This is my writing blog, where I'll be placing headcanons, world building, and some side information that doesn't make it into the main portion of my stories. Prompts currently open. AO3 worldbuilding writing resources quotes meta my writing
#thepittsource #thepittedit #robby robinavitch #noah wyle #jack abbot #shawn hatosy #emery walsh #tedra millan #the pitt #R.A.W #abbot x robby x walsh #traumacule #mine #my gifs #listen. listen the poly potential. it is THERE!!! there for those with eyes to see! (that would be: me) #their faces in this scene were fucking hilarious #also the way shawn hatosy delivers that 'they dont like unstable patients' line is so fucking funny #bc it's very “you are stupid” coded. but not emery (he would not dare) it's very; like- #“I'm saying this and I KNOW it's true but ur so certain it's making me doubt myself and so now I think that maybe /I/ am stupid??” #(she's also: fully correct btw lmfao. robby calls IR and they do indeed agree to take their patient) #(i imagine that conversation went along the lines of: 'we have patient.' 'is he stable?' 'i mean he's not dead...' 'ew. no. we do not want. #('walsh told us to send him to u.' 'we will take him in next just as soon as we're finished with this damn REBOA.' 'ty.') #emery walsh does not strike the fear of god into the hearts of men #god strikes the fear of emery walsh into the hearts of men #as it SHOULD BE
I am a 3L in law school. I have interned for a judge in the criminal division, a federal public defender, and a state attorney general’s office that dealt with license revocation proceedings by regulatory boards; I am familiar with how the system works, how the sentencing guidelines work, etc. Here is an informal version of the memo I would write were I a law clerk or an intern for a judge assigned to Frank Langdon’s case, with modifications for both federal and state court—essentially I did the factual and legal research I would do, and this reflects where it took me, but with none of the framing. The facts I am using based on what we have seen on the show are below; if someone thinks that these are not the facts that should be used for some reason, feel free to say so, but I will be blocking anyone who does so disrespectfully or accuses me of minimizing his conduct towards Santos—all I am dealing with are feasible legal consequences.
-Langdon received legitimate prescriptions to an opioid and a benzodiazepine under the care of a licensed physician (Dr. Hagan) after injuring his back. (In the confrontation with Robby in 1x10, he refers to “pain meds and muscle relaxants.” Only some benzodiazepines are muscle relaxants, and none are used for pain relief; lorazepam is a muscle relaxant, but Librium (chlordiazepoxide) is not. Opioids, on the other hand, are commonly prescribed for pain relief).
-He became chemically dependent on the benzodiazepine. (I am not going to speculate about whether or not he also developed an opioid addiction for these purposes because we haven’t seen him take any or talk about being addicted to both; on what we’ve seen, a prosecutor would have enough to charge on benzos but not opioids. Personally, I believe he became dependent on both and was more easily able to justify staying on the benzos to himself—some are used to treat withdrawal symptoms, at least in alcoholics, and opioids are both more addictive and more notorious than benzos. I think he truly managed to convince himself he was not addicted to the benzos and was only using them to combat an opioid addiction, even though it was not the case).
-He began taking benzodiazepines from work to support this chemical dependency. He would do this in two ways:
-One was to steal portions of prescriptions he wrote for Louie and other frequent flyers in the ER who were resistant to acknowledging they have an alcohol problem or at least to combating it—because they are unlikely to pay attention to how many meds are actually in the prescription or to take the full schedule as directed. I do not think he overprescribed to do so; that would be more likely to draw attention, and Santos was not confused at the 20-pill prescription written for Louie, suggesting it was an appropriate number—she only seemed surprised that half of the script was missing.
-The other was to order extra meds when a case came in that would justify doing so, withdraw a portion of the medication from the extra vial, refill the rest of the vial with saline, use medical glue to reseal the vial, and return the vial to the Pyxis with a note that it had ended up being unnecessary. Again, we saw him do this on Louie’s case, Santos discovered the vial, and the rest is history.
-He was not high while he was at work. Benzodiazepines are central nervous system suppressant (CNS) medications. This is why they are prescribed to treat anxiety, withdrawal symptoms, and used to stop seizures—they make someone calmer or less jittery, not manic. The behavior we see from Langdon on the day of the PittFest shift is more consistent with withdrawal symptoms—he is irritable, has difficulty remaining still and controlling his temper, is (as Mel notes) sweating heavily, and so on. He is exhibiting these symptoms as early as episode 1, and they get more prevalent over the course of the day, not less—like they would if he took either of the medications we know he stole that day. Symptoms like these tend to occur within 1-4 days of discontinuation in someone dependent on benzos. Based on this, Langdon’s most likely pattern of use was to stockpile medication when he had opportunities to do so on shift and use when he got home—which again, is something an addict would have an easier time justifying to himself than using while at work as an emergency medicine doctor. As time went on, he may have reached a point where he used at work and learned how to justify it to himself, but I don’t believe he reached that point, because he very clearly did not have such justification prepared in the confrontation with Robby in 1x10.
-The physical evidence we would have for court from season 1 related to his diverting are: the pills Robby found in his locker that matched the imprint code on Louie’s prescription, a record of his prescribing history (such as how often he would order an extra vial of meds and return it to the Pyxis), and the vial and cap Santos held on to. That’s it. What this means is the only rock-solid case a prosecutor has is for theft of 10 pills of Librium and 2 milliliters of lorazepam; it would be very easy for a defense attorney to create reasonable doubt around his prescribing records. (Personally, I would call Dana as a witness and have her testify to exactly what she told Santos when she was investigating: it happens all the time, to more than just Langdon, it is not indicative of theft every time; then I would enter another doctor’s prescribing history, probably Robby or Abbot’s, and point out how often they drew and returned meds as well).
-Federally, benzodiazepines are a Schedule 4 substance (shoutout @rolandtowen for pointing this out on my other post). Pennsylvania uses the same scheduling system as the federal government.
-At the state level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
§ 780-113(a)(2), the adulteration or misbranding of any controlled substance, other drug, device, or cosmetic. An adulterated drug or device as defined by § 780-007 includes one that has had any substance “mixed or packed therewith so as to reduce its quality or strength, or[ ]substituted wholly or in part therefor [sic].
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense—which this is. If he was criminally charged, he probably would not be going to trial, for reasons I will discuss after listing possible charges.
§ 780-113(a)(12), the acquisition or obtaining of possession of a controlled substance by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge; he was misrepresenting his use of medication in the Pyxis records. He could potentially be hit with multiple charges under this provision, depending on if he was overprescribing meds to Louie and others to take the excess, rather than prescribing appropriately and taking a portion because he knew they would not miss it.
This charge is a felony under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than three years in prison and/or a fine not exceeding $10,000. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
§ 780-113(a)(16), Pennsylvania’s simple possession with the intent for personal use provision—possession of a controlled substance that was not obtained pursuant to a valid prescription or a manner otherwise authorized in the act.
This charge is a misdemeanor under § 780-113(b); if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or a fine not exceeding $5000 for a first offense. Again, he would probably not be going to trial.
Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substances Act includes a provision (§ 780-142) that a federal conviction or acquittal for the same instance of wrongful conduct would require the state charges to be dropped—even though it’s not technically a Double Jeopardy Clause violation for both state and federal government to prosecute someone for the same act. This means that if Langdon was prosecuted, it would be at either the federal or the state level, not at both.
-At the federal level, Langdon could potentially be charged under:
21 U.S.C. § 331(b), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(2). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail and/or fined no more than $1000 under 21 U.S.C. § 333(a)(1).
21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(12). A first offense is a felony; if convicted at trial he could be sentenced to no more than 4 years in prison and/or have to pay a fine, the amount of which the statute directs the judge to decide based on the fines available for sentencing in Title 18—the US criminal code.
21 U.S.C. § 844 (a), the federal equivalent of § 780-113(a)(16). A first offense is a misdemeanor; if convicted at trial, he would be fined at least $1000 and could be sentenced to no more than a year in jail as well—the fine is a required penalty in the statute, the jail time is not.
-Now, all of these are options for charging; there is no definitive way to say, “this is what he would have been charged with if criminal consequences were pursued.” Prosecutors have a lot of discretion on whether or not to charge someone and what to charge them with, as well as whether to offer plea deals and what those plea deals look like.
-The District Attorney for Allegheny County is Stephen Zappala, Jr.; he has held the position since 1998. His bio on the DA’s public website emphasizes his belief in criminal justice reform, leniency for first time offenders, and he created a Drug Court diversionary program in Allegheny County. Drug courts typically offer one of two methods of avoiding jail or prison time: diversion prior to pleading, in which case the charges would be dropped upon successful completion of the program, or a plea deal where a suspended sentence is imposed pending completion of the program, and a defendant who successfully does so avoids jail or prison time and sometimes has their record sealed or expunged as part of the process; Allegheny County’s drug court is the latter (In the FAQ about drug court, one of the questions is "do I have to enter a plea before beginning the drug court program?" and the answer is yes).
-Based on the priorities of the Allegheny County DA, state court proceedings would likely look like this:
-Langdon is charged with one or all of the state offenses. His attorney reaches out to the ADA assigned to the case to discuss a plea deal with completion of drug court rather than a carceral sentence. Langdon pleads guilty to the misdemeanor of simple possession and receives a suspended sentence pending completion of the drug court program, which includes an individualized assessment of how to help him overcome his addiction. If he completes it successfully, he is not going to see jail time. While I can’t find anything as to whether his misdemeanor record is then sealed, expunged, or otherwise affected once he completes drug court in Allegheny County specifically, one of the defining features of drug courts generally is the dismissal of charges or expungement of convictions when successfully completed.
-The ADA would report the plea of guilty to a misdemeanor and participation in drug court to the Board of Medicine; his license would be automatically suspended. The Board of Medicine would then hold a hearing to determine if Langdon is an appropriate candidate for a PHP; if so, they would lift the suspension of his license and direct him to participate in a PHP for a period of 3-5 years. If he successfully completed the PHP, he would retain his license.
-Ten months is long enough for all of this to take place if he pled guilty/accepted the plea agreement when he first appeared before a judge, which does happen; a plea agreement in exchange for participation in drug court is hardly novel.
-Even if he was not criminally reported but was instead only reported for diversion to the Board of Medicine, ten months is long enough for the Board to hold a hearing on his license and decide to place him in the PHP rather than take more severe punitive action. The one thing I am not sure of and cannot find online is whether the Board would be required to report him for criminal proceedings as well if the diversion is reported, but the policy considerations that the state of Pennsylvania has behind offering avenues to let practitioners keep licensure and receive treatment for substance abuse disorder make me think it is unlikely.
-To be clear, both drug court monitoring and PHP monitoring are incredibly invasive; they involve counseling, random drug testing, and community supervision (which means limited privacy in the home not only for himself but for his family, as his assigned supervisory probation officer would not have to meet the usual probable cause requirement to search his home). Drug court participation requires frequent appearances in court, and PHP monitoring often involves mandatory forms of treatment—like attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, which is a program that relies on religion and belief in a higher power in its process, although it claims to be spiritual rather than religious.
Federal proceedings, on the other hand, would look a little different:
First of all, it is very unlikely he would be charged federally at all. The U.S. Attorney’s website has press releases going back to 2013 dealing with indictments, sentences, convictions, and plea deals deemed significant enough to warrant public notification. This is obviously not indicative of all cases charged and convicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it gives a good picture of the federal government’s priorities in prosecution of drug crimes. There is not a single federal case on this page where a doctor was indicted, convicted, or sentenced on simple possession for any schedule of drug, or indeed of any drug crime that did not include illegal distribution of Schedule III or higher meds to others and/or defrauding Medicare or Medicaid. There is a single case under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3) that involved illegally obtaining drugs for personal use, but it was by a woman who was forging prescriptions to get meds from pharmacies, not a doctor diverting meds from patients.
-Something else indicative of the unlikelihood of federal pursuit of charges under these circumstances is that there are no published federal criminal cases in LexisNexis (one of the databases for court decisions used by lawyers) against a doctor for diverting or adulterating drugs for personal use, nor for simple possession, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. When and if the federal government bothers to charge doctors in Langdon’s position, their cases are not resulting in opinions or orders by judges.
If Langdon was, for some reason, federally charged, the US Attorney’s office would likely charge him with the felony under 21 U.S.C. § 843 (a)(3), and then offer to let him plead out to a misdemeanor, whether adulteration or simple possession.
- Even if he was charged with and convicted of all three offenses, under the federal sentencing guidelines, he could be sentenced to a maximum of 6 months in jail, and likely would be sentenced instead to a term of supervised release no longer than three years, with conditions imposed to help him overcome his addiction.
Both of the above paths are what we in the legal field—and I am sure many others—call consequences for Langdon’s actions, even without the imposition of jail or prison time that Robby and Santos seem so sure is the only way that Langdon can face consequences. I have many points in making this post; one is that Robby and Santos have no idea what they are talking about in terms of punishment Langdon would be facing. Another is that jail or prison time is very unlikely, as is loss of licensure. Drug dependency rewires an addict’s brain, and while this does not excuse Langdon diverting drugs or treating Santos in the manner that he did, our court system recognizes that it does explain it.
Santos doesn’t have to forgive him or even accept his apology, but she is wrong when she says he should have gone to prison, and she is cruel, or at least unempathetic, to wish relapse on him—even, perhaps especially, if she doesn’t actually have a problem with him being an addict, as she claims in 2x12. She has spent ten months internalizing her feelings of being an outsider and places the blame for that at Langdon’s feet, which is an unreasonable emotional reaction; it is also understandable, because she is human and humans are flawed. But she has a responsibility to herself and others to learn how to emotionally regulate herself, at the very least at work. I believe she would be much happier if she were to go to therapy and learn skills for coping with self-hating thoughts, self-destructive behaviors, and learning how to hold herself accountable for her actions without condemning herself emotionally. She sees things very black and white, but nothing is only black or white in life.
#it just tickles the tits off of me that they have RULES ABOUT THIS!!!! we're not ANIMALS ffs!!!!#you get even days we get odd days for crikes. you get left-sided thoracotamies we get right-sided. it's a perfectly reasonable system!#it's WAY too reasonable for me to think that either Langdon or Garcia was involved in this decision-making process methinks.#bc if left down to them they'd probably have had; like; a scalpel fencing match in the middle of the ED to decide....EVERY TIME.#I suspect Collins & Dana tag-teamed them after Robby attempted his 'they're like cats we just have to let them figure it out themselves'.#and this solved: nothing. so Collins tapped in mama Dana who announced: this is how it's gonna be okay! You crike on even days; ED on odds-#and you can have the left-sided thoracomaties; but ED gets the right. okay? Fair. Good. Back to work! There's people dying here!#God give me strength to deal with these fucking kids I swear to Jesus.... she walks off muttering to herself.#Langdon and Garcia are appropriately scolded until they find: something else to fight over approximately 5 minutes later.#Collins is having PTSD war flashbacks watching Santos burst in eagerly salvilating bc: COOL PROCEDURE!? Cool procedure for me please???#bc she's just remembering the early days of Langdon and Garcia's eagerness to do said procedures and she's like NOPE. I AIN'T DOING THIS.#NOT AGAIN. Good god there's fucking three of them. No. Nope. That's it. I draw the line. I cannot cope with three of them; absolutely not.#(this is the real reason she moved back to Portland. she sensed Ogilvie incoming in s2 making: 4 ambitious procedure-hungry lunatics-#-and she decided to peace the fuck out bc naw.)#i love them so fucking much. the facial expressions in the 1x02 crike scene in particular are absolutely iconic.
Or: an analysis of EtM fandom biases and internalised misogyny
What a title. I want to start this off by saying that this essay isn’t meant to attack shippers, or artists, or writers. This is a general analysis of Epic: the Musical fandom (henceforth referred to as “fandom” unless otherwise specified) biases through the lens of my current hyperfixation: Odysseus.
Let’s begin with a simple fact. Artists and writers within the wider Greek Mythos fandom, which encompasses all sorts of media—Homer’s works and their derivatives, such as Epic: the Musical, the Hades games by Supergiant, even Ulysses dies at Dawn by the Mechanisms—have a myriad of interpretations of Odysseus. It often comes down to which media you prefer, just as within the more academic world of Greek mythos you have those who pick and choose which theologian (Hesiod, Apollodorus, etc.), or epic (the Thebaid, the Aeneid, the Odyssey, etc.) or play (Sophocles, Euripides, etc.) they prefer the characters and characterisation of.
So what caused the mass conception of Odysseus as the submissive bottom in the gay relationships the EtM fandom ascribes to him? Why is he, here on Tumblr, often shown as a twink?
To answer those questions, we have to first define a couple terms.
Defining Terms
Submissive (sub): in Bondage, Dominance, Sadism & Masochism (BSDM) communities, this refers to a partner that assumes a submissive role. However, it should be noted that this does not include a lack of agency or power.
