Sunday, July 24, 2011
Will They Or Won't They
I’m not sure how many Castle fans we have here, but I for one am very excited about the new season. But I’m also worried. In last season’s finale, Kate was shot and Castle told her he loved her as she lost consciousness. My theory is she was wearing a Kevlar vest, so she’s fine, but she’s either going to pretend she didn’t hear him or she won’t remember what he said. I could be totally wrong, but that’s what I’m going with.
Chance is also a fan of this show and adamant that you can put these two into a real relationship and still maintain the show. I have my doubts. I was worried when they put Bones and Booth together. Still waiting to see how that new season goes. Not a fan of how last season ended at all. It was as if the writers got to that last week and said, “Shit, we need a cliffhanger.” And someone went, “Okay, let’s knock up the most intelligent character as if she doesn’t know how to prevent pregnancy.”Yeah. They’ll have to win me back after that.
Anywho, the reason I’m not a fan of putting these kinds of characters together is because from that point on, the only real kink (heh) you can throw into their relationship is to break them up again. I don’t like the spinning wheel of together/not together/back together/apart again. Not that people in real life don’t get together and break up all the time, I just don’t see it handled well on television very often. Putting the characters together killed off both Moonlighting and Remington Steele, two shows I adored. And I know those are ancient history, but I'm old so deal with it.
This got me thinking about Romance novels. We all know a book has to have conflict and if it’s a Romance, then it not only needs some external conflict to drive the plot, it needs internal conflict to drive the relationship. In Historicals, class, family, and societal rules often stand between the love interests. In Contemporaries, it’s more the characters’ histories and experiences that taint their beliefs, perceptions, and even their self-esteem.But in the end, we readers must believe that couple is together forever and nothing is going to pull them apart. I once read two connecting books by Dorothy Garlock, WITH HEART and AFTER THE PARADE, both of which are about the same couple. The setting of the first is pre-WWII Oklahoma. Tough times by any standard, but this couple faced obstacles that include her being an outsider moving into town and him being part Native American. In the end, they found their HEA and I loved that book.
AFTER THE PARADE picks up after WWII and the couple are now separated. I read these books long ago. Long before I contemplated writing one of these things and having all sorts of rules thrust in my direction. I’m pretty sure breaking up characters to whom you already gave a HEA would not only be frowned upon, but lead some to think the writer was nuts for undoing what she’d created for her readers.However, this second book, to this day, is one of my favorites. I have rarely cried as hard as I cried reading this book. The couple deals with the loss of a baby, who was born deformed. The personal blame they each take on results in pushing the other away. Their journey to forgive each other, themselves, and find love again will stay with me for many more years to come.
But would you read something like this today? Would you tolerate spending 400 pages of two people overcoming prejudice, doubts, misunderstandings, and external meddling to reach a satisfying HEA and then dive back in for another 400 in which that HEA is completely undone? Do you hope for your favorite characters to get together or do you prefer that sexual tension keep simmering to a boil?
PS: Ms. Garlock is an amazing writer and I urge you to seek out her books if you haven't already. Her career spans more than 30 years and her books range from the great frontier to the mid-20th Century mid-west.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Books by the Crew
46 comments:
I'm a big fan of writing as close to RL, relationship-wise, as possible. That is true...though sure...I know. A matchmaking Kraken isn't really RL...
Anyway! Would I read a book knowing there would be a big challenge to the relationship I though was settled at the end of the first book? Yeah, I might, as long as I knew the likelihood of HEA or HFN would rise in the end. (Not a big fan of the let's bring in a second guy and make the first a jerk school of writing.)
Yes, I do believe they could make Castle and Beckett work. I just think it would take some screenwriters willing to make it about the characters as a couple and not basing it all on the will they/won't they aspect of things. And the outside conflict thing.
Bones? I'm not sure what the hell is happening with that. The episode with the fantasy relationship when he was in a coma worked sweetly...so it all depends on the writers.
