Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
Collective failure of memory?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
Why is it that none of the characters, not even Pat and Tony themselves, seem to remember the lengths to which P&T were prepared to go to help out Tom when he came a cropper after his adventures with Tamsin & the supermarket?
The received wisdom in TA seems to be that Brian saved Tom's business. But we know that's untrue.
Why are they all getting it wrong? I can understand why Tom might not want to draw attention to it in Brian's company as he made an horrendous strategic mistake. But why Brenda should perpetuate this lie is beyond me - unless she is even more stupid than I thought (and bearing in mind her inability to point out to Tom's parents that the packhouse planning application was a pile of old balls, that is very, very stupid).
Or has the prodteam overlooked what actually happened? -
Message 2
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
to cath in message 1
And the gestation period of a female human being?
And the college ruth attended?
And when Ruth met Sophie before the debacle of SamSummer loopiness? -
Message 3
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
That's pretty much what I have been thinking Rosie and after Brenda's misguided homily this evening I'd be interested to hear whether the prodteam has remembered the back history - or not.
-
Message 4
Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Sunday, 31st August 2008
The received wisdom in TA seems to be that Brian saved Tom's business. But we know that's untrue.Â
Is it? Tony & Pat were prepared to save the business, and incorporate it into Bridge Farm, but they didn't.
Tom chose to go with Brian, even though it meant giving up the organic status, because he wanted to be independent of his parents.
The fact that Pat and Tony were prepared to keep Tom's business going doesn't lessen Tom's obligation to Brian the way things turned out, nor does it make Brian's current attitude more unreasaonable. -
Message 5
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:07 GMT, in reply to cath in message 1
Why are they all getting it wrong?Â
Part of the problem may be that members of the team are younger than the established audience and/or the characters themselves.
They haven't had a (long) lifetime's worth of listening, are and will be perpetually in catch-up mode and each is only doing their job, that is: the hours they get paid for, and some.
They seem think it doesn't matter so long as it works in context, so continuity is no a priority.
In summary, a way of life of listeners, a job for those professionally involved. -
Message 6
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Mon, 01 Sep 2008 06:41 GMT, in reply to cath
It's not a lie, merely a reflection of the reality of the "offer" made by T&P. At worst it is merely an exaggeration of what actually happened.
Yes, Tony & Pat DID offer to help Tom - however it was made in such a manner that it was NOT an offer that would save Tom's business, as the synopses quoted by Rosie in Msg 1 of that thread, and by me in Msg 4, make clear.
T&P effectively offered to clear Tom's /debts/, while Brian offered to save Tom's /business/.
T&P's idea of assistance was to pay off the debts, in return for which Tom's business would cease to exist. It would be an ex-business. A dead parrot, as it were. Instead, Tom would be raising pigs at Bridge Farm, under the Bridge Farm label, and working directly for his parents ("have him more involved in other aspects of the farm"), with no equity stake in what he was doing (since 3yrs ago there was no talk about buying the BF freehold).
The only advantage to Tom would be the clearing of his debt. Nothing else.
Compare and contrast ... Brian comes in as a partner & clears the debts, at a cost of Tom losing his organic status & moving the pigs to Home Farm. Brian's offer recognised Tom's fundamental drive and business acumen, enabled Tom to maintain his independence of his parents & Bridge Farm, to continue running his own (now shared) business, to continue his own brand name, and as the last three years have shown, also expand the business & create a valuable asset.
Incidentally, why is this thread in N&Q - surely should be DtA ? -
Message 7
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Brenda (and therefore the production team) repeated the lie that Brian also said, "Your parents were not prepared to help you!"
They /were/ prepared to help him - on /their/ terms! Brian was also prepared - on /his/ terms. -
Message 8
Posted by smarttedebear (U3614285) on Monday, 1st September 2008
I think it is part of their job to get things RIGHT. If they do not have the interest/time/expertise to do this, is there not another member of the team who can make sure the SWs get it right? It does seem as if the scripts are getting sloppier in terms of accuracy. -
Message 9
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Brenda (and therefore the production team) repeated the lie that Brian also said, "Your parents were not prepared to help you!"Â
Not exactly a lie - it's just that Brine and the Big Bapper didn't complete the sentence, "Your parents were not prepared to help you KEEP TOM ARCHER SOSSIDGES going."
Wicked Baron Aldridge's offer did.
Still, at least Tony's starting to talk some sense now, even if he's doing it for the wrong reasons (to spite Brine). Oh no, sorry, silly me, it's only Wicked Baron Aldridge that does things like that isn't it............. -
Message 10
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Monday, 1st September 2008
We didn't hear it on air, therefore it didn't happen!
"Your parents were not prepared to help you KEEP TOM ARCHER SOSSIDGES going."
Yes, they were - but wanted to change the name of the brand back to the name Helen hd made Pat and Tony call Hayley and Tom's "Ambridge Originals." -
Message 11
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Portmanteau reply:
msg 4
I am not arguing about that point. My point is very narrow: that the protestations that Tom's business survived only because Brian was prepared to help him are /wrong/. There were two separate steps to Tom's business being able to carry on:
1) people coming forward being prepared to pay off Tom's debts and invest in his business; and
2) Tom taking up an offer.
Lots of people have argued that because Tom took up Brian's offer (step 2) that must mean only one offer was made (step 1) that could have saved Tom's business made. That is completely illogical.
Msg 6
MG I think you are interpolating what you would like to believe happened in order to support your views. You say:
<T&P's idea of assistance was to pay off the debts, in return for which Tom's business would cease to exist. It would be an ex-business.>
and yet the synopsis says :
Now how can you justify that as an 'ex business'? Fwiw my distinct impression of that conversation was that it would have been Tom's business within Bridge Farm - he would not have been consigned to being an employee only - in other words he would have had some sort of stake in the new business - just not the senior partner.
You ask why I started this thread in N&Q. I have already realised that a lot of listeners are not prepared to acknowledge something that affects their view of a character - Will did not try to strangle Ed and Tony and Pat refused to help Tom. So their views are based on pure prejudice and while there must be a thesis to be written about that sort of mass behaviour it's not what my OP was aimed at.
What I'd like to know is why Pat & Tony's offer has been so royally overlooked by the /characters/ - was it intentional or had the prodteam forgotten all about it? -
Message 12
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Monday, 1st September 2008
"Your parents were not prepared to help you KEEP TOM ARCHER SOSSIDGES going."
Yes, they were - but wanted to change the name of the brandÂ
So, no more Tom Archer Sossidges then; not much of an offer from P&T really. Of course, in their unreal world they probably thought it was an offer so good that it glowed in the dark. -
Message 13
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Monday, 1st September 2008
So their views are based on pure prejudiceÂ
Sorry to be blunt, but it's not only their views. -
Message 14
Posted by rosietonthemove (U2260932) on Monday, 1st September 2008
message 12
He'd have kept making John's sausages, and kept them where Helen wanted them, on the family farm he is suddenly so keen for his parents to buy for his and his sister's beneft : he would have had the £40,000 debt paid off: he'd have been doing his own thing without beastly brian.
All he would have lost was the brand name, hardly important, really. -
Message 15
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Monday, 1st September 2008
Let's not get into a discussion about where Helen wants sossidges to be kept, please.
-
Message 16
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
>Part of the problem may be that members of the team are younger than the established audience and/or the characters themselves.
Well, we're all younger than Jack, but most of us are in our 40s or 50s (ie exactly with the majority of the audience)
>They haven't had a (long) lifetime's worth of listening,
To the contrary, most of us are lifetime (or adult lifetime) Archers listeners.
>They seem think it doesn't matter so long as it works in context, so continuity is no a priority.
Absolutely not. Continuity is very important to us, because it's important to our listeners. In this case, I would argue that our interpretation of Pat and Tony's offer of support is different from yours.
>In summary, a way of life of listeners, a job for those professionally involved.
No, a way of life for us too. Many of the production team have upwards of fifteen years working on the programme, and several of the writers more than twenty. It's all-encompassing, and far more than just a job. -
Message 17
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
No need to apologise to me GT49er, I was trying to be polite.
Keri, as you've appeared, what is the answer to my question - has Tony and Pat's original offer been forgotten about? -
Message 18
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
<-treply to cath in message 17
Thank you, cath - I thought it was just me who found it odd that the original questions was ignored, in favour of all those odds and ends being picked up. -
Message 19
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
Actually I wasn't apologising to you, I was being polite about the need for bluntness.....
Keri's answer very adeptly puts Tony and Pat's 'offer' into perspective; it wasn't that great, and it wasn't written that way. Sorry (not an apology) to disillusion you, but not many people would have been too keen on accepting an 'offer' like that. -
Message 20
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
message 19
It is NOT the question of whether the offer should, or should not have been accepted.
It is the denial that Pat and Tony /made/ /an/ /offer/ /AT/ /ALL/ by the production team that is being questioned.
They seem to think having characters repeat, "Your parents werent prepared to do anything for you Tom," interspersed with "Brian is the only one who wanted to help you" will wipe out the memory of those of us who heard. Pat. and. Tony. make. Tom. an. offer. -
Message 21
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Tuesday, 2nd September 2008
Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:43 GMT, in reply to Keri Davies - Host
Thanks, Keri, and for clarity's sake I will add that this is not how it is or may be, but how it seems to me.
I don't have a particular take on Pat and Tony's offer of support because my recollection of what happened may be hazy. What I do recall is the timing of Abi's premature birth and the error regarding where Ruth went to college, to offer two examples of where 'lack of' and 'continuity' could be included in the same sentence imo. -
Message 22
Posted by posh_scouse_pinnedwithpride (U2514024) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
and twice dead aunties....
-
Message 23
Posted by Keri Davies (U2219620) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
>where 'lack of' and 'continuity' could be included in the same sentence imo.
Well, to err is human, but it's certainly not because we're cavalier about these things. -
Message 24
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Thanks Rosie, exactly so, I can't understand why it should be so difficult to understand the distinction between on the one hand, making an offer and on the other hand, whether or not the offer should have been accepted. The former is about facts, hence the query in N&Q and the latter, which you and I have not been discussing at all, is about opinions. Hey ho.
I am taking Keri's response as a diplomatic acknowledgement of our suspicions. -
Message 25
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:14 GMT, in reply to cath in message 24
Surely it's overstating the case to say the prod team have been misleading about this. We have heard two characters say Pat and Tony wouldn't help Tom save his business. Brian offered Tom the continuation of the brand and an independent business (albeit in partnership with Brian) and from his point of view Pat and Tony offered neither of these. Brenda wasn't with Tom at the time of the business collapse and so wasn't privy to the negotiations between Tom and his parents - her version is obviously 2nd hand and seen through somebody else's distorting prism. -
Message 26
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Mike I haven't said that the prodteam have misled the audience - my suspicion is that they /forgot/ that Tony and Pat ever made an offer to help out Tom and so all the dialogue has been about Tom's parents not helping him. Which is the line that has been picked up by plenty of Mbers to try and rebut what is in the synopses and what lodged in my brain (and thankfully Rosie's otherwise I'd think by now I'd have gone mad) that Tony and Pat offered to help Tom out when his business failed.
I don't care WHY Tom refused Pat and Tony's offer: the FACT is that they MADE HIM AN OFFER. Sorry for shouting but really. -
Message 27
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Yes, I agree that Pat and Tony did make an offer. I remember it and I believe the prod team did too. What I'm saying is that what we have heard on air is the perspective of two CHARACTERS who have a different view (Brian) or hrard a different version (Brenda).
-
Message 28
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Not so Mike. There was no reason why Brian should have known but Brenda did.
-
Message 29
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:21 GMT, in reply to mike .... in message 27
Brenda heard the version /we/ heard:
Friday 19th August 2005
Poor Tom has had a solicitor's letter. He needs to raise £9000 to keep out of trouble. Brenda is sympathetic, and has some good suggestions to make, but it's no use. There's no possibility of a get-out clause in the lease for the business units, the machinery is mainly leased anyway and the feed company is taking him to court for non-payment - so Tom knows he will have to climb down and accept his parents' offer. -
Message 30
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Wednesday, 3rd September 2008
Prat and Moany offered to pay of the debts, take over the assets and absorb the business into Bridge Farm. In the nick of time, Brine made an offer to keep TA sossidges going. So, let's count the offers made to save TA sossidges....errmmm....that's one.
Keri summed up his and the other SW's point of view very succinctly and accurately....I don't think they've 'forgotten' anything.
Prat and Moany offered to bale out Tom by paying off his debts, but not to not to help him keep his business going.
Shouting won't change anything. -
Message 31
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
message 30
But it is Brian saying, "You weren't prepared to do anything to help him!" that was wrong for the plot.
Pat and Tony /were/ prepared to help him. Tom /was/ going to accept their offer of help.
This is what seems to have been forgotten. -
Message 32
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
I find that in real life when people recount things that happened some time ago they are often selective about what happened, not necessarily out of a desire to deceive, but because they have genuinely come to believe that what they are now saying is what actually happened. I found it perfectly credible that Brian should say what he did, even if it doesn't accord with what actually happened at the time. It's what he now believes.
-
Message 33
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
eply to Dragonfly in message 32
But can /Tony/ have forgotten it? he would have strenuously /denied/ "not being prepared to help," surely? -
Message 34
Posted by _ShropshireLad_ (U10844552) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:20 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 33
But can /Tony/ have forgotten it? he would have strenuously /denied/ "not being prepared to help," surely?Â
Perhaps he's a bit embarrassed that he didn't offer Tom unconditional funding, and feels guilty that he is partly responsible for the current situation. -
Message 35
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
message 34
Why would he be embarrassed? Pat and Tony thought long and hard about what they could afford to do, without bankrupting themselves, and went through it (on air) in great detail, about their offer. -
Message 36
Posted by jennet_device (U8197637) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
But would you really want to be helped to 'build the business gradually' by Tony? I'm not surprised Tom moved over to Brian. I hope Tom goes on working hard for Brian, rather than putting all his energies into Bridge Farm. He does owe Brian his semi=independence and his more-or-less success. He's a much better proposition for Bridge Farm now, and more on a level with his father.
-
Message 37
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
message 36
Probably.
But Tony and Pat made an offer. They did /not/ refuse to help their son, as brian said. -
Message 38
Posted by kk forever in the cyber atlantis of mustardland (U4670994) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:03 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 37
But Tony and Pat made an offer.Â
But they didn't make him an offer he couldn't refuse ... so he jumped out of the frying pan with a petulant sizzle. Got a bit of a shock iirc, when he realised that Brian expected him to do all the day-to-day pig husbandry himself - no entrepreneur worthy of the name would expect himself to be dirty his hands in such a stinking midden
-
Message 39
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
message 38
Yes. We know.
Tom accepted Brian's offer.
Tom did not accept Pat and Tony's offer.
But the query was,
Why did Brian say to Tony
"You were not prepared to help your son!"
when we know, and Tony knows, that they /were/ prepared to help their son? -
Message 40
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:27 GMT, in reply to RosieT in message 39
I recollect that Tony had basically gone to see Brian to be rude and shouty and Brian retaliated in like style, so perhaps it isn't surprising that Tony didn't spend much time correcting the detail of Brian's insults? -
Message 41
Posted by mike (U2254029) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:31 GMT, in reply to mike .... in message 40
PS Of course if Tony had been posting on a MB he would have had time to reflect and post a lengthy rebuttal of many of Brian's points, but you often don't have the time to come out with the best reply when you are involved in a real-time argument, do you? -
Message 42
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
<-timly to mike .... in message 41
Don't I? -
Message 43
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Evening Rosie, still batting away I see.
I can understand that Brian might have said to Tony 'you weren't prepared to support him' but what I /don't/ believe is that Tony would have tacitly accepted that accusation by saying, as he did, 'I was teaching him a lesson about business'. Tony would have said something about evil Brian luring his boy away from his parents, standing between them, he'd said enough along those lines as it was.
At the very least, when he reported back to Pat he would have said how dare he say that after all we offered Tom etc etc. But he didn't.
And Brenda could have, should have pointed out that Tom chose to accept Brian's offer, that it wasn't his only course of action and that he should face the consequences of that choice. But she didn't.
There has been not one reference to the offer. And it's such a big point with respect to Tom's relationship with his parents that it must have been referred to at some point in all the histrionics. Without it from a narrative pov newer listeners will believe, as so many posters have stated in the last couple of weeks, that Brian was right and that Pat & Tony weren't prepared to help Tom. Which we know is wrong.
And I take Keri's silence on this point as a tacit acceptance of the offer having been forgotten about. A shame, because the absence of a reference to it must affect perceptions of the narrative. Perhaps we can have something in a few months time, an admission by Tom of their generosity which he chose not to accept for his own reasons (and I'm not going to argue about that). -
Message 44
Posted by GT49er (U1745246) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
And I take Keri's silence on this point as a tacit acceptance of the offer having been forgotten about. Â
Not so. Keri made his point very succinctly - there was no offer to save Tom Archer Sossidges as a business, except for Brian's. He's probably got better things to do (like writing some more excellent scripts) than get involved in protracted pedantry on here. -
Message 45
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Thursday, 4th September 2008
Thursday 28th August
Tony's meeting with Brian doesn't go well. Brian can't understand why he wants Tom to turn his back on a successful business. It was Brian who invested in Tom when Tony turned his back on him.
But Tony /did/ /no/ turn his back on Tom - and the scripties could have made Tony say 3 words - "That's not true!" or even 2 - "I didn't!"
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.