Marco Rossi, one of the better and more astute commentators on Digital Spy's Soaps Forum, seems to have a problem with Sharon. He posits:-
Before I enumerate and answer Marco's questions, let me address the "flabby" situation. Never before in the history of Eastenders have I encountered so many physically beautiful people - Toad Jnr AKA PinocchioBoy, his bony squeeze Lollygag Lucy, Lauren the Gurner, the duo known as Shitney, along with Tanya the Yummy Mummy and her ex-and-soon-to-be-next husband's arse, not to mention Katshit's tits.
I've watched EastEnders since its beginning. Characters like Michelle and Mark Fowler would have no place on today's show - Michelle with her acne, younger Ian looking like a kid instead of an adolescent. Today's plain faces - your Billy Mitchells, for example - are played for laughs, not to mention the ubiquitous sad fat clowns, which became a tradition with Barry Evans and continued through to Heather and Andrew.
Whenever EastEnders goes looking for beauty or testosterone, they fall flat on their faces. Who remembers "fit" Jamie Mitchell turning down Zoe Slater to be with "flabby" Sonia? Or "fit" Stacey Slater going for "geeky" Bradley Branning?
Sharon's not particularly flabby. She's full-figured and a specific body type; and as for Phil, some of the most beautiful women to grace the Square - Dawn, Kate and most recently Glenda - have bedded down with him, so he must be pretty good in that department. And don't forget "fit" Connor preferred Carol, a grandmother, to the charms of the feminine half of Shitney.
A lot of times, beautiful people are way too much in love with themselves to prove any sort of viable lover for someone else. If you watch closely, you'll see that on the programme. Anyway, to Marco Rossi's questions.
Actually, that's an unfair assumption and highly prejudicial. When Sharon left Walford in 2006, she was financially sound. She had the proceeds from the sale of Angie's Den and she inherited the bookies from Dennis. As it was referenced when she returned in 2001, she was also penniless - Steve Owen invested in the Vic and she fronted it. The reason behind that financial collapse had nothing to do with incompetence and everything to do with the fact that Angie fell terminally ill from her alcoholism. At that time, there was no health service in the US and they had exhausted Angie's private medical cover. In order to pay for her treatment, they had to sell their bar and the house they owned. That's not incompetence; until this year, that was a way of life for many people in the US.
As for this time, Sharon lived in Florida. Florida was one of the states hardest hit by the bursting on the housing bubble and the economy in general. It's very plausible that Sharon could have lost her home, as well as her job, in the current crisis - and, again, that's not down to incompetence. Until you've experienced such a calamity, you've no right to assume incompetence. There are a lot of "incompetent" people all over the Western world lately.
Heather forgot about George all day when she went traipsing off to look for Queenie in search of financial help. Tanya regularly forgets Oscar, especially when she's fucking Sean or Max behind the latest husband's back. Time was, Roxy didn't see Amy for days if Dot were available to babysit. Dawn forgot Summer on occasion, and let's not forget all those times when the Beale twins were small and Bobby was a baby that Jane and Ian were either both working or propping up the bar at the Vic.
Again, the second part of that question is an assumption. She turned to Phil because he was a long-standing friend, and she was at the end of her tether. She had never contacted him before because Sharon is a person with a high sense of pride, and she only asks for help when she's absolutely and positively desperate - as opposed to Tanya, when she'd kicked Max out and honed in on Jack, asking him to come change the batteries in a fucking torch.
From the looks of things with John and Nina, it seems as though she was in a particularly abusive relationship, or at least one where control would be sought by wittling away at Sharon's self-esteem. Again, Tanya would have married John, fucked Max, and when John beat the shit out of Max, she would have said that was Max's fault.
Come on, she was in an emotional state when she arrived, and she didn't realise this was an engagement party. Besides, Phil's arm wasn't twisted. He should have apologised for leaving; and had he not wanted to go and had explained to her, she would have apologised. Sharon's not rude, contrary to what you might think, mate.
And your point? That wasn't even a mild flirtation, and this society isn't the Taliban. Shit, Kat's done worse.
Max? She was in his house. She saw family pictures and saw that he had children. Phil introduced them. Sharon was suss enough to know that if Phil trusted Max enough to ask him to look after Sharon, then she could trust him to look after Dennis.
Who hasn't on EastEnders? Chelsea Fox slept with Grant Mitchell after an hour. Kat had a knee-trembler with the deliveryman. Lollygag Lucy slept with PinocchioBoy after knowing him for five minutes. I could go on. Sharon is single; Jack is single. Scores of people who have only just met have consensual sex.
I seem to recall Dennis Rickman sleeping with all and sundry after just meeting them when he arrived also.
In point of fact, Phil told her she could stay and shoved her off on Max temporarily. She wasn't to know that the world had imploded with Ben during the time everything else transpired that afternoon. Phil told her, without regard for his so-called fiancee.
Uuuhh ... since when does she expect everyone to help her? Jack offered her his flat, she didn't ask to stay with him. Possibly, the only person she did ask for accommodation was Ian, after having left Jack's flat; and when Lucy made it clear she wasn't welcome for more than a night (because Sharon would have been certain to have sussed Lucy's treachery, she left). She left and went to the B and B, even though Jack offered her his flat again. As for the B and B, it's not unreasonable to expect your room to be cleaned, so her request to Kim and Denise was not out of order. She approached Ian, Janine and Phil for work because she knew them. When starting out looking for employment, most people do consult friends for leads.
Please, get over your Sharon hate. Scores of other women on the soap (and men) have done worse.
so what exactly is it about current Sharon that is so "classy"? What has she demonstrated in the last week that is worthy of labelling it as "classy"?He's got an open Sharon aversion, expostulated earlier in the thread when another poster wondered why Sharon would even be interested in "flabby" Phil when she could have "fit" Jack. Marco Rossi wondered why Jack would worry himself with "flabby" Sharon.
Before I enumerate and answer Marco's questions, let me address the "flabby" situation. Never before in the history of Eastenders have I encountered so many physically beautiful people - Toad Jnr AKA PinocchioBoy, his bony squeeze Lollygag Lucy, Lauren the Gurner, the duo known as Shitney, along with Tanya the Yummy Mummy and her ex-and-soon-to-be-next husband's arse, not to mention Katshit's tits.
I've watched EastEnders since its beginning. Characters like Michelle and Mark Fowler would have no place on today's show - Michelle with her acne, younger Ian looking like a kid instead of an adolescent. Today's plain faces - your Billy Mitchells, for example - are played for laughs, not to mention the ubiquitous sad fat clowns, which became a tradition with Barry Evans and continued through to Heather and Andrew.
Whenever EastEnders goes looking for beauty or testosterone, they fall flat on their faces. Who remembers "fit" Jamie Mitchell turning down Zoe Slater to be with "flabby" Sonia? Or "fit" Stacey Slater going for "geeky" Bradley Branning?
Sharon's not particularly flabby. She's full-figured and a specific body type; and as for Phil, some of the most beautiful women to grace the Square - Dawn, Kate and most recently Glenda - have bedded down with him, so he must be pretty good in that department. And don't forget "fit" Connor preferred Carol, a grandmother, to the charms of the feminine half of Shitney.
A lot of times, beautiful people are way too much in love with themselves to prove any sort of viable lover for someone else. If you watch closely, you'll see that on the programme. Anyway, to Marco Rossi's questions.
Is it:
- the fact that she has been so incompetent that she ended up without a penny to her name and has clearly had her life prior to that completely funded by some bloke?
Actually, that's an unfair assumption and highly prejudicial. When Sharon left Walford in 2006, she was financially sound. She had the proceeds from the sale of Angie's Den and she inherited the bookies from Dennis. As it was referenced when she returned in 2001, she was also penniless - Steve Owen invested in the Vic and she fronted it. The reason behind that financial collapse had nothing to do with incompetence and everything to do with the fact that Angie fell terminally ill from her alcoholism. At that time, there was no health service in the US and they had exhausted Angie's private medical cover. In order to pay for her treatment, they had to sell their bar and the house they owned. That's not incompetence; until this year, that was a way of life for many people in the US.
As for this time, Sharon lived in Florida. Florida was one of the states hardest hit by the bursting on the housing bubble and the economy in general. It's very plausible that Sharon could have lost her home, as well as her job, in the current crisis - and, again, that's not down to incompetence. Until you've experienced such a calamity, you've no right to assume incompetence. There are a lot of "incompetent" people all over the Western world lately.
- the fact that she forgot about her son and left him behind twice within couple of hours?
Heather forgot about George all day when she went traipsing off to look for Queenie in search of financial help. Tanya regularly forgets Oscar, especially when she's fucking Sean or Max behind the latest husband's back. Time was, Roxy didn't see Amy for days if Dot were available to babysit. Dawn forgot Summer on occasion, and let's not forget all those times when the Beale twins were small and Bobby was a baby that Jane and Ian were either both working or propping up the bar at the Vic.
- the fact that she knocked on Phil's door shamelessly with full intention of coming back to the square after he rescued her son, because she had nowhere else to go?
Again, the second part of that question is an assumption. She turned to Phil because he was a long-standing friend, and she was at the end of her tether. She had never contacted him before because Sharon is a person with a high sense of pride, and she only asks for help when she's absolutely and positively desperate - as opposed to Tanya, when she'd kicked Max out and honed in on Jack, asking him to come change the batteries in a fucking torch.
From the looks of things with John and Nina, it seems as though she was in a particularly abusive relationship, or at least one where control would be sought by wittling away at Sharon's self-esteem. Again, Tanya would have married John, fucked Max, and when John beat the shit out of Max, she would have said that was Max's fault.
- the fact that she never ended up apologising to Shirley she interrupted their engagement party?
Come on, she was in an emotional state when she arrived, and she didn't realise this was an engagement party. Besides, Phil's arm wasn't twisted. He should have apologised for leaving; and had he not wanted to go and had explained to her, she would have apologised. Sharon's not rude, contrary to what you might think, mate.
- the fact that she asks a married man that she has only just met to guess what dress size she is?
And your point? That wasn't even a mild flirtation, and this society isn't the Taliban. Shit, Kat's done worse.
- the fact that she has a man she has never met before baby sit her son?
Max? She was in his house. She saw family pictures and saw that he had children. Phil introduced them. Sharon was suss enough to know that if Phil trusted Max enough to ask him to look after Sharon, then she could trust him to look after Dennis.
- the fact that she sleeps with a bloke she has only just met?
Who hasn't on EastEnders? Chelsea Fox slept with Grant Mitchell after an hour. Kat had a knee-trembler with the deliveryman. Lollygag Lucy slept with PinocchioBoy after knowing him for five minutes. I could go on. Sharon is single; Jack is single. Scores of people who have only just met have consensual sex.
I seem to recall Dennis Rickman sleeping with all and sundry after just meeting them when he arrived also.
- the fact that she expected Phil to take her and her son in, and when he wouldn't little madam found herself a bit offended as if it is an assumed fact that a bloke would want to do such a thing for her, depsite having a big family (and a new fiancee) under his roof?
In point of fact, Phil told her she could stay and shoved her off on Max temporarily. She wasn't to know that the world had imploded with Ben during the time everything else transpired that afternoon. Phil told her, without regard for his so-called fiancee.
- the fact that she expects other people to help her with everything she does?
Uuuhh ... since when does she expect everyone to help her? Jack offered her his flat, she didn't ask to stay with him. Possibly, the only person she did ask for accommodation was Ian, after having left Jack's flat; and when Lucy made it clear she wasn't welcome for more than a night (because Sharon would have been certain to have sussed Lucy's treachery, she left). She left and went to the B and B, even though Jack offered her his flat again. As for the B and B, it's not unreasonable to expect your room to be cleaned, so her request to Kim and Denise was not out of order. She approached Ian, Janine and Phil for work because she knew them. When starting out looking for employment, most people do consult friends for leads.
Please, get over your Sharon hate. Scores of other women on the soap (and men) have done worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment