Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Ross Poldark


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 404
Date: Apr 2 2:11 AM, 2017
RE: Ross Poldark
Permalink  
 


SusanneMcCarthy wrote:

I agree with Mrs Gimlett - I can't see how Ross's words amount to "preening" - in fact quite the reverse. He was acknowledging that he was fortunate. We know, of course, that he was innocent of the charges brought against him, but he was always inclined to be hard on himself. 


Ross was fully aware of George's presence and relative proximity -- everyone in the room was aware of Sir John's gaffe in inviting Ross and George to the same party, and a number of the guests were looking forward to fireworks. What he said, regardless of whether he said it to him or within possible earshot, was insensitive and inappropriate given that George's cousin had died in the wreck. It doesn't matter what Ross had thought of Matthew Sansone. He was George's cousin and, given that George was an only child, likely the closest thing he had to a brother. Anything associated with the wreck was going to be a sore subject with George. Why rub salt in the wound by talking about the trial? And why show such contempt for the jury? It did the right thing. 

The right thing to do would have been to ask to change the subject -- after offering to answer Caroline's questions at another time, of course. As I think of it, I am a little surprised Elizabeth didn't try to stop Ross, considering she was still George's friend. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



__________________


Administration

Status: Offline
Posts: 1618
Date: Apr 1 3:23 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark Mare

Undergraduate

Status: Offline

Posts: 291

Date: Apr 1 11:34 AM, 2017

 

I have a few question about the practicalities of this whole business:

1. If Ross as the owner of the beach had left the wrecked ship and its cargo alone and had kept people off his beach until the customs men and the Warleggans arrived, who would have been responsible for removing the debris once they were finished checking the cargo? The Warleggans? 

2. Would the flour and the fish still be safe to use/consume after sitting in saltwater-sodden barrels and sacks for a day or two? If not, what would happen to it? Could the Warleggans really be trusted to clean up their mess?

3. If the barrels of fish were left on the beach for a few days, would they have attracted scavenging animals? 

4. Would the Warleggans, astute businessmen that they were, ever have sent that ship out without insurance on it and its cargo? (Remember, Lloyd's underwriters had been insuring ships for more than a century by that point. If they didn't do business in Cornwall, there had to be a local equivalent because there were too many ports and too many wrecks for it not to be a good place to do business. The beaches were littered with evidence that a prudent shipping business needed insurance.)

Looking at it this way, the Cornish custom seems the most practical way to have handled shipwrecks. The existence of maritime insurance protected shippers from being bankrupted by a wreck. Yes, the government lost out on the tax revenue, but that happened whether the fish rotted in barrels on a beach or ended up on some scavenger's dinner plate. If the cargo didn't reach its destination, the government was entitled to no tax.

One does have to wonder why the high sheriff and the magistrates ever allowed the case to come to trial as a public prosecution when it was so clearly a red herring case, even a vendetta. It seems it should have been a private criminal prosecution -- something that was still permitted in those days. The Warleggans would have been on the hook for the cost of the trial, but their own lawyer could be the lead prosecutor and it would have been perfectly legal for them to compensate witnesses -- under the guise of paying travel expenses. (I can't imagine that WG, dogged researcher that he was, did not know private criminal prosecutions existed in those days so I guess he made it a public prosecution to show the level of corruption that existed at the time. After all, the state had no real skin in this game; the cargo was a total loss.)

_______________

SusanneMcCarthy

Initiate

Status: Offline

Posts: 80

Date: Mar 31 9:19 PM, 2017

I think he got off because he was a Cornishman in Cornwall. As he said, no Cornish jury would convict him of plundering a wreck - it was regarded as an accepted part of the Cornish economy. 

________________________

 

Posted by

LJones41

Student

Status: Offline

Posts: 115

Date: Mar 31 7:41 PM, 2017

Do you think the juries would have let Ross off for riot had he not been of the upper classes?  I think it possible. 

I feel the opposite.  I believe if Ross had NOT been a member of the upper-classes, his chances of being found guilty and executed would have been greater.  I think his class priviledge saved him from the noose.


-- Edited by LJones41 on Friday 31st of March 2017 07:42:03 PM



__________________

"Perfection is a full stop .... Ever the climbing but never the attaining Of the mountain top." W.G.

 

 



Initiate

Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Date: Mar 14 9:12 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I agree with Mrs Gimlett - I can't see how Ross's words amount to "preening" - in fact quite the reverse. He was acknowledging that he was fortunate. We know, of course, that he was innocent of the charges brought against him, but he was always inclined to be hard on himself. 



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 404
Date: Mar 14 7:34 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

 

Dark Mare, I cannot for the life of me see why you think Ross was behaving in anything but a gentlemanly fashion.  So far as my memory goes, at no time does Ross ever preen or boast about himself, least of all after his trial.  What makes you think otherwise?



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Saturday 11th of March 2017 02:34:49 PM


Mrs. Gimlett, let me put it this way:

Imagine you were dining out in the Brentwood section of Los Angeles a few nights after O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

At the next table is seated the former football star himself and a friend, and you hear him say: "There was precious little virtue in my case and no triumph in my acquittal -- unless it was the triumph for the wrongheadedness of the jury."

Maybe 6 feet away are seated the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, the two people who were killed. You'd  recognized them when they sat down so you look over to see whether they heard what Simpson just said. Ron Goldman's father's knuckle-whitening grip on his steak knife suggests he had.

Would you have thought Ross' oh-so-cynical and world-weary comment gentlemanly if it had come out of Simpson's mouth within earshot of the family of his murdered ex-wife? The cases aren't exactly analogous, but it was the first case that came to mind. What Ross said was inappropriate given that George was at the same dinner table. He was gloating.

P.S. I'm not saying that I think the Simpson jury was wrong. I accept their verdict because I didn't watch the trial every day. I use it as an example because it is a familiar trial and the jury's verdict is still a controversial one.

 

 



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Tuesday 14th of March 2017 07:48:01 AM



-- Edited by Dark Mare on Saturday 1st of April 2017 09:51:03 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 190
Date: Mar 14 6:08 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I felt that the series made Ross look more culpable than what was described in the books. On the beach they portrayed him very actively plundering, whereas the book suggests he mainly just watched on, knowing that he did not need to salvage for himself and still being dazed by his grief.

The series portrayal of the trial was poorly done, and if one hadn't read the book, you might wonder why he got off. One very important part was when Ross cross-examines Eli Clemmow and easily proves that he wasn't even there.

I think Ross's acquittal was a combination of factors: wrecking being seen as a non-crime in Cornwall, Ross's cross-examinations of Nick Vigus and Eli Clemmow, Jud's turning against the Crown, and Ross's final decision to use the lawyer's speech rather than his stiff-necked one. We don't know anything about the jury, maybe their personalities came into it as well.



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 309
Date: Mar 11 2:40 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

Stella,

Those few sentences of witty repartee between Ross and Caroline were just that, I agree and quite delightful.   In fact, I think their friendship was sealed that evening, even though Ross thinks her the wrong person for Dwight.

It seems the table at the Trevaunance house must have been a very wide one because Elizabeth was able to have a confessional conversation with Ross without anyone else hearing it.  Certainly, neither of them would have wanted it overheard.

I have just read that piece in Warleggan and at no time do Demelza and Ross speak to each other during the meal.  When they are riding home she replies to his enquiry of whether she enjoyed the evening by saying they were nearly strangers by the end of it. George's position at the table is not mentioned, but his silence is.  He maybe is uncomfortable with so many of the gentry gathered together. 

 

As for the trial, Demelza herself says that she heard Ross' speech was what got him off.  Of course other factors may have come into it, but it was a good one which should have been used in the TV series.


 Thank you Mrs G and Dark Mare for this conversation which has highlighted yet more of what I have missed! There is so much in the books that I have still to instill in my memory and the only way is constant re-reading. Some people I know make notes of each chapter and that helps the ability to recall. I shall now re-read this. I do remember that Ross initially thought Caroline wrong for Dwight so I do have some memory still functioning wink



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date: Mar 11 2:28 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Stella,

Those few sentences of witty repartee between Ross and Caroline were just that, I agree and quite delightful.   In fact, I think their friendship was sealed that evening, even though Ross thinks her the wrong person for Dwight.

It seems the table at the Trevaunance house must have been a very wide one because Elizabeth was able to have a confessional conversation with Ross without anyone else hearing it.  Certainly, neither of them would have wanted it overheard.

I have just read that piece in Warleggan and at no time do Demelza and Ross speak to each other during the meal.  When they are riding home she replies to his enquiry of whether she enjoyed the evening by saying they were nearly strangers by the end of it. George's position at the table is not mentioned, but his silence is.  He maybe is uncomfortable with so many of the gentry gathered together. 

 

As for the trial, Demelza herself says that she heard Ross' speech was what got him off.  Of course other factors may have come into it, but it was a good one which should have been used in the TV series.

 

Dark Mare, I cannot for the life of me see why you think Ross was behaving in anything but a gentlemanly fashion.  So far as my memory goes, at no time does Ross ever preen or boast about himself, least of all after his trial.  What makes you think otherwise?



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Saturday 11th of March 2017 02:34:49 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 309
Date: Mar 11 11:56 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Dark Mare wrote:
Mrs Gimlett wrote:

I cannot make up my mind if you are referring to the books or the film in your post, Dark Mare.

The two lines are definitely not from the books. Neither are there any similar sentences in print.  Indeed it seemed to be the general feeling of most that Ross would be found guilty on at least two counts.  That he might get off on the charge of assaulting a militia man would not signify if he was to hang/be transported for the other charges.

In the books Ross was most certainly on the beach almost all the time.  He only left when the anguish and hurt in him had subsided to a manageable level and, as we know, he met the law and order boys whilst returning to Nampara.  Despite the Warleggans  manufacturing witnesses and bribing those who would accept the coins, the Judge actually directed the Jury to find Ross guilty, even though he had comprehended the skulduggery.

Only when Ross began speaking and 'warmed' to the task,  were they all attentive.  Ross himself was of course disgusted with how he performed, because he would really have liked to tell them what he thought of them all.  Dwight's assessment of Ross also helped, but I cannot see any other reason for his acquittal than his defence speech. Even the Judge was impressed with his eloquence, but not sufficiently to sway his views.

I don't understand your final paragraph.  Yes, Caroline and Ross had some banter about the verdict, but where does Demelza come in?  She was not part of that conversation - in fact she was several places further down the table talking to McNeil et al.  Ross was baffled by the outcome of the trial, but Demelza accepted it and felt immeasurably lucky. It doesn't follow that Ross was not also much relieved, thankful and amazed.

What do others feel?



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Friday 10th of March 2017 07:31:22 PM


Ross was just trying to impress the pretty new girl (Caroline). Maybe I am misremembering the dining scene at Sir John's party, but I thought Demelza had heard what Ross was saying about the trial and was aware that George had too. A shocking remark from her end of the table would have let Ross know he was not just being heard by Caroline. He had an audience that included George, McNeill and two magistrates. It would also let those four people know that there was one Nampara Poldark who had taken the trial very seriously, was extremely grateful to the jury and thought the acquitted defendant was now behaving like a poor winner and a preening jackass. Yes, it would be disloyal, but Ross needed someone to put a pin in his balloon. George was already angry enough about the defeat, and goading him would bring them nothing good. 

 

 


 Dark Mare - If Ross was "just trying to impress the pretty new girl (Caroline)" as you suggest, it has completely passed me by. On other occasions perhaps but not this one I think.

Mrs G - I find your version accords more with my memory of this. However, I think the jury were aware of the possible bribery of some of the witnesses and also were impressed with Dwight's testimony. It may be that what most impressed the jury was Ross' defence speech but we shall never know. So much of WG's writing leaves us to ponder for ever more.



__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 404
Date: Mar 11 9:45 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

I cannot make up my mind if you are referring to the books or the film in your post, Dark Mare.

The two lines are definitely not from the books. Neither are there any similar sentences in print.  Indeed it seemed to be the general feeling of most that Ross would be found guilty on at least two counts.  That he might get off on the charge of assaulting a militia man would not signify if he was to hang/be transported for the other charges.

In the books Ross was most certainly on the beach almost all the time.  He only left when the anguish and hurt in him had subsided to a manageable level and, as we know, he met the law and order boys whilst returning to Nampara.  Despite the Warleggans  manufacturing witnesses and bribing those who would accept the coins, the Judge actually directed the Jury to find Ross guilty, even though he had comprehended the skulduggery.

Only when Ross began speaking and 'warmed' to the task,  were they all attentive.  Ross himself was of course disgusted with how he performed, because he would really have liked to tell them what he thought of them all.  Dwight's assessment of Ross also helped, but I cannot see any other reason for his acquittal than his defence speech. Even the Judge was impressed with his eloquence, but not sufficiently to sway his views.

I don't understand your final paragraph.  Yes, Caroline and Ross had some banter about the verdict, but where does Demelza come in?  She was not part of that conversation - in fact she was several places further down the table talking to McNeil et al.  Ross was baffled by the outcome of the trial, but Demelza accepted it and felt immeasurably lucky. It doesn't follow that Ross was not also much relieved, thankful and amazed.

What do others feel?



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Friday 10th of March 2017 07:31:22 PM


 I was remembering the lines from the series, but I thought Francis at one point early on in "Jeremy Poldark" had said something to the effect that the Warleggans had overstepped in the charges they had pushed for, implying that they were asking more from the court than was customary. My point is not that Ross' statement wasn't eloquent, but that it seems unlikely that it alone would have swayed a jury bent on convicting him. I think the jurors were already uneasy about what had been happening, and maybe Ross' speech emboldened them to say no. 

Ross was just trying to impress the pretty new girl (Caroline). Maybe I am misremembering the dining scene at Sir John's party, but I thought Demelza had heard what Ross was saying about the trial and was aware that George had too. A shocking remark from her end of the table would have let Ross know he was not just being heard by Caroline. He had an audience that included George, McNeill and two magistrates. It would also let those four people know that there was one Nampara Poldark who had taken the trial very seriously, was extremely grateful to the jury and thought the acquitted defendant was now behaving like a poor winner and a preening jackass. Yes, it would be disloyal, but Ross needed someone to put a pin in his balloon. George was already angry enough about the defeat, and goading him would bring them nothing good. 

 

 



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date: Mar 10 7:28 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

I cannot make up my mind if you are referring to the books or the film in your post, Dark Mare.

The two lines are definitely not from the books. Neither are there any similar sentences in print.  Indeed it seemed to be the general feeling of most that Ross would be found guilty on at least two counts.  That he might get off on the charge of assaulting a militia man would not signify if he was to hang/be transported for the other charges.

In the books Ross was most certainly on the beach almost all the time.  He only left when the anguish and hurt in him had subsided to a manageable level and, as we know, he met the law and order boys whilst returning to Nampara.  Despite the Warleggans  manufacturing witnesses and bribing those who would accept the coins, the Judge actually directed the Jury to find Ross guilty, even though he had comprehended the skulduggery.

Only when Ross began speaking and 'warmed' to the task,  were they all attentive.  Ross himself was of course disgusted with how he performed, because he would really have liked to tell them what he thought of them all.  Dwight's assessment of Ross also helped, but I cannot see any other reason for his acquittal than his defence speech. Even the Judge was impressed with his eloquence, but not sufficiently to sway his views.

I don't understand your final paragraph.  Yes, Caroline and Ross had some banter about the verdict, but where does Demelza come in?  She was not part of that conversation - in fact she was several places further down the table talking to McNeil et al.  Ross was baffled by the outcome of the trial, but Demelza accepted it and felt immeasurably lucky. It doesn't follow that Ross was not also much relieved, thankful and amazed.

What do others feel?



-- Edited by Mrs Gimlett on Friday 10th of March 2017 07:31:22 PM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 404
Date: Mar 10 3:01 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

Well, according to Ross himself, it was the wrongheadedness of the jury.

Personally, I have always thought it was Ross' speech to the court that secured his liberty.  It spoke of things that all the jurors were familiar with.  He spoke with intelligence and in a voice that instantly drew everyone's attention. 

The Judge may have found it inexplicable, but all the Cornishmen present recognised a decent man when they heard him.  Apart from one of course.


In Series 1 Episode 8, the soldier George bribes to arrest Ross initially told him, "Salvage is the property of the finder."

In Series 2 Episode 1, I believe it was Francis who said, "No jury in Cornwall would convict him of the wrecking charge."  

(If these lines of dialogue aren't actually from the books, I think they are close.)

Ross wasn't on the beach when the riot started so he couldn't have incited it, and he wasn't there when the custom agent was assaulted. 

Plus someone (the Warleggans' lawyer) tampered with witnesses, which Jud's testimony made that quite apparent. 

But I don't think the verdict had all that much to do with what Ross said. It was simple juror nullification. Presumably, the jurors didn't feel the law was written with the conditions in Cornwall in mind, and a conviction would set a bad precedent. 

What Ross told Caroline about the jury during her disengagement party was offensive. I wish Demelza had had the nerve to say, "If you are really that disappointed you weren't executed, perhaps John could hang a noose in the barn for you. That way, you could remedy the situation at your convenience."

 



__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date: Mar 4 6:58 PM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Well, according to Ross himself, it was the wrongheadedness of the jury.

Personally, I have always thought it was Ross' speech to the court that secured his liberty.  It spoke of things that all the jurors were familiar with.  He spoke with intelligence and in a voice that instantly drew everyone's attention. 

The Judge may have found it inexplicable, but all the Cornishmen present recognised a decent man when they heard him.  Apart from one of course.



__________________


Administration

Status: Offline
Posts: 1618
Date: Mar 4 10:14 AM, 2017
Permalink  
 

Originally incorrectly posted into the "Jeremy Poldark" thread by L. Jones41.

 http://poldark.activeboard.com/t1027870/03-jeremy-poldark-1790-1791-1950/

 

Stella Poldark 

Student

Status: Offline

Posts: 170

Date: Mar 3 9:55 PM, 2017

LJones41 wrote:


Does anyone remember why Ross was exonerated of the charges against him?


The Judge's summing up suggested that the Jury should convict Ross in two out of the three charges, if I remember correctly.  However Juries are not required to give reasons for their decisions so we can only speculate.

_________________________________________________

 

SusanneMcCarthy

Initiate 

Status: Offline

Posts: 68

Date: Mar 3 9:05 PM, 2017

It isn't made explicit - then, as now, juries aren't required to explain their verdicts. It may have been that Cornish juries wouldn't convict anyone of wrecking, as it was a common practice (not deliberately luring ships onto the rocks, as is sometimes claimed.) Also the evidence of Captain Bray (aka Captain Clark) about Ross inviting the survivors into his house, and of him and the sargeant of the dragoons that he appeared to have warned rather than threatened about going down onto the beach. And also it's likely that they were aware of the pamphlets George had put out - possibly in doing that George had rather over-egged the pudding, and the jury recognised that "someone" was out to get him. 

_________________________________________

LJones41

Student 

Status: Offline

Posts: 111

Date: Mar 3 8:41 PM, 2017

Does anyone remember why Ross was exonerated of the charges against him?



__________________

"Perfection is a full stop .... Ever the climbing but never the attaining Of the mountain top." W.G.

 

 



Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Date: Oct 13 7:18 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Stella and Mrs. Gimlett, I agree with you both. Lord Falmouth in Angry Tide describes Ross rather well I think.

 

'Well, let us instance a single matter. You dislike what the French Revolution has become and are prepared to fight it with all means in your power. But at heart I think you believe in the fundamentals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity yourself, though you do not see it in those terms or say it in those words. Your humanity, your sentiment, respond to it and they are not sufficiently governed by your head, which would tell you that the achievement of those aims is impossible!' 

It is Ross' humanity that is commendable and his egalitarianism.



-- Edited by MrsMartin on Saturday 15th of October 2016 04:36:43 AM

__________________


Undergraduate

Status: Offline
Posts: 309
Date: Oct 13 3:16 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Mrs Gimlett wrote:

I don't agree Ross wears his heart on his sleeve.  He is thought by many of the other characters to be hard to read, unapproachable and 'difficult' in the early  books.  He is highly strung, quick to temper and analytical about his actions after the event, but people never really knew what he thought.  Apart from his quick outbursts of course!

My reasons for championing him?  He is a flawed human (as we all are) - makes many mistakes and for the most part, learns from them.  He has a great capacity for love and loyalty, perhaps as a result of seeing his father's behaviour and vowing not to follow in his footsteps.  He is very much ahead of his time in his treatment of his fellows and particularly women.  By portraying Ross as he did, WG created someone we can all relate to.  There are far too many 'heroes' in fiction, who are 'perfect' and they are unbelievable and boring. We might enjoy the stories, but with Ross and WGs writing, you do get the feeling any one of the characters could be living just along the road.  It's the wonderful writing of an outstanding author we have to thank.


 I agree with all you say Mrs G and would like to add to that by quoting from The Twisted Sword. George Canning writes to Ross from Portugal on 25th September 1815 after Ross has conveyed his decision to retire from public life as follows....

"You are not the political animal I am.

But you have so much to bring to public life in some form - a strength of character, a rare integrity, a thinking brain which does not allow itself to be diverted from its true concerns, a passionate belief in freedom and justice, a resolution in all good things: these are in such rare supply today that they cannot, shall not, I hope, be altogether lost to those of us who inhabit the world of affairs."

The Twister Sword Book Four Chapter One Part 2

I think integrity is, and has always been, a rare quality and Ross has this throughout his life, apart from the occasional weakness. Often it requires self-sacrifice as when Ross, at great cost to his own family, secretly gave Elizabeth £600 after Francis died. 

Stella



-- Edited by Stella Poldark on Thursday 13th of October 2016 07:22:52 PM

__________________


Honorary Life Member. Forum Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date: Oct 13 10:20 AM, 2016
Permalink  
 

I don't agree Ross wears his heart on his sleeve.  He is thought by many of the other characters to be hard to read, unapproachable and 'difficult' in the early  books.  He is highly strung, quick to temper and analytical about his actions after the event, but people never really knew what he thought.  Apart from his quick outbursts of course!

My reasons for championing him?  He is a flawed human (as we all are) - makes many mistakes and for the most part, learns from them.  He has a great capacity for love and loyalty, perhaps as a result of seeing his father's behaviour and vowing not to follow in his footsteps.  He is very much ahead of his time in his treatment of his fellows and particularly women.  By portraying Ross as he did, WG created someone we can all relate to.  There are far too many 'heroes' in fiction, who are 'perfect' and they are unbelievable and boring. We might enjoy the stories, but with Ross and WGs writing, you do get the feeling any one of the characters could be living just along the road.  It's the wonderful writing of an outstanding author we have to thank.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 151
Date: Oct 12 7:47 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

So much to choose from, but certainly his vulnerability. Ross wears his heart on his sleeve and consequently is so often disappointed in love, life, and society. Outwardly he appears confident, independent, and self-sufficient. Yet inwardly he is lonely, sad, constantly brooding and seeking the total, undivided love and loyalty that he knows he will never find. His restlessness and lack of contentment attest to this quixotic quest. Like the scar on his face, his sadness fades over time but never quite disappears. At the same time, Ross' wonderful compassion, his self-sacrificing loyalty to friends and ideals, his infectious enthusiasm, his hope for a better world, his capacity for forgiveness, and his ability to admit his mistakes and laugh at himself all make for a beautifully conceived and complex character.

