Comments | shanghaiedinla: Open Letter to Julian Fellowes

shanghaiedinla

Open Letter to Julian Fellowes

Jan 19, 2013 04:12

[Downton Abbey S3/S4 Spoilers Ahead]

This week, The Powers That Be could not seem to speak with one voice, so I think it is important that we, the Downton fandom, do. Amidst the panic over possible S4 plotlines, I decided to stop gnashing my teeth and do something a bit more productive. ... So I wrote an open letter to Julian Fellowes. A more succinct, abridged version (courtesy of ( Read more... )

mary/matthew, tombranson, sybil/tom, television, m/m, mary/tom, sybilbranson, julianfellowes, m/t, daspoilers, downtonabbey, openletter, s/t, marycrawley, matthewcrawley

Comments 17

ext_1584064 January 19 2013, 21:26:21 UTC

I can tell you the response now. "Lord Fellowes has read your letter and thanks you for your interest in Downton Abbey." You will not change anything he intends to write.

shanghaiedinla January 19 2013, 21:32:41 UTC

Actually I'm less worried about JF than I am about the producers who seem to be intent on persuading him to move Mary on with someone else immediately. The beauty of an open letter is that it isn't solely for the eyes of the recipient. I have a PR plan in place. In the end, it may not work, but I'm going to give it a go.

ext_1584064 January 19 2013, 21:57:07 UTC

Fellowes owns the characters and the story. No-one will persuade him to write anything he doesn't want to write. IMO, he is very well aware of the furore over Stevens leaving and it won't make any difference; neither will any PR plan you have. He takes no notice of critics - to him you are just another critic.

shanghaiedinla January 19 2013, 22:25:11 UTC

Thanks for stopping by.

I disagree with your assertion that he "takes no notice of critics." I think he's enjoyed the critical (and popular) success a great deal; in fact I think the show, if not him personally, has come to rely on it.

In any event, you're entitled to your opinion. I won't be taking down the post, however, or the petition -- not yet at least. If you agree with my remarks, I would appreciate it if you would sign the petition even if you think I'm tilting at windmills. If not, then we'll each merrily go our own ways on this issue.

Thread 10

chelseagirl January 19 2013, 21:29:30 UTC

FWIW, it was not possible under English law for a man to marry his deceased wife's sister until 1907 -- look up the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act. (I did my grad work on the Victorian novel, where this comes up . . . )

shanghaiedinla January 19 2013, 21:43:24 UTC

Yeah, that's come up several times in my discussions with others ... but of course we're beyond the period where it would have been a legal barrier. It still could pose a social/cultural barrier, though, which is perhaps the tenor of your comment.

chelseagirl January 19 2013, 22:11:38 UTC

That *was* my point -- if it was legally impermissible for centuries, one wonders how socially acceptable it was less than two decades later.

shanghaiedinla January 20 2013, 00:59:08 UTC

Agreed. Thanks for your comment.

modernities January 23 2013, 23:15:31 UTC

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

anonymous February 18 2013, 03:52:25 UTC

In America,we will not be watching downton Abbey any more..I and my friends are done done and done. We think it is senseless to kill Mathew after he sees his newborn son.Mr. Dan stevens is a wonderful actor and you could keep him in coma for a little time, while he pursues his other interests and then he could come out of coma and can be part of his family.
We were part of this show but you have to care about your viewers..Thanks

shanghaiedinla February 18 2013, 08:29:36 UTC

I understand your frustration. But I truly do believe Stevens left Fellowes in an impossible position as a writer. They were willing to reduce his role on the show to just a couple of episodes per season and the actor still said no. If someone won't even make an appearance now and then, how can you credibly keep the character alive ( ... )