Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Doc Martin (Part 14 Spoilers)


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13-09-2012, 23:02
poorrichard54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 291
Can anyone explain what parallel storylines are in Born with a Shotgun aka Boho with a Shotgun? Thanks.
I thiink the Dunnages are the only family that could legitimately be called bohos, but what if we took that word as a sort of loose synonym for crazy, out of kilter etc. In this episode there are three additional subplots: 1. Bert with his positional vertigo, 2. Morwenna, her grandfather and the energy pills. and 3. the ongoing one with Martin, Louisa and JH as they try to work out how to be a family. Everybody in this episode, except perhaps Ruth and Al, are a bit out of kilter: Bert, literally off balance, Morwenna speeding around the Doc's kitchen, and Martin and Louisa being driven a little stir-crazy by the constantly crying JH. All the craziness is resolved by the end of the episode, Mrs. Dunnage getting proper medical treatment, Morwenna getting another chance at the surgery, Bert presumably mastering the Epley maneover, and JH going from an unsoothable crier in the opening scene of the episode ("stir the baby, stir the baby") to a li'l darling, listening so attentively to Dr. Wolfstein's article from the medical journal. I do agree that although there is sparring between M&L here, they are finding their rhythm as a couple and as parents, all of which is destroyed by the arrival of Eleanor in the next episode.

Thanks for the answer to my question about John Coleman and Carrie Hilton, and about Roger Onions. The Carrie Wilson reference seems plausible.

Re: original sin, (sorry, can't help rising to this) it's not quite the idea that people are essentially bad. That would be Manicheeism, a heresy which Christianity rejected. The Christian view is that people are created in the image of God, an image which became marred by sin, but not eradicated, in a narrative that predates our individual birth. Each human person then is now born into a dual inheritance: the image of God (some understand this as a purpose or calling, others as a set of faculties that make human beings uniquely able to respond to God), and original sin (understood as corruption in every faculty, so that neither our mind nor will are able to lead us back to God without assistance). This Christian anthropology critiques two modern ideologies: first, the Neitzschean one that seems to prevail in the school system statesidefan describes, where good and evil are seen as subjective and all people, regardless of action, are deemed essentially good. Second, it critiques the notion that those who perpetrate heinous crimes are monsters and fall into some category other than human. Original sin means that the "heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17.9). Jews and Christians are never surprised at the human capacity for wrong-doing, but this is a capacity deemed to be within everyone, so there is also no surprise at finding scintillations of the image of God -- evidence of a common humanity -- there.

When I say that Jamie is bad, I don't mean that he is ontologically bad (mis-wired somehow so that he never had a chance to be anything else). He is existentially bad (morally self-mutilated through consistently choosing the bad rather than the good). He has habituated himself to vice with each and every action we see him taking in the course of that 2 hour show. Now at 14, or whatever he is, he's a bad kid, the product of what his actions have made him. It's the image of God, present in the conscience, that allows him to recognise that about himself. Too bad his mother can't. Recognising it means he's in a far more likely condition to get the help he needs and embark on a course of true metanoia (repentance/life-change).
poorrichard54 is offline  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-09-2012, 00:38
bookfan2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 366
poorrichard54, Many thanks for the analysis of the parallel storylines. As soon as you pointed out Bert's vertigo issues, it clicked for me. Since nothing is wasted in a good episode, I should have been looking at all three stories and how they connected.

Thanks too for the cogent, thoughtful explanation of original sin. I'm Jewish, so it was especially helpful.

