The New York Times is covering really tough stuff, like whether women had more fun in Downton Abbey or Girls.
They write that one has the advantage of providing a life plan (Downton) while the other (Girls) allows women to be whatever they want to be. But those both have downsides! Namely:
“I don’t know what the next year of my life is going to be like at all,” says Marnie, a smart, pretty, rather lost twentysomething on “Girls.” “I don’t know what the next week of my life is going to be like. I don’t even know what I want. Sometimes I just wish someone would tell me, like, ‘This is how you should spend your days, and this is how the rest of your life should look.”’
“Downton” returns us to an earlier stretch of selfhood’s arc, when too little guidance was rarely the problem.
Set on a manor in which the hierarchy and fixedness of the country — indeed, of the Empire — are especially concentrated, “Downton” is a world where there is a way to do everything, from cleaning spoons to dressing for dinner. Status has been and still seems immovable, and servants must act at least as convinced of their inferiority as the masters are. Novelty and that great leveler, money, are reflexively suspected.
I mean, I would rather live in Downton Abbey, except everyone seems to be dying in it all the time. But they are dying in great outfits. And you know, I feel like they are an unusually sickly bunch.
Meanwhile, nothing good ever seems to happen in Girls except for getting to sleep with Patrick Wilson, maybe, and apparently no one will believe you afterwards.
So. Up to you. Downton or Girls. Go.
Picture via Girls