I laugh at Death wrote:
While many have speculated that he is the father of Elizabeth Keen, I don't think so. Especially after seeing last nights episode, the picture he took out of the book of the young woman, I think that was his daughter.
You may be right the episode was hinting that. But Reddington first of all abandoned his real family without a qualm. Why then care about another one? Particularly since the girl's photo was close to the beginning of the stewmaker's album, implying that she was killed years ago. And this would mean she was fathered by Reddington well before his mysterious break into criminality. It is not clear why another daughter's existence would be a dark secret until he took up a life of crime. Nor is it clear how the death of a daughter might lead to taking up a life of crime.
Yes, Elizabeth Keen being his daughter would be pretty saccharine. The question of why she would matter so much more than his ordinary children applies to her as well.
However, as to the monstrousness of killing the stewmaker, that depends on what you deem his motive. We know what he said for Lizzie, but what he did was silence the last witness to the criminals who ordered the crimes the stewmaker merely abetted. After all, the dialogue made it clear that Lizzie was supposed to be his first kill. Even the Old Testament says a life for a life. The stewmaker didn't kill anyone.
Many murderers got away because of Reddington's intervention. At best, the photos may help confirm the deaths of missing persons. As fun as some viewers may have found Reddington killing a man for felony tampering with evidence, in truth, Reddington committed murder to protect murderers, even if he said he a bunch of satisfying BS. In all probability, Lizzie's "melodramatic" monster was based solely on the disproportion of the punishment for attempted murder, based on the lex talionis principle, without thinking of the protecting murderers angle.
That would be necessary plot-wise, because the FBI would know Reddington killed the guy, but they can't highlight the protecting murderers angle, because it would highlight the scripted incompetence of the FBI (designed to make Reddington look good.) Also it would detract from the pleasure of the murder for that part of the audience that likes that aspect of the show. Ressler's aside was meant to assure us that Reddington would kill Lorca, the drug dealer, at some point for his own personal pleasure.
Tom Keene is not bland, but is positively angelic. Thus far, it can only be assumed that Lizzie is not just a fool, or why should anyone care about her, not just Reddington, but us? But either a villain has manipulated her throughout her marriage, or she hasn't realized that Reddington set the mad bomber on her husband. Lizzie can't be a dramatic agent if she's too clueless to know there's a dramatic choice to make. I don't know if it's possible to write anything but a deer in the headlights with this kind of story.
The points above about the longevity of the anti-hero trend and the desperate need for willing suspension of disbelief for this show are both correct.