Waverlyroot

The point of a drama is to make you think and feel in a different way than before you watched it. If a drama just says the obvious (i.e. killing is bad), what would be the point?

Also, JBR is no longer just a cold-blooded serial killer. He develops a conscience and feels remorse and pain. That's the arc, the point that the writer wanted to make.

Apparently, the writer wanted to explore what happens if a psychopath develops remorse. The brain surgery allowed him to feel like a normal person. The split personality was too much for him to handle. He tried to atone for what he and his father had done. He told his younger self that he was not a monster. It was heartbreaking.

After watching Children of Nobody, which was okay but not entertaining, I have come to appreciate Vincenzo all the more. It takes a lot to sustain interest and joy over 20 episodes. I just loved it and I don't need to explain why :)

Many dramas start off slow and finish fabulously (see Mine). Others start off strong and wind up breaking the viewer's heart with a terrible ending (Misty). I promise, Vincenzo gets much better fast. Stick with it!

The scene in the library with the pages ripped out - that was epic.

I largely agree with you, except that I don't think the cop's ex-girlfriend and CWK's ex-husband are terrible people. The cop would have been a crappy partner and father, at least at that stage of his life, and CWK was no prize either because of the many layers of trauma she was still mucking through. Shouldn't people who want to simply find comfort in one another - to help them get past damaged relationships - and even start a new family be able to? I think so.

Both the cop and CWK proved that they could move on and not end up in a relationship themselves. Each of them, consciously or not, chose a lonely path. Also, CWK was probably more shocked by who Red Cry turned out to be than her husband's infidelity.

I respectfully disagree. There is a growing body of scholarship that supports another view of homosexuality, as summarized below:

"While the six passages that address same-sex eroticism in the ancient world are negative about the practices they mention, there is no evidence that these in any way speak to same-sex relationships of love and mutuality. To the contrary, the amount of cultural, historical and linguistic data surrounding how sexuality in the cultures of the biblical authors operated demonstrates that what was being condemned in the Bible is very different than the committed same-sex partnerships we know and see today. The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) are about sexual violence and the Ancient Near East’s stigma toward violating male honor. The injunction that “man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) coheres with the context of a society anxious about their health, continuing family lineages, and retaining the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation. Each time the New Testament addresses the topic in a list of vices (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the argument being made is more than likely about the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, a practice called pederasty, and what we read in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans is a part of a broader indictment against idolatry and excessive, self-centered lust that is driven by desire to “consume” rather than to love and to serve as outlined for Christian partnership elsewhere in the Bible.

While it is likely that Jews and Christians in the 1st century had little to no awareness of a category like sexual orientation, this doesn’t mean that the biblical authors were wrong. What it does mean, at a minimum, is that continued opposition toward same-sex relationships and LGBTQ identities must be based on something other than these biblical texts, which brings us back to a theology of Christian marriage or partnership."

As we know, many male church leaders have used the Bible to justify polygamy, marital rape, child brides, and other abhorrent practices, even slavery.

Great observation! I hope she was compensated financially as well, but yes, even she experienced a character arc. Hope that she connected with the maid in Monaco somehow. Only two who didn't grow at all were the young couple.

Agreed! They were both a little off, so well suited for each other. Otherwise, boring and a waste of air time. Not very realistic that the family would accept a former maid into the fold. Would have been more logical to send them off to the States.

Also, the way she sacked the maid the first night does not bode well for her life there. On her way to becoming as unhinged as the sister-in-law and mother. Not strong like Seo Hyun or generous as Hi Soo.

Be sure to watch SKY Castle. Kim Seo Hyung is amazing there too.

Yes, by far, the most honest and riveting conversations were when the daughter and son told off their dad (Season 1?) and made him cry. Both kids would make me proud (I have 2 college age daughters who tell me off all the time - lol). Sa Pi Young is my least favorite wife (BHR is a fighter at least, feisty and focused), and her daughter seems like a precocious brat. My already low opinion of SPY plummeted when she warned her daughter from liking LSE's son because of "bad genes". Hah.

Yes, I agree with you! I think that the husband could have been more upfront rather than making lame excuses about not wanting to see his wife suffer. He should have manned up, and he should still be a parent. Seems to have completely abdicated his responsibility to an elementary school child and a college age daughter struggling to pass her exam.

Hmm, not sure that there's been much development. Why wouldn't she disclose that she's going through the same thing too? Literally, all I see her doing is working, then going to wine bars or calling up to complain to her in-laws.

Do you mean, did she weaken his sense of boundaries so that he feels entitled to keep a girlfriend on the side while overstepping boundaries with his MIL? Seems so!

Yes, me too. When BHR was on the date with the PD's brother, she was pleased to learn that he comes from a wealthy family too (seems a lot richer than her in-laws). So yes, money seems to be important to her, and sure, if that is the best way of untangling the knot, his parents should buy HER off with the apartment and alimony.

Money is nice to have, but the lawyer's mother sure seems miserable. So does the PD for that matter.

Spending time fleshing out the story or the characters is not "worshipping".

Such a thoughtful post. Infidelity is complex, and some couples do find it the catalyst for improving their relationship. Others move on to something else. And others end up alone, sad or bitter.

We have dramas exploring the effects of murder, child and spousal abuse, and other crimes, but I have yet to see the perpetrators called trash and ho's like the spouses and girlfriends are being called here.

Yes, all three husbands fell into the affairs randomly. Doctor's hobby - horseback riding - has been a convenient excuse to cover/further his affair. The lawyer met Song Won at the gym after his wife browbeat him into working out (shallow). Professor - the only without a hobby!

I love your comments, even though I disagree with half of them :) Didn't she also marry him because he's rich and beautiful? He thought she was cool for being a drummer. They were both young and clueless about relationships, as most of us are when we've been working hard to make it in our professions.

Oh, that's too cynical! I hope YOU don't think that! (love your handle, btw)

I don't think it's because the wife is trusting, exactly. She's just clueless and as Trish Mish says, thinks she and her daughter are perfect. I've said it elsewhere - wonder why Song Won and the professor's wife get a lot of attention on this board, while there's no love for SPY?