- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Last year I started a thread questioning whether Rob really does plan and scheme or whether he is an opportunist. Friday’s episode has caused me to return to that idea. His (genuine, I believe) shock that he had hit Helen and the heartfelt speech about “his Helen” etc made me think that all of his actions are his way of protecting and nurturing his family.
I am not defending him or suggesting that he should be treated any less harshly but I have felt for a long-time that the way he is presented by listeners as some kind of satanic schemer just doesn’t add up. He shows his hand too often when challenged, even very weakly (by Tony, Tom, Ian etc); he has engineered himself a non-job on family farm that has no financial prospects for him when he has rich parents and a strong career; in trying to nurture Helen he drives her to depression and ill-health – I really think he believes that this is Helen’s doing and that wrapping her in cotton wool and infantilising her is a selfless, nurturing act. I don’t think he was massaging the Moolag’s books, nor is he skimming the till at Bridge Farm, he didn’t bump-off Stephan or introduce a botulism-laden carcass into the silage. He just craves utter control over and isolation of his family.
I know it’s not going to be a popular position but it seems to me that Rob is not a methodically manipulative evil bastard. He’s a subconsciously manipulative evil bastard and possibly has a deep psychological illness. Ursula has been brought in to show us its roots so when he is exposed we will see her as the villain of the piece and have the life-long storyline of Rob’s “rehabilitation”.
Hello, Olly. Interesting post. First of all, I’d say that ‘craving utter control and isolation’ of one’s family is something no normal person should ever want, and Rob is only a few stages away from the kind of psycho who would imprison them in a cellar. And it’s not just Helen he wants to control; he gets very agitated when contradicted in any way in other situations–hence the punching of the hunt saboteur, the row with Charlie, the heated disagreements with Tony and Tom etc. He believes he knows what’s best every time, and that other people are invariably wrong; his tears on Friday were, I think, those of self-pity, rather than remorse; he was aware that things weren’t working out as he wanted. I don’t think he’s capable of reflecting on his own behaviour or accepting blame—it will always be someone else’s fault in his mind.
Now, the question is, has Rob a) got a personality disorder such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder or is he b) mentally ill/damaged by an abusive childhood?
If it’s a), and there’s plenty of evidence that could be the case, then sadly, nothing can be done, no therapy would work, he’ll never change. We heard Rob say ‘I don’t think it’s me’; that seemed to be a big clue that he’s not aware of how bad he is, but the reason is that he’s a sociopath and will never recognise he’s in the wrong. He believes his own warped logic and lies.If it’s b) then there’s some hope that he could gain some insight into his behaviour or respond to psychotherapy, but I’m afraid it doesn’t look likely!
I don’t think Rob qualifies for Broadmoor. He could, perhaps, be fined or sent to prison for 5 years under the new law against Coercive Control. (I’m fairly sure this story-line was planned to coincide with the new legislation, which seems to me to be a good thing, but problematic i.e the whole question of the burden of proof etc.)
Thanks, Katie. I think you’ve managed to express the real point of my post: Rob doesn’t calculate or plan anything in a conscious way, he can’t stop himself from doing these things and has no idea that they’re wrong.
One indicator to me that Rob I’d not a Satanic Schemer is that he wants psychological help for Helen. You’d think that any mental health professional worth their salt would quickly work out that Rob is the real problem and finally give Helen the help she needs to ditch him.
Agree, Olly, and that would point to sociopathy. His goal is simply to get his own way from moment to moment and keep Helen to himself, although I’m not sure he wants her as much now; he wants his unborn son far more. He’s also rapidly losing interest in Henry too!
I sense that you might be a bit like me, interested in the idea of some kind of ‘cure’ or redemption; it would be lovely, I think, if Rob could see the errors of his ways, reform and respond to anger management training, psychotherapy etc., but realistically, if he’s got a personality disorder, I guess that can’t happen!
Jim – he wants to be able to control her. The control is slipping. Therefore she is broken and he wants her mended so she is compliant and useful again. That does not go against his being a schemer as his motivation is not altruistic.
He wants the farm. He got rid of Tom once. He will now try to break him financially. He wants rid of Jonnie by trying to make him more employable. All that will be left is his “perfect” family and his own farm.
My comment about Broadmoor was wry… of course he won’t be sent there. (I’ve already discussed in some detail the Serious Crime Act 2015 on the ‘Evil Ursula as well?’ thread.)
We identified some time ago that he’s a high-functioning sociopath with NPD – whether that’s informed by his past or not, to be honest, at this point, who cares? The fact is that he behaves the way he does, and Helen isn’t the only one who’s suffering…
It was vaguely interesting at first to try and work out how Titchyknob ticked, but I refuse to collude any longer with the editor’s decision to crank up the insanity volume to 11. Why? Because it has put the audience through a year of deeply unpleasant listening – in some cases, having triggered genuine trauma and distress – and it’s still doing so.
It’s also caused loyal listeners to give up on the programme completely. (See the numerous comments on The Archers online and Facebook pages from people who have been crying out for ages for a lid on this storyline. It’s a genuine shame.)
Giving this any more analytical airtime than it deserves is now just disappearing up the proverbial fundament. It would be fab if we were to turn our attention forward instead and make fun, creative predictions about what’s going to happen when the dark lord finally does get his just desserts (hopefully sooner, rather than later!).
And let’s face it, we’re owed that pay-off. If O’Connor leaves without giving us that, one suspects the pitchforks and burning torches really will be out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.