Westworld (mini-spoilers)

westworldIn the previous post I wrote about some of the general themes I saw in HBO’s Westworld. Such big picture topics are inherent in the basic description of the series — intelligent robots used as playthings — and don’t require spoiling plot points or character revelations. Everything I wrote about in the last post is part of the general context of the show.

In this post I want to look more closely at things that struck me in particular, but it requires exposing certain aspects of character or implementation that could count as spoilers if one is very strictly trying to avoid knowing anything about the show.

But if you have some idea about what’s going on, maybe just from trailers, this post shouldn’t spoil anything for you. I won’t give away any of the big secrets or reveals.

The first topics involve the main characters in the series…

delores¶ Many have noticed that the show — at least season one — very much centers on two key female characters: Dolores Abernathy (played by Evan Rachel Wood) and Maeve Millay (played by Thandie Newton).

Both are robots.

These two initially seem to represent a pair of Yin-Yang female archetypes:

Dolores is the innocent and sweet rancher’s daughter, the proverbial “girl next door,” the one you bring home to meet mother. She’s programmed to see only the beauty in the world.

Maeve is the hard-bitten, experienced pro, the shrewd madam, the Yang-whore to the Yin-madonna. She’s programmed to be cynical and to understand her customers.

maeveAt least that’s how it starts. That’s how it’s set up.

As the season progresses, those roles become much more complex. They blend into each other. There is much more lurking behind the stereotypes.

In the end, Maeve, with apparent mother’s instincts, is the soft one, while Dolores turns out to have a dark past as well as a dark future.

A key point of Yin-Yang is that the light side contains a bit of darkness while the dark side contains a bit of light.

¶ Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins), another central character, is The Mad Hatter from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

There is repeated use of a passage supposedly from the book (but, according to the interweb, in fact from the Disney movie Alice in Wonderland and spoken by Alice — it actually does sound more like her line):

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t”

That we hear this quoted several times indicates its significance, and the passage possibly tells us some important things about Ford and Westworld (which may be why it was misattributed — or perhaps even that is a clue).

fordFord does have a world of his own, and we have to wonder at every turn what is real and what is story.

Further, we wonder not just how Ford tricks us, but how the makers of the show also trick us.

For them also, things aren’t what they are, but what they aren’t!

Stories within stories; tricks within tricks. Westworld is wily!

There is also a distinct reference to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. At one point Ford says:

“One man’s life or death were but a small price to pay [for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought,] for the dominion I should acquire…”

Like the Alice quote, this one is also rather strangely selected. It’s a line from a letter by Captain Robert Walton to his sister. He is, in fact, referring to his own possible death in pursuit of his goal to explore the North Pole.

But, as used, we can wonder if it refers more to sacrificing others than the self. And we can wonder if the quote isn’t a keynote sounded about Victor Frankenstein and his goal.

In any event, as I wrote last time, we have strong references to the Frankenstein myth, including an avatar of the Doctor, as well as the Prometheus myth on which it’s based.

Robert Ford is also like Shakespeare in that both wrote and staged grand stories about human nature and the human experience. (And Shakespeare features prominently and repeatedly in the series.)

In particular, we can remember the great quote from As You Like It:

All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players;

And so we have, as protagonists and antagonists, two female robots, both the eye of their separate storms, and we have Victor Frankenstein and his assistant (Bernard Lowe). While there is a second tier of very significant characters, it is these four who drive the story.

Along the way, there are some very interesting symbols, signs, and portents…

piano-hands¶ The player piano is both symbolic and possibly a blatant clue for viewers.

As a symbol it represents a very simplistic robot, one of the early automated devices from our history.

It also ties music into the mix, and the music in Westworld is — at the very least — highly evocative and seems even significant in the context of the show. We see, several times, the robots responding in crucial ways to music.

In the title sequence, the skeletal fingers playing the piano pull back from the keyboard while the keys — in player piano fashion — continue to play. The lifelike gives way to the machine.

We also see a player piano (with robot player) in Ford’s office as well as in the cantina scene between Ford and the MIB (and Teddy). That latter appearance is extremely suggestive.

player-pianoOf course the key player piano is in Maeve’s place of business.

