The Mentalist Red Listed Review

Warning: Due to some technology issues, I couldn’t watch the episode as closely as I would have wanted -special thanks to Rose UK for filling some of the gaps. Hopefully I haven’t made any mistakes, but feel free to correct anything that might seem incorrect. 🙂


When Jane (Baker) and Lisbon (Tunney) meet FBI Agent Reede Smith (Drew Powell) where a body has been dumped, they learn that the victim was one of the killers Jane forced to confess years ago by burying him alive. Jane admits then to Lisbon that he had put his name on a fake list he created to trick the FBI, which he suspected was watching him when he was going over potential RJ suspects. Talking of the devil, suspicious Smith contacts no less mysterious Homeland Security Agent Kirkland (Kevin Corrigan) to share information on Jane.

Concise Verdict

Rebecca Cutter presented us with yet another thrilling and well-written episode, which offers an interesting measure of variety in the narrowing down of the RJ suspects. This season is proving to be one of the strongest of the show thus far: almost every suspect has been focused on and things are getting really seriously close to a solution, yet viewers still can hold to very little certitude. Plus Mrs Cutter added a very enjoyable note with the return of Hightower: unlike poor Sophie Miller, people from past episodes are not all to turning up dead, fortunately…

Detailed AKA Humongous Review (spoilers galore)

VIS # 1: the opening, Jane, Lisbon and Reede Smith at the crime scene

The very first moments of the show serve as a reminder of the undercurrent between the characters.
Indeed, right from the start the old hostility between the FBI and Jane is discernible: the agent in charge of guarding the crime scene only accepts to let them in because of Reede Smith and the man himself is less than friendly with them. This attitude is justifiable after the debacle with FBI Agent Darcy and Jane’s stubbornness in getting custody of his lover Lorelei, to the extent of pretending Reede’s partner Mancini was a mole.
On the other hand, Lisbon helpfully reminds viewers that he’s a RJ suspect and that she’s been having trouble hiding her defiance. The seriousness of the moment doesn’t deter the dynamic duo from bantering a little: Lisbon states “every time we go to see one of the Red John suspects, I get edgy”. Jane replies with a straight face: “really? I can’t tell…” which Lisbon half-believes (“really? Oh”). That bout of light teasing subtly alludes to the fact that Lisbon is a bad liar, she can’t hide her emotions and reactions because she’s an honest person at heart… which is pretty telling in an episode where liars are about to lie and to be lied to…

First, the body has been very symbolically placed under a bridge: the characters –and viewers- are indeed crossing a bridge in this episode, as some pretty crucial information is about to come up… Besides, Jane immediately identifies the corpse with his ring, a kind of signet or fraternity ring… an intriguing detail since the victim in ‘The Desert Rose’ had one too (and had swallowed it in order to have his body be identified). Therefore it seems that through those fraternity rings, the notion of belonging to a group is brought forward. But more on this later.

As Smith states, the victim is Aaron Marx, the murderer Jane buried alive in ‘Red Rover, Red Rover’, when he faked his breakdown after RJ taunted him on the anniversary of his family’s death. This man was a sociopath who killed an honest and trusting coworker by luring him into a metal coffin where he was left to die slowly; to put it simply, Jane did the same thing to him in order to get a confession, yet Wainwright labeled it as outright torture. Is that really illogical that Smith would try to link that past encounter to Jane’s analysis that he was “tortured for information”? Anyway, it’s obvious the dynamics between Reede and the infuriating consultant are very different from the slightly ironic gauging displayed by Sheriff McAllister: this time, there’s no humorous competition over the corpse about who is the more observant; Jane examines it while Reed watch him, not even trying to hide that the CBI consultant is a suspect… Pretty ironic start of a episode for the lead investigator of the Serious Crime Unit.

While leaving and returning to the attic, Lisbon senses that Jane is disconcerted and urges him to open up to her; he ends up admitting that he planted misinformation. He crafted a fake list of suspects during the previous season because he was under the impression that someone (the FBI) was watching him. He was right concerning agent Darcy who genuinely doubted him, O’Laughlin, his boss Alexa Schultz and maybe her other subordinate Mancini… What he doesn’t know yet is that it was Homeland Security Agent Kirkland who sent his men to break into the attic and stole that information… Still, the titbit Lisbon was bound to focus on is that, with his fake list, he “put the life of seven innocents in danger”; even if Jane amends that they are no innocents (he chose criminals as made up suspects), Lisbon refuses to turn a blind eye at his practical grey morality. When he playfully suggests she enjoys her case-free day by getting massage or a “mani pedi” – and that massage is by no way a wink to shippers, of course- she set things right: she wants to go and protect the six remaining people on the list which she insists he’s going to give her… Have no fear, dear viewer, Saint Teresa is on a mission!

VIS # 2: Jane visits Hightower’s aunt

When Lisbon and Jane discussed the possibility that the FBI may have been keeping tabs on him, they evoked their boss Bertram’s possible involvement. His position introduces the news about former CBI Special Agent Madeleine Hightower: Grace tells Jane that she died with her children in an accident in Mexico, during a vacation a few weeks ago.

A bit upset, Jane decides to pay a visit to Madeleine’s aunt, Ruby (which is a red stone, meaning that Jane is still following a lead to RJ). He’s bringing some white and purple flowers – lilies and hydrangea among others, in a sober and elegant bouquet appropriate to the sad circumstances. The detail is interesting, because it immediately and subtly sets him apart from any former coworker willing to show his respects, planting the seeds of the suggestion that he might have been Madeleine’s lover. Indeed, Jane has a plan. He doubts the reality of her death, which timing and conditions are too convenient and which doesn’t match RJ’s M.O., as he reveals to Lisbon afterwards (remember that the serial killer recently severed Sophie Miller’s head and put it in her oven, so a simple accident is a bit odd). He asks the older woman to write a message on the blog created in memory of Hightower and her children: “in death you have found new life, and I want to shout it from the mountain tops. I know in my heart, dearest Madeleine, that when sunset comes, I will find you waiting for me, in the heavenly gardens. Love, Patrick”… Under the powdering of words of love and religion, Patrick found here a very poetic way to basically say that she’s alive and hiding (maybe in the mountains, like she was in the cabin in ‘Strawberry and Cream’), and to ask her to meet him in the evening in the “Heavenly Gardens”, a Chinese restaurant…

Ruby is moved and calls him “you poor lamb”, adding “you were her sweetheart, weren’t you?” The lamb here is the counterpart of the tiger in Blake’s poetry: it symbolizes innocence and purity, in the same way pigeons contrast with birds of prey and hunters…

VIS # 3: Lisbon at Richard Haibach’s house

Meanwhile, Lisbon is still determined to protect the six remaining fake RJ suspects, even if it appears she’s the only one concerned by the security of those hardened criminals. She went as far as telling Cho « we’re not picking shoes » when it remarked those men were charged for rape, drugs and human trafficking: her morality is unwavering, because she believes in her charge to protect any person who might be in danger.

Following that logic, she finds herself at the door of a sex offender she suspected of being the San Joaquin killer in ‘Blinking Red Light’. One glimpse into his home proves that the man is still a delinquent, since he’s seen preparing a room for a little girl and, in case Blake Neely’s creepy melody doesn’t tip viewers off, the secret door he closes upon it indicates that he’s probably planning to kidnap a little girl and keep her here. The man is a pedophile about to act on his urges… It’s even worse than the darkened room Lisbon and Grace found in his house back then, which was full of suggestive photos of women taken in public places…

Again, that second confrontation between Lisbon and Haibach enlightens the ambiguity of the situation, which was already discernible when Cho and Rigsby almost arrested the man they were supposed to protect. Lisbon and Haibach in the same positions they were in during their very first meeting. Lisbon is at the door whereas Haibach refuses to let her in. It’s pretty ironic that in ‘Blinking Red Light’, Jane was coaching Lisbon into trusting her instincts in order to narrow down the list of suspects they had for the San Joaquin killer; now, he’s again on a list they’re trying to go through… which could have motivated Jane to chose him as a potential fake suspect. Plus the presence of that man on the phony list adds some credibility – the real San Joaquin killer, Panzer, was murdered by RJ. And the fact that he was the suspect Lisbon was focusing on may be relevant too: it looks like Jane was aiming for a form of justice when he chose the pretended suspects, as hinted with Marx, a sociopath so cold-hearted Jane called him “evil”, “vicious and heartless” and who he didn’t hesitate to use as the victim of his supposed breakdown… Besides, Marx too was linked to RJ, since he entered Jane’s life when he received RJ’s message on the anniversary of his family’s death. Therefore is that possible that, in addition of the fact they weren’t protected by the team, those two may have been more believable RJ suspects? In the same logic that RJ chose the meaningful name of Tagliaferro, it seems that those names might also relate to his persona. Beside the connection to Panzer, Haibach’s name alludes to Bach, RJ’s favourite composer. On the other hand, Marx may be a reference to Karl Marx, the theoretician of communism (associated with the color red). It may be a coincidence, but Miranda’s murder, investigated by Lisbon and Kirkland, also reminds a bit of both fake suspects’ crimes: she was raped (Haibach was planning to commit a sexual crime too) before she was left to die very slowly in an abandoned warehouse (Marx locked a man in a metallic casket and let him die).

Anyway, the ambiguity is even more evident when Lisbon talks to Jane over the phone. When she tells him she couldn’t convince the man, Jane retorts « would the world really miss him if something happens? » Lisbon answers that that is the difference between them: she does what she has to do selflessly without questioning it. Then when something happens and their would-be kidnapper is kidnapped, Lisbon is worried: “this is bad.” Jane is much more pragmatic: “Not really. It confirms that someone is going through my list to find RJ.” He refuses to divulge to Smith that the cases are connected and counters Lisbon’s protests that they can’t lie with a curt “we do it all the time.” Finally, he relents only asking her not to tell a word about the list, which reminds a bit of when he asked her not to tell the team about the real suspects. Again, those two are arguing about their different point of view over transparency and lies, following rules or following Jane’s cunning plans, and protecting people vs. protecting only those who deserve it.

VIS # 4: Smith and Kirkland meet up

On the other end of the investigation, Reede had called Kirkland to inform him that the case he’s working on is related to Jane (honestly, in this show the feds are very willing to share information with fellow big shots agencies. This is actually quite refreshing, lol… It’s also funny that RJ suspects are talking to each other all the time, yet they don’t tell Jane much…) What’s interesting is that Bob is walking out of a cabin in the woods – like the one Jane commented was the actual crime scene-, which makes him unsurprisingly the prime suspect for the murder. It’s not the first time Kirkland has been showing proclivities towards violence (offing Lennon in ‘Behind The Red Curtain’) and he’s showed interested in Jane in pretty much every one of his appearances. Smith’s reasons for contacting him are rather flimsy reason in retrospect even more given that he spent more time talking to Kirkland about the case than to Jane, his supposed suspect…

When they meet, their interaction shows that they only know each other professionally, and not all that well: Bob brought him a coffee but as he didn’t know his tastes, he took more than one. He explains « I like to cover all my bases », which makes him appear not only socially awkward but also calculating. Under the apparent professional respect, they’re both testing the waters, as Smith asks “what’s the deal with you and Jane?”, only to have Bob answer a vague “long story”. Now we know Smith is working for Alexa Schultz, it’s then possible that he knows about the surveillance on Jane.
The Homeland agent admits then that he’s been doing research on Reede too because there is another business he wants to discuss. And he takes the plunge: “Tyger, tyger.” Reed only looks baffled: “huh?” then he adds “I’m totally in the dark, here, would you fill me in?” Kirkland opens the lid of what should have been a major professional discovery: “Homeland Security began to suspect the existence of a powerful secret organization within California law enforcement”. Its members “protect each other with major cover up”, which allows them to “get away with murder”. He reveals that “tyger, tyger” not only a quote from Blake RJ seems to like, but a password between members of that organization. What many viewers have been suspecting for some time is therefore apparently confirmed: RJ is at the head of a vast criminal network, in a Moriarty-esque fashion, and we can guess he has a major role in it since it fits his Blake inspired philosophy, a conclusion Bob prudently refuses to out rightly draw in front of Reede… For it is obvious Kirkland has only been hiding behind his charge. Whatever he really wants from Smith, he is not willing to share to what extent he’s involved.

VIS #5: Hightower comes to see Jane

At night, at the Heavenly Gardens, Jane offers tea to a newly arrived disgruntled Hightower. It reminds of the coffee Bob and Reed had been sharing before in their own secret meeting: the game is afoot and each side is trying to gather information… Hightower is hiding and fears for her life, like she did when she too came to visit him discreetly in his motel room in ‘Strawberry and Cream’: indeed, she might again be targeted by RJ, as the red lights in the restaurant and red furniture suggest. Besides, there is a golden Chinese dragon that seems to be holding them in his clutches when she sits down (more on this later).

She explains that she knew the serial killer would be cleaning house after Lorelei –which is basically true, the psychic stunt only served to let Jane know he knew about the list and to try and hide the real reason behind Sophie’s death. She then quite reasonably feared she would be next.
Jane chooses this moment to ask for her help. She’s dubious, since she’s been out of law enforcement for years, but admits she’d been passing information to the FBI, like Minelli had done. She also discovered that her reports were passed to Kirkland in Homeland Security. This may be what Bertram had been doing too in ‘Red in Tooth and Claw’, minus the FBI help, when he let Bob spy on his meeting with Lisbon.

Last, Hightower asks Jane not to tell anyone that she’s alive, even Lisbon. This is pretty different from what she advised him to do in ‘Red Queen’ but that need for secrecy fits for Jane’s recommendations to Lisbon not to tell the team about the list, as well as it contrasts with Kirkland sharing information with Smith. Secrecy seems the essence of every carefully calculated move now…

VIS #6: Kirkland shows his true colors

While Jane connects the dots, Kirkland has been interrogating his prisoner. He has asked him the same thing than he asked to Lennon: “do you recognize me, have you seen me before?” He even asks him if he is RJ, hinting that he’s on a personal quest. Therefore, he was keeping tabs on a rival when he first asked information on Jane.

As a result of his talk with Hightower, Jane confronts Kirkland in the Homeland Security building. The man admits he has been watching him but despite still having the Lorelei/RJ case, he won’t confess to breaking in the attic. But Bob has suddenly grown impatient and decides to the chase: he kidnaps Jane when he is alone and vulnerable in the parking lot. Which is pretty amusing since earlier he had been investigating Jane’s fake kidnapping when the consultant helped her out of jail… Talk about karma… He even introduces Haibach to him by telling he wanted him to see
«the face of the man who got [him] into this mess ». Kirkland then proceeds to fill Jane in his “pet project”, while the scene is interspersed with how Hightower decided to take the matters into her own hands by calling Lisbon after realizing Jane may have done “something very dumb”…

Jane then tries to get Bob’s sympathy by playing on his emotions: he says that he’s hunting RJ just like him. Still, Kirkland remarks that it’s not the same as he points out: “I’m willing to kill seven people to get to RJ”, and when Jane tries to win some time by offering to work together, the other cuts him off by telling “only one will get his revenge”. But he starts telling his story: he had a twin bother named Michael and their father was “a sadistic drunk” who beat them and their mother out. Their mother left and Bob got out of there as soon as he could, but Michael stayed at home and watched their father drink himself to death, which lead him to drink too; Bob tried to help his addiction, but poor Michael fell prey to RJ who pretended to help him… Bob’s brother started drifting apart and he never saw him again. He’s sure the serial killer ended up murdering him (“in my heart, I know”)…

This story is very close to Lorelei’s (abandoning mother/ beloved sibling killed by RJ) and to Lisbon’s (alcoholic violent father, plus Michael took care of him like she did). Bob turned to the dark side – cold-blooded murder- like Lorelei, which deeply contrasts with Lisbon’s lawfulness and moral strength, particularly in this episode.

But Bob abruptly stops sharing about his past: “you’re not my therapist, I didn’t bring you here to talk”… He the starts threatening Jane with bodily harm and cut off Haibach’s thumb to convince Jane to now do his part of the sharing concerning his list… When hearing Haibach howling in pain, Jane relents: “this is hard for me, emotionally. I never said these names out loud to anyone.” Well, this is technically true, yet it’s obvious Jane was determined to protect Lisbon. It may explain why he did go talk to Kirkland alone: he wanted to keep potential information on RJ from her, but mostly he was probably trying to keep her safe from the man he suspected was a sadistic killer. Bob had gone out for coffee with her and taken part in one of her investigations: he knows that she’s close to Jane and he already had tried to test the waters with her…

Also, cutting thumbs reminds of the time Lorelei was told to cut off two of Jane’s fingers. For Bob, it’s a way to torture people in order to make them confess while it was meant as a punishment for Jane, yet the similarity in methods is telling: RJ and Bob are monsters, as the latter has become the monster he was hunting, a theme which was introduced in the Darcy arc some time ago.

Fortunately, Lisbon and Hightower save the day, thanks to Madeleine’s personal arsenal. As she’s freeing Jane, he teases her, telling she’s taking pleasure in this. She answers that he’s a pain in the ass but that she doesn’t want to be responsible for his demise. Then, she urges him to kill RJ, telling that next time she heard from him, it has to be to tell her RJ is dead… Jane thanks her with a kiss on the cheek. There are subtle flirting undertones between them (playing her “sweetheart” with her aunt, her warning him in the restaurant that she has a gun aimed at “something important under the table”, while sitting in front of him); it reminds of how familiar they’ve become after working together, especially the kiss, the second one he gave her. Madeleine’s complicity with Lisbon is visible too, since she doesn’t hesitate to contact Teresa by phone (she trusts her) and she teams up with her in a badass duo to save their wayward consultant. Those two could be easily imagined bonding over Madeleine’s children and scary huge military-looking firearms…

VIS #7: Kirkland’s demise

After Kirkland is arrested, Smith seems surprised that Homeland Security could be involved in such violent crimes. He doesn’t tell Jane about Bob’s revelations, but tries to makes up with Jane and shakes his hand. With McAllister, this is actually the second time knowingly touched the hand of one of his suspects after knowing that he had shaken hands with RJ before. Kirkland also parts with Jane after asking him to come visit him sometime: he’s confident Jane will finish his job. That makes him the second person suffering from collateral damage from RJ and who urged him to kill the man.
Later, as Bob is driven to jail, Smith stops the van to have a second secret meeting with him. This time, the positions are reversed, as Reede has clearly more authority. He resumes their talk about the secret organization Bob told him about and admits to being part of it. He obviously relied in his relatively unimportant position in the FBI and his ability to lie to hide this from Bob and then it’s no wonder he shows some pride when telling him that even he could get into it. He offers to a doubtful Kirkland the address of a safe house where another member would contact him, only to shoot him in the back once he started running. In case viewers hadn’t guessed he was on RJ’s side, he tells the password “tyger, tyger” to the guard who’s been quietly watching the scene. The other man replies with the same words. It’s becoming pretty obvious that whoever Smith is, he’s not small fish in RJ’s network, as it was hinted when he curtly asked Bertram what Jane really knew during their reunion in his office. And Bertram and McAllister may be on his team too.

Honorable Mentions

The writing was pretty good, Blake Neely’s music added a valuable creepy touch and the cast was as awesome as always. Kudos to everyone and a special mention to Kevin Corrigan, whose character held the right balance between chilling and unexpectedly reasonable, and to Drew Powell who was pretty convincing as a villain. Those RJ suspects are doing a fine job at getting more credible than we may have first thought…

Icings on the Cake

First, I’m glad Hightower got more than a simple mention and a body part stuffed into a kitchen appliance, blender, dishwasher or something. So glad…


Image by Chizuruchibi. Copyright Reviewbrain, November, 2013. Not to be used without permission.

It was also pretty enjoyable to track the various references to previous episodes, may it be about the two kidnapped criminals or subtler details like the stilettos Grace wore to seduce newly-wed Wayne, an allusion to the foot fetish and the heels she got from Jane in ‘Red Velvet Cupcakes’… it’s a nice way to flesh out a bit their intimacy.

Last, Jane asked an older woman to help him with a computer, because she was more knowledgeable than him. Obviously, it was a plot device to get him to say his message aloud for viewers to hear –and maybe to gauge Ruby’s reaction- but it was still amusing and refreshing to see that they played with the cliché of older people fearing technology.

Pet Peeves

– Is that normal that Kirkland got arrested like a normal criminal? He was a Homeland Security agent, so shouldn’t they have at least tried to handle this?

– Smith should have interrogated Jane more consistently, for he claimed to everyone that the man was a suspect. Of course, he knew he had nothing to do with the murder and only used the idea as a pretext to contact Kirkland in order to learn how much he knew about them, yet it was a bit too obvious. Not asking Jane more questions while he pretended to be investigating the case was rather suspicious.

– When she was told there was a fake list, Lisbon assumed there were seven names on it. The list was based on the crime board in his “office” before ‘Behind The Red Curtain’… How would Jane know he would end up with seven names in the real list so early in the season? Plus, if Kirkland was really after RJ, it was a rather stupid move to kill Lennon so soon without interrogating him further, even if he was trying to keep Jane from learning to much…


1) As Jane pointed out, they now have a very manageable list of five names.
– Two (Haffner and Bret) are Visualize members, a sect with many followers in law enforcement, just like that secret organization Kirkland talked about.
– The remaining three were having a more or less secret meeting recently and two of them had been relying information to Kirkland (who happened to be a threat for RJ). Plus, those are involved in the ominous poker games from last season: Reede was Mancini’s partner (who introduced Lisbon to those poker nights) and Bertram was a player. Not to mention McAllister’s wording of his taste for hunting anything with a face because “game’s game, right?”…
Yet, we can wonder how Jane is planning to deal with his more manageable suspects now… is he about to do something reckless ? Also, why does he not visit Darcy? That other vanished law enforcement officer may have some information on Reede, may she not?

2) A few characters have been comforting Jane in his project to kill RJ, like Bosco in his death bed for instance; but here two people in a row have told him to. There seems to be a shifting around him: RJ is beginning to seem so powerful that getting rid of him is starting to look like the only solution, which is a bit worrying for Jane’s morality. Even more Lisbon appeared as a very moral person in this episode. I hope that their differences in the conception of justice won’t end up breaking their bond…
To that matter, Kirkland’s similarity with Jane may be telling: both are driven by an obsessive revenge, yet Kirkland is much more determined and cold-hearted. As I said, we have a situation that reminds a bit of the difference with Lorelei: both she and Bob were emotionally crippled by their past and grief. After Lorelei lost the illusion RJ provided her with, both ended up alone, not daring to trust anyone completely: thus, they became monsters too by losing any sense of justice in order to gain revenge. The loss of their family made them victims, but they accepted to kill too, which kept them from seeking help even from someone like them (even though Jane would have used them, obviously); as a result, both were murdered when they were on the lam –ironically since Kirkland worked on Lorelei’s escape- that is to say when they were alone and no longer under the protection of the law. Jane has shown shades of the same darkness, nevertheless what makes a significant difference is the presence of affection in his life: his moral compass/partner Lisbon and the team to a lesser extent are here for him, both to care about him and to help him, whereas Kirkland had no ally nor friend. The only man he chose to trust murdered him in a traitorous manner. The contrast is even more tangible since Bob had been partnered with Lisbon too once, but he only saw it as an occasion to get information.
I also wonder who was the mysterious FBI Agent Nemo who took Lorelei to a high security prison: was it Kirkland or someone else?

3) Another intriguing titbit is that the Rigsbys’ married life –ok, their sex life- is a bit disturbed by their job. Rigsby even feels compelled to comment on it to Cho. While it is an interesting follow-up, I wonder if that slight annoyance isn’t foreshadowing for a later career development for the couple.

4) Lastly, the dragon at the Chinese restaurant may be an allusion to the Great Red Dragon from the Bible, featured in a four watercolour paintings from Blake. The dragon is mentioned in Book of Revelation (aka the Apocalypse) 12 and 13. The text is pretty telling, as commenter A.Anggraeni mentioned in the comments for ‘The Desert Rose’ review:

“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne […].
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.
When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. […]” (Rev. 12, 1-14)

Here, we have:

– the seven-headed red dragon (seven suspects initially) coming from the sea, an important theme for RJ;

– he’s eager to murder in order to “rule all the nations”, cf. RJ’s thirst for power.

– he’s defeated in a war and he and his “angels’ lost their place in Heaven (may that be meaning that RJ and his minions will be defeated and law enforcement agencies will be purged from their accomplices?)

-Bob Kirkland was fighting RJ’s evilness in his own way and his twin brother was named after God’s Archangel Michael.

– The dragon retreated to earth after being defeated and losing the woman to God and he’s angry because “he knows that his time is short”… which may or not be referred to by the fact that RJ felt threatened and defeated to some extent when he lost his influence on Lorelei and had to kill her. He reacted out of anger by sending that DVD to Jane because he feels his adversary is coming close…

– He’s defeated “by the blood of the Lamb”… Since Ruby called Jane “lamb”, I hope it doesn’t bode too ill for him… Too bad that would-be angel doesn’t “have wings” as he told to the killer in ‘Wedding in Red’… I’m also hoping that sentence “they did not love their lives so much/ as to shrink from death” won’t foreshadow a fatal issue for anyone in the SCU.

– Also, it’s probably a stretch, yet it’s intriguing that the women was given eagle wings to flee from the dragon at the end, given that birds are pretty present these last two seasons…

The Bible also tells (Rev. 13, 1-8):

“The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?” The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”

And (Rev, 13, 11-18):

“Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.”

Again, there seem to be many allusions to those passages in the show:

– RJ accused Jane of “slandering” his name in the media. He placed himself as God.

– The cult-like philosophy used by RJ may be an allusion to the worshipping;

– in the empty house where Lisbon was targeted, there was the number 666 and she “received” RJ’s mark on her “forehead” (the smiley).

– Like commenter Rose UK remarked there are two beasts under the dragon’s influence. The leopard-like one, who blasphemies the name of God, and the second one, lamb-like, who deceived people by getting them to worship the first one. I don’t know if that’s relevant for the show storyline, but I wonder if some characters couldn’t fill those roles: the red dragon could be either the secret organisation (provided that RJ is only one of his powerful members and not its master) or a charismatic leader hiding behind the scenes (like Bret Stiles or even the sect Visualize as a whole, which might control said organisation). Then, the leopard-beast, or tiger in our case, might be RJ, or at least the serial killer(s) who impersonates him… leaving the role of the more inoffensive looking beast to some person who could recruit new members. Or those functions might be held by one man alone and then it could referred by Betram’s “I’m many things to many people”… Funny thing too that there were three suspects in that little meeting in Bertram’s office, by the way. 😉

And now, I’m left wondering if Jane wanting a pet dragon when doing the matchmaking video in ‘Every Rose Has Its Thorns’ could have been foreshadowing…

No best quotes this time as this review is already pretty long… Feel free to share your personal favorite in the comments! Thanks for reading! 🙂


72 responses to “The Mentalist Red Listed Review

  • estaticaa

    Oh, wow. I am completely blown away by this review. If possible, I think it made me even more hyped up to see the next episodes than I already am. Bravo, Violet!

    I loved this episode, particularly Kevin Corrigan’s performance. Someone has probably already said this before in previous reviews, but he must be one of the most underrated actors ever!

    Kirkland’s character was always so ambiguous that even the clues we were given in the past (Jane reading Dicken’s “Tales of Two Cities” did suggest that he had a twin and that his only redeeming quality was love; Kirkland drinking the same drink as Jane, suggesting they were on the same path for revenge, etc.), even all that couldn’t have prepared me for what we have learned in this episode.

    A part of me would very much like to see the actor again, because his acting is flawless… even if he plays Michael next time, although it is very much implied that he is indeed dead. The expression Kirkland used to explain why he thought Michael was murdered by Red John reminded me Jane in 4×11 (Always Bet on Red) when he faked the suicide letter. Kirkland says: “In my heart I knew.” Like Jane, despite all the cool tricks and use of their brain, both men often base their decisions based on what is in their heart.

    Also, I felt the episode showed us how Jane would have been if he never had Lisbon at his side. Although it’s true that he isn’t particularly worried about the people being murdered based on his fake list, he himself doesn’t see himself as a murderer and refuses to kill innocent people to get to Red John. Kirkland doesn’t understand this logic and his approach is much simpler. He clearly let himself turn into a monster to satisfy his need for revenge, but Jane hasn’t. Or at least, he hasn’t yet.

    Another thing I found interesting is how Kirkland allowed himself to be shot in the back while running, just to accommodate Smith’s wish “actually I prefer if you ran… you know, protocol.” Much like he allowed Smith to choose his beverage and pick the one he didn’t want. I think it speaks volumes about his self sacrificing nature. 🙂

  • Carla Oliveira

    Thanks, Violet. I was looking forward to read your review of this amazing episode. I will read this calmly later.

  • mosquitoinuk

    Great review Violet! Thank you to the both of you and Reviewbrain for keeping up with the punishing rhythm of the show. Thanks to Rose as well for her help.

    I have very few things to add, but I’d like to mention 2 things:

    -when Kirkland met Reed, he had not 2 but 3 coffees. I thought that was a bit odd. You’d typically buy 2 coffees and go with whichever the other person didn’t choose. Was he expecting someone else? Or perhaps this detail is not important.

    -in the excerpts you mention from the book of Revelations, a woman is the one that gives birth to the saviour and she is about to be eaten by the dragon but she escapes. This could very well refer to Lisbon. I have always though that Lisbon will be crucial in getting Red John. The spotlight has been on her for a while now and she is at the top of the ‘in grave danger’ list. In fact, after a lot of consideration, I’m pretty much convinced that it was the real RJ that killed Partridge and ‘marked’ Lisbon. Of course, the women could be Hightower as well. You mention that a Chinese dragon was behind Hightower in that Chinese restaurant. I personally think Hightower is particularly awesome, incredibly intelligent, smart, tough but fair AND she was well connected. Will she ‘give birth’ (metaphorically speaking) to the clue that will tell Jane for good who RJ is?

    A final thought: we believe that Tyger Tyger refers to the organisation led by RJ. I wonder if this is something different…

  • zee

    Hello Reviewbrain and Violet,

    A great conspiratorial episode that you have wonderfully dissected there! I’m quite upset Kirkland was slayed that way. (I was really taken by Corrigan’s portrayal of Kirkland.)

    Really loved the biblical references to this episode and it resonates well into future occurrences. But what if these Great Dragon references are applicable to the past of Red John too?

    Quote “he’s defeated in a war and he and his “angels’ lost their place in Heaven (may that be meaning that RJ and his minions will be defeated and law enforcement agencies will be purged from their accomplices?)”

    I think some seasons back, in a Visualize-centric episode, Brett Stiles mentioned that he knew Red John and hinted that he’s a fellow worshiper who’s a black sheep and got kicked out of Visualize. Maybe that is roughly around the time he got to Michael Kirkland too…(I’m not sure I can gauge the timeline correctly though, so these are just thoughts from the top of my head…)

    My pet peeve is the Tyger Tyger getting overused and it’s slightly bordering on juvenile segregation. But I am really looking forward where this takes us! Thanks Violet 🙂

  • Rose UK

    Great, really thorough review, Violet! (And I’m not just saying that cos I got a shout-out, lol. Thanks, by the way!) 😉 Many, many great points and links there – hard to know where to start…

    I love your deductions about the dragon – it’s all coming together very neatly. Especially as I found out that William Blake did a painting entitled “The Great Red Dragon and the Beast from the Sea”. Not to mention the fact that in Chinese philosophy, a dragon symbolises “yang” whilst a phoenix means “yin”. So ONCE AGAIN we have a reference to yin/yang, twinship, and the existence of balancing forces/natural dualities. And finally… The natural enemy of the dragon is considered to be… (drum roll, please!)… a tiger. 😉 Am I reading too much into this; can’t be a coincidence, surely?!

    Another literary reference I noticed was Kirkland’s mention of a “Comedy of Errors”… This Shakespeare play is all about twins separated at birth and cases of mistaken identity. Genius, writers. 😉 Also on that subject, do we finally have an answer for Kirkland’s repeated question: “Do you know me? Have you seen me before?” – he was probably referring to his twin. Of all the theories we fans came up with, I don’t think I saw anyone suggest this! Seems so simple with hindsight… And we get a nod to the speculation about long-lost family, Kirkland possibly being Jane’s brother – only the writers turned it on our heads!!

    Again, lots of fire motifs/imagery (blowtorch, burning, etc.) that has cropped up throughout the seasons… Interesting you mention Blinking Red Light as well, because that motif reappeared as well (at least in terms of a red light).

    I’ve got so much to say/questions to ask, but I’m going to try and post now to try to outwit moderation!

    Thanks again, Violet! That review must have taken some time, for which it is much appreciated. 🙂

  • Rose UK

    Darn it, my first post already got lost in moderation. 😉

    Ok, this post will be devoted to my questions…!

    – What do we make of Bertram’s meeting with Kirkland last season now?? When K asked of Lisbon “Can we trust her?” Is Bertram playing a double bluff game?

    – How come Jane didn’t push for more info when K was being driven away? What with all the previous minion deaths/RJ “cleaning house” I was surprised he didn’t insist on a bit of info there and then.

    – Is Jane slowly coming round to Lisbon’s pov in terms of moral code? I liked the call-backs to previous guest stars and ‘criminals of the week’, particularly as it resumed the discussion of Jane’s attitude towards vengeance and justice. Initially, it seemed as if nothing had changed on that score, but then we saw that he couldn’t cope with someone – even a bad man – being tortured right in front of him. The reality of it was different.

    – Why did VP kind of pause when Lisbon asked her to ping Jane’s phone? Was it just cos she was a bit uncomfortable with the idea of it?

    – Is Michael Kirkland still alive!?

    And finally, not a question: Kirkland. Well, he turned out to be quite the unhinged delight, didn’t he! Best line: “Seatbelt, please.” Brilliant. A murdering oddball with a keen sense of vehicular safety. Corrigan was so excellently creepy, with such great scenes with SB, and I’m so bummed Kirkland got offed the way he did.

  • Rose UK

    Sorry, I forgot more questions:

    @ Violet: Could the ‘mark’ also refer to the password ‘Tyger Tyger’? Your quote was “It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark” ~ We saw that there was even a very low-level ‘member’ (the driver), so maybe this would support the idea that the ‘inner circle’ of these associates (whether RJ-linked or not) are able to operate in their spheres of business or government because they bear the special ‘mark’ that allows them to move freely in this secret underworld.

    @ Last season, Kirkland warns Lisbon off the Volker case, saying that he’s a “big contributor to a lot of campaigns” – do we think Volker might reappear as part of this group??

    Sorry for all the posting, but this episode has really, really done my head in!

  • rita

    Excellent review Violet, and lots of food for thought, thank you for battling technology to do this!

    I really enjoyed the episode, and have watched it numerous times, but STILL managed to miss lots of the pieces that you explained.

    I WAS great to see Hightower again, and whole and complete, and not missing any important pieces, Her and Lisbon worked so well together, In my ‘Post RJ’ universe, she is invited back to head up CBI if it still exists…..OK look it is MY universe!!!

    LOVED the line that she had a gun ‘pointed at something important’ it made me laugh out loud.

    In fact Rebecca Cutter managed to come up with a very dark and thrilling episode with lots of implied gore ( we never actually SEE the thumb being cut off….I didn’t realise that until the second viewing!!) but also filled with some lighter funny moments….Jane teasing Lisbon about hiding her feelings in front of suspects, the banter between Cho and Rigsby, and the Van Pelt/Rigsby scenes.

    Thank you for pointing out the oddity (for me) when Jane said to Kirkland that he had never said the names out loud (and yes now you come to mention it HE has never actually recited the list)….it hadn’t occured to me that he would be trying to protect Lisbon, but I think that you are right…he knows that she wouldn’t be able to lie to Kirkland (she is too honest and transparent) and of course, if Kirkland took her to try to find the names, he would HAVE to kill her…..I found it interesting that Jane DOES have some morals….it hadn’t occured to him to kill everyone on HIS list to get to the real RJ….Lisbon is having some good influence then! I think that, the people for whom he HAS responsibility for killing, in his eyes ‘deserved’ it in some way, they were not innocent, just not perhaps guilty of being RJ, and that is all he is interested in. Yes a bit twisted, but morality of a sort. As you say Kirkland hasn’t got a ‘Lisbon’ to hold him to morality.

    I think that Kevin Corrigan played Bob Kirkland perfectly, just the right amount of creepiness. His looks were perfect too….his skin seemed so pale in contrast to his very black hair, almost like the way Dracula was portrayed on screen in the old films…..he would be perfect as the prince of the undead!! I kept on expecting him to wear a black cloak, do a really creepy chuckle and turn into a bat and fly away!!….the whole illusion was blown away as soon as they put him in prison orange….he just looked a tired, beaten older man….mortal in fact whereas before, he was almost invincible.

    Heck this is turning into a novel…no doubt it will cause the board to self destruct and I’ll never see this comment again!! Looking forward to reading everyone elses comments, and finding even more bits I’ve missed.

  • rita

    Ooo had another thought….yes I’m impressed too!!

    I always assumed from the scene where Bertram had Kirkland hidden while he was talking to Lisbon, that they were both in this shady organisation within Law enforcement……then…. there was the scene with MacAllister, Smith and Bertram together in Bertram’s office and THEY were obviously in this organisation….but THEN Kirkland confronts Smith in the park about the organisation (maybe it deserves captial letters by now!!) So… question….was Kirkland in….or out…..and if he WASN’T in…..why not? (I would have thought he would be an obvious candidate) and if he WAS….how come Smith didn’t know him?…..

    Bruno….my head hurts!!

  • mosquitoinuk

    Thank you very much for your review Violet (& Rose). I’m forever grateful that you and Reviewbrain keep up with a rather punishing schedule to write reviews weekly 🙂

    I wrote a long comment that was swallowed by WordPress (grrr…) so here I go with a summary. Two things:

    1.- I found rather odd that Kirkland went to see Reed with 3 coffees. Not 2 (which is what you’d usually do) but 3. This was either to highlight the oddity that Kirkland was or because he was expecting to see someone before Reed who didn’t show up perhaps? Food for thought.

    2.- With regards to the biblical reference to a ‘woman’ who will escape the Dragon but will give birth to the Saviour, I can see two options: Lisbon or Hightower.
    – Lisbon has been ‘marked’ by RJ this season and been a focal point for a long while now. There is a lot of interest in Teresa. She might be in danger but ultimately escape the ‘Dragon’ (RJ) and lead to its demise.
    – Hightower: I personally think Hightower is absolutely AWESOME; she’s extremely intelligent and intuitive, she’s smart, badass and fair. I LOVE her (and so does Patrick, BTW). She could be the woman that will escape the Dragon but will give birth (in a metaphorical sense) to the slayer of the Dragon. She is not only intelligent, she’s well connected, perhaps she’ll give Jane THE key clue?. I just thought of that when Violet wrote there was a Chinese Dragon behind Hightower in that Chinese Restaurant. A hidden clue? a red herring?

  • Rose UK

    My head hurts too, Rita. 😉

    I’m thinking that Kirkland was aware of some kind of group (presumably linked to RJ) operating within law enforcement, but didn’t know who the members were. He intimated to Smith that he had allies in his own investigation – possibly meaning Bertram. That’s why I wondered if Bertram was playing a double-bluff game: on both sides at once…

  • Rose UK

    @ Mosquito: I love Hightower too! Love your thoughts on who the ‘saviour’ might be. 😉

    Re: swallowed comments – I’ve noticed that whenever my posts disappear (two so far today, lol!) it often coincides with when someone else has posted at presumably roughly the same time…

    I’m bursting for my comments to materialise, so at the risk of annoying everyone with repetition:

    – Kirkland mentions in passing a “Comedy of Errors” – it’s a Shakespeare play about twins!

    – The dragon has a lot of interesting symbolism regarding yin/yang. And Blake again. 😉

  • chill

    First, at the initial crime scene, if you told me that Jane and Lisbon went to the crime scene straight from her apartment I would not be surprised. Just a vibe.

    In the Chinese restaurant scene, I found the initial framing of Jane and Hightower by a dragon room divider(?) to be most interesting. Is Hightower tied to the dragon? is the dragon watching them? Clutching, as Violet interprets, was not my first thought, though clearly a valid one.

    I thought that Hightower’s comment about where she was pointing the gun was more of a foreshadowing of something Jisbon-y coming along. Hightower, I think, is the only character to step into Jane’s personal life (that classic little scene from 2×22) so I tend to head in that direction.

    The quote from Ruby was “you poor lamb, you were a little sweet on her weren’t you?”

    Haibach — super creepy intro and provides some cover for Jane’s comment about no one missing Haibach is something happens to him.

    I have more for later, but one more thing after saying I enjoyed Violet’s review and religious and other symbols and references and those from the comments so far.

    rita: “Is Jane slowly coming round to Lisbon’s pov in terms of moral code? I liked the call-backs to previous guest stars and ‘criminals of the week’, particularly as it resumed the discussion of Jane’s attitude towards vengeance and justice. Initially, it seemed as if nothing had changed on that score, but then we saw that he couldn’t cope with someone – even a bad man – being tortured right in front of him. The reality of it was different.”

    I wonder if Hightower’s actions (staging her and her family’s death, having that stash of guns) coupled with her experience in the house with Partridge, isn’t adjusting Lisbon’s view to be closer aligned with Jane’s regarding the RJ “exit strategy”?

  • steven

    You made one mistake regarding Bob and Micheal’s mother. She didn’t leave but rather committed suicide by slicing herself with a razor. Which is interesting because that’s RJ MO. Killing women by cutting them. Also the biblical references could be that Visualize is heaven and that RJ was cast out of it. There has been a nagging feeling in me for awhile that RJ and the conspiracy are at war with each other. IDK i might be wrong about that but that would explain a lot though

  • Carla Oliveira

    I have no words to you Review, Violet. I loved it . Thanks. You are Always amazing. The relation with Revelation is perfect.
    My points:
    Why RK killed Lennon without asking him who RJ is? He should wait Lennon recover and torturing him for information.

    RJ is not necessarily the head of the organization to me. BH had said RJ is common man, which revelation might let viewers down.

    Kirkland took Jane after knowing the list was fake.

    Kirkland is willing to kill six innocent people to catch RJ; Jane is not. He want to kill only RJ.

    He cut Haibach finger and not Jane’s because the former is a criminal.
    Anyone of the five suspects can be RJ.

    Jane and Lisbon: I’m afraid that their differences in the conception of justice won’t end up breaking their bond.

    Jane is not a monster yet because his love for Lisbon, only.

    The married/sex life of Rigspelt is annoying to me. I don’t care about it.

    Michael Kirkland may be alive and appears (“Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.”)

  • mosquitoinuk

    @Rose: we should start the ‘Hightower fan club’. Surely Jane would be honorary member 🙂 . Very clever the ‘comedy of errors’.

    @Steven: I also thought that RJ and the conspiracy might be orthogonal, not aligned. We are led to believe by Bruno Heller & Co that they are one and the same but WHY did Partridge say anything to Lisbon and WHY, oh why, was he killed by RJ if they are both part of the ‘same’ team?

    Which begs three questions then:

    Was he killed because he discovered the conspiracy? Or
    Was he killed because he was a RJ minion and the one in that house wasn’t RJ but someone from the ‘Tyger’ cabale? Or
    He was killed by RJ because he was part of the cabale?

    Why did Partridge go to that house anyway? Is not like there was anyone living there…he was either called to the place or taken there after being abducted somewhere else.

    So many questions…

  • mosquitoinuk

    Should be ‘cabal’ not ‘cabale’ sorry…

  • Rose UK

    Oh blimey, I can’t figure this out. So, Steven & Mosquito, your idea is that the cabal IS shady in some way or other, but that RJ is *not* its mastermind? Did they ‘create’ him for some reason, then? To do their dirty work, to distract from their real operations, to bloke smoke in the public’s face? (Working on what I wrote in the Desert Rose comments, about the Wizard of Oz idea and appearing to ‘give breath’ to the beast.) Or was he a member that went rogue, stealing their password as he did so? So now they have to protect his identity in order to protect their own existence?? And Visualise know all this…

    @ C Hill: I hope to high heaven that Lisbon retains her moral code. 😉 Her adherence to it, her belief, is what I like about her. And actually, I think Jane does too, judging by his wide smile when she says “And that’s the difference between you and me.”

    @ Mosquito: The Hightower-Jane relationship is very intriguing, I agree. There was always a little frisson there, I thought. (And I say that as a J/L shipper!) I think she prided herself on her bad-assery and immunity to manipulation, but he played his naughty-good-little-boy act on her to perfection. And she fell for his charm – and knew that she did – hence her wry approach with him.

    @ Carla: Yes, I thought the Rigsby/VP stuff was a little oddly placed in this episode. I couldn’t figure out if it was just filler, or whether all the love/sex stuff was supposed to display the heaven before some kind of hell…

    Thought it was nice symmetry that K thought J was RJ, and vice versa.

    And finally: great pay-off for the commenters who suggested the camera angle/surveillance idea aaaaaages ago. *Gives round of applause*

  • III Frogs

    Thanks for a great review! I just have to lob one in here that I thought was so much fun before I read the rest of the comments . . .

    Call me a goofball, but I really enjoyed Kirkland with his shears, hamming it up three stooges style, saying, “Why, I oughta . . . ” just like Moe would have. Ha! It was right after he figured out “Don Turtmee.” Oh man, what a moment for humor, right? And such a reference! ha! Excellent.

  • chill

    @RoseUK I think deep down LIsbon knows that RJ is not going to trial. I think at the end of the day she’ll be OK with it. She can still be the moral compass — as it’s been said a couple of times on TM already — “(s)he had it coming” — even if RJ is killed.

    also, I was one that noted at the time that Jane did something to his board before the break in. I’m quite happy that bit was kept for continuity. I suspect they kept the number at 7 to make it easier on the viewers? Clearly Jane didn’t have it to 7 at that time.

    The bit I referred to in 2×20 was when Hightower presses Jane about dating. When Jane, confused because Lisbon and Frye are in a closed room, asks Hightower which one is likes him, Hightower answers “the blonde one”. She sure wasn’t going to say Lisbon after she fried Rigsby and Van Pelt!

    I’d guess that Hightower is a Jibson shipper, though she, like a goodly number commenting here 🙂 ), finds Jane far more attractive and charming than she possibly imagined after first meeting him. Coincidentally, I had the same reaction to the Hightower character — didn’t like at first but now a favorite.

    As far as if there’s a RJ vs the Cabal thing going on, I’m not sure. However, *if* Michael Kirkland is alive and working for RJ, then the idea that Michael killed Partridge becomes interesting. Partridge was tortured and bound with white plastic ties just like Jane and Haibach. Coincidence or a similarity between twins? Was this the clue Heller hinted about after 6×01?

    Definitely a lot going on in this episode. Violet and others have given me something to think about until tomorrow evening.

  • III Frogs

    @Rose UK, I loved that smile after “That’s the difference between you and me,” too. It carried with it the implication that Lisbon is the boss and will decide the matter. Jane smiling so fondly at that really warmed my heart. They’ve been through a lot and are really becoming comfortable with how their partnership works.

    I agree with you, @Carla. Ugh! Why did we have to see VanPelt parading around in her underwear? It was awkward and out of character, really out of character for T M, not just VP. I think it was just to wave a salacious distracting substitute for the real romance that needs to be developed between the main characters. Instead, we keep getting this substitute relationship (a friend on Twitter calls it an “alibi ship”) between lesser characters that it’s hard to find anyone really cares about that much anymore. It definitely annoys me.

    @C Hill, I fully expect to see Haibach turn up in another episode down the line since he was hollering threats of revenge to Lisbon and/or Jane as he was loaded into the ambulance, saying “It’s not over,” or something like that. Now he’s burn-scarred and without a thumb, make it harder to attract the kiddies. Probably won’t be off to prison since Kirkland captured him before he had his next victim.

  • mosquitoinuk

    RoseUK wrote:

    “So, Steven & Mosquito, your idea is that the cabal IS shady in some way or other, but that RJ is *not* its mastermind? Did they ‘create’ him for some reason, then? To do their dirty work, to distract from their real operations, to bloke smoke in the public’s face? (Working on what I wrote in the Desert Rose comments, about the Wizard of Oz idea and appearing to ‘give breath’ to the beast.) Or was he a member that went rogue, stealing their password as he did so? So now they have to protect his identity in order to protect their own existence?? And Visualise know all this… ”

    I cannot figure out for the life of me what is going on between RJ and the cabal but after Partridge was killed, I do not think they are on the same side. It might be a split within Visualize members as you suggest and this is really plausible. This would all make much more sense if we knew what the motivations of RJ are to be honest. But this is perhaps the crux of the issue: RJ was never like Panzer, choosing pretty girls or whatever because of an insane mind. RJ is ‘something’ that targets…what exactly? the vulnerable, the ones that are suffering…very much like Visualize. What for, though?