As for Jamie and his mother, it's hard to believe that there had been no serious warning signs for months (years?) that Jamie was going down a very dangerous path. Perhaps Rosie couldn't see the warning signs because she was coping with divorce issues and then the delight of a new relationship, but I suspect Jamie had been troubled for quite some time before this tragedy occurred. I'm not blaming Rosie -- it's hard and scary to admit to serious problems with your own child. But I suspect there had been issues for quite some time.
bookfan2 is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 01:00
mmDerdekea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mesa, AZ USA
Posts: 1,442
I thiink the Dunnages are the only family that could legitimately be called bohos, but what if we took that word as a sort of loose synonym for crazy, out of kilter etc. In this episode there are three additional subplots: 1. Bert with his positional vertigo, 2. Morwenna, her grandfather and the energy pills. and 3. the ongoing one with Martin, Louisa and JH as they try to work out how to be a family. Everybody in this episode, except perhaps Ruth and Al, are a bit out of kilter: Bert, literally off balance, Morwenna speeding around the Doc's kitchen, and Martin and Louisa being driven a little stir-crazy by the constantly crying JH. All the craziness is resolved by the end of the episode, Mrs. Dunnage getting proper medical treatment, Morwenna getting another chance at the surgery, Bert presumably mastering the Epley maneover, and JH going from an unsoothable crier in the opening scene of the episode ("stir the baby, stir the baby") to a li'l darling, listening so attentively to Dr. Wolfstein's article from the medical journal. I do agree that although there is sparring between M&L here, they are finding their rhythm as a couple and as parents, all of which is destroyed by the arrival of Eleanor in the next episode.

Thanks for the answer to my question about John Coleman and Carrie Hilton, and about Roger Onions. The Carrie Wilson reference seems plausible.

Re: original sin, (sorry, can't help rising to this) it's not quite the idea that people are essentially bad. That would be Manicheeism, a heresy which Christianity rejected. The Christian view is that people are created in the image of God, an image which became marred by sin, but not eradicated, in a narrative that predates our individual birth. Each human person then is now born into a dual inheritance: the image of God (some understand this as a purpose or calling, others as a set of faculties that make human beings uniquely able to respond to God), and original sin (understood as corruption in every faculty, so that neither our mind nor will are able to lead us back to God without assistance). This Christian anthropology critiques two modern ideologies: first, the Neitzschean one that seems to prevail in the school system statesidefan describes, where good and evil are seen as subjective and all people, regardless of action, are deemed essentially good. Second, it critiques the notion that those who perpetrate heinous crimes are monsters and fall into some category other than human. Original sin means that the "heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17.9). Jews and Christians are never surprised at the human capacity for wrong-doing, but this is a capacity deemed to be within everyone, so there is also no surprise at finding scintillations of the image of God -- evidence of a common humanity -- there.

When I say that Jamie is bad, I don't mean that he is ontologically bad (mis-wired somehow so that he never had a chance to be anything else). He is existentially bad (morally self-mutilated through consistently choosing the bad rather than the good). He has habituated himself to vice with each and every action we see him taking in the course of that 2 hour show. Now at 14, or whatever he is, he's a bad kid, the product of what his actions have made him. It's the image of God, present in the conscience, that allows him to recognise that about himself. Too bad his mother can't. Recognising it means he's in a far more likely condition to get the help he needs and embark on a course of true metanoia (repentance/life-change).
While Jews do know that people can do bad things, being Jewish myself, like bookfan2, just to clarify, we by no means believe in the original sin idea as our helpful minister poorrichard described above.
mmDerdekea is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 01:03
Simon Rodgers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,615
I liked this series. Is it coming back for a new series or was that it?
Simon Rodgers is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 01:35
poorrichard54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 291
poorrichard54, Thanks too for the cogent, thoughtful explanation of original sin. I'm Jewish, so it was especially helpful.
While Jews do know that people can do bad things, being Jewish myself, like bookfan2, just to clarify, we by no means believe in the original sin idea as our helpful minister poorrichard described above.
Thanks Mona for that clarification. You're certainly right that the doctrine of original sin, which was classically formulated by Augustine in his controversy with Pelagius, is not part of the Jewish development of doctrine, but as I was quoting Jeremiah, I wanted to make reference to "Jews and Christians," to acknowledge that Jeremiah was "your boy" before he was "ours." (Similarly Psalm 51 where David says "I was a sinner when my mother conceived me"). These verses from the Older Testament have been important in the formulation of the Christian doctrine.
poorrichard54 is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 01:52
radfen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: US
Posts: 6
(Criminal) behavioral analysis does not have or address the concept of "evil." Many of the serial offenders who were interviewed by the FBI to form the knowledge base for this approach had similar stories of abuse and neglect during their formative years. Yet, we do know that other people have had similar experiences and have not become serial offenders. What makes the two groups different? Lack of empathy and attachment to others seems to be a key factor. I think that one can argue that this could be ontological or existential, to use poorrichard's terms (this verbiage takes me back to my undergraduate days in philosophy...)

Jamie is exhibiting the behaviors of serial offfenders, but seemingly does not spring from the same type of pool. He's definitely bad, in my book. He may repent, but I can't really see that he will change.

I have never spoken with a serial offender, myself, but I did have occasion to interview a double homicide suspect who had a coldness inside that made her quite scary - that was the only time I felt fearful when I worked directly with inmates.

Now Doc Martin's background is quite interesting...
radfen is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 01:55
poorrichard54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 291
I liked this series. Is it coming back for a new series or was that it?
Hi Simon, with over 2000 posts, you are more of a digital spy than most of us, but I don't recall seeing you before on the Doc Martin forum. Welcome. Season 6 is being filmed next Spring and will air in the UK next fall. Read backwards on this thread to see all our hopes and fears, predictions and desiderata for the new season, also our speculation will it, won't it be the last. Martin Clunes at one point last April was sounding very decided that the series would end with S6. More recent intimations seem less definitive and some are now hoping for a S7.
poorrichard54 is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 02:37
dcdmfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington, DC USA
Posts: 1,435
(Criminal) behavioral analysis does not have or address the concept of "evil." Many of the serial offenders who were interviewed by the FBI to form the knowledge base for this approach had similar stories of abuse and neglect during their formative years. Yet, we do know that other people have had similar experiences and have not become serial offenders. What makes the two groups different? Lack of empathy and attachment to others seems to be a key factor. I think that one can argue that this could be ontological or existential, to use poorrichard's terms (this verbiage takes me back to my undergraduate days in philosophy...)

Jamie is exhibiting the behaviors of serial offfenders, but seemingly does not spring from the same type of pool. He's definitely bad, in my book. He may repent, but I can't really see that he will change.

I have never spoken with a serial offender, myself, but I did have occasion to interview a double homicide suspect who had a coldness inside that made her quite scary - that was the only time I felt fearful when I worked directly with inmates.

Now Doc Martin's background is quite interesting...
I guess one could say that Doc Martin suffered neglect and abuse in his formative years, and he has attachment issues and is sometimes not very sympathetic. He is sympathetic with Louisa, and even some other characters, in some moments in series 5. Even though a lot of folks are discouraged by series 5, I really like it because he has real moments of relating to people and demonstrates sympathy (even empathy with Louisa's feelings about her mother) and attachment to other people.
dcdmfan is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 14-09-2012, 03:51
NewPark
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,202
I liked this series. Is it coming back for a new series or was that it?
Season 6 of Doc Martin will be filmed April-July 2013 and presumably air in the UK in the fall. It is probably the last Season, but the producers have teased us recently with "never say never" comments.
NewPark is online now  
Old 14-09-2012, 04:41
poorrichard54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 291
(Criminal) behavioral analysis does not have or address the concept of "evil." Many of the serial offenders who were interviewed by the FBI to form the knowledge base for this approach had similar stories of abuse and neglect during their formative years. Yet, we do know that other people have had similar experiences and have not become serial offenders. What makes the two groups different? Lack of empathy and attachment to others seems to be a key factor. I think that one can argue that this could be ontological or existential, to use poorrichard's terms (this verbiage takes me back to my undergraduate days in philosophy...)

Jamie is exhibiting the behaviors of serial offfenders, but seemingly does not spring from the same type of pool. He's definitely bad, in my book. He may repent, but I can't really see that he will change.

I have never spoken with a serial offender, myself, but I did have occasion to interview a double homicide suspect who had a coldness inside that made her quite scary - that was the only time I felt fearful when I worked directly with inmates.

