#another theory about Napoleon's death

[sunsolii]

Did a mineral kill Napoleon??

Our dear emperor is mentioned in my deadly rocks book/kit. In October 1982, British scientist David Jones claimed that Napoleon may have not died because of stomach cancer but of the wallpaper in his drawing room (does not specify the location of said drawing room).

The substance used to paint the wallpaper is the mineral Orpiment. Orpiment is an orange-yellow arsenic sulfide mineral which is found near volcanic fumaroles or hot springs. Due to the mineral containing arsenic, inhalation can cause an array of health problems which can lead to death.

Grounded Orpiment had been used in paintings during Ancient Egypt and China, but was soon no longer used because of its toxic nature. In 1960, test samples showed that Napoleon's hair contained high levels of Orpiment. Jones also obtained a sample of the drawing room's wallpaper which also contained high levels of Orpiment in it.

It was interesting to read this portion of the book since I've had the kit for years and never paid too much attention to this information, and no, the kit does NOT include a sample of Orpiment for obvious reasons if anyone's wondering 😅😅

Anyway that is it of me telling y'all useless information about rocks, minerals, and Naps. Thank you for reading :)

Hirshmann, Kris. Deadly Rock [Paperback booklet and 9 Rock Specimens]. Scholastic, 2014

[cippicat]

What happened to Arno Victor Dorian after the events of Unity and Dead Kings ?

Following Elise's death at the end of Assassin's Creed Unity, Arno falls into a deep depression, finding little to live for.

He is also no longer part of the French Brotherhood.

In the DLC "Dead Kings", Arno is contacted by Marquis de Sade, who tasks him with finding a manuscript in the tomb of Louis IX.

Reluctantly, Arno agrees to this mission, and travels to Saint Denis to find the manuscript. During his search, Arno meets a young thief named Leon.

While the two work together, Leon's perspective on the world starts to break through Arno's grief, slowly showing him that there is more to live than the tragedies he's faced in his past.

What happened after Dead King is in the O.Bowden's novel.

I don't like his novels.

I will not summarise Oliver Bowden's novel.

But in the final chapters Arno found Elise's journal, and also Jennifer Scott Kenway's letters, where Elise requested him to seek unity for the two Orders.

It didn't go well obviously.

Arno rejoined the French assassins but we don't know when or how.

I have few theories:

Arno was extremely talented as an Assassin and his skills were too valuables

The Brotherhood forgive him after Germain's death and the rescue of the sword of Eden

The french assassins saw Napoleon's increasing influence over France and they need Arno to keep an eye on him. They became allies even though Napoleon's ideas were closer to those of the Templars.

Over the years, Arno earned the rank of Master Assassin and eventually the rank of Mentor (but he wasn't a bureaucrat as Mirabeau).

He took Leon under his wing and adopted him. At first Leon was wary of calling him "Father".

Arno presumably got married and had other children, as he is directly related to Callum Lynch, the protagonist of the Assassin's Creed movie*. Arno made a brief appearance in the movie.

He named one of his children Charles (or Charlotte) after his father and another François (or Françoise) after Monsieur de la Serre.

Did Arno and Ratonhnhaké:ton ever met ? (Reminder: Ratonhnhaké:ton is only twelve years older than Arno)

I think that Ratonhnhaké:ton became aware of Arno's actions during the French Revolution. They may have exchanged letters but they never met in person (and Connor had a big family to took care of and a very sweet daughter who was gifted by the spirits).

Did Arno find out who killed his father?

YES

He knew about Shay but he didn't hunt him down because revenge only leads to a bad path (and probably he thought that Shay was already dead which could be true).

Did Arno met Ethan Frye? Yes, it's possible due to the proximity of the French and english's brotherhood. Arno should be around 65/70 yo (if he was still alive).

We don't know when or how Arno died because Ubisoft never gave us answers (again)

I think that Arno passed away before the birth of the Frye twins, in 1847.

*I have a theory:

AC Unity should have been the gateway to a new present with Callum Lynch (and his ancestors like Aguilar de Nerha) as a new protagonist. But the movie has been a complete disaster so Ubisoft abandoned the idea.

[bunnyinatree]

Here are my thoughts about Death Note compared to Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment...

It makes sense that people compare Light to Raskolnikov, although they strike me as very different characters. Light wants for nothing and is successful in basically everything he tries. Raskolnikov is intelligent, too, but unlike Light, he is down on his luck financially. While Raskolnikov might be just as capable of success as Light, it is denied him due to his socioeconomic standing.

In addition to his lack of resources, Raskolnikov is worse than Light at hiding his resentment and boredom with life. Especially in the manga, we see that Light has many friends, that he's popular with women, and that most everyone thinks of him as Japan's best and brightest. Conversely, Raskolnikov makes no effort to disguise his disgruntlement, and his only friend (Razumihin) is the one who carries and maintains their relationship, despite Raskolnikov's best efforts to drive him away.

The novel says that Raskolnikov "kept aloof from everyone, went to see no one, and did not welcome anyone who came to see him, and indeed everyone soon gave up" on being his friend (Part I, Chapter IV). This is a far cry from Light's outwardly social attitude, although I think that some people assume that Light is more of a lone wolf like Raskolnikov (specifically the people who wrote Light Turner in the Netflix adaptation of Death Note).

Still, I do see a kernel of similarity between Light and Raskolnikov, and that has to do with their lofty theories about society and criminal justice. Raskolnikov may not have any police chiefs in his family, but he does subscribe to a theory that resembles Kira's ideology: Those who are strong enough to seize what they want and who are charismatic enough to do so can get away with murder. The public may even regard their atrocities as progress and vital for the greater good, as is the case with Napoleon.

This reminds me of a quote from Tolstoy's War and Peace: "[W]ar began, that is, an event took place opposed to human reason and to human nature. Millions of men perpetrated against one another such innumerable crimes, frauds, treacheries, thefts, forgeries, issues of false money, burglaries, incendiarisms, and murders as in whole centuries are not recorded in the annals of all the laws courts of the world, but which those who committed them did not at the time regard as being crimes" (Book XI).

Just as Light develops a god complex and justifies his actions as Kira, Raskolnikov convinces himself that his murder was faultless and that it actually contributed to the greater good, even if it was technically illegal. There's also a shared theme about "might making right," where it's suggested that only time will tell if Kira is just or not. If he wins, then his actions are just; if he loses, then he's the worst murderer of all. Here's a quote from Crime and Punishment that expresses the same sentiment: "But those men [i.e. Napoleon] succeeded and so they were right, and I [Raskolnikov] didn't, and so I had no right to have taken that step [murder]" (Epilogue, II).

Both Light and Raskolnikov start off bored/fatigued by the world around them ("Mere existence had always been too little for him [Raskolnikov]; he had always wanted more" (Epilogue, II)), and both characters experience adverse reactions to their first kills, with manga Light cowering under his bedsheets and not eating for several days. Light, of course, continues murdering people, because he successfully convinces himself that it's the right thing to do, whereas Raskolnikov stops after his first attempt, which takes two lives. I think that if Raskolnikov had a Death Note, if he had possessed the same means as Light, then he would have pushed his theory further and murdered more people. As Porifry Petrovich says to Raskolnikov, "It's as well that you only killed the old woman. If you'd invented another theory you might perhaps have done something a thousand times more hideous" (Part VI, Chapter II).

If we were to assign the role of L to anyone in Crime and Punishment, Porfiry Petrovich is our best bet. He may not be a world-renowned detective, and he doesn't have the same autistic charisma as L (in my opinion), but he does back Raskolnikov into a corner with his disconcertingly accurate theories, and the style of these scenes reminds me of Death Note. Raskolnikov wonders why Porfiry Petrovich is being so frank with him; Porfiry Petrovich admits that he likes Raskolnikov a lot; Rasknolnikov's minute expressions are called into account as evidence that he's hiding something; Porfiry Petrovich has less physical proof against Raskolnikov than he has inner assumptions and gut feelings.

Of course, Raskolnikov stops after his first double murder, and he turns himself into the police. Unlike Death Note, where L dies halfway through, Porfiry Petrovich comes out alive and well, and the story concludes where many Death Note adaptations do, without delving into the second half of the story. For this reason, I don't think that there are any character equivalents of Near, Mikami, Mello, Takada, and the rest of the second half crew.

However, there are a few other parallels to address. Razumihin is a good stand-in for Matsuda. Both characters are chummy with the protagonist and always eager to help him out. I'm not sure that Razumihin shares Matsuda's clumsiness or perceived lack of capableness, but it is true that, like Raskolnikov, Razumihin is down on his luck and currently taking a break from his studies. Like Matsuda, Razumihin is talented and just needs the opportunity to flourish. There's also the parallel of Matsuda being attracted to Sayu (Light's sister) and Razumihin being attracted to Dounia (Raskolnikov's sister).

Honestly, I was hoping there would be a more dramatic betrayal scene when Razumihin learned about Raskolnikov's crime, but Crime and Punishment doesn't seem like that kind of story. While Light gets his just desserts and dies like all of the criminals that he's killed before, surrounded by the people he's hurt and betrayed, Raskolnikov retains his loving family, even after they know the full extent of his guilt, and the epilogue suggests that his life will go on, and he will be surrounded by people who love him—and people he's finally capable of loving back (specifically, Sonia).

Speaking of Sonia, I've heard people say that she is the Misa Amane of Crime and Punishment, but I don't think that's true. Personally, I think that Misa is a combination of Sonia and Svidrigailov. Sonia fits the bill of Misa's childish popularity, because the other characters often disapprove of her life choices but can't help feeling drawn to her. Also, she's positioned as Raskolnikov's love interest. Besides that, though, I don't think the connection is very strong. Light has no respect for Misa and sees her as a liability more than anything, whereas Raskolnikov often feels hateful toward Sonia but is frequently moved to bursts of kindness and generosity. And even though Sonia wants to save Raskolnikov and looks upon him in a religious way, Misa sees Light as a savior, while Sonia sees Raskolnikov as someone to be saved.

I think that Svidrigailov is a much better fit for Misa, because they are both brought into the story thanks to their stalkerish behavior. Misa makes a point of tracking down Light, because she is in love with him, while Svidrigailov shows up at Raskolnikov's apartment without any warning, because he is obsessed with Dounia. His love is directed towards the protagonist's sister, rather than the protagonist himself, but the way that Misa and Svidrigailov approach the objects of their affection is similar: They want to be a slave to their love; they'll do whatever their loved one says; they don't care if they're treated badly because of it.

The way that Raskolnikov treats Svidrigailov is much more similar to the way that Light treats Misa than the way that Raskolnikov treats Sonia is. Raskolnikov wishes that Svidrigailov would go away but recognizes him as a liability who learned his darkest secret without his permission, just as Misa uncovered Light's identity on her own.

Sadly, there are no Shinigami equivalents in Crime and Punishment—at least, none that I can make note of.

Lastly, we have Dounia, Raskolnikov's sister, and Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Raskolnikov's mother, who are parallels to Sayu and Sachiko respectively. There isn't much to say about Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Sachiko, because neither plays a major role in the story—although in my wildest dreams, Sachiko would also turn a blind eye to Light's murderous side and go on loving her son in spite of it. I'd like to think that Sachiko would go further than Pulcheria Alexandrovna and directly assist her son, joining Light's crusade to keep him from getting caught.

The connection between Dounia and Sayu fascinates me, because I see Dounia's storyline as everything that Sayu's could have been, had the creator of Death Note chosen to incorporate her into the main plot. Dostoyevsky makes frequent references to how similar Raskolnikov and Dounia are, in terms of appearance as well as personality. Both of them have an underlying coldness about them, a certain cunning intelligence that makes them unique and attractive to others. While Sayu is kidnapped and used as a pawn in other characters' schemes, Dounia is the final goal of Svidrigailov and gets her own scene involving helplessness and coercion—although Dounia made my day by pulling out a gun and aiming it at Svidrigailov. She did not kill him, but she did graze him with a bullet, and I love the parallel between her and her brother, the insinuation that both of them might be driven to murder under the right circumstances.

Sayu does not do any of this, of course, but I would have loved for her to play a more active role in her story. If she had been given as much intelligence and cunning as Light... If she had possessed more agency and had discovered her brother's secret on her own.... If she had pulled a gun on someone, Matsuda-style... As it stands, she and Dounia are both beloved by the main cast, but Sayu does less to differentiate herself from other little sisters. She's simply part of a generic category that people want to protect, and Dounia, in my opinion, has much more complexity and depth given to her.

Overall, I understand why I've seen more than one post comparing Death Note to Crime and Punishment. And while it's a fun topic to mull over, I don't think there's as direct of a correlation as some posts imply. Light and Raskolnikov are both young intellectuals driven to murder by lofty theories; they each have a mother who burdens them with her high expectations (Sachiko/Pulcheria Alexandrovna); they both have younger sisters with minor romantic subplots involving a friendly guy (Sayu with Matsuda/Dounia with Razumihin); there's a detective in both stories trying to catch a criminal (L/Porfiry Petrovich); and there's an unwelcome stalker with a romantic obsession there to complicate everything (Misa/Svidrigailov).

But Crime and Punishment ends much sooner than Death Note; there are only two deaths the protagonist is responsible for; and Dostoyevsky seems to have loftier themes of mercy and forgiveness to convey than Death Note. It's possible that swapping the two protagonists wouldn't alter the individuals stories much (if Raskolnikov were in Light's shoes and found a Death Note just before graduating high school, and if Light had been living in poverty, barred from higher education, and forced to deal with a disagreeable pawnbroker).

Still, Death Note strikes me as more of an engaging psychological thriller meant to entertain and satisfy with the protagonist's ultimate downfall, while Crime and Punishment feels intentionally religious and much more concerned with morals/messages. I enjoyed reading Crime and Punishment, but I've enjoyed reading/watching Death Note more (even though I appreciate what Dostoyevsky did with Dounia much more than what Ohba and Obata did with Sayu). I would recommend that fans of Death Note give Crime and Punishment a try, if nineteenth century Russian literature sounds at all appealing to you. It's fun to draw parallels between the stories as you go, and even if they're not the same (no story is), they're both entertaining and engaging in their own right.

[katchwreck]

“With its private property, exploitation of man by man, economic and spiritual enslavement of man, the capitalist system has imposed a heavy burden on everyone, but especially and more barbarously on women. Women were the first slaves in human history, even before slavery. Throughout this history, not to mention prehistory, whether during the Hellenic civilization, Roman times, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or in modern times, whether in the contemporary bourgeois era of the so-called “refined civilization,” women have been and are becoming the most enslaved, oppressed, exploited and humiliated people in every respect. Laws, traditions, religion, masculine mentality oppressed them and allowed them to be oppressed. Ecclesiastes says; “I find woman more harmful than death,” while St. John Chrysostom has another opinion about women. He says; “Among the wildest animals, you will not find anyone more decadent than a woman”. The theologian and philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the most prominent philosophers of medieval reaction, defended the view that “woman's destiny is to live under the heel of men”. To complete these barbaric quotes, Napoleon said; “nature has made women our slaves”. Such were the views of the church and the bourgeoisie about women. Among the bourgeoisie, these views remain valid today. There are countless of philosophers and writers in Europe and all over the world who have made the superiority of men over women a mythological aspiration, norm and even demand. According to them, a man is strong, a warrior, brave and therefore smarter, therefore he is predetermined to rule, to lead, whereas a woman is by nature weak, vulnerable and timid, therefore she must be ruled and handled. Bourgeois theorists such as Nietzsche and Freud also defend the theory that man is active and woman is passive in the same way. This reactionary, anti-scientific theory has led to nazism in politics and sadism in sexology. Our mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers suffered under this terrible slavery, they carried these physical and spiritual cruelties on their own backs. Now, when the revolution has triumphed, when socialism has been successfully built in our country, the Party sets before us as a great task, as one of the greatest tasks, the complete and final liberation of women from all the shackles of the painful past, the complete liberation of Albanian women. Marxism teaches us that the participation of women in production and their liberation from capitalist exploitation are the two stages of women's liberation. Our Party, which follows the principles of Marxism-Leninism and applies them faithfully, has liberated the people and especially women from capitalist exploitation through war and revolution and has included them in production.”

— Enver Hoxha, Selected Works, 4, p. 268

[theres-whump-in-that-nebula]

It's been a while since you've posted about Crime and Punishment but do you think Raskolnikov had a point about his theory? Ofc it's not like you can just kill people if you're special, because everyone thinks they're better than everyone else, but it is true that the law isn't always the best way of doing things. What do you think?

Feel free to ignore this ask if you want. I'm re-reading it so thinking about it again.

Hm…

Obviously the law of the land doesn’t always work, and some parts of it are absolute dogshit. And yes, some intelligent people advanced society by killing others.

However! The murder of another should not be done just because one thinks he “has the right” I listen to a lot of true criiiiimmeeeee I listen to it at niiightttt

I like the girl talk viiibes okay I swear I’m done

Raskolnikov — if I remember correctly — largely portrayed intelligence as an inherently positive trait; as indicated by his “genius” or “Napoleon” categorization of intelligent, innovative people. He is the most incorrect person alive for assuming that. Being highly intelligent only means that you have more power than the average person; and the more power one has, greater is the chance that they will misuse it. Necessity is said to be the mother of invention; you are mentally incapable of intentionally inventing a weapon of mass destruction if you’ve never thought you needed a more efficient way to kill people. The only way one would want to work on a more efficient way of killing people is if they identified killing people slowly as a “problem.” This identification of the “problem” and the justification for “solving” it both arise from some high level of critical thinking.

There are two ways of arriving at a wrong solution: one is because you didn’t think critically; the other is because you’ve weaved such a web of mental gymnastics that you’ve begun to see your intricate work as beautiful, and are unwilling to part from it because you’re proud of it, and it makes you feel enlightened. This is precisely what happened to Raskolnikov.

He was very intelligent; but his intelligence caused him to do some stupid things. And he was not ruthless enough to deal with the consequences of his stupid actions, which is why he called himself a “louse.” True stupidity is not a lack of intelligence; true stupidity is the misuse of high intelligence. Raskolnikov was not a louse because he was so hesitant to carry out his murder plot that he fumbled it; Raskolnikov was a louse for doing something that ruined all the credibility he may have had to use his intelligence in a more beneficial way.

The most powerful people with the broadest reach are either extremely intelligent, are aided by those who are extremely intelligent, or were born or bought into a palatial empire created by someone who was extremely intelligent, which is now maintained by their descendants or heirs.

Basically what I’m trying to say is that before attacking a very harmful, powerful figure in any capacity; it is crucial to determine if the prospective victim has any real control over the situation they’re contributing to. If they do, their death will likely have a more positive impact on society than if you kill a figurehead, mouthpiece, or nepotism baby who doesn’t make any real decisions that affect society, and leaves the real brainstorming to someone behind the scenes.

Picture this: A giant octopus is attacking you, and you only have a single harpoon to use against it. It would be very easy to stab that harpoon into one of its tentacles; but if you do that, the octopus can still attack you with its other tentacles because it, and the central body, are intact. Your harpoon is spent and you are eaten because you lost everything you had to defend yourself. In order to incapacitate the entire beast, you should aim for one of its eyes. This way, it will be in too much pain and disorder to continue its attack, and may swim away.

That being said, if you are going to murder someone for the greater good, let the target of your plot be someone with a wide reach and a lord of followers, whose death will scare people into doing the right thing; or at the very least, scare them into being unwilling to continue doing the wrong thing.

The pawnbroker was not that kind of target. Was she an asshole contributing to a lot of suffering and poverty in her area? Yes. But she was not the root cause of the poverty. Even if Raskolnikov had actually distributed her wealth to those who needed it instead of hiding it in a shed, the system of oppression causing such disparity between the rich and the poor would have still been in place, and Rodya still would have been caught and regarded as a deranged killer of pregnant women and little old ladies.

Ideally, Raskolnikov should have murdered a lawmaker who was oppressing the poor through their legislation, and made his motive for doing it clear. But of course, that wouldn’t have been realistic for him to do in his living situation; he was poor himself and had no connections to influential people.

If Raskolnikov were to truly have made a positive impact in the long-term; he simply should have burgled her house in the middle of the night, without killing her or her sister, and donated the money to an orphanage or other charitable group. Even if he were caught and punished for his crime, he would have looked less like a demon-possessed man, and more like a Robin Hood figure. No one wants to imitate an axe murderer unless they’re completely evil and/or out of their fucking mind… but many, many people young and old have fantasized about being Robin Hood and living a life of virtuous crime and danger. This may have garnered respect from others who had similar views, with a higher societal standing than he; because who could get mad at a young, attractive college student for wanting to help the children? 🥺

(Not that being young or attractive makes you more worthy of praise… I’m just saying he should have used his tall, dark, and handsome looks to his advantage because unfortunately much of society is comprised of jerks who only have sympathy for the conventionally-beautiful).

