Donna's Book on Jock

[Jimmy Todd]

The thread about Jock's personal growth reminded me of the book Donna wrote revealing Jock had a man put in a mental asylum under false pretenses to get at a deed to land. I believe I have his motives right.
Was Donna right to publish this? Jock was dead and it would only hurt Miss Ellie and her family? Would it have been more ethical to leave that part out of the book?

 

[James from London]

Nah, publish and be damned! It might have been fun if there’d been a few repercussions after the book came out, but the show had moved on by then so fair do’s.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Better still, Sue Ellen could take an option on Donna's book on Sam Culver and Valene's Capricorn Crude as the partial basis for her movie. Then once it came out, there'd be hell to pay.

I always want to see Kathleen Turner and Christopher Walker in cameos playing themselves as the actors cast as Sue Ellen and JR for her movie. (Think they'd do it?)

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Nah, publish and be damned! It might have been fun if there’d been a few repercussions after the book came out, but the show had moved on by then so fair do’s.

Besides Miss Ellie's wrath, were there any repercussions? I don't think JR or Bobby even acknolweged it.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Better still, Sue Ellen could take an option on Donna's book on Sam Culver and Valene's Capricorn Crude as the partial basis for her movie. Then once it came out, there'd be hell to pay.

I always want to see Kathleen Turner and Christopher Walker in cameos playing themselves as the actors cast as Sue Ellen and JR for her movie. (Think they'd do it?)

That's a great idea! It would have been much better than the movie she had in mind. It would also be nice for continuity sake.

 

[Seaviewer]

The thread about Jock's personal growth reminded me of the book Donna wrote revealing Jock had a man put in a mental asylum under false pretenses to get at a deed to land. I believe I have his motives right.
Was Donna right to publish this? Jock was dead and it would only hurt Miss Ellie and her family? Would it have been more ethical to leave that part out of the book?

If I recall correctly it was the latest volume in a series about Sam Culver. If she was writing such a definitive biography she could hardly just leave it out.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

The thread about Jock's personal growth reminded me of the book Donna wrote revealing Jock had a man put in a mental asylum under false pretenses to get at a deed to land. I believe I have his motives right.
Was Donna right to publish this? Jock was dead and it would only hurt Miss Ellie and her family? Would it have been more ethical to leave that part out of the book?

It was a biography of Sam Culver she was writing. Sam Culver and Jock planned to put Jonas Culver - Sam's relative - in a sanitarium just long enough to start drilling for oil on Jonas's land and then let him out. This was during The Great Depression of the 1930s and Jonas either couldn't or wouldn't understand that they all needed the money that would come from better utilizing Jones's land. Jonas killed himself before they could have him released.

Sam Culver never told Donna about this. He didn't want his own wife to know what he had done to his uncle. So why would Donna possibly think Sam would want the whole world to know about it?

Ethically and morally Donna had to weigh the value of respecting her ex-husband's wishes and his right to privacy against the value of telling the world about it anyway so that her book would sell more copies, making her richer and more famous.

Donna decided making herself richer and more well known was more important than respecting the wishes and privacy of her former husband whom she claimed to love. I don't have to wonder why I never liked Donna.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

It was a biography of Sam Culver she was writing. Sam Culver and Jock planned to put Jonas Culver - Sam's relative - in a sanitarium just long enough to start drilling for oil on Jonas's land and then let him out. This was during The Great Depression of the 1930s and Jonas either couldn't or wouldn't understand that they all needed the money that would come from better utilizing Jones's land. Jonas killed himself before they could have him released.

Sam Culver never told Donna about this. He didn't want his own wife to know what he had done to his own uncle. So why would Donna possibly think Sam would want the whole world to know about it?

Ethically and morally Donna would had to weigh the value of respecting her ex-husband's wishes and his right to privacy against the value of telling the world about it anyway so that her book would sell more copies, making her richer and more famous.

Donna decided making herself richer and more well known was more important than respecting the wishes and privacy of her former husband whom she claimed to love. I don't have to wonder why I never liked Donna.

This certainly puts a new shade of grey on Donna.
It would also hurt her husband and her friend. Are they part of the equation for her?

 

[Toni]

It was a biography of Sam Culver she was writing. Sam Culver and Jock planned to put Jonas Culver - Sam's relative - in a sanitarium just long enough to start drilling for oil on Jonas's land and then let him out. This was during The Great Depression of the 1930s and Jonas either couldn't or wouldn't understand that they all needed the money that would come from better utilizing Jones's land. Jonas killed himself before they could have him released.

Sam Culver never told Donna about this. He didn't want his own wife to know what he had done to his uncle. So why would Donna possibly think Sam would want the whole world to know about it?

Ethically and morally Donna had to weigh the value of respecting her ex-husband's wishes and his right to privacy against the value of telling the world about it anyway so that her book would sell more copies, making her richer and more famous.

