#i cannot fully say that i hate her because i genuinely love some portrayals of her

[sneppu]

uhhh idk lily thoughts (I'm about to spew critical rambling bullshit, big sorry. these things are my badly worded opinions and nothing else.)

thinkin bout how my feelings for Lily are so complicated tbh.. in canon, I cannot like her. I just can't. The disconnect between what the narrative tries to tell us about her and the reality of who she is and what she does are just too jarring to me. for all that she's meant to be a paragon of virtue and goodness, her actions and choices come across wrong and off and bad in a way that is visceral to me, as someone who has been bullied and sexually assaulted myself. And to clarify, I'm not talking about her breaking off her friendship with Severus; she had every right to do that, and I dont think I've seen a single Snape fan actually seriously state otherwise - but because she *knowingly and deliberately chose to get with an abusive bully.* That she and Snape were no longer friends is irrelevant to me. I understand not everyone feels this way, and that's fine. But It's important to me, and so it carries weight to me. The implications are just too offputting to me, and yes, I am biased. Snape is my favorite little guy, after all. I dont pretend otherwise. To each their own, and she, as written in canon, is certainly not for me, historical context and location be damned.

So i can't like her in canon. If anything, I cant help but feel acute resentment for her character, because it feels almost like betrayal to be told "here is a perfect and good person" and then get.. that. Ironically, I would like her a whole lot more if the narrative didnt try insist on her goodness and instead was just like "actually, ngl she was kinda shitty sometimes. questionable as hell. she was a bit of a gremlin and a little bit fucked up" because then it would feel honest. she would no longer feel like a hypocrite to me, and then those moments of kindness would carry more weight, would feel more meaningful. Her actions would be more believable, would feel more nuanced and I would maybe even love her.

...and that, ultimately is what my problem with her is. she has all the potential to be such an interesting character, but she instead falls short of being a full character at all. it's not her fault; this is a jkr skill issue (and her portrayal of female characters in general leaves A Lot to be desired.), so in the end i'm not too pressed.

its exactly why i like Lily so much more in the context of fanworks. Canon lily? offputting. An incomplete character. but fanfic lily? such potential! she could *actually* be the good person she was meant to be and make different choices or at very least have reasoning that makes more sense! or she could go a new direction entirely and be an absolute gremlin menace alongside Snape and in the process, add more interest and nuance that way! all of these things are enjoyable, and for this reason i cannot say I truly hate her - because I do love her so so much when people make her their own and make her make sense, to do her justice and preserve what - i think - would have been that spark that brought Severus and Lily together in the firstplace - whether it be genuine kindness, or a friendship based on being able to relate to one another at a deeper level, on having that shared weirdness together, or even both things! (that's not to say I love every portrayal; and sometimes there are pet peeves, but they do not ruin the character for me in that scenario, for the simple reason that in these fics she *IS* ultimately a full character, which is more than what can be said about canon lily.) ... and that's the joy of fanfics and fanart and creation, isnt it? that you can make your own ideas come to life, put things together in a way that makes sense to you, and see how others would make a these stories and characters come to life. its why I can despise the marauders in their canon, and yet ship everyone of them with Severus given the right scenario. it's why I can dislike snily in the context of canon, and see their relationship as purely platonic under that lens, and yet wholeheartedly ship them otherwise in the context of fanfics and fanworks. It's why when I say i ship Severus Snape with literally everyone I can truly and genuinely mean it. Because I do. I think theres always room for a scenario, for a characterization, or AU, to allow for it. Fiction is a lovely and magical thing, and it ultimately exists for enjoyment, for entertainment and creativity.

anyway, idk if i worded this wrongly or weirdly but tldr: I dislike and am put off by canon lily, but I love what lily can be, what she could be, what she SHOULD be, I love what fans are able to do with her, I love what I wish she was.

[endless-ineffabilities]

It's me again!✌🏿🙋🏿‍♀️ Reading thru your response reminded me of something that I forgot to say. It's triggering so ignore it if it triggers you or even makes you a bit uncomfortable! (It's between the /////)

/////////////

I'm a survivor of csa and that's actually one of the reasons I really love Aemond's portrayal in the show as he was taken to a brothel at such a young age and it's just so clear and obvious that he did NOT like or appreciate what happened and it still follows him to this day. How could it not? It's not like the maesters were mental health professionals.

My abuse shaped who I was romantically involved with for a long time (I'm in my mid 30s) and in the last few years I've been able to see that and work it out wit my therapist. I really dont want that to be the case for Aemond, though it makes sense and it's quite realistic. I would prefer I guess that if he's involved wit Alys without her magic and manipulation that he genuinely likes her, truly, not because that's all he's known because of what happened when he was 13. Even I that's not the case as long as the writers treat this subject with respect and some tact I won't have an issue, but I as a person would have wrote it differently for my own taste.

//////////////////

I also hope that people don't hate on the actress for no reason other than she's dating the fictional hottie. Jokes are fine, I make em too! But only at the character, not the actor/actress. Which is btw what I hate the most about people who diss Aemond and Daemon because they don't think Ewan and Matt are handsome enough or whateva. Total bs in my opinion.

Anyway I don't know where I was going with this and I really do apologize if this was upsetting! I feel comfortable talking about such subjects because I think they should be talked about but I understand that many others feel differently. Thank you for taking time to read my long ass message and respond! Idk what your friends are on about, you're very pleasant 😂 a pleasant Daemon like when he got Syrax's eggs!

Stay warm if it's cold over there, over here it's freezing🥶

Hi there, and sorry for such a late response! There's some backlog when it comes to my inbox and I haven't been able to answer messages promptly 🥲

First of all, I feel that you have such a sense of sincerity and good humour and I find it admirable + kudos for getting to work through your trauma with a therapist. That in itself takes a whooole lot of bravery 🖤

About Aemond though, it's sad to think that he most likely did not/will not get any support about how he was taken advantage of at 13. He probably doesn't even fully know that it's wrong, especially since his older brother seems so keen about it. And I just hate to imagine him having to get used to feeling all messed up about that experience. His struggle remains internal and unnamed as it's not something that is outright 'wrong' or 'abusive' in their world.

In some way, it might be easier to understand Alys using her witchy powers to make Aemond fall in love with her, than it is to see them 'fall in love' without apparent manipulation... Cause there always will be that "what if" on my part about whether his attraction is not influenced by what he went through? ahhh I don't know we'll see how it is portrayed I guess...

You're so right - I also CANNOT stand slander directed towards the actors. I hope the Aemond fans don't target whoever will portray Alys. I mean - it's fine - fans have a right to not like a character, but not to the extent that it's unreasonable and insulting 🤷‍♀️

Also I admit I've seen Matt Smith's work for years now, but I've never been so fixated on him as when he portrayed Daemon 😂

Thank you thank you for the message! Apologies for my essay haha and it's freezing in my corner of the world as well... if only we can keep warm with Aemond or Daemon 😉

[ramblingguy54]

With the true nature of King Andrias as an aspiring universal conquerer being revealed does that mean Anne hates Sasha less now? How does she feel about Marcy after the truth was revealed. Anne was pretty upset with what she did and was mostly responsible for getting them all transported to a dangerous world in the first place. It is because of how Marcy saved Sprig, returned her and the Plantars to earth and was mortally wounded was Anne willing to give Marcy another chance? How does Sasha feel about Marcy afterwards? What can be done for the girls to forgive each other and return to being friends? My guess things will never be the same between them again.

     Oh, I don't think Anne's feelings have necessarily changed toward Sasha, per say. While Anne's hatred for Andrias exceeds whatever anger she has toward Sasha for hurting and betraying her trust yet again, it obviously doesn't wipe the slate clean between them whatsoever. Their complicated dynamic goes farther back, than just simply what happened at Toad Tower in Season 1's finale or all of True Colors' events, either. Anne has been pushed around by Sasha ever since they became best friends. Sasha was always ruling over Anne & Marcy playing by her rules of what was morally "right" or "wrong", which anytime Anne tried to speak out of good conscience, as seen with stealing the Calamity Box from that thrift store, Sasha would stomp out any chance of Boonchuy trying to stand up for herself. Sasha went from being a protective leader, to an abusive bully.

     Regarding Anne’s feelings toward Marcy, I believe she’s more crushed than enraged at knowing Marcy was aware on some level about the Calamity Box’s existence and wanted to see if it would actually work or not in sending them all to a different world. Anne thought Marcy was different from Sasha’s rougher nature, but got a serious wake up call that this other friend of her’s is facing their own respective inner demons. I certainly wouldn’t phrase it as Marcy holding the majority of responsibility for why they got stranded in different parts of Amphibia’s region, either. All three of the girls hold accountability for why they ended up in their seriously unfortunate current predicament. It certainly cannot be contributed to just one of them being mostly or fully at fault here because all three are to blame.

-Sasha outright undermined Anne in wanting to go back home for her birthday party and guilt tripped the kid into stealing the Calamity Box.

-Anne should’ve listened to her conscience to stand up for herself, instead of just passively going along with what Sasha & Marcy wanted, overall. The Second Temple episode fully calls her out on not being entirely innocent on this regard, too.

-Marcy shouldn’t have ever taken advantage of them both without even informing these two of her hidden intentions. She presumed they would just go along with where they were going and be thankful to her for doing all this. Regardless of whatever family trouble she has, it was unhealthy over attachment and desperation at its finest to not leave what she thought was paradise.

     That’s what makes Amphibia’s story so nuanced in its portrayal of the friendship between these three kids. Neither one isn’t without fault in their actions. It’s why Anne’s statement to Andrias holds such a strong weight behind it all, “The three of us may have made some mistakes, but you. You’re evil!”, because there’s a lot of truth to this phrasing. Despite the growing baggage Anne has toward Sasha & Marcy, she still does very much want to work things out, if its remotely possible. That’s one of Anne’s biggest defining traits is her loving compassion toward others. Especially those she’s deeply grown to know & love of course, which look no further than how much she’s come to treat Sprig as a little brother, more or less.

     Can the main girl trio genuinely work things out for the better? I’d say, from the preview clips and trailers released thus far for Season 3, it’s certainly leaning into the more optimistic scenario. Things may not ever be the same between them again, but that’s a big part of life is people change and dynamics shift. Sasha may not be their protective leader anymore, however this isn’t the end of the whole world, naturally. Friendships aren’t supposed to operate on one individual holding the figurative baton. It’s about equality, which these three girls have sorely lacked in having because of always doing things Sasha’s way.

     The best thing Anne, Sasha, & Marcy can do for each other as friends is to be honest with themselves about how to become better people as a whole. No more manipulation, dishonesty, or abusive behavior toward one another. Proper communication is key here in smoothing the rough edges of a complicated friendship, such as their’s.

[popculturebuffet]

Star Vs: Stump Day Review or The Why Are You Booing Tom He’s Right Holiday Special

Before we start a special credit to @jess-the-vampire​ who I discussed the episode with during the writing process and brought up a LOT of good points that ended up going into this review. She clearly hates it as much as I do and had even more good reasons for it.  Happy Hanukah, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays Everybody! And today we got a big, fat, grotesque lump of coal to smash to pieces. And after a long, draining, if worth the effort scrooge review, and with this being something I needed to cross off my to do list this holiday season, I put this one here as I could use the cathariss of giving this steaming bowl of elephant piss a good thrashing. As you can tell unlike my usual reviews, I do not like this episode. This isn’t the FIRST i’ve not liked i’ve covered, but it is the first rather infamous one to me i’ve covered and not just a dead possum of an episode I ran into while reguarly covering an otherwise good show like “Quaraller’s Pass” or “Strife of the Party”. This one’s had it coming, making my top 8 worst christmas specials list last year, and while not the series worst outing, that’s a toss up between the finale and marco jr, it’s easily one of them. So while usually I like diving deeply into something good and picking apart while it’s good, if not ignoring any bad aspects, here i’m just going to take a hammer to this thing to explain why it dosen’t work and why it sucks dirty ass in thunderstorms. I might be overstating it a bit but probably not.  Nothing really new has happened since the last episode so the only new thing to cover is why i’m doing the episode here instead of after Monster Bash. And the simple reason is that like the Ducktales Halloween and Christmas specials, this episode clearly does not take place in the same time frame of the episode before or after it, with the next episode, The Bog Beast of Bogabah, taking place the day after Monster Bash. It’s most likely they simply held this episode over till Christmas and it dosen’t really fit in AFTER the huge game changer that is monster bash, especailly since the next three episodes after this all take place in rapid sucession, two on the same day one the day after them. So yeah i’m doing this one first and putting it ahead of monster bash on my episode guide for clarity’s sake. 

Good, so with all that settled, let’s unwrap this complete works of pauly shore shall we? We open on the titular Stump Day, essentially mewni’s christmas complete with Cocoa, carols and a gay couple and their equally adorable child. And Star, unsuprisingly is giddy for it as the actual chlidren, and wearing an adorable santaesque dress complete with horns on her santa hat. Seriously you cannot tell me tom didn’t get that for her. Fucking precious. Marco is more just confused and has his hood up and one of Star’s cousins asks uncle river to tell him the origin of stump day. River’s response.. is easily the best joke of the episode. 

“(in a jolly tone) ha ha, you don’t tell me what to do”

He does so anyway though: Basically when settlers arrived on Mewni they found themselves cold and griping with each other, and soon found a blizzard had struck.. but by huddling together under a magic stump, they all learned to get along or something like that and now once a year everyone gathers in warmth and camraderie.. or else. Before Marco can understandably question what “or else” means in this context, Star butts in when one of her cousins chastises the younger one who asked river the question for beliviing and says he’s real. It’s a nice touch as it fits star perfectly to still belivie in mewni’s horrifying version of santa. I forgot just how adorable and likeable the character was before the final season shot that to hell. How her energy could be infectious and how Eden Sher really brought her all to the performance, which is still the performance of her career and hopefully like Rider Strong she’ll do more voice acting eventually.  So that night as Star tucks in after wonderful  night of sleep, and to avoid her dad’s usual drunken chorus of Tom Jones “Sex Bomb”, and gets woken up by Marco who leads her to the dining hall because a windows broken to fix it with magic. Star entirely buys this flimsy story.. but as Jess pointed out, and as I missed hence the credit up top... she dosen’t bring her wand. She.. dosen’t bring her wand.. to go fix something with magic. Now i’ll grant next season shows she CAN fully do magic without it, and while not as powerful like her mom still has plenty of punch behind it.. especially when she does the rainbow fist thing. But it’s still.. weird she dosen’t think to grab it and feels out of character. While Star’s learned by this point not to rely on it, and as we’ll see gives it up entirely, one of the few bits of her character development that actually sticks, it still seems resonable she’d take it with her wherever she goes.. and usually SHE DOES. And her jammies, which are also adorable, seem to have pockets so the animators had no reason to not just stuff it in one. It would’ve made their job harder yes.. but then don’t have marco use an excuse that directly requires it then and draws attention to the fact the wand is missing, and the fact you blatantly just hoped we’d forget about it as it’d ruin the climax. 

It’s far from the worst thing in this episode..trust me we’re almost there. But this does bring me to a point.. so far the episode is GOOD. The comedy’s good, the setup for what’s about to happen is good, the holdiay setting is warm and inviting but weird enough to perfectly fit mewni, and River, much like his VA and homosexual talking boat portrayer Alan Tudyuk, is a national treasure as always. Whelp it’s all down hill from here bitches! Giddyup. 

So Marco announces a SUPRISE PARTY! And everyone’s there: Tom, Kelly, Ponyhead, Starfan14... oh yeah this is the first ep i’ve coverd with Starfan14 isn’t it? Starfan14 is star’s insane fangirl, voiced by series creator Derfron Nercy herself, who star happily tolerates despite clearly wanting to wear her skin. We’ve all been there. Also Jackie is transparently missing, though at least it’s SOMEWHAT reasonable as she and marco broke up a few .. months ago? I mean it is winter on mewni for this episode but the end of season 4 and the series is set at the start of summer, yet months still pass..... 

Confusing timeline aside, Jackie has every reason not to attend a party thrown by her ex for the girl who confesed she had feelings for said ex and it’s probably the only good decision Marco makes this entire episode that he wisely decided to give Jackie some space. And it says something a decision made entirely off screen that was probably because the creators genuinely forgot Jackie once she was out of the way so they could shift the love triangle stuff to Tom, Star and Marco instead of you know.. not doing that because most love triangles are annoying at best and utterly insufferable at worst. Case in point this episode but I can give out more about this aspect of things in a bit with more context. 

And to his credit, and as Jess backed me up on, Marco’s gesture is genuinely throughtful.. at least to start with. He got her a choclate fountain, brought all of her friends, and geninely just thought Star never celebrated her birthday on her birthday because it was you know the same day as christmas. As someone whose birthday is a week before christmas, December 16th if you were curious, I understand the pain of having your birthday in the same month as christmas. Of having all your presents clustered at once and of having to manuver around a very stressful season, though it does sometimes have perks like getting to celebrate your birthday and christmas, it also means your birthday is secondary and always will be to most people due to proximity. And Star has hers ON mewman christmas, so it’s even worse. So from Marco’s perspective, TO START, his best friend constantly had to share her birthday with her faviorite holiday and just wanted to do something nice. SO FAR, he’s done nothing wrong and just means well. That’s... about to end.  Star.. instead of being greatful.. starts muttering no before going on an manic rampage and destroying everything including hte band’s insturments. And apparnetly star’s gotten some flack for her behavior.. but I understand it. To her the stump is VERY real, and will be very angry if someone else celebrates so to her all she’s doing is saving her best friend from the holiday equilvent of the trees from evil dead, and when Marco asks about it she GENUINELY is sorry, getting he meant well, that he was being sweet, and that he did a lot of nice stuff for her.. she just can’t celebrate not because she loves the holiday but because again, from her persepctive, the stump will kill them all if they don’t support it. She is genuinly affraid for her friends lives and given she could go grab her wand and fight it, clearly thinks she, with all her CONSIDERABLE powers, cannot win this, and neither can tom whose powers are almost entirely fire based. Star is just trying to protect her friends from being horribly murdered. And she turns out to be entirely right about it so no, star was not a jerk here. A bit over the top, but she was not insensitive, she was not mean, she just didn’t want a party for understandable reasons.

So let’s get to actually insensitive shall we?! Marco’s reaction to this is at first confusion as he didn’t realize the stump was real, though Tom, Kelly and Pony are convinced it’s not. Also this episode implies Kelly is from mewni, but she turns out not to be so why she knows about the stump I genuinely don’t know. They think it’s just a baby thing.. though in Tom’s defense he dosen’t phrase it that way, thinks star still beliving is cute, which for a teenage boy finding out his girlfriend belivies in santa is very sweet and mature of him, and is trying to be nice about it even if he doesn’t believe.  But Marco.. his response to his friend having a good reason for not wanting to have the party.. is to complain about how much effort he put into it and try to guilt and bribe her into having it by mentoining he got her faviorite cake flavor, rainbow. Just.. WOW. I’ve seen some bad turns from characters, but WOWWWWWW. Holy shit.. I mean at least other jerkass marco episodes before this had SOME reasoning to them. Sophmore Slump had him clearly sublimating his feelings for star combined with the usual obnoxiousness of someone having gone abroard for the first time, which as Letterkenny recently went into, the only thing worse is Stillborn Puppies. Nothing else. 

And with Lint Catcher while he was presumptive and not blameless.. river still outright lied to him. Here? It’s clear star dosen’t want this, cake can be refigirated, he only takes a loss on the choclate fountain and he could still just let everyone have some and say it’s for stump day to appease her. He dosen’t have to take a loss on this finacially or morally and there would be no harm done. But that’s.. not what HE wanted, not waht HE set up and he wants what HE wanted, which was to impress star with a thoughtful gesture. But that’s the thing bud: Gestures aren’t about you or what you get. Their about doint something nice for another fucking person. It’s the whole point of christmas and birthdays: To just give someone something to be ncie and to celebrate the day and them respectively. If she dosen’t WANT your gift for understandable reasons and isn’t being rude about it you don’t have any leg to stand on you seflish twatwaffle. 

So already Marco is not coming off well.. and if you know this episode you know it gets worse. Oh god it gets worse. So first PONYHEAD of all people calls out Marco.. and for once, PONYHEAD, the most selfish, most unresonable and a character whose tolerablity varies on the episode, tells him he’s being selfish and is only pressing on because of his need to control things. So not only is Ponyhead right but the episode LIKELY wants you to feel she’s wrong because she’s pony which is not how this work as she knows star well and thus, while unaware she still belivied in the stump, which tracks as while it’s obvious she does Pony is so up her own whatever she has that functions as an ass, it’s understandable she’d miss some details. So no Pony’s right, and the fact PONY is one of the more resonable people in this episode is both a sign of the apocalypse, which is thankfully starting to recede, and a clear marker of just how bad Marco’s being if someone who torments him and disagrees with him out of principal is entirely right. 

Oh but it gets worse as next up, Tom steps in and tries to get Marco to back out, admitting he told him this was a bad idea. Now granted Tom did mess up by not stepping in to stop this a bit.. but he A) didn’t know how much his girlfriend genuinely belivied in the stump and B) Probably assumed Marco meant well, as would I before he whined about not getting his way, and decided it was worth a try. So he’s not that bad, and while it is a bit ehhh to try and take back credit for this when he participated, it’s still minor and Marco is still being a huge dick who refuses to help shut things down when it’s clear the party is only causing star to have a panic attack and assault some humble marachi players. He sees nothing good is coming from this and just wants what star wants. Also it paints Marco in a worse light as he was warned about this, and was so obssed with making it a suprise party because that’s how his plan went, he refused to just.. talk to her about it. Hell he could’ve just casually asked “Why do you never celebrate your birthday on your birthday”. It’s an easy question, dosen’t give the game away and allows him to gage if this is a good idea or not BEFORE baking a cake , hiring a band and getting a chocolate fountain. Instead he just went ahead with it.  And he did so.. because this ISN’T about making Star happy. This is abotu HIM making star happy. Him showing her how thoughtful, and considerate and sweet he is and how he’s always been there for her and how maybe she should be with him instead of Tom. I mean it just comes off that way.. he made it a suprise party because in his head that’s how it worked and she was super impresed and left tom that day to be with him in some elaborate fantasy. Granted the episode dosen’t say this.. but it sure as hell acccidently implies hte hell out of it by having marco act like a selfish ass who refuses to take what STAR wants into consideration, and just wants to get his fantasy back on track. What supports this to me is how he treats tom, you know one of his best friends: He, again, accuses him of forgetting.. then calls him a bad boyfriend.. a bad boyfriend for NOT wanting to force a celebration on his girlfriend she does not want, and for not forcing it on her. For you know GROWING AS A PERSON.  Beacuse here’s the pickle pumpernickle: This thing Marco’s doing? Is exactly the kind of thing a pre-character development TOM did, that was rightfully framed as bad. Being controlling, wanting things to go JUST a certain way instead of letting them flow naturally, not getting the hint star isn’t intrested, and not caring about what she wants and only what you want. Marco is doing the same thing Tom used to do. And for starters i’ts already bad because you know MARCO WAS THE ONE WHO FINALLY GOT IT THROUGH TO TOM THAT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR WAS TOXIC AND SELFISH. But apparently when it’s Marco himself doing it it’s fine. If there was ever any clear evidence Marco regressed as a character, there it is.  Him actively unelarning a lesson he taught someone else and then getting combative when that person rightly tries to call him out. Marco is just insufferable in this episode: He’s being selfish, creepy and posseive and he’s apparenlty supposed to, at least on some level BE RIGHT.  But.. we will get to that. Consider a pin put in this rant. 

So Tom overreacts, and throws some fire at marco, which is genuinely wrong and Kelly’s right to call him out, and then headlocks him asking marco to say he’s a good boyfriend. Marco screams out ‘NEVVVEEEERRRR”

I just made this, by hapinstance, while watching the video I put up there. I.. I did not think i’d get to use this so soon but my god. Just my god that’s a terrible thing to say.  So the party soon breaks down elsewhere as Kelly is mad at tom for.. understandable reasons again the guy she has a crush on was just nearly set on fire, even if i’m still on Tom’s side overall here, it’s still not right. Janna points out it’s probably because she has a crush on marco, which while acurate dosen’t mean she was wrong and Tad pops out to be upset about that. Even though you know you two are broken up and as Kelly points out he needs to move out. Pony is mad she’s not getting any attention and Starfan is mad because star’s mad. Star results to desperate measures, opening the windows to try and repeate the act of the settlers.  She didn’t however count on the Janna factor as she throws the stump in the fire, which is in chracter. What’s not, and again I give Jess full credit for this one, is that everyone just starts.. warming around the stump and not caring like a bunch of jackasses not caring about their close friend, and in tom’s case, girlfriend’s feelings. Also tom and marco apparently stopped fighting just to be this stupid. 

But naturally burning the symbolic stump is a bad idea and the real one attacks. Protip: If you live in a world of magical nonsense, maybe don’t discount the magic stump. Everyone’s captured, including moon and river, with River also being suprised and replying to Star’s annoyance at him not beliving with “Sweetie it’s a stump!”. Alan Tudyk is a god and I feel you all should acknowleddge that. But yeah everything seemsm to be bad but everyone apologizes, if not for the right things in Marco’s case, and Tom says “I’m sorry i’m a bad boyfriend!”. You .. you aren’t. You did nothing wrong. I feel like this is tom for the last agrivating 6 minutes of the episode

He did SOME THINGS wrong but he is NOT a bad boyfriend. He is throughtful, kind and while he has flaws, SO DOES STAR. He is not a bad boyfriend for not wanting to repeat past abusive actions! GAH. Let’s just get on with it. They all hold hands, they thiunk this is what made the stump go away but Star is sure it was just going to kill them, Moon and River have a thousand yard stare as they realize they both have to get repairs for this room now and do an extra big stump day next year to make sure it dosen’t come back. And Marco apologizes to star.. for not beliving her. Not for forcing this on her, not for causing all of this, not at all to tom, but for not beliving her while star FUCKING APOLOGIZES TO HIM.  Pin removed, bullshit falling to the floor... Trunks if you would. 

Thank you. Star DID NOTHING WRONG. Tom DID LESS WRONG THAN MARCO. WHY ARE THEY APOLOGIZING. Why is this little shithead getting everything he wants as the party happens after all, if a day later, and he gets to dance with star, while everyone else is painted as being in the wrong? That’s what makes this special so putrid: that MARCO is apparently in the right for doing the same , if on a smaller scale, manipulative shit tom used to do before he grew as a person, yet the episode sides with him, props him up and teases Starco. If it’s Starco it’s okay apparently and that’s.. not okay. You can’t .. build a ship on a character acting like a jackass. That’s not how this works. Marco was wrong, he was bad and he should FEEL bad. Instead he’s just a creepy jerk this entire episode, being entitled, manipulating star, screaming at tom.. and gets REWARDED FOR IT. Fuck this episode. 

FINAL THOUGHTS: I believe I said Fuck this episode.  This is easily one of star vs’ worst episode and much like the season after this episode it gets worse the more you think about it. I put it on my worst holiday episodes list for a reason.. and frankly even with the decent first 4 mintues it should be higher. It’s an unplesant mess that throughly ruins Marco’s character and takes him from a kind, upstanding, polite and bright young man to a creepy manpiulative jackasss. Fuck this episode and have a happy holidays. 

[chibimyumi]

Hi

I hope you're doing well

I have questions if you don't mind

Who do like Axel von Fersen in Marie Antoinette or Axel von Fersen in 1789 les amants de la bastille and also do you like Marie Antoinette in Marie Antoinette or in 1789 les amants de la bastille

Thank you for answering my questions

Dear Anon,

I am doing well, thank you very much! I hope you too.

Hmmm, as a quick answer I would say I prefer both Marie and Fersen from ‘Toho MA’, but the full answer is slightly more complicated.

Firstly, it is almost unfair to compare them to each other because in MA they are the main characters, whereas in 1789 they are main-support or secondary-mains at best.

Secondly, MA has a far bigger focus on the characters because that is what drives the plot, while the opposite is true for 1789, which mainly sells a spectacle. I myself am more fan of subtle and deep story-telling rather than spectacular shows, so the MA versions of Marie and Fersen are more to my liking.

Thirdly, the quality of the characters also depends greatly on the cast. My first view of MA is the A-cast, and therefore my impression of the characters is that they are incredibly well written. After comparison with other casts however, I started to wonder whether it was just the A-cast being too good, and the musical itself being ‘fine’. (In short; I’m not fully sure how much I’d ‘clearly’ have preferred MA Marie and Fersen were it not for A-cast. Click here for a comparison between the two casts written by my friend @wildandwhirlingwords)

But, I shall go into more detail for both characters why MA’s version appeals more to me - someone who enjoys character writing most.

🌹Marie Antoinette🌹

M.A. 2018

In my opinion Marie Antoinette is better in MA because you see her journey and her motivations. We all know that the historical Queen screwed up majorly, but in MA we see why, and in what ways she indeed had very little other choice from her own perspective. She was a flawed foreign woman in a time and place where flawed foreign women were hated most.

In the beginning of the musical the King comes tell Marie that she’d have to live more economically. Marie is clearly not very enthusiastic to hear that, but she also never protests. She just asks ‘why’ and then accepts the answer - albeit broodingly. More importantly however: we need to keep in mind that despite being called Madam Deficit, the historical Marie Antoinette was actually quite economical at first because the Austrian court where she comes from was way less extravagant than the French. It was after her marriage into French royalty that she became more extravagant, because she was criticised for “not being a proper royal” by the French. According to the court, the 14 year old Marie was “a peasant unworthy of becoming Queen.” When you’re that young and criticised by your entire new life, you do everything in your power to make sure you can actually have a life; you adapt. So when Marie was then suddenly told to stop ‘adapting and be a proper Queen worthy of the French”, we can see why more is at stake than “Karen needs to deal with only 10 dresses a week.”

Something else that adds depth to her character as opposed to her 1789 counterpart is that as the story progresses, Marie actually grows. She becomes more mature and more serious, and you see in her how all the events have a clear toll on her. From her own perspective, she really was trying very hard, but anything she tried was inadequate to improve the situation. What she didn’t know is that no matter how hard she tried, the situation was already un-salvageable before she was even born. The populace AND the court had already decided to hate her for being an unintelligent foreign woman from an enemy state, after all. This is an insight most historians nowadays agree on.

In a later scene where Margrid confronts Marie, she asks the Queen: “what makes you think you are better than us?” Marie confirms nor denies, but replies: “I am merely Queen as I was appointed by God.” When she adds: “All I know is duties, you are free,” there is also a clear sense she genuinely doesn’t know why she was appointed by God, but as she is now, all she can do is her best. She is still ignorant, which was a genuine problem about her. She does not know the hardships of not being from the top rank, allowing her say something as insensitive as: “at least you’re free.” But again, despite her ignorance, her feelings are sincere. From all the unfair expectations she was made to live up to from age 14, you really do see why ‘a life without duties’ seemed so much more appealing to her.

1789 - The Lovers of the Bastille

Marie in 1789 is more of a side-character, and the musical itself just is not very character/story driven as MA is. 1789 has the tendency to take the tropiest of tropes and stay on surface level with the characters. Ouki Kaname is an incredibly good actress and she tries her best; but she cannot do more than the script gives her to work with.

In this musical Marie is not portrayed in a very relatable or sympathetic light. She is extravagant because she has escapist fantasies, but we don’t really see what she’s escaping from. The sympathy from the audience is supposed to be drawn from the tragedy that she’s married to the King but is in love with Fersen. Oh, and she has a son but he’s mortally ill. Meanwhile however, you don’t see how her life is so bad she needs to escape... and you also don’t see Marie really being worried about her son than an occasional: “Oh Ill again? Sucks I guess. Gotta cry my eyes out on my lover’s lap, AHHH FERSEN 💗” It was not until her son had already died that Marie woke up, but the lack of portrayal of Marie’s perspective and the pacing really makes one legitimately wonder whether the child did not just die of Marie’s neglect. And about the forbidden love ...we’ve seen enough love triangles with star-crossed-lovers... I don’t know about you guys, but I am numbbbbb to this “problem”.

When Marie receives message from Olympe that she finally gets to meet her lover after a long separation at the Palais Royal, one of the first things she says is: “is that not the place where revolutionaries and prostitutes are gathered?” This immediately sets up an empathy-barrier between her and the common people. This Marie clearly views herself too good for people who do anything to get by; why would you care about her then? Because Marie’s story is not fleshed out you don’t see parts that can make you go: “oh, the revolutionaries really hate her for reasons beyond her control, she is in danger.” Or “she was raised by a puritan society, making her hate on sex-workers; that’s part of her character flaw.” Instead it’s just this Diva being quite judgemental.

Ouki was trying very hard to make the focus about her own safety, but with the script being what it is... she’s still a mostly unsympathetic character who is a martyr of forbidden love.

There is one scene where we see her take on a much more mature and responsible role. That was the first time I personally felt like Marie from 1789 is an actual human being with feelings and personal difficulties. But in great part this is Ouki’s acting... (the other cast didn’t do much for me). What is also important is that Marie was ‘humbled’ because her son died. Marie did not have much of a personal growth, and then she changes to a more sympathetic person because of an external factor just... feels less earned.

In the finale Marie appears again in her execution clothes, and the way Ouki appeared really felt like a punch in the gut. She sings “as a recompense for our griefs, people have learnt forgiveness.” However, the story skimped over the characters so much I was left to wonder: “who learned to forgive whom?” Do you think the people forgave you? Or was there somebody you hated but now learned to forgive? What was your grudge? Do you understand the angry mob’s grudge?

The finale of the musical treats like after the heroic sacrifice of the protagonist (Ronan) the oppressive monarchy was replaced by a good democracy, and a Reign of Terror will DEFINITELY not happen under Robespierre or something. But if you’ve had a BIT of European history you just know it’s a blatant lie. So the finale just feels too simplistic, and this simplistic feeling was in part presented by Marie’s very empty, lip-service-y line.

⚔️Hans Axel von Fersen⚔️

M.A. 2018

Fersen is a bit harder to compare which version is better, because honestly, depending on who plays Fersen in MA, Fersen is either the most generic Hollywood sweeping-lover-hero, or a diamond mine to excavate. In the same post linked above by my friend, she explains in detail the differences between TashiroFersen and FurukawaFersen. K-musical fans, don’t @ me, but from what I can tell, the Korean Fersens are also very... typical.

In this post I have discussed Furukawa’s Fersen in great detail, so I shall skip over these for this post. But to summarise, when portrayed by Furukawa at least, Fersen in MA is very nuanced and restrained. Even if we do not fully credit Furukawa however, then at the very least the script allows enough space and material for an actor to flesh him out so phenomenally well (I think Tashiro and some other actors just.... really missed out on the potential).

Fersen in MA incredibly memorable because the main atmosphere of the imminent doom awaiting everyone is carried by him in a way nobody else does. The moment Fersen enters you feel the tension that the musical wishes to tell. Fersen has seen revolutions, he’s seen the power of anger; he knows shit is going to hit the fan because he’s familiar with this trajectory. 

Fersen has excellent self control because he knows how a lack thereof would hurt Marie’s reputation and escalate the growing chaos. You can see very clearly how Fersen does want the intimacy, but to him duty and the grander picture has priority. In all the small actions from Fersen you see how he is a savvy intellectual through and through. (More about reservation later).

In contrast to 1789, we also get to see so much more of Fersen in MA because he is the narrator and a main character. Throughout the musical he’s been trying to de-escalate the chaos and even though his plans were actually well thought-out, the problems were just simply too big for any one person to solve. When Fersen mourns Marie there is a clear sense that he is not really surprised, just really upset that things had to come so far. Instead of singing something accusatory to the angry and hungry people, he sings: “fate, why did you give her everything, only to show her hell in the end?” Fersen truly understands why the people were duly angry, but that not taking away his sorrow of losing Marie who he knows is a better person than people make her out to be.

Also in great contrast to 1789, the finale of MA is rather grim. It does not suggest hope or that all problems will eventually disappear. The story for these people have ended, but the problems and the world will continue to our days, and days far beyond ours. It gives a feeling that the world of MA is so extensive that we - the audience - are part of it. In the finale when we see Fersen again, he also stays in tune with this feeling. “How can the problems of the world be solved, what is true justice? We remain clueless” he sings, and the way he looks into the unknown distance is almost a reminder to us that nobody has reason to stop worrying and fight for justice.

1789 - the Lovers of the Bastille

Now if we were to compare MA’s Furu Fersen to 1789′s Fersen, we see a stark contrast between the two. Where Furusen was incredibly reserved and hyper aware of everything, 1789′s Fersen is just the over-romantic lover who had been pining for his love. For a moment Marie realises she probably should not be cheating on her husband and backs away. Fersen however, is the one to make further advances, actively pulling her back to his side.

When he embraces Marie you see how he is just dreaming and indulging, something Furusen would never do. Furusen might hug Marie, but not without sh*tting 50 colours. 1789′s Fersen is the sweeping Romeo that most of history makes him to be, and little more. But again, Fersen plays but a very small role in 1789, so it is also unfair to compare him to MA’s Fersen.

Regardless of whatever nuance might or might not be there however, it is also just quite hard to like this Fersen because he is ‘just another privileged aristocrat who is just needy’. When making out with Marie in Palais Royale they find out that Ronan fell asleep there drunk. Ronan simply complained that Marie was too loud and woke him, and Fersen immediately shuts him up, and then draws his sword at him for ‘speaking rudely’.

First of all Fersen and Marie, if you’re gonna do a clandestine meeting, you CHECK your surroundings. Second of all, FERSEN Ò.Ó, this peasant is untrained and weaponless; you can’t just unleash your high-ranking martial arts at him with a shiny sword. This is EXACTLY the reason the revolution happened; the people were sick of the suppression of the powerless by the powerful. UGHUM. It truly is mind-blowing to consider how 1789 Fersen and MA Fersen are both...Fersens.

This Fersen is not very involved with the revolution from either side. He just proposes to help Marie and the King escape once, but got dismissed immediately. The following time we see him it is in the finale.

There he stands, a knight in shiny armour singing a really hopeful phrase to a relatively upbeat and hopeful music: “do not rely on force, but seek for hope and courage.” Here again unlike with MA’s Fersen, you don’t really feel like this Fersen has experienced anything. It was like he was an employed special guard, told by his boss there’s nothing he needed to do, his boss is dead, and oh wellll, moving on!

Conclusion

Because Marie and Fersen in MA are main characters whose stories are fleshed out, it really is very unfair to compare them to their 1789′s counterparts in a race of ‘who is better’. In the end of the day, 1789′s aim is to sell a spectacle, and it realllly is a phenomenal piece if you’re there for the spectacle. The choreography, songs, stage, everything is masterpiece-level. So if you’re there for the spectacle you get exactly what you went there for. The story and characters however... not so much. If one is more drawn to a direct, glittery spectacle with hands-down-amazing-songs however, they’d probably find Marie and Fersen from 1789 more enjoyable. If you’re into first and impressive impressions, the MA counterparts might demand a BIT too much attention and patience to get into.

Related posts:

Introduction and character analysis Fersen ‘MA’ 2018

Comparative commentary on MA Cast M and Cast A

[ziracona]

I think you've said the your first plan for Frank's fate was a lot different than what happened in fic? Do you mind sharing what your original idea was?

Sure!

So, originally, when I added Legion to In Living Memory--which was by far the biggest rewrite I did to my outline--I planned out Susie’s arc and Joey’s more or less as they appear in-fic. However, almost none of what happened with Frank was planned. So, when I write, characters often do stuff I don’t understand at the time or only partially understand, or figure out the reasons behind later, which can be a little bit of a hassle but isn’t too bad. Unfortunately, they also not just incredibly infrequently will decide to do shit I had no idea they would do ahead of time, and like, I can’t stop them, because like it or not, if I did, I’d be writing them OOC, so I just kind of have to go with it. When I got to The Lost, the section with Frank was supposed to be very different. He was supposed to show up, and Jeff was going to be low-key nice to him. I think in the original outline draft, he was a little more fucked up still than he is in-fic, so in the outline, Jeff bumps into him upstairs while looking for the tape, easily incapacitates him when Frank attacks him, and is super surprised by winning the fight in like 0.8 seconds, and realizes how fucked up he is. Frank is kind of freaked out, because he’s super weak and at someone who he would expect hates him’s mercy, but Jeff just is kind of silently like “it’s okay--don’t worry” and doesn’t tell anyone else he’s there so that he won’t be in trouble, and they leave with the tape. When I actually wrote the chapter, that changed to Frank being more healed at this point, and them actually fighting him, and some of what ended up in chapter, but Jeff was mostly just expected to be like “Okay, but we’re not going to kill him. We’re going to show mercy even if he wouldn’t, and let him go.” because Jeff is, well, Jeff. And instead he was like “Hey uh can I do a thing?” and I was like “Uh yeah I guess” and he just went off and was unreasonably nice and compassionate to Frank Morrison for like 40 pages and I was like...This is going to butterfly effect update everything. Shit.

And it did. Thanks Jeff. (Sincerely though, it’s much better the way the cards fell and the way I ended up writing/developing Frank and Julie and also Jeff and Joey and Susie too).  Originally, Frank was going to be slightly conflicted (as Jeff would still have been unexpectedly merciful to him), but to a much, much lesser extent. He was never a monster--he’s kind of a shitty person, but not without redeeming qualities, and he’s still in his early 20s. [To be fair, though, in ILM, Frank gets away with a lot. Like, going back and reading Tenacity, Adrenaline, and Grit alone, he does some sincerely fucked up stuff to Meg that he is allowed by the compassion of the rest of the cast to come back from. Meg doesn’t get enough credit for how nice she is to Frank by the end of the fic. Which I mean, everyone nice to the Legion is going to be automatically juxtaposed with Jeff, who is the most compassionate and selfless man ever, but credit where it’s due, Meg is a super, super kind person. Lets Frank go in Vs. because he helped Susie and because it would make Susie sad, doesn’t try to get revenge on him even though he’s caused her lasting PTSD and some pretty big trauma for petty reasons, is willing to believe he and Julie could/have actually changed, and while at fic-end she’s still kind of at “I am sincerely glad for you that you’re not who you used to be, but also, being close to you is traumatic for me because of what you did to me in the past, so I do not want to be around you,” (which is already a both valid and incredibly generous place to be at towards him), she feels further compassion for him because at this point he really does sincerely regret and feel guilt and shame for the things he’s done and wish he could change them, and extends the possibility that maybe in the future she will heal enough that that’s not the case anymore and there might be a future where they could be okay with each other, or oven become friends. And I know that next to Jeff people don’t all be looking as amazing as they would otherwise haha, but that’s like, that’s such a kind and strong and compassionate choice to make towards someone who has hurt you. Forgiveness is such, such a valuable thing, because it just is never merited, it’s always an act of compassion, and I really love her for that. I know I’m totally derailing the actual question so I’ll get back to it now though--sorry--I just have a lot of love for Meg Thomas.]

But uh yes, back on topic. Frank was never a monster. Legion is super interesting and I love them because they’re in a class all their own, which I know I’ve said before. But like, “teens who murdered one guy once spur of the moment because one of the group was in trouble” is such a different mental/psychological/ethical/emotional place to be coming from than any of the other killers. Frank is kind of a shithead, but he does genuinely love and care for his friends, and would be willing to suffer for them. He’s definitely got Reactive Attachment Disorder too, which is part of why he has such a hard time getting to trust Jeff eventually. 

So, as aggressive and kind of shitty but not wholly without redeeming qualities, his original story would have seen him usually an aggressor (tries hard to stop Susie, hurts Meg, gets on Joey’s case for anything kind he does, kills survivors pretty brutally & threatens people to try and keep them in line, etc), but also having moments of sympathy and humanity (letting Quentin go in Distortion/Iron Maiden, conflicted about Jeff helping him, being willing to get incredibly hurt by the Entity to protect Joey, fighting Ghostface to save Susie even though their relationship is not good right now, etc), and getting kind of mixed results in his ending. He would still have saved Susie in Vs. and been helped by Meg, who would still have offered him temporary Clemency because he saved her girlfriend and she’s got some honor, and would have escaped with Julie and the rest of the survivors and allies and made it back to the world. However, instead of sticking around to help patch up Jeff etc, Frank and Julie would have booked almost immediately in 600 Seconds (I doubt he would have stopped to help the truck driver either), and ended up with an uncertain fate. In the original outline, they kind of go off Bonnie & Clyde style and live together on the run. They send Susie and Joey postcards and such sometimes, but are kind of just MIA at the end, and it is unclear/up in the air if they will escalate into violence again, or be convinced by their old friends to come meet up and maybe try living a different life. I am not sure of details beyond that, because that outline kind of burned to death with the first actual paper draft of The Lost, as at that point I was pretty sure what Jeff was choosing to do would drastically change Frank’s future and decisions. I was kind of unsure how to feel about that at first. 

I’ve never like, hated Frank, but when Darkness Among Us released, I did not like him. Didn’t hate, but like, he was kind of vaguely portrayed as an angry, violent white boy who thinks his sad backstory gives him the right to commit murder, and despite that was wildly not just like, liked, but like, stan-style liked and pretty frequently really woobified too in big chunks of the fandom right after release, while the much more canonically sympathetic Joey got super sidelined (probably for race reasons) and so did Julie. So, I certainly didn’t like, plan to give him as big even a role as he had? I wanted him to be complex because he just was, but uh, it was surreal for me that I ended up having a deep emotional attachment to Frank hecking Morrison, but like, I guess here we are lol. And I’m not sorry. It was a good way for the story to go, and improved the plot. My frustration with the initial portrayals I saw were p valid, but I just didn’t end up writing Frank that way, or seeing him that way when I got to know him, and the person he was in ILM is someone who I am happy got and chose to take a shot at redemption and a good life with people who loved him. I care about him a lot. I think after The Lost, and certainly by the first draft of The Cat I was fully on board with how I knew then that Frank’s story was going to go, and it’s a kinder, softer story than I had planned, but I’m glad it was. I’m glad the stupid rat boy got a redemption arc. It’s so fkn hard to actually choose to change if you do bad stuff in real life, and it’s pretty damn valuable if someone can face the guilt and responsibility of what they did, accept it, and try to find some way to make right. He had a stacked deck in life, and got pretty lost out there for a while, but he beat the world, in the end. Frank let himself get pretty hardened and chose to throw out a lot of humanity before he decided to stop, but he did, and he earned a little bit of hope in the end. I don’t know if his ending is fair or not, considering all the bad shit he did, but I also don’t think it has to be. I don’t remember the exact line, but Jeff’s right when he says that life has always been unfair to them, but never in ways that were good, and that unfair can be a good thing too. Life is so rarely unfair to human beings in a way that is merciful or kind, and it’s really kind of amazing the rare times it is. I’m happy things ended up how they did. : )

[Also: fun stupid fact as a last note here. When I decided to expand Frank’s role, I was like “Okay, I can definitely see the value of this character arc and story change, and I like it and am on board, but you absolutely cannot sideline Joey to give Frank room,” like--I was not going to end up like

nuh-uh, so I literally invented a rule for myself that any time Frank got new content that wasn’t in the outline, I had to give Joey new content too so he wouldn’t get bypassed/sidelined and his arc and narrative would get the value and consideration and time it deserved alongside Frank’s and not accidentally, good intentions or not, end up getting overshadowed, and I really did stick to that. Like it got kind of funny to me. But I’m also glad I did because now Frank has a cool and well developed, hard-earned redemption arc, Julie gets one too, and I get *EveN MOooREe* Joey being a wonderful character screen time. Just good for everything all around. <3 ]

[diveronarpg]

Congratulations, JULIE! You’ve been accepted for the role of GONERIL with an FC change to Vika Boronova. Admin Jen: Wow, Julie. Just WOW. Your app was absolutely stunning. There’s this poignancy to your portrayal that breathes life into Grace so beautifully. From the over-arching theme of carelessness that you’ve explored, to the touch of vulnerability you hinted at when it comes to Grace’s bond with her sisters, to my personal favorite aspect -- which was the way you cleanly outlined her perspective and potential future while leaving enough room for Grace’s volatility and unpredictable nature to run its course. We absolutely cannot wait to see more of her! Please read over the checklist and send in your blog within 24 hours.

WELCOME TO THE MOB.

OUT OF CHARACTER

Alias | Julie

Age | 20

Preferred Pronouns | She/her/hers

Activity Level | Hit and miss! But I’m usually able to hop on at some point during the week and get replies done. If not, I’m always lurking on Discord to plot.

Timezone | MST

How did you find the rp?  | Through the tumblr tags all the way back in 2018, if I remember right! Crazy to think we’ve hit 2020 and I’m still here, lurking. Wild.

Current/Past RP Accounts | Santino, Loretta

IN CHARACTER

Character | Goneril / Grace Daly. I’d like a faceclaim change to Vika Bronova, if possible!

What drew you to this character? | Grace isn’t like a character I’ve ever written before – she’s completely new territory for me, and I think she’s a fascinating representation of, like, what if you just REALLY fucked everything up and didn’t give a shit? Because I don’t think Grace… cares, necessarily, about what sort of havoc she wreaks so long as it gets her something. And I can only ever desire to be that selfish. It’s this sort of reckless abandon of the morals most people cling to that’s super interesting to me, something I’d love to explore. Hundreds of thousands of people do the exact opposite of what they want to be doing every single day, in the name of responsibility and a certain code of ethics they hold dear. Or because they know doing what they want would have consequences. Grace looks at the consequences and bites her thumb at them, because while she’s not immune to them, there are certain advantages to being free of those sort of chains.

Santino was compelled by his moral backbone to do the same thing, and even Loretta had similar constraints, but Grace is going to run herself ragged with carelessness until she simply can’t run anymore. It shouldn’t be that easy, and for most people it isn’t, but to Grace, it comes naturally.

What is a future plot idea you have in mind for the character? |

ASK ME NOT WHAT I KNOW. There’s a difference between coming to the Montagues and begging for refuge and walking to their doorstep with a dead bird in hand, and Grace unfortunately chose to do the latter. It’s clear now that Damiano saw something in her – if he saw anything in her beyond another soldier – but she’s going to have to do more than most than to stay in those good graces, and God help her, she does. Everything Grace does has propelled her to this status of terror, the sort of person that it’s uncomfortable to share a room with. She knows how she got where she is and knows she actively chose to betray her own blood and her blood’s blood to do it. I’m interested in exploring how this impacts her relationships with other characters as well as her own personal monologue as it develops over time.

I LOVE YOU MORE THAN WORDS CAN WIELD THE MATTER. Grace denies that her sisters are of any meaningful worth to her but I think a piece of her knows deep down that it isn’t necessarily true. We all have little lies we tell ourselves, and even if she is angry at Regina and Catherine for stealing away attention that she genuinely believes should have been hers as a child, there are moments in quiet spaces where she sits and wonders just how far she could extend her ill graces. She’s not quite sure they consider her blood, and she doesn’t know she’d consider them kin, but exploring that relationship could be integral to the expansion of Grace’s character, morals, and own personal motivations – she can fully abandon them, even abandon the name Daly, if she so chose, but she hasn’t yet. A piece of her is still hanging on. I want to see why.

IN HIS OWN GRACE HE DOTH EXALT HIMSELF. At this point in time Grace has found herself comfortable in her position in the Montagues – and if there’s anything more than prominent about Grace, it’s that she hates being comfortable. If it doesn’t get her blood pumping, her thoughts racing, her heart beating at five hundred horsepower a minute with no end in sight, well, she doesn’t want it. And I think to a degree her comfort and her prior connections to the Capulets have her wondering just what would happen if she proposed she switch sides again. It’s not the most ludicrous idea in the world, as the Montagues seem a bit more talk than action, but there would need to be serious incentive and assurance they wouldn’t string her up, which means the weight of information. If switching sides isn’t a possibility, she’d prefer to advance. Climb the ranks, situate herself somewhere she can oversee her not-so-newfound compatriots and watch them. There’s something enthralling about the concept of that particular power, having control because other people think she can handle it, because she’s proven herself. Even if she doesn’t want to put the work in.

Are you comfortable with killing off your character? | Yes!

IN DEPTH

When she was a child she was loud. Bratty, clamoring for all eyes to be on her, tugging at every possible sleeve and holding a hand out for offered gifts in the same motion. Never stopped talking, her mother professed, although Grace can’t say now that she believes it to have been a flaw. She talks, people listen. The input-output exchange works for her, that way. She doesn’t need to lend an ear to others — they only need to look at her to see what they should be paying attention to.

When Regina was born, quiet and dull and as boring as one of the countless dolls collecting dust in their playroom – their, not hers, not anymore – Grace had been appalled for so long. Not one for conversation, Regina. Nor Catherine, if she recalled now. Too afraid to converse with the sister who clawed out chunks of hair and laughed when she fell because she’d thought it was funny. It’s not that silence bothered her. It was just boring.

When she holds court with Damiano Montague and offers her services she finds that it is very suddenly not boring, the life that she’s leading, running petty errands for the Capulets and looking pretty in the corner. Their conversation isn’t loud, either, but he speaks with a timbre in his voice that is enough to quell any crowd. If she were anyone else, maybe she’d be intimidated by it. But she’s not anyone else. She’s Grace Daly, and that’s enough for her to coast on alone. They shake hands at the end of the conversation, and she laughs at herself in her car on the drive back home, at the familiarity of business. It had felt natural. Like any other day of the week. Like she hadn’t just sold everything out for the sake of the spotlight.

When she leaves her family home for the final time she is, at last, quiet. Her silence is deafening. Her father is so loud and uproarious in his protest that he is brought to tears by his own madness. How many years had she confessed love and adoration to him to get what she’d wanted? Petty, meaningless trinkets – a new car, a necklace, a dress, an education. In turn she’d sworn love, adoration, fealty to the Capulets. So much for that. She doesn’t say goodbye to Catherine or Regina; chances are they’d never have noticed she’d left in the first place. Her father tugs at her sleeve, like she had his so long ago, and she can only summon up the motivation to press a kiss to the center of his forehead. He falls to his knees and she closes the double doors behind her so loudly it shakes the foundation of the house.

In the car to her new apartment there is no conversation to be had. No personal contemplation of revelry, no laughter, no jig to follow the steps to at freedom for the first time from whatever obligations they’d stacked upon her. Instead she turns the music up so loud she’s sure that all of Verona hears it, and that’s enough for her. Good, she thinks, rolling the windows down. They should be listening.

EXTRAS

I got quotes!

…people who stand alone + burn. I’m attracted to them because they give me permission to do the same. — Susan Sontag

You have to want to go to hell. Deserve’s / got nothing to do with it. — Michael Robbins

I have a meanness inside me, real as an organ. — Gillian Flynn

My wants are simple, and I do not want to be forced to make them complicated. — Edith Sitwell

Also, a playlist.

[emeraldembers]

Looloo’s Horror Rec List!

Tagging @eatingcroutons​, @monstermonstre​ as requested <3.

SO. I apologise for how long this list took, but as it turns out, I have watched a slightly silly number of horror movies, and with it being such a varied genre, I didn’t want to accidentally rec a bunch of things people would end up hating or spoil the heck out of them during the reccing process, so. But it’s finished now, and I intend to try and keep it up to date as time goes by and I encounter more horror flicks worth watching. I’m also going to stick a little italicised bit after any movies I remember having potentially squicky/triggery stuff in for people who are okay with horror but not That Kind Of Horror.

Behind a cut because this is Quite A Lot Of Movies My Dudes.

- - -

Movies I’m reccing because they actually scared me:

* Alien

Yo, it’s a classic for a reason, and if I’m doing a rec list of horror movies, I’m determined to address all the movies I’d rec, regardless of the likelihood of everyone having seen it already. Fantastic characters who behave believably, the cold cruelty of both monsters and capitalism, slow builds that pay off, it’s just - it’s so dang good, from start to finish, and all the spoofs and parodies and homages in the world will never fully diminish its success as a genuinely scary movie. CW: Soooooo much imagery suggesting sexual violence.

* The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Brian Cox is a frigging awesome actor, and he and Emile Hirsch absolutely and 100% sell you on the affectionate but strained relationship between father and son in this brilliant little flick that makes you root for the leads so hard. It’s claustrophobic and creepy and made by how the leads actually use common sense for the majority of the movie, and while I will admit the ending wasn’t my favourite, that by no means spoiled the film for me. CW: Animal death, references to human trafficking and sexual violence.

* Hereditary

Oh man. This film is absolutely brutal emotionally, one of the most intense (and imho, accurate) depictions of the pain of mourning I’ve ever seen on screen, and the horror happening around all this pain is just... torture. It’s almost unbearable to watch, but I can’t deny how incredibly well-acted it is, or how frightening it is. For quite a few people the ending doesn’t stick - people feel it over-explains itself - but I personally felt it worked. CW: graphic child death, graphic animal death.

* Jacob’s Ladder

This is such a weird and wonderful creation and I am so, so happy that I found it during the height of my Silent Hill fangirling days. It’s like watching a dream - sometimes quiet and comforting, sometimes loud and terrifying, and the movie just has this magnificent atmosphere of paranoia. It’s unlike any other horror movie I’ve seen in terms of it successfully pulling off the nightmare effect (controversial but true, I’m not a fan of Suspiria, though I appreciate several of the works it inspired). CW: Some imagery suggesting sexual violence.

* Kill List

Please, pretty please watch this without spoilers if you can. The less you know about it going in, the better. It’s a slow build, with the first half of the film playing out more or less like a kitchen sink drama with occasional bursts of explicit violence, but the payoff is worth it imho. CW: Mentions of paedophilia, violence against children.

* The Orphanage

This Spanish language flick is tragic, beautiful, and absolutely bloody terrifying on a first watch. It’s the only film that’s ever made me scream in fright, and is without a doubt the scariest movie I have watched to date: CW: Jaw trauma, child deaths.

* The Thing (1982)

God, I cannot describe how much I loved finally sitting down and watching this movie and realising that for all that I had seen the majority of the transformation and body horror sequences in it, it was still scary. Thanks to the sense of paranoia, and how many times you’re left waiting for something to happen, knowing something is about to happen, on a first watch it’s got some truly chilling moments and it deserves its status as a known classic.

- - -

Movies I’m reccing because they may not have scared me but they sure left a lingering something behind:

* Kairo (also known as Pulse)

Pretend there was never a remake because jfc the ball on that one got dropped harder than Vin Diesel’s voice during puberty. Kairo is utterly and completely bleak and depressing but the bleak and depressing nature of it is what makes the horror in it work. Watching the world in Kairo go quieter and emptier over time is distressing in the strangest of ways, and - fun fact - this film gave me one of the weirdest fears of all time, because now I have nightmares about windows and doors surrounded by red tape. As you do. CW: Suicide depicted explicitly and frequently.

* Lake Mungo

This flick and the Marble Hornets series on youtube are the only things I’ve seen using the found footage format that I felt really got its potential. Plenty of movies have had fun with it, and I’m grateful to The Blair Witch Project for popularising it, but a lot of the time it feels like long periods of nothing then suddenly All Of The Things. This one is a lot subtler about building an increasing sense of dread, and handling the subject matter in a way that feels very, very real for once. It’s fab.

* Let the Right One In

The English language remake, Let Me In, is apparently pretty good? But I haven’t seen it, so I’m going off the original here. And it’s a flaming beautiful film. It’s discomforting and its balance of achingly sweet and tender moments with brutally violent moments is perfect. There’s a bleakness to it that might put some people off, but it’s just gorgeous in my eyes, and I’m very, very fond. CW: Strongly implied paedophilia.

* The Mist

This is a perfect example of how you don’t necessarily have to have the best CGI if you have a great cast. I could never watch it again because it left me so shaken and upset at the end, but some of the imagery in it is just astonishingly haunting, like the best entries of SCP brought to life, and I have to commend it for being one of the classiest adaptations of Stephen King’s work to date. CW: Assisted suicides.

* Session 9

This is a bit of a weird one to put down on a rec list because I personally didn’t enjoy it, but I can’t say that it didn’t leave a lasting impression. There’s a sense of discomfort and wrongness that permeates the film, and it leaves a sort of... almost a slimy coating of creepiness all over you by the time it’s finished. CW: ~Creepy mental hospital~ setting, ableism ahoy.

* The Vvitch

I will admit that in retrospect, I do think this is a little overrated, but only a little, aaaaaand also I may as well admit that there is something about Kate Dickie’s acting that I hate. I have nothing against her as a person! I just don’t personally think she’s a good actress. That being said, everyone else in this movie, especially the children, did a brilliant job. It’s an uneasy watch from the start and only gets more uneasy as it goes on, and I love how straight it played its central concept. What elevates it for me in particular though is the ending, which I openly admit I did not see coming, and was delighted with. CW: Child deaths, strongly implied paedophilia.

- - -

Movies I’m reccing because they were just dang good and didn’t fit into the above categories:

* 28 Days Later

Not to be crude but I wish I could turn this film into body butter just so I could smear it all over me. Flawless cast, an adrenaline rush of a movie that I could watch a hundred times and never tire of, and the climax of the movie is straight up one of my favourite endings ever for its heart in throat intensity. CW: Suicides, threats of sexual violence.

* The Babadook

All Netflix categorisation jokes aside, I genuinely adored this movie. The leads are so well acted and I love their characterisation; it also has one of the best depictions of mental illness in childhood I’ve ever seen (second only to the little girl in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark 2010, whose portrayal of childhood depression resonated with me so strongly I couldn’t finish watching the movie). Also, for frigging once, the portrayal of mental illness is sympathetic, and people suffering from it get shown at their best, not just their worst.

* Coraline

To be honest, a lot of children’s movies are more successful at getting a reaction out of me than “grown-up” movies - All Dogs Go To Heaven’s hell sequence still unsettles me to this day - and Coraline is one of the rarities that plays out almost entirely as straight horror from start to finish. As per all things Laika it’s gorgeously animated, and the progression from eerie to nightmarish as the movie progresses is fantastic. CW: References to children’s deaths.

* Dog Soldiers, Ginger Snaps

It might seem an odd choice to pair these two up, but I couldn’t rec one without the other because to me they’re two sides of the same coin - violent werewolf movies with a wicked sense of humour, one focused on the relationships between men, the other on the relationships between women - and because of both the tone and the subject matter, I think Ginger Snaps makes a better pairing with Dog Soldiers than The Descent.

* Get Out

There’s very little I can say about this film that hasn’t been said already; it’s a film that uses humour like a knife, it’s a masterpiece in building discomfort and tension, and every single actor in it is top notch. It’s impossible not to root for the main character, and if you’re not cheering him on at the end, you may want to get your pulse checked.

* IT (2017)

Now this definitely terrified some of the people I saw this in the cinema with - one man peed himself, a woman fled the viewing, and I overheard people talking about smelling poop in the back of the cinema - but for me it wasn’t particularly scary. What it was, however, was moving, and funny, and had fantastic acting from all of the children involved. I was cheering the kids on constantly, and you could really believe their fear of Pennywise. I loved this so, so much. CW: Child deaths including on screen violence against children, depiction of bullying, heavily implied sexual abuse via parent/child incest.

* Pitch Black

It was a toss-up for a while whether putting this on here would be miscategorising it - is it more of a sci-fi action flick, or a sci-fi survival horror? - but based on the majority of the characters not being Riddick I’m going for survival horror. This is the perfect execution of a simple, brilliant concept, and it’s a delight. Plus, it has sympathetic Muslims in space, and I can’t ignore an excuse to cheer for that.

* [Rec]

This is another movie where I’ve heard good things about the English language adaptation but have only watched the original, and oh man, it’s fun. It’s not a film I consider particularly scary, but it has my hands down favourite protagonists of any found footage horror movie, and I love that the constant use of cameras makes sense in this one because it does start out as a documentary gone wrong. Also, the ending is a classic <3.

- - -

Movies I’m reccing but fully acknowledge their flaws:

* Candyman

Tony Todd is the man, dude, and it wouldn’t be right to make a horror movie rec list without having an absolute classic of his up on it. It’s wonderfully dreamy, packed full of that lovely late 80s/early 90s washed out aesthetic, and has one of the handsomest movie villains out there. 

* The Crazies (2010)

Virus outbreak movies are a dime a dozen, but for all that there’s little new here, it’s still one of the better ones, helped by a good cast playing the core group of survivors. Worth seeing if you’re a Timothy Olyphant and/or Radha Mitchell fan, and I love them both to bits, so.

* Event Horizon

A cult favourite with a ridiculously awesome cast (Sean Pertwee? Jason Isaacs? Laurence Fishburne? And more?), this does go over the top at points, but it is such a fun ride. You can see where games like Dead Space drew their inspiration from; it’s visually stunning, and the main characters are frequently (alas, not always) sensible. Also, regarding who dies/doesn’t die, if you haven’t seen it before, I think you’ll be quite pleasantly surprised? I know I was. CW: Explicit depiction of suicide, brief but explicit glimpses of sexual violence, references to child death.

* The Girl With All the Gifts

If you haven’t played or watched someone play The Last Of Us, this is well worth a watch. With the rise of zombies in recent media, no pun intended, it was inevitable there would also be a rise in how many showed the results of a zombie cure, or of intelligence in zombies. Cordyceps based zombies are rarer in media, and The Last Of Us used them brilliantly, but this is a good, solid film, bleak in some ways but hopeful in others, and I loved it. Also, Gemma Arterton is in it (as is Glenn Close, who is fab as always) and there are very few things I would not do for that woman.

* Grave Encounters

This isn’t a particularly good movie, but it is so much fun to play “spot the gif” with; there’s hardly a scene in it, once the ghostly shenanigans kick off, that hasn’t been put into gif format for use alongside creepypastas and the like all over the net. Girl turning around and face melting into blackness? Masses of hands pushing out through a wall suddenly? It’s just fun to spot them. Not to mention that, once in a while, it is fun to see a movie where the main characters are unironically Those White People In A Horror Movie and as such deserve pretty much everything that happens to them. CW: Ableism, ~scary mental hospital~ trope.

* Let Us Prey

This is a flawed film that could have been a great movie if it had been handled with a subtler touch. Some flashback sequences in it are more gratuitous than they need to be, and the end villain is just bizarrely over the top, but overall I love that it’s almost like a British-Irish take on Silent Hill? Liam Cunningham and Pollyanna McIntosh in particular, as the leads, are wonderful in it and bring a touch of class to something that could otherwise have just been a straight up hot mess. CW: References to child death, references to and flashbacks to sexual violence. Also, going to throw homophobia on here, because god knows I’m tired of the Evil Predatory Gay trope.

* Mandy

Placing this one anywhere on the list feels strange because it’s... this odd mixture of extremely beautiful and dreamlike, but also cult-classic over the top to the point of clearly being deliberately funny about it in places. I don’t quite know how it leaves me feeling on the whole, but I do know I absolutely love it. CW: Description of animal death, drugging, sexual harrassment.

* Silent Hill

This isn’t by any means a good movie, but I’d be lying through my teeth if I claimed it wasn’t one of my favourites regardless. It’s just ridiculously pretty, the music (courtesy of Akira Yamaoka being a genius) is amazing, and I will ship Cybil and Rose to the end of my days. Also, Pyramid Head, guys. Pyramid Head.

* Switchblade Romance (also known as Haute Tension or High Tension)

This French language flick is one of my favourite guilty pleasures. Most extreme horror bores me or leaves me cold, but there was something about this one I enjoyed despite it having plot holes you could drive a truck through; the lead actresses are fantastic, and it has some of my favourite uses of music in a modern horror movie. Please be warned though, this one has some very violent sequences, even in the cut version. CW: Child death, home invasion, continuous threat of sexual violence.

* We Are What We Are

This was a very unevenly paced movie, slow in parts and then jarringly fast in others, and some of the exposition felt clunky, but it’s overall a beautifully made movie and I was so drawn to the love between the siblings in this. I really felt like they were a real family, and was rooting for them so hard. CW: Cannibalism, threat of violence against children.

* The Wicker Man (1973, unless you want to watch the remake for so-bad-it’s-funny shenanigans. I won’t judge)

This is up there with Alien in terms of “even if you haven’t watched this movie, you have watched this movie” courtesy of pop culture referencing it every which way but loose, but it’s so worth a watch. I can’t recommend a particular cut because I’ve seen so many I wouldn’t know where to begin! It’s also kind of fun to enjoy it as a musical in its own way - there are so many songs in it that it’s hard not to sing along after a few viewings - and for all that the ending isn’t a shocker these days, it’s still so much fun to watch.

- - -

And a horror-comedy rec list to wrap things up:

* He Never Died

This is a great example of how you can do great things with a threadbare budget if you have a good idea and the confidence to commit to a concept. It is so, so funny, its humour sometimes dry, sometimes black as tar, and I just adored the main character’s absolute exhaustion with the world. I’m trying to sell this one without spoilers, because it’s another one where going in with as little info as possible is a good idea <3.

* Shaun of the Dead

It’s pretty much just the best ode to zombie movies and their inherent silliness that exists, and Simon Pegg is an adorable mess in it.

* Trick R Treat

My favourite horror anthology film by miles. It’s just fun. Aaaaaand the werewolf girls are hot af, soooooo. This also lets Brian Cox join Laurie Holden and Radha Mitchell on the list of people who managed to show up more than once in recced movies!

* Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

Aside from a few tonal missteps - references to sexual violence in the middle of a horror comedy, even if those references weren’t there as a joke, aren’t ever going to sit well - this film is hilarious, and frequently adorable too. Not to mention, it’s always nice to see a big guy get to be a hero.

- - -

Movies I need to update this list with:

The Lighthouse. CW: Explicit animal death, eye trauma.

Us. CW: Description of animal death, child deaths and self-mutilation.

The Endless. CW: Graphic suicide.

Midsommar. CW: Graphic suicide.

[archeir-a-blog]

@@@@@

For every ‘@’ sent (anon or not) I will mention and post some positivity about a fellow tumblr user.

Note: These are in no specific order.

@ofgoldenblood I’ve been following Min’s Jace for awhile now. And though we haven’t roleplayed or talked much ooc (we play tag by literally tagging each other in character development things) I still have mad respect for Min’s Jace. Not only is this Jace fully fleshed out but the drabbles my god they’re amazing and there’s a lot of detail, and thought and love and dedication that go into everything Min posts. It shows. I appreciate when someone’s writing is easy to read because it flows so well and beautifully and I get that from this blog. I know you’ve been getting hate recently for your ships (one in particular) and I commend you for speaking out against it and standing your ground. Listen, do you. Love what you love and fuck everybody else. It’s so easy to tear someone down for whatever reason and yet it’s so hard to lift them up and compliment them on all the things they do right. You have talent and heart and genuine, real devotion and understanding to your character/s. No one can ever take that away from you. It makes you a great, all around real human being. Those are hard to come by. Bless you for putting out incredible, quality content regardless of what others say, think, or throw your way. Please, don’t ever stop. 

@sacredwar It’s no secret how much I love Sarah. And I can admit I’m totally bias writing this one but even those closest to me could use the positive reinforcements and I couldn’t deny that to someone who I cherish and hold so dearly to my heart. There isn’t a character Sarah can’t write or make come to life. I’ve seen her try her hand at multiple muses and each one is articulate and carefully devoted to. Its definitely not easy juggling multiple muses but Sarah does this and does it so well. She’s such an amazing and understanding person ooc. And I have the honor of calling her a close friend. She knows how much I love her (because I tell her this frequently) but she deserves all the love and adoration I have. I respect her, I appreciate her, I cherish her. More than words could ever describe. Sarah, you are precious to me. And for as long as I’m here, I’ll continue to make sure you know it. Please stay safe out there in Florida. I need you, parabatai. Your heart, and spirit are both so radiant. Thanks for reaching out to me when you did. It’s been a fantastic ride with you so far and there’s no way I’ll let it come to an end if I can help it.

@faultyhalo Nessa is lovely and takes the cake on writing OCs that I’ve come to love and cherish as if they were my own. If it weren’t for you, I really doubt I’d still be here. I love that even when we don’t talk every day, you come back and it’s as if nothing has changed. You’re one of those people that can come and go (online) and I’ll still love you the same, if not more every time. My love and adoration for you never wanes. I love you and Gen like she was my daughter. You’ve always been 100% real, and upfront. You say what you mean and what you feel and you’re a great person ontop of that. It’s always so easy replying to you or talking to you and it’s because we click so well. You always keep my interest and there’s nothing you could do to ever lose it. Gen is canon to me. You’ve put so much work into her character and it shows. It’s not easy writing OCs but you make it look like it is. Bless Gen for being so multi dimensional and bless you for giving me a chance to write with her and enjoy her in all of her sassy, badassery glory.

@tattoosnecks I LOOK REALLY FUCKING THIRSTY FOR JACE RN BUT IDC. Especially your Jace, HAHAHAHHAHA. Okay but listen, you are one of my best friends. It’s so funny because I feel like you came out of nowhere?? HAHAH. And it’s always the best people who do, lbr. Trish, words cannot express how much I love and adore you. I can talk to you for hours (and I do on telegram) about Jalec, how stupid our bf’s are, or really anything and anything under the sun. You know me on a deeper level than I think most do? You are forreal my soul sister. Idk where you’ve been hiding all my life but I’m glad I finally found you. There’s nothing I can say that I feel like you’d be like ‘ew don’t talk to me anymore’ HAHAHAH. Legit just thinking of some of the convos we’ve had, other people would probably think we’re weirdos and yet for us it’s no big deal. (I’m actually laughing help!) As long as you’re around and in my life, I know I’m gonna be filled with laughs and great friendship. You’re a good fucking time and oh how I wish we could hang out bc seriously it’d be a BLAST. Mark my words. When it comes to roleplay, I’m pretty obsessed with you??? And your portrayal of Jace. I mean I think that’s pretty obvious. I have no difficulty replying to you and end up sending you novels back and apologizing profusely for being so obnoxious but look that’s just a testament to you and all the things you make me feel whenever we write. That’s not an easy feat but you manage to do it every single time. My god everything you write I’m so in love with and I could re-read your replies (I always do) several times and still be hit with the same feelings as the first time. Like ??? That talent. GOD BLESS. And I’m pretty sure I’d feel that way about any character you write. You do justice to everything you put your heart into and it shows and it resonates and I wish that would rub off on me seriously. Thank you for sneaking up on me and being the greatest friend I could ever ask for. I don’t wanna be hella corny rn but Idk what I would do without you some days. You make life fun. YOU ARE LIFE.

@magnusofbane​ Tbh when I reblogged the meme for this, I had you in mind as one of the ones I wanted to definitely write about. Cassidy, your Magnus was the first I ever wrote with. And I’ve told you this before but every time I get a reply from you I fangirl because you sound so much like Magnus that it blows my freaking mind. And it makes it so easy for me to reply or respond because I can hear Magnus’s voice in your writing and that awakens my inner Alec even more. You inspire my muse, you incite him. Idk if you realize this but to me that’s just so incredible?? Especially to be on this side of it and feel it happening. You really get him and I can see the dedication and love you have for Magnus in everything you put out. Ontop of being an amazing writer though, you’re an even more amazing person ooc. I love how every time you sign on, you spread love and positivity to everyone on the dash. Your cute adorable puns never cease to make me laugh or smile. You always tell people that they deserve love and to be happy and so do you honestly. And what’s the greatest part about it all is that you GENUINELY mean it. You don’t say these things for a response or praise, you do it out of the kindness and goodness of your heart and seriously? I WISH there were more people in this community like you. I wish I could clone you because there is just not enough love and positivity on this platform but you bring it and you never ask for anything in return. You’re an amazing person and can I just thank you on behalf of myself (and everyone) for that? Thank you for being here, for making me and everyone else smile and for being the best person, writer, friend you can be. Though, I doubt it takes any effort from you at all because you’re just wired that way. I really dont think you even try. I think it just comes naturally and its a blessing. YOU, are a blessing. I love you so much ok?

[neglectedrainbow]

Olivia Puckett as Zoe Murphy

Here, I’m gonna analyze and describe Olivia Puckett’s performance as Zoe Murphy, and the ways in which it differed from Laura Dreyfuss’s. Enjoy!

First of all, Olivia Puckett is a blessing to us all. I love her so much (have you seen her Instagram stories?!) you all have no idea. She was so sweet, so good.

I’ll start from the beginning. Instantly, right as she entered during “Anybody Have a Map” her differences with Laura Dreyfuss were evident. She slouched in her chair, her foot giggling under the table. Also, with Connor, her dialogue was lighter, in a way. She delivered the “He’s definitely high” line almost jokingly, like she was just this younger sister poking fun at her brother. It wasn’t disapproving and harsh the way Laura’s delivery felt.

Even while they were exchanging “Fuck you’s!” they seemed more like siblings messing around than two extremely damaged teenagers taking out their anger on each other. It honestly felt like a normal sibling relationship. She wasn’t even yelling, and neither was Mike Faist. It wasn’t mean or anything. It was. Good.

Even when she marched off the stage, proclaiming that she’d leave without Connor if he doesn’t spead up, I felt as though she wouldn’t leave without him. Like that was yet another joke. No big deal. Like she’d wait in the driveway for him to come, and maybe give him a bit of a hard time about it all later, but that they’d laugh about it next week or something.

Then, she met Evan. She rushed over to him in the middle of WTAW, and he instantly recoiled, his shoulders turning inwards, his eyes on the ground, his hands twitching. She seemed genuinely concerned. Her voice was low, and she seemed to purposefully stay away from him, almost fearful of scaring him, while simultaneously wanting to be closer.

When she called Connor “a psychopath,” it sounded like she was angry with Connor for pushing Evan, who obviously didn’t deserve anything, but wasn’t disgusted or hateful. She didn’t sound like she hated Connor. Or even really disliked him. Just has a stereotypical teenage sibling relationship that’s a bit edgy.

When she walked away-- “Okay...Jose…” --she turned around and looked back at Evan before leaving, almost fondly. It almost gave me the impression that this crush was requited, and perhaps had been for some time. That Evan’s love for Zoe wasn’t one-sided, that Zoe didn’t grow into liking Evan throughout the musical, but actually, in fact, liked him before it even began.

She entered, again, before “For Forever” and I could see a physical change that occurred in her during the 10 minutes or so she was off-stage. I could almost see her lose Connor, in that entrance. As she noticed Evan’s presence, she didn’t ask “Why is he here” like “Why is this weird kid in our house” but more like “Why is Evan, who I talked to in the hallway a few days ago, here?”

Throughout the dinner before “For Forever,” she did this leg jiggle again. Which was. So fascinating. She had these particular ticks, ones which almost mirrored Evan’s. They seemed like two pieces of the same pie, in their own peculiar way. Simply, if Olivia Puckett announces one day that Zoe Murphy has a minor anxiety disorder, I would believe her in a heartbeat.

When she retorted about good times with Connor, saying that “There were no good times!” she didn’t sound like a possibly abused sibling. She sounded almost angry with herself, as though she was wondering why she didn’t notice something was wrong with Connor, as though she wished she’d tried harder. She didn’t sound like someone who was wronged and was furious, she sounded like someone who was remembering her entire childhood and trying to pinpoint where everything went wrong.

Laura’s Zoe seemed like a young person who suddenly lost control over seemingly everything in her life, someone who was almost drowning. Olivia’s Zoe seemed like a young person who had just temporarily misplaced control, someone who was floating just above the water’s surface.

During “Requiem,” Olivia cried, actually cried, which is something Laura definitely did not do. 

The whole “You were not the monster that I knew” thing was much less believable. But the “You’ve given me my brother back. Thank you.” thing at the end of “You Will Be Found” was so. much. more. believable.

I really felt for Olivia’s Zoe. “Requiem” was when I started crying fully during this performance, rather than during “You Will Be Found” (which normally what gets me). I felt her loss so deeply and profoundly, like she was taking the whole audience on this journey with her.

She truly seemed to mourn Connor, to have loved her brother. She seemed so devastated during “If I Could Tell Her” that she never got to tell Connor what she thought. 

It was just a different kind of loss.

As well, her relationship with Evan was so vastly different. She seemed to be more interested in him specifically and less interested in his connection with her brother. At the end of “You Will Be Found” when she kissed Evan the second time, she kept a hand on his when he pulled away. When he kissed her back, she wrapped her arms around him and like hug-kissed him. In the boot, with Laura Dreyfuss, Evan leaned Zoe into her back on the bed. 

The opposite happened here, with Zoe really taking control of their kissing, pushing Evan into the bed.

Also, during “Only Us” she put a hand on either side of Evan’s face and held him so softly when she sang “We can’t compete with all that” rather than motioning with one hand (see: Laura and Ben’s performance of “Only Us” on Seth Meyers). There was a part where she sat on Evan’s bed and Evan kneeled before her, and she held both of his hands between hers.

They held hands whenever they were together after that, honestly. During “Only Us,” Zoe normally kisses Evan once, at the very end of the song. Here, Olivia kissed Ben three (3) times. Twice while singing and once at the end of the song.

I cannot over-exaggerate the softness in her eyes when she looked at him. In all honestly, y’all, I felt myself really loving their relationship, which isn’t something I did beforehand. 

With Laura’s Zoe, I never would recommend Zoe and Evan being together for their own health. With Olivia’s Zoe, if they had met under different circumstances, if Evan hadn’t lied, I firmly believe that they could’ve had a healthy and happy relationship.

And the kegger skit!!! OMG!! She did the same dorky voice that Evan did with “til your mom gets home” when she said “in three hours!!” and they laughed. They laughed a lot.

It was so interesting to see almost Ben’s reactions as an actor to what Olivia was giving him. This was only the second time they’d ever done the show together in those characters, and it must’ve been so unusual to what he had been doing for the past hundred or so performances.

Zoe was so sweet? And? So strong? And never once mean to Evan? With Olivia, the whole “you don’t have to keep saying sorry….I was a little impressed, you ruined it” thing wasn’t as weird? It didn’t feel uncomfortable. It felt like: Zoe liked soft Evan, who apologizes all the time, she just wanted him to be comfortable enough around her to not feel like he had to apologize, rather than wanting him to change.

She felt like a young girl, who had suffered an immense loss, who was coping as best as she possibly could. She wasn’t some semi-popular girl who Evan liked purely because he thought she was hot (neither, of course, is Laura’s Zoe, or any form of Zoe, in fact). She was a multi-dimensional person who existed in her own right outside of anyone else. There was no room to see her as anyone else.

When she found out about Evan’s lie, it was almost more devastating. 

I would have believed her if she had said she loved Evan. 

Laura’s Zoe was angry and possibly depressed. She was desperate to grab a hold onto anything in her life, her life which was quickly spiraling out of control before her eyes. There, Evan seemed like the perfect person to grab onto, someone that was malleable and almost willing to be controlled.

Olivia’s Zoe felt in-control, like she knew what she was doing and knew where she would be in ten years, she just wasn’t there quite yet.

She obviously loved Connor and was mourning his death, but there didn’t seem to be as much guilt involved.

In her final scene, where she met Evan at the orchard, she, like Evan, seemed to have also gone through a metamorphosis. She seemed to have grown so much, and she held her head higher, too, just like Evan. To me, Zoe is a lead character, sharing the female lead title with Heidi Hansen, rather than a supporting character.

I love Laura Dreyfuss with my entire heart and soul, and her Zoe was a very particular character as well. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact differences between her Zoe and Olivia’s Zoe, because they are both truly incredible. Both woman are powerhouses of whom I will forever be in awe. Both portrayals make Zoe a fascinating, dynamic, complex, female character, one that is much, much more than a love interest or plot point. She, in some aspects, feels like the beating heart of the show. It’s hard to put my connection with her into words.

Again, like I said with Michael Lee Brown’s Jared vs. Will Roland’s Jared, neither performance was better. Both are heart-wrenching and powerful and conveyed a message to the audience, reached out and grabbed our hearts in their hands. Both are incredible. Just very, very different.

Essentially, Olivia Puckett’s performance was incredible. Unbelievable actually. Any desire to not want to see the understudies is pointless and wrong, let me tell you. This entire cast and entire crew are the most talented people I’ve ever seen.

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Rapetastic

by Wardog

Friday, 02 January 2009

Wardog rambles about Twilight.

Look, there's no way of saying this gently, but Twilight (the movie) is awful. It's just awful. It's so badly paced, it's actually boring a lot of the time. And when you stop and think about it for half a second you realise that it's stupid and, potentially, offensive as well. But that's Meyer's fault, not the film's. But, still, like the book to which it is almost co-dependently true, there's something about it that makes it ... addictive, in the most tepid, bloodless way possible. Like ready salted hula hoops.

But what the Twilight movie does exceptionally well is capture the atmosphere and preoccupations of the book. The lingeringly dreary tale of Bella Swan falling for Edward Cullen, the biggest vampiric pussy ever to grace the pages of romantic fiction, is re-created with all the intensity of the original, and told without a glimmer of humour or self-irony. Which, remarkably, works in its favour - since a sense of self-irony is something that develops after being a teenager has already fucked you up beyond redemption.

So in terms of fidelity to the original, it is, at least, well done. The Cullen clan are all spot on, especially Alice (although Jasper looks lobotomised a lot of the time). And the guy playing Jacob - who I always preferred to Edward although I understand Meyer psychos him up in later books - is, true to form, hotter than Edward, much as I love Robert Pattinson. The two leads have impossible tasks but somehow they manage to imbue their lingering looks and clunky dialogue with some sense of conviction - I thought they were both nuts but I believed in their nuttitude.

But let's face it here, there's no way this review can ever be fair (or even a review) because Twilight isn't aimed at me. Far more interesting than the film, to be honest, were the reactions of the audience. It was comprised mainly of teenage girls, who shrieked, sighed and swooned their way through it, and their long-suffering kid brothers who couldn't contain their utter contempt for everything that transpired, occasionally bursting into uncomprehending, hysterical laughter or expostulating "dude! This sucks!" in tones of utter despair. As I left I ducked into the lady's toilets and was thus subjected to a barrage of high-pitched enthusiasm about the gorgeous Edward Cullen and the romance of it all. Waiting outside, my companion in being grown up enough not to get it, overheard two boys as they left:

First boy: That was the worse film, ever!

Second boy: That's the last we ever see a chick flick.

Oh bless. But then Twilight wasn't for them either.

I reason I quite enjoyed Twilight when I read it was because I gave it too much credit and thought it was an allegory. I've always really like paranormal teenage stuff. It makes perfect sense to me. I mean when you're between the ages of 13 and, well, 27, attractive members of the opposite sex do seem like these impossible, unknowable, unattainable creatures so they might as well be vampires or werewolves or vampirates (okay, maybe not vampirates). And since a large part of growing up is getting to grips with a world both hostile and full of secrets people won't tell you, again, it makes perfect sense for those secrets to be "there are vampires in it". And since you're undergoing a horrific process of unstoppable uncontrollable change that you both want and don't want, why shouldn't it be represented by discovering that you're also the High Queen of Faerie, or a Vampire Slayer, or whatever? And, finally, of course there's the problem of sex - its dangers and attractions are beautifully encapsulated by the dangers and attractions of supernatural power, manifest either in others of yourself. That it articulated these ideas so clearly, so cleverly and so wittily is one of the (many) strengths of early season Buffy.

Unlike Buffy, Twilight is not knowing. But it is terribly terribly serious and that's why it works. Teen crushes and love affairs (to be honest, crushes and love affairs in general) are rarely humorous to those involved: unrequited love is the most painful of adolescent experiences and your first taste of romance the most intoxicating. And although when you look at Edward Cullen with the eyes of an adult you see an obsessive, domineering, disempowering, semi-misogynistic nutjob, when you look at him with the eyes of a teenager, he's utterly, profoundly desirable. His whole world is Bella - because he never sleeps, he can literally spend every hour of every day either with her, watching her or thinking about her. He has no life and no interests outside her - for the rest of us that alone cries out "restraining order", for a teenager (to make this less patronising, I'll say, for my teenage self) the idea of someone being completely bound up in you is breathtakingly romantic. As a teenager, you are still semi-dependent upon various authority figures (school, parents, etc. etc.) and very probably highly uncertain in yourself - thus the idea of another person needing you for anything cannot fail to be appealing. Again, I'm making a lot of generalisations about The Way Teenage Girls Feel here, but I associate my own teenage years with confusion, helplessness and a fair quantity of misery. Quite frankly, I wanted an Edward Cullen - because I thought that through the value given to me by another I could learn to value myself. Feeling incomplete, because, quite frankly, I was, I was searching for romance to "complete" me. That real loves exists only between two fully self-actualised, functional and capable human beings is something one learns only in later life.

What I'm trying to say here is this: it's theoretically okay to like Twilight. I even believe it performs a useful function: rarely are these private ideas and desires as well-realised as they are in Twilight. It's nice to have someone stand up and say "yeah, sometimes girls want this"; unfortunately, where it becomes problematic is that it never acknowledges its own status as fantasy and it never grows up. Now, I read a lot of a romance so I'm quite happy with fantasies progressing down whatever path they happen to progress - the alpha male may not appeal to me personally but I'm capable of recognising that it's perfectly acceptable to fantasise about having a domineering man with storm grey eyes who is secretly in love with you but doesn't know how to express it fling you down across the bed and have awesome sex with you until you get to like it. Women are very capable of recognising that when they want flinging it's on their own terms and that a man who behaves like an attractive asshole in a book may not be so attractive in real life. I like romance because it's such a grown up genre: it's a safe space where we get to shrug and let ourselves get swept away in what could be a rather politically incorrect fantasy and nobody accuses you of being too dumb to be able to tell the difference.

Because, as I have said, that Twilight isn't knowing, its status as a fantasy becomes problematised. Basically there's no acknowledgement that it is one; there are elements of the fantastic, gorgeous vampire falls for everygirl etc, of course, but the book never invites us to question their relationship. And, really, given its nature, we should. I could easily list the ways in which Edward and Bella's relationship is fucked to high heaven but since we're all intelligent readers I won't bother. I suppose the quintessential example, however, would be Edward's refusal to turn Bella into a vampire. This is never really open for discussion, one gets the feeling Edward has made his decision and that's that. You'd think that, as an equal participant in a relationship between two people, Bella's opinions should be at least relevant and that their final decision on the matter should be one they have reached jointly. That's what happens in functional relationships. But Edward is not to be persuaded: thus it is very much his decisions, not their decision. He thinks he's protecting her but his behaviour implies that he does not trust her to know what she wants and, in this, as on many other occasions, his protective streak is actually revealed to be rooted in fundamental disrespect for Bella's ability to live her life and make decisions.

Interestingly, despite the chorus of sighing from the teenage audience, I was impressed by Robert Pattinson's portrayal of Edward Cullen. I found him genuinely a bit creepy. He's so obviously ill-at-ease with who and what he is (unlike the rest of the Cullen clan who seem perfectly content to be vampires) and his self-loathing is both evident and off-putting. I think the other girls were titillated by the air of danger and emo but, actually, it's hard to love a man who hates himself. With a weirdly twisted smile, Edward characterises their relationship: "a stupid lamb and a sick, masochistic lion" - the point that Pattinson (bless him) seems to be trying to convey is that he genuinely means it. He thinks Bella is stupid for loving him and, quite frankly, she is (never trust a man who wants to eat you, girls); and he hates himself to such a degree that he cannot respect anyone who purports to love him. This is, of course, precisely what Pattinson has said in interviews - and I'd like to send him about two tonnes of love for actually managing to bring it out of the text since, you can see from reading about half of page of the book, it is something one reads into it, rather than something that is meant to be read.

Edward's love for Bella is truly masochistic at heart - since he must exert constant control to avoid eating her, he never allows himself to forget his own predatory nature, the very nature he despises. I think, through his protection of her, he is attempting to protect the part of himself he conceives as lost - his innocence, his mortality, whatever you want to call it. Regardless, it's messed up and in no way a grounding for a healthy relationship, even, or perhaps especially, with a 17 year old girl. Combine this tortured emotional masochism with an equally tortured attitude to sexuality and things really get nasty. Given Meyer's background, it's not surprising that Twilight, despite the gushyness of its romance, is essentially sexless but the intermingling of Edward's bloodlust and, err, lust-lust, however, serves to present sex as something dangerous and potentially fatal. Noticeably Bella spends most of Edward's kisses (and also her wedding night) unconscious. By this stage we have left the realm of fantasy far behind and moved full time into "just plain wrong".

Now I'm not going to get onto a soapbox and start sputtering that this not appropriate reading material for our children. The first book at least functions as a fantasy and as an honest expression of not-entirely-healthy teenage desires. And, although if you pay even the slightest bit of attention, you can see some very disturbing undercurrents, it was clear from the giggly enthusiasm in the cinema nobody gave a damn. We went there to see Robert Pattinson looking intense and beautiful with his insane bedhair, his silly sparkling skin and his dodgy crimsoned lips. That's what we were looking for, and that's what we got. And, for the moment, that's okay.

Some Rockin' Twilight Links

Oh God, no

Growing Up Cullen

Cleoland's Discussion of Twilight

, including her recaps of Midnight Sun

My second favourite Robert Pattinson interview

My top favourite Robert Pattinson interview

Themes:

Books

,

TV & Movies

,

Sci-fi / Fantasy

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Gina Dhawa

at 00:28 on 2009-01-03Whilst I'm not sure I can actually bear to fork out as much money as my local cinemas is asking for in order to see

Twilight

, I am actually intrigued by the movie because of what Robert Pattinson has been saying about how he's approached Edward. If he's managed to bring any hint of that about at all, it's no bad thing.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 19:44 on 2009-01-03Basically it's not a good film - so it's hard to recommend it. It's very true to the book so if you hate the book, you'll hate the film. On the other hand, Robert Pattinson is obviously the best thing about it. He's fabulous to look at (although the film does its utmost to make him look *stupid*) and his interpretation of the character really comes through the performance. Which is a pretty impressive feat, when you think about it.

permalink

-

go to top

Nathalie H

at 21:03 on 2009-01-03"It's nice to have someone stand up and say "yeah, sometimes girls want this"; unfortunately, where it becomes problematic is that it never acknowledges its own status as fantasy and it never grows up."

I think here you've really hit the nail on the head and said everything about my problem with Twilight.

I hated the book because it was astonishingly badly written; and I haven't seen the film, but I think I'll like it more because I am a step further away from the astonishingly bad writing, and only have to deal with astonishingly bad dialogue. ;) Oh and pacing and all that. But yes, props to Pattinson here.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 00:14 on 2009-01-04The style of the book didn't bother me too much - I think I rated it as clunky/pedestrian rather than actually terrible but I was really looking at it with a proper critical eye.

The dialogue is - as you would expect - rather cringe-inducing. The ludicrousness of it seems more marked when spoken, than when read:

Edward: I've never wanted a human's blood so much.

Bella: I trust you.

Me: Wrong answer.

permalink

-

go to top

http://serenoli.livejournal.com/

at 12:59 on 2009-01-10The point where I wanted to give it up was when Isabella Whats-her-name got annoyed with people for not knowing her nickname was 'Bella' not 'Isabella'. The book is annoying enough in its portrayal of the obsessive/dependent relationship they have, but Isabella is just such a self-absorbed twit that I kept wanting awful things to happen to her, and getting angry with Edward for saving her in the nick of time.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 00:51 on 2009-01-11Hello and thank you for the comment. Yes, I entirely agree - Bella is infuriating. I found Kristen Stewart moderately sympathetic, insofar as I thought the actress was doing a tolerable job with an awful part (and I thought the relationship between Bella and her Dad was one of bearable aspects of the film), but the character is beyond redemption. I think she's basically a placeholder ... a big walking sign with "insert yourself here" written on it; unfortunately the fact she has no personality to speak of just makes her actions/reactions both irritating and incomprehensible.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 02:22 on 2009-04-19Hurrah, I've finally got back to reading FerretBrain! And to prove it, I'm going to comment on this review of a film I haven't seen, just like I used to.

So no, I haven't seen the film and have not the slightest inclination to do so, especially having read this, but I have read the first three books, and I like them, and two remarks spring to mind as I ask myself why their uncritically positive depiction of an unhealthy teenage relationship doesn't bother me. The first is that I'm not sure that it's uncritically positive, and the second is that I'm not sure that it bothers me that it's uncritically positive. (Yes, these remarks are mutually contradictory, but never mind.)

Being unfashionably opposed to spoilers, I warn readers that as I unpack those two remarks I'll be mentioning elements of the plot of the first three books. (Likewise, if anyone replies, please warn me if you're going to mention any plot from 'Breaking Dawn' so I can close my eyes!)

So yes, having recently finished reading 'Eclipse' I don't feel that, at this stage of the series, I'm being asked to whole-heartedly approve of Edward and Bella's relationship. I think it's fair to say that by the end of 'Eclipse' we've seen, quite comprehensively dramatized, the tendency of the relationship to cause emotional and physical harm to people who don't deserve it, and that Bella and Edward have each engaged in some - perhaps tediously much - self-criticism on that point. They've even to some extent acknowledged that there is such a thing as a normal, emotionally balanced, non-obsessive relationship that can be had, one that would not be a pale imitation of 'true love' but a genuinely loving long-term relationship such as people should count themselves lucky to find, and that theirs is not it. Of course they cling to the belief that theirs is equally valid, or perhaps more so, but surely to ask anything else of these characters would be to ask the writer to be morally responsible at the expense of emotional truth. People in an unhealthy relationship do, at some level, believe that love redeems, trumps, justifies, cancels out the unhealthiness, otherwise they'd address the unhealthiness or get out of the relationship. So naturally Edward and Bella don't see their relationship as a Bad Idea, but what about the reader?

I won't deny that Meyer puts the reader in a sort of default position of assuming that the relationship is a Good Thing and the couple should stay together. But I'd have thought that was the inevitable and proper consequence of making Bella the point-of-view character. We identify with her and therefore we shrink from the emotional pain that would come from breaking them up, even if we feel it would be better in the long run. We also, through her eyes, feel strongly positive about Edward and therefore don't want to put him through the wringer either, and we have to admit that frankly he is probably the one character who genuinely would be worse off if they broke up. That's not because Bella is all that, but because he seems to have no better options and because he, unlike everyone else including her, doesn't obviously suffer any real ill effects from the relationship (apart from the fact that it perpetuates his unhealthy view of relationships in general, but that's not a problem since he's not remotely interested in having any other relationships ever).

Oh, and a quick digression here in response to the comment that "the intermingling of Edward's bloodlust and, err, lust-lust, however, serves to present sex as something dangerous and potentially fatal". Yes that's true, and yes it's a rather unhelpful way to encourage teenage girls to think about sex. But at the same time - and I admit that here I venture into dangerous territory for someone who's never been a teenage girl - is it encouraging teenage girls to feel that way, or is it merely providing a rather apposite metaphor for the way many American small-town teenage girls probably *do* feel about sex? Let's face it, there are umpteen things in modern western (and particularly unreconstructed American) culture that conspire to make sex seem to them both dangerous and desirable, fearful and forbidden and, yes, even potentially fatal but at the same time the proper and expected fulfillment of female life? Aren't they told that they mustn't but also that they inevitably must, and am I wrong to suppose that quite a few of Meyer's readers will find (or will already have found) themselves in clinches where, like Bella, they want to go further than they 'know' (as it were) it is 'safe' to? I agree that Meyer's metaphor to some extent reinforces that unhealthy fear of sex by having sex as a literally life-threatening process for her heroine. But at the same time it goes some way to redeeming itself by at least reversing the traditional 'girl resists, boy insists' caricature of sexual initiation (on which, of course, traditional 'male vampire bites screaming female virgin' stories depend) - she at least is not saying to her young female readers that they shouldn't feel sexual attraction to their boyfriends, and she does a fairly decent job of sharing the responsibility for avoiding the 'dangers' of sex between the boy and the girl (the message being that the girl is entitled to expect the boy to restrain himself, but she should also be aware that what she's doing can make that easier or harder for him, which is perhaps not the most role-busting message ever but is better than many). And, as things stand at the end of 'Eclipse', the message seems to be developing from 'sex is dangerous' to the more balanced 'sex can be dangerous but that needn't stop you doing it with the proper precautions' (though it remains to be seen quite what the precautions are in the case of Edward and Bella); and although it would be nice to live in a social and medical world that justified a rather more positive and cheerful message, I'd say that's a reasonably constructive message considering the world we (and, again, small-town American girls in particular) do live in.

So, returning from that digression, I'd say it's no surprise and no serious moral or literary failing that the most frequent and obvious signposts in these books point to 'Bella Edward 4 Eva' land. Still, as I've said (and as you've said too, Kyra), there are plenty of fairly visible signposts to 'This Relationship Is Going To Hurt Everyone Around It', and at least a few to 'Just Plain Wrong'. The question for the reader in the end is whether 'but they love each other' is an adequate answer. Isn't that the case with 'Romeo and Juliet' similarly? Don't get me wrong, I don't compare the two works for quality, and I don't suggest the central relationship of Shakespeare's play is quite as messed up as that of the 'Twilight' series. But they both depict intense teenage romances that are almost certainly, when looked at from a sober adult point of view, Bad Ideas, and that can only be seen as positive if one accepts the leading couple's belief that the intensity of their love is sufficient to overcome all objections and excuse all damage caused to themselves and others. And although in both cases there are plenty of clues leading to the sensible conclusion that it isn't, there's also sufficient force in the lovers' own view, and sufficient attention given to that point of view, that significant parts of the audience (whether teenage girls in cinemas or eighteenth century Romantics in theatres) can end up approving of the Bad Idea.

The big objection to what I've just said, I suppose, is that 'Romeo and Juliet' isn't *specifically marketed at teenage girls*. That's a fair point. But, well, I don't know, somehow that doesn't quite convince me. Partly that's perhaps just because I don't want to blame Meyer for the way her books are marketed; and even if she consciously wrote them for that audience, I'm still not entirely comfortable with the idea of not trusting young people to cope with it. I remember hearing Richard Eyre on the radio talking about his production of 'King Lear' and saying that when he was in his 30s he thought 'how could Lear treat his children like that?' and when he was in his 50s he thought 'how could Lear's children treat him like that?' Teenagers are going to read a story of teenage romance differently from us sensible jaded sort-of-grown-ups, but does that mean writers should over-compensate by steering them strongly to see things the way they 'should' see them, i.e. the way we see them? Or should we let them believe that 'Twilight' and 'Romeo and Juliet' are about all-conquering all-redeeming love and trust that the more-or-less subtle indications to the contrary will lodge somewhere in their unconscious minds and give them a richer view of the texts as their view of life becomes more complex over the years?

Of course this all partly depends how the series turns out in the end. If it ends, as it may well do, with everything hunky-dory for everyone, then my argument here will be a lot weaker than it seems to me now at the end of 'Eclipse'. But at the moment I think the most important thing for books like this is to be emotionally honest and truthful, and I think the series so far, and perhaps 'Eclipse' in particular, have enough of that for me to feel fairly comfortable about the more troubling side.

permalink

-

go to top

http://viorica8957.livejournal.com/

at 05:04 on 2009-04-19tl;dr

Seriously though,I think that Meyer's comparisons of her work to other famous "love stories" and her belief that hers leaves them all in the dust, and the fact that she's openly stated that she would leave her husband for either of her male leads proves that she isn't just writing from a teenage POV; she's living through one.

(By the way, is anyone else having trouble logging in? Half the time it refuses to accept my password, and the other hald, it logs me in automatically.)

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 11:10 on 2009-04-19@Viorica: I'd noticed you were commenting via OpenID lately. Could you drop me an email (

webmaster

at

ferretbrain.com

) with details? Let me know what browser you're using, etc?

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:38 on 2009-04-19Speaking as somebody who has *not only* not seen the film but *also* not read any of the books (but who *has* poked around fandom a fair bit) I'd echo Viorica's comments that Meyer's comments about the series undermine a lot of the saner, more sensible interpretations of it.

It's a classic Death of the Author problem - you can probably read Twilight as an interesting portrayal of a destructive relationship from the point of view of somebody currently caught up in it, but if you *know* - for a fact - that the author didn't intend it to be read that way it becomes a lot harder to see that interpretation.

You get a similar problem with good old HP. The early books are convincingly written from the point of view of a naive, slightly self-absorbed teenager. Later we discover that no, they were actually written by an omniscient narrator, and that Harry's warped perceptions of the world map 1-1 onto Wizarding reality.

permalink

-

go to top

Shim

at 13:54 on 2009-04-19

(By the way, is anyone else having trouble logging in? Half the time it refuses to accept my password, and the other hald, it logs me in automatically.)

Not the same trouble, I reckon. But I always have to log in exactly twice.

(also, if using Firefox you have to quickly "allow" whatever the bar asks about before it disappears - once you've done it once it seems happy enough to work in future)

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 15:43 on 2009-04-22Welcome back to Ferretbrain, Jamie :) Yay. I'd be interested to know what you think of Twilight after Breaking Dawn...

I think both Dan and Viorica have in to some extent my concerns with your points. But essentially, to me, the Twilight series only feels emotionally honest as you claim if you're willing to problematise it on your own behalf. And although there are plenty of sensible people of all ages who read Twilight and end up asking the interesting, complicated questions you ask about it (is twue wuv really enough to justify all this), there are plenty of people who simply don't. I can't really quality this clearly to myself I think it comes down to a few interacting issues:

1) Surrounding cultural framework and the problem of authorial intent - basically I don't think you can discount this sort of thing when you're reading a text (although, of course, you shouldn't be constrained by it). And Stephanie Meyer is basically nuts. She is very obviously not only unaware of but wilfully blind to potential dysfunctionalities in her text. Furthermore, many of the things you draw attention to, for example the fact Edward and Bella angst all the time about their relationship and the fact it seriously damages anyone who comes near it, I believe are meant to *validate* the twueness of their wuv.

2) Moral responsibility - maybe this is going to make me look like some kind of fascist and I'll probably regret it but I believe that if you're writing for children and young adults you have a moral responsibility to your audience. All readers are, of course, to an extent vulnerable. And by a moral responsibility I mean you don't necessarily need to say morally righteous things, or even give a damn about morality, but I think fostering uncritically (and I know you dipsute this) the unhealthiest notions of love and romance is genuinely hugely problematic. I know this sounds like hypocrisy because I'm also going on about and about the fundamental human right of fantasy but, again, I think this is becomes very dangerous territory when it is not accompanied by awareness. Essentially Meyer does not seem to be saying "we all have fantasies about this kind of thing" or "isn't it intriguing the way romantic may not be the same as healthy" but "hey girls, I wish I had this, so it must be okay."

3) Connected to the above - I often find reading teenage romances interesting, mainly because when I started I had to make a psychological adjustment. Initially I was found I was grumbling away in my adult "you think this insipid guy with floppy hair is the love of your life but he's just some 16 year old" way and then I realised I was missing the point completely. Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that it's possible to being true to the way love and life feels when you're a teenager, right down to the unhealthy aspects of teenage love, without also being nuts about it.

Anyway, I'm going on and on and on. I do see your points, but I think you're being way to generous to Meyer who doesn't deserve it =P

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 16:27 on 2009-04-22The first time I read Wikipedia's plot summary of

Breaking Dawn

I thought someone had vandalised the article. I was wrong. This series is its own parody.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 22:28 on 2009-04-24

tl;dr

Story of my life. :)

Okay, I take your collective word for it that Meyer is nuts and creepy and probably shouldn't be allowed to write for children. It's a shame. She plots well. In fact one of the things I most enjoyed about the books was nothing to do with the teenage romance but the rather thrilling moment in the first book (

spoiler alert

) when it occurred to me that (1) there was a big vampire cross-country hunt possibly followed by an even bigger vampire battle going on somewhere, (2) I wasn't being given a description of it as I would have been in any fantasy / horror book not specifically aimed at teenage girls, and (3) I didn't feel I was missing anything at all. But that's by the by.

Basically I say this stuff not because I'm an 'authorial-intent-is-irrelevant' hard-liner but because I almost never read interviews with authors and generally haven't the foggiest idea what the author thinks. Partly because it's disappointing to discover that an author adheres to a less nuanced and sophisticated interpretation of his or her own work than I do. :)

permalink

-

go to top

http://descrime.livejournal.com/

at 03:03 on 2009-04-25Okay, I went on YouTube and watched the first 6 parts of the movie.

I have to give her credit for one thing: Bella and Edward clearly deserve each other. They're both self-centered, anti-social, emo kids. In fact, I think Meyers/the screenwriter does a really great job of showing that Bella would never be happy except with Edward.

I mean, on her first day of school, six kids try to befriend her. We're shown that the adults in the town also go out of their way to acknowledge her. And yet, she spurns all offers from the other kids to come join them hanging out in the parking lot. She agrees to go with the other two girls to pick out prom dresses but then sits in the window and reads a book the whole time, clearly sending off signals that she's such a martyr for coming. She derides all the towns welcoming efforts to her mother. And she never freaking smiles. She's a permanent flatline. Might as well date the dead.

And oh god, the moment in the science lab when they meet for the first time. Their eyes meet and she steps in front of the fan so that her hair blows dramatically. It was hilarious. And you know Edward jerked like that because

he totally popped a boner

felt their mystical connection. The actor clearly went out of his way to show how awkward Edward is and how out-of-control of his own emotions and body. I appreciated that in a movie he could have just cruised through.

Since I don't care to track down the rest of the movie, do we ever learn why Bella has such special smelling blood or why Edward can't read her mind?

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 03:31 on 2009-04-25

Since I don't care to track down the rest of the movie, do we ever learn why Bella has such special smelling blood or why Edward can't read her mind?

I believe the answers are a) she eats a lot of asparagus and b) she has no mind lol.

permalink

-

go to top

http://poeticalengine.blogspot.com/

at 17:29 on 2009-04-25I admit that I've never read the books or seen the movie (I pretty much swore not to the minute I saw someone selling "Edward Body Glitter" on eBay). However my flatmate has been reading them and doing a fairly amusing read through on LJ. Between reading this article and watching her chuck the book at walls, I think it's safe to say I won't be reading it despite my curiousity. Or seeing the movie which is a shame, really, because Robert Pattinson really is very nice to look at.

Still, I'm a bit worried at how lack-of-self-awareness is becoming a prerequisite for writing a mega-successful book series these days. It's possibly just my cynicism showing through but between Meyer's "This is True Love! Really!" and JKR's plea for tolerance, my belief that canny self-reference can be found on the bookshelves of my local ASDA for less than a fiver may have been irrevocably shaken.

-Heather-Anne

(My flatmate's read through, if anyone's interested, is here: http://augustm.livejournal.com/ )

[nadbooks]

My Favorite Books of 2016

So I know this is really late but I only just decided to start a book blog and what better way to start than with this kind of post. So here we go! Here are the top ten books I read in 2016, rank-ordered, all of which I gave 5 stars to.

10. Beside Myself by Ann Morgan

This book is about a pair of twins who like to pretend to be each other until one day, one of the twins refuses to switch back. It’s basically a look at how people’s perceptions of you can really influence your entire life trajectory. It’s the most insane case of a self-fulfilling prophecy I ever read about and as a psychology student, I’m a complete sucker for it. The story does get a bit dramatic and it seems that anything bad that can happen to our main character will happen. Still, it is a really interesting look at how the way we judge people can really influence who they become and also highlights some of the worst parenting I’ve ever read about. Kind of an eye-opening book which is why it made it onto my list!

9. Genesis by Bernard Beckett

This book... man, I don’t even know how to describe this book. It’s some sort of dystopian I guess but it’s a relatively short book that takes place over the course of a few hours. The story follows our main character as she takes a history exam about her society so we get to learn about the history of this society and how it came to be from her answers on the exam. It’s a really interesting way of introducing the world that was informative and felt genuine and didn’t feel like info-dumping. Other than the way the story is told, this book also discusses really interesting philosophical questions like how different is artificial intelligence really from humans and what gives humans our humanity? Overall, a really mind-blowing read which I did not expect at all, and one that will make you think.

8. Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell

You will soon realise that I am a huge fan of dystopian books and I will likely feature many of them on my blog. This is one of the most classic dystopians out there so I thought I should give it a read if I wanted to proclaim myself a dystopian fan. It’s easy to see how this book became such a staple for the dystopian genre. It is creepy and unsettling in a quiet way, as all dystopians should be. I thought the idea of language as the thing that allows us to have independent thoughts was fascinating and the idea to severely limit the vocabulary of the society so that people cannot even think rebellious thoughts was the creepiest thing I had ever read about. That is essentially mind control in the subtlest yet most powerful way. There were so many quotable passages in this book and I can’t wait to get my hands on a copy so that I can highlight them all! I also liked how the ending was different from many other dystopians in that it is a pretty bleak one and essentially nothing has changed. Much more realistic in my opinion, albeit a tad depressing. That’s just the way I like my books though!

7. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak

This book is extremely well-loved in the book community and perhaps it is surprising that it is only number 7. Unfortunately, this is entirely my own fault as I saw the movie before I read the book (I know, burn me at the stake) so I knew what was going to happen in the end. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and I still felt all the emotions that I was supposed to throughout the entire story (though maybe a little less strongly). I thought having Death as the narrator was genius and made the writing so interesting. It was dark but also funny. The plot of the story itself was a little lacking perhaps so what I really enjoyed about this book was the writing. I really do wish I had read this before I saw the movie because I think it would have packed a much bigger punch but oh well... Still a wonderful story and an instant favorite.

6. Faking Normal by Courtney C. Stevens

I was pleasantly surprised by how much I loved this book. This is a story about a girl who was raped and is trying to deal with that. I thought this book showcased a way of dealing with rape that is different from what I usually see in other stories. Our main character in this story is actually quite high-functioning and is able to go about her life like usual. It is only when she is alone at night that the nightmares come. I thought this was an interesting portrayal of that. I also loved the romance and friendship in this story. It is not a ‘love fixes mental issues’ kind of story but more like ‘love gives you the strength to face your issues’, which I thought was beautiful. The love interest was so kind and respectful and I just want every love interest to be like him. I am so done with the bad boy trope, give me more nice guys! Contrary to popular belief, they don’t finish last, at least not in my books. The mystery element and sibling relationship in this book were also really great.

5. All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr

This has got to be my absolute favorite historical fiction so far. The story follows a blind Parisian girl and a German boy sent to Hitler Youth and it is a slow build-up to when their paths eventually cross. I don’t usually care about beautiful or poetic writing but Anthony Doerr, man, you sucked me right in. The writing was truly, truly beautiful and was absolutely perfect for a story like this. I fell in love with all the characters and although this book was a chunker, I never wanted it to end. I wanted to keep following these characters forever. Unlike other historical fictions, I thought this one also had a pretty solid plot that had an element of mystery in it, which I loved. This book is just so beautiful (inside and out) and I can’t recommend it enough.

4. The House of Hades by Rick Riordan

This is the fourth book in The Heroes of Olympus series. Last year, I read the whole Percy Jackson and the Olympians series and The Heroes of Olympus series and it was incredible. The world of Percy Jackson is so cool! I was always fascinated by Greek mythology as a kid and I only wish I had discovered Percy Jackson sooner! It is just as enjoyable to read these books even now when I’m 23 though! The Heroes of Olympus is definitely my favorite of the two series because I just love all of the characters and their character development was just incredible. You know Rick Riordan is an incredible author when he is able to fully flesh out 10 characters in the space of 5 books. The House of Hades is my favorite one because this was like the peak of all the character development (especially precious Nico!!) and it was also incredibly exciting because we were building up to the finale. Also, Percy and Annabeth are #relationshipgoals. I can’t wait to dive back into the Percy Jackson world with the Magnus Chase and Trials of Apollo series!

3. Champion by Marie Lu

Ahhh here we go again with the dystopians. Champion is the third book in the Legend trilogy. I was pleasantly surprised by this trilogy. I thought it would be just another dystopian, following the same kind of formula all dystopians seem to follow these days. And yes, it kind of did, but it did it well. I thought the Legend trilogy was a bit more political than most other dystopians which I actually enjoyed. I like seeing how people actually carry out decisions in these societies and the kinds of biases that pervade the people. I also think this series is different in that the characters actually work together with the government (or at least a member of the government) to bring about a better society, rather than to just rebel and cause social upheaval and violence. June and Day are also OTP and while many people hated the ending of Champion, I actually really loved it, especially the epilogue. It really struck me and left me thinking about them long after I closed the book, which I can’t say for many other couples in books.

2. Unwind by Neal Shusterman

Whoo boy, how do I even begin to explain my love for this book and this series in general. The Unwind dystology consists of four books and is a dystopian series (surprise, surprise) set in a world where parents are allowed to harvest their children’s organs if they want to. Sound creepy yet? This world is so incredibly fleshed out (no pun intended) and I think that is largely due to the multiple POVs. We get so many interesting POVs throughout the series that really let us see this world and society from every possible angle. It is also the dystopian that seems closest to our real world which is incredibly scary. The process of unwinding really got me shook. Aside from the world and the multiple POV writing, our main characters are also so interesting and brave and just human. I love love love Connor, Risa and Lev and I think they are some of the most interesting but relatable heroes ever. Gaaaaahhhh I can’t say enough good things about this book and it pains me that it is not more well-known or well-loved. It has quickly become my favorite dystopian series, even surpassing The Hunger Games! If that doesn’t tell you to go read this series, I don’t know what will.

1. A Monster Calls by Patrick Ness

I really struggled between Unwind and A Monster Calls for the number one spot but I decided to give it to A Monster Calls. This book packs such an emotional punch for one that I read in two hours. It is a story about a boy dealing with grief and I think it is such an important read for everyone. Another beautiful story with simplistic but beautiful writing. The story is just so incredible and I am amazed at how it is able to capture so many themes and ideas about grief in such a short and simple story. A must read for anyone who is dealing with grief and highly recommended for everyone in general. The movie was also incredible and really brought out all the raw emotions I felt while reading this book. Please, do yourself a favor and read this if you haven’t. You’ll get a whole new understanding of grief and life and eventually being okay again.

So those are my top ten books of 2016! I’m excited to start book blogging although I’m not sure how often I can do it. I planned to start in 2018 but I thought I would give it a go first with some posts. I will soon post my Least Favorite Reads of 2016 and also Booktube’s Favorite Reads of 2016 where I list out the definitive top ten list of books based on 30 booktubers’ Favorites of 2016 videos. 

Cheers and happy reading!