Hazel55

Is anyone else finding this season's big bad, the governor, to be less obnoxious than Nate at this point? The governor may be morally corrupt and possibly murderous, but at least she manages to act with a reasonable amount of intelligence. Nate just blunders around railing about "Mah pops" to everyone who will listen, clearly illustrating his animus against the late Miller, and repeatedly articulating his reasons for killing Miller to every law enforcement figure he can find. Usually I would conclude that Nate is just Too Stupid to Help Himself, but Analise and the other smarter characters (everyone, at this point) have repeatedly advised him to abandon his current course, to no avail. Exactly. And on the slight chance that Laurel is right, and that little babies can experience PTSD (something that I've never heard, and a conclusion for which Laurel offers no support) then I think the baby would be far moer likely to experience PTSD over the terrible experiences that Laurel's own actions have led her to expose it to. Being born in an elevator? Being exposed to an accidental shooting because mommy brought a gun to an office building? That's all on you, Laurel. If Laurel were anyone else I'd probably be on her side; but since Laurel spent the entirity of last season actively endangering her unborn child, all I can do is roll my eyes. Other thoughts: Michaela looked especially gorgeous tonight. I love that pink dress she was wearing, it really flattered her skin tone and her figure. Also, I think Asher is a total sweetheart. Though I know a lot of people are bored with him at this point/ feel he should leave the show, I think he continues to be compelling and sympathetic. The problem is (and, I believe, the reason why a lot of people are finding him "boring") is that he is simply never given his own storylines, he's always the supporting player for others. Analise lectured him about "finding himself" rather than simply continuing to play the clown/ kind supporter at the beginning of this season; which I thought would lead to some further development of his character and some beefier storylines. However, so far, that just hasn't panned out. Also, I thought Michaela and Asher were a fantastic couple, and I still don't see their reasons for breaking up. (The whole "Michaela falls for Marcus after knowing him two days, and decides to throw away the close, loving relationship she's been forming with longtime boyfriend Asher over the past year to sleep with Marcus once" was simply ridiculous and contrived, IMO.)

So then she... sat down the 6 month year old baby she'd been left to watch in the snow, and proceeded to smother him? You're really gonna argue that was a smart move on Bonnie's part? And then she proceeded to play an instrumental role in helping Nate cover up the murder. She is in this position due to her own actions. I feel sorry for her, but putting a baby down in the snow to help complete a brutal murder, then helping the murderer cover up his actions was a pretty questionable move on her part. I am not arguing that Bonnie is dumb-- far from it. But she did behave "Stupidly and callously" here, I don't see how there can be any argument about that.

Amirah Vann is fantastic, and her chemistry with Michaela is enthralling. Bring on the bi fabuality! But seriously, Tegan is highly charismatic, and her chemistry with nearly everyone manages to imbue even the most boring characters with some sort of human interest. (Like Analizes "possibly guilty of sexual misconduct, but he's so boring I honestly don't care if he's wrongly accused or not" white guy coworker, who I always just refer to as "Mr. Pasty," since I can't be bothered to remember his name.) Speaking of whom-- please don't let that guy hook up with Analize. No, just... no. I hope Miller ends up being innocent, despite whatever he clearly had going on with Gabriel-- simply because it would show Bonnie and Nate not to fly off the handle and kill someone on next to no evidence. It's killing me how Nate continues to eschew responsibility for beating an unarmed man to death, insisting that it was Miller's own fault for (possibly) arranging Nate's father's murder. Um, nate: 1. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW MILLER WAS GUILTY, for crying in the night; 2. If he is, do your father true justice by slowly acquiring evidence against Miller and planning his downfall. Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at what happened to Nate's father, and can't wholly blame Nate for wanting justice, even if it is vigilante justice. But the fact is that Nate had next to no hard evidence against Miller continues to be my issue. And furthermore, even if he did just fly off the handle due to emotional stress caused by the trauma of his loss, Nate should be able to see now, in the aftermath, that he does not really have enough evidence to know for sure whether Miller was involved in Nate's father's death. All he really has is a picture of Miller by a pay phone. At least Bonnie, while she acted with equal callousness and stupidity, cared enough to try to find the truth in the end.

