Hazel55

I believe the purpose of that scene was twofold: first, to show the audience that John had grown since the beginning of the show, when he was visiting prostitutes and obsessing over his ex. Now he has moved on, the show is implying. Secondly, I believe that the scene was supposed to be "a moment of triumph" for John, in which he tells off both the man who cuckholded him, and insults and rejects the woman who betrayed him, all the the applause of the audience. Since, as you note, they'd already established that John had moved on back in episode 8, I believe that the primary purpose of the scene was the second reason-- so that the audience could witness John telling his ex fiance and her lover off. Personally, I hate, hated, hated the scene, for a few different reasons. First, why did they even bother introducing this character, Jack Astor, whom we had never met, had no reason to care for? (We only heard him mentioned once, in the first episode, as the man John's fiance left him for.) The only reason for introducing that scene that I can see is because the writers wanted to give us some satisfying closure on "John's past tragedies" by showing him telling off his rival, disregarding his "trampy" former fiance, and assuring everyone that he was over the whole ordeal. It was the TV equivalent of the scene at the end of the movie in which Our Hero punches the bully, rejects the unattainable girl he had formerly been pining for, then walks off in a moment of triumph. Which.... okay. However, I have a few issues with this: first, I'd rather be spending time with established characters we already know and care for than having a random character we don't know introduced only to be told off. How are Lucius and Marcus are dealing with the blatant anti semitism they were subjected to last episode? How are Stevie and Cyrus are dealing with their grief and anger over Mary's death? And what the heck happened to Joseph after he was rescued and (obnoxiously, frustratingly) never heard from again? These are all things I'd rather see than John telling off his fiance's seducer in a ham fisted attempt to bring sort of closure to John's story. Secondly, the idea that the wealth of self hatred, alcoholism, masochism, loneliness, and self sabotage we saw from John over the course of the series was all because his fiance dumped him, and that getting over her would solve everything, is quite simply ridiculous. We are introduced to John as mourning over his fiance, but by the third episode, it's clear that she is only a surface issue, probably less a "true love" than a life preserver he was grabbing onto to "fix" himself. His problems clearly go much deeper-- his alcoholism and depression don't seem to result from the breakup, but from a deep seeded fear that he is a total failure and simply unlovable. These issues clearly run deep, and seem involved in both his upbringing (which was indicated to be cold and troubled at several points) and the loss of his brother; neither of which we ever really saw him deal with at any point throughout the show. Furthermore, his "love" for Sarah, apparently presented (at the end of the show) as true and pure and the impetus he needed to solve his problems, quit drinking, and get over Julia, was pretty unhealthy in and of itself. While I don't doubt that John's love for Sarah was true and sincere, it was also clearly the effort of a psychologically troubled man to "save himself" through the love of a good woman; and receive redemption for his man failures through earning the love and approval of the "right" girl. In a way, the writers seemed to give up on the story of John's many demons in the end, and concede with John's grandmother-- all he needed was the right girl to save him in the end. Never mind the fact that John's sign of "major growth," his decision to stop drinking, was only arrived at because he thought Sarah might marry him. Never mind that he relapsed after being told (once) that Sarah didn't love him and wouldn't marry him. Apparently, in the end... that was all healthy? And now John's a-okay? And in the end, emerges triumphant, no longer a drunk or a failure, but a happy man who can tell off his former romantic rival and dismiss his fiance all to the audiences happy applause? Oookay, show. Okay. (Also bizarre is the fact that, in the first part of the episode, John tells Sarah desperately, almost crying, "Reject me if you want to, but don't dismiss my feelings for you as not real!" And then in the end, Sarah blatantly rejects John's feelings for her as not real ("You only want what you can't have, you want the ideal"), and... he's fine with it? And walks off laughing into the night?) And one more issue, that many no doubt will think I'm being too sensitive about, but that I just wanted to bring up for casual discussion. Why did John's dismissal of Julia at the end during his speech to Jack have to involve a casual, sexually degrading comment, that implied Julia was promiscuous? The writers could have simply had John say, while talking to Jack, that "I'm over Julia, it doesn't bother me anymore." In fact, he had said as much, back in episode 8, in the train car, with Kreizler. But instead, the writers chose to have John insult (briefly but clearly) Julia in a specifically sexual sense, implying that she was promiscuous, and worth less because Jack had already "had" her. He comments to Jack, "If you're referring to Julia, I believe you got much further in seducing her than I ever did." (Or something very close to that.) It weirded me out that the writers included a line like this, obviously intended, once again, to make audience members cheer. Julia is clealy being presented as a wicked tramp who John now knows is beneath him, and whom he is better off without. Never mind that life is complicated, and we don't really know the details of what went down between Julia and John, except from John's perspective. Never mind that given the young age of marriage at the time, Julia was probably still pretty young, and that that may have contributed to some bad decision making on her part. Never mind that perhaps, rather than just "leaving him for another man," she may have taken issue with his alcoholism and self loathing, questioned the healthiness of his love for her, or what have you. Julia was an evil tramp who let Jack seduce her, and yay, John finally realizes it! And now... all his problems are over?

John's granny is officially the best. Her delivery of the line, "I'm not afraid of these psychopath's" (not to mention the haughty look on her face) absolutely cracked me up. And it was true, no doubt. Gram is a total badass. She and Sarah Howard have to join together and created their own ladies detective agency.

There are about a thousand deep, thought provoking things to say about this episode. Buuuuut.... I'll leave that to everyone else here, and instead offer the following random, sometimes borderline inappropriate thoughts! --Is it just me, or does John Beecham resemble... wait for it, wait for it... Jesus? Seriously, the first time they showed a clear, full shot of Beecham's face as he was carrying Joseph near the end, I just stopped dead and murmured... "Jesus?" (I'm willing to accept it's probably only me who thinks this, and I am now officially going to Hell.) ---More seriously, avoiding showing Beecham's face fully until his very last scene was an effective technique on the part of the show's writers. It allowed Beecham to remain a shadowy, mysterious figure, whilst simultaneously coming across as a sort of fantom threat and unstoppable boogie man. (Which is exactly how many at the time would have viewed a serial killer.)The way they simply showed others reaction to it-- such as fearless street kid Stevie taking a good look at Beecham and looking truly terrified-- was far more effective than any ghoulish, "creepy" face or horror mask they could have done. In the end, Beecham looked utterly normal, which was more, rather than less scary, IMO. Because while you'd definitely expect somebody who looked like, say, Van Bergen, to be (in the least) pretty unsavory, even dangerous, Beechem (assuming he'd combed his hair and put a shirt on) just looked like your normal, everyday guy. He looks more like your next door neighbor than a criminal. And when you think about it, the concept that anybody, even the most nice and average looking among us, might be capable of doing horrible, violent things is terrifying-- far more terrifying than some brief shots of a creepy looking TV "monster." The "big bad's" ordinary appearance, not to mention ordinary height and build, also illustrated "the banality of evil." -- Yet another admission that will assure my place in hell-- in the scene near the beginning, where John goes to the bathhouse and discovers that the corpse is not that of Joseph, I absolutely cracked up. Don't get me wrong, I was horrified that the other boy died, and (like John) thrilled that Joseph was still alive. However.... the expressions on John's face? Just killed me. He came running up looking horrified, looked in horror over the chopped up body... only to get this huge look of relief on his face when he laid eyes on the face. His eyes were like, "Oh.... phew! It's not the kid I actually cared about, only some random extra! Wheew! Finally some good luck!" Don't get me wrong, I get why he was feeling that way, and was actually feeling that way myself. But to see my own (and I'm assuming, a lot of other peoples) affection towards Joseph vs. the general indifference towards some random other kid we've only seen a few times... was pretty funny, in a horrible way. We're all relieved it was "only that other kid." Good lord, I can't even remember the poor other murdered kids name, which is horrible in and of itself. It's weird how just a few scenes can make us care about some characters, while some others remain random extras. --Speaking of Joseph, I would have wanted to see one more scene of resolution-- what happened to him? Where did he go? How did his next conversation with Moore go? I would have liked to at least get some closure on this kid. Perhaps we could have gotten that rather than Marcus's unbelievably brief, pointless romance? (By the way, not sure on how that ended. Did the two get back together? Was irresponsible Marcus just going back for one last booty call, before abandoning Ester forever rather than "Have to take care of her and her child?" Was it a goodbye kiss? It's unclear, but luckily I really don't care.) --Oh Connor. You literally could have been the "hero" (by which I mean he could have at least been publicly credited as one) even after murdering a girl, threatening rape, accepting bribes, and generally being by far the worst character on this show, child killing cannibal included. You could have just shot the bad guy and taken credit with "saving the day." But you just had to then go on to decide to murder EVERYONE, then threaten a rape, didn't you? Bye Felicia. --Reason #100,001 why it's JUST WONDERFUL Connor is dead: now his son actually has a chance to turn out okay. Seriously, I was watching his kid standing by Roosevelt, and I reflected, "Well, he seems like a nice kid. At least now that his dad's gone, he has a chance to find his own path rather than that of his father, and perhaps turn out to be a decent man." This kind of runs in to Kreizler's scene near the end with his father, and his implication that, since we all are ultimately responsible for how we turn out, it is possible for one to be better than one's parents, no matter how miserable one's origins. Hopefully Connor's son will look to other role models, and learn to be a better man than his father. --The scene between Sarah and Kreizler was beautiful, one of the best (if not the best) scene this season. I was shocked that it was Sarah (rather than John, or Cyrus, or anyone else) that Kreizler ended up confiding in. It also surprised me that his father (whom I'm sure many of us suspected of being abusive at this point) was not just evil and violent, but also loving (some of the time.) It makes Kreizler's complex mix of love and hatred for the man, as well as disgust with himself far more understandable. (After all, it's one thing to have someone you simply hate abuse you and tell you you're worthless; it is probably far more psychologically damaging to have someone you love do that to you.) And Sarah: I was thrilled we finally got more background on her, I thought we'd never know the exact details of her father's suicide. I was riveted to find out what actually happened, as well as the effect it had on forming her adult character. Overall, I loved this series. What started out as a (seemingly) typical serial killer, lone detective show unique only for its historical setting turned into something else entirely-- a fascinating meditation on society, fate, free will, human cruelty and kindness. I suspect there will almost surely be a season two, but this season stands well alone.

Literally, two thoughts about this episode: Woooohoo, Joseph is ALIVE!!!!!!!!!! Wooooohooo, Connor is dead, dead, DEAD!!!!!!! Everything else is secondary.

Yeah, naming their child "Japheth" was the final nail in the coffin of the parents horrendous treatment of their son, IMO. "So, we had this kid, who we bullied and neglected throughout the course of his childhood. And just in case that bullying, and the harassment he endured from his peers on account of his facial tic wasn't enough, we went ahead and named him JAPHETH-- just to give him that extra push that would ensure he'd grow up to be a serial killer!" Come to think of it, "Lazlo" is a pretty dang weird name, too....

An interesting theory; however, while they do have some parallels, I don't ultimately see Connor as "the unmasked Kreizler." In fact, if Kreizler has a dark doppelganger on this show, I'd say that it is none other than the killer himself, John Beecham. Beecham seems to be serving as Kreitzler's Jungian "shadow side"; the writers seem to be presenting Beecham as the sort of man Kreitzler could have become under slightly different circumstances. Both men are obsessive loners, drawn to violence and cruelty. (Kreizler in the hypothetical, intellectual sense-- he studies violence-- and Beecham in the literal sense.) Both are detached emotionally (Kreizler manipulates people, is able to place himself in the killers shoes, has no real emotional issue with cutting a dead boy "just to see how it feels;" Beecham can coldly murder and then butcher innocent boys.) Both are consumed with a well hidden anger that comes bubbling up, unbidden, sometimes. (Kreizler slapping Sarah and freaking out when challenged on his theory about the victim's mother; Beecham's murders and apparent outbursts during his military time.) Both are simultaneously detached and passionate; both are obsessive and relentless (Beecham in his murders, Kreizler in his quest to catch Beecham); both are driven very much by inner demons. IMO, these parallels are very much intentional on the writers part. So while there are some parallels between Connor and Kreizler (namely, I'd say, the abuse of power-- unconscious and mostly harmless on Kreilzer's part, deliberate and destructive on Connor's), ultimately, the two are very different. Connor is an unintelligent man addicted to the power that being a police officer gave him; now that he has lost that power, he is unraveling. Kreizler, in contrast, is a brilliant man who does not seek power for itself, but sometimes attempts to dominate others emotionally because, at bottom, he is a frightened man who cannot bring himself to trust others because of a deep seeded belief in his own inadequacy. Most of all, the two are driven by very different forces: Connor is driven primarily by self interest, the horrible things he does he does to benefit himself or save his neck. Kreizler, on the other hand, is driven by his own demons, fears and inadequacies to answer certain questions about himself and human nature. Eh? If Kreizler and Mary did indeed have sex (which we don't know for sure), then it was clearly not rape. Mary is an adult woman of at least 22, she may be as old as 27 or 28. To say that she was raped because she "can't consent" because of her disability seems a bit condescending towards Mary, viewing her as a child incapable of thinking or acting for herself. Certainly, there are some disturbing power imbalances present in the relationship (Kreitzler was Mary's psychiatrist, Kreitzler is Mary's employer, Mary has been living with Kreitzler for years), but that doesn't make a sex act between the two automatically rape.

And she was 100 percent right in her theory about the killer's mother being an active, negative influence on his early life. Just pointing that out. Oh, and the look on Kreizler's face when he realizes Sarah was right? Priceless.

