DA's series 2: INTERMISSION: A transected spinal cord is no good basis for a Downton hope theme!!!
<<< PART SEVEN ----- PART EIGHT >>>
I have to say one thing upfront: I understand that Julian Fellowes is making a huge issue out of the question of hope/faith versus realism/despondency throughout series 2, and I feel very strongly that he also uses Matthew's injury to that purpose. The problem is just that it doesn't work in that case, and I would like to use this chapter to outline why. I see the entire chapter as an intermission, some sort of alternative universe I don't believe in, but I feel the need to at least present the idea. It's a matter of taste, really.
Episodes 2.05 to 2.07 contain many symbolic scenes dealing with Matthew's injury in which hope seemingly becomes an issue:
-- 2.05: Lord Grantham's hopes it will get better
-- 2.05: M/M's first spinal damage conversation: «He thinks you may have damaged your spine» - «How long will it take to repair?» - «You can't expect them to put timings on this sort of thing» - «But he did say it'd get better?» - «He says the first task his rebuild your health, and that's what we have to concentrate on»
-- 2.06: Matthew feels he's strong enough to push his own wheelchair, Mary will be the judge of that.
-- 2.06: Mary wheels him past men who walk aided with a cane. He looks disgruntled at Mary.
-- 2.06: Matthew imagines himself as a walking man in his suicide fantasy, Mary reminds him that he is in a wheelchair.
-- 2.06: Matthew to Mary (on Patrick): «My dear, don't be too quick to decide. You never know. This might be a blessing in disguise. ... Well, he seems a nice enough chap. He’ s not very pretty, of course, but he can walk ‘round the estate on his own two legs and sire a string of sons to continue the line. All in all, I’d say that’s a great improvement on the current situation.»
-- 2.06: He feels some tingling in his legs once Bates takes over his wheelchair, because Bates has succeeded in recovering from his own leg injury.
-- 2.07: Matthew's bedroom discussion with Bates about hope
-- 2.07: The «false hope» discussion with Dr. Clarkson after Matthew's recovery
-- 2.07: Matthew's statement «She's proved right» when he's announcing that he and Lavinia will get married, as if there were conditions outside Matthew's control that Lavinia has had faith in. His description of his reconvalescence at Downton as «what, I hope, has been the darkest period of my life», looking at Mary as he says that.
-- 2.07: Violet's claim that Mary got engaged to Carlisle when there was no chance of Matthew's recovery.
-- 2.09: Matthew's and Violet's ambiguous comments on Bates' trial, almost echoing Matthew's own trial 16 months earlier: «We mustn't lose faith - he's been wrongly diagnosed accused» / «Doctors Lawyers are always confident before the verdict. It's only after they share their doubts.»
The entire hope conversation between Matthew and Bates in 2.07, the discussion about misinformation and false hope in the post-recovery debrief with Dr. Clarkson - what was the point unless Fellowes wanted to suggest that it might have been best for all parties to approach Matthew's condition with hope from the beginning? That the right attitude towards Matthew's injury would have been to «wait and see», as sage Bates suggested in 2.07?
A rewatch of the first conversation between Matthew and Mary at the beginning of 2.06 has made me think. Matthew seems to be too idealistic, dreaming about things that cannot be, Mary seems to too pragmatic and realistic, seemingly holding him back - in his own opinion. Mary O'Donnell, on her Vicariously blog, has remarked that «somewhere in the space between these worldviews - between yearning for what should be and acceptance of what is - lies their relationship, and the form that relationship takes when all the dust has settled depends entirely on how they bridge that gap»*** In retrospect, knowing that Matthew will recover, are we to look differently at their two conversations from 2.06? Is Fellowes' point that neither Matthew's idealism nor Mary's «realistic» pessimism is right to begin with, but that the answer lies somewhere inbetween? That the right way for both of them would have been to hope for Matthew's recovery? That it's just a matter of time?
I'm inclined to believe that part of Matthew's disillusionment throughout the second half of series 2 is supposed to stem from a feeling that Mary didn't give him time when he first got wounded. That she talked about things not having settled yet when she first told Matthew of his paralysis, but that she herself did not believe for one second moment that he might get better - and that she demonstrated her lack of faith in his recovery by getting formally engaged to Carlisle on the very same day she learnt of his paralysis. In light of their two conversations in 2.06, I'm more and more inclined to think that this is indeed what she «did wrong» in his eyes. Did she write him off too soon? Why does Matthew imagine himself walking (and therefore able to jump into the river) when he talks about the possibility of him being «an argument against» Mary's marriage to Carlisle in 2.06? What exactly does he mean when he says he cannot marry any woman, «not now»? Not now as opposed to earlier - or not now as opposed to later? Our little clairvoyant hopeful Matthew!
This would make Matthew's reaction to Mary's engagement in 2.06 and his own renewed engagement to Lavinia in 2.07 appear in a new light. Could it be that Mary's «crime» against Matthew (in his opinion, that is) was not so much that she got formally engaged to Carlisle the very same day she learned of his diagnosis - but rather that she didn't «wait and see» if Matthew's condition might change before making plans for her own life that didn't include him? Would it have been the right thing for her to do - in Matthew's eyes - to just wait it out for one more day, let him send Lavinia away, and then stay on as his nurse without advancing her relationship with Carlisle any further from their current «understanding», but also without breaking it off with him (as I suggested she should have done)? Are we supposed to sympathize with Matthew's 2.06 decision to insist on Mary's continued contingency plan with Carlisle because he really doesn't want to jeopardize her future and the prospect of children - as long as things don't move forward with her fiancé? It is a fact that he wouldn't marry her now, it is a fact that he wouldn't allow her to be near him if she was unattached - it's just that he has this gut feeling that he might walk again, and Mary should be with him until the moment of his recovery in 2.07, hoping and waiting?
Are we to see Lavinia simply as an interloper who manages to take Mary's place at an opportune time because she is fetched by Mary's fiancé so Mary can go on with her life? In Matthew's eyes, is Lavinia the symbol of Mary's life plans that don't include him? Because this would never have happened if Mary hadn't advanced her relationship with Carlisle, because Carlisle could never have allowed himself to make such decisions on other people's behalf as long as they only had an understanding? In other words, is Lavinia's return to Downton to be Mary's fault, because she advanced her relationship with Carlisle from understanding to engagement during Matthew's illness? And is Matthew's renewed engagement to Lavinia after his recovery supposed to be his way of punishing Mary for her lack of vision? «Look what you did, you force me to marry this interloper out of obligation when it should have been you?» Is Mary to be punished for her pessimism not because she seemingly didn't want to be with a man in a wheelchair (which she did) but because she did not anticipate his resurrection?
The problem is just: You can't embark on any such argument about hope/faith versus pessimism with the first diagnosis Fellowes has offered the viewers and Matthew and everyone else, via Dr. Clarkson: «Transection of the spinal cord». It's a poor starting point for Matthew within the story and a poor starting point for Fellowes structurally. Transection means CUT THROUGH, by definition, and the cut ends cannot be reconnected, resulting in a permanent and total loss of function in the spinal regions below the injury site. Here's a definition, taken from the Morton Cure Paralysis Fond homepage:
What is spinal cord injury?
Many misconceptions abound concerning spinal cord injury. For example, many people believe that the spinal cord below the injury site dies after injury. Others think that the injured spinal cord is like a cut telephone wire and can be fixed by reconnecting the cut ends. Some people think that the vertebral column is the spinal cord. Even doctors have misleading and inaccurate ideas about spinal cord injury. For example, many doctors casually use the word “transection” to refer to severely injured spinal cords. The word should only be applied to the extremely rare situation when the spinal cord has been cut and the cut ends are separated.
Spinal cord injury usually results from trauma to the vertebral column. Displaced bone or disc then compresses the spinal cord. Spinal cord injury can occur without obvious vertebral fractures and you can have spinal fractures without spinal cord injury. It can also result from loss of blood flow to the spinal cord.
Wouldn't it be typical for Dr. Clarkson to misapply the term «transected spinal cord» when he only means severely injured? But alas - he doesn't! His use of the term is entirely correct: «I'd say the spinal cord has been transected. That it is permanently damaged.» ... «Every indication told me that the spine was transected, which would have been incurable.» Clarkson describes Matthew's spinal cord as permanently damaged by definition because it is transected, and the reason he expects Lord Grantham to accept the damage as permanent is because he expects him to understand the physics behind a cut: «But isn't there a chance that might change?» «The sexual reflex is controlled at a lower level of the spine to the motor function of the legs. Once the latter is cut off, so is the former.» Dr. Clarkson correctly defines a transected spinal cord as a cord which has been cut in two! This is a very rare condition, a freak diagnosis maybe (mind you, coming from the man who has correctly diagnosed Lady Grantham's pregnancy!), but there even seem to be a number of indications suggesting to him that the cord was torn and nothing else. We still don't know how exactly Matthew sustained his injury to begin with, except he was thrown against something (a wheel apparently). Matthew mentions a broken back in episode 2.07 («I do know my back is broken, I understand that I won't recover»). If he had indeed broken a vertebra, this might have given Clarkson reason enough to fear that the spinal cord might have been torn as well. Even in retrospect, in 2.07, basing himself on the same undisclosed indications, Clarkson would still be able to provide a completely unambiguous mechanical explanation for why Matthew's spinal damage might have been permanent.
A transection of the spinal cord is a tremendously poor starting point for Fellowes' hope drama - because there is only one way to relate to it - «no anything, I'm afraid». A transected spinal cord with loose ends. That's not a matter of degree, where you can hope it's less serious than first expected. There is no mild, medium, or severe transection, just as there is no mild, average, or severe pregnancy. Either the spinal cord is transected or it isn't. That's what Matthew, Mary, Lavinia, Robert, Cora, Violet, and Isobel have to go by. Where do you pin your hope? I hope it's not transected? Then what else? I hope Clarkson is wrong? This is a question that can be settled by an X-ray or a second opinion, not hope.
The moment Fellowes - via Dr. Clarkson - introduces a clear-cut mechanical explanation for Matthew's injury, there is no room left for interpretation and hope/faith. It's a matter of believing or not believing the mechanical/physical explanation that has been offered. «I think your spinal cord has been cut and the cut ends are separated. A so-called transection of the spinal cord. You will therefore never be able to walk again.» The moment you make this a matter of time and hope, by answering «I hope I will be able to walk again», you either claim that a transected spinal cord can repair itself, which it can't, or that the cord is not transected. In which you should ask for an alternative explanation of the symptoms, or for a second opinion, which nobody did, not even Matthew until November 1918 - when he was more or less forced, given the fact that he regained some feeling in his legs. Up to that point, everybody, including Matthew, has to deal with the same diagnosis. So why does Fellowes allow Matthew to slight Mary for an action - an acceptance of his injury as permanent - as if it corresponded to a choice on a hope cline when there wasn't any such hope cline?
If Fellowes had allowed Clarkson to use the term «severe lesion» instead, the undefined mechanics behind such damage would have been ambiguous enough to give true relevance to the timing issue that dominated the first conversation between Matthew and Mary. Mary could have introduced the idea of an undefined spinal damage. Matthew could then have chosen to interpret lesion in the most hopeful terms, while Mary might have prepared for the worst. Or had it been - say - a terrible bruise from the start, and it wouldn't have been certain that the swelling would ever recede - then people could have arranged themselves according to what they hoped for, according to the strength of their faith and optimism. And Mary might have gotten engaged to Carlisle for a reason unknown to Matthew, and Matthew would have interpreted that as her having lost hope, and he would have punished her for not believing in him, by sticking to Lavinia once he could walk again.
But how can timing be of any relevance when we're dealing with a transected spinal cord? This is no case of influenza, a tricky disease with sudden savage changes. In Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Marianne is ill over 50 pages (I think). Better, worse, better... There's plenty of occasion for displaying a hopeful disposition when people have the flu or something like that. «I hope she'll pull through, we'll know more in the morning.» How do you do that with a transected spine? «Let's not give up hope yet», «I hope it's not transected, we'll know more - when exactly?» How long do you wait before you accept a diagnosis as final? How long do you wait before ruling out other possible explanations when you aren't offered any and when you don't ask for any? How long do you wait before you adjust to your «different» life by making actual plans, rather than being the cat that walks by itself from here to eternity? Or, if you are of a more hopeful disposition, how long do you wait before embarking on physical therapy to complement your hopes and speed up your recovery? Making people ask what you're aiming at. Months? Years? Do you just wait and drink tea in anticipation of a sudden change of fortune?
So where does Matthew (/Fellowes) take the hope from, when all his actions belie the hopeful disposition his words seem to express? When he says, in 2.07, «Bates...please don’t tell anyone. I couldn’t bear it if…Miss Swire or…Mother or…or anyone started to hope», Matthew himself obviously does have hope, despite Clarkson's discouragement: «I do know my back is broken, I understand that I won’t recover, but…I do keep feeling it, or I think I do.» When Clarkson confesses during the post-recovery conference that «I didn’t want to raise Captain Crawley’s hopes to no purpose», prompting Matthew's reply «I understand. And I don't blame you», does Fellowes mean to suggest that unfounded hopes still should have been called for, without any encouragement from Dr. Clarkson? That the absense of any external confirmation is indeed a precondition for one's faith to appear strong? Fellowes makes it a necessity that Matthew's sensations, i.e. his hopes, do not interfere in any way with his determination to accept the diagnosis he has been given. On what grounds, then, is Matthew supposed to hope that he might recover after all? Why does he look at the man with the cane in the opening scene in 2.06, rather than altogether healthy men? There must be more to the cane than mere jealousy! He must see some potential there that he can relate to. But on what grounds? Fantasy? Divine intervention? This argument is very strange.
Although Fellowes doesn't offer any good explanation why there should be reason to hope for Matthew's recovery, I feel inclined to believe that - from 2.06 onwards - he wants us to sympathize with hopeful Matthew when he feels wing-clipped by realistic Mary. We are to feel his pain. We are to understand his allusions. They are supposed to be obvious. We aren't supposed to demand that Matthew adapts to the idea that he will be disabled for the rest of his life - because that would mean resignation! Because a different life is not a life after all? So let's not deal with it, Fellowes? Because Matthew has this gut feeling anyway that he will recover, and the gut feeling is good. Unfortunately, I as a viewer am unable to share the gut feeling of a doctor's son who has been diagnosed with a transected spine and who is unwilling to read himself up on his injury, who doesn't ask for a second opinion and who does not do any physical therapy to stimulate the nerves in his legs - all the while making prophetic eyes at soldiers with canes. This part of Fellowes' imagery is lost on me.
As a viewer confronted with the diagnosis «transected spinal cord», I cannot for the life of me arrange any other best-case scenario in my head than the prospect of Mary and Matthew settling for a sexless and childless love marriage, with Robert's blessing, fully knowing that Downton Abbey will be passed on to some other distant relative after Matthew's death. Defying Carlisle and defying the family expectations. That's where my «hope» ends, and I actually think it's quite beautiful - if tragic. At no point has the diagnosis as such given me any reason to actively «hope» that Matthew would get «better», and at no point have I seen reason to distance myself from Mary's assessment of the situation.
[[[ And - dear Julian Fellowes - don't you try telling me that Matthew wasn't supposed to know Clarkson's exact diagnosis until after this post-recovery therapy group session. That Matthew's «I don't blame you» answer to Clarkson's statement that he didn't want to «raise Captain Crawley's hopes to no purpose» is supposed to suggest that he's blaming someone else? Are we to believe that Mary heard Dr. Clarkson's diagnosis «transected spinal cord» and passed it on as «probably permanent spinal damage without any clear mechanical explanation for the damage» to Matthew, raising his hopes to no purpose? Is that her fault too, now?
Are we supposed to interpret Matthew's 2.06 conversations with Mary along those lines? As miscommunication due to misinformation? As Matthew feeling that Mary's holding him back and making him feel crippled when he wants to have this hope of walking again, all the while she is dealing with this realistic factual diagnosis she's been given, a diagnosis the implications of which leave no room for misinterpretation? We're supposed to believe that Matthew is living in la-la-land for a couple of months, borne by unrealistic hopes Mary has kindled in his chest, making eyes at soldiers with canes while expressing annoyance with Mary's engagement plans and mock-pressuring her into marrying Carlisle? Without him making any attempt at physical therapy to actually stimulate the nerves in his lower spine? THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND I REFUSE TO CONSIDER IT!
Fellowes cannot make me believe that the diagnosis «transected spine» hasn't reached Matthew before his Eureka moment in 2.07. I can't believe that Matthew - from the moment Mary brings up «spinal damage» in 2.05 until the post-recovery-debriefing with Dr. Clarkson in 2.07, about five months later - never at any point was confronted with Dr. Clarkson's hypothesis that his spinal cord was cut in two, with loose ends. Which would and should have scrapped his «hopes»! For all I know, Matthew has to deal with the same diagnosis everyone else has been informed about. He learns from Mary that his spine may be permanently damaged, and he learns from Dr. Clarkson during the next doctor's round that the spinal cord is in all likelihood transected.]]]
No matter what difference there might have been between Matthew's hope and Mary's hope before the post-recovery debriefing, the fact remains that Lavinia didn't have any hope in his recovery either. So why does Matthew treat Lavinia and Mary differently after his recovery, although both of them believed that he would be permanently injured? Why does he reward Lavinia by renewing the engagement, and what does he actually reward her for? Why does he dismiss Mary's claim to the Countess' crown when Violet proposes on her behalf?
As it happens, Matthew explains his renewed engagement to Lavinia with the words that «Lavinia has proved to be the most marvellous person» and that «I never thought we would marry, for all sorts of reasons, but she wouldn’t accept that. And so, now I’m very pleased to say that she’s been proved right.» I don't understand how proof comes into play here, other than in reaction to Bates' 2.06 oracle «I should wait and see. If something is changing, it will make itself known.» Does Lavinia's big achievement consist in the fact that she waited, that she waited it out, until a chance event proved Bates right? A surprise event not even she anticipated or hoped for? She was at the right place at the right time? And in Matthew's eyes that is supposed to be a deliberate act of proving something? Proving what? That his gut feeling has been right? That he was right to hope? That there was a chance Clarkson might be wrong after all, which the doctor always admitted could be a possibility («If I'm right, then no, he won't»)? And Matthew still feels the need to tell everyone at the dinner table that he NEVER thought they'd marry, for all sorts of reasons? Not even when he first got engaged to her? Oooops!!!
As it happens, the entire announcement of Matthew's renewed engagement is framed by moments involving Mary. It is immediately preceded by Carlisle's announcement that he and Mary consider moving away from Haxby, and he passes it off as a joint decision: «We’ll have to see if it suits us to be so close to Downton.» This is the moment Matthew begins to stutter forth his engagement plans, the moment he is confronted with Mary's apparent decision to move on in life. I've never read too much into it before but I'm beginning to see a connection now. Almost in the same breath, he also manages to slight and insult Mary - for not hoping, one should think. After giving sole credit to Lavinia for being a marvellous person during the horrible time of his injury (most of which she spent in London), completely discounting Mary's contribution to his recovery, he proceeds to present his plan to get married to Lavinia at Downton as an attempt «to bury forever the memories of what, I hope, has been the darkest period of my life». Matthew looks directly at Mary when he comes to the end of his statement. I hope. But she didn't?
Are we supposed to sympathize with Matthew, when he - painstrickenly - punishes Mary for her apparent lack of vision by describing the time she was his nurse at Downton as the «darkest period» of his life? Because he hoped that he would get better, and Mary had lost her hope and was crushing his hope by reminding him that he was in a wheelchair and by getting engaged to Carlisle? And now she's proven wrong and Lavinia has been proven right? Is Fellowes suggesting - via Matthew - that it was always just a matter of time before Matthew would get better, a «period» to overcome, and Mary should have known that, deep down? Are we supposed to feel that, too? Because otherwise Matthew's suggestion seems just outragious, yet I cannot see the script undermine his position in any way later. «It isn't worth buying off a month of scandal with a lifetime of misery?» - does Matthew's Christmas Special question cover this situation in 2.07, too? Was it worth buying of some months of insecurity with a lifetime of misery, by getting engaged to Carlisle too soon? And now Mary is planning to move away from Downton with Carlisle when Matthew's just become available again? Possibly provoking the whole engagement announcement after all, judging from how surprised Lavinia looks when he says they will get married?
So does Matthew's renewed engagement to Lavinia in 2.07, as a reward that she has been «proved right», serve as some sort of structural punishment - on Fellowes' part - of Mary? Because I couldn't believe that Violet would willfully describe her own grand-daughter as an opportunist to Matthew's face when her aim is to marry her off to this man of honour - so obviously she is used as Fellowes' mouthpiece in the bedroom scene. Here she explicitly presents Mary's engagement to Carlisle as an expression of resignation in the face of Matthew's injury, as a contingency plan, which is eventually put to shame by Matthew's recovery: «[T]he other night when you spoke of your wedding. She looked like...Juliet on awakening in the tomb. ... But then there was no chance of your recovery, and it seemed best to let her try for happiness where she could». Obviously, Violet's statement is supposed to feed Matthew's prejudices. Mary is supposed to have written him off, and now she regrets it. And indeed, Matthew dismisses the idea of getting back with Mary on the basis that, unlike her, Lavinia only stayed away (i.e. remained uncommitted to him) for a while and even came back against his orders and without a contingency plan - admitting at the same time that she did leave him to begin with, that he didn't want her back and that he has no more use for her now that he no longer needs a nurse but a wife and lover instead! The many references to timing, and the many negative descriptions of Lavinia make her appear rather like an interloper who has never had a function in Matthew's life and who doesn't have a function in his future life either. The reason he feels obliged to marry her is that she was the one who was taking care of him from the moment Mary was released as his caretaker at the instigation of her fiancé. That's what Matthew blames Mary for, indirectly. If she hadn't been engaged to Carlisle, the situation would never have escalated like this. In 2.07 and 2.08, when he explains his position on marriage, Matthew never mentions Carlisle directly, only the circumstances which brought Lavinia back into his life.
This wait-and-see scenario doesn't differ much from the scenario I proposed, i.e. that Matthew's anger is caused by Mary's engagement to Carlisle in 2.05, but it differs in as much as it takes seriously Matthew's 2.05 declaration that he would never consent to marrying a woman the way he is now, and that he would never allow Mary to sacrifice her life and the prospect of children for his sake. This establishes an interesting dichotomy: Fellowes may suggest that Lavinia might have been the right woman for Matthew if he had remained permanently paralysed. Because he obviously didn't have a bad conscience for her sake when he took her back in 2.06. The reason he was so concerned for her future in 2.05 was that he wanted her to leave, so he needed a good argument. That's also what Matthew seems to say to Violet in 2.07. He hates the prospect of being permanently disabled, Lavinia came back against his orders, so he wouldn't have minded her sacrifice of life if she brought in on herself. On the other hand, Mary should have been the one for him when he's healthy and walking 'round the estate on his own to legs, siring a string of sons to continue the line. He didn't want anything less for her - so he was serious when he said he couldn't marry her now, and that it would break his heart to think that he was the reason why she may die childless and exhausted from pushing his wheelchair through all eternity. She should just have waited it out a little.
The irony in this case would be that, in these two distinct periods of time, Matthew ended up with the wrong woman at the wrong time. He ended up with Mary when he wanted to hope for his recovery and she didn't support his fancies, when she made him feel permanently disabled and he refused to tie her down under these conditions. As soon as he had reason to hope that he would recover, however, he had been handed over to Lavinia, whom he didn't want to give any hope - because he wouldn't want to be married to her if he could walk.
Maybe this is how Fellowes has conceived the grand conflict around Matthew's injury - and while it helps to explain the imagery in 2.06 as well as a lot of hope allusions in 2.06 through 2.08 - the implications of this entire hope argument freak me out for a number of reasons:
1.) The implication that Matthew seriously wouldn't have wanted to marry Mary the way he was now, because he loved her - without Fellowes undermining that position!
Which would mean that Matthew couldn't have felt hurt by Mary's engagement to Carlisle in 2.05 after all, because none of his rights were violated? In a love story which makes such heavy and absolute demands on people in the name of love («Do you love me enough to spend your life with me?»), the male protagonist is suddenly not supposed to have enough self-worth to expect - let alone demand - that the love of his life loves him enough to spend her life with him, sacrificing children, travels, leisure time? Matthew isn't allowed to be angry with Mary in 2.06, only patronisingly self-loathing? Because the male protagonist is crippled and has therefore forfeited the right to be loved on the same terms as a healthy man?
And from Mary's point of view, her desire to be with Matthew on any terms isn't even being considered as a complement from her to him, but only as a joke? Because Matthew, after having known Mary for five years, thinks Mary doesn't know what's best for her? He doesn't remember any of his redeeming qualities? The wits Matthew might have had to fall back on in 1.07, which he demanded back then should be enough incitement for Mary to love him and follow him into a different life, suddenly aren't? Is Matthew's love for Mary suddenly all patronising rather than demanding? Does Fellowes let him dispose with Mary's future as freely as Bates disposes with Anna's («Forget me and be happy, please!» - «I couldn’t! Not ever!» - «You should. And you must. I am nothing!»)? Do we need two identical ships?
But unlike Bates, would Matthew have the impertinence to demand that Mary remains in the waiting room indefinitely, without committing to her legally? He won't marry her - yet, but it would be ok if she just remained perpetually engaged to Carlisle («If you were not engaged to be married, I wouldn't let you anywhere near me»)? He'll let her stick around as long as she pretends to have a contingency plan? Because that wouldn't jeopardize her chance to have children? Mary's only offence was the timing? If she had gotten engaged to someone else, say, after ten years of no improvement in Matthew's condition, that would have been okay for Matthew? When she was about 40? No hard feelings? If she could find someone else in the first place? She didn't deserve commitment if she decided to defy family expectations?
And Fellowes never allows him or us as viewers to even imagine what such a marriage might have looked like? He removes the possibility immediately, just as he removed the possibility in 1.07 that Mary might indeed end up stranded with Matthew in Crawley House, the wife of a country solicitor, removed it in the same episode that brought it up? No material for a story? Too middle-class? What a ghastly prospect? Let's not show it! Bring on a miscarriage! HOW UTTERLY SNOBBISH. And now, in series 2, let's remove the protagonist's self-esteem for the sake of Downton's snobbish future. The idea of Matthew and Mary wanting to marry each other at the same time while he is impotent and in a wheelchair is too depressing to make them look like good candidates for the future Earl and Countess of Grantham! What could be worse than a maid serving an earl in a wheelchair at Downton? Let's not go there! Let's make it a matter of time, and he'll be alright.
You know what, Fellowes? I refuse! Not MY Matthew! My Matthew is a proud man! The man who was smart enough to become Lord Chancellor if he had moved to London, but who would have dawdled his life away as a country solicitor in Ripon for the sake of his wife, if she had wanted to stay at Downton - «of course!» - this man would not have been ashamed to accept Mary's offer if he'd got it in 2.05! This man would have been 6 feet tall IN a wheelchair! He would have shown everybody how smart he is! With Mary by his side, he would have felt confident that he could rule the world from the Downton library, especially when they have a phone! His wheelchair obviously hasn't been a hindrance in his getting out so far, so he wouldn't have been house-bound in the future either! And he and Mary would have been so happy, laughing and talking - because they couldn't have had that with anyone else! And then, possibly, Matthew and Mary could have been taken completely by surprise when he regains the use of his legs a year after their marriage! Not as a reward for denying disabled people the right to a normal family life, but as a reward for adapting to life changes, whatever is thrown at you. The reason MY Matthew is angry with Mary throughout the second half of series 2, is that he felt she denied him that fantasy the moment she handed him over to Lavinia to get engaged to Carlisle. Not because she didn't imagine him to get better.
2.) The implication that Mary's 2.06 offer to break with Carlisle and risk publication of her scandal becomes irrelevant to the story!!!!!
I mean, good God, what is Mary saying in 2.06? She is willing to break with Carlisle? Who knows about the scandal? Who has given her every indication in 2.05 that he is the sort of guy who will use that scandal against her if he feels thwarted? Imagine the ramifications!!!! Mary would risk the publication of her scandal once she breaks up the engagement, she would stay with Matthew at Crawley House as his nurse, childless, notorious, a laughing-stock, possibly no longer on speaking terms with her shocked father, just to be with Matthew on any terms - something she might have considered a relief, a union of two outcasts «com[ing] to the marriage on slightly more equal terms» (as Carlisle put it in 2.05)? All of a sudden she wouldn't have felt afraid to tell Matthew about Pamuk - because she would have felt confident that he would accept her as she accepted him, as long they're both «fallen»? She wouldn't have expected any less of him? Which would of course mean that, back in 1914, the reason for her hesitation was that she wanted to wait until the baby was born before telling Matthew about Pamuk! Because she might even have hoped that he loses the title - that it would be easier for him to accept her in her fallen state if he himself has lost everything? And that it would be easier for her to accept a refusal or turn him down herself if he should turn all moralistic on her despite being stripped of the title?
Seriously, Mary's offer is never to be considered for what it is, a sacrifice, a reckless act of love defying family expectations, a gesture of self-respect - not even for a second? Fellowes brushes it away completely - with one sentence, because Matthew wouldn't accept it anyway out of sheer loooove? And we're supposed to forgive Matthew for his subsequent Lavinia-hype because his brush-off of Mary in 2.06 was so well-meaning? Mary should have known that in Matthew's and Fellowes' universe, her offer cannot count as a sacrifice because Matthew can't walk? We're just supposed to forget about it, as if it had never happened? She'll never get credit for it from us? Are we supposed to buy the idea that, if Mary had broken up with Carlisle immediately after Matthew's recovery, and the scandal had come out - that that would have swept him into her arms on a tidal wave of honourability???
Again, Fellowes, I refuse to accept that Mary's «proposal» is being brushed aside as wrongly timed and a pessimistic affirmation of Matthew's disability! Not MY Mary! My Mary could not have volunteered to ditch Carlisle at any other time with the same effect. My Mary deserves respect for this gesture! My Mary isn't afraid of Matthew's opinion per se! My Mary has the guts to put her own needs first and sacrifice the reputation of the family - if her reward is Matthew's acceptance. The idea that there is no hope for Matthew's recovery is essential for the ramifications of her offer - for what she expects herself to accept, what she expects Matthew to accept, what she expects her family to accept. I refuse to undermine my Mary by pretending that she, like Matthew, like the audience, should have hoped that Matthew's injury might not give her a chance to come clean about Pamuk. That it would have been better for both of them if he could walk and turn her down than for them to be together as two «cripples» in love?
3.) The implication that Robert's acceptance of a childless union between Mary and Matthew is irrelevant to the story!!!
So all we remember Robert for, this season, is that he was disgruntled because he wasn't sent to the front and that he was snogging the maid? Because it was his fault that he got estranged from Cora? Because he dared to imagine that Matthew would never get better and that Mary would never have children - and he felt good about it, because they were together? The idea that Robert gives his blessing to the prospect of his unmarried daughter and an impotent man in a wheelchair being the future custodians of Downton Abbey, ruling with love and common sense, handing it over to the next custodian after them - we're supposed to hope that it won't come to this, for the sake of Downton, for Robert's sake - by hoping for Matthew's recovery? The whole custodian argument that was carefully built up through season 1 - we're supposed to dismiss it as something not to be wished upon Robert? We're supposed to side with Matthew when he says «It’ll take a man who’s more than I am now to follow you», because Matthew is clairvoyant and he knows better than Robert?
I refuse to consider this! Not MY Robert! My Robert can deal with it! My Robert didn't need any hope of recovery to keep alive his fatherly feelings for Matthew, and his concern and respect for Mary's choice - if she should decide that her happiness lay with Matthew as he was now. Because My Robert is all for love, and he has always loved Mary more than she could imagine! I didn't need the Christmas Special to know that! He is serious in 2.06 when he accuses Cora of being «curiously unfeeling» when she laments that Mary is «too attached» to Matthew and that this attachment would jeopardize the success of her marriage to Carlisle and the prospect of grandchildren. I refuse to let the implications of Robert's commitment to their happiness drown in hope symbolism.
To be able to really appreciate the earnest behind Robert's professed priorities (his preference of his family, including his «son», over the estate, and his view of the the earldom as being custodian to an estate one does not own), I think it is essential that I am allowed to see Matthew's spinal damage as permanent - without any interfering allusions. Because at no point has Robert ever preferred the estate to the happiness of any of his children. Downton is his fourth child, he says, but not his favourite child. When Matthew arrives, he turns into an extra son for Robert, rather than the personification of Dowton's future, and he keeps his status as Robert's «son» after his injury even if he can no longer «deliver» as the future heir. In 2.06, Robert would have been capable of giving up Downton to fried-Patrick («I don't know what to think») and still «never think about anything else» but Matthew's well-being, just as he would have been delighted to have him as his son-in-law even without the title in 1914. Imagine what that would have looked like if the scandal had come out in addition? My Robert would have gone to that wedding, and if he were to go alone! So don't belittle the importance of Mary and Matthew to Robert, dear Fellowes, by removing the challenge to Robert's love, by introducing an element of hope that Robert might never have to deal with their «fall from grace», physically and morally speaking. I refuse to deal with this resolution.
4.) The implication that Lavinia herself embraces the idea that she is of no use to Matthew once he has regained the use of his legs!!!
That must be about the worst implication yet! Does Lavinia confine her entire utility to Matthew to the period of his injury? She felt she had no claim to Matthew before his injury («I was starting to worry...»), she felt okay about herself when he needed a nurse (« ... and then when you were wounded, I thought it was my calling to look after you and care for you»), she has no idea that Mary did nurse him after her departure, she obviously didn't expect her to («And I don't think Mary would've done that quite as well as me, really»)? In other words, Lavinia can only imagine a decent relationship with Matthew in Mary's complete absence? What if she had been told that it was Mary who nursed him prior to her return? Would she have thrown in the towel immediately? I dare not think of what acts of magnanimous self-sacrifice we might have witnessed in 2.07!!!
And still, even though Lavinia seemingly takes pride in her two months of nursing, and even though she thinks Mary is a posh doll who never got her hands dirty - she thinks it's perfectly understandable that Matthew should want to replace her: «I think it's noble of you to want to keep your word when things have changed. But I'm not sure it'd be right for me to hold you to it»? Does this mean exactly what I fear it means - that Matthew's recovery is a valid argument, in her opinion, for throwing her over - as Matthew himself suggested to Violet in 2.07? No hard feelings? Is there any lower limit to Lavinia's self-respect at all? Does she sincerely believe that she, as an ordinary little person, has no right to become the wife of a future Earl? That she begs on Mary's behalf, not her own, to call off the wedding in 2.08? That the only reason she did come back at all was that she was sure Matthew would never recover, and that this made her feel comfortable enough about her own worth compared to his, and that the asymmetry was reinstituted the moment Matthew could walk again - prompting Matthew himself to tell Violet that he no longer has any use of Lavinia's services. That she herself accepted that she only might be useful to Matthew for the same period of time he might have expected Mary to wait before committing to Carlisle. Howeverlong that might be...
You know what, Julian? I REFUSE! Not my Matthew. Not my Mary. Not my Robert. Not my Lavinia. If you try to develop such a convoluted and eventually thoroughly depressing argument about hope and waiting and changes in prospects - and you make the validity of your argument dependent on the premise that the diagnose «transected spinal cord» might be ambiguous enough for your characters to warrant a deliberate delay in any life plans, and for your audience to dismiss characters as negative spoilsports for not believing in Matthew's recovery - I'm glad to say that your premise is not valid, which makes it impossible for me to really feel your allusions. I don't have enough fantasy to follow your train of thought, and I don't feel I'm missing much. Matthew's diagnose saves me. I don't see your hope argument. No anything, I'm afraid :-)
For all I know, Matthew has no more hope in his recovery than anyone else, and he doesn't judge anyone for not hoping either. He would have accepted his disability with pleasure if only he could feel that Mary loves men in wheelchairs. Something he doesn't believe, because Mary got engaged to Carlisle the day she learned of Matthew's injury. And Matthew does not think he didn't deserve any better. That's my premise for the rest of my analysis.
<<< PART SEVEN ----- PART EIGHT >>>