Eyes High

I checked the transcript, and there were three girls that he hooked up with while he thought he and Rory were broken up: Walker at Thanksgiving and Claude at Christmas after too much spiked eggnog, whom he had once dated "eons ago." There was a third girl, Alexandra, with whom he "messed around," but it wasn't clear when it happened, since she had a boyfriend, Liam, but said that "Officially, nothing happened" (which could have meant either that she cheated with Liam during the relevant timeframe, or that now that she's coupled up, she's pretending that she never had a sexual past prior to her relationship with him). He really does. He refers to them as "moronic bridesmaids": "Blondie, Bubbles, Four Nose Jobs, and Charm McGee." Rory gets awesome when she calls him out on his "cover" later on, though, chastising him for "pretending all those girls were worthless idiots." When Logan sputters that they are worthless idiots for running off their mouths, she again awesomely defends them and refuses to let him off the hook: "It's not their fault." ...Man, Logan is such a piece of shit. I do like the reminder that late-series Rory can be awesome sometimes. The annoying thing is that Logan claims to have known them forever, so by insulting their appearance, intelligence and personalities, while admitting he slept with them, he's insulting his own taste in companions. I'm not a member of that 1% set, but I always got the sense that the social circles were pretty small and incestuous. It didn't surprise me at all that Logan and Honor had the same set of female friends.

Even if his anger at Rory was justified--which is doubtful, since he should have trusted her--the manner in which he expressed that anger was completely unacceptable and make him look horrible. Whatever his beef was, it was with Rory, not Jess, and he treated Jess like garbage in a misguided attempt to puff himself up. He invited himself on their outing, insulted Jess at length, clearly attempted to pick a fight with him by provoking him, and made Rory extremely uncomfortable on purpose. Someone of Logan's breeding would be exquisitely versed in etiquette, so he knew full well how awful he was being, but he didn't care. (He and Emily, another person extremely well-trained in manners and etiquette who is appallingly rude, have that in common.) A gentleman or even a good guy with a shred of self-control would have warmly introduced himself to Jess, told Rory to enjoy herself on her outing and call him later, and raised his concerns with Rory's actions privately later on. Not only would that have been the right thing to do, it would have been the smart thing to do: it would have had the bonus of making him appear so secure in his relationship that he trusts Rory enough to go on an outing with an ex-boyfriend. Instead, he just made himself look a rude, immature asshole who's so insecure in his relationship that he has to make a big display of possessiveness and attempt to tear down his rival. He also unintentionally acknowledged Jess as a threat to his relationship, whereas if he'd behaved with a little more dignity and grace he could have communicated to Jess how secure his relationship with Rory was. Not a good look. Is a preference for casual sex really an "issue"? I know it was framed as such in the weirdly conservative world of Gilmore Girls where Logan's preference for casual sex was a tendency Rory "cured" him of, but I dunno. For someone like Logan--young, handsome, rich, partier--a preference for casual sex is not at all surprising. I suppose casual sex can be an "issue" if you're unsafe, callous or cruel in the way you go about it, or if you have sex addiction issues or something like that, but sleeping around isn't of itself proof of some deeper character issues, and it wasn't in Logan's case, either, in my opinion, even if the writers seemed to think otherwise.

I generally agree with your points, but I see a bit of a contradiction here. If Rick's type is a Lori or Jessie type, then I don't know what would possibly appeal to him about Carol, who has reached honourary Navy Seal status by this point and uses displays of the type of traditional femininity embodied by Lori and Jessie either as a useful disguise or as a way of subtly mocking the Alexandrians to amuse herself. She's clearly having the time of her life when she's laying it on thick in her interview about how much she misses the "wonderful" Ed; conventional femininity has become either a weapon or a joke to her, sometimes both. Assuming Rick gravitated to Jessie because he seems to gravitate towards helpless, uberfemme women in need of protection, I don't know that the Rick who found Jessie appealing would find anything appealing in cool, calculating, frankly terrifying Carol. Also, I suspect that he will always be a little wary of her, knowing full well what she's capable of. I don't think he trusts her as deeply as he trusts Michonne; he knows Carol has sacrificed lives to protect the group, and that while he's always to date numbered among the group members she's trying to protect (Terminus, e.g.), one day that life could be his. With Michonne, I get the sense that Rick knows Michonne would never really hurt him, even given that she knocked him out when he was being an ass, if for no other reason than he's Carl's father. As for Carol, even though she can be caring, I have yet to see her show anything in the way of attraction to anyone, heterosexual or otherwise. The closest she's ever gotten is her propositioning Daryl, which could easily be read as her joking around to push Daryl's buttons. I think she is supportive of Rick's worldview and leadership and that she deeply cares for Rick--their hug in 5x01 was heartfelt on her part--but that she only sees him as a comrade. She keeps her distance emotionally from him for the same reasons she keeps her distance emotionally from everyone else in the group: she doesn't know whether or not at some point down the road she's going to have to kill him to protect the others. Assuming she was interested in him, she'd have to show some vulnerability for that kind of a relationship to happen, just like anyone else. Badass, flinty Rick still had to give Jessie an opening. Abraham, another tough, gruff type, couldn't just walk up to Sasha and say "You, me, bed, let's go"; he had to lower his defences and admit his interest. Carol's not exempt from that requirement; if she wanted a relationship, she would have to do the work and lower her guard just like everyone else. and that is something Carol strenuously resists, even with her most closely bonded friend Daryl. The more I see of Carol, the more I think she enjoys her aura of frosty, untouchable competence, as much pleasure as it gives her to play the weakling, and as annoyed as she is when Morgan picks up on it. It's when people ignore it--as with poor, hapless Sam, who still seeks out Carol despite her many attempts to warn him off, as with Daryl, whose wry response to her smooth "You don't know me" is "Keep telling yourself that," or as with Morgan, when he tells her that she doesn't like killing--that she gets her back up. The problem with giving off that vibe is that it does tend to dissuade would-be suitors. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's what Carol wanted, though. I don't think Carol likes killing, but I do think she likes being terrifying.

Sue the Fury over at WOTW debunked the "synopsis" (other than those parts containing established spoilers) and she would know. If it seems plausible, it's because the writer did what all people who write foilers: take a bit of known information to make your synopsis sound solid, and then embellish it with your own fake spoilers.

I agree that Luke and Lorelai seemed happier when they weren't in relationships (overall, not just with each other). In my observation, people who are as particular, stubborn, and set in their ways as Luke and Lorelai don't tend to be happy in serious, committed relationships, as too many concessions and adjustments have to be made. As for Jess, there are some promising indications that he grew out of his teenage assholery. He puts up with a lot of ridiculousness from Logan before ditching out and mostly avoids rising to the bait despite considerable goading. He's mellow but polite with Luke even when Luke insults the artwork at the gallery. (In fact, his response to Luke's negativity is perfect: "I have some sculpture over here you're really going to hate.") He is unhappy but takes it in stride when he realizes that Rory is still with Logan despite coming to Philly alone to see him; he even shrugs off her apology ("It is what it is."). All in all, he seems to have grown up.

Not if she's not attracted to Rick, and I haven't seen anyone provide any information from the show itself to suggest that she is. Yvette Nicole Brown fangirling doesn't count. Up to a point. I and some of the other posters on the thread have talked about expecting to see more "opportunistic" relationships in the ZA with less deference to age differences, cultural differences, etc. However, if Michonne just isn't attracted to Rick, their circumstances won't artificially create that sort of attraction. Eugene is aware of his relative lack of options in the ZA, but he hits on young, pretty Tara (before learning that she's a lesbian) and creeps on young, pretty Rosita. I think in a ZA survival situation, you would expect to see pretty young things who feel unable to fend for themselves find the strongest, toughest, baddest alphas around to seduce as a survival tactic. Not surprisingly, Michonne has no need or use for such methods. She can take of herself, thank you very much. If she stays with the group, it's because she values them, not because she needs them to survive. If she's friends with Rick, it's because she cares about him as a person, not because he's an alpha with rage issues who would have stopped at nothing to protect her dead son. I dunno. Daryl and Carol being through all that shit together, and Daryl clearly loving Carol deeply, hasn't served to make Daryl magically attracted to Carol when he wasn't before. As much as Daryl loves her, and as close as they are now--could you imagine Michonne running over to Rick in front of the group and hugging him while sobbing like a baby?--he's no closer to being physically attracted to her than he was when they met. If Rick was never Michonne's type, their circumstances won't change that. Michonne has been through a lot, but she's not desperate for a man, either for sexual gratification, romance, or protection, and if she were desperate, I don't see any reason to think that Rick would be the one she would seek out over someone else, especially when there are guys who look like Heath running around. The writers have never shown Carol or Michonne pursuing that kind of relationship, either--even passively pursuing in the sense of quietly sighing over a reticent man--unless you count Michonne's pretty-emotionally-fraught-for-a-platonic-relationship thing with Andrea. Carol was cool at best towards Axel and was downright frosty towards Morgan; nor is there any suggestion that she was quietly pining for Tyreese during their travels together, even though he was attractive, a good dude, and the only available man in the vicinity. Michonne has never pursued anyone. That's my point. If Carol or Michonne wanted a man, they could get one. There's nothing in the show to suggest that they are not single by choice. It's also weirdly old-fashioned to suggest that Carol and Michonne are single purely because no dudes hit on them. And really, if Carol and Michonne want to be stone-faced at best and terrifying at worst with pretty much everyone--Carol loves Daryl, and she's a pretty cool customer even with him--they're going to have to make the first move. It makes more sense to me to look at it the other way. Michonne or Carol are attractive, capable, grown-ass women in control of their lives and their choices, not starry-eyed teens doodling hearts in their notebooks and sighing about how Scott from Algebra is the dreamiest. To construct them as nothing other than passive potential objects of male desire wasting away for unrequited love of Rick or Daryl because no man will deign to hit on them does them a grave disservice. What about what they want? What about what they choose to pursue? What about their motivations for seeking out or avoiding a romantic relationship? I can't help but sense a bit of a double standard here. Why is Daryl's demonstrated lack of interest in a romantic connection and consequent singledom acceptable but Michonne and Carol's manlessness a horrible tragedy demonstrative of some bias on the writers' part against romances for "tough" women? It seems to rest on the assumption that they must want to be partnered or should want to be partnered because they're women. Even if you accept the assumption that more women than men want to be partnered--and that assumption's pretty flimsy--there are very good reasons in the story why neither Michonne nor Carol would be particularly interested in locking someone down. Both Michonne and Carol seem to me like people who due to their pasts desperately need to feel in control of their lives and able to handle the people around them. Since getting involved with someone in a sexual or romantic way--even in a casual fuckbuddy relationship--requires the abandonment of a certain amount of control, I believe it's in character for Michonne and Carol to resist that. Even with Daryl, whom she loves and trusts, Carol still has her walls up.

