- This topic has 21 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TESTIFY. I find myself increasingly uncomfortable and not at all worried if I don’t hear the programme. I know I’ve said this before and am repeating myself, but this isn’t something I want from ‘entertainment’. I know life isn’t all hearts and flowers and that this stuff goes on in the real world, to a horrifying degree. But I wouldn’t choose to read a book or watch a TV series if I knew in advance that this was the subject matter, and I don’t want it to this extent on the radio either where, actually, your imagination fills in the gaps to create a terrifying picture.
Thank god, I’ve never been in a situation as extreme as Helen’s. But I have been out with people, plenty of them, who have done what they can to make me believe I don’t know my own mind, that I deserve to be treated with indifference at best and downright unkindness at worst, that what I think or believe is stupid and irrelevant and to be mocked. That’s what happens when you start out with a fairly low opinion of yourself – you find people who confirm your view. Hearing another person, even a fictional one, being treated in that way – and far worse – honestly makes my heart bleed and I can’t really bear it any more. And even worse is the number of people on social media (more on Facebook than on Twitter, to be honest) saying that she deserves it and is just reaping what she’s sowed. I’m not such a huge/longstanding fan of The Archers that I had much of a view of her before all this started, but the idea that anyone, ANYONE would deserve to be abused in such a way is just horrendous.
So, Blithe Spirit, yes. You’re not alone. I do think that Helen is aware of what’s going on – I think she’s struggling to come to terms with it and to face the fact that this ‘perfect’ relationship and family, for which she’s longed for ages, is far from it. I can identify with that too. She’s not stupid – she just can’t bear the thought of facing the reality of ‘failure’ (of course that’s not what it is, but that’s how it will feel to her). I remember telling someone questioning why I stayed with someone (who was no more than 20% Rob) that I felt if I gave into accepting it I’d drown, that I’d never recover. I did in the end of course – and I survived too. But it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life. Helen will have to get there in her own time, and who knows what horrors will have been inflicted on her before she does.
Until I can see the beginning of the end, I can’t pay a lot more attention to The Archers. I’ll get my updates through the medium of Dum Tee Dum.
I respect the fact that people who are uncomfortable with this storyline are choosing to switching off. Enough is enough for some people but I’ve apparently got the stomach for more of this.
There can be no doubt that Rob is inflicting a horribly insidious kind of abuse on Helen so part of me wants to switch off, too – but part of me also recognises that it’s important that this more subtle form of domestic abuse is depicted. Most dramas that have tackled domestic abuse have resorted to showing acts of brutal violence but the definition of domestic abuse is much wider than the physical kind.
And when it comes to showing physical violence, most dramas are very “neat” in resolving matters by way of a very serious injury (whether it’s caused by the victim or the abuser) leading to a prosecution. I wonder if this is where the story is going?
With “my professional hat on”, I reckon that if Helen had fully recognised what’s happening to her, she’d be able to compile a diary of incidents and could use it as the basis for seeking an injuction to protect herself and Henry. However, for the purposes of drama, it’s much less exciting to go to the family court and get an injuction compared to going to the crown court for a bit of adversarial flouncing about in wigs and gowns.
Either way, I can’t see the writers wanting to be rid of Rob just yet. And this is what makes it more interesting to me: in real life, a woman would probably have to endure many more months and even years of this treatment before it occurred to her to take action. But this situation is not going to go on for years in the programme.
If we’ve correctly identified Kirsty as the avenging angel/nemesis, is she going to help drum Rob out of town or is he going to stay but become a reformed character? In my experience, abusers often promise to change, some drift in and out of their partner’s life and some are given an opportunity to see the error of their ways by attending a prevention programme for perpetrators. All sorts of things do happen so I’m still intrigued as to where this will go next.
And that’s why I’m still listening …
I am frustrated with Pat. She is no shrinking violet and as recently as just before the flood, she was wary of Rob. “I just hope it was really her decision” she said of Helen leaving her shop.
Now she seems to be a champion of Rob. “you are usually right about these things”. Now that just doesn’t make sense to me! I know she wants to keep Helen amiable and puts up with Rob for that reason but there is no reason for her attitude to change from wary to jubilant in that time.
Pat is a somewhat older and more experienced than Fallon and Kirsty. She is in contact with Helen and Rob more frequently than they are yet Fallon and Kirsty seem to have twigged something isn’t quite right while Pat is still in some sort of dream world where everything is rosey.
And where is Tom in all this? When he came back from Canada he put Rob in his place pretty quickly. Now he doesn’t even seem to notice that Rob has completely taken over.
What about Shula and Ian. They both know exactly what sort of man Rob is but haven’t seen fit to at least check on Helen’s welfare. Ian is supposed to be her best friend and what? nothing. She hasn’t even informed him she is pregnant, he had to hear it from someone else.
Last of all, what about Rob’s parents? We know Ursula at least exists. Have they been informed of the marriage, or the pregnancy? I know the answer is probably no, and I know it is because Rob has a lot to hide but why isn’t anyone else questioning the fact that they are not part of the picture? You know, maybe like Pat? “How did Rob’s parents react to the news of your marriage/baby?” maybe.
That’s all.
The Rob/Helen storyline is possibly the most compelling plot we’ve ever had on The Archers and it certainly pushes a few boundaries in terms of how disturbing the programme can be, legitimately, without alienating some sections of the audience. (I would say we’ve had strong story-lines before–rape and suicide for example, and I always feel these themes have been executed responsibly.) Personally, I think this story-line is well-written and brilliantly acted, and I appreciate the ‘slow-burn’ way it has unfolded, (although I think perhaps now things need to speed up a little.) For me, the main horror is not so much Rob’s behaviour, chilling as it is, but the fact that Helen doesn’t seem to recognise what’s happening to her/is in denial. The sleepwalking scene was very symbolic, I thought; Helen has, indeed, ‘sleep-walked’ into this marriage; her eyes ‘open’ but seeing nothing! The mention of ‘missing shoes’ was symbolic too; no means of getting away just now; Rob has her ‘barefoot and pregnant’, to quote a well-worn saying. It’s also clever the way Helen, by no means a popular character with listeners (headstrong and previously a control freak in her own way) has been selected by the writers to be the victim here; this stirs up all kinds of complex responses.
The fact that the storyline is triggering such strong responses is a testament to how well written it is – it Rob’s abuse was more blatant, people would write Helen off saying ‘Just leave him’, but with the slow build up of doubt in Helen’s mind I think it will take someone who hasn’t seen her for a while to point out how much she has changed [enter Ian…].
Throwing in the injury to Henry, allowing Rob to righteously say “I told you so” strengthens his position – whenever Helen contradicts him from now on, it’ll be ‘Remember what happened at the fireworks’. Given this story line, I know think it less likely that Helen’s epiphany will come at the end of a hunting accident.
Kiwi_listenerer wrote:
The fact that the storyline is triggering such strong responses is a testament to how well written it is
Yeah… I was prepared for that argument, and I’m equally prepared to refute it.
What I object to primarily is putting listeners through a horrific sequence of events for mere controversy. It’s the fictional equivalent of clickbait, and smacks of audience manipulation.
I believe the Editor has made a conscious decision to portray Rob as so horrific, so beyond evil, as to provoke a reaction in the audience and get people talking. It’s the sensationalist approach so typical of TV programme makers, and inappropriate both to radio and the Radio 4 audience.
Bottom line: I’m not happy to be subjected to repeatedly offensive scenes in the name of entertainment. I’ve studied literature and drama and know how this works: the authorial voice can be incredibly powerful. However, it’s only powerful if your audience actually consents to hear and be affected by it. In this case, critical reaction is in order, and it’s significant that the programme-makers have chosen to remain silent in the face of that criticism.
I hear what Samantha says, and I empathise. An audience should not have to be dragged through an emotional hedge simply because some programme-maker thinks this is what they should be spoon-fed. Brookside did this years ago, with domestic tyrants being murdered and buried under patios and all sorts of hyperbolic nonsense under the guise of ‘portraying real social issues’. We know that argument’s a crock, so why don’t they just give it up and acknowledge we have more intelligence than that.
All listeners have a choice. Those who don’t want to feel like their strings are being pulled can do just the same. Switch off.
I think a lot depends on how this story-line develops. If, as in Brookside, someone, (whether the abuser or the abused) is murdered and buried under a patio, (or if there’s a similar, melodramatic development) then I think we will have entered into a sensationalist dimension that goes beyond the remit of The Archers. The audience won’t, I agree, accept it if The Archers gets too dark and violent, resembling a ‘Nordic noir’ crime drama or equivalent. I would be very surprised if that happens, however; I still have faith in the programme makers. Always, in the past, serious issues such as depression, rape or suicide, have been presented responsibly, with advice taken from professional bodies, help-line numbers given out etc., and I see no reason (so far) to be cynical about the motives of the programme makers for presenting the Rob/Helen plot. Of course, the drama does depend on tension and suspense, and villains always add to that, but surely this story-line is also making us think and be aware of a real-life issue? There are people in the world with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (my diagnosis for Rob!) who might try to manipulate others; it would be good to know how to recognise them and how to deal with them.
This is a very good thread and justifies the existence of this forum on its own – a range of differing opinions on a very sensitive topic being expressed in a respectful and delicate manner. I applaud all of you.
This storyline makes for uncomfortable listening but The Archers has never pretended to be just change-counting and flower and produce shows. I’d rather the producers had never cooked it up as I feel we always got enough balance of whimsy and reality before but the fact is they have and it will feel ver contrived if Kirsty et al brought Helen into the light just in time for Christmas and Rob is banished forever. My understanding is that, as others have said, these situations go on for years and as Roifield has made clear in the past we have the benefit of knowing how Rob treats Helen behind closed doors. What other characters really have an inkling as to what Rob’s doing.
However this storyline makes you feel it needs to play out realistically because real people listen to The Archers. Real people who are like Pat and Ian and others who may suspect something but put it aside on the assumption that the man’s just an arsehole. Real people who may be just like Helen, who are abused and belittled by their partners and have come to think it normal. Surely if one of those people hears this being played out and connects the dots and it saves them or someone they know it’s worth it, isn’t it?
Ms Bubbles is right though, what the fuck is up with Pat and Tom letting Rob take over the shop and cafe?
“I am frustrated with Pat. She is no shrinking violet and as recently as just before the flood, she was wary of Rob. “I just hope it was really her decision” she said of Helen leaving her shop.”
Yes Ms Bubbles. This is a completely false note to the whole sorry affair. Yes we know what Rob subjects Helen to behind closed doors and no one (not even Pat) else does but even so to go from being so suspicious of Rob to being so enamoured of him is odd to say the very l least.
“I still have faith in the programme makers. Always, in the past, serious issues such as depression, rape or suicide, have been presented responsibly, with advice taken from professional bodies, help-line numbers given out etc., and I see no reason (so far) to be cynical about the motives of the programme makers for presenting the Rob/Helen plot.”
Have any warnings been issued by the programme makers Katieking? If not then why not? I believe when Kathy was raped helpline numbers were read out. Why not now?
And as an aside hasn’t Kenton gotten over his depression easily! Again not very believable. From experience you’re never really over it you just have it under control and can deal with it. Another wrong note from the programme makers.
I haven’t and won’t stop listening. But I completely understand those that are.
I can’t ever remember a warning being issued BEFORE an episode of The Archers was broadcast, Aunty Jean, and I don’t think there should be; that would destroy all dramatic impact. I’m sure a help line number was read out after Greg’s suicide was broadcast, however, the usual ‘if you’ve been affected by the issues in this programme etc. I think it’s too soon for any such number/helpline/ blog to be displayed on the official ‘Archers’ site regarding the Helen/Rob story line as the plot is still unfolding.
KatieKing wrote:
I think a lot depends on how this story-line develops. If, as in Brookside, someone, (whether the abuser or the abused) is murdered and buried under a patio, (or if there’s a similar, melodramatic development) then I think we will have entered into a sensationalist dimension that goes beyond the remit of The Archers.
Ok – let’s recap. Enter Rob Titchener. He lies about his marriage from the outset, claiming he made sacrifices to follow his wife’s career, when in fact she did it for him. It’s clear from the outset that he’s a nasty b’stard – cruel, abusive and controlling behind closed doors. He starts an affair with Helen, leaves his wife, then returns to Helen, boffs his wife again and gets involved in a paternity suit (which still isn’t fully resolved).
Meanwhile, at Berrow Farm he wheedles and manipulates. He fiddles the figures, blocks a culvert, causing the village to be flooded and poor Scruff’s death, and nearly kills Charlie Thomas. People are displaced from their homes and as a result, one family has lost theirs (the Grundys).
He then manoeuvres to get Stefan out of the way, and threatens to out Charlie when he begins to get too close to the truth.
He’s inveigles his way into the Archer clan, fights Ian, decks a hunt protestor, forces Shula to lie for him to the police, and behaves like an arras to Adam over the cricket team. Now, he is suspected of causing the botulism outbreak at Berrow.
All the while systematically abusing his wife, alienating her son, friends and family from her, and generally being a complete ****.
Melodramatic? I’d say that ship sailed a long time ago.
Regarding Pat and her failure to spot that anything is wrong, I think we have to look at the long history between Helen and her parents.
Helen in my view has always been an emotional bully with them and with others close to her such as Ian. Tony, for instance, received the cold shoulder for expressing doubts about Helen’s ability to cope alone with a child. And of course in the end, she couldn’t and didn’t have to. Pat was subjected to tears and tantrums from Helen – Pat said the house was ‘racked with sobs’ – when she, Pat, wanted to get in touch with Sharon to find out if Johnny was her grandson or not. When Tony dared to get angry with Rob who was being extremely offensive (about Peggy’s legacy) Helen (who hadn’t even heard what Rob had said) stormed off from Bridge Farm in a huff, moving out within a few days, taking Henry with her of course, the grandson they had brought up for three years (imagine how traumatic for him that must have been) and even started to make threats about their not seeing him very often. (Rob quickly put a stop to that because Pat and Tony are too useful to him when he wants to dump Henry on them.)
In spite of all of this Pat and Tony love her and have always supported her though sadly not receiving much support in their turn. Helen was less than sympathetic about Pat’s depression after John’s death nor did she show the slightest empathy for what Pat was going through when she discovered Johnny’s existence. (I know eventually Helen was persuaded to come round but her initial reaction was a tantrum and ‘how could you do this to ME?’)
Pat is as a consequence absolutely desperate for Helen to be happy and not get ill again. Helen has been most insistent that Rob is marvellous, they must accept him, they are a blissfully happy couple, even to the extent of giving Too Much Information about their sex life. Now Helen is looking a bit peaky, well, hardly surprising since she is pregnant, Pat will say to herself, assuming that Helen will soon be ‘radiant’ once more as women often are in their second trimester.
So I don’t think it’s all that surprising that Pat is wilfully blind to what is going on. Though it’s about time she took the blinkers off!
Fallon and Kirsty are suspicious. Emma ought to be, I’m surprised she isn’t but she seemed to have fallen for Rob’s line, the blissfully happy expectant father. I thought she was sharper than that.
I hope this all winds up soon because as others have said it’s all rather harrowing to listen to. Fascinating, too, but dramatically we don’t need it to take place in real time because some people take ten years or more to realise what is going on when they are being psychologically abused. I don’t think we listeners can stand that!
I suppose in the end, it doesn’t matter how many people spot what’s going on because Helen is the only one who can do anything about it.
Surely such a cataclysmic flood couldn’t be caused by one blocked culvert, Blithe Spirit? I remember Pat Archer talking about where the flood defences had been placed by the council/powers-that-be etc on the rivers in Borcestershire as a contributory factor. Certainly the blocked culvert led to Charlie’s near-drowning, but I never assumed that Rob had caused the entire flood, nor did I assume we were supposed to think that! Rob is certainly a psychological domestic abuser and a liar, a person with a personality disorder, but I find that realistically portrayed. The ‘melodrama’ around Rob seems to be created by listeners, for example, there are those who are saying Rob deliberately killed Scruff and placed his remains in the silage to cause botulism at Berrow Farm and/or he murdered Stefan. That sounds very far-fetched and indeed WOULD be a misjudgement by the writers if they put it in,(not to mention taking the focus away from the main story-line of domestic abuse) but there’s no evidence whatsoever (as yet) that we’re supposed to be thinking along those lines!
Tricky one this. I stopped listening towards the end of September for reasons unrelated to the Rob & Helen storyline** but I think that were it not for the other thing I would have stopped listening anyway.
Why do I think it’s tricky? I think the portrayal of Rob is plausible and realistic, and it’s a story which plays out in real life in homes across the country and so deserves to be told. Much in the way that dear Jack Wooley’s gradual descent into dementia helped raise awareness of the issue, so could the Rob & Helen storyline raise awareness of domestic mental abuse such as what Helen is going through. Could.
It’s tricky because (as others have said) it’s a story which in the real world plays out over many months and more likely years. To be realistic The Archers needs to do the same. But The Archers is also meant to be – at least some of the time surely – entertainment, an antidote to real life, mental candy floss after a day at work with Jill making tea, Susan rearranging the shelves in the village shop and Jazzer being adorable. I used to judge whether I’d got home from work at a sensible time by whether I was home for The Archers. I don’t care any more. I know I stopped listening for other reasons but that probably just tipped me over the edge. I was going anyway.
I said could. I believe the story could have been written so that it raised awareness of domestic mental abuse without being such a difficult listen (is anyone disputing it’s a difficult listen?). Let it tick along slowly, build gradually, let the audience wonder what was going on during a realistic period of months or years. Instead it feels like it’s every day (or at least it did when I was listening). And now we’ve got some saying they can’t listen anymore, some saying they need it to be over soon or they’ll be off too, and to be fair some who are fine with it (I salute your resilience!).
For me, it’s broken the permanence of The Archers in my life. I was close to stopping listening before the other thing happened & from what I understand of what’s happened since I’m in no rush to come back. It will be interesting to see whether there’s a noticeable dip in the audience figures when the next batch come out in Feb 2016 (covering the period from late August to late November). Personally I wouldn’t be surprised.
**The other thing. I know some of you know this already, and I don’t feel like I can leave it hanging so here goes. My Mum died three days before Heather & I gathered from Sam that Mum’s & Heather’s funerals were on the same day. A day or so after Heather died, as if the parallels weren’t hard enough, David made a well-intentioned but utterly useless attempt to console Ruth. I forget what he said but it was everything not to say to someone who has just lost a parent. I shouted at the radio, turned it off and burst into tears. If you’ve been through it you’ll know there’s nothing anyone can say, and the best people are those who understand that. I will be forever grateful to those of you here, on Twitter and in real life who have kept me going – whatever you might think of the Rob & Helen storyline you are all lovely. Long way to go but my Archers family is helping.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.