    @chill: This ‘Michael’ issue isn’t over in my opinion. It came up already last season when Kirkland killed Lennon is the hospital, it came up strongly in this episode and there is the biblical Michael Violet wrote about. If BH wanted to create a good motive for Kirkland to kill RJ he just needed to bring up a girlfriend, a brother, a parent, whatever…but they decided to write his revenge story around a twin. As literary artifacts go, this isn’t something you bring up lightly in my humble opinion and believe you me, I’m no writer. There is a very good reason to use the ‘twin’ card. This is a means to an end and I bet we’ll see Michael soon.

    Looking forward to the next episode!

  • Carla Oliveira

    Thanks, @Frogs. I’m glad I’m not alone. This whole Rigspelt annoys me. I don’t care if they got married or not. It seems a consolation prize to me . Sorry, who likes this Rigspelt stuff. I’m done!

  • KM

    Thank you for the wonderful review!

    I suppose I’m the voice of dissent about Hightower. I just see someone who punishes an innocent as manipulative and a user. And, that is exactly what she did at the CBI. She informed Jane that he was “golden” and apart from murder he would not have to personally suffer consequences. She made Lisbon the scapegoat. Lisbon was made to suffer for Jane. She was even suspended for 5 days (if memory serves). Which one could say has its own foreshadowing. At the vary least it makes one wonder about how far Hightower would use and manipulate someone to accomplish her goals; and if as a mother does she punish her daughter when her son disobeys. That, and Jane enjoys manipulative women.

    Biblically Christ is presented as both the lamb and scapegoat of God. As savior he bore not just the punishment, but also physically removes the sin from the sinner On the Day of Atonement, when the high priest went once a year into the holy of holies to offer sacrifices for the sins of his family and for all the people, two goats were brought before him. By lot, one was chosen to be “for the Lord.” This goat was slain as a sin offering, and its blood was sprinkled to help cleanse the altar, the sanctuary, and the tent of meeting from defilements of the past year.
    The second goat was said to be “for Azazel.” The word Azazel is usually interpreted to mean “the goat of removal,” or scapegoat. (However, the term may also refer to a rocky place in the desert or to a demon of the desert.) By laying his hands on the goat’s head, the priest transferred the sins of the people to it and then had the goat led away into the desert, picturing the removal of the sins. Also see: Exodus 28:38; Numbers 18:22; Leviticus 16:8; Leviticus 16:8,16:10; Leviticus 16:10,16:26; Psalm 38:4; Proverbs 20:30; Isaiah 53:4-5, 53:11; Matthew. 8:17; John 1:29;Acts 5:30; Romans 6:2, 6:11; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 2:24.

    I guess I’m more inclined that if any female is supposed to “birth the savior” that it would be Lisbon. As she was the one that offered Jane a way to use his skills (100th episode) and made him part of her team. She (and the team) is what prevents Jane from becoming a Lorelei or Kirkland.

    Only other fascinating thing I noticed was that the memorial web sight had Hightower and her family dying in July 2012. Is this a typo? Or is it implying that The Mentalist is presently set in 2012, and we might find ourselves fast forwarded to 2013 post RJ?

    Thank you again for the wonderful review!

  • Carla Oliveira

    I’m a dissenter about Hightower too. I don’t see all this qualities on her and I don’t forget that she bedeviled Lisbon’s life and, maybe sensing the proximity between them as some threat, gave him that “great idea “of him going out with that conwoman, Khristina Fry. But everyone here loves her, so sorry.

  • III Frogs

    @KM and @Carla Well, well, well. I have to make it three. No fan of Hightower, never was, never liked her manner. Only recently was helped to figure out why in discussion with KM in another setting. She used Lisbon to control Jane. People who mistreat Lisbon because they have no care of her, no feeling or disrespect her, get scratched out of my good graces in T M. I know a lot of people really like her and some even ship her and Jane. But she’s a nasty piece of work in by book.

  • Carla Oliveira

    @Frogs, Oh! The number is increasing. I hope I don’t turn out in an inquisitorial bonfire hating both Hightower and RigsPelt.

  • III Frogs

    You and me both, @Carla! Just our opinion, after all. 🙂

  • bloomingviolet2013

    III Frogs wrote « I agree with you, @Carla. Ugh! Why did we have to see VanPelt parading around in her underwear? It was awkward and out of character, really out of character for T M, not just VP.»

    Well, yes and no… Remember Summer? The first glimpse we got of her showed as much skin as Van Pelt and she kept appearing in her bra once or twice. Same with Lisbon, who I believe has been seen in more revealing clothes than Grace until now, paradoxically: in a white sport bra right after Bosco was shot, then in two different jerseys which showed her legs/shoulder. There was also that blackmailing seductress/call-girl with the rose tattoo (in ‘Every Rose Has Its Thorns’, I think) who jumped on Wayne and who wore close to nothing… Plus one shirtless Rigsby in ‘Blood Brothers’ -and even if he was fully clothed, Cho was sexy and dressed up in ‘Crimson Casanova’… And the three men in the show have shot bedroom scenes that showed a bit of skin. Not so out of character then, it seems. 🙂 And I can’t believe I’ve managed to keep tracks of that kind of details, lol…

    On a side note, now that I think about it, I’d say that, all in all, the less often sexily/scantily-clad character in the cast may be Jane: except for the “morning after” Lorelei, he only wore pajamas, a hospital gown and an opened shirt when the fire fighters were saving him ,which showed a bit more than what can be seen with his suit…

    About Hightower, I admit I was no fan of her either at first, but she grew on me, first in ‘Red Gold’ when she shot that guy in the head only to tell Jane she was aiming for the head (that line was great), then in ‘Red Queen’, obviously… She made an error of judgment when she arrived at CBI, because she must have heard of Jane and she thought that a) he was a valuable asset and was manageable with the right pull and b) Lisbon was responsible (after all, we know now that she *chose* him as her consultant), therefore she had to suffer the consequences of her lack of control over her subordinate. She was trying to teach them a lesson, before realizing progressively that she had it all wrong and that it would be more productive to work with them instead of trying to get them on a leash. That’s more or less the same kind of mistake Luther did when he arrived: he couldn’t handle Jane and his mind games either. His errors were different from Hightower, he was a bit less assertive at first and was disconcerted and angry when Jane tested his limits. Being the boss of such a team must be very difficult: it was easier for Minelli because he was their boss before Jane came in the picture (therefore he had no illusion about the “golden” consultant), plus Lisbon genuinely liked and respected him as a person, not just as her boss. And the feeling was mutual, obviously: he knew that Jane’s behavior had nothing to do with her supposed lack of authority.
    Madeleine is also a flawed person; she was ambitious, rough on Lisbon whose kindness she’d mistaken for weakness. She cheated on her husband which only resulted in the death of her lover killed by RJ minion Todd Johnson, the ruin of her couple (at least it has not helped even if they had problems before) and the loss of her job and security.
    Yet, I like her now, because she has grown indeed: she protected her family and tried to help Jane at the same time, twice. She didn’t choose one over the other, she tried to do the right thing both for her family and for justice. She could have easily ignored Jane’s pleas in his motel room, or chosen not to call Lisbon. And she’s smart: she’s the only one so far except for Jane who has managed to escape RJ’s clutches and stayed alive. This has to count for something. 🙂

    (Thanks for your great comments, III Frogs, Carla and KM! I have many, many more things to say, but I’ll save them for later when I’ll try to catch up with the great points that have been made. Anyway, I’m very glad everyone seems to like the review, I was a bit nervous about it… and I’ll try to change the mistakes I made, thanks a lot for pointing them out, Steven and C Hill. I guess watching the episode only once because of those “technical issues” and relying on my notes wasn’t a flawless plan after all… :P)

  • Carla Oliveira

    Any Risgpelt stuff annoys me. No matter what. I like them but, not as a couple. Only my taste. About Hightower I don’t share this amazemant towards her. It’s only na outflow.

  • KM

    I shall deeply regret my comment about Hightower if it leads to any kind of bonfire. I find her a mix of both good and bad, as all of us are. I think she is both smart and tough. I do admire her self-preservation and her decision to contact Lisbon in this episode. I think that shows growth in her character. Especially compaired to the end of season 3. Being a mum I understand the need to protect your kids, but in that episode she stepped around an individual that had been shot (Lisbon) while knowing her kids were fine (as in not physically harmed). Blame it on my past career as an Emergency Medical Technician, but the life that was on the line was Lisbon’s. The possibility of Lisbon having been mortally wounded had not been ascertained when she ran upstairs. How much worse would have it been to have to explain to her kids that their friend Miss Teresa had died? Much worse than a man tried to hurt them, but we stopped him. She should have checked on Lisbon first. She should have called 911. Then checked on her kids. So, her willingness to help Lisbon to save Jane is evidence of growth, in my opinion.

  • KM

    @ Violet,
    I think that the definition of “golden” for Jane was many layers. The most obvious is that he makes the CBI and thus her look good. The other I think has to do with the Homeland, FBI, CBI liaison that we are learning about. Jane is a ‘weapon’ they all want to use. Hence, they kept tabs on him. Something that Hightower helped them with.

  • Victor

    This episode had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. I thought Kevin corrigan did a great job in this episode, the final scene was especially chilling.

    A few things I’m confused about though: why would members of the tyger tyger collective mutter those 2 words before dying? Was partridge a member then? Still wondering why he was killed.

    And am I the only one wondering if it’s believable that a prison driver would shoot a convict multiple times in the back to prevent their escape especially when they’re weighed down by heavy chains?

    I hear that the 3 episodes after tomorrow’s are almost like a movie when put together. Needless to say, I can’t wait!

  • windsparrow

    @bloomingviolet wrote, “- Is that normal that Kirkland got arrested like a normal criminal? He was a Homeland Security agent, so shouldn’t they have at least tried to handle this?”

    I am not absolutely certain of procedures, but I believe in a situation like this, where the guy was caught very much red-handed in the middle of several heinous crimes of his own agenda, it is absolutely right for Kirkland to have been arrested. Anything less would be giving him special treatment. Now, if he had falsified some reports that made his victims seem like he collared them under the auspices of a true Homeland Security investigation, and he took them to some kind of government facility and waterboarded them – that might be just cause for “handling” it. There might have been an investigation a bit more like the investigation into how Rigsby shot his father’s killer where it is more about screwing up on the job than about crime. (I hate that my country has gone in this direction, and that those of us who have spoken up about it have not yet won the fight to turn things around.)

    All in all, bloomingviolet, this was an excellent and thorough review. I find the analysis of the Biblical passages very interesting.

    One thing that truly bothered me about this episode is that Hightower allowed Kirkland to see her. I think she could have backed Lisbon up from the shadows without revealing herself.

    @estaticaa wrote, “… The expression Kirkland used to explain why he thought Michael was murdered by Red John reminded me Jane in 4×11 (Always Bet on Red) when he faked the suicide letter. Kirkland says: “In my heart I knew.” Like Jane, despite all the cool tricks and use of their brain, both men often base their decisions based on what is in their heart.”

    You pointing out that there were hints that Bob had a twin before this episode together with these comments about “in my heart I knew” puts me in mind of that special bond that exists between twins. Sometimes it is characterized as a psychic bond. In a world where most (if not all) psychics are charlatans, deliberately deceiving others for their material gain there are a few clues to the possibility that there might be something more to reality than the bald, boring material world. The bond between twins, the bond between mother and child, the bond between pets and their humans – astonishing and wonderful things happen inside these bonds and in some ways it simply does not matter whether they happen due to perfectly natural phenomena (speedy and accurate subconscious evaluation of the evidence of ordinary senses) or some mysterious power of being tuned in to the vibes of the universe. Whether Bob knew Michael had been killed by RJ because of a genuine supernatural psychic bond or because somehow sharing the same DNA gives him a special but natural insight into his brother, it certainly provides an interesting counterpoint to the psychic powers that Jane used to claim but now repudiates as well as to those claimed for Jane’s foil – Red John.

