#The Handmaid's Tale is so weird because of that. like. no that is clearly NOT Boston

[marzipanandminutiae]

wait so

Toronto dates back to 1834

and you all just tore down all the old buildings and replaced them with skyscrapers??? your requisite "great fire" was in 1904 so that doesn't excuse it because it's still within the Pretty Architecture Era?

as a Bostonian, I have to offer serious condolences and thank the Preservation Gods that we only did two big Mass Teardown Projects(TM) in the mid-20th century

[glasskey]

THT True Love and Double Trouble Remix Part 2.

It’s time for part 2 of our love triangle remixes and let’s not fool ourselves, from the moment we saw this one flexing in the garden in front of June, we knew he was nothing but trouble. He’s the customary “bad boy” portion of this love triangle, as such he’s required to be broody, romantic and pensive. As with all who occupy this coveted position: Black wardrobe IS optional, but preferred.

NICK

From seasons 1-5 Blaine plays the role of the reluctant loyal knight flawlessly, he’s constantly conflicted and repeatedly says that he’s just trying to “survive” and “stay out of trouble”. As such I was instantly reminded of the classic Leia / Luke and Han Solo love triangle, with the loveable, uber-cocky Solo constantly claiming he wants nothing to do with the rebellion and that he urgently owes some cash to a giant space slug. In the end Solo redeems himself, runs away with the girl to join the rebellion, and Luke, well Luke turns out to be her brother…..which was just weird. However in the Handmaids Tale, Nick is far more than simply the “loveable rogue”. He represents part of the masses of America, specifically lower working class males that were manipulated by right wing factions into doing their bidding in order to seize power. He is first introduced as someone of “low status” engaged in manual labor, he dresses in more casual attire and lives above the garage instead of the main house. It’s a statement about separating the wealthy from the working class.

These individuals are usually targeted because they’re vulnerable, disillusioned and therefore easy to recruit and manipulate. They’re searching for any kind of answer to their problems and as such they are susceptible to propaganda. They’re easy to mold in one’s own image due to the absence of sufficient guidance, thus Nick’s unending search for a father figure. Like many others Nick was “groomed” into this cause at a young age, a method tantamount to abuse or cult like programming. Photographs of Nick shown in S4 depict him to be in his early to mid 20’s, during his introduction to the Son’s of Jacob, a highly impressionable and vulnerable age.

These types of individuals are unquestioningly loyal because, having lived in poverty their entire lives, they respond to the slightest reward. Throughout the seasons we witness increasing servitude, as position and thus personal debt rises. Privilege, guilt, fear and incremental freedoms are all effective ways to drive devotion to a cause. When Nick is promoted to Commander, it is done not so much as a reward for service, but rather as a means to tighten the leash for his recent insubordination. Seeing their wayward son’s rebellious act, Gilead’s response is simply to clutch him tighter.

As diminutive as Nick’s role in the current role of Gilead government appears to be, his importance is huge conceptually. His original role is as one in the Sons of Jacob and his journey represents the rise of the next generation of political power. Nick personifies a level of compliance in young men that grows from simply turning up to a rally to military force and deadly violence. Nick, like those around him lives in a state of somewhat coercive control. They’ve been isolated, denied support, monitored, tracked and intimidated. Nick’s given only as much freedom as someone ALLOWS and there are always limits such as curfews, check points, and a heavily patrolled border. Having possessed freedom once before, the memory is still quite vivid, and the lure to return to it is extremely strong. He’s depicted as scared, servile and at times cowardly but despite this, Nick slowly begins to make increasingly impactful decisions of his own accord that signifies a rising tide of rebellion. He’s identified clearly throughout both texts as a member of Mayday, an underground secretive operation that June later leads, and consequently Nick is portrayed as mysterious and irresistibly drawn to June.

To Nick, June is freedom and enlightenment; she is constantly haloed in glowing light and speaks with an unvarnished truth and compassion that shames his fear or ignorance. She represents a choice that he must make between servitude to a dictatorship or freedom and democracy. Throughout the seasons we witness his constant inner conflict as his sense of commitment and fear battle with his heart and his better angels. As such Nick views June as a savior, much like a broken country views the voice of liberation, serving her out of love and conscience rather than obligation or fear. Blaine is constantly shrouded in black, seeping out of the shadows rather than actually ever entering a door. However his moments of connection with June are bathed in a dreamy “golden hour” lighting: the brief and beautiful window of time during sunrise or sunset. It highlights the ethereal romanticism and the inevitable brevity of their precious moments together.

It’s no coincidence that he conceives Holly with June, who leads directly to the downfall of Gilead. During S1 we witness Nick somewhat content to survive within Gilead’s bounds, but when June becomes pregnant with his own daughter, Nick realizes what his involvement with Gilead may personally cost him. The progress of June’s pregnancy and Holly’s presence signify a growing bond between them, and increasing level of loyalty from Blaine. In S5 when Tuello tries to enlist Blaine’s help he specifically asks if he would like to hold his daughter instead of asking about her, an allusion to freedom and an increased commitment to Canada. “Children look to their fathers” June reminds Nick in 5 09, Holly is watching….waiting, so too is his country.

Nick Blaine has continuously displayed the need for a father figure, it’s common trait amongst young recruits of these right wing factions; the desire for a dominant figure to guide them. This longing is a sign of Nick’s lack of self-esteem and personal strength. Throughout the seasons we’ve observed this figures personality changing over time as his loyalties shift and he slowly gathers strength. His break with Lawrence to make a deal with Tuello indicates a transition from a mere subordinate to a respected partner, a bridge to his future family.

In S5, we get a rare glimpse inside Blaine’s mind’s eye, as he fantasizes about a passionate exchange between June and himself. They are flooded with a blinding light, a sign of the intensity of his obsessive love for her. There is almost an uncontainable sense of appetite in the way Blaine physically connects with her, as if constantly waiting for the briefest opportunity to breathe her in, like free air. Blaine is written to be an enigma, he embodies a theme, but defies solid definitions. He’s intentionally elusive, almost impossible to pin down because he’s constantly shifting and wrestling with his inner demons. Contrary to popular belief it is actually June who saves Blaine, for from the beginning we’ve seen him barely keep his head above water. His lack of self-worth constantly tempts him to submit to Gilead’s influence and it is only her presence that keeps him from doing so. Given the themes that these two embody it’s logical to see Gilead thrive when these two are seperated. In S5 we saw him lose hope in June’s absence, fall under Lawrence’s spell and acquiesce to Gilead’s will. In S 5 Blaine appeared like a figure caught in a rushing river, in 5 09 June reached out a hand, only to find him already drowning.

In 5 10 we saw him claw and fight his way out from the murky depths, reborn……and angry. Nick’s words to Tuello on the bridge: “she has a family who cares about her. I’m nothing” echoes the lack of self-worth that made Nick such easy prey for Gilead. “No you’re not Commander, not to her” Tuello replies; Nick is still part of her countries lost masses, she will not forsake him for her own new found freedom. Blaine may have chosen to break his bond with Gilead when he walked across that bridge, but the reality is he’ll need June and her rebellion to truly claim his liberty and pride.

At the risk of drawing some heat, I’ll share some personal thoughts on the Nick we’ve seen thus far; while he’s certainly gone above and beyond to protect June and his own daughter, he’s continued to participate in the goings on of Gilead. It’s important to acknowledge Nick’s role as one that was active and continuously conflicted, and not entirely romanticize his character or simply paint him as a victim. He was intentionally created as a complex and multi-faceted character designed to depict someone with choices, regrets, vulnerabilities and the ability to grow and change. It’s what humanizes him and allows us to connect, because let’s be honest, sometimes as human beings we aren’t our best selves, we fuck up….and Nick Blaine did….and sometimes he still does.

He’s designed to personify an entire section of society, their choices and their role in this regime. As such it’s a mistake to be reductive about who he is and what he’s done. It’s wrong to minimize his incredible journey of personal growth in the face of so much adversity. He’s the perfect “diamond in the rough”, but the nature of this character is that they’re good hearted, seriously flawed, conflicted and take a fair bit of time to get to where they need to go.

He’s the classic enigmatic, noir type character; silent and stoic, but revealing so much with a word, a gesture or even their silence. These characters allow the viewer to project their own perspective upon them based on the smallest of cues. As such the hopeless romantics see him as a lover, the suspicious see him as a traitor, and the pragmatists, like myself, see him as a simple man. Looking back, I see now I have projected so many of my own strengths and vulnerabilities onto Blaine, and I’m left wondering; where does it end and the writer’s intent begin? Perhaps mine and Millers concept of Blaine are an ocean apart. For me the beauty of Nick Blaine, as with most of these characters, is in his journey; he sometimes DOES fail to listen to his better angels, but most of the time he tries.

He’s not an untouchable prince or a pre-packaged hero, he’s real, a fail able human being trying to be better. At times June IS disappointed in him and we do see her call him on his shit because, well to be honest sometimes he deserves it, but deep down Nick Blaine is essentially a good and caring soul who ultimately succeeds. Nick represents a faction of emotionally vulnerable individuals, manipulated and mobilized, through the use of propaganda and fear, by those with a hateful agenda. He’s a young man who falls in love, becomes a father and realizes the personal cost of war. There are “a thousand choices” Lawrence says, and in 5 10 Nick finally makes the one we always knew he would. At the end of the day, June loves Nick because she knows that he is a good man who will ultimately make the right choice, and he loves her because she is the right choice that he always wanted to make.

For part 1 and other bloggy goodness, head over to my page. Back soon with part 3.

[literaticat]

In using comps, does it matter if my protag is a boy and both my comps star female protags or vice versa??

I guess it depends if it makes sense or not. Bear in mind, comps are meant to give a hint as to the type of reader to whom this might appeal. So think about it like you are handselling in a bookstore.

If somebody came up to you, a bookseller, and said they were looking for a book with the vibes of THE HANDMAID'S TALE and THE POWER, a book that might make sense to give to them would be WHEN WOMEN WERE DRAGONS -- ALL those books are speculativeish/dystopianish alternate history stories (ie, set in a world much like our own but with a MAJOR difference in the timeline that has had repercussions) and are highly focused on women/patriarchy/rage. It would be kinda weird to give them a book about a dude -- because books about men+patriarchy+rage would probably be, I don't know, like FIGHT CLUB or something, which is clearly not the vibe.

If you were like, oh, well, you like things that are sorta SF-ish, so how about this, and handed them GOOD OMENS and THE HOUSE IN THE CERULEAN SEA or something, it also just wouldn't make sense.

(That person might also like GOOD OMENS -- but if they are in the mood for Women+Rage, it would be a jarring and inappropriate comparison and might even make them a bit annoyed - like READ THE ROOM, PAL, I WANTED AN ENRAGED WOMAN BOOK!!!)

So IF it makes sense and wouldn't be a jarring comparison, by all means, but I'd just go ahead and specify WHY it is a comp. Like if your book is heartwarming and queer science fiction, it would make sense to say "MYBOOK has the cozy feel and whimsical found family aspect of THE HOUSE IN THE CERULEAN SEA" -- that makes me immediately understand the tone -- I wouldn't think "but wait, this one has a girl protagonist, what the hell?" -- because you specified that it was the TONE you were comping, not the main character or the storyline or whatever.

[talkingpointsusa]

Michael Knowles Can't Handle Five Seconds Of A Show For Toddlers:

Michael Knowles is among the dumbest of these guys, like for crying out loud!

I figured we could use a break from AmFest (which is code for I could use a break from AmFest) so I figured that we should engage in one of our favorite past times here at Talking Points, dunking on Daily Wire third banana Michael Knowles.

The other reason why I wanted to do this episode is because Michael is once again on his deranged "They're turning you gay" soapbox and this time is targeting CocoMelon. It's just as stupid and hilarious as one might expect.

Warning: Transphobia, homophobia, and stupidity. These aren't my opinions, obviously.

00:00, Michael Knowles: "A popular kids show, quite possibly the most popular kids show in the world, is apparently trying to turn your child into a tutu wearing, mama denying, gender-bending dancer, as evidenced by this recently viral clip."

Let the stupidity begin.

So, depicting a child being raised by gay parents isn't "denying mothers", it's just a child in a different situation. Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex parents fare just as well as ones being raised by heterosexual ones. But these are the guys who are against gay parents even existing so this take is unsurprising.

As for the "child-crossdressing", a child wearing a tutu is a total "who cares" for me. It's a brief scene, really only lasting about five seconds, and the kid tries on multiple other costumes throughout the scene. This isn't weird at all, the only people making it weird are right-wing ghouls like Michael who are using it to justify their own homophobia.

01:00, Michael Knowles: "Why shouldn't kids shows depict little boys wearing tutus and dancing for the pleasure of homosexual men who have somehow gained custody of them, huh?"

Michael's mind is clearly in an extremely perverted gutter if that's the first thing he thinks of when seeing a five second clip from a CocoMelon video.