And sexual tension doesn't end with consumation! Geez! How often do I have to tell everyone that? ;-)
I've only seen a few episodes of each of these shows but I think putting them together is going to ruin it. Only because internal struggles will mostly be gone--they're hard to show on tv anyway--so they'll probably start to rely on external conflicts and those aren't usually as compelling.
I hope I'm wrong, for all you fans out there.
As to these books, I read After the Parade, I think, years ago. Though I can't remember as well. I used to glut on romance but I don't remember a lot of them unless they really were favorites. I admit I'm not a big fan of this time period.
The real question though about whether to return to people who've had HEA. I"m not sure I'm a big fan. I read romance for the fantasy of it. I know couples have problems they overcome throughout the course of their marriage, but I want to read the fairy tale. I want to think that once they work through the initial difficulty, they're going to always be happy. I've read series where the author returns to have the couples from previous stories have problems. But it usually annoys me. I think because when I close the book, I leave them there, in the happiness in those last pages. I don't want to picture them going forward to get cancer and die, either. I just want the time to stop on them in that happy time at the end. Because I know real life isn't like that. I want to know where to find that happy when I need it.
Great post, Terri. And I totally agree with Marn's last paragraph. I read for the fantasy, because I *know* that real-life relationships are hard, and a lot of them don't make it very far past the HEA. So I like to pretend, even for 400 pages, that life is good. :)
I'm trying to remember if I've read any Dorothy Garlock, but I think I may be confusing her in my mind with Fern Michaels. One of them had a WW II series that I remember liking. Mmm. Might have to go do some research on that!
I'll have to read After the Parade. (Library didn't have the other one; and I couldn't find it on Amazon except used, though that's possible to get I suppose.) Sounds right up my alley. Right era. Drama, angst, yet a HEA. I prefer some laughs too, but I have missed some LaVyrle Spencer like stories lately.
I don't mind revisiting couples and seeing them in difficulties--so long as they work them out and there is a true HEA again. I'm with Marn--I don't want people to get cancer and die. But I did like the Marsha Moyer series--it spanned four books, and in the first book, they got together and had a HEA, then with the other three books, it was wrecked and brought back together again. It was MAGNIFICENT! *LOL*
Oh, yeah, I didn't answer the important part: Yes, it would totally ruin Castle if they got together. However, dragging out the attraction indefinitely without doing something also ruins a good series. I don't want a Ross & Rachel, on again off again, thing (though I always rooted for them I admit), but there's a certain point, I think, with the unrequited attraction before it wears off or something more permanent happens. After all, you wouldn't want a TV series ala Stephanie Plum--NO GROWTH.
I just typed a comment and WordPress freaking ate it. Grrrr.... Let me see if this works and then I'll try again.
Fine. *grumble grumble*
Chance - My "Will they or won't they?" question is "Will they have sex?" Not will they get together and live HEA. That means once they do have sex, the question goes away. And I'm not a fan of the "Will they have sex AGAIN?!" question. Not on television anyway.
Marn - You don't like the mid-20th century time period? I love it and wish there were more Romances set in that time. But then I guess you're in the majority as they're nearly impossible to find outside of Ms. Garlock's work.
I understand your feelings that the couple should have their HEA and then ride off into the sunset of your imagination. I think I was surprised back when I read these two books, but I never hesitated to read them. I'm not sure how I'd feel about it today.
Donna - I haven't read Fern Michaels but I do think these ladies have similar styles. Back in the 90s I glommed Ms. Garlock's backlist, which is extensive to say the least, and still have many of her older works. I should probably share those with a library or UBS so others can find her too.
You'll have to report back on your research. I'd be interested in finding a WWII series if Ms. Michaels has one.
Hellie - A love of this time period is one of the few things reading-wise we have in common. There is less humor in Ms. Garlock's work, but it's not all dark either. It's mostly sweet. And tugs the heck out of your heartstrings.
