one another seems pretty infinite and so should the opportunities to depict crime in an original but realistic way.

[spinner33]

I really prefer cases that are grounded in reality too.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think it must be possible to be original yet credible in writing for crime procedurals without lifting practically identical stories from other shows. I see the news and read the papers and while crimes may have similar motives, every crime is pretty unique. I don't want them to dream up really outlandish and over the top storylines in an effort to be original but neither do I want to see the very same story just replicated across procedurals. The capacity for humanity to hurt one another seems pretty infinite and so should the opportunities to depict crime in an original but realistic way.

 

I think it is possible, but if sex sells, so does violence. Particularly on American television because we're so weird about our standards. We take out the sex and leave in the violence, which is why you can watch Saving Private Ryan with its many scenes of battle-related gore on TNT, but women on TV have sex with their bras on.

 

Real murderers are incredibly mundane. For every Ted Bundy, there's a dozen or more people who kill someone during a holdup or a carjacking. Hell, the reason Aileen Wuornos got so much attention is precisely because female serial killers are so rare. But I think Hollywood in general has the idea that no one would watch if every killer isn't Hannibal Lecter cutting off the faces of their victims. That isn't true, IMO, but in general I think Suits have very little idea of what people really want to watch.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Old Dog]

 

I think it is possible, but if sex sells, so does violence. Particularly on American television because we're so weird about our standards. We take out the sex and leave in the violence, which is why you can watch Saving Private Ryan with its many scenes of battle-related gore on TNT, but women on TV have sex with their bras on.

 

Ha! Do you know for a long time I wondered if it was an American thing for women to have sex partially clothed because over here in UK TV land women take their bras off! Every single time I see that it jars on me because in reality the bra is pretty much the first thing to go!

[zannej]

The people in charge of the standards of what is ok to show on TV and what is not ok are very strangely skewed. They made fun of it on south park. Horrible deplorable violence is ok so long as they don't say any "dirty words" or show too much skin.

 

I think Kat Dennings once mentioned that on US TV/movies it is ok to show a man's face when he's having an orgasm, but if they show a woman's face when she's having an orgasm it makes it rated R. We vilify sex/nudity more than violence. It really doesn't make sense. I guess its based on some kind of Puritanical standards.

 

I think certain writers on CM don't really come up with their own creative ideas and you can tell they rip things from other stories-- like Dunkle's blatant rip-off of Perfume: The Story of a Murderer with "Sense Memory". and one of the ones was a rip-off of Misery only with female victims (not sure on the writer for that one).

 

Someone who visited the CM set twice was talking about her experience. When she visited in season 4 apparently the board in the writer's room had the entire season mapped out (and it was early in the season). I get the impression that the current ones are not that organized and don't have things mapped out that far ahead. Because they sometimes seem like they start something and then can't figure out how to finish it or change directions in the middle of the season.

[MCatry]

 

Someone who visited the CM set twice was talking about her experience. When she visited in season 4 apparently the board in the writer's room had the entire season mapped out (and it was early in the season). I get the impression that the current ones are not that organized and don't have things mapped out that far ahead. Because they sometimes seem like they start something and then can't figure out how to finish it or change directions in the middle of the season.

This.

Sometimes it feels like they are lost in the middle of their own episodes, let alone the season.

Along the last four seasons these writers murdered continuity and canon over and over again.

[Danielg342]

I think there are a few things going on in terms of the writing in general.

 

As far as sex vs. violence goes, I think there are a few things going on. First, I'm guessing there's perhaps a fear in Hollywood of "not appealing to feminists" so there's this desire not to sexualize women if they can avoid it, out of a perception that women in Hollywood have been sexualized far more than men have. I think it's bunk- both men and women get sexualized just as often, just in different contexts (I once pointed this out to a feminist once and was immediately called a "misogynist"...you can guess how the rest of the conversation went), and the truth is, in Hollywood, if you're not someone younger than 40 with washboard abs, a plump behind, nice flowing locks and a shapely chest (with the requirement that you show these off at one point during your career), you'll be hard-pressed to find any work (those that do only do so out of reputation or type-casting, which is where many gain their reputation in the first place).

 

Perception is clearly not reality in Hollywood, it seems.

 

Secondly, I think there may be a bit of "projectionism" going on. There's at least the belief that audiences want their characters to do things that they only wish they could do, which is why you can have any number of "badass" characters- criminal or lawful alike- who can kick, maim or kill people with reckless abandon but will not under any circumstance, rape someone. Our society treats sex as something special, so we want our characters to respect that, but we'll give our characters a pass for violence because we all have some deep-seated urge to strike out at people who wrong us- we just know we're not on a TV show so we hold back. It's why guys like Hans Landa (Inglorious Basterds), Dexter Morgan (Dexter) and Raymond "Red" Reddington (The Blacklist) can be so popular- they do the things that we only wish we could do. Hence why you can have a lot of blood and a lot of death because there isn't a time where we haven't wished that upon someone (even if we don't want to think about that), but the minute they lay an unwanted sexual hand on someone we recoil- because, the thinking goes, who'd ever want to wish that upon someone?

 

To me, I find both perceptions to be rather bothersome. On the feminist side of things, it'd be a mistake that you'd lose the appeal of feminists because you show sex- like with everything, it's about how it's presented, not just because it's there. Sexy women- and sex in general- shouldn't be something you just throw in there out of the mistaken belief it attracts viewers- it should mean something, like everything else in the story. This also doesn't have to be about feminism either- I think gratuitous sex, just like gratuitous violence or gratuitous anything, is just lazy writing. It's one of the reasons why I hate Game of Thrones (shocker, I know)- it just seems to be an excuse to have women running around allergic to their clothes (that, and the fact that too many people get killed). If I want porn, I'll go look at porn, I don't need to see it on a TV show anymore.

 

I also think it's a fool's game to try to appease feminists or any other kind of group, really: we already know you can't please everyone, so there's no point in trying. I always believe that no matter what story you tell- even if it isn't "politically correct"- if it's true to your heart, you've worked hard and you keep plugging away at it, you will find an audience, because I think any story, regardless of how "unpalatable" it may appear to be, can be done well if it's told right. Perhaps it's wishy-washy, but I believe it to be true. Regardless, trying to do something with the sole goal of achieving a best-seller or the top of the ratings or the Top of the Pops is a fool's game, because it doesn't work that way. Tell the story you want to tell first and work at it so it's to your ultimate satisfaction and the rest of things will work themselves out. It doesn't happen before.

 

Then as far as writing criminals are concerned, I'm troubled with the lack of rape. Not because I have a desire to rape someone- please, that couldn't be further from the truth- but because criminals who don't rape is just patently unrealistic. How believable is it that you have someone who has no issues at all disfiguring or blowing away some dirtbag but somehow can restrain themselves when an opportunity for sex presents itself? You can't have people who so blatantly disrespect the body in one way but won't in another way- reckless is reckless, no matter what. When it comes to an "honourable" criminal, like Dexter or Red, if they're so willing to torture a man who wronged them before killing him, why wouldn't they rape a woman who wronged them before killing them? Because then audiences wouldn't like them? Big deal, I say- they're criminals, you're not supposed to like them. I believe that when you write a criminal, you don't write them with the expectation that they'll get sympathy- you write them with the expectation that they'll be interesting. You can't ask people to side with someone who's already deplorable- but you can ask people to follow along, because we're fascinated with what makes people do the things they do. The many books about serial killers is proof of that.

 

When it comes to CM, specifically, I always roll my eyes at the many criminals who tie up and gag their unsuspecting victims and then do something mundane like slice their throat. Really? You've got a pretty girl- or guy, in some cases- at your mercy- and you're not even going to think about...that (you know what I mean)? How many real serial killers are serial killers and rapists at the same time? Many. On CM, I can only think of three UnSubs who were killers/rapists- Timothy Vogel ("Extreme Aggressor"), William Lee ("Aftermath") and Billy Flynn ("Our Darkest Hour"/"The Longest Night")- though the CM Wiki lists 30 of them, though not all were UnSubs and not all were killers. I'm not saying that every UnSub should also be a rapist, but clearly we haven't had enough of them. The show doesn't have to display the rape on screen, like it doesn't need to show the violence- it can all be implied.

 

Don't get me wrong- I get that, as a society, we're leery about rape and believe it's one of the most heinous crimes out there. I'm not disputing that. However, murder and violent assault are about as heinous, and we've come to terms that they happen. It's about time we realize that rape happens too, and stop trying to hide from it. I could go on some screed about "rape culture" and the ridiculous hysteria surrounding it but I won't. I just know that the more we treat rape like it's "some thing we never talk about" and treat the victims like babies who need to be constantly coddled and "protected" (and never actually provided with real help), it'll just galvanize the rapists even more, not less. A rapist wants attention and power, and the way things are, they know that if they commit the crime they'll get tons of exposure and the knowledge that their victims won't stop thinking about them, ensuring they have control over them forever.

 

I, for one, don't want that, and CM could have been the perfect vessel to explore all that and tell people, "hey, let's fix this problem instead of hiding from it". Instead, like the rest of Hollywood they stick their heads in the sand like the ostrich, and it's a shame. A crying shame.

[spinner33]

I think you can show a more realistic portrayal of the actual crimes without having to sink into torture porn and gore squicking in every episode, or resorting to kooky freaks as the unsubs.  The bird guy from Nelson's Sparrow was so unrealistic that he wasn't frightening, he was laughable.   It feels like the writers are having a contest as to who can come up with the weirdest unsub with the most implausible motivation behind the crimes committed. 

[Droogie]

I think CM could have serial rapist(s) and make good television. They haven't done it to death. I would love a truly scary UnSub again. There have been a few movies I've where the "bad guys" have been sooooooo bad that it was a visceral relief when they finally met the wrong end of someone's gun, etc. Sometimes seeing that instant justice is cathartic. Does that make me awful? Surely not. It's television.

I do disagree about the rape being a sort of logical crime to commit while committing other crimes, and about the "pretty" comment. Rape isn't about looks, even a little. Sometimes I guess rapists have a type, but pretty or not pretty -- doesn't matter. And if robbery/murder/slicing up folks is your "thing," it doesn't mean that rape would be also. Rape is a very specific crime, with very specific motives. Sure, it does follow that sometimes the person who is raped is also murdered, but that is also part of the scheme. I've read about criminals who proudly proclaim all the horrible things they've done but become positively horrified when it is suggested that they may have raped someone. Criminals have their own codes, and rapists don't do well in prison because of it.

A serial rapist on CM -- without any weird kinks, but just someone average and "normal" who may or may not be also killing his victims, so they'd have to actually profile -- would be freaking scary.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Ha! Do you know for a long time I wondered if it was an American thing for women to have sex partially clothed because over here in UK TV land women take their bras off! Every single time I see that it jars on me because in reality the bra is pretty much the first thing to go!

 

The first time I ever watched Prime Suspect[, I was stunned at how often Jane Tennison took her kit off, and of course some asses had to make mention of it in a bad way because Helen Mirren was in her fifties at the time. I know women my age who wish they looked like her currently, but God forbid a woman past thirty should get naked.

 

I think gratuitous sex, just like gratuitous violence or gratuitous anything, is just lazy writing. It's one of the reasons why I hate Game of Thrones (shocker, I know)- it just seems to be an excuse to have women running around allergic to their clothes (that, and the fact that too many people get killed). If I want porn, I'll go look at porn, I don't need to see it on a TV show anymore.

 

Then as far as writing criminals are concerned, I'm troubled with the lack of rape. Not because I have a desire to rape someone- please, that couldn't be further from the truth- but because criminals who don't rape is just patently unrealistic. How believable is it that you have someone who has no issues at all disfiguring or blowing away some dirtbag but somehow can restrain themselves when an opportunity for sex presents itself? You can't have people who so blatantly disrespect the body in one way but won't in another way- reckless is reckless, no matter what. When it comes to an "honourable" criminal, like Dexter or Red, if they're so willing to torture a man who wronged them before killing him, why wouldn't they rape a woman who wronged them before killing them? Because then audiences wouldn't like them? Big deal, I say- they're criminals, you're not supposed to like them. I believe that when you write a criminal, you don't write them with the expectation that they'll get sympathy- you write them with the expectation that they'll be interesting. You can't ask people to side with someone who's already deplorable- but you can ask people to follow along, because we're fascinated with what makes people do the things they do. The many books about serial killers is proof of that.

 

I couldn't figure out how to break your post up, DanielG342. To a limited point, I agree with you, but on some procedurals (looking at you, SVU) rapists and child molesters are seen as the lowest of the low and, if you believe television, they have similar forms of abuse to "look forward to" if they go to prison. Because CM often deals with murderers instead, that's not as much of a theme. And really, given the tendency of the characters to shoot an UnSub first and ask questions later (not always, but a lot of the time) the bad guys don't live long enough to face their sentence.

