But isn't Thomas Barrow a sexual predator?

** Sorry if the title is a bit of a spoiler, but if you have not seen Downton Abbey season 3 stop reading now **

---

That question came by email in reaction to my analysis of Thomas Barrow. Really? That is what you took away from my post?

No he is not. “Sexual predator” is fraught with all kinds of emotional connotations, but at its core is the assumption that the victim has been hunted and that the hunter has likely used guile and deception or a position of power to achieve his goal.

You cannot point to that in Thomas’s behavior. He was overly familiar with Jimmy in the way he touched him, but that was meant to test his reaction. Thomas himself said when confronted by Carson that no one could speak out and he had to read the signs that someone was like him. When Jimmy did not rebuke him it lead him to believe he might feel the same way.

What he missed, of course, were Jimmy’s facial expressions and that he in no way reciprocated. If Jimmy had said something or even gently moved his hand away that would have been the end of it. Thomas would never intentionally place himself in a position that might lead to his exposure and loss of his livelihood. I am not blaming Jimmy for any of this. He was manipulated into believing that rebuking Thomas could hinder his advancement or even lead to his dismissal, but it was not Thomas who did it.

And then there was the kiss. In Thomas’s scenes leading up to it you can see his agitation, his uncertainty and his hesitation. Even as he is about to lean in to kiss Jimmy he pauses in what could be seen as anticipation, but is just as easily trepidation. This is not the end of a hunt nor is it a well-thought-out plan. It is impulse fueled by desire, desperation and misunderstanding. Had Thomas thought to awaken Jimmy to ask him, to find out if what he sensed was real, there would have been some uncomfortable moments, but none of what followed would have happened. But then that would not make for a good story

I'm not foul

**If you haven't seen season 3 of Downton Abbey, you should stop reading now**

Downton Abbey season 3 was mostly disappointing, but Fellowes' decision to add some humanity to Thomas Barrow's otherwise unpleasant character proved a highlight. Barrow, portrayed by Rob James-Collier, is the main antagonist of the series. He is concerned for only one person - himself - and he will do anything to ensure he comes out ahead no matter whom he has to walk over in the process. And he is gay. Generally I have a problem with gay villains because the history of their portrayal is littered with stereotypes where their homosexuality is the root of their evil. To a certain extent that would appear to be the case here, but it is not that cut and dried.

Living a closeted existence in Edwardian England would have been grinding. The threat of jail, the potential loss of employment and never being able to work again, the social stigma and the isolation, all would have had an impact on him. But others managed without becoming as mean, conniving, and spiteful as Thomas. At his core, Thomas is insecure and is driven to overcome his insecurity by any means possible, to gain a measure of control. His insecurity is apparent when he says after Lady Sybil's death, "In my life, I can tell you, not many have been kind to me. She was one of the few." Putting aside the reasons why people have not been kind, it is his reaction to this lack of kindness that has shaped him. While the way society forces him to deal with his homosexuality feeds into that insecurity, his homosexuality is not its cause. It is, in fact, what shows he is more than what we see.

Prior to season 3 there were glimpses of this, most notably in his affair with the Duke of Crowborough. In that case it was not Thomas who took advantage but rather the Duke who reneged on his promise to take Thomas away with him. This type of rejection is difficult for anyone, but given Thomas's insecurity it only served to make him withdraw further and become more intent to come out on top no matter what the cost. To his credit, Fellowes does not appear to use Thomas's homosexuality as a crutch to explain what makes Thomas a villain. In fact, other than the Crowborough affair and a few other references, by the time season 2 rolled around Thomas might as well have been asexual.

In season 3 that changes. Jimmy Kent, the new footman, appears out of nowhere in the kitchen and you can immediately see his effect on Thomas. What follows is not really Thomas's fault. Thanks to O'Brien's plotting and his own surprising naïveté he begins to hope that he has finally found someone, but that all comes to an end when egged on by O'Brien's comments about how Jimmy has a crush on him and throwing caution to the wind, he gathers his nerve to go to Jimmy's room one night and kisses him as he sleeps. That is not the smartest move when all he really has to go on is what O'Brien has told him, but suppressed desire that seems about to be fulfilled can override good judgment no matter what your sexuality. Jimmy is outraged and to make matters worse Alfred Nugent, the other footman, witnessed the entire scene. Jimmy's rejection devastates Thomas, but that is only the beginning.

When Thomas is finally outed to the butler Carson, it would appear that his time at Downton is over. His homosexuality has lead to his downfall, but surprisingly this is where the change begins. To Carson's accusation that he is foul, Thomas replies, "I'm not foul, Mr. Carson. I'm not the same as you, but I'm not foul." Thomas does not see his homosexuality as a curse. It is something he must hide, but not something he is ashamed of. I believe this is the point where Fellowes completely backs away from homosexuality as the cause of Thomas's dysfunction.

This is further supported when Thomas prevents two men from robbing and beating Jimmy by stepping in an taking the beating himself. Given what has occurred between them, including Jimmy's insistence that Thomas be sent away from Downton with a bad reference, essentially ensuring he would never work again, the old Thomas would have relished letting that happen to him. But he still has feelings for Jimmy and it is those, in other words his homosexuality, that spur his unselfish act; unselfish in so far as he knows that his actions will not change Jimmy. Ultimately Thomas's gayness is what proves to make him human and to show he is capable of kindness. And ultimately it is what makes Jimmy his friend, putting an end to his isolation.

What remains to be seen is how this plays out in season 4. Will there be a softer, kinder Thomas or will he completely revert to his old ways? Will his friendship with Jimmy flourish? How will Fellowes deal with a villain who is more than just a villain? The answers to these, assuming they are in fact answered, may be what will make season 4 worth watching.

A tug at your heartstrings

Downton Shabby

Click for larger image

**If you haven't seen season 3, you should stop reading now**

What the hell happened? Seasons one and two were basically good. At its core the series was another Upstairs, Downstairs and while it lacked the strengths of that series, it was an enjoyable way to pass an hour. But season 3 is another matter.

Too many of the characters have become mere caricatures - Robert, Earl of Grantham, the dolt, Lady Mary the bitch, Tom Branson the emasculated revolutionary, Matthew Crawley the henpecked husband, Cora, Countess of Grantham, - well, she was always two dimensional. Even Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham, only shines on occasion before settling back into one-line witticisms. There are exceptions of course, but, for instance, the decision to develop Thomas Barrow's¹ character beyond a mean, conniving, thieving, unpleasant man and to show a softer, more emotional side (hints of which were in earlier episodes but soon ignored) isn't enough. On the whole, belowstairs comes off a little better, but they are treading water. The introduction of Alfred Nugent and Jimmy Kent as the new footmen seemed promising, but they have become like two little boys set loose among the china.

Julian Fellowes seems to have lost his way. Perhaps all the characters have become too much for him because they seem to have stretched his creativity beyond his ability. Fellowes is promising new characters for season 4, I assume in hopes of invigorating the story lines and filling the gaps left by deaths this season, but he would be better to spend more time invigorating the existing characters and developing their interactions. He has actors who are more than capable if given the right material. In a story that is character driven, if the characters don't grow the story withers. It may seem I'm being harsh, but it will be interesting to see if season 4 can redeem its quality or send it, like the Titanic of its first episode, to the bottom.

---

1 More on Thomas Barrow in a future post

"Wynne"-ing ways

In the end, it wasn't even close - 1,150 to 866. Although Sandra Pupatello was leading after the second ballot, both Gerrard Kennedy and Charles Sousa dropped out and threw their support behind Kathleen Wynne and their delegates followed. Wynne becomes the first female Premier in Ontario history and the first openly gay Premier in Canada.

At the convention she didn't shy away from the possible impact of her sexuality.

Let's put something on the table: Is Ontario ready for a gay premier? You've heard that question. Let's say what that actually means: Can a gay woman win? ... I don’t believe the people of Ontario judge their leaders on the basis of race, colour or sexual orientation. I don’t believe they hold that prejudice in their hearts.

In the end it may be a factor for some, but not important enough to matter. What is more pressing is how she will deal with governing in a minority situation, the continuing labour strife with the teachers and, most importantly, the deficit of $11.9 billion. She seems to be making the right moves by promising to call back the legislature next month and to work with the opposition. The opposition, however, must want to work with her as well and, after all, this is politics where despite the lip service paid to putting the Province ahead of ideology that has seldom happened. She is a conciliator, but that can be a double-edged sword. She risks appearing ineffectual and overly accommodating.

None of this may matter. Ontarians have reached the end of their patience with the Liberals; McGuinty's prorogation of the legislature after his resignation as Premier didn't help. Wynne may not have time to change this, even if she can, before the Conservatives and the NDP, sensing blood, pull the plug and force an election.

Sterek

If you follow Teen Wolf you are probably aware of the amount of fan fic written about it and in particular Stiles Stilinski (Dylan O'Brien) and Derek Hale (Tyler Hoechlin) or as they are better known, Sterek. Fans have picked up on a connection between the two characters and have turned it into a cause célèbre. Of course it is fuelled by photos like this and the comments of the actors themselves when out of character.

Shipping¹ of characters is nothing new, but there is a concerted online campaign, of which he is aware, to have executive producer and head writer Jeff Davis incorporate this into the story line.

I'm of two minds on this. As a gay man, who wouldn't want to see something happen between these two? There is a chemistry, often shrouded in apparent dislike, but obvious when Derek turns to Stiles for something or when Stiles actually rescues Derek. But is that just part of a good story, where even characters who only tolerate one another are thrown into situations where they must work together?

On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with fans of a show trying to write it. They don't have the all-encompassing vision of the person who created it. They aren't aware of what plans lay ahead for the show or the characters. Jeff Davis himself has said that the unintentional connection between the two preceded the push for something more. This makes sense because the stories are written and filmed well before they appear on television where the fans can begin to fantasize.

I'm more in favour of leaving it up to Davis to do with his characters as he plans. If he chooses to incorporate the fan input that's his decision, but he shouldn't cave to the pressure if it's not where he sees them going. And fans really should accept his decision. The reason you watch any show shouldn't be because you want to change its direction; you should watch it because it entertains you, holds your interest and, if you're lucky, even challenges you². You don't have to agree with the writer or his decisions for that to happen. In fact, sometimes it's better if you don't.

In the meantime, all this is great for fuelling and maintaining interest in the series. Something of which I'm sure Davis and the actors are aware and can continue to use to their advantage with teases and hints that may or may not be real.

---

1 Shipping, derived from the word relationship, is the belief that two characters, fictional or non-fictional, are (or will be, or should be) in a romantic relationship. From Wikipedia
2 While I watch the show, I'm fully aware that I'm well outside its intended fan demographic and that, while it has its moments and is generally entertaining, it's not great television. But then again very little currently is.

Photos from Mememe, Old Times

Idiots

This is for all those who believe that the killings in Connecticut are the result of excluding god from the schools. Do you want to know where your "logic" leads?

Let's assume that your god exists. By extrapolation he is all-knowing and all-powerful. And how does he use this knowledge and power? He acts like a vengeful dickhead; a showoff who, when he can't get his own way, arranges to make his point by having children killed. How very old testament. Can't understand why bad things happen? We must have offended god and he is justified in punishing us.

Fucking idiots.

F-35 Jets. What does the "F" really stand for?

This has been a fiasco for the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. The original cost for 65 jets was set in 2010 at $9 billion over 20 years. That's when it began to unravel.

The parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page estimated the costs would be $30 billion over a life cycle of 30 years because the original costs hadn't included appropriate "sustainment" costs and the lifespan was too short. But the government dismissed his report. Then the Auditor General also called the government on their estimates saying that they would be $25 billion over 25 years, but that life cycle was also too short.

The entire process was revisited by the newly-minted National Fighter Jet Procurement Secretariat who arrived at $44 billion over 42 years as more likely. The audit firm KPMG verified that - sort of. They added another 1 billion for lost aircraft over the life cycle. The cost, including "sustainment", now sits at $45.8 billion over 42 years - for the same number of planes. And that is by no means final.

But those are the Canadian implications. See the link below for the potential broader ones.

So what does the "F" stand for? Fiasco perhaps, but thanks to Stephen Harper and his sidekick Peter MacKay the song that Country Joe and the Fish performed at Woodstock comes to mind - "Give me an f!, Give me a u! . . .

Read Brian Stewart's analysis Super-costly F-35s, a global wrecking ball

All this needs

is a caption that says."Oh, Mary." ¹ The rumours about Colton Haynes persist, despite or perhaps because of his lawyer having tried to pull the shoot he did in 2006 for XY Magazine from every site it showed up on. Where there's smoke, is there fire? Or in this case a cigarette held and a hand gesture made with all the aplomb of Mr. Humphries of Are You Being Served.

I realise that even these days coming out as gay can be a problem in Hollywood when you're trying to get your career off the ground. It may very well limit the roles that he's offered. If he is gay, I feel sorry for his being unable to be truthful; even though I'm posting this, I'm not going to sit in judgment. But again if he is gay and wants or needs to maintain the façade, he really must watch those unguarded moments.

---

(1) He may of course be telling some story that requires exaggerated gestures. Uh, yeah.

GIF from I do still love you

Look in a mirror

I never thought I would post about Justin Bieber, one of the most irritating girl singers I have ever heard, but I can't let this pass.

This is how he dressed to receive his Diamond Jubilee award from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

According to Bieber's tweet:

"The pic of me and the Prime Minister was taken in a room in the arena where i was performing at that day. I walked straight from my meet and greet to him, if you 'Hayley' expect me to have a change of clothes let a loan a suit at that specific time that’s crazy, It wasn’t like it was like I was going into his environment we were at a hockey arena. Wow am i ever white trash hayley peterson lol."

I usually try to be kind, even when I don't want to be, but just one word - twat. Beebs, dress for the occasion! Did you have to wear that mishmash to meet and greet? Of course not. You chose it while you could have easily chosen something that would have been suitable for both events. Yes, Beebs, despite what you say you could have even had a change of clothes. Arenas have changing rooms, you know. There's no need to look like a reject from the cast of "Hee Haw." You have the money to pay to have someone think about these things for you even if you can't. White trash? Don't set your sights too high.

Oh, while I'm at it and because I hate that Twitter makes people lazy, "let alone" not "let a loan."

War is hell, but let's tweet it anyway

"The only shocking thing here is how quickly some voices, otherwise bullish on free speech online, are suggesting that information be blocked from their sensitive eyes. Both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have maintained for decades that the mainstream media is hopelessly biased in favour of the other. At the very least, the level playing field of the Internet equalizes this part of the fight. Through social media, without editing or varnishing from newsroom interlocutors, the words and pictures issued from both sides are offensive, shocking, manipulative, saddening, graphic, bizarre and awful as this endless war itself."

The complete article at Maclean's

I had to laugh

During this election campaign I read more than one post on Facebook where the person intended to leave the U.S. and move to Canada if Obama won. I know we would welcome them with open arms as long as they realised that:

We have no abortion laws.
We have legal gay marriage everywhere.
We have free universal health care. There is no private option.
We have the high taxes to pay for that health care.
We have a democratic socialist party as the second largest, and thus the official opposition, in Parliament.

So, come on over. I'm sure Canada is just the place you're looking for.

Well, that was a bit of a

but not as much as many had expected.

Just a few random thoughts.

As someone who sits on the left of the political spectrum, I found the idea of Romney as president worrisome. What he would do internally wouldn't have much effect on me, but his foreign policy and his world view and that of his advisers is another matter.

The dichotomy in American politics seemed even more pronounced this time. Perhaps it's because there appear to be no moderate Republicans, at least to the outsider, just tea party and their ilk. Or if there are moderates their voices were drowned out by the rhetoric. A year or so ago I had a cousin from Michigan ask me if I could do an internet search to find Obama's real birth certificate, because, "You know, right, he was born in Kenya." Now this person is not some backwoods hick. He is well-educated, a business owner who benefited from the auto bailout. And yet he took this seriously, as I am sure many others did and continue to do.

Is the issue of race ever far from the surface? The posts on Facebook about putting the white back in White House were a symptom. Is it a real issue or is Ann Coulter right that racism ended in the mid-60's? Perhaps institutionalized racism did, and that's debatable, but on a day-to-day basis is it still there?

As an outsider I risk being told that I don't understand and that I should tend to my own house. I'll take that chance. I don't pretend that Canada doesn't have its problems, but that's for another post.