I didn't realize it the first few times I watched it either, but this time through, I noticed just how many there are. And not just the obvious ones like Lorelai and Chris. I didn't count Rory and Jess because they have younger half siblings.
Honestly, I feel like seeing the kind of woman Liz is, Jess should have had more siblings. She had multiple relationships and she didn't seem like the kind of person who would try to prevent a pregnancy. It would also make more sense for her to ship Jess to Luke if she had two or three other kids and felt like she couldn't handle Jess going through a punk phase. Because, honestly, it doesn't make sense to ship a troubled teen to someone who has not raised any kids.
My sister is a lot like Liz, and she also only had 2 kids (with a very similar age gap as Jess and Doula). Thankfully, her unhealthy lifestyle seems to have affected her body’s ability to get and stay pregnant.
I have a cousin who is the same. She had her son and then 21 years later had a daughter who her grandma calls the tax refund baby. As soon as her son was too old to claim on her return anymore she looked forward to that return all year to make any big purchases. It's bad she even got her taken away for drinking and driving with her in the car. (Has since been returned to the mother after 2 years of sobriety) she now uses it again now that CPS is out of her life.
Yeah there’s none, they were such minor characters I don’t think it can be ascertained. Same with Lindsay honestly, we don’t know if she had older siblings who were already moved out/away. We didn’t see enough of her background to know.
And on the other hand, the characters that had siblings were quite a few: Mrs Kim, Taylor, Dean, Luke, Jackson, Logan, Emily.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus”
either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
Realistically it’s because you don’t want too many characters and having siblings for no reason is a pain because you’d have to pay actors and wrote new characters and if you have characters for the sake of having siblings it’s just a bit pointless and they just didn’t happen to write one off lines about Madeline for example having a sibling that was never seen because her sibling wouldn’t be seen
I mean in 10 years of Friends you see Rachel and joeys siblings like 4 times. Jess could easily have younger siblings off someplace else, Paris an older sibling like Logan does but who never needs to make an appearance, Madeline or Louise coulda mentioned a brother.
Rachel and Joey are main characters, you'll obviously see their life. None of the characters mentioned except Richard, Lorelai, and Lane are seen enough that we would see if they had siblings or not or care about them
If Jess had younger siblings they would have to show up once Liz moved to Stars Hollow... And if they were children of the father, that would make him too much of an asshole for Jesso to look for him later on...
I could be wrong but I think the only reason they had Rachel having two sisters is because they couldn't get the actress back that played the first one.
That's true. One of the few siblings we do see is Clara, and she is kind of annoying in my opinion because she acts like she is five but she couldn't possibly be that young. Logan's sister Honor was a much better sibling.
Clara is a brownie so she should be around 8 when we meet her, but I read that the actress would have been around 11 at the time, and the character acts 5 like you said. So it just comes across as awkward!
Yeah, she was the Dawn (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) of Gilmore Girls. Whiney, clingy, and so immature that their presence does nothing to add to the show.
We don't know the family structure of most of the rich sub-characters of the show. It's a detail that isn't relevant to the storyline (so I'm not surprised we don't know). I don't think it's correct to assume they're all only-children, though.
It’s mentioned in 1x10 I think when Rory is staying with her grandparents and they said she lives in Paris and then I don’t think they ever mentioned it again.
it’s not really weird. upper middle class and above ppl don’t usually have that many kids. all my best friends when i was little were either only children or had one sibling that was spaced far out lol
Well, when you were little you were making friends with people your own age... statistically being born from parents about the same age and thus in the same stage of having kids... personal experience is poor way to gather evidence.
Anyhow, it's not like every middle class family is choosing to have 1.9 kids. Rather, the majority are middle class because they only had 2 or fewer children. Kids are expensive. If you have three kids and you're struggling to send them all to Chilton then you're not going to be in the income to be middle class anymore.
[https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc271a.pdf](https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc271a.pdf)
yeah, that…doesn’t make sense. all of our parents were different ages. it’s absolutely logical that there are social factors that come into play when it comes to the number of kids you have. you can look for research articles if you like.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
I would have LOVED for us to have been introduced to Emily’s sister, can you imagine what an incredible juicy episode that could have been. I guess maybe they left her out so that they could emphasise the parallels between the three Gilmore girls, but I think it’s a real shame.
Do we know for sure that Lindsay is an only child? I feel like I just remember them saying she’s their only daughter in the wedding episode.
I enjoyed the story lines with Jackson’s brother! It was a lot of fun the first time I rewatched after getting into Parks and Rec back in the day and I realized Nick Offerman was on Gilmore Girls.
I think ASP is an only child, so maybe she just writes what she knows. (People have also commented that children aren't written that well in the show, and ASP also doesn't have children.)
ASP wrote some great sibling and teen content with Roseanne, which predates GG. With GG, siblings and younger children simply weren't a part of the show's main structure and content - hence, they're not prominent or integral to the show.
She wrote some of the episodes for Roseanne, but it wasn't her show. She didn't do the world-building and drive its vision the way she did with the Gilmoreverse. Gilmore Girls seems very economical about adding in siblings, it seems like they're really only there when they specifically further the story for the core characters, but sibling relationships are not really written for their own sake or in a way that would distract from the core characters/relationships. They're basically accessories.
Maybe that's just because the focus is more on intergenerational drama (moreso than intragenerational), or maybe it's a product of ASP's own experiences/worldviews. I'm not saying she *can't* write sibling relationships, just that maybe it's not as much her go-to instinct when she's world building or creating character dynamics. And maybe her own experience as an only child may have something to do with this. Looking at ASP's other creations may support or counter this theory, moreso than comparing to Roseanne. I haven't really watched her other shows all the way through, but I think Bunheads wasn't super sibling-centric either. I think Mrs. Maisel has a brother or something, but this was not a primary relationship, I don't even think he's even considered a main character.
I totally agree with your first paragraph, in that GG isn't a show about siblings - the pitch is literally about daughters and mothers. As such, I would argue that adding in siblings would wholly detract from the whole structure and cadence of the show - the decision to exclude them and not make them a focus is correct, IMO.
My point about Roseanne was simply to counter the oft-repeated line of "ASP can't write kids well". She can, and has done. Agree, she chooses not to focus on children in her shows - however, that in itself isn't a bad thing. Personally I wouldn't enjoy them as much if she did!
Rosanne wasn't written in a bubble. It had a writer's room with many contributing. It would probably be impossible to figure out what was written by ASP and what might have been punched up by another writer.
I agree that only children aren't necessarily spoiled, but I don't feel like most of the kids in this show depict that. Lane is really the only one I wouldn't consider spoiled. They are all extremely entitled, probably mostly because they are rich more than because they are only children, though.
like you said Lane isnt spoiled and she's an only child. however Mrs kim was way too strict. lane wasnt wild she just wanted to listen to the music she liked.
