I finally got around to watching Prison Break from last week and although a decent episode, it exemplified one of my biggest pet peeves about story telling-- stupid retcons. For those that don't know what a "retcon" is, it stands for retroactive continuity, and my abbreviated definition would go something like this: "adding onto or changing something or someone's history from what we already knew." I don't mind changes to a character's back story, but they have to be done right, not just for the "shock value" that was all the rage during this episode.

It seemed as if the writers took every character and just made them the opposite of what they currently were, as if they were trying to make them redeemable. There's the problem though: they're criminals, they're not really supposed to be likable or upstanding citizens. That's why it's so much fun wondering what's going to happen once Michael and company make it outside Fox River's walls. Is Michael going to be able live with himself knowing he unleashed T-Bag on society again just for the sake of rescuing his brother? If C-Note or Abruzzi killed someone once free, would that innocent life have been worth Lincoln's freedom?