James A. Zarzana.com
  • Home/Bio
  • The Eclectic Blog
  • Poetry
    • At the Flanders Fields Museum, Ypres, May 2010
  • Marsco Saga
    • Summary
    • Sample Chapters >
      • The Dissident's Daughter
      • The Plague Ship
  • Miscellany
  • Contact

Downton Abbey and the Loss of Matthew Crawley -- Spoiler Alert!

3/3/2013

0 Comments

 
              Downton Abbey and our loss of Matthew Crawley
                                       Spoiler Alert!
                                               *
            Okay, first an apology for not posting anything in nearly a year. I know I have no excuse except “I’ve been busy.” That’s a feeble one, but it’s all I can offer.
            Busy end of my Spring ’12 semester. Busy summer winding down my five-year tenure as Chair of the English Department here at SMSU. Busy sabbatical semester which included lots of writing and editing and reading; a week-long trip to California for a wedding; a three-week trip to London, Bath, and Canterbury; then home to surgery (needed but not life-threatening); Notre Dame going 12-0 during their regular season; Thanksgiving, Christmas, and an intense Landmark Forum Weekend; and then school resuming with a rush and with me again teaching fulltime.
                     [Insert a longing breath for more sabbatical
                              disguised as a deep sigh…..]
                                                     *
            And now here I am, heartbroken over the Season Three finale of Downton Abbey.
            I wish I could sing it like Curly does in Oklahoma!, “ol’ Judd is dead, poor Judd Frye is dead…” but I can’t. Judd wasn’t dead, but Matthew Crawley is most sincerely dead. He lies in a ditch; blood running down his handsome, young face; crushed by his sports car that flipped over on top of him after being hit by a furniture remover’s lorry on a beautiful Yorkshire road near Downton Abbey itself.
            Only moments before, he’d held his son, his only child, born of his beautiful wife, Lady Mary, who never looked better even though she just went through labor and delivery.
            And he’s saved the estate, Downton. And he’s saved his brother-in-law, Tom Branson, from poverty and estrangement from the Crawley family. And he’s saved Cousin Rose, Lady Rose MacClare of Scotland, from running off with a married man three times her age and as randy as a goat on the heather-covered moors of Scotland. And he stood by his sister-in-law, Lady Edith, as she strove to become a journalist.
            Oh, Matthew, so middle-class! He once worked as a lawyer, after all, and is the son of a physician whose practice was in Manchester, the hallmark of all things “trade” in Edwardian times. And yet, he grows so aware of what it will take to save an institution like Downton for generations to come and understands why that’s important for his family and the nation. And those will be his generations, since he managed to melt the icy-but-not-so-maiden Lady Mary and produce a one-and-only heir by her.
           I think at times, if it weren’t for bad luck, the Crawley family would have no luck at all.
           Let’s take Lady Mary as an example. She’s born into the most powerful social class ever, the Gentry of the Victorian Period, and she grows up surrounded by limitless Edwardian splendor. But that enormous grandeur can’t be hers; she’s a woman and can’t inherit directly.  This is a historically inaccurate plot line, by the way. Jane Austen used the same last will and testament tension in Pride and Prejudice, but it wasn’t accurate even in 1813. By 1912, women didn’t have all the rights they do now, but it’s reasonable to assume Lady Mary would have been sitting pretty without tying the knot to secure her own home. But, in 2011 when Season One opens, we accept this twist of fate and horrid Crawley luck as history, but it’s not.
          So, Julian Fellowes, our script writer, has taken some liberties with Lady Mary’s fortune.
           And, even before the opening credits for Episode One (Season One) have ceased running (with the spectacular Highclere Castle in the background and swarms of starched servants preparing breakfast and ironing the newspaper to stop the ink from bleeding), Lady Mary is left with an unscathed heart. This is April 15, 1912, the morning that the tragedy of the Titanic makes headlines. Lady Mary’s fiancé died on that emblem of wretched excess gone with the waves.
          In A Room with a View by E. M. Forester and published in 1908, Lucy and her brother refer to all fiancés as fiascos; it’s a running family joke in this Matthew Crawley-like middle-class family. Lady Mary’s never-seen-on-screen-alive-or-dead fiancé fits as a fiasco to be sure. He was a distant cousin of her father’s, the Earl of Grantham, Robert Crawley, and conveniently close enough in blood to be a lackey for Lady Mary to marry the estate she loves.
          Unlike John Brown, who lies moldering in his grave, this cousin’s remains are never recovered, and he is declared dead.
          Lady Mary wears black, but hardly feels the loss except for the inconvenience of having to find another way “to marry Downton” as it were.
          Her luck runs from rot to riot as a lover dies in her illicitly sensuous bed, potentially razing her social status while her jealous sister, Edith, stokes the fires of ruinous scandal.   
          Now enter Matthew Crawley, by chance, a more-distant cousin and only living male descendent able to inherit Downton from Lord Crawley. Matthew, of course, is smitten at once by the beautiful and haughty Lady Mary, but he manages to insult her even before she’s properly introduced herself and delicately raised the veil of her riding habit, so fashionable in 1890 yet still in style at the Yorkshire Downton estate. Soon, to show how much he really loves her, he even tries to disinherit himself. He knows the law. He tries to give back his future title, and thus Downton, but can’t while he’s upright. No way exists to do so.