To define the word submissive itself, I’ve turned to the Cambridge dictionary:
A sub, in the context of shipping, is often used as interchangeable with another word: bottom. But these are two entirely separate terms, so let’s define that one, too.
Bottom (bot): as in a sexual relationship, the partner which is being penetrated.
And you might be asking, “Smitty, why does it matter the definitions?” I’ll point you towards this lovely article put out by the SF Aids Foundation, which has a very pertinent quote:
“But here’s the thing: dominance and submission exist independently from physical positions. They operate on separate axes. Being dominant doesn’t automatically make someone a top, just as being submissive doesn’t make someone a bottom. These dynamics can manifest in countless ways, from gentle guidance to explicit direction, from warm encouragement to playful teasing.”
For tagging purposes here on tumblr, you might see the mashing of these two terms together into a new term, “subbot”, which refers to both the submissive and bottom roles a sexual partner assumes.
I would like to re-emphasise that neither of these terms includes the lack of agency seen in non consensual or dubiously consensual relationships.
And, finally, if you’ve gotten this far? You probably know what a twink is, but for the sake of completeness and to make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s define it:
Twink: a term used to describe a gay man that is often effeminate or otherwise defiant of traditional masculine gender norms; physically described as thin and slight, with little to no body hair.
I’ve taken this definition from the sources listed in the LGBTQIA+ wiki, which does expand on further. For the sake of brevity (Smitty says, writing hundreds of words about fandom tropes) I’ll just let you read the wiki yourself.
Ok, we’ve got our definitions. Even made flash cards. We’re studied up, we’re ready. Finally, I’ll lay the thesis on you.
The Thesis
The EtM fandom reflects patriarchal values onto relationships by ignoring physical and mental characteristics of subjects in order to conform to a heterosexual societal narrative.
Wow. Much word. Let’s break it down.
The EtM fandom reflects patriarchal values onto relationships by ignoring physical and mental characteristics of subjects in order to conform to a heterosexual societal narrative.
Patriarchal values: we live in a patriarchy. A male-dominated society, which prioritises men over women in terms of social status. This leads to stereotypes such as “women are weak-willed” and “men must be strong.” By “values”, I’m referring to feminine and masculine roles which align with this patriarchy.
The EtM fandom reflects patriarchal values onto relationships by ignoring physical and mental characteristics of subjects in order to conform to a heterosexual societal narrative.
Onto relationships: the fandom is applying the patriarchal society it exists in to the relationships it’s shipping. In other words, those feminine and masculine roles, which are the two halves of a heterosexual relationship, are being projected onto relationships that the fandom ships.
The EtM fandom reflects patriarchal values onto relationships by ignoring physical and mental characteristics of subjects in order to conform to a heterosexual societal narrative.
By ignoring physical and mental characteristics of subjects: Ignoring characterisation of both the source itself (Epic: the Musical) as well as what it’s derived from (Homer’s The Odyssey) to the ends of enforcing heterosexual roles. This includes what Odysseus looks like, i.e. physical appearance/characteristics, as well as personality, i.e. mental characteristics.
The EtM fandom reflects patriarchal values onto relationships by ignoring physical and mental characteristics of subjects in order to conform to a heterosexual societal narrative.
In order to conform to a heterosexual societal narrative: Women, who occupy the feminine gender role in a patriarchy, are supposedly less physically imposing, emotional, weak, pathetic; the ones being penetrated when sex is involved. Men, who occupy the masculine gender role within a patriarchy, are supppsedly physically imposing, stoic, strong, in control; the ones doing the penetrating, when sex is involved. In other words, this is saying even gay ships within the fandom exhibit the same gender roles as a heterosexual relationship as enforced by the patriarchy.
Trends and Tropes
The prevailing trend in the EtM fandom is towards interpretations where Odysseus is shown to be slight, with little or no facial hair. In writing, he’s the bottom, and beyond that he’s submissive—but not as he would be in a healthy, well-negotiated BSDM relationship. These two terms (“bottom” and “sub”) are constantly conflated when it comes to Odysseus. To that end, he also has derogatory terms which essentially mean the same thing ascribed to him: malewife, manwhore, etc.
These tropes exist. They’re popular, spawning literally hundreds of fanfics for one sexual position…
…And maybe tens of them for another.
That’s 2.3x the amount of tagged bottom Odysseus fanfics on AO3 versus tagged top Odysseus fanfics on AO3. I emphasise the tagged because, beyond the fanfics tagged in this manner, there are innumerable amounts untagged but which fit into these tropes where Odysseus is submissive and/or a bottom. Oftentimes it’s both, with a side of non-consent. The distinction is very murky, and that is the reason I defined the two at the beginning of this essay.
Why is this idea so prevalent? Why are these two terms—bottom and sub—conflated so heavily for Odysseus in particular within the EtM fandom?
Source vs Derivative
In the original Odyssey, Odysseus is a sexual assault victim. I’m not going deeper into that statement because there are many people who have done many essays on that exact subject, and I urge you to find and read them (I recommend this one by dootznbootz about specifically Circe's assault). Odysseus is also a character who doesn’t shy from showing his emotions. To that end, I’ve chosen some snippets from Kline’s translation of the Odyssey simply for the accessibility of the text to my readers:
Of his time on Calypso’s isle (BkV:43-91 Hermes visits Calypso)
“Of Odysseus there was no sign, since he sat wretched as ever on the shore, troubling his heart with tears and sighs of grief. There he could gaze out over the rolling waves, with streaming eyes.”
And when he is retelling his whole story to the Phaeacians (BkVII:240-297 Odysseus tells of his arrival)
“...the tenth night of darkness the gods washed me shore on Ogygia, where lives that dread goddess Calypso of the lovely tresses. She welcomes me to her home with kindness, fed me, and promised to make me ageless and immortal, but she never reached my heart. Seven whole years I stayed there, soaking the everlasting garments Calypso gave me with my tears. But when the eighth year came round, she urged me to go, because of some message from Zeus, or because her feelings had changed.”
And finally when Odysseus hears a bard sing of the fall of Troy (BkVIII:521-585 Alcinous questions Odysseus)
“And Odysseus’ heart melted, and tears poured from his eyes. He wept pitifully, as a woman weeps who throws herself on her husband’s dying body, fallen in front of his city and people, trying to ward off that evil moment from the city and his own children: watching him gasping for breath in dying, she clings to him and screams aloud, while behind her the enemy beat her back and shoulders with their spears: then she is led into captivity to endure a life of toil and suffering, her cheeks wasted pitifully with grief. He hid the falling tears from all except Alcinous, who, aware because he sat by him, noticed all, and heard him sighing deeply. At one he addressed the sea-faring Phaeacians:
‘Leaders and Counsellors of the Phaeacians, hear me, and let Demodocus still his ringing lyre, since his song fails to give pleasure to all alike. From the moment of our feast when our divine bard was inspired to sing, this stranger has never stopped his sad grieving, his heart must surely be overflowing with sorrow. Let the bard refrain, and let us enjoy ourselves, hosts and guest alike: that would be better. We prepared all this for the sake of a sacred stranger after all, this farewell and the gifts of friendship we give with love. To a man of any intelligence, a stranger, a suppliant, is dear as a brother.'”
He cries. Openly. Multiple times. And you might be asking, “Smitty, we’re talking about Epic: the Musical, not the Odyssey. Why are you bringing it up?”
Within Epic: the Musical, certain scenes are given more leeway for interpretation—but the coercion of EtM Circe, for example, is still present and very real. The lyric which EtM Circe sings, “Want to save your men from the fire? / Show me that you're willing to burn” shows this the best. She is demanding sex in return for freeing his men from her spell.
EtM Calypso, whom I will compare directly to the Odyssey snippets provided, still keeps Odysseus trapped for seven years upon her isle—even if you choose to ignore the following lyrics:
[CALYPSO]
Anyways, I've got all you could want here
All you could need here
Just you and me, my dear, my love for life
Soon, into bed we'll climb and spend our time
[ODYSSEUS]
I'm not your man
[CALYPSO]
I'm what you want here, I'm what you need here
Just you and me, my love in paradise
Now 'til the end of time
From here on out, you're mine, all mine
[ODYSSEUS]
Hell no, I could kill you where you stand
I'm no pet, I'm a married man
[CALYPSO]
Oh handsome, you may try
But last I checked, goddesses can't die
I’ve taken the liberty of bolding the lyrics which are particularly relevant to this point. EtM Calypso insists that Odysseus join her in bed—assumes it as a given—and when Odysseus refuses? She insists again. Calls him hers, as one might an object. When Odysseus resorts to threats to protect his person, Calypso replies that she cannot die… and then laughs.
Now, I ask for you to go through a thought exercise with me.
If this—
“Soon we’ll get into bed together, pretty, just you wait.”
“No. I already have a partner.”
“You’re still mine.”
“Stop it—I have a knife! Back up!”
“A knife won’t change how this ends. Haha!”
—Was a conversation between a man and a woman… who would you call the “masculine” person and who would you call the “feminine” person? The orange is the masculine, right? He’s threatening the feminine person (green) into sex. That’s what comes about in a patriarchy.
The same thing is happening to Odysseus in the Odyssey happens to Odysseus in Epic: the Musical. With Calypso, with Circe, there is sexual coercion. And what does he do? Beg it to not happen and cry, as any victim of assault might in the immediate threat and in the aftermath, no matter their gender. He did so in the Odyssey, and he did so in the musical which is based off of it. No difference, there.
This is all to say: for all intents and purposes, EtM Odysseus and his Odyssey counterpart experience similar scenarios. However, why is Epic: the Musical such a breeding ground for unhealthily submissive, bottom Odysseus?
Putting it All Together
These shows of emotion are one of the contributors to fandom ascribing him a submissive role. In the end, modern society demands of its men a lack of such a thing: call it what you will, ‘toxic masculinity’ or another phrase, but men who show such emotions are often called slurs (gay and its far ruder explicative), a “little girl”, which is in and of itself misogynistic, or otherwise degraded. They’re associated with someone who is penetrated (“gay”), and with femininity (“little girl”). The bucking of masculine gendered norms? Well that means a man is equated with the supposed weakness associated with femininity.
This fandom has been a reflection of the patriarchal society we live in, because it does the exact same thing: associates being emotional, being the one who is assaulted, the one who is penetrated with being feminine—and in turn weakness of character. I mentioned earlier the use of terms such as “malewife” and “manwhore” to describe Odysseus. But let’s think critically about those for a minute:
“Malewife” = “Male” + “Wife”
→ Attributes the feminine gendered term “wife” to someone submissive within a relationship. Does that mean women, wives, are inherently submissive? So much so that when a masculine person inhabits that role, we must put “male” in front of the word to denote what genitals or traditional gendered role they have?
“Manwhore” = “Man” + “Whore”
→ Implies that whore is a gendered term. More than that, a feminine one, as it must be specified that a man is the whore. This is a term used especially in the EtM fandom to describe the “joke AU” originally created by AnniFlamma. In it, Odysseus seduces his way out of the obstacles of the Odyssey—specifically the wrath of Zeus for the murder of Helios’ sacred cows—by offering up his body, which is a form of sexual coercion.
Sound familiar? Let’s go back to that line by Circe: “Want to save your men from the fire? / Show me that you're willing to burn”. The exact same situation unfolds here, with the exact same coercion, the exact same power imbalance.
The usage of these terms to describe Odysseus inherently equates him to femininity, and more than that ignores things such as sexual coercion (gods have inherent power over mortals, and in all instances Odysseus is subject to that power when sexually interacting with gods & goddesses). However, by equating him to femininity, fandom is not bucking gendered roles. It does not explore how a masculine man can be feminine. Instead, it forces him to take up a new gendered role:
That of a woman in a patriarchy.
Physicality Reflecting Gendered Roles
Instead of following Homer’s original description of Odysseus (BkVIII:104-151 The Sports Contest)
“He’s a fine build in thighs and calves, with two strong arms, a stout neck, plenty of strength. Nor has he lost the power of youth, he is only wearied with suffering.”
Fandom instead makes him slight, thinly built. Shorter than all other characters he is paired with, from Penelope to Diomedes. It portrays him as a twink, in direct ignorance of the base text from which this character sprung (or, well, was first written down in. There’s oral histories that are older). Even the EtM specific interpretations, which are commonly based on Jorge Rivera-Herrans, have begun to morph to fit this physique so they might better conform to gendered roles. The “weak” one. The “strong” one. Penelope of Sparta who pegs her pathetic husband. Odysseus, her malewife who loves to be fucked.
A “twink”, as we defined earlier, is a man who is perhaps physically more effeminate. Who embraces their more androgynous looks—bucking gendered norms.
But what the EtM fandom does is take the sexual assault, open shows of emotion, and general use of his wits instead of strength… and instead puts him in the role of a woman. It forces him into a little gendered box. Not only that, it ascribes a weakness to the very femininity it could have engaged with. In every relationship Odysseus is put in, he’s always the one being penetrated. He’s the submissive one. He is physically weaker. His femininity is explored by this fandom solely through the eyes of the modern patriarchy, which sees men who have been assaulted and who show emotions as lesser, as women, as weak. Can masculine men not be sexually assaulted? Can men who top not cry? Can men who dominate not be the bottom?
Can women not be feminine and strong? Can Odysseus not be feminine and strong?
For the Epic: the Musical fandom, the answer to those questions is no. Odysseus being a submissive bottom is so prevalent in this fandom that it’s going untagged in AO3 ships, and more than that, dubious consent is going untagged in the fics which have one of the gods or goddesses in a relationship with Odysseus.
This fandom is so obsessed with putting a man in a feminine role that it’s become a reflection of the modern patriarchal society we live in, complete with misogyny—because the counterpart to Odysseus is always a character in a masculine role, from Penelope (see “Warrior Penelope” AUs) to Zeus (who is a literal god and has complete control over every relationship he is in). It doesn’t matter that Penelope’s whole characterisation relies upon her use of her feminine role as hostess and beautiful Queen to control 108 suitors for years; when she is the counterpart to Odysseus, she is almost always the one who has the emotional onus of comforting Odysseus of his troubles. Where Odysseus is emotional, Penelope is stoic. Where Odysseus suffers, Penelope is in control. Feminine and masculine.
The perfect heterosexual relationship.
It’s just a thin, thin veneer of queerness that this fandom is hiding behind.
Call to Action
What I want to do in this essay is strip away that veneer. This fandom needs to think critically for a moment about why Odysseus is the powerless submissive bottom to all of its relationships, and understand that underlying the excuse of “he’s just so good at it” is the expectation that assaulted people who show their sorrow are feminine. Feminine means Odysseus is less physically imposing, emotional, weak, pathetic; the one to be penetrated when sex is involved. He’s a subby little twink. A pathetic, sad wet cat. How many times have you heard some combination of those phrases when describing Odysseus?
Assigning Odysseus this role means that misogyny is perpetrated under the guise of queerness. Odysseus occupies a feminine gender role—and due to that occupation, he is then characterised as weak, physically and mentally. Have you ever thought about what that might mean to anyone under the trans umbrella—especially trans women? How his body must reflect femininity, and how that femininity must mean he is thin, pale, short. How his femininity means he must be the one being penetrated, the one being taken care of, infantilized…
And, in the case of Odysseus in particular, that’s just fucking sad. He’s called polytropos for a reason. Many tropes. If you’ve made it this far, then I’m glad to see you. Interrogate your own biases once in a while. Think critically about a character and their place in society. Odysseus, in his own ancient epic, is compared to a wife who weeps for her fallen husband in the face of her conquered city—but in the same book he’s described as a physically imposing man. He returns home and reclaims his position as king and husband… but he is most well-known to his friends as father of dear Telemachus.
Duality in gendered role, but more than that a spectrum, is possible. It’s needed. In the thousands-of-years-old epic Odysseus is already in the murky in-between of the gender binary enforced by the patriarchy. Why is the EtM fandom enforcing that binary once again onto its queer ships? Is that really Odysseus? Is that really exploring the fluidity of gender, as Homer does in his original epic?
Are you truly engaging with queerness?
---
If you liked this essay, then please tell me in the comments or reblogs! If you disliked this essay, do the same—but be prepared for me to ask questions. This isn’t a smear campaign, it’s an opening for discussion. A call to think a little deeper about fandom, its tropes, and how we might interrogate our personal biases… be they misogynistic or otherwise. I’ll be putting out more essays like this one every week or so, so stay tuned!
Fuck it. Why the tits not? I shall practice what I preach and unpack some of Trinity's self-gaslighting/her skewed perception of reality/the rewriting she does of her own narrative. Largely because I think it's: under-discussed and FASCINATING, especially in a wider conversation surrounding unhealthy coping mechanisms (which are on FULL display throughout season 2) and as a trauma response.
It was literally my first day of being a doctor...
I kinda love the fact that the first words out of her mouth are just....like, girl, it GENUINELY LITERALLY was: not!!!! Both because, y'know, s1 we had the Langdon line of doctor being a 'title you have enjoyed for, what, 90 days?' So, working 90 days backwards from the date of the 5th of September 2025 (season 1's date), that gives us a doctor graduation date of arooound about: the 7th of June.
