posted
First off, sorry I have been AWOL for so long and hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas.
Now *ahem* to the topic at hand.
Reading Jessia and Laura's excellent arguments condemning and defending Charles' meddling, I went back and reread O&A...and realized that I have never really liked Charles Fielding. *Apologies to Mrs Fielding* (embarassed look)
It's unusual because I've almost always tried to take the 'villain's POW. I felt rather sorry for Emily Kendall and even Philip Bancroft, as reprehensible as their actions have been.
What bothers me about Charles is how remarkably - well, self-centered he is most of the time. Now I find Philip more understandable *calmly ducking hurled object* if equally bad. Both fathers meddled - one just made the wrong call while the other made a right one. But Philip was shown as a somewhat obsessive compulsive man who tended to fear the worst about everything and everyone. He had aimed to shelter Meredith (which sometimes became smothering) from everything bad.
Charles however, was downright neglectful as a parent. Firstly, he couldn't be bothered to take care of baby Jason, not even hiring a nanny, which, if he was able to go clubbing every night, I'm sure he was financially able to do so. Secondly, it bothered me that Charles couldn't even be bothered to check on Jason till he was in need of an heir. And he didn't do so out of a sense that his son had been cheated of his birthright. I believe his reasons were:
a) That he didn't like the idea of 'climbing on top of some woman and producing an heir'
b) Though the Fieldings had never been prominent or famous, it galled him to think of someone else inheriting the title
*scanning room* Does that not strike someone else as abominably self-centered? To be fair, he probably didn't know his SIL was a kook. But would it have been so hard to write the occasional letter and ask something like "How's my boy?" Furthermore, shouldn't he have been sending them funds regularly to support Jason? Missions are not exactly lucrative business. And his brother DIED when Jason was a child, for heaven's sake. Didn't it occur to Charles to at least write some word to his brother's widow, or some note of respect? Or to find out who was now taking care of Jason? In addition, I find it rather disrespectful that when his wife dies, his only thought is not sadness for a longtime companion, or mourning a wasted marriage, but rather: "Oh shoot, now I have to go out and get an heir."
He doesn't even remember his OWN SON until he needs the heir. And to add insult to injury, does he hasten to India to apologize for his neglect? Bond with his grandson, perhaps? No, he spends his time (paraphrase) arguing, pleading, shouting to convince Jason to take over his estate. And am I mistaken, or did he show a remarkable lack of interest in Jamie?
quote: The answer came to him one day as he watched Jason playing with his son. Jamie. Jason would do anything for the boy.
Does he reflect on the fact that this is his flesh and blood as well? Or on his own failures as father? No, he cold-bloodedly sees his grandson as a way of manipulating Jason to come to heel. *indignant huff* Isn't it telling that both times that Jason suffers an immense loss, it is not his own father, but Mike Farrell that tells him the news?
Though Charles does tell Jason he is sorry that he lost Jamie, I would have liked it better if Charles himself had shown a little more sorrow at the loss of his grandson.
Given that Charles hasn't exactly fulfilled his part of the bargain as parent, I find it incredibly presumtuous and self-centered that he feels he has the right to dictate what's better for Jason. I also dislike the fact that his wish for Jason to be happy almost seems secondary to his own wish for Grandchildren with Katherine. My goodness, he was setting up Victoria with Jason before he even MET her! She could have been Melissa II. And also at the wedding, he doesn't reflect on his hopes for Jason, but instead 'throws the Duchess a look of cold triumph' then sits and congratulates himself on getting grandchildren with Katherine.
All this seems to me, that Charles is thinking "Me, me, me" all the time. I wouldn't call him selfish, or hate him, since I do think he is kind-hearted and essentially well-meaning. But he seems ABOMINABLY self-centered. Though I'm sure Laura will train this out of him
Blushing rose
[This message has been edited by Blushing rose (edited 01-17-2001).]
Would you consider submitting that as a guest article to the DIT Judith McNaught newsletter? We'd love to include it in DIT #10. We won't be offended if you decline, but if you *would* like to submit it, you can email us.
posted
*Standing ovation* Adding further logs to the fire--what about the whole death-bed sequence? He deliberately manipulated Victoria (even though at this point in time he'd received her sweetheart's letter) into marrying Jason, when he knew that she was eagerly waiting for Andrew to take her home.
