#i want portrayals of women going through actual struggles

[farmhandler]

I think the thing that irritates me about Yor is the same thing that irritates me about Demon Slayer's Kanroji. Both of them are "abnormally strong" women, but they are both completely conventionally attractive (but of course with big tits!). Neither of them have any particular muscle definition, sometimes Yor is drawn "straining" like with veins?? And even if there are maybe some scenes that I haven't seen where she has a muscular moment, overall she is cute woman who strong.

[makingqueerhistory]

Queer Books Challenged in Florida Schools and Libraries

There are some affiliate links below in case you want to support MQH.

Gender Queer: A Memoir, Maia Kobabe: Now, Gender Queer is here. Maia's intensely cathartic autobiography charts eir journey of self-identity, which includes the mortification and confusion of adolescent crushes, grappling with how to come out to family and society, bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction, and facing the trauma and fundamental violation of pap smears.

The Color Purple, Alice Walker: Separated as girls, sisters Celie and Nettie sustain their loyalty to and hope in each other across time, distance and silence. Through a series of letters spanning nearly thirty years, first from Celie to God, then the sisters to each other despite the unknown, the novel draws readers into its rich and memorable portrayals of Celie, Nettie, Shug Avery and Sofia and their experience. The Color Purple broke the silence around domestic and sexual abuse, narrating the lives of women through their pain and struggle, companionship and growth, resilience and bravery.

Julián Is a Mermaid, Jessica Love: While riding the subway home from the pool with his abuela one day, Julián notices three women spectacularly dressed up. Their hair billows in brilliant hues, their dresses end in fishtails, and their joy fills the train car. When Julián gets home, daydreaming of the magic he's seen, all he can think about is dressing up just like the ladies in his own fabulous mermaid costume: a butter-yellow curtain for his tail, the fronds of a potted fern for his headdress. But what will Abuela think about the mess he makes -- and even more importantly, what will she think about how Julián sees himself? Mesmerizing and full of heart, Jessica Love's author-illustrator debut is a jubilant picture of self-love and a radiant celebration of individuality.

Drama: A Graphic Novel, Raina Telgemeier: Callie loves theater. And while she would totally try out for her middle school's production of Moon over Mississippi, she can't really sing. Instead she's the set designer for the drama department's stage crew, and this year she's determined to create a set worthy of Broadway on a middle-school budget. But how can she, when she doesn't know much about carpentry, ticket sales are down, and the crew members are having trouble working together? Not to mention the onstage AND offstage drama that occurs once the actors are chosen. And when two cute brothers enter the picture, things get even crazier!

Cemetery Boys, Aiden Thomas: Yadriel has summoned a ghost, and now he can't get rid of him. When his traditional Latinx family has problems accepting his true gender, Yadriel becomes determined to prove himself a real brujo. With the help of his cousin and best friend Maritza, he performs the ritual himself, and then sets out to find the ghost of his murdered cousin and set it free. However, the ghost he summons is actually Julian Diaz, the school's resident bad boy, and Julian is not about to go quietly into death. He's determined to find out what happened and tie off some loose ends before he leaves. Left with no choice, Yadriel agrees to help Julian, so that they can both get what they want. But the longer Yadriel spends with Julian, the less he wants to let him leave.

I Am Billie Jean King, Brad Meltzer: This friendly, fun biography series focuses on the traits that made our heroes great--the traits that kids can aspire to in order to live heroically themselves. Each book tells the story of one of America's icons in a lively, conversational way that works well for the youngest nonfiction readers and that always includes the hero's childhood influences. At the back are an excellent timeline and photos. This volume features Billie Jean King, the world champion tennis player who fought successfully for women's rights. From a young age, Billie Jean King loved sports--especially tennis! But as she got older, she realized that plenty of people, even respected male athletes, didn't take women athletes seriously. She set to prove them wrong and show girls everywhere that sports are for everyone, regardless of gender.

This One Summer, Mariko Tamaki: Every summer, Rose goes with her mom and dad to a lake house in Awago Beach. It's their getaway, their refuge. Rosie's friend Windy is always there, too, like the little sister she never had. But this summer is different. Rose's mom and dad won't stop fighting, and when Rose and Windy seek a distraction from the drama, they find themselves with a whole new set of problems. One of the local teens - just a couple of years older than Rose and Windy - is caught up in something bad... Something life threatening. It's a summer of secrets, and sorrow, and growing up, and it's a good thing Rose and Windy have each other.

Marriage of a Thousand Lies, Sj Sindu: Lucky and her husband, Krishna, are gay. They present an illusion of marital bliss to their conservative Sri Lankan-American families, while each dates on the side. It's not ideal, but for Lucky, it seems to be working. She goes out dancing, she drinks a bit, she makes ends meet by doing digital art on commission. But when Lucky's grandmother has a nasty fall, Lucky returns to her childhood home and unexpectedly reconnects with her former best friend and first lover, Nisha, who is preparing for her own arranged wedding with a man she's never met.

And Tango Makes Three, Peter Parnell: At the penguin house at the Central Park Zoo, two penguins named Roy and Silo were a little bit different from the others. But their desire for a family was the same. And with the help of a kindly zookeeper, Roy and Silo got the chance to welcome a baby penguin of their very own.

More Happy Than Not, Adam Silvera: In the months following his father's suicide, sixteen-year-old Aaron Soto can't seem to find happiness again, despite the support of his girlfriend, Genevieve, and his overworked mom. Grief and the smile-shaped scar on his wrist won't let him forget the pain. But when Aaron meets Thomas, a new kid in the neighborhood, something starts to shift inside him. Aaron can't deny his unexpected feelings for Thomas despite the tensions their friendship has created with Genevieve and his tight-knit crew. Since Aaron can't stay away from Thomas or turn off his newfound happiness, he considers taking drastic actions. The Leteo Institute's revolutionary memory-altering procedure will straighten him out, even if it means forgetting who he truly is.

Melissa, Alex Gino: When people look at Melissa, they think they see a boy named George. But she knows she's not a boy. She knows she's a girl.

Melissa thinks she'll have to keep this a secret forever. Then her teacher announces that their class play is going to be Charlotte's Web. Melissa really, really, REALLY wants to play Charlotte. But the teacher says she can't even try out for the part... because she's a boy.

With the help of her best friend, Kelly, Melissa comes up with a plan. Not just so she can be Charlotte -- but so everyone can know who she is, once and for all.

