HazelEyes4325

Yeah, this show is a great example of how TV shows can be successful when the likable characters (for me, Viktor and Celeste, sometimes Muriel) and the exception and the unlikable characters (everyone else) are the rule.

I agree...it seemed like she (the actress) was wearing some sort of contract lens. I wonder if they've implanted something in the trans-human vein in her eyes.

I can think of 3 possible reasons: 1 - She knows that there is a large portion of the population who despise her and her office is the only thing that protects her from them. 2 - She realizes what she is doing is criminal and, if it discovered before she somehow grabs complete control, there will be drastic consequences 3- She had committed some crime or crimes to get into office and/or had taken a devil's bargain with some other power. And, 4th possible reason: 4 - A combination of all 3 above.

Good question...other than the mention of Elizabeth's death in episode 1, the monarchy has been absent from the show. My guess is that it is still around and sort of kept as a symbol of British uniqueness. What I can't quite get a grip on here is how classist this new system is. The central family is firmly middle class, but how are the upper classes fairing? It could be that they are pretty much exempt from all this. Rook and her movement doesn't seem anti-class or a movement that would try to abolish the monarchy.

Yikes! So much for the family supporting Viktor! I mean, I guess Stephen was the only one who blamed him for Daniel's death, but...wowza. Also, Stephen is the absolute worst and the show does not hold back in showing us that! So, now we've moved onto genocide...not surprising, but still shocking. And the rebranding of concentration camps as an effective British invention (although Rook was not actually wrong on the history there) was chilling. I still can't buy this trans-human crap. I mean, I would assume that those interested in that sort of thing would be early adopters, but to alter their own body would lock them into one version, right? I mean, I guess upgrading could be a thing but technology moves on and upgrades will only go so far. And the people who are interested in this would know that. Plus, the government paying for Celeste's surgery was especially creepy. Doesn't that make her their property now?

Yeah, it was easy to miss. There was one line about it--at one point when everyone was sitting around Muriel's table and complaining about the state of the world, if I remember correctly. I would guess, though, that it might come into play at some point in the remaining episodes.

Stephen and Celeste's younger daughter--not the one who wants to become trans-human--is epileptic. I don't think anything more has done about it that an off-hand comment about how she needs medication. However, that had nothing to do with his medical tests. He was doing that only for extra income.

What I like about his character is it marks a change in the show. There has always been a male/female conflict with this show, but it was always mixed up with a class element. This new character strips away the class and gives Charlotte an adversary with whom she only has to fight on one front.

This doesn't make it more perplexing to me. I think one of the measures, for lack of a better word, of a good actor in a comedy is how they make the audience laugh. This isn't a slight to Christina Applegate--she's very funny and has a career in comedy--but this is not a funny show and she and it do not make the audience laugh much here. That already puts her miles behind her fellow nominees, no matter who they are or what show they are from.

I'm sure that was the case, but I still think it was a bonehead move. I'm going to make 2 assumptions. The first is that the affair actually had nothing to do with sex, but with Stephen's feelings of guilt and shame from losing his job, losing his money, losing the house, and having to move in with his grandmother (whom his wife does not like). The second assumption is that Stephen doesn't want to break up his marriage and I'm basing this on what he said to Celeste--that he was sorry, that it meant nothing, that there was no relationship, yada yada yada. So, if those two things are true--especially the second--going to the woman's flat (I forgot her name) was incredibly stupid. If he truly wanted to salvage his marriage, he went a long way to make sure that never happened by going to his hook up's place instead of his sister's or a hotel (if he could afford it).

Katherine will definitely be back. I just hope they don't keep putting her on the back burner in favor of a far less interesting character played by a far less talented actress. I know that production has started on season 2 and I'm a little surprised that Nash isn't absolutely everywhere talking about it. Maybe someone convinced him that it would be in his best interest to keep his mouth shut? Oh, a little personal story. In a fit of boredom a month or so ago, I tweeted a response to a tweet from the official AMLT account about season 2 and how I hope they get their act together because season 1 feel short and, oh yeah, Delilah is the worst. And...two writers on the show (at least according to their twitter profiles) liked it. So, um, whatever about that...

Actually, I think that her chances may have been *better* in the drama category. I'd put money on the comedy emmy going to either JLD or Rachel Brosnahan. Not only do both of these actresses carry their shows, but they are also both play very well-defined and unique characters AND they are both past winners. In the drama category, the only real standout I see is Sandra Oh, and her co-star is also nominated, which *could* split the vote a bit (although I would still put my money on her). In the end, though, I can't help but think that Christina Appelgate is fighting an uphill fight by being in the comedy category for a show that isn't funny (nor is it meant to be). But, hey, it's an honor just to be nominated!

I agree that the ending of episode 4 was devastating, but I saw the reactions here before I had to chance to watch, so at least as I was able to prepare. I did appreciate that the family came to Victor when they heard, showing that he's part of the family. I was a little confused why Stephen made a big deal when he thought it was Daniel on the phone about how things had changed. Daniel was on the family call when Celeste confronted Stephen, so Daniel would have already known about it. That being said, Stephen is pretty detestable to me at the moment: he's caught in adultery, swears to his wife that it means absolutely nothing had he has no "relationship" with the other woman, and then promptly moves in with the other woman. At least Muriel saw her grandson for what he was (much to Celeste's surprise).

