Poldark: Now, Then, and Before (the Books, the Original Series, and the Remake)

[duVerre]

 

he is transformed from a mercurial, witty, sardonic, depressive ne'er-do-well rake into an ineffectual fop who can't do anything right.

 

I agree with you completely. It's much more interesting if Francis is shown as talented (manners, wit, socially impressive), and with the potential to be a genuinely upstanding guy. Then we really feel something--like shaking him, or sorrow for him, or both--when he then follows his weakest instincts. As it stands, he is a completely blank space. 

 

In the 70s, I thought the minor females (Karen, Morwenna, Emma) were all underwritten. That's such a sweeping reaction that I assume I didn't give them much of a chance and obviously, I don't know how the new series will be handling them. Still, more than anything else, it's the lives of the minor female characters that make me wants to read the books. 

[Llywela]

In the 70s, I thought the minor females (Karen, Morwenna, Emma) were all underwritten. That's such a sweeping reaction that I assume I didn't give them much of a chance and obviously, I don't know how the new series will be handling them. Still, more than anything else, it's the lives of the minor female characters that make me wants to read the books. 

Do it! You won't regret it.

 

In the books, the supporting characters tend to drift in and out of the narrative a bit, but every one of them has a perspective that is uniquely their own and every one of them has an inner life which informs and supports the choices they make. It's what makes the books such a rich, immersive reading experience - and is the reason the flatness of most of those storylines in P15 is such a disappointment. I know it isn't easy to transfer introspection onto the screen, but it can be done, there just needs to be the will there to treat each character as a person rather than a plot device.

[Milz]

I She is even made the villain of her own murder - to the point that even the murder is fudged into an accident, presumably so that hero Ross doesn't have to be portrayed as helping an out-and-out murderer (because heavens forfend this story be allowed any shades of grey).

 

That makes me uneasy, particularly if the adaptation continues and the event leading up to the "Valentine incident":the shades of grey become more clearly black and white.

 

I could see why and how Elizabeth would choose P75 and Book Francis over Ross,  because Francis is a fun-guy, but not P15 Francis.

[skyways]

Question for Llywela ( and persons who have read all 12)

I have not read and will not read beyond ' The Angry Tide'. Can someone answer this if you can.

A. Did Demelza ever find out about Valentine and what was her reaction?

B. What was Ross's reaction to him? Was he ever paternal? Protective? Or did he treat him no differently from Geoffrey Charles?

C. Was this a sore point between him and Demelza or did they not ever want to talk about it?

Thanks in advance.

[Llywela]

Question for Llywela ( and persons who have read all 12) I have not read and will not read beyond ' The Angry Tide'. Can someone answer this if you can. A. Did Demelza ever find out about Valentine and what was her reaction? B. What was Ross's reaction to him? Was he ever paternal? Protective? Or did he treat him no differently from Geoffrey Charles? C. Was this a sore point between him and Demelza or did they not ever want to talk about it? Thanks in advance.

I'm only on book 9 myself so far, although advancing steadily, so I'll get through the last few books before too much longer. So far, Valentine's paternity is never stated outright in the Poldark home, but there are hints - Ross and Demelza are worried when their children become friendly with him, Clowance especially, for reasons they won't state outright even between themselves. Ross has nothing to do with him whatsoever - a far cry from his close, fond relationship with Geoffrey Charles, who is so like Francis in temperament yet with something of Elizabeth's steel thrown in to sustain him through hard times (Geoffrey is a soldier - something Francis would never have done). In some ways, Ross is closer to Geoffrey Charles than his own son Jeremy. George, meanwhile, is struggling, because he swore after Elizabeth's death never to entertain doubts about Valentine again, and yet.

 

Valentine himself is something of a bad egg. He's got too much of Ross's negative qualities with none of his conscience and ethical beliefs to hold them in check. Plus he's had a difficult upbringing.

 

I can understand not wanting to read beyond The Angry Tide - the first 7 books are definitely the best, the middle ones especially (do you have a favourite?). Things are never quite the same after the time jump - I'm still engrossed, as a reader, but the characters I care about most are taking a back seat in favour of the next generation, who I'm not really bonding with in the same way. I'm still really enjoying the series, though, and will keep reading to the end.

[MostlyC]

A. Did Demelza ever find out about Valentine and what was her reaction? B. What was Ross's reaction to him? Was he ever paternal? Protective? Or did he treat him no differently from Geoffrey Charles? C. Was this a sore point between him and Demelza or did they not ever want to talk about it?

 

Without going deep into spoiler territory, it is safe to say that Ross and Demelza haver strong opinions about the paternity of Valentine, but they don't overtly speak of it.  Valentine was born under the black moon (as Agatha points out).  While George says he loves Valentine, it seems that he only "loves" him because he told Elizabeth he would, not because he has any warm feelings for him.

 

The Loving Cup goes into this more, when Valentine has grown up.

[skyways]

Don't worry MostlyC, I know abit of what happens to the kids so don't worry about so-called 'spoilers'. I'm not the type to whine about those *laughing*. ( especially Jeremy).

Yes Llywela, I have a 'best' and that would be 'The Angry Tide'. Hated 'Demelza' and 'Jeremy', was fascinated by 'Warleggan' and the ones featuring Hugh Armitage.

But please I'm open to more details if you have them.

[Llywela]

I think the middle three novels - The Four Swans, The Black Moon and The Angry Tide are my favourites of the series. So far, I hasten to add, but I don't think I'll change my mind. I really enjoy the Dwight-Caroline and Drake-Morwenna stories, which feature strongly in those - Drake and Morwenna disappear off-screen almost entirely after their marriage, while Dwight and Caroline also take more of a back seat than previously although do still appear. But those three books, for me, are the strongest.

[stinkogingko]

I love the middle three novels the best as well. Graham matured a lot as a novelist between the first set and the second, I think. He has great understanding of his characters and draws the reader very deep inside. The Four Swans is my favorite of all the series. The last batch has some very good plots but the next to last book is thinner on characterization and I think the last book is just bad.

[Nampara]

I joined this forum just to find a place to post the following thoughts. I hope this post is in the appropriate thread, and that it's not too long or tedious for the community here. Thanks.

 

I grew up with two parents who loved Masterpiece Theatre, and as a result our whole family intensely followed programs like "Upstairs, Downstairs," "I, Claudius," and "Poldark." I particularly enjoyed "Poldark," with its swashbuckling atmosphere, never-ending intrigues and mysteries, and entertaining dialects and accents. To this day, my brother and I can still exchange "Poldark" quotations in conversation. I also must admit that I had a schoolboy crush on Demelza. It was partly on Angharad Rees herself, since I remember looking forward to seeing her in a film version of "As You Like It," but it was mostly on Demelza the character.

 

I followed up on the TV series by reading the first seven Poldark books, which were all the novels extant at that time. In short, I was probably as big a Poldark fan as you could expect to find in a non-British, non-female person. But I did lose touch with that world over the years, and had no idea until a month or two ago that Winston Graham had returned to the saga to write five (!) more novels. I'm not sure if I'll ever read them; the idea of "Poldark: The Next Generation" is not especially exciting to me.

 

But I would not have missed the 2015 television adaptation, which my wife and I just finished watching yesterday. PBS is only on episode four tonight, but when I confirmed that we were getting the edited versions, as expected, I purchased the series on iTunes, and we binged through it.

 

The new show proves that the Poldark saga is rich enough to be told in markedly different ways, with the books, the 1970s adaptation, and the current version all emphasizing different aspects of the tale. The new version is obviously intended to be more emotionally intense than either the earlier series or the novels themselves, I think, with the willing sacrifice of some humor, storyline complexity, and supporting player characterization. If someone asked me today what "Poldark" is about, here's the best answer I could give, based on the perspective and emphasis of the 2015 show:

 

A man becomes despondent and forlorn after rejection by the sweetheart of his adolescence and the collapse of his personal economy. He despises the world for seeming to thwart him at every turn. Stung by this unwarranted contempt, the world responds by identifying the most glorious woman alive -- an astonishing creature who is lovely, loving, and lovable to an almost mythological extent, and who combines a high-spirited, joyous embrace of existence with a luminous inner beauty -- and dropping her RIGHT INTO HIS LAP. Rather than spending the rest of his days sobbing out hosannas of gratitude for this stunning good fortune, the man embarks upon a years-long project of nuturing a persistent "grass is greener" fantasy, wondering if he really has benefited after all.

 

Notwithstanding Ross Poldark's annoying trouble distinguishing between an emotion and the memory of an emotion, I like the 2015 version quite a lot. I suppose the preceding paragraph makes it clear that I find Eleanor Tomlinson's Demelza to be the heart of the show. This Demelza is one of the most irresistible fictional characters I have ever encountered -- sort of a combination of Elizabeth Bennet (courage, wit, charm) AND Jane Bennet (sweetness, humility, goodness). Tomlinson, writer Debbie Horsfield, and of course Winston Graham deserve huge credit for such a creation. Almost all the other characters I find at least satisfactory, if not necessarily ideal. I don't wish to engage in an actor-by-actor comparison with the 1970s version. Aidan Turner is of course a very strong lead. The cinematography and music are superb throughout.

 

I do worry that the heightened emotionalism of the program may prove to be unsustainable, particularly through the dark days of the third and fourth novels, presumably to be depicted in series 2. Already these characters have experienced an enormous amount of pain -- pain that feels far more real, at least to me, than it did in the 1970s version. The BBC and PBS have done their best to imply that "Poldark" is a period romance, and the romantic elements are indeed presented emphatically, but the story is really a decades-long journey through an often-harsh era of economic displacement, wartime uncertainty, and everyday violence and disease. Viewers expecting to delight in a replacement for Mr. Darcy may be surprised to find the Trials of Job instead. I'm reminded of the character of Andy Sipowicz in "NYPD Blue," who in a short span had to endure the death of his partner, the death of his wife, and the death of his adult son.

 

As a "Poldark" viewer, I have to say that I'm not looking forward to seeing Demelza and Ross, or even Elizabeth and Francis, treated that way, in vivid, excruciating detail. And I don't know any other way to say this, so here goes: I do not want to see Demelza suffer. The second half of series 1 was bad enough. If the producers decided to change the storyline of the fourth book to prevent her pain in series 2, I would applaud. I went through those events in the 1970s adaptation, and in the novels, basically just accepting them as they came. The story was the story, right? But now I know the grim parts of the story, and don't need to see them again. Frankly, my reaction here is a little amusing even to myself, because normally I prefer fidelity in literary adaptations, and I have no fear of a well-written tragedy. Going into the 2015 "Poldark," I wouldn't have expected this response, but there's no denying it now. I just do not want to see Demelza suffer.

 

 

[NumberCruncher]

Loved reading every bit of your perspective, Nampara. Eleanor Tomlinson as Demelza is, indeed, the heart of this adaptation. I just adore her. I'm just getting into the book series, but I already know some of the plotlines and I agree with your assessment--it's going to be very hard for me to watch some of them. The thing I wonder is that with a woman at the helm, whether that will bring a different flavor to some of the more controversial elements to come.

Edited July 13, 2015 by NumberCruncher

[whatsatool]

I swooned then, and I'm swooning again.

[skyways]

I suspect the new creator being a women will whitewash events and try to make Aidan I mean Poldark look good. The rape will be mutually aggressive passion and Demelza will get an apology from Ross!

[NumberCruncher]

I suspect the new creator being a women will whitewash events and try to make Aidan I mean Poldark look good. The rape will be mutually aggressive passion and Demelza will get an apology from Ross!

Not necessarily. I think this adaptation hasn't been afraid to show that Ross has plenty of faults. He acts like a complete ass through most of episode 6 and isn't nice at all to Demelza at the end of episode 7. As for the much-debated rape, even Winston Graham himself insisted that he did not write it that way, even if the 70s production did so. Since there has been so much discussion about Horsfield trying to stick more closely to the novels perhaps she can portray it as Graham intended and have it actually come across that way to the viewer.

[skyways]

I too don't subscribe to it as rape. But how will she portray it in order to jive with Ross's newfound love and confession for Demelza? Making it an angry Ross (vs an amorous Ross) works better in terms of storyline and consistency but how will she portray the anger and violence without 'the aggressive act'? unless she makes it mutual.

[NumberCruncher]

I'm sure she'll make it plenty aggressive with Elizabeth. Re: how it will jive with the Ross/Demelza dynamic...there's already evidence that DH is not above making Ross be terrible to his wife so I'm not worried about making him too sympathetic. My point was that right or wrong, there are still a lot of book readers and viewers of the 70s version that saw it as rape and so I'm interested in seeing how it plays out from a female producer's perspective--especially given WG's thoughts on the matter.

