dismay and a question

[kindkit]

I have not actually watched Downton Abbey and have no intention to, but yesterday I learned, through other sources, that (sort of spoilery I guess):(skip) the only queer character is a selfish, amoral villain.

Has anyone perchance critiqued this approach? I feel like what I've mostly seen all over the internets is either "OMG Downton Abbey is so great, yay!" or "Downton Abbey is a silly soap opera," but no "Let's talk about problematic and stereotypical representation." Admittedly, though, I haven't been looking for it.

Comments

[flo_nelja]

I don't watch Downtown Abbey either, but I have seen critique about this, without searching.
(I hope it reassures you a little)

[resolute]

I've seen it critiqued, yes.

In-show it's balanced by amoral, selfish, heterosexual villains and by a nice look at the attitudes of the day. (At no point is it suggested that Thomas is amoral *because* he is gay, which is refreshing.)

None of which excuses the show for not doing better for the era the show is being written in. Er, what I mean to say is, the Watsonian explanations are sound and good, the Doylist ones are absent, weak, or crappy.

And Some of them Kept a Carriage, and All of them Went to Hell

[executrix]

It's like Mad Men with longer skirts--they're *all* awful. And of course soap operas require awful behavior to keep the Drama going. Even Lord Grantham can afford to be kindly in his remote way because he's living off the efforts of others without lifting a finger.

[lilacsigil]

Yes, there's critique, but really he's one of many, many villainous characters and he's at his most sympathetic when he is able to express his sexuality or even tenderness towards other men.