While I'm glad she got a nomination, I was a little perplexed by the comedy category as well. I can't remember who else was nominated in that category (and who was nominated in the drama category), but I can only think that the category would hurt Applegate's chances.

Well, it doesn't meet the "half your age plus seven"rule now, but it was not at all uncommon in the 19th century for 30ish year old men to marry women in their late teens. In fact, it would be less common for a 19 year old woman to marry a man close to her in age.

I don't like Jane Austen either, but I am now reading my second P&P retelling in a row. This one, Pride, Prejudice, and Other Flavors, is not nearly as successful for me. For one thing, unlike Ayesha at Last, this one makes sure the reader knows that it is a P&P retelling. Also, they need to get past the pride and prejudice and get on with the story because I'm really sick of the two leads sniping at each other. I've come close to DNFing it, but I love Sonali Dev (usually) and I hold onto hope that she'll redeem this. Also, I'm 60+% through it, so I might as well finish. In addition to that, I'm planning to start Miracle Creek tonight. I'm a little worried that my expectations are too high because I've heard nothing short of "this is the best book of the year!" about it...

Everyone I know who has read her book (the first one...) says it is *horrible* and, at times, potentially damaging. Since I haven't read it myself, I can't comment on that--but it was enough to put her on my "never read" list.

I get where you are coming from but I will say that it comes into play later in the book and in the 3rd book.

My experience with Crazy Rich Asians is that you have to look at the the entire trilogy as one entity, which is kind of a disconnect as the movie is only the first book (I haven't heard if they are going to try a sequel. The way they ended the movie makes me think going into the second and third books would be problematic). I made a point of reading the first book before seeing the movie, which worked for me. However I think, like you, I would have been a little unsettled if I had done it the other way around.

I finished Shrill last night and enjoyed it, although it wasn't quite what I had expected after watching the series. I had wanted to read the book before watching the series, but so did everyone else in my library system. I'm currently reading The Betel Nut Tree Mystery by Ovidia Yu. It's the second in the Crown Colony mystery series and I'm really enjoying it. I wouldn't say it is a cozy mystery, but maybe a step up from that? Today, I'll also be starting Pride, Prejudice, and Other Flavors by Sonali Dev. I'm not a P&P adaptation fan, although I really enjoyed the last one I read (Ayesha at Last). However, I love Dev so I hope this one works out for me.

My guess is that it was the husband who either turned in Victor or at least sent in a tip. Otherwise, why would we have had the scene of Matt meeting up to him (and telling him where Victor was working) only a few moments before. Also, why would we even have a husband for Matt since the only way it makes any impact on the story is if he did turn Victor in. As for the thumbprint, I was wondering that, too. Maybe it is just a widespread thing that people have them--sort of like a spare key. I mean, it's a way for Celeste to access her husband's phone if needed (but, if it were that out in the open, I would think he would at least delete the texts from his hook up).

I wouldn't call it a dramedy, but a satire..and satire isn't always funny. Yeah, it's depressing--but there is also the element of the absurd. The trans-human thing? Until the eyeball in the most recent episode, I found it pretty humorous/ridiculous. And Emma Thompson/Vivian Rook brings it home. Even though she is a horrible person, my favorite scene so far is Rook doing whatever that dance is on her TV network.

Two books I finished recently and wanted to share quick thoughts: Ayesha At Last - This is a modern re-telling of Pride and Prejudice, set in the Muslim community in Toronto. I'm not a fan of P&P retellings (because I really despise P&P, go ahead and judge me), but this one was simply delightful. While the structure is clearly P&P, there seems to be more of a Shakespeare influence. The Body in Question - This one came to me with a lot of hype, and that probably negatively impacted my experience. It was interesting, but I would hardly call it "shocking," (which is how it is marketed). It was short, so I don't feel like my time was wasted reading it, but I probably wouldn't recommend it in most cases. Last night I started Shrill and I think I'll read Ovidia Yu's The Betel Nut Tree Mystery to balance it out. I really enjoyed the first book in the series, The Frangipani Tree Mystery so I have high expectations for this one.

I have to say, only 2 episodes in (in the US), I'm not sure what the point of giving Daniel a husband even was. The entire Daniel/Viktor story line, as far as I can tell, could have gone on exactly as is if there wasn't an ex(?)-husband waiting in the wings. All it did was make Daniel a less sympathetic character, which I don't think was necessary. Again, though, I'm only 2 episodes in. Maybe the raison d'etre for the husband will become clear in later episodes.

I guess I saw it a little differently. That seemed like an appropriate question to ask someone who was running for a seat in Parliament. Someone asking a question in that format (some sort of panel where the audience asks questions) may ask something that shows their bias, so I wasn't bothered by the question as being out of place or even virtue signaling. Instead, I just saw it as a way to show that Rook was out to cause a reaction. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I may have had a problem with it if I couldn't picture a candidate being asked that same question IRL. If that had been the case, it would have seemed far more sensationalist to me.