And alongside: Whitaker in this season now being a resident without a badge/Rick the surgery intern informing Robby "I was a med student 2 weeks ago." That places our in-world (and, I believe, out-of-world) graduation/doctor becoming date at: around about the 20th of May 2026. So, loosey-gooseyness accounting for in the 'what, 90 days?' being a lowball estimate - doctoring the fuck up occurs: end of May/beginning of June. AKA: very much not the start of September. If...If we're talking about this literally. Which: u used the word, so I'm gonna.
And she could've meant: my first day at PTMC as a doctor (except she said my first day of BEING a doctor, being exists outwith: where one bes. It simply: do be, you see?). Or there could be some bizarre bend-over-backwards reason she graduated later. OR it could just be that: 'it was literally my first day of being a doctor' just Feels Right to Trinity in terms of the impact/framing of her pain/this experience.
...and Langdon gaslit me...
mm, this line may just be my white whale, y'all. Bc I already have: #issues with the way people use gaslighting. But honestly? In WHATEVER sense we use it: it ain't what happened.
For the, what I would call, proper/actual definition of gaslighting: it's a bit like abuse in that: this is actually a specific thing with a specific meaning that is not an all-encompassing umbrella term for 'someone being a bit mean to you'. One of the main things both abuse and gaslighting require is: time. These are SUSTAINED, PROLONGED, PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR that build-up and have an accumulating/compounding effect OVER TIME. Because gaslighting, taken directly from the original novel/origin of the term is: a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR - it's designed by a husband to make his wife feel like she is going insane, because he repeatedly denies her experiences/reality (eg: hearing footsteps - which she IS, and which he KNOWS because: he is the source of them - but he continually dismisses this notion because 'well the house is empty, so you must be imagining things!'). And he does this often enough that she does begin to question her sense of what is real and what is not and can she trust her own self and her own senses? It's a form of psychological abuse.
Now, if I'm feeling #Generous and I choose to apply what has taken on a more colloquial form of gaslighting where it isn't a sustained attempt to drive someone insane over the course of many months in a prolonged campaign of psychological abuse, what gaslighting would be at its most basic/fundamental/essential components to call something gaslighting is: A truth exists. Let us say it is the fact that: Santos saw Mel wearing a yellow t-shirt. Santos saw this, with her own two eyes, and was certain, in the moment, that Mel was wearing a yellow t-shirt. And, indeed: she was! Perfectly correct. Langdon: also knows this. For a fact. Langdon informs Santos flatly that, uh, no, Mel's t-shirt was definitely black. For whatever reason: Mel cannot be found to prove or disprove this one way or the other, and nor can anyone else. It's a straight he-said/she-said. Langdon continues to insist, with absolute certainty, that Mel's t-shirt was 100% black and Santos must have seen someone else/gotten confused with a different day - so that Santos begins being uncertain of what she actually saw and what is real.
This is obviously: a silly, simplified, hyperbolic example. It highlights, however, the relevant features for gaslighting which is that: 1)- Santos has to be RIGHT. 2)- Langdon has to make Santos BELIEVE she's not right but is in fact wrong based on: because I said so/convinced you of that fact.
Tragically: this never happens! Langdon calls Santos out several times over the course of the shift over a variety of incidents/issues. They all: happened. Eg: when he tells her their biPAP patient Stone does not need to be intubated, nor does he need a chest tube: the patient does not need to be intubated nor does he need a chest tube! This is not and CANNOT be gaslighting fundamentally because: he is calling Santos out on actual verifiable things that she actually did do or say wrong. That's not gaslighting that's just: the truth. (We can debate the appropriateness of the method of delivery - but it is not gaslighting).
And whhhhy am I a #stickler for this. Well, first off: words matter. They mean things. If you're gonna use them: use them properly. I feel like that's reasonable.
Secondly: you know who IS gaslighting Santos, by both technical definitions of the word laid out above? Yeah. Santos herself. Because I don't believe she's lying to Whitaker in this scene/deliberately fudging things to present herself more sympathetically/to show what happened as being worse. I think that is GENUINELY how it has come to exist and be in her mind.
And we all do this - humans, as a rule, our memories are imperfect. We forget details. Or we change them. Or we can't quite remember properly so we fill in a blank. Our memories of an event are never ever going to be a perfect, proper reproduction of the event exactly as it happened - that's just...not a thing (I guess unless you have a perfect memory, but, u know, for most humans). Santos is just doing this at: a whole new level. Where I believe that, for HER, this IS a true reflection of how she feels like her first day with Langdon went (and consequently: why it's affected her so strongly months and months later).
It's just that, OBJECTIVELY - as viewers who have: a god's-eyed view of this series and can analyse (and rewatch) scenes over again: we know that how she remembers it is NOT what actually happened. So she's rewritten it/changed things (likely unconsciously, and likely over time, repeatedly going over every interaction with Langdon and every time she remembers it, a tiny change happens - a word, an expression, the tone - until gradually, over time, bit by bit, very 'frog in the boiling water' it gets worse and worse and more and more traumatising - and she's had no one to push back against this/course-correct because: no one can verify the colour of the t-shirt. It's just been her, in her head, rotating these things and this man and likely splashing on other incidents and blurring lines between other reprimands and scoldings and now there is: a giant emotional clusterfuck that is very difficult to uncluster.
So her being AWARE of this term and this concept but not SELF-aware enough to realise that: she's been doing it to herself makes me want to go chew on concrete it's so juicy-tasty-excellent-fascinating.
and made me question my skills over and over.
This is another thing that, OBJECTIVELY: never happened. Langdon NEVER questions Santos' skills or ability - he questions her lack of EXPERIENCE (which is, again, just...a basic fact. She has only been a doctor for 3 months. She has objectively less experience than someone who's been one for 2/3/4+ years) and her decision-making/over-confidence: aka her penchant for putting in orders when she was told she HAD to run them by a senior resident or attending first.
But at no point does he tell her she cannot do this - in fact, even after she fucks up (and: nearly kills a guy, which, u know, i feel like we really dont talk about enough in terms of this whole scenario but that's...a separate issue) but he NEVER kicks her out/refuses to teach her because he thinks she's a hopeless fuck-up. Indeed - he continues to let her assist with and observe procedures and talks her through them in terms of 'when you do this procedure' - as in: this is a thing I believe you will absolutely do in the future/are absolutely capable of doing.
Even in That One Scene in 1x09 - he never actually says, or even implies, he doesn't think she can do this (quite the opposite, actually). Loathe tho I be to open this: worm can, let's do it, let's throw the worms all over the floor, fuck it. Before we do, let us remember that these worms are the product of: what Langdon knows. Which is different to what we as an audience know. Not least because: Santos told him SHE was wrong abt the diagnosis of the seizure patient and Mohan was right, but she wouldn't listen to her.
Is it... is it hubris OR ignorance that makes you think that you know more than other residents that have two to three years more experience...
1)- Is it ignorance OR is it hubris - something that Collins and Garcia have both previously accused Santos of being.
2)- she...she DOES do this lmfao. And she HAS done this. Repeatedly. To both Langdon himself and to (as per Santos' fake-confession/his knowledge/what he's basing this one) to Mohan (whom Langdon is: very specifically defending/upset for in this scene btw). But she repeatedly makes decisions on her own/disrespects and argues with people who have more experience than her. Sometimes she's right to do this - Langdon has seen: 0 of these times.
It doesn't matter! Stupid OR arrogant,
Hey, it doesn't matter WHY she's doing this, stupidity or over-confidence (aka: a far cry from 'santos u are a fucking eejit who couldn't tell ur aorta from ur abdomen'). Either she's a moron, or she's just arrogant/over-confident: it doesn't matter/that's not the point. The point is.....
you need to realize that you are a beginner, which means your job is to shut up, listen, and learn
Okay let's make a couple of things real clear here: is this an appropriate way to speak to a newbie/trainee: no! Is it an appropriate way to speak to anyone: no! Is it a good means of communicating information: no! Is it a good teacher moment: no! Is it a good person in general moment: no! Is the content of what's being said fundamentally wrong in spite of all of that? Also: No.
0/10 for delivery, student satisfaction score currently: negative a million, but he's also: not wrong. She IS a beginner. She IS here (at the TEACHING HOSPITAL) to learn. Robby points this out - 'that's why it's a four year program' - there's a reason they don't punt baby doctors directly from medical school into the big bad world and it's because: you need EXPERIENCE to teach you the things that you can't learn from school.
This is also: not something you tell someone that you believe has: no skills/does not belong here. Because if that were the case you would not believe them to have the capacity to: learn anything at all. Langdon obviously DOES see potential in that - it's why Santos has continued to assist him/have procedures explained to her all day and why he wants her to LEARN. He would just like her to do that in a way that: does not (in is eyes/from his perspective) disrespect/disregard/undermine her fellow residents.
Again: he communicates this APPALLINGLY, he's behaving like an asshole here - that is not up for debate. Just. Purely CONTENT wise. Some food for thought.
because so far today, the only thing you have been successful at is proving repeatedly that you know nothing.
This is also: unfortunately true (from Langdon's perspective). Before I expand/explain on this seemingly rage-bait statement, let me note one thing: what he says is that 'what you have been SUCCESSFUL AT PROVING' is that you know nothing. Now. This is me being: a rat-bastard stickler again (I do that, I have an English lit degree, which is essentially just a degree in being: a rat-bastard stickler) specificity is important!!! Especially when we throwback to him telling her that HER JOB right now is to: be wheesht and gain knowledge.
So, again, yes, terrible delivery, assholish presentation, absolutely awful, the works, please see above etc etc. BUT. There's actually a reasonable bit of insight in here, if you just look purely at WHAT he's saying and pretend they're discussing this in a pleasant setting over tea and scones in a park or some shit.
He's telling her that her JOB is to: shoosh and learn. He's also telling her that she has only been successful in proving what she doesn't know. (Which is NOT the same as 'you know nothing') it is what it says: what you have proven to be today is all the things you DON'T know. I need/want you to stop that. Your JOB is to learn and gain experience. I do not need or want you to try and prove yourself to me right now - it is NOT helping; either you, me, your fellow residents, or our patients. Sit down and shut up and stop trying so goddamn hard to impress everyone: it's having the opposite effect of what you want. You're trying to push in and prove to everyone how much you know and how smart you are and it's just exposing your lack of experience. You don't need to do this. I don't WANT you to do this. Just. Your JOB/all that is expected of you right now is to: learn. Not to be perfect or prove anything. Just be here and take everything in.
Now, again, that is: NOT what comes across/is obviously not what is sticking in Trinity's head (or anyone else's). But I DO think it's interesting/important/relevant to note that: Langdon sees her. He sees the pressure she's putting on herself. He understands WHY she keeps butting in and WHY she keeps contradicting and WHY she keeps trying to do all the procedures and flex her giant medical guns at every one in her vicinity: he gets that she's trying to impress and prove herself and prove that she belongs here and she can make it here (and he probably knows all of this becaaaause: yeah. he does that shit, too lmfao. And ask him and his benzo addiction where that road leads some time).
So he does NOT communicate this well and I'm not saying that this is what Santos should have managed to get out of him: yelling at her in front of her coworkers/that she needs to sit down and analyse the contents of this man's words to try and find their #TrueMeaning (bc that's MY job, thank u very much) but just: something to consider from a viewer perspective.
Also, as I mentioned: he's right. FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE. If you actually go and pick through every season 1 scene that Langdon and Santos have together up to this point (which I: have done, actually) it's genuinely fascinating. Because they both, but Langdon in particular ,really just get a condensed 'Greatest Hits' style album of each other. Except in this case it's: Santos' Worst Bits. Any time she makes a mistake, or a wrong call, or doesn't know something/gets something wrong (which: she's going to do! because she's human and new and this is expected! it's why she's supposed to present her cases!) but yeah, Langdon just pretty much witnesses: 101 Fuck Ups by Trinity Santos. Her cool catches, her saves, her insights, her performing well under pressure and with tricky procedures that we as an audience see and that other characters see: yeah Langdon sees none of that. He just sees her at her worst. So, from his POV, all she actually HAS successfully proven to him is that she: doesn't know nearly as much as she thinks she does.
Which, AGAIN, does not justify his behaviour or the way he spoke to her etc etc etc, official disclaimer coming at y'all once again on this. But it IS, at least in my opinion: extremely interesting. And a very good reminder that: our experiences are not these characters' experiences. They make decisions and judgement calls and form opinions of others based on limited information. And that's always very important to keep track of/keep in mind.
And it's taken me a long time to feel like I belong here, and now he's back.
Now here - here we start slipping into the bounds of hypocrisy/self-contradiction (fascinating) where, even outside of being objective god-mode viewers: we can see there are some flaws here. Because two episodes ago, Santos informed Garcia that:
"Meanwhile, I've been a goddamn pariah for the last 10 months for doing the right thing."
Fundamentally: These two things CANNOT coexist at the same time. They CANNOT both be true. It's like saying that 2+2=4 but also that 2+2=6. You gotta pick one! These statements just, logically, cancel each other out/contradict each other.
You cannot feel like you belong here (even if this has taken a long time to happen) AND be a pariah. You just can't! They directly contradict one another! So either: you do not fit here/do not belong/are isolated from everyone because you did the right thing and got rid of their golden boy and they're all pissed at you and won't include you.
OR
You do feel like you belong here, but now Langdon is back and threatening that/threatening to disrupt the connections you've formed and the sense of community and settling that is felt here.
Now, when I say these things cannot coexist I mean: LOGICALLY. As in from a rational 2+2=4 almost mathematical, realistic, logical view of the matter: they can't coexist. EMOTIONALLY? They absolutely can. Because humans are often irrational and emotional and do not give a damn about logic. I can absolutely think that Trinity both does genuinely feel like she's a pariah AND that her place and her belonging here is under threat. This is not a case of dismissing or invalidating her feelings - this is an exploration of what is logically, factually, demonstrably and provably true to us as independent god-mode viewers vs what Santos is feeling/experiencing/perceiving in HER version of reality. This is about demonstrating that these two things: are different, to open up conversations around: how/why/what that then tells us about Santos' character/headspace/dynamics etc. And because it's: fucking fascinating (or at least it is: to me).
And I don't even care that he was an addict. I care that he was a fucking asshole.
Winding down a little bit towards the end here, because we're moving into realms of 'I feel/I think' - ie things that are not factually provable or disprovable one way or the other.
The only note I have here/the thing I find interesting is that: essentially, this is something Langdon's apology to her in episode 2x11 targeted/homing missile honed in on pretty much perfectly. Whether that was insight/his awareness of what ACTUALLY mattered to her about the situation and his deliberate attempts to address that, a complete coincidence/happy accident, or a byproduct of him attempting to target how his addiction/behaviour directly impacted Trinity (which - let's be so for real here, had NOTHING to do with the drug stealing, like, on a personal level. Frank pocketing Louie's librium has approximately: 0 real world consequences for Santos/impacts her: not at all/is not relevant to her) rather than: apologising for every thing he ever did - orrrr some combination of all 3, we do not know, but....that is almost exactly, to a perfectly crossed T, what he said to her in 2x11.
Mentions of his addiction: 0 (which she just stated she: does not care about (and why would/should she??? she doesn't know this guy from Adam, his drug issues ain't her business)). Mentions of/acknowledgements towards/apologies regarding his asshole behaviour (which is what she says here she cares about): all!
And it's like no one here even remembers any of this.
Any of what? That Langdon had a benzo addiction and has been off for 10 months as a result of that? No I... I think people definitely remember that. Langdon's: trashed/ruined relationships, especially with Robby and Dana (Dana is: less obvious than Robby who is: the MOST obvious about the change in their dynamic but....there is ABSOLUTELY a change in Dana and Langdon's relationship between season 1 and season 2. I mean, not least covered by the fact that: she didn't contact him while he was off, either) are pretty clear proof of the very lingering memory/hurt of: all of that.
Then there's also, y'know, the smaller elements/evidence that this is definitely a thing people Remember like:
-Whitaker jumping in to prescribe benzos that Langdon just ordered (with bonus Perlah: grimacing at the #awkward of it all).
-Samira casually referencing that Langdon went to rehab and is working the steps now.
-Baran, who has been here for: less than a day! Knowing that Langdon is part of the PHP (privacy!? medical confidentiality!? bitch ive never fuckin' heard of her (dont get me started on the PHP and its #Issues. just. don't))
-Mckay asking Langdon how his first day is going/referencing her own previous addiction issues
-Javadi and Whitaker's "Langdon's an addict" "Uh person with substance abuse disorder" convo
-Dana ambling over in the middle of the ED to remind Langdon that he: has to go upstairs and piss in a cup in front of a stranger now please and thank you.
Now, how fitting/reasonable any of these things are: not the point. The point is that, from a purely factual POV: Yeah, no: evverrryyyybody knows about/remembers this. And the man has (at least) 4 more years to go in the PHP which means: no one is forgetting about the whole 'addict' thing any time, well, ever, really.
On the other hand, if we're talking about the specific asshole-ishness/Langdon yelling at her? I... I am going to say this as gently and respectfully as I possibly can, with an acknowledgement of my own experiences with angry men/abuse, as well as my own special interest in and respect for trauma and its many manifestations and the very real impact it has on people: honey, why the actual fuck would they???
Objectively: Langdon was an asshole. 100%. 0 way to justify how he yelled at her in 1x09. Also objectively: it was one shift's worth of shitty behaviour culminating in that moment of ultimate shit - for which he was IMMEDIATELY pulled out of the room with Santos and verbally dressed down/reprimanded by their attending who made it extremely clear that was: not acceptable and not tolerated.
Only Mohan and Princess were actually in the room where it happened (the room where it happened!) and, okay, if I acknowledge the hospital grapevine, sure, let's say, for argument's sake: the entirety of The Pitt is privy to every individual detail and it's like they were present in the room at the time.
It is still: one case of assholery that happened to take place on a day in which there was, only a few hours later: a MASS FUCKING SHOOTING AT A MUSIC FESTIVAL RESULTING IN A MASS CASUALTY EVENT which, per Robby, is, "the worst mass casualty incident in this city's history". Now. Forgive me. But. OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING HERE: I feel like, mayhaps, just maybe: people have some other big standout memories of that day that kinda make them forget about: the yelling.
Which is not to diminish the impact it's had on Santos but, again, this is about looking objectively at what happened/at peoples' experiences of it. And, I'm sorry, but of fucking course 10 months after the fact, peoples' biggest concern/thing to have retained from that day was not: oh Langdon behaved like an asshole towards you.
For Santos: ABSOLUTELY it's a big deal. (Especially after 10 months of self-gaslighting/rotating/letting everything fester and get worse and worse and worse) but for everyone else? A bit of context and perspective/seeing the bigger picture is never a bad thing/always good to keep in mind. Again: people have different experiences and perceptions which are limited by their own personal issues/demons/emotions. This is: okay! It's also: very relevant/important to remember!
And everyone here talks about community and family, all while they throw you under the bus, and I–
I don't have much to say on this point (HUZZAH you all cry!) I just... I just want to flashback to season 1 for a hot second and remind ourselves of this grand Santosian nugget of wisdom from 1x03: "You (Mel) see a family, I see every man for himself."
It's another one of those 'have your cake and eat it' / these cannot both be true. Either you reject the notion of family and community and are working in your own 'every man for himself' system. OR you respect and want to be part of the family/community and therefore it hurts when they...do unto you as you have done unto them. (A rather brutal assessment, but hey, it's 2am and I'm tired/my patience is running thing. I'm also: not wrong.)
Robby is the only attending who actually sees through the bullshit, but now he's leaving for some grand ego-death spirit quest...
1)- Santos, Robby is: your ONLY attending period!!!! I mean. I guess there's Abbot (and Shen - I remember ur not a resident no more, Shen!) but they are both: night shift! But okay, fine, let's still go with Robby is the only one who sees through the bullshit.
Let's just please acknowledge that, in this case, the 'bullshit' is:
2)- the bullshit concept of family/community - but everyone just throws everyone else under the bus. And let's just...
I'm going to take a moment to point out/reflect here that: the biggest foundational issue with The Pitt/with the state of everything (ie: everyone's SHOCKING mental health) in season 2 is that: they're all playing a team sport as individuals right now. There is no family. There is no community. There are: a bunch of individuals trying to individually do their jobs and individually deal with their problems, both personal and professional, and that they are not seeing or communicating with each other or working together and that is, in short: why everything is fucked. (yes yes there are other factors, too: this is the main one.) Y'all just gotta trust me on this, okay, bc I can and will write a meta the same length as this one: proving/demonstrating that point - but that will be for a separate day bc this bitch is already long enough, lbr.
But in this case - no. No Robby is seeing: nothing right now. (someone fetch this bitch his glasses). I get that he is your Spiritual Papa and that you two have trauma-bonded and also just bond-bonded over these 10 months (which, not to sidebar again but holy SHIT at some point we need to engage with Robby and Santos' s2 dynamic and how it might just be: the most fascinating thing ever. Especially given the fact: NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT. but. again. another meta another day) - but no Robby is not the only one who has reached Enlightenment and sees through the bullshit concept of, uh, attempting to help your fellow humans he is simply: dying. Please do not let him take you with him.
and Robo-Doc over there shoots me in the proverbial dick.
Honey. Sweet baby snookums. Your dick, proverbial or otherwise, was not shot - it was not even shot AT, if i wish to be a pedantic little bitch a la Abbot. Al-Hashimi told you that: being TWENTY charts behind/not keeping up to date on charting was: not acceptable. Because it's not. Because it: kills people. (No. Seriously. Like. I sound as if I'm being dramatic/hyperbolic but: actually. Charting is important. It's not sexy or glamorous, none of the doctors enjoy it, it is the bane of every existence, it is also: extremely necessary. If you haven't documented someting: it hasn't happened. And if it hasn't happened then we start getting into the realms of: extra med dosages being given because if it wasn't charted, how is anyone else supposed to know what's been given to who when? Meds that should not be mixed: being mixed because we didn't know they were being mixed because it wasn't written down! Allergies! Side-effects. Bad responses to meds or treatments! Also: safety elements! Possible aggression to flag up! Possible infectious disease! So many possibilities! None of which are known because: there's no goddamn accurate/up-to-date chart!!!!
Al-Hashimi is not just getting on Santos' case for the lolz/because she's decided to dislike her/punish her for existing. And she's not just being a rule-following "robot" because, well, charting is The Rules so we must do them. She's doing it because it: MATTERS!!!! Charting IS a fundamental (and ESSENTIAL/highly important) part of the job! It is not a 'well I'll just get to it later' 'it can wait' 'It'd be a better use of my time to do xzy' - it's NECESSARY. it's boring and painful and hated but it MUST be done. And it is ABSOLUTELY a reason to call up the idea of repeating R2 year (which I don't think is a thing Baran is ACTUALLY just going to hop-to, like, come on people) - but it emphasises that: this is serious. this affects patients/patient care (and hospital billing/admin stuff which, again, snooze-fest/an Evil but it's: a necessary evil) this is an ESSENTIAL, non-optional part of the job and, like any other essential non-optional part of the job, if it's something the resident cannot handle then they cannot progress.
She also: mentions it a couple of times but she ALSO: checks in with Santos, offers understanding/support that R2 year is difficult and she knows this - Santos just has to keep grinding. She also offers potential solutions/options to help (like the AI-app which, if Santos had ACTUALLY used it properly/the way it was supposed to be used and: proof-read the charts it created, it WOULD have saved time/helped). She also praises her for good work with patients - so it's not as if she just got out her machine gun and proceeded to: pepper Santos with non-stop shots to the proverbial dick, come on now.
Welp. This got longer/more involved/more in depth than I was originally intending #oops. But hopefully at least some of it was vaguely interesting/insightful/contained some Food For Thought.
Santos is a character who is fascinating to me. But I find looking at her in a purely black 'she is the devil, nasty awful mean woman i hate her' or white 'she is a poor little trauma victim who has #Suffered and thus has never done any wrong in her life and is incapable of it, actually' to be equally boring/reductive. There's a LOT going on here and a LOT we don't talk about because it could appear to be negative/critical but hey, guess what, Santos, like every other character on this show is: human and therefore: flawed. And those are always the juiciest/most interesting things to look at.
But her penchant for gaslighting herself/rewriting her own narrative is: absolutely FASCINATING. especially when there are things she says or does that can be demonstrably proven to be: factually incorrect. because then we come round onto the topic of: well how did this happen? Why did this happen? How does that impact her and her relationships to everyone around her? Will this eventually boil over/become obvious to other people in-world? What impact will THAT have? How should we as an audience engage with Santos and her takes/impressions/views of other characters/situations when we know she can be an unreliable narrator - but one who is fully convinced of the truth of her own narration???
Just. I WANT TO ENGAGE WITH THESE CHARACTERS ON LEVELS THAT WOULD COME ARCOSS AS SLIGHTLY WORRYING TO THE AVERAGE JOE, OKAY. CAN WE START DOING THAT IN FANDOM AGAIN!? PLEASE!? I WANT TO BRING NEW MEANING TO THE WORD 'OVERTHINKING'. PLEASE.
You know what? At some point now please we need to talk about the capacity Santos has for gaslighting HERSELF/changing the narrative within her own mind/how she is, fundamentally, an unreliable narrator: to herself first and foremost.
Not in a moral sense or in a 'this is a very bad no good negative character trait that we should shame and use as an excuse to dislike her' etc etc etc. (Not least because, 95% of the time, I'm pretty sure: it's entirely unconscious/I don't think she even realises she's doing it).
Just in the sense of it being: absolutely FASCINATING.
Frank Langdon + ‘Learn From The Best’ series: II
Fuck Around & Crike Out
THE PITT 1x02
Okay step 1, before I attempt to say anything even remotely intelligent about this set/these moments: please for the love of god, if you haven't already: look at Mel's reaction to Santos' breach of protocol/Langdon calling her out for it. I PROMISE it will make your life better.
Right, now the important part is out of the way: let us discuss this! And why Langdon is demonstrating GOOD TEACHER/MENTOR BEHAVIOUR, ACTUALLY. For both Mel AND Santos (yes. Langdon is a good teacher/mentor towards Santos in season 1. Multiple times in fact! More of those times shall: emerge as this series continues! Because I wish to fist-fight the people who claim Langdon never gave Santos a chance/never even tried to be a good teacher to her).
Remaining in 1x02, though, I combined these two moments because: they're from the same episode and because they're directly connected/Langdon literally references the first one in the second.
Ah, the beloved/beloathed trigger point injection presentation scene. The beginning of the end for these two, really.
Couple of things to note (we shall go: in chronological/GIF order for these. Because I'm a crazy rebel that way).
1)- Note that Santos interrupts Mel when she's in the middle of talking to Langdon here. Now we can see Langdon's face journey as he starts wondering: how he can possibly extract himself from this infodump that seems it will never end, Santos cannot, but she marches up to Langdon and is like 'yo! Heed me!' (I do not say this merely to throw shade: t'will be relevant in future!)
2)- Look how obviously eager/pleased with herself Santos is in GIF 3. That is an intern who is like 'I did a Cool and now imma flex it'. There's very obvious pride/satisfaction there and it's painfully obvious that she is expecting Langdon to: feel similarly. Honestly I feel like she's expecting an 'Abbot @ her REBOA'-esque response here? Maybe a bit of an 'okay, you should've presented this to me first, y'know! But that was really fucking cool, hell yeah! High five!' (I would guess she's gotten this from mentors/supervisors in the past - doing things that weren't strictly following established rules/protocol/was maybe pushing her luck a bit on what she should be doing on her own; but it worked out/demonstrated obvious competence and skill so she was largely always praised for it/encouraged to keep doing so).
3)- Unfortunately 'fuck yeah, high five me about this, that was awesome!' is, uh, not QUITE where Langdon lands on his response to this lmfaooo. He's also: EXTREMELY clear that this: was not okay. Even as Santos: REPEATEDLY tries to downplay what she did - the casual 'Yeah' with the "what, like it's hard!?" energy, then the citing of her experience at Hopkins - none of which moves him an inch.
This obviously ain't creating a great impression with: Either of them. Santos was hoping for praise and validation from a new superior she obviously wanted to impress/make good impression on and instead got: spray bottled in the face. Langdon meanwhile is probably not too chuffed that her response to this, instead of apologising/saying that she'll do so next time or whatever is to keep pushing back and trying to justify herself.
Tragically they get interrupted by: a dude with a very squashed face (which is why Langdon is yeeting off - though still making clear how Definitely Not Cool this was) so they do not get to delve into what I'm sure would have been a very profitable and chill discussion about this matter and it would've left 100% resolved. Ahem.
Anyway - that moment is a Good Teaching Moment because: if you have a line in the sand/something you feel very strongly about (as Langdon does about the chain of command/respect for those with more experience (which he demonstrates both ways/at all points in the chain, btw, for those above and below him, and what this means regarding responsibility etc)) but if something is A Rule (rather than, you know, a guideline/expectation/something that covers the 'most of the time') it is best to make that: abundantly clear.
No there is no wiggle room here. This is the expectation. The outcome does not make it okay. Personal circumstances do not make it okay. There is no realm of possibility in which this is ever: okay. Interns present first before putting in orders. That's it. No ifs no buts no maybes no asterisk situations where it might be acceptable. Just no. Whether or not Santos thinks that's a reasonable rule or not, it cannot be said that Langdon was unclear about it.
Now, onto the crike scene!
I've seen this cited a couple of times as, like, Kingdon fodder/proof that Langdon has some sort of soft spot/shows Mel preferential treatment/favouritism or what have you and I: call bullshit upon that. This? This is FAIRNESS at play. For several reasons/for both of them. Let us discuss;
Sticking with Santos: this is a consequence/to use her charming words from s2: 'what happens when you fuck up'. She makes it clear that she would like the chance to Do The Cool Thing. Langdon makes it immediately clear 1)- no you will not be Doing The Cool Thing this time, and ALSO makes it immediately clear 2)- WHY.
"You've already had a busy morning". This phrasing also makes it clear to Santos why he's saying no to her in this moment (as is evident from her: less than impressed facial expression lmfao) while sparing her from being called out to anyone else in the room at this point (which includes both Robby and Garcia).
Langdon is tactfully telling her no - WITHOUT turning it into a public spectacle/putting her in the spotlight and possibly negatively impacting Garcia and/or Robby's opinions of her by doing something along the lines of 'no, Santos, you can't do the crike because you already went behind my back/totally flouted the clearly established chain of command/expectations here and went and performed procedures on your lonesome trying to show off!!!!' So he's allowing for the benefit of the doubt/for this to be a one-and-done incident that's settled going forwards.
It also reinforces/is a subtle nod towards WHY he feels that hierarchy/structure is important and why experience matters/how this system works to benefit both the more senior residents and the more junior ones which is: there are things she hasn't done before/doesn't have experience with/needs someone to coach/guide her through, still - as she well knows.
This is not a situation where she can freely pick and choose when she decides to respect Langdon/those with more experience than her. She doesn't get to say 'no I refuse to present things to you/check orders with you/defer to your experience and knowledge when it suits me' but I will also absolutely take advantage of that experience/knowledge when it suits me to allow me to Do The Cool Thing. This has to be a two-way street, she doesn't get to reap the benefits without taking the parts she doesn't like, too.
Again: Langdon has made his feelings on the matter here very clear. He's expressed that what she did was not acceptable. He's then followed that up by reinforcing that: see, there are things you don't have experience with/reasons why we operate this way - it's for your benefit AND the patients' safety. So he presents a consequence for her actions; but subtly enough that it doesn't immediately drop her in it with Robby or Garcia. This is clear, fair setting of rules, that there are consequences for not following those rules, but that Langdon is not being vindictive/trying to spite her.
Also, from a 'as a mentor to Mel' perspective: Mel has ALSO never done a crike before (as we find out when Garcia prompts her a few lines on from this). Mel is also more experienced than Santos (an R2 to her R1) both of which combine to make it reasonable to think she'd get to do the crike/be invited to do it over Santos without any extenuating circumstances.
Mel however does not speak up and point out she hasn't done one before, nor did she make any move to try and volunteer herself/push in and ask to do so. Mel is a fairly passive human being and she rarely speaks up or asserts herself in such a fashion - she certainly wants to learn and she wants to do procedures/needs to do them (and is more than capable of doing them) she just doesn't have that self-confidence/personality type where she'll put herself forwards/advocate for herself. She very much approaches things with the attitude that she should wait to be told/asked regarding procedures.
There are pros and cons to both Santos and Mel's approach here, and neither is, ultimately, objectively wrong or objectively right - they're just different. But this is where someone in Langdon's position as a teacher/mentor/arbiter in these scenarios has to learn to manage them. Whether you've got 30 kids in a classroom before you, or two junior residents in a single trauma room - you need to be mindful of the different personalities and inclinations of those around you so that you don't always have one person constantly answering questions/volunteering information/taking over and doing everything. It doesn't allow you to assess the knowledge/capacity of any of your other students, for one thing, and it's not great habit to encourage/allow with zero checks. Everyone here is an adult, ofc, but they're in a competitive field and a teacher/mentor's job, regardless, is to make sure that everyone is getting a chance to learn and grow and do things.
I feel like we can see where I'm headed with this but: Langdon stepping in and making the call that Mel will do this, in spite of Santos stepping up and asking for the opportunity herself: is a GOOD thing. It shows that he has enough insight to have clocked that:
1)- Mel is not the most assertive person in the world and, per how she responds to the order of things, is unlikely to ever demand to do a procedure/argue with anyone. (this IS something Mel needs to work on, btw, but day 1 of a new job: ain't the time/moment for that).
2)- this is the second time today Santos has pushed in - and the second time Mel has allowed it, which likely tells Langdon everything he needs to know about how this dynamic is going to work if it's allowed to continue as is.
So, imo, it's also important to show (both of them) that simply calling out/putting yourself forward will not always bear fruit. This would, actually, over time, hopefully mellow Santos out a bit in constantly feeling like she has to get in there first or else she's going to miss chances/that if she doesn't speak for herself no-one else will/she won't be treated fairly/given opportunities. Obviously that doesn't have a chance to manifest, as we only get: this one day lmfao, but it's a solid tactic to deal with this sort of thing and get some balance for everyone involved when there's time to do so (which there would be during a residency program).
Langdon does also continue to keep his eye on Santos/her learning btw. And this adheres well to a motto Santos herself recites in season 2 which is 'see one. do one. teach one.' She's still getting to see this procedure (very up close and personal, btw) as Garcia and Robby talk Mel through it, and Langdon makes sure she's not left hanging/forgotten about and prompts her to be ready to bag the crike once it's in place, so he's still conscious of her inexperience with these procedure and is making sure she's getting the teaching cues she needs as well.
But yeah, this was some solid mentor/teacher-ing for a number of reasons. And, you know, last thing before I wrap this up, actually: NOT caving in/allowing Santos to perform a procedure because she asked for it first is also important in terms of making clear the kind of culture/expectations the ER has. Garcia's constant (and blatant) favouring of Santos/allowing her to do procedures (even ones that are not typically taught to residents) is ultimately unfair to other students whose only crime is: not being bang-able as far as Yolanda is concerned, and it also just reinforces the 'me against the world' / 'every man for himself' kind of mentality/competitiveness that neither Langdon nor Robby wants (both of them make later references/mentions of the importance of teamwork and cohesion and unity within the ED - and they're right. For proof of why this is important please see: the entirety of season 2).
Anyhooo, I think that's all I can find to say on this subject atm, but by all means, if you have comments/queries/concerns pls do yeet them at me in: whichever form you prefer. I very much enjoy the discussion!
Whitaker-Langdon Break Room Scene PART 1: IT’S NOT ABOUT LANGDON! (Audience POV)
INTRO:
okaaaay, let's DO THIS Y'ALL. We gonna talk about: Frank, we're gonna talk about Dennis, we're gonna talk about That Langdon/Whitaker scene in the break room in 2x14 where we've got Skipper, and Gilligan, and the Professor - except we have none of them in this room at the moment. Nor is there a pig! But there IS: a lot of snapping, tension, angst, and HIGHLY interesting analysis. Hey, everyone else has done one, why not me, too!? ‘Cause I got Thoughts as well!
As my small and subtle title may suggest, the Point of this part of the meta is the: WHAT of this scene. Or, more so, the what NOT; ie - that: Langdon is NOT doing what Dennis is accusing him of in this scene, (either metaphorically or literally). He’s not making him his ‘little buddy’ or the Gilligan to his Skipper, or assigning him any specific part at all, either in the scene itself, or overall in the season/show. Which would imply that: there’s another reason for why Dennis goes off at Langdon like this, which will be: part 2. (Meta with a cliffhanger!!! Hell yeah, that’s how I roll). But we gotta demonstrate it’s: NOT about Langdon before we can talk about what I think it IS about. So. Let’s do that!!!!
Now, before we get into the meat of the matter, try and keep in mind: I’m discussing this OBJECTIVELY. That is to say, I am analysing this scene, in this part of the meta, from an audience perspective/how I think WE should see this scene/take and how valid it actually is from a meta ‘big-picture’ perspective. I’m NOT talking about this from Dennis’ POV or thinking about WHY he’s got these takes. That shall come in part 2. But before we get to part 2 we must go through part 1 which requires me to break this down/prove that point and then we can move on to the 'why'.
THE LITTLE BUDDY ROUTINE: LIKE YOU’RE SKIPPER & I’M GILLIGAN/ASSIGNING PARTS & ROLES/ASSUMING CHARACTER:
I’m going to talk about these together. Because the parts Dennis feels like Langdon is assigning him is as his ‘little buddy’, or Gilligan, while he feels Langdon has cast himself in the Skipper character of this sort of dynamic Dennis is picturing. Langdon treating him as his little buddy - like he’s Gilligan and Langdon is Skipper. The kind of dynamic where Dennis is the oft patronised ‘aww, hey there lil’ buddy!’ the out-of-touch, not too smart, bumblefuck fuck-up comic relief character who is put down/walked over by the other characters and serves as a fall-guy. The kind of little dude that needs to kind of be painstakingly ‘babysat’ by the competent leader ‘Skipper’ (Langdon, in Dennis’ analogy) figure, who condescends to his ‘little buddy’, never takes him seriously, thinks he can’t do anything right.
Here’s the thing: Langdon ain’t doing this to him. He’s not assigning Dennis a role/archetype, and he’s not casting himself as Skipper or Dennis as Gilligan, or anything else, really. Not in this scene (nor, would I argue, has he ever REALLY done this/cast him in this role in the season at large) he’s not assigning Dennis roles/parts and, I’d argue, actually sees Dennis for who he is/what he’s done (perhaps more so than others). All of which I shall now endeavour to prove! Huzzah!
First up: in the scene itself. Have a quotation:
Langdon: You look like you got into shape since I saw you last. Didn't peg you as a gym guy.
Whitaker: Oh, no. I'm maybe more of a barn guy. I'm helping out a friend on the farm, so...
Langdon: Nice. I'm picturing "Babe," except instead of Farmer Hoggett, it's you. And instead of a pig--
Notice how, right off the bat, we’re seeing what Dennis accuses Langdon of (assigning him a part) is already NOT the case. Because Dennis says ‘I’m maybe more of a barn guy’ - that’s a thing HE assigns HIMSELF – and Langdon just runs with it. Dennis AGREES with Langdon’s take that- ‘no, he’s not a gym guy (tuck that away for proof on: Langdon is actually good at reading/gauging people - it’s part of what makes him an effective teacher/Dennis confirms he’s gotten that right). Then Dennis says: I’m a farm guy’ sooo….Langdon goes to his nearest Farm Guy reference (I’m assuming he’s been watching a lot of films with his kids over his 10 month recovery time lol) and says he’s picturing him as Farmer Hoggett from 'Babe'. Alas we’ll never know what the pig was, in this hypothetical, but still. Dennis saying: I am Farm guy = Langdon going ‘I am now picturing you as this farm guy’ feels objectively fair, no?
And you know what? it also seems fair in the sense that Hoggett is a largely positive, and accurate, comparison for Dennis character wise; a farmer who's quite quiet, soft spoken, has a lot of kindness, an open-mindedness, and an optimism and hope for the world to see a pig and believe it can be a sheepdog. Which....I mean, idk about y’all, but to ME: that's all pretty valid for how Dennis is? (again: Langdon is actually a heck of a lot more perceptive than people tend to give him credit for, he has a solid insight score, and you can see this in how he adjusts his tone and teaching methods according to who he’s teaching). Regardless. This doesn’t seem either demeaning/belittling or negative.
IN FACT: this comparison actually rejects/refutes the ‘Langdon sees Whitaker as his ‘little buddy’ or ‘Gilligan’” idea because: Hoggett is the 'Boss' on the farm (no, literally, that’s what his farm animals call him lmfao). He’s also: the story’s main (human) protagonist and a good chunk of its heart. In other words: he’s about as far as you can get from the comic relief, butt of the joke, fuck-up character of Gilligan.
So, all-in-all, It’s a relevant/Dennis-specific comparison (because…again…Dennis just mentioned farm) but it is also subtly indicative that Langdon understands/sees Whitaker’s growth in his absence. He’s not a background NPC character, he’s not a bumbling stablehand; he’s THE farmer. Langdon sees how he’s stepping up and has been running things in his absence (and I’d say Dennis is having to do more than he should have ever had to, btw, but that’s a whole separate thread/rant lmfao).
Regardless, Langdon only says he’s picturing this and, even if we ignore the technicality/semantics in ‘picturing’ (which PAINS ME bc DETAILS ARE IMPORTANT. But FINE!!!) even IF we take that as Langdon assigning Dennis a part: it’s a pretty positive/accurate one. But, frankly (heh) it feels, to me, more accurate to say that: Langdon ain’t assigning parts at all. You know who is?
DENNIS.
Dennis is picking parts.
Observe via: another quotation!!
Whitaker: [T]he little buddy routine, like--like--like, you're what, you're the Skipper, I'm Gilligan? Dude, you're not the Skipper.
Langdon: I know I'm not the Skipper. Robby is the Skipper.
Whitaker: No, Robby is the Professor. Dana's the Skipper.
Langdon: OK, somebody's watched a lot of Nick at Nite. So who am I?Whitaker: Play whatever part you like. Just don't pick mine for me.
Help my man Langdon!!! He is CONFUSED! Langdon has pretty much fuck all to do with this lmfao. He was minding his business, talking about Babe and imagining Dennis in farmer's overalls (for fully heterosexual purposes I'm SURE), and now Dennis is yelling at him about Gilligan's Island. He’s just been ushered on stage and handed a script for a completely different play to the one he thought he was in.
Also, please note: Langdon LITERALLY 1)- accepts Whitaker’s assigning of Robby as Professor and Dana as Skipper immediately/without question. Then quite literally follows that up by 2)- asking Whitaker to tell him who he is. He could not be picking less parts; he ain’t even picking his own!
But no, seriously tho, look: Dennis is the one who brings up Gilligan's island. He suggests Langdon has been doing the ‘little buddy’ routine with him - like Langdon is the Skipper and he’s Gilligan. Dennis’ analogy. Dennis’ character assignments.
Dennis is the one who assumes that Langdon, in his head, is assigning himself the role as Skipper and Dennis as his ‘little buddy’ Gilligan. So what this DOES tell us is: how Dennis thinks Langdon thinks of him (god this got convoluted fast. And is just ironic/amusing to me. Dennis is pissed at the idea of Langdon assigning him a role. Meanwhile Dennis is assigning Langdon a thought in his own head that has assigned Dennis a role - and now he’s yelling at him for it. Iconic.).
“like, you're what, you're the Skipper, I'm Gilligan? Dude, you're not the Skipper.”
But look - in one breath, Dennis has told him that Langdon thinks of himself as the Skipper and Dennis as his Gilligan - and then immediately follows that up without pausing to let Langdon so much as blink, by telling Langdon, ‘bruh, you’re clearly not the Skipper’ (why would u ever think that, u arrogant moron!?). And Langdon, bless his dumb doormat shaped ass, instead of pointing out, FAIRLY, that, ‘uh? I never said I was!?’ Just automatically goes, “I know I'm not the Skipper. Robby is the Skipper.” Doesn’t even cross his mind to try and defend himself/point out Dennis just told him he’s the Skipper just so he could shoot it down and be like ‘but you’re NOT!!!!”. My man Frank has priorities and they are: not pointing out obvious logical fallacies committed right in front of his salad but instead: simping for Robby 26/8. I mean I have to support his commitment to the bit but COME ON, MAN!!! HE’S NOT EVEN HERE TO WITNESS THIS!!!! Anyway.
Okay so hopefully we can see/accept from all of this that, in the break-room scene: Langdon assigns no parts to anyone. Except, maybe, Dennis as Farmer Hoggett, and Babe the pig as…alas, we will never know!
But okay, literal in-scene activity to one side, what about the season as a whole/extending this out beyond picking apart a literal analogy and looking at from a broader perspective to see if there’s merit to the idea of Langdon pushing Dennis into the ‘little buddy’/Gilligan role in the season as a whole (spoiler alert: I’m gonna argue no to that!)
LET’S DO IT!!! ROLL THEM SEASON SCENES FOR ANALYSIS!!!
Okay I’m gonna break this up into two chunks/parts. One for social/personal interactions, aka workplace banter/chit-chat/small talk style conversations. And one for professional/patient-based interactions and we’re gonna compare and contrast from there. I am also not delving into season 1 because: it was 15 hours 10 months ago and I don’t judge any of the Langdon/Dennis scenes there to be relevant here…and I yap enough with just season 2 shit. SO. Let us stride forth!!!
PROFESSIONAL/PATIENT-BASED INTERACTIONS:
Okay, so I DID go and gather up transcripts for every Langdon/Whitaker scene/interaction this season, but (you will be thrilled to hear) I am not gonna talk about all of them. Because I, too, would like this meta to end at some point (and because I don’t need/want to discuss ‘give me 5ccs of medical thing and inject into the patient hole and then suture it with a flip-flop needle and strength 8.96 cat-gut STAT!!!!’/they just ain’t relevant. I need you guys to practice Trust and just go with me on this, okay? For my SANITY).
First up: 2x01: New resident badge
Langdon: Where's your new resident badge buddy, buddy?
Whitaker: Oh, uh, yeah, they... they didn't give me a new one yet.
Okay I’m going to talk about the ‘buddy, buddy?’ thing more in the personal interactions section - but I wanted to note this here quickly that: this is the first time Langdon and Whitaker interact in season 2 and one of the first things Langdon does is notice that: Whitaker still has his student badge and ask him where his new resident badge is - because, after one shift 10 months ago, he remembers that Whitaker was previously an MS4 but should now have qualified as a doctor/officially be a resident, and he makes sure to make note of this/make Whitaker aware that he knows he’s a doctor/resident now, not a student doctor anymore. And THIS is relevant/interesting to me because then we get THIS very interesting interaction in 2x02:
Langdon: Dr. Javadi, Dr. Whitaker.
Javadi: Oh, I'm... I'm still a student doctor. Whitaker's the real deal now.
Whitaker: *nods in agreement with this statement*
Now then, the reason this is Extra Interesting to me is: this is NOT the first time Langdon has called Javadi ‘Doctor Javadi’ - he does so a couple of times in season 1 (and is the only character apart from McKay, Dana, and Shamsi to do so. We love a man who respects his med students!!!). This IS the first time Javadi has corrected him/pointed out she’s still just a student (and this is an interesting little callback to season 1 and Whitaker’s little mini arc of insisting/correcting patients who called him ‘Doctor’, pointing out he was still only a student doctor). Keep in mind, too, that the above scene I talked about happens BEFORE this - Langdon has already affirmed/made clear he knows/remembers/recognises that Whitaker is a resident now and is not the same student doctor he met 10 months ago. (Tho Javadi doesn’t know this).
Javadi’s “Whitaker’s the real deal now” is also interesting and feels to me like she’s trying to give him a lil confidence boost/is aware he’s maybe struggling with a bit of insecurity/uncertainty about being a Real Doctor now (not least because of how much Robby is expecting of him/the pressure he’s putting on him - but that is a separate extended edition rant). But I feel it mirrors the later scene in 2x09 where Robby and Whitaker talk;
Robby: Really great work earlier today, Doctor. *gives Whitaker his new resident badge*
Whitaker: Huh. Ow, wow. You can just call me Whitaker.
Robby: Not a chance. You earned that.
Both Javadi and Robby take pains to point out that Whitaker is a real doctor now and that he earned it/earned the use of the title. Just. Something to chew on/my showing that Langdon noting Dennis’ qualification/upgrade to resident in their first scene is definitely important/telling -and very much NOT in-keeping with the whole ‘little buddy’ idea. Because if it WERE, Langdon would NOT have acknowledged that/would treat Whitaker as a med student because that fits into that idea way more than being like ‘hey you’re still being labelled/identified by your badge as a student doctor - but I know/get you’re a resident now.’ (which, you know, in the context of the whole ‘picking roles’/Dennis feeling like he’s being cast as certain parts/not taken seriously feels: KINDA HIGHLY RELEVANT, DO U SEE!? It alllll comes back around. All roads lead to the break room scene).
OKAY. Now the actual medicine/doctoring content - and honestly? There ain’t a tonne. Langdon and Dennis do not work that many cases together at all in s2, but there are a couple of interesting/relevant scenes that I shall now: dissect minutely, as is my way.
2x01: Louie’s Paracentesis
Langdon: Yo, Whitaker.
Whitaker: Dr. Langdon.
Langdon: You and, uh, your ducklings got time to tap a six-pack off our friend here? Louie needs a paracentesis.
Langdon, still in Triage Exile at this point, brings Louie back for his procedure - he clocks Whitaker and calls him over to take care of Louie instead of either: doing the procedure himself, or seeking out someone else. Whitaker is a doctor now, and Langdon is v making it clear he’s aware of and respectful of that. Details to note: 1)- he acknowledges Whitaker’s “ducklings” (his med students in the form of Joy and Ogilvie, that he’s been charged with), another indication of his moving up in the world. 2)- He doesn’t order Whitaker to do anything - he notes that Louie needs a paracentesis and he asks if Whitaker has the time to do Louie’s procedure/show the med students (even though all three were just kinda…floating around the hub when he rocked up). He doesn’t treat Whitaker as a subordinate/someone he can order around/acknowledges he may be busy with other tasks. So he asks.
