text:
Amie Simon writes: It's here! The Downton Abbey season three finale! (Already? Bummer.) This week's 2-hour episode wraps up the season with love blooming in some very unlikely places, lots of hilarity, drunkenness, joy, and … an unexpected shocker. Here are the highlights—and season 4 cannot come soon enough!
We open on Downton one year later from the previous episode. The servants are busy packing up the Crawleys for their departure to Duneagle in Scotland—the residence of Lord and Lady Flintshire, aka precocious Rose's parents (remember her scandalous antics in London?), and Robert's cousins. O'Brien, Bates, Anna, and Molesley are in tow to help the Duneagle staff deal with all their extra guests.
Bates exclaims that this is "the high spot of his lordship's calendar." The family has gone every year … except during the war, and last year, after Lady Sybil's death. (SOB!) We also see that Mr. Barrow seems to have settled into his under butler position quite well—his bossy demeanor is back.
Cut to Matthew and Mary's bedroom, and … Lady Mary is finally pregnant! YAY! Matthew offers to go to Scotland alone, but Mary counters with news that "…it isn't 1850!" and that she's perfectly capable of moving around, even while she's carrying their baby.
At breakfast, Edith takes a phone call from "the editor," who will coincidentally be near Duneagle and wants to pop by to meet the family. That seems rather presumptuous, doesn't it? Both Robert's and Lady Mary's eyebrows certainly think so.
The only family member living at Downton who's NOT going to Scotland is Branson, but he honestly looks rather relieved. The Dowager seems concerned about Tom staying home unsupervised, but Isobel (who's also not going) assures Violet she will keep an eye on Tom while they're away.
Once the Crawleys are away, Alfred and Jimmy ask Carson the most impertinent question ever, which is whether they'll have time off while the family is gone. Carson counters with, "I don't understand. Has someone forgotten to pay your wages?" While Carson continues by explaining the boys will spend their time cleaning each piece of silver in the house, Mrs. Hughes shuts the giggling maids up by telling them they'll be working just as hard cleaning all the rooms. Sorry, ladies!
New housemaid Edna seems a little extra snoopy … especially about Branson and his former chauffer status. Mrs. Hughes finds her poking around Tom's room, paying particular attention to Lady Sybil's apparently mind-boggling choice to marry beneath her station.
Over tea, Isobel and Dr. Clarkson discuss his worry over Mary going away (understandable after what happened to our bright spirit, Sybil). And a lonely Isobel invites him over to supper the next night. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a minute. Is romance in the air?
And then …. uh-oh. Edna appears to be after more than just information about Branson! She sneaks into the dining room to retrieve Tom's dishes, and starts being a little more familiar than a maid should be, smiling in a particularly predatory way when he asks for her name.
Over in Scotland, Lord Flintshire (Hugh, aka "Shrimpy"), Lady Flintshire (Susan), and Rose welcome everyone to Duneagle, which totally looks like a fairytale princess castle. It's huge! And there are turrets! All seem overjoyed to see each other, especially Rose, who is now enamored of Matthew after he rescued her in London (and didn't spill to the details to her mama).
Back in England, a strange deliveryman named Mr. Tufton arrives in the Downton kitchen to see Mrs. Patmore. Thomas is being very cocky and sure now that he's in charge, but I can't lie; I like seeing a bit of his old self shine through. Ivy & Daisy (who now appear to be BFFs) giggle over Tufton flirting outrageously with Mrs. Patmore. As Patmore shooed him away with a, "Be off with you, you cheeky devil!", I laughed so hard I nearly passed out.
Here's where I need a "1900s servants for dummies" cheat sheet: The Duneagle butler, Mr. McCree, calls Bates and O'Brien Mr. and Mrs. Grantham!?!?! And also calls Anna Ms. Crawley. WHAT THE HECK. He seems to know Anna is married to Bates, but … I don't know. I guess it's his way of further dividing the classes. Like, you don't even get your own name!
The MacClares sure know how to welcome their guests in the authentic Scottish tradition: with a blaringly loud bagpiper at dinner. The Dowager looks less than thrilled about the commotion, and Matthew makes a classic Matthew face. Only Robert seems impressed by the tradition. "How marvelous!" he exclaims. But he doesn't exactly feel that way early the next morning when the bagpiper starts up again.
Diversion plans at the castle including shooting for the men, and picnics and a grand ball for the women. Which prompts Edith to bring up her editor by saying, "a friend is staying nearby." Hold up here a second, is Edith having an affair despite her resolve to not become entangled in Mr. Gregson's tragedy? What kind of example will this set for Rose?
Regardless (and despite Robert's protests), the MacClares invite Mr. Gregson to come for dinner and stay with them for a short visit. A bit of tension rises between Lord and Lady Flintshire over the offer. Hmm … glimpses of a bigger issue?
Mr. Barrow and Alfred discuss actually leaving the house to run some errands, but Carson is unconvinced this is necessary, until Mrs. Hughes informs him that Branson will be having his lunch at the local pub and won't need service—a piece of information Edna seems very interested in.
Isobel has tea with Branson, and brings up the possibility of him visiting with the servants while the Granthams are away. When he objects, she reminds him since he has a position now as agent of the estate, and he can talk to anyone he pleases. Does this mean Branson is going to make a move on the new maid? INTERESTING.
Shooting practice ensues with Matthew and the boys, where Robert gets the lowdown on Lord Flintshire's new "post," which will be somewhere far away from Duneagle. He also gets a bit more information on Rose's strained relationship with her mother. It doesn't sound good, but what can you expect it to be like with a headstrong teenager and a frayed, unhappy mother?
In the drawing room, Mary pulls out her highborn snobbery and scolds Edith for inviting Mr. Gregson to Duneagle. I know everyone hates Mary when she's like this, but it just proves to me that Matthew is truly the only person who can bring out the best in her. Plus, it would be pretty unnatural if she was suddenly supportive of Edith, wouldn't it?
In town, Branson arrives at the pub to find Edna waiting for him! Oh, she's a crafty one, isn't she? He tries to play it off as coincidence, but she sets him straight by telling him that she knew he was going to be there—and then launches right into questioning him about his life, and trying to make him ashamed for acting above the servants. WHAT is this woman up to, exactly?
Alfred, Jimmy, and Mr. Barrow arrive at Tufton's spice store, and he tells them about a fair taking place in town in a few days, and they should all come. He also slyly slips a note into the spice package for Mrs. Patmore. (tee hee)
Cue Carson's outage when they ask to go: "I can't let them go gallivanting off to every fair at the drop of a hat!" Geez, Carson! He gets even grimmer when Mrs. Patmore asks for the afternoon off to go to the fair too. Patmore then talks Hughes into coming along as well, and suggests that Carson could go too. HA! That'll be the day.
Gregson arrives at the castle to meet the family, where Mary continues her snotty remarks, and The Dowager gives him the once over. Robert tries to put down Edith's writing ability, but Gregson deftly stands up for her—which seems to impress Lord Grantham. That, or stun him. Who knows?
The growing tension between Lady Flintshire and Rose prompts Cora to talk with The Dowager about how difficult raising a modern daughter can be … and causes her to start tearing up while remembering Sybil. (sniff)
Edna is wasting no time moving in on Branson, even going so far as to take his baby girl back up to her nursery. OH, IS THAT YOUR JOB NOW? Then she pokes Tom some more by asking him why he's ashamed of his past. Lady, leave him alone. Seriously.
Anna and Bates discuss romantic plans for the next day—a picnic by the river! And stumble upon young Rose smoking (!!!) and crying over her mother's attitude. They try to cheer her up, but of course mom overhears and demands she go back inside immediately.
Crawley House is alive with after-dinner drinks and conversation between Dr. Clarkson and Isobel. It's clear that Clarkson is getting attached, but Isobel seems to be completely and totally OBLIVIOUS.
Edith confronts Gregson about his intentions, and he admits that he's there to win her family over so they'll be "on his side," and then declares he's in love with her! So I guess she's not having a affair … quite yet, anyway. Oh dear Edith, you sure know how to pick 'em.
Mary and Matthew snuggle in bed, where our Lady admits that's she kind of a pill, and that Matthew is the only one who thinks she's lovely. Fellowes sure seems to be spending a lot of time on these two and their mutual adoration, isn't he?
High on attention from her new beau, Mrs. Patmore convinces a reluctant Daisy to come along with the rest of them to the fair, and Thomas offers to buy everyone a pop (which of course Jimmy declines). Then she asks Mrs. Hughes for fashion advice, pulling a pink bow-adorned blouse out of a shiny new box! Pink! This is a side of Patmore we haven't seen before, and it makes me smile.
Rose finds Anna and thanks her for giving her a chin up, and asks if she can return the favor. Anna says there is something she can help her with! Ooh, a mystery.
Anna and Bates have a picnic near the stream with beer! Which is, as Bates says, "Racy." Anna seems positively giddy about something, and Bates tries to get information out of her, but she's not giving up her secret.
Lord Grantham and Flintshire's hunting party is a success, with them bagging a large buck. But when Robert inquires about the state of Hugh and Susan's marriage, his lordship admits that things have gone so far south he's convinced it can't be saved.
Ms. Wilkens (Lady Flintshire's maid) fetches O'Brien and asks her to see to Susan's hair. It seems she's envious of Cora's hairdo and wants O'Brien to teach Wilkens how to make it look the same. I'm not sure why her lady would ask O'Brien since her bangs looks positively antennae-like in this episode, but she does and it causes Wilkens to seethe with jealousy.
Dr. Clarkson stops by Crawley House and nervously asks Isobel to accompany him to the fair. Again, Isobel seems to be clueless about Clarkson's intentions. Is she acting like she doesn't know? Or just not interested? Has she never been courted before? I NEED TO KNOW.
To Hughes' and Carson's dismay, Branson joins the servants for dinner, and Edna boldly asks Tom to come to the fair with them and drive everyone there. He says yes, but asks who will stay at the house—to which Carson replies that of course, he will. When asked if he'd rather be at the fair instead, Mr. Carson says, "I'd sooner chew broken glass." Oh Carson. Why do you hate fun?
While working, Alfred asks Jimmy to go easy on Mr. Barrow at the fair—and when Jimmy points out that Alfred was the one who called the police, he's speechless. Then Jimmy does something super scandalous! HE SITS DOWN IN ONE OF THE GRANTHAM'S CHAIRS! Alfred follows suit, and Mrs. Hughes totally catches them. These two are playing with fire.
At the fair, Mrs. Patmore is beaming with anticipation about meeting Tufton. The boys (Alfred, Jimmy, Thomas, and Branson) team up to enter a contest of strength for cash prizes. And Edna brazenly slips her arm through Tom's and says she'll come cheer him on. Oh, I'm sure she will. Among other things.
Hughes and Patmore drop by Mr. Tufton's spice stand, and red flags go up when Mrs. Hughes sees him slap his assistant on the bottom! Patmore of course, completely misses this detail. Especially when he continues to flatter them both by telling Mrs. Patmore she looks like she should be in Vogue. Oh, dear. "I love to be in love, Mrs. Hughes," smirks Tufton. Hughes excuses herself and leaves them to the courtship, but casts a wary eye their way as she goes.
Over at the pulling contest, Jimmy takes a 10 to 1 wager that the Downton team will lose, and then at the last minute he invites Mr. Tufton to join them. Smart move, James! Your coif found a clever way to cheat. On the way into the fray, Tufton flirts with all the ladies and Hughes sees him do it. Whut-oh.
While fishing, Mr. Gregson spills the beans to Matthew about his tragic circumstances, and his love of Edith; but although Matthew understand, he tells Gregson that there's NO WAY Robert will consent to letting his daughter become an editor's mistress. And after Gregon pushes, Matthew says he can't imagine himself letting Edith slide into a life of scandal, but agrees not to tell Lord Grantham the whole story and urges Gregson to say a proper goodbye to Edith at the ball.
Surprise! The Downton boys win the pulling contest! HUZZAH! And with it, quite a hefty sum of money. Jimmy and Alfred spend their prize money on booze, booze, and more booze. Which is probably going to lead to some trouble.
Daisy and Ivy head to the ring toss, but Daisy doesn't want to spend the money, believing the games are all fixed and only for suckers. Tipsy Jimmy wanders over at the opportune moment and buys them each a try. Ivy fails, but Daisy's aim is true and she wins a shiny gold tuppence! What a nice surprise.
Isobel and Clarkson are having a jolly time playing games and listening to music. So jolly in fact, that Clarkson pulls the trigger after a shot of punch and sort-of proposes to her, but he botches it so badly that Isobel doesn't even realize it. Or does she? She's so crafty; it's really hard to tell what she's thinking.
Patmore and Tufton sit down to lunch, and he starts telling her that taking orders from her husband (presumably himself) will be much easier than taking orders from some Lord or Lady. But Patmore rightly says, "It's still orders, isn't it?" So true. Don't fall for his… charms? He's a womanizing cad trying to snow you for your cooking skills.
And … here comes the trouble! A drunken Jimmy is attacked by the bookie who lost his money to the Downton boys. He and his beefy cohort jump Jimmy, but just before they start the beating, Thomas steps in—and gets thumped to a bloody pulp while James and his cowardly coif run away. Fortunately, Jimmy fetches Dr. Clarkson to attend to poor beaten and bloody Mr. Barrow.
Rose descends the grand Duneagle staircase in a gorgeous beaded flapper dress that shows WAY too much skin for mommy to approve. (And quote: "She looks like a slut!" Which even the Dowager thinks is a little bit too rude of an insult. ) Young Lady MacClare asks for both her father and great aunt's support, and Hugh supports his daughter, to his wife's dismay.
In the hallways at Downton, Carson hears baby Sybil crying and goes in to scoop her up, which is the cutest thing I've ever seen happen out of every episode, any season. There is simply nothing better than hearing Carson talk to a baby. "Hullo! Let's have a chat about it." And Mrs. Hughes would agree with me.
At the ball, Mary wants to dance but Matthew is all, nut-uh, pregnant wife. It's okay though, Molesley is doing enough dancing for everybody. When Lady Flintshire compliments O'Brien on her hair "help," but disses Ms. Wilkins at the same time, the peeved lady's maid spikes O'Brien's refreshment with straight whiskey.
Speaking of spiked beverages, Rose is downing punch like there's no tomorrow, and even though both Cora and Violet try to assure her that her mother loves her, the girl is having none of it. The Dowager says wisely, "Oh, poor souls. It's bad enough trying to parent a child when you like each other!"
At the ball, Ms. Wilkens delivers the whiskey-spiked punch to O'Brien who catches on quickly, and a jolly Molesley takes it from her and throws it down with one gulp. Robert tracks down Shrimpy, who's hiding in the billiards room. He admits to Lord Grantham that his marriage is awful. Well, really, his wife is just awful. Robert reminds him that at least Hugh has Duneagle to be proud of.
But then! Shocker! Hugh admits that Duneagle is actually lost. There's no more money—he wasted it all and laments not "modernizing" as Downton did. DOES THAT CLEAR THINGS UP FOR YOU ABOUT MATTHEW'S WISDOM, ROBERT?
As a traditional Scottish tune starts playing, Rose grabs Anna and the BIG surprise is finally revealed. Rose has been teaching Anna how to dance! And dance well. Mary seems astonished that Anna can "reel," and Bates gazes at her lovingly as she happily bounces around on the dance floor. Awww. You guys.
After the fair, Patmore joins Mrs. Hughes in her drawing room and tells her that Tufton has asked her to marry him. "Oh dear," says Hughes, and gives Patmore the details on his behavior at the fair. To Hughes' surprise, Patmore disintegrates into giggles and admits she's relieved! "The more he said about how he liked his beef roasted and his pancakes flipped, the more I wanted to get away!" Oh, Patmore. I love you.
Gregson tells Edith all about Matthew's advice and tries to say goodbye– but she's not having it. (This girl REALLY doesn't know when to let go, does she?) She says she wasn't sure how she felt about him before he tried to leave, but now she knows SHE LOVES HIM! Tragedy, gossip, and family be damned. This is going to get ugly later on, isn't it?
And then, oh my, Molesley is DRUNK, dancing like a maniac, and woo-hoo'ing all over the ballroom. The Dowager is not pleased. Luckily, he passes out later in a chair snoring noisily. Always good for comic relief, that Molesley.
As a shirtless Branson gets ready for bed, Edna busts into his room, leans in super close to kiss him, and asks him to meet her for lunch the next day. What a hussy! So, is she just ambitious? Or truly in love with him? I'm betting on the former.
The ball continues, and everyone gets in on the act, even crabby old Susan MacClare. But oh no! Mary looks overly tired after a few spins and goes to sit down. I AM SO WORRIED ABOUT HER! She says she's going to leave for home the next morning, but insists Matthew and the family stay on.
In preparation of Lady Mary and Anna returning to Downton, Mrs. Hughes and Mr. Carson tell Edna to clean up her room, and she's gets all "What do you mean? I'm meeting Tom Branson for lunch in the village." DUHN DUN DUNNNNNN. Oh, Edna. You just lost your job, honey. Fingers crossed she hasn't ensnared Branson's heart.
Lady Flintshire comes into Cora's room the next morning to talk about Rose, and asks that her daughter be allowed to stay at Downton with the Crawleys while the MacClares move to their new post … in India. She finally sees that she and Rose need some breathing room, and that Rose will do better with a change of scenery. Aw, she does love her daughter!
Hughes confronts Branson about Edna, and tells him that she's going to have to be let go. He claims he didn't encourage her, but Hughes rightly says, "Maybe, but you didn't discourage her either." So true, Hughes! Then she tells him that no one should make him feel ashamed of his new life, and that Lady Sybil would be proud.
"I can't bear to be without her." Tom says as he breaks down, with Hughes taking his hand. Then she says the best, most heartbreaking thing ever: "You must bear it. And one day, I hope, and so would she, you'll find someone to bear it with you. But until then, be your own master."
Lady Mary gets off the train and looks troubled. Oh no! Not again! She tells Anna that the labor pains have begun, and she needs to head straight to the hospital. Matthew is told the news at Duneagle and immediately rushes back to be at her side.
Carson sends the servants into even more of a panic by riling them up with the news, just as Mrs. Hughes gives Edna the heave-ho. Edna protests, saying she's as good as Mr. Branson, and claiming they did nothing improper. I am NOT buying that, at all. Whatever, Edna.
As Robert and Cora get organized to head home and make sure Mary and her baby are okay, Robert finally comes around on the whole "Matthew saved Downton" issue, realizes how lucky he is to have Cora, and gives her a big, thankful smooch. And with that, the Crawleys leave for Downton, with an ecstatic Rose wishing them luck and saying she'll see them soon.
When they arrive back home, Anna and Carson talk about their own worries over Mary. EVERYONE IS SO WORRIED! And can we blame them? No. No, we can't. Damn you, Fellowes! You better not do anything terrible.
In the hospital, Clarkson thanks Isobel for saving him from making himself a total fool, although Isobel still appears to have no idea what the heck he's talking about. Anyway, she assures Mary that everything will fine—the baby will be a little early, but it's nothing they can't handle.
Jimmy stops in to see poor, mangled Thomas, and tells him, "You were brave, Mr. Barrow. Very brave." Yeah, since you ran off and left him there, you jerk. When Jimmy pushes Thomas to tell him why he was following him, Thomas says, "You know why." Uunnnngh. MORE excruciating heartbreak! But surprise, Jimmy asks if they can just be friends (and that's all). It's sweet, I mean, if Thomas wants to spend the rest of his life in a relationship with unrequited feelings. Poor Thomas! I wanna hug you so badly.
Lady Crawley calls Downton from the hospital to inform everyone that the baby and Mary are both fine. But of course, Carson hasn't asked what the sex of the baby is. Oh, men!
Matthew finally arrives to greet his new baby … boy! His son and heir! Aw, shucks. So many happy tears. Matthew tells Mary that she's going to be a wonderful mother, because she's such a wonderful woman. The point is hammered in again that he's the only one who sees Lady Mary's good, loving side: "You'll be my Mary always, because mine is the true Mary. I fall more in love with you every day that passes." Oh, my. I think I just fainted over here.
Everyone is so relieved! It's a happy time at Downton, and there are smiles all around, especially from Matthew, who is racing home in his fancy sports car with the top down. Hey … wait a minute. Why do I have an ominous feeling? Oh, it's because they keep showing him speeding along, and OH MY GOD THERE IS A TRUCK COMING THE OTHER DIRECTION!
Matthew crashes head-on into the truck, and shots of his mangled body are juxtaposed with Mary and the baby in the hospital. ARE YOU KIDDING ME, FELLOWES? ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! How could you?
I hate him so much for building us all up with a bunch of happy moments in the Downton universe, and then smacking us upside the head with this out-of-nowhere tragedy. But of course, at the same time, I can't wait to see what he does next season.
I definitely need a very, very stiff drink (or three) after that one. How about you?
Season 3 finale highlights
Best line from Dowager Countess:
"I know he's housebroken … more or less. But I don't want freedom to go to his head." Re: leaving Branson at Downton by himself.
Most scandalous moment:
Edna throwing herself at Branson with absolutely no decorum.
Most romantic scene:
Bates watching Anna dance and declaring, "Yes. She is marvelous." (Excuse me, I've got something in my eye.)
Most ridiculous bit of soapy melodrama:
Even though there were definitely sweet, the moments between Matthew & Mary seemed a little bit much after awhile. Of course, now we KNOW why there were so many loving declarations.
Most devastating betrayal:
Fellowes, killing Matthew at the end of this episode. UNFORGIVABLE!
New characters:
Edna Braithwaite: A new housemaid, intent on gossip … and also intent on catching Tom's eye.
Joss Tufton: A cheeky spice purveyor who's set on wooing Mrs. Patmore.
Hugh MacClare (Marquess of Flintshire, aka"Shrimpy"): Cousin-in-law to Robert and Lord of Duneagle Castle.
Susan MacClare (Marchioness of Flintshire): Cousin of Robert, frustrated mother to Rose, and unhappy wife of Hugh.
At least we didn't have to watch this on Christmas Day, like the people in England did.
Ouch. Ouch. Ouch! That HURTS!
Feel like you've been punched in the stomach? That's because you have been. Along with the story and the characters too.
We love Matthew, and we don't want him to die. We love the other characters, and this death will be horrible for them too. But not only that. it doesn't feel right; it's hard to believe. It not only hurts, it's wrong.
Why is this so hard to believe?
After all, death happens, and sometimes out of the blue. it's always in character, isn't it?
Well, yes -- no arguing with that. But then why do we feel so upset, and so set up?
Because the whole season has been like this. Too abrupt, too set up for a later purpose, too manipulated to fit a plot. Which is not the same as the story. The characters aren't going in any of the hundred directions they could, as good complicated personalities, go -- they're going in ways they WOULDN'T go.
We've seen Lord Grantham's character change from someone who tries to be kind, fair, and reasonable, into someone who makes rude remarks about a guest at his table, flinches visibly when asked to be photographed with a priest, and orders his wife and daughters out of his mother-in-law's house. Not to mention putting the kybosh on his daughter's wedding, and worse.
Yes, some men, in that time period, in this time period, in any time period, would do these things easily. But not this particular man.
And then there's Mary. Poor Mary. From going through fire, learning compassion, learning to keep silent when it would be devastating to speak, this year she reverts to her former outspoken nastiness -- except when Matthew asks her not to. how does that work? It doesn't. Except as a horrible set up for losing him.
Mary confides that she's only half a person without Matthew. A sweet thought. It kills you to remember it -- except she's never HAD such a thought, about anyone, in her life.
The story has been forced to walk the plank at swordpoint. I'm not sure whether it's more painful to think about Matthew lying at the side of the road, or the story lying there right next to him.
No one lives forever. But they also don't have to die at the drop of a contract. When an actor leaves a show, something does need to happen but it doesn't have to be this.
So what might have happened, seeing that Dan Stevens didn't renew his contract for next year? Well, he's great, but so is every actor that's ever played Sherlock. Let someone else play him next year.
Or there's the O'Brien path. Siobhan Finneran also has not renewed: did we see an enraged Thomas lunging at her with a knife? No, for some reason she's been saved from the chop, and the way has been paved for her to emigrate along with Lady Shrimpy. Maybe Matthew goes to India too. There's the still somewhat mysterious question of Reggie Swire's other beneficiary, and we know what Matthew's like when something good's landed in his lap -- question it! Be sure it's really fair! Or maybe he's off to Canada, for the same reason, to look into a new claim by the Patrick-impersonator, or his son. Or maybe he's sick.
Or ... a hundred other possibilities, all keeping him in as part of the story. Then, in the following season, if you want to, you can bring him back -- it's not unknown for actors to change their minds after a year -- or you can write him out entirely, slowly and carefully.
The audience is an essential part of any story. The purpose of all that writing, designing and acting, is for the story to be watched. There are many precedents for the audience to feel so strongly that a story's gone wrong, that they write to say so -- and the story comes back.
It's not too late. We can't change what we've seen, but maybe, we can help change what it means. He's there, at the side of the road. If he didn't die, then what? Was he badly hurt, in a coma? Or was it a horrible nightmare, of Mary's, or Lord Grantham's? Maybe we can think of something more graceful than these ideas; whatever it might be, once it's in place, the story can continue in a way that works.
Julian Fellowes wrote this story, and it was wonderful for two years. Let's play our part as the audience: write to him, at firstname.lastname@example.com, and tell him what we think.
This is a really well-thought out take on the episode/season! Thank you for sharing.
I have to say that even though Robert and Mary weren't amazing human beings this time around, I'm not inclined to hate on them as much as everyone else is. :)
Fellowes is a master manipulator, and a great character writer - which is why the audience gets so attached/enraged at character's leaving the narrative. Honestly if they tried to cheat Matthew's death somehow and pull a "coma" situation or whatever, I'll be as pissed as Annie Wilkes in Misery (when Paul cheats by claiming his main character hadn't died in the last book he wrote). No way, uh-huh. That guy is GONE.
I love/hate JF so much right now! Which is exactly how I feel about one of my other favorite writers, Joss Whedon -- who also kills main characters almost completely out of the blue, and not even for contract-ending reasons, most times. I am definitely excited for Season 4, to see where it goes!!!
I'm hooked, until the sobbing, heartbreaking end.
OH -- Mr. Fellowes, how could you!!!!! I could eventually forgive you for Sybil's death, but not this! This final episode of Season 3 .... after the wonderfully skilled writing and character development up to now, is so disappointing. I feel "sucker punched".
It seems to me that viewers may have preferred another actor to step in and take Dan Stevens place rather than kill him off. It wouldn't be that hard to accept. Killing him off at the same time he had a newborn infant seems insensitive to the plight of women who loose their husbands with babies or young children whether by accidents, combat, illness or other causes. My brother got killed when his son was an infant (in an auto accident). He also had 2 young daughters. His death devastated our family. It devastated my sister-in-law for years and significantly effected how she coped with single parenting and the raising of those children. His death still shadows our lives. Is Fellowes' going to imagine that the majority of Mary's grief will abate in 6 months? I hope he does some research regarding this issue from both the mother's point of view and the children's. At least he had Branson still grieving for Sybil one year later. But Branson has a lot of help. In the fictitious Downton Abbey household, many people are there to help care for the baby, but it's not like that for most women without living fathers for their children. Surely, it's not much easier for men who have lost their children's mother. For me Fellowes' fiction in this season was just too close to a painful reality to have been enjoyable entertainment as it was in Season I and II. Not sure I can bear to watch Season IV.
Great synopsis as usual! As for the servants being called by their employers' names, I first became aware if it watching Gosford Park. Apparently the servants are called by the name of The Lord or lady that they work for when traveling (thus Anna being Miss Crawley and O'Brien and Bates being the Granthams). Apparently it helps to keep all of the new servants straight when traveling to homes where other staffs are established.
The two most attractive characters killed off in the same season, for off-camera contract reasons?
Methinks not.
Matthew will return, looking different after much surgery (necessary because he will be played by a different actor).
I may be wrong...but no one on the show thinks Matthew has died or even knows he is hurt.
I believe this is known in the trade as a cliffhanger.
I'll be back, and I bet Matthew will too.
I would disagree that the two most attractive characters in the show were killed off. Sybil certainly. But Matthew was a wimp. His blonde shock of hair was quite attractive but I, for one, was tired of his apologizing to Mary every time she disagreed with something sensible that he said. He had no gumption. He asked her why she had to be such a bitch to Edith (of course he didn't use that word but should have)and then immediately told her he would love her to eternity. Ugh! Guess he did. Our moderator says Matthew brought out the best in Mary. Just which moments did I miss? The real crime was not in killing Matthew off but using the same plot line twice. Both Sybil and Matthew were killed off the moment they produced a heir. Couldn't we have had something different?
Love Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. Patmore. Two salf-of-the-earth characters - good common sense, keen observers, and kind-hearted. Only thing, why didn't Mrs. Patmore see what a dolt her would-be suitor was the minute he kept sticking his grubby finger in her cooking. Ugh, again.
Could Matthew return in the form a different actor? Yes, why not? He may not be really dead. Just in a coma. He's been comatose with Mary all season. And, remember, he wasn't really crippled. Wasn't really impotent. So perhaps he's not really dead.
Have you seen the internet campaign calling for Judi Dench to appear in an episode (or two) in Season 4? What fun that would be! Dame Maggie and Dame Judi! Of course, Fellows would have to give Dame Judi better lines than he gave to Shirley McLaine and, no doubt, he would. She a Brit!
(In "Gosford Park," Fellows also made the Americans boors.)
First Thank You for each and every memorable episode in Downton Abby. I've enjoyed the entire series as this portrayal of each family member and housekeeping staff in each and every one ofthe pisodes....BUY, WHY DID YOU HAVE TO KILL DEAR MATTHEW JUST WHEN HE WAS SO VERY HAPPY AND PROUD TO BE A FATHER AND DOING SO WELL WITH THE REVITALIZATION OF DOWNTON ABBY? Will this mean a bright future for Tom Branson at the Abby and all its lands and working side by side with his father-in-law? Anyway I was so shocked (although I was aware of the time which didn't have much to the end and all of a sudden I felt a bit nervous)and the sight of Matthew lifeless body was bit too much. Losing him wss like losing a dear friend.
I was outraged at the ending. One, what a horrible way to go. And two, why not use another actor? I was so angry at the ending that I didn't shed a tear. It seems that just when things are going great, someone dies - what an awful view of life.
If Matthew is indeed permanently killed off, it would be fascinating to see a historically accurate depiction of the contrast between poor and wealthy single mothers of that period, in Ethel and Mary. I'd also like to see more historically accurate explorations of that time woven into the plotlines (as with the introduction of the telephone into the house)...new inventions, health care practices, world affairs, the rise of manufacturing, and the birthright class system in Great Britain.
Really? This writer has to kill all his main characters? Hey, someone needs to find out if the actor that plays Matthew was offered a contract for next season? That way we would know for sure that he wasnt killed off. Really, I guess it would be about 1920 or 1925 by now? If the show makes him a vegetable or kills him off, sorry I am done watching!
Ok! sO THE ACTOR DIDNT want to renew to play Matthew again! Well, pay him some more. I wont watch if the writer has to keep killing off the main characters. So we have to wait until January of 2014,right? I am not holding my breath-too many dead characters for me.


text:
This is a classic, handmade sandcast ring by Navajo silversmith Anthony Bowman. The texture of the tufa stone in which the mold was carved for casting is readily apparent in the stippled surface of the silver. Each of Anthony's pieces is cast in a mold which only works one time and then is discarded; so every single piece is a one-of-a-kind creation.
Hallmarked A B and stamped Sterling inside.
Width in front: 5/8"
Width in back: 1/4"
Size: 8 1/2

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Every eligible booking, every time, free of charge!
We've got your pet covered!
Although you're unlikely to experience any issues on Pawshake, we understand that your pet may need protection against unexpected life events. With Pawshake's Protection, your pet is covered for all services booked through our website and our mobile app.
Because your peace of mind is priceless, and to thank you for being part of our trusted community, we're proud to offer you Pawshake's Protection free of charge.
Your furry friend is covered in case of accident or emergency.
Yes, you are covered in case your furry guest is injured or accidentally causes damages to third parties.
So what are the details?
We want to keep you informed and be transparent to our community. You can read here for information about how you're protected. Don't worry - if you're not so keen on insurance jargon, it's explained in simple terms.


text:
Living on a Different Planet
Fund: Pitango Venture Capital
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-09-07
Pitango has been steadily on the decline. The fund that was considered to be one of pillars of the VC industry in Israel has lost its stature to the Silicon valley brand names that have appeared in the Israeli VC scene. However, the partners there refused to accept the fact that they don't enjoy any monopoly on the best dealflow and talent and still act in a very arrogant and unprofessional manner. Most partners there lack any operating experience that is necessary to help build successful companies (although they would tell you otherwise). In practice, the fund is really managed by Chemi Peres who is very smart and influential person in Israel and abroad. Chemi is a very hard worker but lacks any bandwidth and is very arrogant in his style and the way he deals with people so it would be difficult working with him. Aaron Mankovski is basically a hot headed simpleton who is convinced that he has the patent on the right formula on how to build successful companies. He is a very terrible listener and very difficult to deal with and having him on your board would be a recipe for disaster. Rami Kalish is very sharp, intuitive person but typically unfocused and unreliable to entrepreneurs. Isaac Hillel is the only senior partner there with real operating experience background. He is very sharp and capable but tends to be very hasty and slow in his decision making. Overall, the fund is very difficult to deal with, their decision process is very slow and don't expect to hear back from them with any answer. They would only respond if there is competitive pressures and could be surprisingly aggressive at times. Overall, the value add is very limited and it is very rare to see any entrepreneur that chooses to go back to working with Pitango.PRIVATE: Members Only


text:
Welcome to the Rainier Falcons Chapter of the Falcon Club of America
If you own a Ford Falcon or Ranchero (1960-1970) and would like to meet fellow Falcon enthusiasts, we welcome your participation. This club is being formed to create new friendships, network for technical advice (and spare parts!), and to organize events including cruise-ins, car shows, swap meets, and club gatherings. We are also dedicated to helping others in the community.


text:
Tech: China's New Apple iPad Look-Alike, the Return of 'Flappy Bird,' and the Latest in Moon Advertising
Plus, BlackBerry launches a new phone exclusively in Indonesia.
China's Bright, Cheap Apple Look-Alike
Next month, Chinese consumers will get their first chance to try out a new device that seems to the be love child of Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) iPad mini and its iPhone 5C. It's a 7.9-inch tablet with a 2,048 x 1,536 pixel resolution (equal to Apple's Retina Display) called the Mi Pad, and it's being made by the Beijing-based company Xiaomi, not Apple.
The tablet, powered by Nvidia's (NASDAQ:NVDA) quad-core Tegra K1 processor, will boast 2GB of memory, as well as 16GB or 64GB of hard drive space, and will support up to 128GB of additional storage via a microSD port. It will run a customized version of Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) Android that somewhat resembles iOS 7. It will be Wi-Fi compatible only (not compatible with cellular data) and will be 8.5mm thick but a bit larger than the iPad mini. Additionally, the device is clad in a bright, shiny plastic, instead of Apple's classy aluminum.
Source: CNnet
It's more gaudy, larger, and heavier than the iPad mini, but it's also cheaper: The 16GB version will retail from 1,499 yuan, or $240, and the 64GB won't go for much more: 1,699 yuan ($270). By comparison, the cheapest iPad mini, without Retina Display and without cellular data, retails for $299.
The Mi Pad isn't going on sale in June, but rather will begin a so-called "open beta," meaning Xiaomi will select consumers to test out Mi Pads before their official launch.
Flappy Bird to Return (With Fewer Qualities That Made It Digital Heroin to Some Players)
Yesterday on CNBC's Closing Bell program, Dong Nguyen, the creator of the infamously addictive smartphone game Flappy Bird (Nguyen originally pulled the game from Android and iOS app stores because users reported finding it extremely difficult to quit the game) made a big announcement. Nguyen told CNBC's Kelly Evans that Flappy Bird will return, that it will be less addictive, and that it will feature multiplayer gameplay.
Nguyen said that the new version of the game will make its debut in August. By then, who knows what other, dangerously compelling games will be stealing hours of the day from smartphone users.
BlackBerry Announces Plan to Launch Indonesia-Targeted Low-Cost Phone
On Tuesday, former King of the Smartphones BlackBerry (NASDAQ:BBRY) revealed a new phone that it will sell in the emerging markets of Asia and South America. Called the BlackBerry Z3, the phone will make its consumer debut exclusively in Indonesia, which happens to be one of the company's largest markets. As CEO John Chen said, this is a first step for the company toward making the BlackBerry brand cool again. "BlackBerry has new technology and is financially stable," he said at an event in Jakarta on Tuesday. "I think that's going to be the first step -- to explain that."
Though detractors have said that the low-cost Z3 is just a last-minute effort to remain relevant, at least one analyst sees the potential value of the new phone. Ryan Lai, market analyst at IDC, said, "If this device allows them to grow again, even if it's just small, steady growth, that's a success in itself. That says there is still room for BlackBerry in Indonesia."
The phone will retail for 2.2 million rupiah, or $190; for a limited 25,000 units, the words "Jakarta Edition" will be engraved on the back. After Indonesia, the company plans to introduce the phone into other Asian markets, including India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
The Z3 is being produced in a partnership with Foxconn (OTCMKTS:FXCOF), the Taiwanese manufacturer most known for its work with Apple. Foxconn is actually considering a $1 billion investment in Indonesia to build new manufacturing plants. Chen said that the partnership with Foxconn will give the Z3 the ability to compete in the emerging markets. He added that if sales go well in Indonesia, "it could be a sign of things to come."
Japanese Beverage Company Otsuka Will Become the First Company to Advertise on the Moon
In October 2015, the Japanese beverage maker Otsuka will send a 1-kilogram titanium can containing the powdered sports drink Pocari Sweat to the moon, ostensibly to inspire young people to become astronauts. The can will also contain the literal wishes of children, obtained from letters sent to the company and engraved on silver discs. If all goes as planned, the event will mark the first commercial product to be placed on a celestial body other than the Earth.
Elon Musk's SpaceX, which has already successfully delivered supplies to the International Space Station, will carry the goods to the moon with its Falcon 9 rocket. Once the SpaceX rocket gets close enough to the moon, another company, the Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic Technology, will actually place the can on the lunar service with its "Griffin" lander.
The publicity stunt will not only be a huge step for Otsuka, but for SpaceX and Astrobotic as well. If successful, the mission would be the first time a SpaceX rocket successfully made it all the way to the moon. Moreover, it will put Astrobotic one step closer to claiming Google's coveted Lunar XPrize, which will reward $20 million to the first company to land a machine on the moon that can travel more than 1,640 feet across the lunar surface and send HD pictures back to Earth. According to The Verge, Astrobotic's deal with Otsuka will provide the funds necessary to compete: It's reported that the company charges more than $500,000 for lunar delivery. Ironically enough, Astrobotic develops tech for clearing space trash.
More tech stories:
Is FireEye Worth the Investment Risk? An In-Depth Analysis
Microsoft: Does Kinect Make Sense?
Apple to Introduce a Much-Wanted Feature in iOS 8, Rumor Says
- 1
Daily Recap Newsletter
entertainment, education and
smart market commentary.


text:
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK (August 21, 2012) – Oklahoma Christian University continues to rank among the best colleges in the western United States, according to The Princeton Review.
Oklahoma Christian (OC) is one of 121 institutions The Princeton Review recommends in its "Best in the West" rankings. The region includes 15 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
"We are honored to be recognized again by The Princeton Review as one of the best schools in the West," OC president John deSteiguer said. "Rankings like this – along with our high job placement rates and our high acceptance rates for graduate school and medical school – are tangible measures of the first-rate education we provide."
As part of the process, The Princeton Review evaluates an institution's academic excellence and surveys students about themselves, their fellow students and campus life.
In their survey responses, students praised OC's focus on God, its family and community atmosphere, the accessibility of OC's professors, and the university's Oklahoma City location.
Collectively, the 633 colleges honored constitute about 25 percent of the nation's 2,500 four-year colleges.
"We're pleased to recommend Oklahoma Christian University to users of our site as one of the best schools to earn their undergrad degree. We chose it and the other terrific institutions we name as 'regional best' colleges mainly for their excellent academic programs," said Robert Franek, senior vice president and publisher for The Princeton Review.
Oklahoma Christian offers undergraduate programs in more than 60 fields of study, an undergraduate Honors Program, and graduate programs in business administration, engineering, ministry and divinity. OC's MBA program is offered both on-site and online.
Oklahoma Christian also is recognized as a "Best University – Master's" in U.S. News and World Report's "America's Best Colleges."
The university is nationally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and has discipline-specific accreditations from ABET (computer engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering programs), the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs, the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Accreditation, the Council for Interior Design Accreditation, the National Association of Schools of Music, and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
In addition to its Oklahoma City campus, OC has study abroad opportunities in Europe, Honduras and the Pacific Rim.


text:
No matter the occasion, there's nothing quite like our cookie delivery to lift the spirits, share a moment of joy, say congratulations or quite simply show you care. No wonder then that you'll find a whole host of fun, whimsical and downright delicious hand-decorated cookies here in our gourmet gift store.
We know that our chocolate chip cookies, mouthwatering peanut butter cookies and oatmeal raisin cookies are nothing but the best, but when it comes to sending a cookie selection with tons of wow factor, our custom decorated cookie designs are unrivaled. Assembled from deluxe, fresh-from-the-oven, moist sugar cookies and nothing but the best premium frosting, choose from bold and bright get well soon designs, cute baby shower designs, fun birthday designs and even sporty designs and you'll have a cookie gift like no other. You can always turn to Shari's Berries for classic or new flavors of Mrs. Fields cookies.
In fact you'll want to check back often because we're always updating our yummy cookie decorating ideas so you can always be sure to find the perfect decorated cookie bouquet, cookie selection box or large individual decorated cookie decorated cookie bouquet that suits the season. Think classic holiday cookies, fun Halloween cookies, sweet springtime Easter cookies, patriotic July 4th decorated cookies and much more besides. Gift an assortment for a birthday, or quite simply order one as an incredible table centerpiece for your next party or special celebration. And remember to give one to a deserving hostess or find many other great thank you baskets delivered that would be perfect too. There are so many great ways to decorate cookies and so many great opportunities to give them too.
Shopping for a true fashionista? Then you'll want to take a look at our fun and frivolously fashion-conscious cookie bouquets, complete with frosted shoes and purses. Très chic! Treat her to a floral delight that's also a delicious dessert. Traditional cookie bouquets feature a spray of pretty flower-shaped decorated cookies. For a truly memorable gift browse our multi-day gifts that include one day of sweets and one day of real flowers and chocolate delivery. In fact, young or old, you'll find just the right gift for all ages. Shopping for a Mother's Day gift mom will love? Consider our Mother's Day cake pops made with the freshest ingredients.


text:
By John Goralski
Sports Writer
Matt Maxwell leapt into the air to bat down a pass in the final minute of the half. Zach Maxwell thundered through the Fairfield Prep linemen two plays later to drag the Jesuit quarterback down for a loss of two yards.
It didn't seem like much at the time when Fairfield Prep was forced to punt the ball with less than one minute left in the half, but it marked a turning point in the Class LL championship game. The Jesuits dominated much of the first half. Fairfield Prep led Southington by 14 points at two different times, but Southington's defense was about to stop the offensive shootout.
Well, at least Fairfield Prep's part in the offensive tug-of-war came to an end. That was Mike Drury's message at the half when he addressed his Blue Knight team.
"We made a couple of stops, and that's a big thing against a team like that," said the coach. "You've got to stop them. We played physical. We were hitting, and that's the sort of team we are. We made some crushing hits that I think turned the tide a little bit."
The momentum carried into the second half. Fairfield Prep was forced to punt in each of their first three possessions at the start of the half, while Southington's offense turned up the heat. Tyler Hyde and Stephen Barmore kept the Knights in the game with short touchdown runs in the first half, but in the second half the Knights took to the air.
"It was just about execution," said Barmore. "We weren't executing a lot of stuff that we usually execute. We sort of buckled down, and we did what he had to do in the second half."
Alex Jamele kick started the attack with a 60 yard touchdown reception and a 42-yard pass on the next possession that set up his second score, a nine-yard pass from Barmore that tied the game, 28-28. The two were far from finished.
"We weren't going to give up. We weren't going to come all the way down here just to sit down," said Jamele, who caught 10 passes for 230 yards with three touchdowns to push his single season state record to 29. "We came out in the second half, and it was a good, team effort win. We all have heart on this team. It's all about running angry. I haven't wanted anything as much as this my whole life, and this is the best feeling I've ever had."
In the second half, Barmore picked apart the Jesuit defense, completing 22-of-33 passes (.667) for four touchdowns, and Southington scored on each of their first four possessions of the second half. Kyle Smick went 7-for-7 on extra point kicks, but it was a 21 yard field goal with 10:35 remaining in the game that gave Southington their first lead.
Defensively, the Knights held the potent Jesuit offense to 146 yards after the break with most of that coming on a 70-yard run by Fairfield quarterback Colton Smith. That run set up the last Jesuit lead at 34-33. Their next two longest drives resulted in turnovers.
"We made a couple of adjustments defensively to try to counteract some of the blocking schemes that they were doing, and we just told our guys that we weren't going to stop," said Drury. "We had to be tenacious. We had to be ferocious. We had to get to the ball. We had to continue our pursuit and all that good stuff. Stephen did a great job. Tyler Hyde, the offensive line, and all the receivers did a great job. We moved the ball up and down the field."
With just over eight minutes to go, Southington took the lead for good on a short 7 yard touchdown pass up the middle to Jasen Rose. Matt Thompson stopped the next Fairfield drive with an interception at midfield that set up another Southington score. With two minutes remaining, Barmore intercepted a pass and returned it 67 yards to put the game out of reach.
With a 52-37 victory, the Knights captured their first state title since 1998.
"It's unbelievable. To bring it back to Southington is just an amazing feeling," said Barmore. "Having the entire community behind us is an amazing feeling, and to get this out here with my teammates is the best feeling in the world."
With the victory, Southington improved to 12-1 and it broke a three-game losing streak in championship games. The Knights earned the Class LL championship title to join New Canaan (Class L), St. Joseph (Class M), and Ansonia (Class S) as this fall's winter champions.
The game marked the final contest for Barmore and 15 other seniors.
"These seniors deserve this," said Drury. "They worked harder than anyone I've ever seen. They took it upon themselves and they worked to get to this point, and they deserve everything that they got."
"It's going to hit me hard tomorrow," said Barmore. "It's going to be bittersweet. It's awesome that we won in my senior year, but I'm leaving a great group of guys—guys that are like my brothers. It's been an honor to play for them these four years."
To comment on this story or to contact sports writer John Goralski, email him at jgoralski@ southingtonobserver.com.
Knights capture Class LL title
By John Goralski


text:
Buy boys' raincoats
Brightening up rainy days with our colorful raincoats for little boys, designed for ages 2 to 8 years old.
No more dull rainy days with the Holly & Beau's little boys raincoats
Little boys will love showing the color changing feature to all their friends and family. Our raincoats encourage children to play outdoors, creating a magical fun experience during any rainy day!
Keep them dry
Holly & Beau's boy's raincoats are made from 100% waterproof fabric and are lined with soft, breathable fabric.
Our little boys raincoats provide great lightweight protection against the elements and can be neatly stowed away in a convenient bag attached to the back of the coat.
Our magical Color Changing technology
When water splashes onto the raincoat the designs burst into color, returning to their original color once dry. This exciting process is repeated each time the fabric comes into contact with water.
Lots of fun and colorful rain jackets to choose from
Raincoats designed with extra room to run and play
No need to buy larger size for your little ones
|Age 2 / 2T
|Age 3-4 / 4T
|Age 5-6 / 6
|Age 7-8
All what you need in a quality little boy raincoat
Waterproof, lightweight, portable and easy to wash. Each little boy raincoat has a soft, breathable lining and fastens with an easy closing zip.
- Breathable
- Showerproof
- Waterproof
- Lightweight design
- Machine washable on a gentle 30° C wash
- No harmful chemicals or metals
- Tested to EN71 standards
- PVC free
- UPF (Ultraviolet Protection Factor) of 30+
- 100% quality control production policy
What customers say about Holly and Beau raincoats
Amazing color changing girl raincoat! I bought the pink cupcake jacket and matching umbrella for my niece. She loves these and even when its not raining still want to put them on. Well made and look great. Great little company.
Coolest raincoat ever! Super fast delivery! Got it in a couple of days. Lightweight mac with a jersey lining. My daughter loved it! The colours come out bright in the rain and the whole coat is really pretty. It packs into a pocket at the back so easily portable
I was impressed by the Holly&Beau boy raincoat as soon as it arrived. The quality was evident just from the feel of the coat. My kid and myself poured the water from a can and the colours started to change straight away. My son was delighted! He has worn the coat on several rainy days since and has loved showing the colour change off to people.
Wonderful magical raincoat! Our 4 year old girl loves it!!! The colours are so vibrant. This is our second coat bought from Holly & Beau!
I cannot praise this coat too highly as we really love it. usually I have a real problem getting Molly to try clothes on but she couldn't wait to put this on and kept looking out of the window to see if it was raining yet.
I found the sizing to be quite generous so don't worry about having to size . I got the kids their current size and there is enough room for these to fit them for the rest of the year.
Raincoats produced to the highest quality and standards
Our MAGIC COLOR® collection of boys raincoats and umbrellas is a result of many years of research and development. Our products burst into a variety of vibrant colours when they come into contact with water, returning back to the original colour once dry.
Unlike the majority of mass-produced boys waterproof rain jackets, our items are made by hand. From the fabric printing, preparation and production through to the make up of the finished garments.
This does mean that the production of our items is time consuming but this is a small price to pay our customers with a fun, unique and high quality item with a magical experience.


text:
Sign In for your personalized experience!
With one of the most mesmerising voices we've heard in some time comes Eckoes, a London based singer/songwriter. She has just released her brand new single "Cages" through Absent Mind and it's a must-hear.
This is a beautifully put together piece of electro...[more]
Anna Lunoe's highly-anticipated EP Right Party is out now on Mad Decent. Joining released singles 303, and What You Need feat. Wuki are two new tracks Right Party and Creep, both featuring vocals by Lunoe herself. Each track exemplifies the bouncy club anthem...[more]
DC and Hooks are Zeds Dead.
They first hooked up in 2004 and formed Mass Productions. Influenced by the digging in the crates sampling school of hip hop, Mass Productions...
The world's largest DJ directory bringing you DJ profiles since 1997
Discover DJ events, buy tickets and more, including following your favorite venues, promoters and DJs
See news and events related to the world's top DJs
Press play on your music career for club, festival and event job opportunities
Discover the best places for drinks in your city, plus transactions and logistics made easy


text:
In This Issue
- 2010 IT Project Success Rates
- Hot Links
2010 IT Project Success Rates
This month I address several age-old questions in the IT industry: How successful are IT projects in practice? How do development paradigms compare? and How does team size affect project success rates? To answer these questions I will share results from three recent surveys which I ran with the help of Dr. Dobb's. The short story is that we're doing a lot better than others would lead you to believe, but that we still have room for improvement.
Let's start with an overview of the three surveys:
- The 2010 IT Project Success Survey. This survey ran from May 2010 to the end of June 2010 and got 203 responses from the Dr. Dobb's readership. The goal was to explore the success rates by paradigm of IT projects in a manner which reflects the strategy taken by the Standish Group's Chaos Report.
- The July 2010 State of the IT Union Survey. I ran this survey during July 2010 and had 233 responses from the Dr. Dobb's readership. It explored IT project success rates by team size and paradigm.
- The 2010 Agile Project Success Survey. This survey ran in April 2010 and received 108 responses from the agile community. The purpose was to provide a comparison for the first survey, albeit one which only focused on agile project teams.
The 2010 IT Project Success survey looked at IT project teams following four different development paradigms:
- Ad-hoc. On ad-hoc software development projects the team does not follow a defined process.
- Iterative. On an iterative software development project the team follows a process which is organized into periods that are often referred to as iterations or time boxes. On any given day of the project team members may be gathering requirements, doing design, writing code, testing, and so on. Rational Unified Process (RUP) is an example of an iterative software process.
- Agile. On an agile software development project the team follows an iterative process which is also lightweight, highly collaborative, self-organizing, and quality focused. An example of an agile process is OpenUP, Scrum, and Extreme Programming (XP).
- Traditional. On a traditional software development project the team follows a staged process where the requirements are first identified, then the architecture/design is defined, then the coding occurs, then testing, then deployment. Traditional processes are often referred to as "waterfall", "classical", or simply "serial" processes.
Our previous IT Project Success Surveys in 2007 and 2008 (there was no 2009 survey as the 2008 survey ran in December 2008) only considered whether projects where considered successes or failures. This year I took a different tack and looked at three categories -- successful, challenged, and failed -- in a manner similar to the Chaos Report. For this survey, a project is considered successful if a solution has been delivered and it met its success criteria within a range acceptable to your organization, challenged if a solution was delivered but the team did not fully meet all of the project's success criteria within acceptable ranges (e.g. the quality was fine, the project was pretty much on time, but ROI was too low), and a failure if the project team did not deliver a solution at all.
According to the 2010 IT Project Success Survey, our success rates are:
- Ad-hoc projects: 49% are successful, 37% are challenged, and 14% are failures.
- Iterative projects: 61% are successful, 28% are challenged, and 11% are failures.
- Agile projects: 60% are successful, 28% are challenged, and 12% are failures.
- Traditional projects: 47% are successful, 36% are challenged, and 17% are failures.
To calculate these rates I followed the same strategy for each paradigm. The survey asked respondents to estimate the percentage of successful, challenged, and failed projects via one question for each paradigm (for a total of twelve questions). For each question you could choose from 91-100%, 81-90%, … 0% or Don't Know. Don't know answers weren't included in the success rate calculations, which were calculated as weighted averages (e.g. 95% to represent the range 91-100%). Because the resulting raw averages didn't perfectly add to 100%, something that I couldn't programmatically enforce in the survey, I had to normalize the results. The normalized averages were calculated as percentages of the average of the total for each paradigm. For example, for Iterative, the raw averages were 67%, 31% and 12% for a total of 110%. These figures where then normalized to 61% (67/110), 28% (31/110) and 11% (12/110) respectively. If you want to verify my calculations, or calculate the success rates using another formula, you can download the source data from www.ambysoft.com/surveys/ free of charge.
These results are drastically different than what is published by the Standish Group in its Chaos Report. According to the Chaos Report, our average success rate is 32% (far below even ad-hoc projects), 44% of IT projects are challenged (far higher than any of the paradigms), and our failure rate is 24% (far higher yet again). Why the difference? The problem that the Chaos Report really doesn't investigate the success rates of IT projects in my opinion, what it does is explore whether IT project teams are delivering reasonably close to the original schedule, the original budget, and the initial specification with the implicit assumption that this is the way the IT project success is defined. This assumption is pretty much wrong. The 2010 IT Project Success Survey also explored how success is defined for IT projects, and found that only 10% of the respondents indicated that "on time, on budget, to specification" is the success criteria for their IT projects. More interestingly, none of the business stakeholders who responded to the survey indicated that's how they define IT project success. In short, by forcing a pre-defined definition of success on project teams, one which is applicable only in a small percentage of cases, the Chaos Report has negatively skewed our perceived success rates. In the surveys that I run I ask people to report success rates in terms of the success criteria for the given projects, different projects have different success criteria after all, and as a result get what I believe to be much more accurate estimates of IT project success rates. Does it really make sense that we only have a 32% success rate in this industry? I certainly don't think so.
This survey also investigated how we actually define IT project success. When it comes to time/schedule, 54% of respondents prefer to deliver on time according to the schedule and 44% prefer to deliver when the system is ready to be shipped. With respect to financial issues, 35% prefer to deliver within budget and 60% prefer to provide good return on investment (ROI). When it comes to functionality, 14% prefer to build the system to specification and 85% prefer to meet the actual needs of stakeholders. Finally, when it comes to quality, 40% prefer to deliver on time and on budget and 57% prefer to deliver high-quality, easy-to-maintain systems.
So how does the Dr. Dobb's community as a whole compare with the agile community? According to the 2010 Agile Project Success Survey, the agile community reports that 55% of agile projects are considered successful, 35% considered challenged, and 10% are considered failures. These figures are in line with what the Dr. Dobb's survey found, albeit a bit more conservative. Conservative agilists, there's a mind bender for you <smile>. The reason why agilists are more conservative when it comes to estimating their success rates might be because their success criteria are a bit more stringent:
- Time/schedule: 62% of agilists prefer to deliver on time according to the schedule and 34% prefer to deliver when the system is ready to be shipped.
- Financial: 28% of agilists prefer to deliver within budget and 60% prefer to provide good return on investment (ROI).
- Functionality: 15% of agilists prefer to build the system to specification and 82% prefer to meet the actual needs of stakeholders.
- Quality: 29% of agilists prefer to deliver on time and on budget and 66% prefer to deliver high-quality, easy-to-maintain systems.
The July 2010 State of the IT Union Survey, which explored the relationship between team size and project success rates by paradigm, considered only success and failure as possible project states for simplification purposes. It looked at the four paradigms and three different project sizes: Small teams of 10 or fewer people, medium size teams of 11 to 25 people, and large teams of 26 or more people). Granted, your organization may define small, medium, and large differently but based on results of team size distribution in previous surveys (in particular the November 2009 State of the IT Union Survey which explored scaling issues) I thought that this was a fair way to categorize team sizes. With the four paradigms and three time sizes I had 12 questions, but had I considered the three different success states (successful, challenged, and failed) I would have had 36 questions -- few people are willing to respond to a survey that large. As with the 2010 IT Project Success Survey, for each question you could choose from 91-100%, 81-90%, … 0% or Don't Know. Don't know answers weren't included in the success rate calculations, which were calculated as weighted averages (91-100% => 95%). The resulting success rates for each development paradigm, by team size, were:
- Ad-hoc projects: 74% for small teams, 58% for medium-sized teams, and 40% for large teams.
- Iterative projects: 80% for small teams, 68% for medium-sized teams, and 55% for large teams.
- Agile projects: 83% for small teams, 70% for medium-sized teams, and 55% for large teams.
- Traditional projects: : 69% for small teams, 61% for medium-sized teams, and 50% for large teams.
I have a few interesting observations based on the results of this survey to share with you. First, the more disciplined approaches of agile and iterative were more effective for all team sizes than the less disciplined approaches of either traditional/classical or ad-hoc. Second, as with all previous IT project success surveys, the agile and iterative paradigms had statistically the same success rates. More on this in a future newsletter. Third, for small teams it's better to take an ad-hoc approach than a traditional approach, possibly because the process gets in the way. This may provide some insight into why many agilists are against defined processes – the majority of IT project teams are small, regardless of paradigm, so any previous experience with traditional and ad-hoc approaches would lead many people to believe that detailed processes are problematic if most of their project experiences were on small teams. Fourth, for large teams traditional strategies appear to fare much better than ad-hoc strategies (although not as good as either agile or iterative strategies). This may explain why some people still cling to traditional strategies, because if their experience is primarily on large projects and if they perceive agile or iterative strategies to be ad-hoc, then based on their experiences it's reasonable that they would prefer to stick to their existing strategies. Fifth, none of the paradigms are all that effective for large project teams, a clear indicator that your organization should strive to avoid large IT projects if possible.
I would be remiss if I didn't discuss some of the known challenges with surveys. First and foremost, I will only get responses from people willing to be surveyed. Second, surveys run the risk of getting responses from people with strong feelings about the topic, particularly when the title indicates the topic. For example, the IT success rate survey ran the risk of capturing biases of people interesting in this topic, whereas the July 2010 State of the IT Union Survey didn't reveal the topic being explored and possibly had less bias. Third, there's the danger of capturing opinions, not facts. This is clearly an issue with this subject matter because I asked people what they believed their average project success rates are. I had to ask this way because few organizations actually capture these sorts of figures in a coherent manner, and fewer still share the data internally let alone externally. However, the fact that the Dr. Dobb's readership is fairly senior leads me to believe that they are more likely to have a reasonable understanding of the success rates. Furthermore, because I'm asking the same questions to the same group of people in the same way for the various development paradigms also leads me to believe that at least the figures between the paradigms are comparable.
The primary reason why I run these surveys is to try to determine what is actually going on in the IT industry and what actually works in practice. We're inundated on a daily basis with marketing rhetoric from both consultants and product vendors, from unproven theories on what should work, and worse yet with religious dogma founded on unproven even disproved theories from yesteryear. I believe that the only way we'll ever address this challenge is with hard data, minimally from surveys such as mine but better yet from ethnographic research (which is orders of magnitude more difficult to do). So, I'd like to end this newsletter with a plea to you that if you ever receive a request from someone (particularly from me or Dr. Dobb's) to fill out a survey that you please invest a few minutes of your valuable time to do so. Together we can discover what actually works in practice.


text:
Shop gluten free in Dudley
About ASDA
ASDA meets the needs of people with coeliac disease: the shop is well-stocked with gluten-free products. Gluten-free products by Schär are part of the ASDA range. The clear labelling and detailed list of ingredients make everyday shopping easier for people with gluten intolerance. The ASDA motto is "shop with confidence".


text:
Popular TagsAllen & Greenough Ancient Greek Api Arthur Sidgwick Beginner Benjamin L. D'Ooge Charles E. Bennett Chicken Dinner cloud Collar & Daniell College Series of Greek Authors Composition data dictionary Dr. Biagio Vella F.C. Conybeare grammar History John Williams White Key Latin Latin Noun lexicon Louis Dyer McGuffey Readers N. Wecklein and F.D. Allen New Testament Greek North and Hillard PDF Plato Reader Samuel Green Septuagint social education St. George Stock Structured Data T.E. Page Textbook Textkbook Textkit Answers Tutorials Virgil Vocabulary Data Vocabulary Wars W. Walter Merry
Tag Archives: John Williams White
Illustrated Dictionary to Xenophon's Anabasis
This 297 page Greek to English dictionary is the companion to Goodwin's The First Four Books of Xenophon's Anabasis.
Posted in Greek Tagged Ancient Greek, dictionary, John Williams White, lexicon, Textbook 6 Comments
First Greek Book Key
This answer key is a work in progress. The answers are to the Greek to English exercises found in John William White's First Greek Book.
Posted in Greek Tagged Ancient Greek, Beginner, John Williams White, Key, PDF, Textkbook 5 Comments


text:
Welcome to the Growing plants genus index section of the GardenersHQ website.
From this page you can navigate to detailed growing information of plants based on genus indexed by Common Name. Although many genera contain multiple species of plants, the information should go a long way towards helping you grow the individual species listed.
If you enjoy the information on this site, then you'll love my book: The Gardeners HQ Plant Growing Guide
It contains valuable information on How to Grow 500 different plant types in your Garden and sales help to support the GardenersHQ Website.
Download the PDF , MOBI (Kindle), and ePub (other readers and iPad) files and get a $1.00 discount by clicking here.
Or if you prefer, you can find it on Amazon USA or Amazon UK.
Check out our new Garden Products Reviews Section
Latest Reviews:
Earthwise Corded Electric Tiller and Cultivator TC70001 | Vremi Economical Garden tool set | Nisaku Japanese Hori Hori Knifes
Lawn and Maintenance
Field King, No Leak Pump, Backpack Sprayer | GreenWorks 12 Amp Corded 20-Inch Lawn Mower | Yimby Tumbler Composter


text:
A Typeface FantasyOctober 19, 2003
And this is where we dive right in to the pressing issues, the questions that matter by god! The burning quandry at the forefront of all of our minds is, of course, where in the world did they pull a generic font family like 'fantasy' from for CSS?
It's been around since CSS1, but the CSS2 spec explains far better what exactly a fantasy font is:
Fantasy fonts, as used in CSS, are primarily decorative while still containing representations of characters (as opposed to Pi or Picture fonts, which do not represent characters). Examples include:
Latin fonts: Alpha Geometrique, Critter, Cottonwood, FB Reactor, Studz
Okay, sure. Let's face it, no one has ever implemented precisely that. Unless a particularly keen user has overridden their settings, no browser has ever rendered it properly according to the spec. Comic Sans is not a decorative typeface. So in the wide world of fonts, why was it considered a priority, or even a good idea to introduce something so vaguely impractical?
Not only is this quirky font family a design nightmare, but accessibility suffers for it. A default font size that is considered more than generous using, say, Verdana, Georgia, or even Times could be completely indistinguishable given the intricate detail that goes into a pictographic or decorative letter.
No one in their right mind uses it (a complaint from 1997 that wasn't addressed then, and 6 years later still remains completely valid). It's an unpredictable time bomb on any page that dares. It's cruft in the spec, it's been suggested that it should be dropped, but it's not going anywhere in CSS3. Of course, we'll have WebFonts to look forward to once that's out (which includes some font selection capabilities that will make your head spin), but there in the middle, right amongst all the forthcoming goodness is useless old fantasy.
So who did it? Where did the idea come from, and who considered it important enough to sit in the comparitively small CSS1 spec? I had not a clue, so it was time to turn to Google. Dredging back to the early years of CSS proved quite a task, thanks no doubt due to web rot and decentralization (we're talking 1995 and 1996 here, when things were a lot smaller).
I browsed the relevant www-style archive from its inception to the release of CSS1 as an official recommendation. No luck. I Googled newgroups and the web as far back as I could go. Nothing. I haven't been able to find a single word anywhere on the public web toward explaining why this was a good idea at one point.
I have a hunch my answer might be found within the yellowing pages of Cascading Style Sheets: Designing for the Web (1997) by Lie and Bos. I haven't read it, and no one carries it anymore. If you have a copy, or have any clue whatsoever on how this came to be, please, reply in the comments. We're all on the edge of our seats.
Reader Comments
Seriously, why the fuss? Perhaps I don't fully comprehend the relevance.
I quickly skimmed through Cascading Style Sheets, Designing for the Web. There is no further info about the generic font family fantasy…it is just mentioned.
The book doesn't really illuminate the question of "why."
Under "Classifying Font Families," Lie and Bos say:
Font families are often classified into a few general categories. The number and names of categories vary from one typographic tradition to another. Here are the questions CSS asks when classifying a font family:
* does it have serifs (defined shortly) or is it sans-serif?
* is it proportional-spaced (variable-width) or monospaced (fixed-width)?
* was it designed to resemble handwriting?
* is it intended primarily for decorative purposes rather than for use in running text and headings?
And later:
Some fonts are seldom used for large amounts of text because their appearance is too unique to be read easily in large amounts. Typically they are reserved for display, and to some extent headline, purposes. Some don't even have full alphabets; they just have capital letters. They may be strangely decorated, irregular in shape or very fancy.
The book has a whole chapter on web fonts and font descriptions, so I guess the authors of CSS envisioned a much richer set of fonts available to web authors than we have today.
It's a great book, by the way. I still use it all the time.
If you should still want that book, try http://isbn.nu/020141998X/price/2.html. Apparently there are two places indexed by isbn.nu that have copies.
After this entry prompted me to re-read my own copy of Lie & Bos, I've been formulating a theory of how this came about.
Considering the amount of typographic control in CSS, its creators no doubt read up on typographic specifications in the context of functional nomenclature, but apart from the nuanced context of graphic design. Perhaps they were just trying to cover all the bases when they included the "cursive" and "fantasy" generic font family categories.
Chapter 10 of Robert Bringhurst's The Elements of Typographic Style uses the following general type classifications: serifed text faces, unserifed text faces, blackletters, uncials, script types, Greeks, Cyrillics, and inscriptional & calligraphic capitals. How should these categories be tranlated for the less typographically inclined?
Non-designing web developers, many of whom diminish the value of visual design, would still no doubt know the distinction between serif and san-serif, possibly in connection with functional readability issues (i.e., the eternal debate over which is more readable). The distinction between proportional and monospaced is functionally necessary for web developers to set, at the very least, aligned tabular numerical data.
Monospaced and, arguably, san-serif and serif are still practical, functional categories to a non-designing web developer.
So then, how would someone include the other less functional classifications for such developers to use and understand? ASCII and ANSI don't deal with Greek and Cyrillic alphabets, which are left to Unicode to handle. Script types resemble handwriting, but "cursive" is only seven characters long while a "script" involves programming code. That leaves blackletters, uncials, and inscriptional & calligraphic capitals, all of which resemble the letterforms found by many developers (yes, it's a gross generalization) in _fantasy_ literature and genre movies. And since a monitor is a "display" device, where could the rest of the existing alphanumeric fonts be classified (especially with "miscellaneous" being a disaster to spell)?
Cursive and fantasy seem to be accommodating catch-all categories which seem to have been included without really understanding their presentational nature. There isn't really much reason to use either category in everyday CSS, although cursive is the somewhat more presentationally functional of the two with fantasy being too broad in scope to be useful.
Of course, all this early-morning (EST) rambling is purely hypothetical until proven otherwise.
(Yes, that's my real name below. Non-western parents– 'nuff said.)
I suspect if you dig enough, you will get to ISO 9541, a standard for describing fonts. This thread at w3.org points in that direction:
But ISO standards are not available online (way to encourage adoption!), and are generally so obtusely constructed and written that they are hard to adopt anyway.
Here's a hint of what might have been in 9541:
If you clump all the serif designs into "serif", then you have basically the CSS font scheme.
Ages ago I actually served as a representative from Digital to this standards committee, working on these and related standards. Those are months of my life I'm not getting back…
BTW: if you want to see more type classification schemes, check out
and particularly PANOSE:
which delights in reducing the entire subject to a huge array of quantitative measurements.
A scan of the page in 'Cascading Style Sheets: Designing for the Web - Second Edition' with examples of the five generic font families can be found at:
By the way, you might want to try to gettting yourself a (second-hand) copy. It's still one of the best books on CSS.
Excellent, thanks Thijs.
Ned, Panose is planned for CSS3 - http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-webfonts/#q47 - see the first example.
Hero - I came across a few classification musings on www-style in my journey, mostly published after CSS1 had become a recommendation. The tone was more or less as you theorize, ie. 'What makes font x different from font y?' No concrete answers.
And the question lingers on! Something tells me it's going to take someone with access to the W3 member archives to crack this nut.
"Okay, sure. Let�s face it…"
Nice pun, Dave.
I'm fairly certain (though I wasn't involved at the time) that the CSS1 font families are based on the Windows GDI font families.
Notice how the definitions feel oddly familiar.
Of course the names were changed:
* Decorative -> fantasy
* Modern -> monospace
* Roman -> serif
* Script -> cursive
* Swiss -> sans-serif
The CSS1 names in general make more sense since they are more descriptive.
However, I have no idea why "decorative" was renamed "fantasy", since "decorative" is a more descriptive name.
Perhaps *all* the names were changed in order to hide the origin of the taxonomy.
The only problem with PANOSE showing up in CSS3 is that HP has an exclusive license to the technology. While it seems like a useful addition, the web's typography would be at HP's mercy.