Does anybody think that the writing in this series at times seems particularly puerile, especially in this episode in this exchange between Paul and Gina as the writer throws around terms like erotic transference and Oedipal conflict without any precision? How does it come as a surprise to Paul that Gina would be taking her particular stance in response to Paul's interest in Laura? Isn't this ethics 101? There is some acknowledgement of Laura's histrionic features, and Paul must be aware that the exciting romantic feelings that he believes are possible with Laura, have no greater potential with her than they would be with any other histrionic.
The writing of this particular episode appears to have the same emotional depth and breadth that the character Laura has.
Commenting by HaloScan