She may as well have said, "I'm Jessica Lange, and this is my fucking show." (Meanwhile, offscreen, Sarah Paulson swoons and drops into a dead faint, humble by being in the presence of TRUE greatness.)

Yes. If Emily and Timothy are the writers attempt to give the show a "moral center" of two sympathetic characters, than they are failing miserably. Emily and Timothy started out bland, and seem to be getting duller with each episode. They lack any kind of depth, characterization, motivation, or overall internal life save for their cliched romance with each other. It seems churlish to wish death on two such nice kids... but honestly, I can't help but hope Langdon would make the two disappear with his antichrist voodoo so that we can focus on other, more interesting characters. Speaking of which: the hairstylist and his Nana went from one dimensional stereotypes to two very well fleshed out, believable characters over the space of the episode. Seeing them reminded me of how, back in the prime of AHS, Ryan Murphy used to create such fascinating, complex characters, like Tate Langdon, Lana Winters, Sister Jude, etc. I hope we'll see more of a revival of that strong writing this season. Really? I guess that just goes to show you how crazily opinions can diverge, because I haven't been this excited over a season of AHS since season two. I was blown away by the first episode, which seemed to re introduce the mystery, originality, and the overall "wow" factor to the show that has been missing for so many years now. And this past episode, though (IMO), it wasn't quite as strong as the first, continued on with a well paced storylines, tight plot, and intriguing characterizations. Oh, and I just can't wait to see the witches and the Harmons. Different strokes, I guess. She's said in interviews that she's going to be playing multiple characters, so I don't think we've seen the last of her.

Yes. And although the overlap of the same actors playing multiple characters this seasons has been extensively discussed elsewhere, I was in no way prepared to see Evan Peters quite literally, f*ck himself. Thank you, Ryan Murphy. Just when we believe we've seen it all, you manage to show us... more.

Throughout the past two seasons, I think one of the greatest recurring themes of this show has been the unfair advantage of men, and the comparative powerlessness of women in this society. And I'd thought that many things they've shown thus far-- women raped without recourse by employers, family friends, brothers; powerful men able to murder girls by the dozen with no consequences; the most powerful and wealthy of women unable to control their own finances-- had given stellar support for this idea. But this episode gave the best illustration of just how much women were at the mercy of men-- all it took was ONE male relative to lock away a woman in hell forever. And no matter how much we all might hate Lydia, seeing her, probably the smartest character on this show, be locked away in an asylum for life at a single word from the DUMBEST character on this show (Charles), provided a truly powerful example of this.

Some finale predictions: There's no way Margaret's getting deported. Just as she (predictably) got out of her death sentence last week, she'll "miraculously" get out of this predicament as well. I can't believe that anyone bought that there was a chance they were going to kill her off/ have next season without Margaret. She's not going anywhere, y'all. Fallon and the spartans are all done. I think pretty much everyone's called this, but its worth noting again. Lydia will survive. She's almost as death proof as Margaret. She may end up in prison or something (only to be set to worm her way out next season); but they almost surely won't kill her. Unlike with Margaret, there's a slight chance, but it's still pretty unlikely. Justice Hunt will die. I really don't think he's going to make it after his treasonous act of setting Margaret free. No way the Lord Chief Justice is going to let him get away with that. Like Margaret, he's committed a capital offense that is clearly going to come to light, but unlike her, he doesn't have main character death immunity. It's a shame, because he's probably the only male character to exhibit any ambiguity (they are all either pure good (Irish dude and North) or pure evil (every other guy on the show); and the only male character with his own independent character arc. But I can't see him getting away with setting Margaret free. Everybody else will live. It's a shame, but I believe this will be the last season, due to much lower ratings and critical interest this season. A shame. Everything good goes off the air, and this seems to especially be the case for historical shows (Penny Dreadful, the Knick, etc.)

"Just ignore him. He's a filthy little turd!" Oh dear God, I missed Nancy Birch so much.

More like, "Asher, I couldn't help myself! I needed to act totally out of character to create some contrived dramatic tension!"

Jessica's mom killing Stirling: what any loving mother would have done under the circumstances. Seriously, Stirling was awful. How Jessica could have been bamboozled by such a creep, even at age 20, is beyond me. Everything I saw indicated that Stirling was, at bottom, an immature, sleazy, and egoistic creep who was using Jessica. Initially, it looked as though Stirling was a flawed but gallant prince charming-- he was poor and (like Jessica) somewhat rebellious, defiant, and lazy, yet initially he at least seemed to genuinely care for Jessica. However, greater and greater warning signs of his sleaziness and opportunism kept recurring throughout the episode; until it became clear that Stirling was an exploiter who basically used people because he felt entitled to money for his unrealistic dream of starting a night club, and that Jessica was yet another person he was using. He may have cared for her somewhat-- she was pretty and he seemed to like her-- but there is no way he wouldn't be willing to sacrifice her in a heartbeat for "his dreams." (A.K.A., getting enough money to open up a nightclub.) Some of the gradual signs that Stirling was, in fact, an entitled creep who was only in it for himself: 1. He only began a relationship with Jessica after he witnesses her "talent"-- a.k.a., the super strength that allows her to rip open ATM machines, and potentially make a comfortable living for at least two people without having to work. He might like her for herself, but the fact remains that he might also be taking advantage of her abilities to gain the comfotable life that he is not willing to work for. 2. When we next pick up with them, it seems that Stirling is indeed taking advantage of Jessica's strengh to make a living for himself without having to work. He is not working, but they are living in a very comfortable, nicely furnished apartment for two; both are wearing nice clothes. We later see that Stirling is not working or doing anything (save hustle money for his club), and that Jessica is supporting the two of them by stealing clothes, material goods and (presumably) robbing ATM machines. Before Stirling, Jessica was a college student who robbed and ATM machine once, in a fit of anger. Now, under Stirling's influence, she is practically a career criminal, stealing everything they need. Rather than trying to help or improve his girlfriend, Stirling corrupts and exploits her for his own material gain. 3. Stirling screams and yells cruelly to someone on the phone, who only appears to be trying to help him. When he hangs up, it turns out that that person is his mother. Her crime? Not investing in Stirling's ridiculous pipe dream of a nightclub. His words to Jessica about the matter indicate that he feels entitled to his parents money, because he deserves it. 4. Stirling plays on Jessica's emotions shamelessly to get an invitation to meet Trish. When he meets her, he instantly hits her up for funds for his nightclub (ignoring his girlfriends obvious discomfort, Jessica's troubled history with Trish, and the rules of basic human decency.) This single act reveals him to be manipulative, exploitative, and utterly entitled. 5. In the next scene, it turns out that his pitch to Trish about "opening the nightclub soon" was only so much B.S. Apparently, some other very questionable characters have been waiting a year for this mysterious club to materialize. Stirling is coming off as a bit of a Bernie Madoff at this point, swindling people out of the savings with promises that more will materialize-- only to take off with the money. 6. In his pivotal last scene, Stirling does more than just agree to allow the criminals to "use" Jessica without her permission. He displays a creepy, cavalier attitude ("She'll do anything I want, she loves me."), that betrays that, even if he does have some affection for Jessica, he is first and foremost using her to achieve his own desires. Jessica's mom may be a mentally unhinged murderer, but she was right about Stirling. He is pimping out her daughter, in a sense. In a way, Stirling reminded me of Trish's mom. Maybe capable of love, but at bottom, a total narrcicist who believes its all about him. Other thoughts: Trish's single was a hilarious send up of late 90's, early 2000's pop music. Hit the nail on the head, especially with all the ridiculous, Britney Spears esque dancing. The doc is interesting. What he did was all clearly inexcusable, though some ambiguity seems to be coming through with regards to his motives. This was my favorite episode this season. I guess I was somewhat pleased to be spared Malcolm's blooming sex addiction, Trish's pill drama, and the super slow moving Jeri Hogarth story. Don't get me wrong, I have great affection for some of these characters. But thus far this season, their individual storylines seem a bit... forced. (With the exception of Jerri's, whose storyline strikes me as believable, but incredibly slow moving.)

