Gilmore Girls: Selfish Bitches!
CynicKill
to email you to ask permission for reprinting this) made some somewhat
good points as to how Lorelai and Rory are self-centered, selfish harpies.
A point is made that good writing makes these characters cute, but think
of them realistically and they become less cute:
"Exhibit A: Max. Exhibit B: Dean. Exhibit C: Jason. In virtually every one
of either GG's interaction with these characters, they have always been
completely, utterly, 100% in the wrong. They frivolously enter
relationships [more of of boredom than seemingly anything else, although
Rory at times seems motivated by a desire for attention, and/or jealousy,
and/or a desire to "have the experiences she's supposed to have" on some
kind of schedule], and then frivolously exit relationships. Why did
Lorelai leave Max again? Oh, right, because Christopher kicked her legs
out from under her. Why did she break up with Jason again? Because her
family completely betrayed him and stabbed him in the back, and left him
with no choice but to sue them, and Lorelai expected him not to. Jason was
100% in the right in his dispute with Lorelai's dad. Lorelai makes EMILY
look like a reasonable and normal person at times, and Emily's character
is deliberately written to be a savage bitch. If you've ever dealt with
anyone like Lorelai, you would know that you HAVE to use barter with them,
because otherwise their sense of entitlement will lead them to take
advantage of you [i.e. Lorelai's entire relationship with Luke, up until
this season]. The essence of Lorelai as a character is summed up pretty
much every week by her behavior in the diner [again, at least before this
season] where she: talks on her cell phone and is mad when she's told not
to; takes the place over to use as an "office" when starting her business,
walks in and assumes she has the run of the place at all times, etc. It's
"cute" as a character on a show, but if that person existed in real life,
it would not be. All this being said, for some reason I still watch the
show and am curious to see how things turn out. And in reruns Rory is
really hot in the Chilton outfit, which is always a plus."
Anne
"CynicKill" <dlov...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d94a550738fa0ee...@localhost.talkabouttelevision.com...
I agree most of the time. Things they get away with as quirky, endearing,
cute are just because they are attractive.
Tee
news:pE8Pd.17295$ya6.947@trndny01...
Yep, especially to some of the men in the group. It amazes me how so many
villainize Emily but not Lorelai. I guess if you swing you hips and smile
just right you're allowed to do & say anything without consequence.
--
Tara
Steve B.
"Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:374l6fF...@individual.net...
As opposed to, say, Christopher, who knocks up Lorelai, abandons Rory and
leaves Lorelai to raise her, without so much as offering a dime in support.
Then knocks up Sherry, then goes back to screw around with Lorelai while
still involved with Sherry. And then, when he finds out Sherry's pregnant,
bails on Lorelai and Rory again -- not because of it being the responsible
thing to do, but rather, in his words, because "I missed it last time."
And yet somehow an awful lot of the women in this group manage to give him a
bye and claim they somehow see "growth." I'm sure it has nothing to do with
the fact that he's good looking and charming.
It couldn't be that, because, let's face it, women are so much more mature
and sophisticated than men. They'd never let a guy get away with being a
worthless excuse for a human being, just because he's easy on the eyes.
Steve B.
Sharpe Fan
I am one who hates Emily and not Lorelai, but I have pointed out her
self-centeredness many times. However, Lorelai does do things for her
friends, even annoying ones like Kirk.
Also, she does not try and force others to lead the life she thinks they
should. She wasn't happy about Luke marrying Nicole, but she never did
anything to sabotage it either. She even offered excuses as to why Luke had
different socks.
Emily feels the only correct way to live is her way. If you are lucky she
will consider you too unimportant to care about and you can lead your own
life. If she cares about you (or if you are an obstacle to her controlling
someone she cares about) she will do what she can to make your life hell
until she gets her way.
Other than some of her dealings with Emily or Richard, Lorelai does not set
out to make others miserable. That is sometimes the effect, but not the
intent. For example, her treatment of Max was horrible, but she did not set
out to be horrible to Max. Emily does set out to be horrible to others -
Luke being a recent example.
I find Lorelai to be charming, from a distance. If I lived in SH, I would
find many of her actions funny, but I wouldn't want to be too involved with
her because she is careless of other's feelings (Rory excepted).
Sharpe Fan
D
In article <UZmdnRU93sH...@giganews.com>, "Steve B."
<st...@newrainbowbridge.com> wrote:
>> > I agree most of the time. Things they get away with as quirky,
> endearing,
>> > cute are just because they are attractive.
>>
>> Yep, especially to some of the men in the group. It amazes me how so many
>> villainize Emily but not Lorelai. I guess if you swing you hips and smile
>> just right you're allowed to do & say anything without consequence.
> It couldn't be that, because, let's face it, women are so much more mature
> and sophisticated than men. They'd never let a guy get away with being a
> worthless excuse for a human being, just because he's easy on the eyes.
Wow, lotsa anger among both males and females in this thread. You're all
getting a little grouchy with Valentine's Day coming up, huh?
D
CynicKill
Sharpe Fan
> Are they bringing back the Jason sueing Richard storyline?
>
I haven't heard anything about it coming back, unless the legal case that
was discussed when Richard found out about Emily's gentleman caller was
Jason's.
Is the question prompted by my reply?
Sharpe Fan
Rob Jensen
> "Anne" <Anne...@gg.org> wrote in message
> news:pE8Pd.17295$ya6.947@trndny01...
>>I agree most of the time. Things they get away with as quirky, endearing,
>>cute are just because they are attractive.
>
>
> Yep, especially to some of the men in the group. It amazes me how so many
> villainize Emily but not Lorelai. I guess if you swing you hips and smile
> just right you're allowed to do & say anything without consequence.
>
I demonize Emily because, frankly, she's a manipulative bitch. (There's
a reason I haven't posted my overall reactions to WBB in the poll thread
yet. I'm waiting until I can process my undying hatred of Emily.
{Thanks, Kelly!])
Lorelai gets away with what she does not because she's jaw-droppingly
gorgeous but because her motives -- almost always thoughtful and
conscientious -- and the playful manner in which she indulges in them,
are blatantly obvious, and generally only fail when, as in the matter of
the boat, the person mad at her jumps to conclusions and lets his/her
temper run away with them before they actually let the *meaning* of what
she says and does sink in.
Lorelai is a clown -- even moreso than Kirk, she's the town (and Gilmore
family) jester, pointing out that the Emperor (Taylor) or Empress
(Emily) wears no clothes, and helping others solve their problems or
just be there to listen. The town *adores* her *because* she's so good
in that role and it's that goodwill toward her that caused the town to
embrace her daughter as their crown princess.
And btw, she's *not* getting away with the fact that she and Rory lied
to Luke about consoling Christopher when his father died. She didn't
get away with freaking out over her failed engagement to Max. She
almost lost the Dragonfly before it even opened because it very nearly
turned into a Money Pit. And that's just for starters.
IMO, it's amazing to me that some people appear to suggest that Lorelai
is deserving of as much vilification as Emily. Lorelai doesn't go
around trying to control her daughter's love life, which Emily does,
destroying it in the process.
I swear, it's like some people think Lorelai deserves to be crucified
for her mistakes just because she's attractive -- scratch that --
drop-dead gorgeous. I guess she's going to have to add thirty-years,
forty pounds of Tammy Faye makeup and whole lot of hot flashes before
her mistakes are seen in their proper place as inconsequential
infractions compared to the magnitude of Emily's sheer manipulative
viciousness.
BTW, I just wanted to say that anyone that, as the original poster did,
voices 100% agreement with Jason's actions and 100% disapproval of
Lorelai's reaction to him doesn't come off as terribly credible.
