#slow horses s1

[davidstirlings]

a very serious show about very serious spies

[lovetgr76]

The show is back on track with the arrival of Season 4, which currently has a 100% rating on the review aggregator. Thanks to these ratings, plus a first season with a total of 95%, the overall total for the show is an enormous 98%, making it one of the highest-rated shows on Rotten Tomatoes today.

[donotnomi]

🐎 OVERANALYZING SLOW HORSES #001 🐎

In the Season 1 finale of Slow Horses, Diana Taverner hands Lamb a resignation letter dated 20.02.16, marking the show's start in 2016.

But let's address the somewhat unrealistic timeline in the book canon. It's reminiscent of the 007 franchise—time passes, yet River is perpetually almost 30, Standish and Lamb are no closer to retirement.

It's intriguing to ponder how the show will navigate this temporal quirk. 🤔

[tenderhooked]

i am now so fully invested in river and lamb’s awkward slow burn journey to being father and son it’s concerning… i just. clenches fist. i love mentor/mentee dynamics that blur the line into You’re My Dad Now, Actually.

[lovetgr76]

Robert Frost on Editing for the Espionage Dramedy 'Slow Horses' | No Film School

[thatsgonnaleaveamark]

kinda hard to describe but im really into like. clumsy (?) chases. character whos maybe just Some Guy being chased, maybe they have something the pursuer wants, half crashing into walls when turning around a corner, stumbling and falling and scrambling to get up again, tripping on steps when running upstairs, falling through unstable flooring, landing in a pile of something and then half limping trying to get away

[hr-twink]

[lovetgr76]

Standish:

SLOW HORSES (2022 — ) 🐴✨

Diana Taverner being obsessed with Jackson Lamb's obsession.

[alexjcrowley]

Hey is it me or River Cartwright is a kind of shitty spy?

[nickcassldy]

.

[emziess]

River's Hair - S1-S4 Slow Horses

[louisaguy]

slow horses timeline stuff

because i'm procrastinating doing work.

disclaimer: this is all for show timeline & show canon. the books are their own thing and have a different timeline. this is show only.

FORMAT: dates we know // how we know it

the show:

s1- likely february 2016 // february: struan's line "it's february!" when louisa suggests christmas drinks. 2016: estimate based off of time of s2

s2- 2016 // min's plaque reads 2016

s3- 2017 // between s2 and s4. also, spider flosses. ergo 2017.

s4- early january 2018 // early january: right after christmas (roddy's mishap with the christmas party, christmas decorations still up). 2018: catherine's calendar in her flat is on january 2018.

backstory things:

bad sam gets isobel from les arbres- "early nineties" // via giti's dialogue. i will circle back to this

charles partner's death- 1996 // partner's plaque has 1996 as death date at the end of s2

rose's (river's grandmother's) death- 2010 // her gravestone in s4

stansted- july/summer 2015 // 8 months pre s1

timeline errors / things that bother me:

river's age- so, you have two options here. option one, via dialogue: we take giti's "bad sam only went to france once in the early nineties" as truth. therefore sam gets a pregnant isobel out of les arbres in the early nineties (let's say 1990/1991, but you can place it anywhere in the early nineties you like). then river is born a few months later (judging by the fact that isobel was already starting to show when sam picked her up). so river's birth date: 1991? or some other point in the early nineties.

option two, via props: river says his mother left him postcards for his "seventh, eighth, and ninth birthdays". one of said cards has the date 1994 written on it (can be seen in the scene where he's looking at them in the shoebox). if we assume that's the one for his seventh birthday, that puts him being born around 1987.

the difference between these doesn't matter that much (it's the difference of him being 27 in s4 vs 31 in s4), except for how it shifts river's relation to other events-- e.g., option one says he'll be left with david and rose around 1997 (or maybe a few years later if you put his birth date in 1992/93, since "early nineties" is vague), AFTER partner's death. vs theory two puts him being left with his grandparents in 1993, solidly before partner is killed. i do think it's interesting to consider whether david already had a cute little blonde boy doting on him at home when he was planning charles' assassination or not. so depending on which river-age theory you choose to follow, river's relation to other backstory events may change (or you could always just do the old "river's age is nebulous and he is however old i need him to be for this specific fic i'm writing" thing lol).