Posts: 897 | From: Middle-a-Nowhereville, TX | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree with everyone's assessment of Charles Fielding. He was a despicable father. Giving away his son, not contributing to his upbringing or well-fair, forgetting his son until he needed an heir, manipulating both Tory and Jason.
I have always wondered why Jason appeared to have forgiven Charles for all his neglect. It didn't fit Jason's character at all. And why did Victoria seem to never confront Charles about his neglect nor lose her tender feelings for him? Charles was the underlying cause for Jason's wretched childhood.
Barb
-------------------- Barb
**********************************
~"I came here," Zack said, "because I can't live without her."~ Perfect Posts: 2353 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said, Blushing rose! I don't think I could add anymore to what has already been said here about Charles Fielding, that manipulating scum...*cough, cough*
-------------------- ♥ JJ ♥ Posts: 5599 | From: Troubleshooters, Inc. | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*applause* I completley agree with you ladies. I didn't really like Charles even the first time I read the book but I never realized how totally self-absorbed he is. Like Eryn said the scene with the "death bed" card game really gets me. I never understood why at the end Victoria is so willing to forgive what he did, not only to her but to Andrew who had been a good friend.
posted
Barb, I know, me too until I read Eryn's post...I love this book but I think that the more I participate in this discussion the angrier I get! How could he be that self absorbed!?!?
posted
Oh dear - cat amongst the pidgeons (thats me lol)
I thought it was unforgivable that he forgot about Jason but I understood that is how life was. Children were not a treasured prize and illegitate ones were not even worth a second thought. I felt he acted accordingly and that he was horrified when he found what his neglect and complacency (sp) cost his son.
It was par for the cause back then, children were nothing until adulthood. I felt he realised his mistake and if he had been stronger would have made a difference before he found out the truth.
So my feelings each and everytime I read this book is that Charles grew up slow and when he knew about his son's life, deeply regretted his weakness and wanted to give his child a good life.
I have always felt that he was not evil, just over indulged and completely lacking in responsibility. But he finally came through - what more can you ask?
Claire
[ July 13, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Miss Claire ]
Posts: 2547 | From: England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Miss Claire. Children were seldom thought of then. Some parents never saw them!! And illegitimate children were never considered at all. Complacency was a way of life for the aristocracy then, as was any responsibility for one's actions.
It's been a while since I have re-read the whole book but I think Charles did feel remorse for the way Jason was raised. He wanted him to find happiness to make up for the unhappiness of his childhood. But considering the times, the only reason he acknowledged Jason at all, I think, was because he needed an heir.
Posts: 17836 | From: Florida | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm...this pigeon is going to wander back into the fray, and expose her talons While I agree that Charles wasn't evil, he didn't 'act accordingly' and he didn't 'come through' in the end.
1. It's true that illegitmate children weren't seen to be as valuable as their legitmate counterparts, but they were worth a second thought. One king of England (his name escapes me now) apppointed three royal dukes in his reign, all of them were bastards. They were bestowed with the highest title in the land aside from actual royalty, so it would seenm as though their father certainly found them worthy of his consideration. Lesser nobles weren't quite as extravagant (they didn't have the freedom to invent titles), but they did typically see to the child's well-being; probably to avoid scandal, I'm not a complete romantic. Illegitmate children were frequently 'farmed out' to country estates or other remote regions, serving the dual purpose of providing a suitable home and keeping them out of sight. That is exactly what Charles attempted to do when he tossed Jason at his brother.
2. Male children (at least the 1st one) were indeed a treasured prize, especially within Regency society. They ensured the continuity of the line, and were a living expression of immortality. Children of noble houses in general, male and female, provided valuable bait with which to entice other families to forge alliances--the entire point behind arranged marriages. They were very powerful bargaining chips, and the surest way to increase a family's wealth/standing/holdings. A male child also opened up the possibility that he could inherit estate/titles from another relative upon their deaths, estates that would be controlled by his parents until he reached majority. Children within higher noble houses, male and female, might become godchildren of the current monarch, which indirectly lent that family the ear and protection of the Crown, so they were indeed invaluable assets to their families. They could also become godchildren of the head of their family's line, or other powerful families, and increase their own family's influence that way. This is all before the child reaches adulthood, in fact, everything I've just described could occur before the child was even out of infancy.
3. Charles could have made Jason legitimate. It's something that's not often talked about, but it was in fact an option. Jason's abscence from England, and indeed from that continent, would have made it all the easier. It was a legal proceeding very similar to adoption, and since Charles' marriage ended without an heir, his petion would defintely have been granted. There were even cases in which fathers legitmized their bastard children while their wives were still alive--meaning any child born of his union after the event would take second place beneath their newly legitmate half-sibling. Instead, despite his need of an heir, Charles decided to keep up the fiction of Jason being his nephew--thereby depriving himself, Jason, and Jamie (if he had lived) of ever being able to acknowlege or claim their relationship in public. My guess is that he saw death staring back at him and wanted to saddle someone of his own choosing with his estates and title after his passing; his actions prove he had no interest in being Jason's father. As was already mentioned, he'd forgotten his own son's existence until being confronted with his own mortality.
4. He found about Jason's appalling childhood, but far from going to see the child his own neglience had put through hell, he sent letters annoucing his intentions to the son he hadn't seen since the day he gave him away. He wasn't doing it to give his son a good life, the same report that detailed Jason's past also informed him that his son was living like a king. In fact, Jason was even richer and better off than his father. Charles had the title, but his estates were encumbered by debt and falling into ruin. It wasn't until Jason's lack of response drove him to desperation that he went to his son's home, and attempted to browbeat him into to submission before finally resorting to Jamie.
5. Charles never once apoligized for anything until the horrific consequences of his actions were all too apparent. He never came through in anything, even the one time he actually tried to do something for another's sake instead of his own by denying Victoria's mom. He denied his own son--twice--and never expressed remorse until he learned he'd put his child through hell. He then proceeded to do his best to control the life of the son he'd forgotten and even announced Jason's engement to the woman sight unseen--purely to strike back at Katherine's mom, and have grandchildren with their blood to look forward to. He delibrately let Victoria think that Andrew had forgotten her and betrayed her--even played on her sympathies with a 'deathbed' request to coerce her to marry Jason, and never apoligized or admitted his meddling until Andrew came to take her home. Everything Charles did to make amends was too little, too late. Victoria and JAson's relationship succeeded in spite of him, but the cost of his actions was far too high. Unwittingly as it might have been, this man single-handedly caused two generations of people anguish, and the most he ever did in reparations was say he was sorry.
As far as I'm concerned, you can ask for a lot more than that.
Posts: 897 | From: Middle-a-Nowhereville, TX | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll have to disagree with you Charles haters...
I found him quite loveable...yes...that's what I said. I do realize that his actions were quite self centered. HOWEVER, I also think that he was doing it because he thought it would make Jason happy...that Victoria would melt his cold heart. Even before he met Tory, he saw her likeness, thought immediately of Katherine, and knew that if Victoria were anything like her mother, she would be the one for Jason. So, I think in a twisted sort of way, he was trying to make amends.
As for his deathbed scheme...well, that was wrong. I still think, though, that he was doing it, not only to finally have the connection to Katherine, but because he knew that Jason was falling in love with Tory and he couldn't stand by and watch that fall apart.
I think there is more to Charles than we're seeing...and I don't think he is nearly as self centered as he seems. I think he is truly trying to make amends...just not in the normal way.
Also...if Tory can easily forgive him...why can't we?
Oh...and Jason didn't even bat an eye...
-------------------- ~~Jess~~
Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired. Robert Frost US poet (1874 - 1963) Posts: 3012 | From: Santa Cruz, Ca. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heirs were valuable but as children they were looked at as just an object obtained for the purpose of continuing the family line and obtaining good connections and finances. Often, they saw their parents for an hour each day and that was it. It wasn't really until they had survived childhood that parents took an interest. It wasn't fashionable to love and enjoy their children. I could be wrong but I think it was Queen Victoria that started to change all that because she paid attention to her children and the nobility followed her lead.
