Archers thread #179: Beavers, livestock, ferrets, but nododo! 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 be happy sharing a hot tub with Mucky Mick, 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 https://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.)

The title started life with @JanglyBeads, whose autocorrect turned 'Oh no, nor do I!' into 'Oh no, nododo I!' on the last thread. For reasons of cowardice/prudence/lack of inspiration and the character limit, I haven't included @BeaLola's even more mysterious autocorrect - her phone had her asking Abdul if he'd always wanted children instead of Neil. Perhaps one of the mooted beavers can be Abdul.

For the first time ever I've added a poll to the OP. Over to you!

Got it in one I reckon. Joy’s “ here we go again’” a few weeks ago may very well not have been said out of sad resignation but out of ‘she’s going to undo my carefully crafted life here in ambridge’ sort of thing.

I’m not going with moral void as she’s usually kind but perhaps severe post-partum depression or maybe she yet another Ambridge jailbird.

I thought the Rochelle and Joy scene last night was quite moving. And well acted.

I thought that too. Rex was like " your mum told me to stay away", what a big effing baby, but I hope there is a big row and Rochelle dumps herself on his barge, serves him right.
Seems like everyone knows Neil was adopted(Adam) except us. What a load of pony Archers is becoming.🐴

At the time I suspected Adam's 'sister' wasn't a sister at all but some kind of cousin alarmed at the prospect of still-alive-and-childless Paddy discovering that he had a son (and potential heir).

i was thinking about why I don’t like the Elliott’s and it’s because I can’t bear people who love their life based on wanting to win all the time and are terribly sore losers when they don’t

as for joy, I don’t really care much about her and Rochelle so I hope we get the sl quick. She gets far too much airtime

the parallels between
kate - rochelle
adam - neil

delicious

what's the bet neil and joy are siblings - both abanded (which might explain joy/rochelle tensions)

I like Miranda (it's nice to have an older female in Ambridge who is stuck trying to be a domestic goddess). I think I dislike Justin because they keep changing his character/back story.

A question for those with excellent memories (and books); did any "Carter" relatives turn up for Neil's wedding? Somebody would have remarked, either way, or maybe Ambridge was too polite.

I now want Neil's "lost" family to be academics who can "out Jim" Jim in all matters classical.

Miranda has grown on me - a mature independent women who takes no shit from the menfolk, and has a few good one-liners.

I like Miranda (it's nice to have an older female in Ambridge who is stuck trying to be a domestic goddess). Hear, hear.

Pat isn't a 'domestic goddess' either.
Neither are Elizabeth, Jerlene or Lilian, but they seem less independent.

Miranda has grown on me - a mature independent women who takes no shit from the menfolk, and has a few good one-liners. Hear, hear.

I like Jim, but I like The Archers,

I enjoy the Miranda/Brian exchanges. Real wit and humour.

And Miranda is their mother!!

I have wondered about Joy - how she ended up in Ambridge, how she could afford to buy such a nice house with no visible income having relocated for the NE. Why she moved there etc etc. This story has been in the making for some time and I suppose I can grudgingly accept her being given a backstory if the SWs deem her important to the plot going forward. But it's very much a manufactured drama when so much other stuff (which we've been following for years) seems to fall by the wayside. The sale of Home Farm - who lives there? GG - refurbished beyond recognition, but now as good as written out leaving only a new GP and her family as a tenuous link to its renovation and new owners. Freddie's inheritance - parked. LL on silent. All the little threads we've been following dropped - presumably in the hope we've forgotten all about them so they can be rewritten to suit the whims of the latest SW! Neil's backstory is the most ridiculous example of this - and in a family that has enough potential storylines already dangling to script an entire spin-off series. Emma and Ed's housing conditions and now potentially dangerous occupations without even getting into the ramifications of George's situation. Then there's the whole Christifur, Martha, Alice situation - Susan's ascent towards Aldridge-dom, the spectacular fall from grace. Her relationship with Tracy who seems to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to Bert. Last night felt like you could forget about anything you ever knew about The Archers and just start from there - which is not what I want from my daily peep through the keyhole.

I couldn’t agree with you more @LillianGish , this approach completely undermines the enjoyment of TA not to mention the skill of all those past SW’s.

But you can’t compare Miranda with the other female characters because she was brought up in privilege and is independently wealthy. She is the Lily of yesteryear

and I feel pre divorce she was played very differently

Fell off the thread because, although it was on ‘watch’, it somehow de-watched itself. Just caught up and my only comment on the house-numbering discussion is that those who enjoyed it might want to check out an interesting non-fiction read - ‘The Address Book’ by Deirdre Mask.

I agree completely that the Neil SL is utter rubbish. He mentioned having partly grown up in Southport and the NW, which is patently neither Oxfordshire nor Birmingham, as claimed in the Book of the Archers 🤔. There’s much scorn on the Digital Spy Archers thread at whole thing too.

It’s such an odd thing to do to a much beloved character

I cannot understand the Neil SL at all.
I know there’s going to be some dreadful reason for this, but can’t seem to guess what it is and I very much wish not to find out.

I find the way Rochelle is being written just isn't working. She's been in the village 5 minutes and walking around talking to everyone like she's lived there for years. There has been too many new characters lately and rewriting Neil's history is really jarring.

I haven't listened anywhere near as long as some posters here but it's still important to me that they stay true to years gone by, the continuity being one of the big appeals of the TA. Enjoy listening to the new podcast and hearing old clips. Speaking of, they played the scene when Tony found John after the accident recently. Well before my time as a listener and I've never heard that scene before but it felt so familiar because of the longevity of characters and their stories.

SWs don’t seem to understand the value of the present becoming the future. Things that happen now can develop organically ( pardon the pun) and ,most importantly, take listeners with them. But randomly pulling plot lines from the past ( that have never even been alluded to before) makes no sense whatsoever and feels like a huge interruption.

I know ,in order to thrive, a soap needs to introduce new characters . But it can be done slowly, gently and in a way that is connected to the bigger narrative. Instead, we have people being parachuted in and we are expected to care about them and their dilemmas instantly .

Its not working for me and I think this might be the year I finally give up ( although I will miss these threads).

@Sidebeforeself you need to stand by your username. Billy B would never have quit when the going got tough.

@NetballHoop Wow! That’s only the second time in my time on here that anyone has ever made the connection! You are right , and thats what Ive been telling myself , but as its still the January transfer window…

@Sidebeforeself agree. They way they are just dropping in new characters and suddenly they are so familiar with everyone in the village and taking up huge amounts of airtime. It's really not working. Neil is such a loved character by all and suddenly they rewrite his history. It feels like a completely different programme sometimes. I hope the SW read these threads and take notes!

Would a healthy, white infant of Neil’s age have been fostered in the 1950s? Would he not have been placed for adoption? This was peak adoption time in England and Wales and obstacles to severing ties with birth families were far fewer than they are today.

i was hoping someone would have mentioned the parallel between Kate and Rochelle - both vegans who live(d) apart from their two teenage children!

I really hope they meet soon and realise what they have in common!