Luke: Red meat can kill you. Enjoy.

[Anela]

 

That about sums up my morning, and it would be nice to be able to visit the diner, and have someone to share the hate with.

 

I was watching the first season again, and I was wondering how Luke was supposed to have met Rachel. Did she live in Stars Hollow? Was she passing through town, and stopped in at the diner? 

 

 

[Taryn74]

I was watching the first season again, and I was wondering how Luke was supposed to have met Rachel. Did she live in Stars Hollow? Was she passing through town, and stopped in at the diner? 

 

I don't think they ever really said for sure, but I got the impression that she grew up in Stars Hollow.

[lulu1960]

Well according to Concert Interruptus which was in 2000 or so:

 

SOOKIE: Rachel was Luke’s very serious girlfriend. It does look like her.

LORELAI: When did Luke have a girlfriend?

MISS PATTY: Oh this must have been what, five, six years ago? Did she break that man’s heart. It was terrible.

LORELAI: How did I not know about this?

SOOKIE: Honey, you had an 11 year old kid and you were just moving into this house. Plus Rachel traveled all the time. She was a photographer.

MISS PATTY: Archeologist.

SOOKIE: Really?

MISS PATTY: Or a flight attendant.

 

If she lived there all her life it didn't sound like it. Also:

 

LORELAI: Yes but I’m fascinated. I mean, I go to Luke’s once a day, sometimes twice - three times if Michel has talked to one of his relatives and his accent has gotten thicker. I feel I should know the whole story. What happened? Where’d she go?

SOOKIE: Well, Rachel liked to move around a lot. She was very adventurous person. She loved to climb things and fling herself off of cliffs and dive into these really tiny lakes and ride big wild horses and fly planes.

LORELAI: So she was wonder woman.

SOOKIE: She was to Luke. I thought they were going to get married.

LORELAI: What happened?

SOOKIE: The rumour is that Starts Hollow was too small for her. She wanted to live somewhere more exciting.

LORELAI: But Luke didn’t.

SOOKIE: Mm. You know Luke. He lived here all his life. He wouldn’t even go away for college. I think we’re going to bury him in that diner.

 

So that sounds like she wasn't necessarily from SH

[dustylil]

If Stars Hollow was too small for Rachel, it sounds to me very much like she grew up there :)

 

Actually, like Taryn it was my understanding that Rachel  was from Stars Hollow.  I thought Rachel and Luke had gone to high school together and first became romantically involved back then. With her then going off to college and/or pursuing her photography career and coming back to the town to touch base and rekindle her on and off again relationship with Luke.

 

It is interesting that Sookie and Miss Patty in Season 1 speak of "five, six years ago" as to their last break-up. How does that tie in with his involvement with Anna Nardini? What with Luke being a serial monogamist and all.

[LeafontheWind]

It is interesting that Sookie and Miss Patty in Season 1 speak of "five, six years ago" as to their last break-up. How does that tie in with his involvement with Anna Nardini? What with Luke being a serial monogamist and all.

Maybe Luke started seeing Rachel right after Anna mysteriously dropped out of his life with no warning or explanation? I am exaggerating, of course, since we don't know exactly how that relationship ended, but it doesn't seem like Luke and Anna were all that emotionally invested in one another if she could move to a whole new town and never be heard of again without him making an effort to find out why. Which is speculation, again. Maybe he desperately tried to find her and met Rachel on one of his long searches?

[Taryn74]

Yeah, Rachel told Lorelai in EiW she always wanted to be "anywhere but here" which is why it sounded like she grew up there and took off as soon as she could.

[dustylil]

Did Anna Nardini actually ever live in Stars Hollow? I thought she was from a nearby community. Woodbridge, wasn't it? Certainly the two towns were close enough to each other that April was able to bike to and fro.

[eledgy]

Here's what's in the script on where Rachel grew up (from EiW, as Taryn mentioned above):

 

LORELAI: It's a new idea in the last couple years actually. How about you? Did you always want to be a photographer?

RACHEL: Not specifically. I just remember growing up thinking I want to be anywhere but here.

 

To me this says she grew up in SH, but I suppose 'here' doesn't HAVE to mean SH. It doesn't necessarily contradict what Sookie and Patty said in Concert Interruptus, to me that's most likely a case of the writers fleshing things out (though not by much) as Rachel actually returning to SH becomes part of the story line. I don't think there's very much script-based evidence of the timing of her and Luke, aside from the Sookie/Patty info. Luke references the coming and going but without any details on when and how many times. Could they have dated off and on since high school? Sure. Started and stopped sometime after that? Sure. 

 

And here's what's in the script about Anna and Luke's relationship:  

 

LIZ: Twelve, huh?

LUKE: Twelve.

LIZ: That's Anna Nardini, isn't it?

LUKE [stunned]: How'd you know?

LIZ: Luke, you're not Warren Beatty. I mean, you could have been, girls like you, but you're a serial monogamist. That's why you're you. I remember Anna, I liked her!

 

All we get from this is that Liz met her--no information on where or how. Also from the script we get April referencing that three men could possibly be her father, which could speak to the non-seriousness of the Luke-Anna relationship, and that Anna was at the opening of the diner (I don't think the show ever gave a date on that event). No information in the scripts, that I recall, on where Anna lived in the past, just that she's in Woodbridge at the time of the show.

 

Putting it together, I think it times out that Rachel and Luke were together for a while around 1995 (5-6 years before Concert Interruptus, which also aligns with Rory being about 11), and that Anna and Luke were together for some unspecified period of time in 1993 (breaking up around the time Anna got pregnant with April, who was born in the spring of 1994, based on her turning 13 in the show in spring of 2006). Did the relationship with Anna occur in between Rachel visits?  Or before Luke and Rachel dated? No way of knowing.

 

For all manner of speculation on the timing of all this, see a multitude of fan fics!  :-)

Edited July 19, 2015 by eledgy

[takalotti]

Also from the script we get April referencing that three men could possibly be her father, which could speak to the non-seriousness of the Luke-Anna relationship,

To me, April not knowing which of three men were her father didn't necessarily mean Anna and Luke weren't serious. I just figured that meant Anna hadn't let April know when she dated each of her past boyfriends. April might have seen pictures or undated cards with/from three different men and Anna wouldn't give anymore details to keep April from figuring out her paternity.

[dustylil]

April not knowing which of three men were her father

 

That Anna! What a swell mother!

[JayInChicago]

 

Also from the script we get April referencing that three men could possibly be her father

 

This is totally one of points of the show that not enough was babbled about!  It could imply anything from Anna Nardini cheating on Luke with two other guys to very innocent well-spaced serial monogamist relationships. Granted, April says something about getting the other guys' info from cards but...don't cards/letters usually have dates?  I think that the show didn't intend for this to have some sort of meaning but...April is a smart girl. She can subtract 9 months from her birthdate and cross reference it with dated correspondence.

[dustylil]

JayinChicago, it may not have been babbled about here recently. However, at the time it was  babbled about at considerable length and vehemence :)

I do think though that while postcards may show dates,  I am not sure that personal letters and cards generally reveal dates. Unless of course they are saved with their envelopes.

[takalotti]

(Shrug) I never write dates on cards. I can't think of the last time I received a card with a date on it.

This is the Luke thread, not the Anna thread, so I won't go on about it, but as much as I disliked Anna's character, I didn't have a problem with April not knowing her paternity. It was never the case that Anna was unsure of who the father was (cheating scenario). Some parents don't tell their kids they are adopted until they are 18. Maybe Anna was waiting until April was older before she started telling her details. Until then I assume she just said, "I was dating someone, so it wasn't a one night stand with a stranger or anything, we happened to break up before he knew about you and I decided to have you all on my own. We don't need anyone else." It never seemed like April had this longing for her father figure that her mom was denying her. She only did the paternity test to win a science contest, hoping the added drama would give her an edge, not "Ooo, here's my excuse to find out that info my mom always refuses to tell me."

Oops. So much for not going on about it. :/

Edited July 20, 2015 by takalotti

[dustylil]

Back to Luke and the paternity issue then - among the many absurdities concerning the April storyline for me was Luke for all intents and purposes ignoring his daughter and her circumstances for several weeks. This is the same man who for the past ten years had taken a keen interest in the well-being of a friend's daughter, including coming close to  beating  up a teenage boy for apparently having the temerity to break her heart. And later offering  to kidnap her  so she will return to Yale.

Yet he makes no effort to determine if his own child is healthy, thriving and well provided for, that her mother is an adequate parent and that that indeed all April wanted was to win a science contest. Because Luke could rely on the word of a twelve-year-old to know what was best for her. I thought it was conduct worthy of Christopher.

[solotrek]

Yet he makes no effort to determine if his own child is healthy, thriving and well provided for, that her mother is an adequate parent and that that indeed all April wanted was to win a science contest. Because Luke could rely on the word of a twelve-year-old to know what was best for her. I thought it was conduct worthy of Christopher.

 

I'd say this situation is significantly different from Christopher, and Luke's relationship with Rory.

 

He had known Rory since she was ~11. She went to the diner everyday, sometimes several times a day. He had a crush on her mother and was basically their handyman. There was a couple of years worth of a relationship. So yes, it makes perfect sense that from what we would see in the show, Luke would act quicker for Rory than for April. Since by the start of the show, he had known Rory for ~5 years and he met April the same time we did (which was ~11 years of knowing Rory by that point).

 

First off, the bombshell that Luke was a father was dropped on him by a 12 year old and "confirmed" at her science fair. From Luke's perspective at the time, Anna wanted Luke to have no part in Anna or April's life since he knew nothing about Anna being pregnant/April's existence. He was essentially a complete stranger and vice versa. Most strangers wouldn't go out of their way to check on a well being of a child unless there were serious signs of problems. For all intents and purposes he was more sperm donor than a father and that seems to be the way Anna wanted it. Any person would take a bit to get their bearings on that situation. As we've seen repeatedly, he's a guy who takes a bit to process anything.

 

However, once he processed the fact that he was a dad, he did everything he could to be there for his daughter. He dealt with a woman who seemed as (or even more so) headstrong and stubborn as Lorelai. Did everything in his power to spend time with April and getting to know her, to the detriment to his relationship with Lorelai. He fought hard to have April in his life and did everything he could to make up for lost  time.

 

Even if (as some people in this forum have suggested) Lorelai purposely made it a little hard for Christopher to have a say in Rory's childhood, it was clear that Christopher did little to fight for his daughter. Even in the show, it was said repeatedly how absentee he was, how unreliable he was, how he'd miss phone calls (until Sherry came into the picture and he got his life together), and would miss big events (which is why Rory was scared of asking him to her coming out party). Heck, Christopher was upset that Rory "finked on him" when his credit card didn't go through. It shows the lack of maturity that basically kept Christopher from being a good father.

 

Comparing the Christopher-Rory situation with the Luke-April one is like comparing apples to penguins.

[dustylil]

I wasn't comparing the relationship of  Luke and Rory to that of Christopher and Rory. Just that in a similar situation of a long lost child, ignoring the situation would strike me as something Christopher might do. Given the cavalier way Christopher had treated both Rory and Gigi on occasion.

 

I guess I have difficulty with a mature, intelligent man like Luke  taking close to two months to coming to terms with the fact that he was a parent. Especially one to whom by all accounts "family" and "duty to family"  were of great importance and who very much honoured his own father. And whose contempt for Jimmy Mariano and Christopher Hayden was palpable.

 

After all, he was not married nor under any obligation of celibacy when he was involved with Anna - situations where he might have felt the need to take time to weigh his duty to this child with his other responsibilities. He was a single man in a consensual relationship with an adult woman in the late twentieth century in the USA when the pregnancy occurred. He was hardly in a unique or bizarre circumstance. What terrible shame - if that is what he feared - would he face if matter became known?

 

And of all people he sought guidance from as to whether or not he could ignore the situation, it was his flaky sister - not Rev. Skinner, Rabbi Behrens, or some other individual whose advice he could respect - to whom he spoke. A woman whose own parenting skills he had long found wanting. And to the best of my recollection, someone he had never previously consulted on any matters of significance.

 

If Luke had looked into the living arrangements and circumstances of April and Anna, found them perfectly adequate and decided against any involvement, I would have thought him perhaps unfeeling. But to do nothing  when all he had was the word of a twelve-year-old that all was well in her world, did -and continues to - strike me as both cold and irresponsible. And not something I would have expected of a man who had attended the funeral of a caterpillar for a young girl of similar age that he had just begun to know.

Edited July 21, 2015 by dustylil

[junienmomo]

The April storyline is the biggest of the deus ex machina constructs written by the Palladinos for GG, and the most egregious.

In any deus ex machina storyline, in which the writers put the audience into a situation where something miraculous occurs, each audience member chooses to believe or not.

The very interesting discussion you all are having above are great examples of how audience members work through the utter lack of logic behind this particular construct.

 

Why would he consult Liz after parenting Jess? Why wouldn't he talk to Lorelai about it - they discussed Jess constantly after their first argument? Why would a man who hates jam hands have a non-serious relationship with someone without assuring himself of birth control? Why wasn't the first thing he said to Lorelai when he got home the evening after April took the hair sample something like, "damn kids! Do you know what happened to me today?" Why didn't he do the math and go find the few girlfriends he probably had?

While I've since come to believe that the actual shark-jumping happened long before April's appearance, it was truly the nail in the coffin for me for at least season 6.

 

Some other deus ex machinas I saw in the GG include:

• Lorelai going hardline "you have to come to me" on Rory when she quit school. Lorelai didn't have the patience for that lack of contact
• Rory deciding to steal a yacht and Logan not redirecting her into any other activity
• A secure home like the Gilmores having windows that Lorelai could easily break in and out of
• Richard's $75k investment and other money falling from the sky whenever Lorelai needed it
• Taylor's decision to attract the trucking crowd to Doose's Market (Did that ultimately exist only for Lorelai to have a cute outfit to visit Christoper with?)
• Why would a man who wouldn't let Taylor put streamers in the diner not do something about the frigging window?

[solotrek]

And of all people he sought guidance from as to whether or not he could ignore the situation, it was his flaky sister - not Rev. Skinner, Rabbi Behrens, or some other individual whose advice he could respect - to whom he spoke. A woman whose own parenting skills he had long found wanting. And to the best of my recollection, someone he had never previously consulted on any matters of significance.

 

Why would someone who wasn't religious go to a religious figure for advice? Just because you respect someone doesn't mean you're going to tell the person your newly discovered personal secret. Especially if you're a private person. The town was a gossip/rumor mill. Luke only had 2 people that he could really talk to in his life, Lorelai and his sister. He already said that he didn't want Lorelai to know because of the Rory thing and the fact that he was freaked out beyond all belief and didn't know how it would impact their relationship. Even though Liz had deplorable parenting skills, she was the only person he could speak candidly to and wouldn't be judged by.

 

If Luke had looked into the living arrangements and circumstances of April and Anna, found them perfectly adequate and decided against any involvement, I would have thought him perhaps unfeeling. But to do nothing  when all he had was the word of a twelve-year-old that all was well in her world, did -and continues to - strike me as both cold and irresponsible. And not something I would have expected of a man who had attended the funeral of a caterpillar for a young girl of similar age that he had just begun to know.

 

This might be cold hearted of me, but why should he care? He was essentially treated like a sperm donor. He had no social or personal responsibility for this child. In fact, he was purposely kept away from the child for 12 years. It'd be a different scenario if Anna came to him, told him April was his child, and it was important that he knew. Instead, he willingly went "all in" based on the science fair project of a 12 year old which is pretty rash IMO. For all he knew, April's uncle did the DNA test and found that none of the 3 guys were her father. Realized this might make his sister look like a whore and would be more traumatizing to his niece than the ridiculous Mama Mia situation and doctored the results. It's not that hard to do.

 

The relationship he had with Rory was inherently different than the one with April, especially at the beginning. Rory was there everyday or more. He was a provider of food/coffee for them. He fixed their house. He was pretty involved in their lives. April was in another town and he had no relationship or any contact with her.

 

Edit: Also, Luke treated Anna a lot better than any reasonable person would have after it all settled and he accepted April as his daughter. There's something fundamentally wrong with not even informing someone that they're going to be a father, whether you want them in your life or not. The "you always hated kids" line is blatant BS and a lazy excuse.

Edited July 21, 2015 by solotrek

[dustylil]

If it had been Anna who had somewhat nonchalantly informed Luke that he was the father of a twelve year old child, had callously kept that knowledge from him and told him that going forward  there were no expectations of him, then his initial indifference could have made sense to me. But it wasn't Anna, it was the little girl herself. And at that point he knew nothing of her situation.

 

I  was dumbfounded at both how well Luke treated Anna given her conduct and how well he apparently thought of her. When Lorelai after dinner with her parents, gently queried him about April's mother he described her as "cool","down to earth" and "nothing bad there". At the time, I began to wonder if he wasn't pining for her.

[solotrek]

But it wasn't Anna, it was the little girl herself. And at that point he knew nothing of her situation.

 

I guess what I'm saying is, he has no reason to care about her situation because he has no clue who this girl is and even with the "confirmation" had no real reason to believe anything the girl had said. It's easier to wave off.  For all intents and purposes, until he had a conversation with Anna that gave it credence, it was a bizarre little kid informing him that he's probably her dad. When he had the somewhat "official confirmation" from Anna, he did everything he could to get involved.

 

I  was dumbfounded at both how well Luke treated Anna given her conduct and how well he apparently thought of her. When Lorelai after dinner with her parents, gently queried him about April's mother he described her as "cool","down to earth" and "nothing bad there". At the time, I began to wonder if he wasn't pining for her.

 

As much as I hate triangles, it would have been a better storyline. The storyline we got basically boiled down to Lorelai being upset that she was being sidelined for Luke blindly wanting to connect with his daughter and make up for 12 years of lost fatherhood, essentially issuing an ultimatum to choose between her and his daughter, and sleeping with Christopher. It was absurd. Had they played more of the Anna card in the show, it would show why Lorelai was so seemingly threatened, why she wanted to "rush" the marriage, and how Luke's relationship with Anna was really affecting her. In fact, it would have been a great parallel between the relationship of Christopher and Lorelai with Rory and Luke and Anna with April.

Edited July 21, 2015 by solotrek

[Kohola3]

So many missed opportunities, so few episodes that made sense.  Sigh.

[Anela]

I don't understand his connection to Nicole, either. I can see Rachel growing up there, she wasn't wrapped up in money, and seemed like she'd fit in with his lifestyle, to a certain extent. But Nicole wasn't even like his other girlfriends. It wouldn't bother me, if they had any actual chemistry, but I don't see any. 

[junienmomo]

About Nicole, it seemed to be mostly Jess goading Luke into believing that she was coming on to him. I never saw what Jess saw, unless Nicole was really bad at flirting. Agreed, zero chemistry.

Also, just prior to that was the event in which Lorelai let Luke teach her how to fish so she could go on a date with a guy who liked fishing. That would really tick me off and I'd be willing to date the next warm body just out of spite.

 

About Lorelai not knowing about Rachel, what really bugs me is that they knew each other for at least four years preseries. We're expected to believe that Lorelai, queen of all that she deems to be important about Luke, never once harangued him about old girlfriends? Come to think of it, she also didn't know he had a sister. 

Humph. They must have spent those four years talking about Lorelai. ;)

[Taryn74]

Humph. They must have spent those four years talking about Lorelai. ;)

 

For reals just choked on my drink.

[dustylil]

Would Luke even have told Lorelai about his earlier life or his past romantic relationships - however much she might have  asked, cajoled or nagged? He could be quite economical with the truth when it suited him.

[Kohola3]

Between Babette, Miss Patty, and East Side Tilly I can't believe there is anyone in SH that is not up to date on every single detail of everyone's lives.

[Guest]

Much as I like to speculate that she spent all 4 years just talking about herself, I think this was a bit of first year blundering. There are a number of things that don't make sense as the show progresses.

[junienmomo]

Much as I like to speculate that she spent all 4 years just talking about herself, I think this was a bit of first year blundering. There are a number of things that don't make sense as the show progresses.

 

Totally agree on the blundering part. It's amazing that apparently no one in the writing or editing process came up with suggestions like "wait, why don't we just have Lorelai say, 'huh. someone did once mention that Luke once had a girlfriend' instead of her being absolutely clueless about her best friend?" Did he actually have the best friend label in S1? I'm thinking maybe not, since diner owner as a male-type human being came in late in the game.

[solotrek]

I think Sookie was the best friend. As she had said, Lorelai was busy raising a 9 year old during the Rachel time plus she was just moving in to her house. Also the rate at which gossip traveled was quick. The gossip crew of Babette and Miss Patty and East Side Tilley could wear that out in a day.

[Persnickety1]

I think this is the appropriate thread to vent in about what I consider the absolute derailment of this show for me.

 

I should preface this by saying I do still love the show and, being without cable TV at the moment after I relocated to a mountain village, I bought the entire series on DVD and watch it ad nauseam.

 

But that kid who played April?

 

I find that kid absolutely insufferable.  I see ZERO chemistry with her and any other cast member, whether it's Fenn as her mother or Patterson as her father.  

 

It's almost as if they wanted to make her somehow a counterpart to Rory, being brainy and advanced for her age, but goddamn that kid just grates on my soul.  I can't stand her in any scene I saw her in, from that scenery-chewing scene in the diner about moving to New Mexico to her Lorelai-organized birthday party scenes.

 

Maybe I'd have found this entire storyline more palatable with another kid (any other kid) in the role, but this one?  Ugh.

 

And that scene where they had to return her rock polisher that she apparently wanted Luke to get her, then pissed and moaned when he did get it for her because her grandparents had already given her one? Arghhh....  

 

Good Christ, I just wanted to rip her oversized head from her shoulders and chuck it into said rock-polishing machine, hoping a new April would emerge.

 

Okay, off of my rant now.  It's just with the ridiculous amount of love I have for this show, that kid just ruined my enjoyment of every single episode in which she appeared.  Every time her bespectacled, smug, overacting face pops onto my screen, I find myself wondering just who the frig she was related to that she landed that role.

 

I feel so much better now...

Edited September 26, 2015 by Persnickety1

[desertflower]

I'm still in the midst of the April episodes and haven't seen them all, and while I agree she is annoying, I'm more apt to blame the writing. I appreciate ASP giving us young female characters who are smart, but the problem is April is written like a little Lorelai in overdrive, assaulting us with her rapid-fire witty banter. And that's not very cute in a 12 year old. I'm not sure a different actress would've helped. But maybe it would, who knows. All I know is if you bring in a character like that who throws a big wedge between the main characters' happiness, the audience already is going to tend to not like her. When you make the character annoying on top of it there's just no chance for the poor girl to be likeable at all!