Who's in Chat? [Chat Now]
Log In
Register
Home
7:02 am
January 23, 2011
Offline
tyler said:
ACF said:
I'm proud of her and her choices but I still see in her a bit of the spoiled only child that just assumes she's will be able to work things out on her own timeline without giving much regard to others needs. It makes her character more full, more complete, but it's a part of her I don't like, the part that makes me, personally, frustrated with her. But then I stick her at the kitchen sink doing her dishes, get a grasp of her motivations and remember that I am not Castle. So I stick Castle at his sink, get a hold of what he's going through why he is giving her the reins and feel much better. I'm proud of Castle for sticking it out. He takes her good and bad and loves her just the same. He's willing to give her the time to do this the way she feel is best; that makes me willing to do the same. It's their story, not mine.
I'm not sure about the other stuff but on this part i have to respectfully disagree on. Because i don't see her as spoiled in anyway but instead as proud and independent. Seems like she doesn't realize that it's okay to ask for help sometimes (even for a strong independent woman). Thus the shrink is a healthy direction for the character.
And emotion doesn't works on a timeline as much as you want to be better not have PTSD and remove the wall etc etc etc. it's not something you can control (although in this case it is AM controllable). I don't think it's selfish or spoiled to want to heal yourself and get better before moving forward. It would be selfish to expect someone to wait for you, but i don't see that in Beckett. She was willing to let Castle go and be happy with Serena, putting his happiness before her own, nope not spoiled behavior at all far from it in fact.
***the thing i agree on is with Castle willingness to wait, he gets more and more lovable by the season.
I'm right there with you tyler about wanting to heal being a good thing and understanding your limitations as far as how fast that healing will go. (Believe me, I've walked the PTSD path and I get it.) But I think there is a continuum between stubborn/selfish and proud/independent and we all have our tolerance level and definitions of when it becomes frustrating/annoying.
It's my belief the problem comes when Beckett keeps using the excuses of the past as a way to put up more roadblocks instead of healing. Serena Kaye is a perfect example in fact. She's still using Castle's past against him, using that as an excuse for not taking the chance because she's still hiding behind that wall, a wall constructed because of a trauma yes, but constructed *of* the worst of her proud, stubborn, selfish behavior. In EYE, it's her wall that's the problem really, not Castle's past because if she were as proud and independent and sure of herself as I'm-a-Cop Beckett promotes herself to be, then a little thing like Serena wouldn't phase her. (There's an interesting contrast to Nikki Heat there that I have to think about. Hmm…) And you're right, Beckett did give Castle the option (how noble) to take Serena's offer. But we all know, as does Castle and Beckett too, that Serena was never any real threat. Castle was enthralled by another smart person who happened to be a woman, but his devotion to Beckett never strayed and hasn't strayed.
If Beckett felt threatened because that smart, independent person happened to be a woman, then she isn't as much the strong, proud, independent woman she makes herself out to be. She talks the talk,but she doesn't walk the walk. She hides behind her cop persona as a way of convincing whomever she's talking to that her choices/behavior are warranted. (And maybe she's trying to convince herself too). How many times did we hear "I'm a cop" as an excuse for her behavior. It's almost like a mantra. It's an underlying theme of the show – *no one* is who they say they are, who they present themselves to be. The same theme came up in DIAL, this time from another supposedly confident, independent and definitely proud female – the attorney who fled the scene. To paraphrase – "Don't you know who I am I'm XYZ. I don't get caught up in 123. I don't deserve to be judged as this because I present myself as that." It was a dodge, an attempt to avoid responsibility for the choices made. Beckett's been "saying" that for years!
