Why are we assuming that S6 will bring a car for Louisa? Even if the spectre of a move to London is taken off the table (presumably the reason she sold her car in the first place) they may still decide to be a single car family. One of the big differences I noticed between living in North America vs. the UK is that in NA everyone having a car of their own is a given. In the UK there are a lot of middle aged people running around with L plates (what, you didn't get your drivers' license at 16? How have you survived all these years?) and others who just live in communities that are human-scaled and walkable (like Portwenn, it would seem). Then there was Orkney where several of the ladies didn't drive cars but went everywhere in their tractor! For the ride out to AR's farm and for shopping trips to Delabole, Wadebridge and Truro there is always Martin's Lexus.
I just assume it will make life easier for LG to have her own car, since she had one before her move to London, and since DM will need to keep his car available to get to emergencies out on the moor. Within the village, yes, walking is the way to go. But I think there are things Portwenn doesn't have, and LG and JH will occasionally need to get to Wadebridge, Truro, etc. Does Portwenn have a dentist? A grocery big enough to stock every odd spice and ingredient one might sometimes need? That kind of thing.
What's an L plate?
Oh, and the fact that I'm even thinking about this mundane thing demonstrates how obsessed I am with this show. I need to see a doctor! A tall, grey-haired, well-dressed doctor.
I have always felt sad that ITV didn't back up that series by sticking with it, but now that there has been a pause, perhaps a rethink would be in order - especially in the second series where they are both out of work, the refusal of Reggie to go back to his wife (good for him - she needs to be written out of that series). So much more needs to be addressed along this storyline which spills over to every working person in the real world.
What a great idea - reprise Reggie Perrin without Nicola, the wife. Wonder if he might pursue his Balms and Lubricants colleague?
What a great idea - reprise Reggie Perrin without Nicola, the wife. Wonder if he might pursue his Balms and Lubricants colleague?
Or maybe they'll pick it up with real time having elapsed and it will be Reggie and Lubricants with child - and of course he'll have started dying his hair blonde.
Or maybe they'll pick it up with real time having elapsed and it will be Reggie and Lubricants with child - and of course he'll have started dying his hair blonde.
Hah! Reggie can do whatever he wants. Dye his hair, grow a mustache, wear jeans and shorts, move in with Lubricants (:)!!! - cute name!). Just don't mess with my Doc. Er, our Doc.
Reggie Perrin is a fun show I've only fairly recently watched, btw. I've enjoyed seeing a more mature MC in a flat-out comedy. I absolutely hate, however, that it was dropped after S2, leaving the plot dangling in mid-stream. This kind of thing makes me grateful that PB has been giving us a kind of closure at the end of the last two series of Doc Martin.
Hah! Reggie can do whatever he wants. Dye his hair, grow a mustache, wear jeans and shorts, move in with Lubricants (:)!!! - cute name!). Just don't mess with my Doc. Er, our Doc.
Reggie Perrin is a fun show I've only fairly recently watched, btw. I've enjoyed seeing a more mature MC in a flat-out comedy. I absolutely hate, however, that it was dropped after S2, leaving the plot dangling in mid-stream. This kind of thing makes me grateful that PB has been giving us a kind of closure at the end of the last two series of Doc Martin.
Maybe Buffalo productions could take it on an shop it around, if ITV doesn't want it? Were the ratings pretty bad? i quite like it.
Several times each year when I was a kid my family would spend a couple of weeks with grandparents. My grandfather had a farm several miles out from town. My brother and I rode with him to and from the farm every day of every visit.
We were surprised, though, when we were grown and our grandparents had passed away, and we attempted to drive there on own own. We both missed a couple of turns, had to backtrack, questioned our decisions as to turning here or there. We thought getting there would be second nature; we wouldn't even have to give it any thought. Keep in mind to get there we had to travel on assorted narrow, winding country roads and several gravel and dirt roads, and most of these roads weren't marked. No street signs or highway signs or any signs on these little country roads.
So it's different riding with someone as a child, even a zillion times, and actually driving there on one's own, especially if on unmarked country roads and if a number of years have gone by.
I agree. I think it was meant to indicate he hadn't been there for years.
Oh, and the fact that I'm even thinking about this mundane thing demonstrates how obsessed I am with this show. I need to see a doctor! A tall, grey-haired, well-dressed doctor.
A learner driver has to display a yellow (here in Australia) plastic plate on the car (usually stuck 1/2 way under the number plate) back and front to indicate to others on the road "beware erratic driver".
