#Previously unnamed Lamenter | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ingek73 · 2 years

Text

Mark Bolland: the PR guru whose job was to ‘make Camilla more presentable’

Royal ‘spin doctor’ Prince Harry mentions in his memoir is widely believed to be Bolland

Caroline Davies

Fri 24 Feb 2023 16.00 GMT

As Camilla is crowned alongside the king at Westminster Abbey on 6 May, might she cast her mind back some 20 years and reflect on the debt of gratitude she undoubtedly owes to one man in particular?

If the Duke of Sussex is present – though it’s not certain Charles’s avenging younger son will be – might he too dwell, with less appreciation, on the part played by the same man in his stepmother’s once unthinkable transformation from mistress to queen consort ?

As he writes in his memoir, Spare, Harry sees himself as collateral damage in the campaign orchestrated in the late 90s and early 00s to rehabilitate Charles and pave the way for marriage to Camilla, partly though “the new spin doctor Camilla had talked Pa into hiring”.

Unnamed in the book, he is widely believed to be Mark Bolland, who meticulously choreographed those early first steps towards the realisation of his royal master’s non-negotiable ambition: to reign with Camilla seated on the throne beside him.

Today, Charles’s popularity soars compared with the “sagging” reputation Harry describes immediately following Diana’s death. And Camilla’s acceptance reached its zenith when the late Queen Elizabeth II used her platinum jubilee message to express her “sincere wish” she become queen consort.

Bolland, described in Valentine Low’s book Courtiers as “clever, charming, manipulative” and “one of the most colourful and interesting players in the royal drama of the last 30 years”, is now long gone from palace life. He departed St James’s in 2002, after six years as assistant then deputy private secretary, to set up his own PR consultancy, initially with Charles and Camilla as star clients until ties were severed in early 2003.

Yet the way he seemingly set about his task, which at the time sent shudders through a Buckingham Palace old guard unfamiliar with Bolland’s brand of PR alchemy, clearly made a deep impression on a then teenaged Harry. Indeed, from Harry’s narrative, it may be possible to detect some of the seeds of his trenchant loathing of the press and his accusations of palace collusion with the fourth estate back to the, some would say, overzealous methods Bolland is alleged to have employed.

“Bolland’s number one job was to make Camilla more presentable. And he was very, very successful. Very good at it,” said one royal observer.

“If you look at Camilla now, she’s on the privy council. She was a firm favourite of the queen. And when she became queen consort, that was the culmination of the job that Bolland started.”

The problem was that at Buckingham Palace, just down the Mall from St James’s, they simply did not know how to deal with him. Stories unflattering to other royals were appearing.

And the way they were dealt with caused concern. The Earl of Wessex found himself trounced. And Harry has lamented being spun “right under a bus”.

Critics attributed this partly to Bolland, and claimed he operated on a “Charles good, all other royals bad” basis in his quest to augment the then Prince of Wales. It’s a claim Bolland has previously denied, insisting it was put about by Buckingham Palace courtiers jealous of the success of Charles’s team.

During the Bolland era there was consternation at Buckingham Palace. People feared leaks. People were saying that bad things were happening and discussing where they were coming from, the Guardian has been told. Everybody was very stressed.

“But he did a great job for Charles. What people – what Harry in particular – call ‘leaking’, well that’s just information. There’s a difference,” said the royal observer.

Reportedly called “Lord Blackadder” by William and Harry – another sobriquet for the smooth operator was, apparently, “Lip Gloss” – Toronto-born Bolland, who was schooled at a Middlesbrough comprehensive, was definitely different from the traditional idea of a courtier. Depicted in the latest season of The Crown as young, dynamic and decisive, he was lured to St James’s, aged 30, in 1996 from the Press Complaints Commission, where he was director, and enjoyed easy access to Fleet Street editors. He was friends with Rebekah Brooks, then Wade, who at the time was editor of the News of the World.

Under his auspices, Camilla was introduced to New York society in 1999. That same year, the first photograph of Charles and Camilla together, leaving her sister Annabel’s 50th birthday party at the Ritz, attracted so many photographers that the British Epilepsy Association reportedly urged broadcasters not to reuse footage in case it triggered seizures. A first meeting with the queen and Camilla, at a Highgrove party for ex-King Constantine of Greece, followed.

Then there was the PCC’s 10th anniversary party, hosted by Bolland’s then partner who became his husband, the Conservative peer Guy Black, who is now deputy chair of the Telegraph Media Group but back then had succeeded Bolland as director of the PCC. Stars mingled with politicians and royals against the backdrop of the Gilbert Collection at Somerset House: an “unadulterated, alpha plus, 24-carat triumph”, one admirer told the Observer. With Charles, Camilla and William together in public for the first time, it was another significant milestone.

The narrative was changing. But at what cost?

Harry certainly believes he was sacrificed in the process, along with his brother. In Spare, he points the finger at the unnamed Bolland for aiding and abetting the “pinpoint accurate” details that appeared of 16-year-old William’s first private meeting with Camilla, though “royal sources” have reportedly denied these claims made in the book of leaking on behalf of Camilla.

He also writes of being “horrified, sickened” at a seven-page spread in the News of the World, which had obtained a dossier of evidence of his teenaged drinking and drug taking. Bolland, on not being able to deny the story, had in response informed the newspaper of a visit Harry had made to a rehabilitation centre. The result was an overspun story: “Worried Charles chose to terrify Harry away from drugs by sending him to therapy sessions with hardcore heroin addicts.” A “family friend” was quoted: “He has never done drugs since.” A win-win for Charles.

Except the rehab centre visit had taken place two months before the evidence obtained by the newspaper and was a “typical part of my princely charitable work”, according to Harry’s book. Bolland later explained, in a rare newspaper interview in the Guardian in 2003, that he had told the News of the World about the visit, but had subsequently been “embarrassed” at the newspaper’s overzealous attempts to be helpful. “They presented it in a much more triumphalist manner than was justified,” he said.

Harry’s conclusion is he was spun “right under a bus” in order to portray Charles as a “harried single dad coping with a drug-addled son”.

Another alleged example of Bolland’s discomfiting spinning occurred when Prince Edward’s Ardent Productions crew failed to obey palace instructions for all media to leave St Andrews after a photocall with William while at university. Stories appeared quoting a “royal aide” saying Charles was “incandescent” and called his brother a “fucking idiot”. Bolland later told the Guardian: “I doubt I used that language, but it’s probably got my fingerprints on it.”

Bolland declined the offer to comment for this article.

In December 2001, the Daily Telegraph, in a highly critical article, called Bolland “the real power behind” the future king and asked: “Has the puppet master of St James’s finally pulled one string too many?” Another, in the Spectator, asked: “Charles’s spin doctor may be good for the prince’s ego but is he good for the royal family and the nation?”

Bolland, who was about to set up his own PR consultancy, departed St James’s in February 2002, although he retained Charles and Camilla as clients until 2003. Relations between him and Charles’s new private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, imported from Buckingham Palace, over the handling of stories were reportedly strained.

After his consultancy contract expired, he maintained links with Camilla for several months, until it became too difficult. “That’s when I said to Camilla: ‘I love you dearly, let’s have lunch or dinner a couple of times a year, but I can’t be at the end of a phone any more,’” he said in a 2004 interview for the British Journalism Review.

But he did not disappear completely, rocking up as a columnist at the News of the World, called Blackadder, in which he sometimes shared his critical analysis of Charles and his aides. He disbanded the column little more than a year later, finding it too time-consuming.

In 2006 he surfaced again, this time in the form of a witness statement on behalf of the Mail on Sunday, which was embroiled in legal action with Charles over its publication of his travel journal, in which he described some Chinese officials as “appalling old waxworks”.

In the statement, he not only said Charles’s travel journals were not especially private – being circulated to between 50 and 75 people – but also revealed Charles “often referred to himself as a ‘dissident’ working against the prevailing political consensus”.

It was revealing, too, about the way Bolland operated.

Back in 1999, when Charles did not attend a return banquet hosted by the Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, during his state visit to the UK, a St James’s Palace spokesperson denied reports it was a “snub” by Charles, a known admirer of the exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, and saying the prince had a previous engagement.

Roll forward to that 2006 witness statement, and Bolland attests he was given “a direct and personal instruction” by Charles to draw the media’s attention to his banquet boycott and that Charles was “delighted” at the ensuing coverage.

One former royal correspondent wonders how proactive Charles himself was back in those Bolland days. “I suppose the question is how far Charles himself led that campaign. How much he was on board with it. He must have been, otherwise Bolland wouldn’t have done it.”

Bolland’s task was to “win over the Mail and the Sun, particularly, because they were very pro-Diana”, added the correspondent. In that, he very much succeeded.

Years have since passed. Camilla’s stock continued its ascent. But few could disagree over who first laid the foundations for the journey that will ultimately culminate on 6 May when the crown is finally and firmly placed on the head of the nation’s new queen consort.

#prince harry #spare #king charles lll #camilla parker bowles #king charles the cruel #abolish the monarchy #brf

4 notes · View notes

limbusbingus · 13 days

Text

Walpurgs List

Lobotomy Corporation Asiyah Sinners:

Control: > Faust (captain) [Forsaken Murderer] > Ishmael

Information: > Meursault > Gregor

Training: > Outis (captain) [Der Freischütz] > Don [Meat Lantern] > Rodion

Safety: > Ryoshu (captain) [Spiderbud/One Sin] > Yi Sang [Solemn Lament]

I think it's not too crazy to assume that librarians awake under the same sephirah they worked previously in Lobotomy Corp. But also, considering how easy it's to move employees around departments, it might just not matter at all. Plus I don't remember they mentioning something like that in Ruina at all.

Library of Ruina Identities:

Canard: > Hong Lu [Hook Office Taein]

Urban Myth: x

Urban Legend: x

Urban Plague: > Sinclair [Dawn Office Philip]

For Ruina, I think it's harder to pinpoint a pattern, they skipped most of the more forgettable content (Zwei , Molar and Pierre are impactful but got references in other moments) and went straightforward to a more rememberable stage (Urban Plague and forward). I think IDs that can exist outside Walpurgs (unnamed proselytes, soldatos etc) will not become Walpurgs IDs, but we might see 00 church of gears or maybe Lulu (please Jihoon). I think we might see Full Stop Office, Musicians of Bremem or Gaze Office next.

0 notes

gardenofkore · 2 years

Photo

“A certain envoy, arriving from Calabria, announced that Abbot Robert of S. Eufemia had brought his sister Judith—a granddaughter of the duke of Normandy—from Normandy to Calabria so that Roger could marry her. Hearing this, Roger was elated because he had desired her for a long time, for she was beautiful and of excellent parentage. So Roger returned to Calabria as quickly as possible and rushed to meet the long-desired young woman.”

Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds Of Count Roger Of Calabria And Sicily And Of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, p.95

Judith was born around 1040 in Normandy as the daughter of nobleman Guillaume d'Évreux, and his wife Hawise, daughter of wealthy baron Giroie, Lord of Échaffour, and previously widow of nobleman Robert I de Grandmesnil. Guillaume was the third and youngest son of Robert II, Archbishop of Rouen and Count of Évreux, and thus first cousin of Robert I of Normandy, father of William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy.

We know that Judith spent her earlier life in the Benedictine convent of Saint Wandrille, together with her sister Emma (it’s unclear whether this girl was born out Hawise’s first marriage - thus making her an older half sister - or was Judith’s younger full sister) and under the guardianship of her half-brother Robert de Grandmesnil, Abbot of Saint-Evroul-sur-Ouche. According to English chronicler Orderic Vitalis, it is in this period that Judith caught the eye of Roger d'Hauteville, youngest son of a minor Norman nobleman, Trancred d’Hauteville.

Following a fight with Duke William, around 1060, Robert de Grandmesnil had to leave Normandy, seeking refuge in Southern Italy, where he became abbot of the newly founded Abbey of St. Euphemia in Calabria, with the blessing of fellow countryman, Robert Guiscard d’Hauteville.

Both Judith and Emma decided to follow their brother, leaving the convent and settling in Southern Italy. Once he was told Judith was in Calabria, Roger caught up with her and (according to the sources) married the young lady on the spot, right after meeting her, in San Martino in Val di Saline on Christmas 1061 (“Coming to the Saline Valley at S. Martino, he escorted the legitimately betrothed young woman to Mileto with a great gathering of musicians and celebrated holy matrimony there.” in Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds Of Count Roger Of Calabria And Sicily And Of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, p.95). The once unappealing suitor (a cadet son from a relatively humble family) had, in the meantime, become an accomplished fighter from a now very promising and powerful family, the ideal husband. As for Judith’s sister, Emma, she would marry an unnamed comrade of her brother-in-law.

Right after marrying his sweetheart, Roger had to momentarily leave her, headed for Sicily, where he was busy chasing out the Muslims emirs which had ruled over the Island since the first half of X century. The youngest Hauteville returned to his wife shortly after, at the beginning of 1062, having conquered the area around Messina of Sicilian territory (“She rejoiced at his homecoming, having longed for him and having been so concerned for his well-being.” in Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds etc, p.95)

What had propelled Roger to return to Calabria were some disagreements with his older brother, Robert Guiscard. Roger lamented to having obtained only the city of Mileto as part of his effort to conquer Southern Italy, despite his brother had promised him half of Calabria. Roger wanted to provide his wife of a dowry worthy of a lady born in an illustrious family, such as Judith had, but Robert Guiscard had proved to be quite stingy in terms of land distribution.

When put before the threat of an armed clash between the two, Robert was convinced to finally comply and keep his promise and divided Calabria’s territory with his younger brother. It was around summer 1062 and Roger was now free to return to Sicily, but, this time, he brought his wife with him (“He then returned to Sicily with three hundred men to wage war, taking with him his young wife, even though she was timid and resisted as much as she dared to.” in Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds etc, p.102). The couple settled in Troina and the Hauteville benefited a lot from the closeness and support of such a devoted bride, especially since his stand in Sicily wasn’t all too steady. Taking advantage of the fact that, at some point, Roger had left his wife with a small garrison, the Greek citizens of Troina had attempted to attack the soldiers and kidnap Judith but to no avail.

Once he was informed of the failed coup and the fact that the Saracens intended to profit from the confusion and Roger’s absence, the Hauteville hastily returned to Troina, just before the enemy’s arrival. Troina suffered a 4 month siege, toughened by a shortage of provisions and unfriendly climate. Yet, “[…] they still remained strong in their hearts. Each one hid his suffering so as not to discourage the other, even trying to simulate a certain cheerfulness in his demeanor and words. The young countess managed to quench her thirst with water, but she did not know how to check her hunger, except with tears and sleep, since she had nothing else at her disposal.” (in Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds etc, p.104). Around Christmas 1063, the besieged’s fate was overturned when Roger, leading part of his men, took advantage of the Saracen troop’s hangover (despite being forbidden by the Koran, drinking wine was the only way for the Saracens troops to withstand the cold) and relieved the siege.

The siege of Troina must have been some sort of turning point for Judith, strengthening her character. Once again, Roger left her all alone in Troina, this time going as far as Calabria and Apulia to replenish his lost supplies and gather more soldiers. “Although still just a young woman, the countess was so vigorous in her concern about maintaining the watch around the fortress that she circled it daily and wherever she saw that it could be made better, she assiduously saw to it that a new watch was established. Speaking softly and anxiously to everyone whom her absent lord had left behind with her, she urged them to consider what needed to be protected, promising that they would be rewarded upon the count’s return. She made certain that they never forgot the danger they had experienced lest they find themselves in the same situation again through their own carelessness.” (in Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds etc, p.106).

In the meantime, the conquest of Sicily went on and, after the military victories at Cerami (1063), Misilmeri (1068) and the conquest of Palermo (1072), the invasion of the Island was quite secured, although still not complete (the last Muslim stronghold, Noto, would capitulate only in 1098). In Palermo, Robert Guiscard invested his brother Roger Count of Sicily. This, nonetheless, didn’t mean that Roger was now the island’s only master since Robert Guiscard, as its suzerain, controlled half of it.

Nothing else is known about Judith, first Countess consort of Sicily, except that she died young, around 1076, while her husband was away. Although sources don’t talk about it, it must have been a heavy blow for her husband since he loved her so dearly.

She would give birth to four daughters: Flandrine, Mathilde, Adelise and Emma, all born between 1062-1063 and all destined to noble matches. Some sources talk about a son too, Jordan, however it’s quite sure he was an illegitimate son born prior the marriage of Roger and Judith (“Although Jordan was the product of a concubine; he was still a man of great strength in body and heart who longed for the glory that came from accomplishing great things.” in Goffredo Malaterra, The Deeds etc, p.165). Around 1081, Jordan would attempt a coup against his father, while he was away from Sicily and had left his son as regent. Once the rebellion failed, Jordan was surprisingly pardoned by his father, and remained faithful to him until the end.

Without a male legitimate heir, Roger Count of Sicily would marry two other times: to Eremburge de Mortain and, finally, to Adelasia Del Vasto.

Sources

Curtis Edmund, Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy, 1016-1154, p. 100

Malaterra Goffredo, The Deeds Of Count Roger Of Calabria And Sicily And Of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, p.95-106; 165.

Norwich John Julius, The Normans in the South 1016–1130, p. 173- 183; 316

Orderici Vitalis, Historiæ ecclesiasticæ, liber tertius, p. 91-92

Tocco Francesco Paolo, RUGGERO I, conte di Sicilia e Calabria, in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 89

#historicwomendaily #history #women #women in history #historical women #Judith d'Évreux #ruggero i #House of Hauteville #norman swabian sicily #people of sicily #women of sicily #myedit #historyedit

86 notes · View notes

kareenvorbarra · 3 years

Text

i’ve been reading the Iliad with an eye for interesting minor characters, particularly captive women. i’d previously combed the book for all the references to named captives, but during this full read-through i’ve found 8-10 specific unnamed women (there’s potential overlap among some of them) who are either referenced or appear in the book. all quotes are from Caroline Alexander’s translation.

here’s the first mystery woman:

obviously Achilles’ prize is Briseis, and Ajax’s is presumably Tecmessa, even though she isn’t named in the Iliad. but the prize of Odysseus? who is she??? why isn’t she mentioned anywhere else? there aren’t really any captives mentioned in the Odyssey because Odysseus gets separated from all his other ships pretty much right away, but still! i want to know everything about her.

then, of course, there are the seven women from Lesbos who Agamemnon promises to give to Achilles (along with Briseis and assorted other treasure) if Achilles returns to battle. Achilles initially rejects the offer, but Agamemnon follows through after Patroclus dies:

the women end up sitting near Patroclus’ body, because this is where Briseis is when she laments over Patroclus’s corpse. we know that the seven women who arrived with her are all still there, because right after Briseis’ speech we get this incredible line:

i think this is my favorite Iliad quote right now. i’m obsessed with it. bad things are happening to these women and they have an opportunity to express their grief in public without risking disapproval, so they’re going to use it. who the fuck is Patroclus.

the next group of characters could conceivably overlap with the seven women, since they all belong to Achilles, but there’s no way to tell for sure. i haven’t quite reached the funeral games of Patroclus yet, but when i started making a list of unnamed captives i thought “i wonder if achilles gives any women away as prizes at the funeral games?” and sure enough, he does.

the first is a prize for the winner of the chariot race. she goes to Diomedes, and is the only captive of Diomedes i’ve found referenced in any source so far:

i can’t stop thinking about her. where exactly is she standing during the chariot race? does she watch, or does she look away? how does she feel about being given away all of a sudden? does she have any opinion on who she wants the winner to be?

the only other contest with a human prize is wrestling, though in this case the woman will go to whoever loses the match:

i have the same questions about her as i do about the woman from the chariot race; also feeling some sort of way about Achilles “displaying” the prizes before “setting them out.” what does that look like when he’s doing it to a person?

Ajax the Greater and Odysseus compete in the wrestling match, and they go two rounds with no clear winner before Achilles calls a draw:

there are no additional details about how the wrestling prizes are distributed, but “go your way with equal prizes” sounds like Achilles is going to get another woman and another tripod (or items of equivalent worth?) so that neither Ajax nor Odysseus walk away feeling like they got the worse prize. so there’s kind of a hypothetical third woman here, but i didn’t include her in my total because she’s not actually mentioned directly.

#mythology #the iliad #greek mythology #achilles #i was like 'i'm going to post about the captive women in the iliad because i want to put content in my favorite minor character tags'#and then i went and wrote a post about unnamed characters #this is peak kate i think #long post #captive women tag

129 notes · View notes

lastsonlost · 5 years

Text

Seriously, what does this bitch have to do before people Stop defending her.

Amber Heard ridicules Johnny Depp for claiming he is a victim of domestic violence in an explosive tape recording, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com

She says: 'Tell the world Johnny, tell them... I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence... and see how many people believe or side with you'

Heard adds: 'You're bigger and you're stronger... I was a 115lb woman... You're going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say, ''she started it''? Really?'

'I have never been able to overpower you... there's a jury and there's a judge will see that there's a very big difference between me and you'

The divorcing couple spoke over the phone in June and July of 2016, with Heard ultimately yielding to Depp's plea to settle out of court for $7m

Their truce crumbled in December 2018 when Heard wrote an op-ed saying she was a domestic violence victim, although not naming anyone

Depp hit her with a $50m defamation suit, saying she implied he was the abuser, which caused him to lose his prized role of Captain Jack Sparrow

In their legal battle, both accused the other of domestic violence and DailyMail.com published a recording in which Heard confessed to 'hitting' Depp

Amber Heard ridicules Johnny Depp for claiming he is a victim of domestic violence in an explosive tape recording obtained by DailyMail.com - telling the Pirates of the Caribbean actor: 'See how many people believe you.'

The estranged couple were barred from talking to one another in May 2016 when Heard filed for divorce and sought a restraining order to escape her 'abusive' A-lister husband.

But the pair continued to clash over the phone, arguing bitterly about who was responsible for the blood-curdling violence that marred their toxic 15-month marriage and accusing one another of leaking to the press, DailyMail.com can reveal.

It's unclear if Heard realizes she is being taped during the expletive-flecked, 30-minute recording, the second bombshell audio released exclusively by DailyMail.com in the space of a week.

You are f**king killing me. Your f**king people are trying to kill me,' complains father-of-two Depp, as he begs Heard to go through private mediation rather than thrashing things out in open court.

'You've turned me into a... my boy goes to school and has kids go, so your f**king dad's a wife beater?'

Tearful Heard denies pushing Depp, 56, 'under a bus' and accuses the actor's associates of circulating details to the press of her arrest record and lurid rumors she was a stripper.

The 33-year-old actress also rejects accusations that she instigated the wild, physical violence that she pinned on Depp in divorce papers,

suggesting a court would be unlikely to take the side of a man over a slender female.

The full list of audio clips can be found in the Daily Mail article.....

Part 2

Do you know I'm a 115, well not anymore, but I was a 115lb, almost 115lb woman,' Heard protests. Adopting a jeering tone, she says: 'You're going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say, she started it? Really?'

The former lovebirds spoke several times on the phone throughout June and July of 2016, skirting the restraining order by having a family member initiate the calls, according to a well-placed source.

Heard would ultimately yield to Depp's plea to settle out of court, retracting her allegations the following month as the pair announced a $7 million divorce settlement.

Their marriage was 'intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love,' according to a joint statement issued on August 16, 2016.

'There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm.'

The truce crumbled in December 2018, however, when Heard penned an op-ed for the Washington Post lamenting her experiences as an alleged domestic violence victim, though never naming anyone.

Heard is currently dating her new girlfriend Bianca Butti and was seen arriving at the 4th Annual Women's March in Downtown Los Angeles last month.

The actress has said she is bisexual and previously dated women, including photographer Tasya van Ree from 2008 to 2011.

Depp responded to Heard's op-ed last year with a $50 million defamation suit, saying the 'hoax' account implied he was the unnamed abuser and caused him to lose his prized role of Captain Jack Sparrow.

'Ms. Heard is not a victim of domestic abuse; she is a perpetrator,' his suit alleges, accusing his ex-wife of manufacturing evidence and faking injury photos.

Heard doubled down with a 300-page filing of her own, cataloging the years of abuse she suffered at the hands of 'the monster', whom she met on the set of The Rum Diary in 2011 and married in February 2015.

The actress stood by those claims last week when DailyMail.com published a separate recording from October 2015 in which she confessed to 'hitting' Depp as well as throwing pots, pans and vases at him.

"I'm sorry that I didn't, uh, uh, hit you across the face in a proper slap, but I was hitting you, it was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched,' Heard says on the tape, recalling an incident the previous night.

It's understood that she and Depp routinely recorded conversations consensually during the breakdown of their marriage, paving the way for yet more bombshell recordings to emerge.

The latest audio clip published by DailyMail.com begins with Depp imploring Heard to reach an out of court settlement rather than waging war in public.

It appears to have been taped at Depp's end of things and the conversation has already begun when the audio supplied to DailyMail.com begins.

'I've been through the f**king hurt. You've been through the f**king hurt. I love you more than anything in life,' he tells his soon-to-be ex-wife.

'I do not want to go into a f**king court with you. I do not want to f**king tarnish your name... I want this to be done peacefully, between us.

'And if you don't like the way that mediation is going, take me back to court kid. Cause I can't. 'This is the last f**king chance Amber. This is it. Once I file those papers we don't turn around man.'

Heard insists, however, that it's Depp's team who are refusing to mediate, refusing to sign a gag order and leaking damaging stories about her to the gossip site TMZ.

'Everything has been a defensive move because I'm being called a liar and a gold-digger,' she says.

'And I am not lying about any of this s**t, and I am not after a dime of your money.'

Depp suggests the pair should write a 'mutual letter' declaring that the divorce will be settled privately.

'Listen to me,' he warns the Hollywood beauty. 'Defending yourself by throwing someone under the bus is not going to look good.'

Heard fires back: 'It's not about that. It would not be about me throwing you under the bus.

'You know what it would be? It would be released through documented people, coming on the record, and, having the protection to do so, that haven't had yet.

'It would be eyewitness statements. It would be evidence. Tons of it. And it would be through years.'

Heard goes on to ridicule Depp's doubts over the facial injuries she turned up with at court when she applied for the restraining order on May 27, 2016.

She also claims to have a trove of incriminating texts, paraphrasing a message to her publicist Jodi Gottlieb ahead of an appearance on The Late Late Show with James Cordon: 'I think, I've had accident, um, I think I may have, I busted my nose and two black eyes tomorrow'.

She tells Depp: 'No one is going to believe that one of the two alternatives, that I'm in a fight club or I've been getting, going through hair and makeup. . .through all these years where I have corroborating text messages between people that match those dates of those time stamped validated photos.'

Heard warns Depp that her lawyers are urging her to make a formal police statement, saying that a criminal prosecutor told her it was 'most solid evidence, case of domestic violence case we've ever seen'.

She declined to do so, however, because she did not want to hurt Depp further,

Heard says, complaining that their public spat has already led to her receiving death threats.

The blonde actress also denies that it was her who rang the cops during the May 21, 2016 dust-up that took place the day before she filed for divorce.

Depp was accused of hurling a cellphone in Heard's face at their downtown Los Angeles loft but two LAPD officers later said in a deposition that they found nothing to suggest a crime took place.

The actor-musician reminds Heard about an incident in which his building manager, Travis, had 'to come up and f**king pull me away from you' though it's not clear which incident Depp is referring to.

Heard also refers to Depp's security guards, 'who by the way,' she says 'have said to me multiple times that I am going to get killed.'

She adds: 'I'm sorry because the last time it got crazy between us I really did think I was gonna lose my life. And I thought you would do it on accident.

'And I told you that. I said oh my god, I thought the first time.'

Depp replies: 'Amber, I lost a f**king finger man, c'mon. I had a f**king, I had a f**king mineral can, a jar, a can of mineral spirits thrown at my nose. '

Their exchange seems to refer to a violent incident that took place in Australia one month into their marriage in which Depp suffered a severed finger.

He claimed his then-wife 'went berserk' when he asked her to sign a 'postnup' agreement, hurling a Vodka bottle at him which shattered on a marble counter-top and ripped off the tip of his finger.

Heard maintains in court filings, however, that Depp cut the digit off himself during an argument while he was 'drunk and high on ecstasy.'

'You can please tell people that it was a fair fight, and see what the jury and judge thinks. Tell the world Johnny, tell them Johnny Depp, I Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence,' she says on the tape.

'And I, you know, it's a fair fight. And see how many people believe or side with you.' Depp cuts in: 'It doesn't matter; fair fight my a**.'

Heard replies: 'Because you're big, you're bigger and you're stronger. And so when I say that I thought that you could kill me, that doesn't mean you counter with you also lost your own finger.

'I, I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm just trying to point out the fact of why I said call 911. Because I was, you had your hands on me after you threw a phone at my face.

'And it's got crazy in the past, and I truly thought I need to stop this madness before I get hurt.'

Seemingly stunned by his former flame's version of events, Depp can simply reply: 'Oh my god.'

He reminds his ex-wife that she will have to repeat her allegations under oath in court.

'Do you believe all this Amber? Do you believe all this,' Depp asks.

'Yes, the f**k, yes, yes,' Heard replies.

'Do you believe you're an abuser? he asks. 'Do you believe you abused me physically?'

Heard replies: 'Do you know I'm a 115, well not anymore, but I was a 115lb almost 115lb woman. . .have I ever been able to knock you off of your feet? Or knock you off balance?

'You're going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say, ''she started it''? Really? I have never been able to overpower you that's the difference between me and you. . .and that's a difference, that's a whole world, and there's a jury and there's a judge will see that there's a very big difference between me and you.'

Depp finally seems to lose his cool when his ex-wife accuses him of spreading rumors she was a stripper, snapping: 'I will f**king see you in court.'

He adds: 'You don't want to make f**king nice nice? I'm trying. I'm trying.

'But you know what? I loved you for so many f**king years but you know what? You didn't exist. You don't exist. You're not there. You're not there.

'You are a f**king made up thing in my head. And I can't believe you are doing this to me.'

The 31-minute recording ends with Depp saying he needs a moment to himself before a door can be heard slamming in the background.

Heard has thus far failed to have her ex-husband's defamation case thrown out or moved from Virginia, where the Washington Post is based, to California. However she did succeed in having it pushed back from last December to August of this year.

Depp's attorney Adam Waldman confirmed the recorded conversation took place while Depp was subject to a restraining order but said Heard initiated the call.

'Ms Heard delivers a chilling message to Johnny Depp any real abuse survivor will instantly recognize: Nobody will believe you. So you better do what I want,' Waldman told DailyMail.com.

'Ms Heard may continue to masquerade as a 'survivor' but the audio tape speaks for itself.'

Heard legal team offered a radically different perspective when provided with a transcript of the tape recording by DailyMail.com, complaining the recording was taken without Heard's consent and was also 'doctored'.

DailyMail.com has decided to publish the audio in its entirety so readers can form their own opinions.

'The latest recording provided to the Daily Mail continues Mr. Depp's ongoing efforts to abuse Ms. Heard,' her spokeswoman said.

'On the transcript of this recording (which notes that it is only a portion of a longer conversation), Ms. Heard repeatedly makes it clear to Mr. Depp that he was physically violent and abusive, that she feared for her life, and that even Mr. Depp's own security guards told her that if she stayed in the relationship, 'she was going to get killed'.

'What is most important on the tape, however, is not what Mr. Depp says, but what he does not say - not once on the tape does he deny Ms. Heard's statements about his violent attacks and the damage they caused, including her broken nose and black eyes.

'In fact, Ms. Heard specifically recalls that during a portion of the conversation not provided to the Daily Mail, Mr. Depp asked Ms. Heard whether she was recording the call and when she answered that she was not, admitted that she was not lying about the fact that he had abused her. As a result, Mr. Depp's use of this doctored recording at this time is not only a fraud and a crime, but an act of desperation.'

Amber Heard's spokeswoman provided the following statement from Dr. Laura Brown, a trauma expert and former president of Society for the Psychology of Women:

'Abuse is attempting to control a victim by any means necessary, including pushing this kind of news story. It is not unusual for victims of physical and emotional abuse to respond by acting to defend themselves.

'But because intimate partner violence is about coercion and control every bit as much as it is about acts of violence, abusers often respond to these acts of self-defense with attempts to reassert control.

'They do so through attempts at coercion, which often include projecting accusations of abuse at their victims for having had the audacity to attempt to defend themselves.

'It is not unusual for the perpetrator of intimate partner violence to try to use the self-defense responses of their targets to claim the mantle of victimhood for themselves.

'This is classic DARVO- Defend, Avoid, Reverse Victim and Offender – the construct developed by Dr. Jennifer Freyd.

'When society and the media buy into these false abuser narratives, they are enabling the perpetrator to re-abuse the victim. We should not be fooled by a DARVO narrative.'

From the audio conversation..

'You're going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say, ''she started it''?' Amber Heard and Johnny Depp clash over the phone during divorce

JOHNNY DEPP: But I'm telling you now, if I file, if they file the f**king papers tomorrow, which means the s**t I've got to file before we go to court on Friday, if they file those papers, first of all, it's very bad for both of us.

AMBER HEARD: Well, your people are not going to file anything that's bad for you, trust me.

JD: No, no what you're saying, you've got to do something to protect yourself which means throwing me under the bus for the, some video about me beating you?

AH: Not me. I have to respond. I mean I'll have to go and pursue, no I'll pursue the whole course of action, because here's what you don't understand. If, if we do this, and basically will know. I called my lawyers and I said why aren't we negotiating now, what's going on, where are we, and they're like everything's under court.

JD: No, they won't settle. Your agents won't settle. Your lawyers won't settle baby. I'm telling you.

AH: We want to mediate. We even have a mediator, found a mediator and everything. But that was all worked out. But the thing that Laura [Wasser, Depp's attorney] wouldn't agree to, she did not want to agree to a mutual gag order. That's the problem, she doesn't want the gag order, why Johnny? Why? Why wouldn't she? Why wouldn't she want both parties not to talk about this in the press?

AH: I just want you to know. I'm not doing anything and have not been doing any move. Look it up, the timeline. Nothing was on the offense. Everything has been a defensive move because I'm being called a liar and a gold-digger. And I am not lying about any of this s**t, and I am not after a dime of your money.

JD: It's hurting You. It's hurting You. And it's hurting me. But the worst f**king thing is (unintelligible). Do you want to go to court Amber? Seriously? Do you want to go to court with this? I'm offering you an opportunity for us to make this finish in peace. Peaceful, man. We walk away. You go do what you gotta do, I go do what I gotta do. I, I, I've been through the f**ing hurt. You've been through the f**king hurt. I love you more than anything in life. I do not want to go into a f**king court with you. I do not want to f**king tarnish your name. I do not want to f**king tarnish. I don't want nothing. I want this to be done peacefully, between us. And if you don't like the way that mediation is going, take me back to court kid. Cause I can't. This is the last f**king chance Amber. This is it. Once I file those papers we don't turn around man. I know you hate me, and I know you whatever, I'm telling you now, there's no call, it doesn't need to happen like this. Please, for f**ks sake trust me man.

JD: Continuing through court is going to end up nothing but bad for you, and for me. It's just going to be bad. In any case, no matter whether we ruin each other or not, it's going to be f**king heartbreaking, it's terrible. Let's write a mutual letter that says look, in lieu of what's transpiring out there in the world with all this f**king crazy s**t, we have decided to take this private. We're not going to go to court, right now, over this. We are going to try to work something out, together. And then at least, at the very f**king least. I know you want to respond, and I know you want to defend yourself. Listen to me. Defending yourself by throwing someone under the bus is not going to look good.

AH: I'm not. It's not about that. It would not be about me throwing you under the bus. You know what it would be? It would be released through documented people, coming on the record, and, having the protection to do so, that haven't had yet. It would be eyewitness statements. It would be evidence. Tons of it. And it would be through years. And it would be unbelievable. Unbelievable, um, to imagine that either I'm (a) in a secret fight club, or (b) I've had um...

JD: A secret what?

AH: A secret fight club. Or that I have been plotting to do this for three years, and, while taking pictures of it, and documenting it, just saving it up for the right time when I'm not asking for any money and have nothing financial to gain from it. But no one is going to believe that. No one is going to believe that one of the two alternatives, that I'm in a fight club or I've been getting, going through hair and makeup or going through makeup through all these years where I have corroborating text messages between people that match those dates of those time stamped validated photos of either corroboration between people hearing us.

AH: All of that won't be me throwing you under the bus, that will be evidence, in the case. Which I will have to, it will be criminal as well, because I cannot go on Friday and file without filing a police statement first. And the only reason I haven't filed a police statement, which has been used against me by the way, every day, and the only reason I won't do it, haven't done it, is because I don't want to hurt you and that means it goes out of my hands and every, we had a third party guy, a third party prosecutor come and a criminal lawyer come, and they went, the problem is hearing from you like your biggest struggle, this is just, is that it is the most solid evidence, case of domestic violence case we've ever seen. And if you get this over to them or any part of it they will prosecute him. And I felt like, I would never want that. For you. Because I don't even, it's hard for me, I don't even call myself, like, in my head it's hard for me to even accept any sort of victimdom, ever. And I don't want to hurt you.

JD: I understand. I understand. And I don't want to hurt you either. I'm only going to say this. I love you. I love you. I've always loved you. And I know that, look, you do whatever you feel you have to do. I'm telling you now it's a mistake to go to court. If you want to go to court, we'll go to court. I would rather take care of it in a different way, I think it would be very good for you, and it would be very good for me. But you know what?

AH: I've been called a liar.

JD: Baby, you know what?

AH: And I've been called a golddigger.

JD: Baby. Baby. Amber, I didn't call you those things. I didn't call you those things.

JD: It's been going on too long Amber and we've got to stop this. It's got to stop it.

AH: I don't know how to get my reputation back.

JD: We write a letter together. Saying that we are going to take this out of the public eye. Saying that we are going to try and work this out on our own. Saying that the media has created such a f**king hateful storm that it's sickening. That we love each other. And that we want to make sure each other's OK. Have we had fights in the past, have we had this or whatever, f**k it, whatever, they already know all that s**t, it don't matter. Here's the deal.

AH: Oh, it matters. I have been, I have been, you have no idea, every ounce of my credibility has been taken from. And done so in a dishonest way. You know.

JD: Amber, the abuse, the abuse thing is, is we've got to deal with that, yeah. We've got to deal with that Amber.

AH: We don't have any way of, my credit, It's my credibility.

JD: Then why did you put that out there?

AH: I did not. You forced me, your team, forced me to by going on the offense.

AH: Well I'm sorry. I'm sorry because the last time it got crazy between us I really did think I was gonna lose my life. And I thought you would do it on accident. And I told you that. I said oh my god, I thought the first time.

JD: Amber, I lost a f**king finger man, c'mon. I had a f**king, I had a f**king mineral can, a jar, a can of mineral spirits thrown at my nose.

AH: You can please tell people that it was a fair fight, and see what the jury and judge thinks.

Tell the world Johnny, tell them Johnny Depp, I JOHNNY DEPP, A MAN, I'M A VICTIM TOO OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

JD: Yes.

AH: And I, you know, it's a fair fight. And see how many people believe or side with you.

JD: It doesn't matter, fair fight my a**.

AH: That's exactly. Because your big, you're bigger and you're stronger. And so when I say that I thought that you could kill me, that doesn't mean you counter with you also lost your own finger. I, I'm not trying to attack you here, I'm just trying to point out the fact of why I said call 911. Because I was, you had your hands on me after you threw a phone at my face. And it's got crazy in the past, and I truly thought I need to stop this madness before I get hurt.

JD: Oh my god.

AH: And I never think about myself that way. I never defend myself that way. I never see myself as a victim.

JD: There's also Travis coming to get me, there's Travis having to come up and f**king pull me away from you.

JD: You're going to have to do this under oath too you know.

AH: I will because the unfortunate part is I can talk about all of this.

JD: Do you believe all this Amber? Do you believe all this?

AH: Yes, the f**k, yes, yes.

JD: You believe I'm an abuser?

AH Yes.

JD: You believe I'm an abuser?

AH: In May, In December, in, in April

JD: Do you believe you're an abuser?

AH: No.

JD: Do you believe you abused me physically?

AH: Do I physically believe, I mean do I believe I physically abused you?

JD: Yes?

AH: Do you know I'm a 115, well not anymore, but I was a 115lb almost 115lb woman and you have the capacity...

JD: That's not the question. That's not the question.

AH: Have I ever been able to knock you off of your feet? Or knock you off balance?

JD: You started. You started these things.

AH: You're going to get up on the stand, Johnny, and say, 'she started it'? Really? I have never been able to overpower you that's the difference between me and you.

JD: Why did you try?

AH: And that's a difference, that's a whole world, and there's a jury and there's a judge will see that there's a very big difference between me and you.

JD: You cannot automatically, you cannot think that it's just my side. You are f**king killing me. Your f**king people are trying to kill me. You've turned me into a, my boy has to go to school, my boy goes to school and has kids go 'so your f**king dad's a wifebeater'? You don't think about that Amber.

AH: You don't think also my family, and all the death threats? Me and every single person in my immediate circle of friends and family is getting also matters? And you don't think I, you don't think I?

JD: Death threats?!!

AH: Your people put this out. Why, why, why, why did your security go on the record and lie? Why, that's a proactive measure. Why did your divorce attorney get to file for divorce period? At all? Second, why did she have to go and leak to TMZ? Why if you wanted it private, is TMZ being fed information literally by Laura Wasser and Marty Singer every step of the way? My, my my my arrest records. Who put that in the media? The rumors that I was a stripper? Or, of course I can expect that. I've known every step of the way, every single step of the way everything you give 'em.

JD: I give 'em? I give 'em? That's it. I give 'em? I'll see you in court. No. I'll f**king see you in court. I will f**king see you in court. I never f**king said that. I never told anyone that. You f**king trusted me with that and I never f**king told anyone that. And you know what, Amber?

AH: Thank you.

JD: This is not, no, this is me. This is me saying I tried. And thank you. And I will see you in f**king court. You don't want to make f**king nice nice? I'm trying. I'm trying. But you know what? You, I loved you for so many f**king years but you know what? You didn't exist. You don't exist. You're not there. You're not there. You are a f**king made up thing in my head. And I can't believe you are doing this to me.

401 notes · View notes

jonismitchell · 4 years

Text

A track by track review of 1979’s reputation, one of the most critically acclaimed pop/rock albums of all time. Dive into enigma Taylor Swift’s hits with top reviewer Alice Lam… and maybe find a fresh perspective on these old songs.

PRELUDE: This prelude sees Swift angrily repeating ‘people like a show’ while compatriots at the recording studio read negative headlines aloud. It is a sonic mess with a loud guitar backing, hitting a mix of sound that effectively portrays both chaos and clarity. It is not a song but a minute long intro, at the end of which the sound cuts out, Swift stops whispering, and there is a silent moment before she whispers ‘reputation’ and the album begins.

SO IT GOES: “We’re on the precipice of a good time,” Swift sings on her album’s opening track. She brings clever detail and confessional songwriting to a story of lovers who meet in a bar and quickly turn on each other, holding and losing in tandem with the crashes of music in the background. This is Swift’s first proper rock song, and it’s clear that she’s chosen the best of the bunch in terms of producers.

DON’T BLAME ME: While largely overlooked on its original album debut, ‘Don’t Blame Me’ quickly became a classic after the theatrical performance it gained on the accompanying tour. In it, Swift screams about “love making her crazy” at high notes she had previously never attempted in her career. It is widely regarded as one of the greatest examples of her vocal performance, even if she didn’t quite have the range of certain soprano peers.

I DID SOMETHING BAD: This sardonic ode to the witches in Salem has a distinctly powerful and feminist quality with Swift’s biting lyrics. While a first draft of the song features snippets such as “I never trust a narcissist, but they love me” and “this is how the world works, you gotta leave before you get left,” the final version serves as a scathing critique of men in general. This was a recurring theme in Swift’s late work.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS: This Gatsby-esque experiment in camp brings Swift at her melodramatic best, biting subtly at the celebrity feuds most thought she would address more directly. Even though the song claims that Swift is enamoured with ‘looking for her Daisy,’ one gets the sense that she could rather be curled up in a corner with a book and the lover she toasts to.

LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO: A sharp pivot from the giddy laughter of the previous track, Look What You Made Me Do shows Swift as vengeful and scorned. As her voice soars over the lyrical density of the chorus, the accompanying strings evoke images of a scorned goddess in tandem with the Nine Muses and Aphrodite references. This came later, but as Swift herself would say: “there’s nothing like a mad woman.”

INTERLUDE: This largely instrumental interlude starts with a continuation of the strings in Look What You Made Me Do’s outro, but fades from that rage and intensity into a simple melody on the acoustic guitar. As the strumming continues, one can hear Swift say “isn’t that so pretty to think? That all along, we were going somewhere?”

GETAWAY CAR: While the kingdom established lyrically in the first half of reputation is fraught with fear and change, this nearly perfect pop song takes place in an extended metaphor of running away with a lover. Swift seems to know the relationship won’t last (“should’ve known I’d be the first to leave, think about the place where you first met me”) but revels in it all the same. At the very end of the song, you can hear Swift’s car actually pulling into a motel. This song is a fandom favourite and of the most well-known Taylor Swift songs.

CAROL: Although Swift never explicitly confirmed the subject of the track, its title and lyrical content suggest that it draws inspiration from the 1952 novel ‘The Price of Salt.’ It drew hot debate in coming years due to the fact that it is explicitly sung about a woman, (as was 1982’s ‘betty’) but was dismissed alternately as a male perspective and a fictional story. Nevertheless, the emotional details of the song prove Swift’s salt as a songwriter.

GORGEOUS: This acoustic song set at a bar goes through the drunken emotions of meeting someone and being instantly attracted to them. “I go through phases when it comes to love, I’m nothing that you want, but can I just say… you’re gorgeous,” Swift almost whispers, tentative in this first declaration of love despite her reputation. This is the first truly stripped song on the album and is beautiful in this regard.

DELICATE: Picking up exactly where ‘Gorgeous’ left off, ‘Delicate’ deals with the growing emotions of a relationship complicated by outside measures. “My reputation’s never been worse,” laments Swift, but brightens as she sings “so you must like me for me.” With equal measures of misery and hope, ‘Delicate’ is an oft-covered tribute to first love.

END GAME (ft. Lorde): Swift collaborated with Ella Yelich O’Connor (more commonly known as Lorde) for this track about believing that your lover is the last one for you. Originally cut with rapper Future and singer Ed Sheeran, Swift was forced to politely explain to the former that she “did not want to ruin her status as a talented artist by including Ed Sheeran on a track.” The version that was recut with Lorde featured backup vocals from future and the indie singer’s trademark incisive metaphors.

DRESS: Yet another ode to falling in love with your best friend, the breathy and sweet production brings a classic love song to the table. The hook drew attention for being decisively more sexual than Swift’s prior work, much to the artist’s surprise. “There’s a reason I put ‘So It Goes’ at the beginning of the album,” she told AMK Magazine in 1980. “Did people not get it?”

KING OF MY HEART: The second half of reputation alludes to a new kingdom with the lover, but none so explicitly confirm it as this acoustic celebration of Swift’s unnamed lover. Using an extended metaphor of pieces in a chess game, she declares that she would die to keep the secret of her love and that she believes it is “the end of all the endings.” Fans celebrated the heartbroken songstress’s supposed happy ending in 1979, but quickly fell to pieces once Swift confirmed her breakup on 1982’s folklore. Still, no one knows who this song was about.

DANCING WITH OUR HANDS TIED: Building upon the secrecy theme, this song features Swift, her guitar, and a trembling voice that packs in syllables as if trying to finish so the owner can cry in a corner. Indeed, rumours claim Swift cried extensively before recording this song. It’s easy to see why: the trial and tribulation of loving someone in spite of deep fears is never better rendered than in this miserable song about almost-lost love.

CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT: “My castle crumbled overnight,” sings Swift, “I brought a knife to a gunfight.” While slightly more produced than the last several offerings, ‘Call It What You Want’ is a calm love song about moving past fears of what those might say. Swift finally casts aside her bad reputation and invites listeners to comment on her supposed relationships, almost casting the audience an eye roll in the comfort of a stable love.

NEW YEAR’S DAY: The album closer is a simple piano offering, but features beautiful lyrics that are played consistently on January 1st. “Please don’t ever become a stranger whose laugh I could recognize anywhere,” Swift entreats her lover, acknowledging her fears and her hopes in the same breath. It feels almost too private to listen to - and in a way, that seems exactly as Taylor Swift wants us to do. reputation makes it clear that no matter how much she tells us through her music: we still won’t know her at all.

BONUS SONGS (2015 CD RELEASE)

SYLVESTER SKY: As of 2015, no one has seen Taylor Swift for more than thirty years. (“Good for her,” grumbled Goran Stelkoff, longtime correspondent at AMK Magazine.) This so-called new song was played by Swift at several clubs in 1980, although never to more than a couple dozen people at a time. This nearly-flawless recording is a rare find. The lyrics are classically Swiftian, filled with anxiety for the future while revelling in the love she enjoys at present. “We’ve got to get back to that Sylvester sky,” she croons, wondering at a heaven where she and her lover can exist without fears. It is a thematic companion to the album’s ‘Dancing With Our Hands Tied.’

BOTH SIDES NOW: Citing this as one of her favourite songs from the moment it was released, Swift covered Joni Mitchell’s ‘Both Sides Now’ dozens of times on her reputation tour, presumably as an ode to her new perspective of fame. Several quality recordings have been spliced together here to form a haunting effect. As you listen to this song, imagine Swift sitting on a stool in front of her legions of fans and strumming a guitar, quietly singing the lyrics she knew by heart.

#arden speaks #taylor swift #70s icon taylor swift #jjddkd hope amy + anon enjoy!#reputation

24 notes · View notes

iwanthermidnightz · 5 years

Link

“Not a shot. Not a single chance. Not a snowball’s chance in hell.”

Taylor Swift — who, at 30, has reached a Zen state of cheerful realism — laughs as she leans into a pillow she’s placed over her crossed legs inside her suite at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, leaning further still into her infinitesimal odds of winning a Golden Globe, which will zero out when she heads down to the televised ball in a few hours.

Never mind whether or not the tune she co-wrote, “Beautiful Ghosts,” might actually have been worthy of a trophy for best original song (or shortlisted for an Oscar, which it was not). Since the Globe nominations were revealed, voters could hardly have been immune to how quickly the film it’s a part of, “Cats,” in which she also co-stars, became a whipping boy for jokes about costly Hollywood miscalculations and creative disasters. Not that you’ll hear Swift utter a discouraging word about it all. “I’m happy to be here, happy to be nominated, and I had a really great time working on that weird-ass movie,” she declares. “I’m not gonna retroactively decide that it wasn’t the best experience. I never would have met Andrew Lloyd Webber or gotten to see how he works, and now he’s my buddy. I got to work with the sickest dancers and performers. No complaints.”

If this leads you to believe that the pop superstar is in the business of sugarcoating things, consider her other new movie — a vastly more significant documentary that presents Swift not just sans digital fur but without a whole lot of the varnish of the celebrity-industrial complex. The Netflix-produced “Taylor Swift: Miss Americana” has a prestige slot as the Jan. 23 opening night gala premiere of the Sundance Film Festival before it reaches the world as a day-and-date theatrical release and potential streaming monster on Jan. 31.

The doc spends much of its opening act juxtaposing the joys of creation with the aggravations of global stardom — the grist of many a pop doc, if rendered in especially intimate detail — before taking a more provocative turn in its last reel to focus more tightly on how and why Swift became a political animal. It’s the story of an earnest young woman with a self-described “good girl” fixation working through her last remaining fears of being shamed as she comes to embrace her claws, and her causes.

Given that the film portrays how gradually, and sometimes reluctantly, Swift came to place herself into service as a social commentator, “Miss Americana” is a portrait of the birth of an activist. Director Lana Wilson sets the movie up so that it pivots on a couple of big letdowns for its subject. The first comes early in the film, and early in the morning, when Swift’s publicist calls to update her on how many of the top three Grammy categories her 2017 album “Reputation” is nominated for: zilch. She’s clearly bummed about the record’s brushoff by the awards’ nominating committee, as just about anyone who’d previously won album of the year twice would be, and determinedly tells her rep that she’s just going to make a better record.

But she suffers what feels like a more meaningful blow toward the end of the film. In the fall of 2018, Swift finally comes out of the closet politically to intervene on behalf of Democrats in a midterm election in her home state of Tennessee. As the Washington Post put it, this announcement “fell like a hammer across the Trump-worshipping subforums of the far-right Internet, where people had convinced themselves… that the world-famous pop star was a secret MAGA fan.” Donald Trump goes on camera to smirk that he now likes Swift’s music a little less. The singer is successful in enlisting tens of thousands of young people to register to vote, but her senatorial candidate of choice, Democrat Phil Bredesen, loses to Republican Marsha Blackburn, whom she’d called out as a flagrant enemy of feminism and gay rights.

“Definitely, that was a bigger disappointment for me,” Swift says, pitting the midterm snub against the Grammy snub. “I think what’s going on out in the world is bigger than who gets a prize at the party.”

It was not always thus for Swift — as the detractors who dragged her for staying quiet during the last presidential election eagerly pointed out. If you had to pick the most embarrassing or regrettable moment in “Miss Americana,” it might be the TV clip from “The Late Show With David Letterman” in which the host brings up politics and gets Swift to essentially advocate the “Shut up and sing” mantra. As the studio audience roars approval of her vow to stay apolitical, Letterman gives her what now looks like history’s most dated fist bump.

Thinking back on it, Swift is incredulous. “Every time I didn’t speak up about politics as a young person, I was applauded for it,” she says. “It was wild. I said, ‘I’m a 22-year-old girl — people don’t want to hear what I have to say about politics.’ And people would just be like, ‘Yeahhhhh!’”

At that point, Swift was already starting to record isolated pop tracks, taking baby steps that would soon turn into full strides away from her initial genre. But whether she had designs on switching lanes or not, the lesson of the Dixie Chicks’ forced exile after Natalie Maines’ comment against then-President George W. Bush had branded itself onto her brain at an earlier age, when she’d just planted her young-teen flag in Nashville and overheard a lot of the lamentations of older Music Row songwriters about how the Chicks had thrown it all away.

“I saw how one comment ended such a powerful reign, and it terrified me,” says Swift. “These days, with social media, people can be so mad about something one day and then forget what they were mad about a couple weeks later. That’s fake outrage. But what happened to the Dixie Chicks was real outrage. I registered it — that you’re always one comment away from being done being able to make music.”

Maybe the most transfixing scene in “Miss Americana” is one where Swift argues with her father and other members of her team about the statement she’s about to release coming out against Blackburn and — it’s clear from her references to White House opposition to the Equality Act — Donald Trump too. The comments were so spontaneous that Wilson wasn’t there to film the moment, but the director had asked people to turn on the camera if anything interesting transpired, and here it most certainly did.

“For 12 years, we’ve not got involved in politics or religion,” an unnamed associate says to Swift, suggesting that going down the road of standing against a president as well as Republican gubernatorial and Senate candidates could have the effect of halving her audience on tour. Her father chimes in: “I’ve read the entire [statement] and … right now, I’m terrified. I’m the guy that went out and bought armored cars.”

“I needed to get to a point where I was ready, able and willing to call out bullshit rather than just smiling my way through it.” TAYLOR SWIFT

But Swift is adamant about pressing the button to send a nearly internet-breaking Instagram post, saying that Blackburn has voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act as well as LGBTQ-friendly bills: “I can’t see another commercial [with] her disguising these policies behind the words ‘Tennessee Christian values.’ I live in Tennessee. I am Christian. That’s not what we stand for.” Pushing back tears, she laments not having come out against Trump two years earlier, “but I can’t change that. … I need to be on the right side of history. … Dad, I need you to forgive me for doing it, because I’m doing it.”

Says Swift now, “This was a situation where, from a humanity perspective, and from what my moral compass was telling me I needed to do, I knew I was right, and I really didn’t care about repercussions.” She understands why she faced such heated opposition in the room: “My dad is terrified of threats against my safety and my life, and he has to see how many stalkers we deal with on a daily basis, and know that this is his kid. It’s where he comes from.”

Swift was recently announced as the recipient of a Vanguard Award from GLAAD, and she name-checked the org in her basher-bashing single “You Need to Calm Down,” which was released as one of the teaser tracks for last fall’s more outwardly directed and socially conscious “Lover” album. Part of her politicization, she says, is feeling it would be hypocritical to hang out with her gay friends while leaving them to their own devices politically. In the film, she says, “I think it is so frilly and spineless of me to stand onstage and go ‘Happy Pride Month, you guys,’ and then not say this, when someone’s literally coming for their neck.”

A year and a half later, she elaborates: “To celebrate but not advocate felt wrong for me. Using my voice to try to advocate was the only choice to make. Because I’ve talked about equality and sung about it in songs like ‘Welcome to New York,’ but we are at a point where human rights are being violated. When you’re saying that certain people can be kicked out of a restaurant because of who they love or how they identify, and these are actual policies that certain politicians vocally stand behind, and they disguise them as family values, that is sinister. So, so dark.”

Her increasing alignment with the LGBTQ community wasn’t the only thing raising her consciousness to a breaking — i.e., speaking — point. So did the sexual assault trial in which judgment was rendered that she had been groped by a DJ in a backstage photo op (for financial restitution, Swift had asked for $1).

Her experience with the trial was crucial, she says, in finding herself “needing to speak up about beliefs I’d always had, because it felt like an opportunity to shed light on what those trials are like. I experienced it as a person with extreme privilege, so I can only imagine what it’s like when you don’t have that. And I think one theme that ended up emerging in the film is what happens when you are not just a people pleaser but someone who’s always been respectful of authority figures, doing what you were supposed to do, being polite at all costs. I still think it’s important to be polite, but not at all costs,” she says. “Not when you’re being pushed beyond your limits, and not when people are walking all over you. I needed to get to a point where I was ready, able and willing to call out bulls— rather than just smiling my way through it.”

That came into play when Kanye West stepped into her life and publicly shamed her a second time. In the video Kim Kardashian released in 2016, you can hear the people-pleasing Swift on the other end of the line sheepishly thanking him for letting her know about the “Me and Taylor might still have sex” line he plans to include about her in a song — only to regret it later when the eventual track also includes the claim “Why? I made that bitch famous.” The boast, of course, referred back to the moment when he interrupted her and stole her spotlight at the MTV VMAs six years earlier as she was in the middle of an acceptance speech. West’s is not a name that ever publicly escapes Swift’s lips, so it might be surprising to fans that these events are recapped in “Miss Americana,” although Swift says the filmic decisions were all up to the director, who explains that Swift’s reaction to the episode was important to include.

“With the 2009 VMAs, it surprised me that when she talked about how the whole crowd was booing, she thought that they were booing her, and how devastating that was,” says Wilson. “That was something I hadn’t thought about or heard before, and made it much more relatable and understandable to anyone.”

“I see the movie as looking at the flip side of being America’s sweetheart.” LANA WILSON, DIRECTOR OF “TAYLOR SWIFT: MISS AMERICANA”

Swift acknowledges how formative both incidents have been in her life, for ill and good. “As a teenager who had only been in country music, attending my very first pop awards show,” she says now, “somebody stood up and sent me the message: ‘You are not respected here. You shouldn’t be here on this stage.’ That message was received, and it burrowed into my psyche more than anyone knew. … That can push you one of two ways: I could have just curled up and decided I’m never going to one of those events ever again, or it could make me work harder than anyone expects me to, and try things no one expected, and crave that respect — and hopefully one day get it.

“But then when that person who sparked all of those feelings comes back into your life, as he did in 2015, and I felt like I finally got that respect (from West), but then soon realized that for him it was about him creating some revisionist history where he was right all along, and it was correct, right and decent for him to get up and do that to a teenage girl…” She sighs. “I understand why Lana put it in.”

Adds the woman who started her recent “Lover” album with a West-allusive romp that’s pointedly called “I Forgot That You Existed”: “I don’t think too hard about this stuff now.”

What’s not in the film is any mention of her other most famous nemeses — Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta of Big Machine Records, with whom she’s scrapped publicly for several months. “The Big Machine stuff happened pretty late in our process,” says Wilson. “We weren’t that far from picture lock. But there’s also not much to say that isn’t publicly known. I feel like Taylor’s put the story out there in her own words already, and it’s been widely covered. I was interested in telling the story that hadn’t been told before, that would be surprising and emotionally powerful to audiences whether they were music industry people or not.”

Still, the way Swift has been willing to stand up politically for others parallels the manner in which she stood up for herself in regard to Braun, et al., at the recent Billboard Women in Music Awards, where she gave an altogether blistering speech, naming names and taking no prisoners, going after the men who now control her six-album Big Machine back catalog. Certainly Swift was aware that, along with supporters, there were many friends and business associates of Braun among the VIPs in the Hollywood Palladium who would not be pleased with what this very reformed people-pleaser had to say.

One thing everyone who was in the room agrees on is that you could hear a pin drop as Swift used the speech to get even bolder about the meat of these disputes. Some would say it’s because they were riveted by her boldness in speaking truth to power, others because they just felt uncomfortable. Says one fellow honoree who works in a high position in the industry (and who’s worked with some high-profile Braun clients): “People were excited for her at the beginning of the speech. But once she started going in a negative direction at an event that is supposed to be celebrating accomplishments and rah-rah for women, I felt it fell flat with a good portion of the room, because it wasn’t the appropriate place to be saying it.”

Wasn’t it intimidating for Swift, knowing she might be polarizing an auditorium full of the most powerful people in the business? “Well, I do sleep well at night knowing that I’m right,” she responds, “and knowing that in 10 years it will have been a good thing that I spoke about artists’ rights to their art, and that we bring up conversations like: Should record deals maybe be for a shorter term, or how are we really helping artists if we’re not giving them the first right of refusal to purchase their work if they want to?”

“Obviously, anytime you’re standing up against or for anything, you’re never going to receive unanimous praise. But that’s what forces you to be brave. And that’s what’s different about the way I live my life now.” (Braun’s camp did not respond to a request for comment.)

One thing Taylor Swift can’t bend to her determined will is her family’s health. She revealed a few years ago that her mother, Andrea, a beloved figure among the thousands of fans who’ve met her at road shows, is battling breast cancer. Swift addressed the uncertainty of that struggle in an anguished song on her latest album, “Soon You’ll Get Better.” Many who view “Miss Americana” will look for signs of how her mom is doing. The subject comes up in a section of the film that includes a relatively light-hearted scene in in which it’s shown that one of Andrea Swift’s ways of saying “eff you” to cancer recently was to break the mold and bring a canine — her “cancer dog” — into a famously feline-friendly family.

The real answer may come in Swift’s touring activity for “Lover.” Whereas typically she’d spend nine months in the year after an album release on the road, she plans to limit herself to four stadium dates in America this summer and a trip around the festival circuit in Europe. This may not be 100% for personal reasons: “I wanted to be able to perform in places that I hadn’t performed in as much, and to do things I hadn’t done before, like Glastonbury,” she says. “I feel like I haven’t done festivals, really, since early in my career — they’re fun and bring people together in a really cool way. But I also wanted to be able to work as much as I can handle right now, with everything that’s going on at home. And I wanted to figure out a way that I could do both those things.”

Is being able to be there for her mother the main concern? “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the reason,” she says. “I mean, we don’t know what is going to happen. We don’t know what treatment we’re going to choose. It just was the decision to make at the time, for right now, for what’s going on.”

In her case, it’s as if her manager had taken seriously ill as well as the person she’s always been closest to, all at once. “Everyone loves their mom; everyone’s got an important mom,” she allows. “But for me, she’s really the guiding force. Almost every decision I make, I talk to her about it first. So obviously it was a really big deal to ever speak about her illness.” During filming, when Andrea’s breast cancer had returned for a second time, “she was going through chemo, and that’s a hard enough thing for a person to go through.” Then it got harder. Speaking about this latest development publicly for the first time, Swift quietly reveals: “While she was going through treatment, they found a brain tumor. And the symptoms of what a person goes through when they have a brain tumor is nothing like what we’ve ever been through with her cancer before. So it’s just been a really hard time for us as a family.”

Compared with that, nearly any other topic the movie might address would pale. But it finds weightiness in addressing other kinds of unhealthiness, like the physical expectations that are placed on women in general and celebrity women specifically, Swift being no exception. In this department, she has her own heroines. “I love people like Jameela Jamil, because he way she speaks about body image, it’s almost like she speaks in a hook. Women are held to such a ridiculous standard of beauty, and we’re seeing so much on social media that makes us feel like we are less than, or we’re not what we should be, that you kind of need a mantra to repeat in your head when you start to have unhealthy thoughts. I swear the way Jameela speaks is like lyrics — it gets stuck in my head and it calms me down.”

Swift’s collaborator in this messaging, Wilson, was on a list of potential directors Netflix gave her when she expressed interest in possibly doing a documentary to follow the concert special that premiered on the service just over a year ago. You could discern a feminist message, if you chose to, in the fact that Swift chose a director most well known for a documentary about abortion providers, “After Tiller.” Swift says she was most impressed, though, that Wilson’s docs look for nuance and subtlety in addressing subjects that do lend themselves to soapboxes, and their first conversation was about their mutual desire to avoid “propaganda” in any form.

If there’s a feminist agenda in “Miss Americana,” Wilson and Swift wanted it to emerge naturally, although the director admits it was pretty blatant from the outset, given that she set up the film (which is co-produced by Morgan Neville, the director’s “sounding board”) with an all-female crew. Or nearly all-female, says Wilson, laughing, “I will say that we did always have male production assistants, because I like trying to show people that men can fetch coffee for women.”

Adds Wilson, “When I started filming, it was before she’d come out politically. She knew that she was coming out of a very dark period, and wanted collaborate on something that captured what she was going through and that was really raw and honest and emotionally intimate.” The political awakening, the director says, “was a profound decision for her to make. In that, I saw this feminist coming of age story that I personally connected with, and that I really think women and girls around the world will see themselves in.”

“The bigger your career gets, the more you struggle with the idea that a lot of people see you the same way they see an iPhone or a Starbucks.” TAYLOR SWIFT

The film borrows its title from a song on the “Lover” album, “Miss Americana & the Heartbreak Prince,” that’s maybe the one fully allegorical song Swift has ever released — and, in its fashion, is a great protest song. The entire lyric is a metaphor for how Swift grew up as an unblinking patriot and has had to reluctantly leave behind her naiveté in the age of Trump. Her partner on that track, as well as other message songs like “You Need to Calm Down” and “The Man,” was a co-writer and co-producer new to her stable of collaborators this time around, Joel Little.

With the song “Miss Americana & the Heartbreak Prince,” although the lyrics are cloaked in metaphor, “We like to think it was a very clear statement,” Little says. “There are lots of little hidden messages within that song that are all pointing toward the way that she thinks and feels about politics and the United States. I love that it uses a lot of classic Taylor Swift imagery, in terms of the songwriting topics of high school and cheerleaders, as a clever nod to what she’s done in the past, but tied in with a heavy political message.”

“Miss Americana & the Heartbreak Prince” doesn’t actually appear in the documentary, but the director says the film’s title is understood by fans as an obvious reference to political themes in the number. “Even if you don’t know the song,” Wilson says, “I see the movie as looking at the flip side of being America’s sweetheart, so I like how the title evokes that too.”

The doc doesn’t lack for its own protest songs though. In the wake of her midterm disappointment, Swift is seen writing an anthem for millennials who might have come away disillusioned with the political process. That previously unheard song, “Only the Young,” is seen being demo-ed before it plays in full over the end credits; it’ll be released as a digital single in conjunction with the doc. Key lyric: ““You did all that you could do / The game was rigged, the ref got tricked/ The wrong ones think they’re right / We were outnumbered — this time.”

“One thing I think is amazing about her,” says Wilson, “is that she goes to the studio and to songwriting as a place to process what she’s going through. I loved how, when she got the Grammy news (about “Reputation”), this isn’t someone who’s going to feel sorry for herself or say ‘That wasn’t right.’ She’s like, ‘Okay, I’m going to work even harder.’ You see her strength of character in that moment when she gets that news. And then with the election results, I loved how she channeled so many of her thoughts and feelings into ‘Only the Young.’ It was a great way to kind of show how stuff that happens in her life goes directly into the songs; you get to witness that in both cases.

So is the film aimed at satisfying the fan base or teasing the unconvinced hordes who might dial it up as a free stream? “I think it’s a little bit of both,” Swift says. “I chose Netflix because it’s a very vast, accessible medium to people who are just like, ‘Hey, what’s this? I’m bored.’ I love that, because I do so many things that cater specifically to fans that like my music, I think it’s important to put yourself out there to people who don’t care at all about you.”

In the wake of the last round of Kanye-gate, stung by the backlash of those who took his side, Swift took a three-year break from interviews. The mantra of her 2017 album “Reputation” and subsequent tour was “No explanations.” But her Beyoncé-style press blackout was a passing phase. With “Lover” and now, especially, the documentary, she could hardly be more about the explanations. Although this interview is the only one she currently plans to do about the documentary, it’s clear that she’s come back into a season of openness, and that she considers it her natural habitat.

“I really like the whole discussion around music. And during ‘Reputation,’ it never felt like it was ever going to be about music, no matter what I said or did,” she says. “I approach albums differently, in how I want to show them to the world or what I feel comfortable with at that time in my life.” Being more transparent “feels great with this album. I really feel like I could just keep making stuff — it’s that vibe right now. I don’t think I’ve ever written this much. That’s exhibited in ‘Lover’ having the most songs that I’ve ever had on an album” (18, to be exact). “But even after I made the album, I kept writing and going in the studio. That’s a new thing I’ve experienced this time around. That openness kind of feels like you finally got the lid off a jar you’ve been working at for years.”

Cipher-dom never could have stood for long for someone who’s established herself as one of the most accomplished confessional singer-songwriters in pop history. “I don’t really operate very well as an enigma,” she says. “It’s not fulfilling to me. It works really well in a lot of pop careers, but I think that it makes me feel completely unable to do what I had gotten in this to do, which is to communicate to people. I live for the feeling of standing on a stage and saying, ‘I feel this way,’ and the crowd responding with ‘We do too!’ And me being like, ‘Really?’ And they’re like, ‘Yes!’”

Swift believes talking things up again isn’t a form of giving in to narcissism — it’s a way of warding off commodification.

“The bigger your career gets, the more you struggle with the idea that a lot of people see you the same way they see an iPhone or a Starbucks,” she muses. “They’ve been inundated with your name in the media, and you become a brand. That’s inevitable for me, but I do think that it’s really necessary to feel like I can still communicate with people. And as a songwriter, it’s really important to still feel human and process things in a human way. The through line of all that is humanity, and reaching out and talking to people and having them see things that aren’t cute.

#swift finally comes out of the closet politically.... yes they REALLY wrote that

80 notes · View notes

alexthegamingboy · 5 years

Text

Toonami Weekly Recap 01/11/2020

My Hero Academia Shie Hassaikai Arc Season 4 EP#71 (08) - Suneater of the Big Three: Suneater, a member of Fat Gum's agency and U.A's Big 3, decides to single-handedly defeat everyone's first obstacle; three members of the Eight Bullets, the Shie Hassaikai's elite enforcers.

JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure: Golden Wind EP#09 - The First Mission from the Boss: Bucciarati's group are reunited on Capri and are approached by Pericolo, one of Passione's capos disguised as a janitor. Bucciarati hands over the treasure which was hidden inside a men's toilet and Pericolo makes Bucciarati a capo in control of Polpo's turf. His first task is to protect Trish Una, daughter of the unknown Passione's boss, from the Hitman Team within Passione. The Team had turned traitor and are searching for clues to the boss's identity while trying to depose him. Back in Naples, Formaggio, one of the traitors, manages to locate Narancia who was out shopping for supplies. He engages Narancia and concludes that Bucciarati's group must be guarding Trish. Narancia tries to dispose of Formaggio with his miniature airplane Stand Aerosmith, but Formaggio uses his own Stand, Little Feet, to shrink himself and hide in Narancia’s pocket.

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba Drum House Arc EP#11 - Tsuzumi Mansion: Tanjiro separates Zenitsu from the harassed girl, who slaps Zenitsu when he tries to push it. Zenitsu states he's weak and will die on his next job, which is why he had to get married. He tells Tanjiro he didn't want to become a Demon Slayer but got into debt with a woman, who gave him to his trainer who made him become one. Tanjiro's crow directs both boys to a mansion. Zenitsu's hearing is as sharp as Tanjiro's smell and he hears two scared kids who tell Tanjiro it is a demon's house and the demon took their older brother inside. A man is thrown outside the house and dies moments later, but it is not the siblings' brother. Tanjiro cajoles a terrified Zenitsu into coming into the house with him, leaving Nezuko in her box with the siblings to protect them. Zenitsu overreacts when Tanjiro says he still has broken bones as that means he can't protect him. The siblings enter the demon's house behind them as they heard Nezuko scratching and got scared, leaving her behind. The house suddenly rearranges itself, separating the group, stranding the sister, Teruko, with Tanjiro and the brother, Shoichi, with Zenitsu. Shoichi berates Zenitsu for his cowardice. While Zenitsu frantically looks for an exit he opens a door and sees a boar-headed man, who passes them by. The demon of the house approaches Tanjiro and Teruko hides. Tanjiro leaps at the demon, who rants a child with rare blood he found, his prey, has been taken, before flipping the room so they are standing on the wall. His blood art gives him total control of the house when he strikes a tsuzumi drum growing from his body. The boar-headed man unexpectedly leaps into the room, wielding a pair of chipped Nichirin swords.

One-Punch Man 2 EP#12 (24) Finale - Cleaning Up the Disciple's Mess: Bang and Bomb start to beat up Garou mercilessly. Garou remembers when he was a young loner and had a popular classmate name Tat-Chan. It is revealed that the reason why Garou hates heroes and wants to be a villain is because he believes that people only want to be a hero to beat up weaklings, as shown when Tat-Chan gangs up on Garou simply because he's a "monster." Garou repels Bang and Bomb, and Phoenix Man arrives and saves Garou. Genos is about to kill Garou and Phoenix Man but Phoenix Man calls for Elder Centipede to help. Bang and Bomb briefly wound Elder Centipede, but Elder Centipede knocks them back and sheds his damaged armor. Genos plans to stall Elder Centipede to give a chance for Bang and Bomb to get the defeated A Class Heroes to safety. Genos briefly wounds Elder Centipede, but Elder Centipede quickly regenerates and knocks Genos back. Genos starts to become disillusioned, believing himself as worthless since he could not beat the behemoth Dragon-level monster. Bang puts Genos down and plans to take on Elder Centipede himself when King arrives with a megaphone challenging Elder Centipede. The Hero Association briefly gave King history on Elder Centipede, and King lies that Blast (S Class Hero Rank 1) has arrived, goading Elder Centipede to fight him (Blast previously wounded Elder Centipede so badly that it retreated underground). Before Elder Centipede could kill King, Saitama arrives and kills it with a Serious Punch (as King told Saitama to make sure he kills the monster in one shot, for fear that it may cause damage to a nearby city). Saitama and Genos see each other in the wreckage, and Genos asks Saitama what he lacks. Saitama simply replies, "Power," which Genos takes note on, to the despair of King. Genos then looks forward to the future, believing he will be stronger now. The episode ends with Saitama asking the remaining heroes if they want to go back to his apartment. In the post credit scene, Garou finally passes out from exhaustion and Phoenix Man plans to take Garou to Orochi.

Dr. Stone EP#18 - Stone Wars: A group of Tsukasa's army, led by a man named Hyoga, approaches the village and beats down Kinro. With Ginro unwilling to cut down the bridge to the village with Kinro still on it, Senku, with the aid of Gen and Magma, convinces Hyoga's group that they've already produced guns, forcing them to retreat. Three days later, during a storm where guns would be unuseable, Hyoga's team attack again, only to discover that Senku and the villagers have managed to produce katanas. Although Hyoga proves to be a powerful foe with his spear technique, the spear breaks thanks to some sneaky sabotage by Gen.

Fire Force Netherworld Arc EP#21 - Those Connected: Obi breaks Vulcan and himself free from the grip of Lisa's flaming tentacles. While talking to her, he inserts extinguishing grenades in the tips of the tentacles. They explode, extinguishing her flames and Vulcan catches her as she falls. However, Giovanni grabs Lisa and threatens to kill her if Vulcan does not shoot Obi. Vulcan shoots Obi, so Giovanni releases Lisa. However, Obi is uninjured due to his protective armor. He attacks Giovanni but he is able to fend off Obi's strikes. Meanwhile, Shinra has a series of visions of the past and detects the presence of Sho through his Adolla Burst ability. They meet, but Sho is in no mood for reconciliation, and they engage in a fiery battle. Sho appears to stop time which Licht believes is linked to the Adolla Burst. Sho then hits Shinra with a punishing blow.

Food Wars!: Shokugeki no Soma Totsuki Autumn Election Arc EP#24 - The Warriors' Banquet: Akira's dish, which has a powerful fragrance and uses the power of holy basil and yogurt, earns a score of 94 from the judges. Finally, Soma presents his own fragrance bomb, combining his past two failures into a curry risotto omurice containing a mango chutney. The dish earns Soma 93 points, landing him second place behind Akira. However, it is noted by the crowd that although Akira received a higher score overall, three of the five judges ranked Soma's dish higher than Akira's, with the implication being that in a Shokugeki, this would have given Soma the victory. Afterwards, when the contestants hold an afterparty celebrating and lamenting their victories and losses in the preliminaries, Soma becomes determined to improve his cooking finesse.

Black Clover: Elf Tribe Reincarnation Arc EP#100 - We Won't Lose to You: The elf possessing Klaus realises that Klaus' soul is trying to retake control so he attacks Asta, injuring him. Rhya offers Mimosa in exchange for Asta’s Grimoire but Asta refuses and repeats his promise to become Wizard King. Asta's words are heard by Yuno and he instinctively saves Asta, revealing his soul is back in control, but he has retained the elf’s body and power. Rhya is confused as the reincarnation should have sent Yuno's soul to sleep. As the mage in the sphere of light, revealed to be Licht, has not yet moved, Rhya suspects he needs more time to reincarnate. Yuno senses that the possessed knight's souls are asleep while the elves control their bodies, whereas in Yuno's body it is the elf soul that is asleep. Asta activates his demon form and he and Yuno knock Klaus and Hamon unconscious. Licht suddenly awakens and retrieves the nearby black sword, which turns white as he touches it. Nero appears from Asta's robe while Licht steals the Demon Dweller sword from Asta before he can react. They duel fiercely but Licht's speed and greater skill with the anti-magic swords overwhelms them. Working together Asta and Yuno both manage to surpass their previous limits but Licht uses his unnamed sword to block their attack, which is then retrieved by Asta. Licht attacks and destroys most of the floating dungeon and the surrounding forest. Asta is left unconscious while the unnamed sword turns black and is absorbed into his Grimoire.

Sword Art Online: Alicization: War of Underworld will premiere on Toonami January 18.

youtube

11 notes · View notes

historyhermann · 2 years

Text

Restricted access and the unnamed librarian in "Merlin's Story"

Librarian speaks to the protagonists, Merlin and Ringo, in episode #94.

Hello everyone! As I've said on her previously, I'm trying to focus more on webcomics, comics, and the like, as I've written a lot about anime and animated series. I'll still keep writing about those, but other mediums need to be covered on here too. One of my favorite webcomics, Merlin's Story, which has some mature themes, includes an unnamed librarian, which I'd like to talk about in this post, analyzing the librarian and her role in the comic.