Sorry, but if you're dating a person whose father has just destroyed
your career, you either date your lover or you sue her family -- you
*cannot* expect to have both. It's flat-out idiotic to expect a person
to make that kind of a choice, no matter how wrong Richard's actions
were. IMO, Jason was right to sue Richard, but at the same time,
Lorelai was *also* right to end her relationship with Jason for pursuing
that lawsuit. That's what was heartbreaking about the whole situation.
And let's look at it this way: Lorelai's relationship with Max failed
because she was too afraid and too inexperienced to trust being in her
first *serious,* long-term relationship since Christopher. Her
near-miss with Christopher a year later failed because Christopher
proved his inability to use a condom with his all-but-ex-lover Sherri at
the time. Her brief relationship with Alex was the rare breakup for her
that seemed to die a natural death due to mutual lack of interest. Her
relationship with Jason died because their fathers' machinations tore
them apart. Her relationship with Luke is in tatters right now because
her *mother's* machinations have torn them apart. Five relationships
she's been in during the course of the series and even when her neuroses
exacerbate the problems -- as when she lied to Luke about Tequila Night
(and I firmly believe that the events of the last act of ep 100 would
have happened whether she had lied to Luke or not about Tequila Night,
BID) -- and the primary causes of the troubles with her two most recent
relationships have been her parents.
Lorelai may be a self-absorbed social butterfly at times (well, okay,
most of the time), but a selfish bitch? Hell the fuck no.
-- Rob
--
"I think [Rory's] just a whore, a strumpet and a crack addict." -- Amy
Sherman-Palladino, noted jokester
CynicKill
advantage of Luke because it was part of this agreement that they had that
they would act this way with each other. It worked for them and us. She's
a kidder.
Now one might say that Lorelai was slightly unjust in keeping Rory out of
her parents lives for so long, that is until you see something like what
happened last week. Lorelai seems to be the ONLY one who knows just how
manipulative her parents can be.
As for Jason, it was heartbreaking that they had to break up because no
relationship can withstand one partner sueing the other partners family,
unless you are SO estranged from your family that it doesn't matter.
So basically they get passes. Lor for being a clown and Rory for just
being young. Of course they're not selfish bitches. They're Gilmore Girls.
But smart writing STILL makes them cuter then they might otherwise be.
CynicKill
David E. Milligan
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aoldot.pleasedontfeedtheimpostor.dotcom> wrote in
message news:374uveF...@individual.net...
I don't know. It seemed to me that she just realized that no matter
how great a guy Max was, she just didn't love him enough to marry and spend
the rest of her life with him. (And maybe something way down deep inside
kept yelling "Luke" just loud enough to make her have second thoughts about
Max without her actually hearing it.)
> Her
> near-miss with Christopher a year later failed because Christopher
> proved his inability to use a condom with his all-but-ex-lover Sherri at
> the time. Her brief relationship with Alex was the rare breakup for her
> that seemed to die a natural death due to mutual lack of interest. Her
> relationship with Jason died because their fathers' machinations tore
> them apart. Her relationship with Luke is in tatters right now because
> her *mother's* machinations have torn them apart. Five relationships
> she's been in during the course of the series and even when her neuroses
> exacerbate the problems -- as when she lied to Luke about Tequila Night
> (and I firmly believe that the events of the last act of ep 100 would
> have happened whether she had lied to Luke or not about Tequila Night,
> BID) -- and the primary causes of the troubles with her two most recent
> relationships have been her parents.
>
> Lorelai may be a self-absorbed social butterfly at times (well, okay,
> most of the time), but a selfish bitch? Hell the fuck no.
>
> -- Rob
>
On this we completely agree.
CynicKill
1) Who says he was never financially supportive of Rory?
2) Apparantly he was a physical presence in Rory's life because she was
very friendly with him.
3) Who says it was Christophers fault that Lorelai and Christopher didn't
initially make it?
4) It was obviously bad timing what with Sherri's pregnancy that he and
Lor didn't get together the second time. He didn't want to walk out on her
and not be a presence again. maybe it was a bad choice, but he was trying
to do do right thing.
Rob Jensen
> I guess I'm the only semi-sympathizer with Christopher.
>
> 1) Who says he was never financially supportive of Rory?
Lorelai. Numerous times. Also, he did in s1 when he tried to buy Rory
the Oxford Dictionary to make up for everything he missed and the scene
implied that this was par for the financial course for Christopher.
Moreover, later in the episode, Christopher's father, Straub, lays into
him for his repeated business failures.
Christopher gets a gold star for good intentions as father, but that
only gets him his repeated chances to try (and fail) to make amends.
> 2) Apparantly he was a physical presence in Rory's life because she was
> very friendly with him.
He was a drop-in on Holidays and Special Occasions (What was that phrase
again? Not deadbeat dad, but . . . "Holiday Dad" or something like
that?). He's a likable guy -- but that's entirely different from being
a *dependable* guy. And it's been clearly stated numerous times that he
hasn't been dependable.
> 3) Who says it was Christophers fault that Lorelai and Christopher didn't
> initially make it?
It's a non-issue. Or, more, not an accurate description of what happened.
Lorelai basically saw that he wasn't the marryin' kind -- that he was
restless and not particularly settled in who he was and who he wanted to
be at the time. Lorelai knew what she wanted and even though she was
pregnant, she decided that what was best for her and therefore best for
her child was to not get married to someone whose heart wasn't into
being married to her. Given that Lorelai ran away from Richard and
Emily when Rory was about a year or so old, they seemed to accept (or be
resigned to the legitimacy of) this rationale.
A flip way of looking at it would be, "If you love someone, set him free
. . ."
Also, Christopher all but confesses that she made the right choice in
"Christopher Returns" when he admits that he never would have made it at
Princeton.
> 4) It was obviously bad timing what with Sherri's pregnancy that he and
> Lor didn't get together the second time. He didn't want to walk out on her
> and not be a presence again. maybe it was a bad choice, but he was trying
> to do do right thing.
And that's why Lorelai encouraged him to do so when his initial
reactions showed a *lot* of wavering. Christopher's mistake was
boinking Lorelai (again) before he had fully extricated himself from his
relationship with Sherri. He was evasive about what was going on
between him and Sherri -- he wasn't even fully 100% moved out at the
time even though he described their relationship as over. At the time,
he was over his relationship with Sherri in the same way that Dean was
over his relationship with Lindsay when Dean slept with Rory --
basically, little more than having made the decision to end the
relationship but not having informed the intended-to-be-former partner
yet.
Rob Jensen
Don't you mean "Singles Awareness Day?" Yeah.
Rob Jensen
> Are they bringing back the Jason sueing Richard storyline?
>
I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I think that Jason's storyline
was originally intended for Christopher before Sutcliffe got "I'm With
Her," so what would have been Jason's storyline this season got back on
the Christopher track. So I just sort of read Jason's ultimate fate
would have been this one here in WBB (complete with still being in the
throes of morning what would have been Floyd's death), with perhaps
slightly different reasons for the fight between him and Luke over Lor.
Yes, I still do see Emily manipulating Jason into making a play for Lor
in basically the scene as written at the end of Come Home (minus Gigi,
of course). Despite how much she dislikes Jason, I think she would have
preferred Lor with him than with Luke.
I think now, if we see the subject of Jason's lawsuit brought up again,
it'll be a throw away line clearly defining its resolution. *Maybe* we
might see a one-off "Return of Jason" episode ala "Nag Hammadi" to tie
up Jason's loose story threads, but that would be it.
Tee
news:UZmdnRU93sH...@giganews.com...
>> many
>> villainize Emily but not Lorelai. I guess if you swing you hips and
>> smile
>> just right you're allowed to do & say anything without consequence.
>>
>
> As opposed to, say, Christopher, who knocks up Lorelai, abandons Rory and
> leaves Lorelai to raise her, without so much as offering a dime in
> support.
> Then knocks up Sherry, then goes back to screw around with Lorelai while
> still involved with Sherry. And then, when he finds out Sherry's pregnant,
> bails on Lorelai and Rory again -- not because of it being the responsible
> thing to do, but rather, in his words, because "I missed it last time."
>
> And yet somehow an awful lot of the women in this group manage to give him
> a
> bye and claim they somehow see "growth." I'm sure it has nothing to do
> with
> the fact that he's good looking and charming.
>
> It couldn't be that, because, let's face it, women are so much more mature
> and sophisticated than men. They'd never let a guy get away with being a
> worthless excuse for a human being, just because he's easy on the eyes.
Damn, did I push all your buttons at once or what? The article/statment
referenced wasn't about men. It was about Lorelai & Rory so Chris and other
men aren't part of that which is why I didn't list their faults (not that I
haven't done so in the past). I don't know that I've seen Chris get a free
pass due to "growth" around here but then I admittedly don't read every
post. All of the characters have grown while some have regressed, grown,
regressed, grown and so on. My point was simply that it amazes me at times
how some men, both on this ng & outside of it, find Lorelai & Rory to be
nearly faultless because they're cute, witty and because if they say they
did it for someone else's benefit then it must be so. Sorry if you haven't
seen that kind of response but I have, or extrapolated it from posts I
guess.
--
Tara
Tee
news:uCaPd.194326$w62....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> I find Lorelai to be charming, from a distance. If I lived in SH, I would
> find many of her actions funny, but I wouldn't want to be too involved
> with her because she is careless of other's feelings (Rory excepted).
Thank you and yes, she is. I don't think there are many men who would love
(and consistently forgive) a real-life Lorelai half so much as they do the
character on tv regardless of how beautiful she is. I also don't think such
a person would have a great many friends but then I could be wrong.
--
Tara
Anne
(and she even admits it), and sometimes selfish and thoughtless. I don't
think her breaking up with Max made her Satan, but the way she did it was
unkind. Between Lor and Christopher, Christopher is much much worse. For
sheer meanness and manipulation Emily is the worst. Even with the business
thing, I find Richard not as bad as Emily. Then we have Paris (at Chilton)
and of course Taylor .... hmmm....
How about a relative rating scale of self-involved and evil for the
characters ?
Steve B.
You're right, I have seen the girls get a pass from guys... me included. But
I've also seen the same type of tunnel vision from some women -- not
pointing any fingers here -- when it comes to Christopher. My point being
that women are often just as shallow as men when it comes to being forgiving
of someone's faults, as long as they're good looking. And there's no
character on the show with more faults than Christopher.
Steve B.
Steve B.
"Rob Jensen" <Shut...@aoldot.pleasedontfeedtheimpostor.dotcom> wrote in
Of course, that in no way excuses his lack of support for Rory, both
financially and physically. Just because he and Lorelai never married
doesn't make him any less responsible to provide for his first daughter.
> > 4) It was obviously bad timing what with Sherri's pregnancy that he and
> > Lor didn't get together the second time. He didn't want to walk out on
her
> > and not be a presence again. maybe it was a bad choice, but he was
trying
> > to do do right thing.
>
> And that's why Lorelai encouraged him to do so when his initial
> reactions showed a *lot* of wavering. Christopher's mistake was
> boinking Lorelai (again) before he had fully extricated himself from his
> relationship with Sherri.
And in not learning how to use a condom.
Rob Jensen
Keep in mind: Outside of Rory, Luke, Sookie & Jackson, Babette and
Michel, Lorelai actually *doesn't* have many close friends. And outside
of Christopher, she has *no* friends remaining from childhood (err,
well, the pre-Rory part of her still-going childhood).
Larry
Larry
1. Max. It's not that Lorelai left him, it's the way she did it. She
ran off without a word. How he got news that the engagement was off,
we can only speculate. This was in Season 2. In Season 3, Lorelai runs
into Max in Hartford. We find out then that she NEVER talked to him
about why she called it off. Incredible. Lorelai is portrayed as a
caring and thoughtful person most of the time, yet she doesn't have the
decency to tell the man she was going to marry why she changed her
mind.
2. Dean. Rory's on-again, off-again romance with Dean was irritating
but plausible in Seasons 1 and 2. But her behavior this season is a
straight copy of Lorelai's toward Max. Again, it's not that she broke
up with Dean (that was inevitable), it's the way she did it. After
keeping the hope alive with Dean in Season 4 (the phone calls, the
"rescue mission" at Yale, etc), she sleeps with him, tells him she
loves him, helps break up his marriage, dates him, and then drops him
like a bad habit in front of her drunken Yalie friends. When he says
that he doesn't belong there, he's right. But she could have at least
gone with him to talk it over, or at least offered to. Instead, she
just stands there and watches a boy/man she's been involved with one
way or another for four years leave. Not a frigging word. That's
callous, and a little cruel. Can't chalk it up to her social
awkwardness; anyone with an ounce of decency would not have behaved
that way. And now we're treated to a replay of Dean/Jess with the
smarmy Logan and the likable, but tongue-tied Marty. Jeeeez!
3. Jason. Once again, it's not that Lorelai broke up with Jason, it's
how she did it. After asking him to try to find a way other than suing
to work out his problem with Richard, she just gets up and walks out
without a word. OK, so she and Jason were never convincing as a
couple, but still, another example of callous behavior. But what the
hell, Luke's awaitin'.
Of the three examples, the one that bothers me most is Rory's dismissal
of Dean. Like him or not, he deserved a better send off, if only
because he's been around since the first episode of the show. But as
one person put it, ASP seems to prefer to treat the GG love interests
as "boys on the side."
After showing signs last year of regaining some of the charm and wit of
the first season and a half, the show this season has become somewhat
boring and even annoying. Instead of looking forward to it, I watch
out of habit and with some hope. And for those brief moments when it
does shine, it's still worth the watch.
PS: Now that AOL has canceled its newsgroup services, I'm still
adjusting to Google. I think I just posted an "airball" prior to this
message. If so, apologies.
Michael C.
Rob Jensen <Shut...@aoldot.pleasedontfeedtheimpostor.dotcom> wrote:
> CynicKill wrote:
>
> > I guess I'm the only semi-sympathizer with Christopher.
> >
> > 1) Who says he was never financially supportive of Rory?
>
> Lorelai. Numerous times. Also, he did in s1 when he tried to
> buy Rory the Oxford Dictionary to make up for everything he
> missed and the scene implied that this was par for the
> financial course for Christopher. Moreover, later in the
> episode, Christopher's father, Straub, lays into him for his
> repeated business failures.
I don't recall Lorelai ever saying anything about financial
support, though it didn't appear Lorelai ever requested any help.
The dictionary seemed like more of a gift to apologize for not
physically being there. It appears to me that if Lorelai asked
Christopher for anything that he would at least try to come
through, but being there just for the sake of being there wasn't
in him.
> Christopher gets a gold star for good intentions as father,
> but that only gets him his repeated chances to try (and fail)
> to make amends.
Lorelai seems to be very forgiving of Chris, and Rory doesn't
appear to hold any grudges either, but is protective of her
mother.
I read that as the opposite. It sounded to me that Sherri was
expecting him to be moving out while she was away, felt sick,
took the test, and called Chris with the good news. And Chris
actually wanted to try to be a stand up guy about it.
We learned later he was about as successful as with Lorelai and
Rory, right up until she stuck him with the kid.
Michael C.
--
mcsu...@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/
I'm sick of being the guy who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis.
- Xander Harris (BtVS)
Rob Jensen
Emily. Christopher is the perfect parent compared to Emily, IMO.
