Favourite 'season one' aspects that get dropped early on

[Christopher]

But we weren't seeing the beginning, middle, and end of a particular crisis. Often the terrorist plots featured in the series had been in motion for months, or even years, before the events of the actual "day". So what we were effectively seeing was the endgame of a particular plot, which is what Jack was often dealing with, and why the situation was often desperate.

Even so, you can't pretend it isn't contrived that every one of those "endgames" required him being awake and active for exactly 24 hours, with a mini-climax coming every 60 minutes. The very premise of the show was predicated on its structure, and the contrivance is that every crisis fits the same structure. What I'm saying is that if they'd kept the structure but varied the characters and situations, that would've fit the fundamental premise of the series without as much contrivance and repetition.

Not to mention going through, what, eight or nine distinct Presidents of the United States in seven seasons, or whatever it was?

Six Presidents over a 13 year period. Two of those were Vice Presidents who had to be sworn in after the actual President had been incapacitated or, as in the case of Logan, removed from office.

This site lists nine. Including one who died, two who were "at least critically wounded," and at least one impeached. In just 13 years. How believable is that? In the entire history of the US, we've only had four presidents assassinated, four who died in office of natural causes, and one who resigned.

Granted, we did once have six presidents in a 13-year period. William Henry Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, John Tyler completed his term, James K. Polk was elected in 1845 and served one term, Zachary Taylor followed him in 1849 and died in office the following year, Millard Fillmore completed his term, and then Franklin Pierce was elected in 1853. But both deaths were of natural causes, and there were no impeachments or removals.

It's odd for people to be in the same line of work for 13 years? How does it take an implausible level of coincidence to believe that people who work for a counter terrorist unit have to deal with terrorist situations?

Stop ignoring my actual point. I've said over and over that the contrivance is the 24-hour format.

Besides, this isn't a documentary, it's escapist television. If I wanted to be bored to death by the reality or plausibility of a situation I'd watch the news.

False dichotomy. There are many ways to tell an entertaining story without falling into a repetitive, contrived formula. Who knows how engaging 24 might've been if they'd actually created a fresh set of characters each year, a fresh type of crisis, a whole new way of exploring a day-long story told in real time, rather than just finding new variations on "Jack Bauer has a really rotten day" eight times in a row?

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ The problem is, though, that Jack Bauer was such a memorable character, played so well by Keifer Sutherland. Trying to start a season 2 with a whole new cast after that ending would have been some challenge. Had the series been renewed for a third season, I'd swear they'd have yielded to demand and brought Jack back.

As for the Presidential thing, that didn't really become ridiculous until later one. Palmer was a contender in season 1, the POTUS in S2&3, but was briefly replaced by his VP for a few hours during season 2.

S4 saw his successor incapacitated and VP Logan sworn in. S5 revealed Logan as a baddie, so his VP was presumably sworn in some time between days 5 & 6, while day 6 saw a new President Palmer (brother of the original), then he too was incapacitated and replaced by his VP, who went on to lose the next election. PResident Taylor was POTUS for seasons 7 & 8, but 8 ended with her about to be impeached. So we were well into the realms of the ridiculous (not to mention the repetitive plot syndrome) by this stage.

As for the '24 hour period' point, well, as I've said before, it was never so simple as 'you have 24 hours to save the world!' There was frequently a change of plot or villain mid-season, while seasons 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 (among others) ended with totally different stories and emphasis from where they'd begun. Yes, the 24 hour thing was a contrivance, but who cares if its a means to telling a good story?

 

[Servo]

Even so, you can't pretend it isn't contrived that every one of those "endgames" required him being awake and active for exactly 24 hours, with a mini-climax coming every 60 minutes. The very premise of the show was predicated on its structure, and the contrivance is that every crisis fits the same structure. What I'm saying is that if they'd kept the structure but varied the characters and situations, that would've fit the fundamental premise of the series without as much contrivance and repetition.

So what if it was contrived? Most TV shows include some form of contrivance at some point, that's what suspension of disbelief is for.

How often does a show just ditch it's main characters and introduce a whole new set every season? And of those that do (and I'm struggling to think of any) how many are successful? As Captaindemotion pointed out, the characters from season one - Jack, Tony, Nina...etc - were hugely popular, so there was no way they were going to ditch them for a new cast with the level of popularity they had. Hell, the same thing happened to Heroes, and their original plan was to ditch the main cast in favour of a new line-up.

This site lists nine. Including one who died, two who were "at least critically wounded," and at least one impeached. In just 13 years. How believable is that? In the entire history of the US, we've only had four presidents assassinated, four who died in office of natural causes, and one who resigned.

Ok, so I didn't count the unseen President from S1, who was up for re-election just over a year later anyway. I certainly don't count James "President for all of 2 hours" Prescott. Also, it was never confirmed either way whether Wayne Palmer or John Keeler died or not, so I don't know how you can state that one of them died. Unless you're talking about David Palmer, but that hardly counts as a Presidential assassination, seeing as he wasn't in office at the time and his murder wasn't motivated by anything to do with his political career.

Granted, we did once have six presidents in a 13-year period. William Henry Harrison died after one month in office in 1841, John Tyler completed his term, James K. Polk was elected in 1845 and served one term, Zachary Taylor followed him in 1849 and died in office the following year, Millard Fillmore completed his term, and then Franklin Pierce was elected in 1853. But both deaths were of natural causes, and there were no impeachments or removals.

Why is your actual Presidential history in any way relevant to the discussion of a fictional TV show?

Stop ignoring my actual point. I've said over and over that the contrivance is the 24-hour format.

Listen, I know you don't like it when people disagree with you, but don't sour this debate by accusing me of things I'm not doing. It's childish.

You may have stated that the contrivance is the 24-hour format, but read back through your own posts, and you'll also find that you were complaining about similar scenarios happening to the same characters. You also come across as if you feel the 24-hour format would cease to be a contrivance (or at least become less of one) if each day involved a new set of characters, so why shouldn't I address that?

I'm pointing out that CTU, like many employers, doesn't bleed staff on a regular basis, so why shouldn't the same people be there for a number of years?

False dichotomy. There are many ways to tell an entertaining story without falling into a repetitive, contrived formula. Who knows how engaging 24 might've been if they'd actually created a fresh set of characters each year, a fresh type of crisis, a whole new way of exploring a day-long story told in real time, rather than just finding new variations on "Jack Bauer has a really rotten day" eight times in a row?

As was said, the characters were too popular to ditch. I, for one, loved Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, and that's what kept me watching every year. Given that a hell of a lot of people share that sentiment, do you really think the producers were gonna risk the entire show on a new cast, including a lead who would have to measure up to Jack Bauer?

 

[Christopher]

So what if it was contrived? Most TV shows include some form of contrivance at some point, that's what suspension of disbelief is for.

But that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to try to minimize it. Suspension of disbelief isn't a given. You have to earn it. You have to sell your audience on the plausibility of your story enough that they're willing to forgive or overlook its implausibilities.

How often does a show just ditch it's main characters and introduce a whole new set every season?

That's just the point I'm trying to make -- that American TV is more comfortable with repetitive formulas than with more flexible approaches such as limited series or the sort of "seasonal anthology" concept I'm proposing. Such approaches aren't impossible, given that British TV does limited series all the time. I'm not saying a show that follows a more formulaic route can't be enjoyable, I'm saying that some premises might work better in a different format, and that American TV on the whole might be more diverse and interesting if it were more willing to take more chances with formats. I understand there are commercial pressures to embrace the formula, but surely it can't be wrong to wonder what other possibilities we're missing as a result.

(And there is at least one longrunning US franchise that does introduce a whole new cast every season: Power Rangers. It's been doing that for most of the past 18 years, and the Japanese series it's adapted from has been doing it twice as long. There's also Law & Order, which doesn't change casts quite as regularly but has never gone more than two years without at least one cast change.)

Hell, the same thing happened to Heroes, and their original plan was to ditch the main cast in favour of a new line-up.

And that's part of my point. Keeping the characters might've been commercially successful, but it was a creative disaster, because those characters' stories had already ended and nothing that followed was as satisfying. If American TV were freer to experiment, if the creators of Heroes had been allowed to stick with their original plan, maybe the second season wouldn't have been as popular, but it would probably have been more creatively satisfying and felt less like a tired rehash.

Why is your actual Presidential history in any way relevant to the discussion of a fictional TV show?

How is that not obvious? The topic is credibility. You don't seem to think credibility matters at all in fiction, but a lot of people would disagree.

Listen, I know you don't like it when people disagree with you, but don't sour this debate by accusing me of things I'm not doing. It's childish.

You may have stated that the contrivance is the 24-hour format, but read back through your own posts, and you'll also find that you were complaining about similar scenarios happening to the same characters.

Yes, and in the case of 24, what I was specifically referring to as a similar scenario was NOT the investigation of terrorism, but the fact that the story unfolded in 24 hours. That is the defining premise of the entire series, so that is the crux of my discussion, the aspect of it that I've been concentrating on here. You define it as a show about fighting terrorism, but I only watched two and a half episodes before losing interest, so I define it as it originally caught my interest, as a show about telling a single day-long tale in real time. That's the primary aspect of the show that I'm focused on here. If I've failed to get that across adequately, then I apologize for accusing you of ignoring it, but that was what I meant to convey all along. What I'm saying is that the idea of telling a single story unfolding in real time across 24 hours is a strikingly original idea once, but doing it over and over again, particularly with the same characters and subject matter, makes it more formulaic and contrived.

You also come across as if you feel the 24-hour format would cease to be a contrivance (or at least become less of one) if each day involved a new set of characters, so why shouldn't I address that?

I'm pointing out that CTU, like many employers, doesn't bleed staff on a regular basis, so why shouldn't the same people be there for a number of years?

Okay, you've missed my point profoundly, and here it can't be chalked up to my miscommunication, because it's overlooking a specific example I gave in an earlier post:

Doing something like 24 as an ongoing series would've made more sense as a sort of anthology approach: each season following a new, unrelated cast of characters dealing with a different kind of crisis told in real time. For instance, maybe after doing one season of Jack Bauer racing the clock to prevent a terrorist attack or whatever, they could've done a season about a police negotiator dealing with a 24-hour hostage crisis, and then maybe some kind of 24-hour real-time medical crisis like a hospital staff dealing with a disaster. If the premise of the show resides in its format -- a single day-long narrative told in real time over 24 hourlong episodes -- then it seems a "seasonal anthology" approach with changing characters and scenarios would be a natural fit.

So I'm not talking about doing "CTU" stories every year with different agents, not by a long shot. I'm talking about keeping the central, titular premise of a 24-hour real-time narrative but changing everything else -- characters, setting, genre, the works. Maybe even bring in a different production crew so that each season has a distinct style and tone. That would've been a more experimental, more creatively ambitious approach to the concept, the sort of thing we might've gotten in a British show but that's sadly unlikely to be tried in American TV. But maybe it could still have been approached in a commercially viable way. Maybe if one set of characters sparks like Bauer and the CTU did and the audience and network want to see more, then you give them a spinoff that's in a more conventional episodic format while coming up with a different 24-hour story with different characters/premise/genre to explore the following season. After all, if it's the characters people respond to, then they don't need the real-time format on a continuing basis. And if one season's story and characters don't click with viewers, that's okay, you can start fresh again the following season.

 

[Servo]

Suspension of disbelief isn't a given. You have to earn it. You have to sell your audience on the plausibility of your story enough that they're willing to forgive or overlook its implausibilities.

Yeah, and 24 did that for me and a lot of other people with its first season.

That's just the point I'm trying to make -- that American TV is more comfortable with repetitive formulas than with more flexible approaches such as limited series or the sort of "seasonal anthology" concept I'm proposing. Such approaches aren't impossible, given that British TV does limited series all the time. I'm not saying a show that follows a more formulaic route can't be enjoyable, I'm saying that some premises might work better in a different format, and that American TV on the whole might be more diverse and interesting if it were more willing to take more chances with formats. I understand there are commercial pressures to embrace the formula, but surely it can't be wrong to wonder what other possibilities we're missing as a result.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with experimenting, but the producers obviously thought they'd hit on a great formula, with a great set of characters. They were right, and there's no way they were going to risk throwing away the opportunity to expand on that, just so they can appear more creative. Especially so when they felt the story wasn't over. I, for one, was itching to see what happened to Jack after the events of the S1 finale. Apparently so were a lot of people.

And there is at least one longrunning US franchise that does introduce a whole new cast every season: Power Rangers. It's been doing that for most of the past 18 years, and the Japanese series it's adapted from has been doing it twice as long.

So? It's an entirely different genre of TV, aimed at an entirely different demographic. Just because it works on a kids show, doesn't mean it will work for an adult drama series.

And that's part of my point. Keeping the characters might've been commercially successful, but it was a creative disaster, because those characters' stories had already ended and nothing that followed was as satisfying. If American TV were freer to experiment, if the creators of Heroes had been allowed to stick with their original plan, maybe the second season wouldn't have been as popular, but it would probably have been more creatively satisfying and felt less like a tired rehash.

But 24 continued to be hugely popular for a good 3 seasons, and even after that, aside from occasional silliness later in the series (like the mustache-twirling antics of Marwan, or the Mirror Universe Dana Walsh) it continued to provide entertaining stories, with great central characters that people enjoyed watching. Heroes failed to do that as effectively as it did in S1, and as a result it bled viewers until its cancellation.

How is that not obvious? The topic is credibility. You don't seem to think credibility matters at all in fiction, but a lot of people would disagree.

There was plenty of credibility. Just because there was no real-life precident for the change in Presidents over the years, doesn't mean it was any less believable. Shit happens, especially in fictional television.

Yes, and in the case of 24, what I was specifically referring to as a similar scenario was NOT the investigation of terrorism, but the fact that the story unfolded in 24 hours. That is the defining premise of the entire series, so that is the crux of my discussion, the aspect of it that I've been concentrating on here.

Except the 24-hour part wasn't the defining premise. It was the gimmick that differentiated 24 from regular serialised drama shows in a similar genre. The premise of the show was centred around Jack Bauer, and his role as a CTU agent.

So I'm not talking about doing "CTU" stories every year with different agents, not by a long shot. I'm talking about keeping the central, titular premise of a 24-hour real-time narrative but changing everything else -- characters, setting, genre, the works. Maybe even bring in a different production crew so that each season has a distinct style and tone. That would've been a more experimental, more creatively ambitious approach to the concept, the sort of thing we might've gotten in a British show but that's sadly unlikely to be tried in American TV. But maybe it could still have been approached in a commercially viable way. Maybe if one set of characters sparks like Bauer and the CTU did and the audience and network want to see more, then you give them a spinoff that's in a more conventional episodic format while coming up with a different 24-hour story with different characters/premise/genre to explore the following season. After all, if it's the characters people respond to, then they don't need the real-time format on a continuing basis. And if one season's story and characters don't click with viewers, that's okay, you can start fresh again the following season.

And while I'm sure that on paper that sounds like a great idea, full of possibilities, no producer is going to bet on a show that changes its characters, setting, or even genre with every season, it's just not a sound investment. This goes doubly so when the characters, setting, and genre used in the first season were so immensely popular.

Sure, it sucks that your television industry is so focused on ratings and money, often to the detriment of new and creative storytelling, but that's the way things are. I'm certainly not going to bemoan the good shows we do get, just because they find a popular format and stick with it.

 

[Christopher]

^Whatever. The fact is, I don't care much about 24 one way or another. It's obviously important to you, but I was just using it as one illustration of my actual topic lamenting the lack of variety in US television. I never meant to get drawn into some extensive debate about a show I found thoroughly unpleasant anyway.

See, the thing is, it's not just speculative that US television could have more variety of formats. It actually used to. Once, there were anthologies that succeeded. There were "wheel" series like The NBC Mystery Movie that rotated multiple different series in the same time slot. There were miniseries actually worthy of the name, lasting a goodly portion of a season rather than just two nights. All these formats proved that you could succeed, at least once upon a time, without using the same characters every week or stretching out a story longer than it needed to be. American network TV isn't just more cautious than it could be, it's more cautious than it once was. Maybe all the innovation is on cable now. But the problem with the limited formats is that some shows end up in a format that isn't ideal for them, like getting dragged out indefinitely when they'd work better in a finite form.

 

[Servo]

^Whatever. The fact is, I don't care much about 24 one way or another. It's obviously important to you, but I was just using it as one illustration of my actual topic lamenting the lack of variety in US television. I never meant to get drawn into some extensive debate about a show I found thoroughly unpleasant anyway.

See, the thing is, it's not just speculative that US television could have more variety of formats. It actually used to. Once, there were anthologies that succeeded. There were "wheel" series like The NBC Mystery Movie that rotated multiple different series in the same time slot. There were miniseries actually worthy of the name, lasting a goodly portion of a season rather than just two nights. All these formats proved that you could succeed, at least once upon a time, without using the same characters every week or stretching out a story longer than it needed to be. American network TV isn't just more cautious than it could be, it's more cautious than it once was. Maybe all the innovation is on cable now. But the problem with the limited formats is that some shows end up in a format that isn't ideal for them, like getting dragged out indefinitely when they'd work better in a finite form.

I can't say I disagree with your general sentiment. US TV does play it too safe, and more often than not they'll drag an interesting or popular concept out well beyond it's sell by date. That's how we ended up with 10 years of Smallville, with a Clark Kent who didn't grow or evolve for a good 8 of those years.

I only entered this debate because I thought you were unfairly singling 24 out as an example of all that's bad with your country's TV industry. Yeah, it could have gone the way you wanted it to and pushed the creative boundaries by switching casts and genres every season, but the fact that it didn't isn't necessarily a bad thing. The show was consistently entertaining for 8 years, and there are far worse offenders out there as examples of the slump American TV is in.

 

[RandyS]

The synthisized music of early TNG. I know most everybody hated it, but I didn't.

 

[Christopher]

The synthisized music of early TNG. I know most everybody hated it, but I didn't.

If you're referring to Ron Jones's scores that mixed synth and orchestral elements, they're certainly not widely hated. In fact, they're popular enough that Film Score Monthly recently released The Ron Jones Project, a box set of Jones's complete ouevre of TNG scores, all 42 episodes' worth and then some (well, except for the "Best of Both Worlds" score, which was already released by a separate label).

 

[RandyS]

The synthisized music of early TNG. I know most everybody hated it, but I didn't.

If you're referring to Ron Jones's scores that mixed synth and orchestral elements, they're certainly not widely hated. In fact, they're popular enough that Film Score Monthly recently released The Ron Jones Project, a box set of Jones's complete ouevre of TNG scores, all 42 episodes' worth and then some (well, except for the "Best of Both Worlds" score, which was already released by a separate label).

Yeah, that's what I was referring to (and I'm saving up for that CD set also). I don't know if "widely hated" is the right term, but I have definately heard more negative comments regarding that music, that positive ones.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I appreciate that we've maybe moved off the 24 discussion but it occurs to me that the presidential and political saga, while undoubtedly silly, wasn't an awful lot more crazy than US political history between 1961 - 81.

Consider. In 1960 John F Kennedy is narrowly elected, defeating the incumbent outgoing VP, Nixon, and takes office in 1961.

1963 - JFK assassinated, his VP, Lyndon Baines Johnson takes power.

1964 - LBJ wins huge landslide.

1968 - LBJ opts not to run again. His VP, Humphrey, is narrowly defeated by the man JFK defeated in 1960. During the presidential campaign, JFK's brother and would-be Presidential contender, Robert Kennedy, is assassinated, shortly after the assassination of another prominent national figure, Martin Luther King.

1972 - Nixon re-elected. However, the following year, his VP, Agnew has to resign. In 1974, Nixon himself resigns the presidency. Hence an entirely new President and VP, in Ford and Rockerfeller, since the last election.

1975 - 2 attempts on Ford's life.

1976 - Ford defeated by Carter.

1980 - Carter defeated by Reagan.

1981 - Reagan shot, narrowly escaping death.

So during those years, no President completed two full terms. It's only with Reagan, Clinton and Dubya serving two full terms (of POTUS' since 1980 only Bush Sr failed to secure re-election) that we've gotten used to the idea of such continuity and stability with US Presidents.

Sure, 24 is much more dramatic and plain, well, silly at times. But it is a drama and they were aiming for high stakes. Equally, one could look at the West Wing, a show I love even more than 24. How likely is it that a North Eastern unashamedly liberal and intellectual candidate - think Dean, Kerry, Dukakis - could win election twice? The second time, defeating an affable, good ol' boy governor, a character clearly based on Dubya Bush, by emphasising his intellect over the Dubya character's amiability (and whatever you think about Bush, he was twice made President - but note I didn't say 'twice was elected!).

During Bartlett's term, he survives assassination, goes through two VPs, has to temporarily resign to allow a Republican to take over because his daughter has been kidnapped (she is successfully rescued), solves the Israel/ Palestine issue, survives a scandal about his health. He is then succeeded by Santos, another Democrat (IIRC, there haven't been three successive Democrat victories in Presidential elections since the days of FDR and Truman). Santos' VP candidate dies on the night of the election, creating a constitutional first (to be fair, this was acknowledged by characters in the show).

The WW is frequently lauded for its accuracy, but one could certainly argue that it doesn't hold up to an awful lot more scrutiny than its Noughties contemporary.

 

[tomalak301]

Cylons having a plan in Season 1 of BSG. I mean we were reminded of it in every single episode and it ended up being a really bad plan.

 

[Skellington]

^ That it did. It also transpired that the showrunners hadn't actually known what the plan would be!

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Clearly they were working from the same plan book Gordon Brown was using all those years he was plotting to become Prime Minister.

 

[Avalon]

Warehouse 13 -- Season 1, Pete had that sixth sense that warned him when things were about to go bad. Season 2, it's mentioned, but to the best of my knowledge it's never actually used again...

Sanctuary -- Probably not exactly what OP was asking for, but I really liked Ashley in Season 1 and was disappointed to find she wasn't coming back. (Killed Off For Real, as Tv Tropes would put it.)

 

[Ethros]

The Cylons did have a plan, it just turned out it wasn't that complex- basically 'kill the humans'

The thing was they really should have stopped using it at the start of the episodes in Season 3 (rather than Season 4), as the whole Cylon plan changed anyway with the whole Downloaded/LDYB/early Season 3 stuff


And it wasn't till later on the actual reasoning behind the 'kill the humans' plan is explained with the Cavil-Final Five-jealousy thing, mostly in The Plan

 

[Greg Cox]

Warehouse 13 -- Season 1, Pete had that sixth sense that warned him when things were about to go bad. Season 2, it's mentioned, but to the best of my knowledge it's never actually used again...

Just off the top of my head, Myka experiences it when she's in Pete's body that one time. "So that's what it feels like." And, in the season finale, he confesses that he always got a bad vibe from Helena . . . .

(I also mention it in the book a few times.)

Meanwhile, the classic case of a show that abandoned its original premise for the better would be the original Dark Shadows, which turned to vampires and the supernatural only when faced with cancellation . . . . .

 

[Gaith]

Re: the OP, I would cite "the involvement of all traces of human emotion" vis-a-vis Smallville, but, to be fair, that did last until the end of its second season.

 

[Skellington]

Re: the OP, I would cite "the involvement of all traces of human emotion" vis-a-vis Smallville, but, to be fair, that did last until the end of its second season.

Ah, I beg to differ. From the third season finale:

Lex: Orange is a good color for you, Dad. Although it might get a little old after 25 to life.

Lionel: (Chuckling quietly.) I, uh, didn't ask you here to trade insults. (He pauses, getting his thoughts together.) No matter how wide the, uh, chasm gets between us, son... I'm your father. I'll always be your father.

Lex: And the devil that's haunted me since the day I was born.

Lionel: Lex, this is not easy for me. As a father, I, uh... (Long pause.) I have failed you. I realize that now, and, uh, I'm sorry.

Lex listens silently, expressionless.

Lionel: Two years ago I was diagnosed with a, um, a degenerative liver disease. I've tried everything, everything imaginable, but, uh, there's nothing. It's too late. No amount of money can save me.

Lex lowers his eyes, refusing to meet his father's gaze. Lionel walks toward the edge of the cell and grabs onto the cage with his right hand. He whispers to Lex urgently.

Lionel: Lex, please. Don't let me die in prison.

With an expression of apology, Lex walks toward the cage and puts his hand on top of his Lionel's. Lionel grabs Lex's hand affectionately.

Lex: Dad... (Looking Lionel in the eye and suddenly turning cold.) This might have been more effective if you had a string quartet in the corner playing Barber's "Requiem".

 

[Avalon]

Warehouse 13 -- Season 1, Pete had that sixth sense that warned him when things were about to go bad. Season 2, it's mentioned, but to the best of my knowledge it's never actually used again...

Just off the top of my head, Myka experiences it when she's in Pete's body that one time. "So that's what it feels like."

Oh, I.... Heh. Maybe I wasn't watching that ep as carefully as I should have. I thought she was talking about something else.

*whistles innocently*

And, in the season finale, he confesses that he always got a bad vibe from Helena . . . .

See, I took that as meaning he felt that in a more mundane way, like you or I would say, "she gives me the wiggins" or "this place gives me a bad vibe"; not that he sensed it in his more unique way. It's easier for Myka to use it as further proof that she should have seen it, too. Otherwise, if Pete was using his "spider-sense" to know that H.G. was bad news, it's something that Myka didn't have at her disposal and therefore shouldn't feel worse that she believed in H.G.'s sincerity. (Besides, I don't think Pete would make the mistake of not telling people when his clairvoyance goes off, especially when it's someone with a history like H.G.'s, would he? I'd figure he'd feel as guilty and responsible as Myka does.)

(I also mention it in the book a few times.)

You did a Warehouse 13 novel? I can't find it! (I did find a bunch of your books and stories I want to add to the tower of reading material I can't afford and can't keep up with, so...thanks for that... )