I haven't thought this through as of yet, but thought I'd put it out there to hear/see/get people's views on the mental stability and/or instability (or temporary lapses of reason) of the BG characters.

On the unstable side, we have the usual suspects:
- Fenner
- Di
- Dockley
- Anyone else?

I think the "stable" side offers more of paddywhack, if we assume that prisoners, who have been found guilty of some or other offence, are either psychologically unstable, or, at the very least, had a lapse of reason at some point in time. Granted, not everyone on either side of the bars in Larkhall would qualify for a psychiatric label, but let's take Nikki for instance. What would be the fundamental difference between her and, say, Helen? On the surface they both appear to be normal, well adapted women who have assimilated the written and unwritten laws of behaviour that society imposes upon them - yet the one overstepped the boundary and killed another human being. Yes, she did so in defence of another person (which is, I suppose, a noble act in and of itself), but that is not the point here. The point is not what prompted her to do so, but rather what clicked or unlocked within her mind that actually gave her the courage to do so? What happened in that split second to turn a law-abiding citizen into a killer (well, not a cold blooded one, at least!)

I'm interested in the psychological processes of the characters, not just Nikki. Fenner himself has some psychopathic tendencies, but most of the time it is so well controlled that it does not always come to the fore. He oversteps so many boundaries, yet always remains on the "safe" side (confining ourselves to S1-3). The same holds true for Dear Di. Which brings me to another interesting observation: it appears as if most of the unstable characters are in uniform. Are we just supposed to hate them or does it point to people's inability to cope with authority?

I'm quite keen to hear what people have to say about this. Who do you regard as unstable and why? Do the stable people outnumber the unstable ones? It would also be interesting to hear what people's reactions were towards prominent characters - anyone out there ever sympathised with Fenner? Or at least understood where he was coming from?

I hope this will prompt an interesting debate! :)

You have kicked off an interesting topic, microsofty and here are my initial thoughts.

You raise a very interesting point that Fenner and Di are supposed to be in control of prisoners yet their control over themselves is tenuous at times and also that the prison system gives them more defence from being 'outed.'

Quite a number of prisoners go through this 'hiding themselves away from the world' depression from time to time when things get too much- Yvonne, Nikki, Julie S, Babs while Di and Fenner had spells off for sickness / compassionate leave.

My thought is that (in the world of BG) the prison service attracts mentally unstable individuals, and then those tendencies are exacerbated by the experience of having godlike power over inmates. I don't base that on any specific knowledge, just kind of a sense of what the show was trying to dramatize. Is that what you were getting at when you mentioned the inability to cope with authority? I had assumed you meant the recipients of authority, but now I'm thinking you perhaps meant the inflictors of authority aren't able to cope with having that kind of power over people, and that it drives them crazy in a way. Through the act of oppressing, the oppressor is corrupted.

I think your list was a good start, for the long-running characters. There's also some short-term characters (Tessa Spall, Renee Williams) who are clearly unstable. I also think there's ongoing evidence that characters like The Julies are more unstable than we might have thought, particularly Julie J (the whole Macbeth episode in S3 was the first hints), but really both of them for generally showing a complete lack of judgment (the crank calls to Babs stepchildren, the sperm theft incident, the attack on Rhiannon's pimp etc)--in many cases we cheer them on, but if you step back and think about it a second, they're a bit out of control.

As for the ratio, that's a tough one. The show seems to be trying to communicate the message that prison makes people crazy, and crazy people wind up there, so it's hard to separate the two. But it definitely leads to a situation where the majority of characters are a bit off, to say the least. It also goes through phases. I'm watching the beginning of S4 on Logo, and I'm reminded that the first stretch of S4 was heavily weighted toward the bad/evil characters, with the loss of Helen and Nikki, and the addition of Grayling.

Yep I agree. Also in real life the prison service is regarded as one of the most stressful jobs in the UK due to overcrowding in prisons and having to fill a variety of different roles. As Richard mentioned there are a lot of employees off on long term sickness. It’s not regarded as an attractive job by many.

My feeling is that the mental stability/instability for the BG characters were carefully chosen with more emphasis on good television, maintaining viewers and people’s perception of mental illness than a reflection of real life. Thus the very unstable characters are only minor characters as people find it harder to identify with mental illness (e.g. Tessa Spall and a drugged-up Pam Jolly before she was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia). For BG to be successful, the viewers had to see the cons in a good light and care what happens to them thus in general the cons are more stable than the screws. The instability of some of the screws also make you feel sympathy towards the cons and therefore get sucked into the story. A good story wouldn’t be complete without a real villain or two with unstable tendencies. Thus we have Fenner representing the screws and Shell, the cons.

I guess this is true of real life. Long periods of being locked up with little mental stimulation must affect the mental health of prisoners (if they weren’t already affected). Similarly overcrowding, short staffing levels and general stress must affect the staff as well not to mention morale due to pay levels.

I think the reason COULD be just as important. Some people may freeze given a situation; others may react in a split second without really thinking it through. However, I think you would be surprised, even the mildest, most non-violent person might go on the attack to defend someone they really loved. In Nikki’s case, she didn’t intend on killing Gossard, only stopping him after her first attempt failed (bottle over head). Given exactly the same circumstances, I suspect she would do the same thing again. Given more time to think it through … maybe not ... who knows?

For me mental stability in the series was illustrated by characters (both inmates and staff) acknowledging, accepting and understanding the (negative or positive) consequences of their actions. (obviously this is a broad statement). But I'm still struggling to find a steadfast definition.

For me the more stable ones were:
Nikki, Helen, Karen, Yvonne, Barbara, Monica, Dominic

In terms of understanding psychological processes, my thoughts are that the prisoners and staff are not necessarily different in terms of their psychological stability but rather in terms of the overtness of their 'crimes'/actions, and this influences perceptions.

In the case of the inmates, their initial crimes are out in the open, and they face consequences (almost) every time they break a major rule. We do see their unstable sides, but it is 'expected' and somewhat natural (for me) to look for the underlying reasons and have a level of understanding. .

The staff member characters like Fenner and Di, are committing 'crimes' below the surface, and get away with it. It is in a way expected that we pass judgment rather than look for reasons to understand their behaviour. I would however like to delve deeper into understanding their psyches, as I believe there are also good in them...even Fenner.. but that will be a debate for when I watch the series a 2nd time around!

I was thinking more along the lines of the authority handed to the PO's by virtue of their positions and how most of them ended up abusing the power they had over the inmates. That was my initial thought, but then your post prompted another thought relating to the whole position of top dog - inmates having some form of authority or power over other inmates and how this affected the whole system. Top dogs like Shell and Maxi had side-kicks, so in a sense they exerted their "authority" via these side-kicks. There's some similarity between the corrupt top dog and the corrupt PO - on the face of things they don't seem to ever get their hands dirty.

Really? Do you regard the Julies as mentally unstable? That's interesting. I've only ever thought of them as really naive.

Yes, that much is true. But what about characters like for example Denny and Zandra? My experience was that in the beginning I disliked them completely, but somehow they grew on me. They became a part of the group of cons that I had sympathy for, I cared what happened to them. Yet, through it all Denny remains loyal to Shell, someone that most people disliked, but we still cared for her (Denny). How did they manage to suck us into Denny's story, as Shell's side-kick, but we were less inclined to get sucked into Shell's story? What's the fundamental difference here?

Good point. I haven't thought of that. Yes, mental stimulation place a big part in someone's ability to maintain a mental equilibrium. But again, some of them were more than happy to keep themselves busy with doing basically nothing at all, whilst others (like Nikki for instance) had to have substantial mental stimulation. I think the fact that she later on received this mental stimulation (her OU course, books, etc) might also be linked to her behaviour change later on in the series.

Taking your definition into consideration, that would imply that Fenner is the top dog as far as mental instability is concerned. I can't think of one instance where he was actually accepting of the consequences of his actions. His style was more to have a follow-up cover-up action of the initial action. Inmates' brush offs with POs indicate a sort of unwillingness to accept the consequences of their actions, although, in some of those instances the consequences weren't warranted, but again a power play between a PO and an inmate.

Does the action necessarily point to the mental stability or instability?

Hmmm, I'm wondering why it seems as if this debate has died an untimely death. Is the topic too confusing, too complex? Would people be interested if we were to break it down and chew over the characters' make-up one at a time, bit by bit?

No problem, Microsofty. your idea is a good one.

I was thinking in terms of prison being such a 24 hour existence which kept interaction amongst the whole cast such a blown up, heightened version of reality with few refuges for escapes. Because there is some resemblance between this world and the outside world, it enabled the audience to 'read themselves' into the drama from their experiences.

There's one vital psychological dynamic that made Bad Girls so liberating and that is that it is unique in personalities having the capacity to change. Both Helen and Nikki went through a lot of subtle changes, Helen in particular and this is an essential ingredient of Helen's 'journey' and offers the same for other characters and, by implication the audience.

