Eolivet

Wow, Sorkin really is going full-blown fanfic scenario with those two. Bonus points if there's a nearby Russian hotel with just one room left and only one bed.

Thanks for solving the mystery, WendyCR72! Bobby would be proud at your attention to detail. I have to point this out because it really annoys me, and it's so minor, I didn't want it in any of the season threads. So, VDO and Chris Noth have for their shots in the opening credits, photos of them looking...like cops, basically. Examining evidence, going to a crime scene, leaning in odd ways as they interrogate a suspect. Every time I catch a Nichols episode by mistake, it drives me crazy that Jeff Goldblum is holding a bag with what looks like food in it. Like...ooh, way to convey gravitas there! Wow, such a professional -- you stopped for lunch! I know it was probably USA's attempt to "Monk"-ify the show (QUIRKY DETECTIVE SOLVES CRIMES AND IS QUIRKY AT THE SAME TIME!), but ugh. Yet another (dumb) reason why Nichols episodes are the worst.

I enjoyed this ep, though I have to wonder if this is the last we've seen of Lola and Narcisse. Craig Parker is so charming -- makes me wish he was on a different show that more people watched. He makes Narcisse a fascinating character. I've read speculation (no spoilers, just fan speculation) that the show has foreshadowed that Francis and Lola's son will be killed. I can't see it, personally. Mary is the lead of the show, not Francis. The baby provides drama for her -- the child dies, and her life actually gets easier. Plus, if Narcisse is involved, it means Lola either leaves the show or the show can't go back to their Lola/Narcisse 50 Shades of Grey thing. I don't think they're ready to slam the door on that just yet. I also think shows have difficult time killing babies once they've left the womb. Unless they want to do a grief arc for the mother (who is Lola, not Mary), it's just unnecessarily dark. Quite frankly, the fact that Narcisse has brought up that he doesn't want to hurt Lola's child "but he will if he has to" makes me think the baby will be fine. It's only when characters are promised safety that they're generally in trouble.

Don't get me wrong: I'm one of the biggest "Heliza" shippers out there, but this was kind of sudden for me. Last week, we go from Henry (presumably?) sleeping with Julia, and this week, he's being hit on by Pru's friend (name escapes me) and Eliza? I actually wondered why he didn't immediately tell what's-her-face "I have a girlfriend" when she started hitting on him. It was as if this episode was written prior to Julia existing and that one line about Julia being a workaholic was added in later. I do have to give the show credit for zagging when I thought it would zig: I thought for sure Henry and Eliza were being set up as the awkward-guy-pines-for-beautiful-girl trope. I think I like this role reversal even more. I love the idea of Eliza breaking up with Freddy and deciding she's going to pursue Henry for real -- just thought the execution could've been better. It really gives me hope that Emily Kapnek sensed the show would be done after 13 episodes and is writing toward an actual ending.

I had forgotten that Bobby still looked nice in early S8, WendyCR72 -- before they decided that his "depressed look" (that we'd only seen when he was in "purgatory") should be his regular look. The shaggy beard was just a bad look. I don't know if it was for another VDO role, but your "the ever changing grizzly beard of Goren" title is sadly true. (And what is "the return of the lean?" Not code for Nichols, I hope -- LOL.)

"Playing Dead" can join one list, and its airing prompts the creation of another one! I'm removing the Oedipus and Elektra distinctions, because nearly all these people were children at the time of the adult's attention, and I wouldn't want to imply they were at all complicit. Borderline or inappropriate familial relationships: -"Smothered" -"On Fire" -"Death Roe" -"Family Values" -"Playing Dead" Mommy cleans up my messes! -"Shandeh" -"Playing Dead"

Ugh, I was wondering if it was meant to imply that the mother had molested her son, who molested his stepdaughter. I hadn't seen this one in a while, but I remembered the faux "wine" conversation. What a sleazeball. Too bad, because Bobby has some zingers here -- the fake French accent with the wine guy and "Tony wants a shirt and a half" about mob code. VDO looked good here -- even sans suit and tie. The salt-and-pepper suited him. The beard, not so much.

