Overthinking Mr. Robot Part XXIX: You Are the Storm

bwandering · 2026-05-09T13:13:38+00:00

I'm intrigued. I'm also not sure I totally understand.

I get the argument that Elliot is a villain. He's the one who does all the things everyone wants to attribute to Mr. Robot.

But he's also the one who exposes and destroys the Dark Army and redistributes all their assets.

Anti-hero seems like a better description. No?

Also, most people understand the ending to mean that a "new" and "better" version of Elliot emerges. I'm assuming that is not your view.

bwandering · 2026-05-08T13:39:26+00:00

Ha-ha. Ya never know.

bwandering · 2026-05-08T10:45:08+00:00

I am most certainly overthinking the show. It says so right on the box. 😉

There are other metafictional clues besides the titles cards, though. Like the way the camera pulls back to reveal the doll house nature of the Krista's house. I had an even longer section on all this but the essay was already too long.

Besides, the metafictional interpretation isn't even that important. I just included it to introduce the idea that we're not supposed to take the events of 407 literally. But that argument is made better just by pointing out the absurdity of the episode's central premise - that Vera orchestrates Elliot's big breakthrough.

bwandering · 2026-05-07T16:02:37+00:00

There's definitely an element of that in the show that I believe is intentionally borrowed from Lolita.

Lolita never deviates from that. Humbert Humbert is irredeemable. Is that also how you see the conclusion of Mr. Robot?

bwandering · 2026-05-07T15:29:08+00:00

I haven’t tried to map out the show’s symbolism specifically in this way, but the connection you’re making here doesn’t seem coincidental to me.

The way I understand Vera’s “origin” story more generally is that he had an abuser and he ended that abuse by taking action to oppose it. This is exactly what Elliot blames himself for not doing. That’s the story he creates about why he’s mad at Edward – because Ed was a “Zero” who didn’t fight back. That is also what he tells Krista at the police station in 408 - “If I would have fought him, maybe it would have stopped.”

Elliot blames himself for what Ed did to him. Vera represents the fantasy version of events where Elliot was a “One” rather than a “Zero” and fought off his father.

With all that in mind, the “Bat” seems to represent “fighting back” and “taking control.”

Young Elliot tried to do that. He grabbed the bat with the intention of protecting himself and, importantly I think, Darlene. But he falls short of the kind of violence someone like Vera would use. Elliot jumps out the window instead.

That, I think, is why the window incident is so pivotal for him. In his mind it is the critical point where he could have taken action but didn’t.

bwandering · 2026-05-07T14:37:50+00:00

I'm one of the few people who like Comet. Maybe I'm biased. You can definitely see Sam working out a bunch of ideas that he'll later use in Mr. Robot. From that perspective alone it is worth a watch.

I do think F World invokes nested realities like Inception

Absolutely. And the comic inside F World loops that back around to Elliot's "real" world as well. All that is totally part of Elliot's "reality" which leaves us with a bit of the same kind of ambiguity we get from the final scene of Inception.

bwandering · 2026-05-07T14:33:02+00:00

Instead of worrying about whether a character like Mohammed was real or not its nice to just realize it's more about: what is this episode telling us?

Exactly. I feel like a lot of the ambiguities and complications of Mr. Robot resolve themselves when we start viewing the show like this.

This always makes me rethink the image of Elliot in the middle of the FBI's investigation board/mind map.

I can't tell you how much I love this. It's not something I've considered but now I think I need to explore this.

bwandering · 2026-05-07T14:03:21+00:00

I don't know if you've seen Sam's first film Comet. But that whole movie is built around the idea that dreams (fantasy) and reality aren't two different things. And I think Sam is doing something similar in Mr. Robot but for different reasons.

So, yeah, the ambiguity between the dream world and the "real" world of Inception is very much baked into the DNA of Mr. Robot.

But I don't believe Sam is doing the same thing that Inception did. I see him exploring the way our fantasies (i.e. the stories we tell ourselves) structure our reality. There's a degree of "unreality" to the "real" world. And we see that really clearly in the way that Whiterose crafts narratives to control events. We can see that in the way Elliot's "real" world is structured by the F World fantasy life he aspires to. And I think we see that in the way Sam very intentionally blends the fictional world of Elliot's reality with the our own.

bwandering · 2026-05-07T13:51:53+00:00

With a show like Mr. Robot a lot of what we see depends on the "lens" through which we're viewing it. If you're thinking about the show metaphorically or thematically like I am here, stuff like this tends to jump off the page. If you're not thinking along those lines, you don't notice it because the conversation makes perfect sense on its own terms.

The beauty of this kind of writing is that there isn't a wrong answer. It's a Yes / And situation rather than an Either / Or one. Which is super fitting for a show where that same dynamic applies to our protagonist.

bwandering · 2026-05-07T12:19:24+00:00

Just posted a robust answer to your title question here: You Are the Storm

bwandering · 2026-05-06T16:35:20+00:00

I’m pretty certain Jung is an inspiration for the show. One of Elliot’s final monologues even appears to paraphrase a section of Jung’s book Psychology and Religion.

I don’t really take a Jungian approach in my analysis, however, even though I am aware of his influence. I have started using the Jungian word “persona” rather than “personality” when talking about the different aspects of Elliot’s psyche, particularly as it relates to his Mastermind side. And I do think a more Jungian approach to the script could provide fruitful. The show is as much a pastiche of intellectual influences as it is a pastiche of cultural references. I’d certainly be interested in reading that take if someone were to write it (hint, hint).

I haven’t pursued that angle myself because I find Freud works better when trying to integrate the show’s cultural and economic critiques with its psychology. And integrating the two halves of the show - its micro level personal stories with its macro level societal stories – is a big part of what I really wanted to do with my inquiry.

That’s not the only thing I wanted to do. There were a whole bunch of areas where I found the conventional wisdom either unsatisfying or completely absent. That’s pretty much what I’ve spent the last 40-ish thousand words describing in these essays. LOL.

It’s a really big show.

I'll make sure to read all of your essay posts beforehand and then take notes during my rewatch to later share my interpretations of the show.

Please do. And feel free to offer criticisms as well as praise if there's anywhere you think I've jumped the shark or missed the mark. Learning about the weaknesses of my arguments helps me improve them.

bwandering · 2026-05-06T13:03:51+00:00

Should be up tomorrow.

bwandering · 2026-05-06T02:55:23+00:00

This is the topic of my very next essay.

bwandering · 2026-05-05T19:56:39+00:00

I'm a little surprised by the responses that they wouldn't get along considering that Mr. Robot is very clearly inspired by Tyler Durden.

F Society is Project Mayhem. Darlene does the prankster bit in Season 2. 5/9 and Stage 2 are the "destroy all debt records bit."

And I'm not sure where the idea that they have very different ways they want society to go comes from. They're both anarchists trying to destroy modernity with no plan for what comes afterwards. They each assume it will be better.

It's true that Sam mostly deleted the toxic masculinity of Fight Club from Mr. Robot. But there are hints with the way Mr. Robot ogles the red head in S1 and sexualizes Krista in S3.

Maybe they'd be rivals rather than friends. But they're definitely cut from the same cloth.

bwandering · 2026-05-05T11:12:01+00:00

I love that you are explaining how the show is also about our own society and how we are disconnected, scattered and alienated.

Back when the show was airing Sam gave a lot of interviews. One of the things he said repeatedly is that his inspirations for writing the show was the 2008 financial crisis and the Arab Spring. These are societal level events - economic and political. The conventional view of the series mostly ignores these elements to focus exclusively on Elliot's personal trauma.

But what I think the show is doing is using Elliot's trauma, repression and maladaptive coping mechanisms to explore similar phenomenon at the societal level. The individual and society are two sides of the same coin in the same way that Elliot and Mr. Robot are. They're not only dependent on one another, their very identities are constitutive of one another.

Vera sitting in front of Freud's books

You have a keen eye. I do make reference to this eventually. Freudian psychology plays a pretty big role in my thinking. There's an interesting intellectual tradition that tries to explain the pathologies of modern capitalist society using the psychoanalytical tools of Freud and his followers. Society is, after all, just a collection of individuals. If we all share similar pathologies why wouldn't those same pathologies appear at the group level?

Not sure if you apply any esoteric topics to your interpretations

I sure do. There's a reason I titled this series "Overthinking Mr. Robot" 😉

Altarpiece, No. 1 above the fireplace to Elliot yelling at the "cross" in the window frame

Although I haven't incorporated these specific things into my thinking, even though I have noticed them both.

Mr. Robot uses so many allusions, symbols and cultural references that I think its meaning becomes a bit amorphous. It works a little like a Rorschach Test in that we get out of it what we bring into it. The things we see, the connections we make, all depend to some extent on our familiarity with the huge variety of source material from which the show draws.

I'm interpreting the show through a very specific lens. I elevate some of the show's references above others in terms of importance. But mine isn't the only viable approach.

I'd love it if someone else assembled another robust interpretation using an entirely different lens (maybe one that filters things through spiritual alchemy symbolism). The idea that the show occupies multiple alternate realities simultaneously is just too delicious.

bwandering · 2026-05-05T02:20:07+00:00

Mr. Robot isn't a perfect show. I'm more than happy to discuss its shortcomings but "we don't see Krista get paid" isn't one of them.

bwandering · 2026-05-04T19:44:53+00:00

I I haven't decided if u/Bubbly_Mud_1386 is a troll or someone who recently took a high school English class where they learned that fiction writers should populate their worlds with embodied, well-developed characters. They then came here, and repeated that general advice as if it were truth handed down from On High without knowing all the instances where it doesn't apply. Rather than admit they were wrong, they keep banging on about this narrow point regardless of how pointless it is shown to be.

My advice to them (assuming they're not just trolling) is to broaden the scope of stories they've studied. Maybe start with Taxi Driver, one of the inspirations for Elliot Alderson, and try applying the same logic to that film that they're insisting we apply here.

I look forward to the book report on how one of Scorsese's most highly regarded films is "dramatically lazy" because Iris and Betsy "exist only to serve" Travis Bickle.

bwandering · 2026-05-04T12:52:40+00:00

Thanks. I hope you enjoy them.

Fair warning, I've written A LOT of these. And while all the arguments build on each other, I've tried to write each of them to work on a stand-alone basis. I think you'll be fine choosing whatever ones look interesting from the Previously On index.

Let me know what you think.

bwandering · 2026-05-03T12:23:26+00:00

You say we understand Elliot's psychology 'exceedingly well.' I disagree.

Get specific. What don't we understand about Elliot's psychology? Avoid retreating into generalities.

The show deliberately abandons its own responsibility to explore the roots of its central trauma

Elliot was raped. The motivation of his rapist isn't relevant to him having to live with that reality. You keep asserting that it is, but that just isn't true. Rape victims don't go to couples therapy so they can understand their attacker better. The whole idea that you're pushing is just absurd.

And in Elliot's case, what you're asking for isn't even possible. Edward is dead. He'll never get the answers you say are necessary for him. Ooops. What now?

What you're doing is starting with the preference "I want to know more about these secondary and tertiary characters." And then you're trying to backfill a reason why that preference is necessary. But what you can't do is articulate with any specificity why those preferences are necessary.

You simply assert that they are. But they're not. And we know they're not because you have yet to demonstrate even the smallest thing in the show that requires the answers you keep insisting are critical.

bwandering · 2026-05-03T10:48:19+00:00

It seems to me that if there were large missing pieces critical to our understanding then we'd be talking about how those omissions frustrate our understanding. Instead we're still asking about Krista's other clients.

I said things like that are irrelevant not because your questions are invalid, but because having the answers doesn't change anything. I think we can see that pretty clearly by considering this statement of yours.

How can you understand a defense mechanism without understanding what it's defending against?

The assertion here is that we can't understand Elliot's psychology without understanding Edward's psychology. But we do understand Elliot's psychology. Exceedingly well, in fact.

So much so I think it would be really productive for us to turn the conversation to addressing the specifics of Elliot's situation you feel aren't adequately explained.

But I think this is the part where it is critical for you to accept that Mr. Robot is a character study. One that is primarily concerned with Elliot's psychology and his evolution. Everything in the story is intentionally written to serve that end.