"Dancing for the pleasure of homosexual men", what?! Or it's a scene of him playing a game of dress-up with his dads. Even by Michael Knowles standards this is such a stupid take.

01:13, Michael Knowles: "Until the mid to late 20th century anyone who ever considered creating a scene like that for adults would have been ostracized from polite society and likely prosecuted."

Yeah, black people would also have been ostracized and likely prosecuted if they sat in the non-colored seat on the bus, what's your point?

Society actually does this thing called "change".

01:30, Michael Knowles: "This is just what kids are watching these days."

Yeah, a five second clip of a kid in a dress which is all of a sudden being turned into a dirty thing because the kid in this show happened to have gay parents.

Also now would be a good reminder of that time in college where Michael starred in a gay sex scene.

02:28, Michael Knowles: "I just assume that anything modern and popular and praised by the libs is poison, now we have proof."

This sums up Michael's entire mindset in one sentence. Michael, if he had his way, would drag us back into a backwards and Handmaid's Tale-esque world to "own the libs".

Racial equality is modern and popular and praised by the left, guess Michael doesn't like that. How about cell phones? Affordable healthcare? Women having the right to vote? I could go on and on.

My point is that this is an insanely stupid thing to say unless you want to go back to a Medieval feudal society.

Also your proof is just five seconds from a kids show that look innocent to anyone that doesn't have an extremely dirty mind.

02:35, Michael Knowles: "That's why we launched our own kids platform BentKey."

So, a lot of this fearmongering is mainly just to advertise the Daily Wires kids platform. This really shows how much of a grifter Michael is. Build up the fear about your kids being indoctrinated into...turning gay I guess and then BANG, ad pivot.

Most of the right uses these kinds of tactics to drive sales.

05:11, Michael Knowles: "I can already hear the objection to my criticism of CocoMelon. They're going to say, the libs of course, they're going to say 'Michael, what's wrong with a kid being himself? What's wrong with a nice supportive loving family encouraging a kid to be himself? Just be yourself!'"

As a person Michael would consider a "lib", that's the least of my objections to this. My 3 main objections are as follows:

This is a dumb thing to spend time on. There are so many important things going on in the world that spending this much time talking about five seconds of a kids show is a complete waste of energy.

2. As stated prior, it was only five seconds. The kid even tries on some more traditionally "masculine" costumes such as a firefighter one. There is no way that a child would be paying attention enough to even register it! Keep in mind that Cocomelon is targeted at ages 2-4.

3. Really all this is is a massive dogwhistle. Michael is talking about this because it gives him a way to paint gay parents as perverts and trans identifying kids as "groomed victims" to his audience.

Anyway, Michael argues against this strawman.

05:31, Michael Knowles: "I guess what's wrong with this is the assumption that that makes about human nature which is that there's this true self at the core of an onion, we just need to peel away the layers of society and norms and standards and practice and morality and tradition and ritual. We need to peel away all those layers and we will get to the true core of the self and the true core for that little boy is wearing tutus and dancing for a couple of homosexuals."

Again, mind in the absolute gutter. Michael absolutely would not give a shit if this was a straight imaginary couple. It's just a kid playing dress up, nothing perverted about it!

The episode doesn't even end with the child wearing the tutu or deciding to be trans or whatever Michael is saying it does!

This is also a stupid argument because it ignores the fact that those standards have CHANGED for everyone but Michael and other conservative reactionaries like him. While a child wearing a dress is appalling for reactionary trolls like Michael, the rest of society truly could care less.

06:24, Michael Knowles: "A lot of human behavior, and especially human desire, comes from imitation."

Yeah, a five second clip of a kid in a tutu is gonna make your two to four year old trans. Here I thought that the PornHub thing was a stretch, Michael is seriously grasping at straws to justify this being a big deal.

07:17, Michael Knowles: "We are mimetic when it comes to our desires as well. I mentioned this on the show yesterday in a different context, the reason people want the Rolex watch is not because they know anything about how the watch works, it's not because they no anything about the history of the company or the mechanics of watch gears, it's because other people want the Rolex watch."

Your sexuality isn't the same thing as a wristwatch, if that were true we'd all be running around banging inanimate objects.

Man this is one of the dumbest things I have ever watched for this blog, I'm almost beginning to miss AmFest....almost.

08:15, Michael Knowles: "So if a kid is raised by a lumberjack and his traditional wife in the mountains of who knows where, somewhere in the western United States, and they've got really traditional values and the dad goes out and chops wood and the mom churns butter and I don't know, I'm probably getting into some kind of fairy tale fable of a traditional life, but that kid is going to be more likely to go chop wood or if it's a girl go out and churn butter."

This removes all individual agency. What if that child doesn't want to chop wood or churn butter? It completely removes individual personality and hitches how a person is entirely on their parents.

08:45, Michael Knowles: "And if a child is raised by a couple of homosexual men who purchased the child from scientists and impoverished women in the third world through IVF and surrogacy then that kid is more likely to mimic their behavior."

Yes, there are some ethical concerns about cross-border surrogacy depending on the nation but a majority of surrogates are in the United States and a lot of cross-border surrogates are in other first world countries. The regions with the most surrogacies are India, Ukraine, California, and Central America. The most concerning on that list to someone would probably be India, but they've banned commercial surrogacy.

Also, what behavior is that? This statement is running on the homophobic myth that gay couples are inherently hypersexual which is false and rooted in harmful stereotypes.

9:02, Michael Knowles: "And if a kid is told that it is oppressive for a boy to play with G.I Joe and it's wonderful and liberating a boy to wear a tutu and dance for the pleasure of his 'fathers', quote on quote, he's gonna do that too."

When did the show even say that?! It never said it was oppressive for a kid to have traditionally masculine interests because nobody is saying that. Like I said earlier, the episode actually has the kid dressing up in more masculine costumes like a fireman before these five seconds that triggered Michael occurred.

I'm also getting really sick of Michael implying to his audience that all gay fathers are pedophiles. Like I've been saying from the very beginning all the way back when this blog was still called "Wired", this rhetoric can and will inspire violent attacks against the people these goons are targeting.

Since Michael is so obsessed with the concept of mimicry, here's something to chew on. What happens if someone sees this episode, decides to "do something about it", and shoots and kills a gay couple to "save the kid". Obviously Michael would have to take responsibility because that person was spurred on by Michael’s bigoted rhetoric, but Michael won't because he cares about his paycheck and not about who gets hurt.

Has Michael ever met a child by the way? Children usually rebel against what their parents want from them! If strawman child is being denied his G.I Joe doll, odds are he'll want it more!

09:12, Michael Knowles: "And if a kid is raised watching that absolutely degenerate cartoon than that kid is more likely to mimic those behaviors."

That's like saying eating one piece of broccoli will turn you into a vegetarian. Michael is breaking new ground in the world of right-wing stupidity.

09:39, Michael Knowles: "The more bad stuff we take in the worse we're gonna feel, the more it's gonna twist our desires and our sense of identity."

Yeah, five seconds of a toddlers show is gonna twist our "sense of identity". God, did Ben Shapiro OK this? Michael is making the Daily Wire look like a bunch of idiots who can't handle a toddlers show.

09:54, Michael Knowles: "That's probably clearest when we talk about porn, it's even worse than Cocomelon."

I don't think I've laughed as hard at one of these right-wing ghouls as I just did. The comparison between porn and COCOMELON, oh my God that is funny but also sad when you remember that people believe this shit.

10:23, Michael Knowles: "The company was called MindGeek but of course the company is so disreputable and so despicable that they have to keep changing their name because like the euphemism treadmill bad connotations just glom on naturally to whatever this company is called."

That's not how companies work. Even if MindGeek changes their name, it's not like a hard reset button that wipes the companies slate clean. Everybody knows that Aylo is the same company as MindGeek.

Michael then plays a clip of another PornHub employee that runs counter to his narrative. Michael chalks it up to him "not being one of the writers". He then, after an ad-break of course, drops a "rule for life".

14:41, Michael Knowles: "Don't let your behavior stop you from acknowledging the truth. Don't become a captive to your own bad behavior."

You lie to people on the internet for a living, get off your high horse when it comes to "the truth". Michael is a captive of both his own bad behavior and his audiences.

Michael basically says the same thing in different ways for three minutes. Who the hell cares?! He talks about the Trump and Colorado thing for a bit, mainly by playing clips of people who disagreed with Trump who don't agree with the Colorado decision, Michael reacting to CNN isn't something we need to dwell on. Ad pivot. And then he drops this amazing line.

24:05, Michael Knowles: "Peppa Pig, Blues Clues, Muppet Babies, and more continue to aggressively push radical leftist propaganda"

BAHAHAHA. I was drinking some coffee while listening to this in the background and this legitimately made me snort coffee out of my nose. Yeah, Blues Clues and Muppet Babies, well known radical leftist TV shows. They're not even making Muppet Babies anymore, the show ended in 2022.

The Daily Wire is legitimately a parody of itself at this point.

He then advertises BentKey a bit, gotta prevent kids from being exposed to the radical leftist ideas contained in Muppet Babies right? He talks about Vivek's PR stunt where he declared that he'll pull his name off the ballot in Colorado and how DeSantis didn't do it. I really don't care, again it's Michael reacts to CNN. We probably will have to do a blog post addressing the Colorado thing, everyone except Ezra (which makes sense because he's too busy yelling about Trudeau) did something on it. Anyway, here's Michael yelling about a diversity initiative.

33:06, Michael Knowles: "Now we found out that the Harvard president once created a taskforce on visual culture and signage to make white males less visible at Harvard."

First of all, white males don't need the extra representation at Harvard. According to Harvard's demographics, the student population at Harvard is 34.6% white. This is the vast majority as the second largest demographic is Asians which make up 13.6%.

Out of those white people on campus, 18.9% (the majority again) are males. So if they are trying to erase white males from Harvard they are doing an insanely crappy job.

As for this "taskforce" thing that Michael is talking about, it was just about making the campuses symbols (such as portraits) more diverse. It's completely innocent and a total who cares news story.

33:39, Michael Knowles: "The recommendations included a mandate to change quote 'spaces whose visual culture is dominated by homogenous portraiture of white men'. Homogenous, you know all those white guys look the same. You know how all those black guys look the same, hold on you’re not allowed to say that!"

I can't tell if Michael is trying to be stupid or if it just comes naturally.

It wasn't saying that all white people look the same, it was saying that the portraits and visual materials on the campus were all of white males.

Anyway, we already talked about the Congress thing with Tim Pool but essentially it's just an example of grandstanding and highly loaded questions meant to provoke the exact response the congresswoman got.

Michael says super dumb crap about climate change but I can't be bothered. Apparently some study said that breathing contributes to climate change, he didn't link it and I couldn't find it on Google but Michael's conclusion that it means that climate change advocates want you to kill yourself is stupid as hell.

Conclusion:

So, that was one of the dumbest things I have ever watched for this blog. I love how the same people who are complaining about leftists being "triggered" are the same ones who can't handle five seconds of a show geared at toddlers. The fact that ANYONE could take Michael Knowles seriously after this is honestly baffling.

[highwaydiamonds]

I was tagged by the spiffy @mountainmaven

fave colour = Rainbow Glitter or I guess maybe pale aqua? i don't really have a solid favorite. It changes a lot.

currently reading = Greenwich Park by Katherine Faulkner

last song = Inside Out by POSTDATA (their newest release from last year and it kicks ass)

sweet/spicy/savoury = i like them all. i like sweet and spicy together too. it just depends on the mood i'm in.

fave alc drink = i like a good paloma a lot - but i'm v changeable - as long as i don't taste the booze i'm happy. (in a mixed drink anyway. but i'm more often going to be having wine or cider)

currently working on = lol trying to figure what the hell i'm doing with my life hehheh... heh >.<

traditional or modern = eclectic - antique stuff but comfortable and colorful soft furnishings- a happy mix

fave writer = Jane Austen,

fave dessert = ooh this is hard - i love creme brulee but uhhh i also love a decadent cake with some chocolate ganache in it or some sort of lemon raspberry cheesecake..

fave rapper = uhhhhhhh idk man - i'll let you know when i have one?

fave soccer/hockey/tennis player = i don't have one? Like if i named one of the few players i could think of ( I can think of a very few) it wouldn't really be because they were my " favorite" it would just be "i know of their name and maybe a couple things?" so I'll abstain.

fave politician = ever??? or now? Maxine waters is p dang cool - I appreciate Alexandria Occasio-Cortez decently... Shirley Chisholm was a kick ass politician... But is this open to people who might not have held politial office but were activists? Because Dolores Huerta is p dang cool.

colour of bedroom = ideally I like somewhat lighter colors- because i like colorful cheets and pillows... either warmish white or light light yellow or light robin's egg blue, or light light pink - because those lighter tones i feel like are easier to work with

loyalty or lust = i mean por que no los dos??? but in terms of more than romantic relationships : loyalty. In terms of romantic ones - I want both! I feel like I have some very loyal people - i'm over due on people lusting after me frankly lol - i would like to correct that balance a bit ok???

pizza or pasta = i hate this choice. this should not be an OR question. But I make pasta too often to go without pasta, s i guess pasta. (But Pizza - I LOVE YOU- don't leave me!!)

are you vegan or veggie = nah, I like some vegan and quite a bit of vegetarian options but i eat eggs and honey and meat.

fave time period = This is just for historical and aesthetic reasons ( because lbr i don't want to live in a time without all the technological advantages and antibiotics I can get) Latter half of the 18th century ( particularly French style) and the British Regency period (Georgian stuff is my fucking JAM ok?), late victorian and some edwardian period stuff, Ancient Rome - under Augustus through Marcus Aurelius, the Dutch golden age ( especially for art), the 1950s for fashion was amazing, and probably more - i mean i love some stuff from ancient egypt - but that's way too long to be " a period" and i can't narrow down particular dynasties or kingdoms, nd same with some ancient mesopotamian stuff.

love or hate = they don't say it's hate that makes the world go round - so clearly the answer is LOVE, LOVE, LOVE. It's easy. (just ask Paul and Ringo.)

last series watched = I'm always watching several things. Handmaid's Tale, House of the Dragon, The Serpent Queen, Interview with a Vampire, I just binged Dark Winds, and there are other things i've just watched the odd episode of but not stuck onto.

classical or rock music = I guess on balance, rock? But I'm not sure that what i listen to is necessarily "rock" music... I listen to a lot of stuff but I guess it's closer to rock than it is classical - but calling it rock feels weird?

fairy or dragon = Fairy. Dragons are fun but I am way more into fairies. Plus i'd rather have a gryphon than a dragon, unless dragons are extra friendly. (Like w/ GoT and HotD I enjoy the people and political machinations - I'm not as psyched about dragons)

GOT or LOTR = In terms of the books - I read all of LotR and watched all the films. I haven't read any of the ASoIaF books, while idid watch all of GoT and am currently watching House of the Dragon... I also don't know that i will ever read the ASoIaF books... Idk maybe i will in time, we'll see. I enjoy both but I'm not sure I'm a diehard for either.

Okay, so I'mma tag: @seashells-and-bookshelves , @theselkiesea , @usedtobeanothername , @waitingtogethome , and @ndb-123 ! No pressure if i did tag you, and if i didn't, consider yourself tagged if you'd like!

[nickblaine]

But this episode ends with Janine stepping up to the plate, so to speak. June couldn’t protect her by giving this rebel guy a sexual favor, and Janine just handles the situation. It’s a weird one, because on the one hand, it’s great to see Janine step up, but also, is she being sexually exploited? Again?

Madeline Brewer: I struggled with that one for a minute. But I think I considered Janine’s past — and I don’t mean Janine having abortion; that could quite literally not have less to do with what I’m about to say — Janine as a teenager when, in episode two of season one, she recounts what I think is a rape or date rape by several boys. When you deal with something as traumatizing as rape, in my research I’ve found that it can change your ideas of value of a sexual encounter. At this point, after everything Janine has been through with men, she does not give one single solitary fuck about getting that over with. She does not care. She ends up having a kind of a relationship with Steven, but she’s like, “I’m starving. I have been starving for days. I’ve been in a milk tank with you. We are finally inside and clothed with food. You are clearly distraught and I’m going to do what it takes.” And it wasn’t in the way of like, she had to do this terrible thing. No, it’s just what she did to survive. There’s no moral value to it; it is just: “I did what I had to do. He thinks my eye patch is cool. I’m good. How are you?” Next to being a mother, Janine’s loyalty to her friends is her identity. 

– The Handmaid’s Tale’s Madeline Brewer Thinks We’ve All Underestimated Janine

[intheshadowofsignificance]

The Handmaid’s Tale is stretching my suspension of disbelief to the limit. Spoilers for season 4 below. It’s a wall of text so please be warned.

I can’t insert a cut on mobile so have some space to speed scroll away if you don’t want spoilers.

[[MORE]]

I realize the sheer implausibility of a lot of fiction is what makes it great. I respect the ability of writers to avoid pressure from fans to make everything perfect or explainable. That said, there comes a point where too much plot immunity starts to breakdown the fabric of the story. That’s what’s happening here.

First of all, is it just me or has Gilead gotten immensely soft in season four? I was physically uncomfortable throughout June’s capture scenes because I kept expecting things to get real gory real fast. I’m not complaining about the lack of it, and I understand especially after the recent episode that there are things which impact June much deeper than some of the physical torture ever could, but we are talking about a society who cut out Janine’s eye to make an example of her for talking back. A society that genitally mutilated Emily for being gay. June has lost Gilead several Marthas who will confess everything they know, dozens of their “precious children,” and she gets...waterboarded.

This woman has proven she’ll run away at the first opportunity and inspire a resistance wherever she goes. You’re telling me Gilead really wouldn’t get to a point where they cut off her feet? Burn them until they’re unrecognizable?

Another recurring theme that’s starting to show some wear is the whole “we can’t kill handmaids because they’re a scarce resource” followed almost immediately by killing them. I understand the train couldn’t have been stopped, but for the driver of the bus to start shooting to kill right off? Either handmaids are expendable when they become criminals or they aren’t. Side note: They made it way too easy for the handmaids to run, I’m going to give that somewhat of a pass because maybe Nick had a hand in it. Who can say? But I’m pretty sure I remember Emily being handcuffed at the wrists and ankles on her way to the colonies. They would’ve at the very least done that for fugitives who have run multiple times and resulted in the loss of children, aka leveraging power, and the deaths of countless commanders to this point.

Speaking of Nick, I’m pretty convinced we’re going to find out he’s leading his own secret sect of rebellion among officers headed for “the front.” The guy has, like June, gotten an excessive amount of plot immunity to this point to not have people acting as double agents with him. That kiss in clear view of the bus? You can hide a lot, but being that boldly involved with a traitor in front of witnesses, even if it had just been Lydia? Weird. Now maybe because he’s a man and a trusted one, Lydia’s word wouldn’t stand a chance against his. But there have clearly been rumors that Nick and June are romantically involved. It’s hinted at by other characters all the time and I assume is part of the reason he’s always hanging around when June is dragged back to Gilead. That’s the kind of thing that should, realistically, in a society as strict as this, put him on the wall. At some point Gilead has to be past the point of “making them wish for death is worse than death itself” because someone, somewhere is smart enough to know that, that ideology is going to be what causes them to crumble.

Another thing that’s bothering me: the accommodations of the Waterford’s as war criminals. I can overlook this because their scenes really are interesting and I’m invested in them as characters and in their inevitable comeuppance. However, Serena’s referenced involvement with Nicole or even the idea of her having any hope of it if she can convince a jury she was abused/manipulated/brainwashed is absurd. It has always been absurd that she had access to Nicole in Canada, but now that they have 86 other stolen children, even more so. Obviously they’re not going to send kids back to Gilead even if they’re the product of rape and one biological parent still resides there. They’re shown trying to place those with no relatives in Canada into the foster care system. So WHY are we even entertaining Serena having access to Nicole? This above so much else is implausible to the point of being ridiculous. Fred acknowledges Nicole is no more Serena’s than his. And I can’t help thinking they threw her pregnancy at us to help aid in Serena letting that obsession go. Because seriously there is no way to explain letting that woman be involved with June’s daughter in any way.

Aside from plot immunity, one thing that seriously hurts THT’s credibility is the lack of any sense of time passing. Nick repeatedly references going to the front but it hasn’t happened. If this was really Gilead’s doing would they waste time, and exactly how much has passed since the threat until the actual follow through?

Same way with June’s infected gunshot wound going from oozing pus and not really responding to minimal holistic treatment, to healed enough she can hoist Janine out of a train car.

There’s so much this series does right. The fabric of society is so deeply harrowing and tragic, the characters well rounded and engaging. I love the theme of June’s humanity being rooted so deeply in her maternal love for Hannah and the sense of protection she feels for the teens/kids suffering in Gilead as they are brutalized by grown men. I love that Fred sees through Serena and that they’re both so narcissistic and manipulative and unsettling to the core. I love that the writers know a lot of that existed before Gilead and that they’re both responsible for the way they’ve become as individuals and a couple.

I love that Moira acknowledges her actions are paved in guilt because she’s free and June is suffering. I love that the show doesn’t forget to acknowledge how many people are suffering for June’s choices in such complex ways, and that the alternative to that suffering is compliance or resignation, which is just going to breed more suffering. I love that we see Luke grappling with June’s choices and where they’ve left him too. I love that no one is really made to be a martyr. Deep down, there’s a piece of them all still wondering: what about me? Don’t I matter? Am I going to be okay? And no one really knows.

Having seen THT is renewed not just for the current season, but a fifth, makes me feel like they’re going to push the series to the absolute limit of believability and ruin what had been, despite questionable moments, an amazing run. I really don’t know how much more they’re going to be able to avoid maiming June, killing Nick and Lydia, and a hundred other things. We’ll see.

One of the big spoilers of the trailer was June getting to safety this season, no doubt during the last episode so they can rope us into season 5 where I am praying Hannah hasn’t “reached maturity” yet.

[surveys-at-your-service]

Survey #442

“the more you suffer, the more it shows you really care, right?”