I love her. I get what she's going through and I think the progress she's made is wonderful. And in fact, I'm probably more proud of her than many because I seem to be judging her so harshly; I can see just how far she's come. But I'm not afraid to say that there is part of her personality that gets in the way of her own progress and that part of her is what is frustrating to me. When I put her at her kitchen sink, when I get inside her head, I get it, I get all the choices, all the reasons, I get why she is like she is. But that doesn't make her 100%-lily-white-not-responsible-for-a-good-part-of-her-own-suffering. She could have handled a number of things differently that may have made things easier on her (and Castle). But again, it's not in her nature to do that. Her nature is, to my mind, a bit selfish, as all independent-minded people I think are. Only recently have her choices started to take into account anyone but herself. It's a continuum, like I said, and my tolerance is just different, I guess.
9:45 am
November 17, 2010
Offline
tyler said:
It would be selfish to expect someone to wait for you, but i don't see that in Beckett. She was willing to let Castle go and be happy with Serena, putting his happiness before her own, nope not spoiled behavior at all far from it in fact.
That was in ep 5. She was not ready at that time so she decided to let him go which is a v unselfish thing to do.
But we also know there is an ex-muse with a complicated history with castle coming during the 2 parter. Kate has come a long way since ep 5. The way she deals with the situation this time to the 'threat' should be interesting to see. At that time, we can properly guage how 'far' she has come!!!
6:52 pm
May 7, 2011
Offline
I think in many ways, this is a disagreement about world-view and the nature of agency and choice. The difference between agency and choice is interesting, agency is the ability to make a choice, and I think that's important here. Since the beginning, Castle has chosen to keep coming back, to keep following Beckett, and though she never said that they were inevitible and she, arguably, made the first move in season 2, none of that matters. His agency is his ability to chose his own path, to choose how he acts and where he chooses to stay.
We afford that gift to Castle, we laud him for it, and we claim that the fact that he chooses to stick around makes him a good man.
And yet, we don't afford the same courtesy to Beckett. Suddenly, when she chooses to NOT be with Castle, when she chooses a path that doesn't include him, we think she is a spoiled child who can't make the right decisions. That's the thing I strongly disagree with here, no matter whether you agree or not, Beckett has the right and the prerogative to say no and not be judged for that. If she doesn't want to be with Castle or she needs to work through things on her own time, that doesn't make her spoiled, it makes her an agent of her own person.
I think that's where world-view matters and the difference is never so plain than in the distinction I've drawn above. I don't care if Beckett says no to Castle for the rest of their lives, if she doesn't want to be with him, then that is her choice, and begrudging her for that is something I will never partake. Castle has the choice to leave at any time, he has the choice to give up, and we don't and won't begrudge him that agency, but I also think Beckett deserves the same right and privilege. She has the ability to choose never to be with him, she has the ability to choose whether or not her and Castle get together, and threatening that agency, that ability to choose, with a label of 'spoiled' is inappropriate in my opinion.
Ultimately, it is said that Castle never strayed and his devotion never wavered, and though that is noble, how can it be anything other than noble when a woman chooses to be better than what she was before? How can it be that a woman's right to say 'no' is somehow questioned even when the man is devoted? I don't care how devoted, how sure, how awesome a man Castle is or will be, we cannot question a woman's ability to choose NOT be in a relationship with him. I just don't think that's how it works nor do I think that's the way it should.
ACF said:
tyler said:
ACF said:
I'm proud of her and her choices but I still see in her a bit of the spoiled only child that just assumes she's will be able to work things out on her own timeline without giving much regard to others needs. It makes her character more full, more complete, but it's a part of her I don't like, the part that makes me, personally, frustrated with her. But then I stick her at the kitchen sink doing her dishes, get a grasp of her motivations and remember that I am not Castle. So I stick Castle at his sink, get a hold of what he's going through why he is giving her the reins and feel much better. I'm proud of Castle for sticking it out. He takes her good and bad and loves her just the same. He's willing to give her the time to do this the way she feel is best; that makes me willing to do the same. It's their story, not mine.
It's my belief the problem comes when Beckett keeps using the excuses of the past as a way to put up more roadblocks instead of healing. Serena Kaye is a perfect example in fact. She's still using Castle's past against him, using that as an excuse for not taking the chance because she's still hiding behind that wall, a wall constructed because of a trauma yes, but constructed *of* the worst of her proud, stubborn, selfish behavior. In EYE, it's her wall that's the problem really, not Castle's past because if she were as proud and independent and sure of herself as I'm-a-Cop Beckett promotes herself to be, then a little thing like Serena wouldn't phase her. (There's an interesting contrast to Nikki Heat there that I have to think about. Hmm…) And you're right, Beckett did give Castle the option (how noble) to take Serena's offer. But we all know, as does Castle and Beckett too, that Serena was never any real threat. Castle was enthralled by another smart person who happened to be a woman, but his devotion to Beckett never strayed and hasn't strayed.
7:15 pm
May 23, 2011
Offline
ACF said:
I'm right there with you tyler about wanting to heal being a good thing and understanding your limitations as far as how fast that healing will go. (Believe me, I've walked the PTSD path and I get it.) But I think there is a continuum between stubborn/selfish and proud/independent and we all have our tolerance level and definitions of when it becomes frustrating/annoying.
It's my belief the problem comes when Beckett keeps using the excuses of the past as a way to put up more roadblocks instead of healing. Serena Kaye is a perfect example in fact. She's still using Castle's past against him, using that as an excuse for not taking the chance because she's still hiding behind that wall, a wall constructed because of a trauma yes, but constructed *of* the worst of her proud, stubborn, selfish behavior. In EYE, it's her wall that's the problem really, not Castle's past because if she were as proud and independent and sure of herself as I'm-a-Cop Beckett promotes herself to be, then a little thing like Serena wouldn't phase her. (There's an interesting contrast to Nikki Heat there that I have to think about. Hmm…) And you're right, Beckett did give Castle the option (how noble) to take Serena's offer. But we all know, as does Castle and Beckett too, that Serena was never any real threat. Castle was enthralled by another smart person who happened to be a woman, but his devotion to Beckett never strayed and hasn't strayed.
If Beckett felt threatened because that smart, independent person happened to be a woman, then she isn't as much the strong, proud, independent woman she makes herself out to be. She talks the talk,but she doesn't walk the walk. She hides behind her cop persona as a way of convincing whomever she's talking to that her choices/behavior are warranted. (And maybe she's trying to convince herself too). How many times did we hear "I'm a cop" as an excuse for her behavior. It's almost like a mantra. It's an underlying theme of the show – *no one* is who they say they are, who they present themselves to be. The same theme came up in DIAL, this time from another supposedly confident, independent and definitely proud female – the attorney who fled the scene. To paraphrase – "Don't you know who I am I'm XYZ. I don't get caught up in 123. I don't deserve to be judged as this because I present myself as that." It was a dodge, an attempt to avoid responsibility for the choices made. Beckett's been "saying" that for years!
I love her. I get what she's going through and I think the progress she's made is wonderful. And in fact, I'm probably more proud of her than many because I seem to be judging her so harshly; I can see just how far she's come. But I'm not afraid to say that there is part of her personality that gets in the way of her own progress and that part of her is what is frustrating to me. When I put her at her kitchen sink, when I get inside her head, I get it, I get all the choices, all the reasons, I get why she is like she is. But that doesn't make her 100%-lily-white-not-responsible-for-a-good-part-of-her-own-suffering. She could have handled a number of things differently that may have made things easier on her (and Castle). But again, it's not in her nature to do that. Her nature is, to my mind, a bit selfish, as all independent-minded people I think are. Only recently have her choices started to take into account anyone but herself. It's a continuum, like I said, and my tolerance is just different, I guess.
Love this post and read it like dozens of times.
To me as well Kate seems to be selfish at times and used a lot of excuses to shield her off from emotions. But that can be a defense mechanism you use without realizing it yourself. And to that regard she seems to be quit out of touch with her inner self. Her job, her relationships and most of all her obsession with her moms case were inhibiting her from herself. To that extend reading Castle's books even were some kind of escapism. Maybe because we do want from her that she also found more in his books but I'm not sure if that sticks.
Living behind that wall also means that every time you see someone trying to peek over it you kick into defensive mode which in a male dominated environment doesn't stick out at all. But it wasn't her at all. She knew she wanted something different but being out of touch with yourself makes it hard to get a bearing. She would have without Castle but then it would have taken a lot longer and possible may have been way messier because in the end you can't hide from your true self.
Was she threatened by Serena or did she just feel insecure about herself and even looked up to Serena because she seemed to be so much in control with herself while she wasn't? She's not less than Serena and can be self assured proud and independent. Maybe she bites a bit more than she can chew but that's her stubborn side. She's coming around for sure but she still has to learn with her new self. When you learn to love yourself you are ready to love other people.
7:46 pm
January 23, 2011
Offline
I think I'm going to be moving to far off this topic in my reply so I moved it to the Beckett Onion Thread
jerryst316 said:
I think in many ways, this is a disagreement about world-view and the nature of agency and choice. The difference between agency and choice is interesting, agency is the ability to make a choice, and I think that's important here. Since the beginning, Castle has chosen to keep coming back, to keep following Beckett, and though she never said that they were inevitible and she, arguably, made the first move in season 2, none of that matters. His agency is his ability to chose his own path, to choose how he acts and where he chooses to stay.
We afford that gift to Castle, we laud him for it, and we claim that the fact that he chooses to stick around makes him a good man.
And yet, we don't afford the same courtesy to Beckett. Suddenly, when she chooses to NOT be with Castle, when she chooses a path that doesn't include him, we think she is a spoiled child who can't make the right decisions. That's the thing I strongly disagree with here, no matter whether you agree or not, Beckett has the right and the prerogative to say no and not be judged for that. If she doesn't want to be with Castle or she needs to work through things on her own time, that doesn't make her spoiled, it makes her an agent of her own person.
I think that's where world-view matters and the difference is never so plain than in the distinction I've drawn above. I don't care if Beckett says no to Castle for the rest of their lives, if she doesn't want to be with him, then that is her choice, and begrudging her for that is something I will never partake. Castle has the choice to leave at any time, he has the choice to give up, and we don't and won't begrudge him that agency, but I also think Beckett deserves the same right and privilege. She has the ability to choose never to be with him, she has the ability to choose whether or not her and Castle get together, and threatening that agency, that ability to choose, with a label of 'spoiled' is inappropriate in my opinion.
Ultimately, it is said that Castle never strayed and his devotion never wavered, and though that is noble, how can it be anything other than noble when a woman chooses to be better than what she was before? How can it be that a woman's right to say 'no' is somehow questioned even when the man is devoted? I don't care how devoted, how sure, how awesome a man Castle is or will be, we cannot question a woman's ability to choose NOT be in a relationship with him. I just don't think that's how it works nor do I think that's the way it should.
ACF said:
tyler said:
ACF said:
I'm proud of her and her choices but I still see in her a bit of the spoiled only child that just assumes she's will be able to work things out on her own timeline without giving much regard to others needs. It makes her character more full, more complete, but it's a part of her I don't like, the part that makes me, personally, frustrated with her. But then I stick her at the kitchen sink doing her dishes, get a grasp of her motivations and remember that I am not Castle. So I stick Castle at his sink, get a hold of what he's going through why he is giving her the reins and feel much better. I'm proud of Castle for sticking it out. He takes her good and bad and loves her just the same. He's willing to give her the time to do this the way she feel is best; that makes me willing to do the same. It's their story, not mine.
It's my belief the problem comes when Beckett keeps using the excuses of the past as a way to put up more roadblocks instead of healing. Serena Kaye is a perfect example in fact. She's still using Castle's past against him, using that as an excuse for not taking the chance because she's still hiding behind that wall, a wall constructed because of a trauma yes, but constructed *of* the worst of her proud, stubborn, selfish behavior. In EYE, it's her wall that's the problem really, not Castle's past because if she were as proud and independent and sure of herself as I'm-a-Cop Beckett promotes herself to be, then a little thing like Serena wouldn't phase her. (There's an interesting contrast to Nikki Heat there that I have to think about. Hmm…) And you're right, Beckett did give Castle the option (how noble) to take Serena's offer. But we all know, as does Castle and Beckett too, that Serena was never any real threat. Castle was enthralled by another smart person who happened to be a woman, but his devotion to Beckett never strayed and hasn't strayed.
7:52 pm
June 21, 2011
Offline
jerryst316 said:
I think in many ways, this is a disagreement about world-view and the nature of agency and choice. The difference between agency and choice is interesting, agency is the ability to make a choice, and I think that's important here. Since the beginning, Castle has chosen to keep coming back, to keep following Beckett, and though she never said that they were inevitible and she, arguably, made the first move in season 2, none of that matters. His agency is his ability to chose his own path, to choose how he acts and where he chooses to stay.
We afford that gift to Castle, we laud him for it, and we claim that the fact that he chooses to stick around makes him a good man.
And yet, we don't afford the same courtesy to Beckett. Suddenly, when she chooses to NOT be with Castle, when she chooses a path that doesn't include him, we think she is a spoiled child who can't make the right decisions. That's the thing I strongly disagree with here, no matter whether you agree or not, Beckett has the right and the prerogative to say no and not be judged for that. If she doesn't want to be with Castle or she needs to work through things on her own time, that doesn't make her spoiled, it makes her an agent of her own person.
I think that's where world-view matters and the difference is never so plain than in the distinction I've drawn above. I don't care if Beckett says no to Castle for the rest of their lives, if she doesn't want to be with him, then that is her choice, and begrudging her for that is something I will never partake. Castle has the choice to leave at any time, he has the choice to give up, and we don't and won't begrudge him that agency, but I also think Beckett deserves the same right and privilege. She has the ability to choose never to be with him, she has the ability to choose whether or not her and Castle get together, and threatening that agency, that ability to choose, with a label of 'spoiled' is inappropriate in my opinion.
Ultimately, it is said that Castle never strayed and his devotion never wavered, and though that is noble, how can it be anything other than noble when a woman chooses to be better than what she was before? How can it be that a woman's right to say 'no' is somehow questioned even when the man is devoted? I don't care how devoted, how sure, how awesome a man Castle is or will be, we cannot question a woman's ability to choose NOT be in a relationship with him. I just don't think that's how it works nor do I think that's the way it should.
I think I agree with you. You write in a way that gives me the impression you have a level of understanding or communicating that may include perspectives different from mine, but ultimately I think we are the same page regarding Beckett and her situation with Castle.
I think the only thing I might quible about would be the difference being a "world view". I think it may be more of a generational view.
11:58 pm
January 23, 2012
Offline
Hi all – I believe that Beckett does love Castle – pure & simple. Leaving out the fact that this is a TV show where the producers have an interest in spinning it out for the entire story arc 
, my opinion is that the situation set up is very credible for the characters as they are developed in the milieu that they live in.
Why might Beckett be gun-shy about declaring herself? A bunch of factors: she was about to do *something* along that line at the end of Season 2, but was interrupted by Gina's arrival and the launch of "Cowstle II". 
[That's my term for Rick & Gina's second round of relationship.] She got waved off hard at the very moment she was about to make herself vulnerable, *and it happened in front of her team*. She had to have been hurt, embarrassed, confused…and possibly spent the summer thinking that Castle was fickle and she was well shot of him if he could hook up with Gina again.
Rick *does* have the background of having been married twice. This carries a different stigma, if you will, depending on your values about marriage – which is somewhat based on where you live. This is supposed to be a sophisticated, NYC kinda song & dance ("Sex & the City?" the works of Woody Allen?), and it doesn't match up to my personal values; but I'm totally willing to suspend disbelief based on what we know. Rick's been married twice – what made him take the plunge? – and he obviously does not share the view of "The One" [I don't either], based on his comments to Kyra Blaine. He's also dated a lot and talked with great vim & vigour about picking up tons of women at various points in his life. There's never been a situation where "Caskett" has really sat down & had a heart to heart nuts & bolts about relationship philosophies in front of the camera; in fact, Castle makes a point that they *don't* talk about the awkward moments that have happened. It's obvious he's catalogued them, and he thinks they are significant. Has it added up enough to make him be committed & stay faithful? Kate's gotta wonder about that. The thicker the armour, the more vulnerable the being underneath usually is.
The people who have said that if Castle hasn't asked Beckett out on a date by now or *forced* the issue violates reality for them: I couldn't disagree more. They are *working* together; if the "hookup" goes south right away, then there's all kinds of awkwardness that ensues. There is some degree of physical attraction early on – she teases him – but she probably doesn't want to be a conquest, and I don't blame her at all. She's probably really nervous about a guy who's going to expect her to stop working, stop taking risks, be really domestic and I have to say that if it were reality that's a very valid worry. Remember the two-parter with Jordan Shaw & her astonishment that Shaw was a mom? I doubt the only thing Beckett learned from Shaw was better procedure.
I have friends who say they have to know someone 10 years before getting seriously involved with them; and I myself have long better part of an organization where, even if I didn't know a guy as a friend before going out with him, I usually knew *of* him. There's nothing really prudent in trying to make a relationship work that's based on a one-night pickup in a bar. I knew my husband casually (as in we had some of the same friends) for almost 25 years, and then we were good friends for a year before we ever went out on something approaching a date; we were both married to other people and had had one or two serious relationships in between first meeting and getting together. It may be bit more X-chromosome-oriented writing in truth, but the guys who say that women always know right away if they 'want' a guy in that way or not, especially for the long term, are dead wrong. It does help to spin out a TV series, it's true; but that doesn't make it total fantasy.
I think Kate is naturally cautious about evaluating whether what she feels for someone means it will work. She was in love with Royce; I'm guessing he knew it, but neither of them ever said it. He may not have reciprocated; if he did, he was prudent enough to realize that was a no-no professionally all the way down. And I'm guessing she looked at it as objectively as she could and realized that it wouldn't work, and was probably driven by him being the "one who understood" about her mom's death. I can't imagine most of her boyfriends in her early 20s *did* understand – probably, if they knew, would have had all kinds of nasty and offbase things to say, and dismissed it as something they didn't want to deal with.
Castle's willing: this is one of the things about The Real Thing: you have to be willing to pay the price. I think Beckett knows deep down that Castle will never respect anyone who isn't a challenge; I don't think she's gaming him, but I think she trusted him enough to reveal that bit about herself in "Rise" that is giving him hope now. I think she's afraid to be vulnerable with a partner; it's one thing to ride motorcycles & have fun, but forever? You want someone who knows you deeply *and accepts what they know*.
Bera
Bera
8:40 am
January 23, 2011
Offline
FillKat said:
I think I agree with you. You write in a way that gives me the impression you have a level of understanding or communicating that may include perspectives different from mine, but ultimately I think we are the same page regarding Beckett and her situation with Castle.
I think the only thing I might quible about would be the difference being a "world view". I think it may be more of a generational view.
Oh my goodness,FillKate, way to make me feel old. I haven't even hit mid-century yet! 
But you are right I think. I was thinking about this last night. I can remember listening to Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy on the television (and the radio! How's that for old). I grew up with the notion that we are responsible for our actions and how they affect not only us, but others. I was raised to believe that making sacrifices for your family and friends was nothing out of the ordinary and that good, kind people make the choice to reach out to others. 9/11, globilization of so many things, internet, instant access to all matter of entertainment without ever setting foot outside one's home, social media that lets one make "friends" that will never been seen face-to-face – all those things take the human out of human interaction. They give credence to the belief that "no one will take care are me better than me" so it's every man for himself. And you young whipper-snappers have been raised in that crucible.
So yes, I think you are right, it is a generational thing and have to say, I'm very glad I'm in mine.
And all that thinking had me thinking about something else… themes in Castle and how they impact how we look at our own lives. Off to start a new thread… 
10:21 am
December 6, 2011
Offline
Wow, great post. This forum always keeps me thinking 
Bera said:
Hi all – I believe that Beckett does love Castle – pure & simple. Leaving out the fact that this is a TV show where the producers have an interest in spinning it out for the entire story arc
Why might Beckett be gun-shy about declaring herself? A bunch of factors: she was about to do *something* along that line at the end of Season 2, but was interrupted by Gina's arrival and the launch of "Cowstle II".
Rick *does* have the background of having been married twice. This carries a different stigma, if you will, depending on your values about marriage – which is somewhat based on where you live. This is supposed to be a sophisticated, NYC kinda song & dance ("Sex & the City?" the works of Woody Allen?), and it doesn't match up to my personal values; but I'm totally willing to suspend disbelief based on what we know. Rick's been married twice – what made him take the plunge? – and he obviously does not share the view of "The One" [I don't either], based on his comments to Kyra Blaine. He's also dated a lot and talked with great vim & vigour about picking up tons of women at various points in his life. There's never been a situation where "Caskett" has really sat down & had a heart to heart nuts & bolts about relationship philosophies in front of the camera; in fact, Castle makes a point that they *don't* talk about the awkward moments that have happened. It's obvious he's catalogued them, and he thinks they are significant. Has it added up enough to make him be committed & stay faithful? Kate's gotta wonder about that. The thicker the armour, the more vulnerable the being underneath usually is.
The people who have said that if Castle hasn't asked Beckett out on a date by now or *forced* the issue violates reality for them: I couldn't disagree more. They are *working* together; if the "hookup" goes south right away, then there's all kinds of awkwardness that ensues. There is some degree of physical attraction early on – she teases him – but she probably doesn't want to be a conquest, and I don't blame her at all. She's probably really nervous about a guy who's going to expect her to stop working, stop taking risks, be really domestic and I have to say that if it were reality that's a very valid worry. Remember the two-parter with Jordan Shaw & her astonishment that Shaw was a mom? I doubt the only thing Beckett learned from Shaw was better procedure.
I have friends who say they have to know someone 10 years before getting seriously involved with them; and I myself have long better part of an organization where, even if I didn't know a guy as a friend before going out with him, I usually knew *of* him. There's nothing really prudent in trying to make a relationship work that's based on a one-night pickup in a bar. I knew my husband casually (as in we had some of the same friends) for almost 25 years, and then we were good friends for a year before we ever went out on something approaching a date; we were both married to other people and had had one or two serious relationships in between first meeting and getting together. It may be bit more X-chromosome-oriented writing in truth, but the guys who say that women always know right away if they 'want' a guy in that way or not, especially for the long term, are dead wrong. It does help to spin out a TV series, it's true; but that doesn't make it total fantasy.
I think Kate is naturally cautious about evaluating whether what she feels for someone means it will work. She was in love with Royce; I'm guessing he knew it, but neither of them ever said it. He may not have reciprocated; if he did, he was prudent enough to realize that was a no-no professionally all the way down. And I'm guessing she looked at it as objectively as she could and realized that it wouldn't work, and was probably driven by him being the "one who understood" about her mom's death. I can't imagine most of her boyfriends in her early 20s *did* understand – probably, if they knew, would have had all kinds of nasty and offbase things to say, and dismissed it as something they didn't want to deal with.
Castle's willing: this is one of the things about The Real Thing: you have to be willing to pay the price. I think Beckett knows deep down that Castle will never respect anyone who isn't a challenge; I don't think she's gaming him, but I think she trusted him enough to reveal that bit about herself in "Rise" that is giving him hope now. I think she's afraid to be vulnerable with a partner; it's one thing to ride motorcycles & have fun, but forever? You want someone who knows you deeply *and accepts what they know*.