Donna decided making herself richer and more well known was more important than respecting the wishes and privacy of her former husband whom she claimed to love. I don't have to wonder why I never liked Donna.

Oh you are terrible Muriel Kenny!

I think that Donna didn´t give a damn about being rich and, especially, famous. The writers devoted several scenes just to point out that Donna didn´t want to write a second book, mainly after she discovered that. It doesn´t matter what she writes about, but the way she does. If Sam Culver had some skeletons in his closet and his son agreed with Donna about publishing the truth, why not do it? Just to have another saint up there in the pedestal, next to St. Jock and St. Sid (from Knots, you know...)? Like Miss Ellie said, not even Jock was perfect. What about that trend of the 30s of putting your relatives in an asylum? As far as we know, the only Ewings to appear interviewed on TV were J.R., Sue Ellen and, aheam, Cally. Donna only was chased by the reporters re. Mickey´s death or that Committee she was in. And Donna was into politics, we know how often they want to be on TV to convince us about their dumb ideas...but not Donna. She was as simple as Ray in many regards, though she was a lot more clever and sensitive. Do not mess with The Donna!!

That slutty Bonnie knows she mustn't mess with Donna!!​

 

[Kenny Coyote]

If Sam Culver had some skeletons in his closet and his son agreed with Donna about publishing the truth, why not do it?

What does his son have to do with it? Sam's wishes, Sam's right to privacy belong to Sam - not to his son. Donna betrayed Sam's wishes and his right to his own thoughts. Donna took thoughts so private to Sam that she found them in his diary. Donna sold the contents of Sam's diary without his consent. Think about that.

To put it in a way that maybe you can better appreciate: Is what's in your diary any of my business or the rest of the world's business? Or is that your own personal business that you would only share with people if you wanted to, and even then on a need to know basis?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It was a biography of Sam Culver she was writing. Sam Culver and Jock planned to put Jonas Culver - Sam's relative - in a sanitarium just long enough to start drilling for oil on Jonas's land and then let him out. This was during The Great Depression of the 1930s and Jonas either couldn't or wouldn't understand that they all needed the money that would come from better utilizing Jones's land. Jonas killed himself before they could have him released.

Sam Culver never told Donna about this. He didn't want his own wife to know what he had done to his uncle. So why would Donna possibly think Sam would want the whole world to know about it?

Ethically and morally Donna had to weigh the value of respecting her ex-husband's wishes and his right to privacy against the value of telling the world about it anyway so that her book would sell more copies, making her richer and more famous.

Donna decided making herself richer and more well known was more important than respecting the wishes and privacy of her former husband whom she claimed to love. I don't have to wonder why I never liked Donna.

So Donna becoming richer by-any-means-necessary (writing a book) wasn't acceptable, but Sam becoming richer by any means necessary (falsely committing a relative who then killed himself) was.

 

[Toni]

What does his son have to do with it? Sam's wishes, Sam's right to privacy belong to Sam - not to his son. Donna betrayed Sam's wishes and his right to his own thoughts. Donna took thoughts so private to Sam that she found them in his diary. Donna sold the contents of Sam's diary without his consent. Think about that.

To put it in a way that maybe you can better appreciate: Is what's in your diary any of my business or the rest of the world's business? Or is that your own personal business that you would only share with people if you wanted to, and even then on a need to know basis?

Well, I mentioned his son because he was going for Senator, and as we all saw, the "scandal" didn´t affect his career at all (by Season 13 he still was a Senator). Besides, Sam was a liberal and even had an agreement with Donna for her to do whatever she wanted out of their bed. It wasn´t out of character for him if he had told her before dying: "I give you my permission to write a book about me and tell the whole truth about everything".

What would I have done? I respect intimacy and private life too much for even considering that, in one or other place (Donna or Sam). I don´t even tell one friend´s secrets to another friend. But that´s moi. And beware my friends if some of you go tell the world, for example, that I live with a Miss Piggy. That´s my private life, and that´s all mine. Donna was an excellent character in every sense, save for that awful last season when they made her walk like a zombie and leave her still husband to go save the world, like that bitchy Ray said to her. And I blame the Katzmen for that, not the characters. It was obvious that at least that relationship (and also Cliff and Jamie´s) had to be different from the dream´s.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

So Donna becoming richer by-any-means-necessary (writing a book) wasn't acceptable, but Sam becoming richer by any means necessary (falsely committing a relative who then killed himself) necessary was.

So Donna, being the arbiter of morality, decided to sell Sam's diary because it was the punishment he deserved.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

So Donna, being the arbiter of morality, decided to sell Sam's diary because it was the punishment he deserved.

So you, being the arbiter of morality, think what Sam did was more acceptable than what Donna did.

Miss Ellie defending Jesus:

 

[Kenny Coyote]

So you, being the arbiter of morality, think what Sam did was more acceptable than what Donna did.