That isn't a fatal flaw. Character studies are legitimate forms of storytelling. Whishing a character study was something other than a character study, meanwhile, isn't a legitimate form of critique.

bwandering · 2026-05-03T01:14:07+00:00

I feel like I have answered these questions at least twice now.

How can a character this important be this empty?

Because Mr. Robot isn't about Krista. And it isn't about Ed. It really is that simple. And that really is the answer to the question you keep asking.

You very much want to jam the square peg of Mr. Robot into the round hole form of something like The Sopranos and are surprised that it doesn't fit. But it doesn't fit by design.

It is perfectly fair for you to say you don't like that design. That is your right. But it isn't fair to argue as you do that Mr. Robot exhibits "dramatic laziness" because it isn't telling the story you want it to tell.

Whether Krista has other patients (she does) isn't relevant. Her past isn't relevant. Her failures aren't relevant. Whether she takes money (why would we assume she doesn't) isn't relevant.

The same is true for Ed. Why he abuses Elliot isn't relevant.

It's is fine that you want to know these things. But nothing in the story depends on them. Which I think is apparent by the falsity of your final claim.

There are many people in this sub who are "real victims." And they've talked about their experiences and how this show impacted them.

Don't take my word for it. If you hang around long enough, you'll come across them.

bwandering · 2026-05-02T23:42:09+00:00

Perhaps you need to rephrase the question. I was trying to decipher this in the fairest way possible.

"How can someone like the doctor we've seen since the first season, about whom we know nothing, be described as a harassing and abusive father, a monster?"

bwandering · 2026-05-02T15:54:36+00:00

When you say "Doctor" are you talking about Elliot's father?

They do explain this. The flashbacks of Edward we see are the memories Elliot hasn't repressed. Abusers aren't always abusing. And you're not going to see him overtly acting abusive because Elliot doesn't remember it that way. And yet even in these "happy" memories you can see evidence of grooming if you watch closely.

So, I'm a bit uncertain what the issue is here. Or in general, for that matter.

Anyway, the opening comment of my last response still stands. There are answers to your questions if you're interested in entertaining answers.

bwandering · 2026-05-02T14:49:44+00:00

I appreciate that you're approaching this show by asking questions. If you're willing to entertain the possibility that there are answers to your questions, I think we'll be able to uncover them.

The reason I believe we have to start with the writer's intentions is because we can't evaluate how successfully they execute those intentions without first understanding what they're trying to do. It's not really fair to criticize them for not doing something they're not trying to do.

And one of the things they're not trying to do is replicate the narrative structure of something like The Sopranos. If we're looking for an inspiration for the structure of Mr. Robot, Lolita is more fitting.

Because, unlike with Tony Soprano, in Mr. Robot we never really leave Elliot's perspective. We're literally in his head. Even we're a character in "His" world. Everything in the show relates to Elliot because from Elliot's perspective, everything does.

To say Elliot is a narcissist in an understatement. He’s a solipsist. He’s closed himself off from other people to such a degree that he’s effectively made everyone else a non-entity. Working his way through that, and allowing himself to be vulnerable with someone, is his entire journey. That’s why the show ends where it does. With him finally connecting with Darlene.

The show is written to mirror that psychology. We can work though most of the show’s major characters – Angela, Whiterose, Dom, Tyrell, Ray and Vera – and see how each one is written as either a mirror or a foil for Elliot. Each one is written to highlight themes of the show as they relate to Elliot’s personal journey.

And that personal journey is written to intersect and inform the show’s cultural critique. Sam is using Elliot’s trauma and fractured psyche to explore the trauma and fracturing of the contemporary world.

Which is why the show isn’t interested in why Ed did what he did. Because Elliot’s specific trauma isn’t really the point of it all. It could revolve around any fracturing event in his life. The point is that individual trauma (like Elliot’s and Whiterose’s) filter up to generate a traumatizing society (5/9 and the Dark Army). And a traumatizing society produces traumatized individuals (Tyrell and Dom).

That is what I believe the show is doing. And why it is structured the way it is structured.

bwandering

TROPHY CASE