Being Human: Rook's e-mails. Part 3. Plotholes and revelations
A new portion of Rookileaks has been released and it contains a few interesting revelations as well as a few glaring continuity problems. Naturally I can't keep my mouth shut, so let's talk about this. Today on the menu:
- More meta ramblings on Rook.
- BBC can't keep their timeline straight; I'm judging.
- Why series 5!Hal annoys me.
1. Rook denies the act of heinous dognapping. Why am I not surprised? Hehe. To be honest, I am glad because I was hoping it wasn't him. But the fact that he's a suspect gives me sporadic lulz: I mean, MI5 in his house! XD Also: "I suggest you might find answers somewhat closer to home." I did make a cracky suggestion that Titania was abducted either by Giles or the dog-sitter. Don't tell me I may have been right. >_<
As ridiculous as all this is, I admit it helps me take my mind off that I like the upcoming spoilers less and less. I saw the synopsis for 5x05 last night and it looked like a badfic summary. Not to mention that I find the content of these e-mails hilarious: 50 % Rook's obsessive gushing about how everyone everywhere is a monster, 50 % references to a bloody pet Schnauzer. It's adorable. It also shows that the writing for the new series is "subpar at best" (Oliver, though <333).
2. Allison still maintains contact with Tom, and Christa has killed somebody and moved to the Isle of Grimsay of all places. Which answers my question of whether she is still friends with Adam. I wonder if Matt is with her.
3. Rook's attitude towards werewolves is no better than his attitude towards vampires and ghosts. Can't say I'm surprised, although it does beg the question of how much facade he puts up in order to impress his point here. Is he really that prejudiced? I'm not looking for redeeming qualities here (imho he doesn't need them XD), but this part sort of leapt at me: "...containing, advising and/or tracking as many of the animals as possible." Advising - that doesn't sound so bad. If you think about it, the DoDD is not supernatural gestapo or anything. They watch the registered werewolves but they seldom interfere: they let Christa live peacefully and only became strongly interested in her when she did kill someone. The way I see it, Rook has a strong distrust of those supernaturals who have killed. From a subjective human POV, that's quite understandable. Besides, he would undoubtedly try to exaggerate the severity of the situation in order to convince Alistair.
Also: random LOL at how they're reading Tom and Allison's correspondence. >_< "Ominous exchanges". XD
I wonder if Rook knows that two werewolves can't exactly produce a werewolf baby. It seemed like a pretty big deal in series 4, and Griffin, for one thing, was disappointed that Eve didn't transform. So I wonder: does Rook know that and essentially try to scare Alistair with these ideas, or does he seriously believe that werewolves are going to reproduce like humans and thus increase the infestation? What for? It's much easier to just scratch someone. XD Or does he suspect Allison of an evil plot to scratch as many regular babies as possible? Paranoia, mate. XD
4. There is one personal tidbit that basically made me shriek. XD It explains 90 % of Rook's character (in a simplified manner, but still) and also opens yet another door: "I will not allow the legacy of my father and his father before him to go out with a whimper."
Let's take a moment to appreciate how this is a FUCKING DYNASTY! Rooks everywhere! Rooks are like Bagginses: There has always been a Rook at the DoDD! *flails* Which instantly brings more questions: was his father an arsehole? XD Because, on telly, if there's something wrong with the character, if they're miserable or just weird, it probably means they've got issues. ;)
To be honest, I instantly thought of the Watchers on BtVS. Wesley's intimidating Dad and Giles's conversation with Buffy about his own past:
Giles: I was ten years old when my father told me I was destined to be
a Watcher. He was one, and his, uh, mother before
him, and I was to be next.
Buffy: Were you thrilled beyond all measure?
Giles: No, I had very definite plans about my future. I was going to be
a fighter pilot. Or possibly a grocer. Well, uh... My father gave me a
very tiresome speech about, uh, responsibility and sacrifice.