Now Doc Martin's background is quite interesting...
Hi radfen, glad you've joined our little talk shop. You have a fascinating background (like our very own Aunt Ruth -- consultant to the criminally insane at Broadmoor), and I'd love to hear your profile of the Doc based on his early life. Like Morwenna who knew to do CPR on her granddad because she had "seen it on the tele" I rely on television series such as CSI, Criminal Minds, Cracker and Lie to Me to interpret to me the deviant mind (there are also some "live subjects" in my Presbytery and congregation). With absolutely no background in neurophysiology, then, I do wonder about things like frontal lobe damage, the diminishment of moral judgment that comes with fetal alcohol syndrome, and the so-called "serial killer gene" which was such a plot feature of CSI season 11 (Ray Langston and Nate Haskell, both had the gene, but Langston became a CSI and Haskell a serial killer (until the finale where Langston also committeed a murder -- what were we supposed to take from that, that genetics were determinative?))

It's got to be a blend, doesn't it? of predisposing factors (genetic and social) and choice? I think that in a lot of cases (alcoholism for example) genetics and family environment create a predisposition, but the only thing that can account for the fact that some go on to become alcoholics, while others with identical predictors don't, are the choices made. Theologically speaking there is always a mystery to evil, where it came from in the original good creation, where it comes from in kids like Jamie who have had loving, involved parents, yet seem drawn toward the bad. That's been my experience too: that however much we may seek for causes, the phenomena we experience when it comes to good and evil cannot be entirely accounted for in terms of them -- there's always that joker in the pack.

It's interesting what you say about empathy, and lack thereof -- coldness -- in most serial killers and in the double homocide suspect you met. Autism/Aspergers, which is something some people see in Doc Martin -- just this inability to know what others are feeling or to know when he has hurt people, could also be classified as a lack of empathy, yet the Doc is very moral. I don't think his detachment, (or the detachment of autistic people generally) is at all dangerous to his fellow human beings. How is empathy (re)established? It sounds naive but friendship I think is a powerful corroder of the lines that we draw. In the movie American History X, a white supremicist is rehabilitated by forming a friendship in prison with a black man, by seeing more of himself reflected in this person than in those of his "tribe" (a redrawing of the lines of solidarity). In the movie Freedom Writers set at the height of the race riots and gang warfare in Venice Beach, a teacher Erin Gruwell sets an exercise for her students called "the Line." They are to advance to a line drawn on the floor if they like a certain rap group, if they have lost a family member in violence, if they know someone who belongs to a gang etc. What they realise is that it is not just those in their tribe they can relate to but all who share the experience of anger, fear, and loss which this violence brings. Eventually a friendship develops between a Latino and a Cambodian girl -- again a redrawing of the lines of solidarity. Some of the most interesting moments in Doc Martin to me are those where Martin opens himself to friendship (eg. with Stewart, with Roger Fenn, with Louisa) because he either finds a connection with them (empathy) or realises they have his back (solidarity). Basically I see the Doc on a human journey from detachment to attachment. If he can do that -- and I think it would not be unrealistic to hope that he can -- then why can a person who is pathologically and criminally without empathy not undertake a similar journey?

You say Jamie may repent but you cannot see that he will change. Repentance (metanoia) is a word that in my usage includes change, not just remorse, so my confusion at that statement is probably semantic. Do you just mean that he may feel sorrow for what he's done, but can't ever be trusted not to do the same again? I know that people can change, but true and lasting change, I think, is rare and very difficult. I know that with alcoholics the rate of relapse after sobriety is achieved is around 70%, higher with sexual offenders. I also think there's probably a tipping point that people reach after which they cannot change. The preponderance of wrong choices, have created an insuperable resistence toward ever doing the right thing. Through the judicial system I'm sure Jamie will get a lot of counselling aimed at creating self-awareness, identifying and reducing triggers to his anger, learning how to control his environment etc. But it will be meaningless unless he gets genuinely captivated by a new ideal and wants to follow it into a new life. He may also have to accept that while he can change, the past cannot, and the level of other people's trust to which he is admitted may always be geared to what he has done rather than to who he has become.
poorrichard54 is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 05:57
mmDerdekea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mesa, AZ USA
Posts: 1,442
Thanks Mona for that clarification. You're certainly right that the doctrine of original sin, which was classically formulated by Augustine in his controversy with Pelagius, is not part of the Jewish development of doctrine, but as I was quoting Jeremiah, I wanted to make reference to "Jews and Christians," to acknowledge that Jeremiah was "your boy" before he was "ours." (Similarly Psalm 51 where David says "I was a sinner when my mother conceived me"). These verses from the Older Testament have been important in the formulation of the Christian doctrine.
Right, poorrichard, that line in Psalm 51 refers to people being born with an impulse to sin, that is, the animal soul, (yetzer hara--a bad inclination), which they have to control, and which they can control (through following the Torah's laws). Of course the other soul people have at birth is the divine soul (yetzer tov--a good inclination), which is part of G-d and designed to bring his love and laws into the world. Psalm 51 is not interpreted by Jews that anyone is born in sin.

It's always interesting to hear how various people and religions interpret different words. I guess it relates to folks on the Forum seeing the same episodes and believing different interpretations of what they see. It is certainly what makes the planet so interesting and fascinating!
mmDerdekea is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 06:38
statesidefan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 911
I stand in awe of those here who are studied and thoughtful religious scholars. My minor in religion is a distant memory. But I want to say this: one thing I have appreciated about the Jewish religion is the imperative to act right, even if you don't feel like you want to. Just DO the right thing. I can understand and appreciate that. You don't have to wait for some feeling to wash over you. Just DO it! Now, back to Jamie, it may not be that simple. But for the rest of us, the imperative is: whether you feel it or not, whether the Holy Spirit washes over you or not, do the right thing as you know it.
statesidefan is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 12:00
bookfan2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 366

Episode 3, "Born with a Shotgun," ends on a very positive note. Louisa watching Martin reading to his son. It's probably the most positive note of the Series, until the declaration at the Castle in the finale.

And then it begins, a downward spiral that darkens the next five episodes.

The transition is fairly abrupt. While Eleonor's return is a factor, I'd like to add two other points.

Louisa returns to work. While this couple had (always had?) troubles, her return to work, his lack of understanding of its importance, the juggling of childcare -- these add up to a major rift in the relationship. Martin is clear that he doesn't want her working and literally sabotages her efforts (not necessarily consciously), by picking up her organizational cards, telling her she should be there for JH's feeds, not helping to resolve the childcare issue, etc. His reasons for not wanting her to work; her reasons for wanting to work -- neither one articulates the "real" story behind this vital issue. It's something that still needs to be resolved in Series 6.

Secondly, ownership of space. They are living in Martin's surgery, using Martin's things, and this isn't going to change if they move to London. While Martin is a generous man, it's his Venetian glass she has broken; his coffee maker; his kitchen table; his desk; his London apartment to paint his choice of color. It's not just a question of the lack of shared decision making that is a problem, it's that Louisa and Martin have not created a shared home. She is living in his space -- until she leaves him and returns to her space. This too is an issue that Martin and Louisa must resolve in Series 6.

Getting rid of Eleonor helps (although for both of them, they must exorcise the patterns of behavior they've developed as children to protect themselves emotionally). But they've got some other basic questions that have to be answered and just declaring their love for each other isn't enough.
bookfan2 is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 12:07
cc.cookie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,388
poorrichard,
Thank you for you indepth studies of the show and religion in general. Very interesting, readable and thought provoking.
cc.cookie is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 12:13
cc.cookie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,388

For those interested, if we watch Series 1 episode 3 "Sh*t happens" this weekend and discuss it next week we will be inline with the other watchers.

This is the episode where:

A stomach bug sweeps the village and patients fill Martin's surgery. Martin appears on the local radio station in an attempt to alert the village to a potential health scare, but his efforts misfire. Bert Large and his son have an argument over college and the future of the family businesses.

A classic!
cc.cookie is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 14:45
Conniej
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 962
https://mobile.twitter.com/hawthornh...0349825/photo/


http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s..._martin_clunes
Conniej is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 15:10
mmDerdekea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mesa, AZ USA
Posts: 1,442
For those interested, if we watch Series 1 episode 3 "Sh*t happens" this weekend and discuss it next week we will be inline with the other watchers.

This is the episode where:

A stomach bug sweeps the village and patients fill Martin's surgery. Martin appears on the local radio station in an attempt to alert the village to a potential health scare, but his efforts misfire. Bert Large and his son have an argument over college and the future of the family businesses.

A classic!
A classic, indeed!

In this episode we are formally introduced to his monosyllabism, and it's quite hilarious. "Yes.....(super evil death glare from Caroline)....Caroline," is outright funny and so is his answer to what was the first thing he noticed about PW, "It's windy."

I was also surprised he said he had to "pee" on the radio instead of "urinate" which is the term physicians tend to use more formally with patients.
mmDerdekea is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 18:48
umbrellagirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 99
MC at a horse logging demonstration today (or maybe yesterday). I wonder if he's filming it for his new "working horses" documentary.

http://twitter.com/hawthornhorses/st.../photo/1/large
umbrellagirl is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 23:33
Bloodphobia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 239
Season 6 of Doc Martin will be filmed April-July 2013 and presumably air in the UK in the fall. It is probably the last Season, but the producers have teased us recently with "never say never" comments.
In the response I received from Colin Towns assistant about the Doc Martin music, she said season 6 would be the last. But that can obviously be changed depending on how well season 6 does with ratings and advertising money.
Bloodphobia is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 23:49
Simon Rodgers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,615
Season 6 of Doc Martin will be filmed April-July 2013 and presumably air in the UK in the fall. It is probably the last Season, but the producers have teased us recently with "never say never" comments.
Hi Simon, with over 2000 posts, you are more of a digital spy than most of us, but I don't recall seeing you before on the Doc Martin forum. Welcome. Season 6 is being filmed next Spring and will air in the UK next fall. Read backwards on this thread to see all our hopes and fears, predictions and desiderata for the new season, also our speculation will it, won't it be the last. Martin Clunes at one point last April was sounding very decided that the series would end with S6. More recent intimations seem less definitive and some are now hoping for a S7.
Hello,

I don't really consider myself to be on DS all that much to be honest. I've been a member for best part of two years now, which may explain why I have so many posts.

Thanks for not being sarky with me. With so many posts in this thread I haven't got time to read them all.
Simon Rodgers is offline  
Old 14-09-2012, 23:56
robspace54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 577

To allay what is a mystery to most of you, here is what happened.

My 87-year-old mom was critically injured in an automotive accident Thursday September 6. She was driving to the dentist when a 19-year-old driver did not stop at a stop sign and struck mom's car on the driver's side. It was a full side impact (what we call a t-bone in the USA) followed by the car spinning about and then the front airbags deployed as it fell into a drainage ditch. The younger driver was at fault as stated by two adult witnesses in separate cars and will be charged.

Mom never regained consciousness and with numerous injuries, especially to her brain, died peacefully on Monday September 10. I am convinced this was an accident, though still a tragedy, and it shows the dangers of 'simple' driving, possibly while distracted.

I am not looking for sympathy, though I have received a lot from you (THANKS!), but only want to tell it so that you might tell it to your friends. Please urge them all to drive carefully. You may be doing everything perfectly, but if that other driver is not... then everyone gets hurt.

Mom lived a very full life with wit and spunk, rising from poor upbringings. She overcame the traps of life that snared her two brothers, found a great guy to marry (they were together 45 years), had one kid (me) and she was a widow for nearly 20 years. She did almost everything she wanted to do and that is NOT a waste.

She was loved by all, laughed a lot, never met a stranger, and I am certain would want her untimely death to be of some use as a cautionary tale, if nothing else.

