S01.E09: The Trip

[RachelKM]

8 minutes ago, romantic idiot said:

Kate said "earnest and sweet". Neither of that means 'uncomplicated / simple / malleable' last time I checked. Olivia suggested they thought he was forced to act 'uncomplicated. Kate did NOT say simple, nor malleable. 

Also, when she said I know women like you - she explained what she meant immediately after -  pretentious pretty girls who use guys like Kevin to feel..you know..interesting because they are dating someone uncomplicated. In that sense she was being rhetorical / using those words as a filler. And if we see what we saw Kate experience before the confrontation, Olivia's sample dialogue was: "This place is so quaint", "Oh my god, this looks absurd", "If only Gertrude Stein had one of these in her Paris salon." The friend that Olivia brought was wearing suspenders over a thermal, whose sample dialogue was "Rad cabin by the way. Norman Rockwell would have really lost his mind."

These are not unpretentious people. And it is natural for pretentious people to feel themselves superior by being around 'simple' people. I don't think Kate is off. Also, Olivia is pretty and she was obviously using Kevin & her ex...

I didn't put simple in quotation marks because I was paraphrasing.  But "sweet and earnest" and "uncomplicated", particularly in the context of suggesting he didn't realize Olivia was some viper who was using him to make herself feel superior, read as a characterization of him as dim and easily manipulated, but sweet.  And Olivia also read it that way when she shot back that Kevin isn't "uncomplicated".  And she's right, Kevin is complicated. Kate's reference to him in that manner came off as extremely dismissive of the idea that Kevin has depths at all.

Was Kate correct in her assessment of Olivia, likely at least partly.  But she did not have near sufficient familiarity with Olivia, much less most of the examples of behavior which might have been closer to supporting the analysis, in order to say such a thing.  And certainly not when at least a portion of her anger was over Olivia's mere presence.  

Thus, to me anyway, to the extent that her motive was protectiveness of Kevin, Kate seemed officious and condescending, particularly as to Kevin.  And to the extent that she may have hit on some truths about Olivia, Kate seemed presumptuous, judgmental,  and a bit superior herself.   I like Kate and I don't much care for Olivia (though I'm somewhat less hostile than others seem to be).  That said, Kate's behavior in that moment was not well done.  Now, if it had been upon seeing Olivia basically lounging on her ex, I might have felt differently, except that Kevin address that himself (because he is, at least marginally, a capable adult which Kate should realize). 

[Dreamboat Annie]

The reason I didn't like Randall's shroom trip (oh "The Trip" - I just got that! lol) is because I see it as a cheesy excuse for Present Randall to interact with Jack.  But it wasn't Present Jack, whom I crave and know will never have*.  I can speak only for myself, but without Present Jack interacting with all Present Characters, I feel cheated.  Past Jack, Ghost Jack, Dream Jack, Hallucinated Jack, and any kind of Imagined Jack is all we will get, and that's not enough for me.  I am reasonably certain that all Present Characters will interact with some sort of Imagined Jack at different points here and there but it will never be Present Jack.  I think they made a mistake they cannot fix.  And I think they went with that decision just to manipulate us whenever they feel the desire to inflict us with moments of extreme sadness.  IMO they could have done that without killing off Jack.  I know the story is a puzzle of sorts which has viewers trying to determine when and how Jack left us, and how this event impacted Past and Present Characters.  But I don't even want to know when or how it happened because I think they could have had an even better show featuring Present Jack. 

* I know I am a little obsessed with Present Jack :)

[romantic idiot]

32 minutes ago, RachelKM said:

I didn't put simple in quotation marks because I was paraphrasing.  But "sweet and earnest" and "uncomplicated", particularly in the context of suggesting he didn't realize Olivia was some viper who was using him to make herself feel superior, read as a characterization of him as dim and easily manipulated, but sweet.  And Olivia also read it that way when she shot back that Kevin isn't "uncomplicated".  And she's right, Kevin is complicated. Kate's reference to him in that manner came off as extremely dismissive of the idea that Kevin has depths at all.

Was Kate correct in her assessment of Olivia, likely at least partly.  But she did not have near sufficient familiarity with Olivia, much less most of the examples of behavior which might have been closer to supporting the analysis, in order to say such a thing.  

