The Archers - It's so much more than just a soap. It's a bloody drama!

[PseudoBadger]

Will it still be Sunday tonight?

I thought the by thing about last nights big reveal was after this weeks speculation, my thought was this could be better for Helen (not my reaction in RL).

I prefer SOC to Vanessa because at least when he has a dramatic idea he follows through. Vanessa had a habit of chickening out rather than following through. Although a family feud is really hard to do well, especially on the radio, as after all most of a family feud is people not talking to each other which is hard on radio. Although SOC did manage to have Kenton annoyed with David for a few months, and that worked quite well.
But what I don't want is: anyone coming back from the dead (sorry Nigel), no long lost twins either, and no reoccurring pantomime baddies. I think having back story for Rob and Ursula might make them seem less pantomime. I'd quite like more people to refer to people outside the village, as who knew Kirsty had any family until the wedding that didn't happen?

Just adding this for your delectation: Daily Fail Trial

In defence of Peggoi

None of them saw
None of them knew
The stabbing of Rob
Came out of the blue

Wasn't Peggy an abused wife or did I imagine that? I think her first husband used to knock her around.

Who has an almanac to check?!

Vango

Peggy was married to Jack #1 who was alcoholic. Before my listening days. I think the attitude then was to suffer in silence and have everyone tell you that you are simply marvellous for standing by your man, looking after the business and raising two feisty daughters.

"we didn't annoy our husbands by serving shop bought custard or stabbing them in the guts in those days - we just rolled up our sleeves and got on with it!"

Just seen Lilian's already mentioned that about Peggy.

Love the plod poem and vengeful bunny

Oh, Movingon you've sent me racing to my brand new Archers Archives book.

So far (60s) I haven't found any evidence of Jack actually ill treating Peggy in person - just drinking the pub dry. But I'm astonished to see tgat Aunt Laura not only lent Jack and Peggy £4,000 towards the Bull but then gave them £25,000 which must have been a stupendous amount in 1964. Also interested to read that Dan wanted Jack to join the Brookfield venture but Peggy nixed that idea. Perhaps it might have been better not to put an alcoholic in charge of a pub.

Anyway - something more important! 1966 was the year of - wait for it - The Ambridge Arsonist. A series of mysterious fires - eventually found to have been started by Polly's dad. So now I understand why SOC (the one man editor, director, archivist) has been treating us to the various conflagrations. His own private anniversary tribute.

Contd.

Even Hel didn't know,
As she felt herself wilt,
That 'ore dinner were over,
Much blood would be spilt

What is The Archers and Who Listens to It?

Highly educated middle aged professional women, apparently ...

That's me Gruach!

Thanks Gruach :)

Recap for those no longer listening:

An ordinary tale of farming folk
No longer cuts the mustard.
Instead the listener has to hear
of stabbings in the custard.

So nasty Rob Titchener is laid low,
Unconcious in a coma.
His poison once so carefully placed
Now seeps out via a stoma.

Meanwhile Pat and Tony see
as parents they are clueless.
Only Kirsty tried to help;
Tom suspected but was useless.

Poor Peggy feels quite out the loop
Her calls go unacknowledged
She worries a death means "murder charge";
A life sentence doing Porridge.

And so now to Helen in the dock,
A pale and tragic figure.
If only she had packed her bags
And left before that dinner.

Oh dear, that's me too! Completely stereotypical (and the further I get into middle age the more I listen to TA!).

career said

Will this become a revolving door of ridiculous plots to keep the new listeners happy ?

That's what I felt happened with EE and CSt - but perhaps it's just the nature of the beast that you have to fling off the old listeners and suck in the new from time to time? Did older listeners desert TA when Jenny got preggers, for instance?

But we've had so many ridiculous plots recently - I last foreswore listening when Nigel died , the whole Brookfield moving crap which at my advanced age makes me feel I've lost 50 hours of my time for something that really wasn't worth it.

Just indulging in some sad rambling, really. Time to let go.

What are they going to do when this SL fades though ? I doubt the new sensationalist listeners will want to listen to Freda Fry's memorial rose or Linda's Christmas Panto
Will this become a revolving door of ridiculous plots to keep the new listeners happy?

Isn't that what has happened with the TV soaps? I used to watch Corrie when it was character driven, but it's now become one sensational story after another in order to maintain ratings. It's not hard to see the Archers going the same way - fire at Lower Loxley, air crash over Brookfield. It's going to be tough for a new editor to change direction given SOC's headlines and ratings.

Loving the talented verse writers.

I find it interesting that so many people say they'll never listen again because they don't like this storyline.

I'm a soap fan generally (and sort of work in that area). At the moment, Corrie is terrible, for example. It's the worst it's ever been as long as I remember. But it won't stay like that. It's a drag to watch at the moment, so I just dip in and out (mostly because I have to) but I wouldn't say 'that's it for good' because soaps change so much with different producers and writers and cast. Over the years there have been loads of stories I disliked and some I really disagreed with (EE baby swap, for one) but I've always kept a hand in.

I agree re Brookfield moving plot though. My pet hate in soap is when there's a storyline that leaves everyone at the end exactly how they were at the beginning. I felt Ruth's pregnancy/miscarriage was like that too - what was the point?

This Helen story has, overall, I think been brilliant. I don't love this latest twist but I'd like to see how it all turns out. Are people really so horrified by it that they'll never listen again? Aren't you curious about what's going to happen?

Kathy

I'm not saying I'll never listen again. I am finding the criminalisation of Helen and the consequences for Henry and SOK distressing. Sunday's episode was a brilliant piece of drama by itself, but it was also a betrayal of listeners who had faithfully followed a painful storyline because we were told it was raising awareness and helping other women.

I haven't listened to every episode this week and I think it was intended to shock us out of (what SOC sees as) our middle class, pearl holding complacency. I just found what I heard and read to be frustrating and clunky. A mostly new set of actors with a couple of 'favourites' - Susan and Peggy acting as chorus.

I've gone from an omnibus listener to an evening listener since Christmas. I may go back to the occasional omnibus while keeping an eye on the SL via here and Twitter.

I'm not going to listen until this sl is brought to some sort of conclusion. I'm sure I will come back to it but at present I'm just reading lowfield and the thread

I don't want to listen to a police procedural. What I want, and what has been missing, is to listen in on Ambridge and the inhabitants I used to know.

I am thoroughly pissed off.

I fully supported a DA sl.

What I don't like is this very 'masculine' and predictable, unoriginal resolution of a story about a phenomenon that disproportionately affects women.

Opportunity lost.

And I even further resent all the articles/comments like the one above that totally miss the point - I am not shocked by DA. I don't need my awareness raised. My eyes are already wide open to just how common it is.

I am shocked by shoddy, lazy, hackneyed plot development squandering a vital opportunity to empower women to leave and to encourage people to believe and support women who do.

(That said my own experience is that my mother aside people are overwhelmingly kind, supportive and sympathetic).

If there are 5m listeners, mostly women, then there is a good chance that at least 500,000 of those are victims/survivors.

My question is < serious face> Are there enough dentists in Ambridge to cope with Broosh and Urshula? Also is Broosh really Justin with different teeth in?

I think what's annoying me most is journalists now writing about The Archers who have never listened to it.

25 years I've been listening! You can't just waltz in her wafting your column inches about just because it's got all melodramatic.

Also is Broosh really Justin with different teeth in?
I wonder if the the a tors share the same set of bad teeth.

A massive yy to what both small and recycling have said above. A perfect summary of my own feelings. Not loving reading endless online articles spectacularly missing the point about the complaints!!!

Perhaps they do, and pass them around, probably part of the sound effects props

TheSilveryPussycat Yes. Exactly,