the difference in how robby talks about langdon—and his addiction—with dana vs. al-hashimi is so interesting to me. with dana, robby doesn’t hold back; he has no qualms being honest about his feelings surrounding langdon—his antipathy for his presence in the ED, all his knotted irritations—because dana has long been his partner in responsibility.
but with al-hashimi, it’s completely different. when she asks about the tension between santos and langdon, he gives a controlled version of the truth: yes, santos brought langdon’s addiction to light, and yes, that created conflict. but when she presses about whether he was stealing from the hospital, robby skirts it entirely. he deflects to the ED, to its excellence, to what it is she will be responsible for carrying when he’s gone.
and of course part of this comes from robby seeing baran as an outsider compared to dana, but it’s more than that. dana and he have years of history, yes, but robby’s caution also feels instinctive. beneath all the anger, the sharp words, and everything he’s said about langdon behind his back or to his face, there is still a protective impulse at work. even when he fronts frustration, even when he’s harsh, it comes from a place of betrayal—a betrayal born only because langdon was so trusted by him. it’s a complicated, almost paradoxical bond: anger and guilt intertwined, tempered by an almost instinctual care that refuses to vanish, no matter how bitter or fractured the relationship has become.
ellievsbear
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
turnnoffyourmind
origamiaround
izzy806
janainaart
