#Justus Meyer | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

inklusiv-digital · 6 years ago

Text

Einleitung

Hätte der berühmte Astrophysiker Stephen Hawkings an Ihrer Hochschule studieren können? 1 Wenn deutsche Hochschulen alle Talente bestmöglich fördern und ausbilden wollen, so müssen alle Fördermöglichkeiten genutzt werden. Ob und wie auch inklusionsorientierte Digitalisierungsstrategien dazu einen Beitrag leisten können, zeigt diese Handreichung auf.

Digitalisierung kann Inklusion, Chancengleichheit sowie Flexibilisierung in der Hochschullehre fördern, wenn sie die diversen studentischen Bedarfe an Lernprozesse umsetzen hilft. Sie kann aber auch Bildungsbarrieren aufbauen und exkludieren, wenn sie nicht nach Universal Design Prinzipien gestaltet wird und neue Zugangsbarrieren (z.B. Ton, Sprache, Bild) aufbaut. Welche Bedarfe hier in der Hochschuldidaktik bestehen, welche pädagogischen und technischen Möglichkeiten existieren, um Technologie barrierefrei oder -arm einzusetzen und zu gestalten, ist theoretisch noch wenig diskutiert und praktisch selten umgesetzt. Im Diskurs über Inklusion bedarf es der Perspektive auf Digitales, im Diskurs über E-Learning einer Perspektive auf Inklusion. Die Notwendigkeit für inklusive barrierefreie Digitalisierung in der Hochschuldidaktik ist jedoch offensichtlich und durch Hochschulgesetze auch gesetzlich verankert.

Jedoch gibt es bislang nur wenige Konzepte für diese Umsetzung in der Hochschullehre. So kommen bisher z.B. barrierefreie Software, Bildbeschreibung von Bildern, Annotationen von Lernvideos, Visualizer in Seminaren, Schriftdolmetschen für Vorlesungen, barrierefreie Dokumente, barrierefreie Diskussionsmöglichkeiten, barrierearme Foliensätze, partizipationsfördernde Kommunikationstechnologien, inklusionsfördernde Präsentationspraktiken nicht flächendeckend zum Einsatz. Einzelne Hochschulen unternehmen hier grö��ere Anstrengungen (beispielsweise: TU Dortmund, Universität Kassel, Justus Liebig Universität Gießen); insgesamt besteht vermutlich bislang noch Beratungsbedarf bei der Konzeptentwicklung.

Die Gestaltung von Lehrangeboten für eine diversifizierte Studierendenschaft steht vor großen Herausforderungen: Zeiten, Seminare, Anwesenheit können nicht von allen Studierendentypen gleichermaßen erfüllt werden. Didaktische Methoden (Sprechen, Schreiben, Lesen, Tafelbilder, Diskussionen, etc.) können nicht von allen Studierendentypen gleichermaßen angenommen werden. Existierende Barrieren an Hochschulen (Treppen, Räume, Entfernungen, Raumgröße, Akustik, Materialbereitstellung, ...) müssen verändert, aber bis dahin planerisch in Betracht gezogen werden. Die Berücksichtigung höherer Mobilität von Lernenden und Lehrenden, eine qualitativ bessere Lehre, vereinfachte Verwaltungsabläufe, tieferes Verstehen von Lehr-Lernprozessen sind eine Auswahl wünschenswerter Ziele von Digitalisierung an der Hochschule. Vermieden werden sollten Erschwerungen von Arbeitsabläufen; Ausgrenzung von Beteiligten; aufgrund erschwerter Zugänge und Nutzung von Technologie; technische Fehler und Unzulänglichkeiten; unangemessene automatisierte Auswertung von Daten im Rahmen der Lehre; u.v.a.m.

Ausgangspunkt dieser Handreichung sind Inklusionsbestrebungen, nicht zuletzt durch die von Deutschland ratifizierte UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention, mit der nach Artikeln 9, 21 und 24 von staatlicher Seite Maßnahmen zu treffen sind, um den Zugang zu Informationen und zu Bildung für alle Menschen zu ermöglichen sind, und zwar für Menschen mit und ohne Behinderung in gleichem Maße. Dies fand seinen Niederschlag in den Hochschulgesetzen der Länder, u.a. in NRW:

„Die Hochschulen … berücksichtigen mit angemessenen Vorkehrungen die besonderen Bedürfnisse Studierender und Beschäftigter mit Behinderung oder chronischer Erkrankung oder mit Verantwortung für nahe Angehörige mit Pflege- oder Unterstützungsbedarf sowie mit Kindern.” §3, Abs. 5, Hochschulzukunftsgesetz HZG NRW 2014

Welche Zusammenhänge ergeben sich daraus für die Hochschullehre und deren derzeit erfolgender zunehmender Digitalisierung? Die Spannbreite der möglichen Auswirkungen lässt sich zwischen zwei Polen skizzieren:

Inklusion kann durch die Digitalisierung ermöglicht werden: Durch den Einsatz digitaler Technologien eröffnen sich Möglichkeiten für eine inklusivere Gestaltung von Hochschullehre. Manche bisher bestehenden Barrieren in der Lehre könnten durch digitale Medien abgebaut werden. Jedoch können auch Inklusionsbestrebungen durch Digitalisierung gehemmt werden: Der Einsatz digitaler Technologien in der Hochschullehre kann auch neue Barrieren für diverse Lernende mit und ohne Behinderungen errichten, wenn beispielsweise Software ohne Berücksichtigung von Barrierefreiheit angeschafft und eingesetzt wird oder die Entwicklung medialer Lernangebote nicht inklusiv konzeptioniert wird.

Diese Handreichung bietet daher Lehrenden und IT-Entscheidern an Hochschulen Anregungen zu der Frage, wie der Einsatz digitaler Technologien ausgestaltet werden kann, um Inklusion nicht zu hemmen, sondern zu fördern.

Ihr Ziel ist, einen Beitrag zur inklusiveren Gestaltung von Lehre unter Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes aktueller technischer Entwicklungen zu leisten. Ausgangspunkte sind inklusionsrelevante Aspekte der Gestaltung von Lehre, wie sie aus Perspektiven des universellen Designs bereits identifiziert wurden (vgl. Meyer et al 2016; Fisseler 2015; Scott et al. 2016).