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! That was brutal, cruel, and horrifying. And knowing that it was coming all along did not make it at all easier to watch. The writer clearly wanted this to break our hearts, and oh boy, did they deliver. Seeing Mary's terror and anger; watching her fight with courage and spirit against a man twice her size; the brutality of the fall itself-- not just showing her ambiguously falling down as is customary on TV, but witnessing (and hearing) her body fall and crack on the chandelier; and then, cruelest of all, that last shot of her shocked, lifeless face. My God, writers. That was cruel. If your intention was to make 95 percent of viewers break down in tears, then you have succeeded brilliantly. And Mary's fate comes across as even crueler when considered in the context of her entire life. First she suffers a childhood full of abuse, and can only escape by killing her abuser. She then goes on to spend the next ten years working for Kreitzler, experiencing loneliness and suffering from what (she believes) is a hopeless, unrequited love for her employer. And then she experiences the intoxicating joy of getting what she has always wanted most in the world... only to get killed (literally) two days later. Jesus Christ, the poor girl lived a Greek Tragedy. Everything else seems minor, but some other observations: --So... Connor has a family? Whom, apparently, he neglects and bullies. What a guy! (Seriously, I marvel at how the writers managed to give this guy every vile quality humanly possible, without turning him into a total caricature or cartoon villain.) --The Issacson's subplot seems... a little bit pointless. So... Ester's a single mom? I sympathize with her plight, yet we've seen so little of this character outside of 2 random sex scenes that my reaction is less "Oh, poor dear" and more "Umm... okay... but why are you even telling me this?" Also, whether Marcus professes his love, breaks it off, or steps up and marries her, it adds very little to the plot or to the development of any significant characters. Don't get me wrong, it was great to get more of the Issacson's-- I particularly liked their scenes on the train with the Native Americans-- but of all the subplots they could have given them, why did they stick them with a generic "guy hooks up with girl, his feelings deepen, he denies it for a few episodes, then ultimately confesses his love to her?" I would have rather seen the Isaacson's deal with anti-semitism, or being the only Jews in the Police Department, or their struggles with poverty. Still, I enjoyed their scenes on the train and with the captain. --Eliza was awesome. I want Sarah to bring her back to New York City with her. Eliza of New Paltz deciding to randomly leave her life and travel to New York City with a near stranger (not to mention Sarah suddenly taking Eliza home) would make next to no sense on any level; but oh, it would be worth it to see the looks on the men's faces when we get to witness Eliza best them in riding, climbing, and general badassery! I loved the look on Sarah's face when Eliza declared, "Why shouldn't I?" I don't think we've ever seen her look so impressed throughout the course of the show. --On second thought, can we get a Sarah and Eliza spinoff, in which the two trek across the country solving mysteries, with Sarah providing the brains, Eliza the muscle? And John Schyler Moore occasionally showing up so he can get kidnapped and the girls can go and rescue him? I'd watch it. --That "friend" of Roosevelt's was so comically awful. Best lines, "That there is what most men do their thinking with! And I don't mean their brains." And entreating John to go out for chops while John is in the midst of looking at brutal war crime photos. This guy needs to come to NYC and hook up with Connor. They'd be ideal besties.

I am reluctant to watch tonight's episode. I get the feeling that this is going to be the one in which Connor breaks into the house, attacks Stevie, and ends up killing Mary Palmer. In the book I was somewhat sad when she died; she was an interesting character I wanted to learn more about; and she seemed to make Kreitzler happy. However, aside from the detailed description of the date she went on with John Moore, we actually see very little in the book of Mary firsthand. We are told Mary's backstory; we are told that Kreitzler is protective of her; we are told that Kreitzler has fallen in love with her-- but Mary is not present for any of these scenes. It seems she is presented as important for how she effects other characters, particularly Kreitzler. In the novel, despite clearly being strong, admirable, and beautiful, Mary the human being always seems somewhat obscure and incomplete. However, here, thanks to the broader point of view provided by TV and the acting skills of Q'orianka Kilcher, Mary has really been fleshed out in the TV version. She is a completely real, believable character, and I'm going to be devastated when she dies-- and not just for Kreitzler's sake, as in the book. I think tonight's going to be the night we lose her, since it roughly corresponds with where she gets killed in the novel version-- the basic outlines of which this show has been following, despite some other changes.

In the book Mary has aphasia and Agraphia, the inability to speak or write. She's had these disabilities her whole life; at one point its mentioned that other children teased her throughout her childhood because they believed her to be "simple." Her inability to speak or write allowed the abuse from her father to continue. In the book John notes that Mary's father had been raping her since she was 14; she murders him three years later, when he is 17, by chaining him to the bed and setting the house on fire. Mary was going to be imprisoned for life for her crime, until she met the doctor, and finds a way to communicate with him that she was being abused. While they are out on their date in the book, John reflects that he believes it was Mary's inability to communicate that led her to murder. He notes that while she was horrifically abused, there were other girls who were similarly abused but did not turn to murder. He then reflects that Mary's disabilities probably led her to murder, since they had caused Mary to be teased her entire life, then made it impossible for her to reveal the abuse. This is how John realizes that the killer has some sort of deformity/ disability in the book. (It turns out he has an uncontrollable facial twitch.) In short, it wasn't being abused by her father that made Mary unable to speak; she had been unable to speak (or write) her entire life. Caleb Carr noted that "I gave Mary the disabilties she had (aphasia as well as agraphia) to symbolize the horrible isolation of children who are subjected to sexual abuse."

They should retitle this episode from "Many Sainted Men" to "In which the unfortunate John Schuyler Moore gets kidnapped yet again, not once, but twice." Though in all fairness, this time it really wasn't his fault. (Or, at least, the first time wasn't. But apparently he failed to learn his lesson about walking into dangerous situations while painfully drunk in episode 2.) Anyway, another exciting episode. The women of the show really killed it this episode. And though I'm sure there's going to be a lot of praise for Sarah Howard (who is basically making every single significant discovery in the investigation at this point), for me the gold medal goes to Joanna Crawford, who managed to own both Kreitzler and the entire episode with just one scene. When she was first presented, I was almost sure she was only there to thank the good doctor for all his help and promptly leave. Imagine my shock (and delight) when she not only refused his condescension ("If I'm Miss Joanna, are you Mr. Lazlo?"), she then went on to deliver one of the most devastatingly accurate critiques of the good doctor that we've yet heard, far more penetrating than John's or evens Sarah's take downs of him. With one little speech Joanna managed to articulate every criticism I've had about the power imbalance between Lazlo and his staff, while simultaneously highlighting the white privilege and white condescension that permeates her society. She then not only refuses the good doctors charity, she points out exactly how attitudes like his have kept her very capable uncle mucking out stables for most of his adult life, and demonstrates that she has other plans for herself. And her assertion that, in fact, Lazlo needs Cyrus far more than Cyrus needs Lazlo rang painfully true. I also enjoyed seeing Mary stand up for herself. Seeing her throw those stupid boots down made me cheer aloud. Because while the good doctor doubtlessly meant well, when he encourages her to "strike out on her own" he is once again blinded by his own condescension-- he failed to take Mary's obvious attachment to him into consideration before making this proposition to her. The doctor at the mental institution was subtly quite creepy. To me it was clear that Sarah's discomfort with this "nice man" was due to the fact that he had the power to lock up women, many of them as sane as her. (At this time, all it would take would be two male relatives to claim a woman was mentally ill; and that included "moral insanity", which simply meant sexual behavior deemed unacceptable for women at this time... which could mean anything from adultery to premarital sex.) Furthermore, the doctors blatant oggling of Sarah (when she wasn't looking) was incredibly creepy, when one stops to think about it for a bit: this is the guy who is charged with caring for numerous vulnerable women, none of whom would be believed if they ever dared to accuse him of inappropriate conduct. Some other random thoughts: It was touching to see John ordering an egg cream, probably to remind him of Joseph. (Who had eaten the same thing with John last episode.) Connor has really gone rogue. He's always struck me as villainous-- crude, greedy, amoral, lascivious, and none to bright. However, in the past, he's had his professional interests to keep him in line. Now he seems to be falling apart (drinking in increasing amounts, acting impulsively and unpredictably), and is becoming more and more dangerous. He's thus far indulged in revenge fantasies against the ruling class he clearly resents that resulted in murder and assault; one dreads to know what's coming next.

