Yes, the writers did set up a no win. I understand why Martha had to be written out, and what the excuse was for Jack to kill his grandchild, Ianto to die all so Jack could split and be morose. Fine. But were these the only ways to make the larger points?

It's a lot of crazy plotting to put Jack through agony. As one viewer, I’m not sure all the coincidences and assumptions about politicians being lemmings were all worth it.

You likely could have achieved a good bit of what the writers were intending (personal sacrifice, not sacrificing others' children) by having Clem make this statement and then agree to be used as the vessel.

But this wouldn't have achieved the aim of having Jack seem like a complete bastard.

I don't know if it does make Jack seem like a complete bastard. That is why I emphasized that the writers set up a convincing no win scenario. Of course the science is probably inferior to Eureka's (and that is a tough standard to meet) but it is emotionally convincing which is what counts in this sort of writing. I 100% believed that Jack's choice was that stark: millions or his grandson. No third option. Now that does not make it right. But it does not make choosing the other way right either. He had no good choices, and it is not self-evident that this was not the lesser evil. It is hard to say that he was automatically a complete bastard. And maybe in a real world ethical situation, you could arguing that sacrificing an innocent is never the lesser evil. (See Le Guin's short story "Those who walk away from Omelas". ) But emotionally, within the context of the story I don't think we are supposed to see Jack as a complete bastard for doing this.

Typo,

I think Jack taking 12 children to the aliens in 1965, coupled with his sacrifice of his grandson (without having a sit down with his daughter first) makes him a complete bastard. I did not find Jack sympathetic in the least concerning his actions (on the other hand, I really had a problem with his constant torment).

without having a sit down with his daughter first

That wasn't an option given their timeframe. It was either take him now or not take him at all.

My previous comment stands:

Yes, the writers did set up a no win.

One that I didn't think they needed to do.

I think it boils down to how naked did you want to strip Jack emotionally. Their answer was entirely, and yours is not.

I'm not sure about that. I feel like I saw a lot of Jack and his darkest days prior to CoE. I'm not sure I felt I saw him stripped naked - more than the loss of Tosh & Owen and the betrayal of his brother. That was some really dark stuff. How much more did we need to see? Will RTD and friends try to top CoE next? I mean damn.

My central question: Did we need RTD to try to attempt to go darker after "Exit Wounds?"

What's next? Watching Jack choke all of his living kids and grandkids by hand and then seeing him get pulled limb from limb. When he reassembles, can we then see him drawn and quartered? Then can we see a flashback that he was involved in some genocidal act?

My central question: Did we need RTD to try to attempt to go darker after "Exit Wounds?"

I think so, because in this case, it was showing the ordinariness of evil. The fact that the 456 were using the children as drugs. That the real villain of the piece was an ordinary man, the Prime Minister.

And that in showing us that kind of evil, how it's the good people, the ones with conscience, who ultimately pay the most.

I feel like I saw a lot of Jack and his darkest days prior to CoE

What did he do that was as harrowing as sacrificing a child (his own blood to boot) over its mother's screams?

your previous post was regarding his emotions: which seems pretty in the pits in "Exit Wounds."

That was what my response was regarding. I cannot comment on actions since I’m not sure I attribute "dark" to actions in and of themselves. Dark is a sense of hopelessness. That is more of an emotional response than actions.