L plate (learner's plate). Huge red L in the UK. (Link below has a picture). And I think they have to keep them on for something like 2 years. None of this written test to get your learner's permit, then 6 months later a road test and a permanent licence, good till you're 80. (Of course in North America there's more road and less itinerant sheep you can hit).
L plate (learner's plate). Huge red L in the UK. (Link below has a picture). And I think they have to keep them on for something like 2 years. None of this written test to get your learner's permit, then 6 months later a road test and a permanent licence, good till you're 80. (Of course in North America there's more road and less itinerant sheep you can hit).
And from years of watching Corrie, whenever the women throw a hen party (we call them bachelorette parties) the bride has an "L" plate hanging around her neck!
Thank you Conniej for uploading 'A Mother's Son.' I was not so much disappointed at the ending as surprised. There were several shots of Ben's son, Robbie, that I thought indicated that he might be the murderer and he was setting up Jamie. That would have been the 'twist' for me. I must be spending too much time watching British mysteries.:)
I'm not sure I see all the "issues". Which issues do they have? Yes, each parent felt more capable of dealing with their own children, but remember, they were only married and living together for seven weeks, a very short time.
If the family has some serious counseling, and love exists between the parents, then I think there is a chance they could indeed try things again. The only issue I saw was the mom not fully comprehending the facts of her son's actions. She's learned a lesson, and she ends closer to her son, holding hands than she was throughout the show. Everything else was very reasonable regarding the situation, I thought. No one stepped over any irreparable boundaries, and one theme throughout was the the resilient love people have in difficult times for their families. One might think that could extend to the parents getting back together.
I think those 'boundaries' were part of the problem. I think if Rosie and Ben had approached their marriage as something which took priority and which drew the lines of solidarity clearly within the household as "parents on one side, kids on the other" (not that it has to be adversarial all the time, but adults united and parenting together) then they might have had a chance. As it is, I'm very dubious that the marriage will survive.
I was bothered by the part where Ben was on his way to the police station to turn Jamie in, and he says he ended up driving around and ultimately concluding "he's yours." I was bothered by the way in which Jamie exercised this incredible leverage over his mother. Rosie's just so afraid that if she doesn't take him at his word, he'll stop trusting her or "liking her" and the relationship, such as it is, will be lost. Her protectiveness of her son and willingness to believe him didn't read to me as a mother's love, it read to me as a mother's fear = cowardice = vice. So long as Sean Christie is in custody, Rosie seems perfectly prepared to suppress the truth she knows (or could confirm with a little investigation) to protect her "good" son, while letting Sean, who happens to be innocent of the crime, though an otherwise "bad" kid, take the fall. This business of telling her son, in that confession scene on the pier, that he's a "good" boy who has just done a "bad" thing and now must bear the punishment for it, sounds moral, but it's bollocks IMO. When do we ever see any evidence in the show that Jamie is a "good kid?" He's not loud and obnoxious, he's reasonably kind toward Livy, but we learn that he has this secret life in which he smokes pot, watches porn (with a particular taste for sadism), lies and manipulates his parents with all the skill of a sociopath, tries to coerce a girl to have sex with him, and ultimately kills her when she won't. I think Jamie's got a more accurate read on himself than his Mum (I'm just bad). If it walks like a duck...."Plot is character and character is plot" (Aristotle) or vice versa (F. Scott Fitzgerald).
Jamie being quite simply "bad" is a reality which Ben, also, is willing to entertain and which Rosie can't seem to. Jamie would probably not hurt his young step-sister, but Ben, as he says is "not for one minute prepared to take that chance." Can we ever see that changing? It sounds stark to say it, but were Jamie dead or dead to his Mum or guaranteed always to be in prison, then perhaps this blended family could make it past this rupture, but without his complete removal, how can Ben be sure, in (re)attaching himself to this woman, that something similar may not happen again. If it did, the lines would be drawn in exactly the same way because, as Rosie says in what may be the last line of the show: "Of course I'll always love you, you're my son." And that love is a fierce, irrational and totalising love. It has excluded every other claim (the claims of the truth, the claims of a husband, the claims of an innocent (Sean)) this time, and would certainly do so again.
That "love" of Rosie's is what I consider the main theme of A Mother's Son -- it's alluded to in the title. As AJ says in "On the Edge" re: Louisa's belief in her Dad: "That's the funny thing about families, Marty, loyalty is but a step away from delusion." As I see it, Rosie was the whole problem in A Mother's Son. That love became vice instead of virtue in her, and ultimately made her unloveable/untenable as a wife to Ben, despite the feelings of his heart which told him he still loved her.
