Masterpiece Classic: Downton Abbey Season 1 [Blu-ray]

New Price: $26.67
Used Price: $0.99

Mentioned in:

Stages of Television Grief: On the Decline of Downton Abbey

[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. I’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

Dashboard? More Like Bookshelf: Your Guide to Literary Tumblrs

[Ed Note: Don't miss Part Two and Part Three!] About two months ago, The Millions joined the Tumblr community. So far, the going has been great. The platform is perfectly suited for dynamic storytelling, and as a direct result, it is home to some of the friendliest book lovers around. However, the site’s SEO (or lack thereof) is regrettably unkind to Tumblr outsiders, and this leads to two things. On the one hand, the insularity stokes the kind of kinship that makes its community so tightknit. On the other, the lack of easy searching reduces each blog’s chance of attracting new (or outside) viewers. I’d like to change that. By creating this list of my favorite “literary Tumblrs,” I hope to turn you on to some of the sites that make The Millions’ dashboard that much brighter. For convenience, I’ve broken this list up among several categories, but I haven’t put these in any preferential order. “Single-Servings” are the most quintessentially Tumblr-like Tumblrs: blogs that fill one particular, ultra-specific niche. “Reviewers,” “Publishers,” “Magazines,” and “Booksellers/Libraries/Foundations” are exactly what they sound like. Sites classified as “Marginalia” are streams of miscellaneous book factoids, images, and, well, marginalia. I’ve tried to avoid listing personal Tumblrs except for a few here and there. Finally, I’ve included a “Wish List” of entities I’d like to see enter the world of likes and reblogs. 1.      Single-Servings Awesome People Reading: Where to see what famous people read. Cover Spy: Where to see what MTA passengers read. Lisa Simpson Book Club: Where to see what Lisa Simpson reads. Bookshelf Porn: The SFW (despite its title) spot to ogle bookshelves. Slaughterhouse 90210: The middle of the television/literature Venn diagram. The Art of Google Books: Who’s scanning those books? Whose hand is that? The Final Sentence: An effort to spoil every book’s ending. Better Book Titles: Where spoilers and humor coexist. n+personals: As Malcolm Harris put it, the apex of The New Sincerity. Ransom Book Quotes: Title supposedly wasn’t meant to be “random.” Sure. Writers No One Reads: Neglected authors and philosophers. (un)justly (un)read: Same as above, but perhaps even more obscure. 50 Watts: Book design from around the world and across the ages. The Books They Gave Me: The intimate details of books gifted by exes. The Collected Blurbs of Gary Shteyngart: The man gets around, doesn’t he? Poor Yorick Entertainment: Now-defunct, but a must-see for all fantods. Lady Journos!: Highlights the best female journalists and their work. 2.     Reviewers The Los Angeles Review of Books: Rapidly increasing L.A.’s literary cachet. The New Inquiry: The Times can look down its nose all it wants. Who cares? The Boston Review: Loose updates from the Boston non-profit. 3.     Booksellers/Libraries/Foundations Housing Works Bookstore Café: Dispatches from a great cause. New York Public Library: The epicenter of literary Manhattan. (& its events) McNally Jackson: One of New York City’s favorite bookshops. WORD Brooklyn: One of New York City’s favorite bookshops across the river. 57th Street Books: One of Chicago’s favorite bookshops. Tattered Cover: One of Denver’s favorite bookshops. Powell’s: One of Portland’s favorite bookshops. PEN American Center: Great quotations from the PEN folks. 92nd Street Y: One of New York’s best curators of cultural entertainment. Books and Books*: Originally on the Wish List below, they've since come around. Welcome aboard! 4.     Marginalia Proustitute: A highbrow, poetry-heavy mental treat. Dostoesvky: All things Fyodor. Russkaya Literatura: All things Fyodor, Lev, Anton, Mikhail, etc… F*ck Yeah Manuscripts: Like LettersOfNote, but exclusively authors. John Jeremiah Sullivan: Dispatches from the essayist’s book tour. 5.     Publishers (Big Six) -- Bear in mind: most of these lean pretty heavily towards being just marketing tools. A. A. Knopf: The intersection of books and borzoi. Harper Perennial: The most exciting Big Six imprint in the game right now. Farrar, Straus & Giroux: Welcome aboard, newcomers! Way to get off on the right foot. Scribner: Bookish miscellany from the Simon & Schuster imprint. Doubleday: One of the more stereotypically Tumblr-like publishing Tumblrs. Vintage & Anchor: Great stuff from Random House’s paperback wizards. Pantheon Books: Image-heavy in a great way. Classic Penguin: It’s about time the Penguin folks joined the Tumblr crowd. Viking Penguin: Updates from the Viking & Penguin publicity team. Riverhead Books: Penguin’s got the most imprints on Tumblr, bar-none. 6.     Publishers (Littler Guys) W. W. Norton & Co.: Plus ten points for their GZA post. NYRB Classics: The inimitable publisher of overlooked classics. Fantagraphics: The premier publishers of alternative comics in the U.S. New Directions: Come back, guys! You were great while you lasted. OR Books: Small, politically-minded indie publisher. Ugly Duckling Presse: Photos from one of the best book designers in the U.S. Bloomsbury Publishing: The U.S. office of London’s reputable house. Verso Books: Very #OWS-heavy of late. Nouvella Books: The most Downton Abbey-obsessed publishers around. 7.     Magazines Longreads: Looking for something to read? Not anymore. Hobart Pulp: They came here to drink bourbon and publish stories. BOMB Magazine: The best of the BOMBsite. The Missouri Review: Multimedia posts from the underrated journal. Lapham’s Quarterly: Witty and smart, and with a great design to boot. The Atlantic: A steady stream of interesting links. Utne Reader: Good stuff from the Minneapolis (and soon Topeka) institution. The Believer: Special features from the monthly magazine. Specter: Not to be confused with the James Bond villains. The Atavist: More people should know about these folks! Poetry*: Originally on the Wishlist, they've since joined the fun. Happy 100th birthday! 8.    Wish List The Paris Review: They’re on Tumblr, but they never post Tumblr-specific content. Dive all the way in, Parisians. You can do better. More authors!: With so many on Twitter, it’s only a matter of time. Books & Books: South Florida’s best indie deserves more attention.* *[Ed note: they listened!] The Oxford American: The South is underrepresented on the platform. Poetry Magazine: Poems just beg for reblogs.* *[Ed note: they listened!] Book Soup: The L.A. shop would be a nice complement to NYC’s dominance. Vroman’s: They’re there, but they haven’t updated since 2010. The Strand: The New York City icon is sorely missed on Tumblr.* *[Ed note: they listened!] Picador: Perhaps the Flatiron folks are on their way soon.* *[Ed note: they listened!] This list, of course, is by nature incomplete. I am sure I’ve missed a ton of standouts. Please feel free to let me know which ones I’ve overlooked in the comments! [Ed Note: Don't miss Part Two and Part Three!]
Surprise Me!

BROWSE BY AUTHOR