At this point, I'd say Van Begen almost surely did not kill anyone. He was guilty of being a pervert (12 to 14 years old was his preference, apparently) and possibly a rapist (did he put that stuff in the boys drink to knock him out?), but he was only tenuously connected to the murders from the beginning. Byrnes suspected him and contacted his family based on WIllems sexual preference for young boys and the fact that Willem frequented Willem frequented the Golden Rule, the place where one of the victims worked. From there, many cops and high society types began assuming it might be Willem, based on the fact that he had access, was attracted to boys that age, and was clearly a little bit "off." As for Sarah, all she knew was that Willem had been involved in what appeared to be a concealed instance of sex or possibly rape of a young boy years ago. We also know from Sally that Willem liked to frequent the first victim, however, all that means is that Willem had had sex with the first boy. Interestingly, we've seen other shots that have been suggested to be "the killer" that didn't look or sound like Van Bergen. For instance, in the beginning, a mysterious stranger offers to take a harassed boy "away," and it does not sound like Van Bergen's voice. In another such creepy scene, a man who is clearly not Van Bergen murmurs, "Come closer child!" The boy then responds, "What is wrong with your mouth?" But this doesn't necessarily have to refer to a silver smile-- it could indicate any irregularity or deformity of the mouth that the real killer might have. Also, the man who Joseph mentions, who apparently offered to take Fatima away to live in "a castle in the sky," was not noted to have a silver smile, was he? He also sounded a lot like the boy Stevie talked to in episode 6. So, I'd wager that Van Bergen never killed anyone. His sexual preferences and the fact that he frequented at least one of the victims made him look highly suspicious, though.

There's only one problem with this theory: when the Issacson's deliberately left Sarah out of the sting, the operation DID NOT yet involve being stationed in brothels. Originally, the Issacsons planned the operation so that four agents would be stationed up on the roof tops, deliberately out of sight of everyone and watching Stevie on the street. When they deliberately left out Sarah (because she was "the weaker sex", as they noted), there was no danger of her attracting notice by being a rich woman in a brothel, because the scouts were hidden out of sight on the rooftops and not stationed inside brothels. (Furthermore, it was a crucial plot point that Stevie was stationed on the street in the first failed sting, not inside a brothel. That's why the killer didn't have the courage to approach him that first time.) The idea to put two scouts into the brothels was only implemented in the second sting, after the first one failed. And if you recall correctly, it was added by Sarah Howard herself, who (correctly) surmised that the killer felt uncomfortable approaching Stevie in the open, since he'd abducted all of his other victims from inside. So when the Isaacson's initially left Sarah out of the sting operation, they did not do it for the "good reason" that she would have attracted attention as an upper class woman in a brothel-- because initially the Issacsons plan did not involve going in a brothel. It involved hiding on rooftops and watching with binoculars, which Sarah could have done just as easily as the men (And a good deal better than John Moore, who blatantly attracted attention to himself by smoking cigarettes, even after being warned not to.) Unfortunately, Sarah was not left out of the sting for "sound reasons," but for exactly the reasons stated-- the men believed her weaker on account of her sex. As for the second sting, I agree with you that it would have been unwise for Sarah to be one of the two scouts stationed in the brothels, on account that she would indeed stand out and attract attention. (To the extent that nearly all of the customers would freak out and start leaving.) However, there was no particular reason she couldn't have been stationed to watch from a hiding place on the roof. She would have done at least as good of a job as Lucius did, and I also can't see her making the stupid call he did when he decided to abandon Cyrus to run across the street to the others. If the second sting were planned by rational reasoning rather than 1890's prejudices, Sarah and Cyrus would have been stationed on the roof, Lucius and Lazlo in the brothel. Marcus and especially John had no business being a part of this venture, neither has shown the necessary skills for it in the past or during the sting itself.

That's because brothels (including child brothels) were common knowledge for all of the adult men in 1890's New York City. When asked about this issue, Caleb Carr, author of the Alienist and a professional historian, answered, "Yes, numerous child brothels existed in 1890's New York, and I can guarantee you that, in the very least, all of the male residents of the city would have known about them." I can guarantee you that so long as the brothel proprieters paid the police off (something called "graff"), the police would look the other way, caring little whether the brothels were homosexual, heterosexual, or exclusively children. The police, politicians, and those with power were laughably corrupt; and so long as they got their pay day, they really didn't care what went on inside the closed doors of the brothels. In private, I imagine many of the (largely Irish, mostly uneducated) police officers found homosexuality distasteful or downright disgusting, but they would allow such "perversions" if it got them extra money. Furthermore, child labor was still the norm at this time; it was common for not just working class, but for middle class children to work during this time period. It would not have been. In fact, given the general view of women that was still prevalent during the late Victorian Era, people would have been even more shocked that Kreitzler had dared to strike a lady. There is an incorrect presumption that during the Victorian Era, many men beat women in general, or their wives in particular; or that such violence was more acceptable. This was not the case. As now, such behavior was looked down upon. Heavy physical abuse of one's spouse was also seen as an issue of the lower classes; it was unthinkable to many that a wealthy and well educated male could ever be such a brute. So even Kreitzler striking his wife in private during an argument would have been considered brutish during this time; Kreitzler striking his aquiantance Miss Howard would have been seen as unthinkably shocking and inappropriate as it would be today. The only difference is that today Kreitzler would be more likely to be arrested for assault on the spot and dragged away. So no, Kreiztler assaulting Sarah Howard would be no more "socially acceptable" in the 1890's than it would be today. Furthermore..... I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting you here, and I don't want to put words into your mouth.... but are you implying that it were "more socially acceptable" in 1896, that somehow mitigates Kreitzler's actions, or should? You note that "...the fact that he never apologizes for his temper tantrums is unacceptable", however, I'd counter that the fact that his most recent temper tantrum included physical abuse is a far greater issue. I don't think that the serial killer is being made out to be "the smartest person who ever lived." Quite the opposite, actually-- I believe that the killer is being shown making many mistakes; ultimately coming across as a man of average (to slightly above average) intelligence who is almost entirely driven by his base compulsions and obsessions. The reasons why Our Heroes come off as so inept and keep failing to catch them is simple: it is the 1890's, and they don't know what we know. The notion of a killer like this is relatively new; criminal profiling is yet unheard of. These people are basically groping around in the dark for some coherent method of tracking down this guy and stopping him; but all they have are Kreitzler's unproven theories and their own best guesses. They are hunting a new kind of killer who is not widely understood, using new methods that are just beginning to form. Of course they're at a loss; but that's not necessarily due to the killer being a super genius or something.

"This is no task for the weaker sex. Or for cripples." But apparently, it was just the task for several easily distracted, wimpy males who can't run, shoot, or judge a situation correctly for crap! But seriously, this episode did a great job of debunking the ableism and sexism that pervaded 1890's social norms. . Lucius's judgement (that a bad arm and the lack of a penis) were defects that rendered Sarah and Lazlo less able were clearly so widely accepted that not even Sarah or Lazlo argue against them; they seem to just accept them as true. However, the exclusion of Kreizler and Sarah clearly harmed the investigation by placing it into the hands of three men (Marcus, Lucius, and John) who were far less equipped to handle the situation. We, the modern viewers, can discern that of all the team members, Kreitzler and Sarah are probably the most equipped to handle the situation. They have the strongest powers of observation, the best concentration, and the best instinctual grasp of the killers next moves. Neither two good arms nor a penis was needed during this venture; what was crucial was better concentration, observational skills, and better judgement than any of the "able bodied" men were able to provide. Seriously, with the exception of Stevie and Cyrus, the men involved ranged from mediocre to totally inept. Marcus Issacson got distracted reciting dirty limericks right when the killer walked into the trap. (If he'd been paying proper attention, as Kreitzler or Sarah definitely would have been, then they could have caught the killer.) Lucius Issacson didn't do much of anything; then made the insane judgement call to leave his partner totally alone and vulnerable to attack in order to "help" a room with several different people in it. (Seriously, that was such a weird call that I can't help but feel there's more to the story; like perhaps he knew that the killer was coming, and decided to abandon his post out of fear or something. We'll see.) And then we have John. Oh, Lawdy. I've grown to love the guy, but nobody, and I mean nobody, could be less suited for this particular task. He is laughably easily distracted (like Marcus, letting his attention drop at the crucial moment), unable to fight, and thinks that lighting a big cigarette twice during a stakeout is a good judgement call. The fact that the only truly competent member of the group-- Cyrus, who is able to fight, and was observant enough to record how many men spoke to Stevie-- ended up getting attacked was truly a cruel twist of fate. Anyway... loved getting more Stevie and Cyrus; seeing more of John's (hilarious) granny and her armadillo; seeing everyone working together as a team; and Sarah and Lazlo continue to surprise and please me with their development.

And former police Captain Connor (who could have simply pushed the untouchably rich, sure to be missed by his parents Van Bergen into the water and made it look like an accident, but who instead chose to shoot him in the head, ensuring that everyone will know "silver smile" was murdered) is officially the dumbest tv law enforcement official ever. And I watched The Following.

IMO, at this point John is playing the role generally assigned to "the woman" of the group; Sarah is playing the role of "the hero," and, at this point, Kreitzler is something of an anti-hero. (At first he seemed the hero of the piece-- the handsome, brilliant, misunderstood genius going up against society to assemble a team of outcasts and outsmart an killer. However, around episode three, he started showing a dark side; at this point he's walking a fine line.) Because while its questionable at this point whether Kreitzler will be able to see this thing through with his sanity in tact, Sarah Howard is growing progressively stronger and more assertive, and seems to be priming to take on a leadership role. She's also the emotionally strongest and least emotionally driven of the three, which may mean she will prove more capable of leading the group to the answer than the Dr. or John Moore. Meanwhile, John is by far the most emotional, and emotionally driven, member of the team. Many of the things he's done in the past few episodes are generally actions reserved for "the girl" in the group. In a traditionally "female" way, he is not only emotional and sentimental, but something of a "comforter" and a "caretaker." Many of his more altruistic actions-- comforting Mary with a date when he realizes she's hurt; attempting to smooth things over between Sarah and Kreitzler; going out of his way to help random street kid Joseph—are actions we’d generally expect the lone female on a male dominated drama to do. However, in this case the most emotional, maternal, and sentimental person on the team is not Sarah Howard, but John Moore. In fact, he seems to be playing the role of “the girl” in every possible respect, right up to being uncomfortable with violence, needing to be constantly physically rescued by those around him, getting the team into trouble through lack of skill, and caring more about romance than the task at hand (after all, it was Sarah Howard, and not the quest to find the killer that finally led him to stop drinking. ) I actually wouldn't totally mind it (as outlined above, its interesting role reversal, at least), however, I pray the writers don't do it in the sloppy, borderline offensive manner they did it last time John got into trouble. The last time he got damsled, it seemed that every possible thing (from the cliffhanger ending to Connor's cracks about him "not being able to sit down) was done to make viewers suspect/ fear he was sexually assaulted. And then the storyline was just.... dropped. And John being roofied (and possibly raped?) was just played for laughs, which was incredibly weird. So, I guess if they're going to damsel John again, I hope they a. inform us of what happened to him the last time, which they never really bothered to do and; b. don't involve any hints or implications of drugging drinks and rape this time. IMO, even if she gets attacked once, she's going to come out as the main hero in the end. To my mind, the biggest trap the writers show of falling into at this point is to over heroize Sarah so that she becomes superhuman/ a Mary Sue. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Sarah playing the heroes role, but if she literally saves everything, it may be a bit unbelievable. Leave some heroism to some other folk as well. For instance, I wouldn't mind seeing John step up, or the Issacsons get something cool to do that doesn't involve delivering exposition, forensic science factoids, or comic relief. But I suspect that instead of showing some heroism of their own, all of these characters may just end up getting humbled by Sarah Howard, than subsequently rescued by her.

To be fair I believe that in most cases, Kreitzler realizes quite well that women are just as capable of “Being sinister:” or violent as men. When his thinking is not warped by pride and (almost surely) his own personal and psychological issues, Kreitler not only sees that women are capable of doing horrible things, but can intuitively discern why they do them. I believe that the scene in the park illustrated Kreitzler and Sarah’s very different ways of thinking. Sarah is a rational thinker, approaching everything from a logical, fact based perspective. To her, the facts are clear: the mother in the park killed her children slowly and with probable foresight, and thus is has shown herself to be callous, cruel, and beyond human empathy. (A conclusion that is perhaps technically correct; and certainly, one that most people, in the Victorian era and today, would agree with.) Kreitzler, however, views the world differently. In contrast to Sarah’s rational mindset, he is a very intuitive, subjective thinker who is oftentimes more concerned about feeling and the motives behind actions than about facts. He attempts to “get inside the woman’s head,” to view life from her perspective, to ask why she did what she did. There are obviously enormous flaws in this way of thinking, his different perspective also allows him to occasionally see things that purely logical thinkers like Sarah Howard cannot. Because while many would agree with Sarah Howard that what the woman did was unforgivable, it’s also clear from a modern viewpoint that the woman walking through the park talking to babies who aren’t’ there is mentally ill. The woman is almost surely suffering from what we’d term today as postpartum psychosis. Sarah Howard may have been technically right (in the eyes of many) about how much sympathy the woman deserved, but in terms of discerning why the woman did it, Kreitzler was far more able to get at the truth than her. Meanwhile, at other times (such as this week) Sarah’s logical thinking and fact based arguments have been far more useful than Kreitzler’s intuition. I believe that the show is illustrating that in this investigation both ways of thinking, and viewing the world, will prove necessary. Which is a fact that I think Sarah Howard clearly understands, but Kreitzler does not. Because this week’s fight clearly illustrated that while Sarah Howard is willing to collaborate and allow arguments against her theories, Kreitzler is not. So while I agree that Kreitzler’s ideas this week were wrong, Sarah’s right, I don’t think that it’s because Kreitzler idealizes women. I believe his empathetic way of thinking actually allows him a slightly better understanding of women in general than Sarah has. That said, Kreitzler was totally in the wrong this week, Sarah in the right. Kreitzler is clearly allowing his pride and certain personal issues to color his theories on the case, and he lacks the self-awareness to realize it. Both Sarah and Kreitzler are highly confident in their theories; however, Sarah’s theory is based on actual facts; Kreitzler’s is based on absolutely nothing but his personal biases. Furthermore, Sarah was capable of arguing like an adult, backing up her arguments against Kreitzlers (unfounded, unsupported) theories with relevant facts from the case. Meanwhile, Kreitzlers “argument” consisted of basically shouting, “Well… I am right, and you suck!” Then throwing a piece of chalk like a ten-year-old. Sarah is clearly capable of discussion, mature argument, and collaboration; Kreitzler is not. Kreitzler’s biggest flaw seems to be an utter lack of self-awareness. Though he’s an intuitive thinker, he honestly believes himself to be a rational one: in his mind, he is a scientist who views things from a factual, analytical perspective. And in this case his thinking is clearly even more biased and subjective than usual. He cannot abide being challenged, and has yet to consciously realize that while some of his intuitive conclusions here (his realization that the killer comes from an immigrant background, his realization that the murders are taking place on holy days), some of his biggest ones (the killer had an abusive father, but not an abusive mother) are not.

I've noticed the same thing. Though Fanning's been great at times (the scene in which Kreitzler was taunting her about her father, and her palpable discomfort at her Vassar reuinion are two standouts), I've also noticed that at times, she comes off as stiff and awkward, due to her somewhat stilted delivery of the period speech. This is particularly pronounced, for whatever reasons, in a few of the scenes she shares alone with Bruhl. The carriage scene in episode two; the scene between Lazlo and Sarah in episode three before her Vassar reunion; and most recently, the restaurant scene between the two in last night's episode. (I was thrilled that Sarah stood up for herself in this scene, but simultaneously, I couldn't help but say..."Really? They went with that cut? Didn't they have a director on hand to tell them to do it again, and make it look a little bit more natural this time?" To me Fanning came off as either a bored adolescent delivering her lines listlessly for a highschool play; or a mildly autistic adult awkwardly trying to imitate adult social behavior, attempting to hide her social ineptitude beneath a veneer of phony "mysteriousness.") Don't get me wrong, she's great in some scenes; she generally delivers on the intense emotional scenes, and was charming and natural during her "proposal" scene with Luke Evans. But when it comes time to delivering the more blatantly "late Victorian Era" lines of the dialogue, or having "intense" interactions with Kreitzler, she tends to not quite pull it off. Then again, she's only had three of those "intending to be intense, but simply coming off as awkward" scenes with Bruhl; and I'm sure period dialogue is difficult to deliver naturally, so perhaps I'm being far too hard on her. People here have noted that viewers are frequently more critical of the females in these pieces, and I hope I'm not falling into that trap. Still, when Fanning delivered that line about "a handsome but indolent member of the leisure classes", she literally sounded like she was reading listlessly off of a cue card. Fanning clearly knows that Sarah is a late Victorian Era lady from an upper class background, but she still comes off as quite a bit too deliberately mannered to me.

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the "grooming" typical of pedophiles like Willem. He was flattering the boy, showering him with gifts (the dress, the liquor, the nice room), giving him previously unheard of luxuries (of which the milk bath was probably one)-- all methods to earn the boy's gratitude, and make him feel indebted. And whatever Willem was slipping into the kids drink was (IMO) supposed to indicate that simple sex with a 14 or 15 year old kid was simply not enough for Willem; he also needed to roofie the said kid beforehand, just for that extra bit of fun/ control. However, I believe the scene near the end with Willem's mother was meant to indicate that she may have molested/ sexually abused him at some point during his childhood or adolescence. Could be a red herring, but that scene was the first one in which I felt a bit of pity for 'ol Willem. (Up until then, he'd simply thoroughly creeped me out in each and every scene. I liked Kreitzler's development this week, and am enjoying the way in which this show is refusing easy answers as to why people kill, as well as why we all do what we do. Is Jesse Pomeroy a victim of a warped mindset caused by his deformity, or simply a sociopath? Is Kreitzler a dick to Sarah because in his arrogance, he believes in himself too much (as Sarah seems to believe), or because, in his insecurity, he needs to convince all those he respects of his infallible ? (The fact that Kreitzler also has some (Mommy? Daddy?) issues of his own goes without saying.) Does Sarah's rebellious, unflagging confidence in herself come from the fact that she was encouraged in this belief from an early age, or because she's spent the second half of her life having it discouraged? The writers don't really give us any easy answers, and I for one like that. I am torn about the Issaccson's awkward family dinner. On the one hand, I loved seeing more of them, and their stories were cute in this scene. Furthermore, it was great to get a scene that actually furthered the character development, rather than just more shots of Marcus having sex. On the other hand, I'm not crazy about the portrayal of Mrs. Isaacson as the stereotypical overbearing, disapproving Jewish mother. I mean, oy vey. And she didn't even get one line throughout the entire dinner. (Which, I'll admit, was also kinda funny.) I'd like to concede with all those thus far who've recognized the Sarah/ Isaacson conversation as one of the funniest bits throughout the series. (Right up there with "SYPHILLIS !!!!" "I....beg your pardon?") Though I'm actually not crazy about the Isaacson's drooling over Sarah in every scene. They're obviously both supposed to be attracted to her/ find her distractingly hot, but I'd like it better if they all just became platonic buds. (After all, both John Moore and Kreitzler have already been attracted to Sarah at some point throughout the series. Does every dude have to have a boner for her, as all the dudes typically do for The Girl in the group?) I missed Cyrus and especially Mary this week. And where the heck is Stevie?

