Roderick Usher Is Such A Good Bait And Switch Of A Villain! You Spend Most Of The Show Watching His Downfall

Roderick Usher is such a good bait and switch of a villain! You spend most of the show watching his ‘downfall’ and corruption, knowing that he’s going to become the monster Dupin knows him as. But you still want to believe he can’t be all that bad, and he somehow knows this and plays right into it until the very end

Roderick is telling his story and peppers it with all these asides and moments that make the audience feel some sympathy for him. That make us believe he either has good intentions beneath everything else, or originally had them and was corrupted by power.

He implies he truly didn’t know Ligodone was addictive: he tells Dupin ‘you belive the chemist when he you tells you the drug they made isn’t addictive, you trust your company not to abuse the use of that drug’. He reminds Dupin (and by extension the audience) that he ‘didn’t make the damn thing, I just sold it’. And then it cuts to show that the drug company was originally acquired by Roderick’s predecessor as CEO, who took his pitch for a pain free world and ran with it. This makes the audience feel some small sympathy for Roderick: not enough to think he’s a victim in anyway but it worms in there and makes him not as monstrous as he was a moment ago. It implies he is not solely to blame.

The audience see’s (we think) Roderick getting corrupted and swayed to the dark side of corporate greed. Brilliantly they show Roderick in present day acting in ways that seem in character for what we have learnt about him, and then flash back to the 70’s to reveal that those lines or attitudes where originally those of the old CEO who Roderick *hated*. It appears as if pure innocent and trusting Roderick who runs straight at injustice has been corrupted by the old CEO, has become the monster or villain that he once hated. It’s a small tragedy mixed in with a busy narrative but it impacts the audiences view of who Roderick once was. We interpret this as an originally good if naive man corrupted by power and wealth. Coupled with all those scenes in the 70’s of Madeline being more emotionless and pragmatic, pushing Roderick to be more manipulative and strategic, it appears as if he has been ‘forced’ or ‘groomed’ into his role against his original intentions. Part of the scenes we then spent in the 70’s is spent quietly mourning this version of Roderick, as we know it doesn’t survive his ascension.

But there are enough moments to imply that Roderick is still being an unreliable narrator. When Dupin first apologised for faking an informant, saying he feels that his lie had some role in the death of his children, Roderick’s first response is to run with that false impression. The way he responds to Dupin’s apology sounds like he’s gearing up to lay into him about his role in Roderick a children’s death, to double down and agree that Dupin does bear some blame for how they died.

And then one of his dead children appear to him. They make him pause, collect himself, and acknowledge what Roderik knows to be true: Dupin’s lie had no bearing on their death (his deal with Verna is the reason they’re dead) and any impact of that lie on their final fate is solely due to Roderick believing it and then placing a bounty on the supposed informants head. He turned his kids against one another, Dupin’s lie was just the vehicle. Roderik only voices this when he is forced to by his literal ghosts.

There are several moments when it appears his dead children are ‘keeping him honest’. When he’s getting off topic Perry or Leo appear to shock him and remind him to keep telling their stories. When he tries to downplay his part in the creation of Ligodone and argue that the horrors of its addiction are actually due to a street derivative which ‘hasn’t been FDA approved’ Camille’s appears behind him to force him to reconsider and eventually interrupts him so abruptly he trows a glass at her. When he’s lamenting Frederiks death and remembering him as a child not an adult (the last time Roderick was any kind of father to him) Fredrick takes over child/Frederick’s body to remind him of how he died and to get back to the story. It’s almost like he’s saying ‘you don’t get to remember me like this, you don’t get to miss remember and pick and chose: this is how I died and it’s because of you so keep going’. It’s only in hindsight so we realise this was Roderick trying to subconsciously control the narrative and change this confession, to reframe his actions and those deaths. And the kids didn’t let him get away with it.

