Well, I effed up my own response, mistakenly including my comments in a quote, but I'm glad you could make sense of them
I've already spoken to that. Muddy the waters. That's Trey's stock-in-trade. See his entire exchange with Daniel in George's trailer. He's an ace opportunist. It was made obvious by the finale that Trey is an expert, inveterate liar, and that he does it well under pressure.
I meant why that particular "lie" if it was a lie? Instead of some other "lie". If it was a lie then of course it was to muddy the water. But you don't know that it was a lie. If McKinnon is a) as ambiguous as you claim, or b) as clear as you claim, Trey was either telling the truth or making up lies. I say he could as well be telling the truth. A scar on the hand would bear out what Trey says, assuming, of course, that he didn't know Chris has a scar on his hand from some other cause. And Roger Nelms can say he doesn't remember a bite on the hand, but if he outright lies that Chris had a bite on his hand -- and there's a scar to prove it and someone else remembers, or Chris in his panic admits it -- that's a different matter. If Chris raped Hanna, who's to say he didn't also kill her? That's certainly motive; he had a reputation at stake, and fear of his father. Trey had less, especially if, as he says, he had sex with Hanna regularly. Yes, it's still statutory rape but Chris had more to lose than did Trey.
McKinnon couldn't have been more explicit or consistent with the idea that Trey considered Hanna property. He kept a piece of that property.
Just because he considered her property, doesn't mean he killed her. Teddy considered Tawney property, too. Do you think he was capable of murdering her?
your claim of why he supposedly wrote it is based on a fantasy of his inner life
This is a ridiculous assertion. I don't make any claim to a fantasy of his inner life. I'm saying outright that the man writes for television; it's how he earns his living, while also working as an actor. His "fantasy life," whatever you imagine that to be, has nothing to do with his practical decision as to how to end a tv series that he created. I'm saying, and I may be wrong but it's my opinion, based on what I perceive from how Season 4 is written, that he wrote an ending that was aimed at keeping everyone happy: viewers, producers, the network, sponsors. In a practical and realistic world, which is where we live, he is answerable to all of them. I assume he'd like to write for them again, or someone else. You've said yourself that Season 4 is a departure from Seasons 1-3. I maintain that it was a purely businesslike resolution to a creative juncture. And by no means do I see any shame in that. It's a commercial enterprise, writing for tv, and one does what one needs to do to succeed. It's not a matter of his turning his back on his muse, or denying his creativity. It's simply a matter of choosing a way that satisfies the majority. I doubt he has any problem living with his choice.
You've claimed this incoherence before, for example in reference to why Daniel took apart the kitchen. In that case you hadn't accounted for the entire episode prior to the event, which informed it. Same thing when you were mystified by Daniel sabotaging the pool -- you hadn't accounted for significant events in his plot prior to that event. Same thing now with the evidence supposedly being "all over the place." You blame the writer, but the problem is with the quality of your perception.
Will you stop about the kitchen already! Daniel tore up his own mother's kitchen. Whether he did it out of anger or because he wanted to finish the remodel is immaterial, really. He spilled paint in the swimming pool. He was destructive in both cases; his motives don't matter and are not excuses and really not important. The reality is this was McKinnon's way of sustaining doubt as to Daniel's innocence. If he could do these things, what else is he capable of?
Sorry, but I think the writer is to blame when perception is an issue. Full stop. I'm not stupid or incapable of "getting it". I just disagree with you about what "it" is.
Relatedly, there are different kinds of mystery writers. This one gave us circumstantial evidence; the pleasure of working it out, of weighing it, could obviously only happen if there is some ambiguity. Otherwise there's no need to add two plus two since the calculation is done for us.
Actually, having Trey be the killer is the mundane answer, no surprise at all really. Because he's been portrayed that way (to quote Jessica Rabbit) from the start. He's always been unpleasant, untrustworthy, suspicious. A real twist -- the kind the best mystery writers manage -- would be to make Chris the killer. The nice kid, the one with promise, the one with a future, who goes on to become a doctor, the one nobody ever suspected. And 20 years later his life is interrupted and ruined because of something he did 20 years ago when he was a kid, in a mad, impulsive, panicky, uncharacteristic moment. When he got caught up in something with other boys that he would never have done on his own.
That's the kind of ending most people appreciate.
reply
share