BtVS 1x05, "Never Kill a Boy on the First Date
Was Rook's childhood anything like this? Or was he the pride and joy of the family who grew into this happily? I had previously assumed he was recruited into DoDD from the outside. Now I wonder if he had to serve under his father or if the position of the head of DoDD was inherited by him. Help me, I've got questions! And feels! This character has been eating suspiciously too much of my time for a guy who appears for, like, 5 minutes in each episode. XD (Can we maybe have a spin-off set in the 50s or smth about Rook Sr. being all smooth and sexy and catching monstahs? Hey, did he get those eyes from his Dad or his Mom? Was his Mom a housewife or did she work in the civil service too? Did she know about monsters? Why is Rook not married if it's a dynasty? He's supposed to make his own babies. XD)
Also, I can't help snickering at the occasional dramaticism that shows through his writing (and his actions in general). I loved it that his suicide was decidedly undramatic: he didn't bother leaving any notes or, idk, shooting himself in front of Alistair. XD He just quietly sat there and was interrupted merely by a fluke. And yet, his moodswings strike back. "I will prevail." XDDD I kind of expected Giles to reply: "You shall not pass!!!" XD shirogiku and I discussed his personality yesterday, and she arrived at the conclusion that his outbursts in Alistair's office (and the way I see it, the e-mails too) suggest a rather passionate, explosive nature that he hides under the projected image (perhaps the way his father wanted to see him?). This duality that alarmed me in the first episode of series 5 because it matched poorly the image of him that was created by 4x08 is now growing on me. If anything, the fact that it was his father's and his grandfather's (do they go all the way back to Cromwell's times? O_o) job explains why he's so obsessed with saving DoDD (apart from, you know, not having a life outside of it).
Also: "There have been moments this week when I have felt close to giving up. It was only a chance reminder of the fallibility of these monsters that brought me back to earth." Is that his way of saying thanks to Hal? XD Because, sweetie, but for Larry's death, you'd have had a bullet in your brain already. XD
On to part 2 of this rambling post: What is wrong with the continuity?
5. The timeline for the series has long been a murky territory, starting with Hal's 55 years of being dry (when it's supposed to be 57) and Alex being alternatively dead for two and three months. But the e-mails deliever yet another shining examples of how lax the writers have become with their timing.
- We know that the showdown against the Old Ones takes place approx. in April 2012 because the flashback at the start of 4x08 is set in April 2022 and mentions a ten-year anniversary of the revolution, from which, according to Eve, the world is "just days away" in the present timeline. So it has to be March/April 2012. Let's not delve into how this ties in with the previous series (I used to think that it did quite nicely until I had the misfortune to rewatch 3x08 and discovered that Nina's pregnancy was actually accelerated).
- In 5x01, Hal mentions that Alex died "a month of so ago." In the second extra video, Alex says she's been dead for two months. So far so good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does set the series in the same year as series 4. By all calculations, we should have summer 2012 now (or at least late spring, idk).
- Nevertheless, Rook mentions Christa's case as "last year" and gives a very specific date of the murder she commited: "October 29, 2012." Excuse you? Unless they time-traveled or got that nice time-changing remote control from the Adam Sandler movie, there is no way in hell Christa could have killed someone in October 2012! Can I have an explanation for that please? No? Thought not.
6. I've also got a a question about this:
(c) arthurdarvill
Since when it Ryan her "middle brother"? Because I got the impression that Ryan was the eldest of her brothers. We can even see the tattoo in 5x02.
Then I thought: maybe Dickie and the currently nameless one are the same age? Maybe they're twins? That would indeed make Ryan the middle child. I do realize that at this point I'm probably just majorly nitpicking, but the phrasing jars me. From Alex's POV, I'd refer to any of them as her "little" brothers. From Ryan's POV, he is clearly the "eldest" of the brothers specifically. I'm not saying this is a continuity error per se, but if Dickie and Dickie 2 are not the same age, then Ryan isn't really in the middle.
Finally, on the subject of Hal.