Rob Jensen
> Right!
>
> 1. Max. It's not that Lorelai left him, it's the way she did it. She
> ran off without a word. How he got news that the engagement was off,
> we can only speculate. This was in Season 2. In Season 3, Lorelai runs
> into Max in Hartford. We find out then that she NEVER talked to him
> about why she called it off. Incredible. Lorelai is portrayed as a
> caring and thoughtful person most of the time, yet she doesn't have the
> decency to tell the man she was going to marry why she changed her
> mind.
IMO, everybody that brings this up as evidence that Lorelai is uncaring
misses the point: namely, that Lorelai was freaking out and this is
what she does when she freaks out -- she escapes, she hides out, she
closes up and withdraws. It's a maladaptive defense mechanism that she
*had* to develop to shut Emily and her control-freak-ism out of her
life. Lorelai didn't *intend* to drop Max without explanation, without
trying to make any sort of amends -- it's simply the nature of who she
is that the first opportunity that she had to be in the state of mind to
try to make amends to Max was, yes, literally months later. It took her
that long to calm down.
I find describing that Lorelai "didn't have the decency" to tell Max why
she called off her engagement to him under the circumstances to be akin
to calling a coma patient indecent for not calling you while she was
unconscious for several months.
That's how psychically damaged Lorelai is from Emily and Richard's
horrible treatment of her over the years.
> 2. Dean. Rory's on-again, off-again romance with Dean was irritating
> but plausible in Seasons 1 and 2. But her behavior this season is a
> straight copy of Lorelai's toward Max. Again, it's not that she broke
> up with Dean (that was inevitable), it's the way she did it. After
> keeping the hope alive with Dean in Season 4 (the phone calls, the
> "rescue mission" at Yale, etc), she sleeps with him, tells him she
> loves him, helps break up his marriage, dates him, and then drops him
> like a bad habit in front of her drunken Yalie friends. When he says
> that he doesn't belong there, he's right. But she could have at least
> gone with him to talk it over, or at least offered to. Instead, she
> just stands there and watches a boy/man she's been involved with one
> way or another for four years leave. Not a frigging word. That's
> callous, and a little cruel.
WRONG, wrong a thousand times wrong. *Dean* broke up with her. She
*couldn't* offer any argument in response because *he* asked her a
rhetorical question -- "I don't belong here, do I?" -- whose tone
indicated that he'd already made up his mind and nothing she could say
would change his mind. What words could Rory have spoken that would
have changed the mind of a guy who had made up his mind that the cost of
his relationship with her wasn't worth it.
Can't chalk it up to her social
> awkwardness; anyone with an ounce of decency would not have behaved
> that way. And now we're treated to a replay of Dean/Jess with the
> smarmy Logan and the likable, but tongue-tied Marty. Jeeeez!
Actually, I'm kinda warming to Logan and how trapped he is in his family
issues as the last couple of episodes have revealed. I don't mind that
there's some similarities between the Rory/Marty/Logan triangle and the
Rory/Dean/Jess triangle -- they're both similar to the
Lorelai/Luke/Christopher triangle in a way that explores one of the
series's central themes: how and why Lorelai and Rory are fundamentally
alike underneath the surface.
> 3. Jason. Once again, it's not that Lorelai broke up with Jason, it's
> how she did it. After asking him to try to find a way other than suing
> to work out his problem with Richard, she just gets up and walks out
> without a word. OK, so she and Jason were never convincing as a
> couple, but still, another example of callous behavior. But what the
> hell, Luke's awaitin'.
I fundamentally disagree. Jason was suing her father, no matter what.
He'd already made the decision without her on what course to take. NOw,
I believe that suing Richard & Floyd is a valid course of action to take
against them -- but it's not valid to sue the parent of your romantic
partner without consulting your romantic partner beforeheand and then
expect your romantic partner to be all hunky-dory with it.
Jason was acting unilaterally in choosing to sue Richard (& Floyd). He
was suing Lorelai's father and he was cutting Lorelai out of the process
of finding an appropriate course of action in doing so. She was
entirely in the right to break up with him under circumstances in which
he basically backed her into choosing between love and family.
I don't know how someone like Jason would be expecting to be able to
establish a family with someone when he was asking her to place his
desire for justice (or, more cynically, revenge) over her family. I
mean, he was basically telling her to not just help him sue her father,
but to risk alienating her *daughter* from either her or from Richard &
Emily in doing so. Rory would eventually be forced to pick sides, after
all. The dilemma that Jason put Lorelai in was inherently larger in
scope than just the surface choice between Jason and her father -- it
was a choice between Jason and her entire family.
Jason's problem is that in filing the lawsuit, he demonstrably doesn't
take into consideration the collateral damage of how, if Lorelai chose
to stay with him, it's going to affect Lorelai's relationship with her
daughter or her then-healing relationship with Emily, not to mention how
siding with a vindictive boyfriend would look to the rest of Lorelai's
considerably large extended family (ie: the larger Gilmore clan). He's
valuing his career over Lorelai's values of being a mother, daugther,
best friend and even, lover. He's putting himself first and expecting
Lorelai to put him above herself, rather than going itno anything in a
partnership, as equals.
How could Lorelai be anything *but* justified in dumping Jason?
And, mind you, none of that is meant to imply that I think he was wrong
to file suit against Richard. I think he had valid reasons for doing
so. I think that Lorelai was equally right to dump him for doing so.
> Of the three examples, the one that bothers me most is Rory's dismissal
> of Dean. Like him or not, he deserved a better send off, if only
> because he's been around since the first episode of the show. But as
> one person put it, ASP seems to prefer to treat the GG love interests
> as "boys on the side."
Again, Rory didn't dismiss Dean. He quit on her. The final scene of
the episode -- Rory staggering out of the limo, drunk out of her mind --
demonstrated that she was so upset by Dean breaking up with her that
the only solace she could think of was not to talk to her mother but to
render herself insensate. Rory wasn't treating Dean casually -- she was
in the throes of tumultuous grief.
A person who puts it that ASP seems to prefer to treat the Gilmore guys
as boys on the side is, IMO, not paying the least bit of attention to
the show. Either that, or they're expecting the show to follow the
conventions of hackneyed romantic comedy and/or soap opera, in which
there are always neat, happy, predictable resolutions to everything and
truth, justice and the Gilmore Way always win out.
Amy bucks those cliches, thank god, in favor of exploring far more
realistic, honest relationship issues and interpersonal dynamics -- and
primarily, those relationship issues and dynamics between mothers and
daugthers, not between women and their lovers, which are a secondary
concern.
> After showing signs last year of regaining some of the charm and wit of
> the first season and a half, the show this season has become somewhat
> boring and even annoying. Instead of looking forward to it, I watch
> out of habit and with some hope. And for those brief moments when it
> does shine, it's still worth the watch.
I think the show's never been better nor truer to its core self. The
show says that life is messy, two people can be right in the choices
that they make and still be unable to live to live with each other.
Guys take the back seat to the women in the show, not to hold one gender
up above the other, but because, well, the central characters are women
(Duh!) The show illustrates the inherent destructiveness of trying to
control any person other than yourself (and even then, trying to control
yourself or not control yourself is a dicey proposition).
I think, however, what may be jarring about it is not the rapid-fire
dialogue but simply its near-complete avoidance of traditional
storytelling structure or even formula of any kind. I can't remember
the last time (or even *if*) an episode of the show overtly used
traditional three-act structure (in the case of TV, the four-act variant
in which act two is more or less split across the second and third
acts.) Gilmore girls is one of the most humanistic and humane shows on
television in the way that it refuses to reduce any of its characters
into either heroes or villains or even have any of the characters
pursuing stereotypically goal-oriented plots. They're just people with
varying degrees of success, with varying degrees of ability to learn or
not learn from their mistakes and with often radically different points
of view and philosophies and ways of doing things. The show is simply
incapable of pandering to its audience.
Gilmore girls is a classic. It's a show that continues to be ahead of
its time, with some of the greatest chearacters ever created for any
narrative medium, much less the small screen.
> PS: Now that AOL has canceled its newsgroup services, I'm still
> adjusting to Google. I think I just posted an "airball" prior to this
> message. If so, apologies.
>
I've been using Netscape's newsreader software since last summer.
Although I'd like to find one with which I can keep my own personal
archive indefinitely rather than see this one clean up and delete
out-of-date posts from my hard drive every three months or so.
E Brown
>OK, I'll clarify and say that I think that Lorelei is often self-centered
>(and she even admits it), and sometimes selfish and thoughtless. I don't
>think her breaking up with Max made her Satan, but the way she did it was
>unkind. Between Lor and Christopher, Christopher is much much worse. For
>sheer meanness and manipulation Emily is the worst. Even with the business
>thing, I find Richard not as bad as Emily. Then we have Paris (at Chilton)
>and of course Taylor .... hmmm....
>
It's kind of like that quote from Lily Tomlin: "The thing about the
rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." There are worse
characters on the show than Lorelai, but that doesn't exactly make her
good. I like the show, but Lorelai has always been one of my least
favorite characters - she should have a t-shirt with the words "center
of the universe" and an arrow pointing at her navel.
As for Rory and her conversation with Logan. When a woman says she
wants a relationship with no strings, she means she prefers chains -
even if she doesn't realize it herself. Marty will soon realize he
dodged a bullet there...
Emanuel
--
1983 Porsche 911 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 944 Guards Red/Black
1983 Porsche 928 Guards Red/Black
Rob Jensen
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:36:26 -0600,
> Rob Jensen <Shut...@aoldot.pleasedontfeedtheimpostor.dotcom> wrote:
>
>> CynicKill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I guess I'm the only semi-sympathizer with Christopher.
>>>
>>>1) Who says he was never financially supportive of Rory?
>>
>> Lorelai. Numerous times. Also, he did in s1 when he tried to
>> buy Rory the Oxford Dictionary to make up for everything he
>> missed and the scene implied that this was par for the
>> financial course for Christopher. Moreover, later in the
>> episode, Christopher's father, Straub, lays into him for his
>> repeated business failures.
>
>
> I don't recall Lorelai ever saying anything about financial
> support, though it didn't appear Lorelai ever requested any help.
> The dictionary seemed like more of a gift to apologize for not
> physically being there. It appears to me that if Lorelai asked
> Christopher for anything that he would at least try to come
> through, but being there just for the sake of being there wasn't
> in him.
Well, it had been stated several times early on that Lorelai had asked
Emily and Richard for financial help every so often through the years,
so the implication is that Christopher was in no position to help her
financially and, moreover, Lorelai took Christopher's inability to pay
for the dictionary in Christopher Returns as simply More of the Same.
(Aside: the dictionary wasn't just a "not being there" gift, it was
primarily an "I'm sorry for the historical lack of decent presents"
gift. BID.) If he did send them any money, it was so intermittent that
in all likelihood, Lorelai never thought there was a point in asking him
for it when she was in trouble.
And look at it this way: Christopher's spotty financial situation
pretty much implies until he comes back in Christopher Returns that he
was getting no support whatsoever from his family (because he dropped
out of Princeton).
Tne thing is, Lorelai did long ago make it clear to him that the door
was always open "to Rory" for him. He just had to use it, but he rarely
did. That was his choice. It never should have boiled down to Lorelai
asking him for anything for him to actively participate in raising his
daughter.
The point of Lorelai choosing to be a single mother is that she *knew*
Christopher wasn't going to be there for her and Rory no matter what she
chose to do. It wasn't a self-fulfilling prophecy -- it was just his
nature as a person who took well into his thirties before he even
*started* to know himself.
>> Christopher gets a gold star for good intentions as father,
>> but that only gets him his repeated chances to try (and fail)
>> to make amends.
>
>
> Lorelai seems to be very forgiving of Chris, and Rory doesn't
> appear to hold any grudges either, but is protective of her
> mother.
Lorelai's forgiving of Christopher because she knows who he is and knows
that he's a very kind but very lost soul and quite possibly most
importantly, he's her best friend left from her childhood.
Here's what Christopher said about his and Sherri's then break-up in "I
Can't Get Started" (the s2 finale), before he learns that she's pregnant:
-----------
LORELAI: What’s going on with you?
CHRISTOPHER: What do you mean?
LORELAI: I mean, mister ‘suddenly I’m everywhere’. How come you can just
agree to come to the wedding?
CHRISTOPHER: Because I can.
LORELAI: Don’t you have to check your appointment book?
CHRISTOPHER: It’s on a Sunday.
LORELAI: Don’t you have to check with Sherry? Chris, what’s up?
CHRISTOPHER: Nothing. Sherry’s not in town.
LORELAI: Oh.
CHRISTOPHER: And even if she was, I still don’t think she’d mind if I went.
LORELAI: Because she’s the coolest chick in the world?
CHRISTOPHER: Because things aren’t going too well for us lately.
LORELAI: Oh, no.
CHRISTOPHER: She had this big business trip planned and before she left,
we had a talk.
LORELAI: Yikes.
CHRISTOPHER: Yeah. We tried to come up with some answers but we couldn’t
think of anything, so she left and we said we’d take this time apart to
think.
LORELAI: What have you been thinking?
CHRISTOPHER: About finding an apartment.
LORELAI: Wow, um, that’s so weird. Last time I saw you two, you were ...
well, nauseating, actually.
CHRISTOPHER: Believe me, we made ourselves sick a few times.
LORELAI: I don’t know what to say.
CHRISTOPHER: No, there’s nothing to say. It’s nobody’s fault. It just isn’t.
------------
In other words, Christopher wasn't moved out yet at the time. They
weren't fully broken up. They were "on a break" (unlike Ross & Rachel),
really deciding what they wanted to do next. Sherry's expectations were
not revealed beyond that she and he were on a break. All that
Christopher had done so far was decide that he did want to break up and
start looking for an apartment near Stars Hollow. IMO, because he
wasn't fully, truly broken up with Sherry at the time, he was leading
Lorelai on by drifting in and out of her life like he always does.
> We learned later he was about as successful as with Lorelai and
> Rory, right up until she stuck him with the kid.
>
That's highly debatable. At the time he was sticking with a dependable
white-collar job, being the nuclear-family father while Sherry was
apparently being the stay-at-home mom. Until Sherry turned the tables
and accepted a job in Paris and *left* him with all of the
repsonsibilities of the kid. To his credit and unlike with Lorelai and
Rory, he wasn't drifting out of Sherry and Gigi's life. To the contrary
-- he was there, trying to amend for his previous failure as a father by
sticking with his responsibilities again (and appearing to have put
whatever differences he had with Sherry aside to continue to love her)
and instead, his partner makes her own decision -- basically to do to
him what he did to Lorelai and Rory.
David E. Milligan
"Larry" <LAY...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108228822....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Right!
>
Of the three examples, the one that bothers me most is Rory's dismissal
> of Dean. Like him or not, he deserved a better send off, if only
> because he's been around since the first episode of the show.
But he did get the cherry!
Wayne Brown
> Steve B. wrote:
>
>> You're right, I have seen the girls get a pass from guys... me included. But
>> I've also seen the same type of tunnel vision from some women -- not
>> pointing any fingers here -- when it comes to Christopher. My point being
>> that women are often just as shallow as men when it comes to being forgiving
>> of someone's faults, as long as they're good looking. And there's no
>> character on the show with more faults than Christopher.