With Charles, Jason was a burden and a glitch in his life and to his mind, he did the best he could by him and then promptly forgot about him. He was not raised to cherish children and most likely was raised by nannies himself. When his wife died, he still wasn't thinking of his son because there wasn't any need. It was only when he realised his own mortality that Jason surfaced in his mind.
The deathbed scene was a low blow but desperate times call for desperate measures. He didn't know Jason and couldn't connect with him so he played on Victoria's compassion and hoped for the best.
I still feel that once he knew what kind of life he had given his son and what the boy had endured that he did all HE knew to make amends. He was a spoiled man without a doubt but I do think that what happened to Jason knocked him for six and I think he wanted him to have the title to give Jason a sense of worth (as well as for continuation) because he didn't really have anything else to offer.
(cat slinking back out lol:D)
Claire
Posts: 2547 | From: England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claire, Jess and S (Nightdancer) can you move over please. I'm sitting on your side. **BTW Claire, it's great to see you. **
Now, I don't know how you all could think bad of Charles so I'll try stating my case and explain why I think he is still ingenious (he won the Achievement in Ingenuity in the recently concluded BB awards, right? ) and lovable. So I hope you will bear with me as I will try to answer each points raised by the others.
quote:Firstly, he couldn't be bothered to take care of baby Jason, not even hiring a nanny, which, if he was able to go clubbing every night, I'm sure he was financially able to do so.
Secondly, it bothered me that Charles couldn't even be bothered to check on Jason till he was in need of an heir. And he didn't do so out of a sense that his son had been cheated of his birthright. I believe his reasons were: a) That he didn't like the idea of 'climbing on top of some woman and producing an heir' b) Though the Fieldings had never been prominent or famous, it galled him to think of someone else inheriting the title .
Does that not strike someone else as abominably self-centered? To be fair, he probably didn't know his SIL was a kook. But would it have been so hard to write the occasional letter and ask something like "How's my boy?" Furthermore, shouldn't he have been sending them funds regularly to support Jason? Missions are not exactly lucrative business. And his brother DIED when Jason was a child, for heaven's sake. Didn't it occur to Charles to at least write some word to his brother's widow, or some note of respect? Or to find out who was now taking care of Jason?
Wow, the original post was more than 4 years ago. It's unfortunate I haven't found the BB that time. Anyway, when Jason was born, Charles was only twenty-two years old, who was a, quoting what was written in the book, "libertine, gambler and rakehell. He had no responsibilities, no restrictions and absolutely no prospects for his older brother had already the ducal title and everything that went with it."
So, he was very immature that time, and even if Eryn's point number one is to be considered = It's true that illegitmate children weren't seen to be as valuable as their legitmate counterparts, but they were worth a second thought." – this does not apply to Charles at all because after all, he will inherit nothing.
Besides, what Charles did was…
quote: Charles had no desire to be saddled with a baby, yet he could not bring himself to simply abandon the boy to an orphans' home. In a moment of sheer inspiration, he hit upon the idea of giving Jason to his younger brother and his ugly wife, who were about to leave for India 'to convert the heathens.' Without any hesitation, he gave the baby to these two God-fearing, childless, religious zealots – along with nearly every cent he had, to be used for Jason's care – and washed his hands of the whole problem.
.
Charles was irresponsible and a rakehell and immature that time. But at least he has the presence of mind to think that Jason would be better off with his "God-fearing" and religious younger brother. He gave them all his money to be used for Jason's care. How would he know that his "God-fearing" sister-in-law would do something like that to Jason?
quote:In addition, I find it rather disrespectful that when his wife dies, his only thought is not sadness for a longtime companion, or mourning a wasted marriage, but rather: "Oh shoot, now I have to go out and get an heir."
