Cancelled

Cmk-7 -- You'd almost certainly really enjoy the 5-book series on World War I by Anne Perry. You would swear she had been there in the trenches! First book of the series: "No Graves As Yet."

I've now read over 60 Anne Perry books, but the first was the great "No Graves As Yet."

Men may not usually care as much for the first books of her earliest series, featuring Thomas and Charlotte Pitt, but most would like the later William Monk series, I would bet, plus the LATER Pitt novels. She is now 76 -- and still putting out some 3 books a year. I think she's the most skilled writer I've ever read! -- with incredible characterizations, and a flow of reality dense as poetry. Yet all accessible effortlessly.

I know I'm late to this, but I really recommend Ken Follett's Century Triology. Or just the first book if you like the time around WWI, but don't have much interest in (or are burnt out on) WWII and/or the Cold War.
The first book, Fall of Giants, starts a few years before the War. It follows a few characters from the UK (Wales, then London), a character from Germany, a family from the States, and a pair of brothers from St. Petersburg.
It sounds like a lot, and it is, but the characters and their stories link together, even if sometimes they themselves don't know it.
The sequels follow these same characters and their descendants. The trilogy as a whole basically goes from just before WWI to the fall of the Iron Curtain in the early 90s.

Every other book I'd ever read about, or that takes place during, WWI (or WWII for that matter) was from the perspective of the Allies. Always American or British. It was fascinating seeing so many different perspectives of the war. It certainly made it seem like there weren't two sides to it at all, but many facets. It also did a good job of showing how the Russian Revolution was influenced by the War, but also how it affected the Great War. It also, I think, does a fair job of explaining why it took the US so long to jump in to the fray.

I've been on a jag, lately, of reading books that are either about or take place in this time period.
One I recommend immensely is Dead Wake by Erik Larson. It's technically non-fiction, but the way it's written makes it kind of somewhere between a novel and typical non-fiction. It's really well done, and every little detail is backed up by facts. He doesn't just detail the final voyage of the Lusitania, but history about Cunard, the Lusitania's captain, many of her passengers and crew. He also details the voyage of the u-boat that hit her and her captain and crew. It gives info on behind-the-scenes goings on, how much the government knew about the u-boat's threat to the Lusitania, what Cunard and the captain knew, and even what it was like in the Irish town that was close enough to take in survivors after she was hit.
It's just an incredibly well-written and fascinating book. I heartily recommend it to any history buff.

Yes, too true. This was a stab at doing something female-centric, as often the female roles all of us here are familiar with are dramatized or documented on film on the home front.

A good friend who grew up in the west country of England, gathered round the radio all during World War II, reminded me of something it is so easy to forget about the BBC when we were discussing our disappointment about TCF. (Her father survived the Somme.)

And that is its putative role is to be a public servant and do important programming that other commercial networks will not take on due to the pressure of needing to be commercial. They do it because it's important and brings important information to the country.

Yet, more and more the BBC, especially in the key slots like Sunday evening, seem to operate like a commercial venue--it's mass ratings or you are out with yesterday's fish wrapper. If a show like this does not make it into the sort of "public service" value, then not sure what does.

She suggested wisely that it could have been given a second-fourth series after simply being retooled a bit--less soap and more drama along the lines of "Tenko" or other war dramas that have a mix of effective storylines.

She posited that this TCF was precisely the type of drama the BBC was commissioned for. Not public service precisely, but to tell a story that was important to tell. At a time on the 100th anniversary when it was the perfect time to tell it. On reflection, she was very wise to see this.

Too bad the BBC bean counters did not, and gave it a second outing to improve it and make it work on all levels.

It's such a shame--it was headed for such a rich tapestry for the women--the Ypres battles, The Somme, then the final German push that nearly won them the war.

It would have been an amazing dramatic nail biter to see all of the field hospitals like the one we saw being overrun by the Germans in the big final push of 1918. The Germans took control of the hospitals, all the beds (40,000 beds were lost according to "The Roses of No Man's Land"), the equipment the drugs and all--and pushed all the Allies nearly to the sea before the Germans faltered due to a mishap by one of their Generals.

Wow! Just imagine the drama involved in seeing our nurses and VADs faced with a hasty retreat under fire, trying to help their soldiers and such, having to leave some behind. What a rip snorter that would have been for the final series.

Then of course immediately following that disaster among the field hospitals began the flue epidemic and the soldiers and staff began dying by the thousands.

Gah!

I feel as though somebody took me to Claridges, ordered prawn cocktail with the promise of the next 4 courses, finest French wines and treacle in abundance...and we left before the second course!

Come on Beeb. Have a rethink. Please? Give it to BBC2. Or summat.

I think it is supposed to be on PBS later this year.

--Thanks for the above link, Random!

--And yes rdavies. About the gritty factor. A friend who's a fan and I have talked about this show a good deal over coffees.

At one point, we were just trying to put our finger on something about the program that wasn't "working" even though the cast was engaging and the soapy bits were interesting to follow. And there was always the "war issue of the week" to see.

Then she hit the nail on the head for us anyway--unlike in most of the source documents from VAD journals, military nurse memoirs and the like, the ladies of the VAD were never pictured suffering in abject horror at what they were seeing.

We had a tiny moment with Flora and her missing digits in the laundry, which they chose to make almost humorous rather than horrifying for her. Her first day and she took that in stride?

We never saw the new VADs trying to cope with being suddenly exposed to horrific things. If we were to believe TCF was an honest depiction, the inexperienced ladies of the VAD just seemed to float above all the visuals, smells and general horror that one of those field hospitals would have presented them with.

We viewers were presented with a few horrible injuries and things---but as my friend said, not once did we see the VADs hiding behind a tent flap trying to gather their composure at some horror they'd seen. Or losing their breakfast after being exposed to something dreadful. They just seemed to arrive and la di dah, as Annie Hall said.

An Edwardian lady coping with the sudden horror of it seemed a central theme we might have been privy to viewing. But we never saw that process. It was as though all that horror was going on around them, but we never saw them being emotionally devastated by it and trying to adjust.

Even as a Red Cross worker during Vietnam, we were schooled heavily by veteran navy nurses before we ever stepped foot on a hospital ward to do the tasks we were assigned. You had to learn to school your face utterly in order to NEVER react to the sight of an injured serviceman. A scene or two of Matron talking with the VADs to warn them and give them some instruction would have been welcome.

Or a few scenes with Miles and/or Tom perhaps speaking quietly with a VAD or two about their scared or upset reactions would have been nice--at least it would have acknowledged what must have been traumatic for these women at first.

We never saw anything like that---it was all very clean and tidy and the wounds were there to shock us, but the VADs from the first moment seemed to take it in stride with no process of learning or training to cope with horror.

Where was the emotional toll on the women shown?

The only rating that counted for this program were the BBC One ratings for Sunday nights in the 9 p.m. slot.

And it was not drawing the viewers the way their hallmark shows like "Call the Midwife" and "Poldark" did.

The new normal for BBC One on Sunday at 9 p.m. is in the 7-9 million per night viewer range.

"Crimson Field" started strong but lost masses of viewers week after week.

If it had been a BBC Two program, that can be considered a success with 2-4 million on a good night, then it would have survived.

But they put it in the most important time slot BBC One has--9 p.m. Sundays. And it did not perform to the standard a show has to achieve nowadays for that slot.

It is not like US ratings with DVR and things like that.

It either pulls 7-9 million now.....or you're GONE. It's brutal on BBC One at 9 p.m.

Comparing it to the way US shows measure ratings doesn't work.

Please join @SaveTCF on Twitter to help with campaign. The US response there is huge to the first episode. Much more positive, and with much less viewers than UK, as I was around for both.

PBS is doing *no* promotion at all in the States, beyond a few tweets from their account. Poldark is getting a massive multi media blitz on social media, TV and print advertising. It's even on my flipping Kindle screen here which incensed me to no end because TCF is being pointedly ignored.

This is also making me so upset as I've been through every single tweet mentioning TCF and it's all positive when compared to Poldark. When people mentioned the two shows, TCF is at least judged equal, and there are 20+ tweets saying it's better than Poldark. Only 1 or 2 saying the opposite.

This is obviously a trend here, that the print media is failing to pick up on. TCF screeners were not sent out to request reviews from major publications as PBS is putting all their bets on Poldark, a sure thing that will continue.

I feel like we are being sold a hero to swoon over. (Sorry. Give me the Scottish Mr. Darcy - Capt. Thomas Gillan played by the uniquely talented Richard Rankin - over Ross Poldark and his fake tan and anachronistic abs any day.)

I think PBS is being enormously disrespectful to the women who created, and inspired, this lovely show.