JMO

Wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd gone on to degrees in anthropology and philosophy. Or does he already have one in philosophy? After a while, I can't remember what I made up and what is canon.

The premise of Tabula Rasa was fascinating----it could easily have been the theme for a full series. Guilt, or innocence, attached only to memory---but who's memory counts? That of the victim or that of the one-time perpetrator? Fascinating. And without gore. As to Hotch----I thought it was surprising that the judge didn't shut him down for over-responding. But then, we would have missed the Hotchalanche, so I guess it's a good thing he didn't. Loved Reid in this one, and his relationship with the father of one of the victims. It was moving without being sappy, and gave him a chance to show his maturity.

Watching 'Penelope' for the umpteenth time. I've reached saturation point on many episodes, but this one I find myself watching all the way through, every time. I think it's because every character is so 'in character', and because it offers so many rich interactions among different groupings of them. It's a character-centric episode that manages to focus on the dynamics of the full team. And it accomplishes this, even with us knowing the unsub from the episode before! They don't write them like this any more.

You're probably right, secnarf. I had it in my head that AJ's husband was Canadian as well. But, if he's a US citizen, it should be no issue. I think there is still a little hoop-jumping either way, to acquire documentation for passports, etc. But it should just be a formality.

As a practical matter, my guess would be that she would want to be delivered by the person who handled her obstetric care throughout her pregnancy. That would put her in the LA area. Also, I think the citizenship issues are more easily addressed if he is born in the US. I believe he would be eligible for dual citizenship either way, but with fewer hoops to jump through.

It all comes down to 'hate the sin, love the sinner,' but then there's all that disagreement about what, exactly, constitutes 'sin'. I can disagree with someone on the rightness or wrongness of something, and still admire them acting on the strength of their convictions--even when it becomes annoying. Because I understand that, when you think you see someone doing something that will hurt them, whether physically, emotionally or spiritually, then speaking out---welcome, or unwelcome---is intended as an act of kindness. Not everyone speaks out with that intention, and those that speak words of condemnation are not necessarily coming from a good place. That is, sadly, true. But the reaction of said 'people' is entirely the responsibility of those 'people'. It's important to evaluate the message, and not the messenger. Discarding the message because you disapprove of the messenger is, all too often, simply an excuse.

There are a great many things about which I can disagree with the Duggars. But, about this, I just feel for them. I've dealt with it through my work a number of times, when families did go through the 'proper channels'. It is an incredible dilemma for parents to have to decide how to help all of their children, including the perpetrator ( who may also have been a victim, at some point, leading to his actions), while also keeping them all safe. I have not seen the child welfare system able to do much beyond what the Duggars did----advise the family to supervise at all times, put locks on the doors and, failing those interventions, remove the perpetrator from the home. I've yet to see police involvement when the in-home perpetrator was that young. The most that happens is mandatory counseling and support groups ---and yes, sadly, there are support groups for young adolescent perpetrators, and enough qualified adolescents to populate them.

Page two of that article says that JJ will be back in episode six. And Paget tweeted tonight that it didn't work out for her to come back, due to her schedule on 'Grandfathered'.

I don't know that it's a phase of writing so much as it is a phase of life, and some people get there sooner than others. The 'whump-writers' may or may not be chronologically young, but that's the impression they always leave with me. I agree with you, Danielg, that the unrelenting violence is boring. I also think it is often too unrealistic to be frightening. With time, and with enough life experience, one learns that the most interesting part of the story is found between the lines.

I've never understood it either. Real life is full of enough angst, and the 'reel' life of our CM characters even more so. There's already plenty to draw from. I don't see the need to torture a single character repeatedly, and I don't find it creative or deeply enough explored to hold my interest. Like you, Old Dog, I wonder if people have become so inured to violence that they need to up the ante with some of these plot lines. And I worry about these kinds of stories contributing to that process, particularly among the younger readers. It would ameliorate the damage a bit if there were more consequence to the violence, if the effects on the characters were better explored. But, it seems, if the violence were to be portrayed as it actually is, poor Reid wouldn't survive long enough to undergo the next round of whump. He's become the Wile E. Coyote to the author's Road Runner. (Do you have them in the UK?)

