>>95206580>How can I address those points if they are subjective?Same way you address all points about fictional media, by pointing out their internal inconsistensies. At this stage you have done none of that, and i am not going to hold my breath until you do.
>The whole 'narrative point' of the episode was to show how Beatrice learnt that she shouldn't get attached to her son, because if/when she loses him she will end up like her mother.That's not it at all, otherwise the whole "you should make this all be worth it" line wouldn't make sense in the context of her view of the baby, or in the context of the narrative. Even in her talk about Henrietta, the focus isn't on the harm attachment to the baby but on the damage staying with Bojack's father and the kid that forces her to be there has done. The entire point isn't that she shouldn't get attached to her children because she might lose them (she never does), the entire point is the damage her father did to her mother, and the ways it parallels the ways Bojack's father damaged her (a decision she did out of a need to spite her father).
And there's no flashes of Mrs. Sugarman in that whole sequence, nor is there any sequence in the episode where the focus is in the lost of her son, and all to do with the lingering threat Beatrice will get lobotomized if she let's her emotions get the better of her. That third leg of your stool is nowhere to be found, because the focus on the Baby dool-Hollyhock parallels involve an external figure severing the child from the parent for their own good.
Or, put another way, the whole point is that this force separation, this unattachment if you will, is actually harmful for those involved, even if they remain functional afterwards. The loss breaks them, and this continues with every generation.