S02.E03: 203

[Milburn Stone]

I hope it turns out that Max killed Scotty.

[glowbug]

I'm always interested in authorial intent, even if only to see how much it seems to stray from what is actually presented to people or the way it's actually received! (Maybe also because my professional job is a book editor who often has to help the author get their intent clearly conveyed on the page.) What I find conflicting about Treem's statements and attitude (and I've read most interviews with her and follow her on Twitter) is that she kind of wants to have her cake and eat it too. She (and all the other cast/crew) that speak about the show praise it/take pride in how it never wants to tell you an objective truth, that everything is subjective because it's filtered by memory and personal perception and gender and everything else. So then, why should she be "surprised" when there are people who don't care for Noah and Allison and/or don't find their affair romantic or think they are soulmates? Every possible option should be equally valid, right? So then shouldn't she be saying "Are they soulmates? I don't know--that's up to the audience to decide." Not "Yes they're definitely soulmates. We wanted to see how this epic love would disrupt lives with real consequences." 

 

If there's no objective truth, there is no objective lie either. No one is or can be interpreting anything incorrectly or in a way you didn't intend if you proclaim to have no solid intention. 

 

But...you can't tell me that a creator, a storyteller doesn't have some kind of idea of her story, some kind of feelings about the characters to shape the framing. Not everything can be possible because then how do you frame the story, how do you formulate a plot, how do you make any writing decisions? There has to be an endgame. I'm guessing the murder plot will be fairly concrete. There will be a correct answer, a guilty party, a final verdict. But everything up to that will be nebulous and shifting. Maybe you'll even have doubt as to whether the final guilty party was the guilty party--I could see them pulling that off. But someone has to get the blame for Scotty's murder in the end because it would be terribly anti-climactic and unsatisfying not to have the story climax somehow.

 

That being said, I think the reason they are surprised is because they are trying so hard not to frame the story that they are failing to convey even what they think are the basic uncontestable truths (that Noah and Allison have a love for the ages). The majority of commenters are not fond of Noah and Allison, for various reasons, but I think a large part of it is that ....they're trying to write a romance without any signs of romance! There is sex, but there are none of the steps of emotional bonding that good romances have--they don't really confide in each other, they don't really work together on a common goal ever, there's no buliding of trust, and there is no sentiment to their romance. It almost always is portrayed as a difficult choice with hard and numerous complications, because they didn't want it to be seen through rose-colored glasses. Well so then is it any surprise the audience doesn't find it romantic? (I should add that my day job as an editor is for a romance novel imprint. So yeah...this show is fascinating on a lot of levels for me.) If these two seemed like they just had an irrepressible connection that couldn't be ignored (and I feel the show has tried repeatedly to TELL us they do but haven't actually SHOWN us they do through their actions--other than sex), then I'd be all in. I'd be swooning and I wouldn't really care if they'd been married if I felt they were soulmates that had always been meant to be but only found each other too late, etc. 

 

In addition to the soulmate romance, the other area I find unbelievable is Cole's characterization. I feel like for all the other characters, the differences between POVs are very subtle--Helen is slightly more elitist, Noah is slightly more selfish than normal, Alison is slightly more lost/or a victim or alternately slightly more slutty, etc. But Cole's personality seems to swing far and wide. They keep describing him as a stoic Marlboro-type man who bottled up all his feelings about Gabriel's death in interviews, that's not what I saw on the show though--the guy got a tattoo of his son's name, he talks about Gabriel to Allison quite frequently in S1 but his position is that they can't dwell on the past, but have to find a way to move on. I never got the impression that he wasn't grieving for the boy though and aside from the pilot's sex scene and the gun-waving finale, he was always pretty tender and understanding to Allison in my opinion. He had the breakdown on the sidewalk in episode 7 that was just completely touching, and right before that he was awfully chivalrous, telling Allison not to sit on the dirty curb and mess up her dress and laying down newspaper for her. That didn't jive with the cold, brutish man we're supposed to believe Cole can be. He also was established as a man who wanted to keep commercialization/corruption out of their local community, but then they revealed him to be head of a local drug ring--those two traits made no logical sense to me as coexisting in this same guy. I think the writing for him was completely disjointed and over the top, as opposed to all the other characters that are more nuanced and thus believable to some degree. I love Joshua Jackson because he was Pacey and freely admit that bias--but I don't think that bias prevents me from ever seeing him be a bad guy. He's just fine, really good even, at playing "menacing" when the script calls for it. I just wish those moments didn't come so infrequently that they feel like they're wildly off target. Someone recently suggested to me that Josh just isn't good at playing "distant", but I think if it was there on the page he'd play that but their actual writing of the character didn't ultimately support their original vision, I don't think. (Early on I thought he was very miscast. That they'd wanted a Heath Ledger type but cast a (younger) George Clooney type instead. But I think he's a good actor and has some very very good moments--so I don't think he wouldn't be up to the task of playing distant or cold or anything the script called for, but it has to be there for him to really know to play it.

 

I wish we'd gotten Helen and Cole's POVs in S1 actually. it might have evened a lot of this story out. 

 

I normally don't quote a post for the main purpose of saying I agree but I just had to in this case. Everything you said is how I feel too. I actually have more problems with the believability of Alison and Noah's romance than I do with my ability to root for them. For all the reasons you listed above, I just can't believe they are really in love. If Treem hadn't said that they're meant to be soul mates I wouldn't even know that's what they were supposed to be. I almost stopped watching the show when I heard this because I knew the story was going to go in a direction I couldn't support given how the couple had been written, but the first two episodes this season really grabbed me so I'm back on board. I'm still interested in the present day storyline, and I'm interested in both Helen and Cole's POVs, which have also renewed my interest in Alison and Noah's POVs but only when they're contrasted with Helen and Cole's POVs. As this week's episode proved, I'm just not that interested in Noah and Alison's POVs together. 

Edited October 24, 2015 by glowbug

[tvviewer]

I signed up because I had to say I agree wholeheartedly with everything taragel and globug said in their posts. It is definitely not the fact that they are adulterers which makes me dislike the Noah/Alison pairing, I just have not seen anything on screen so far which justifies the application of the term soulmates. The show does many things brilliantly but convincing me of an undeniable connection between these two has not been one of them.

[Milburn Stone]

I signed up because I had to say I agree wholeheartedly with everything taragel and globug said in their posts. It is definitely not the fact that they are adulterers which makes me dislike the Noah/Alison pairing, I just have not seen anything on screen so far which justifies the application of the term soulmates. The show does many things brilliantly but convincing me of an undeniable connection between these two has not been one of them.

 

To me, this is a feature, not a bug. The emotional separation of Noah and Allison--the ways they don't know each other, even though they think they do--is a big part, maybe even the best part, of what's being portrayed.

[JenE4]

Brava, Taragel! I fourth your post! That's exactly how I feel. The "true love caucus" has said that anyone who doesn't see the romance is skewed by being anti-cheating/pro-monogamy, but that''s not it at all for me. I totally get that people grow apart and change and hurt each other etc, and you can later meet someone who is the right person for who you've become. And I can even see in season 1 why they chose to have an affair--especially Allison because she was in so much pain but even Noah being in that house with his in-laws and constantly feeling emasculated and unworthy. So there was never any big challenge as a viewer to win me over to accept the affair. I get why it started. But at this point in this season it almost feels like they blew up their lives so they might as well give it a go, not that there's some divine soul mate love here. I think soul mates really understand each other, and these two barely communicate. All I feel is loneliness and distance between them now, so they're in no better a place than they each were with their original spouses. This was the least romantic and truly the most depressing proposal I've ever seen on TV--we can't talk to each other, we have secrets that would tear us apart, we don't know each other--and not only that I know you don't want to know me because you won't even love me....but let's get married, I guess? Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing flowers and rainbows in the future. They're going to have the same damn problems they had in their first marriages. Allison is just as depressed and secretive--Cole begged for her to just TALK to him and share her feelings, now Noah is doing the same. The woman needs a good therapist, not a husband. And Noah seems to just be going after the opposite of what he had with Helen: Oh, you're poor and have no family whatsoever to brow beat me and control my life?! Sold! He fucking wrote about her in his novel--soon to be a major motion picture, and I feel like everything he does is just writing this story of his life without really PARTICIPATING in life. He likes the IDEA of having custody but he sure as hell has no intention on PARENTING these kids--it's all about fulfilling HIS needs. I feel like he treats Allison the same way--don't get a job and have your own life, just sit here all day at the ready for me to fuck you. They are not on the same page at all about anything--even about having kids, which is a major dealbreaker. Granted, we see the future and that they have a daughter and Allison is supporting him through the trial, etc., so I can see that somehow they managed to make it work and I'm sure they grew to love each other. But basing it on these first few episodes of this season--current time in the boat house--do I see anything whatsoever telling me these are two people who have a soul mate love and should be married?! Oh, hell no! They each actually have a better, more open and honest relationship with the damn people whose house they're staying in for christ's sake, which just highlights even more to me that Noah and Allison are tremendously mismatched and don't know each other at all.

Edited to add: Despite that rant and that I don't actually like any character on this show...except for George, I guess...I really do love the concept of this show. I'm definitely engaged as a viewer, and I actually probably enjoy it more for the fact that I'm not on anyone's side. I'm not anti-whoever because I'm pro-someone-else. I equally dislike every character, so I think I'm more objective not believing any one side over another. Lol.

Edited October 24, 2015 by JenE4

[izabella]

I agree with your whole post JenE4, but especially this:
 

 

I get why it started. But at this point in this season it almost feels like they blew up their lives so they might as well give it a go, not that there's some divine soul mate love here. I think soul mates really understand each other, and these two barely communicate. All I feel is loneliness and distance between them.

 

Noah and Allison seem so uncomfortable and awkward around each other all the time, from the very beginning to now, that I cannot believe there is a real, solid love there.  I just do not see it.  I see two people who barely communicate, much less communicate well.  When I think of soul mates, I think of people who understand each other without explanation.  Noah and Allison don't seem to understand each other at all.  Even from an infatuation kind of "in love" standpoint, I don't see that breathless, "I can't wait to be with you" energy.  Their sex scenes don't have that energy, either.

 

So, I'm at a loss as to why they want to take this beyond the exit affair that I see here.  I get why they cheated, and I get that they each got something from blowing up their lives over the affair (Allison found the energy (and means) to get out of Montauk and her marriage; Noah found the energy (and means) to write a book.  At this point, they seem like two people who had a great ONS, but now it's morning and they're waking up in bed with a stranger in a strange place.

[RedheadZombie]

That strikes me as an example of the kind of bias RedheadZombie was talking about.  Cole also menaced Helen and Whitney with the gun, and they looked completely terrified and traumatized in Alison's memory of it (not sure why she would mentally "lie" there).  That's the kind of thing that can give someone PTSD.

 

Yes, and that drives me crazy.  I need to have some facts, not just differing impressions.  The bias that I talked about is pretty much involuntary, in my opinion.  When I watch or read something, I go with how I feel.  After I feel, it's sometimes difficult to put into writing why.  Unlike you SLACKERINC, I don't see an inherent problem with monogamy, so that doesn't colour my opinion.  In fact, I didn't initially watch the show because I typically have a problem with infidelity.  It wasn't until the show won awards that I tuned in.  While the entire affair was conducted in an improper manner (I think you should leave your partner before embarking with the next one), I have seen enough to understand why it happened.

 

But why does anyone have to be wrong? Why can it not simply be that two different people watch this show and due to their own history, beliefs, personality characteristics, etc. they view the story and characters in a different way. Hell isn't that in some way the crux of this show - that people's memories and perceptions are skewed based on who they are, their feelings, etc? Why does anyone have to be wrong in their opinions and interpretation of this show? 

 

I don't think the people who like Alison and Noah and think they are in love are wrong in that belief, I simply politely disagree with that opinion and see it in a different way. And that's why I get a little irritated with the references to Treem and her interviews and comments because maybe that's not the intent, but it does feel a little like saying, "well this is what the author is saying and this is what the author believes so it must be so and your opinion is wrong." Yeah no...disagree vehemently with that. 

 

I don't think anyone has to be wrong.  I posted at length that our personal feelings toward a character influences our interpretation.  Of course that's nothing unusual, except this show deliberately gives us contrasting information.   I do think that it may be spoiling the writer's intent, but that's her problem, and one that should have been realized at the start.

 

In addition to the soulmate romance, the other area I find unbelievable is Cole's characterization. I feel like for all the other characters, the differences between POVs are very subtle--Helen is slightly more elitist, Noah is slightly more selfish than normal, Alison is slightly more lost/or a victim or alternately slightly more slutty, etc. But Cole's personality seems to swing far and wide. They keep describing him as a stoic Marlboro-type man who bottled up all his feelings about Gabriel's death in interviews, that's not what I saw on the show though--the guy got a tattoo of his son's name, he talks about Gabriel to Allison quite frequently in S1 but his position is that they can't dwell on the past, but have to find a way to move on. I never got the impression that he wasn't grieving for the boy though and aside from the pilot's sex scene and the gun-waving finale, he was always pretty tender and understanding to Allison in my opinion. He had the breakdown on the sidewalk in episode 7 that was just completely touching, and right before that he was awfully chivalrous, telling Allison not to sit on the dirty curb and mess up her dress and laying down newspaper for her. That didn't jive with the cold, brutish man we're supposed to believe Cole can be. He also was established as a man who wanted to keep commercialization/corruption out of their local community, but then they revealed him to be head of a local drug ring--those two traits made no logical sense to me as coexisting in this same guy. I think the writing for him was completely disjointed and over the top, as opposed to all the other characters that are more nuanced and thus believable to some degree. I love Joshua Jackson because he was Pacey and freely admit that bias--but I don't think that bias prevents me from ever seeing him be a bad guy. He's just fine, really good even, at playing "menacing" when the script calls for it. I just wish those moments didn't come so infrequently that they feel like they're wildly off target. Someone recently suggested to me that Josh just isn't good at playing "distant", but I think if it was there on the page he'd play that but their actual writing of the character didn't ultimately support their original vision, I don't think. (Early on I thought he was very miscast. That they'd wanted a Heath Ledger type but cast a (younger) George Clooney type instead. But I think he's a good actor and has some very very good moments--so I don't think he wouldn't be up to the task of playing distant or cold or anything the script called for, but it has to be there for him to really know to play it.

 

I wish we'd gotten Helen and Cole's POVs in S1 actually. it might have evened a lot of this story out. 

 

Cole's characterization does trouble me the most.  I don't like Helen - I know this to be true.  I don't like her in her version, Alison's, or Noah's.  But Cole is so confusing.  The facts are he ran a major drug ring, which he involved his entire family in, and he pulled a gun and menaced others with it.  I also think JJ is killing it with the menacing parts, and I believe he has to be instructed to portray this.  I find him a more tragic character, because I think he and Alison would have been happy and together still, if not for Gabriel's death.  The majority of marriages fall apart after losing a child.  I also can see him brandishing that gun (at Alison and at his own head) impulsively in anger and grief.  What I can't reconcile is his love for Montauk and his land and family, with running the Montauk drug ring.  That just doesn't work for me unless I'm watching The Godfather.  I never watched Dawson's Creek, so I'm not biased toward "Pacey".  In fact, I really felt nothing for Cole until he threatened to shoot himself.  He killed that scene and made the character sympathetic to me.

 

I normally don't quote a post for the main purpose of saying I agree but I just had to in this case. Everything you said is how I feel too. I actually have more problems with the believability of Alison and Noah's romance than I do with my ability to root for them. For all the reasons you listed above, I just can't believe they are really in love. If Treem hadn't said that they're meant to be soul mates I wouldn't even know that's what they were supposed to be. I almost stopped watching the show when I heard this because I knew the story was going to go in a direction I couldn't support given how the couple had been written, but the first two episodes this season really grabbed me so I'm back on board. I'm still interested in the present day storyline, and I'm interested in both Helen and Cole's POVs, which have also renewed my interest in Alison and Noah's POVs but only when they're contrasted with Helen and Cole's POVs. As this week's episode proved, I'm just not that interested in Noah and Alison's POVs together. 

 

I'm actually finding this part very realistic.  I'm one who thinks Noah and Alison are in love, or on the way.  They're very drawn to each other, and not only in a sexual manner.  I find it totally realistic that now that they're together all isn't perfect.  Alison is extremely depressed and mired in grief, and has been for a long time.  She sees herself as powerless and almost invisible, and yet Noah is practically transfixed by her from the beginning - that has to be a powerful feeling.  While her grief made it harder to be around Cole and see that tattoo, being away from him doesn't magically transform her.  And as selfish as Noah's actions are, I haven't been shown anything that says Noah was selfish before he met Alison.  I don't think he was ever tempted to stray, so when he did experience temptation, he felt it was true love.  He saw himself as an honorable man, good husband, good father.  How does he reconcile all of this?  Now that he's away from his family and with Alison, he's not magically happy, and it seems he may be blaming Alison - I say that because of how impatient and rude he was to Alison.  Of course that was her version (this can drive me crazy).  My point is they are in transition, dealing with the fallout of breaking up their marriages, and it doesn't necessarily reflect how they're currently living as a family with their daughter.  Adding in the fact that he's suddenly being looked at as a successful writer, being given lots of money and people kissing his ass, it may be difficult to take in when you've always been looked at as Helen's boring, not good enough for her, husband.

[stillshimpy]

I honestly do not understand why issues with Noah and Alison and not liking the pairing and not believing they are in love often gets put down to people's attitude about fidelity and monogamy and marriage and all that.

 

Yeah, I think that's an over-simplification of the reception of the story or the characters.   It also kind of paints people who don't see this as a love story as being puritanical, or sexually inhibited. 

 

Kind of a long time ago at this point, a good ten years or so, I had a really good discussion with a friend mine who was and is deeply religious. To the extent that he would have become a priest if it wasn't for the fact that he had personal epiphany after a misspent youth of all kind of varieties involving the Catholic Church and he just wasn't about to devote his entire life to God and not be allowed to have sex.  Apparently conversion to the Anglican Church wasn't going to do it for him either.  I swear there's a point to this.  He's a person of Faith and I am not personally.  

 

So anyway, as we discussed marriage, this guy who didn't follow a very strong religious calling because "Celibacy could never be my path" said the most interesting thing I've ever heard about fidelity:  "When you get right down to it, sex is such a small part of a relationship, even if it's great sex.  Sex is the reason you get together with someone, but it's hardly ever the reason you stay with them."  

 

Basically that whether or not monogamy is natural or people can be with one person for their entire lives and feel fulfilled isn't really at the center of how I personally feel about this show.  I think it's pretty individual.  I think there are some people who are happy with the same person for their whole lives, but that my friend was right:  No matter how great the sex, great sex is not why you stay with anyone for any length of time.  

 

And that's where the worth of monogamy really comes into the whole deal.  Deep down, I do not give a damn about what people do with their bits and parts.  How obsessed they are with them, how many people they share them with....but fidelity isn't about "You put your penis in her vagina! ZOMG! And you liked it better! ZOMG!"  It's about emotional safety and stability.  The safety to be whoever you really are with someone.  

 

By the way, the funniest thing about Ruth Wilson bringing up Asheley Madison is that....it kind of turned out that most of the female accounts were 'bots.  They were company created profiles.  It was a bunch of guys wanting to get it on, primarily messaging 'bots like crazy.  The lure of the concept of a bunch of women who also wanted to have some sexual variety was apparently enough to lure in millions. 

 

But I honestly don't think that people react to this story because "It's about cheating!!!"  but rather because it's sort of dancing around the other issues involving cheating:  Is there any emotional safety, which is such a huge part of love, to be had?  

 

I think Allison can view other people as predatory, or menacing, but that's not the same thing as saying she sees herself as a victim.  It just means the world's kind of a scary place if you're Allison.   Noah's an odd choice for any kind of long term safety and that starts to show already this season.    So, fabulous for them, they had a whole bunch of sex and it's still fun, but they are getting into the "sex is just another part of a bigger relationship" area when they are doing it on the couch and Allison....kind of clearly....fakes it.  Noah's waiting for her, she tells him she'll climax when he does and .....then kind of promptly does....but every married woman around probably got at least a little bit of a kick out of it because that was the "It would take longer to explain why my mind is a little bit elsewhere, you're clearly going to take it personally if I don't get off, so could we get this over with before I started developing a UTI and we can't have sex for ten days? Ooo  Awww.  Yeah baby." 

 

So this season we're kind of getting past the beginnings of what make for a lasting relationship.  

 

I don't think Helen's some terribly wronged woman, but I feel bad for her.  She's afraid, she's alone.  The emotional safety that marriage is supposed to represent was taken away from her, without her consent....but that doesn't mean that it happened without her participation.   They had a power imbalance in their relationship that Helen didn't just know about, she counted upon it to help shore up her personal, emotional safety.  

 

That doesn't make her evil either.  

 

Cole also lost his son and whereas infidelity happens, I personally only grossed out by the concept that either Cole or Allison are responsible for Gabriel's death.   Nobody gets a time machine in those instances and it is the stuff of the nightmares of every single person who has ever lost someone to a preventable accident.  There was pretty much no way to stay together after that.   It clearly was killing them both in their own ways.  Cole does seems to care about honor and his town...but there's zero honor in selling cocaine and endangering your family, your life, and that of your wife also.   

 

They were bad for each other, in my estimation.  

 

But whether or not Allison and Noah being perceived as being in love is about a person's reaction to infidelity, that's not going to define absolutely everyone's reaction to them.   And when Sarah Treem talks about what a great love story this is....okay....but again....they've only just started the stuff that makes for great loves stories.  Great fucking (and chemistry is in the eye of the beholder) can be a part of great love, but it's not all of it.  

 

Noah still remembers Allison as someone a little bit too manipulative (her rendition of the story of how they met at dinner....that practiced, stagey "my, lies come tripping quite easily to her tongue...and she has fun with it...." look he has on his face is half admiration and half..."this is a little scary...."). 

 

I tend to like Allison and not like Noah much.  Noah just asked his sixteen year old daughter to lie for him.  Dude. Just....don't.  

 

I love that we saw the flipside of exactly why Whitney would so smoothly, casually and without so much as batting an eye say that she's got his back, she's got him covered....because we saw her try to manipulate and use Allison almost immediately, get shut down for it and then Noah basically hands her a way to get back at Allison immediately (Whiteny is sixteen, it's just the way of teenagers to think nothing of lying with such a relaxed look on their faces).  

 

Anyway....love story?  Eh.  I don't know.  We've seen the "they like to fuck" story....we've seen that begin to simmer down a bit....and now we're going to get to see if all the other parts that go into making someone a person you will love for a long time are there.   

 

Right now I think Alison's most interesting relationship is with the Publisher's husband.  Not because I expect it to be sexual, I don't.   But it is the easiest way to get to see her outside of Noah's view, or Cole's view, in her reasonably open interactions with this guy.  It was talking to him that helped her find a way to get back in that pool.   That it turned out that he had seen her from a distance and was watching her was interesting, but he did decorously turn away when Noah (not the guy you want as your houseguest) decided screwing in his host's pool was called for.   

 

Anyway, I think it's interesting to get to see Allison in interactions that are less about any kind of established agenda.  

 

I loved how Noah's memory of Max practically writes the scene of him finding out that Max is boning Helen and feeling so betrayed and lied to.   I will give both actors this, they both had some damned fun with that scene.  

[cardigirl]

stillshimpy, well said!!! Loved everything you wrote, except that I do like Helen (for now) from what I've seen. That may change later on as the show progresses.

I actually enjoy all of the characters. Noah however is being portrayed as pretty narcisstic at the moment.

[tvviewer]

It does seem the writers are deliberately making Noah unlikeable in every POV, even his own and Alison's. Sarah Treem did say that he has a lot of growing up to do but it does make it hard to see why Alison is so drawn to him. It would have made more sense to me if she had decided she needed to be on her own for quite a while than to hitch her star to this seemingly selfish and self-centred man with all his baggage. I get that they were in lust and that they are now into the learning about each other stage but I'm still wondering what is the big attraction he has for Alison that she would be agreeing to marry him already and declaring that she loves him. He doesn't appear to be a source of emotional support. Does he just represent a lifestyle she wants for herself?

The depiction of the fallout from the marriage break ups is something which I am enjoying immensely, it's very well done.

[SlackerInc]

It does seem the writers are deliberately making Noah unlikeable in every POV, even his own and Alison's.

[snip]

He doesn't appear to be a source of emotional support.

I see no evidence that they are deliberately making him unlikable, and I have consistently found him likable. But it's real person likable, not Hollywood hero likable, which may throw some people off.

It also may be that some people either don't remember his progressive idealism from season one, or do not share those progressive/humanistic beliefs, as I do and I assume Treem does.

But it's really puzzling to keep seeing people say that Noah has never been emotionally supportive to Alison. I would suggest going back to season one and watching the scenes of just the two of them together talking. It probably wouldn't take more than an hour or two, and I think people missed this stuff, or need their memories refreshed. Three intense moments came to mind when he was there for her: when she tried to sabotage the relationship and at one point said that she must make him see death; when her grandmother was dying; and when Cole had just threatened her and them himself with the gun and Noah had to choose between leaving her all alone in a hostile or lonely environment or staying to comfort her at the price of hurting or enraging his family. (Hard for me to see how that choice was selfish.). Any one of those could be more of an emotional crisis than many lucky people ever have to deal with in a lifetime.

Re-watching the scenes of them alone will also show other examples of their emotional connection, over Noah's discussion of his difficult childhood with his dying mother, Alison's own difficulties growing up, and just philosophical stuff like Noah going into the multiverse theory and so on.

None of this means that you have to feel the chemistry, although I certainly do. But it's just not factually correct to say that he has never been kind to her, has never supported her emotionally, or that they have never connected on anything but a sexual level.

Edited October 25, 2015 by SlackerInc

[truthaboutluv]

and when Cole had just threatened her and them himself with the gun and Noah had to choose between leaving her all alone in a hostile or lonely environments or staying to comfort her at the price of hurting or enraging his family. (Hard for me to see how that choice was selfish.).

 

 

Alison is a grown woman. No one was forcing her to say in a hostile environment. She was more than capable of getting the hell out of that house after Cole walked away. YMMV I saw that choice, assuming that is even what really happened, as in the aftermath of a very scary and dangerous situation, Noah's first instinct was for the woman he was having sex with for a few weeks over his own daughter. As I often say about Noah - father of the freaking year, that one. And yeah sorry if I didn't think that was a swoon worthy moment and not selfish. Again, brat she may be, I repeat, the man's CHILD had a gun pointed at her and and his first instinct was to go comfort Alison.

 

In any case that was conveniently all in Alison's version of things since in Noah's he was busy playing the big protective heroic father beating up Scotty. And when Cole pulls the gun on him to get him off Scotty, he stands up and all dramatically sees Alison and Helen at separate points looking at him. So with such a wildly different version of events, I'd be hard pressed to use this as evidence of this overwhelming emotional connection the two have shared. And as I said, even if that was the truth, I still fail to see it as some moving and emotional moment that speaks well of Noah. 

 

The stuff with Alison's grandmother was sweet in an otherwise relationship filled with nothing but lust. But I always found the subtle differences in their versions of that memory interesting. As was consistent with Noah's version of Alison, she was the temptress in her too short, too tight cocktail dress giving him sex eyes when they first see each other at the event. And frankly right up to the hospital, Alison asking Noah in to stay with her sounded like a come on versus someone in an emotional upheaval and needing support.

 

And frankly Alison barely seemed truly broken in Noah's version over the situation. Sure she shed some tears when he woke her up to tell her grandmother was about to die but as was always the case in my opinion, of how Alison came across in Noah's version, there was this slight coldness to her. And I found it interesting that in each one's version, the other one is who said I Love You first. That is just one of the reasons I often felt like Noah and Alison both subconsciously, seemed to be passing blame on the other while recounting their affair 

[stillshimpy]

except that I do like Helen (for now) from what I've seen

 

By the way, thank you, cardigirl, I appreciate that. I don't dislike Helen, by the way :-)  I just think she also participated in the things that made the marriage begin to wear thin and is having a difficult time admitting it to herself....which makes perfect sense.   I find her a sympathetic person.  

 

 

 

It also may be that some people either don't remember his progressive idealism from season one, or do not share those progressive/humanistic beliefs, as I do and I assume Treem does.

 

Here's one thing I appreciate about Noah's memories and POV -- they all show that he's a writer.  Everything a little too sharply defined and polished for notice.  When telling a story it has to be made emotionally accessible and writers often isolate and make vivid small details about people.   Noah's POVs reflect a man who has the habit and ability of fictional construct as a way of expression and probably also super saturates his own memories.  It's a cool technique and one that Treem has been consistently pulling off.  

 

However, Noah's progressive idealism was made possible by marrying a woman with money.   His life as the public school teacher, trying to talk about equality for all etc. hasn't made an appearance since those days when it was really made possible by Helen's family having money.  Now he progressively lives in a someone's fabulous guest house, talks about money and advances, takes 50 grand from his friend. Part of what delighted me so much about that scene is that we know Max is actually working from his own agenda there....and Max is not exactly the guy I'd pick to be a social crusader for equality's best friend. 

 

Noah talked a good game in season one and truly, being a public school teacher in NYC says to me that he at least really believed in it, when it required few personal sacrifices for him.   It wasn't a job he gave up willing, but he wasn't exactly respecting it by screwing in his classroom either.  

 

We don't know the truth of that gun moment, but we did see Noah, in his own recollection, threatening to kill Scotty at Planned Parenthood.  So there are reasons to believe that the reason Cole pulled out gun had to do with Noah beating the shit out of Scotty.   That Whitney said "pointed a gun at me!" just kind of made me laugh, because I'm pretty sure if someone took out a firearm of any kind, with Whitney on the same block, in her mind she would have had the gun pointed at her.   Plus, it was Noah's memory that had him attempting to kick Scotty's butt in a Patriarchal Rage.  

 

 

 

None of this means that you have to feel the chemistry, although I certainly do. But it's just not factually correct to say that he has never been kind to her, has never supported her emotionally, or that they have never connected on anything but a sexual level.

 

I think Noah has been supportive of Allison.  He does seem to sort of shine the penny of his memories to render everything with that accessible crispness writers are prone to, but I don't think he's wholly fabricating the times he was supportive of her.   Noah knows that Allison slept with Oscar, whether or not that happened at the time he thought it did -- and he does remember Allison as a woman with an enigmatic darkness to her -- to remember it, he had to know it at some point. 

 

He does seemingly forget about Gabriel, but in fairness to Noah, Gabriel is a name to him and someone he knows Alison loved very dearly.  But I think it's a little bit human that he didn't make the connection to Alison avoiding water to her son drowning.  She lived right by the Ocean, she sought out places like the lighthouse, she sat by the surf.  I didn't think he was being wildly insensitive, just having a reaction that makes sense:  Gabriel was Alison's crushing loss and it would asking too much of anyone for Noah to have that at the forefront of his mind. 

 

Weirdly, I do know multiple people whose marriages survived the death of a child, but they all had one thing in common:  The couple I know had more than one child. When Alison and Cole look at each other, there's always supposed to be someone else there with them and it changed forever who they both were in ways that just couldn't work together any longer and they were actively bad for one another. 

 

When Noah looks at Alison, he sees Alison, he doesn't see her minus Gabriel.  It's difficult to remember anyone's missing pieces, even when you care about them very much, if you met them after the piece was gone.  

 

While in Colorado visiting my son for his 25th birthday, we had dinner with a family friend whose first wife died of cancer, many, many years ago at this point.  He's this incredibly stoic guy.  Tall, white-haired, incredibly fit.  Quite the hot ticket on the 50+ dating circuit. but he's kind of famously unemotional and I know that about him.  To my everlasting horror, I made him cry that night.  I still feel absolutely horrible about it, but he had said something about not being good with words and I told him that I actually frequently quoted something that he'd told my husband about when he lost his wife and he had three kids:  "Every family has someone in it that acts as the glue.  The thing that holds them together.  When my wife died, I found out that person wasn't me."   I thought it was succinctly and beautiful put on his part, and I know his words have helped people feel less....like they're going nuts basically...in the wake of a loss.  

 

Slacker, you actually know me well enough in another context to know that the last thing in the entire world I would want to do is accidentally emotional maim someone over chips and salsa.  I thought I was paying him a compliment, he had been talking about how hard dating was because he was so bad with words.  His wife more than twenty years ago and in million years that absolute last thing I was trying to do was cause him to cry, in public, an even more horrifying thing for this big, stoic man.   

 

I'm bringing that up because people have talked about how callous it was for Noah not to realize "Her son drowned, of course she doesn't want to go in the pool!" but int hat moment when he playfully said he'd throw her in and she reacted with absolute horror:  He got it.  It's just not part of his first definition of Alison.  Just like I didn't realize that I'd carelessly ripped the lid off my poor old friend's pain.  I like words.  He was saying he wasn't good with them....and sure, it makes me a bit of an idiot for not thinking it entirely through beforehand...and talking about his dating life....I wasn't focusing on the right emotional context for him in that moment.  I apologized up, down, sideways and still to this moment feel frellling awful about having caused him to revisit that grief.  

 

But Noah was trying to bond with Alison in a playful way, trying to start establishing their own patterns of connection.  Treem has said that Noah is a guy who has a lot of growing up to do and that makes perfect sense.  He married a wealthy woman right out of college and they both apparently lived lives made possible by money not just from Bruce, but from Helen's monied family.   He taught teenagers and got to hold these world views that weren't really challenged by having to maintain his reality.   

 

 

 

I actually enjoy all of the characters. Noah however is being portrayed as pretty narcisstic at the moment.

 

He -- and Helen too -- both sort of got to have an extended late adolescence of sorts wherein neither really ever worried about how much things cost.   But I agree, he is being shown to be pointedly self-involved at present, but I also think that marrying Helen was his "safe" choice too.  It's weird, but Noah seems to be a person who, rather than having a mid-life crisis, seems to be finally getting around to the business of forming his adult self. 

 

Alison apparently had one of those childhoods where she was just constantly in charge of too much.  She married a guy with what appeared to be this big, loving, deeply connected family.  She thought she was marrying the kind of stuff she dreamed about.   She married Cole because he represented what she thought she wanted and that safety and security of a different sort would finally be hers.  

 

Helen came from a lot of money, but it's also sort of clear that Noah likes a lot of things in life that lots of money makes possible -- saltwater pools at your disposal, etc.  

 

So this is where I'm going to comment on one of the neater things the show chose to do:  Wow, that was one grubby pool.  There are automatic pool vacuums that almost anyone with a pool has now, but certainly anyone with any kind of means would have.   I don't know if they just thought the shot would look cooler if the pool was allowed to get a little grungy on the bottom

Edited October 25, 2015 by stillshimpy

[truthaboutluv]

I'm bringing that up because people have talked about how callous it was for Noah not to realize "Her son drowned, of course she doesn't want to go in the pool!" but int hat moment when he playfully said he'd throw her in and she reacted with absolute horror:  He got it.  It's just not part of his first definition of Alison.

 

 

YMMV but for me, the issue with that whole moment is that Noah mentions that Alison hadn't been in the pool once since they'd been there. The point being that this was something he'd clearly noticed and clearly thought about enough to point it out. So it just makes little sense to me that this man who loves this woman so much, knows her past with her son's death, whether or not that's what he immediately sees when he looks at her, did not put together why she wasn't going in the water.

 

If Noah had never noticed or realized Alison wasn't going in the water and they were just hanging out by the pool and he tried to pull her in with him, I'd be more willing to give it a pass as a momentarily lapse in judgement. But the fact that he was observant enough to notice she wasn't going in at all and mentioned it, I just cannot understand how he wouldn't put the two together. And it does make me think very little of this great love they're supposed to have. Because whether or not Noah only knew Alison after Gabriel and so doesn't really know her as Gabriel's mother, if you love someone, you don't forget that they suffered that kind of emotionally crippling tragedy. You just don't, in my opinion. 

[Milburn Stone]

YMMV but for me, the issue with that whole moment is that Noah mentions that Alison hadn't been in the pool once since they'd been there. The point being that this was something he'd clearly noticed and clearly thought about enough to point it out. So it just makes little sense to me that this man who loves this woman so much, knows her past with her son's death, whether or not that's what he immediately sees when he looks at her, did not put together why she wasn't going in the water.

 

I think there's another way to look at the same facts. It very well could be that he has put together, at least in the back of his mind, the connection between her pool-avoidance and her son's death. And that despite this, he harbors hopes that she will be able to enjoy the pool. He wants her to get over her grief so she can share his pleasure in this cool amenity which is a symbol of his growing success. Insensitive? Probably. Wanting her to be different than she is, not being willing to let her grieving process take however long it takes? Indubitably. But all too human.

[stillshimpy]

So it just makes little sense to me that this man who loves this woman so much, knows her past with her son's death, whether or not that's what he immediately sees when he looks at her, did not put together why she wasn't going in the water.

 

He just clearly wasn't putting the two of them together, I think.  I don't think it was a particularly sensitive thing, but I don't think it is evidence of insensitivity either.  

 

Plus, if something is extremely important to someone, it's really fairest to communicate a fear, an anxiety, an "I can't do this because...."  and really, it would also be fair of Noah to expect Alison to say something.  "I don't like to swim, it reminds me of Gabriel."   I don't think it is proof of love, intimacy or sensitivity to another person if someone fails to guess what's going on in someone's mind.  The old "If he/she really love me he/she would know what is bothering me" is not a fair expectation, to my mind but fairness aside?  It also pretty much guarantees a person won't get the thing they want and need out of an emotionally sustaining relationship. 

 

I get it from Alison's standpoint too.  Once you trust someone with the stuff that makes you afraid, the stuff that hurts you "being in the water makes me think of Gabriel"  it sort of arms them with ammunition too.   When you confide a fear it is about trusting someone to respect and be kind to that fear, regardless of how angry they get with you at any point.  

 

But there is an expectation in adult relationships that if you want someone to specifically know something and honor, you have to tell them what you want.  Being an emotional Sherlock Holmes isn't evidence of love or support.   

 

My husband and are really well-suited together and we've been together for a really long time at this point.  Before he ever met me, when I was 12, my house caught fire.  It's a very long story, but essentially I was the only person imperiled by that, because the person who accidentally set her bed on fire (my grandmother, who was an alcoholic) ....left that bedroom and went downstairs, where she fell asleep and we were the only two people in the house. Why?  No clue. it was just one of those weird things that happened, but as a result I woke up in a house that was on fire and had to do stuff like call the fire department, etc.  

 

I wasn't burned, but it was deeply terrifying and my grandmother died not long after that (she had cancerous brain tumors, which is partially what explains her behavior).    My husband loves me dearly, but to this day I have to remind him "I do not like fires.  I don't like campfires.  I don't like the smell of wood smoke."  he got a chiminea that he likes to burn wood scraps in and I had to ask him to move it very far away from the house.   He's actually a pretty sensitive guy but he just forgets because he isn't the person who had that experience.  A good 90 percent (a number I admit to just making up, but you get the point) of any person's interactions with someone is reasonably based in that moment.   Maybe it's based in the future "Hey, do you want to go sailing this summer?"  Maybe it is based in a shared past, "Remember that time we...." but it is really difficult to remember and respect pain we weren't there to witness, even in someone we love.  I have to remind him, and you know what?  He always respects that, but he's a person too, with his own feelings, fears, etc.  and that's usually the stuff that is going through his mind.  

 

Most interactions are based in the present, particularly as they build what will be their life together.  He was focused on them at that moment.  I don't think Noah's a good guy.  I think he's kind of a jerk and I don't like him very much, but that particular moment I can pretty easily forgive him because he loves Post-Grief-and-Crushing-Loss Alison and so he doesn't define her by her loss as much as she does.  And if she needs him to in an emotionally intimate relationship: telling your partner what's bothering a person, rather than expecting them to guess accurately is a reasonable expectation too. 

 

There's so much evidence of Noah's general jackassery in that episode alone, but basically my belief is that he was trying to be playful and there's fault on both sides of that "Dude, if something has something to do with your grief?  Trust the person you say love enough to be in on that."    Should he have guessed?  Okay, maybe.   Should he have asked why she wasn't swimming in a different context?  <---- boy do I ever think he should have.  That's the part that makes me wonder "Dude, you note a behavior and you don't ask why?" the onus isn't just on Alison to understand that Noah is unlikely to be able to read her mind....he could have tried asking her "Hey, why don't you ever come swimming with me?" 

 

So in a way, I agree with you:  it is evidence of the kind of stuff I don't like about Noah.   He notices something but doesn't ask her about it?  Something is noticeable enough that it has made an impression on him?  Why not ask?  That's the part where I think there's evidence of Noah still having some growing up to do. 

 

On the other hand apparently Alison had bikini with her and is fine with living right on the water.   So I guess I can see both sides of this one and we were talking about evidence of love and are they supportive of one another....and it takes time to build an emotional intimacy neither was displaying:  He noticed but didn't ask....and when he did ask; Alison didn't confide the real reason.  

 

There's emotional distance between them in that moment.  

Edited October 25, 2015 by stillshimpy

[Nanrad]

I agree with Ruth Wilson's comments, and I also wonder if people watching this show who don't like the two leads and sympathize with the jilted spouses do feel an inherent negative reaction to the entire premise of being asked to root for two people who had an affair in the first place.

 

I don't feel that way, but I've also never been married, so maybe I'd feel differently about this if I was. But a lot of the arguments that I've seen here (and other places), especially the sympathizing with a character like Cole (who really comes across to me as an abusive and dangerous asshole) make me think people are just extremely personally offended by the whole idea of affairs and cheating. Despite the fact that we all know how common it is, nobody wants to think it will happen to them and everyone wants the person who cheats to be vilified.

 

This show's protagonists are two cheaters though, and that seems to turn off a lot of people. I don't have any problem with it, I think the show's absorbing and entertaining, but I never get caught up in judging the characters (except for Whitney, who's a demon-child, and I guess Cole, as I said before).

Rather than asking us to root for them, the series should convince us. Here's why you should rot for Alison and Noah:..... 

 

I didn't have a problem rooting for another adulterous couple, until I saw how much of a self centered ass the guy was and, despite them being in love, the affair brought out the worst side of the woman. Now, I loathe it, but it still has a huge follow because of chemistry.

 

My biggest gripe with them is that whatever flaws their spouses had, after the affair, they deserved better treatment than what they got. People fall out of love and/or they meet another person who flips their lives upside down. IMO, having an affair doesn't make you he worst person ever, but it is a terrible thing to do in many situations and that is because of the life and intimacy you and your S/O invested with one another. If this person does have an affair, be courteous and don't try to make the cheated on person as if they were at fault on the bad guy which made you cheat. That's what I get from Noah regarding Helen. She was a great wife before Alison, and the unbearable afterward he meet her. Some marriages fall apart due to death of a child, BUT it does seem as if Alison isolated herself from Cole and was pretty selfish in her pain. They both lost a kid, but apparently she is the only one who feels she is suffering. 

 

Just because cheating is common doesn't mean it has to be acceptable. But, the other reason cheating is highly judged, especially in marriages with kids is because it rips apart the lives of EVERYONE involved even if it's indirectly. We see how their kids are dealing with the separation: one broke down crying and hit his father in the face, the other has stomach pains or something, one feels suffocated, and I'm unsure about the last. People get hurt. Helen has the primary responsibility for four kids now, where as Noah's in a shack with his mistress and how often does he even see his kids??? I don't think Helen's keeping him away. 

 

The question wasn't directed at me but let me stab at it. Until this episode, for me Noah's actions spoke louder than words. But those actions are a double-edged sword - a romantic gesture towards Alison is by default a middle finger to Helen (the kids' situation would be a bit more complicated than what that analogy suggests.) It's easy to only look at one side of that equation and only see Noah's selfishness and other less redeeming qualities and forget about the other side: standing by Alison and seeing her, when she thought she was ghosting past life. 

 

I for one was, for lack of a better word, a "shipper" from the start (shipper is probably the wrong word, as it has other connotations I don't want to highlight). There was promise of more meaningful drama if Noah and Alison had more than just a summer fling and if his marriage (in particular) was seemingly healthy. I really don't value most tv dramas where one side of a triangle is demeaned so as to make the choice of the other two inevitable and palatable. It's a cheap get-out clause.

 

Sarah Treem, on the other hand, asked a more nuanced question. What happens if you meet a person you think is your soulmate and yet you're in a seemingly satisfactory and, by many standards, decent marriage? If you pursue the soulmate, are you being hurtful or honest or if both, where on the scale? By definition (i.e., considering the soulmate issue) that Noah's marriage was substandard, isn't it? Or was it? Was he trying to make an upgrade or is it all just a midlife crisis? So many variables can be brought in. All that went through my head as I watched the pilot. Alison's situation was a more straightforward moral question: most marriages wouldn't have survived a death of a kid and it was a case of asking why she didn't leave Cole sooner and if she has any culpability in breaking up Noah and Helen's marriage and whether that was a good thing at all. Or as Ruth Wilson suggests, should that even be the question?

 

Well, many think that Noah is selfish because he has behaved selfishly. His daughter gets a gun pointed at her, he comforts his mistress. The kids are having a hard time with the divorce, but he doesn't know because he doesn't come around much. No matter how much he argues that Helen is keeping him away or whatever, he didn't notice that his oldest son was having issues way before he was flat out told. Rather than being understanding of Helen's position on Alison, and setting her straight about his new relationship, he puts his feelings first, I believe. He's not acting like an adult in a situation that his actions made messy.

 

What other connotation does shipper have???

 

Yes, the consequences of helping break up someone's should be a question. You are not forever in debt to a person you cheated in, but marriage with kids is another ballgame--even some longterm relationships without kids are as well. But, when you are with someone for over 20 years with four kids, and then cheat and leave--how is that not even a question?

 

Some people are so busy being critical of marriage that they don't even consider all of the emotional investment that was put in and maintained throughout a relationship. All that time spent making it work, compromising, sacrificing, and then this person "upgrades"??? So, now you feel shitty and worthless. "Oh, it's not personal, she's my soulmate." Then, what was the other person--practice until the real person came around? 

 

I see no evidence that they are deliberately making him unlikable, and I have consistently found him likable. But it's real person likable, not Hollywood hero likable, which may throw some people off.

It also may be that some people either don't remember his progressive idealism from season one, or do not share those progressive/humanistic beliefs, as I do and I assume Treem does.

But it's really puzzling to keep seeing people say that Noah has never been emotionally supportive to Alison. I would suggest going back to season one and watching the scenes of just the two of them together talking. It probably wouldn't take more than an hour or two, and I think people missed this stuff, or need their memories refreshed. Three intense moments came to mind when he was there for her: when she tried to sabotage the relationship and at one point said that she must make him see death; when her grandmother was dying; and when Cole had just threatened her and them himself with the gun and Noah had to choose between leaving her all alone in a hostile or lonely environment or staying to comfort her at the price of hurting or enraging his family. (Hard for me to see how that choice was selfish.). Any one of those could be more of an emotional crisis than many lucky people ever have to deal with in a lifetime.

 

 

As a person who is a fan of unlikable artists and has many assholes for friends, Noah's not just an asshole, he's a HUGE asshole. He doesn't throw me off, he infuriates me with his tunnel vision and not putting his own wants and needs aside for a moment when it comes to his original family unit. But, in almost every version, he does come off like an ass and not the likable kind. I don't want to have to go back to the first season to see supportive Noah, I want to also see it in this season as well. I want to recall it off the time of my head--not scratching my head and being told to rewatch to see that Noah has rare good moments.

 

Also, I think Noah and Alison's portrayal of Cole is very much exaggerated, which isn't a surprise, but it is disturbing. 

He does seemingly forget about Gabriel, but in fairness to Noah, Gabriel is a name to him and someone he knows Alison loved very dearly.  But I think it's a little bit human that he didn't make the connection to Alison avoiding water to her son drowning.  She lived right by the Ocean, she sought out places like the lighthouse, she sat by the surf.  I didn't think he was being wildly insensitive, just having a reaction that makes sense:  Gabriel was Alison's crushing loss and it would asking too much of anyone for Noah to have that at the forefront of his mind. 

 

Weirdly, I do know multiple people whose marriages survived the death of a child, but they all had one thing in common:  The couple I know had more than one child. When Alison and Cole look at each other, there's always supposed to be someone else there with them and it changed forever who they both were in ways that just couldn't work together any longer and they were actively bad for one another. 

 

When Noah looks at Alison, he sees Alison, he doesn't see her minus Gabriel.  It's difficult to remember anyone's missing pieces, even when you care about them very much, if you met them after the piece was gone.  

 

While in Colorado visiting my son for his 25th birthday, we had dinner with a family friend whose first wife died of cancer, many, many years ago at this point.  He's this incredibly stoic guy.  Tall, white-haired, incredibly fit.  Quite the hot ticket on the 50+ dating circuit. but he's kind of famously unemotional and I know that about him.  To my everlasting horror, I made him cry that night.  I still feel absolutely horrible about it, but he had said something about not being good with words and I told him that I actually frequently quoted something that he'd told my husband about when he lost his wife and he had three kids:  "Every family has someone in it that acts as the glue.  The thing that holds them together.  When my wife died, I found out that person wasn't me."   I thought it was succinctly and beautiful put on his part, and I know his words have helped people feel less....like they're going nuts basically...in the wake of a loss.  

 

 

I'm bringing that up because people have talked about how callous it was for Noah not to realize "Her son drowned, of course she doesn't want to go in the pool!" but int hat moment when he playfully said he'd throw her in and she reacted with absolute horror:  He got it.  It's just not part of his first definition of Alison.  Just like I didn't realize that I'd carelessly ripped the lid off my poor old friend's pain.  I like words.  He was saying he wasn't good with them....and sure, it makes me a bit of an idiot for not thinking it entirely through beforehand...and talking about his dating life....I wasn't focusing on the right emotional context for him in that moment.  I apologized up, down, sideways and still to this moment feel frellling awful about having caused him to revisit that grief.  

My parents were an interesting case: they both had a child before meeting each other, and then they had my older sister and brother. Three months after my brother was born, he died of SIDS. From what I do know, they both took it hard and my father was especially watchful of my twin and me when we were young. But, I think another thing that kept them together was that they didn't blame one another and communicated. My uncle blamed my dad, the cops tried to blame my mom, but they both defended each other against any accusations. But, with Cole and Alison, they weren't on the same page in their grief and I think Alison tried to own the grief as hers alone--she didn't want to move on with him or get through it. Not to say that their marriage would've survived, but they may have come to a resolution better.

 

IMO, it's hard for me to give Noah a pass for forgetting about Gabriel because he had an affair with a married woman whose marriage was in ruins because her child died. That may not be an immediate association, but if you're in love with someone and thinking about marrying them, which is why you threw away your other marriage, you either don't forget something like that, or you are more mindful and remember that her kid drowned in a pool when she reacts strongly and fear to the suggestion.

 

I don't know if I read that he got it, but if that was his acknowledgment, it seemed half assed. It may not be part of his definition of her, but it is something that comes with her and something she will forever carry. I didn't define my father by his dislike of dogs, but I knew he didn't like them because it reminded him of the dog my family had shortly before my brother died because the whining was similar. Or, we rarely talk about my brother, but they told us about his existence when we were very young.

[Ruby25]

 

Yes, the consequences of helping break up someone's should be a question. You are not forever in debt to a person you cheated in, but marriage with kids is another ballgame--even some longterm relationships without kids are as well. But, when you are with someone for over 20 years with four kids, and then cheat and leave--how is that not even a question?

 

Some people are so busy being critical of marriage that they don't even consider all of the emotional investment that was put in and maintained throughout a relationship. All that time spent making it work, compromising, sacrificing, and then this person "upgrades"??? So, now you feel shitty and worthless. "Oh, it's not personal, she's my soulmate." Then, what was the other person--practice until the real person came around? 

Every time I hear someone describe marriage like this it makes me question the institution altogether. I don't think you can really ever promise to love someone forever- as happy and sure as you are right now, how do you know that nothing will change in ten or even twenty years? People are always changing and these kinds of feelings shift constantly. Forcing each other to stay put and endlessly compromise and sacrifice and "make it work," as you say...should it really be so much work? Shouldn't people do what makes them happy? Is the relationship not worth it if you know that it may well end someday, even if you feel as in love with this person as you could ever be with someone?

[truthaboutluv]

Forcing each other to stay put and endlessly compromise and sacrifice and "make it work," as you say...should it really be so much work? Shouldn't people do what makes them happy?

 

 

I didn't make the comment but I don't think the poster was suggesting a person should stay in an unhappy and miserable existence or that that is all marriage is just because the compromise and sacrifice is referenced. Saying that marriage or any relationship really takes work isn't saying that automatically means people aren't happy. It's saying that all relationships, including friendships, take some effort at times because as humans we are complicated beings and no matter how much you love someone, there will be times when they will frustrate you and annoy you and even make you want to scream.

 

But then those are the times that you do remember the good times and why you're in the relationship to begin with. Relationships cannot be happy all the time because no one will make a person happy all the time and if that is the only measure one has for a successful relationship, then that's the kind of person who ends up with 3 or 4 failed marriages because the second difficulties come, easy to jump ship and go seek happiness somewhere else. 

 

It reminds me of a great line I heard a guy once say. He stated that that he hated the idea of soul mates because it sounds like you have no will and you're with this person because some fate said you should be. Instead he believed that what was truly romantic is meeting someone where even when it gets tough and you can both say "I could find someone else, but I don't want to" and instead you are willing to stay and work at it and be together. Now again obviously yes, people fall out of love and fall in love with other people and that's okay.

 

But I think what the poster is saying and I agree is that in these situations, yeah great one is following their heart but you cannot ignore the emotional devastation it leaves in their wake. Because there is another person in the equation who dedicated years of their life to the relationship and when children are involved, that's more lives affected and left confused. Yes divorce and affairs happen but it's not unfair or puritanical to look at the other side and say yeah, it's pretty shitty for the spouse being left. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Nanrad]

Every time I hear someone describe marriage like this it makes me question the institution altogether. I don't think you can really ever promise to love someone forever- as happy and sure as you are right now, how do you know that nothing will change in ten or even twenty years? People are always changing and these kinds of feelings shift constantly. Forcing each other to stay put and endlessly compromise and sacrifice and "make it work," as you say...should it really be so much work? Shouldn't people do what makes them happy? Is the relationship not worth it if you know that it may well end someday, even if you feel as in love with this person as you could ever be with someone?

Truthaboutluv definitely got what I was saying, but let me rephrase: relationships in general is about communication, compromise, hard work, and sacrifice. This is why people describe the beginning of relationships as the "honeymoon phase"--everything is dandy, until the relationship settles, and then that's when you decide if this relationship is truly worth committing to or not. This is also why I mentioned long term relationships as well. Despite not being married, I believe that people committed to one another 7, 15, 28 years share very similar experiences without a marriage certificate involved. 

 

I personally don't believe in staying married at all costs, but there are many divorced people who admit that they didn't fight hard enough or gave up too easily. This doesn't go for everyone, but it does say that when sharing your life with someone, you do have to keep the other person in mind. Case in point, my sister's husband loves anime--he can marathon shows and/or play games non stop. My sister doesn't mind until it interferes with them spending time together, especially since he works a lot. So, there is allocated time and days for his anime, which doesn't interfere with they time they spend time. He compromised for her. My sister doesn't like going out or to family gatherings, but her husband is very sociable/a family man, so she compromises and puts her discomfort aside and attends these gatherings with him/or has dinner with his friends. He works hard to see her perspective about why she is upset about something (he sometimes doesn't understand even if she explains it a million times and I have to re-explain it before he gets it, but he's doing better--lol). And she tries to understand his points.

 

So, yes, people are always changing, BUT sometimes two people can grow together and, others times, they grow apart. Either way, this doesn't negate that every relationship requires work. Some have bigger problems than others to work through--some have small. My parents had to deal with the death of a child and several concurrent issues, but they worked hard in their marriage and when I grew older, I saw two people who loved one another and were a united front. 

 

Then there comes a point where there is too much work--too much to fix and work on, which is when it is time to leave, married or not. No objection from me. A person is more than welcome to pursue their happiness, but if this person has a whole family at risk of being hurt, he or she must realize the consequences that come with that. Noah wasn't single and childless when this happened--he wasn't just dating Helen for 3 months. Over 20 years and four kids--he is directly responsible for his ex wife and their kids' misery. 

 

You could argue if relationships in general is worth it--they end all of the time. Since that is too cynical, the question is: is this relationship worth investing in? Because honestly, this same shit could happen to Alison, then what? Eventually, a person pursuing their happiness at all costs is the ultimate selfishness. He wasn't unhappy with Helen--it's his right to leave, but he does deserves his share of blame for what his actions did to his family.

[glowbug]

I, too, have a problem with the term soul mates because it's often used in fiction (particularly juvenile fiction) to be a magic connection that draws two people together and makes them unable to keep away from each other despite incompatible personalities, life circumstances, and often abusive behavior by one or both people in the relationship (see Edward/Bella in the Twilight Saga as an example). I don't believe in magic and therefore don't believe this sort of connection exists and it's beneath a show like this to play that card. What I hope Treem's intent was when she referred to soul mates were two people who, based on compatible temperaments (biology) and life experiences (environment), have the unique ability to understand each other in a way that others can't. Because of this understanding they can then form a deeper bond which each other, and their love is able to bring out the best in each other. 

 

The problem is that it's clear that Noah and Alison do not understand each other based the fact that their interpretations of each other are wildly different. Neither one of them understood the other at the time their relationship began, and they still don't understand each other after they have been together for some time, are married and have a child together. These POVs are supposed to be their current day recollections and there are still huge misunderstandings. I don't understand how two people can so completely misunderstand each other in such fundamental ways and still be considered soul mates. 

 

Even if somehow Noah and Alison do come to understand each other and build a deep connection (something I find very unlikely considering their present day misunderstandings of each other), it's still not the story Treem has described this as being. From what I've read it seems like she intended to tell a story where two people who were already married (one of them happily so) met their soul mate and because of their undeniable connection decided to leave their spouses. But that's not the story I'm seeing. They don't understand each other, they don't seem to have a deep connection and they both (though Alison in particular) seem to be keeping important things from the other person. 

[SlackerInc]

Every time I hear someone describe marriage like this it makes me question the institution altogether. I don't think you can really ever promise to love someone forever- as happy and sure as you are right now, how do you know that nothing will change in ten or even twenty years? People are always changing and these kinds of feelings shift constantly. Forcing each other to stay put and endlessly compromise and sacrifice and "make it work," as you say...should it really be so much work? Shouldn't people do what makes them happy? Is the relationship not worth it if you know that it may well end someday, even if you feel as in love with this person as you could ever be with someone?

 

Wow, do I ever agree with this.  But by saying this you are basically committing a huge taboo in our society.  The standard viewpoint, even for non-"Puritan" people, is that once you get married (or you cohabitate and have kids with someone), if things go sour, you have to "fight" to try to salvage it (I believe someone used this terminology upthread).  I just don't accept this.  You only live once.  I had two kids with my ex-wife, the marriage curdled, I was not happy, I ended it (there was no affair in my case, although I would certainly have been open to one).  She was upset, begged me to go to counselling, but I knew we were done.  

 

I'm sure it hurt from her side (but a lot of the things she said over the years leading up to that point hurt me too).  But the only thing that sucked about getting separated and then divorced was fighting over custody and the fact that I still have to deal with her to this day.  Otherwise, I never got the whole idea that divorce was something you mourn.

 

I suppose I qualify as a monster in most people's eyes (certainly my ex-wife and her friends, including most of our former mutual friends, believe so).  So be it.  I only get to go around once, as I say, and I'm not going to deny myself happiness to do what society thinks is "right".  We don't live in Victorian times, or in the Muslim world, and I like our libertine Western ways.  Relationships, whether a marriage with children or a high school couple, exist by mutual consent.  Either side can disband them when they're just not that into the other person any more.  It hurts to be the one who is dumped, but that's true whether it's after 20 years of marriage or after three months of teenage first love (maybe even more in the latter case).

[Nanrad]

Again, I don't think most people in THIS thread are saying, "Deny your happiness at all cost if you are married with kids." We are saying that relationships are hard work--even the "easy ones." If someone wants to leave because their heart isn't in it anymore, that's their business. TBH, I think it's the right choice because the other person's time is being wasted the longer the uninterested party stays around. But, I think it's naivety to be upset that others feel a certain way about how this person actions impacted others.

 

I don't think getting a divorce or wanting one makes someone a monster, I think that not caring how one's actions impacts their ex and kids and only caring about their happiness makes the person an ass. BE happy, but also be mindful of others in delicate situations. And being in a long term relationship/marriage v. a short relationship is more than "getting dumped." One is where two people have built their lives around one another for years and the other was in the beginning of a relationship. You're used to this person's presence in your life and the things that come with it. They become a part of you. There are many divorced people who have been dumped and, for those people, getting divorced has way more hurt to it (and not simply because of a certificate) than being dumped did.

 

My older sister was with this guy for like five years, and then they broke up. She was heartbroken and I asked him what went wrong. Funny enough, he also said, "We weren't happy anymore--I wasn't happy." I totally respected the comment and it wasn't because they weren't married, but rather, it's a legit answer. BUT, at the same time, the two of them have been mindful of one another after the breakup as well. 

[LoveLeigh]

Here's the main problem for me. Alison is such a sour puss, so miserable, so unhappy, so filled with issues and problems..... I have a hard time believing that Noah would leave his family for her even if he did think he loved her. It was just sex at the beginning and as her personality was revealed to Noah I think he would have distanced himself from falling in love with her rather than get so involved with her. 

 

And why would she leave her husband for Noah? Why would she take on all that baggage? I don't know, I think this season we will see the Alison/Noah relationship unravel. 

[Neurochick]

I also can't blame her for her anger. Yes she was disrespectful and a brat but this is a teenage girl who all she sees is that her dad abandoned her mom and her and her siblings for this woman. I can't blame her for the way she was talking to and about Alison in Noah's version. The Scotty thing was just horrible but also not surprising. Stupid teenage girl who thinks she's so in love even though the guy is clearly a creepy predator, so not surprised with her attitude but like others I'm starting to think she might be the one who killed him and Noah tried to cover it up.

 

 

I detest Whitney.  Girl has ZERO manners.  When I was her age I NEVER would have acted like that.  We were taught to respect our parents, but today when you try to tell children off, they scream ABUSE.  No, it was called boundaries, the parents have their lives and as a child I knew it wasn't my business to interfere.  Whitney's an awful brat.   I think she killed Scotty too.

 

 

Every time I hear someone describe marriage like this it makes me question the institution altogether. I don't think you can really ever promise to love someone forever- as happy and sure as you are right now, how do you know that nothing will change in ten or even twenty years? People are always changing and these kinds of feelings shift constantly. Forcing each other to stay put and endlessly compromise and sacrifice and "make it work," as you say...should it really be so much work? Shouldn't people do what makes them happy? Is the relationship not worth it if you know that it may well end someday, even if you feel as in love with this person as you could ever be with someone?

 

 

I really agree with this.  I think what some folks don't get is that centuries ago, life expectancy was something like forty five or fifty.  They may have married young, but men had their lives and women had theirs.  It's only recently that the concept of "marrying my best friend" came into being.  When Yvonne said to her husband, "I thought I was your best friend."  I was like, "lady, doesn't your husband deserve to have a life away from you?"  I think today, people expect their partners to be everything to them.  

Edited October 29, 2015 by Neurochick

[Chas411]

I detest Whitney. Girl has ZERO manners. When I was her age I NEVER would have acted like that. We were taught to respect our parents, but today when you try to tell children off, they scream ABUSE. No, it was called boundaries, the parents have their lives and as a child I knew it wasn't my business to interfere. Whitney's an awful brat. I think she killed Scotty too.

I don't like Whitney much either but I don't fault her for the lack of respect she showed Noah and Alison. They've done nothing to earn her respect. Hurting Helen aside her father has basically abandoned her siblings and caused a huge amount of hurt to them. She doesn't owe him any kind of respect. There's nothing from Noah's point of view to suggest he even misses the kids that much so if Whitney wants to crap all over the fake life he loves hiding in then more power to her. If Whitney was a more sympathetic character I think we'd see further how much Noah and Alison devastated his kids but she's awful so I feel it didn't really hit home

Alison as the adulteress was never going to have an easy ride with the kids. She knew what she was doing when she broke up the family so she can take the abuse. Even at that I'd hesitate to truly believe her version at this stage since her point of view stars her as the perpetual victim while everyone judges, blames, attacks her. It's never her doing anything wrong. It's just everyone shitting on her while she stands innocently with a sad face.

[Kiss my mutt]

I asked my husband if he wanted to see something gross and I showed him the part of Alison and Noah having sex and now he's not talking to me.

[millennium]

Now I know why Noah can't finish his book: he never writes.

I'm finding the ostentatious wealth in this show hard to take.  Especially at this point, where there's no Lobster Roll or drug-dealing to offset the chi-chi-ness of it all.