Lots of good perspectives and food for thought here. I think the answer is a little bit of and yet none of all of the above. And that's ok! Art isn't a mathematical formula. It can be flawed and incomplete and valuable all at once.

Totally agree that art is not math. I think my larger concern is that it's also not completely random. While authorial intent is (to me) less interesting than the art itself, our access to Hawley's (and others), intentions for the show seem to be at war with some of what we see as viewers (and maybe even this is intentional, a way to further create ambiguity and discomfort).

So I'm rewatching Season 2 right now and it's actually a little tricky about how it deals with some its themes. My first time through I felt like David's "turn" at the end came extremely suddenly because the way the story is presented throughout puts you on David's side the entire time. You understand his perspective but not so much the perspectives of everyone else but consider this. In Season 2, David agrees to help the Shadow King get back his body back, abandons Syd and then lies about how long he's been gone, lies to Syd about what he remembers while he was missing. When he's inside of Sydney's maze the constant resets of the timeline are always in response to David misunderstanding Syd's needs as relating to something that he can give her. He's obsessed with the idea that all Syd needs is _him_ until he finally lands on understanding where her head was at. He cheats on her with her future self, it's implied he cheats on her with Lenny when they're searching for the Shadow King's body. David does a lot of things wrong and lies to a lot of the people he cares about throughout Season 2. The ending is not just about him violating Sydney's consent but him also trying to undo the fact that Sydney came to see him for who he actually was. David's delusion is that he's a good person and is deserving of Syd's love, and because David believes that delusion the audience is led to believe it too because the show is from his perspective and he's an unreliable narrator.

All great points. Again, where I start to get hung up is around Perspective. We have a show that violates tons of norms not only in it's presentation, but in the situations the characters are presented with, there are absurdities layered on absurdities, not even getting into the fact that almost every character has abilities that are God-like in their application (unlike a mutant healing factor, or shooting lasers out of your eyes). When we then apply a moral code to the show that exists in our mundane world, free of telepaths and time travel and astral projection, things get murky real fast. My argument, I think, is that there are ways to show David's "descent" in ways that are less ambiguous. Lying is obviously wrong. Does it make you a "bad person?" Is that a realistic bar to set for human behavior, absent omega-level powers. Is this just a show about everyone being horrible and irredeemable?

I think there is an element of the show about power and the people wield it. I think basically everyone with any amount of power in the show uses it selfishly but I do think the show believes the idea of a "bad person" is a little more messy than just separating people into heroes and villains.

I think this is totally on point, as well as true to life regarding power's capacity to corrupt/blind us. I'm also intrigued by even assigning the idea of "person" to these characters, as their abilities, in almost every instance are God-like. David's thought process, and the killing spree he goes on in the last few episodes, is almost justified by the resolution of the show, none of it happened.

It's worth watching Fargo in my opinion, it helps give some idea of how Hawley approaches things. All of the seasons of Fargo kind of have a "commenting on recent news/cultural" stuff to them. Fargo's Season 2 in 2015 uses the death of mom/pop stores and the rise of corporate America in the days leading up to Reagan's election as a sort of shadow of the things happening in 2015 with Trump's rise to power and I believe Legion, Season 2 especially, is a commentary on everything happening around the #MeToo movement in 2017 and is an examination of people wielding power in the same way. Hawley's mother I believe was also a fairly well-regarded activist/author who wrote on topics around child abuse/incest/feminism and I think some of those thoughts definitely are present in his work as well.

> I believe Legion, Season 2 especially, is a commentary on everything happening around the #MeToo movement in 2017 I agree, but I feel like the #MeToo turn was fairly sloppy, and ultimately unearned. Anything that David had done by the end of season 2, Farouk had already done a hundred times over, and then some. But in the last episode of the season, David is the one who's locked up, and Farouk is walking free for reasons that are never clearly articulated. It would be one thing if they had locked up David *alongside* Farouk. That might have led to an interesting commentary on cycles of abuse. But the show seems to be saying that David is just fundamentally and irredeemably *bad* in a way that fellow rapists Farouk and Syd are not, and I feel like the writing didn't do enough to properly establish that.

..or in a way that makes you believe that the only reasonable explanation is that they are all under Farouk's control. Especially given the way things have gone leading up to this. It puts David in an impossible situation.

Welcome To Madness

If this was the desired intent: the self questioning, the concerns about my own goodness, the reassessing of my intelligence, wondering about the stories I tell myself about myself, then well-played Legion, well played.

I think it was. After the show ended it infected my mind made me question my self, others and reality.. but in the best way possible! I think this show was made to make you question things and look deeper into life itself.

I’m on the side that leans towards “It’s poorly written.” The show plays with perspectives a lot and goes out of its way to be confusing and to “ask questions.” But ends up feeling more like contrivance for contrivance sake. And don’t get me wrong, **I’ve watched the show at least 4 times all the way through**. And I occasionally still pop on a single episode or two just to try and rethink it again. After all these years I keep coming to the same conclusion that it’s just not as smart as it’d like to be. And I *know* that’s harsh but it’s upsetting to me, the way the story went. Deeply upsetting. There are a million different ways that the show could be interpreted and I think in this case that’s not necessarily a good thing. Because the way they played out these stories, as you said, ends up leading to some awful takes. “Syd was the real villain!” “David did nothing wrong!” “Mental illness makes you evil!” “There’s no healing from the trauma of a longterm abusive relationship and you’ll inevitably end up a the same kind of monster eventually so the only way out once it reaches that point is suicide!” There’s a lot of speculation and theory crafting that can be done to try and justify the story or say that “actually it was going that way the whole time,” trust me, I’ve done it too. But it’s all just guesswork in my opinion. Everything in show and out show points towards the conclusion that David is bad *because* he’s mentally ill. Not cause he repeatedly chose selfish options, not cause he went too far trying to stop Farouk, it’s not what he’s done, it’s “who he is.” I’ll put it like this, the only way to go along with the show in a way that makes sense would be to lean in to bigotry and ableism (**HARSH I KNOW**). The whole of season 2’s ending is to try and get the audience to stop giving David the benefit of the doubt. Only, David’s main crimes, before the big one, are lying and cheating. Bad, but villainous? Only if you see them as endemic of a larger problem. Sure, but what problem? **That David is evil.** What makes him evil? **He kills, and will kill again.** On what proof? **He makes a mean face.** What does a mean face have to do with anything? **It’s the face of a PSYCHOPATH.** What makes it the face of a “psychopath?” **Only someone mentally ill would make a face like that.** Ya see what I’m getting at? The show wants us to review over David’s actions in a more critical light and I *have*, and still it just keeps coming back to “don’t have sympathy for the mentally ill.” David’s… irritable? Sensitive? Enjoys revenge a bit too much? Well he was psychologically abused to the point of suicide for 24 years since birth. And then he was still abused frequently whilst living in clockworks being medicated for schizophrenia he *didn’t have*. It’s like the show wants us to see Farouk’s actions as “not that bad” because if we actually think about what he objectively did then it’s kinda hard to buy his whole “I always loved you” bit at the end of s2. AND it’s kinda impossible *not* to see post-Farouk David as a really good outcome from a bad situation. Which then makes it *really* hard to sympathize with his friends who constantly mistrust him and downplay what he (AND AMY, AND LENNY, AND OLIVER, AND BASICALLY EVERYONE) went through with Farouk. And speaking of Lenny, why are we not supposed to take her at face value when she says Farouk raped her? I personally didn’t take it as a metaphor, and why should I? Because she’s a junkie? Because she doesn’t fit the common view of “the perfect victim?” Because she’s not white? (I know that could agitate some people but it’s a valid question). Because it conflicts with div 3’s perspective and make them look really shitty for not taking it seriously? And hold on, I get Clarks cute little “That’s funny, I thought *you* were the villain” thing. Both sides and whatnot. It’s all about perspective. But div 3 was literally committing genocide on all mutants last season, and according to Melanie they were succeeding. **No, Clark, you were absolutely the bad guy.** I’m ranting at this point cause it’s just so aggravating to me. The whole, “see it’s season as it’s own separate story” thing doesn’t work cause there’s a clear through line from each season to the next. And even if that was the mindset in writing it, it was a dumb mindset for specifically the reasons listed above. Noah Hawley didn’t think it might he a bit shitty to have mutants as a metaphor for an oppressed minority in the first season and then have them be potentially dangerous entities that people are valid for being afraid of in every subsequent season. Or having David be a victim of longterm psychological abuse in season 1 to having everyone and there mothers gaslight him into thinking it wasn’t that bad and that his hatred of his abuser is unjustified in every subsequent season. Or having Syd rape her mothers boyfriend (rape by deception) and have her very clearly tell the story as a shameful thing she did before understanding her powers and how they could affect others, to focusing on how it affected *her* and downplaying any sense of wrongdoing about the situation. Which, that last one, I’m not gonna shit on Syd cause it’s not her fault she’s written that way. I put all the fault on Noah Hawley. Same with all the other characters. Ugh, it’s just, I get it. I get the story they were trying to go for. I get the big ideas they were trying to explore. I get the questions they were trying to ask. But it’s entirely limited by it’s reliance on negative presumptions. Quickly, to clarify, I don’t think Noah Hawley is racist, or intentionally ableist, or just generally an intentionally bigoted person in general. I DON’T. But his carelessness in telling these stories left a bad taste in my mouth

Thanks for this, it's really helping me crystallize some of the feelings I had while watching. I feel like Fox Mulder in X-Files, I WANT so desperately for them to pull something off, and I felt there was still a chance if the ending was JUST right, but then, ugh. Thanks again!

Sorry to necro this comment but I've just finished watching the show and this post but also your comment in particular really resonated with my feelings. I've been reading the old post-episode discussions as I went along and a lot of people just seem to be reaching conclusions that I don't feel are necessarily backed up by the text. Like the show is gorgeous, weird, experimental and I love those aspects of it but I'm not a fan of weirdness for its own sake, for working hard to deliberately confuse fans and where S1 ends with things slotting into place, the others don't fit well once all of the cards are on the table. >Only, David’s main crimes, before the big one, are lying and cheating. Bad, but villainous? Only if you see them as endemic of a larger problem. Exactly the problem I had. He goes off on his own and yes, he beats up Farouk at the end with the aim to kill him. A lot of media portrays heroes in this light and if it was some sort of commentary on that, I would perhaps like it more. But instead this is evidence that his behaviour is evil. This and the accusation that because he resented Amy for putting him in Clockworks, that he's fine with her being obliterated so that Lenny can have a new body. >On what proof? He makes a mean face. What does a mean face have to do with anything? It’s the face of a PSYCHOPATH. What makes it the face of a “psychopath?” Only someone mentally ill would make a face like that. A face that the audience has seen multiple times and is now recontextualised as a smile rather than a grimace. Though, I could accept that this is the most obvious point of manipulation by Farouk across the entirety of S2. BUT if the conclusion should be that actually, everyone is deluded/suffering mass hysteria/under groupthink, then that doesn't quite work for me either because a) We don't get to see it. We only see Melanie manipulating Syd and only right before the end. Surely more doubt needs to be put in people's minds? Even I fell for the "white man came into my home and decided I was evil" schtick. Even if we are watching things from David's perspective, the gap between what we see happening and what *actually* happens is too large. b) We see David in S3 turn around and do those objectively evil things. (He justifies as essentially these things being undone when he changes time *but he still does them*). And they're kinda out of character but the implication that it's the other voices (DVD and Divad etc) that are encouraging him to outrighting wiping someone's long-term memories and dismissing someone as a means for time travel. When we as watchers don't see that slow shift, it doesn't feel authentic. >It’s like the show wants us to see Farouk’s actions as “not that bad” because if we actually think about what he objectively did then it’s kinda hard to buy his whole “I always loved you” bit at the end of s2. Exactly. Because he just flips despite doing half a dozen horrible things *to David* in S2 season. Steals Oliver's body, manipulates Melanie into manipulating Syd, essentially kills and tortures his sister. Not to mention haunting him for 30-odd years. Contenders will say that he's an abuser and he's actually masterminded the whole ending of S2 as well as making a tactical move in S3 to ensure that he's essentially won, which OP has pointed out. I *almost* subscribe to this theory. But it's contradicted by the fact that Young Farouk cries when seeing David's life and we see him holding the baby in the astral plane with affection. So does he love David and has been changed by him to letting him go? Or does he see the tactical error in fighting Professor X and jumping into David's body because he'll never actually get to control him? >Ugh, it’s just, I get it. I get the story they were trying to go for. I get the big ideas they were trying to explore. I get the questions they were trying to ask. But it’s entirely limited by it’s reliance on negative presumptions. I think this is what frustrates me more because like you, I don't feel like it's as smart as it thinks it is. And I honestly think if a bit more time was spent developing certain plot points it would have been brilliant.

Goddamn I do not wanna believe that though.

You say it's poorly written, maybe. But it did it's job and got you to watch it not only once but 4 times and also create large paragraphs discussing it

It set my expectations for media much higher, I’ll give it that. I specifically spiraled into it so much because it just never tasted quite right despite how stunning the ingredients seemed and I wanted to know why. And now I do, and am better at seeking out the things I like in movies and TV. Now that that’s passed though, I’m never gonna watch it again OR recommend the show to anyone. If it had been better I’d be singing its praises till the day I die. Ah well, though.

I was just there to have fun and boy was it random and fun

certainly scratched those itches!

Legion's format makes it difficult to figure out because there's so much going on. I've watched the series three times, and found the best way to figure out what it's about is to ignore the theatrics and concentrate on the character of David. S1 is about David breaking free from his abuser. S2 is about the residual effects of abuse on David, including how others treat him in light of that abuse. For S3, consider that Syd's arc might be a parallel to David's season 2 arc. This series is about David, and all of the other character arcs are used to push his story forward. Compare and contrast the other characters, especially Syd, Melanie and Oliver. I believe that's how to unravel the show's overarching theme.

So in that reframing, which I think is very interesting, where are his actions not explainable, or even justified? If season one is about breaking free of his abuser, how do we expect him to react once that abuser seemingly indoctrinates/starts abusing all of his friends? his girlfriend? And if this is also the case, how can he been seen as a villain or a bad guy? I have read some that say the other characters are essentially absorbed by David (in that he starts as something of a blank slate), and that he takes on the sum of their characteristics and ideas as the show progresses. I wonder what the implications of this are as well. Ultimately this brings me to my biggest worry, what was the point, and what was the lesson. If David's fall was unavoidable, if we don't believe in change, what even is there to believe in?

Everybody's actions are perhaps justifiable in terms of their perspective. Let's look at the simple question of the rape of Syd: David, of course, was a long-term victim of abuse, who also happens to be able to destroy the world. Once freed, his basic choice is how to use that power: part of him wants to do good, but the other part(s) want to lash out against his abuser and anyone else he feels is responsible for his situation. Syd's background reveals a cold mother and a power that prevents her from experiencing closeness with others. She identifies with David as being broken, but he also offers her the one thing she can't experience with anyone else. This makes her love of David unhealthy, as she overlooks his true nature in her desire for intimacy. The Shadow King attacks her perspective through Melanie's bitterness toward Oliver, and through Level 5's fear of what David is capable of. David sees the Shadow King's manipulations at the end, when Syd is pointing a gun at him. In his perspective, he's simply wiping away the effects of that manipulation so she's the person she would have been without it. When Syd learns what David did, it's a betray of many orders. Sexual coercion, for one, and their mental intimacy is even stronger than a physical intimacy because of the cost of her power. The thin veil of her unhealthy attraction is ripped away, leaving a sense of betrayal just as strong and just as unhealthy. The season has seen David struggling between good and selfishness. Syd was the only thread holding him back from the latter. The final scene of S2 is tragic, as L5 and Syd march in his abuser as a member of the jury, now free. I think the point is that David's fall wasn't unavoidable. The distrust of his friends from the "idea" placed in their heads actually pushed him toward becoming what they feared.

OK, and thanks for engaging with me on this, I literally haven't been able to talk to anyone about it since it hit so long ago. This implies David was pushed by the betrayal of his friends to become what they all feared (I think from a time-paradox standpoint this makes perfect sense, and would argue that it's exactly what he ends up doing in the finale, destroying the world). If it's his friends distrust in him that alters his behavior, is he a "bad" person, or a villain? I know those are oversimplifications of very loaded terms, but most of the discourse has approached this from an incredibly binary standpoint.

I also want to put out there that I am not in the "Syd's a bad person" camp either. Despite the mistakes of her childhood, she is as deserving of love as anyone else. The difference is the way we talk about who is worth of redemption and growth. I would almost argue that SK is too far gone, and yet we see him ultimately become a hero in the story (rather sloppily I think).

Yeah I think Syd is the biggest factor of David's "turn" post-Faruk-separation... she's a human with flaws and free will and all that, but there were multiple pivotal points where she could have been a buoy for D's trajectory but instead added fuel to the fire. Of course this is to drive the plot forward. One of her core traits is innocence though, so the 2nd childhood and protective care for baby David echoes this. I like the actor but Syd's character annoyed me a bit. Maybe she was supposed to, since audience is mostly hooked to David's POV. Her needs were too subtle to compete with David's roaring experiences and he had to go through his hero's journey alone, on some level. I mean, the whole rape thing is reflective of life though. People will have their own spins on events and you can't control it. We wanted David to have that support and love and didn't enjoy his heartbreak, but Syd had to discover herself in contrast to the source of her trauma. She still wanted a powerful figure against some unknown future threat, so she and everyone else at D3 transferred all their trust over to Faruk. Hero's Journey

No problem, I obviously love talking about this show, too. It has a great deal of complexity and depth that I'm not going into now, and even after three watches I feel like I'm probably missing something. David is the protagonist. Think of him as the character arc that defines the story, someone who wants to be good but has forces, both internal and external, trying to send him in the other direction. The overall theme is about abuse and mental illness. Even though David "destroys the world", it's actually a story of hope, and how the outcome of tragedy can be overcome by how we approach it.

Agree about some of the themes, wonder if it's possible to get even more specific. This is where it gets really hard. I believe that the ending is supposed to be about hope, but I also know there is a ton of stuff going on. As I said before, I am no where near unconvinced that the Shadow King has masterfully created a scenario where he lives a life of freedom from both David and Charles. That's dark, but I think entirely plausible given the emphasis on survival that comes up again and again as a human imperative.

Yes, it is possible to get more specific. I'm trying to be as vague as possible to not spoil the experience. There is a tremendous amount of depth to this series, which is why it's a top 5 for me.

Great points. However I have to disagree about Syds mother being cold. If fact, she tried over and over to connect.

There’s some controversy about Syd’s mother. I see her as highbrow and aloof, who loves her daughter but also can’t see past her own perspective to understand how self-destructive Syd’s power has become. I think she knew exactly what Syd had done with her boyfriend and had him arrested to protect her; yet there was also anger and betrayal that tore them apart. There’s too much we don’t see for me to be sure. However, it does make sense as a contrast to being raised in a healthy family by Melanie and Oliver. Personally, I think the reason she was going to be “glorious” in her relived life at the end is because David’s father would find her and bring her to his school for mutants, another healthy atmosphere.

The idea that this is the beginning of the X-Men, and that Charles will create a world where he is using Cerebro to grab these kids and provide what they need is one hopeful take on the ending that I really like.

We do see him building the helmet in Season 3.

I think some more aftermath would have been interesting to see, and helpful here. I was so intrigued by what she was reading to that group, and how that was part of Syd's story as well.

I think the show does a great job at trying to take an objective look at all these characters. Sure, it's through David's lense, but it's about flawed people, where there's no "right" side, leaving much room for interpretation. In turn, the ways you feel about the show aren't wrong, but I think to fully comprehend it's themes and messages, you might need to watch it a second time - specifically season two. Jon Hamm's "lessons" serve as David's interpretations of the season's events, first starting off factual before slowly devolving into the thoughts that feed his delusions. Concerning the show's take on mental illness goes, as someone who has lived with chronic illness my whole life, I felt it was done perfectly. Not everyone gets better and enough media glosses over illness that it's incredibly encouraging to see it depicted in this way. I know people who have similar and equally tragic stories to David, which had this story hit even closer to home for me. I think a fundemental societal ableism, focusing only on the healthy, has created a sensitivity around disability that has general audiences uncomfortable when it's depicted in entertainment. I certainly understand your concerns and respect them, but I also really appreciate Hawley's perspective on the matter.

Definitely need to zoom in on those delusion intros, I bet there's a supercut somewhere. Thanks for sharing your personal experience, and i think it's super important that we as a society take a more nuanced and realistic approach to how we depict mental illness. In that vein then, I'm wondering how you perceived the ending. On paper, he's starting over as a baby, with the hope that things will be solved/improved with the love (and knowledge of the future) that his parents possess. This is obviously not something realistic. Another take is that he destroys himself, as time travelling is to commit "self-annihilation." Both of these options, posited as somewhat inevitable, strike me as problematic metaphors for mental illness, or the end result of dealing with mental illness. Is this simply a cautionary tale? a collection of things that just happened? I feel like in many places, the writer/directors want to have their cake and eat it too. Or... and I started off with this, it's one of the other two possibilities.

I took the ending to be hopeful - not necessarily for baby David's future, but for the completed character arcs of the older characters. As far as what happens next, I personally believe we've already been shown in the season 2 alternate realities episode. For every potential "good" path for David, there are roughly 4-5 "bad" paths. The show tackles cycles of suffering on an individual level and how it also affects those around it. I'm curious to know what aspects of the messaging you found to be problematic when related back to mental illness.

Outside of the initial positing of is he mentally ill or simply a telepath, which they somewhat resolved, there was no clear delineation of where the problems existed vs where his power began. The reason this is troubling to me is that it seems to paint his becoming a "villain" as directly related to his mental illness, and unavoidable. At the same time, we see so many of the external factors in the show (assuming everything isn't happening inside his own head) driving him down that path, holding him accountable for most of season 2 for an act he hasn't yet committed (which they all believe is an inevitability). Finally, Hawley's interview where he explains the "tragic" cycle of mental illness (while plausible and often true) seems bleak to me, especially messing around with the idea that only "good" people are "deserving" of love. My uncle, who is also my godfather, is a paranoid schizophrenic. I've watched him battle this for 40 years, through my eyes as a child, adolescent, and now as an adult. Using metaphors to describe things is a great way into understanding an experience that we don't have immediate access to, but at some point we have to treat metaphors as the imperfect comparisons they are, and be specific. The failure to do so in this case allows for some very questionable conclusions to me made, some of which I detailed earlier as "bad takes" that are entirely plausible in the show. Hope that helps, and again, thanks for your input!

I see where you're coming from. Knowing loved ones with mental illness and the battles they have on a daily basis can be heartbreaking. I never viewed mental illness as the cause of David's actions, moreso Farouk's influence over him through his manipulation. Illness was just the catalyst for Farouk's corruption of David. In season 2, the group turns on him after Farouk manipulated them into believing David ends the world, where their precautionary actions consequently instigated their predictions. A majority of the characters suffer from illnesses, both physical and mental, and the plotline acts as a slice of life to depict a section of their journeys. Because of this, I don't believe the show can be boiled down to "bad takes" or "bad writing" when it's format and use of metaphors lends to a more open-ended interpretation that you may like or not

Totally can see where you are coming from. When I'm consuming something, I'm obsessed with the meaning. This can be very hard to determine when there are so many conflicting variables. For me, I struggled to find a through line that would stand up to intense scrutiny. This caused me to struggle with how I feel about the series.

I remember when David turned bad, or the badness was revealed, as a very dark turn for, what had been, up until that point, the story of a troubled but, in a way, heroic protagonist. It made the show hard to watch and I was a bit resentful towards the writers. By the end, I wondered if it was a giant nature/nurture story and I felt somewhat ok.

This is an interesting take. Do you feel there was there any accountability for the lack of nurture? any apologies? This was where I got somewhat stuck.

It's simple. An ancient mutant with the power to mindfuck gets beaten by someone he can't mindfuck so he goes after the dude's family and mindfucks the dude's son who happens to be an even stronger mindfucker than either one of them and so realizes the only way for him to survive is to keep mindfucking everyone and turn them against the dude's son in the off chance he gets taken out of the super mindfucker's mind and risks total annihilation (because survival is his number one priority). And he almost does get annihilated by super mindfucker because he's stronger than anyone anticipated until super mindfucker's dad comes back and the ancient mindfucker barters with dad to stay alive and essentially takes a bullshit magic pill that gives him sympathy for his victim (super mindfucker). Anyway, Farouk fucked shit up. David made it worse and failed to own his shit until he made it better and then the show forgives him by giving him a second chance.

This show ended up breaking my heart too. Watching it air week by week and seeing the story and characters develop in a way that’s so frustrating had me thinking about the show nonstop. SK tortured Amy to death for fuck’s sake, mutilated her body, and they’re really about to redeem him?! In that sense, yeah, it worked. It made me think. It made me seriously question the nature of consent and relationships, what Syd got out of it even before the rape, how much of a person David truly saw her as… And on rewatch you get to question these things outside of the context of his delirious fights with SK throughout S2. You get to see his obsession go unchecked by everyone but SK, and you get to really witness how evil it feels to see him convince everyone that he’s been evil the whole time. S3 is it’s whole own beast. I cant begin to elaborate, but if I had to choose any one word, it’d probably be “frustrating.” The first season is an amazing recommendation. The whole point of view where we have to question how real what we saw on screen was amazing. The second is obscenely character driven, and it makes the betrayal/manipulation by the SK so much more heartbreaking…which is on purpose! The third makes me feel like #2, that I’m a bad person. The only guy claiming “manipulation” is David, who the show starts displaying as beyond help…while also propping up SK as somehow NOT beyond help and redemption. So maybe a little #3. I’m fine with SK “winning” in the end on its face…but maybe it’s on me for expecting FX LEGION of all shows to end in a satisfying way. Anyway, my guess for the ending is #6! I don’t know, man. There are so many great ideas, and amazing actors. The production is so impressive, by god, the production…but the writing sometimes thinks it’s deeper than it is.

Great stuff here, thanks! Is Melanie acting on her own in the cave? What are we to make of the consequences of that interaction?

I think you’re actually playing with some of the ideas presented in the show without realizing it. There is no dichotomy of David, it’s not “either he’s an irredeemable asshole or he did nothing wrong” it’s “David is a complex character with very real flaws stemming from institutionalization, psychological abuse and lack of good examples for healthy behavior given unimaginable power. He tries to be good but doesn’t always know how to and being ‘good’ is in itself a very complex concept”. One of the major aspects of the show is in the psychological concepts presented, it addresses trauma, emotional growth and immaturity, deceit, trust, betrayal and the capacity for human beings to be both flawed yet still growing. I believe the whole ‘rape’ storyline is equally meant not to have a clear cut ‘bad’ or ‘good’ guy. Syd reacts irrationally and doesn’t account for David and her history nor David’s trauma or Farouk’s manipulation. The Shadow King had clearly been manipulating them for some time which she does fall for. Also one of Syd’s major flaws is her all or nothing personality and her tendency towards being a bit of a hypocrite. Remember, she literally raped her mom’s boyfriend and then sent him to prison because of what she’d done. Her later on feeling like she had been raped and deciding to *kill the one who did it* shows that she isn’t entirely self aware and often lacks introspection. There are other instances of this in the show, where she will harshly judge others for something she would probably do or has done. Farouk’s entire deal is one of my favorites as a villain, because he isn’t powerful thanks to being psychic, he’s powerful because *he knows how people’s minds work* in an intimate way and is able to use that to his advantage. Out of every character in the show he is definitely the closest to true ‘evil’ but by the end, even he has been impacted by experiences the trauma he himself forced David to endure, I didn’t like his redemption ending but I did understand it was meant to show that even someone like him can grow when taught empathy (even though he didnt realize it was happening). Even more complex is that Farouk is a great storyline of toxic love. He genuinely loves David as a son or something akin to one, but he is a toxic and manipulative person. The ending has him leave David alone because he knows the best thing he can actually do for David is let him grow without Farouk around. He loves him, but he hurts and uses people and so he chooses to love from afar so David can be happy, even if it means Farouk is forced to return to the isolation he so despises. The ending is harder to truly get, it’s hard to give it any one single objective interpretation but the way I see it the world was ending and various characters had to grow and mature to set things right in a way that would then play out in a better future. David gives up trying to force Syd to love him to instead give little David a chance to be better and grow with support, Syd puts aside her (manipulated and misplaced) hatred of David for the realization David is a product of his environment and little David deserves a good life as he wasn’t just past David but potentially an entirely new person. Farouk learns how his selfishness harmed others and experiences life as a child being traumatized (IMO he probably shoulda died but in life many people who die live and many who should live die). Mental illness and trauma aren’t a death sentence, and it shouldn’t be seen as such. Even though the characters eventually die, almost all of them show tremendous growth and change (some for the better and some for the worse) over the course of the show. It’s got hope but also tragedy. Comic book fans know David will pretty much always end up with Dissociative Identity Disorder, even Baby David is going to have mental health issues, but hopefully with parents in the picture he may be more stable, or if not at least he’ll have proper support in Xavier (who can help manage his powers). Even Xavier himself was seriously messed up and his storyline was beautiful in its own way, as was David’s mother’s.

If you didn't understand it, give it some time and then watch the series again. I think it's helpful to view each season as its own story than to see it as one episode following on another in a linear way.

I think giving it time before a rewatch is good. I'll probably sit through it with my wife so we can talk through it. But the show also broke my heart quite a bit, and I'm not sure it was in an earned way. I love the show, but I'm also very troubled by some of it's implications, that I'm afraid were simply a symptom of the story getting away from them.

My take on the ending: The crux of the series is David, with help from everyone (Switch, Charles, Syd, etc. etc.), convincing Older Farouk to transfer his memories into Younger Farouk to dissuade him from trying to take over David's intoxicatingly-attractive powers, because that will necessarily lead to decades of parasitic mutually destructive battles where neither can truly win and result in catastrophic consequences for the entire world. The ending is that neither side can win, so the battle must be avoided, temptation must be resisted. Farouk thought he could take over baby David, control the most powerful telepath in the world, but instead turned David into a mortal enemy who is unrelenting and indomitable. The crux of the show is Farouk realizing that ***the only winning move is not to play***. **Zugzwang**. In the timeline result at the end of the showm, Farouk does not attach itself as a parasite to David, and David gets to grow up as a baby "normally". What that "normal" ends up looking like is left unknown.

A totally earned and legitimate take. My concern with this one is that only Farouk makes it through this story with Knowledge intact. David is a baby, Charles will ostensibly know everything from David's former life, but Farouk will know David and Himself, and about all the events to come. He has also set up a scenario where Charles will be focused on David, and essentially (maybe) successful. Which removes David as an obstacle for Farouk. Or not.

Only Farouk makes it through the story with knowledge of the averted disaster, because he was the lynchpin that incited the entire catastrophic timeline where him and David get locked into the mutually-destructive war. The only way out of the cataclysmic stalemate was for Farouk to change his own mind before he could make the mistake of acting on his greedy impulse.

Yes, can totally see this. Maybe I wish that David was the one to have this realization, instead of his abuser. The ramifications of that are troubling to me, not that it makes the story only about Farouk learning to understand the error of his ways, but it further removes agency from a character that has made precious few decisions with viable options over the course of his life/the show.

Well, David has to enlist the help of his entire support system, make amends with Syd and the others, seek outside help (Switch), lean on his own family for support (Charles), to be able to pull it off. I would not claim that David has no agency, he does a lot to placate younger Farouk, confronting his would-be abuser head-on and proving himself stronger, not broken.

I think this is somewhat generous. I would also argue that amends are not made, and this is further cementing David as dangerous and unilaterally evil, which I question. Is David aware of the fight that is happening in California at the Xavier home? Is David aware of Switch apotheosis, or role in stopping the time demons? or is he simply focused on choking Young Farouk to death before his father intercedes. More clarity here from the writer would have been welcome.

Of course I'm being generous, I'm a fanboy after all.

Thanks for engaging, this whole thread has helped me get this out of my head and start to reconcile it.

David’s turn definitely appears sudden, or like a turn, because of the way the story is told. Because we’re so locked into his perspective, we don’t see the warning signs the way the other characters would and the way a more conventional narrative would lay out those signs. I don’t know that the show executes that move perfectly well, but I like what it’s going for vs traditional tv narrative. It definitely seems like the other characters’ attempt at intervention pushes David into being more selfish and paranoid, but it’s also not clear that another outcome is possible. He’s definitely a weak and selfish equivocator by the end of season 2 vs somebody unhinged or vindictive, but certainly a weak and selfish person inclined to giving excuses for his bad behavior could end the world in at least a few scenarios. I don’t think anyone on the show is ultimately good or bad. “Am I a good person?” is a nonsensical question because people do good and bad things. David ends up saving everyone in the end, even though his actions follow from a selfish impulse. Farouk is the closest thing to a classically bad person on the show, but he proposes a solution that prevents his younger self from doing a lot of those things, because in that moment he wants things to be better. The one thing I don’t like about the finale is that there’s not really a mechanism for Syd to get the better life she’s promised. She has a pretty lousy life and only the last year or so of bad things have anything to do with David. If the story’s run again with him getting a good childhood, she still can’t touch people, sends her stepfather away, and ruins her mother’s life. I don’t see how she’s better off. She’s much better off after the second childhood she gets on the astral plane, which has now been erased. A more conventional conclusion would have had a moment where we see the new timeline and all our characters are alive and happy, maybe Syd and David pass each other in the street and stare for a moment before going on etc, but Legion is aggressively open-ended and we just have to take the time god girl at her word that somehow everyone is going to get a better life.

It made you think. W

This is inarguably true, and I don't want this thread to come off as me hating the show. I can only describe a feeling of being upset by it in some way.

My first watch through, I just held onto the "powers are variations on mental illness", and I felt like I missed a ton. So then I took on different perceptions -- family tensions, the sci-fi questions on time travel and free will in the face of telepathy, Why Bananas in Pajamas?! It took me 3 full watch throughs and discussing vigorously here and with friends and family for me to confidently say "I get it" in a meaningful way. But folks here have shown me a great deal even after I got it, and additional watchings are both insightful and fun :}

I feel like another watch through is probably inevitable.

This is one of the few shows I can truly compare to art, like a painting that you can look at from different angles and moments in your life where the emotions you experience differ every time. The visuals throughout the show are amazing, same as the perspectives and themes. I've come to see it as such, multi-interpretabel where there is no "right" way to understand it, it's about what it does to you.

certainly agree, but there is an amount of intent that is required of the creators in order for that to be earned, and that is where I'm struggling. I think that the story says quite a few things that the creators would be horrified by, and rightly so. Part of your responsibility as an artist is to attempt to avoid (logical) misunderstandings of your work.

I don't know about Noah Hawley interviews but if he's trying to say X thing is absolutely one way then he is either a bad writer or is being disingenuous in the interview. When everyone turned on David at the end of S2 I took that as them all being 100% manipulated by Farouk. He used his dampened powers to influence a mouse who broke him out of the helmet control. Then there's a scene of him going from person to person. Finally during the 'trial' scene Farouk is positively vamping around and enjoying the show. I think these things show for a fact that Syd was manipulated at least by Farouk. That makes David's 'rape' of Syd REALLLY murky, I think at that point her head was messed with so many times that consent was probably not possible. On the other hand, I don't think it's definitive that David did anything 'extra' beyond removing Farouk's influence. But really at that point in the narrative who could say? Up to that point in the story I don't think David did anything 'wrong' according to his understanding of things, or in the view of most objective observers. The first half of Season 3 David is in the wrong. Before he knows for a fact that he can break causality he does some villainous things in pursuit of that goal. Once he gains the ability to break causality and becomes in effect a god there's an argument to be made that all morality is his will because his will is all of reality. Of course in rather stark contrast to that in the movie Palm Springs when the character who is living a groundhog day situation is asked why he doesn't hurt people and do bad things, he simple responds, "Pain matters. When you hurt people, it matters. You still have to live with that" Which is a pretty powerful and definitive statement on being a human with seemingly godlike power to change reality. It would have been interesting to see, if in any further content there was only baby David and everything was OK, or if an echo of Legion survived his great reset and comes back to haunt him making David ultimately his own tormentor.

Wish I was here for this topic when you made it. I'll still chime in late. Firstly, you aren't a bad person. It's ridiculous you'd suggest such in response to not outright condemning David's behavior, which is yes, incredibly and I'm sure intentionally ambiguous. I can't honestly say anything he did is rape, he should've been a little less aggressive in trying to recapture something he had lost certainly, and to say he did no wrong is seriously a laugh, since he certainly didn't do everything perfectly and in fact repeatedly messed up, particularly where Syd is concerned. You understand it fine I think. There's a hell of a lot of people who don't and I think that's why the discussion ended up so heated and frankly, detached from the actual narrative we saw then. Literally the entire first season and everything before that point in Season two mixed the literally with metaphorical, but not truly metaphorical. The metaphorical things were all real solid things in the shows narrative, not ideas that disappear when you stop thinking about them. By Hamm's definition of real, they were real because they continued to exist without the belief the people involved. The people who outright condemn David are missing something, and I think perhaps Hawley did this on purpose. I mean, this is the guy who made Fargo, which isn't afraid to offend or be brutal or cruel by any measure, yet seems to always be firmly on the side of the little people regardless. When the show explains psychic combat and psychic interaction as metaphor made real, you need to take into account that when two characters have a conversation while weird things happen around them those characters are not having a conversation, one is vying for domination of the other. Syd didn't get pulled down a rabbit hole, Farouk used his power to lure her away. Farouk is an experienced telepath who knows to be effective you need to manipulate someone to your side instead of outright controlling them with raw power like David does. It's not really questionable Syd wasn't the same Syd when she pointed a gun at David that she was when she got yanked down that rabbit hole. So when Farouk used his power to "convince" Syd that David is going to destroy the world, and then manipulated her via jealous of her future self kissing David, and her desire to be a whole person with trying to portray her as taking control as the hero in her own head, that wasn't him convincing her destroying David was the intelligent path with reason and argument, it was a psychic manipulation and that's not really arguable when every single time two people have talked against a backdrop of weirdness in the entire shows runtime it's been a psychic battle occurring with the physical parameters displayed being a metaphor. So when David mind wipes or removes the manipulation or whatever he did, I can't call that "drugging" or anything of the sort, and can't assume based on David's moral compass to this point that he had any ill intent. And don't get me wrong, he did do wrong. He didn't tell her right away Farouk had manipulated her into attacking him. He didn't explain that he made a change to stop it. He didn't reassure her, or try to make her comfortable. He mentally visited her after being told she wanted to be alone. Having sex seemed natural, but he should have been at least a little more relaxed instead of trying to use it to rekindle a trust he felt was lost, that's actually manipulative in a bad way, since he's literally the only person she's capable of being intimate with anyway. Like I said, I feel like Hawley did this on purpose, seeing that it was the subject du jour, possibly to his own detriment since I consider this show serious art when most shows aren't even close to such. Syd's accusation is... fallacious, frankly. Yes, he didn't drug her, at all. He didn't truly rape her either, they pretended like he roofied her but... he didn't. All Farouk had to do was say she came to the conclusion David is evil and needs to die herself, something that again would be the most ridiculous self serving thing for her to do and it seems quite unlikely to happen without Farouk dipping his finger into her mind. The complete turnaround at this point can easily be explained as manipulation, as again, the highly skilled Farouk knows how to manipulate his way into their heads, not needing to brute force with power like David, who's response to his manipulation too was just pure brute force.

Very hard to justify David's actions but he was a tragic character and a victim of systematic abuse all his life. Ofc he turned into a monster! Hard to not have sympathy for him despite what he did

Farouk never raped Lenny for fuck sake, watch better.

My favorite part about this thread has been the very rational and respectful way it's been handled. I've seen so many of the discourse around this turn toxic fast. So some questions. 1. Does Lenny literally claim that Farouk raped her? If so, why should she not be taken at her word? 2. Does Farouk enter her body or mind against her will, and use that body/mind for his own devices/pleasure? 3. Does Farouk use Lenny to insert himself/herself into Amy's body? I feel like a positive answer to any of those questions is confirmation that "rape" or "a rape" happened.

