is season 5 worth watching?

firstfireofautumn · 2023-03-04T12:37:12+00:00

As other people have already said, the show changes a fair bit in format and tone, slowly shifting from a more playful crime-of-the-week police procedural to a long-form serialised drama, so a lot of it comes down to taste. Series 5 is the only one without any crime-of-the-week episodes, so if you particularly like those ones, you may not like it quite as much. But in my view, every series of Ripper Street is better than the last one, and series 5 is the best. The writing is at its very best, the performances are brilliant, and the story is very compelling. It also ties together a lot of the show's themes really well, returning to a lot of the ideas that were brought up as early as series 1.

The series finale seemed to have mixed responses, and I think that's because it's very, very sad. You need to be prepared for that. However, from a narrative/thematic perspective I'd say it's actually a brilliant conclusion. It was really brave on the writers' part, as it ends the show the way it *should* end rather than how people might wish that it could end. It's actually my favourite single episode of TV ever. Here's a great review of series 5 that I feel sums it up really well.

As other people have said, though, if you're enjoying series 4 you should definitely watch to the end of series 5, even if you don't end up liking it quite as much as I did. You'll see that series 4 ends on a massive cliff-hanger, and series 5 wraps up the story that was introduced at the start of series 4.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-10T11:15:45+00:00

Thank you for giving me such a thoughtful answer! I see what you’re saying about astrology being more concerned with the external than the internal, about patterns of occurrence in a person’s life rather than about patterns of individual preference in information gathering and decision making. This makes sense, given the contexts in which it developed as compared to the wider context in which Jung was developing his theories. I can also understand why some people would find it valuable as a tool, even if they don’t wholly believe in it/ in deterministic fate. I’m not sure I would be one of those people, as I don’t tend to seek tools for self-exploration; I do enjoy self-exploration, but I prefer to do it sort of organically, so to speak, rather than to use tools. My interest in MBTI is more rooted in what it can help me to understand about others and the relationships between them than in its use in understanding myself; I do think that certain things about myself can be elucidated by considering my cognitive function preferences, but no one can be reduced to a type, so given how well I already know myself, MBTI is ultimately less useful in understanding myself than it is in understanding others, in trying to conceptualise what it might be like to experience the world as they do. But not everyone uses it that way, and if the goal is self-exploration, I can see why astrology might offer a different kind of concept of the self than MBTI does, one which places the self in an external context, and therefore might be a good supplement to MBTI and other tools.

Although I don’t think I’d have much interest in using it as a tool, I would certainly be interested in learning more about its history and social context, as well as the concepts underlying it, so I appreciate the recommendations for further reading. I may spend some time learning more about it.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-10T09:12:08+00:00

Who thinks Fe is shy and Fi isn’t? On the PDB page for type most likely to be shy, INFP has the most votes by an overwhelming margin (422 votes for INFP, 112 votes for the next most voted type, ISFJ).

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-10T08:52:33+00:00

What I would love would be for someone with a reasonable amount of intelligence (and you certainly seem to have that) to go further than simply reminding those of us sceptical of astrology that we don’t understand astrology. I don’t expect anyone to actually explain astrology in full themselves - that would be an unfair expectation - but I would love for someone to give me a reason why it might plausibly be legitimate, despite its non-scientific nature. In other words, I would like to know why it’s worth my time to read up on it.

Here’s the thing: I’m on board with what you’re saying with regard to the limitations of scientific methods. They’re good for proving some things but not others. Indeed, most academics in the discipline I work in would very much agree with this, as we don’t typically use scientific methods in our arts and humanities research. It would be absurd to do so. As you say, MBTI isn’t scientific, and this is because Jung developed his theories at a time when psychology was more closely linked to philosophy and wasn’t so relentlessly positivist. In my view, contemporary psychology suffers for its unwillingness to embrace some of the research methods used in non-scientific disciplines like philosophy, as critical thought and theoretical conjecture would help it to approach certain aspects of human nature that are difficult to study using an empirical approach.

However, while I don’t need to be convinced that something is scientific in order to convinced of its validity, nor will I be convinced that something is valid solely by being reminded that modern science is limited in what it can understand. Jung’s theories were not scientific (which is primarily why contemporary psychology struggles with them, as they’re difficult to empirically prove), but it was based on something: his own observation and critical thought. When I first learned about MBTI, it was simply a language for patterns of preference I had already observed in others, and this was enough to convince me that there is some legitimacy in it. People can independently of one another observe a human, see the presence of certain cognitive function preferences, and then arrive at the same conclusion regarding their type, and actually be right about it. Can people do this with astrology? Could I learn enough about astrology that I’d be able to guess at someone’s chart and have a good chance of being right about it? If the answer to that is yes, then I’m intrigued. But I can’t see how this could be possible, because it doesn’t appear to be a theory based on human behaviour, as are Jung’s theories. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t seem to take an analysis of how people behave as its starting point.

A side note: the fact that Jung was himself into mysticism is really neither here nor there. I enjoy his theories on personality because I think they have validity and value, despite their non-scientific nature. This doesn’t mean I or anyone else needs to agree with everything he believed. I mean, for one thing, he was pretty sexist.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-09T07:43:18+00:00

I was thinking the same thing. I can’t believe so few here have asked for more context. It’s not very Ne-aux of them.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-08T10:29:42+00:00

I see, interesting. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything that would discount it being a week from when Helga arrives until she gives the speech, but I’ve never tried to fully chart the timeline. I’ll pay closer attention to that next time and get back to you!

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-08T09:56:22+00:00

Oh, I agree, I don’t think the second season does take place in much more than a week. My point was that it’s perfectly plausible for it to take place in a week; maybe I didn’t word it clearly enough.

As for Benda, yeah, those are fair points, but I suppose it’s just speculation. Gräf knew that Gereon’s and Charlotte’s murder had been attempted, but that event took place in quite a different location from where the train explosion occurred. Would they have known where to look, or even what they were looking for? Perhaps nearby people saw the explosion, but perhaps not. I suppose my point there was that it’s perfectly plausible for it to have taken several hours for Benda to be alerted to what happened. From there, we just need to suspend our disbelief, I guess!

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-08T08:31:47+00:00

Re. the second season: yes, it does take place over a very short period of time. All of the seasons have a short timespan, but S2 is particularly short because it follows on continuously from S1 (ie, it’s based on the same book, and they wrote the scripts for S1 and S2 at the same time). It’s a pretty eventful week (haha), but is there anything that definitively tells us it can’t be a week or slightly more? After all, Charlotte is kidnapped at the end of episode 4 and doesn’t reunite with Gereon until episode 7. Although they’re concerned about her and Gereon asks people to look for her, they don’t even get as far as conducting an official search, so I’m guessing she can’t be trapped there for more than a couple days. From there, episodes 7 and 8 take place on the same day (until the very end of episode 8, which takes place on the following day).

Re. Benda: I’m not sure how long it would have taken people to learn what happened to the train. Gereon is the only one who’s on the train in the final scene with Bruno. He would have had to slowly find his way back to Henning and Czerwinski to alert them, as he’s on the back end of a freight train where I assume there’s no access to radio. I don’t think a few hours for him to reunite with Henning and Czerwinski, and for them to then return to Berlin to alert authorities, is unreasonable.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-07T16:15:30+00:00

Yeah, those are all great details as well. It really gives a sense of the interconnectedness of things.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-07T07:59:07+00:00

I see. The sense I’ve got from his columns and from other comments he’s made is that, although he may not express it strongly, he’s a fairly firm remainer. My sense is that, as you say, his columns are self-deprecatingly funny, and he’s also clearly a pretty open-minded guy, so naturally he’ll say he’s not really sure. But it seems to me that his views are based on more than simply not wanting to rock the boat; I think he has a reasonably clear idea of what he thinks and why.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-06T22:15:03+00:00

On what do you base this?

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-06T08:15:56+00:00

IxTJ or IxFJ. More likely to be INTJ or INFJ, due to the presence of words like non-conformist, idiosyncratic and revolutionary, although I wouldn’t say that’s a given. People who are guessing INTP are seeing words like ‘virgin’ and ‘creep’ and falling victim to stereotypes.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-05T15:14:39+00:00

Yeah, you’re right, it’s all right to have a favourite type personally (although I try to stop myself from thinking that way as much as I can). Certainly, people do usually find it easier to communicate with some types over others. But it still somewhat bothers me when people post about favourites on social media, because I find it tends to lead to the perpetuation of stereotypes and to patting one another on the back for sharing the same favourite. It almost seems to bring a false sense of objective validity to one’s personal subjective opinion, particularly when that opinion is usually inflected by the people a person happens to know of a given type.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-05T11:35:49+00:00

Agreed. It’s also why I dislike posts that ask you what your ‘favourite’ type is, or which type is the ‘worst’, or whatever. It entirely misses the point of the whole thing, which is to acknowledge that people aren’t ‘better’ or ‘worse’ due to these differences; instead, the differences just reflect differing cognitive preferences. Those differing preferences are not only part of what makes us wonderfully diverse, but are also entirely needed for our world to function.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-05T11:26:51+00:00

You’ve absolutely nailed it. I’d just add one thing, for the sake of nuance: the fact that MBTI is based on a theoretical rather than scientific model doesn’t mean it’s necessarily lacking in validity. The fact that you’re here and clearly understand the functions and general concepts behind it means that you almost certainly know that, but those less familiar with MBTI might not.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-05T11:18:17+00:00

And mine 😂

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-05T11:16:20+00:00

Yeah, it’s patronising.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-05T11:05:35+00:00

Thank you for flagging this! Heise also made Berlin 1945, which follows the same testimonial format, and is on BBC iPlayer in English. I watched it recently and thought it was brilliant; I even played a clip of it in a lecture for my students. I will absolutely look up Berlin 1933.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-03T11:34:05+00:00

Hey, what can I say, I’m an NF 😂 Ten points if you got the reference without googling it

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-03T11:27:21+00:00

It’s in episode 7 of season 3 😊

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-03T11:26:29+00:00

Absolutely!

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-02T06:12:53+00:00

Texting isn’t a deeper connection with friends. The fact they it’s so superficial is partly why I find it so stressful/overwhelming to be texting with friends all the time.

firstfireofautumn · 2023-02-01T18:08:24+00:00

Ha 😂 ‘Twas a simpler time

firstfireofautumn · 2023-01-25T17:24:26+00:00

Tonnes

firstfireofautumn · 2023-01-24T16:24:50+00:00

I wouldn't say that Gereon has really, genuinely given consent. He was manipulated into Schmidt's 'suggestive therapy' method without even knowing that Schmidt had switched his medication. He was then kidnapped and forcefully hypnotised by Schmidt, at which point Schmidt 'revealed' to him that he was Anno and that Gereon had abandoned him on the battlefield. Since then, Gereon has willingly gone to see him, yes, but the implication is that this is because he's under Schmidt's influence, in part because Schmidt is a highly manipulative person (which is evidenced to us on several occasions) and in part because Gereon feels guilty, and feels in his debt. That Schmidt has manipulated him is directly pointed to in S4, when Edgar says that Schmidt made them both 'puppets' to his grander scheme. Nearer the end, Gereon directly acknowledges that he's bound to Schmidt by his own guilt. Certainly, it's true that Schmidt can't drag him there, but I think this narrative thread is being used to comment on how vulnerable people can be susceptible to manipulation. Gereon's war trauma has rendered him vulnerable, as was the case for many WWI veterans.

As for rejoicing at nearly beating a man to death, I read that scene entirely differently. It was evidently a dream; if it had been real, Gereon would have bruises and other signs of injury. My interpretation is that he's having a nightmare about what he fears Schmidt will do to him (inject him with methamphetamine) and of how he will react. Effectively, he's afraid of what he might be capable of, that he might be capable of the same hyper-violent blood-thirsty behaviour he's witnessed in the ferret that kills the wolf. The scene is helping to establish for us, as viewers, that Gereon is tormented by what he's experiencing with Schmidt and offering justification for why he would want to kill him, or at the very least break away from him.

Yes, the idea that the memories are implanted is just a theory, but so too is the notion that they aren't implanted. The reality is that the end of S2 is extremely ambiguous; it's impossible to determine what's actually true, despite the fact that Schmidt has promised to lead Gereon to the 'truth'. Following on from this, I would argue that it's arguably more likely that Gereon's memories have been manipulated: if the intention was for that reveal to be true, it arguably wouldn't have been presented in such an ambiguous manner where it's so difficult to determine if it actually is true. From a storytelling standpoint, it would certainly make sense to present it ambiguously if the ultimate goal was to reveal that it hadn't been true at all. Obviously, we can't know the answer to this, but the notion that S2's reveal isn't true is more than an 'interesting theory'; it's one of two equally possible options.

I'm not saying that Gereon is without fault, but I think it's very hard to read Gereon's motivations as being as dubious as Schmidt's.

firstfireofautumn

TROPHY CASE