>>
>
> Emily. Christopher is the perfect parent compared to Emily, IMO.
But that's because you're determined to hate Emily no matter what she
does. I generally have much more sympathy for her than for Lorelai or
Rory -- with the exception of those times the writers choose to make her
do something exceptionally stupid, such as her recent attempt to throw
Lorelai and Christopher together again.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Michael C.
Rob Jensen <Shut...@aoldot.pleasedontfeedtheimpostor.dotcom> wrote:
> Michael C. wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:36:26 -0600,
> > Rob Jensen <Shut...@aoldot.pleasedontfeedtheimpostor.dotcom> wrote:
> >
> >> CynicKill wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I guess I'm the only semi-sympathizer with Christopher.
> >>>
> >>>1) Who says he was never financially supportive of Rory?
> >>
> >> Lorelai. Numerous times. Also, he did in s1 when he tried to
> >> buy Rory the Oxford Dictionary to make up for everything he
> >> missed and the scene implied that this was par for the
> >> financial course for Christopher. Moreover, later in the
> >> episode, Christopher's father, Straub, lays into him for his
> >> repeated business failures.
> >
> >
> > I don't recall Lorelai ever saying anything about financial
> > support, though it didn't appear Lorelai ever requested any help.
> > The dictionary seemed like more of a gift to apologize for not
> > physically being there. It appears to me that if Lorelai asked
> > Christopher for anything that he would at least try to come
> > through, but being there just for the sake of being there wasn't
> > in him.
>
> Well, it had been stated several times early on that Lorelai had asked
> Emily and Richard for financial help every so often through the years,
When? I thought Lorelai's thing was Chilton for Rory was the
first time that Lorelai went to them for help.
Sounds like it could have gone either way at that point, but
Chris and Sherry having trouble, or Chris and Lorelai together
again was a no brainer for Chris, Gigi was the wrench in the
works. Not saying it would have worked, or Lorelai wouldn't have
come to her senses, but Chris was ready to go back to Lorelai, he
wasn't leading her on.
> In other words, Christopher wasn't moved out yet at the time. They
> weren't fully broken up. They were "on a break" (unlike Ross & Rachel),
> really deciding what they wanted to do next. Sherry's expectations were
> not revealed beyond that she and he were on a break. All that
> Christopher had done so far was decide that he did want to break up and
> start looking for an apartment near Stars Hollow. IMO, because he
> wasn't fully, truly broken up with Sherry at the time, he was leading
> Lorelai on by drifting in and out of her life like he always does.
Sounded like it was all over up to telling Sherry. Not having
moved out yet doesn't mean much to Christopher. How many times
has Chris stayed at Lorelai's while in town while together with
Sherry?
> > We learned later he was about as successful as with Lorelai and
> > Rory, right up until she stuck him with the kid.
>
> That's highly debatable. At the time he was sticking with a dependable
> white-collar job, being the nuclear-family father while Sherry was
> apparently being the stay-at-home mom. Until Sherry turned the tables
Calling them a nuclear-family while being technically correct
sounds a bit dishonest given Chris' description to Lorelai. I'd
like to think that the father is required to be more than simply
a bread-winner.
> and accepted a job in Paris and *left* him with all of the
> repsonsibilities of the kid. To his credit and unlike with Lorelai and
> Rory, he wasn't drifting out of Sherry and Gigi's life. To the contrary
> -- he was there, trying to amend for his previous failure as a father by
> sticking with his responsibilities again (and appearing to have put
> whatever differences he had with Sherry aside to continue to love her)
Do we have any reason to speculate on how Chris felt about Sherry
at this point?
> and instead, his partner makes her own decision -- basically to do to
> him what he did to Lorelai and Rory.
Christopher's own admission to Lorelai, was that he hardly knew
Gigi, he was always on the road. He may have been putting food
on the table, but he was rarely eating at it, and Sherry was
raising Gigi largely on her own, and decided it's Chris' turn.
Ymmv,
Michael C.
--
mcsu...@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/
Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always
an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong.
- Henry Louis Mencken, 1917
Rob Jensen
When Lor went to Richard and Emily to ask for the Chilton loan in the
Pilot, they immediately asked her how much she wanted because she never
went over to the mansion outside of the holidays unless it was to ask
for money. The implication is that Richard and Emily have actually
helped her out financially in the years between her running away and
Rory getting into Chilton. If Lor's said that she never asked them for
money otherwise, it's more in the sense of "I've never asked them for
*that* kind of money, especially not for myself."
>>>
>>>>>4) It was obviously bad timing what with Sherri's pregnancy
>>>>>that he and Lor didn't get together the second time. He
>>>>>didn't want to walk out on her and not be a presence again.
>>>>>maybe it was a bad choice, but he was trying to do do right
>>>>>thing.
>>>>
>>>>And that's why Lorelai encouraged him to do so when his
>>>>initial reactions showed a *lot* of wavering. Christopher's
>>>>mistake was boinking Lorelai (again) before he had fully
>>>>extricated himself from his relationship with Sherri. He was
>>>>evasive about what was going on between him and Sherri -- he
>>>>wasn't even fully 100% moved out at the time even though he
>>>>described their relationship as over. At the time, he was
>>>>over his relationship with Sherri in the same way that Dean
>>>>was over his relationship with Lindsay when Dean slept with
>>>>Rory -- basically, little more than having made the decision
>>>>to end the relationship but not having informed the
>>>>intended-to-be-former partner yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>I read that as the opposite. It sounded to me that Sherri was
>>>expecting him to be moving out while she was away, felt sick,
>>>took the test, and called Chris with the good news. And Chris
>>>actually wanted to try to be a stand up guy about it.
>>>
>>
>> Here's what Christopher said about his and Sherri's then break-up in "I
>> Can't Get Started" (the s2 finale), before he learns that she's pregnant:
>>
>> -----------
>> LORELAI: What?s going on with you?
>> CHRISTOPHER: What do you mean?
>> LORELAI: I mean, mister ?suddenly I?m everywhere?. How come you can just
>> agree to come to the wedding?
>> CHRISTOPHER: Because I can.
>> LORELAI: Don?t you have to check your appointment book?
>> CHRISTOPHER: It?s on a Sunday.
>> LORELAI: Don?t you have to check with Sherry? Chris, what?s up?
>> CHRISTOPHER: Nothing. Sherry?s not in town.
>> LORELAI: Oh.
>> CHRISTOPHER: And even if she was, I still don?t think she?d mind if I went.
>> LORELAI: Because she?s the coolest chick in the world?
>> CHRISTOPHER: Because things aren?t going too well for us lately.
>> LORELAI: Oh, no.
>> CHRISTOPHER: She had this big business trip planned and before she left,
>> we had a talk.
>> LORELAI: Yikes.
>> CHRISTOPHER: Yeah. We tried to come up with some answers but we couldn?t
>> think of anything, so she left and we said we?d take this time apart to
>> think.
>> LORELAI: What have you been thinking?
>> CHRISTOPHER: About finding an apartment.
>> LORELAI: Wow, um, that?s so weird. Last time I saw you two, you were ...
>> well, nauseating, actually.
>> CHRISTOPHER: Believe me, we made ourselves sick a few times.
>> LORELAI: I don?t know what to say.
>> CHRISTOPHER: No, there?s nothing to say. It?s nobody?s fault. It just isn?t.
>>
>> ------------
>
>
> Sounds like it could have gone either way at that point, but
> Chris and Sherry having trouble, or Chris and Lorelai together
> again was a no brainer for Chris, Gigi was the wrench in the
> works. Not saying it would have worked, or Lorelai wouldn't have
> come to her senses, but Chris was ready to go back to Lorelai, he
> wasn't leading her on.
But he wasn't actually moved out of his and Sherri's digs and it wasn't
at Sherry's insistence. It was a mutual decision that qualifies as a
break, not a break-up, until Chris is actually moved out. IMO, until he
was actually physically moved out and all the property was divided up,
he was leading Lorelai on, period. Breaking up isn't effective at the
moment one makes the decision to break up, it's effective the moment the
partner is informed of the decision.
It's all fine and good that Chris was ready to go bac to Lorelai, but
the reality of the situation is that Chris was still within his
committment to Sherry. They hadn't talked about whether or not their
separation was going to become permanent -- Chris even says, "We said
we'd take this time apart to think." Ergo: *nothing* had actually been
finalized. Their relationship *wasn't* over even though the process of
ending had, from *our* perspective *now,* begun. Therefore, since he
was still within a committment to Sherry, he had no business trying to
start anything with Lorelai, IMO. He flat-out lied to Lorelai by
misrepresenting himself to her.
But that's what made it so easy for Lorelai to let him go back to her --
she recognized when he didn't that, incoming baby or not, he really
wasn't finished with Sherry.
>> In other words, Christopher wasn't moved out yet at the time. They
>> weren't fully broken up. They were "on a break" (unlike Ross & Rachel),
>> really deciding what they wanted to do next. Sherry's expectations were
>> not revealed beyond that she and he were on a break. All that
>> Christopher had done so far was decide that he did want to break up and
>> start looking for an apartment near Stars Hollow. IMO, because he
>> wasn't fully, truly broken up with Sherry at the time, he was leading
>> Lorelai on by drifting in and out of her life like he always does.
>
>
> Sounded like it was all over up to telling Sherry. Not having
> moved out yet doesn't mean much to Christopher. How many times
> has Chris stayed at Lorelai's while in town while together with
> Sherry?
Basically, about twice in the second season -- when he came over for
Rory's debut and admitted to Lor that he was seeing Sherry and then when
he came back late in the season in the middle of his attempted split
with her.
>>>We learned later he was about as successful as with Lorelai and
>>>Rory, right up until she stuck him with the kid.
>>
>> That's highly debatable. At the time he was sticking with a dependable
>> white-collar job, being the nuclear-family father while Sherry was
>> apparently being the stay-at-home mom. Until Sherry turned the tables
>
>
> Calling them a nuclear-family while being technically correct
> sounds a bit dishonest given Chris' description to Lorelai. I'd
> like to think that the father is required to be more than simply
> a bread-winner.
Dude, that's the basic definition of the nuclear family. That's why the
nuclear family is so reviled -- it's an empty construct of the middle
20th century. It's implied that Sherry abandoned him and Gigi *because*
she was unsatisfied with the configuration and wanted to get back to her
career. That's not totally Chris's fault -- that's his and Sherry's
shared fault for not communicating and negotiating their goals. Chris
was starting to get the nature of the committment and seemed to be
appreciating it as far as it went under the circumstances. Ultimately,
though, the irony is that Sherry did to Chris what he did to Lorelai --
she abandoned her partner and her daughter to pursue her own selfish goals.
>> and accepted a job in Paris and *left* him with all of the
>> repsonsibilities of the kid. To his credit and unlike with Lorelai and
>> Rory, he wasn't drifting out of Sherry and Gigi's life. To the contrary
>> -- he was there, trying to amend for his previous failure as a father by
>> sticking with his responsibilities again (and appearing to have put
>> whatever differences he had with Sherry aside to continue to love her)
>
>
> Do we have any reason to speculate on how Chris felt about Sherry
> at this point?
Well, Chris was certainly in shock that his wife just flat out abandoned
him and their daughter, leaving behind just a *letter. Chris appears to
have been taken completely by surprise by Sherry's abrupt, secretive
departure.
>> and instead, his partner makes her own decision -- basically to do to
>> him what he did to Lorelai and Rory.
>
>
> Christopher's own admission to Lorelai, was that he hardly knew
> Gigi, he was always on the road. He may have been putting food
> on the table, but he was rarely eating at it, and Sherry was
> raising Gigi largely on her own, and decided it's Chris' turn.
>
> Ymmv,
Yes, the problem is that we're getting only Chris's side of the story,
and not Sherry's, too. For all we know, he and Sherry could have been
fighting for months over it, but at the same time, we do know that he
was living up to his work committments and to the committments to Sherry
that they'd *apparently* agreed on. Christopher's description very well
*could* be self-serving and unreliable, but the show's always presented
him as being a pretty good judge of how he fails himself and those
around him and, moreover, that he's largely willing and able to admit
it, when the opportunity arises. Yes, always in retrospect.
What he's generally unable to do is recognize how he's messing up *when*
he's messing up.
I don't buy that just because he always plunges Lorelai's life into
chaos when he comes into town that that makes him automatically wrong at
every turn with regards to his relationship with Sherry. Sherry was
portrayed in her few appearances as a self-absorbed, neurotic type-A who
lacked Lorelai's (and even Chris's) capacity for empathy. Relatively
speaking, I'd be more inclined to trust Christopher's take on his
relationship with Sherry than I would be Sherry's because Chris's
description of how and why she abandoned him and Gigi is, IMO,
consistent with how she was portrayed in her actual appearances on the
show. And that's even *after* despising Chris's sorry ass for coming
between Lor and Luke.
Idris
> Michael C. wrote:
>> When? I thought Lorelai's thing was Chilton for Rory was the
>> first time that Lorelai went to them for help.
> When Lor went to Richard and Emily to ask for the Chilton loan in the
> Pilot, they immediately asked her how much she wanted because she never
> went over to the mansion outside of the holidays unless it was to ask
> for money. The implication is that Richard and Emily have actually
> helped her out financially in the years between her running away and
> Rory getting into Chilton. If Lor's said that she never asked them for
> money otherwise, it's more in the sense of "I've never asked them for
> *that* kind of money, especially not for myself."
That's just not true, at all. You're reading into it something that's
never really even implied, and ignoring some things specifically
stated. They were surprised to see her outside of holiday season
but it was only after she awkwardly told them she needed to talk to
them about something that Richard guessed she needed money. He was
just being his cynical self. Then it was specifically stated that
it would be a loan, and that she never asked for favors. And finally
Emily demanded that since they were _now_ financially involved in her
life, they wanted to be actively involved in it too. Implying that
they hadn't been financially involved in it before.
I think one of the main points that's been made about Lorelais'
life before Chilton was that Lor had made it independent of
their parents, and she had pretty much thrown it on their faces
that she didn't need them or their money for anything. That's why
it was so hard for her to ask for money for Chilton, and the
only reason she did it was because it was for Rory and she
had no other way. If she'd been getting money from them all
along it wouldn't have been nearly the struggle it was.
Idris
sugas...@gmail.com
David
> news:d7bbfd09-bb6d-4a88...@googlegroups.com...
who decided not to marry at 16 and to try to make it on her own.
Yet she still had the fantasy, as did RORY, about them, one day, being a
real family.
And he was her first love, something that she never really got over.
donnamari...@gmail.com
I just found this site. It's now Nov 2019, ha ha. I just rewatched the series. Although I love some of the comments Lorelai says in the show which make me laugh, the whole concept is so opposite of anything of who I am and what I believe. I have 3 children of my own, white, 4th generation, Irish Catholic, conservative etc. So obviously the show being written with the basic liberal stance is not anything I would support. To your point, No I don't care what Christopher may "look like" his actions are what matter. They try to pass him off as kind and a "good guy," but he is anything but. Even Rory, sadly, could see this. I admit, in the last series where Rory actually asks her father why he "let" Lorelai leave with her as a baby and didn't see her I felt she was really asking why didn't you love me enough to want to be in my life and be my father. I know this hits home for me in that my parents divorced when I was 16, my father moved to a "new" house in town for 10 years. Took me out once for my 16th birthday and then showed up for 20 minutes when I graduated high school. The whole time he lived in our town he never reached out to me or my 3 brothers (that I know of). After teh 20 minutes at my graduation I never say him again.
It's ironic that the main theme, if you will, of Lorelai's "leaving" her home and parents is to get away from them and their lifestyle, etc. And yet for the whole show she does everything for Rory to actually live "their" lifestyle. Liberals love to bash all the conservatives taht work hard and achieve success, financial and otherwise, as though it's evil (when they themselves have millions), but that is actually the American Dream. Yes, Richard my have had "privleges" that helped him to get to Yale, etc., but he still had to go out to work, work hard to achieve the success he attained, along with his wife who was an integral part of his attaining that success. And they gloss over the fact that she was involved in numerous charities, giving back, doing a lot of good and throughout the whole show all Lorelai's parents did was to love her, give to her (as she would allow them to) and care for her and Rory. Throughout the entire show they kept telling Rory how special she was regardless of many horrible things she did (like stealing a yacht, sleeping with a married man, treating most everyone of her "boyfriends" like garbage and oh then sleeping with Logan (while he is engaged to another woman). They have no morals or principles, but everyone keeps saying how wonderful she is. They make Lorelai and Rory out to be so independent, and they don't need a "man" for anything, but in reality everytime there is any difficulty, small or big Lorelair and Rory are bailed out/given aid by "men." So while Lorelai is putting her parents down and everything they stand for she takes money from them continuously. Most people in the real world do not have a family bank to turn to to alleviate their problems. All Lorelai talked about was her daughter Rory going to Harvard. If you hated your parents and their lifestyle so much why would this be your goal? And you never at all thought how would she get there. Oh wait, after she started in a rgular, small, local non descript public high school, then you decided she should go to a very expensive, private school, Chilton? In my experience, where I live here in NJ, you can not transfer into the top academic Catholic girls school here after 9th grade. And of course she didn't think about the cost and how she would pay for it? They never even explained how she was able to buy her home in Stars Hollow? Here in NJ, we choose to live in small, quaint suburban towns, because the schools are the best in the state and you pay for that in real estate and taxes. So then conveniently she gets the money from her parents. Again when she goes to Yale. Then she has Dad, who hasn't helped raise her at all, swoop in to pay for Yale. She has competing people wanting to pay for her whole, Ivy League college. Another thing that annoyed my about Rory is the fact that all she did was read and study throughout Chilton and Yale. She did work on the paper and then was editor which was good and in line with her future goals; however, here in the real world some of us have children that are well rounded. They take 9 AP courses, 3 sciences with labs their senior year while playing 5 sports, obtaining the Girl Scout Gold Award, teaching CCD, participating in Run for Life, on and on. I hated how they both made fun of sports, when she is a spaz and wouldn't last one day in a sports practice. Try running 5-7 miles for XC, going to upstate NY to catch in 5 club softball games back to back, getting home at 10:30 pm as a sophomore and staying up until 2:00 pm to complete your honors homework. Rory really never had anything else she had to expend energy for and everytime you turn around she has her grandparents or father or Luke or someone doing for her paying for her. Yeah, most kids that go to college have their "common" room re-done at the cost of 40,000.00. Come on!! Her mother started out wanting Rory to "not" have sex or follow in her footsteps which is good, but then after what she did with Dean and breaking up his marriage, again, Lorelai was more concerned about Rory being upset than addressing her behavior (which only teaches her that her immoral behavior is not that bad - so is it a surprise that we see her at age 32 sleeping with Logan who is engaged to another woman? The other horrible theme throughout the whole show is that no one has any morals, the ones that keep sleeping with everyone and producing illegitimate children. You have Rory to begin with, then Gigi (Sherry and Christopher - Christopher doing this for the second time!), and Luke and Anna with April (Anna is a piece of work too - she had no right to NOT tell Luke she was pregnant - it was his daughter too. Typical liberal, femi nazi woman, who sleeps with a man, gets pregnant by said man, does not feel the man has any rights to know about the pregnancy, raises her daugher for 12 years and had no intention of ever telling the father (Luke) about his daughter, then when April on her own seeks him out, Luke of course (who is a decent man) steps up to try and be a father to her, Anna has no problem leaving her daugher with Luke after he has only been in her life (due to April not Anna) for a very short time to go see her mother (what would she have done if April had not sought out her own father). Then when circumstances arise wehre Anna decideds she needs to move to take care of her mother and pulls April out of school, etc she thinks she can just cut Luke out of ever seeing his daughter again (like that is fair, just or the right thing to do for either Luke or her daughter). Flash forward and Luke (you know the man Anna was suiing to keep him form eve seeing his daughter) is the one who has paid for her to go to MIT and now apparently to go to Germany in the summer (to do what) and graduate school (to do what) - if I have to hear how bright she is (off the charts) I will throw up. So Anna, who didn't want anything to do with Luke, nor to have her daughter have a father, because men are so horrrible, has no problem having Luke foot the bill for an expensive, private college and grad school, etc. Really?? And the ones in this storyline that actually get married and have children, Lane and Zach, Sookie and Jackson, are portrayed as lower level, not as bright, not as achieving. By the way, when they said that Sookie was "away" on some farm for 2 years, who was taking care of her 3 children?? Can't have a mother taking care of her children and being with her husband now can we?? Jesus!! Oh, and speaking of, it was made clear that there was no religion or God or going to Church - well , because that would interfere with whatever they felt like doing in their lives, including their sex lives, etc. If Rory is so wonderful and raised so well, why was she so disrespectful to the priest when her grandparents brought him over to try and address the importance of being chaste, etc. It was just another way to mock and put down anyone that believes in God or has any morals, etc. It was not accurate that Richard and Emily would not have belonged to a protestant Church at least and God forbid might have said grace befoe all of the dinners they had!! Although the portrayed Mrs. Kim as extreme (another way to put down God), she actually was areal mother trying to raise her daughter properly. Lane is very bright and I don't like that she was not allowed to go to college and pursue something more than just working in her Mom's store. Not that being a mother and raising her children are not extremely important, but she should have been allowed to go to college and learn and pursue her interests, etc. Throughout the whole show the theme is that men are put down, woman are more important, but interestingly enough the main women characters are always being saved by men!!
Andie Lazaro
> "Tee" <crappol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > "Anne" <Anne...@gg.org> wrote in message
> > news:pE8Pd.17295$ya6.947@trndny01...
> > >
> > > "CynicKill" <dlov...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> news:1d94a550738fa0ee...@localhost.talkabouttelevision.com...
> endearing,
> > > cute are just because they are attractive.
> >
> > villainize Emily but not Lorelai. I guess if you swing you hips and smile
> > just right you're allowed to do & say anything without consequence.
> >
> As opposed to, say, Christopher, who knocks up Lorelai, abandons Rory and
> leaves Lorelai to raise her, without so much as offering a dime in support.
> Then knocks up Sherry, then goes back to screw around with Lorelai while
> still involved with Sherry. And then, when he finds out Sherry's pregnant,
> bails on Lorelai and Rory again -- not because of it being the responsible
> thing to do, but rather, in his words, because "I missed it last time."
> And yet somehow an awful lot of the women in this group manage to give him a
> bye and claim they somehow see "growth." I'm sure it has nothing to do with
> the fact that he's good looking and charming.
> It couldn't be that, because, let's face it, women are so much more mature
> and sophisticated than men. They'd never let a guy get away with being a
> worthless excuse for a human being, just because he's easy on the eyes.
Actually Christopher offered to marry Lorelei, that is the reason why Richard likes him so much.