Charles has just witnessed the death of his wife and of course, he was confronted with the issue of his mortality. And since he possessed a lofty title, naturally, he wanted to pass it on to an heir. I think I could even say that, because of the death of his wife, he remembered that he indeed had a son.
quote:He doesn't even remember his OWN SON until he needs the heir. And to add insult to injury, does he hasten to India to apologize for his neglect? Bond with his grandson, perhaps? No, he spends his time (paraphrase) arguing, pleading, shouting to convince Jason to take over his estate. And am I mistaken, or did he show a remarkable lack of interest in Jamie?
As what I understood, Charles was determined to make Jason his heir and wrote to him several times – saying that he will be inheriting the dukedom and all. When Jason didn't reply to his letters, he went there himself. And I just assumed that he apologized to Jason because
quote:In their first meeting, he saw firsthand what the investigator's report had already told him: Jason had married and fathered a son and was living like a king. He also made it very clear that he wanted nothing to do with Charles, or with the legacy Charles was trying to offer him. In the ensuing months, while Charles stubbornly remained in India, he slowly succeeded in convincing his cold, reticent son that he had never condoned or imagined the unspeakable abuses Jason had suffered as a child. But he could not convince him to return to England as his heir.
So I think Charles had really groveled towards Jason for forgiveness coz it took him months before he convinced Jason that he had no idea what
quote:Does he reflect on the fact that this is his flesh and blood as well? Or on his own failures as father? No, he cold-bloodedly sees his grandson as a way of manipulating Jason to come to heel. *indignant huff* Isn't it telling that both times that Jason suffers an immense loss, it is not his own father, but Mike Farrell that tells him the news? Though Charles does tell Jason he is sorry that he lost Jamie, I would have liked it better if Charles himself had shown a little more sorrow at the loss of his grandson.
I also wondered where was Charles when Jamie was taken by Melissa. But I think, he was out of town that time coz he was not even mentioned there.
quote:Given that Charles hasn't exactly fulfilled his part of the bargain as parent, I find it incredibly presumtuous and self-centered that he feels he has the right to dictate what's better for Jason. I also dislike the fact that his wish for Jason to be happy almost seems secondary to his own wish for Grandchildren with Katherine. My goodness, he was setting up Victoria with Jason before he even MET her! She could have been Melissa II. And also at the wedding, he doesn't reflect on his hopes for Jason, but instead 'throws the Duchess a look of cold triumph' then sits and congratulates himself on getting grandchildren with Katherine. All this seems to me, that Charles is thinking "Me, me, me" all the time. I wouldn't call him selfish, or hate him, since I do think he is kind-hearted and essentially well-meaning. But he seems ABOMINABLY self-centered.[/b]
If I remember correctly, Charles only thought of announcing Victoria's betrothal to Jason because, Victoria's grandmother had told him on his face to "marry her off to anyone you please –except that nephew of yours." So he was provoked and that was his revenge – though he was also ecstatic with the thought of his son and Katherine's daughter being married. So I guess, he was carried away with over enthusiasm and too much hope.
[QUOTE]Adding further logs to the fire--what about the whole death-bed sequence? He deliberately manipulated Victoria (even though at this point in time he'd received her sweetheart's letter) into marrying Jason, when he knew that she was eagerly waiting for Andrew to take her home.
Eryn I don't think he maniputaled Victoria. I just think that he thought the two were taking a long time to marry so he "shoved" them towards marriage. He somehow felt, I think that the two were really falling for each other.
quote: Barb: I have always wondered why Jason appeared to have forgiven Charles for all his neglect. It didn't fit Jason's character at all. And why did Victoria seem to never confront Charles about his neglect nor lose her tender feelings for him? Charles was the underlying cause for Jason's wretched childhood.
Megan: I never understood why at the end Victoria is so willing to forgive what he did, not only to her but to Andrew who had been a good friend.
Barb and Megan – I think it took time before Jason forgave Charles. Just like what I've said above, he groveled, I think. Now, for Victoria, she was very compassionate towards people, coz she's still thinking about them even though she's angry at them.
quote: If she stayed at this house another hour, she'd go insane. She couldn't scream at Charles and risk having his death on his conscience.
.
And one thing that convinced me that Charles was not selfish or self-centered was the fact that he gave up his happiness by giving up Katherine because he thought that he will never be able to provide for her. It was such a selfless act on his part - though of course they both suffered.
-------------------- ***Formerly known as Sharon Sandini***
"The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time but to leave unsaid the wrong things at the tempting moment." -Anonymous? Posts: 2976 | From: Here, There and Everywhere | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Claire, Jess, Sharon and Sharon I must say that you have very eloquintly and thoughtfully defended Mr. Fielding. So much so that I feel like a total shrew becasue I still totally disagree and think he was a jerk. Sorry that's JMO but I did want to say that I thought that your defense of him (especially Mrs. Sandini's) was very well done. *bravo**bravo*
Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired. Robert Frost US poet (1874 - 1963) Posts: 3012 | From: Santa Cruz, Ca. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I'll never be able to tear a character apart like this therefore I'm glad both sides of the issue were so well argued.
Sharon, I agree with Megan. You deserve an ovation no less than blushing rose.
Eryn, I'm not sure if I agree with you on everything you've written, but *ahem* I'm in awe of your eloquence, as always.
Now, my opinion of Charles Fielding.
One. Granted that he wasn't much of a parent (meaning I will join in and throw my share of poison darts at him for his neglect of Jason's childhood etc) I have to agree with Sharon that I *too* believe he went through much ah.. trouble to convince Jason to return to Society as his heir. Compare his efforts with that of the Duke of Stanhope in Almost Heaven, who issued Ian an ultimatum, declaring that whether he liked it or he was going to name him his heir. Of course, Jason wasn't the legitimate heir but Ian was, but still the point to note is that one groveled while the other.... merely ordered, not that it did any good. So, how could you call that self-centeredness?
Two. Now if memory serves me correctly (because I hadn't done a re-read, with much regret), Charles loved Katherine so much that he gave her up so that she wouldn't suffer with him. And because he still loved her even after her death, he decided he was going to do something for her daughter and his own son. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the opinion that his wish to have a grandchild with Katherine override his wish for Jason to be happy. Before the wedding, I never once thought that Charles was doing it because he wanted to, somehow, have a link with Katherine. It was only during the wedding that this was revealed to us readers. And given his knowledge of Katherine, would it be reasonable to assume that her daughter would be Melissa II? Furthermore, he wanted custodianship of Katherine's daughters, but Victoria's grandmother forbade it. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that had the doctor (forgot his name) notified ONLY Charles and NOT the Duchess of Claremont about both sisters' plight, he would've assumed full responsibilities of both of them, Tory and Dorothy..although I'm not sure if the Duchess would've allowed it, but that's besides the point. So, how can we call him self-centered?
Three. Since Philip Bancroft was brought up, I thought I'll add my two cents worth. No, I do not agree that Philip was a better parent than Charles. He deliberately lied to Matt about Meredith's miscarriage. Why? So that Matt would leave Meredith alone. He was perfectly willing to let her "walk around in rags, barefoot and pregnant", just to ensure that Matt does not "see one cent of Meredith's money". Now, what kind of a parent would so maliciously and viciously manipulate his child's marriage? Charles pretended illness to expedite a relationship that he knew his son deserved. But Philip took advantage of a sad misfortune that resulted in his daughter hating her own husband. (And since when is hatred good for anyone?) If what Charles did was considered to be self-centered, how then, would you label Philip's stunt?
So, summary -- no I do not think Charles Fielding is self-centered.
-------------------- Jen Posts: 1240 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to commend Sharon, Claire, Jess, Jenn & Eryn for their competent and interesting support or condemnation of Charles Fielding. A truly excellent job, girls!
I have already shared my opinion of the man, so I won't write anymore against him.
I did love his character; I liked him in fact. But I still condemn him as a father! But I don't think he can ever mitigate his indifference to Jason and what it cost Jason in human love during his youth.
Barb
-------------------- Barb
**********************************
~"I came here," Zack said, "because I can't live without her."~ Perfect Posts: 2353 | From: Michigan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I really would love it more if I was able to sway you on my side. LOL!! Anyway, thank you so much, ladies.
I believe I haven't participated this passionately in a book discussion before. LOL!!
