Originally Posted by dteowner
Actually, I don't think they're copying that critical part. The explanation for why she still has a job is that the sheriff feels responsible for her following his failure to solve her sister's death. That wasn't plainly stated, but enough hints were thrown out that it was clearly intended. That might even serve to explain her nutjobbery, basically saying the trauma of losing her sister caused her to snap, but that's not the direction they took it and it's not appropriate to Aspergers anyway.
I'm on board even though she irritates me, but I don't know that the viewing public will follow.
We haven't gotten "a ton" of those. Very few, actually, and they've always been in scenes where the comment could easily be seen as situational rather than introspective. We got the "girlfriend" one, but it played as brusquely blowing off a potential suitor rather than insight into her condition. We got the "joke" one, too, early on, but all it established is that she's socially inept. 90% of the characters on the show are damaged/inept in some fashion, so that comment offers no insight to her issue, just confirmation that she's screwed up in some fashion like every other character and none of them have Aspergers.
Worthy of hate? No. Needlessly veiled causing constant annoyance? Yes. Our version generates none of that sympathy. She's damaged goods. That's no different than any other character on the show. With the reporter, we're beat over the head with the root of his damage. With Marco, the root of his damage (well the initial one prior to his son) is obvious and self-inflicted. With the reporter's friend, we're plainly handed the source of her damage. On it goes, but with this one character, who happens to be the main one, we're given nothing. No explanation. No cause. No good hints. Nothing.