          Another unlucky sister of the Downton threesome is Lady Sybil. She’s the youngest, a bit wild, appearing in one scene wearing I Dream of Jeannie Harem garb and in another helping a house maid secure a position as a typist, at the time, a job with a future for a young, independent woman.
          When Lady Sybil is being wildly political by going to a Suffragette Rally that turns violent, Matthew comes along with Branson, the chauffer, to save her. It’s at this point that Lady Mary sees Matthew for what he really is, a decent, smart, kind gentleman who happens to love her and happens to have the key to her happiness—the future ownership of Downton. But, in fairness, I think Lady Mary is more caring and generous than not, but brought up to presume that life will always be fair to her and always gild her way.
          That evening, after Lady Sybil is back safe at Downton, Lady Mary order sandwiches for Matthew. They sit together in a small dining room, just the two. He has wine, which he offers to share but lacks a second wineglass. She accepts but won’t break the enthralling spell by ringing for a servant to fetch one. She drinks from his crystal goblet; one sip’s all it took.
          At the end of The Princess Bride, the grandfather tells his grandson that Wesley’s kiss of Buttercup was one of the best ever given. I would rate Matthew’s leaning over and kissing Mary after he proposes (the first time) right up there. The way she hold his neck to draw him closer, it’s a marvelously done scene. In this informal setting in an all-too-formal world, the seemingly invulnerable woman allows herself to be vulnerable, allows herself to love an honorable man.
          Then, her change of heart: her engagement with Matthew is off and the Great War is on.  Season One closes as that magnificent world ends, at English high summer with its gaiety and splendor, and with thoughts of Sarajevo far from everyone’s mind. No one at Downton that bright day knew the lights were going out all over Europe; no one knew they’d never be lit for these gilded elites again. No one at that summer lawn party has the gruesome vision to imagine the unimaginable horrors of Ypres or Gallipoli or Verdun.
          Season Two begins with Captain Matthew Crawley a gallant officer on the Western Front, the Somme specifically, about the worst hell-hole in the whole bloody, aimless affair. He’s now engaged to Miss Lavinia Swires, like himself, a wealthy middle class denizen. And luckless Lady Mary has snagged a wealthy scoundrel from the heap of conniving opportunists circulating London society but not in uniform.  She takes up this second fiasco, Sir Richard Carlisle, a wealthy up-and-coming newspaper mogul whom no one likes and many fear, even though clearly she prefers the engaged-to-another-woman Matthew. Dante would be hard pressed to know into which circle of Hell to fling this fiasco; he’s mean-spirited and threatening, vindictive, arrogant, and utterly contemptuous of the very privileged society he hopes to marry up to. Even the butler, Mr. Carson, knows better than agree to work for the future bride and her brooding, ill-tempered groom-elect.
          Also in Season Two, Lady Sybil becomes a nurse surrounded by Gentry officers but falls for her father’s worst nightmare, the chauffer:  a commoner, an Irish Catholic, a Sinn Féin supporter, and one solidly principled and conscientious young man. No father could ask for more of his Irish son-in-law except possibly a Trinity degree.
          And this season ends with the Great War reaching its non-conclusive Armistice and the Great Influenza cutting its snarling swath through many of the War’s survivors, including Matthew’s Lavinia. But eventually, Lady Mary sees the light, accepts Matthew’s hand (a second time) and his second memorable kiss in the snow of Christmas 1919. All seems set for a happy Season Three.
          But early in Season Three, Lady Sybil, now Mrs. Branson, dies from complications of childbirth, which paints a cross-hair target on Lady Mary’s back at the end of this season when she, like her sister, becomes pregnant. Was Sybil’s condition hereditary, and thus, would Lady Mary suffer the same fate? Would this pregnancy be another successful live birth that tragically costs the mother her life?
          Circumstances beyond the control of the producers forced Julian Fellowes to let Lady Mary and child both survive but forced Matthew’s death. Dan Stevens’ decision to leave Downton Abbey after three years left few options. So, Matthew, played by Stevens, dies in that ditch five minutes before the end of Season Three.
          It’s a painful loss. Matthew was so upstanding without being a prig, so middle-class in the best sense: fair and open, willing to hear all sides, dedicated to his principled causes, willing to speak up against the disdainful authority and omnipresent precedence of class and society as often represented by his father-in-law. And he loved Lady Mary and let her know it. He actually seemed to me to be the embodiment of everything we brag about as being a modern, enlightened, and liberal-minded American.
          In the USA, Season Four won’t start until January 2014. We’ve ten months to fret, to hope for leaks from across the Pond informing us of what’s up at Downton, and to follow the actors as closely as we are following Princess Kate’s pregnancy.
          I speculate that Tom Branson will shine even more now that he’s not in the glare of Matthew’s stellar status. I’m pulling for Tom and Rose to fall into a stunning and fulfilling love. And I hope Lady Mary will discover she can run Downton as well as our deceased Matthew did. And here’s a plug for Lady Edith finally finding an honorable single man rather than converting to Catholicism and joining an order of nuns heading off to equatorial Africa as a missionary.
          But I fear for Matthew and Lady Mary’s son, who will be old enough in Downton Abbey, Season Twenty-Two to die on the beaches of Dunkirk.  

0 Comments

Libya: 2010 -- The Great War 1914-1918

4/13/2011

0 Comments

 
                Libya:  2011 – The Great War 1914-1918

        “Only the dead have seen the end to war.”  George Santayana 

    I am sure much of the political irony about Libya is lost on the average American college student.  I think that’s the case because the average American knows little about World War I, “The Great War” which raged in Europe, Africa, parts of Asia, and on all the oceans from 1914 to 1918.  It ended nearly 100 years ago and yet we still live with the repercussions of that debacle.  

    My comments are in no way intended to be a defense of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the self-proclaimed Libyan “King of Kings,” the horrific despot who runs Libya, as all despots do, with an iron fist.  He’s not much of a tyrant since he really only controls a bit of sand and beach plus thousands of square miles of dry wadies and desert wastes dotted with an occasional oasis.  If Libya didn’t sit on vast reserves of oil, few would pay attention to it or to its ranting lunatic of a ruler.  (Compare Libya to the Sudan, and you will know what I mean.)  

    Pan Am Flight 103 and Lockerbie aside, (and Gaddafi was only tangentially involved with these after the fact, it seems), Libya hasn’t hurt Europe, and Europe only cares for Libya when her refugees clamor to seek safety in Sicily or when oil prices soar.  

    And yet, Libya is front page on our few remaining newspapers and on our incessant 24-hour networks.  Today isn’t the first time armies are pushing along the Mediterranean coast road and then falling back as airpower shifts the balance of power.  It happened in the early 40’s during World War II.       

    The crux of the irony right now, however, isn’t World War II, it’s World War I. French and British jets are pounding Gaddafi and his armed forces.  The US is aiding in this, especially with cruise missiles, but the Europeans are the ones driving this campaign.  Since the British, French, and Americans are part of NATO, NATO is also involved, which means, (if you are following me), that Turkey is involved.  Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952.

    And so, here is the historical irony.  European and Euro-Asian nations (Britain, France, and Turkey) are exerting a military presence over North Africa yet again.  Thumb through any world history book, and you’ll see that these nations have done this all before.  Turkey was once the Ottoman Empire and in the Great War, the Ottoman Turks allied themselves with the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary.  

    And at this time, the Allies, specifically the British and French (along with their attendant empires) tried to first invade Turkey through the Dardanelles, the ill-fated Gallipoli invasion that made Australian and New Zealand soldiers famous.  (The movie, Gallipoli, helped make Mel Gibson famous to Americans; it’s still worth viewing.)  When this invasion failed, the Allies tried a different tactic.  At this time, the Ottoman Empire stretched through what are today independent nations.  (Perhaps not free nations in any political sense, but independent nonetheless.)  Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, to name only a few nations once dominated by the Turks.  Not as far around the Mediterranean coast as Egypt and beyond all the way to Libya, but in the far reaches of the Mediterranean and down to the Persian Gulf, Ottoman Turkey ruled for centuries without rival.

    Wars have a way of producing an opportunistic guise for adventuring countries.  Britain and France, then the number one and number two European empires and thus the number one and two empires of the world, were no exception.  In heartfelt political proclamations about the rights of peoples to command their own destinies, the British mainly (with the French clamoring for a share of the spoils) destabilized the Turks.  (Another fantastic film, Lawrence of Arabia, tells this story; it is also worth watching.)

    Come 1919 when the whole area was at peace and the new maps drawn, it was no surprise who controlled the areas and who didn’t.  But this heartfelt concern for the locals was a deception.  The European empires wanted to replace the old Turkish Empire with their own, and they did just that.  

    At Southwest Minnesota State University, I teach a great deal about World War I in various classes:  20th Century British LIT, a First-Year Experience class whose topic is solely the Great War, various Global Studies seminars (in which we actually take students to the battlefields of Belgium and France).  As a scholar of the history and literature of the British Empire during this specific period, I often remind students that wherever there is tension in the world today, probably Europeans drew the maps.  And they probably drew them in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles in which the victorious Empires thought that their myopic vision for the world (which was based on the sacrosanct idea that they were right at all times) was not just the best vision for the world, but the only vision for the world.

    It took a second world war to disabuse them of this notion.

    What a difference a war makes.  The end of World War I with its ill-conceived Treaty of Versailles was actually the beginning of World War II.  World War II ended with the United Nations and its two major tenets:  make war impossible and end colonialism.

    With jets hitting targets in Libya, perhaps part of the UN Charter doesn’t seem so successful.  And with these former colonial powers leading this charge, perhaps the second part of the Charter is being overlooked as well.  History will be the judge.  And the irony isn’t lost on the observant.  

    Back in college, I remember reading about the cycle of history:  anarchy becomes tyranny because people want stability more than anything else so they surrender to a strongman.  From this tyranny, an oligarchy rises as the tyrant needs to share power to keep it.  This becomes an aristocratic system as entrenched families pass their power down through the generations.  From this, people clamor for political power, hence republican and democratic ways of governing rise up.  But these all fail in time and collapse back into anarchy which sets the whole political landscape in motion once again.  

    The future world I create for The Marsco Saga explores modern democracies after they fail.  The main characters are struggling amid their personal success:  they are part of the power structure which has risen from post-democracy anarchy to give the world stability.  But, they chaff against the draconian methods Marsco employs to stay in power.  The few chapters I’ve posted give you a sense of this central tension running throughout the novels.       

0 Comments

    The purpose of this blog...

    The Zarzana Eclectic Blog seeks to occasionally publish essays about assorted topics that would interest a wide reading audience.

    Blogroll

    Marianne Zarzana

    Archives

    March 2020
    September 2019
    February 2019
    September 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    June 2014
    May 2014
    September 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    March 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011

    Categories

    All
    Books
    Cats
    Church And State
    Coffee
    Cowan Award
    Democracy
    Disability
    Dogs
    Downton Abbey
    Education
    Friends
    Italy
    Libya
    Marsco
    Marshall
    Minnesota Transfer Curriculum
    Movies
    Notre Dame
    Novels
    Reading
    Sicily
    Smsu
    Space
    The Civil War
    The Great War
    Time
    Travel
    Us Constitution
    Winter
    World War Two
    Writing

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.