Is there anything in the show itself--and I don't count coy showrunner Jim/Pam comparisons or fannish speculation--to support the contention that Michonne feels anything for Rick other than warm friendship? Michonne was fucking a man who looked like Aldis Hodge, for crying out loud. She has standards, is all I'm saying. Who's to say she's even into white guys? While I understand the apparent unfairness of a relatively minor character like young, white Tara getting a cute girlfriend while the middle-aged Carol and the African-American Michonne are tragically left manless, it's hardly surprising when you consider that Carol and Michonne have not found any suitable partners in Rick's clan and they're wary with good reason of anyone outside the tribe. Tara was friendly and chatty with Denise, a shockingly effective way of opening the door to romantic relationships. Morgan complimenting Carol on her aura of competence was met with an icy "Aren't you sweet." He probably wasn't interested in her that way, but if he had been, I'm pretty confident that would have scared him off (before she started knifing Wolves in front of him, that is). Carol and Michonne are attractive women. If they remain single in Alexandria despite having a new population of potential options, I'd say that it's by choice.

I don't know. I agree that there are some people who are just not cut out for romantic relationships and are happier off being single for whatever reason. Absent things like a genuine lack of opportunity, struggling with one's sexuality, big personality problems (selfishness, entitlement), or untreated mental health issues (crippling social anxiety, depression, etc.), usually good-looking single people are single because they prefer it that way. However, it's hard to know whether Luke is among the category of people who are awful at romantic relationships because they're born loners and would never be truly happy partnered up (and those people exist!), no matter how hard they try, or the category of people who do long for a romantic connection but whose personal issues--and whether or not Luke suffers from depression, he definitely could use some counseling--get in the way of forming those deeper relationships. Speaking purely anecdotally--i.e. talking out of my ass--my observation has been that the longer people stay single, the more set in their ways they become and the less interested they are in rearranging their life to accommodate another person with his or her own preferences, routines, habits, possessions, pets, children, etc. This can also present a significant obstacle for people who do wish to enter into a serious, committed relationship but have great difficulties in coping with the dramatic disruption to their lives that that relationship represents. This can sometimes lead to a vicious cycle where people who have been unhappily single for a long time when faced with a viable romantic relationship are unable to adjust and wind up sabotaging it in favour of the familiar status quo of singledom. I think the other poster was using "romantic relationship" to distinguish those relationships from other relationships (friendships, family relationships, etc.). Luke does appear to be able to have functional non-romantic relationships, despite his issues. It's just that he's a disaster as a romantic partner. I don't think Lorelai prioritized "romance" to the exclusion of everything else--and if she ever did, I would have thought the Max and Chris fiascos would have cured her of that--but I don't think she would be happy in the long run with someone who on the whole had little appreciation for fun or whimsy. I'd have to think that in the long run, Lorelai would tire of someone who tolerated her irreverence and quirky sense of humour, as Luke seemed to do, rather than reveling in it, and that Luke in his turn would resent Lorelai's unending need to poke fun. I think you've unintentionally identified the problem; Luke's good quality (tolerance) is actually a cunningly disguised bad quality (passive-aggressive resentfulness and letting things fester). He's not a Big Lebowski Dude type who lets things slide with no ill will because he's just that mellow. He "tolerates" situations or people that he doesn't like and quietly marinates in anger until he explodes in an inappropriate outburst. He does tolerate people past most others' endurance--the multiple chances--but he does it while seething with resentment. He then explodes in anger at the perceived or real slight against him when a straw breaks the proverbial camel's back. A mentally healthy person would firmly draw boundaries at the outset and communicate their concerns, rather than grudgingly going along with whatever imposition and ranting about it later on. Luke would have benefited more than anyone in the show from drawing clear boundaries, although it's pretty clear why he didn't do so with Lorelai (he was attracted to her, as annoyed as he was by it). I think if he'd drawn better boundaries with Lorelai, though, he probably would have wound up permanently expelling her from the diner. He would have drawn a line, she would have gleefully jumped over it to see what kind of reaction it would get, he would have banned her, and that would have been that. I will confess that I prefer fictional romances which develop in situations where characters respect each other's boundaries, because it seems that so often in television/film the refusal to respect personal boundaries is romanticized or eroticized: X says "Don't touch me," Y storms over to X and kisses X passionately, etc. An inability to take "No" for an answer is a red flag, not a sign of true love. Lorelai's pushiness with Luke and overruling his grumpy objections in the early seasons were never cute to me. It would have worked if Rory had been a character with very little emotional affect, like Temperance on Bones (another character played by an actress with very limited gifts), which would have disguised a multitude of acting deficiencies. As it is, it didn't work at all.

It's clear by this point that Jon, Sansa and Littlefinger share screentime at some point in the season. However, at the start of the season, they're fairly far apart from each other geographically. Sansa will have just escaped Winterfell, and given that she is present at the 6x09 battle, it's safe to say that she isn't recaptured by Ramsay; however, she doesn't join forces with Brienne, either (since Brienne is at Riverrun later in the season), and she and Theon part ways (since Theon winds up at the Kingsmoot). Sansa's unlikely to stick around at Winterfell, for obvious reasons, but unless she receives aid from someone, I don't see how she could plausibly make the trek unarmed and unaccompanied as Ramsay's most wanted fugitive either north to Castle Black to find Jon, or south to the Vale to meet up with Littlefinger, short of some sort of contrivance like a Stark ally popping up out of nowhere to provide her with assistance and supplies. At the beginning of the season, Jon's at the Wall, and, well, dead. Littlefinger will have just left KL; if Yohn Royce is around this season (which we know that he is), Littlefinger probably will have to spend at least one episode in the Vale convincing the Vale lords to provide him with an army to reclaim Winterfell. It will probably go the way Littlefinger's other conversations with the Vale lords have gone: Littlefinger: Help a brother out. Vale lords: Fuck you. Littlefinger: Come onnnnnnn. Vale lords: Fine, whatever. So my question is, what's the order in which they join up, and what leads them to do so? Some possibilities: 1. Sansa stays in the north, sheltered by Stark allies, and she rallies them to her cause. Jon is resurrected and decides to abandon the NW. He takes Davos' old advice from Season 5, possibly after receiving some version of the pink letter from the books from Ramsay bragging about killing Stannis and saying he wants Sansa back, and heads south to oust the Boltons. Sansa and Littlefinger get wind of this separately and all three converge at Winterfell. 2. Sansa heads south and joins up with Littlefinger again (and the whole "LOL so sorry I accidentally married you off to a psychopathic sadist, that was my bad" thing is ignored), rallying the Vale. If the Vale army is already en route, Sansa might not have to get very far to join up with them. Sansa and Littlefinger beg for Jon's assistance in ousting the Boltons, and he not only obliges them but heads south at the head of an army. 3. Sansa heads north and joins up with Jon, who is freshly resurrected, and begs for assistance, in a bit of an Alys Karstark-style "Help me Jon Snow, you're my only hope (and also we're related)" entreaty. (There might even be a nod to the books if Melisandre predicts that Jon's sister will arrive at Winterfell, and Jon assumes it's Arya only to learn that its' Sansa instead.) Jon, disenchanted with the NW and outraged by Ramsay's actions, agrees to help her. Meanwhile, Littlefinger gathers an army to mount against Ramsay, and Jon/Sansa and Littlefinger meet at Winterfell for the big battle.

I wish the Emmys had a Best Ensemble the way other awards (the SAGs) do. There's so much excellent work here. It's remarkable that even the relatively minor roles get pitch-perfect performances. I don't know that there's a weak link in the cast. Even the relatively inexperienced actors--Emily Haine and Allan Dobrescu--are knocking it out of the park, in my opinion. If it's wrong, I don't want to be right. The best part for me was Dodd's inflection on "Bitch???" as if it's blowing his mind that a girl got the best of him.

Lots of intriguing stuff in the preview: 1. Floyd, wearing a fur hat, being questioned by Hank about Hank's run-in with Dodd. "How'd that go for you?" 2. Simone ranting at Mike in Mike's hotel room while being held by the surviving Kitchen brother and wearing a boss coat with black trim. "You were supposed to kill my dad, not the old cripple!" 3. The Gerhardt compound, a number of open graves dug (there are two in the foreground with similar piles of dirt in the background). There's one coffin in front of one of the open graves in the foreground. Floyd (wearing the fur hat), a number of children, Gerhardt henchmen, and Simone are in attendance. Simone is standing in front of the other open grave in the foreground and looking down at something she's holding, wearing the same boss coat from the hotel room scene. (Is the other open grave for her, after word of her betrayal gets out? Man, that's dark, even for this show. However, having Simone refer to her deceased grandfather as "the old cripple" suggests that the writers really don't want us to feel terribly sympathetic towards Simone, which could be a hint that she's not long for the show.) 4. Lou calling Betsy, who's hosting not only Noreen but also Sonny and Karl. Betsy sweetly says that she doesn't need looking after. 5. A shot of Betsy in a coat and hat pumping a rifle. 6. Mike is on the phone with Adam Arkin's character. "Maybe 'under control' was the wrong phrase." 7. One old dude drowns another old dude in a toilet while a third old dude stands around smoking a cigarette in a public washroom. (Cleanup crew from Kansas City, maybe?) 8. Ben Schmidt and Lou burst into Mike's hotel room and Lou punches the Kitchen brother. 9. Adam Arkin says that Mike has two days, and then he'll be sending the "undertaker." (Eesh, there's a hitman even more dangerous than Mike running around?)