I'd been asked to share the link to the petition, but couldn't do it until this AM. At the moment, it looks like it's still there, but it may come down today. So, if you'd like to sign on, here it is: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/rehire-andrew-wilder

I've never understood the Haley-hate either. She married her high school sweetheart, who pursued a career in law. We're not told if she had a career, but we do know that she had a job when she was in hiding, so maybe. A career as an attorney, and as a prosecutor, may involve long hours, but it doesn't necessarily mean days of unpredictable travel all over the country. That means that Hotch's working for the FBI, and for the BAU in particular (as it's portrayed, of course), was a major change in life circumstance for both of them. While Haley may have found it tolerable before they had a child, she obviously didn't find it tolerable afterwards. That would make her just like millions of other spouses who hoped having a child would ground their marriage. For all of my own complaints about bad writing on the show, this isn't it. It's exactly how real life unfolds for many, many couples. I didn't feel at all like there wasn't build up to Haley leaving Hotch. We had snippets of her being unhappy about his being away from home, and understandable disappointment when he forgot about Jack's being evaluated for his unnamed 'condition'. (That was bad writing, since it remains a mystery.) Had the writers chosen to give us more scenes like those, there would likely have been complaints of too much focus on home life. As it was, I thought it was an adequate amount to allow the viewer to read between the lines. We were given scenes where Hotch seemed conflicted about leaving home, but I don't recall any scenes where he actually chose his family over his work. (I know, it would be a different show if he stayed home.) On the receiving end of that, Haley may well have concluded that she was never going to have a family life with Aaron. She had to decide if it was worth staying together, and she obviously decided it wasn't. I think it could have realistically gone either way. To me, it didn't feel sudden, or unexpected, or a 'change of the rules'. Bottom line is, I think it was a reasonably well done long story arc, with the kinds of interpersonal conflicts I've seen played out in my own circle of acquaintences. As is true in life, neither character was entirely right, and neither entirely wrong.

Agreed. I'm sure he already has his doctorate. And he is the one most likely to use the skill with the unsub. The rest of them just shoot.

I agree that there's more dramatic advantage in the team being down a member, and especially two. But I don't think there was ever a likelihood that the show would do without at least one female agent in the field. Of the two, I do like the idea of a recurring character over a series of guest stars. At least with a recurring character, any background/story arc can be spread over as many episodes as they appear in, instead of having to tell the full story of a different guest star each week. About the overlap with Reid's skills-----I don't know. Doesn't all profiling inherently include forensic psychology? Wouldn't all of them have such skills, to one degree or another, in that area?

Just a point of information about how the FBI deals with employees who suffer chemical dependence. I researched it for a story. What I learned is that they offer support in the form of the usual Employee Assistance Programs, and will accommodate someone willing to rehab. But there can't be illegalities involved. So, if you are addicted to alcohol, or to prescriptions drugs legally obtained, your job might not be in jeopardy for that reason alone. But, if your drug is an illegal one, or illegally obtained (e.g., you took it from the pocket of a corpse at the scene of a crime), then the FBI might dismiss you, and even help prosecute you. I've wondered how it would have gone for Reid, since his addiction began, essentially, as part of his torture at the hands of the unsub. Could it be successfully argued that he not be prosecuted, since he was 'under the influence' at the time he took the drugs from Henkel? Seems obvious, but one never knows.

I was being facetious about the 'art' comment, but maybe I shouldn't have been. It's all in the eye, ear, heart and mind of the beholder, after all. MCatry, I partially agree with you that some things are 'facts' and others 'perceptions'. I can't bring myself all the way there, because I think it's nearly impossible to avoid perception. It flavors everything we take in and how we remember it. It also affects what we choose not to see, or hear, or remember. Taking your list (above) as an example---(sorry, can't figure out how to quote on an IPad)----and recognizing that there were full episodes between The Forever People (the sniffle) and The Hunt (the smile), there was obviously something that influenced you to include some scenes and omit others. If not perception, then what?

FA, re: The Forever People----same show, same episode, and yet we saw two completely different things. Does that make it art?

Normasm, you're right about addicts needing to decide when they're ready. The same is true for therapy. Around here, therapists won't accept a referral from anyone but the client. It may well be that Hotch and Reid had a conversation after Third Life. But I thought it was handled more explicitly (although not explicitly enough) in Jones. But I don't know about Hotch thinking Gideon was handling it. There are those voiceovers where he cites the vulnerabilities of each member of the BAU, and the vulnerability of the unit as a whole, perhaps under scrutiny from the hierarchy, for those unaddressed issues. But he doesn't conclude with a plan to address them, and I was left with the sense that he would not.

You're right, CoStar---you missed my point. I'm not saying Hotch called JJ out off-screen. I'm saying he never called her out at all. I think she went to him. There have been quite a few people clamoring about Hotch not intervening with JJ, especially in 'The Forever People'. I'm pointing out that he has a history of not doing so. The most obvious example is Reid. There are several episodes in which Hotch, and Gideon, acknowledge their concern about his drug use, but do nothing. In 'Jones', it is Reid who decides he wants to turn things around. Hotch or Gideon may have pointed him at BCC, but it was Reid who decided when he was ready. Hotch didn't call out Reid on his behavior until he was already in recovery (Elephant's Memory). I think the same thing happened in 'The Forever People'. JJ's stress had risen to a level she could no longer tolerate, and after her 'conversation' with Askari, she made a decision. That's what I believe the "No!" represented. And I think she went to Hotch, and started her own form of recovery. Sometimes I wonder if Reid knew, from his own experience, that their unit chief wasn't going to compel her to get help, so he took it upon himself to force the issue.

Yay, we agree! No, I don't believe her issues have been adequately addressed. Now that they have a full season ahead of them, I can only hope they will decide to do so. I'm not blind to what's gone before, and the few successes they've had in recent years. I'm just not willing to 'call the game' before it is played. And now, if you will forgive me, I need to walk away from the computer. I've been in front of it nearly every waking moment for a day and a half, but I have finally completed my task. Anybody out there do massage?

Maybe the real bottom line is that we watched the same show and saw two completely different things. The description above doesn't fit what I saw at all. As to the manifestations of PTSD and/or whether it was portrayed in a realistic way---don't know. I'm blessed not to suffer it, but have encountered quite a few who carry the diagnosis. The best I have been able to conclude is that it will manifest itself when, and how, it chooses. It's been different in every person. No 'rules' about it at all.

I caught the very end of that rerun on A&E this morning. This time, they cut that final conversation between Hotch and Reid in half, completely deleting Reid's explanation about why he'd done what he'd done. Whoever is in charge of editing over there needs a transfer. I don't think we've seen any consistency in Hotch proactively intervening with his staff. He's good at rendering the stare, but doesn't always take it beyond that. Even with Reid. He indicated, several times, that he knew or suspected Reid had a problem with drugs, yet the only vaguely confrontational thing that came before Elephant's Memory was when he forced Reid to accept Emily's help during one case. There are other examples of times he has intervened but, to my eye, they were most often because of something going on with him, internally. For example, he confronted Morgan about insubordination that one time, when he (Hotch) was under scrutiny and about to step aside; he was honest with Morgan about how he perceived his leadership skills at the end of 'Mayhem', but only because Morgan pushed him on it. He confronted Emily about possibly leaking information to the congresswoman in 'Sex, Birth and Death', because he was already in a tug-of-war with said congresswoman. I remember him proactively asking JJ if she was all right, just the one time. And Emily, when she came back to the team. I just don't think it's his forte, and I'm not surprised he didn't have JJ in counseling before her insubordination in 'The Forever People'. And, yes, I'm 100% convinced it happened then.

I think you missed the whole point on the seatbelt analogy, Danielg. I'll own it, maybe I didn't communicate it well enough. Basically, it's an Ericksonian thing, externally applied. I know, no clearer. It's this: Erickson described stages of development. In one of the earliest stages, 'right-or-wrong' is determined only by consequence. If there's no consequence, there's no 'wrong', and no guilt. It's only later that an individual develops an inherent sense of right or wrong, or a sense of morality. I was applying that analogy to your sentiment that JJ didn't have flaws because you haven't seen any consequences to them. I think, in the interim, we might have actually agreed that they exist, but have not yet taken their toll. I disagree with those who think they've been totally without cost to her. And, BTW, in my line of work, I have met a boatload of people who have not taken well-documented safety measures, including the wearing of seatbelts, simply because "we've never had an accident before". That discussion is often held in the emergency room.

Can't agree with you on this point, Danielg. By this line of thought, it's fine not to wear a seatbelt in your car until the day you die from being thrown through the windshield. If there's no cost to it before that day, is it the wrong thing to do? Was it right, and then wrong? I can agree that, from a dramatic perspective, a flaw needs to have a 'payoff', that it should, eventually, lead to a crisis point. Maybe it's just a matter of me being more comfortable with a prolonged timeline on it. After all, a behavior with an immediately negative consequence doesn't tend to become established behavior. You did something dumb, it went wrong, you don't do it again. Not much drama in that, either. So, given that they went with the changes in the character, I'm willing to let the flaws become well-established before they have their consequence. And I hope we'll end up with a writing team that is up to the task.

Not really. He didn't say 'somebody has to stay behind', it was specific to JJ. This is a working weekend for me, so I'm on the computer all day, looking for reasons not to get anything done. Thanks for all the distraction!