A Quick & Easy Guide to Queer & Trans Identities, Mady G, Jules Zuckerberg: In this quick and easy guide to queer and trans identities, cartoonists Mady G and Jules Zuckerberg guide you through the basics of the LGBT+ world! Covering essential topics like sexuality, gender identity, coming out, and navigating relationships, this guide explains the spectrum of human experience through informative comics, interviews, worksheets, and imaginative examples. A great starting point for anyone curious about queer and trans life, and helpful for those already on their own journeys!

This Book Is Gay, Juno Dawson: This candid, funny, and uncensored exploration of sexuality and what it's like to grow up LGBTQ also includes real stories from people across the gender and sexual spectrums, not to mention hilarious illustrations.

Little & Lion, Brandy Colbert: When Suzette comes home to Los Angeles from her boarding school in New England, she's isn't sure if she'll ever want to go back. L.A. is where her friends and family are (as well as her crush, Emil). And her stepbrother, Lionel, who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, needs her emotional support. But as she settles into her old life, Suzette finds herself falling for someone new...the same girl her brother is in love with. When Lionel's disorder spirals out of control, Suzette is forced to confront her past mistakes and find a way to help her brother before he hurts himself--or worse.

King and the Dragonflies, Kacen Callender: Twelve-year-old Kingston James is sure his brother Khalid has turned into a dragonfly. When Khalid unexpectedly passed away, he shed what was his first skin for another to live down by the bayou in their small Louisiana town. Khalid still visits in dreams, and King must keep these secrets to himself as he watches grief transform his family.

It would be easier if King could talk with his best friend, Sandy Sanders. But just days before he died, Khalid told King to end their friendship, after overhearing a secret about Sandy-that he thinks he might be gay. "You don't want anyone to think you're gay too, do you?"

Sorted: Growing Up, Coming Out, and Finding My Place: A Transgender Memoir, Jackson Bird: An unflinching and endearing memoir from LGBTQ+ advocate Jackson Bird about how he finally sorted things out and came out as a transgender man.When Jackson Bird was twenty-five, he came out as transgender to his friends, family, and anyone in the world with an internet connection. Assigned female at birth and raised as a girl, he often wondered if he should have been born a boy. Jackson didn't share this thought with anyone because he didn't think he could share it with anyone.

The Black Flamingo, Dean Atta: Michael is a mixed-race gay teen growing up in London. All his life, he's navigated what it means to be Greek-Cypriot and Jamaican--but never quite feeling Greek or Black enough.

As he gets older, Michael's coming out is only the start of learning who he is and where he fits in. When he discovers the Drag Society, he finally finds where he belongs--and the Black Flamingo is born

Explore the full list here.

[spacephobos]

I've got so much I want to say about Polite Society. But I refuse to post anything too spoilery yet.

So one thing I will say is the way Lena's depression and mental health is written is incredible. So often when men write women with mental health issues they write this sort of "prettily struggling" womsn in a spiral.

(this infamous queens gambit scene comes to mind)

They're never allowed to actually be ugly or gross or even not have their hair and makeup be perfect.

Like beth here is in a pretty frilly top shes reclining in an uncomfortable fashion. Her makeup looks perfect and he cardigan is prettily draped over her shoulders. She's meant to be attractive. Her sadness is almost fetishised.

but then Lena looks like this

Whereas Lena's a WRECK. It's considered an achievement she showered. AND shes proud of herself for that small acomplishment. Shes angry. She destroys her work. She's dressed in sweats and pyjamas with either no makeup (if i remember correctly) or makeup that looks like it's been on for days. There's a scene where shes wandering aimlessly and just buys a duck to eat. And she does not eat it daintily or prettily (and no its not a chicken ppl seem to be confused).

I love that she spends all the first act in hoodies and pajamas looking like shes not washed in 3 days. It's just so good to see a woman direct another woman with depression. There's so much to be said about the male gaze and how it even impacts the portrayal of women going through crisis. The removal of that lens has created what I will argue is the most authentic experience of depression in a woman I've maybe ever seen. I literally cannot think of another time I've seen that.

Anyways Nida Manzoor I love you.

[bookishdaze]

Welcome To The Monkey House

I swear I didn't mean to write this much. I only wanted to know the title of the novel, but noooooo. I just had to overanalyze this single moment in the movie.

Remember this book Mae picks up?

I had to squint at this shot for longer than I'd like to admit. I could only see the author's first name, and I struggled to pick up the last name when Trevathan said it. Forget about making out the actual title. Fortunately, after a bit of digging, I found it! It's 'Welcome To The Monkey House' by Kurt Vonnegut. Very fitting, given Mae's circumstances. Welcome to the monkey house indeed, Mae, haha!

The book is a collection of 25 short stories, one of which is actually titled 'Welcome To The Monkey House.' Kurt Vonnegut is known for weaving satire and science fiction into his stories that explore themes and his criticisms of war, religion, science, and politics.

And so, like any normal, sane person would do, I whipped out my tinfoil hat and read the story with my POTA goggles on and tried to find any connections and similarities to Kingdom. Here's a link to a free PDF version for anyone curious.

First, a very quick summary.

Warning: It features sexual assault and a questionable portrayal of women. That's the 60s for you.

Earth is facing an overpopulation problem with 17 billion people. The world government decides to tackle this problem through two methods. One is through Ethical Suicide Parlors where people go to volunteer to be put to sleep. The other is the government mandating everyone take ethical birth control pills, which make one numb from the waist down. People are still able to reproduce, but the pleasure of sex has been taken away.

Nancy is a hostess at one of these parlors, and she's told by the local sheriff there's a criminal called Billy the Poet who is known for kidnapping hostesses and forcing them to have sex with him. He's a nothinghead, which is someone who doesn't take the ethical birth control pills. They're called nothingheads because they are "bombed out of their skulls with the sex madness."

Billy succeeds in kidnapping Nancy, waits for the effects of the ethical birth control pills to wear off, and takes her virginity. However, the story portrays this assault as a necessary evil. Billy's previous victims actually help him with kidnapping Nancy because they're grateful and understand why he did what he did to them. Billy is remorseful about what he did to Nancy, but he does it because he believes the law is wrong and this is the only way to make others understand.

It ends with Billy giving Nancy a bottle of normal birth control pills that will allow her to feel pleasure and not reproduce. The label on the bottle says Welcome to the Monkey House.

Okidoki! Now lets overanalyze this baby. I'm no Vonnegut expert, and I've only read this single story of his, so any Vonnegut enthusiasts will have to forgive me for any inaccuracies, lol.

Before I continue, I'm not saying this is necessarily what the filmmakers intended. They most likely included the book because of the title and they thought it was clever. The other most likely reason is that both Kurt Vonnegut and Pierre Boulle, the latter who is the author of the original Planet of the Apes novel, were writers who used scifi to explore themes of science and religion in their books. However, where's the fun in the simple answer? JOIN ME IN MY DELUSION!

Nancy Reminds Me Of Mae

Okay, kinda? They're two vastly different stories, but let me explain.

Both Mae and Nancy have been raised to believe the government is right on how to solve humanity's main problem, even if it's wrong. Mae believes the world belongs to humans and not apes, and will do whatever it takes to complete her mission that will help put humans back on top. Nancy believes nothingheadedness and sex are to blame for the world's problems, so people should follow the law and take the pills that strip them of their pleasure.

Mae and Nancy dislike people from another group. Mae has been raised to fear and hate apes. Nancy's disdain for nothingheads is apparent when after the effects of the ethical birth control pills had worn off, she tells her captors, "I may be a nothinghead now. But that doesn't mean I have to think like one or act like one."

Finally, Mae and Nancy's worldviews start to change after their encounter with a person from the other group. Mae believed apes are to be feared and despised, but meeting Noa challenges those beliefs. Nancy is shocked to learn that the women who helped Billy kidnap her had gone through the same thing, foreshadowing that Nancy's beliefs will change just like theirs. Both Mae and Nancy don't completely switch sides by the end, but seeds of doubt have been planted in their minds, and with time, will come to understand that what they've been raised to believe is wrong.

Welcome To The Monkey House Meaning

Okay, remember that label with the phrase Welcome To The Monkey House on the normal pills? Let me explain the reason for that.

The story explains how the ethical birth control pills were originally used on monkeys. The creator of the pills had decided to take his eleven children to the zoo's monkey house after church on Easter, but was appalled to find monkeys...um, well, playing with their little rocket, if ya know what I mean. This led him to create these pills for the monkeys so that visits to the monkey house are more appropriate. Now humans are mandated to take these same pills or risk jail.

So when Bill gives Nancy a bottle of normal birth control pills with the label Welcome To The Monkey House, it sounds like a call to join the other side. For Nancy to join the nothingheads. Join the ones that are seen as sick with sex madness, when in reality it's just normal human sexuality. The phrase suggests the nothingheads are like monkeys, inappropriate and out of control. Comparing other groups of people to animals is a common way to dehumanize them and portray them as evil, but in 'Welcome To The Monkey House,' the real dehumanization is stripping people of their sexual pleasure, an integral part of being human that is also observed in many animals, including monkeys and other primates.

Now if I were to continue drawing parallels between Mae and Nancy, the phrase Welcome To The Monkey House would quite literally mean just that for Mae. Mae would join the monkeys. Well, in this case, the apes. Through her relationship with Noa, she'll realize humans and apes are the same, and that she is no better or worse than this other group she sees as animals.

Okay, I'm Done.

One last thing. This part made me chuckle. Both Mae and Nancy are capable of choking people and breaking their necks, apparently!

[dearweirdme]

Hi Rain, I've seen some discussions about RM being bisexual because of this recent album. Specifically, in his song "Nuts," he says, "She's a pro rider" and then goes on to say, "He's a pro rider," which, you know, is basically talking about sex. So, I can honestly see where people are coming from. Especially since last year we saw him with that one guy a lot, and then mysteriously one day he decides to delete everything related to him on Instagram. But I digress.

So, my question to you is, why do you think Tae and JK aren't more vocal about their sexuality? The main consensus I've seen online for a while is that tkk (or any ship, really) can't come out or be more vocal because it could cause issues with the group or that Korea is still very homophobic. But then you have RM and Yoongi, who have been pretty vocal about liking both men and women... So, I just don't really understand it.

Hi anon!

I haven’t had the chance to do a deep dive into Namjoon’s lyrics yet.. so I can’t say much about my thoughts on those yet (doing some renovations on my house.. which are going very much Namjoon style 😂… and is quite time consuming..). From what I’ve gathered from the Minimoni interview is that Namjoon went through a lot. I think going through a breakup might have been part of that, but I also think it was probably much more than that. He mostly talks about struggling with being himself because of having been RM from BTS for so long. I think Namjoon’s struggle to get to himself and everything that entailed coming to that point is what the album is about. Maybe his sexuality is a part of that? But I don’t think that is the part that he felt the need to share the most.

So why aren’t Jk and Tae more vocal? I actually think Tae is sharing a lot. Maybe not through his lyrics, but to me the clear portrayal of queer couples in Fri(end)s was pretty huge, as was him wearing that pride Disney hoody. And there’s way more things that Tae has done that would/could indicate his feelings towards queerness all throughout the years. I think we should probably separate the idea that Tae and Jk coming out as a couple and them showing their individual sexualities are the same thing. I find the possibility of them (mostly Tae though) coming out as queer after enlistment much more likely than them announcing their relationship (and even then I don’t think it would be a hard coming out, but rather more freedom to incorporate queerness in their work (mv’s, songs). To me it’s more like a loosening of the restraints than total freedom I suppose.

In general though, I think what matters most is whether someone actually wants to share those parts of their lives. I don’t think either Namjoon or Yoongi have been clear about their sexuality in a way that makes it clear to a broader audience that they are queer. For instance, no media outlet has picked up on it (for as far as I know). I don’t think they have that freedom, but I also think they might be hesitant to make statements that huge at this moment in time themselves. The way Namjoon spoke in the Minimoni episode to me made clear that there’s so much he had to keep inside (not specifically about their sexualities, but possibly including that) it felt like a burden. Namjoon seems to have the strong urge to share some parts of himself that he could not share before as RM from BTS. He was representing the group as a whole and their songs and interviews also had to represent the group as a whole. I think there was little room for individuality. Now for some this was a struggle (Namjoon, Tae (I think), Yoongi (perhaps)) but I think others felt differently. I think Jk doesn’t feel the need to share his personal struggles and battles the way some of the other members did (at least not at this point in time.. can’t say how he would feel in the future). The way Jk spoke about Golden to me felt like he was keen to try out new things, to see what he could do and what he could accomplish, but I did not feel like Golden was his way of expressing his feelings and emotions and his own life story… neither did I feel that was something he was interested in doing but didn’t have the chance to. I think Jk very much wants to keep his personal life personal.

In general.. I don’t think we can assume that every queer artist also wants to share that part of themselves with the whole world. Sk being homophobic is a part of that ofcourse, but speaking about sexuality can also just be something a person themselves just doesn’t want to make public for all sorts of reasons.

[invested-in-your-future]

Can't really do racism subplot well without redeeming Adam

Disagreed.

First of all, will have to talk about my personal pet peeve with the WF subplot.

RT, WHY are y'all treating ACTIVIST ORGANISATION as something that has a clear-cut structure and leadership???

Why even do "Oh well our LEADER changed and now we are literally terrorists, I guess. Let's make some cool masks and go attack some schools."???

That's…now how ANY of this works.

Why is every single WF member a faceless evil redshirt? Why are the only "good" people there directly connected to Blake or her family? Why does whether a faunus is "good" or "bad" often depend on approval of or connection to lead cast?

EVEN IF Adam is exactly the same as he is in the show and EVEN IF we do the absolutely dumb slippery slope "activism to terrorism" plotline with Sienna's addition(and removal, LOL, can't prominent powerful woc or even just prominent powerful women, really), that kind of rhetoric shouldn't affect the whole WF. Activists aren't generally cults or hiveminds. Sure the rhetoric will attract a bit of following, but that also would not really be WF as a whole. Remember, WF in Remnant is something worldwide. Is the show implying that all marginalized minorities are just waiting for a chance to "lash out"? Or that racism isn't real and people get manipulated into believing it is by "their leaders"?

The writing for White Fang and for overall even the idea of oppression in Remnant reeks of like, those kinds of dudes who rant about how "all this radical activist behavior is not what the peace loving MLK would have wanted" - the kinds of people who genuinely believe "Antifa" or "BLM" are actual definitive organizations rather than set of ideals or a slogan and that Civil Rights were "won" by merely defiantly smiling at bigots or something (I am actually quite sure that's how Miles and like view it, considering how Ghira in the past is written), which even goes against literal Remnant lore considering Great War and Faunus supposedly literally winning themselves a continent through death and bloodshed (the fact that the said continent is portrayed as basically tropical resort paradise ain't helping too). Even the main cast constantly employ violence since its in part an action show(or used to be).

To get back on track, Adam being or not being a "good person" should in no way affect the writing of WF arc as a whole. The portrayal of Faunus struggle overall shouldn't hinge on singular character. It can be an aspect of it, but the idea should by all means not be limited to a single individual (especially) villain.

The idea of oppression, of racism, of inequality is bigger than a single character. Its bigger than a single character can change or steer or "solve". Adam being good or bad can't change how society overall treats Faunus, Adam wanting or not wanting to do something can't define how marginalized people respond to bigotry and Adam being possibly thwarted/defeated won't just end racism or people acting out against it, whether its protesting or something bigger. Adam could be someone shaped by direct bigotry or he might not be! A person does not have to only stand against bigotry when they personally were affected by it in a direct physical way. Because its not just "direct physical way". Racism EXISTING alone is enough to make it permeate everything within society. To tie it solely to physical harm or violence is to fundamentaly misunderstand what it is. Misunderstanding like that leads to basically the "oh racism has been ended because we no longer have slavery!" kinds of takes. In reality there's no "win condition" against it. Just eternal struggle to push back against oppression and discrimination.

Whatever story does or doesn't do with Adam, whatever he does or doesn't do shouldn't instantly change the status quo of oppression itself. Because its not his story. Correlation isn't Causation. Adam being part of oppressed group SHOULDN'T lead to Adam horrifying crimes or being abusive. There are essentially TWO Stories - one dealing with racism in Remnant and one dealing with Adam. One story might have might overlap with the other, but they are VERY different and conflating them is dangerous in terms of messaging. The common point is that both stories SHOULD be stories of Blake growing to be her own person, so it should connect to Blake's ideals and beliefs. Basically him being an antagonist to her is FINE. What IS needed is an actual character arc for Blake, progression of her worldview and beliefs. If it leads to her facing and defeating him? That's fine and actually a logical progression for her (and yes Yang too) and in fact I firmly believe that was always going to happen. Adam was always going to be her Gaston that limits her path. He is dangerous and terrifying and powerful and deceptive and he is part of trauma and memories that haunt her and he caused indefinite amount of hurt to her and people she cares about. The story shouldn't diminish him into a Team Rocket Villain and instead should treat him as an actual threat. Not because he's part of WF, but because of the personal and traumatic experiences his character causes and what his personality and toxicity means. And what's more important the story SHOULDN'T conflate consequences of oppression and racism with perpetuation of abusive behavior. Sure in real world the nature of systematic racism and cycle of violence can be complicated with the idea of generational trauma, but the way the show dumps both into each other, it creates this false perception that marginalized minorities have all been "conditioned to be violent" which leads to the weird centrist kinds of takes how "pushing back against racism is as bad as racism" because oh no reverse racism. The messaging becomes not that racism is bad, hurts, diminishes and damages people and people should be equal but that racism is bad because "the scary minorities will murder everyone because muh horseshoe". Adam The Absuive Ghost of Blake's Past is her personal conflict, Adam Who Leads the WF is the conflict of her ideals - they are not the same even if they are embodied by the same person. And facing him SHOULD NOT BE the end for her journey and SHOULD NOT BE the end for the overall struggle with racism in the setting.

TLDR:

Adam being an evil and dangerous villain is fine as long as Blake were to get a proper character arc and the exploration of inequality, racism, bigotry, etc, extended way beyond these two characters and doesn't end in some "omg we been looting" nonsense monologue.

The show COULD HAVE done BOTH an arc of Blake fighting back against Adam's influence(and both her and Yang dealing with trauma tied to him) and control over her AND also acknowledge that the overall matters of systematic (and personal) racism and the way it affects people and the paths they take is WAY MORE complex than "oh no I got hurt then did activism and now I blow up schools"

The Show Fails at writing both characters (Blake literally has no character arc, be it it exploration of bigotry against faunus, her traumatic experiences with Adam or her complicated relationship with Yang) and the show fails at writing and depicting a bigger issues of the world those characters live in.

[walks-the-ages]

For the "Critical enjoying" anon, you'll have to wait a bit, as I finally put in the effort to actually make a Twitter account so I can specifically reach out directly to Martha Wells and ask her some questions about her works, and point of the previously -posted about transphobia and biological essentialism present in the works, and how to change it.

Because it boils down to this:

1) is a work bigoted because the author is deliberately baking that bigotry into their work to send a specific message, like Jkr's Antisemitism, transphobia, racism, etc?

Or is it because the author just genuinely didn't know about/ realize those elements were in their work and had already taken steps to correct their portrayal in later installments after learning more about the topic and becoming aware of more societal issues they never considered before?