So, Santos -- the misogynist bigot -- whose biggest fan is himself, who came up with a secret plan to eliminate his fellow contestants (most of them minorities), who has derogatorily referred to his female competitors as "girls" (among other things) and whose idea of leadership was the classic pass-the-buck-and-take-credit scenario, is nominated for elimination by his teammates, and when asked if he should stay, claims he is "Boston Strong?!" This is why Boston Strong needs to be killed with fire. Out of his mouth, it's as appealing as overcooked salmon.

Don't have a source, but I just read from those who follow Julian Ovenden on Twitter that he's confirmed he will not be in the Christmas Special. If he's not even mentioned by Mary, I don't see how Blake comes back next year as any kind of serious suitor. Viewers' memories just aren't that long. I still think Branson (old habits die hard) goes to America offscreen and comes back in season 6, possibly with a new American wife and new ideas for reviving Downton. It's a way they get around the "he should've left by now," but also "the show can't do without him." Taking his grand adventure when the show isn't on. Win/win.

I love old media. I have family and friends in old media. And I was on Hallie's side of that argument the entire time. Because I love old media, but I hate sanctimonious jerks more. In other words: Shut. Up. Jim. I know "Quick, marry me before I'm off to jail" is an old trope, but it just made me wonder why Sorkin was cribbing the season 2 finale of Downton Abbey. Darn, I wanted Quo Vadimus 2: The Quo Vadimusing to be Toni Dodd. I suppose there are two more episodes left.

First time seeing "Frame" all the way through. I know Nicole isn't too popular, but her demise was kind of blah and strained credibility for me. Gage isn't specific, but it's implied that she's overpowered by him as a larger man, which kind of sucks -- she was this pint-sized, super charming serial killer who seriously knew no self-defense? So she was one big guy immune to her charms away from being taken out? Lame. Plus, Nicole hated men -- there's no way she would've been taken in by Gage. She would've known she couldn't charm him if he was Bobby's friend, and a criminal profiler at that. Nicole was so dangerous because she read people so well -- to imply Gage was able to fool her makes me wish "Grow" was the last we saw of her. She deserved a far better demise. But Gage was a piece of work -- a formaldehyde addict? Who abuses formaldehyde? Does it have some street name I don't know about? There were flashes of creativity (Nicole's Hamlet-quoting card, the descriptive nature of Gage's illness: essentially losing judgment is frightening) but it was mostly a really rushed trip down memory lane, with characters we'd gotten to know (Nicole, Frank) taken out by this guy we really didn't care much about (Gage). The wole hour was one big letdown. And Ross' relationship with Rogers needs one of WendyCR72's patented "Trigger warning: Ross as a sexual being." That relationship is still all kinds of random WTF.

Sorry about the "nitpicky" comment -- it was meant to agree with you. I think the reviewer is being nitpicky about "not mentioning Sloan is biracial makes The Newsroom a bad show!" I don't think it's necessary, especially as she's in a profession where I don't think her superiors care about her race as long as she brings in viewers (due to her doing her job well and looking good while doing so). I agree, which is why I wish his behavior was called out -- by the other men or just if the show had him in a negative light. He's been a condescending jerk this year in a way no other man has been, including the guy who tried to buy out the network. Hallie talks back to him, but the show takes his side (old media vs. new media) in their debates, which I don't like. Jim needs to learn his side isn't always right. I wish Will would've read Jim the riot act after Jim (as Maggie's boss) didn't make sure they knew the EPA guy was going to say the world was ending in that interview. Instead, it was made to look like Maggie's fault -- that bumbling Maggie failed yet again. I don't think that's "progressive" to say it was Jim's fault -- just truthful. Managers should take responsibility for inadequate supervision of their subordinates, male or female. And I don't think the show sees Jim as flawed. He's been on the "right" side of every issue, as far as the show is concerned. He was "right" about Maggie last year after her trauma, "right" about how wrong Maggie and Don were, "right" about the evils of new media (we're meant to sympathize with him over Hallie, as he's the regular character and she's only recurring). Even when he was kicked off the Romney campaign, he ultimately won over Taylor and "won" Hallie, so it was a net win for him. I don't care if the women say he's wrong -- what matters to me is the story/show thinks he's right. I'm really just waiting for Jim to take a loss. Every mistake he's made somehow ends up working out for him: the blown call on the Michigan 1st was a perfect time to humble him a little, but no...he got that one right, too. I'd love to see him confess feelings for Maggie and have her choose the nice professor. Or have Hallie take a job at Buzzfeed and scoop Jim on a story. But I fully expect him to scoop Hallie at Buzzfeed, while Maggie falls breathlessly into his arms. Everyone else has had wins and losses, but it can't work out that well for one guy all the time. That's not a dynamic character. That's a Gary Stu.

I liked that story up until last episode, where Jim's complete and utter failure as a boss (i.e., not doing a pre-interview for the EPA guy) was painted as Maggie screwing up. Jim/Maggie is so, so wrong to me on so many levels because it co-opts and bastardizes the pretty awesome Josh/Donna relationship from The West Wing. Josh was Donna's boss, but she gave as good as she got with him. They each had their own moments of stupidity and moments of triumph, and it felt more like a relationship of equals, even in the early seasons. When Sorkin used to try his hand at feminism, he'd make both the characters loud and opinionated (Will and Mac feel more like a West Wing couple). But spunky-yet-demure gal Friday Maggie and all-knowing, noble Jim try my patience on so many levels. And I really can't stand how Jim has been allowed to act as benevolent, well-meaning commentator on Maggie and particularly Hallie's decisions. The show could've done (and I guess could still do) something really interesting out of Hallie getting fired and potentially getting a job with new media, and scooping ACN on something. But because the show takes an "old media is superior to new media" approach, that won't happen, because Jim has been made to represent "the right journalism," while Hallie is "the wrong journalism." I wouldn't mind at all if the viewers were allowed to judge Hallie's opportunism for ourselves, but because the show has inserted Jim into the story, it's clear which way we're meant to lean. (And if Maggie's nice professor turns out to be evil, I will roll my eyes so hard, they will fall out.) I like Mac a lot this year -- I do think she's improved. As we've said, a woman doesn't have to drive every single story to be feminist, and she's not driving this one. But Will isn't talking down to her or acting pedantic -- she's just a supporting player in Will's story. That's fine, and it doesn't offend me. She offers a different perspective. I think Sorkin has cribbed a lot of Jed and Abby Bartlet with Will and Mac (minus the "she cheated on me, wahhh" story, which has thankfully been dropped now that they're together). And this storyline has found them a way to use the incredible Rebecca character, which is awesome. True, but Sloan is being allowed to drive the Don/Sloan relationship -- we've seen it more from her perspective than his. She was also the one who figured out the twins' hostile takeover bid with her cool computer. Sloan has had more non-relationship story than Don, whose only role this year seems to be "Sloan's not boyfriend" and I kind of love it. I like this storyline a lot -- this is egalitarian writing at its finest. There are "good" and "bad" women on either side of the table, both powerful and controlling. Reese and Charlie are there, too, but they're all sort of driving the storyline together. Leona and Charlie have shared stories all show, and this appears to be no exception. I like that Leona was made to be a "bad guy" who then turned "good" (even if the way they did it at the end of last year left me rolling my eyes a little, it was entertaining). Overall, I think the show has improved this year, and reading this over, I'd say they've made great progress, except for the sore thumbs that are Maggie and Jim. I don't know how Sorkin got them so wrong -- whether it was casting or characterization or what: I loved Josh/Donna and Jeremy/Natalie on his earlier shows, and neither felt so offensive to me as this relationship. Maggie is just every bad female character trope ever and Jim needs to shut his mouth about other people and do his freaking job without being a condescending jerk. Or Will needs to smack him down or something. Perhaps without Maggie and Jim, I could entertain the idea that this year, The Newsroom has become more feminist. But because they exist...I just can't. That's nitpicky, in my opinion -- all that matters in the news world is Sloan is pretty and competent, and she's both. If I concede every single one of your points about the other relationships on the show except Jim/Maggie, I suppose my question is: how is the character of Jim or the Jim/Maggie relationship at all feminist? Can we concede Jim has been allowed to comment on Maggie and Hallie's decisions in the way no other man on the show this year (Will, Don, Charlie) has done of any other woman? I would understand the character of Jim if he was meant to be a villain. But he's meant to be a hero and his personal life has been nothing but sanctimonious judgment of women's choices. How do you reconcile that as a feminist? And if feminism is men and women being equal, why haven't Maggie or Hallie been allowed to comment on Jim the way he comments on both of them?

Freddy's friends with cat names was one of the funniest throwaway gags I've seen in a while. Whiskers, Mittens, Azriel, Heathcliff. I was really impressed with this episode from a story standpoint -- I didn't find it that similar to last week's episode. The first scene of the episode with Eliza's party-for-one reminded me that Eliza and Henry seem like they both might've been loners who went in polar opposite directions. I know that should be obvious, with Eliza's obvious desire for (online) "friends" -- that she chose to combat her loneliness while Henry embraced it and made it a part of who he is. They're a lot alike in that sense, which makes them so compelling to watch together. We've seen Henry a couple times (the first time with the K-pop while babysitting) go from buttoned up to loosened up more quickly than you'd think he would. And while Julia was self-aware about her reaction, you get the feeling she'd prefer to keep Henry in his buttoned up state (most of the time, heh), as that is where she's the most comfortable. In other words: judging how easy we've seen it is for Henry to have fun in the right circumstances (especially when Eliza creates them), I wonder if it's the show's way of telling us that, despite all outward appearances, he and Eliza are more similar than he and Julia. If so, that's some impressively subtle storytelling. I'm just happy we'll get to see the remaining episodes online. A show like "Selfie" is tailor-made for a Web series (as others have said: a modern retelling of a classic story has blown up online before -- see: "The Lizzie Bennet Diaries"). Come on, ABC (or Hulu or whoever) -- it's a perfect Web-based show. And people won't mind the title so much online.

This debate reminds me of a similar racial debate about something like (bad timing I know) "The Cosby Show." It was considered groundbreaking for its time because it showed a successful African-American family, with troubles and problems just like a white family. In retrospect, media critique acknowledges that the show completely "whitewashed" the issue of race. The Huxtables didn't have "African-American problems," they just had problems. Their race was seldom, if ever, acknowledged, which was not commensurate with reality. But it was thought by making an African-American family successful, it was showing how equal we all were. When it was really just ignoring race entirely. Same with the "token minority" characters on ensemble dramas -- stick a minority face into an all-white cast, never really acknowledge that the person is indeed a minority and the show can claim everyone is treated "equally." Looking at Sorkin's previous shows, I believe he tries to write them as "egalitarian." As others, namely netlyon2, have noted -- he puts women in positions of power and says "Look, a woman is equal to a man." Crime dramas have been doing that for years, there's a "female boss" and the show can pat itself on the back for showing women as "equal" because they have power. When there is nothing uniquely female about any of the characters -- they're basically male characters written as women (just as "token minority" characters are white characters given a different race). They react like men in situations (except when it serves the plot). It's why I believe there's a weird dichotomy between how capable the women can be in their jobs and if one writes quirky and emotional dialogue for them or makes them care about relationships, it's acknowledging them as women (just as the "token minority" character occasionally got a line about "I didn't grow up in a nice neighborhood" whenever it was convenient to the plot, but it was completely ignored otherwise). But I don't believe egalitarian is the same as feminist. Everyone is equal, and success is gender-neutral, but really there's nothing about the women that identifies them as women. If you took a scene from The Newsroom (that didn't refer to a wedding or a relationship) and erased everyone's character name, you couldn't tell the women from the men. I don't see that as progress, nor do I see it as feminist. Egalitarian is pretending everyone is equal when everyone is not. So, The Newsroom is egalitarian: men and women enjoy positions of power, everyone is the same (except when it serves the plot). But egalitarian doesn't acknowledge the male power structure or the male perspective, it takes a traditional view of everyone. So, it's OK if women are quirky and emotional if they have a high-powered job -- because they're women and that's how women act! It's OK if we use female trauma as a plot device -- that's what works for the story (and how men see female trauma). So long as women are wielding power and can talk to men on their level and the men don't treat them like garbage, the show can use their (male-viewed) feminine traits when it's convenient for the plot or moves the story along, but quickly shove them back into that gender-neutral, egalitarian role because everyone is equal and everyone is the same. I believe feminist shows acknowledge the male power structure and the male perspective, acknowledge that women and men are different people with different issues, priorities and feelings and even take the women's view on female-centric stories. The Newsroom does none of that. Therefore, it's egalitarian -- but I do not believe it is feminist.

