I firmly believe that Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham is not only bisexual, but he earnestly believes that every man on planet Earth is just naturally bi.

On the one hand, he totally gets Thomas being attracted to men. Who doesn’t fool around with other chaps at school or in the trenches, come on now??? But eventually you grow up, get married to some nice girl, have children. That’s just how it’s done. So Robert simultaneously juggles confusion regarding Thomas’s inability to “get with the program,” so to speak.

And then of course there’s the unspoken, lightly simmering sexual tension between him and Bates. Robert “knows” it’s mutual - meanwhile, Bates knows it isn’t actually mutual, but he’s much too polite to ever mention that.

so i’ve been rewatching downton abbey, and here are some miscellanous thomas & o’brien thoughts from the beginning of s2:

-why do we never address how traumatized thomas has been by the war? we see multiple scenes of him having a breakdown in the trenches, and then he’s so desperate he gets himself shot, and then we never follow up on his war service ever again????? (nor do we ever address the fact that his hand injury is, or at least should be, a very legitimate disability).

-i headcanon that the reason thomas is so conceited about his position when he comes back to downton is not only bc it’s meaningful to him that he’s left his live in service as a footman, but also that it’s his way of dealing with (concealing) the trauma he’s just been through.

-watching siobhan finneran act as o’brien in these first two episodes is delightful. she delivers such a nuanced performance, especially in her facial expressions.

-o’brien had no real reason to scheme to get thomas a position back at downton estate, except for the fact that she cares for him. and you can see it on her face when he arrives back, that she’s *so* happy to see him home safe. it’s really quite touching, especially to see a tiny bit of genuine care in a relationship that is so heavily guarded (and also frequently mean-spirited) most of the time.

-that’s what’s so interesting about o’brien and thomas to me--they are often quite mean--but their relationship does have a core of mutual care. and i don’t think they’re simply bullies. i think they’re both quite jaded and (rightfully) frustrated by classist society they see around them, and take that out on people around then (even when it’s not fair at all). i think they see in each other a partner-in-crime--a way to have a bit of fun, and a way to regain a bit of power and control in a position where they’re virtually dependent on the kindness of their employer.

-bc o’brien is not pure evil! she cares about lady grantham quite genuinely, it seems. a contradiction to the contempt she sometimes voices for the family. i really do think there’s a genuine care for thomas, at this point. she’s kind to lang. she clearly cares for her family. and yet, at other times, she’s mean seemingly for no reason (bates in particularly). it’s super interesting to watch and think about all these contradictions she holds.

So I've just finally seen Downton Abbey II (which means I can finally unblock the Downton Abbey tag!) and here are my thoughts in case that is of interest to anyone:

That embroidered blue coat Lucy wears just after her wedding is gorgeous, I want the same (that was my first thought so sorry, this costume-y note comes first)

I liked the idea of the movie, but I didn't like the actors though. Myrna Dagleish's transformation from "spoilt and silly girl" to "shy and grateful woman" was too sudden, even if it helped enhance Cora's kindness. Guy's romance with Thomas was unnecessary and I wish they'd kept Richard as Thomas' love interest instead of throwing him away and coming up with another romance. And Jack Barber was... nice, I just wasn't sure why they wanted to draw this romance with Mary, it would have been nicer to have them just as co-workers I think. And Mary's line "it feels good to a married woman to see she still can attract men" was too much like Cora's pseudo-romance with Bricker, so... didn't like it.

The villa in the south of France. Glorious architecture, stunning landscape, incredible colours. Loved to see Edith's wardrobe perfectly matching the landscape (all those oranges and teals... Incredible).

Nathalie Baye seemed a bit off to me though? I'm French and I watched the movie in English but something in her lines disturbed me. I think the dialogues have been written in English and then translated into French and something wasn't natural with them.

Cobert Angst. Unnecessary to some extent, because the malignant anemia has already been used for Lord Merton and I already didn't like the "Deus ex machina" effect. But that scene in the garden? Robert breaking down thinking he's going to lose his wife? I loved it. The sweet scenes between them (when he took her hand in the boat!) were so beautiful. Loved them from start to finish. Robert's own interrogations about his origins were a good way to put him in an uncomfortable position and to give him and Cora new challenges to face.

Edith and Bertie, on the contrary, were so happy! Seeing Edith starting to write again was so cute. Also, wow, this girl can dance? She makes smooth moves at the party. She looked a bit like Duchess during the jazz scene in The Aristocats (I know, I know, my references are odd).

Mary and Edith. I've always been a Mary stan but I didn't like her evolution in season 6. I'm so glad to see they're at peace now, they confide in each other and it warmed my heart. They even joke and tease each other, but in a nice and harmless way. The way they cuddle just after Violet dies reminded me of Sybil's death, and I could see how both of them improved over the years. Mary and Edith's relationship is probably my favourite aspect of the movie.

Speaking of Violet's death, I loved the way it was built up during the whole movie. Giving everybody time to think about it, and finally having a peaceful death at Downton, was all we could wish for her. I'm glad she had time to speak to everyone before dying and even to have the last word with Denker. Loved this Oscar Wilde-like last sentence.

Oh, and Tom's and Violet's scene when she admits she wasn't fond of him in the beginning but she loves him and is glad they're friends? Made me tear up.

The funeral was so well-paced, too! Mary's and Carson's scene was so sweet and inevitably reminded me of their scene in S4E1.

Also, if anyone knows where I can find a brooch similar to the one Violet wears before passing it on to Mary? I want good Downton Abbey merch, I'm tired of seeing shirts and mugs to be honest.

Another costume-y note: the burgundy silk dressing-gown Mary wears for approximately 10 seconds in her bedroom was gorgeous, I need it.

Molesley and Baxter's arc. So cute. Their happy ending is definitely worth the wait. The proposal scene was both funny and sweet, just like them.

Loved the additional plot of Mrs Patmore and Mr Mason, and the part Daisy took in it. It was just a beginning, so it didn't add too much new details into the film but it was enough for us to hope and I'm here for it.

Also, Carson being Carson. Enough said. Flawless.

That's it I think. My inbox is open to chat if anyone fancies to!

I am extremely interested in your draft/post about Downton Abbey and the timeline 👀

Important disclaimer: I was never in the fandom of the series, so I'm completely ignorant as to word of god and fanon, and might have forgotten some details of the plot as the years have passed since I watched.

*video essay voice* (bear with me) in 1980, British playwright Peter Flannery, while watching rehearsals for Henry IV, felt inspired to write his own historical epic, a Shakespearean sort of short History of his native Newcastle from the 60s to the present, interweaving the personal History of 4 "friends" with the big historical events of Britain through those years, to create a strong political narrative through them, but that was life-like enough in its everyday life details and turns as to feel real. The characters deal with their desire to change the world, achieve success, recognition, or even just survive, and experience hope and hopelessness by turns*

This theater play, called Our Friends in the North, caught the eye of the BBC, and after several back-and-forths it was adapted into 9 episodes in 1996. It was a big bet (it cost 8 million pounds to produce) and a big hit, and I do get the gut feeling that in some corner, the first season of Downton is inspired in OFITN as a concept, a sort of Our Freenemies in Yorkshire, but that its own success derailed it into a different direction, and made it Edwardian-Roaring 20s Aristofairytaleland, the same way Regency Romance tends to take place on a Regency Fairytale land full of dukes and none of the social, economical and political problems of the time.

S1 of DA hinges around the "Death of the old world" theme: it opens with its first marker (the sinking of the Titanic) and closes with the last marker (the beginning of the Great War). The central plot is that of the survival of Downton as a place and an institution -the kickstart is the death of James and Patrick aboard the Titanic, and the next heir presumptive being a middle class lawyer, an outsider to the aristocracy. The old, dying aristocracy, managed to patch up their situation by marrying rich American heiresses, like Cora, but it doesn't have any vitality for the future: the heir (Robert and Cora's son) is born dead. The question then is "can the aristocracy make a bridge with the raising professional middle class, merge with it in order to gain new life?" that's what Matthew's plotline this season is all about, specially in his growing and changing relationship with Robert and Mary (who are the epitome representatives of the aristocracy, with lady Violet): there is a small seed of aspiration that grows through the season, but gets quashed once he realizes that as much as he has grown to care for the Crowleys, they haven't really grown to care for him as anything but an uncomfortable necessity. And so he leaves. And the Great War begins. No compromise can be reached, the old world is dead.

I don't think I say anything controversial when I say that Fellowes and Downton as a series loves Mary with undying devotion; she gets a second chance at Matthew in s2 that she wouldn't have gotten IRL, and she would have kept Matthew forever if the actor didn't want out. And I think Dan Stevens wanting out (and Jessica Brown's to a certain extent), and as much as he can say within the bounds of politeness, has a lot to do with a sense that the series he signed up for was not the series he ended up being in on the follow up seasons. Matthew, who was a central character to the main plot of the series in s1, now gravitates Mary's storylines, because that pressing conflict of the inheritance is solved, and he can be disposed of as soon as he produces a male heir without causing any plot-ripples. A story about Downton the house as anchoring to class conflicts and point of connection with big events becomes a story of Mary and her relatives with Downton as a mainly aesthetic backdrop as s2 progresses (yes, yes, every once in a while some lip service is given to "money troubles" and having to downsize, but it's just... that).

As seasons progress, as well, the historical markers to open and close a season disappear, and so do... general historical events at all. The story gets atomized and more and more separated from History, and "the old world is dying" theme vanishes.

So, now, on this premise (that Downton S1 and Downton s2-6 are different animals, with different core themes and structures) where do I think a true continuation of S1 would have gone?

Mind you, I haven't plotted five series to detail, because I'm not that invested. But also it feels like DA the series itself started running out of plot after s4 anyways, so, in general lines:

The same way OFITN did (episodes were each set on a different year: 64, 66, 67, 70, 74, 79, 84, 87, 95) every series would have a time skip that would tie in with bigger scale events in Britain and the world (the end of the Great War, the Spanish Flu, the crack of 29', etc), and in my mind I would have it cover until the late 1940s: the series begins with a middle aged Robert and Cora, and ends with a middle-aged next generation.

Matthew does actually marry Lavinia, and takes William with him as they bonded in the war, and goes back to his job. They try to keep their distance from Downton, but, of course they keep getting drawn in because of the inheritance.

Matthew's marriage to Lavinia means a vital wake-up call for Mary: she -and by extension the aristocracy- cannot always get what she wants, even though her name and status carry a lot of importance. But she also experiences new freedom because her choice of husband has now no influence on the fate of the estate. I think she'd choose to travel a lot, in ways that would widen her mental horizons and change her feelings and perspective about her family. I even feel like her marrying Henry Talbot in the end makes sense; she remains ever the aristocrat (although I'd think she'd marry later, probably past her mid-30s, a spirit of the new times).

Sybil's storyline remains the same, minus death (in this scheme, the core characters that thread the timeline are the Crawley sisters AND Matthew), but she never returns to Downton to stay, and it is through her and her visits that we do get the perspectives and storylines of the process of independence for Ireland, and her complicated position as wife of an Irish man but daughter of a British earl. You can even get stories in the later years storylines like Marygold trying to run to Ireland and her aunt after WWII breaks.

A similar thing goes for Edith; if Mary is and makes the choice of aristocracy, and Sybil makes the choice of a working class life, then Edith embodies a commercial-professional upper middle class aspiration (in fact, I do think that her punching-bag status in the series has a lot to do with Fellowes derision of that class), so it makes sense for her to do most of the things she does towards her place in life; just cut some of the drama and no sudden marquess nonsense in the end. Edith and Bertie marry and remain successful editors/printers/periodical owners.

As for the house itself, of course Matthew inherits (you could set Robert's death for 1929, and then have a Lavinia inheritance save the estate after Robert's failed investments like it goes in s1). I do think this lends itself to interesting dynamics, specially with the servants, considering the aristocratic head is gone and the Great War significantly changed the self-image of the serving class, plus the return of William now in a much more privileged place; but also with Cora as the new Dowager and Lavinia as the new Lady Grantham. How do the children adapt to their new home and status? How did their parents conduct their upbringing? I think you can do a lot there (I'd assume just two children, a boy and a girl).

I do also think it'd be interesting to contrast the rising tensions in the 30s as Mary perceives them through her continental travels -I can imagine Henry Talbot joining the foreign service and getting at least obliquely involved in spy shenanigans- and Edith through her very localized work.

The Kingsmen movies play with this idea of WWI creating a generation of fathers who buried their sons and had to take their places. The Crawleys escape this by having only daughters, so I think it is fitting for Matthew and Lavinia's son to die in WWII, and for the daughter to become a war bride and move to the US, as the centre of power moves from the UK to the US.

Downton, more and more difficult to maintain as the years pass, cannot survive the economic blow of WWII, and Mathew and Lavinia, now middle aged, don't have the energy and vitality to begin again; and so they make an arrangement with the just-founded National Trust after the war ends: the main part of the house becomes a museum, but they still get a part of it to live in. I think, after a family reunion tea/party to wrap things up, you can have as a symbolic last shot, a close up of Matthew's hand as he turns over the keys to the Downton gates to the National Trust agent, CUT TO BLACK AND THE DOWNTON ABBEY THEME.

So, hm, that's pretty much it. Please do not maul me to death XD

*While I think the series was very well written, I'd hesitate to recommend it here as there was too much explicit nudity and sexual content for my taste and that of many people here. The 2022 radio adaptation seems to be faithful to the original tv series and avoid that problem, but of course you lose on the other visuals that are quite impressive (and believe me, besides some awkward wigs and make up, they really did blow up that 8 million pound budget in many ways).

Honestly would have preferred them to do something with Izzy Hands like they did with Thomas from Downton Abbey who goes from being a villain to struggling with his sexuality, depression, suicide attempt but then eventually makes friends and even ends up dating an actor.

Izzy could have found people that understood and loved him but instead he died mid-redemption. :(

Carson is an interesting character

I wish Jimmy had had more time to develop as a character. he had so much potential. (imo) the man was gay but not exactly closeted, he just didn't even know it because he was too occupied trying to fill the role he was supposed to fill to realize that was even possible. pretty boy working class ladies man voice I'm here to flirt with and kiss and pursue women I don't feel attracted to like any manly man should what do you MEAN I could just not do it?? ?? what do you mean you DON'T???? the way he resented thomas so badly at first, mainly because of his own fear of social exclusion (which O'brien used), trying so desperately to be SEEN the way he should be seen - - but slowly began to get closer to him and appreciate him and his friendship enough to let his guard down a little. I wish he had had more time to realize he didn't need to use women he didn't love as machines or props or characters in his adventure script (with the proper acknowledgement of that mistake), to realize he didn't have to accept being used by women who held power over him, to realize what love actually felt like. idk

One of the things that makes me trust Guy Dexter is that first scene with Thomas in the library, when he says “Anything I need? That’s a tall order.” Like… that’s a flirtation. Along the same lines of “Is that what you’ve found? A friend?” or “Perhaps he’s found better things to do…Why don’t you come with me?” To compare it to another upstairs guest, If Pamuk had said that to Thomas in season one, Thomas would have pounced on it.

But he doesn’t. He looks down and fumbles for a response… and without waiting for one, Guy quickly says “I’m sorry—I was teasing you. What I should have said is, I have everything I need. Thank you so much.” Sorry about that, it’s not meant to make you uncomfortable, I’ll let you get back to your job.

The next time we see an interaction between them, which from the script at least is implied to be their next one-on-one conversation, it’s in a public space where they’re surrounded by people. Thomas has drifted into the crowd listening to Guy when he has no real reason to be there; Guy initiates the direct conversation, but there’s no pressure and no flirtation. He asks Thomas a question about his life and seems genuinely interested and encouraging, and makes a little self-deprecating joke. In response, Thomas is pretty different than the first scene; his answer is cheerful and chatty.

The next conversation we see is more intimate again. Guy is mildly flirty with the “Just Barrow” bit, maybe, but mostly melancholy, and Thomas is kind and pays him a compliment and arguably flirts in return. I would say Thomas is definitely flirting in the next conversation—their first conversation in a private room. RJC’s delivery of “suppose someone comes in?” and “What’s your real name?” is coy and deliberate.

Guy does bring back the innuendo and extend a potentially romantic/sexual offer, but he doesn’t actually do it until Thomas has indicated he’ll be responsive to it in that scene. And in doing so, he emphasizes Thomas’s own comfort and agency three separate times—once with the “make us both comfortable” line, and then in the later scene with the “you’ve had enough of standing” comment (implying he wants to downplay the servant/employer element of their relationship) and again in deliberately saying the offer is whatever Thomas wants.

And at that point, the film crew has been there for over a month—potentially like 6-8 weeks, maybe, so even if we’re not meant to think they’ve had a bunch of substantial conversations in between, they have definitely been in the same spaces and observed their interactions with other people. Thomas has seen Guy interacting with everyone from Myrna Dagleish down to the maids, and Guy is unfailingly kind in almost every scene we see onscreen; even in the background of the scene where Myrna’s voice recording is a disaster, we see him comforting her, before anyone else really expresses sympathy for her. There are some really frustrating and dispiriting moments for Guy in the film, but he still has an even temper.

I understand there are probably some people who are never going to be comfortable with the idea of an employer/employee relationship and never going to be comfortable with them having known each other for a relatively short period of time, but tbh I think at a certain point the “what if” doomsday scenarios get a little silly precisely because I think the movie is so deliberate in showing us that Guy is Not That Kind of Person. He’s humble, patient, responds to nonverbal cues, and de-emphasizes the social gap between them at every point. Compare Guy’s portrayal to not only the Duke of Crowborough’s but also Richard Carlisle’s and Lady Anstruther’s—we’ve seen upper-class characters who take advantage of servants and we’ve seen self-made men who are defensive over their newfound status, and Guy is definitely not meant to be one of those people.

Julian Fellowes on Thomas Barrow’s Storyline in Downton Abbey: A New Era

Giving Barrow a happy, but honest, ending was important for Fellowes. “Despite the difficulties that were placed in front of gays, some people managed to work out compromises, and that meant they could live their life. And I wanted that to be Thomas’s story,” said Fellowes. “In the end, he found a way of living his life that was compatible with the society he found himself in. And I think that was the truth. Representing the truths of the time was important for me. It was a very sad time. Displays of homosexual affection were punishable by life imprisonment.”

Source: Vanity Fair 5/2022

Not sure that “waiting around till you win the [supposed] lottery” is the same as “working out a compromise”, which to me implies a level of activity and agency that I don’t see Thomas exhibit in DA2 at all…

But I’m really here to say that “Displays of homosexual affection were punishable by life imprisonment” is actually factually incorrect for Thomas’ era.

I don’t want to downplay that two years (often with hard labour) for “gross indecency” (= any display of homosexual affection, introduced in the Labouchere Amendment of 1885) were absolute horror and literally did shorten men’s lives.

But is it too much to ask the man who appoints himself to be the one who brings us “the truth” about queer life in the UK at the time to at least get his facts right, and not blow them out of proportion or be off by several decades to suit his “all queer people did nothing but SUFFER” agenda?

It was only “buggery/sodomy” (= proven penetrative sex, according to the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 as amended by the Penal Servitude Act of 1891) that carried a life sentence; according to some sources, convictions didn't exceed 10 years at the time.

Why is it that every time I realize that there is no point in sharing my unpopular character thoughts because the whole 'finding people who share them' thing is not going to happen - I am the only one in the entire damn fandom who thinks this way, and that's okay because it doesn't bother anyone else - and even the people who are willing to read a post I spent hours, if not days, thinking about and not auto dismiss it with maybe half a second's thought aren't actually going to address any of the points I make in their reply, it somehow just makes me want to write up even more unpopular character observations that I'm eventually going to just delete anyway 'cause I'm sick of listening to people tell me how wrong I am?

Seriously, you'd think I remembered why I stopped doing so much character meta, why I've deleted so much of the character meta I did in the past, why I periodically consider going through my blog for anything with a character meta/character observation post and napalming it, but no.

No.

The urge is So. Damn. Strong.

as i’m rewatching the movie i rlly think now that it would’ve been a better narrative choice if lucy had been lady bagshaw’s unofficial foster daughter who she’d been unable to formally adopt bc her husband had died. it would’ve paralleled s1 but with a happier (in terms of the way the world had progressed) ending, and it would’ve been a nice acknowledgment of adoptive and found families being as valid and close as blood relatives

So it’s been over a month since I watched “A New Era,” and Mary’s suggestion that Andy become the butler after Thomas leaves is still baffling to me.

More under the cut because I ramble a bit.

To be clear, I can understand it from an out-of-universe perspective. A third Downton film could get made! Nobody wants to have to write in a whole new character to be the Abbey’s butler if that happens. But the in-universe logic is confusing to me for two reasons:

1) Andy is so young and inexperienced to be put into that kind of position. I think canonically he’s only like 21 in 1928? And the highest position he’s had in the household is footman. Compare that with Thomas who is almost certainly in his thirties by the time he’s become butler, plus he had years of training under Carson as an under-butler.

2) There’s a whole subplot in this second film setting Andy and Daisy up to take over Mr. Mason’s farm, implying Mr. Mason will marry Mrs. Patmore and go live with her, taking a backseat on the day-to-day activities. Running a pig farm and being the butler of a country manor... both seem like full-time jobs? Where’s Andy going to find the time to do both at once? Things seemed more flexible in S6 when he was a footman who only helped out occasionally around the farm during his off-hours. I know he’s now got Daisy to run the farm with him, but still.

Maybe I’m just missing something, and this decision makes perfect sense to other people who watched the film? I’d love to hear from people who are actually knowledgeable about what was going on with country manors in England going into the 1930s.

downton abbey would’ve been so much more interesting if they didn’t ~magically cure~ matthew and instead explored him being disabled for the rest of the show.

that’s the thing with downton...it introduces really interesting topics but then refuses to fully engage with them in favour of maintaining the status quo. like, if downton had allowed itself to get even a tiny bit political (impossible, i know, given its primary audience), it would’ve been SO GOOD.

i think it’s one reason why i like the duo of thomas and o’brien so much. they’re some of the only characters who express “negative” emotions like anger and discontent. it’s refreshing! (even when they’re also sometimes just being plain mean and divisive).

Saltburn: The Reign of British Bourgeois (Meta)

I recently had an interesting conversation with a close friend of mine who said, "I don't think Saltburn is really about class." She said she thought it was mainly about obsession, in the most individualist and interpersonal way possible. I naturally disagreed, and we argued about it for an hour. But I think the reason she didn't think it was really about class was because the film had a categorically anti-Marxist conclusion. That is, a very British conclusion. In many ways, Saltburn is a Thatcherite's wet dream. Let's discuss.

Saltburn isn’t an “Eat The Rich” narrative. It’s an “Absorb The Rich” narrative. I disagree that Saltburn is merely about an individual’s obsession with a particular guy or family. Saltburn is about the bourgeoisie’s obsession with the old English aristocracy.

Let’s establish the establishment: the modern English aristocracy whose family seats litter the shires. Saltburn aims to satirize the English Country House family drama, and then some. This is made evident when Felix informs Ollie that, whoa, the Evelyn Waugh himself based Brideshead Revisited and other works on Saltburn, on Felix’s family. The film, in my opinion, was kinda ballsy to go there and to do it so bluntly. So yeah, Saltburn wants to poke fun at the long-established English tradition of aristocratic family dramas such as Downton Abbey, Brideshead Revisited, Bridgerton, Poldark, Rebecca, etc. It’s no coincidence that the movie begins with an egregiously stereotypical sketch of Ollie struggling to fit in at Oxford, à la Charles Ryder. Felix Catton is Sebastian Flyte, and then some. And Ollie is obsessed with him, because look at him. Except… I believe Ollie’s obsession with Felix is less of an interpersonal homoerotic deranged clusterfuck than it is the bourgeois boy’s perennial fixation with the unreachable closed-door English aristocracy, the national pinnacle of inherited class and status in a nation founded on inherited class and status.

Saltburn, butler and all, is a perfect symbol of English aristocratic privilege (seconded by none other than Oxford, but the film didn’t care to explore the hierarchies present in British education and instead chose to focus on family in lieu of academia). Saltburn is grand, medieval, kitchy, isolated in the middle of whereverthefuckshire. One would think that Ollie was intending to infiltrate Saltburn to possess Felix, but I rather think he was intending to infiltrate Felix in order to possess Saltburn. To possess Saltburn is to possess the rank and place of the Catton’s in the world, to be the world. And Ollie doesn’t want to destroy the Cattons nearly as much as he wants to embody them.

I suppose Ollie’s need to absorb, to consume, to possess and to incarnate is obvious through his actions—drinking Felix’s semen in the bathtub, the period blood bit, the grave-fucking debacle. He worms his way through every aspect of the family members’ lives with the intent to become them, to suck them dry (see: “I’m a vampire”, how gothic). By the end when the Cattons are all dead, Ollie celebrates the privilege he has grasped, and in turn, the film applauds his feat rather than condemns him. Saltburn is a film that congratulates Ollie’s usurping of wealth and privilege, rooting for him from beginning to end. And the film never tries to interrogate itself and ask why Ollie is our hero. Ollie, who does not want to break the wheel as much as he wants to be in the room where it happens, even if that means destroying everyone else in his path. Ollie’s obsession, generally speaking, arises from the desire for status and rank rather than an inoccuous maniacal insanity. This is symbolized by his possession and control of Saltburn. If Saltburn were a gothic ghost story, then Ollie is our specter. And Saltburn is definitely rooting for the specter, full stop.

Britain is a nation of ranks and hierarchies, naturally averse to watering down pristine intergenerational blue blood with filthy postmodern capitalist dollars. “Stay in your place”, that is the Tory way. Even in a “modern, democratic” nation nonetheless governed by an antiquated Tory hegemony and quite opposed to both radicalism and revolution. Ollie, however, wants to be in the room where it happens in a world where only those who are born in that room ever get to enter it. It is why he faces this overwhelming yearning for Felix’s world and Saltburn’s beauty – it is, by default, off-limits to him no matter how hard he tries to reach it. In my opinion, Ollie’s fascination with Saltburn isn’t due to a homoerotic fixation on Felix. It’s due to an outsider’s bourgeois fixation on the romantic world of inherited English rank, status, and wealth. The romance of Saltburn, our need to romanticize the privileged upper class, is evident in the stunning cinematography and costuming. Farleigh is the first person in the family to notice Ollie’s insecurities and see it for what it is – he’s begging to be let in. Farleigh likewise takes the opportunity to constantly, antagonistically remind Ollie that Saltburn isn’t his world, that he will never fit in and will never be accepted as one of them: the tux will never perfectly fit. It is the tragedy of the almost-theres. So Ollie decides to just get rid of everyone in his way and prance about naked since the tux refuses to bloody fit.

It’s just so English, culturally speaking. To claw your way to the top to sit with the big boys rather than to criticize the system that bred the arduous, back-breaking, fatal climb in the first place. This is Tory meritocracy, founded on decades of policies to reduce taxes on properties such as Saltburn in Britain, to keep old peers in the Lords. Felix Catton is Sebastian Flyte is Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher who, despite brandishing her “common” background as a selling point during her political career, painstakingly perfected the Received Pronunciation of her Eton parliamentary peers and successfully died with the coveted title of Baroness added to her name. Thatcher, an Oxford scholarship kid like Ollie, who wormed her way into a title and country house and was yet forever plagued by her average, middle-class upbringing.

Ollie is obsessed with much more than a mere man. If Saltburn were a Marxist class story, truly dedicated to class critcism or subverting the English Country House drama, Ollie would have burned the whole damn place down. But Saltburn is rather a Tory class story about the insane lengths the British bouregoisie, obsessed with ascending class hierarchies and disillusioned by the lies of meritocracy, will go to possess the near-unpossessable ranks at the peak of English-textured privilege. The film is a performance in English upper-class tomfoolery and a celebration of its infiltration by the almost-theres.

And yet, the cycle perpetuates itself. Saltburn is ruled by a new lord. Nothing, really, has changed.

Welcome, lovelies

Pull up a chair, take a seat, have some cookies 🍪 🍪 🍪 and a nice drink 🍹, and let’s get started.

What can you call me? TK6 is probably easiest! I go by multiple names online but this is my preferred for this blog.

Age: 22

Fanfiction account: Sheepgirl3 (I’ll post a link when this app cooperates). I can be found on Ao3!

What you can expect to find here? 9-1-1 content! This blog supports Buck/Tommy, Buddie, and BuckTommyEddie. This is a Tommy Kinard support blog and we support Lou Ferrigno Jr. If that isn’t up your alley, feel free to leave.

Other fandoms and ships this blogger loves? 9-1-1 Lonestar (TARLOS, Jace), Harry Potter (FlintWood, Luna/Ginny), The Silmarillion (GoldenMole), LOTR/Hobbit, Star Wars (Obiwan/Cody, Din/Boba, Finn/Poe), Marvel (Stucky), Supernatural (Destiel, Sabriel), Criminal Minds (Derek/Spencer), Downton Abbey (Thomas/Richard), Call of Duty (Ghoap), and so many more you guys 🤣

I need more wlw ships, y’all, what are your favorite ships in these fandoms?

Terfs/general transphobes, homophobes, racists, sexists, etc. are not welcome. Haters and any sort of bigot, DNI. Minors, DNI. Please find a minor-friendly blog!

This is an account run by a queer person. Again, proceed with respect or do not proceed at all.

Responses to asks can be found under #tk6 answers. Fics can be found under #tk6 writes. Speculation/general meta can be found under #tk6 muses (still under sorting).

That’s it for now! Stay safe and stay positive!

So one day I was reading your meta and a post about the Black family in Harry Potter. At the end of the post, you mentioned "Every time someone writes a Regency style fic starring the Black family I just laugh. I laugh so hard."

Then a weird idea came to my mind: So I am not sure whether Muffin has heard of "Dream of the Red Chamber" by Cao Xueqin. Basically, one of the main subplots is about the Jia family and co. and how the Jia family's power, legacy and wealth all turned into shit because they fucked up. I feel like this is the kind of story the Black family would end up with if fanfic writers have read "Dream of the Red Chamber." I might get a "write-your-fic" gif but what I am saying here is--I just want to compare the whole vibe of the Black family to other literature work and share with Muffin. (This ask also came from a dude who is not that familiar with Western culture so I have no idea what is a Regency style despite looking up)

I have never heard of it but that sounds like a beautiful story.

Alas, Regency is... @therealvinelle has more feelings than I do but basically think Downton Abbey, Jane Austen, Wuthering Heights, etc.

It's a particular style of period piece that tend to have particular plots.