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.

I’m only two episodes into Hospital Playlist and I would die for this found family group of dumbass’s. Everyone’s almost 40, with 20 years for friendship together, they speak to each others mothers as if they are their own, they’re constantly being annoyed by one or more members of the group, all piling into one tiny car to all get take out, they have a band together… ❤️

Random thought spawned by TikTok: Successful multigenerational parenting should take notes from Star Trek.

The captain and first officer are the command team: they decide (within reason) where the ships going, how fast it moves, how it gets there etc. They call the shots and the buck stops with them. They are ultimately responsible for the ship. And they may switch roles as the situation calls for it, with first officer becoming captain as needed, but at the end of the day they operate as a team.

These are the parents.

But if you’ve set up your village correctly, they can be the bridge crew. Experts in their field, ready with advice, options and to provide support. Sometimes the captain shouldn’t make a decision before checking in with one of them for their knowledge or advice. But no matter what advice they get, the command crew should be confident in making their decisions because it’s what they think is best. They’ll have to justify it later if the admiralty have questions, so they need to be sure of their choices regardless of who gave what advice.

And if you’re a member of the bridge crew (looking at you Grandparents) you need to accept that you’re not in the command chair. You might give your expert opinion and advice on a situation, but the captain is likely getting advice from multiple people and their decision probably takes all that advice into consideration. You (the navigation officer) might think the course forward is obvious, but another expert (the communications officer) has more information for the captain which you’re not privy to which informs the command teams decision.

And once the captain has made a decision, you can’t contest it. Like the ref in any sports game, their call is final.

For the ship to sail smoothly, the bridge crew needs to work as one, and support the command teams decision. And yeah, sometimes the captain is going to make a bad call. But then you debrief afterwards and learn where you went wrong. What should the command team do differently next time? How should they weigh or value different peoples expertise or advice?

As the bridge crew, you’re there to support command. Advise and inform yes, but ultimately to aid command so they can make the hard calls.

And giving them honest advice, to the best of your knowledge, and then aiding them once they’ve made a decision? That makes them more likely to turn to you again in the future.

And we can take it a step further - sometimes the command crew will be away from the helm, maybe injury or personal reasons. And they’ll need to appoint someone else (‘Sulu, you have the con’). They’re only going to pass that command to someone they trust can handle the responsibility. If you’re constantly questioning or overriding their decisions, how likely are they to trust you in the captains chair?

The ship works best when the whole bridge crew work as one. Every person is a valued member of the team, and at the end of the day the ship is the priority.

—————————————

Don’t know how well I articulated this but the analogy wouldn’t leave my mind…

*spoilers for One Day*

For people saying ‘it’s tragic, Dex and Em only got 3 years together’ no. They got 15 years together.

Glossing over the span of their life together to sum it up as ‘only 3 years together’ misses all the love and time they had together that wasn’t solely romantic.

Why is their relationship only ‘important’ or ‘counts’ when it’s a romantic one? Maybe there was always romantic love buried in there or growing steadily but there was a whole lot of platonic love there too.

For 15 years they were the most important person in the world to one another, they described each other as their ‘best friend’ and the person they reached out to at every high and low moment. And for the last 3 of those years they were also a couple.

There are loads of examples of Dex reaching out to Em when he’s at his lowest: the last birthday with his mum, then he’s reeling from his divorce, when he’s scared people will hate him on TV. And you *could* read that as pathetic and Em being his emotional crutch, with Dex latching into her. But you could *also* see that as when you’re struggling and low, you just want your best friend. Because they *get* you. And part of being a best friend is being there in those low moments.

And Em has done the same with Dex, just in different ways. That first year out of uni Em had no idea what she was doing; in a job she couldn’t wait to leave, a relationship that didn’t make her happy, not sure where she was going in life or what she was doing. Em writes to Dex often, and doesn’t need him to reply to her, just to read her letters and be *her* emotional crutch and person to vent to.

Even at that breakup-dinner, Em has things she ‘needs to talk about’ and she’s reached out to Dex to do it. We don’t see her discussing it with Tilly, we see her trying to talk about it with Dex. She’s at arguably her lowest moment (hates her job, hates her partner, hates her home) and she wants her best friend to listen to her. Just like he did when she was 24 and thinking about giving up and leaving London, and Dex convinced her to stay and keep going.