Even Juno as a narrative device helps to hide Roderik’s rotten centre: she is such a bluntly honest and sincere person, she lends a little credence of honesty to Roderick. We think he must have some small good in him (albeit wrapped up in all the ‘old enough to be Juno’s father, makes the opioid she’s addicted to, doesn’t defend her from family cruelty’ BS of his ‘love’) as she is devoted to and loves him. Plus when we first meet her he states he loves her, he is always shown to be gently affectionate towards her, and even claims she is one of his ‘two favourite ladies’ along with his granddaughter who we know he dotes upon. But then at the very end his twisted horror show of devotion is revealed: anything close to love he holds for Juno is warped by her being a living totem of his product, something he can point to and use to further his cause. Juno is an object to him, one he enjoys complete control over. He has never seen her as a person in her own right, just a doll/puppet to prop up his drug empire, and he can’t separate her or his feelings for her from the drug she is dependant upon.

Added to this, towards the end of the show we discover that this ‘unburdening’ of Roderiks sins, this confession to a litany of crimes, which will give Dupin closure for both his life’s work and answers to Roderick’s betrayal of him in the 70’s… that isn’t even Roderick’s idea! Verna told him to confess. Even at the end Roderick isn’t mending bridges of his own volition.

And then his final revelation: he’s been lying the whole time, maybe his whole life, to everyone. He had always know people would die to ensure his success, that he would have to climb over ‘a mountain of bodies’ to get to the top and it never once made him pause. He wasn’t corrupted, he didn’t get poisoned by the old CEO and his views, he didn’t change to take on more of Madeleine’s views. He just noticed the best way to get work done and adapted.

Dupin had it right from the start: the only good that he ever saw in Roderik was a reflection of Annabelle lee’s. Like the moon has no inherent light of its own, Roderik hid his darkness behind the strength of Annabelle’s goodness until the time came when she couldn’t shine on him anymore. And he was revealed for the empty dead husk he had always been.

And Annabelle even said it herself, when then kids chose Roderick over her. They were starving and he told them to gorge themselves but he could never actually feed them, because he had nothing real to offer. Empty through and through, and just. So. Small.

*One Day Netflix Spoilers*

You can interpret it however works for you, and I don’t know how it played out in the book, but I loved the scene where Em and Dex got together.

Because Emma *chose* Dexter. When she didn’t have to, when she had other options, knowing all of his baggage, and knowing that they would probably be able to stay friends if she didn’t. And she still chose to start something romantic with him.

Emma was at the highest point of her success: a published author, signed for a second book, sent to live abroad in an exciting new city. And she’d started seeing someone who (from the little we see) is kind, charming, and cares for her. Emma is winning in every sense!

And she initially rejects Dexter. Her reasons make sense; she doesn’t feel he truly *wants* to be with her, just that she’s there and he’s lonely. She is sure of herself and her place in the world, and turns down the man she used to crush on because she wants it to be real. When given this opportunity were not shown a knee jerk, desperate, ‘oh my god, finally, yes!’ moment when he says he wants to be with her. She was NOT waiting on this, and she’s not PINING for him. It actually shows huge strength that when the man she used to like finally wants to be with her, she has the inner strength to say no and stick to what she deserves; a proper relationship with someone who truly wants her, not a placeholder.

Dexter lays his heart on the line, leaves himself competent venerable, and Em says no.

You could interpret Em coming back as unsatisfactory: a woman in her prime, going back to the man she’s been pining over most of her adult life. But it can also be seen as an empowering moment.

Emma knows all of Dexters issues and chooses him anyway. Dexter has literally just laid out his current headspace and issues, and it’s clear she was supporting him as the divorce was announced and agreed upon. And previous episodes show they’ve been close throughout Dexters marriage and fatherhood, with Em stopping in at his job and answering his late night calls. She’s been his best friend again for several years and knows his struggles, so she is going in to any romantic relationship with her eyes open.

Reducing Emma’s choice to being a silly or naive one I think misses huge parts of who she is, things which are key to her characterisation. Throughout the series she’s shown as intelligent, savvy, switched on and determined. Even when she’s unhappy or trying different things, she is sure in her conviction to do *something*. When she’s unhappy at the restaurant and Dex suggests teaching she makes a career change and trains. When she’s at her lowest (post headteacher affair and loosing Dex) she turns rock bottom into a spring board and tries once again to write her novel.