Soap operas tend to be depressingly conservative, if not reactionary where despite all the changes, everything stays the same. Phil Mitchell in the Brit soap opera Eastenders is the outstanding example.

Some characters started out 'bad' and ended up 'good' and also the reverse. In the first league, you have Grayling, Colin hedges, Zandra and denny. Di Barker is an outstanding instance of the second group.

I found a rather interesting article (very short, but quite powerful) on women in prison. The article is about one psychologist's experiences whilst working in a women's prison in the USA and what was so revealing about this article is the fact that this psychologist states the following:

... incarcerated women often bring the scars of previous trauma, especially from family violence, to prison. And while incarcerated, daily prison routines--like having to be unquestionably submissive to prison guards--may parallel their earlier experiences of control and abuse.

When I read this, I immediately thought of Shell for some reason. Also Denny and a little bit of Nikki.

Shell: Shell's history of abuse becomes quite clear in S2 E6-7. What I found heartbreaking about Shell's story is not her childhood abuse per se (although I can't even begin to fathom what it must be like), but more with her underlying believe that she is unworthy of love. At the beginning of S2 she is convinced that Fenner actually loves her (however twisted that may sound! :) ), and when this love is taken away from her, she loses what little control she had over herself. The abuse she inflicts is rarely overtly violent (someone, correct me if I'm wrong - excluding the Fenner incident), but mostly emotional. She tries to inflict the same sort of scars that she herself is carrying around.

Denny: Denny is the submissive partner in the 'relationship' with Shell. I can't figure out if Denny is that submissive to the screws, or if it is borne out of her loyalty to Shell. At first Denny finds a mother figure in Shell, which is later transferred to Yvonne (which is also way more constructive). Coming to think of it - has Denny ever made any decisions on her own or is it always guided by what someone else wants? First there was Shell, then Yvonne, then Shaz... The only decision that she took on her own, and which I can think of in the heat of the moment, was her hair brained scheme to escape. And even then she didn't go through with it, because someone else decided on her behalf that it wasn't a good idea (well, which it wasn't, poor Denny).

Nikki: I think Nikki's rebellion towards oppression starts before she enters Larkhall. Her rebellion mostly relates to so called authority figures - there's a hint of it in her comment to Monica about the police officers who frequented the club so that they had to "butter op the filth". She is further oppressed by men in uniform (which had to remind her of her crime on an almost daily basis), but finds comfort in the one not wearing a uniform, yet, still an authority figure. Then again, how much authority did Helen really have? She was supposed to have it because of her position, but when it came down to exerting that authority, it seems as if no one really gave a damn what her 'orders' were - they knew better. If viewed in this light, Helen's promotion to GG must have been a hard hitting punch to Nikki's stomach.

Nice bunch of points, microsofty. This isn't my area, so just wanted to say thanks for persisting. This felt like it fit with the characters & story as we've been given it. Sometimes I don't get the theories, or they feel a bit sort of attached after the fact, but this set of descriptions clicked for me.

Actually I always wondered about about the veracity of Nikki's comment re buttering up the filth. (Not that the character was lying, but rather: Really? In modern England--still, so much...? Huh. kinda thing.) I know there are invariably issues with corruption, but my impression was this sort of thing mainly involved gangs intimidating store- and business-owners & the like. Always thought this sounded like a bit of an American tv-ism, somehow. Maybe it's just because I persist in wanting to think better of the English than that. :rolleyes:

Harking back to Microsofty's posts, there is a dual theme in those who want to become prison officers. As Karen says to Helen once, there are some who 'don't read past 'jailor' in the job description. This is a theme which isn't normally overtly stated yet runs through Bad Girls from beginning to end in its depiction of some prison guards, in other words, those who enjoy imposing power over others.

There is a second theme of those who want to do some good with prisoners, to improve prisoner's lives which Helen, Dominic and Selena exemplify. Their tack is basically to establish moral authority in their role as the rightness of their action is recognised- in a crisis, they are to whom prisoners will turn to.

Just to take up Microsofty's analysis of Nikki, she has a long standing, deep seated and admirable detestation of an attempt to wield authority over her (or criticism of her) which cannot be justified.Helen's aside to Helen that she 'used to think that Nikki had a problem with authority but now she thinks that Nikki has a problem with injustice' gets to the core of this. One favourite episode of mine is Series 3 Ep 3 where you see Nikki and Yvonne exercise this authority which is accepted as it is exercised for a reason which others understand.

Lovely comment, ekny, about Britain and I want to believe that Britain is as good as it is portrayed yet my depressing experience is sometimes to the contrary- for instance, Brit TV where Barbara namechecks the 'I Claudius' series in contrast to the ever increasing tide of 'reality TV' and naff talent shows. A bit of patriotism competes with my need to be realistic.