That is the fine line. Don't have them pining for all eternity but don't put them together and ruin it. No wonder keeping these kinds of shows going is such a tough thing to do. I know with Castle, I don't like how wishy-washy they've made Kate. At one point she realized she was falling for him and then the storyline changed and it was back to Castle being the one giving the longing looks.
They'll have to make Kate a lot more consistent before I'll settle into anything real between them.
Terri, I don't think the Fern Michaels books are in print anymore, but they all had "Texas" in the title. They were the saga type things you don't see as much anymore, but I used to love them. Now I probably wouldn't be patient enough!
I was watching White Collar the other night and I feel like they're diluting what was fun about it -- all so they can expand the possible storyline. I guess they have to do that to keep a TV series going, but it makes me lose interest, especially when the characters don't act in character anymore. :(
Makes me glad I write books, not TV episodes.
Yeesh. I hate when they make the character so wishy-washy to keep the what-if, sexual tension quality. At a certain point, you're just, "Just sleep with him already!" But then that's why books are only about 350 pages and series are capped off after about 3-4 books. Anything beyond that, and the romance aspect gets stale. You can get the other stuff to work--it's new and fresh; you can always find a new dead body to solve, but solving your relationship problem and rehashing the same question ineffectively gets OLD.
I don't know what would make it different. Start out with a married couple--and then have the dramas be stuff WITHIN the relationship?? Would that work? Would people be interested in that sort of thing?
That was my exact suggestion to Chance. The examples where this worked are shows like Hart to Hart. They were married going in and they solved mysteries. But there was never (that I remember) a question of "Will they break up?!"
But they were clearly in love and flirtatious with each other so there was the romance you needed to make it about more than solving crimes.
Donna - For some reason, I've been recording White Collar all summer and not watching them. I was kind of annoyed by the ending of the last season. The relationship with Neil and Burke is like a Romance in that it's about trusting each other. When Burke turned on Neil, it just pissed me off.
I guess I'll get around to watching them eventually.
Terri, I'm feeling the same way about the Neil and Burke situation. I can see why they did it, but it takes away from the banter between them, and it feels like the writers are flailing.
The one I watched last night (which I think Hulu makes me wait 30 days to see) -- they have all this backstory with Mozzy and having him be some do-gooder. Ack. That's not what the show is about. I love Mozzy's amoral attitudes. Don't clean him up!
Bottom line: I don't feel like I'm missing anything if I don't see the shows. It's the equivalent of setting the book down at the end of the chapter and not feeling compelled to pick it back up again. :)
Not Mozzy! When I read your first comment about the show, I thought, "As long as they don't mess with Mozzy's character." Now I'm really mad. LOL!
So we need a modern adaptation of Hart to Hart (because watching reruns is sooo cheesy). Why not? We have Charlie's Angels coming out this Fall, why not H2H?
Still happy marital bliss doesn't make for the same sort of angst and drama we vicariously love to watch. Face it, we love the Big Fuck Ups. Even when we watch funny, we want you to suffer.
I'm a fan of the tension between two characters who aren't romantic partners but you can obviously tell they are attracted to one another. That's what makes me keep reading. That's what keeps me watching. Once there's not some sort of forbidden feeling to it anymore I lose interest.
I reserve the right to retract that if Ranger and Stephanie hook up in the end. I think they've got enough excitement between them to keep it interesting. I can imagine all sorts of adventures. Anyone else- blah.
*Spoiler*
Sort of like Michael and Fiona. (Burn Notice) Now that I have cable and can watch it on the regular, them living together bores me. And the fact that the CIA took him back bores me.
I confess that I think series, televised or novels, should have a definite expiration date. The best series usually trade on some cute shtick. For example, "Friends" = "the trials and tribulations of being young and on your own for the first time." "Bones" is primarily a mystery/crime show, but it relies on the cute sexual tension between the characters, notably Bones and Booth. The afore mentioned Stephanie Plum series gets its energy from the fact that Stephanie really isn't suited to be a bounty hunter and the love triangle with Morelli and Ranger.
