Post Trump America Decision 2026, Part 5: Why Its Always Been Difficult For Democrats To Win In Ohio – And Why Sherrod Brown Has A Chance

In the leadup to the 2024 election I read an article in Newsweek from a young man in his thirties who couldn't comprehend how Ohio, which had gone for Obama in 2008 and 2012, was now so 'hopelessly Republican'. In truth in the history of American politics it has only been slightly easier for a Democrat to win Ohio than a camel to pass through the eye of the needle. And this was true even before the Republican party was founded.

Ohio was one of the biggest states that was part of the abolitionist movement which meant it was always going to be hard for a Democratic Party that was increasingly in the hands of the antebellum South to make progress there. Many of the most prominent anti-slavery politicians such as Salmon P. Chase and Ben Wade were elected to Ohio from the Free Soil party and members of his cabinet such as Edwin Stanton began their political lives there.

More Presidents were born in Ohio then any other state then Virginia and all of them were Republicans. Some of them, such as Grant and Harding, are the worst in our history; most of the rest, such as Hayes and Taft, were at best mediocrities but because it always had a sizable amount of electoral votes it was always considered a good one to have. And from the founding of the Republican Party in 1856 until 1928 it only went Democratic once – and that was because of the split between TR and Taft in the 1912 election that gave it to Wilson. Only in 1932 did FDR finally carry the state for the Democrats

Democrats could not easily win Ohio during the 20^th century. FDR lost in 1944 even as he carried 36 other states. Kennedy would lose it in 1960 even as he carried the rest of the Midwest. And Carter was only barely able to carry it in 1976 and that state was necessary to win the Presidency that year. Despite the fact that historical fact as well that Republicans almost always carry Ohio by a far greater margin then Democrats usually do (Carter carried Ohio by 11,000 votes out of 4 million cast over Ford but lose by more than half a million votes to Reagan four years later, for example) there are those in the party who still believe that, because Ohio is a big state, it's fundamentally Democratic at its core. This is not the only state with a sizable electoral vote count where that logic fails but in Ohio's case it is a particularly grievous one because the state historically has an equally poor track record electing Democrats at the Senate level as well.

Some of the most prominent conservatives  in the party came from Ohio. One of the most important  was Robert Taft. The son of the former President, he would have the nickname "Mr. Republican."  During the New Deal Era well into World War II when the Republicans being at their lowest membership in Congress in their history most of the party in the Senate was in the Midwest, in states such as Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. These Republicans were the early models of the kind we have today: virulent opponents of the New Deal, incredibly racist and so anti-Communist that they admired fascists in Europe as a viable alternative to the Soviet Union. The main difference was men like Taft and his fellow Republican John Bricker was that they were also isolationists.  Taft was by far the biggest opponent of organizations like the United Nations and the formation of NATO in the Senate and was adamantly opposed to the Marshal Plan. He would run for the Republican nomination for President three times, the last time losing to Eisenhower in1952.

It took a lot of work for a Democrat to win statewide office in Ohio and a lot of the time you had to be pretty moderate and independent to do so. Frank Lausche, who was elected to the Senate in 1956 as a Democrat, was considered by Eisenhower as his running mate in 1952 and 1956. During the 1960 campaign he endorsed Nixon for President and was known in the Senate for his independence which bothered men like LBJ when he said he might vote for Republican William Knowland for Senate Majority Leader. Stephen Young won election to the Senate over John Bricker in 1958 which gave Ohio two Democratic Senators for the first time in its history. Young was far from it, actually 69 at the time, and his win came as a shock. Lausche would lose the Democratic primary in 1968 to John Gilligan by ten points and refused to endorse him. Young would not run for reelection in 1970 and Robert Taft Jr ended up being elected to the Senate in 1970

John Glenn ended up getting elected in a landslide in 1974 but it says something that a Democrat had to leave Earth to be seriously considered to win election in Ohio. That said Glenn did hold the seat with distinction for four terms winning with 60 percent of the vote or more in three of his four runs for the Senate and managing to defeat Mike DeWine in what would be his first ever campaign loss.

For twenty years Ohio did have two Democratic senators with Howard Metzenbaum winning in 1970.He'd tried to run and beat Taft in 1970 but this time with Jimmy Carter's coattails Metzenbaum prevailed. He would be Senator in for four terms himself. Both men were the early version of red state Senators as Glenn would win reelection in 1980 even as Carter lost Ohio in a landslide and so many of his fellow liberals went down to defeat. He ran ahead of Clinton in Ohio when the two were on the same ballot in 1992. In 1988 Metzenbaum would easily win reelection for his third term even as George H.W. Bush easily carried Ohio.

By 1998 both Metzenbaum and Glenn were gone from the Senate and Ohio was very much a Republican state across the board. Republicans had been holding the governorship in the state for a long time. It wasn't until 2006 that a chance for the Democrats came – in large part because  of Howard Dean.

In the aftermath of the 2004 election Howard Dean took over the DNC and launched a 50 state campaign. Part of that meant campaigning in areas the Democrats had not exactly been strong in before and that included the Midwest. Most of it involved the Senate but they did so with quite a few governors races and Ohio was central to both.

Mike DeWine had won reelection in 2000 but by that point his approval ratings were at 38, second only to Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum. Several Republicans challenged DeWine but he won the primary by and overwhelming margin. The Democrats settled on Sherrod Brown the former Secretary of State of Ohio and representative of the 13^th district.

The GOP knew how vital it was to keep the seat and DeWine felt hard and dirty. But by October 16^th Republicans were sure DeWine was a lame duck and withdrew financial support. Brown was declared the winner in a blowout, trouncing DeWine by more than twelve points and nearly half a million votes.

Even more shocking was the gubernatorial race. Robert Taft III was viewed as the most unpopular governor in the country with approval ratings between 10 and 25 percent. The eventual winner of the Republican primary Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was carrying the baggage of Taft and as  a result the Democratic candidate Ted Strickland would win with over 60 percent of the vote and become the first Democrat to win election in that state since Vincent Celeste in 1986.

A scurrilous conspiracy theory among Democrats was that Taft as governor had used his authority to steal Ohio from Kerry in 2004 to give George W. Bush reelection. (There has never been any real proof to back that up. The fact that the margin was over 100,000 votes has compared to the miniscule margin in Florida did nothing to dim it.) The Democrats had targeted Ohio in particularly in preparation of the 2008 election. When Obama's historic victory took place in 2008 he would carry Ohio by nearly five percent of the vote it seemed like Ohio would be in the Democratic column for the foreseeable future.

That began to fall apart almost immediately after Howard Dean left the DNC and the party completely rejected the strategy that had brought them such success over four years. Most of that was felt in Congress but it was felt just as harshly in the governor's races as six of the states Obama had carried ended up going under Republican control. While Strickland had been an effective governor he faced a strong opponent in John Kasich. It would be one of the closest races of that cycle but Strickland would lose by two percent of the vote. No Democrat has been able to win the governor's race in that state since. That same year George Voinovich retired from the Senate and Lee Fisher; the former Lieutenant governor tried to run for Senate as a Democrat. He would absolutely be trounced by Rob Portman, a moderate Republican.