Yes, that is quite a strong sentiment to have, come to think of it - referring to hmmm, who? police officers? men in uniform at large? as filth. Isn't one suppose to find some form of comfort (sense of safety) in their presence?

It dawned on me. Nikki's detestation of authority can be justified - to some extent. But it depends on Nikki's take on authority. It seems as if her representation of authority is embedded in men in uniform. And these characters have been present in her life from early on. Limiting ourselves to the BG book, we have the info that her dad was a naval officer. A man in uniform. Not only that, a man in uniform who controlled all their lives - hers, her mom's. Mom has been reduced to an individual who plays a part, the part that is expected of her (a naval officer's wife) and there is nothing left of the "original" person. There is no guidance in the role for Nikki. She herself is oppressed by the man in the uniform. She makes a fundamental leap, or conclusion: Men in uniform are oppressors. This conclusion cannot be changed as it is strengthened through Gossard (arguably not in a uniform anymore, but still part of the league) and later on PO's, the Fenners in her life. Nikki can't distinguish between good and bad uniforms, they're all bad. They can't be trusted - she even projects this on to Helen during the whole situation with Dominic, the underlying notion that Helen cannot be trusted.

A slight qualification on this interesting train of thought, microsofty.

We're at a disadvantage in trying to establish the relations between Nikki and her father and Nikki and her mother except that both rejected her when she was expelled from boarding school for 'lesbian activities.' I'd always thought that Nikki has that ability to take command of a situation - i.e being spokeswoman during the 'near riot' early Series 1 and actual riot in Series 3. Even if she was at odds with her father, something in him rubbed off on her.
She would have confronted authority in her boarding school and that provides grounds for speculation.

Nikki's mindset that runs through her life was 'just because someone in authority tells me to do something (or not to do something) doesn't make it right and doesn't mean I have to accept it and I have to know why things happen."

She will not accept power over her unless it has moral authority and reason. Once that person proves that moral authority and explains why, she becomes amenable. Larkhall lost moral authority when Nikki first went there and explains why Helen had to work bloody hard to convince Nikki that Helen was 'for real.' (a very Nikki phrase) It explains why she treated both Bodybag and fenner with contempt and after Helen proved herself to Nikki, then she found herself largely accepting of Dominic.

The expression 'the filth' is an interesting one and sounds like a streetwise Cockney expression for the police - similar to 'pigs' whom Nikki describes as such when first talking to Claire Walker- she really doesn't have respect for at least some of them.

Nice set of refinements, R. :)

I'm trying to develop a theory (or rather, a hypothesis at best :) ) on the whole nature vs. nurture issue and how it is portrayed/reflected in the BG characters. I could really do with some help in refining the nurture issue for most of the characters. For instance, in the past we have debated Helen's inner workings and outer settings at length to try and determine what makes her tick. That's basically what I'm after - getting these characters' background right. Sort of looking for consensus or agreement on their pasts. Please jump in with any character and an outline of what you believe their history to be. Or shall we start with the weirdly evil ones? Shell?

(post S3-spoilers)



BG lands pretty hard on the nurture side of the debate for criminal behavior, seems to me (& nature for homosexuality). Shell is so damaged there's just no way she can function in the real world; granted S5, is it? finds her working as a pro in Amsterdam or wherever, but I couldn't help thinking how long until someone pissed her off again & she took revenge? Of course we can't know since they used the Fenner-just-happens-to-find-her plot device to bring her back to the show, but.

But the job she had in itself evidence of the damaged person?

Sorry! I didn't mean to suggest sex work in itself meant she was damaged. Only that with what we know about Shell, it's unclear whether she'd be able to not retaliate in the same way if another situation like the one that set her off with her boyfriend being 'taken' by another woman came up....

Okay I'll take a shot at arm chair psychologist. To me, Shell is beyond help in all probability. I suspect she was sexually abused as a child and therefore her views of 'normal' sexual behavior are warped. She uses sex to curry favors, protect herself and gain power. She also has an incredible cruel streak (i.e. Rachel Hicks).

From the brief interaction seen with her mother, I believe, she probably was illegitimate and grew up in a household with lots of 'uncles'. I don't think she is gay or really bi. To me she has sex with whoever is going to advance her goals -- male or female.

Whether or not she is sociopathic remains to be seen. The show never fully delved into her psychological make up after Karen's disasterous attempts during Series 2 to get her help. For me, anyway, Shell is an example of a woman beyond help. The only good thing she ever did was to sign her children away.

Agreed. I'm hard-pressed to think of a character whose criminal behavior is blamed on something other than a fucked up childhood. Zandra is a great example as well--brought up in foster care, winds up a drug addict and in jail. Al and Buki are given similar histories. For the truly non-functional characters on Bad Girls, a screwed up childhood is always to blame.

Can't think of the character's name so I guess she must have been pretty minor but it was a young privileged drug addict who was on for a coupld of episodes. She seemed to be pretty spoiled and was tranferred out. I don't think her criminal behavior is tied to a bad childhood.

Do you recall who I am referring to?

Charlotte Middleton perhaps? Rebelling against her parents rather than having a screwed up childhood.

I also think Charlotte Myddleton is not depicted as a career criminal, but instead as a rebellious, rich drug addict. Meanwhile characters like Denny (arsonist, drug dealer), Buki (drug addict, dealer, prostitute, stabbed her pimp), Al (deals drugs, committed multiple murders), Zandra (drug addict, embezzlement) and Shell (murderer, drug dealer, generally despicable human being) are living lives that are completely outside normal, law-abiding society. And unlike Charlotte, it's hard to imagine any of these four characters learning to live in normal, law-abiding society. These are characters who are in and out of jails, juvenile detention centers etc. And by season 4, I think we're meant to assume that's where Julie J's daughter Rhiannon is headed as well.

It's interesting to see how drugs play a major part in most of these women's lives. Actually quite typical for people in emotional pain to numb the pain with a form of (illegal) self medication and how this gives rise to a whole range of other problems and illegal activities. Are we then to assume or conclude that drugs are the root of all evil?

I always saw Denny as the character who represents someone who's whole life has been formed (nurtured as it may) by the criminal and prison system. Foster care she was raised in could be considered a type of incarceration. All of Denny's survival techniques are the result of juvenile and now adult detention. In other words, to Denny now, that is the "normal" society.

Isn't Nikki an exception to the above ie. living a life completely outside normal, law-abiding society? Wrong place wrong time plus bad criminal defense equals jail time. As had been mentioned many times, Nikki has a personal integrity which prison can't strip from her. One wonders on the other hand if Carol Middleton would hold up as well if money and power was not able to move her out of prison.

Drugs certainly don't help anything. Which came first the chicken or the egg, the emotional pain or the drug addiction and to what extent does a propensity to physical addition and substance abuse cause someone get hooked on drugs?

Don't you imagine too that drugs for the prisoners are mind-numbing escapism? I imagine they are much easier to obtain than alcohol. Unlike Nikki I don't think I would have been able to handle a minimum ten year prison sentence without drinking myself into oblivion and I am a law abiding and pretty boring citizen.

Speaking of alcohol, if not for Jesse's alcohol dependency Denny would not have been in foster care in the first place and maybe she would not have ended up a system lifer. So, back to the nurture issue. I suspect the writers focus more of their storylines on nurture as a cause rather than nature because that is something that can be changed more easily.

I'm not sure nurture explains Jim Fenner though. Him I think is nature -- he's got narcissistic tendencies.

Great debate started up. Thanks, microsofty for this one for getting a good debate going.

There's a striking instance of Roisin who normally wouldn't have touched drugs- being admitted to prison and being separated from her children and the dilemma of Cassie or her husband/ children, pushed her into drugs step by step.

There are striking instances of characters changing/ developing or being good (or occasionally going bad) much more in BG than other series- I need to think further.

Good question. In my opinion a drug taking behaviour starts out as a way to numb emotional pain. However, I'm not talking about "recreational users" here, who have their own reasons for taking/experimenting with drugs. I don't know anyone in BG that would fit into the category of recreational user, even someone like Charlotte used it as a numbing mechanism, while at the same time challenging her parents. "I like how it feels not to feel" then becomes the drive behind taking copious amounts of drugs, to which the body will react causing addiction. That sets off a whole new ball game which is centred around getting hold of the stuff and this mostly leads to criminal activity in cases like Zandra and Buki. Someone like Shell would be the ulitmate dark horse here, because it seemed as if she was able to cope without any drugs for long periods of time. She was not controlled by drugs but used drugs to control.

Good point! But I still somehow get the feeling that Denny was sort of predestined, if you will, to get caught up in the whole system. It's as if there was just no escape for her. Even at the children's home it seemed as if she was the 'overlooked' girl, the one always left behind. I don't know, does anyone else get the same feeling? She finds acceptance in Shell and will do absolutely anything to please her, for her (Shell) not to go away and leave her.