We often see a closeup shot of the player piano roll starting a new tune. I’ve wondered if that’s a visual clue that a programmed sequence, a new story line, is about to begin. (It’s something I’m going to watch for when I watch the series again.)

These closeups could just be scene-to-scene transition shots, but when I watch the series again (and I will), I want to watch for what happens immediately after we see that shot.

In particular I noticed it just before Ford gives his speech to the board members, and combined with certain other clues, I have some deep and abiding suspicions about what really happened in the final sequences.

¶ Ford ultimately asserts that suffering is a key aspect of consciousness. According to him (and Arnold), it basically starts with memory and improvisation as a layer on top of that. But it’s suffering that causes self-awareness to flower.

For example, the experience of Maeve and her child, several years ago. (The resolution to that event, how it ended, the appearance of the maze, bothers some logically. Keep in mind much of Westworld is seen through the eyes of the hosts!)

Suffering is also a big part of the role Dolores currently plays.

What I find interesting (other than that it just kind of makes sense) is that my Buddhist friends tell me that a key plank in Buddhist philosophy is that “Life is suffering.”

abernathy¶ Yet it is another bit of Shakespeare — from Romeo and Juliet — that seems, almost command-like, to trigger events.

It starts in the first episode when Peter Abernathy, after finding the picture, whispers the line to Dolores.

Later, Dolores whispers it to Maeve!

As a tie-in we also come to find out the Abernathy robot playing Dolores’ father (the first one) originally played a Shakespearean scholar in an early story line.

Here is a bit of the scene with that line:

Romeo and Juliet, act II, scene VI
Friar Laurence's cell.

FRIAR LAURENCE
 So smile the heavens upon this holy act,
 That after hours with sorrow chide us not!

ROMEO
 Amen, amen! but come what sorrow can,
 It cannot countervail the exchange of joy
 That one short minute gives me in her sight:
 Do thou but close our hands with holy words,
 Then love-devouring death do what he dare;
 It is enough I may but call her mine.

FRIAR LAURENCE
 These violent delights have violent ends
 And in their triumph die, like fire and powder,
 Which as they kiss consume: the sweetest honey
 Is loathsome in his own deliciousness
 And in the taste confounds the appetite:
 Therefore love moderately; long love doth so;
 Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.

In the play, the line is a warning about loving too intensely and immediately because it’s like dynamite and a match! It blows up and destroys everything leaving you with a hole.

As I discussed in the last post, in the context of the show it seems a symbolic caution about computer games and other entertainment media. It is also a concrete warning about the goings on in Westworld.

As the malfunctioning Peter Abernathy says when Robert Ford asks what would he say to his maker:

“By most mechanical and dirty hand. [laughs] I shall have such revenges on you both. The things I will do. What they are, yet I know not, but they will be the terrors of the earth. You don’t know where you are, do you? You’re in a prison of your own sins.”

The first sentence of that is from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part II, Act V, Scene 5. Quite apropos given how much happens at the mechanical hands of Dolores, Maeve, and others.

westworld-9

The point is that Westworld is a rich and textured show with a great deal going on (and a great deal, we assume, planned — the story is meant to last five years).

It’s science fiction at its best, well in the 10% that isn’t crap. It’s thoughtful and it gives you much to think about. It’s clever, and it’s smart. It’s good enough that you almost have to watch it multiple times to get all there is to get.

So far I’ve seen every episode at least twice (up to four in some cases), and now that the whole season is done, in a few months to let it get fresh again, I intend to watch it again from start to finish.

Yeah, it’s that good. A strong high-range Ah! in my rating system. (If future seasons keep up the quality, I’ll likely bump it to a Wow! rating.)

About Wyrd Smythe

The canonical fool on the hill watching the sunset and the rotation of the planet and thinking what he imagines are large thoughts. View all posts by Wyrd Smythe

15 responses to “Westworld (mini-spoilers)

  • rung2diotimasladder

    Suffering as a key aspect of consciousness reminds me of Nietzsche, but I can’t remember what exactly he said. I’ll go out on a limb and say he thought that memory grew out of suffering and the persistence of a self is an illusion—a story we tell ourselves.