Oh, it also helps a LOT that he is pulse-pounding gorgeous, as brilliantly personified by Aidan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

MrsMartin wrote:

What is it about this character that makes him irresistible? To me, he has several traits that are admirable and others that are not, this is what makes him seem so human. I find that Ross' ability for self examination, usually after he has done something foolish, one of his most commendable qualities.



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 176
Date: Oct 11 9:17 PM, 2016
Permalink  
 

Ross Poldark:

What is it about this character that makes him irresistible? To me, he has several traits that are admirable and others that are not, this is what makes him seem so human. I find that Ross' ability for self examination, usually after he has done something foolish, one of his most commendable qualities.



-- Edited by MrsMartin on Tuesday 11th of October 2016 09:18:06 PM

__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 195
Date: Mar 1 8:36 PM, 2012
Permalink  
 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 195
Date: Mar 1 8:35 PM, 2012
Permalink  
 

 



__________________


Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 195
Date: Mar 1 8:28 PM, 2012
Permalink  
 

Namparagirl wrote:

Hello Sabina and a very warm welcome to the forum where you've probably already found that we're all nuts about Poldark.  Ross Poldark is definitely one of the literary world's greatest heroes and they got the casting spot on when they put Robin Ellis in the lead role.  

Thank you, Nampara girl for the warm welcome!  I agree he's one of the world's greatest literary heroes, and Robin Ellis did a great job playing the role, as did Angarhard Rees playing Demelza.  Demelza was the right woman for Ross.  I think it's wonderful that in spite of all the rough spots in their relationship, they still worked hard to keep their marriage together, as well as keeping the romance and a healthy sex life alive in their marriage. 

The great thing about Winston Graham's writing is that he not only paints the perfect picture of his characters but is superbly talented in revealing the heart and soul, thoughts and feelings of each person in such a skillful way, bringing them to life with his words so that we come to believe that they are old friends we have known for a lifetime and love dearly.

That's true.   It's easy to fall in love with all of his colorful characters, that is except for the ones that we love to hate such as George and Osbourne.  So many tender romances going on with the characters, and their problems that we can all relate to.

 


 



__________________


Honorary life member

Status: Offline
Posts: 1218
Date: Mar 1 8:12 PM, 2012
Permalink  
 

Hello Sabina and a very warm welcome to the forum where you've probably already found that we're all nuts about Poldark.  Ross Poldark is definitely one of the literary world's greatest heroes and they got the casting spot on when they put Robin Ellis in the lead role.  

The great thing about Winston Graham's writing is that he not only paints the perfect picture of his characters but is superbly talented in revealing the heart and soul, thoughts and feelings of each person in such a skillful way, bringing them to life with his words so that we come to believe that they are old friends we have known for a lifetime and love dearly.



__________________

Tide was nearly full. Mist lay in a grey scarf along the line of the cliffs.
.. and they walked home hand in hand through the slanting shadows of the new darkness.



Student

Status: Offline
Posts: 195
Date: Mar 1 3:35 PM, 2012
Permalink  
 

Hi, I'm new to this forum. The Loving Cup is the latest Poldark novel I have read in it's entirity, and have read all the preceeding ones, so I'd be happy to discuss any of these first ten novels with anybody. I have just started reading the 11th one, The Twisted Sword.

I think it's easy to develop a "crush" on Ross Poldark, especially as portrayed by Robin Ellis in the TV series. He is literally tall, dark and handsome, as well as a person of strong moral character.


__________________


Administration

Status: Offline
Posts: 1618
Date: May 1 1:49 PM, 2011
Permalink  
 

Ross Poldark



__________________

"Perfection is a full stop .... Ever the climbing but never the attaining Of the mountain top." W.G.

 

 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.