My analysis of the John/ Sarah and the Mary/ Kreitzler situations is slightly different. I think its safe to say at this point that it appears Kreitzler is deeply in love with Mary. But I don't believe that his reluctance to start a relationship with her is because "her dependence.... galls him" or Mary is "jealous and demanding". (Kreitzler actually looked happy when Mary got jealous at one point, back in episode 2.) I believe that Kreitzler's reluctance to start a relationship with Mary is due to several factors, the smallest of which is that he fears taking advantage of Mary, due to her status as his employee. However, I believe that a far greater factor is that Kreitzler's own fear of emotional vulnerbility. (It has been mentioned several times throughout the course of the show thus far that he avoids intimacy and "always pushes people away") . Kreitzler's terrified of getting close to people on an emotional (rather than intellectual) level. Mary is already quite close to Kreitzler, both physically and emotionally. If he did start something romantic with her, he simply couldn't withhold the emotional part of himself in the way that he usually does in his relationships. (For instance, we've seen him use manipulation, deflection, and occasional cruelty to avoid revealling himself emotionally with both John and Sarah.) Kreitzler's refusal to take things to the next level with Mary is largely emotional self protection on his part. Furthermore, I believe that Kreitzler, on an unconscious level, believes that he is unworthy of Mary. He is clearly confident in his intellectual abilities to the point of arrogance. But subtle hints throughout the show have indicated that Kreitzler feels he is somehow bad, dirty, or "unworthy" on an emotional level. And despite the fact that Mary has killed her father, Kreitzler seems to view her as better and purer than he himself is; the way he came carefully into her rooms and gently touched her things made it appear he almost reveres her as something sacred and untouchable. (Until he got carried away with the creepy panty sniffing scene, that is.) Kreitzler has avoided revealing his feelings to Mary because he feels unworthy of her. As for John and Sarah, I believe that he is in love with her (or rapidly getting there.) I don't believe that John is a "man slut" (as you put it) by choice or inclination. I believe that he is simply visiting the prostitutes for emotional self protection, after being rejected by his former fiance. (I also believe that, like Kreitzler, John feels unworthy of love, but for different reasons.) In my opinion, the only reason John hasn't made a move on Sarah is because he firmly believes that she will reject him, because she doesn't return his feelings. As for Sarah, I don't think she believes that John is a "man slut" either; she is savvy enough to see his brothel going habits for what they are: the pitiful attempts of an emotionally wounded and rejected man to slave his ego and achieve some sort of human connection without risking rejection. And I believe that despite her occasional frustration with him, Sarah is clearly very fond of John, and even loves him, in a way. Honestly, I believe that Sarah has been reluctant to begin a romantic relationship with John due primarily to one reason: she doesn't see him as her equal on an intellectual lelel. That is not to say that she sees him as useless or dumb; but Sarah is both uncommonly sharp and uncommonly ambitious, and I believe that she is currently interested in finding someone who is "her match" on an intellectual level. Thus her (apparent) attraction to Kreitzler early on: possibly for the first time, Sarah had found a man whom she could consider her intellectual equal. (Like Kreitzler, I think it has been indicated that Sarah is somewhat arrogant about her intellectual abilities, and considers few people her equal in that department.) I believe that there is still an intellectual connection/ attraction between Sarah and Kreitzler, but around episode three, I believe Sarah began to realize (simultaneously) that Lazlo was not, emotionally speaking, what she wanted; and that he was clearly already in love with Mary. However, I agree with you that Sarah is also somewhat reluctant to begin a relationship with anyone, for fear of risking her career.

And the man with the silver smile is.... Josef Altin, of Harlots! It's funny, because every time Altin came onscreen in Harlots, I kept thinking, "That dude is so creepy looking, he should play a serial killer." I guess somebody in the casting department shared my sentiments. Another strong episode. In my opinion, episodes 3 and 4 have been exponentially stronger than episodes 1 and 2. Much better pacing, more subtlety with the symbolism, far better dialogue, and far more nuance in exploring the character relationships as revealed by the subtle interactions between them. (And though I may well be alone in this, I also feel like the last two episodes have done a far better job of portraying Sarah Howard, portraying her as subject rather than object of male desires, emphasizing her own inner struggles over the John/ Sarah/ Kreitzler love triangle.) I think Gina Gionfriddo (who wrote the past two episodes) is a far stronger writer than Hossein Amini, who wrote episodes 1 and 2. The women in general were impressive this week. The dominatrix was both highly amusing and somewhat disturbing, as was Kreitzler's reaction to her. He was squirming like an adolescent, and it was really quite endearing. Learning he was turned on by some of her stories was mildly creepy, though. Also great was Mary, and Q'orianka Kilcher spot on portrayal of her. Her refusal to answer the door for Sarah was hilarious and deeply human. I enjoyed seeing her relax and enjoy herself on her date with John; and then her reaction (simultaneously exasperated and subdued) to Kreitzler's reprimanding her for leaving without telling him. I also enjoyed seeing less of Sarah this week-- not that I dislike her, but there was a great deal of Sarah in the first three episodes, and putting her in the background just a bit allowed other characters to shine. I also liked how her scenes were primarily about her-- not her relationship with Lazlo and John, and how she is effecting both men emotionally, but about her as an individual. We got to explore how the investigation is effecting her emotionally, how she is handling her work life with her increasingly creepy coworkers, and saw her contribute to the investigation in a fairly natural way, without once having to view her as the object of male desire (John or Lazlo's) or the causer of male angst (again, John's or Lazlo's.) Exploring John and Lazlo's relationship was also fascinating. In the early episodes, particularly episode 2, it seemed as though the primary cause of their tension and conflict was Sarah-- whether or not she would contribute to the investigation, which of them she preferred, etc. However, this episode made it clear that there is a deep tension and conflict between them that has been there long before Sarah came into the picture. A fantastic interplay of resentment, mutual antagonism, deep affection, and a struggle for dominance in the that boot buttoning scene. Kreitzler's scene in Mary's room was, for me, probably the creepiest scene in the whole show. Those white shorts/ bloomers he held up to his face were the very closest garment women wore to their bodies in the Victorian Era; so we just saw Kreitzler engage in the Victorian equivalent of panty sniffing. Don't get me wrong, other scenes have been far more horrifying. But I came to the show expecting to see gross and horrible things from corrupt cops, serial killers, perverts, and child sociopaths. I was not expecting Our Hero to sneak into his servants room without permission to take a big old whiff of her panties. A whole other side of Kreitzler, there. Random question: was Marcus supposed to be having sex in his families apartment? Was that woman on the other side of the curtain his mom, asleep? Where did the baby come from? And did poor Lucius have to listen to the whole thing? I was a bit confused there, because they showed the sex scene, then showed Marcus literally going into the next room, so were they at his house? And what was the point of the scene?

