User blog comment:Mattalamode/The Harold Problem (and Vanillagate)/@comment-30307603-20170420215741/@comment-31194372-20170421081625

Of all of the characters at this point in the show, Harold's the only character I would actually classify as entirely broad. Even other characters established on the basis of a single joke tend to have something remotely inspired in their composition to prevent them from being entirely lifeless, a fact that only serves to make Harold look even worse. There's just no real reason for his characterization to be as terrible as it is. I will admit to enjoying the second half of "The Cycle," which actually flexed some comedic instinct, but it was all too little, too late.

When it comes to Rachel, I don't really hate her so much as recognize how thin of a character she was, even by shallow Season 1 standards. She was designed to be completely dispensable, a trait that seldom works towards creating a fully-fledged character in the long run, especially with "The Party" and its effort to explore her insecurities, because nothing sinks a character faster than pulling that card out of thin air, Tina. Basically, Rachel's not Harold levels of irritability, but she comes close, and like her father, she's all bark with no bite. (And I'd like to think we all know about the "Good riddance." It's a matter of that phrase doing more as a testament to the character than anybody else could even bother to type up.)