 

As far as the writing goes, at a few significant points its come up that the main characters would like to put aside their badges. In particular, Elle and Hotch crossed that line, Hotch to a much lesser extent due to the terrible circumstances he was facing in that moment. And when Emily "died", Morgan said that he'd like to quit his job and go look for Ian Doyle so he could deal with him personally. But we saw what it cost Elle, even though I don't think she was about to go on some murderous rampage, and had the inquiry gone the other way for Hotch, it might have cost him the same thing. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and as Rossi said, "They're the bad guys. That's why we profile them."

 

Does it make sense to "side with" a character who kills as long as they don't violate anyone sexually? I don't have the answer to that, and I'm probably the wrong person to ask anyway since I didn't start to detest Spike until he decided he was "in love" with Buffy. Obsessed with was more like it IMO, but regardless he, and eventually the writers, called it love. Would Christian Grey be seen as a romantic figure if he didn't have eleventy billion dollars and a body like an underwear model? I don't know that, either. I wish I did, then I could write my own version of Fifty Shades of Crap and live fat and happy for the rest of my life. As for CM, as spinner33 said, it isn't necessary to make every killer the Freak of the Week to make their case compelling. The writers should follow their own vision, sure, but not at the expense of creating a decent episode. As for Game of Thrones, I think this about covers it:

 

 

[missmycat]

 

The first time I ever watched Prime Suspect[, I was stunned at how often Jane Tennison took her kit off, and of course some asses had to make mention of it in a bad way because Helen Mirren was in her fifties at the time. I know women my age who wish they looked like her currently, but God forbid a woman past thirty should get naked.

 

 

I couldn't figure out how to break your post up, DanielG342. To a limited point, I agree with you, but on some procedurals (looking at you, SVU) rapists and child molesters are seen as the lowest of the low and, if you believe television, they have similar forms of abuse to "look forward to" if they go to prison. Because CM often deals with murderers instead, that's not as much of a theme. And really, given the tendency of the characters to shoot an UnSub first and ask questions later (not always, but a lot of the time) the bad guys don't live long enough to face their sentence.

 

As far as the writing goes, at a few significant points its come up that the main characters would like to put aside their badges. In particular, Elle and Hotch crossed that line, Hotch to a much lesser extent due to the terrible circumstances he was facing in that moment. And when Emily "died", Morgan said that he'd like to quit his job and go look for Ian Doyle so he could deal with him personally. But we saw what it cost Elle, even though I don't think she was about to go on some murderous rampage, and had the inquiry gone the other way for Hotch, it might have cost him the same thing. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and as Rossi said, "They're the bad guys. That's why we profile them."

 

Does it make sense to "side with" a character who kills as long as they don't violate anyone sexually? I don't have the answer to that, and I'm probably the wrong person to ask anyway since I didn't start to detest Spike until he decided he was "in love" with Buffy. Obsessed with was more like it IMO, but regardless he, and eventually the writers, called it love. Would Christian Grey be seen as a romantic figure if he didn't have eleventy billion dollars and a body like an underwear model? I don't know that, either. I wish I did, then I could write my own version of Fifty Shades of Crap and live fat and happy for the rest of my life. As for CM, as spinner33 said, it isn't necessary to make every killer the Freak of the Week to make their case compelling. The writers should follow their own vision, sure, but not at the expense of creating a decent episode. As for Game of Thrones, I think this about covers it:

That clip was hilarious. And it sort of reminded me of a cartoon I saw once many years ago in one of the "Mad Magazines" Anyways this girl had borrowed what she thought was her friend's bikini because she had left her own bathing suit at home.Afterwards she goes out to the poolside,it was a public pool with a lot of people there. However she soon learns from her friend,who was in the pool at the time,that it wasn't a bikini like she originally believe,but instead it was underwear. Where upon she screams in horror and tries to cover herself up.

[Danielg342]

Allow me to say a few things here:

1) Cobalt Stargazer that video was hilarious. Sums up my view of HBO rather well.

2) On originality: wanted to bring this up before but the post got massive. I agree that I want my crimes to be grounded in reality and not done with the intent of “out-squicking” another writer. I also believe that, in the crime genre, there's little that can be done that hasn't been done before, making it that much more important to develop interesting characters and deeper stories, because you're not going to re-invent the wheel at this stage.

3) I think there's a world of difference between criminals who commit crimes because they had to “deal” with someone who wronged them, “career” criminals like a gang leader or a mobster who view crimes as a “means to an end” (and even there, I'd find it hard to believe that every single one of those wouldn't rape if given the chance to, even if it's more of the “coerced sex” variety than an actual violent act) and the criminals on CM, who are as depraved and demented as they come. The whole premise behind CM is that they profile the lowest of the low, the ones who have such a warped view of their wants and desires that they have no respect for human life. Let's face it, the CM criminals are not ones that other criminals would aspire to be.

4) I'm not saying that every criminal on CM should be a rapist. I understand, every killer has their “thing” and for some, rape might not be a part of that. I just think that the number of rapists on CM is rather low, especially given how many times it's implied the UnSubs are committing sexually-based crimes and seem to have their victims at their mercy.

5) I've never heard rapists in general having a hard time in prison, just child rapists. There's a thread on Reddit that asks former prisoners about this specifically and the former prisoners who responded were all adamant that that rapists don't get special treatment from the other inmates (child rapists are a different matter). Anyway, I know enough people- and not just feminist propagandists who say they exist- who genuinely believe that women “ask for it” when they (insert action/style of dress here) that there are enough people out there who genuinely believe that rape is a valid course of action, even if they may not readily admit it.

6) As far as SVU is concerned, I think of it as a poor example of a show that deals with rape. First of all, right off the bat they tell you that the show is about “the most heinous acts anyone could commit”, so it feeds into the “rape culture” hysteria that rapists are somehow super-duper evil villains with mystical powers that only “dedicated” investigators can catch. Secondly, the show is extremely “black and white” about things, meaning there's little exploration- meaning a lot of times they recycle the same situations only that they may change up who the victims are and how many of them are there. The show doesn't really “talk” about rape, instead making it a simplistic show of “good vs evil” and I think that does everyone- especially the victims- a disservice. Victims often feel like they brought things upon themselves, with many wrestling with whether or not they should go to the police; along with the many who feel that, once they do go to the police, they don't get listened to. Unless it's an arc, SVU really doesn't do that kind of exploration, resulting in a trivialization of what far too many people go through and that's not right.

7) Ultimately, though, I think Hollywood's avoidance of rape has become so ubiquitous that it in of itself has become a cliche. It strains credibility that Hollywood can create all these villains and yet none of them are rapists, as if Hollywood wants to pretend like rape doesn't exist. Well, sorry guys but it does and the sooner you come to terms with that the sooner we might be able to start solving the problems surrounding rape. I'm not saying that every villain from now on should be a rapist- far from it- but I think we need to do more to explore this crime and start a dialogue about it.

Maybe, just maybe, if rape victims are given stories about rape victims they can relate to, with those perpetrators being brought to justice, they can start to feel that maybe their own crime can get solved as well. I know, it's not wise to draw your hope from TV land, but never doubt the power of catharsis. We all know fiction can inspire people to accomplish real feats, so maybe if TV starts beating into our heads that, “yes we can deal with rape (in a realistic manner)”, then maybe real life can catch up.

We just need to start the conversation first.

[Droogie]

I promise I'm not trying to beat a dead horse. :-)

I agree that rape is "under-represented," for lack of a better word, in film/on TV. Perhaps because it is so taboo; such a violation. A man could never understand the fear of rape women have. They may be compassionate and understanding, but they do not understand. Most women are no match for a man who means them harm. I've never been raped and don't think about it at great length, but a woman is nearly always vulnerable, if a man is leaning that way. It's a horrifying thought.

And I'll reiterate that your average thug wouldn't rape if that wasn't already his "thing." Rough sex is one thing, but a rapist has a very specific mindset, and just because there is a woman handy does not mean someone already in the process of committing a crime is going to add rape to his rap sheet.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Droogie

[normasm]

Allow me to say a few things here:

1) Cobalt Stargazer that video was hilarious. Sums up my view of HBO rather well.

2) On originality: wanted to bring this up before but the post got massive. I agree that I want my crimes to be grounded in reality and not done with the intent of “out-squicking” another writer. I also believe that, in the crime genre, there's little that can be done that hasn't been done before, making it that much more important to develop interesting characters and deeper stories, because you're not going to re-invent the wheel at this stage.

3) I think there's a world of difference between criminals who commit crimes because they had to “deal” with someone who wronged them, “career” criminals like a gang leader or a mobster who view crimes as a “means to an end” (and even there, I'd find it hard to believe that every single one of those wouldn't rape if given the chance to, even if it's more of the “coerced sex” variety than an actual violent act) and the criminals on CM, who are as depraved and demented as they come. The whole premise behind CM is that they profile the lowest of the low, the ones who have such a warped view of their wants and desires that they have no respect for human life. Let's face it, the CM criminals are not ones that other criminals would aspire to be.

4) I'm not saying that every criminal on CM should be a rapist. I understand, every killer has their “thing” and for some, rape might not be a part of that. I just think that the number of rapists on CM is rather low, especially given how many times it's implied the UnSubs are committing sexually-based crimes and seem to have their victims at their mercy.

5) I've never heard rapists in general having a hard time in prison, just child rapists. There's a thread on Reddit that asks former prisoners about this specifically and the former prisoners who responded were all adamant that that rapists don't get special treatment from the other inmates (child rapists are a different matter). Anyway, I know enough people- and not just feminist propagandists who say they exist- who genuinely believe that women “ask for it” when they (insert action/style of dress here) that there are enough people out there who genuinely believe that rape is a valid course of action, even if they may not readily admit it.

6) As far as SVU is concerned, I think of it as a poor example of a show that deals with rape. First of all, right off the bat they tell you that the show is about “the most heinous acts anyone could commit”, so it feeds into the “rape culture” hysteria that rapists are somehow super-duper evil villains with mystical powers that only “dedicated” investigators can catch. Secondly, the show is extremely “black and white” about things, meaning there's little exploration- meaning a lot of times they recycle the same situations only that they may change up who the victims are and how many of them are there. The show doesn't really “talk” about rape, instead making it a simplistic show of “good vs evil” and I think that does everyone- especially the victims- a disservice. Victims often feel like they brought things upon themselves, with many wrestling with whether or not they should go to the police; along with the many who feel that, once they do go to the police, they don't get listened to. Unless it's an arc, SVU really doesn't do that kind of exploration, resulting in a trivialization of what far too many people go through and that's not right.

7) Ultimately, though, I think Hollywood's avoidance of rape has become so ubiquitous that it in of itself has become a cliche. It strains credibility that Hollywood can create all these villains and yet none of them are rapists, as if Hollywood wants to pretend like rape doesn't exist. Well, sorry guys but it does and the sooner you come to terms with that the sooner we might be able to start solving the problems surrounding rape. I'm not saying that every villain from now on should be a rapist- far from it- but I think we need to do more to explore this crime and start a dialogue about it.

Maybe, just maybe, if rape victims are given stories about rape victims they can relate to, with those perpetrators being brought to justice, they can start to feel that maybe their own crime can get solved as well. I know, it's not wise to draw your hope from TV land, but never doubt the power of catharsis. We all know fiction can inspire people to accomplish real feats, so maybe if TV starts beating into our heads that, “yes we can deal with rape (in a realistic manner)”, then maybe real life can catch up.

We just need to start the conversation first.

 

This is a very dense and pithy subject, and your perspective, while I don't totally agree with your view, is refreshing and invites dialogue. I agree we need to converse about rape in our culture, and, on a different tack, about Rape Culture. 

 

First, I will not comment on SVU because i don't watch it. I don't watch it because it's primarily about rape (or so I perceive), and rape (as a subject) is a trigger for me. I try to deal with it in real life, but when I see bogus depictions of rape and the effect it has on victims, I foam at the mouth. I have been a feminist since childhood, before I even knew what the term meant, and to me it simply means that females matter as much as males, but they are not the same in some ways that are great (for both sexes). 

 

To me, your point (3) - in which you contrast [the subjects of CM as] someone who is wronged with a killer for hire and say you can't believe either wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to rape - makes me quake in my boots. The unsubs who are the driving force of the BAU, the raison d'etre for the profiling system, are almost 100% damaged people who were brutalized (raped, humiliated, injured, tortured, forced to harm others) and are no longer able to deal with their impulses in any way but "to eleven." To say that these are similar to people for hire to kill or brutalize or people who just take advantage of others and, of course, they would rape any time they could - just because - is evidence of the rape culture in this country, and you may be right that they would. The ones you call "killers" may be in it just for bloodlust, and the sexual component - while there - does not include rape, either because the killer is impotent, or because it doesn't need to (the killing sparks the orgasm, so rape isn't even desirable or maybe not even possible).

 

Hollywood doesn't avoid rape, Hollywood exploits it for ratings. Hollywood wallows in rape, IMO. I feel the amount of rape depictions one can see on regular TV may keep some relatively "normal" people satisfied with their impulses. Some, like Ted Bundy, can't control the impulses, and seek out more graphic porn and act out in real life too (like Dahmer). The sort of depiction of rape on shows like CM is, at times, simply not honest, doesn't depict the real reasons behind it, which all have to do with the rapist, not the victim (at all).

 

We hear all the time about people who were brutally raped who are questioned as if they made it happen, or are responsible for being raped. The focus is frequently on the victim and what they may have done, not on the person who used their control to deprive a person of theirs. This is why many people, women, men, children, don't even report the crime that robs them of their lives and puts them at risk for violence and suicide. 

 

So, yeah, the fact that CM doesn't depict rape realistically for the victims in this country is a disservice, but since "sex" sells in this country (and make no mistake, rape is sold as sex on TV) they will always use the implication of rape, if not the depiction of it and its aftermath (for the victim).

 

Hope i don't offend anyone here, but i think we're all thoughtful adults.

[Danielg342]

Perhaps I don't watch enough cable, since on network TV at least I don't see too many rapes...but that's semantics anyway. Normasm, I think we can both agree that rape depictions are hardly accurate and on point- far too often, it's the old "man leaps from the bushes and attacks an unsuspecting woman" when we all know the vast majority of rapes are far different from that.

 

(Although it should be pointed out the "man in the bushes" was a real person from time to time...this was Paul Bernardo's modus operandi in 1989)

 

I think we've hit the nail on the head by determing what's wrong is that Hollywood does not treat rape in a sensitive or realistic manner- it's about titilation, it's about cheap thrills and, ultimately, it's all about shock value. There's no thought about what the victim has to go through or the difficulties law enforcement has in achieving successful prosecution (which is the unfortunate reality)- rape is glossed over, treated as "yet another act", when it should at least carry the same weight as a murder. Rape has the same effect, the only difference is a murder victim doesn't have to live after the ordeal.

 

As far as what criminals would commit rape- well, I'd disagree that all killers wouldn't rape, but I fear I'd just be going in circles. I will ask, normasm, is the number of rapists on CM too high or too low?

 

When it comes to creating a criminal, I would be able to buy that a character predisposed to being unhinged with violent tendencies would have the capacity to commit a violent, forcible rape- it's within their wheelhouse, so to speak. As for more "suave" characters, like the mob boss, they'd likely use more subtle tactics, like manipulation or passive-aggressive tactics to "change" the victim's mind, which, at least technically, is rape. I'm not saying that all criminals would be like this, but I do think TV should allow more criminal characters to have rape in their repertoire. Far too often the rapist is depicted solely as a rapist, either as a small one-off character whose only function is to commit the crime itself and then get caught or as a serial rapist whose only objective is to create terror for the story (before getting caught). To me, that gets boring and, at least a few times, I'd appreciate a better-rounded character.

 

Lastly- and I'll get everyone disagreeing with me on this, I'm sure- but I'd like to challenge that someone who rapes can't be "redeemed" or be a protagonist. As much as most rapists are likely never going to want to atone for their acts (nor will they stop- many rapists have multiple victims before getting caught), I'm sure there's at least a few who would have remorse about what they did, like a few killers do. I recognize it's a challenge and would be very difficult to pull off effectively, but I think at some point, it can be done. If we're willing to allow killers to be redeemed, I think eventually we can allow a remorseful rapist to get redeemed as well. Perhaps the only way it could work- for now, anyway- is if you avoid a violent encounter and instead use a case of "misunderstood" sex- it's still rape but it'd be "easier" to digest. Maybe you make the one seeking redemption a kid at the time of the encounter and you can throw in the "he was young and stupid" card.

 

Or maybe I'm just off on the deep end...but, I do know stories can't get better unless we challenge them to try things a little differently.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Lastly- and I'll get everyone disagreeing with me on this, I'm sure- but I'd like to challenge that someone who rapes can't be "redeemed" or be a protagonist.

 

There's the wind-up and the pitch!

 

For once, my go-to on this doesn't come from the Buffyverse, but from One Life To Live and the character of Todd Manning. To make a very long story very short, Todd participated in the gang-rape of Marty Saybrooke, who he had a one-night stand with, and then after that she refused his piggish advances. She eventually reported the incident and pressed charges, and there was a trial and Todd went to prison, swearing revenge. After a long time, he and Marty finally made peace and he became, if not a hero, then not an utter slimeball creep as he had been.

 

But.

 

The actor who portrayed Todd, Roger Howarth, developed a real dislike for some aspects of the character's trajectory, and there was a point when he completely stopped doing press and interview and such, because a certain ;portion of the show's viewers had entirely the wrong perspective. He was doing a panel at a convention or somesuch, and an unnamed fan yelled,

"Rape me, Todd!"

After that, Howarth became extremely gunshy, and at one point he actually said that the only thing he liked about Todd was his suits. You can make out of that what you would like.

 

Done properly, I think it is possible to redeem most characters. But the key word there is 'properly', and even then you have people who see something awesome about the character being an asshole that I Just. Don't. Get. I've watched a lot of television in my lifetime, and the older I get the more annoyed I become when evil characters hang around long past the point of rationality, mostly because they're popular.

[Danielg342]

Therein lies the double standard: Dexter can slice and dice others to heart's content and be hailed a hero, but the best Todd Manning can do is get a mixed reaction. Not being much of a soap fan I didn't know the Manning story until I read up about it, although I will point out a few things:

1) Manning's story wasn't planned as such from the outset, only being changed as producers realized audiences liked the character

2) Manning's story came in the mid-90s, arguably before “anti-heroes” like Dexter became a thing, especially on TV.

Would that mean if someone tried the Manning story today that they'd succeed in creating a likeable character? That's an open question. I think what it boils down to is that I think an audience can rectify killing since we can accept certain people (like, paradoxically here, rapists) “deserve” to get killed yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where someone “deserves” to get raped, if you can find one at all.

(Maybe you can get away with a period piece where the hero conquers a scumbag's kingdom, as in ancient times, raping the king was the last act of humiliation done to him by an army that just successfully conquered his kingdom. I still think it's a mighty big “maybe” though)

I admit, the redemption storyline is a bit of a personal one for me. I've never raped anyone nor would I even want to, but I've been in situations where I've been misunderstood and the only reaction I ever get is being told I'm a complete monster. I can't tell you what that does to someone's psyche. We talk at length about how society shouldn't shame promiscuity (and I'd agree) but no one really talks about how society shames the socially awkward. I'm not looking for a pity party, but I think it would be nice if just once Hollywood acknowledged that not everyone who “acts inappropriately” is someone that needs to be shunned forever.

The other part of the rape story is that you never get a “real” depiction of what it's like for investigators to actually investigate a rape. I remember when the Jian Ghomeshi scandal first broke there was a post going around Facebook that, while not actually declaring him guilty, essentially did, with a lot of other people wanting to do away with the accused's rights to due process in general. I waded in, against my better judgement (it was going around Facebook, didn't think I could let it go), said that we can make things better for victims to come forward without ditching due process, and I even pointed out how it could be done. Someone inevitably played the “victim card” and you can tell how well the rest of the thread went (I'm still upset it was used as a shutdown tactic- I have all the respect and sympathy for victims in the world, but it's not right to ask for a pity party just to stifle legitimate discussion all because “it's not pleasant to hear”. It makes the person look self-important and that's no way to garner any kind of sympathy for their cause).

All this stuff is what makes me think “if only Hollywood could write a rape story that treats all angles with respect and sympathy.” It makes me think that when we look at rape as a society we look at it purely from an emotional standpoint and not from a logical one. I'm not dismissing that there are police officers who don't take an accusation seriously, because that does (sadly) happen, but we also seem to forget in the milieu that 99.9% of rapes don't leave witnesses or much in the way of valuable evidence.

We can get around those problems only if we start looking at things logically and not emotionally- and I think that starts with an “honest” evaluation of the subject, at least on TV (I've tried with my own writing but I'm not Hollywood so I'm not that influential). Not everyone will be happy, but I think if the effort is honest then it can be acceptable.

Truth be told, I don't think there's a better venue to explore it than CM. We're supposed to be about exploring crimes and what it means for the perps and the victims...what better way to be a trailblazer than to get back to its roots here?

[normasm]

I know this is a lively discussion, and i want to continue to participate, but the subject of rape and rape culture and violence culture is mentally draining and exhausting for me. That said, to one of your points, Daniel, that more unsubs would rape just because they could, in the early days of CM, Gideon particularly was careful to point out that some of what the killers would do was a substitute for the sex act, because these folks were thwarted by something or other, could not have normal sex, and so substituted torture, kidnapping, and stabbing for what they couldn't do. Because they couldn't perform sexually, their brutal acts became more brutal, their obsessions more absolute. This makes sense to me. I'm afraid the scenario you posit reminds me of the questionnaires and surveys that have a horrifying percentage of "normal" men saying they would rape if they knew they wouldn't be caught. This is what I point to when I talk about rape culture in this country, but it is not the subject matter on CM.

 

CoStar, thanks for bringing up OLTL and Todd Manning. I was a fan of the show and the character in the past, and remember how RH quit the show several times because of the way woman were responding to "Todd." I remember they tried to redeem the character through his daughter, etc., so they saw that it touched a nerve. But he wasn't a serial rapist, and there is a distinction, although it's very murky territory, IMO. I'm of the opinion that serial rapists cannot be rehabilitated, that the mechanism that drives them is the overwhelming pilot in control in their lives, and nothing can burn it out. 

[zannej]

On the subject of rape, I've read all sorts of outrageous attitudes-- like that one jerkwad who said women can't get pregnant from a "legitimate rape". Or people who think rape and pregnancy are "God's punishment" for "sinful women". I've seen people who thought the word "rape" was too harsh and wanted to call it some phrase (can't remember what it was-- something with unplanned or something in it). I also happened across a website that claimed to be a Christian site that advocated dominant men spanking/beating their wives and using "disciplinary rape". Disgusting.

I remember in India there was a big to-do about some politicians defending boys/men who raped women and blaming the victims. Then we have people who think rape victims should be executed because they have been "ruined". I really do think a big part of the problem is the social stigma put on rape victims. 

There are men who hate women for being afraid of being raped and say women should be despised for making them feel bad for having sexual feelings. It tends to be all about blaming the women for everything. Truly sad.

 

They have downplayed that quite a bit on CM-- in fact, they have had a disproportionate amount of cases with false rape accusations on the show. I do think some of the more run-of-the-mill realistic killers are more compelling because it is more likely that it could happen to you or someone you know and makes it more relatable. The really out-there killers just aren't as scary and are rather boring.

 

The writers really have lost their way. I wonder, IF there is another season, how many of them will be returning. There are a few that I wish would leave.

[SSAHotchner]

While watching the Cold Case series, I've caught many storylines and story elements that are too similar to later CM episodes to be coincidence.  Like the episode where the youngest detective bonds with an autistic boy who witnessed his parents' murders, and the detective's connection with the boy helps solve the mystery, because he's the only one who can understand the boy.   Like it happens on Cold Case, and then a couple years later, an eerily-similar story pops up on CM. 

 

I know it's hard to come up with original ideas, but I don't understand why the CM writers don't work from the real criminal cases that the FBI has solved.  Isn't there supposed to be an actual book of FBI murder cases that the earlier episodes were based on?  I guess real crime is too vanilla for them.  They want outlandish freaks obsessed with turning women into birds, or super evil identical twins, and other crap like that.  Or the overwhelming number of female killers they keep writing?  Because nothing says female empowerment like making your unsub a petite psycho mother who kills athletic healthy men to make plant food to save her sick child? 

Oh my goodness, I've been saying this for ages!! Thank you. The thing that irritates me most about this lazy, moronic writing is that they think we're all too stupid to notice these things. 

[SSAHotchner]

I think it must be possible to be original yet credible in writing for crime procedurals without lifting practically identical stories from other shows. I see the news and read the papers and while crimes may have similar motives, every crime is pretty unique. I don't want them to dream up really outlandish and over the top storylines in an effort to be original but neither do I want to see the very same story just replicated across procedurals. The capacity for humanity to hurt one another seems pretty infinite and so should the opportunities to depict crime in an original but realistic way.

Yes, and even if the crime is the same, the perpetrators are not all the same. I'm in total agreement with you.

[zannej]

Speaking of real life crimes that could be used on a crime show, there was a case recently mentioned on 20/20 about a woman who had 2 husbands that died and then they found out both had been poisoned with antifreeze. The widow claimed the 2nd husband killed himself and he got the idea because they both watched a program together about a woman who killed 2 husbands with antifreeze. Then the older daughter nearly died from a pill overdose and they "found" a confession/suicide note on her bed. It had details only the killer would know. The girl was only 11 when her father (the first husband) was killed. When the girl woke up, the police asked her about what she took and about the letter. She didn't know wtf they were talking about. Apparently her mother told her to drink something and kept insisting that she drink it, even though it tasted bad. She told the girl how to drink it without tasting it (by putting the straw near the back of her throat) and that it would make her feel better. The scene was staged with bottles of booze and pills. The younger daughter found the older sister and freaked out and asked the mom to call 911. The mother apparently went into the room and closed the door for a long period of time before calling 911. When she made the 911 call they could hear her typing. The alleged suicide/confession note was typed. The only prints on the letter, the pill bottles, and the liquor bottles were the mother's. So basically the bitch murdered her husbands and then tried to murder and frame her daughter.

 

I swear the woman was a total sociopath who did not know how to show the proper nonverbal cues. She was completely and utterly clueless to her body language and facial expressions giving away the important things. She didn't have the appropriate emotions for the situation. She talked about how she supposedly cried at certain points during the trial (points at which she would have been told by her lawyer would be normal for an innocent person to cry at). But one of the most interesting things was the body language contradicting her statements. Like when she was asked if she killed her husbands she said "no" but she nodded (which is a sign that she's lying). When she was asked a question where she answered "yes" she shook her head. So her mouth was saying one thing, but her body was saying another. Dumb bitch didn't even realize she was smirking like she thought she was getting away with something. The judge was seriously pissed off at this woman. When she was found guilty, her lawyer did not seem upset at all (even though I think he did the best he could to build a case for reasonable doubt).

 

Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see the team observing people and noting things like what I mentioned (also the movement of the eyes is an indicator of someone trying to come up with a lie). Like when the mother was asked a question about who had access to the husband to kill him and there was a long pause and you could literally see her trying to fabricate an answer just from her eyes.

[whitespace]

I like the story but the observation of facial expressions is more a Cal Lightman (Lie to Me) thing. Why would FBI profilers sit in a court room and "read" a person? This would need a high profile case or the involvment of the FBI in the first place (like Tabula Rasa).

[SSAHotchner]

I saw that program, Zannej. I watch a lot of true crime stuff like Forensic Files. It always amazes me how the murderer thinks he/she won't get caught. Every now and then when I'm searching for something online, I think about someone like an investigator checking out my search history. There are plenty of real cases they could use for ideas. I'm so tired of the bizarre killers they've been coming up with in the past 4 seasons and also of their need to portray these individuals as victims themselves. They seem to want us to sympathize with these characters. 

[zannej]

whitespace, I didn't mean that they would be sitting and watching someone in court. I should have clarified that. I meant that it would be interesting if while interviewing people they noticed certain cues and then later commented on it. Like say someone is interrogating a person inside of a room and the team members were either watching the video or were watching through the mirror glass and commenting on it. Like one of them could comment on how the person was nodding when saying "no", shaking their head when saying "yes", and such.

 

In the past on the show, the team used to really observe body language. Reid would usually explain to someone what he observed about the behavior/body language and what it meant. I know they try to do something similar sometimes this season where the profilers flat out tell the person what they are doing to give themselves away--- I admit that I don't like that. I would prefer to see them look at each other and then discuss it outside of the room.

 

The case I mentioned showed that the woman was not only a psychopath (with no ability to have or even try to display appropriate emotions), but she was a complete dumbass. She thought she was so clever, but she had no self-awareness. She didn't seem to be aware of how she was smirking and thinking she was actually fooling people. And she was so fucking stupid that she had her fingerprints all over all of the evidence, but she didn't try to put any of it in the hands of her victims (so the victim's fingerprints weren't on things). 

 

And speaking of real crimes, I was reading about what was going on in Ferguson and how the police were incarcerating people who didn't have enough money to pay minor traffic tickets and they were essentially holding them hostage for months without lawyers, showers, toothbrushes, changes of clothes, etc... The corruption described by the litigants in the lawsuits made the Lockdown episode pale in comparison. In this case, it was about extorting money and exerting power (but didn't have some stupid fight club angle).

 

See the article here: http://gawker.com/ferguson-and-the-criminalization-of-american-life-1692392051  and there is a link to the lawsuit with details of what the plaintiffs allege happened. If even half of it is true, its truly egregious. It would be interesting to see the team trying to deal with *that* sort of crap.

[normasm]

 

And speaking of real crimes, I was reading about what was going on in Ferguson and how the police were incarcerating people who didn't have enough money to pay minor traffic tickets and they were essentially holding them hostage for months without lawyers, showers, toothbrushes, changes of clothes, etc... The corruption described by the litigants in the lawsuits made the Lockdown episode pale in comparison. In this case, it was about extorting money and exerting power (but didn't have some stupid fight club angle).

 

See the article here: http://gawker.com/ferguson-and-the-criminalization-of-american-life-1692392051  and there is a link to the lawsuit with details of what the plaintiffs allege happened. If even half of it is true, its truly egregious. It would be interesting to see the team trying to deal with *that* sort of crap.

 

That sounds more up DOJ's alley.

Here the state makes poor people pay for their own drug tests so they can get food stamps, because 2 people out of 10,000 pretended to be poor to get them once upon a time...

[zannej]

The sad thing is, I know people who are not disabled in this state who are on disability, but I also know people who ARE disabled who can't get disability. It's just retarded.

 

Getting back on the subject of the writers, it seems like Sharon is probably the star writer right now.

[ForeverAlone]

Yep, I have to agree. Of the current batch of writers, Sharon is the MOST consistent. Granted I have not liked all of her episodes, I like more than I dislike. Breen has been faltering more in recent years so he is knocked down a notch in my list. 

[zannej]

So... Rick Dunkle deleted his twitter AGAIN... LOL. I wonder if he's not coming back next season (if there is a next season).

[Droogie]

Was he getting harassed?

[zannej]

Was he getting harassed?

