So it's okay to have shows like Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives, which are explicitly premised on the idea that men are idiots and women are saints, but it's not okay to have a show like Supernatural which just happens to be about two guys?

If you have no pretensions to objectivity, why couch your emotional impressions in specious arguments?

Saying that some things are "more interesting" than the mythology, or that it's "not strong enough to stand on its own" (with no warrant), or that something doesn't "feel earned" are just ways of trying to make a subjective response appear objective. That's the real problem with this review. Contrary to what seems…

re the "copout," it seemed pretty clear to me that Lucifer had no intention or expectation that either brother would be killed.

This is a stupid review
AVClub writers have a remarkable talent for liking and disliking almost everything for the wrong reasons. Of course, it was obvious the review would be stupid when it opened with a complaint about the lack of strong, good female characters on the show. Boo fucking hoo. If you think that good…

Adept
I believe this review has discovered a heretofore unknown meaning of "adept," viz. "frequently inept."

DejaDead:
I would be inclined to agree with you about Jax not being indecisive and instead just methodical and careful if there were any evidence that he had a plan for dealing with Zoebelle, or was even formulating a plan. On the contrary however, he has not said or done anything that would give anyone reason to…

It seems like you are saying that Jax himself is cognizant of Hamlet? If so, this seems exceedingly unlikely to me. Is this the point of the Hamlet connection that you did not have time to explain?

I don't have a problem with characters acting irrationally. What bothers me is that the show actively supports their irrationality.

You are obviously unsound.

You act as though SoA is satisfying on non-intellectual levels, when exactly the opposite is true. In addition to being retarded, Jax's behavior serves to postpone audience gratification. What I would like is for AVclub reviewers to start showing some discerning taste, and put this show in the D to C+ range that it…

johnny comelately:
Can you show me any points at which character development has taken place this season? I don't believe any of these characters are more fleshed out that they were at the start, nor have they showed any compelling evolution.

My exact problem with this season is that it goes to such lengths to stave off rewarding drama or suspense. Most of it has just been plodding along with the two main grounds for drama (the rape and Opie's wife) being kept secret, while most of what actually takes place turns out to be inconsequential in the long run…

I think I would have not based the story on something I was unable to write coherently. Alternatively, they could have had an escalating conflict between the Sons and Zoebelle, with Gemma being raped towards the end of the season and setting off all-out war.

The "Big Reveal"
So Gemma finally tells Jax and Clay what happened to her, and the last eight or nine episodes are officially filler. Did anyone really expect that the reaction would be any different than this?

Rebecca
Am I the only one who thinks that a girl who looks like this should NOT be an actress?

To be even more clear, brothers and sisters have (aside from random mutations) IDENTICAL mtDNA.

Can you not read what you copy-pasted?

DNA
You cannot discern gender from mitochondrial DNA.

You're attributing to these characters (particularly Gemma) motivations that makes sense in hindsight from a plot perspective, but not when they actually acted. The show and Gemma were both very clear about her reasons for keeping the rape a secret.