7. I love Hal. Honestly, I do. He is my favourite fictional vampire and one of my favourite characters in general. Or he was, in series 4, which presented him as a wonderfully complex, yet consistent character. I loved the idea of his cycles and the wonderful, beautiful and touching relationship between him and Leo and Pearl. We only got a few glimpses of it but it was enough to create a stunning image of loyalty and care.
I seldom enjoy vampires who go "good" because it's usually accompanies with excessive whining and angsting. The closest to perfection in this area would be Spike from BtVS and Damon from TVD. But they remain anti-heroes mostly. What I loved about Hal was that he wasn't a hero at all. He was a huge pile of problems and somehow very realistic. Damien did say he studied drug addiction to model Hal's behaviour on that data. It worked so well. Hal had his fair share of angst, but it looked very natural. Not just: Oh, I've done such shit and I can do more shit, woe is me.
Hal had his adorable quirks, his weird moments, his angsty moments, his bitchy moments, but overall, he was a new character (not in the sense of having just joined the cast, but in the sense of not being particularly similar to any other vampire I'd seen before) and he worked.
He was starkly different from Mitchell too: old-fashioned, well-bred, repressed, composed, and he displayed a far stronger character. Being dry for over 55 years! To quote Adam in 4x05, "colour me impressed."
However, series 5 came and blew it all away. Hal has been taking the traditional angsty vampire route, which, need I remind you, led Mitchell to his death. The more we learn about Hal, the less I like him. Series 4 presented an incredibly strong bond between him and Leo. He carried the domino with him and he explicitly told Tom no one could ever replace Leo. In series 5, any and all mentions of Leo are gone, and any good people in Hal's past are treated like some crutches for him to lean on. Alex even confronts him about it (kudos for that, Queen Alex forever). To me, it echoes Mitchell's words about the way he corrupted George. We found out that Hal has had an acquaintance with Lady Mary for 250 and for some reason BSed her into believing she was keeping him clean. Then Hal declares that Tom is "the best man [he's] ever known." Don't get me wrong: I love Tom and I do think he's awesome, but "one of the best men" would have sounded much more honest coming from Hal, especially because Tom of all people knows what a huge part Leo played in Hal's life. To be fair, this potential character flaw may have been brought up as early as Hal's prequel, in which Leo tells him: "You have been testing me to see if I would make a good guide to lead you into the light." But I never actually saw it this way. The way Hal looked suggested that even if he was testing Leo, it was subconscious. But series 5 paints him in a rather unfavourable light as someone who uses people and then forgets about them. (Don't even get me started on the insanely hypocritical idea of Hal protecting Lady Mary's innocence when he was the one who killed her!)
Hal's speech to Tom in the woods is yet another eyebrow-raising moment. Moreover, it makes me wonder if there's something wrong with my perception of the character because I keep seeing people going 'awww!' over it and saying how touching and sweet it was. To me, it was neither. It was hypocritical and fake. I'm willing to admit that perhaps Hal meant well. I agree with some parts of the speech (Larry's problems =/= Tom's problems, Larry is a jerk who filled Tom's head with nonsense, etc.) but it's the following part that gets to me:
(c) arthurdarvill
I would have bought this speech from series 4!Hal, but not now. Especially since the first thing he does after saying all this is kill Larry. He even tells Larry that he knows the lies people tell themselves: but isn't Hal telling himself the same lies? He refers to a "part" of him that he's supposedly holding back, but isn't it the same thing as Larry and George and Tom, to an extent, blaming their failings on their lycanthropy? Where does Hal get off, judging other people for what he can't achieve himself?
I have to make it very clear: I do not have a problem with hypocritical characters. I do not have a problem with characters who say one thing and mean another. I find them fascinating and I enjoy exploring their flaws. But Hal wasn't like that originally. Or at least he hid it very well. It's the sudden change that bothers me. The Hal from series 4 had a chance to become a truly magnificent character, whereas Hal from series 5 seems to be repeating Mitchell's path. How long until his actions become truly inexcusable and Tom or someone else will have stake him "because he loves him"?
- More meta ramblings on Rook.
- BBC can't keep their timeline straight; I'm judging.
- Why series 5!Hal annoys me.
1. Rook denies the act of heinous dognapping. Why am I not surprised? Hehe. To be honest, I am glad because I was hoping it wasn't him. But the fact that he's a suspect gives me sporadic lulz: I mean, MI5 in his house! XD Also: "I suggest you might find answers somewhat closer to home." I did make a cracky suggestion that Titania was abducted either by Giles or the dog-sitter. Don't tell me I may have been right. >_<
As ridiculous as all this is, I admit it helps me take my mind off that I like the upcoming spoilers less and less. I saw the synopsis for 5x05 last night and it looked like a badfic summary. Not to mention that I find the content of these e-mails hilarious: 50 % Rook's obsessive gushing about how everyone everywhere is a monster, 50 % references to a bloody pet Schnauzer. It's adorable. It also shows that the writing for the new series is "subpar at best" (Oliver, though <333).
2. Allison still maintains contact with Tom, and Christa has killed somebody and moved to the Isle of Grimsay of all places. Which answers my question of whether she is still friends with Adam. I wonder if Matt is with her.
3. Rook's attitude towards werewolves is no better than his attitude towards vampires and ghosts. Can't say I'm surprised, although it does beg the question of how much facade he puts up in order to impress his point here. Is he really that prejudiced? I'm not looking for redeeming qualities here (imho he doesn't need them XD), but this part sort of leapt at me: "...containing, advising and/or tracking as many of the animals as possible." Advising - that doesn't sound so bad. If you think about it, the DoDD is not supernatural gestapo or anything. They watch the registered werewolves but they seldom interfere: they let Christa live peacefully and only became strongly interested in her when she did kill someone. The way I see it, Rook has a strong distrust of those supernaturals who have killed. From a subjective human POV, that's quite understandable. Besides, he would undoubtedly try to exaggerate the severity of the situation in order to convince Alistair.
Also: random LOL at how they're reading Tom and Allison's correspondence. >_< "Ominous exchanges". XD
I wonder if Rook knows that two werewolves can't exactly produce a werewolf baby. It seemed like a pretty big deal in series 4, and Griffin, for one thing, was disappointed that Eve didn't transform. So I wonder: does Rook know that and essentially try to scare Alistair with these ideas, or does he seriously believe that werewolves are going to reproduce like humans and thus increase the infestation? What for? It's much easier to just scratch someone. XD Or does he suspect Allison of an evil plot to scratch as many regular babies as possible? Paranoia, mate. XD
4. There is one personal tidbit that basically made me shriek. XD It explains 90 % of Rook's character (in a simplified manner, but still) and also opens yet another door: "I will not allow the legacy of my father and his father before him to go out with a whimper."
Let's take a moment to appreciate how this is a FUCKING DYNASTY! Rooks everywhere! Rooks are like Bagginses: There has always been a Rook at the DoDD! *flails* Which instantly brings more questions: was his father an arsehole? XD Because, on telly, if there's something wrong with the character, if they're miserable or just weird, it probably means they've got issues. ;)
To be honest, I instantly thought of the Watchers on BtVS. Wesley's intimidating Dad and Giles's conversation with Buffy about his own past:
Giles: I was ten years old when my father told me I was destined to be
a Watcher. He was one, and his, uh, mother before
him, and I was to be next.
Buffy: Were you thrilled beyond all measure?
Giles: No, I had very definite plans about my future. I was going to be
a fighter pilot. Or possibly a grocer. Well, uh... My father gave me a
very tiresome speech about, uh, responsibility and sacrifice.
BtVS 1x05, "Never Kill a Boy on the First Date
Was Rook's childhood anything like this? Or was he the pride and joy of the family who grew into this happily? I had previously assumed he was recruited into DoDD from the outside. Now I wonder if he had to serve under his father or if the position of the head of DoDD was inherited by him. Help me, I've got questions! And feels! This character has been eating suspiciously too much of my time for a guy who appears for, like, 5 minutes in each episode. XD (Can we maybe have a spin-off set in the 50s or smth about Rook Sr. being all smooth and sexy and catching monstahs? Hey, did he get those eyes from his Dad or his Mom? Was his Mom a housewife or did she work in the civil service too? Did she know about monsters? Why is Rook not married if it's a dynasty? He's supposed to make his own babies. XD)
Also, I can't help snickering at the occasional dramaticism that shows through his writing (and his actions in general). I loved it that his suicide was decidedly undramatic: he didn't bother leaving any notes or, idk, shooting himself in front of Alistair. XD He just quietly sat there and was interrupted merely by a fluke. And yet, his moodswings strike back. "I will prevail." XDDD I kind of expected Giles to reply: "You shall not pass!!!" XD shirogiku and I discussed his personality yesterday, and she arrived at the conclusion that his outbursts in Alistair's office (and the way I see it, the e-mails too) suggest a rather passionate, explosive nature that he hides under the projected image (perhaps the way his father wanted to see him?). This duality that alarmed me in the first episode of series 5 because it matched poorly the image of him that was created by 4x08 is now growing on me. If anything, the fact that it was his father's and his grandfather's (do they go all the way back to Cromwell's times? O_o) job explains why he's so obsessed with saving DoDD (apart from, you know, not having a life outside of it).
Also: "There have been moments this week when I have felt close to giving up. It was only a chance reminder of the fallibility of these monsters that brought me back to earth." Is that his way of saying thanks to Hal? XD Because, sweetie, but for Larry's death, you'd have had a bullet in your brain already. XD
On to part 2 of this rambling post: What is wrong with the continuity?
5. The timeline for the series has long been a murky territory, starting with Hal's 55 years of being dry (when it's supposed to be 57) and Alex being alternatively dead for two and three months. But the e-mails deliever yet another shining examples of how lax the writers have become with their timing.
- We know that the showdown against the Old Ones takes place approx. in April 2012 because the flashback at the start of 4x08 is set in April 2022 and mentions a ten-year anniversary of the revolution, from which, according to Eve, the world is "just days away" in the present timeline. So it has to be March/April 2012. Let's not delve into how this ties in with the previous series (I used to think that it did quite nicely until I had the misfortune to rewatch 3x08 and discovered that Nina's pregnancy was actually accelerated).
- In 5x01, Hal mentions that Alex died "a month of so ago." In the second extra video, Alex says she's been dead for two months. So far so good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does set the series in the same year as series 4. By all calculations, we should have summer 2012 now (or at least late spring, idk).
- Nevertheless, Rook mentions Christa's case as "last year" and gives a very specific date of the murder she commited: "October 29, 2012." Excuse you? Unless they time-traveled or got that nice time-changing remote control from the Adam Sandler movie, there is no way in hell Christa could have killed someone in October 2012! Can I have an explanation for that please? No? Thought not.
6. I've also got a a question about this:
(c) arthurdarvill
Since when it Ryan her "middle brother"? Because I got the impression that Ryan was the eldest of her brothers. We can even see the tattoo in 5x02.
Then I thought: maybe Dickie and the currently nameless one are the same age? Maybe they're twins? That would indeed make Ryan the middle child. I do realize that at this point I'm probably just majorly nitpicking, but the phrasing jars me. From Alex's POV, I'd refer to any of them as her "little" brothers. From Ryan's POV, he is clearly the "eldest" of the brothers specifically. I'm not saying this is a continuity error per se, but if Dickie and Dickie 2 are not the same age, then Ryan isn't really in the middle.
Finally, on the subject of Hal.
7. I love Hal. Honestly, I do. He is my favourite fictional vampire and one of my favourite characters in general. Or he was, in series 4, which presented him as a wonderfully complex, yet consistent character. I loved the idea of his cycles and the wonderful, beautiful and touching relationship between him and Leo and Pearl. We only got a few glimpses of it but it was enough to create a stunning image of loyalty and care.
I seldom enjoy vampires who go "good" because it's usually accompanies with excessive whining and angsting. The closest to perfection in this area would be Spike from BtVS and Damon from TVD. But they remain anti-heroes mostly. What I loved about Hal was that he wasn't a hero at all. He was a huge pile of problems and somehow very realistic. Damien did say he studied drug addiction to model Hal's behaviour on that data. It worked so well. Hal had his fair share of angst, but it looked very natural. Not just: Oh, I've done such shit and I can do more shit, woe is me.
Hal had his adorable quirks, his weird moments, his angsty moments, his bitchy moments, but overall, he was a new character (not in the sense of having just joined the cast, but in the sense of not being particularly similar to any other vampire I'd seen before) and he worked.
He was starkly different from Mitchell too: old-fashioned, well-bred, repressed, composed, and he displayed a far stronger character. Being dry for over 55 years! To quote Adam in 4x05, "colour me impressed."
However, series 5 came and blew it all away. Hal has been taking the traditional angsty vampire route, which, need I remind you, led Mitchell to his death. The more we learn about Hal, the less I like him. Series 4 presented an incredibly strong bond between him and Leo. He carried the domino with him and he explicitly told Tom no one could ever replace Leo. In series 5, any and all mentions of Leo are gone, and any good people in Hal's past are treated like some crutches for him to lean on. Alex even confronts him about it (kudos for that, Queen Alex forever). To me, it echoes Mitchell's words about the way he corrupted George. We found out that Hal has had an acquaintance with Lady Mary for 250 and for some reason BSed her into believing she was keeping him clean. Then Hal declares that Tom is "the best man [he's] ever known." Don't get me wrong: I love Tom and I do think he's awesome, but "one of the best men" would have sounded much more honest coming from Hal, especially because Tom of all people knows what a huge part Leo played in Hal's life. To be fair, this potential character flaw may have been brought up as early as Hal's prequel, in which Leo tells him: "You have been testing me to see if I would make a good guide to lead you into the light." But I never actually saw it this way. The way Hal looked suggested that even if he was testing Leo, it was subconscious. But series 5 paints him in a rather unfavourable light as someone who uses people and then forgets about them. (Don't even get me started on the insanely hypocritical idea of Hal protecting Lady Mary's innocence when he was the one who killed her!)
Hal's speech to Tom in the woods is yet another eyebrow-raising moment. Moreover, it makes me wonder if there's something wrong with my perception of the character because I keep seeing people going 'awww!' over it and saying how touching and sweet it was. To me, it was neither. It was hypocritical and fake. I'm willing to admit that perhaps Hal meant well. I agree with some parts of the speech (Larry's problems =/= Tom's problems, Larry is a jerk who filled Tom's head with nonsense, etc.) but it's the following part that gets to me:
(c) arthurdarvill
I would have bought this speech from series 4!Hal, but not now. Especially since the first thing he does after saying all this is kill Larry. He even tells Larry that he knows the lies people tell themselves: but isn't Hal telling himself the same lies? He refers to a "part" of him that he's supposedly holding back, but isn't it the same thing as Larry and George and Tom, to an extent, blaming their failings on their lycanthropy? Where does Hal get off, judging other people for what he can't achieve himself?
I have to make it very clear: I do not have a problem with hypocritical characters. I do not have a problem with characters who say one thing and mean another. I find them fascinating and I enjoy exploring their flaws. But Hal wasn't like that originally. Or at least he hid it very well. It's the sudden change that bothers me. The Hal from series 4 had a chance to become a truly magnificent character, whereas Hal from series 5 seems to be repeating Mitchell's path. How long until his actions become truly inexcusable and Tom or someone else will have stake him "because he loves him"?