  • mosquitoinuk

    @KM & Carla: no need to worry about divergent opinions on this blog, Reviewbrain has managed to create a respectful, cool and rather incisive community here. We don’t necessarily agree but as some have pointed out, Hightower is flawed and has many layers, just as many people on this show, PJ being one of them for example. We had endless discussions about ‘jerk’ Jane last season and here we are still 🙂

    I’m on Violet’s bandwagon in that I disliked Hightower at first and I totally agree with her reading of Hightower misjudging Lisbon and Jane. Also, we must recognise that PJ is ‘golden’ but also a liability in many respects and that is difficult to handle. She realised the error in her ways and so did PJ, they respect one another and she trusts Lisbon now. I still remember PJ and Hightower’s first meeting, he went all ‘caveman’ in a suit (who said that first here on this blog, I can’t remember, sorry) trying to do a cold reading on her, which is most of the time a clear sign that he is in ‘dominant’ mode; trying to make clear who’s the boss. She got rightly annoyed in my opinion and she went overboard to poke him where it hurt: Lisbon. Both of them showed very poor people skills at that time, but high awareness and great determination. They’ve both changed and I do admire Hightower because she’s genuinely intelligent and tough but she cares about them now, having the threat of RJ hanging over her head still. She didn’t have to go into that house with Lisbon, she could’ve just tipped her…she’s taking great risks and that’s very commendabke, given the pickle she’s in.

  • Rose UK

    @ Estatica & Windsparrow: My word, you’re right: last season’s twin/sibling- foreshadowing was brilliantly subtle! Apart from Tale of Two Cities, as you mention, there was also the case of siblings who didn’t know each other in Red Letter Day (and had the same mannerisms, which tipped Jane off). And Lorelei’s situation with Miranda, as Violet pointed out. We now have an explanation for Kirkland’s odd behaviour/reactions when working on the Lorelei case with Lisbon (as I think Anomaly Commenter pointed out at the time – great call).

    @ Windsparrow: Good point about the inexplicable bond between twins – another angle from which to explore psychic powers.

    Violet and Mosquito have perfectly expressed my thoughts on Hightower, too. She certainly came down hard on Lisbon at first, when she was establishing her ‘rule’. I don’t want to excuse her, exactly, because there are many ways to assert one’s authority, but I can understand the motivation. She thought Jane was a loose canon and she wanted to contain the threat. Yes, she sacrificed Lisbon to do so, but it wasn’t motivated by personal dislike or malice. It was a tactic. Cold, maybe, but who’s to say whether it was right or wrong? By what standard are we judging her? But as time went on, Hightower really began to value Lisbon as a co-worker and a friend. Jane, too. People make mistakes, after all – they have natural flaws, as well as virtues, as several people have stated – so I don’t think you can write them off entirely for it. Hightower was rather arrogant to start with. But I believe she’s paid her dues for any past misjudgements, so I disagree that she’s a nasty piece of work. To me, that would imply real, genuine malice, which I don’t think she has. And I agree with C Hill that she’s actually a shipper herself, lol. 😉

    But no inquisitions or burnings from me, either! (If you don’t mind returning the favour. 😉 ) I’m a lover, not a fighter. 😉

    Re: Rigsby & VP: Interesting. I’ve never seen it as a proxy relationship for J & L, but I totally see what you mean. I just viewed it as a rather unoriginal story arc for the characters, which they tend to do occasionally. Like Cho and the task force thing that went nowhere. Or I wonder if they’re setting them up for a fall somehow. Because otherwise I don’t think their storyline really fits in at the moment (other than in their “own” episode).

    @ Frogs: That line/smile also made me think of Red Dawn, when Lisbon fobs him off with “It’s policy”, and he repeats the word ever so softly, with a very slight wry smile. It’s like he’s got her measure even then, this woman with the firm sense of procedure and the rule of law, which amuses him faintly. And x years on, the smile is even bigger because nothing much has changed. 😉

  • Rose UK

    OH! I meant to say, ages back, to Violet, that although I’m grateful for the shout-out in the review, I really didn’t do a lot!!! Just wanted to clarify that…

  • bloomingviolet2013

    KM, don’t feel bad for writing a great comment because someone happens to disagree. If someone should apologize, that would be me: I hadn’t meant to sound offensive. Even more so since I understand your point perfectly… And I like very much your analysis of Jane’s golden status, really spot on. 🙂

    I also meant to thank you for the very precise Biblical references. Very interesting: I shall think about it a bit more but the dual aspect of the lamb and the scapegoat is pretty intriguing.

    @Estaticaa, Windsparrow and Rose: I love the discreet foreshadowing about twins, thank you so much for pointing this out, Estaticaa! I also love the deeper meaning regarding psychics, Windsparrow (I realize the question is still sort of “unresolved” with RJ: we know how he got to Eileen, but not exactly how he found out the seven names… unless we have to understand he was able to guess them… Still, I’d like a real explanation.). The twins theme might also refer to the duality aspect of Jane/RJ’s relation: given how similar we’ve been told those two are, we can say RJ is an evil version of him.

    (Argh, I’m still struggling to catch up with the excellent points everyone made. I’m feeling like Alice’s white rabbit here “I’m late, I’m late!”… XD)

  • Rose UK

    @ KM: I can think of only one goat appearance in TM – when Jane and Lisbon get stuck in that freight container thing, and the little boy with his goat leads them out into the desert. It’s going on the list of things to watch out for, let me tell you. 😉 Goat, sheep, dragon, tiger, fish, dove/pigeon, rabbit… Heh.

  • Carla Oliveira

    What annoys me is this super valorization of her comparing even with Lisbon. She can’t be compared with Lisbon, IMHO. She had a good role in this episode, nothing more that any especial participation in the Show. Kirkland, yes, was name of the episode. He would be a great RJ like Timoty Carton would.

  • III Frogs

    Hahahaha, @Rose UK. We will have completed the Chinese zodiac before very long!

  • bloomingviolet2013

    Oh, Carla, that goes without saying! 🙂 But that super valorization of Madeleine is due to her long absence: if she were still a recurring character, her badassery wouldn’t cause such a stir. To be fair, very few characters compare to our fiery pocket rocket… Had she known Jane was in danger, she would have kicked the door in and tackled Kirkland all on her own, no doubt about it! 🙂

    LOL at the Chinese zodiac, III Frogs! So true… 🙂

  • Rose UK

    @ Carla: I’m not sure anyone’s comparing Hightower to Lisbon per se. Just pointing out her good points as well as her bad, as she came up in the conversation. We all love Lisbon hands down, don’t worry. 😉 (Or at least I think I speak for most people when I say that!) 🙂

    @ Frogs: Butterflies!

  • thebeatboy

    heyy there !!! = D Great review of Red Listed !!! Another great episode!!
    I got a little confused about Reed Smith and the code ” Tyger Tyger” because it is RJ who usually says those words. I suppose it means that Smith also works for Red John. what if Michael Kirkland is not really dead and is also still working for Red John,just sayin.

    i wanted to mention, why did Agent Smith think that Jane could have killed Marx? Jane tortured him to confess but Jane doesnt go around killing people. It is Red John that Jane wants to kill not other people. Jane has his unorthodox ways of catching people but he doesnt try to kill them.

    Hightower is the second law officer who has told Jane to KILL Red John instead of leaving him to be arrested and dealt with by the law. If Lisbon heard this, what does she think about that? im curious.


  • KM

    There is no need for an apologie. I just did not want to derail your wonderful review.

  • KM

    You are welcome. I wrote Bible studies, a number of years ago, where the practice was to use scripture to interpret scripture. The goal being to obtain the fullness and the context.

  • KM

    @ Rose,
    We have heard goats mentioned. Jane described using a suspect as a tethered goat once. And, then there was the funny conversation between Cho and Lisbon on the priestess’s doorstep. Lisbon said something about petting zoos being a gateway to hell in response to Cho’s comment about goats and Satan.

  • windsparrow

    Huh, I thought I clicked the check box for email notification of comments, maybe I didn’t.

  • anomalycommenter

    Great review Violet and Rose! Highly appreciate the time and effort you have put on writing this amazing review. 🙂 Haven’t managed to read all the comments yet, but as far as I read them, totally comprehensive and quite clever, too! I’m in awe of all of you fellow mentalistas! 🙂 Just wanted to enlist some little points before the next episode airs:

    I highly suspect that this has already been discussed, but sometimes the focus on some numbers interests me, like house numbers and plaques. One instance, probably of absolutely no importance, in these last two episode was the number 156, it first appeared in the last episode on the shirt of the victim, later was found to be about him being a part of a civil war enactment group of a 156th regiment. But this number also appeared in this episode as a plaque outside of a corridor in the DHS offices where Kirkland led Jane into when they discussed the attic break in, reading “Suites 156-184”. Could be a total coincidence, but two points makes me believe it may be more than that. One that at the first scene Jane said to Sheriff McAllister that “I think there’s more out here than meets the eye.”, clearly a subtle reference to Sheriff being a suspect, but can also have a meaning outside of the show’s world like Partridge’s “Red John enters here” in the Pilot, and also the look on the face of that field commander when he hears the news about the Victim. I’m saying this solely as a result of all the recent references especially to the Bible in these last episodes, number 666 and…, and after your great analysis of those biblical references.

  • Windom Earle

    First I want to say how much I like the reviews and discussions on this blog. Found it by googling for “Ehrich Whisky” while catching up on older episodes a few weeks back and been a regular reader since then.

    A few thoughts on this week’s episode:
    1.) Bob and Michael Kirkland:
    I don’t really have any evidence for it but I had the impression that Bob does NOT really believe his brother is dead. I think his past actions (especially murdering Lennon without even trying to get information about RJ out of him) make a lot more sense if Bob has reason to believe that Michael is still alive and possibly very close to RJ (or maybe is RJ himself?).
    Lennon not recognizing Bob, who presumably looks very much like his twin Michael, could have been proof enough for Kirkland to believe that Lennon was never actually close enough to RJ to provide useful information – otherwise he would have had to meet Michael.
    Additionally Michael’s disappearance without trace doesn’t seem like RJ’s MO at all: Please correct me if I’m wrong as it’s very much possible I missed/forgot something, but – besides the two bodies in the Visualize farm – RJ never really hid his victims. Quite the contrary actually, he positioned them in special ways and even leaves his trademark smiley at every crime scene.
    I would have to rewatch the episode to be sure but I think Kirkland himself never actually says that Michael is dead. Yes, he seems to affirm Jane’s question whether RJ killed his brother but his answer isn’t as unambigious as it first seems IMO and then there’s this short pause before answering.
    “I know it by heart” – what does that “it” even refer to? Sure, in the context of the conversation it seems obvious but if Kirkland simply didn’t want to give Jane too much information without outright lying to him, Bob’s answer would probably be very close to the one he gave. Reminded me of the many times Jane wasn’t really honest to Lisbon while technically still saying the truth.

    2.) I liked how the Jane-Kirkland “relationship” unfolded here. Despite Jane being held captive by Kirkland the two seemed to get along quite well. That is as well as two sociopaths can get along with each other of course. It’s remarkable how much Kirkland opened up to Jane.
    Also, Kirkland seemed reluctant to harm Jane to get information out of him. Cutting off Haibach’s thumb instead of Jane’s striked me as odd first; almost seemed like lazy writing to me. Sure, the writers’ reluctance towards letting the show’s protagonist lose body parts is understandable but Bob could have just started with lighter torture methods that plausibly heal in short time. Especially considering that Kirkland must have known that Jane, while being no murderer, doesn’t care all that much for Haibach’s well-being.
    I had the feeling that the common goal formed some kind of bond of mutual respect between the two men.

    On an unrelated note: The look on Kirkland’s face when Jane told him the list on his pinboard is a fake was priceless! 🙂

    3.) The “cabal thing” mentioned in the postings above.
    I have to say I would be disappointed if the “Tyger, Tyger” conspiracy and the RJ network would turn out to be the same thing.
    The RJ network has already grown harder and harder to believe for me. There appear to be too many people involved in all of it to plausibly prevent information leaking to the outside. And the occasional insider who actually GETS unmasked conviently is always in a situation where the team has no choice but kill them or gets killed by RJ virtually a minute before they can talk. Basically the fact that RJ hasn’t been caught yet seems more related to his enormous amount of luck than to his alleged genius.
    RJ is portraited as a manipulative mastermind but no matter how good he is at reading people’s minds and winning their loyalty, it’s not an exact science (there’s no way to know for sure beforehand, Jane won’t get any useful information out of Kristina Frye for example). Every additionally person involved in his plots is an huge risk.
    Makes me wonder what people he’s looking for as accomplices. Going with people who are easy to manipulate would probably lead to fiery and loyal followers but at the same time it might be easy for someone like Jane to turn them again as well.
    If he’s going with strong individuals who are hard to manipulate he could be sure they’re “Jane-proof” but he could never actually be really sure about their loyalty (Loreley probably falls in this category).
    I don’t know, I’m starting to feel that Timothy Carter being the real RJ and ending story when Jane killed him would have been for the best. It was a solid ending and the silly “EVERYONE is a RJ accomplice” thing wasn’t yet turned to eleven quite as much as it appears to be now.
    Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy the show a lot, even the RJ related bits, but it gets harder and harder to suspend my disbelief at some points.

