What do you mean, you have heard he thought it was funny? Who are you to know that he has just used her?If you were in court your deductions would be laughed at. Leave them alone - don't listen to second-hand gossip, don't think that the Chinese whispers you have heard reflect his feelings, and certainly don't tell anyone who might be hurt by it.Toby ButlerHampton CourtSurreyJust be a good friendThe role of a best friend, in offering insight into a new guy, changes as the relationship develops. And if she is a true friend she must bear the burden of confidence she has been given, and do her best to erase it from her mind.what readers sayWho are you to know best?I haven't heard of such a large assumption since the Virgin Mary. Those who attempt to mediate by telling the truth, in other words, often get killed or punished in the telling.If I were Iris, I would not attempt to interfere in something that is none of my business anyway She is a confidante, a friend, not a spy. She described the letter as a method of "lancing the boil", but the very fact that she had written a letter created another boil. Had she never written, the problem would have sorted itself out satisfactorily. No more would have been said; time and general goodwill would have sorted it out.
Gossip is a useful way of discharging the burden of secrets without actually telling the protagonists in a situation that you know about them. By telling her friend directly that her one-night stand has been behaving badly, at least in conversation, Iris risks losing the friendship. It is the bearer of the bad news, after all, who frequently is put to the sword, not the perpetrator of the act.She should ask herself which is more painful: losing a friendship, or keeping the secret? Keeping a secret is often agonising, but it is often the right and moral thing to do, for in the long run you find that the secrets are distortions of the truth, and it's only later that you are delighted to find they have no foundation.I recently had a "frank and truthful" letter from a friend, about a situation in which I had not acquitted myself too well, that hurt me enormously. The truth is that the man might just have been boasting; and her friend might just have been fantasising. There is always a chance that they may have the opportunity of a real relationship together. And if Iris is so keen on telling the truth, then shouldn't she, logically, tell the man, too, about the fact that her best friend has been fantasising about marriage? That would put the cat among the pigeons.Secrets are very hard to bear They fester within us, longing for an outlet. They are the better type of person, those who realise that their knowledge has the potential to hurt.
The others are those within whom secrets itch to get out, within whom secrets feel like a burp or a fart, painful blobs of poison gas that need release. Is it a kind of aggression that makes her want to reveal to her friend a confidence that will hurt her desperately, and sabotage any relationship the two lovers might have in the future? Or is it a weird kind of desire for absolution, a belief that honesty is the best policy, however cruel?Some people can keep secrets. Should she tell her friend? Isn't it interesting to see what happens after a one-night stand? He brags to his mates that it was nothing - he was dragged to bed by a beautiful woman and hey, what a stud he is and yet what a nightmare it all was; she, on the other hand, justifies it by practically setting a marriage date with wedding bells pealing over the countryside. What is Iris's role in all this? For she, too, has a part in the drama. But Iris has heard that he's told a friend it was all very funny, and he was dragged to bed by her. There was a distinct danger that history might repeat itself. With the BBC hungry for more work from the company, mature reflection would suggest cutting This Life off in its prime may have been the smartest of moves.. Iris's best friend slept with a new man when they were drunk Now she's excited, almost preparing for marriage.
At the end of series two, the plot exploded, leaving the third series as a pale imitation of its ratings-grabbing predecessors. As far as he's concerned, "in the end, I decided it was time to move on".Fans may have wanted to follow the fallout from the gruesome marital finale of series two, but Garnett quit while he was ahead. He didn't want to repeat the formula - several of the cast were unavailable anyway - and the risks in a "new improved" version were very high. He had, it should be recalled, been on similarly dangerous territory before.It was Garnett who made the excellent police investigation series Between the Lines. "He was accused of dithering but I think that was very unfair."So what did happen in the end? "Tony called me and said: `You're going to hate me for this, but I'm not going to make a third series and you'll probably not want to talk to me for a while, but if you ever have an idea for the future, come to me.' And that was that."Ravenhill bears Garnett no ill-will whatsoever, which might seem surprising, except when you consider that he has been paid to undertake a masterclass in writing drama for television, something most young writers would gladly give their eye-teeth for.Garnett is notoriously wary of the press and has remained silent but for the brief press release in which he stressed the excellence of Ravenhill's work and the friendliness of the relationship between his own production company and the BBC. Having regulars wasn't in the spirit of the original conception."Ravenhill even removed the whole idea of lawyers from the equation.