"You didn't watch the whole thing, so how can you criticize it." Is really not a valid point to disregard someone's opinion. The fact that I stopped half way through shows it took a dive in terms of quality.

I'm not here to get people to agree with me, I'm just sharing my opinion so people who haven't watched, don't have a false impression of what they are getting before going in.

It's really not about real life values. It's about it making sense in it's portrayal and messaging. They portrayed Catherine as this progressive idealist who wants to empower women. Only for them to employ some cliche "naive girl falls in love with evil guy" trope that is present in a lot of YA books.

If you think I'm posting this for people's approval. You are sadly mistaken.

If you actually read my post, I enjoyed S1. Watched all the episodes attentively. Watched the first half of S2 attentively, until it started to irritate me, and I fast-forwarded just to get to the ending.

It's not even the fact that they made Catherine start falling for Peter because he was giving her blowjobs or doing the bare minimum to be a better person, is the fact that after fucking her mother and killing her. She still cries and professes deep love for him.

She sums it up nicely in the final episode. That love or marriage is about facing problems and working through them, but that the love has limits. Even Peter agreed.

It's the fact that Peter reached that limit and she still professed deep love for him and still cried over his "corpse" as if he also didn't kill Leo.

Catherine is portrayed as this progressive idealist. That whole fiasco turned her into women in the old days who stay with their husbands due to love or duty despite the harm the husband is inflicting upon them.

Thanks.

Yes, I did have misconceptions. Thanks for the answer.

Thank you.

I know, they used tax farmers. The question is when did bureaucries become more advanced, like forming governmental departments and formulating budgets.