Suits me just fine


A character can be well behaved and still interesting. A character can also be flawed without being a total piece of irredeemable garbage like Shirley. There's nothing more to Shirley. Her family were brought in, she was given The Vic, previously she had Heather, Ben, Phil, the Wicks family. She's been the same throughout it all. There's clearly nothing else beneath the surface to see.

She'll never be allowed to progress. Shirley is what she is and that's an unplesant bully who deserves no happiness. She's the female Phil Mitchell.


Yes, some people do like Sharon. It helps that she's not a one dimensional drunk who goes round in circles. She's flawed without the need to be a rabid bulldog out to destroy the lives of all those around her. A character like Shirley is too destructive to build anything from. Den, Steve and Janine were not one dimensional characters and could easily be fleshed out and developed. The same cannot be said for Shirley. If it could be done then it would have been by now. She's probably the worst she's ever been at a time when she's got more screen time, more purpose and more characters to interact with than ever before.

Flawed characters are great but it only works if they accept responsibility for what they are and grow. Otherwise they become pigeon holed and have a shelf life. The comparisons you're making are all over the place. Glenda was hardly in the show for any amount of time for anything substantial to be done with her while Patrick is a minor supporting character. The rest are generally considered to be villains, bad boys or bitches and therefore we're not expected to sympathise with them but in the examples you gave it's quite easy to do so since none of those characters are as one dimensional as Shirley. The exception being Max who the writers have lost the plot with and have turned into a walking penis joke.

Shirley has shown no signs of being developed as a sympathetic character. All she does is self pity and shift the blame onto someone else. She is no Pat and she never will be. I don't believe she spent 7 years in the wilderness. She spent about a year in the wilderness with no storylines because the writers gave up on her when they realised Heather was the force that kept her going. Shirley has spent the majority of her time fulfilling a supporting role and that's clearly where her strengths lie. She's no leading lady. At the very least we agree her character has made no progess recently and is close to being a lost cause. If she's still wallowing in the gutter in a year then that's all she'll ever do.


Why? They're virtually the same character except one of them has boobs and the other doesn't.


I agree with this. Shirley is flawed but not in a way that makes her interesting or entertaining.

Actually it's seven children she either abandoned or tried to get rid of. Her own four and Jay, Ben and George. Jay made a comment she didn't like about her relationship with Phil and she tried to throw him out of Phil's house. She wanted Ben gone after the stalking and tried to drown him when she found out he was Heather's killer. She promised to help Heather raise George and attempted to bully Darren into staying away. She then left baby George sitting with his homeless mother in the middle of square while she tended to junkie Phil and snarled at Heather that they weren't her responsibility. Shirley is only motherly when it's convenient for her.

This is spot on. There is a very good test to tell if a character is multi-layered and multi-dimensional and that is to write an outline of their characterisation at the start of their tenure and then now. There should be change. There will always be change if the character is more than a cardboard cutout as writers will build upon different aspects of a multi-layered character as time progresses.

Shirley is essentially the same now as she was 7 years ago - that is the sign of a poor character. She is like billy; goes round and round in circles.

I'm not going to use Sharon as a contrast here but how about someone like Tiffany Raymond: her character progressed and evolved so that she was not the same at the start. Hell, even a character like Pauline who suffered terribly in her later years from the writers had development. For goodness sake look at Chrissie watts. She was on barely 1.5 years yet there was more to her character in one little finger than the whole of Shirley.

It's fine to like Shirley - people may tap into her journey (limited though it is); people may well just like ms Henry's acting. But let's not kid ourselves it's because Shirley is a 3 dimensional character when there is really no evidence to sustain that. An extensive back history does not equal a strong characterisation. People make the mistake in assuming so. Rather it is just one tool that can be used to make a strong characterisation. Again to take Chrissie, who is the opposite of Shirley and had very little back history, but she still had an extremely strong characterisation. I know some people on here are attracted to back histories but again they make the mistake in assuming this ergo means the character is multi-faceted when it doesn't - not if the writers don't incorporate it into the characterisation and evolution of the character.

She is very much like billy Mitchell. They are basically the same character now as when they started.

Shirley is not totally invncible and does not deliberately ruin people lives for the fun of it like Philth.

Plus she does not approach orgasm when hurting someone.

She is flawed and very vunerable behind the facade.

TPTB are ruining her because of Philth - as they always do with any charcater to keep him Top Dog.

Pathetic.

Shirley hasn't progressed because no other EP has explored her, they basically chucked her with Phil and left her there which did not allow her to progress as a character. It may have come late but I believe that with DTC at the helm, we will see a lot more of Shirley behind the facade. There is a lot more potential for Shirley than Billy imo and explaining her history and the reasons that she is the way she is, will allow the viewer to watch Shirley battle her demons and go through it with her. With her family coming into it, it is the perfect start, before they came, Shirley only had Phil really and no character will develop around Phil because Phil is always the 'top dog'. It will not happen over night, but as the year goes on and the family dynamics change, I believe will we see a change in Shirley and see her attempt to change. (as long as they keep her dry, sarcastic humour though and stop her fawning over Philth!)

I think it is more the writers/storyliner/EPs faults for not exploring her family/past sooner, but now is Shirley's time to shine and i'm pleased about it. I do think she has many redeeming features and I can often understand her actions, even if she goes the wrong way about it, it all depends on perspective, I think.

However, If she is in the same position this time next year as she was this time last, then I will also give up, which would be a shame as I like Shirley and I also rate Linda Henry as an actress.

Bullying and hurting people out of spite and jealousy is not much better than what Phil does.

Agree. Shirley isn't that much lower than phil. At least phil, when push comes to shove, can be counted on by those he loves (few though they may be) (eg: helping nadia; doing what kathy ask by getting Ian's kids back from cindy; etc. phil HAS done nice things) And he does love his children - more than Can be said for Shirley - who seems to pick which children she is going to love and ignores the others.

Whilst I agree keyser the EE 2.0 phil is a pretty abominable character; for those of us who have watched since he first came in we have his 90s self to temper his current grantesque characterisation by.

Too true.

It's strange that despite her many flaws and being used as a B list character for many years Shirley became a popular character, and this was before her family was brought in. I imagine this gave TPTB food for thought and they decided to develop her character by bringing in her family and giving her a back story. She has none of the qualities of the characters that are usually developed in this way, the likes of Kat, Stacey, Ronnie and Michael. She doesn't have looks, personality or youth on her side. And yet the viewers (most of them), are intrigued by her. I'd say a lot of this is down to Linda's acting and what she brings to the character.

Of course it could all go pear shaped and this time next year we could be no further forward and Shirley will leave, leaving her family firmly established in the show. Even so I'm glad they're doing it. It's the most enjoyable and interesting s/l running at the moment.

Shirley was never popular in the past IMO. Lots of people hated Shirley. When DTC took over, Shirley became very popular and now she is well liked. DTC created Shirley so I'm not surprised he's using her a lot now.

This notion of Shirley being popular I also see been thrown about of late. What evidence is there for this??? I'm not saying she's unpopular but I fail to see how one can tell. A few thousand ppl on twitter or fb don't necessarily reflect the wider audience. And at least as far as twitter goes she is just as disliked as liked as far as I can tell.

She obviously doesn't sell mags as she is rarely on the covers; she featured prominently during arguably the show's worst period; and now is currently being carried by (yet more) characters who have been introduced for her. Where at one point she was regarded as one of the show's few saving graces, by last year she was largely hated. I did see an upsurge in her favour when dtc moved heaven and earth to save her but it seems clear to me that that is increasingly wearing off. Where at the start of the year there had been a Shirley revival on twitter I now increasingly see a more Even-handed response and IMO that is probably on its way to aligning itself with her lack of popularity last year. She has no more cards to play; how many more resources are going to be chucked at her to try and force her into the role of leading lady.

When Sharon, kat, or Tiffany led the show their popularity was self evident: newspapers constantly covered them cuz articles on them sold (something newspapers don't seem to bother with re Shirley); they were on mag covers. I just don't see all this supposed popularity - maybe I'm missing it I don't know.

And yes Stacey and Tiffany had youth on their side; but kat was in her 30s and Sharon hitting her 40s in her second stint. Angie, arguably the show's greatest leading lady was rather close to Shirley in age certainly closer than she was to Stacey for example. No one would have said age was on Angie's side - yet her popularity was off the charts. (I mean she even beat Shirley in the poll of EE greatest characters held on here recently. Not that that poll really means much but I can guarantee you that in 25 years time Shirley will not be equally as "popular".)