So they are emotional crutches *to one another*. That’s also part of being someone’s best friend.

And for all the low moments Dex also wanted to share his best moments with her too: when he’s excited about the TV pilot he calls Em to say ‘the only person I want to share this with is you’, and begs Em to find a way to be there. Yes this is also him dismissing and ignoring her achievements, yes this is self absorbed and rude and at the height of his egomania, but in that moment of triumph he only wants his best friend there with him.

When they see one another again at Tilly’s wedding Em is brave and self assured when she reveals she’s ‘thought of you every day, missed you every day’, and that even though they are friends again now the fact that Dex will have a wife and child ‘feels a bit like loosing you all over again. Because people with families have different priorities…’ That’s how close they were before.

The sentiment that ‘we grew up together’ is really true, for the both of them. They were very different people throughout their lives, and if they had tried to be a romantic couple earlier there is no guarantee that version of them would have lasted the course.

Would Emma have stayed with a peak-of-his-tv-fame Dex, partying and living life ‘to the full’? Or would they have explosively ended and decided they were too different for one another for it to ever work?

Would Dex have even tried for a career in TV or a full year of travelling if he’d become a couple with Emma after Uni? Or would he have done something else but grown resentful of what-could-have-been?

If they had sorted out their issues and apologised after their fight and Em had left Ian, would Em have found the strength to turn rock bottom into a spring board and finally write her book? Would she have even hit that bottom at all? Or would the hook have remained a pipe dream while she continued as a teacher, happy with Dex but professionally unfulfilled?

We will never know what could have been, and that doesn’t necessarily make those alternatives the ‘better’ option that they ‘missed out on’.

Maybe they would only ever have had 3 years together as a couple and getting it in their mid 30’s the way they did was their most mature and peaceful version.

So yes at times their relationship feels like it’s moving toward the inevitable conclusion of a romantic partnership. But the time before they get there wasn’t wasted or unimportant or unnecessary. And they were always together.

The women of this show give me life.

Woman? Is that meant to insult me? I would return the slap, if I took you for a man.

Argh the hypocrisy, misogyny and wilful misunderstanding around women as fans is so infuriating!

Matt Rife wants to ‘assure’ people that he doesn’t ‘cater to women’ in his new comedy special. If so that is a fucking *stupid* decision.

Because if you’re an artist then a largely female fan base is a great marker for success.

Some of the most successful global artists right now? Taylor Swift. BTS (and K-pop to a greater extent). Harry Styles. Beyoncé.

The majority of their fanbase? Female.

IMPORTANT: I’m NOT saying men don’t love/support/consume these artists, or that they shouldn’t. Huge numbers of men love and support these artists, and they should continue to do so. I’m stating that the majority of these fanbases are made up of women.

And women show up for you as an artist, on every metric which currently tracks ‘success’. They stream your songs/interviews/skits; they buy your album/record/dvd; they fight over tickets and pay astronomical fees to see you live; they tune into your award shows/guest stars; they watch your movies/documentaries; they post about you and your activities; and they go to bat for you in arenas you aren’t even aware of.

The colleague at work who heard a BTS song on the radio? Oh yeah, it can be intimidating if you don’t know who they are, here let me help you understand more and show you their best attributes and why you might like to learn more.

The family member who doesn’t ‘get’ why this singer is all over their TV? No worries, let me explain their songs and why they resonate, how they connect with their fans and why they’re incredibly talented.

And when ‘real’ artists are brought up to compare them against, not only do they pick an artist who’s peak years were decades ago, they try to rewrite history.

‘Yeah they might be successful but they’re not the Beatles!’ Okay so you see the Beatles as legitimate, successful, global artists with talent. Shall we look at Beatle Mania? A huge part of their success was the women who supported them, who bought their records, showed up to their performances, who funded their financial success and drove their pop culture relevance.

‘Yes they’re a good singer but they’re not Elvis!’. Oh are you referring to ‘The Hips’ who’s gyrating style of dancing ‘drove women wild’? Who’s success in music meant he was *able* to make movies and tour the country. The women who consumed his music, came to his shows, followed his personal life in the news, who watched his movies - they’re the ones who financed his life. Guys wanted to be Elvis, to dress like him, because women loved him.

Why is having a majority female audience seen to delegitimise you as an artist? When they are the ones who got you to where you are now, why are they suddenly not good enough?