#again not to say i dislike representation as needed - quite the contrary i actually very much like it!

[ofcowardiceandkings]

What do you mean by post-game house? :s

oh , OH sorry !!

thats just me being flippant about my own ideas like people know what im talking about at all times lol

basically, i was originally just gonna do one art piece for Link's house in Breath of the Wild - but me being me - after about 4 seconds i decided to make it complicated for myself :L

i completed this isometric work a few weeks ago of what Link's house looks like as its represented in game, because i wanted to practice making (and key part: finishing) isometric art again ...

[insert some waffling about worldbuilding]

simply put, Link's house doesn't match it's floor plan - which is fine !! the design of the house in Hateno is for specific uses by the player !! .... but WHAT IF IT DID THOUGH

so when ive (at least mostly) done the things im working on now, i'll be backtracking to house art where i'm going to kind of smush a few worldbuilding ideas into one.

FIRST and most immediate is to have a house that matches the floor plan lmfao ... this is actually pretty easy to fix since Link's house footprint is a clone of one from the other side of Hateno that DOES fit the floor plan, and it's very cute. this is also partially dictated by like ... living needs lmfao like washrooms and functional kitchens ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

SECOND, that while on his travels i refuse to believe Link didn't hoard weird trinkets and other junk !! look at his fuckn inventory the lad just magpies everything lol ... cool rock from the top of a mountain? nice. cute pot plant from Lurelin ? yes. funky little Goron board game ? of course. wood-bound Rito recipe book with feathers on the bookmark ? absolutely. literally anything he could reasonably salvage from Zelda's quarters ? without question.

THIRD, which also kind of plays into the second, as it stands we kind of have to assume that the most logical thing after BotW would be for Zelda to just ?? go stay with Link ??? even if she wants to get to working things out right away she needs a minute to deal with like ... everything .... its not even from a shippy standpoint, i mean she could theoretically stay with Impa but her closest bond is to Link, and Purah lives in the same town sooo ??? what would it look like with her stuff there too ?? not that i'd imagine she would have a lot of stuff but yano ... something for her to do when she's relaxing, her clothes, her notes, a few bits of scavenged ancient Sheikah junk to muck around with ... Just Zelda's Stuff ;3;

so yeah ... post-game house .... Link's Hateno house but with evidence of use throughout and after BotW :')

right now im probably gonna do a floorplan D&D style and also another isometric because im an unstoppable gremlin har har har watch me GO

[thecaffeinebookwarrior]

More Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing

A long while back, I typed up some posts ranting about characters and tropes I disliked.  These were Male and Female Characters to Avoid in Your Writing, and they’ve become my most popular posts yet.  Recently, I was struck by some topical inspiration, and decided it was time for a sequel!  

One again, these are my personal, subjective opinions!  No one dictates your writing or portrayals but you, and no one can or should decide how you consume fiction.  Also, as you may notice, I actually like most of the ladies below;  I just don’t like certain aspects of their portrayal.

Enjoy, and happy writing everybody! 

1.  The Daenerys (i.e. the spontaneous war criminal)

Image source

Who she is:

The formerly heroic Mother of Dragons, who randomly charbroiled a city full of innocent people.

Why it sucks:

I’m not even talking about this from a feminist standpoint, or how one of the most consistently heroic and powerful female characters took an abrupt and undignified backflip into the Dark Side.  I’m speaking from a writer’s standpoint.  

Regardless of whether you liked Daenerys, she was rivaled only by Jon and Brienne as the show’s most consistently heroic character  From locking away her dragon children to ensure the safety of her subjects, to freeing countless enslaved citizens, she’s spent a decade proving herself to be an altruistic and noble figure.  And then, in the final two episodes of the entire show, the writers dracarys-ed that shit.

For some comparison, just imagine how ridiculous it would be if Jon Snow suddenly went batshit and started hacking up citizens because he was feeling stressed.  That’s about as plausible as Dany’s sudden passion for genocide.

And for the record, I’m not opposed to Daenerys becoming Mad Queen.  If it was done properly. This would mean informing the actress far in advance so she could modify her portrayal accordingly (which they didn’t), and building up to it through foreshadowing and established attributes.  Not at the last fucking minute.

Honestly, the only characters who remained narratively consistent to the very end are Drogon and Ghost, who are both precious babies who did nothing wrong.  

How to avoid her:

Decide as early as possible where a character arc is going.  Contrary to what Game of Thrones seems to believe, the character arc is important.  It should have a beginning, challenges that incite development, and a satisfying conclusion that showcases how a character has changed and evolved.  

And if you didn’t decide early?  You still have to come up with a conclusion that makes sense for your character, and not slap on the most unexpected ending possible in the name of Subverting Expectations.

On that note?  Subverting expectations isn’t always a good thing, and a reader predicting your ending isn’t the worst possible outcome.  Focus on telling a good story.  

2.  The Rayon (i.e. the transgender stereotype)

Who she is:

A transgender woman (portrayed by the male, cisgender Jared Leto) dying slowly of AIDS in Dallas Buyer’s Club.  Her role in the narrative is to teach the supposedly heterosexual (more on that later) main character that queer people are human beings.  

Why it sucks:

Rayon is many things in Buyer’s Club, and most are firmly rooted in stereotypes.  She’s a sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted prostitute.   She’s hypersexual, but never treated as romantically desirable.  She’s tragic, but also one of the few consistently comedic characters in an otherwise bleak film. 

It’s her job to gently goad the main character into treating her with basic respect, but he never quite gets there.  He refers to her with male pronouns throughout the entire film, and never acknowledges her as a woman.  At one point, he aims a gun at her genitals and offers her a “sex change operation.”  Which, is supposed to be comedic.

This isn’t to say that there are no sassy, flirtatious, clothing-obsessed, self-loathing, drug-addicted transgender sex workers, nor is there anything wrong with “stereotypical” trans people.  It isn’t the job of the marginalized to dispel stereotypes.  And if real trans people had created and portrayed Rayon, she could have been a realistic, dynamic, and compelling character.

And I say “created” because Rayon is strictly fictional.  Outside of this film, she didn’t exist.  

“Well, at least they tried to offer representation!”  you protest.  “What else was it supposed to be about?  A straight dude in the AIDS epidemic?”

Well, no.  Though the main character, Ron Woodroof, is presented to us as a violently homophobic, transphobic, womanizing asshole, the real Woodroof was, by all accounts, kind-hearted, open-minded, and bisexual.  

What could have been a powerful story of a queer man defying his diagnosis, living joyfully and meaningfully, and helping to prolong the lives of countless AIDS-sufferers, was instead watered down to a story of a straight, pugnacious asshole and his stereotypical, long-suffering, transgender sidekick who dies to Teach Him Compassion.  

How to avoid her:

Read books by trans people.  Consume media they create or endorse.  

List of youtube channels created by trans people here, and 21 books for trans awareness month here.

Put out a special call for transgender beta readers to point out mistakes, misconceptions, and offer tips on an authentic portrayal.

Garner insight into their perspective and experiences, and give them personalities outside of being trans.  

3.  The Piper Chapman (i.e. the unflavored oatmeal)

GIF source

Who she is:

The “protagonist” of Orange is the New Black, and its least compelling character.  She and Larry are the sort of people who would ask me for a threesome on Tinder.  

Why it sucks:

Piper’s hook is that she’s a privileged, affluent white woman who unjustly finds herself in prison for -- well, for crimes she committed.  But expected to get away with, because, Privilege.

This isn’t to say Piper is boring.  She’s far from likable, but being likable and being boring aren’t the same thing.  In another series, watching a relatively cushioned, naive, bourgeoisie woman string along various significant others, thoughtlessly incite violence, and navigate an unfamiliar prison setting would make for thought-provoking and hilarious satire.  

But when compared to her charismatic supporting cast, with richly developed backstories, motivations, and relationships, she’s painfully bland.  I would much rather watch a series centered around Suzanne, Nikki, Taystee, Poussey, or even Pennsatucky.  They’re just more developed, opulent, enjoyable characters. 

It could be argued that Piper is the viewpoint character, whom the audience is supposed to relate to.  But I can assert that I don’t relate to Piper.  At all.  Her lack of empathy towards others -- such as leaving Alex after the death of her mother, cheating on her fiance, and inadvertently starting a *ahem* white power gang -- alienated me to her.  

Which might not be such a bad thing, but Piper is (supposedly) the protagonist.  We don’t need to like her, but we should probably be able to relate to her.

Or maybe I’m just jealous that hot women aren’t inexplicably fighting over me.

How to avoid her:

Your protagonist doesn’t have to be the most likable character in your story.  They don’t even necessarily have to be the most interesting character in your story.  And certainly not the most morally good, powerful, or knowledgeable.  But the viewpoint character is the character who we spend the most time with, and from whose eyes we perceive the story.  It’s important that we understand and relate to them emotionally.

Look at examples like BoJack Horseman, Holden Caulfield, Tony Soprano, Beatrix from Kill Bill, Mavis from Young Adult, Nadia from Russian Doll.  All are complex characters, with varying degrees of moral ambiguity.  Yet we can empathize with them emotionally and identify with them.  Even if we’ve never been in their situation, we see where they’re coming from.

4.  The Charlie (i.e. the dead lesbian)

Who she is:

One of the few recurring openly queer characters in the incredibly long-running Supernatural.  A lesbian who’s journey was (sort of) brought to an end when she was killed and dumped in a bathtub to incite drama.

Why it sucks:

I love Supernatural  but it can be remarkably tone deaf towards queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  Which, probably merits fixing, considering its following is largely comprised of queer people, women, and marginalized groups.  

I probably shouldn’t have to explain why killing off women and queer people for drama is Bad, but I’ll delve into its history a little:  from what I’ve read, censorship laws of the twentieth century forbade the portrayal of queer people unless they were ultimately killed or “reformed.”  This is why so much LGBTQ+ fiction is essentially gay tragedy porn, and why gays are so frequently buried to aid in the emotional narrative of their straight counterparts.  

That’s not to say queer people can never be killed off.  I might not have an issue with Charlie’s death (especially in a show as violent as Supernatural), if she weren’t the only openly queer character at the time.  

And there’s plenty of room for representation!  If Dean was openly bisexual, if angels were vocally confirmed to be nonbinary, and if there were more recurring, respectfully portrayed female and sapphic characters, Charlie’s death might not feel like such as slap in the face.  But as it is, it feels like a contribution to an ugly pattern.

In fairness, Supernatural has since improved in its portrayal of queer people:  two gay male hunters were introduced and given a happy ending, an alternate universe version of Charlie was introduced to the cast, and God is portrayed as a bisexual man.  

Yes.  All of that happened.  You have to see it to understand.

How to avoid her:

Educate yourself on the history of censorship in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as hate crimes and decreased life expectancy.  Make sure you aren’t contributing to the suffering of queer people.

If you have only one confirmed queer character in the midst of a very large cast, I’m inclined to think you need more.  You could say I’m BI-ased on the matter, though.

Look up “fridging,” and think about how many stories use the death of female characters to incite drama for men.

5.  The Allison (i.e. the reformed feminine)

GIF source

Who she is:

She’s one of the most interesting members of the Breakfast Club, and that’s saying something.  A self-proclaimed compulsive liar who will “do anything sexual” with or without the promise of a million dollars (as well as one of the most quotable characters in the film) she demonstrates the emotional pain and complexity that’s often ignored or shrugged off as teen angst.  

And then she gets a makeover and a hot boyfriend, and suddenly everything’s better.  

Why it sucks:

It would be one thing if Allison’s problem was that she didn’t feel pretty or desirable.  But she never (to my recollection) offers any indication of that, and that’s part of what makes her such a refreshing portrayal of insecurity.  She’s emotionally neglected by her parents, and that is appropriately treated as devastating.  

It’s a complex and beautifully-portrayed problem that deserved far more than such a superficial, slapped-on solution.

Similarly, there’s no reason why Allison is paired up with the jock at the end of the film.  Neither showed any romantic interest in one another until her unnecessary makeover.  

A much better ending to her arc would be her finding acceptance among her newfound friends, and finally garner the recognition and acknowledgement she never got from her parents. 

I was torn between using Allison for this example, or Sandy’s makeover from Grease.  In both, girls are encouraged to alter their appearances to solve plot-related problems.  And both were “fixed” to conform to some standard of femininity or feminine sexuality that they didn’t meet before.

How to avoid her:

If a character feels the need to change their appearance to accommodate others or be respected, that should probably be treated as a negative thing.

Your character’s appearance can be a good tool to represent emotional changes.  If they alter their appearance, there should be a meaningful reason behind it -- outside of fitting into societal norms or garnering the approval of others. 

A girl putting on makeup isn’t a groundbreaking plot point, and girls who don’t perform to standards of femininity aren’t broken or deficient.  They don’t need “correcting.”

[bitletsanddrabbles]

Not a ship, but characters: Elsie Hughes or Cora? Carson or Robert?

First off, and this is very important, I really love all of these characters. Truly. I would have been really upset if anything had happened to any of them. I say this, because I'm about to rag on one of them a bit. I will likely use words that, in our time period, are considered near-obscenities. This is not from dislike, but rather an academic examination of their faults, using proper language.

Secondly, I will undoubtedly refer to the shooting scripts with commentary by Julian Fellows. I bought the one for first season as reference for my fan fiction and bought seasons two and three because I loved the commentary so much! I am seriously beyond annoyed that the later seasons aren't available, in no small part because I suspect it would shed light on the problem of Henry's personality. Anyway, they're great and I highly recommend them.

Next, I apologize for any massive grammatical errors, logic jumps, and other such communication glitches. I don't really intend to spend hours revising this, and I suspect my eyes will be crossing by the end.

And lastly, get comfortable. Get some tea, maybe a snack. Use the loo. Make sure you have no urgent appointments.

You will be here awhile.

In fact, in the interest of not taking up your entire dashboard, here. Have a 'keep reading' cut.

Mrs. Hughes vs. Lady Grantham is a difficult call because they're ultimately such similar and yet different characters. They're both involved in running the estate, but Mrs. Hughes is more involved with the back end schematics and Lady Grantham is more involved in presentation to society as a whole. Some would consider Mrs. Hughes's job more important, and ultimately it might be, but at the turn of the century Lady Grantham's job was not to be underestimated, by any means. She was essentially the sales, marketing, and public representation departments all wrapped into one person. Mrs. Hughes was production.

They are also bother nurturing to their 'families': Cora to her daughters and husband and Mrs. Hughes to her staff. They both do this well.

At the end of the day, having to choose, it becomes a call between Cora's growth as a character, which is interesting, and Mrs. Hughes's stability as a character, which is necessary to allow the movement of everyone else. Steady anchor points are often overlooked in stories, but they are terribly important to keep things moving along and stop them from devolving into a three ring circus. While I enjoy Cora's growth immensely, I think I'm going to have to choose Mrs. Hughes for this one. Downton really would fall apart without her, even if her husband doesn't want to admit it.

Which brings us to the easy choice: Robert.

Hands down Robert.

Charles Carson is an entertaining and enjoyable character. As a human being, he is a basically good man, but is an unfortunate product of his society. Very unfortunate. He is, by dictionary definition (see here) a bigot. He's rarely willing to change his opinion on things, sometimes flat out refusing. Despite his protests to the contrary, he's rarely sympathetic with anyone. He doesn't realize how much the firm structure he requires for comfort hurts others and will deny it when pointed out unless something really, astonishingly bad happens. You know, like one of his underlings trying to kill himself.

When not being asked to choose characters, I'm willing to overlook all of this to a certain degree, because he is human and he does try. The harm he causes is almost entirely unintentional, and when it is intentional, it's generally caused by the belief that he needs to be firm to be a good leader. Show them who's in charge, allow no shenanigans, etc. This is how he was trained. It also hurts him as much as it hurts everyone else. I mean, who else is actively leery of having fun?

No, generally Mr. Carson is a curmudgeon whose bark is worse than his bite and, along with his wife, I love him for his good points and despite his copious glaring faults.

Robert Crawley still easily wins.

People really like to go on about Robert's faults and his prejudice. After all, he is a "privileged white man" and our society hates those. We don't want to understand them. Papers can (and have) been written about how prejudiced Robert is.

The thing is, and what I find more important, is how prejudiced Robert isn't. Seriously, for a privileged white guy at the turn of the twentieth century, he could be far, far worse (see Larry Grey). Here, let's take a look at a few things, shall we?

We'll start with something very general. We'll start with his response to change. There sure is a lot of it in this show! And let's be honest, change is stressful. A lot of people don't handle it well. It's actually quite understanding that Robert's not fond of it. Up until that time period, things had moved around rather slowly. There would be the occasional war or medical discovery. There were always new fashions. That 'industrial revolution' thing had happened and things had started going faster, but compared to today's world when a phone you've had for a year is an old model, time might as well have stood still.

Robert still handles this change with relative grace for his age and station. Okay, Matthew and Tom, both being younger, from more hands-on view points, and more in touch with the world handle it better, but Carson and Lady Violet both handle it worse. Especially Carson. Robert handles it like a horse who has had something new suddenly introduced to the paddock: he shies, he bucks, he might run a bit or kick out a time or two, but if you slowly lead him back around to this strange thing enough times, he eventually figures out "Oh, hey. This thing isn't really a big deal after all, is it?" And he accepts it - embraces it even, in some cases - and moves on.

This brings us to the first point of actual prejudice and the one he is most undeniably guilty of, classism. First off, people ignore the fact that classism runs both ways. Miss Bunting was probably the single most classist bigot of the show, followed by the Sinderby's butler, then Lady Violet (who, according to every poll I've seen, is the most popular character in the show). Robert's classism (as with most of his prejudice, honestly) is institutionalized rather than personal which doesn't make it okay, but does make it easier to understand and fight once it's attacked in a rational manner. In other words, yes, he pitched an ever loving fit when Sybil married the chauffeur, but he got over it. He went from "you will have no money!" to "...okay, you haven't asked for it, but the money thing can happen" far faster than Carson went from "I will not dress the former chauffeur!" to accepting "Branson is part of the family now”. Carson also didn't have the excuse of feeling like his daughter was actively being taken away from him, off to a different country, a different life, and that he had somehow failed as a parent, which is undoubtedly how Robert felt.

Admittedly, once started, it wasn't all forward progress, but the hiccups there were tended to be fairly legitimate. Grief over Sybil's death combining with the last vestiges of feeling like Branson had taken his daughter away from him. Finding out his son-in-law had abandoned his pregnant daughter in hostile territory after helping to burn down someone's house. I mean I understand why Branson was doing what he was doing, but having an arsonist in the house is something to worry about!

The other thing to note about this is that while Robert definitely believes in the class structure and holds to it and sees himself at the top, he actually values the people below him. The reason Mrs. Patmore was so panicked about her failing vision in season one and so relieved when Robert sent her for surgery rather than turn her out with a meager pension is because so many people wouldn't have. It would have been "thank you for your services, good luck" and that would be that. He sees employing people and making it so they can have a wage his job and when he started not being able to pay a competitive wage or replace people when they quit, he saw it as a personal failure. His decision had created the underbutler position and I don't think he was really happy to have to do away with it (and, observant and in touch with things as he isn't, I am positive he didn't realize how pushy Carson was being about the whole thing. I doubt he would have liked it). He shows up at everyone's weddings. His perception is skewed, but his heart is in the right place.

And speaking of Miss Bunting, there is the point of his not being able to produce Daisy's name on demand. He doesn't deal with Daisy on a regular basis, so he would absolutely be less aware of her than he would be of, say, Carson or the personal staff. However, he did attend her wedding and she has been there for fifteen years. So what makes more sense - that he honestly doesn't know her name or that he straight up blanked on it? I think the second. After all, I once spent probably fifteen minutes all told unable to remember the name of my oldest cousin. He knew her at her wedding, he certainly knew her at the auction in season six and after!, I'm pretty sure when not being put on the spot by someone aggressively vilifying him to his face, he'd do a bit better.

The next big prejudice covered by the show is religion. This is one Robert has, but not in the way you would expect. In a society that could be very anti-Semitic, he doesn't give a flying fig if you're Jewish. His father-in-law was a Jew. Lady Rose married a Jewish boy and there's no indication of disapproval from Robert what so ever. He does have a problem with Catholics and that, Julian Fellows explains, was largely a point of national patriotism. England, as a whole, did not trust a religion that answered to an Italian instead of the Kng. It was seen as something of a conflict of interest. Again, this doesn't make it alright, but it makes it understandable within the context of the society (especially when your Catholic son-in-law burnt down someone's house) and was really more political than anything.

There were more issues at play with Sybbie's being Catholic, of course. There was that whole grieving thing, again the lingering feeling that Branson had taken Sybil away, etc. As usual, though, once it was clear he was outnumbered and the change was happening, Robert set aside fears that his granddaughter might go burning houses if that Italian guy thought it was a good idea and got on with life.

(Seriously, this really does seem to be comparable, at least in the mindset of the English, to a modern day Englishman following the president of a different country rather than the Queen. Not necessarily terrible, but potentially so, especially if war breaks out and the two countries are suddenly on opposing sides. Treason is a thing that can be kinda messy.)

Then there's sexism. I honestly think Robert gets way more flack for this than he truly deserves. It's not that he isn't sexist at all (again, institutionalized sexism), but that most of his worst offenses are actually a combination of his being legitimately not-super-observant and the aforementioned "horse in paddock" syndrome. He is used to his family behaving in a certain way. He is also, as with Cora, part of the sales/marketing/pr department. He is concerned about what the neighbors think because he is expected to and people in this day and age just don't get how important that was. The thought that his family would be seen poorly was not just a threat to him and his masculine pride, but to them and their opportunities in life. A lot of his keeping them at home was honestly trying to protect them, even if it was also underestimating their abilities, and really - they were just discovering their abilities! How was he supposed to know all about it?

Suddenly the war happened and his wife and daughters started behaving differently. He was legitimately confused, and no wonder! Can you see season one Mary slopping pigs? Can you see season one Edith running a magazine? People really did think that things would go 'back to normal' after the war, but they didn't. The women in his life started moving without warning and left him struggling to cope with the unexpected change.

Once he circled back around enough times to realize this big, scary change really wasn't big or scary, he was proud of them. He was proud of Mary for taking on the task of agent. Heck, he was practically proud of her for growing up enough to have an affair with Tony Gillingham! He accepted Marigold without batting an eyelash and got to the point where he was pleased to call Edith an "interesting woman". He was really, really proud of Cora after Rose lured him, carrot in hand, to the hospital!  He had never been more proud or the woman he loved.

And he loved her. She was the pillar holding him steady, and that is not just a pretty turn of phrase. One thing our society that has not changed one whit in the past hundred years is that men are supposed to be emotionally dependent on the women they are intimate with. There is huge pressure put on men to have a girlfriend or to be married, and it's not all machismo and Mummy dearest wanting grand kids, it's "this is the person you should talk to about your problems." This leads to emotional discussion being firmly linked, in the male view, with sex. Women, being encouraged to have friends to talk to, don't have that mental connection, and this causes a metric ton of relationship problems. So we come to his affair, if you want to call it that, with Jane (And honestly, while it nearly went beyond two kisses, I still think calling it an affair is giving it an awful lot of credit).

The war was over. Things were changing. While it might be socially permissible for him to discuss the politics of the changes with Bates or some other man, the resultant emotional turmoil was something Cora was, by societal standards, supposed to help him get through. For over half of his life, she had done just that. Now, he needed that emotional support and suddenly it wasn't there because his wife was off learning how to be useful and important. This was a great thing for her, and ultimately for them as a couple, but everything has consequences and the immediate consequence of this was that she didn't need to lean on anyone, he did, and he didn't have anyone. It is really rather unbecoming for a fifty year old man to go crying to his mother every time he needs bucking up.

Jane was young, pretty, was going through the rough transition of losing a spouse, was lonely as a result, and had a son, which appealed to Robert since he'd always wanted one. I seriously think he initially took an interest in her as much to take an interest in something as anything. Things got worse the longer he went without someone to talk to about his feelings, and she wasn't getting any less lonely or in need of someone to make her feel wanted.  Then, finally, Cora got the flu. While it seems outrageous that he would have an affair with a maid while his wife was maybe dying, his wife maybe dying was why he badly needed the emotional support of his wife, which he in turn couldn't have because his wife was maybe dying. Again, at fifty, running to Lady Violet at this juncture would have been viewed as A Bit Much by a lot of people. The fact that those people were absolute prats from a modern view point doesn't change this.

So, while both his society and ours agree that having an affair at the time was wrong, the real question here is what his society would have considered right. Please do ring me up when you've figured out the answer, because honestly? I've no clue.

Of course, once Cora didn't die, he looked back at things, got his head on straight, and ended things with Jane like a gentleman. He did the right thing, in the end. I consider this to be a far more material point than the fact he didn't intuitively pull a graceful way to maneuver a situation that he had no real coping mechanism for out of his ear.

There is one prejudice that I've seen him assigned in fan fiction, and it pisses me off every time: homophobia. This is one prejudice that Robert has barely any of. Yes, it's there in his little chuckles with Bates, but honestly? Compared to Carson? Compared to Jimmy and Alfred and the police and parliament? A little chuckle in private that is meant without malice is hardly a complaint. Thomas isn't happy at Downton most of the time, but he's there. Other employers would have sacked him the second they put two and two together. Heck, left to his own devices and reasonably assured there would be no scandal, Carson probably would have sacked him. I am quite certain that at some point there was a conversation in which Robert brushed that concern off as absolutely no reason to sack a perfectly good footman. This doesn't mean he didn't make a hash of things on a regular basis, but that was more from not understanding the problem than actual malicious intent. If, for example, someone actually pointed out that in hiring Bates he'd basically told Thomas "I would rather have a normal man who will never be able to do his job than a filthy degenerate like you" I would expect him to balk ("I never said that!"), bolt ("Pff, none of the staff would think that!"), and then, when finally reaching the point of accepting it, feel absolutely terrible. He flat out lied to the police to keep the man out of prison, for crying out loud!

While he is not an advocate for gay rights, by any means, it is something that he is absolutely not fussed about.

He has other legitimate flaws. His temper. His passiveness in many situations. But he is a genuinely good man. He cares about his people and wants them to do well. He wants to protect them and provide for them and make their lives comfortable. He is genuinely interested in improving the world as a whole.

There are so many people you can not say that about, and many of them get far more credit.

And on that note, I am going to bed.