Discuss The Archers  permalink

Who's worse Vicky or Brenda?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 151 - 189 of 189
  • Message 151

    , in reply to message 149.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    It is by no means a certainty that an author, even one whose name is a household one, has money to spare for collecting valuable bears. Most of them don't, especially in the SF field; the Terry Pratchetts are a minority. One of the best I know, and with books that are well-known and respected all over the place, keeps cows to suplement his income -- he gave up keeping pigs because it was impossible to make a profit keeping pigs... (Someone tell Tom!)

    But I don't think it was Aunt Mollie who introduced Ray Bradbury into the thread as having collected bears and thus (by implication) made the collecting of bears OK, was it?

    Report message1

  • Message 152

    , in reply to message 148.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    Oh I know the style police would always fault me becuase I like to have things around that remind me of people or places and I don't' care that they aren't fashionable or stylish, or are just clutter. They are my clutter and it is my home so what ever ..

    Report message2

  • Message 153

    , in reply to message 151.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    No, I brought up the subject of Ray Bradbury, and AM attempted to distinguish him from Vicky (she clearly felt the need, I don't know why) by referring to valuable antique bears (RB) as opposed to tat (Vicky).

    I think that collecting teddy bears is absolutely fine. By anyone. As is collecting pretty much anything else, even dolls. I don't understand why anyone sneers at anyone else just because they have different tastes.

    Report message3

  • Message 154

    , in reply to message 153.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    No, I brought up the subject of Ray Bradbury, and AM attempted to distinguish him from Vicky (she clearly felt the need, I don't know why) by referring to valuable antique bears (RB) as opposed to tat (Vicky).

    I think that collecting teddy bears is absolutely fine. By anyone. As is collecting pretty much anything else, even dolls. I don't understand why anyone sneers at anyone else just because they have different tastes.  
    ii was actually responding to Chris's post about there being arctophiles and arctophiles, rather than suggesting that RB's bears must be valuable antique ones.. Don't know whether they are or not. you then decided I was drawing a distinction between RB and Vicky.

    Report message4

  • Message 155

    , in reply to message 153.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    I think perhaps what was being done was suggesting that Vicky is a particular sort of person, and that the collecting of bears might be part of that particular persona. This might well be right: Lladro figurines and curtain swags and bears and thinking that someone of fourteen wants heart-shaped cushions, pastel colours and fairy lights in her bedroom, that type of person? As contrasted with someone who would think that Phoebe would want primary colours and a roller-blind to keep the light out and collects guitars and pewter tankards or milk bottles with slogans on them. It does provide a shorthand sketch of the person, that sort of thing.

    Report message5

  • Message 156

    , in reply to message 154.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    I think the arctophiles vs arctophiles point was in response to my post re RB vs Vicky. So I think it was a fair inference by me that you were making the distinction between RB and Vicky. You said it was fine to collect valuable teddy bears and said that Vicky's bears were old tat, although you have no knowledge of that either, it was a pure assumption on your part.

    Coming back to the point at issue, I think it's facile sloppy and wrong to brand someone as childish because they collect/have teddy bears.

    Report message6

  • Message 157

    , in reply to message 156.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    Ah! It was my point about there being arctophiles and arctophiles -- by which I meant that whether or not RB had collected bears and thus been an arctophile, Vicky got rid of hers in plastic sacks when she got bored with them -- which I said at the time I had never known an arctophile do -- and that I doubted her status as a true lover of bears, and thus as a true arctophile.

    I still do, because of her cavalier attitude to them.

    I didn't brand her as childish, though: possibly unworthy to have charge of bears, but not childish.

    Report message7

  • Message 158

    , in reply to message 152.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    Hear hear Gins - you collect whatever you want .. We don't collect as such - but seem to have inherited enough (what other people would call) tat - but we keep for sentimental reasons.

    Just looking across at our fireplace now - its full of brass and copper stuff inherited from both sets of parent. Then there are odd photos plus stuff our children made and gave us. Wooden elephant is one. Another is prezzie from US - a nutcracker doll . Probably should be for Christmas but I lurve him ..