I've gotta say: if Moore was really raped, than at this point this has to go down as one of the most insensitive handlings of this subject ever portrayed on a TV show. Not only has the psychological aftermath for Moore been entirely skipped over, the whole things been played for laughs ("You were found wandering the streets... without your trousers! Hey, it happens to the best of us!" Oh, the crazy hijinks!), and then John Moore apparently doesn't even notice (??) the physical aftermath of a violent gang rape on his own body. Furthermore, the portrayal of a bunch of exploited child sex workers (some of them possibly transgender, according to comments by the show writers) as a horde of vicious rapists is offensive in the extreme. So I'd say that due to these factors, I'm highly doubting that an actual rape happened at this point. (Again, in addition to everything else, someone who has been sexually assaulted by numerous people not feeling any physical effects the next day is not only unbelievable, its ridiculous.) After all, in order to ruin John's "standing in society" the men don't need something sexual to happen between John and the boys; they just need to make it look like something did. I think staging a compromising photo was exactly what they did. And here's why. First, a lot of people have objected that cameras were still new technology, and a rarity at the time. There's no way, people have said, that a brothel would have a camera on hand. But I say these people should try taking a look at pornographic post cards from back in the victorian era. (Or... not literally, because that would be gross. But just keep in mind that they existed.) One of the first and most common uses for cameras, in addition to society portraits and science photos, was actually porn. Certain brothels kept them on hand sometimes, for clients whose preferences went that way. It would not be shocking if Pariesis Hall, which seems to cater to a very wealthy niche clientele, had a camera on hand somewhere. In order to acquire leverage over Moore in the future, they could easily go retrieve it, then snap some compromising photos. That would be better than staging a full rape, which would be just a matter of their word against his, anyway. And a rich guy like Moore might actually press charges, which would open a whole other can of worms. Though Connor seems like a dummy, mostly driven by lust and greed, both Paul Kelly and Byrnes seem considerably brighter. They may well have cooked up such a plan. Which brings me to my second point: Connor, and his comments in the bar. I think that its clear that of the three men assembled in that bar, Connor is by far the dumbest. Perhaps he had the "brilliant" idea to have John Moore violated in some way by the boys. But perhaps the considerably savvier Paul Kelly and Byrnes got wind of it, and substituted his plan with a far smarter one. Which they put into play after Connor exited. That would explain Connor's apparent belief that John was raped, as well as the significant look that Kelly and Byrnes shared between them after Connor's crude comment about John not being able to sit for a week. Their look was pretty blatant, anad seemed to say, "Yeah, that's what you (Connor) think. But that's not what happened." Anyway, I see no reason for that fairly blatant look between Kelly and Conor in the bar, unless they are privy to some knowledge about what happened to John that Connor is not. Either that, or the two's significant glance between Connor's comments about "Sodomites" was meant to imply that Kelly and Byrnes are secretly gay lovers, which would be a move both utterly random and so sublimely subversive it would literally break the TV set. But I doubt the writers are going that route. Just my two cents.

Best episode yet. I think after an unevenly paced first episode and a somewhat slow paced second episode, they finally got the pacing down perfectly in this one. There was also some good comic relief, with Marcus's comment re: John coming home without pants ("It happens to the best of us!") to John's inability to even feign interest in the nice girl his granny bought home for him ("And that's how it went, Madeline!" "It's Caroline." "Oh.... riiiiiight.") The characterization also seemed better integrated into the action in this episode, so that varying shades of the characters personalities were introduced in the midst of events, rather than having events stalled to flesh out the characters. The characterization was also a lot subtler in this episode then it has been in the past; I felt they did a better job of showing, rather than telling. Kreitzler's talk with Cyrus and his freak out with John and Sarah was a far better way of revealing his personal complexity than that long speech in the first episode was. ("I must become him... even if it takes me to the gates of hell!" etc.) And Sarah's Vassar reunion with all of her friends showcased the fact that she was a strong woman nevertheless besieged with anxieties and fears better than her speeches have in the past. I am finally feeling sorry for John. My heart broke for him when the gang were all standing around him after he'd been roofied, and they were looking at him only half sympathetically, half questioningly. As though he'd just gotten drunk, dropped trough, and totally gotten himself into this situation by his own volition. And then his feeble objection, "It's not what you think!" With all of his pals yet again giving him the side eye, all "Yeah, okay. I'm sure it's not, buddy. Right." Poor guy. The part where his grandmother tried to hook him up with the girl whose name he couldn't remember also unexpectedly pulled at my heart strings. I also loved getting more of Cyrus and Mary. Robert Wisdom was fantastic, and Qoiana Kilcher was brilliantly intense. Kilcher is especially managing to somehow build this incredibly strong, nuanced, and very human base to a character who has only had a handful of scenes and who does not speak. I loved the scene between Kreitzler and Mary; not only was there chemistry amazing, the two managed to convey a familiar intimacy between these two character who have apparently lived and worked together for years. The subtlety of the scene in which Sarah sits with John in the carriage after Kreitzler blows up at them was also excellent. Clearly, she was upset about her father. But I think she was also quite upset, and taken off guard, by the fact that Kreitzler clearly has deep romantic feelings for Mary. Though Sarah is hardly going to be the type to spend future episodes pining away in disappointment that Kreitzler doesn't love her, I think that his interest in her and their brief flirtation in the carriage after their dinner last week had "gotten her hopes up" with regards to a possible romantic future with the doctor. Not that she was planning to marry him; but I think there was a fascination that went all the way around to romantic interest on her part, and that, up until that part, she had assumed that it was mutual. Kreitzler's reaction to Mary in that scene made her realize that it wasn't, and I think that it was that, and not just Kreitzler's reminding her of her father's suicide, was what caused her upset reaction in the carriage. Not enough of the Isaacons, though. That rich family with the (it was implied) creepy pedophile son was effectively creepy.

That's an excellent point-- John Moore does seem to be playing the role of the "damsel in distress" or "the girl" thus far in the show, far more so than Sarah. He is the one who is the most sensitive; he has the strongest aversion to violence; he is by far the most emotionally driven; he is the weakest fighter; and he seems to also have a way of getting himself kidnapped and threatened by numerous dangerous men. In comparison, Sarah Howard is positively macho. Indeed, and it was so sweet to see he brought his "niece" along with him! Such a family man! Also, I think Moore's reaction was meant to mirror that of the viewers. His face was like, "What? This isn't a male brothel, this is a straight up child brothel! These boys are all 13 and 14 years old, and all these grown men are here to have sex with them!" In a way, I suspect he's supposed to be our audience surrogate, in this scene and in others. Kreitlzer is certainly lacking in the "normal human reactions" as well as the "normal human emotions" category. Yes, he was clearly manipulating Moore, in an effort to make him determined to be of more use in the investigation, and thus of more use to Kreitzler. Regarding the John/ Sarah/ Lazlo love triangle: I think Kreitzler is paying blatant attention to Sarah for his own manipulative reasons. It is not that Kreitzler wants Sarah for himself or wants to compete with John for her attentions; it's that Kreitzler knows that creating that drama will depress, and thus motivate, John. But he's pretty shady, yeah. First intentionally manipulating John's vulnerbilities, then sending him off into the night in that state. Furthermore, the questions he asked of John in the carriage about Sarah (digging around her father's suicide, and whatnot) struck me not as casual or motivated by concern for John, but as very conscious and deliberate, as though Kreitlzer were trying to find out info to further manipulate Sarah in the future. Pretty shady. Lazlo's interaction with Sarah in the carriage at the end also struck me as rather deliberate, perhaps manipulative. He was sure to turn on the flattery and the charm at just the right time, just to get Sarah to do as he wanted--even though he didn't need to do so, and Sarah would have been happy to take part in the investigation regardless. It was as though he's buttering her up to do something else for him she wouldn't necessarily want to do at some point in the future. Furthermore, he was clearly flirting with her, but I can't help but feel he has no real romantic interest in her. Of course, he finds her beautiful and sexually attractive, but once again, it seemed as though his sweet talk in the carriage was largely manipulation, intended to spur both Sarah and John into the kind of behavior that he wanted from them.