The two protagonists, Merlin and Ringo (not visible to anyone but Merlin) go to the local school library to ask about a yearbook. The librarian says it isn't open to the public, so she wants to know why Merlin wants to look at it, and she says that she is searching for a specific student. The librarian helps her, after she gives a bit of a description, telling her that she is looking for a model from the school which was used 20 years in the past. And she gets all the yearbooks from back then for her, and she sits on a table looking through them. For the librarian this seem weird because it looks like Merlin is talking to herself, but she is actually talking to Ringo! In a later episode, she finds that there are 100 students matching the description of the person she is looking for, and she has a hunch that one of the girls is the right one. It turns out, in the episode that follows, that the librarian went to the same school over 22 years ago, and the person they were looking for was one of their classmates, recognizing the school uniforms. What a coincidence! So, that makes the story more interesting, in the case of the librarian, and the story goes further from there.

The story deepens, as the librarian, in a further comic, says she knows the girl they are thinking of, calling her a clumsy girl who was "always bullied," noting she always wanted to help her, but she was a "cowardly girl" in the past. She notes how the girl changed, became more cheerful, and when Merlin asks where the girl lives now, the librarian gives them an address. With this, they can find the girl they are looking for...Misaki. Merlin later tells her ghost friend, Endah, in a part of the school that they got the address from the librarian, and Endah lets them go off and find Misaki. Ringo suspects Endah has something to do with Misaki and may be an evil spirit. Later on, they can't find the exact address of where Misaki lived, and it turns out Misaki is gone. Merlin is distressed by this, commenting "the librarian also said she became a much more cheerful person." The story later concludes by Merlin (and Ringo as an astral projection) meeting with the living parents of Misaki, and she laments that "the Misaki Endah is looking for is long gone." Following a nice talk with the parent of Misaki, Merlin prays at her altar, and it turns out Misaki died in an attempt to save the man (Misaki's brother maybe?) they met in the house. Ultimately, Endah decides to stay in the warehouse after learning about Misaki's death.

Scenes from episodes 100 and 102 when the librarian remembers the girl they are thinking of

Now, the question comes to mind: does this librarian in these six comic episodes fulfill the Librarian Portrayal Test (LPT)? As I noted back on August 17, the unnamed librarian of the Buddwick Public Library, in a Steven Universe comic, only fulfilled some of the criteria, but not all of them as we never saw her outside of the library itself. As I noted on August 31, the LPT is not a be-all-end-all, saying "if a librarian only appears in one episode of a series and it is a good depiction of a librarian, I'll still write about it, even if it doesn't fall under this criteria."

Anyway, onto the LPT. This comic has a character which is clearly a librarian, who works in a public library, more specifically in a school library, the school the protagonists go to, I believe. So, that means that this librarian portrayal fulfills the first criterion. [1] Due to the fact that the librarian gives the protagonists the information they need to fulfill their request, that means that she is integral to the plot of the comic. As such, her removal from the story itself would significantly impact the plot, not allowing it to be fulfilled and move forward as it did. That means that her portrayal also fulfills the third criterion, as she is not just a foil, there for laughs, or falls into existing stereotypes. She is relatively well-dressed, is not wearing glasses, and is middle-aged, likely in her 30s or 40s. Unfortunately, due to the fact she is never seen outside of the library, this portrayal fails the second criterion, that the character not be primarily defined by their role as a librarian.

While the librarian notes that she is a student, her association with being a librarian as her primary function is so deep rooted that in issue 115 of the webcomic, Merlin, one of the protagonists, just calls her "the librarian," not even giving her a name. This sort of description, you could argue, makes sense in the story as they did not interact with the librarian for very long, but it also dehumanizing to the librarian. This librarian is a person too! So it is dispiriting that she is never given a name. The best counter to this I've seen in popular culture is this scene from the most recent season of Hilda, in the episode "Chapter 11: The Jorts Incident":

I wish more comics, animated series, anime, and the like would have scenes like this and make the librarians in their stories full characters, rather than monsters or characters that have no purpose other than appearing in one isolated episode and never again. That isn't right.

Notes

[1] I was confused by this myself, but you could use the word "criteria" or "criterion" here, but the use of criteria in a singular way is not generally used, so I stuck with criterion to use in a singular way and criteria to apply to all three points of the LPT.

Reprinted from Pop Culture Library Review and Wayback Machine

#merlin's story #webcomics #librarians #libraries #pop culture #reviews #library patrons #bullying #hilda #hilda librarian

0 notes

friendsgwssanalysis · 4 years

Text

S2E11: “The One with the Lesbian Wedding”

Season 2, episode 11, “The One with the Lesbian Wedding,” opens with Ross talking with his ex-wife, Carol, and her partner Susan. (Backstory here: Carol left Ross for Susan after discovering she was a lesbian.) They reveal that they are planning a wedding, which Ross has a strong reaction to. He returns to the apartment of Monica and Rachel (two of the other “friends”) to process what he’s heard. Monica, Ross’s sister, consoles him on the fact that his former partner is getting remarried. This remarriage is presented as the primary concern--it’s something of a secondary blow, though a humorous/ironic one, that it’s going to be a lesbian wedding. The attempted humor here is driven home by both dialogue and subtextual cues. A laugh track plays when Carol and Susan reveal that they’re getting married, just thirty seconds into the episode; Ross immediately responds with an “I pronounce you man and wife” joke (the joke being that this quintessential nuptial phrase doesn’t “work” with this relationship); we then cut to the cheery opening sequence, whose montage includes a clip where Ross kisses Joey (both heterosexual male characters) on New Year’s Eve, just to underscore the fact that same-sex kissing is a joke.

On the couches of her apartment, Monica helps Ross understand why it is important to Carol and Susan to get married, comparing it to a straight wedding and saying that they deserve to show everyone their love in the same way that straight people do (2:44). The gay jokes mostly calm down until the final scene when the friends actually attend the wedding. Here, we see that Monica’s pep talk was even more effective for Ross than we might have thought--he ends up walking his ex-wife down the aisle after her family drops out of attending at the last minute. Joey and Chandler, two straight male roommates and the buddy-comedic relief to this charged scene, mingle among the crowd at the wedding (presumably all lesbians) and bemoan the fact that they can’t find dates. Joey laments, “I feel like Superman without my powers” (17:47). Chandler at first jokes to a short-haired white woman, “I shouldn’t even bother preparing a [pickup] line, should I?” (21:00) before circling back to her later in the evening with a desperate, “Penis, schmenis, we’re all people!” (21:50).

An important subplot to this episode is the appearance of Rachel’s mom, who arrives to visit Rachel and also let her know that she is thinking of leaving Rachel’s father. Rachel is thrilled at the opportunity to show off her New York apartment and barista career to her mom, as she knows both her parents were disappointed by her refusal to marry Barry (a wealthy, highly eligible former suitor of hers). But in fact, Rachel’s mom is so impressed with her life that she confesses she wishes she had her same independence and youth; she says, sadly, “You didn't marry your Barry, honey, but I married mine” (16:15). This subplot sets up a parallel with the lesbian wedding, suggesting that marriage for true love’s sake could never be wrong when compared to marriages of convenience.

All in all, this episode does not come across as explicitly condemning same-sex marriage; many consider it groundbreaking, as it was the first depiction of a lesbian wedding on television (“Here's The Carol And Susan Scene That Was Banned From Friends: News”). It is, however, something of an uncomfortable watch in 2020, as the characters have a very “grin and bear it” attitude toward actually attending the wedding (because it’s filled with lesbians!). Phoebe (a straight female member of the “friends”) ends up getting asked out for a drink by an unnamed butch (Lea DeLaria) and accepts, not realizing the romantic connotations; Rachel’s mom relishes in the sexual attention she’s being granted. The wedding scene itself is a nexus of lesbian stereotypes, especially whiteness (most everyone in the crowd is white), “frumpiness” (the characters are rather unfashionably attired, cutting a contrast to Rachel’s Ralph Lauren sensibilities), and promiscuity (the lesbians are so desperate/predatory that they resort to trying to pick up straight women!). Susan and Carol’s characters, too, are one-dimensional and are set up as plot punchlines to Ross’s love life, rather than fully fledged people. Friends does not really engage with intersectionality and appears to be attempting to “isolate its variables,” at least in this episode, by only focusing on sexuality (and gender, to a lesser extent) and never discussing race. Because the main cast is all white, this has the effect of portraying whiteness as an invisible, “default” race that does not need to be acknowledged nor examined. The characters are oblivious to the ways it impacts their lives. This holds true for the majority of the show, in fact, which does not feature a major Black role until the penultimate season (Munzenrieder). In this particular episode, all the speaking roles are white; some Black extras appear in the background of the coffee shop, one as a patron and one as a server, conveying the idea that New York’s residents of color are “scenery” at best and a lower, serving class at worst.

In a show that largely eschews discussion of social issues, I found Friends’s depiction of a lesbian wedding to be positive, in the mildest, most lukewarm sort of way. As mentioned previously, the parallels between the main wedding plot and that of Rachel’s mom’s divorce seem to highlight the importance of marrying for true love, rather than being cajoled into an unideal marriage by societal pressures. Rachel exemplifies this by choosing to leave Barry and remain independent; Carol and Susan do this by defying heteronormativity to get married; Rachel’s mom accepts her difficult separation from her husband, and bonds with her daughter in the process. I saw this particular episode of the show as reaching for a statement on women’s rights to self-determination (as well as a bland endorsement for same-sex marriage). For all its whiteness and other problems, Friends is at least perfectly balanced along binary gender lines, with three main male characters and three main female characters, and at least pretends to be equally interested in the lives of all six. The women are not really treated as a joke for the sake of the men, as the show hinges on the ensemble nature of the cast. Unfortunately, because everything must be couched in comedy (which often punches down, in this show), this episode stops shy of saying anything too bold on either marriage rights or women’s rights. Ripples, at the best; definitely not waves (especially considering the fact that the titular wedding scene itself was excised in many networks across the United States when it originally aired [Dommu]).

Works Cited:

Dommu, Rose. “'Friends' Lesbian Wedding Was 'Blocked Out' by Certain Affiliaties.” OUT, Out Magazine, 7 Feb. 2019, www.out.com/popnography/2019/2/07/friends-lesbian-wedding-was-blocked-out-certain-affiliaties.

“Here's The Carol And Susan Scene That Was Banned From Friends: News.” Comedy Central UK, The Paramount UK Partnership Trading, www.comedycentral.co.uk/news/heres-the-carol-and-susan-scene-that-was-banned-from-friends.

Munzenrieder, Kyle. “'Friends' Co-Creator Struggles With the Show's Very White Legacy.” W Magazine, Bustle Digital Group, 8 June 2020, www.wmagazine.com/story/friends-co-creator-marta-kauffman-regrets-white-legacy-90s-sitcom/.

"The One with the Lesbian Wedding." Friends: The Complete Second Season, written by Doty Abrams, directed by Thomas Schlamme, Warner Brothers, 1996.

0 notes

fabricati-diem-pvnc · 8 years

Text

The ‘New Woman’ rejected: Women in the Raffles stories

Note: Over the course of #rafflesweek, I will post five excerpts from my master’s thesis on E.W. Hornung’s Raffles stories. While each part can be read on its own, I recommend reading them in the order they are posted.

This is Part 4.

(Please see the end for footnotes and works cited.)

Due to the focus on Bunny’s and Raffles’ homosocial relationship, women do not form a significant part of the main narrative. In fact, women are almost completely absent from the Raffles stories (Freeman 2007: 89). Over the course of 27 stories, only five female characters are represented in some kind of depth, and all of them are primarily defined through their relationship with one of the two male protagonists. These women are: Faustina, Amy Werner, Jacques Saillard, Camilla Belsize (all real or purported love interests of Raffles), and Bunny’s fiancée, who remains unnamed. However small the presence of women in the Raffles stories may overall be, the female characters that do appear are distinctly different from each other and serve as fictional representations of the major concepts of femininity that were available to middle-class women in the late-nineteenth century.

Middle-class femininity in the Victorian era

The traditional concept of Victorian middle-class femininity was based on the philosophical concept of the separate spheres (Moran 2006: 35). ‘Natural’ masculine qualities – among them aggression and the ability for rational thought – were perceived to ideally equip men for the public domain; in contrast, women were believed to be physically and intellectually inferior to men and thus more suited to the domestic sphere (Purchase 2006: 73-74). As guardian of the home, a woman could fulfil her ‘natural’ duties of motherhood and domesticity (Powell 1996: 73). This ideal of middle-class femininity was encapsulated in the phrase ‘angel in the house’, which originated from a poem by Coventry Patmore (Moran 2006: 36).

With this confinement to the domestic sphere, women were all but excluded from the public school system (Purchase 2006: 54). Opponents to education reform often claimed that intellectual pursuits would only distract a woman from her duties as wife and mother (Morgan 2007: 38). Nevertheless, educational opportunities for women gradually increased towards the end of the nineteenth century. The Education Act of 1870 ensured that state-funded primary education was available for all British children (Purchase 2006: 6). By 1890, many private schools offered middle-class women the chance “to enjoy an academic education every bit as rigorous as that undertaken by their male contemporaries” (Powell 1996: 73-74). Still, women’s access to the professions was restricted, and they were usually expected to cease working once they became married (Powell 1996: 70-71)1.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, an emerging feminist movement also began to challenge the social and legal limitations women were faced with. The first campaign was aimed against the laws restricting women’s capability of owning property (Poovey 1995: 173). It was proven successful with the passing of the Married Women’s Property Act of 1882, which established women as their own economic agents and thus put an end to the claim a husband had previously had over his wife’s property (Purchase 2006: 6). From the turn of the century onwards, the suffragette movement fought with increasing militancy for women’s right to vote (Brooks 1995: 82). Finally, while the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 did contain a section on “gross indecency” between men, its main purpose was to protect young women from prostitution by raising the age of consent from 13 to 16.

The rise of the ‘New Woman’

Concurrent with these campaigns for improved social rights, late-nineteenth century feminists also proclaimed a new ideal of femininity: the New Woman (Moran 2006: 124). Feminists exposed the idea of the Victorian family idyll as a false utopia by openly addressing the double standard inherent in middle-class marriages: “sexual virtue was expected of the wife but not of the husband” (Ledger 2007: 157). These feminists were divided into two groups: one constituted a social purity movement that was fighting against prostitution and decadent male sexuality (Ledger 2007: 153), while the other group regarded the demand for sexual equality as their main concern (Dowling 1979: 438). New Woman writers like Olive Schreiner, Mona Caird and Sarah Grand rejected marriage and maternity as the ‘natural’ route towards fulfillment (Moran 2006: 125). Their frank discussion of women’s sexual desire provoked outrage among conservative reviewers (Miller 1994: 14). In their minds, the demand for female sexual autonomy, coupled with a clear reluctance to enter the patriarchal power structure of the family unit, endangered the stability of traditional Victorian gender roles (Showalter 1991: 38-39). Additionally, the New Woman’s strive for higher education was considered by many men to be a direct threat to society: they feared it would distract women from their domestic duties (Morgan 2007: 38). More significantly, scientists at the time purported that serious study would “‘dissipate [women’s] feminine energies’ […] just as an athletic girl would become ‘spare and thin or overmuscular, but in any case misshapen’” (Horn 1992: 65). Essentially, mental and physical exertion were perceived to render women infertile (Showalter 1991: 40).

In the public perception, the New Woman’s challenges to traditional gender roles tied them to the Decadent movement (Sinfield 1994: 77). The ‘mannish’ New Woman and the effeminate Dandy were perceived as the major driving forces behind the lamented “sexual anarchy” of 1890s England (Showalter 1991: 3). Consequently, the New Woman movement was caught up in the moral panic surrounding Oscar Wilde’s conviction as well. After 1895, the publication of New Woman writings dramatically decreased, to the point where an article in Punch could triumphantly announce “The End of the New Woman” (Ledger 2007: 167). Even though the genre of New Woman fiction had lost its significance by the turn of the century, the figure of the ‘masculine woman’ (Showalter 1991: 174) remained a part of literature in general.

Jacques Saillard

This is exemplified by the depiction of women in the Raffles stories, which has been interpreted as the raising and subsequent exorcism of “the spectre of the New Woman” (Rance 1990: 5). The most obvious representation of a New Woman in the stories is the Spanish artist Jacques Saillard in “An Old Flame”. The story establishes her as a successful painter who lives in a fashionable flat near Piccadilly with her husband. When she is unexpectedly confronted by a burglar2, she doesn’t scream or faint but remains perfectly in control of her emotions: “[…] like marble she stood, or rather like some beautiful pale bronze; for that was her coloring, and she lost none of it that I could see, neither trembled […]. So she stood without flinching before a masked ruffian […].” (Hornung 2013: 189). Once she has recognised Raffles, she doesn’t report him to the police, but simply lets him leave. Back at their flat, Raffles reveals the true nature of his relationship with Jacques Saillard to Bunny:

‘An old flame?’ said I, gently.

‘A married woman,’ he groaned.

‘So I gathered.’

‘But she always was one, Bunny,’ said he, ruefully. ‘That’s the trouble.’ (Hornung 2013: 193)

When Bunny comments that Jacques Saillard seems to be a clever woman, Raffles’ reaction is quite revealing: “I don’t call Jacques Saillard clever outside her art, but neither do I call her a woman at all. She does man’s work over a man’s name, has the will of any ten men I ever knew, and I don’t mind telling you that I fear her more than any person on God’s earth.” (Hornung 2013: 193; emphasis added).

That Raffles’ fear of Jacques Saillard is not unfounded becomes clear soon afterwards when she turns up on his doorstep, having followed him home from her flat. She now starts to actively pursue Raffles, ignoring all sense of propriety: “It was some weeks since the first untimely visitation of Jacques Saillard, but there had been many others at all hours of the day […].” (Hornung 2013: 195; emphasis added). Not only is Raffles clearly uninterested in her advances, her knowledge of his true identity actively endangers his disguise as Mr. Maturin. So, in order to finally get rid of her, Raffles stages his own death: “Jacques Saillard had made his life impossible, and this was the one escape.” (Hornung 2013: 204).

Thus, Jacques Saillard is established as a threatening “spectre of the New Woman” (Rance 1990: 5). Her profession as a painter allows her a certain amount of financial independence3. Raffles’ admission that he was engaged in an affair with her while she was already married reveals that Jacques Saillard ignores the social norm of a woman having to remain celibate outside the confines of marriage (Showalter 1991: 38)4. Finally, her aggressive pursuit of Raffles shows a blatant disregard for the social conventions of the time: a woman visiting a man’s rooms alone was considered to be engaging in lewd conduct (Morrissey 2014: <http://www.rafflesredux.com/an-old-flame/>). Her open transgression of gender boundaries – exemplified by her adoption of a man’s name (“Jacques”) – threatens Raffles’ own sense of masculinity, which is made clear by his comment, “I fear her more than any person on God’s earth” (Hornung 2013: 193).

The fact that Jacques Saillard is a foreigner is also quite significant. Especially in the first two volumes of the Raffles stories, the New Woman is represented as a ‘foreign’ element endangering the masculinity of the English middle-class man (Rance 1990: 8).

Amy Werner

While Jacques Saillard’s story is featured in The Black Mask, The Amateur Cracksman also contains an example of the ‘foreign’ New Woman. In “The Gift of the Emperor”, the reader is introduced to Amy Werner, an adventurous young woman who has finished her secondary education at a German school and is now on her way back home to Australia alone (Hornung 2013: 101). Amy Werner is doubly foreign: her Australian nationality leads Bunny to disparagingly refer to her as a “Colonial minx” (Hornung 2013: 103), and her German surname and upbringing identify her as distinctly non-English (Rance 1990: 5). Her readiness to openly flirt with two men – Raffles and Captain von Heumann – at the same time reveals her to be a romantically and sexually forthright woman. This frank display of desire again ties the New Woman to the concept of foreignness: non-Europeans were considered to lack the sexual self-control that was hailed as a truly ‘British’ virtue by imperial theorists at the time (Marcus 2012: 425).

Having established the ‘New Woman’ as a foreign danger to an English gentleman’s masculinity, the story then exorcises this spectre through the application of violence. At the end of the story, Raffles and Bunny have been uncovered and are about to be marched off the ship by the police when Raffles asks for a few minutes alone with Amy Werner to say goodbye to her. As Bunny and the inspectors watch, they become witness to one of Raffles’ more violent (certainly his most unchivalrous) acts: “Suddenly – an instant – and the thing was done – a thing I have never known whether to admire or to detest. He caught [Amy Werner] – he kissed her before us all – then flung her from him so that she almost fell.” (Hornung 2013: 113; emphasis added). This physical rejection of the feminine is then immediately followed by a reassertion of the character’s masculinity (Rance 1990: 8). Among the confusion caused by Raffles’ actions, he manages to flee the ship by leaping overboard: “[…] I saw his hands shoot up and his head bob down, and his lithe, spare body cut the sunset as cleanly and precisely as though he had plunged at his leisure from a diver’s board!” (Hornung 2013: 113; emphasis added). Raffles’ elegant dive into the Mediterranean sea serves both to reestablish his masculinity and to reject the threat of foreignness: his “lithe, spare body” reveals his athleticism and thus, as physical strength was considered a key element of gentlemanly masculinity, encapsulates his ‘true’ Englishness (Godfrey 2011: 33).

Faustina

While stories like “An Old Flame” and “The Gift of the Emperor” can be read as outright rejections of the New Woman ideal, “The Fate of Faustina” represents an attempt to claim the superiority of more ‘traditional’ forms of femininity (Rance 1990: 8-9). Following his discovery and subsequent escape in “The Gift of the Emperor”, Raffles spends two years in Italy, where he works as a “tame sailorman and emergency bottle-washer” on a beautiful small island (Hornung 2013: 144). During his time there, he falls in love with a young peasant woman named Faustina. Relating the events to Bunny years later, Raffles evokes the biblical concept of paradise when describing their romance: “[…] it was the oldest story in literature – Eden plus Eve. The place had been a heaven on earth before, but now it was heaven itself.” (Hornung 2013: 147). According to Raffles, Faustina was the only woman he ever seriously considered marrying: “I tell you that she was the one being who ever entirely satisfied my sense of beauty; and I honestly believe I could have chucked the world and been true to Faustina for that alone.” (Hornung 2013: 146). The focus on her physical attractiveness reveals Raffles’ traditional views on women: far from admiring her character or her intellect, Raffles instead merely loves Faustina for her beauty5.

However, the bucolic idyll envisioned by Raffles for Faustina and himself is soon disrupted. When her fiancé, having learned about Faustina’s affair with Raffles, kills her, Raffles in turn shoots Faustina’s murderer and ends up nearly killing the owner of the vineyard, Count Corbucci, who is an eminent member of the Camorra (Rowland 1999: 124). The destruction of Raffles’ version of paradise is answered by him with the enactment of biblical vengeance: “I had taken blood for blood […].” (Hornung 2013: 153).

Ultimately, “The Fate of Faustina” establishes that the ideal of the ‘natural’ moral virtue and submissiveness of women was not only challenged by the middle-class concept of the New Woman, but by a general shift in female identity that pervaded all classes (Powell 1996: 96-97). The portrayal of the working-class Faustina as sweet and innocent is soon revealed to be unfounded. Her willingness to enter into a relationship with Raffles even though she is engaged to another man reveals her to be just as sexually transgressive as Jacques Saillard. Faustina also exhibits an enthusiasm towards violence: “[…] I taught her how to use [a revolver] in the cave down there by the sea, shooting at candles stuck upon the rock. […] So now Faustina was armed with munitions of self-defence, and I knew enough of her character to entertain no doubt as to their spirited use upon occasion.” (Hornung 2013: 149; emphasis added)6. Even though her beauty is praised by Raffles as surpassing that of all the women in London7, her unwomanly interest in guns and her adulterous behaviour ultimately disqualify Faustina as an example of traditional femininity.

Bunny’s fiancée

The three stories discussed so far have approached the New Woman ideal as a direct threat to masculinity and tried to exorcise it by connecting it to foreignness and/or violence. Contrary to this outright rejection of new concepts of femininity that is present in both The Amateur Cracksman and The Black Mask, the two later volumes of Raffles stories paint a more complex picture of femininity at the turn of the century. A Thief in the Night introduces Bunny’s fiancée to the reader, while Mr. Justice Raffles marks the first (and last) appearance of Camilla Belsize, who is arguably the most affirmative representation of New Woman ideals in the Raffles stories.

Bunny’s fiancée first appears in “Out of Paradise”. The reason why she remains unnamed is given by Bunny at the beginning of this story: “The affair was not only too intimately mine […]. One other was involved in it, one dearer to me than Raffles himself, one whose name shall not even now be sullied by association with ours.” (Hornung 2013: 234)8. The story establishes that, even before Raffles manipulated Bunny into burgling his fiancée’s home, their engagement was already laden with problems. Bunny’s fiancée is an orphan with no inherited fortune, which makes her financially dependent on her uncle, Hector Carruthers (Hornung 2013: 235). As Bunny also has no regular income at his disposal – apart from what little he earns as a journalist and writer9 – they are both dependent on Mr. Carruthers to facilitate their marriage by providing his niece with a significant enough dowry (Morrissey 2014: <http://www.rafflesredux.com/out-of-paradise/>). However, Mr. Carruthers strongly disapproves of Bunny, which is why he restricts his access to his niece and refuses to give his consent to their engagement (Hornung 2013: 234). When Bunny’s fiancée catches him in the act of burgling her uncle’s house, their engagement receives its final blow. Her first reaction on recognising Bunny as the burglar is to faint (Hornung 2013: 242). Soon afterwards, however, she helps Bunny escape safely from her house (Hornung 2013: 243) and subsequently conceals his criminal identity from both her family and the police (Hornung 2013: 246).

While “Out of Paradise” had established Bunny’s fiancée as a dependent woman who was not allowed to make major decisions without consulting her uncle, “The Last Word” shows that this has changed. Set nine years after “Out of Paradise”, the story is unique in that it mainly consists of a letter written to Bunny by his former fiancée (Hornung 2013: 362-366). This makes her the only woman in the Raffles stories who is allowed to directly speak to the reader with her own voice. Her letter reveals that she has since inherited a considerable amount of money from her aunt, Lady Melrose10, which has enabled her to move into a small flat of her own: “[…] I am living my own life now in the one way after my own heart.” (Hornung 2013: 365). Her financial independence also means the end of her uncle’s legal guardianship over her; free now to make her own decisions, she intends to follow in Bunny’s footsteps by becoming a writer (Hornung 2013: 365).

Contrary to Amy Werner and Jacques Saillard, Bunny’s fiancée overall adheres to the social conventions of her time. Instead of defying her uncle and marrying Bunny without his consent, she submits herself to his will. However, as she is still unmarried nine years after the events of “Out of Paradise”, it is not unreasonable to assume that she resisted her uncle’s attempts to find a more suitable husband for her. “The Last Word” portrays her as a young unmarried woman who is eager to participate in the public domain through her writing (be it journalism or fiction) (Hornung 2013: 365). With this, she becomes representative of the many unmarried middle-class women who entered the professions around the turn of the century (Powell 1996: 70). While Bunny’s fiancée is thus not a representation of the New Woman per se, she does embody the gradual opening of the public domain towards women at the turn of the century.

Camilla Belsize

Finally, Mr. Justice Raffles (1909) features the most rounded and the most sympathetic realisation of a New Woman character in the Raffles stories. Miss Camilla Belsize is introduced to the reader as the fiancée of Teddy Garland, an amateur cricketer who is friends with Raffles. She is also the daughter of the impoverished Lady Laura Belsize, which places her in the social context of the genteelly poor (Purchase 2006: 23)11. Despite her limited financial means, Camilla Belsize is invariably well-dressed. Bunny admires her distinguished taste when he first meets her: “She was simply but exquisitely dressed, with unostentatious touches of Cambridge blue and a picture hat that really was a picture.” (Hornung 2013: 404). More significantly, the novel establishes her as a highly intelligent woman. Early on, Bunny comments on her unusual perceptiveness: “But I was to discover that Camilla Belsize was never easily deceived […].” (Hornung 2013: 406). In fact, Camilla is one of only a few people in the Raffles stories who manage to see through Raffles’ disguises: “He didn’t know I recognised him; he was disguised – absolutely! […] But he couldn’t disguise himself from me […].” (Hornung 2013: 499). At the same time, Camilla is revealed to be quite audacious. During her first conversation with Bunny, Camilla admits to smoking cigarettes in public (Hornung 2013: 407) – a habit that was closely associated with New Women at the time (Ledger 2007: 155). Even more daringly, Camilla repeatedly follows Raffles and Bunny by steering a canoe along the river in the middle of the night. She reveals this to Bunny in a later conversation:

‘I told you I sometimes did weird things that astonished the natives of these suburban shores. Well, last night, if it wasn’t early this morning, I made my weirdest effort yet. I have a canoe, you know; just now I almost live in it. Last night I went out unbeknownst after midnight, partly to reassure myself, partly – […] You know what I’m going to say?’

Of course I knew, but I dragged it from her none the less. […] She had seen us – searched for us – each time. (Hornung 2013: 500)

Camilla reveals here that she is aware of the potentially shocking nature of her nocturnal ventures. At the same time, her ability to steer a boat by herself hints towards her athletic disposition and towards a possible previous training at a women’s college12.

Bunny and Raffles both express their admiration for Camilla Belsize, albeit in different ways. While Bunny openly admits that he became her “admirer on the spot” when she smiled at him during their first conversation (Hornung 2013: 403), Raffles’ demonstration of his respect for her is much more convoluted. Raffles spends the majority of the novel battling Dan Levy, a Jewish moneylender that both Teddy Garland and his father are in considerable debt to (Hornung 2013: 415-416). In the end, Raffles’ scheme proves successful and Teddy’s and his father’s debts are fully dispensed with. The penultimate chapter of the novel reveals Raffles’ true motivation for helping Teddy. In a conversation with Bunny, Raffles expresses his doubts that Teddy’s marriage with Camilla will be a happy one. When Bunny asks why, Raffles answers that he thinks Teddy to be beneath her: “[Gambling and running up debts] was all right in a pal of ours, Bunny, but all wrong in the man who dreamt of marrying Camilla Belsize.” (Hornung 2013: 507).

Far from denouncing Camilla’s audacity and intelligence, the novel hails her as a supreme representative of her sex. This is exemplified in Bunny’s remark to Raffles: “She was the only woman I ever met […] who was your mate at heart – in pluck – in temperament!” (Hornung 2013: 507). And yet, even Camilla Belsize isn’t allowed to freely pursue her romantic and sexual desires. The novel clearly establishes that both Camilla and Raffles are attracted to each other (Hornung 2013: 507), yet Camilla Belsize still ends up marrying Teddy Garland, who has been established as being morally inferior to her. In the last chapter, which is set ten years after the main narrative, Camilla does not appear at all, and when Bunny and Teddy refer to her, it is only in the form of “Mrs. Garland” (Hornung 2013: 516). Thus, the novel ultimately upholds the patriarchal ideal of society that New Women tried to work against: by marrying Teddy Garland, Camilla’s identity as a free-spirited young woman has been subsumed by that of a domestic wife, and she is no longer a person of her own.

Footnotes:

1This was obviously not true for working-class women, who were often required to supplement their husband’s wage with one of their own (Poovey 1995: 124-125).

2At this point in the story, Jacques Saillard doesn’t know yet that it is Raffles who has broken into her home.

3Saillard’s artistic success is illustrated by Raffles’ evaluation of her room: “See the festive picture over the sideboard? Looks to me like a Jacques Saillard. But that silver-table would be good enough for me.” (Hornung 2013: 189). What Raffles implies here is that her paintings are valuable enough to fetch a good price on the black market.

4The fact that Bunny doesn’t comment on Raffles’ adulterous behaviour also reveals the double standard inherent in the Victorian perception of sexual virtue (Ledger 2007: 157).

5Raffles’ claim that perfect beauty would be the only thing that could possibly induce him to marry someone is yet another example of his “streak of aestheticism” (Hornung 2013: 6).

6The story reveals its racist undertones here, as Faustina’s readiness to practice shooting is explained by Raffles with her “racial tolerance for cold steel” (Hornung 2013: 247).

7“It was the most exquisite face I ever saw or shall see in this life. […] I tell you, Bunny, London would go mad about a girl like that.” (Hornung 2013: 146).

8The omission of his fiancée’s name is another example of Bunny’s narrative control.

9Shortly after Bunny and Raffles have become partners in crime, Bunny picks up journalism as a cover profession (Hornung 2013: 96).

10This is the very same Lady Melrose whose necklace Raffles steals in “Gentlemen and Players” (Hornung 2013: 365).

11Bunny’s description of the Belsizes’ home in chapter 17 reveals their financial straits: “The wooden gate had not swung home behind me before I was at the top of a somewhat dirty flight of steps, contemplating blistered paint and ground glass fit for a bathroom window, and listening to the last reverberations of an obsolete type of bell.” (Hornung 2013: 496; emphasis added).

12This women’s college would probably have been at Cambridge, as those were among the first colleges that introduced rowing as part of their curriculum (Holt 1992: 121).

Works cited:

Brooks, David. The Age of Upheaval: Edwardian Politics, 1899-1914. New Frontiers in History. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.

Dowling, Linda. “The Decadent and the New Woman in the 1890s.” Nineteenth- Century Fiction, 33.4 (1979): 434-453.

Freeman, Nick. “Double Lives, Terrible Pleasures: Oscar Wilde and Crime Fiction in the Fin de Siècle.” Formal Investigations: Aesthetic Style in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Detective Fiction. Ed. Paul Fox and Koray Melikoğlu. Studies in English Literature 4. Stuttgart: ibidem, 2007. 71-96.

Godfrey, Emelyne. Masculinity, Crime and Self-Defence in Victorian Literature. Crime Files. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Holt, Richard. Sport and the British: A Modern History. 1989. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

Horn, Pamela. High Society: The English Social Élite, 1880-1914. Stroud: Sutton, 1992.

Hornung, E.W. A.J. Raffles – The Gentleman Thief Series: The Amateur Cracksman; The Black Mask; A Thief in the Night; Mr. Justice Raffles. Leipzig: Amazon Distribution GmbH, 2013.

Ledger, Sally. “The New Woman and feminist fictions.” The Cambridge Companion to the Fin de Siècle. Ed. Gail Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 153-168.

Marcus, Sharon. “Sexuality.” The Cambridge History of Victorian Literature. Ed. Kate Flint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 422-443.

Miller, Jane Eldridge. Rebel Women: Feminism, Modernism and the Edwardian Novel. London: Virago Press, 1994.

Moran, Maureen. Victorian Literature and Culture. Introductions to British Literature and Culture. London: Continuum, 2006.

Morgan, Simon. A Victorian Woman’s Place: Public Culture in the Nineteenth Century. International Library of Historical Studies 40. London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007.

Morrissey, Genevieve L., and Sarah Morrissey. Raffles Redux. 2014. 16 January 2016. <http://www.rafflesredux.com/>.

Poovey, Mary. Making a Social Body: British Cultural Formation, 1830-1864. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Powell, David. The Edwardian Crisis: Britain 1901-1914. British History in Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996.

Purchase, Sean. Key Concepts in Victorian Literature. Palgrave Key Concepts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Rance, Nick. “The Immorally Rich and the Richly Immoral: Raffles and the Plutocracy.” Twentieth-Century Suspense: The Thriller Comes of Age. Ed. Clive Bloom. Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990. 1-21.

Rowland, Peter. Raffles and His Creator: The Life and Works of E.W. Hornung. London: Nekta, 1999.

Showalter, Elaine. Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siècle. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1991.

Sinfield, Alan. The Wilde Century: Effeminacy, Oscar Wilde and the Queer Moment. London: Cassell, 1994.

#rafflesweek #crime and cricket #raffles #amy werner #jacques saillard #camilla belsize #a.j. raffles #bunny manders #delicious meta #my stuff

6 notes · View notes

maikawethiel · 5 years

Quote

Previous Blog | Master List | Next Blog It's that time yet again when I participate in the Tarot Blog Hop! For this one, we celebrate the holiday of Lughnasadh/Lammas and the importance of names. Under either name, the holiday celebrates the first harvest and has strong ties to wheat and bread. Lugh, for whom the holiday is named, is tied closely to the Welsh Lleu Llaw Gyffes who appears in my Llewellyn deck as The Sun. The sun is a card that appears frequently in my blog hop readings, but I don't feel that I have ever fully explored his story beyond the hope he gives me. As both Lugh and Lleu, he is tied to the sun, though his ties to the harvest are stronger in his incarnation as Lugh. As Lugh, he was destined to kill his grandfather, and so as an unnamed babe he was tossed into the sea. He came to be raised by foster parents and given their names and allying him to their families. As Lleu, his mother denied him a name, and thereby denied his existence and power. Over time with the help of his uncle, he was able to receive the gifts he was denied. Their stories share many similarities and each incarnation, both Celtic and Welsh, are given an abundance of names which they are known by. However, each have their own legend, their own set of names, and seem to be distinct from each other. The tie that binds them as related exists only in the roots of their names and connection to the sun. Naming has the ability to give or take power, bind loyalties, and reveal or hide truths. Lleu's mother tried to deny his spirit the power a name would give him. Lugh's grandfather attempted to divert destiny through a similar solution. Neither worked, because at their core there was a truth to their existence which in turn manifested the names they came to be known by. My first encounter with the concept of names giving power over things was in the Wizard of Earthsea series by Ursula K. LeGuin. By learning the true names of things, wizards were able to call on ancient powers and face dragons who would have otherwise made a meal of anyone daring to enter their realms. The wizards themselves protect the knowledge of their true names to prevent others from having power over them. We see this concept appear in other popular literature such as Harry Potter's lack of fear of speaking Voldemort's name. It appears again in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet when Juliet laments that no matter what name Romeo existed under she would love him the same, but that as a Montague, she is unable to marry him. 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,Nor arm, nor face, nor any other partBelonging to a man. O, be some other name!What's in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet;So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,Retain that dear perfection which he owesWithout that title. Romeo, doff thy name,And for that name which is no part of theeTake all myself. She may argue that there's no power to a name, but she undermines her own premise by asking that he break his binds to his name (and family) by taking another. There is magic in the underlying truth of a name and the connections it forms. But would changing his name truly change the truth of his heritage? Would it change who he is? It may break a binding to family, but he will always be their blood. Much as deities have many named aspects, and each are called upon according to purpose, so it is as well on earth. Plants have a common and scientific names. Cats have their true name known only to them and the many names given to them as they pass through the lives of humans. We each have a given name, a family name, and some of us a nickname or other chosen name. Does it change who we are or just manifest an aspect of our truth? Often artists resonate with specific aspects of tarot cards and change or modify the names of some cards. In some, they change the order according to their own truth. However, does this change the power of the card? Does it change its core truth? I would argue that it does not. The card is always tied to its inspiration. It carries with it the meanings and its history. A name may obscure those ties or attempt to break them, but in the breaking does it only bind it more strongly as an influence. The changing of a name simply highlights an aspect which may have been less clear previously. And so as Lugh and Lleu are not the same, their truths represent similar meanings to both the Irish and the Welsh. They are inextricably tied to one another - separate and inseparable in being. And thus the tarot continues to be a constant study as we seek to learn the truths at the core of each iteration of the cards and so find how those truths manifest in our lives. This post is part of a series. Use the navigation to browse ahead or behind in the series, or visit the master list to go directly to a blogger. If you are a tarot reader with a blog and wish to join future hops, join our TarotBlogHop Facebook group. Previous Blog | Master List | Next Blog

http://www.messagesfromlore.com/2019/08/lughnasadh-blog-hop-power-of-name.html

#tarot

0 notes

pete-and-pete · 6 years

Text

Jamal Khashoggi: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was of late a U.S. resident, is reported to have been murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

The U.S. resident since 2017 and columnist for The Washington Post was reported to have visited the Saudi consulate Tuesday for documents he needed to marry accompanied by his fiance. She’s declined to give her name, but it’s reported she said he went in and never came out.

Khashoggi, who self-exiled from Saudi Arabia and was living in Washington D.C., traveled to Turkey in September.

Days ago it was reported friends thought he was perhaps detained and removed to Saudi Arabia. He has been critical of the Saudi kingdom’s suppression of the press.

The BBC reported a Turkish official said “initial investigations indicated he was murdered” in the consulate. Saudi Arabia claims it’s searching for Khashoggi and denied accusations he was killed.

But the Middle East Eye reported Saturday that a senior Turkish police official said Khashoggi was “brutally tortured, killed and cut into pieces” inside the consulate after visiting the building on 2 October,” adding that “Everything was videotaped to prove the mission had been accomplished and the tape was taken out of the country.”

Here’s what you need to know:

1. Khashoggi Has Been a Journalist Since the ‘80s & Covered the War in Afghanistan & the First Gulf War. A Saudi, he Knew & Interviewed Osama bin Laden

Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi

Khashoggi is a decades-long journalist, columnist and author who began his career in the 1980s as a reporter for the English language Saudi Gazette. He was among the first reporters to cover the Afghan war.

CNN reported Khashoggi, “who knew bin Laden when he was living in Jeddah and the first journalist from a major Arab media organization to cover mujahideens’ efforts against Soviets when bin Laden invited him to Afghanistan in 1987 after the battle of Jaji.”

Though it’s reported he was out of contact with bin Laden years before the 9/11 attacks.

Khashoggi, who also covered the first Gulf war, has worked for myriad Arabic and English-language newspapers. He was editor of Al-Watan but was fired in 2003 for columns that questioned the authority of clerics to support holy wars, it’s reported. He worked as a press aide for Saudi Prince Turki al Faisal when he was ambassador to the U.S.

2. Khashoggi Was a Sometimes US Resident. He Earned a Degree in Business From Indiana State University in 1982

A protestor holds a picture of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi during a demonstration in front of the Saudi Arabian consulate Oct. 5. He’s missing after visiting the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2.

According to Al Jazeera, Khashoggi graduated in 1982 from the Indiana State University with a degree in business administration. Presumably he lived in the Terra Haute area while studying at the university. Born in

Khashoggi left Saudi Arabia and came to the U.S. in early 2017. He took up residence in the U.S. capital.

Editors at The Washington Post worried out loud about Khashoggi.

Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt said Khashoggi “has been writing for Global Opinions for a year.”

Why have we been proud to publish Jamal Khashoggi? And why did his truth-telling make people angry? Read excerpts from Jamal Khashoggi’s columns for The WaPo here, and you will understand. @postopinions https://t.co/jtEmBr87iS

— Fred Hiatt (@hiattf) October 7, 2018

“Jamal was — or, as we hope, is — a committed, courageous journalist. He writes out of a sense of love for his country and deep faith in human dignity and freedom.”

3. Khashoggi Has Been Writing for the Washington Post Since Early 2017 After his Self-Imposed Exile from Saudi Arabia

Turkey has concluded that Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent journalist from Saudi Arabia and a contributor to our Global Opinions section, was killed in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul this week by a Saudi team sent “specifically for the murder," sources say. https://t.co/I7ces7o9rj

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) October 6, 2018

The Washington Post said it would be a “monstrous and unfathomable act” if he had been killed.

“Turkey has concluded that Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent journalist from Saudi Arabia and a contributor to our Global Opinions section, was killed in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul this week by a Saudi team sent ‘specifically for the murder,’ sources say.”

“If the reports of Jamal’s murder are true, it is a monstrous and unfathomable act,” Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor for The Post, said in a statement.

I’ve worked with Jamal Khashoggi (@JKhashoggi) for the last year. His words are now more important than ever.

Read his work in the @washingtonpost: https://t.co/Evp8MiuWWb #JamalKhashoggi

— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) October 7, 2018

All of his column can be found here.

He wrote regular columns for The Washington Post and in one from a year ago, lamented he did not do more to advocate for other journalists and dissenters that were imprisoned by the Saudi government.

The headline reads that “Saudi Arabia Wasn’t always this repressive. Now it’s Unbearable.”

“…I said nothing. I didn’t want to lose my job or my freedom …”

4. A ‘Light’ Detractor of the Kingdom, Khashoggi Supported Saudi Reforms, But Press Crackdowns Forced Him Into Exile

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yemeni Tawakkol Karman makes a statement during a demonstration to denounce the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in front of the Saudi Arabian consulate, on October 5, 2018 in Istanbul. – Jamal Khashoggi, a veteran Saudi journalist who has been critical towards the Saudi government has gone missing after visiting the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018, the Washington Post reported.

It’s reported Khashoggi encouraged Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s measures to, for example, improve the lives of women by providing freedoms previously prohibited. Like driving. Khashoggi wrote that he hoped to see further reformation and not just rhetorically but in reality.

But a crackdown on dissent in Saudi Arabia countered reforms. And, following remarks he made in 2016 about the Trump administration and Riyadh including his criticism of Trump, it was reported Saudi authorities shut him down: he was not permitted to write or even tweet.

He left for the U.S. where he was provided temporary asylum. His wife in Saudi Arabia divorced him, it’s reported. He is the father of two sons.

5. Where is Khashoggi? Is He Alive? Turkish Police Believe He’s Been Murdered

A man looks at the door of the Saudi Arabia consulate in Istanbul, on October 7, 2018. – Jamal Khashoggi, a veteran Saudi journalist who has been critical towards the Saudi government has gone missing after visiting the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018, the Washington Post reported. According to a Turkish unnamed government official the prominent Saudi journalist was murdered inside the Saudi mission in Istanbul after he went missing.

In a Middle East Eye report, it’s said Khashoggi had traveled to Turkey and planned to marry. He went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul the last week of September to get documentation that his Saudi wife had divorced him so he could marry again. He was told to come back. He and his fiance, a Turkish citizen, returned to the consulate this week. She waited in a lobby for him for hours. He never came out.

Turkish officials are investigating, according to Middle East Eye:

Yasin Aktay, a former MP for Turkey’s ruling AK (Justice and Development) party and the man Khashoggi told his fiancee to call if he did not emerge from the consulate, said Turkish authorities had “concrete information” regarding the matter.

Speaking to CNN Turk on Sunday, Aktay, an adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said: “Khashoggi discussed to go there or not with his fiancee beforehand.

“Our security officials are investigating the issue in every detail. We have some concrete information, it won’t be an unresolved crime.

“We could determine his entrance but not any exit. That’s confirmed. We asked them [the Saudis], they say ‘he left,’ but there is no such thing on the camera footage.

“That’s underestimating Turkey. They are wrong if they think Turkey is as it was in the 90s. The consulate should make a clear statement.”

Aktay said he believed Khashoggi had been killed in the consulate and that Turkish authorities believed a group of 15 Saudi nationals were “most certainly involved” in the matter.

Police said about 15 Saudis, including officials, came to Istanbul on two private flights on Tuesday and were at the consulate at the same time as the journalist. They left again the same day, according to MEE’s sources.

Their diplomatic bags could not be opened, a security source told MEE, but Turkish intelligence was sure that Khashoggi’s remains were not in them.

An unnamed official from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul dismissed the claim on Sunday, describing the allegations to the Saudi Press Agency as “baseless.”

Prisoners for Freedom of Conscience has tweeted a number of reports, at least one indicating Khashoggi’s body had been found. It also has shared statement from Amnesty International and other groups decrying Saudi Arabia for its alleged assassination of Khashoggi, if in fact he has been killed.

🔴 We were told earlier that the Saudi authorities had forced the former wife of Jamal Khashoggi to divorce him after being stopped at the airport while traveling. They told her literally that "she was forbidden to travel and that if she did not divorce, they might arrest her". pic.twitter.com/cTCBhv8d0s

— Prisoners of Conscie (@m3takl_en) October 7, 2018

The group also alleges that Khashoggi’s wife, who worked for the Saudi government when he husband fled to the U.S., was forced by Saudi authorities “to divorce him after being stopped at the airport while traveling. They told her literally that “she was forbidden to travel and that if she did not divorce, they might arrest her.”

source https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/jamal-khashoggi/

0 notes