|
Post by zoar3 on Dec 9, 2011 17:27:30 GMT -5
I have taught preschoolers who were barely 2, a couple not quite that "old." These days, unfortunately, a lot of so-called preschools seem to focus on kids 2-4. From 4-5 or sometimes even a year after if the child has a later birthday (here in CA a kid has to have turned 5 before September 1st in order to enter preschool) its more of a bootcamp for Kindergarten aka developmental or transitional preschool. I'm not a fan of either but won't get started on that sore spot of mine.
Back to Watson/Elizabeth and Lisa/Seth. From the little I've read about Seth, I have to agree he does seem like the best of the 4. He's much more laid-back and even as others have said if its just chaperoning the kids, he's with them more.
One of the things that bothered and bugged me the most was that whenever Watson or Elizabeth were going out for whatever reason they inevitably booked the BSC instead of simply asking if Lisa or Seth could take the kids. I think the same was true vice versa though I have not read many LS books at all. I realize all this was so we could read more sitting jobs but in the "real world" I would hope if all 4 parents were good and healthy people, involved in their kids' lives, no matter whose weekend it was, first call would be to them. But then I also don't buy that Andrew especially would be okay with spending an entire month at one house with limited contact with the other. I know Karen called Kristy at "the big house" numerous times but did they ever do likewise for their mom or Seth? Odd.
Baby debate, strictly to perhaps give Emily more of a back-story it would have been very interesting had Lisa and Seth either adopted or had a child together. It would have also made for a twist had Elizabeth "accidentally" gotten pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by virgoscorpio on Dec 9, 2011 19:35:59 GMT -5
I guess I am attracted to Jesus, sparklymouse!
I can see your point about the Engles and Brewers using the BSC instead of each other BUT maybe they did so to make it less confusing? Let's say, for example, Karen and Andrew are at the Little House and they need to be babysat for a few hours while Lisa goes out, they go to the Big House -- what happens if they don't want to go back? Or have to go back for a few hours, maybe get started in some activity, and have to leave. I think it would be even more difficult for a kid. Now at least they have a structured schedule? But it could work out for big kids, like teenagers? Who knows. I get your idea though.
|
|
|
Post by zoar3 on Dec 9, 2011 20:29:26 GMT -5
^That is a great point, Virgo. It just seemed like 90%+ of the time Andrew and Karen stayed at their dad's, they BSC was called in while Watson and Elizabeth went to some estate sale. I just think there could have been some flexibility. If they didn't want to leave one house, maybe they needed to stay!
|
|
|
Post by sparklymouse on Dec 9, 2011 20:48:33 GMT -5
I always wished there was a teenage "two-two" in the books for the going back and forth reason. Divorce was way too dramatic in Stoneybrook.
|
|
|
Post by virgoscorpio on Dec 9, 2011 23:33:16 GMT -5
Why would you prefer a teenage two-two? Just to see what it was like for a teenage perspective as opposed to a seven or four year old? haha
|
|
|
Post by zoar3 on Dec 10, 2011 0:12:03 GMT -5
Maybe the board will "allow" me to post here. It's not granting me the favor in the "what's new" thread at all. We never got much of the "teenage perspective" from either Dawn or Stacey. Certainly never the pre-teen one from Jeff. I wonder how the storylines might have differed had Jack lived on the East Coast and Ed farther away. That switch might have shown us much more father time with his kids and a fuller experience for both Stacey, Dawn, and Jeff. Even the parents. Another possibility could have been one day Ed getting a promotion farther than a train ride away or heck maybe in Stoneybrook itself. We never (not much of Lisa and Seth) got to see how divorced parents with kids interacted in CT. All the families that were divorced (Barrett, DeWitt, Kuhns, etc) only showed "one side." No matter the age of the kids it would have rounded out the characters much better to have seen both.
|
|
|
Post by virgoscorpio on Dec 10, 2011 0:36:11 GMT -5
Or what if Ed stayed in Stoneybrook and worked there AND he and Maureen still got a divorce? Stacey would have been a two-two then. ALTHOUGH I think it would be much easier for a 13 year old as they're more self-sufficient, so going back-and-forth would be easier.
That would have been funny if he and Maureen got a duplex or something, even though I know that would never happen.
|
|
|
Post by greer on Dec 10, 2011 6:05:54 GMT -5
I thought it was weird how inflexible the custody arrangements for Karen and Andrew seemed to be.
|
|
|
Post by zoar3 on Dec 10, 2011 11:33:51 GMT -5
^I thought that, also, Virgo. Ed and Maureen also could have separated for awhile that way (much easier) and maybe even gotten back together. As for Jack and Sharon, if they lived closer together, I think the writers would have had to include Jeff more and his relationship with Sharon.
I always wondered who came up with the Andrew and Karen arrangements. We know that Karen asked (and got) the one month at each house deal but was that and other agreements court made or (as I think) Lisa and Watson made? If the latter, there is no reason for being so stringent. One thing I loved about both Ed and Maureen at least at the beginning of their divorce, well before they divorced, is that they told Stacey she could divide up her time however she wanted and that her time was hers not theirs. I know A and K are much younger but the same should still apply, probably just in a little more structured way.
|
|
|
Post by wenonah4th on Dec 10, 2011 11:58:30 GMT -5
It may have been the default arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by sparklymouse on Dec 10, 2011 20:37:10 GMT -5
Why would you prefer a teenage two-two? Just to see what it was like for a teenage perspective as opposed to a seven or four year old? haha Kind of what zoar3 said. Teenagers are more self-sufficient. I hope that part of the rigidness with Karen and Andrew came with the fact that they needed someone with them wherever they were. It's easier to have a schedule planned out for everyone's benefit. If Karen was 16, driving herself around and still wasn't allowed to stop by one house for the afternoon when it was the other house month then that would just be strange.
|
|
|
Post by virgoscorpio on Dec 10, 2011 21:04:21 GMT -5
As I mentioned before, I am sure that the rules would loosen as a child ages (at least for reasonable parents, haha)
|
|
|
Post by wenonah4th on Dec 11, 2011 13:56:14 GMT -5
Which I think L& W are.
|
|
|
Post by virgoscorpio on May 25, 2012 23:14:10 GMT -5
I LOVE Lisa and Seth. I think they're great parents (and people in general). I read in Ann's biography that she modeled parents in BSC land after her parents.
|
|
wanderingfrog
Sitting For The Arnolds
Official BSC Archivist
Posts: 2,552
|
Post by wanderingfrog on Jun 27, 2012 18:27:12 GMT -5
I like crafting, so I thought it was cool that Lisa got a job making jewellery and teaching jewellery-making. It's much more interesting than having another mother who works in advertising or who has a vague, unspecified position at an office in Stamford.
|
|