I think this is the most likely take. But I’ll also add that April’s character must have been written by someone who not only had never interacted with a child, but who had somehow bent space and time to never have experienced childhood at all.
It's not that rich people only want one heir, it's that having a lot of money and having very few children tend to correlate.
Speaking as a broke bitch only child, most of the other only children in my age bracket were decidedly _not_ in my same tax bracket.
I think it happened probably accidentally. The show is a show about mother-daughter relationships at its core, not about sibling relationships. It sort of follows that they don't emphasize sibling relationships.
I also think probably a lot of these only children happen for different reasons:
- Lane is an only because of Mrs. Kim's religion and shame around sex.
- Lorelai is an only, and I think it's pretty clear that Richard and Emily did not care to be parents. They probably had Lorelai out of social obligation, but once that obligation was fulfilled, I don't think they wanted more.
- Rory was an only because she was unplanned and unexpected. She becomes the constant in Lorelai's life and the circumstances of her life sort of force Lorelai's life in a direction that doesn't lend toward more children. Their codependency is a whole other dynamic
- Jess is an only mostly due to parental neglect, which is a really different dynamic (that I wish they had explored more)
- Paris seems like a combo of Jess and Lorelai. It's almost like seeing what happens if you have neglectful parents who have resources. But it doesn't seem like her parents were that interested in being parents.
- Chris....spoiled male heir who is never asked to do anything but be male and an heir?
They explore a lot of different types of parent/child relationship. I don't mind they didn't have time for siblings.
My daughter is an only child and all her friends are only children too. It happens. Maybe the creator of the show had this experience growing up too, in which most people around her were only children.
It was less common 20 years ago than it is now. But yea mine is an only and 8 out of her 20 kindergarten classmates are only children (they’re 6 so it could still change but isn’t super likely at this point) which was surprising to me as someone who grew up when being an only was super weird.
For the same reason a lot of teen dramas have a large amount of dead/absent parents, it’s convenient.
Madeline, Louise, Tristan, and Lindsay were not main characters. It would be wasteful to give them throwaway lines or scenes about siblings that would be better spent contributing to the main character’s storyline.
Chris, Lorelai, or Lane having siblings would be an added complexity to the show’s story that they couldn’t just Mr. Kim away. Those characters would have to be fully fleshed out, require more actors, more money, and they would have a direct impact on the major plot lines of the show. Gilmore Girls is already a pretty large ensemble, I’m sure no one was looking to add more just because it would be more accurate to the general population for the characters to have siblings.
Agree. Writers do more than just write dialogue, they also provide structure and order to the show. Characters need to serve a purpose. Siblings in GG would have been superfluous.
Adding in more characters wouldn't have made the show better. It is, at its heart, a show about one family with three main female protagonists, not a story about extended families and siblings.
Further, there *are* characters with siblings (eg Emily, Luke, Kirk, Dean, Jackson, Jess, Rory, Logan), and others who we don't know anything about at all (I would count Tristan, Madeleine and Louise amongst them) - I wouldn't say there's a "disproportionately high" amount of only-child families. It's simply that the focus of the show isn't on siblings to a great degree. The most sibling interplay we see is with Luke and Liz, and that's really only a side-story.
Because at the heart of the show are the protagonists, only children Rory and Lorelai Gilmore. This show is called "Gilmore Girls", NOT "Stars Hollow." Let's not forget about that.
Kirk had siblings
Jess had a sibling
Dean had a sibling
Logan had a sibling
Luke had siblings
Emily had a sibling
Jackson had siblings
Sookie had multiple kids
Lane had multiple kids.
The same way you can assume characters didn’t have siblings, I can assume they did.
I think you’re seeing something that’s not there.
Ok, I did a deep dive looking up characters and if we know canonically if they are siblings or only children. I looked up most of the regular characters and added anyone else I could think of. I know this will get a bit lost at the bottom of the thread, but feel free to add if I left anyone out and I’ll update lol.
Sibling characters:
Luke/Liz, Dean/Clara, Logan/Honor, Jackson/Bo, Mrs. Kim/her brother, TJ/his brother, Kirk (we don’t see his siblings), Taylor (we don’t see his sister), Madeline (we don’t see her brother), Trevor (guy Rory went on a date with, also don’t see his siblings), and technically Kwan/Steve, Davy/Martha, and the 3 kids from the Harvard alumnus’ house
- There are 23 total characters we see who are siblings
- 10 of these are regularly appearing characters and 13 are not
- 4 of these characters have been in the show’s main title sequence (Luke, Dean, Logan, Kirk)
Only child characters:
Lorelai, Rory, Richard, Lane, Jess, Paris (I think those were nanny’s kids at graduation), April, Anna, and Christopher
- There are 9 total characters we see who are only children
- All 9 of these are regularly appearing characters
- 6 of these characters have been in the show’s main title sequence (+ Christopher/David Sutcliffe was negotiated as a “special guest star” in the credits)
So it looks like while there are more total characters who are siblings, the proportion of only children who are regular/main characters is higher than that of sibling characters who are regular/main characters, and more of the “main cast” characters are only children than siblings. So there are a solid number of sibling characters, but the only children characters are more often in main roles, which would explain why it seems like there are more only children characters overall.
Side notes:
- I can’t count Emily on either side because the one time early on she mentions having a sister is from the point when Trix was originally written to be dead already and the sister is never mentioned again.
- Yes, I counted Rory and Jess as only children because they grew up as only children.
- I don’t know how to sort GiGi for these purposes. She is technically Rory’s half sister, but they both grew up with the experience of being only children. I just left her out. Sorry Gigi, enjoy your program.
I find it refreshing to have shows with only children, I myself I am an only child, and I have an only child, and I believe we are fully developed characters. Lol. As much as I enjoyed shows like Roseanne and Parenthood and the Brady Bunch, it’s interesting to see shows focusing more on relationships between , for example Rory and her friends, or Lorelei and her friends, or the individual relationships with Rory, Lorelei, Lane and their parents.
I always thought it was odd, especially for the wealthier families. I'm sure they could afford more kids and would want a male "heir"
Real answer - siblings of side characters don't add anything to storyline and would be extra actors to pay. Even if only mentioned, extra storyline they would probably do a bad job keeping track of.
I think your last sentence is a really good point. GG wasn’t always great with continuity even with the main characters, so why introduce more facts to keep track of if they’re not relevant?
The meta answer is that it keeps the cast list small and there’s fewer names for the audience to remember. But mostly it’s the budget for cast members.
It’s always crossed my mind why the Gilmore’s only had a single child and a daughter, most people of means want at least two children and will keep going until they have at least one son.
I can only assume it’s called Gilmore GIRLS. So it’s primarily a show written by a woman for women about women.
A bit off topic, but I just remembered I had a biology teacher that used to say that people who have more than 3 children are poor. At the time she only had one son, then she got pregnant and life gave her triplets.
Anyway, with Gilmore Girls I think they just didn't want to write even more characters. And I think if Lorelai had siblings, her relationship with her parents wouldn't be the same as we see, nor their relationship with Rory. Richard and Emily didn't approve of a lot of the Lorelai's choices, if she had siblings they probably wouldn't care, like "yeah, Lorelai is a disappointment, but we are proud of her brother/sister". Same with Rory, Richard and Emily saw an opportunity to try to transform Rory into what they wanted Lorelai to be, so even if Rory had siblings the family dynamics wouldn't be the same.
Characters only have named siblings when it’s convenient. Two of Rory’s boyfriends have a sister so that Rory can have interactions with them. Jess didn’t need a sibling because Rory could talk to Luke about Jess.
I think it would have been interesting for Lorelai to have had a brother or at least a friend from childhood that was still in that world. Perhaps they could have been running a nonprofit or something but still within the world of the wealthy elite but show how they're actually making change in the world. Someone like a Digger who could have challenged Lorelai's blind hatred for her parent's world. I'm not standing up for rich people but it would have been good to have some variety and friend that wasn't just a blind follower of Lorelai and her ramblings.
Probably because Amy Sherman-Palladino was an only child and she's not good at writing what she doesn't know. It's any understanding she never had kids either. Look at Clara and April, not written very well. Also the kid in the episode where Jess goes to find his Dad? It's like Amy could only write girls who read.
Another theory: I remember reading an interview about Sex and the City, where they said you rarely heard anything about the 4 main characters' families because the focus of the show was their friendship bond with each other.
I wonder if it's something similar on this show: so much of it is about the "found family" of the Stars Hollow community. If you don't have much biological family around (or are estranged from your family), you have to look elsewhere for your village.
That's an interesting notion. I can certainly see that in Rory's and Lane's relationship and Rory's and Paris's. If Lane or Paris had not been only children, they may not have been so lonely and wouldn't have formed a strong connection with Rory. Your idea sounds very plausible to me.
Some would have been deliberate - Lorelai and Chris, Rory and Paris/Lane. They're saying something about what being an only child does to a person and their relationship with their parents.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with it but I did notice that at my all-girls private high school the number of us who were only-children was pretty high compared to other environments I’ve found myself in.
I noticed this, too. Chalked it up to typical TV writing to keep the story simpler. A lot of TV shows have only children or the siblings/extended family are conveniently elsewhere so no lines have to be wasted on them.
Given how badly ASP writes kids' dialogue I'm so thankful there weren't any younger siblings for the characters listed... Clara is enough. More older ones would've been interesting though.
I was wondering if it’s a regional thing. Anybody from the northeast, specifically Connecticut? In the Midwest where I’m from families are typically larger, with 3 kids being a smaller family.
Definitely not a CT thing! I don't think the writers ever did more research than Googling town names anyway. Most of the geographical/cultural things in the show were weird.
I lived about 90minutes from the area in Greenwich , CT, most of the families I saw there had more than one child.
I can’t remember them ever saying what a mess I-95 is at the weekends and I can’t really reconcile Richard being so wealthy as an insurance executive unless he founded the company, he would have done all right but I don’t see how he is worth 50 million.
Emily mentions a sister once. But I think Richard was an only child as well. Dean had a sister. So did Logan. But yeah, there’s definitely an overabundance of only children and I never noticed that!
I would have liked to have seen Emily's sister Hope. It would have been funny if she and Emily had been complete opposites. And Lorelai could have made some line about taking after her aunt that would make Emily super jealous.
Easier to keep the cast smaller and simplify story lines. Especially if those actors don’t hang around for smaller roles over a long period of time. Then your stuck with a random new actor that is supposedly Paris’s “new” sister.
Madeleine has at least one sibling, and it’s only confirmed that Lindsay has no sisters. She could have a brother.
Luke and Liz are siblings
Emily has a sister
Kirk has multiple siblings
Jackson has at least one brother
Rory has a half-sister
Jess has a half-sister
Dean has a sister
Logan has a sister
Mitchum has three siblings
Trix had at least one sibling
It is odd that it's so many of them. I did always find it weird that Lorelai was an only child - Emily and Richard had a very solid marriage and when they separate during the show, it's shocking to Lorelai. We certainly have the impression they haven't had problems before. And they're old money, and in theory should care about making sure their money stays in family hands. I'm surprised they were content that one heir was enough. Especially, frankly, when that heir was a girl - I would've thought they would be a bit more patriarchal about everything, like the Huntzbergers are.
My husband grew up wealthy and was an only child. All of his friends in his neighborhood were only children or had 1 sibling. Only one family had 3 kids and they were known as the “big family”. This was also true for his school friends in a similar income bracket. Both of his closest best friends were only chicken. The wealthy, but not mega wealthy had small families back then. So I don’t find it weird that the rich families were one and done. But I also feel like I knew more only children back when I was a kid in the 80’s and 90’s than I meet now. I only know 2 only child families, and both of the moms had fertility problems, so it wasn’t on purpose.
I also don’t find it weird that April was an only child since her mom decided to be a single mom.
But I ALWAYS thought it was bizarre that Lane was an only child. Younger siblings would have been hilarious. But then they would have needed to show her dad too. I feel like Lindsay would have also had siblings. Everyone I know who married young like that usually had multiple siblings.
I also think part of it is a show money issue. Mention a sibling and you might have to hire a sibling later on. The WB/CW wasn’t prone to throwing money at shows unless it was absolutely necessary.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus”
either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus”
either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
Heir and the spare! I imagine in wealthy circles more than 2 would be pointless and cause issues with the estate. But that’s just my working class opinion.
Unrelated kinda but I only have one kid- are ppl still having multiples out here in the wild? My community is small and we have a handful of parents with OAO.
I feel like there is a lot of societal pressure, at least where I live to have two or more children. My husband and I struggled to get pregnant, so I thought people would give us some grace, but as soon as our oldest was 1, we got the "when are you having another one?"
I have even heard the term "Million dollar family" to describe a family with one boy and one girl. Apparently, that's considered the ideal that everyone wants.