Sharon
-------------------- ***Formerly known as Sharon Sandini***
"The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time but to leave unsaid the wrong things at the tempting moment." -Anonymous? Posts: 2976 | From: Here, There and Everywhere | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I just had to add again - I do not think you could compare Charles with Philip Bancroft!
Philip was a detestible manipulater and though Charles did the same, once he was back in Jasons life, he never set out to hurt or destroy his son whereas Philip did.
Charles was trying to right wrongs - Philip just wanted it all his way or nothing. I do not like Philip in any way but I do like Charles and he never inflicted all the pain, he was immature and didn't give anything a thought but Philip conspired and deliberately spent his life hurting his child on purpose - no comparrison (sp) to me.
Claire (Editing to say 'right back at ya sharon:D' been too long )
[ July 16, 2005, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Miss Claire ]
Posts: 2547 | From: England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What an amazing set of posts these are. I actually agree with something in each of your assessments about Charles.
And I completely agree with Claire--After allowing for the different time periods, Philip Bancroft was a worse father by far than Charles was. In fact, if the results of Charles decision to send Jason to his SIL hadn't been so devastating for Jason, Charles's treatment of his illegitimate son would have perfectly "acceptable" for that time in British history
I despised Philip Bancroft, and even when he came around near the end of the book, I could still barely stand him. However, the reality is that men like Philip never really examine their actions too closely, they aren't capable of that kind of soul-searching. They're capable of some regret when presented with proof of the wrongness of their actions, but their regret is mostly the result of what they stand to loose, not what they cost others.
It would have been satisfying and pleasant for all of us to have him become a much more likeable, emphathetic man at the end of the book, but I have too much respect for your (readers') intelligence, to suddenly endow a fictional character with nice traits he would never, ever acquire under the same circumstances in real life. For example, you can be sure that despite Meredith's proven desire and ability to head Bancroft's, Philip would turn around and oppose his granddaughter just as strongly if she ultimately tries to do it. In this respect, there's a quotation that applies to people like him--and people you probably know: "You can persuade me, but you won't persuade me."
Although I know some of you wanted Meredith to lock him out of her life for what he did--and I know some of us would truly do that--it would have been psychologically inaccurate for someone like Meredith, in her circumstances, to do that.
She was an only child, a girl, raised entirely by a dominating father whose good opinion and affection inevitably became all-important to her, becausehe often withheld both from her.
A real girl in those same circumstances eventually tries to get her father's attention in one of two ways: She either sticks to "the straight and narrow" hoping to get his attention that way or else does the self-destructive opposite--she breaks all the rules and gets into trouble, drugs, etc., etc.
Meredith did the former. That's who she was, and although she was fully prepared by the end of the book to turn her back on her father (ergo, all her lifelong dreams of a loving relationship with him) the reality is that she would still choose a middle ground if she had the opportunity, rather than opting for revenge and total alienation.
Matt despised Philip and he was always going to despise him, but Matt loved Meredith more than he despised Philip, and so Matt gave her that middle ground by agreeing to accept Philip's public (but feeble and thoroughly inadequate ) apology. Had Matt not done that, had he insisted that Meredith choose between Philip and him, which Matt had every right to insist that she do, he would have won the battle. However, as we all know, in relationships, whoever wins a battle...looses. In relationships, if one party triumps over the other party--if there isn't a compromise that satisfies both and allows equal dignity and respect for each other's needs and desires, then the triumphant party is always and inevitably the looser. Sooner or later.
Matt was no looser, and besides, I wanted he and Meredith to be completely happy together with no regrets clouding their marriage.
And so Meredith had to forgive her despicable parent.
And Matt had to pretend for her sake that he did, too.
The good news is that Philip was actually in a worst fix, because Matt Farrell had bested him completely, proven him wrong, and Philip was going to be reminded of that, and rankled by it, every time he saw Matt. And Philip was going to have to pretend to meekly accept it.
Though it may seem like puny retribution to us, for someone like Philip, meekness and defeat would be an agony.
posted
I wonder, if you were to write an epilogue, if you would have had Philip shriveled up with hatred that had eaten away at him for the rest of his days, or would Caroline have turned him to be a little more accepting of Matt as Meredith's husband once he saw how happy he made her?
Would he have really cared if Meredith would have been happy, or would he continue to be a controlling ass?
posted
You see, Judith? This is good stuff. I love it! You, giving insight about Paradise and O&A. It doesn't get any better. These books, along with several of your other books, are timeless. We want more books like these!!! I feel like I'm trapped in a zone these days, reading the same kinds of plots over and over.
Karen
-------------------- "The fact is, sometimes it's hard to walk in a single woman's shoes. That's why we need special ones now and then to make the walk a little more fun."--Carrie, Sex and the City Posts: 3700 | From: At a crop party with Clayton | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were to write an epilogue, how would I redeem Philip in it....
I've been sitting here thinking about it, and it would be almost impossible, because he not only destroyed much of his daughter's life, he also destroyed ten years of Matt's life. So, to redeem himself, he would have to make appropriate reparations to both of them.
How could he possibly do that...I suppose he could sacrifice a vital organ so that Matt could have a transplant. But who wants a 70 year old liver? Posts: 1088 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
I always just assumed Caroline "changed" him so to speak and everyone lived happily ever after. Hey I am a romantic not a realist. Posts: 485 | From: Oregon | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judith left us up in the air about Philip and Caroline, I think. Caroline might have wanted to have him stay with her, but I don't think he did.
and I think Matt probably would have been on a waiting list for a long time rather than take ANYTHING from his father-in-law Posts: 17836 | From: Florida | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL!!! That would have been a funny epilogue Ms. Judith.
I'm with you Tanya - I also assumed that he changed a little because of Caroline. After all, he sort of accepted Matt because of his wife and I'd like to think that he and Caroline get back together.
Sharon LOL!! I think Matt would really have done that!!! He doesn't want Phillip's money, how much more his vital organ?
Sharon
-------------------- ***Formerly known as Sharon Sandini***
"The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time but to leave unsaid the wrong things at the tempting moment." -Anonymous? Posts: 2976 | From: Here, There and Everywhere | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After a re-read on AH, I've decided to take back my words on Edward Thornton. His efforts at reconciliation was no less than Charles Fieldings', and I'm certain that he loved Ian no less than Charles loved Jason. Perhaps even more. But my original stand on Charles Fielding remains -- I do not think he is self-centered.
-------------------- Jen Posts: 1240 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You could not portray him in a good light - he is who he is and to try and amend his character would not work. I really can't understand how anyone could put him in the same bracket as Charles - Charles never tried to hurt his child.
Philip could mellow with his ex-wifes help, (now that he believes her) but he could never make up for the wrongs he did.
Charles accepted his wrongs and did the best he could to right them.
Jen - I totally agree, I always felt that Edward regretted his actions but could not stand down, leaving it too late- this does not make a person bad just mis-guided and possibly a bit stupid - love doesn't disappear. The biggest difference between all these characters is Philip never allowed himself to love his daughter and never felt regret - Edward and Charles did (IMHO)
[ July 25, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Miss Claire ]
Posts: 2547 | From: England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
This portion of Simon & Schuster's SimonSays.com is dedicated to providing an opportunity for users to exchange ideas and opinions. As such, the information, facts, or opinions appearing at this site do not necessarily reflect the views of Simon & Schuster, and Simon & Schuster does not assume responsibility or liability for the materials found here, nor for any claims, damages or losses resulting from any use of this service or the materials contained herein. By communication with this site, you hereby represent that you have all necessary rights in the materials, communications, or other information that you have provided, transmitted or sent to this site, and you hereby authorize Simon & Schuster to use, and/or authorize others to use, any such materials, communications or information in any manner Simon & Schuster sees fit, in any medium for no compensation. IN OTHER WORDS, WE MAY WANT TO USE WHAT YOU SAY (IF IT'S ANY GOOD) AND BY PUTTING IT HERE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO LET US USE IT ANY WAY WE WANT FOR NO COMPENSATION.
SimonSays.com
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
How could he be that self absorbed!?!? 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sharon - defender of the Fielding men LOL!!!![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
