Jump to content

[Spoilers] Season 11 Discussion Thread


Tensor
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, bfm said:

Nothing says that people have to like sweets, yet most of us do. It may have been easier if he could just erase the part that cares about her but it doesn't work like that. She and his father, absent or present, nice or mean and cruel, are the main people from which he learned about himself and his world.

Enabling is not causing. He does have respinsibility even if he had the best of reasons, like you would have responsibility for, say, feeding your pet even if you were hospitalized (a far different example but to make it more relatable). That doesn't mean he is a co-perpetrator. That's dynamic of abuse in family. The other parent has responsibility, even when they have the best reasons. This is not the case but sometimes the enabling is percieved by the victim as almost equally hurtful. Again, I'm not talking reasons here.

Well, clearly you and I see it differently. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bfm said:

I said accomplice by silence, not perpetrator. 

As to Beverly, unfortunately she is his mother and nothing can change that. His book showed very well that this cannot just be erased. And in this very season he called her angry that she said she was proud of Penny and not him so I think it's kind of safe to say he still, understandably, cares.

What you say is true but one scene that really disturbed was when Penny and Leonard got engaged. He calls his mother to tell her of the good news and she throws it back in his face by saying that "Sheldon has already told me about your engagement to Penny and he spoke fondly of her, so if she is good enough for him than she is good enough for me"  What a disgraceful thing to say to your own son!  And if I were Leonard I would tell Sheldon off and tell him not talk to Beverly anymore where it concerns Penny and him.

  • Like 5
  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mario D. said:

And if I were Leonard I would tell Sheldon off and tell him not talk to Beverly anymore where it concerns Penny and him.

I totally agree, but knowing Sheldon, he would need a little bit of encouragement. Like a knuckle sandwich.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2018 at 4:04 PM, bfm said:

Nothing says that people have to like sweets, yet most of us do. It may have been easier if he could just erase the part that cares about her but it doesn't work like that. She and his father, absent or present, nice or mean and cruel, are the main people from which he learned about himself and his world.

Enabling is not causing. He does have respinsibility even if he had the best of reasons, like you would have responsibility for, say, feeding your pet even if you were hospitalized (a far different example but to make it more relatable). That doesn't mean he is a co-perpetrator. That's dynamic of abuse in family. The other parent has responsibility, even when they have the best reasons. This is not the case but sometimes the enabling is percieved by the victim as almost equally hurtful. Again, I'm not talking reasons here.

Again we don't have enough evidence from the show to support any argument Alf was an enabler. Far as I am concerned he was just as much a victim as Leonard was. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

Again we don't have enough evidence from the show to support any argument Alf was an enabler. Far as I am concerned he was just as much a victim as Leonard was. 

I agree that based on the (very few) facts we know from TBBT it looks as if Alfred was a victim of Beverly as well. However, IMO, he was also an enabler because he didn't defend Leonard as he should have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

I agree that based on the (very few) facts we know from TBBT it looks as if Alfred was a victim of Beverly as well. However, IMO, he was also an enabler because he didn't defend Leonard as he should have.

I guess your right. But I Think their is a differentation between subconciously enabling. And actively trying to stop it. We don't even know Bevs Abuse was that bad. ITs not like she struck Leonard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, 3ku11 said:

I guess your right. But I Think their is a differentation between subconciously enabling. And actively trying to stop it. We don't even know Bevs Abuse was that bad. ITs not like she struck Leonard. 

Causing Leonard physical injuries would have got her a few years behind bars. When physical injuries heal, the mental scars are there. Leonard has mental scars anyway. My guess would be he was never hit because he was too frightened to do anything to deserve a smack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

I guess your right. But I Think their is a differentation between subconciously enabling. And actively trying to stop it. We don't even know Bevs Abuse was that bad. ITs not like she struck Leonard. 

What is "subconciously enabling"? Beverly never hid what she did. She wrote about it and it is obvious in every interaction she has with Leonard. By being the father of those children and not stopping the abuse (he was absent instead) he enabled it. Again regardless of reasons, it is what it is. If they say now that Alfred protected them it would be a huge retcon, I can't believe Leonard wouldn't mention this. 

Leonard wasn't phsycially abused but witholding any affection from a baby, toddler, child is mental abuse. It's not that she was just kind of cold and didn't tell him she loved him or didn't hug him. She witheld any kind of affection, even the little smile or glimmer in the eyes, even the "oh yes a butterfly!". Moreover it appears that she had consistently expressed disdain toward him and degraded him (for that there are examples on the show but less so I keep it as "it appears"). This behavior can lead to poor mental and physical health. Maybe Alfred did show him affection when he was there, which lessened the damage somewhat. Maybe a nanny or teachers helped as well. Still, there was mental abuse there caused by Beverly (who by the way if this was IRL would probably be a damaged person herself) and Alfred, whether a victim or not, whether he had good reasons or not, was an enabler of it as per his rule as father. So if he ever appears again I would like to see at least a simple apology and not him being treated as father of the year all of a sudden, the whole discussion started with this.

Edited by bfm
Corrected a word
  • Like 1
  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carlos said:

I agree that based on the (very few) facts we know from TBBT it looks as if Alfred was a victim of Beverly as well. However, IMO, he was also an enabler because he didn't defend Leonard as he should have.

Sure, he didn't defend him, I don't believe that makes him an enabler. Just a lousey father. His main problem was he was always gone, so he wasn't there to defend him.

3 hours ago, bfm said:

If they say now that Alfred protected them it would be a huge retcon, I can't believe Leonard wouldn't mention this. 

Why not? If "YS" can change Sheldon's whole perceptions of his childhood, then why can't Leonard's be changed by new info coming out.? As it was stated earlier, we don't know enough about Alfred's earlier relationship with Leonard to form an opinion of their past. All we can say is Beverly was an imperfect mother who used her children For research and testing of her parenting beliefs. All we know about Alfred was he was always away, had at least one affair and used Leonard's hugging machine. 

Edited by chucky
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chucky said:

Sure, he didn't defend him, I don't believe that makes him an enabler. Just a lousey father. His main problem was he was always gone, so he wasn't there to defend him. 

Yout definition of enabler is different than ours. His father+not stopping his mother's abuse = enabler. For whatever reasons he had.

1 hour ago, chucky said:

Why not? If "YS" can change Sheldon's whole perceptions of his childhood, then why can't Leonard's be changed by new info coming out.? As it was stated earlier, we don't know enough about Alfred's earlier relationship with Leonard to form an opinion of their past. All we can say is Beverly was an imperfect mother who used her children For research and testing of her parenting beliefs. All we know about Alfred was he was always away, had at least one affair and used Leonard's hugging machine. 

You can't do that with Leonard as much as you can with Sheldon. Sheldon's perceptions and representations can be very different than most people's, we have seen it on TBBT (if you went by his descriptions of his friends you would expect different people). Leonard may have misrepresentations and may not remember things accurately but it wouldn't be to the extent it is with Sheldon.

The thing with Beverly is these "parenting beliefs" of her our dangerous and lead to emotional abuse. It's not like "I don't give my kids chocolate" or "I don't let my kids watch TV".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bfm said:

Yout definition of enabler is different than ours. His father+not stopping his mother's abuse = enabler. For whatever reasons he had.

You can't do that with Leonard as much as you can with Sheldon. Sheldon's perceptions and representations can be very different than most people's, we have seen it on TBBT (if you went by his descriptions of his friends you would expect different people). Leonard may have misrepresentations and may not remember things accurately but it wouldn't be to the extent it is with Sheldon.

The thing with Beverly is these "parenting beliefs" of her our dangerous and lead to emotional abuse. It's not like "I don't give my kids chocolate" or "I don't let my kids watch TV".

As I said before, we disagree and will continue to disagree on this subject. Yes, if Sheldon's past can be changed, then so can Leonard's. It's called a sitcom. TPTB and writers will do what they think is funny regardless of what the fans of the show think or feel.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chucky said:

As I said before, we disagree and will continue to disagree on this subject. Yes, if Sheldon's past can be changed, then so can Leonard's. It's called a sitcom. TPTB and writers will do what they think is funny regardless of what the fans of the show think or feel.

I didn't say it is impossible that they would do that. I said it would be a major retcon.

Edited by bfm
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bfm said:

I didn't say it is impossible that they would do that. I said it would be a major retcon.

No more major than what's happening to Sheldon's character in "YS"!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chucky said:

No more major than what's happening to Sheldon's character in "YS"!

There hasn't been that much of a major retcon in YS of Sheldon's experiences - yet.  However, I can understand the fears of those who think one might be coming. 

Sheldon's father has four or five more years to live and so far we've not yet seen drunkenness or womanising, nor have we seen serious quarelling between him and Mary. We have seen a pastor with an issue or two and a Meemaw who's loving and compassionate  - yet we can imagine woe betiding  any wildlife who'd mess with her garden - and has built a life for herself as an active widow apparently no longer needing a day-centre luncheon club. To me she's definitely a younger version of the one I was expecting to meet in 9/14 when we got June Squib's character instead. All the children we've seen are believable. 

The essence of TBBT is that however ridiculous it gets, we can believe in the people we see. There's a powerful charge of credibility in YS too and it's reasonable to suspect the shoes won't start dropping. Personally I think they will if the series lasts that long. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 3ku11 said:

I guess your right. But I Think their is a differentation between subconciously enabling. And actively trying to stop it. We don't even know Bevs Abuse was that bad. ITs not like she struck Leonard. 

IMO, and my opinion only psychological blows can hurt more and longer than physical ones. Besides that, I would venture to say that in Leonard's case it shaped his personality. The fact that he didn't grow up to be a bitter man mad at the world only speaks to the fact that he has a beautiful soul.

  • Like 5
  • Penny Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Burberry said:

It’s been so quiet t around here lately 

Typical for summer hiatus. 

Waiting on news. Emmy news next week, Comic Con news the week after, following the cast/crew summer adventures is pretty much all there is too do. 

6 weeks until the first table read of the 12th season.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, chucky said:

All the excitement is on Kaley's thread.

Thanks!

Just now, vonmar said:

Typical for summer hiatus. 

Waiting on news. Emmy news next week, Comic Con news the week after, following the cast/crew summer adventures is pretty much all there is too do. 

6 weeks until the first table read of the 12th season.

Ohh the emmys nominees are coming out next week 🤭 exciting 😃

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, chucky said:

Sure, he didn't defend him, I don't believe that makes him an enabler. Just a lousey father. His main problem was he was always gone, so he wasn't there to defend him.

Why not? If "YS" can change Sheldon's whole perceptions of his childhood, then why can't Leonard's be changed by new info coming out.? As it was stated earlier, we don't know enough about Alfred's earlier relationship with Leonard to form an opinion of their past. All we can say is Beverly was an imperfect mother who used her children For research and testing of her parenting beliefs. All we know about Alfred was he was always away, had at least one affair and used Leonard's hugging machine. 

Because for that we would need a new series: "Young Leonard" Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Carlos said:

Because for that we would need a new series: "Young Leonard" Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's 2 chances of that happening, slim and none!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.