it also means he was sososo young in s1 if you follow theory #1. him being born in 1991 would mean he would be like 23/24 when stansted happened 🥺🥺🥺 BABYYYY. an actual INFANT. (theory 2 would have him at 27/28 during stansted).

characters headstones say they're too young to make sense- partner and rose- partner's plaque says his birth date is 1948... and so if he died in 1996... he would have been 48 years old when he died................. i'm sorry but this man is NOT under fifty. the actor they cast to play him in the flashbacks is like 75 lmfao. i think this is just an error-- him being 48 when he died would make him more of a contemporary with lamb (who would have been in his 40s at partner's death) rather than with david (and considering lamb kinda came up under partner's wing-- at least from the books, but that's the vibe i get from the show too-- i think partner should be at least a decade or so older than lamb). it would also make him like 20 years younger than david (who'd be in his 60s when partner died). i just don't think it makes sense. i would bump his birth date back to 1938 or maybe even 1928, to make him more of a contemporary with david (who was born sometime in the 30s, since louisa says he's 80-something in s4(2018)).

as for rose, her headstone in s4 says 1953-2010. that 1953 date is suspect to me. we know david is 80-something in s4. let's take him to be the youngest possible to give ourselves the greatest margin of error. then he'd be born in 1938. now let's follow theory 1 of river's age (again providing the kindest possible interpretation to rose's age), making him born around 1991. assuming isobel was around 20 when she had river, this means she would be born in ~1971. which would make rose... 18. when she had isobel. which would be fine, except that in 1971 david would be... 33. hmmmmmm.

and remember this is the kindest POSSIBLE interpretation, assuming david is the youngest possible (just barely 80 in s4) and that river is also the youngest possible (born 1991). if you interpret either or both of them as older than that, then isobel's birth shifts earlier and/or david's age shits older, making david and rose's age gap at her birth even more suspect. for example taking river's birth date in 1987 (a la theory 2) would make rose only 14 when isobel would have to be born (assuming isobel was 20ish when she had river). i mean, it's POSSIBLE this was an intentional implication that rose and david had a skeevy age gap? but i doubt it. considering they were trying to claim that the 75 year old james faulkner was playing a 48 year old charles partner in the flashback, and river's age is already an ambiguous mess, i'm more inclined to say that this was just a mistake. i would just bump rose's birth date to be 1943 instead-- still younger than david (who was born sometime in the 30s), but not, uh. illegally so.

fwiw, i think a lot of these timeline errors come from the confusing detail that while the show is AIRING in the early 2020s, its SET in the late 2010s. so like, river's birth date for example, i think they wanted him to be 31ish in s4, and someone correctly subtracted that from 2018 for the postcards (2018-31 = 1987, so river's 7th birthday would be 1987+7=1994). meanwhile, for the dialogue, someone else accidentally subtracted it from modern day instead (2024-31= 1993, so sam fetching pregnant-isobel from les arbres would be just before that in "the early nineties"). partner's age error i also think comes from subtracting from the modern day when s2 was airing (2022-74=1948) without accounting for the fact that the 75 year old man we're seeing as him is meant to be that old in 1996, not in the modern day (because he's only seen in flashbacks).

and also a lot of this comes from the fact that these are all "flashes-on-screen-for-one-second" props and brief lines of dialogue, and they didn't expect someone to care enough to come along and try to do the math.

but too bad! i'm here! i want to do the math!

my personal interpretation of character ages:

some based on textual evidence, others just estimating based on actors' ages. in general, take what you like and ignore what doesn't work. the timelines are already fuzzy enough that you can fudge it in any direction you like haha, just use whatever works best for your current fic/project. but here are my takes:

river- born 1987/1991 (both interpretations are equally valid imo). makes him either 29-31 or 25-27 for the run of the show.

louisa- mid 30s likely? mostly going by rosalind eleazar's age.

catherine- late 50s/early 60s (going by saskia reeves' age, and also would make her late 30s/early 40s when partner died, which sounds right [& is consistent with the book, though that doesn't count for much imo since the book and show are such divergent things timeline-wise])

lamb- early-mid 60s (gary oldman's age, and him being a contemporary of catherine seems right)

roddy- early/mid 30s?