    If I’m recalling right, Christianity is a societal system of punishment used for the purpose of regenerating memory. Specifically, for remembering the (false or illusory) debt we owe to the world and to our own political origins, which creates our (false or illusory) sense of justice and the debt we owe to our Creator (who’s also false and illusory). Asceticism in religion grows naturally out of society’s yearning for memory—both historical and personal—which is the key to living peacefully in society.

    But Nietzsche thought this conformity tears us away from the “truth” about ourselves—that we are not guilty, but instead animals, and therefore innocent. (Since justice is convention, according to him.) In drunken revery (like in the festival of Dionysos) we escape memory and live in the moment, detached from our personal history and sense of justice.

    Sounds pretty close to WW’s themes, don’t you think? Yet there aren’t any quotes from him.

    • Wyrd Smythe

      “Sounds pretty close to WW’s themes, don’t you think? Yet there aren’t any quotes from [Nietzsche].”

      Perhaps the writers aren’t familiar with him? I don’t recall any quotes from the philosophers, but plenty from contemporary literary sources. (Although the misattribution of the Alice quote, and that it’s from the Disney movie, kinda dismays me a little. Seems sloppy. They can’t have believed no one would notice!)

      There do seem some parallels with memory and suffering, although in WW one doesn’t seem to proceed from the other. (I’m not sure I buy the idea that memory grows out of just suffering. Doesn’t pleasure also lead to memory?)

      There doesn’t seem much religion in WW, although one bit is interesting: The Bicameral mind business, where the robots “heard” their programming as a voice led them to religious insanity. Kinda like our programming can lead to our religious insanity? 🙂

      I have a feeling I’d mostly disagree with Nietzsche (although I really don’t know much about him; nothing I’ve heard ever attracted me to him). I do see humans as significantly different from animals, because we have conscious volition. We can choose a path, and — in choosing an evil path — be very damn guilty.

      But given I really know nothing about his philosophy, I really should be offering any critique or comparison.

      “In drunken revery (like in the festival of Dionysos) we escape memory and live in the moment, detached from our personal history and sense of justice.”

      That part I think is very much thematic with WW. A vacation in the park is exactly that sort of “live in the moment” thing. And certainly the arc of William’s story would support the comparison!

      • rung2diotimasladder

        Yeah I’m not a fan of Nietzsche really, but this stuff just sounds like it came straight out of his philosophy. Especially the part about giving each character a painful backstory to create a sense of identity for them, that part seems familiar from philosophy class. I swear, I think Nietzsche wrote and entire book about this subject. Speaking of memory failure. Geez. I thought reading Nietzsche would be sufficiently painful for me to remember it? 😉

        I agree that pleasure would lead to memory just as well as pain. I know that Geordie sure as hell remembers pleasure very very well, almost instantaneously learning words that come out of happy experiences for him. (Sometimes the words don’t make much sense. For instance, if I say, “There it is!” or “Where is it?” he gets excited. I finally figured out that I say that over and over when we’re playing with the laser.)

        As for religion, I saw it as central really, although you’re right that it’s not much discussed. The center of the maze is in a physical location if I recall correctly, or at least it is for Dolores, and that’s the church. Dolores goes into the church to enter the Westworld workings, the offices of the creators and employees, and that’s where she talks to Arnold.

        And you mention the robots hearing their own programming, I believe they’re sitting in the pews in that church, right?

      • Wyrd Smythe

        “Yeah I’m not a fan of Nietzsche really, but this stuff just sounds like it came straight out of his philosophy.”

        The more I think about what you’re saying here the more it seems there must be a connection…

        I just Googled for [Nietzsche Westworld] and got a lot of hits, so you may very well be on to something!

        For example: Tonight’s Episode Was Very Nietzsche (spoilers)

        “The center of the maze is in a physical location if I recall correctly, or at least it is for Dolores”

        I think actually it’s explicitly not a physical location. (I think Arnold says that.) It’s true, though, that Dolores has to make a physical journey.

        OTOH, she made frequent trips to the lab below the church (“the old field lab” as Ford says at one point). The maze seems to be Arnold’s attempt to induce self-awareness in his creations. But Arnold may have been too gentle to subject them to the suffering Ford does.

        “And you mention the robots hearing their own programming, I believe they’re sitting in the pews in that church, right?”

        Yep. That’s where we really see it. That the “voices” caused problems is mentioned in passing a couple of times earlier, I think.

        We’re verging on spoiler territory here, but I’m not sure I really care. These WW posts don’t seem to be getting many hits. Nine each on the first and last and only six on the middle one. I assume some of those hits are yours, and I think I viewed them from my iPad, which accounts for some, too.

        Screw it! Spoilers be damned! XD

      • rung2diotimasladder

        I hadn’t considered spoilers in my comments. Sorry about that! But since you say I may…

        I just clicked on that link and found the focus to be on Thus Spake Zarathustra, which is funny because that one never seemed all that relevant. On the other hand, I have all his works mixed up in my head, so maybe it is relevant.

        The point about eternal return is something that hadn’t occurred to me, which is kind of dumb now that I think about it. Of course! That makes sense! Dolores says she chooses to see the beauty in the world, which is similar to wishing the world to recur indefinitely just as it is, with all its faults. Maybe. Not sure about that one. 🙂

        Okay, I googled a quote about eternal return here:

        The greatest weight.– What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence – even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!”
        Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus?… Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?

        from Nietzsche’s The Gay Science, s.341, Walter Kaufmann transl.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        “Dolores says she chooses to see the beauty in the world, which is similar to wishing the world to recur indefinitely just as it is, with all its faults.”

        As you say: maybe. It is certainly the case that her “little loop” (as Ford put it) repeats over and over, presumably indefinitely. (For a reasonable definition of “indefinitely… it seems she’s been playing the rancher’s daughter for over 30 years. It was her role when she met William, and it is still her role in the current timeline.)

        “The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!”

        Which, of course, is exactly how it is for the hosts, and a key aspect of the series is putting us in the shoes of intelligent beings who discover that!

        This is exactly why I love good storytelling (and hate the shallow crap). It’s so full of depth and texture. There is so much beneath the surface.

        It’s been said by the show’s creators that while the keyword for the first season is “control” (personified by Ford), the keyword for the second season is “chaos.” I just hope it doesn’t become some simplistic robot-as-menace action thingy.

        I want to believe that with Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy at the helm it won’t, not after they brought us such a great first season, but with J.J. Abrams involved… well, he turned Star Trek into the same shallow crap as Star Wars, so I have some concerns.

      • rung2diotimasladder

        You know, now that I think of it, Ford keeps insisting that the robots live a better life than those in control. Then Maeve comes back to WW—perhaps doing so freely—which would be in line with the idea of choosing to live the life of eternal return, with all its faults. Hm. But yes, I agree, it’s a stretch. If there were some Nietzsche quotes in the show, I might see more of a tangible connection. But damn, it makes so much sense! Even the control-vs-chaos sounds an awful lot like the Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        I’m less and less inclined to think there’s no deliberate connection with Nietzsche given what you’ve said and the few bits I chased on the ‘web. I only wish I knew enough Nietzsche to notice quotes. (I’m insufferably pleased with myself that I heard the quote from Frankenstein without recognizing it exactly but thought it must come from that novel. Maybe my aging brain isn’t falling apart completely just yet!)

        Maeve’s return is due to her daughter; don’t know if that throws an extra wrinkle in the Eternal Return thing. She seems to want to recover that earlier role where she and her daughter just lived peacefully in the Little House On The Prairie.

        It’s possible that orgy that took up much of one episode (and which many commenters commented about for various reasons) might be a nod to Dionysus. As for Apollo, those robots are pretty strong, fast, and superior!

      • rung2diotimasladder

        I’ve read a lot of Nietzsche in the past, but that was when I’d just started getting interested in philosophy. I haven’t noticed anything in the show that sounded really familiar as a Nietzsche quote, but then again, I might not have been paying close attention. It wasn’t until I started chatting with you that I made that connection at all, actually. I had a vague “this is Thrasymachus” in my head, but that’s all (and that character comes from Plato, but I equate him with Nietzsche.)