"Friends" lost its mojo when the characters started growing up, getting real jobs and grownup relationships. Janet Evanovich has sort of written herself into a corner. Readers are tired of the love triangle and Stephanie's perpetual incompetence. But if she makes Stephanie more competent, or chose a guy, Evanovich risks killing the cash cow premise. Some shows ("Mash") can flog an idea for longer than others. I mean, "Glee" is already starting to show some wear, and it's what, just the 3rd season? But at some point, a la "Mash," the "war" must end, and characters exit the stage.
I imagine as a writer/creator it's hard to end a series while it's still seemingly in its prime. (Especially, when someone is throwing heaps of money at you to write more episodes.) But the alternative so often is to push a premise far beyond its lifespan.
Oh, and I haven't watched "Castle," but I used to watch "Bones." It was one of my husband and I's favorite shows. I loved the contrast between Bones's (Aspergers-driven) intellectual/scientific approach vs. Bones's emotional, sometimes faith-based approaches to life and crime solving. The subtle sexual tension was lovely. I particularly loved Bones because she wasn't the typical "female" character; because she was sex positive, and completely self-assured, while still being compassionate.
The Relationship, IMO, has totally wrecked that. And, as you noted, I don't understand why someone that smart can't master birth control. IMO, the addition of the baby/cute kid to a storyline that wasn't about kids, signals the approach of the jumpable shark. Thar she blows, strap on your water skis.
I saw the pregnancy episode, and I cringed when Bones said she was pregnant.
"...vs. Booth's emotional and sometimes...." Butter fingers.
I know what you meant! LOL! I'm sure the end of Bones is near. Suspencion of disbelief is going to be hard for me if they're out solving horrible murders and I'm wondering who the heck is watching the kid.
You're right about stories, be they on the screen or the page, running their course. Seems the harder the writers work to keep it going, the worse the shows get. I admire the ones who know when it's time to get out, before the unstoppable downward slide begins.
I don't read the JD Robb books, but from what I understand, she's mastered how to keep a series going, keep the readers involved, and do it all with a couple already married. Anyone read those who can tell me what her trick is?
I almost never watch TV. Thus, I have nothing to offer on Castle, which I've never seen, or Bones, which I saw only a couple of times at someone else's home. I do agree about Moonlighting and Remington Steele, shows I did watch faithfully. My favorite TV couple is Donna Moss and Josh Lyman on West Wing. The attraction simmered through most of the seven-year run of the show and heated up only as the show was ending. They had some of the best banter ever written, and THE KISS is the stuff of legends. Sometimes TV gets it perfect.
As for couples breaking up and getting back together in a book, I will repeat myself for doubtless the 1000th time and say that for me it all depends on the writer. My instinct is to say no. I want the HEA to last. But I'm with Hellie on Lucy and Ashe, and that series by Marsha Moyer is one of my favorites ever. OTOH, there are a couple of mystery series that I stopped reading when a spouse was killed off. Break-ups can end in reunions; death marks a final, unhappy end to the romance.
Sin - I know Chance is going to tear in here and say you can still have sexual tension after they have sex. Yes, you can. But it's RARELY achieved on television. That's the problem. As Janga says, some shows to get it right. But that is not the norm. Not in my experience and I have extensive experience watching television. LOL!
You need to write that, Hellie. Oh wait, you sort of are. LOL! Yes, suffering is important. Oddly, I don't need as much suffering on television as I do in books. When I see Castle's heart breaking AGAIN because Beckett is being clueless, I get angry. When I read something similar in a book, I get all mushy. Not sure what this says about me.
In the book, we read the reason behind everyone acting the way they do. On TV, we only see Castle--and we can immediately empathize. We don't have Kate's motivation and it pisses us off because she seems heartless.
I knew you'd be able to explain it, Hellie. Yes! And this is probably also why I prefer 3rd person so I can get inside the head of both characters.