That "love" of Rosie's is what I consider the main theme of A Mother's Son -- it's alluded to in the title. As AJ says in "On the Edge" re: Louisa's belief in her Dad: "That's the funny thing about families, Marty, loyalty is but a step away from delusion." As I see it, Rosie was the whole problem in A Mother's Son. That love became vice instead of virtue in her, and ultimately made her unloveable/untenable as a wife to Ben, despite the feelings of his heart which told him he still loved her.
I agree completely.
I sympathized with Rosie because for most parents, the mother-child bond is unbreakable, regardless of the child's actions. You can divorce your husband, but not your child.
The quote you posted was not from me, but I think from MmDerdekea
Thank you Conniej for uploading 'A Mother's Son.' I was not so much disappointed at the ending as surprised. There were several shots of Ben's son, Robbie, that I thought indicated that he might be the murderer and he was setting up Jamie. That would have been the 'twist' for me. I must be spending too much time watching British mysteries.:)
It could have been any of the kids, including the daughter who was late home on the night in question. How would it have changed things had it been Ben's son (or daughter) guilty of murder? The parenting dynamic seems to be very different between Rosie and his kids vs. Ben and his kids. I do think that Ben loves and is fiercely protective of his kids, as his move out of the menage clearly shows, but his mind is capable of some detachment (the legal training perhaps, or the suspicion that dealing with criminals teaches you). I don't think you would have seen in him that love verging on delusion and vice for his son that is shown by Rosie, toward Jamie -- the "mother's son."
Just finished watching the rest of 'A Mother's Son'. I, too, was disappointed in the ending. To be honest, the only reason I watched to the end was because of our man MC; had it been on television and he wasn't in it, I don't think I would have bothered. Well acted by MC and his on-screen wife, but ultimately not my kind of thing.
L plate (learner's plate). Huge red L in the UK. (Link below has a picture). And I think they have to keep them on for something like 2 years. None of this written test to get your learner's permit, then 6 months later a road test and a permanent licence, good till you're 80. (Of course in North America there's more road and less itinerant sheep you can hit).
In Australia, well NSW anyway, you have to be over 17, drive for 120 hours with a fully licenced driver instructing you (from the passenger seat) max speed 80 kmph and hold the learners permit for 12 months. Then you sit a written exam and driver test. If you pass you get red 'P' plates (provisional licenced) 90 kmph limit and zero blood alcohol for 1 year then green 'P' plates for one year and another exam and THEN you're home free until you're 80.
I have put three boys through this rigmarole - thankfully the 120 hrs was only for one of them the other two only had to do 50 logbook hours before they could sit for the test. P platers are still them most likely to have an accident if any age group by a factor of four!
Maybe Buffalo productions could take it on an shop it around, if ITV doesn't want it? Were the ratings pretty bad? i quite like it.
Apparently , compared to the original, it wasn't as good. It got canned pretty quickly but not as quickly as some of the trashy Australian shows we are offered on TV!!:eek:
They've just revived Big Brother here after a two or three year break. Why on earth revive it???
In Australia, well NSW anyway, you have to be over 17, drive for 120 hours with a fully licenced driver instructing you (from the passenger seat) max speed 80 kmph and hold the learners permit for 12 months. Then you sit a written exam and driver test. If you pass you get red 'P' plates (provisional licenced) 90 kmph limit and zero blood alcohol for 1 year then green 'P' plates for one year and another exam and THEN you're home free until you're 80.
Here, in New Jersey after a written driving test (which incidentally you can take in several different languages) you have to pass a driving test. After that you are home free to drive the rest of your days if you feel up to it. I know of someone in town who at 93+ has a little part time job a few mornings at week at the local library and drives herself to work. If, on the other hand you are involved in an accident, they immediately take away your license. I was employed as a legal secretary for an insurance company and some insureds would call me on the phone when involved in an accident and their case would reach the trial stage. I remember one calling me and asked for an interpreter, so I replied "How do you read the traffic signs?" There was an immediate click on the other end of the line. Other states have other laws regarding drivers which may differ from New Jersey.
I know that Martin thought he was giving Louisa a generous present by choosing James as the baby's first name. And it was just too bad that he sabotaged a lovely moment by immediately following it by instructing Louisa on the proper way to hold the baby.
But it struck me, as I took my walk, that how he did it -- by filling in the forms -- was again a miscalculation/misunderstanding of what Louisa wants from the relationship. He might have thought it was a nice surprise. But was he also trying to avoid talking -- really talking -- with Louisa, which is, in fact, exactly what she wants?
I'm not minimizing Louisa's role in the communications problems these two share. But when he filled in the forms without discussing it with her -- even if he was giving her exactly what she wanted -- he missed the point about talking things through. He made the decision unilaterally -- and even if it is the right decision, the process is as important as the result.
I think those 'boundaries' were part of the problem. I think if Rosie and Ben had approached their marriage as something which took priority and which drew the lines of solidarity clearly within the household as "parents on one side, kids on the other" (not that it has to be adversarial all the time, but adults united and parenting together) then they might have had a chance. As it is, I'm very dubious that the marriage will survive.
I was bothered by the part where Ben was on his way to the police station to turn Jamie in, and he says he ended up driving around and ultimately concluding "he's yours." I was bothered by the way in which Jamie exercised this incredible leverage over his mother. Rosie's just so afraid that if she doesn't take him at his word, he'll stop trusting her or "liking her" and the relationship, such as it is, will be lost. Her protectiveness of her son and willingness to believe him didn't read to me as a mother's love, it read to me as a mother's fear = cowardice = vice. So long as Sean Christie is in custody, Rosie seems perfectly prepared to suppress the truth she knows (or could confirm with a little investigation) to protect her "good" son, while letting Sean, who happens to be innocent of the crime, though an otherwise "bad" kid, take the fall. This business of telling her son, in that confession scene on the pier, that he's a "good" boy who has just done a "bad" thing and now must bear the punishment for it, sounds moral, but it's bollocks IMO. When do we ever see any evidence in the show that Jamie is a "good kid?" He's not loud and obnoxious, he's reasonably kind toward Livy, but we learn that he has this secret life in which he smokes pot, watches porn (with a particular taste for sadism), lies and manipulates his parents with all the skill of a sociopath, tries to coerce a girl to have sex with him, and ultimately kills her when she won't. I think Jamie's got a more accurate read on himself than his Mum (I'm just bad). If it walks like a duck...."Plot is character and character is plot" (Aristotle) or vice versa (F. Scott Fitzgerald).
Jamie being quite simply "bad" is a reality which Ben, also, is willing to entertain and which Rosie can't seem to. Jamie would probably not hurt his young step-sister, but Ben, as he says is "not for one minute prepared to take that chance." Can we ever see that changing? It sounds stark to say it, but were Jamie dead or dead to his Mum or guaranteed always to be in prison, then perhaps this blended family could make it past this rupture, but without his complete removal, how can Ben be sure, in (re)attaching himself to this woman, that something similar may not happen again. If it did, the lines would be drawn in exactly the same way because, as Rosie says in what may be the last line of the show: "Of course I'll always love you, you're my son." And that love is a fierce, irrational and totalising love. It has excluded every other claim (the claims of the truth, the claims of a husband, the claims of an innocent (Sean)) this time, and would certainly do so again.
That "love" of Rosie's is what I consider the main theme of A Mother's Son -- it's alluded to in the title. As AJ says in "On the Edge" re: Louisa's belief in her Dad: "That's the funny thing about families, Marty, loyalty is but a step away from delusion." As I see it, Rosie was the whole problem in A Mother's Son. That love became vice instead of virtue in her, and ultimately made her unloveable/untenable as a wife to Ben, despite the feelings of his heart which told him he still loved her.
Hey, poorrichard, I really disagree that a mother saying she loves her son, even though he may be "bad" and did a terrible thing, exhibits a "fierce, irrational and totalizing" love. I don't see it that way at all. A mother is a mother, and her love for her children very well continues on no matter how they grow and what they do.
Rosie's love doesn't become some terrible defect at the end. Remember, Rosie took her son to the police station where he is going to be arrested and jailed for some long time, and terribly publicity will be attached to her family. She is willingly allowing his life to be ruined, and hers to be torn upside down, as it should be, to punish him for his wicked acts.
That is actually a good solid example of tough love, to me, at the end. It brings Rosie around full circle, from her using her love early on to live in denial and excuses, to acknowledging her love will continue but now it will equal her rational conscience and she will turn him in.
A fierce, irrational love would have run him down to the Chunnel train or something or zipped him to an airport, to send him overseas, and sent him money to live, etc. That never entered Rosie's mind. She become extremely lucid at the end, but that doesn't mean her love had to, or would, stop for her son, or it turns into a dysfunctional problem. That's an unnecessary requirement placed upon her.
