I’m often confused when I try to pinpoint exactly what makes a good sitcom. I tend to think of worthwhile dramas as ones with engaging, constantly surprising storylines and characters who are conflicted and interesting and unpredictable. Dramas that balance characters’ actions with sharp dialogue, and add moments of levity to the overall powerful tension. I know that I tend to dislike procedurals because they’re usually predictable and follow a certain formula. But when I try to define worthwhile comedies, I just want to start listing shows – shows that don’t have all that much in common, except that I happen to find them enjoyable.

We judge television comedies on a different scale than dramas, and when I consider this, I always return to one question: do we, as viewers, want our sitcom characters to grow, develop and change? Do we want them to have depth?

When looking at shows like Arrested Development or 30 Rock, it seems like the answer is no. One of the things Arrested does so brilliantly is to completely eschew character growth – the title of the series says it all. Everyone in this family is absolutely insane, in the best way possible; they always have been and they always will be. We don’t watch the show in the hopes that Lucille will become a loving mother, or George Michael will get popular with the ladies, or GOB will stop acting like a giant idiot. What makes the show so enjoyable is watching how the writers manipulate absurd storylines, recognizing the constant and fast-moving witty references, and just simply observing these characters that are utterly and fantastically insane.

In its first few seasons, the US version of The Office did something different from the circus that is the Bluth family and the set of TGS. The writers recreated the world the viewers lived in, both through finding comedy in the mundane and through the relationships between the characters. The show was slower-paced than Arrested or 30 Rock, allowing characters to test out new relationships, and sometimes even grow and change. Not only did we watch the show because we recognized the humor of everyday interactions, but we also watched Pam Beasley start to stand up for herself, personally and professionally. I can’t think of any other sitcom characters that evolve in a similar way.

When I watch the current season of The Office, however, it seems like an empty shell of what used to be a sweet and clever show. While Steve Carell is still entirely devoted to the character of Michael Scott, Michael has become less and less believable as a character. Instead of being well meaning but a little clueless, he has regressed into an entirely incompetent, brainless child. Jim is now a co-manager, everyone hates him, he seems stuck and it all just feels so depressing. The tension from the flirtation and repressed love between Jim and Pam has been replaced with a happy, but boring, marriage.

While it’s hard to define the exact qualities of a good television comedy, it does seem that viewers expect a certain level of consistency. Well-respected and critically acclaimed drama series, particularly those on cable, are often encouraged to experiment with form and genre, to explore complexity each week. It seems that comedies are not. I’m not saying that these comedies are not complex, but simply that we expect our sitcoms to stay consistent to the form they chose from the start. So when The Office started to move away from the comedy and pathos of the everyday workplace, it got less funny and it became harder for viewers to align themselves with the characters. (It’s worth noting that the success of the British version of The Office is a testament to the less-is-more school of television, which the US has yet to catch on to. The British Office presented 14 well-written, hilarious and uncomfortable episodes, while the American version keeps going, and keeps getting worse).

My favorite new show of the 2009 season is Modern Family and in a lot of ways, it’s a combination of Arrested Development and The Office. Most obviously it’s filmed in documentary style, which both of these shows make use of, but it also manages to capture both the zaniness of Arrested and the sweetness of The Office. The series is still finding its footing, but in the first half of its first season, it has managed to blend these two elements in a way that’s consistently engaging and funny, if not totally ground-breaking. So does it also embody the risk of not being able to find an audience (AD’s fatal flaw), or failing to maintain its quality over multiple seasons? I’m hopeful that it will be able to overcome these possible setbacks (it’s already become popular with critics and the public alike). Perhaps with Arrested Development’s wacky situations and The Office’s grounded characters, the series can achieve both the longevity and the consistent quality that neither show was able to maintain.