I don't think what either did was acceptable.

However, I can understand how Sam may have thought that what he was doing to Jonas was ultimately in Jones's best interests as well as Sam and Jock's best interests. The plan was supposed to turn out mutually beneficial for Sam, Jonas, and Jock.

Both Sam and Jock may have thought there was such a great potential benefit in what they were doing, that committing Jonas was justified. The thinking being: Jonas will have to spend some time in a sanitarium but drilling on his land could make all of us millionaires, including Jonas. We're doing a good thing for all of us and Jonas will thank us later.

In Donna's situation she's telling the public stuff that is none of their business whatsoever. She's invading Sam's privacy and distributing the contents of his diary without his consent. Donna is sacrificing Sam's memory and legacy and betraying the trust Sam had in her so she can make money and get her name more well known. Where is the benefit to Sam's legacy? There is no intended mutual benefit, unlike the plan involving Jonas. It only hurts Sam's legacy and helps Donna. There is no reciprocation, no benefit to Sam and his legacy as well.

Sam may have thought: I'm justified because the potential benefit to Jonas far outweighs the short term downside to Jonas. How could Donna have thought she was justified in sacrificing Sam's legacy and betraying his trust in her just because it was of benefit to her?

 

[Barbara Fan]

I don't think what either did was acceptable.

However, I can understand how Sam may have thought that what he was doing to Jonas was ultimately in Jones's best interests as well as Sam and Jock's best interests. The plan was supposed to turn out mutually beneficial for Sam, Jonas, and Jock.

Both Sam and Jock may have thought there was such a great potential benefit in what they were doing, that committing Jonas was justified. The thinking being: Jonas will have to spend some time in a sanitarium but drilling on his land could make all of us millionaires, including Jonas. We're doing a good thing for all of us and Jonas will thank us later.

In Donna's situation she's telling the public stuff that is none of their business whatsoever. She's invading Sam's privacy and distributing the contents of his diary without his consent. Donna is sacrificing Sam's memory and legacy and betraying the trust Sam had in her so she can make money and get her name more well known. Where is the benefit to Sam's legacy? There is no intended mutual benefit, unlike the plan involving Jonas. It only hurts Sam's legacy and helps Donna. There is no reciprocation, no benefit to Sam and his legacy as well.

Sam may have thought: I'm justified because the potential benefit to Jonas far outweighs the short term downside to Jonas. How could Donna have thought she was justified in sacrificing Sam's legacy and betraying his trust in her just because it was of benefit to her?

I think that Jonus Culver may disagree with you on that one! Being committed and stealing my land isnt an option I would choose if i was him!

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I think that Jonus Culver may disagree with you on that one! Being committed and stealing my land isnt an option I would choose if i was him!

Oh, I understand that.. I'm not saying he would think it was justified. If he did, why would they have to commit him in the first place?

My point is that I can understand why Sam may have thought it was justified: Jonas will have to spend a few months in a sanitarium, but he'll be a millionaire afterwards. Short term suffering vs tremendous benefits long term i.e.the benefits to Jonas as well as the rest of us greatly outweigh the costs.

 

[Taylor Bennett Jr.]

Sam was a public, historical figure. Donna was writing a history of his life. The Jonas incident was a significant incident in his formative, early adult years as his first began to build his power.

She realized that, and although of course she didn’t want to damage her late husband’s reputation, she felt obligated to include it - after checking with those closest to Sam (Dave) and Jock (Ellie), which she also felt obligated to do.

That’s how it was presented on the show - her motivation wasn’t money and fame.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Oh, I understand that.. I'm not saying he would think it was justified. If he did, why would they have to commit him in the first place?

My point is that I can understand why Sam may have thought it was justified: Jonas will have to spend a few months in a sanitarium, but he'll be a millionaire afterwards. Short term suffering vs tremendous benefits long term i.e.the benefits to Jonas as well as the rest of us greatly outweigh the costs.

What guarantee did he have they would get him out and split the money with him? Not much since he killed himself.
Donna is tarnished a bit, imho, because I can't see any benefit for including this in the book except it would garner publicity for the book.
Jock's image has been damaged much, much worse. This goes beyond being a tough businessman. This is completely unethical and cruel. A person can be a tough, hard-nosed businessman, without being evil. If Jock was telling himself that this is just business or for someosome oen good, I doubt he himself believed that deep down inside.
I would go so far to say that he's not a true capitalist or American. Taking people's propery or wealth to distribute fir the greater good? Sounds like communism to me.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

What guarantee did he have they would get him out and split the money with him?

What guarantee? Life's only got one guarantee: One day you'll die.

Jonas didn't kill himself because they didn't strike oil. If Jonas had manned up and stuck it out for another month he'd have been rich. Jonas would have been set for a life. I bet there are a hell of a lot of people who would take that deal.. Sam overestimated Jonas's toughness. That happens.