Janga - We all agree this stuff only works if done well, but if you read the back of a book and see this is the case, then your judgement may come from that knowledge alone. I suppose if it's an author with whom you're familiar and trust, that would play into it.
Killing off a beloved character is always dicey. I've only heard of it a few times and the reaction from readers has never been positive as far as I remember.
"Sin – I know Chance is going to tear in here and say you can still have sexual tension after they have sex. Yes, you can. But it’s RARELY achieved on television."
I can't recall a series where the sexual tension bubble was popped with the sexing, *and* the show kept its sexy mojo. I think it fails if the show is relying (as Bones does) on sexual tension as part of the premise. As I see it, the problem is that what was once just a cute little flirtation, interspersed within a larger plot (finding the bad guy), now becomes this ten-ton-heavy-thing that must be addressed in every scene. Basically, the Relationship takes over. (Similarly, a baby does the same thing. Now, instead of neat, sciencey, crime lab stuff, Bones's storyline will include chunks of pregnancy/baby raising angst/hijinks. ZZZZzzzzz.)
That's it, Pat. Doing it and doing it successfully. I'm almost afraid they'll have Bones lose the baby and then it's about how it wasn't meant to be or something. Then Booth, an clear athiest, will have a crisis of faith and it's like we have all new characters.
This is all guesswork for me, but like you, I can't figure out how they could make a baby work. And after Hodgins and Angela just had one!
*tearing into the convo...
Yes! You can have sexual tension after they...wait for it...actually MAKE LOVE! Not just have sex.
JD Robb does it...how? Well, she admits to the complexity that they don't know everything about each other and both have these time bombs in their past (emotional things) that rise up on occassion and create conflict. There is never a fear that they are going to separate, but will be separated...by death, by circumstances they can't control, by the outside forces which still exist because of their twisted past.
Marriage is a discovery and Eve and Rourke are constantly discovering new things and they aren't always sugar coated and sweet. That's the main problem with most authors (and screenwriters) who try to do this and fail at it...the sour is part of the process and it's EASY to just have them divorce... It's a challenge to make it work.
That said, I think Kate and Castle could have a deeply passionate relationship and make it work. Because she still has time bombs, as does he.
As for Fe and Michael on Burn Notice...I'm not bored, Sin! I love watching them wrestle with how to acknowlege they are a couple while still dealing with the inherent danger of what they do for a living. And I love watching Michael figure out that being back in the CIA isn't all its cracked up to be. Fe knew this and is being smart, not poking at him.
*climbing off my soapbox now
How they would make a baby work...nannies. She's wealthy. ;-) And they'd just skip over the while she's pregnant stuff...
Will they do that? No idea. And I do agree with Pat. Sometimes a series needs an expiration date. I understand Fringe has one and I'm glad...because then they won't beat it into something without merit...or convolute it (ala Lost) to the point of who gives a flying f*ck.
I'm not going to like either of them very much if the child spends 14hrs a day with a Nanny. I'm sorry, but that doesn't work for me.
And if there is never the fear that Eve and Rourke will separate, what keeps you turning the page? Is it because those storied weigh heavier on the mystery/suspense side?
Totally agree that making them work it out is the tougher way to go, but when have television writers ever taken the tougher way? Pulling the characters apart seems to be their recipe to keep viewers tuning in. And I for one am amazed that viewers will keep going back no matter how many times they pull them apart. (I'm thinking Grey's Anatomy here, which I stopped watching ages ago but can tell from the commercials they pull this often.)
Let me see...the suspense is the mystery, that is certain. Will Eve figure it out before someone else gets hurt, etc. How will Rourke help, will she accept his help, etc.
For me, though, the suspense of how it will flavor their relationship...how will he handle what he discovers about his past, will he share it with her...what she discovers about her past, will she be able to share it with him... It's very complex, emotionally...and the making love/sex aspect of it is more part of how they come back together from the revelations of their past and what they both do in the present...
