Stages of Television Grief: On the Decline of Downton Abbey

February 21, 2013 | 4 books mentioned 15 7 min read


[Spoilers abound for the most recent season of Downton Abbey, including the Christmas special, “A Journey to the Highlands,” which aired in the U.S. this past Sunday.]

The first stage of television grief is rejection: when a favorite character is killed off, the desire to distance yourself from a show you love, to disown it, even, is powerful. “I’m done,” you declare firmly. “I’ve had enough of this crap. They’ve gone too far this time.” I’ve seen it in a lot of fan communities; I’ve said it (half-heartedly) myself. In the past decade or so, I’ve developed a bad habit of falling in love with a certain type of BBC series, whose writers seem to be collectively united by slim budgets and streaks of cruelty: on one of my favorite shows, three of the five major characters are killed in the span of five episodes; on another, the entire cast of four kicks it in under a season — and it might be worth noting that most of them go violently, too. After rejection is anger, then grief, or just denial, denial, denial, because television arcs can feel sort of flimsy, lacking the sturdy finality of plot decisions in books and movies. If a character can be knocked off by a writer’s whim, perhaps it’ll be just as easy to resurrect him in time for mid-season sweeps, or to wash it all away, à la Dallas, with the cheap dismissal that it was all just a dream. It’s not terribly surprising that none of my favorites have ever come back from the dead.

Outside the realm of sadistic BBC showrunners, it seems that characters usually get killed for reasons far less noble than the pursuit of unshakable dramatic tension — it’s often the simplest way to fulfill contract obligations, to remove an actor from the equation. Around the time that the second season of Downton Abbey finally limped to a finish on American televisions last winter, producers began to leak spoilers for the third season, slated to air in the fall on ITV and on a similarly baffling several-month delay in the U.S. We were soon told that some characters wouldn’t make it to season four, and later, we learned exactly which actors had declined to renew their contracts. It was relatively easy to put two and two together. A pair of well-loved characters were about to bite the dust.

First up was Lady Sybil, played by Jessica Brown Findlay, who was able to bow out gracefully mid-season, after spending most of the first few episodes off-screen, which served to prepare us for her departure. But poor Dan Stevens wasn’t so lucky — by the end of it, I was all but waiting for him to just go, in what the LA Times called “the most internationally anticipated death since Little Nell’s,” and finally, he went, flung unceremoniously from a car in one of the sloppiest plot twists in a show founded on sloppy plot twists, 90 seconds from the end of the Christmas special. Merry Christmas! Here’s a fatal head wound and some heavy-handed dramatic irony.

And then Julian Fellowes — creator, head writer, and the object of as much scorn as praise amongst fans, if not more — put out two completely warring explanations in the weeks that followed: one, that he was as bummed as we were that Dan Stevens wanted off the show (and, to be fair, part of the suddenness must be chalked up to Stevens’s late decision to officially leave), but then elsewhere, that Matthew absolutely had to go, because, after getting Mary, losing Mary, nearly dying in battle, becoming paralyzed, being able to walk again (God, can you believe we’re all watching such a goddamned soap opera), hooking up with Mary for real, inheriting the fortune that saves the estate, and finally, having a baby, he was just too damn satisfied with life, and, in Fellowes’s words, “nothing is harder to dramatise than happiness.”

Christmas had long-since passed by the time PBS aired the American edit of the 90-minute special. On the arts pages of British news websites in late December, fans seemed split: for some, it was that classic last straw, spurring on the rejection stage of television grief — in The Guardian’s comments section, echoes of “And then, they went and ruined Christmas;” for others, it was just one more reason to gripe about the show more generally, a pastime that seems to get a lot of currency — in the same thread, one person who was a day late watching wrote, “I missed being able to hop over here and read all the bitching though, that’s the best thing about Downton.” The dialogue across the Atlantic is largely different, and kind of strange and excruciatingly self-aware: we spend a lot of time talking about why we watch this show, about its muddled politics, about our suppressed yearnings for simpler times and rigid class systems, and about whether or not the show is good historical fiction or just a guilty pleasure. But when it came to Matthew’s death, people seemed to have been reduced to the same dichotomy: rage and sadness, or general disgust. A woman on an LA Times thread said it well: “To raise viewers up so high and then suckerpunch them right before the credits roll was incredibly manipulative. It pulled me right out of the fantasy and I’m not going to bother with season four.”

There is something notable about the backlash when a television character is killed: fans take the opportunity to tear apart the writers’ choices beyond the decision to bump off an individual: across the show, all the indignities they’d have suffered through if everyone had been permitted to live. I wasn’t heavily invested in Matthew as a character — I’m not interested in most of the upstairs at this point, really, and after hearing Bates and Anna have the same goddamned conversation across a table in prison for nine episodes in a row, I’m running out of downstairs characters, too. But I am interested in why this show seems to work when it continually feels like it’s not working at all, on a writing level — do we all have Stockholm Syndrome or something? I watched the very first episode again recently, and marveled at the sharp, subtle tension — the plot twists feel like they’re actually set up, rather than just clumsy blunt jabs, and the divide between the staff and the household felt fantastically uncomfortable — remember the moment when Bates catches Mary and the Duke of Crowborough breaking into Thomas’s room, the complicated dynamics of shame and privilege at work in that exchange? I’m not sure when we said goodbye to all of that, but it seems to be gone for good.

I vastly preferred this season to the previous one, as did, it sounded like, basically everyone; there was nothing even remotely as painful as the Canadian burn-victim cousin storyline, after all, and I liked the shifting arc of sympathy for Thomas, stripping him of his status as mustache-twirling bad guy and turning him into a complexly screwed up individual. But Fellowes is plagued by the same shoddy pacing, the same weird relationship with passing time, and the same old paradox of a deeply conservative show whose characters are becoming increasingly progressive — more progressive, it often feels like, than the time period should warrant, like Lord Grantham giving everyone a pro-gay rights lecture in his cricket whites. If anything, it all feels a bit stagnant: in a smart piece for The New Republic this past week, Lili Loofbourow likens Fellowes to Pachelbel: “themes and variations are his medium, and this is the season of the reprise.” She goes on, “In the absence of real conflict, it’s unsurprising that Fellowes flirts with anticlimax this season like never before.” Previously, every plot twist imaginable was thrown at the wall to see what would stick; now, that wall has been moved slightly out of range.

covercovercoverI’ve been reading one of Fellowes’s novels recently, Past Imperfect, which was published in 2009, nearly a decade after Gosford Park and a year before Downton was first aired. The common threads between the novel and the show aren’t surprising, exactly, but they’re notable. The basic plot: the protagonist, a Londoner in late-middle age, is reunited with Damian Baxter, an old enemy who was once his friend. Baxter is dying of pancreatic cancer, and he’s got a self-made fortune of half a billion pounds waiting for an heir — a child whom he has never met, doesn’t even know the exact identity of, really, fathered illegitimately 40 years prior. Baxter tasks the narrator with hunting down the child by whittling away at a list of ladies that he remembers sleeping with in the late ’60s. There are moments that remind me a little of A Sense of an Ending, by Julian Barnes, because of the surfacey details — a thoughtful man towards the end of life trying to piece together a falling out in his youth — except it’s less meditative and haunting and subtle, and more…well, more like Downton Abbey.

How strange it is, to read the protagonist’s moaning about the passage of time, and the way things used to be and how all the good days are behind us: this must be Fellowes’s chief M.O., whether the Dowager Countess is waxing nostalgic about the ’60s — the 1860s — or Lord Grantham about the Edwardian era, or Carson, who seems more invested in tradition than all of the aristocrats combined. “There’s a danger in it, obviously,” the narrator of Past Imperfect says early on, “but I no longer fight the sad realization that the setting for my growing years seems sweeter to me than the one I now inhabit…I suppose what I miss above all things is the kindness of the England of half a century ago. But then again, is it the kindness I regret, or my own youth?”

So perhaps herein lies the problem. On Downton, characters are always looking backwards, but to move them forward, Fellowes is left hurtling them along against their will, with big, dramatic plot points and soap-opera staples. They acquire more generous perspectives to please the fans — I was delighted by Lord Grantham’s pro-gay rights speech in his cricket whites — but they don’t, for the most part, truly develop. He doesn’t give them space to do so. Characters fall out and we leap ahead to the end of the fight. Major changes happen against the characters’ wills, and we hear that it has changed them, for better or for worse, after the fact. Does this matter? Maybe not. But it feels unsustainable. That might not matter though — because in the stages of television grief, after denial, denial, denial comes grudging acceptance. We’ll all keep watching.

Image Credit: The Chicago Maroon

is a staff writer for The Millions and writes a regular column about fan culture for the New Statesman. She recently completed an MA in the digital humanities at University College London. She's gotten much better at Twitter in the past year, but she still spends most of her time (/life) on Tumblr. She lives in Brooklyn.


  1. Let’s remember that the “decline” of Downton Abbey was initiated by two of its actors deciding to leave the show. The writers were then faced with the decision of either replacing them (not a good idea), or killing them off. To have them continue their lives offscreen would only work for Sybil, not for Matthew. Therefore, the writing is not to blame.

  2. Forced to watch by wife. Found self enjoying self. Then show got so bad, even wife couldn’t force self. Show no longer watched. Pretty typical of modern television.

  3. I’m holding out for a coma storyline. It always works in the daytime soaps and they could drag that out for ages. Seriously, though, I don’t think DA is in danger of closing down yet. Seems like more people watch it now. And with WWII looming, the storylines will hopefully get some rejuvenation.

  4. Seems obvious (in hindsight) that a 3-year contract habit ought to be written into story arcs that fit three seasons, or risk the well-deserved disgust of the audience.

  5. To Jack M: It’s writer, not writers, and DS and JBF leaving had nothing to do with the horrible. wretched Bates poisoned pie storyline. It had nothing to do with the horrendous love pentagon downstairs that went absolutely no where. It had nothing to do with LG losing all of Cora’s money in an unbelievable scheme, only to have Matthew bail him out with Lavinia’s father’s miracle money (a father who was close to financial ruin in Series 2 but somehow had managed to inexplicably amass a fortune of such proportions as to save Downton). It had nothing to do with Edith’s continually farcical story lines. It had nothing to do with Mrs. Hughes cancer scare that ultimately went now where. It had nothing to do with the absolute butchering of the Ireland story arc, wherein Irish rebels were made to look barbaric and idiotic, while the oppressive British rulers were made to look the heroes–I’ll spare you the history lesson but let’s just say they British deserved to get kicked out of Ireland. It had nothing to do with the character assignation of Tom Branson, the Irish Republican who hates the established aristocracy and separation of class, turned estate manager where his responsibility is literally to maintain such distinctions. It had nothing to do with the way in which both DS and JBF were written out, melodramatic and manipulative. It had nothing to do with the way Sybil’s character was reduced to a shadow of her former vibrant self, ultimately dying to serve a male character’s story. It had nothing to do with the embarrassingly juvenile portrayal of a gay man, who ultimately assaulted another man in his sleep and was then promoted, while the victim of the assault was slut-shamed. It had nothing to do with…you know what, I think I’ve made my point. Don’t tell me DA was bad because two actors, who had fulfilled their contract decided to move on. The writing of S3 was awful, unforgivably bad, and I will NOT be wasting my time on S4 or Julian Fellowes ever again.

  6. Fans need to realize that characters don’t exist for THEM. They exist to SERVICE A NARRATIVE. That anyone who truly considers themselves a fan and supporter of intelligent, complex, thematic storytelling would pitch a hissy fit over a character dying is paradoxical. They don’t get it. They may as well be watching Grey’s Anatomy.

  7. @ Joe Camel LoL Intelligent, complex, thematic storytelling? On Downton Abbey? Both Sybil and Matthew’s deaths were incredibly manipulative. There was no ‘narrative’. Sybil died and for an episode people were sad and then that was that. One of the main points of the show was Mary and Matthew getting together and then when they do, not only is their relationship horribly written, but Matthew dies -in a car accident- in the last minute of the Christmas Special. I am lol’ing forever at people who think this show is quality just because it’s set in Edwardian England and they have pretty costumes.

  8. I was pretty fed up before Matthew even got into the car, what with people saying things like “parenting” and “steep learning curve.” If Downton has only one writer, it sure needs an editor. And it is a shame, too, that he’s left us all so disgusted, because there could be an interesting story in Season 4: Mary is left to raise her son and preserve the estate, Edith goes off to London to pursue her journalism career and sleep with whoever she wants, and Mary has to convince herself that her life is better (because her life has to be better than Edith’s, right?) With a better writer, Season 4 could be all about the triumph of Edith.

  9. I think the term “Stockholm Syndrome” applies perfectly to the viewers of this show. Hey, I will admit I have it a bit, only because I want to see the triumph of Edith and Tom Branson. It also applies to the characters on the show, none of whom seem to be able to leave the wretched estate. And this applies most to Mary, the “heroine,” who is attached like a barnacle to her childhood home to the point where she shudders at the thought of going to America to live in NYC with her fabulously rich grandmother or, God forbid, living in a slightly smaller castle with her family.

    I will admit I almost laughed when Matthew crashed his car, if only because I knew it was coming and I was sick to death of being force-fed their great “romance.” I would rather she had married Carlisle.

    As for Grantham preaching gay rights in his cricket whites, barf. He was only okay with it because he experienced it at Eton. Anything outside of his aristo bubble is flabbergasting.

  10. Like it or not, I thoroughly enjoyed all three seasons. Each to his own, but my wife and I are anxious for season 4. We find the characters endearing, even if the story lines are shallow. It is just a guilty little pleasure for us. After all, it is television. Television.

Add Your Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.