Against...men? That's impossible, because men are the default perspective on pretty much all television -- and all of life. Similar to reverse racism, I believe one can't have reverse sexism. I don't think one can discriminate against the majority or the default view. To me, feminism comes not from how men write women, but if men distinguish the male perspective from the default perspective. Aaron Sorkin does not. The male perspective is the default -- there is little acknowledgment of how the female perspective is different. Female-centric stories are written from the male (traditional) perspective. As for Shonda, Charlotte Bronte and Harper Lee -- the minority can always write the majority, because it's the default perspective. Everyone knows how the default perspective thinks because it's the default. And men can indeed write feminist stories. Rob Thomas, a male writer, wrote "Veronica Mars." Veronica was the main character, we saw how her trauma affected her, and most importantly, we saw how the men in her life thought her trauma affected her. That's a feminist story: acknowledging the male and female perspectives are different, and the male perspective is not the default. Veronica's story is the antithesis of Maggie's. Incidentally, Veronica's story was also a mystery -- proving a feminist story can be told about women going through trauma, and still be a good story without being about "nice girl gone bad." Yes, exactly! I touched upon this briefly in the other thread, but it's treating women as special for being competent at their jobs. You can see Sorkin trying, but it's like a blind man trying to navigate through the desert. Enthusiastically cheering women for putting one foot in front of the other isn't feminist, it's a more subtle form of "other"ing. This. Where I also think Sorkin failed with Mac was we didn't see her perspective first about the engagement or the cheating. The default perspective was the male/Will perspective, which was "the girl who broke his heart by cheating on him." Having a Mac-centric story about the broken engagement first would've gone a long way to really humanize her. The one example I can think of a feminist story is Sloan in season one -- when she made the on-air mistake with the Japanese translator. Her perspective was the dominant perspective -- we saw her make the mistake, get upset about it and we saw when Charlie tried to call her "girl" and she yelled at him. Seeing the story through Sloan's eyes, I was furious when Charlie called her "girl" -- and I didn't feel like we as viewers were supposed to sympathize with him. That was acknowledging the male perspective, and it wasn't the default perspective either. But this is why I believe it is impossible for The Newsroom to be a feminist show. Most every storyline about a woman (Mac, Maggie), where the show could've taken the perspective of the woman about the issue, it chose to make the male perspective the default without acknowledging that was what they were doing. When the male perspective is the same thing as the default perspective, that's a traditional show. That's The Newsroom.