Yeah, there is never fear that they will not love each other...but the mystery of how will they navigate through the sludge of their pasts to build a future. Will she ever feel safe enough or secure enough to have a baby, for example.
And the right nanny...besides, you have to be able to suspend belief that the timeline is flexible. The cases we watch don't happen the 'next day and the next day and next day'...there are long periods where life is just normal and they both go home to junior and play silly games and wipe up baby spit, etc.
Granted, books make it easier when it comes to time off, because they'll spell it out. Unless a movie or series has a tree that is showing the passage of the seasons...hard to do on TV.
How many secrets could two characters possibly have?! Aren't there like 20-something in that series? I could see old wounds flaring up now and then, but I don't care how complex two characters are, when the series has gone on that long and they still don't know everything about each other, I'm out.
Not that I doubt something in them keeps bringing people back, but I don't see any reason to want to dive into that line.
Welllll, actually I think it's possible to have secrets, even after knowing someone all your life. I do believe people keep some things quiet from everyone, for any number of reasons. It wouldn't make me leave a series. That's the sort of thing I like, because eventually your hens do come home to roost and how you deal with the secrets revealed shows real character.
Can it be sustained believable on a long series? Not well, usually. To keep the drama high, you reveal a deep dark secret every season and it eventually gets old. Like you're using the wrong cliche. Which is actually the problem. The problem is not having secrets. The problem is that it's not changed up enough to be believable.
I vote for Nannies. 2 job families leave their children with babysitters for about 10 hours or so--and I don't think they're bad parents. Still, it would be more of a challenge to have the character deal with sick babysitters, or trying to find someone on the weekend. Why cut out your natural conflict?
Even though there are a bazillion Eve and Rourke books out there, the time that has passed isn't that much. I think two years or so.
And omg, yes, secrets are sometimes buried so deep, especially those that take root in deep trauma. IE, childhood sexual abuse, torture, physical beating, the trauma of war and violence, mind games by so-called caring parents...
The secrets between Eve and Rourke are sometimes buried so deep, they are a surprise to the one who holds it.
I have to admit, it would be hard to sustain that sort of thing on TV, due to the limitations of no internal dialogue of anysort. One of the reasons I enjoy In Plain Sight and Burn Notice, is the voice over the show begins and ends with, with the main character reflecting on the 'lessons' learned and memories revisited...
And if I may add...I think Kate has a lot going on inside regarding her buried feelings for Castle. She moved on, because she is a very practical woman...but they are still there. Just not so obvious. And yes, I feel like there are 'tells'...but they are quick and can be hard to catch...
Well, in the case of mysteries, most series I've read rely on setting as an important character, so to speak. For example, Tony Hillerman's mysteries are set on the Rez. So a big part of the enjoyment of the series is the setting: the quirks and idiosyncrasies of life on the reservation. For those outside the Southwest, it's probably kind of exotic. For those of us who live here, it's fun to nod along and go, "Oh, yeah, that's so true."
Hillerman also has an interesting protagonist; and features intriguing crimes and secondary characters. So, quite often readers aren't just returning for human characters, they're returning for the setting.
(The issue with Bones is that I don't watch it to see people raising children. When I want kid angst, I watch Raising Hope.)
The more you explain this series, Chance, the more my nose crinkles. Not for me. And I love Nora, but no thanks.
Good point, Pat. Don't lose the intention behind the show. Or in other words, dance with the one who brought you. Many scenes on Bones take place late at night. They frequently meet at a diner and at a local bar. They're in the lab at all hours. I'm not buying the nanny. Sorry.
Not unless these things change and they don't have time for so much meeting up. Her life will have to drastically change and I don't see the show sustaining with those changes.
I'd come closer to reading the Eve and Rourke books, but they're still not quite blowing my skirt up. :)
Oh, I have a massage scheduled for tomorrow at 4 pm. Let's hope me mentioning it doesn't jinx it.
BTW, totally looking forward to the movie coming out this weekend: Crazy Stupid Love. It's new love and old love--and the ups and downs of both. Whoot!!!
;-) S'ok, Bo'sun, we all set sail to differin' winds! I grew up on Tarzan and Jane and the like, even MacMillan and Wife, etc... I like watching long marrieds deal with the landscape of discovery... Gods, I've been married 30+ years and Steph and I still find ourselves uncovering motivations, landminds, etc.
It's like...well, I had a cousin who as an adult sat across from my Mom and said he thought my Dad went home and beat my mother after family gatherings. He was very matter-of-fact about it. He thought that was just the normal way of things as a kid...it's what his dad did. That's the sort of landmine that can explode in the middle of a relationship, inasmuch as it causes twists and turns that linger, even when the adult knows better.
Funny, I set my stories in totally made up worlds, but I admit...the human frailities that are set by upbringing are constantly explored in what I write. Real world struggles.
And Hel, if you decide to read them, start at the beginning. It goes a long way to explaining the complexities of their relationship.
Very late to the party... Hi all!!! Life's been crazy (crazier) lately but I check in here when I can and get my dose of intelligent insights, humor and all around fun writing info. Thanks, ladies!
I love the blog, Ter. I was one of those who loved Remington Steele and Moonlighting and thought it lacked a little something after they got together. More so with Moonlighting than with RS (or maybe I just didn't care as long as Pierce was on the scene *LOL*), but still it just wasn't the same.
I've only seen Bones and Castle once or twice and couldn't say whether they could make it work or not. Unlike most people, though, I'm one of those that always want them to at least try. One of these days someone is going to get it right and be able to do sexual tension and sex at the same time. Who knows this could be the one...
I'm kind of dealing with this issue because I finally read Outlander by Diana Gabaldon. After years of putting it off I downloaded it from my library onto my Nook. It took me all of the two week lending period to get through it (RL interrupted quite often). I did like it and now I'm pondering whether I want to read the sequel/s. I'm not sure I want to see these characters I've come to really like go through hell again and again.
Hey there, Irish. I'm with you on the crazy. And I have less crazy than normal, but I can't figure out why I don't have more down time. Huh.
Weren't those shows awesome? Tuesday night was my parents bowling night and the only time I got to stay up to watch these two shows. Pierce was so dreamy and talk about aging well. He's still dreamy.
Bruce? Well, he's Bruce.
You'll have to keep us posted about diving into the next Outlander books. Those are much too daunting for me, and I admit time travel is not my favorite story element. I hope the crazy slows down soon. When do your kiddos head back to school? I saw someone on FB say their kids go back in like a week. Mine doesn't start until after Labor Day.
Love Castle both the show and actor. He and Beckett have such great chemistry.
They will either both ignore his profession of love or she will not have heard it.
Of course she isnt dead! LOL.
Welcome, Pat! I know, she can't be dead. That's why I'm keeping my Kevlar vest theory going. LOL! I follow Nathan on Twitter and he is really funny. He has the goofy sense of humor that combined with that pretty face is hard to resist.
:)
Hey Ter! They go back August 17th... and my baby is starting HS! Yikes - I don't know who is more nervous me or him? LOL
Wow. That's 3 wks before Kiddo. Though you guys also get out way earlier for summer.
Best of luck on the HS thing. I was crazy nervous for Kiddo to go to Middle School because it was changing classes and she'd have to make sure she was where she needed to be with less supervision. But she did it beautifully and wasn't worried at all. I think the move to HS will be easier, but the reality of it by knock me off my feet.
Yeah, each year it's something new. I remember worrying for him in middle school too, for the same reason. He's not a go-getter like my daughter. He does better when told what to do (just like every other man I've met! LOL) I should probably try breaking him of that now, huh?
This year my daughter has started driving too! That's nerve wracking. Only with her permit now, though, so at least I haven't had to sit home wondering if she was going to return in one piece... yet! I thought this was all suppose to get easier?!
Post a Comment