shirley- early 30s, marcus- late 30s (an inversion of their actors' ages, but necessary because marcus says in the show he's 5 years older than shirley)

min- mid 40s

(i do love that no matter how you slice it, river is def the baby of the slough house family haha. that feels right. oh EXCEPT maybe sid!!)

sid- probably young like river, late 20s/early 30s.

david- 80ish. i'd put him at 81-83 throughout the run of the show (birth date 1935ish), but you could go younger and say 79-81 or something like that. importantly of a different and older cohort than lamb/catherine/sam etc.

partner- fuck it i'm going against the plaque let's say he's born 1928, would put him at age 68 when he died in 1996. more consistent with the actor's age, and puts him solidly as a contemporary of david, NOT of lamb. plus the way catherine talks about him like a sweet old man it makes more sense for there to be more of an age gap between her and partner. so say he was 68 when he died in 1996, meanwhile david was 61, lamb would be mid 40s and catherine would be ~40. that seems right to me.

if david was born in 1935 i'll put rose at 1943. would make her late 20s when isobel is born, late 40s when river is born, 67 at her death (and river would be 19/23 at her death btw depending on which river age theory you subscribe to, in case that's helpful for angst/backstory reasons)

idk everyone else can just be the age of their actors i guess, but if you're writing stuff in the past remember to subtract correctly from the late 2010s not the early 2020s!! or i mean don't. it doesn't really matter. none of this actually matters lol

anyway. whew. that was a lot. sorry i just spat a million words about pointless timeline shenanigans all over you. i do this for fun.

(pspspspsps slow horses creative team let me proofread your timeline math i'll do it for free this is fun for me pspspspsps)

[edbaldwin]

actually kind of hilarious that river is the only one in slow horses where you can distinguish his looks by every season. like in s1 his hair/beard is echoing his hot shot mi5 agent era and that he still cares a little, s2 river is clean faced bc he had a job interview and thought he is close to redeem himself in upshott, s3 (peak looks imo) he is scrawny but hold himself well as a slow horse, he know swho he is and that he chooses justice (even though it turns him into undesirable but unfireable at mi5) BUT he loses his grandfather to dementia, so we get s4 river who's depressed and giving up and his hair is cut bc it is less maintenancem s5 river gonna look like beaten up dog you find in the rain under the bridge i'm afraid

[lovetgr76]

Jackson Lamb and / or Catherine Standish caught smiling...

[clfixationstation]

Armin trying to sacrifice himself compilation

(or having a sacrificial mindset)

Training Corps - When Armin falls behind in a running drill, Reiner offers to take Armin's pack. Fearing Reiner will be docked points at his expense, Armin runs past and snatches his pack back from Reiner: "I'm no one's burden, you hear me?"

Training Corps - Armin tells Eren and Mikasa he's still planning to join the Survey Corps, promising he won't hold them back: "I'd rather die than become a burden"

Battle of Trost Arc - running low on supplies, Armin insists Connie and Mikasa take his and leave him to die by his own blade.

Battle of Trost Arc - Staring down the barrel of the Garrison, Armin feels like a burden on Mikasa and Eren: "at the moment of truth, I was a coward...I was always so weak. I still haven’t earned the right to think of myself as their equal...I’d only end up slowing them down."

Female Titan Arc - down one horse, Armin volunteers to be left behind to fend for himself, allowing Jean and Reiner to continue the mission.

Female Titan & Clash of the Titans Arcs - Armin's guiding philosophy: "Someone who can't sacrifice anything can't change anything" (first expressed while speaking with Jean S1 E20)

Return to Shiganshina Arc - Armin devises a plan to defeat the Colossal which requires his death to succeed, lying to all of his friends so they can't stop him.

Rumbling Arc - Armin gambles his life to make Connie see reason, expecting his plan to work while accepting possibility of death.

Rumbling Arc - Whatever this was. Not necessarily sacrificial, but certainly. concerning.

Rumbling Arc - Armin volunteers to stay behind and hold off the Rumbling, facing certain death.