Is there bigotry in a work because this is a belief the author strongly believes in and wants the audience to feel the same, like Miraculous Ladybug being written by 45 year old white men who have already shown themselves to be predators-- Winny drew and publicly posted porn of the main child characters to his Twitter with no repercussions and is still a party of this show as of August 2022,

,the entire point of Adrien's character is to brainwash young girls into thinking being the target of sexual harassment is romantic, the racism and objectification of Asian women in the show, etc,

Or is it because the creator simply didn't know that these problems and concepts even existed until someone brought it to their attention?

Like. Cis people do not go around thinking about gender, at all. Gender and sex to them are literally one and the same with zero distinction

They just accept it as a fact that Physical sex characteristics = gender, and it's not until they meet or have discussions with trans people or become aware of their struggles that they even realize they've had these preconceived biases to begin with.

I know this because I've had multiple conversations about being queer with older, cis, straight coworkers who were genuinely supportive of queer rights, they just have zero grasp on any of the basic concepts. And I mean zero. Zilch. Nada.

They support their trans cousins but use the wrong pronouns and say "identify as" until it's explained that "no, they don't identify as a male, they are a boy, and you should be showing your love and respect for him by referring to him as such even when you're not directly talking to him-- especially when you're not even directly talking to him, because that's the only way you're going to actually change your perception of him and actually use the correct pronouns and name for him when you're face to face, you have to practice and study pronouns, it's not supposed to be a pop quiz every time you see him so you end up fumbling your words and misgendering him and deadnaming him, all completely by accident because you don't think about it until you're face to face".

And then they realize "oh hey you're right, I never thought of it like that before. All of this is so new to me! I'll try to do better next time I see him."

Like. Most of the other trans people in the Murderbot fandom haven't even noticed the issue @rjalker first pointed out until it's... Pointed out.

Most people are literally not even thinking about the fact that all bots and constructs use it/its pronouns, because they're too caught up in the fact that characters are using neopronouns at all, so if the widely-trans fanbase hasn't noticed the issue, how do you expect the author to even realize its an issue?

Plus there's the fact that if you scroll through her Twitter account...She's literally reblogging All these news articles and posts celebrating queer Identities, encouraging people to vote the whole ballot to make sure anti-LGBT laws are not unanimously passed by republicans, encouraging everyone to help stop anti abortion laws being passed, raising up Native and Black and Asian voices in the right against racism, the most recent being that people are predicably being super racist, specifically anti-Native about the new Predator movie that came out August 5th 2022, aka literally just four days ago as of me typing this post.

Oh, and actively signal boosting queer authors whose books are actively trans and queer (which is why I am now going to see if my library's ebook section has "The Jasmine Throne" by Tasha Suri!)

TL;DR:

There is a world of difference between enjoying the works of Martha Wells, who has had some problematic elements in her work that have been course-corrected over the years as she learns, just like literally any random person off the street is not an immediate expert on oppression,

versus

people like the ML creators and JKR who are actively targeting their audience with bigotry to normalize it and show it as correct AND further profiting off their bigotry to go on and continue pushing their incredibly dangerous and harmful agendas.

[thelesbianpoirot]

I don’t understand how you can say you’re a certain sexuality but then not interact with the other person’s genitals at all during sex…or not have sex at all, I don’t understand. Like maybe I’d be classified as a low libido bottom but I still want to do things to women and with women cause I’m attracted to them and it feels good and I want them to feel good? I think some of these asexual lesbians just want close female friendship, or a lifelong female friendship in which they are affectionate in a way you might be with a sibling or close friend and they think that’s the same as being a lesbian? Like I understand the whole oh let’s hold hands and go on a picnic stuff because that is cute and romantic but if you’re attracted to each other wouldn’t you also want to have sex with each other? If not it seems like you just want a wholesome and close friendship which is totally understandable but doesn’t make you a lesbian

Me too anon. I can't make this any clearer. I understand certain sex, i.e penetration being to strenuous and invasive for some gay people. Some lesbians don't enjoy dildo penetration or fingering. Some gay men are very much against bottoming or topping anally. That is intensive sex that require preparedness, safety and commitment to keeping things clean/fun. I can understand that. But you can't look at pussy directly and desire it enough to put your mouth on it, desire to touch it, to watch as you bring a woman to orgasm, please reconsider if lesbianism is right for you. There is a difference of preference, and disgust/disinterest. I am fine with female centered celibacy, I think in this world women should have full control of our bodies and not be pressured to conform to the wishes of others. We are not things to be used. However, I think female celibacy is being mistaken as lesbianism. It is being made synonymous with lesbianism. So quite a few women with no sexual desire for women are hijacking our community once again. It is alienating lesbians who do want to fuck, like my high libido is one of the reasons why I considered transitioning to be a man, like I felt freakish sexually desiring women on the level I do. It felt masculine and gross. Portrayals of lesbianism I saw never represented raw sexual desire, unless it is through a male lens (two straight actresses performing for the camera) or family friendly neutered-married lesbian celebrity. You go on a dating app, talk to a girl for two months, she never wants to meet up and have sex. She's using the lesbian dating app to try to find lasting female friendship, someone to share her daily struggles with and that is nice all but it makes me feel like a creepy dude on there like "Do any of you actually like pussy?"

"But I am not attracted to men" yes, honey that is the first thing to question, however, lesbianism is female exclusive sexual attraction to other females. If you don't experience this, consider that you aren't a homosexual, and should in fact stick to trying to find lasting female friendships. I try not to be mean, because I am blessed enough to live my roommate, and best friend of 10 years. We go on bar/dinner dates together, celebrate each other's birthdays, her family is my family and when she has a child, she even considers raising it with me, if she isn't married to the father. I love this relationship. But my friend also wouldn't touch another woman's pussy with a ten-foot pole, and I have needs. I love the closeness, but there is something really missing to consider this a lesbian relationship, and it is physical intimacy. I need physical intimacy with a woman, that is a healthy lesbian desire.

No disrespects to low libido lesbians, who have a specific type of woman who can turn them on, or only want to fuck once a month for a few hours, or lesbians who would never consider hooking up with a strange woman online, I respect your boundaries. You are lesbians. What I don't respect is women running from pussy like it's the plague. Calling into the date sick when ask to return the favor and eat some pussy. Draft dodging the pussy!

[singofsolace]

Thoughts on CZJ in Feud: Bette and Joan

I’m making my way through Feud and I can’t for the life of me understand why Olivia de Havilland sued over the writing of it and Catherine Zeta-Jones’ portrayal of her.

