I love this and completely agree with all of it. I actually myself like Carlisle as a character and have often described him as 'morally ambiguous' but what I think I meant by that is that he is a character with ambiguities like most of the characters are, as opposed to actually being a straight ambiguous male character. Yet I in no way ship him with Mary.
I think you touched on some things here that a lot of the fandom has a hard time understanding, which is that what we write and the art we produce doesn't consist in a vacuum just because we're 'having fun on the internet.' I think that people like to think that their internet life is somehow separate from their real emotions, feelings, and actions, and I think it's true to an extent, but I do firmly believe that the characters we care for and how we treat them says a lot about what we think of the world. I don't get this supposition that what we like and 'stan' for is divorced from our own person. I like fiction as an extension of who I am and I'd like to think it says something
( ... )
Well I thought he was great for what he was and I thought IG did a terrific job with him. IDK, if I were writing an S2 AU, though (especially knowing that Matthew was going to die young and so early into their marriage), I think I would dispense with Richard and Lavinia -- or at least the idea of long engagements to other people -- and have M/M work out their unrequited/unresolved feelings some other way.
have often described him as 'morally ambiguous' but what I think I meant by that is that he is a character with ambiguities like most of the characters are
Yeah, that's a good point. He has ambiguities in the sense that there's a lot we don't know. But there really aren't shades of gray with him. He's a pretty clear-cut figure. My issue is if authors are going to just make up stuff to fill in the gaps -- even though it conflicts with what we do know or there's nothing from canon to support it -- then they should just concede that they've essentially created an OC.
Don't forget the fact that Carlisle published the engagement announcement without even telling/asking Mary. If you pay close attention to canon, she never explicitly accepts his proposal in the first place!
Hmm, interesting. But doesn't Mary say in 2x04 that she's getting ready to write to Richard to accept him? She tells her family this (and repeats it in the letter she writes Matthew). We don't actually see her write to Richard, but I presume she did. Even in 2x05 when she goes to see him (Richard) to tell him about Pamuk and Vera's threat to sell the story, he talks about whether she expects him to "go through with it" and she tells him he's free to call it off. So I do think there is an understanding (engagement).
I think the point of the announcement in the paper was to show, one, that "asking permission is not his strong suit" and two, the extent of his manipulation. Once it's in the paper, it's a lot harder for Mary to try to get out of it and he knows it. He smells blood and he's closing in on his prey. Ugh. Just everything about his character is predatory. Perfect villain, but so WRONG for Mary.
Every universe has a moral logic and unlike almost every other well-received drama in our television landscape right now, Downton is not a morally ambiguous universe.
BINGO! Downton is an extremely moral universe, as you point out: where sacrifice is rewarded, nobility admired and duty is paramount. There's justice in the DA universe, as with Bates' trial, and O'Brien's comeuppance in 3x08, and forgiveness must be earned (as with R/C after Sybil's death).
But Carlisle never goes through any positive character changes (if anything, he becomes MORE negative) to earn that redemption. He also never becomes more central to the plot than he is at the beginning (which would also indicate a shift in how we might perceive him, if his importance was increased). But it isn't -- not since 2x05, anyway.
Richard Carlisle was introduced to the series for a limited purpose. He was introduced as a foil to Matthew and as an antagonist who drove the Mary/Matthew narrative. Period. This was his role.Yep,
( ... )
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. Such thoughtful comments as always (which is why I've been waiting to get to them so I can do them justice).
But Carlisle never goes through any positive character changes (if anything, he becomes MORE negative) to earn that redemption. He also never becomes more central to the plot than he is at the beginningThis is a really succinct way of putting it, and this was actually sort of on the tip of my tongue when I briefly mentioned the character of Thomas above and why he's the exception to the rule in DA. Thomas clearly has a redemptive arc and he's a regular character who has become more important within the DA universe over the three series. Carlisle is the opposite. He became worse, not better, the more we got to know him. And he was never going to stick around for long, so he was never more than a peripheral figure. It makes it difficult to then build an entire AU around him when we really don't know if he as a character -- as presented in canon -- could carry a central narrative. I think
( ... )
Remove Mary from Downton and you remove a fundamental part of Mary's soul. :/That is so, so true. And as I mentioned in a comment, above, I really resent the attempt to put some kind of feminist gloss on the M/R ship when this pairing is about as hierarchical as it gets. I don't know where this notion that Richard represents a break from patriarchal ideas comes from, but it isn't objectively true. For one thing, at the outset he wants more than anything in the world to be PART of the aristocracy and their lifestyle and, in order to do that, he wants to understand and mimic their traditions. This is what he means when he tells Mary she can help him "a lot" and they would make a "good team." He gives her a home and position, she gives him entree into that world that he's only at the margins of (even with all his money) without such a wife. He wants to become one of them and it's only when he realizes that they'll never view him that way that he tries to make digs at their way of life and the fact that they didn't earn their money. (
( ... )
She's starting fresh with a new blog: http://acreatureofduty.wordpress.com/. She doesn't have any content up yet, but I'm told she will in a few days.
You probably missed her "goodbye" post yesterday in which she explained that she was leaving LJ and why. If you're on twitter, you can also find her at @ratingsgal (though her account is now protected). And if you're on fanfiction.net, her account is still open there -- as EOlivet (and all her great fic is there of course).
Hope this helps. I'm sure she'd love to hear from you.
Comments 10
I think you touched on some things here that a lot of the fandom has a hard time understanding, which is that what we write and the art we produce doesn't consist in a vacuum just because we're 'having fun on the internet.' I think that people like to think that their internet life is somehow separate from their real emotions, feelings, and actions, and I think it's true to an extent, but I do firmly believe that the characters we care for and how we treat them says a lot about what we think of the world. I don't get this supposition that what we like and 'stan' for is divorced from our own person. I like fiction as an extension of who I am and I'd like to think it says something ( ... )
Reply
I actually myself like Carlisle as a character
Well I thought he was great for what he was and I thought IG did a terrific job with him. IDK, if I were writing an S2 AU, though (especially knowing that Matthew was going to die young and so early into their marriage), I think I would dispense with Richard and Lavinia -- or at least the idea of long engagements to other people -- and have M/M work out their unrequited/unresolved feelings some other way.
have often described him as 'morally ambiguous' but what I think I meant by that is that he is a character with ambiguities like most of the characters are
Yeah, that's a good point. He has ambiguities in the sense that there's a lot we don't know. But there really aren't shades of gray with him. He's a pretty clear-cut figure. My issue is if authors are going to just make up stuff to fill in the gaps -- even though it conflicts with what we do know or there's nothing from canon to support it -- then they should just concede that they've essentially created an OC.
what we ( ... )
Reply
~nnnpd
Reply
Hmm, interesting. But doesn't Mary say in 2x04 that she's getting ready to write to Richard to accept him? She tells her family this (and repeats it in the letter she writes Matthew). We don't actually see her write to Richard, but I presume she did. Even in 2x05 when she goes to see him (Richard) to tell him about Pamuk and Vera's threat to sell the story, he talks about whether she expects him to "go through with it" and she tells him he's free to call it off. So I do think there is an understanding (engagement).
I think the point of the announcement in the paper was to show, one, that "asking permission is not his strong suit" and two, the extent of his manipulation. Once it's in the paper, it's a lot harder for Mary to try to get out of it and he knows it. He smells blood and he's closing in on his prey. Ugh. Just everything about his character is predatory. Perfect villain, but so WRONG for Mary.
Thanks for stopping by!
Reply
Every universe has a moral logic and unlike almost every other well-received drama in our television landscape right now, Downton is not a morally ambiguous universe.
BINGO! Downton is an extremely moral universe, as you point out: where sacrifice is rewarded, nobility admired and duty is paramount. There's justice in the DA universe, as with Bates' trial, and O'Brien's comeuppance in 3x08, and forgiveness must be earned (as with R/C after Sybil's death).
But Carlisle never goes through any positive character changes (if anything, he becomes MORE negative) to earn that redemption. He also never becomes more central to the plot than he is at the beginning (which would also indicate a shift in how we might perceive him, if his importance was increased). But it isn't -- not since 2x05, anyway.
Richard Carlisle was introduced to the series for a limited purpose. He was introduced as a foil to Matthew and as an antagonist who drove the Mary/Matthew narrative. Period. This was his role.Yep, ( ... )
Reply
But Carlisle never goes through any positive character changes (if anything, he becomes MORE negative) to earn that redemption. He also never becomes more central to the plot than he is at the beginningThis is a really succinct way of putting it, and this was actually sort of on the tip of my tongue when I briefly mentioned the character of Thomas above and why he's the exception to the rule in DA. Thomas clearly has a redemptive arc and he's a regular character who has become more important within the DA universe over the three series. Carlisle is the opposite. He became worse, not better, the more we got to know him. And he was never going to stick around for long, so he was never more than a peripheral figure. It makes it difficult to then build an entire AU around him when we really don't know if he as a character -- as presented in canon -- could carry a central narrative. I think ( ... )
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Please point us in her direction if you know.
Reply
She's starting fresh with a new blog: http://acreatureofduty.wordpress.com/. She doesn't have any content up yet, but I'm told she will in a few days.
You probably missed her "goodbye" post yesterday in which she explained that she was leaving LJ and why. If you're on twitter, you can also find her at @ratingsgal (though her account is now protected). And if you're on fanfiction.net, her account is still open there -- as EOlivet (and all her great fic is there of course).
Hope this helps. I'm sure she'd love to hear from you.
Reply
Leave a comment