On a textual level, Howard died a sudden and pointless death.
On a metatextual level, somebody was getting stuffed in a refrigerator in Season 6, so pardon me for celebrating that it was a rich white guy for once.
On a textual level, violence is "bad".
On a metatextual level, the Breaking Bad franchise is predicated on a celebration of violent spectacle, so bemoaning any singular character death as some end-all tragedy rings a little hollow.
On a textual level, Kim and Jimmy get off on scamming, and this is their fatal flaw.
On a metatextual level, it feels kind of disingenuous to try to hold these characters accountable, when the script is constantly making them do flashy, stupid stunts because that's what the audience came here for.
On a textual level, comparable circumstances warrant comparable ethical analysis.
On a metatextual level, we've been here before! We already watched one whole tv series about damaged people doing mental gymnastics to rationalize their acquisition of power. So if that's really all that I was supposed to take out of Season 6, that's lame. It shows that the moral compass of this franchise hasn't evolved much, even as the circumstances of the viewing audience (the people you are supposedly preaching to) have become more dire. Even as "a woman who will ruin peoples lives, both for fun and to fund her charity defense practice" really starts to sound like the hero this world needs.
On a textual level, Kim Wexler is an autonomous, mature, intelligent* woman.
On a metatextual level, Kim is robbed of agency by the narrative at every turn. Because everything about this character, down to her childhood, is written backwards from the end goal of being the "good thing" that Jimmy lost.
6 notes
·
View notes
me when someone says that iron deficiency can’t be listed as a special skill on my resume 🙄
5 notes
·
View notes
I don’t talk like a valley girl because even though I grew up in SoCal, I didn’t grow up in The Valley, BUT it still pisses me off the way people (mostly men, but women too sometimes) use the “valley girl accent” to mock women/be misogynistic/imply that we’re dumb. Literally shut the fuck up, no one asked
3 notes
·
View notes
The easiest way for me to control my desire for someone is to make rules. I've only ever had to do it twice. First was for the guy 6 years older than me when I was in high school. I knew I shouldn't like him but he cared about me and I craved that feeling. He only has three rules
1. Don't say 'I miss you'
2. Don't say 'I like you'
3. Don't invite him to prom
To this day I still remeber him trying not to hold my had as I told him to leave before he did something we'd regret. He was a nice guy, and that's maybe why it never went any further. I wish we could have just been friends
Now is the second time. He's not a guy I'd usually go for, but I can feel my heart yearning for him in the absess of my current partners disdain for me. I decided to forget about my partner for a couple of days because he said he didn't love me anymore. My heart was so broken and hurt and somehow it decided to mend itself with someone else. I know my feelings are temporary, and I'd love to be best friends with this new guy and I'd be happy if that's all that ever happened. But im possessive, I want him to love me. And these feelings need rules to be managed.
1) don't make a move
2) don't make a sound
3) don't look around
4) don't have sober thoughts
5) don't tell anyone
To explain number two, I'm not allowed to message him on a whim, it needs to be something relevant or at the very least non assuming. And to explain number three, i need to be happy going out with friends regardless if he's there or not. I dont think I could manage if we didn't part ways without either of the following two scenarios
1) we are best friends and comfortable there
2) I've kissed him
I have a month to decide.
Fuck me I guess
4 notes
·
View notes