Emma is the embodiment of conviction. Whether it’s knowing what she wants or just knowing what she doesn’t, she is decisive and commits to her path. She’s the perfect foil for Dex who’s lesson across the series is to stop running from difficult feelings, and learn to process unpleasant emotions.

So she didn’t choose Dexter on a whim, and I love that they showed that. Em leaves Dex, turns him down, and goes to dinner with her lover in the city she’s loving living in, while doing the job she always wanted.

And she could have left it like that and they would have likely remaking friends. They did after that kiss at Tilly’s wedding, and after they slept together. So she has nothing to loose by rejecting him.

But Emma *chooses* Dex. She knows herself and what she wants, she knows who she is and what she is now capable of. What she wants, if it’s on the table, is to be with Dexter. So she commits to it.

They could have made her jump at the option to be with Dex. The writer could have had them get together when Dex was at the height of his fame or Em at the lowest point of her life. And either of those could have easily had a sense of fear on Em’s part: to be equal to Dex, to be good enough for him (in her head), to finally make it. But doing it this way gives her all the power, all the agency. And I *love* that.

From comments later it’s clear their relationship was good, they do work well together and they make one another happy. We’ll never know how Emma’s life could have gone if she stayed with Jean-Pierre. But the life she chose with Dex *was* happy. As Ian said ‘[Dex] made her so so happy’: wether you think she could have done better or deserved more, a life with someone who makes you happy… isn’t an insignificant thing.

We’ll never know if it was *the right* choice to be with Dex. But seeing how happy she was it’s clear it was a *good* choice. And that’s all we can ever hope for.

I haven’t read the book and only have vague recolections of the movie (though I remember sobbing violently at several points) but I hoped I’d love Netflix’s One Day adaption. And of course I did but one of the things I loved was so unexpected.

I love how they portrayed Sylvie.

Particularly how that relationship both ended and endured. How even at the start there were issues but the small kind you want to work on and work through. She knew her family were hard work but she was on Dex’s side and wanted him to be accepted: but still knew that her opinion was the one that mattered. Dex knew he didn’t fit it but he was trying so damn hard to, and hoped that if he kept trying it would be enough eventually. And she wasn’t this demon or harpy, even people who just met her liked her. She was a nice person.

So many times when the male lead is with another woman before they eventually get together with the female lead this ‘other woman’ is portrayed as toxic, unmanageable, cruel, snobbish, etc… or even just unpleasant to be around; someone we’re happy for the male lead to leave. Maybe it helps us to support the male leads pursuit of the female lead and not confront his poor behaviour as a romantic partner if that ‘other woman’ is unlikable and we’re happy to see her gone?

But here they made it clear: Sylvie is a kind nice woman who loves Dex, and didn’t handle the crumbling of their marriage well.

It was almost voyeuristic how we saw the breakdown of her and Dex’s marriage. It seemed so bloody real. New baby, no sleep, renovating the house, all of it building up until you’re being a bitch and you know you are, and you’re apologising after the fact for what you said but you don’t know how to talk around the fact that you still meant some of the things you said. And a partner who you know is struggling with direction and purpose, and you want them to do well, but *god* you’re the one fielding questions and having to go to bat for them every time someone asks, and as a result you never feel safe to take a break or question them yourself.

And (I don’t know how intentional this was) but Dex’s joking tone which is clearly meant to relax and reassure just came across as him not taking things seriously or being trustworthy. Sylvie lists a whole range of food options for Jasmine while she’s out for the night, clearly showing she has prepped *everything* ahead of time: she isn’t leaving Dex in charge of finding or cooking Jasmine dinner, she’s leading him by the hand to the ready made stuff and telling him now to reheat it. Kind of like he’s a child too. It really shows how capable she feels he is.

And then Dex jokes about giving Jasmine crisps. He’s clearly trying to break the tense atmosphere and joke around with his wife, but it just comes across as ‘I wasn’t listening to you, I don’t realise how much work you’ve done, you were right not to trust me to cook dinner because look what I immediately suggested, you can’t rely on me’.

In all their conversations the tone of their voices just show they’re not sure how to talk to one another anymore, that they know everything they say will be taken the wrong way and so they have no idea how to speak.

It felt like no one was particularly demonised or made into a caricature. Just two people who were different, put under stress until they broke and grew apart. And Sylvie had been responding to this state of her marriage by having an affair, so she is clearly in the wrong there and the one who causes the divorce etc, but… I don’t know; here it comes across more as a plea for help or freedom in the midst of her confusion and less a lack of care or thought for Dex and her daughter (like I remember it coming across in the movies).

Even when they have the brief mention of dramatics and anger around the divorce, afterwards she’s back in the picture as a level headed co-parent: joking around to relate to Emma, sharing co-parenting pains with HER too (‘Jasmin’s learning the violin?’ ‘Yes that’s why we’re fleeing the country’). And genuinely congratulating them in their relationship and marriage.

You don’t see many ex-wives in media who are so openly concerned about how their ex-husband is handling his second wife’s death. She’s present, caring and supportive. And keeps reaching out to him well after she could be forgiven for stepping back.

So yeah I loved all of One Day and yeah it made me cry AGAIN, but I also loved how real they made those significant relationships look. How adult and complicated and messy and ‘no one was a monster/you were both wrong in different ways/there is no right and wrong’ they played out as.

Just because she wasn’t the ‘love of his life’ doesn’t mean she was a footnote either.

The 13th Doctor

I’m just so happy. For a fantastic show, with all the lore, back story and potential that Dr Who has, that the new regeneration will be a woman is brilliant. And hats off to the creators, I think they did it right. When the idea first came up a couple of years ago I was sceptical in a caught off guard way. I’d never thought about the doctor being ABLE to be a woman, let alone if it was something I’d be happy with. But the writers made Missy her own character and made us love her for her own evilness and snark, for her wit and sheer force of personality. And only then did they reveal she was as once The Master. And she only got better and more complex this season. The arc with her and the previous regeneration perfectly encapsulates how a character can develop over time (now fighting alongside the Doctor instead of against him) while showing that the character can retain the same presence, gravitas and diabolical nature regardless of their gender. The scenes with those two were a delight to watch.

And now that we’ve seen that this can work and that a female Time Lord can be a powerful character I really can’t wait to see what they do with Jodie’s Doctor. What will her take on the character be (Tennant was brooding but bouncy, Smiths was a bit manic and yet dark, Capaldi's I found slightly more beaten down and world weary)? How will she interpret this change? Who knows but I can’t wait to see! Well done to the BBC for doing this and making a bold choice for the character and the show. Let’s breathe some new life into the fandom!

Just seen a post which reminded me anew of some of my frustration with the Fantastic Beasts series and the train wreck it became.

Firstly and mainly: Why did they align Grindlewald with ‘preventing the holocaust’?!

There was literally no need for this plot point as Grindelwalds viewpoint and justifications had had little to no fleshing out in the original material (HP1-7). As a result any subsequent opposition to him no matter how well intentioned, well reasoned, or factually accurate necessitates someone arguing that either the holocaust isn’t likely to happen (and so Grindelwald is lying) or has to happen ‘for the good of the world’. You can state that you don’t believe he truly wants to save more lives, that his current methods are violent, that his future plans also look to cause pain and suffering, that his actions will cause division in the magical community….. and still the only take away is that you have to argue in defence of the holocaust.

And one on my main frustrations coming off of this is there was so much you could have done with the character and they didn’t use *any* of it. All we know from the primary material is: grindlewald was a dark lord around the time of the 2nd world war; he went to durmstrang, he was expelled when he was 16 and spent the summer with relatives in the UK where he met and charmed/radicalised a young Albus Dumbledore; he was essentially a supremacist who thought that wizards were inherently better than muggles and therefore deserved to rule over them; when confronted about these views by Aberforth he fights him, during this fight Ariane is killed (and no one is sure who actually killed her); he eventually steals a wand which is the Elder Wand; he is defeated in a duel by Albus Dumbledore and imprisoned in his own jail; he dies regretful of his actions at the hand of Voldemort.

There is literally SO MUCH room to add things in there, and none of it called for explaining his actions as ‘he predicted the holocaust would happen and is acting to prevent it’.

And I just wish they had fleshed out those viewpoints more or have given any creative thought to that.

Grindelwalds supremacy system (to make it distinct from Voldemort’s) could have viewed magical ability as more important than breeding. It’s implied in the books that some people are better at or stronger at some types of magic (Gilderoy Lockhart is very talented at memory charms, Ginny’s bat bogey hex is particularly strong) so his system of oppression could be based upon magical strength. You could have assessment checks or test within his ranks that ensure only the magically strong progress; a magically strong muggleborn is more respected than a magically weak pure blood (think Hermione vs OG Nevil). This would also support his slogan Magic is Might, and the view that wizards are inherently better - it is clearly only magical talent that should be rewarded with promotion and responsibility.

And this system therefore has its own fundamental flaws - just as a system based upon class and breeding will encourage nepotism, stifle innovation, and reward mediocrity, a system based upon rewarding brute strength with access and approval will result in corruption, a strong gang mentality, and violence. Introduce characters that show this, just like the Malfoy’s did for blood supremacy.

And he should have been written as a supremacist: an eloquent, articulate, charming one but one with a flawed and corrupted world view. Someone who is able to win over people to his side, a charismatic leader figure. I wish they had modelled him more like a cult leader; someone who with the sheer force of their personality recruited wizards and witches to fight against the stature of secrecy (under which they and their families have lived their entire lives) and advocate for ruling over muggles. There’s something compelling about him, and once people are swayed by his view they find it hard to leave.

I wish they had orchestrated several confrontations with Dumbledore and Grindelwald where they fought head to head but circumstances always got in the way of them fighting to the death: one side was evacuating a position so one of them had to flee with the fighters to protect them, one was only on a recon mission and so fled to fight another day, one was injured in a previous fight and so was trying to escape the whole time, etc etc. There could have been a run up of fights (like Harry Potter and Voldemort had every year in the books - it’s formulaic but it works) leading up to the final flight between them at the end of the (supposed) 5th movie. The confrontation a long time coming and the audience dying to see them finally loose all against one another. And them not meeting before or outside of these fights? Harry/Dumbledore and Voldemort didn’t meet outside of specific fights, there are magical ways to hide and cloak yourself to prevent attack. Grindelwald stays in a secret location, unplottable and with few people around him: so the only times to attack him are when he moves into the open. There you go, lack of confrontations solved.

You could even have had him not graduate to violence right away, or have the violence be small and not able to be traced to him. Mirror the rise of the N*zi party and H*tler in that initially people don’t take Grindelwald seriously, then they won’t think the small time attacks are linked to him in anyway, then people start to agree with some of his points, and he is suddenly a leader of a ‘revolution’ and it’s too hard to oppose him now. The first few confrontations with Dumbledore or the audience stand in ‘good guy’ could even be before it’s known that he is behind any attacks and it’s literally a meeting of minds, a discussion of view points, the good guy thinks Grindlewalds behind these recent attacks but no one is going to believe him as Grindelwald is an upstanding public figure.

Don’t have him just waltz into a house and kill a baby for no f*cking reason just to remind the audience ‘oh yeah this is the bad guy, don’t like him’. Have him be charming and nice and persuasive to someone and then have a comment or a cut scene or something where he describes a future workforce of muggles to make magical products like someone describing a sweatshop, have him talk about managing the needs of muggles or ‘culling their breeding’ like a farmer would a herd of cows, have him mention the killing or maiming of a muggle like they are an animal or a pet. There are so many chilling ways to show lack of humanity or care, to show how beneath him he feels muggles are, and the absolute worst and most sloppy would be… to kill a baby in its crib for literally no reason.

And the magic system!!

I wished so much for something different for the USA but the system they got in this is just appalling.

And when you think about it, it could have been so much richer!

Like The Mayflower was 1620 and the Salem witch trials were in the 1690’s… so almost from the get go of the colonisation of America, the magical and non magically communities would have been separated. So for the majority of the colonisations cum settlement of the USA witches and wizards would have been in hiding.

