S02.E09: 209

[TheFinalRose]

I thought this episode was ridiculously cartoonish, from Helen having sex on the basement floor with her kids upstairs, to Noah doing coke so easily, to Alison's overwrought labor to Cole burning down his house.  I liked this show at the beginning because of its subtle differences in perspectives ... it's such a human thing to remember events differently and that aspect of the show was what got my interest.  This episode was even boring at times, the party just went on and on and was way overdone.

 

I am having a hard time understanding why having a well-received novel would cause a man with teenage children and a baby on the way to start acting like an irresponsible frat boy?  It's inconsistent.  And the labor pains? Seriously, I guess delivering with an epidural produces zero emotional punch but those scenes were so awfully done, I hated them.  I guess I get constantly irked that no one on tv ever has a pleasant, numbed up birth, which is a reality for most women today. STUPID.

 

My dislike for Dominic West is doubling each episode.  

 

 

 

 

[SlackerInc]

Midwives and OBs do not make up all birth attendants. My oldest child was born in a Midwestern hospital, attended by a GP who specialized in pregnancy and birth but who was not a surgeon and thus could not perform C-sections. (Plus multiple L&D nurses of course.)

[Boundary]

I am having a hard time understanding why having a well-received novel would cause a man with teenage children and a baby on the way to start acting like an irresponsible frat boy?  It's inconsistent. 

 

That was exactly my problem with it too. Making Noah mirror his hated father in-law is reasonable and even poetic, if that was how the writers conceived his arc. But deviating towards Max? That came from nowhere. Suddenly Noah is so unreliable I don't think he's picked up a phone call from Alison in ages, and yet we are told this is the guy that raised four kids and presumably can juggle multiple domestic emergencies. 

 

But I do think Dominic West is doing an incredible job.

[Adultosaurus]

So I think the entire protracted birthing scenes, culminating with Alison and her baby alone and putting Noah off - I think all of this was to get Alison some much-needed sympathy from the viewing demographic.  I know, according to Treem it was probably just her own POV - but Alison is the "light" at the moment to Noah/Eden/Helen's "dark".

[blixie]

 

I am having a hard time understanding why having a well-received novel would cause a man with teenage children and a baby on the way to start acting like an irresponsible frat boy?  It's inconsistent.

 

It doesn't feel inconsistent to me, he left his marriage at least in part because he didn't want "this life" and his children and domestic life were often presented as a DRAG on his "happiness".  he also told Helen and his sister something about how he'd never done anything "wrong",  that he's been super responsible since a young age, and that he was tired of it, so I think he's wanted to do something IRRESPONSIBLE SELFISH and WRONG for a very long time, he never got his young ya ya's on so now he's allowing himself to go for it. I don't think they've shown he wants this baby, the only baby he cares about his book and nurturing his career. I think we're meant to think ending up in a ditch, coming down from cocaine, after you almost propositioned your own daughter is some kind of come to Jesus moment about what kind of "life" Noah wants, but I'm so so so beyond caring. 

[TheFinalRose]

It doesn't feel inconsistent to me, he left his marriage at least in part because he didn't want "this life" and his children and domestic life were often presented as a DRAG on his "happiness".  he also told Helen and his sister something about how he'd never done anything "wrong",  that he's been super responsible since a young age, and that he was tired of it, so I think he's wanted to do something IRRESPONSIBLE SELFISH and WRONG for a very long time, he never got his young ya ya's on so now he's allowing himself to go for it.

 

 

 

I'm at the age where I've seen quite a few families implode, with both wives and husbands being the one who wants out, and yet I have never heard tales of the emancipated partner turning into a frat boy. It's common to want a different life, a change, a new partner, more independence ie: part-time parenting, but writing Noah as a frat boy is, IMO, lazy and a cliche.  He did irresponsible and selfish by going off with Allison.  Now he's just a predictable, unlikeable ass.  

[ChromaKelly]

The lack of any reaction to or indication of awareness of the baby or pregnancy in 2/4 POVs — Cole & Helen, the 2 people most likely to be wounded or enraged or baffled (or some messy combination thereof) by it — is *exactly* what makes it so very relevant to this episode. The baby arrives — but who is expecting her and how are they feeling about it?

As you point out, the ridiculously overwrought birth sequences were useless to advance anyone's story and felt weirdly generic at the same time. Another missed opportunity IMO — where was the Alison who had decided on her own to keep this baby (something that seemed clear from her announcement at the yoga retreat), the Alison who whether consciously or unconsciously doesn't seem to care who the father is, just that this new child is hers? That Alison might have a mindful, focused reason to choose unmedicated childbirth, might invite Athena to attend and support her, might draw on the clarity and body awareness she seemed to have when she discovered and embraced her pregnancy. We really only saw that at the end when she was bonding with her daughter and was all "Noah who?"

I'm pretty sure you're right that it's Joanie, which was her grandmother's name.

In the U.S. at least, OB/GYNs *are* obstetric surgeons — only in a really unusual circumstance would any other specialty perform a c-section — and unfortunately U.S. hospitals make the call on c-sections based more on liability concerns than research-proven results. The charitable interpretation of the depiction of Alison's birth experience is that it's her typical poor-me, all-alone, catastrophic POV, I guess.

I was also finding it a stretch that a 35-weeker wouldn't require at least some supportive care and/or NICU time at first. I mean, that's not enormously premature, but those last few weeks can be really important for lung development as well as putting on enough body fat to regulate temperature.

Yes. The whole birth scene was just so unbelievable. She was 35 weeks, there would have been more monitoring, maybe a steroid shot for the lungs, at least a nurse or two, and the possibility of a c-section would have been raised. They probably would have given her an epidural just in case they had to switch to a c-section at the last minute.

[ChromaKelly]

This whole episode was so off. I realize these people live a different lifestyle than I do, but I'm feeling like it's written by someone who doesn't actually know any married, 40ish-year old people, or knows New York, or children...
Why on earth was Whitney at that party? Would that be her scene? Wouldn't she be at party in the city? That party was so WTF anyway.
I did note the handwaving early hurricane thing, but March would still be Nor'easter time, why not just make it that?
Is Noah really that much of a dick that he wouldn't take a minute to find his phone?
The "early" baby throwing doubt on paternity is so soapish. The baby's gestational age would have been confirmed. I have to assume baby was actually early not the soap thing, although with this show, who knows.
Oh great, now both Solloway parents will have DUIs!
Noah's literary greatness is getting stupid.
Why would Martin be eating popcorn if he has Crohn's?
The doctor was a dick. I get joking around about shitty patients, but the mom on the phone was basically the same person as Helen, the mom of one of his patients. Wait till you at least know her to joke. She didn't sound like a needy bitch. Sheesh.
Sneaking him in the house for a fuck was kinda gross. IDK, I have three kids and I just don't have time for that shit. It's not on my radar.
Subcutaneous injections are not that bad.
Cole burning down the house was stupid.
 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I'm still scratching my head over why Eden needed those 15 minutes before she'd let Noah bang her -- cuz, well, then Noah's rapey overtones come into play, right?  Or is that only with Alison?  Anyhoo, why, Eden, why?  Why did you need those 15 minutes, hun?  

 

Afterall, if she hadn't put Noah off with those much needed 15 minutes, Noah wouldn't have been jerking off while looking at Whitney kissing her girl hookup.  I mean, er, how are father & daughter supposed to now look at each other in the eye?  And how can we look at these 2, even when they're merely in the same room -- um, ever, without thinking about this scene?  Thanks for this, Treem.  Ew.

 

OK, so back to Eden & those 15 minutes.  Possible explanations?

 

A)  Eden is pretty much a tease & Noah got the most he's ever gonna get from her already -- top removed last time, and now this time, some hair-swinging & a quick feel-up thru the pants.  And that's about it.  The 15 minutes coulda been her excuse to make a getaway.  Smart gal, that Eden.

 

B)  She needed the 15 minutes to tuck in her penis discreetly.  Hmmmm.

 

C)  She needed to squeeze out a quick dump -- cuz any PR gal worth her salt knows having to go is not sexy.

 

D)  She wanted to insert a diaphragm without ruining the moment or creating boner kill.  She's nothing, if not efficient, that Eden.

 

Any of these possible?  

Edited December 4, 2015 by ScoobieDoobs

[RedInk]

So I think the entire protracted birthing scenes, culminating with Alison and her baby alone and putting Noah off - I think all of this was to get Alison some much-needed sympathy from the viewing demographic. I know, according to Treem it was probably just her own POV - but Alison is the "light" at the moment to Noah/Eden/Helen's "dark".

Well, if sympathy is what they were after, it worked for me. I should have been able to feel for her from the start because of Gabriel, but since Alison has practically no character traits I admire, I've been able to compartmentalize and overall really dislike her. This scene with the baby was the only time I've seen her make a decision to take care of herself, even just in the moment. Or I'm proven wrong in the next episode, and she's just being the victim/martyr I'm used to seeing, in which case forget my earlier statement ;)

Not sure what was being conveyed with Helen. She seemed to have had some epiphany at the end of her day with the doctor, but I don't get what it was. Amused by her poor judgment? Relieved she dodged a bullet? Or did she find his honesty refreshing? I would understand that last one if he were *kind of* a jerk, but this guy was throwing up red flags like flares. He was Max without the charm. Lock that door, Helen!

On the topic of Noah becoming a frat boy, I'm not sure he hasn't always been irresponsible or that he wouldn't respond like he is now, given the chance. We only saw one day in his life before he met Alison. And during his brief single period, he was pretty reckless...even getting suspended for screwing a teacher at his own school in full view of anyone who happened to be walking past him in the hall.

Edited December 3, 2015 by RedInk

[Duke2801]

I'm not hate-watching this show.  I still find it a riveting hour of television, and I am still invested in the storyline and characters.  Ok, I take that back.  I sometimes hate-watch Noah scenes.  Because: see below....

 

sking24450, on 29 Nov 2015 - 11:19 PM, said:

Noah is 

 

 

I don't just like this.  I love it, want to marry it, and have 10,000 of its babies.  Perfect.

 

DiabLOL, on 30 Nov 2015 - 01:43 AM, said:

Treem is possibly a Millennial? That explains a lot. Now I know I'm not in good hands here.

The George Clooney story line was really too much. If they wanted me to stop rolling my eyes at stuff like this they should have made the passages from Noah's book suck way less.

The more I think about it the more I hope Cole doesn't marry Luisa. I find her so obnoxious and pushy.

PS I know people in their 40s 50s and 60s who use Tinder.
Treem is possibly a Millennial? That explains a lot. Now I know I'm not in good hands here.

The George Clooney story line was really too much. If they wanted me to stop rolling my eyes at stuff like this they should have made the passages from Noah's book suck way less.

The more I think about it the more I hope Cole doesn't marry Luisa. I find her so obnoxious and pushy.

PS I know people in their 40s 50s and 60s who use Tinder.

 

I don't know any 35 year old who prefers to identify as a millennial, personally.  It's mostly people in their 20s.

 

Glade, on 30 Nov 2015 - 02:22 AM, said:

Yes, she was.  She said to him "bad things have happened to me too, but I put one foot in front of the other."  Which is comparing pain, comparing responses to trauma and saying she's better then he is.   No, he didn't respond well to what she shared, because obviously it triggered strong emotions for him.  And then Luisa went off on him and made it about a bunch of other stuff, including that he drives a cab and isn't financially supporting his family.  It seems pretty clear to me that both he and Alison are suffering from PTSD after their son's death.  It really sucks when people's reaction to your PTSD is "wow, you're such a loser/such an asshole." 

 

Cole was being an asshole, PTSD or not.  I think what Luisa told him was right on. 

 

SlackerInc, on 30 Nov 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Yeah, the show has really gone on a "descent" (pun intended) into turgid melodrama.  It's a real shame.  Now I'm eyeing the exit, looking for the moment I can break away from it without being pulled back by curiosity, like I did with Nashville for several episodes before I found a good spot to make a clean break.

 

 

But why would she assume fortysomthings can't have hookups?  Isn't that in fact exactly what Helen ended up doing?

I've never used Tinder (although I met both of my wives online) but I assume you can enter an age range you are looking for, and people can always swipe left if they don't think you look young and hot enough for them--right?

 

I don't think the waitress was assuming that 40-somethings can't have hookups.  She was just passing along info in case Helen didn't know that and was looking for something more serious.  She was trying to be helpful, in my estimation.

 

Lemons, on 30 Nov 2015 - 2:17 PM, said:

Very few people under the age of 25 have even heard of the term "millennial".   The term was probably coined by middle aged ad men.  So it was stupid for the waitress to even say it.  As dumb as if the waitress had said "you Generation X people should use match.com!"

 

I think that's just .... not true.  I feel confident that most people under 25 know what a millennial is.

 

Kiss my mutt, on 30 Nov 2015 - 3:49 PM, said:

Do you think the doctor is about the same age as Helen? I couldn't really tell. I hope she doesn't try to talk herself into liking him with all the red flags.

I had to laugh at the match.com comment that it was more for divorcees. When I got a divorce, every other divorced person was on there. I met my second husband that way. Tinder didn't exist and Eharmony turned me down. Lol.

 

Yeah I think they were supposed to be around the same age, although IRL, she is about a decade older than him.  But she looks younger than her biological age, and I think he looked older so they seemed to fit together well.

 

As for whether Leo could play a character who was having a mid-life crisis.  Sure why not?  He's only 5 years younger than DW in real life!

[krpa]

Actually, the show blew it with the phone. The first missed call was from "Allison," but the other missed calls showed it with one L.  Bad continuity. Really bad.  During the first season, many people here were spelling it both ways, but what determined it for me, were those POV introductions at the start of each half of the episode. Since I recorded each episode to watch later, I was able to go back and see how it was spelled there, and it was always with one L, which is also how they show it on IMDB. I wasn't even paying attention to the spelling in the book's dedication... but if I still have that episode on the dvr, I may go back to check.

All missed calls were from Allison and texts were from Alison. The book has Alison written in it. Go figure.

 

Does anyone know why Noah and Max are on bad terms all of a sudden?

 

And I was watching a preview of the next episode and it seems to me that Helen and dr. Ullah arrive together to Noah's trial.

[right]

I'm at the age where I've seen quite a few families implode, with both wives and husbands being the one who wants out, and yet I have never heard tales of the emancipated partner turning into a frat boy. It's common to want a different life, a change, a new partner, more independence ie: part-time parenting, but writing Noah as a frat boy is, IMO, lazy and a cliche.  He did irresponsible and selfish by going off with Allison.  Now he's just a predictable, unlikeable ass.  

 

I wish I could agree with this, but I have had first hand experience with a cheating spouse who reverted back to a young "party girl", in other words a female Noah.  As I'm about 4 years out of my divorce I get to watch Noah's actions and relive many of the lies and formerly out of character behavior.  Way too many similarities for me to not be sucked in by this show.  I know, it sounds far fetched that someone could actually act like Noah in real life, but it does happen.

 

In fact, as I read many of these posts I think I can almost guess who the divorced people are by their reactions to the main characters.  If you defend Helen and Cole you were likely the "dumpee" and if you can find good in Noah and Alison you were likely the "dumper".  Those who are neither get to just sit back and enjoy the carnage. 

[truthaboutluv]

Well if it helps in the polling, I'm neither - my relationships always ended amicably (if I was cheated on I never knew and I've never cheated) and I loathe Noah and have since the first season and find Alison annoying as well so there's that. 

[Lemons]

I think that's just .... not true.  I feel confident that most people under 25 know what a millennial is.

 

 

 

Why do you think that?  If I were to stereotype I would think maybe the Hipsters know the term because they are so self aware.  But the every day 20 year old? 

[truthaboutluv]

I think they do because it's a term that has become very prevalent in colleges and universities. At least it was when I did my Masters program two years ago. There was a plethora of studies and articles being done about millennials and what they wanted, were interested in, etc. 

[Irlandesa]

Cole didn't know that he was in the book until Oscar pointed it out, so I could see Cole being ignorant of what's in the tabloids (at least until someone like Oscar mentions it). However, I suspect Helen would know about the tabloids, if only via Whitney.

I agree that Helen likely knows quite a bit about her ex-husband's life.  I can believe Cole is clueless about the baby. 

 

First of all, she is more than correct that she should have told him a lot sooner.  Once you're at all approaching getting serious with someone, that's something they need to know.  Definitely before she told him she loved him, I'd say.  Because as much as that sucks for her, there are a lot of guys who are not going to want to settle down with her once they know that, no matter how awesome she may be.  And I don't think there is anything wrong with that: having kids (biologically related kids) is super important for a lot of people, myself included.  And Cole definitely seems like he's such a person.

I disagree that Luisa should have told him sooner. People can be in love without marrying or intending to have children.  Luisa is with a guy who she has seen have difficulty committing to anything other than getting through the day.  

 

The time for a couple to discuss children is when one of them decides to discuss future children which can happen at any time.   When Cole brought it up, she shared what happened to her.  It's not up to her to guess whether or not he wants more children after his tragic loss.  It's not up to her to guess whether or not he'd put more importance on a woman's ability to carry a child than who she is and who he'd like to raise one with. I don't know about other women but personally, when I think of who I am and my value, whether or not I can give birth to a child is the last thing I'd even consider.  After all, most people don't know whether or not they can have a child together until after they start trying which is usually after marriage.  What if one of them can't?  Do they divorce?

[SlackerInc]

Yes, I think they do in many cases. And that's not just an issue of the person who is fertile casting the other one aside coldly. If the fertile partner has a strong desire for children, they are going to struggle not to feel resentful, and the infertile one is going to struggle not to feel defensive or guilty or both. That is going to make the relationship tough, on top of all the other ways that relationships are difficult.

I saw it with my own sister when she wanted children but her husband did not. They are now divorced and she has two kids with her new husband, who had been a fellow teacher at her school, also married to someone who did not want children while he did. (And no, as far as I know their former spouses are not together, LOL.)

[Nanrad]

I'm 24, I've rarely heard the term millennial used. 

[tvviewer]

This week's episode exemplified why I have a love/hate relationship with the show and this article really articulates it http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a32293/the-cleverly-seductive-the-affair/. Before S1 I was looking forward to a thoughtful, nuanced and emotionally conflicting series. We get that - some of the time. Then it becomes melodramtic and soapy, which I also usually love in a different way. I was gripped by this episode but also got annoyed with it, then forgave it by excusing everything on being someone's point of view and therefore just the way it felt to them or how they were remembering it. I'm not sure if I like the show or not but I know I can't stop watching it. Very clever plan on the part of the writers.

[Milburn Stone]

This whole episode was so off. I realize these people live a different lifestyle than I do, but I'm feeling like it's written by someone who doesn't actually know any married, 40ish-year old people, or knows New York, or children...

Why on earth was Whitney at that party? Would that be her scene? Wouldn't she be at party in the city? That party was so WTF anyway.

I did note the handwaving early hurricane thing, but March would still be Nor'easter time, why not just make it that?

Is Noah really that much of a dick that he wouldn't take a minute to find his phone?

The "early" baby throwing doubt on paternity is so soapish. The baby's gestational age would have been confirmed. I have to assume baby was actually early not the soap thing, although with this show, who knows.

Oh great, now both Solloway parents will have DUIs!

Noah's literary greatness is getting stupid.

Why would Martin be eating popcorn if he has Crohn's?

The doctor was a dick. I get joking around about shitty patients, but the mom on the phone was basically the same person as Helen, the mom of one of his patients. Wait till you at least know her to joke. She didn't sound like a needy bitch. Sheesh.

Sneaking him in the house for a fuck was kinda gross. IDK, I have three kids and I just don't have time for that shit. It's not on my radar.

Subcutaneous injections are not that bad.

Cole burning down the house was stupid.

 

 

I go back to thinking that this was definitely not the usual POV episode, but instead was something that went deeper into the characters' subconsciouses. Something more like their dreams and nightmares. Every single observation you make about the events of the show being "off" is right on, and every single one can be explained if you go beneath the level of realism embodied in these characters' conscious POV perceptions and down into the terrors that drive them.

[Duke2801]

Lemons, on 03 Dec 2015 - 9:13 PM, said:Lemons, on 03 Dec 2015 - 9:13 PM, said:

Why do you think that?  If I were to stereotype I would think maybe the Hipsters know the term because they are so self aware.  But the every day 20 year old? 

 

Because it's an extremely common and oft-used term.  And all the 20-somethings I work with who throw the term around in a joking way. 

 

I'm 24, I've rarely heard the term millennial used.

 

 

OK maybe "rarely" but you have heard it and you know what it means. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Duke2801

[GeminiDancer]

 

Does anyone know why Noah and Max are on bad terms all of a sudden?

 

Firstly, I think Max held his wealth over Noah's head while Noah was married. It's not everyday a friend busts out $10,000 for blackmail money and another $50,000 post-divorce. Now that Noah has money, Max is expendable. Also, it seems like Noah wants to disavow all association to what links him to Helen (except for the kids) and Max is exactly that. 

 

Doesn't help that Max was messy at that party.

Edited December 4, 2015 by GeminiDancer

[izabella]

Doesn't help that Max was messy at that party.

 

I question how messy he really was, since it was Noah's POV.  Had he already snorted the coke by the time Max showed up?  That could also have altered both the actual events and how Noah perceived and remembered them.

[Margherita Erdman]

I go back to thinking that this was definitely not the usual POV episode, but instead was something that went deeper into the characters' subconsciouses. Something more like their dreams and nightmares. Every single observation you make about the events of the show being "off" is right on, and every single one can be explained if you go beneath the level of realism embodied in these characters' conscious POV perceptions and down into the terrors that drive them.

I can like the episode so much better, and enjoy it more as part of the ongoing narrative, viewed through this lens.

It really is too bad that Treem is so attached to her *own* POV that she undermines her own work by insisting on spelling out authorial intent instead of letting it go and accumulate its own layers of interpretation and meaning, independent of what she thought she was doing.

[Rockfish]

This was my least-favorite episode, but to be honest, I had a great laugh when Noah and Whitney had their encounter. Far-fetched or not, I enjoyed that icky scene because every once in a while I like being sleeved out. Plus, my husband was sitting by me at that moment, and although he doesn't really watch The Affair, he does enjoy seeing Noah make a fool of himself. So, that was fun.

But here's what I really wanted to share: during Alison's and Cole's joined scenes when he heard her wails (and some have said he heard the baby's cries, which I didn't notice, so I should rewatch), I immediately thought of Jane Eyre, when Mr. Rochester was bereft and desperate and calling out for Jane, and she heard him from far away, which influenced her next move.

Although Episode 9 (already?) was formatted differently, to me it was clear that each scene was from each character's perspective.

Also my two cents about the server in the bar--I thought she was trying to be helpful to Helen, yet was somewhat clumsy in her effort, which added to Helen's discomfort. Seemed realistic to me, based on my experiences of sometimes feeling awkward, out-of-place, and too old while everyone around me seems young and hip.

Someone drew correlations between those who are sympathetic to Noah and Alison with his or her marital status. To throw my experience out there--I'm in a stable, mostly happy marriage (of course there are ups and downs); I haven't cheated, nor have I been cheated on (that I know of), and I've been quite understanding of Alison and Noah. Of course, now I find Noah quite repulsive, but until the last few episodes I didn't dislike him. Obviously, I wouldn't want to be in Helen's shoes, but I realize that some people do meet and fall in love with others while married. And sometimes it's the real deal. Life can be messy, and I've been enjoying the depiction of these four messy lives.

Now, however, it seems that Alison and Noah don't have much of a connection at all, which brings me to that scene right before he was arrested in Season 1. I think that's when the viewer learned that they were living together with a baby, yet I remember that their interaction immediately before the arrest seemed off, as if one (or both) was keeping something from the other.

Thanks for all the great commentary--I love reading what everyone has to say!

[Palomar]

I am having a hard time understanding why having a well-received novel would cause a man with teenage children and a baby on the way to start acting like an irresponsible frat boy?  It's inconsistent.

 

 

I think rather than acting like a frat boy he is acting like someone getting caught up with the high of sudden fame and fortune and he is going with the flow and what is almost expected to be part of the scene (as far as the drugs go) and doing we he thinks he "deserves" as far as the sex goes. At this point Alison represents pretty much what Helen did...the real world which he's not quite ready yet to rejoin.

[iggysaurus]

It really is too bad that Treem is so attached to her *own* POV that she undermines her own work by insisting on spelling out authorial intent instead of letting it go and accumulate its own layers of interpretation and meaning, independent of what she thought she was doing.

 

It seems like Treem's comments in interviews/social media bother a lot of people here, so why not just avoid/ignore them? Genuine question, not being snarky. I'm just saying, it's easy to avoid this kind of commentary if it's interfering with one's enjoyment of the show.  Personally I know almost nothing about Treem or her views, aside from what I read here.  I looked her up recently because of the "millennial" discussion and I wanted to know how old she actually is.  But aside from that, I have no interest in reading what she has to say.  With this and most other shows, I watch it and read the forums if I'm interested in discussion, but I don't seek out the show runner's commentary.  That way, I can view the show on its own merits.

[CleoCaesar]

I think that's just .... not true.  I feel confident that most people under 25 know what a millennial is.

 

The word "millennial" is everywhere. It's regularly plastered over every popular website, including news sites, popular blogs, Reddit, etc., and has been for years. The only way an under-25 wouldn't know the word is if they had never seen the Internet before.

[truthaboutluv]

It seems like Treem's comments in interviews/social media bother a lot of people here, so why not just avoid/ignore them? Genuine question, not being snarky. I'm just saying, it's easy to avoid this kind of commentary if it's interfering with one's enjoyment of the show.  Personally I know almost nothing about Treem or her views, aside from what I read here.  I looked her up recently because of the "millennial" discussion and I wanted to know how old she actually is.  But aside from that, I have no interest in reading what she has to say.  With this and most other shows, I watch it and read the forums if I'm interested in discussion, but I don't seek out the show runner's commentary.  That way, I can view the show on its own merits.

 

Yup, no interest either. I pretty much just scroll when the talk turns to her comments about show.

[JenE4]

If Whitney is at a producer's party ("Wall to wall models!") in a hot tub with a hot chick, I'm guessing her incipient catwalk career is going better than I thought it would.

I thought the opposite, that she was hired as a "model" with possible prostitute implications for this party. But I also had just come off an episode of Van Der Pump Rules in which a cast member's "modeling gig" was similarly hired to "party" with some old guy in Italy.

[Boundary]

What do we really know about Whitney aside from her parents' views? She's a teenager and I suppose there are vast swathes of her life that Noah and Helen aren't privy to. Her parents are wealthy, so maybe that party is just an example of what her and her peers get up to.

[SlackerInc]

This week's episode exemplified why I have a love/hate relationship with the show and this article really articulates it http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a32293/the-cleverly-seductive-the-affair/. Before S1 I was looking forward to a thoughtful, nuanced and emotionally conflicting series. We get that - some of the time. Then it becomes melodramtic and soapy, which I also usually love in a different way. I was gripped by this episode but also got annoyed with it, then forgave it by excusing everything on being someone's point of view and therefore just the way it felt to them or how they were remembering it. I'm not sure if I like the show or not but I know I can't stop watching it. Very clever plan on the part of the writers.

I really enjoyed that article--thank you for posting it. I agree with it about halfway, except that I'm one of those "TV snobs" and I cannot even partially endorse the melodramatic, soapy turn the show has taken--unlike the author of the article. (Unlike some TV snobs, I have no taste whatsoever for shows like "Scandal" or "Empire", not even as "guilty pleasures" or to snark at.) But I'm still watching for now.

Incidentally, I was initially surprised that they got a detail wrong in saying that Noah went nude to a "couch", where Whitney was making out with another girl, when it was actually a hot tub. But then it occurred to me that this is a nice illustration of how people really do perceive/remember things differently. In fact, I haven't gone back and checked, so maybe I am the one who got it wrong! LOL

[Former Nun]

Also my two cents about the server in the bar--I thought she was trying to be helpful to Helen, yet was somewhat clumsy in her effort,

 

 

I agree...and a bit of putting/wishing herself in Helen's place at the moment, especially mouthing "he's hot."

[AmandaPanda]

I think Eden had another reason for giving the 15 minutes before Noah was supposed to meet her. Typically, when I've seen that done before, it's because whoever instigated the time rule didn't want to be seen going into the same room together. Eden might have been trying to protect Noah's reputation or even hers. She doesn't want it to get out that Noah is cheating on Alison and she doesn't want anyone to think that she's hooking up with her (former?) client. Unless someone has been watching them really closely, fifteen minutes is a wide enough window that people won't see them going into the same room.

[loki567]

Until the show spells it out otherwise, I'm assuming that there's something up with Whitney and Max. I agree that it's way too big of a coincidence they both end up at that party and the, "Uncle Max," comment seems like foreshadowing. And I'm not sure that show's subtle enough to be completely done with the Max/Helen relationship without Noah finding out about it. So I think Max/Whitney reveal could lead into that. 

[Corgi-ears]

Anyhoo, why, Eden, why?  Why did you need those 15 minutes, hun?...Possible explanations?

 

 

 

I'll go with (E): she needed to douche before she let a douche in.

[Margherita Erdman]

It seems like Treem's comments in interviews/social media bother a lot of people here, so why not just avoid/ignore them? Genuine question, not being snarky. I'm just saying, it's easy to avoid this kind of commentary if it's interfering with one's enjoyment of the show...[snip]...With this and most other shows, I watch it and read the forums if I'm interested in discussion, but I don't seek out the show runner's commentary.  That way, I can view the show on its own merits.

Speaking for myself only of course, it's not that I'm "bothered" or personally offended in any way, that would be silly and as you say it's perfectly possible, simple even, when browsing reviews and forums, to skip the opining of showrunners and writers. I don't seek them out or follow any of them on Twitter or FB.

But I find it so interesting, in the long tradition of literary and artistic criticism that struggles with the importance or irrelevance of explicit artistic intent vs. the meaning that accrues via audience interpretation and cultural context only — how insistent Treem is that it is all about her vision — with no admission that at some point she, like any artist, cannot claim exclusive insight into what her work means once it is released into the wild. It seems to indicate an extraordinary naïveté & lack of self-awareness on her part, maybe some arrogance too I suppose.

So when I comment on my perception of the distance between Treem's comments and what I see in the show, I'm not just whining or venting some kind of personal attack, it's out of fascination as much as frustration. I suspect it is the same for others here.

And of course as I think I noted earlier I find the irony delicious that in a show whose guiding conceit is the unreliable narrators and contrasts in the story from one POV to the next, that Treem insists her POV is unassailable.

[Milburn Stone]

Speaking for myself only of course, it's not that I'm "bothered" or personally offended in any way, that would be silly and as you say it's perfectly possible, simple even, when browsing reviews and forums, to skip the opining of showrunners and writers. I don't seek them out or follow any of them on Twitter or FB.

But I find it so interesting, in the long tradition of literary and artistic criticism that struggles with the importance or irrelevance of explicit artistic intent vs. the meaning that accrues via audience interpretation and cultural context only — how insistent Treem is that it is all about her vision — with no admission that at some point she, like any artist, cannot claim exclusive insight into what her work means once it is released into the wild. It seems to indicate an extraordinary naïveté & lack of self-awareness on her part, maybe some arrogance too I suppose.

So when I comment on my perception of the distance between Treem's comments and what I see in the show, I'm not just whining or venting some kind of personal attack, it's out of fascination as much as frustration. I suspect it is the same for others here.

And of course as I think I noted earlier I find the irony delicious that in a show whose guiding conceit is the unreliable narrators and contrasts in the story from one POV to the next, that Treem insists her POV is unassailable.

 

 

As should be no surprise, I agree with everything Margherita says so well above. With one tiny exception maybe. I don't find it as easy as she does to "skip" Treem's opining when it appears in forum posts here. I find it supremely easy to discount and dismiss Treem's opining, but I can't skip it because it's embedded in the discussion. One other difference is that in addition to finding Treem's tunnel vision (and her insistence on imposing it on viewers) "interesting" and "fascinating," I do find it irritating.

 

Please note that I'm not begrudging anyone who finds Treem's viewing instruction helpful, nor am I suggesting people don't share it if they want to. I suppose I am suggesting (to those Treem-followers who are open to suggestion) a different way of watching the show, which is to watch it for yourself. And then share with the community your own responses as we come together to make sense of it all. 

[taragel]

I share Treem's opinions here occasionally because I also often think the contrast between what she believes she's presenting and what audiences respond to is quite the chasm. And I find the juxtaposition of authorial intent vs. reception pretty fascinating. But also because, occasionally, things are fact, not really opinions. I mean if she says this past episode was from all four POVs and not an objective voice, that's establishing a fact, and not the same as debating whether you think Noah (or any of them) is a good person or a bad person. If someone's wondering about that here, then it makes sense to note what was said.

 

Also I'm the kind of person who really likes "extras" and "behind the scenes" type info, to which I see this to be the modern equivalent. Access to showrunners and writers rooms has never been greater thanks to Twitter (and occasionally Tumbler and Facebook). I'm someone who sometimes likes to know how the sausage is made, and since we're all such TV fans here, it's a fair guess that a lot of other people who contribute here do as well. We're not just casual or passive viewers, obviously. Part of fandom (and yes, hating is part of fandom too) is sharing those extra tidbits usually.

 

One other difference is that in addition to finding Treem's tunnel vision (and her insistence on imposing it on viewers) "interesting" and "fascinating," I do find it irritating.

 

Please note that I'm not begrudging anyone who finds Treem's viewing instruction helpful, nor am I suggesting people don't share it if they want to. I suppose I am suggesting (to those Treem-followers who are open to suggestion) a different way of watching the show, which is to watch it for yourself. And then share with the community your own responses as we come together to make sense of it all. 

 

What makes you think we're not "watching it for ourselves" and wouldn't bring our own opinions and responses to it? Of course, we are. Doesn't mean we can't also figure in or recount a bit of extra information/context/opinion on the show, just like we do in discussing it here with everyone else and considering their opinions. 

 

What I find irritating is when posters here think Treem (or the other writers) possess some kind of ill-will or arrogance in sharing their perspective. Usually it's in answer to interview questions or viewer questions on twitter--opinions that they're being actively solicited to contribute. She's not standing on a soapbox on the corner of Times Square with a megaphone pontificating. (I also often wonder at the vitriole towards her, versus say David Chase's comments about the ending of the Sopranos or Matt Weiner's thoughts on Mad Men, which are lauded and celebrated, generally speaking.) And honestly, I think Treem is often surprised and bemused that the reception is so different from her intention, not angry or insistent about it.

 

One could argue that Treem & co. are more entitled to weigh in on what's being shown than anyone else discussing it by having the most knowledge about it. While I'm surprised they don't leave some of the more ambiguous questions of morality up to audience interpretation given the show's theme of POV being relative, I don't see any problem with her clarifying that the most recent episode was meant to be four unlabeled POV sections and not objective fact.

Edited December 6, 2015 by taragel

[Milburn Stone]

 (I also often wonder at the vitriole towards her, versus say David Chase's comments about the ending of the Sopranos or Matt Weiner's thoughts on Mad Men, which are lauded and celebrated, generally speaking.)

 

I respect what you say, and would only comment on the part I excerpted, above. Weiner came in for plenty of criticism for interjecting into the conversation his (often peculiar) thoughts on Mad Men. Lots of irritated dialogue about that on Television Without Pity and also here, IIRC. And for all the same reasons as with Treem. So I don't think you're on firm ground when you suggest that gender plays a role.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Superpole2000]

This episode was so horribly contrived. Oh look, there's the surgeon who operated on my son, and he so conveniently has free time to have sex with me in my house! Oh look, one of the girls I'm watching make out at an out of town party is actually my daughter! Oh look, there's a hurricane happening in New York right when Alison is having her baby! Oh look, Noah can't find his phone right when Alison is trying to contact him! Oh look, it's Max, and he interrupted right when I was about to close a major deal! Oh look, Cole is burning down a house and having a major dramatic event right when Alison is screaming over her delivery!

 

The writers of this show are horrible. I am hate-watching this for the sake of completeness. It's so bad that...not it's just so bad. There's nothing good about it. What a DESCENT this show has taken!

[taragel]

I respect what you say, and would only comment on the part I excerpted, above. Weiner came in for plenty of criticism for interjecting into the conversation his (often peculiar) thoughts on Mad Men. Lots of irritated dialogue about that on Television Without Pity and also here, IIRC. And for all the same reasons as with Treem. So I don't think you're on firm ground when you suggest that gender plays a role.

 

Good to know. I didn't watch Mad Men but the general air towards Weiner (like Chase, like Vince Gilligan, like David Simon, like Nic Pizzolatto, etc.) always seemed very positive and near-reverent, but I never delved into it very closely. Perhaps that wasn't the case, or perhaps he got more criticism somewhere like here than in the general mainstream media and I just didn't see it because I didn't visit those forums. I just know that in general there are few female showrunners (well, i could stop there, but...) who seem to get as much respect for their serious dramas as male showrunners do. Shonda Rimes is heralded, as is Amy Sherman-Palladino, but their shows aren't really in the prestige drama model. Maybe Treem is the only female running a prestige drama? Can that really be?

[SlackerInc]

Also I'm the kind of person who really likes "extras" and "behind the scenes" type info, to which I see this to be the modern equivalent. Access to showrunners and writers rooms has never been greater thanks to Twitter (and occasionally Tumbler and Facebook). I'm someone who sometimes likes to know how the sausage is made, and since we're all such TV fans here, it's a fair guess that a lot of other people who contribute here do as well. We're not just casual or passive viewers, obviously. Part of fandom (and yes, hating is part of fandom too) is sharing those extra tidbits usually.

 

What makes you think we're not "watching it for ourselves" and wouldn't bring our own opinions and responses to it? Of course, we are. Doesn't mean we can't also figure in or recount a bit of extra information/context/opinion on the show, just like we do in discussing it here with everyone else and considering their opinions.

I agree. I think there can be a case to be made for watching a show in a more "pure" way, in more of a vacuum. But I think that would include not reading forum posts on it either. I was getting close to that at one point, and I know a couple people at least did take that route because the negativity seemed so at odds with our appreciation for the show and its characters. But now that the quality has, in my view, taken such a nosedive the past few episodes, I may actually be a little more negative on the show than the average poster, and I have no problem reading all the feedback now.

[Irlandesa]

Good to know. I didn't watch Mad Men but the general air towards Weiner (like Chase, like Vince Gilligan, like David Simon, like Nic Pizzolatto, etc.) always seemed very positive and near-reverent, but I never delved into it very closely. Perhaps that wasn't the case, or perhaps he got more criticism somewhere like here than in the general mainstream media and I just didn't see it because I didn't visit those forums.

I think there's a difference between main stream media and forum opinions.  Most main stream media outlets who review shows base their reviews on what appears on screen over what the showrunners say in interviews or behind-the-scenes snippets.*  Weiner's behind-the-scenes opinions were so off-the-wall sometimes but what was presented on screen wasn't.  (Well, other than maybe the Megan arc which never quite fit.  It's the one case where his personal preferences led the show down a path that the audience had a hard time following.)   So reviews focused on the show and there was plenty of criticism of his opinions.  Nic Pizzolatto got tons of criticism as well after Season 2 of True Detective by both critics and the audience. 

*Except for when The Good Wife's producers tried to spin the Juliana Marguiles/Archie Panjabi thing. 

 

I don't care enough about The Affair to care about Treem's opinions but I often find it interesting to see how the writers feel about their show and characters vs. how I feel about them based on the showw.  It's actually rarer for me to be in agreement with a showrunner and feel like their opinions align with what I see on screen than it is for me to disagree.  I think the only showrunner who I feel like I agree with is Vince Gilligan--but then again, he's a smart showrunner.  He's careful to not prescribe a specific meaning to what is shown on screen.  Very rarely does he say "yeah, that's wrong."  He's one of the few writers who understand that television viewing is related to not only what they present but how it is received.

 

 I just know that in general there are few female showrunners (well, i could stop there, but...) who seem to get as much respect for their serious dramas as male showrunners do. Shonda Rimes is heralded, as is Amy Sherman-Palladino, but their shows aren't really in the prestige drama model. Maybe Treem is the only female running a prestige drama? Can that really be?

What is a prestige drama?  Is The Affair a prestige drama?  What About Masters of Sex? That's run be a woman.  The Good Wife?  A woman is part of that duo.  But I think "prestige drama" is problematic because it sounds like it favors quality but it really favors a specific kind of quality. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Irlandesa

[taragel]

 

What is a prestige drama?  Is The Affair a prestige drama?  What About Masters of Sex? That's run be a woman.  The Good Wife?  A woman is part of that duo.  But I think "prestige drama" is problematic because it sounds like it favors quality but it really favors a specific kind of quality. 

 

I agree it's problematic but...it also is what it is? I mean "prestige" is very subjective, but it has come to be common usage regarding a particular rash of certain shows, usually any primetime premium cable drama show (HBO, SHO, MAX, STARZ, etc.) tends to be considered "prestige" and some other cable (A&E, FX, AMC) channels too. Masters of Sex, yes, but The Good Wife? Not really. The Bridge on A&E which Meredith Treem ran/co-ran after she left Homeland was another one partly helmed by a woman. I don't know, we're probably getting too far off topic anyway, but it's the usual story of how when a man is attached as showrunner it seems they're given an "auteur" status that women don't seem to get. To bring it back on-topic, it's sort of like Noah's book. If he wasn't a man, that'd be shelved next to 50 Shades in romance/erotica, viewed as another ripoff of THAT book, and likely no one would be talking about it (given the quality of the writing we've heard.)

[Boundary]

What I find irritating is when posters here think Treem (or the other writers) possess some kind of ill-will or arrogance in sharing their perspective. Usually it's in answer to interview questions or viewer questions on twitter--opinions that they're being actively solicited to contribute. She's not standing on a soapbox on the corner of Times Square with a megaphone pontificating. (I also often wonder at the vitriole towards her, versus say David Chase's comments about the ending of the Sopranos or Matt Weiner's thoughts on Mad Men, which are lauded and celebrated, generally speaking.) And honestly, I think Treem is often surprised and bemused that the reception is so different from her intention, not angry or insistent about it.

 

I loved your post but I particularly applaud this part. Most of the time Treem (on Twitter at least) is simply just promoting her show or highlighting how much she loves her actors (Julia got a big thumbs up the other week for playing the character from 4 POVs, something we viewers tend to forget cause we are so engrossed in the show - itself a high achievement by Treem & Co.) But when interviewers and viewers seek out clarifications, I honestly find it refreshing that she doesn't prevaricate. Her answers indicate that the writers' room went through the thoughtful process that goes on in these threads every week. Perhaps some of us who only get to put her quotes in here are guilty of this misconception that she is arrogant and loves pontificating, but then again only her relevant quotes get to be put here, otherwise these threads will end up mirroring her Twitter feed.

 

I honestly don't want to wade into the sexist angle mainly because I can't make my up mind about it. But the vitriol that Treem sometimes gets happens on most shows, hardly any show exists without someone wanting to pick a bone with the creator. On this show, however, I'm not one of those. I've already stated that I think she is smart and thoughtful in her answers, they aren't generic non-answers so pervasive elsewhere. Except for Noah's current down-spiral, I tend to see where her writing team come from. This show touches a lot of nerves, maybe because of the honesty at which the emotional issues are approached and the realism brought by the actors. Both are to Treem's credit, I think.

 

Hopefully we're still within topic but I think the writer's input into the episode, and our reaction to it, falls within this thread's remit, even though some of our comments appear general in nature.

[ScoobieDoobs]

This episode was so horribly contrived. Oh look, there's the surgeon who operated on my son, and he so conveniently has free time to have sex with me in my house! Oh look, one of the girls I'm watching make out at an out of town party is actually my daughter! Oh look, there's a hurricane happening in New York right when Alison is having her baby! Oh look, Noah can't find his phone right when Alison is trying to contact him! Oh look, it's Max, and he interrupted right when I was about to close a major deal! Oh look, Cole is burning down a house and having a major dramatic event right when Alison is screaming over her delivery!

 

The writers of this show are horrible. I am hate-watching this for the sake of completeness. It's so bad that...not it's just so bad. There's nothing good about it. What a DESCENT this show has taken!

 

i know, this ep was pretty contrived in so many ways, and yet I'm still interested -- well, by certain parts anyway.  Treem should thank her lucky stars she cast Maura in this thing.  As far as I'm concerned, Maura can do no wrong.  She & she alone is saving this show for me.  I liked the scenes with her & the doc, contrived as much of it was.  They had an interesting chemistry -- both the actors & the characters.  I wanna see more of it.

 

As far as the rest of the ep?  I'm really over both Noah & Alison.  Hopefully, we won't be hearing any more talk of cursed babies or seeing druggy Entourage fuck parties, with Daddy Noah jerking off looking at Whitney kissing random chicks.  Good grief, I'm sooooo weary of Joshua's/Cole's angsty/sulky shit.  Man, it's tiresome & tedious.  Oy, please move him on from being an adult Pacey, would ya, Treem?

 

I see in the previews, Noah will be talking to Cynthia Nixon, as his shrink, with Cynthia finally showing up in the 9th ep of the season.  Now, if Cynthia asks Noah to excuse her cuz she's gotta take a call from her needy friend, who's whining about somebody named Mr. Big, I think I'll throw a shoe at my TV.  Oh, and it looks there's gonna be more terrible acting coming from Colin Donnell, but at least he'll be looking more like a junkie.  I'll still have my shoe ready to throw.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ScoobieDoobs

[Bebecat]

Luisa needs to ditch Cole. He will never be a solid partner/husband/boyfriend. He is a mess, and men in families like his don't usually do counseling. And he would need a lot of counseling, probably years, to become a viable spouse. She can do better.

Ugh Noah. Too many reasons to list, how horrible he has become. I kind of wish they did not go and make Max horrible too, as his character was a good one, i.e. You knew what he was, but he was a good guy underneath. Now he is just a basic, rich asshat. He did give that money to Noah but Noah should have at least offered to repay it the second the big bucks started rolling in.

Also the whole Whitney kissing a girl was just lame. Just her being there, and seeing her father naked would have been plenty of drama. These writers push everything over the top, so as to make it eye-rolling instead of suspenseful, meaningful, etc...

[Nanrad]

Good to know. I didn't watch Mad Men but the general air towards Weiner (like Chase, like Vince Gilligan, like David Simon, like Nic Pizzolatto, etc.) always seemed very positive and near-reverent, but I never delved into it very closely. Perhaps that wasn't the case, or perhaps he got more criticism somewhere like here than in the general mainstream media and I just didn't see it because I didn't visit those forums. I just know that in general there are few female showrunners (well, i could stop there, but...) who seem to get as much respect for their serious dramas as male showrunners do. Shonda Rimes is heralded, as is Amy Sherman-Palladino, but their shows aren't really in the prestige drama model. Maybe Treem is the only female running a prestige drama? Can that really be?

 

I think there's a difference between main stream media and forum opinions.  Most main stream media outlets who review shows base their reviews on what appears on screen over what the showrunners say in interviews or behind-the-scenes snippets.*  Weiner's behind-the-scenes opinions were so off-the-wall sometimes but what was presented on screen wasn't.  (Well, other than maybe the Megan arc which never quite fit.  It's the one case where his personal preferences led the show down a path that the audience had a hard time following.)   So reviews focused on the show and there was plenty of criticism of his opinions.  Nic Pizzolatto got tons of criticism as well after Season 2 of True Detective by both critics and the audience. 

*Except for when The Good Wife's producers tried to spin the Juliana Marguiles/Archie Panjabi thing. 

 

I don't care enough about The Affair to care about Treem's opinions but I often find it interesting to see how the writers feel about their show and characters vs. how I feel about them based on the showw.  It's actually rarer for me to be in agreement with a showrunner and feel like their opinions align with what I see on screen than it is for me to disagree.  I think the only showrunner who I feel like I agree with is Vince Gilligan--but then again, he's a smart showrunner.  He's careful to not prescribe a specific meaning to what is shown on screen.  Very rarely does he say "yeah, that's wrong."  He's one of the few writers who understand that television viewing is related to not only what they present but how it is received.

 

What is a prestige drama?  Is The Affair a prestige drama?  What About Masters of Sex? That's run be a woman.  The Good Wife?  A woman is part of that duo.  But I think "prestige drama" is problematic because it sounds like it favors quality but it really favors a specific kind of quality. 

I think post 2 answers post 1 very well.

 

I'm not going to say men are smarter and don't make mistakes because I don't believe that, BUT I think one of Treem's biggest issues is that they don't have this cognitive dissonance regarding what they believe versus what they show on screen. It's one thing to shed light on something and another to say something flat out contradictory to what we have been show over and over for weeks. Her issue isn't a gender one, it's a creative one. Maybe it's some for other individuals, but for me, when I read her remarks, it just doesn't vibe with what I see.

 

And one of the things to makes and made Vince Gilligan so smart is that he learned his lessons from the mistake of Chris Carter. If some of you are unfamiliar with Chris Carter, he is the creator of the X-Files and let's just say that many fans of the show haven't like him for YEARS dating back to the series. WE believe almost nothing he says and I'm almost convinced he hates his main characters or, at least, that he feels his hand was forced in pairing them together. I can go on for days about Chris. Now Sarah, meh...she's small potatoes and her issue is that she doesn't think about what she says and the implications of it. And for the male show runners, there are many who are heralded as brilliant, but straight up assholes. Sarah just is judged for seemingly being out of tuned with her show as far as what she says is going on versus what we see.