[Nampara]

I too don't subscribe to it as rape. But how will she portray it in order to jive with Ross's newfound love and confession for Demelza? Making it an angry Ross (vs an amorous Ross) works better in terms of storyline and consistency but how will she portray the anger and violence without 'the aggressive act'? unless she makes it mutual.

I think it is a virtual certainty that the act between Ross and Elizabeth will be portrayed as unambiguously consensual. Unless the producers wish the program to end right after series 2, they cannot allow their great hero, their brooding Darcy successor, to be perceived as a rapist or possible rapist. The audience in 2015 simply wouldn't accept such a character within the context of a show like "Poldark," in my view.

 

Fortunately, this problem can be easily solved, simply by eliminating all hints of violence and coercion from the scene. Ross breaks into Trenwith as in the novel, but what ensues is a shouting match. Ross is angry at Elizabeth for agreeing to marry George. Elizabeth is angry at Ross for presuming to dictate whom she can and cannot marry. They are angry at each other for frustrating each other's hopes at various times over the preceding decade. Angry words lead to angry kisses and voila ... it's cliched, but effective enough. The rest of the story can then proceed as before, with Ross slinking out afterward and never calling.

 

However, I think there's still a big problem with this storyline (aside from its violating my "Do not hurt Demelza!" principle): As others have pointed out, it doesn't seem consistent with the "love of my life" declaration about Demelza that Ross made to Elizabeth in episode 8, nor his "she will never take me" promise to Demelza within Elizabeth's earshot. Others who have read the books more recently can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that Ross ever told Elizabeth directly, at any time in the first four novels, that he loved Demelza. He essentially left Elizabeth to her own inferences about his exact feelings and degree of contentment, I think. He certainly didn't explicitly compare his feelings for Demelza to his feelings for her. Thus, when Elizabeth told Ross that she had made a mistake in believing that she loved Francis more than Ross, she could reasonably expect that revelation to have an impact on him -- which it did, in the novels. Ross's confusion and inner conflicts eventually helped fuel his anger at Elizabeth over the Warleggan engagement.

 

But the Elizabeth of the 2015 adaptation now knows, on the basis of a candid and passionate plea directly from Ross, that not only does he love Demelza more than he loves her, he loves Demelza now more than he ever loved Elizabeth in the past. (This is what I think "love of my life" must mean.) The latter point is extremely important, because it implies that Ross's buried emotions about Elizabeth, even if they could be unearthed and rekindled, still would not be enough. Elizabeth cannot win. She has been bested, and she knows it, at least as I read that scene. So why bother trying a new path of flirtation in the future, the way she did in the books?

 

Obviously, the same kind of analysis also applies to Ross after episode 8. If he's truly put Elizabeth behind him now, at least in the competition between her and Demelza, then he would seem to have far less reason to intervene aggressively to stop Elizabeth's marriage to George. Sure, the prospect will continue to disgust him, but it shouldn't touch his soul the way it did in the fourth novel. George will never get his hands on the true love of Ross's life.

[Llywela]

The thing is, though, that these characters are not static. They are not static in the books and they are not static in the show. The Ross we see here halfway through season one of P15 is a Ross just beginning to fall deeply in love with his wife. They are happy and content. Even after Julia's death that love is still a solid foundation. But the Ross who goes to Elizabeth that night is in a completely different emotional headspace. Time has passed and a lot has happened. And his love for Demelza has always had to sit alongside his admiration for Elizabeth, even when they were at their happiest.

 

Ross's attack of Elizabeth isn't really about love anyway. It's about possession. He still sees her as his, even after all those years. Because he loved her first, and in his mind that gives him first dibs, so to speak - even though he has a loving wife of his own now. He has gone to great lengths to support Elizabeth after Francis's death, including giving her a large sum of money that he sorely needed himself. He has come to regard himself as the head of her household as well as his own, he has enjoyed being the one she has turned to for support, liked that she was so reliant on him. So when he learns of her engagement to George he feels betrayed, and it isn't about loving Elizabeth as such, it's about everything else, years of tangled history - his rivalry with George as much as anything else. Suddenly he realises that Elizabeth doesn't need him as much as he thought she did, she has reached out to someone else, to his bitterest rival, to form an alternate support system. So he feels a fool, he feels betrayed, he feels angry. And that's what fuels him that night.

I too don't subscribe to it as rape. But how will she portray it in order to jive with Ross's newfound love and confession for Demelza? Making it an angry Ross (vs an amorous Ross) works better in terms of storyline and consistency but how will she portray the anger and violence without 'the aggressive act'? unless she makes it mutual.

For what it's worth, book!Ross always regards that night as dubious consent, to use the fanfic parlance, rather than rape, he remembers it beginning with force that he is not proud of (meh) but becoming passionate on both sides; they spend the entire night together, it isn't just a quickie. It's a particularly male justification. It has to happen in some form or other, too much later plotting is built on it, but Horsfield has already soft-pedalled other aspects of the story, she has rather a heavy-handed, simplistic approach and prefers to code her characters as black or white rather than acknowledge any shades of grey, so I'm pretty certain she won't portray Ross as a rapist. It'll be consensual hate sex in the heat of the moment, with Elizabeth hating Ross for abandoning her afterward rather than for forcing her - you know, to reinforce that Ross is perfect and Elizabeth still wants him, since the story has already been changed to hammer that point home.

[HyacinthBucket]

For me it's that he's too good at being aristocratic - he comes across as a natural gentleman, whereas book!George never quite looks the part and always tries that little too hard. This actor isn't a good physical match for the role, being small and refined - unlike the descriptions of George as a big, thick-necked man who can dress as fine as he likes but always has the look of the blacksmith about him.

Thank you.  You've perfectly described my reaction to the new George.  I don't dislike the actor or his performance, but he's too far off from the book's physical description of George to suit me, and George's physical appearance contributes greatly to his insecurities.  Some of those physical characteristics are also given to Ursula. 

 

I love the middle three novels the best as well. Graham matured a lot as a novelist between the first set and the second, I think. He has great understanding of his characters and draws the reader very deep inside. The Four Swans is my favorite of all the series. The last batch has some very good plots but the next to last book is thinner on characterization and I think the last book is just bad.

I never had much interest in Bella, and I really hated how the last book ended with Winston Graham magically seeing far into her future.  I have been searching everywhere in my house for the first three Poldark books that I am sure I own, and still have been unable to find them.  Of course, I easily found "Bella."  (eyeroll)  

 

I'm only on book 9 myself so far, although advancing steadily, so I'll get through the last few books before too much longer. So far, Valentine's paternity is never stated outright in the Poldark home, but there are hints - Ross and Demelza are worried when their children become friendly with him, Clowance especially, for reasons they won't state outright even between themselves. Ross has nothing to do with him whatsoever - a far cry from his close, fond relationship with Geoffrey Charles, who is so like Francis in temperament yet with something of Elizabeth's steel thrown in to sustain him through hard times (Geoffrey is a soldier - something Francis would never have done). In some ways, Ross is closer to Geoffrey Charles than his own son Jeremy. George, meanwhile, is struggling, because he swore after Elizabeth's death never to entertain doubts about Valentine again, and yet.

I agree with everything except part of the last sentence.  As Elizabeth's body was still decaying in the upstairs bedroom, George was bitterly reflecting on losing his trophy wife, Elizabeth, whom he truly loved and admired, and thinking of her three children who would never have her delicate beauty and patrician looks.  Geoffrey Charles looks like Francis; Ursula will look like himself, and he reflects that Valentine will look more like "the man who had just left the house."  (Ross)  I believe George did his best to honor Elizabeth's wishes, but I'm pretty sure he knew that he was not Valentine's father.  

 

I'd forgotten how close Ross became with Geoffrey Charles.  I loved that relationship.  

 

My biggest complaint about the characters so far is what has been done to Francis.  I don't remember disliking the character in the books or the 1975 version of Poldark, but I can barely tolerate him now.  

[Llywela]

I agree with everything except part of the last sentence.  As Elizabeth's body was still decaying in the upstairs bedroom, George was bitterly reflecting on losing his trophy wife, Elizabeth, whom he truly loved and admired, and thinking of her three children who would never have her delicate beauty and patrician looks.  Geoffrey Charles looks like Francis; Ursula will look like himself, and he reflects that Valentine will look more like "the man who had just left the house."  (Ross)  I believe George did his best to honor Elizabeth's wishes, but I'm pretty sure he knew that he was not Valentine's father.  

To be honest, I think that whole section about none of Elizabeth's children looking like her is a rare moment of authorial omniscience, rather than character POV - a bit like what you say about the end of Bella - because it also says that Ursula will grow up to look a lot like like George - something George himself couldn't possibly predict from the tiny days-old premature baby. It does jar a bit, more especially because such authorial omniscience is rare in the books, which are usually scrupulous about maintaining character POV. Throughout book 8 and book 9 so far, George has been pretty scrupulous about not allowing himself to entertain any doubt. The doubt is obviously there, but he is being punctilious about keeping it repressed and never acting on it, about accepting Valentine as his, because he promised.

 

My biggest complaint about the characters so far is what has been done to Francis.  I don't remember disliking the character in the books or the 1975 version of Poldark, but I can barely tolerate him now.

Yes. I've commented at length on my disappointment over what Horsfield has done with Francis's character, so suffice to say that it is one of my biggest disappointments of her adaptation. Reading today's comments about episode four reminds me how much I was enjoying P15 at that point - episode four really is lovely (although there are quibbles throughout). After that point, however, my disappointment only grew. It'll be interesting to see what other viewers think as the US airing continues.

[HyacinthBucket]

To be honest, I think that whole section about none of Elizabeth's children looking like her is a rare moment of authorial omniscience, rather than character POV - a bit like what you say about the end of Bella - because it also says that Ursula will grow up to look a lot like like George - something George himself couldn't possibly predict from the tiny days-old premature baby. It does jar a bit, more especially because such authorial omniscience is rare in the books, which are usually scrupulous about maintaining character POV. Throughout book 8 and book 9 so far, George has been pretty scrupulous about not allowing himself to entertain any doubt. The doubt is obviously there, but he is being punctilious about keeping it repressed and never acting on it, about accepting Valentine as his, because he promised.

 

 

 

I see what you are saying about authorial omniscience, and agree that it is quite possible.  I guess I keep thinking back to what had already been implanted in George's mind, beginning with Aunt Agatha's hideous rant o' revenge, and Geoffrey Charles' innocent observation that Valentine looked like the "spitting image of Uncle Ross."  I agree that he tries to keep it repressed and does not act on it, which is one of the few good qualities that George has.  

[Llywela]

I see what you are saying about authorial omniscience, and agree that it is quite possible.  I guess I keep thinking back to what had already been implanted in George's mind, beginning with Aunt Agatha's hideous rant o' revenge, and Geoffrey Charles' innocent observation that Valentine looked like the "spitting image of Uncle Ross."  I agree that he tries to keep it repressed and does not act on it, which is one of the few good qualities that George has.  

Well, all that's what I meant when I said that George in the later books is struggling, because he's trying to keep his promise never to doubt Valentine's paternity again, and yet. It is always going to be at the back of his mind, however hard he works to repress it. That's the point I was trying to make.

[Milz]

If the series continues don't think Horsfield will portray Ross as a rapist or even a suspected rapist. I think it will be consensual beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Anyway, Elizabeth's acceptance of George was the culmination of Francis' observation that Elizabeth only loves Elizabeth (and Geoffrey Charles). Elizabeth marries George for $$$$$$$$$$ and security, which is pretty much the reason why she married Francis.

 

I saw episode 4 last night. I didn't like Demelza's dress at Christmas. In the book, it was a grand styled dress that Verity picked for her. (well, not picked like off the rack picked, but picked in regard to the fabric, colors and style). P15's Demelza's dress looked no different that her house dresses.

 

Also, does anyone here know anything about costumes/fashions in the late 1780s?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Milz

[Nidratime]

I saw episode 4 last night. I didn't like Demelza's dress at Christmas. In the book, it was a grand styled dress that Verity picked for her. (well, not picked like off the rack picked, but picked in regard to the fabric, colors and style). P15's Demelza's dress looked no different that her house dresses.

 

 

I agree that the dress wasn't as impressive as I expected it to be, but I guess it's keeping with her personal style and newly found station in life. Plus, it's supposed to be a family gathering and not a public event. Hopefully, we'll see her get fancier as the show progresses when she's out and about. In the 1970's show, Ross and Demelza go to a ball and Demelza wears a beautiful gown and has her hair up with feathers or flowers or whatever. Does that happen in this series too?

 

As for Elizabeth's various children all looking more like their fathers, that just seems so symbolic to me. Despite Elizabeth's own version of a "strong will," she's a bit of a blank slate, going along and getting along, taking on the "characteristics" of the men she's with at the time. For instance, just notice how much more freer, girlish, and flirtatious she was with Ross as opposed to Francis.

[Llywela]

I agree that the dress wasn't as impressive as I expected it to be, but I guess it's keeping with her personal style and newly found station in life. Plus, it's supposed to be a family gathering and not a public event. Hopefully, we'll see her get fancier as the show progresses when she's out and about. In the 1970's show, Ross and Demelza go to a ball and Demelza wears a beautiful gown and has her hair up with feathers or flowers or whatever. Does that happen in this series too?

 

As for Elizabeth's various children all looking more like their fathers, that just seems so symbolic to me. Despite Elizabeth's own version of a "strong will," she's a bit of a blank slate, going along and getting along, taking on the "characteristics" of the men she's with at the time. For instance, just notice how much more freer, girlish, and flirtatious she was with Ross as opposed to Francis.

Yes, that scene is in this series.

 

In the passage about Elizabeth's children, Graham makes the point about her being the last scion of an ancient house that can trace its ancestry back to the pre-Norman era, something her father was always so proud of, and says something about this ancient and noble bloodline perhaps being exhausted. Elizabeth, who is the epitome of classic nobility, is the last hurrah of her bloodline. The family name dies with her father, and none of her children resemble her. As a character, it can be very hard to get a read on her because she is so self-contained. Men love her for her beauty and elegance and fragility, rather than her personality, which can be very bland. But then again, that blandness is who she is. She's self-contained, highly internalised. We rarely see her confide in anyone. All that she feels is kept to herself. Her interests lie primarily in the home, the one true passion in her life is her son - it is Geoffrey Charles's birth that causes the break with Francis, if only he realised it - he, insecure as he is, believes she's gone off him because she still prefers Ross, but really it is Geoffrey who's taken pole position in her heart. I think Elizabeth is at her most interesting when she's married to George and working so hard to maintain a balance in their relationship - but he is at his most interesting when he's later wooing and married to Harriet.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Llywela

[Nidratime]

I think Elizabeth is at her most interesting when she's married to George and working so hard to maintain a balance in their relationship - but he is at his most interesting when he's later wooing and married to Harriet.

 

 

I only read the first 7 books, many years ago. When does George woo and marry Harriet ... whoever she is?

[Llywela]

I only read the first 7 books, many years ago. When does George woo and marry Harriet ... whoever she is?

Book 8-9 have the wooing and eventual marriage.

Harriet is a noblewoman, sister of a duke, left bankrupt by the death of her useless first husband. She is the opposite of Elizabeth in almost every way. Having not even considered remarriage in about 10 years after losing Elizabeth, George is besotted with her from the start - largely because of the status she'd bring him, but also because, unusually for him, he just really fancies her. That puts him in a vulnerable position, which he isn't used to, and causes him to step outside his comfort zone, take risks he'd never normally take - he is used to being the one with all the power, but he can't control Harriet. Even though she is technically in the same position as Elizabeth, marrying him primarily for security, her approach is totally different. So it's interesting, because we start to see a side of George we've never really seen before. The consumate non-gambler, taking risks for almost the first time in his life.

 

Edited to add spoiler tags, just in case.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Llywela

[Nidratime]

Somebody asked about Demelza knowing what harp string to pluck before singing in the latest episode. Since, I'm making a comparison with the earlier version, I've moved my answer here.

 

Yes, as I recall from the 1970's series, Demelza "snuck-practiced" on a piano at Nampara, even before she and Ross married. It was one of those things that built on the character, making it clear she was a cut above people like Jud and Prudie and even Jinny, i.e., she had a very curious mind and was not above sneaking in ways to improve herself and satisfy her curiosity. In this series, I guess the fact that she was snooping around Ross' office/den, opened the chest, and found the dress was a way of showing the same thing.

[Nampara]

The thing is, though, that these characters are not static. They are not static in the books and they are not static in the show. ... And his love for Demelza has always had to sit alongside his admiration for Elizabeth, even when they were at their happiest.

 

Ross's attack of Elizabeth isn't really about love anyway. It's about possession. He still sees her as his, even after all those years. Because he loved her first, and in his mind that gives him first dibs, so to speak - even though he has a loving wife of his own now.  ....

 

I don't disagree with these general statements, but I offer these two counterpoints:

• Ross goes to Trenwith in book four out of a desire to control/possess Elizabeth AND because of the conflict in his own emotions. He's still not sure about his feelings for her vs. his feelings for Demelza. I actually think that's somewhat insane at that stage of his life (I will stick with my observation in my first post here that Ross can't tell the difference between an emotion and the memory of an emotion), but that's how the character is written. When Ross talks to Demelza at the end of the book, he tells her very plainly that after he spent that night with Elizabeth, he was uncertain about his feelings for weeks. He didn't know what he wanted.
• Ross does change over time in various ways, certainly, but one thing that is very clear in the books is that after he unequivocally resolves the Demelza vs. Elizabeth dilemma, he never again wavers. At the end of book four, he tells Demelza that after finally sorting out his feelings, "The one thing I was able to realize is that my true and real love was not for her but for you" (slight paraphrase). Elizabeth is never any kind of romantic rival for Demelza in the subsequent books. Ross still cares for her, but knows he does not love her.

 

What I'm saying is that the 2015 adaptation has essentially taken that emotional epiphany of Ross's and moved it up a few years in the story. Telling Elizabeth that Demelza is the love of his life is equivalent to telling Demelza that his true love is for her, not for Elizabeth. Having Ross backslide after such a moment of self-awareness would be untrue to the character, in my opinion. It took him too long to reach that awareness in the books, I think, but he didn't waver after reaching it. Having him waver in the new program would diminish him. As Verity told Demelza in episode 4, "Ross forgets nothing."

[Milz]

That was left out of this series: Demelza's natural intelligence. IIRC, in the book, Demelza also made up new tunes to lyrics of existing songs. This is one bit of character development that I hoped P15 kept because it helps to make sense of Demelza's ability to become Mistress Poldark of Nampara.

 

The other thing P15 left out was Francis telling Ross Demelza's background didn't matter to him.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Milz

[Llywela]

What I'm saying is that the 2015 adaptation has essentially taken that emotional epiphany of Ross's and moved it up a few years in the story. Telling Elizabeth that Demelza is the love of his life is equivalent to telling Demelza that his true love is for her, not for Elizabeth. Having Ross backslide after such a moment of self-awareness would be untrue to the character, in my opinion. It took him too long to reach that awareness in the books, I think, but he didn't waver after reaching it. Having him waver in the new program would diminish him. As Verity told Demelza in episode 4, "Ross forgets nothing."

This doesn't bother me so much because there were numerous occasions in the early books when Ross seemed to have resolved his feelings only for something else to stir it all up again for him, so I don't see this moment as quite so final and unequivocal and won't be surprised to see him waver and backslide once the heat of that emotion-charged moment has passed - and I agree that he can't always tell the difference between feeling an emotion and remembering an emotion. That scene is one of the big changes P15 makes that really annoys me in general, especially given that it is so widely praised for being 'faithful'. It is in some regards, but it also makes some pretty significant changes.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Llywela

[skyways]

If you didn't like Demelza's red dress at the Trenwith Christmas party, you will hate all her dresses going forward which do not really change until Ross struck it rich - as written in the books. You may like her Warleggan Ball dress but that's it.

That ball fell so flat for me compared to the fireworks in the book - among other things that fell flat for me as the Series continued. The only taunt great scenes for me happened in one of the rooms during the ball. I don't want to give anything away.

[skyways]

I don't know Milz. Francis only fully accepted Demelza after her heroics with saving Geoffrey Charles and making peace between him and Ross after the Copper Venture fiasco. He 'loved' her then wholeheartedly. Before then he had chased her out of his house when she came to confess her role in the Verity/Blamey affair, calling her an ignorant troll or such.

[Llywela]

I don't know Milz. Francis only fully accepted Demelza after her heroics with saving Geoffrey Charles and making peace between him and Ross after the Copper Venture fiasco. He 'loved' her then wholeheartedly. Before then he had chased her out of his house when she came to confess her role in the Verity/Blamey affair, calling her an ignorant troll or such.

That's Francis, though. He's a mercurial man, up and down like a yoyo. He embraced Demelza as a new member of the family when in an expansive mood, and abused her for interference when angry and upset over Verity's elopement. The one doesn't negate the other. It merely demonstrates that Graham wrote him as a real human being, with all the contradictions and mood swings that entails. His relationship with Ross went through similar ups and downs over the years - sometimes close friends, other times bitter enemies, depending on circumstances. These characters are never static. Their circumstances change and so do their moods and relationships. It is very realistic.

[Llywela]

Other viewers familiar with the different versions of this story may enjoy reading the reviews on this blog. They've just covered episode 4.

[Milz]

Skyway, that's true. Francis fully accepts Demelza in the later books due to her kindness (she also went over to Trenwith and nursed Elizabeth and himself when they had the illness) and her loyalty to the family. But at the Christmas dinner, he tells Ross that it didn't matter to him if Demelza was from Stippy Stappy Lane or an heiress. Again, it's one of those annoying things that crops up because P15 is marketed as more faithful to the books than P75.

 

Thanks for the warning about Demelza's clothing. In the books, she becomes a sort of fashion plate initially under Verity's guidance and then under her own. there's a passage I recall from the second book that when Demelza  saw Verity's pretty underclothing she resolved never to have the utilitarian but ugly ones she currently wore.

 

Out of curiosity, does P15 Demelza take to wearing a kerchief like she does in the books and P75?

Edited July 14, 2015 by Milz

[skyways]

No  unfortunately. For this Series 1 at least , her appearance remained unremarkable.

[Milz]

Pity. I really wanted them to be faithful to the book with the Verity-Demelza relationship. Because book Demelza, clearly did not want Verity to stay with them. And warmed up to her only after Verity had the talk. Then they were BFFs. What I liked in the book was the part where Verity takes Demelza shopping, introducing D. to her dressmaker and choosing the fabrics and style for the dress, which she wore at Christmas and at the Bodrugan's. I think it was more effective way to show the initial gentrification of Demelza than P15's teaching her to dance.......

 

 

[Llywela]

There's been some interesting talk in the episode 4 thread about how women could marry up but not men, as typified by Demelza. Interesting because there are numerous examples of social mobility within the books, men as well as women. Demelza is the most obvious, of course. But Dwight, George and Drake all also marry 'up', all in very different circumstances.

 

Drake is the most classic example of a man marrying 'up, which in fact equals a woman marrying 'down', practically speaking. He comes of common working stock, upwardly mobile due to Ross setting him up with the blacksmith's shop, which creates him a tradesman, so a rung or two up the social ladder, but still a working man. Morwenna is a gentleman's daughter, but upon her marriage to Drake she gives up that status and becomes a blacksmith's wife, with all the hard work that position entails. She doesn't care: Drake is her safe haven, after the torment of her outwardly more suitable first marriage.

 

George Warleggan marries 'up' twice, first to Elizabeth and later to Harriet. George represents the nouveau riche - he is a gentleman, but only just, the blacksmith's grandson made good. His status is bought by his wealth and he is forever conscious of his background. Both of his wives come from ancient landed stock of the sort that would never have glanced twice at him if not for his money; both marriages are heavily leveraged on the basis of his wealth and power, and his wives, in turn, confer status and respectability upon him, cementing his status as the new generation of gentleman. Having had to work so hard to achieve his upward mobility, he intensely resents anyone else who achieves the same thing.

 

And then there's Dwight and Caroline, him a penniless physician of middling background and her the most eligible heiress in the county. Because Dwight, as a respected physician, middle class, is already acceptable in polite company and upon marriage assumes (in theory) control of Caroline's estate and money, he transitions up rather than Caroline transitioning down - although some sticklers remain uncertain whether to regard Caroline according to her noble blood or her status as humble doctor's wife; Caroline herself couldn't care less, she just continues on exactly as she's always been. Amusingly, Dwight's marriage to Caroline is one of the reasons George dislikes him so much, because Dwight achieves effortlessly what George had to work hard to acquire; he does it without bringing anything to the match but his own self and he doesn't even have good health at the time, which George really resents!

 

Technically, Verity also marries 'down', moving seamlessly from the gentle class to upper middle class.

 

ETA, thinking about it, Demelza is really the only woman in the series who marries up!

Edited July 15, 2015 by Llywela

[marys1000]

So, never having heard of the books or watched the original series, I googled Poldark and read the wiki entry.

Sort of funny - 12 books and it only took 1 paragraph to describe the plot?

 

The main character, Ross Poldark, a British Army officer, returns to his home in Cornwall from the American Revolutionary War only to find that his fiancée Elizabeth Chynoweth, having believed him dead, is about to marry his cousin Francis Poldark. Ross attempts to restore his own fortunes by reopening one of the family's derelict tin mines. After several years he marries Demelza Carne, a poor servant girl, and is gradually reconciled to the loss of Elizabeth's love. By then, Elizabeth has become a widow and marries George Warleggan, Ross's arch-enemy.

The series comprises 12 novels. The first seven are set in the 18th century, concluding in Christmas 1799. The remaining five are concerned with the early years of the 19th century and the lives of the descendents of the main characters of the previous novels. Winston Graham wrote the first four Poldark books during the 1940s and 1950s. Following a long hiatus, he decided to resume the series, and published The Black Moon in 1973.

 

As for the original series, I looked for it at my Library.  They had two copies of "series 2".  Not sure what that meant but the man on the cover was not very good looking and I passed.  It made me feel very shallow:)

[Nampara]

As for the original series, I looked for it at my Library.  They had two copies of "series 2".  Not sure what that meant but the man on the cover was not very good looking and I passed.  It made me feel very shallow:)

 

The original Poldark TV show had two series (what in the U.S. we would call "seasons"). The 1975 series included 16 episodes and covered the first four novels (thus, contrary to some criticism of the new show, the overall time allotted to the story was exactly the same). The 1977 series included 13 episodes and covered books five through seven. That's probably what you saw listed as "Series 2."

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nampara

[Llywela]

As for the original series, I looked for it at my Library.  They had two copies of "series 2".  Not sure what that meant but the man on the cover was not very good looking and I passed.  It made me feel very shallow:)

Heresy! Robin Ellis was quite the heart-throb in his day. Ohhhh, but I've just realised that Ross Poldark himself isn't actually on the front cover of either volume of series 2 - part one shows George Warleggan and part two has the odious Ossie Whitworth, as played by Christopher Biggins. So if that's what you saw, neither is actually the lead. You're better watching series one before series two, though.

 

12 books with only one paragraph on wiki because a) wiki is fan-edited and no one has bothered to go into any more depth, and b) because the books actually cover a hell of a lot of goings on but they are all intertwined and hard to summarise.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Llywela

[Nidratime]

The 1975 series included 16 episodes and covered the first four novels (thus, contrary to some criticism of the new show, the overall time allotted to the story was exactly the same).

 

 

I certainly thought there were more episodes covering the same number of books, primarily because the '75 series seemed to be able to include so much more plot than this current series. It's puzzling me how this latter series appears to have the same amount of storytelling time but is glossing over so much. As I mentioned earlier, once this season is over and I have time, I'd be interested in taking my old DVDs and comparing them to the new ones, episode by episode to see how this "mismatch," for lack of a better way to phrase it, occurs.

[Llywela]

I certainly thought there were more episodes covering the same number of books, primarily because the '75 series seemed to be able to include so much more plot than this current series. It's puzzling me how this latter series appears to have the same amount of storytelling time but is glossing over so much. As I mentioned earlier, once this season is over and I have time, I'd be interested in taking my old DVDs and comparing them to the new ones, episode by episode to see how this "mismatch," for lack of a better way to phrase it, occurs.

I couldn't find it again, but someone online did a count back when P15 aired in the UK and figured out that it actually has more minutes of screentime for books 1-2 than P75 did, and that's counting the full original run-time and not the cut-down version available on DVD. Seriously, the Playback DVDs I've got have edited eight 50-minute episodes down to just 6 hours - yet have such vivid characterisation, it sucks you right in, in spite of the 1970s production values. The difference is all in narrative style and cinematography. P15 does a lot of its storytelling through silent montages, which convey chunks of plot very concisely and are very atmospheric, very aesthetically pleasing. P75 did most of its storytelling through character interaction and dialogue, conveying plot and developing the characters and our bond with them at the same time. So the one is pretty to watch and the other has more vivid characterisation, because that's the style each version chose. Plus, P15 spends more time on Ross and Demelza, and consequently has less time for the other characters around them.

 

A little way back in the thread I linked to a blog that's well worth checking out - they've long since done detailed reviews of P75 and all 12 novels, and are now reviewing P15, with some in-depth examination of the different storytelling techniques going on.

 

I've been rewatching P75 lately, to see how it strikes me now, having seen P15 and read the books - I just reached Ross's trial, and Dwight just had to talk a shell-shocked Francis down from his suicide attempt. Dodgy 1970s production values maybe, but that scene between Francis and Dwight fairly crackled.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Llywela

[Nampara]

So the one is pretty to watch and the other has more vivid characterisation, because that's the style each version chose.

 

What I hope more audience members will acknowledge over time is that this contrast is desirable. Why bother to create a new interpretation that merely seeks to replicate the style and tone of the first interpretation? The 1970s Poldark was, like much British drama of that day, stagey. It really was a lot like watching a play that had been videotaped, with occasional outdoor interludes. Of course there would be enormous streams of dialogue drenching the viewer. The 2015 program strives for a lavish, cinematic presentation, intended to be watched as much as listened to. And indeed, the 2015 result would be much more at home in a movie theater than the original program.

 

The more I consider it, the more pleased I am that the new version sought a very distinct creative identity. The 1970s program and the books fortunately remain available as well, to provide a more fine-grained take on the story.

 

I want to add that in my opinion, all romantic period dramas in the Poldark vein have been influenced by two great wellsprings from the 1990s: Last of the Mohicans (1992) and Pride and Prejudice (1995). After those two adaptations, I think the "drier" approach of previous decades came to seem intolerably old-fashioned.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nampara

[Nidratime]

Why bother to create a new interpretation that merely seeks to replicate the style and tone of the first interpretation?

 

 

I don't know about style and tone but I certainly would like to see the same amount of time given to the subplots and secondary characters because that's what made the series a cut above and the Poldark world come alive, so that you felt like you knew that community. I dare say, if I had not seen the earlier version, I would not care about Ginny or Jim or Prudie or Jud, to name a few, let alone all the other characters we have yet to gloss over in the next four episodes.

[Llywela]

The more I consider it, the more pleased I am that the new version sought a very distinct creative identity. The 1970s program and the books fortunately remain available as well, to provide a more fine-grained take on the story.

I flipped and flopped while watching P15 back in March - I started out struggling to accept the new actors because the old were so vivid in my mind, then fell in love with the leads and the beautiful cinematography (albeit always with a few reservations about the shortchanging of other characters), then grew increasingly disillusioned with the shallowness of the sub-plots and the paucity of characterisation. Honestly, my ideal would be more of a blend between the two. I was hoping this new show would be another Cranford, which was amazing - every character so beautifully realised. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I ended the season more disappointed than delighted. It is a beautiful season, but doesn't fulfil its potential.

 

And that isn't just an old show fan being jaded. My initial enthusiasm persuaded a good friend of mine to watch, who knew nothing of any other version of the story, no pre-conceived ideas to prejudice her whatsoever, but she found it extremely superficial and I regretted recommending it to her!

 

So yes, the new adaptation did have to make different choices for a different age, and is very much designed to suit modern stylings, but while it does some things extremely well and really is lovely to watch, it isn't as good as it could be, and that is because a number of the choices made weaken the overall story instead of strengthening it. The characters are the heart of this story, and while keeping most of them at a distance and simplifying them might make for convenient shorthand to keep the plot rattling along at a good lick, it also robs the story of much of its strength and depth. We're supposed to be better at telling character stories in this modern age, not worse.

 

But the US airing hasn't yet got to the point where I flipped back from really enjoying it to becoming disillusioned as the weaknesses began to override the strengths.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Llywela

[skyways]

Lol  'characters we have yet to gloss over'.................indeed! For me it's bizarre. I started off really disliking the older production and only read the books just to be prepared for this version.  I stopped halfway because such was my distaste with both the original series and the books ( although the books helped me understand and enjoy the newer series). In the end, I liked the original series a lot and became ambivalent to the 2015 version. I even bought more episodes of the 75 to re-watch and can't re-watch  P15  as much. I really thought the reverse would be the case and I think it's because I do appreciate the depth of those characters compared to how P15 dealt with them. For instance I didn't care about Drake and Morwenna but I did when watching the P75 version! So much so that I went back and read about them again through new eyes.

 

For me it's really the relationship between Caroline and Ross that fascinated me.  They both admitted to each other they sort of were attracted to each other but were not going to act on it. It was fascinating that conversation.

[Nampara]

But the US airing hasn't yet got to the point where I flipped back from really enjoying it to becoming disillusioned as the weaknesses began to override the strengths.

 

I assume that means you think episodes 1-4 were more successful on the whole than episodes 5-8. I tend to agree, but in part because the first novel, Ross Poldark, is much more of a standalone work. It can function as a beautiful little self-contained romance, with a traditional happy ending, that happens to invert the standard Austenian structure for tales of this type. Instead of (1) True love, (2) Marriage, and (3) [unmentionable], we get (1) Sex, (2) Marriage, and (3) True love. Oddly, the inversion makes the outcome even more satisfying, because it was less certain. Can you imagine watching episodes 1-4 as a Poldark miniseries unto itself? I can.

 

The second book, Demelza, tells a more complicated and less straightforward story. In movie terms, it's very much a "middle chapter." I don't think it makes a natural stopping point for the continuing Poldark saga if one moves beyond the first book, which means that episodes 5-8 will feel incomplete. I think these are the options for concluding the overall story:

• After book 1 (the Cinderella romance)
• After book 4 (the final resolution of the "triangle")
• After book 7 (the death of Elizabeth and conclusion of the 18th century)
• After book 12 (Poldark: The Next Generation)

 

I understand that you have other objections to the storytelling as well, and I certainly don't believe that Poldark 2015 is above criticism. It has definite weaknesses, some of which are the result of conscious creative tradeoffs, and some of which are flaws in execution. But in my view, "good, but could be better" is a reason for celebration, not disappointment. The vast majority of our cultural outputs do not even meet that standard (see Sturgeon's law). The failure to deliver perfection is something I can overlook, as long as a project's strengths outweigh its weaknesses. For me, the strengths of Poldark 2015 surely do. I think we are applying the same test, but simply differ on the balance.

[Llywela]

For me it's really the relationship between Caroline and Ross that fascinated me.  They both admitted to each other they sort of were attracted to each other but were not going to act on it. It was fascinating that conversation.

Yeah, I enjoy that conversation too - especially the timing and Caroline's reasons for initiating it. It really is an interesting dynamic. Ross and Caroline have always fancied each other, right from the start - they understand one another at a level that neither Demelza nor Dwight can touch, partly to do with compatibility of personality and partly because they come from the same social set, which Demelza and Dwight don't belong to. But they've never acted on that attraction, because they are both in love with someone else, and it's always remained unspoken and unacknowledged. So when Caroline brings it up, she has a very specific reason for doing so. Ross and Demelza are on the outs; he is travelling home from London with Caroline, and she takes the opportunity to have this very frank discussion about the fact that they've always fancied each other and could very easily sleep together during this 5-day journey - in fact, many of their social set would think it crazy that as a quartet they've always been so close without ever swapping partners...but having agreed all that, they also agree that they aren't actually going to do anything about it, because they both love Demelza and they both love Dwight, and they would see it differently and be hurt by it. And then Caroline turns it around and uses that conversation to point out to Ross his own double standards, which have been the major contributers to his current difficulties with Demelza - it's cleverly done, very well played by Caroline.

 

Through the books, Graham plays a few times with the idea that people can connect with one another on different levels. So Ross and Caroline have this connection and understanding, which takes nothing away from the love they have for their chosen life partners. Demelza struck up a firm friendship with Francis once they discovered in one another a similar outlook and sense of humour, which Ross didn't share, but it was a connection at an entirely platonic level, unlike Ross's attraction to Caroline. There was Demelza's emotional bond with Hugh Armitage, which sat alongside and never diminished her abiding love for Ross. Ross fell deeply in love with Demelza without ever quite giving up the bond he felt toward Elizabeth. And so on. The interpersonal dynamics within the books are always interesting, the way they weave and develop.