4

Watching True Detective Season 1 for about the umpteenth time and there are still things I haven't reconciled.

One--and I know there will be others--concerns the anti-Christian crimes task force that takes interest in the Dora Lang case in '95. In episode 1, Reverend Tuttle visits CID and during his visit, Commander Speece talks about the task force being put togehter.

Cohle is furious, which is apparent from his demeanor after hearing the news. My question is, is he upset about the task force being associated with anti-Christian crimes, or that there's even a task force in the first place.

If it's the former, why? The crimes were satanic, or "anti-Christian" so it would make sense for an anti-Christian task force to be assigned. If it's the latter, well then I understand, because I know Cohle is suspicious of interference from higher powers (i.e. the state government).

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    Even then, Rust knows that Tuttle is an agent of deception. This is foreshadowing to make us alert that Tuttle is not what he seems.
    – Jason P Sallinger
    Mar 17, 2017 at 13:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I think he's mostly upset about the task force stepping on his toes in the investigation and threatening to take it out of his hands. However, I think he's also a little bit upset about the crime being labeled "anti-Christian" and "satanic" as these perceptions are not accurate.

The crime has pagan connotations with the way the victim was posed, however, there was nothing about it which was expressly opposed to Christianity, specifically. There was nothing about it that was explicitly in worship of Satan. So I think Cohle was a little bit irritated that a Christian "bible-thumping" task force was coming in here and painting anything not Christian with an anti-Christian tone.

If I say I like ham & cheese sandwiches, that doesn't mean I'm anti-egg salad. By the same token, while there is clearly some pagan religious imagery involved, the message it sends is not specifically "anti" Christian.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    Plus I think he viewed them as wanting to label it as such to be political publicity-seeking posturing, at the expense of a very real case (or cases) that were going to be hard enough to track without sideshows, distractions or politically-motivated tangents.
    – PoloHoleSet
    Oct 31, 2017 at 20:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .