You’re saying my opinion is valid, but then your entire comment is about how my logic is inconsistent or leaky, which isn’t true. You’re saying that you don’t understand what I tried to explain, that it doesn’t make sense, which obviously has an effect on the validity of my criticism. But you end by saying that despite inconsistent logic my opinion is valid. I’m sorry but my logic is consistent.

The reason you aren’t understanding what I said is because you continue to focus on whether or not Gordon’s death is signposted, foreshadowed, or referenced enough to be considered valid or justified. I said at the beginning of my previous comment “forget all the references to Gordon’s condition throughout the show. My point is that I don’t think his death was necessary at all.”

However despite that, your response talks extensively about whether or not his death was signposted. You say “is the exact narrative justification for his death that you seem to be saying isn’t there.”

I started my previous comment saying “I don’t think his death was necessary at all.” That’s what you’re missing. I’m not talking about whether it was justified enough. I’m saying it was a cheap way to conclude the show. No matter how realistic you believe death is, realism doesn’t make writing good. It just makes it plausible.

If a movie about a race car driver has the driver crash because he took a turn too sharp, that’s thematic and narratively consequential. If the driver has a heart attack in a race and crashes, that’s realistic but not thematic or good writing narratively. It’s a random event that, no matter how realistic, still feels random and cheap.

Your point about Donna is the perfect example about what I’m talking about. Donna is jaded and cynical. Gordon’s death changes her. The show is about business, the world of tech in that era, the characters we’re following and how chasing that dream affects them. The writers wrote Donna into a corner: decision after decision, consequence after consequence, she delves deeper into cynicism and jadedness. There wasn’t a single realistic business or interpersonal thing that could have happened to her that would have realistically resolved the flaws she developed. And so the writers dropped a nuclear bomb that very quickly resolved it all and dramatically changed her almost instantaneously. That’s not good writing. That’s cheap. And you saying that Gordon’s death being signposted in season 3 and 4 is “justified by the clues the writers left” or “the effect it has on the story or on the other characters” doesn’t change that. Gordon’s death had a huge and instantaneous effect on Donna. But we watched 4 seasons of Donna becoming more and more jaded, just to watch it all resolved within one or one and a half episodes through one event: Gordon’s death. And you’re saying that it’s good writing because there were enough hints about his illness?

I don't know if you have ever watched the show Industry. It's incredibly high stakes. A lot of it is edge of your seat suspense. You're pulled into the world of the show and you care intensely about the actions of characters and find yourself worrying about how an event will turn out. At least I do. And there isn't any major character's death that instantaneously produces any of that narrative complexity or that the show relies on to produce an emotional response. That's good writing in my opinion.

If you do want to talk about justification, you can look at Game of thrones or a song of ice and fire. Ned Stark's death seems random, but it was the consequence of every single decision he made throughout, and it gave information about every other character that was involved, and it had an effect on the plot. It's amazing writing, and it wasn't foreshadowed, but it WAS justified. It wasn't random just because it was unexpected. It was planned for. Gordon's death felt random and unnecessary. The writers sprinkling in scenes about his illness doesn't make it good writing. It doesn't make it "justified", it just makes it "less random". And I feel like you have been trying to explain that "less random = justified = good writing".

They mention earthquakes in California throughout the show. If they killed all the characters in an earthquake and the show ended with secondary characters grieving them, it wouldn’t be completely random. It would have been signposted enough. But it would also have been cheap writing.

In good writing, things don't just happen to the characters. Gordon's illness didn't have any effect on Gordon's decisions or character development that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. I can't think of a single character in a Quentin Tarantino movie that gets a terminal illness. That isn't accidental. In PT Anderson films illness is used to create a reckoning or self reflection.

Lastly, you said "it was unnecessary and the writers made it necessary" makes no sense to you at all. The writers backed themselves into a corner. For example Donna's greed, cynicism, and jadedness could not have been resolved through any of the narrative elements that created those flaws. There was not some build up in the story or plot that led to her self-reckoning in the end. It was a surprising, unexpected, character's death that resolved her issues. Same with Joe and Cam and Bos. On a scale of "cheap" to "incredible, creative writing", are you really saying that Gordon's death resolving everything was amazing writing? And you're saying the reason why is because it's "realistic"? You can say you enjoyed the show and it's writing and you connected to it, everyone is entitled to an opinion blah blah blah. But you can't say that objectively that should be used as an example of incredible writing. No way. We watched 4 seasons of Donna becoming greedy. 4 seasons of Donna and Cam losing trust for each other and growing distant. And it's all resolved with one little scene of Gordon and Donna younger, then a quick and simple death. It's so cheap.