As the discussion topic in the Boston thread seemed to be taking on a life of its own, I wanted to start a separate thread. It's wonderful to think of a world where men and women are treated equally. But the fact is society ascribes different meanings to each sex in similar situations. A feminist show is mindful of those implications and actively works against them. A feminist show actively avoids traditional gender role tropes (like "woman in distress" or "nice girl turned bad") or addresses them head-on. A feminist show does not address women's issues through the perspective of a man. A feminist show realizes men and women have different priorities and treats them differently. (The argument is very similar to the one involving race, where people say "I'm colorblind, I don't see race." It's a wonderful ideal, but I don't believe it works at all in real life because different races have different issues and priorities, no matter how much people protest otherwise. Likewise with men and women.) A feminist show does not, in my opinion, write a "nice girl gone bad" story using the perspective of a man, for the purpose of "story." "Nice girl gone bad" is not a story any feminist show would address without taking the perspective of the nice girl herself first. There's certainly a way to write that story from the woman's perspective and not spoil the mystery (see: the first season of "Veronica Mars"). But "Nice girl gone bad" is a very traditional story, and if it's told from the male perspective, it's not a feminist story. Writing flawed women is not feminist if a man has the dominant perspective -- which he does on The Newsroom in nearly every single relationship, save Don and Sloan. The only way a woman seen through a dominant male perspective can be feminist is if the man's perspective is acknowledged as such. But the viewer's perspective and the man's perspective cannot be one and the same and have it be a feminist show. It doesn't have to be a misogynist show -- just a show with traditional gender roles. Again, I don't believe Aaron Sorkin hates women -- I really don't. I think he's fascinated by them and in awe of everything they can do. That makes him a traditional writer or one writing to traditional gender roles. It doesn't make him the Devil Incarnate. It just makes him not a feminist, which is why I emphatically cannot see The Newsroom as a feminist show.

Fair enough. I don't believe the show has done that either. Jim made a stupid mistake on the Romney campaign -- he was kicked off the bus. He was given a chance to grow and learn. He was shown as flawed and allowed to recover. But there was no shot of all the senior people standing around teary-eyed as little Jim learned from his mistakes, the way it was when Maggie sported Mac's expensive heels and low-cut black dress and reported a story all by her lonesome! Again, a show praising women for being competent is not feminist. It's not treating them like human beings. It's giving them special treatment and praise, like a parent losing their mind over a toddler taking a couple steps. When a man reports a story, who cares? When a woman does it, it's (no pun intended) newsworthy! That's not treating women as equals, to me. Sure, it does. Where was Maggie's perspective? We were told something was wrong, something was different about Maggie. We weren't allowed (as viewers) to go to Maggie for the real story until much later. It was all hushed whispers and furtive glances. The woman came back wrong. We weren't given another perspective -- we had no clue what happened to Maggie. As a result, viewers had to see her like Jim did, and as the show presented her: different, damaged, newly promiscuous. There was no other viewpoint, since we weren't allowed into her head from the beginning. We were asked to judge her, through Jim's eyes. But I'm just going to stop here, because the fact that negative words like "agenda" and "political" are being used to describe feminism makes me certain we have very different interpretations about what it means.

That is adorable, Maherjunkie. A true Internet work of art! I have a stupid question, but it bugs me every single time I watch a rerun on ION: what episode is the clip from where Bobby says "You took the gun, you put it in her hand and BOOM!" It bugs me every time. I know they have "Sound Bodies" on there, with Connie laughing at Bobby, but the former clip drives me nuts trying to place it. Anyone?

I just could not let this remark pass without commenting, and I will beg the mod's pardon to briefly list a few examples from previous seasons to illustrate the point. I could name five shows off the top of my head that are more feminist than The Newsroom. When the majority of men still get plots about the news and their human flaws and frailties, and the majority of women get plots about how awe-inspiring it is that they are capable of doing their job, that's not feminist. Yes, the show has Sloan, and I love Sloan and I appreciate that we're pretty much seeing Don/Sloan through her perspective as the more developed character. But when Maggie scored the story in Boston, the focus wasn't really about the story, but how impressive it was that she got the story. When...that's her job. The show celebrating that a woman is competent is not feminist. Sorkin did the same thing in "Sports Night" with Natalie -- both she and Maggie got "our little girl is all grown up" stories. Mac and the shot clock last year was another example. This is the show where the men routinely use sports analogies and yet none of them noticed a shot clock? The show practically injured itself trying to pat itself on the back that Mac was the only one who noticed. It had to dumb down all the men in order for a woman to crack the case! And while Mac has gotten better, but for the first two seasons, we saw her and Will's relationship almost entirely through Will's gaze: Mac was the mysterious "other" in the relationship who cheated on Will and broke his heart ("the man/viewers wonder why the man's pretty fiancee became a dirty slut" trope). That is, when Mac wasn't conveniently lobotomized for purposes of the plot -- not knowing how to use "reply all" isn't quirky, it's pretty much brain dead for the executive producer of a major news show. Then there was Maggie in Africa -- which we never saw from her perspective until much later in the season. When the season started, Maggie was the former girl-next-door who (gasp!) cut her hair, (double gasp!) dyed it and (GASP!) had inappropriate relationships with men! All of this was viewed through Jim's paternalistic "something's wrong with Maggie" gaze. Contrast Maggie's trauma with Josh's in "Noel." (from The West Wing) It's not even close in terms of treating one person like a human being suffering a trauma and the other like a mysterious "other." Had the show chosen to show us immediately what happened from Maggie's perspective and how Maggie was dealing with it, and show how she reacted to Jim's concern and everyone else's, there might be an argument there. But " all the men/viewers wonder why the pretty ingenue is now a dirty slut" is pretty much the epitome of an anti-feminist plot. Do I think Sorkin is a misogynist? No...I think he's in awe of women too much (they like sports! they produce news shows! is there anything they can't do?!) But do I think The Newsroom has sexist tendencies -- and other than one character and a couple isolated incidents, it is in no way a feminist show.

Did anyone want to punch Jim in the face as hard as you could for the way he talked to Maggie and Hallie? Just me? OK. Pretty good ep otherwise, though I cannot believe they are recycling the Quo Vadimus plot from Sports Night. Dear Aaron Sorkin: It's called an original idea...

Respectfully disagree, as this show seems to be much more about the fallout than the crime. The fallout of Sam being a murderer and Annalise (et al) covering it up, setting in motion a series of circumstances that led to his death. Sam wouldn't have been killed if Nate and Rebecca hadn't been hellbent on trying to prove his guilt. I also don't think the reveal that was the most shocking was Sam's killer (obvious when you thought about it), but the fallout/cover up -- and who was involved. All season long, we've been seeing the fallout of Lila's murder intercut with the fallout of Sam's murder. The two are seemingly intertwined. To say "Psych! Sam didn't kill anyone!" turns him into more of a victim than the personification of the Cellblock Tango from "Chicago" ("He had it coming"). That's awfully bleak for me. I know this isn't a true Shonda Rhimes show, but a tenet of her dramas has always seemed to be "whatever it takes for the greater good." People do terrible, horrible, despicable, awful things, but it's always in service of a larger purpose (in their minds). Murders are routinely swept under the rug and justified, but only in service of the greater good. Sam being innocent makes the murder senseless, and worse, pointless. Whoever killed Lila then becomes a sociopath, because he/she has sat back and watched innocent people twist themselves into knots to prove Sam was the killer -- to the point where they've murdered an innocent man. That's absolutely something David E. Kelley would do in his heyday on "The Practice," but I just can't see someone who learned at Shonda's feet writing something that nihilistic. Again, respectfully disagree -- I think the show has been about how to cover up a crime: first Lila's murder, and now Sam's. It's absolutely been about evidence -- finding it, destroying it, faking it, making it say things it shouldn't. Annalise's lessons of the week are all about the mind of the accused and how a defense attorney works within (or slightly outside) the confines of the law to tilt the evidence in their favor. Only this week did we see the crime -- the vast majority of the show has been about dealing with the proof: a body being rolled into a rug, doused with gasoline, chopped into pieces, evidence being taken and or cleaned away and alibis being established. Every major twist and turn was about what the evidence said (the wallpaper, the phone picture, the missing time at Yale, the pregnancy reveal), not about what actually happened. And again, if Sam isn't the killer, what was the point of the new wallpaper, the phone pictures, the missing time at Yale, the pregnancy reveal, other than to waste time? I suppose I have faith that the coverup of Sam's murder is interesting enough, and the writers can do enough with the last six episodes that they don't need to throw in twist after twist after twist. Michaela's missing ring, where the scales on the trophy went, that Frank found the statue outside the house, that Rebecca called 911 and hung up, that Asher is in the dark about the whole thing and that Rebecca's trial for Lila's murder starts today seems like more than enough storylines for the remainder of the season. I'm not saying it won't happen, but if it turns out Sam was innocent, then this story was even more poorly planned than I thought. They had 15 episodes, not 22. You can do ongoing red herrings when you have to kill time -- when you have to make every moment of an episode count, ongoing red herrings just seem like filler.

I feel like Sam not being Lila's killer might be one twist too many. It also sort of takes away the "We killed a violent criminal" aspect to it (yes, he punched all of them and tried to choke Rebecca, but if he actually never took a life, and they took his, that does tip the scales -- no pun intended). Plus, how do they prove it, with Sam dead? He had no real alibi for the night of the murder -- quite the opposite. The victim was pregnant with his child. Lila was strangled -- not shot or stabbed -- so there'd likely be no blood on the killer's clothing. I don't see how Sam didn't kill Lila at this point, unless there was a witness who comes forward, some kind of months-old DNA suddenly shows up or the killer just outright confesses. But "trying to defend an innocent person from a murder charge, while trying to cover up the murder that's yet to be discovered" is an interesting story. Make Lila's killer someone else, it feels too much like a "Gotcha!" and then it's just...how many bodies can we cover up? How many crimes can we bury? This cast goes from looking like victims of circumstance to a bunch of sociopaths. I don't think that's how they want to be perceived, but I could be wrong.

That's such a good way to put it. For someone who enjoys Liv and Fitz under the right circumstances, but wants to beat the idea of Vermont into a jammy pulp, it's such a good point that it's Fitz's fantasy, not hers. As the island in the sun is Jake's fantasy, and also not hers. I like how Liv has come alive this past half-season -- you can tell that her true passion is this life, and the draw of politics and power. I'm sure others have said this, but the Liv/Papa Pope relationship was really reminding me of Meredith and Ellis on Grey's Anatomy. Papa Pope has all but begged Liv to be extraordinary. Vermont is ordinary. The island in the sun is ordinary. Olivia is meant for bigger and better, and that's what her father -- in his twisted way -- keeps trying to tell her. Living up to parental expectations was one of my favorite part of Grey's, though Scandal appears to be more about subverting them. I hope it isn't the last we've seen of Papa Pope. He adds a whole other dimension to Liv, relationship-wise, outside of the soapy love triangle.

I don't mind Nicole as much as some, but I did like her arc in "Grow." It reminded me of a (paraphrased) line about serial killers that I heard on some other crime drama (maybe even Law & Order itself): that you can tell yourself you're still human because you let one go, you let one live. After all the people Nicole killed without a second thought -- including her own daughter -- showing an attachment to a little girl was probably some sick way of her justifying to herself she had some humanity left. I think "Grow" would've been even more interesting if Nicole hadn't had a daughter of her own. That after manipulating men and manipulating women, perhaps she'd try to make some sort of amends by becoming the mother she never had and raising a daughter in the way she was never raised. Only to discover she couldn't do it. It would also play on the "bad parents" contest that she and Goren had going. The Nicole episode that sticks out like a sore thumb to me is "Great Barrier": that quasi-maternal/lover relationship she had with the teenage girl was just beyond strange. And the revelation about killing her four-year old because her daughter was sexual competition (W.T.F.?!) and then at the end, "suddenly" "jumping through the window" and "leaving blood behind" was like the episode morphing into a weird thriller. (Actually, I take that back: the most ridiculous Nicole episode was the end of "Slither" when she managed to stab the guy with a poisoned syringe in the middle of a crowded subway station in such a way that it both killed him instantly and nobody saw her do it. As others have said, that made her into a weird kind of supervillain in a way she hadn't been before.)