Ambridge is in the doldrums. When will Pip pop? Does anybody even care? And Anisha’s off, leaving Rex in the (pig) trough? Discuss the Archers here.

[PseudoBadger]

Sorry about the title, nothing particularly inspiring in the storylines currently

No spoilers please, there’s a thread for that.

Jill won’t fall under the spell of the man who, while married, had an affair with her then young daughter.

That should have said where had Alastair been when Shula was being a cow (probably need to be more specific, since she’s always a cow, I mean when she was snapping at him about coffee and paracetamol and not letting him speak).

Gambling I think, chem. Not admiring Lavinia's schnauzer at any rate.

So we are building up to the Robin/Elizabeth High Noon moment. He already sounds like a scoundrel.

I quite liked Anisha and I think it is a shame we didn't get to see more of her or for longer - like C8H10N4O2 I think we did see a different side in her relationship with Rex, both at the start and at the end - she was the one crying!

I don't think you need the SWs to spell it out that a character has more than one side to them - surely there were clues in the behaviour that everyone found objectionable? On the one hand she was ambitious and competent and on the other hand she was unsure enough of herself to be weirdly competitive. I also read some her bluntness as her underestimating her own impact - I used to get this feedback a lot earlier in my career and it never happened because I didn't care about what the person on the receiving end would feel, it was simply that unconsciously I didn't really expect to have any kind of impact on them at all and I imagined they felt so sure of themselves that nothing I said would bother them. And let's remember that some of her "rudeness" came down to telling Peggy her cat was unhealthily overweight. My vet told met he same last year. I thought he was being helpful rather than rude!

If you were an equine vet then working at a Newmarket practice would be the absolute pinnacle of opportunity - an sometimes these opportunities do come up without you actively seeking them out. I'm glad we didn't have to listen to her agonising over whether she should put everyone else first or herself first, or have a re-run of the Alice-goes-to-Canada scenario where Chris had to get kicked by a horse so Alice could realise where she really belonged .

WRT the partnership, the debate is over how fast she gets money back out again which is written into the partnership agreement. If Alistair took loans out assuming she would stay for ever more then it was a poor business decision on his part - what he said he needed was an equine specialist - he can find another. And anyway if she is a proper partner she will be liable for the loans that were taken out whilst she was a partner.

I thought Robin was a smooth blend of charm and carefree.

Welcome back ppeat!

Wonder if Robin will hook up with Lizzie again to relaunch the LL winery?

I wasn't keen on Robin. I've met some very wealthy and sophisticated men in my time. They have all (with one exception) been self-aware, gracious and the opposite of over-bearing. Forcing champagne down working farmers gullets and wittering on about tarte au citron flavours was the epitome of cringe.

I should add I'm not trying to stealth-boast (I've never even seen a travel brochure for Maui and I buy wafer thin ham)

Well, maybe so, Pickling! but I enjoyed Robin's breezy dismissal of Jill's disapproving offer of tea, "Jill, what are you thinking? there's only one drink to wet the baby's head." Could imagine Jill going all cat's bum face. (My mother has that face, and a Lynda Snell sniff, so I can say it).

Nah Gherkins, the senior Brookfield Archers (as currently written) definitely enjoy sucking the joy from any occasion!

Though it’s possible Robin’s life isn’t as carefree as it was presented. (And he had a heart attack recently - perhaps he’s more focused on fun now?)

I am not sure if Robin is supposed to be wealthy and debonair or just self-centred and likes a drink. The bit about putting champagne in the freezer was very wrong - but as ever is it SWs getting it wrong or do they think through their characters’ every word and action and only commit words to script once they’ve researched all the background, motivation etc?

(And welcome back ppeat!)

Suggestion for a paper for the Archers academic conference if anyone has the time, skills and interest:

Download the text from all these threads (easier than it sounds - if you paste it into Excel it automatically separates the comment from the poster and date, so someone could write a script to delete the extraneous bits and retain the date and time for ordering).

Then perform an analysis of the text to see whether certain adjectives are applied more frequently to certain characters and to see if the sex of the character makes a difference. I think there is software that does this. Obvious complications with automating it, but the logic of sentence construction should make it possible. Would need some kind of overlay of the storylines.

Not sure of the question - Is it only TASW who AMA?

But does disliking more male or more female characters necessarily correlate with being misandrists or misogynists? Can't we just dislike characters because they're unlikeable? To take one of the most obvious examples, you'd have to be deeply strange to like Rob.

If you were an equine vet then working at a Newmarket practice would be the absolute pinnacle of opportunity - an sometimes these opportunities do come up without you actively seeking them out

Didn't Anisha reply to an advert for the Newmarket post? I vaguely remember her saying something to the effect that she'd applied but didn't think she'd get it. Looking at job advert pages and responding looks suspiciously like actively seeking out alternative opportunities.

Interesting idea, but would it be prove that the Archers listeners are sexist or that the make and female characters are written to be more or less likeable. An academic friend of mine is doing a study on reporting in our local paper looking for any trends.

@Peartree17 @Gruach I hate to look so flaky but on reflection I agree with you both. David and Jill have always been so awful about Toby (who isn't perfect but has developed) and they're being a bit crowdy round Pip and Rosie.

Actually I'd amend that question as I don't think that 'misogynist arseholes' is especially constructive to level at anyone.

No, disliking male or female characters wouldn't necessarily indicate anything, hence the need to overlay the storylines onto the analysis.

But there are adjectives which are more often applied to men or women and a carry a positive or negative charge because of our biases, conscious or otherwise.

“Can't we just dislike characters because they're unlikeable?”

Of course. But I am prepared to die on the hill that is dislike of Alisha being misogynist.

Incidentally, is Robin supposed to be proper posh? Because all that stuff about the champagne was pretty nouveau.

I think I missed the episode where she applied, or not. You can be exposed to job adverts without looking for them - online or headhunters. Or you could just be flicking through related print media and spot something.

Though on reflection it doesn't matter that much either way in my opinion!

cheminotte I don't know, we'd find out of someone wrote the paper! Have you got some time, Bertrand?

I don't like the idea of proving that the posters here are sexist, that's rather black and white judgement and makes it sound it like some kind of permanent personality trait. I'd probably say something like 'posters were more likely to respond in X way to Y behaviour from men and in Z way to he same behaviour from women'.

The character development thing is interesting as well - would certain characters be let off the hook if they had demonstrated behaviours that were considered redeeming, and would those behaviours be gendered?

I'm now imagining the Archers with the sex of every character reversed. Interesting!

I’m sorry to say I recognised myself in Robin’s ‘overbearing’ness. He didn’t seem (primarily) nouveau - just convinced that everyone else would be as obsessed with his favourite subject as he was.

(I’m not obsessed with wine!)

I didn't experience Fairbrother Pere as overbearing in that scene. I thought he was adopting a quite considered strategy of not reacting to Jill's prickliness and David's possible hostility and being determinedly delighted about everything. Good on 'im, I say. Jill and David are, as someone else said, thorough joy-suckers and best ignored. People can only be happy on their terms, it seems. Including poor Josh!