The usual spiel about revenge goes as follows. Revenge is bad because it hurts yourself and doesn’t make you whole anyway. Throw in a couple of civilians caught in the crossfire and you have yourself a classic theme.

But I think Better Call Saul hits a new approach with Kim and Saul’s plot to ruin Howard’s Reputation in a way that hits closer to home.

Howard Hamlin is an antagonist. In earlier seasons he takes the side of Chuck in every instance, bending to his whim against Jimmy. He helps “steal” a client Kim worked hard for, and worked to get Jimmy’s law license suspended. So far, he’s the typical drama antagonist, with a lot of moral complexity and good traits, but he’s stood in the way of our leads and made their lives harder, the classic target for payback… But he stopped.

After Chuck’s death, he essentially divorced himself from Jimmy’s life after the funeral of Chuck. He could have easily attempted to cut Jimmy down, but he doesn’t. He offers Jimmy a job, an act Jimmy takes as an insult, but he’s perfectly fine to just keep living.

The threat is over. Whether or not Hamlin’s former actions against Jimmy were warranted, he’s moved on. Jimmy is wealthier than ever, the excuse of ruining his reputation to make the Sandpiper case settle is as flimsy as Walt’s “it’s for the family.” Howard wouldn’t have “won” if Jimmy didn’t go after him. They could have both just kept living, and that I think is a more compelling argument against revenge. You can both just live.

This goes further with the level of vengeance Saul and Kim brings about. Usually, a revenge story is based around a nearly unforgivable crime, but here, are Howard’s sins really so awful that he should be gone after so viciously and maliciously?

He sided with Chuck in keeping Jimmy down, but it wasn’t as if Howard could have given Jimmy the job he wanted. It was cowardly not to tell him, but does that justify bringing Howard down? “Stealing” the case was mostly Chuck, but there was no way Saul could have known that. Even so, Howard didn’t do anything shady or underhanded, the clients had a right to choose whoever they wanted.

To those who want to point to Sandpiper being dragged out by Howard, I don’t think this matters thematically as to the moral of the story because it’s fundamentally an excuse, a goal the two put there so they can pretend this isn’t just for their satisfaction. They don’t talk about how this will help the old folks, they revel in Howard’s misery.

I think this gets to the heart of revenge’s more tangible harm. It’s not killing the guy who murdered your partner, it’s unequal harm to someone who is no longer a threat.

Saul was right to call him a pig fucker though, he’s earned that at least!