#i totally agree about louis and capitalism

[pynkhues]

Am I the only person alive who would find it (darkly) hilarious if Armand did erase the rest of the 70s interview memory at Louis’ request? I think we can all agree Armand has taken a lot of liberties with the truth and he’s a pretty seasoned manipulator but I’m just so amused with the idea that that was one of the only times he was telling the truth (mostly because of how hard Daniel was rolling his eyes over it and because of how insane it sounds.) it’s got that same energy as that one co-worker who’s always causing trouble who you finally call out, only to find this was the one time they weren’t responsible.

On a similar note, because of how Louis is portrayed (ie with a spotty or unreliable memory at times) and how Armand is portrayed (lying, sometimes directly and sometimes by omission) how do you think about the bits of story we get from the two of them re authenticity? I see lots of takes that just…sweep anything complex or unsavory under the proverbial ‘blame Armand’ rug or the ‘Louis’ brain is Swiss-cheese’ blanket as opposed to examining each action and element of the story through the lens of where each character is coming from in that moment. (For example, I’ve seen plenty of folks question if Louis’ memories of lestat can be trusted at all or if it’s all just Armand’s tinkering to make him look bad and just…it’s a tv show. From a practical standpoint they literally cannot rip up everything they’ve shown you. Rehashing memories can only be done some of the time or the audience gets frustrated. And from a story perspective, can’t we take Louis at his word at least some of the time until shown otherwise?)

(Side note and ironic given my ask but I wish we had half as much discourse about Louis as a capitalist and his understanding of the commodification of experiential human things such as art as we do about whether all his memories are unreliable re his romantic relationships. Thank you so much for including the gallery scene in your fic.)

Hahah, I don't think you'd be alone in finding it darkly hilarious if Louis had asked Armand to take the memory away. Hell, the ambiguity of that scene works because it's believable that Louis would ask - Louis really pendulums between heavy handed repression and unrestrained self-indulgence, and it seems like a dam burst for him that night when it came to Lestat. His name had been unuttered in their home for 23 years! And given Armand can read his mind and could clearly sense thoughts of Lestat in Paris, I imagine he's not been deliberately not thought about too. And suddenly a night with Daniel and it's all he can say! All he can think about! The pressure he's placed on the box he keeps Lestat in has loosened just enough to let it all come out!

To know Armand tried to contact Lestat, to feel his own weakness, to know Lestat might know not just his mental state but his crumbling resolve in terms of the promise he made him in Magnus' tower - - it's not hard to see him asking for Armand's help in repressing it all again.

And in terms of their authenticity in the telling of their stories - - I think it varies! I think Armand definitely and deliberately finds the truth malleable, but that doesn't mean I think he lies about everything. Like you said, he tends to prefer to omit than outright lie - like omitting Gabrielle in his recounting of 1800s Paris or the truth about San Francisco, or, I'm sure we'll discover in s3, Lestat being in Paris in the 40s.

I actually don't think he would've tampered with Louis' memories of Lestat at all though - I don't think he would've needed to. Louis is a really punishing character and Lestat's a volatile one, I don't think it would be all that hard for Louis to focus on Lestat's worse behaviour, or to allow his memory to re-write certain events with the most bad faith interpretations of Lestat's actions, thoughts or words as a means to keep him at an emotional distance. Memories aren't facts, even when we want them to be, and I think for Louis they're as malleable when he needs them to be as the truth is for Armand.

The result is that they enable each other's untruths, I think, which goes to the facade of their relationship. Louis can try and mould his memories into something that justifies his choices, and Armand can mould the truth in a way that makes their love story something more than it is, but that doesn't mean that it's entirely lies or entirely inauthentic. It's a version of a story that they've enabled in one another to perform a happiness neither of them feels, but neither knows an alternative to because Louis' grief struck, traumatised and clinically depressed and Armand has been groomed by a monster, has undealt with trauma of his own and an incapacity to be alone.

So yeah, I think a lot of it is true, it's just not a whole truth.

[lululawrence]

After reading your post explaining why 3 concerts in Ohio, I'm curious about your opinion on this. So Louis could have done fewer shows and bigger venues per show (like for example only 1 concert in Ohio but in a big venue) requiring more fans to travel to each concert, and it'll be less effort for him, although I think he enjoys the travelling to new places to see fans. I've been seeing people shade Louis saying he can't sell out MSG like Niall. And I'm here confident Louis can if he put it on his tour schedule and my simple reasoning is that if had fewer concerts around the NY area, it will encourage fans to make a trip to NY for a larger venue show like MSG, but I imagine you know the geography side and ticket buying habits more than me. What are your thoughts?

Oof okay so this is all just my own opinion so people can obviously disagree, but here’s the thing from my point of view. There’s so much more at play than just venue size and geography/demographics to fill it. The larger the venue, the more staff that will be required to put on the show from Louis’ end but also the venue’s end to accommodate the increase in numbers. That often translates to an increase in ticket prices to account for the higher numbers for Louis’ team and their own expenses as well as the cost the venue will pass on to him just to book it etc. something he’s been open about especially in this last round of promo was how he’s making a concerted effort to keep things affordable for the fans, at least as much as he possibly can manage to, and we have a lot of sources telling us that touring costs for the artists only continue to skyrocket (much like everything else right now). So if he chose to do fewer shows but tried to make up for that with larger venues, maybe even booking them for a couple nights to allow people better chances at seeing him there… well you’d basically end up with the residencies Harry did this past year in the US, wouldn’t you? And that was accessible for exactly……….. well. Not very many. Not to totally diss the residencies. As an artist, residencies are big deals and are much easier for them in a lot of ways! I understand the appeal for sure. But if accessibility is your biggest goal, that’s not going to be the way to achieve it.

So could he do that? Yeah absolutely and I’m some cases it would probably be for the best honestly. But he didn’t, at least not here, and I’m personally grateful for that.

So, now we have that lead in, if Louis were to adjust just a few shows and instead do a night at MSG, do I think he could sell it out? Uh, yes. Easily. Like, who the fuck is gonna stop us, right? Lol See, MSG is a special case and a scenario that is different from saying “why not condense the three Ohio shows in smaller amphitheaters to one larger centralized show in nationwide arena?” No one knows what nationwide arena is unless you’re super into Columbus hockey or have attended a previous show there lol it’s not a destination in and of itself or a dream venue anyone has on their list of places to play or attend a concert. For that you need a place like Red Rocks…….or MSG.

So imo announcing a show at MSG alone is going to bring more attention and make people a lot more willing to travel a much further distance than they usually would because… it’s Madison Square Garden. Even my phone knows to capitalize that lol but add to that the fact this is Louis and Louies are not exactly known for being chill or relaxed fans? I have exactly zero doubt that Louis could sell it out. We’d see a higher ticket price most likely due to the larger venue, but I doubt anyone would complain because they’d get the chance to witness Louis on stage in one of the most well known venues out there. That alone seems pretty damn worth it and I think most Louies would agree.

But for now I’m incredibly proud of the guy we all support going out there and doing his best to really get in an easy travel distance for most of the US population in ways almost no other artist has done in recent years all while trying to keep ticket prices at a reasonable level. We truly chose well when we named him our king haha

[thefunfeds]

Get (A Better Management Team) It Sexyy …. Get It Sexyy!!

As I'm sure we can tell throughout all of these posts. I take hating very seriously. Specifically hating what the majority likes.

This time I'm agreeing.

There are about 3 valid reasons to dislike Sexyy Red, but seldom can anyone get to ANY of them without first revealing their internalized racism or misogynoir.

Her effect on how the black community is perceived.

Where Everyone Gets It Wrong:

Sexyy Red is unapologetically ghetto. There's nothing wrong with this. In fact, I think it's a good thing. To celebrate black culture and not recognize its ghetto roots is a blatant case of sanitizing. The oppressors do that enough. There are very many things that happen in the hood that deserve to be critiqued, but that's just a universal part of any culture, and it continues to be an undeniable pillar of hip hop.

You can't chat to me about Sexyy Red's ghettoness when I know for a fact you can go bar for bar with King Von on "Took Her To The O"

My Certified Hater Opinion:

One of the most significant setbacks of any kind of activism, whether it be gender, race, or sexuality based, will always be the prioritization of proximity to whiteness rather than actual equality or equity.

And sure, the acceptance of Black Ghetto Culture for better and for worse means that non-black people will ultimately have to interact with it. I'm not arguing that.

That's a totally different thing than appearing on Twitch streams with notoriously racist people like Adin Ross.

Sexyy Red consciously places herself in spaces where the goal is not to celebrate her, her culture, or her art but to exploit and make fun of her. That's the problem. Not "how she makes black people look." If black people operated based on how white people wanted us to act, we'd still be slaves. Free Yourself. I beg.

And actually since we're on this subject, and the election quite literally did just happen. Yes. Sexyy Red endorsed Trump. Any endorsement of Trump needs to be hated. Lactching onto the picture people made of it to sell "Make America Sexy Again" hats (which makes the aconym MASA... need I say more?)

Her comments about the developing views of Donald Trump were not entirely wrong, and certainly not something unique to black people.

A big factor for many people in this election was, in fact, the economy, which is in the dumps. Stimulus Checks and PPP loans were a reprieve for many low-income homes and an overall net-positive decision from Congress.

The problem was that Donald Trump took credit for the entire thing, just like how he took credit for Obama's tax code in 2016 to run in 2024.

Mix this with the fact the midwestern and southern areas notoriously do not have the best education systems, including St Louis, where Sexyy Red is from, along with education levels bring directly associated with income rates, and that one of the ways capitalism and racism work to keep victims of oppression complacent is through chronic exhaustion ... it means that you're not gonna have people educated enough on the economy past the fact that things are more expensive and they're angrier about it. And when the government leader puts his name on a check that lets you feed your family for a couple weeks, well...

That's how you get the 2024 election result.

But black people's support of Trump was not the deciding factor in his presidency, nowhere near it actually, given what the exit polls are showing but that's an entirely separate conversation about the actual usefulness of Celebrity Endorsements, which is not what we're talking about right now.

Hate Sexyy Red for her endorsement of Trump, and eventually rescind of it in favor or Kamala Harris. Critique her for views on "Stimmys" and the economy. But … you cannot dismiss all of what she said as wrong. It is dangerous to ignore something just because you don’t want to believe it might be true.

2. Sexual behavior

Where Everyone Gets It Wrong:

I am actually not even wasting energy or significant word count on this one. I log onto TikTok every day where lyrics like "we gon fuck her in the back of the bus and fill her nose up fill of that dust" plays in the background of people dancing with the PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR.

But "My Coochie Pink, My Bootyhole Brown" is a danger to black women and girls? Get out of my face bro LMFAOOOOOOOOO.

My Certified Hater Opinion:

For me this one largely comes down to how Sexyy Red markets herself.

It has nothing to do with the way she dresses, or poses for pictures, or her lyrical content, which is largely meant to be funny and playful (although you will never catch me personally singing "I don't fight for my respect, bitch I fight for dick") but y'know, I also have the critical thinking to understand that

1. Feminism does not equal female solidarity

2. Despite the rise of feminism the world is increasingly male centered and If I'm prepared to critique Sexyy Red for her lyrics than I have to be prepared to critique Lana Del Rey's, which carries some of the same themes but encased in flowery metaphors and a misty indie instrumental.

3. In that same song, Glorilla's verse says the exact same thing subtextually, "Sneaky link, she say that's her n- I don't give a fuck/These bitches tryna scrap, but I'm knuckin' if you buckin', ho" but she has significantly more male supporters so y'know .... there's that.

The problem with Sexyy Red is that she is at risk of glorifying harmful sexual behavior, particularly around STIs and BV. We live in a society where self disparaging humor is increasingly common, for better or for worse, and in the certain cultural spaces, laughter as a coping mechanism for oppression is as easy as breathing, and the more normalized something is within your environment, the more likely you are to do it

This is why when launching a Lip Gloss brand, she saw nothing wrong with these names.

Sure, some of them are kinda normal funny gag jokes you'd find in a sex shop, I take issue with Gonorhera and Yellow Discharge in specific. Seuxal health, particularly for women and queer people remains to be an unnecessarily controversial topic, and the longer the negligence of it remains, the more discrimination surrounding them festers, and the slower it takes to actually mitigate these issues.

50 to 80% of the population experiences cold sores or fever blisters. If you told about half of those people that they have herpes, they'd think you gave them a death sentence.

If Sexyy Red, or her team had attached the announcement with a portion of the proceeds going to fund literally any kind of sexual health organization, or even something as simple as attaching a free condom or even a paper with sexual health resources, maybe i'd have a different outlook, because it'd be a case of talking the talk and walking the walk, but nope, it was just capitalistic desires. Sexyy Red cares about profiting off of shock value via parading it as humorous, while doing absolutely nothing to combat the stigma, and that's a problem regardless of identity.

Any person with a vagina can get BV, any person can get gonorrhea, all of them will experience equal stigma upon diagnosis. That’s the problem.

3. She Is A Bad Performer

Where people get it wrong:

They use this reason as a way to reinforce the above. But again, check your hypocrisy. If you're gonna fault her for not doing anything on stage and having absolutely no sense of stage presence or crowd control but get excited over a Future or The Weeknd tour ... why should I take you seriously? If you’re not gonna hate productively just exit the club man like we tryna run a respectable establishment here.

My Certified Hater Opinion:

She just sucks. She does the same thing as her male rapping counterparts and that's why both she and they suck.

Now i'm willing to call myself on bias, and admit that I'm a Beyonce fan so my standards was already high to begin with.

But my standards being high are the same reason I wouldn't buy a ticket to a Future Hendrix tour so ... *shrugs*

[trainingtofreedom]

January 1st, 2024, Mooresville

It's weird to say, "It was cheaper to travel than to pay rent," but that's what it was.

I did the math, and I didn't have a goal. Noplace locally would take me without charging me hotel rates or doing a credit check or a guarantee of income. I also had no reason to stay in town, so I left.

I also had no way to store my stuff, if I was in an AirBnb or a hotel. I chose instead to go see friends who had offered to have me visit. I had two people who agreed: Christine, and Chris's parents Jessie and Mike. I was going to use up that social capital for rent.

Besides, I really DID want to go visit Christine. She had been my closest confidant for several months. It was about 10 days, where I was still terrified to leave home...but I wasn't home. Thankfully, Mooresville was remote enough that I only ever saw Christine and her partner, Jeremy.

I was sleeping awkward hours; I'd be up at 3am some days, 7am other days, 10am other days. I stuck to the twice-a-day walks, when I could, and I made sure to be home and awake for dinner. Christine said she wanted to cook for me, and she cooked very well. That's the other social capital I was using: free meals from a kitchen.

Most of my time was spent on their back decking; it was screened in, and it had a view of a pond, and a creek below. Winter blew into Mooresville while I was there, and I watched that pond ice over, thaw, and ice up again. I never got close enough to touch the ice, but it was an alluring view.

This was during one of the thaw days, which was my *favorite* time to go hiking back through the nearby wooded area. The area along the creek was never developed; it was instead blanketed in thorny bushes that could draw blood. I would climb along the trodden and bare, thin paths between the thickets, and cross over the creek, sometimes getting a little wet in the process.

The creek crossing only led to more neighborhoods and houses; there were no other landmarks, so I'd just hike into nothing, and hike back, pipe in hand. It was nice to smoke freely, and I smoked most heavily while here. It made all this brown seem magical, and the rushing creek seem mystical.

It was just me, the back deck, the woods, and Christine's lovely cooking. I spent most of my time just listening to the radio, fussing with my TV antenna, or sleeping. Or sitting on the back deck wishing I was home...

But I didn't have a home. I was here, and only here. I bought my next train tickets, too: By day one, I had bought a ticket to Charlottesville, VA, because I knew my final stop was St. Louis, and no matter which route I took, I knew I had to pass through C-Ville and Chicago. So I bought a ticket to C-Ville, then based on a few friend's messages, tickets to Washington, DC, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and finally St. Louis.

I hadn't planned that part of my trip before Mooresville; I was literally living a week at a time. Just me and two suitcases.

When time came for me to leave Mooresville, I packed my things and realized...I could save myself effort if I abandoned one bag. I said goodbye to my big black suitcase, my TV Antenna, my radio, my standing mat, and a bit more. I went from "Four suitcases and a carry on" to "Four bags, total." It made it easier to walk around, and I was very thankful.

I feel bad; I really did leave Christine with a suitcase worth of my junk, even though I still took the large bag. I hope Jeremy didn't get mad and take it out on her. They were welcome to trash it all. I just knew, after Charlotte, I needed things to be lighter.

I discovered, homelessness means you shed stuff constantly. Every new destination drops behind more possessions, because you only travel with what you can carry.

Next step: Charlotte train station, Charlottesville, and Washington DC. In one day.

[therealvinelle]

Hi, love your metas and your fic. I think you mentioned somwhere that at the end of BD Aro was trying to prevent the fight. What were his motives? According to Edward, the Volturi are cowards, but I didn't get this feeling. Caius was begging for a battle, the guard vocally proclaimed willingness to die for the cause... hell, Jane had to be restrained from running to Bella and punching her in the throat. And I find it unlikely that their leader is less brave than them. Explain Aro's brain pls

Thank you so much! That’s really nice of you to say. And sorry for the late answer.

And explain Aro’s brain, whew. That is a very big question with a very long answer and this post will be a manifesto by the time I’m done. But you wanted Aro’s brain explained so manifesto it is.

So, before we go anywhere I have to make the distinction between Aro of the books and Aro of the movies. Those two are different people.

Starting with appearance, because casting does a lot for me and if a big deviation is made it better be like Ruth Wilson as Marisa Coulter, which is to say it better fit the character. Also, disclaimer, I think most of Twilight was miscast, and especially the Volturi. I’m forever dying at Caius looking like Lucius Malfoy. However, this is an Aro post, so we’re highlighting Aro.

Aro of the books is a twenty-something Greek with skin that has petrified and eyes covered in a milky sort of film, which totals to him looking perfect, as all vampires do, yet frail. When he walks it looks like he’s gliding. This is an otherworldly, ancient, inhuman being. He’s energetic and excitable, yes, but if anything that should add to how very other he is. Casting Michael Sheen is a clear signal that the movies were going in a completely different direction with Aro. Sheen is a great actor who played what he was given perfectly, but what he was given was a very different character.

In New Moon the book, Aro first rejects Edward request because this is Carlisle’s gifted son, and more, this is not what the Volturi do. They are not hitmen. It’s just a big no all around.

Bella enters, and the Aro she meets is a very polite and gracious man who’s delighted to see the human still alive, and pleased Carlisle’s son won’t be suicidal anymore. However, Edward fully intended to step into the sunlight in the middle of Volterra, specifically to provoke the Volturi, and he has broken the law with Bella. Further, Edward makes it clear that he fully intends to walk out of Volterra with his human still human, and that she’ll die of old age if he gets his way. Edward’s contempt of the law could not be more clear. However, Alice shows Aro that Bella’s fate is sealed, she turns or she dies. The law will be upheld. Aro is glad to hear it, and lets the Cullens all go home.

All in all, it’s a very tense occasion where Edward has put Aro in a difficult position, because he’s trying to force him to kill his best friend’s son, and Aro goes “YES THANK GOD” when Alice finally gives him an out.

New Moon of the movies was not this. Starting with the flashback (because I’m being thorough), Aro executes a lowly criminal himself.  I object to that, I think that’s a menial task and Aro doing it himself made the Volturi look less regal, not more. Cut to the present day, Aro rejects Edward’s request because he doesn’t want to waste his gift. We get the whole meeting with Bella, and Aro… well I don’t know why he does any of the things he does. This guy never mentions his friendship to Carlisle, tries to kill our plucky heroes three times in the space of one minute (one, gives Felix the order to kill Bella, stopped by Edward. Two, moves to decapitate Edward, stopped by Bella. Three, he’s about to eat Bella, stopped by Alice), and when he lets them go it feels terribly convenient.

This was a guy written to be the villain of the series, and it showed.

Cut to Breaking Dawn part I’s ending scene, and while I love the song choice for the scene, and fully agree that Aro considers misspelling Carlisle’s name to be a capital offense, the scene itself… we are presented with a villainous, power-hungry megalomaniac who’s just waiting to strike against the Cullens.

We then get Breaking Dawn part II, and I haven’t seen that movie in years but I remember the fight scene well enough. Aro kills Carlisle with the biggest grin on his face, and gives the go-ahead to his Volturi to kill the surviving Cullens and their witnesses.

Contrast that with canon, where Aro’s first words to Carlisle are «Nothing would make me happier than preserving your life today». Now, he’s making it very clear that this meeting will most likely end with Carlisle’s death, but he’s not happy about it. He’s certainly not going to kill him with a smile on his face and laughter in his heart.

The movies needed a hammy villain, and that’s what Michael Sheen played. It is not who Aro is, at all. And he’s not the only character this happened to, but again, this is an Aro post so I’m not going to start raging like Don Corleone about what they did to my boys.

So, with the movies firmly expelled from the post, let’s look at the Twilight series from Aro’s point of view.

Or, rather, we’ll have to start earlier because Aro’s decisions throughout the series are pretty clearly motivated by Carlisle. And that means considering, “why is Carlisle so important, anyway?”

Consider these things: one, Aro is gifted with the power of knowing every single thought a person has ever had. He knows your soul. Two, Aro is the leader of the supernatural world, he has been for over a thousand years.

How many friends does a person with that power and in that position have?

Three, who does Aro even come into contact with?

Starting with number three, for Aro it’s going to be 1) criminals, 2) Volturi guard hopefuls, 3) Weirdos like Laurent who are wasting Aro’s time.

(“But what about the guard!” Well, while we observe close interpersonal relationships between Aro and Jane, and Aro and Renata, and one can assume Corin to be close to the wives, the distinction between Volturi coven and Volturi guard remains. The guards are servants, in some cases beloved servants, but servants nonetheless. It would be inappropriate and weird for Aro to start slumming it with Demetri and Felix)

So, Aro doesn’t get out much, which brings us to point two. The people he does meet, and who are willing to entertain a friendship with the Volturi leader, are going to be people who want something. And that might work for some rulers, Louis XIV built Versailles specifically to make his subjects do this for him, but he had something to gain politically from that. Aro does not, his power is supreme without a need to tolerate brown nosers. More, with his own and Marcus’ gifts, he’ll know right away that he’s being used for power. He would get nothing out of it.

Finally point one, Aro’s gift. Say that we have a vampire who’s not a weirdo and who thinks Aro’s a cool dude. Well, the question now is, who would ever want a person in their life who knows all there is to know about them? I wouldn't want anybody to know every thought I've ever had, I certainly would never seek out a person to know me that deeply when I could just go find normal people to be friends with instead. Not to mention how incredibly unequal such a friendship would be.

In short, I don’t think Aro has any friends.

Enter Carlisle a very amiable person who cherishes Aro for his personality, and doesn’t mind having his mind read. Aro just found a unicorn. Carlisle on his end likes Aro so much that he lives with him for decades. Even if you want to read their relationship as platonic, that’s still a very strong friendship.

Point being that Carlisle is unbelievably precious to Aro, and so very unique. Aro has lived for over three millennia, and never met anyone like this before. There won’t be another Carlisle.

This in turn makes him willing to stretch as far as he can to preserve that friendship and, as the plot thickens, keep Carlisle alive.

Fast forwards to 2006, and Aro is sitting in Volterra minding his own business when Carlisle’s son walks into town demanding his own execution. He has not committed any crimes. Not only is assisted suicide not something the Volturi even do, but this would ruin Aro’s friendship with Carlisle. Even if Carlisle was miraculously understanding of Aro killing his son (which I can’t imagine he would be), this would never leave the air between them. Carlisle could never be around him again after something like that.

So, Aro turns down Edward’s request. “Stupid Volturi man ruining my dramatic suicide, I’ll show him who’s boss!” Edward replies, and runs shirtless into the sunlight. I’m sure Aro was just dying, you had “The Sound of Silence” playing as he stared into nothingness because how is this happening to him. A whiplash of an hour later, Bella is alive again, Aro is happy, we can be done with this now, right? Right?!

No, Edward says, we cannot be done with this. He’s still refusing to turn Bella.

And so we get that whole New Moon exchange where Aro very tellingly shoves the part where Edward WALKED INTO THE SUNLIGHT IN VOLTERRA under the carpet and out of the conversation (for comparison: Irina is executed for false testimony and Bree for breaking a law she didn’t know existed), and he even allows Bella to leave human when he could easily have bitten her himself to keep the Cullens honest. This guy went out of his way to be lenient and show the Cullens good faith.

And then a few months later Irina walks into Volterra, bearing memories of what is unmistakably a Cullen immortal child.

Aro may care for Carlisle, but this is the guy who killed his baby sister so he’d still have Marcus’ gift. He will bend far, very far, for those he cares about, but he will not break. It’s duty above love, Volturi above Aro’s personal preferences. An immortal child is not an offense that can be tolerated, and so it’ll be Didyme 2: Aro Kills Someone He Loves Boogaloo.

By now I think it should be quite clear why I think Aro was trying to prevent the fight. Battle would have meant Carlisle’s certain death.

(And that’s even assuming the Volturi won the fight. With Bella there, there was a chance the Volturi wouldn’t prevail. But even before Bella started showing off, Aro was very much hoping this wouldn’t be another Didyme situation.)

[dwellordream]

“...As well as considerable numbers of women among the poor pilgrims following the crusaders, there were always some working women following medieval armies, some doing laundry and kitchen work or nursing the wounded and others providing sexual services. When fighting broke out, women contributed by carrying drinking water and comforting the wounded. A number of aristocratic ladies in addition to Eleanor followed their crusader husbands, and they brought along servant girls and ladies in waiting, swelling the total number of women. 

Eleanor’s own personal entourage must have been quite large but the legend that she recruited a band of armed and mounted “Amazons” to ride with her alongside the crusading knights can be set aside. This improbable story apparently originated with a Greek chronicler’s description of the crusaders’ entry into Constantinople, written at least a generation after the event. The legend was taken up enthusiastically by nineteenth-century writers and is repeated in widely read twentieth-century books on Eleanor. 

The vast army made its way to Metz after a four-or five-day march from Paris and then marched on to Worms, where it crossed the Rhine. A traveler on horseback could average thirty-five miles a day, but Louis’s host was slowed by many persons on foot, slow-moving packhorses, and cumbersome two- and four-horse baggage carts and wagons clogging the roads. At Regensburg in Germany, baggage was loaded on barges to be sent down the Danube as far as Bulgaria, relieving the army of the carts that had “afforded more hope than usefulness” and raised much complaint from military men for holding up their progress on land.

A great deal of the supplies belonged to Eleanor, and her bulky baggage would cause criticism later. Even with her more than ample supplies, she could not have found travel conditions comfortable. A medieval road “hardly existed as a physical object,” being little more than a track connecting towns and villages, often containing impassable mudholes in wet weather. If Eleanor chose not to ride a horse, she could have had herself carried between two horses on a litter, as was common for noble ladies. She and other aristocratic ladies may have ridden part of the way in “chariots,” uncomfortable but highly decorated carts. Wheeled vehicles were not equipped with springs, and nobles usually disdained carts for their rough ride and also for their demeaning associations with peasants and laborers.

…On 4 October 1147, after a five-month journey, Louis and Eleanor arrived before the walls of Constantinople with the crusading army and its accompanying pilgrims. From the first sight of the massive Theodosian walls protecting the western approach, the great city made a powerful impression on Eleanor and her companions, even though at the time of the Second Crusade it was past its prime, the capital of a shrunken and weakened empire. Its great churches and palaces constructed under Constantine and Justinian were still standing and in daily use, unlike in Rome, where the Roman imperial monuments had fallen into ruin long ago. 

The “Great” or “Sacred Palace” overlooking the sea had periodically been enlarged and renovated and had grown into a city within a city. Connected to the palace complex were the nearby Hippodrome and the church of Hagia Sophia, illustrating the links between the emperor, his people, and the Church. Since the eleventh century, the imperial family had abandoned the Great Palace, favoring the Blachernae Palace built next to the city wall at the western landward edge of the city near the Golden Horn. 

It was to Blachernae that Louis was led for his first meeting with the emperor Manuel Komnenos. Odo of Deuil describes the palace: “Its exterior is of almost matchless beauty, but its interior surpasses anything that I can say about it. Throughout it is decorated elaborately with gold and a great variety of colors, and the floor is marble, paved with cunning workmanship; and I do not know whether the exquisite art or the exceedingly valuable stuffs endows it with the more beauty or value.”

At the gates of the city, Louis and his queen were met by a delegation from the city’s nobles and prominent citizens who welcomed them and invited them to meet their emperor. Odo of Deuil, observing the meeting, left a description: “When we approached the city, lo, all its nobles and wealthy men, clerics as well as lay people, trooped out to meet the king and received him with due honor, humbly asking him to appear before the emperor and to fulfill the emperor’s desire to see and talk with him.” Louis, “taking pity on the emperor’s fear,” agreed, and his first encounter with the Eastern emperor at the Blachernae Palace was cordial. 

Byzantine court etiquette with its obsequious obeisance to the emperor scandalized the French, but a concession was made to Louis, allowing him to sit in the emperor’s presence. The chronicler notes, “The two sovereigns were almost identical in age and stature, unlike only in dress and manners.” Eleanor is not mentioned in the account, but it is probable that she was anxious to accompany Louis on his first meeting with the Byzantine ruler to see him and his court for herself.

Manuel Komnenos made available to the French king and queen the Philopatium, a hunting lodge outside the city wall near the Blachernae Palace, and the army and the many servants and pilgrims following it camped nearby. The French crusading army spent about three weeks at Constantinople, crossing over to the Asian side of the Bosporus on 26 October. The emperor took Louis on sightseeing tours, showing him the many churches and their collections of holy relics, and after their tours he invited Louis to dine with him. The banquets at the emperor’s palace “afforded pleasure to ear, mouth, and eye with pomp as marvelous, viands as delicate, and pastimes as pleasant as the guests were illustrious.”

Meanwhile Eleanor and the empress were exchanging letters and becoming acquainted. The wife of Manuel Komnenos was German, the sister-in-law of the emperor Conrad, Bertha of Sulzbach. She had received a new name, Irene, after her marriage and conversion to the Eastern Orthodox religion in 1146. In theory, respectable Byzantine ladies were expected to be seldom seen and never heard in public. The empress’s quarters in the palace were under her sole control, guarded by eunuchs, and men were never supposed to enter—not even the emperor, unless with her permission. 

Yet in the twelfth century, Byzantine women, except for unmarried girls, were no longer so secluded as in earlier centuries, and the empress and her ladies attended receptions and banquets. Empress Irene and her guest Eleanor likely joined their husbands in the evening to dine with them in the emperor’s quarters. Louis, “a simple man who made a duty of simplicity,” soon found the excessive ceremonial and the extravagant titles of the many Byzantine court officials exasperating. His growing distaste for Constantinople was shared by his men as friction arose with the city’s money changers and merchants, whom the French suspected of price-gouging and of disdaining them. 

Eleanor’s impression of the Byzantine capital and the imperial court, however, was not likely to have been as negative as that of her husband and her countrymen. Perhaps Byzantium evoked memories of the sensuality and luxury of life at the Poitevin court, and she savored the contrast between the gorgeous spectacle of the imperial court’s ceremonies and the dull and drab Capetian royal court that she had left behind. Constantinople’s glories opened Eleanor’s eyes to “vast, lofty, undreamed-of possibilities for majesty.”

…In the half-century since the First Crusade, bitterness between crusaders and Eastern Christians had accumulated, building “a wall of incomprehension.” Crusading westerners visiting Constantinople felt inferior to the Byzantines, and they compensated by condemning the Greeks as over-civilized, too soft, effeminate, and degenerate for their tastes. Furthermore, western Christians condemned Eastern Orthodox Christians as heretics, and the chronicler Odo of Deuil reveals the ferocity of their hatred of Orthodox doctrinal errors. 

He writes, “Because of this they were judged not to be Christians, and the Franks considered killing them a matter of no importance and hence could with the more difficulty be restrained from pillage and plundering.” Greeks regarded westerners as coarse and crude barbarians, as shown by Anna Komnena’s account of the conduct of those passing through Constantinople on the First Crusade. 

She wrote, “Now the Frankish counts are naturally shameless and violent, naturally greedy of money too, and immoderate in everything they wish, and possess a flow of language greater than any other human race.” The behavior of the armies of the Second Crusade did nothing to change attitudes at the imperial court or among the people. Complaints about merchants and money changers’ cheating roused the crusaders to violence: they took with force what they could not buy, and they spoke openly of conquering Constantinople.”

- Ralph V. Turner, “Adventures and Misadventures on the Second Crusade, 1145���1149.” in Eleanor of Aquitaine: Queen of France, Queen of England

[indiaalphawhiskey]

GAPT Snippet #5

Bonnes fêtes! 🎄 (Snips 1, 2, 3, 4)

—————

“To Our Dearest Josephine,

Congratulations on getting accepted into your PhD program.

We always knew you could do it.

Love, Dads”

Louis ducked his head a little, swiping at the corner of his eye as subtly as humanly possible. He would be embarrassed, if not for the wholly unsubtle Harry-esque sniff coming from his left.

Some things never change, he thought, as he swallowed a giggle and looked up at where his daughter was folding the card closed carefully, across the picnic table.

“Can I just say,” Jo said, leveling both her fathers with an unimpressed stare. “That the only benefit of being a child of divorce is supposedly having parents that are fully committed to buying your love and loyalty?” She held up the gift, smirking jokingly. “And now you’re sharing presents?” She looked over at her twin who was also shaking her head at them disappointedly. “The audacity!”

“Shameful, honestly,” Stevie added in agreement. “I mean,” she continued, counting off on her fingers, the green of her eyes glittering. And after all these years, it still boggled Louis how the twins were a dead ringer for Harry, even though all their children were adopted. “One birthday party every year, one for graduations—”

“Just the one present each from Father Christmas,” Noah piled on, his cheeky dimples out on full display, and maybe it was the heart-eyes every dad had for their son, but Louis had to admit that Harry’s dimples coupled with Louis’ blue eyes really were a killer combo. He said another silent thanks to the heavens that their eldest was as sweet as he was – no penchant for heartbreaking of any kind, whatsoever, bless him.

Harry scoffed, indignant. “He’s only got—”

“‘He’s only got the one list,’” all three recited snarkily, and their perfect imitation of Harry’s extra-low baritone made Louis snort loudly. It earned him a glare from his ex-husband.

“Sorry,” he whispered to Harry, not meaning it in the slightest. He shrugged one shoulder up and gestured to the kids. “It’s just that they do a very convincing you.”

Harry’s pout hadn’t changed after all these years either.

“Not to mention,” Stevie continued. “A whopping total of zero brand new cars when we’d all started to drive—”

“Nary a one,” Jo sighed.

Harry turned to Louis and rolled his eyes. ‘Nary,’ he mouthed silently, smirking. Jo had always tended to connect with her inner Shakespeare when she was feeling extra dramatic.

“Even after all those subtle hints I dropped for a Jaguar,” Noah tsked, though the effect was decidedly dimmed by the way he couldn’t swallow his smile. “We were the joke of the divorced children’s club at school.”

“A laughing stock, really,” Jo agreed, batting her lashes playfully at her dads.

“I tried to tell ‘em that,” Niall said, grinning over the lip of his beer bottle, from where he was standing behind the twins. “But your dads were all ‘No, we’d rather ‘be there’ for our children,’ support them, such and such nonsense.”

“Mm,” Zayn hummed nonchalantly. “The song does go ‘Kids don’t like love, kids like cars and money.’”

“Really, am I the only one itching for Jo to open the damn present?” Liam asked. He gestured towards where she was toying with the edge of the perfectly intact wrapping paper. “I really wanna know what it is!”

“Alright, alright, I’ll open it,” Jo giggled, starting to tear the wrapper. “And if it sucks,” she said, smirking at her fathers. “My godfather’ll get me a car, won’t you, Uncle Niall?”

Niall gave a vague hum in answer as Louis grinned back at Jo, his tongue between his teeth. He jutted his chin toward the half-opened gift. “You are going to feel like such an arsehole when you see what it is.”

“Are dads allowed to call their offspring arseholes?” Stevie asked.

“When their kids are being total arseholes?” Harry said, holding his hand out to Louis for a low-five. “Absolutely.”

Louis laughed as he slapped Harry’s hand. Smiling, he held Harry’s gaze, counting out softly, just for the two of them, “Three… two… on—”

“Oh…” Jo said, her voice hitching. “Oh my God.” They both turned to face Jo, who looked up at them with wide, glistening eyes, her surprised gaze drifting down towards what was in her hand before shooting back up again. “Is it…?”

“A first edition,” Louis confirmed softly as she fingered the gilt lettering, tracing the capital L of ‘Little Women’ lightly, reverently. He looked at Harry, whose nose was already pink again. “We promised ourselves we’d get it for you, when you wouldn’t stop going into that bookshop on Camden.”

“Every fucking day for a year,” Harry chimed in, trying to hide the wobble in his voice with a laugh, though he still had to swipe under both eyes quickly. “When you were eleven.”

Louis’ eyes softened and, unthinking, he placed a hand on Harry’s knee under the table, swiping his thumb against the rough fabric of his jeans to soothe him. They shared a sentimental smile that lasted about .02 seconds before Jo launched herself at them, gathering them both in the tightest hug one could possibly muster with the width of a picnic table between them.

“Thank you,” she sniffed, overcome. Then, she buried her nose in Louis’ neck, just like she used to and Louis… Louis melted – fully felt his heart pool in a puddle of goop on the grass as his arm circled around her waist.

“You’re welcome, darling,” he whispered into her hair, just as Harry added, “We’re so proud of you, Panda.” He gifted Louis with another gentle, secret smile as he said, “You did it.”

They nestled into the hug for a little while longer, before Stevie began to pull Jo back by her shirt.

“Alright, break it up, break it up!” Stevie called out. “Can’t have everyone thinking I’m not the favourite.” She grinned evilly at Louis and Harry once they were free of Jo, her gaze knowing as it followed the line of Louis’ arm to where it had disappeared under the table, a tad too far to be resting on anything but Harry’s knee. Louis shook off his rising flush, staunchly refusing to be embarrassed by his twenty-seven year old and her all too in-the-know eyebrows.

Still, he subtly pulled his hand away, but not without smirking back at her, and narrowing his eyes in challenge.

‘Flirt’, she mouthed gleefully, to which there was really no wittier reply than for Louis to stick his tongue out at her like the highly respected tenured professor he was. (Clearly, those six or so extra years of schooling really were worth every penny, if he did say so himself.)

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Vivant, il a manqué le monde ; mort, il le possède.

- François René de Chateaubriand (1768-1848), Vie de Napoléon, livres XIX à XXIV des Mémoires d’outre-tombe (posthume)

Of course we don’t have any photograph or film of Napoleon’s death on 5 May 1821 on Saint Hélène. But we do have the next best thing: a painting. Charles de Steuben depiction of Napoleon's deathbed and his faithful entourage that served as witnesses to his dying moments became the one of the most important paintings of the post-Napoleonic era but then faded from modern memory.

I first came across it by accident when I was in my teens at my Swiss boarding school. There were times I found myself with school friends going away on hiking trips around the high Alpine chain of the Allgäu Alps and we would drive through Lake Constance to get there, or we would hike around the Lake itself through the Bodensee-Rundwanderweg.

Perched high above Lake Constance and nestled in large parklands, stood Schloss Arenenberg which overlooks the lower part of Lake Constance. At first, it appears a relatively modest country house. But this was no usual pretty looking house. Arenenberg was owned by well-heeled families before it was sold to Hortense de Beauharnais, the adopted daughter and sister-in-law of the French Emperor himself, Napoleon Bonaparte. She had it rebuilt in the French Empire style and lived there from 1817 with her son Louis Napoleon, later Emperor Napoleon III, who is said to have spoken the Thurgau dialect in addition to French. This elegantly furnished castle then was once the residence of the last emperor of France.

The alterations made first by Queen Hortense and later by Empress Eugénie have been carefully preserved and the house still bears the marks of both women. Queen Hortense's drawing room is perfectly preserved and visitors can still admire her magnificent library (all marked with the Empress' cipher) containing over one thousand books. Likewise, in the room where the queen died, every object has been maintained in its original condition: pieces of furniture and personal belongings are gathered here to evoke her memory in a very touching manner. As for Empress Eugénie's rooms, they too have been very carefully preserved. Her private drawing room is a perfect illustration of the Second Empire style with sculptures by Carpeaux and portraits of the imperial family by Winterhalter.

After 1873, the Empress and the Imperial Prince brought the palace back to life by making regular summer visits, which they continued until 1878. However, on the tragic death of her son in 1879, Eugénie found it difficult to return to a place so full of painful memories. And so in 1906 she donated the estate to the canton of Thurgovie as a testimony of her gratitude for the region's faithful hospitality towards the Napoleon family. And in accordance with the Empress' wishes, the residence was turned into a museum devoted to Napoleon.

In what is now the Napoleonic Museum, the original furnishings have been preserved, and the palace gardens had been fully restored. This in itself might be worth a visit for the view over Lake Constance which is stunning. For Napoleonic era buffs though its the incredible art collection which is its real treasure. It houses an important art collection including works by the First-Empire artists Chinard Canova, Gros, Robert Lefèvre, Gérard, Isabey and Girodet-Trioson, and by the Second-Empire painters and sculptors Alfred de Dreux, Winterhalter, Carpeaux, Meissonier, Hébert, Flandrin, Detaille, Nieuwerkerke and Giraud.

But what caught my eye was this painting, ‘La Mort de Napoléon’ by Charles de Steuben. I didn’t know anything about it or the artist for that matter, but one of my more erudite school friends who, being French, was into Napoleonic stuff in a huge way, and she explained it all to me. Of course I knew a fair bit about Napoleon growing up because my grandfather and father, being military men themselves, were Napoleonic warfare buffs and it rubbed off onto me. I just knew about Napoleon the military genius. I never thought about him once he was beaten at Waterloo in 1815. So I never really engaged with Napoleon the man. And yet here I was staring at his last breath of mortality caught forever in time through art. Not for the first time I had mixed feelings about Napoleon Bonaparte, both the man and the myth (built up around him since his death).

On 5 May, 1821, at 5.49pm in Longwood House on the remote island of St Helena, in the words of the famed French man of letters,  François-René de Chateaubriand, ‘the mightiest breath of life which ever animated human clay’ came no more. To the British, Dutch, and Prussian coalition who had exiled Naopleon Bonaparte there in 1815, he was a despot, but to France, he was seen as a devotee of the Enlightenment.

In the decade following his demise, Napoleon’s image underwent a transformation in France. The monarchy had been restored, but by the late 1820s, it was growing unpopular. King Charles X was seen as a threat to the civil liberties established during the Napoleonic era. This mistrust revived Napoleon’s reputation and put him in a more heroic light.

Fascination with the French leader’s death led Charles de Steuben, a German-born Romantic painter living in Paris, to immortalise the momentous event. Steuben’s painting depicts the moment of Napoleon’s death and seeks to capture the sense of awe in the room at the death of a man whose legendary career had begun in the French Revolution. It was this, ultimate moment that Steuben wished to immortalise in a painting which has since become what could almost be described as the official version of the scene.

There is no question that Steuben’s painting became the most famous and most iconic depiction of Napoleon’s death in art history. In another painting, executed during the years 1825-1830, Steuben was to give a realistic view of the emperor dictating his memoirs to general Gourgaud. This same realism also pervades his version of Napoleon’s death, and it is totally unlike Horace Vernet’s, Le songe de Bertrand ou L’Apothéose de Napoléon (Bertrand’s Dream or the apotheosis of Napoleon) which, although painted in the same year, is an allegorical celebration of the emperor’s martyrdom and as such the first stone in the edifice of the Napoleonic legend.

And what a legend Napoleon’s life was turned into for time immemorial. Napoleon declared himself France’s First Consul in 1799 and then emperor in 1804. For the next decade, he led France against a series of European coalitions during the Napoleonic Wars and expanded his empire throughout much of continental Europe before his defeat in 1814. He was exiled to the Mediterranean island of Elba, but he escaped and briefly reasserted control over France before a crushing final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

Napoleon’s military prowess earned him the fear of his enemies, but his civil reforms in France brought him the respect of his people. The Napoleonic Code, introduced in 1804, replaced the existing patchwork of French laws with a unified national system built on the principles of the Enlightenment: universal male suffrage, property rights, equality (for men), and religious freedom. Even in his final exile on St. Helena, Napoleon proved a magnetic presence. Passengers of ships docked to resupply would hurry to meet the great general. He developed strong personal bonds with the coterie who had accompanied him into exile. Although some speculate that he was murdered, most agree that Napoleon’s death in 1821, at the age of 51, was the result of stomach cancer.

By contrast, Charles de Steuben was born in 1788, his youth and artistic training coinciding with Napoleon’s rise to power. He was the son of the Duke of Württemberg officer Carl Hans Ernst von Steuben. At the age of twelve he moved with his father, who entered Russian service as a captain, to Saint Petersburg, where he studied drawing at the Art Academy classes as a guest student. Thanks his father's social contacts in the court of the Tsar, in the summer of 1802 he accompanied the young Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna of Russia (1786–1859) and granddaughter of Frederick II Eugene, Duke of Württemberg, to the Thuringian cultural city of Weimar, where the Tsar's daughter two years later married Charles Frederick, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1783–1853). Steuben, then fourteen years old, was a Page at the ducal court, a position for which the career prospects would be in the military or administration. The poet Friedrich Schiller was a family friend who at once recognised De Steuben's artistic talent and instilled in him his political ideal of free self-determination regardless of courtly constraints.

At the behest of Pierre Fontaine in 1828 de Steuben painted La Clémence de Henri IV après la Bataille d'Ivry, depicting a victorious Henry IV of France at the Battle of Ivry. De Steuben's Bataille de Poitiers, en octobre 732, painted between 1834 and 1837, shows the triumphant Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, also known as the Battle of Poitiers. He painted Jeanne la folle around the same time and he was commissioned by Louis Philippe to paint a series of portraits of past Kings of France.

Life in the French capital was a repeated source of internal conflict for Steuben. The allure of bohemian Paris and his military-dominated upbringing made him a wanderer between worlds. As an official commitment to his adopted country he became a French citizen in 1823. However, the irregularity of his income as a freelance artist was in contrast to his sense of duty and social responsibility. To secure his family financially, he took a job as an art teacher at École Polytechnique, where he briefly trained Gustave Courbet. In 1840 he was awarded a gold medal at the Salon de Paris for his highly acclaimed paintings.

The love of classical painting was a lifelong passion of Steuben. He was a close friend to Eugène Delacroix, the leader of the French Romantic school of painting, whom he portrayed several times. Steuben was also part of this artistic movement, which replaced classicism in French painting. "The painter of the Revolution," as Jacques-Louis David was called by his students, joined art with politics in his works. The subjects of his historical paintings supported historical change. He painted mainly in sharp colour contrasts, heavy solid contours and clear outlines. The severity of this style led many contemporary artists - including Prud'hon - to a romanticised counter movement. They preferred the shadowy softness and gentle colour gradations of Italian Renaissance painters such as Leonardo da Vinci and Antonio da Correggio, whose works they studied intensively. Steuben, who had begun his training with David, felt the school was becoming increasingly rigid and dogmatic. Critics praised his deliberate compositions, excellent brush stroke and impressive colour effects. But some of his critics felt that his pursuit of dramatic design of rich people also showed, at times, a pronounced tendency toward the histrionic.

The portrayal of key moments in Napoleon’s dramatic military career would feature among some of Steuben’s best known works. But it is this death scene that Steuben is most remembered for.

Using his high-level contacts among figures in Napoleon’s circle, Steuben interviewed and sketched many of the people who had been present when Napoleon died at Longwood House on St. Helena. He wanted to attempt o give the most accurate representation of the scene possible. Indeed, the painter interviewed the companions of Napoleon’s captivity on their return to France and had them pose for their portraits. Only the Abbé Vignali, captain Crokat and the doctor Arnott were painted from memory. The Grand maréchal Bertrand made sketches of the plan of the room, noting the positions of the different pieces of furniture and people in the room. All the protagonists within the painting brought together some of their souvenirs and in posing for the painter, each person can be seen contributing to a work of collective memory, very much with posterity in mind.

Painstakingly researched, Steuben painted  a carefully composed scene of hushed grief. Notable among the figures are Gen. Henri Bertrand, who loyally followed Napoleon into exile; Bertrand’s wife, Fanny; and their children, of whom Napoleon had become very fond.

The best known version of “La Mort de Napoléon” was completed in 1828. French writer Stendhal considered it “a masterpiece of expression.” In 1830 the installation of a more liberal monarchy in France further boosted admiration of Napoleon, who suddenly became a wildly popular figure in theatre, art, and music. This fervour led to the diffusion of Steuben’s deathbed scene in the form of engravings throughout Europe in the 1830s. As Napoleon’s stock arose within French culture and arts, so did Steuben’s depiction of Napoleon’s death. It became a grandeur of vision that permeated Steuben’s masterpiece of historical reconstruction.

Initially forming part of the collection of the Colonel de Chambrure, the painting was put up for auction in Paris, on 9 March 1830, with other Napoleonic works, notably Horace Vernet’s Les Adieux de Fontainebleau (The Fontainebleau adieux) and Steuben’s Retour de l’île d’Elbe (The return from the island of Elba). The catalogue noted that the painting had already been viewed in the colonel’s collection by “three thousand connoisseurs” – which alone would have made it a success -, but its renown was to be further amplified by the production of the famous engraving. The diffusion of this engraving by Jean-Pierre-Marie Jazet (1830-1831, held at the Musée de Malmaison), reprinted and copied countless times throughout the 19th century, made the scene a classic in popular imagery, on a level of popularity with paintings such as Millet’s Angelus.

A / Grand Marshal Henri-Gatien Bertrand. Utterly loyal servant of Napoleon’s to the last. His memoirs of the exile on St Helena were not published until 1849. Only the year 1821 has ever been translated into English.

B / General Charles Tristan de Montholon. Courtier and companion of Napoleon’s exile. Montholon managed to ease Bertrand out and become Napoleon’s closest companion at the end, highly rewarded in Napoleon’s will, which Montholon helped write. Montholon’s untrustworthy memoirs were published in 1846/47.

C / Doctor Francesco Antommarchi. Corsican anatomy specialist. Sent by Napoleon’s mother from Rome to St Helena to be Napoleon’s personal physician on the expulsion of Barry O’Meara. Napoleon disliked and distrusted Antommarchi. Antommarchi’s untrustworthy memoirs were very influential and published in 1825.

D / Angelo Paolo Vignali, Abbé. Corsican assistant-chaplain, sent by Madame Mère from Rome to St Helena in 1819.

E / Countess Françoise Elisabeth “Fanny” Bertrand and her children: Napoléon (F), who carried the censer at Napoleon’s funeral; Hortense (G); Henry (H); and Arthur (I), youngest by six years of all the Bertrand children and born on the island. She was wife of the Grand Marshal, very unwilling participant in the exile on St Helena. Her relations with Napoleon were difficult since she refused to live at Longwood. She spoke fluent English. Was however very loyal to Napoleon.

J / Louis Marchand. Napoleon’s valet from 1814 on and one of his closest servants. As Napoleon noted in his will, “The service he [Marchand] rendered were those of a friend”.

K / “Ali”, Louis Étienne Saint-Denis. Known as “the Mamluk Ali”, one of Napoleon’s longest-serving and intimate servants; He became Librarian at Longwood and was an indefatigable copyist of imperial manuscripts.

L / Ali’s English (Catholic) wife, Mary ‘Betsy’ Hall. She was sent out from England by UK relatives of the Countess Bertrand to be governess/nursemaid to the Bertrand children. Married Ali aged 23 in October 1819.

M / Jean Abra(ha)m Noverraz. From the Vaud region in Switzerland. Very tall and imposing figure that Napoleon called his “Helvetic bear”. He was himself ill during Napoleon’s illness.

N / Noverraz’s wife, Joséphine née Brulé. They married in married in July 1819, and she was the Countess Montholon’s lady’s maid. Noverraz and Saint-Denis had a fist fight for the hand of Joséphine.

O / Jean Baptiste Alexandre Pierron. The cook, dessert specialist, long in Napoleon’s service and who had accompanied Napoleon to Elba.

P /Jacques Chandelier. Iincorrectly identified on the picture as Santini who had left the island in 1817. A cook, from the service of Pauline Bonaparte, Napoleon’s sister, who arrived on St Helena with the group from Rome in 1819.

Q /Jacques Coursot. Butler, from the service of Madame Mère, Napoleon’s mother, he arrived on St Helena with the group from Rome in 1819.

R / Doctor Francis Burton. Irish surgeon in the 66th regiment who had arrived on St Helena only on 31st March 1821. He is renowned for having made Napoleon’s death mask (with ensign John Ward and Antommarchi).

S/ Doctor Archibald Arnott. Surgeon in the 20th regiment. Brought in to tend to Napoleon in extremis on 1 April 1821.

T/ Captain William Crokat. A Scot, orderly officer at Longwood for less than a month, having replaced Engelbert Lutyens on 15 April. He received the honour of carrying the news of Napoleon’s death back to London and also the reward, namely, a promotion and £500, privileges of which Lutyens was deliberately deprived by the governor.

[adoremp3]

Chapter 31: the one with the scandal

In the fourth installment of “8 Days of Oxford Comma,” we find out how Harry feels about those unfavourable headlines, a very awkward Summertime Ball performance, and Suzy and Harry settling into a comfortable routine and how they really feel about one another.

Story Page // Masterlist // Wattpad

It’s the next day and Suzy still hasn’t heard from Harry, so she takes matters into her own hands and shows up at his place unannounced; she finds him in quite a state, though it’s new life decision that takes her by surprise the most. There’s also a very awkward event with everyone totally pretending the media haven’t gone crazy, and Harry finds Suzy to be his safe ground amongst the craziness of it all.

SCENE ONE

Suzy arrives back in London the next day, having not been on social media and seeing the headlines about Zayn and Louis until later in the day after Mila mentions something in their group chat about Niall being a grump. She messages straight away to see if he’s okay, but he doesn’t reply; in fact, he leaves her on read. Suzy figures he’s just busy, but she starts to worry about him, and even though she planned to surprise him, she also wanted to check he was even home so she doesn’t drive over there for nothing. As the next morning rolls around, Suzy still hasn’t heard anything from Harry; he usually sends her a good morning message, but he’s not even done that. Her papa knows something is up and questions it, which in return results in him telling Suzy to go to Harry and see what’s wrong—this in itself surprises her because she knows he’s never been Harry’s biggest fans.

And thus, this is the scene from the prologue where Suzy shows up to Harry’s house and finds him in a frazzled state. Apparently, he’s been awake all night and has had a lot of coffee—he is absolutely livid, claiming that this is it; this is the final straw and after their last album is finished, he’s done with the band. He wants to make music and do something more with his life, not use and abuse his money and power. After a while, Harry starts to apologise to Suzy because he let it all get the better of him and not appreciate the moment that is Suzy surprising him; it is the first time he’s seen him in a few weeks. They’re in the middle of a warm embrace, until Harry gets a call from management and says he needs to head into the office. Suzy makes a comment about leaving, but Harry promises he won’t be long and he would love it if he could stay. 

SCENE TWO

While Harry is at the office, Suzy decides to raid his pantry and cooks them up a meal—she finds all the ingredients for tomato soup and remembers how Harry has made it for her before because it’s the perfect comfort meal. Harry agrees when he returns home a little while later, then they curl up on the couch afterwards and feel like they are returning to old comfortable patterns. It’s in this moment that Suzy knows exactly how she feels about Harry and she needs to tell him. So… 

Suzy looks up at Harry and says, “I need to tell you something…”

“Yeah?” Harry asks, peering down at her curiously.

Suzy bites her lip. “I’m in love with you, too.”

“Too?” Harry’s heart beats faster, but he needs confirmation.

“I mean, is it wrong of me to assume you still feel the same way?”

Harry promises her it’s not and that he’s still very much in love with her and how happy she makes him. It’s then that she remembers how she’s studying in France for a few months, so she asks, “But I leave in August… What are we going to do?”

Harry shrugs and says, “Not think about that and worry about the present. We will just take each day as it comes, like we originally planned.”

SCENE THREE

Capital FM Summertime Ball is the following day, which is very awkward as everyone—the band, the fans, and all the crew—is pretending the article was never released. Well, the band are more ignoring one another than anything, as Harry is isolating himself from everyone just like he did on tour and it all feels very reminiscent. Before One Direction takes the stage, Suzy gives Harry a quick kiss and wishes him good luck. Then, when he’s on stage, it’s like he did a complete 180 from his general pissed off mood beforehand. Harry looks so happy on stage, regardless of whatever is happening behind closed doors, and interacts with fans and cracks jokes. Suzy loves watching this version of Harry—he’s so genuinely happy and she just knows he will be even happier when he’s doing his own thing. As she watches him smiling and laughing with the crowd, singing his heart out, Suzy can’t help but think about how in love with him she really is. 

SCENE FOUR

After an eventful few days, Suzy is back in Oxford again and thinks about how crazy her life has been ever since she met Harry. It’s been a hell of a lot, but it’s all worth it because she was able to travel to another country, make new friends, fall out of love with a manipulative asshole and fall in love with someone who couldn’t be more perfect for her. Really, she may be stressing over assignments and finals, but she couldn’t be happier with the way life has gone for her as of late.

Harry calls Suzy one night and asks how her studies are going, so Suzy explains her next assignment isn’t due until the following week; he then says, if it’s totally okay with her, he would love to take her on a weekend trip away. Essentially, he just needs to get away for a few days, but feels as though maybe some time alone with just them is exactly what they need to settle into their newfound relationship status that they’ve not properly explored yet. Suzy is very on board with the idea, but inspired by something her papa said while in London, she thinks it’s time he “officially” meets Harry at dinner first. They met briefly at the wedding, but her papa would love to get to know him a little more personally.

Aaaaand there goes another eventful chapter! To be fair, I think they’re all pretty eventful chapters from here on out, so do as you will with that information hehe. But there we all have it: the infamous prologue scene has finally come to fruition and everyone can finally see what all the fuss is about! A bit of a mess, yeah? And obviously this was all planned quite a few years ago now, but thoughts on how it all came about and Harry’s decisions? Plus, the whole awkward event with everyone ignoring one another. Eeep! But Harry and Suzy seem to be quite comfortable with one another now, don’t you think? Fingers crossed it lasts! 

As always, thank you to everyone who has stuck around for all this madness, even after all these years! SO, tomorrow we have another exciting chapter: dinner with the Lestrange’s! Plus, lots more sexy fun times. Enjoy! 

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

On Judith Butler

For a long time, academic feminism in America has been closely allied to the practical struggle to achieve justice and equality for women. Feminist theory has been understood by theorists as not just fancy words on paper; theory is connected to proposals for social change. [...]

In the United States, however, things have been changing. One observes a new, disquieting trend. It is not only that feminist theory pays relatively little attention to the struggles of women outside the United States. (This was always a dispiriting feature even of much of the best work of the earlier period.) Something more insidious than provincialism has come to prominence in the American academy. It is the virtually complete turning from the material side of life, toward a type of verbal and symbolic politics that makes only the flimsiest of connections with the real situation of real women.

Feminist thinkers of the new symbolic type would appear to believe that the way to do feminist politics is to use words in a subversive way, in academic publications of lofty obscurity and disdainful abstractness. These symbolic gestures, it is believed, are themselves a form of political resistance; and so one need not engage with messy things such as legislatures and movements in order to act daringly. The new feminism, moreover, instructs its members that there is little room for large-scale social change, and maybe no room at all. We are all, more or less, prisoners of the structures of power that have defined our identity as women; we can never change those structures in a large-scale way, and we can never escape from them. All that we can hope to do is to find spaces within the structures of power in which to parody them, to poke fun at them, to transgress them in speech. And so symbolic verbal politics, in addition to being offered as a type of real politics, is held to be the only politics that is really possible.

These developments owe much to the recent prominence of French postmodernist thought. Many young feminists, whatever their concrete affiliations with this or that French thinker, have been influenced by the extremely French idea that the intellectual does politics by speaking seditiously, and that this is a significant type of political action. [...]

One American feminist has shaped these developments more than any other. Judith Butler seems to many young scholars to define what feminism is now. Trained as a philosopher, she is frequently seen as a major thinker about gender, power, and the body. As we wonder what has become of old-style feminist politics and the material realities to which it was committed, it seems necessary to reckon with Butler's work and influence, and to scrutinize the arguments that have led so many to adopt a stance that looks very much like quietism and retreat.

It is difficult to come to grips with Butler's ideas, because it is difficult to figure out what they are. Butler is a very smart person. In public discussions, she proves that she can speak clearly and has a quick grasp of what is said to her. Her written style, however, is ponderous and obscure. It is dense with allusions to other theorists, drawn from a wide range of different theoretical traditions. In addition to Foucault, and to a more recent focus on Freud, Butler's work relies heavily on the thought of Louis Althusser, the French lesbian theorist Monique Wittig, the American anthropologist Gayle Rubin, Jacques Lacan, J.L. Austin, and the American philosopher of language Saul Kripke. These figures do not all agree with one another, to say the least; so an initial problem in reading Butler is that one is bewildered to find her arguments buttressed by appeal to so many contradictory concepts and doctrines, usually without any account of how the apparent contradictions will be resolved.

A further problem lies in Butler's casual mode of allusion. The ideas of these thinkers are never described in enough detail to include the uninitiated (if you are not familiar with the Althusserian concept of "interpellation," you are lost for chapters) or to explain to the initiated how, precisely, the difficult ideas are being understood. [...]

Divergent interpretations are simply not considered--even where, as in the cases of Foucault and Freud, she is advancing highly contestable interpretations that would not be accepted by many scholars. Thus one is led to the conclusion that the allusiveness of the writing cannot be explained in the usual way, by positing an audience of specialists eager to debate the details of an esoteric academic position. The writing is simply too thin to satisfy any such audience. It is also obvious that Butler's work is not directed at a non-academic audience eager to grapple with actual injustices. Such an audience would simply be baffled by the thick soup of Butler's prose, by its air of in-group knowingness, by its extremely high ratio of names to explanations.

To whom, then, is Butler speaking? It would seem that she is addressing a group of young feminist theorists in the academy who are neither students of philosophy, caring about what Althusser and Freud and Kripke really said, nor outsiders, needing to be informed about the nature of their projects and persuaded of their worth. This implied audience is imagined as remarkably docile. Subservient to the oracular voice of Butler's text, and dazzled by its patina of high-concept abstractness, the imagined reader poses few questions, requests no arguments and no clear definitions of terms.

Still more strangely, the implied reader is expected not to care greatly about Butler's own final view on many matters. For a large proportion of the sentences in any book by Butler--especially sentences near the end of chapters--are questions. Sometimes the answer that the question expects is evident. But often things are much more indeterminate. Among the non-interrogative sentences, many begin with "Consider..." or "One could suggest..."--in such a way that Butler never quite tells the reader whether she approves of the view described. Mystification as well as hierarchy are the tools of her practice, a mystification that eludes criticism because it makes few definite claims.

Take two representative examples:

What does it mean for the agency of a subject to presuppose its own subordination? Is the act of presupposing the same as the act of reinstating, or is there a discontinuity between the power presupposed and the power reinstated? Consider that in the very act by which the subject reproduces the conditions of its own subordination, the subject exemplifies a temporally based vulnerability that belongs to those conditions, specifically, to the exigencies of their renewal.

And:

Such questions cannot be answered here, but they indicate a direction for thinking that is perhaps prior to the question of conscience, namely, the question that preoccupied Spinoza, Nietzsche, and most recently, Giorgio Agamben: How are we to understand the desire to be as a constitutive desire? Resituating conscience and interpellation within such an account, we might then add to this question another: How is such a desire exploited not only by a law in the singular, but by laws of various kinds such that we yield to subordination in order to maintain some sense of social "being"?

Why does Butler prefer to write in this teasing, exasperating way? The style is certainly not unprecedented. Some precincts of the continental philosophical tradition, though surely not all of them, have an unfortunate tendency to regard the philosopher as a star who fascinates, and frequently by obscurity, rather than as an arguer among equals. When ideas are stated clearly, after all, they may be detached from their author: one can take them away and pursue them on one's own. When they remain mysterious (indeed, when they are not quite asserted), one remains dependent on the originating authority. The thinker is heeded only for his or her turgid charisma. One hangs in suspense, eager for the next move. When Butler does follow that "direction for thinking," what will she say? What does it mean, tell us please, for the agency of a subject to presuppose its own subordination? (No clear answer to this question, so far as I can see, is forthcoming.) One is given the impression of a mind so profoundly cogitative that it will not pronounce on anything lightly: so one waits, in awe of its depth, for it finally to do so.

In this way obscurity creates an aura of importance. It also serves another related purpose. It bullies the reader into granting that, since one cannot figure out what is going on, there must be something significant going on, some complexity of thought, where in reality there are often familiar or even shopworn notions, addressed too simply and too casually to add any new dimension of understanding. When the bullied readers of Butler's books muster the daring to think thus, they will see that the ideas in these books are thin. When Butler's notions are stated clearly and succinctly, one sees that, without a lot more distinctions and arguments, they don't go far, and they are not especially new. Thus obscurity fills the void left by an absence of a real complexity of thought and argument.

Last year Butler won the first prize in the annual Bad Writing Contest sponsored by the journal Philosophy and Literature, for the following sentence:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Now, Butler might have written: "Marxist accounts, focusing on capital as the central force structuring social relations, depicted the operations of that force as everywhere uniform. By contrast, Althusserian accounts, focusing on power, see the operations of that force as variegated and as shifting over time." Instead, she prefers a verbosity that causes the reader to expend so much effort in deciphering her prose that little energy is left for assessing the truth of the claims. Announcing the award, the journal's editor remarked that "it's possibly the anxiety-inducing obscurity of such writing that has led Professor Warren Hedges of Southern Oregon University to praise Judith Butler as `probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet.'" (Such bad writing, incidentally, is by no means ubiquitous in the "queer theory" group of theorists with which Butler is associated. David Halperin, for example, writes about the relationship between Foucault and Kant, and about Greek homosexuality, with philosophical clarity and historical precision.)

Butler gains prestige in the literary world by being a philosopher; many admirers associate her manner of writing with philosophical profundity. But one should ask whether it belongs to the philosophical tradition at all, rather than to the closely related but adversarial traditions of sophistry and rhetoric. Ever since Socrates distinguished philosophy from what the sophists and the rhetoricians were doing, it has been a discourse of equals who trade arguments and counter-arguments without any obscurantist sleight-of-hand. In that way, he claimed, philosophy showed respect for the soul, while the others' manipulative methods showed only disrespect. One afternoon, fatigued by Butler on a long plane trip, I turned to a draft of a student's dissertation on Hume's views of personal identity. I quickly felt my spirits reviving. Doesn't she write clearly, I thought with pleasure, and a tiny bit of pride. And Hume, what a fine, what a gracious spirit: how kindly he respects the reader's intelligence, even at the cost of exposing his own uncertainty.

Butler's main idea, first introduced in Gender Trouble in 1989 and repeated throughout her books, is that gender is a social artifice. Our ideas of what women and men are reflect nothing that exists eternally in nature. Instead they derive from customs that embed social relations of power.

This notion, of course, is nothing new. The denaturalizing of gender was present already in Plato, and it received a great boost from John Stuart Mill, who claimed in The Subjection of Women that "what is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing." Mill saw that claims about "women's nature" derive from, and shore up, hierarchies of power: womanliness is made to be whatever would serve the cause of keeping women in subjection, or, as he put it, "enslav[ing] their minds." With the family as with feudalism, the rhetoric of nature itself serves the cause of slavery. "The subjection of women to men being a universal custom, any departure from it quite naturally appears unnatural... But was there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who possessed it?"

Mill was hardly the first social-constructionist. [...] In work published in the 1970s and 1980s, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin argued that the conventional understanding of gender roles is a way of ensuring continued male domination in sexual relations, as well as in the public sphere. [...] Before Butler, the psychologist Nancy Chodorow gave a detailed and compelling account of how gender differences replicate themselves across the generations: she argued that the ubiquity of these mechanisms of replication enables us to understand how what is artificial can nonetheless be nearly ubiquitous. Before Butler, the biologist Anne Fausto Sterling, through her painstaking criticism of experimental work allegedly supporting the naturalness of conventional gender distinctions, showed how deeply social power-relations had compromised the objectivity of scientists: Myths of Gender (1985) was an apt title for what she found in the biology of the time. (Other biologists and primatologists also contributed to this enterprise.) Before Butler, the political theorist Susan Moller Okin explored the role of law and political thought in constructing a gendered destiny for women in the family; and this project, too, was pursued further by a number of feminists in law and political philosophy. Before Butler, Gayle Rubin's important anthropological account of subordination, The Traffic in Women (1975), provided a valuable analysis of the relationship between the social organization of gender and the asymmetries of power.

So what does Butler's work add to this copious body of writing? Gender Trouble and Bodies that Matter contain no detailed argument against biological claims of "natural" difference, no account of mechanisms of gender replication, and no account of the legal shaping of the family; nor do they contain any detailed focus on possibilities for legal change. What, then, does Butler offer that we might not find more fully done in earlier feminist writings? 

One relatively original claim is that when we recognize the artificiality of gender distinctions, and refrain from thinking of them as expressing an independent natural reality, we will also understand that there is no compelling reason why the gender types should have been two (correlated with the two biological sexes), rather than three or five or indefinitely many. "When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice," she writes.

From this claim it does not follow, for Butler, that we can freely reinvent the genders as we like: she holds, indeed, that there are severe limits to our freedom. She insists that we should not naively imagine that there is a pristine self that stands behind society, ready to emerge all pure and liberated. [...] Butler does claim, though, that we can create categories that are in some sense new ones, by means of the artful parody of the old ones. Thus her best-known idea, her conception of politics as a parodic performance, is born out of the sense of a (strictly limited) freedom that comes from the recognition that one's ideas of gender have been shaped by forces that are social rather than biological. We are doomed to repetition of the power structures into which we are born, but we can at least make fun of them, and some ways of making fun are subversive assaults on the original norms.

The idea of gender as performance is Butler's most famous idea, and so it is worth pausing to scrutinize it more closely. She introduced the notion intuitively, in Gender Trouble, without invoking theoretical precedent. [....] Butler's point is presumably this: when we act and speak in a gendered way, we are not simply reporting on something that is already fixed in the world, we are actively constituting it, replicating it, and reinforcing it. By behaving as if there were male and female "natures," we co-create the social fiction that these natures exist. They are never there apart from our deeds; we are always making them be there [and this is regular feminist theory]. At the same time, by carrying out these performances in a slightly different manner, a parodic manner, we can perhaps unmake them just a little. [this is not] [...]

Just as actors with a bad script can subvert it by delivering the bad lines oddly, so too with gender: the script remains bad, but the actors have a tiny bit of freedom. Thus we have the basis for what, in Excitable Speech, Butler calls "an ironic hopefulness." [...]

What precisely does Butler offer when she counsels subversion? She tells us to engage in parodic performances, but she warns us that the dream of escaping altogether from the oppressive structures is just a dream: it is within the oppressive structures that we must find little spaces for resistance, and this resistance cannot hope to change the overall situation. And here lies a dangerous quietism.

If Butler means only to warn us against the dangers of fantasizing an idyllic world in which sex raises no serious problems, she is wise to do so. Yet frequently she goes much further. She suggests that the institutional structures that ensure the marginalization of lesbians and gay men in our society, and the continued inequality of women, will never be changed in a deep way; and so our best hope is to thumb our noses at them, and to find pockets of personal freedom within them. [...] In Butler, resistance is always imagined as personal, more or less private, involving no unironic, organized public action for legal or institutional change.

It is also a fact that the institutional structures that shape women's lives have changed. The law of rape, still defective, has at least improved; the law of sexual harassment exists, where it did not exist before; marriage is no longer regarded as giving men monarchical control over women's bodies. These things were changed by feminists who would not take parodic performance as their answer, who thought that power, where bad, should, and would, yield before justice. [...] It was changed because people did not rest content with parodic performance: they demanded, and to some extent they got, social upheaval.

Butler not only eschews such a hope, she takes pleasure in its impossibility. She finds it exciting to contemplate the alleged immovability of power, and to envisage the ritual subversions of the slave who is convinced that she must remain such. She tells us--this is the central thesis of The Psychic Life of Power--that we all eroticize the power structures that oppress us, and can thus find sexual pleasure only within their confines. It seems to be for that reason that she prefers the sexy acts of parodic subversion to any lasting material or institutional change. Real change would so uproot our psyches that it would make sexual satisfaction impossible. Our libidos are the creation of the bad enslaving forces, and thus necessarily sadomasochistic in structure.

Well, parodic performance is not so bad when you are a powerful tenured academic in a liberal university. But here is where Butler's focus on the symbolic, her proud neglect of the material side of life, becomes a fatal blindness. For women who are hungry, illiterate, disenfranchised, beaten, raped, it is not sexy or liberating to reenact, however parodically, the conditions of hunger, illiteracy, disenfranchisement, beating, and rape. Such women prefer food, schools, votes, and the integrity of their bodies. I see no reason to believe that they long sadomasochistically for a return to the bad state. If some individuals cannot live without the sexiness of domination, that seems sad, but it is not really our business. But when a major theorist tells women in desperate conditions that life offers them only bondage, she purveys a cruel lie, and a lie that flatters evil by giving it much more power than it actually has.

Excitable Speech, Butler's most recent book, which provides her analysis of legal controversies involving pornography and hate speech, shows us exactly how far her quietism extends. For she is now willing to say that even where legal change is possible, even where it has already happened, we should wish it away, so as to preserve the space within which the oppressed may enact their sadomasochistic rituals of parody.

As a work on the law of free speech, Excitable Speech is an unconscionably bad book. [...] But let us extract from Butler's thin discussion of hate speech and pornography the core of her position. It is this: legal prohibitions of hate speech and pornography are problematic (though in the end she does not clearly oppose them) because they close the space within which the parties injured by that speech can perform their resistance. By this Butler appears to mean that if the offense is dealt with through the legal system, there will be fewer occasions for informal protest; and also, perhaps, that if the offense becomes rarer because of its illegality we will have fewer opportunities to protest its presence.

Well, yes. Law does close those spaces. [...] For Butler, the act of subversion is so riveting, so sexy, that it is a bad dream to think that the world will actually get better. What a bore equality is! No bondage, no delight. In this way, her pessimistic erotic anthropology offers support to an amoral anarchist politics. [...]

The great tragedy in the new feminist theory in America is the loss of a sense of public commitment. In this sense, Butler's self-involved feminism is extremely American, and it is not surprising that it has caught on here, where successful middle-class people prefer to focus on cultivating the self rather than thinking in a way that helps the material condition of others. Even in America, however, it is possible for theorists to be dedicated to the public good and to achieve something through that effort.

Many feminists in America are still theorizing in a way that supports material change and responds to the situation of the most oppressed. Increasingly, however, the academic and cultural trend is toward the pessimistic flirtatiousness represented by the theorizing of Butler and her followers. Butlerian feminism is in many ways easier than the old feminism. It tells scores of talented young women that they need not work on changing the law, or feeding the hungry, or assailing power through theory harnessed to material politics. They can do politics in safety of their campuses, remaining on the symbolic level, making subversive gestures at power through speech and gesture. This, the theory says, is pretty much all that is available to us anyway, by way of political action, and isn't it exciting and sexy?

In its small way, of course, this is a hopeful politics. It instructs people that they can, right now, without compromising their security, do something bold. But the boldness is entirely gestural, and insofar as Butler's ideal suggests that these symbolic gestures really are political change, it offers only a false hope. Hungry women are not fed by this, battered women are not sheltered by it, raped women do not find justice in it, gays and lesbians do not achieve legal protections through it.

- Martha Nussbaum, The Professor of Parody

[pynkhues]

I think the top/bottom discourse is especially funny because Louis is the only character we ‘see’ topping (w/ Armand) and is implied to top Lestat in s1x02 and most likely s1x06. The other times with Lestat are only kind of positionally suggesting that he’s bottoming. I believe that’s what we were supposed to get in the pilot but it’s ‘just’ blood drinking in that scene anyway (according the script iirc?), and the other scene where Claudia is talking to Louis in his head could be literally anything at that point.

Sometimes I get the impression that people assume Lestat is topping because they’ve associated his worst behaviors with a sexualized or romanticized dominance. Which is kind of funny to me because some of those traits in Lestat are the ones he isn’t in total control of and lead to his worst actions against people he loves- and I would argue aren’t really sexual at all for him- and I also think they’re the ones he’s most ashamed of. And then sometimes I also think there’s a weird idea that a bisexual man is “more masculine” than a gay man and masculinity must equal topping (I’m bi myself and feel like I’ve seen this idea before).

I do think the show has pretty specifically implied that Louis and Lestat's relationship was vers, but I also agree with you that the most explicit depictions of sex in this show outside of the pilot broadly have generally featured either Louis topping or it being vague enough to be interpreted any which way.

And yeah, I mean, I agree with you on the rest of your points too. I think this dynamic in particular has kind of become this weird annex point for a lot of capital-S Stuff around misogyny, homophobia, biphobia and racism that I don't even know how to begin to unpack. It's just a Lot, and the fact that nothing seems to be off limits with people arguing about it is wild to me. It's interesting to have conversations about on the one hand, but I don't know. This fandom seems especially prone to sort of like - - an aggressive take-up of particular readings?

It's been interesting to witness even in my little corner over here to say the least.

[cantquitu]

I know you may not agree with me, but to me, Sea is this vicious because her favorite WAS Harry. Reading her talk about Louis she doesn’t seem to like much of what he does or is. He creates alternate narratives for him, attributes him qualities that are inherent to Harry, and constantly gives him backhanded compliments. I have a feeling she projected herself onto Louis because she was attracted to Harry. A lot of what she says about Harry sounds like the demonizing I did when my ex broke +

+up with me to convince myself I wasn’t heartbroken. “He looks uglier than ever, sounds worse than ever. He used to make better music. He looks dead in the eyes. He can get all the sex he wants but he lost m- LOUIS, he lost Louis.” (This last one, bar my little embellishment, is something she actually said). She and her anons self soothe about how better off Louis is now without him and how Harry probably pines over him and how Harry made a last ditch effort to keep them- LOUIS, to keep Louis with Still The One, but it was too late because Sea- LOUIS, had realized his self worth by then. Once you start reading her blog like that, it all makes so much more sense. I totally believe she liked Harry more and found herself attracted to Harry and him not conforming to her ct expectations made her “break up with him.” In all of this, Louis is just a pawn. A vessel where to project. It’s why she almost never talks about him and when she does it’s all superlatives with no substance

Lol, this made me laugh. I don't know or really care about how much she is or isn't attracted to Harry or Louis. But you're definitely right in that Harry was her favourite, and her hatred of Harry now is in equal proportion to her former infatuation with him. A woman scorned, for sure.

And yeah, the projection is so intense. That Still The One break-up theory cracks me tf up...such fanfic delusion sitting next to her posts about how deluded Larries are - it's comedy gold 😂

With Louis it's that classic Larrie thing of having to invent a fanfic version of him because the real version is unpalatable to her. I think she and the other tinhats do like Louis for some of his strengths and positive traits. But they're cancelled out by other aspects of him like...uhh, being a dad, having a long term girlfriend etc etc.

It's genuinely really sad seeing how they lie about Louis to build him up. Reading the "rad" blogs you'd swear Louis was a leftist radical revolutionary armed only with a guitar, single-handedly crafting working class indie anthems without concern for commercial appeal, while feeding the needy and smashing capitalism on his lunch break.

They claim he wrote "the majority of 1D's songs", as if he was the Gary Barlow of 1D and Julian, John, Jamie and the countless other songwriters who wrote the majority of 1D's catalogue didn't exist. No wonder new Louis fans are confused as to why he doesn't just get out his guitar and play an acoustic set of new tunes for his fans. He wrote the majority of 1D's songs - he must be singlehandedly crafting bangers every day, right?! Smh

[thelittleredheadedmusician]

Holiday Cheer?

For @newsies-secret-santa I got @radioactivepigeons which is kinda funny and I thought was totally rad so please enjoy this silly fic! Words: 4,637 Rating: PG Summary: Blink got a job at Target and has to work Black Friday in the electronics department. Really things can only go up from here. AO3

Blink wanted to die. Well not literally. But if the choices were death and this? At least he wouldn’t have been miserable with the former.

He’d needed the extra cash, even though he despised the holiday season and the capitalist hellscape that it created with a deep burning passion, Blink’s laptop was about to die and there was just no way he could buy a new one and pay rent for the month. Thus, the seasonal hours he was picking up at a Target out on Long Island. Which meant working Black Friday. Joy to the ducking world. 

It was now almost three hours into his shift and he was being screamed at by his fourth Suburban Mom With Bad Highlights. Honestly? Blink was kinda numb to it at this point. In some not so distant aisle a baby wailed. Soccer Mom took a breath and Blink seized his opportunity before she could continue yelling at him.

“I’m sorry ma’am but we are sold out. Our system says that there’s three left at our West Orange location though.” 

She huffed but grabbed her cart and shoved her way out of the electronics department. 

In the aftermath, Blink allowed his faux charming smile to falter for just a second. He hadn’t been able to let it drop so far since his manager had informed him that the costumers might find his eye patch “off putting” which he would normally reply a “fuck you” to but he really needed this job.

If Blink’s ancient laptop finally bit the dust, then he wouldn’t be able to use the text to speech program that he needed to complete his readings. Because after a day full of classes, meetings, essays, research, and TA-ing he was tired. Reading was just. Not an option. He was lucky his vision held out until he got home. If his laptop died, he could kiss his long dreamt of PhD in English Lit goodbye. And Blink was one stubborn son of a bitch so that was not happening. He’d gotten this far; he could get through December.

Maybe.

Hopefully.

He had to get through today first though. And damn these people were sure making that hard. 

The baby stopped crying abruptly and a John Mulaney quote sprung to Blink’s mind. He didn’t mean to, but he mumbled it anyway, “You hope it was a miracle… but probably not.” 

A muffled snort sounded from in front of Blink and he felt himself flush with embarrassment when he looked up to see a guy standing there on the other side of the counter. A very good-looking guy. A downright hot guy with a mess of curls and what appeared to be dimples as he laughed at Blink. And oh duck. He was laughing at Blink. 

“Please tell me you were consciously aware of the fact that you were quoting John Mulaney about a baby,” Hot Guy was saying now. And god it was shitty of Blink to just completely objectify him like that but damn it was internal, barely six a.m., and what else was he supposed to call him? 

Blink smiled, for real this time, and gave a shrug. Which actually felt kinda good after having not moved from this spot since the store opened. “Can you blame me? It’s true.” 

Hot Guy laughed again, louder and longer this time and throwing his head back as he did so. It gave Blink a perfect view of his smooth, dark throat, his skin just a few shades lighter than his curls. He’d started to nod as he chuckled. “It’s true,” he was saying between laughs. And Blink couldn’t tell if he was agreeing with Blink or repeating what he’d said. 

Blink knew he was just grinning dopily him, but he really couldn’t help himself. He was practically dead on his feet and he hadn’t even had “lunch” yet here stood Blink’s dream partner. Cute, laughed at his stupid comments, knew John Mulaney quotes. Look, Blink knew it was a low bar, but you’d be surprised how few people managed to cross it. Normally it was the second point that tripped them up. 

Finally, Blink managed to come back to where and more importantly when he was. “Sorry, uh, is there anything I can help you with?” 

Th guy shook his head, his hands were shoved deep in his coat pockets and when he made a sweeping motion it pulled his unzipped coat into a sail. “Honestly? I’m just biding my time while my mom guilts my aunt into giving her the last of whatever toy my cousin desperately wants so that she can be the hero come Christmas morning.” 

“Wow,” Blink said with a low whistle. “That is some next level family drama.”

Hot Guy rolled his eyes but that smile never slipped. And thank god, Blink was pretty sure that looking at that smile for the rest of the holiday shopping season would keep him from wanting to commit a felony.

“They’re so competitive,” he was saying, “that now they have to come up with new ways to be competitive. It’s a mess. But can’t say that it makes for a dull holiday.”

He was buffeted by an overlarge man, pushing him closer to Blink’s counter and causing him to stumble. Instinctively, Blink reached out to steady him and managed to grab his upper arm. What felt like his very toned upper arm. Oh duck. Blink was so dead. He didn’t even know this guy’s name and he was already gone on him.

“Thanks,” Hot Guy said once he was steadied. He glanced to Blink’s nametag before looking back up at him with that brilliant smile. “Louis. Thanks Louis.”

“No problem,” Blink heard himself saying because that was it. Wherever Blink was now it wasn’t this plane of existence. He had no clue what he was doing or saying because internally he was just a mess of giddy screams. Pretty people just should not exist because this is what happened to Blink when they talked to him. “It’s insane in here, not your fault.” Oh duck. Had he been rambling? Man, he hoped he hadn’t been rambling.

The smile never slipped though so whatever nonsense was coming out of Blink’s mouth Hot Guy didn’t seem to mind.

Suddenly a voice cut through the chaos. “MIKEY! WE’RE LEAVING!”

His smile twisted into an apologetic wince. “That’s my mom,” Hot Guy told him and Blink was pulled none too gently back to reality. “I’ve gotta go or I will be left here. You always on electronics?” he asked quickly as he started backing away.

“Um, no just today.”

Hot Guy had reached the main aisle and was nodding. “Ok. Um, I’ll find you then?”

Blink nodded and raised his hand in a wave. Hot Guy, well apparently his name was Mikey, flashed him one last smile before sprinting towards the front of the store.

Blink meant to watch him as he walked away but a little old lady’s perm had filled his vision and when he looked down she was rather urgently holding out a stack of coupons and a flyer opened to the new iPhone. He had a few thoughts – who thought it was a good idea to let an octogenarian out Black Friday shopping at the peak of the crazy, there was no way those coupons were actually going to be accepted today, he was not authorized to sell iPhones, he did not have the patience to explain that he was not authorized to sell iPhones to her – but they all were shoved down as she started talking at him.

~

Two p.m. and the end of Blink’s shift did not come soon enough. He was due back bright and early tomorrow at seven, but luckily he was just stocking shelves the first few hours and wouldn’t have to properly think again until he had to work a register after lunch.

It was odd walking out into the bright afternoon sun after having gone into the liminal space that he now called his place of employment in total darkness. The parking lot was still full, and he squinted against the light as he searched for Sarah’s silver Toyota in a sea of silver sedans.

He finally found her at the back of the lot, seemingly talking to herself and waving her hands around as she did so. He knocked on the passenger window and she turned to beam at him before unlocking the car and continuing her conversation.

“I mean, I stand by what I said.”

“Oh, I know you do,” Katherine’s voice came out of the speakers, obviously on the other end of the call. “But that doesn’t mean it’s a viable option.”

“What are we talking about?” Blink asked. He rubbed his hands and held them up to the vent where Sarah was blasting warm air. The walk wasn’t that far but the wind had been killer.

“Murder,” Sarah said cheerily at the same time that Katherine said, “My family.”

“Ah, holidays,” Blink said with sarcasm laced cheer. The girls laughed and Blink sank further back into the seat, exhaustion finally hitting him full force.

“Ok, well I’ll let you two go. See you soon!” There was the sound of raised voices somewhere in the background and Blink guessed that Kath wasn’t just hanging up to let Blink and Sarah talk.

“Bye Kath’rine,” he mumbled.

“Bye Kath!” Sarah said brightly and then there was the weird boop of the call disconnecting. She turned to Blink – or at least he assumed she turned to him but Blink had enough seeing for one day thank you very much and so had pushed his eye patch up onto his forehead and had his eyes closed with his hands pressed over them – and started talking to him with the same enthusiasm. Which was refreshing from the faux happy of his coworkers and the misery of the shoppers but like Blink was not on that level. “So how was work?”

“I hate capitalism. And middle-aged white women. And Christmas.”

Sarah hummed as she put the car in drive and began to back out of the spot. “Yeah, best part of being Jewish? Not doing all that.”

Blink laughed. He hadn’t really done Christmas growing up, after his dad died it’d just been his mom and his brothers and him and his mom really tried but money was tight. Normally they each got a new book and just watched A Christmas Story. Which Blink really didn’t mind and he loved reading and well, he still uses the whole “You’ll shoot your eye out!” thing as his excuse when people ask him about the patch. Just says, “Ralphie was lucky, he was wearing glasses. Me… well I used to have 20/20 vision.” It made people laugh and he didn’t actually have to answer the question.

But all this Black Friday nonsense? All this “buying the perfect gift” and making it the “best Christmas ever” and trying to be a picture-perfect Norman Rockwell family just for the one day a year even though everyone knew it was a sham? Yeah, that was bullshit and a load of bullshit Blink really didn’t need in his life. But damn he needed that new laptop.

“Well thanks,” Blink said after a short silence.

“For what?” Sarah asked. They were good friends, thanks to Jack being one of Blink’s buddies from high school and Jack and Davey meeting in college and being, well, Jack and Davey and then Sarah being Dave’s sister it only made sense that they’d crossed paths freshman year and hit it off. Though they were probably the most surprised of anybody when they’d gotten so close over the next couple of years. Even then, Sarah wasn’t a mind reader and Blink had a habit of non sequiturs.

“Driving me to and from work. Especially today what with the hours. And then being willing to bring me out here every weekend for the next month,” Blink explained.

Sarah scoffed but Blink kept talking before she could start telling him how little she minded. He needed to get it off his chest.

“And for inviting me to Thanksgiving and letting me stay with you and your folks. I already thanked ‘em yesterday for it and for letting me stay the weekends but you’re driving and I’ll pay you for some of the gas once I get my first paycheck and-”

“Louis!” She cut him off and Sarah only ever called him Louis if she really needed his attention. “It’s fine! You don’t have to thank me or pay for gas! Jeez. I’m helping Les prep for his SATs and coming out every weekend anyway, it’s literally not a problem. Besides, my parents love you and since they moved out here they have the spare room. On top of all that, you’re one of my best friends, you’re always welcome at the Jacobs Family Thanksgiving, with all its insanity, and I’m more than happy to help you out in any way I can. We all are.”

Blink sighed and sat up to look at her. Sarah was glancing at him out of the corner of her eye, trying to gauge his reaction. “You’re too good.”

She just smirked and shrugged. “I mean, I’m going to make you help me help Les so really you might want to rethink that.”

Blink laughed and he could tell that Sarah was pleased with herself. She let him sit in silence for a little while longer as she turned into the development that her parents had moved to when the twins were in high school. Mr. Jacobs had gotten injured at work due to the company cutting corners and not following the proper safety protocols. They’d sued and managed to win enough that they covered the medical bills and moved to the family out of their cramped apartment in Lower Manhattan to the nice house in suburban Long Island. Now, Mr. Jacobs served on the town council and worked as a safety inspector and the house had become a weekend refuge for their children’s ragtag group of friends.

“So,” Sarah said as they neared her parents’ house, “anything that you need to curse about from today before we get home?”

Groaning and throwing his hands up in the air made her laugh but the look Sarah gave him said she wasn’t going to accept that as an answer. Blink sighed. “If I never hear a thick Long Island accent again it’ll be too soon.”

That got him a snort. “You’re friends with Spot Conlon-”

“Who has a Brooklyn accent and yes there is a difference!”

Sarah scoffed, obviously not buying it but Blink was willing to die on this hill.

“I really don’t understand what everyone needs a seventy-five-inch tv for. Honestly. And now I officially cringe anytime I see a woman with a ‘Can I Speak to Your Manager’ haircut.”

Sarah turned into her driveway and parked but didn’t turn off the car yet. “That it?”

Blink shrugged and began to nod before freezing. “Oh my god. I can’t believe I nearly forgot.”

Sarah looked concerned and he knew he must have a horrified expression.

He turned to her and looked at her seriously. “Sarah.”

“Blink?”

“I met the love of my life this morning.”

“Really.” She sounded incredulous.

“I swear to you. I am in ducking love.”

“Uh huh. You get their number?”

Blink winced, remembering his mistake from being dead on his feet when he met the guy. “No…”

“Blink!”

“Look! It was early! Like before sunrise! And I was on the electronics counter! I’m lucky I was able to speak coherent English!”

Sarah snorted but remained silent, giving him the opportunity to redeem himself.

“I got his name,” Blink told her and was rewarded with an impressed raise of the brows. “And he said he’s gonna come back another day when it’s not crazy to see me so…”

With a sigh and a shake of the head Sarah showed that he’d lost any points he got by getting the guy’s name. “So? Who is he?”

“Uh, Mikey.”

“Mikey…? What. What’s his last name.”

Blink winced. “I just know his name’s Mikey.”

Sarah gave him a blank look and turned to shut off the car and get out. Blink resettled his eye patch and hurried to follow her. “You’re hopeless,” Sarah called over her shoulder as she walked to the door.

Blink sighed and followed. “I know.”

~

Saturday passed in a blur. Thankfully it was significantly less busy and Blink actually knew the answers to all the questions he was asked but it still drained him. He practically collapsed when he got in Sarah’s car.

“Mystery Mikey show up?” she teased but Blink knew there was genuine interest in there too.

Blink sighed. “No.”

“Well you’ve got time.”

Blink just shrugged and allowed himself to doze off as they drove.

~

Sunday afternoon saw Blink climbing out of Sarah’s car so he could get his bag and climb back into Sarah’s car so she, Blink, and Davey could all get back to the city. He felt absolutely wiped from his first weekend working at Target but knew it was all because of the sales. Some not so distant part of him said that he should just get used to this though because he was working weekends all holiday season and this was just going to be his life now.

He thanked Mr. Jacobs again and gave Mrs. Jacobs one last hug and Les’s hair one last ruffle before following Davey out the door. They both threw their bags in the trunk and Dave shot him a quizzical look.

“You even pack anything? You only needed red shirts and khakis,” he deadpanned.

Blink stared at him for a few seconds. “Wow. That joke? It was so funny I forgot to laugh.”

Davey snorted and Blink responded with an eyeroll. Normally he’d have smiled but he was too tired to do much else than turn to get back in the car.

He stopped as he caught sight of the next-door neighbors’ driveway. Next to a blue Honda was a mother hugging her adult son tightly. The guy had his eyes turned skyward and seemed to be enduring her public display of affection. It looked like he was gearing up to say something to her when he saw Blink though.

That was when Blink knew. He’d thought it was Mikey, his mystery crush from Friday, but when he froze Blink knew it was him.

Mikey’s mother could be heard asking him what was wrong as he stiffly released her and then she was turning to watch him cross over the grass dividing the two driveways and walk up to Blink.

They stood there staring at each other in shock. Sarah had come out and distantly Blink heard her ask Davey what was going on and Davey mumbling something back. But Blink didn’t care because what’re the odds that he’d actually meet the guy he’d decided he’d fallen in love with again?

“What’re you doing at the Jacobs?” Mikey finally asked in awe.

“Uh, spending the holiday? They’re letting me stay here while I work too cause I live in the city. And Sarah likes me for some reason so she’s driving me around.” Blink didn’t know where the blatant honesty word vomit had come from, but he blamed the shock.

Mikey laughed. Blink could do little else but stare.

“Blink!” Sarah finally called from where she stood at the driver’s door. “What is going on?”

“This is him!” Blink gestured towards the man in front of him, hoping desperately that Sarah would understand.

“Mush? Mush is who?” Sarah obviously did not understand.

“Him! Him,” Blink implored. “The guy from Black Friday!”

“What’re you talking about?” Davey sounded tired. But Davey always sounded tired. Blink elected to ignore him and go back to grinning dumbly at Mikey.

“Hold up,” Sarah said, drawing everyone’s attention. “Your Mystery Mikey is Mush from Next Door?”

“Apparently!” Mikey, or was it Mush? Did he have a preference? Or did Blink have to earn that? Was it an inside joke?

“I’m so lost,” Davey informed them and went to sit in the car.

“Why didn’t you just say that it was Mush?” Sarah sighed. “It could’ve saved so many melodramatic sighs.”

Blink felt his cheeks heat and glanced to see that Mush had bit his lip to try and keep from laughing. Duck that was adorable.

“Um, in Louis’s defense I never actually said my name,” Mikey/Mush finally spoke up. “If I’d have thought to properly introduce myself it would’ve been as Mush Meyers but I’m guessing you and the entire store heard my mom call me Mikey so…” He trailed off with a shrug.

Sarah snorted before Blink could reply. “You actually said your name was Louis?”

“It’s what’s on my nametag! No way I’m gonna run around telling random costumers to call me Blink. And it was busy and I was distracted,” here he gestured vaguely at Mush, “so I didn’t get the chance to say that I go by Kid Blink but most of my friends just call me Blink. Only people who don’t are my mom, my professors – with the exception of Jackson but he’s my advisor – and now my coworkers.”

“And me when I’m annoyed with you or want your attention,” Sarah added.

“And Sarah when she’s annoyed with me or wants my attention,” Blink corrected.

Mush nodded, that easy smile Blink had called to mind so many times in the past couple days was back. “Ok, let’s try this again.” He held out his hand, “Hi, name’s Mush.”

Blink beamed at him and shook his hand. “Kid Blink, but you can just call me Blink.”

“I think you’re really cute and funny and I’d love to get to know you better, want to get coffee some time?”

He didn’t think he could smile any wider after a six-hour shift as a cashier but somehow Blink managed it. “I would love that.”

“Awww, cute,” Sarah interrupted.

Blink turned to glare at her, but he caught Mush biting his lip again out of the corner of his eye. He was going to make sure that Mush always stood on his good side because Blink wasn’t ever going to miss a glimpse of that face if he could help it.

“Can you exchange numbers and plan this date that way?” She continued. “Not to be pushy but I really don’t want to get stuck in traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge.”

“Brooklyn,” Blink muttered in annoyance and was surprised to hear Mush do so too.

At Blink’s raised brows Mush shrugged. “It’s this guy I know, Spot Conlon, it’s his turf.”

“You know Spot?” Blink had to pause a second. How was it this guy lived next door to the Jacobs, or his mom obviously did, and he knew Spot Conlon and Blink had met him on the worst day of the year in a ducking Target electronics department.

“Yes, yes, and I’m sure it’s a thrilling story and I’m sure you’ll discover a million more little connections because Long Island and New York City are the biggest small town in the world and everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who knows you but traffic is not going to get any better the longer we stand here in the cold,” Sarah huffed.

Dave rolled down his window. “She’s right and will only get meaner.”

“Thank you,” Sarah said primly. Davey just nodded and the window went back up.

Blink turned back to Mush to see he already had his phone out and a new contact page pulled up. He took it and put in “Kid Blink” and in the company line “Alex from Target 2.0” before typing his number and sending himself a text.

Mush laughed when he took it back and Blink smiled in triumph. “I’ll text you,” Mush said firmly and he slid it back in his coat pocket.

“Uh, actually can I call you when I get home? It’s uh, it’s um-”

“Absolutely,” Mush cut him off and kept smiling. “Whatever you prefer.”

Blink smiled back and nodded. “Ok. Cool. Thanks.”

They both stood there grinning stupidly at each other until Sarah honked the horn, obviously having gotten cold and impatient. Blink waved as he got in and Sarah backed out of the driveway, watching Mush wave back until he disappeared.

~

The next Friday when Blink slid into Sarah’s car where she pulled up outside of his apartment building, he was met with a “Hello” and a surprise hug from the backseat. Blink turned to see Mush sitting back there and grinning wildly. They’d talked nearly every day this week and had gone on their first official date on Wednesday.

“What’re you doing here?” Blink asked in awe.

“My mom wants me to help put up the Christmas lights and I remembered you saying Sarah was taking you out with her on the weekends, so I texted her and asked if she’d mind if I tagged along.”

“Obviously I said no he couldn’t,” Sarah said dryly. “He’s also been recruited into the ‘Les Jacobs SAT Prep Squad.’” She looked at him seriously in the rearview mirror and Blink knew she wasn’t joking about that. Mush just laughed and shrugged.

“If I were a better friend and a worse sister, I’d have left him drive you,” she told Blink softly.

He looked back over the seat to Mush before turning back to Sarah. “Nah, this is perfect.”

They all chatted as they neared the Brooklyn Bridge before Sarah started grumbling about rush hour traffic.

“You know,” Blink said suddenly. “You never did say how you know Spot.”

Mush started laughing and launched into the story. Blink was so swept up in it, and most importantly Mush animatedly telling it, that he hardly even noticed as Sarah cursed up a storm.

Blink might still hate the holiday season. And really hate working retail. And especially hate working retail during the holiday season. And need a new laptop. But, with meeting Mush he thought that it was all more than worth it.

[statemant]

SUNDAY STATEMANTS - NO 1

This post is a solution that I have reached few days ago – due to having almost no time to create posts daily (while I really want to share my option), I thought of making one (longer) post on every Sunday (which I have mostly free – except fashion months) and combine everything that happened in Menswear during the past week – let’s see how It works out. So,

What would be the better start for the new format than Paris Men’s Fashion Week, that has just recently finished (on Sunday according to official FHCM schedule but actually on Monday with JACQUEMUS show).

FACTS

Runway Shows: 60 (according to official schedule)

Presentations: 27 (according to offial schedule)

Total Looks: Around 3500

Yes, when you combine the numbers, there’re fascinating results – there were around 3500 looks offered – just for Men, just in Paris – that is around 12000 pieces of clothing, 3500 pairs of shoes, around 2000 accessories – a lot! Especially considering the fact that few brands produce very identical outfits (in terms of fabrics, styling, vibes) and there’s a rapidly rising competition at Men’s fashion market. Thanks god Paris is the most diversified of them all and I could name like like only 7-8 brands that does not really fit in the schedule (compared to other 50 brands) – either they look similar, or I don’t get them (my problem?).

PALOMO SPAIN   (18 June, 11:00)

The SS 2020 (that already sounds quite major itself) has started on Tuesday, 18th June, 11:00 AM with Palomo Spain (who returned in Paris after previous season’s try in NY) with some beautiful dresses – yes, you read it correctly. Designer thinks that none of the specific garments are made exclusilvey for any gender and that he sees many boys that could rock those chiffon garments – a significant part of the collection that was inspired by Pompeii.

BODE  (18 June, 12:00)

Emily Adams Bode has just recently won CFDA Award (Emerging Designer of the Year) and there she was at 12:00 AM (straight after Palomo) in Paris, sending the collection that was inspired by her family’s history as wagonmakers for Circus in the early 1900s. She literally looked at the outfits from century ago and re-made them to keep appropriate with time.

AMI   (18 June, 20:00)

My favorite Parisian house is becoming bigger and bigger every season (and it little bit worries me to be honest, strange no? Here’s why: what I always loved about AMI is that it’s one-off menswear-only brands that produces timeless men’s clothes in a very affordable prices (and in a perfect quality), everything in the collections always feels modern (with bit of a twist), the styling is always impeccable with unexpected colors combined together BUT! I kind of missed this in the latest collection, shown at Grand Palais, it felt little bit too dark and serious (especially for Summer collection), I’ve missed color and the sense of freshness. I did like what was shown, there is a lot I would wear myself (especially now when Black has become favorite of mine) but I kind of think I could find many of those pieces at other rival brands, I understand that now brand established itself and it just becomes matter of brand loyality, when you decide where to buy regular black trench coat - that’s where AMI is headed now I guess.

ACNE STUDIOS   (19 June, 15:30) 

With Ambition to Create Novel Expressions, Jonny Johansson (brand founder) presented the collection that felt little bit weird for me (a huge brand fan tbh). I totally loved the opening with beige shirt, styled with yellow scarf, but then I did not quite get printed cycling shorts, or lace insets, or pvc details (and bit more, tbh). It was kind of everything but kind of nothing notable (Luke Leith from Vogue Runway agrees), and I felt disappointed, especially after few very, very strong seasons and increasing fame (after so many years on the market). At least, some great blazers were there (thank god!).

J.W. ANDERSON   (19 June, 13:00) 

It’s a second time for Jonathan in Paris, after moving his namesake label from London (that probably made his 2 out of 3 famed iPhones busier than before). As one of the pioneers who pushed gender-fluid shapes since the very beginning of the career, designer has put signature pieces on the runway - including dresses worn by male models. Blazers and coats had wide shoulder extensions and pants included giant fringe insets. Some of the looks could be well-fitted at his Loewe (the show was day after this in the calendar) but this still feels ”harder” and more personal.

Y/PROJECT   (19th June, 14:30)

Y/Project shows feel like a hard mathematical induction, you need a time to realize the logic behind and “solve” it, or maybe you don’t. Glenn Martens once again proved that there’s no stopping of him and he is cementing the brand aesthetic with gigantic steps every single season. For SS 20 (after showing previous Menswear at Pitti) distortion and asymmetric proportions became even more solid and serious. How can you not love the incredible outerwear, tailored blazers, knitwear and jaw-dropping denim pants – each of them proving that you can combine ugly and beautiful in a very smart way. One could analyze every single look in details, but I bet it would take a lots and lots and lots of time. Additional drama was brought by Bizet's "L'amour Est un Oiseau Rebelle" in one of the Parisian churches. It’s clear that brand’s approach to clothes are not welcomed just by fashion insiders or avid trend followers anymore, it’s just for everyone who love “smart”, fashion-forward and beautiful outfits (even if most of them are everything but classic understanding of beauty). There’s always a surprise cut or detail hidden in most of the Y/Project pieces, once you buy the garment, you get the freedom and possibility to wear it on your own way – I’ve seen myself three men wearing same Y/Project pieces in a completely different way in a same day.

VALENTINO  (19 June, 17:30) 

Pierpaolo Piccioli is keeping the youthful attitude with the insertion of loud graphic prints (this time deisgned by Roger Dean) at Valentino Men’s collections (continued from previous season’s UNDERCOVER collaboration) while keeping brand staple shapes and cuts and not following any of the ongoing trends as much, even the VLTN logo was gone this time (which makes me very happy), replaced with single vintage V sign. The signature camouflage sneaker (my first ever most expensive fashion purchase back in 2012) got upgrade shown alongside with new shapes. Long live Mr. Pierpaolo!

RAF SIMONS   (19 June, 21:00)

Raf Simons clearly is not done with America. After leaving CALVIN KLEIN (end of 2018), it’s his second outing in Paris and I think he used this time to digest everything then to express all in his latest collection. It was very Raf, I feel like he was just being honest putting his feelings and thoughts as motifs (likes of: STONED AMERICA, etc) and showing that he was disappointed with America.

LOUIS VUITTON   (20 June, 14:30)

Virgil Abloh has invited guests at Place Dauphine (Remember Carrie Bradshow walking there in SATC) and offered LV branded wooden green benches, crepes and ice creams, alongside with the beautiful collection. It was clear – Virgil has settled at the house in a year, already has several signature shapes (and lots of accessories) and as he mentioned he just (or “just”) wants to present collections that will be consistent, will help more men express themselves (and he has a huge fandom in that area) and he won’t push the exact specific inspirations (remember Michael Jackson case from previous season?). Show featured some mind-blowing floral pieces (in a form of signature harness, hat and various embroidery) modern tailoring (note: the colors), lots of mixtures of work wear with formal wear and many, many bags (some really hardcore shapes). Originally, show was planned around Notre Dame, but it had to be changed due to the recent fire (although the cathedral was still present as a motif on some of the pieces). In a few words – there’s no stopping for Virgil Abloh and his “work”.

DRIES VAN NOTEN   (20 June, 16:30)

I can never describe my exact feelings about Dries. It means and express so much of everything for me. I just let clothes speak themselves – out of this world beauty, that is all things modern, masculine, sexy, sensual, rebellious, stylish - just b e a u t I f u l. Sometimes I cried…

VETEMENTS   (20 June, 20:00)

I, myself predicted year ago that Vetements could go to McDonald’s one day - and it actually happened today. Guests went to Champs-Elysees branch of the restaurant (biggest one in Paris) to see the show that did not really shock anyone but I guess still brought the excitement to them. Show featured all things Capitalism and more - re-worked famous logos (Likes of Heineken, Vodafone, Internet Explorer to name a few), police-branded bombers, signature flower prints and awkward quotes - everything VETEMENTS has became known For. After previous season’s dark extravaganza (my least favorite show of the brand), they kind of got back to the roots and put everyone’s favorite parody and sarcasm backed pieces. Does it felt new? Ofc No, but still you do not get the fashion show at McDonald’s everyday (or at all) and condom as an invitation, so the mission that means making fashion more fun and sarcastic (but still sell it expensive) was again completed. One of the most interesting quotes that Demna Gvasalia has mentioned to Sarah Mower_ is that he always wanted to have his own celebration at McDonalds since 1997, when McD has opened in Tbilisi, Georgia (and I also remember that very day like it was yesterday, how happy I was to hold Happy Meal menu in my hands there) but he could complete it oy now, in Paris. I can’t stop loving the Gvasalias, for making my country on an international map by showcasing its darkest secrets to everyone!

BERLUTI   (21 June, 13:00)

It’s Kris Van Assche’s 2nd runway show at Berluti and we kind of see where he is going - positioning brand as impeccable (quality-wise) tailor-maker with an youthful, modern touch (mostly expressed in vibrant colors of formal clothing alongside with layered styling). Featuring older models on the runway is a message that Berluti does not forget about mature customers but wants them to look modern. Despite the very strong comptetition in this particular niche (Dior Men's and Louis Vuitton Men's in the same holding as Berluti, LVMH), there's always a need for a good (and fashion-forward) tailoring.

JIL SANDER   (21 June, 15:00)

If you thought Jil Sander could not get more sensitive and delicate, here you go with latest collection, as designers Lucie and Luke Meiers (wife and husband) mentioned in an interview with Alex Badia, they are showing their vision of tailoring, how they feel about the it and offering new ways of wearing it and it just feels right! I kind of feel the duo’s takeover at Jil Sander is still underrated and they are actual creators of the modern but absolutely timeless fashion!

SSS WORLD COPR   (20 June, 11:00)

t’s a daddies world! Justin O’Shea keeps the dandy aesthetic and crazy prints on top of his brand, always showcasing at the fanciest locations of Paris - this time at Ritz, casting some really hot models who are actually various sport (boxing among them) athletes and maybe thats why all the extravagant prints felt more real and wearable than before. And I bet many of you saw the O’Shea serving the guests himself by champagne at the start and taking the bow while he was riding a bike - very casual, indeed.

DIOR MENS   (21 June, 18:00)

Mr. Kim Jones was man of the hour (or the season) once again. He killed it 3rd time. With his couture-approach to the Men’s clothing (with continuous revisiting Dior’s women archives, especially Haute Couture alongside with John Galliano creations) and collaboratiosn with the hottest creative minds of the moment, Jones is just writing down history of modern menswear. This time it was Daniel Arsham, whom Kim contacted year ago with a request and to put his unique approach to the Dior pieces. Known formanipulating and reinterpreting existing materials and structures, Arsham has clearly engaged with Dior aesthetics and we have got some really extreme accessories (with Yoon Ambush included in the work). Appears, it’s not first time for Arsham working for Dior – back in 2005, Hedi Slimane commissioned him to design Dior’ Homme’s LA flagship. Wll, I just think of time, when they let Kim Jones take over entire Dior house (with rumors on Maria Grazia heading to Fendi after SS 20 show).

GmbH   (21st June, 19:00)

Did you notice the evil eye? Hard not to! Serhat Isik and Benjamin Huseby literally decided to ”protect” models (and then customers) from the misfortune but making it look fashionable and wearable. Featuring the usual diverse and exotic casting, GmBH presented their best to date (imo) collection at the National Institute of Young Deaf People in Paris. It was all things GmbH does the best - tailoring mixed with sportswear paired with both formal and Asics collaboration shoes - and everything being as vegan as possible. Designer duo rapidly took the spot for one of the most anticipated shows at PFW and with every season they are showing a very logical development in all areas. They’ve easily made some of their signatures well-recognisable: would this be a double-zipper denim or their logo-branded pieces and now the broader introduction of accessories, they will surely strengthen their space in buyers order sheets and customers wallets - and the strange magical effect of the ”evil eye” should actually play the significant role.

SIES MARJAN   (22 June, 13:00)

Sander Lak is the latest designer to move from NY to Paris (a step that has not been effective for Proenza or Rodarte, but still works for Altuzarra) and take Opera Bastille as a location for its debut Parisian show. Starting from knitted jampsuit (season’s trend) continued with beautiful segment of beiges (denim and cotton) and colorful crocodile-effect faux leather outwear, show also included variations on zebra print. Most of the pieces felt quite gender-fluid - all the pieces that were worn by male models could be well put on 6 females that also walked the show. Except SS 2020, show also featured Fall 2019 capsule pieces that will be available for purchase now. It all felt very modern and easily wearable - everything we all need now.

OFFICINE GENERALE   (23 June, 10:00)

Peter Maheo always serves us with delightful Sunday morning breakfasts in Paris – no, there are no croissants or chocola-chauds, but some really chic Men’s clothes. I could spend entire Spring wearing the show’s opening look (mint tailored duo), or the second look, and third, and all of the 45 others. I love how Officine Generale has kept it consistent and doe not tries hard to present gimmicks that you can never wear – I just want them all!

LANVIN   (23 June, 11:00)

After all the past year’s shake-overs at LANVIN , it seems that brand is on the way to settle and reboots itself with a fresh new page. Will this become a successful book tome? Only time will tell, but the foreword looks promising. It was a first Men’s show for house’s new creative director, Bruno Sialelli (who went from Loewe) and what he presented to audience made everyone think about only one thing – holidays! Staged around one of Parisian public pools, the show featured everything (and more) you associate with holidays – nautical stripes, bucket hats, sailor collars and even sleeping bags – white and blue shades dominated. LANVIN men now also wears printed sequin dress, azur intarsia knit jacket on a naked body and lots of baggy jumpsuits – and it all feels very young and naïve.

ALYX   (23 June, 19:00)

Can we call it the coolest show of the season? It just amazes me how Matthew Williams managed to put the brand on top of the current fashion industry in such a short time. I guess the quality that you can feel all around the brand and a dedication that Matthew and her wife Jennifer Williams (who walked the show actually) put in their brand (they have moved from NY to Ferrara, Italy to oversee brand’s production in the local factories). The collection featured sharp and sophisticated shapes. Started with classy suits and quite sexy (women’s especially) looks, show continued with signature streetwear vibe, but it also felt very, very sophisticated and elegant (and that’s not wrong for streetwear, at all), outerwear was to die for - crocodile effect rubber-like coat just nailed it!

CELINE   (23 June, 20:00)

With the second standalone Men’s show under the label, Hedi Slimane has presented “nostalgia for things I probably have never known” (read embroidery on a tote bag). It was classic Hedi (and it’s now a definition of particular style, not a single designer aesthetic), classic 70’s but felt still modern for me (and many argue on that). There’s clearly a huge market for what he is doing and with Saint Laurent making shifts to detach itself from Hedi (and CELINE as a brand), sales should be heading to the desired peak (LVMH plans to double brand sales with the help of Hedi in a short time).

JACQUEMUS   (24 June, 17:00)

Do we need to say anything more on this show?

- - -

it was a season of SS 2019 (in June 2018) that made a huge breakthrough in Menswear – that was when Kim Jones and Virgil Abloh both had a debut seasons at Dior and Louis Vuitton and when Raf Simons returned to Paris – the craze that you could feel in Paris those days was insane, that was when everyone agreed that Menswear has its notable importance and it’s only gonna rise with every new season – with SS 2020 being fantastic continuation for that.

Oh and almost every designer mentioned how they are trying to be more sustainable, nature-friendly, gluten-free, etc…

[jacktherph]

Do you have any other good ideas for settings for rpgs? Like New York is done and I’d prefer something new :)

omg nonnie do i

i totally agree. while manhattan is probably a really nice place idk i’ve never been it’s very overused in rpgs. as is chicago -- and i’m from there, there’s only so much you can do after a while and people don’t even write about the interesting parts

in the end it all depends on the type of rpg, so i’ll list some locations for city rpgs in the usa if that works for you

but here also is a l i s t of underused locations by my great friend @thalsrph if that can help as well

cities :

st. louis, missouri: called “the gateway to the midwest” for a reason. while the city part isn’t so large, the surrounding neighborhoods are extremely culturally diverse and there is actually a lot of old history in some of those neighborhoods

seattle, washington: in the last decade seattle has boomed economically. take advantage of the close proximity to canada and the local islands

washington d.c.: not just for political rpgs!! a bustling capital

santa monica, california: rather than setting in l.a. set here instead for sand, surf, and sun. there’s even an amusement park nearby

chicagoland, illinois: basically this is just everywhere that isn’t the usual tourist hubs like michigan ave and the loop. the south side of chicago has the university of chicago -- a perfect university rpg setting. also, the ‘burbs of chicago extend so far out within the reach of the metra trains and it’s a really undervalued setting

i really hope these work for you anon!! if you have a more specific (or less specific) criteria, like places outside the us, feel free to hit me up again!!

[tysonbearie]

this weeks newsletter is here!! this week the spotlight shines on the underdogs

Weekly Recap:

Last Man In voting has concluded, and the winners are forward Jeff Skinner (Atlantic), forward Gabriel Landeskog (Central), defenceman Kris Letang (Metropolitan), and forward Leon Draisaitl (Pacific).

The IIHF World Junior Championship ended with a 3-2 regulation gold medal victory for Team Finland. Team USA was awarded silver; Team Russia took home bronze.

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Kings hosted “90’s Night,” during which they used glowing pucks. The glowing pucks originally debuted in 1996, but were later discontinued at the end of the 1997-98 season.

The Montreal Canadiens announced on Monday that goalie Carey Price would be opting out of All-Star Weekend. Price is currently recovering from a lower-body injury and the organization felt he should take the time to rest instead. He will be replaced by goalie Andrei Vasilevskiy of the Tampa Bay Lightning.

All-Star Weekend will be hosted by the San Jose Sharks January 25-26. The NHL has partnered with Adidas to produce eco-friendly jerseys made from marine plastic waste materials. The jerseys will feature team logos for the first time.  

On Tuesday, Mike McKenna became the seventh goaltender to start for the Philadelphia Flyers this season. McKenna was claimed from waivers last week from the Ottawa Senators, after being previously acquired (by Ottawa) in a trade with the Vancouver Canucks.

The Blue Jackets have issued a statement as to why they opted to sit goaltender Sergei Bobrovsky; Bobrovsky apparently acted in a way that the organization did not agree with that is unrelated to his upcoming free agent status and they will not be saying anymore about the incident. Bobrovsky and the organization have since ‘cleared the air,’ and Bobrovsky may start against the Capitals on Saturday.

Rick Nash will be retiring from professional hockey after 15 seasons. Nash’s agent released a statement on Friday that cited lingering concussion symptoms and post-concussion syndrome as the reason for his sudden departure.  

Play of the Week:

On Sunday, forward Jesse Puljujarvi of the Edmonton Oilers beat out goaltender John Gibson of the Anaheim Ducks with an absolutely astounding no-look backhand pass. It was by no means a pretty play, but it was impressive in its execution. The Oilers went on to shutout the Ducks 4-0 in their own arena.

Players to Watch:

Goalie Jonathan Quick of the Los Angeles Kings recently became the 5th American born goalie to tally his 300th career win. Quick has 300 wins and 58 overtime (OT) losses in 576 games played so far in his career. He has started in 30 games this season, winning 7.

Defenceman Robert Bortuzzo of the St. Louis Blues has tallied 1 goal and 5 points in 24 games played this season. He has a career total of 13 goals and 47 points in 300 games played. Bortuzzo recently signed a three-year contract extension with the Blues.

Forward Travis Konecny of the Philadelphia Flyers has 11 goals and 24 points in 44 games played this season. He has a career total of 46 goals and 99 points in 195 games played. He was selected in the first round of the 2015 NHL Draft (24th overall). In his rookie season (2015-16) Konecny was awarded the E.J. McGuire Award of excellence by the NHL; this award goes to the prospect who “best exemplifies the commitment to excellence.” He is the first recipient of this award.

Prospect Watch:

Forward Alexandre Fortin, who went undrafted in 2015, has 2 goals and 5 points in 14 games played this season with the Rockford IceHogs of the American Hockey League; he has 3 goals and 6 points in 24 games played this season with the Chicago Blackhawks of the NHL. Fortin played for the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League from 2014-17, during which he accumulated 52 goals and 135 points in 173 games played.

Defenceman Philippe Myers, who went undrafted in 2015, has 7 goals and 24 points in 36 games played this season with the Lehigh Valley Phantoms of the American Hockey League. Myers played for the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League from 2013-17, during which he accumulated 29 goals and 92 points in 203 games played. Myers was also a part of Team Canada during the 2016-17 World Junior Championship, though he was taken out early due to a concussion; the team went on to place second and bring home silver.

Defenceman Jeremy Lauzon, drafted 52nd overall by the Boston Bruins, has 1 goal and 6 points in 18 games played with the Providence Bruins of the American Hockey League this season; he has 1 goal in 15 games with the Boston Bruins of the NHL. Lauzon played for the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League from 2013-17, during which he accumulated 35 goals and 130 points in 200 games played. Lauzon was also a member of Team Canada during the 2016-17 World Junior Championship; he tallied 2 goals and 1 assist in 7 games played.

Team of the Week:

The Detroit Red Wings, an Original Six team founded in 1926, who are currently 8th overall in the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference and play out of Little Caesars Arena. The team was originally known as the Detroit Cougars form 1926-30; they were the Detroit Falcons from 1930-32. In 1932, they changed their name to the Red Wings. The Red Wings have won the most Stanley Cups (11) of any NHL franchise in the United States, most recently in 2008. The Wings previously played in the historic Joe Louis Arena from 1979-2017. They have the very distinct and recognizable tradition of throwing an octopus on the ice for luck during playoff games. The NHL has yet to successfully prevent this from occurring. Notable alumni include Brett Hull, Steve Yzerman, Ted Lindsay, Sergei Fedorov, Gordie Howe, and Nicklas Lidstrom.

Outside the NHL:

The National Women’s Hockey League All-Star Weekend will take place at the Bridgestone Arena in Nashville February 9-10.

The Canadian Women’s Hockey League All-Star Game will take place at the Scotiabank Arena in Toronto on January 20.

The American Hockey League All-Star Classic will be hosted by the Springfield Thunderbirds January 27-28.

Weekly Thoughts:

From fistfights between teammates, to frankly dangerous slashes aimed at opposing players, to players yelling at coaching staff during games, to CEOs taking cheap shots at top performers, frustrations are piling up this season. Perhaps after All-Star Weekend teams will be rested and ready to go.

The St. Louis Blues can’t seem to catch a break this season. The Blues are currently 6th in the Central Division of the Western Conference and it’s taken its toll on the team. On December 10, defenceman Robert Bortuzzo and forward Zach Sanford exchanged blows at practice.

On January 11, Florida’s Keith Yandle delivered a horrifying slash to the stick of Calgary’s Sean Monahan, barely missing his arm/hand. Monahan had just released the puck for what became the game winning empty net goal.

On January 9, forward Nathan MacKinnon of the Colorado Avalanche took his frustration out on coach Jared Bednar on the bench. MacKinnon later apologized and Bednar said that it hadn’t bothered him at all.

In December, Dallas Stars CEO Jim Lites had some choice words about the Stars top scorers Tyler Seguin and captain Jamie Benn. Lites called their performance ‘f-cking horsesh-t.’ When asked Benn responded “I don’t play for him. I play for every player in this room, the coaching staff.”

It’s clear that struggling teams are becoming increasingly frustrated as the season continues. Every team wants to compete for the Stanley Cup, but not every team has had the season they hoped for. With the trade deadline fast approaching, we might see some big moves from the teams at the bottom of the league. There have already been some big names appearing in trade rumors this season, and it’s going to be interesting to see how accurate those rumors are. It’s also going to be fun watching teams start to prepare for next year with new acquisitions.

Hopefully these teams will hit their stride and start performing better this season, but if they don’t there’s always next year.

Weekly Vocabulary:

Man-Advantage: When one team is penalized, and one of its players is sent to the penalty box, the second team maintains a man advantage for the duration of the penalty (major penalty) or until a goal is scored (minor penalty). If two penalties are called on one team there will be a two-man advantage. If more than two penalties are called on one team the man advantage is limited to two men. If both teams are penalized, there is no man advantage; it becomes a four-on-four.

Empty Net: When a team pulls their goalie in order to have six skaters (a man advantage).

Extra Attacker: A player who has been substituted for the team's goaltender on the ice.

Too Many Men: When one team has too many men on the ice during a shift change.

Own Goal: The act of a team unintentionally shooting the puck into their own net instead of their opponent's. For statistical purposes, the last player on the opposing team to touch the puck is awarded the goal.

Scrum: When players from both teams are piled up against the boards/goal posts, shoving and hitting at each other.

Delay of Game: Deliberately causing a stoppage of play; player is penalized with a minor penalty.

Coach’s Challenge: If a coach disagrees with a call on ice, he is able to challenge the call. This results in a video review of the play; if the coach was right and the call on ice was wrong, the goal is overturned, if the coach is wrong and the goal stands, that coach loses the ability to call a time-out.

Turnover: When the team in possession of the puck gives it up to the opponent; alternatively, the team who does not control the puck can force a turnover by ‘stealing’ the puck mid pass, or by taking it directly from the opposing player’s stick.

Face-Off: The two teams line up in opposition to each other. One player from each team attempts to gain control of the puck after it is dropped by an official between their sticks onto a face-off spot on the ice. A face-off starts every game and occurs throughout the game after every stoppage of play.

Weekly Trivia:

The Calder Memorial Trophy (not to be confused with Calder Cup of the American Hockey League) is awarded annually to "the player selected as the most proficient in his first year of competition in the National Hockey League." The winner is selected by the Professional Hockey Writers’ Association at the end of the regular season. Players are eligible for the Calder only if they are no more than 26 years old by September 15 of their rookie (first) season. The Calder Memorial is dedicated in memory of former NHL President Frank Calder, who bought a trophy every year to present permanently to the outstanding rookie of the season. The award is now kept in perpetuity. The Toronto Maple Leafs lead all teams with 10 players who have won the Calder.

Weekly Standings:

Eastern Conference

Metropolitan Division

Washington Capitals -- 58 points

Pittsburgh Penguins -- 56 points

Columbus Blue Jackets -- 53 points

Atlantic Division

Tampa Bay Lightning -- 70 points

Toronto Maple Leafs -- 58 points

Boston Bruins -- 54 points

Western Conference

Central Division

Winnipeg Jets -- 58 points

Nashville Predators -- 58 points

Dallas Stars -- 50 points

Pacific Division

Calgary Flames -- 62 points

San Jose Sharks -- 59 points

Las Vegas Golden Knights -- 58 points

*Note: Information was obtained prior to 12pm on Saturday January 12. Information occurring after the 12pm deadline will feature next week.