DON’T SHOOT ME! I HAD TO DO IT! AND IT’S LONG!! SPOILERS FOR SERIES 3!
I originally posted this on 1st July, but then messed up the cut and did all manner of thick things, so I pulled it, sorted it out and - here it is again! It's very long - sorry - but I'm too dumb to be able to split it into sections. It's mainly a character study of Guy, but with a bit of Izzy chucked in for good measure.
( what I think makes Guy tick - sort of... )
Comments 35
I agree with so many of your points, although I would put a slightly bigger age gap Gizzy and Izzy. Ghislaine could have had multiple miscarriages, stillbirths, Roger not being around, to account for the age difference. And there's about ten years between Archer and Izzy. Izzy could have similar problems. etc., which would explain the lack of kiddies with her and Thornton.
I love your assessment of Guy. Poor lad!!! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Reply
Oh, Lor - I'll miss new screencaps of the gorgeous Guy, but he won't vanish as long as writers like you keep his flame burning.
Reply
First, brilliant work!
Second, I wonder whether, possibly in secret, the writers actually did see prior episodes and the experience so traumatised them it scrambled their brains and any capacity to write?
Third, whatever period RH is set in isn't mine - more 19th me - but it's my understanding that marrying the daughter of the house at childbearing age was the duty of the male head of the house and the daughter of the house. So, marrying Izzy was not just a necessity, it was also an expectation. And, I can't believe that Thornton was the only abusive husband. I would, in fact, have thought that 'abuse' in our context, wasn't actually relevant then. Rape in marriage has only comparatively recently been addressed in some cultures. So, for a woman to leave her husband would have drawn censure for her actions and not his, whatever they were. Guy's reaction was simply normal. But, I'd be really appreciative to be told if I've misunderstood that bit of history.
Reply
You're spot on with your remarks about marriage - Izzy would have been married off at a comparatively young age even if her father had lived. He would have arranged it to accrue some benefit to the Gisborne family, either in status, protection or influence and she'd have had a dowry which would have given a greater choice of suitor.
Wife beating in the 12th century was nothing unusual - as you say, it's only comparatively recently that the norm has been for more equality within marriage. Nothing in the Izzy marriage was out of the ordinary experience of many other women, which is why I have such a problem on their focusing on it as the hook on which to hang her hatred of Guy. By all rights, he should have marched her straight back to her husband, but of course, this is Guy, so he gets NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER for not doing so. Grrr!!
Reply
Just one thing I've been thinking and in a funny kind of a way what you've said about insecurity hits on it. I've seen comments by people who are angry, or at least unsympathetic, to those of us who are willing to go along Guy's journey of redemption. And, it occurred to me that the reason we do it is because the possibility of redemption and transformation are core to at least Western philosophy. What Guy gives us is that possibility - he makes mistakes (OK, they're pretty big mistakes but we're dealing with panto here). Vasey is Vasey, and Marian is Marian and Robin is Robin. With none of them can we connect with that capacity to be better than we are. It's only Guy who's got that kind of humanity.
Mind you, what worries the merry heck out of me is the very remote possibility that any one of the writers even considered that. Remotely. They couldn't. Could they?
Reply
Reply
Reply
I was dreading his death scene, as I'd read the spoilers on here and the original poster seemed to find it utterly bleak and hopeless. It really was a lot better than that - he died a hero, proud and brave (and competent in a fight for once!) and gained his own peace and freedom. Wasn't RA great and wasn't he lit beautifully?
My only quibble was that LJ didn't rush in, sling his body over his shoulder and take it off to give it a decent funeral...sob!
Reply
Reply
I find it fascinating that the supposed villain of the piece has a back story that really warranted greater exploration, while the hero was an open and rather uninteresting book.
I just wish I had a fraction of the talent displayed by the authors here and elsewhere (yourself included, m'dear!) then I'd write a lovely story about Guy and his history which would take me to a very happy place where episode 3-13 only lasted up until Guy made a huge kebab of Vasey and Izzy and possibly the bloke with the horribly sore throat!
Reply
Reply
I agree and disagree with the accepting responsibility for Marian's death. You're quite right - (shame on me, I'd forgotten this bit!) full acknowledgement doesn't come until he tells Bobbin that he can't forgive himself but I think there's also an element there of actually being able to admit to and voice to another his innermost feelings, which has been something he's always had trouble with.
The phrase to Meg about destroying Marian I read differently, possibly because of the broken way in which RA delivered it. I thought it came across as something stronger than an admission of murder, although encompassing that also - it included all the times he'd hurt her or her father and all the times that by only seeing what he'd wanted to see, he'd made her uncomfortable and unhappy.
Erm - when you speak of venting, am I going to have to duck?
Reply
Reply
*volunteers selflessly to look after him for you*
Reply
Leave a comment