Bera
10:32 am
June 19, 2011
Offline
Hmm.. I think things are snowballing in the wrong direction.
Let me see if we can bring everyone back on track.
*** Beckett is selfish because she uses her mum and the wall as an excuse time after time. Sorry I really cannot agree to this. When it comes to your own personal emotion how is it selfish? If you cannot let someone into your heart than it's not something that you can force. Doesn't really matter what her reason is to be honest (In Beckett case it's her Mum=Wall). From Beckett's character perspective what if she never gets better, it was the kinder choice to ask him to go. But Castle chooses to stay and wait out of his own free will. (Lets agree to disagree if your consensus is still firm on Beckett is selfish).
However guys there is no need to be soooo gloomy about it….. this is a TV show where we know that :
a) Beckett will get better. And…..
b) Castle and Beckett will be together…Hopefully in a timeline where we all can be happy with, and hopefully before watching the show causes involuntary nausea <— Guys if you are almost here or if you are already here i suggest switching channel to nickelodeon and watching spongebob. That guy could usually make anyone smile.
So on to the initial discussion premise…. "Does Beckett Love Castle? Has she accepted that she is in love with him?"
So post on if you have anymore tidbits to affirm or negate the statement.
10:41 am
April 19, 2011
Online
I'm having trouble posting…have a longer post bit won't load. Anybody else have this issue?
10:45 am
April 19, 2011
Online
@ ACF: This made me smile… " globilization of so many things, internet, instant access to all matter of entertainment without ever setting foot outside one's home, social media that lets one make "friends" that will never been seen face-to-face –" haha, you mean like this board? I think I sort of belong to your generation (a few years younger I would guesstimate by the clues left if your post;-) ) and I agree with you on the generational differences and their influence on our perceptions of the characters featured in Castle. However, these characters also belong to a particular generation or generations and their actions are as much guided by that as ours. That is something to take into consideration and I think you do, given what I've read in your posts.
10:48 am
April 19, 2011
Online
Ugh, I've even tried posting it chunks…I'll try later.
11:08 am
January 23, 2011
Offline
little eve said:
@ ACF: This made me smile… " globilization of so many things, internet, instant access to all matter of entertainment without ever setting foot outside one's home, social media that lets one make "friends" that will never been seen face-to-face –" haha, you mean like this board? I think I sort of belong to your generation (a few years younger I would guesstimate by the clues left if your post;-) ) and I agree with you on the generational differences and their influence on our perceptions of the characters featured in Castle. However, these characters also belong to a particular generation or generations and their actions are as much guided by that as ours. That is something to take into consideration and I think you do, given what I've read in your posts.
Heehee Exactly little eve! I'm a lifelong learner (My kids would say that's because I never get anything right the first time… ) so I'm trying to embrace whatever is out there, but we do retain what we were taught, don't we.
Back to the original premise of this thread… Does Beckett love Castle?
My answer – No.
Buuuuut…..
Does Kate love Castle? my answer – Yes
(Ready, set, go! …. )
11:49 am
April 19, 2011
Online
I still cannot post my writing … is there a length limit does anyone know? Or a problem with pasting text from a word document?
All RSSMost Users Ever Online: 587
Currently Online: evesix, lvncastle, little eve, IncompleteSong, Celine, cv64, DrRobin, vortexman50, jennymac, Tom0704, Piffi, sweet tea, Nicky
69 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
dmcw: 3399
Nev827: 3279
Alie: 3118
Jamz: 2644
Leftfield: 2491
He-Touches-Things: 2321
KalliopePL: 1924
unniw: 1738
MissWanderer: 1639
sarah_darling: 1626
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 685
Members: 8739
Moderators: 2
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 112
Topics: 3548
Posts: 111782
Newest Members: carcking, mariadelao, Cindy in Ohio, steve wong, animecollector83, londynelizabeth27, Aussiejan, Gunny, khan, 1fillionfan
Moderators: Admin (4767), addonchat (-1)
Administrators: Admin (4767)
Usage Policy