#a fictional ladies' man who actually has the lines/moves the narrative says he has? a miracle | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

deanwasalwaysbi · 4 years ago

Note

I've gotta say, I find the concept of Bedlund trying to Ben-Hur Jensen absolutely hysterical. I'm just imagining Jensen getting a script and being like "Ben?? What's this? Is this gay? This seems gay????" and Ben just soothing him like a frightened horse.

Hahaha - Look it wouldn't be the first time. What is this verb we're working with? Okay. Strap in everyone. The Multi-Oscar-winning 1959 movie 'Ben Hur' had a bunch of gay subtext. The writer, the director, and the second lead actor all knew that Charlton Heston's character, Ben Hur, was gay. However, one person didn't find out until the 1990s: Charlton Heston. The consensus on set was "Don’t tell Charlton, because he’ll freak out." and when Heston found out in the ninties, freak out was exactly what he did. (x) [the movie may have gotten a reference from Misha back in season 6 (x)]

Whether this happened with Jensen on SPN depends on two things.

Was the character of Dean intentionally written as Bi and, if so, at what point did that become true?

Did anyone tell Jensen? Did he figure it out? if so, when?

I personally DO believe at this point, I really do, that Bedlund - Ben Hur'd Jensen. I think it was part of the writers room but not all of it, until it was. (Which RN I believe finally happened under Dabb.) I think Jensen wasn't in on it, until he was. So for me? I think he really was in the dark at one point. But at what point that changed? Probably only he can answer that question. and RN? He ain't talking.

In the meantime we can only look at things Jensen has said on the subject - Like this unbearably ambiguous GIF set from @nikadd. Was this tongue in cheek? Legitimate ignorance? You're killing me, Jensen. That cheeky lil smile, Jensen. Nvm - I'm going to kill you instead. It's for my own survival. No hard feelings right? You understand.

UH OH HERE COMES A CUT TO HIDE A LONG DERANGED POST...

We can look at the text for number 1 - and I do that uh - a lot - see the blog name #Dean Was Always Bi

For number 2 we can look over some points when we got clues from what Jensen thought was going on [regardless of whether they make sense based on his jacting or directorial choices I guess] and get left wondering whether at any point he felt pressured to lie for his career, for self protection, or to protect the narrative from the network:

2010 - 'We're missing the gay angel' (x) (Season 5 gag reel) (x) “Sorry man, not what the show’s about.” Jared: One of the good and bads about playing the straight [non-comedic] character on the show… Jensen: What wait? I’ve been playing him so wrong

2012 / S8 - Trenchcoat - Jensen talking about how sometimes they change the lines because they're way too gay. Calls Cas a third brother

2012 - "What's Destiel?" Ben Edlund: That’s some weird shit. Jensen: Is this something that you created, Ben? Ben: You don’t want any part of that.

��Don’t ruin it for everyone now” “I still don’t know what the question was. I’m going to pretend I don’t know what the question was.”

2013 @ JIB, re Dean’s reaction to Aaron’s flirting in the season 8 episode Everybody Hates Hitler, (x)

“And the scene wasn’t written to be that kind of - I mean - It was written to be awkward. Ben Edlund wrote the - my favorite line in that scene was ‘carry on . citizen’ that was - I almost couldn’t say that with a straight face I was laughing so hard. But it was - you know - it was comedy. It was a comedic moment in the show and fortunately Dean gets a lot of the comedic moments in the show and it was just, you know, Ben was poking fun at the fact that - you know, how can we make this very kind of manly, heterosexual guy uncomfortable - uh -you know, or or have him back on his heels and throw him off his game a little bit.”

The thing is - Bedlund and Phil Sgriccia made very clear on the commentary track that THEY saw this scene as a 'romantic comedy kind of fluster' "This potential for love in all places."

Ben Edlund calling the writer’s room a boy’s club in 2013 (x)

Misha Collins telling Destiel fans they aren’t Crazy in 2013 after some executives said they were (x).

2014 Jensen says he was glad there wasn’t much Dean and Cas in season 9 - HA Hah HAH (x)

“I think the whole Cas and Dean thing has gotten out of hand” “I don’t think there’s anything secret to their relationship even though a lot of people wish there was” REMINDER - that season we got the nightstands acknowledgement and “play him like a jilted lover” and the “he dumped me James” cut and -

I certainly know that Misha and I don’t play that. SIGH. they Ben Hur'd Jensen.

2014 - the fan fiction joke - 10.05

“I didn’t have a positive reaction, The first time in I think 200 scripts I went and sat down in the showrunners office and said, ‘What in god’s name are you doing?! Why? I need to understand why this is happening.’” “[Carver] gave very eloquent answers and did a great job of explaining why we were doing what we were doing, I guess I had been aware of this ‘fan fiction’ for a while and I felt like maybe if I ignored it, it would eventually go away. When I read it in the script that is what I do for a living and is my work—I’m very protective of these characters and the story and I think we have a right to be—I wasn’t angry. I just wanted to understand why and what was the message we were ultimately sending with this script and story. By the end of it, I felt good and it gave me all the confidence I needed. It was better than I could have ever hoped.”

But then there's Jensen in 2015 talking about all of Dean’s bromances. (x) [gifs at the top] Could go either way - starting to figure it out? or No?

What had changed if anything? the entire Crowely season 10 story line? This was July 2015 - the same day as the SDCC 2015 panel where Misha talked about Destiel (x @ 13) Carver and Dabb were there -

By this time Jensen and Misha were nominated for a teen choice award for best chemistry against various tv couples (and one ensemble cast, but the award nomination did NOT include Jared) .... Misha and Jensen would go on to WIN this award one month after the panel.

At the Panel Rob and Rich ask the question: “You two have branded yourselves as TV’s greatest team since, ... idk who.... Ernie and Bert so.” [Misha says to Jensen & Jared, half not on the microphone: “I really didn’t expect them to throw us under the bus.”] “are we going to see that continue? Is the Castiel Dean relationship still aflutter and still growing as we move into season 11?” Jeremy Carver: “Ish.” [mocking from panel ensues] “Yes. Of course. I mean Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. There’s no doubt.”

Jensen Directs 11x03 and the choreo mimics Goodbye stranger (x)

2016 - Jensen: Dean could have a huntress, but you’d kill her.

Jan 2017 Con the infamous - no hedge - harsh - “Destiel doesn’t exist.” (x)

I would hope that if he knew he wouldn’t have been so harsh with it. So by that point either he still didn’t know - OR - to him ‘Destiel’ was specifically about internet porn/sex and not like - the potential for feelings / a relationship. It makes me think about something Misha had actually said, around 2013, “It’s called ‘Destiel’ and it’s about the romantic interludes between Dean and Castiel.” (x)

2017 - jib8 Jensen called Dean a lover of the ladies

May 2017 - After filming the end of season 12:

2018 - Misha confirms he and Jensen have talked about Destiel (x) - also 2018: The Bisexual Dean essay "? No." (Oh god was this really this recent?! I can't deal with this.)

Well. SOMETHING happened in 2019. cuz here it comes

2019 - "Dean has no taste, clearly." 2019 - 'So, tell us just a little bit about what you're most excited to tackle with your character this final season.' "Cas. Just like a full football form tackle."

Look at this face he gave Dean when Cas told him he loved him and tell me he wasn't playing into it here. You can't. (x)

269 notes · View notes

renegadewangs · 3 years ago

Text

Van Zieks - the Examination, part 4

Warnings: SPOILERS for The Great Ace Attorney: Chronicles. Additional warning for racist sentiments uttered by fictional characters (and screencaps to show these sentiments).

Disclaimer: (see Part 1 for the more detailed disclaimer.) - These posts are not meant to be taken as fact. Everything I’m outlining stems from my own views and experiences. If you believe that I’ve missed or misinterpreted something, please let me know so I can edit the post accordingly. -The purpose of these posts is an analysis, nothing more. Please do not come into these posts expecting me to either defend Barok van Zieks from haters, nor expecting me to encourage the hatred. - I’m using the Western release of The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles for these posts, but may refer to the original Japanese dialogue of Dai Gyakuten Saiban if needed to compare what’s said. This also means I’m using the localized names and localized romanization of the names to stay consistent. -It doesn’t matter one bit to me whether you like Barok van Zieks or dislike him. However, I will ask that everyone who comments refrains from attacking real, actual people.

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

It’s time to take a close look at Episode 2 of the second game, The Memoirs of the Clouded Kokoro!

Episode 2-2: The Memoirs of the Clouded Kokoro

Remember how in the last episode we vaguely got Barok on our side near the end of the trial by proving Mrs. Garrideb was actually involved in the crime? … Yeah. Forget that progress. It's being undone. Case 2-2 is the first case of the second game which features Barok, which unfortunately means he needs to be 'reintroduced' to the audience and it takes him back several steps in his growth. It makes sense, I suppose, it would've been weird starting a new game with him already being lightly on Ryu's side. Even so, it's a bit insulting how this case acts as if the chronologically previous one accomplished nothing.

So anyway, this case flashbacks to something which supposedly happened right after the first game's fourth case. The day after Soseki's acquittal, even. Turns out, Soseki awoke to find one of the other tenants in his building dead and asked Ryu for help, but (S)Holmes tagged along. Gregson is at the crime scene, keeping an eye on the place and on Soseki in particular since he's suspicious. (Sure, Gregson. Sure. Has nothing to do with the Reaper's curse, probably.) After some investigation with (S)Holmes, Gregson has enough evidence to actually arrest Soseki, which definitely feels like a step backwards. A bit later, it turns out the victim is Not Actually Dead Yet. Again! The Great Ace Attorney really enjoys throwing us for a loop by pretending we're in for another murder case.

Anyway, during the course of the investigation, I found two mentions of Van Zieks. The first is when you investigate the broken glasses and bottles in the victim's room. Susato is immediately reminded of Lord van Zieks.

And when examining Garrideb's old army uniform, Susato points out it might suit Lord van Zieks.

Haha, as if his usual outfit isn't ostentatious enough already. So we learn that Susato doesn't have a very high opinion of him at all, and I should hope it's not still related to that time he called detective novels pathetic. It's fun of them to refer to him in an investigation that he's not involved in in any way, especially when they don't know yet that he's the prosecution again.

Speaking to Soseki in the gaol, we're once again told that he's had a dreadful time in England so far. He sees foreigners everywhere and he's sure they're all laughing at him. He's been so on edge the past year that he's moved 'more times than he can remember'. So once again, we're reminded that racial prejudice in 1900s England is a focal point of this game's story. Once the conversation is over, Gregson appears to let the gang know that the victim has regained consciousness and is accusing Soseki of poisoning him. We're going to trial for an attempted murder charge, y'all!

The next day, in the defendant's lobby, Susato comes bursting in with the dreadful news that Barok van Zieks has once again taken on the prosecution. It's definitely safe to assume now that either Ryu or Soseki is the reason he's taking on these not-really-murder trials when he normally wouldn't. As I mentioned before, this is his reintroduction in the second game and so the game feels compelled to remind the player of what went down in case 1-4:

He sure did! The game also once again reminds us what the Reaper's Curse entails, and that perhaps that's the reason why Soseki is on trial yet again. He's doomed, perhaps. Susato also informs us that (S)Holmes is running late, just as he was two days ago, and Ryu thinks that's a good thing because if the Great Detective were there, Ryu might come to rely on his help.

… I suppose? He already relies on Susato for help and I feel like that would warrant far more 'preying' from Van Zieks than relying on a male, adult British detective for help. Though knowing (S)Holmes, he'd end up stealing the show and taking the words from Ryu's mouth, but that doesn't seem to be what Ryu's worried about here. I suppose the main point to take away from this remark is that Ryu wants to do as much as he can by himself. He wants to appear strong in front of Van Zieks to avoid presenting an easy target, and I think this might actually be the first time we see a sentiment like that from him. Is he afraid of Van Zieks? Does he actually care about the man's opinion? Anyway, he swears to show Van Zieks what a Japanese lawyer can do.

Inside the courtroom, Van Zieks does the usual prosecutor spiel about how the defense needs to be ready for defeat. Ryu thinks to himself that Van Zieks has a particular animosity towards Japanese people for some reason.

Good thing we got a second game in the series, eh? So because the defendant was on trial only two days ago, the same jurors were chosen where possible. The only juror not returning is Mrs. Garrideb, who's too busy being in prison. Her spot is now taken by a very fancy lady we later learn to be the wife of the Altamont Gas Company's owner. She may as well be the CEO herself with how she's acting, though. Anyway, Van Zieks addresses the jurors directly.

“However, the innocent verdict afforded to this eccentric Nipponese before... has had dire consequences. Did the accused repent for his wrongdoing in that affair? Far from it. Instead, he used his freedom to perpetrate a most blood-curdling crime!”

Van Zieks makes record time by taking off his cloak immediately after this line. He's gone straight into overdrive. The witnesses summoned this time are Inspector Gregson and... Soseki? It's very irregular for the defendant to be testifying, especially this early in the trial and especially by the prosecution's request. I can't really make much of it. It feels like the only reason Soseki is testifying is for this joke:

Also found when examining the testimony is a remark from Van Zieks that I honestly found shocking in how ferocious and scummy it is.

Unnecessary, that remark. It didn't need to exist at all in my opinion. So after Ryu shatters the testimony and scatters Gregson's fish 'n chips, Van Zieks calmly pours himself a glass of wine. I have to be honest, by now whenever he does this I'm left wondering what he'll do next. Will he crush the chalice? Will he throw it? Will he actually take a sip? The versatility of the action and unpredictable nature of Van Zieks add a bit of suspense. Turns out, his mind wandered during the testimony.

And then he ends up crushing the glass in his hand anyway. Alas, poor chalice. We knew it. So after a bit of debating back and forth about whether Shamspeare drank the supposedly-poisoned-tea after Soseki left the room, Van Zieks suddenly falls silent. We get three different, consecutive frames of him going “......” and when the judge asks what's wrong, he says this:

Supersonic hearing, this one. That is, unless the carriage entered the courthouse and literally pulled up in the hallway outside the room? Haven't we learned our lesson from the last time a carriage was driven into the Old Bailey?! So Shamspeare was apparently subpoenaed by the prosecution and has shown up to testify (with his doctor's permission). Bad news for us, since he's the one accusing Soseki in the first place. There's also a second witness to support Shamspeare's insistence there were no other visitors to the room and therefore only Soseki could have poisoned him. After that testimony is over, Van Zieks gets his wish and all the jurors vote guilty.

Van Zieks really seems to think that Soseki is a terrible person deserving of justice, huh? He was right there during the previous trial, saw Ryu prove without a shadow of a doubt that Soseki was innocent and still insists that justice will be done “this time”. Calm the heck down man, you're the one who sided with us when Mrs. Garrideb needed to testify, remember? And here comes another example of the game pretending the previous trials didn't leave an impact; when the Summation Examination is brought up, it's with disdain and this remark:

Bro, we used the Summation Examination successfully like five times already. Sit your butt down and watch the show. The jurors once again give prejudiced reasons for their decisions:

And unfortunately, instead of changing their minds by proving Soseki is a morally upstanding, innocent citizen, Ryu instead gets through this Summation Examination by basically proving Shamspeare is a worse person than Soseki. That's... not the direction you should be taking here, narrative. After convincing four of the jurors that Shamspeare is a fishy liar, Van Zieks flings another chalice of wine in frustration. The judge still thinks he could technically pass a ruling on the trial, since the new information didn't exactly disprove that Soseki is the culprit, but the jurors have been influenced so thoroughly that they can't let this new info go ignored. Testimony from the Altamont Company is allowed! Van Zieks thinks it's a waste of time, of course, and if this were reality it would be. Since it's an Ace Attorney game, we know Shamspeare's gas thievery is bound to somehow be related to the incident. Van Zieks flings yet another chalice after hearing the testimony (how many has it been already? Five?) and very shortly after, he tosses the entire bottle over his shoulder. Susato points out that he seems to be in a violent mood. I feel like someone must've pissed in his oatmeal that morning, because I've got no real explanation for why his character regressed this badly in the course of what chronologically was only two days.

Van Zieks flings two more chalices as the testimony progresses to prove that Shamspeare made fake coins to fool the gas meter. At the end of it all, he supposedly 'throws his hand up in despair and happened to catch his hallowed bottle along the way', flinging yet another one of those into the gallery. I'm starting to feel very bad for the people seated behind him now. Is the game overdoing these quirky animations to compensate for his regressed attitude? Because I'm not sure it's working... Van Zieks continues to insist that the situation hasn't changed and only Soseki could have poisoned the victim, so he calls for immediate adjucation. The game gives Ryu the option to either object or wait and see, and I have to be honest, this gave me pause. After what happened with the penalties in case 1-4, I was sure Van Zieks might dish out more punishment for waiting and seeing. Turns out, he doesn't. Ryu points out that Shamspeare likely used the tea to make these fake frozen coins of his, meaning there's still tea left at the scene of the crime which can be tested for poison.

Head in my hands right now. Again, I get it, they basically had to reintroduce Van Zieks to newcomers of the game (however few there might've been) so they had to regress him a bit, but I really don't like this. He honestly felt like he'd grown at the end of 1-4 and the game's not only undone it, it feels like they've made him even more of a scumbag. This line and this gesture honestly doesn’t quite correspond with the character established in the previous game. Anyway, court adjourned till the next day so the police can test the tea for poison.

During the investigation segment, we get a conversation that I'd quite honestly forgotten even exists. Turns out, (S)Holmes and Van Zieks are acquainted! ...or are they? (S)Holmes says he 'must pass the time of day with Mr. Reaper again, as it's been too long' and when asked whether they're acquainted, (S)Holmes replies that there isn't a person in the world who doesn't know his name, expertly dodging the question. Naturally, a new conversation topic opens up about it, so we can still attempt to needle more details out of him.

He explains the history of the Reaper's curse a bit more. Previous defendants found not-guilty would 'disappear from the capital' by falling under a passing carriage, drowning in the Thames, succumbing to a sudden fever... Etc. Susato points out that if those rumors are true, then surely the obvious conclusion would be that they were killed by Van Zieks's own hand. (S)Holmes points out that's impossible, since Van Zieks was already investigated on the matter before and for every single incident, he had a solid alibi. (This... doesn't disprove Van Zieks had anything to do with it, but okay (S)Holmes. Sure.) (S)Holmes also rubs it in yet again that Van Zieks retired from the courts five years ago and didn't return until the day Naruhodo arrived. I honestly don't know why they keep bringing that 5 year hiatus up in every single case, because as far as I can recall it was never fully explained or relevant.

I love how “foul smell” is wedged in-between those two topics as if it's also related. Anyway the conversation continues when Ryu brings up that Van Zieks seems to have a particular disdain for Japanese people. Susato demands to know whether (S)Holmes knows a bit more about it and while he's silent at first, he relents and tells us a tale (which will apparently be forgotten by Ryu and Susato in case 1-5). Van Zieks “chose to enter the legal profession ten years ago, but before that time, the man's closest companion hailed from the empire of Japan”. Which is a wording that baffles me, because it implies that Van Zieks chose to enter the legal profession at the same moment that Japanese person betrayed him, which we know is not the case. He was already in training to be a prosecutor before that, otherwise how could he possibly have prosecuted the Professor trial? Ryu is shocked and asks to know more, but (S)Holmes says the veil on the events from the past will be lifted soon enough. I'll get back to the implications of what this means for Van Zieks's backstory when we hit this exact same reveal in case 1-5.

Van Zieks is mentioned very little in the rest of the investigation segments. We only learn that he tasked Gregson with finding new clues, much to Gregson's dismay, as there isn't much to be found. The Inspector does immediately leap at new information when we uncover it, which implies he's eager to either please Van Zieks or avoid being scolded by him. I'm assuming the latter, but it's also possible Gregson feels guilty over the whole Reaper thing and Klint's autopsy, and is now compensating by working his hardest to fulfill Van Zieks's requests.

At the very end of the investigation, when evening falls, (S)Holmes reminds us that “it'll be hard to escape the grip of our friend, Mr. Reaper”. The next day, in the defendant's lobby just before the trial begins, Ryu thinks to himself that he doesn't believe in the legend of the Reaper any more than he believes in the convict's curse Soseki keeps mentioning. What's interesting here is that Ryu isn't dreading the confrontation anymore. After the McGilded trial he seemed genuinely intimidated by the concept of going up against Van Zieks (not because of the racism but because of what happened to his first defendant), but now he's not so hesitant anymore. He's beginning to see that Van Zieks can be defeated, that the Reaper thing is nonsense and that protecting his client is a fight worth fighting.

Into the courtroom we go for day 2 of the trial! When the judge asks about the results of the tea test, Van Zieks is silent for a moment. He pours himself a glass of wine, asking for a moment to “savour a liquid of a more sanguine hue”, then refers to Gregson for the full report. Gregson confirms no poison was found in the tea remains, but the prosecution wouldn't be the prosecution (and the game would be pretty boring) if they didn't have a backup plan. When Ryu proclaims Soseki is innocent, Van Zieks accuses him of jumping to conclusions, “a typical Nipponese reaction”. It's also a typical prosecution reaction to be hypocritical, no surprises here. He throws his chalice (first one of the day) and summons Shamspeare back to the stand to testify about how Soseki's unpoisoned and undrank cup of tea had been used to make the ice coins.

There's some lines here that I thought I might as well include:

“Yet on occasion, tedium distracts me and I pour more times than I intended until the bottle is dry.”

You know, it occurs to me that this drink is pretty much confirmed to be wine. He's very extra when talking about it himself, but he had his silly little wine analogies in the previous case and Susato referred to his glasses as “wine glasses”. And you would think it's obvious that it's wine, but we know Ace Attorney's long history with 'grape juice'. Either way, this dialogue leaves a pretty harsh implication that Van Zieks drinks alcohol simply to distract himself from troublesome moods. Sure, he says “tedium”, but this is a stoic prosecutor in the year 1900. They referred to depression as “melancholia” back then, and since he doesn't appear to have any friends, I expect he experiences “tedium” quite often outside the courtroom. He apparently set a rule for himself not to fill his glass more than seven times during a trial which, in turn, implies he's aware any more would cause problems. All of this is moot, of course, since 80% of the wine he pours for himself ends up on the floor between shards of glass. Still, though... Zieks, are you okay?

I don't think he is, because he pulls a very dirty trick here. Ryu proves Soseki drank all his tea and therefore it couldn't possibly have been used, so Van Zieks insinuates to Shamspeare that perhaps he misremembered using the tea from Soseki's cup and instead used tea still left in the teapot. An excuse Shamspeare happily takes, of course. Not gonna lie, I got angry, not because it's a dirty trick but because it's inconsistent. This is the very same character who all but dragged Mrs. Garrideb down from the juror bench to testify when it became clear she likely threw a knife out the window. And now he's feeding slippery excuses to a man who's very clearly lying about all sorts of things? What??? And remember this incident, because I'm going to be referring back to it later.

He crushes another chalice, removes his cloak and continues to insist that we should believe this thieving liar at the witness stand. The jurors for some reason buy the baloney served to them on a tinfoil platter and even twist Ryu's sentiments around, with some bloke going as far as to interpret the situation as 'the lawyer lad believes anyone who steals gas deserves to be poisoned'. Summation Examination gets very funky this time around, with the outcome being that Shamspeare probably blew the gas pipes (s-snerk) and the poison was laced on the pipe.

Van Zieks pours himself a glass of wine and pretty much immediately flings it, saying these are all empty assertions without a shred of proof. When Ryu presents the picture with the skin prints, Van Zieks once again breaks the rule of the prosecution staying silent during Summation Examination to point out that skin prints cannot be used as evidence, since that method is not recognized by the court (yet). Aaand he crushes yet another chalice in his hand.

Susato claims it was never meant to be used as official evidence, it was only a tool to demonstrate a new possibility to the jury. Jumping through some loopholes here, we are, since the picture is clearly in our Court Record as evidence. But, well, the prosecution cheats too so what's the harm? Some jurors vote not-guilty, but there's still one more that needs convincing on order to keep the trial going. Ryu says he has a witness who's already testified that the pipe-blowing incident did indeed occur that night, as Soseki stated the other day before the court that his stove went out in the dead of night. (Hang on, is this why the narrative made him testify alongside Gregson?) With that the majority of the jury votes not-guilty and the trial has to continue, but Van Zieks is extra rattled now. (Another bottle goes soaring.)

He once again reminds the court that skin prints aren't admissible evidence and therefore, there is no real proof Shamspeare put his mouth to the pipes (ghghhh I'm sorry this is such a silly thing to have to type out). Ryu asks for an investigative team to test the mouth of the gas pipe for poison, but since it would've evaporated by now, that's a no-go. Also, Van Zieks says that “what appears to be simple is my Nipponese friend's mind” and that's a scumbag point. Ryu attempts to turn the trial around by claiming that Shamspeare attempted to kill Soseki, making the defendant the victim, but Van Zieks ain't having it. The aggrieved being the accused is an interesting notion, but doesn't change what actually happened. In fact, if anything, it establishes a motive for Soseki to lay a trap for Shamspeare. Because who else could have known about the gas pipe trickery and put the poison there, right? Why, the true culprit, of course.

Our man Van Zieks really doesn't like (S)Holmes, huh? A tidbit which the games will never bother to explain! Either way, Ryu raises the name of Olive Green, the victim of the previous case. And I gotta say, I do genuinely like the way they integrated these two Clouded Kokoro cases together. The chronology of everything that went down is very fun to decipher, but long story short, Olive Green was at Briar Road the day she was stabbed for a reason and knows more about the 'convict curse' Soseki and Garrideb kept mentioning, so let's drag her into court! Van Zieks agrees to subpoena Miss Green in order to 'see his Nipponese friend's farce through to its conclusion'.

So during intermission some more evidence is handed to Ryu and when trial resumes, Van Zieks continues to be his usual self.

“The prosecution has tried to extend every courtesy to this amateur newcomer from dubious Eastern shores.”

Ryu sweats bullets as he meekly thanks Van Zieks “(for his backhanded consideration)”, but once again the judge is the one to call Van Zieks out on his attitude.

Amazing. It's so refreshing to see a judge who actually disagrees with the prosecution's haughty attitude problems and acknowledges it has no place in a courtroom. Nothing against Udgey, because we all love Udgey (and his Canadian brother), but this man actually grows and learns. So Olive Green takes the stand alongside Shamspeare (maybe not the best idea since Ryu just accused her of trying to murder this man) for dual testimony. When Green brings up what a dreadful ordeal the knife to her back was, Van Zieks says this:

Hang on, empathy? He's giving her advice? This reeks of humanization! Green seems taken aback and thanks him for his words, so the sentiment was genuinely accepted. This in itself is a very nice scene to see in action, similar to Van Zieks allowing Roly Beate to keep his job. Unfortunately, Van Zieks's character is in a wild rollercoaster of moral inconsistency during this particular case which sours the experience somewhat. Case in point:

YOOOU hypocrite! This actively angered me, because at the very start of this same trial day he was personally feeding lies to Shamspeare. Now he's warning Green not to lie? It gets even worse a bit later on when Green gets cornered about stealing the note, she asks him whether it could all be some sort of misunderstanding, and he says:

ACTIVELY FEEDING SHAMSPEARE A LIE. THE VERY SAME DAY. I'm all for prosecutors using dirty tactics. It helps to juxtapose them further to the honest defense attorney we play as. However, it needs to be consistent. Either a prosecutor condones a witness's lies to help their case, or they feel that they're above it. The third, most used option is for them to start off condoning it, only to learn that truth takes priority over victory. This sloppy back-and-forth morality that Van Zieks has going on here is insanely frustrating, so it's no wonder some players end up disliking him. It honestly feels as if they rewrote this case so many times, they screwed up the exact growth trajectory Van Zieks has.

Anyway, it seems Van Zieks is suddenly fully on our side now to help Ryu prove that Green was in Shamspeare's room and laced the gas pipe with poison. And I mean help help. When the judge points out that if Green had laced the pipe the very same day she was stabbed, the attempted murder would have happened six days ago. Van Zieks is the one to say “Perhaps not, My Lord” and explain Briar Road was full of police at that time. At this point, Van Zieks and Ryu (and also Susato) actively start to take turns to explain the proper chronology of events. So the defense and the prosecution are in perfect sync right now, working together to explain the whodunnit. This is the ideal outcome to any trial, usually not seen until the last case of the game, so it's curious that this dynamic abruptly shows itself in a case like this. Van Zieks does still have one moment of gaslighting when he claims Ryu may have inhaled some dubious gas, causing his judgment to be clouded, since there's no motive behind Shamspeare's attempts on his fellow lodgers. A matter that's very easily resolved, of course. Once the name of Selden is brought up, Van Zieks continues our little game of back-and-forth-truth-reveal until (S)Holmes shows his face.

“Your usual haunts are the filthy backstreets of the capital, are they not?”

To which (S)Holmes replies that it's been too long, and Van Zieks's complexion has worsened since last they met. Alright, so Van Zieks and (S)Holmes definitely have met in person before, some undetermined amount of time ago. You'd think that going by (S)Holmes's friendly attitude they might've even been friends once, but our great detective is like that towards everyone. This is evidenced by an earlier encounter with Gregson where (S)Holmes insists they're friends and Gregson says that they're not friends, to which (S)Holmes quietly agrees. So really, this little exchange tells us nothing about the history between the great detective and the Reaper.

Some shenaniganry, a breakdown and admittance to guilt later, the court is finally ready to deem Soseki innocent. Van Zieks once again has some interesting lines here:

“And one I certainly didn't envisage walking... with you.”

Considering he attempted to trip us up for most of this walk up until the very last stretch, I don't like this remark very much. It feels very unearned. This is another one of those things that would've been more suitable in the last case of the game, but instead it's being crammed into a messy mid-game moment with the pretense that Van Zieks learned a lesson about being our ally.

In the defendant's lobby, the game basically gives the exact same dialogue as at the end of the original Clouded Kokoro case; that Soseki is returning to Japan and hopes to pen his own literature there, with the rest of the cast pointing out that the Reaper's Curse must factor into his decision to some degree. So we're still holding onto that question of whether Soseki will escape an untimely death or not. Anyone who's already played the last case of the first game will know the answer, of course.

So to summarize... I genuinely didn't enjoy Van Zieks's portrayal in this case. It really feels as if something went horribly wrong and they got some notes mixed up about where his character was already headed in the previous game. It's a crying shame. There was a lot of potential for a case set between 1-4 and 1-5, but they really dropped the ball when it comes to consistency and I've no doubt that it reflected badly on people's opinions of him. Though I think when we return to the first game for The Unspeakable Story, everything will right itself out again to some degree. Stay tuned!

#dgs #dgs spoilers #tgaa #tgaa spoilers #barok van zieks #MAN I got frustrated with this one #what happened here???

25 notes · View notes

birdlord · 4 years ago

Text

Everything I Watched in 2020

We’ll start with movies. The number in parentheses is the year of release, asterisks denote a re-watch, and titles in bold are my favourite watches of the year. Here’s 2019’s list.

01 Little Women (19)

02 The Post (17)

03 Molly’s Game (17)

04 * Doctor No (62)

05 Groundhog Day (93)

06 *Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home (86)

07 Knives Out (19) My last theatre experience (sob)

08 Professor Marston and his Wonder Women (17)

09 Les Miserables (98)

10 Midsommar (19) I’m not sure how *good* it is, but it does stick in the ol’ brain

11 *Manhattan Murder Mystery (93)

12 Marriage Story (19)

13 Kramer vs Kramer (79)

14 Jojo Rabbit (19)

15 J’ai perdu mon corps (19) a cute animated film about a hand detached from its body!

16 1917 (19)

17 Married to the Mob (88)

18 Klaus (19)

19 Portrait of a Lady on Fire (19) If Little Women made me want to wear a scarf criss-crossed around my torso, this one made me want to wear a cloak

20 The Last Black Man in San Francisco (19)

21 *Lawrence of Arabia (62)

22 Gone With the Wind (39)

23 Kiss Me Deadly (55)

24 Dredd (12)

25 Heartburn (86) heard a bunch about this one in the Blank Check series on Nora Ephron, sadly after I’d watched it

26 The Long Shot (19)

27 Out of Africa (85)

28 King Kong (46)

29 *Johnny Mnemonic (95)

30 Knocked Up (07)

31 Collateral (04)

32 Bird on a Wire (90)

33 The Black Dahlia (05)

34 Long Time Running (17)

35 *Magic Mike (12)

36 Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (07)

37 Cold War (18)

38 *Kramer Vs Kramer (79) yes I watched this a few months before! This was a pandemic friend group co-watch.

