S01.E05: Episode 5

[Anothermi]

In episode 1, Ross reveals his military participation was a way to get out of some trouble he was in. So clearly he didn't join for ideological purposes.

 

He also indicated, when asked about the war, that perhaps they lost because they were fighting on the wrong side didn't he? It was kind of a throw away line in the first episode and I can't remember if he said it before he was pissed off about Elizabeth & Francis' engagement or after. That's only relevant because I can see him saying that after as a way of rudely expressing his feelings about the whole circumstance without being rude directly to his relatives. He's impulsive but he generally displays "appropriate" behavior when in the presence of his own class. If he said it before it is more likely his war experience led him to question the overall politics of the conflict. They didn't show that, it's just extrapolation. I could see his motivation for that comment going either way. (all the above is based on this version only)

[Llywela]

I think Ross's present thoughts and beliefs have been a lifetime in the making, probably influenced by many things. We know he got himself into trouble as a lad, as he indicated that's why he went into the army. We also know he's been friendly with his workers and tenants for many years, as we saw how they greeted him on his return and have seen him hanging out with them. His experiences in the war can't help but have made an impression on him. And through all these influences and experiences, his firmly held sense of social justice has formed.

[Shadow Wave]

The problem (one of many) with capitalism is that it chooses profit over all else, whether is be workers, or the betterment of the product or R&D or something that helps the community.

 

This is quite a generalization.  In the context of Cornish mining specifically, capitalism drove innovations that made mines workable, including the Newcomen and the more efficient Watt steam engines for dewatering deep levels of the mines. The great Cornish engineer Richard Trevithick was the "captain" of a mine and was responsible for numerous innovations in steam engine technology in the 1790s and early 1800s -- his birthplace was a village called Illogan which is where Demelza is supposed to be from, as I recall.

Readers of the books know that much later on Jeremy Poldark becomes involved with Trevithick.

 

It would have been impossible to operate the mines at all without technology, and funding, driven by capitalism. We see in this episode money being raised for the mineowner's smelter project, which is presented as an unequivocally good thing. That's capitalism, too.

 

There are good people, average people ,and bad people at all levels of society and all income groups. Ross is an idealized character, George is a villain, Francis somewhere in between.

[justmehere]

He also indicated, when asked about the war, that perhaps they lost because they were fighting on the wrong side didn't he? It was kind of a throw away line in the first episode...

 

Yeah, it was very early. He's just seen that Elizabeth is there and is approaching her when the great aunt asks how they lost. He replies, very lighthearted, that they were on the wrong side and then continues toward Elizabeth. It almost came across like a joke, actually.

[Milz]

He also indicated, when asked about the war, that perhaps they lost because they were fighting on the wrong side didn't he? It was kind of a throw away line in the first episode and I can't remember if he said it before he was pissed off about Elizabeth & Francis' engagement or after. That's only relevant because I can see him saying that after as a way of rudely expressing his feelings about the whole circumstance without being rude directly to his relatives. He's impulsive but he generally displays "appropriate" behavior when in the presence of his own class. If he said it before it is more likely his war experience led him to question the overall politics of the conflict. They didn't show that, it's just extrapolation. I could see his motivation for that comment going either way. (all the above is based on this version only)

 

I took that comment to be sarcasm: they fought on the wrong side because it was the side that lost.

 

I recall watching a PBS program about the American Revolution, which incorporated letters/diaries of Redcoats. The Continental Army wasn't good at "traditional" warfare: organized lines of battle---they sucked at it so much they hired Germans to help them.

It did, however, excel at guerrilla warfare: ambushes (which we saw in the first episodes), sabotage, etc. Also the citizenry was armed. The PBS show had an actor read a letter of a Redcoat who was disgusted that behind every hill were armed citizens and everyone was armed, including the children.

