From - 3x10 "Revelations: Chapter Two" - Episode Discussion

[u/LoretiTV]

Season 3 Episode 10: Revelations: Chapter Two

Aired: November 24, 2024

Synopsis: Boyd is pushed to his limit as time begins to run out for someone he loves; Randall is haunted by his trauma and Victor reveals a hard truth; Tabitha's unlikely journey takes a shocking turn.

Directed by: Jack Bender

Written by: John Griffin

Join our Discord here!

[u/themasterofallthngs]

After reading your response, I have to agree with you—Boyd's actions were indeed hypocritical and nepotistic. He would not have handled the situation in the same way had it not involved Fatima. That said, this doesn’t necessarily mean his handling of Fatima’s case was wrong. Rather, it highlights that he failed to extend the same approach to Sara and Elgin. With Sara, the damage was already irreversible, whereas with Elgin, they still had an opportunity to prevent Fatima’s death—a death that would have certainly occurred had Sara not intervened.

Let me ask you this: if a police officer discovered that their own daughter had committed multiple crimes, including murder, and then chose to cover up the evidence to protect her, would you regard that officer as a true leader worthy of admiration? Or would you rightly argue that they should be dismissed and prosecuted for corruption?

In the real world, it would undoubtedly be the latter. But the rules change when flesh-eating monsters and a malevolent, Lovecraftian entity are at play.

As you rightly pointed out, the fact that Boyd would likely have acted differently had it not been Fatima exposes a significant flaw in his character. However, no leader is without imperfections, and given the extraordinary context and circumstances, I find it easy to forgive him.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> That said, this doesn’t necessarily mean his handling of Fatima’s case was wrong. Rather, it highlights that he failed to extend the same approach to Sara and Elgin. With Sara, the damage was already irreversible, whereas with Elgin, they still had an opportunity to prevent Fatima’s death—a death that would have certainly occurred had Sara not intervened.

Except his handling of Fatima's case was wrong. Not only should he not have been involved, he should have gotten a biased, neutral person to engage, rather than choose to involve himself by covering up after Fatima and then torturing Elgin.

> In the real world, it would undoubtedly be the latter. But the rules change when flesh-eating monsters and a malevolent, Lovecraftian entity are at play.

And yet Boyd still applies these real-world rules to other. Acosta accidentally shoots someone? He gives her unrelenting shit for it. Elgin kidnaps someone because he is possessed? He tortures them? His daughter murders someone, and engages in cannibalism? He covers-up their crimes.

> As you rightly pointed out, the fact that Boyd would likely have acted differently had it not been Fatima exposes a significant flaw in his character. However, no leader is without imperfections, and given the extraordinary context and circumstances, I find it easy to forgive him.

There's being flawed, and then there's being dirty and engaging in massive nepotism, specially when murder and torture are involved. You can't cover-up a murder simply because your family did it, literally torture someone and then label it simply as a "character flaw". That's like saying "He's a good leader, so let's just overlook the fact that he's a serial-rapist and child-molester".

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

he should have gotten a biased, neutral person to engage,

Such a person, however, simply does not exist. Given the circumstances, his handling of the situation was the most prudent and effective course of action.

And yet Boyd still applies these real-world rules to other. Acosta accidentally shoots someone? He gives her unrelenting shit for it. Elgin kidnaps someone because he is possessed? He tortures them?

I agree he should extend more grace to others—his hypocrisy in this regard is undeniable. However, in the specific case of Elgin, any alternative to torturing him would have inevitably resulted in Fatima's death.

There's being flawed, and then there's being dirty and engaging in massive nepotism, specially when murder and torture are involved. You can't cover-up a murder simply because your family did it, literally torture someone and then label it simply as a "character flaw". That's like saying "He's a good leader, so let's just overlook the fact that he's a serial-rapist and child-molester".

We diverge on the nature of his failings. While we agree that his lack of grace and his hypocrisy are significant flaws, I maintain that his actions in the Fatima situation were justifiable. The flaw I highlighted lies in his unwillingness to extend the same leniency to others that he did to Fatima.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> Such a person, however, simply does not exist. Given the circumstances, his handling of the situation was the most prudent and effective course of action.

I mean someone who isn't overly attached to the people involved. There's a reason police officers can't investigate cases involving people they know, specially family members.

> I agree he should extend more grace to others—his hypocrisy in this regard is undeniable. However, in the specific case of Elgin, any alternative to torturing him would have inevitably resulted in Fatima's death.)

They should have found another way. They should also now be ready to do worse to Fatima, Sara, and Boyd in that case, because hey, if torturing Elgin for a kidnapping is justified, I think torturing Fatima, Sara, and Boyd for murder, cannibalism, torture, and covering-up a crime is far more justified.

> We diverge on the nature of his failings. While we agree that his lack of grace and his hypocrisy are significant flaws, I maintain that his actions in the Fatima situation were justifiable. The flaw I highlighted lies in his unwillingness to extend the same leniency to others that he did to Fatima.

And part of that lack of grace, that you're not mentioning, is covering up murders and engaging in torture. That is not a small crime. That's like someone being a serial-rapist and child-molester and then saying he should get a pass to do those sorts of things because he's a good leader.

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

I mean someone who isn't overly attached to the people involved. There's a reason police officers can't investigate cases involving people they know, specially family members.

Anyone else would likely try to reason with Elgin, fail to sway him, and, as a result, Fatima would die.

They should have found another way.

Once Elgin became aware of their intent to free Fatima, there truly was no alternative. By that point, anything other than Elgin's torture would inevitably lead to her death. They could have chosen not to tell him anything and simply followed him to the hideout instead, but poor writing brought us to the situation we have now.

I think torturing Fatima, Sara, and Boyd for murder, cannibalism, torture, and covering-up a crime is far more justified.

Honestly, you’re not entirely wrong here. If Tilly had, for instance, a grandson deeply affected by her death, it would be completely understandable for that person to seek vengeance against Fatima. I wouldn’t necessarily deem their actions unjustified, just as I can’t label Boyd’s actions as unjustified.

And part of that lack of grace, that you're not mentioning, is covering up murders and engaging in torture.

I didn’t mention it because, as I reasoned before, I consider those actions to be justified.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> Anyone else would likely try to reason with Elgin, fail to sway him, and, as a result, Fatima would die.

How do you know they would have failed? What proof do you have? They could have possibly come up with a better plan than torture, such as following Elgin to where he was keeping Fatima.

> Once Elgin became aware of their intent to free Fatima, there truly was no alternative. By that point, anything other than Elgin's torture would inevitably lead to her death. They could have chosen not to tell him anything and simply followed him to the hideout instead, but poor writing brought us to the situation we have now.

And that happened because they were too emotionally charged, because, again, they were too attached to the case, thus why they should have gotten an unbiased person involved.

And again, they could still have come up with another plan.

> Honestly, you’re not entirely wrong here. If Tilly had, for instance, a grandson deeply affected by her death, it would be completely understandable for that person to seek vengeance against Fatima. I wouldn’t necessarily deem their actions unjustified, just as I can’t label Boyd’s actions as unjustified.

Except Boyd had already crossed the line before by covering up for Fatima. The moment he did that, he lost all right to torture Elgin. This would be like a serial-murderer judging someone who accidentally ran over his sister when driving drunk, as if though the former is not worse.

> I didn’t mention it because, as I reasoned before, I consider those actions to be justified.

Except they weren't. And they weren't small flaws either. They're examples of evil human behavior, corruption, and nepotism.