But then, "Neal secretly likes/is reassured by the anklet/knowing Peter always knows where he is" has always been an instant backbutton for me in fic, so I hope that's not how they meant it to come across in the episode
Seconding this. I think, inherently, Neal's observation is value neutral. I feel funny when I forget my watch. Which, okay, partly that's a neurotic obsession, but part of it is just that it feels strange. Of course, Neal doesn't take it so simply. But he certainly doesn't sound happy there, so anyone who wants to use this as proof that Neal longs for Peter's control isn't going to convince me.
This is not a criticism of El - I completely understand her being upset and lashing out - so much as a criticism of the writers, 'cause they have her and Peter bring up Neal's concern about the anklet deal as the primary motivator for Neal helping Peter.
I disagree. I don't feel the need to criticize the characters or the writers here. El's accusation was irrational, but that was the point. She was lashing out irrationally, but quickly took it back. And I'm pretty sure that Peter wasn't talking about Neal helping him, he was the talking about the anklet-cracker. Mozzie didn't build that specifically so Neal could help Peter, though he didn't mind it being used for that. He built it so Neal would have options, especially if Peter went to prison.
sholio said pretty much what I think about that last scene. It honestly worked for me, even though I agree that more rules and structure won't do Neal any particular amount of good. But Peter thinks they will, because Peter believes in rules and structure. And it's fair to say that he should know Neal better by now, but I was glad to see it. Because Peter has crossed so many lines these past four seasons, and I would hate to see him lose himself. I don't want either him or Neal to be subsumed in one another. I want Peter to make mistakes that speak to who he is. I want the same for Neal.
About Kramer, I'm not sure if he's coming back. On the one hand, this show usually forgets about characters once they're gone. One the other hand, Hagen is back. But I don't think it would be a warm reunion for Peter. Peter asked for Kramer's guidance before, and it was a disaster. I don't see him being quick to trust again. Peter and Kramer may now share the belief that Neal's a criminal, but that means vastly different things to them. To Kramer, Neal being a criminal means that his thoughts and feelings don't matter. It means that Neal should be regarded as a thing to be used. I don't yet know what it means to Peter, but I can guaranty it's not that. Kramer was always very much against the idea of Peter being friends with Neal. I doubt that's changed, and none of Peter's behavior means he no longer loves Neal.
Because, you're completely right, Kramer is not evil. I think he very much tries to do the right thing, and he's probably the case agent you'd want if you were the victim of a crime. He is, however, a petty, vindictive, sanctimonious bully. His interactions with Neal are subtle but distinctive power plays (and I think Neal clearly recognizes them as such). In the past, I've summed it up as: Kramer treats Neal like an object, and Peter like a child.
And Kramer is not an Inspector Javert. Indeed, I'd have more affection for him if he were. But Kramer doesn't want to see Neal go to prison; he wants Neal to benefit him. Sure, he can say that using Neal's skills is the right thing to do, and he can say that he has to split up Peter and Neal for Peter's own good. I'd reckon he even believes it. But Kramer's insistence on he being the one to control and benefit from Neal is very telling to me.
For me, the clearest example of Kramer at his worst is when he tries to make Peter put the cuffs on Neal, right before Winston Bosch saves the day. He knows that will hurt Peter. There's no reason to do that unless he wants to grind his victory in Peter's face. Maybe he would claim that that's also for Peter's own good, but I've indicated just how much I buy Kramer's rationalizations.
His relationship with Kramer clearly meant a lot to Peter, so if he could salvage it, that might very well be a good thing. But I don't put a lot of chances on it happening, as season 3 pretty thoroughly burned their friendship. And I don't see Peter ever trusting Kramer with Neal's well being. Not when Kramer has made so very clear how little he values it.
no subject
Seconding this. I think, inherently, Neal's observation is value neutral. I feel funny when I forget my watch. Which, okay, partly that's a neurotic obsession, but part of it is just that it feels strange. Of course, Neal doesn't take it so simply. But he certainly doesn't sound happy there, so anyone who wants to use this as proof that Neal longs for Peter's control isn't going to convince me.
This is not a criticism of El - I completely understand her being upset and lashing out - so much as a criticism of the writers, 'cause they have her and Peter bring up Neal's concern about the anklet deal as the primary motivator for Neal helping Peter.
I disagree. I don't feel the need to criticize the characters or the writers here. El's accusation was irrational, but that was the point. She was lashing out irrationally, but quickly took it back. And I'm pretty sure that Peter wasn't talking about Neal helping him, he was the talking about the anklet-cracker. Mozzie didn't build that specifically so Neal could help Peter, though he didn't mind it being used for that. He built it so Neal would have options, especially if Peter went to prison.
About Kramer, I'm not sure if he's coming back. On the one hand, this show usually forgets about characters once they're gone. One the other hand, Hagen is back. But I don't think it would be a warm reunion for Peter. Peter asked for Kramer's guidance before, and it was a disaster. I don't see him being quick to trust again. Peter and Kramer may now share the belief that Neal's a criminal, but that means vastly different things to them. To Kramer, Neal being a criminal means that his thoughts and feelings don't matter. It means that Neal should be regarded as a thing to be used. I don't yet know what it means to Peter, but I can guaranty it's not that. Kramer was always very much against the idea of Peter being friends with Neal. I doubt that's changed, and none of Peter's behavior means he no longer loves Neal.
Because, you're completely right, Kramer is not evil. I think he very much tries to do the right thing, and he's probably the case agent you'd want if you were the victim of a crime. He is, however, a petty, vindictive, sanctimonious bully. His interactions with Neal are subtle but distinctive power plays (and I think Neal clearly recognizes them as such). In the past, I've summed it up as: Kramer treats Neal like an object, and Peter like a child.
And Kramer is not an Inspector Javert. Indeed, I'd have more affection for him if he were. But Kramer doesn't want to see Neal go to prison; he wants Neal to benefit him. Sure, he can say that using Neal's skills is the right thing to do, and he can say that he has to split up Peter and Neal for Peter's own good. I'd reckon he even believes it. But Kramer's insistence on he being the one to control and benefit from Neal is very telling to me.
For me, the clearest example of Kramer at his worst is when he tries to make Peter put the cuffs on Neal, right before Winston Bosch saves the day. He knows that will hurt Peter. There's no reason to do that unless he wants to grind his victory in Peter's face. Maybe he would claim that that's also for Peter's own good, but I've indicated just how much I buy Kramer's rationalizations.
His relationship with Kramer clearly meant a lot to Peter, so if he could salvage it, that might very well be a good thing. But I don't put a lot of chances on it happening, as season 3 pretty thoroughly burned their friendship. And I don't see Peter ever trusting Kramer with Neal's well being. Not when Kramer has made so very clear how little he values it.
But, uh, opinions. I have them.