        As for the eternal return, I think there might be a loose connection, given the loop, wanting to return to the loop. But I admit it’s very thin.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Yet you’re not at all the only person to notice the Nietzsche connection!

      • rung2diotimasladder

        On the show’s creators…I have no idea who they are. I’m pretty bad with that sort of thing, including actor names. Hell, including character names. As you know. It’s a good thing you’re not sitting here on the couch with me while watching, because I end up trying to relate my stupid theories by saying, “The dude on the right. That guy. Wait. He was there a second ago. Well that guy blah blah blah.” Very annoying I’m sure. Maybe it’s a good thing I’ve lost my voice…now my husband doesn’t have to hear my incessant TV commentary.

        I too hope that the show doesn’t become the robot-as-menace thingy. That would be UBER-lame. I would have to stop watching. As it is, I don’t really like all the trickery. I feel a bit like the show relies too much on withholding information, but I’m not sure of that. It could be that I just don’t get it, and I’m hoping that’s the case. I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy; husband and wife team. I suspect Lisa Joy’s participation is part of why the show has such a strong female-centric tone.

        Jonathan is the brother of Christopher Nolan, the director of (among others): Memento, The Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar. He also wrote Man of Steel, which I try to forgive him for. And he did all three of the recent Batman movies (first was pretty good, second was okay, didn’t like #3).

        Jonathan, however (and this is key), wrote the original story for Memento and co-wrote (with his brother) the screenplays for The Prestige and Interstellar (all very much to his credit). Unfortunately, he also co-wrote the first and third Batman scripts.

        Jonathan is also the creator of Person of Interest, which was a pretty decent SF TV show.

        Certain aspects of my background have trained me to take people’s names seriously and to learn and (try to) remember them, but my weakness is faces. For example, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out if the bandit Hector (who aligns with Maeve) was the same actor as the guy playing Logan (nope). There was also another character I was certain had to be (Dolores’s guy) Teddy playing an alternate role (nope). I don’t know what it is with faces, but they just don’t seem to “take” with me for a long time.

        And while I pay a lot of attention to directors and writers (and even producers) I don’t care that much about actors and don’t pay them nearly as much attention. To me they’re just the animated dolls the writers and directors use to tell their story. (Very talented dolls, sometimes, I grant you, but nowhere near worthy of the disproportionate attention paid them.)

        As for the trickery and withholding information, that’s very much in line with science fiction. A classic form of the SF short story involves a secret that, almost joke-like, isn’t revealed until the very end — ideally in the very last sentence.

        I just last night read a short story by master Arthur Clarke (one of the three “fathers of SF”) that was perfect that way. It reads as a transcript of a CEO of a food-making company (in the fairly far future) testifying before congress. He’s relating the history of food-making… he shocks the Senators by reminding them that humanity once ate the actual flesh of animals (one Senator has to be excused at that point), whereas these days all food is produced from raw elements to taste and resemble anything desired (but the names and references all disguise what that resemblance actually is).

        But there is this one food-maker who has taken over the market with a new type of food that everyone loves so much it’s the only thing they’ll buy anymore. All the other companies are going out of business! The CEO testifying explains how his company tried to figure out what the food was. They could tell it was some form of meat, but couldn’t identify the source animal.

        Earlier the CEO had to actually explain the term carnivore. At the end of the story he starts to explain another term they need to know. The final paragraph is:

        “Yes, Triplanetary’s chemists have done a superb technical job. Now you have to resolve the moral and philosophical issues. When I began my evidence, I used the archaic word “carnivore.” Now I must introduce you to another: I’ll spell it out the first time: C-A-N-N-I-B-A-L…”

        We SF fans love that sort of thing — being thrust into some situation with nowhere near enough knowledge to understand what’s going on and needing to hang in there and keep reading until the veils lift. L-O-V-E I-T! XD

        Admittedly, not everyone’s cuppa, and possibly one reason many people can’t get into “real” SF. The good stuff makes you work. Doesn’t hand you everything on a platter.

      • rung2diotimasladder

        Interesting. I have the opposite skills you have, I guess. I’m great with faces, but bad with names (unless it’s a dog, then I usually remember.) But it might be because I’m not listening when people introduce themselves, or because I rely so heavily on faces that I don’t need to know names unless I’m referencing someone. (Which doesn’t happen very often for me in TV watching.)

        Interesting about Sci-Fi. I had no idea it was like that. I don’t mind withholding information if it’s done well, but I want to know that I could’ve made a guess, that there were relevant clues along the way, that it’s not something just out of the blue. I guess that’s what I mean. For instance, murder mysteries. A lot of that is obviously withholding info, but the good ones leave clues that make it theoretically possible for you to have known the answer.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        “unless it’s a dog, then I usually remember”

        Heh. You’re like me. Dogs are more important than most humans! XD

        The name thing for me, as I mentioned, came from training. Working in places where I had to deal with powerful people who don’t take kindly to being forgotten.

        (Sneaky pro tip: “Accidentally” misspelling someone’s name in a memo is a passive-aggressive trick to make them feel unimportant. Always apologize a lot once they notice! It twists the knife.)

        “I want to know that I could’ve made a guess, that there were relevant clues along the way”

        And that is not always the case in SF. Not that it’s exactly “out of the blue” so much as you’re simply never given enough information.

        In fact, now that I think about it, there are two modes:

        The first, usually only found in short stories (which are a really big part of SF, at least in the past), has the structure of a joke, and the reveal is literally a kind of punchline. As with any joke, you wouldn’t want it spoiled, so the skill is in keeping the reader from guessing. The best versions keep the secret (as with any good joke) until the very last sentence or (better, yet) word.

        That Arthur Clarke short story I mentioned is exactly that kind.

        The second kind, very much what Westworld is doing, doles out bits and pieces of information so that you build a structure of understanding over time. In some cases, storytellers actually do give away hints ahead of time if one is clever enough to see them (again, very much what Westworld is doing).

        The idea here is that the final pieces slide into place at the end (exactly as they did in the last episode of WW). The fun here is in building that structure of understanding.

        The trilogy by Hannu Rajaniemi (blogged about in Greg, Neal, and Hannu) is very much like that. One just has to go with the flow and let the understanding come in its own time.

        AIUI, the Japanese are very prone to stories that don’t tell you everything. Ever. Whereas Westerners like it all spelled out. All tees crossed, all eyes dotted. But that’s actually artificial. Life isn’t like that. We don’t always know all the answers or truth in life, so why should we in stories?

        Film director Nicolas Roeg (The Man Who Fell To Earth) had a basic creed that, “You don’t understand everything in life, and you won’t understand everything in my movies.”

        As I said before, not everyone’s cuppa, but I can get into it.

        “For instance, murder mysteries.”

        Yes. In any proper murder mystery, it should be possible to figure out who done done it. That is a different sort of storytelling. In SF, it’s not always the case (in fact, often not the case) that you ought to be able to guess.

        OTOH, the more SF you read, and the more science you know, the more often you can guess what the author is doing. I did guess the ending of that Clarke story several paragraphs early. (The giveaway was when the CEO mentions they identified it as some form of meat; the voice in my head said, “Ah-ha! Long pork!”)

        Some of it has to do with understanding narrative, I think. Or just having read a boatload of SF.

        Here’s a secret for TV murder mysteries. It’s Roger Ebert’s rule of The Economy of Character. Usually, the murderer is the biggest guest star. And if there’s a fairly big star who appears early in just one scene, as if they were a minor character, a walk-on bit, then it’s almost a dead certainty they’re the killer.

        Some shows (Castle was a good example) almost seemed not to try. Each episode had almost a formula: Multiple suspects all turn out to be not the one — red herrings all — and that one character you met in passing early on was always the killer (especially if they were a notable guest star).

        But then Castle really wasn’t about solving the murder so much as the interplay between the characters. That was a show I really enjoyed, although by the time it went off the air, I think we’d all had our fill.

    • Wyrd Smythe

      On the other hand, the suffering and memories of both Dolores and Maeve are rather a key to things, aren’t they. You may be on to something!

%d bloggers like this: