The Killer Instinct

Cara/Andrea here, March is a month that symbolizes birth and renewal, however today I’m going to talk a little about death. Now before you rush to press the delete button, let me hasten to add that I mean symbolic death. Or, to be more precisely, literary death.

At the risk of mixing metaphors, I’ll admit that what got me thinking about the theme was the recent season-ending television episode of Downton Abbey. (If some of you—the ones who are living on Mars, perhaps?—have not seen the show, be forewarned, there are spoilers here.) Matthew Crawley, one of the main characters was killed off in an unexpected (at least it was to me) plot twist. And once the initial shock had passed, I got to pondering how I felt about the development.

I confess, I was angry. How could the show’s author (the esteemed Julian Fellowes ) do this to his audience? Here I had invested three seasons watching Matthew’s relationship with the main heroine, Mary, develop. As in real life, the going hadn’t been easy for them. Misunderstandings, stubbornness, pride—a whole host of human emotions had made things hard for them to come together, faults and all. And then, just as things were getting really interesting between them—whack! Matthew’s gone.

But that said, my feelings were tempered a little by a previous experience with the same situation. I am a big fan of mysteries, and some of my favorites are the Inspector Thomas Lynley series by Elizabeth George. Now, television does tend to knock off characters occasionally, but in literature it’s one of those cardinal rules that an author mustn’t kill off one of the main protagonists. Well, George turned that rule on its head when she had Lynley’s pregnant wife (we had spent years watching them going through complex emotional gyrations to finally end up tying the knot) die at the hands of a random shooting.

Well, her readers were up in arms! So much so, that George decided to write an essay explaining why she did it. Now, I was one of those irate readers, so I was curious to know her rationale. And I found it so interesting that I thought it worth sharing some of her thoughts here.

She begins by saying, “ . . . the first thing you need to consider is the two alternatives available to a writer when she decides to create a series that features continuing characters. A series like this can be approached by freezing the characters in time, place, and circumstance. Or it can be approached by allowing the characters to grow, change, develop, and move through time. Characters who have been frozen in time, place, and circumstance are best exemplified by Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Sherlock Holmes (with the obvious exception of that trip over the waterfall), and Dr. Watson. On the other hand, characters who are not frozen in time, place, and circumstance but who move forward, growing, changing, and developing can be found in books like Martin Cruz Smith’s Arkady Renko novels, Winston Graham’s Poldark novels, as well as the children’s books by Laura Ingalls Wilder in her Little House books and L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables books.”

Okay, an interesting distinction.  George then explains,  “For perhaps the six years preceding the creation of With No One as Witness, I knew that Helen Clyde—as I’ve always referred to her—was going to die . . . . Why? The answer is simple. Helen’s death, unlike the death of any other character, had the potential to affect more greatly the characters left alive. Her death was like a hand grenade thrown into their midst: The aftermath allowed me myriad story lines to pick up on, based upon the devastating impact of this crime on the other characters. No other death would have done that for me. As I looked at it, no other death would have come close.”

Hmmm, but maybe readers didn’t want a hand grenade thrown into their midst. Well, George has an answer to this. She finishes her essay by saying, “The literary philosophy I have always adhered to is this: When a writer writes, as John Steinbeck put it so eloquently, he seeks to form a trinity, and this trinity exists only when the work, the writer, and the reader are joined together. It is a communion of sorts, in which the reader is invited into a world created by writer and is asked to feel something about that world and the people in it. That is the purpose of novels. On one level, of course, novels do entertain and divert. But on another, deeper level, they move. In creating the scenes leading up to Helen Clyde’s death in With No One as Witness, I sought to place the reader in a position not dissimilar to Lynley’s own. My purpose in this was to have the reader feel—if only marginally—something of what Lynley felt when he had to authorize the termination of life support for his wife and their son. Had the reader completed the novel, tossed it to one side, yawned, and walked into the kitchen for a beer and a bologna sandwich, the novel would have failed in its purpose. There would have been no trinity. But the reader didn’t do that. The reader cared. The reader wept. The reader raged. These reactions spoke to the fact that the novel succeeded in doing what novels have always been intended to do.”

I found this a very thought-provoking explanation. Now, emotionally I wasn’t really any happier, but I have continued reading the series, and find she’s done some very interesting explorations into how people pick up the pieces after a shattering life experience.

So, what about you? How do you as a reader feel about losing a beloved character from a series? Do you agree with George’s thinking? And lastly let’s end by having a little fun with a serious topic. A lot of people have said killing Matthew from Downton Abbey was too easy a way out. Fellowes could have come up with a more creative way to get rid of him. (Apparently the actor wanted out of the show.) What scenario would you have used to get him out of the picture? Here’s mine: He’s sent  to New York to help Mary’s American grandmother with some crisis. Now, Matthew was not born an aristocrat, so he finds America’s egalitarian attitudes refreshing after England. He meets a woman journalist and is intrigued by her independent spirit . . . Anyone else want to play?

Comments

[HJ]

I'm not a Downton Abbey enthusiast (I seem to be alone in this) but I like your idea of a removal of a character which doesn't involve death. However, a mischievous thought occurred: maybe Julian Fellowes (or someone else) wanted to ensure that it was impossible for the actor to come back into the show later. It had been known for actors to ask to be written out of a series and then want to return subsequently (think Dallas and "it was all a dream"). On second thoughts, maybe Matthew's going to come back from the dead too?

[Janice]

Since the series has aired in the US now, I don't think we need consider spoilers, but there are some here.

I thought Matthew's departure was clumsily handled, but I am of the minority that thinks that Julian Fellowes is not a consistently competent writer. I have watched DT, of course, faute de mieux, but I think the original Upstairs Downstairs and its two series revival of a couple of years ago were much better written, acted and directed. I understand that "Downton Abbey" the Great House is as much a character as any of the humans, but she's getting too much screen time; too many scenes are played out with the actors posed like Vogue models to show off the house and the clothes.

Like Cara, I can think of half a dozen better ways -- including recasting -- to handle the departure of an actor who left for greener pastures (Stevens is currently filming The Fifth Estate with Benedict Cumberbatch as Julian Assange). After that glurgey scene in the hospital with Mary and the baby, he gets hit by a truck? Fellowes says in the dvd extras that he wanted Mary to have known that "perfect love". Gag me.

Well, maybe the staff of the program didn't care for Stevens bailing on the series they were all committed to and so he was given the corniest end scene imaginable. Otherwise I can't explain it.

Lady Mary has a mean streak to her; I'd have had Matthew gradually discover that he's not immune as a target and does not like that at all. That at least would be psychologically credible and consistent with the characters as established, and would have left open the possibility that he might surface in the story again at some point.

I don't quarrel with Elizabeth George's ideas about the advisability of putting beloved characters through hell; I just say it should be done better than it was done here.

The actress who plays the maid O'Brien is leaving too. I wonder if we will learn that she too was hit by a truck.

[Annrei]

Apparently, Dan Stevens didn't even want to do an episode or two of season 4 to tie up a different kind of exit. As Julian Fellowes said, it's one thing when a servant wants to leave, but a member of the family is much harder. I'm not sure that it would have been believable to send Matthew away for a long period of time when everything was going so well. I thought that they would hold his death over as a cliffhanger, at least, into season 4...

I love Downton Abbey, but I'm more of a Sybil/Branson girl.

[Andrea Penrose]

Janice, I agree with much of what you say. The Great House and the fashions are just as much a characters as the actors. And while I thought Season 1 was well-crafted, Season 2 had a bit of soap opera creep in. Season 3 was a bit uneven too, but I confess I watch just for the period drama. I was terribly disappointed by the clumsy ending. I know Fellowes was limited in his options because of the actor's schedule, but a more creative way to get rid of Matthew could have been found.

Season 4? Well, I think I can see some of the plot lines already. I will watch simply for the ambiance, but handling of the plot has left me emotionally uninvolved with the characters.

[Andrea Penrose]

Ha, ha, HJ! I think Matthew is dead as a doornail. Maaybe if it were the Regency era, they could have Mary Shelley's mad scientist reanimate him with a voltaic battery, but I think in the 20th century, we won't see any such miracle used.

I'm not sure Fellowes was being mischievous. I think he just said, oh we need to get rid of him—splat!

[Andrea Penrose]

Annrei, apparently they discussed having Matthew die next season, but Dan Stevens didn't want to do that. So thus this ending. It did feel so smaltzy and abrupt . . .wish they could have crafted a better plot. That said, as a writer, I don't like to criticize storylines—I know how hard it is to write!

[Artemisia]

That's how they got rid of Maclean Stevenson when he wanted to leave M*A*S*H: sent him home and had the plane crash so he could not come back. * I read John Sandford's Facebook posts and apparently he is under some pressure by fans to "get rid of" Lucas Davenport's wife, mainly so former-bad-boy Lucas can become sexually involved with other women. Can't say that this would improve the books, just add porn. * I got bored watching the penultimate DT episode and did not bother with the finale as someone in the UK had already let the cat out the bag for me. I never could see Lady M and Matthew being so madly in love. It just did not work.

[Andrea Penrose]

Artemisia, Yes, some of Mary's meanness did make the match seem odd. but then, real relationships can often be very complex . .I thought the show was just beginning to make the relationship between them interesting and was looking forward to seeing it developed so that we could understand the depth and textures going on beneath the surface. But no—I guess that's hard in television. easier in a book.

[Kylanma]

I think is okay to kill off a character, even a main character. You need to keep the story moving and do not want it to grow stagnant. Death may be final for some people but it is also a release, a relief, new start, new chapter or a journey. It can be just as hard to write a main character death as it is to read it. The characters become part of you, as the writer and as the reader. However, think of some of your favorite stories. A lot of them have widows and widowers who are getting a second chance, you just did not become attached to that character as they were not written first. Some even spout how they will never move on from their first love but they always do. It is the same concept and emotions, just done "safely." I think it takes a great writer to write the death of a main character and move everyone forward from it.

[Ella Quinn]

I've never watched Downton Abbey because it comes on way to late where I live. I did read Elizabeth George's books. You'll notice the past tense.

I don't like to have hand grenades thrown into the plot. I dealt with enough suffering being around the military and being a family law attorney that I avoid books that want to show me what it's all about. Though I did read the next book in her series, I didn't enjoy it. It's also the reason I stopped reading George R.R. Martin's books.

Very thoughtful post, Cara. I tweeted.

[Andrea Penrose]

Kylanma, I think your feeling are echoed by Elizabeth George, who felt death was her way of "moving" the stories and emotions of her series. Many readers didn't like it, but as an author, I understand the need to do what you feel is right for the themes you want to deal with.

And I think she totally understood that some readers would want to take that next step with her.

[Andrea Penrose]

Ella, I totally understand where you are coming from. I had sort-of decided I wasn't going to continue with George's series, for I'm not big on "grenades" either. But her essay really was thought-provoking, so I decided to give it a go. I think that some of the new plots have gotten a little weird and over the top, but I respect the deep pyschological explorations she's doing, and find them interesting, though upsetting sometimes. She does make me think about her books, abd so she's accomplished her objective.

Glad you found the post interesting, and thanks for sharing it.

[Donna]

Hmm... very interesting post. For some strange reason, I'm unable to pick up PBS - I live less than 1/2 mile from the local studio! Too close?!? And my season 3 of DT is still in its cellophane wrapper from Amazon, so I debated for a second or two whether I wanted to continue. Oh what the hey! I read on.

Fellowes never successfully sold me on Mary and Matthew's relationship so this development doesn't bother me. I agree with others that it could have been better handled in other ways, but it sounds like the actor's demands and time constraints took precedence.

While I really respect George's views, I think in the main, they will be a hard sell to this crowd. We read romance novels for the HEA, and if a character must die, please may they die early in the story so that there is still time for the HEA! Death of a main character, I think, works better in series (like George's or DT) where there is more time to explore the results and options.

I've noticed that grit and gut-wrenching Real Life has become the fashion in literary fiction these last few years. I'm sorry, but at my age, I've had plenty of sorrow and pain in my life, and do not want to spend my free time reading of fictional characters' pain and trauma.

[Andrea Penrose]

Donna, I have to smile about your reasoning on the HEA preference of this crowd. Like you, I feel I see enough grit and pain in real life that I tend to want my reading to offer me hope and message that love in all its many forms is stronger than evil. That said, I'm willing to be taken on an exploration of the darker side, if the writer is good enough to take me along. And I think you're right about it needing a long series to make the death of a main character meaningful. I like certain things george is doing in her current books, but I have to say that emotionally I like the earlier books better.

[Isobel Carr]

***but I am of the minority that thinks that Julian Fellowes is not a consistently competent writer.***
We’re a minority? Really? I thought everyone was agreed upon that fact, but this soap opera dishiness of the show made many people accept the utter lack of consistent characterization, the poorly thought out subplots, and the often all too predictable “surprises”. But then I am of the minority that threw in the towel after Season 2. I was just too disgusted by the Sybil/Branson “romance” to continue watching. If any man ever had abusive manipulator written all over him in flaming neon letters, it was Branson.

As for Lynley’s wife, I’ll admit I only every watched the TV show (which I love), and on the show, his wife is an awful shrew. I wasn’t at all sorry to see her go. I may need to read the books now though …

[Andrea Penrose]

Isobel, it's interesting how we all react differently to the same show. I totally agree with your assessment that the plots were essentially soap opera and the characters acted in so many implausible ways. yet I watched every episode, willing to forgive the flaws because the production was entertaining. Go figure.

I haven't seen the Lynsley tv series. In the book, Helen isn't a shrew at all. Her death really did devastate a number of people. (The early books are really good, IMO. f definitely worth reading.)

[theo]

I've never seen DT. Just didn't interest me. *ducks flying shoe* but I've read a few series where one of the main characters was killed off (won't mention any titles) and I have to admit, I felt cheated. And I believe that's when I started almost exclusively reading romance. I still read a few others, but they're not troupe books. They center around one main character who I know isn't going to die any time soon.

As I've grown older, I've reached more and more for that HEA and less and less for the 'continuing saga' stories. I've loved several ongoing relationships, but I finally tired of them. I want a story that has a HEA at the end, be it TV, movie or novel. I have my share of pain and misfortune on a regular basis. If I can't immerse myself in something that's going to make me feel wonderful at the end, I'll stick with my own life, thank you very much.

[Andrea Penrose]

Theo, I think a lot of readers agree with you—romance is the biggest segment of the market, and i think it basically because of what you and others have expressed here. Real life has more than enough pain and hardships. HEAs offer hope that despite all the news reports it's possible to believe that good things happen too.

[Jessica]

I read that not only did Dan Stevens not want to come back to wrap up a storyline in season four, but that his departure was rather abruptly announced when it was too late to write him out in a smoother way. That said, I think that Downton Abbey's storylines and writing have been inconsistent, so I'm not surprised that his death was a gotcha twist.

I read romance and cozy mysteries pretty much exclusively, too. I don't have much time to read, so when I do get a chance to sit down with a book I want to know that the characters will end up happy, even if there are some twists and turns to get there.

[nancy]

I do not watch DT but feel that Matthew's death was in line with its soap opera format. Besides the actor wanted out. However, I do not blame the audience from feeling cheated.
As for George's mysteries, I have not picked up one since Helen died. I feel and felt cheated. I do not care what her purpose is/ was/ , I thought that was a cheat against the reader. I thought she was writing mysteries and not psychological novels a la Henry James.

[nancy]

I like mysteries like Carola Dunn's Daisy Dalrymple series. The main characters in the series have a happy life with a few twists and such here and there, but though we come to care for Daisy and her family, and though the family is involved in many of the mysteries, the main focus of each book is the mystery. I have to like the main characters of a book . once I like a character I don't want that character to die.

[Andrea Penrose]

Nancy, I totally understand your feelings about feeling"cheated." I still have ambivalent feelings about Helen's death in George's series. Like you, when I invest emotion and time in a series, I'm not overly happy about one of my "friends" dying." It happens enough in real life.

[Andrea Penrose]

Janice, we all seem to share the HEA preference. And yes, DA is basically a soap. However I confess that I watch it anyway for sheer entertainment. But I've learned not to invest any emotional attachment to it.

[Christine]

I enjoy Downton Abbey and I read the first several Elizabeth George books but bowed out before the death of Helen. I can't say I would have been too broken up as I was never a big fan of that character "The game's afoot Tommy darling" Ugh.

While I do agree the plots and writing can be spotty in Downton Abbey (Remember Mr. Pamuk's death and the big grenade that was waiting to go off? It dominated the first two seasons of Mary's life and decisions. Never mentioned again. Did Mary's former fiance become nice and just decide to forgo his revenge?)I have more sympathy for Julian Fellows than Elizabeth George. It was never his intention to kill off Sybil or Matthew but the decisions of the actors forced him to it. It makes no sense that Matthew would leave his wife, heir and future estate he was fighting to save. I'm also glad he chose not to destroy the romance he spent three seasons building between Mary and Matthew. I'd rather see Matthew perish in a car crash than off cheating on Mary. I do wish Fellows had somehow tied Matthew's death to his war injuries somehow. Perhaps lingering fainting spells from having been gassed during the war led to him blacking out at the wheel? Somehow this would have been more tragic than just random. Poor Sybil's death was so raw and heartbreaking and showed how dangerous childbirth was for so many centuries- even in "modern" times.

I find Elizabeth George's choice to be emotional manipulation- like setting up dominoes to knock them down. If you have to do that to keep your series going then perhaps you are out of ideas and it's time to the end the series gracefully which is something authors of Tv shows and books are less and less likely to do nowadays.

[Connie Fischer]

I remember years ago when I was a stay-at-home Mom that I liked to watch Days of our Lives. One Friday afternoon, the main female star was murdered. I was appalled and furious and shocked, etc. I even ranted to my husband about it when he came home. Yes, the looks from him were funny. I was mad all weekend. On Monday, I almost didn’t turn on the show because I was so pissed. But I did. That’s when I learned that it was her twin sister that had been murdered! Damn them for doing that to the viewers. After that, I weened myself away from the series.

[Susan/DC]

My oldest son was a soldier in Iraq when Elizabeth George killed off Helen and I just about lost it. I was so worried about him, and to have a character whose life I'd followed for over a decade die just seemed symbolic of everything that could go wrong. Like Connie F, I ranted to my husband and said I'd never again read another George book, and I haven't. I'd noticed several books before that George seems to have a thing about families and children, where children are somehow the catalyst for tragedy as they are either the criminals or the victims. It may just be in the nature of a crime novelist, but she definitely does not portray many happy families, and in that sense I felt manipulated by Helen's death. I do not like feeling that something is not organic but artificially created by an author based on her own biases or to fulfill a plot point.

OTOH, she wrote about it beautifully, as in the scene when Lynley has to pick a tie for the funeral and thinks about how she'd lunched with a friend on the day she'd died, and that friend had had shared Helen's "lasts" -- the last meal, the last conversation, the last laughter. He was now embarked on "firsts" -- the first time since his marriage he had to pick out a tie, the first time in years she wasn't part of his life. It was heartbreaking reading.

[Andrea Penrose]

Connie, I totally understand your emotions. I get very committed to characters in books—they become friends and it's painful to lose them! Those of us who truly love stories and the human emotions they create understand this, I think. To others we may look silly. But tht's the way it is.

[Andrea Penrose]

Susan/DC, thank you so much for sharing such heartfelt sentiments. I reacted very viscerally to Helen's death, too—as you say, this was someone we had come to know over a long period, and she. like all well-written characters had taken on a real life to me. I didn't like her being wrenched from me. (Though i totally agree that george wrote it so very poignantly.)

You touched on a basic of crime novels, I think. At heart they delve into the darker side of human nature and tend to show us unhappy situations. I read them because I enjoy seeing an author explore the pyschological aspects of his/her characters. But they can be depressing. For a long time, I vowed I wouldn't invest my emotions in George's series again, but I'm glad I did as I have found her explorations of Thomas's grief very well-done. That said, the newer books are pretty grim. But after Helen, I'm a bit more detached from them, so read them more for the craft, and don't let myself get too drawn in.

[Sara]

I was startled by the death of Matthew Crawley and didn't expect it to be so abrupt, but when I read that Dan Stevens didn't renew his contract, I understood the reason for killing off the character. I have seen characters killed off of shows and the rest of the show continues successfully when the focus is on another main character or the introduction of a new character. I was starting to get bored with Mary and Matthew because once they finally got together, there didn't seem to be much more to add to their storyline except the birth of an heir or some other contrived conflict. Although Julian Fellowes' excuse of preserving "perfect love" is a bit lame, it does open the door for some new directions. Perhaps Mary is possibly forever changed and becomes less pretentious or turns to some vice to soothe her broken heart until a new love interest comes along. If Fellowes were to preserve the Matthew character that could be reintroduced later, he could take a cue from some other shows that had the appearance of killing off the character but later reintroduced him with a different actor with no explanation of his "altered appearance" or explained by some disfiguring accident causing an entirely unrecognizable person. I think Fellowes could have borrowed a bit from an old movie starring Greer Garson and Ronald Coleman called RANDOM HARVEST which was adapted from the book of the same name. Coleman's character had amnesia (shell-shocked from WWI) and couldn't remember his name or family. He met and fell in love with Garson's character. They married and had a baby. Coleman left on a business trip and didn't come back (no explanation). He had an accident and recovered his complete memory but forgot his time with Garson even though he had a feeling that something was missing in his life. Years later Garson sees a photo of Coleman with his family in a newspaper and tries to get back in his life (because he doesn't recognize her) by becoming his secretary and eventually his wife hoping he will remember her. Once over the initial shock of Matthew Crawley's car accident and irritation with the circumstances, etc., I'm actually curious to find out about the next chapter of Mary Crawley's life as widow and mother.

[Andrea Penrose]

Very interesting, Sara. You're probably right in that the major conflicts had been"done" with Matthew and mary. I was sort-of hoping to see a more s development of why they loved each other despite their character flaws (Mary's mean streak, especially) But that's probably too subtle for television.

I may be wrong, but I think the next season will show Mary, Tom and Edith getting caught up in the Roaring Twenties vices—-drinking, drugs, illicit affairs. It would make for the perfect drama!

[Janice]

Ken Levine posted a nifty review of Downton Abbey's third season. He noted many of the same things that bothered us. It's at

http://kenlevine.blogspot.com/

Scroll down several posts to find it.