UGH, any hope i had of Red John questions being answered is dead.... and now all i get is Jisbon...... so yea kill me now

Why did Red John "mark" Lisbon? I mean he chopped off Sophie Millers head and she was very close to Jane. And obviously he killed Janes whole family so why the soft spot for Lisbon?
To me, marking Lisbon means Red John claimed her as his own or his territory like a dog pissing in a specific spot.
Red John loved/loves Jane as Styles said. He ultimately wanted Jane to join him and thats why he kept Jane alive all these years. Over the years Red John only "worked" through Jane and seemed to have no other agenda rather than Jane. Macalister exhibited no signs of care or love for Jane in the church. He didn't ask him to join him or anything like that either. I believe Red John felt it would be more painful for him to actually steal Lisbon away from Jane. This Pike stuff raises too many Red Flags for me to think its just a little story line.

Reading this essay made me think of how Heller failed artistically with the Red John reveal.


It's called "The Art of Misdirection" 
http://www.writingclasses.com/FacultyBios/facultyArticleByInstructor.php/ArticleID/42

A good read, and I especially like the distinction made in this quote:


"Please note...."that we’re speaking of misdirection, not misinformation."


1.  The writer gives enough misdirection to distract the audience from the truth of the story -- like the magician does with the pretty girl.  But then the writer would have to KNOW HIS STORY in order to pull this off [like a magician knows his trick]

2.  Heller was a bad magician --  he did not know the truth of his story from the beginning.  He did not know who RJ was going to be.

3.  Thus, the "clues" we were fed were not clues at all if Heller did not know who RJ was.  They were also NOT red herrings, and as this essay points out --- they were not misdirection. 


4.  EVERYTHING WE WERE SHOWN PRIOR TO Lorelie claiming Jane shook RJ's hand WAS PURE MISINFORMATION.  In other words, a LIES.


5.  Heller clearly decided on McRJ somewhere around the end of Season 5.  It is very easy now to see where the Mentalist started to become an entirely different show.



Another quote from the article:
"The writer should never lie to the reader, but, if necessary, should allow the reader to lie to herself."


7.  Our heads should have been swirling upon the point of the RJ REVEAL -- as we thought back to all the wonderful misinformation we'd been given over 5 years...and all the ideas we made up surrounding it, realizing that we'd had our POV expertly manipulated in the best way possible.
8.   My point:  we were not given genuine misdirection.  Genuine misdirection leads somewhere, it is EXPLAINED regardless of the outcome of the story.  There was no trick to be enjoyed for the audience because the trick was on us.  We were the trick and it's hard to enjoy the fruits of our efforts -- when there was no audience payoff.  
9.  Please do not give Heller any credit for having used his craft, do not call all the details we were fed "red herrings."  True misdirection, along with well placed red herrings, are GOOD and necessary as a part of the journey of any artful, suspenseful mystery story that leave an audience satisfied.
10.  Heller relied on MISINFORMATION aka LIES...that led nowhere.  Heller let us lie to ourselves while he lied to us, too -- that is why he told us we'd be "disappointed" because...

Misdirection [red herrings] = leads to surprise

Misinformation [lies] = leads to disappointment


Heller was a bad magician who switched his trick midstream.

I've read somewhere that Bruno Heller was seriously considering the idea of collecting as many shovels (as well as volunteers) as possible for a trip to the New Mexico desert.
Each contributor would be given a copy of 'ET : the game' on Atari ...