Would you ever sell your soul? No. Do you believe that something is going to happen in 2012? Welp, clearly not. I never believed it. Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? No, but I'd love to! When was the last time you slept in someone else’s bed? Uhhh not since I visited Sara, I think. Do you like your music loud or at a reasonable level? Loud, for sure. Louder than I should listen to. Did the last person you kiss have a tattoo? No. What’s the last song you heard? "The Bird and the Worm" by The Used. Has anyone told you they missed you lately? No. What are you most likely to do when you’re exhausted; take a nap, drink some coffee, or go for a run to get yourself pumped up again? Naps definitely win. What are you most likely to pick if you got to choose your topic on a research paper; drug abuse, mental illness, or the death penalty? Mental illness, for sure. What is your favorite month of the year and why? October, bc aesthetic. What’s your least favorite animal? Probably wasps. They're mean fuckers that kill bees. What was your class song when you graduated? Some super shitty country song. Have you ever had to spend the night outside (not camping)? No. What`s the scariest living animal that you`ve petted? A tarantula, I'd say. She was a sweet rose hair that I literally did pet, which you absolutely should not do to tarantulas, but I knew nothing about them at the time. The urticating hairs on their abdomens cause serious itching, and I tell ya, that sure happened. So did you play old school Nintendo or Atari or Sega? If so which one? We had an old Atari for a long time. When/where did you meet your first love? In the hallway, during my sophomore year of high school. Is there anyone you dislike, that you have to see/speak to regularly? Hm, what qualifies as "regularly," really? I don't like my sister's husband, who I see semi-regularly, but I don't really talk to him. Does your family eat any unique foods for Thanksgiving that aren’t the norm? If so, what are they? Nah, not that I can think of. If you eat oatmeal, do you add water or milk to it? What is your favorite flavor? Milk; I don't like it with water. I only eat the apples and cinnamon kind. Was the last video you watched on YouTube a music video? If not, what was it of? It's a let's play. Have you ever been brave enough to cut your hair in a very different way? If you have, did you regret your decision after? Yes, and I still love it. What was the last book you had to read for school? Did you enjoy it, or were you just trying to get through? The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. I loved it. Has anyone you know personally ever won the lottery? If so, how much did they win? Would/have you ever play(ed) the lottery? No to both questions. I have a very addictive personality, so I don't really mess with dangerous things that might tempt that behavior. What band/celebrity/etc. do you know the most information about? Who would you like to learn more about? Markiplier, ha ha. As for who I'd like to know more about... hm. Have your friends met the last person you kissed? Girt has. Who has made the biggest difference in your life? Jason. You get a text from someone saying that they want to hang out - who would you most like it to be from? Also Jason. -_- What is the name on your birth certificate (feel free to withhold your last name for privacy reasons)? Brittany Marie is all you need to know. Even if shopping isn’t your favorite... every girl has a favorite store. What’s yours? My favorite physical store is Hot Topic, but my favorite store overall is Rebel's Market, which I'm pretty sure is just an online source. Which type of undies do you wear most: Thongs, bikini/briefs, bootyshorts, or granny panties? Don't you dare laugh, I prefer "granny panties" lmfao. They're what I'm comfortable in, okay. How many nail polishes do you have, if you were to take a guess? *I* have none. Idk about Mom, but I know not a lot. Are you on birth control? Do you use condoms? I use birth control to regulate my period and ease cramps. If I was sexually active though, both would be musts for me. When did you start your period? How did you react? Who did you tell first? When I got home from school sometime in middle school. I don't remember exactly how old I was, but I was EXTREMELY upset. Like, I cried, because I didn't feel like a kid anymore. My mom was the first to know. Have you ever had sex while on your period? If so, would you ever do it again? NO NO NO NO THAT SOUNDS SO GROSS LKASDFJ;AJW;LKERJA;WEJLRKQWLKE;JR. Which way do you swing (boys, girls, or both)? I'm bi. Or pan. I really don't know. Tell me ALL about your longest/most serious relationship. Are you still in that relationship? How about I don't, because doing that I'm sure will send me in a PTSD spiral. No, we're no longer together. Who is your ALL TIME best friend (don’t count your boyfriend, either, silly!)? Sara. I don't think I've been as close with any other best friend. Which one of your friends has the best singing voice? SARAAAAAAAAAAA. What shade are you in foundation or concealer? I don't have a clue. I don't wear either. Have you ever showered with someone? Boy or girl? Were you completely naked? "Were you completely naked." No, I shower with underwear on. I've showered with my little sister as well as my best friend as a kid. I've never shared a shower as an adult and don't want to. Do you think you’re good enough for the person you like? No. Are you a cuddler or no? If I'm really into you, YUP. And if it's not hot. Wouldn’t it be kinda annoying to have to share a bed every night? No. I miss it sometimes. Have you ever walked on a beach at night? Yes. It's beautiful. Could you go the rest of your life without drinking alcohol? Pretty easily, yeah. Would you marry someone you didn’t love if you were paid 10 thousand dollars? No. I just wouldn't be able to stomach doing that. I'm solely marrying for love. Have you had sex today? I haven't in many years. Do you still care about your last ex? Very very much! Do you own more then one bathing suit? Nope. Is there any alcohol in the fridge? Yeah, but none I like. Who have you recently made up with after fighting? Nobody. Who do you WANT to make up with? Jason. Megan. Do you get scared easily? Hm. It really depends on the situation. Have you seen UP? Never the full movie, actually. I need to. How many coats of mascara do you use? I use it so rarely that I barely know. Two, maybe? What’s your favorite bracelet? The one Sara gave me. I used to always wear it, but it's worn down with time and is too loose for me now, so it's just with my jewelry. What color hair does your mom have? It's naturally gray now, but she dyes it black. Favorite song to listen to when you are mad? "Headache" by Motionless In White does it. What restaurant would you want to work at? NONE. I ain't working with hungry people. I don't want to work with people - period. When people ask “how are you?” do you say “good” even if you aren’t? Depends on who's asking. If it's a stranger or someone I barely know, odds are I'm just going to reply with "fine" or something like that. Were you honestly a good kid? Yes. Is anything wrong with your eyes? I have to wear glasses, so. Have you kissed or hugged anyone today? No. What is your mom’s and dad’s favorite TV show? I don't really know for either. Mom watches loads of shows, and I don't live with Dad, so. I know he really likes The Big Bang Theory, though, which Mom also loves. Have you ever suspected your mom or dad of having an affair? No, but ~supposedly~, Dad did with his now-wife. I don't know what the fuck is true between my parents, though. Do you think buying second hand clothes is gross? It depends on the type of clothing (ex., used underwear is a huge fucking no), as well as the state it's in. Does it gross you out when your parents kiss? They're divorced. That would be incredibly weird, uncomfortable, and impossible with how I know at least Mom feels towards Dad. Do you have a playlist made on YouTube? Yeah, multiple. Do you like dollar stores? I mean, sure? They have good deals occasionally and are a good option to stop for a quick snack or something. Mom doesn't actually *shop* in them, though. What’s the last thing you bought from one? I think a honeybun. Do you think it’s weird how babies are made? Well, yeah. Science can be crazy, though. Have you ever lost a friend over the opposite sex? No. Are you comfortable in a short skirt? I wouldn't be comfortable in ANY skirt. Do you and your family go on a vacation ever year? We essentially never do. Vacations cost money. We don't have money to spare. When you were going out with your last ex and you had the chance to date your celebrity crush, would you have left your bf/gf for them? No, because it's not like I know him personally, while I know her very deeply. Who was your most romantic moment with? Jason. Do you sweat easily? Like you wouldn't BELIEVE. A side effect of one (or even multiple) of my meds is hyperhidrosis, so I can sweat an ocean in two minutes, it seems. It's disgusting, and I am so self-conscious about it. What’s one memory you wish would just vanish? Just a specific moment with Jason that is particularly agonizing to recall. Are you in love with someone? No. Partying or watching a movie? Partying isn't my thing. I'd have more fun watching a movie with friends. What pisses you off the most? Child molesters/rapists, probably. Where do you want to be at a year from now? I just want a job by then, dude. I also hope I've lost a lot of weight. Do you like pickles? Only dill pickles. If you saw someone broken down on the side of the road, would you stop to help? Honestly, no. I don't trust people. What do you do with your plastic grocery bags after you unload your things? We put our plastic bags into one big bag for later use. Have you ever slept in a water bed? Yes. How often do you use Flickr? I don't. I only ever check my friend's for meerkat photos, ha ha. Share three nice memories you have of the person you fell hardest for. No, unless you want me to cry. Have you ever made any of your friends cry? Not deliberately of course, but yes. Do you look decent in your most recent photograph? God no, I look high. Out of all the guys you know, who would you trust to not cheat on you? Girt. I know he never would, especially because HE'S been cheated on. How do you plan on disciplining your children? NOT by physical means, I can tell you that much. If I actually had kids, I'd teach them through (hopefully) primarily deeply talking things out. If need be, there'd be time out, grounding, things like that. I do NOT support methods like spanking your kid, so that's a big no. If you could live in another country, would you? What country? Yes; Canada. If you could change your name, what would you change it to? Quinn, probably. What’s one health problem you wish you didn’t have? It's a tie between depression and anxiety. What is your cure for hiccups? NOTHING works for me. It's the worst. Did you ever do anything in class that annoyed other students? I mean, I don't think so. Have you used a Ouija board and had a freaky experience with it? I've never messed with one, and I don't want to. I don't know if I believe in their supernatural abilities or not, but I ain't fuckin around and finding out. Do you stick with a political party, or vote for who you like best? I pick based on their policies and morals, not necessarily their party. Do you know anyone who is an albino? No. Word search or crossword puzzle? Word searches. When you watch a game show, do you like to see people win or lose? Aw, who wants to see them lose? It's great to see people win and be so excited. Do you have a pair of fake redneck, vampire, etc. teeth? No. What is your favorite Pixar film? Finding Nemo. Do you get really mad when you lose a game? Not at all. I'm not very competitive, and games are about having fun. When was the last time you used a pay phone? I actually don't think I ever have. Who did you have your most amazing kiss with? Jason. Do you go to church every Sunday? I never go to church as I'm not religious. If you had to get famous for one of the following, which would you choose: music, acting, writing, modeling? Writing. What do you think of girls with huge boobs that don’t wear bras in public? Who the fuck cares. If they're comfortable and at least have a shirt on, let 'em. Most women have breasts, big whoop. Do you even like politics? God no. What’s it like at raves? Oh god, I'd never go. Have you ever had a dream in which you were making out, or more, with someone? lol yes

[steveharrington]

your dustin opinions are impeccable. also, would you mind elaborating on what your problems with the scoops troop plot? something about it has never sat completely right with me but i'm not sure how to put it into words

yeah for sure! to start out i’ll say that the scoops troop plotline was probably my favorite of the season, as in i had the most fun watching it. obv im biased because whichever group steve is in will probably be the most entertaining to me, i adore him, but it was also due largely to robin’s presence and the chemistry that i think joe maya gaten and priah all had as a group. that being said though i think the plotline was handled in a really weird, lowkey eerie way that all comes down to tone. 

stranger things started out as a drama. like, when it’s recognized in awards shows it’s in the drama category, which puts it up against shows like game of thrones, the handmaid’s tale, shows that tend to have really serious, oftentimes dark content. it fits because stranger things IS dark. it draws inspiration from classic horror movies, characters die, usually in pretty horrible ways, children are traumatized, etc. that’s not to say that there hasn’t ever been humor in the show before scoops troop, obviously there has been, but on the whole the show had a pretty dark premise and a lot of dramatic moments that are written 100% to be dramatic. there tended to be a really good balance of knowing when to keep the tone serious and when to lighten it up a bit. in season three, i personally felt like the duffers decided to try to make the show both a drama and a comedy in equal measure, and their way of doing that was to keep the dark content matter but to make the lighthearted tone more frequent, and that manifested mostly in the scoops troop. it’s made a little worse by the fact that steve, dustin, and erica are undoubtedly comic relief characters. steve’s entire character since season one has pretty much been delegated to being laughed at, dustin has always been the kid with the most jokes and the least emotional arcs, and erica was literally made a season regular based on the fact that people thought she was funny in season two. also, i think the duffers lowkey realized how ridiculous the russian plotline is so they figured adding humor and making the russian general so cartoonish would relieve some of the audiences disbelief that this would ever happen. the result you get is really fucking weird, though. 

right away it’s strange how casual they are about everything. i think the duffers were going for like “these clueless children were just having fun and they accidentally stumbled into a dark deadly secret” but it doesn’t really work when they see men with giant guns and think “okay anyways, how are we gonna get past them?” you can argue that steve and dustin have been desensitized, but robin and erica haven’t. once the elevator drops, they become reasonably freaked out and for the first time you get the since that they’re genuinely scared, but even then it’s treated as a joke. again, this isn’t the first instance of this happening in stranger things. steve has a meltdown every single season and it’s always been used for humor during a serious moment, but in seasons one and two it was just a momentary break from the intensity of whatever was happening. in season three, the jokes are consecutive. steve has his meltdown, then there’s a conversation about him liking robin, then there’s a piss joke (??) like there’s never a moment where they stop and really consider that like damn we’re trapped underground with no food or water and no hope at anyone figuring out where we are. that would all be okay if that was the extent of it, because characters on stranger things have had much worse fates than being slightly dehydrated, but then it takes a super sharp turn and becomes irredeemably dark. when i was watching the season for the first time i found it insanely jarring how fast it goes from steve being completely fine to steve being covered in blood. the duffers clearly want to keep up the routine of him getting beaten up, and they go a little harder on him every time, so this being the third time means he’s like pretty seriously injured. i would say the only scene the scoops troop gets that’s 100% serious is the one where they bring steve back to the room and robin is like “what did you do to him” and all that. that was good! that was realistic! but as soon as he’s awake again they switch back to banter and ahaha steve confuses his left and right bc he’s dumb. the thing that Really gets me is that the season 3 trailer used the shot of him getting jabbed with the needle in a very deliberate way to get people to theorize and be like “season 3 steve harrington DIES???” so like obviously they knew how dark it looked out of context. the thing is like......even WITH context it’s dark!! like the duffers were like “so at this point steve and robin, the oldest of whom just graduated high school like a month ago, are going to be tied up and drugged against their consent (after physical violence didn’t work) to get them to confess information that they literally don’t know. and it’s gonna be fuckin hilarious :) one of them is gonna almost get his fingernails removed by pliers haha” and it’s batshit crazy. 

the best way to really realize how insane it is is to rewatch the older seasons. i rewatched season one recently and when the scene where hopper is interrogated came on, i was like wait hold the fucking phone. he’s just getting tased. and it was treated SO SERIOUSLY in comparison to when steve who is at most 19 years old gets knocked unconscious during an interrogation and later says his ears are ringing and he cant breathe. the scene where nancy and jonathan are surrounded by all the lab employees at the park is super unsettling and eerie and you’re like oh shit these two teenagers just walked right into a government secret. when there are russians surrounding steve and robin with guns, they put in a joke about dustin quoting a movie at them. 

im not saying that this is Problematic or Immoral or anything like that. this isnt like a duffer brothers call out post. like i said, this was still my favorite storyline in the season. i actually think it’s weirdly fascinating. like you know when they take trailers for like, high school musical and just add scary sound effects and editing to make it look like a horror movie? it’s the same premise as the scoops troop. it’s a super dark premise but with jokes and writing that makes it seem like a fun goofy coming of age story. if the duffers were Intentionally trying to do a subversion where they’re like “look we tricked you into laughing while these children were traumatized and nearly killed” i think that wouldve been brilliant. i don’t really think that’s what they were going for, though. i think they accidentally put all their comic relief characters into one group and wanted as many laughs as they could get to break up the drama of the other groups. it just so happened that they also almost tore steve’s fingernails out with pliers :///

[theteeniestpinecone]

What the hell is going on in Handmaid’s Tale??

Alright. I don’t do this anymore, and I’m really only on here once in a blue moon, but damn. Let’s talk about The Handmaid’s Tale for a second.

Where to begin.

I am incredibly disappointed in June. In this season in general, honestly, because after season 2, I was expecting a lot MORE. June stayed for a reason. June stayed because she still had a daughter in Gilead. June stayed because she had “work to do.” So where is it?? The season’s almost over at this point. What’s the work? Because I thought we were going to focus on an actual resistance. I thought this season was about getting Hannah out.

