Thoughts on the penultimate episode?

It's not like the Senator or the detective who were consciously deciding to ignore crucial evidence in order to further their agendas.

I think it becomes similar once Bobby grows beyond childhood. As he grew older he didn't forget those words, said in answer to the most important question he'd ever asked, about "what changed," why his "only friend" was suddenly abandoning him. Yet, despite not forgetting them, even when older, even with plenty of time to reflect on them, Bobby didn't do so because he was convinced they'd "got their man." He was so emotionally invested in that outcome that despite having what amounts to the key to Daniel's innocence, it didn't enter his consciousness.

I understand Bobby, and empathize with him. I also think his assault, horrible as it was, has an added tragedy to it - for Bobby, in the long-term - because he possessed information that, had he actually digested it without emotional interference, would have likely prevented him taking that action.

I do think this is a similar pattern to Foulkes and CJ in their official capacities, who knew about potentially conflicting information, and suppressed it. You can suppress truth for a number of reasons, some completely understandable and deserving of compassion. And still, the end result of that suppression only intensifies the tragedy.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[deleted]

I kind-of agree. As hard as it is to believe for a show as "slow" as this one, it feels almost like the last season is being rushed lol. It's like the writing for the other seasons was written as if time was no issue, as if the writers had all the time in the world to flesh out the characters and the story. Now, they are writing in whiplash form in comparison to previous seasons as if they miscalculated just how much they had to wrap up. It does feel like a wrap-up season.

"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true." -- Judge Judy

One of the qualities I liked about the series is that the characters acted as if they are their own protagonists in their own stories with their own agendas. In inferior drama, the protagonist is surrounded by characters who seem to exist as custom-made for him/her - it's so obvious that this character is designed to bring out X quality, and this designed to bring out Y. This happens even though these literally "supporting" characters' agendas may oppose him/her - the nature of the conflict is just part of the schematic narrative.

You can always tell when a creator has made their protagonist like the sun, so that all other characters have neatly defined orbits within their gravity. In Rectify, the supporting characters have tended to use the protagonist for their own agendas. Even, and perhaps especially, in the name of "supporting" him.

When Chloe was introduced, I was worried about the trope of the "magic female" who heals the man, especially one who is an artist. So I liked when McKinnon had her say "I can't save you, Daniel." And I liked the conflict that arose in the previous episode when she encouraged him to seek counseling. But as a character in general I've found her edges too rounded; there is little sharpness to her. Tawney, of all people, now has more of an independent will. Chloe from the first scene in the warehouse has seemed like a counseling-character.

The thing is, she does have a need for someone like Daniel, she does have reason to use him for her own agenda. And she does use him, but I think that not enough has been made of it. She would be less rounded, less custom-made, if what she needed from him were harder to get. She seems satisfied with his company; evidently he gives her what she needs without much trouble. And that can't be, because what you can get without much trouble means no sacrifice on anyone's part.

A major part of why Chloe is too custom-made for Daniel is the fact that Daniel is too custom-made for her. He impresses her with his intelligence and sensitivity at their first meeting, and that seems to be enough. But these qualities can't be only what she needs. They're not specific enough. Imagine a little deeper why she would so quickly become intimate with a man like him. Is it not the case that his limitations, in combination with his intelligence and sensitivity, are attractive to her? The fact that he can't go anywhere easily? That he has a lowly status and is easily grateful for the smallest gifts?

In other words, Daniel isn't demanding, because he can't be. "I can't save you, Daniel" - it seems to me that these wise words also hint at what Chloe wants: no serious obligations. It also seems to me that their conflict in the previous episode had to do with Daniel implying an obligation - the idea that you can't knowingly develop an intimacy with me and then disappear.

Daniel is naive, for obvious and justifiable reasons, but Chloe is not. Daniel stepped into this relationship naively; he has less experience protecting himself, less ability to think ahead. But Chloe has no such excuse. She tells him she never thought of the future until the baby, and there is the flaw. She chose not to think of the future, but for her that has been a luxury; Daniel, on the other hand, has had to do that to survive.

I think Chloe has all the makings of a fascinating character, one who is not primarily an emotional service station for Daniel. Her flaw, the quality that could make her sharper, and cause more sparks, and demand more sacrifices, and make their relationship something really worth fighting for, is right there, available for use. Seven episodes (one absent Chloe and Daniel) is enough to structure a fulfilling arc for these two. In my view, because that flaw hasn't been exploited, their relationship hasn't been put to the test, and as a result, a few bumps excepted, the couple has been mostly coasting. Their relationship hasn't provoked any serious concern in me for them as a pair, or as individuals.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson