#and hitchcock simply Does Not Have An Elephant

[telomirage]

aubrey nervously yelling all of her lines on stage while riding a two foot tall elephant (samolephant) is perfect, actually

[akari-hope]

So I’ve heard differing arguments relating to it, ranging from “Well, if we shun content created by this person and/or everyone who’s done anything problematic, that’s a slippery slope that’ll lead to us being unable to enjoy anything” to “It doesn’t matter if you can separate the author from their creation to an extent, there’s ultimately other content to be consumed, & shunning the work of the problematic author in order to deny them or their progeny traffic is more important than salvaging

2/4 said author’s work.” Pablo Neruda, Yukio Mishima, & JK Rowling are authors that come to mind in these discussions. (For example, I’ve seen several SPOP edits ft. Pablo Neruda’s love poetry, & when his problematic history was explained to one creator, they cited death of the author.) Another argument against the concept, or rather, against how the concept is often applied, that I see is that people cite it in order to uncritically consume whatever they want.

3/4 Yet others say that people who say this often take the concept too far, to the point where no one can enjoy anything, ever, unless they’re obsessively analyzing every last detail of something for potential problematic tropes or other problematic content. I just don’t know where I fall, because I both agree and disagree with various parts of these stances, but see how all could be taken too far and used poorly, if that’s a sensible way of wording it. But I don’t know what dictates “too

4/4 far”, so I’ve never voiced a definitive opinion on the matter. I hope this makes sense, it’s a bit more jumbled than I had intended.

total sense!

death of the author is such an interesting concept, purely bc how it was MEANT to be used and how it has come to be used are so different. for transparency, death of the author is a lens of examining a piece of work which states that the author’s original intent does not matter, that the metatextual elements of a work do not have any bearing on what is actually present in the text.

to use an example, fans of spop will likely know that adora and catra are at least somewhat inspired by noelle stevenson’s own relationship. since we know this, we can see this in the text. the more you know about noelle and molly, the more you can see what parts of their relationship influenced those characters. we don’t have to guess that catradora is meant to be viewed in a positive light - we’re told by the showrunner itself it should be. if we were to apply death of the author, though, we would ignore this. it is not written explicitly in the text, and is therefore metatextual. we can still come to the same conclusion based on information within the show itself, but we would not use that “word of god” type of information.

and you can do this with basically anything. an artist said their song is about romantic love, but you see it as platonic love? claim death of the author! once it’s out in the world, it’s up to the audience to decide what a piece means.

now, here’s where it gets tricky: you can’t just ignore bigotry in a piece, even if you are applying death of the author. let’s look at hp lovecraft for this one. anyone with even passing knowledge of lovecraftian horror will know that the main element of it is fear of the unknown. sure, there’s many ways you can interpret that within the text! but fact of the matter is that lovecraft was a horrible xenophobic racist. and knowing that, it becomes very hard to separate the “fear of the unknown” in lovecraft’s work from real world xenophobia. you can still claim that within the text you interpret it differently, sure. but you can’t go so far as to pretend the intent isn’t there. the author’s interpretation doesn’t have to be yours, but it’s impossible to separate the author’s worldview from the text - it’s baked in.

okay, so, interpret however you want, but acknowledge prejudice. easy enough. until we get to the elephant in the room, joanne rowling herself. now, we know she has horrible ideas baked into her text. but that doesn’t necessarily mean we throw it all away, right? after all, people still love lovecraft’s work, and he was horrible. there’s an entire horror genre coined after the man. if we don’t throw lovecraft away, why throw joanne away? and the big difference there is that...joanne is alive. and wealthy. with friends in high places. and a large public following. even when he was alive, lovecraft didn’t exactly have millions of followers on twitter. pablo neruda and yukio mishima were not good people, but again, also dead and not with the same level of power. meanwhile joanne is actively using her wealth and following to influence british lawmakers.

and here’s where people lose death of the author. bc yes, you can still examine harry potter however you want. you can still say the books were an influence or that they meant something to you. but you cannot use “death of the author” to substitute an answer to a moral dilemma. and the moral dilemma is simply that supporting joanne, be it by word of mouth or monetarily, is supporting her ability to spread transphobia. this is why we see a more active push than usual to stop consuming hp and related rowling works. the driving force is not just “thing bad”, but the active harm joanne is causing to trans people in the uk.

so, what does that all mean? basically, use death of the author responsibly. you don’t have to toss out every single problematic work ever penned. if we did that, we wouldn’t have much left, and the foundations upon which modern media were built would be gone. but, you also can’t say that you don’t have to acknowledge biases and prejudice in media. bc you still do. there’s not a filmmaker in hollywood who can claim they’re not using some amount of technique pioneered by alfred hitchcock, but we also can’t pretend like “psycho” didn’t have transphobic undertones. it’s possible to both appreciate “psycho” for its importance to film history AND acknowledge those problematic elements without beating them to death.

basically, if you’re thinking of applying death of the author, you need to ask yourself two questions:

-am i using this to analyze the work, or am i trying to make myself feel better? -is my consumption of this work allowing the creator to cause harm?

if you’re trying to make yourself feel better, you don’t need death of the author; being aware of the problems within the work is sufficient. and if your answer to the second question is “yes”, that’s when you need to wonder if your consumption of said work is really more important than the harm you may be inadvertently causing.

bc it feels wrong to not include them, lindsay ellis has two wonderful videos on death of the author, which i will link to below (as well as a video on transphobia in pop culture, which i sort of touched on here, that helps give a better sense of how you can consume and even admire problematic media while acknowledging its flaws)

Death of the Author

Death of the Author 2: Rowling Boogaloo

Tracing the Roots of Pop Culture Transphobia

tldr: death of the author is a great tool to analyze media, but all too often gets used as an answer to a moral dilemma when that was never its intended purpose. you can invoke death of the author without ignoring problematic elements of a work, you don’t have to self-flagellate over said problematic elements, but be aware of if your consumption of a work causes active harm to people.

[miragerules]

With theaters unfortunately shut down, and me sadly being laid off because Oregon has a shelter in place order it's given me a lot of time to play video games as well as think about the best films of each decade, and the who I believe are the current directors of all time. I am going to start with who are believe are the current 15 best directors of all time.

15. Bong Joon Ho: I have not seen all of Bong Joon Ho films only seen Snowpiercer, The Host, Memories of Murder, and Parasite with Snowpiercer being his best film.

14. David Lynch: David Lynch is probably the most visionary and unique director on this list. It has not paid off for Lynch all the time, but all his films and series are certainly memorable. I have seen Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Dune, Twin Peaks, Dune, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive with Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive being is best films. Even though Lynch has not directed a full-length feature film since I think 2006's Inland Empire Lynch is still one of the best directors of all time.

13. Clint Eastwood: Although this biographical themed obsession Eastwood had been on this past decade with good, but flawed films in Richard Jewell, The 1517 to Paris, American Sniper, and J. Edgar among others it does not take away from Clint Eastwood's nearly fifty years of directing with some of his classics being Unforgiven, Mystic River, The Outlaw Josey Wales, A Perfect World, and Letters from Iwo Jima to name a few.

12. David Fincher: I could say David Fincher is the best suspense thriller director, but that would be disrespecting the one and only Alfred Hitchcock, so I will that Fincher is the Hitchcock of our time with his most known film being Fight Club, but not his best film. That would go to Gone Girl, The Game, and Se7en. Then here is the elephant in the room by the name of Alien 3. Alien 3 had its problems in production and especially with studio interference by FOX in not having faith in the young up and coming director, which hurt the film, but by no means does that make Alien 3 a bad film. Alien 3 had good acting by Charles S. Dutton, Charles Dance, Sigourney Weaver, and the rest of the pretty unknown cast. The score by Elliot Goldenthal is riveting, and one of the best scores in the Alien franchise if not the best. William Gibson original screenplay would have been the best route to go with the film, and there were a lot of hands on the script for Alien 3 with ultimately the writing brainstormed, poorly put together, and written by producers Walter Hill and David Giler. The screenplay was definitely flawed, but not bad with a decent story and good ending to Ripley’s journey that was ruined by the truly terrible Alien Resurrection. Overall, I say Alien 3 is the third best Alien film not as good as Alien or Aliens, but not as bad as the rest of the Alien films or the Alien vs Predator films.

11. Zhang Yimou: Sadly, I have not had a chance to see some of Zhang's older films like Not One Less, Raise the Red Lantern, and especially To Live, which some have said is one of Zhang's best films. I have seen all Zhang's films since the new millennium with films that include Hero, Shadow, Under the Hawthorn Tree, House of the Flying Daggers, Coming Home, Curse of the Golden Flower, Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles, Happy Times, The Flowers of War, A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop, and The Great Wall. Zhang is a master of using aesthetics whether it be the story, lighting, or choreography of his action sequences. The Great War is easily Zhang's worst film, and it is not a terrible film, and not for the reasons you might be thinking. I know when The Great Wall was coming out and came out a certain group of so called up set people were outrage that a fantasy film had a some white characters in the film and Zhang and the writers were using the white savior trope in the film, but if you actually watch the film that was not what happen or why The Great Wall was a mediocre film. It was because of the at best average CGI, poor writing, and uninspired action sequences. As for Zhang's best films they are Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, Happy Times, and The House of the Flying Daggers. Yes, Zhang Yimou is best known for his historical films with simply masterfully choreographed action sequences I definitely recommend you give some of his smaller films like Happy Times and Coming Home a chance.

10. Ridley Scott: Although some of Scott's latest films like Robin Hood, Prometheus, All the Money in the World, and Exodus: Gods and Kings have not lived up to the directors reputation Ridley Scott will still go down as one of the best directors of all time by directing some of the best films of all time. I would also recommend Kingdom of Heaven. It is one of Scott's best film that was underrated by critics and the general population.

9. Michael Mann: Like Scott above Michael Mann's most recent films in Blackhat, Public Enemies, and Miami Vice have not lived up to the reputation Mann has earned as a director or his vision and style as a writer and director. Mann as not directed a lot of films and it is debatable what his best film is between The Insider, Heat, Thief, and The Last of the Mohicans. For me it is Heat.

8. Denis Villeneuve: Denis Villeneuve has only been directing since 1998, but has already made it into the top 10 of this list, and it is for a reason. Villeneuve is helped to craft some of the most riveting and compelling stories in films this past decade that was also greatly impacted by Villeneuve’s masterful use of cinematography creating an atmosphere in his films with Arrival, Blade Runner 2049, and Sicaro being masterpieces and three of the best films this past decade. I am really looking forward to his vision of Dune.

7. Hayao Miyazaki: Miyazaki is by far the most mainstream and acclaimed director of anime films from Japan, and for good reason. Hayao Miyazaki is a masterful writer and director who stands by his belief of caring for the environment, being anti-war, and love. Speaking out on his beliefs regulating not caring if it offends some of his fans or his own government. His beliefs play a heavy influence in his films, which I think make is unique visions all the better for that. In my view Miyazaki’s best film is Princess Mononoke. 1999 was a terrible year for me on many levels and Princess Mononoke just blew my mind and help to lift my spirits and my will to go on. No other Hayao Miyazaki film has come close to affecting me that way.

6. Terrance Malick: Terrance Malick has been directing films for directing films for 47 years, but has only directed ten films in that time with 1973’s Badlands. I think the reason is while other directors like Uwe Boll, Michael Bay, and Paul W.S. Anderson will just make films no matter the quality of the film Terrance Malick is determined that his artistry be perfect, and it shows in his film. Malick’s determination to perfection shows in his true mastery of cinematography and his use of nature and the environment to enhance the story and isolate they characters. His perfectionism shows in all his films, and while Malick’s films may not always land on perfection, but his films always leave a mark on the viewer. I consider Terrance Malick’s best film to be 1998’s The Thin Red Line, and a far better film than Saving Private Ryan that came out earlier that year.

5. Christopher Nolan: We have finally reached the top 5 of what I consider to be the current best directors of all time with number five being Christopher Nolan. Nolan is number five on this list, and is the best director alive today. There are better directors on this list, but they all have passed away. Christopher Nolan is known for his love of the theatrical experience, and the technical side of filmmaking. Christopher Nolan along with his brother Jonathan Nolan and other writers to craft unique and captivation stories and their use of memories, time, space, dreams, perspective, and war in each of film of films. Nolan has also directed has put his stamp on Batman and the comic book film genre by directing the Dark Knight Trilogy that is the best superhero/comic book trilogy. As for what is Christopher Nolan’s best film, it is too hard for me to choose between Prestige, The Dark Knight, and Dunkirk.

4. Alfred Hitchcock: Alfred Hitchcock is and as far I am concerned will go down as the best suspense thriller director of all time. Hell, the term Hitchcockian was named after the type of films he wrote and directed. It wasn’t just the huge impact Hitchcock had on the suspense, thriller, and horror genre’s, it was Hitchcocks technical and writing imfluence that has had a lasting impact on in film and popular culture. Alfred Hitchcock’s basically created a new filmmaking style using camera’s for perspective many times putting making the viewer the voyeur in his films to brilliantly adding to the suspense to his films. Hitchcock along his early writers created for better or worse the plot device called the MacGuffin that has a tremendous influence today in filmmaking that is used too much in not correctly. In my view Alfred Hitchcocks best films are North by Northwest, Rear Window, and Strangers on a Train.

3. Sergio Leone: The legendary director Akira Kurosawa who had a huge influence on Sergio Leone’s filmmaking, and in doing so Sergio Leone created his own impact on filmmaking creating the “spaghetti western” with his script writing long sprawling epics, and the use of long sweeping shots and extreme close ups. While Leone did not direct a lot of films, he did direct perhaps the two best unofficial trilogies of all time in No Name trilogy and the Once Upon A Time trilogy. All six films could easily fit into the top 50 films of all time and two of them in the top 20 films of all time. While both Clint Eastwood and composer Ennio Morricone were in the business of filmmaking Sergio Leone should get credit for lunching both to super stardom of the film industry in the 1960’s.

2. Stanley Kubrick: Whether it be Crime drama, Science Fiction, Epics, War, or Comedy Kubrick has had a lasting influence on virtually every genre. Like Terrance Malick, Stanley Kubrick had a different style with his filmmaking process saying his scripts were never really finished before his film started filming so he could be willing to adapt during filming, his relentless and sometimes endless scene takes sometimes making his actors shoot scenes dozens of times trying to get what he view as the perfect shot. Some film historians would call Stanley Kubrick the most influential filmmaker in history with in my view Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1. Akira Kurosawa: It was a little hard to choose between Stanley Kubrick, Sergio Leone, and Kurosawa, and in my view the most influential, and all-around best director of all time is Akira Kurosawa. Kurosawa has had so much influence on cinema in story, style and technique throughout the years influencing directors like George Lucas, Sergio Leone, Quinton Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Stanley Kubrick, and countless others. Akira Kurosawa introduced the world two different story styles/tropes in with the “Team building” trope, and the perspective or Rashomon style that can be seen in the Dirty Dozen films, Star Wars films, Ocean 11 films, Hero, Knives out, and countless other films as well as just about every part of popular culture. Akira Kurosawa as faced some criticism over his career with one that I can understand was his filmmaking during WWII. Like many filmmakers throughout the world in the late 1930’s and through the 1940’s they were pushed, paid, and sometimes forced to make propaganda films for the citizens of their countries. Akira Kurosawa was one of those directors, and I can understand the criticism of Kurosawa’s first films as a director in the early 1940’s. Another criticism that is completely unfounded and is laughable was by the French new wave movement in the 1950’s with many of the film makers saying Kurosawa was elitist and his films were not Japanese enough. Really men Frenchman from a former colonial power telling a Japanese filmmaker that his films were Japanese enough. That would be me as a white man like telling Spike Lee that his films aren’t black enough or Zhang Yimou that his films aren’t Chinese enough. Simple that is unfounded and just wrong. Even with some small legitimate criticism of Akira Kurosawa’s life and work it does not take away from his brilliance as a filmmaker crafting some of the best films made influencing countless others. As for Kurosawa’s best film that is hard, but even though I love his sprawling historical masterpieces in Yojimbo, Seven Samurai, Ran, Rashomon in my view it is one of Kurosawa’s smaller films that is the director’s best film. That would be 1952’s moving and poignant drama Ikiru.

--------------------------------

Honorable mentions that I briefly considered for this list: David Lean, Steven Spielberg, John Ford, Charlie Chaplin, Sergey Eisenstein, Ingmar Bergman, and Billy Wilder to name a few. I have seen very few films from the silent film era.

[the-pontiac-bandit]

found a lot of love in this town

i,,,i don’t even know what to say here i wrote this thing on a plane and it’s incoherent fluff to the nth degree. i think i gotta blame @sergeant-santiago for this for screaming about peraltiago babies to me for like,,,all week now (title from city of angels, by the head and the heart)

Amy Santiago mutters a curse to herself. She’s in the back room of a wedding hall, swallowing down nausea and standing through dizziness, thinking to herself that the dark circles under her eyes most certainly don’t match her gorgeous powder-blue dress (she’s trusting that Gina will be able to fix it later, and that Gina will chalk up the circles to a perfectly usual lack of sleep). Her pantsuit had fit just fine this morning – maybe a little tight, but still zipping normally. Of course this dress, which had fit last month at the fitting, would be too small already.

Although, in fairness, a lot had changed in the last month, she reminds herself, a hand ghosting over her belly.

Rosa, leaned against a wall a few feet from Amy, looks up from the straps on her sandals at the muttered shit, and Amy regrets the noise immediately. It’ll probably zip with a little effort, after all. Or at least, she thinks with another tug at the zipper, her other hand stretched behind her to hold the dress closed, it had better zip. She can’t show up to her captain’s vow renewal in a work pantsuit (it would have to be a formal one, at least).

She knows rationally that Captain Holt couldn’t care less what she wears to his vow renewal, that he and Kevin would be proud to have her participate no matter what she was wearing, and that there are a million excuses in the world – other than the truth, which she can’t share quite yet – for why the dress didn’t work. But still, her breath is starting to quicken, and for some godforsaken reason tears are springing into her eyes because she’s only eight weeks in and has already lost control. Her body has always done exactly what she wanted it to, and she and Jake had talked about this eventuality six months ago when they first had this conversation. But now it’s real. There are thirty-two more weeks, and then the rest of her life, where she’ll never have full control again, but she thought she had time. She wasn’t ready for it to go to pieces today.

She’s growing a bit frantic, wishes she could go find Jake, likely standing with Charles and Terry in their suits in the reception hall, to hold her tight and whisper stories about cribs and stuffed elephants and toddler-sized Hogwarts robes and the sweet smell of baby shampoo like he did last time she panicked, staring at a positive pregnancy test and feeling this huge life change turn from hypothetical to tangible.

But then, she feels Rosa’s hands on hers, pushing them out of the way so that her friend can try the zipper from a better angle. She feels two gentle tugs. And then Rosa’s hands drop away, her clicking heels carrying her to Amy’s front, where she stops, arms crossed.

“Santiago,” she says, an ounce of reproach and a gallon of some emotion Amy can’t quite identify coloring her voice.

“What?” She tries for innocence, knows her poker face is faltering. She crosses her arms to mirror her friend, going for defiance but gratefully noting that the position prevents her hands from drifting to her stomach, as she’s noticed they have a new habit of doing.

“This dress zipped at the fitting last month.”

Amy’s jaw twitches. And then she’s babbling some incoherent response about hard work and poor nutritional habits and a lapse in her workout regimen and bloating.

And then Rosa’s holding up a hand, wordlessly telling her to shut up. Amy swallows a sentence about PMS, eternally thankful she was cut off.

They stand like that for a few seconds that stretch into eternity. Amy resists shifting her weight or breaking eye contact, knowing that both would be tacit admissions of guilt, but Rosa’s stern gaze makes her want to spill the truth out onto the floor of the dressing room, leaving it out in the open for her much calmer, much braver friend to deal with.

She can almost hear Rosa’s brain whirring as her friend puts two and two together. She can see Rosa’s eyes flit from her abdomen, up to the dark circles below teary eyes on her slightly fuller face, over to the coffee by Amy’s purse, with DECAF scrawled across the side. Amy’s sure she’s recalling a billion hasty trips to the bathroom when Hitchcock and Scully walk by with their lunch, and a trillion worried looks from Jake, who’s taken to hovering by her desk and volunteering for every single new case with a frustrated don’t-you-dare look at his wife, standing as a sergeant at the front of the room.  

Before Amy can think of another excuse – something, anything, to throw her friend off the scent – understanding is lighting up Rosa’s eyes. A slight nod, and then her arms uncross, falling to a more relaxed position at her sides. She holds Amy’s gaze for a few more seconds, her expression shifting into something softer. If Amy didn’t know better, she’d call it affection. And then Rosa is moving back behind her, her hands finding the zipper and starting to work.

“So, you and Jake are getting…a puppy.” Rosa’s statement breaks the relative silence, rising over the faint white noise of chatter from the foyer filtering through the door.

Amy does her best to play dumb. She’s almost sure it’s not working, but it’s worth a try. “A puppy? God, no! Allergies! Anaphylaxis! Death!”

A sigh. A pause. “Fine. A monitor lizard, then.”

“Rosa, I’ve already told Jake no to that—I swear, if he got one—what do you know?”

She knows without seeing them that Rosa is rolling her eyes with such force it’s almost a physical sensation.

“Come on, Santiago. This dress zipped last month. Don’t play dumb. You and Jake are getting…some kind of appropriate animal this year.”

She remembers the last fitting, remembers noting the date for the first time that week, in the middle of a case that had given her tunnel vision and a bad case of the flu, and realizing she was late. She remembers the hope, the pregnancy test taken at five in the morning, long before Jake was awake. She remembers jumping on their bed, waking him up bouncing and hitting him with a pillow. He’d fought back, until he deciphered the laughter bubbling up through her lips as a barely-coherent we’re pregnant on loop, when he’d tackled her down to ask her really and are you sure and a billion other questions she’d answered by dragging him out of bed to the two pink lines on their bathroom counter. He’d tried to convince her to stay home, tried to say that dress fittings with Kevin Cozner were far less important than pizza-themed baby celebrations, but she’d reminded him about how important today would be and had dragged herself away with a huge grin on her face and a thousand promises to go as quickly as possible.

Behind her, Rosa tugs on the dress extra hard, a reminder that she’s still waiting for Amy’s answer.

With a sigh and a hard swallow, Amy nods, hoping that the bounce of her hair would be enough confirmation for Rosa, since Amy’s not sure where her voice went or when her throat got so dry.

Rosa pauses, her hands stilling against Amy’s back. Then, she clears her throat. “You…okay, Santiago?”

Amy’s not sure what about the sentence opens the floodgates. She’s not sure if it’s the concern in her friend’s voice, or the hand that’s gently resting on her shoulder, or the relief of having someone else know or some other thing she hasn’t begun to identify, but words are spilling out of her mouth before she can even figure out how to answer the question. “I mean—we’re thrilled—Jake is so excited—and I mean, I am, too, obviously—it’s just that—I don’t know—it’s all so real, so much faster than I thought, and I’m going to have to stop field work soon, and it’s on the calendar and we planned for every eventuality—or I thought we did, but this dress won’t zip and there are going to be a billion more things like this and—Rosa…what if I can’t do it?”

Her voice had been growing louder, more frantic, but the final words came out a whisper, a thought she’d been too scared to voice even to Jake. Amy’s knees are shaking, her shoulders heaving as she catches her breath. She can’t decide if the feeling in the pit of her stomach is fear of all the unknowns ahead, relief at finally having voiced her deepest fear, or simply nausea, which has become an almost-constant presence in her life over the last six weeks. As Rosa turns her around by her shoulders so that they’re face to face, Amy decides it’s probably some combination of the three.

Amy can’t bring herself to look her friend in the eyes, so her face drifts down. She notes the nude nail polish on Rosa’s toes, matching her shoes and complementing her dress, and occupies her brain with the thought of Rosa getting a pedicure – somehow, the idea of her enigmatic friend having her nails painted is so unexpected that it calms her, distracting her from her spiral. The back of her dress is still open, and she can feel the draft from the vent above her against her spine, but she resists the urge to move, knows that turning away won’t put off the conversation Rosa’s about to put her through.

“You idiot.” Rosa’s voice surprises her, its amused affection catching her off guard and drawing her out of her reverie. Amy’s face turns up, to find her friend staring at her with concern in her eyes but a smile gracing her face. “Do you honestly think you can’t do it?”

Amy shrugs. “I mean, I know everyone’s done it, and Jake and I are prepared, and I babysat, and we’re financially stable, and we’re ready for a family, but…what if I screw it up? This is someone else’s life, and you can’t plan for everything – I didn’t even think to plan for this dress.”

Rosa punches her in the shoulder. “Nerd. You’re going to be great. I promise. Your…pet—” she nods at Amy, “—is going to kick butt and start solving crimes as a toddler and probably skip ten grades. You can’t plan for everything, but that doesn’t mean you’re not ready for it.”

Amy’s wincing, rubbing her shoulder where Rosa’s knuckles made contact way harder than necessary, and slowly processing her friend’s words through a head full of swirling thoughts and to-do lists and mild-to-moderate panic.

“Really?”

“Santia—Amy, you solve crimes for a living. You’re smart, and you react on your feet. You and Jake are disgustingly perfect for each other, and you’ll be great parents…to whatever pet you’re planning on getting. Plus, you really think you’d be alone? You’ve got a huge-ass family to help.”

“No, I know, but my mom won’t be able to stay forever, and my brothers are so spread out, and—”

“You know what I meant.”

Amy smiles at her friend, and then, before she quite knows what she’s doing, her arms are around Rosa, squeezing her friend tight. Rosa stiffens for a second beneath the hug, but then her arms have wrapped around Amy, holding her back.

It only lasts for a few seconds, and then with a clap on her back, Rosa is extricating herself and moving to start fresh on the zipper.

“So, when are you due? Or—when is the pet—”

Amy cuts her off with a smile. “You’re good. Due the second week in May.” She can feel tension easing out of her shoulders, and the knots in the pit of her stomach are coming mostly undone (turns out that part of that feeling was just nausea, but the anxiety is ebbing away). Her lungs feel fuller, and her heart isn’t pounding quite so hard anymore.

Rosa keeps up the conversation, making small talk about names and plans and work and the impending ceremony all mixed together, for a few more minutes as she tugs at the zipper with increasing force, before muttering a curse in defeat and going off in search of Gina.

Fifteen minutes later – just in time – Amy has been lightly stitched into her dress, with a silver cardigan Gina stole off the back of a guest to cover the gap in the back. Gina doesn’t ask questions as she works, and Amy’s not sure what Rosa told her to enlist her help, but she’s so unbelievably grateful for the women bracketing her that she doesn’t bother asking.

She can see the question in Jake’s eyes when she emerges with Gina and Rosa nearly thirty minutes after she left to change, wearing a matching dress and a barely-too-small cardigan, so she whispers in his ear as she walks by, “Your friends are way too smart…and also, the dress maybe didn’t zip.”

He laughs a little against her neck, pulling her in for a quick hug as he whispers back, “They’re your friends, too.”

A grin stretches across her face. “Don’t worry – I know.” A brief kiss on his cheek, and then Gina is pulling her away with mentions of Kevin and tardiness and smoke machine timing.

Exactly twenty-nine weeks later, Rachel Rosita Peralta arrives, announcing her presence firmly with an early delivery and a cry louder than Amy would believe lungs that small could make. The nerves that have been a steady undercurrent for months haven’t disappeared, but the small bundle that she and Jake have been passing between them throughout the morning after the longest night of Amy’s life fills her chest with so much love she’s stopped noticing.

Rosa punches her in the shoulder when she hears the name, trying and failing to hide her smile and the shine in her eyes. As she stares down at her goddaughter, making wordless promises about hundreds of thousands of pushups and other sappy things she’d never dare say out loud, her only comment, directed at Amy, is, “You know, this is a pretty cute monitor lizard, Santiago.”

Amy’s soft smile quickly morphs into a disapproving frown as Jake pipes up from the corner, where she had been sure he was sleeping. “A monitor lizard? Ames, did you change your mind?”

[aion-rsa]

The Watch Controversy Explained: How Different is the Show From Discworld?

https://ift.tt/355lRyx

This article has been kept as spoiler-free as possible, but since it discusses differences between the Discworld books and The Watch TV show, there will be discussion of changes to characters and setting, and some vague allusions to plot.

Let’s say one thing first and foremost: if you’ve never read any of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books, and you like quirky, funny SFF television, you’ll probably enjoy BBC America’s new show The Watch. It’s genuinely funny, well-acted, and well-made, even if it does have an obviously-television-sized CGI budget.

Here’s the problem though: if you are a fan of Pratchett’s Discworld books, on which the show is (very loosely) based, you’ll spend most of your first watch-through scratching your head in confusion.

The level of controversy around this new adaptation is unusual. Any book to screen adaptation always involves a certain amount of changes to the source material, because that’s simply in the nature of shifting something to a different medium. There will always be some fans who disapprove of any changes whatsoever, but the majority will generally grumble about a few irritations but enjoy the show anyway, and accept it as a new version of the story.

The controversy around The Watch, however, goes far further than a few fans grumbling because Glorfindel has been replaced with Arwen and Tom Bombadil has been cut. The series hasn’t even been released yet, but reactions of shock and surprise have followed the trailers, as a result of the sheer scale of the changes made to Pratchett’s world. Pratchett’s daughter Rhianna diplomatically summed up the situation on Twitter as, “it’s fairly obvious that The Watch shares no DNA with my father’s Watch. This is neither criticism nor support. It is what it is.”

Now that the first few episodes have been released to the press, there’s a bit more opportunity to survey just how substantial the changes are. Are they really that extensive? Well, yes and no. But mostly yes.

First of all, the series is not adapting the plot of any specific Watch novel, but taking elements from at least two of them (Guards! Guards! and Night Watch) and creating a new plot arc. This is a fairly sensible idea, in itself – there’s a case to be made for a series that tells a broad range of stories, with plots based on the novels. This also allows the setting to reflect some of the later additions to the city of Ankh-Morpork.

However, the plots of the two novels being used are not only fused together, they are substantially changed (Vimes and bad guy Carcer Dun now grew up together in an orphanage, for example, and sadly it is no longer the secretive Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon Night trying to summon a dragon). Some of the new elements added, including substantial references to Arthurian legend not present in the books, are also rather odd, leaving the viewer who knows the Discworld wondering just what’s going on here.

Character-wise, there’s at least one character that could almost have leaped from the pages of the book. New recruit Carrot Ironfoundersson is by far the closest to his book counterpart in the series, although possibly the explanation that his name refers to his tapering body rather than his red hair should have been left out, since actor Adam Hugill is tall but not especially muscular. Whether his backstory will also be the same, only time will tell.

Other characters clearly have bits of their original DNA in them. Vimes is reasonably close to his book counterpart, though the decision to have all the actors use their own natural accents does mean that people who grew up together have somehow managed to develop entirely different regional accents. The Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness is one of Pratchett’s best bits of socially conscious satire and is reproduced more or less in full, which is nice.

Lady Sybil Ramkin is an interesting case. Her general characterization has echoes of her book counterpart, but instead of being a somewhat reclusive upper class animal enthusiast, she’s now a weapon-wielding vigilante who has been given a tragic backstory and is considerably more of an action heroine than in the novels. Actress Lara Rossi also has a slim figure and is fairly young, as opposed to her book counterpart’s bigger curves and middle age, and she has lost some of her more deep-seated inhibitions (though her hair is still a wig, we’re glad to say). Still, her general attitude is not a million miles away from the Sybil books fans know, her sheer upper class confidence shining through in a familiar way.

Read more

Books

Terry Pratchett’s Discworld: Revisiting the Sky Adaptations

By Andrew Blair

Books

Terry Pratchett’s Influence On the Good Omens TV Show

By Kayti Burt

Some of the changes made to the book characters’ physical descriptions help to diversify the cast. Pratchett’s Discworld is a bit dominated by white male characters, so it’s not surprising that a couple of characters have been gender-flipped, in addition to the show casting racially diverse actors. The gender-flipping of Lord Vetinari might reasonably result in some fan disappointment as he is described so vividly in the books and readers might have a very clear mental image of him. But overall, changes to race or gender are usually not insurmountable for fans, and there are good reasons for those changes.

So far, then, all of this sounds like the sort of changes that might be expected from a novel to screen adaptation. There are adaptations that might stick more closely to their originals, but this would be nothing out of the ordinary.

But there’s more.

The character changes go on and on – Angua is officially still the same species, but her often-described long flowing hair is absent and she is physically tiny. The nature of her species has also changed substantially, following a more common and angst-filled recent template seen in many other shows, rather than Pratchett’s more complex depiction (Angua’s feelings about her family and nature being a major theme of The Fifth Elephant).

Angua is at least still the same basic species though, unlike her colleague Cheery Littlebottom. In the books, Cheery is a dwarf, but in the show, they are a human. The motivation for this change may have been well intentioned. Discworld dwarfs all identify as male, whether they are biologically male or female, and those who are biologically female have secondary masculine characteristics like facial hair and so on. Cheery goes against dwarf convention by openly identifying as female, wearing skirts and high heels and make-up and using feminine pronouns, eventually changing her name to Cheri. So she is, essentially, transgender, except in a fantasy way that doesn’t exactly map on to any real life situations. This is very characteristic of the 1990s tendency to address LGBTQ+ issues through fantasy and science fiction ideas rather than directly (see also some of Star Trek’s Trill episodes).

It’s possible that the decision to make Cheery a human, played by non-binary actor Jo Eaton-Kent, rather than a fantasy metaphor, came from a desire not to offend anyone by hiding behind fantasy tropes, combined with a desire to cast a non-binary actor in the role (the number of non-binary available actors with dwarfism being, presumably, quite low). 

However, this does have the side effect of substantially changing Cheery’s character. Cheery/Cheri clearly identifies as female – Cheery in the show appears to be a transgender woman, as the first episode has them clearly state a preference for feminine pronouns, but the show’s publicity states that Cheery is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns. They are no longer agitating for change among their own particular community (of dwarfs), nor do they have any regular dwarf characteristics (love of bread, etc.). Cheery in the books continues to sport a full beard because she is a dwarf and its culturally significant to her, while Cheery in the series is horrified by the thought of a beard, so their non-binary gender identity has also subtly shifted.

All in all, the change probably comes from a good place, but it is somewhat distracting for book fans, who may see little connection between the two versions of the character. The series also doesn’t include a single dwarf character, which is very odd – in addition to Cheery, there are several dwarf Watchmen in the books, most prominently Lance-Constable Cuddy, who could have been included in the series (Warwick Davis would have made a great Cuddy).

Also missing in action are two of the main characters from the Watch, Sergeant Colon and Corporal ‘Nobby’ Nobbs. Perhaps this exclusion sums up the way the series simply doesn’t seem to represent or “get” Pratchett’s Watch in any meaningful way. Unlike the new television characters, Colon and Nobby are not action heroes. They are heroes of another kind, and they carry out acts of bravery in different ways, whether by shooting at a dragon, going undercover dressed as washerwomen, or just providing Vimes with the right information at the right time. While they represent some of the worst the Watch has to offer – racism, or rather speciesism, and corruption – they are also a handy reminder of the Night Watch’s humble origins, and a rich source of comic relief (fulfilling pretty much the same role as Hitchcock and Scully in Brooklyn Nine Nine). The Watch without them is incomplete.

Even more distracting than the character changes are the widespread changes to the setting. The Assassins’ Guild’s form, style and function are quite different to the books’ version. Ankh-Morpork also appears to be situated in the middle of a desert, which is distinctly not the case in the novels. Pratchett’s city is a blend of London, New York City, and Rome, and is surrounded by the fertile Sto Plains, and in Jingo, our heroes travel to a desert country, where the culture is markedly different from their own. We can only assume that this was a budgetary decision. The series was filmed in South Africa, so the desert sequences are a combination of location filming and CGI, and presumably much cheaper than trying to recreate a European plain.

Most distractingly of all, however, the series seems to have moved into a sort of blend of science fiction and urban fantasy. Each episode opens with the text ‘Somewhere in a distant secondhand dimension’, suggesting science fiction, while set and costume design have an urban, contemporary look, with electronic devices and lighting readily available, characters wearing bomber jackets, and elements of modern culture, including punk rock and old people’s homes.

This is a problem because the Discworld started out as spoofs of sword ‘n’ sorcery paperback fantasy books. The stories were deliberately set in a very familiar High Fantasy-style pseudo-medieval world, and a world which remained stubbornly pseudo-medieval for a long time despite occasional invasions of rock music, moving pictures, and shopping malls. 

There were always odd bits of magically-driven technology in the Discworld, like cameras (with images painted very quickly by imps) and dis-organizers (also driven by imps). Towards the later parts of the series the world did start to evolve into something a little bit more early modern, with the permanent introduction of clacks machines (for sending telegrams), printing presses and even, in the penultimate book, steam trains. The first Watch book Guards! Guards! even includes, as the series does, a brightly lit neon sign – but it is clearly stated to be a magical item. So there is some precedent for the style of the TV series, but the extent of the punk rock aesthetic it adopts is surprising.

Discworld is not the only property to be radically reimagined for television. Other adaptations have taken a fair few liberties too, and some have even undergone the same sort of radical re-tooling as the Discworld has here. For example, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories have been reimagined in similarly extreme ways, including updating the setting, and gender-flipping Holmes’ sidekick Watson.

But the Sherlock Holmes stories have been adapted many, many times in different ways over the years. Adaptations that follow the books more closely are easily available, so there’s more appetite for something new and different. The original stories also, importantly, weren’t period pieces when they were written – they were contemporary detective stories. There’s a certain logic, then, to updating the setting and creating a new, contemporary, crime story rather than a period drama.

But the Discworld is a created secondary world, and a fairly recent one (the books were published 1983-2015). There have been a handful of screen versions, both live action and animated, but none of the Watch books. There seems no pressing reason to reimagine it in this way.

The truth is, to get fans excited about a book to screen adaptation, you have to show them something that feels like it’s leapt off the page. The Lord of the Rings film adaptations and the early seasons of Game of Thrones, for example, both made changes to the source material, but when you looked at a few minutes’ footage, you could tell which character was which and they felt recognizable. This doesn’t mean they have to be exactly like their book counterpart – Frodo was 50 years old in the book, whereas Elijah Wood wasn’t even 20 when he started filming. But when fans watched the first trailer for The Fellowship of the Ring, all those years ago, they could pinpoint exactly which character was which from a few seconds’ footage, and were (mostly) overjoyed to see the characters they loved come to life.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Ultimately, the issue with the series is this: if you changed the names, it would not be recognizable as an adaptation of Pratchett’s Discworld stories. For anyone who hasn’t read the books, this is no problem – but it’s a strange decision, for fans of the books will have little incentive to watch something that takes the names of beloved characters, but doesn’t include anything recognizably adapting the stories they love. In the end, if the resemblance between books and series becomes so slim you can barely see the relationship between them, you’re no longer watching an adaptation, but a new series that’s pinched some beloved characters’ names.

The Watch premieres Saturday, Jan. 3 at 8 p.m. ET on BBC America.

The post The Watch Controversy Explained: How Different is the Show From Discworld? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3rJMUJk

[kayskasmoviereviews]

Truly Massive Movie Blog Update - Part 3 (of 4)

A Quiet Passion - I liked a number of elements of this biographical film about Emily Dickinson, but felt like it didn’t really engage with the specifics of her work enough. You come away from this movie not really knowing more about what made her the poet that she was, but knowing all the ways she suffered physically and socially.

You Were Never Really Here - A sort of deconstructed, de-glamorized hitman/action movie without action sequences, but all the more powerful for the things it doesn’t do and implies rather than shows. Joaquin Phoenix gives one of his best performances, which is saying a lot. Lynne Ramsay knows how to make a movie that hits hard.

Teeth - A horror movie based on the “vagina dentata” myth. The movie capitalizes on gross-out value quite a bit, and it certainly held my interest throughout, but at the end I couldn’t help but feel like it could’ve added up to more.

Maria by Callas - This is a documentary about the opera singer Maria Callas, which attempts to tell her story purely through recordings of her singing and speaking - none of the usual contextualizing interviews, voiceover, or written text. While I admired the effort, the movie does end up showing you why so many other documentary filmmakers do rely on those conventional devices.

Ralph Breaks the Internet - A perfect sequel that builds on an already excellent original. It’s extremely funny, visually amazing, has some surprisingly sophisticated and well-articulated themes about friendship and co-dependence, and by the end honestly made me cry a little. What a film.

Call Me By Your Name - To be honest, I thought this film was very slightly overhyped by some critics; but it is still great, to be sure. The cinematography is masterful, the locations are gorgeous, and the performances are completely believable and powerful. The movie captures the intensity of the individual experience of powerful infatuation (as opposed to “true love”) and conveys that sensation in a very direct way to the viewer.

Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse - Simply one of the most purely entertaining and visually creative animated children’s films ever. It’s probably in my top 3 favorite superhero films of all time (along with Logan and Spider-man 2), and it’s definitely the film in the genre that I would most want to show to children. There’s just something about the Spider-man mythos that makes it endlessly renewable. (On a side note, I also quite enjoyed the recent PS4 Spider-man game.)

Roma - Clearly the sort of thing that can only come from a mature master filmmaker like Alfonso Cuaron, who thoroughly deserved both his cinematography and direction Oscars for this film. You could teach classes for days just about this film’s use of long takes, deep focus, and mise-en-scene. That it’s all in service of the story of a type of person (a humble Mexican domestic worker) who never gets such lavish cinematic attention is wonderful.

Mary Poppins Returns - It was funny to me how much this film followed the same idea as Disney’s Christopher Robin from earlier in the year: beloved character from a mid-century Disney property returns to the children he/she once took care of, children who are now harried and tired adults with professional problems, and teaches them anew the value of wonder and imagination. I actually thought Christopher Robin was by far the more emotional and meaningful of the two, but Marry Poppins Returns was still charming and fun.

Never Goin’ Back - I really enjoyed this gross, lowbrow-yet-emotionally-honest comedy, which follows a couple of days in the lives of two teenage girls going nowhere fast. One climactic gag in particular is spectacularly disgusting, but so well earned that I couldn’t be mad at it.

Will You Be My Neighbor? - Okay, if Ralph Breaks the Internet made me cry a little, this incredibly powerful documentary about Mr. Rogers made me cry a lot. There, are you happy? I cried a lot at this movie!

Suspense (1913) and Shoes (1916) - It’s a crime that Lois Weber, one of the great early silent film directors, isn’t more widely known and seen than she is. Both of these films made remarkable strides forward for cinema in terms of direction and cinematography. Things you associate with Hitchcock and Spielberg actually have their roots here.

Elephant - A singular experiment by Gus Van Sant, better known for conventional dramatic films like Milk and Good Will Hunting. This movie takes a purposefully blank, affectless, documentary-style approach to the subject of a school shooting, following the perspectives of both the shooters and various victims throughout the day at school. The movie offers no easy answers, but simply shows us what it would look like.

Brigsby Bear - A remarkably funny, poignant, creative film with a great premise and strong performances. The film offers an intelligent, heartening commentary on our relationship to art, how it can affect us, and how we can affect it. I highly recommend this one.

Una - A compelling, ambiguous film that is largely successful, despite the obviousness at points of its origins as a play. The film centers on a young woman (Rooney Mara) who was sexually abused at the age of 13 by an adult man (Ben Mendelsohn) and finds and confronts him nearly 20 years later. The movie does not necessarily go where you expect it to, and leaves things open-ended, but I found its decisions interesting and worthwhile.

[open--love]

The Gift of being Unattached in Relationships

“Real love begins when nothing is expected in return.”  - Thich Nhat Hanh

A healthy relationship doesn’t come by chance, but by choice.

Unattachment in love is truly possible. It isn’t about letting go of anything but rather changing our expectations of what we want from the relationship.

Regardless of how spiritual or evolved we are, relationships challenge our shadow side and point out the work we have to do in order to get past our childhood wounds.

Unattachment in love isn’t about letting go of the person, or even of the love itself.

It has to do with remaining unattached to any expectations or predetermined end result that many use to judge a successful relationship.

It seems that there is a blueprint for relationships that we all are expected to follow. We meet, we kiss, we talk, we spend more time together, we say I love you, we meet families, we move in and then of course a diamond ring will eventually follow.

Yet, that isn’t unattachment in love; rather it’s following a plan—and a rather limited one in my opinion.

In order to work toward unattachment in love—if that is what we are aiming to do—then we first have to work on ourselves and our triggers.

As humans we tend to have a difficult time with loose ends and with undefined or indescribable situations. For many of us, we like to know exactly where we are and what type of situation we are in so then we can play by the comforting corresponding rules.

Yet, we limit the type of love that we engage in.

Loving in a relationship based in unattachment doesn’t mean that we don’t care what the other person does, or that there is no chance for us to get hurt—but it does mean that we love them enough to simply let the relationship speak for itself rather than use customary titles.

When we can change our expectations, our experiences can change.

If we go into a new relationship with someone without any idealized thoughts on what it could become down the road, then we will give ourselves the opportunity for that union to develop organically, instead of forcing it inside the predetermined boundaries we use to define love.

Unattachment in love means that I love you because of the person you are, not because I am expecting you to love me back.

Unattachment in love means that I want to enjoy as many moments as I can with you because there is not a guarantee how long those opportunities will continue.

Unattachment in love is purely the ability to love someone freely. Both people are able to come and go at will, without ever feeling like there is an expectation for a specific set of behaviors or timelines.

The truth is, unattached love is not easy.

In order to truly love someone this way we have to first name and sit with our wounds; our fear of abandonment, rejection and whatever else we have been conditioned, since birth, to expect from a relationship.

Once we can do this work for ourselves—it doesn’t suddenly end, but rather becomes easier to navigate unattachment—we understand that our feelings don’t have to do with the other person, but with ourselves.

One of my wounds is the fear of abandonment, because since childhood I have been conditioned that eventually most men leave. Before I had healed this aspect of my psyche, I would lash out in anxiety and fear at the man in my life, based upon what I thought were his actions.

Yet now, when these same issues arise, I see them for exactly what they are—my reaction is completely different.

I no longer look for someone else to heal me, or to reassure me of their presence in my life, because I can do that for myself.

Regardless of how far this journey has taken me, sometimes I am still triggered—but now, I simply smile when I am because I know that it means I am going to be able to go deeper and evolve to a different level of unattachment.

In unattachment, we don’t let go of the other person—nor do we completely let go of all expectations. To let go implies that we are giving up, which also means we are walking away from the work that can be done on ourselves through our personal relationships.

Unattachment simply means that we are choosing to love in a mindful way. We are showing up for one another when we can. For times when we can’t show up, we are each individually happy.

It means respecting the journey of our partner as much as we do our own, knowing that in unattached love we can’t force anything. There is nothing in this world any of us can do to make someone love us, and there’s also nothing we can do to stop someone from falling in love with us either.

When we can approach love as an offering, regardless whether the beloved accepts or reciprocates it, we bask in the essence of what it truly means to care for another, apart from our own needs and wants.

Unattachment in love means acknowledging our feelings for another, regardless of action, choice or result. This may be the most real type of love.

“Our journey is about being more deeply involved in life, and yet less attached to it.”

- Ram Dass

Author: Kate Rose Editor: Ashleigh Hitchcock Source: Elephant Journal

[thisishowyouletgoandfindyou-blog]

The Gift of being Unattached in Relationships. Via Kate Rose on Aug 1, 2016 1,740 Share photosavvy/Flickr get elephant's newsletter “Real love begins when nothing is expected in return.” ~ Thich Nhat Hanh A healthy relationship doesn’t come by chance, but by choice. Unattachment in love is truly possible. It isn’t about letting go of anything but rather changing our expectations of what we want from the relationship. Regardless of how spiritual or evolved we are, relationships challenge our shadow side and point out the work we have to do in order to get past our childhood wounds. Unattachment in love isn’t about letting go of the person, or even of the love itself. It has to do with remaining unattached to any expectations or predetermined end result that many use to judge a successful relationship. It seems that there is a blueprint for relationships that we all are expected to follow. We meet, we kiss, we talk, we spend more time together, we say I love you, we meet families, we move in and then of course a diamond ring will eventually follow. Yet, that isn’t unattachment in love; rather it’s following a plan—and a rather limited one in my opinion. In order to work toward unattachment in love—if that is what we are aiming to do—then we first have to work on ourselves and our triggers. As humans we tend to have a difficult time with loose ends and with undefined or indescribable situations. For many of us, we like to know exactly where we are and what type of situation we are in so then we can play by the comforting corresponding rules. Yet, we limit the type of love that we engage in. Loving in a relationship based in unattachment doesn’t mean that we don’t care what the other person does, or that there is no chance for us to get hurt—but it does mean that we love them enough to simply let the relationship speak for itself rather than use customary titles. When we can change our expectations, our experiences can change. If we go into a new relationship with someone without any idealized thoughts on what it could become down the road, then we will give ourselves the opportunity for that union to develop organically, instead of forcing it inside the predetermined boundaries we use to define love. Unattachment in love means that I love you because of the person you are, not because I am expecting you to love me back. Unattachment in love means that I want to enjoy as many moments as I can with you because there is not a guarantee how long those opportunities will continue. Unattachment in love is purely the ability to love someone freely. Both people are able to come and go at will, without ever feeling like there is an expectation for a specific set of behaviors or timelines. The truth is, unattached love is not easy. In order to truly love someone this way we have to first name and sit with our wounds; our fear of abandonment, rejection and whatever else we have been conditioned, since birth, to expect from a relationship. Once we can do this work for ourselves—it doesn’t suddenly end, but rather becomes easier to navigate unattachment—we understand that our feelings don’t have to do with the other person, but with ourselves. One of my wounds is the fear of abandonment, because since childhood I have been conditioned that eventually most men leave. Before I had healed this aspect of my psyche, I would lash out in anxiety and fear at the man in my life, based upon what I thought were his actions. Yet now, when these same issues arise, I see them for exactly what they are—my reaction is completely different. I no longer look for someone else to heal me, or to reassure me of their presence in my life, because I can do that for myself. Regardless of how far this journey has taken me, sometimes I am still triggered—but now, I simply smile when I am because I know that it means I am going to be able to go deeper and evolve to a different level of unattachment. In unattachment, we don’t let go of the other person—nor do we completely let go of all expectations. To let go implies that we are giving up, which also means we are walking away from the work that can be done on ourselves through our personal relationships. Unattachment simply means that we are choosing to love in a mindful way. We are showing up for one another when we can. For times when we can’t show up, we are each individually happy. It means respecting the journey of our partner as much as we do our own, knowing that in unattached love we can’t force anything. There is nothing in this world any of us can do to make someone love us, and there’s also nothing we can do to stop someone from falling in love with us either. When we can approach love as an offering, regardless whether the beloved accepts or reciprocates it, we bask in the essence of what it truly means to care for another, apart from our own needs and wants. Unattachment in love means acknowledging our feelings for another, regardless of action, choice or result. This may be the most real type of love. “Our journey is about being more deeply involved in life, and yet less attached to it.” ~ Ram Dass ~ Author: Kate Rose Image: flickr/photosavy Editor: Ashleigh Hitchcock