Instead we have June actually going insane. And I get that, kind of. Nick is one of the main reasons she’s managed to keep her sanity for long, and now that love and connection has been stripped away. Hannah’s been taken again. And I think the show is trying to convey that good, strong people can give into corruption. It isn’t necessarily always just bad people who lose their shit. That is absolutely true and quite frankly, June’s been losing it since season 1. I get it.

But I just feel like we were promised some things. It was HEAVILY IMPLIED that June had, or was at least going to devise a plan to not only get Hannah out, but ultimately burn Gilead to the ground. Now, obviously that is impossible for one person to do, but I thought we’d at least be seeing the beginnings of a revolution. That’s how season 3 was promoted. SO WHAT THE HELL?? Instead we’ve got a woman who’s absolutely hanging on by a thread and throwing temper tantrums. Where is the tact? Where is the cleverness? Where is June?

How is she so blatantly putting on display her insolence, with little fear that anything will actually happen to her? She feels invincible. She isn’t. And I really can’t understand why the authorities in Gilead are actually allowing her behavior, Nicole aside. It’s like there’s no real risk anymore. She’s just an angry woman who can get away with more than she should be able to, and that’s really not very fun to watch.

The Lydia backstory was also pretty weak. Clearly, she was already a little nuts before the principal (he was the principal right...?) turned her down, but breaking a mirror? Taking a son away from his mother? And where in the birthing stages of Gilead did that scene lie? Things seemed verrrrry strange. If they had played a little more into the dynamic between Lydia and the mom (there were very clear lesbian vibes happening), that would have made a lot more sense. But as it stands...well, it doesn’t really.

I’m also REAL confused about Commander Lawrence, and I can’t tell how I feel about him. He has some affection for his wife, though I’m not sure anyone in his position is actually capable of love anymore, or if they ever were. He rescued Emily. But he hates June, and it’s just so weird. I never bought into his, “she (Emily) actually has something to offer the world,” as reasoning for his role in her escape. Why build a world in which people who have “something to offer” become slaves in the first place? Where’s the logic there? And I can’t tell if he regrets his role in Gilead’s creation or not.

Don’t even get me started on Serena.

So I’m calling it. June is going to die. I always hoped she would grab Hannah and get the hell out, but I think they’re making it pretty clear that isn’t going to be the case. Even if she did make it to Canada, she’s unrecognizable. I just PRAY she takes down the Waterford’s with her. 

Under His freaking eye.

[alexsfictionaddiction]

Review: The Grace Year by Kim Liggett

It has been a while since I’ve read a YA dystopian novel but The Grace Year sounded like a unique take on an incredibly over-saturated genre. Marketed as a speculative thriller in the vein of The Handmaid’s Tale and The Power, the feminist theme was definitely what drew me in.

In the small close-knit patriarchal community of Garner County, girls grow up believing they have a magic inside of them that lures men to temptation and sparks jealousy in other women. So when girls reach the age of 16, the brink of womanhood, they are banished into the wild for a year to rid themselves of their magic in preparation for marriage on their return. But the wilds are full of internal and external dangers around every corner and no one ever talks of the events of the grace year. 

The protagonist Tierney wants a life of freedom, untied to a husband and living by her own rules. She also dreams of revolution and a future where women aren’t pitted against each other. She ticks a lot of YA dystopian heroine boxes -humble beginnings, quiet feistiness, fierce determination, a hunger for change. There’s more than a touch of Katniss about her but I didn’t really care about her or her fate in the same way. When I first read The Hunger Games, I remember being completely taken in by Katniss from the start and my heart was in my mouth for the entire trilogy because I was so invested in things working out for her. I didn’t have the same reaction to Tierney and her story and this continued for the entire course of the narrative.

There is a lot of Biblical imagery littered throughout the book and it made the ending feel almost allegorical. Like Christianity, Garner County indoctrinates its inhabitants with certain beliefs, honours certain rituals and adheres to strict misogynistic rules. I really enjoyed picking out all of the parallels and thought it was really clever how Liggett managed to weave them in without spelling everything out.

‘Heaven is a boy in a treehouse with cold hands and a warm heart.’

Around halfway through the book, a twist occurred that I was expecting but that I knew wasn’t going to turn out well. I can’t talk too much about what it actually is without spoiling a turning point of the plot that I think you should discover for yourself. However, this section of the book had some truly beautiful, heartrending passages, as seen above. Although I had issues around my non-investment in most of the characters, I felt quite anxious about this situation and knew that it would end in bloodshed. As well as being wonderfully written, it made for a welcome break from the total chaos that was the rest of the book.

The fact that the girls tear each other down, sabotage each other and are even violent towards each other during the grace year did ring true for me in many ways. Although it turns out that their vicious behaviour is not actually entirely natural in the case of these girls, Liggett clearly doesn’t subscribe to this school of thought. I went to an all-girls comprehensive senior school and I can safely say that this isn’t the case for teenagers. Despite the fact, there are no men around to impress or perform for, this weird need to be queen bee and to eliminate all other rivals is still prominent. 

There is an argument that without the presence of men, women actually behave quite harmoniously and co-operate as a nurturing, thriving community. For example, the Amazons lifted each other up and fiercely protected their own but maybe this is because they were privileged enough to have never known men. Perhaps once girls have experienced a patriarchy, it infects them with an innate aggression that never fully goes away without an active feminist revelation.

I smiled to myself when Tierney finally managed to convince them that none of this was necessary and that they have the power to collectively overthrow the system. I felt the wave of hope that passed through the girls at this point and I was incredibly happy for them.

The Grace Year is an incredibly violent and often confusing novel. I found it difficult to understand what was really going on during a lot of the killings and so they didn’t quite have the emotional impact they perhaps should have done. A lot of the action scenes aren’t terribly descriptive and I feel that it may actually translate better on screen. I’m delighted that rights to a film adaptation have already been optioned, so I guess I’ll watch this space!

Overall, The Grace Year isn’t quite as unique as I was hoping it would be. It is very tropey, the setting isn’t vivid enough and Tierney is very much a cookie-cutter dystopian heroine. Despite there being some really lovely writing in there, I know that in a few weeks from now, all I’ll remember is a lot of blood, dismemberment and something about flowers. 

[serenagaywaterford]

was I the only one who thought tuello was going to mention the 2x10 rape and not the nick thing when he arrested serena??? like, obviously I understand the thing with nick was rape regardless, but she did ask them both and june would've ended up in the colonies had she not gotten pregnant while the 2x10 rape doesn't really have any sustainable justification behind it. I don't see "I was in a mood and wanted the baby to come faster" working in court (1/2)

and I guess you can argue there's no way to prove that that rape happened, but serena got arrested before any paternal test was done so it seems as if fred's word is enough?? I guess they can get the test done later and confirm it, but I don't know, I feel like there's a way out of this for serena whilst I don't think there would've been a way out if they had proof of what happened in 2x10. I just find this flimsy. (2/2)

---

No, you weren’t! I honestly... I thought it was going to be about her actual war crimes, like her blatant terrorism against the US, conspiracy to blow up state capitols, and overthrowing a democratic government via war. But hey, that’s too easy lol. Like, why on earth Fred wouldn’t turn her in for THAT, which are HUGE crimes that the ICC/Americans/etc would actually be interested in is beyond me. Oh wait, no it’s not, cos this is The Handmaid’s Tale and they don’t know shit about law or politics, or at this point common fucking sense. It’s a soap opera now.

I’m just so irritated by that whole “Let’s arrest Serena for rape!” concept because it’s entirely based on a) an individual and singular crime against a single person on foreign (sovereign) soil; not a war crime (so why the ICC would have ANYTHING to do with it is beyond me) and b) FRED WATERFORD’S WORD. Because suddenly they believe everything an admitted war criminal is saying against the woman who literally turned him in???? No, nothing suspect about that at all.

(The American government may have an interest because they do get involved in individual crimes against Americans on foreign soil. But then it gets into whether June is still an American, legally. And whether Serena is. Which is super confusing and murky. I’d say June is, and Serena likely isn’t since she probably renounced her US citizenship, but I’m also not a legal scholar or lawyer. And whether the international community even considers Gilead its own country, or just some type of military occupation on American soil. SO COMPLICATED. This is why the show should have just stayed away from all of this trash.)

I mean, we know Fred’s not lying about what happened to June then but the fact Tuello & Co. just take his word at face value with NO corroboration is absolutely fucking mental. 

Not to mention, how the FUCK does Fred even know about that? All he knows is that June got pregnant with Nick’s baby. Was he secretly listening the entire time to everything Serena has said? Cos, let’s take a step back for a second and think rationally about how the hell Fred would have access to that information lol. Serena, from what we saw, was incredibly discreet about setting it up. Was Fred actually lurking in her bushes when she talked to June about it? Was he around when Serena supposedly spoke to Nick about it? (We don’t know where that was but probably either in Nick’s apartment or in the car.) So, does Fred actually have the whole house bugged? LOLOLOLOL. Even if he saw Serena bringing June out to Nick’s apartment, he has no idea what anybody’s thoughts or feelings were about that. Serena and June could have easily been in on it together, and there was no rape involved at all! He doesn’t know that. Did he sneak up to Nick’s second floor window and watch how fucking WEIRD that whole thing was? LMAO.

To me, the fact Fred knows all that is a fucking big plot hole. He didn’t before. But suddenly he knows Serena set up Offred’s rape by Nick? Did she tell him that? Cos that would be insane of Serena to do and completely OOC. All Serena’s said is that “HA HA! The baby isn’t yours, you manky chode!”

Anyway...

To be frank, I have a post--quite a long one--sitting in my drafts about how incredibly asinine and unrealistic that charge against Serena is as a “war crime”, not to mention how weak it is just from a legal standpoint, even if we would take it as a regular rape charge. (She would literally never be found guilty, lbr. There is no solid legal basis for it (there is a flimsy one) and when you consider her defense--which is way more solid than the charge--the chances of anybody ever prosecuting her for that, let alone convicting her, are so incredibly thin, even if it was just as a regular rape crime, not a war crime.) She’d be more likely charged with something like sex trafficking or procuring (prostitution) or coercion or accessory to rape and/or conspiracy to rape. (And she’s clearly guilty of those things). Not the rape itself. It’s so! fucking! stupid! Sex trafficking would be SO much more solid of a charge cos essentially that is what she did...

She didn’t rape June in that instance much more than she murdered those kids Fred shot in the woods. She’s a shitty fucking person for putting that idea in his head, and basically saying, “Go do this for me, you pathetic little man” but she didn’t actually say the words, nor did she commit the actual crime herself. (Heyyyyaaa Lady Macbeth!) Both Fred and Nick were acting of their own free will. 

(Honestly, I will go on forever about how Nick is NOT some innocent, helpless creature. He’s a MAN (aka automatic superiority over any woman), and an EYE (AN EYE, YOU GUYS!!!! The most elite of the Gilead intelligence forces!!!), and to refuse Serena’s request would be EXPLICITLY FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF GILEAD and there is NO WAY he would ever, ever be punished by Gilead for that lmao--for following the law. If he reported Serena to Fred or even Pryce, Serena would be fucking punished--probably with death or Colonies (which is just prolonged death). And he’d have June’s supporting testimony too! What part of this misogynistic fascist state are you people missing? A lowly woman trying to make a man break the law and defile another man’s property?! HAHAHAHA. As if they’d take Serena’s side. Nick is a fucking Eye. There are instances where they do take a woman’s side, like with Janine’s random accusation--but significantly: Warren was BREAKING the law, not upholding it as Nick refusing to rape Offred and turning Serena in would have been following the law. To me, it never ever made sense that the men would just turn on their own like that over a literally mentally-ill Handmaid’s suicidal admission. I think, when it comes down to it, Naomi’s contribution made it “two witnesses” to the crime. Like, if you look at most religious texts or cult texts, they generally require more than just the victim. Some require at least 2, some 3 individuals. So for Gilead to require nothing but victim outcry is bonkers and not consistent with the type of society they claim they’ve built in the series. BUT ANYWAY, that’s a big digression...

Like miss me with that complete utter rape-apologist bullshit. He literally took advantage of the situation to put his dick inside a woman who did not essentially consent to it in that particular situation. Or, if you’re going to argue she did cos she wuvs Nick and wanted to anyway, then your case against Serena falls apart too.)

The only thing I don’t see as being up for debate is that June was raped. That’s it. That is clear and certain. It’s fact. June was raped in that apartment. (She’s raped a lot, obviously, but this was also rape. Nothing else.)

