Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion YMMV / DowntonAbbey

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Charsi Since: Aug, 2011
Apr 23rd 2014 at 9:17:13 AM •••

It's okay that Molesley also needs to make a living, but Matthew's house isn't his only chance for that. If nothing else, he can help out in Downton Abbey several times, where every servant is busy and gets tired. Assuming Matthew wanted to fire him, and not just dress up on his own.

Edited by 89.135.22.152
Hodor Cleric of Banjo Since: Dec, 1969
Cleric of Banjo
Jan 15th 2014 at 1:13:24 PM •••

Moved this to Discussion due to all of the issues, specifically Conversation In The Main Page and Wiki Schizophrenia:

  • Unfortunate Implications:
    • All over episode three with the perceptions of Pamuk and his dealings with Mary. Sex by coercion is still rape.
    • The way that all the characters who aren't immediately content with a life of servitude (Thomas, O'Brien, Ethel) are portrayed as evil, villainous or stupid betrays a great deal of class anxiety on the part of the writers. (Well, except Gwen, but her ambitions were rather less grand than the other examples.) It could also be seen as Gwen wanting upward mobility, setting reasonable goals, and working hard to make it happen and succeeding, while those who are discontent but either just become bitter (O'Brien), try to use underhanded schemes bordering on the criminal to get ahead (Thomas), or expect success and fame to be handed to them just because ( Ethel) all fail and sometimes only make their situations worse.
    • The fact that the only reoccurring gay character on the entire show is portrayed consistently as an asshole who deserves a miserable life. Oh, and the one-episode gay and/or bisexual character wasn't exactly a prize either. He has, however, shown hints that he is bitter due to being treated badly for being gay and "pushed around".
    • There's the fact that the two characters the show has to being regular villains (Thomas and O'Brien) are the heaviest smokers on-screen. And they do their best scheming while smoking outside.
    • Sybil's death, because she was the most feminist/progressive character on the show: showing an interest in politics and employment and better inter-class relationships, and actually wanting to contribute to society by working rather than just sitting back in a stately house. In effect, she was supposed to be a part of/represent the social upheaval going on throughout the world post-WWI. And when Death by Childbirth is used to kill off the most progressive female character on the show (and one whose storyline went from "working to get women's suffrage" to "fretful pregnant wife who is living her husband's political dreams rather than her own"), that's something that doesn't sit well with some people.
      • This troper still prefers seeing this than Branson's selfish, overconfident attitude towards their romance proven right and rewarded. Note that Sybil's downfall began with giving in to his nagging.
    • Branson is handled equally badly. He also held progressive, socialist views: Supporting equality between the social classes and independence for Ireland, opposing enlisting in war, and, like Sybil, wanting rights for women. Unfortunately he's portrayed as a hot-headed extremist, who tips slop over army officers, supports the burning of aristocrats houses, and is reprimanded by the wiser Crawleys. Not to mention that after daring to marry a woman 'above him', he ends up a unemployed, exiled widower and single father, dependent on his in-laws charity. Then his political views are forgotten and he becomes the Crawleys whipping boy, meekly upholding the social classes he sought to tear down. The message seems to be if you dare cross the social barrier, everything you care about will fall apart and you'll realize how wrong your progressive views were.
    • Going back to Thomas, his storyline with Jimmy Kent runs into Double Standard Sexual Assault Male on Male territory. Even if most of it on both ends was due to O'Brien's meddling, it's hard to see the staff largely taking Thomas's side and encouraging Jimmy to make as little of a fuss as possible if Jimmy had been a female character. (Not that it wasn't common back then to have people refuse to believe a woman's assault complaint; heck, that's still common today, especially when the male perpetrator is more powerful and better-known as Thomas was. But it's unlikely the writers would have sympathetic characters take that stance.)
    • Mrs. Patmore saying Daisy is not only allowed but obliged to lead William on, in case he won't come back. Not like this troper opposes white lies which don't cost anything, but along with Mrs. Patmore previously pushing Daisy towards William just because he is nice and interested, regardless of Daisy's feelings and the right of having a say in her own love life, and the fact that emotions can't be controlled by rationality and practicality, was on the brink of degrading the female love interest to a prize, not to mention the humiliation of the Hopeless Suitor with mercy-pity-love.
