#I do agree Helen would have been a good protagonist | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

candlemystar · 2 years ago

Text

Why do you hate Helen? You’ve made her the villain.

Perfect Helen of Troy. An ideal and a villain all at once.

Helen. Mythological damsel. She’s like a prop. You could replace her with a sexy lamp and the plot wouldn’t change.

Helen isn’t an object. Everyone just thinks she is.

She’s the most beautiful woman in the world. She’s the face that launched a thousand ships.

She isn’t just a face. Isn’t just the most beautiful woman in the world. She’s got thoughts and feelings and ambitions and drive. She’s got her own hopes, her own fears. The storytellers take away a lot of her agency, saying she ran off because a goddess cursed her with love. But she could have stayed. You always have a choice, no matter what you feel. She made the choice to leave it all behind. To do what was unsafe and unexpected. She decided to be selfish.

Aren’t all beautiful women selfish?

I can’t answer that for you. That’s a belief you’ve got. But it’s equally selfish to choose home and safety and the familiar as it is to choose love over duty.

She left her children. Helen had a little girl.

You can think that’s bad or wicked. Immoral, if you want. But there’s drama in that choice. You’re supposed to see your characters, even the ones you don’t like. You don’t just take away Helen’s agency because you don’t like her or don’t agree with her. I don’t think you want to take away Helen’s free will. Her ability to change the plot herself.

Helen of Troy is more than a plot device. She’s more than a beautiful stolen object that needs to be retrieved.

That doesn’t make her good.

I never said she was good. I said she was human. Flawed and real and flesh and blood. Barely older than us and scared out of her mind. Don’t make Helen perfect. Make her real.

If Helen gets to tell the story, she’s not an object. I mean, also, she’s still your idea of who she is. But Helen has always been that way. Does she run off with Paris? Is she abducted? Seduced? Does she ascend to Mount Olympus in the end? Regret her choices? Hate Paris? Love him? Happily resume the role of wife and queen and mother of Sparta? The only thing anyone can really agree on is this—Helen was found missing from her husband’s home and then her husband started a war. That’s it.

Spartan. That was the word. From Helen’s original homeland, Sparta. Utilitarian. Neat. Militaristic, even. The beautiful girl from the most warmongering of the ancient Greek states. If Helen of Troy had really existed, she would have been raised to fight, raised for war. Now she was known for being so pretty, she’d started a global conflict.

She thought of Helen of Troy like everyone who had written her before, and most of those everyone were men.

Her will would have had Helen be the victim. The villain, even. The instigator of all of this unnecessary war, unnecessary evil. Her idea for the whole narrative was to have Cassandra be the tragic, truth-telling protagonist. Worse, she knew she had been right to pull Helen forward. She hadn’t been interested in making the most beautiful woman in the world into the most fascinating woman in the world. But this was different. She had pulled on the thread of Helen’s humanity. She had found what makes any character relatable to so many people—her imperfections. Helen here was vain, but also trying to be brave. She was selfish, but also living in a world that had made her be selfless since childhood. She was a woman trying to walk her own path in this world, despite there being no such thing for her.

- Tell Me How You Really Feel, Aminah Mae Safi

#tell me how you really feel #aminah mae safi #book quotes #helen of troy #helen of sparta #greek mythology

18 notes · View notes

slettlune · 5 months ago

Text

SECOND HALF in which the entire trojan war gets admirably shortened to about three songs

also closing thoughts about the entire thing

i was SO excited for hector having a song of his own but 'no turning back' is not the kind of song i wanted for him

it is really sexy that the trojan choir has both female and male members though, especially when they go "death to our enemies"

okay NOW there's a timeskip, haha. i was wondering how this would unfold. it feels very abrupt though. "oh god the greeks are gonna attack us" and then "well here we are ten years later, agamemnon what the hell are you doing with achilles' slave girl"

i wonder how in the weeds we're gonna get about achilles and agamemnon when this is paris' story

okay that is a fairly efficiently pared down version of the conflict, actually. briseis never gets mentioned by name but at least it conveys that achilles is fed up with agamemnon's leadership

hoho i LOVE the gentle emotion in quast's voice singing the line "agamemnon you divide us all / with your bitching and brooding"

i like patroclus having a point of view song about his feelings. "oh achilles the blood-stained killer... am i a part of you? are you a part of me?"

but then patroclus has to make it weird calling him "my sometimes father / my sometimes son" just guys being related dudes

i wish the guy cast as achilles could sound sad. but fine, he is SUPREMELY creepy and intimidating in all his non-emotional scenes, it's a tradeoff

OH AND ACHILLES AND HECTOR ARE ALREADY ABOUT TO DUEL. shit did we just do almost the entirety of the iliad in two songs. that IS efficient!

wait so if hector's about to die did they actually NOT do the "hector yells at paris for not being on the battlefield" scene?? in the paris-centered musical??

oh my GOD what IS hector's power ballad about love at THIS point in the narrative. "it's better to love and lose than to never love at all". is he singing that to andromache?? yeah like THAT'S the moral of hector's story...!

paris' shocked "you murdering BASTARD" at achilles is so funny. paris everyone's been fighting a war for ten years because you won't give up someone else's wife. everybody been murdering bastards for some time now

achilles at paris: "you may be good with women, boy / but you're no match for me" 🤨

ohhh so in this version paris asks aphrodite to preserve hectors corpse AND to guide his aim to kill achilles. which is narratively efficient but it bums me out that there is exactly one god in this entire trojan war

fuck YES the ulysses-in-disguise scene is a waltz. i go bananas whenever moments of deception are conveyed in 3/4

ulysses is so at a loss he prays to athena. ladies and gentlemen a second god has entered the trojan war!!

ULYSSES AGREES TO BECOME A HEAD WITHOUT A HEART!! he trades his happiness for athena to help him find a way to end the war. that is a very new direction to take the wooden horse and the odyssey but tbh i'm kinda into it

"we need to find a stooge / a fool / sinon, you're perfect!" "whuh?" KILLED ME

'inside outside' is awful and it just KEEPS GOING. WE GET IT YOU'RE DRUNK AND BURPING. NOT THE ENCORE. PLEASSSSE.

okay NOW helen finally says she loves paris, she's sounded very noncommittal and kinda humoring him about it up to this point honestly

oh and then there's a reprise of hector's love power ballad. THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE SOMETHING COMING FULL CIRCLE. WHY WAS IT HECTOR'S SONG TO BEGIN WITH AND ALSO HE SANG THAT LIKE. ONLY FOUR SONGS AGO

AND IT'S DONE.

okay yeah okay. i still think a good portion of the music is GREAT. digging the performances. and i have to remind myself it's a concept album because narratively it's kinda... there are some very unbalanced elements here. the complicated plot of the iliad is impressively pared down but then it kinda fails to focus back in on paris, he's missing through most of the second half, and ulysses takes over the protagonist role. also the whole "love conquers all" thing doesn't really work when it provably doesn't conquer anything on this occasion.

secondly, paris doesn't grow at all. he doesn't acknowledge his fault in the war, he doesn't acknowledge his fault in hector's death. he doesn't look back at the end and think about the things he's been through. it's just "i'll always love you mwah mwah. okay i'mma die now".

i'm still gonna listen to my favourite songs a billion times.

alright paris the musical liveblog let's gooooooo

FIRST HALF! watch me lose all principles whenever i think a melody is nice

like idk man the poster for this gives me that HE ONLY DID IT FOR LOVE thing with paris that doesn't appeal to me, that's why i haven't checked it out before. i feel they're gonna turn him into a hapless but sympathetic hero. bet there won't be an oenone. but here we go

IT'S SO EIGHTIES. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THIS EIGHTIES. oh this is good actually

when homer (!) is dramatically presenting all the main players, in my mind i can't help but see them strike sassy poses as the spotlights hit them, their sequins flashing. "agamemnon! of mycenea!"

"ulysses! of ithaca! / longs for peace and security" i don't know if i like that as the main trait he's introduced with but okay let's see how he works in this paris-centered narrative

'head without a heart' IS SO GOOD. ohh it's just the kind of eighties' vibe i like.

oh this this framing might place the blame of the trojan war more at paris' feet than helen's, which i like, but also that he's just a stupid youngster, and that's interesting too: "Not some mad messiah of destruction and fire / Just a lovestruck youth"

ohhh and i LOVE paris interacting directly with cassandra! he never seems to do that in any adaptations. "Sister, please don't grieve / I've learned my part to the letter"

'straight ahead': HOLY SHIT GET HYPE. it's so extremely "cool protagonist is finally gonna live his life" opening number. it's weird to have paris be that kind of protagonist. but also it makes me think about how this poor shepherd boy was the WORST guy to make an ambassador, like cassandra IS right about that.

ugh i don't like when they put the weird histrionic plot stuff in the middle of a cool-ass song.

i'm dying at the others screaming at paris while he's like "the sea and sky :D my friends and i :D what could go wrong, what could -AAAAAAAAHHHH!!!"

paris falls in love with helen at first sight and assumes she's aphrodite. does aeneas know paris is weird about his mom. oh my god i just realized EVERYBODY'S weird about aeneas' mom, that's gotta be exhausting for him

"i married young, in love with power" oh it's one of those where helen's unhappily married. sigh. okay.

OH the way 'business' takes off after agamemnon's evil laugh. i'm appalled at the characterization but i'm just gonna have to roll with it because the music in this thing rocks

THERE HE IS! QUAST-PATROCLUS. who's like "ummmmm wHY are we having a meeting without my bestie achilles here"

OHH AGAMEMNON TRICKED ACHILLES SO HE WOULDN'T APPEAR AND BE VOTED COMMANDER. okay if we're doing evil agamemnon at least he's clever

oh this is a rum tum tugger-ass achilles omg. ohh i hate this but it's so funny. weakest character song so far

ahahaaa ulysses looking at paris' rags and telling him "To gain entry by disguise is an excellent ploy / I shall remember that, prince of Troy"

i enjoy helen being kinda exhausted by the whole thing. "Stop your adoration, I don’t need complications / I'm not a goddess, I am king Menelaus’ wife"

evil agamemnon using the abduction for his own political gain. hm. that makes sense actually (as long as he's evil i mean)

oh now 'thief in the night' establishes that menelaus really loves helen, i didn't expect that from this kind of framing. how is this gonna end now

HELEN HAS SUDDENLY KILLED SOMEONE? WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN SONGS??

"I love her / I believe she loves me" I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ASK HER. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MAKE SURE.

jon english who wrote this also plays hector and does NOT give himself enough songs to go ham on, god his voice is so good when he's PUSHING IT

#adaptations tag

3 notes · View notes

thejudgingtrash · 4 years ago

Note

would you class percy as a morally grey character? i’m really interested to hear your input

Anon 2: Would u class percy as an Morally Gray character?

Hey there! Let me write that essay for you about morally gray Percy ^^

It’s not about whether Percy is a morally gray character or not, it’s about he has to be otherwise the story doesn’t make any sense. At least for me it wouldn’t.

Ashley (@gr33kg0ds) said in the tags of my dark!Percy post something along the line of people diminishing Percy’s character because they need him to be pure and fluffy and I wholeheartedly agree with that!

Just because Percy’s twelve doesn’t mean he’s pure and didn’t do unproblematic things. I’ll mostly refer to The Lightning Thief because that book is the Magnus Opus for Riordan and perfectly stands for Percy as a morally gray character from the very beginning of the saga. (Also the only book I’ve recently re-read)

As much as I love fanon with all the amazing artworks, debates, memes and jokes, analysis, cool edits and wonderful fanfics, projecting your version of Percy doesn’t make the image in your head real. Percy in canon is not the fun and fluffy boy you imagine him to be or which social media sites (Reddit, Twitter, Instagram and yes, also Tumblr) tend to make him to be. He’s a scrawny little sarcastic twerp that was the unpopular kid. He isn’t that cringy dude Tony Lopez doing that fucking weird TikTok dance (side note: I don’t even know who this person is and I don't care, I saw the video and immediately wanted to delete every social media app on my phone, so thanks Tony?), kissing his Yeezys goodnight, vibing to our lord and gay icon Taylord “T. Swizzle” Swift song and flexing them iPhone 11 Max Pros. Percy literally said that going to Burger King with his mother once in a while would be considered a luxury. He’s a poor bastard in literal sense.

Part of the problem with the distinction of Percy’s character and his motives stem from the fact that Percy is a sneaky unreliable narrator and we as the audience (especially if you’re younger) don’t question most of his behavior if you even question some (pretty sure that most of us only picked up weird stuff as adults). Everything seems plausible to you. But does it mean that his behavior is necessarily good? Something that would paint his character as good?

Like I’ve said, let’s take a look at TLT. The very beginning of everything and the wonderful line that gets quoted everywhere: “Look, I didn't want to be a half-blood”.

The very first line that quoted everywhere or used as in moodboard and edits but its meaning and significance get brushed off for the most part. It immediately sets the tone and the atmosphere for the book and for Percy as a character. A(n in my opinion) morally gray character. The very first thing we hear from Percy is that he doesn’t want to be in this world. He’s an involuntary participant who has been (upon further reading) blackmailed and forced into this world and is only cooperating to get his mother back and said in regards to his father (who also stands for the Greek pantheon) ”well yeah, would be nice to know about my dad but I’ve survived without him the past twelve years so I don’t know, he wouldn’t be missed necessarily I guess?“ That pretty much tells you, it foreshadows, that we will be dealing with someone with grit, someone that fights back, someone that went through shit, someone that isn’t a goody two-shoed character. Does it mean he’s a terrible (in the sense of evil or bad) character from the get go? Not really, but it tells you in nuances that he won’t be the white shining knight you might expect from a fairy tale.

There is so much that little Perseus Jackson has to offer you directly in the first book. So much that paints him as a morally gray character. From the illegal candy stash all the way to tricking Procrustes into his own trap. He knows right from wrong and isn’t innocent by any means. He wants you to think he’s innocent. Yes, he hunts monsters and the book also tells you that some adults (Gabe) can also be monsters, but Percy’s personality is so interesting and full of facets which I love! He’s misleading you on purpose. Deflects, plays events down. He lies in front of you to others but you don’t really doubt it. Instead of questioning it, you understand it.

What distinguishes Percy from other male protagonists in that notion that the author doesn’t try to paint him as particularly good (the reader connects the dots, in reality) is pretty much that. Percy is neither inherently good or bad. He’s in the middle. He does lots of questionable things and his personality adds to it. Something that immediately comes to my mind is his lack of fear of consequences. He thinks in the short term and not in the long term. Of course, he’s caring about those that are close and important to him (Grover, Annabeth and his mother of course. And well. The world not getting destroyed by his weird father and fucking crazy uncle would be a plus). But Percy isn’t really a strategist (yet). Look at the Medusa head thingy. Annabeth and Grover warn him, that he’s gonna get his ass beat and he doesn’t care. That these gods could squish him in the end didn’t matter to him.

The Olympian gods are painted as these unpenetrable huge mighty force and some fuzzy annoyed twelve year old dipshit sends them the severed head of a monster - but not any monster, the monster his father had a role in creating (well, Athena for the most part, but you know what I mean). (Also, I know this kinda reckless behavior gets sorta rewarded but at first, everyone was like ‘NO, NO, NO!’ before Percy was glorious with his attempt). Percy essentially tells these ancient forces that drive the way of his new cosmos how shit‘s gonna work from now on.

Percy isn’t fear riddled and doesn’t think about the possible outcome. He manipulates, he lies, he persuades and all of this as soon as he hits twelve. But probably earlier. Pretty sure he had to become a believable lier in order to trick (survive being around) Gabe. Perseus is angry, he’s agitated. Had Riordan written Percy as a soft spoken, frightened, goody two-shoed kid, almost nothing in TLT and the follow-ups would have made sense. He’s the outcast, but slowly blossoms into the strength and muscles of the group. Of the entire camp. Someone that outsmarts opponents and wins battles. But he didn’t do that by playing nice and being a bootlicker.

TLT would’ve been a perfect standalone book that would have emphasized that Percy is an involuntary person sive) if you skip Kronos, leave a little bit foreshadowing with the prophecy out, tweak the talks with the gods and Annabeth’s first meeting and skip Luke and the scorpion at the end. The ending would’ve been “and so Percy had a first awesome summer vacation and found a group of friends for life” or so (aka PJO movie 1 in less shitty and more cohesive).

The morally gray character shrinks a little bit in the SOM because there lie straighter dangers ahead which dive more into the bigger picture and Percy grows more into the character who takes care of friends and but he does come back with TTC, and definitely BOTL and the St. Helens explosion.

Consequences of Percy’s interactions had people partially dying. There is doubt, there is guilt. But the show must go on. There are battles that have to be won. There is no big giving up, no big overturn for the bad guys.

Also... isn’t it interesting that we start with Percy saying ”look, I don’t want to be in this world“ in TLT and it ends with TLO where he says ”for once I didn’t look back“? The full circle? The way that accepting his fate took five books? To change Percy from being an involuntary participant to becoming voluntary? He didn’t want to be a half-blood, he didn’t want to be the kid in the prophecy, but he actively chose to be in the end. He went from a darker shade of gray to a mayhaps lighter, if you want to say so.

To conclude, I repeat myself again: it’s not about whether Percy is a morally gray character or not, it’s that he has to be.

Thanks for asking me about some meta stuff I really do like diving into these things here and there. Tumblr’s sorta glitchy, I do get notifications but I really don’t see asks, so I’m sorry if my response is mad late ^^

#mel answers #pjo #Percy Jackson #percy jackson and the olympians #the lightning thief #rick riordan #the last olympian

177 notes · View notes

megmahoneyart · 4 years ago

Note

why did you draw michael who is white as looking more remorseful and human on half his face than helen who you depict as a black woman who appears angry with both of her eyes spiraled? even despite michaels vocal insistence that he is wholly an inhuman monster and his cruel actions you draw him looking more innocent and human than a black woman who has not done anything nearly as monstrous as him and held onto her human identity more strongly?

Okay! So, I use this blog to draw and not to talk, but I’m suuuper long-winded when I write. And to spare the general public, I’ve put this answer under a read-more. But it’s a good and valid question! And I appreciate anon’s concern; I thought the question deserved as good an answer as I could give. So that answer is below:

That’s a totally valid question! I didn’t intend to convey “remorseful” so much as, upset, with Michael. Angry wasn’t necessarily what I was going for with Helen either--so it sounds like my expressions overall aren’t reading super well. Helen was meant to be more, I think enthusiastic, is the word I’m looking for.

The big difference between Helen and Michael isn’t one of them being more innocent or more guilty than the other. The difference is the amount of conflict. Helen has repeatedly brought up how much better she is at being The Distortion than Michael ever was. Michael had a lot of knowledge about the Fears, and The Spiral, in particular, before becoming The Distortion than Helen did. And, along with that, he brought the baggage of being taught that his job was to fight the fears, and the baggage of being scarred by The Spiral before working for the Institute. He kind of sucks at being The Distortion because his job was to stop The Distortion from performing The Spiral’s ritual--and that leaves both The Distortion hating Michael for fucking up its purpose, and Michael hating The Distortion because it’s the embodiment of what he hated and feared as a human. Everything Michael Distortion does is double-minded--because part of him is like “Hey I used to work here, and these guys are technically my co-workers, and I kind of want to hang out with them, but I also hate this place” and part of him is “I want to Fuck Everything Up, and I hate All of these people and would be happy to see them dead.”

Helen, on the other hand, doesn’t have the baggage of foreknowledge or hatred. She’s Michael Distortion’s victim, at first. But the second she has an opening to turn the tables, she jumps on it. And the reason she had an opening is because Michael and The Distortion were at odds and schisming and in Conflict. She’s set up in season 4 to be a kind of narrative foil for Jon--as they have both become avatars without really meaning to (like the majority of avatars that have showed up on the show). In Season 4, Jon is constantly agonizing over what exactly he is now, and futilely circling around the morality of his continued existence. Helen, in season 4, is beyond this point. She has already accepted the Way Things Are now, and she’s dealing--constantly telling Jon he needs to deal with it (the reality of being a “monster” too). By season 5, she’s not just dealing, she’s Thriving. And in seasons 4 and 5, at any opportunity, she (Helen Distortion) is always down to remind Jon (and co) that she is So Much Better at being what she is (The Distortion) than Michael ever was.

I think Helen Richardson probably had a stronger character than Michael Shelley did, as humans as well. Not saying that one was better than the other. But Helen was a successful career-woman. Michael started at the institute as a scared kid, who was then groomed by Gertrude and psychologically experimented on by Emma. I could never see Helen Richardson ever being someone Gertrude Robinson could emotionally manipulate, or convince to “sacrifice” herself.

And all of that informs how I characterize these two characters’ personalities when I draw them. And that doesn’t touch on the race issue.

Unfortunately, TMA doesn’t explicitly describe many characters’ race or ethnicity. A Lot has been said about the few negative vs positive characters who are explicitly characters of color. It’s kind of a black-and-grey-morality podcast. But on the side of the protagonists/positively-portrayed you’ve got Oliver Banks, Adelard Dekker, Basira Hussain, Mikaele Salesa. On the enemy-aligned side you’ve got Jude Perry, Tom and John Haan, Manuela Dominguez, and Annabelle Cane. And those on the positive side are pretty flawed (aside from Adelard Dekker who is an anomaly on this show); and those on the negative side usually have at least some alternate-character-interpretations and can be viewed as sympathetic (lookin at you, Annabelle). A lot of discussion has gone into their characterizations and how that relates to their respective races--and the problems therein (Jude Perry is startlingly devoid of family concerns--when culturally a large part of being a successful businesswoman would usually relate to how it benefits or affects her family; Mikaele Salesa’s setting up an Apocalypse Bunker without the crew he cared for is peak White behavior; bastard cops that are WOC (like Basira) absolutely exist--but should a story about a WOC bastard cop be written by a white guy?; the Haans being avatars for The Flesh is straight-up racist; etc).

But again, the list of characters that are explicitly characters of color is Short. And the fandom filled in some gaps. Almost all of the characters get a variety of designs, and some characters don’t have a Uniform Fanon Race (like Melanie). But some characters are almost always portrayed as a certain race (Jon is almost always portrayed as Desi or Pakistani, Georgie is almost always portrayed as black, Helen is almost always portrayed as black). I came into the show late. By the time I arrived, Desi/Pakistani Jon and black Helen were the only Jon and the only Helen I saw when I showed up. (The first sketches I did for the show, I did before seeing any fan art, and before hearing any canon descriptors. As such, Georgie would be unrecognizable to most of the fandom--because I drew her white the first time I drew her; and Martin is Too Small in my first sketches--because they were drawn before I got to episodes that described him as tall and chubby and before I saw the fantart--which gives us the Big Martin we deserve). So that’s why my Helen is black. (My Michael is white because he is physically described early in the show--and is one of the confirmed white characters).

That said, I accepted the generally-agreed-upon fan depictions of Helen (and other characters) without a whole lot of critical thought from Me. I’ve since read a lot of good takes on why Jon is depicted as Desi and why his characterization has resonated with certain Desi listeners. I haven’t read any dissertation on why Helen is black. My guess is that, where there were no canon physical descriptions (like with Taz Balance before the graphic novels), the fandom Made representation because they wanted it and because they could. Maybe there was discourse, back in the day, on why Georgie and Helen are usually depicted as black; but I didn’t see it. My (completely uninformed) guess is that people liked Georgie. And people liked Helen. And if they could make the cool lady with a great cat that is incapable of being afraid black, and if they could make the cool lady who has sharp hands and set up her house in the Institute basement for fun black, why not do it?

If you, anon, do have strong feelings that Helen shouldn’t be black and why, feel free to pass that on to me. I am Not the authority on Helen’s characterization or her appearance--especially as related to race--as I’m 1) white and 2) just another listener of the show.

If I were to start drawing Helen as white, she’d probably be unrecognizable to people that are looking through the tag for their sharp-handed wife. And I like Helen. So without additional information, I’m unlikely to change my depiction of her. But! If you (or anybody else) do have additional information, I’m happy to see/hear it, and will take any concerns raised with me into consideration.

#tma #anon #ask #characterization #race #long post #readmore

13 notes · View notes

365days365movies · 4 years ago

Text

February 23, 2021: His Girl Friday (1940) (Part 1)

Oh, we’re going BACK for this one!

Yeah, this is smack dab in the Golden Age of Cinema! Post-depression, the cinematic culture boomed like CRAZY. Obviously, this age had started before this point, but there was no stopping Hollywood here. I mean, in 1940 alone, Disney came out with Pinocchio AND Fantasia, films like The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, and Rebecca came out, and some of those were prefaced by short cartoons featuring a brand new certain someone.

Oh, also, there was some war of the world 2 thing going on overseas, I dunno. But anyway! Another well-known film that came out that year was The Philadelphia Story, a George Cukor-directed film starring Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn, and one of a subgenre of comedies called the screwball comedy.

Arguably starting with the 1934 film It Happened One Night, these are romantic comedies that usually feature a self-confident and stubborn female protagonist inevitably falling in love with the male protagonist, who’s probably initially mismatched with her, personality-wise. You should also throw some slapstick comedy, disguises (cross-dressing’s a feature of a lot of these, weirdly), and class struggle. Yeah, also apparently a trend of these films, that were CRAZY popular from 1934 through the ‘40s.

And in case you’re thinking, “That plot structure sounds familiar, where have I heard that before?”, well, I just watched a later-era screwball comedy, Pillow Talk.

But today, the screwball comedy’s mostly disappeared. Some tropes survive, but the reason for the genre’s extinction is simply because of lack of demand. Part of that is because the genre emerged due to questions of class struggle post-Great Depression. Yeah, seriously, the Great Depression is involved in this shit! Obviously, though, that’s not currently as much of a stressor now, so this genre is dead save for some conventions.

But OK, screwball comedy. Why not look at older members of the genre, rather than this film from smack dab in the middle of it? Well, a few reasons. One, this film stars leading man Cary Grant in his prime. And two, because this film was directed by the one and only Howard Hawks.

Hawks directed yet another Grant-Hepburn vehicle, Bringing Up Baby. And yes, that IS a leopard in a car! I’d watch that this month, but I’ve already seen it. Anyway, Hawks is an understated but excellent director, and his female characters are an archetype in and of themselves, known as Hawksian women. They’re tough-talkers, and the main characters of most old screwball comedies.

OK, but Hawks had a lot of romance films with these characters, so why His Girl Friday? Well, other than knowing it from pure reputation as a good movie, it’s also been called one of the best romcoms of all time, and it’s one of his highest rated films as well. And honestly...I kinda just wanted to watch it based on the premise, which is...interesting. But OK, enough navel-gazing. On with the show! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Recap (1/2)

We start in a newspaper office in the year 1940, where “Hildy” Johnson (Rosalind Russell) has arrives with her fiancee, Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy), a sweet man who clearly loves her. Shit. He’s the guy destined to be left behind for the actual love interest of the movie Goddamn it, OK.

Anyway, Hildy apparently used to work here, although I’m not sure of the capacity as of yet. She’s only here now to visit her ex-husband, chief editor Walter Burns (Cary Grant). Their reunion is a bt icy, although Walter still seems to be in love with her still, while Hildy’s absolutely not interested. For now.

And as the two have a back-and-forth, I gotta say, GODDAMN is this some snappy dialogue! Fast-paced, but well-written and understandable all the same. It shuld also be noted that this film was adapted from a 1928 play, The Front Page, and it shows in how these two are playing in front of the screen. Their chemistry’s basically immediate, and you sense an unseen history between them easily.

What I’m saying is, it’s great. Anyway, the two have gotten divorced, and while Walter originally agreed, he’s now fighting the divorce to stay with Hildy, even though she doesn’t want that at all. He’s been calling her constantly, and bugging her. He also talks over her, trying to prevent her from getting a word in edgewise, and Hildy ain’t fuckin’ HAVING that shit!

He asks her to come back to work for him as a reporter (THERE’S the connection to the office), and if that doesn’t work out...they can get married again? Yeah, Walter, Jesus, take a hint. She tells Walter that she’s not coming back to him, and not coming back to work on the paper.

The two, through increasingly impressive dialogue, argue intensely, which is capped off by this well-timed and impressive dodge by Walter, followed by a crack that her aim used to be better.

This movie...holy shit, this movie. Anyway, through the argument, Walter gets a call and pretends that one of his reporters called out sick, in order to get Hildy to work one more job for him. Whoof, that’s manipulatiiiiiiive. But she breaks through his constant pressing to finally tell him that she’s now engaged, and is quitting the newspaper business.

Walter insists that quitting would kill her, s she’s a “newspaperman,” which is interesting. But she’s tired of it all, and wants to live a respectable, normal life, as she says. Her fiancee is an insurance man, which Walter notes is too boring. But Hildy notes that he’s kind, sweet, and considerate, and wants a home and children, and her mind is made up.

Walter relents (seemingly) , and gives Hildy his blessings. However, he decides that he wants to meet Bruce in person, and goes out to say hello, That results in...what is legitimately a VERY funny interaction between Water, Bruce, and a random-ass dude named Pete Davis. It is...it is funny.

youtube

So, for the record, Walter’s a verbally-manipulative asshole, and...I kind of like him? Like, he’s an ABSOLUTE DICK, but also a charmer. He quickly coerces Hildy and Bruce into getting lunch at a local place. There, we learn that the two are planning on moving to Albany, where Bruce is confident that the insurance business is strong. I’ve been to Albany, and I can see that.

Walter, during the lunch, is once again a DICK, doing his best to intimidate Bruce and sabotage their plans to leave for Albany that day. He makes his way to the phone, where he schemes with Duffy (Frank Orth) to keep her in town. Back at the table, he tells her of the case of Earl Williams.

Williams is, apparently, a man recently convicted of shooting a police officer...who was black...and they use a word to describe him that begins with a C...that makes me uncomfortablllllllllllle. But it’s 1940, so it could be FAR worse. Anyway, he’s going to be executed, even though he claims that he’s innocence. And while Hildy’s intrigued by the case, she refuses to cover it for Walter.

UNTIL, that is, Walter offers to buy an insurance policy from Bruce for $100000 in 1940 money, which means a commission for $18,000 in today’s money. Uh...yeah. Yes, please. And yet, Bruce says NO, not wanting to involve his future wife in his affairs, like a GODDAMN GENTLEMAN. But Hildy don’t give a FUCK, and basically accepts the deal for him. And, uh, I DO NOT blame her, that’s a lot of goddamn money!

Understandably not trusting Walter, she has Bruce give her all of the money that they have, to his equally understandable reluctance. Because there is NO WAY that she isn’t gonna lose all of that money. We find out from a group of reporters staying near the prison that Williams is to be hung tomorrow, and that he’s a bookkeeper that was recently unemployed.

Meanwhile, after a doctor’s check-up, Bruce and Walter write up the life insurance, and Walter tells Bruce to make Hildy his beneficiary. And Bruce is understandably awkward about that, but Walter ends up convincing him, the smooth and conniving DICK that he is.

Duffy walks in to give Walter a check for more money than originally intended, and it’s even been certified! Which is...odd, but OK. Bruce calls Hildy to let her know, and she’s very suspicious. She tells Bruce to put the check in the lining of his hat, claiming that it’s an old journalist’s superstition (it is not). Looks like she’s right to be suspicious, as Walter brings in a short gentleman for unknown reasons. He follows Bruce out as he leaves the office.

Meanwhile, Hildy brides a prison guard to speak with Earl Williams (John Qualen) before his execution. He’s a shy and bookish man, who was thought to become radicalized by people speaking in a pubic park, where he went after losing his job. This, it’s believed by the press and court, eventually drove him to go insane and kill the policeman.

But Earl seems perfectly sane, and committing murder goes against his morals. He also wasn’t won over by said radical park speakers, although he admits one of them made some good points. But still, he had a gun, and he apparently did shoot the policeman.

In their interview, Hildy learns that the man in the park was talking about “production for use”, which is the idea that everything produced should be used, basically in a way that production meets demand, and profit is less important than product. Which, granted, is an interesting idea. But Hildy uses that to convince Earl that he shot the gun because he had it in his hands. And since the gun was produced, it needed to be used, so...

Well, that’s...something. We also learn about Mollie Malloy (Helen Mack), who’s been unfairly labeled by the press as Earl’s mistress and the witness to his case. And she gives a very passionate and heartfelt plea with the male journalists, who are...vicious. And Mollie’s hurt indeed. And while she’s there, they all treat her terribly.

But she breaks down in front of them even further when she sees the gallows being prepared outside. And as Hildy takes her out, the men left behind actually do seem ashamed. And in a single stroke, in a single scene, the film uses an immense moment of drama to show exactly why Hildy wants to leave, and the things that it makes people in this profession do. It’s...masterful.

Good place to pause! See you in Part 2!

3 notes · View notes

shinygoku · 4 years ago

Text

Liar Revealed! A Bug’s Life Essay

A Bug’s Life is my favourite Pixar movie and thus, it turns out I have a lot of thoughts about it. In this case, what was originally my interpretation soley in response to points I’ve seen raised on YouTube and TV Tropes has spun off into this mega essay.... all focused on a single scene.

But hey, it works with one of the film’s main messages; that something big grows out of a small idea!

The scene is the most notorious in the movie, at least from what I’ve seen, and I’m inclined to agree it’s the weakest part of this giant clock. But why is it like that and how could it have been handled better?

As I’ve said, this is actually my favourite (albeit not what I consider their very best) of Pixar’s output, and I wouldn’t have been able to go into such depth without a huge amount of love for the finished product, flawed as it may be.

It’s also possible I’ll write a more generalised thing on what I love about the film in the future, but I won’t promise anything o7;; 🐜

The Lie is ...laid

Actually, I should talk about two scenes. First is where the Lie is established:

After the humourous mutual misunderstanding between the Circus Bugs and Flik, the former are quite horrified to discover they’re expected to fight the Grasshoppers off themselves instead of putting on a show. Ahh, that old classic~

But no, they want out and Flik, who has just been informed by them during the welcoming shindig, is understandably rattled and despairing over this addition to his list of failures. He says the fallout will not only brand him, but his hypothetical grandchildren as a Terrible Loser and even says he’s as good as dead as soon as the other ants find out. Owch.

Before things get too heavy, the focus shifts around until The Bird becomes the main immediate threat. The whole Bird scene leads the ants to become convinced the Circus Bugs are really amazing warriors and, as this is the first time in what could be years that they have a crowd cheering for them it’s the success and Flik’s later idea to make a Giant Mech in the shape of a Bird instead of planning any actual combat that convinces them to play along.

So, that’s the lie set up and solidified. Now for the eventual fallout:

During a fun party after the Bird has been built, an ominous force arrives... PT Flea, the Jerkass ringmaster who had fired the Circus Bugs. This local bug promptly ruins everything by literally shining a light on the Circus Bugs and their nature as such, and then Flik is accidentally outed as the Guy Who Thought Up The Bird.

The Liar Revealed Trope

I would link the TV Tropes article here, but as tungle doesn’t like external sites I’ll just quote the more relevant parts from it:

“Liar Revealed in the Internal Reveal of The Lie, the facade maintained by a protagonist which provides the primary dramatic tension for the plot. This usually sets up the third act where the protagonists are forced to deal with the consequences of the lie on top of any external threats.

There are a few usual ways this ends up. If the lie was for selfish reasons, the protagonist will doubtless face the wrath of those he lied to, but along the way end up having a change of conscience, and try to redeem themselves through good acts and An Aesop about "what really matters". If the lie was well-intentioned, the protagonist may still find that others turn their backs on him, but go on to carry through with what they said they'd do anyway, proving themselves a hero after all.

It's worth noting that this trope is particularly easy and common to misuse, either in the tendency of the protagonist to Maintain the Lie for reasons that make no sense except for dramatic tension or of the deceived to turn against the protagonist for the deception in spite of other considerations that should by all rights absolve him.”

And in the folder there’s a specific entry for this film:

A Bug's Life has Flik supposedly finding "warrior bugs" to save his colony after misconstruing a situation. When he realizes his mistake (that they're circus performers rather than trained warriors), he's forced to keep the lie going in order to not cause panic among the other ants. Once the colony finds out, it inevitably results in one of the most painfully Played Straight examples of this trope in animation history...

As you can see there, the dislike for this scene has seeped into the entry. Of course, TV Tropes is pretty informal and I like that, but it’s telling that this is a general perception.

Continue reading below the Cut! ✂

What I don’t like

So, I think my main issue with the scene boils down to... it’s very nebulous and unclear as to what’s so bad about Flik lying. Between the Council, the Queen and Atta, there seems to be a jumbled, confusing motive traffic jam that somehow results in what TV Tropes refers to the Liar Reveal Trope being played “Painfully Straight”.

But uhh, what’s the problem? Yes, Flik lied, but we know that wasn’t something he’d planned on doing, it was his attempt at damage control. The other ants don’t know that part, but still, what are they objecting to, specifically? That the Circus bugs are Circus bugs? That the Bird Plan was Flik’s? That.... lying is treated at an absolute moral failing regardless of the circumstances??

The council dudes are like: “OH WHAAAAT, the defence plan was by Clowns??” [No, it was Flik] “OH WHAAAT, we don’t have our mafia money prepared what if Hopper finds out we nearly sicced a fake bird on him!?”

The part about objecting to Clowns drafting the defence plans is actually the more reasonable explanation, but I guess they presumed warriors habitually made Decoy Bird plans instead of fighting themselves? There’s already a hole in their objections but it only gets worse.

The Queen is like: “Wow Flik evidently you’re a self serving prick. Anyway the best thing to do is pretend this never happened and no we’re not going to tell Hopper.”

Why the fuck would that happen? ‘Oh sorry Hopper we got sidetracked doing a ...thing... so we’re still picking your food no please don’t break my legs’

But also, why THE FUCK is this the plan? Some ruler you are, you old prune. ‘We have the bird all made and ready to go but oops the idea came from a DIRTY LIAR so we’re going to return to the doomed harvesting racket even though we’ve been set an outrageous amount and we can’t possibly hope to catch up and even if we had been picking the food the entire time it was established earlier on we won’t have time for our supplies on top of all that.’

Fucking.... astonishing lack of logic. YOU MORONS HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE, GO WITH THE BIRD! Flik himself says something to a similar effect lol

But noooooo, his arguably selfish lie [which is more Omitting the truth once he knew it, really] has forever doomed everything, apparently. Honestly it comes across more like they just hate Flik and see anything he invents as doomed to fail, so the second the truth emerges that he spearheaded the Mech Bird they dismiss it as a lost cause. Even though everyone worked together to build it, and Flik’s inventions weren’t the issue but him being awkward and clumsy. But seeing how Flik’s mere presence in his first scene seemed to drive the Council members into a quivering fury, it really does feel like their objections are from them refusing to give him a chance.

And then there’s Princess Atta. Hoo Boy.

In this scene, she comes off as being ridiculously vindictive, petty and hypocritical. This applies to the Council too, but it’s more galling coming from Atta as by now she’s realised that Flik gets a lot of flak [yay wordplay] from the others and she had resolved to give him more credit. BUT OOPS, that didn’t last!

She takes the Lying thing so personally, acting like he was cheating on her or something. “You lied to MeEeEee” well golly gee whiz, was there any particular reason why he would tell you the truth? Other than his rather obvious crush on you, that is? Cause that would still be a weird reason, seeing how the ‘lie’ was after he’d finally got a bit of decent treatment from the others, why would he wanna upset the apple cart?

He probably feared coming out and confessing to Atta [or anyone else] that they’d lose all faith in him and scrap a valid plan that was the only way out of the grasshopper racket mess. Which would be a bit silly and probably the result of someone with low self esteem and confidence issues overthinking the situation but it’s Exactly what actually happens!

It wasn’t a personal slight against you, Princess! To quote Helen Parr: THIS IS NOT! ABOUT! YOU!!

And wooow, you must be awfully chilly up there on your high horse, Miss “Lied to Flik to get rid of him earlier in the film”! Did you ever feel like fessing up? Like ‘hmm I’ve grown much fonder of this doofus, maybe I should be honest with him before engaging with some more light flirting’ ? Maybe if you had, he woulda been honest in return!

I don’t even see why she and the Council bothered lying about their Snipe Hunt ploy, seeing how now they act like he crossed a moral event horizon. Why even bother making a phoney baloney decoy idea to get him away, when they clearly dislike him enough to play the Brutally Honest card without fretting over his feelings. They coulda just ordered him to stay in a corner away from interfering but instead they’re willing to risk his life on a wild goose chase.

...And she then Banishes him! For what?? Lying? About what, the circus bugs or the bird plan? Both?? It really feels like her taking undue personal offence and the Council hating him and the Queen being old and senile.

So yeah, wow, this scene has what I think is the Unintended side effect of making me hate the stupid jerkface Ant colony as every named ant in it except for Dot fucking suck and throw Flik under a bus the second they deem him to be untrustworthy. In spite of, like, that the plan itself was solid and that the Circus Bugs have all been proven to be Good Eggs. They don’t give him a chance to explain and made their own bed to lie in, so I feel dark joy and satisfaction when the grasshoppers do arrive and kick them around some more.

Wow gee, if only you dumb ass ants had some sort of already made contraption to fall back on?

Why is it like this?

I can only make guesses here, be warned!

From what I’ve gathered of an older version of the story, mostly via Wikipedia, I kinda feel like the exposing would have fit that take better. In the beta version of the story, instead of Flik the lead would have been “Red”, who was a red ant and circus bug from the start. The first draft Circus lot woulda been out to scam the ants initially and I guess would have grown genuine fondness with time. The idea of an outsider flim flamming his way into the good books and later being exposed makes the overblown outrage a lot more understandable. But that’s my hypothesis for the direction they ultimately didn’t go in. Also look at how Red looks like a fuckboi here:

But in the final version, Red doesn’t exist! Flik is a part of the colony from the get go, but also apart from it cause no one likes him as, again, his ideas were good but poorly executed and he seemed to be a hindrance. But the ants should at least see that Flik is genuine in his attempts, that he’s trying his best and they should maybe cut him some slack.

The way the ants have their knickers in a twist doesn’t gel so well with the “Well meaning screwup” angle, especially compared to a possible “Opportunistic so-and-so who doesn’t have real attachments to the colony” route.

Also it may be worth noting up there where I put a TV Tropes excerpt, I bolded the relevant half of the run down, but it seems the other half applies much more to this first draft. Interesting...

So I don’t know, but I got the idea that the scene in the movie is basically a holdover from earlier that didn’t get sufficiently updated. The Liar Revealed Scene is the first thing I’d change if I were rewriting the script, and I might go back and change it again after other parts had been redone too, cause the story needs to flow from point A to point B etc. smoothly or else viewers will get annoyed and point it out in Youtube videos or overly long tumblr text posts.

How could it be fixed?

I’m not saying I’m sitting on the perfect idea of a rewrite. But the main thing is what I already touched on, the jarring disconnect between what happens and how the stupid ants respond.

Like, Atta’s sudden grabbing of the Jerkass and Idiot Balls in this scene. Wouldn’t it have been better if she was instead unsure and conflicted? She had lied to Flik earlier and, unlike the Council, was shown to actually realise Flik Has Feelings Too and apologised for the general lack of faith. She didn’t come clean about the Snipe Hunt Lie, so that could be weighing on her during this scene, maybe she would have been the only Council member to Not want to kick him out but felt pressured into it and hasn’t got into the groove of being the Future Queen enough to pull rank and talk them down from being hate filled twats. Maybe someone will mention the flirting that had been happening as muddying her judgement?

That’s my main idea, compare that with her barging in and taking undue personal offence and shooing him off. She’s supposed to feel like she’s doomed to fail too, so her facing a moral dilemma and falling on the wrong side of the fence could tie into that! (To be honest, her arc is kinda undercooked so hey, I’m killing two birds with one stone here!)

Flik being banished at all is a casualty of The Narrative, that he and the Circus Bugs have gotta go away temporarily for the finale to be cooler and more exciting. It’s a Necessary Weasel of writing and you’ll find them in every story ever made. Sometimes things have gotta happen cause Story Structure. The trick is having them more organic and concealed.

So yeah, have the Old Fogeys be in the wrong [which is so far unchanged] but also the majority of the ‘voting’. Make it difficult for Atta to choose between loyalty to the colony as a whole and her sense of duty versus trusting in Flik, who she now knows to always have his heart in the right place. She comes close to standing up for him and herself, but ultimately falters and gets pressured into the call made in the movie. She’s still ultimately responsible as leaders are, but in a much more sympathetic way.

Summation

This got way longer than I had initially imagined, and that’s even after I cut stuff in the editing process! Let’s quickly review the three main points I’m trying to make.

The Issue with the scene - A big song and dance is made over The Lie, but no reason why it’s such a terrible thing is offered. A perfectly sound plan is dismissed nonsensically.

Suspected reasoning for the writing - The tone matches a potential alternate story much better, where someone would have lied for self serving purposes instead of for the greater good.

A suggestion for a rewrite - Make it much more nuanced and fitting the character arcs. Give the characters a reason to react the way they do and have different responses per person. If the ants are going to drop the Bird plan, at least offer a more viable alternate route than going back to what wasn’t working before.

Does it really matter?

Well, I don’t expect a 22 year old film to suddenly get a rewrite, no. And I maintain that it’s a real gem which deserves much higher praise with the other Good Pixars instead of being so constantly overlooked.

Part of what spurred me to think about the scene and what I’d alter is seeing it referred to as ‘Kinda Bad’ in a youtube video that was talking about another Liar Reveal scene in another movie, and that is a bad take, but the point about how clunky this part is isn’t wrong. I don’t want people to dismiss the whole, beautiful image cause one section of it doesn’t vibe!

It doesn’t ruin the picture, but when people have something negative to say it’s this which is the magnet. And I’m kinda guilty of doing the same thing here, haha. But I wanted to really dissect and examine it, to figure out why it’s like that and to guess how simple it may be to rework. It’s bittersweet, but there ain’t such a thing as a perfect movie.

This has been fun for me to go into though, and it’s nice to get thoughts out from just swirling around inside my head, so even if barely anyone sees and makes it through this whole dissertation, I’m glad I wrote it out. It’s a funny way to derive enjoyment from the bumpy part of a beloved movie, but hey, I’ll take it~

#A Bug's Life #Liar Revealed Trope #Pixar #Disney Pixar #Disney #CutCat writes a very long essay

11 notes · View notes

pinelife3 · 5 years ago

Text

What Women Think Men Think

In the 2000 film What Women Want, Mel Gibson accidentally electrocutes himself with a hairdryer in the bathtub which for some reason gives him the ability to hear women’s thoughts. This comes at a great time for him personally and professionally as it allows him to perform well in his job as an advertising exec, woo the lovely Helen Hunt, and bond with his estranged daughter.

youtube

Sadly, the genius of What Women Want was not recognised by critics in its time and the film received poor reviews - however, it did perform well commercially, making it a great candidate for a gender-flip remake. Our prayers were answered earlier this year with What Men Want, in which Taraji P. Henson plays a sports agent who misses out on a promotion because she doesn’t get men. Surprising no one, What Men Want received worse reviews than the original, but managed to one-up it by also being a commercial disappointment. I haven’t seen it (I hear it is genuinely unwatchable) but from Wikipedia I gather that she drinks some magic tea and then can hear men’s thoughts which... makes her good in bed but doesn’t lead to as much professional success as you might expect. While What Women Want, directed by the great Nancy Meyers, is about a chauvinist learning to respect women, What Men Want is about a woman learning that most men suck and that they don’t deserve respect so it’s better not to work for them. What Men Want was directed by a man which, if you ask me, seems kind of pandering: why would a man make a film about how cartoonishly awful men are?

The rough premise of both What X Want films is that when the protagonist has access to the inner thoughts of the opposite sex, what they hear is revelatory: the opposite sex is apparently unknowable, inscrutable, vastly foreign. It requires magic (or bathtub electrocution) to know what others really think. Ha! Well, I have that magic. A portal to another world. A world where men, unobserved, unfettered by social barriers, freely say whatever they really think of any idea, image or product you present to them: Reddit.

I’ve often complained to Matt that practically any post on Reddit which features a young and/or attractive female woman girl will draw comments from men saying that they’re going to jerk off to the picture. Why do you think we care that you’re going to mash your genitals while watching this gif of a girl in a bikini using a homemade water slide? Why did my eyes and mind have to be subjected to this information about your plans for the afternoon? Did that first improbable spark of life, apes descending from trees, straightened spines, the birth of technology, everything our forebears strived for across eternity, really lead up to this moment where you wrote that on the internet? Why are we pack animals?

So the shtick of this blog post is: I sneak about on Reddit to find out want men want, what they care about, and think about. But! We ladies don’t care what they think about beer and barbecues (we already know that all men are practically BBQsexual, am I right?) so let’s identify a few things where we do care about what they think.

For our purposes, I think women only care about men’s opinions on women - and possibly also sexual politics. For sports, most political issues, food, music, etc. I think we all agree that if you ask a man what he thinks, he’ll probably give you a pretty straight answer. The fantasy of knowing what men really want is that it’s information you would not normally have access to, because you’re too shy to ask, or you’re concerned his answer would be evasive or dishonest. Most people aren’t dishonest because they’re mean liars. They’re dishonest because they doesn’t want to hurt your feelings - or perhaps because they can’t be bothered to argue. So some of the impulse to eavesdrop on someone’s thinking is an insecurity, it’s suspecting they’ve withheld or softened an opinion - and wanting to know the full truth even if it’s hurtful.

In particular (and mostly because I want to talk to someone about these books), I’m going to pick ideas from Sally Rooney’s novels to compare romantic men as written by a woman with the actuality of men on Reddit. Rooney writes love stories (or at least love-adjacent stories) which are widely read by women and have been enormously popular: this to me suggests that her idea of romantic men has resonated with many women and therefore it may be interesting to see if the interiority of the men she’s written could exist in the real world (or, at least on Reddit).

My methodology for trawling Reddit for relevant information is simple:

1. Is the attribute mentioned in Reddit’s NSFW directory? I don’t want to solely rely on the Reddit NSFW directory as a barometer for men’s interest in things, but I believe when trying to assess what men find attractive, this is a decent tool. I would venture to say that every (legal) niche interest is addressed by a NSFW subreddit: gamer girls, women in sundresses, redheads, anime princesses, cute girls, sexy girls, skinny girls, mums, teens, big boobs (attached to women with rich interiorities, I’m sure), mascara stained tears, and so on forever. Related to this: just because a subreddit exists to address a particular niche (e.g. braces), this doesn’t mean all men find that age group, attribute, body type, piece of clothing, etc. attractive - but it at least illustrates that someone found it attractive enough to create a community dedicated to it.

2. Is the attribute mentioned in any of Ask Reddit’s 'Men, what’s one unusual thing you find really attractive about women’ type threads? Men seem to sense that these threads are always started by women, so the responses are more romantic than sexual. Dudes tend to say the ‘unusual things’ they find attractive are freckles, when women can’t reach things on high shelves, messy up-dos, etc.

Question 1: Do men like the pale, non-sexy parts of women?

In Rooney’s second book Normal People, the male protagonist spends a lot of time looking at the female protagonist and admiring her pale delicacy.

You look really well, he says.

I know. It’s classic me. I came to college and got pretty.

He starts laughing. He doesn’t even want to laugh but something about the weird dynamic between them is making him do it. ‘Classic me’ is a very Marianne thing to say, a little self-mocking, and at the same time gesturing to some mutual understanding between them, an understanding that she is special. Her dress is cut low at the front, showing her pale collarbones like two white hyphens.

Later, he admires her pale lips and wrists:

He hasn’t seen her in person since July, when she came home for her father’s Mass. Her lips look pale now and slightly chapped, and she has dark circles under her eyes. Although he takes pleasure in seeing her look good, he feels a special sympathy with her when she looks ill or her skin is bad, like when someone who’s usually very good at sports has a poor game. It makes her seem nicer somehow. She’s wearing a very elegant black blouse, her wrists look slender and white, and her hair is twisted back loosely at her neck.

Women hope men think of them in this way: that men closely observe us and like what they see, that they can thrill romantically at non-sexy parts of our bodies like our under eye bags or bony elbows, that they’re so devoted they like us even when we’re sickly. Lolita has this to thank for its enduring popularity. Sure, Humbert Humbert is a broken man and a pedophile but he’s so lyrical:

I looked and looked at her, and I knew, as clearly as I know that I will die, that I loved her more than anything I had ever seen or imagined on earth. She was only the dead-leaf echo of the nymphet from long ago - but I loved her, this Lolita, pale and polluted and big with another man's child. She could fade and wither - I didn't care. I would still go mad with tenderness at the mere sight of her face.

Men want to be him, women want to be adoringly described by him.

Anyway. Let’s check Reddit to see what men really think of pale wrists and collarbones - or if they think of them at all.

There are no communities in Reddit’s NSFW directory focused on wrists or collarbones or any bony protrusion through pale skin. There is a subreddit dedicated to NSFW content featuring pale girls with ~420,000 subscribers but the focus of this content is sexy areas of the body (enormous pale breasts, perfect pale butts, etc.) and there is not much coverage of pale wrists and/or collarbones.

I also couldn’t find any references to pale non-sexy parts of women in any AskReddit threads related to things men find attractive about women.

Conclusion: I do not believe that men as a cohort are particularly into dark under eye bags, bony chests, etc. These are just things women wish men liked about them.

Question 2: Do men like damaged women?

In Rooney’s first novel, Conversations with Friends, the protagonist has the following conversation with her ~lover~ in bed:

I want you to hit me. I don’t think I want to do that, he said. I knew that he was sitting up now, looking down at me, though I kept my eyes closed. Some people like it, I said. You mean during sex? I didn’t realise you were interested in that kind of thing. I opened my eyes then. He was frowning. Wait, are you okay? he said. Why are you crying? I’m not crying. Incidentally it turned out that I was crying. It was just something my eyes were doing while we were talking. He touched the side of my face where it was wet. I’m not crying, I said. Do you think I want to hurt you? ... I don’t know, I said. I’m just telling you that you can.

In Normal People, the protagonists have a similar exchange during sex:

Will you hit me? she says. For a few seconds she hears nothing, not even his breath. No, he says. I don’t think I want that. Sorry. She says nothing. Is that okay? he asks. She still says nothing. Do you want to stop? he says. She nods her head. She feel his weigh lift off her. She feels empty again and suddenly chill. He sits on the bed and pulls the quilt over himself. She lies there face down, not moving, unable to think of any acceptable movement. Are you okay? he says. I’m sorry I didn’t want to do that, I just think it would be weird. I mean, not weird, but... I don’t know. I don’t think it would be a good idea.

in the context of these novels, this behaviour is a form of self-harm from women who hate themselves: even those I’m closest to want to take advantage of me, will do what they want with me, will hurt me if I let them. The perfect men, confused and innocent to this self-destructive behaviour, are concerned and decline the offer. The women interpret this as a form of sexual rejection but the reader knows this rejection is actually romantic. Could we really thrill over a man who agreed to beat her? No one talks about 50 Shades of Grey anymore but Mr Darcy lingers in the minds of mothers and BBC-watching daughters the world over. Rooney’s romantic leads are very nice men for not hitting the protagonist during sex.

Importantly, while the offer of subservience and sexual violence is not an immediate aphrodisiac, it adds to the overall appeal of our lady protagonists as women who are soft, damaged, not easily available, but also deeply vulnerable. Bob Dylan muses, basically (she’s delicate and seem’s like veneer. Sidebar on that line: I heard it when I was 17 and was jealous because it’s so good. Turns out this line is hotly contested in places where people contest Dylan lyrics. One tribe thinks it’s: she’s delicate and seems like veneer. Another tribe thinks it’s: she’s delicate and seems like the mirror. The tribe which is 100% wrong thinks it’s: she’s delicate and seems like Vermeer.).

These books both have this thread of college-aged women who hate themselves and want to be mistreated by their lovers, and lovers who are perfect and sensitive enough to like the control they have in the relationship, but not abuse it. My read on this is that women like to think that men like to save damaged women. Damaged meaning women who are clearly dealing with one or more of the following:

Untreated mental health problems

Self-medication dependencies

Daddy issues

Memories of growing up with violence/abuse/Teletubbies/war crimes/poverty

Heavy baggage from previous relationships

You know what I mean. So, let’s check Reddit to see what men think of damaged women. In the NSFW directory there are a number of BDSM subs, most of which are focused on women being dominated by men: women trussed up in elaborate rigs of ropes and straps, women being used in various ways, beaten, dominated. Most of these subs have between 100,000 - 200,000+ subscribers. This would indicate that there are a decent number of Reddit users who are interested in hurting their sexual partner.

(DISCLAIMER: I don’t mean to kinkshame. ContraPoints (I think in this video) argued that while it’s fine to be into BDSM and enjoy being hurt or hurting someone else, it does suggest some things about you. BDSM isn’t just fun. No one wants to be tied up and beaten/pissed on for no reason. You want those things because it means something to you to be treated badly or to treat others badly. Liking BDSM doesn’t mean you’re damaged, but it might mean something adjacent to that.)

youtube

Furthermore, re: Reddit’s attitude to ‘damaged’ women, any time a guy on Reddit tells a ‘crazy ex’ story, someone from the 3 brain cells club will flop out an old cliché: don’t stick your dick in crazy. Men like to warn each other about damaged women. That cliché often attracts a popular counterpoint:

Crazy chicks are good in bed! What a treat: there are perks to dating a damaged woman. More than anything, men on Reddit love acting like they know a lot about women and wild sex. A damaged, compliant woman is great for clocking up these experiences.

I think we can say that some men do indeed like damaged women. The impression you get from Reddit is that a lot of these men would take advantage of the vulnerable Rooney protagonists, but that’s the point even within the novels: the man could have said yes, could have hit her - which the reader wouldn’t find romantic because we know that on some subcutaneous level she didn’t really want to be treated that way. A lot of romance only reads as romantic because we’re aware of the unromantic alternative: what if Richard Gere had treated Julia Roberts the way most men treat prostitutes? What if Bob Dylan compared a beautiful, mysterious woman to the 17th century Dutch painter Vermeer?

In the final act of What Women Want, Gibson loses the ability to hear women’s thoughts. The point the film makes is that he’s been so reformed by hearing women’s perspectives and relating to them as actual human beings, that he doesn’t need magic anymore to behave like a nice person. This is also because it would not be romantic to be in a relationship with a man who was eavesdropping on your inner monologue. If the relationship is real and working, then you don’t need psychic powers to anticipate how the other person is going to feel and respond to things. You can always just ask - and you’ll have to trust that the answer is honest.

Bonus: more of that lovable scamp Mel Gibson:

youtube

#What Women Want #Nancy Myers #Mel Gibson #Helen Hunt #What Men Want #Reddit

1 note · View note

megers67 · 7 years ago

Text

Incredibles 2: Alternate Plot

I've been mulling it over the past few days and I was a bit disappointed with Incredibles 2. At first I thought that it was because it seemed like two potentially really interesting themes were introduced but not expanded upon, but I realized that both of these have the same root cause. Since there are obvious spoilers I’ll put the rest under the cut.

The movie is set up to be about accountability and the unintended consequences of doing hero work in the public eye, but they never really explore it at all. They kind of introduce this both in the material damage that heoric actions cause and from Evelyn’s/Screen Slaver’s monologues, but these are never really resolved. The supers are made legal again with no acknowledgement on how to deal with the collateral damage that would inevitably occur. You know, the entire reason that the supers were outlawed in the first place? And as far as Evelyn’s points goes... those were never really addressed either. There’s not really any reaction to what she’s saying. Nobody agrees but nobody refutes it either. They thwart her plans to kill all the ambassadors in a very public manner, but they don’t address why she did what she did. The characters aren’t given any time to respond so we never get a closure as to why we’re supposed to think she’s bad other than her direct actions (which ARE very heinous to be sure).

In other words, the reasons for not having supers are brushed aside, which is strange in a movie where the plot centers around advocating for the return of supers. Why aren’t these very real concerns not addressed by the protagonists? These issues are brushed aside. They aren’t going to just go away, especially the collateral damage aspect. I mean, when the yacht almost ran into the city, it actually damaged the pier and the road just beyond it. That’s got some major costs attached to it. That doesn’t just go away now that we decide we like supers again. You would think they’d come up with ways to reduce collateral damage or come up with a plan for it as a compromise. Some sort of accountability thing. Maybe property managers would start offering super insurance for high-risk areas like there are for earthquakes or other things like that. But we don’t get anything like that.

So I'm going to propose an alternate plot for Incredibles 2 that would address it through the other two themes that I thought of before: body cams on police and publicly coming out. Would it be appropriate for a kid’s movie? I don’t know. Would it fit in an acceptable run time for a movie? No clue. But the fact that Zootopia handled something as heavy as racism so well gives enough precedent for me here.

Body Cam Plot:

The movie starts off as it did and is the same all the way through getting the cameras in their suits. Elastigirl is chosen to be the first, the public would now be able to see from her perspective so they can see how she makes her decisions to do what she does, yes yes yes. My version then starts to differ when it comes to the first mission. It doesn’t go as perfectly as planned. There are a couple of casualties. Not as big as Mr. Incredible would have done, and it’s mostly clean and she’s successful in stopping the train, but in the course of the chase, she inadvertently causes some accidents leading to injuries and property damage. The footage shown to the public however is an edited version that shows Elastigirl in her best light. She at first doesn’t see anything amiss because that is more or less how she remembers it going down as well. But during the interview, Screen Slaver shows clips that were edited out of the original. A couple of questionable decisions and also footage of the negative consequences of what Elastigirl did. Over this is the Screen Slaver’s monologue about the over-reliance on supers because it is convenient and that it ignores reality.

Then she captures the fake Screen Slaver and the celebration that follows is also largely the same. But instead of figuring it out on her own, Screen Slaver makes another appearance to gloat that they weren’t really captured and that she caused the arrest of an innocent without due process. Elastigirl does figure out that it’s Evelyn, but too late to keep from getting hypnotized herself. The action largely unfolds as it did in the original movie as it did before. Except this time, the footage that Evelyn recorder is released to the public unedited, leaving the public to decide for themselves whether supers are worth it. The conclusion of the movie would be to work together with supers in some sort of compromise so that the populace can feel safe (for example, being transparent, perhaps having training facilities so that supers can learn how to better handle situations, etc.). It doesn’t really matter here what the compromises are, except that it will make both sides happy and safe.

Coming Out Subplot:

Another major plot point would focus on coming out, akin to the queer experience. I hope I wasn’t the only one who saw the super hero team that Elastigirl meets as queer-coded, especially Voyd, Helectix, and Brick. I was disappointed they didn’t go further with this, especially in conjunction with the suit cameras. So here’s my subplot.

First of all, Tony’s memory isn’t wiped. Perhaps Dicker was kicked out before he could actually do it. So he’s struggling with coming to terms with it and doesn’t go to the date, standing Violet up. She’s understandably upset by this. But the problems get worse. Screen Slaver, as part of the reveal of the negative footage also shows footage of Elastigirl’s true identity, forcibly outing her as well. Luckily the rest of Helen’s family had to move since their house burned down which means that the media doesn’t know where they are yet so they are able to stay out of the limelight for most of this? Not sure.

This means that Helen/Elastigirl must now contend with the clashing of her two worlds, especially since Dicker isn’t there to hold the public back. She takes the opportunity to talk about how she is who she is and while she never chose to have powers, she did choose to use them for good and be a super. THIS is what inspires the wannabe supers to come out on their own. We even have those lines from Voyd that really fit well here.

Hi, my super hero name is Voyd. I just want to thank you for like... for being you! [She shows her powers to Helen] I felt like an outcast. Before. But now with you being you, I feel like... yay me.

If that isn’t a coming out as queer kind of line, IDK WHAT IS. The revelations from this subplot would merge with the larger plot on accountability and how supers aren’t necessarily good or bad, but they’re PEOPLE. Like everyone else. Just ones that have been given powers that make them different from the norm. They didn’t choose to have them, but what they do with them IS their choice. From this angle, Violet’s rage at being outed against her will, which makes her hate being super as a result has more meaning. The whole situation isn’t in her hands and she has no control over it. She wouldn’t have to deal with this if she weren’t super. Especially hard as a teenager. This would culminate in her and Tony having a talk after Tony has calmed down enough to think things through and give it a shot. It’s hard to process, but he should be a good guy about it in the end. When the whole family is going to the movie theater and the car of criminals drives by, in my version, Tony gets out of the car himself and then OFFERS to get the tickets and save Violet a seat while she goes take care of things with her family. I think that will be a better end for a new reality.

Well, now I’m disappointed that this version of Incredibles 2 didn’t happen, but ah well. Hopefully someone gets enjoyment out of reading this version.

#Incredibles #incredibles 2 #disney #pixar #spoilers

5 notes · View notes

clockworkopera · 7 years ago

Text

Story Arc of LoS and TDA...

After my post on analyzing books, I got this question from @anna-g-x: Hi, you talk a lot in posts about story arcs and climaxes and I was wondering if you could do a post explaining the events e.g. Inciting incident followed by ..etc that should happen in a good book, thank you

The story arcs that I refer to are part the fundamental elements of plot in a 3 Act Structure. There are lots of discussions about the merits of plot driven vs. character driven stories. In my opinion they go hand in hand, and a good story needs both. You can have the best character, but if nothing happens there’s no story, and if there isn’t a character you’re vested in then why care about the best plot. In YA it’s especially important that a character has an opportunity to grow and change, be challenged, face and overcome obstacles—this is twofold between external things happening to the character and internal things, personal struggles. LoS has a lot of different characters to follow, and everyone who has a POV is going to have a slightly different story arc, though there are times they converge. So, I’ll go through LoS using Julian as the example. Because Julian’s need to keep Emma and his family safe—the most important thing to his character, the story arc is going to reflect that.

These are my opinions of where things break down, and you can follow along with the chart:

Act 1: LoS begins by defining their routine—fighting demons at the pier. When they return Clary and Jace are there and we get the warning that things aren’t going to be staying the same. There’s no medicine for Arthur as the Centurions arrive to further upset the balance. Throughout all these external things happening, Julian still has internal struggles. He tries to juggle his frustrations with Arthur, the pressure of the Centurions bearing down, and most importantly his jealousy of Emma being with Mark.

Gwyn arrives to tell the Blackthorns of how Kieran is to be executed. It’s Mark’s ii (Inciting Incident) because he decides he can’t abandon Kieran and leaves for Faerie. Mark leaving for Faerie is Julian’s ii because he now has to leave the Institute and his family to the Centurions while he ventures to Faerie with Emma and Cristina to make sure his brother doesn’t end up getting killed. Kit’s ii is different since he has a different story arc. I think his is when Malcolm and his sea demons attack the Institute. Up till then he’s been full of disdain for Shadowhunters, but he discovers something about himself in the fighting, and then there is their escape to London after.

They leave for Faerie, and I like the Phouka as a literary device to remind us what is important for each character. For Julian, it is a solution to the parabatai bonds and this is essential to his character, because without breaking his bond, he can’t have Emma. He is told he will meet someone who will be able to break the bonds. When they get to Faerie, none of their weapons work. It’s Julian’s time to have second thoughts, yet they continue to the Climax of Act 1—the showdown with the Unseelie King and rescuing Kieran.

Act 2: There are more ups and downs (Ascending Action) for Julian. Rescued by the Seelie Court he now has to face the Seelie Queen all the while trying to hide his feelings for Emma. Meeting with the Queen he sees Malcolm is still alive, his uncle murdered, Annabel raised from the dead. More things going wrong with his life, even as the Queen tantalizes with the offer of the one thing he wants most in the world—a way to break the parabatai bonds, and the price. This temptation feeds into his ever increasing internal struggles. I think Annabel being raised from the dead would be considered a midpoint (big twist), because upon being reunited with his family at the London Institute he now needs to leave again to search for Annabel and the Black Volume. He doesn’t know what he wants to do with either of them yet, but he does know they need to be found. He leaves for Cornwall with Emma in search of Malcolm’s cottage. Being with Emma reinforces all of his internal struggles, raising the tension between the two of them as he can’t help but fantasize what a more ordinary life with her would be like.

Annabel finds him, and later they track her to the church where the Black Volume was used to raise her. There is a rip between dimensions, they fight off the blood demon Sabnok of Thule—they use a super rune to burn down a stone church (another obstacle). He’s angry Emma was put in danger, all his internal frustrations come to a boiling point and he and Emma fight in the cottage. She storms out only to meet up with the Riders. On the chart, I think the Riders would qualify as disaster, because it means the Unseelie King is using a group of super powerful near immortals to go after the entire Blackthorn family.

Once that fight is done, both Julian and Emma succumb to their mutual desire, a climax (fun pun) of their internal struggles to stay apart. Julian is flying high, he’s with Emma—but nope, because she confesses to him about the parabatai curse. (I know there are a lot of people in the fandom that don’t like Julian, but seriously can’t the guy get a break?)

Magnus brings them back to the London Institute where they try to piece all of these clues together. Then the Riders show up, a major fight ensues, an impossible battle against all odds, and everybody (convergence where everybody’s storylines match up in one place. Emma, Mark, Cristina, Kit—they are all there) is in danger of being slaughtered. But, Annabel comes and saves them. This is the Climax of Act 2. The Riders are gone and they finally have Annabel and the Black Volume.

Act 3: Falling/Descending Action. The function of falling action according to literarydevices.net: Audiences expect a low ebb after every great tide in order to give themselves a feeling of relief. This happens with falling action of the story or the play. In fact, it is the desire of the audiences to see the fruits of the labor of a hero or protagonist that satisfies them. If this does not happen, the audience stays unsatisfied, and the story seems incomplete. This, falling action serves as a rewarding element in a story or movie.

Julian makes a deal with Annabel to testify before the Clave. They have a plan. With Magnus’ help this is their chance to stop the Cohort, have Helen returned to the them. Emma doesn’t want to break all the parabatai bonds and Julian respects that, so they agree exile is their best option. The Blackthorns arrive in Idris to face the Clave. Robert agrees to the exile. But then Annabel is called to testify. Magnus is a no show. Questioning under the Mortal Sword breaks the last vestiges of Annabel’s fragile mind, and in the final pages a nightmare unfolds. The Final Outcome is the Resolution: Livvy is dead, Robert is dead, the Mortal Sword is shattered, the Clave is in chaos, and the Unseelie King has declared war and whisked Annabel and the Black Volume away.

I’m going to leave it up to the readers to say whether the resolution was satisfying. I will say this leads me into my next topic. LoS has its individual story arc, but it is also a part of The Dark Artifices overarching story arc. TDA overall could be superimposed on this same story structure with Livvy’s death being the midpoint (big twist).

The parabatai bonds, the Clave, Mark and Helen’s persecution, the Black Volume, the enemies of the Faerie Court, have all been a constant throughout LM and LoS: the rising/ascending action of the larger overall story.

What story structure teaches me about TSC as a whole…

The TSC series as a whole follows this pattern too…

I go chronologically in this example. TID set the introduction of the Shadowhunters in the Victorian Era. The first obstacle was Mortmain to be overcome. We move to TLH and we don’t know yet what ‘obstacle’ that series will overcome, but we do know that it is a vital puzzle piece to the overall TSC story arc. I have a theory thought that the climax of TLH will be the equivalent of Climax of Act 1. Moving into Act 2, TMI’s obstacle was overcoming Valentine and Sebastian and all the ups and downs in between. But the second Act is also about confrontation. And the Clave has its own confrontation with itself when it needs to decide whether to join Valentine. The Clave has always been in the background up till now, but it’s almost as if the Clave has become its own character with its own internal struggles and story arc in the series.

TDA continues the Ascending Action of the series as Emma and the Blackthorns work through their obstacle of Annabel and the Black Volume, the Unseelie King, the Clave, etc. This series again forces to the Clave to confront itself—who will Shadowhunters be? If this holds true I expect QoAD to have one hell of a midpoint plot twist.

TEC is another missing puzzle piece and I think (not sure because there isn’t a lot of info on it yet) the time frame will overlap with TMI and maybe TDA. Will it go so far as to help fill in the missing years between TDA and TWP? We know Magnus and Alec will have an obstacle to overcome.

And Cassie has said that TWP is the finale of the TSC series. That means that not only will TWP have its own climax, but it will doubly serve as the climax of the entire series. All of the series will somehow converge at this moment where there will be a seemingly insurmountable obstacle that Kit, Ty and Dru as protagonists will have to defeat.

It is very rare that an author has interconnecting series within a larger worldbuilding framework. And I think she might be a genius to have so many interconnecting parts follow this same overall story pattern.

#Lord of Shadows #The Dark Artifices #Story Arc #Julian Blackthorn #Cassandra Clare #LoS #TDA #TSC

40 notes · View notes

moomingitz · 3 years ago

Text

Helen having a much bigger role is legitimately not a bad idea at all. Having two characters, Chris and Helen, from different backgrounds and problems, who could challenge each other by seeing things from differing perspectives could add more of a narrative dynamic. We didn’t really see Chris interact that much with his classmates throughout the series, and having him do that could help give us more insight on why he felt the way he did throughout the series. Helen could learn to understand that not every problem people face in their personal lives can be alleviated or fixed from just being in a better financial position than others.

Hell, Chris and Helen both want the same thing:

They want to be with their parents, but the things preventing that are different but still thing they have no control over. Chris’ parents aren’t really willing to sacrifice their glamorous careers, and maybe even their high class and expensive lifestyle, in order to spend more time with their son. Helen’s parents actively try to be there when they can, but they don’t have the option to just drop whatever jobs they have or they can’t afford to get the medical care she needs for whatever she has. It has really good potential, especially to show that the same problem doesn’t always have the same solution, and that people have different perspectives to them. Maybe realize whatever assumptions they could have had about each other isn’t always true or is more complicated than they thought.

It’s heavily implied they had romantic feelings for each other in season 3, so there’s even more of an opportunity for Helen to be much more involved in the story. I don’t even really ship the two and I’ve entertained the idea of how they could have developed feels for each other and how it could have helped developed them more over time.

But instead of presenting anything actually interesting, it’s nearly always just fan’s very thinly veiled desire for a revenge fantasy against a character they don’t like, with their reasons of why they think she should have been the human protagonist almost always just being “Chris Thorndyke bad” or “muh representation”. I wouldn’t call her a Mary-Sue at all, but I haven’t really been convinced that she’s anything more than just Maria in a wheelchair, or that they would have wrote the series better. If anything, if they were to be put in charge of writing Sonic X instead, they likely would have just made Chris and almost every other character into straight up cartoonish jerks, make Helen into a pure incorruptible messiah who puts Chris in his place by making him to Check Your Privilege™ and self-flagellate for being male and born to rich parents. And any other character who doesn’t agree with Helen, challenges her are all just a bunch of mean ableists who want to wild and free. Like something with as much subtly as Sonic talking about sexual harassment out of nowhere, Seth McFarlane using Brian Griffin as his mouthpiece to bitch about Christianity, or Pearl thinking she has room to lecture humans about how they need to do better about their racism when had been apathetic towards them at best until she had to raise Steven(and I say that as a big fan of SU). Because that kind of angry, bitter, preachy ass has been working out so well for shows and movies in the past of couple of years. Glaring straight at WIR2 and Thomas Astruc, here.

The more disability rep in fiction the better, definitely. But there needs to be more to Helen than just her being disabled and being nice and loving her family. It may work for one episode, but she needs to have some flaws if you want to use the character for an entire series. She doesn’t need to be a bitch, she just doesn’t need to be a pure cinnamon roll. Even Fluttershy had character flaws beyond just being meek and shy. Otherwise, no thank you. Just because a character has a disability doesn’t mean every disabled people, like me, has some civic duty to like or relate to them, and doesn’t mean I’m incapable of liking or relating to something that doesn’t resemble me.

It’s not even new or groundbreaking in terms of disability rep in media. There’s been a good amount of disability rep in both children’s and adult media before Sonic X, both one-off and recurring characters- even in mange/anime, in a country that isn’t exactly the most disability friendly. South Park, unironically, has some of the best disability representation when it comes to animation. I don’t even mind when people retroactively give a character a disability. I adore the headcanons fans make in the J&D fandom that have Jak communicating with Daxter through sign language, when he was still a silent protagonist before Jak II. You could even argue that the Sonic franchise had disability rep before X, if you want to count characters like Tails and Bunnie. Yet they act like Sonic X invented it, and that no one else has ever depicted a conventionally cute, poor child who uses a wheelchair.

There really is good potential with making Helen a major character. Unfortunately like many other things from the Sonic franchise, it’s become another tool for fans to make it about their eternal bitterness for a character, and try to create fandom rivalries/wars that wouldn’t have been there otherwise, and then those same people who pushed it in the first place cry, “Why is there so much division in the fandom, guuuys!?” when it leaves a rancid taste in people’s mouth.

it's honestly still so infuriating when people say that helen would've been a better protagonist than chris

like. what would she have brought to the table other than she's disabled and is a sweet and caring person?

while i like helen and it's actually incredible that they even have a disabled character in the show to begin with; i hate to break it to you guys, she's a mary-sue. that's literally all there is to her character

@moomingitz honestly you've dealt with this issue so much more than me and have a better time at explaining it, but GOD it's so annoying when people use helen solely to shit on chris

helen is sweet and caring? so is chris?????? why you gotta use her to defend your hate boner for chris?

helen actually loves her family? bro chris does too but it doesn't excuse the fact that chris is legitimately getting neglected by them. his mom is a fucking movie actress and his dad is the CEO of a company. yes they do try to spend time with chris but instead of just saying no to a business call or turning down an acting role, they just put on a sad face and leave, then act like it wasn't a big deal. chris has more emotional attachment to a fucking bipedal mutant animal than his own parents and that's depressing

#rant #unpopular opinion #awaits possible backlash

35 notes · View notes

bnrobertson1 · 5 years ago

Text

BRMR #11 “Hobbs, Shaw, the Meaning of it All” (Hobbs and Shaw)

[note: “The Meaning of it All,” or the meaning of anything, really, isn’t discussed here. I just liked how the title sounded.]

I’ll admit it: I didn’t get the Fast & Furious franchise at first. Erupting like a Vin Diesel energy drink* into a world where there weren’t movies where anti-protagonists say “I live my life a quarter mile of a time,” the first FF was a cultural phenomenon that introduced the world to NoS, neon lights for under your car, and family. No, not like the (dumb) people you share genes with- I’m talking FAMILY like the dudes and tougher Hispanic woman with whom you rob 18-wheelers. The people you share Coronas with while you flex on a Southern Californian patio. The people you stare in the face once every other year, either to ask or agree to doing the once-thought impossible.

*How does this not exist?

Again, I didn’t get it. Blame the lack of life experience. Or the presence of eyes. Gran Turismo was out, and that more than satisfied any sort of “cars are fucking neat!” itch I had at the time. Much like Mr. Diesel*, I thought I was too cool/ smart to celebrate things that are fast and/or furious. And much like Mr. Diesel, I was wrong.

* who skipped the 2nd part and only had a cameo in the 3rd.The fact this isn’t taught in schools is inexcusable and an indictment on our education system.

Flash forward to 2009 or so and I’m sitting in a rental house in Costa Rica, waiting out a Biblical rainstorm with some fellow bozos, pounding fruity drinks and smoking copious amounts of shit weed that was a lot more the former than latter. As we didn’t go to Central America to sit inside, we were all getting a little restless and a little lit and a little desperate for something to take our attention away from the fact we weren’t do the exact same thing next to a body of clear water. The movie Gods listened: 2 Fast 2 Furious appeared on Costa Rican TV and conjured one of my favorite movie watching experiences ever- a lifelong, loyal fandom was unassailably assembled that day as though it were the handiwork of Ludacris’ Tej Parker.

The Fast and The Furious movies are perfect in their inclusion, their machismo, their mediocrity. These are films that insist you check realty and whatever the hell you call “problems” at the door, as Dom & The Gang are out here actually dealing with the world’s real ills, like how to get a sexy car out of a sexy building from a sexy height in a sexy wife-beater. This is a series where the stars seemingly love each other yet will not lose a fight to one another as to not damage their respective “tough guy/gal” personae*. This is a series where some version of “I’m going to kick your ass” has been spouted hundreds of times. This is a series that could be taught as an Advanced Economics Study, as to see the corporate synergy cogs maximizing global profit is as spectacular as watching Paul Walker run up an 18-wheelers and catching a drifting whale-tale to save himself from falling off a cliff.

*A nonstarter if I’ve ever read one. The Rock would kick the living shit out of any of these people, with the possible exception of Ghost Paul Walker, assuming he gained some strengths from the Great Beyond.

All of this is to say that yeah, I’m a big fan of the FF films for a variety of reasons. Although I didn’t know the characters by their names (I just called them “The Rock” and “The Stath”), I really enjoyed Hobbs and Shaw. The film has no squabbles about what it is, and it is this lack of self-delusion that make it such a dumb, fun time. The dumb is Big Dumb and thus thoroughly enjoyable. The one-liners land. The action scenes awe. The newcomer is as imposing as she is impossibly good looking. The cameos are so genuinely surprising that they might be the best part. The producers knew exactly what they wanted to do- take the Sly/ JCVD/ Arnold 80s action movie and modernize it- and did it about as well as you can.

A lot of the film’s success comes from picking the ideal director for such a thing: David Leitch, ex-stuntman and one of the creators of the John Wick series, easily the best action series currently in existence. The man knows how to film a low-budget action scene, especially those involving hand-to-hand combat, so watching him deservedly get a hold of a sizable piggy bank is something great to watch.

It’s not flawless- the family stuff isn’t as dumb as it is in the non-offshoot’s films, making the whole conceit fairly forgettable (although Helen Mirren is welcome in all movies I watch). There is definitely a half hour that could have been cut. But as a whole, the movie just works and serves as reminder why I love the series like the big, dumb celluloid golden retriever it is. The film’s truth to self, and avoidance of “artistic” pretension make it a winner I look forward to seeing on gym TVs and basic cable movie marathons for decades to come. Grade: A-

0 notes

plasmamuffin-blog · 7 years ago

Text

The Lord of the Rings review: Part 1

So first off, this review is mainly about the lord of the rings book, although i will be doing some things in different orders. I am partly making fun of the plot, and partly making fun of the way it's written, and additionally, this is not meant to show disrespect for LOTR or it's fans, just as a fun thing, and while i do like LOTR and think it's cool, i do have some things to complain about.

Without further ado, the review:

The Lord of the Rings. One of the most popular and respected works of fantasy fiction in the world. And yet, the most boring book to read since the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. What makes LOTR so popular, and what makes it so boring despite such critical acclaim? Let's find out.

The story begins with a riveting 40 pages detailing a party that has little to no significance to the actual plot. During this time, we learn that this part of the story takes part in a place called the shire, a peaceful farming land with rolling green hills and inhabited by hobbits(rumor has it that tolkien originally called them "fat midgets" but changed this as it wasn't culturally sensitive enough). Soon(a mere 36 years or so) after the party, the main character, frodo, finds that bilbo's ring, which he had passed on to frodo, was in fact the most dangerous magical artifact since the stainless steel cheese grater. It also happens to be the only thing capable of bringing the antagonist to full power. Yes, this humble ring is in fact the Legendary One Ring, created by the most hated and feared enemy of the people of middle-earth, and whose name inspired the title of the book: The Dark Lord, "Of The".

Wait, no, sorry, his name was actually Sauron. Frodo's generic bearded mentor, gandalf, informs him that the only solution is to destroy The Mcguffin Ring by throwing it into the Fires Of Mount Doom in which it was forged(created). Armed with this knowledge, and his faithful minion friend and gardener, sam(and his cousins, mary merry and pippin) our humble young hobbit sets out on an epic journey to destroy the ring.

100 short pages later, something actually relevant to the plot happens, garnished throughout with important events such as the finding of mushrooms(you had to be there, these mushrooms were really good), the appearance of a disturbingly cheery weirdo freak person named tom bombadil, and a chase scene wherein four midgets hobbits used to a comfortable life of eating twice their weight in junk food and moving no more than is neccessary for using the bathroom somehow manage to outrun several dark, evil, and anciently powerful creatures riding dark, powerful horses with an apparent max speed of 7.5 MPH. This plot-worthy event occurs in the village of bree, where the four hobbits get drunk and, due to their shrewd intellect and four long seconds of consideration, decide to take on a creepy guy with a sword they just met(they just met him, not the sword) named strider as a companion on literally the most important quest in the world.

While our young hobbits are thus occupied, the old wizard gandalf gets captured by an old friend, saruman, who decided to turn to the dark side because he gets a cool plasma ball as a "Welcome to the club" gift. Gandalf escapes, with the aid of a suspiciously convenient pet bird he purchased from the "help, i'm trapped at the top of a 500 story building" store for the price of one moth(which it is suspected that he stole).

After leaving bree, thomas frodo and his friends make it to weathertop(literally, "Large Rock") where they were supposed to meet gandalf. Gandalf is, of course, absent, so strider, using his strategical skills and a dash of common sense, decides to abandon the hobbits while he goes sightseeing. It is, of course, just what the Dark Riders(known as Ringwraiths) from the last paragraph were waiting for, and they charge in and attack the hobbits using the tried-and true battle technique of Standing Around Looking Intimidating Instead Of Actually Attacking the targets who they could easily overpower armed with nothing more than a saucepan while they wait for the protagonist's backup to arrive. And arrive it does, with strider breaking in at the last second to save the group. One of the more astute ringwraiths surmises that it would likely be a good idea to actually attack the target, and so stabs frodo with a dagger so ancient and powerful it crumbles to dust as soon as it is removed from the wound. While frodo struggles to remember first aid and decides to substitute ancient elven language as a family-friendly replacement for swear words, strider bravely fends off these most Ancient and Powerful enemies using the legendary weapon that is the bane of evil creatures everywhere; that's right, the legendary Fire On A Stick.

After seeing that frodo is unlikely to survive the roughly 700km trek to rivendell(literally, "Convenient Elf City"), the group encounters a Convenient Elf named arwen, who takes frodo to the city on horseback. Arwen and the now unconscious(he spends much of the book like this) frodo are chased by the black riders to the front porch of rivendell, a river, which spontaneously floods as soon as the black riders attempt to cross it.

Frodo awakes safe in rivendell, brought back from the very brink of death through powerful elven healing magic and the fact that he's the protagonist. Gandalf greets him and explains the whole unpleasant "being captured" business, which is quickly followed by roughly 200 pages of boring and pointless exposition mixed with 7 page long songs(which, being in book form, have no set tune, causing readers to have to substitute familiar tunes such as "Yankee Doodle") after which the elves, gandalf, strider(who is fined by the elves after it was discovered he used a fake ID and his real name was in fact aragorn), and a crowd of racially diverse people such as dwarves, humans, and the other hobbits meet together to discuss the ring. The decision, voted on by the group, is that a phenomenally dangerous and evil artifact(e.g the ring) should probably be destroyed. This is agreed to, and after heated discussion of how to accomplish this(some suggest the use of acid, fire, clorox, or exposure to justin bieber CDs), it is mentioned that the ring must be destroyed by throwing it into an active volcano. Unfortunately, mount st. helens had not been invented yet, and so the only volcano on the entire continent is Mount Doom. It is henceforth unanimously agreed upon that the only thing capable of bringing the dark lord sauron back to power is to be brought to within three blocks of his house in an attempt to destroy it. The obvious choice for this mission is the most skilled, talented, and strong among them: The very likely overweight and chronically depressed hobbit whose entire experience in this field is that he's pretty sure he knows how to pronounce "Macguffin".

Before leaving, bilbo, who had moved to rivendell, gives frodo his old sword and a piece of rare "Plot Armor", which is impenetrable to all but the most fourth-wall breaking attacks.

And so, the group sets off, consisting of frodo, sam, merry, pippin, gandalf, aragorn, boromir, an elf named legolas, and a dwarf named gimli with anger issues. Shortly after leaving rivendell, the group is forced to cross a snowy mountain, upon which they realize that none of them brought any warm clothes. It is then decided that they will go through the mines of moria, a gigantic mining city that has evaded the regulations of OSHA for centuries.

After being attacked by Cthulhu outside the mines, gandalf, who forgot the password, contacts technical support and gets it reset, allowing them to enter said mines. It is then revealed that the entire population of the mines was wiped out by orcs(literally "Big Ugly Guys") with the I.Q. of warm salad. Being dwarves, the inhabitants of the mines needed plenty of ceiling room, and thus the mines are way bigger than is strictly neccessary or convenient. after wandering around lost for a while, the group encounters a large group of orcs, who, of course, being mighty and feared warriors, are easily dispatched by the group without them even breaking a sweat.

However, the orcs had broughten(broughted? broughtinated?) a cave troll with them, which managed to stab frodo before being defeated. However, frodo, who the rest of the group had presumed to be dead, is revealed to be absolutely fine due to the shirt of plot armor he is wearing. Despite being extremely important and worth more than the shire itself, this shirt is completely forgotten and never brought up again. After the attack, the group finds they are being pursued by a large and powerful creature called a balrog, which chases them into a structurally ludicrous room the size of north dakota that completely lacks guardrails. Upon being asked what a balrog is, gandalf replies that it is a foe beyond any of them in power, and subsequently decides to challenge it to a 1v1. After picking a spot(specifically, a balance beam over a bottomless pit AKA literally the worst place to fight a balrog in the entire mine), gandalf spleefs the balrog into the pit, but is thrown down into it himself after he wisely decides to stand there and watch instead of running to safety. The rest of the group, heartbroken, then decides to journey to lothlorien(literally, "Rivendell MK2") for refuge, where the elves, having a clear understanding of economics, provide food and shelter free of charge to a group of people they just met.

After receiving these gifts(including a rope for sam and a glowstick for frodo), the group sets off downriver in boats procured(read: basically stolen) from the elves and end up in amon hen, where frodo, showing wisdom beyond his 85 years, wisely decides to wander off by himself, upon which the ring corrupts boromir who subsequently attempts to take it from frodo. The rest of the group, also very skilled in the fine art of strategy, wanders off randomly by themselves as well in order to search for frodo, which causes boromir to have to sacrifice himself to save merry and pippin from the conveniently placed orcs, which end up capturing the two anyway. Upon finding boromir, who, thanks to the orc archers, now resembles a large pincushion, aragorn, legolas, and gimli get to watch him die from his wounds, after which they send him downriver in a boat in a makeshift burial at sea.

Meanwhile, frodo(who becomes wiser every page), attempts to sneak off to mordor on his own, but is caught by sam, who is determined to go with him.

This ends part 1 of the review of the lord of the rings.

#Lord of the Rings #Tolkien #funny #review

2 notes · View notes

danithebookaholic-blog · 6 years ago

Text

NEW RELEASE!

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The Blonde Who Got Away

By Emily J. Wright

Publication Date: March 13th 2019 Genres: New Adult, Romance, Suspense

Synopsis:

Brandon

Brandon Bryce.

The name just doesn’t have a nice ring to it, but it’s a way of living.

His life motto—pleasing every woman with multiple orgasms and making them beg for more.

His only hobby—swinging on a sex swing with a voluptuous woman.

His favorite vacation—drinking ‘Sex on the beach’ in his Jacuzzi while a woman goes down on him hard.

All he wants is sex—anytime, any day, with no strings attached, and no commitment.

As for settling down, he doesn’t believe in marriage, nor has time for something as stupid as love. He has a business to run too, you know. How else could he afford the lifestyle he has worked so hard for?

It was not easy for him to make way from a modest suburb of Chicago to a penthouse in the upper east side of New York. He had to push people around. He dipped his toes into blackmailing. He broke the trust and hearts of hundreds.

Is he proud of his actions?

Yes, of course.

Will he do it again?

Fuck, yeah.

Is he afraid of the Karma?

Nah…He is a Chicago born and bred. He’ll make Karma his bitch before she could do the same.

Brandon 2.0

“Fuck you, Brandon.”

‘Love thy neighbor.’ That’s what Brandon thought the Bible say. But some women from the neighboring building threw shoes at him which made him believe otherwise. That’s not the welcome home present he was expecting.

Asshole.

Jerk.

Douche.

That’s some of the kind words he has been called on his first day back from the hospital.

It has been brought to his attention that he wasn’t the nicest person to be around. He broke ties with his parents because he found them too clingy. His friends are ungrateful bastards. And he has no one left to share his life with.

But good for him that he doesn’t remember any of it. He lost his memory in an accident that put him in a coma for two months.

Now, he is determined to get his life back on track. To make amends to those who he has wronged. But only if he could stop getting distracted by the beautiful blonde whom he fell in love with when he was in a coma.

He is hallucinating according to his doctor. His butler says she is a flicker of his imagination. But she is real to Brandon, and he will find her by any means possible.

While the debate still continues about her existence with no agreement in sight, they all, however, agree on calling her ‘the blonde who got away.’

Goodreads

Excerpt:

She is moaning and chanting my name again and again. I can’t blame her for being a fan; I am a superstar down there, plowing her field for the final touchdown.

As I move my tongue in and out, tongue-fucking her like never before, I can feel her whole body trembling and pussy clenching. She is about to have an orgasm, and the way she is scratching me with her toenails, it’s going to be a big one. Her stiff body lightens as she comes on my face, giving me what I wanted in return for my efforts.

It’s over for her—but not for me.

I remain under her sweatshirt, with my tongue inside her, cleaning her out like a Roomba. I give a final deep kiss to her pussy and then pull my head out.

She is in the euphoric state—heavily breathing, body quivering, profusely sweating, mouth agape, eyes wide open.

Yes, I blew her brains out. A job well done. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I snap my fingers before her face to bring her back to her senses. “How was it?”

“One of the best—no, probably the best—no, the best.”

I was so good that she couldn’t decide. She is flustered.

“Glad you like it.” I smooch her, letting her taste herself as I gently run my fingers through her hair. And then I rest my head on the softest pillows I could find: her bosoms.

While she strokes the back of my head, I bury my face deep into her soft breasts. She embraces me in her arms, and with a kiss, places her chin right on the top of my head.

“This is just the beginning of our anniversary.” I turn my head and kiss her boobs. “Wait till I show you what I have planned for you in the morning, afternoon, evening and night.”

“Huh . . . sounds like you have done a lot of planning for this day,” she says coldly.

Not much enthusiasm. I don’t know why? Maybe she is just tired, or probably mad that I teased her too much before finishing her off.

“Yes, I did,” I say, rubbing my face against her breasts.

“So, you fed me, eat me, and also have an entire day planned for me, but don’t want anything in return? Not even a tie pin? Are you that selfless?”

And there is that tone again. What has gotten into her today? Did I offend her someway?

And how selfish does she think I am?

Okay, I am a bit selfish when it comes to her boobs . . . or pussy . . . Never mind.

“You are the first and last thing I truly wanted. Your presence in my life is everything for me. I don’t have any desire left for anything else in my—”

“You jerk!” she shouts, grabbing my hair, and yank me off her breasts. She is breathing heavily on my face, practically huffing.

I am not a fool. I know she is mad at me. But why? What did I do to deserve this?

She pulls my hair harder and again screams at my face. “Tell me what you want!”

All right. I get it now. She thinks I am rubbing it in her face that I have an entire itinerary planned while she failed to even remember this day.

Yeah, that must be it.

She can be a little immature sometimes. By now, she should have realized that I am the prisoner of her love. I am doing this for her to have a nice and memorable day.

“Calm down, sweetheart,” I say, trying to cup her face.

But she slaps my hand away and shouts, “Don’t call me sweetheart!”

“Okay . . . listen. Just like a wedding is all about the bride, and the groom is more or less like a prop, same goes for the anniversary. I am just here to serve you. It’s your day. It’s all about you.”

“All about me, huh?” She let go of my hair, and her face breaks into a smile—an evil smile.

“Absolutely. You can do anything you like,” I say with sheer determination.

“Sounds good,” she says, smacking her lips. Must be enjoying her pussy taste the same way I did.

Finally, I am successful in putting some sense into her that this is . . .

Holy fucking cow!

Out of nowhere, she shoves me away, all the way to the sink. I regret paying for her classes now—especially the kickboxing one. As her gaze meets mine, I nervously gulp down.

Now, what does she have in mind? Am I wrong in loving her more than anything in this world, my life included?

She jumps down from the kitchen counter and kicks her panty out of the way. “Now, I am going to do to you whatever I like.” She comes closer, and in the blink of an eye, she is in my arms.

What is she, a daredevil? That was quite a long jump.

Before I could wrap my mind around what just happened, her legs are tightly wrapped around me, and I am getting kissed all over my face.

I don’t know what led her to do this. It may be my romantic gesture, or she is returning the favor for eating her, or I am some kind of symbolic gold medal for her record-breaking jump.

Either way, I am really liking what she is doing to me.

She is biting my lips, scratching my neck, and hugging me like a bear. With her lips in a friendly battle against mine, and her tongue shoved deep in my throat, I have no chance but to surrender. I tap on her shoulder, requesting a moment to breathe, but she ruthlessly denies.

I consider myself a generous lover. Gets rough a little bit only when I am told to. Sure, I like to tease, but only because it builds up an explosive orgasm.

But I am nothing like her.

When her horniness reaches the saturation point, she becomes inconsiderate, wild, passionate, and without limits. In simple words, she becomes a horny slut.

I tap on her shoulder too many times, but then my hands just become cold and motionless. I see a white light before my eyes, calling my name, asking me to join it.

Purchase:

Amazon US / Amazon CA / Amazon UK / Amazon Au

Author Bio:

Emily J. Wright had her life planned out from the start. She graduated from high school, went to college, did her CPA and got a corporate job as an analyst. But one thing she didn’t plan for was finding clumps of hair in her shower drain. That’s when she realized that the numbers in her head can’t co-exist with the stories forming in her head. So, for the sake of her hair, and not appear sleeping with open eyes in every office meeting when her mind drifts away to think a plot twist to bring the protagonist together with the heroine, she puts fingers to the wireless keyboard and starts putting together the stories.

While the rest seems busy writing about the alpha males with abs that can be used as a grater, she writes about the wild, sassy heroines who can be only tamed by the grand, sweep of the floor romantic gesture of a man with abs that can be used as a grater. PS: She loves abs.

In the world where quiet is a luxury, she found her home in the peaceful suburbs of Dublin, Ohio, where she lived with Zeus, her Labrador, and her cat, Mimi, who makes Zeus miserable by day but sleeps with him in his bed at night.

Yes...she is still single by choice. She is waiting for someone with whom she can share the same chemistry that Paul Reiser and Helen Hunt had in ‘Mad About You.’ Damn it! That show has ruined her. Fingers crossed, this year she gets what she wanted.

And one more thing, for a millennial, her social media skills sucks, so she would appreciate if you stop by her pages to give her some tips.

Twitter / Instagram / Goodreads / Bookbub / Newsletter

a Rafflecopter giveaway

From one bookaholic to another, I hope I’ve helped you find your next fix. —Dani

Have a book you’d like to suggest or one you’d like me to review? Please feel free to leave your comments down below.

0 notes

ehtrymb-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Book Review

Watermelon by Marian Keyes. A book review by Myrthe Blommaert

Summary:

Watermelon starts at the hospital with a woman that just gave birth to her first child. Her husband comes in and tells her he’s been having an affair with the next door neighbour. Still shocked from the news she heard she decided to leave London and go back to her parents in Dublin fort he time being. She meets an interesting guy through one of her younger sisters. They start talking and hang out and they get along quite well. Time passes and they grow to like each other and they are definitely attracted to one another. But, at one point of the book her ex-husband fights to get her back. [if !supportLineBreakNewLine] [endif]

Introduction of Characters: Clair Walsh (Protagonist) The book is written from her perspective. James Webster Ex husband and father of Kate.

Adam Clair’s new flame after James. Pa & Ma Walsh. Father and mother of the protagonist Helen Walsh Eldest youngest sister. She meets Adam through Anna Walsh Youngest sister of Clair,

Kate Walsh Clair and James their first born.

Opinion:

My opinion of Watermelon is pretty good. I enjoyed reading it as I was laying outside in the sun. I have dyslexia, so books can sometimes be a little hard to read. Yet Watermelon was no problem at all. The words used were easy and if not they were explained. Marian Keyes is from Ireland, and likes to bring her heritage back into her writing by sometimes making speak with an Irish accent like: 'Ijeet.' Which would be: Idiot. The characters (especially the main) could be very relatable sometimes. She wrote everything as if it could happen in real life. But also like you were sitting at their kitchen counter with Clair telling it all to you in person. Like a friend that talks your ears of. Which could be annoying, yes I agree but it was really well written so that wasn't the issue! Her little sisters weren't so relatable since I have two elder sisters. But the relationship they had was yet again relatable. Other parts like the part where she meets a really handsome guy that doesn't care about any of her insecurities? Girl, give me one of those. Something I found quite annoying sometimes was that she got stuck talking about one part for away too long sometimes. Maybe it was necessary for the story, but I can't keep my attention to something when it's long and boring. There were a few parts like that. One thing I found weird, is that I totally didn't get to understand the title of the story. It's called watermelon, but I have absolutely no idea why? There wasn’t a clear reference for me to think: “Ohh! This is why they called it ‘Watermelon.” Maybe, there is this hidden meaning that I’m too tired and stressed to think of. But let’s talk about the overall plot. It’s a pretty unusual love triangle situation with a younger guy, a woman who just gave birth and an ex husband who cheated but is still crazy in love with his ex wife?

Honestly, I did not expect this.. at all. I never thought James would come back to her if I hadn’t read the back of the book. I really thought she’d continue with Adam and when she didn’t it really frustrated me while reading the book. Yes, the way it was written it got you really involved with the characters. So when one makes a stupid decision you really want to tell them that they did, but you can’t tell them that. Because obviously they are fictional and that’s when I know that I’ve really enjoyed the story because I was in it so deep that the characters frustrated me.

To finish my review I’d like to give it a rating. I’d give it a solid 7.5. I enjoyed it, and I’d probably read it again if I feel like it and have the time to do so.

Thank you for reading my review.

By, Myrthe Blommaert

#Engels

0 notes