In 2012 Obama won reelection and once again managed to carry Ohio. It was by a smaller margin over Mitt Romney then John McCain, a little more than three percent this time. Sherrod Brown was running for reelection for the first time.

By this point in Brown's career he had established himself as one of the most liberal Senators in the state. The Washington Post argued that 'Brown is way to the left of Ohio in general but probably the only person who could outwork Brown is Portman. He would run against Josh Mandel, who'd been elected State Treasurer just two years earlier and was compared to Florida's Marco Rubio as a rising star in the Republican Party. But Brown beat him by nearly six percent, doing better than Obama did against Romney that year.

The Democrats managed to hold their own in the Midwest that year with Amy Klobuchar and Claire McCaskill winning reelection and even gaining a seat when Joe Donnelly managed to win election in Indiana after a series of controversial response by the Republican Richard Murdock cost them a seat.

By the next time Brown was running for reelection in 2018 the blue wave that gave Democrats their best results in the House ran the opposite way for them in the Senate. By this point the progressive mindset of Bernie and the Justice Democrats was at its height in the party and the Democrats were about to get their first lesson as to just how well it didn't play in middle America. The Republicans gained four seats to Democrats only taking two and the reason that happened was entirely because of the Midwest. Claire McCaskill would lose to Josh Hawley in Missouri by nearly six percent, Heidi Heitkamp would be trounced in North Dakota by Kevin Cramer losing a seat Democrats had held for nearly eighteen years and Mike Braun would take back Indiana's seat for the GOP. Only Sherrod Brown managed to win reelection.

In 2016 Trump had flipped Ohio back to the Republican column by more than 8 percent over Hilary Clinton, an eleven point gain from how Romney had done just four years earlier. He had carried 80 counties as opposed to Hilary's 8. Trump would carry it in each of his three elections, the third time by the largest margin since Reagan did in 1984. While part of this was no doubt due to JD Vance being on the ticket, he had carried it by eight points four years earlier.

The reason that Sherrod Brown was such a successful Red State Democrat is the same reason that Susan Collins is, at least for now, a successful Blue State Republican. Like her he had the ability to run ahead of both parties in his state regardless of when he was on the ballot. He ran ahead of both Obama and Romney in 2012,ran ahead of Clinton's total in 2016 and Biden's in 2020 and considerably ahead of Harris in 2024. Only in the latter case was that not high enough to beat Bernie Moreno.  In 2018 he managed to win despite Republicans winning all statewide executive offices on the same ballot, which included Mike DeWine being elected governor.

Now in 2026 Brown will be running to be the replacement of JD Vance when he became Vice President Jon Husted. He's already favored to win the seat over him even six months out in what is already looking to be one of the key races for both parties in 2026.

That same article I mentioned at the start of the piece admitted that for Democrats to regain control in the Senate they have to do better in the Midwest, including states such as Iowa and Indiana. At this point Iowa has also been moving in the direction of the Democrats down the road. But if that happens the Democrats will need to learn the correct lessons.

The first is that at no point in America's history has the Midwest embraced any real kind of liberalism, whether it is the Bull Moose progressives of TR and LaFollette, the New Deal or that of the 1960s and 1970s. This has been the area of blue-collar workers who respond far more to messages of economic prosperity then anything else and have far more often embraced the deep roots of conservative politics more deeply then any other region of the country.  The original America First movement had its roots in the Taft's and Bricker's during the lead-up to World War II; there's a reason Trump found a sympathetic ear for it nearly 70 years later there in particular.

Considering that Ohio has been become associated so much with the Rust Belt in the 21^st century also explains why it is loathe to embracing the beliefs of the Sanders-AOC wing of the Democratic Party. Ohio voted for the 'law and order' argument of Nixon both in 1968 and 1972 and the only reason it has voted for most Democrats is because of the economy. It's not a coincidence that Obama carried it just as the crash of 2008 hit. The voters in these states care about their economic well-being first and foremost; historically they have never embraced the issues of social justice that the left believes in and they made it very clear in the last two elections they don't intend to start now.  If they do vote for Brown in six months' time, it will be because of the issue of affordability that has carried Democrats to gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey last year.

For all of the arguments about residents of Ohio being more open to ideas of social justice – particularly in the passage of their amendment to the constitution upholding abortion in 2023 – that argument comes crashing down when you consider just how big a margin Trump won the state by exactly one year later.  Brown was considerably to the left of the population of Ohio during his tenure as Senator but it was also done by working the state as hard as elected official did. When Harris ran on a fairly progressive ticket in 2024, it may have been too much of an onus for him to overcome.

Next Tuesday Sherrod Brown will begin his race to reclaim his place in the Senate from the state of Ohio. It will be a tough fight, but he has had his share of them. If he wins, it will because he knows what the voters in Ohio actually want from their elected officials, not what the author of that article two years ago believes they should. There are fewer places in America that the left's message play then they believe and Ohio has never been one of them. Brown knows that and for the sake of Democratic Party, they'd better learn it too.

 

Emmy Watch 2026 Phase Three Begins: My Reactions to the 2026 Gotham TV Award Nominations

 

 

A new voice in the ever expanding awards for television is the Gotham TV Awards, which came into existence just two years ago. Focused on recognizing new TV shows of quality that have debuted in the season just past, it has already proven that it has a knack for picking out winners. Last years its winners for Best Drama, Comedy and Limited Series were The Pitt, The Studio and Adolescence and all went on to win the Emmy in their respective categories just a few months later. However lest you think that didn't take a genius to predict they were also very favorable to such dramas as Matlock and Paradise, comedies such as Nobody Wants This and The English Teacher and Limited Series such as Dying for Sex and The Penguin, along with other gems such as Dope Thief and Man on The Inside.

The question was how would they deal with the 2026 Emmys, which have already seen a number of new contenders in the early discussion for awards in quite a few categories. Yesterday the nominations were released and yet again it is very difficult to argue with them.

 

BREAKTHROUGH COMEDY SERIES

Rachel Sennot is recognized twice having produced I Love LA and Big Mistakes. Tim Robinson's The Chair Company is present as is Netflix's Long Story Short and Lena Dunham's Too Much.

It's honestly hard to tell if any of these nominees will break through in the major categories: none of them have dominated the awards conversation the way so many of the other contenders have.

 

BREAKTHROUGH DRAMA SERIES

Here we saw quite a few possibilities. Pluribus and Task are both near sure-things for Outstanding Drama nominations and will likely contending in major categories across the board. Alien: Earth was already nominated for Best Drama by the Critics Choice Awards and it has legs. Knight of the Seven Kingdoms does have the Game of Thrones lineage and the Emmys has been more than willing to let the first season of these franchises get nominated for the big prize, if not necessarily the second. Only Netflix's Dept. Q seems unlikely to contend for prizes.

 

BREAKTHROUGH LIMITED SERIES

Death by Lightning has already been nominated for Best Limited Series by the Critics Choice Awards and the Peabodys. The second season of Beef is almost certain to be a major contender for awards, as is Richard Gadd's Half Man. DTF St. Louis is a harder call but its' definitely going to contend for acting nominations. It remains to be seen of Netflix's Lord of the Flies can have the same success as Jack Thorne's previous show Adolescence. All of these will be in the conversation in the weeks to come.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD PERFORMANCE IN A COMEDY SERIES

Elle Fanning will definitely be in the conversation for Lead Actress for her work in Margo's Got Money Troubles.  As for Taylor Ortega for Big Mistakes and Rachel Sennott for I Love LA, Sennott has had almost no impact in the end of year awards for 2025 and it's not clear if either she or Taylor Ortega can breakthrough what is already a very front-loaded field.

