892: Millstones

Archived reviews of Adventures in Odyssey episodes!
Post Reply
User avatar
Peachey Keen
Smile for the camera
Posts: 1198
Joined: July 2008
Location: Where The Wind Comes Sweeping Down The Plain
Gender:

892: Millstones

Post by Peachey Keen »

"Renee learns that ethical choices take practice, while Connie's campaign to help a friend creates moral dilemmas."

I saw there wasn't a thread for this yet so hear it is! What did you all think of this episode?
User avatar
MonkeyDude
Processing
Posts: 110
Joined: March 2017

Post by MonkeyDude »

The biggest complaint I've seen about this episode is that it literally ignores like all of Connie's character development over the past 25 years and yeah I agree, but I can't lie that it did my heart some good to see classic Connie slip through. But yeah, it is a tad frustrating. Also, I did not really care about Renee at first but I'm starting to warm up to her a bit.
*Finger guns aggressively*
User avatar
Monica Stone
I've been here a bit
Posts: 179
Joined: March 2020
Location: Odyssey

Post by Monica Stone »

I enjoy stories that have more complex themes and morals (probably because I'm out of the target age range of 8-12) and this episode delivered. I liked it from that angle.

I might have given Connie a pass, but she blantantly says to Wilson that she thought it was okay to do the wrong thing for the right reason and I immediately got "Rights, Wrongs, and Reasons" flashbacks. Had she forgotten the game she played with Whit and Jenny that helped them break down the ethics and morality of choices and situations? It felt odd in that respect.

But hey, this is the first Jay episode in awhile where he hasn't been with Zoe or creepily mentioned her! That's a bonus. And Pamela! I cannot believe they brought her back. Kudos to Phil Lollar for continually bringing back old characters in a natural way (Ed Washington, Becky Riley Clemmens, Pamela, and probably others I'm forgetting)!
Last edited by Monica Stone on Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bob
Catspaw Rocks!
Posts: 705
Joined: September 2006
Location: The Metroplex
Gender:
Contact:

Post by Bob »

I loved hearing from Pamela again.

I find it a little interesting that the commentary is almost exclusively about Connie's plot, with little reference to Renee's, which is arguably more sophisticated. There's two points here that I find interesting:

First, Renee really has a grudge against her professor. I mentioned in the other thread that we know Emily has forgiven in some sense because of her actions, and Renee here demonstrates the opposite. Now, I'm not saying that her decision in the first part was entirely unreasonable; given their history, it did seem like the professor could be trying to pull something over on her. (Though I'd point out here that if Renee kept good backups of her data, she wouldn't have to worry about it being tampered with. ;) ) On closer examination I'm not sure how logical a decision denying him was, but it is a 'natural' one and it's not hard to see why she would think that way. That said, when the vigilantes burst in, I was shocked. And when Renee was totally nonchalant about it and like 'yeah, he deserves it', wow. He was telling the truth, but she doesn't care or show any regret. That's a bigger deal than her simply not acting on his admittedly seemingly unlikely story.

In the next part, where she saves him, I'd question whether she actually saved him just because she is conditioned by the familiarity of the "WW2" scenario to know that Nazis are bad. Everybody grows up hearing about the war, Nazis are known as the personification of human evil, and the Holocaust is the most cited example of mass depravity in modern times. Her objection here does seem to reflect this belief, as it centers to a large extent around knowing that the Nazis were Nazis.

Secondly, though, what's more interesting about this is that Whit implicitly seems to support so-called 'white lies'. Granted, a lot of people would debate this, and it's understandable that Whit might think so anyway, being a former NSA agent. That said, I'm not sure Scripture backs this up.

The Bible explicitly says that Satan is the 'father of lies' and that God hates a 'lying tongue'. Furthermore, it demonstrates a lack of trust in God. When people lie, it is usually because they are in a vulnerable position; they have some weakness that they don't want to get hit on. But if someone is in a position of power and complete control, they don't have to bother to lie because nobody can stop them anyway. Someone who is really a 'child of the King', God, the Creator and supreme master of the universe, has the greatest Power there is supporting them, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or tries to do to oppose them; God can make it fail.

Some of the greatest and best-loved stories in the Bible are about people who trusted in God's protection rather than taking the 'easy' way out. The three Hebrews could have come up with some excuse as to why it was okay to bow in their circumstance, but they didn't, and we have the story of the Fiery Furnace for it. David was perfectly safe when he was with Samuel. Daniel could have chosen to at least not pray where people could see him, but he didn't alter his well-known routine a mite, and God saved him from the lions.

We love to hear and tell and retell these stories, and it's right that we should. But if we don't consider them to be in any way applicable or relevant to our own lives, they're pretty much pointless. God doesn't say things in the Bible that aren't meant to be in some way informative or relevant to us. These stories illustrate a principle that God can take care of people who do His will and don't compromise. So, I'm forced to disagree with the idea that's pushed here that sometimes lying is the right thing.

Incidentally, while Whit is correct in noting that Corrie ten Boom often lied to the Nazis to protect Jews (although she was conflicted about it, more so than Whit seems to be), there's two interesting and relevant anecdotes that didn't get mentioned here. Nollie ten Boom, Corrie's older sister, was scrupulously honest, and she and her daughter were questioned by Nazis. You might enjoy reading the stories and finding out what happened.
Last edited by Bob on Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:07 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
ByeByeBrownie
I've been here a bit
Posts: 165
Joined: February 2020
Contact:

Post by ByeByeBrownie »

This is a very interesting episode. I actually found it quite enjoyable to listen to, despite several issues I have with it.

