That isn't fair, Dani. I just meant that, for a TV character, waiting and miserably biding your time off-camera is a death sentence. People have to do it all the time, but Logan is fictional. He's never more than a cut-and-paste from losing everything, and he's only one good idea from living happily ever after. Yes, they have to do realistic things, but realistic isn't the same as possible, and knowing what's right for them is as good as being able to give it to them here.
'What's the point of talking?' is the most loaded question I've ever been asked, so I'll keep my answer short: I talk about them because I think about them. I imagine scenarios for Gilmores because they stand as archetypes that are a part of me and spinning them all out to their ultimate extremes not only tells me things about myself, but about all of you as well.
That, and like any nosy writer, I have opinions about what would make their writing more realistic, appealing, and karmically correct to the show's premise. Maybe I'm secretly hoping they'll scout me. 
What's the point of talking was because I perceived (and I guess I was wrong) an attempt to shut down my interpretation. They're not real, so why bring up real life issues like people not always getting to do what they want? I personally don't see how them not being real is a counter argument to saying that people don't always get to do what they want, but it's not one for whether or not a character deserves to be happy. To me, both are looking at the characters like real people. I mean, a fake person can always get what they want if the creator decides. And, a fake person doesn't really "deserve" anything. But, it seems we're both debating as if Logan was real. Which makes sense. When I talk about characters, I usually act like they are real. And, if Logan was real, I'd say it wasn't a good thing for him to not being doing some work. So, I say it here, and for me at least, the fact that he isn't real is irrelevant to my argument. So, when I hear they're not real, I hear "so there's no point in voicing that opinion, it's not worthy of even being brought up." If I'm wrong, I apologize.
Anyway, I say a good tv show should not blatantly be one good idea or one bad idea from a character being happy. I want to see growth and sometimes seeing characters not get what they want makes for good tv. I don't expect Logan to be off camera miserable during next season. I mean, he's signed on for 13 episodes, and I wouldn't be surprised if he came back before the year is up. (Which I really hope is for something more than just wanting to be with Rory) But, if he's not happy in every episode, or if he's doing something he doesn't want to do, I don't think that's a bad thing. I might feel sympathetic to him, but I might also feel there's an opportunity for character growth, which I'd like to see as much as seeing him and Rory happy together.
You're right, of course. If Mitch is as plausible and laid-back as Logan, he's probably well-liked on a superficial level. But I've never seen anyone, real or fictional, that could be happy with Mitchum's home life if they only had the perfect job. The fact that Mitch gave up his personal life to throw everything into the family business (like he's trying to get Logan to do) seems obvious to me, but I guess it doesn't prove he isn't happy with the choice.
I'm not talking about his home life. (And I don't know that he gave up his personal life to throw everything into the family business. It could be the other way around. His personal life could -and I don't know that it does- suck, and he threw himself into work to compensate for that) But, see, I think if one area of your life is bad, you can still find happiness in another area. In fact, I'd say it's what most people are like, because it's probably what life is like anyway. Because I'd say most people have some area of their life that sucks. But, they can still find some happiness in other aspects. So, no Mitchum might not be perfectly happy (and I don't know that I agree that he is unhappy) but he's happy with his job. And, I'm only talking about his job. So, he still might reason that despite Logan not jumping at the chance, that he'll grow to like the work, like he did. And, Mitchum's work life doesn't necessarily have to be directly correlated to his home life, so wanting Logan to follow in his professional footsteps doesn't mean Logan is doomed to follow in his personal footsteps. I'm sure there are people just as successful in business as Mitchum (and there's no saying Logan would have to operate the business in the same manner as Mitchum did) who have great home lives.
Rory has plans and ambitions that will take her all over the world. That's her dream, and all of her boyfriends have had to accept that. Logan has no plans or ambitions except to be with Rory. As editor of multiple papers, Logan might have places all over that he had to be, but they're unlikely to be enough for the 'anywhere but here' girl Rory has always dreamed of being.
'Enough' for Logan seems to be making friends and having adventures, and nothing about being Rory's 'trophy husband' would prevent that.
I'm afraid I still don't see how the Huntzberger business, which is the newspaper business, which is the field Rory wants to work in, will keep Rory from working in the field she wants to work in. I can't imagine a dynasty like the Huntzberger dynasty wouldn't have offices and businesses in big cities where exciting news would happen all over the world. Not to mention that sometimes, people do spend some time apart for work. So, Rory wouldn't have to be stuck by his side at all times, even if somehow the papers the family owns are in places that wouldn't let Rory persue her own ambition. She has a home port in Hartford, or some other city where she and Logan live, and she goes out on assignments at different times. It's really no different from Richard traveling for business and coming back home to Emily. He's not stuck in Hartford because of Emily, and wouldn't be if Emily had an actual job that was the reason she stuck close to home. And, I think, aside from a certain storyline (that they dropped) Richard and Emily have a happy and stable marriage despite him sometimes being out of the country while she's home.
Logans values and sense of reality are distorted. How could he possibly agree with a normal person (I don't mean to offend you with the label, Dani) about what is worthwhile? When he sinks a yacht, his father pays for it (probably without punishing him) and he takes away a grand adventure and the story of a lifetime. He hasn't had the experiences it would take to learn empathy for the people he put out (they're just a bunch of rich old fogeys who never use it anyway) and until he does, without a safety net to deal with the consequences of his actions, he may never realize that what he does can actually hurt someone. At his age, it may be impossible for his father to teach him, and Mitch seems to think taking Logans trust fund would kill the boy anyway.
Okay, but I'm talking about my definition. And, what I perceive to be Mitchum's. So, why should Mitchum think that, if left to his own devices, Logan is going to do anything worthwhile? When the only evidence was, a whole year away from family responsibilities (and I'm speculating myself, here) where he could have "found himself" found something he wanted to do, all he did was sink a yacht. Why should he feel that going to Asia on a pleasure trip with his girlfriend is going to awaken Logan? Yeah, they might not sink a yacht (although, prior experience would tell Mitchum that stealing one is a possibility and Rory could possibly be an accesssory -or the instigator) but he has no real reason to think that it won't be anything but another pleasure trip, and nothing but pleasure. But, I like the idea of him cutting off Logan's trust fund. But, that leads to then what? Right now, I'd say Logan's only skill is within the family business (he may have untapped talents, but he hasn't worked to develop them, so he probably would have a hard time making a living at it at first). So, I'd say taking away the trust fund and doing nothing would be callous. Taking away his trust fund and putting him to work I think is responsible. Its not babying him and making life easy, and it's not just letting him sink or become homeless with no job. Mitchum could say, "okay no trust fund unless you find some work to do. It doesn't have to be the family business. You decide on something." That would be perfect, but I'd never claim Mitchum to be perfect. And, at least in my interpretation, Logan doesn't really want to do anything, so he wouldn't have an answer. And, for me, that's unacceptable. He should want to do something. He should have an interest in something, aside from Rory. If everything Rory did was only wrapped up in being a good girlfriend, I'd say that was a one dimensional existance for her, so I have to feel the same way about Logan.
BTW, how much does your average reporter make? Can they support two people on that kind of salary? Taking into account that it takes time to become a Christiane Amanapour -and I have no idea how much she makes, either. Would the two of them be able to live a decent life on what Rory makes alone?
Logan has been paying his family back for having him since he was old enough to read the fine print on the family crest. He may not be in the mood to owe society. And until he met Rory, he never gave any sign of not following through his entire life. This may be because of his father's hounding, but I think Logan feels it when his father is angry or cold to him, the same way Lorelai feels it when Emily does the same. Mitch has been telling him what he was going to do with his life for a long time, and everytime he resists, his father corrects him. Their whole relationship is contingent on him doing this one thing his father asks of him, and he still stays, even though doing it is making him sick. Yeah, he's trying to win his father's love, and his father is definitely using that to manipulate him. Maybe the same way his father steered him into line.
Well, again, for me, sometimes the ultimate end isn't always what a person wants. Again, like I said, I'm treating Logan like I would if he were real (but don't worry, I haven't gone totally off the deep end. Not on that account, anyway) and if he were real, I'd say basically who cares if you feel like you should be doing something with your life? It's selfish to expect everything to move in order to make you happy. (And, I'm not saying he shouldn't ever be happy or get anything he wants) I think people are supposed to do something with their lives. I think if people have a talent or a skill or something they should share it, they should put it to use. Them being in the mood to do so, doesn't factor (in my opinion).
I don't see Mitchum as trying to manipulate Logan's love. I see him as wanting Logan to be a responsible citizen. I see Mitchum as being a very honest straight talker. Maybe some might see him as too brutally honest. But, I think he spoke the truth to Rory. He wants Logan on a path. In his mind, he sees Logan drifting, doing nothing but goofing off, still doing the LDB. So, he wants Logan on a path. Which has nothing to do with separating him from Rory (I mean, semesters end, Rory could spend time with him at the end of the semester, Logan obviously will be coming back on certain holidays -and it's not perfect, it's not the best, but obviously it's not like sending Logan off to some secret place where Rory can never have contact with him for the entire year in order to keep them away) and has nothing to do with wanting to take advantage of Logan's love. Honestly, I think if Logan was doing something that was different from the family business, but was doing something or was showing that he was thinking of what he wanted after college and after the LDB, I don't think Mitchum would have a problem with that.
And from what I'm seeing, I really doubt Logan was being a completely "good little boy" obeying the rules and making it seem like he was all eager beaver to join the family until Rory came. I'm guessing not going to a meeting Mitchum set up, or rebelling to some extent has been happening since Mitchum started telling him he should be doing that.
Okay, this I can get behind. It seemed like if Logan had said he wanted to be a coked out bum, Mitchum should just sit there and not do anything. I'm cool with him having Logan start at the bottom.
No, that would be taking after his mother, and Mitch's father would never allow it.
Do you mean being a coked out bum would be taking after his mother or starting at the bottom is taking after her? Mitchum may not have started out sweeping the offices, but he did earn his way as a reporter, he didn't just get handed the executive suite.
As for the Daisy Miller reference, I was talking about Colin and Finn and the Lush and Doofs. If, as you suggest, Rory isn't even on Mitch's radar, (poor fool, doesn't he know she's the main character?) then, logically, it must be the LDB that Mitch thinks Logan can't resist. But there are plenty of drunken adventures in London (probably.) Rory had already put Colin and Finn in their place and begun pointing out flaws in the stunts (with one dazzling unspoken 'I told you so' forever behind them)
One of the things I love about Mitchum is he doesn't see Rory as anything special. He's probably gained some admiration for her getting back on the horse and becoming Yale editor, and probably doesn't think she's a bad girlfriend -or think much of her in that respect at all- but he hasn't fallen under her spell. And, I think Colin and Finn are sweet, but I still think they're pretty irresponsible. They may not be doing any more jumping off cliffs, but they're still partying and aren't at all evolved in the relationship area. In Partings, they were still doing tag team hitting on girls (one who had been in a serious relationship and had just gotten back together with her boyfriend, unbeknowest to them). They're still all about the scoring points and staying out all night. So, while I don't think they have the power to bring him down, I don't think they're going to be much of an influence for doing anything more than partying. But, yes, there is a possibility of having drunk parties in London. But, maybe Mitchum feels that Logan just does all that because of the crowd he hangs out with, rather than he just naturally wants to party all the time. And, sending him away temporarily from people like Colin and Finn (taking into consideration that he knows them and he's pals with them, they're not just random people to party with) will get him grounded and settled, so when he comes back, he'll see that life isn't all about personal gratification and having a good time.
I think what arrested her in the elevator was the 'Daisy Miller' comparison. If Logan said no in defiance of his preset future, it's a sign of adulthood. If he says no because he's fixated on her, it will be her fault if he never learns how to handle his life.
I wouldn't say it was her fault. Logan is ultimately responsible for his own life. If he's fixated on her, she didn't make him that way. Well, maybe those pesky pheremones she seems to bathe in.
Seriously. I keep expecting a mod to throw a bucket of water on us.
They probably intend to, but when they get halfway through some of our posts, they're asleep.