Simply stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, without any murder, would have created an underdog for the news to write about and people to root for— it would have give them a rallying cry, and inspired others to do their own activism.

In short, I think Raskolnikov is partially right— killing a corrupt person in power can be (under certain conditions) a great way to benefit society! But it is more advantageous and beneficial in the long run for everymen to engage in acts of protest, network, and collaborate with each other to achieve greatness and lasting societal impact; rather than simply viewing oneself as a god among men who has a license to step on anyone who gets in their way. Aside from being a painfully-obvious, slow train wreck of an example of the Dunning-Krueger Effect, it’s just an awful, entitled, lonely, way to live— and fascist-adjacent at that!

One point of his I disagree with is that certain people are predisposed to be “extraordinary” or “lice” because they either have the guts to carry through their plans or they don’t. Most people are hardwired to be “lice” because of the psychological phenomenon known as The Bystander Effect— “If we’re in a group and something’s wrong; then someone else will handle it.” If everyone thinks someone else is going to handle it; no one will. That’s just basic human psychology which can be broken with teaching people to assume no one will help unless they do something.

So to answer your question after taking about fifty-seven detours completely unrelated to the topic like a fucking maniac: YES Raskolnikov had a point about the right thing not always being legal; but he limited himself in primarily thinking of murder as the illegal act in question.

[meatandbones24]

My Favourite Movies (in order)

Scott Pilgrim vs The World

Monty Python & The Holy Grail

The Thing

The Truman Show

Whiplash

The World’s End

Spirited Away

American Psycho

The Shawshank Redemption

Superbad

The Indiana Jones Quadrilogy (1/2,3,4)

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off

The Dark Knight Trilogy (2, 3/1)

The House That Jack Built

Donnie Darko

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Howl’s Moving Castle

What We Do In The Shadows

Turbo Kid

Kung Fury

UHF

Equilibrium

Ghostbusters I & II

Napoleon Dynamite

Beetlejuice

Big Trouble In Little China

Spiderhead

Fight Club

π (1998)

The Princess Bride

Akira

Interface

Jacob’s Ladder

Oppenheimer

The Back to The Future Trilogy (1,2,3)

Bo Burnham: Inside & The Outtakes

Django: Unchained

What About Bob?

Renfield

Everything, Everywhere, All At Once

Project X

Bullet Train

Perfect Blue

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Knives Out (1,2)

The Batman

Spiderman: Into The Spider-Verse

Hardcore Henry

Dick Figures: The Movie

Johnny Mnemonic

Hitchhiker’s Guide to The Galaxy

Conspiracy Theory

Barbie

The Mitchells Vs. The Machines

Nightcrawler

Deadpool (1 & 2)

Hot Fuzz

Shaun of The Dead

There Will Be Blood

Black Christmas

Taxi Driver

Stranger Than Fiction

Knock At The Cabin

Watchmen

Palm Springs

Falling Down

Groundhog Day

The Crucible

Fargo

The Final Girls

Megamind

Monster House

Coraline

Edward Scissorhands

Joker

Rango

The Goonies

Hot Rod

Army of Darkness

Hush

Daniel Isn’t Real

Battle Royale

They Cloned Tyrone

The Whale

Under The Silver Lake

Corner Office

V/H/S/99

Scooby Doo (1 & 2)

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Austin Powers (1, 3, 2)

Redline

MFKZ

Society

Rocky Horror Picture Show

The Suicide Squad

Birds of Prey

Flushed Away

The Road to El Dorado

Sinbad: Legend of The Seven Seas

The Cable Guy

Catch Me If You Can

Over The Hedge

Lilo & Stitch

Nope

The Other Guys

Stand By Me

Juno

Ted 2

The Breakfast Club

Us

Lemony Snickets A Series of Unfortunate Events

How To Train Your Dragon (1,3,2)

Chronicle

Amsterdam

Up

The Babysitter

Don’t Worry Darling

The Menu

Midsommar

Inkheart

Spaceballs

Slaughterhouse Rulez

Jumanji

Meet The Robinsons

Kronk’s New Groove

The Emperor’s New Groove

Hercules

Dragon Hunters

TMNT

The Lego Movie

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog

Skinamarink

Fresh

One Hour Photo

Perks of Being a Wallflower

Zathura: A Space Adventure

Paranorman

Push

Dredd

Nerve

Get Out

Zombieland

The Hateful Eight

Jojo Rabbit

Charlie & The Chocolate Factory

Pulp Fiction

Game Night

The Voices

No Country For Old Men

Masterminds

The Fear Street Trilogy (tied)

Cabin In The Woods

Scream

Ace Ventura (1 & 2)

#ALIVE

Die Hard

Memories Of Murder

The Face Of Another

Lord of The Rings Trilogy (1, 3, 2)

The Hitman’s Bodyguard

Paul

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Friday The 13th

Home Alone (1 & 2)

Last Night in Soho

The Matrix Trilogy (1, 2/3)

Lupin III: The First

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Blazing Saddles

The Spongebob Squarepants Movie

The Village

Between Two Ferns: The Movie

The 40 Year Old Virgin

Cooties

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent

The Babysitter: Killer Queen

Saltburn

They Live

This Is the End

My Neighbour Totoro

Inside (2023)

Pineapple Express

Free Guy

Tick, tick…BOOM!

Se7en

Jaws

Mortal Engines

Liar Liar

Monty Python & The Life of Brian

Looney Tunes: Back In Action

The Three Amigos

Reservoir Dogs

Johnny Dangerously

Goodfellas

Guns Akimbo

Psycho

Love and Monsters

Tucker & Dale vs Evil

Escape From New York

The Boogeyman

House On Haunted Hill

Monsters VS Aliens

Eighth Grade

Speed

Drillbit Taylor

Mystic River

Lake Mungo

The Interview

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl

Arthur And The Invisibles Trilogy (1/3, 2)

Spy Kids Trilogy (3, 2, 1)

Flight of The Navigator

The Hangover Trilogy (1, 2, 3)

Constantine

A Scanner Darkly

Police Academy

Happy Death Day

Freaks of Nature

Five Nights At Freddy’s

Death At A Funeral (2010)

Enemy

Ted

Ready Player One

30 Minutes or Less

Encino Man

Sky High

The Black Phone

Rocketman

Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse

Good Time

Undercover Brother

Scanners

We’re All Going To The World’s Fair

Escape From L.A.

The Haunted House

Absolutely Anything

Eternals

Big Fat Liar

Arachnophobia

Lucy

Possessor

Hancock

Repo! A Genetic Opera

The Green Knight

Space Jam

Eraserhead

Barbarian

Mr. Peabody & Sherman

The Dead Don’t Die

Inglorious Basterds

Willy’s Wonderland

Tusk

Game Over, Man!

Get Smart

Promising Young Woman

The Killing of a Sacred Deer

Idiocracy

[severalpossiblemusiks]

Now that I have a little more time...

Mozart is prime classical era classical music (1700s) and is renowned for his melodic lines, his ability to weave harmonies together, and his virtuosity. Famous pieces include "Rondo Alla Turca", "Eine Kleine Nachmusik", the "Queen of the Night" aria from his opera "Die Zauberflöte"/the Magic Flute, and his 41st symphony "Jupiter". Recently the "Lacrimosa" movement from his requiem (completed after his death by a colleague) has become a popular meme. As a child genius who was quite heavily pushed into maturity, many of his pieces have a upbeat, almost childlike quality, yet also balanced by a melancholy for the childhood he did not receive.

Bach is all but THE definitive classical composer of all time, producing most of his work in the late-Barqoue period, dying only about 5 years before Mozart was born. As a result, his complex arrangements were seen by contemporaries as old fashioned, and he fell into obscurity almost to being unrecognized, but in the past 100-odd years, he was rediscovered and his music found incredible respect. His music is known for its layers upon layers of harmonies and counterpoint melodies, which can be a bit dense of you're not ready for it, but if you know where to listen, it should be easier to digest. His best known pieces are "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" (the stereotypical creepy organ music) and "Air on a G String". I also highly recommend his organ works (he was a passionate organ lover and so some of his best works are on the organ), and his "Coffee Cantata" (basically a miniature opera about how much a woman loves her coffee).

Beethoven. What can I say? It's BEETHOVEN! Arguably the most influential composer ever, he bridged the Classical period with the Romantic period (1700s-1800s), and his famous struggle with deafness is absolutely heart wrenching and in my opinion inspiring. Fiercely independent, he was one of the first composers to not seek royal or clerical patronage, and made his own way as a composer. His works on piano such as "Für Elise" and "Moonlight Sonata" are well-known, as is the tour-de-force that is his Ninth Symphony, and almost everyone knows the opening to his Fifth Symphony. Another important work is his Third Symphony, also called the Eroica, originally dedicated to Napoleon but after Boney crowned himself emperor it was rededicated to the common man, and musically it tells the story of a man overcoming all odds to achieve his dream. Indeed he was so well praised for his symphonies that the next great German composer who was widely regarded as his successor, Brahms, didn't write a symphony for almost 40 years for fear he would mar the beauty Beethoven achieved with the symphony. Also any of his sonatas are beautiful and you should listen to them.

Now for a speedrun of the other composers.

Brahms: once he started writing symphonies, he wrote very good ones with simple and pleasant melodies, and did a lot of lovely piano pieces.

Arvo Pärt is the most performed composer still living, and has a unique style called tintinnabuli, after the Latin for "bells". He took minimalism nearly to its extreme, and created some of the loveliest pieces in his "Für Alina" and "Spiegel Im Spiegel".

Debussy is famous for his "Claire de Lune", and was a prominent piano composer who made many pieces that defied conventional theory, such as his "Nuages", which never plays the same theme twice in the same way clouds are never the same as you look at them. He was very free in life and music and it makes him very enjoyable to listen to.

Ravel was a contemporary of Debussy, and bonded his Spanish and French ancestries into music, such as his repetitive yet compelling "Bolero", which repeats the same theme, yet changes instruments and volume until he whole orchestra is crashing the theme aloud at deafening volumes.

Hadyn was known as "the father of the Symphony" with over 100 symphonies to his name. Two fo his best are the "Farewell", where each member of the orchestra stops playing until eventually one performer is left (a subtle way to tell his patron that the orchestra needed a vacation, which they got), and the "Surprise", where it quietly lulls the sleepy nobles before a sudden and short blast, and then back to soft.