And the creepy part is by doing that she actually did save June’s life. Which is all shades of massively fucked up, and probably not her intention, but here we are. And it seems to be a big part of why June went along with the plan. If Serena hadn’t set up a rapey fuck session for Nick (which he LITERALLY COULD HAVE SAID NO TO AT ANY TIME WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES and they could have fucked completely consentually another time), June never would have started sleeping with Nick (they had almost 2 years and never made a move on each other lbr), never would have become pregnant, and in a few months would have been sent off to the Colonies to rot. Serena is just going around saving June’s life and not even trying to lmao. Stupid gross idiot. Yes, June agreed under threat of death otherwise. So, that is NOT consent in any universe. If you must do it for survival, it’s rape. If you’re gonna die or agree to sex, that’s rape. Would she have agreed to get raped by Nick if the threat of the Colonies was not hanging over her head? No. Probably not. And Serena used that for her own ends. There is no way Serena is not a shitty criminal person for what she set up. But it’s also not a fucking crime against humanity, by definition.

So, anyway, without going into all the complexities and bullshit about Nick’s role any further, Serena’s role, etc in all this, it’s just absolutely motherfucking insane that any international law enforcement agency would charge Serena with THAT based on the word of a scorned husband who is also a massive rapist, liar, abuser, and war criminal himself. Like, give me a fucking break already.

And... I’m not gonna lie... if this was even remotely based on history/reality, they would turn a blind eye to anything Serena has done, especially if it was on such a small scale as one instance of sex trafficking. Sounds terrible to put it that way, but that is how these things roll. She’s a small little fish, comparatively. In the grand scheme of things, she’s FAR more valuable as a witness/asset against the Big Fish (Fred) and as a tool for their anti-Gileadean use. Unless they had significant evidence about ALL her crimes. She’s so much more useful as someone who has direct experience and witness to the entire rise of Gilead, including all the massive fucking terrorist crimes against an entire government and mass murders, that Fred et al. committed. To go after Serena so soon is just kneecapping their own damn case against Fred/Gilead lmao.

[This is where the rumours about Rita come in, but here’s the thing, Serena was already granted immunity for what she did under the guise of being a “Wife”. And seriously, what does Rita really know anyway? Serena’s smacked some people around. She’s locked June in her room. She makes June cry and drink gross smoothies. She helps with the Ceremony. She--with the entire system--forced surrogacy and basically kidnapped a baby. Those things, from what I can tell, are perfectly legal in Gilead for a Wife to do, just like it’s perfectly legal for Fred to whip the shit out of Serena--and Serena has been granted immunity for that shit (which is sorta funny in a way cos she basically used the Nuremberg defense, but it’s layered because she was actually a victim of Gilead too. Tricky shit). 

Now, that 2x10 rape is pretty fucking awful (and likely NOT Gilead-legal) and I’m almost certain Rita would have known about that in some way--but she also wasn’t a direct witness. But maybe she doesn’t? It would be fucking stupid of the Waterfords to be like, “Hurr durr let’s illegally pregnancy rape the Handmaid with a Martha an/or Guardian around even tho it comes with a punishment of DEATH!” But I suppose they are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed either... 

Maybe she knows about the Rapey Sex Date Serena set up for Nick, maybe not, also not a witness to it. We can make assumptions about what Rita knows and doesn’t know, but also... like, none of that matters? (Yet.) Those are just regular fucking crimes on foreign soil and the American and Canadian governments have no jurisdiction to prosecuting them. War crimes require different criteria and Serena smacking Rita in the face isn’t a war crime. It’s shitty assault, but not something any international body would EVER go after.]

Anyway, the show is stupid af for suggesting they’d go after Serena for that singular instance of rape as a war crime. Crimes against humanity--of which YES sexual slavery (sex trafficking in this way) is--require widespread and/or systematic implementation. Serena was NOT going around making all Guardians rape Handmaids for her to get a baby. (Gilead however, and FRED WATERFORD specifically, were directly responsible for the SYSTEM of massive sexual slavery that they created AND maintained. Serena didn’t even come up with the Handmaid idea--THAT WAS THE MEN IN THAT DAMN CAR (Hi Nick, you were there too!).) 

Like... ugh. Stick with what you know, THT. Cos clearly it isn’t anything remotely in the legal realm.

But hey, they had to make up some way to either put Serena on trial for an entire season (YAWNNNNN), or send her back to Gilead. If it’s for the latter reason, and it means we’ll revisit the June/Serena dynamic as the core component of the show, then I’ll let it slide but if it’s to set up the Miller Wet Dream Trial Season and keep Fred/Serena forced together, then I’m livid.

Not that I should care at all considering how many times I’ve said I’m not even watching it anymore, heh.

[where-theres-smoak-2]

Handmaid’s Tale 3x08 Aunt Lydia Analysis

So I am finally caught up with THT yay! I’ve had a few thoughts on Aunt Lydia’s backstory this last episode so decided to do an analysis post (my very first for THT).  So we finally got an Aunt Lydia backstory. Now I have been wanting to get more info on Aunt Lydia pretty much from season 1. I have always found her to be one of the more intriguing characters. She one of those ones I love to hate. I mean it is credit to Ann Dowd’s acting that her portrayal of Aunt Lydia can have me hating her with a fiery vengence one scene and then in the next actually feeling sorry for her and vice versa. I do think this flashback gives us alot to think about and so I think we should get into it. The rest is under the tag because you know spoilers also its a bit long which will be a pain to scroll past if you don’t want to read it lol. But for those of you who do read on. 

 Ok so at first I’ll admit I was a bit confused at her backstory because I just didn’t buy the whole she reported Noelle because a guy rejected her on the first date. That just didn’t seem like a good enough reason for me. But then I realised after watching the ep again that I had read that scene all wrong. She didn’t report Noelle because she was upset about the rejection she reported her because Lydia was ashamed of herself for making advances on the principal and believed that Noelle was a corrupting influence. 

If we look at Aunt Lydia’s story progression through those flashbacks we first meet her and we learn she’s a teacher and seems to have a lot of care and love for her work. She stayed behind with the little boy and was keeping him occupied and happy she was even prepared to take the boy home to make sure he had food. We also learn right off the bat that she is a very religious woman. 

When she invites the woman and her son back home with her she starts to learn more about this woman’s struggles and this makes Lydia more concerned. She clearly disapproves of the way Noelle lives particularly with her relationships with men. But I do think she also recognises that this woman is trying to survive but to Lydia she seems a bit lost. She needs help. So when Noelle says her son deserves better and Lydia answers ‘you could be better’ she really does mean it. She wants to help this woman get into a better situation not just for her but for her son too. This is very similar to how she looks at the Handmaid’s as women who are lost and who with her help could become better and have better lives. What I do think is interesting is at this moment she wants to help this woman keep her child, its kind of ironic that this desire to help a woman keep her child is what leads her down the path to becoming the woman who takes children away from their mothers.  

The next flashback we see is when Lydia, Noelle and her son are spending Christmas together. We can see that these two women have built a friendship and it seems like at least a few months have gone by. It also seems like the son, Ryan, has formed a bond with Lydia as he now calls her Aunt Lydia. We also learn during the time that’s past that Noelle has gotten a new job and now works at the store that she brought the makeup for Aunt Lydia from. We also learn that she has dumped one guy which Lydia seemed happy about and has met another. At first Lydia seems ok about this when Noelle was saying he’s in IT and yes he likes kids, so Lydia is sitting there thinking finally Noelle has found herself a nice respectable man with a repectable job. But then Noelle drops the knowledge that he’s married and you literally see Lydia’s face fall. What again is interesting is that Noelle in response says ‘I know, I’m not as far along as we’d like but I’m trying.’  This tells us two things one is that it seems like Lydia and Noelle came up with some kind of plan on how they were going to improve things for Noelle, from the conversations we can assume one was get a new better job that won’t involve Noelle having her rear grabbed by drunk men. The other was to help Noelle stop serial dating and find herself a repectable gentlemen. She’s succeeded in the first but is still working on the second. It also tells us that Noelle recognises her own flaws  and knows that sleeping with a married man is wrong. But as Lydia says she’s trying and that’s what matters. So at this point we know that Noelle and Lydia are good friends, that Noelle has been trying to improve herself and that Lydia has been supporting and helping her. It also seems like Noelle might be good for Lydia as she and her son provide companionship for Lydia. It seems to me that she may have been a bit isolated since her marriage broke up so its nice for her to have that human connection. I also think this is why Noelle encourages her to ‘get out there’ because she sees that Lydia is lonely. So what goes wrong between this scene where they are shown to have a strong bond and the scene where she reports Noelle to child protection? Well Lydia goes on a date.

The date she has with the principal, Jim, was so sweet and its a side of Lydia we’ve never seen before. She is happy and smitten and she even sings Karoke and the date goes so well that it leads her and her fella back to her place and onto her couch where things get a little heated before he finally stops it. This is where we see the switch happen for Lydia. She goes from being this happy, warm person to completely shutting down and putting up a wall. You can see right after Jim stops it and she moves away from him, the shame is written all over her face. As a woman with strong religious believes her making sexual advances on a man that she isn’t married to is a sin and immoral. I think what makes it worse for her is that Jim is also religious and so now she may feel like he is judging her. He has witnessed her sin, also while she got carried away and knows that if he had not put a stop to it she would have completely given into her desire for him, he was able to stop so now she feels like she is less than him and less derserving of him, she’s not as pure of sin as he is. Which makes her actions all the more shameful and embarrassing to her which is why she turns away from him and puts up a wall between them despite him saying he still wants to persue something with her. But now she isn’t looking at him as a repectable church going man who has potential to be her lifelong partner, now she sees him as a temptation that will lead her to sin.  

So what has this got to do with Lydia’s decision to report Noelle? Well the clue is in the scene. When the Jim asks Aunt Lydia if this was enough to trigger an emergency removal Aunt Lydia replies ‘the child is vulnerable to a corrupting influence we are required by law to report moral weakness.’ This one line tells us everything we need to know about Aunt Lydia’s current state of mind. She set out to try and help Noelle but instead not only did she fail in helping Noelle onto the right path Noelle led Aunt Lydia astray, she corrupted her and brought out her moral weaknesses. It was Noelle who set bad examples for her by dating several men within close timing of each other, it was Noelle who gave her the make up, it was Noelle who encouraged her to go out with Jim and put temptation in her path. Aunt Lydia blames Noelle for her own moral weakness, as Aunt Lydia can’t tolerate moral weakness in herself so she can’t tolerate moral weakness in others. I know some viewers interpreted Lydia’s actions to be out of spite or revenge but I myself didn’t see it that way. While I do think Lydia has some resentment towards Noelle I think her main motivation was the child. I think Aunt Lydia really believes that she is protecting this child. As much as she has affection for Noelle and as much as she wishes she could’ve helped her Lydia has now turned her focus onto Ryan and keeping him safe. In her mind if Noelle can corrupt her, an adult, then Ryan is particularly vulnerable to being corrupted as well. Aunt Lydia fears Noelle will lead her child down the wrong path and so she must put aside her affection and feelings and do the right thing. You can see that the decision isn’t easy for her. Like even at the moment when she is reporting Noelle I didn’t look at Aunt Lydia and go that’s a cold woman, she was crying and it was obvious she was struggling with this choice, there were all kinds of emotions running over her face throughout that scene,  but she saw no other way of making sure the child would be ok. The child is her priority.  

So how does this tie in with Aunt Lydia’s character now in present day Gilead and with her relationship with the Handmaids. Well I do think that Aunt Lydia sees Noelle in alot of these Handmaids, as she did with Noelle she sees women who have walked down the wrong path but who have the potential to better themselves with some help. Only this time around she has learnt from her experience from Noelle and has decided that if she keeps herself emotinally cut off from these women then she will be better able to help them. She also won’t be vulnerable to being corrupted by them as she was by Noelle. So she stays involved enough to help them but not so much that she will form too deep a bond with them. I do think part of that is to protect herself, she cared for Noelle and so it hurt her when Noelle was still (in Lydia’s mind) living a sinful life and making the same mistakes as she always did. It hurt her and made her feel like a failure when she couldn’t help Noelle and so instead she focusses on helping the children. If she keeps herself closed off from these woman then when they inevitably do something that’ll lead to them being punished by the government it’ll hurt less. However as we’ve seen in small glimpses Aunt Lydia hasn’t been completely successful in disconnecting from these women, she has a bond with Janine and with June and I do think in a weird kind of way she has a certain kind of love and affection for all of these women. But she chooses to stay focussed on the children. I think in her mind she figured if I can’t help these women then at least I can help the children. So she makes protecting as many children as possible her life mission. That being said I do think that Aunt Lydia carries alot of guilt about what she did, I think deep down she knows what she did to Noelle was wrong and she knows what she’s doing to the Handmaid’s is wrong but if she admits that to herself then the guilt will consume her and so she tells herself that she is doing God’s work and that she is protecting the children, its all about the children they mean everything to her. 

