spoiler alert: this post makes reference to the January 18 episode on CBC
First, let me say that I like reading Dickens by the fire with a nice glass of Pinot Noir in the company of a comely amateur thespian (enough of that - ed) as much as the next person. Let me also say that I have always been fond of Ken despite his many flaws and foibles (I feel another novel coming on - ed). And yet, even I think he's going 'overboard' (good idea - ed) these days. More than that he's become an awful amphibian - behaving badly on land and sea.
On dry land, he's a non-entity: uninvolved, absent and completely divorced from the major problems of his son and grandson. Ken's far too busy on one of his 'Himalayan treks' or doing urgent 'library research' (the complete history of shagging? - ed). Just leave it to Deirdre and Blanche to do the heavy lifting and be there for life's little problems - like when Peter's flat is on fire.
On the high seas (high teas surely? - ed), he is no less disingenuous. He has consistently deceived Martha while switching his cellphone off and his libido on. Now that he's found his sea legs (and a sea legover -ed), he's quite content to maintain the duplicity. After all, he deserves a life, doesn't he?
But what about Peter and Simon and Deirdre? Don't they deserve lives too? Clearly it's time for Ken to stop his horizontal riverdance and get involved. Telling Peter to "go to hell" doesn't cut it. Ken's always had a problem when it comes to familial responsibility. He's much better at taking up causes, writing stirring columns for the Weatherfield Gazette and imploring people to do the right thing. At the hospital, Peter tells Ken, "thank God you were there." Too bad he wasn't.