Chopin is THE piano composer. Literally every piece he wrote had a piano in it. If you like piano or overall sad music, you will like Chopin.

Britten is gay and British. Many of his operas dealt with gay stigma in the early 1900s and trying to process/cope with homophobia.

Stravinsky is as influential as Bach or Beethoven, because he was weird. He liked jazz, he played with atonality, he basically wrote prog rock with full orchestras, his music caused literal riots. He was a cool dude. Look up his "Rite of Spring".

Hopefully these get you properly started. And of course from here I think the ALMIGHTY ALGORITHM of whatever music listening site/app you use should be able to do the rest and help you find many more composers that are better suited to your niche interests and desires.

hi hi i'm getting into classical music again and i'm curious would you happen to have any recs? (composers or pieces or otherwise, from any time periods or cultures) 👀

Some of the best starts for getting into classical music is guys like Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. They're the greats for a reason.

Other good composers from various eras include Brahms, Arvo Pärt, Debussy, Ravel, Hadyn, Chopin, Britten, and Stravinsky.

I don't really have the time at the moment to go really in depth about each composer and their works, but those names should suffice for a quick YouTube search or Spotify or whatever media you listen to music on.

I'll try to make a post later that's a little more in-depth.

[britishsass]

Mr. Zanotto

For @perish-lolz and their Psychonauts Worldbuilding Challenge, I'd like to discuss a character who is brought up a couple times, but never actually shows up in the game in any form other than photographs: Bob Zanotto's father.

To start off, I'd like to note what we already know to be fact about him.

He was Tia's husband.

They had two kids at least, since Bob is an uncle.

He is dead.

We have very little information about him overall, but there are some things we can infer.

Exhibit 1: Tia Plant's statement during the boss fight.

She refers to "Another dead soldier," but since she fell apart after the death of her husband, it can be assumed that Mr. Zanotto was a soldier who died-- most likely, in combat. The fact that in Tia's Greenhouse, her grave is shown to be not next to anyone else's? That implies that there was no body for them to bury.

Exhibit 2: The moth's statement about "Sailing away forever."

Personally, putting this with the heavy references to boats, sailing as the main mode of transport, and the fact that there is no body to bury, I would assume this to mean that his father died at sea-- and, specifically, meaning he was likely in the Navy.

Even so, I will acknowledge that this could be about Lucy sailing away and how Raz has been sailing off for a while here.

Exhibit 3: Otto's letter to Ford, and specifically the line about Gelsin Mux dying in a war in Grulovia.

It would not be unreasonable to believe that this war has been going on for quite a while since Grulovia seems to end up in a lot of wars, and it could have included the country that the Motherlobe is in, be it America, Canada, or some fantasy country.

However, I have another theory. This being a version of our world since France still exists, I decided to go on an adventure through history. Psychonauts takes place in the year 1982, meaning that the Deluge was in 1962. If we assume the Psychic 7 were about 40 at that time, that would place their birthdays around the late 1910s to early 1920s.

There have been some events in the Psychonauts timeline that still happened in our own-- For instance, Napoleon, Waterloo, etc. Therefore, if I'm pushing my luck a bit, it's extremely possible that his father died in the Psychonauts version of WWI-- and therefore, a war that involved a draft. Since Bob was known to be very young when his father died, I assume his father was drafted into the war.

I went off on a total tangent there, but anyways, my point is that it could be either a war that's taken its time to settle down in Grulovia or an entirely different war.

Exhibit 4: The photographs.

There is a photo of a man climbing into a truck on the walls of the house as you first enter Tia's Bottle. He's assumedly Bob's dad since he appears to be older, and there's no pictures of him with Bob. However, there is another photo.

Seeing as this picture has a black ribbon over the corner, a symbol of mourning, we assume this man is dead. However, this leads to one moment of major confusion to me.

If that man with the beard is, in fact, Bob's father... How is there a picture of him and Bob at close enough to the same age as Bob is in the vault, while there's also a picture of him when he's older? Therefore! I do not believe the bearded man is Bob's dad, but in fact, his brother!

Would also explain why he's not at Tia's funeral, too-- He's dead by the time Bob is old enough to remember things well enough, like in Tia's Greenhouse, where he's shown washing dishes.

Seeing as Truman is seen at Bob's wedding looking just as he does in canon, it makes sense too-- He's born while Bob is in his early teenage years, and therefore would be about 30 when the Deluge happens. I could reasonably see him being about 50, especially given his line to Lili.

"That's only going to be funny for a few more years" implies he's closer to old age than he appears.

~

Continuing on to a segment without any proof: I have a personal headcanon that he was a marine biologist with a focus on plants. He wasn't psychic, and his family was anti-psychic, but he found psychic powers interesting. He had dozens of scientific journals that were kept everywhere, which is why there are all those books in Tia's bottle's shelving. He was an amiable guy, and always there to help others, which is why Tia got close to him in the first place.

I think that he was a good man, but didn't have enough time to do everything he wanted.

~

So, in conclusion: My personal opinion is that his father was drafted into the Navy, and died there. He had an older son who died before Tia did, and Truman was born while Bob was pretty young.

Hope I make sense, have a nice day everybody.

[brotherslayer]

I was going through the manhwa and it hit me that unlike Athy and Jennette's dresses, we never see anyone dissecting the meaning behind Claude or Anastacius's costume, even though they have much underlying symbolism to offer with all their varying colours and motifs. And these are the two most rich characters in terms of backstory and human relationships. Ur detailed dissection on Jennette's costumes are so good that I'm scarily tempted to tempt u to do this one. Will u do this one analysis🥺???

I don't know anything about the medals or the flowers on Claude's clothings since I'm don’t know flower language... But I can give my thoughts on some of his clothings.

Claude wears three types of clothings throughout the manhwa: 1. royal military uniforms 2. togas 3. victorian children clothings of the upper/middle class (play suits + sailor suits).

What is striking is that all three types of clothings he wore can be associated with freedom and oppression equally (1. military 2. ancient romans 3. royal navy).

Let's start with the first outfit he wore as a child: The sailor suit.

In 1846, the four-year-old Albert Edward, Prince of Wales was given a scaled-down version of an enlisted man’s sailor suit. It was almost certainly a carefully chosen decision calculated to make the public associate the monarchy which had declined in popularity with the most popular institution in Britain -The Royal Navy.

What do we know about the royal navy? Besides it’s role in British colonialism and the suppression of many Asian and African peoples, it helped to defeat a series of opponents for the most part countries goverened by authoritarian or dictatorial rulers (Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II), in other words: tyrants.

Sailor suits which are associated with childishness and innocence stand in juxtaposition to it’s militaristic origin . It’s a reminder how young Claude was still pure and innocent, yet without being fully aware of it he was thrown into a battle for succession at such a young age, and expected to survive or die trying.

We could also dvelve into color theory a little bit: Brown is mostly associated with humility, plainness and poverty. It could be a reminder of his commoner origin. Perhaps it tells us that his mother didn’t have much money back then and Claude had to get dressed in clothes that didn’t gave away easily how often they got mended or got dirty, because his mother could only afford a few sets of clothing. This is only a speculation: perhaps the money meant for Claude was mostly used for the treatment of his mother’s sickness. (I can’t see the Emperor paying the treatment of a chronically ill lover. Unless he actually loved her).

We could also assume that Claude intentionally picked out plain brown clothing that would allow him to blend well with the environment. The flashback in chapter 73 shows us little Claude hiding behind the bushes from the palace guards. Considering his state of increased alertness, he seemed to be used to sense danger approaching and find ways to hide quickly and efficiently.

Ah before I forget too much brown can also create feelings of sadness, isolation and loneliness...alright, you get what I mean, I stop here. 

Now to Anastacius. While Claude’s attire is more lowkey about it’s violent origin: Anastacius’ is more upfront. He’s already aware of the situation he is in. He knows his little brother is more talented than him and feels threatened enough to consider the words of Caracks who tried to lure him away. Anastacius wears something resembling a mix of military uniform and a victorian play suit in blue and red.

Blue was also considered the most prestigious colour, and was granted to “royal” regiments.

I think Anastacius and Claude’s outfits were meant to show that they were at a crossroad in life. When Ana was still friendly with Claude he started out wearing play outfits and then as his relationship with Anastacius deteriorated, gradually started to wear normal suits and uniforms until he was wearing his ceremonial military uniform at the day he killed Ana.

The Obelia brother’s wearing a military uniform signifies that they are at war with someone. They are ready to spill blood. You can see it in The Lovely Princess, where when Athy meets Claude for the first time, instead of a toga he is wearing a military uniform and continues to do so almost until his death. We know that Diana was the one who introduced him to Siodonna’s fashion. With the memories of her gone, so was the peaceful presence in his life and he became a misanthrope. The memory spell had taken full affect and he was incapable to love or care for Athy in any way. Athy became his biggest torment, his enemy. Similarly our! Claude is only wearing a military uniform at official occations like Athy’s debutante ball, where he had to face the nobles which he resented so much. And even now, in the latest chapters he bothered to change his clothes with magic from a toga into a uniform when he reunited with his elder brother.

Whenever Anastacius and Claude are wearing a military uniform they are meeting someone hated (LP verse Claude met Athy, birthday baquet! Claude met the nobles (Roger), and now in chapter 109 he met his brother who had tried to kill him), they either want to demonstrate strenght (the uniform at Athy’s birthday baquet was more show) or they are ready to attack (the uniform in the recent chapters was more practical to move in).

However they are also stress on the fact that they belong to the royal family and are ought to be respected.

Ana wore almost constantly military uniforms, because he felt the need to show that he was the heir. Not only by birthright, but also in appearance. Only when he went undercover he switched his wardrobe to suits (still, in purple in the color of royality) and puffy shirts. You can see it when Anastacius entered the palace with Jennette. When Ana is fighting against Claude he is either wearing a royal blue (past) or a combination of red and black (present).

“ Black and red. In western culture, these are the two most sinister colors, as red typically conveys the meaning of blood or anger, and black is that of darkness or death. Being a very visually striking combination, they can also convey a sense of power. Together, they additionally give the impression of burning coal or wood, i.e. "fire and destruction".”

(TV Tropes: Red and Black and Evil All Over)

In his previous life he bought fire and destruction upon Obelia...like in Athy’s nightmare remember? So it’s is kind of a bad omen as well.

Anastacius uniform in black and red forms a strong contrast to Claude’s uniform, which is dyed in colors of purple and pure white. “The color purple is often associated with royalty, nobility, luxury, power, and ambition. Purple also represents meanings of wealth, extravagance, creativity, wisdom, dignity, grandeur, devotion, peace, pride, mystery, independence, and magic.”

