But along with the last season, come the critics more snarky than usual. And none of them are as obnoxious as author Louis Bayard of the New York Times. It must be truly wonderful to be as superior as he thinks he is.
Mr. Bayard has been doing episode recaps for the New York Times. Except it is more like a hatchet job. Why dear Mr. Bayard, if I did not know better I would say you had a bad case of bitchy SOUR GRAPES. Maybe Mrs. Patmore can whip you up a digestif?
This recap contains spoilers for Sunday’s episode of “Downton Abbey.”
Send in the puppies!
And that is all I am posting. It’s obnoxious. As a matter of fact most of his scribbles on Downton Abbey are obnoxious. (And apparently, he also doesn’t think much of the works of Jane Austen, which I also enjoy.)
January 3rd he referred to “the dagger-mouth of Maggie Smith”
Ok wow. Dame Maggie Smith is one of the finest actresses alive and well who hasn’t loved how she has played the Dowager Countess these past few years? (Thanks to Maggie Smith and Julien Fellows we have some marvelous one liners to last us a few years.)
I guess the point I am trying to make is this: this show has been coming into our homes for the past few years and it has been a long time since we had something capture our imagination much like Upstairs Downstairs, The Duchess of Duke Street, Lillie, or the original Poldark (which has been reborn into a remake of the original series and it’s also terrific so Mr. Bayard will undoubtedly hate this series too.)
Television today is a lot of showing of body parts (usually female, and usually “enhanced”), guns, sometimes bad fashion, and darkness. A lot of darkness. Downton Abbey instead these past few years has transported us to another place and time and gloriously so.
So why does the New York Times have to tear down every episode with obnoxious recaps masquerading as reviews? Has it been such a trial watching a beautiful period drama? Would Mr. Bayard prefer endless seasons of ABC’s The Bachelor? Are mindless boobs (quite literally) more his speed?
With all the dreadful reality we deal with in our everyday lives in out everyday world – you know like the terrifying array of potentially psychopathic US Presidential hopefuls (cue Ted Cruz), Downtown Abbey has been a pleasant respite. And why not?
But the New York Times? Wow. Are they that desperate to sell papers and online subscriptions that they can’t just enjoy Downton Abbey for what it is? They have to rip it to shreds weekly like proverbial blood sport? That is journalism? Is their some unwritten law where critics can’t like anything? Or can’t review without a large dose of bitchy? That is really sad.
I will miss when there is no Downtown Abbey next season. Again, I have loved it from the setting, the age in which it is set, to the wardrobe. It has been so fun!
(And yes, spoiler alert I have seen the finale…I loved it.)
I saw this book on one of my favorite treasure sites Garage Sale Chic Chester County. The owner Kim has a great eye, and well today she just got me. She also prices fairly.
She put up a photo of a book she had for sale called “The Successful Housekeeper” dated 1882. More than fair condition for it’s age and at $12 it had to be mine.
So I took a little drive over to see her in West Chester, and also discovered a fun litho too called “The Lucky Rich” that is so Downton Abbey it makes me giggle.
But back to this book, which I have now learned was a housewife’s bible of the time and still has people seeking it out. Written by Mrs. Milon W. Ellsworth in 1882, it advertised itself as a “Manual of Universal Application; Especially Adapted to the Every Day Wants of American Housewives.”
There are recipes, homemaking tips, entertaining tips, a section on rearing children, growing flowers. You name it, it is like Betty Crocker meets Good Housekeeping only so much more fun given the era of publication.
My copy is a little dog- eared, but whomever originally owned it also added her own recipes.