Actually, Hickey may have had good reason for this. When Crozier asks Hickey why he didn't just sign up, Hickey asserts that he "needed to disappear," implying that Hickey had committed some sort of crime that necessitated he go on the run and assume a new identity. (Knowing what we do of Hickey, how many of us would be willing to bet that this crime was murder?) If he was indeed a wanted man, Hickey couldn't "just sign up." Another man may have simply made up a false name; but Hickey, being Hickey, of course had to murder a man and steal his identity.

All of the Hickey stuff-- his claiming to Crozier to be Crozier's "equal"! His "rousing" speech atop the boat at the 11th hour! His bizarro sacrifice to Tuunbaq! His inexplicable belief that Tuunbaq would accept a white imperialist invader as his next shaman!-- was an unintentional comedic tour de force. I got bored with both the character and the actor from episode 7 onwards, but I've got to hand it to Adam Negatis-- in this episode, he just sunk his teeth right into the "all out KRAZY" of this role, and swallowed the meat whole. Was it a coincidence that Tuunbaq came off, in the end, as more of a noble savage than an actual villain after he killed Hickey? Or was he just glorified in my eyes by killing Hickey before he could make yet another semi coherent speech?

I missed these characters. Clay, oh Clay. As much as I like Skye (she seems like a sweet girl), getting romantically involved and serving as the sole means of support for a clinically depressed girl is the last thing you need right now. Seriously, the "you must call me whenever you're thinking about cutting yourself" thing stuck me as dangerously near to codependency. Worse, it seemed as though Skye was not talking to/ dealing with her issues with anyone other than Clay. And with Clay now having halucinatory visions of his last clinically depressed crush (does anyone else detect a pattern here?), the whole situation strikes me as extremely combustable. Skye and Clay both need to seek individual counseling and take at least several months to heal before they can any kind of healthy romantic relationship with each other. (Jesus, I sound like an after school special. But this relationship so clearly has a "Danger: Unhealthy!" sign flashing above it in neon lights, I can't really pass it over without comment.) Even when he's standing up for Hannah and being decent, Tyler is still a little weird. Tyler, you got mad at Hannah for sexting another dude? Because, according to you, said dude "didn't really know or deserve her?" It's not your place, dude. You don't own her, she's not your girlfriend, you have no right to be so possessive with her. Also, his taking pictures of Alex while the latter was in a coma? Totally creepy. I mean, WTF, Tyler? Zach remains sweet and adorable, and I foresee a reckoning between him and Bryce happening sometime this season. Mr. Porter is... odd. Dude, you didn't report crucial information about the rape of a student, and now you're trying to "make up for it" by physically attacking another student? But seriously, I'm sure we'd all love to beat up Bryce, but to do that as a school guidance counselor is... both bizarre and idiotic. There are a hundred thousand different ways Mr. Porter could attempt to atone for his mistakes, including admitting his mistakes and getting involved in the lawsuit. So now Tony has a secret? Hmmm. Not sure I feel about that. Last year he often ended up serving his narrative function (keeper of the tapes) rather than being developed as a fully realized character, and it seems that this season, they might be going that route again. Overall, a highly flawed but engaging episode. I rather strongly dislike using the testimonies as a framing device; they are just trying too hard to emulate the first season, and it just doesn't work her. Still, I think I'm in for the season. This show is addictive.

While I think that the first round of attacks (in episodes 2-5) were caused because our heroes invaded Tuunbaq's land and killed his sacred Shaman, I believe that Hickey was definitely responsible for the Tuunbaq's second round of attacks, in episode 8. Though the creatures closest bond with with the late Shaman, Lady Silence's father, it has been implied strongly at various points throughout the show that the Tuunbaq also has a deep connection to the land itself, and the Inuit people. The Tuunbaq leaves the crew alone for quite awhile, and they believe it to have been killed; then Hickey incites the murder of 4 innocent Inuit. The very next episode, Tuunbaq returns, and goes on his biggest rampage to date, killing dozens of men. I can't help but think the two events are connected. IMO, Hickey is responsible not only for the death's of 2 crew and 4 Inuit people, but for the dozens of men killed by the Tunbaq last episode. The Tuunbaq is a wild spirit/ animal/ being, and operates by his own rules; when he went on the rampage, he was merely avenging the murder of four of his people. I'd say that Hickey is, at this point, far worse morally than the Tuunbaq. Hickey is wholly selfish, apparently incapable of empathy or remorse, commits (and takes pleasure in) acts of murder and torture, and above all has no real reason for doing this save his own advancement, pleasure, and entertainment. Meanwhile, the Tuunbaq's land was invaded by a bunch of white guys, who proceeded to brutally murder his Shaman (and apparently the only person capable of "talking" to him), ravage his sacred land, and murder 4 of his chosen people. Tuunbaq, like Hickey, is a beast; but unlike Hickey, he also displays some human qualities, like loyalty and affection. Also, Tuunbaq caught a seal for Lady Silence, for no other apparent reason than to be nice. Hickey would never, ever commit such an act of altruism. For the first 7 episodes, Hickey fascinated me. Now I'm getting a bit bored with him. The gradual reveal/ unraveling was brilliant on the writers part, however, now that we've seen him for what he is, he doesn't add up to much more than a generic psychopath. Who is also, judging by the past few episodes, none too bright. Tuunbaq is actually the smarter of the two at this point, IMO.

Was that funny, sad... or simply sensible? He's stranded in the middle of the freezing arctic with no hope of rescue with the direct threats of slow starvation, lead poisoning, and scurvy looming over his head-- if the giant killer polar bear doesn't get him first. And if he does by some miracle make it to the winter, he can look forward to slowly freezing to death. If all that were going down and I discovered a bottle of cocaine laced wine, I would be all up in that shit. (Though in all seriousness... cocaine mixed with wine was prescribed as a cure all in the mid 19th century? Way to go, Victorian Era doctors! If your goal was to stop your patients hearts by prescribing uppers and downers at once, you succeeded brilliantly.) As did I. The bear was by far scarier when it was partially or fully hidden. A subtle, unseeable threat it far scarier than any CGI monster (no matter how brilliantly crafted) could be. Not seeing something, but knowing what a danger it represents and seeing the damage it does can be truly terrifying. For instance, in every single TV/ movie adaption of Dorian Gray, when they show the portrait, it is inevitably a disappointment. Nothing pictured on screen could ever be as horrifying as the unseeable that is left to viewers imaginations. Similarly, to remain effective, Tuumbaq should have remained unseen. (Or perhaps seen only in brief, fleeting glimpses, as in episode 5.) When they had him running through the camp on all fours, he brought to mind a big white dog, which was funny, rather than scary. I kept expecting one of the crew to pick up a giant bone, call out, "Come 'ere, boy!" and throw it off into the distance, only to have Tuunbaq race off in pursuit. "Mr. Blankey, get to cover!" Blanky: "Neptune's ball's, I'm coming with ye!" Badass. Line of the week: "I've shot smaller hawks then you, Hickey!"

Eh? I agree that Crozier’s decision not to tell the men about the lead poisoning makes sense. Even putting aside Naval/ military norms, common sense dictates that he should keep quiet fo r now. Telling the already frightened, sick, and hungry men that the food they’ve been consuming since the beginning of the voyage has been slowly poisoning them. would cause a mass panic, making an already dire situation even worse. That said, I think your assertion that anybody willing to rebel against Crozier will “get what they deserve” (a slow death from starvation? A violent death at Hickey’s hands?) to be a bit harsh. Putting aside the fact that these men are all half-starved, infected with lead, and in fear for their lives, put yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you found out that you were being slowly poisoned with lead from your food supply and that your captain, who you’d trusted to take care of you, had known and not told you about it, how would you feel? From Crozier’s perspective, it was necessary not to tell them to prevent mass panic. But from the crew’s perspective, they have been violated, in a way-- Crozier knew that something is slowly poisoning them but keep that a secret. From their perspective, they should have at least been told that the food is tainted, so they could have made an informed choice about whether to eat it. Of course, Crozier’s technically right. But the men feeling betrayed and upset and terrified under the circumstances also makes sense. As for the men trusting a murderer like Hickey—they don’t know everything we do. From their perspective, they are already terrified, following their captain out on a mission they know will probably lead to death from exposure, exhaustion, or starvation. Now they have just learned that their food source is poisoning them, and that their captain has electively chosen not to inform them of this. (This has the double effect of making them feel betrayed by Crozier and whittling away their faith in him.) Now here comes Hickey, with proof of this and with a pitch on how they can break away and better survive. Now clearly, none of the men really trust Hickey. From everything we’ve seen, they are all pretty smart (saving the "slow" one, Magnus), and can see through him—they seem to find him creepy and shifty, and don’t really like him. However, they are simply not privy to his worst deeds, as we are; all they know is that he’s a vaguely creepy, selfish guy who (probably) killed a dog out of desperate starvation. And now Hickey’s coming to them with proof of Crozier’s “betrayal,” and a “solution” for them to make it out alive, by leaving the rest and setting out on their own. Sure, anybody who follows Hickey is technically wrong. But under the circumstances, I’d say their actions are understandable. At this point I’d say the only one I’d like to see “get what he deserves” is Hickey. Hickey is clearly evil, violent, and deranged. The rest of the men ( including, at this point, those who look like they may break away and follow him), appear thus far to be merely desperate and misguided.

Yeah, that almost seemed to be the informal theme of this episode. (Alternative episode title: "In which a bunch of nice guys begin to go crazy, starve, or be morally corrupted by the resident sociopath.") At this point, all these men seem doomed. And the saddest part is that, with the exception of Hickey, they all seem to be genuinely nice people. (Or, in the case of one or two of them, misguided, weak. or selfish but not truly evil people.) Poor Henry Collins, who was so ready to sacrifice himself for a random crew mate at the beginning of the show, is not fantasizing about eating his friends and hating himself for it. Poor Goodsir, so full of hope and cheer in the first episodes, is now abandoning all hope and having panic attacks while curled up in the fetal position in his tent. Poor Irving, who was so sweet with the Inuit, is now lying dead on the ground of the Artic. Poor FItzjames, who was so full of life and braggadocio at the beginning of the series, is now so subdued and exhausted looking I fear he may be suffering a mortal illness. And poor real Cornelius Hickey (we barely knew ye!), who was apparently, like, 20, and who got murdered by a psychopath before the show even began. Certainly, many seamen have been swallowed up on this expedition; will any be spat out? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Yes, and it seems that some of the posters on these forums don't fully understand that. The Inuits lived in small groups of 3- 7 or so people for a reason-- people even for people who knew how to dress properly, build adequate shelters, and hunt in that environment, the Arctic was a brutal, unforgiving environment where even Inuit sometimes perished of starvation. Inuits lived in small groups because game was scarce, and the environment was not adequate to sustain 100 (or even 20) people all living together in one area. The Inuits lived in small groups because they knew that living in large ones during Arctic winters would be a death sentence. For similar reasons, they traveled around/ hunted on light, fast moving sleds. Even if the Inuits were to (for whatever reason) give the expedition a crash course in seal hunting and Arctic survival (and the whites were able to, inexplicably, pick up all of these skills in a short time), the food just wouldn't be enough to go around. Still, given their lack of hunting skills and the heavy life boats packed with stuff that they must lug around, its unlikely that any of the Englishman would survive, even if they broke up. And that's even before the winter came, for which they didn't have proper clothing or shelter.

I still believe he's merely misunderstood! :Ducks and waits for the inevitable volley of rocks thrown my way.: Naw, kidding. Hickey is clearly a bad 'un, and now he's done lost it! As for "fans," despite the fact that the guy was my favorite character during the first four episodes (the fact that he appeared to be an utter outsider-- a gay Irishman amongst 1840's brits-- created sympathy that went a long way in explaining some of his more troubling actions up until that point), since he was revealed to have stolen the ring off of the corpse of poor Young in episode 5, I've been eying him wearily. And his decision to poke at the comatose guy's brain (??????!!!!!!!) last episode for no reason whatsoever last episode, it became clear that something was very "off" with the guy, morally and psychologically. IMO, the reason why some of us were fans of the guy in the beginning is that, in addition to Hickey rather bravely navigating a world that keep insisting that his natural sexual preferences are "an abomination," is in the first episodes, the guy's actions are presented in a profoundly ambiguous light; sometimes he does selfish or self serving things, but it's unclear why he does them. However, following the (again) totally unprovoked and cruel "brain incident" last episode, it became clear he was (in the very least) a bit of a sadistic sicko. And now that he's massacred numerous innocents... um... yeah. A delightfully drawn villain, though. It can't be easy being so bad you make the Tunbaq look good. I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on a few different points, here. First, despite the fact that Hickey is clearly and unambiguously evil, I personally think that the writers characterization of him has been subtle and masterful. Particularly interesting is the "slow burn" regarding his true moral character. From the beginning, the writers have been dropping subtle hints that something is "off" with the guy; yet (at least initially), there was also a good deal of ambiguity about his true feelings and motives. IMO, the slow reveal of his corrupted moral character has been fascinating to watch, and has made for a very nuanced character. It is interesting to think that the way I viewed him in the beginning (a little bit smug, superior, and self serving, but basically a decent guy) is the way he still appears to many of the crew members, who lack our "insider knowledge" about his behind the scenes activities. Also, the fact that there's been so much heated argument (and discussion) about this character thus far indicates (to my mind) that he's made quite an impression. If he were truly one dimensional, I doubt he'd provoke such strong reactions, in both his detractors and his defenders. Last weeks thread was hijacked by an intense "is Hickey good or bad" argument. More than half of the posters this week have taken space to specifically vent their anger at the character. These things indicate he's having quite an effect on the shows viewers, which I doubt would be the case if he were one dimensional. As for the actor, I think he's doing a fantastic job in portraying him, simply fantastic. There may not be much subtlety in his performance at this point, but I'd argue that there's little subtlety in Hickey's characterization at this point either.

Well, I'm about two and a half months behind here, so its unlikely that anyone will actually read this. However, there are few burning comments I need to get off of my chest: Isaac is clearly Krazy with a capital "K." There have been signs of it creeping up since they introduced his ex wife/ therapist (that these were the SAME PERSON was a warning sign in itself, good lawdy.) Since the midseason finale, these warning signs have become more and more obvious with each episode; by this episode, all subtlety had been dropped-- everything Issac said to Analise during their little interactions struck me as the equivalent of giant flashing signs of Isaac's head reading: "Warning-- UNSTABLE! UNSTABLE!" By the time he ended the episode ranting and raving, blaming Analise for his own long term drug use, and basically throwing a temper tantrum like a child, I marveled at how Analise could have possibly missed his instability for so long. In addition to his breach of confidentiality in telling his ex wife (and therapist) about her, he also relapsed on drugs, lied about his time of sobriety, was responsible for providing the drugs that led to his daughters death, and consistently lied about or downplayed all of these things until he was found out. The idea that Analise was not only continuing to defend him, but was actually considering entering a romantic relationship with him, makes my head spin. Then again, Analise is the woman thought Sam her already married therapist would make a great husband, so... I guess it fits. At any rate, I'm just thrilled to (finally) see the last of Isaac. At first I was neutral (he seemed a bit dull, but at least he was helping Analise), but the more of his backstory that emerged, the less I liked him. For the past few episodes I've been praying for him to just leave or get killed off already, so that more time could be spent on the crazy amoral characters I actually cared about, rather than this crazy amoral character who meant nothing to me. The only thing I regret is the brilliant Kathryn Erb (whom I loved so much on Law and Order: Criminal Intent), was so tragically wasted. I would have loved to see her guest star on the show in a role that actually showcased her incredible abilities. Other random thoughts: I am bored by both the Isaac storyline and the Laurel's kidnapped baby and evil mom/ dad storyline. The only storyline that continues to hold my interest is the class action suit. So Asher can cook. He was adorable in this episode. In fact, I kind of loved everyone in this episode, even Laurel, who is far less annoying when she is in the background. (And not in self-righteous, morally indignant mode.) I love the sense of community and family between the group, which makes sense considering nearly all of these people have either lost their families (Asher), utterly lost faith in them (Laurel, and, to a lesser extent, Connor), or simply never really had a family to begin with (Michaela.) Something amusing-- has there been a lot of focus on food/ comfort eating in the last few seasons? Because, considering the sheer amount we've seen Analise eating, and the loads of baked goods the kids were consuming, it seems unlikely everyone would be as fit as they are. Just saying. So... a crossover. Not thrilled, but then I've only watched one episode of Scandal, and was not even a little bit impressed. It was like this show... minus the brilliant pacing, ingenious mysteries, incisive social and political commentary, and the incredible lead performance of Viola Davis. And while I've only seen Kerry Washington in action on that show once, from what little I've seen, I'm predicting she's going to be laughably out of her depth opposite Viola Davis. While Davis can deliver a staggering amount of nuance and emotion with just her eyes, Washington seems to be straining with her immobile face and constantly revealed teeth to master so much as a single real emotion.

For those who were (like me) left wondering what happened to Joseph... an extra deleted scene featuring him has been added on Youtube: (*Warning: This scene features some extreme violence towards an animal. If you were triggered by the "cat scene" in the finale, you probably want to skip it.) It gives some follow up as to what happened to him afterward the ordeal, but is pretty disturbing and opens up some other doors as well regarding future issues for Joseph and others at Kreizler's institute.

Yes, and he's also stating that Jack slept with her, which would be basically saying Julia was a "loose woman" given the time period. However, its not really a big deal, and doesn't merit arguing about. Ah, so there was one previous "glowering" scene featuring Jack! That makes his random inclusion near the end of the series so much more relevant! Given John's earlier "glowering" at Jack, we simply had to have a scene that gave viewers some closure on their very important relationship. Getting closure on that storyline was far more important than getting closure on Joseph, Stevie, Cyrus, or many others. Either that, or it was what I called it before: a cliched and rather manipulative attempt to given John a "moment of triumph" as he insults the evil bully in the end to the applause of viewers everywhere. It was a tiny scene, and its inclusion didn't hurt the episode; in the grand scheme of things it was next to nothing. But claiming that there was some greater point to it, or that the time given to it wouldn't have better been spent with other characters we actually care about, is ridiculous. Actually, we have confirmation from the shows writers and producers that John WAS an alcoholic long before Julia left him. In an early "meet the characters" feature, a few of the shows producers comment that John is "a functional alcoholic", and note that his alcohol abuse began in earnest after his brothers death. That was long before he even met Julia. (It is also implied that John has been "a little wild" with alcohol and women his whole life, well before the "trauma" of one girl dumping him.) In another scene, when asked to describe his character, Luke Evans comments uses "alcoholic" as one of the three top words he'd use to describe him. John was clearly making excuses to simultaneously comfort his gram and get himself out of her critical "motherly" gaze. His words that his drinking was not at all dangerous, and was only a temporary thing, were clearly false (anyone can see he's clearly dangerously addicted); so the assumption that it "just started" as a result of a breakup is ridiculous. John's words here can be taken no more seriously than Grams belief that "the right girl" will cure John of his alcoholism and self destructive habits.

--Socialist meetings were a lot more fun back in the 1890’s. --Being roofied and assaulted in a brothel by numerous young men is something that leaves no psychological scars whatsoever, doesn’t merit further discussion, and is apparently a good punchline for a joke. --Stopping drinking and totally changing one’s lifestyle in the hopes that a potential romantic partner marry you is not at all unhealthy; but a great idea that will lead to successful recovery from alcoholism, the erasure of deep childhood psychological wounds, and long term happiness.

When visiting an unfamiliar child brothel owned and operated by criminals while in a state of extreme drunkenness, always keep your eye on your drink.

There will almost surely be a second season. Before the show runners started playing coy about a "possible" season two, Daniel Bruhl noted that "I signed on to play this character for three seasons." As for Carr, he's pretty cranky; I challenge anyone to read several about him in which he does not get angry and complain about something. He has clearly always wanted this series of books to be made into a movie or TV show; in fact, the fact that they were not is one of his stated reasons for not continuing the series. Personally, I believe that the precautionary measure of having Bruhl sign on for three seasons indicates that TNT and the show runners have always intended to have this show go on for at least three seasons, it was merely an issue of varifying their (correct) assumption that the ratings would be high and merit a second venture. Even if on the off chance Carr refuses to give the rights to the second season, they could easily invent their own, using the already established characters and setting. Personally, I believe that John and Sarah will clearly get married at the end of the second season; that Sarah will clearly triumph as some great detective; and that Lazlo will continue to be angsty and moody. Whether any of this is even remotely realistic for time period is another matter.