Mary Sue site's article on DS9 and Queerness

I think we agree? Anyway, Downton Abbey became more of a Disney-fied portrait of English Aristocracy. Certainly, there is attention to how big social and historical developments affected the elites within each decade, they always resolved in the best possible way, and the Crawley family always seemed to be always cast in the most progressive light. My biggest issue, in spite of Michelle Dockery's acting talent,

Spoiler

was that Mary Crawley's constant yearning for status as the lady of the manor was both gratuitous and alienating

Of course, I am a fan of neither monarchy nor aristocracy, something which I hope won't be held against me when I start applying for Canadian citizenship on Wednesday.

 

Spoiler: Mary Crawley

Mary Crawley's wish for social status and to remain at Downton was in character for the time, though.

Yes, Downton was very generous to the servants. How many times was a servant turned down for time off if they asked? I don't remember a single time.

Spoiler: generosity toward servants

And some were allowed to remain even when they had no use for them. Carson was told he'd have a pension from the estate. I can't prove that never happened anywhere, but I think that would have been extraordinarily generous even for a butler. When Anna was having trouble with her pregnancies and Mrs. Patmore was going blind, they didn't just lump it or seek an inexpensive local doctor, the family paid for them to see specialists in Harley Street! That doesn't even happen for Americans today, let alone 1920s England. And lawyers for the Bateses. No wonder the estate was losing money.

 

Paying a specialist to fix the cook's eyes after she prepared the wrong dish and embarrassed them in front of visitors?

Yeah, absolutely not. Same with Carson. Upper class people were basically told to treat the help like furniture. From all accounts they would just act like they weren't there, even when openly disparaging them. You've got to wonder where the line is on this sort of historical revisionism.

 

Just see every film set in and around WW2, you'd be mistaken for thinking no one fought other than the USA and the Nazis. Or tv show on Jack the Ripper and you'd think he killed prostitutes.

Some may set out for historical accuracy, but there will always be higher ups who will think it'll be too dull or will need "sexing up" to give shows/films more appeal, even when the truth is greater than any fiction.

 

I suppose I just think there’s a difference between those things and the upper class/lower class divide because you’re taking what was essentially a very oppressive system and making the oppressive class look like the good guys. Obviously things sometimes need to be changed for stories to work a little better, but that’s one area I find more problematic than others.

 

I wouldn't say that the depictions of aristocracy in Downton Abbey are flagrantly ahistorical. There were those who participated in labor politics, others who were generous to servants, and more often than not, they could be conscientious of their relationship with those who farmed their estates. Many of these qualities would be more likely among the younger siblings and cousins. Marriage into a family of industrialists, particularly from America, could produce more questioning of aristocratic traditions and attitudes.

Nonetheless, these were still in the minority, and the Crowleys are far from the typical aristocratic family in the first halt of the 20th century. Indeed, many of them turned to fascism.

 

There was another thread where a similar discussion came up; I used to have a friend who did medieval reenactment with me, and he didn't care for any medieval film that contained clear inauthenticity, while I was more liberal about it.

Point being, everyone has their own line on how far suspension of disbelief should go, and I don't think you're going to find much historical fiction that manages to be 100% authentic; the best you can do is find the fiction you enjoy.

 

One merely has to look at Hacksaw Ridge were they toned done some of his accomplishments because they felt it was too unbelievable. Truth will always outweigh fiction which is why fiction is fine by me.

 

Questions of historical accuracy and canonicity are quite alike, aren't they? As an historian and a wargamer (the hex&counter and miniature variety),I find a lot of discussions about historical accuracy to be frustrating. They are mostly mired in details without being revelatory. Every depiction of the past requires some abstraction, yet what some find most important is the minutea.

Even though Barrow enjoys patience and understanding that was atypical of the era, it is not without positive effects. We do get to see his story play out over a lengthier period of time, whereas a real footman would have been banished in disgrace. We get to see more of how a gay man maneuvered service, where his sexuality may or may not have been suspected. If it is hard to accept that any one man could have been as lucky as Barrow, we can always look at him as a compilation of the better experiences of gay men who served, for what it's worth. And when so many characters on Downton Abbey landed on their feet so often with grace, why would we need Barrow to suffer?

 

Speaking of historical fantasies, why don't we ever talk about Outlander in this forum? Not only is it made by some of "our favorite" DS9 writers/producers, it would probably give us insights into how homosexuality might have been dealt with in DS9, including a a very sadistic pansexual character who might be described as an analogue of Dukat.

 

Eh, individual aspects may have been true, but the show pushes things very far. Lord Grantham repeatedly states that the purpose of Downton is to provide jobs for the community, and the lengths he goes to for his servants border on the unbelievable. As mentioned earlier, taking a cook who ignored what was asked of her and wound up embarrassing the house at an important meal to see a Harley Street doctor seems genuinely risible. Certainly some pre-war families would have treated their servants better than others, but I doubt any went so far across the board, and in any case the real disdain with which upper class people often treated their servants seems to be presented as the exception. I'd say flagrantly ahistorical does fit the bill.

I'm not trying to cancel the show or anything. I did enjoy it, especially the first couple of seasons, but that's part of what makes it feel like a guilty pleasure.

 

All I can say for Mrs. Patmore is that by then she'd been serving that family for quite a long time, and she'd speak regularly to Cora about planning a menu when they are hosting. Daisy wasn't ready to be the head cook yet, and a good experienced cook was getting to be hard to find with the increase in restaurants giving cooks the chance to work only 9 or 10 hours a day! What would they do with all the time off!

In the first season, Barrow was still just a footman who occassionally substituted as a valet. They could have replaced him easily. When Lord Grantham had witnesses to him

Spoiler

stealing wine and sabatoging the other servants so that things would go wrong that they could be blamed for

, Barrow would have been out before breakfast, with no reference, and never allowed past the threshhold again. From the house owner's point of view, what's worse than a servant who can't keep their hands off your stuff? The thought that a few years later you might

Spoiler

put him in charge of the wine cellar he'd been stealing from

makes no sense.

Claiming that Downton exists to provide jobs is sort of silly. It does provides jobs, but also a life of great comfort and leisure for the family that owns it. Downton and places like it exist so that the families that own them can boost their status by hosting huge parties of other aristocratic families. Those parties help their children to mix with the young adults of other familes to make marriages, to solidify friendships, and to impress each other. That's why the dozens of bedrooms for their guests and quarters for their guests' servants, that's why the huge rooms for entertaining. Sure, they could have lived in a cottage on the estate like the Dower House and been reasonably comfortable - but then

Spoiler

the King and Queen and their entourage wouldn't have come visit

. Many of the families who still own these houses really live in a cottage most of the time, but once or twice a year when the tourists aren't on guided tours through the house they throw a party for many friends something like they used to do prior to the Great War - with servants hired just for the event.

 

In an attemp to bring this discussion of English society back to Garak, I think that there was a wink to those who wanted him to come out. When (fake) Garak is dying (ETA: in The Search pt 2), he apologizes to Bashir because he will miss their lunch. This sounds to me like Cole Porter's Miss Otis Regrets. The song is about a society woman who after shooting her lover, is lynched by a mob. Miss Otis is often understand as a man, perhaps a transvestite, who is lynched for being gay. The song features the refrain, including her last words before dying, "Miss Otis regrets she's unable to lunch today."

 

When I had originally watched DS9, I went straight in at season 4 because I was only interested in the Dominion arc. I never really picked up anything between Garek and Bashir. However, I have just started watching DS9 from the start and noticed that there was something going on with the first meeting between the two of them in that scene.

My impression of the Cardassians weren't a friendly speices and used intimidation to dominate and intimidate other in order to get power over them. My take on the Garek/Bashir scene was that Garek wasn't sexual but an attempt to subtly intimidate a fresh and somewhat naive Federation officer with innuendo and being a bit touchy feely.

I doubt very much that Garek would take that approach with say either Sisko or O'Brien. I make a more standoffish, gruff and bluster approach would be used instead.