  • anomalycommenter

    Thanks a lot Violet and Rose for the great review! 🙂 (my last post is on the moderation queue, this is the rest of it.)

    Must have already been discussed or at least assumed by everybody here, but just to be completely clear, that cabin of Michael Kirkland, wasn’t it more like a metal workshop, in addition of it being located in a pine forest? And the tool Bob used, metal sheet shears? And if so, are we allowed to call him Roy *Tagliaferro* (though not necessarily RJ in my mind, I must say)?

    It was the second time Jane brought up the concept of making mistakes in front of Smith when he apologized for suspecting Jane (and Lisbon), the other was when he interrupted their three party meeting in Bertram’s office in ‘Black-winged Red Bird’. Also in the Kirkland-Smith conversation in the park, there were multiple subtle references to Smith being a [straight] shooter.

    And about Hightower threatening Jane with gun in their meeting, in addition to the comedy and continuity with the conditions of their last reunion in ‘Strawberries and Cream’, I’m certain that I have read it somewhere that it was indeed Jane who first sort of threatened her in his memorial message by saying “… I want to shout it from the mountain tops” of revealing them being alive!

  • Windom Earle

    Something completely different: Is it just me or are there really surprisingly many German names appearing on the show, especially with people related to the RJ case in some way?
    Loreley, Panzer, Marx, Haibach, Ron Deutsch, Alexa Schultz, Haffner(!), Dr Steiner, Volker, the Vogelsongs, RJ’s latest fake name Roth…

    On a somewhat similiar note: When the name Renfrew appeared a few seasons back, at first I thought it must be a reference to Thomas Pynchon’s “Against the day” which has a character with the same name.
    However this was mainly because the name sounded like gibberish to me, which would make it too much of a coincidence for the same name to appear on the show; after some googling I know now that it’s actually a real name, so it’s quite possible that I’m way off here.
    I still think it’s at least interesting because in the book British scientist Renfrew always competes with the German scientist Werfner (a normal German name and backwards it reads Renfrew, which led me to erroneously believe it’s gibberish) in everything they do. They are in fact very similiar to each other, almost the same person. On first sight they are very hard to seperate from each other, when looking closer they appear more like complementary opposites.
    The reason I bring this up is because their relationship to each other reminds me a lot of Red John and Patrick Jane who are supposed to be very similiar in many things as well.
    There’s even a part in the book when for one of the two characters the line between science and magic gets blurred; a bit similiar to the “simply reading people vs real psychic abilities” theme in the show.

  • C Hill

    Well, anomaly, also there was continuity with tea in the meeting with Hightower 🙂

    While Hightower likes Jane, she doesn’t want him to drag her and her children out of hiding, and knows Jane will do what it takes to get rid of RJ.

    But, as others have noted, Hightower is another person related to LE who has encouraged Jane to finish the job with RJ. And I do think that Hightower’s reveal of her arsenal to Lisbon helped drive home that RJ is not going to be a normal “bad guy” situation.

  • Rose UK

    @ KM: Ah ha! Particularly interesting in light of this episode, in which it appears that Jane is *still* using people as tethered goats, in one way or another. And the fear of witchcraft – possibly the mighty Cho’s only perceivable weakness to date!

    @ BeatBoy: I suppose it’s because those two officers were personally affected by RJ – terribly so. Perhaps Lisbon would change her stance too if she experienced what they did.

    @ Anomaly: Oh please don’t thank me! I answered, like, one question for Violet and that was it!! Very intrigued by what you suggest along the Tagliaferro/Kirkland lines… Does he match Rosalind’s description? Also the numbers thing… There was a whacking great “4” on the inside of Jane’s attic door so I checked to see if no. 4 on his list was Kirkland (being a Kirkland-centric ep), but it was actually Smith.

    1 = Stiles; 2 = Bertram; 3 = Haffner; 4 = Smith; 5 = Kirkland; 6 = McAllister; 7 = Partridge.

    It would have been very cool if 1, 5 & 6 from the number you mention had correlated to the relevant suspect(s) in that episode, though!!

    @ Mosquito: Your coffee-related query made me think of the cup Lisbon was holding in the bridge scene. I think it might have had the same pattern? But I’m assuming this is a production thing, and not a clue. 😉

    @ Windom: Great comment!! I’m interested in names, too. I don’t know if it’s ‘cos I’m English, but I always prick up my ears at anything from the British Isles! There’ve been minor one-off characters called Essex, Dublin, etc. though this is most likely only amusing to me. 😉 The Germanic names you mention are fairly interesting when you look at the meanings/derivations:

    “Hai” – shark / “Bach” – stream
    “Panzer” – tank/armour
    “Stein” – stone
    “Vogel” – bird / “song” – song
    “Volk” – people/nation.
    There’s also “Schulze” (not quite the same), which apparently means ‘sheriff’ or ‘mayor’.

    Any native Germans in the house to confirm/deny!? And if we continue along these lines, I guess you could say there’s an Italian element too, what with “tagliaferro”, “Minelli”, “Mancini”, etc. 😉 But then, America has an awful lot of European heritage to go around. And yes, I know that sometimes names really are just names… 😉

    Also enjoyed your literary reference, though I’m not familiar with the book or author. The Wikipedia entry about it has an interesting section on “doubling”, as you point out. Makes me wonder whether Heller’s initial intention really was to turn Jane into RJ.

  • Lou Ann

    Wow. Excellent review and such deep insight expressed in all these posts.

    The dragon and Biblical theme interested me. I had actually written something about it and then saw that many responders had beat me to it.

    Going along with the dragon theme, i’m reminded of the nurse at Lennon’s hospital room who told Jane that the FBI agents seemed like lizards in disguise. And speaking of lizards, didn’t Kirkland remind you of a lizard in his facial and body movements? Very Christopher Walken.

    Mosquitoinuk and others on whether RJ and the cabal are the same or separate entities…then who said the cabal’s codewords, “Tyger, Tyger,” to Jane when he saved him from the two student filmmakers in the finale of Season 2?

    The twin motif reminds of the mirror references, duality. Being a mirror twin myself (I’m right-handed; my sister is left-handed), I am loving the comments about twin bonds. Our bond comes out in odd ways, sometimes. Just a couple weeks ago we sent the identical birthday card to a relative even though she and I live 3 hours apart and in different states. And people often ask us, so which one is the good twin and which one is the evil twin? There is a mythology in that.

    I enjoyed the Rigsby/Van Pelt subplot and Grace’s solution to their not having enough private time with one another. When the kids are little, that’s always an issue. A little naughtiness at work counterbalances all the furtiveness they had to endure early in their relationship. I did think it a bit out of Grace’s character to push the workplace boundaries. But a little naughtiness in a marriage can be fun. They’ve been bound to their soul mate, a contrast to Jane’s missing wife.

    I also remembered the tethered goat reference, and Lisbon’s response, “and so what if the goat gets killed?”

    Someone commented on sheep and goats. And there is this in Matthew 25:32, another Biblical reference: “All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.”

  • bloomingviolet2013

    Zee wrote: « My pet peeve is the Tyger Tyger getting overused and it’s slightly bordering on juvenile segregation »

    Talking about juvenile, the “Tyger, Tyger” as a password reminded me of those old-fashioned and a bit naïve classic murder mysteries à la Christie, in which the protagonists are fighting a secret organization that keeps its secrecy with a password and/or a distinctive sign or insignia (‘The Secret Adversary’, ‘The Seven Dials Mystery’, …). There was an indication that Jane, the mystery-lover (remember “the butler did it”), was thinking along those lines when he pretended RJ moles had a red glass bead in their pocket in order to compromise Mancini. It reinforces the assumption that RJ and Jane have the same tastes. Indeed, the smiley denotes a twisted sense of humor from RJ, a kinda childish signature comparable to some extent to the one Jane displayed when writing “Snyder sucks” in the men’s washroom in ‘Something Rotten In Redmund’ (without the macabre touch, obviously).

    Rose wrote: “Could the ‘mark’ also refer to the password ‘Tyger Tyger’? Your quote was “It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark” ~ We saw that there was even a very low-level ‘member’ (the driver), so maybe this would support the idea that the ‘inner circle’ of these associates (whether RJ-linked or not) are able to operate in their spheres of business or government because they bear the special ‘mark’ that allows them to move freely in this secret underworld.”

    Oh, this has an intriguing “freemason” ring to it, lol… 😀 Well, it’s possible if the network is vast and organized enough, I guess. Kind of like Visualize is able to promote/ set some positions like Haffner, whose business was bought by the cult’s money. Still, what would bother me in this theory is that it doesn’t fit that well with earlier characters: for instance, Rebecca and Todd Johnson were rather small fish, which may explain their relatively non-influential position in the law-enforcement system (or close to in Todd’s case). Yet, Sheriff Hardy was an old friend of RJ, a second generation follower close enough to be brought to Roy’s lover’s home. And he was only a sheriff, which isn’t bad per se but hardly fits the idea of influential “spheres of business or government”… I’d rather imagine RJ or whoever might be at the head of the organization chooses who works where and in what position accordingly to a greater plan serving his interests/philosophy (spying on, pressuring, influencing the right people at the right time). If the “organization” is the same as RJ network, that is, which I’m assuming is because of the pretty peculiar “Tyger, Tyger” reference common to both –which makes too much sense in regard to RJ’s vision about the (non-)existence of evil and good to be simply borrowed from an independent association.
    About Volker, now, it’s possible he’s part of it, since he committed crimes at a large scale; still he seemed to have worked relatively alone, only helped by henchmen. He wouldn’t have threatened the judge Lisbon went to if he had a more discreet way of handling things and having other judges working with him would have had convinced her much more smoothly not to help Teresa. Or so I think…

    This leads us to Rita’s question about the reason why Kirkland wasn’t part of the organization in the first place: every character with a dark aspect doesn’t necessarily have to be part of it, I guess. I mean, they would have to be somewhat willing to compromise their morality given the kind of things Smith, the only admitted member, had been doing at the end of the episode. And Bob didn’t seem that bad a person per se: he was a cold torturer and murderer but he knew the people on the list and Lennon weren’t good people, plus his obsessive determination served his own brand of justice (avenging his brother). A bit like Jane is rather coldly willing to trick murderers into confessing and to do pretty terrible things in the name of revenge, but isn’t really cruel to innocent people. There is no proof whatsoever that Bob had been doing the same kind of things he did to those criminals outside the realms of his pet investigation. Like in the Volker case: he didn’t really interfere with Lisbon’s investigation, he didn’t protect the man either. The way I see it, Bob didn’t lie about having a file on the man who was probably under Homeland Security scrutiny, and he only used this fact as an opportunity to approach Lisbon. What’s more, assuming again that the organization includes at least part of RJ’s network, it seems so far that every person which we can presume could have been in it had something to gain from it:
    – psychopaths can keep doing their business without being arrested, like Hardy and Todd (I won’t mention Carter here because he wasn’t part of law enforcement. He might have been a simple RJ minion. If the two are different things, of course… :P)
    – the emotionally fragile people find support and affection (Rebecca, Lorelei)
    – some might indeed find a measure of power in an influential job (Bertram? Judge Manchester in the red-themed poker nights? Or O’Laughlin getting good career perspectives at the FBI, giving that he was in charge of the big Visualize case…).
    Apparently none of those goals had interested Kirkland, who was hell bent on revenge. Besides, if he has been chasing them for years, it’s only logical to guess they might have been watching him for some time; no way he would have been recruited then only to become the black sheep of the herd… Why would he have been killed off, otherwise? Which raises another point: what if Partridge had been killed in order to hide the true motive behind Bob’s death (that he had information he could have shared with Jane)? The same trick was used for Eileen: her death was supposed to hide that Sophie had to be silenced; in the same way, Brett could have been a smoke screen in order to conceal the whole secret organization aspect Bob was about to reveal (and Jane wouldn’t ask him much in front of Smith, who was here when he was arrested as he was in charge of the case).