    And as for china - that's behind glass doors on IKEA construct - also inherited plus stuff from Dedza pottery .. all very vulgar I suspect for minimalist we are NOT
    JPBS

    Report message8

  • Message 159

    , in reply to message 158.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    I really am trying not to accumulate more stuff and you can' t keep all of others collections but I have bits picked up on my travels and the like...I am looking at my gran's dog collection (mysister's now but she doesn't have space atm.. Now a few are good china , a few are damaged but when grannie was alive I realise the little plastic one I got with my pocket money for her birthday when I was about seven had a place of honour. Objectively horrible but given with much love and because grans are grans it wasn't shoved at the back or tactically lost..by such small things is love shown...

    Report message9

  • Message 160

    , in reply to message 159.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    Well exactly Ginners. When Ma-in-Law died we had to clear out her stuff - we decided it must have been breeding there all those years !!

    We gave it to members of family as we thought appropriate . .. some - when we turned over we found sticky label put there by MiL- on it was name of family .member
    JPBS

    Report message10

  • Message 161

    , in reply to message 133.

    Posted by Cuddly Giant Squid (U14994690) on Saturday, 30th June 2012

    Is anyone actually disputing that the donation of goods by Mike to Roy and to Brenda is extremely unequal? 

    I think that this comes to the point. Given a choice between Roy and Brenda, I can't understand why Mike didn't throw himself under a bus, after leaving every worldly possession to the Snail Protection League.

    Report message11

  • Message 162

    , in reply to message 156.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    I think the arctophiles vs arctophiles point was in response to my post re RB vs Vicky. So I think it was a fair inference by me that you were making the distinction between RB and Vicky. You said it was fine to collect valuable teddy bears and said that Vicky's bears were old tat, although you have no knowledge of that either, it was a pure assumption on your part.

    Coming back to the point at issue, I think it's facile sloppy and wrong to brand someone as childish because they collect/have teddy bears. 
    OK I will concede that point. I would however like to point out that my dislike of Vicky really isn't based on her taste in ornament or penchant for collecting teddy bears. I'm not a snob IRL however I might come across in this thread in talking about a fictional character!

    Report message12

  • Message 163

    , in reply to message 162.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Fair dos AM, I'm not a murderer in RL either however much I want the BF lot (both lots, except Tony) to be bumped off.

    And talking of Bridge Farm I think I might be more likely to believe that Brenda was genuinely concerned for her dad not being exploited for his money if she hadn't acted as chief cheerleader and bottle washer to the SLT, sympathising with his travails in getting his recalcitrant parents to take out a huge mortgage for his benefit and in nearly killing his father to do more physical work while he, Tom, had so much networking to do.

    If she'd just put the brakes on once by saying, Tom don't you think you should ease up on your dad rather than work him even harder, I might think that she had some principles. But she didn't and I don't think she does. Everything she says comes from selfishness, concern for herself and Tom (her meal ticket) and nothing for her family or anyone else. They are a very well matched pair.

    Report message13

  • Message 164

    , in reply to message 130.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Agreed, GR. It isn't on to treat children so differently. But then Mike isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    Report message14

  • Message 165

    , in reply to message 158.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    <
    Just looking across at our fireplace now - its full of brass and copper stuff inherited from both sets of parent. >

    Mass Observation did a survey on what people kept on their mantelpieces back in the 40s and a fascinating read it is too.

    Report message15

  • Message 166

    , in reply to message 163.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Surely, cath, Brenda wanting to keep her old bedroom just as it always had been even though she has moved out of the house, and worrying more about how she feels about Betty's death than about the wellbeing of her brother, is as selfish as worrying about her father's (putative) money and her inheritance (if any) for its own sake? I don't see how she could come out of it seeming *altruistic*, whichever of the two motives we think she had.

    Report message16

  • Message 167

    , in reply to message 165.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    The underpinning conundrum in all this is how Brenda stays with the repellent Tom, treated as she is by him as some sort of serf / lackey/phone minder and cook. Awful. It is the least likely tie up in TA, apart from Vicky and Mike. She is rarely told anything, was kept almost wholly in the dark about BF / ready meals, and was made to look supernumerary to his life style in very conceivable way.

    I think she is a sad and disappointed woman: once feisty journalist, then media graduate, changes course and comes home to look after her Dad when beloved Mum dies, only to see him fall into the clutches of the most colossal trampling, bullying egotist of a woman, and turns into a burger flipper and Amside tea-maker.

    A really interesting SL could be made out of her chucking up the whole thing and getting a job a long way away.

    Q: would either Mike or Tom even notice she'd gone? The answer is no, and that tells you how she has been incrementally destroyed by the writing.

