Archers thread #115: Johnny's in the gym, Josh is in a jam, Rex is riled, Kate's with child - discuss The Archers here

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

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 share a camomile tea with Kate, or other 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!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, @DadDadDad has created this useful thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have - BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

Thanks to @LillianGish for the excellent Bert Fry tribute title!

I don't think this thread will get us to Easter, but we should be well into Lent before we need a new title. I wonder if St Stephen's will have a new oh-so-interesting Lent initiative this year. When did we last hear from Alan?

Yes, that’s how it always is, MollyButton - but given they would all have known the naming ceremony was coming I would rather the SWs had shared out their actors differently.

I’m disconcertingly pleased that Yakult is revivified. (Though I still wish more misfortune on Kate, in revenge for Emma ...)

Although I thought Helen was unusually welcoming and understanding, for her

She was SurpriseSparDay. It’s just that it is a low bar!

Oh Keri Davies said on Twitter that he couldn't give Jennifer voice as he'd already used his actor quota for the week.

It was strange not to hear Jenny Darling - especially as she loves to control a social event but I guess Shula was more flexible in terms of the script as she could talk to Jim and go to the ceremony but I can’t imagine Jim hugging Jenny and saying thank you.

Enjoyed discussion about the generational shift. I think the non Archers characters tend to be more interesting. I am not familiar enough with other soaps to know if their character bases have expanded too but I think it helps keep a broader listener and viewer base.

I think of the young characters: Freddie and Lily are interesting, as are Ben and Rauiri, and Josh (for different reasons). Pip is boring. I quite liked Mia and her brother too. And it would be interesting to hear from Chelsea and Brad one day.
But yes the older characters with their wealth of life experience are interesting.
But there is a bit of a gap between David and older and Pip's age group. And what is there isn't as interesting but then 30-50 I was probably my most boring too - too knackered with children and work.

Lilian is really grating on me at the moment. I'm disliking her more and more with every episode.

What she did to Lynda tonight was nothing short of bullying and coercion.

It left a very nasty taste in my mouth - and if I had been Lynda, I certainly wouldn't have tipped up the twenty quid.

It made me very cross 🤬

Speaking of the middle-aged - I was convinced, as soon as Roy started bewailing his lot, that he is being lined up for a fabulous managerial job in Birmingham. (Oh, but wait - didn’t we hear that Lexi has a new job ‘in a country house hotel’? They might need a manager ...) Phoebe is self supporting now (at least in story terms) and her poor old dad seems very left over from a previous era. I guess his best man-ing could form a celebratory farewell to Ambridge.

Agree that Lillian is grating and OTT even for her.
But unlike MollyButton I definitely don't want to hear from Brad and Chelsea - they'll be such caricatures if the scriptwriters do their usual thing

WheresThatCatGoneNow, your post said exactly how I felt about that nasty little scene.

Are we intended to dislike Lilian really a lot?

Her having been turned into a complete numpty who first didn't notice,and then didn't believe, that the usually-360-450kg horse she had been riding was 520 kg and horribly overweight is shocking too: this woman ran a riding stables for several years and has always had knowledge about horses and to have her being that ignorant is like having Shula, who has also run a riding-stables for many years, failing to notice a broken bridle, calling it "harness", and then having to be led home ! Argh!

Oh Keri Davies said on Twitter that he couldn't give Jennifer voice as he'd already used his actor quota for the week

He can drop Lillian for as long as possible then.

Aah Kate and Jakob were lovely. !!

I want to be a horse. Losing 13kg in about a week? I'd have no trouble in losing the half stone I want to lose.

What she did to Lynda tonight was nothing short of bullying and coercion

Some way short of either of those things, imo, but profoundly irritating. But if Lynda weren't so disgustingly vain and self-important, she wouldn't have fallen for it.

Still, they (the programme perpetrators, I mean) had to get in a jolly Lenten jape somewhere along the line, didn't they? After all, Lent is traditionally the season for light-hearted toomfoolery and one-upmanship...

He can drop Lillian for as long as possible then.
Seconded. Can't all this rain persuade her to return back to Guernsey? Pretty please.

Lil was disgusting, but I did enjoy it when Lynda said she wasn't going to compliment her too. Lynda didn't have to pay up though, Lil's "compliment" wasn't meant, so that made the deal null and void, imo.

Lynda didn't have to pay up though, Lil's "compliment" wasn't meant, so that made the deal null and void, imo.
Yes. It wasn't a true compliment, it was duplicitous flattery. Only worth 5p at best.

Lilian's appalling at the moment. I'm not a fan at the best of times but just now she's so deeply horrible I can barely listen. I don't understand why Jolene, who actually runs the pub day-to-day, is letting her ride roughshod over everyone with her monomania about the name-change.

There's never been any explanation of why she seems to have nothing to do at Amside, which used to keep her fully occupied. Another SW mystery, not to mention her idiocy and unpleasantness about the horse.

I am highly irritated by last nights episode, the combination of Jakob and kate, means that I am beginning to like Kate. I did not consent to this.

I wonder what Lilian was like at school.

I bet she wasn't averse to a bit of spiteful sly bullying.

I used to really like her, but she's turned into a proper 'mean girl' recently.

I did not consent to this.

I like Lillian in small doses - she's a good counterpoint to Jenny for instance, but grating when we have to listen to her cackling and sniping for hours on end. She must be driving Jolene mad - she's practically moved into the pub. Has she sold Amside? The whole Bull story is dire - imo it should just be there at the heart of the village bringing characters together who wouldn't otherwise be able to rub up against each other so the plot can move on. It shouldn't be the plot. Roy is suffering from his entire family moving away - Moike and his half-sister Bethany (not so much as a mention), Abi - never mentioned either, Phoebe is back, but seems to have forgotten that Roy is her father and has become an Aldridge. I predict he will be following Kathy's lead and taking a vow of silence.

It shouldn't be the plot.

An excellent observation.

It was always inevitable (at least under the old regime) that Phoebe would be script-urally absorbed into the Archer side of her family. And clearly they planned the same for Xander.

But, now the SWs are writing for nettie () rather than me, none of the old assumptions will matter. EastEnders And Corrie are about locations - whoever wanders in can become central to the story; but The Archers is about a family. Other characters rise or fall according to their proximity to Archers. (The Grundys and Their Oppressors v The Archers And Their Hangers-On.) The constant tension this create makes complete sense to me. So I’m struggling with the inexplicable concentration on random incomers.

I think we need a sermon from Alan where he points out that using the Lent challenge insincerely to force other people to give is directly opposite to what is intended, and anyone who has done so should donate double themselves.

PiKatechu, I choose you!

Why is this idiotic Lent repeat of an idea from a previous year (I remember Jim getting into trouble for being polite instead of unpleasant, and someone thinking he was making a pass -- was that Christine?) allowing random people to go about collecting money? Why would Lynda give it to Lilian when it is meant to be going to the church?

I shudder to think what Joe would have done with this: probably taken his tithe after being paid for every compliment, or simply "lost" the money.

Klaxon!

I was listening to R4 Feedback this afternoon and the editor of The Archers is going to be on next week to discuss the Jim storyline:

Questions were invited.

What would be the point of sending any? We will simply be told that we haven't understood what they are doing, as usual. Or that we are not listening right.

Someone on another board took to calling herself the wrong sort of listener, after that was said by the then-editor on one occasion.