Archers thread #168: Near to the Maddening Crowd? 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, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd like to hear more of Harrison's strange little moaning noises, 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/4636789-the-archers-spoilers-thread-7-cant-wait-for-702pm-join-us-here, 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 @OverArmour for the title suggestion!

Over to you.

I agree! Even the loss of the free stay at GG was because of Ed’s pride.

You wouldn’t wish being married to Will on anyone, surely?

I think they are trying to make Emma and Ed the new Susan and Neil. Eg Ed isn’t interested in the fineries of life like the stay in GG

only trouble is that Ed is no Neil!! He’s chippy and as chancer like his dad. He doesn’t have the good natured personality

so Ed doesn’t balance Emma in the way Neil balances Susan

Or be 45 - 1997 was the first election I could vote in and I was 18. Am 45 now and not in "sheer old age"!

Emma has had the same opportunities as many others - granted, without the same family/land connections as some - bur Roy and Brenda didn't come from money or one of the Ambridge landed families. And Susan and Neil as parents hardly meant Emma was dragged up in some kind of Dickens novel. She had options but she didn't choose them and now she expects to have handed to her what others have had, without putting in the same effort.

Talking of novels, to the Hardy references I'd add Austen, specifically Mansfield Park. The three sisters made very different marriages and look how they turned out. Emma is the equivalent of Mrs Price: "Miss Frances married...by fixing on a Lieutenant of Marines, without education, fortune or connections...She could hardly have made a more untoward choice".

Emma might have married for love but, in marrying the feckless Ed, did not marry wisely.

<dons mob cap and peers over wire-rimmed spectacles>

I think Emma's anger against the world stems from her knowing (probably at a subconscious level) that she ruined her chances in life when she got involved with Ed. She can't blame herself obviously because that would be too painful. Her marriage would be over if she allowed herself to blame Ed. So she blames everyone else.

As I recall she was supposed to be a bright child initially and, as others have said, she had hard working parents who progressed in life and provided good role models. If the SW had wanted she could easily have become one of the "genius" children who appear in Ambridge with great regularity: Sid's daughter, Phoebe, Brad.

Just to add, I like Susan. She's one of my favourite characters. She is a terrible gossip but she's basically a decent, very believable character and, best of all, she appreciates Neil and has made a success of her marriage. (I would have strangled Neil with one of his bell ringing ropes (sallies?) if I were married to him but I can still appreciate that he is a good man even if he is also terminally dull.)

Oh, it was an entirely insignificant 'comedy' sentence. It was one year when Clarrie (IIRC, at Alan's instigation) resolved to give up gossiping for Lent. She suggested to Susan that they could both do it as a challenge together, and Susan very scathingly replied that she had no need because she never gossiped anyway.

It was clearly the SW's idea of a joke, to poke fun at how lacking in self-awareness Susan was, but I just couldn't help seeing it from Clarrie's pov, with Susan putting her in her place and making her feel bad about herself for struggling with gossiping. Clarrie struggles to value herself properly at the best of times, she really didn't need to have her so-called best friend sticking the knife in.

So that's it, my decades' old vendetta against Susan is because she was once mean to Clarrie, for comedic effect.

I love Mansfield Park. Never understood the opprobrium directed at Fanny and Edmund. Mrs Norris is a wonderful character. I was so pleased when I first read Harry Potter to my children to find that Filch's cat is called Mrs Norris. Quite deliberate, I am sure - JKR never does anything by chance.

That wasn't 20 years ago, surely? 20 years ago my DSs were teenagers, and I wasn't listening regularly during that period.

I knew I liked you

I bloody love Mansfield Park and also have never understood the dislike of Fanny Price. She's the only decent one and she even has the strength to stand up to Sir Thomas when he's desperate to marry her off to the ghastly Henry Crawford. She even has to put up with Aunt Norris blaming her for her cousin Maria's infidelity!

Apparently Norris was the name of a slave trader and many of the "baddies" in Austen's novels were named after other slavers. So for all the criticism Austen gets for not writing about slavery, she did but we just don't get the references.

Lurker and infrequent poster here.
I've never been convinced by the SWs portrayal of Ed and Emma's 'poverty'. There was a time when they were living in Rickyard at a subsidised rent and Emma was having to visit food banks. Emma had more than one job at the time as I recall, and Ed was slogging full-time at this and that. In reality there would have been tax credits and eligibility for housing benefit etc but no mention of those in the SL.
Even now, they are living in a caravan so won't be paying out masses in rent and council tax and utilities so they shouldn't have the outgoings of most folk on minimum wage. And I imagine that even if Emma was on minimum wage at the cafe prior to the tree business, Ed would have been on more than that. It sometimes feels as though the SW are forcing the issue, making them more skint than they should be.

Yes you’re right - the grundies are living rent free aren’t they?

It would be a boring world if we were all the same, as they say.
I am a huge Austen fan but I can't stand Mansfield Park. I can't believe the same woman wrote Lizzie Bennett and Fanny Price. I have always thought Fanny and Edmund's wedding night must have been one of the most awkward in history. And I'm afraid I've always been attracted to Henry Crawford - although I do have a fatal weakness for bad boys.
I agree Mrs Norris is a great character though.

I didn't know that about JA but I'm glad I do now. Thank you.

Fanny and Edmund were well suited, both quite sanctimonious and humourless.

I never understood why so much of the book was devoted to rehabilitating Crawford only for him to revert to type in the end. The last chapter felt incredibly rushed with all the loose ends tied up in a handful of pages.

I think Austen wrote this novel at a time of social and political change when a lot of the morals of the previous century were loosening and perhaps Fanny was supposed to represent the old guard and the strict defence of 'proper' behaviour. All I can say is she wouldn't have been first on the guest list at any of my parties😆

I think it was the other way round. Morals were tightening up, possibly in reaction to the excesses of the Regency period, a process that accelerated when Queen Victoria came to the throne. Fanny and Edmund were ahead of their time!

Jane Austen would have made a brilliant Archers scriptwriter.

My (probably faulty) understanding is that the senior Grundys are paying more than they can really afford to rent the Grange Farm house. (Even though multiples less than the market rate.) I believe Ed and Emma contribute to that (?) but they’ve recently lost Will’s contribution since he moved into No 1, The Green.

Is that correct?

What happened to Eddie's plan to move to a Almshouse for retired people? I thought it sounded like quite a good idea at the time. I know it was when they were worried Oliver would have to sell the farm but I think they should still be concerned as there is every chance they will be predeceased by their generous landlord.

It was a perfectly good idea - but in reality about a billion people want to move into almshouses. And in fiction it won’t happen for the Grundys unless the SWs discover one next door to The Bull …

I think Emma's anger against the world stems from her knowing (probably at a subconscious level) that she ruined her chances in life when she got involved with Ed I think it stems from her brother marrying into the Aldridge family and getting everything handed to him on a plate (as she sees it) - house, business premises, rich in-laws. I think she would have been happier with her lot if Chris had been similarly scraping by - not helped by Susan’s awe-struck references to Chris marrying an Aldridge. She is jealous of Alice because she is her SIL - if Alice had married to a posh pony club boyfriend (or if she’d met Harry earlier) Emma wouldn’t have even have thought to make a comparison. She is revelling in Alice’s downfall because it’s made her realise she has nothing to be jealous of - it’s helped her see the value in what she has.

he moved into shared housing for a short while and was miserable

that was a bit odd - mainly Harry’s acting tbf.

the whole Paul thing is thoroughly bizarre. Why do they think it is worth writing let alone making us listen to it?

Who are you talking about, @bluecomputerscreen ? Eddie and Clarrie had a conversation about almshouses relatively recently - he definitely didn’t move anywhere else, even briefly, as far as I remember?

Did you mean Joe, long ago when he was offered a place in a hostel?

It took me a while to find it in internet seaches, but I've tracked it down: it was in 2012. So not 20 years, 12 years. But that's still a fair time for me to hold a grudge over a relatively minor incident. I'm lucky most people close to me don't seem to hold me to 12 years' penance for all the foot-in-mouth comments I make!

I agree, the shift into the 19th century saw a move towards “refinement” and away from a culture that had its roots in the medieval. Especially anything bawdy - a completely different setting but one of the things that did for the sex trade that flourished in Covent Garden was society becoming more refined and mannered.

(Hallie Rubenhold’s Covent Garden Ladies is an excellent book on the subject, and the TV series based on it - Harlots - is also excellent, if brutal in its depiction of the realities of 18th century prostitution)

That's also my understanding. The bit about losing Will's contribution was said explicitly on air. I'm not sure what the arrangement is for Ed and Emma - whether they contribute to the rent of the house, or pay Oliver separately for the land. But then, I'm not clear on Ed and Emma's living situation in general. What sort of toilet and shower facilities do they have? Is there a waste tank? How did they set up all the electricity and so on?