Castle: History is the truth of all things
Critical doesn’t equal not liking the show…
or the main reason why some fans need to just “cut the cord” when engaging in discourse with fellow fans who are a critical
Time and time again I read posts on news websites, blogs or message boards and the minute someone says something critical about the show, they are immediately called out by the fans who wear rose colored glasses. Why? I think it’s because of their inability to cope with the realization that some folks just are not as optimistic or live in reality. Just this morning over my morning coffee, I laughed out loud at some of the comments posted here. You cannot argue with history folks. Since season two, Andrew Marlowe has used angst over returning lovers, self-defeating missions or other manufactured angst to propel the story forward.
And this has been the biggest problem with the series. It has become predictable. Every season we know that at this time the angst is coming. Last year it was the rich guy Eric Vaughn. Before that, it was Beckett’s crusade to find her mother’s killer and her lie to Castle about remembering the shooting. Before that? Oh yeah, the endless crusade to find her mother’s killer. Season two we had Beckett, Demming and Castle and the Hamptons tearing things about.
So why shouldn’t fans be expecting this sort of MO from Marlowe? There’s a wealth of evidence to support his inability to become creative, fresh, and new.