Bones: Humorous Procedural Show or Ridiculously Inaccurate Copycat?

I love mystery novels and true crime novels. You'd think shows like Bones and CSI would be of interest to me. But they aren't. I don't know if it is different because with books I get to envision the characters however I want or because books go into greater detail to set up a scenario's probability. However, I do know one thing: Bones gets on my nerves.

Aside from the improbability of Bones' uncanny ability to read a person's life story from their bones just by glancing at them, I'd have to say the show goes overboard in trying to have romantic tension. Emily Deschanel, who plays Bones, is an attractive actress, but the program's writers carry on as if she were a supermodel. We are repeatedly told about her hotness and her partner's hotness. I guess from this we are to draw that they must inevitably have a relationship. I suppose you could call this romantic tension, but it's not very subtle.

In one episode I watched Bones found a skeleton in an abandoned shed. From just glancing at the bones she proclaimed to know the age, sex, and race of the victim. While it is possible to determine these traits from a skeleton, it is not possible to do it at a glance. Medical examiners will carefully go over remains in a lab to determine the approximate time of death, approximate age of the victim, sex, race, etc. I know it may not be a big hang up for all viewers, but I find that I can't suspend my disbelief during Bones' "procedural" examinations.

The characters are too one dimensional: hot, smart woman who doesn't fit the stereotypical role of a female doctor; hot, skeptical homicide agent who somehow puts his skepticism on hold for his partner (would he do this if she weren't "hot"?). The other characters are even less established than the two lead characters.

I want to note that I am saying the characters are "hot" because that's what the program has emphasized and reiterated so much.