You're probably right. I could have sworn there was an attack using ricin somewhere too, though.

Is this set at a time before the ricin attack in Japan, etc.? Because since that happened even I know what ricin is, but I can't keep the real-world timeline straight.

It would be a major plot twist if it turned out that it's not mental after all, and that it also affects Jimmy/Saul/Gene later in life.

Good catch!

I felt somewhat surprised too that after the lengths Jimmy has gone to to protect Chuck over the years, he would destroy him publicly like this (despite Chuck's actions, which are really no more heinous than his many previous heinous actions). All of which made me wonder if there isn't one more twist coming up.

I think Jimmy of all people would predict that. Neither of them trusts the other an inch, and is thinking two steps ahead in terms of what tricks they might pull and how they might manipulate the facts. Even now, when at the end of the episode it looks like Jimmy's won, there's still room for Chuck not to be done. …

Plus, it's hardly a rip off when the writers acknowledge the specific influence, which they did.

Me too. I could have sworn.

They didn't edit it, did they?

No we don't! Not yet! Because then there'd be no Kim and no Chuck and a whole other universe, and I'm still interested in seeing how this one plays out. I know Saul, I don't fully know Jimmy yet!

BB basically began as comedy and gradually evolved into tragedy. (Like a bunch of classics, such as Moby Dick.)

My first thought was "yay, he got out of that room!" And my second thought was "oh, he's not in that room yet . ."

That would be a nice parallel to the "original sin" of Jimmy changing the address

I don't think it would show more than eccentricity.

Gilligan didn't write or direct this one. I also think "occult" symbolism is a stretch. That's pretty standard (mainstream) symbolism since at least the Romans.

He doesn't *hate* him, certainly (either Jimmy or Saul). I think he understands Jimmy's doing what he needs to do (like it or not), which is what Mike does. Also want to add my vote to all those saying Michael McKean is doing an unbelievable job.

Literature teacher here, I know what barnacle means and how it is used! However, perhaps the author doesn't.

Guy doesn't actually give the impression of knowing much about him.

I can't tell if you're serious here, given that he's not yet 42 . . .

Of course barnacle is used here in a negative way, it means something corrosive that clings on to something else, as a barnacle does to the bottom of a ship. Every time White is mentioned in this article it's in a negative and meaningless way. No wonder folks are having to decide what Purdom means by it. Good thing…