Another choice that I think was interesting is the decision to have Lydia’s last name be Clemence. The meaning of that name is merciful and gentle. Not really something that comes to mind when you think of Aunt Lydia right. But the thing is it fit her in the flashbacks. When we first meet her she does come across as a gentle woman. She is also shown as merciful, The definition of mercy is ‘to show compassion or forgiveness to someone who you have the potential to punish or cause harm to.’ Lydia could have punished Noelle right off the bat by calling child protection when she didn’t show up to pick Ryan up. She would have had plenty of reasons to not just her showing up late but the fact that she didn’t pack a proper lunch for him and it does seem like it was going on a while all of these things brings enough concern to call it in. But instead Lydia shows mercy and decides to try and help this young woman. We know that it all goes wrong and in the end Lydia ends up as far from a person described by her name as she can be. But I do wonder if this meaning behind her name will come into play again later in the season, maybe Aunt Lydia will be in a position where she has to decide between punishing and causing one of the Handmaid’s harm or showing them mercy. And maybe she lives up to her name and does show them mercy which could be a redemption arc for her. The choices of the other names are also significant. Lydia was a woman from the bible who is considered to be the first convert in Europe and who showed hospitality to the apostle Paul and Silas. Again this has links to Lydia’s own journey how she converts to the beliefs of Gilead but also within this episode when she shows hospitality to the mother and son. The name Noelle means Christmas. Again another biblical tie in. Christmas is also a time of giving and of family which is again closely linked with that character. She is a mother and so symbolic of family. Also her growing relationship with Lydia and the fact that her son comes to call her Aunt shows how there can be different forms of family. The son’s name Ryan means ‘little king’ or ‘descendant of the king’ again this fits in as it hints at his fate of becoming a commander’s son the ‘kings’ of Gilead and even how he himself may become a commander. It is also a nod at how the males have the power in Gilead;. The other character in the flashbacks is the principle whose name is Jim Thorne. His first name is a shortened version of the name James which again is another biblical name and means ‘one who follows’ which again really ties into this characters motives. He is a devout follower of his religion. The Throne part also has many links to the bible. Within the bible thorns symbolise sin. Thorns were first brought into the world right after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. As punishment they weren’t just cast out but God cursed their land so that thorns would grow, Genesis 3:18-20 – “Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.” So right from the beginning there was a link between thorns and sin. Later on in the bible Mark 4:3-9  ‘ Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it.’ This is from the parable of the seeds. The seed represents those who hear the gospel, the thorns represent the sinners. Its talking about how a person can fall amongst sinners and how that can lead to them being lead astray. All of this has some significance within the episode as Mr Thorne represents Lydia’s sin and temptation. However the name Thorne can also represent the crown of thorns Jesus wore on the cross which represents the abolishment of sin and of Jesus’s love and his conquering of sin and death. The sad part is that Lydia looks at Mr Thorne and believes he is the thorns that are choking the seed (she’s the seed) but actually I think he symbolises the thorns of the crown which symbolise love and the destruction of sin. I think if she had followed him it would have led her down a path of love and with less sin.   

Ok so next I want to talk about the way they used colours and the positioning of the characters in these flashbacks and what I think they could signify. The exciting part is that this section has pictures!! However they are very poor quality pictures and I would recommend you go back and watch the scenes in question again to get a good picture of what I mean, these pics are more like guidance to what scenes I’m talking about. 

But anyway starting with this shot...

Here we can see that Ryan is sitting on top of a red circle which is the colour associated with Handmaid’s in the show, what’s also interesting is that the circle next to him is greenish blue the colour associated with the wives. Then inside the green circle is a red circle. This is obviously symbolic of the relationship between the Handmaid’s and the Wives and the symbolism Gilead uses for the ceremony. This idea that the Wives and Handmaid’s are linked together and that they create the children of Gilead together. The Handmaid bears the child for them and then the Wife raises the child. Also you can’t see it very well in the picture but Ryan is wearing clothes in shades of green signifying how these children born from the Handmaids are then dressed as the children of the Wives. Something else that is interesting is the positioning of Aunt Lydia. She is literally standing on top of the red circle. Again this is a pretty obvious message its to signify the power Aunt Lydia has over the Handmaid’s. But next we see Aunt Lydia step off the red circle and walk across the green circle to get to the child. 

I do actually think this has some significance given other scenes in this episode and could be a clue for what is to come. In this episode we saw Aunt Lydia question two household’s, The Waterford’s and The Lawrence’s and whether they are a healthy enviroment for the Handmaid’s and more importantly the children. She even talks about removing June from the Lawrence’s in case June does get pregnant as she doesn’t think they have a safe home for a child. We also saw earlier in the season Lydia make the suggestion that Emily was effected by the enviroment at the Lawerence’s and that’s why she attcked Aunt Lydia and ‘stole’ Nichole. I think this is all going to lead to the Aunts investigating these households and others and maybe even appealing to other commanders to bring in new laws that will hold commanders and their wives responsible for how they treat Handmaids and to give the Aunts more powers to investigate households they suspect of wrongdoing or that couples must pass some kind of test and a series of checks before they are allowed to be issued a Handmaid.. Almost like the Aunts are going to go to war against the commanders and their wives led by Aunt Lydia all the name of protecting the children. 

The next thing I want to touch on in this particular scene is Noelle.  

 This is the first shot we get of her and as you can see she has red accents in her clothes with the red scarf and bag. Again I think the costume designers did this deliberately to makes us connect Noelle with the Handmaids. This colouring is used more throguhout the flashbacks this shot for example. 

Here we see Ryan sitting at table and the table cloth has shades of green in it yet the wall behind him is red again showing how the children are born and raised by the Handmaids and the Wives. I also think that it signifies that although the Wives say these are their children the Handmaid’s will always have a connection with their children that will never be erased no matter how hard Gilead tries. The Handmaid’s will always be lurking in the background watching over their children from a distance. 

And the next time we see Noelle again we see them connecting her with the colour red. The wall behind her is red and the cushion she is leaning against has red in it. They really do want us to connect this character with this colour everytime we see her they position her so that she is surrounded by red accents. Another really interesting shot is this one...

 Again you have the colours coming into play. Noelle is surrounded with a red background, Ryan has those green tones in front of him and the red behind. Also we are looking at Ryan through the chair and it gives this ilusion of Ryan being enclosed is a fence or cage much as the children of Gilead have a high level of protection around them. Of course while they consider it protection the Handmaid’s see it as a cage keeping them from their children. What else is noteworthy about the set up of this scene is that they have positioned Aunt Lydia between the child and his mother almost like a barrier, obviously to sybolise how Aunt Lydia will keep other mothers from their children in the future.  

So the next flashback scene we get is the christmas and again right away they are flooding it with these same colour schemes. Here we have Ryan and you can see that he is surrounded by mostly red presents. But there in the background is that green tree looming. Again I think the positioning in this scene is important. Ryan is sat amongst the red which I think is symbolic of his current situation in that he is with his birth mother. But in front of him not too far away and looming is that green tree which I think symbolises what is to come for Ryan. It does make me wonder where Ryan and Noelle are now. It’s possible that one or both of them could have escaped to Canada or they sadly could have been killed. But there’s also a chance that Noelle ended up as a handmaid and Ryan as a child of a commander and wife. It would be interesting if they popped back up again at some point this season. The other thing that I think is significant in this scene is that the present Aunt Lydia is handing to Ryan is green. Again showing that connection between these Aunts who are aiding the wives in essentially stealing these children. Also once again Ryan is dressed in a green top. 

This shot is very similar to the previous one with Ryan at the table in the positioning. Once again it puts Aunt Lydia between the mother and child and again right behind Noelle its pretty much all red. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that Lydia is sat above them both again showing the power of the Aunts. Both the children and the Handmaid’s are helpless against them. They are the prisoners and the Aunts are the wardens. 

I really think this shot shows that connection between each of the characters and the colours like if any shot emphasises what I’m trying to say about colours connected to figures of Gilead then its this one. Noelle has that red wall behind her but also slightly to the right is a green wall. Again this links Noelle to the Handmaid’s but also the connection between the Wives and the Handmaids how they are ever present in each others lives. Aunt Lydia is once again positioned between mother and child but also behind her is a brown unit which is the colour of the Aunts. Ryan is directly in front of the tree which is green but again there are some red elements again showing that link to how children are brought into the world in Gilead, as far as Gilead is concerned both Handmaid and Wife contribute to the birthing of that child. 

Again when we see Noelle doing Aunt Lydia’s makeup she has that red wall behind she is also wearing a reddish lipstick. But here we also see her wearing a yellow top which again is significant as the colour yellow is a predominant colour on the Gilead flag. We also saw the colour earlier in the first pic of Ryan with the coloured circles there are two yellow ones. One of the yellow ones (just like the green one) has a smaller red circle inside it. I think this is suppose to symbolise how the Handmaid’s are trapped within Gilead. 

When the focus in the scene shifts to Lydia we see that the background for her is very different from Noelle’s despite them being in the same space as each other. Aunt Lydia’s background has tones of brown and grey again thats in reference to the colours worn by the Aunts. It is also blurry and out of focus. I do think this was a concious choice and is suppose to signify Lydia’s feelings in this moment. It represents Lydia’s uncertainty. She is unsure of Noelle and how she feels about Noelle’s lifestyle, she is also unsure of whether she is doing the right thing in trying to help Noelle or whether she should have called child protection already. She’s unsure of her feelings for the principal and whether she should persue a relationship with him after her failed marriage. The other element that I think is significant is the coloured circles. Again there is a specific colour scheme being followed here. The red for handmaids, green for the wives, yellow for Gilead. The white could possibly also represent the handmaid’s like the wings they wear. But I think it may represent the children, white is a colour of innocence and purity and what’s more innocent or pure than a child. I do think these circles could be foreshadowing. It could signify that Lydia is going to be put into a scenario where she will be unsure of where her loyalties should lie, Should she stand by Gilead and their beliefs? Should she stand with the Wives these woman who are respectable God-fearing women? Or should she stand with the Handmaid’s the lost ones but who have so much potential and who have been granted that great gift of being able to bring children into the world? One thing she is sure of is that she will always stand up for the children and this too is represented in the circles. While the circles of the three other colours are blurred and not as bright, the white circles are in sharp focus and are radiant.

   The last flashback is of the one where Lydia puts in the report. Here we see that Lydia has had a drastic makeover. Whereas before she was wearing a white top and had her hair flowing down she now has it tied up in that typical Aunt Lydia look. She is also wearing a brown cardigan, she looks much more like the Aunt Lydia we know now. Also when it shows us a shot of her hands and feet we see that she is once again standing on a red circle. What’s interesting is that all the other coloured circles are gone and only that one red one remains. I do think this shows the solidfying of Lydia’s journey to becoming this warden for the Handmaid’s at this point there was no chance of her turning back. She had made up her mind and now her focus would be on ‘helping’ women like Noelle onto the right path and protecting their children by removing them from them. 

 The last time we see Noelle she again has on that red scarf and has the red bag. What I do find interesting is that whereas the last time we saw her in the scarf she had on a beige ish coloured coat this time it looks more like a dark green. I don’t think its an accident that the item of clothing that is red is the one that is round her neck, I think this is suppose to be reminiscent of a noose or of a slave collar its this idea of the handmaid’s having their freedom and even their lives taken from them. They live in a world that is slowly choking any fight or rebellion or life out of them. Even the bag being red could signify the burden they have to carry, it could also symbolise this idea of ‘carrying’ a child. It is unimaginable what these women have to go through, being raped once a month and then having to carry their rapists child for nine months before going through labour and then straight away having their baby taken from them. The green coat around her as with all the other instances where the two colours have appeared side by side is to show the connection between these two groups of women. I think its also serving the purpose in this scene where this woman has just had her child taken away from her of making sure that not just the Handmaids are in the viewer’s minds but also the Wives. This group of women who are benefitting from the mothers’ suffering. 

So yeah I think the storyline with Noelle was suppose to act as a narrative for what is currently happening to the Handmaid’s in Gilead. She is a mother who had her child taken by a woman who had acted as a caregiver type figure in her life and given to a couple who was ‘desperate to adopt.’ I do think that’s why they used the colours in this way. To bring to mind the groups of people each of the characters represent. 

Any way thast’s all for now to all of you who have read to the end thank you very much for taking the time. Feel free to let me know what you thought of Lydia’s backstory. DId you hate it? Was it everything you ever wanted from her backstory? What else would you like to know about Aunt Lydia’s past? I personally wouldn’t mind learning more about her marriage. She said he was a mistake but I would like some details on what happened that caused the marriage to break down. I have my own personal theory. We’ve seen Aunt Lydia interact with and shame two women now who have slept with married men, Noelle and June. She did look quite hurt when Noelle mentioned the new guy had a wife. It does make me wonder if Lydia was a victim of that scenario and that her husband cheated on her. But I don’t know what do you guys think?   

[withallthingslove]

the handmaid’s tale s3ep4 thoughts

spoilers under the cut

it’s always really interesting to see the vastness of gilead... all the different factions of marthas, handmaids, and commanders and wives

im curious about june’s new shopping partner... she does seem super pious but acting choice wise there is definitely something underneath. and I know they wouldnt be putting a focus on that if she wasnt important

aunt lydia’s dynamic with janine is just so.... weird yet cool. she’s SO cruel but at the same time she has a very motherly bond with janine, and janine has total stockholm syndrome with her. i remember reading an interview that aunt lydia favors janine because she regrets being so harsh at the beginning and taking out her eye

idk if anyone watches superstore but watching fred during the baptism reminded me of jeff pretending to have friends at the managers conference. he’s not only been demoted but he’s also lost his place in the friend group of commanders

june’s line about not hating fred... im pretty sure its from the book. but i totally think that what she narrates is represented in this episode. she doesn’t hate fred, but she doesn’t love him either. but there is such a familiarity with him and a comfort, and at times they have protected each other so there is an almost loyalty between them

and we’re back to the waterford dynamic.... honestly i didnt hate it but i didnt love it either. I’m still not sure how I feel about commander lawrence and i just overall don’t really like the vibe of his house so it was nice to be in the putnam’s house instead

but no nick (sigh)... i know we’re gonna have limited nick this season which sucks

but on the bright side.... luke is FINALLY getting a worthwhile story line. 

it’s interesting how much naomi’s character has softened... she’s gone from being one of the coldest characters to being an actual caring “mother” and then kind to janine and june

is june just allowed to like not follow orders now? wouldnt it be noticed she hung back to talk to serena... this plot armor is strong... and annoying

ughhhhhhh serena.... idk if anyone else feels the same but I think the writing for the serena/june dynamic has gone so down hill. their relationship as fucked up as it was used to be so complex and now it is so dull to me. I will never feel bad for serena and I HATE that serena is getting to mourn holly (yes I’m back to calling her holly because fuck serena’s name) more than june. Why does serena get to mope around depressed and keep bringing her up as if june didn’t make the same goddamn sacrifice. Obviously june is happy holly is safe, and we get to see her satisfaction at that but we also dont get to see her miss holly at all. But we see serena miss holly. ugh

basically they’re acting like hannah is june’s only child and holly is serena’s and i dont like it

fred still acting as if he has any sort of power.... okay fred

but again his scene with june in the kitchen... I think the waterfords and june almost definitely have a codependency on each other. you can almost feel their relief when they see each other. the waterfords are treating june almost like a child in the middle of a divorce between them, and they are both using her as a confidant which makes me lol because they are so fucking lonely and messed up they essentially treat their old handmaid like a friend. and june is so comfortable with them because she knows exactly how to “play” them

that scene with serena and june by the pool.... again is june just allowed to do whatever she wants?? and i dont like this “friendship” because i think its blatantly obvious serena is going to backslide and june acting kind to her literal oppressor just doesnt sit right

i was happy naomi let janine hold charlotte. she really has softened a lot and part of me thinks she could end up being part of the resistance down the line. moreso than serena. naomi doesnt act like she loves gilead she has made so many wtf faces during all the different rituals and ceremonies

aunt lydia clearly has ptsd and then also feels the need to prove her strength but do i feel bad for her?? NOPE

and all the appalled faces as she beat janine.... it wasn’t because all the commanders and wives dont approve of torturing handmaids they just dont want to be confronted with it at their party

and june somehow is just able to interfere with no consequences? i know aunt lydia was super in the wrong so thats probably why but it still seems like plot armor

okay that ending... BABY HOLLY IS SO FUCKING CUTE. how did they get a baby that looks like nick and june?? also seeing luke with her... also fucking cute. I’m happy luke is getting a real storyline. I always wondered if june purposely had holly be called nichole so gilead would be able to find her, and it seems my prediction about holly being an international story is going to come true

also... i think that was june’s first time seeing luke in over 3 years. I can’t imagine the emotions going through her and thank god the writers let her go off and joyfully cry

and then we get serena going “she’s gotten so big” *cue eye roll* SERENA ISNT HER MOM. ughhhhh and serena is definitely going to want her back so get ready for that

once again emily has all the best scenes of the episode. I cried multiple times

her reunion with her wife... the fact there was this realistic awkwardness because they have been separated for so long

im just happy that it showed her wife was still wearing her ring and it looks like she hasn’t moved on with someone else. that was one of my fears for emily

“that’s you fighting your way back home” CRIES INTO AN ABYSS

AND THEN THE BEDTIME STORY SCENE UGHH

i wish emily had more screen time. i feel like it should be 50% her and 50% june to show the differences of emily acclimating and june’s decision to stay

and holly being baptized, and luke and moira are her surrogate parents. i love

predictions for next episode:

luke is obvi getting some more screen time but it looks like serena is going to visit nichole and im gonna assume she is gonna want her back

and then that will lead into the washington dc episode

[skepticalmuppet]

Hey, so I was tagged in a thing by @todaythesamesky and it’s the first time I’ve ever been tagged on Tumblr so part of me is all oh my god PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL MEDIA LIKE A NORMAL PERSON WHAT EVEN IS THIS HOW EXCITING and the rest of me is all HOW THE FUCK DO I DO THIS I DON’T KNOW HOW TO COPY AND PASTE SHIT ON TUMBLR BECAUSE I AM AN OLD AND OLDS DON’T TECHNOLOGY WELL AND ALSO WHAT IS FORMATTING EVERYONE IS GOING TO THINK I’M INEPT but then I remembered no one ever looks at my blog so we’re golden. It completely doesn’t matter if I arse this up, I’m arsing in a vacuum, so arse it up I shall.

So, like this bit is supposed to be in bold I guess, and it’s probably also the header or title thing, but I wrote that paragraph and it would be weird to have this title and then that paragraph when clearly the title is supposed to be for the bit that comes next.

Pretend this is the title thing, all in bold: Get to know me!

And then the next bit is like questions in bold and then my answers, but I don’t know how to bold things, so keep pretending. It’s probably good for your brain. Something something neuroplasticity something.

Anyway.

Tagged by: (that was the bit that’s supposed to be bold) wait, fuck, I already fucked it up, I already said who tagged me in that first bit. I don’t want to tag again, because I don’t know if they get two notifications and also if that would be weird. So let’s skip this.

Moving on.

Name/alias: okay, I’m confused by this. My name, like the actual name I use in meatspace? Because that is not an alias. It’s just...my name. Is it giving me the option of providing an alias instead of my name, or is it asking what my name/alias is, like it’s assuming I have an alias like some sort of criminal and of course I’m not going to provide my real name because that’s how they get you?

I might be over thinking this.

Sam. My name is Sam. Let’s just leave it at that.

Hair colour: my actual hair colour, or my *alias’s* hair colour? I’m not falling for this. Like I already said, that’s how they get you. Moving on.

Zodiac sign: I don’t know. Daffodil? Is that a sign? It should be. Daffodils are the harbingers of spring, which I used to think was the harBRINGERS of spring, like they brought the har. Which, maybe they do, I don’t know. I’m not a botanist.

Height: what’s with all the questions? I mean, yeah, I have on occasion been known to say be gay do crimes, but I’m not actually a criminal, and this whole identifying characteristics thing is making me paranoid. Is this going in a database somewhere?

Hobbies: knitting

Favourite colour: okay, if you’re as old as I am, you might remember a little thing called mercurochrome, which was like a disinfectant for minor wounds that was applied with a little glass wand and stained your skin kind of a pinky orange. I loved that colour. I didn’t love the slow mercury poisoning that likely accompanied it, but damn, that was a pretty orange.

Favourite books: it sounds so trite now because everyone is into it, but The Handmaid’s Tale, way before it was ever a tv show. I read it back in the 80s, and it was a primary source of my feminism. And now it sounds like I’m all OH I LOVED THE HANDMAID’S TALE BEFORE IT WAS MAINSTREAM and just, ugh.

I also love I Want My Hat Back by Jon Klassen. The best part is (SPOILER ALERT) when he straight up eats that fucking rabbit. Don’t fuck with a bear’s hat, man.

Last song I listened to: Apple Music tells me it was Tango Shoes by Bif Naked

Things I love: the Canadian prairies, cats acrobatically chasing their own tails, my wife’s dry as the Sahara sense of humour, kooky children’s books, random shit with the Batman logo, that one ballet done with kd lang’s music, the way that British crime drama focuses on one case over multiple episodes instead of a different crime every time, closed captioning, Lizzo, basic worsted weight wool, bookstores, thunderstorms, comfortable shoes, the concept of having a dog live in your house like it’s an animal and it’s in your house and it loves you and it’s a dog A DOG OH MY GOD DOGS ARE AMAZING

What brings me peace: knowing where my family is and that they’re safe and fed and housed

Last film I watched: I think it was Captain Marvel. Wife had to watch it for her feminism and pop culture class and I watch superhero movies because I never got to be a kid when I was a kid so by golly I’m gonna make up for it now.

Meaning behind URL: my internet handle has always been some variation of Skeptical, and my wife tells me daily that I’m basically a muppet.

Tagging: I’m not tagging anyone because I don’t really interact with anyone on Tumblr so I’m pretty sure anyone I tag is gonna be all “who the fuck is skepticalmuppet” and then just ignore it and that will make me sad. Well, not actually sad, but maybe sad adjacent? Also I don’t really know how to tag people. Do you just @ their names? I think that’s how I did it on Twitter back in the day.

[whattoreadinsteadofdrinking]

some notes on today

*I got a sponsor today! I am really really apprehensive about having a sponsor because 1) I hate accountability and 2) I hate the idea of having to follow someone else’s advice.  I know that’s petty and immature but part of recovery is being honest with myself about who I am.  And who I am is, at the core, a person who does not want to be ruled or even guided by anyone but myself.  Which works in some areas of life but clearly sobriety isn’t one of them.  I also can hear the part of my brain that is already pissed about having a sponsor because I know that, with a sponsor, it will be much harder/impossible to relapse and justify having a drink.  So of course my addiction brain is hating that I committed to meet with this woman for coffee on Saturday morning at the crack of dawn. But the part of me that retains some rationality knows it is for the best and a step that needs to be taken despite discomfort.

Staying comfortable has not worked for me.  If I could stay sober in isolation I already would have done it.  Time to bring in some other humans that have been there and let them help me.

* I have my first therapy appointment with my new therapist tomorrow!  I am truly looking forward to it.

* Work was a stress ball today.  I am trying to let it go. Teaching is hard and working with children in any capacity is hard.  Today we had a visitor who was full body-checking me and my assistant and tried to bite us.  My boss then “re-branded” that visit by telling me it was all fine and that he didn’t bite for real, and that we will be admitting that student in all probability next year.  I remain amazed at what administrators of schools will subject staff to, and then gaslight us about, even in the best of schools.  

*I got “The Spirituality of Imperfection” at barnes and noble earlier this week which is a great read so far.  It is making me want to listen to Brene Brown on Netflix but I know, I KNOW, that if I do that I am going to be ugly crying, LOUDLY.  So I am saving it for next week when I will be house-sitting for a couple of friends.  In the privacy of their empty home, I will watch Brene Brown call me out gently but firmly on my refusal to let anyone see the real me, and I will cry and eat saltwater taffy for dinner and maybe invite my friend J over to join me, since I sense this is an activity she could benefit from alongside me.

*Seeing the abortion debate going on in our country right now feels like watching The Hunger Games and The Handmaid’s Tale come to life and I want to crawl into a hole and avoid this reality.  I would love if men stopped telling women what to do with our bodies.  The fact that they will never stop feels as inevitable as when you’re driving down a highway and spot a pothole but you can’t change lanes and you can’t slow down in time and you know that hitting the pothole is gonna rip something out of your car.  I don’t know what this abortion ruling is ripping out of me, of us, but it feels like something big.  Like our autonomy and our dignity and our right to be a human on our own.  I don’t know.  I hesitate to even write about it because it’s so fucking terrible.  

*On a related note, I’m going to get some form of birth control on Monday!!! I know an IUD makes the most sense but I truly dread the insertion process which I have heard horror stories of.  

*I met a very attractive man who makes me feel the kind of innocent-teenager-type-crush feelings that I have not felt in a really long time.  We met at the art museum.  Two hours of talking about art/life and we had one of those weird eye contact moments where you realize how into it you both are.  I ran into him at a theater thing our mutual friend K was in the next week and we have been messaging each other since.  It feels nice to have a crush.  I honestly thought the part of me that could feel anything adjacent to romantic feelings was dead.  It’s nice to know that it’s still within my wheelhouse to smile absurdly at my phone and giggle (GIGGLE! WHO AM I) at a message from a man

*There is so much shit to do between now and summer.  Then summer will be a whirlwind.  I am anxious and excited for it all.  I am proud of myself for getting into therapy, for getting a sponsor, for going back on medication, for allowing myself to have a casual relationship, for taking risks and not closing myself in my room with a six pack of Blue Moon and calling that a life.  It’s less comfortable this way but it is BETTER.  I know it is.