Oh wow. I mean, that tracks. I imagine it changes a little wherever you go but the American ideal is 2.5 kids right? We struggled to stay pregnant and my only child is my fourth pregnancy; only one to term so I was like “I’m done!” Also we’re estranged from family but I could only imagine we’d be pressured to have more- like it’s easy or something for us 🤪
I’m not from America but back in 2000s 99% of my classmates were only children in their respective families. And most of the people I know have also no siblings. But then my husband has three :D
I can’t speak for other only children but I personally forget that other people have siblings (or parents who are married). ASP is also an only so maybe she just forgot 😂
Generationally it’s a little weird that Lorelei, Chris, and the gen above them didn’t have siblings.
But I’m Rory’s age and an only child, and I feel like that’s about the same number/ rate of only children that I’ve known growing up. It feels like only children were much more frequent in the 80d and 90s once single parenthood became more of a thing. My best friend was also an only child, and we spent time together to the point that we considered eachother siblings, just like Rory and Lane.
This is not exclusive to GG. Outer Banks, Harry Potter, The Big Bang theory ect have disproportional amounts of only children. It’s inevitable when there is a large ensemble of characters.
I guess because the show is heavily focused on parent-child relationships, and single child families mean all the attention is put on the one child and they can solely focus on that.
I mean Rory has two sisters by the end of the show : Gigi and April, but I don’t think we ever see her interact with either and that has got to be intentional. Lorelei has interacted more with Rory’s sisters
I think I’d read somewhere on this sub before that Amy is an only child and that’s why she’s written all her characters also as an only child
edit: for clarity
Lane makes sense bc her mom didn’t want to have sex more than once. Rory makes sense because Chris and Lorelei were literally children when they had her.
Some of the others we don’t know if they’re only children or not. Like Lindsay, Tristan, Madeline and Louise. We don’t even know if Emily and Richard are only children because their families aren’t talked about much.
I always wondered this to. Like again Rory obviously only child. But then Anna had April who was also a single Mom with a book worm child. Then when Jess was with his Dad in CA he’s with a women with a kid also a bookworm. Also with someone who had a business.
You know, you are right. Lorelai, Anna, and Sasha all are single moms who run a business and have a smart daughter. I hadn't noticed that. I saw similarities with Rory and April, but failed to see the whole situations as similar.
As a writer, I’ve asked myself this many times, too, because I keep noticing a lot of my main characters are an only child… unless they have siblings who are important to the plot. It makes things simple. Same reason why a lot of fictional characters have limited extended family, or they’ve all died. (Imagine how different Harry Potter would be if his very young parents hadn’t already lost THEIR parents; like if you think about it, it’s not realistic, but it sure is plot convenient). (Yes I’m fully aware there are tons of characters with large families but that’s probably because it’s important to the plot. If the writer doesn’t want to have to deal with writing more characters or scenes or if they want a convenient way to avoid a plot hole like “why can’t their grandparents or in-laws or siblings do something about this??” then those family members just won’t exist.)
where do we know chris is an only child?
i only can think of evidence of lorelai and lane for sure. and with lane it makes sense, bc we dk anything about her dad or when he left the picture.
rest of the side characters, just bc we dont see their siblings doesn't mean they don't exist, they're just not essential to the story. i always assume with this show and others, they're probably there, just not important enough, its the same with most shows, I just dont think GG is an exception to this rule.
I think you are remembering her cousin. Mrs Kim kind of insinuated that she only had sex once and got pregnant with Lane and never had to have sex again.
You don't need to show a character's siblings in order to "fully develop" them (nor does a character need siblings to be multi-dimensional), particularly if they exist in a show that doesn't revolve around their family.
April was an accident and her mom probably took BC like M&Ms after her. Lane was literally the only time her mom had sex. Lindsay may seems like she should have siblings. Maybe her parents just weren't lucky.
I think it's more that a sibling dynamic isn't something ASP thought of. Her characters' relationships were focused on them having a weird amount of interactions outside the home and with adults. Siblings would have thrown that off. Dean's little sister really only existed as a character trait for him. The idea of throwing in extra people for the sake of it likely didn't appeal to the writers.
Kirk and his siblings balance it out… 😂
If you believe his story wasn't just a ploy to get crinkle-cut carrots
Came here to say that 😁
I NEVER realized that until now and I have seen the show probably literally 100 times
I didn't realize it the first few times I watched it either, but this time through, I noticed just how many there are. And not just the obvious ones like Lorelai and Chris. I didn't count Rory and Jess because they have younger half siblings.
Yeah I wouldn’t count them though bc they grew up only children
Honestly, I feel like seeing the kind of woman Liz is, Jess should have had more siblings. She had multiple relationships and she didn't seem like the kind of person who would try to prevent a pregnancy. It would also make more sense for her to ship Jess to Luke if she had two or three other kids and felt like she couldn't handle Jess going through a punk phase. Because, honestly, it doesn't make sense to ship a troubled teen to someone who has not raised any kids.
If anything, I’d say Jess would have had more siblings on his dad’s side.
Yeah but dad could have walked away a lot easier than Liz
My sister is a lot like Liz, and she also only had 2 kids (with a very similar age gap as Jess and Doula). Thankfully, her unhealthy lifestyle seems to have affected her body’s ability to get and stay pregnant.
I have a cousin who is the same. She had her son and then 21 years later had a daughter who her grandma calls the tax refund baby. As soon as her son was too old to claim on her return anymore she looked forward to that return all year to make any big purchases. It's bad she even got her taken away for drinking and driving with her in the car. (Has since been returned to the mother after 2 years of sobriety) she now uses it again now that CPS is out of her life.
Tristan, madeleine, and Louise seem pretty gratuitous here to me. On what basis do you say they don’t have siblings?
Yeah there’s none, they were such minor characters I don’t think it can be ascertained. Same with Lindsay honestly, we don’t know if she had older siblings who were already moved out/away. We didn’t see enough of her background to know. And on the other hand, the characters that had siblings were quite a few: Mrs Kim, Taylor, Dean, Luke, Jackson, Logan, Emily.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
Realistically it’s because you don’t want too many characters and having siblings for no reason is a pain because you’d have to pay actors and wrote new characters and if you have characters for the sake of having siblings it’s just a bit pointless and they just didn’t happen to write one off lines about Madeline for example having a sibling that was never seen because her sibling wouldn’t be seen
I mean in 10 years of Friends you see Rachel and joeys siblings like 4 times. Jess could easily have younger siblings off someplace else, Paris an older sibling like Logan does but who never needs to make an appearance, Madeline or Louise coulda mentioned a brother.
I recall Madeline saying she had a brother — he had the measles so they couldn’t study at her place (the Bangles episode)
I agree. They don't have to appear on the show, but just an occasional reference. Emily references a sister who is never shown.
Rachel and Joey are main characters, you'll obviously see their life. None of the characters mentioned except Richard, Lorelai, and Lane are seen enough that we would see if they had siblings or not or care about them
Even with Richard his sibling could live far away and just not be someone they see very often.
Then the writers would be stuck explaining why they weren't present at Liz's wedding yet Jess was. Less siblings = less to explain
If Jess had younger siblings they would have to show up once Liz moved to Stars Hollow... And if they were children of the father, that would make him too much of an asshole for Jesso to look for him later on...
I could be wrong but I think the only reason they had Rachel having two sisters is because they couldn't get the actress back that played the first one.
Jess has at least one younger sibling, at the end of season 6. She names her Doula!
That's true. One of the few siblings we do see is Clara, and she is kind of annoying in my opinion because she acts like she is five but she couldn't possibly be that young. Logan's sister Honor was a much better sibling.
Clara is a brownie so she should be around 8 when we meet her, but I read that the actress would have been around 11 at the time, and the character acts 5 like you said. So it just comes across as awkward!
Yeah, she was the Dawn (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) of Gilmore Girls. Whiney, clingy, and so immature that their presence does nothing to add to the show.
Logan and Emily are I think the only rich people who have siblings. Weird indeed.
We don't know the family structure of most of the rich sub-characters of the show. It's a detail that isn't relevant to the storyline (so I'm not surprised we don't know). I don't think it's correct to assume they're all only-children, though.
We know Robert has sisters because he wants to leave them penniless.
Does the parrot count as a sibling or child? 😂
Logan's dad has an older sister I believe. Rory mentioned when she was researching him for the internship that he was the second child, oldest son.
Mitchum has 3 siblings (Rory’s pre-internship googling is thorough 😎).
Emily has a sibling? I must've missed that.
She mentions her sister Hope who lives in Paris in season 1 and then I don't think it ever comes up again.
Missed opportunity for Emily and Rory to see her in Paris! I also would have loved Emily with a sister in the reboot.
It’s mentioned in 1x10 I think when Rory is staying with her grandparents and they said she lives in Paris and then I don’t think they ever mentioned it again.
Logan and Honor, too.
it’s not really weird. upper middle class and above ppl don’t usually have that many kids. all my best friends when i was little were either only children or had one sibling that was spaced far out lol
Well, when you were little you were making friends with people your own age... statistically being born from parents about the same age and thus in the same stage of having kids... personal experience is poor way to gather evidence. Anyhow, it's not like every middle class family is choosing to have 1.9 kids. Rather, the majority are middle class because they only had 2 or fewer children. Kids are expensive. If you have three kids and you're struggling to send them all to Chilton then you're not going to be in the income to be middle class anymore. [https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc271a.pdf](https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc271a.pdf)
yeah, that…doesn’t make sense. all of our parents were different ages. it’s absolutely logical that there are social factors that come into play when it comes to the number of kids you have. you can look for research articles if you like.
[удалено]
You might want to reread the fact that we’re not talking about the middle class. Did you not understand this show??😂
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
I would have LOVED for us to have been introduced to Emily’s sister, can you imagine what an incredible juicy episode that could have been. I guess maybe they left her out so that they could emphasise the parallels between the three Gilmore girls, but I think it’s a real shame.
Do we know for sure that Lindsay is an only child? I feel like I just remember them saying she’s their only daughter in the wedding episode. I enjoyed the story lines with Jackson’s brother! It was a lot of fun the first time I rewatched after getting into Parks and Rec back in the day and I realized Nick Offerman was on Gilmore Girls.
I think ASP is an only child, so maybe she just writes what she knows. (People have also commented that children aren't written that well in the show, and ASP also doesn't have children.)
I wondered if she was an only child.
ASP wrote some great sibling and teen content with Roseanne, which predates GG. With GG, siblings and younger children simply weren't a part of the show's main structure and content - hence, they're not prominent or integral to the show.
She wrote some of the episodes for Roseanne, but it wasn't her show. She didn't do the world-building and drive its vision the way she did with the Gilmoreverse. Gilmore Girls seems very economical about adding in siblings, it seems like they're really only there when they specifically further the story for the core characters, but sibling relationships are not really written for their own sake or in a way that would distract from the core characters/relationships. They're basically accessories. Maybe that's just because the focus is more on intergenerational drama (moreso than intragenerational), or maybe it's a product of ASP's own experiences/worldviews. I'm not saying she *can't* write sibling relationships, just that maybe it's not as much her go-to instinct when she's world building or creating character dynamics. And maybe her own experience as an only child may have something to do with this. Looking at ASP's other creations may support or counter this theory, moreso than comparing to Roseanne. I haven't really watched her other shows all the way through, but I think Bunheads wasn't super sibling-centric either. I think Mrs. Maisel has a brother or something, but this was not a primary relationship, I don't even think he's even considered a main character.
I totally agree with your first paragraph, in that GG isn't a show about siblings - the pitch is literally about daughters and mothers. As such, I would argue that adding in siblings would wholly detract from the whole structure and cadence of the show - the decision to exclude them and not make them a focus is correct, IMO. My point about Roseanne was simply to counter the oft-repeated line of "ASP can't write kids well". She can, and has done. Agree, she chooses not to focus on children in her shows - however, that in itself isn't a bad thing. Personally I wouldn't enjoy them as much if she did!
Rosanne wasn't written in a bubble. It had a writer's room with many contributing. It would probably be impossible to figure out what was written by ASP and what might have been punched up by another writer.
Midge does have an older brother in Maisel, he pops up every so often, but is probably not considered a main character. Joel is an only child I think?
Maybe not a main character, but he's absolutely integral to understanding Midge and her relationship with her father.
wow ASP worked on Roseanne too huh? GG and Roseanne are both awesome tv shows!
Yeah, I think it might have been one of her earliest writing gigs.
Children are plot devices and set dressing in this show, so true
im an only myself so i find this refreshing seeing more only representation. so many people view onlys as spoiled but that's not true
I agree that only children aren't necessarily spoiled, but I don't feel like most of the kids in this show depict that. Lane is really the only one I wouldn't consider spoiled. They are all extremely entitled, probably mostly because they are rich more than because they are only children, though.
hey ive known people who are from large families who are spoiled and kinda full of themselves like it could be wealth, looks, luck, etc
Agreed. I still don't think the characters in this show depict people who aren't spoiled.
like you said Lane isnt spoiled and she's an only child. however Mrs kim was way too strict. lane wasnt wild she just wanted to listen to the music she liked.
I think this is the most likely take. But I’ll also add that April’s character must have been written by someone who not only had never interacted with a child, but who had somehow bent space and time to never have experienced childhood at all.
It's not that rich people only want one heir, it's that having a lot of money and having very few children tend to correlate. Speaking as a broke bitch only child, most of the other only children in my age bracket were decidedly _not_ in my same tax bracket.
Or like Mrs. Kim was really happy to only have to do it just once…
Madeline Louise and Tristan is a stretch. They could all have siblings as well.
I think Madeline says her brother is sick which is why the group can't meet at her house for a group project.
I think it happened probably accidentally. The show is a show about mother-daughter relationships at its core, not about sibling relationships. It sort of follows that they don't emphasize sibling relationships. I also think probably a lot of these only children happen for different reasons: - Lane is an only because of Mrs. Kim's religion and shame around sex. - Lorelai is an only, and I think it's pretty clear that Richard and Emily did not care to be parents. They probably had Lorelai out of social obligation, but once that obligation was fulfilled, I don't think they wanted more. - Rory was an only because she was unplanned and unexpected. She becomes the constant in Lorelai's life and the circumstances of her life sort of force Lorelai's life in a direction that doesn't lend toward more children. Their codependency is a whole other dynamic - Jess is an only mostly due to parental neglect, which is a really different dynamic (that I wish they had explored more) - Paris seems like a combo of Jess and Lorelai. It's almost like seeing what happens if you have neglectful parents who have resources. But it doesn't seem like her parents were that interested in being parents. - Chris....spoiled male heir who is never asked to do anything but be male and an heir? They explore a lot of different types of parent/child relationship. I don't mind they didn't have time for siblings.
My daughter is an only child and all her friends are only children too. It happens. Maybe the creator of the show had this experience growing up too, in which most people around her were only children.
It was less common 20 years ago than it is now. But yea mine is an only and 8 out of her 20 kindergarten classmates are only children (they’re 6 so it could still change but isn’t super likely at this point) which was surprising to me as someone who grew up when being an only was super weird.
Do we know that Lindsey was an only child? Her mom just says that she is their only daughter.
For the same reason a lot of teen dramas have a large amount of dead/absent parents, it’s convenient. Madeline, Louise, Tristan, and Lindsay were not main characters. It would be wasteful to give them throwaway lines or scenes about siblings that would be better spent contributing to the main character’s storyline. Chris, Lorelai, or Lane having siblings would be an added complexity to the show’s story that they couldn’t just Mr. Kim away. Those characters would have to be fully fleshed out, require more actors, more money, and they would have a direct impact on the major plot lines of the show. Gilmore Girls is already a pretty large ensemble, I’m sure no one was looking to add more just because it would be more accurate to the general population for the characters to have siblings.
Agree. Writers do more than just write dialogue, they also provide structure and order to the show. Characters need to serve a purpose. Siblings in GG would have been superfluous.
I think Madeline had a little brother
True. Came here to say that. He has the measles and that’s why they couldn’t work at her house
Adding in more characters wouldn't have made the show better. It is, at its heart, a show about one family with three main female protagonists, not a story about extended families and siblings. Further, there *are* characters with siblings (eg Emily, Luke, Kirk, Dean, Jackson, Jess, Rory, Logan), and others who we don't know anything about at all (I would count Tristan, Madeleine and Louise amongst them) - I wouldn't say there's a "disproportionately high" amount of only-child families. It's simply that the focus of the show isn't on siblings to a great degree. The most sibling interplay we see is with Luke and Liz, and that's really only a side-story.
I don’t think they ever say if Lindsay, Tristan, Madeline or Louise have siblings. They weren’t mentioned because they weren’t relevant to the story.
Because at the heart of the show are the protagonists, only children Rory and Lorelai Gilmore. This show is called "Gilmore Girls", NOT "Stars Hollow." Let's not forget about that.
As an only child…finally we get our moment!
Kirk had siblings Jess had a sibling Dean had a sibling Logan had a sibling Luke had siblings Emily had a sibling Jackson had siblings Sookie had multiple kids Lane had multiple kids. The same way you can assume characters didn’t have siblings, I can assume they did. I think you’re seeing something that’s not there.
Ok, I did a deep dive looking up characters and if we know canonically if they are siblings or only children. I looked up most of the regular characters and added anyone else I could think of. I know this will get a bit lost at the bottom of the thread, but feel free to add if I left anyone out and I’ll update lol. Sibling characters: Luke/Liz, Dean/Clara, Logan/Honor, Jackson/Bo, Mrs. Kim/her brother, TJ/his brother, Kirk (we don’t see his siblings), Taylor (we don’t see his sister), Madeline (we don’t see her brother), Trevor (guy Rory went on a date with, also don’t see his siblings), and technically Kwan/Steve, Davy/Martha, and the 3 kids from the Harvard alumnus’ house - There are 23 total characters we see who are siblings - 10 of these are regularly appearing characters and 13 are not - 4 of these characters have been in the show’s main title sequence (Luke, Dean, Logan, Kirk) Only child characters: Lorelai, Rory, Richard, Lane, Jess, Paris (I think those were nanny’s kids at graduation), April, Anna, and Christopher - There are 9 total characters we see who are only children - All 9 of these are regularly appearing characters - 6 of these characters have been in the show’s main title sequence (+ Christopher/David Sutcliffe was negotiated as a “special guest star” in the credits) So it looks like while there are more total characters who are siblings, the proportion of only children who are regular/main characters is higher than that of sibling characters who are regular/main characters, and more of the “main cast” characters are only children than siblings. So there are a solid number of sibling characters, but the only children characters are more often in main roles, which would explain why it seems like there are more only children characters overall.
Side notes: - I can’t count Emily on either side because the one time early on she mentions having a sister is from the point when Trix was originally written to be dead already and the sister is never mentioned again. - Yes, I counted Rory and Jess as only children because they grew up as only children. - I don’t know how to sort GiGi for these purposes. She is technically Rory’s half sister, but they both grew up with the experience of being only children. I just left her out. Sorry Gigi, enjoy your program.
I find it refreshing to have shows with only children, I myself I am an only child, and I have an only child, and I believe we are fully developed characters. Lol. As much as I enjoyed shows like Roseanne and Parenthood and the Brady Bunch, it’s interesting to see shows focusing more on relationships between , for example Rory and her friends, or Lorelei and her friends, or the individual relationships with Rory, Lorelei, Lane and their parents.
When did they mention Lindsay is an only? They do say she's our only daughter, but she could definitely have a brother.
I guess I thought she said "our only child."
I always thought it was odd, especially for the wealthier families. I'm sure they could afford more kids and would want a male "heir" Real answer - siblings of side characters don't add anything to storyline and would be extra actors to pay. Even if only mentioned, extra storyline they would probably do a bad job keeping track of.
I think your last sentence is a really good point. GG wasn’t always great with continuity even with the main characters, so why introduce more facts to keep track of if they’re not relevant?
Wealthy families tend to have fewer kids, statistically, so it’s not that surprising
I was actually just thinking this the other day! I think for certain people it was definitely to limit the number of characters.
We don't know nearly enough about Tristan, Madeline, Louise, or Lindsay to state that they're only children.
I thought Lindsay's mom said she was their only child when she was doing all of the wedding plans.
I think it was actually only daughter
The meta answer is that it keeps the cast list small and there’s fewer names for the audience to remember. But mostly it’s the budget for cast members.
I never considered it or noticed probably bc I am an only child so it was normal to me lol
I thought that Paris had younger siblings. Remember those kids that nanny brigs to her graduation?
I was pretty sure those were the nanny's kids
Oh gotcha! Very possible, I never really knew just assumed they were the siblings.
I understood it at her siblings too!
It’s always crossed my mind why the Gilmore’s only had a single child and a daughter, most people of means want at least two children and will keep going until they have at least one son. I can only assume it’s called Gilmore GIRLS. So it’s primarily a show written by a woman for women about women.
A bit off topic, but I just remembered I had a biology teacher that used to say that people who have more than 3 children are poor. At the time she only had one son, then she got pregnant and life gave her triplets. Anyway, with Gilmore Girls I think they just didn't want to write even more characters. And I think if Lorelai had siblings, her relationship with her parents wouldn't be the same as we see, nor their relationship with Rory. Richard and Emily didn't approve of a lot of the Lorelai's choices, if she had siblings they probably wouldn't care, like "yeah, Lorelai is a disappointment, but we are proud of her brother/sister". Same with Rory, Richard and Emily saw an opportunity to try to transform Rory into what they wanted Lorelai to be, so even if Rory had siblings the family dynamics wouldn't be the same.
Probably easier to keep track of the characters and keep their stories straight by not having too many siblings/extra characters
Great observation!!! You’re absolutely right! Never thought of it until now! Thanks!! 👍
Characters only have named siblings when it’s convenient. Two of Rory’s boyfriends have a sister so that Rory can have interactions with them. Jess didn’t need a sibling because Rory could talk to Luke about Jess.
Jess does eventually get a sibling.
I think it would have been interesting for Lorelai to have had a brother or at least a friend from childhood that was still in that world. Perhaps they could have been running a nonprofit or something but still within the world of the wealthy elite but show how they're actually making change in the world. Someone like a Digger who could have challenged Lorelai's blind hatred for her parent's world. I'm not standing up for rich people but it would have been good to have some variety and friend that wasn't just a blind follower of Lorelai and her ramblings.
Probably because Amy Sherman-Palladino was an only child and she's not good at writing what she doesn't know. It's any understanding she never had kids either. Look at Clara and April, not written very well. Also the kid in the episode where Jess goes to find his Dad? It's like Amy could only write girls who read.
It's true, she really likes smart, bookish girls. I heard April referred to as Rory 2.0, and I can't say I disagree with the assessment.
Another theory: I remember reading an interview about Sex and the City, where they said you rarely heard anything about the 4 main characters' families because the focus of the show was their friendship bond with each other. I wonder if it's something similar on this show: so much of it is about the "found family" of the Stars Hollow community. If you don't have much biological family around (or are estranged from your family), you have to look elsewhere for your village.
That's an interesting notion. I can certainly see that in Rory's and Lane's relationship and Rory's and Paris's. If Lane or Paris had not been only children, they may not have been so lonely and wouldn't have formed a strong connection with Rory. Your idea sounds very plausible to me.
Some would have been deliberate - Lorelai and Chris, Rory and Paris/Lane. They're saying something about what being an only child does to a person and their relationship with their parents.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with it but I did notice that at my all-girls private high school the number of us who were only-children was pretty high compared to other environments I’ve found myself in.
I noticed this, too. Chalked it up to typical TV writing to keep the story simpler. A lot of TV shows have only children or the siblings/extended family are conveniently elsewhere so no lines have to be wasted on them.
Paris had adopted siblings.
Did she? We know her nanny has kids that Paris is fond of, but where was it mentioned she has adopted siblings?
Given how badly ASP writes kids' dialogue I'm so thankful there weren't any younger siblings for the characters listed... Clara is enough. More older ones would've been interesting though.
I was wondering if it’s a regional thing. Anybody from the northeast, specifically Connecticut? In the Midwest where I’m from families are typically larger, with 3 kids being a smaller family.
Definitely not a CT thing! I don't think the writers ever did more research than Googling town names anyway. Most of the geographical/cultural things in the show were weird.
I lived about 90minutes from the area in Greenwich , CT, most of the families I saw there had more than one child. I can’t remember them ever saying what a mess I-95 is at the weekends and I can’t really reconcile Richard being so wealthy as an insurance executive unless he founded the company, he would have done all right but I don’t see how he is worth 50 million.
Generational wealth from his parents and grandparents
Possible , but I’m not convinced.
Lorelei 1 left them a bunch of money based on that 1 episode
I thought she would have left directly to Emily?
Lorelei 1 was Richards's mom and she didn't seem to like Emily.
Yeh, I forgot.
I lived in Massachusetts and was a teacher. I rarely came across only children, and my friends almost all had siblings too. Reasonable guess though!
i swear we had this post recently
We have this post once a month it feels like.
Emily mentions a sister once. But I think Richard was an only child as well. Dean had a sister. So did Logan. But yeah, there’s definitely an overabundance of only children and I never noticed that!
I would have liked to have seen Emily's sister Hope. It would have been funny if she and Emily had been complete opposites. And Lorelai could have made some line about taking after her aunt that would make Emily super jealous.
Madeline had a little brother but never seen
That's right. I forgot she mentioned him once.
Easier to keep the cast smaller and simplify story lines. Especially if those actors don’t hang around for smaller roles over a long period of time. Then your stuck with a random new actor that is supposedly Paris’s “new” sister.
Madeleine has at least one sibling, and it’s only confirmed that Lindsay has no sisters. She could have a brother. Luke and Liz are siblings Emily has a sister Kirk has multiple siblings Jackson has at least one brother Rory has a half-sister Jess has a half-sister Dean has a sister Logan has a sister Mitchum has three siblings Trix had at least one sibling
It is odd that it's so many of them. I did always find it weird that Lorelai was an only child - Emily and Richard had a very solid marriage and when they separate during the show, it's shocking to Lorelai. We certainly have the impression they haven't had problems before. And they're old money, and in theory should care about making sure their money stays in family hands. I'm surprised they were content that one heir was enough. Especially, frankly, when that heir was a girl - I would've thought they would be a bit more patriarchal about everything, like the Huntzbergers are.
Only child representation! I was typically the only sibling-less kid in my childhood so I appreciate being seen :-p
Do we know for sure about Tristan, Madeline and Louise?
Haha purely to make the story simpler obviously
My husband grew up wealthy and was an only child. All of his friends in his neighborhood were only children or had 1 sibling. Only one family had 3 kids and they were known as the “big family”. This was also true for his school friends in a similar income bracket. Both of his closest best friends were only chicken. The wealthy, but not mega wealthy had small families back then. So I don’t find it weird that the rich families were one and done. But I also feel like I knew more only children back when I was a kid in the 80’s and 90’s than I meet now. I only know 2 only child families, and both of the moms had fertility problems, so it wasn’t on purpose. I also don’t find it weird that April was an only child since her mom decided to be a single mom. But I ALWAYS thought it was bizarre that Lane was an only child. Younger siblings would have been hilarious. But then they would have needed to show her dad too. I feel like Lindsay would have also had siblings. Everyone I know who married young like that usually had multiple siblings. I also think part of it is a show money issue. Mention a sibling and you might have to hire a sibling later on. The WB/CW wasn’t prone to throwing money at shows unless it was absolutely necessary.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
I think in Season 1 “Concert Interruptus” either Madeleine or Louise said they couldn’t work on the debate at their house because “my brother has got measles”. So one of them has got a sibling.
Heir and the spare! I imagine in wealthy circles more than 2 would be pointless and cause issues with the estate. But that’s just my working class opinion. Unrelated kinda but I only have one kid- are ppl still having multiples out here in the wild? My community is small and we have a handful of parents with OAO.
I feel like there is a lot of societal pressure, at least where I live to have two or more children. My husband and I struggled to get pregnant, so I thought people would give us some grace, but as soon as our oldest was 1, we got the "when are you having another one?" I have even heard the term "Million dollar family" to describe a family with one boy and one girl. Apparently, that's considered the ideal that everyone wants.
Oh wow. I mean, that tracks. I imagine it changes a little wherever you go but the American ideal is 2.5 kids right? We struggled to stay pregnant and my only child is my fourth pregnancy; only one to term so I was like “I’m done!” Also we’re estranged from family but I could only imagine we’d be pressured to have more- like it’s easy or something for us 🤪
Because Amy Sherman Palladino is a pretty bad writer
I’m not from America but back in 2000s 99% of my classmates were only children in their respective families. And most of the people I know have also no siblings. But then my husband has three :D
As an only child myself I felt seen 😂
I can’t speak for other only children but I personally forget that other people have siblings (or parents who are married). ASP is also an only so maybe she just forgot 😂
Generationally it’s a little weird that Lorelei, Chris, and the gen above them didn’t have siblings. But I’m Rory’s age and an only child, and I feel like that’s about the same number/ rate of only children that I’ve known growing up. It feels like only children were much more frequent in the 80d and 90s once single parenthood became more of a thing. My best friend was also an only child, and we spent time together to the point that we considered eachother siblings, just like Rory and Lane.
This is not exclusive to GG. Outer Banks, Harry Potter, The Big Bang theory ect have disproportional amounts of only children. It’s inevitable when there is a large ensemble of characters.
I guess because the show is heavily focused on parent-child relationships, and single child families mean all the attention is put on the one child and they can solely focus on that. I mean Rory has two sisters by the end of the show : Gigi and April, but I don’t think we ever see her interact with either and that has got to be intentional. Lorelei has interacted more with Rory’s sisters
I think I’d read somewhere on this sub before that Amy is an only child and that’s why she’s written all her characters also as an only child edit: for clarity
Lane makes sense bc her mom didn’t want to have sex more than once. Rory makes sense because Chris and Lorelei were literally children when they had her. Some of the others we don’t know if they’re only children or not. Like Lindsay, Tristan, Madeline and Louise. We don’t even know if Emily and Richard are only children because their families aren’t talked about much.
I always wondered this to. Like again Rory obviously only child. But then Anna had April who was also a single Mom with a book worm child. Then when Jess was with his Dad in CA he’s with a women with a kid also a bookworm. Also with someone who had a business.
You know, you are right. Lorelai, Anna, and Sasha all are single moms who run a business and have a smart daughter. I hadn't noticed that. I saw similarities with Rory and April, but failed to see the whole situations as similar.
Interesting. I’m a catholic from La. I just assumed it was a WASP thing. Lanes situation being tangential.
Yeah. As a kid who grew up with NINE siblings, it pissed me off.🙄💀
ASP is an only child, I believe. So I think this is just a case of you write what you're most familiar with.
As a writer, I’ve asked myself this many times, too, because I keep noticing a lot of my main characters are an only child… unless they have siblings who are important to the plot. It makes things simple. Same reason why a lot of fictional characters have limited extended family, or they’ve all died. (Imagine how different Harry Potter would be if his very young parents hadn’t already lost THEIR parents; like if you think about it, it’s not realistic, but it sure is plot convenient). (Yes I’m fully aware there are tons of characters with large families but that’s probably because it’s important to the plot. If the writer doesn’t want to have to deal with writing more characters or scenes or if they want a convenient way to avoid a plot hole like “why can’t their grandparents or in-laws or siblings do something about this??” then those family members just won’t exist.)
where do we know chris is an only child? i only can think of evidence of lorelai and lane for sure. and with lane it makes sense, bc we dk anything about her dad or when he left the picture. rest of the side characters, just bc we dont see their siblings doesn't mean they don't exist, they're just not essential to the story. i always assume with this show and others, they're probably there, just not important enough, its the same with most shows, I just dont think GG is an exception to this rule.
I wish they made Dean an only-child...
I wish they made Dean an only-child...
Agreed. Clara acted like she was 5, but the actress who played her must have been 11 maybe even 12.
didn’t lane have an older brother
I think you are remembering her cousin. Mrs Kim kind of insinuated that she only had sex once and got pregnant with Lane and never had to have sex again.
I see this in a lot of shows . Like glee. So many only children. Is it just the writers not fully developing the characters enough?
You don't need to show a character's siblings in order to "fully develop" them (nor does a character need siblings to be multi-dimensional), particularly if they exist in a show that doesn't revolve around their family.
[удалено]
“If you’re lucky you only have to do it once”
April was an accident and her mom probably took BC like M&Ms after her. Lane was literally the only time her mom had sex. Lindsay may seems like she should have siblings. Maybe her parents just weren't lucky. I think it's more that a sibling dynamic isn't something ASP thought of. Her characters' relationships were focused on them having a weird amount of interactions outside the home and with adults. Siblings would have thrown that off. Dean's little sister really only existed as a character trait for him. The idea of throwing in extra people for the sake of it likely didn't appeal to the writers.