[wflynny]

I binge-listened to the podcast over two listening sessions, so I imagine that is a modest endorsement for how interesting and engaging the podcast is. That said, while I disagree with the article's title, some of its sentiments regarding the last three episodes resonated with me.

The most cogent among them is that I did feel a sense of invasiveness when the podcast took the hard turn to dive deep into John's personal life. Unlike the author's criticisms, I think this arises from the combination of unexpected and unsatisfied expectations; unexpected expectations due to the sharp turn away from a linear plot and its primary subject; unsatisfied expectations because the story, probably inherently and by no fault of the producers, left many questions unanswered regarding the original plot. Perhaps this feeling of invasiveness is intended so the listener feels more invested in or connected to the intimate details of John's personal life that shaped his character and his flaws, but that feeling is nonetheless instilled in the listener.

I deeply enjoyed listening to the series in full and think that others should listen, but I can't say I don't have many lingering questions. I can understand how the mix of unanswered questions regarding the initial story and the possibility of perceived guilt for intruding into the man's personal life could leave a sour taste in the mouths [of] some, perhaps sour enough to title a [critique] scorning the podcast's creation.

Edit: [grammar]

[torgoguys]

My parent post notwithstanding, I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree that it sure felt invasive while I was listening! It only feels less so to me on reflection.