Situation: Inspector Gamache is having a disagreement with three other characters. Gamache is
- In a position of authority
- Arguing based on logic, facts, and evidence.
The other characters are
- Non-white (indigenous Canadians)
- Poor and marginalized
- Arguing based on emotion, sentiment, and personal biases.
Question 1. How many episodes will it take before Inspector Gamache is proven wrong?
(b) A few.
(c) Most of the season.
Question 2. If Gamache were gay, would he still be wrong?
(b) Yes, but it wouldn't be his fault.
(c) If he were gay, he would believe the women, because he'd know they're in the right.
Question 3. Where did Gamache go wrong?
(a) When he used logic, facts, and evidence, because the police should never do that.
(b) When he joined the police, thereby becoming a tool of the patriarchy.
(c) When he was born.
I give you my word that I was eager to like this series. It's got real artistic ambition. It's got good dialog, great cinematography, good actors. I was even ready to sympathize with the indigenous characters, because the plot thread they're caught up in is a real one, and it's horrifying. (Believe me or not, as you choose.)
The writing, however, is nothing but a collection of cliches. I was actually considerably more irritated by the "solution" to the "mystery," which Gamache arrives at by pure guesswork, and which in any case was done considerably better by Agatha Christie in 1949 (Crooked House, for those of you keeping score at home.) Plus, with how Gamache handles the denouement, any half-way competent lawyer would get the killer acquitted and the detective fired in fifteen minutes flat.
Learn how to write, people.
I doubt that I'll watch any more of this tripe. I've read one of the books, and it wasn't bad; probably I should stick to my lane.