Exactly. Outside of this forum, for the majority, there is a good reception for Shirley, she is relatable and we have seen so many different sides to her that it baffles me how anyone can say that she is not a three dimensional character.
I agree, Linda brings so much to the role, her range of emotion and the ability to allow me to sympathise with Shirley even when she is revealing her worst is a credit her.
I personally think she should have been brought to the forefront years ago!

I'm hoping that with the new EP that Shirley will progress throughout this journey, I love her abruptness, the way she always does the wrong thing, her one liners, sarcasm and how she says it how it is but, it would be nice to see her really getting involved and along with her family, you know? Especially with the possibility of Andy and Sylvie being cast, I hope Linda/Shirley stays for many years to come!

I would definitely say that the Charlie/Dot and Shirley back story are the most interesting stories atm. I just wish they wouldn't keep insisting on Shirley waking up in the street.

If Shirley left, can you imagine how boring this forum would be? Haha.

The polls on here aren't really that clear of a representation of popularity as this forum seems to have its favourites and if you come in with a different opinion, you tend to get bombarded, having said that, she is still in the 'surviver' poll top 20.
Outside of this forum Shirley came 3rd in the favourite Carter poll recently and other polls.

I agree polls in here mean nothing either way. Personally though I don't think I'd take coming 3rd amongst a group of characters who have only been in the show 6 months as particularly encouraging of popularity.

She was. For instance her return last year brought in 8+ million...more than David's return and more than Sharon's return...and she'd only been gone a few weeks. That tells you something about her popularity, and TPTB would have taken note. The viewing figure for the year had been pretty poor, but Shirley's return brought in their best viewing figures for several months.

Ah; but Sharon's return had a nearly 35% audience share - I'd be surprised (but willing to be corrected) if this Shirley return (which I don't recall at all) was as high.

Is this the return after she went to see Carly? Or the return when she went missing with Carl?? She's come and gone so often I get confused.

But fair dues.

However IMO popularity would be reflected in sustained ratings rise. It's why the live ep was such a colossal failure as ratings went back down almost immediately - no one was really interested in the characters that much. In contrast when Chrissie killed den people were interested in her machinations so it was a week or two before ratings when back down.

(Although I agree that producers were probably somewhat disappointed in Sharon and David's return ratings).

Well, Mick came first but Danny Dyer has such a huge fan base that, that was inevitable.
I was just using that as an example that she isn't as unpopular as some make out. She doesn't need the alcohol or to lie in the gutter to make her interesting, TBTP - take note.
Vald is right, her return eps/big eps have brought in some of the highest viewer ratings.


I have noticed that Shirley's 'big, big' episodes have brought in a lot of viewers consistently, it can't be a coincidence.

I can't tell if she is popular or unpopular - that was my initial point. For every bit of evidence one can muster pointing too popularity one can find as much against.

I think Shirley's popularity is like most of the casts - just a matter of conjecture really.

As for her big big eps: this year at least some of that simply has to derive from the enormous (and that is really the only word for it) effort that has been pumped into her character. A large proportion of EE viewers are sheep and will go where directed (and that's the same for any character that has a number of storyline converging on them).

Bib: agree.

It was her return last year after she went missing. It was incredible as she'd only been missing a few weeks and other popular characters who've been gone years have not generated the same interest.

Ah Chrissie. She was something else wasn't she. An absolute one off who would have topped the show for many years had she stayed.

It's a shame that Chrissie can never really return. They had written her into a corner

BIB I can't agree with that statement. If it was the case then the likes of Jack, Derek and Joey Branning would still be there. Despite the producers best efforts they never became popular characters. The viewers make up their own minds and we end up with some very unlikely favourites.

Would George realistically have remembered Shirley? I don't think she's been to visit him, or even mentioned him, since Darren took him.

I think Shirley is a character that people love to look down their noise at.

Deleted. Double post.

I loved Chrissie, it is a shame how they wrote her into a corner, I would love a return for her! She was one of the best characters, ever.

With the return of Janet and Tommy growing up, I would love George to come back permanently, I hope this is one of many more appearances.

I think it's possible that Shirley may have visited him and Darren off screen.

Interesting that it gets Deans back up when she brings George to the Vic...