Did Farouk saved her life when Syd and David literaly killed her?

Yes, and? (Also, probably a good time a discussion about who/what Lenny even is)

If you belive Lenny, when she mentioned rape to a person who killed her, do you belive, when she said to a person that saved her, that she was having fun time messing with the person that killed her in first place? And what reason did evern Farouk had too "rape" her? Because what? Soomeone said he is evil and you did not questioned it at all? I remeber person that said that was pretty cool with using children as a soldiers. What a person to trust. 1. Cause there is no proof he did it and she is a junky that say anything to get a dose. And she was pretty jooking and demanding with her supposed rapist, admitting she was having fun messing with David. So no fear of rapist and manipulating someone with no proof. 2. No, he saved her mind when D&S killed her and she coonfirms (if we believed her) she was having fun messing with David and asked Faruk to fully revive her. 3. Wich he did. Yes he merged Lenny and Amy in one persone and lo and behold - that persone become Davids best friend later on. Why did Farouk did it? So summirised: He saved her life, used her help to mess with David and later brings her back fully to life. That's facts. Now to speculations: She said to persone that killed her, that persone that saved her raped her without proofs. Good time to discuss all of this was some years ago and it was.

Farouk “saved her” in so much as he pushed her out of the way of an oncoming train than locked her in his basement and used her body like a puppet. Is Farouk evil? It’s heavy word to use, but he’s definitely got a god complex, that’s sorta his whole thing. He has survived all these years by lying and manipulating everyone around him, how far is too far? He trapped the old rulers of his kingdom in the minds of children, why not just… put them somewhere else at least? That’s assuming he was just in overtaking them anyways. He killed Amy. It doesn’t matter his view on what Amy did, she didn’t deserve to die for it. And all that good faith up aside, the WHOLE show start to finish is about how deeply traumatized David is by Farouk’s actions. Maybe he didn’t mean to hurt him that bad, most abusers rarely do. But he ignored all screams of pain, he drove him to the point of suicide by constantly haunting him with “The Devil With Yellow Eyes” and “The Angriest Boy In The World.” In fact, the reason he says he knows what David did is wrong is cause he himself did it *to* David for 30 years. Even he seems himself as the bad guy, which is why he’s so disgusted by his old self in s3. If Lenny’s so grateful to Farouk, why’s she help David try to kill him in s2? Why when David removes Farouk’s influence over her does she automatically jump to trying to help him get to Farouks body before he does? I just rewatched the scene btw, she blames Farouk for her death. “You popped me like a tick.” She says, “Not that I’m complaining,” in a tone that’s very clearly trying to avoid upsetting him. She tries to appeal to his ego by calling him “the ultimate badass.” She also says the haunted house stuff was “boring” trying to appeal to his sense of higher purpose. She jokes, sure, she puts on a false mask of confidence. It’s a coping mechanism, one easily identifiable in pretty much every scene after that. And even the ones before she was killed. It must be understood that this is not Lenny’s first time dealing with a violently controlling man. She’s had pimps before. It’d make sense to assume her interactions with Farouk are influenced by that. Even the next scene after that has her begging David to talk to Farouk and convince him to let her out. In fact, that very scene has her attempt suicide multiple times to try and end her suffering. Listen, the truth is, “saved her” or not, she was Farouk’s captive for over a year. Completely at his mercy. The moment she gets out she runs to try and find David because she really does care for him that much. She tries to warn *all* of Div 3 in fact about what Farouk is doing, and she clearly has no love in her voice for him. What manipulation could she possibly be trying to pull? All it ends up doing is getting her thrown in jail. She’s extremely traumatized by the events that transpired. When Syd comes up to her it’s to try and taunt her. She thinks Lenny’s still working for The Shadow King. This is the context in which Lenny says “He raped me.” To shut down Syd’s taunting and and throw off any doubt that she hates Farouk with 100%. “But, uh, bros before hoes, right? Girl power, or whatever.” Remember, at this point Syd is an ally to Farouk on her future selfs orders. Lenny’s pointing out how bad of a guy there ally really is, and how shitty Syd is being by not believing her. *After she’s already been cleared by David mind you*. And then, when the time comes, she help David attempt to kill Farouk. “The big payback!” None of these events line up with someone who’s “just a junkie lying to get a hit.”

great points. I feel like any attempt to find a clear through line is met with several contradictions. I'm not sure this is intentional or controlled.

I think the unreliability is an important thing here, as you've pointed out. What's interesting is that by putting this line into the story, given the context of the controversy of what came later, adds such a layer of confusion to the story overall. I wonder if this was simply an oversight, or intentionally placed to cause confusion/controversy. In the original post I talked about the problems that working in metaphor creates, especially when trying to authentically capture or relate actual experiences. I think this is a perfect example of these problems.

So let's be honest here. I'm only gonna respond regarding David raping Syd cause everything else is up for debate but not that, this is actually pretty simple ... Would Syd have slept with David if he hadn't erased her memory of what she saw that day when she tried to kill him ? No. Noah Hawley said himself in a interview that it was rape. It's really simple when you think about it because she doesn't even remember but you can see she is still confused and asked to be alone for this one night and David couldn't even do that ... I mean at some point even if Fraouk had lied about David to her (which was not the case for once), he shouldn't have erased her memory and let her work things on her own but instead he knew damn well it was over between them the second she realized everything and shot him, that he was gonna be uncovered by her to the rest of the team and everything so he erased her memory and then raped her. If the memories he had erased wouldn't have changed her consent I would have agreed with you and said that David didn't rape her but the fact is if he hadn't erased her memory she never would have slept with him ... Hope it's clear enough sorry for any grammatical error and very limited vocabulary but I'm actually french lol so english is not my first language