Just because Olivia read Kate as saying Kevin was uncomplicated doesn't mean Kate meant to say so. Nor did Kate say that Kevin wasn't aware that he was being used. And I don't really think you need more than one of the sentences above to know you are hanging out with a pretentious person. *shrugs*

[RachelKM]

Just now, romantic idiot said:

Just because Olivia read Kate as saying Kevin was uncomplicated doesn't mean Kate meant to say so. Nor did Kate say that Kevin wasn't aware that he was being used. And I don't really think you need more than one of the sentences above to know you are hanging out with a pretentious person. *shrugs*

I took it the same way Olivia did.  And it's consistent with how Kate treats Kevin, however lovingly, like he needs a someone to watch him.  He also acts, or at least acted, relatively dependent with her.  But I don't think he's as incapable of adulting as people seem to expect from him, though it seems he often performed down to expectations.  In other instances, he has shown glimpses of deeper thoughts and understanding when the opportunity has arisen.  I don't think Olivia was off base saying that "uncomplicated" is the role he's been given within the family.  It goes along with the "Kevin's fine, we don't have to worry about him" attitude that lead to the "Where's Kevin? Oh yeah, he's dead," speech.  

As for whether or not Olivia is obviously pretentious, I don't think it's ever a good idea to make assumptions about a person's entire personality off of an isolated or even handful of limited interactions.  But even if you feel Kate probably had a decent bead on Olivia, I don't think she was in any position to say it to her. It would be rude if their relative positions were socially neutral. However, in this case, Olivia was her brother's invited guest.  And, though it appears that she went beyond the invitation by inviting others, we don't even know how Kevin conveyed the invitation or if she didn't know bringing more people was a problem. 

[Lady Calypso]

11 minutes ago, RachelKM said:

And, though it appears that she went beyond the invitation by inviting others, we don't even know how Kevin conveyed the invitation or if she didn't know bringing more people was a problem. 

I do agree with your entire post even as a non-Olivia fan, although this one I disagree with. Why would Olivia assume and not ask if she could bring friends? If you don't know whether it's ok to bring more people, then ask! Don't assume because it's not your place. Always ask. It doesn't seem like Kevin said "hey, you and your friends can come over". She should have texted him back to say that she was hanging with people and if it was ok if she brought them along. It would have made her look less shitty and I believe Kevin probably would have said yes to not be rude and to avoid an awkward conversation. Not that I think it's awkward to say "no, just you", but I imagine Kevin wouldn't know how to say no so he would have accepted her friends coming along, not knowing what trouble it would cause. 

Kevin shouldn't have invited her. Period. He was dense in his infatuation with Olivia to realize that this needed to be a family trip. He's an idiot for inviting her just so he could progress whatever relationship that him and Olivia had. But if Olivia thought that Kevin would have no problem with her inviting her own guests without asking? Then that's on her. Kevin was clearly stunned to see more people there. We don't know his exact words, but it probably was on the lines of: "You should come up to the cabin. Here are directions." I don't quite know how anyone can interpret that any differently, but now I'm wondering if Olivia really has issues with reading people emotionally. I don't want to assume but my thoughts are drifting about what if she had a form of autism or Asperger's. I don't know enough about it, but for me, it's either that or Olivia is just extremely selfish and narcissistic. 

It's a little odd that she didn't figure out why Kevin invited her to the cabin, but she doesn't seem to deal with emotions at all, so she probably didn't even think it was because Kevin wanted to start a relationship with her, or at least talk about the kiss that they shared. 

[RachelKM]

I actually agree, Lady Calypso.  It was rude to not ask regardless of how Kevin conveyed the invitation. However, the degree of offense is dependent on what he said.  If she didn't know she was being invited to a private family thing, it's slightly less shitty. In either event, I also agree that bringing her ex specifically was a jerk move.  But, even then, to the extent Kate was offended by the ex coming, it was more about being on Kevin's behalf which is something he should do for himself.   And I continue to take issue with the assertion that Kate "knows" Olivia. 

Overall, I think Olivia was an asshole here for bringing people at all without asking, for apparently bullying Sloan, and for bringing her ex specifically.  I think Kevin was an idiot and thoughtless for inviting her at all.  And I think Kate was an asshole for her diatribe at Olivia. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by RachelKM

[Lady Calypso]

2 minutes ago, RachelKM said:

Overall, I think Olivia was an asshole here for bringing people at all without asking, for apparently bullying Sloan, and for bringing her ex specifically.  I think Kevin was an idiot and thoughtless for inviting her at all.  And I think Kate was an asshole for her diatribe at Olivia. 

Yep, they're all at fault for sure. How Kevin couldn't have figured out as well that the cabin was a private family matter after the huge bombshell drop is totally on in. He started the ball on this all because of his blind infatuation toward a woman who has done nothing but shitty things to him. She has shown him compassion once out of the many times that we've seen her. I know that they're planting the redemption seeds for Olivia (she has a shitty family, she did seem hurt by Kevin calling her empty and fake, her conversation with William in the last episode), but it's understandable why people think she's an asshole now who shouldn't be with Kevin, the main character we're supposed to like. 

I would say, though, that Olivia kind of did bully Sloan. Sloan told Kevin that Olivia knew that she had rented a car to go see her sister in Albany for the birth of her niece. Olivia didn't seem to care and got Sloan to drive them all up to the cabin anyway. And then she leaves with Asher in Sloan's rental car! And Olivia macks on her ex in front of Kevin, who she doesn't even realize has a crush on her, or is in deep denial...or is trying to make him jealous....or something.

Olivia's pretty much a mess of a character, showcasing more bad traits than good. And I just KNOW we're going to see a redemption arc from Olivia, where she'll show real emotion, she'll tell Kevin that she loves him, and he'll fall for it and they'll probably be dating by the end of the season. I'd love to be proven wrong here, show. Let assholes be assholes. 

[pinkelephant3]

What happened to the cat?

[stanleyk]

On 12/3/2016 at 6:37 AM, JudyObscure said:

I like to see children growing up with a healthy lack of gratitude to their patents, even taking them and their love for granted.  It's part of a secure happy childhood to have the feeling that you're loved unconditionally and that your parents enjoy taking care of you.  Nobody wants a mother that harps on about, "I was in labor for 48 hours with you" or a father who gripes about the cost of your doctor bills.  But when we grow-up and have kids of our own it usually wakes us up to a realization of some of the sacrifice and effort our parents made for us and if that produces a feeling of gratitude, then that's a good thing isn't it?  Oprah thinks it is, anyway. 

If anyone said they thought Randall should be grateful, I think it was probably because he's a father now and should be mature enough to look back and appreciate the time, effort and devotion Rebecca gave him, in many different ways, and maybe weigh some of that against her new found faults.

There's a difference between any child being grateful to his or her parents for being supporting and loving, and an adopted child being expected to be grateful that someone adopted you. The second attitude touches on a lot of hot-button issues in adoption: a "savior" attitude that can make adopted children feel like charity cases, a cultural superiority (especially when it comes to international adoption) that "of course" being raised relatively well-off in the US is preferable to growing up in less materially wealthy circumstances, and a denial of the loss that many adoptees feel as a result of losing their biological families and in international cases, their birth culture and language.

And for those who think it's not common to hear that attitude expressed...in my experience it's all too common. As an adoptive parent, I can't count the number of times people have insisted on telling me what a great person I am, in front of my kid (who thankfully is not yet old enough to grasp the implications). Many adult adoptees point to comments like this that they heard as children ("oh, he's so lucky you adopted him!" "what a generous thing you've done!") as very painful, as it stresses their otherness and tells them that only a saint would adopt an unwanted kid like them. (And for the record, I am not a great person; my motivation for adopting was not charity.) So while every parent may want their kid, when they grow up at some point, to recognize what was done for them out of love, the intersection of "gratitude" and "adoption" is a sensitive and nuanced one.

I find it very hard to have any sympathy for Rebecca, although I understand she was afraid of "losing" her son and didn't want to Jack to lose his place in Randall's life. But it's not a question of whether Randall's adoptive parents were "enough" - why wouldn't you want as many people who love and support your child in his life as possible? It's not like Randall would have met William and then decided he didn't love his parents anymore. There's enough love to go around. Having another adult who loves a child does not supplant the adoptive parents, but may significantly enhance the child's life.  

Similarly, I'm not sure why anyone would feel threatened by the reality that Randall needs to see black men as role models, that Jack and Rebecca aren't "enough." They aren't, not in this sense. That's not an indictment of their parenting. That's an acknowledgement of reality, and a recognition of the need to prepare a child for adulthood. As soon as Randall grew up, he wasn't the cute adopted black son of white parents anymore. He was a black man in America, and he needed to be prepared for that reality. As white people, Jack and Rebecca don't have the full tool-set to do that.

Even though Rebecca's actions may have been driven by fear of losing Randall, or by resistence to the idea that she and Jack needed help in raising their son, her decisions seem, to me, driven almost exclusively by what she wanted or what she wanted for Jack, and very very little by what was best for Randall. Which is an attitude I cannot really forgive, even if it is informed by the prevalent views of adoption at the time.

And in my opinion her keeping William from Randall wasn't a parenting decision - this was Randall's story to own, not Rebecca's, and I don't believe she had the right to keep it from him. Whether William was stable enough to meet Randall or spend time with him...that's a parenting decision that Rebecca and Jack should have made together. But lying, either actively or by omission, especially when Randall was clearly struggling with identity issues and with his adoption...that is not okay.

The stance that it was fine for Rebecca to lie while Randall was a child but not when he was an adult (or that Randall had no right to know his own story when he was a child or was responsible for figuring it out for himself when he came of age) doesn't work for me either. Those positions place all the onus on Randall, and deny his right to own his own history. No doubt Randall will eventually forgive Rebecca...but I'm not sure I could do so in his place. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by stanleyk

[HeyThere83]

3 hours ago, Dreamboat Annie said:

The reason I didn't like Randall's shroom trip (oh "The Trip" - I just got that! lol) is because I see it as a cheesy excuse for Present Randall to interact with Jack.  But it wasn't Present Jack, whom I crave and know will never have*.  I can speak only for myself, but without Present Jack interacting with all Present Characters, I feel cheated.  Past Jack, Ghost Jack, Dream Jack, Hallucinated Jack, and any kind of Imagined Jack is all we will get, and that's not enough for me.  I am reasonably certain that all Present Characters will interact with some sort of Imagined Jack at different points here and there but it will never be Present Jack.  I think they made a mistake they cannot fix.  And I think they went with that decision just to manipulate us whenever they feel the desire to inflict us with moments of extreme sadness.  IMO they could have done that without killing off Jack.  I know the story is a puzzle of sorts which has viewers trying to determine when and how Jack left us, and how this event impacted Past and Present Characters.  But I don't even want to know when or how it happened because I think they could have had an even better show featuring Present Jack. 

* I know I am a little obsessed with Present Jack :)

I agree, and killing off Jack is imo just one example of a pattern of taking the easy way out, which doesn't prove the case to me that the show is super complex and real. It feels carefully constructed to....distract? much of the time from things like that. Instead of meaningful scenes with present-day Jack where the kids might not feel the need to idolize him, it's a series of flashbacks that almost feel like fantasyland.

[neuromom]

1 hour ago, pinkelephant3 said:

What happened to the cat?

That was my first thought when Randall went to William's apartment!

Also, i find it interesting that Kevin is in a play that not only deals with death, but also apparently speaking to ghosts. And here we have Randall essentially speaking to Jack's "ghost". 

[OtterMommy]

3 hours ago, Lady Calypso said:

Olivia's pretty much a mess of a character, showcasing more bad traits than good. And I just KNOW we're going to see a redemption arc from Olivia, where she'll show real emotion, she'll tell Kevin that she loves him, and he'll fall for it and they'll probably be dating by the end of the season. I'd love to be proven wrong here, show. Let assholes be assholes. 

I think you're right about the redemption, but I hope you're wrong.  My personal belief is that character redemptions rarely work and, when they do, it involves a character integral to the show, which Olivia is not.  I also really hate when shows try to redeem a character simply to force a romance with another character.

Let's face it, Olivia really isn't that important to all this.  She's in a show with Kevin.  Being a play (and not a musical), it probably won't play for more than a season--and that's if it is a hit.  If it is just a run of the mill show, it might get 6 months.  In any case, Olivia is positioned to be nothing more than a temporary figure in Kevin's life.

Now, let my inner shipper come out here.  I like Sloane, at least what little we've seen of her.  Part of it is because I think she was treated the worst of all with Olivia's latest stunt.  Part of it is she has a certain geekiness and I like that.  And, frankly, from a chemistry side, I saw far more of that with Kevin in her one clothed scene (when she was telling him about renting the car to go to the birth of her niece) than Kevin ever had with Olivia.  I also think the combination of her being an up and coming writer (at least that's how I think she's being portrayed) and Kevin being an actor trying to reinvent himself could be interesting down the line.

I think what I fear almost as much as a Kevin/Olivia coupling is a Kevin/Olivia/Sloane love triangle.  Triangles are so over used that I think it is next to impossible for a show to pull it off anymore.  (Plus I don't need any more reason to hate Olivia...)

[Eeksquire]

Quote

Part of it is she has a certain geekiness and I like that.

Yes! On a totally superficial (in that we don't really know that much about her), she seems like exactly the type that a former model building kid would like - interested in process-y things (which I am assuming, as a writer of the play discussing grief and ghosts and whatnot, she probably is).

[romantic idiot]

19 hours ago, RachelKM said:

And it's consistent with how Kate treats Kevin, however lovingly, like he needs a someone to watch him.  

She was his assistant. It was literally her job. Was she rude? Yes. Was she correct? IMO also yes. (And Olivia was rude first). 

[RachelKM]

25 minutes ago, romantic idiot said:

She was his assistant. It was literally her job. Was she rude? Yes. Was she correct? IMO also yes. (And Olivia was rude first). 

Only in the first two episodes.  And, to my mind Kevin and Kate's dynamic with her in that role was not standard employer/assistant.  That is to be expected since they are family; but I saw her relationship with Kevin as a touch co-dependent.  As for whether Kate was right about Olivia, I think she was with regard to Olivia's actions, though even we don't know about her motivations.  (Not sure I care - wait, I am sure.  I don't.). And either way Olivia is an asshole and was behaving badly.  I just don't think Kate had any ground to claim to "know" her and what she was about and doing so made her also look like an asshole.  

[love2lovebadtv]

On 11/29/2016 at 11:31 PM, cardigirl said:

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I was put off by Randall's intense anger at his mother. Kind of a spoiled brat reaction, it seemed to me. The whole thing about telling his wife that he didn't have a Beth or William list. Oh poor Randall, everyone conspires against him, that's why his life is so bad. 

I would understand disappointment, and shock, and some anger. To me he came across as entitled, I hope he gains some empathy in the future. 

Not that I agree completely with Rebecca's choices, but I do understand her fear of losing another child. I thought that hallucination Jack did well in revealing Rebecca's inner turmoil and fear at losing her family. 

Entitled? Well, if wanting to know your roots or being angry that your mother lied to you about something that has bothered you your whole life is entitled, then I guess he is.

I've never been in Randall's shoes so I can't even begin to know what that might feel like. I'm not going to judge someone or whether they have a right to be angry or how angry they should be based on how I feel about a situation, since it's not my situation. 

[J.D.]

Randall IS entitled.  He's entitled to know everything there is to know about every action and every conversation that ever took place between Rebecca and William.

And he's entitled to be angry.

[gator12]

On 12/17/2016 at 9:55 AM, J.D. said:

Randall IS entitled.  He's entitled to know everything there is to know about every action and every conversation that ever took place between Rebecca and William.

And he's entitled to be angry.

This, he is entitle. His mother did something that deeply affected him. I can understand why Rebecca did what she did but also understand why Randall is hurt

[love2lovebadtv]

On 11/30/2016 at 8:50 AM, JudyObscure said:

I know a woman who got pregnant in1968 while she was in college.  Everyone,  doctors, family, friends, magazines, and her sociology classes told her to give the baby up for adoption, that any other decision would be selfish and the child would have a poor, stigmatized life.  Now, this show, seems to be saying just the opposite.  Randall was never happy because his real life parents had given him up.  Potential adoptive parents are hearing that you will always be in danger of losing the child you've given your heart to, that he will always long for his biological parents.  Jack's is the saddest story of all, to me.  He has been the best dad in the world, but, according to the show,  it wasn't enough, he wasn't able to teach Randall the things he needed to know because his skin wasn't the right color.  It's just depressing to me.

I don't think the show is saying any of that at all. Just because Randall had unfulfilled desires as a kid doesn't mean he was never happy. Clearly he was. He was so happy to meet his biological father that he couldn't even be angry at him for long. He was ecstatic that his mother and biological father would be seated at his Thanksgiving table. He was a happy little kid, too. 

And you're forgetting that Randall doesn't speak for every black kid or every adopted kid. He is his own person with his own  story. He was left at a fire house and adopted the same day of his birth so he has no idea what it's like to be in  foster care. Perhaps if he did, his perception would have been different. He felt like a replacement for a dead baby, which is really understandable. He also has siblings who are twins. Plus, everyone is different. Randall had a longing for knowledge of his heritage.  Not everyone has that longing. Even among people who aren't adopted, the level of interest in one's heritage and background varies from one person to the next. 

Also,  your friend's situation,  while difficult, is not really relevant. It was over 10 years before Randall was born and,  judging by the mention of college professors and sociology classes,  a different socioeconomic situation. Randall's biological mother died and his father was on drugs and unequipped for fatherhood.  This was not an adoption because of a child being born out of wedlock. It's just not a good comparison. I know plenty of people born into unconventional circumstances long before and long after Randall was born and they all have different stories. Same with my friends and family members who are adopted or adoptive parents.  My friend is black and adopted by a white family at an early age.  She had no desire to know about or meet her biological family, even though her mother encouraged her to. Another friend said that after learning about his biological family he realized how blessed he was that he wasn't exposed to them.  However, he is close to his biological siblings and feels a connection to them. 

We must remember to treat this as a TV show about a family, not a research study☺️

Edited December 21, 2016 by love2lovebadtv

[JudyObscure]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 0:32 AM, love2lovebadtv said:

We must remember to treat this as a TV show about a family, not a research study

I specifically said, "This show seems to be saying" so that it would be clear that I was only talking about the message I thought the TV show was sending and not think I was talking about adoption in general.

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 0:32 AM, love2lovebadtv said:

And you're forgetting that Randall doesn't speak for every black kid or every adopted kid.

I never for one minute thought Randall was speaking for all black children or all adopted children.  I don't know where you got that idea. I'm going by what was said on the show, about Randall,  by one of his parents,  that he always seemed to be missing something and Randall himself saying he always felt like he had to be perfect. I don't mean to say that he never has a happy moment but that he seems a little bit nervous and discontented and sometimes sad.

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 0:32 AM, love2lovebadtv said:

Also,  your friend's situation,  while difficult, is not really relevant. It was over 10 years before Randall was born and,  judging by the mention of college professors and sociology classes,  a different socioeconomic situation.

Since my point was to show how attitudes  have changed, I thought the "ten years earlier" bit was perfectly relevant.   At that time I believe almost all unmarried mothers were encouraged to place their child for adoption, regardless of circumstances, because there was still so much stigma against single mothers and their children.  If a young college student from a wealthy family was encouraged to give the baby up, surely a poor drug addicted mother would have also been encouraged to give the baby up. 

 Today the mothers  have more choices and I think that's a very good thing.  All of the adopted people I know, and their parents, seem very happy and that's why I wish the show would portray a happier outcome for Randall and Rebecca.  Rebecca in particular, seems to have suffered a lot of angst about her decisions along the way, first fear that she wasn't giving Randall as much attention as her biological children, then fear of losing Randall's love to William, and now regret that she made the wrong decision about keeping her knowledge of William a secret

Edited December 22, 2016 by JudyObscure

[Guest]

I see what you mean, Judy.  I think.  As soon as the adoption was made clear I thought, "Wow, bad idea."  There's a reason triplets are rare in human births (without fertility interventions).  Human babies are too needy for three-at-a-time to be the optimal way, especially for an ambivalent mom like Rebecca and a couple without a lot of disposable income.  Throw in the race issues, the junkie thing, the Kyle replacement issue, and the questionable legality and it seemed especially bad.  Now throw in a bitter adult adoptee and it seems even worse.  But Rebecca was trying to do the right thing.  I don't like the message, even though I would never have made the decision they did, I don't think.  

Edited December 22, 2016 by Guest

[ShadowFacts]

From what we've been shown so far, the adoption seemed rather impulsive.  We don't know how it all unfolded.  We don't know anything of what Jack talked to Rebecca about after he had his talk with Dr. K.  I'm sure we'll see more flashbacks.  I have thought all of the Piersons show impulsive tendencies.  Rebecca going from not really wanting kids right now to immediately conceiving triplets during Super Bowl Sunday; Randall finding William, yelling at William then inviting him home; Kate deciding on surgery; Kevin quitting his show.  If a lot of thought went into the adoption decision, we haven't seen it yet.  I don't think it was necessarily the wrong decision, but it seemed mighty hasty. 

[possibilities]

I didn't take the show to be saying anything about the adoption itself being wrong. I thought they were only showing how Rebecca keeping Randall from knowing about his origins was wrong, and even that they don't seem to think is as wrong as I personally do (they are trying to show her motivations and some sympathy for where she's coming from, as though that is an excuse; in my mind it isn't, but that's me, not the show). I also didn't get that Randall was shown to be particularly damaged-- he has some pain, but so does everyone on the show; they just all get their pain from different things. In general he seems happier and more functional than either of his siblings, but at the moment he's dealing with some upheaval.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I have thought all of the Piersons show impulsive tendencies.

I think it's the writers trying to drum up action, drama and feelings in the shortest time possible.  It's not just the Piersons, it's also William, Toby, Olivia, Sloane... everyone seems impulsive.  

[HeyThere83]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I think it's the writers trying to drum up action, drama and feelings in the shortest time possible.  It's not just the Piersons, it's also William, Toby, Olivia, Sloane... everyone seems impulsive.  

This, this, and this.

[JudyObscure]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 7:31 AM, love2lovebadtv said:

Entitled? Well, if wanting to know your roots or being angry that your mother lied to you about something that has bothered you your whole life is entitled, then I guess he is.

I've never been in Randall's shoes so I can't even begin to know what that might feel like. I'm not going to judge someone or whether they have a right to be angry or how angry they should be based on how I feel about a situation, since it's not my situation. 

Does that go for Rebecca, too? Have you ever walked in her shoes? 

Randall is not a real person.  Criticizing the way a character is written is not "judging," anyone.

You might want to apply to yourself the little scold you gave me:

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 0:32 AM, love2lovebadtv said:

We must remember to treat this as a TV show

[ShadowFacts]

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Randall is not a real person.  Criticizing the way a character is written is not "judging," anyone.

True.  And even if it is termed "judging", that is what we do every day, whether it's about a TV character or anything else.  No one is truly a neutral observer at all times.  We have to form judgments about a lot of things, and for me it's interesting to see where other people's perceptions diverge from my own.  It opens my eyes a lot of times and that's why I like to look in here. 

[topanga]

On 12/6/2016 at 4:02 PM, Dreamboat Annie said:

The reason I didn't like Randall's shroom trip (oh "The Trip" - I just got that! lol) is because I see it as a cheesy excuse for Present Randall to interact with Jack.  But it wasn't Present Jack, whom I crave and know will never have*.  I can speak only for myself, but without Present Jack interacting with all Present Characters, I feel cheated.  Past Jack, Ghost Jack, Dream Jack, Hallucinated Jack, and any kind of Imagined Jack is all we will get, and that's not enough for me.  I am reasonably certain that all Present Characters will interact with some sort of Imagined Jack at different points here and there but it will never be Present Jack.  I think they made a mistake they cannot fix.  And I think they went with that decision just to manipulate us whenever they feel the desire to inflict us with moments of extreme sadness.  IMO they could have done that without killing off Jack.  I know the story is a puzzle of sorts which has viewers trying to determine when and how Jack left us, and how this event impacted Past and Present Characters.  But I don't even want to know when or how it happened because I think they could have had an even better show featuring Present Jack. 

* I know I am a little obsessed with Present Jack :)

I see what you mean, but I always though Randall was talking to Subconscious Jack. It was the Jack Randall remembers from his childhood--the loving, attentive, caring Jack that we've seen in several flashbacks. But wasn't this also the time period that Jack was drinking a lot and staying away from home for hours after work? Maybe Randall doesn't have those memories because Rebecca shielded kids from those truths, and Jack is allowed to maintain the image of the perfect dad in the eyes of the kids (Randall and Kate, anyway).  Rebecca often talked with Jack about her fears and doubts as a mother, but she always had to make the kids think she had everything together. 

Rebecca never had the advantage of the other parent always trying to protect her. And the show's flashbacks display her parenting mistakes way more than they show Jack's. So when Jack was explaining Rebecca's fears and anxieties to adult Randall, maybe it was Randall realizing something he'd known since he was a kid: that Rebecca was always trying to protect the kids from bad things, even when she thought the bad thing was her. 

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, topanga said:

I see what you mean, but I always though Randall was talking to Subconscious Jack.

That was my take too.

[love2lovebadtv]

On 12/22/2016 at 6:38 AM, JudyObscure said:

Does that go for Rebecca, too? Have you ever walked in her shoes? 

Randall is not a real person.  Criticizing the way a character is written is not "judging," anyone.

You might want to apply to yourself the little scold you gave me: We must remember to treat this as a TV show

First, I sincerely apologize if my disagreement with what you said came across as scolding. That was not at all what I intended.  I was simply expressing my views and even did so with a smile. But it can be hard to determine tone in written text so if mine came over the wrong way, I am sorry. To answer your questions: 

Yes, it goes for Rebecca as well, but this particular comment was in response to someone's thoughts on Randall. So I didn't mention Rebecca here - mostly Randall's sense of entitlement. 

I do understand what it means to criticize someone and am also aware that it entails making a judgment. If we are criticizing Randall's behavior (knowing that he is not a real person), we are making a judgment about that character's behavior. 

I do keep in mind that this is a TV show. Referring to the characters by name doesn't mean I have forgotten that. My statement to keep in mind that this is just TV was specifically referring to your idea that the show is sending a message to potential adoptive parents. This being TV, we forgive the characters and their writers of some level of inaccuracy or unrealistic elements and few time incorrect time references, etc.  I would think and hope that potential adoptive parents would not give the same weight to a TV show that they would to actual data, experiences from real people, and knowledge about the process (like open vs. closed adoption, foster parenting prior to adoption). This show, probably for creative reasons, doesn't accurately depict any of that.  If people are to glean any messages from the adoption aspect of the plot and characters, I don't think that message would be that adoption is wrong. 

I still feel the same way I did when I originally replied to you. But I hope that this time you understand my intent was never to scold or offend. 

On 12/6/2016 at 6:58 PM, stanleyk said:

There's a difference between any child being grateful to his or her parents for being supporting and loving, and an adopted child being expected to be grateful that someone adopted you. The second attitude touches on a lot of hot-button issues in adoption: a "savior" attitude that can make adopted children feel like charity cases, a cultural superiority (especially when it comes to international adoption) that "of course" being raised relatively well-off in the US is preferable to growing up in less materially wealthy circumstances, and a denial of the loss that many adoptees feel as a result of losing their biological families and in international cases, their birth culture and language.

And for those who think it's not common to hear that attitude expressed...in my experience it's all too common. As an adoptive parent, I can't count the number of times people have insisted on telling me what a great person I am, in front of my kid (who thankfully is not yet old enough to grasp the implications). Many adult adoptees point to comments like this that they heard as children ("oh, he's so lucky you adopted him!" "what a generous thing you've done!") as very painful, as it stresses their otherness and tells them that only a saint would adopt an unwanted kid like them. (And for the record, I am not a great person; my motivation for adopting was not charity.) So while every parent may want their kid, when they grow up at some point, to recognize what was done for them out of love, the intersection of "gratitude" and "adoption" is a sensitive and nuanced one.

I find it very hard to have any sympathy for Rebecca, although I understand she was afraid of "losing" her son and didn't want to Jack to lose his place in Randall's life. But it's not a question of whether Randall's adoptive parents were "enough" - why wouldn't you want as many people who love and support your child in his life as possible? It's not like Randall would have met William and then decided he didn't love his parents anymore. There's enough love to go around. Having another adult who loves a child does not supplant the adoptive parents, but may significantly enhance the child's life.  

Similarly, I'm not sure why anyone would feel threatened by the reality that Randall needs to see black men as role models, that Jack and Rebecca aren't "enough." They aren't, not in this sense. That's not an indictment of their parenting. That's an acknowledgement of reality, and a recognition of the need to prepare a child for adulthood. As soon as Randall grew up, he wasn't the cute adopted black son of white parents anymore. He was a black man in America, and he needed to be prepared for that reality. As white people, Jack and Rebecca don't have the full tool-set to do that.

Even though Rebecca's actions may have been driven by fear of losing Randall, or by resistance to the idea that she and Jack needed help in raising their son, her decisions seem, to me, driven almost exclusively by what she wanted or what she wanted for Jack, and very very little by what was best for Randall. Which is an attitude I cannot really forgive, even if it is informed by the prevalent views of adoption at the time.

And in my opinion her keeping William from Randall wasn't a parenting decision - this was Randall's story to own, not Rebecca's, and I don't believe she had the right to keep it from him. Whether William was stable enough to meet Randall or spend time with him...that's a parenting decision that Rebecca and Jack should have made together. But lying, either actively or by omission, especially when Randall was clearly struggling with identity issues and with his adoption...that is not okay.

The stance that it was fine for Rebecca to lie while Randall was a child but not when he was an adult (or that Randall had no right to know his own story when he was a child or was responsible for figuring it out for himself when he came of age) doesn't work for me either. Those positions place all the onus on Randall, and deny his right to own his own history. No doubt Randall will eventually forgive Rebecca...but I'm not sure I could do so in his place. 

I agree. Many people adopt because they want to be parents or want to grow their families. 

I'm really interested to see more about Rebecca's reasons for lying to Randall and to Jack. I feel like when we find out, another plot will unfold. I remember Rebecca seemed a lot less certain about adopting Randall in the first place. She went into labor prematurely, had lost a child, was becoming a first-time mother, and was adopting without any forethought and without that usual bureaucracy and preparation -  all at the same time. That must have been overwhelming. And I wonder if she felt guilty for however she was feeling. Or like she couldn't say no to Jack. 

Many adoptive parents see involvement from the child's biological family as a source of confusion or other detriment. In many cases when adopting a child you have to decide the level of involvement you are comfortable with the biological family having.  There is good reason that this is part of the process; it's important and people don't feel the same way about it. Since Randall's adoption didn't follow the usual process, Rebecca was able to make that call all on her own.  From what we have seen so far, her decisions have been driven by fear of damaging her relationship with Randall and Jack's relationship with Randall. I think even her decision not to tell Randall as an adult were driven by fear of damaging their relationship because he would have known (as he now knows) that she lied to him for years. 

[Crs97]

On 12/23/2016 at 11:59 AM, love2lovebadtv said:

Many adoptive parents see involvement from the child's biological family as a source of confusion or other detriment.

My husband is adopted, and he would totally agree with this.  

I think Rebecca was open to the idea of William slowly developing a relationship with Randall, but got spooked when he immediately jumped to sleepovers.  She tends to get steam-rolled by others in her life (her parents, Jack's "let's talk about starting a family in a crowded bar on super bowl Sunday," Jack's "let's adopt a third baby before you even have time to grieve the baby you lost,"  her new friend's "you're a bad mom to Randall because you haven't talked with us" moments come to mind).  I think she panicked when William started to steam roll over her as well.

[Dreamboat Annie]

Quote

I see what you mean, but I always though Randall was talking to Subconscious Jack.

Yes, of course he was.  But to me, that's just another form of Imagined Jack.  Subconscious Jack is still not Present Jack :(

Edited January 5, 2017 by Dreamboat Annie