    Report message17

  • Message 168

    , in reply to message 167.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    The underpinning conundrum in all this is how Brenda stays with the repellent Tom, treated as she is by him as some sort of serf / lackey/phone minder and cook. 

    Perhaps she is drawn to his big sausage



    business?

    Report message18

  • Message 169

    , in reply to message 165.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    It it still available?... sounds just the thing for a nosey old bat like me

    Report message19

  • Message 170

    , in reply to message 167.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Yes.. she really has no self esteem - she is constantly massaging Tom's oversized ego but at the same time there is the constant reluctance to make the step into marriage and having children.

    Now she may just not want children and having become an aunt at an early age she won't be blind to the work and commitment or it could be that she doesn't want children with Tom becasue she knows that Tom would leave her with the hard yakka and expect to come home to fed, clean pyjamaed moppets for him to read a story to before they conveniently go to bed and sleep through...

    So I would like her to get away.. I wish she had ages ago.

    Report message20

  • Message 171

    , in reply to message 167.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    >I think she is a sad and disappointed woman: once feisty journalist<

    She had a few moments but spent most of her time whining and moaning and chasing after men - Scoddy and, iirc, she even went after Simon Gerrard once! She was a very shallow and stupid young woman in those days.

    > then media graduate<
    the only time I had any respect for her as a character was when she left home to go and do a decent degree.

    >changes course and comes home to look after her Dad when beloved Mum dies, only to see him fall into the clutches of the most colossal trampling, bullying egotist of a woman, <

    I think you've got the chronology the wrong way round. She came home on the pretext of looking after Mike but moved out very quickly to live with the SLT. She came back briefly to live with Mike when the SLT treated her like ordure but was readily tempted back with the promise of a large rock that would make her friends (who are they?) jealous. Shallow is as shallow does. Four years after her mother died, and after she'd announced her own engagement to the SLT, Mike proposes marriage to Vicky.

    I think it's pretty outrageous to blame Brenda's woes on Vicky. She is the author of her own misfortune (if it is misfortune to marry a bloke who's going to get his mitts on a £1m+ farm) but if she doesn't want any of that she could change. But she won't. She is and has always been drawn as a shallow joyless whining grasping and selfish character. That makes her an excellent match with the SLT if you ask me.

    Report message21

  • Message 172

    , in reply to message 166.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    > Brenda wanting to keep her old bedroom just as it always had been even though she has moved out of the house, and worrying more about how she feels about Betty's death than about the wellbeing of her brother, is as selfish as worrying about her father's (putative) money and her inheritance (if any) for its own sake? I don't see how she could come out of it seeming *altruistic*, whichever of the two motives we think she had.<

    Yes, I agree with that CG. There just isn't anything about her to like or admire imo.

    Report message22

  • Message 173

    , in reply to message 171.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    I'm pretty sure Tom and Brenda got back together before they got engaged. it wasn't the promise of engagement that lured her back.

    Report message23

  • Message 174

    , in reply to message 171.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    She came back - from living a distance away to live at home. She moved out to live with Tom - a very short distance away from her Dad in comparison.

    She was at her best during her journalist days when she was struggling to get her stories - but was frequently relegated to junior reporter stuff (weddings etc ).
    JPBS

    Report message24

  • Message 175

    , in reply to message 173.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    >I'm pretty sure Tom and Brenda got back together before they got engaged. it wasn't the promise of engagement that lured her back.<

    Yes, true AM. He proposed very shortly after she went back to him.

    Report message25

  • Message 176

    , in reply to message 175.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    it's not unusual when couples get back together after a big bust up that they want to put some sort of seal on it, whether moving in together, buying a house, getting engaged or married or even having a baby.

    Report message26

  • Message 177

    , in reply to message 176.

    Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    The thought of a Brenda/SLT sprog is too much I'm afraid. What a creature to inflict on the world.

    So I will give Brenda marks for resisting the baby route.

    Report message27

  • Message 178

    , in reply to message 169.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    You would have to visit the archive - although that is great fun of you like that sort of thing [which I do].

    Report message28

  • Message 179

    , in reply to message 178.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Looks like I shall have to be nice to Brighton resident sister... looks like the sort of place I could virtually take up residence in..

    Report message29

  • Message 180

    , in reply to message 179.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Talking of Brighton, what has happened to Sunny?

    Report message30

  • Message 181

    , in reply to message 171.

    Posted by Kentish_Woman (U13711572) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    I'm with Old Cath on this.

    I recall Brenda saying - at around the time of Scott - that she wasn't going to settle for anyone who had never been further than the end of his farm gate .

    She showed promise when she went off to college, but then changed courses on a fairly flimsy excuse, and shacked up with Tom. Her brief foray into working away from Ambridge was similarly curtailed. Brenda gives the appearance of someone who just can't handle real life, and would sooner live off a man than make her own way.

    I wonder if some of her dislike of Vicki isn't down to jealousy. Vicki was before her marriage a trained professional woman with her own home. She met Mike and married him because she wanted too - not because she was too pathetic to manage by herself. In her own way Vicki has made a success of her life, whereas Brenda has yet to achieve on any front.

    Report message31

  • Message 182

    , in reply to message 112.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Following the deaths of his parents my husband took possession of the house but took out a mortgage on it to pay his sister her half of the probate value. Do we know for sure if such an arrangement will not be made in this case? As the years progress with Roy and Hayley working their ability to pay such a mortgage would surely develop, Also do we know if Mike has written a will in relation to what will happen visa is Vicky surely she only gets it all if he dies intestate or has his will that way?
    In any case I still think that Mike's money is his to do with as he pleases and Brenda has no right to act like he is only the temporary custodian of her inheritance but I know it is a minority view.

    Report message32

  • Message 183

    , in reply to message 181.

    Posted by Auntie Molly (U14110968) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    I think she married Mijke oartly because no one had asked her before.... And Vicky's hardly a role model for young professional independent women. She cut her working hours down to two days a week the second she married Mike, because she "had a husband to look after" (her words).

    Report message33

  • Message 184

    , in reply to message 180.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    I hope he is just having a blast with no time for us old fogies but some people were quite nasty to him for no real reason and I wouldn't blame him if he had better things to do .. however he may return with AMEX.

    Report message34

  • Message 185

    , in reply to message 182.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Mike told Brenda that she would get her share when he was dead so she was promised it. Roy and Hayley got a mortgage to pay for the alterations and generously offered to pay half the legal costs to separate the properties!!!!

    Mike may have made a will but it would have been invalidated by his marriage to Vicky. Even if Vicky doesn't inherit absolutely she woudl have the right to live in the house for her lifetime so given the proximity in ages Brenda is very unlikely to get any benefit unlike her brother who is benefitting now and will only benefit more as his mortgage is gets more manageable as his salary increases and is paid off. It is hardly likely to be onerous even now since they had been saving for years and the highest estimate of converston costs I saw but the savants of ML was£100K Sinc they had the lion's share of the property they are never going to need to move unless they make further additions to the family,

    SO while in principle I quite agree that Mike can do as he pleases with his money it is grossly unfair IMO to have treated his children so differently.

    I am sure that there would have been away to provide Roy and his family with a roof over their heads without making the absolute gift that may impoverish Mike in his age and totally deprive Brenda. There are two issues here. Mike can do what he likes with his money so I suppose it is his right give one child much and the other nothing But it isn't reasonable to expect Brenda not to mind.

    Report message35

  • Message 186

    , in reply to message 183.

    Posted by Kentish_Woman (U13711572) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    I think she married Mijke oartly because no one had asked her before.... And Vicky's hardly a role model for young professional independent women. She cut her working hours down to two days a week the second she married Mike, because she "had a husband to look after" (her words).  Why do people generally assume that if a man is single it is through choice, while if a woman is single it is because no one has asked her?


    Vicki was 'of a certain age' when she married - and so was I like her, I went part time. I would not have done this as a young woman, but when you do marry late in life you are aware that you may hot have very long, and need to make the most of being together.

    Report message36

  • Message 187

    , in reply to message 186.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single woman in possession of a man with a good fortune must be in want of a husband.

    Report message37

  • Message 188

    , in reply to message 186.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Why do people generally assume that if a man is single it is through choice, 

    I don't think people do assume that - unless man is attractive and rich. More likely to be because he could not find a mate.

    Report message38

  • Message 189

    , in reply to message 186.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Sunday, 1st July 2012

    Did I imagine it or did Vicky say something about having been messed around by a previous partner who wouldn't commit. In which case I don't blame her for being happy to fins someone who would. Nor do I blame Mike for wanting to remarry. In fact I believe it is those who hae been happiest in their marriages who are more likely to want to repeat the experience if left alone. Which stands to reason .

    Report message39

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC 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.