Whitaker: Okay, well, first things first... we are going to make you more comfortable by draining some fluid.
Langdon: You're gonna take off a big volume, so start with 60 grams of 25% albumin IV. You tapped him before?
Whitaker: No.
Louie: That's okay, Doc. I'll talk him through it.
Whitaker: Okay.
He also notes Whitaker kinda looks around a bit at Joy/Ogilvie//his surroundings/doesn’t seem immediately hella confident of his ability to do this. So Langdon gives him a quick prompt “you’re going to take off”, note the phrasing: he gives info without giving Whitaker orders or patronising him/the assumption there is that ‘you are going to do this - you can/will do this’. Because, whatever else: Langdon is insightful/good at reading people - and he’s also good at teaching/mentoring; there’s a reason we were told in s1 he was gunning for an education fellowship, this is his special sauce. From a teacher perspective, this is a really nice way of handling Whitaker’s moment of hesitation/uncertainty/giving him a nudge and confidence without making it hella overt what he’s doing.
Also note that, even when Whitaker says he’s never done this procedure before - Langdon STILL doesn’t push to either do it himself, or to come and supervise/walk him through it. Langdon knows from Louie’s notes that he’s had paracentesis 3 times in the last 6 months, and given Whitaker’s familiarity with him, he likely figures Whitaker has seen the procedure done himself and is capable of doing it. Whitaker doesn’t ask for his help, so he doesn’t force it/stands by his conviction that Whitaker is capable of this. Langdon heads back to triage (because Louie is chill with this, too) and leaves them to it. All in all: a very respectful, professional, ‘we are equals/colleagues now’ interaction. And very much NOT in-keeping with the whole ‘you’re my little buddy/incompetent sidekick’ idea.
2X05 - LOUIE’S LIBRIUM
Next time we see them working together/overlapping is 2x05, again with Louie, and we get: The Librium Prescription Incident (dun dun duuuuun (it’s not actually that dramatic lmfao)).
Langdon: Let's get Louie 50 milligrams of Librium.
Whitaker: I'll put in the order.
Perlah: I will get it from the PDS.
Whitaker: I'm already assigned as Louie's treating physician. Just makes sense that I put it in.
Langdon: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Of course.
SO, because I’ve seen some WILD ass takes/interpretations of this scene, I decided that words (for once) were: not enough. And so I have stirred myself to GIF for you all. So behold! Some faces! (everyone needs all the awards for this scene, every frame is iconic and I mean that so seriously)
Okay so first thing to notice is: Perlah’s reaction. Because that woman looks directly at Whitaker like ‘oh bruh, u just committed an Accidental Social Nope’, then glances back to Langdon with concern - but not concern in the sense of ‘ohhh damn son, this bitch about to blow!!!!!’/concern about Frank getting angry, more the concern that’s along the lines of: ‘oh, that’s rough, buddy, r u okay???’ [Perlah and Langdon actually have a really nice little subtle dynamic/there are a couple of beats between them I just find very wholesome and like a lot. They’re one of my, like, ‘underrated friendships’ and a gifset: will be coming soon to a tumblr near you just as soon as I make it]. But yeah, from her reaction it’s pretty clear that this….was not exactly a big W on Whitaker’s part, let’s just put it like that lmfao.
Patrick Ball has managed to produce like 99 different variations of the kicked puppy expression and that really needs to be studied by science bc I’m: Impressed. But this is NOT a man having an aggressive/superior/’how fucking dare you do this to me, peasant!?’/Get thee beneath me, Gilligan!!!! Reaction. This is a man just…getting kicked in the nuts (again) when he’s already down. (Important context/extra ‘kick in the teeth’ information: approximately 10 actual, real-life episode minutes before this scene (and probably less in-world) Robby did: EXACTLY the same thing to him. Langdon was on the point of ordering more antibiotics for their soon-to-be-septic patient when Robby barged him out of the way, scanned into the computer to override his login, then told him to fuck off because ‘you’ve done enough here’. So. Y’know. That probably adds to the ouch-factor JUST A SMIDGEN.
Perlah, like a queen: fucking yeets from this awkward af interaction and then we get: this cinematic masterpiece of a frame (gifs are hard and time-consuming, y’all, be satisfied with ur screenshots!!! Movement was not necessary for this bit)
Someone remake this as a renaissance painting. Or at the very least: a meme format. Every face here is ICONIC lmfao.
Louie's bewilderment/"bruh" expression in the background
Dennis' "ohhhh my god what did i just DO!? i AM a fuckleberry!!!" expression
Frank looking part-way done, part-way miffed, part-way resigned, and part-way through all 5 stages of grief simultaneously (as well as having an absolute DEATH GRIP on the bed rails)
EXQUISITE.
So I’m gonna take a slight time-out here to remind y’all of something you don’t usually seem to like to acknowledge which is: Frank Langdon is a human being. (I know, shocking. Yet still: true). He has feelings and emotions (again, utterly shookling information to some people, apparently). He is ALLOWED to have those feelings and emotions. He is allowed to be angry and upset here that a guy who’s been a doctor for a week and who, when you saw him 10 months ago, was looking up to you and respecting you/trusting you to guide him through procedures, just sashayed in and prescribed meds for you because some kill bill ‘warning! Warning! Frank is approaching: benzos! Everybody: have abnormal reactions!!!!’ Right or not (and Perlah’s expression implies that, even if it was technically the right thing, there was probably a way more tactful way of doing it) and that still has to fucking sting - and Frank is allowed to fucking feel that and react to the absolute gut-punch that this must have been for him.
Especially because he DOESN’T react with any of that emotion/take any of it out on Dennis. At all. (The bed rail/his hands: different story). But whatever anger/frustration/hurt/NATURAL AND VALID FEELING he has to this: he doesn’t direct any of that at Dennis, it all goes inwards (or into: that poor poor bedrail). Nor does he turn this into A Thing, which he absolutely could have; insist on prescribing the meds himself/making a fuss about this or turning into a scene/hissy fit. He just. Agrees with Dennis’ excuse/cover of being Louie’s assigned physician, and then…leaves. In defeat and disgrace.
And we also see, quite clearly: Dennis feels guilty af about doing this to him!!!! This was NOT his intention - and Frank knows that, and Dennis knows that, but he still feels bad because the guy is obviously having: A Day, and Dennis doesn’t like to hurt people, so he feels bad. Which we know absolutely/without a doubt, too, because in addition to: His Face. Dennis also talks to Mohan about this later in the episode.
Whitaker: I think I overstepped with Dr. Langdon earlier. [...] He was trying to prescribe a patient benzos, and I told Langdon that it'd be better if I did it.
Samira: Oof.
Whitaker: Only because I was already the assigned physician. But yeah, now I feel like an asshole.Samira: Langdon's fine. He went to rehab, he's working the steps, and hopefully it's all behind him.
Given that, at 2x05 atm, we’re at the point where WHITAKER feels (probably justifiably) like an asshole towards LANGDON that’s very interesting given where we end up by 2x14. And, you know, a lot can happen in 8 episodes/8 hours….but also: it kinda doesn’t lmfao. And: what does happen is largely positive with regards to Dennis’ experiences with Langdon.
2x06: Louie’s death.
So after Ogilvie breaks the news to Dennis, he goes to Louie’s room to find the aftermath - which Langdon is sitting in alone, sorting out Louie/his things.
(Which, something else I think is important to remember in the context of the Louie scenes, and for Langdon’s journey as a whole: Langdon has been at PTMC for at LEAST four years doing his residency, and it seems fairly likely that he also took part in ED rotations there as early as his MS3 year, like Javadi or Joy. He knows this hospital, and he knows its people. Louie has been a part of his life/someone he’s known for 4-6 years, and has watched him become the doctor he is. Louie also asks about Frank’s children (in spite of not having seen him for 10 months) and Langdon sits and chats with him for quite a while/I think that’s the longest conversation we ever see him have about his home life, as it’s not something he tends to talk about a great deal. He also seems very affected by finding the picture of Louie’s wife/that being something he didn’t know - he’s still holding onto it/is looking at it in the break room when Dana finds him processing later, and has held onto it still/brings it with him at the farewell scene in the break room.)
Langdon: I'm sorry, man. We didn't have time to find you.
Whitaker: What happened?
Langdon: He was apneic and pulseless. We started CPR and intubated him. He had a massive pulmonary hemorrhage. Robby called it. Found this [pic of Rhonda, Louie’s wife] with his stuff. Guess he was married at some point. Never knew that.
So Langdon has known Louie a while, and is obviously close to him/upset by his death. Yet he still: has clocked, just from the two interactions he witnessed between them, that Dennis has also gotten close to/fond of Louie, to the point that the first thing he does when Whitaker enters the room is to comfort him/apologise and tell him there wasn’t time to find him. When asked what happened, Langdon gives him the details - enough to cover the important points and reassure Whitaker, again without directly stating it, that this wasn’t his fault and that there was nothing he or anyone else could have done.
Langdon: Oh, didn't miss this part of the job.
Whitaker: Yeah.
[...]
Langdon: Can we check to see if there's an emergency contact?
Perlah: Yeah, there's a number listed.
Langdon: You were his primary. Do you want to…
Whitaker: No.
Langdon: makes the call for him without comment/judgement.
In spite of my best efforts (making y’all: yet more GIFs) I cannot convey tone, but Langdon is incredibly gentle throughout this scene. And there is NO malice in him asking Dennis if he wants to make the call to the emergency number listed. There very well could have been a jab-back there to Dennis taking over the Librium prescription, because he was Louie’s doctor; but Dennis uses the phrase ‘assigned physician’ in the scene with Langdon (and again with Mohan) and given that we HAVE seen repeated call-backs to s1/previous lines in this season, and they always use the exact words and phrasings from previous moments, I’m inclined to think not.
Especially with the context we’ve seen/I’ve discussed previously in terms of Langdon acknowledging and repeatedly, deliberately respecting Whitaker’s new role as a fully-fledged doctor. This is part of the role of the fully fledged doctor: a part that Langdon himself has just admitted he doesn’t miss. But again: there is no order or assumption here. There is a question. It’s not a “well, you’re his doctor, prescribing his meds etc - you do it”, not even a “you should do it”, it’s a “do you want to?”
When Whitaker says no - there’s no condemnation or criticism, no judgement, no pushing, no comment at all from Langdon. Just acceptance and the taking over of a burden that he can bear right now that Whitaker can’t. It’s actually a really small but really beautiful moment, imo, and one of the great examples of scenes The Pitt excels at where sometimes you can say so much more by saying nothing at all than by trying to put something impossible to put into words into words. But definitely not a moment of superiority/Langdon thinking he’s better/that Whitaker is incapable or anything like that.
2x06-2x12
They work together with Oliver the dialysis patient, and with the slash-trach waterpark kid but they’re very much just: in the same room working on the same patients and: doing their jobs. Nothing much of note happens, at least not in reference to this. The only slight thing we’ve got is at the very end of the 3rd scene with Oliver the dialysis guy where we get a dinky:
Langdon: Yep. Uh, I'm gonna go give this guy's kid an update. He's probably freaking out. Come find me if you need me.
Whitaker: Uh, yep.
Which really just does what it says on the tin. Langdon like: you got this, but if you don’t, you can come and find me if you need me. Again (it’s like there’s a pattern here!!!): it’s Whitaker’s choice/he’s trusting Whitaker’s judgement on what he needs help with/is not deciding for him or assuming him as incompetent/incapable.
SOCIAL/PERSONAL INTERACTIONS:
So, professional wise/as colleagues and doctors: Langdon is doing pretty damn solid, I hope you can see from this, in terms of NOT treating Dennis like his ‘little guy’, he’s not undermining him, he’s not taking over/assuming he can’t do things - he’s been consistently respectful of Dennis now being qualified (for all of a week). Buuut what about personally/in more social interactions? Well let’s have a looksie, shall we?
2x01: Badge Buddy
Langdon: Where's your new resident badge buddy, buddy?
Whitaker: Oh, uh, yeah, they... they didn't give me a new one yet.
Oh Frank. Did this scene feel awkward to y’all? Well yeah that’s because: it was/was supposed to lmfao. That’s just what this is: it’s awkwardness. On Langdon’s part. This is the first time he’s seeing Whitaker again plus having to be like ‘so I did done be sentenced to triage, which, if our boss wasn’t having Personal Issues, is probably where you would be/our roles should probably be reversed in this instance and I should be responsible for the med students, not you - and in fact, when we last saw each other, this situation WAS reversed, and you were my med student. But I acknowledge you’re a doctor now and capable of this/it isn’t your fault how things have been set-up here, so I’m going to try and make this definitely not typical situation seem as typical as possible and I shall now give u this patient to treat for me so I can scuttle back to triage. It’s odd and strained and he’s still trying to figure things out having just come back, and he’s trying to make it less weird by…being weird (bless him), because this situation is weird and he knows it’s weird and Whitaker knows it’s weird and there’s an elephant in the room and he’s trying to address it and make fun of it to make things less weird and it’s not quite working but look: he’s TRYING. The repeated ‘buddy buddy’ really tells you more about Langdon than it does about Whitaker/how Langdon sees Whitaker. Man is just: awkward (there’s gonna be a lot of this in this section, prepare thyself).
2x14: Break room buddies:
Langdon: Relax, buddy. It's Advil.
Listen. I recognise that Whitaker is like ‘enough with the little buddy routine!!!’ three minutes after Langdon called him….’buddy’. Which does feel like rather damning evidence, I admit. HOWEVER! Pitt Peeps just do be like this. Calling each other ‘buddy’ honestly isn’t that unusual? No, seriously, Abbot calls Langdon ‘buddy’ like literally 10 minutes after this break room scene, while complimenting his brass balls (this is starting to sound like a meme now but I’m so serious).
Duke and Robby both call each other ‘buddy’ in the same way Langdon uses it here a couple of times in this season, and Abbot uses it also to refer to his injured SWAT friend. Methinks this is (yet another) habit/thing Langdon has sponge-absorbed from his attendings, alongside groundbreaking MacGyver medical procedures, wisdom of doctoring, and compartmentalising/repressing all of your trauma and emotions until you explode, he’s also managed to obtain some: old man slang. And, like the badge buddy moment, he’s trying to make a weird/awkward situation less weird/to defuse it.
Also, notably, he’s trying to make this less awkward FOR WHITAKER. Who walked in and reacted to finding Langdon with a bottle of Advil like he’d just stumbled upon him with a full blown crack pipe. So Langdon using ‘buddy’ here is like: “this is chill, I know you’re a friend/don’t mean anything by this/no hard feelings.’ Compare without the buddy, if he’d just gone, “Relax. It’s Advil.” That could very much have come across as potentially passive-aggressive/flat out aggressive-aggressive or sarcastic/genuinely upset. Adding in the lil ‘Chill, bud’ is meant to make this less awkward for Whitaker/to indicate Langdon isn’t actually pissed. Again: it’s a lil awkward (and clearly doesn’t fully work) but he’s trying. We’re also on hour 14 of everyone’s Very Bad No Good Day: Take 2 Electric Boogaloo - so, on the whole, I’m willing to allow him an awkward buddy at this point.
So now I’m going to suggest that just the word/term ‘buddy’ isn’t what’s pissing Dennis off here, we gotta draw a line between ‘buddy’ and ‘little buddy’ bc these: ain’t the same thing. (This is why semantics and details MATTER goddammit!!!!). ‘Buddy’ is a term for friend or acquaintance, ‘little buddy’ is a state of mind/being!!! No but seriously - little buddy is that kind of ‘aww, look at the lil’ fella!’ kind of vibe/attitude, there’s a connotation of being patronised/condescended, of being infantilised and thought incompetent or incapable, of being belittled or demeaned by, particularly, superiors/betters - THAT is what Whitaker is upset by; his presumed Gilligan-isation (that’s not a thing…but it is now! Because I made it so!!!).
So, while I cannot say Langdon never calls him ‘buddy’, I CAN say he doesn’t do the demeaning/belittling/Gilligan-isation thing.
2x02: Exile on Triage Island
Javadi: Welcome back.
Langdon: Thanks. Yeah, thank you. It's good to be back. Okay, I will be in exile on Triage Island with the rest of the drug addicts, if anyone needs me.
Whitaker: That was weird.
Javadi: Very.
This is the only other little moment that I haven’t already talked about/that doesn’t really have anything to do with Doctoring, but that I see brought up a lot to shade Frank (y’all really need to chill, istg). This is just, again: an example of Langdon being fucking awkward lmfao. It’s kinda like the Advil moment/the first Whitaker encounter moment in that: there’s a palpable awkwardness/tension that all of the characters in the scene are (painfully) aware of. There is an elephant in the room and the elephant is: the size of the whole entire hospital. It cannot be avoided. So Langdon is, again, trying to bravado and bullshit his way through this because: we cannot ignore the elephant (it is crushing all of us) so we should just call out the elephant and make it as obvious as possible and also attempt to make light of it because if we laugh at it then it’ll all be okay: it’ll all be okay, right guys!?!?!?!
