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.

This is for the dirt stained beauty queen sleepers made of resilience and dollar store glitter. ~

~ ….the girls applying eye shadow in the reflections of the storefront windows, unfazed by every person who walks past and dares to roll their eyes. there is something holy about girls so dedicated to melody that they give up their basic needs for it. ~

~…holding hands with one another, screaming the words to a song that saved their life or makes them happy or maybe just reminds them of how beautiful it is to be alive….~

~ … how absolutely wonderful it is to sing in a crowd that knows every key change by heart. the girls that have only ever been a part of something bigger than themselves. ~

~…the girls that wave pride flags and kiss their partners and hand out hair ties like they’re compliments.~

~the girls that trade water with strangers, lips to lips to lips, trusting that everyone here is safe because they are, they have to be, how else would they have gotten through the door?~

~this is for the girls who look discomfort in the face until it backs away in shame.~

- ODE FOR THE GIRLS THAT CAMP OUT FOR CONCERTS. - Caitlin Conlon

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?

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!

Just attended a public lecture on some of the dangers and concerns with OpenAI (ready to be informed!) and the two men on the panel were introduced as First Name- Last Name- Job while the two women were not given the courtesy of a profession, and instead were minimised and miss-introduced.

‘This is Joe Blogs who is a lecturer and teacher’ vs ‘this is Jane, a sociologist’

‘This is John Doe, a reporter who’s written several books’ vs ‘ this is Betty and she is .. a social media… expert?’ I’m a social psychologist’

So if I wanted to follow up afterwards or thought one of them made good points I should Google ‘Jane Sociologist’ and pray the one I want is there?? Nice way to show which people you think we should know more about…

My god, at least give your panelist’s the FACADE of equal consideration and attention.

I can handle roughly 100 people dissolving in acid but I draw the line at the goldbug launch presentation

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?