Für diese wesentlichen Aspekte für inklusive Lehre wird eruiert, ob und wie möglicherweise die Anwendung aktueller Technologie die Erreichung dieser Ziele unterstützen kann. Auf dieser Basis werden Vorschläge für inklusionsorientierten Einsatz aktueller digitale Technologien entwickelt. Die Vorschläge dienen als Impulsgeber dafür, was technisch möglich ist und zukünftig möglich sein wird. Aus datenschutzrechtlichen Gründen können nicht alle Vorschläge flächendeckend eingesetzt werden, insbesondere, wenn es sich um Softwares von datenerhebenden internationalen Formen handelt. In dieser Handreichung werden aktuelle Trends der Digitalisierung in der Hochschullehre aufgegriffen sowie vorsichtig in die nähere Zukunft geschaut, welche neuen digitalen Technologien an Relevanz gewinnen und die Lehre beeinflussen können. Hier sind Hochschulen und deutsche Firmen gefordert, entsprechende sichere Lösungen anzubieten.

Diese Handreichung ist das Ergebnis des Forschungs- und Lehrentwicklungsprojekts „Inklusive Digitalisierung in Hochschulbildung und Sozialer Arbeit“ an der TH Köln unter der Leitung von Prof. Dr. Isabel Zorn. Das Projekt wurde gefördert vom Stifterverband der Wissenschaft und vom Ministerium für Kultur und Wissenschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.

Im Projekt wurden digitale Tools auf ihren Einsatz in der Lehre hin untersucht und getestet. Es wurde Praxiswissen zusammengetragen und ausgewertet. Auf Barcamps haben sich die Mitarbeitenden des Projekts in Diskussionen und Debatten zum Thema begeben und eigene Workshops und Diskussionsrunden angeboten. Im Januar 2018 hat das Projekt selbst das „Barcamp Bildung inklusiv“ organisiert und Lehrende, Lernende, Professionelle und Interessierte eingeladen, um mit ihnen über Digitalisierung und Inklusion in der Hochschule und in der Sozialen Arbeit zu diskutieren, Ideen darüber auszutauschen und neue Gedanken zu wagen. Auf diese Weise wurde das Wissen gesammelt, das nun in dieser Handreichung vorgestellt wird.

Der Handreichung liegt ein Inklusionsbegriff zugrunde, der davon ausgeht, alle Menschen in ihrer Vielfalt zu betrachten und für alle Lernenden den Zugang zu Bildung und Informationen zu gewährleisten (mehr dazu im nächsten Kapitel). Sie ist als Inspiration konzipiert, es können einzelne Prinzipien nachgeschlagen werden, ohne das Gesamtwerk rezipiert haben zu müssen.

Wir wünschen Ihnen anregende Lektüre und freuen uns, wenn sie darin Inspiration für neue Ideen in Ihrer Lehre finden.

Diese Frage stellt das Studentenwerk bei der Veröffentlichung seiner Studie über die Studiensituation von Studierenden mit Beeinträchtigungen ↩︎

1 note · View note

miguelmarias · 6 years ago

Text

MITCHELL LEISEN: UN CINEASTA EN LA PENUMBRA

No son numerosos, realmente, los cineastas que, tras trabajar asiduamente en Hollywood —44 películas entre 1933 y 1956, y una más en 1967—, a pesar del tiempo transcurrido desde su muerte —y más aún desde la "artística" (hacia 1951) que desde la meramente biológica (que se produjo el 28 de octubre de 1972)—, continúan siendo hoy tan enigmáticos y oscuros para cualquier cinéfilo medianamente curioso como el de por sí intrigante y un tanto escurridizo Mitchell Leisen, ya que su eclipsamiento no proviene tanto del olvido o la falta de atención de la que es —y, en general, ha sido, incluso más que ahora, durante casi cuarenta años— víctima, ni siquiera del conocimiento escaso, desordenado e involuntariamente selectivo que tenemos de su carrera los no suficientemente mayores para haber visto sus películas a medida que iban saliendo al mercado, en general con notable éxito, sino a la paradoja inherente al hecho indiscutible de que era un cineasta de acusada personalidad y notable voluntad de expresión, al tiempo que careció casi siempre de la libertad precisa y no supo aprovecharla las contadas veces que se la dieron —se diría que, como George Cukor, no sabía muy bien qué hacer con ella— para lograr una obra coherente, capaz de reflejar, siquiera indirecta y oblicuamente, sus gustos y preocupaciones, sus obsesiones vitales o estéticas, su compleja psicología, con un mínimo de fidelidad y de continuidad.

UN ERROR DE PERSPECTIVA

Tampoco es ajeno a esta "borrosidad" el hecho de que casi toda su cartera se desarrollase en el seno de una productora, la Paramount, y, sobre todo, que entre sus guionistas figuren ocasionalmente dos de gran prestigio, sobre todo porque luego serían a su vez realizadores, que por lo general han recibido más atención y mejor trato crítico que el propio Mitchell Leisen: tanto Preston Sturges como Billy Wilder han tenido mejor "prensa", más alta cotización que Leisen, pese a que ambos careciesen, en sus primeras obras, del esplendoroso y llamativo estilo visual del que hizo gala Leisen desde la más antigua película suya que he visto, Death Takes a Holiday (La muerte de vacaciones, 1934). El caso es que las notables similitudes que pueden detectarse entre varias de las más famosas y brillantes realizaciones de Leisen y algunas de las más conocidas de Sturges y de Wilder han tendido a empañar la imagen de este extraño director, pues suscitan dudas —razonables, pero desmedidas— acerca de su condición de "autor", e inconscientemente siembran la sospecha de que era un mero —aunque más bien brillante— artesano, que ejecutaba con esmero (y hasta con inspiración) los inteligentes guiones escritos por auténticos "creadores" cinematográficos, a los que aún no les habían dado la oportunidad de poner en escena sus propias historias. Claro que estas semejanzas se aprecian bajo el prisma de una curiosa inversión de la cronología histórica, ya que hemos visto primero las obras posteriores, y además podría hablarse, más allá incluso del "estilo" o look de la casa productora común a todos ellos (la Paramount), de una influencia mutua, pues si bien es probable que Preston Sturges y Billy Wilder (con su cómplice de la época, Charles Brackett) apuntasen ideas, tramas, personajes y diálogos a Leisen, no es en absoluto inverosímil que el realizador, en contrapartida, sentase las bases de los respectivos futuros estilos visuales sombríos y oscuros de sus guionistas, e incluso inspirase la elección de sus más memorables intérpretes, sobre todo secundarios. Es, por ejemplo, muy llamativo encontrar casi "al completo" a la fauna de característicos habitual de Preston Sturges en Easy Living (Una chica afortunada, 1937), es decir, tres años antes de que filmase su primera película como director, The Great McGinty. Y otro tanto podría decirse, en varios aspectos, a propósito de Midnight (Medianoche, 1939) o Hold Back the Dawn (Si no amaneciera, 1941), que son los únicos Leisen escritos por Wilder, y algunas de las películas que éste dirigirá años más tarde. De todos modos, se ha inflado hasta el despropósito la posible contribución de Sturges —dos guiones— y Wilder —otros dos— a la filmografía de Leisen, sin que se comprenda bien por qué se da tanta importancia a su presencia y tan poca, en cambio, a la de otros guionistas, igualmente frecuentes o todavía más, como Norman Krasna (tres), Edwin Justus Meyer, Walter DeLeon, Ken Englund, Charles Brackett (tres veces, aparte de las dos con Wilder), Richard Maibaum, y el también director Claude Binyon (tres). Habría, pues, que prescindir de ese dato, o no darle más significado del que tiene, y en cambio tal vez no fuese impertinente recordar que Leisen usó ya en 1934 a Henry Travers (Death Takes a Holiday), Donald Meek (Murder at the Vanities) y Eric Blore (Behold My Wife), en 1935 a William Demarest y Herman Bing (Hands Across the Table), en 1936 a Charles Butterworth y Franklin Pangborn (Swing High, Swing Low), en 1937 a Edward Arnold, Luis Alberni, Robert Greig, Arthur Hoyt y Lee Phelps (Easy Living), en 1938 a Russell Hicks (The Big Broadcast of 1938), Charley Grapewin, Fritz Feld y Monty Woolley (Artists and Models Abroad), y en 1939 a Nestor Paiva (Midnight) y James Flavin (Remember the Night), con lo que a otros directores les quedaban muy pocos comparsas por descubrir en los estudios Paramount.

UN MUNDO ENRARECIDO

Pero, en realidad, tampoco es a este enojoso e injusto mal entendido a lo que me refiero cuando, a propósito de su desdibujada figura, hablo de penumbra, sino a un lado oscuro, incluso diría que siniestro en algunos momentos, que aparece siempre en su cine, hasta cuando menos cabe esperarlo, por más que los usos del género en el que se mueve parezcan repudiar dicha tonalidad sombría, suavemente inquietante, a veces desasosegante, a menudo claustrofóbica y exasperada, y que Mitchell Leisen logró introducir hasta en sus películas menos personales y logradas, o más controladas desde el exterior, si es que no era ella misma, contra su voluntad y sin que el director fuese consciente, la que se infiltraba por sí sola, irremisiblemente, en cuanto hallaba un resquicio por donde penetrar en la trama o en la textura visual de las películas. Pero es inescapable, a poco que se consideren con la atención suficiente, que las películas de Mitchell Leisen tienen algo que normalmente no suele darse en la mayoría de las adscribibles a cada género y realizadas contemporáneamente, o bien que, quizá más a menudo (y no menos significativamente), carecen de algo que se tiene por consustancial al género en cuestión, que se le supone esencial y característico. No es, evidentemente, algo tan extraño que un melodrama rehúya la exaltación, la furia y el barroquismo y tenga un tono derrotado, deprimido, downbeat; es más insólito que ese bajo tono vital sea compatible con el más desengañado sarcasmo en los diálogos y con una iluminación tan recargada y tenebrista como es posible imaginar; con todo, no es precisamente en los melodramas donde mejor puede detectarse este rasgo común a todo el cine de Leisen, sino más bien en otros géneros que parecen pedir alegría, ligereza, luminosidad, buen humor, visión despejada y optimista de la realidad, como la comedia, o una entrega al mundo del sueño y el deseo, como el musical, o bien una fuerza y una dinámica victoriosa y triunfalista, como el cine de aventuras en general, que son los otros tres terrenos de convención en los que con mayor asiduidad y soltura se movió Leisen.

Sin embargo, las comedias de Leisen son poco alegres y amargamente sarcásticas, sus héroes son aventureros cansados, escépticos, o fracasados, y son heroicos sin querer, contra su voluntad, por resignación o instinto de conservación, no por afán de triunfos o conquistas, y sus musicales tienen menos de comedia que de psicodrama y una coreografía que sugiere más bien el aprisionamiento en un laberinto que la liberación del cuerpo en la danza. Algo tienen que ver, sin duda, los minuciosamente germánicos decorados de Hans Dreier o, más exactamente, Ernest Fegté —no olvidemos que la Paramount estuvo dominada, durante años, por Sternberg y Lubitsch—, los claroscuros fotográficos a los que tan predispuestos parecían en los años 30 y 40 todos los operadores de la casa, y en especial Charles Lang (con el que Leisen trabajó seis veces), y, sobre todo, los actores, tanto los que Leisen elegía —por alguna secreta afinidad personal, por amistad— como los que le imponía la productora, en general un tanto ambiguos y un poco débiles, unos protagonistas que podían haber sido villanos, y que a veces parecían —hasta cuando no lo eran— neuróticos en potencia: de Charles Boyer, Claude Rains y Fredric March (tres veces) a Ray Milland (seis), Fred McMurray (ocho) y John Lund (cinco), la mayoría de sus personajes masculinos son suaves y comedidos, elegantes y cultos, incluso probablemente demasiado educados y "civilizados" para que nadie pueda confiar excesivamente en ellos, aunque sólo sea por su falta de espontaneidad y exceso de diplomacia; las mujeres son todavía más preocupantes, menos "sanas", más complicadas, y da lo mismo que las encarne Dorothea Wieck o Evelyn Venables que Barbara Stanwyck, Jean Arthur, Olivia de Havilland, Claudette Colbert (en cinco ocasiones) o Paulette Goddard; los niños y los ancianos, cuando aparecen, son igualmente alarmantes, como si la infancia fuese el dominio de los instintos aún sin freno y la vejez una segunda infancia, cuyo olvido del "super-ego" se presenta para ellos como una liberación, y las carencias o torpezas físicas se convierten en una buena excusa para no hacer más que lo que apetezca. Es, un resumen, una visión muy cercana a la pesadilla, que es casualmente compartida por bastantes comedias posteriores a las de Leisen, algo raras e incómodas pero no por ello menos interesantes, sino más bien al contrario, que podríamos calificar de "neuróticas" y entre las que cabría destacar varias de George Cukor (Sylvia Scarlett, Holiday, The Philadelphia Story, Adam's Rib, Pat and Mike, The Marrying Kind, It Should Happen to You, Let's Make Love), Howard Hawks (Twentieth Century, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Ball of Fire, A Song Is Born, I Was A Male War Bride, Monkey Business, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Man's Favorite Sport?), Preston Sturges (Christmas in July, The Lady Eve, Sullivan’s Travels, The Palm Beach Story, The Miracle at Morgan's Creek, Hail the Conquering Hero), Vincente Minnelli (Father of the Bride, The Long, Long Trailer, Designing Woman, The Reluctant Debutante, Bells Are Ringing, The Courtship of Eddie's Father, Goodbye Charlie), Douglas Sirk (Slightly French, No Room for the Groom), Frank Capra (State of the Union, Hole in the Head, Pocketful of Miracles), Leo McCarey (Once Upon a Honeymoon, Rally Round the Flag, Boys!), Rouben Mamoulian (Rings on Her Fingers), Billy Wilder (The Major and the Minor, Sabrina, The Seven Year ltch, Love in the Afternoon, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, One Two Three, Irma la Douce, Kiss Me, Stupid, The Fortune Cookie, Avanti!, The Front Page, Buddy Buddy), Ernst Lubitsch (Bluebeurd's Eighth Wife, Ninotchka, The Shop Around the Corner, That Uncertain Feeling, To Be or Not to Be, Heaven Can Wait, Cluny Brown), Gregory La Cava, Frank Tashlin, Stanley Donen, Blake Edwards, Richard Quine, Jerry Lewis, Martin Scorsese (The King of Comedy, After Hours), etc., es decir, buena parte de la no tan convencional (como se cree, como se dice, como se repite por hábito o pereza) "comedia cinematográfica clásica" americana, con claros precedentes en Madam Satan (1930), de Cecil B. DeMille, en la que casualmente intervino como encargado de vestuario y decorados un tal Mitchell Leisen... como lo había hecho ya en por lo menos siete DeMilles anteriores entre 1919 y 1929, y aún lo haría en otro par de ocasiones hasta 1932.

Este trabajo inicial, por una vez, dista de ser anecdótico, ya que familiarizó a Leisen, durante el período mudo, con la expresividad visual que podía obtenerse a través del decorado, el vestuario y los objetos de escena, y le dio ocasión de estudiar los diferentes objetivos e incluso el efecto que producía la iluminación; no creo casual que su aportación fuese decisiva en películas tan inolvidables como Robin Hood (1922) de Allan Dwan, Rosita (1923) de Ernst Lubitsch y The Thief of Bagdad (1924) de Raoul Walsh. De ahí que su modo de enfocar las escenas cinematográficas esté libre del plano teatralismo que suele afectar a otros cineastas que debutaron con la llegada del sonido, y con los que tiende a agrupársele, cuando su experiencia no guarda el menor paralelismo con las de George Cukor, John Cromwell, Rouben Mamoulian, etc. y sí en cambio con la de Edmund Goulding. Además, precisamente por no considerarse un escritor —aunque corrigiese el guion de No Man of Her Own (Mentira latente, 1950) y alguna otra, solía limitarse a eliminar diálogos y a cambiar las escenas sobre la marcha—, su intervención más decisiva se producía durante el rodaje, es decir, a través de la creación de imágenes y la obtención de interpretaciones convincentes por parte de los actores. Por eso no cambia demasiado el estilo de Leisen en función del género al que pertenece cada película, ni del rumbo de los acontecimientos en ella narrados. Estos rasgos distintivos, que se mantienen constantes, son los responsables de la peculiar tonalidad oscura —en todos los sentidos— del cine de Mitchell Leisen, y resultan especialmente sensibles precisamente cuando la película está menos lograda o argumentalmente presentaba menos puntos de interés para él, como en el caso de Bride of Vengeance (La máscara de los Borgia, 1948), donde es evidente un desequilibrio entre la envoltura formal —espléndida y elaboradísima— y la falta de progresión del relato, debida a una anécdota poco interesante y unos personajes de conducta insolublemente contradictoria.

INVESTIGACIÓN PENDIENTE

Aunque sus antecedentes —que han llevado a más de uno a calificarle de "sastre"—, su vida sexual y la mayoría de sus películas más conocidas tiendan a hacer pensar que no era un proyecto adecuado para Leisen, creo que la más reveladora de las obras suyas que conozco es Mentira latente, basada en Cornel Woolrich —o William Irish, como se prefiera—, y que supone una perfecta simbiosis de melodrama femenino y film negro duro y turbio como pocos, además de una de las tramas argumentales que mejor pueden ilustrar acerca de su afinidad con las pesadillas. Pese a que se supone que en esa fecha Leisen había entrado en decadencia, y según parece su vida privada atravesaba una etapa más bien crítica, da la casualidad de que esta película y la comedia The Mating Season (Casado y con dos suegras, 1950) son para mí las más logradas de su carrera, mucho más tensas y personales que las de los años 30 a las que debe su fama inicial y cualquier rebrote de interés por su figura de los que se producen intermitentemente, a merced de reposiciones y pases televisivos. De todos modos, quizá sea la suya una obra lo bastante rica y curiosa como para que valiera la pena llevar a cabo el estudio en profundidad que sólo una retrospectiva completa permite; la riqueza informativa que contiene el ejemplar libro de David Chierichetti, Hollywood Director (Curtis Books/Film Fan Monthly, 1973) facilitaría enormemente una tarea que puede aportar sorpresas agradables, sobre todo para quien aún no haya visto obras de prometedora reputación —a veces subterránea— como Tonight Is Ours, The Eagle and the Hawk, Cradle Song (1933), Murder at the Vanities, Behold My Wife (1934), Swing High, Swing Low (1937), Remember the Night (1939), Arise My Love, I Wanted Wings (1940), To Each His Own (1945), Golden Earrings (1946) y Song of Surrender (1948), que podrían añadirse a las ya muy notables Death Takes a Holiday, Easy Living, Midnight, The Lady Is Willing (Capricho de mujer, 1942), Lady in the Dark (Una mujer en la penumbra, 1943), y las dos citadas de 1950.

Miguel Marías

Archivos de la Filmoteca nº9, Primavera/Verano 1991

#miguel marías #mitchell leisen #archivos de la filmoteca

2 notes · View notes

kislak-center · 6 years ago

Text

[Ed. note: we are very grateful to Dr. Patricia Stoop, visiting Brueghel Chair at the University of Pennsylvania / Universiteit Antwerpen for contributing this post.]

At the beginning of this year, the Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts of the University of Pennsylvania purchased a unique and fascinating woodblock (c. 12.5 × 9.5 inches). Apart from the fact that for mysterious reasons over the course of time, a strip of about half an inch was cut off from the left end of the block—this was already the case when it belonged to a private owner in Eindhoven (Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands) in the 1950s—the woodblock is in excellent condition.

#gallery-0-5 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; } #gallery-0-5 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Woodblock (UPenn Object Coll. Box 27)

Image from M. de Meyer, “Een oude bedevaartprent van Scherpenheuvel” in Volkskunde 13 nr. 3, 1954, p144

The devotional print is related to Scherpenheuvel (literally ‘Sharp Hill’, most often called ‘Montaigu’ after the French), which since the beginning of the seventeenth century was the main pilgrimage center in the Habsburg Low Countries. Its cult goes back to at least the beginning of the fourteenth century. In his continuation of the Spiegel Historiael the Brabantine priest and author Lodewijk van Velthem (c. 1260/75–after 1317) mentions a holy oak, which had the form of a cross and stood on the hilltop between the towns of Diest and Zichem, where he was ordained as a priest. The tree was worshipped because of the healing powers ascribed to it:

Van ere eyken die men anebede. LVII.

In desen tiden was ganginge mede Tuscen Zichgem ende Diest der stede Rechte bi na te middewarde. Daer dede menich sine bedevarde Tot ere eyken, dat si u cont, Die alse .i. cruse gewassen stont Met .ii. rayen gaende uut. Daer menich quam overluut, Die daer ane hinc scerpe ende staf Ende seide dat hi genesen waer daer af. Som [s]liepense onder den boem. Dus quam hem voren in haren droem Datsi vanden boem genasen. Aldus so quamen daer die dwasen, Ende die waren meest siec vanden rede, Ende vele verlorne daer optie stede. Dit duerde wel .i. half jaer, Sodat menige scerpe hinc daer Ende menich staf anden boem.

On an oak that was worshipped. Chapter 57.

In these days pilgrimage took place to a place almost in the middle between Zichem and Diest. Many went on pilgrimage there to an oak, that as you should know was grown in the form of a cross with two diverging branches. Apparently many put their pilgrim bag and their cane on the tree and said that they were cured thereof. Some slept underneath the tree. They believed that in their dreams they were healed by the tree. Thus the fools came there, mostly sick of mind, and lost many belongings in that place. This took place definitely for half a year so that many pilgrim bags and many canes hung there on the tree.

(Book 4, Chapter 57, ll. 4256–74)

Not too long after Velthem’s disapproving observation, a small statue of the Virgin Mary was placed in the cross-shaped tree. According to the legend, a shepherd had noticed around 1415 that the statue had fallen down. When he lifted it up in order to take it home, he was unable to move. Only when his master, who was worried because the shepherd had not returned home after work, put the statue of the Virgin back into the tree, was the servant able to move again. In this way the Virgin had shown the spiritual importance of the place. In the woodblock the shepherd is depicted in the lower left corner: he is identified by the French word berger, which indicates that the prints to be produced from this block were intended for a French-speaking audience.

After the miracle with the shepherd, the site was frequented by inhabitants of the surrounding villages whenever they were sick or a member of their family suffered from illness or pain. As suggested in the short passage from the text by Velthem, the pilgrims hung their support aids on the tree when they did not need them any longer: in October 1603 the tree counted no less than 135 canes. But there was also a lively trade in ex-votos: pilgrims could buy representations in gold, silver or tin of the body parts that were cured or needed healing (in the last case it was believed that the representation of the ill limb would take over the disease). These votive offerings were left hanging on the holy tree, as can be seen in the image above the radiant aureole in which the Virgin is depicted.

In the 1580s Scherpenheuvel found itself in the midst of the battlefields of the Dutch Revolt (1568–1648). While occupied by Protestant forces of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands between 1580 and 1583, the statue of the Virgin fell victim to an act of iconoclasm and was removed. After the town was retaken by the Spanish army, the cult was restored in 1587 by the parishioners of Zichem. (This town is represented in the woodblock both by the striped coat of arms at the left end of the woodblock and the stag with the crucifix at the right end of the block, which refers to St Eustachius, the town’s patron saint). By that time the site also had a strong appeal to Spanish soldiers who were wounded or infected by diseases. Via them, stories of miraculous healings spread all the way to France and the north of Spain. One of the people who benefited from these miraculous healings is represented centrally in the lower edge of the woodblock. Hans Clements—or Jean Clement as he is called on the woodblock (both names are derived from the Latin name Johannes)—, citizen of Lucerne in Switzerland, was born crippled. He traveled throughout the Netherlands on this knees, begging, until he arrived in Scherpenheuvel where the Virgin Mary finally answered his prayers and cured his disability.

The story about Hans (or Jean) Clements is one of the most famous miracles that happened in Scherpenheuvel in 1603 and 1604. It is extensively described by Philips Numan (c. 1550–1627), humanist writer and town secretary of Brussels, in his collection of miracles ascribed to Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel: Historie van de mirakelen die onlancx in grooten ghetale ghebeurt zijn door die intercessie ende voer bidden van die H. Maget Maria op een plaetse genoemt Scherpen heuvel by die Stadt van Sichen in Brabant [History of the miracles that happened recently in large numbers by the intercession and mediation of the Holy Virgin Mary in a place named Scherpenheuvel near the city of Zichem in Brabant]. Numan collected the miracles by order of the archbishop of Mechelen, Mathias Hovius (1542–1620). The first edition was printed in Louvain by Rutger Velpius in 1604. The image below is taken from the third edition printed by the same printer in 1606. Besides the publication in Dutch, Numan wrote a French version for the local nobility and a Spanish one intended for the court. Not much later an English translation was printed (1606). A Latin version was published by the famous humanist Justus Lipsius (1605).

The third edition of the Historie van de mirakelen (Brussels: Rutgeert Velpius, 1606). Copperplate engraving. Copy of the Heritage Library of the Ruusbroec Institute, Antwerpen, RG 3091 I 13. In the middle Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel is depicted in the same radiant aureole as can be found on the woodblock. She is accompanied by Hans Clemens to her right and Catherine du Bus, who is exclaiming the message of the devil.

The second great miracle is depicted in the lower left corner of the woodblock: there we see a woman on her knees, her arms spread while she expresses the message of the devil. The woman is identified as Catherine du Bus, a woman from Lille, France, who was able to speak Hebrew and Greek, although she never studied those languages, a clear sign that she was possessed by the devil. While being exorcized, she made predictions about the siege of the city of Ostend, which at the time was occupied by the Dutch rebels. During the process, which initially failed a number of times, the devil—in both the woodblock and the copperplate engraving he is pictured in a speech balloon—via Catherine’s mouth shouted to eyewitnesses that they were wrong in believing that the Spaniards would be able to win the siege. After eating a fragment of the oak tree of Scherpenheuvel, however, the devil was forced out, and on 22 September 1604 the Royal Spanish troops of Archduke Albert of Austria (1559–1621) took over Ostend, all thanks to the intervention of the Virgin of Scherpenheuvel.

Miracles like these established the fame of Scherpenheuvel as a pilgrimage site on a greater level than a regional one. In 1603, after they had heard that the Virgin had wept blood, the Archduke and his wife Isabella (1566–1633), who are depicted in the lower right corner of the woodblock (which is quite exceptional in devotional prints from Scherpenheuvel), visited the place for the first time and took it under their protection. In order to spread the devotion, books such as Numan’s and other devotional representations were mass produced. In the meantime a small wooden chapel was built for the statue of the Virgin in front of the oak in 1602. As we see in Velthem’s text, the worshipping of a tree was not much appreciated by the Catholic priests. Only two years later this wooden chapel was replaced by a larger, stone version. Likely it is this chapel that is depicted on the woodcut. In 1607 Albrecht and Isabella, out of gratitude for the expulsion of the Calvinists from the Southern Low Countries, decided that Scherpenheuvel had to be transformed into a fully-fledged pilgrimage site. In order to stimulate this they commissioned the building of a new basilica as a symbol of the Counter Reformation. The foundation stone of this new church was laid by them on 2 July 1606, the Feast of the Visitation of the Virgin. It is usually this basilica, which still is the destination of many pilgrims to this day, which is represented on devotional prints from Scherpenheuvel such as the example below.

Jean Clement and other pilgrims being healed by Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel, with the new basilica in the background. Printed by Johannes I van den Sande (1600–c. 1675), after 1620. Antwerpen, Ruusbroec Institute, Collection Alfons Thijs, KP 31.17.

This observation may help us in dating the woodblock. Contrary to the date of c. 1750 offered in the catalogue of Samuel Gedge Ltd. (from whom the Kislak Center acquired the piece) it is more likely that the woodblock is from a much earlier date. The fact that the woodblock does not depict the new basilica that was built from 1609 onwards (and consecrated in 1627), but instead the chapel that stood at the pilgrimage site before, indicates that the woodblock was produced in the short period between 1603/04, the years in which the miracles of Hans Clements and Catherine du Bus took place, and 1609 when the chapel was torn down in order to replace it with the new basilica, or certainly before 1627 when the new basilica was consecrated. Given the fact that devotional prints such as this woodblock were intended to propagate the cult of both the Virgin and the pilgrimage town, it seems to make little sense that one would not depict the impressive new church on devotional prints after it was completed. Moreover, the striking similarities in iconography with the copperplate engraving in the third edition of Numan’s Historie printed in 1606 as well as with a devotional print from 1602 and especially an approbation by the church on 17 November 1604 (see below) seem to support a dating in the first decade of the seventeenth century.

–Patricia Stoop

References

Bowen, K.L., Marian Pilgrimage Sites in Brabant: A Bibliography of Books Printed Between 1600–1850 (Leuven: Peeters, 2008).

De Meyer, M., ‘Een oude bedevaartprent van Scherpenheuvel’, Volkskunde: driemaandelijks tijdschrift voor de studie van het volksleven, 55 (1954), 144–45.

Duerloo, Luc and Marc Wingens, Scherpenheuvel: het Jeruzalem van de Lage Landen (Leuven: Davidsfonds, 2002).

Duerloo, Luc, Dynasty and Piety: Archduke Albert (1598–1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in an Age of Religious Wars (London: Routledge, 2012).

Samuel Gedge LTD, Catalogue xxv, no. 20.

A Woodblock on Pilgrimage: From Flanders to Philadelphia At the beginning of this year, the Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts of the University of Pennsylvania purchased a unique and fascinating woodblock (

7 notes · View notes

whovian223 · 3 months ago

Text

Upgrading is Evolutional - Doomlings Upgrade Pack Review

Upgrading is Evolutional - Doomlings Upgrade Pack Review @doomlings

View On WordPress

#Andrew Meyer #Doomlings #Doomlings - Dinolings #Doomlings - Multicolor #Doomlings - Mythlings #Doomlings - Techlings #Doomlings - The Meaning of Life #Doomlings LLC #Expansions #Justus Meyer

0 notes

goalhofer · 10 months ago

Text

2023-24 Colorado Eagles Players By Nationality

American: 13 (Wyatt Aamodt, Jack Ahcan, Cal Burke, D.J. Busdeker, Nate Clurman, Tanner Kero, Ben Meyers, Jason Polin, Ryan Sandelin, Corey Schueneman, Riley Tufte, Chris Wagner & Josh Wesley) Canadian: 12 (Alex Beaucage, Gianni Fairbrother, Jean-Luc Foudy, Peter Holland, Brad Hunt, Keaton Middleton, Trent Miner, Cédric Paré, Spencer Smallman, Dalton Smith, Matt Stienberg & Josh Wesley) Swedish: 2 (Arvid Holm & Oskar Olausson) Czech: 2 (Ivan Ivan & Ondřej Pavel) Finnish: 1 (Justus Annunen)

#Sports #Hockey #AHL #Hockey Goalies #Colorado Eagles #Celebrities #U.S.A.#U.S.#Canada #Sweden #Czech Republic #Finland #Awesome

1 note · View note

shebe67 · 8 years ago

Text

A Weekend in Paris

A/N- I feel with Riley and Lucas headed to Texas we are embarking on a completely different story. Our favorite character’s will still be mentioned along with Pappy Joe, who is a personal favorite of mine. I want to touch on some of the things the show missed and hope you’ll stick around. In doing research on Austin, Texas for this story I feel GMW got the area totally wrong. Austin is probably the least Texas like town there is. A friend said that in GMW, Austin was depicted as being a ranch community and that is far from the truth. Austin seems to be a vibrant city that is full of museums and night life. I believe Pappy Joe Friar’s ranch to be located in a small ranching community about 30 miles outside of Austin called Spicewood. If I get it wrong, the towns are real but my depiction is fictional.

Cross posted to fanfiction.net (X)

Chapters 1(X), 2(X), 3(X), 4(X)

Chapter 5

Monday, June 5, 2023 in the Air between NYC and Austin

Riley was a nervous flier. She and Lucas had been in the air about 3 ½ hours and still had an hour before they would land. It wasn’t a long flight, by any means, but that also didn’t make Riley any less nervous. She didn’t understand how Lucas could sleep the whole flight, but that’s what he managed to do. She wasn’t interested in a movie and was bored with the book she had brought to read. Her and Lucas were lucky enough to get window seats, she hated the seats in the middle as they were always too crowded. She turned to the window and spent the rest of the flight looking at the clouds, lost in thought.

They had said their goodbyes to Josh and Maya before they left for the airport. They were leaving out for Philly early. Riley and Maya had a hard time saying good bye. It was hard to believe she wouldn’t see her for nearly 3 months. But they had texting and Skype and it was only an hour time difference. Their flight left LaGuardia at 9:30. Their parents took them to the airport, as they all piled in Kelly Friar’s minivan with Lucas’ dad driving. Auggie came along as well, although Riley believed him to be bored. They said their good byes, sharing hugs with all four parents and high fives for Auggie, he believed himself to be too old for hugs at 14. That didn’t stop Riley from pulling him to her for a hug though. The gathered their carryon bags and headed to toward their gate. Riley could swear she heard her father sob as she walked away, but as she looked back he was all smiles as they stood their waving.

Riley was surprised Lucas’ parents had come with them. His mother not so much, but his father tagging along was a surprise. Riley loved James and Kelly Friar and just like Lucas did with her parents, she called them mom and dad. Lucas and his father had a strained relationship all through high school. He traveled a lot for his job and that left Kelly Friar as the parent there at all times for Lucas. He was very close with his mother and the two got along great. James and Lucas were a different story. Of course, they loved each other, but James had high expectations for Lucas and didn’t necessarily agree with his plans to be a vet. They had argued all through Lucas’ high school years, his father thinking Lucas wasn’t working to his full potential. Once they graduated from high school and he saw that Lucas was serious about being a vet, he and Lucas had come to an understanding and the relationship had flourished. Nothing made Riley happier than the relationship the two Friar men had forged. Riley only wished that Lucas’ father had a good relationship with his father, Pappy Joe. Maybe Riley could help that relationship along a little while they were in Texas. Lucas had told her to leave it alone, but Riley was a natural born fixer and couldn’t help herself.

Pappy Joe couldn’t pick them up at the airport, so he was sending Lucas’ Aunt Jessie, she was his father’s younger sister. Her and her family had moved into a small house on another part of the ranch a few years ago to help Pappy Joe and Cletus with the day to day operations. She hadn’t met Lucas’ aunt and her family, but she knew that her husband’s name was Jack Meyer and that they had two sons, Justus who was 14 and Joey was 12. Riley was looking forward to meeting more of Lucas’s family and while they were in Texas he promised to take her to San Antonio to see his other grandparent’s. She had only met his mother’s parents when Lucas had graduated from high school. Lucas’ mom was an only child and her parents had moved from Austin to San Antonio to be closer to what little family they had.

Lucas woke up when he heard the captain announce that they would soon be making their descent into Austin. He wasn’t surprised that he slept most of the flight. It never failed that when he flew he slept. He looked over at Riley to see her staring out the window. After he put his seat back upright he turned towards Riley and placed a hand on her arm. Slightly startled, she turned to him and smiled, “Look who’s awake. Did you have a good nap, sleepy head?” She asked.

“Yea, I actually did. Did you manage a nap at all?” he asked, knowing what her answer would be.

“Yea, right. You know me, ever the nervous flier and I couldn’t relax enough for a nap,” she informed him. “I was bored with my book and my flying companion wasn’t very interesting, so I watched the world fly by.” Just as she got the words out of her mouth the captain made the announcement that they would be landing in about 15 minutes and for all passengers to return to their seats and fasten their seatbelts.

Lucas had the biggest grin on his face, he couldn’t wait to get to the ranch. He was eager to see his grandfather and get to spend a little time with his cousins. He also was excited about the fact that he had Riley all to himself for the summer. He loved their friends and their parents, but he and Riley needed some time together just the two of them. Nothing was better than spending time with her, alone. No one to interrupt a stolen moment between them and no one to threaten his shoes. He held Riley’s hand as the plane started descending and through the landing. Once they were given the okay, they stood and got their carry-on bags from the overhead compartment. Riley double checked their seats, making sure they didn’t leave anything behind. Lucas took her bag and they headed through the jetway that would take them to the gate. They picked up their other bags at the baggage claim and headed toward the main entrance of the airport, this is where they agreed to meet his aunt. While waiting for the crowd to thin out, Lucas took the opportunity to retrieve his cowboy hat from his bag, his boots were already on his feet and Riley was rolling her eyes.

“Lucas Joseph Friar is that you!” they heard someone say. Lucas turned and saw his aunt. He smiled and wrapped her in a hug. “Hey, Aunt Jessie, it sure is good to see you. There is someone I’d like you to meet,” Riley was standing next to him very nervous, “Jessica Friar-Meyer meet Riley Matthews. Riley this is my Aunt Jessie.”

Riley shook hands with the woman, who had a kind smile and the same green eyes that Lucas shared with his father. She had dark brown hair, just like Lucas’ father and was the same height as her. “Nice to meet you, Mrs. Meyer.” Riley said shyly.

“Oh honey, Mrs. Meyer is my mother in law, please call me Jessie or Jessica, heck as much as Lucas has told me about you over the years, I feel like I already know you. Feel free to call me, Aunt Jessie,” she said with a kind smile. “Lucas, she’s even more beautiful in person.”

Riley, blushed. She was sure Lucas had shown her pictures of her and their friends just like he had shown Riley pictures of his family. She couldn’t help but think she and Aunt Jessie would get along just fine. She was more nervous to meet his younger cousins. She hoped that they would like her.

“You two must be tired. Let’s get you to the car and out to the ranch.” She said. She grabbed the handle to Riley’s large suitcase and pulled it along behind her. Riley was quite impressed with the activity at the airport. As they headed to the main entrance, Riley smiled at the large sign that said, Welcome to Austin. As they made their way through the doors and into the afternoon sunlight, Riley was smacked in the face with the humidity in the air. She would have to get used to that. They reached Aunt Jessie’s vehicle and Riley wasn’t at all surprised to see the large four door truck with duel wheels in the back. Everything seemed bigger in Texas including cars and trucks. They secured their luggage in the back of the truck and settled in for the ride to the ranch.

Pappy Joe’s ranch was located in a small community about 30 miles from Austin. It was a small town called, Spicewood. Lucas sat in the front seat with his aunt, catching each other up on the goings on in their lives. Riley watched the scenery as they drove out of the city. Austin didn’t seem like it should be in Texasg. The city was beautiful and didn’t feel very Texas like to her. Lucas had promised her that they would spend time exploring the city and she promised Maya she would check out some of the city’s art museums. As the building turned into open fields and a more rural setting, Riley loved watching the animals they passed. There were horses and cows, even a farm that had goats. “Hey Lucas, does Pappy Joe’s ranch just have horses?” she asked.

“No, Riles. He actually has 24 horses, 12 head of cattle and some chickens. Uncle Jack talked him into getting the cattle. He even has some goats.” Lucas answered.

He had noticed Riley’s silence and was afraid she had fallen asleep. He should have known that she was too excited for sleep. Lucas couldn’t wait to get to the ranch. Just a few more miles and there would be the familiar tree lined drive way with the wooden fence and wrought iron gate and the sign that said, Welcome to the Lazy Lane Ranch. Lucas felt his heart beat speed up just a bit when he caught his first glimpse. “Riley,” he said with excitement in his voice, “this is it!”

Monday, June 5, 2023, Pappy Joe Friar’s Ranch

Riley recognized the entrance as well, she had only been to the ranch twice. The trip in the 8th grade when Lucas rode the bull and once for two weeks with Lucas and his parents the summer between sophomore and junior year of high school. She loved the tree lined drive, but she got even more excited when the trees broke and you could see the white house that sat on the small hill. It was two stories and had that porch across the front of it. There were several buildings on the property near the house, a 2 car garage and small shed next to it then the barn sat off to the right of the house and the horse coral and the fields beyond.

As Aunt Jessie stopped the truck on the circular drive in front of the house, Lucas took it all in. As much as he loved living in New York City, this ranch would always have a part of his heart. They got out of the truck, Lucas helping Riley out of her door. Lucas looked at his aunt and asked, “Where is he?” Aunt Jessie didn’t even have to ask who he was talking about.

“I think he has a horse about to foal, so he’s probably in the barn. I’ll get your bags and set them on the porch, I’ve got to get back to my house, but we’ll be here for supper in a bit. You go see him, he’s been waiting long enough,” Aunt Jessie said with a smile.

Riley was as excited to see Pappy Joe as Lucas was. She took his hand and intertwined her fingers with his giving a small squeeze as she did. “Come on, Lucas.” She pulled him towards the barn. All she could smell was the hay when they entered. She could hear the neighs of some of the horses that were in the corral as they walked through the barn peering into some of the stalls looking for Pappy Joe. “If he’s not in here, where do you think he is?” she asked. Just as they turned to head out to the corral, that’s when they heard the voice…”

“Well if you two aren’t a sight for these tired old eyes, my grandboy, Lucas and the sweetest little girl in the whole world!” Pappy Joe said with a smile leaning against the barn door.

Lucas let go of Riley’s hand and walked towards his grandfather, he had no words other than, “Pappy Joe!” he enveloped the tall man in a hug. Pappy Joe hugged him back with a smile on his face and a tear in his eye.

Riley stood there watching the reunion of the two Friar men. She couldn’t help but smile and cry. She knew Lucas had been counting down the days until they would be here at the ranch.

Pappy Joe let go of Lucas and held his shoulders, “Let me get a good look at you, boy?” He looked Lucas over and was satisfied with what he saw, “you haven’t changed a bit since Thanksgiving.” He let go of Lucas and turned his attention to Riley. “Why are you still standing way over there? You know I won’t bite, little lady. Get over here.”

Riley walked over to Lucas and his grandfather. Pappy Joe removed his hat studied Riley for a moment, looked at Lucas and said, “I didn’t think it was possible, but I think she’s gotten prettier since I saw her last.”

“Oh, Pappy Joe, that’s nice of you to say.” She blushed.

“You got a hug for an old fool of a man, Riley? He asked.

“For you Pappy Joe, always.” She walked into the older man’s arms, giving him a hug. Once he let Riley go, he looked at them and said, “Let’s get to the house and get the two of you settled, in. Your Aunt Jessie has hired a housekeeper and cook for me. Her name is Ellie and she has been cooking and cleaning all day. Cletus will be here soon and we’re having a welcome dinner for you.

As they headed up the steps and into the house, Pappy Joe held the screen door for Riley and Lucas. Riley was hit with memories from the first time she set foot in this house, nothing had changed over the years. Pappy Joe even had the “bay window” set up the way her and Maya had done all those years ago. She saw the Master of Tombstone award on the shelf along with a picture that someone had taken of her and Lucas, Zay and Farkle in the ring after he won it. Those were some of Riley’s favorite memories, they were also some of her not so favorite memories.

She thought back to the time in 8th grade when she stood in this very living room and told Lucas that she loved him for the first time. If she had known then what she knew now, she never would have brother zoned him and started the trail to the triangle that never was.

#Rucas #rucas fan fics #a weekend in paris #sheila's fic #riley matthews #lucas friar #pappy joe

25 notes · View notes