I agree with this list. I would love it if Peggy accidentally killed Dodd by being a little too enthusiastic with the cattle prod. Even though Dodd has to go, I'm loving Jeffrey Donovan in the role. I love that his horrified, shocked "Bitch?!" to Peggy when she shocked him with his own weapon had about the same inflection as "What the fuck?!". Peggy really is more pathetic than anything. She hates her life and uses delusion and fantasy as a way of escaping. However, I draw the line at her decision to use the accident as an opportunity to break free. Rye was a piece of shit who probably would have died anyway, but Peggy should have called it in, and her reason for doing so--it was an escape route from her cozy domestic Minnesota prison--was utterly selfish. Ed, on the other hand, has only killed in self-defence so far. He saved the life of the person who tried to kill him. However, it's only a matter of time before an innocent person dies as a result of his refusal to cooperate with the police. Noreen easily could have died at the butcher shop confrontation. Lou is getting more and more impatient with Ed for a reason. I am rooting for Ed and Peggy, though, in spite of everything. I have a soft spot for otherwise ordinary people who show impressive resourcefulness in the clutch, and despite their general inability to scheme their way out of a paper bag, I loved both Ed and Peggy taking down trained, armed attackers in back to back episodes. Peggy gets extra points from me for shocking Dodd when he called her a bitch. Attagirl. I would like it if Bear turned out to be the crime boss from Season 1. Wasn't that guy's name "Mr. Tripoli," though? Maybe Bear is forced to adopt a new alias by his KC overlords in recognition of the Gerhardts' destruction, but I doubt it. My theory about Charlie is that he'll be the only one remaining of the Gerhardt clan--other than possibly Bear--at the end, and that he'll wind up leaving on his own (assuming he can avoid prison). Given that we know that both he and Noreen are 17 years old, and that Noreen is emancipated, maybe Charlie and Noreen run away together, once their respective ties to their homes are either literally or figuratively burned away. If the Gerhardt clan is ground to powder by the KC group, I doubt Charlie's going to stick around to wait and see what they'll do to him. The more we see of the Gerhardts this season, the more clear it is that Floyd's been turning a blind eye to a lot of Gerhardt awfulness for a long time. She'll intervene when it's right in front of her--preventing Dodd from whipping Bear, telling Dodd to lay off Simone--but there's no indication that she's done anything to stop Dodd from abusing Simone. Dodd also made a casual comment that "the belt was Dad's thing," which could imply that Dodd and Bear were abused by Otto and that Floyd allowed this to go on. Also, Floyd's poor decisionmaking is getting people killed. It was her bright idea to send the lynch mob to fetch Charlie, which could have resulted in a massacre of innocents. Karmically, it's not looking good for her. Agreed. I think that if Hank is injured in the massacre, it's a minor injury. Lou in Season 1 was quite cool and detached when recounting the Sioux Falls massacre story. I'd imagine it would elicit stronger emotion if the father of his dying wife was shot. I agree that Hanzee hasn't killed any innocents yet, unless you count the white rabbit. He's certainly capable of it, though; I guess we'll see.

Did anyone catch the mention of Noreen being "emancipated"? I wonder what's going on there. It seems like a strange bit of detail, and "strange bits of detail" are usually worthy of note in a series where very little is wasted. I wonder if that's the last we'll see of the character. Given everything we've seen regarding a moral force animating the Coen brothers' stories--and Season 1 of Fargo in particular--do we now know enough about the various characters to predict whether they'll be "doomed" as karmic payback for their misdeeds or "saved" by keeping their hands clean? (To be fair, "good" characters can die, too, like Betsy, or Lester's sweet second wife in Season 1.) The more I see of Bear, the more I believe that he might be the "good" Gerhardt to make it out of this mess. He's genuinely devoted to his parents, he defers to his mother, he's looking out for the family and is deeply concerned about escalating the conflict, he wants the best for his son, and he is able to listen to reason, unlike Dodd, Ed and Peggy. I loved Angus Sampson (Bear) in the standoff scenes. You can tell that he's willing to carry through with his threats but that he's terrified for Charlie. And ultimately, unlike Dodd, whose macho posturing and carelessness get people killed, Bear actually backs down in the face of Karl's logic, saving several lives. I don't know how that will "weigh" in the Fargo moral scales, but it should count for something. Jeffrey Donovan's face when playing Dodd seems to be permanently in :( mode, as if he has a perpetual frown or grimace pasted on. He doesn't look like that normally, does he?

Agreed, and nicely put. I agree. It seems like a missed opportunity. This is all so, so true. The opposites attract trope really only works where the bickering is not genuine but the result of a desperate desire to avoid having to deal with strong mutual attraction. With Luke and Lorelai, not only did I see no strong mutual attraction, but their frequent irritation and frustration with each other seemed genuine. Also, if I were matchmaking for Lorelai and Luke, they are not the type of partners I would pick for each other. Lorelai I think would fare better with a mate who was optimistic and lighthearted while still being sufficiently grounded, stable, and reliable. Luke I think would fare better with someone calm and mellow to balance out his dark moods (and maybe get him the psychiatric help he so desperately seems to need?).

I loved everything about Peggy vs. Dodd: 1. Peggy taking down the first attacker with a sink of all things. 2. Dodd shooting his own man. 3. Dodd stupidly wedging himself into a tight space and dropping his own weapon when he gets stuck. 4. Peggy attacking Dodd with his own weapon. 5. Peggy shocking Dodd again after he called her a bitch. 6. The sexist Dodd getting taken down by a girl. Dodd really is useless without Hanzee, isn't he? He probably would have died a long time ago, given how impulsive and reckless he is, without Hanzee there to protect him from his own stupidity. Is Dodd dead? Can you kill someone with one of those shocker sticks? I've heard of people dying by taser, but those were modern devices, so I don't know if they'd be more less dangerous. I'm wondering what happens when Ed gets home and Hank/Lou are there and there are three new bodies to deal with. On another note, Lou seems to be the only character smart enough to outfox Hanzee. Ed would have died had it not been for Lou's quick thinking. The casting is so great on this show. Bear looked so worried for his son even when holding a rifle and at the head of an army.

Everything Karl said in 2x06 was gold: Karl: Greetings and salutations! I have made the pilgrimage from the hall of veterans as George Washington once forded the Delaware: steely in my resolve, prepared to battle until my dying breath for the rights-- Denise (calling out): Lawyer's here. Karl: (aside, casually)Hey, Denise--for the rights of free men! Police officer: Hey Karl, Ed's in back. Karl: Rights that were squeezed from British oppression like water like a stone. That all men are created equal, free from the jackboot tyranny and gulag magic tricks of nameless, faceless committees. Lou: Hey. Hope they didn't wake you. Karl: Out of my way, tool of the state! (Continuing, loudly) For I am come to comfort and counsel my client even as you seek to imprison him-- Lou: Whatever you do, you've got 30 minutes. Karl: Don't dictate terms to me, you rogue. For the law is a light on a hill calling to its breast all those in search of justice. To wit, this poor, mottled wretch in front of me. Ed: Hey, Karl. The most hilarious part to me is the casual, unruffled greetings exchanged all while Karl is ranting about the evil oppression of the state. Karl referring to the freckled Ed as "mottled" as if he was some kind of duck was also hilarious. The runner-up is Lou being 100% done with Bear's bullshit: Lou: This kind of thing didn't work in Westerns, and it's not going to work tonight.

This show is amazing. Best thing on TV right now. Speaking as a lawyer, Karl is aspirational. I'm appropriating "Out of my way, tool of the state" for my own use.

All indications are that Denise, a woman who's not a size 2, might be "getting some" or be "in love" with Tara. I'm not clear as to why this is indicative of "fat women" not being "allowed" to get some or fall in love on TV unless they're rail-thin. Denise is in love with a woman, so it "doesn't count"? Loving a woman doesn't have the same value as loving a man? How is Denise "desexualized"? She wears comfortable and practical clothes, but so does everyone, even love interest characters like Jessie. She kissed the young and beautiful Tara on the lips, which is more action than Daryl's gotten in five seasons. Also, I don't understand your insistence that love isn't for "black women" while stating that you're only allowed to "get some" on TV if you look like, among others, "Sasha," a black woman who's had a romance on the show. Your insistence that love isn't for "old women" on TWD is also flawed. Deanna, played by an older actress who actually looks her age, was happily married to Reg, who by all accounts appears to have been a loving and devoted husband. Deanna's love for her husband is even a plot point, as she relied on his support and love and is clearly lost without him. Compared to the generally shitty partners of the young and beautiful crowd--Jessie's abusive husband, Rosita's unfaithful man, Michonne's useless boyfriend, etc.--I'd say Deanna won the male partner sweepstakes. As for Daryl/Carol, whatever their relationship is, it seems to work for them and neither of them has shown any desire to change it, so I really don't see what the problem is. I'd feel the same way about Rick/Michonne--their relationship works for them, so whatever--were it not for the whole "mammy" vibe to Michonne being content to act as Carl's nanny. To be fair, though, there's been less of that since the group arrived in Alexandria. Michonne's off doing her own thing, and Carl's got his own drama to deal with.

Agreed. Luke crossed the line from "curmudgeonly but sweet" to "constantly hateful and perpetually irritated" fairly early on the show, in my opinion. He seemed annoyed by pretty much everything, ranging the spectrum from "mildly bothered but letting it go" to "angrily ranting at length over some perceived injustice." Even when he was courting Lorelai, he seemed put out at the effort and resentful of her for putting him to all this effort (his rant at her in the Raincoats episode was pretty telling, in my opinion). He was grimly and doggedly determined, as if fulfilling a distasteful obligation, rather than enthusiastic and excited. On another show, Luke might have the revelation that he's struggling with depression. (In fact, on another show airing this year, one of the leads who was also pretty hateful and negative towards everything and everyone revealed that she was suffering from clinical depression.) It would explain a lot about his behaviour, in my opinion. I don't blame him for acting as if he was annoyed by Lorelai in general. In my opinion, for all her good points, she's pretty annoying: selfish, entitled, rude, deliberately goads people to get a rise out of them (she and Jess had that in common, actually), talks too much about too little, in love with her own wittiness while not being particularly witty, overly fond of deliberately obscure pop culture references, and so on. Acting annoyed by Lorelai is a wholly reasonable reaction. However, most people don't choose to associate with people whose personalities irritate them, all other things being equal. People spend time with people who make them feel better about themselves, not worse. It's baffling to me is that he seemed so put off by Lorelai and still continued to pursue and date her. In real life, where people who genuinely like and are attracted to each other are not irritated by the other's presence, Luke and Lorelai would have maintained a cordial but distant relationship, with their interactions limited to a bit of light banter that would be politely but swiftly cut short the minute Lorelai got on Luke's nerves. It's only in TV/movie world that two people who annoy each other are destined for one another.

I wouldn't be shocked or appalled at Daryl/Carol turning romantic. He clearly does love her; in fact, I'd go so far as to say that he loves her more than she loves him--witness him losing his shit and crying like a baby when he sees Carol again in 5x01--even if she seems to have an attraction towards him which isn't (as far as we know) reciprocated. If he were suddenly to manifest overt sexual attraction towards her, his previous lack of interest could be chalked up to shyness or lingering issues from his past abuse. I'm just saying that at present, I don't see any "there" there. They lay down on the same bed with no apparent tension, discomfort or nervousness, not something people do--even people on a mission who are good at compartmentalizing--if there's any spark. I think part of the reason Daryl seems so comfortable with Carol these days is that he knows that she'd never try to cross the line and that she respects his boundaries. How is Sasha's attitude hypocritical? If she is interested in Abraham, the honourable thing to do is to tell him to break it off with Rosita before he comes sniffing around her. (I suppose you could argue that Sasha owes it to Rosita not to poach her man, but I never saw any indication that Sasha and Rosita were sufficiently close for this to be a valid consideration. And really, given how small the group is, any such code would be pretty prohibitive in terms of limiting the pool of available partners.)

What did Lorelai want at the time, though? She wanted not to marry Christopher, to be free from her toxic parents, to raise her child away from her parents' influence, and to be an independently successful person. Done. She got everything that she wanted. What did Lane want? To NOT have a horrible first sexual experience. To NOT get pregnant her first time out. To NOT become a mother, much less a mother to twins, at the age of 21. To NOT be stuck in Stars Hollow. To NOT give up her dream. Lane got everything she didn't want. She made her peace with her fate the same way people who suffer horrible fates make their peace with it, but that doesn't mean it's not a terrible outcome for her. She's the anti-Lorelai. If Lorelai had had a "Lane" outcome, she would have begrudgingly married Christopher and raised Rory under the toxic influence of her parents. She would have been trapped in what was for her a horrible life just as Lane was trapped.

I'm not surprised about Abe/Sasha. At least this will go some ways to counter the perception that the writers have some sort of mental opposition to white male characters forming romantic or at least sexual attachments to black female characters on the show. I'm not surprised that Abe is attracted to Sasha. Her PTSD is recognizable and understandable to him, creating a bond between them, and she's very beautiful. (How does Sonequa look better with with a "no-makeup" makeup look than most women look with a full face? Damn, those are some good genes.) I did see the grim humour in Rosita weeping over her man's safety while he's off blithely hitting on some other girl; the "Even in the apocalypse, men never change" tweets were flying fast and furious on Twitter during the episode. As for the lack of sex in general on the show, I'd have expected under these circumstances to see a lot more opportunistic same-sex relationships between people who would otherwise identify as straight, given the small size of the groups and their isolation, and a lot of relationships between people who given any amount of choice would not be particularly interested in one another. On Orange is the New Black, at an all-female prison, there are inmates who always identified as lesbian (Nicky, Big Boo, Poussey); inmates who identify as straight but who have same-sex relationships in prison (Morello); and inmates who identify as straight and seek out heterosexual relationships or rebuff advances from same-sex admirers (Daya, Taystee, Pennsatucky). Similarly, on Oz, a show about an all-male prison, there were inmates who identified as gay (Keller); inmates who identified as straight but who had same-sex relationships in prison (Beecher); and inmates who identified as straight and sought out heterosexual relationships (Ryan). Obviously, TWD is different in that it's not a mostly same-sex environment, but pickings would be pretty slim for a lot of the "inmates" in the group and one would have expected them to react similarly. One would also have expected to see under these circumstances a lot more "unlikely" pairings with less deference to big discrepancies in age and attractiveness, but we haven't seen much of that in the show. Abe and Glenn are not as attractive as Rosita and Maggie, but it's not questionable that they would pair off. Ditto for Bob/Sasha. As for Daryl, word of God (i.e. Kirkman) is that he's 100% straight. Assuming he's not asexual, is it unlikely that he would have shown no overt sexual interest in any woman since the beginning of the show (unlike, say, Eugene, who is clearly celibate but is assuredly heterosexual), despite the preponderance of attractive women running around? I don't know. If you take into account his history of abuse and what appears to be a fairly reticent nature, it doesn't seem crazy to me that he would have issues expressing a romantic or sexual interest in someone. With that said, I don't see that there's any "there" there with Daryl/Carol. She's expressed interest in him and he's rebuffed her. He does love her, but I see nothing that indicates that he's in love with her.