    (Sorry if I’m rambling: so many great points, so little time… 🙂 )

  • anomalycommenter

    Good points C Hill. 🙂 And yes, defeating RJ most certainly would require some extraordinary measures. Also to respect due credit, what I said about Jane’s memorial message was based on a hilarious posting by a user named damnitjane on Tumblr that goes like this:

    “WHAT JANE SAID: In death, you have found new life, and I want to shout it from the mountain tops. I know in my heart, dearest Madeline, when sunset comes…I will find you waiting for me in the Heavenly Gardens…*fakes choking back tears* Love, Patrick.

    WHAT JANE MEANT: You faked your death so you can start a new life, and I will tell everyone if you don’t meet me, dearest Madeline, at that stuffy Chinese restaurant when the sun starts to go down. Love, Jane.” 🙂

  • windsparrow

    @Windom Earle, “Something completely different: Is it just me or are there really surprisingly many German names appearing on the show, especially with people related to the RJ case in some way?
    Loreley, Panzer, Marx, Haibach, Ron Deutsch, Alexa Schultz, Haffner(!), Dr Steiner, Volker, the Vogelsongs, RJ’s latest fake name Roth…”

    Just out of curiosity, what part of the world are from? Speaking as a Midwesterner, born in Ohio of parents from New England and the South, I have not found any surprise in the concentration of German-sounding names in this show. It seems no more uneven than any other typical show cast. I note that while there have been some significant characters of various ethnicities and it seems like the casting directors are making some effort, the CBI seems awfully pale to me, kinda reminds me of the schools I went to before court-ordered desegregation in my hometown.

  • bloomingviolet2013

    First of all, I realize I won’t be able to reply to each comment individually before the upcoming review, so I apologize and give everyone a huge thank you, both for your kind encouragements and the often great points that have been brought to discussion. 🙂

    @KM: I thought a bit more about the very intriguing dual aspect of the savior as a lamb/scapegoat, while I’m not sure the reference as been used literally in the show, there are certainly shades of the concept in many facets of the story.

    1) In RJ’s philosophy, those might match the two aspects present in the tiger, the light and dark, innocence (lamb) and sin (the scapegoat: the goat associated to the devil in witchcraft), which both belong to God’s creation and complete each other. And we could argue that some of his crimes might have aimed to “purify” people through pain/grief: their suffering removes the errors and misconceptions of their lives and offers them a new enlightenment. That was how Rebecca justified the murder of Jane’s family at least. (Of course, for us normal people, that’s just a plain idealization of her master’s wrongdoings…)

    2) Jane is both a lamb and a scapegoat in the sense of he’s both a victim who seeks redemption and a new life and a former guilt-ridden sinner who seeks justice through revenge. Those are two aspects of redemption actually: redeeming the sins and asking for forgiveness/ newly acquired virtue.
    Plus, it’s interesting that while goats have been alluded to several times, as you mentioned, in a rather negative way (witchcraft, dangerous schemes that prove Jane doesn’t really care for others’ safety and the only actual goat seen after Jane and Lisbon first confronted their trust issues explicitly), the lamb which is a positive response of the evil tiger only appears now. I wonder if that’s because Jane is closer to his goal or because his perspective might have shifted a bit since the beginning. Either way, as RJ’s demise is getting closer, he’s surely impersonating the good against RJ’s evil (hence maybe the lamb and the doves…)

    3) I may be over reading, but both RJ and Jane seem to have used scapegoats to get rid of their own sins too: RJ sent Carter to be killed in order to make everyone believe he was dead (which may have given him the opportunity to start anew), while Jane tried to frame the first victim’s father of the death of Panzer (even thought RJ killed him, Jane was morally responsible). It’s interesting that both substitutes shares their characteristics: Carter was a psychopath, while the other lost his daughter to a serial killer…

    (Also, I don’t know if you’re aware of it, KM, but knowing your past experience, you have now become officially one of our Bible specialists, at least for me… *grinning maniacally* 😉 )

    @ Windom Earle : interesting theory about Michael. Well, that’s not impossible… And that would explain Bob’s insistence on asking whether they had seen him: it would make more sense if he had been searching leads about his brother’s whereabouts/ fate, instead of searching for RJ, because Lennon for instance might have been able to give some details about his master, even if he never saw Michael… Otherwise, Bob’s line of questioning is foolish at best and a pet peeve at worst…

    @ Anomaly: that 156 theme is really, really interesting. I don’t know what to make of it, but there’s certainly something in there (I found it odd indeed that the camera angle showed the numbers of the suite since it was not clearly relevant to the plot). Good eye for details, Anomaly! 🙂

  • KM

    @ Violet,
    Thank you for your response. I liked your three theories, and I agree. I will not be surprised that in the fallout of RJ that we will continue to see both the sacrificial lamb and scapegoat continue to play out. Heller has implied that a storm beyond the RJ saga is coming, one that well result in a new CBI, and usually when things hit the fan there are lambs and goats to be found within the carnage. And, we me even see if the conversation between Jane and Lisbon within the shipping container was a foreshadowing of the future. Cheers.

    Ps. I’m happy to help.

  • anomalycommenter

    Thanks again Rose and Violet! 🙂 Frankly, I don’t know what to make of those numbers, too, or if I’m completely mistaken about their importance or not. But as you noticed, that camera frame, like many other instances that they have included home or room numbers is a little bit curious. I wasn’t able to relate it to anything but what Rose tried to do can be a really good start! Can also refer to some part of a book, a work of Blake or even Bible (though I’m not familiar at all with either of them)! 🙂 Also I don’t know how much we can trust Rosalind, and as to her description of “Roy” (“Just under 6 feet tall; not muscular, but not soft either; short, straight hair; a gentle voice; rough, strong hands. He smelled of pine and nails and earth.”) and the expected age of RJ from ‘The Red Barn’, as I’ve read in a forum from the instances they mentioned people’s ages it appears that in the mentalist they portray the characters as being the exact same age as the actors who play them, so make what you like from below. Just keep in mind that in talking of RJ and Roy, as Rosalind herself insisted, there really is a slight chance that we may be talking about two different people!

    – Malcolm McDowell (Bret Stiles): Born on June 13, 1943 (age 70), about 45 at 1988, Height: 5′ 9″ (1.74 m).
    – Xander Berkeley (Sheriff Thomas McAllister): Born on December 16, 1955 (age 57), about 33 at 1988, Height: 6′ 0″ (1.83 m).
    – Michael Gaston (Gale Bertram): Born on November 5, 1962 (age 50), about 26 at 1988, Height: 6′ 3″ (1.91 m).
    – Reed Diamond (Ray Haffner): Born on July 20, 1967 (age 46), about 21 at 1988, Height: 6′ 1″ (1.85 m).
    – Jack Plotnick (Brett Partridge): Born on October 30, 1968 (age 45), about 20 at 1988, Height:5′ 11″ (1.80 m).
    – Kevin Corrigan (Robert Kirkland): Born on March 27, 1969 (age 44), about 19 at 1988, Height:5′ 9″ (1.75 m).
    – Drew Powell (Reede Smith): Born on January 19, 1976 (age 37), about 12 at 1988, Height:6′ 3″ (1.91 m).

  • bloomingviolet2013

    Ok, I’m grasping at straws here, but the coincidence is too funny to pass… 😛 In the Gospel of John, 1, 5-6, we have:
    “And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
    There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.”

    As I say, it’s without a doubt only a coincidence, but it’s pretty amusing that the words (if not the concept behind, poor John of Padmos…) seem to fit what we know of RJ’s vision -light and darkness entwined and to embrace the darkness within his followers; him as a kind of twisted prophet/savior or whatever…

    More seriously, I wonder is this number is not foreshadowing some place important in an upcoming episode (a hotel room or a house where a confrontation will take place or something like that).

  • anomalycommenter

    Great points Violet; really interesting! So, let’s wait and see what might come out it. 🙂 Speaking of these little possible references, have you noticed that we are shown two types of hammers (with some focus) in these last two episodes? First instance was a claw hammer in the church in the last episode, useful for wood-works and especially for working with nails, which again brings to mind Rosalind’s description of Roy smelling of nails, and a ball-peen hammer in this episode, used in metal-works, shown handled by Kirkland when he was telling the story of his brother Michael.

  • KM

    And, last season we learned that Lisbon keeps one (a hammer) in her desk. Though, it could say more about her approach to problem solving. Cheers!

  • KM

    Interesting that the “apprehend” we find in the translation you used in Jn 1:5, is worded as: comprehend; overcome; overpower in parallel translations.

    Tis interesting. And you may be correct about an upcoming address being 156. Cheers!

  • anomalycommenter

    @ KM: Quite right, That too! 🙂 And thanks for your great comments! Cheers!

  • Rose UK

    This is getting like Lost with all the numbers talk, heh. (But I liked Lost too, so that’s not a criticism.) 😉 What about the address where Partrige was killed – anything of interest there? I expect not, but you’ve really got me racking my brains here! We’ll have to see how it all pans out…

    @ KM: I’m a translator in real life*, so those sorts of language questions are fascinating to me! So many factors involved in people’s choice of words, not just purely linguistic… Interpretation is such a personal thing. It’s also why I like to pay attention to turns of phrase in TM (I have a comment/question about this for the forthcoming ep, actually), although I quite often miss the important things!

    *Not that you’d know it, given my slapdash approach to spelling and punctuation on this blog. I’m hoping you’ll forgive me my ‘time off’ mistakes!

  • KM

    I agree. How something is translated depends on many things. What fascinates me most is the conscious and subconscious ideas of the translator(s), and the political, social, and economic situation at the time of translation. Especially with regard to ancient texts.

    How fascinating that you are a translator in real life. I imagine could teach me a lot. My knowledge is strictly amateur. Cheers!

  • anomalycommenter

    @ Rose UK: Honored to know that! 🙂 So that’s the reason behind your fascination with languages! I can completely understand yours and KM’s fascination with the use of words. Even for an ordinary user of a foreign language like me, learning a little bit of English, aside from it’s extreme usefulness, was an immensely exhilarating experience. Dealing with how much meanings of words can overlap or not, and different possible interpretations of sentences that may need more than the usual amount of work on the part of translator as you and KM noted above, … were very interesting. Also I feel I better go and have a new review of the basic English grammar again, ’cause even I myself can count numerous errors in every comment I post (even after multiple revisions!). It’s really getting embarrassing! 🙂

    And about all those numbers, well, I’ve already gave up! 🙂

  • bloomingviolet2013

    I just *love* this side discussion… 😀

    If it helps, I used what was labelled as the “American Standard Version” in the site I took that quote from, because it seemed that this version could have been read by the writers had this particular quote been relevant. (I didn’t check further because I honestly believe the similarities between *this* text and the show are only coincidental. The reference would have been pretty cryptic otherwise…) Still, the nuances brought by the different translations are very intriguing… mostly because every one of them would fit the situation, one way or another: in fact, those translations indicate that light is overpowering darkness, which could mean that good is overpowering evil (RJ’s demise), or, again in RJ’s philosophy, that he’s bringing to his followers and/or victims the enlightenment of true knowledge, by overcoming the darkness of ignorance which had been sustained by a futile approach of morality (cf. Rebecca telling Jane that he was blind before and that RJ has opened his eyes by making him suffer the loss of his loved ones).

    Very intriguing points, anyway! 🙂

    And Anomaly, interesting remark about the hammers. I wonder if that kind of tool could play a part too in an upcoming episode… Definitely worth mentioning! Thanks for bringing this up! 🙂

  • anomalycommenter

    @ Violet: No Problem! 🙂 Could be, or could be nothing important. Thanks for your analysis of the possible meanings of that number! 🙂

  • Rose UK

    @ KM re: your first paragraph & @ Anomaly re: “Dealing with how much meanings of words can overlap or not, and different possible interpretations of sentences, etc.” ~ Absolutely!! 😀 Translations & interpretations of all kinds are to be found everywhere, everyhow, as Violet noted specifically in relation to TM and RJ.

    And Anomaly, you have absolutely no reason to be embarrassed about your English – even though I work with languages (passively), there’s no way I could participate so fluently in a foreign-language forum as you and many others do and I am consistently impressed by that.

    I’m aware that I’m going off on a tangent here, so I’ll bring it back round to…


    If I play word association with myself, I think of Thor (thanks, Hollywood), Anomaly’s link with blacksmithery and, um, the Soviet flag.

    Just throwin’ those out there! 😉 I think the blacksmithery one is by far the most likely, though.

    Going to join you all on the next review now!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: