SannraB

As far as i know there had been a picture, where you can see Mary, Tom and Mr. Carson at a graveyard in dark costumes. That's why they are speculating about it.

Yes, but this can also happen after her marriage. I like the idea of Rose getting more adult. The marriage maybe had been a childish reaction, but then afterwards she learns what it means to be married. And what it really means to love. It means responsibility!

The Mary-Edith-Thing: Mary blames Edith because she has to. I'm sure there already had been trouble between the two women when they had been little girls. The roots of misunderstanding and suspicion are too deep because they always rivaled against another. Mary can not control her Feelings, so she can't forgive Edith. She can forgive Robert because he is the head of the family and the father. It had been part of education not to blame the parents at that time. Mary will hate Edith after the fire, but maybe someone can calm her down. Maybe Tom, maybe Anna...

HarshBench

I don't think they were rivals as children. Mary was the favored oldest child and Edith was a second-class citizen. There was never any kind of contest between them in Mary's eyes: she was the favorite, the pretty one, the cool one, the important one. She demeaned, dismissed and ignored Edith and so did everyone else. She never felt the least bit threatened by Edith. Why should she?

The actress herself has said Mary was always just that "mean older sister" and it was "unfair." The writer has said she is mean to her sister for no reason. She's mean because she enjoys it and her parents never did anything to stop it. She doesn't have to be: she chooses to be, and she can be because she gets away with it.

Edith has more reason to be resentful of Mary than the other way around, but she has stopped being mean to her. Just as Mary was raised to defer to her father, Edith was raised to believe she was inferior to Mary and no matter how hard she tries, she can't gain her parents' favor and attention. She was "taught" from birth that Mary was above her. So she does not assert herself against her sister, just as Mary doesn't assert herself against her father.

northboundtrain

I don't know, I think the situations are so different that I can't fault Mary for treating Robert one way and Edith another. First, because Mary's reactions to Robert and Edith are always going to be influenced by her relationships with them. Mary and Robert are very close, and Mary and Edith are not, so of course Mary will treat them differently.

It's the same thing with posters here. Like Mary, we tend to easily forgive our favorites even when they do awful things, and we tend to be harder on characters we hate who do things that are annoying but ultimately harmless.

And secondly because everyone processes grief differently. Cora processed it by blaming Robert. But she was the only one who chose to grieve that way. Even Tom, who had reason to be furious with Robert and to hate him for the rest of his life, chose to process his grief in another way. I don't remember him saying even one word to Robert in anger, but I could be wrong about that...it's been awhile since I've seen S3.

In this case, no one's dying (hopefully), so Mary doesn't have to worry about grieving anyone, especially not as intensely as she did her little sister. That leaves more room for other feelings, like anger at Edith's reckless mistake in a moment of self-pity endangering the lives of everyone in the house.


I agree with this. One of the reasons I love Mary so much is because she's layered and as flawed as she is strong. One of those flaws is how she piles on Edith. And I do think JF intends for the audience to see that as a flaw. I don't think he thinks we should all be applauding her for her behavior. Mary is his favorite, but he's totally unafraid to show her in an unflattering light, which I respect.

And, as someone who has never cared for Edith (and at times has found her annoying and obnoxious), I know I'll empathize with her in this situation because I know she'll feel absolutely awful. And I'll hope that Mary's reaction will be the exception rather than the rule.

HarshBench

Throwing a book is not a reckless action in and of itself. I can easily see Mary doing exactly the same thing in a moment of self pity, particularly after Matthew died. We've seen her throw things in anger before, like her handkerchief for example. This is a careless mistake but not a "reckless" one. Driving drunk or leaving a burning cigarette by the bed are reckless. Throwing a book in an empty room is not. The chance of it landing in the fire were very small, so the fact that she didn't foresee it is understandable.

Edith would never knowingly do anything that might endanger someone. This is just an unlucky mistake. House fires were a lot more common back then and could start in all sorts of unforeseen ways. But Mary will see her as having been reckless and stupid and behaving dangerously. Even though the fact is it could easily have happened to her too. But this proves your point: when we don't like someone, we are more inclined to judge them unfairly for their honest mistakes.

No, Tom never got angry with Robert which was highly unrealistic. Anger is a stage in the grief process and almost everyone experiences it. Everyone grieves differently but anger is virtually always part of the process.

northboundtrain

But, just as house fires were more common back then, can't the argument be made that Edith should have been even more aware of the danger of throwing flammable objects around in a room where she has an open flame?

She allowed her self-pity to take precedence. It's an understandable reaction, and I sympathize -- she's going through a lot and has no one to share it with. But throwing the book in anger and not caring where it landed in a room where she knows she has a fire set, to me, does seem a little reckless.

And I agree with you that Edith would never knowingly do something that would endanger someone, but I would also argue that Robert didn't knowingly mean to endanger Sybil. It was a tragic consequence of his poor decisions.


Absolutely.


Anger is generally part of the process, but not necessarily anger toward a particular person. Anger toward oneself, anger towards God, irrational anger towards people who had nothing to do with the death and are guilty only of being alive while a loved one is dead -- I would say all of those are also possible outlets.

My take on Tom (though, again, it's been awhile) was that he was struck numb with Sybil's death and basically just hanging onto Sybbie to get him through. One of my favorite scenes from the show, one that I'll remember well after it goes off the air, was the shot of grieving Tom holding Sybbie and looking out the window of the house. As the camera pulled back, the house got bigger and bigger and Tom got smaller and smaller. I thought that was a beautiful metaphor for what Tom was going through and what kind of life he now faced.

Andorra

Hm, I don't know which point in the history you're referring to? You mean when Matthew came back to the house and brought Lavinia? Edith wasn't particularily nice then. She seemed to enjoy rubbing it into Mary's nose that he was engaged. So she wasn't really sympathetic either.

IMO the relationship between Mary and Edith is bad and it IS mainly Mary's fault. There's no denying it, but Edith hasn't been an angel either when it comes to Mary. She's the weaker part in the battle and therefor I sympathize with her more, but it is not as if Edith is always nice and friendly and Mary is always horrible and awful towards her.

They have a complicated and unhealthy dynamic sometimes, but I don't see all the fault on Mary's side and I can't truly tell you which sister I prefer. I like them both equally. I can't hate either of them.

HarshBench

Edith was sympathetic to Mary in S2 when Matthew was missing in action, even though he was engaged to someone else. She found out about it first and went to tell her so she could be let down gently. Mary even thanked her, in her own way.

Contrast that to S4: Gregson is missing, and Mary makes a mean joke about it.

And Mary is mean to Edith now, but Edith is not mean to her. Can you provide an example of when Edith was truly mean to Mary in S4? I can't think of one. But Mary still is.

I don't think Robert's behavior is comparable to Edith's at all. He was behaving horribly in general. Disrspectful to his wife and the doctor, and to Tom, pinheaded, arrogant, driven by his ego and his need for control.

He was presented with cold hard facts that Sybil might be in danger. He was shown the fire hazard staring him in the face. Edith, from what we can tell, is not mistreating anyone or being blind to the obvious danger.

She is careless. Robert was reckless and negligent to the point of culpability. He knew the danger and he chose to ignore it. Everyone was pointing to it and he refused to do anything about it or consider the facts.

northboundtrain

I didn't mean to suggest that his behavior is on the same scale of Edith's or that they bear any kind of similarities aside from the fact that both didn't intend harm. I agree with you that Robert's behavior was awful, and had I been Cora I would have blamed him and been furious. But you said that Edith didn't intend to hurt anyone, and I said that Robert didn't intend to hurt Sybil. That's all I meant.


Everyone except the doctor he trusted above all of them, though. I think that had a lot to do with the decisions he made -- he chose to trust that doctor over Clarkson, and unfortunately Sybil suffered the consequences.

HarshBench

It was worse than unfortunate.

The fact is the other doctor refused to consider her symptoms. He KNEW that she had all of them, even a urine test, for God's sake. And he STILL said she didn't have it! For Robert to listen to him wasn't just the wrong call, it was willfully blind. He wanted HIS choice to be right because he needed to be right and in control. He was driven by selfish needs as much as by concern for Sybil It was about his own ego.

No, he didn't intend to hurt her but neither was he motivated only by concern for her safety. It was about him.

He didn't just choose not to listen to Clarkson. He chose not to listen to his wife, or listen to/heed hard evidence (actual test results). I just see that as inherently backward and stupid.

northboundtrain

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I can agree that Robert was wrong. Should he have backed off and left the decision to Tom? Yes. Was he trying to be in control of the situation because that's what he's used to? Yes. Does he need to get with the changing times? Yes.

But I keep going back to the fact that he had two doctors -- one he trusted and one he didn't (for reasons that had been made clear in earlier seasons...Clarkson's been wrong a lot) -- telling him two totally different things. The one he trusted said it would be dangerous to take Sybil to the hospital, and the one he didn't trust said it would be dangerous to leave Sybil at the house. I'm not surprised he sided with the doctor he trusted.

Also, I'm sorry you were put off by the word choice of "unfortunately." I wasn't intending to marginalize Sybil's death.

NikNak

HarshBench

Can we move Andorra's comprehensive spoiler list over there?

NikNak

Sure.