As I indicated, I'm skeptical that ASP wishes to avoid enraging either shipper faction. I tend to think that if she cared about not enraging the shippers, Luke and Lorelai's relationship in Season 6 would have played out pretty differently. I know what you mean about Veronica Mars. I enjoyed the movie, but the writing was on the wall regarding the outcome, and the whole thing smacked of shameless fanservice. (To be fair, given that the affair was crowdfunded, I think failing to include some degree of fanservice would have been biting the hand that fed them.) It felt less like a story than the result of a fandom focus group. With respect to the Gilmore Girls revival, I am more certain that it won't play out as a love letter to the fans, and I think the revival will be the better for it. I'm of the (admittedly unpopular) opinion that pandering to fans' demands--shippery or otherwise--almost never improves the quality of the show. Similarly, deliberately spiting the fans out of frustration at their desires never improves the quality of the show, either. ("Oh, so you desperately want X and Y to get together, do you? Well, I'll have X TRY TO RAPE Y. Not loving the pairing now so much, are ya? HAHAHAHA.") It seems best to ignore the fandom altogether and let the ratings sort out the show's popularity. That isn't to say that showrunners never set a foot wrong and write developments which are out of character, illogical, or downright offensive. It's just that I find that when showrunners stick with their guns and ignore fans' wishes--either to bow to them or to spite them with gleeful malice--the end result appears to have more structural integrity and to hold together better. I've seen many a show compromised by the writers bowing to fan demands and then having to scramble to make it fit with their overarching plan for the story. In at least one case, it pretty much ruined the show. I do feel confident that whatever ASP will do with the revival, a desire to appease shippers or to throw some fanservice their way will not be a part of it. That doesn't mean that the end result won't necessarily look like fanservice--i.e. if ASP wanted Luke/Lorelai as the endgame, they'll be endgame--but that it won't be out of deference to or to spite fans.

I thought that title was a reference to Waiting for Godot.

Not everyone has the ability to break free from their toxic parents, or from abusive relationships in general. "Guts" has very little to do with it, and to assume that all one needs is "guts" is a pretty limited perspective. It's insulting to people who've suffered from these relationships to suggest that all they need to break free is a little bit of gumption, and if they fail to display said gumption then they're spineless, lazy cowards who deserve whatever they get. Your attitude reminds me of the "Why don't they just LEAVE" response to women stuck in abusive relationships. To be clear, I was disappointed that Lane failed to break free, as I said, but I don't blame her for it; to suggest that her failure is her fault for not being "brave" enough seems like victim-blaming to me. It's not her fault that she suffered from her mother's treatment of her. When you treat your children horribly, they suffer for it; it's not rocket science. The blame belongs with her mother's shitty parenting, not with Lane for not being tough enough to rise above her mother's shitty parenting and strike out on her own. It's hardly fair to compare her to Lorelai. Lorelai and Jess weren't struggling with being raised by oppressively religious parents, and they didn't seem to suffer from the pernicious influence of conservative Christian religion the way that Lane did. You are right that Lane did make choices which led to her ruin, but when you look at those choices, it's obvious that her conservative religious upbringing led to those choices: 1. Choosing to marry an unsuitable man instead of living with him conjugally as a test drive of the relationship. 2. Abstaining from premarital sex and having a disastrous first sexual experience as a result (to the point where she laments that her mother was right that sex is horrible, suggesting a direct link between her mother's horrific parenting and her own poor decisions). 3. Failing to inform herself about birth control. (It's hardly "ridiculous" that a young woman raised in an oppressive religious environment by a mother who railed against the awfulness of sex would be hesitant about informing herself on the proper use of birth control.) 4. Refusing to contemplate an abortion. 5. Giving up her dreams for the sake of the family unit. I mean, sure, she "chose" these things, but let's not pretend that those choices were made in a vacuum.