iguanacam wrote

I agree completely that Hogarth manipulated Inez into murdering Shane. However, for the premise of this article, it's immaterial because no matter the tactics used, Inez is still the one that pulled the trigger. At worst, Hogarth is an accomplice to murder. Even if manipulated, Inez is still a murderer, and saying that she was "framed" is letting her off the hook entirely.

Since the author's main criticism of the showrunners in her article is that the crimes of the protagonists are mitigated by the level of sympathy we're designed to feel for them, her Hogarth/Inez/Shane example is a bad one because she does the exact thing that she criticizes. My point was that hopefully she did so because she didn't watch the show and someone relayed the plot to her inaccurately. If she did watch the show and still wrote what she did, then I'm going to call bullshit.


iguanacam wrote (edited )

I feel like the author didn't watch the show.

She says, "[Hogarth] responds to the betrayal by tracking Inez down; murdering Inez’s associate Shane Ryback (Eden Marryshow), a fellow scammer who claims to have healing abilities; and then framing Inez for the murder."

Hogarth certainly manipulated Inez into murdering Shane, going so far as to provide the murder weapon for "protection." However, she certainly did not murder Shane and frame Inez. Inez did that all by herself.

If the author is trying to imply that as the mastermind, Hogarth is responsible for the murder, then she's doing a bit of what she's accusing the showrunners of doing herself -- letting the actual perpetrator (Inez) off the hook because we feel sympathy for her situation, namely being manipulated by Shane into his cons under the false pretense of requited love.

I'd prefer to think that she's writing a politically-charged article without having watched the show, rather than call her out as a hypocrite for doing exactly what she's complaining about.