 

So based on that PBS show, I have a feeling Ross thought the entire time he was there: "This sucks big time! For every Loyalist, there's a Rebel. So you don't know who's sympathetic or who's not. Virginia's climate is hot and humid on even days and hot and humid on odd days. And did I mention it was hot and humid? "

[Nampara]

Stray question: Why does Tom Carne refer to Nampara as a place of "filth" when he and his wife arrive for the christening? (I took that personally!) Is it because

 

( a )  The marriage of Ross and Demelza only confirmed Tom's suspicion that the two of them must have been fornicatin' to beat the band beforehand, and you know, that kind of stuff lingers in the atmosphere?

 

( b )  The Poldarks are known not to be "saved," and therefore any abode of theirs must be sinful and corrupt?

 

( c )  The party included many people from all walks of life, and we all know that there be no more wicked creatures on earth than people?

 

[Milz]

Stray question: Why does Tom Carne refer to Nampara as a place of "filth" when he and his wife arrive for the christening? (I took that personally!) Is it because

 

( a )  The marriage of Ross and Demelza only confirmed Tom's suspicion that the two of them must have been fornicatin' to beat the band beforehand, and you know, that kind of stuff lingers in the atmosphere?

 

( b )  The Poldarks are known not to be "saved," and therefore any abode of theirs must be sinful and corrupt?

 

( c )  The party included many people from all walks of life, and we all know that there be no more wicked creatures on earth than people?

 

Tom Carne married the Widow Cherwidden, who was a strict Methodist. And he became a Methodist too. So, when he comes to the christening and sees people drinking alcohol, wearing loud clothing, etc. He saw it as a den of snakes and sinners, hence "filth". I don't recall seeing the miners there, but rather the 'gentry', who were most likely not Methodists, but Anglicans.

 

I don't think this is a spoiler but years ago I read Poldark's Cornwall written by Winston Graham. It's a beautifully photographed book with nice photos of the Cornish countryside and coast. It's part travelogue, part memoir. And it had some Poldark trivia scattered throughout (like the first human child named Demelza was the daughter of one of Graham's friend, etc.). Anyhow, 'nampara' means 'valley of bread'.

[Nampara]

Tom Carne married the Widow Cherwidden, who was a strict Methodist. And he became a Methodist too. So, when he comes to the christening and sees people drinking alcohol, wearing loud clothing, etc. He saw it as a den of snakes and sinners, hence "filth". I don't recall seeing the miners there, but rather the 'gentry', who were most likely not Methodists, but Anglicans.

 

So basically it's a combination of b and c. We did see miners at the party (e.g., Zacky Martin), but it's not clear whether Tom Carne encountered them. The point about alcohol is a good one. Drinkin' be almost as bad as fornicatin'. Tom was very proud when he told Demelza in episode 3 that he had sworn off drink after his conversion.

[Llywela]

I think it's actually a bit of a, b and c! He's seeing the marriage as evidence that he was right all along about Ross taking advantage of his daughter, he knows they aren't Methody and are therefore unsaved, and he sees a room full of people drinking alcohol, many of the women in what by his standards are revealing dresses. All combining to make it a 'den of filth'.

 

The newly converted are often the most zealous, no matter what the cause!

[HalcyonDays]

This is quite a generalization.  In the context of Cornish mining specifically, capitalism drove innovations that made mines workable, including the Newcomen and the more efficient Watt steam engines for dewatering deep levels of the mines. The great Cornish engineer Richard Trevithick was the "captain" of a mine and was responsible for numerous innovations in steam engine technology in the 1790s and early 1800s -- his birthplace was a village called Illogan which is where Demelza is supposed to be from, as I recall.

Readers of the books know that much later on Jeremy Poldark becomes involved with Trevithick.

 

It would have been impossible to operate the mines at all without technology, and funding, driven by capitalism. We see in this episode money being raised for the mineowner's smelter project, which is presented as an unequivocally good thing. That's capitalism, too.

 

But you just kinda proved my point about capitalism being all about profit. Technology made the mines workable, as you said, and that the mines would be impossible to operate without technology. If you can't operate the mine or make it workable, the mines would not yield any metal ores. Without extracting the desired metal ores from the ground, you cannot refine it and get said metal to sell off, effectively earning some money. Without at least a bit of profit, the business would not have any money to operate. Inventors wanted to find ways to do things faster, cheaper and easier (and reduce human involvement). In this case, technology was used to find ways to get more out of a mine, therefore making the mine profitable.

 

Now it's true you can break even. For some companies, it may have been enough for the company to pay operating costs and salaries and nothing is left. But what happens when the cost of copper falls? (as we saw in this episode and last) Now the company is operating at a loss. It's taking in less money than it needs to run daily operations. Now if you need a loan, no investor is going to give you money, because they won't get anything back for it.

 

This is why (to me) capitalism is all about companies focused almost solely on making profit, and the betterment of society is a byproduct of a companies' desire to make more money, but it's never their first goal. When you have car companies, for example, weighing the cost of a law suit versus recalling cars to fix a flaw, and decide its cheaper for them to let a few people die or get injured, that is very telling. Henry Ford didn't invent the assembly line to make it easier for workers. He invented it so that employee didn't need much training (costly) and could be easily replaced. Health and Safety initiatives have nothing to do with the wellbeing of employees. It has to do with companies not wanting to be sued and having to pay a lawsuit, or having to pay workers comp. Part times jobs are all the rage now, because employers can limit the number of hours worked, and therefore not pay benefits or pensions to these people, therefore saving money and boosting profit.

 

This is nothing new though. Companies have been finding creative ways to boost profit for hundreds of years.

 

There are good people, average people ,and bad people at all levels of society and all income groups. Ross is an idealized character, George is a villain, Francis somewhere in between.

 

Absolutely. Totally agree with this.

[jjj]

Francis is a good example of what happens when someone lets his resentment of and reaction to others define his essence.  Oh, and desperate for validation. There is no core there, because he is constantly redefining himself and his worth in reaction to or comparison to others.  George knows who he is (vile!  and successful!) and Ross knows who he is (idealistic! and 'we try harder and we're the better for it!').

[Milz]

RE: Tom Carne on Ross and Demelza's marriage.

 

While Tom Carne would be upset the Ross took advantage of Demelza, I think he would be relieved that he made an honest woman of her by marrying her. Had Ross kept Demelza as a mistress and had an illegitimate child with her, I think Tom Carne would habr brought the Illugan miners with him for a show down!

[Eolivet]

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.

 

(Had to quote this brilliant paragraph again just to agree with it some more.)

 

I honestly don't understand the allure of the one that got away and the ~romance of what could've been, and why male writers in particular (maybe women do it but I feel like it's way more obnoxious when men do it) seem to be so obsessed with this trope. I swear, it must be a male fantasy, because there's no other reason why the nice, kind man that is Ross Poldark turns into Ted effin' Mosby around Elizabeth. Especially when he otherwise seems to adore Demelza! This better not be How I Met Your Mother all over again, or I swear...

 

(And I know the television writer is a woman, but she had to get the source material from somewhere.)

 

Memo to all men: I believe that type of behavior isn't "romantic," it isn't "sweet," it's just freaking creepy, not to mention so disrespectful to the man's current partner. It's even creepier because they're both married. I don't understand what I'm supposed to feel when they show those scenes, because I really like Ross, but I absolutely adore Demelza. Is there a scenario where we're actually supposed to sympathize with Ross or understand why he feels this way? Because if so, I definitely missed that memo.

[Dejana]

 

(Had to quote this brilliant paragraph again just to agree with it some more.)

 

I honestly don't understand the allure of the one that got away and the ~romance of what could've been, and why male writers in particular (maybe women do it but I feel like it's way more obnoxious when men do it) seem to be so obsessed with this trope. I swear, it must be a male fantasy, because there's no other reason why the nice, kind man that is Ross Poldark turns into Ted effin' Mosby around Elizabeth. Especially when he otherwise seems to adore Demelza! This better not be How I Met Your Mother all over again, or I swear...

 

(And I know the television writer is a woman, but she had to get the source material from somewhere.)

 

Memo to all men: I believe that type of behavior isn't "romantic," it isn't "sweet," it's just freaking creepy, not to mention so disrespectful to the man's current partner. It's even creepier because they're both married. I don't understand what I'm supposed to feel when they show those scenes, because I really like Ross, but I absolutely adore Demelza. Is there a scenario where we're actually supposed to sympathize with Ross or understand why he feels this way? Because if so, I definitely missed that memo.

 

I don't know if it's a man or woman thing, rather than how much a person is prone to thinking the grass is greener and wondering how life could have been, had a different path been chosen. Gone with the Wind was written by a woman and its female protagonist spends the bulk of the story desperate for the love of a man who's wrong for her, while taking the right guy for granted. I would guess it's a common theme in fiction because these writers tend to think there's more drama in tortured relationships than happy ones. It's not that there aren't books/movies/TV shows that depict happy, functional couples and their many years together, but that tends to be a background thing while the main focus is on some other sort of obstacle that they face.

[Eolivet]

I thought of Gone with the Wind, but if I recall correctly, Scarlett was sort of portrayed as being a fool for still being into a guy who didn't love her back. The narrative actually addressed it like it was something that wasn't entirely positive. Her behavior didn't seem to be portrayed as romantic and beautiful, it was foolish and sad.

 

I feel like when men write this story, it's more like "Oh look, how he loves her that much," instead of "Wow, what is his problem?" Like this is a romantic gesture instead of creepy and desperate behavior. Again, I can't speak to Poldark because I haven't read the books, but I'm getting the feeling from the narrative that we're supposed to understand why Ross would be hung up on Elizabeth. Whereas in Gone with the Wind, I think the author wanted us to see Scarlett as being a fool for still being into Ashley.

 

I don't think the narrative wants us to see Ross and Elizabeth scenes and think "Get over yourself, Ross. #Team Demelza." But that's what I think.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Eolivet

[Dejana]

I thought of Gone with the Wind, but if I recall correctly, Scarlett was sort of portrayed as being a fool for still being into a guy who didn't love her back. The narrative actually addressed it like it was something that wasn't entirely positive. Her behavior didn't seem to be portrayed as romantic and beautiful, it was foolish and sad.

 

I feel like when men write this story, it's more like "Oh look, how he loves her that much," instead of "Wow, what is his problem?" Like this is a romantic gesture instead of creepy and desperate behavior. Again, I can't speak to Poldark because I haven't read the books, but I'm getting the feeling from the narrative that we're supposed to understand why Ross would be hung up on Elizabeth. Whereas in Gone with the Wind, I think the author wanted us to see Scarlett as being a fool for still being into Ashley.

 

I don't think the narrative wants us to see Ross and Elizabeth scenes and think "Get over yourself, Ross. #Team Demelza." But that's what I think.

 

True, GWTW wasn't really Team Ashley at all. I haven't read Poldark or seen the 1975 series besides a few clips on Youtube but I have to wonder if an issue is with the portrayals of Elizabeth and Demelza in the 2015 version. In a "road not taken" story, there should be a big contrast between the two options, so you understand why the person in the middle is torn (although some people will never be a fan of love triangles, in which case consuming a story with one is not a great idea). Here, I don't think the actress who plays Elizabeth is incompetent or anything like that, but the character's just kind of...there. She and Ross share the same world in a lot of ways but I don't find her very interesting, while Demelza leaves a much stronger impression. Even if Elizabeth were a horrible person yet charismatic, I would kind of understand/care why Ross feels so compelled by her, as much as I wouldn't like it.

[LJones41]

I don't harbor any lack of understanding of why Ross remained attracted to Elizabeth.  Like Demelza (or how Demelza could have been if she had been a more interesting character), Elizabeth had her personal virtues and flaws.  Perhaps this is why I tend to prefer her over Demelza.  She seemed more real and complex than the redhead, who came off as near ideal.  And I have very little patience with near ideal characters - especially in a story or saga in which the characters' personalities play a major role.