Thank you for letting me share this with you. Be careful out there,

Rob
robspace54 is offline  
Old 15-09-2012, 01:09
umbrellagirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 99
Another photo from today's forestry show.

http://twitter.com/tomTJjames3/statu.../photo/1/large
umbrellagirl is offline  
Old 15-09-2012, 01:21
NewPark
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,202
Episode 3, "Born with a Shotgun," ends on a very positive note. Louisa watching Martin reading to his son. It's probably the most positive note of the Series, until the declaration at the Castle in the finale.

And then it begins, a downward spiral that darkens the next five episodes.

The transition is fairly abrupt. While Eleonor's return is a factor, I'd like to add two other points.

Louisa returns to work. While this couple had (always had?) troubles, her return to work, his lack of understanding of its importance, the juggling of childcare -- these add up to a major rift in the relationship. Martin is clear that he doesn't want her working and literally sabotages her efforts (not necessarily consciously), by picking up her organizational cards, telling her she should be there for JH's feeds, not helping to resolve the childcare issue, etc. His reasons for not wanting her to work; her reasons for wanting to work -- neither one articulates the "real" story behind this vital issue. It's something that still needs to be resolved in Series 6.

Secondly, ownership of space. They are living in Martin's surgery, using Martin's things, and this isn't going to change if they move to London. While Martin is a generous man, it's his Venetian glass she has broken; his coffee maker; his kitchen table; his desk; his London apartment to paint his choice of color. It's not just a question of the lack of shared decision making that is a problem, it's that Louisa and Martin have not created a shared home. She is living in his space -- until she leaves him and returns to her space. This too is an issue that Martin and Louisa must resolve in Series 6.

Getting rid of Eleonor helps (although for both of them, they must exorcise the patterns of behavior they've developed as children to protect themselves emotionally). But they've got some other basic questions that have to be answered and just declaring their love for each other isn't enough.
I agree that the work issue drives more of a wedge between them than does Eleanor. Perhaps part of the reason they didn't communicate about it is that their stay in PortWenn was very time-limited -- so Louisa didn't make the reliable child care arrangements she probably would have made if she were on her own and planning to stay.

To my mind, it's never been plausibly explained why he is so dead-set against her working. One theory is that he wants his son to have the loving mother he never had, but we doubt that his mother ever worked, so how does that apply? It's also been suggested that he has the sense that Louisa is not very good at "multi-tasking" and feels that inevitably, her work, parenting and partnering would not be handled well. Maybe. i think we are meant to suppose that, despite his being in a profession where many of his colleagues are women (although not surgeons, i guess) he maintains traditional, not to say antiquated, views of a woman's role, (Aunt Joan: "your ideas about family are 18th century!" I suppose he has to have those views, in order to play up his incompatibility with a woman who is independent and prides herself on her career.
NewPark is online now  
Old 15-09-2012, 01:31
Eileen0103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 84
Robspace:

So very sorry for your loss. I know it is a shock. There is never anyone quite like your mother. I will say a prayer.
Eileen0103 is offline  
Old 15-09-2012, 01:32
bookfan2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 366
i think we are meant to suppose that, despite his being in a profession where many of his colleagues are women (although not surgeons, i guess) he maintains traditional, not to say antiquated, views of a woman's role, (Aunt Joan: "your ideas about family are 18th century!" I suppose he has to have those views, in order to play up his incompatibility with a woman who is independent and prides herself on her career.
Do you think he would have had that expectation had he married Edith? Or children were never in the equation?

Do we have evidence that Louisa can't multi-task because I think the first couple of months after childbirth, it's hard enough to brush your teeth and comb your hair on the same day so her inability to keep all the plates spinning at that time would have been hard for anyone, let alone someone who is also trying to navigate a new personal relationship.

I think that Martin is old-fashioned in his expectations of how a mother should behave. He might know his own mother's o role model for parenting, but he wants his son to be well-cared for and he knows that Louisa will always do that. It is why he can go to London because he knows that Louisa is a good mother.
bookfan2 is offline  
 
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29.