I know that Martin thought he was giving Louisa a generous present by choosing James as the baby's first name. And it was just too bad that he sabotaged a lovely moment by immediately following it by instructing Louisa on the proper way to hold the baby.
But it struck me, as I took my walk, that how he did it -- by filling in the forms -- was again a miscalculation/misunderstanding of what Louisa wants from the relationship. He might have thought it was a nice surprise. But was he also trying to avoid talking -- really talking -- with Louisa, which is, in fact, exactly what she wants?
I'm not minimizing Louisa's role in the communications problems these two share. But when he filled in the forms without discussing it with her -- even if he was giving her exactly what she wanted -- he missed the point about talking things through. He made the decision unilaterally -- and even if it is the right decision, the process is as important as the result.
Bookfan2
Yes i agree Still an unresolved issue between them.
Also, isn't this exactly what you are not supposed to rely on when writing fiction - misunderstandings that can be remedied by two characters sitting down and talking for five minutes as a basic for sustained and believable conflict?
Hey, poorrichard, I really disagree that a mother saying she loves her son, even though he may be "bad" and did a terrible thing, exhibits a "fierce, irrational and totalizing" love. I don't see it that way at all. A mother is a mother, and her love for her children very well continues on no matter how they grow and what they do.
Rosie's love doesn't become some terrible defect at the end. Remember, Rosie took her son to the police station where he is going to be arrested and jailed for some long time, and terribly publicity will be attached to her family. She is willingly allowing his life to be ruined, and hers to be torn upside down, as it should be, to punish him for his wicked acts.
That is actually a good solid example of tough love, to me, at the end. It brings Rosie around full circle, from her using her love early on to live in denial and excuses, to acknowledging her love will continue but now it will equal her rational conscience and she will turn him in.
A fierce, irrational love would have run him down to the Chunnel train or something or zipped him to an airport, to send him overseas, and sent him money to live, etc. That never entered Rosie's mind. She become extremely lucid at the end, but that doesn't mean her love had to, or would, stop for her son, or it turns into a dysfunctional problem. That's an unnecessary requirement placed upon her.
My issue is that she said he was a good person who did a bad thing. A good person doesn't murder a girl for not having sex with him! Also, a bad thing to me is cheating on an exam - murder is in a whole different category!
My issue is that she said he was a good person who did a bad thing. A good person doesn't murder a girl for not having sex with him! Also, a bad thing to me is cheating on an exam - murder is in a whole different category!
Well, the TV movie seemed to clearly imply that Jamie has been a good boy his whole life. He was apparently good until the recent months, when he started hanging out with that other lad, smoking pot and such. Is then when he started getting into the nasty porn? Ben never had trouble moving in with Rosie and her kids, and both Rosie and her ex seemed to strongly believe they were good parents and their kids were good kids. There was no indication up until the TV movie that Jamie was bad in any way.
When does a child "go bad" and actually become a "sociopath"? Could Jamie just have been too gullible and too innocent to hang around a much harder person, and wound up taking a terrible path, but he is indeed inside a good person inside. I think that a strong case can be made for that.
Murder is murder, true. I think it might be that Jamie is a confused teenager, stretching his wings, getting into drugs (which he may not have handled well and may not have been in his straight mind during his knife attack), and impulsively taking a terrible action. His action afterwards are also concerning, washing his clothes, and hiding his trainers under the bed, but a real terrible child would have perhaps thrown out the knife, thrown out the shoes, thrown out the clothes, not taken her phone home, and such. A sociopath or truly evil person might very well have thought things through better. A very confused teen who hasn't not been bad in his life, who did a terrible thing, would have acted like Jamie did.
I'm not making excuses for him, but I'm not convinced by the TV movie we can put him into a very bad, sociopathic category. I remember kids throwing gasoline or something on another child in the States, as he had complained or something about them stealing his bike and then set him on fire. He survived but with burns. Those kids who did that were REALLY sorry they did that and realized they had just done it impulsively without any sense of pre-thought. We know human brains are not fully developed in the frontal lobe until people are 22 or so. Impulsivity without proactive inhibition is the key to teens doing stupid things.
Jamie may be evil or he may just be a teen, basically good, who went down the wrong path with his friend, did drugs, and then did something impulsively awful. But, inside, for me, he still could be a good kid.
Hey, poorrichard, I really disagree that a mother saying she loves her son, even though he may be "bad" and did a terrible thing, exhibits a "fierce, irrational and totalizing" love. I don't see it that way at all. A mother is a mother, and her love for her children very well continues on no matter how they grow and what they do.