My point is that Ana’s appearance reflect his state of mind. Being all the time at war with his brother. The paranoia to get overthrown.  The fear not to be enought. He insisted on wearing the ceremonial royal uniform, the crown and the coat, in royal colors, because he felt inferior towards Claude and it made him feel safer. If he thought his own skills as heir were lacking he sought to compensate with the way he presented himself in public (his inferiority complex might have contributed to his lavish livestyle and tendency to waste money). 

The only exception where Ana is not wearing a uniform is a scene during the time of Ana and Claude’s falling out. But he still emphasizes that he belongs to the Imperial family in another way: The brooch on his vest, has the same blue shade as the color of his eyes, which are a trademark sign that only the Imperial family possesses. In chapter 109, Claude and Athy chose to wear a similary colored brooch to show that they are the “true” heirs.

[lordhelpme0-0]

Back at it with the facts, this time. Credit to FactRepublic!!!! Is “Life in 12th Century: 20 Captivating Facts For the History Nerds”. Ikevamp and history nerds, also anyone that is here cause of my other content. Strap in, and get ready for a wild ride~! MWUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Me: Hey Lilia, do you know about this?

Lilia: Maybe~!

Rook: Time to hunt for this green petites~!

Me: …WAI—!

Anybody…somebody…MAKE AN IKEVAMP OC OF THIS!! I NEED THE TALK!!!!

Phillip: and that was it my friends.

Theo: I- I don’t know what to say!

Arthur: bloody hell, talked about a sh1tty death. Pfft-!

Jean: *unsheathes rapier*

Napoleon: *place a hand over the unsheathe rapier and lowers it like in that one vine-*

Phillip: oh…? Oh!! Oh… *realization kicks in*

Mitsuki: …you learn something new huh?

Sebastian: *furiously writes the whole thing down*

Me: hah! Gae. Right Welly, Napo, Comte, Leo, Theo, Vlad, Arthot, and Alexander 1?

Them: *sweating*

Me: interesting arrangements~!

Me: *gasp* I sense conspiracy theories…

Sasuke: your very right on that one.

Again another OC ON THIS!!! IM DYINg!!!

Phillip: We’re the same!

Baldwin 1: not really…

Me: aww…I wanted that one scene from Barbie: the pauper and princess…

Feminist go wolf I guess??? Though I’m impressed. Him and Napo be vibing on woman respect juices.

Yes. Just yes.

Yes, definitely homies with Napo.

This lives rent free in my head…ima send this to my friends—

Send this to the boys or your friends of boys. I dare you.

That’s it, there is no more space in tumblr. So part three will come out soon. lolol!

[evil-quartett]

Another chance for weird game Theories:

In Ikemen Vampire, vampires aren't technically dead. It is mentioned somewhere that purebloods can turn humans on the brink of dead but not fully dead ones, so I've always assumed vampirism in the game is a kind of mutation. I think a pureblood has a kind of gene-changing substance in it to start the change. Vampires aren't very different from humans, the only difference they have is that food & drinks are replaced by blood (or blanc) and they are stronger. A hole in this theory would be their appearance tho. The vampires got turned older than their bodies led to believe. I'm don't know a lot about biology but i think making someone younger isn't possible through genetics.

Now, because Cybirds vampires aren't as dead as mythocal ones, they can get aroused which leads me to believe they can reproduce through sex. However, they could've lost that ability throug age (vampire or humans one).

Now, according to Oxford Languages, reproducing means "produc[ing] offspring by a sexual or asexual process". That means, lesser vampires don't need sex to reproduce as they get turned by purebloods. On the other hand, everything kind of has a reason in nature. If they can't produce offspring through intercourse, why would they have the organs to do so?

As for purebloods, they have to be able to reproduce through sex, as they have no other way for their species to obtain offspring. I do believe that, due to their immortality, reproducing is way harder than for humans. If it wasn't, the World would be flooded with purebloods at some point.

Demi vampires like Napoleon are another case. Their name hints to them being partially vampire since their live begun, does it not? In the game however, I believe Napoleon mentioned that he actually diesd and came back as a demi vampires. He later turns into a lesser vampire by drinking a certain amount of blood. So, either Demi vampires don't have both sides at the same time, or they do get born as a regular human and their death makes them mutate. In that case, their body would actually be dead meaning they can't reproduce.

As for the difference between lesser and pureblooded vampires, purebloods only have the special elements to turn someone, they are stronger, and, most importantly, they are not mortal. Both can be injured, but only the lessers are able to lose their life. It also seems like pureblood all have golden eyes and Greater Vampires, like Vlad is referred to, red ones.

I think purebloods get born just like a human would, just with a longer pregnancy.

As for the Gene Thing, it could work. Here, Vampires are AA (dominant) and humans aa (recessive). All children of a full-blooded Vampire and a humans would be Aa (also vampires, simplified). If two of these Aa beings get children, they would be to 50% Aa, to 25% AA and to 25% aa. So yes, according to this model, two half vampires can have a human child.

Now, i don't know for sure, but i think species very similar to each other can reproduce together. And vampires and humans, especially Cybirds vampires are very similar, which leads me to believe they can have children together. As for lessers, if they are able to have children, do can they.

I’ve been thinking about these a lot (unfortunately):

How do vampires reproduce? Aren’t they dead technically?

How do you know someone is a pureblood? How do they differ from the lesser vampires?

How do purebloods get born? Do the parents have to be purebloods? Or can two lesser vampires have a pureblood child (since both of them are vampires)?

Can two half-vampires have a human child?

I didn’t study biology in school so I’m 100% sure I’m not saying this correctly but y’all know that Aa - aa - AA thing right? (I think it’s about genetics?) If the vampire gene is A and the human is a is there a possibility for the child to be aa?

(Also which gene is the recessive one? I don’t know why but I have a feeling it’s the human gene)

[fremedon]

Brickclub 4.1.1, “Well Cut”

Back to brickclub! I fell completely out of writing up my chapters during the Gorbeau ambush; I may try to retrobrick some of them or I may not. Read @everyonewasabird​‘s writeups of 3.8, they’re good.

But I am getting back on the horse! This week! With Tome IV, The Idyl of the Rue Plumet and the Epic of the Rue Saint-Denis, which, like Tomes II and III (and I, to a lesser extent), opens with a book-long digression: “A Few Pages of History,” about the July Revolution of 1830.

(Nowhere in this digression does he explain any details of what happened in the July Revolution; if you don’t know the basic outline, too bad.)

I am going to be on the lookout for thematic parallels between this book and the Argot digression, later on in Tome IV; I have been struck this time through by the extent to which the convent digression presents an inversion of Waterloo and to which Mines and Miners presents an inversion of Paris Atomized, and I’m interested in seeing if that holds up.

But for now, the first parallel that catches my eye is actually between the end of the convent digression and the very beginning of this chapter:

The two years immediately following the July Revolution--1831 and 1832--stand out as one of history’s most distinctive and striking moments. Between the years that precede them and those that follow, these two years are like two mountains. They have a revolutionary grandeur. Precipitous faces can be discerned. The social masses, the very foundations of civilization, the solid grouping of overlapping and tenacious interests, the age-old contours of the previous French landscape keep appearing and disappearing through storm clouds of systems, passions and theories. These continual appearances and disappearances have been named ‘resistance’ and ‘movement.’ At intervals can be seen a glimmer of truth, that daylight of the human soul.

There’s a lot going on here that I’ll come back to, but to begin with, compare this with the second-to-last paragraph of 2.7.8:

This cloistered life, so austere, so bleak, a few of whose features we have just traced, is not life, for it is not liberty. It is not entombment, for it is not fulfillment. It is the strange place from where you see, as from a high mountain peak, on one side the abyss we are in now, on the other the abyss in which we shall be. It is the narrow, misty frontier separating two worlds, illuminated and obscured by both at the same time, where the feeble rays of life mingle with the wan rays of death. It is sepulchral semi-darkness.

So this is obviously the tomb illuminated by dawn that we’ll meet face to face at the barricade, of which the convent is a reflection, or a splinter, and we don’t see that directly in 4.1.1; but they do share this very specific image of the high mountain pass from which one can look down into both the past and future. So right from the start, this image is setting up the years 1831-2 as a transitional moment--one that, from this digression’s placement, we should no doubt be comparing to Waterloo as well.

We’re also coming into this chapter from another book focused, symbolically, on a two-year period of transition, backward from the future to the past: the ambush at the Gorbeau House, Boulevard de l’Hôpital 50-52. I am indebted to @pilferingapples​ for asking the in hindsight obvious question, What comes between 50 and 52? (The answer there: ��51, the year of Napoleon III’s coup, transforming the short-lived Second Republic into the Second Empire. I still don’t think I fully grok exactly what’s going on with the parallels between Thenardier’s ambush and his real-life counterpart’s coup d’etat, but they’re there.)

So, with these two years set up as a mirror of both Waterloo and the coup, we return to Hugo’s opposing forces of history, via, first, a couple of pages on the hollowness of the Charter of 1814. He describes the war-weariness of post-Napoleonic France at the start of the Restoration, craving peace and a place to rest, and then says that “certain realities surface...” which “are the results of revolutions and wars and which are entitled to take their place in society”:

As weary men demand rest, new realities demand guarantees. Guarantees are to new realities what rest is to men.

This is what England demanded of the Stuarts after the Protectorate. This is what France demanded of the Bourbons after the Empire.

These guarantees are a necessity of the times. They must be provided. Princes ‘grant’ them but in fact it is force of circumstance that supplies them. 

In this roundabout way, Hugo establishes what the ‘new realities’ of the nineteenth century are: Popular sovereignty, the rights of man, everything the Bourbons had to nod at in the Charter, even with bad grace, to be legitimate. “Reality” has become another name for “Revolution.”

The House of Bourbon was for France the illustrious and bloody nub of her history, but no longer the principal element in her destiny or the necessary foundation of her politics. People could do without the Bourbons. People had done without them for twenty-two years. There had been a break in continuity. Of this the Bourbons were oblivious. And how could they have suspected it, they who deluded themselves that Louis XVII reigned on the ninth of Thermidor and that Louis XVIII reigned on the day of Marengo? Never, since the beginning of history, had princes been so blind to reality and to that element of divine authority contained in reality and promulgated by it. Never had that earthly pretension called the right of kings so denied the right of a higher authority.

“That element of divine authority contained in reality and promulgated by it”--a significant word choice--is set in opposition to “that earthly pretension” called the right of kings. It’s our old friends, Divine Destiny and Human Fatality again, where now, according to the syllogism Hugo has spent half a chapter building, Destiny = Reality = Revolution, Fatality = Monarchy.

I am becoming very, very conscious of the ways Hugo’s writing was shaped by censorship. He sets out every term of that equation and leads you straight to it, but he doesn’t set those terms together in any one sentence that could make the point without the rest of the context. And, just to make sure you can’t condense it without quoting the whole chapter, the next time ‘reality’ appears Hugo reverses the significance of the terms of the syllogism and turns ‘reality’ into fatality:

The July Revolution is the triumph of right in the overthrow of reality. A splendid thing.

Right overthrowing reality. Hence the magnitude of the 1830 Revolution, hence also its mildness. Right that triumphs has no need to be violent.

This is a restatement of Combeferre’s dictum, The good must be innocent, but with an important caveat added: the right that triumphs. Good can be magnanimous, even peaceful, in victory--but only if it wins. The right embattled, the right overcome--we’ll we what that looks like, but it’s not innocent.

Except where it is, because Hugo continues with

Characteristic of what is right is to remain eternally beautiful and pure.

And we have seen this, and we’ll see it again. Enjolras, untouched by wounds until the final barrage; Fantine, beautiful again in illness and ruin when she believes her child is about to be restored.

And, after a few lines about Machiavelli, we end on this:

This conflict between right and reality has been going on ever since societies came into being. To end this duel, to marry purity of concept with human actuality, to instil right in reality and reality in right, that is the work of the wise.

Finally--more than halfway through the page count, and after 3 books out of 5--we have another synthesis. Waterloo synthesized Destiny and Fatality into History. Here, to marry purity of concept, or the right, or Destiny, with human actuality, or reality, or Fatality--that is, to make history, which is their synthesis-- the work of the wise.

And this chapter leads us into a book-length digressions on the revolutionary movements that immediately sprang up to oppose the July Monarchy, ending in our first look since Marius’s Napoleon speech at the full assembly of our group which Almost Became Historic. 

Other observations:

“Resistance” and “movement” in the first paragraph refer to July Monarchy political factions of those names--Casimir Perier being identified with the conservative Party of Resistance and Jacques Lafitte with the liberal Party of Movement. 

The king of Yvetot refers to a Béranger song satirizing the Bourbons.

The Empire is swept away before the Bourbons “like a stage set,” and the Restoration established the same way. This jumped out maybe more than it was meant to; everything Thenardier and Patron-Minette do is described in heavy layers of theater imagery, and it’s all weirdly negative, in a book where appreciation of Romantic theater is synecdoche for moral rectitude. I can’t really tell whether we’re back to that or not yet.

Hugo’s point about calm and intelligent discourse returning to politics after the Revolution and the Empire is, shall we say, overstated, but he does have a point: the accession of Charles X was the first transfer of power not accompanied by a change of governmental form since the Revolution, and the last one until the Third Republic--almost a century.

All quotations here are from Donougher; FMA’s version of that last line is “to make the right peacefully interpenetrate the true,” which I used as the title for my July Rev aftermath fic.

[northernmariette]

Yet another video from the Fondation Napoleon, this time regarding a topic I just posted about: Napoleon’s cause of death.

Once again, it’s in French. The French subtitles are many times hilarious, so I wonder what subtitles in other languages might be like. It’s also half an hour in length, so maybe best suited to French-speaking nerds such as your truly. 

The speaker is a physician who has studied the notes from doctors who attended Napoleon on St. Helena, and the numerous autopsy reports produced after his death. Astonishingly, 17 or 18 people were in attendance at the autopsy, including General Bertrand and the so-called Mamelouk Ali (actually as French as everybody else exiled with Napoleon on St. Helena).

Based both on Napoleon’s symptoms and on his autopsy, the speaker dismisses the diagnostic of stomach cancer (even more that of poisoning!), and argues that Napoleon bled to death from two causes: first, micro-haemorrhages from chronic gastritis - which also was the cause of severe anemia; second, a strong dose of laxatives two days before his death, which led to much more severe stomach bleeding and eventually to exsanguination. 

I found these arguments rather persuasive, but then again they are a theory. I’m sure that someone, somewhere, would have counter-arguments.

[shookspearewrites]

There’s something wrong with Jean, Isaac and Shakespeare ... (A Theory about the Ikevamp Universe)

There are route spoilers below for Isaac, Napoleon, Theo and Jean’s routes so please please scroll away if you don’t want to see that!

As far as I know, this theory is entirely my own and I have not seen any similar theories but, if there are some out there, please let me know and I will credit them!

So, as you may or may not know, my ducklings, I’m a big ol’ history nerd and this has led me to tirelessly researching, trying to pinpoint the exact year that Ikevamp is set in. I’ve narrowed it down to between 1893 and 1898 - I’ve done this by taking every irl character death (Eg, Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930) and every single historical indicator from within the game (Eg, Theo mentioning that it’s only been a few years since his death + the 2nd Boer War hasn’t happened yet) and putting them on a timeline.

Now, what I’ve noticed within the game a lot is historical inaccuracies, which is totally fine! It’s not meant to be entirely historically accurate otherwise, frankly, it would not be an enjoyable game - For example, irl, some of our boys were quite racist + misogynist (among other things) and Cybird can’t just go shoving in that in a whimsical, light hearted otome game. Also Isaac and Leonardo are both speculated to have been gay so, there’s that.

But aside from that, they do get a lot of the historical details right! Like the use the Napoleon coins which didn’t go out of use until 1914 (Arthur’s route), the boys reading ‘La Petit Parisian’ which didn’t stop publication until 1944 (Napoleon’s route) and Gaugin wandering around alive and well in Paris because he didn’t die until 1903 (Theo’s route). And they seem to get all of the boys’ death dates right ...

Well, some of them. 

Firstly just off the bat, Theo and Vincent didn’t die on the same day irl. They’ve changed it to use as a plot device which I think is fair game but, I just hold a bit of a personal grudge against it as I have tirelessly studied the van Gogh boys for university and I know every little detail about their lives. But we’re not here to talk about them today.

I want to talk about how wrong Cybird seem to have Isaac, Jean and Shakespeare’s death dates.

We’ll start with Shakespeare - The real life Shakespeare died in 1616 which would be fine if it hadn’t been mentioned that William was the suitor who’d been brought back by le Comte first (I can’t remember which route this was in, sorry!)  This would mean that Jean was turned and brought back by le Comte after Will even though he died almost 200 years before Shakespeare did. 

Another problem about Shakespeare is that Isaac in his own route mentioned that he was brought back by Comte before Shakespeare was which makes even less sense, since Isaac died 110 years after Shakespeare did. Also in Napoleon’s route, Isaac says that he’s been in the 19th Century far longer than Jean has been ... 

Which means that Isaac was turned and brought back before Jean who died 295 years before he did + he’s been there longer than Shakespeare but Shakespeare was turned and brought back by le Comte first??

 I’m so baffled and confused, guys.

A very simple explanation for this is as follows: The Ikevamp universe is big and confusing and the writers over at Cybird just got a few things wrong / mixed up and the wires got crossed somewhere along the line.

A little less of a simple explanation for this, and one I kinda buy into is this: le Comte is essentially Dr Who and can travel through different dimensions as well as different times. This would explain all the weird time occurrences that I mention above and also Isaac, Jean and (maybe) Shakespeare’s vampiric abnormalities. 

Example, Jean: Irl Jean was female, very different to in the Ikevamp universe where he is male. He also needs far less Blanc and Rouge to survive than the other lesser vampires. Yes, he starves himself but, it still takes him a few days to get dangerously low on blood intake. The Dr Who theory could explain this; Quite simply, Jean comes from a different dimension in which he was a man, not a woman & in which vampires have evolved to need far less blood to survive.

Similarly with Isaac: He’s an abberant, needing significantly more blood to survive, seemingly even more than even the purebloods. In line with my theory, he could come from a different dimension in which vampires need far more blood to live.

(In these examples, Comte turns them in their own dimensions and because space / time travel is whacky, both Isaac and Jean take on the vampiric traits from their own dimensions and not from the one in which they live with le Comte.)

I can’t explain Shakespeare at all but, I’m sure I’ll come up with something once his route comes out & when I know more about Vlad.

tl;dr - le Comte is Dr Who and some of the boys (if not all of them) come from different dimensions.

Thanks for listening to my rambling, ducklings - and let me know what you think below! - JJ x

[hypo-critic-al]

Korean Frankenstein musical is quite good!

(MY SUBJECTIVE REVIEW)

After two musical adaptations, which are Frankenstein: a new musical and Frankenstein metal opera, I have discovered, not a secret of life as Victor did, but another very nice adaptation of Frankenstein! It’s name is "프랑켄슈타인 뮤지컬" or simply "Frankenstein musical".

I was watching Frankenstein a new musical stuff on YouTube when I stumbled across a Korean Frankenstein video with English subtitles. Maybe I can give it a watch, I thought...

And oh dear, I wanted more!

I don’t understand a single word of Korean but thanks to a few subtitled songs and Google Translate on my side I got to understand some parts of a plot.

Before I explain the plot I have to say that this is a very interesting and fresh take on the book. If you want to know my thoughts on it and what it is about, then you can read further.

(SPOILERS)

(warning! This story talks about murder, abuse of all kind, suicide intention, incest marriage, and other topics that may be triggering and unpleasant for you. You are free to scroll past this post if you want to avoid reading about these. Thank you.)

(The photos used in this post are from various sources, productions, actors etc. They are used to illustrate and show how the musical looks like. I don’t profit from using them.)

THE SCRIPT: Overture plays and we see a man in a lab leaning over a body on a table. Voice of a man and woman try to stop the said man from doing anything further but then a lightning struck outside of a lab and a body on a table sits up.

The whole story begins here:

It’s 1815, Napoleonic Wars are coming to their end, we meet one Henry Dupré: soldier surgeon and body grafter. He values the life of the others, it’s so precious to him that he doesn’t heal only soldiers from his side, but also his enemies. For this, a crime of espionage, he is to be executed and shot.

However, at the last minute, a soldier from higher ranks stops this. It is no one else than Victor Frankenstein. Victor takes Henry to his lab where he presents him his research and a reason he saved Henry: to create a strong, perfect, possibly immortal human soldiers from dead bodies.

Henry is sceptical at first, he doesn’t want to play God, but later agrees and joins this experiment.

The war has ended, the lab is closed before they could finish their project, so both of them are coming to Victor’s hometown: Geneva. People are celebrating the end of the war at the castle of their Mayor Stephen, Victor’s uncle. People are dancing and chatting and soon they start to spread rumours about Victor. Victor’s older sister Ellen and her cousin who also is Victor’s fiancee Julia are trying to prove rumours wrong but it’s too late. Victor leaves the event and goes to Frankenstein’s mansion.

Meanwhile, Julia is sad at the fact that Victor is cold and ignores her, but she still has hope that he will love her like he did before the war.

Henry and Victor continue their experiment in the old Frankenstein’s mansion, but Henry sees that people of Geneva don’t like Victor and hate the name of Frankenstein, so he asks Victor’s sister Ellen about it.

She then tells him a story of their family:

When they were children there was an epidemic. Their mother got ill and their father, a doctor, was unable to cure this sickness. He was so desperate that he started to believe in alchemy and the medical practise of the Middle Ages. Their mother died and young Victor, full of grief and denial, dug up his mother’s body and secretly tried to bring her back to life. Superstitious people, seeing that Frankenstein’s father used strange medieval remedies and seeing the grave of his wife empty, start to think that Frankensteins are witches. They burned down their castle and while escaping, Victor’s father sacrifices his life to save Victor.

Ellen and Victor go to live with their uncle Stephen and their cousin Julia and since then Victor is obsessed with life-creating. Once, he tried his theories and reanimated dead Julia’s dog, who became savage and feral afterwards.

Uncle Stephen doesn’t like Victor and decides to send him to study abroad. He then became a soldier and we know the rest of the story.

Victor is unable to reanimate a body, it seems that the brain cannot withstand the electric current and he needs to find a fresh brain. While drinking at a bar with Henry, Victor’s butler Runge, who was helping them with their experiment, tells them, that he has promised money to a mortician if he provides them recently dead body. However, it seems that a money-blinded mortician killed a young boy whom Victor knew and now wants more money in exchange for the boy’s brain. Victor lost his temper, killed the man and escaped. Henry takes the blame and is soon to be executed.

Runge, Julia and Ellen know the truth about his experiment and Victor’s crime but they doesn’t want to lose him. He tries to tell the court that he is a killer, but Stephen denies it, saying Victor is insane and ill after the war, so the court dismisses his testimony and Henry is sentenced to die under a guillotine.

Victor asks Henry in jail why he sacrificed himself and Henry says that Victor must live to fulfil his dream and that he must finish his experiment in a memory of him.

After his death, Victor takes Henry’s head and uses it as a last part of the Creature whom he brings to life. Runge and Ellen are amazed to see the reanimated Creature but Victor is crazy, he believes that he resurrected Henry.

However, they see the Creature move around weirdly, trying to come closer to his creator. This freaks Runge out and he attacks him, thinking the Creature wants to strangle Victor. Monster tried to defend himself, bit the butler’s neck and Runge died.

Frustrated Victor, seeing that this isn’t his Henry but feral Creature, wants to shot him but the Creature escapes the lab.

Three years later, Victor and Julia are celebrating their wedding. He is still anxious and thinks about Creature. Mayor’s servants then rush to him, announce him that his uncle, Mayor Stephen, has disappeared.

Victor distances himself from guests and that’s when the Creature appears before him.

Monster, who read Victor’s diary, which was in coat which Creature have grabbed before his escape, blames Victor for Henry’s death, he argues that he didn’t want to be created, left alone and later almost killed. Then he tells his story to scared Victor:

The Creature was running from Victor and after some time he found a village. He couldn’t overcome his hunger and decided to eat a dog. Turns out that the dog was of Eva, the wealthy owner of a fighting field and she sends her arena warriors to capture the Creature.

(This is where Google Translator began to fail, so I had to deduce things. When there is something I couldn’t understand, I put a question mark after it.)

The Creature sees Catherine, a servant in said fighting field, being attacked by a bear(?). He kills it and Eva, seeing Creature’s amazing strength, doesn’t punish him, instead she enlists him to her fighting arena as one of the gladiators.

Creature’s whole purpose is to fight with other fighters. Eva and Jacques, Eva’s husband, are constantly punishing and verbally abusing him.

The only person that shows sympathy for Creature is Catherine, who is also abused by her masters, fighters and other people from the arena, to which she was sold at a young age. She cleanses his wounds and she dreams of escaping away, to the North Pole, where there are no people to abuse her. Creature is fascinated by her story and wants to run away, too.

One day Fernando, creditor of the arena, promises that he will free them out of debt if the Creature wins against his fighter. He then approaches Catherine, promising her freedom if she adds strange medicine to Creature’s water. She is blinded by a promised freedom and does so.

The Creature is defeated in a fight, but Fernando’s plan is revealed and Jacques announces that the next day Catherine will die in the arena.

Monster is left alone, miserable, angry, longing for love and thirsty for vengeance and revenge upon his creator, he sets the arena on fire and finds Victor in Geneva.

Creature here ends his story and announces that this is the beginning of his revenge and escapes. Victor learns soon after that his uncle was killed and the court blamed his sister Ellen for murder. He arrives too late, Ellen is already hanged.

He then takes her body with intention of reanimating it, his lab is however destroyed by a Creature. Victor pleads Creature to kill him, but the Creature laughs, telling him that revenge is not over yet.

Day, when Victor feels the Creature would come he gathers people with guns in front of his house to kill Monster as soon as he appears. Suddenly, they hear Julia’s scream inside the house. Victor knows who to blame, and cries, asking why the Creature killed her and not him. Creature, who is standing near Victor tells that if he wants to avenge his dearest ones, he can find him in the North Pole.

While running there, Creature is regretthing his sins and while looking back at his life he finds a young boy lost in the woods. He calms the crying boy by telling him a story of a man who fought against God by creating life. The boy is curious and says that the Monster in the story is the Creature telling him this tale. The creature is annoyed by further questions, pushes the child into the water and continues his path to the Arctic.

Victor, from the last strength, reaches the Creature and fights with him. Creature stabs Victor’s leg with a knife and Victor shoots the Creature. Creature then says that because of a leg injury Victor won’t leave the Arctic and by following him to the Arctic he basically just punished himself.

The Creature dies, saying that justice was done and calls his creator "my friend". Victor sees that he is the one responsible for his tragedy, he was successful in revenge but at the expense of losing everything, and calls his creation, the last thing that somehow cared for Victor Frankenstein, his friend. He then slowly dies with his Creature in his arms.

—————————

Whew! This took me longer than I wanted to. First my draft got deleted, then again...

This musical wasn‘t directly sticking to the source material, but it is referencing it pretty often. For example, character of Henry Dupré was inspired by Henry Clerval, Julia=Elizabeth, Ellen is falsely acussed of murder as Justine was, instead of burning down a cottage of DeLacys, Creature burns down a fighting field etc. And is Runge a parallel for an Igor? I think he is.

Victor and Creature stay pretty similar to the book. Victor’s actions are affected by his pride, he doesn’t care about morality, God, etc. His actions may come from love of those he lost (his mother, Henry...) but he is careless and revenge blinds him that he slowly destroys himself. He may fight against God, but he faills to take responsibility.

Also, how could he think he would revive Henry by stitching his head to a creature’s neck? That’s dumb! Victor, I know you want your boyfriend back, but that is awful.

The Creature wants to be loved but instead he is hated everywhere he goes. He reads Victor’s diary and is mad at him, he doesn’t see that although Victor tries to make strong corpse soldier but he doesn’t know the thought process behind it and a fact that Victor tried to revive Henry by making the Creature.

So the Creature shows him a simple revenge plan: Runge attempted to kill me – I killed him. You are resposible for Henry’s death – I kill your uncle. You are responsible for my creation – Ellen dies. You tried to kill me and abadoned me – I kill Julia. Now if you wanna take this further and destroy yourself even more, come to Arctic.

And Victor does. And monster uses the same logic later, too. They both thought of stopping this chase to Arctic stuff but they were blindly following their rage for one another which resulted in their death.

I can’t judge things further because I didn’t watched full show.

But the music is pretty much fantastic! Just epic. I don’t care very much for flaws If a musical has great music.

Also if you look at actors, singing, dancing, costumes... I feel like a lot of money went into this musical. And a lot of money have returned from tickets. I think I read somewhere that this is considered the best original Korean musical in Korea. Because other musicals that are this popular are Broadway musical productions.

This may be a clichè for someone but I truly enjoy smart double acting roles. Not the ones like: okay, we don’t have enough actors, let’s make this one play another role. No, not like that. I like those meaningful ones. Kinda what Hamilton did. Here it is too. You see, it is obvious that the actor playing Henry plays later the Creature. A person whom once Victor adored is now a person whom he hated the most. And actor of Victor plays role of Jacques in second act. Isn‘t this cool? A person who rejected him is now a person abusing him. Every named character plays another role similar to the one in first act. I think Eva is played by actress of Ellen, Ellen stands by Victor’s side and agrees with everything he says. That’s also Eve’s relationship with her husband Jacques, played by actor of Victor. Soft, loving Julia is Catherine here. Actor of Runge plays the role of Jacques’ servant. Etc., etc.

One thing I didn’t like much was a difficult story. I know that Korean audience may have different taste, but to me, a Western listener, it was a bit confusing plot. They added unnecessary stuff to it, changed some things and sometimes it’s really confusing. (Hey! That’s what Jekyll & Hyde did! They left only key things from the book and changed everything. And this musical is comparable to J&H then. It’s not Frankenstein: a new musical that is similar to J&H, it’s this! This is a Frankenstein adaptation that follows the story path of J&H. That’s interesting.)

And I didn‘t mind this, but couldn’t they left the names unchanged? Why couldn’t Victor’s fianceé have a name Elizabeth? And why you have Jacques and Eva? You could have one character, only Eva for example. Jacques is just here, slapping the Creature (the only reason for having them both is their double acting roles, which I understand). And there is Ernest erasure as always. And no Robert Walton, too! They cut this character. The more I look into it, the more I feel that this musical was made by someone who liked Jekyll & Hyde.

(END OF SPOILERS)

To sum up, this musical appears to me as a nice, original take on the original book. It has interesting parallels to the book, references it throughout this show, and takes inspiration from Frankenstein movies. It feels like a blow of fresh air.

The music is very likeable. If you like Wildhorn-ish kind of stuff like I do, then this is, I don’t know, it feels more complex and confident than what I am used to. Maybe you won’t like it, maybe it becomes your favourite musical, this is just my opinion.

And don’t get me started on singing, acting, costume design, sets, choreography... it’s beyond perfect and I think that the West musicals should take notes.

I have talked about some stuff a bit more in a spoiler section but I have to say it here too, this musical has a very interesting take on Victor/Henry relationship that later affects Victor’s actions and his relationship with the Creature. It’s very heartwarming and creepy at the same time.

I think my sole obsession for countless days (I haven’t listened to anything else than these since last March) that are Frankenstein: a new musical, and Jekyll & Hyde musical have a new opponent. New March, new me (It’s still just Frankenstein tho).

So, pros and cons:

PROS:

-good music

-good acting

-good singing

-referencing the source material

-nice take on Victor/Henry relationship

-I like reasonable double acting roles

-simply it’s good

CONS:

-name change of main characters

-no Robert and Ernest (I know, but not even Walton is here!)

-tiring and long story

-unnecessary/bland female characters

-foreign language

I rate this musical 8,25/10. I still haven‘t seen it whole, so I can’t really judge it objectively.

I assume there is no full recording and I can’t find a script either. If anyone has an English or Korean script/bootleg, please, let me know : )

Here is a recording of a few songs performed at a musical press conference, you can set an English subtitles if you want to know the words:

Here is a link to the full Korean album, not all songs were recorded on the album:

And here is an animatic that makes me cry ;-;:

I apologise for bad grammar, stupid reasoning and other things.

I hope you didn’t mind me sharing this musical with you, I like this show and I haven’t seen any people talk about it in Frankenstein (book/musical/etc.) fandom, so I made this post to share it with you.

Have a nice day : D

[mando-lore]

The Terror of London: the story of Spring-Heeled Jack

Certainly Strange: A Podcast About The Unexplainable, episode 6

Listen on: YouTube  Spotify  Castbox

The Victorian era was a time of shadows and superstitions. In every corner of London’s dark streets lived a mystery or a monster. One of the most popular and certainly strange urban legends of this time is the story of the leaping devil, Spring-Heeled Jack.

In October, 1837, a young servant girl named Mary Stevens, is walking through Clapham Common to the house that she works at. Suddenly, a figure jumps from one of the shadows, gripping her tightly. The figure starts to kiss her face and tries to rip off her clothes. Mary cries out in alarm, and the figure vanishes. Of course, this just seems like a case where a man tried to molest the young woman. And it could have been exactly that, had the strange figure not ripped at Mary’s clothes with claws instead of hands. Claws, she said, that were “cold and clammy as those of a corpse.”

Mary Stevens was not the first one to see this strange clawed creature jump from the shadows. In September 1837, one month before the attack on Mary Stevens, a man saw a man with horns and red glowing eyes leap over the cemetery fence.

This strange devil-like man did not wait much longer to strike again after attacking Mary Stevens. The very next day, it was reported that a strange figure had jumped out in front of a traveling coach, causing the coachman to lose control and crash. Witnesses reported that the figure escaped by jumping over wall that was nearly 9 feet tall, whilst laughing uncontrollably.

This was also the very first time the police got involved. At the scene of the crime they found a pair of very deep tracks in the mud that could only have been made by jumping from a great height. The tracks also showed that there was some gadgetry on the shoes, and speculated that it might be “some sort of compressed springs”.

And this is how the strange devil-like figure got the name of Spring Heeled Jack.

It was January, 1838. Polly Adams, who worked as a barmaid, was walking across Blackheath in south London when she was suddenly attacked. She was discovered half-naked lying in the gutter. When she came to, she is reported saying that she had been attacked by a man who had ripped open her blouse and had grabbed her breasts with claws that were sharp and cold as a corpse, eventually cutting open her belly.

On January 9th, the Lord Mayor of London, Sir John Cowan, received an anonymous complaint of another servant girl who was attacked by Spring Heeled Jack. Because of this incident, several other people came forward about similar incidents in the Kensington and Hammersmith area, all involving servant girls.

This was the perfect story for the press, and Spring Heeled Jack began to get a lot of publicity. With the increase of publicity, there was also an increase of reports from people who had seen or were attacked by the now famous ‘terror of London’. The police took these reports very seriously, and even the Duke of Wellington, the one who had defeated Napoleon, went out armed on horseback to hunt for the monster that haunted London.

This did not stop Spring Heeled Jack, however, from striking again.

There came a knocking on her door. The police, he claimed. He had found spring heeled jack in an alley outside her home. Jane Alsop opened the door. When she accompanied the policeman to the alleyway, she noticed that he was not wearing a police uniform, but instead a long black cape. She got suspicious, but it was already to late. The cloaked man attacked her, trying to undress her whilst, according to her, spitting blue flames out of his mouth.

Jane Alsop described her attacker later to London magistrates: ”He was wearing a kind of helmet and a tight fitting white costume like an oilskin and he vomited blue and white flames!”

Nine days later, the same fate befell Lucy Scales. Walking home from having visited her brother, she was attacked by a man in the same outfit as Alsop had described. And again, he spitted blue flames out of his mouth, blinding her and even causing a seizure.

Then, after terrorizing London for many months, Spring Heeled Jack disappeared.

There were no more reports of people being attacked by Spring Heeled Jack. In 1855 he was seen in Old Hill, far from London, leaping from the roof of an inn to another roof across the street. Somewhere in the 1880’s, a man and a young girl reported that they had seen Jack with glowing eyes, who had bid them a good evening.

Spring Heeled Jack was also seen in 1872, when he landed amidst a group of soldiers. One of the soldiers claimed to have shot at him, but the bullet reflected off of him with a hollow, metallic sound.

Spring-Heeled Jack was last spotted in 1904, 67 years after he had first appeared out of the shadows, jumping over a building in William Henry Street in Liverpool. And, seemingly, disappearing into the shadows once again.

Although frightening and violent, Spring Heeled Jack never mortally wounded any of the women he attacked. This did not stop locals from suspecting him of murder. In 1845, a 13-year old prostitute called Maria Davis was pushed off a bridge into an open sewer, where she drowned. Although the coroner recorded Maria’s death as ‘Death by Misadventure’, and though an eyewitness had seen that it had not been Jack who pushed her but instead one of her clients, locals still claimed that Spring Heeled Jack was the true murderer of this child.

Many attacks on women were blamed on Spring Heeled Jack. When there came a report that a woman had been murdered in Whitechapel in 1888, with her clothes ripped off her, people automatically assumed it had been good old Spring Heeled Jack, especially since the culprit had seemingly disappeared into the night without being spotted by police.

Spring Heeled Jack immediately became suspect number one in the other murders that followed. So much so, that the killer himself wrote a letter t the Metropolitan police signed Spring Heel Jack: The Whitechapel Murderer. Later, the killer shortened it simply to Jack. Perhaps better known as the real terror of London. Jack the Ripper.

The real Spring Heeled Jack, if he ever existed, was never caught. There was only ever one suspect. Henry Beresford, the eccentric young third Marquis of Waterford, who was known for his misogynist behaviour towards women and for having a bad, often alcohol-fuelled temper.

The Lord Mayor of London also had a theory that Spring Heeled Jack was simply created by a group of elite gentlemen who dressed up and terrorized women as part of a bet.

There is another, somewhat strange theory of how Spring Heeled Jack is actually an alien from a planet with high gravity. This would, according to them, explain his extraordinary jumping abilities. Our thin atmosphere could have made him giddy, which would explain his laughter. He would be a nocturnal alien, with reflective eyes like that of a cat. That would explain his glowing red gaze.

But, before considering the theories about aliens, it is important to understand the historical context in which Spring Heeled Jack was born. Because, how can a creature such as Spring Heeled Jack be born in the minds of people?

The 1830s in England were turbulent times, full of tension and anxiety. It was a time filled with social, economic, political, and cultural changes. King William IV died in 1837, and people were uncertain about the capabilities of the young queen Victoria, since she was only 18 and a woman. In this time period, society became more regulated and disciplined, which characterised the Victorian era.

In a period of increasing and intensified control, the monstrous Spring Heeled Jack represented the appealingly uncontrolled. Like the wicked Mr Hyde compared to the composed Dr Jekyll. That is why he is constantly shifting in eyewitness reports. One time Spring Heeled Jack is a beast, the next time he is a ghost, and yet another time he is a devil.

This tense and potentially volatile context became the perfect ground to build a legend that is build on mass panic and sensationalism from the press.

During the Victorian era, printing technology improved. This gave more people access to education and books, causing illiteracy rates to drop. The increased demand of books combined with the high rates of crime created the perfect environment for people to profit off of sensationalized stories about monsters and criminals, such as Spring Heeled Jack.

So whether Spring Heeled Jack was a man, a monster, a ghost, a devil, an alien, or simply a result of a restrained society looking for sensation, his legacy is very much real. Spring Heeled Jack remains a popular penny dreadful figure from the Victorian era, featuring in games such as Assassins Creed Syndicate or the series Jekyll and Hyde. And whatever Spring Heeled Jack was or is, he is Certainly Strange.

SOURCES

Bell, K. (2012). The legend of spring-heeled Jack: Victorian urban folklore and popular cultures. Boydell Press.

Bellows, J. (2006). Spring Heeled Jack. Retrieved from: https://www.damninteresting.com/spring-heeled-jack/

Castelow, E. (n.d.). Spring Heeled Jack. Retrieved from: https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Spring-Heeled-Jack/

Dunning, B. (2007). The Attack of Spring Heeled Jack. Retrieved from: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4064

Grundhauser, E. (2016). Meet Spring-Heeled Jack, the Leaping Devil That Terrorized Victorian England. Retrieved from: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/meet-springheeled-jack-the-leaping-devil-that-terrorized-victorian-england

Ogden, P. (2020). Spring heeled Jack: The Leaping Devil Who Spread Hysteria in Victorian Britain. Retrieved from: https://oddfeed.net/spring-heeled-jack-the-leaping-devil-who-spread-hysteria-in-victorian-britain/

Origjanska, M. (2017). Spring-Heeled Jack: The Leaping Boogeyman who terrorized Victorian England. Retrieved from: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/11/26/spring-heeled-jack/

Perry, L. (n.d.). Spring Heeled Jack, Fiction Based On Fact. Retrieved from https://casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-spring.html

Sheldon, N. (October 29, 2018). 16 Frightening Details in the Story of Spring Heeled Jack. Retrieved from https://historycollection.com/16-frightening-details-in-the-story-of-spring-heeled-jack/16/