Tim Robinson has had no real appearance for acting in The Chair Company. Dan Levy can never be counted out for the Emmys at this point but the field he's in is, if anything, more frontloaded than Best Actress.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD PERFORMANCE IN A DRAMA SERIES

Rhea Seehorn, as we all know is a lock, for Pluribus. As for the rest:

Sydney Chandler for Alien: Earth and Chase Infiniti for The Testaments have slim chances at best to break into what is already a heavily loaded field for Best Actress in a Drama. I love Malin Akerman in The Hunting Wives, I'm glad she was nominated but I'm not giving her a chance.

Peter Claffey for Seven Kingdoms might have a possibility if only because many of last year's contenders for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama are no longer eligible, such as Adam Scott and Pedro Pascal.

 

OUTSTANDING LEAD PERFORMANCE IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES

In order of likelihood:

Carey Mulligan is a lock for her work in Season 2 of Beef as is Sarah Pidgeon for her work as Carolyn Bessette in Love Story. Matthew MacFayden has received a nomination from the Critics Choice Awards for his work in Death By Lightning so his chances are good. It's hard to know if his co-lead Michael Shannon can break through.

We will have to see if Jamie Bell's work in Half Man is excellent enough to get him a nomination in this category. Riz Ahmed's work in Bait is critically acclaimed but there are already great nominees ahead of him who are locks. MUBI has never really contended for Emmys so I don't think Lili Reinhart has a chance for Hal & Harper.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE IN A COMEDY

Michelle Pfeiffer is almost certainly a lock for Margo's Got Money Troubles and Laurie Metcalf could reign as a dark horse for Big Mistakes.

Personally I'd love to see either Daniel Radcliffe or Erika Alexander nominated for The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins, if for no other reason then we really need network representation here. I don't think Odessa A 'Zion for I Love LA has a chance and I think Haley Lu Richardson has none for Ponies.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE IN A DRAMA

Both Tom Pelphrey for Task and Karolina Wydra for Pluribus are near sure things for nominations. As for the rest, it's hard to say.

I'd love to see Zach Galifianakis in contention for The Audacity and Babou Ceesay for Alien: Earth and Dexter Sol Ansell for Seven Kingdoms might contend. But Supporting Actor has a lot of contenders just from The Pitt alone.

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE IN A LIMITED OR ANTHOLOGY SERIES

Nick Offerman was already nominated by the Critics Choice Awards for his work in Death by Lightning and Cailee Spaeny is a near sure thing for Beef. Both Linda Cardellini and David Harbour will be formidable contenders for DTF St. Louis. Only David McKenna's work in Lord of the Flies is a question mark.

 

It's hard to know how the Emmys will react to Outstanding Original Film. I do think Remarkably Bright Creatures will contend and so will Color Theories. I don't really think People We Meet on Vacation has a chance and I know nothing about the other nominees to speak with confidence. Alison Janney will be nominated this year but its going to be for The Diplomat or Palm Royale, not Miss You, Love You. Mountainhead won in this category last year.

 

No question this is a formidable and good list of nominees: as I've said with quite a few groups in the past few months the Emmys could do far worse than giving many of these contenders nominations in a few months and that's not just the ones that will definitely be there.  

Considering how high I've been on so many of these contenders I can't really complain that much. I might have wanted to see All Her Fault in the running for Limited Series and might wonder at the lack of consistency between some of the contenders but I'm mostly fine. The two I'm going to look at on this site in the weeks to come are Margo and Half Men because I believed both would contend even before these nominations came up and I suspect this is only the start in the weeks to come for both these shows and trust me I'll get to Death by Lightning even if its skunked completely.

So Phase Three is off to a good start. I'll be back when the next major group gives its nominations and when that will happen – your guess is as good as mine.

Constant Reader April 2026: Love Letters to A Serial Killer by Tasha Coryell

 

 

At roughly the halfway point of Love Letters to A Serial Killer the hysterical literary debut of Tasha Coryell Hannah the narrator of the book tells us "I thought about how limited we are in our conception of the word 'victim'.

This is a brilliant line for many reasons. The first and obvious one is that by this point we know Hannah is going to end up a possible victim of a serial killer. The second is we also know she's clearly starting to yearn for this to be an ambition. The third and most subtle is that its another line that describes Hannah perfectly: it seems like a deep thought but by this point we know she probably found it online and it sounded good because its pretty clear that she has no depth in her real life.

I'm not spoiling anything by that one because that's the first sentence of the novel:

I didn't plan to fall in love with an accused serial killer. Nevertheless, my wrists and ankles are bound to a chair and I can blame only myself.

This would seem to the start of all to many novels. Except one page later Hannah goes into the head of her former best friend:

"Don't tell me you didn't want this," Meghan would say if she could see me. "No one does what you've done if they don't find being tied up and about to die at least a little hot."

Meghan isn't wrong. I find no pleasure in the prospect of death but enjoy picturing the mourning of the masses. I want my name remembered, unlike the hordes of other women who have been brutally murdered and then forgotten. At the very least, I want a podcast in my memory."

In this Coryell unfolds the story of Hannah and as it does it makes it clear that this woman wants to be a victim of a serial killer because it’s the only thing in your life she can do that takes no real effort and she can't mess up. One of the funniest jokes of this book is that she basically screws that up as well.

Hannah thinks she is  a victim at the start of the book in the way that I suspect so many millennials – of which she no doubt is – believe they are going in. She blames the fact that when she graduated college with a major in English and political science with a German minor it’s the recession's fault she ends up working at a non-profit in Minneapolis. She really thinks that would be an easy job when in fact there's no sign she's ever been very good at it, spending her time scrolling social media when she's supposed to be working, and never writing a novel. She drinks to much and while she says going on dates with men who will never love here is not an equivalent crime to killing women, she truly believes in her soul her heartbreak is that equivalent.  The novel starts with her being ghosted by her boyfriend because she believes because she lacks sincerity, she naturally assumes he does as well. She thinks the world revolves around her and is upset that her best friend has found a boyfriend. She believes she has main character energy when she doesn't have any dimension at all

Hannah ends up tracking down Anna Leigh, as with everything else in this novel, by accident when she's trying to stalk her ex-boyfriend on social media. When she learns that Anna Leigh disappears she's naturally jealous of her because she resents her for her good looks and success. Anna Leigh is a law student in Georgia who has disappeared. Halfway through her morning she finds a true crime forum.

Before I joined the forum, I would've said that I consumed true crime as much as any other ordinary American woman, which is to say quite a bit. We were obsessed with our own impending deaths, imagining danger in even the tamest of scenarios. Do enough research and no where is safe, not the Target parking lot, not your apartment complex, not the running trail.

Hannah makes it clear she's different because she doesn't listen to podcasts or go to conventions: she's not one of those women. She ends up one of those forums and its clear when she talks to Meghan, she's late to the party. Then Anna Leigh ends up dead in a ravine. I hate the word ravine she tells us "It sounded like a word that was invented to describe a place where bodies were found. She ends up getting involved because a post she makes gets ten thousand shares. She vows to find Anna Leigh's killer "to know that I was capable of something." The idea that she in Minneapolis could do something that was happening in Georgia is ludicrous but we know she's genuinely needy.

As the bodies stack up Anna gets deeper down the rabbit and ends up thinking that William Thompson is the killer. After he's caught she tries to move on with her life and after her boyfriend moves with a new girlfriend she writes a long, vicious and angry letter to William Thompson in prison. She never expects him to write back.

William's letter is thoughtful and courteous and he gives no indication of his guilt. She writes a longer angrier letter back and immediately after masturbates, having an extraordinary orgasm.

This begins a series of letter where William clearly looking for companionship bears his soul, though he never reveals if he's killed anyone. As he never confesses Hannah feels compelled to keep writing him – because surely he'll tell her and then she can reveal the truth and she'll get the fame she deserves. She ends up doing an inadequate job when it comes to funding an event at her non-profit and she spends more time dealing with William then her first chance to succeed on her own. When Hannah is asked what her goals are later on she can't come up with an answer. She starts blaming her parents for putting to much pressure on her when there's a drought in letters from William. She's falling down a rabbit hole and there are some people who warn her about it – and she doesn't like how it 'dampens my joy.' The irony is that for all her inside information on William she's no closer to finding out the truth of anyone else in the forum – who she hasn't told she's writing them.

When Hannah loses her job rather then look for a new one, she maxes out her credit cards and takes a trip to Georgia for the trial of William Thompson.

At that time, I wasn't worried that he would kill me. I worried only that he wouldn't find me beautiful when he finally saw me in prison. Like I , Hannah, would be disappointing to him, an accused serial killer. In retrospect, it was possible the order of my fears was misguided.

The second part of the novel deals with Hannah in Georgia at the trial of William. She spends the entire trial looking at the back of his head and listening to the prosecution and the defense lay out the case. She takes notes measuring his guilt and innocence, all of which are undercut by how she thinks William is handsome. She meets Dotty and Lauren both of whom are equally obsessed with William. She knows that both these women are obsessed with him but she needs company. Dotty is older then her and has separated from her husband because of this; Lauren is in college and has already fallen in love with a former killer.

By this point Hannah has noticed some of the other cliques that have formed, most notably the friends and family of the killer's victim. They avoid her because they can tell she's one of those women. Anna can't help but complain to William about how she wishes they were friendlier. She gets involved with the Thompson family by accident, claiming she's trying to find proof that William is guilty, perhaps unaware that she may be looking to see her future in-laws. Hannah is close to giving up when a new set of letters come from William. Again he never comes close to telling her whether he's innocent or guilty.

Eventually she meets Mark and Cindy, who are among the wealthy elite in Atlanta and Willam's brother Bentley, who's married with two children. Eventually she gets close to Bentley, in part because he thinks his brother's guilty, mostly because he looks like William and he calls her pretty.

By the halfway point of the novel Coryell plays her greatest joke yet. William is opening up to her and telling her how important she is to him and how much she means to him. He's finally becoming the kind of man she claims she's always wanted. But that's not the best joke; the joke is that by this time Hannah is pouring over these notes, hoping for a hint that if he gets out, the first thing he'll do is murder her.

William wrote all the things I'd wanted men to tell me for years and it left me with the same sensation I had when I finally purchased a food item that I was craving, only to discover what I wanted at all. I wanted him to tell me about his pain, his violence, who had hurt hum and who he hurt in return.

She writes a long letter to him, which I assume she never sends because she crosses out all of the parts that have to do with her increasingly violent (and hysterical) desires. The trial comes to an end and then for reasons I won't go into, William is found not guilty. This actually bothers Hannah more than anything else because as she puts it "it was like every other relationship I've ever had."

Then William shows up at her hotel room, tells her how much she means to him, and proposes to her. Hannah is disappointed because he isn't there to kill her.

Now we enter the third and final part of the novel and I'll finally start becoming vague, not so much not to spoil the reveal but rather the jokes which are among the funniest – and darkest in their entire book.

Immediately after this Hannah and William have sex and Hannah is disappointed because "I waited for the turn when he went from man to murderer. It never came." William makes it clear he wants to give her everything and he's wealthy enough and privileged enough to do so. What he doesn't know is that Hannah wants him to kill her and he keeps putting it off. Hannah keeps on writing her notebook, trying to argue that everything he does including their sex life is evidence of his guilt. When she's alone in the house she finds a group of letters written by countless other women who have basically alternating between what Hannah feels now and what she did then. She writes a list of their names saying she's worried about them going missing or 'if he was engaged in a type of epistolary adultery'. She can't tell the difference between real evidence and actual one, which demonstrates she's not good at investigating either.

Obviously this novel ends with Hannah face to face with the killer, though whether he is William or not I will leave to you to find out. Both William and the entire family have secrets, none of which are that original. That, I imagine is the point of the reveal; this is a story about sticking to the cliches of the format from the perspective of one of 'those women'. What I will say is that Hannah ends up getting what she deserves, which as we all know is rarely the same thing as what we desire. In Hannah's case its fitting.

Coryell lives in St. Paul and while she has written stories, essays and poems, Love Letters to a Serial Killer is her debut novel. It was published two years ago and it's a hell of a way to make a literary debut. I've more than read my share of great first novels from writers and I've passed on quite a few recommendations to my readers here but Love Letters is by far the most fun I've had in a while reading. Not in the way of thriller but in a perfect mix of both black comedy, true crime and the kind of woman that (as another favorite of mine Jesse Q. Sutanto said in her blurb) "you don't know whether to shake or hug her." I spent much of the novel wanting to shake her but considering Hannah probably likes that kind of thing, maybe its one and the same.

I disagree with Sutanto about a need for a sequel to this book – if there's one thing we know, it’s becoming a franchise frequently ruins the power of the original. What I do know is that I would send love letters to Coryell any time, telling her I can't wait for her next book. I hope she writes all of us back with another gem…soon.

 

And On The 32nd Day Jamie Ding Rested: How His Run Came to An End

 Jamie Ding had owned the Alex Trebek stage for one month. And as Ken Jennings put it he was now in fifth place behind James Holzhauer, Matt Amodio, Amy Schneider "and one player I'm too humble to name.' If Jamie managed a victory on this day, he would tie the original Jeopardy James for fourth place on the all-time win list.

There had been signs, subtle but there, that Jamie was beginning to struggle in the past week. On Thursday he'd barely managed to eke out a victory over Patrick. Three times out of the last five games he'd won but gotten Final Jeopardy incorrect, and fortunately all of them had been runaway victories. And in Tuesday and Thursday games he was slowing, getting 22 correct responses on the former and only 21 the latter, though he didn't get a single incorrect response. Its easy to say it was a portent of things to come in hindsight but it became clear almost immediately on Monday that Greg Shahade might be able to do what no one had done in 31 games.

No one expected it to be that impressive.

Early in the Jeopardy round Jamie had already gone into the lead when Greg got to the Daily Double in SQUEALERS. He was in second with $2200.  Naturally he bet it all:

You don't want to be called this, the last name of John Turturro's title character in a Coen brothers flick.

Greg held his head: "What is…fink?" And the film was Barton Fink. Greg moved into the lead and he managed to hold onto it by the end of the round with $5600 to Jamie's $4400. Katrina Puckett was in third with $2200. Jamie was in second place, unusually, but he'd overcome bigger leads before.

Then Greg responded correctly on the first clue in Double Jeopardy. He picked PLAYS & PLAYWRIGHTS. There was the first Daily Double. He bet the $7600 he had:

The title object of this Oscar Wilde play is both a fashionable accessory & a mark of femininity.

It really looked like Greg didn't have it: "What is Lady Windemere's Fan?"

Now Greg had $15,200. "Fortune favors the bold," Ken said and told them to pick again.

On the very next clue he found the other Daily Double in HISTORIC ALLIANCES. By the previous two standards he was modest and bet just $7000. It went just as well:

This 55-nation group launched in 2002 has its headquarters in Addis Abada. Greg pulled it out: "What is African Union?" Suddenly Greg had $22,200, an $18,000 lead over Jamie.

Never had the phrase: "Now's the shoe's on the other foot," ever been more applicable. Jamie now knew what so many players over the last month had been up against at this stage at the latest in so many of his victories.  If anyone could make a comeback under these circumstances it was Jamie Ding and he got the next four clues correct to cut $6000 of Greg's lead. And Greg was not perfect: he got five incorrect responses. But he also got 23 correct ones and Jamie was only able to get 18.

By the time Double Jeopardy was in its final stages Jamie's only chance was to stop Greg from a runaway. On the last clue Greg had $33,000 to Jamie's $16,400. The final clue was in THE SHAPE OF THINGS and it was for $400:

Home to private residences and hotels, the man-made archipelago seen here in Dubai is built in the shape of one of these.

Greg rang in. "What's lotus?" It was wrong. Jamie: "What's a palm leaf?" They wouldn't accept that. Katrina rang in. "What's a palm tree?

With that Jamie Ding found himself in a runaway game – but this time he was the one who had no chance of overcoming an opponent as Greg had $32,600 to his $16,000. But the thing is even if he'd responded correctly  as Final Jeopardy played out it would not have made a difference.

The category was WORLD LANGUAGES. Of South Africa's 12 official languages, these 2 are alphabetically first & last."

Katrina knew the correct two: "What are Afrikaans and Zulu?" She bet $1990.

Jamie knew it and in parentheses wrote TTFN. "Ta-ta for now." He wagered $3010 for the record.

But Greg also knew it was Afrikaans and Zulu, so there was no tarnish on his victory as he added $400 to finish with $33,000 and become a giant-killer to rank with Nancy Zerg, Emma Boettcher, Johnathan Fisher and Rhone Talsma, each of whom respectively beat the four players ahead of Jamie on the list of both wins and money won.

None of them had accomplished was Greg had done to Jamie: win in a runaway. It's not unheard of in Jeopardy history. Just two years ago Adriana Harmeyer had her chance to tie Ryan Long (then in tenth place alone in all-time wins with 16) when Drew Basile managed to runaway with the game. Jamie did perform better then Adriana who ended up finishing third to Drew and Tekla Sauter and he did get Final Jeopardy correct, which Adriana couldn't manage to do. That's by far the closest comparison in Jeopardy history when it comes to a super-champion. In most cases they're either trailing going into Final Jeopardy and the opponent responds correctly (as happened to Holzhauer and Amodio) or they're in the lead and they get Final Jeopardy wrong and one of their opponents responds correctly (as is true not just of Ken and Amy but also Mattea Roach and Cris Panullo) By any standards Greg's win is historic.

Whether he will master the kind of run that Drew or Jonathan Fisher did remains to be seen; the fact that he has a place in Jeopardy lore is undisputed. We'll see where he ends up down the road.

For Jamie Ding he leaves Jeopardy the fifth most successful player in its tenure in both games won with 31 and money in one's original appearance with $882,605. Without a single postseason appearance to his name he is already eighth all time in money won, not just behind the four players ahead of money won and Brad Rutter but also Yogesh Raut and Mattea Roach who have a significant track record in Jeopardy Masters already ahead of them and may well in the future. Jamie managed to pass the Queen Victoria Groce and David Madden in all-time earnings in his original run. By any standard he is one of the greatest players in Jeopardy history.

When we see him next is an open question. There are only thirteen weeks left in Season 42. We've had two super-champions already and obviously I'm looking forward to see Harrison Whitaker battle with Jamie in the exhibition of the next TOC. But given how things have ended it may very well be awhile before the next postseason take place. Aside from the two super champions only two other players James Denison and Will Riley have officially qualified for the next Jeopardy Tournament of Champions and only two others may make it in if they lower the bar to three games. While one dares not predict the future when it comes to Jeopardy its hard to imagine the producers not having to consider delaying whatever postseason might happen for 2027, if not pushing it into Season 44 altogether.

That, however, is a problem in a few months' time. For now we can consider ourselves blessed by the reign of Jeopardy James II, a generous and soft-spoken New Jersey bureaucrat clad in orange. He might have joked about describing himself as a nameless bureaucrat when his run began but that's no longer possible and we should all be grateful for that. I certainly am.

Criticizing Criticism: A Prominent Music Critic Said Movies Portraying Musicians Aren't Realistic. Another Reason Critics Need To Stay In Their Lane

 

A brief anecdote before we get started. Late in his life Arthur Sullivan was in the final phases of his partnership with William Gilbert. Sullivan famously wanted to do serious music and often resented Gilbert for his frothiness. So he finally composed his one serious opera: Ivanhoe.

It was not particularly successful critically or financially. At one point while it was still running a friend of Sullivan's said that he'd seen Ivanhoe and quite liked it. Sullivan's response was very honest: "That's more than I did. A cobbler should stick to his last." It was as close as Sullivan could get to acknowledging that for all the problems he and Gilbert had working together, they couldn't survive apart.

I was reminded of that quote when a prominent music critic for Variety panned David Lowery's most recent film Mother Mary not because of its quality as a movie but because it was an unrealistic version of the pop music business. He then went on a rant about many recent films and TV shows which in his mind have utterly failed to give an accurate portrayal of the music business, whether they were based on fact or fiction. These ranged from the songs that were written for the film to the fans in the concerts to the lack of staff.

I'm not sure how good a music critic this man is but I question his ability because he can't seem to grasp how either movie or TV shows work in regard to reality. This is a basic concept that even most teenagers get when they go to the most recent Fast & Furious movie or watch Euphoria: they realized that this is a heavily fictionalized version of reality. Furthermore considering that Mother Mary, the film that began this review, was a horror film first and a music movie second this is a case of missing the forest for the trees. That he then proceeded to argue that so many of these films were unrealistic because the star had only one representative when in reality they have many again seems to miss the point of films that were ostensibly horror: does he really think that there is a substance Demi Moore could take to turn in Margaret Qualley when he says it's not an accurate portrayal of Hollywood?

This is the kind of 'think piece' that shows just how little thinking is involved: it really does seem like the kind of thing a critic does to show how smart they are compared to the people in the industry their reviewing. In the case of this critic it's the kind of thing that you wonder why it was published in the first place as it makes not just this critic look foolish but Variety by comparison. This is an industry that's already plagued by the most toxic form on nitpickers when it comes to sexism and racism in the comic book industry. Somehow this critics work is worse: it's like if Neil DeGrasse Tyson were to pan Guardians of The Galaxy because the ships Chris Pratt travels in had an unrealistic depiction of how engines work.

Now I have absolutely no doubt that movies like Bohemian Rhapsody, Rocketman and A Complete Unknown are all heavily fictionalized stories of Freddie Mercury, Elton John and Bob Dylan. They might be more historically accurate then some of those that focused on musicians of the past, such as Yankee Doodle Dandy, Funny Girl and The 7 Little Foys but I know the first goal of all these films was to entertain the audience, not portray an accurate version of the performers life. As Roger Ebert once wrote: "Those who expect the true version of a man from the movie of his life might as well expect from his loving grandmother." This was true when he wrote it in 1999 and it's still true today. The fact Michael is the most highly fictionalized version of its title character has done nothing to stop millions from going to see it. People want to be entertained not shown how the sausage is made. If this critic believes that the documentaries of rock concerts and musicians either today or at their peak in the 1970s and 1980s were 'the truth' of the subjects involved I question how he can put sentences together to form his article trashing Hollywood for being inaccurate.

I can't speak personally on this mainly because I have no interest in pop music. But as my readers know I have an interest in history and have written my share of reviews about movies and TV about American as well as British history over my career and long before that watched many series that looked at those periods. And I've never been one of those people who picks nits at the discrepancies unless they detract enormously from the entertainment of the film or TV show in question.

Last September I wrote a piece about how 21^st century film and TV's depiction of journalism in regard to how it affected history and politics was completely unrealistic and gave examples of such classic movies as Good Night & Good Luck and All The President's Men as failing that test. However I made it clear that despite that I was able to recognize that they were still cinematic masterpieces on every level. (I won't say the same for Truth and The Newsroom.)

Over the years some of the greatest dramas on TV have been inspired by historic events with significant characters from Deadwood to Boardwalk Empire to Masters of Sex to The Crown. Some of them were more based in historical accuracy then others but all of them were clearly fictionalized for the benefit of great TV. I didn't think Deadwood  was a masterpiece because Seth Bullock or Calamity Jane were true to life, nor did I care whether the real-life Masters and Johnson experienced the real-life difficulties in their research and while I knew much of what happened during Elizabeth II's reign was based on real life British history I was more than aware there was dramatic license involved with her interactions with Margaret Thatcher and John Major, just as much as I knew that Charles and Diana's relationship was more accurate then some previous versions but still had been adjusted for dramatic power.

Indeed I watched the latter series with my father who lived through many of the events during the second half of the series and while some of it he admitted may have been historically accurate he acknowledged most of the stories behind the scenes were done purely for dramatic contrasts and conflict. My father is a prominent historian himself, particularly in American history and we've seen our share of historical films and TV shows over the years. And while we acknowledge some of them are clearly more accurate in their retellings we also know that some of them are done for other purposes.

Some films, to be sure, to give a more realistic version of history such as Steven Spielberg's Lincoln which more or less gives an accurate portrayal of the work of the passage of the 13^th Amendment and accurate depicts many of the major figures both in Lincoln's cabinet and some of the Republican politicians involved such as Francis Blair and Thaddeus Stevens in terms of what they were like in real life. Both of us have enormous regard for Stephen Frears' The Queen which depicts the relationship between Queen Elizabeth and the newly elected Tony Blair in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana.  And we also had tremendous regard for Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer and how it tells a compelling story of both the design of the atom bomb and Oppenheimer's attempt to regulate it after the war ended.

But if you were ask either of us as to why we admired these films, it would be because of the strength of the writing, directing and acting and the craft of the filmmakers first and second. The historical accuracy is a nice bonus but the fact that some events were exaggerated would be far from a dealbreaker for either of us. We watch films and TV like this to be entertained and to escape from reality not to point out all of the flaws in history.

And just to be clear we are the kind of people who according to the theory of this ill-gotten music critic should care the most whether details are horribly wrong and it doesn't bother us one bit. The idea that millions of people  watched a film like Lawrence of Arabia and be terrified its getting a historically inaccurate depiction of T.E. Lawrence would be laughable to either of us. We both know quite a bit about the real life Mozart and Salieri so we know that Amadeus is a work of complete fiction by Peter Shaffer. We both think that films is a  masterpiece even though we know Mozart was nothing like this in real life. In both cases critics and the Oscars are in complete agreement.

At a certain point caring about accuracy to reality is laughable. We know that Shakespeare's versions of British royalty contained countless historical inaccuracies. To mention just one Hotspur is posed as a romantic rival to Henry V when in reality he was older than Hal's father at the time and so much of Richard III is based purely on conjecture and rumor then any reality. Macbeth existed, so did Duncan but that's about it. There might be a few British historians who will write footnotes in journals but that's not going to stop them from enjoying Kenneth Branagh's versions of it.

Now some might argue that historical accuracy has less importance to stories then those involving those who create art. Well, then let's look at a different kind of creative forces: writers. It is very difficult to make a great film or TV show about a great writer mainly because the creative process in writing isn't always interesting unless the process was interesting.

I was reminded of that yet again when I saw Capote. Bennett Miller chose to only film a small section of Capote's life story: the period that led to his eventually writing In Cold Blood. This was the correct choice because the story behind both the work and its effect on the author is far more riveting then trying to make a film about Capote's entire life story, just as Capote Vs. The Swans is more interesting because it's about the author's relationship with his Swans then any novel he might have written. And its also why The Rebel in The Rye a film which tried to tell the story of how J.D. Salinger made history by writing Catcher in the Rye was a creative failure. No matter how hard you try you can't make the process of how Salinger made literary history into a good film, no matter the level of actors involved.

This is true when it comes to Hollywood's own writers. David Fincher's Mank was well received by critics and was nominated for Best Picture and multiple awards a few years back. But the fact is while Herman Mankiewicz was a very prolific screenwriter that doesn't necessarily make him worth writing about. Yes he was in Hollywood at the start of the era but quantity doesn't mean quality. Were it not for the fact that he was the screenwriter of Citizen Kane we would have no reason to remember him at all.

The fact is Orson Welles accomplished more before he was 24 then Mankiewicz in his entire life to that period. Even if you argue Mank deserves more credit for the film then Welles does, the fact remains Welles directed and starred in the film, supervised the entire production and had to fight all of the battles to get it released. In truth Mankiewicz gets all the credit he deserves for it in the HBO film RKO 281 which tells how Citizen Kane got made and how William Randolph Hearst did everything in his power to kill it. That is the more interesting story and that movie did a better job telling it. Mankiewicz would be a footnote without his work for Citizen Kane in Hollywood. Welles is anything but.

Have I strayed from the point? Less then you'd think. I've read more than a few reviews of movies or TV shows of real-life stories or personality where more than a few of my professional brethren have gone out of their way to point out the real-life inaccuracies as part of their reasons to pan these works. Sometimes as with Oliver Stone's oeuvre they have a point, sometimes when the New York Times excoriated The Hurricane for historical inaccuracies it’s the kind of pedantic behavior I find ridiculous. At a certain point I think all of these critics and indeed quite a few others have forgotten one of the most iconic lines in film history from John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

If we wanted to see the real-life version of history, writers or music then PBS would be the most watched network and documentaries would be the highest grossing films ever year. That has never been the case and I think we're all fine with that. We do come to the movies for magic, not to see real-life accurately depicted. It is true the professionals might hem and haw about how their professions are depicted onscreen but the majority of us just want to be entertained and I count myself among them.

By the way to tie this into where I began I've written about how much I enjoyed Topsy-Turvy Mike Leigh's brilliant drama about how Gilbert and Sullivan came up with The Mikado. I know this film is accurate in many ways, both when it comes to the composers as well as many of the singers and performers involved. I give fair points to Mike Leigh for historical accuracy. But while that's a bonus for why I enjoyed it, I love the movie because of the performances, the writing and of course that wonderful music. It is very much an accurate portrayal of 19^th century London and the stage at the time but even if you knew nothing about it I think many would still enjoy it. And if there were some details wrong Leigh is right about many things – including the final caption where he points out that Ivanhoe is not as much fun as The Mikado.

So to this music critic who wrote this ill-defined review I'd give him the same advice Sullivan did: stick to your last. And since you might not know what a cobbler is (or for that matter who Gilbert and Sullivan are) stick to criticizing music. Because as a film critic you make all of us look bad.

Homicide Rewatch: Valentine's Day

 

Written by Tom Fontana

Directed by Clark Johnson

 

Looked with the distance of 30 years this episode seems most significance for its casting of Neil Patrick Harris in the very cast against type role of Alan Schack, the villain of the piece. Harris was still in 1997 best known for the innocent role of Doogie Howser MD so this role was a major get and gave him a chance to play against type.

One can't deny the significance of this role. Harris was in the process of transitioning from the teenage doctor to the more sleazy characters he is known for playing in the 21^st century, not long before he would come out of the closet at the turn of the 2010s and add a different level to it. Looked at in this sense, it's a clear progression of a superb actor in the making.

Less known at the time and definitely so today was the second guest role of Linda Dano, a prominent soap opera actress in the NBC franchise (though it would be canceled in a few years' time) Another World. But Dano's appearance as Dr. Miano, the marriage counselor that Frank and Mary see is the far more critical one for the series overall. Because this session finally lays bare the cracks in the Pembleton marriage and Frank, the man who is known for being able to talk people into revealing their most hidden truths, is now on the receiving end something he doesn't like from the start and very quickly finds that he has been as good at lying to himself as so many of the suspects he's gotten to confess in the box.

But first the cases. Pembleton leaves work for personal time and makes it clear he has Kellerman covering for him. For the first time Al asked Frank if he and Tim are speaking and Pembleton makes it clear that they're just not working together. Bayliss and Kellerman are called out for a bombing which leads to them working together for the first time since the death of James Douglas. Kellerman is back from his time off and he seems openly better for the first time since the grand jury subpoena came; he even jokes about how Bayliss was snarky to him the last time.

Once there on the bomb site of with the FBI on site (this is thought of as terrorism and we hear both Hezbollah and Waco mentioned) the jokes start coming when they find an ear. "Friends Romans Countryman," goes Bayliss. "Ear today, gone tomorrow," Kellerman. Yeah he's back to normal.

Things then get worse when there's a second bombing of a defense attorney named Allan Corcoran. Kellerman says he knows the name but can't figure out from where.  Then Kellerman ties to a previous case – Corcoran defended the man who shot Tommo Roh a few episodes back. (See 'Inconsistencies') Corcoran defended the man who shot Roh and acquitted him and Kuntz was the jury foreman. It becomes very clear that Ben Roh is trying to deal with how the honor of his family was destroyed and has been going on a path of revenge.

This leads to the tension with the fact that Ben has gone to the courthouse where Lewis and Juliana are there for the Middleton case. This leads to a good scene between the two where they discuss their personal lives: Meldrick discusses the state of his marriage; Juliana is dealing with the death of her father. We learned in an earlier scene that the headstone has just been delivered and she's been delaying having it set.

This ties indirectly the deaths of these two men to the actions of Luther Mahoney. When Kellerman asks why Ben didn't kill Luther, the son says he was saving him for last. Given what will happen in a few weeks' time one really wishes he had started with him rather than going through the criminal justice system.

Meanwhile Munch is called to the apparent suicide of Nick Bollaneterra. When Munch learns that he's the roommate of Allan Schack Brodie knows Schack as a bad dude and decides to talk to him, something that doesn't interest Munch.

This episode shows the lazy aspects of Munch we haven't seen in a while. He doesn't want to investigate a case that he's written off and he sure as hell doesn't want to listen to Brodie. Brodie goes over Munch's head to Howard (very reluctantly) and lets the investigation continue. To be fair there's something going on beyond Munch's instincts. Bollantera was coked up and there were two sets of fingerprints on the gun. Schack has joked about being there and playing Russian Roulette. (Munch says there were five bullets in the gun and you only use one to play Russian Roulette. Howard: "Is this is a game you play often?" The thing is, I can see Munch doing it when he was in college and high.)

There is something quite brilliant in Harris's work. Even as he grew into adulthood it would be rare he'd play someone who was so genuinely contemptuous of authority and outright sleazy to so many around him. His later characters would have oily politeness to them; Schack can barely refrain from bating Munch and Howard in the box and he openly threatens Brodie before he attacks him.

But this episode gives Melissa Leo a chance to shine in a way she's gotten to far less during the last two seasons, first as she interrogate Schack and then when she brings him into the box to trick him with a videotape. "What we have here his more brilliant then Apocalypse Now and more entertaining than America's Funniest Home Videos. (Ah the 1990s.) Brodie has recorded a tape which he has doctored to make it seem like the narcotics department was monitoring Schack's house and him entering his home. He adds the sound of a gunshot going off and this fools Schack into believing that's he been caught.

But for all that Brodie is still annoyed that no one in the unit seems to be treating him with the respect he thinks he deserves. There's a real sense of false entitlement here; Brodie has been more of a nuisance then anything; he's lived with every single detective save Pembleton during his housing crisis, and after a year and a half its still an open question whether he's been more of an asset to the unit then a detriment. On top of that he filmed a documentary on the unit and submitted it to PBS without asking permission of the department or anyone. Al is more generous and says its not his job to make them like you. You have to earn it. (One really wonders if any people Brodie's age could watch this show today and wonder why he didn't sue for a hostile work environment.)

The scenes with Dano as Miano are comic delights for multiple reasons because its clear that she's just as good at her job as Frank is at his. She sets Frank at ease with questions about how they met, eases him into a false sense of security, then starts talking about his and Mary's sex life. This makes Frank noticeably uncomfortable for the first time in almost the entire series and we see him being questioned in a way that has irony all around. You can see how frustrated he is at just how good Miano is at asking questions and never answering them directly, which is exactly how he does his job so well. Then she drops a bomb and tells him his wife is thinking of leaving him.

We've known about Frank's being from New York originally but we've never learned why he moved to Baltimore. Here he's very direct: he makes it clear 'Baltimore is a brown town run by brown people" and the NYPD was never going to give him what he wanted. This explains why he reacts so much to the perceived slights of Felton and the real racism of Gaffney as well as been so eager to correct Bayliss whenever he makes a remarks that hints of looking back with nostalgia. And he tries the suspect's trick of blaming everything that's going on on someone else, targeting Mary's parents and then the therapist. Frank has built his entire career on being infallible on the job and will not take criticism on it from anyone at work; we shouldn't be surprised when he's criticized on it as a husband and father – and worst of all, a sexual partner.

Frank is very honest about his problems about his sex life and how much he resented doctors told them about how when they were having so much trouble conceiving Olivia (back in Season 3) sex became almost a homework assignment. Mary then tells Frank that he's approaching sex like his job: detached. (She clearly doesn't know just how much effort he went into celebrating their anniversary but the larger point is the same.) When Mary tells Frank the very real possibility he disappeared from the marriage long before the stroke, Frank becomes the worst we've seen him in front of his wife – until he points out the very real sense of inadequacy he had after the stroke in a way we've never seen him to do even when he was at his worst at the start of the season. He may have physically recovered from his stroke; the psychological reckoning may not happened.

But Mary gets to the heart of Frank sins when she says: "Pride." And she makes it clear perhaps more than anyone what his being a fallen Catholic has cost him. We know upfront its bad to challenge Frank on faith (he says when he needed him "God was in the next county over making hurricanes and hunchback babies") but now we see it through a different lenses – Mary.

Ami Brabson has been superb all season but this episode may be her finest hour on Homicide as she makes it clear – without saying it directly – that she must have spent so much time by Frank's bedside and then his recovery praying to God. This is first time we see how much Frank's disdain for God might actually be harmful to those around him and it becomes a living thing when it comes to discussing that Mary wants Olivia to be baptized but has been afraid to do it because of Frank's refusal to go to church, something that has been canon on the show since at least Season 3. Frank lists his believes as justice and life and Mary cuts him off:

Mary: You believe in Homicide.

Frank: It's the same thing.

We know all too well that this is not something held by anyone that isn't a homicide detective (and not even some of them). And when Mary says: "Is it?" it cuts to the biggest question we've had. Frank has made it clear without the job he's nothing and Mary is telling him the opposite. It's telling that Mary chooses to end the session first, despite the therapist's advice. She's the only person Frank can't pressure into doing what he wants and its clear it stuns him.

He actually comes close to confiding in Gee, asking him if he was happily married and the very real question whether she might have gotten sick of him had she lived and he'd stayed at his job. Al says he never thought about it and he doesn't want to now. He thinks he was happily married and that his wife did the job of raising the kids. (We've already seen what his beloved Charisse thinks of him as a father; in the last season we'll get a chance to see what his son thought of it.) We learn that Mary is a lobbyist who is passionate for the causes she fights for "but she can leave her job on I-95." Frank considers Homicide 'a calling…we speak for those who can no longer speak for themselves." He makes it clear he was a cop when he met Mary.

He makes a real attempt when he agrees to have Olivia baptized but then he gets hung up on a case and he misses it. It's not clear if this is the final straw or if it would have happened regardless but Mary tells Frank she's leaving and taking Olivia with him.  She makes it clear he's more comfortable standing over a corpse then changing his daughter's diaper, that Frank cared more about getting healthy so he could get back on the street then be a husband and father "that you care more about dead strangers then you do about your own family."

When Mary leaves for the first time in Homicide's entire history we see Frank broken in a way we never have: weeping saying: "That's not true."

This episode does take place on the title day (it actually originally aired February 14^th 1997!) and we see multiple signs of it in the final montage. There's Cox with Kellerman at her father's headstone; Brodie hanging out with his roommate; Meldrick and Barbra kissing in front of his Teddy Pendergast painting, apparently happy. But all of this is intercut with scenes of Pembleton in his empty home, looking more lost then he ever has. For Frank this is actually rock bottom. The rest of Season Five will be about him climbing up.

 

NOTES FROM THE BOARD

"Detective Munch" In the opening scene Munch asks if there's anything that makes it look like this isn't a suicide Brodie responds: "Just because there's no sign that something isn't doesn't mean that it is." Cox responds: "Careful Brodie, you're starting to sound like Munch.

Munch: I resent that remark.

Brodie: So do I.

Just as brilliant is when Kellerman says he hates red balls and Munch says he can recommend a good urologist.

Inconsistencies: Guides to the show have pointed out that its been less than a month since the Roh case was opened with no suspects. Yet somehow in less then three weeks the shooter has been caught, tried and found innocent. That's somewhat unrealistic.

Nearly as unrealistic is that after Brodie is beaten severely with a lead pipe he's somehow in a condition to just not be discharged the same day but shoot the video of Schack's confession without any sign of injury. But honestly I've seen more inconsistencies between episodes of Law & Order and X-Files on a week-to-week basis during this period so I'll let it go.

Future Inmate: William Cote who plays officer Keane in this episode, would later be cast as William Cudney on OZ, a Christian evangelical who shoots the son of an abortionist and is sent to prison for life.

Hey, Isn't That…Neil Patrick Harris' career began at fourteen when he played David in Clara's Heart. He was cast as Doogie Howser MD in 1989 and would play the role for four seasons. During this period he began his career in voice acting starting as Max on the short-lived series Capitol Critters (I'll focus on TV though there's clearly a lot else.). Most of his work was in TV movies in the aftermath, such as My Antonia, A Family Torn Apart, and the Man in the Attic.

In 1999 he was cast as Henry in the comedy Stark Raving Mad which was canceled after one season and he did the voice of Spider-Man in a 2003 animated cartoon. Then he became legend – wait for it – dary! Legendary! as Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother for nine seasons. He eventually would play Dr. Horrible in Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog written by Joss Whedon and Count Olaf in the Netflix version of A Series of Unfortunate Events. He starred in Uncoupled which both Netflix and then Showtime renewed for a second season and then canceled.. His most recent TV appearance was Lowell in Dexter Resurrection.

He has to date won five Emmys, though none of them were for comedy. He won four of them for hosting the Tony Awards including three consecutive ones from 2012 to 2014 and Special class programs. He also won tow in 2010, one for hosting the Tonys and won for his guest role in Glee. He has also hosted the Emmys multiple times and the Oscars in 2015 and was nominated for doing so that year.

Linda Dano made her TV debut in Police Story in 1973 and had small part in many shows from Lucas Tanner to Harry O TO Matt Helm. She played Cynthia Haines in as The World Turns in 1981 and 1982 before appearing in 1548 episodes of Another World as Felicia Gallant between 1983 and its cancellation in 1999. She would then play Rae Cummings in All My Children and its spin-off series Port Charles as well in General Hospital and One Life to Live before playing Vivian Alamain in Days of our Lives in 2021. She would win a Daytime Emmy for her work in Another World in 1993 and be nominated for it four that show four other times and for One Life to Live in 2003.