There's more than one way to revive a great series.

For Fox's "24," this season's creative uptick stems from a simpler story that's easier to follow and motivations — so far, money and power — that are easier to understand. Compare that with ABC's re-energized "Lost," which has become, if anything, even more complex, ricocheting through time with an almost willful disregard for the demands of more casual viewers.

Wildly different shows and wildly different paths, but they have arrived at the same place. For the moment, at least, they're the two best shows on TV.

Because it fell further from grace, the course corrections at "24 "are probably more noticeable. In place of the hysterics and overdone family histrionics of the last go-round, we have a stripped-down plot that frees Jack (the reliably terrific Kiefer Sutherland) from back-story build-up and returns the show to its roots. Jack's not trying to save the world this time, just the president — and thanks to the writers and the fabulous Cherry Jones, he once again has a president worth saving. Even Monday's revelation of Sean as the FBI mole could be read as tweaking our built-in "24" expectations; he was so obvious, you figured he had to be a red herring.

Adjusting to a new world order, "24" has found a way to comment on Jack without degrading his status as a hero, even dropping hints (made physical, it appears) that while Jack's actions may be right, his contained reactions to them are open to question. It's also found room for a little humor in Jack's obstinacy: Annoyed by FBI agent Larry Moss' insistence that "rules are what make us better," Jack's brusque response was "not today."

Just as important as the mistakes the show has corrected are the outsized ones it has avoided, from murdering the president's husband to releasing a chemical that would have killed thousands. The plotting remains preposterous, as is "24's" concept of time and space. But this year, it's preposterous on an acceptable, entertaining scale.

If people seem less happy with "Lost," it may be because the show rejected more-readily grasped answers to its mystery (dream, purgatory, alien abduction) in favor of a smarter but more complicated solution. You can think of that as one of the benefits of having a set end date, which has liberated the show from some (though hardly all) ratings concerns. And you can think of "Lost" now as the network equivalent of "The Wire," a challenging show telling its story in its own way, and brilliantly.

Still, if you're finding "Lost" especially hard to follow, that may be because you're trying too hard to follow it, to catch every call-back reference, or worse, to get ahead of where the story is going. "Lost" is one of TV's best series not because of the intricacies of its myth but because of the depth and richness of its characters. They will lead you through the story, if you let them.

Turn to Sawyer, for example, who has become an outlet for our reactions, slapping Daniel for refusing to explain what's happening and showing increased exasperation with every time leap. Or just enjoy the by-play among the island escapees and appreciate the way "Lost" made it impossible to believe they'd agree to return, even though we knew they would. (Which, by the way, should cut into those time leaps.)

Time and change have taken a ratings toll on both series, and neither is the powerhouse it once was. Still, at about 12 million viewers each a week (more if DVRs are fully counted), they're still remarkably popular, especially by today's splintered standards. And this year, they're remarkably good.

That's a revival we can all support.