Talk:Bless the Bride

An adjective for Trout?

Actually "frivolous" (what's happened to my spell-checker?) is not a bad adjective for T.Trout. He has a little song Too good to be true to the effect that he sees nothing wrong with a lie or two when it's necessary (very shocking indeed to the Victorian Lucy Veracity - who takes the implications of her second name VERY seriously indeed). He is assessed, quite justly, by Pierre as a "spade - I mean a rake". Even his attachment to the new (and more than slightly shocking) game of lawn tennis smacks of frivolity! While he is much chastened and generally improved in character by the end of the play he certainly starts out that way. I am open to other suggestions, but I think we need something appropriate here - otherwise it is a little bald - in the play itself we don't blame Lucy for a moment for finding Pierre preferable to Thomas - the Frenchman is not just more romantic, but also more serious and earnest. If there is a better adjective that covers all of Thomas' Act I faults by all means substitute it of course! Sorry, I wouldn't insist but I do know this one rather well. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone sent me a message saying that frivolous is not right. They suggested "stuffy" or "overbearing", but she comes back and considers marrying him again, so he can't be that overbearing. I saw one source that said "unromantic", but that's not a very descriptive word about what he "is". Sounds like rakish might be ok.... I'm not sure that we need an adjective for him, though - we could just say that Pierre is more romantic. See my newest edit. Can you add which characters sing each of the songs, and which songs are Act I and which are Act II? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea where stuffy or overbearing could possibly come from! Has the person who told you that even read the synopsis on the record sleeve?? Much less listened to his songs? "Rakish" would actually be rather nice - certainly much closer to the case than "stuffy" - "overbearing" is even sillier - he is much too light-headed to overbear anyone. Are they confusing him with the other British male characters? Some of THEM are stuffy to the Nth degree. If anything I think "rakish" implies a slightly more "caddish" character than the Hon. Thomas. He is quite close, in fact, to Bertie Wooster!! A.P.Herbert may not be the greatest novelist or musical "book" writer ever, but he was well above average in both departments, and one of his great strengths is his characters - not overly complicated (in the manner of musical theatre) but strongly marked and entertaining. It seems a real shame to have his work described so inaccurately. No time to fix the song list right now - I'll get round to it when I can. Hang in there! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Check out the link at the bottom of the article - the writer there describes Thomas T. as a "cad".--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-write!!

Look - I've relistened to my recording and read the (very full) sleeve notes. That synopsis was really not much use - I've re-written it. Also redone the song list - although there a couple of songs not on my recording and that I can't find - left them off altogether rather than put them in out of sequence and without character(s) singing them. As usualk, there are fair few reprises in Act II - left them out. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing items now added to songlist - should be correct although I've had a little guess about who sings "silent heart"??? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Usually, we also pepper the synopsis with names of the major songs, where they contain plot points. We use this format: Ado Annie expresses her feelings about dating ("I'm just a girl who cain't say no"). Can you do that with the materials you have at hand? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I did not understand your first edit summary about 1870, so thanks for clarifying. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Still going! I've added a few songs to the plot. Due to the compressed nature of the synopsis some of the songs are out of order in the synopsis - the correct order is in the song list - just that at a couple of points in the play several things are happening at onece which we summarise in the plot.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)