In the UK we see magical enclaves hidden away in muggle surroundings (fake doors and walls, additional buildings squeezed between others) but these places and cities have been around since long before the Statute of Secrecy. London was the Roman city Londinium. So when the statue came into effect they had to seal away their magical districts and houses, but they still existed in the same space as previously integrated but now solely muggle architecture.

Not so the case in America. Chicago for example wasnt ‘founded’ as a city until the 1780’s. You could argue that as the magical community had been separate for almost 100 years at this point they might have walled off a whole section of the city for themselves to live in. Or even founded their own cities, which you needed magic to access. As colonisers/settlers moved West you could imagine a group of solely magical people creating their own enclaves. Society and muggle/wizard culture would have evolved completely differently than what it had been and became in the UK due to this concurrent growth and settlement.

Americans think about their national identity in a way unique to them, due to how recently their country was ‘created’. Wouldn’t this translate to the magical community? Would magical family’s talk about coming over on the ‘first Portkey’ the same way people claim they can ‘trace their family back to the Mayflower’? Would they measure their standing in the magical community not on wether they were pure blood, or from a Noble House… but instead on if their ancestor helped found a city, or settle a state?

Immigration/emigration/refugees, what makes someone American, the fight for American citizenship… does this translate to the magical community? Do they view European Wizards or Asia-pacific wizards as ‘not American’ if they’ve only recently moved, or working on a temp visa? Do they worry about other wizards and witches overstaying their visas or their welcome, and disrupting the American system of government? Is their a feeling of the ‘old world’ magical communities being slow and behind, stuck in the antiquated past?

In the UK setting of the HP books grounding the racial struggle in the class system worked perfectly as anyone living within that system understands it and accepts it intrinsically - the arguments and fights over blood purity are just British classism given a different name. But what’s the American version? Is it how recently you settled (is something like ‘first Generation witch’ similar to mud-blood, but it implies your parents only recently came to the USA and so you’re not a real citizen yet?) or if your family has been here from the start (Mayflower Mast families is slang for those who came over with the first port-key, the Mast of the first ship) or where you settled (just as some cities in the USA are seen as historical or ‘established’, is there a similar viewpoint to living in an all magical city vs living in a muggle city and hiding).

And due to the long lives of magical people you could have introduced characters in America who were the Malfoy’s or the Black’s - not due to pedigree or age or being titled, but because their grandparents founded/built/created the American St Mungos, the USA’s diagon Alley. Heck even have someone at MACUSA is called Ilvermorney because their grandmother founded the school. They have a younger sibling still there but they are working their way up the Autor ranks, likely going to aim to run MACUSA at some point, their aunt did in the 1870’s…. Basically make them the Kennedys of magical America.

The list just goes on and I get so angry when I think about what could have been! There were so many cool things they could have done when expanding the world of HP to another country, or when fleeing out the main villains methods and plot. And to see that waste on what they did do, which is now cancelled anyway… it’s just so soul destroying.

As I’m fascinated by What Ifs and alternate scenarios, and I’m going over back how I felt about Dex and Sylvie, I would LOVE someone to explore an alternate version of their lives.

(I also have a soft spot for rare-pairs, or in defiance of ‘the big destined love’. Every now and again. For balance and literary roughage.)

———————-

Across Dex’s life there’s reinforced messaging that Dexter doesn’t know what he wants, that he lacks purpose and drive and care, and this frustration only adds to lots of his other struggles.

But there is one thing we’re told Dexter once cared about: at some point in his childhood Dexter *loved* photography.

His mum mentions it when they get lunch, and thought we realise later that she was dealing with lots behind the scenes then, her remembrance of this hobby and her retelling of it then are actually quite hurtful and ham fisted. She (in a loving way) disparages this hobby, implying that Dexter wasn’t very good at it, and that this obsession confused his parents who (by the sounds of it) didn’t support or nurture this love.

And that would be interesting enough, coming in the same conversation that she bemoans Dexters lack of purpose and worries that it will cause him unhappiness in his life. But Dexter’s reaction to this memory is fascinating.

Its startling to see him so uncomfortable. He seems genuinely hurt and confused by this summation of his hobby; whether this is in response to the general sense that his mum didn’t think he was very good, or specifically that it was directed at his fascination with photography we can’t know for sure. But it gives an impression that there *was* once something that Dexter loved to do, or was fascinated by, and it was disparaged by his parents who didn’t support his interest and now he is seen as generally lacking any purpose or anything he’s interested in.

However you look at it it’s an interesting juxtaposition within one conversation. (I also kind of wonder if other interests were also treated this way, and so Dexters lack of care or interest is partially a learned behaviour…but I digress)

We get a call back to this photography again much later in the series, when the camera focuses on several taped up photos of gravel on his childhood bedroom wall. Again whatever the intention of this, it does remind us as the audience of Dex’s previous hobby that was important enough to him that he still keeps mementoes of them on the wall.

And though Dexter struggles massively with purpose and direction, we see in his last years with Emma that with the right support (and probably following on from a period where he reached the right level of desperation to swallow his pride and self motivate) he can choose a direction and job that he enjoys.

So I kind of love to wonder what other way his life could have gone.

What if, for whatever reason, Dex and Sylvie don’t go to Tilly’s wedding? Whatever the reason, probably combined with Dex both wanting to see Em again but also being slightly terrified of it, they can’t make it.

So Dex and Em don’t get their emotional reconciliation scene; they still likely make up and become friends again (Sylvie is still preganant, they’re still getting married, Dex will likely still invite Em and Tilly at least) but without them having that time and privacy at Tilly’s wedding to lay out all their cards…. are they *as* close afterwards as they could have been?

Does a Dex who hasn’t fully regained that romantically-tinged friendship with Emma (they shared a quick kiss minutes after he shared he was engaged and about to be a father!) then turn to Sylvie more than he did in the series? With Emma back as a good friend but not kind of a flirty-friend does Dexter emotionally commit a bit more to Sylvie and their marriage?

As they don’t re-meet Callum at Tilly’s wedding I think it’s unlikely he’s invited to theirs, hence Dex probably doesn’t get an offer to work for him.

So a Dex who is still professionally unfulfilled, looking for job options and a change, right when everything else in his life is also changing (marriage, fatherhood)… does this Dex now have a similar level of desperation/motivation as the one who we saw in Paris? Could this Dex also find the motivation to retrain in a new field, but not as a chef (as he hasn’t worked in a cafe) but instead…. as a photographer?

There was *something* there that drew his attention and held it as a kid, something which a appealed to him and made him proud of his little foray into that world. And when people are struggling with purpose and direction, don’t they say go back to what you once liked?

A Dexter who rediscovers this childhood love, now with the focus and need of an adult to try something new: that would be interesting. Also I think Sylvie is a model (?) in the book, so if that’s the case she probably has contacts or friends to help her new husband learn the ropes. It might even help their relationship to have her able to help him work on that passion, and for him to have something he is definitively working towards: both for them and also to reassure her family.

Plus if they don’t meet Callum at Tilly’s wedding, who then doesn’t offer Dex a job, Sylvie won’t be having an affair with him. In addition being with a Dexter who is slightly more emotionally attached to Sylvie, with a new career to focus on, and who hopefully feels less impotent might mean Sylvie doesn’t feel the need to cheat at all?

Do I ultimately think they would stay together? Probably not. They do appear to have differences in personality which would mean they aren’t the best of bedfellows. Dex’s sense of humor is shown to grate when Sylvie needs reassurance, and Sylvies inability to relax comes across to Dexter to be a lack of trust or belief in his competency. I don’t think different circumstances would have magically ‘fixed’ these differences in attitude and personality.

But I do think they could have ended better, and had a nicer and more interesting middle-period, before they went their separate ways.

But a Dexter who got to explore that tiny bit of passion and interest we’re told he once had? That would have been a fun version of him to get to see. And the poetic irony of Dexter finding purpose in the field his mother once disparaged, who found that interest and passion she worried he lacked in something she dismissed and mocked, would have been so narratively satisfying and well tied off!