39 *Burn After Reading (08)

40 Last Holiday (50)

41 Fly Away Home (96)

42 *Moneyball (11) I’m sure I watch this every two years, at most??

43 Last Holiday (06) the Queen Latifah version of the 1950 movie above, lacking, of course, the brutal “poor people don’t deserve anything good” ending

44 *Safe (95)

45 Gimme Shelter (70)

46 The Daytrippers (96)

47 Experiment in Terror (62)

48 Tucker: The Man and His Dream (88)

49 My Brilliant Career (79) one of the salvations of 2020 was watching movies “with” friends. Our usual method was to video chat before the movie, sync our streaming services, and text-chat while the movie was on.

50 Divorce Italian Style (61)

51 *Gosford Park (01) another classic comfort watch, fuck I love a G. Park

52 Hopscotch (80)

53 Brief Encounter (45)

54 Hud (63)

55 Ocean’s 8 (18)

56 *Beverly Hills Cop (84)

57 Blow the Man Down (19)

58 Constantine (05)

59 The Report (19) maddening!! How are people so consistently terrible to one another!

60 Everyday People (04)

61 Anatomy of a Murder (58)

62 Spiderman: Homecoming (17)

63 *To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar (95) Of the 90s drag road movies, Priscilla is more visually striking, but this has its moments.

64 Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (92)

65 *The Truman Show (98)

66 Mona Lisa (86)

67 The Blob (58)

68 The Guard (11)

69 *Waiting for Guffman (96) RIP Fred Willard

70 Rocketman (19)

71 Outside In (18)

72 The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (08) how strange to see a movie that you have known the premise for, but no details of, for over a decade

73 *Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country (91)

74 The Reader (08)

75 Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (19) This was fine until it VERY MUCH WAS NOT FINE

76 The End of the Affair (99) you try to watch a fun little romp about infidelity during the Blitz, and Graham Greene can’t help but shoehorn in a friggin crisis of religious faith

77 Must Love Dogs (05) barely any dog content, where are the dogs at

78 The Rainmaker (97)

79 *Batman & Robin (97)

80 National Lampoon’s Vacation (83) Never seen any of the non-xmas Vacations, didn’t realize the children are totally different, not just actors but ages! Also, this one is blatantly racist!

81 *Mystic Pizza (88)

82 Funny Girl (68)

83 The Sons of Katie Elder (65)

84 *Knives Out (19) another re-watch within the same year!! How does this keep happening??

85 *Scott Pilgrim Vs The World (10) a real I-just-moved-away-from-Toronto nostalgia watch

86 Canadian Bacon (92) vividly recall this VHS at the video store, but I never saw it til 2020

87 *Blood Simple (85)

88 Brittany Runs a Marathon (19)

89 The Accidental Tourist (88)

90 August Osage County (13) MELO-DRAMA!!

91 Appaloosa (08)

92 The Firm (93) Feeling good about how many iconic 80s/90s video store stalwarts I watched in 2020

93 *Almost Famous (00)

94 Whisper of the Heart (95)

95 Da 5 Bloods (20)

96 Rain Man (88)

97 True Stories (86)

98 *Risky Business (83) It’s not about what you think it’s about! It never was!

99 *The Big Chill (83)

100 The Way We Were (73)

101 Safety Last (23) It’s getting so that I might have to add the first two digits to my dates...not that I watch THAT many movies from the 1920s...

102 Phantasm (79)

103 The Burrowers (08)

104 New Jack City (91)

105 The Vanishing (88)

106 Sisters (72)

107 Puberty Blues (81) Little Aussie cinema theme, here

108 Elevator to the Gallows (58)

109 Les Diaboliques (55)

110 House (77) haha WHAT no really W H A T

111 Death Line (72)

112 Cranes are Flying (57)

113 Holes (03)

114 *Lady Vengeance (05)

115 Long Weekend (78)

116 Body Double (84)

117 The Crazies (73) I love that Romero shows the utter confusion that would no doubt reign in the case of any kind of disaster. Things fall apart.

118 Waterlilies (07)

119 *You’re Next (11)

120 Event Horizon (97)

121 Venom (18) I liked it, guys, way more than most superhero fare. Has a real sense of place and the place ISN’T New York!

122 Under the Silver Lake (18) RIP Night Call

123 *Blade Runner (82)

124 *The Birds (62) interesting to see now that I’ve read the story it came from

125 *28 Days Later (02) hits REAL FUCKIN’ DIFFERENT in a pandemic

126 Life is Sweet (90)

127 *So I Married an Axe Murderer (93) find me a more 90s movie, I dare you (it’s not possible)

128 Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (67)

129 The Pelican Brief (93) 90s thrillers continue!

130 Dick Johnston is Dead (20)

131 The Bridges of Madison County (95)

132 Earth Girls are Easy (88) Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum are so hot in this movie, no wonder they got married

133 Better Watch Out (16)

134 Drowning Mona (00) trying for something like the Coen bros and not getting there

135 Au Revoir Les Enfants (87)

136 *Chasing Amy (97) Affleck is the least alluring movie lead...ever? I also think I gave Joey Lauren Adams’ character short shrift in my memory of the movie. It’s not good, but she’s more complicated than I recalled.

137 Blackkklansman (18)

138 Being Frank (19)

139 Kiki’s Delivery Service (89)

140 Uncle Frank (20) why so many FRANKS

141 *National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (89) watching with pals (virtually) made it so much more fun than the usual yearly watch!

142 Half Baked (98) another, more secret Toronto nostalgia pic - RC Harris water filtration plant as a prison!

143 We’re the Millers (13)

144 All is Bright (13)

145 Defending Your Life (91)

146 Christmas Chronicles (18) I maintain that most new xmas movies are terrible, particularly now that Netflix churns them out like eggnog every year.

147 Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse (18)

148 Reindeer Games (00) what did I say about Affleck??!? WHAT DID I SAY

149 Palm Springs (20)

150 Happiest Season (20)

151 *Metropolitan (90) it’s definitely a Christmas movie

152 Black Christmas (74)

THEATRE:HOME - 2:150 (thanks pandemic)

I usually separate out docs and fiction, but I watched almost no documentaries this year (with the exception of Dick Johnston). Reality is real enough.

TV Series

01 - BoJack Horseman (final season) - Pretty damned poignant finish to the show, replete with actual consequences for our reformed bad boy protagonist (which is more than you can say for most antiheroes of Peak TV).

02 - *Hello Ladies - I enjoy the pure awkwardness of seeing Stephen Merchant try to perform being a Regular Person, but ultimately this show tips him too far towards a nasty, Ricky Gervais-lite sort of persona. Perhaps he was always best as a cameo appearance, or lip synching with wild eyes while Chrissy Teigen giggles?

03 - Olive Kittredge - a rough watch by times. I read the book as well, later in the year. Frances Mcdormand was the best, possibly the only, casting option for the flinty lead. One episode tips into thriller territory, which is a shock.

04 - *The Wire S3, S4, S5 - lockdown culture! It was interesting to rewatch this, then a few months later go through an enormous, culture-level reappraisal of cop-centred narratives.

05 - Forever - a Maya Rudolph/Fred Armisen joint that coasts on the charm of its leads. The premise is OK, but I wasn’t left wanting any more at the end.

06 - *Catastrophe - a rewatch when my partner decided he wanted to see it, too!

07 - Red Oak - resolutely “OK” steaming dramedy, relied heavily on some pretty obvious cues to get across its 1980s setting.

08 - Little Fires Everywhere - gulped this one down while in 14-day isolation, delicious! Every 90s suburban mom had that SUV, but not all of them had the requisite **secrets**

09 - The Great - fun historical comedy/drama! Costumes: lush. Actors: amusing. Race-blind casting: refreshing!

10 - The Crown S4 - this is the season everyone lost their everloving shit for, since it’s finally recent enough history that a fair chunk of the viewing audience is liable to recall it happening.

11 - Ted Lasso - we resisted this one for a while (thought I did enjoy the ad campaign for NBC sports (!!) that it was based on). My view is that its best point was the comfort that the men on the show have (or develop, throughout the season) with the acknowledgement and sharing of their own feelings. Masculinity redux.

12 - Moonbase 8 - Goodnatured in a way that makes you certain they will be crushed.

13 - The Good Lord Bird - Ethan Hawke is really aging into the character actor we always hoped he would be!

14 - Hollywood - frothy wish-fulfillment alternate history. I think the show would have been improved immeasurably by skipping the final episode.

11 notes · View notes

strrawberrymoon · 5 years ago

Text

name / alias : leigh gender / pronouns : female + she/her where ya from ? : europe 👀 the current time : 18:53 height : 164 cm, i think that’s 5′4 job or major : double major in sociology and media communications, still grinding pet ( s ) : two dogs! one is a 7 year old maltese and the other a 3 year old cane corso favorite thing ( s ) about yourself : im a great listener and i give great advice, i’m straighforward which some people don’t like but oh well, i’m pretty adaptable. i got some nice titties any special talents ? : i can roll my tounge in any direction + crack a lot of knuckles ajkdshaj

why you joined hqclouds : i’ve been itchng to write more lately, so when love told me about their group i thought i’d give it a shot !!

meaning behind url : strawberry moon was just a recent occurance irl which was really cool + i associate marinette with strawberries for some reason, and i’m a big fan of the lady moon

last thing you googled : i’m having some issues with my michrophone and zoom so i googled how to fix it, but no dice

birthday / zodiac : leo ! my birthday is august 11th in your opinion , does your sign suit you ? : yes and no. leo’s are very misunderstood imo, but each sign has the “more popular” or well known traits and then there’s the flipside of the coin—which i think suits me more myers - briggs : ISFP / INFP moral alignment : chaotic idiot hogwarts house : gryffindor

three fictional character ( s ) you see yourself in + why : i honestly see myself in katara from atla, the whole smothering mothering routine. it’s becoming a regular thing for my friends to say “thanks, mom” or “ok, mom” so i guess i’m the mom friend. also fred weasly... he’s a twin.. i’m a twin... that’s all i need. and lastly, and very leastly, neil josten from all for the game series. most of you probably don’t know it, but he’s a demisexual chaotic idiot who says “i’m fine” way too much for someone who is most definitely not fine.

i started roleplaying : probably when i was around 16-17 was my first official roleplay experience. it was on facebook and kind of a nightmare types of rps i enjoy : i like college stuff and small town rps, but i also love plot heavy rps that push you into developing your muse. really anything that isn’t too restricting favorite fcs to use : i don’t have go-to faceclaims. i tend to make a character around a FC and then use them until i lose muse or just feel like they need to rest. switch it up a lot, but some faces that i’ve really enjoyed playing for a longer amount of time are steven kelly, cindy mello and ellen v. lora fandom ( s ) you’d like to write in : i want to write in all of the fandoms i know nothing about and look like a dumbass. also harry potter, the hunger games, avatar the last airbender, gossip girl, etc etc fandom ( s ) you aren’t in but are curious about : marvel somewhat, any video games are very fascinating to me even though i’m not a gamer + know nothing about them, any distopian kind of fandom re: hunger games

share a funny roleplay horror story : recently an admin of a twitter rp tried to use my male muse for their weird ship narrative. they tried to make him look like an asshole (& i do play assholes but this one wasn’t one) + used another male muse to make it seem as if these two boys were fighting over the person’s girl, even though she actually had a ship all lined up. they were also running the gossip twitter, so they made up a bunch of stuff about our muses without our consent and consequently i told them to fuck off, and both of us left the group. then she had no more “groupies” so she cuffed and the group closed two days later. it was petty hilarious.

fondest roleplay memory : once in an OC group, i wasn’t “technically” doing a ship with a friend, even though the characters had feelings for each other. but for some reason the status of their relationship was a hot topic group wide, meaning everybody had their nose in it and wanting to know what’s up, so they publically kept doing things to make people think they’re together while denying it in the same breath. it was really fun to let it play out like that.

favorite canon muse ( s ) to ��play : roy mustang from fullmetal alchemist, katara from atla, and my baby marinette favorite original muse ( s ) to play : the last original character i played and fell in love with was named alex. im obsessed with him. still doing 1 x 1 with his girlfriend. they’re having a baby, it’s all very emo and domestic. maybe i make him relapse for funsies. canon ships you can’t help but love : lupin x tonks from harry potter, korra x asami from legend of korra, danerys x daario naharis from game of thrones, katniss x peeta from the hunger games, etc... trope ( s ) you tend to be guilty of : i use the rich kid douchebag stereotype a lot. i also make a lot of my characters addicted to something to make them struggle with that.

i prefer . . . angst , smut , or fluff : bro... i am a sucker for ansgt and smut. i do fluff on special ocassions >:) long or short replies : i prefer when they start out shorter, but medium is my fave pre plotting or chemistry : chemistry all the way. plotting can be really fun but it’s a miss more often than a hit for me. plotting can be good for pre-established relationships but that’s about it sentence starters or headcanon memes : sentence starters single muse or multimuse blogs : i’ve never done a multimuse blog, and i’ve actually been super against them in the past, but i’m starting to change my mind hehe gif icons , medium gifs , or static icons : static (or none honestly)

grab the book nearest to you and pull a quote from it : ❝ You were children. was there no one to protect you? ❞ — ❝ Was there no one to protect you? ❞

what’s a quote or song lyric that speaks to your soul ? : ❝ I loved her, and sometimes, she loved me too ❞

top current celebrity crushes : zendaya, margot robbie always last movie you watched : 365 days (2020) did you like it ? : i hated it, what a waste of a perfectly good 2 hours favorite movie ( s ) of all time : harry potter franchise makes me nostalgic, perks of being a wallflower, my sister’s keeper favorite tv show ( s ) of all time : for some reason i’m obsessed with grey’s anatomy but i hate it favorite tv show that hasn’t ended : well fricking grey’s anatomy favorite series of books / novels / comics : the hunger games, harry potter sports team ( s ) you rep : my friend is into sports i rep her ksdsdj favorite video game ( s ) : the sims. i like playing animal crossing vicariously through switch owners favorite youtube channels : don’t usually keep up with yt channels but i just binged some stuff from psychology in seattle hobbies : procrastinating

what are the three non essential things you’d bring to a deserted island ? : sunglasses, hairtie, hand cream

put your music on shuffle. what six songs pop up ? :

say goodbye by skillet,

off the grid by alina baraz & khalid,

bury a friend by billie eilish,

break up with your girlfriend by ariana grande

get back by nine lashes

marry you by bruno mars (man)

personal aesthetic : growing out my hair only to always wear it in a bun dream vacation ? : i just wanna go to the seaside with my friends dream job ? : i literally can’t stand capitalism. wanna move to italy and collect berries and draw titties all day dream car ? : something that drives itself if i could live anywhere , it’d be : somewhere in canada near the woods favorite musical : mama mia? counts favorite food ( s ) : bananaaaaas, ice cream, cereal. these are all foods ok coffee order : i don’t drink coffee unwatched stuff in your netflix / hulu / etc : 13 reasons why (i’m too bored), the flash, outer banks, elite, the half of it, intersteller, locke & key aaand some stuff that’s not mine but someone else using my account

what’s a subject you know too much about + never get tired of talking about ? : idk anything about anything askldhl

#CLOUD:OOC #i am doing this now bc im avoiding studying #but it was fun hehehe #i still need to figure out a tagging system + write up an intro #which let us not kid ourseleves i'll probably end up doing by tonight #╰ ♡ 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐨𝐟𝐟 ↷ ooc.

10 notes · View notes

dreadwulf · 6 years ago

Text

*sigh* Okay, I just had to write this all out to get it off my chest and hopefully get over it and move on.

People tell me I look just like Brienne of Tarth. I’m tall, blonde, broad-shouldered, and homely. I get mistaken for a man, even when I have long hair that goes all down my back, even wearing a dress. I’ve gotten used to it.

My earliest memory of school is lying on the ground while a crowd of boys are kicking and hitting me, because I was an ugly freak. Girls grow earlier than boys do, you see. I was the tallest kid in my elementary, and I was hated for it. I endured constant abuse. When I got a little bit older, and I was almost 6 feet tall when I was 12, the abuse mostly turned away from being physical and into emotional and psychological. Girls followed me into the bathroom, laughing at how my clothes didn’t fit, how awkward I was, how masculine. Boys no longer hit me, just ignored or ridiculed me. Because it was the 80s I heard constant references to the East German olympic team, how I looked like a member. I didn’t understand the references at the time, but I knew it was yet another reference to how I didn’t measure up as a woman. Much later I learned about how those women were dosed with testosterone by the government against their will - a terrible story that the people around me regarded as a joke. There’s nothing funnier than a manish woman, apparently.