First of all, as has already been mentioned, Connie's behavior in this episode has been touted as completely out of character for her, especially after the great deal of growth she's experienced in the past decade or so. And I don't disagree. But in a way, I do find it strangely relatable. Let me explain:

You've messed up big time, and you know it. Maybe you even knew that what you were doing was wrong, but you just wanted to do it anyway. But now you're beating yourself up inside because HOW. could you have been SO. STUPID??? But your pride isn't going to let you go back on the decisions you've made just yet, so your external response ends up being completely out of character. I have definitely been there before.

The scene where Connie walks out on Whit and Wilson with an icy "IF I still have a job here" is the best part of the episode in my opinion. While extremely hard to listen to, that moment really resonated with me.

On your analysis of the Renee portion of the episode, Bob, I do see what you're saying, but can't say I totally agree with you.

For the first adventure, Renee is in her lab at the college. What are the odds that people are really going to bust in there, seriously looking to do bodily harm to the professor? It's possible, but quite unlikely. I would be inclined to dismiss the whole situation as some sort of joke. On the other hand, in the WW2-era adventure, Renee looks around, noting her surroundings, and quickly surmises the greater gravity of the situation. There is something to your proposition that she has been conditioned to know that Nazis are bad, but I would argue that in like manner, she has also been conditioned to know that in this place and time, someone with the star of David on their coat, a Jew, is someone who very likely is in danger and needs to be protected (and not only from Nazis, I might add). Here, she knows that the Nazis will literally kill the professor; whereas in the first adventure, as Whit points out, she really needs more information.

While the truth should always be our ideal, there are situations that may, in order to promote the highest good, necessitate the use of "falsehood." I recently came across an article that discusses this topic much better than I can, and I have linked it here, in case anybody's interested.

To me, the bigger question here is the same one I have regarding the Rydell saga: Is it appropriate to be presenting such morally complex situations to children in AIO's target age range? Episodes like this are great fodder for conversation for teen and adult listeners. But they have the potential to be downright dangerous to the eight-year-old who listens to this episode and thinks, hmmm, Mr. Whittaker says it's okay to lie...

To be honest, though, what bothers me the most about this episode is how Whit and Wilson contacted Pam and ratted Connie out to her. In my opinion, they had absolutely no business doing that. Not only is it a manipulation tactic directed at Connie, but honestly, Pamela really did not need to be bothered with this drama at such a difficult time in her life. Although she is often quite stubborn, Connie is not altogether unreasonable, and I believe she would have eventually (and actually probably already has at this point) seen the error of her ways without such emotional manipulation. Whit, my dude, ya gotta stop this.
Image
Brownie has a knack
for writing superb haikus
she cannot be stopped
~Pengwin
User avatar
Monica Stone
I've been here a bit
Posts: 179
Joined: March 2020
Location: Odyssey

Post by Monica Stone »

EDIT: 100th post! Woah!

Ahh, I love reading all these thoughts. =D>

Brownie, that is an interesting question you raise. As Phil himself has stated multiple times, Odyssey is not supposed to be a babysitter. Think about earlier episodes like "Home is Where the Hurt Is", "A Question About Tasha", and "The Labyrinth, parts 1-3." These and many other episodes delicately balance mature stories and themes and do not even include parental warnings. I think Odyssey is often rather tasteful in the ways they present more mature stories. That said, there will be confused kids and I would hope they would discuss the stories with their parents. I read an article awhile back that stated Odyssey should be a discussion starter, not a discussion ender. I love that take. I am fine with Odyssey tackling complex morals in this way. With the Rydell Saga, I take issue with the potential argument that Morrie has been trying to do the right thing all along and therefore his actions are fundamentally good. The problem is not that that moral is complex. The problem is that I believe that message would be truly wrong.

But hey, I relistened to this episode today. I have some new thoughts of my own.

I always love Wilson Knox. I can't out my finger on it, but his voice makes me happy. He is a great character that the show should use more frequently. His interactions with Whit feel natural and automatically classic but I digress.

I agree with Bob; I think Renee was very harsh and unforgiving but I can kind of see where she is coming from, even if I think her reaction was very wrong. However, although she was unfeeling and cruel, I understand why she would not want to allow Libernis in the Station. He acted kinda shady about it. I think I side with Renee on not allowing Libernis into the Station, but I am completely against how she treated him. But, despite my little qualms, I did enjoy this side of the story. I am glad they are doing more with Renee. They need to pick up her arc more and run with it.

Connie was also very wrong, but the way Wilson, Whit, and Pamela confronted her made me feel icky. Connie isn't a teenager anymore; she is a grown woman. She does not need to have a collection of adults and a friend call her out as if she was a 7-year-old who told a lie for the first time and must be chided about why it's wrong. I think Wilson should have come to her privately and explained the Jay situation to her. Yes, initially she was stubborn, but Connie comes around. Wilson should have known that.

I want Odyssey to do more Connie-centric episodes and I was excited for this episode in that respect. But I was disappointed with Connie's side of it. It feels like that Connie has become a side character lately and that's it. She usually feels stale because her roles are generally drab and uninteresting. I want to see her in more prominent roles...but not like this.

I must seem so overwhelmingly negative, but I'm not. I will end my thoughts on a brighter note.

I enjoyed hearing from Pamela again and her incorparation into the story was very seamless. I love callbacks and this one was so nice. Also, Maisey returned, too! That surprised me, but I love continuity!

I found Jay's scheme to get free ice cream from Whit's End very interesting. I liked the subtle callbacks to "Out of Her Element", too. I liked that Jay, although often forgetting her name, was sympathetic to Pamela's plight. His blackmail was unethical but interesting. I believe he makes about $100 and he gives it to Connie as long as she gives him a couple free sundaes. He could have far easily taken the money for himself and bought countless sundaes that way. But instead, he does try to donate to Pamela. Could there be a shred of compassion hidden underneath his bad actions?
Last edited by Monica Stone on Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply