you-got-me-all-wrong

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

Hi! I have adored alll of your Dexmas art and I noticed your tag asking for prompts for all ships; idk if you’ve seen it but there’s a Chrismas Christmas fest happening in a bit and I would LOVE fanart of Chris Webster teasing Thomas by holding up some mistletoe. They are seriously lacking in the fanart department. Alternatively—Guy and Thomas get a puppy? The way you draw Guy’s curls is so endearing, and I think he deserves an equally fluffy puppy 😁

I kinda forgot about whats sitting on my inbox but thank you!! I missed the event but here’s thomas getting guy a puppy. I have some ideas about chris but not sure when it escapes wip folder 😂

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

“I can’t believe this. I’ve never seen anything like it!”

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

~A Nearly* Comprehensive Guide To Thomas’ Hairstyles Throughout The Series ~

* Note: This does not contain anything about the new movie, as the first had only just come out when I drew this.

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

When I find myself in times of trouble

Mr Carson comes to me

Speaking words of wisdom

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

Thomas meets Alfred

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

*Kid from that ‘Mrs Keisha’ Vine voice:*

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

Sad wet man in the rain

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

Remember when Thomas went on a super fun cruise with Lord Grantham and nothing bad happened? That was nice

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

My favorite screenshot redraw

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

An old Thomas doodle for you

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

Ed Speleers in the series You

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

My fav thing in the world is when someone says something nice to Thomas and he looks down and away and smiles.

Yeah. I love that. 👉🏻👈🏻

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

I also think about this take constantly so

[you-got-me-all-wrong]

Can you explain the Ethel viewer bias that you mentioned in the tags of that one post? I feel like I get it emotionally but I can't really figure it out

Sure! I hope this makes sense written down, but basically what I see a lot in fan spaces is the idea that Ethel (and other Ambitious servant characters such as Thomas) are intentionally written as unlikable so that we don’t think they are correct.

There’s an issue with claiming authorial bias when you say a character has been written as “unlikable” to the audience—often what that means is that YOU don’t like them, or that other characters/fans do not. These aren’t irrelevant points of interest, don’t get me wrong! But neither is unbiased, and neither absolutely proves the author had any particular intention when crafting a character.

Take Ethel for example—Ethel is a character most of the downstairs characters don’t like. From Anna to O’Brien, many of them express some annoyance at her behavior. It might not seem unreasonable to us that Fellowes is trying to communicate that she’s The Worst for having dreams and speaking openly about them…but this is what Fellowes has to say in the script books:

“Why shouldn’t she be a film star like Mabel Normand? Which, of course, is a sentiment I entirely endorse. Here we will have a situation where she gets in trouble with the Major, and she should have been more careful and less trusting. But, at the same time, I agree with her that she has every right to dream. Maybe she won’t be a film star, but why shouldn’t she go out and get a job and live a life, and not have to be standing around handing someone their food? Ethel, I’m on your side.”

When I read this I was surprised—I don’t dislike Ethel, but I was convinced we were supposed to dislike her, at least at first. Because why else would you have a character brag about her old position and complain about having to eat so much stew and flirt with men she isn’t supposed to? Why would you have her come up against someone like Anna, a Nice Girl? Isn’t that meant to signal to us that she’s wrong, somehow?

Apparently not!

“The difference between them is that, essentially, Ethel doesn’t accept the rules and Anna does. Although Anna is a sympathetic and important character in the show, I rather agree with Ethel here. I know that if I were her, and I had been born with absolutely nothing going for me, I wouldn’t accept it. I would have been one of the ones who complained and pushed at the door. So anyone who tries to move out of their preordained sphere, as far as I’m concerned, has my vote. But of course there are dangers to this, as we shall see.”

Ethel, to Fellowes, is correct—if not always as careful as she should be. Not Anna, no matter how much Anna and the others feel they are. How you feel about her is your opinion! But those are all different opinions that shouldn’t be conflated.

Fellowes doesn’t pick singular characters to always be his point of view. He just doesn’t. And I think in a show with an ensemble cast of various personalities and world views, it is worth always asking ourselves whether we are looking at what the author thinks, what the character thinks, or what We think (or what we believe we Should be thinking). Because all of those are always in play!