I have no idea. I know he deleted his twitter for awhile after "200" aired because people didn't like the episode. I wonder if he is leaving the show. Back in January he tweeted something about a missing dog and there was an article about a Rick Dunkle moving to Indiana (or something like that) with his boyfriend and that the dog, Sahara, went missing but she was found alive later on. If he moved away from California, it could be an indication that he's not planning to stay with CM. and if he's not planning to stay, maybe he wanted out of the spotlight.

[JMO]

Passing along a message from Tari, who has conducted a number of interviews with various CM personnel.  Some time next week, she'll be interviewing Andrew Wilder, a former CM writer----looking at his IMDB page, it seems like he was involved in a number of the more popular episodes in the early seasons.  Per Tari, he's agreed to be open and honest, including about how he came to leave CM. 

 

If anyone has a message for Andrew, or a question they'd like to see put to him, send it to:  criminalmindsfanatics@gmail.com

Or, if you prefer not to e-mail, I'm sure you can post them here as well.

 

(edited because I erroneously thought she ran the CM Fanatics site, based on her e-mail address.  She's corrected me, and said that Forever Alone runs it.  Sorry, FA!)

Edited May 8, 2015 by JustMyOpinion

[Droogie]

Oh wow! :::edge of seat:::

[ForeverAlone]

My question to him would be "how much money would it take to get him to come back to Criminal Minds?" :) :) :)

[JMO]

I've got a few:

 

I'm wondering how he would have matured Reid---what he'd thought the character might look like now.  Same with Hotch. 

 

I know they've always had a team of writers.  But I wonder what it feels like to be made to hand over your characters to people you don't know, and who, maybe, don't know the characters.  It's one thing in fanfiction.  It's another entirely when that new group of writers will be creating "official canon".

 

How much collaboration is there, exactly?  And how much leeway?  We've been told the writers meet and make a general plan for the season.  How flexible does that plan become? 

 

How much collaboration is there between writers and cast?  What happens when their visions clash?  Same with the showrunner.

 

Who vets the scripts?  Asking because, sometimes, it doesn't seem like anyone has---not for quality, not for accuracy, and not for consistency.

 

How much does he think the written dialogue affect an actor's ability to deliver it?  How much ad-libbing goes on?

 

Sure I'll come up with more.

 

 

[Danielg342]

A few off the top of my head:

-How would *all* of the characters progressed if he was in charge? Would JJ still be a ninja? Rossi a vet? Morgan a guy who gets angry all the time?

-What does and doesn't he like about the changes the show has gone through lately? Does he feel things like continuity, the usage of “outside factors” in a story and the consequences of story choices have gotten better or worse lately?

(My personal opinion is that it's gotten worse, but I'd love to hear his honest answer)

-What are the main differences between Bernero's showrunning and Messer's?

-Who made the decision to start showing UnSubs early?

[missmycat]

Isn't Andrew Wilder married to Erica Messer's former writing partner. I think her name was Debra Fischer. I heard tell that she was the one who pushed for Matthew to be given the part of Reid,because remember how they kept asking him to come back to audition for the character because they weren't quite sure if he was right for the part.

[Bookish Jen]

Wow, i can wait for Mr. Wilder's answers. All of you have such thought-provoking questions.

[missmycat]

I would love Andrew's opinion on what many of us see as the lack of profiling in the episodes. And not only that but how he feels about the majority of it today when it is present. So many people, including myself, have a huge problem with it. because basically what it amounts to is the team standing around and finishing each others sentences(thoughts) And often times what they are telling us is something that we as a viewer already know.

Edited May 8, 2015 by missmycat

[Bookish Jen]

I always loved the profiling, especially in the earlier seasons.

 

I'm more instinctive than analytical but sometimes I figured things out before any of the profilers, including Reid.

 

Yes, you may touch the hem of my sparkly caftan.

[MCatry]

I don't think I have any questions that are worthy to ask, except the classic 'why you left CM'.

Here is my message for Andy:

Thank you for so many wonderful episodes of criminal minds. You are sorely missed.

I wish you would be the showrunner, but right now nobody can fix CM anymore unless some cast-chopping would be made. Hence, I do not wish for you to come back to CM. I only hope you will continue writing wonderful scripts for any show lucky to hire you.

[Bookish Jen]

I don't think I have any questions that are worthy to ask, except the classic 'why you left CM'.

Here is my message for Andy:

Thank you for so many wonderful episodes of criminal minds. You are sorely missed.

I wish you would be the showrunner, but right now nobody can fix CM anymore unless some cast-chopping would be made. Hence, I do not wish for you to come back to CM. I only hope you will continue writing wonderful scripts for any show lucky to hire you.

Great question. I anxiously await his answer.

[they-alive-dammit]

I would ask Mr. Wilder when they created the character of Emily Prentiss, her background was very ambiguous; did they have her background fleshed out beyond daughter of a politician?  Did they ever speak about her having a spy background?  

 

I'm just curious because she was my favorite character.  : )

[normasm]

I would ask Mr. Wilder who was conceived as the heart of the show? If it was Gideon, when he left, how did that change? 

[zannej]

I don't think Andrew left the show of his own choice. A bunch of the writers got sacked because of CBS budget cuts. So he was gone after season 4.

 

I heard his new show "Secrets And Lies" might have been picked up for another season. I would LOVE for him to come back to the show though. I just don't know how feelings are between him and any of the remaining people on CM *coughEricacough*.

[Droogie]

I'm sure it will come as a surprise to exactly no one, but my big questions are about Reid:

Was the growth of his character envisioned? Was there a plan to have him evolve and mature?

What would you do, now, with each character, if you were to pick up and begin writing for Season 11?

Edited May 9, 2015 by Droogie

[Saje]

So, I came to see if anyone had shared this yet, but I didn't see it. 

 

According to his girlfriend Kim Harrison, Rick Dunkle's leaving to do the spinoff.  https://twitter.com/RickDunkle/with_replies

[ForeverAlone]

Yeah, I saw that on another forum. So Rick is definitely gone, and it sounds like Janine is leaving as well. Apparently Erik Stiller has been promoted to full time writer, so I wonder if anyone else new will come in. I keep hoping Kim will be replaced, and honestly don't understand why she still has a job writing for Criminal Minds, when she is the weakest writer on staff. 

[Russet29]

I had kind of hoped that if one left, the other would too. I felt the only logical explanation for KH's continued involvement with the show was her relationship with Dunkle but I guess not.

[Saje]

From what I've seen, her episodes are the weakest of the weak. It would be nice if some of the older writers could be pressed into service.