Thread 99 (yes, 99!): Join us for spirited discussions of The Archers and its Top Blokes, whether you're Team Elizabeth (low spirits), Team Kate (Spiritual Home) or Team Toby (spirits =gin)

[Bittermints]

Thanks due to @PseudoBadger for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads and to @DadDadDad for being our resident statistician and keeping the ball rolling when Pseudo stepped back a bit. Thanks also to all those who contributed to the thread title.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed. We don't all agree on all points and most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd like to be Susan's best friend or other odd unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please. We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3439443-keep-it-to-yourself-the-archers-spoilers-thread-4, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

So, to business. What a fantastic two-hander. Massive BOOP points to Alison Dowling, the scriptwriter and director (and the therapist). I had more than a small tear in my eye listening to that.

I'm another one with a vote of thanks to chemenger for all that information on the last thread about distilling. I should know some of that because I went on a tour of the whisky distillery near where my parents live but I've forgotten most of it except how delicious the end product is.

Film titles:

The Full Montebeliarde

and, er

The Life of Brian

So now JD and Susan have bonded over the brownies and the U bend will they be bosom buddies? (esp as they have Chris in common). Or will JD will be hiding behind the nets as she approaches

Oh sorry, didn't realise it had to be Tarantino.

Brian is going to be thrilled by the dinner invitation, isn't he?

it didn't feel quite plausible to me that Jenny would have to think about what the word "settee"

Yes. Anybody would know what a settee is. I don't particularly use the word 'couch' but I know what one is.

@Bittermints thank you for the thread, only place i get to chat about TA

Oh it wasn’t remotely plausible that Jenny wouldn’t know what a settee was. But it was funny, particularly as she could not stop herself from saying her own word for the piece of furniture, when she could have just said “yes, it would have been far too big”.

You do realise that sometimes things are exaggerated in drama for, er, dramatic effect?

"I see Will as a younger self pitying version of his grand father, but with even fewer redeeming features.
Actually I can’t see any redeeming features in Joe Grundy when I come to think of it. Supremely entitled, grabby CF as he’d be described on the AIBU board."
^^
Yes, Usingmyindoorvoice, THIS! Thank you! I have always thought my feelings about the Grundys had to stay unexpressed, as the hate that dare not speak its name, but you've summed them up for me exactly

The case of Sally Challen and the use of coercive control as a defence is being discussed on Today right now.

FinallyHere, welcome! I sometimes chat to a couple of colleagues and a few running friends who are listeners, but oddly enough* none of them are as obsessive as I am. No one in my household listens, in spite of all my efforts.

*All right, that's not odd, given that my obsession is verging on the pathological

DDD, R4, Bittermints oh I think those are all so good the Tarantino requirement could be waived.

Reservoir Hogs though is a film worth watching!

Back to TA, I see Will as unable to "move on" partly because he's objecting to the loss of the domestic emotional and family heavy lifting that Nic did. Until a woman comes along to take on that women's work, he'll be dissatisfied but he's experiencing his feelings of resentment blame and bitterness as grief (on top of real healthy grief) so, while others can "move on", that cement layer of self pity will prevent him from doing so.

I loved the settee scene as Jenni fought a losing battle to prove that she has Nothing Whatsoever In Common with Susan.

Loving the new thread title suggestions.

But I have to disagree about Joe! He certainly has his weaknesses - and might perhaps be considered a disappointing father who should have established firmer moral boundaries for his sons. But surely he's been an exemplary grandfather? Steadfastly empathetic, supportive, generous both emotionally and with what little he has materially. Still growing from his own mistakes and drawing on his experience to guide Will and Ed whenever they're in difficulty. They could hardly have asked for more.

And he has generally been heartbreakingly sweet and sensitive towards his grand-daughters in law. (Even If sometimes misguided.)

Is it reasonable to expect him to move on after only a year?

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks it’s OK for Mia to be looking out for her little sister and helping out with the shopping? Obviously she shouldn’t be being ground down by it- and I do wonder where what’s his face-Jake?-is. But

Though I bet Jenny doesn't have nets and Susan does. I'm enjoying the interaction of the neighbours because now the Aldridges are a proper part of the village

Jake has gone to live with his Dad, I think. Mia stuck with Will because of Poppy and, I suppose, worrying about how he would manage. I think this is actually being rather well done. Jake obviously did not see himself taking on any of the caring work his mum had done, Mia did. Hardly surprising growing up in an extended family where Clarrie, Nic and Emma did virtually all the domestic work and childcare. Joe, Eddie, Will and Ed have all put in long hours at work but they also all get far more time off for their own interests than their womenfolk do.

am I the only one who thinks it’s OK for Mia to be looking out for her little sister and helping out with the shopping?

It would be ok if she was just 'helping', but she seems to have assumed the responsibility, the 'mental load'.

Actually I can’t see any redeeming features in Joe Grundy when I come to think of it I was just coming on to list some, but I see Quater has got there before me. Like all the best characters in TA he is flawed, but he feels real because he is complex. He’s there for comedy, but he can also move you to tears - the ferrets at Meadow Rise. Ne multa dicam.

I get cross with how the scrptwriters use Joe. He can be a sympathetic character and is good with his ponies but then they can do storylines like the one with portaloo which feel contrived and stupid.

Sorry, I stick by what I believe, of course Joe loves his family, but he takes advantage of everyone else and always expects more. Does no one recall his awful behaviour when he was staying, gratis, at GG after the flood, and his sense entitlement about Caroline and Oliver’s home and furniture?
Even the recent vile portaloo story, and I don’t recall him ever buying a pint of shires for another person.
I’m so glad he’s not real! Unlike the rest of the people in the Archers

The GG story was also ridiculously contrived - as is the fantasy of Oliver letting them have his beautifully refurbished farm house for a rent that the Grundy's could afford.

I think that Using is forgetting that Joe has been a martyr to his farmer's lung for many a year. Suffering does terrible things to soul, so it does.
As Joe would so wisely say.

His suffering is greatly eased by a bit of baccy and a free pint...

Yes, bittermints, you're right. An entail could be cut off by agreement between the current owner and his primary heir
byuprideandprejudice.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/entailment-of-property-in-early-19th-century-england/

The two dangers at this period were a) division - a property inherited by more than one heir is split, and eventually split to the state that it no longer entitles the family to their position in society. Hence primogeniture. And primogeniture in the male line because on marriage a woman's property goes to her husband and therefore is lost to the original family.
and b) dissipation (by spendthrift owner) hence entail - owner has only a life interest. And again entail on male heirs because of the married womens' property problem.