    • Tom's storyline in series 4. It's heavily implied that the whiskey Edna gave him is drugged or at the least, stronger stuff than he normally drinks. She then proceeds to rape him while he's drunk (because Tom was obviously not in a position to give consent, which she took full advantage of), and tries to use his feelings of shame and guilty to manipulate him into marrying her in case she's pregnant. And when he finally confesses to Mrs. Hughes, her response is to tell him that he's also partially at fault. It's pretty much victim-blaming and Double Standard Rape: Female on Male come to life.
      • Tom consented to having sex with Edna — and unless the drinks she gave him contained Viagra (which didn't exist back then), it's not "rape", rather coercion with booze. Also, what would be the point of Edna drugging Tom or getting him really pissed? Guys find it more difficult to "perform" if they're completely wasted. She just used a few drinks to make him more compliant, and it's not like he finds her unattractive either — he'd been wrestling with whether to go along with her advances since the series 3 Christmas Special. The booze just removed his inhibitions. Tom isn't a virginal saint, he's a normal guy who made a bad choice in a moment of weakness. To label Edna a rapist is too much.
        • Incorrect; a person who is intoxicated is legally unable to give consent — it's why you can't be married or sign contracts while drunk either. And while it may be more difficult for someone to get an erection under the circumstances, it's by no means impossible. Saying otherwise is essentially denying that anyone with a penis can be raped, which is all kinds of wrong. While the situation on the show remains somewhat unclear, some of those "facts" are untrue re: real life.
        • Arousal isn't consent, and having feelings for someone doesn't mean one may be forced to act on them. That mustn't be her decision to make.
        • The point is, to use the term "rape" is way too hysterical in this situation. In the context of the show, a "rape" is never supposed to have happened. Tom says to Edna that she "understands" him, he has a big whiskey, and then she goes to his room for sex — people have drunk, regrettable sex all the time and that is what was presented as drama, not a "rape". There is no evidence of a drugged drink (which a show like Downton would make clear), or that she forced him to do anything. The situation was presented as a bad error of judgement on Tom's part — he says of their one-night stand that he "won't deny it" and "If I behaved badly, I am sorry" and "put it down to my low spirits and self-indulgence". Edna responds with "you weren't so severe last night", implying Tom enjoyed himself in the moment. As mentioned, Tom is not a saint — he had sex and regretted it. Edna's attempted Baby Trap was the heinous act in this storyline.
        • According to this logic, Jimmy wasn't assaulted either, only did something he regretted while sleeping. Branson wasn't in the condition to make decisions, and taking advantage of one's drunkenness is very much rape. Even a wedding vow isn't valid when it isn't taken in full mental integrity. Victim-blaming even by the victim himself and the perpetrator claiming the victim enjoyed it is another frequent psychological problem, not a rational proof it was consensual. Rape is not only the case where the victim is kicking and screaming.
        • In the context of the show's drama, a "rape" is not presented to have taken place. The drama presented is Tom making a bad decision, and the repercussions of him having sex (the Baby Trap element of the story-line). We were not privy to any bedroom scenes and without more specific in-show detail, we cannot label this as rape.
      • And when Mrs. Hughes confronts Edna about her lies, she tells her that she'll have Dr. Carson examine her to prove that there's no baby. She even says that she'll "hold [you] down and rip your dress off myself, I have to." Considering that that's what happened to Anna when she was raped in the previous episode, that line left some viewers very uncomfortable.
      • There's also the way this whole story plays into the already common criticisms of the show saying the lower class should "know their place." In Edna's series 3 appearance, she came off as quite a bit more sympathetic than Fellowes apparently intended, so in series 4 he makes her far more Obviously Evil to retroactively justify her being fired.
        • On that note, Anna being raped just for some cheap and unnecessary melodrama. And the ensuing storyline is far more about Bates than her.
          • From another perspective that storyline is horrifying because it is driven by the notion that men are uncontrollably violent and not to be trusted with their emotions.
          • Plus, the way Bates kept disapproving of Anna spending time with Greene can give the impression that we're supposed to see her getting raped as her own fault, for doing things her husband didn't approve of.

Edited by 71.57.52.184 Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki Hide / Show Replies
Charsi Since: Aug, 2011
Jan 17th 2014 at 11:53:55 AM •••

Mary's case with Pamuk wasn't presented as rape either but as a one-night stand.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Jan 17th 2014 at 12:00:45 PM •••

I think that's the point. The fact that it legally would be considered rape but it's just considered a regretted fling is precisely why it's a UI. Ditto the Tom and Edna thing... the problem is that it's plain that in context of the show there was no rape even though there really was.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Hodor Since: Dec, 1969
Jan 17th 2014 at 1:28:48 PM •••

RE the Tom and Edna one, I think it was quite morally shady, but not legally rape- it suffered from some ambiguous presentation. Basically, it can be interpreted two ways:

  • Option 1- Edna drugged Tom's drink or crawled into his bed when he was unconcious/asleep; or, at best, initited sex when he was asleep- this would either be rape or close to it in the best case scenario
  • Option2 - Edna brought Tom whiskey as a Your Favorite kind of thing and shortly afterward went into his room before he went to sleep. A Sexy Discretion Shot followed.

I tend to think the show intended the second situation, given all of the effort Edna made at emotionally manipulating Tom (that's really skeevy either way), but problematically, gives hints of the first situation, which should not be presented as ok.

Basically, I think it is a legit UI entry, but I have a problem with an unequivocal statement that Edna raped Tom.

Edited by 71.57.52.184 Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
lexii Since: Jul, 2009
Jan 31st 2014 at 12:48:40 PM •••

Agreed on the above with Hodor — there just isn't the evidence in-show to suggest something as dramatic as Edna raping Tom occurred, as I've stated above in my explanations. Option 2 is what was intended, and despite the devious characterization of Edna, we shouldn't leap to conclusions and accusations of rape without evidence.

Edited by 5.64.93.147
RoseAndHeather Since: Aug, 2011
Dec 9th 2012 at 11:23:27 AM •••

A Sue has absolutely no flaws (or if they do, they are Informed Flaws), and they make the whole storyline about them just by existing. Bates isn't a Sue for two reasons:

1. Not every storyline is about him. Even downstairs, Mrs Hughes' cancer scare, O'Brien's machinations with Alfred, Mrs Patmore's blindness, and Daisy's involvement with William all had nothing to do with Bates.

2. He has actual flaws that impact his life, they don't just serve as decoration. His truly violent temper was evidence that supported the case that he was the one who committed Vera's murder; he's prone to lashing out with violence when he shouldn't. He also kept his mouth shut about things he really should have told people, which caused him and them more problems down the road.

3. Not everybody adores him. Anna does, certainly, and Mrs Hughes cares for him a great deal, but Carson cares about him no more or less than he does the rest of the staff in his charge - the only people he blatantly, openly cares for beyond that are Mary and Mrs Hughes. Daisy likes him, yes, but certainly not to the point of blind adoration. Ditto Mrs Patmore, who seems to like him well enough but that's it.

I removed the entry because it's not YMMV, it's simply not true.

I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart. Hide / Show Replies
Lacey Since: Mar, 2011
Dec 9th 2012 at 11:58:23 AM •••

In your opinion it is not true. In mine it is. The way Bates is treated by all the other characters is extremely Sue-ish. The way he behaves and the way his physical abilities are treated is extremely Sue-ish.

1. He has very few faults and even the ones he does have are excused away by the others. He almost always has a good reason for any tiny stain on him that makes him look heroic or that can be brushed aside. His fault of violence even strangely gets him out of prison after a few one-dimensional characters (created for the sole purpose of acting as villains in his story and whose actions make no sense except to make his plot work) back down in the face of his brawn. His injury is even forgotten to pull this off.

2. By the third season people either worship him beyond reason or hate him beyond reason. Most of the extreme emotions he supposedly incites in others don't make sense and are detrimental to those characters. There are even group discussions on poor Bates and how wonderful he is which involve the majority of the household staff. Even characters who don't interact with him (Mary, Cora) discuss him and his woes, acting as though they have an emotional investment in his struggles. This borders on black hole sue.

3. His disability comes and goes depending on when it is needed to make him a sympathy sue or when it would just get in the way of showing how baddass he supposedly is.

4. We're constantly told how wonderful and good he is despite his faults (which are excused away) which help make him a purity sue. His refusal to take logical and justifiable action against enemies who are going out of their way (even risking their job security and freedom) to hurt him makes him look virtuous beyond reason. Also, the fact that characters are willing to risk themselves for him in ways that don't make any sense at all is further proof that he is a sue.

You might not agree with it, but a valid argument can be made for this so I am readding it now.

RoseAndHeather Since: Aug, 2011
Dec 9th 2012 at 6:39:16 PM •••

Readding it is also called "edit warring." I can see I'm not getting through so I'm calling in a mod.

I serve at the pleasure of President Pritchart.
tsstevens Since: Oct, 2010
Dec 9th 2012 at 7:13:55 PM •••

I'm not familiar with the series but if the character does have faults then they're not a sue. Reading the above discussion he seems like The Punisher, whose traits and negative flaws are passed over andor ignored, yet he's not treated as a sue. Compare someone like Horatio Caine who is regarded as a sue character for comparison. I'd hold off any further editing on the page until we can get further consensus.

Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours
Lacey Since: Mar, 2011
Dec 9th 2012 at 9:05:44 PM •••

Mary Sues can have faults depending on your interpretation of a Mary Sue (which, as that page says, can have a variety of definitions). What makes them a Sue is how the other characters respond to them or how they are dealt with in the story. This definition (as well as others I've mentioned above) characterizes how Bates is treated within the narrative:

"Similar to the above, this posits that a Mary Sue is someone who gets too much attention from the other characters, especially if their personality and actions don't seem to fully justify such strong reactions. It's important to note that this isn't confined to positive attention; if every single villain the Sue encounters develops an intense, personal, obsessive hatred of them, that qualifies too. In fact, most Sues by this definition combine both types of attention: they're loved by every sympathetic character they meet and hated by every unsympathetic character."

The above is exactly how Bates is treated. He is loved by all of the "good" characters and actively despised by all of the "bad" characters. The "good" people love him, even the ones who don't know him, and spend odd amounts of time discussing him, bemoaning how bad it is with him not being there, and worrying about his troubles even when they have no stake in it. The "bad" guys go out of their way and even hinder themselves in order to obsess about Bates. One even committed suicide just to hurt him. He is a Sue.

As for Bate's flaws (that aren't even treated as flaws but as virtues), they do not negate his Sue status as per:

"However, both this interpretation and a shift of society as a whole towards cynicism has led to many people trying to mask their otherwise idealized characters with either total non-flaws (e.g. being So Beautiful, It's A Curse and other Cursed with Awesome details), flaws by proxy (e.g. Dark and Troubled Past), or flaws that simply don't play any role in the plot at all (e.g. making a character an alcoholic, but never showing them as impeded by it)."

Bates has a dark and troubled past. Or at least we were told he had one. That past shows how heroic and wonderful he is because he went to prison for his wife's crimes, not because he committed any on his own. He also supposedly had a drinking problem which never ever impacts the story even when he works in a pub.

Obviously, I still stand by the strong case that can be made for him being a Canon Sue.

Top