#’coriolanus is not a relatable protagonist’

[coriolanusbutch]

i love him

[miraculouscriticismshub]

The 25th Hunger Games : A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel the warmth.

If Suzanne is going to write a sixth book, it should be about the first quarter quell. The book should alternate between the perspectives of 5 tributes voted in for the quell so we don’t know who wins until we finish reading the book.

I know some people want a 1QQ book to be told from the perspective of Tigris or Coriolanus but Suzanne’s target audience is young adults. Tigris and Coriolanus would be in their thirties and be considered too old to appeal to young adults. Therefore, the protagonists should be teenagers specifically some of the tributes voted for the quell since they would have fascinating backstories.

Themes they could explore are loyalty to one's government. I'm sure a lot of tributes ( specifically tributes in the rebellious districts) were voted in because they came from wealthy families that were loyal and subservient to the Capitol. The 1QQ would've taken place only 25 years after the 1st rebellion so a lot of people in the districts who fought on the side of the rebels or the side of the capitol would still be alive . How was the capital able to win the war if they didn't have people in the districts like the plinth family fighting on their side ? Imagine if one of the POV's is a tribute who was voted in because their father betrayed the districts during the first rebellion and fought for the Capitol causing them to be promoted to mayor ? Why do they and their family support a dicatorship when the dictator is horrible and oppress their fellow citizens ? Do they support the hunger games because they are loyal to the Capitol and think the games don't affect them since they don't take Tesserae ?

Another theme that could be explored is Democracy. Maybe the quarter quell was implemented after the districts started acting too rebellious ? Was the 1QQ's theme of voting chosen because democracy was a popular idea among the rebels at the time and the capitol wanted to put the districts off democracy ? It could also investigate a dictatorship vs democracy debate. Why would some people in the districts support Democracy while others a Dictatorship ?

Other than being related to wealthy Capitol loyalists , tributes might've been voted in for being orphans nobody would miss or they were terminally ill. I can imagine some of the career districts voting for children related to prominent rebels. Maybe some districts voted in for criminals like thieves, drug dealers, violent gang members or even r*pists ? Those sort of tributes likely were used by the capitol as propaganda to show how barbaric and savage the districts are supporting the concept of the hunger games and capitol control to "keep those uncivilised districts in check".

Now what do I think will happen to the victor of the first quarter quell ( if they weren't a career victor voted in by their district because they had the best chance of winning) ? I think they will become the Capitol's Puppet as a foil to Haymitch ( the victor of the second quarter quell and well known rebel ). They were betrayed by their district and chosen to die because they were not accepted by their community for whatever reason. This causes them to be easily targeted by the enemy which is the capitol . A child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel the warmth. The victor will side with the capitol and support the oppression of their community because that very same community oppressed and alienated them . Even if the victor realises the Capitol is to blame for everything and their district wouldn’t have voted them in if they weren’t forced to by the Capitol , would they actually become a rebel ? Why should they fight for their district if their own district was willing to sacrifice them ?

Comment your theories and head cannons about the first quarter quell below.

[liketwoswansinbalance]

In the modern publishing landscape, these days, I think like we do not have many (if any) point-of-view characters with low social motivation for whatever reason.

Sure, there are lots of characters with social anxiety or other perceived or legitimate foibles to overcome, there are many YA villain origin stories, and there are many unpalatable, traditionally "unlikable" men in classics, but disregarding those, who else do we have?

Can the state of openly being alone (and content) rarely be presented as morally-neutral or as the end result of a narrative? Must it always be that either being alone is the starting point, so there's room for "personal growth," or that being alone is seen as "undesirable" and/or an indication that the person alone has a "problem" or something otherwise wrong with them, like a deficit or moral failing that in some kind of karmic way gives them "what they deserve," which is being alone and discontent with it?

Characters with society anxiety, any differences in communication, or other reasons that interfere with forging connections "don't count" because they may still be motivated. Traits such as these only stand in the way of gaining relationships, as plot obstacles. They aren't intrinsically tied to indifference or to low motivation. So, these characters clearly are not experiencing a lack of interest. And they are not the ones rejecting others. Thus, they "don't count" as far as the archetype that I'm looking for goes.

Characters who undergo villain arcs or otherwise negative arcs may want to maintain their relationships or gain them, so some examples are immediately disqualified (hence not having low social motivation), even if they are the type of character most likely to alienate themselves by a story's end, conflicting with what they wanted.

(Unfortunately, Coriolanus Snow, who is quite close to the type of protagonist I'm searching for "doesn't count" because he has some drive to keep people in his life.

Rafal Mistral partially "counts," and is satisfying as a character, but also doesn't count because he temporarily makes "friends" or allies, depending on how you look at his exploits. Yet, despite all this, not having friends isn't exactly framed as a morally-neutral state either, so he is also disqualified by the end. Basically, he does have low social motivation, but his narrative lacks the conditions that would make the natural consequences of that low motivation play out for themselves. He is always surrounded by people, even if he hates every last one of them.

And, generally speaking, the usual, moody-broody, "misunderstood" YA love-interests very easily "don't count" because they have a desire to get closer to their object of affection.

Even Katniss Everdeen, an overall good person, who usually views herself as "unlikable," befriends others, originally for pragmatic, survival purposes. However, she does start with low social motivation, so that's something in her favor.

And yes, I'm aware that we need other people in this world—I would just like to see someone prove that supposed truth wrong once. And perhaps succeed in their world, if that's not too much to ask for.)

Also, are there any instances of characters who progressively alienate themselves from others, in which that progression is not inherently seen as negative? Like, what about non-corrupt misanthropes? Are there few of those in literature? (Maybe—Eleanor Oliphant from literary fiction counts, but something about that book did not appeal me and I didn't finish it.)

Classics guys sort of "count," but I haven't really seen examples of any comparable protagonists today since many authors and readers write and look for "relatability" in blank slate everyman figures oftentimes.

(I'm not done with Crime and Punishment yet, but Raskolnikov is very tentatively looking like a safe bet for a character who may end up alone and who may not be completely malcontent over such a fate, even if I'm expecting tragedy. I'm that not far along, but I also wouldn't mind it too greatly if he died, I suppose.

And even Sherlock Holmes has Watson as his constant, even if he's notoriously asocial! So he "doesn't count" either.

Carol from Main Street also comes close, but still ultimately desires approval from others.

Maybe no one is truly immune to humanity and I should give up on this notion?)

How many pov characters out there are 1) apathetic toward the masses and 2a) either alienate themselves as the plot progresses or 2b) do not make any friends? (I will allow them making friends and consequently losing them though because that still ends in net zero!)

Indeed, this "gap" in protagonists I've been running into lately, especially with coming-of-age arcs and protagonists whose arc is some form of "getting out of their shell," is: why do we (almost?) never see protagonists who just flat-out don't progress in terms of connecting with fellow humans?

Wouldn't having even a handful of those types be reflective of reality? (We as a society are more disconnected than ever, to be fair, despite constantly having access to one another via technology.)

Or I would completely understand it, if it were narratively impractical to have a plot in which a protagonist makes zero friends. Maybe, it's a near-unwritable form for a story?

So, my question is: does anyone have book recommendations, which present a character whose end goal is not to make friends or forge connections (any other ambitions or motivations are fine) and whose state of being friendless both lasts and is regarded as morally-neutral or as not outright evil? Any genre is fine. High fantasy is preferable. I am stumped.

(I also wouldn't mind recommendations of books in which the protagonist is vilified due to being alone, even if that is not my primary query here.)

[forthegothicheroine]

Shakespeare's Roman plays (classical plays, if you prefer) are interesting because they're a lot more morally ambiguous than the histories (which tend to involve characters either related to the Tudors/Stuarts or their enemies.) For the most part, none of the main characters in Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra or Coriolanus are supposed to be right or wrong, just different shades of grey, people who want different things that put them at odds with others. Cleopatra is flighty in her moods but honest in her love; Octavian is ruthlessly competent but no fun whatsoever; Brutus is idealistic but I sure would hate to have him as a friend; Coriolanus is great at what he does but god help you if you're not one of the two or three people he cares about. In a way, this makes the plays feel very modern.

(I don't tend to consider Titus Andronicus as one of the Roman plays in the same way, since it's not based on anyone real or mythological, but it does give its villainess- who is incredibly cruel- probably the best motivation of all his bad guys., and its protagonist is no less cruel than she.)

[valerieofavonlea]

Sunrise on the Reaping has been out for a month and a half and I have NOT stopped thinking about Burdock Everdeen and his Covey ties. Something just is not sitting right with me about all of it

So the actual canon prospects of this are MICROSCOPIC and doesn't totally work logistically but just walk with me for a moment

Katniss is Covey through her father's mother's side

Burdock and Lenore Dove are "distant cousins"

There are six total members of the Covey in district 12. Down to five by the end of Ballad

BUT, Burdock and Lenore Dove are specifically cousins on the Baird side, and not biologically related to Clerk Carmine or Tam Amber.

The three girls are all Bairds

Maude Ivory is heavily implied to be Lenore Dove's mother

So that just leaves Barb Azure right?

Well

(again, walk with me)

Why doesn't Burdock have a Covey name?

How exactly would someone end up being a "distant cousin" to a group as close knit as the Covey?

Now all of these points stand, and if anyone has ideas hmu, but here's where it goes off the rails

I do think Burdock is at least a generation removed from the Covey we all know, and a baby girl born, say, the spring after the 10th games would be 24ish when Burdock is born.

I also think that should a baby come to the Covey that spring that maybe none of them would be able to take care of her, so maybe she would be given to a nice couple in the Seam who couldn't have their own children, and her true heritage hidden, with some distant cousins who teach her about their traditions and their music and their graveyard

Again, almost certainly not canon and I get the feeling a lot of people would hate it, but wouldn't it just be peak irony if the romantic love that Coriolanus rejected, that the so called weakness that he hated so much ended up literally being his ultimate downfall? If Dr Gaul's plan backfired? If Lucy Gray won in the end because she loved this boy?

Idk I'm just obsessed with the idea of the main protagonist and the main villain having this deep connection that neither of them are aware of.

[ashirisu]

hey, everyone!

My name is Ley (pronounced like "Lee," she/they) and I'm a fiction writer/editor based in the PNW. I haven't done a proper writeblr intro in a while, so I figure the new year is a great time to reintroduce myself to the community!

— about me

An important thing to understand about me and the way I talk about writing is that this stuff is literally my entire life. Even outside of work, I don't think I have a single interest or hobby that doesn't relate back to storytelling in some capacity. I'm an avid media consumer and critic, and will hyperanalyze just about anything that catches my fancy for more than a minute.

I love science fiction and fantasy, and my goal as a writer is to take all the genres I loved growing up and create stories that are a little more diverse, inclusive, and queer.

— about the blog

I came to writeblr mostly to share my work, but also to find an active community where I can get excited with other writers and talk shop. Marketing is obviously a really important part of the publishing industry, but I get tired of having to filter every thought I have about my work and experiences through the lens of aesthetic micro-trends just to put it out in the world. Sometimes I just want to pop off about scenes I'm proud of, you know?

Above all else, I really just want to connect with more writers like myself, ones who got their start in fandom spaces and are working to take their writing from a hobby into a career. I see you, I am you, I love you, let's be friends!

You’ll definitely see me posting and reblogging a lot of stuff that isn’t necessarily related to writing, so be ready for that. My art exists in the context of my personality and the world as a whole, and I simply do not have it in me to maintain a whole separate blog for silly nonsense and memes. Just consider it a way to get to know the writer as well as the writing!

— about my writing

I write a lot, though most of it is disconnected nonsense. Flash fiction and short stories are where I really thrive as a writer. I don't tend to commit to long-form projects, but I have a few projects that I'll occasionally share details about!

I like to describe my style as "earnest and character-forward," which is a fancy way of saying that I like driven protagonists who think too much and are emotional to the point of it being a character flaw.

My goal is to share more of my original writing moving forward, so hopefully you'll get to see all of this for yourself. If I'm totally honest, though, you'll probably see more of me discussing my work than actually writing it.

— about my projects

Here are the things you'll most likely see me posting about:

Agnomen: A sci-fi retelling of Hamlet and Coriolanus, currently in its very preliminary stages. It is literally my Roman Empire, except it's set on a moon of a planet that I'm calling Jupiter as a placeholder (but please note that it isn't actually Jupiter, as Jupiter is a gas giant and therefore a scientifically impossible setting for large sections of the plot).

Alter Ego: A superhero fic in which not-so-mild-mannered reporter Drew Derrick fights for mutant rights and can't seem to get his act together when it comes to keeping the complicated parts of his life separate.

Untitled Fantasy Project: The very first project I ever wrote, and the piece I return to every so often when writing is feeling more like a slog than a fun hobby. I set a lot of one-offs in this world and follow a few key characters around without them having a real plot.

D&D: I write a lot about Baz, my Wild Magic Barbarian. He's a regency noble with a lot of problems, and I care about him very much. I also have various other settings and characters, but he's my most active PC at the moment and therefore gets the most attention.

Short Stories: Sometimes I write these, and sometimes I like them enough to share!

— tag directory

ley rambles: my (often wordy) opinions about things

ley writes: not necessarily my writing, but talking about my writing

my writing: stories, blurbs, and other content I've written

not my writing: reblogs and creative writing that I liked, shared, and sometimes commented on

[julietasgf]

ask game

would love to know some unpopular opinions of yours!!

hiii buddy, ty for the ask!!! okay, let me see some, tho I hope I don't sound repetitive (specially bc most of these are tbosas opinions or plinth related ones):

I do think strabo is abusive, but I don't think he didn't care about sejanus, much the contrary. I also don't think him or the plinths in general had as much power as I see people making it seem to be;

I don't think the casting for the tbosas movie was good or well done, except for tigris. the actors are great, they did a great job with what they had in hands, but I really don't think they were the best choices;

I do think sejanus being immigrant coded and lucy gray being romani coded is important, but at the same time I miss a lot collins being more explicit on her descriptions of looks, bc despite the coding being explicit there's not a single time where we get to know how they look like, whereas blonde and blue eyed characters got long descriptions (not even katniss, the literal protagonist, got more detailed descriptions of her looks, and olive skin is such a broad term);

the tbosas movie having a more diverse cast doesn't mean anything when they change clemensia into taking advantage of coriolanus for academic reasons and change sejanus into someone angry and aggressive;

still talking abt the movie, lucy gray's actress should've been romani;

I don't think the bullying sejanus went through was only verbal, I think it was violent (as if it having basis on his identity and culture isn't violent enough), and there wasn't much the plinths could do to make it stop bc I think they were already walking in a thin line regarding what they could or not do, specially regarding sejanus' education; I think that at best 5 or 4 of the mentors we know weren't that bad to him.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Shakespeare

The philosophy of Shakespeare refers to the exploration of philosophical themes, questions, and ideas within the works of William Shakespeare. While Shakespeare was not a philosopher in the traditional sense, his plays and sonnets are rich with philosophical insights that address issues related to human nature, ethics, politics, love, fate, identity, and the human condition. Scholars and readers alike have long examined how Shakespeare’s writings engage with philosophical concepts and how these concepts are dramatized through his characters and narratives.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Shakespeare:

Human Nature and the Human Condition:

Complexity of the Human Psyche: Shakespeare's characters are known for their psychological depth and complexity. His works explore the multifaceted nature of human beings, including the tensions between reason and emotion, ambition and morality, and appearance and reality.

The Tragic Flaw (Hamartia): Many of Shakespeare’s tragedies revolve around the concept of a tragic flaw, a characteristic that leads to the downfall of the protagonist. This theme raises philosophical questions about free will, fate, and the moral consequences of human actions.

Ethics and Morality:

Good and Evil: Shakespeare’s works frequently grapple with the nature of good and evil, exploring the moral ambiguities of his characters' actions. Plays like Macbeth and Othello delve into the corrupting influence of power, jealousy, and ambition.

Justice and Revenge: The tension between justice and revenge is a recurring theme, particularly in plays like Hamlet and The Merchant of Venice. These works examine the ethics of retribution, the consequences of revenge, and the pursuit of justice.

Fate and Free Will:

Destiny and Choice: Shakespeare often explores the tension between fate and free will, questioning the extent to which characters are in control of their own destinies. Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth are notable examples where the characters' actions seem predestined, yet their choices play a crucial role in their outcomes.

Prophecy and Foreknowledge: The use of prophecy, as seen in Macbeth and Julius Caesar, raises philosophical questions about whether knowledge of the future alters the course of events or if it leads inevitably to the fulfillment of that future.

Identity and Self-Knowledge:

The Fluidity of Identity: In plays like Twelfth Night and As You Like It, Shakespeare explores the fluidity of identity, particularly through themes of disguise and mistaken identity. These themes challenge the fixed nature of identity and raise questions about self-knowledge and authenticity.

Self-Deception: Characters in Shakespeare’s plays often engage in self-deception, either out of pride, fear, or desire. This theme is particularly prominent in King Lear and Hamlet, where characters’ inability to see themselves or their situations clearly leads to tragedy.

Politics and Power:

The Nature of Authority: Shakespeare’s historical plays and tragedies frequently address the nature of political power and authority. Richard III, Henry V, and Julius Caesar explore the ethics of leadership, the legitimacy of rulership, and the corrupting influence of power.

The Body Politic: The metaphor of the body politic, where the state is likened to a human body, is a recurring theme. In plays like Coriolanus and Measure for Measure, Shakespeare examines the health of the state and the moral responsibilities of rulers.

Love and Relationships:

Romantic Love: Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies offer deep reflections on the nature of love, its joys, and its perils. Plays like Romeo and Juliet and Much Ado About Nothing explore the idealization of romantic love, the pain of unrequited love, and the complexities of human relationships.

Friendship and Loyalty: Beyond romantic love, Shakespeare also delves into themes of friendship and loyalty, as seen in The Merchant of Venice and Julius Caesar. These relationships often raise questions about the conflicts between personal loyalty and public duty.

Appearance vs. Reality:

Illusion and Truth: Many of Shakespeare’s plays involve themes of appearance versus reality, where characters and situations are not what they seem. Hamlet and Othello are prime examples of how deception and the search for truth drive the plot and philosophical inquiry.

Theatricality of Life: Shakespeare often blurs the line between reality and performance, as seen in As You Like It's famous "All the world's a stage" monologue. This raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the roles people play in life, and the construction of identity.

Mortality and the Meaning of Life:

Death and the Afterlife: Shakespeare’s works are deeply concerned with mortality, the fear of death, and the unknown aspects of the afterlife. Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" soliloquy is one of the most famous meditations on existence and the fear of what comes after death.

The Transience of Life: The fleeting nature of life and the inevitability of death are recurrent themes, particularly in Shakespeare’s sonnets and tragedies. These reflections often lead to a broader contemplation of the meaning and value of life.

Philosophical Skepticism:

Doubt and Certainty: Shakespeare’s characters often grapple with doubt and uncertainty, questioning their beliefs, their perceptions, and the world around them. This skepticism is evident in Hamlet's introspection and in King Lear's descent into madness.

Relativism and Perspective: Shakespeare frequently presents multiple perspectives within his plays, allowing for a relativistic view of truth and morality. This multiplicity of viewpoints invites the audience to question the nature of truth and the reliability of perception.

The philosophy of Shakespeare is not a unified doctrine but rather a rich and varied exploration of fundamental human concerns. Through his characters and narratives, Shakespeare engages with philosophical questions about human nature, morality, power, love, identity, and existence. His works continue to inspire philosophical inquiry, offering insights that are as relevant today as they were in the Elizabethan era.

[the-one-where-casey-watches-tv]

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes: Is Katniss Lucy Gray's Granddaughter?

The Hunger Games prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes is chock full of easter eggs and homages to the original trilogy. So much so that many folks are wondering if the District 12 survivor from years past has any relation to the Girl on Fire.

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes follows young performer Lucy Gray Baird as she is reaped for the 10th annual Hunger Games, becoming the female tribute from District 12. Her path crosses with the ambitious yet penniless teenaged Coriolanus Snow, whose curriculum at the Capitol’s Academy causes him to take a vested interest in Lucy Gray’s performance in the Games.

Tom Blyth and Rachel Zegler in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. Image courtesy of IMDb.

Similar in some ways, but different in even more, Katniss Everdeen and Lucy Gray Baird both played to their strengths to survive the brutal Hunger Games. Here are the reasons some people got the idea that these two protagonists could be related.

The Timeline Checks Out

In The Hunger Games trilogy, the white-haired President Snow has a granddaughter just a couple years younger than Katniss and her sister Prim. Given that his younger self was two years older than Lucy Gray, it’s perfectly feasible that Katniss and Prim could be her descendants.

“The Hanging Tree”

Now, Lucy Gray isn’t the only one who knew this song- certainly not after performing it for a vivacious crowd of dancers at a District 12 pub. But Katniss is no performer. She gritted her teeth through any performative act she had to take to ensure her own survival, yet “The Hanging Tree” is a song she occasionally sang willingly, one she found peaceful. It must have had a special place in her heart to bring her that comfort. And why might that be? 

Jennifer Lawrence and Amandla Stenberg in The Hunger Games. Image courtesy of IMDb.

Their Strategies in the Games

Lucy Gray and Katniss handled the Games- and the mind games leading up to the Games- very differently. Yet at their core, they played the same way. Both girls played smart, rather than violent; they both waited out the initial bloodbath and took as little life as was possible, given the circumstances. When finally forced to play their hand, Lucy Gray and Katniss both did the wholly unexpected, somehow finding a third option for themselves besides kill or be killed. Their strength in not succumbing to the animal-like behavior that the Capitol so eagerly wanted to televise is an outlier that draws a connection between the two of them.

Rachel Zegler in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. Image courtesy of IMDb.

Katniss

Lucy Gray had a fondness for Katniss- the plant. It’s a swamp potato that the Covey would eat on their travels. Not everyone called the plant Katniss, but Lucy Gray liked to. Did she like it enough for a child of hers to pass the name along in her honor?

Despite all these easter eggs in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes that can’t help but draw the mind to Katniss Everdeen, no relation between the two District 12 victors is ever confirmed. A strong argument can be made for one, but there are also some reasons this theory is just that- a theory.

The Covey

 Lucy Gray Baird is a member of the Covey, a traveling performance troupe that happened to be settled in District 12 at the time of the 10th annual Hunger Games. Her Covey identity is so important to her that she is reluctant to call herself a resident of District 12, despite being reaped as the district’s female tribute. Yet, there is no mention of the Covey in The Hunger Games. The group is a new addition to The Hunger Games world with The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. If Katniss was related to Lucy Gray, they would only be two generations removed, and Lucy Gray’s Covey identity would likely play a role in Katniss’s sense of self as well. The complete absence of the Covey in Katniss’s story casts some doubt on the possibility of a connection between the two girls.

Rachel Zegler in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. Image courtesy of IMDb.

District 12 

The Covey complicates things even further. Given that they are a traveling group, to the extent that Lucy Gray refused to call District 12 home, it seems unlikely that she spent the rest of her life there. When you add in the fact that, at the end of The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, she and Coriolanus had set out to leave the districts and never return, the thought of her establishing a family in District 12 feels even more far-fetched. The prequel ends on an ambiguous note, with Lucy Gray deliberately losing Coriolanus in the forest, so it’s hard to say if she ever saw 12 again, much less made meaningful connections there.

Radically Different Personalities

 Lucy Gray’s reaping consisted of her dropping a snake down another girl’s dress and then bursting into song. Katniss’s reaping found her intensely and tearfully volunteering in her sister’s place. The contrast between Lucy Gray’s levity and Katniss’s seriousness is a constant in their personalities. Lucy Gray, a performer for a living and a performer for survival, won Capitol hearts with her charm and voice. Katniss, on the other hand, had to be begged to grin and bear it, to give a single twirl, to save not just herself but Peeta- whose affability was an essential counterpart to her stone-faced persona. If the two girls are related, a similar demeanor is not one of the clues.

Jennifer Lawrence and Stanley Tucci in The Hunger Games. Image courtesy of IMDb.

Ultimately, though, we’ll never know for sure. It’s possible that The Ballad of Songbirds and Snake’s homages to Katniss served more as an explanation as to why the Girl on Fire bothered President Snow so much. Maybe she just got under his skin because she reminded him a little too much of the girl who bested him and broke his heart all those years ago- related or not.

What's your gut telling you? Do you think these two share blood? Or just that powerful fighting spirit?

[demonoflight]

I bought The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes when it came out fully intending to read it but between the mixed reviews that immediately came out and the panini and the fact that Coriolanus Snow is an absolute shitweasel in the trilogy proper and I need a certain mindset to endure villain protagonists, I only got around to reading it this month because Reasons

And like. I understand how it isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but shit, I thought it was so good. It kept me engaged and made me feel things and think deep thoughts. It answered a lot of questions I had when I was reading the original trilogy. There were a lot of “shocked but not surprised” moments. It’s kind of like, no wonder everyone in the Capitol is Like That. And Coriolanus Snow turns out to have always been an absolute turd, to no one’s surprise. Even when he does something nice for someone you want to strangle him because he never does it out of true kindness, he’s just a self-righteous selfish prick! The absolute worst person! Absolutely brilliant.

Meanwhile Sejanus was the goodest boy and deserved better. Poor, sweet Sejanus.

I am very interested in reading more of Suzanne Collins’ agenda. Doesn’t have to be more THG related books, anything goes, but please continue to tell me how you really feel about war, privilege, the meaning of being human and the falsehoods of American “freedom”. Though I wouldn’t mind a book from the point of view of a winner-turned-mentor or something about why some people in the Capitol did decide to rebel like Plutarch Heavensbee? There’s a lot of stories that can be told.

[alwida10]

Sylvie is the protagonist of the Loki series and here is why:

A protagonist

1) has to be relatable and

2) has to contribute to the plot.

I already talked about point No. 2 so I won’t repeat myself here. The interesting new epiphany I had is about point 1).

Now, in most fictional works the protagonist is the reader insert. While that doesn’t exclude the protagonist being a bad person, it still demands to show his reasoning so he gets relatable. In classic literature this is ultimately important to understand tragedies. In tragedies, the protagonist normally is provided two possible ways to act. One is ‘the easy way’ where they will survive but have to sacrifice their principles, honor or some other character trait of high importance. In Emilia Galotti, she would have survived and lived in prosperity but would have become the harlot of the prince. Coriolanus would have become consul if he swallowed his pride and sucked up to the commen people of Rome. But the protagonist chooses their principle and the tragedy unfolds.

Now, is Coriolanus an asshole? No, because we get to see his reasons. He gets pressured by his family into a life he doesn’t even desire. He’s a soldier and in a way a simple and straightforward man who isn’t made for politics. He’s loyal so when his former enemy who took him in after he was banished from Rome wants to attack Rome, Coriolanus can’t go with him. He can’t attack his friends and family in Rome. Why don’t we see him as an asshole and are even sad when he dies?

Because we know his reasons! Back to the Loki series. In episode 1, Loki’s former actions (and with them his motivations) are shown. But how are they shown?

Mobius tells us loki would at least know how to cooperate if he wants to woo someone powerful he plans to betray.

Loki introduces us to the idea the TVA would be a scheme of the weak to inspire fear. This is later redirected so it is in fact a statement about Loki. To drive this point home he is shown repeatedly as weak: his attempt to talk down to the Mongolians is ridiculously weak, Mobius calls him a pussycat, his petty revenge on B15.

The loki variants in Ep.5 are all portrayed as power-hungry, backstabbing liars. Even Kid loki who never could have met Thanos, already killed his brother, showing even way back Loki was supposed to be a murderer.

He is focused on his ‘glorious purpose’ alone and gets crushed when it’s shown to be empty.

I assume the cooper-scene was probably supposed to make Loki relatable and cool, but failed IMO because it was just a joke. Nothing that would touch his former characterization.

Please not what is NOT shown: we see nothing of the hurt loki felt in Thor 1, no hint of Thanos influencing or torturing Loki, no indication Thor and his friends could ever done anything wrong. All those things would have been the reasons that made Loki do what he did in Thor 1 and Avengers. Things that would have made his former actions relatable. Instead, we get another explanation: according to the series, he’s a ‘conniving, craven, pathetic worm’ who betrays ‘everyone that ever loved him’.

But betrayal isn’t something done out of fun. Loki did bad things. I won’t deny that. But he had his reasons. Reasons that aren’t shown.

Sylvie’s reasons are shown. She contributes to the plot. Sylvie is the True Protagonist.

[minhos-harness]

hi! for the send me a fandom ask game, could i please inquire about the hunger games (and if not, the classic maze runner)? hope you're doing well!

hi there! ahh, I love the hunger games so much, it's one of my all-time favourite series!

The first character I first fell in love with: Katniss! Like the series itself, Katniss is very important to me and has stuck with me through the years. Katniss, to me, is a very meaningful character. She's incredibly strong, resilient and determined, and consistently displays acts of bravery and compassion throughout her journey. Despite her hardened exterior, she also has a vulnerable side.

I appreciate that Katniss posseses realistic attributes as well (something I find other YA protagonists often lack). Katniss can be stubborn, appears cold at times and struggles to make friends. She keeps her distance from others and is even viewed as "unlikeable." It's refreshening and, in my opinion, makes her more relatable.

All in all, I adore Katniss Everdeen and through the first person perspective of the story in which we hear her thoughts and experience everything alongside her, I was quick to fall in love with her during my first ever read through of the books.

The character I never expected to love as much as I do now: Oh, Effie. Her development is wonderful; as the story progresses, we witness her growing past her initial Capitol attitude to becoming aware and empathetic of the Districts and their reality. It's fantastic growth and we love to see it!

I'd like to say Haymitch as well. He's an intriguing character to me and I love the depth behind him and his actions. His backstory is really sad and I enjoy seeing him grow closer to Katniss over the course of the series.

The character everyone else loves that I don’t: Hmm, I'm not sure... Although I do love him, I suppose I don't love Peeta to the degree that everyone else seems to. That's not to say I hate or even dislike him, though - it's quite the opposite, really. He's a great character and I appreciate his kind nature (something we need to see applied more often to male characters), but again, I feel as though the fandoms love of him is much more intense than mine. So it's not that I don't love him, I just don't love him as much.

Does that count as an answer

The character I love that everyone else hates: I can't think of any characters this applies to for me.

The character I used to love but don’t any longer: Same answer as above, really.

The character I would totally smooch: Finnick, for sure!

The character I’d want to be like: Again, Katniss. Ever since I first read the series when I was younger, I've always admired her. As I mentioned before, she's a very strong person who does whatever she can to protect those she loves and cares about. She's a survivor who, despite all her hardships, continues to fight.

The character I’d slap: I think Coriolanus Snow deserves a nice big one. Do I really need to give a reason why?

A pairing that I love: Finnick and Annie. Their relationship is very sweet and despite what Suzanne Collins says, they definitely had a happy ending in which they lived out the rest of their lives peacefully together with their little baby.

Also, I won't lie, I actually really like Haymitch/Effie, haha. I love their dynamic and seeing Woody and Elizabeth bounce off each other in the films is really fun.

A pairing that I despise: I don't despise it as such, but I'm not a fan of Katniss/Gale romantically. I can see why people ship them, but I could never see them being together, much less lasting. As Katniss points out in the epilogue of Mockingjay, they both have fiery spirits and Katniss doesn't need or want any more of that.

Thanks for the ask and an excuse to talk about The Hunger Games @sunny-reys!

Send me a fandom and I'll tell you...

[amunvulcan]

Fortuna (Latin: Fortūna, equivalent to the Greek goddess Tyche) is the goddess of fortune and the personification of luck in Roman religion who, largely thanks to the Late Antique author Boethius, remained popular through the Middle Ages until at least the Renaissance. The blindfolded depiction of her is still an important figure in many aspects of today's Italian culture, where the dichotomy fortuna / sfortuna (luck / unluck) plays a prominent role in everyday social life, also represented by the very common refrain "La [dea] fortuna è cieca" (latin Fortuna caeca est; "Luck [goddess] is blind").

Fortuna is often depicted with a gubernaculum (ship's rudder), a ball or Rota Fortunae (wheel of fortune, first mentioned by Cicero) and a cornucopia (horn of plenty). She might bring good or bad luck: she could be represented as veiled and blind, as in modern depictions of Lady Justice, except that Fortuna does not hold a balance. Fortuna came to represent life's capriciousness. She was also a goddess of fate: as Atrox Fortuna, she claimed the young lives of the princeps Augustus' grandsons Gaius and Lucius, prospective heirs to the Empire.[1] (In antiquity she was also known as Automatia.)[2]

Fortuna's father was said to be Jupiter and like him, she could also be bountiful (Copia). As Annonaria she protected grain supplies. June 11 was consecrated to her: on June 24 she was given cult at the festival of Fors Fortuna.[4][5] Fortuna's name seems to derive from Vortumna (she who revolves the year).[citation needed]

Roman writers disagreed whether her cult was introduced to Rome by Servius Tullius[6] or Ancus Marcius.[7] The two earliest temples mentioned in Roman Calendars were outside the city, on the right bank of the Tiber (in Italian Trastevere). The first temple dedicated to Fortuna was attributed to the Etruscan Servius Tullius, while the second is known to have been built in 293 BC as the fulfilment of a Roman promise made during later Etruscan wars.[8] The date of dedication of her temples was 24 June, or Midsummer's Day, when celebrants from Rome annually floated to the temples downstream from the city. After undisclosed rituals they then rowed back, garlanded and inebriated.[9] Also Fortuna had a temple at the Forum Boarium. Here Fortuna was twinned with the cult of Mater Matuta (the goddesses shared a festival on 11 June), and the paired temples have been revealed in the excavation beside the church of Sant'Omobono: the cults are indeed archaic in date.[10] Fortuna Primigenia of Praeneste was adopted by Romans at the end of 3rd century BC in an important cult of Fortuna Publica Populi Romani (the Official Good Luck of the Roman People) on the Quirinalis outside the Porta Collina.[11] No temple at Rome, however, rivalled the magnificence of the Praenestine sanctuary.

Fortuna's identity as personification of chance events was closely tied to virtus (strength of character). Public officials who lacked virtues invited ill-fortune on themselves and Rome: Sallust uses the infamous Catiline as illustration – "Truly, when in the place of work, idleness, in place of the spirit of measure and equity, caprice and pride invade, fortune is changed just as with morality".[12]

An oracle at the Temple of Fortuna Primigena in Praeneste used a form of divination in which a small boy picked out one of various futures that were written on oak rods. Cults to Fortuna in her many forms are attested throughout the Roman world. Dedications have been found to Fortuna Dubia (doubtful fortune), Fortuna Brevis (fickle or wayward fortune) and Fortuna Mala (bad fortune).

Fortuna is found in a variety of domestic and personal contexts. During the early Empire, an amulet from the House of Menander in Pompeii links her to the Egyptian goddess Isis, as Isis-Fortuna.[13] She is functionally related to the god Bonus Eventus,[14] who is often represented as her counterpart: both appear on amulets and intaglio engraved gems across the Roman world. In the context of the early republican period account of Coriolanus, in around 488 BC the Roman senate dedicated a temple to Fortuna on account of the services of the matrons of Rome in saving the city from destruction.[15] Evidence of Fortuna worship has been found as far north as Castlecary, Scotland[16] and an altar and statue can now be viewed at the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow.[17]

The earliest reference to the Wheel of Fortune, emblematic of the endless changes in life between prosperity and disaster, is from 55 BC.[18] In Seneca's tragedy Agamemnon, a chorus addresses Fortuna in terms that would remain almost proverbial, and in a high heroic ranting mode that Renaissance writers would emulate:

O Fortune, who dost bestow the throne's high boon with mocking hand, in dangerous and doubtful state thou settest the too exalted. Never have sceptres obtained calm peace or certain tenure; care on care weighs them down, and ever do fresh storms vex their souls. ... great kingdoms sink of their own weight, and Fortune gives way ‘neath the burden of herself. Sails swollen with favouring breezes fear blasts too strongly theirs; the tower which rears its head to the very clouds is beaten by rainy Auster. ... Whatever Fortune has raised on high, she lifts but to bring low. Modest estate has longer life; then happy he whoe’er, content with the common lot, with safe breeze hugs the shore, and, fearing to trust his skiff to the wider sea, with unambitious oar keeps close to land.[19]

Ovid's description is typical of Roman representations: in a letter from exile[20] he reflects ruefully on the “goddess who admits by her unsteady wheel her own fickleness; she always has its apex beneath her swaying foot.”

Fortuna did not disappear from the popular imagination with the ascendancy of Christianity.[21] Saint Augustine took a stand against her continuing presence, in the City of God: "How, therefore, is she good, who without discernment comes to both the good and to the bad?...It profits one nothing to worship her if she is truly fortune... let the bad worship her...this supposed deity".[22] In the 6th century, the Consolation of Philosophy, by statesman and philosopher Boethius, written while he faced execution, reflected the Christian theology of casus, that the apparently random and often ruinous turns of Fortune's Wheel are in fact both inevitable and providential, that even the most coincidental events are part of God's hidden plan which one should not resist or try to change. Fortuna, then, was a servant of God,[23] and events, individual decisions, the influence of the stars were all merely vehicles of Divine Will. In succeeding generations Boethius' Consolation was required reading for scholars and students. Fortune crept back into popular acceptance, with a new iconographic trait, "two-faced Fortune", Fortuna bifrons; such depictions continue into the 15th century.[24]

The ubiquitous image of the Wheel of Fortune found throughout the Middle Ages and beyond was a direct legacy of the second book of Boethius's Consolation. The Wheel appears in many renditions from tiny miniatures in manuscripts to huge stained glass windows in cathedrals, such as at Amiens. Lady Fortune is usually represented as larger than life to underscore her importance. The wheel characteristically has four shelves, or stages of life, with four human figures, usually labeled on the left regnabo (I shall reign), on the top regno (I reign) and is usually crowned, descending on the right regnavi (I have reigned) and the lowly figure on the bottom is marked sum sine regno (I have no kingdom). Medieval representations of Fortune emphasize her duality and instability, such as two faces side by side like Janus; one face smiling the other frowning; half the face white the other black; she may be blindfolded but without scales, blind to justice. She was associated with the cornucopia, ship's rudder, the ball and the wheel. The cornucopia is where plenty flows from, the Helmsman's rudder steers fate, the globe symbolizes chance (who gets good or bad luck), and the wheel symbolizes that luck, good or bad, never lasts.

Fortuna lightly balances the

orb

of sovereignty between thumb and finger in a Dutch painting of

ca

1530 (

Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg

)

Fortune would have many influences in cultural works throughout the Middle Ages. In Le Roman de la Rose, Fortune frustrates the hopes of a lover who has been helped by a personified character "Reason". In Dante's Inferno (vii.67-96), Virgil explains the nature of Fortune, both a devil and a ministering angel, subservient to God. Boccaccio's De Casibus Virorum Illustrium ("The Fortunes of Famous Men"), used by John Lydgate to compose his Fall of Princes, tells of many where the turn of Fortune's wheel brought those most high to disaster, and Boccaccio essay De remedii dell'una e dell'altra Fortuna, depends upon Boethius for the double nature of Fortuna. Fortune makes her appearance in Carmina Burana (see image). The Christianized Lady Fortune is not autonomous: illustrations for Boccaccio's Remedii show Fortuna enthroned in a triumphal car with reins that lead to heaven.[25]

Fortuna also appears in chapter 25 of Machiavelli's The Prince, in which he says Fortune only rules one half of men's fate, the other half being of their own will. Machiavelli reminds the reader that Fortune is a woman, that she favours a strong, ambitious hand, and that she favours the more aggressive and bold young man than a timid elder. Monteverdi's opera L'incoronazione di Poppea features Fortuna, contrasted with the goddess Virtue. Even Shakespeare was no stranger to Lady Fortune:

When in disgrace with Fortune and men's eyes I all alone beweep my outcast state...

Ignatius J Reilly, the protagonist in the famous John Kennedy Toole novel A Confederacy of Dunces, identifies Fortuna as the agent of change in his life. A verbose, preposterous medievalist, Ignatius is of the mindset that he does not belong in the world and that his numerous failings are the work of some higher power. He continually refers to Fortuna as having spun him downwards on her wheel of luck, as in “Oh, Fortuna, you degenerate wanton!”

In astrology the term Pars Fortuna represents a mathematical point in the zodiac derived by the longitudinal positions of the Sun, Moon and Ascendant (Rising sign) in the birth chart of an individual. It represents an especially beneficial point in the horoscopic chart. In Arabic astrology, this and similar points are called Arabian Parts.

Al-Biruni (973 – 1048), an 11th-century mathematician, astronomer, and scholar, who was the greatest proponent of this system of prediction, listed a total of 97 Arabic Parts, which were widely used for astrological consultations.

Aspects[edit]

Lady Fortune in a

Boccaccio

manuscript

Sculpture of Fortuna,

Vienna

La Fortune

by

Charles Samuel

(1894), Collection

King Baudouin Foundation

Fortuna Annonaria brought the luck of the harvest

Fortuna Belli the fortune of war

Fortuna Primigenia directed the fortune of a firstborn child at the moment of birth

Fortuna Virilis ("Luck in men"), a woman's luck in marriage[26]

Fortuna Redux brought one safely home

Fortuna Respiciens the fortune of the provider

Fortuna Muliebris the luck of a woman.

Fortuna Victrix brought victory in battle

Fortuna Augusta the fortune of the emperor[27]

Fortuna Balnearis the fortune of the baths.[27]

Fortuna Conservatrix the fortune of the Preserver[28]

Fortuna Equestris fortune of the Knights.[28]

Fortuna Huiusce Diei fortune of the present day.[28]

Fortuna Obsequens fortune of indulgence.[28]

Fortuna Privata fortune of the private individual.[28]

Fortuna Publica fortune of the people.[28]

Fortuna Romana fortune of Rome.[28]

Fortuna Virgo fortune of the virgin.[28]

Fortuna Faitrix the fortune of life

Pars Fortuna

Fortuna Barbata the fortune of adolescents becoming adults[29]

[beautifulpaxiel]

Thoughts on “Ballad”

So I finished reading The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes last night (actually the early hours of this morning, if you want to be precise), and I thought I’d share my thoughts on it. 

Can I say this book gave me Feelings?! With a capital F.

I couldn’t sleep for a while afterwards, my thoughts were all over the place as I tried to absorb it all. I kind of wish I hadn’t read it so fast - I tend to have a habit of reading books too quickly if I’m really into them and then regretting it later on.

Anyway.

I thought I’d do this as a series of bullet points because it’s easier for me to articulate my thoughts that way.

First of all, the Snows’ money was invested in District 13? 

Tigris seemed really sweet. I wonder - still do, actually - what made her hate her cousin so much she wanted him dead by Mockingjay? And she’s actually three years older than Coriolanus, which makes her how old in the third book? Probably nearing ninety.

I was really intrigued to see how the actual Hunger Games were different in the beginning, and actually how a lot of the ideas to reform it were Snow’s.

I wonder if Snow got the idea of hijacking Peeta from the snake-biting incident with Clemensia? I know the species of muttation are different, but the snake venom supposedly had a neurological effect on the victim, which is kind of similar to how Peeta’s mind was warped? I don’t know. Probably barking up the wrong tree there.

Snow’s irritation and resentment of the Plinth family grated on me, which I suppose it was meant to, being as they were clearly nouveau riche. I particularly hated his disdain for Ma Plinth - aside from her cooking. 

I like how Suzanne Collins didn’t force us to like Snow as a character even though he was the protagonist. He had some good characteristics (*ducks flying tomatoes*) but ultimately the seeds for his villainy were sown early on.

Speaking as I did of the Plinths earlier, I really liked Sejanus (as a lot of people seem to have done). He was obviously hamstrung by his family’s fortune and hated what the Hunger Games stood for. Also I enjoyed seeing him stand up to Professor Gaul.

Speaking of Professor Gaul, I would not want to get on her bad side - or her good side, for that matter. Does that woman even have a good side? *shudders*

Highbottom was an interesting character. I struggled to work out his motives in the beginning, especially how a lot of the time he was under the influence of morphling.But it all made tragic sense in the end.

Lucy Gray Baird - can I just say WOW? At first I didn’t know what to make of her - I mean, singing at the reaping, and slipping a snake down the dress of the mayor’s daughter? I thought that was over the top. But later I came to admire and respect her for her resilience. I did keep waiting for the penny to drop in terms of her relationship with Snow - was she pretending?  And finally, I wish we’d gotten a clue to her eventual fate - that was left frustratingly open-ended. I kind of think she must be related to Katniss somehow, perhaps through her father? There’s too many references to her musical ability (both by herself and with the other Covey) for it not to be at least a possibility. It would also be her ultimate triumph over Snow - call it poetic justice.

Speaking of music, I thought that was a trifle overdone. I thought too many song lyrics broke up the flow of the narrative. Having said that, though, I kind of want to hear those songs that Lucy wrote. And HOW FREAKING COOL is it that she WROTE “The Hanging Tree”? And how it tied in to her relationships with Snow and Billy Taupe. Also actually knowing there was a hanging tree. I got freaking chills when it was mentioned.

And the Valley Song - now we finally know what it was that began the journey that is Everlark. 

I gave a little snort when Snow said he hated mockingjays. Oh, Coryo, if you only knew how much.

I do wonder how long Suzanne was planning this for, given how much the two timelines tie together and what was in the films.

I loved the little references to the katniss plant. Feels strange to not be capitalising it.

Interesting that the Capitol's citizens were not always the monsters they seemed by the time Katniss & co. were around, although the sense of entitlement and superiority were there.

The way that the district tributes were considered by the Capitolites as less than human  boiled my blood. They couldn’t even be treated by proper human doctors, no, they were treated by VETS, as if they were animals.

I think I definitely need to do a reread at some point so I can actually give a considered opinion of the book rather than these random points, but for now, that’s it.

Thanks for reading!

[de-cheval-et-chasse]

A Moment about “Still Star-Crossed” – and other Shakespeare adaptations

Countless adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays span hundreds of years, and the likely candidate for most adapted play is Romeo & Juliet. Most recently, “Grey’s Anatomy” creator and prolific TV producer Shonda Rhimes explores the world of Shakespeare’s classic post tragic deaths. Aptly named Still Star-Crossed (the show draws its name and plot from author Melinda Taub’s 2013 young-adult novel), Rhimes’s latest work joins the consistently expanding realm of film and television adaptations of Shakespeare.

In her book Shakespeare and the Problem of Adaptation, Margaret Jane Kidnie terms adaptation “an evolving category…closely tied to how the work modifies over time and from one reception space to another”. Accessible to audiences beyond academia, Still Star-Crossed does an admirable job of staying true to the play’s dramatic pathos, while keeping intact the flesh of well-scoured soap-operatic fascinations with shifting alliances that have characterized Rhimes’s evolving television repertory.

The show focuses on named characters Rosaline and Benvolio, who take the place of Romeo and Juliet as Verona’s eponymous star-crossed lovers, and explores their connections to both warring, shambling families.  Still Star-Crossed lifts characters’ names and statuses from both the “original” work (“original” in quotes because even Shakespeare lifted from other sources), and Taub’s book.  

Though it lacks iambic pentameter, there’s a lot about Still Star-Crossed Shakespeare enthusiasts can find to love: integrated casting (an enduring, welcome fixture of Rhimes’ shows), central female characters, brewing political intrigue, and varied romantic relationships.

The show follows a female character who has little to do in the original and is therefore ripe for development. Rosaline (who in Shakespeare’s work was discussed but is not even included in any stage direction, much less possessed of any lines,) is the show’s main female protagonist.  She exhibits qualities evident from Shakespeare’s other heroines while maintaining her own story arc.  As played by actress Lashana Lynch, Rosaline is headstrong, independent, pragmatic, and loyal.  

As in As You Like It, the show features more than one strong female, and she shares qualities with characters such as Lady Macbeth and Volumnia (of Coriolanus). Princess Isabella, the sister of the feud-frustrated ruler of Verona, as played by Iranian actor Medalion Rahimi, is exacting, ambitious, and operates from Verona-walled shadows.

The concept of copyright was foreign to the people of early modern England (approximately the late 15th century to the 18th century).  Plays were licensed, but were ultimately the property of the playing troupe – not of a single author (a practice which fellow early modern playwright Ben Jonson heavily challenged during his time and beyond).  Plays vibing off of Shakespeare’s work proliferated from the early modern period onward. Two examples include John Fletcher’s 1647 The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed (a continuation of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew) and Nahum Tate’s 1681 The History of King Lear, (in)famous for its happy ending.  Adaptations have also carried over to films in the early 1900s.  Although the mediums are different, observing the plot-related elements present in Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa’s trilogy Throne of Blood, Ran, and The Bad Sleep Well (adaptations of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, King Lear, and Hamlet, respectively) next to Tate’s Lear shows the similarities in the practice of adapting.  Beyond, similarities, though, the choice to include distinct elements, such as some from Japanese Folklore, in the films, influences the action, if not necessarily the events from the plays they borrowed or re-purposed. Though not influenced by folklore, by contrast, the direct changing of a plot point in Tate’s Lear–that of going from a tragic to a happy ending–subverts the conclusion in ways that can be both shocking and delightful”.

The adaptation train shows no sign of slowing down.  Indeed, our own Shakespeare’s New Contemporaries Project at the ASC seeks to build of modern canon of contemporary companion plays that vibe off and are inspired by Shakespeare’s work.  Recent concern has been expressed of Shakespeare’s plays and those of his contemporaries being cast out of theatres in favor of their modern day kin, perhaps most notably after the Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Play On! Initiative launched in 2015. But there’s no cause for concern, dear friend. Past and future adaptations of Shakespeare’s works are beautiful reflections of his masterpieces, and they can only help us recover the joy and accessibility of Shakespeare’s plays.

Still Star-Crossed airs Saturdays at 10|9c on ABC.  Full episodes are online at ABC.

Source: American Shakespeare Center Blog