When I was young I was undatable, never considered an option to anyone. I never kissed anyone until I was in my twenties, and was a virgin until I was 25. It’s bizarre when I look back now at photos of myself, because I’m expecting a hideous monster, and all I see is an ordinary girl - a little taller, broad-shouldered and plain, not pretty, but ordinary. But it all got into my head, you see. Inside I still feel like a freak. Undesireable. Unloved.

I started watching Game of Thrones from the first episode (mainly because I’m a big fan of Peter Dinklage!), and I was intrigued. Intrigued, but not obsessed, not yet. I’m a grown woman and I don’t have time for that sort of thing. But the first time Brienne of Tarth took off her helmet onscreen and I saw her face, I literally pointed at the screen and said out loud, “that’s me!”

Never in my life have I reacted that way before. Never before, and never since.

Granted, the actress who plays her is a great beauty, but the character of Brienne I latched onto instantly and felt a deep kinship with, especially after reading her story in the books. How as a child she was a girl very much like Sansa, who loved songs and romance and dancing and other girlish things, but the adults around her told her she was too ugly. Her septa told her no one would ever love or want her. She was shamed for wearing dresses and trying to be feminine, was told she was embarassing herself because her body was not womanly enough. She was made to feel like a failure just for existing, for being umarriagable, for causing the end of her house by being so ugly that no one wanted her. But instead of just crumbling and disappearing, Brienne of Tarth took up a sword and decided to make something else of herself. She wanted to help people, she wanted to contribute something to the world, and she decided to find a good lord and serve them as a knight. Brienne is brave and caring and defends the weak and wants to protect the people she loves. Brienne is a hero. She is a hero while not being tiny and delicate and pretty but large, sturdy, and ugly. In that she is completely unique, and completely wonderful.

A lot of old wounds opened up, watching that story and reading A Feast For Crows. Old issues I thought I was over all came back up. I identified powerfully with having your femininity stolen from you because your body is different, with being abused for not being woman enough, and with longing for love in a world that hates you. I remembered being hated, constantly and visciously hated, just for existing. I relived the bone-deep belief that I would spend my entire life alone, because no one would ever want me, a belief that was constantly validated by the actual people around me. I became painfully aware of the sense that I still have to this day of being constantly too big, too loud, too much, that has me slouching and shrinking and taking up less space and whispering timidly and the effect that those things have had on my life and career to this day.

And watching Brienne’s story, I saw how someone can endure the same things I did, and keep trying. Can keep struggling to succeed, and even fall in love. That was the most amazing thing of all, you see. This woman on television who looked like me, she was a love interest! She had her own romantic storyline! I could hardly believe it at first. I watched through my fingers trying to talk myself out of hoping. Because this never happens - an ugly woman, a masculine woman, is never desirable in fiction, never important enough to the story to be a love interest, and never worthy of romance. Yet here it was, it was happening right in front of my eyes.

Her love story with Jaime Lannister was a competely unique thing on television. An ugly woman with a beautiful man. A bond of deep respect and admiration, with undeniable sexual tension. Here were two people who can understand each other because they have both been hated for reasons beyond their control, who sought refuge in honor and knighthood and were loathed for it. Brienne understood how hatred can warp a person, make them someone they never meant to be, just the way she herself had been made to harden and close off to the world. She saw the person that Jaime might have been, if things had gone differently, and the man he could still become. Jaime for his part saw worth in her when everyone around him called her ridiculous, even though she was his enemy. He still knew that she was more deserving than any knight in Westeros, and believed in her when no one else in the world did. He gave her a sword and a quest and even a squire, lost his hand defending her, and he put his own life on the line to save hers.

Jaime openly adored her, looked at her like she was the most wonderful thing in the world, and I have never seen anything like that. A woman who looks like me, being looked at like that. Do you know what that felt like for me? Can you imagine it?

This story meant a lot to me, is what I’m saying. It was healing for me. I believed in that story, and I expected that even if there wouldn’t be a happy ending, at least there would be that respect for the character, and that she would be taken seriously by the narrative and her story would be completed in some fashion.

And then they aired Season 8.

In season 8 we learn that not only did the show never bother to adapt her storylines from the books, where she is slated to face Lady Stoneheart and the Brotherhood Without Banners, they gave her no story in replacement. She has no material impact on the storyline of the show, she simply doesn’t matter in any way. The only major storyline they kept from the books was her romance with Jaime Lannister, and in Season 8 they destroy that story in the cruelest possible way.

After emphasizing that Brienne is an adult virgin, they give her one scene with what we thought was her love interest, where they share one kiss. One. Onscreen within seconds of Brienne being naked Jaime looks dissatisfied and unhappy, and in the same episode, leaves her to go back to his traditionally beautiful ex. Leaves her crying and pleading with him to stay. And then her story ends, except for a brief bookend where she writes an entry in the White Book showing she still loved him, even though he abandoned and betrayed her in the worst way possible.

Right now I’d really like to know if anyone involved with this show ever gave a moment’s thought to what it would be like to watch that happen. After years of patiently waiting to get the love story we were promised for five seasons, instead, to humiliate and punish Brienne for daring to think she deserved love. Did anyone ever consider what that would feel like for women like me? If they did think about it, I hope they enjoyed the hurt they caused me, because the way this story played out felt outright malicious and hateful. They could have given me one tender moment, one declaration of love or affection, just to know what it would look like to see that onscreen for a woman like me. Instead they deliberately withheld that. And then went out of their way to invalidate absolutely everything about the storyline we had been watching, as if it had never happened, as if we had imagined it all, and been foolish to believe in it in the first place.

Yes, I know, it’s only a story, but stories matter. We wouldn’t put nearly the effort and investment into them that we do as a culture if they didn’t. My story has never mattered before, and it meant something to me over the last 8 years that someone was telling it. So was this ending intended as a deliberate slap in my face, or was that collateral damage that the show simply did not care about?

The messages sent by our media are sometimes unintentional, but they are usually given at least some consideration. So I wonder what sort of message was trying to be sent by giving the gender non-comforming woman who dared to open her heart an immediate rejection, and have her then swear to serve a celibate organization for the rest of her life? Giving up her inheritance, her island, her own sworn vows to Sansa, and everything else she cared about? Am I meant to regard this as a happy ending, I wonder? Her feelings and dreams don’t matter, but hey, she has a position in the small council, so Girl Power! Was there a single woman anywhere involved in this production who might have pointed out how awful this is?

I understand that what’s done is done and there’s no fixing this, and complaining about it is pointless. But what I really want, what I wish for, is for somebody to confirm that at least at some point this was a love story, and that for whatever reason, network interference or showrunner decision or whatever it was, it was changed at the last minute. Just tell me that at some point the intent was real. To know that would be helpful. Because right now I feel like a stupid chump for ever believing that anybody wanted a woman like me to have a love story, and you cannot imagine how much that hurts.

#braime #brienne of tarth #jaime x brienne

476 notes · View notes

lastsonlost · 6 years ago

Link

What does Christopher Priest see when he looks at Vampirella?

Loneliness.

And in his new Vampirella ongoing launching July 17, the veteran writer will give Vampi the human connection she craves... before ripping it all away.

Illustrated by Ergun Gunduz, Dynamite's new Vampirella relaunch begins with the alien vampire as the last survivor of a plane crash which took away any friend or acquaintance she had. Now she's here on Earth and all alone. And this isn't a fictional world known to have vampires, witches, warlocks, or werewolves - this is the real world, and you know how real people would take to someone like Vampirella?

... but do you, really?

As Priest tells Newsarama in an email interview, Vampirella's supernatural abilities are "a metaphor for a univeral human condition, for being either rejected or idealized (or, in the case of our series, both) because you are different. Anyone who’s ever moved to a new town or a new school or taken a new job should be able to identify with Vampi’s challenges."

Priest, an ordained Baptist minister (as a reminder to readers, prefers to be addressed as 'Priest'), shared his thoughts with Newsarama on how the prospect of writing Vampirella was first received by him, how it fits within his religious life, and how he's using it to examine humanity.

Newsarama: Priest, what makes Vampirella interesting to you?

Christopher Priest: The fangs. Definitely the fangs.

When DC Comics approached me about writing Deathstroke, I’d really never thought much about the character. It wasn’t a book I’d normally read because I probably wasn’t the audience the book was targeted toward. But it presented an interesting challenge: what new things could I find to say with this character and what unexplored areas of the character were there to develop?

When Dynamite Publisher Nick Barrucci said “Vampirella,” I had nearly the identical reaction. I was, of course, familiar with the character but wasn’t a Vampirella fan, wasn’t the audience for that book, which made me an odd choice. You’ll have to ask Nick why he made it.

My immediate reaction was exactly the same: what new thing could I bring to this property? Where is the untapped potential? That, for me, is the interesting part; craft a Vampirella narrative that broadens the audience for the property while (hopefully) not putting off the hardcore Vampi fans.

Nrama: So what was the answer to that? What is the story?

Priest: I read this Bruce Springsteen Rolling Stone interview a couple decades back (yah... decades...) around "Born In The USA," where Springsteen said something remarkable that’s stuck with me all this time, about how each of us needs community. He said something like, “Without community (by which I presume he meant human attachment and interaction) we’d likely go crazy and kill ourselves.”

Over many interpretations Vampirella has developed many versions of a supporting cast, but she is fundamentally alone, one of few of her race living on Earth. Considering the Boss’s statement, I wasn’t eager to create yet another supporting cast and then echo adventures she’s had before. For better or worse, I wanted my at-bat with the character to be unique and in some ways challenging.

So the thought occurred to give Vampirella that community, that human connection... and then have it all ripped away. Our story arc revolves around a plane crash which effectively terminates many connections Vampi has built while forging new ones.

Nrama: You're setting this in the real world. A real fish out of water scenario, but one you're playing at for deeper cultural issues. What's a woman like Vampirella likely to face here on Earth?

Priest: With all due respect for the legion of much better writers who’ve handled the character, as I mentioned, I probably was not the audience for this book. Vampirella was created with a satirical flair and Vampi herself was in on the joke; not quite breaking the fourth wall but offering up a knowing come-hither smile. She’s existed in a reality that routinely and, for me, far too benignly, accepts the supernatural as fact.

Here in the real world, vampires are merely a thing of myth and the reality of hyperfactual supernatural events are subject to the interpretation of the particular tribe one belongs to. It bothers me that, in 2019, DC and Marvel universes are still mostly portrayed in an idealized hyper-reality where the average man on the street simply accepts superheroes as fact and, in fact, refers to them literally as “heroes” or “villains,” which is absurd. There’s no news anchor in the world who would start a broadcast piece with, “Arch-villain Saddam Hussein...” even though that description would be apt.

The world our Vampirella series takes place in doesn’t believe in vampires. Or witches or warlocks or werewolves. This world seeks rational scientific explanation for paranormal phenomena which it greets with enormous skepticism.

Which isn’t to suggest no one will believe Vampirella exists but that that acceptance is not as matter of fact as it seems to be in most of this genre.

In terms of what she’s facing, her number one enemy is loneliness. I am, hopefully, writing a woman first, a story about a woman who loves and wants to be loved but whose circumstances are complicated by the fact she has fangs and drinks blood. The supernatural attributes are a metaphor for a universal human condition, for being either rejected or idealized (or, in the case of our series, both) because you are different. Anyone who’s ever moved to a new town or a new school or taken a new job should be able to identify with Vampi’s challenges.

Anyone who wears their hair a different way, listens to a different kind of music, embraces a different religion, anyone who steps outside of or gets shoved outside of the so-called “mainstream” can identify with our take on Vampirella. I hope it is precisely this universality of theme that helps broaden her audience; the Vampi tent is large enough for everyone.

Nrama: Someone walking around in that Trina Robbins-designed costume is bound to get some headturns. If I know you as much as I think I do, you're going to tackle that head on, right? How are you getting into the subject of the costume?

Priest: Well, yes, we will have a go at it. The basic argument is simple: where do you draw the line between women’s liberation and women’s exploitation, and who gets to draw it? Who gets to define femininity and why should an extraterrestrial have to submit to that definition?

It’s like the world woke up in the last few years and realized we actually have two genders and both of them matter.

So we now have heightened scrutiny of themes and behaviors and that poor bastard Joe Biden gets caught up in the switches. I’ll confess, I’m terrified of women because I’m a Joe Biden. I was taught to pay a lady a compliment and open doors and I want to be friendly and accessible but I’m absolutely terrified of having my good intentions taken in a bizarrely paranoid light.

It is comical to me that I am far too often seen as creepy by women - especially black women - because they have been conditioned by their personal experience and their media consumption to misinterpret a simple "Hello." These days I cannot pay a woman a complement without a legal preamble and assurances that, no, I am not hitting on you and even then I get the skunk eye of suspicion.

Which is a little insulting because this “guilty until proven innocent” defensive posture presumes I am other people or that the bar is set so low for me that I’ll jump into bed with just anybody I happen to meet. It’s like we’ve just gone too far now to the point where women are not just being protected but being alienated to some extent because I have no earthly clue how to deal with them and I’m frankly scared to shake their hand.

So, is Vampirella’s wardrobe choice sexist? I don’t know. Vampirella obviously doesn’t think so. As I see her, she comes from a culture much like Star Trek’s Betazed, where people wear little or nothing at all. If anything, Vampi wonders why we humans choose to smother ourselves in so much fabric and why we’re all so bound by self-loathing.

There are hundreds of women who enjoy cosplaying as Vampirella, and maybe hundreds of thousands offended by the character. How do we reconcile all of that for the 21st century?

The one thing I won’t do is cover her up. I accepted the gig: write Vampirella. If you change the outfit, she’s no longer Vampirella. Frankly, her costume is the only thing about her (well, okay, that and her pansexuality) that makes her at all shocking or controversial.

My goal, and the readers will have to let us know if we’re passing or failing, is to make this a book as much about femininity as about bloodsucking. The storyline is driven by women, mostly populated by women, of all shapes and sizes and ethnicities, and most of them dress as sexy as they dare. The singer/rapper Lizzo is a terrific example of this. Is her blatant sexuality liberating or is she being exploited? How about Beyoncé? Do we put Vampi in a raincoat but cheer Bey on?

See what I mean? I’m screwed either way.

Nrama: So Priest - Vampirella's here on Earth. What would you do if you found yourself, I don't know, sharing a cab with Vampi?

Priest: I’d ask the driver to pull over and let me out. I’m a Christian, so I have these issues with all of that “fornicating in your mind” stuff. I don’t live a perfect life but I try to avoid cluttering up my conscience. Among the things the printed page cannot convey is the amazing, intoxicating glow and, yes, smell of a woman.

All women are beautiful, from 8 to 80, regardless of weight, height, or nationality. I wouldn’t share a cab with a woman as under-dressed as Vampi, which sounds hypocritical because I’m writing her. But I write Deathstroke, too, and wouldn’t share a cab with him, either.

Nrama: On the flip side of this, Vampirella's stranded on Earth. What's going through her mind in all of this?

Priest: How stupid and primitive we are. It’s not arrogance. I believe any visitor from another world would surf the net for a few hours and come away shaking their heads. I watched an episode of Little Miss Atlanta yesterday. Jesus. We’re just idiots. The moms fighting and bickering and cursing - cursing - in front of these little girls, berating the little girls. This sickening child abuse... That's entertainment?

I have Christian friends who will criticize me for writing Vampi but they watch that crap.

Nrama: This comes over a decade after your previous stint with Vampirella - Harris Publishing's Vampirella Revelations with artist Eric Battle. That run had some issues, but you're back here again. What makes is something you want to return to?

Priest: *scratches head* Really? I did a run...? I remember doing a silent issue... and vaguely remember doing something with Eric, a good bud. But that was way back. I really hadn’t considered this a “return.” I just pivoted and stared into Barrucci’s hypnotic vampire eyes and ran dozens of scenarios through my feeble brain, coming to one conclusion: this would be an interesting experiment, a writer’s challenge. Writers love challenges.

Nrama: Big picture, what are your goals with this ongoing?

Priest: To not have the women of America torch my house. This run will be as different a take on Vampi as any that have come before.

Which is not to say “better;” “better” is subjective. I’m sure a great many Vampi fans will hate what we’re up to. Maybe they’ll come along, maybe I’ll get fired. If I wasn’t nervous about it, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

Editor's Note: The above interview was conducted via email eariler this week, and we received all of Mr. Priest's responses along with all our original questions. Newsarama asked Priest if he would respond to follow-up questions Friday by email. He agreed and those questions and answers follow.

Nrama: Priest, our original questions to you were about the Vampirella comic book and our role is to talk about that and not audit your personal life, but your responses appear to be hyper aware of a social climate you seem to lament in terms of relationships between genders and conduct towards one another.

Priest: I lament the social climate in general, on all levels. I lament our lack of civility and lack of empathy, lack of patience and understanding. I hate the way we assassinate one another with our thumbs, all this hostility in social and other media. It's not just gender issues.

Nrama: Yet empathizing with Joe Biden without citing the actual specific behavior he’s under scrutiny for, stating things like "the amazing, intoxicating glow and, yes, smell of a woman" and by offering you’re “often seen as creepy by women,” it seems like intentionally inviting the sort of reaction/assumptions you state you’re “afraid” of and inviting the same scrutiny Biden is under.

Was this was your intent and are you prepared for pushback to your words and questions to be asked?

Priest: Wow, there's a lot to unpack, there. But let's start by saying I seriously doubt anyone reading this is NOT aware of the Biden issue to which I am referring.

I come neither to defend Biden nor to bury him, so I think you're probably taking my "poor" Joe reference a bit too seriously. I wasn't trying to litigate Biden, only to make a point about how hyper-sensitive and overly politicized our nation is and how this will impact Vampirella in her series.

Assembling disparate quotes to paint me as some kind of deviant makes that point for me. I stand by my statements. "...the amazing, intoxicating glow and, yes, smell of a woman..."

is something difficult if not impossible to convey in literature (which was my point), but your question was about me sitting in a taxi with a near-naked woman and I answered that honestly.

And my point was relevant to understanding the challenges and conflicts Vampirella will face in this series.

This is the environment Vampirella finds herself in, people misinterpreting her actions, words, and motives. This is why I mentioned it, to place the work we are doing with Vampirella into context.

Were a person like Vampi walking around in our world (or riding in a taxi with me), she would be misinterpreted, and every word she says would be drilled into looking for the worst possible interpretation of it. I can't help but wonder why anyone anywhere speaks publicly because no words spoken by anyone can withstand this level of ridiculous scrutiny.

Nrama: In another response you state “It’s like the world woke up in the last few years and realized we actually have two genders and both of them matter”. While not assuming your intent one way or another, it seems it to overlook genders outside the male/female paradigm. Can you speak to that?

Priest: Gender: noun

1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. "a condition that affects people of both genders"

I wrote an ecumenical commentary in support of gender and and LGBTQ issues, Chris. I invite everyone to read it.

It was a simple interview. I was promoting a comic book and, as a really busy writer, I was typing really fast and speaking honestly while engaging with you. What I won’t do, not even for my own safety, is censor myself or try and anticipate every horrible way someone might choose to misinterpret something I've written or said.

If anything, that just makes my point for me about how free speech is being compromised. It's a tough environment to publish comic books in because every publisher is terrified by the spectrum of extreme possible reactions from an increasingly intolerant environment where everybody's playing "gotcha" and looking for the worst possible and most extremely negative interpretations of everything.

The whole point of free speech is my duty to defend others' rights to have it, not to shout them down or demonize them.

#Christopher Priest #vampirella #comics

10 notes · View notes

calleo-bricriu · 5 years ago

Text

Don’t ask why I keep subjecting myself to this, because I don’t have a good answer.

More of this awful book.

Skimmed the rest of chapter 13. Nothing terribly interesting, Mizpra being all excited for her mother possibly having a stroke when the train's altitude changes, talk about how weak and pitiful Burke is (and, for some reason, to keep him from "catching cold" she makes him strip and wrap up in two wool blankets which seems like it'd be incredibly itchy), Mizpra tries to hasten the whole "give mom a stroke" thing by getting her mother day drunk.

A lot of references to alcohol being a stimulant again which, no.

Burke shows a little concern for Mizpra keeping her mother drunk and outside on an observation platform all damn day, so she tells him to go back inside and stop bothering them.

Wasn't at all concerned that her mother's face was turning blue because that's a normal thing I guess, shakes her mother awake, and of course her mother has the sroke and now she's just, "Oh shi--wait a minute, I didn't consider what might happen if the stroke kills her!" Not the best planning, Mizpra.

So she starts drinking and talking at her possibly dying mother about how she's going to ruin Obera's life.

And, like every poorly written villain in fiction, she says something ridiculous to herself: "Hell hath no horror; Heaven hath no hope."

At this point, I'd agree with her, only just in regards to this book.

Chapter 14 and we're back to Leigh.

Rev. Bald, we find out, knows a lot about alcohol and doesn't like his collar or waistcoat.

Finds out in a letter from Mizpra that he'll get paid once she's got proof of her brother's life being in shambles again.

For the time, five thousand per year as long as Leigh is in prison isn't all that bad; he really needs to step his game up because so far all he's done is invite the guy to hang out once, got shut down by Obera, and left.

"[...] literally poured the liquor down his throat," yeah, that's how drinking works.

He goes off for a good eight or so pages about how it's no crime to be poor out of absolutely nowhere. I mean, he's not wrong but why is he talking about it to the walls of his library?

Oh look, Leigh came to visit under false pretenses and seems to suspect that's the case but decided not to worry his on vacation wife and did exactly what he told her he wouldn't: Hang out with Rev. Bald.

Because he's a genius, he suspects Rev. Bald is being paid off by Mizpra to fuck up their lives and also thinks he'd sell her out if he was ever discovered. At this point you know damn well Leigh is basically the author because there's no reason at all Leigh would even HAVE that suspicion unless he'd been reading along with the rest of us.

Anyway, he got lured out there under the pretense of seeing or looking at some case of a morphine addict who isn't actually there.

So, because Leigh is a genius and understands everything, including more than most of those who study theology, Rev Bald pretty much plays right into that and says vague, sort of wrong-ish things just so Leigh the Genius will be compelled to correct him at length to, you know, remind everyone that he's a genius and better that everyone at everything.

Because he's a genius and you're not.

And Leigh sits there picking apart religion which might have been interesting if he weren't just sort of repeating himself with more and more pretentious wording.

"Do you know of any religion that has really made man better?" is a perfectly reasonable rhetorical question, at least.

Ah, and Leigh is into Darwin.

But, hey, Rev. Bald tricked Leigh into going out with him. I mean, Leigh would probably just say he's playing along but, you know...

They end up going to a dodgy district where everyone still somehow remembers Leigh from his drinking days. Probably should have picked a different neighborhood, Rev. Bald. It's like you didn't even research your mark.

We find out Leigh doesn't want to go to the first bar because he legit spent an entire week there without bathing or eating or sleeping just drinking and, I have to be honest, if I'd done something like that and was sure the people there would remember me, I probably wouldn't want to go back there either.

They end up in a bar and Leigh is, so far, being good and not drinking and has decided that Rev. Bald was going to be HIS victim--not sure what kind of victim, probably just to out him as working for Mizpra.

Oh hey, it's not just a bar, it's a brothel! Or, as Leigh's narrative describes it, a "dark, opprobrious den of crime and shame." Turns out he doesn't like makeup either, especially red lipstick because, as we all know, only whores wear that.

And now he's remembering some murder scene in the same place because not only is he a doctor, author, scholar, philosopher, and Merlin knows what else, he's ALSO a detective I guess!

I have to admit the memory of one of the workers at the place punching an actual, been there long enough to be bloated corpse because when you do that it makes apparently amusing sounds for the crowd of other people there who also found this amusing was, in and of itself, so absurd it made me laugh.

I'm sure it was meant to be horrifying but you can't read something like, "Over the prostrate victim bent the diseased-eaten harridan. She was amusing her companions by punching the inflated tissues, laughing and shrieking at the crackling, whistling effect it produced, while the dank denizens of the place gave vent to their pleasure by libidinous expressions and Paphian oaths," and NOT laugh.

Also the author is trying to tell us that, when he went to pull the punchy prostitute away from the corpse, her wig came off and her brain was straight up exposed through her "rotting skull".

For a fucking doctor you'd think he'd know that there is no actual way she'd be alive so unless he hallucinated this zombie prostitute...

So he thinks he's being taken to see the morphine addict and, of course, it's just a prostitute. She might also be a morphine addict but not the one Rev. Bald was describing as near death.

"Various odors in the room seemed to run in strata, as each step brought visitors to a different zone of pungent, offensive odors."

What are they?

Cigarettes, beer, lobster somehow, butter, cheap perfume.

I've been in worse rooms.

So she apparently IS the morphine addict he was talking about earlier, not like Leigh believes it, and Rev. Bald is going to just go ahead and leave the good doctor alone with her.

Leigh's first, uh, method of examination is to lift her arm, stroke her armpit, then drop her and move closer to the light to...look at his fingers. What the hell?

She was cool with it the first time but when he did it again she kind of freaked out which is perfectly understandable.

So there was a guy hiding in the curtains that was meant to jump Leigh but, Leigh being Leigh and good at everything, noticed him first and gave him a one punch knock out because Leigh is just that awesome.

And somehow Leigh, Rev. Bald, the woman, and the unconscious man are all locked in this nasty little room, the woman is going to apparently beat the hell out of Bald and broke a bottle over his head then, satisfied with that, shouts over to Leigh to continue beating the hell out of Rev. Bald because he'd set up the other guy to jump him.

Probably not a good idea to take Leigh to a brothel where everyone knew him.

She keeps smacking Bald in the head with a glass bottle and finally Leigh stops her before, y'know, she kills him. His reasoning for that was that killing him would be inconvenient for everyone which is fair enough.

Short conversation of, "Well if either one of them is dead we're both screwed, let's clean up the blood and I'll go get a police officer or whatever."

He comes back and--she's tried to redo her makeup to get back to work but there's this line about her hiding her powder puff: "[...] which she quickly hid in the bosom of her waist"--I don't think I want to know where she put that powder puff but I really hope she washes it before using it on her face again.

The lady then starts lecturing the mostly not conscious guy on the floor of her room about how it's his fault she's a prostitute somehow; based on how she's talking about money, sounds like she's one of his girls.

And that's it for chapter 15.

Chapter 16 is some flashback from the brothel woman about how she met Leigh; of course, since he's a genius doctor he offered, for free, to give her "deformed and useless" child whatever operation it is he needed. It's never specified, just that the kid is "deformed".

Also a lot of references to "dirty Poles" because it's gross to have to listen to Polish in an emergency room I guess.

Anyway, he's like The Saint Doctor who gives free medical care to everyone because he's a genius (of course) and none of the other doctors understand him. Also, he was just paying for everyone's medical care out of pocket because at some point, through one of the time skips, he went from jobless drunk to highly esteemed and rich author, lecturer, doctor, and scholar.

Getting really tired of Leigh.

She gets jolted out of her daydream when the train stops.She asks the "kindly old Irishman" who was cleaning up the station if she could hang out, he figures she's sober, so he says she can and she goes back to daydreaming about Leigh.

Whatever was wrong with her "deformed" kid was fixed and he's apparently recovered and Leigh arranged for the kid to be basically put in a foster home at some farm because that was apparently legal at one point, to just--give other peoples kids to someone else with no oversight.

Her name is May, we find out two chapters fucking late.

And she was somehow the thing that got him to clean his act up because that's how addiction works.

Now she's not daydreaming anymore because the train is about to arrive.

Chapter 17 is more of the same of these two catching up and talking about Rev. Bald being kind of a dick.

Also, who talks like this? "In his presence the finer feelings of her sex were aroused, her self-respect was active; and he knew it."

REALLY tired of Leigh now.

Basically, between really awkward sort of flirting we find out what anyone reading figured out several chapters ago: Mizpra is a terrible planner when it comes to remotely murdering people and Rev. Bald is proof of that because he basically fucked it up the first night.

And now he's going to go introduce his prostitute friend to Mops.

I feel like that's something he should have discussed with Obera first?

Ah yes, back to "masculine voiced women" who are, of course, matrons at some kind of--I don't even know what at this point, and I don't really care but of course, the women the author wants to have us view as bad are always mascluline in some way and are occasionally also fat and clumsy.

Like he's got any room to talk. I've seen photographs.

Oh of course, a religious boarding house for children of prostitutes where the manly, fat, clumsy women routinely berate the children.

In fairness, places like that did exist until fairly recently so I'm okay with the author kind of dragging them.

Ah, yes, Obera, gone from child-like and saucy to, "[...] radiantly beautiful, and in that full activity of healthy womanhood, which only true love and motherhood can develop."

Anyway, she starts begging Leigh to just straight up murder Mizpra, has a crying fit, then falls asleep and he starts waxing poetic about how her tiny little woman brain can't fully understand the situation.

Of course, Obera doesn't want the prostitute to see Mops because she's a "horrid, bad woman".

And that's it for chapter 17.

#this is the worst #books #antique books #I mean at least de sade got straight to the point of boring people by seeing how edgy he could be #this has been 17 chapters of nothing

1 note · View note

mittensmorgul · 6 years ago

Note

do you think it's open to interpretation whether dean and cas are in love with each other? Like is it just as valid an interpretation to say they're not? Whenever anyone calls destiel "one interpretation" or whatever, my hackles rise. And I know I'm overly sensitive about this stuff, being a gay and whatnot, but I mean, is it? Am I just insecure because my otp isn't canon, or is destiel really more valid than other readings or what? What do you think?

Hi there. :)

I’m gonna give you the diplomatic, academic answer, and then I’m gonna give you the grumpy-ass queer lady answer. Hold on to your horses. :)

Polite answer:

All media is open to interpretation. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all interpretations are equally valid, or equally supported by canon, especially when taken in context of the entire body of the work in question.

For example, I replied to a post the other day about 13.17, and that scene where Dean and Sam are-- on first glance-- rather disrespectful of the extremely rare and valuable books in the bunker... but in context of the rest of the episode and the rest of the season, that montage wasn’t about disrespecting those books at all. It had less than nothing to do with the books themselves as objects or as sources of knowledge that should be properly cared for and respected. But out of context it kinda looks that way. So, based on that one short gif set, it might seem like a perfectly legitimate interpretation to suggest that Sam and Dean were careless with the immense knowledge and invaluable books they’ve found themselves in possession of. But in the larger context of their entire history, of all their interactions with the bunker and the untold store of knowledge it holds, and with the context of the specific reasons for their frustration in that particular scene, it seems obvious that there’s a lot more to the story, you know?

You could technically argue just about any weird headcanon can be supported by canon. I wrote this weird little post right after 12.11 aired, and it sat in my drafts for a good long time before I finally posted it. But there’s nothing in canon that legit quashes the possibility that endgame fish!Cas is where the story’s been headed all along. He’s positively swimming in fish metaphors. (sorry, I couldn’t resist) Does that abundance of fish, fishing imagery, and water imagery that have surrounded Cas for years lend itself to a literal interpretation? I mean, it’s definitely AN interpretation that is there if you want to see it, and if in your heart of hearts you believe it’s legitimately what the storytelling is attempting to convey here. But does that make it a valid interpretation that deserves serious consideration? Does it truly make sense when taking the larger story around Cas as a whole? Or is it obviously a literary theme that we’re supposed to consider through the themes traditionally associated with fish and fishing as used in countless other fictional works of the past? I suppose that sort of interpretation has been left open for us to take or leave as we see fit. It invites us to examine those references more closely, to help us understand Cas as a character and the journey his personal character arc is taking him through. It gives his experiences and growth a depth of context that is there to explore if we so choose.

(for more on Cas vs Fish, please see my tags regarding “The Fisher King.” I like to think there’s a more well-reasoned and logical line of thinking for pinning so much fish to Cas than my cracky example of fish!Cas would suggest.)

Now, looking at destiel specifically, if you take any single moment out of context, it’s absolutely possible to make an interpretation that their relationship is clearly more “brotherly,” or clearly more “familial,” or clearly one of “very close friends.” But it requires the same removal from the larger context to explain away what taken with the entirety of their history begins to look entirely undeniable.

I suppose, since Supernatural is an open canon and the story hasn’t been fully told yet, that it’s possible the writers could change course with the storytelling. It’s possible that something might prevent them from taking Dean and Cas and their story to the conclusion they’ve been building to for the last ten years. They could decide to leave this particular “interpretation” open-ended and unresolved.

Since that is always a possibility, and because I’m not psychic, nor do I have any top secret inside information from the writers and showrunners, I can’t say that my particular interpretation is more valid or correct or likely than anyone else’s. But I have yet to come up against a credible, coherent explanation for the entire body of extant canon that invalidates my particular interpretation, either.

The vast majority of arguments against boil down to logical fallacies-- cherry-picking scenes out of context as “proof,” straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Because of this, I’m content to wait for canon to play out. I’ll happily watch the rest of the story unfold, and happily continue to interpret what I’m witnessing as a whole instead of attempting to dissect it out and explain away what I see as an entirely logical progression of storytelling.

As an aside here, I find it entirely fascinating that one of the most common complaints I read from people who deny Dean and Cas are in love is that the writing has become progressively more terrible, that the story of Supernatural as a whole makes less and less sense, and that the characters are behaving in increasingly “out of character” ways. And as someone in possession of rational capabilities, I wonder if their disconnect from the storytelling is simply their refusal to see and accept that perhaps their “interpretation” of the story is just... not correct.

When we attempt to deny or rationalize away certain interpretations of characterization, or certain progressions of events and how they relate to one another, the larger narrative just falls apart, you know? Of course it doesn’t make sense if you exclude large portions of it because you don’t want to see it or believe it’s happening, or important to the story.

Meanwhile, I’m over here loving every minute of it (okay... most minutes of it). So even if my interpretation isn’t absolutely 100% “correct” (and really, with any media, there’s always different ways to interpret everything, from what the color of the curtains might imply to who’s gonna get to fire Chekhov’s Gun in the third act), I’m content to continue to interpret it in a way that not only makes me personally happiest, but in a way that makes the story itself seem both logical and entertaining, as well.

Okay, that’s the end of the rational portion of this essay. Now on to the angry queer lady portion:

There’s more canon evidence for Dean and Cas being in love, or at the very least caring for one another to ridiculous, rather mind-numbing degrees, than there is for practically every canon heterosexual couple on television in the last fifty years. Think of any slow burn, will they-won’t they hetero couple, and do the point-by-point checklist of all the tropes they burned through before they got to the love declarations and the kissing and the happily ever afters (or worse, the dramatic breaking up and getting back together, or even worse, the tragically breaking up forever). I challenge anyone to name one hetero-presenting couple who required as many love tropes for audiences to recognize and acknowledge they were in love. Yeah, I’m thinking of that whole “they shared a pencil” post.

So yeah, there is likely a measure of heteronormativity to it, and a lot of the arguments against also devolve into rather gross denouncements that there’s no way Dean’s not straight, because he said so that one time... Mr. “I lie professionally” who also never actually said he was straight... gah... I’m not gonna dig up every ancient meta post on the subject. If anyone is legitimately interested in understanding why making those same tired arguments just doesn’t have any legitimacy in a reasoned discussion, they can damn well do their own digging. It’s not like any of the evidence is difficult to uncover, and it’s not my job to spoon feed it to every naysayer myself.

I feel like I’m standing on a Mt. Everest size pile of rational, reasonable, well-argued analysis supporting the claim that Dean and Cas are in love. *stands back and points at my whole entire blog again* If anyone would like to come back at me with something even remotely worth my time and attention to persuade me to alter my interpretation, I suggest they get busy. I’ll just be up here on top of my mountain enjoying the clean, destiel-scented air up here.

And finally, who says it’s not canon? Ah, right. Moving goalposts. At this point, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that Dean and Cas don’t love one another. And profoundly, at that. I mean, you don’t give up an army for one guy if you don’t at least like him a lil bit. You don’t shout down God begging him to bring back that dude you’re kinda buddies with, or sink into a suicidal funk that reverses completely within minutes of finding out said buddy’s alive again. You don’t offer to march to your death with your chum because he’s such a nice guy and all. I mean... honestly. How far in denial does someone have to be to suggest they don’t love each other? At this point, when comparing Sam and Dean’s reactions far into s13 to Cas’s death in 12.23, either you accept that Dean has much stronger and far different feelings about the loss of someone that Sam does love and considers a brother, or else you kinda have to assume that Sam’s just kind of a dick for not being as broken up about Cas’s death as Dean is. So... which interpretation do you think is the one they’re trying to convey?

Bleh, whatever. I await the inevitable inbox full of nastiness that I will cheerfully delete while judging every anon who sends it as someone who really should find a better hobby than antagonizing strangers on the internet over a work of fiction.

Anon, basically, don’t let the bastards grind you down, okay?

Now for some reason I feel like listening to Achtung Baby. Imma go do that and feel the love.

#destiel #the scheherazade of supernatural #btw for anyone who still feels the need to antagonize destiel shippers #that tag would be the one for you to find a lot of that content you'll need to actually address in order for anyone to take you seriously #Anonymous

156 notes · View notes

the-ghost-of-jason-todd · 6 years ago

Text

...i’m still thinking about the anti-horikoshi pride flag callout post i saw earlier forgive me

like i just... he’s one man. one man who has given us an ensemble cast of complex characters, recurring side characters with awesome designs and good side-arcs, TWO trans characters, excellent pacing and storytelling, AMAZING art, like 200 chapters (more?? i can’t find a count) of gorgeous manga art, direction for a movie, (presumably) guidance for the anime, extra drawings for fun on social media, and yet... there are still people... who want to drag him to hell for every little thing that could possibly be construed as problematic?

like the endeavor arc--whooo the endeavor arc. because you can’t write about morally grey characters. obviously. that’s a no-no. endeavor isn’t allowed to be a complex character despite the fact that he was written that way from the very beginning. fluctuations? in morality? what are those?? as if everyone commenting on the arc walked straight outta the womb with the ten commandments chiseled into their skulls, as if people don’t live and learn things every day, as if these sort of stories don’t actually exist. pfff. you can’t use abuse survivors as something to leverage over horikoshi in order to get him to do what you, personally, want. abuse survivors aren’t a monolith, not a unified front either, because the very nature of trauma and abuse is an individualized experience. what triggers one person may not trigger another, and every survivor’s relationship with their abuser looks different. SITUATIONS ARE COMPLEX. PEOPLE ARE COMPLEX. it’s so frustrating to watch all these conversations happen as if we can condense millions of varied experiences into one singular True And Correct narrative to follow in our fiction like--NO. IT DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT.

what else has horikoshi done? besides provide awe-inspiring amounts of story for us to consume? well he drew the 1-A girls in bikinis and posted it to twitter once and got torn apart for it like

come on? oversexualization is a thing but i’ve SEEN the art and what’s more important than the titillating outfits is 1) the fact that they’re not really sexy-posing and 2) the fact that kaminari and mineta are hanging out in the corner ogling, which says more about the male gaze than it does about teenage girls. as far as fanservice goes, it’s a kind of underrated approach, if you ask me. it’s subtle but i find that it’s a commentary on how the male gaze turns the everyday lives of girls into sexual fantasies, even when the girls just want to exist.

maybe i’m reading too much into that, but for real, bnha doesn’t panty shot, it has not-awful boob physics, and compared to a lot of other manga/anime... i really don’t have a problem with how it treats women. seriously, how much anime/manga has such diverse character design for the girls? not very much. a lot of it has cookie cutter girl designs with copy paste personalities. and, more importantly, the heroes live in a world where they have to capitalize on everything and sell versions of themselves in order to keep their rankings and make money.

midnight and her bdsm thing? mt. lady posing seductively at her debut fight? it’s all about how women have to sell their bodies in order to make it in a world that incentivizes saving people, which is, haha, INCREDIBLY similar to our world. all might also has moments where his Big Buff persona uses sex appeal, though if you look closely, he’s also played for the male gaze--he’s a symbol of virility and strength, compared to mt. lady who plays passive and meek in public to get what she wants. these are in-universe, in-character ways that horikoshi shows us how screwed up their society is without having to spell it out for us, though he does literally spell it out at key points as well (sometimes using the villains as mouthpieces, which is fun to analyze because he’s so good at making relatable villains whose causes would be noble in another universe).

now compare this to mineta. mineta is young, he’s still learning/growing, and he gets what he deserves--by which i mean he’s rewarded for doing actual good and punished for being pervy. it may be played up for laughs but hell, so is a lot of the violence and somehow that never comes up when we’re talking about realism and anime. just like with bakugou, the teachers are trying to guide him in a better direction, which also is a huge theme in the story--to treat faults and flaws as room for growth and to see the good in people. midoriya’s main arc is how he’s learning that the chasm between hero and villain isn’t so wide--that, in fact, it barely exists at all. there are good people doing bad things and bad people doing good things and sometimes people have good intentions as they’re committing acts of great evil. the whole point of the story is that people are complex, that they’re a product of the society they live in, and to show the sacrifice you have to make in order to make a difference.

i didn’t mean to turn this into an essay, but... it disgusts me that after reading the same story i read people are calling for horikoshi to die? and i mean, MOVING ON from the fact that for some reason they’re making pride flags about it as if it’s something to be proud of, because i can’t fathom that part and i don’t want to think about it--i just find it so tone-deaf that all these people, people who are usually anti-capitalism all the way, are willing to consume a story commenting on the problems caused by capitalism... only to turn around and tear it apart because it’s not 100% perfect?

like, EVEN IF horikoshi handles endeavor’s arc badly. EVEN IF it reeks of apologism... horikoshi is still a living breathing human being? and todoroki is not. bottom line. horikoshi will not have suddenly brought harm upon another human person because these characters are FICTIONAL, any actual harm that comes out of it is NOT HIS DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY aka if abusers use this to justify abuse that’s STILL the responsibility of these bad fictive people*, and calling for him to atone for one mishandled arc with death is mmmmmm what i would probably call maladjusted. we don’t kill authors in civil society. every time an author is put to death for what they’ve written we consider it a tragedy and then display their books loud and proud on banned books day. like... fascists are the kinds of people who kill off dissenting opinions.

i’m just saying. there are better ways to handle harmful media. you can use word-of-mouth notification systems to tell your friends what to watch out for when reading endeavor’s character arc without also adding the addendum that horikoshi deserves to be shot like a rabid dog--like, you can acknowledge that a piece of media isn’t perfect without falling into the black hole of moral perfectionism.

*i mean maybe they exist, probably do somewhere, but every time i see the argument it’s some undefined accusation that SOMEONE out there SOMEWHERE is doing X EVIL DEED and you need to be CONCERNED ABOUT IT. that’s fearmongering. no human being on this earth can control the actions of every other human being that touches their nebulous web of influence. life is a butterfly effect and people are unpredictable. it’s stressful to try and uphold an impeccable standard of conduct, especially when no one really knows whether writing a redemption arc for an abusive father with superpowers in a semi-popular futuristic sci-fi manga in this day and age and in our current political climate will help or hinder more people. like, honestly. can you give me an answer to that? can you really?

93 notes · View notes

writeallofthethings · 5 years ago

Link

How to Write Dialogue That Captivates Your Reader

If your writing bores you, it’ll put your reader to sleep.

And unfortunately, your first reader will be an agent or an editor.

Your job is to make every word count—the only way to keep your reader riveted until the end, no small task.

Riveting dialogue is your friend because it can accomplish so many things:

It breaks up narrative summary.

It differentiates characters (through dialect and word choice).

It moves the story, showing without telling.

But writing dialogue well is not easy. If yours is bloated or obvious or telling, readers won’t stay with you long.

How to Write Effective Dialogue in 6 Steps

Cut to the Bone

Reveal Backstory

Reveal Character

Be Subtle

Read Your Dialogue Out Loud

Create a “Make My Day” Moment

Step 1. Cut to the Bone

Unless you’re including them to reveal a character as a brainiac or a blowhard, omit needless words.

Obviously, you wouldn’t render a conversation the way a court transcript includes repetition and even um, ah, uh, etc.

See how much you can chop while virtually communicating the same point. It’s more the way real people talk anyway.

Like this:

“What do you want to do this Sunday? I thought wWe could go to the amusement park.”

“I was thinking about renting a rowboat,” Vladimir said. “On one of the lakes.”

“Oh, Vladimir, that sounds wonderful! I’ve never gone rowing before.”

That doesn’t mean all your dialogue has to be choppy—just cut the dead wood.

You’ll be surprised by how much power it adds.

Step 2. Reveal Backstory

Layering in backstory via dialogue helps keep your reader engaged.

Hinting at some incident introduces a setup that demands a payoff.

As they headed toward the house, Janet whispered, “Can we not bring up Cincinnati?”

Maggie shot her a double take. “Believe me, I don’t want that any more than you do.”

“Good,” Janet said. “I mean—”

“Can we not talk about it, please?”

What normal reader wouldn’t assume they will talk about it and stay with the story until they do?

As the story progresses, reveal more and more about your protagonist’s past.

This both offers setups that should engage your reader, and it allows you to avoid relying on cliched flashbacks.

Step 3. Reveal Character

Your reader learns a lot about your characters through dialogue.

You don’t have to TELL us they’re sarcastic, witty, narcissistic, kind, or anything else.

You can SHOW us by how they interact and by what they say.

Step 4. Be Subtle

Dialogue offers a number of ways to powerfully understate things.

Here are three:

1. Subtext—where people say other than what they mean.

Cindy falls in love with the slightly older boy next door, who sees her as just a little sister type.

When she gets to high school, Tommy is already captain of the football team, dating the head cheerleader, and largely ignoring Cindy.

Tommy leaves for college and word soon gets back to Cindy during her senior year of high school that he and his girlfriend have broken up.

So when he comes home after his freshman year of college and is changing a tire on his car, Cindy just happens to walk outside. She strikes up a conversation with Tommy, and he looks up, stunned. Who is this beauty—little Cindy from next door?

She says, “Making a change, are you?”

Tommy looks at the tire and back at her and says, “Yeah, I actually am making a change.”

Cindy says, “Well, I’ve heard that rotating can be a good thing.”

And he says, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”

That’s subtext. They’re not saying what they really mean. They’re not really talking about changing the tire, are they?

2. Sidestepping—when a character responds to a question by ignoring it.

Instead, he offers a whole new perspective.

In the movie Patch Adams, the late Robin Williams played a brilliant young doctor who believes the Old Testament adage that “laughter is the best medicine.”

In the children’s cancer ward he wears an inflated surgical glove on his head, making him look like a rooster. He wears bedpans for shoes and stomps about, flapping his arms and squawking.

The children find it hilarious, but hospital directors consider it undignified and demand he stop.

Patch is trying to make one girl in particular—a hospital volunteer—laugh. But while everyone else thinks he’s funny, she never cracks a smile.

Finally, Patch leaves the hospital to open a clinic in the country. Imagine his surprise when that humorless young lady appears to help him set up.

At one point, she goes outside to rest, so Patch follows and sits opposite her. He says, “I’ve got to ask. Everybody thinks I’m hysterical, but you. I’ve tried everything. Why don’t you ever think anything I say is funny?”

After several seconds, she says, “Men have liked me all my life…all my life…” And we realize by the way she says it, she was abused as a child.

Suddenly, we understand what this girl is all about. She doesn’t trust men, and she doesn’t laugh, because life isn’t funny.

She had not really answered his question. Her problem had nothing to do with him or his humor.

Finally, Patch realizes that some things aren’t funny. Some things you just don’t make fun of.

It’s a great turnaround in the story. And an example of sidestep dialogue.

3. Silence

Silence truly can be golden.

Many, including Abraham Lincoln, have been credited with the line: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

One of the toughest things to learn as a writer is to avoid filling silent gaps.

Just like we shouldn’t tell what’s not happening in a story, neither do we need to write that someone didn’t respond or didn’t answer.

If you don’t say they did, the reader will know they didn’t.

“Well, John,” Linda said, “what do you have to say for yourself?”

John set his jaw and stared out the window.

“I’m waiting,” she said.

He lit a cigarette.

Linda shook her head. “I swear, John, honestly.”

Too many writers feel the need to write here, “But he refused to say anything,” or “But he never responded.”

Don’t! We know, we get it—and it’s loud, effective, silent dialogue.

Saying nothing, John is actually saying everything.

Step 5. Read Your Dialogue Out Loud

One way to be certain your dialogue flows is to read it aloud or even act it out.

Anything that doesn’t sound right won’t read right either, so rewrite it until it does.

Step 6. Create a “Make My Day” Moment

Certain iconic lines of dialogue have become as legendary as the films and books they originate from:

“Frankly my dear…”

“There’s no place like home.”

“We’re not in Kansas anymore.”

“To my big brother George, the richest man in town.”

“What we have here is failure to communicate.”

“Go ahead, make my day.”

“May the force be with you.”

“Houston, we have a problem.”

“Run, Forrest, run!”

“You had me at hello.”

Most writers—even bestselling novelists—never create such an unforgettable line of dialogue. But striving to create one is worth the effort.

Ironically, it should fit so seamlessly it doesn’t draw attention to itself until fans begin quoting it.

How to Format Dialogue

1. Use Dialogue Tags

Attribution tags—he said, she said, etc.—are usually all you need to indicate who’s speaking, so resist the urge to get creative.

Teachers who urge you to find alternatives are usually unpublished and believe agents and editors will be impressed.

Trust me, they won’t be.

Avoid mannerisms of attribution. People say things. They don’t wheeze, gasp, sigh, laugh, grunt, or snort them.

They might do any of those things while saying them, which might be worth mentioning, but the emphasis should be on what is said, and readers just need to know who is saying it.

Keep it simple. All those other descriptors turn the spotlight on an intrusive writer.

Sometimes people whisper or shout or mumble, but let their choice of words indicate they’re grumbling, etc.

If it’s important that they sigh or laugh, separate that action from the dialogue.

Jim sighed. “I can’t take this anymore.”

Not: Jim sighed, “I can’t take this anymore.”

Though you read them in school readers and classic fiction, attribution tags such as replied, retorted, exclaimed, and declared have become clichéd and archaic.

You’ll still see them occasionally, but I suggest avoiding them.

Often no attribution is needed.

Use dialogue tags only when the reader wouldn’t otherwise know who’s speaking.

I once wrote an entire novel, The Last Operative, without attributing a single line of dialogue.

Not a said, an asked, anything.

I made clear through action who was speaking, and not one reader, even my editor, noticed.

Jordan shook his head and sighed. “I’ve had it.”

Another common error is having characters address each other by name too often.

Real people rarely do this, and it often seems planted only to avoid a dialogue tag. Fictional dialogue should sound real.

Don’t start your dialogue attribution tag with said.

…said Joe or …said Mary reads like a children’s book. Substitute he and she for the names and that will make it obvious: …said he or said she just doesn’t sound right.

Rather, end with said for the most natural sound: …Joe said or …Mary said.

Resist the urge to explain, and give the reader credit.

The amateur writer often writes something like this:

“I’m beat,” exclaimed John tiredly.

Besides telling and not showing—violating a cardinal rule of writing—it uses the archaic exclaimed for said, misplaces that before the name rather than after, and adds the redundant tiredly (explaining something that needs no explanation).

The pro would write:

John dropped onto the couch. “I’m beat.”

That shows rather than tells, and the action (dropped onto the couch) tells who’s speaking.

2. How to Punctuate Dialogue

Few things expose a beginner like incorrect punctuation, especially in dialogue.

Agents and editors justifiably wonder if you read dialogue, let alone whether you can write it, if you write something like: “I don’t know.” she said. Or, “What do you think?” He said.

To avoid common mistakes:

When dialogue ends with a question or exclamation mark, the dialogue tag following the quotation marks should be lowercase: “I’m glad you’re here!” she said.

When one character’s dialogue extends to more than one paragraph, start each subsequent paragraph with a double quotation mark, and place your closing double quotation mark only at the end of the final paragraph.

Place punctuation inside the quotation marks, the dialogue tag outside: “John was just here asking about you,” Bill said.

Put the attribution after the first clause of a compound sentence: “Not tonight,” he said, “not in this weather.”

Action before dialogue requires a separate sentence: Anna shook her head. “I can’t believe she’s gone!”

Quoting within a quote requires single quotation marks: “Lucy, Mom specifically said, ‘Do not cut your bangs,’ and you did it anyway!”

When action or attribution interrupts dialogue, use lowercase as dialogue resumes: “That,” she said, “hurt bad.”

3. Every New Speaker Requires a New Paragraph

Here’s how I handled a conversation between Brady, one of my lead characters, and his attorney, in my novel Riven:

Ravinia sat shaking her head and telling him all the reasons it would never fly. Rules, regulations, protocol, procedure, no exceptions, and the list went on and on. “I’m not going to pursue this for you, Brady.”

“Yes, you are. I can tell.”

“You can’t tell it by me. Have you been listening? It’s impossible…”

“But you’ll try.”

Ravinia rolled her eyes. “I wouldn’t even know where to start.”

“Sure you would. You know everything, and you’ve been working inside the system a long time.”

“I’d be laughed out of here,” she said.

“Just tell me you’ll try.”

“Brady, really, be serious. Think this through. Can you imagine the warden going for this? Huh-uh. No way.”

“I like your idea of starting with the warden,” he said.

“I said no such thing.”

“Start at the top; go right to the man.” …

“Brady, don’t ask me to do this.”

“I’m asking.”

Dialogue Examples

If you’re old enough to remember the original Twilight Zone (hosted by Rod Serling) or Dragnet (starring and narrated by Jack Webb), you know how dialogue set the tone for their shows.

Serling was sometimes whimsical, sometimes mysterious, but always provocative. “Consider one middle-aged adult, lost in space and time…”

Jack Webb, as L.A. police detective Sergeant Joe Friday, was always deadly serious and monotone. “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Contrast those with the dialogue between Tom and his Aunt Polly in Tom Sawyer.

“There! I mighta thought of that closet. What you been doing in there?”

“Nothing.”

“Nothing! Look at your hands. And look at your mouth. What IS that truck?”

“I don’t know, aunt.”

“Well, I know. It’s jam—that’s what it is. Forty times I’ve said if you didn’t let that jam alone I’d skin you. Hand me that switch.”

The switch hovered in the air—the peril was desperate—

“My! Look behind you, aunt!”

The old lady whirled round and snatched her skirts out of danger. The lad fled on the instant, scrambled up the highboard fence, and disappeared over it.

Such dialogue sets the tone for the entire story and clearly differentiates characters.

In Huckleberry Finn, Twain delineates between the Southern white boy and Jim, the runaway slave by hinting at their respective accents.

Twain doesn’t need to tell who’s speaking, yet the reader never confuses the two.

“Jim, did y’all ever see a king?”

Y’all is the only word in that sentence that implies a Southern accent, but it’s enough.

“I sho enough did.”

“You liar, Jim. You never seen no king.”

“I seen foh kings in a deck of cards.”

Huck’s grammar and Jim’s sho and foh are the only hints of their dialects.

Too much phonetic spelling would have slowed the reading.

The Cardinal Sin of Dialogue

The last thing you want is to produce on-the-nose dialogue.

Apply to your own work those principles and the tools I’ve outlined here, and I believe you’ll immediately see a huge difference. So will your reader.

#dialogue

0 notes

raevanmun · 7 years ago

Note

why were you drawn to each one of your characters?

Apparently you and @symmarilshatterunwra are both sadists.I have to preface this response with a little literarydrivel. I am a huge, HUGE fan of transgressive fiction. In my writing I have done my best to adhere tothe basic elements of the genre, though my writing style is often more floridthan is typical. So, all of my characters tend to have deviant pasts, secretsand proclivities that are both a source of relief from lives that are eitherbanal and meaningless or are broken by trauma and sometimes a mixture of thetwo.Usually, a narrative emerges either from some music, a pieceof art, or just musing in general and sometimes through the combined creativeeffort of myself and a writing partner. A few of these characters have beenconceived of with and for partners I have or have had.Raerys (Rosewood) Songbrook - Raerys’ isa compilation of feelings and narratives that I spliced together from writingdone with @symmarilshatterunwra and a deep interest in actual cults that I have. I havespent several hundred hours watching various documentaries about religiouscults. Raerys family were involved in a very fringe cult of Sun WorshipingQuel’dorei. In it there is love of power for power’s sake, the corruption thatcomes from that and the fanatical drive to create a “pure” blood line thatwould create the greatest minds in the pursuit of the Arcane. That pursuit of apure bloodline and the use of both religious doctrine and sexual coercion aremain themes in her life, start to finish.Her journey is one of cleansing and redemption, a move towardwholeness and healing after a life of privileged trauma.The next I have to take in Tandem - because their stories areintertwined.Kaereah andPhaedrei Bitterdawn - The Bitterdawn sisters are opposite ends of theemotional and social spectrum. This is due to some really shitty stuff thathappened when they were growing up. They are in truth, half sisters. Phaedreiis the elder of them. Kaereah is the baby of the family and the result ofan “Oooops” their mother had after having been widowed. Phaedrei is responsible to a fault, is taciturn, cruel and fairly ACE. Headcannon says she's never been with anyone, romantically or otherwise. She's toofocused on her work, on her magic, on herself and the compartments of her life.She is deeply sad, a dank sort of depression eats at her and keeps her at arm'slength from anyone. Kaereah is the opposite side of the same coin. She is gregarious, friendly, andgenerally "open" to people she meets, but then, she's also aprostitute and has been for many years. She is not really open, any more sothan her sister, though she has been in love once. Was hurt terribly, and sincehas walled off her emotions and used sex as a way of life and a weapon since. They are in equal parts the unfortunate reaction to a childhood in which theironly role model found validation in relationships, not in herself or herchildren. Determined not to follow in their mother's footsteps they respondedvery differently, only to arrive at essentially the same emotional place. Theyhate one another, because both judge the other as maladjusted, without seeingthe irony of their situations and having any empathy for the other and all thatthey have suffered.Nolah Blackfyre - Nolah is a amalgamof rogue tropes, which are usually played out by men. I was drawn to her as acharacter because she is a SHE. She is devil may care, full of swagger andpomp, but she's also wears that like a mask, hiding behind it is a ruthlesskiller who no one would ever imagine is capable of the things she is. She isalso, an incurable romantic, seeking for that perfect lover who to quote TheEagles, "won't blow my cover, but they're so hard to find." As I posted ages ago on her tumblr, she is made of cigarettes and song lyrics.She is a poet, a ponderous creature who writes secret poetry and who is tragicin all the ways that rogues usually are.

Kordelaine Sunbriar - Kordelaine ismy idea of a "millennial belf." She likes techno, house and trancemusic. She is into her gadgets, thinks the world is all fucked up but feelspretty powerless to fix it. It sounds strange I know, but she's in no smallpart inspired by both of my sons, one who has had some issues with drugaddiction and depression and the other who is a quiet and very nerdy kid. I was drawn to her as a way to sort of tap into what I enjoy most about millennials.What makes them interesting to me as a GenX'r. Their music, their sardonic viewof the world, their desire for community and connection in a world that isincreasingly small and yet isolated by technology.

Tzilli Bloodsky - I am drawn toTzilli because who doesn't want to play a comic book villain? She's a completeasshole. She's a narcissistic, overly intellectual anarchist who is really justa nihilist. She is in her mind, "Self Made" in the same way that mostAyn Rand female characters are... whichis also fun to mock and play with. She's really just Ra's al Ghul with tits anda cute face.Selkara Blackvale - Selkarah and herTwin Selakiir are Castor and Pollux. Or were... until something terriblehappened. She was always the darker half, the dangerous one, the thinker ofdeep and dark thoughts. He was the kind one, the sweet one, the good one... andthen the Void. I am drawn to Selkara because she has been utterly undone withher brother's corruption. Thrust from the role of the corruptor into the role of the caretaker has lefther unbalanced, freewheeling and frightened. She now struggles with theknowledge of her brother's slowly creeping madness, to feel him mentally,spiritually and emotionally within her, but unable to affect what is theeventual outcome of his state. The struggle to change horses midstream and become a hero in her own life iswhat is interesting about Selkara, that and her adoration and love for Rey. Reyhas helped to soften her, to support her transformation from shadowy bitch intosomething deeper, more and closer to wholeness. Rila Greenleaf - Rila is the Fool ofthe Tarot, but in female form. She is the child in William Blake's Songs of Innocenceand Songs of Experience. She is moving from utter ignorance through temptation,corruption and with luck, out the other side. I am drawn to Rila's arc in thesame way that anyone who's read De Sade's "Justine" is drawn to thecharacter and the conclusion of her story. How does the madness of absolutelibertinism end if it is born by one of a completely pure soul?

Jonadori Winterborne - Jona has beenbashed around in some pretty unfortunate rp arcs. She's not broken but she'sbeen reworked a bunch and at present I am not sure I am utterly in touch withher. So, I am not sure what to say about her in this respect.

Aembrose/Ambrose Longroad - Aembrose is a side character inRaerys' larger story. I originally made him just to play a part in herprogression, but there has been some interest in maintaining him as acharacter. I just haven't found found his voice yet. I am working on it.

Joaquin Brightquiver - He is a new character, very wetbehind the ears yet, but I am drawn to him because of his romantic and artisticsensibilities. He's a loner, been kicked around a good deal by life, but heloves to pain, he's consumed by his art, wine and women. He could be great, agreat and well-respected painter, but his addictions to alcohol and women whoare trouble keep him from being able to really move forward as an artist. I amdrawn to him, for the voice he offers.I don't usually play men, but when I write him, or plot for him, I feel such astrength of narrative that I feel sort of compelled to see the guy out. We'llsee if I really get under him and into his pov, it is still emerging, but whatI have done with him, I have really enjoyed.

Bryonny Larkspur - Bryonny is not yet entirelyfleshed out, that said... I find that character creation requires interaction,at least to firm up details. However, she's interesting to me from a conceptualpoint of view. Unlike Nolah who is despite her vocation a pretty easy to getalong with lady, Bryonny is far more "muy macho" and I have nicknamedher "The Shootist," in order to make the connection between her andold school male western tropes. She's a female in a man's world, she's mean andruthless. I haven't written a characterlike her in a long time, and perhaps it is the opportunity to write one again,re-working the idea and refining it that makes her interesting to me.Violet Dal'vir - Violet is theoldest character I have here. She's an Apostate Blood Knight who for manyreasons rejects "current" Sin'dorei culture and wallows in her angstand resentment. She has little use for others, little use for friends orcompanions. The only people she's known for some time who care for her or caredfor her, eventually left her behind because she could not and would not bebudged from her bigotry and her dogmatic and uncompromising dedication to aregime and a world that no longer exists.I like her, because she's kind of my "Uncle Rukus" character. She issocial commentary turned inside out and upside down. If I bring Violet aroundto interact with your characters, you can expect it is because either I thinkyour character is too fluffy, or too edgy. She likes to shave the plumes offone and knock the corners off the other. This is why, in many ways, I equateher with trolling. Greneda Brightmorn - Greneda is thenewest of my characters and I won't lie, I've pretty much fallen in love withher. She is a taste of all my favorite old time movie vixens, mashed up with agood dose of Lucile Ball and Carol Burnett. She feminine exaggerated, she's gota dirty mind, a warm laugh and she loves people, all sorts of people. She likesto use politeness like a weapon, relies heavily on her "Blanche" likemanner when social situations get difficult or taxing, and when she'scomfortable with people or her context, she's a delightful companion. I am deeply drawn to her, because I lovepeople like her in real life.

Thank you @ouroandarGreat if somewhat difficult question to answer.

8 notes · View notes

movieswithkevin27 · 8 years ago

Text

Jackie

"Sometimes he would walk into the desert, alone, just to let himself be tempted by the devil."

"That night, and every night since... I’ve prayed to die."

"God, in his infinite wisdom, has made sure...it is just enough for us." -Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy

Nobody will ever understand Jackie Kennedy and the pain she went through after the death of her husband. While we all have lost loved ones, few have lost a spouse. Even fewer have lost that spouse while the First Lady of the United States and none of those women were alive to be there for Jackie. She was isolated and all alone. Nobody could comprehend her grief and nobody, thankfully, can today. Sitting next to her husband driving through a parade, he is shot and his mangled head rests on her lap and she sits there with his blood splashing on her body. In this eternally lasting image, few have sat down to truly examine what that day and the succeeding few days were in the mind of Jackie Kennedy. However, in director Pablo Larrain's intimate look at her mind and grief in those days, he finds beauty, pain, and agony. But, above all, he finds a woman with so much strength, so much grace, and so much power, it is chill inducing. Punctuated by a powerful and articulate performance by Natalie Portman, the film leaves you in emotional ruins repeatedly and is an entirely beautiful, moving, and stirring portrayal of the strongest and hardest week of Jackie Kennedy's life.

Upon its release, Jackie gained notoriety for its unique structure. It is not a biopic at all. Shot with grainy documentary style footage, the film is an inside look at both Jackie's life after her husband's death and the descent into madness experienced by the country afterwards. However, that is not what makes it unique. Rather, the film is lyrical and poetic. Its dialogue is overwrought, begging to be quoted. It feels too prim. Too precise. Too detached from reality. Yet, that is entirely the point. This is no biopic about Jackie Kennedy. It is an album composed of "songs" about her life and key defining moments: the death of her husband, the televised tour of the White House, planning for the funeral, and talking to a priest. Complemented by interludes courtesy of an the famed interview with Life Magazine, the film takes on a poetic approach to telling its story and this is incredibly irregular for the genre. As a regular of the poetry of the storytelling, it is nonlinear and it shows scenes from those aforementioned moments before and after the assassination in varied order.

This structure truly lends itself to the way in which the film is quotable, but overwrought. Its dialogue is aching to be recognized as powerful. As timeless. As stirring. Yet, it is all of those things. He may feel a tad forced in this regard, but it works. Matching the hypnotic, dream-like, and thoroughly lyrical nature of the storytelling, the dialogue feels mystical, other worldy, and unattainable. Jackie's words are so well chosen, as are those of her counterparts. In this, the dialogue catches the class, the grace, and the power with which women in her position are expected to act and speak. Her words are well chosen for fear of portraying herself and her husband negatively. In her interview with the journalist (Billy Crudup), she unleashes at times and becomes less formal, but never allows him to print these words. In these moments, she becomes wordier. With those she acts entirely formal around, her words are limited and more carefully selected. While I say the film is overwrought, it is not to detract from the film. Rather, it is perfectly elaborate in its limited words and prim/proper dialogue. Each word and each line feels quotable and verbose.

This verbosity is certainly what led the Kennedy's and others in power to seem unattainable. In particular, their life was a fairy tale. It was spectacular, overwhelming, and extravagant. Their wealth was obscene and otherworldly. It embodied regality and the belief that this was the royal family of the United States, if there ever were to be one. Larrain, a Chilean-born filmmaker, has managed to eloquently and brilliantly captures this cult of personality surrounding the Kennedy family and captures it so well, in fact, that the film has been criticized for the same reasons Jackie was criticized in her life. It is too cold. Too distant. Too reserved. Yet, it is for these elements that the film is so brilliant. Not only is it poetic and gorgeously crafted narratively, but its feeling and emotions as a film keep the audience at a distance. It never hopes to understand Jackie and her mindset after her husband's death, as that is an impossible enterprise to undertake. It is simply something that could never be accomplished. As such, instead, Larrain's film reduces intimacy. He uses grainy documentary style footage, old school television footage, and has a cold and carefully orchestrated Portman in the lead role. She embodies Jackie Kennedy to the very last detail both in her manner of speaking, walking, and body language. It is a film that is cold and dead behind the eyes, shutting out the world from every hoping to understand the pain its main character underwent and preventing us from fully grasping who she was.

This may be a fault to some, but there is beauty in this approach. Not only is it authentic, but it forces the audience to focus on the small details. The look on her face and the way she speaks. It feels like she herself is forcing herself to get through this for those that look to her as an icon and the First Lady. For them and her children, she must honor her husband and his legacy. Nothing can get in the way, not even her own emotion. Thus, she locks it up inside and puts on a strong face. However, her face is never quite as strong as she believes. Portman's face looks cold and detached. It is in this look that we see her pain. She refuses to let herself seem frazzled as she freshens up right before the swearing in of Lyndon B. Johnson in Texas, still dressed in the iconic pink Chanel suit that is covered in JFK's blood. She is composed, but she aches internally. Her purpose, her life, and her status is all in upheaval. She is forced out of her home and wants nothing more than to match the elegance and importance of the role her husband occupied to be represented in his funeral. A key portion of the film, this funeral shows how she is redirecting her grief. In order cope, she wants to celebrate. As the secret service is worried about a procession walking through the streets, she defies orders and defiantly states, "I will march with Jack, alone if necessary." A powerful, strong, and immense quote (honestly, just writing it out gives me chills), it also highlights the way in which she directs her grief towards embodying the grace demanded of her position. She wants an extravagant funeral in spite of recommendations not just for her own vanity, but for the world to recognize the cost of their violence. She is alone, left to suffer alone. Her children are now fatherless. It is a powerful image and one the world has yet to heed. Instead, it is still filled with animosity and prejudice. While Kennedy left little legacy as a President, a fear of Jackie's in this film, the funeral and this powerful image after his assassination is still one that permeates our culture and national psyche.

One of the greatest pieces of this film is its portrayal of grief. Manchester by the Sea, a fellow 2016 film, did this eloquently with a story of pure fiction. Jackie accomplishes this with a true story, a far more impressive feat as it manages to feel entirely organic and natural. Often times, real stories can feel too manicured and manufactured. However, here, Larrain finds the human soul within Jackie and shows it to the world. Her grief is encapsulated in a few images in the film and in a few moments. Most viscerally, it is seen as she wipes blood of her herself and when we actually see John F. Kennedy get shot. The look on her face of pure agony, fear, and pain is the one time she truly breaks visually. It is not a moment that gets lost on the audience as she recounts it to the priest. It is visceral and is a punch to the stomach of the audience. Yet, it is not the most harrowing and terrifying portrayal of the grief in the film. Rather, the denial. One of the hardest things to get over is the denial. The belief that you will walk around the house and see them pop up around the corner is powerful. My grandfather died over two years ago and I still feel this way. It feels surreal every time I see my still-grieving grandmother that he is not around anymore. This is a hurdle to still get over and one that Jackie is forced to cope with as she has memories of her time with Jack and the fun they shared. However, as she again tells the Priest, these are mixed with the bag. She knows Jack was a bit of a playboy and let himself be led into temptation too often. These memories cloud the positive ones of pure joy and bliss they experienced together. Her mind is incapable of coping with these and with his loss, as she is still lost as to whether she should hate her husband or love him and the legacy she left behind. In many ways, the funeral is the embodiment of this as well. She hopes for the latter. She wants to celebrate him and mourn his loss like a normal widow. But, these bad memories cloud her mind and she hopes that by throwing an extravagant funeral procession for him in the capital, she will be able to drown out these memories and focus on the good. This is incredibly powerful and truly where Larrain's film finds much of its veracity and strength.

"Let me share with you a parable. Jesus once passed a blind beggar on the road, and his disciples asked --‘Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?’ Jesus answered - ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned. He was made blind so that the works of God could be revealed in him.’ And with that, he placed mud on the man’s eyes and told him to wash in the Pool of Siloam.’ The man did, and he came back seeing. Right now you are blind. Not because you’ve sinned. But because you’ve been chosen -- so that the works of God may be revealed in you." -John Hurt as The Priest

In the aforementioned conversation with the priest, Jackie also explains why she did the procession: to be put out of her misery and killed. Praying every day to be killed or just die, she cannot cope. She puts on a brave face and never lets her enemies see her cry, instead opting to use herself and her children's suffering as a dagger that she thrusts into the abdomens of her enemies, twisting the knife with every proud and strong step. However, she must move on. The priest tells her as much in his discussions regarding God and life. Not only does he confide in her that he too wonders if this is all there is to the world, he equally stands firm in the belief that God is in everything - even death - and that he has given us as much as we need. Along the same lines, he never gives us something we cannot handle. However, as the quote above alludes to, she is merely an instrument of God's power. This answer does not move her or quell her aching heart, but it does shed light on the importance of his advice to keep waking up, making coffee, and living her life. The death of a loved one can be paralyzing, but she cannot shrivel up and die. You must continue to breathe and put one foot in front of the other. Lying die and waiting to die is not the answer. Jackie herself is certainly portrayed as religious in the film, thus she must find peace in God. Humbly asking for healing and strength will make her like the blind man in the parable. It will give her sight and allow her to see the light at the end of the tunnel in her suffering. It will allow the sun to rise without the accompanying feelings of pain, agony, and depression.

Aside from the dialogue of the film, there is also beauty in the score. Nominated for an Oscar with good reason, the score is brilliant. Yet, one noteworthy scene sticks in my head more than any. As she walks through the White House in a black dress, the music briefly takes on a more haunting tone and feels like something out of The Shining. It instills fear and truly captures the essence of this story. It is a tale of blood, gore, pain, and agony. It is elegance and luxury meeting brutality and the underbelly of society and humanity. The mixing of these worlds creates this seemingly elegant sequence with brilliant cinematography using that grainy look to capture the 1960s and the elegance and extravagance of Jackie's wardrobe, juxtaposed by unsettling musical notes. It is a nightmare disguised as a fairy tale, yet people only see the fairy tale and refuse to recognize it is a nightmare, as to do so would be the recognize Jackie as human, not just some cold, lifeless, and unfeeling person.

While one can never dream of understanding Jackie's pain in the aftermath of her husband's assassination, Pablo Larrain comes very close. Dressing it up as merely a Kennedy fairy tale set in Camelot, it is instead a lyrical, poetic, and verbose look at the pain, agony, and denial that accompanies grief. This harrowing exercise is ultimately more akin to a nightmare than anything else, accompanied by a brilliant descent into the self and detachment from the rest of the world and even one's own emotions. Brilliantly brought to life by Natalie Portman and a very game cast, Pablo Larrain's inventive and uniquely structured film is poetic, powerful, and painstakingly brilliant.

#jackie #jackie movie #2016 movies #2010s movies #natalie portman #pablo larrain #film reviews #film analysis #billy crudup #greta gerwig #john hurt #peter sarsgaard

4 notes · View notes

funface2 · 5 years ago

Text

Outlander: 10 Hilarious Jamie Memes That Are Too Funny – Screen Rant

Look, we know. It feels like this awful “droughtlander” has been going on for ages, and our hopes for a brighter future in the world of Jamie and Claire Fraser seem far away. February can’t come soon enough, and fans of the beloved drama Outlander are starting to get impatient. And we’re right there with you! So today we’re bringing you a little something extra to ease the pain.

You’ve probably rewatched the first four seasons ten times over, and you’ve probably read the books more times than you can’t count. So, how about you take a minute for a little laugh, Scottish style?

In order to soothe the pain and bring a smile to your face, we’ve compiled a list of the 10 most hilarious Jamie Fraser memes swimming around the Internet. We don’t have the recipe for time-traveling yet, but we do have some laugh-out-loud material. Check out all of it below!

RELATED: 10 Romance Movies To Watch If You Love Outlander

Continue scrolling to keep reading

Click the button below to start this article in quick view

Start Now

advertising

10 Did Ya Put A Ring On It?

We have to get real here. As much as we love the complex storylines and the intense political intrigue that shapes the Outlander plot, we’re all suckers for the hunk that is Jamie Fraser. Watch the man talk for ten minutes and we guarantee that you will instantly fall in love.

It’s no wonder that husbands all around the world started feeling a little jealous. But it’s okay; he’s just a fictional character, folks! You might want to start taking some notes on how to treat your lady, though. If you don’t, next thing you know, your wife will be packing her bags and moving to the Scottish Highlands. You heard it here first!

9 Hey, Bartender!

What’s great about the Scottish Highlands, you might ask? Well, let’s see—you have the stunning scenery, the great food, the kind of fashion you won’t see anywhere else in the world… and, of course, rocks. Tons of rocks. Some of them even allow you to travel through time and meet the love of your life!

Okay, we’re getting a little sidetracked here. But still, we can’t help but wonder just how interesting life would be if the next time we asked the bartender for a scotch on the rocks, a wild Jamie Fraser leaning over a bunch of stones were to appear. Certainly interesting, but probably not too realistic.

advertising

8 Naughty Jamie!

Picture this: you go on a second honeymoon with your husband to an unknown land, and, one morning, you decide to go for a walk. Next thing you know, you touched some rubble and ended up traveling two centuries back in time. And the best part? You meet a tall, red-haired stranger who will become your husband.

Now, imagine having to explain your 18th-century husband all of this. Yes, we know the lad believed Claire when she told him, but, for the sake of comedy and because we can, we choose to believe that his first reaction was the one portrayed on this meme… and then they made passionate love to each other.

RELATED: Outlander: Jamie v Frank: Who Was Better For Claire?

7 Say ‘Mark Me’ One More Time…

You know, Outlander has had some pretty interesting and complex characters over the run of four seasons. Black Jack Randall, the King of France, Dougal, Geillis, just to name a few. They all contributed to the story, and love them or hate them, they were fantastic characters that propelled the narrative forward.

Then we had Bonnie Prince Charlie. Good lord, the man was a fool, and every time he opened his mouth, our eyes rolled to the back of our heads. When he said ‘mark me,’ well, suffice it to say that Jamie is all of us in this meme.

advertising

6 Everybody In The Highlands Put Your Hands Up!

What’s better than Jamie Fraser’s face? Jamie Fraser’s body, of course. No wonder Claire couldn’t keep her mittens to herself every time they were within two feet of each other. Everybody deserves some eye candy and Mr. Fraser is the entire store.

We’re not sure who is the mastermind behind this meme, but their hearts and minds are in the right place. Granted, it’s supposed to be a tame enough show, so viewers were never given the peek they hoped they would. Next time this happens, let’s petition the show writers to actually say that, yeah?

5 Pretty Cool, Thanks

We have to give it to Jamie and Claire. These two went through thick and thin together. Meeting the love of your life, having a child on the way, and then all of a sudden you have to be apart for two decades? That sounds heartbreaking and worthy of a Shakespearian drama.

On the other side of the spectrum, how many people are blessed enough to have a love like this? Even after twenty years apart, they found their way back to each other and kept on living a beautiful life together. That’s a win in our book!

RELATED: Outlander: Ranking Claire’s 10 Best Costumes

advertising

4 Can We Get A Doctor Here?

You can tell us the truth, we promise we won’t share. How many times have you actually considered saying “screw it,” packing your belongings, and finding the closest group of stones in the Scottish Highlands in the hopes of finding Jamie Fraser?

We’ll guess that probably a lot, and, even though we can’t blame you, we urge you to just touch them gently. Getting a concussion means more time in the hospital, and more time spent away from your potential Scottish lover. Stay safe!

3 Jamie, The Charmer

The best thing about Jamie Fraser is that he inspired a ton of hilarious pick-up lines. A lot of inspiration can be drawn from memes like this because after all, this man is the ultimate lady charmer.

So, folks, if you’re feeling lonely, make sure you head to the nearest social media platform, find the Outlander page, and drop this line on the many, many fans of the show and the books you’ll find. You might just get yourself a Sassenach!

advertising

2 It’s Crossover Land

Memes truly are a fantastic art form. Not only can you re-imagine some of the best and worst moments to ever come out of a television show or movie, but you can also do some pretty cool crossovers. Case in point? Outlander meets The Princess Bride, one of the greatest movies of all time.

Jamie Fraser is not Inigo Montoya, but, if you so much as look at his wife the wrong way, he will end you. He will chase you to the ends of the Earth and make you regret being born. Too far?

RELATED: Outlander: 10 Behind-The-Scenes Secrets You Never Knew About The Makeup

1 We Volunteer!

There was a time when Ryan Reynolds was the owner of this meme, and the only man we could imagine getting away with such a cheesy pick-up line. But then, Outlander made its way into our television screens and hearts, and an arguably better version of the husband material meme was born.

Jamie, we all know you’re married to the love of your life, but, if she ever makes he way through the stones again, there are plenty of volunteers out there ready to test your theory. Just sayin’.

NEXT: Outlander: Murtagh Fraser’s 10 Best Quotes

advertising

Tags: outlander

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Bài viết Outlander: 10 Hilarious Jamie Memes That Are Too Funny – Screen Rant đã xuất hiện đầu tiên vào ngày Funface.

from Funface https://funface.net/funny-memes/outlander-10-hilarious-jamie-memes-that-are-too-funny-screen-rant/

0 notes