Rosie's love doesn't become some terrible defect at the end. Remember, Rosie took her son to the police station where he is going to be arrested and jailed for some long time, and terribly publicity will be attached to her family. She is willingly allowing his life to be ruined, and hers to be torn upside down, as it should be, to punish him for his wicked acts.
That is actually a good solid example of tough love, to me, at the end. It brings Rosie around full circle, from her using her love early on to live in denial and excuses, to acknowledging her love will continue but now it will equal her rational conscience and she will turn him in.
A fierce, irrational love would have run him down to the Chunnel train or something or zipped him to an airport, to send him overseas, and sent him money to live, etc. That never entered Rosie's mind. She become extremely lucid at the end, but that doesn't mean her love had to, or would, stop for her son, or it turns into a dysfunctional problem. That's an unnecessary requirement placed upon her.
Comments
I just assume it will make life easier for LG to have her own car, since she had one before her move to London, and since DM will need to keep his car available to get to emergencies out on the moor. Within the village, yes, walking is the way to go. But I think there are things Portwenn doesn't have, and LG and JH will occasionally need to get to Wadebridge, Truro, etc. Does Portwenn have a dentist? A grocery big enough to stock every odd spice and ingredient one might sometimes need? That kind of thing.
What's an L plate?
Oh, and the fact that I'm even thinking about this mundane thing demonstrates how obsessed I am with this show. I need to see a doctor! A tall, grey-haired, well-dressed doctor.
What a great idea - reprise Reggie Perrin without Nicola, the wife. Wonder if he might pursue his Balms and Lubricants colleague?
Or maybe they'll pick it up with real time having elapsed and it will be Reggie and Lubricants with child - and of course he'll have started dying his hair blonde.
Hah! Reggie can do whatever he wants. Dye his hair, grow a mustache, wear jeans and shorts, move in with Lubricants (:)!!! - cute name!). Just don't mess with my Doc. Er, our Doc.
Reggie Perrin is a fun show I've only fairly recently watched, btw. I've enjoyed seeing a more mature MC in a flat-out comedy. I absolutely hate, however, that it was dropped after S2, leaving the plot dangling in mid-stream. This kind of thing makes me grateful that PB has been giving us a kind of closure at the end of the last two series of Doc Martin.
Maybe Buffalo productions could take it on an shop it around, if ITV doesn't want it? Were the ratings pretty bad? i quite like it.
I agree. I think it was meant to indicate he hadn't been there for years.
A learner driver has to display a yellow (here in Australia) plastic plate on the car (usually stuck 1/2 way under the number plate) back and front to indicate to others on the road "beware erratic driver".
Thank you Conniej for uploading 'A Mother's Son.' I was not so much disappointed at the ending as surprised. There were several shots of Ben's son, Robbie, that I thought indicated that he might be the murderer and he was setting up Jamie. That would have been the 'twist' for me. I must be spending too much time watching British mysteries.:)
It could have been any of the kids, including the daughter who was late home on the night in question. How would it have changed things had it been Ben's son (or daughter) guilty of murder? The parenting dynamic seems to be very different between Rosie and his kids vs. Ben and his kids. I do think that Ben loves and is fiercely protective of his kids, as his move out of the menage clearly shows, but his mind is capable of some detachment (the legal training perhaps, or the suspicion that dealing with criminals teaches you). I don't think you would have seen in him that love verging on delusion and vice for his son that is shown by Rosie, toward Jamie -- the "mother's son."
Apparently , compared to the original, it wasn't as good. It got canned pretty quickly but not as quickly as some of the trashy Australian shows we are offered on TV!!:eek:
They've just revived Big Brother here after a two or three year break. Why on earth revive it???
But it struck me, as I took my walk, that how he did it -- by filling in the forms -- was again a miscalculation/misunderstanding of what Louisa wants from the relationship. He might have thought it was a nice surprise. But was he also trying to avoid talking -- really talking -- with Louisa, which is, in fact, exactly what she wants?
I'm not minimizing Louisa's role in the communications problems these two share. But when he filled in the forms without discussing it with her -- even if he was giving her exactly what she wanted -- he missed the point about talking things through. He made the decision unilaterally -- and even if it is the right decision, the process is as important as the result.
Bookfan2
Yes i agree Still an unresolved issue between them.
Also, isn't this exactly what you are not supposed to rely on when writing fiction - misunderstandings that can be remedied by two characters sitting down and talking for five minutes as a basic for sustained and believable conflict?
That's ok -- it doesn't seem to be one of the most prestigious of acting honors.