Rumbling Arc - Facing down his best friend, Armin returns to his guiding philosophy: "Those who can't abandon anything, can't change anything"

Rumbling Arc Bonus - Armin vs Armin

I wanted to include all instances of survivor's guilt as well, but tumblr does not allow enough photos for that. so, I made another post!

And that's all I could remember! Please lmk if there's anything I missed. I count:

5 sacrifice attempts

4 "Someone who can't abandon..."

7 instances of survivor's guilt

6 instances of feeling like a burden

4 instances of explicit self-loathing

In conclusion? therapy. ASAP.

Sorry Armin <3

[survivor's guilt post]

[generalpenguinangel]

Thoughts inspired by @saulbetter's recent posts.

This show is kind of sold or discussed as "spies! but they suck at being spies!" But the thing that all the slow horses actually have in common isn't that they're bad spies, it's that they're people without social capital. They actually range from competent to excellent at the technical aspects of their work (Ho, Catherine, Marcus, Shirley, Coe, and even River are all good at the hard skills of their jobs. We are told Louisa screwed up but in both show and books she is shown to be one of the most reliable performers on the team). But they don't have friends or patrons to protect them when things go sideways.

The reason they're the rejects is because they're loners who struggle to connect with other people for all their various reasons (childhood trauma, job-related PTSD, addiction, personality disorder, inherent temperament). So they're playing checkers when their internal opponents at Regent's Park are playing chess. To the extent that they even realize that the social/political game exists (Ho and Catherine mostly don’t), they're bad at it (Coe, Lech) and/or think they shouldn't have to play it (Marcus, Shirley). River impressively manages to be deficient in all three aspects: totally naive to the politics of advancement within the Park, bad with people, and so committed to his own view of himself as a Boy Scout that he thinks he shouldn't have to sully his hands with any of it.

This is why the show is such a brilliant office drama. This one is for all the folks who are good on paper but bomb in interviews, for all the people who are promoted based on their technical mastery and then shit the bed as managers because they're illiterate at reading people. This is why it's such a stroke of genius that River's ascendant career is cut off at the knees by tailing Taverner. He's so full of himself and such a try hard that he mistakenly thinks doing an unrequested extra credit assignment about his boss makes him clever instead of creepy, annoying, and red flagged as a potential troublemaker.

Unfortunately, because Mick Herron is unable to let the story or the characters grow, this excellent premise results in some deep weirdness later in the book series. (Weirder than the deadbeat dad child soldier sex cult plotline, you say? Idk, you be the judge.)

Book spoilers under the cut.

First, let’s talk about Lech Wicinski. (I know, no one wants to talk about Lech Wicinski, but he is the curly-haired insomniac introvert of my heart so I’m going to talk about him.) I love Lech but parts of his origin story are so stupid. He’s just a normal guy who is comfortable in his niche and relatively unambitious and gets screwed by ambitious people’s big ego shenanigans, which he falls into by accident when he unthinkingly steps outside his work comfort zone for a minute. So far, so good. But then, while he’s desperately trying to save his job and reputation, he’s also… not? Like, why would this sort of overly serious but otherwise very normal young-ish middle class man immediately and inexplicably decide not to seek medical treatment for a profoundly disfiguring injury? Why does he never even actually try to show to his fiancee that the revelation that causes the breakdown of their relationship was completely fictitious? It makes no sense! Except, the author is lazily destroying Lech’s social capital to make it make sense that he’s now a slow horse for life. 

Similarly, River can’t have Sid in S1 because she is a bright and well-rounded person while he is cute but also an idiot nepo baby manchild. So do the books resolve this imbalance by allowing River to grow - or even just change - in response to various challenges like dashed career aspirations, finally meeting his psychopath biodad, the steep mental decline of his beloved father figure, etc? No. Instead of letting River at least attempt to grow up, the books put River and Sid on a level by cutting Sid down instead - putting her in protection (ie. cutting all her social ties) and giving her a traumatic brain injury that hollows out her previously bright personality. Heaven knows we’re all miserable now. Sure do hope they fix that plotline for the show! I love them as endgame and I honestly think the show could do something so satisfying and poignant with them finally finding their missed connection but the books make the way they finally get together so creepy and sad.