Hi there! It's me, ravenya03! Not sure if you realised that I was R.M. Fisher, but concerning this:
"I must really disagree with R.M. Fisher's assertion that Robin was never shown properly grieving for Marian because otherwise his friendship with Guy would have been too improbable. His grief felt very real to me, and Guy's murder of Marian was brought up in both of the episodes that dealt with Guy and Robin becoming allies..."
I'm going to take the opportunity to defend my POV...
Robin certainly missed Marian, particularly in "Total Eclipse" and "Too Hot to Handle," but it was also apparent to me, that with the departure of the show's creators and all but two of the writers that worked on the first two seasons, the new management were eager to "clean slate" several aspects of the show and to handle several difficult plotlines that had been set up for them in S2 by simply ignoring them.
Marian is a key part of not only this show, but the legends in which they are based on. Her death left nothing less than a black hole in the storylines, and her absence didn't nearly have the impact that it should have had on Robin (or, in fact, anyone except Guy. She was a notable figure in the community, and a friend to the outlaws. It grated that her presence on the show, even after her death, came to so little).
We know that this portrayal of Robin was a very private person, and that it's not in his nature to share his feelings with others, and yet there was ample opportunity to display just how much this character desperately missed the woman who was (supposed to be) the love of his life without stating the fact. We could have seen him erect a memorial in Marian's honour, or whisper prayers to her in times of trouble, or keep his wedding ring around his neck as a momento, or visit places that were meaningful to two of them.
Likewise, I always found it a point of contention that he never made public that Marian was the Night Watchman to the populace, to let them know who it was that had been helping them for so many years, or to infuse Marian's death with meaning by using her name as some kind of rallying point that the villagers could get behind (not that any of the villagers or nobles seemed to notice or care that she suddenly disappeared). None of these ideas would have taken much time or effort to insert, and the only reason I can imagine their absence is because they wanted Guy and Robin to team up at the conclusion of the show.
Had Robin been shown as a man who desperately missed his wife, who was traumatised at the fact that he witnessed her die a painful and prolonged death in his arms, who was crippled with grief at his loss then there's no way that I can concievably grasp Robin agreeing to team up with the man who took her from him in such a violent way. Therefore (to me) Robin's lack of prolonged mourning and the writer's neglect to wring any sense of poignancy or depth from Marian's absence in Robin's life seemed a device to make his team up with Guy more plausible, in which Robin's main objection to the alliance came in the form of that truly bizarre line: "He's not sorry enough for Marian's death."
(Problematic because, a. Guy very clearly IS sorry, to the point where he begged Robin to kill him in the first episode, and b. why is "not being sorry enough" a more unforgivable crime than the murder itself, particularly since Robin has no idea what actually happened between Guy and Marian in those final moments?)
In short, the writers had a choice: to write Robin as a mourning widower and forego the dramatic opportunity to have Guy/Robin form an alliance against a common enemy, or to "gloss over" Marian's brutal murder and the affect it would have had on Robin (which according to several press releases, was the initial point of doing it in the first place, as in this from Commissioning Editor Sarah Brandist: "We felt that Robin Hood mattered most to our audience, and what mattered most to Robin was Marian...and therein lay the most compelling and dramatic climax to the end of Series 2") so that they could introduce Archer as the "new Robin Hood" as a device to force his half-brothers to work together and in order to lead the show into its forth season.
They chose the latter option, and although this certainly gave us some strong, poignant, funny and moving scenes between the two men (for instance, I think that Guy's death in Robin's arms was thematically appropriate, as was Guy's final acceptance of Marian's right to have loved Robin), I also think that it would have been equally acceptable for Guy to have achieved redemption WITHOUT Robin's involvement, and for Robin to have continued to fight the good fight in Marian's name without the need for two new girlfriends. And since the main point to Archer's existence was to create a new main character for the proposed season 4, the painfully contrived sequence of events that put his story into motion seemed a waste of time considering the show's inevitable cancellation.
In short: a man creating an alliance with a character who brutally murdered his wife in order to save a half-brother who by the show's own continuity had no right to exist at all, was just too much for me. There are some things that human beings, even fictional ones, just do not do. (And on a practical level, I'm not entirely sure why Robin needed Guy's help at all. Surely Robin and the outlaws could have handled Archer's rescue on their own).
To me, the majority of the show involved Robin acting just too absurdly cheerful for the tone that the show set for itself after Marian's death, and it all seemed to be done in the attempt to make the Archer plot work (as well as to justify his romantic involvement with Isabella and Kate. Like you, I wasn't adverse to Robin seeking some level of comfort with another woman, but with his wife's killer's sister? And with whiny Kate? Just no).