Hence the retreat back to Triage Island Exile (sidebar, bc I KNOW someone will bring this up if I don’t: I’ve seen y’all complain at Frank about using this term for it/for asking Robby of it was punishment - it is and it was. There’s nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. Punting Langdon to triage, which is (by Robby’s own admission) fairly quiet/manageable/didn’t have a doctor to cover it before Langdon came in when they are already short-staffed and, specifically in the senior resident department with only Mohan as an R4, then Mel as an R3 (where, in season 1, they had Langdon and Collins who are both R4s plus Mohan as an R3) was very clearly and obviously: punishment/personal. Robby gets called out/pushed back on it multiple times throughout the season. Robby knows this is punishment. Langdon knows this is punishment. Whitaker and Javadi knows this is punishment, too - the whole fucking hospital knows.)
He’s kinda awkwardly trying to make the best of it/make light of it to make it less awkward for Javadi and Whitaker here. It very clearly: does not work/they just find it and Langdon weird but that…That is also not unusual lmfao. Because, uh: Frank IS weird lmfao. I still don’t understand how people were picturing this man as some sort of popular, baller jock-type guy (I do: it’s because y’all have a tendency of seeing/assuming characters to be as you expect them to be/want them to be rather than what they actually are) because this man is, and always has been: an absolute fucking dork. Please remember this is the man of season 1 fame who, when told to be gentle with a patient about his diagnosis, wrapped up the conversation wherein said patient said, with mild horror, “so there’s gonna be a worm graveyard in my brain forever?” with, what he truly seemed to think would bring levity/comfort to the moment by, again, mocking the elephant: “yeah, but they’re resting in peace.” HE HAS FORM FOR THIS SORT OF THING, OKAY. IF THERE’S AN AWKWARD ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM HE DEALS WITH IT BY POINTING AT IT AND MOCKING IT. And it never quite works/is absolutely cringeworthy but listen: I love him but he’s fucking useless in that regard. This is not new/not something he does just with Whitaker, or even just in season 2. This is simply: Who He Is (god love him).
Here’s the thing about confidence and charisma: does Frank have that? Yes! Absolutely! He CAN be charming and eloquent and articulate and charismatic. But that comes for him with such a gigantic * and a long list of conditions. In general, if he’s in a pressured situation/one where he feels in control of/if he’s comfortable with the people he’s with and knows how to engage with them: he’s golden. So he’s great with Robby, or with Dana, or Perlah, or Collins etc – because he knows them, and they know him, and he’s comfortable with that. He and Garcia have some iconic, fast, witty, seemingly effortless back-and-forths with each other without pausing for breath, all while covered in blood and gore because, again, that’s an established dynamic that he knows and is confident in. He understands the boundaries/what’s okay and what’s not/how to talk to her - almost like they have their own language at this point. He’s also really really good at explaining to patients what’s going on when they get brought in with trauma and he has to explain: what’s wrong with them, and what they’re going to do to fix it - he explains clearly and concisely and does well with this (in general). So, in short: when it’s someone he knows, or if there’s a clear purpose to the conversation: he’s good.
In every other regard: he’s a disaster area. This man should be banned from having to make any/all small talk for: the remainder of eternity. He’s SO bad at it. SO bad. Langdon getting sentenced to triage for like the first 5 or 6 episodes was hell for him but my god I was LIVING, that was some of the funniest shit I’ve ever seen. Bc the best/worst part about it all is: like with the Javadi-Whitaker moments or the ‘it’s Advil, bud!!!’ - he’s trying. He’s trying SO hard!!! He’s aiming for cool and sarcastic and funny and it’s just…it just never quite lands. Because that kind of thing is something you sorta need to establish with someone/for them to have at least a basic understanding of who you are/how you vibe. Random patient you met 5 minutes ago who is obviously a bit overwhelmed and scared: NOT the time to make a “I know what I’m doing…Most of the time :)))” joke. LIKE I GET WHAT YOU’RE GOING FOR HERE BUT SIR. PLEASE. GOD. I’M DYING.
I say all this to kind of prove the point that…Langdon isn’t doing this to Whitaker specifically/isn’t trying to be demeaning or belittling. He’s just…he’s in an awkward social scenario and he doesn’t quite know how to navigate it, so he tries for humour, and it doesn’t land… but that’s not a crime, y’all!!! (or god knows I’d have been locked up LONG AGO). There’s no malice or ill-intent behind any of his interactions with Whitaker – he’s just: fuckin’ awkward/Like That.
Okay I think that (you will all be thrilled to know) just about wraps that up. So, again, as a reminder of the Purpose of this: this was to demonstrate TO AN AUDIENCE, AKA: YOU - that Langdon is NOT actually guilty of the crimes Whitaker’s charging him with in the break-room. So that does beg the question of: so, if we have proven (which dear god say I have, this is so long/has taken so much of my life goddammit) that Langdon is NOT ‘little buddying’ Whitaker - WHY then is Whitaker yelling at him for it? Well that’s a gr8 question, I’m so glad u asked, and it shall be covered in: part 2!!!! (yes I’m clickbait/cliffhanger-ing y’all. Partially because: I Love You and I recognise this is very very long. So I’m ending it here. As ever: I thank u very much for reading and if u made it to the end, u can of course have a cookie in a flavour of ur choosing. And I hope u shall join me for part 2 in the coming….well in the coming. Let’s not put a timeframe/Shen Jinx on it lmfao).
4. What are your top five favorite ships?
Alright, that's a tough one, since I'm a multi-shipper, but I'll give it my best shot, with no regards to how "canon" it is. Beware, there will be crackfic, because this is my list.
Robby/Langdon (a subset is Robby/Landgon/Abbot, so you're getting a two for one deal with this one)
2. Emma/Mel (no reason for this one, we're just vibing with it)
3. Samira/Abbot (I think they'd be cute together)
4. Abbot/Jennifer Keller (past) (I said there would be crackfic and even if this is a plank of wood, its my plank of wood and Jack Abbot was a member of Stargate is my background crossover that lives rent free in my head)
5. Javadi/Ogilvie
The order in which they're presented has no bearing on how much I like them, because, again, multi-shipper. I've got more, but we'll stick with the five that I'm actively writing short pieces about.
14. How well would [insert ship] work together on a case? How would they handle disagreements in the workplace?
We'll pick one from the list above (we'll skip Robby/Landgon, we've seen how they handle cases and disagreements in the workplace) and we'll go with Samira & Jack.
They could probably work well on cases together. From what we've seen with Jack, he's (more or less) good with patients, though the times that he's short ("we'll get you medication, but you need to shut your fucking mouth") means that they probably have disagreements over patient treatment.
As for disagreements from their personal lives bleeding over into the workplace, they probably would revert to just... painfully professional. Samira would be fine, so long as the topic didn't keep coming up (see: she got progressively more frazzled and upset as her mother wouldn't take the hint and stop calling the hospital) but she would be turning it over in her head and considering it from multiple angles.
Jack honestly is probably better at compartmentalizing, given his background of military, but I don't think that he'd let it fester too long either, so before the end of the day, they'd probably be up on the roof having a conversation (my continued bafflement at everyone having private conversation in the ambulance bay when there's a perfectly good and private roof knows no limits)
Here is a ship-related ask game for The Pitt! Some of the questions are ship-specific for the ship of the asker/askee’s choice or character-specific for the character of the asker/askee’s choice. My other The Pitt ask games, part 1 and part 2, are not ship-focused.
Who is your OTP (i.e., favorite ship)?
Who is your NOTP (i.e., least favorite ship)?
What is your favorite slash ship? If it is the same ship as your OTP, are there other slash ships you like?
What are your top five favorite ships?
Who do you ship [insert character] with?
What is your most out-there crackship? Why do you like them?
Is there any character from another piece of media that you think would be friends with or date a character from The Pitt?
Which characters can you see in a polyamorous relationship (i.e., more than one partner) with one another? (Any OT3s?)
What drew you to [insert ship]? What are your favorite and least favorite (if any) things about the ship?
What does a perfect or ideal date look like for [insert character]?
What does a perfect or ideal date look like for [insert ship]?
For [insert ship], what do you think are their favorite physical features and personality traits for each other?
Would [insert character] prefer working on the same or different shift as their partner?
How well would [insert ship] work together on a case? How would they handle disagreements in the workplace?
Would [insert ship] be the type of couple to show public displays of affection (PDA)? Is one party more inclined or comfortable with PDA than the other?
What would [insert ship]’s first argument be about?
Would [insert ship] go on double dates? If so, with whom? Related, would they have someone tag along (third wheel) on their dates? If so, who?
What is the funniest reason [insert ship] would break up? What is the most realistic or likely reason they would break up?
When they get together, are [insert ship] keeping it quiet (secret relationship!)? If they do tell someone, who would they reveal their relationship to first?
The hospital rumor mill is running hot. What would coworkers (or patients) have to say about [insert ship]? How accurate would the rumor(s) be? How would the parties involved feel about the rumors?
If [insert ship] were to get together in canon, how do you think it would happen?
If not for working at Pittsburgh Trauma Medical Center (PTMC) together, how do you think [insert ship] would have met?
Who fell first and who fell harder for [insert ship]?
Which character do you think is most likely to date a patient?
Who do you see having a one-night stand? Would it turn into a friends-with-benefits situation, actually getting together, stay as a one-night stand, or something else?
Which pair do you think would have a friends-with-benefits situation? Would either party eventually develop feelings and want to establish a romantic relationship?
Who do you see getting into a situationship? Does it ever develop into a more committed relationship or would it fizzle out?
Which pair do you see entering a slow burn? How would they finally get together, and how long do you think it would take?
Which pair do you see repeatedly breaking up and getting back together?
There is a pair in the hospital you think would be great together, but they are not dating yet. You have the option of letting them get briefly stuck in the elevator together and have a moment. Who is it?
What, if any, popular fanon regarding any The Pitt ships do you subscribe to? What, if any, popular fanon regarding any The Pitt ships do you disagree with? (Feel free to specify a specific ship and/or character.)
What, if any, is your headcanon for [insert character] and their sexual orientation and/or gender identity?
What are some headcanons you have for [insert ship]? (If you are comfortable with a potentially NSFW answer, include a fire emoji [🔥] with your ask. This is up to the person answering.)
What is your favorite headcanon for your OTP? (If you are comfortable with a potentially NSFW answer, include a fire emoji [🔥] with your ask. This is up to the person answering.)
Do you have any unpopular opinions for [insert ship]?
What fan fiction do you recommend for [insert ship]?
What are your favorite tags for [insert ship] fan fiction? Any least favorite tags?
Understanding Ogilvie - Judgement & Empathy in The Pitt
James Ogilvie is fast becoming my newest bug. By which I ofc mean I want to shove him under a microscope and Study Him. Fr, though, he IS fascinating, and the responses to him are fascinating as well. He inspires a lot of knee-jerk hate/disgust (understandably) as his takes are....not exactly Fresh lmfao. However! I think there's some interesting things to discuss here around impressions and assumptions, as well as biases (Ogilvies AND other characters/viewers). So come, friends, on a journey of: discovery and understanding of Ogilvie and of understanding understanding itself. This was mainly written around/after 2x11 and his convo with Cassie re 'I don't understand drug addiction', so that's where the focus will be, but I'll likely pull from/discuss earlier and later eps, too. Now, onwards:
There's been a lot of discussion about this dude being neurodivergent, and I would say I can't comment on that...Except that I can and I will and in my book: he ain't neurotypical lmfao. Unsure if he's specifically on the 'tism spectrum (he doth vibe, and he also makes a v interesting comparison to Mel if so) or if he just...he missed ALL the key stages of socialisation when he was a puppy. Regardless, I'm gonna approach this from the angle where I'm assuming he's: -not neurotypical, likely autistic -falls somewhere on the low empathy (cognitive) scale, too. Which isn't to say he's not/never at fault/doesn't need to change or improve: he DOES. I just...I think he's trying harder than people realise in that department.
okay no more cryptic introduction clickbait shit, let's just get down to it. Ogilvie got a lot of flack in the latest episode about his conversation with McKay re: understanding drug addicts. I'm going to present a lil transcript of that convo for your viewing pleasure rn - and so I can refer back to it.
Ogilvie: I've never understood drսg addiction.
Cassie: Well, you need to try. A little empathy goes a long way in this job.
Ogilvie: I am empathetic, I ju-- I don't understand how an intelligent person allows themselves to--
Cassie: Can make mistakes? Heal themselves? Take away the pain? Hide from the abuse? We're healers, not judges.
Now was your knee-jerk response to this along the lines of: 'Wow. What a dick. Push this man into traffic!!!!!'? Yeah? Yeah. That's fair honestly! Especially because, as an audience, WE know Cassie's story, we know she herself has struggled with addiction. Remember: Ogilvie does not....although I think if he did that might make him even more inclined to ask her, for reasons I'm about to explain.
Ogilvie talks about understanding twice in this short back and forth. Now, here's the thing, there are two different meanings of understanding.
1)- "Wow, Cassie is such an understanding human being, I love her' - in the sense of: the person is empathetic, they're non-judgemental, they're willing to listen etc etc.
2)- There's also the more basic sense of understanding wherein you might say 'I do not understand particle physics.' (no, fr, I don't. I'm kinda scared of ppl who do). But that's just your straight up, literal, 'I do not get this'. There is a sausage here, I do not comprehend how it was made.
Now, as an audience, who have been dutifully trained by: Her Awesomeness to acknowledge that Cassie is: Awesome, our knee-jerk response is to assume (u see, i told u we were gonna talk about OUR biases, too) that Ogilvie means the first one. As in: he is not understanding towards drug addiction/addicts, he has no empathy towards them/thinks they suck. Which is what Cassie assumes, as well, because she tells him he needs to be more empathetic and that they are here to heal/help, not to judge (wise words, Cassie, wise words).
HOWEVER.
What I think about this is...I think drug addiction is to Ogilvie what particle physics is to me. Which is to say: I think he's using 'understand' in the second sense. The deeply literal sense. Like. Full on he does not understand how this is a thing that occurs.
Actually, this has become my new rule for Ogilvie. If you don't read/take in any more of this meta or anything else I say here, humour me on this one: Just. For the lolz, watch/rewatch his scenes, except this time, I want you to take everything that he says as absolutely painfully fully literally as possible. No, no, more literally than that. No even more literally than that. Nope more literal still, yep, yep THAT purely exactly what he said and nothing else, there we are.
When applying The Rule Of Ogilvie: there is no potential for sarcasm. There is no cynicism. There is no snideness. No hidden commentary/subtext/implication. This boy is as blatant and basic as solid rock. (This is hard - esp because other characters' reactions obviously assume he's being: the exact opposite of literal/painfully honest and direct. But. Try. It's a fun little thought-experiment if nothing else).
But okay, so if we go with the literal as the rocks Ogilvie here, his problem rn is that: he has no frame of reference to understand addiction. At all. Any more than you could set me in front of the large hadron colldier and like... I wouldn't even know where to start, bruh. Nor does he.
Because his thought process works almost mathematically/like those formulaic logic patterns in the sense of A+B=C. With drug addiction A= drugs are bad for you, B= the person taking the drugs knows they are bad for them. 'Drugs are bad for you' + 'person knows they're bad for them' does NOT= the person takes and becomes addicted to drugs. We fed the info into his computer-brain and it has informed us there is an error here because it makes 0 logical sense. A+B does not = C. So how tf does C exist then!? 404 not found. That is a human blue-screening on us rn.
How do I know this? Because (brace urselves) dun dun duuuuun!!!! I Am Ogilvie.
I mean, not literally, obviously, but I have Been There, (hoo boy, we're really delving into my dark history of total ignorance and utter confusion rn lmfao). Now before you all leave in your droves to start up hate twitter accounts, let me try and explain/delve a lil bit into this from the other side of the fence in which we rummage around in the roots of empathy and how this can look very different to a neurodivergent person, and how it can make a neurodivergent person look like an absolute: wanker. We're going to make some solid attempts at understanding this concept, which means I am going to make some solid attempts at explaining it...below a cut, because this shit be getting loooong.
Brief (lol) sidebar to mention empathy. Which will circle back around to the Ogilvie of it all, I promise.
First off there are different types of empathy. You can have cognitive empathy which on a very basic level is just 'I understand you are feeling x emotion rn' - this is typically intuitive/automatic for people (or so I'm told) they don't have to think about it or work it out they simply: Know. The other type is emotional or affective empathy, which basically means 'you feel x so I am also going to feel x in solidarity with you rn'.
You can have different levels of each - aka you can struggle to put yourself in someone else's shoes and understand what they feel...but you're also very sensitive/responsive to the emotions of those around you. For example: Mel falls into this category/is most likely someone who experiences hyperempathy and, specifically, emotional/affective hyperempathy - we've seen her become very emotionally affected by her patients/admit she can sometimes have what other people consider an unusually strong emotional response to death, for example.
On the flip-side: Ogilvie ain't doing so hot in the cognitive empathy department methinks. Which isn't to say he's an idiot/hopeless, it just often means that, what most people can suss out intuitively via that 'gut feeling' (which Cassie, for instance, is very good at), Ogilvie needs examples/experience/to kind of learn first. So sometimes he needs a little bit of help getting from A+B=C in some cases. This, I think, is largely down to do with experience. Or, more specifically: his lack of it.
He gives SUCH sheltered vibes, he really does. He's also part of the COVID Cohort of med students, which likely also ain't helping. This boy needs more cooking than baby Jane Doe is the tldr. Kinda like the stage he's at in his residency/doctoring: he knows a LOT of facts, figures, he can regurgitate entire text books on command, he's got a fantastic grounding in the theoretical - he just needs the practical. Same idea in that: he needs more experience, specifically more life experience, and what this will give him are: more reference points.
Something a lot of neurodivergent people will do if someone confides in them is to respond with: a personal anecdote/something about them. (we see Mel do this, too.) And, also, ofc this is not a purely neurodivergent thing, but it is fairly common/is usually done by us as a way to try and connect/reach out to empathise.
Unfortunately, to non-ND folks, this often looks like the ND person is trying to 'steal the limelight' or make someone else's story/suffering about themselves - but it's actually an attempt at connection. Because they need a reference point. If someone is talking to me about something I haven't personally experienced: the kill bill panic sirens go off in my brain bc I know I'm about to be: out of my depth and useless/in serious danger of picking up the wrong vibe/trying to offer completely senseless/tone deaf advice.
UNLESS!!!! I can somehow scrape together some Understanding. So I will Review My Life Story real fast and find something that sounds similar to/makes me feel similar to what the person is Going Through. I can then go 'aha! Okay okay I get it, it's just like xyz....' and boom. The blue screen error is cleared and I am able to be: somewhat useful. Huzzah.
For people who have: no fuckin clue what I'm talking about, we're going to go on another whimsical adventure of thought exercise. I want you to imagine this: you live in a society that has...certain feelings about sex. Largely that it is: bad, no good, much sin. You are told that you will be tempted! Tempted constantly!!! The flesh will call to you and you will almost never be able to not think about the sex and wanting the sex and having the sex ALL THE TIME. But you must exercise extreme restraint and self-discipline! No matter how hard it is!!! (and it will be so hard!!!! (this is not an innuendo....(not ENTIRELY an innuendo)). Resisting this CONSTANT AND NEAR IRRESISTABLE TEMPTAITON will allow you to prove how good and strong and wonderful you are!
Here's the thing: you're asexual as all FUCK. You have never had a single thought about sex: in your life. Ever. You do not get the appeal: at all. These people keep telling you all about the temptation and how hard it is to resist the lure of the sex and you're just like....the lure of the what now? Is this supposed to be...hard? Why are y'all so bad at this???? 0/10 do not understand, but hey, I am ACEING this test. (god I think I'm hilarious. ANYWAY).
So now we come back to Ogilvie. Because Ogilvie: is asexual! In this metaphor at least. Which is to say: he has no frame of reference/experience/anything even like the experience of drug addiction. Nor does he know anyone who does. Because he is a privileged, middle-class, likely sheltered, white boy with basically 0 real world experience.
He's coming at addiction logically, because he doesn't understand any of the emotions - any of the things Cassie mentions, re needing to heal himself or take away pain (hello there Langdon reference, I see you! I SEE YOU!!!!) or hide from abuse. He doesn't understand the appeal of drugs/why anyone would do that - to him there seem to be no temptations whatsoever, or at least no benefits/temptations worth the terrible very bad no good things drug addictions can lead to. The same way some ace people do not understand why it's so hard to just...just not have sex? You just...you just don't have it???? How are so many of you living in sin!? I must be missing something...
And there, see, THAT'S the catch/the saving grace/hope for this boy. Because he DOES understand that there's something he's missing here. THAT'S what he's trying to ask/get from McKay. But BOY does it NOT come across well if you read what he's saying as judgey. Because it sounds like he's going 'ugh, I've never been able to find any sympathy for these addict peasants.' But what he's actually saying is 'there is clearly a problem here, because it happens to so many people, good people, intelligent people, people it shouldn't happen to. I don't understand this. I don't know how this happens, and never have, because I'm fundamentally missing something. But I know that I'm missing something, and I'm trying to find it.' He needs someone to sit down and explain this to him like he's 5, essentially.
And I think this element of him is subtly hinted at by him reading James Baldwin. Because that is an experience/story that is probably about as far away as he can get from his own. So he is TRYING. He is trying to broaden his own understanding and to connect to people and to try to understand them in his own way - so that he knows how to help.
Ogilvie, like Robby, is a fixer. But he comes at it in a way much more like Duke and his bike- pistons and pipes, parts and processes, the human body really is like a big machine, and can be looked at in that regard to understand/fix it. He is a mechanic. He is very problem-solving orientated. Things are wrong. He wants to fix them. To fix things, he knows he needs to find the root cause and treat THAT. That's the problem here. If someone comes in with an infection, in order to treat it, he has to understand that bacteria are causing it, so he has to remove/neutralise the bacteria somehow and that will fix the infection. For drug addiction - he doesn't understand the root cause, he can't see the bacteria/what causes people to begin taking drugs, and to keep taking them, even when they're doing them harm. This is what he's tryin to get to - so he can help.
That point is actually pretty crucial for me with regards to Ogilvie as a character and, indeed, from moving from seeing Ogilvie as a character - aka a flat 2D concept of a person that has been created by writers to fulfil x purpose/role within a narrative etc, and onto seeing him as: a human person the same as the rest of the characters on The Pitt. HE GENUINELY DOES WANT TO HELP.
We've seen this happen in 2x08 when he gets pulled up for his comments regarding Howard's weight, we get this exchange:
Ogilvie: I was just wondering how he got so big and how we could help.
Do we see the Connections here between what I've been yapping about re his attitudes towards addiction? It's again another basic as a+b=c scenario/we must apply The Rule Of Ogilvie and assume he means this entirely literally (which I genuinely think he does). He has spotted: a problem, and he is driven to: attempt to fix it. (Whether or not it NEEDS fixing, or needs fixing right this second, is another fence to be jumped/a separate kettle of fish). But the thing is: he's seen as a judgemental asshole for this question/how he's been with Howard, and he's def lacking some tact/delicacy, but fundamentally, I DON'T think he's a judgemental asshole/he really is driven by trying to help his patient.
Again, it's a HUGE mark of ignorance and inexperience and it is absolutely something that he should be called out on/has to work on!!! But he, fundamentally...he's looking for them bacteria again. He's trying to find a root cause. He wants to identify and understand a root cause...because then he can fix it. Which, again, is revealing his naivety and lack of experience. But naivety and lack of experience and a desire to help and understand is a lot better (and not least: a hell of lot more interesting) than: he's just an absolute fucking dickwad lmfao.
Because: he knows this! He understands that other people have experiences that differ from his own, and he understands that he's not good at understanding/interpreting those things...So he needs to learn! So he's trying to learn! And Cassie just...she tells him to just treat Howard with empathy and figure out what's wrong with him and that...ma'am that didn't answer my question. I asked you to explain how we know 2+2=4 and you told me '2s and 4s are numbers, too, Ogilvie, jesus!' that...that does not HELP!!!!
A little hyperbole as a treat, eh? To bring me on to talk about how this analysis of Ogilvie on my part is much more about how OTHERS react to Ogilvie/the assumptions they make regarding his intentions/morality/defaulting to seeing him as """evil Whitaker""" and what that can teach us about the characters (and audience members) who default to this way of thinking.
So now we're gonna talk a bit about: Cassie and Cassie's judgement/that, actually, in these interactions with Ogilvie, where she calls him out for/challenges him on being judgemental, actually, of the two of them: SHE is being the more judgemental of the two (dun dun duuuun!!!!! Bet ya didn't see this plot twist coming at the start of this meta, huh?)
But, seriously: Cassie's response also tells us a lot about HER as a character (and a lot about how TV writers can/do lead audiences/shape audience perceptions of other characters by having established characters react to them and assuming that audiences will go along with/be drawn to mirroring the characters' reactions/assumptions - which is just SO delicious, 10/10 technique, I love it a lot).
I, too, adore Cassie, and her character and I think she's a wonderful doctor, and her empathy as an excellent trait: she is still a human person and she therefore is still flawed. She has blind spots and biases and, as a nice mirror for Ogilvie, who often fucks up due to his LACK of life experience, sometimes Cassie's overabundance of life experience can also cause some fuck ups. She's enaging in everyone's favourite passtime this season: Projeeectiooon!!!!!! Which she learned from the best, after all (good ol' Robby). So we're gonna talk a lil bit about that, too, because I think it's INTERESTING, and this is my post and i can do what I damn well please with it.
Ogilvie: I was just wondering how he got so big and how we could help.
Cassie: We can help by finding out what’s wrong with him and treating him with respect.
So, going back to 2x08 and Ogilvie's line, this is how Cassie answers. And yes! Very good. Flex dat empathy, gurl. Show us ur Growth!!!
HOWEVER - this is ALSO an example of bias at play here. This is an example of Cassie applying her specific life experiences as a universal constant/assuming they apply to everyone/every scenario. (Which is not inherently wrong! We all do this! Again: we our human. Our experiences shape and guide us through life, this is natural, but it does mean we can sometimes be so stuck in our own perspectives, we struggle to see from others'/consider other options).
In season 1, Cassie got called out by Collins for some (potential) unconscious fatphobia that may have informed how she treated one of her triage patients. This was something she promised to consider and take on board and work on - and it's clear that she has! So now she's trying to pass on what she has learned/share her wisdom (queen behaviour, in general) because that's what this show is all about baaaby! You learn from others, then you teach what you have been taught to others and thus: we share and pool experiences and become better doctors/people as a result. Huzzah!
What she's ALSO doing, though, is she's assuming what the audience has: that Ogilvie is thinking the same way that she was, except perhaps Even Worse, because Cassie's fatphobia never made it to the surface/resulted in her questioning her patient about it. So, essentially, she assumes that, as she was, he has some internalised prejudices around overweight people (which is a very serious and dangerous problem in the world of medicine). But she believes (as she does when he talks later about not understanding drug addicts) - that he's coming at this from a place of judgement and he's being a piece of shit.
This is helped along by the fact that Ogilvie is one of the most obviously privileged characters on the show as a (presumably (tho one should never assume!)) cishet white man who likely had a very pleasant/comfortable middle-class upbringing (Pitt-obligatory parental issues not withstanding). He is the poster boy for the 'I have never experienced this/I'm alright Jack/but why would I care about the experiences of other people who are not me?' club. So it's quick and easy and almost natural in many ways to default to the idea that that's what he's supposed to represent/The Point Of Him as a character: white men can be biased and they can make bad doctors as a result.
Yes, this is ABSOLUTELY the case. I think most people already know this, tho. Or, most people on tumblr absolutely do. But that...That doesn't really GO anywhere. Like do you want Ogilvie/an entire character to be there so the other characters can teach him how to be less of an asshole/how to overcome his biases and see minorities as: People, Too. I feel like we're all sick of that shit (or at least I sure as fuck am). It's boring. It's not something I want to watch.
Ogilvie being someone who can teach us about our understanding of understanding, about different forms of empathy, about the ways in which neurotypical people will apply neurotypical standards/assumptions to neurodivergent people and misread their intentions and characters so completely that they cannot see the very genuine attempts that are being made by others to understand and connect to people who are not like them, to whom they have no frame of reference for - isn't THAT a much better story/character? Isn't that more interesting and doesn't that give more space for a nuanced discussion and comparison of him and other characters than 'evil Whitaker, representation of all shitty white men, the end, move on'?
Because this IS a thing - this is a PROBLEM, too. Why do we call out racist or misogynistic or queerphobic behaviour? Is it to score points and make ourselves feel good/more superior to those who are less "enlightened"? Or is it to try and educate? To try and explain new perspectives and experiences to others who have led different lives? If we don't let people do as Ogilvie is trying to: to acknowledge that he has blind spots, and biases, and things he doesn't understand, and experiences he can never have for himself - but to try and grasp them and learn from them as best he can; if we don't believe people have the capacity and capability to learn and grow and change: what the fuck is the point? But more importantly: if we don't believe that some people, some privileged people, who may not tick off ANY boxes on the 'diversity checklist', may be aware of their privilege and actually WANT to learn and grow and change, then: what the actual fuck is the point???
Okay I'm being a bit hyperbolic/preachy now lmfaooooo, Imma get off my soapbox. But do we see? Do we see The Point of Ogilvie? How people (in fandom and characters in the show) made assumptions on his intentions and him based on their own personal experiences or previously unlearned biases?
Do we also see how particularly of note this is in relation to the rest of the season as a whole? And how everyone is doing this CONSTANTLY to everyone else? This season - the season where people continually make things personal and look at things from their own perspective only and therefore respond Badly to them? Everyone having their own individual problems and stresses and so that blinding them to: everyone elses' stresses and problems? How that leads to isolating and not trying to see things from other peoples' perspectives. How THAT leads to characters being reactive and treating surface level issues but not identifying the root problems aka: everyone is going through it and they all need support and recognition for that.
Ogilvie is trying, in a stunted, awkward, fucked up little guy kinda way, to make connections to others. But he's TRYING. THAT'S what's important. Sometimes the willingness to try is all you need, and it will inevitably give you more than you started with, however little. He's trying to understand experiences he's never lived (and likely never will) so that he can grow and improve as a doctor and a person. He's trying to reach out .
And you know what? Fuck it, I'll say it: Ogilvie 'gets' what this series is about better than anyone else at the moment (yep, that's right: i fuckin' went there!!!!).
A HUGE theme of this series is isolation. Every single character is isolated from the others, just in different ways (which has been FASCINATING).
They all need to be more like Ogilvie.
They need to start asking awkward questions awkwardly. They need to admit they DON'T know things. That others have experiences that they don't have, and struggle to understand. They need to tell each other that, no, they don't know what it's like to be Robby, or to be Langdon, or Santos, or Dennis, or Mel, or Samira, or Cassie, or Dana, or wee Jimmy who works in the cafeteria. And yes: that's difficult! It's awkward! It may well result in a lot of sideways looks and 'bruh' style reactions, because it is Not The Done Thing in the Pitt.
It's also: COMPLETELY fucking necessary.
They need to see each other and say 'I don't understand what's going on with you - but I want to. And I want you to see and understand me.' They need to express an awareness that there are things they don't understand, and a desire to WANT to understand them. They need to start trying to put themselves in other peoples' shoes. They NEED to build bridges and forge connections and solve the underlying issue of that isolation. They need to find their community within each other - the only people who can fully understand what they're all going through together working in the Pitt are: all the other people going through it working in the Pitt. They NEED to erase the idea they all have, in different ways, that they have to do this alone. That they cannot ask for help. That they cannot admit they don't know or don't understand something. They need to get over their fear of being judged for being weak, or failing, or not capable. They need: EACH OTHER.
This season has a core heart (which is currently crusted over and barely visible/that no-one has managed to find) about the idea that, as a patient told Samira, that, "everybody needs a community." This is not a job you can do alone. This is not a job you can even just SURVIVE alone. It CANNOT be done in isolation. You NEED others. You NEED to reach out. You NEED to make connections. You NEED to be willing and able and wanting to learn from others. That requires, as a first step: the ability to admit that there are things you don't know and don't understand - even if it makes you look like a privileged, asshole twat-weasel. Because we are ALL privileged asshole twat-weasels in one way or another. Recognising you are a privileged asshole twat-weasel is the first step. You will never know everything. You CANNOT know everything. Every single person we meet will have a life different to our own. So we can all learn something from every other person we meet. Yes, even Ogilvie, as hopefully this long-ass ranty meta has demonstrated.
The first book I've read for 2026, The Memory Police is..... melancholic.
Centering around a novelist (whose name we never learn, adding to a sense of detachment) who lives on a island where things "disappear" all memory and emotional attachment to them lost.
The quiet horror of the story was interesting, building gradually as more and more things were lost. It reminded me quite a bit of The Giver by Lois Lowry, invoking the same feelings.
Her relationship with the old man is sweet and gentle and the continual look at the importance of memories and how they shape us, how the main character grew more detached as more things were lost was if not thought provoking, worth focusing on.
I enjoyed reading it and would give it a 3/5.
(As I read more and write more of these introspective or review pieces, I hope to get better at them, but one must start somewhere)
Golden Apples Of The Sun by Spiraling (Stormwind13) on AO3 and @spiraling here on tumblr!! Go check it out
I made a piece for as part of the Diomedes Server Dionysia Event ❤️ Super fun messing around with Olympian designs again and my dearest Iphigenia 🥺🌹Guys this AU is like my everything now
baratheonpilled
2087
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
titsay
