Archers thread #183: The Scorekeeper's Apprentice. 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 share 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.)

Credit for the title goes to @TottersBlankly who suggested it and @BeatriceBatchelor who coined this lovely phrase. (It's led me to take a look at the Wikipedia page for The Sorcerer's Apprentice. I had not known before that the animation in Fantasia that goes with the Dukas symphonic tone poem is more or less unadulterated Goethe, and the story goes back to ancient times. You learn something every day.)

At the end of the last thread, there was an apocalyptic tone as we were all bemoaning the lack of continuity and farming storylines (especially lambing, which used to be a big theme at this time of year). Are there any reasons to be cheerful? (Not just Part 3 - another reference for the older listeners here. ) Over to you!

He’s definitely an ex as his new partner lives with him!

I really hope that now Rochelle is back her and Joy's backstory can be revealed quickly and we never have to hear from them again.

On another note, how does Rochelle support herself financially? It doesn't sound like she ever does any work at present. I don't know how the benefits system works but as her children don't live with her presumably she doesn't get any benefits relating to them, but if she receives benefits can she just go and stay with her mother and carry on receiving whatever she gets? Does she have to show she's looking for work?

I don't think Kahil will have killed Constanza

What was doing with her anyway? I vaguely heard Lynda wittering on about making something more permanent. I could do with not hearing from Lynda for a very long time.

Excellent thread title!

My heart sank at Rochelle’s return. Like many before me, I simply do not care about them.

The show is just about randoms these days. Khalil and Rochelle are both so peripheral- last night was just very boring. Neither are even vaguely associated with the First Family. Khalil has known one from school for about six months and Rochelle visited Brookfield once. It’s just so weird how the SWs think this is ok.

I hope Lynda messaged azra to let her know

i dint mind Lynda in small doses but the sw seem very heavy handed in focussing on a few characters for a long time. It was Helen for a big chunk of last year. And obviously George and Alice.

I think it's fine to concentrate on certain characters and their stories, but only if there's been a build up to their stories and we've known the characters for more than 5 minutes.
For example, Alice was already a known character and there had been hints for years about her excessive drinking before her alcoholism was revealed, and then they didn't just finish the story overnight( although I think it still should be mentioned more than it is).
The same with George, another character around since he was born and there were clues he was a bad 'un for a long time.
And again with Helen.

What I object to is stupid storylines for existing characters, that come out of the blue, like Neil being a foundling and about a day later finding his potential mother, then the whole thing is never mentioned again.

Or stories with people like joy, Rochelle, the Maliks, who haven't yet established themselves and their characters.

The writers should concentrate on the existing characters from the main families and develop the younger ones. I think it's good they've had stories with Freddie and are featuring him more although the cricket storyline is silly.

It's such a shame that they have made Pip, Josh and Ben such unlikeable and boring characters because they had a real opportunity there to bring on the next generation, especially as there isn't any hint they won't be sticking around.
Pip is just tedious, the Stella relationship doesn't seem realistic. Ben is a drip and Josh is boring, but they could develop all their characters so much more and give them all some actual storylines, instead we hear nothing at all from them and rarely from David and Ruth, it's as if Brookfield doesn't exist and the writers now want all the action to be on the new build estate.

Agree but I wish when they had the big stories (like Helen) it wasn’t so dominating

yes the Neil sl was a low point. I wonder if anything else will come from that?

They had the long run into Johnny's story. He was a likeable character but has now disappeared.

Unless they are holding him in reserve for a per stirpes inheritance battle with Helen and Tom Tit when Pat 'n' Tone are both dead why ship him off , implausibly, to sea?

And why the coyness about dedding Peggy? They could have a real ding dong inheritance battle there.

Yes there are so many sl possible with the OG characters. I don’t know why we need Joy!!

Me too. I’ve always had a soft spot for Joy and I find their story more interestingly character driven than a lot of the dross we’ve been subjected to. Mick is awful but he moved the plot along. I can see Joy being with someone a bit awful anyway. Makes sense.

I don't mind Joy but she should be a peripheral character unless she marries/pairs off with/works for an Archer or an Aldridge. Mick can bugger off PDQ as far as I'm concerned. So can Rochelle.

Perhaps they're heading for a change of name to Beechwood, in homage to Brookside.

I wish Joy was like the Gills tbh (they were on a long holiday weren’t they?)

Me too. I'm not keen on Mick. Joy has had peripheral involvement with Helen, the shop, Bridge Farm, Ben and Alice all of which moved storylines on. The problem is there was no proper backstory for her.

It is a different Mick, isn’t it!

I thought Khalil was Pa Malik when he opened the door - doesn’t sound 13!!

I find it odd that joy always calls Mick by name. I feel Joy may be underplaying her role in Rochelle’s behaviour. She seems very self centred and perhaps Rochelle wanted her to see her and her issues rather than saying ‘it’s all my fault. I’m so sorry’ all the time. Micks promise clearly signalling it’s going to be a disaster

At least we had some good background noise.

I am sooooooooooooo disappointed in the Joy reveal !

All our MN theiories about drug habits, abduction, witness protection etc were so more believable with how the storyline was built up

I'm beginning to think that the original SW for the story laid it all out , was sacked/had to leave/ all notes lost and some newcomer to SW who has never listened to TA or read the background stories has just written some easy dull reveal

Gutted

I would hope there is more to it than that.

although it would be traumatic to have your mum disappear and not know when/if she is coming back. Perhaps she was getting drunk and aggressive

and now she’s full of self pity but doesn’t really care beyond wanting to feel better about herself

Is that supposed to explain Rochelle's behaviour?!! Why didn't Mick ask why Rochelle doesn't live with her children or even see them much? That's a huge thing for a woman, her mum finding divorce difficult doesn't explain why Rochelle isn't with her children, there's got to be more. Mick is stupid, but surely not stupid enough to accept what joy has said as an explanation.

Thanks for the new thread @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g. Loved the last title so much but this is fab too.

There’s still more to Rochelle.

I know it's a cliché, but Mick really does sound different to me, though I see it's the same actor.

Maybe Peter didn’t run away but is buried in the cellar of the family home (or she dug him up and he’s under the hot tub now). She feels guilty for killing Rochelle’s relationship with her dad and Rochelle actually knows but can’t bear to confront her mother

advantage being that Joy would end up in prison and we wouldn’t have to hear from her.

Oh fgs, I'm listening on catch-up. More Lynda and Khalil- Khalil was completely charmless in the way he asked Lynda if there was anything more she wanted.

Do llamas need to be walked on a regular basis? Who used to do it?

Yes, somehow they managed to finally, years later take us into Home Farm where we’ve never met the characters that live there (which is a glaring omission) and instead make us put up with some other new characters we don’t care about being there temporarily? Why would we care?