After all, apart from episode 5 and a small bit of 7, she’s no more than a narrator in this story…? Or is that what Olivia was really upset about, if she were honest with herself? Because there’s nothing controversial about the role or the portrayal at all, in my opinion, except that it’s a bit...I don't know...safe? Boxed in? Repressed, like the woman herself?

Don’t get me wrong—Catherine Zeta-Jones as Olivia is beautiful and graceful and calm and all the rest, but CZJ does so little to expand on Olivia's character, it becomes a bit one-note (which, when playing a real person, I can completely understand erring on the side of caution, even though that didn't keep her from being sued in the end anyway!). Objectively, I think, CZJ wasn't playing the role in a flashy or exciting way... so what on earth is so objectionable about CZJ portraying Olivia as a good friend to Bette and a calm, glamorous pillar of strength, who sweeps in either to offer support or to save a production in the midst of high drama...?

What alternative did Olivia have in mind? Did she want CZJ to wild out? No, obviously not, since she apparently sued over the use of the word “bitch” and being portrayed as a “petty gossip.” But in my mind, they wrote Olivia in the most neutral and inconsequential way possible, and I’m frankly shocked that she tried to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court…? And not for nothing, I didn't see Olivia as a "petty gossip" in this show at all; I saw her simply as a narrator (perhaps an unreliable one, as we know she was firmly in Bette's corner, but a narrator nonetheless).

If Olivia wanted to claim damage to her reputation, at the ripe old age of 100, she would need to prove that CZJ's portrayal of her did actually cause her significant financial or emotional harm, and I don’t see how she could possibly be harmed by one of the most beautiful women on the planet—an Oscar-winning actress herself, no less—portraying the role of Olivia de Havilland as a good, loyal friend, who understands the feud between Bette and Joan because she has her own going on with her sister. Which is factual…?! Like, the part that dances around a darker part of Olivia's character is true, and is only touched upon occasionally in the show. It's also always told from Olivia's perspective, so of course the audience is on her side, and we never get too deeply into any perceived unkindness she may or may not have visited upon her sister...? Like when she claims to have never broken her sister's collarbone, we trust that she's telling the truth, because it's framed as one of the many lies her sister has told about her in their own feud.

(For the record, I looked that part up later, because I was shocked by the accusation that Olivia would break her sister's collarbone, and wanted to know if there was any truth to it, and subsequently discovered that at the time Joan Fontaine's collarbone got broken, it was, by Joan's own admission, because she was trying to drag her sister into the water by the ankle, and Olivia fought back against her, and that was how her collarbone broke, in the struggle.)

Anyway, I thought I was going to eventually understand what all of the fuss was about, but I’m on the last episode and I really can’t fathom why Olivia de Havilland would sue when far worse defamation of character happens weekly to celebrities on SNL, and as far as I know, the writers and actors on that show rarely get sued for it, because there are measures in place to protect the right to free speech, which includes parody/performance.

And I cannot stress enough that Catherine Zeta-Jones wasn't doing a parody; at no point did I ever get the feeling, as a viewer, that CZJ was telegraphing disdain for the woman she was playing, or that the audience wasn't supposed to be on Olivia's side, or wasn't supposed to trust her word or motives. The only thing I think bears any weight is Olivia objecting to the documentary/interview style of her "character's" scenes, because that presents those scenes as if they were factual, when they're not. But anyone with half a brain would be able to tell this is a fictionalized account of what happened...?

What if the Queen had sued the writers of The Crown for misrepresenting the show as a factual retelling of her life? Of course it's not factual. We all know that the show is historical fiction, and the private conversations we see between the King and Queen never happened, or if they did, we certainly wouldn't know everything that was said behind closed doors...? The audience accepts that there are parts of the show that are true and can be fact-checked, and other parts that are there to drive the story forward and heighten the drama. That's why it's clearly acting, and not defamation...?

In the end, I just think it's silly for Olivia de Havilland to have made such a fuss over CZJ's portrayal, when it was clearly never intended to be disrespectful or controversial...? If anything, her character on the show was meant to be a foil to Bette and Joan, showing a woman who remained classy and respectable in the midst of her own feud with her sister, rather than hateful and destructive...?

[biglisbonnews]

Finn Wolfhard on Playing a Narcissist in 'When You Finish Saving The World' Twenty-year-old actor Finn Wolfhard Zooms into our call from NYC's swanky Park Lane Hotel, wearing a vaguely iridescent purple button-down that shines as he thoughtfully reminisces on the complicated journey of playing the corny and egocentric character Ziggy Katz in When You Finish Saving The World. The film is actor-turned-writer-director Jesse Eisenberg’s directorial debut, hitting select theaters on January 20. The indie coming-of-age tale is clever and flippant, exploring the boundaries of lived and idealized politics through satirical, self-mocking characters whose blinding narcissism repels those closest to them. Wolfhard plays the delusional folk-rock music influencer, opposite Julianne Moore, his do-gooder mother, Evelyn, an NPR-and-Chopin-listening counselor who runs the local women’s shelter.Related | Finn Wolfhard Reacts to Millie Bobby Brown Saying He's a Bad KisserThe project began in 2020 as an audiobook, which was then expanded into a shrewdly understated feature script, with Wolfhard reprising his Audible role on screen. Produced by Emma Stone and Dave McCary, the film made its first splash at the Sundance Film Festival last year.Eisenberg’s signature dry wit and allegorical mini-scenes take the blundering characters on misguided misadventures, often ending in cringe-worthy scuffles. “I’m going to be rich and you’re going to be poor,” Ziggy shouts at his mother. Self-absorbed and deluded, Ziggy struggles to pick up on his peers' cues (or really anything happening in the world around him). In stark contrast, Wolfhard offers kind and articulate insights into the project, where he gave a stand-out performance — perhaps solidifying his career and proving his talents can translate to complex and character-driven roles.This will no doubt be a career-defining year for Wolfhard. Besides starring in this film, Wolfhard hopes to witness the release of his pet project (co-directed and co-written with WYFSTW co-star Billy Bryk), he continues to write and perform music with his band The Aubreys and he's gearing up to shoot the final season of Stranger Things.In a conversation with PAPER, Wolfhard shares what it was like playing the infuriating Ziggy and expands upon what happens after the climactic and ambiguous final scene of the film. Read our interview with the actor below.Ziggy is a really compelling portrayal of the chronically online, teenaged demographic. Where did you draw inspiration for this role?You'd be surprised how many kids my age are like this and have this skewed idea of who they are because of how powerful social media can seem when you're on it, but then when you're in your real life, it actually doesn't really mean anything. Do you relate with Ziggy at all? Are there aspects of his character you find in yourself?Definitely. I relate to his need to perform and find human connection. I find him to be a very funny character. I also have pity for him. I feel sad for him. I'm sort of laughing with him. But also, I want to kill him. I want to slap him in the face. And I've been trying to strike a balance between someone that you might hate but also someone you feel pity for. I also found him really likable at times. He's charismatic and self-assured. I know music is also really important to you in your off-camera life. How was it to play a character that shared your love for music?I was so pleasantly surprised that Jesse Eisenberg and Emile Mosseri, the composer, let me run wild with some of the songs. Jesse wrote the lyrics. Emile wrote the music. And at least for the song "Pieces of Gold," which starts and ends the movie, they just gave me the project file and were like, Alright, sing over it and add whatever instruments you want. It was so cool to be able to improvise a few songs in the film and write the music to one of the songs.That sounds so fun.It was so fun. For [Eisenberg and Mosseri], it added a level of authenticity to the role because I was making music in character. It made me feel more comfortable playing the character, too, because music has always been something that I do for myself. l can just escape to it. And Ziggy feels the same way. You have a long history as Mike Wheeler from Stranger Things. How was the transition from your character Mike, who cares so deeply about his friends and the people around him, to Ziggy, who, at times, really struggles to see outside of himself?Yeah, and he can't seem to care for anyone but himself. I cared about Ziggy almost as much as Mike cares about his friends. Someone who's loyal to themself to a fault. And the reason why he's so self-absorbed and obnoxious is that he doesn't really know how not to be. He's been in a house where he's not been supported in what he's been doing. All he wants is his mom to respect what he does. And it makes him so mad that she doesn't.And on top of that, he has this skewed view of himself, because on the internet, he's so loved, but then in real life, no one really cares about him. And so that comes out as a defense and an arrogance, because, in his mind, if no one's gonna be his champion, I guess he has to be. He actually is capable of caring for people, he just has a really weird way of going about it and at times doesn't know how. By the end of the film, he realizes that the world is bigger than him and that his mom actually does something really amazing. I was just going to ask you about what happens after the cameras stop rolling. There are a lot of conversations about wanting to be political versus actually doing the work to be political. And then there's this open-ended final scene. Does Ziggy end up doing "the work?" Should he do the work?By nature, Ziggy isn't very political. He likes making songs. He likes making money and being a capitalist. And his mother Evelyn has been trying to make him someone that he's not for years. But his mother realizes that he can't be who she wants him to be and that he actually does something pretty cool.He wants to be [political like his mother] deep down, but maybe that's just not who he is. But he can try. By the end of the film, he actually has more respect for his mother and social justice than he thought. And it gets him to think about what amazing things his mother has done. To me, after the cameras cut, there's the meet-in-the-middle thing where they both realize that they have been misguided and wrong for so long. It's a really beautiful end to a really self-centered movie.Are there any larger takeaways you had from working on this movie and existing in this world for so long where politics and identity are really at odds with each other? What did you learn from these characters?It's given me more empathy toward people. Anyone, including myself, that has said something selfish, or acted selfish, or done something wrong, or was arrogant or whatever: I've found more empathy [for them]. It's given me more humanity and more than anything has made me sad for people that are so lost.What was your favorite part about working on this project?I loved the crew so much, every single one of them. And working with Jesse as a director, he really got me as a person and as a performer. That made me feel really good. Jesse really humanizes being an actor. There's a lot of people that like to have acting be some mysterious thing and Jesse's just like, "Listen, we're all really scared and neurotic idiots and we're just trying to make stuff that we identify with and teaches us something about ourselves and other people." Also, acting with Julianne Moore every day and getting to act with one of the best people and best living actors was just the best. She really let me try stuff and vice versa. We had so much fun. My favorite scene to film was the scene where we're screaming at each other in the kitchen. I just remember thinking, This is so fun.You got to let loose a little bit.Exactly! We were really working some stuff out.Do you have any projects coming up? What’s next for you this year?Well, I directed a film. It's called Hell of a Summer. I co-wrote and co-directed it with Billy Bryk, who plays Kyle in When You Finish Saving The World.That's incredible. Congratulations!Thank you so much. So hopefully that comes out this year. And then I get to shoot the last season of Stranger Things which I'm really excited about. I haven't read anything yet, but I'm so excited.Is that like going back to camp?Basically! Yeah, it does really feel like that. Next is the last season so I guess that's like the graduation.Photo by Beth Garrabrant https://www.papermag.com/finn-wolfhard-saving-the-world-2659280745.html

[tailsrevane]

[comic & movie review] superman: red son

“i don’t blame those among you that fear me, for you’ve been taught to fear all your lives. and if you learn nothing else today, learn this. we in the soviet union do not oppose the citizens of the united states. we only oppose the government that oppresses you. our sole desire is for peace and equality among all men.”

superman: red son (comic 2003) writer: mark millar artists: various

superman: red son (movie 2020)

i mean, you knew i’d have stuff to say about this one. let’s not kid ourselves.

to dispense with the obvious, no this isn’t a fair portrayal of the soviet union. not that that’s necessarily ever going to be the point of a superhero story, but look at how your average superman comic treats the united states. clark’s entire deal is “truth, justice and the american way.” you don’t get a lot of pages devoted to imperialist aggression or mass incarceration. also like, yeah i’m not about to pretend the soviet union was perfect, but the version of “history” on display here is like victims of communism memorial foundation-level propagandizing.

the movie inherits a lot of the same problems as the comic, and even at times portrays some of the more problematic distortions of history in even more vivid detail… but in a lot of ways it’s actually drastically better until it isn’t???

for one thing, superman’s dedication to actual communist principles is demonstrated much more effectively through changes both small and massive. like, his public appearance early in the story is just some random demonstration in the comic, but in the movie it’s the unveiling of a new hydroelectric dam that superman helped build. and when he’s given what he considers an undue amount of credit for the project’s success, he actively pushes the credit back on to everyone who was working with him. and throughout the film, we see him earnestly expressing actual communist ideals.

quite a bit is also done to humanize superman in the film. we see flashbacks to his childhood, which is completely absent in the comic. and we also get quite a bit more fleshing out in his relationship with wonder woman, which is way better than the comic… until it isn’t. but we’ll get back to that. supes and wonder woman meet, immediately form a bond, supes assumes wondie wants him to bed her and she’s like whoa hi no when he goes to kiss her, and he’s actually relieved??? and she says “i come from an island of all women. work it out for yourself,” which is just an incredible line, thank you for that! and the two agree to become friends and their relationship becomes even warmer from that point on.

honestly, if you look at superman as an actual expression of the highest ideals of communism struggling against some of the internal contradictions that–combined with western interference–ultimately doomed the soviet union, this would be a good movie up until that point. yeah, there were some pretty wild distortions of history to set up that conflict, but it’s not completely wrong?

it’s… also not completely clear to me how he got from there to having dissidents turned into cyborg slaves. that jumped out less as weird in the comic because everything was weird and wrong, but it was kind of funny that early in the movie i basically said out loud “i wonder how they’re going to get from here to the whole cyborg slave thing” and they just… there wasn’t a “getting there.” it was just like, “oh, okay, we’re doing this now.” i guess the writers of both the comic and movie think it’s just a natural thing to put in your warped communism metaphor and there’s no reason whatsoever to explain it. i don’t know. it’s just kind of hilariously bad.

even at this point, superman isn’t entirely demonized by the movie? he refuses brainiac’s urging to invade the u.s., and it isn’t until the u.s. attacks with their reverse-engineered green lanterns that he responds. and after defeating the lanterns, he goes right to the white house, right to lex. right to the heart of the problem.

oh, let’s talk about this movie’s incredibly strange brand of, uh, “feminism”?

when superman announces his intentions after rescuing metropolis from the falling satellite, lois demands “what about women?” and like, hey lois? i think if we applied a fine-tooth comb we might find one or two or ten thousand ways in which the u.s. was far behind the soviet union in that department at the time?

it’s a totally fair thing to fight for within the revolution, but an absolutely ludicrous thing to try to use to discredit it from the outside. and like… wonder woman, like superman, devolves into a total caricature of herself late in the movie and fully like 90% of her lines become about how men are evil and it’s just… it’s just weird. and uncomfortable. and not earned by the narrative at all.

honestly, even though parts of it are just ridiculously bad, even the latter portions of the movie could be read as a metaphor for how decisionmaking in the soviet union became increasingly centralized and the average person became disengaged with the revolution, until eventually they could only watch helplessly as the soviet union was dissolved, the revolution ended, with no recourse but to try to live in a world that suddenly had one fewer beacon of hope.

superman was right when he and his comrades built that dam. we don’t need a single hero we can look up to to solve all our problems, we need to solve them together. and that’s why no matter what, we will keep fighting.

comic: c-rank movie: b-rank

[wixiany]

I've been reading through the byler tag a lot in the last two days. One thing that really makes me stop is Mike and what his sexuality could be. On one hand, there is his whole relationship with El, then there is always the possibility of bisexuality. But what I've read in the tag and the byler master slides and now fully believe is that Mike is actually gay but heavily repressing it all. If it proves to be true, then Mike will be the best portrayal of comphet I have ever seen in media. And even if it is not confirmed, in my eyes, it is clearly there.

You could argue that it is just my interpretation, and that is fine. But for some context why I relate so much and think the comphet is so obvious: I grew up in a tiny town, in a country where nobody talked much about lgbt stuff as I was growing up. My parents never told me about it. I had no idea liking women was an option. I figured out I was a lesbian when I was 19. And the thing is, I have always had a crush on some guy. I picked the first one in kindergarten and then had one all the time. But in retrospect, I can now recognize signs that I always liked women more. But I simply didn't understand it. Every girl around me was getting boyfriends, talking about boys and crushes, so I always had one too. But to be fair, I did kind of like those boys. They were smart and funny and nice to talk to. Some I never talked to more than once. I was a kid. I didn't even think about stuff like kissing and such. Until the intimacy became a real option and I panicked, but more to that later.

Here, I think of Mike and El. I'm sure others have explained it better than me. She's there, he helps her. He cares about her, he thinks it could be love. She is the one who usually initiates and he goes with it. It's what's expected of him. And he might have been excited at first, which is perfect comphet to me. That's comphet. You are so brainwashed by everything you've been seeing your entire life that you think that's it. But then Mike gets a bit older, the relationship gets more demanding, more intimate (I'm not sexualizing them, you know what I mean) and suddenly we see him getting all stiff with the kisses. I've been through this too, when I was still figuring myself out. I went on a couple of dates with this guy and when we hugged it didn't feel right. When he asked to hold hands, I did, because I thought that after a month of chatting and three dates that was something you should do. And when he wanted to kiss me on the second and the third date, I couldn't. I literally said a quick goodbye and fled to my car. That day I texted him I just didn't feel the same and to stop going out, but inside I finally knew that I was never going to be comfortable doing anything like that with a guy. But it took me 19 long years to figure that out because of comphet.

So no, I wouldn't say that it's far-fetched to think that Mike and El were just a childhood romance that was never going to last. You grow up and you change, find yourself. Maybe I'm projecting and totally wrong, but if you struggled with comphet, I would guarantee that you can see yourself reflected in Mike. Not to mention the way he treated Will after he arrived in Cali. It was very odd to his character. Unless you look at it with a similar lense. He isn't ready to accept who he is. For plethora of reasons. It is definitely a narrative choice to have him acting like that.

I would say that a casual viewer would not really pick up on this stuff, but a queer viewer? Oh, we do. It actually makes me tear up reading some other theories and such because to me, it is there. That comphet, that inner struggle with accepting who you are versus who you are supposed to be, what your parents and friends expect you to be.

Or it's queerbait and I'm reading too much into this. It's late, idk.

[applesauce365]

9 out of 94

I've watched 94 Kdramas so far, I truly liked 9 of them. Here they are

• Flower of Evil (악의 꽃) : A melodramatic suspense thriller, this drama is one of a kind. The plot is anything but clichéd. This series shows how the society looks at a convicted criminal's family and those with not-so-common mental illnesses. Lee Joon Gi's character Do Hyun Soo had antisocial personality disorder (seemed like psychopathy to me) yet he made me cry during numerous scenes. I mean, how can one NOT love Lee Joon Gi?! The tension was nerve-wracking. I was so hooked I finished all 16 episodes within 2 days. Cha Jiwon and Do Hyun Soo's love story was a heart-wrenching one yet it was so beautiful. I personally feel like what Cha Jiwon had for Do Hyun So, was the ultimate portrayal of my idea of love. The way she loved him and stood by him whether he was Baek Hee Sung or Do Hyun Soo and how she never gave up on him, on their family- it was beautiful, reaaallly beautiful.

• Dear My Friends (디어 마이 프렌즈) : Realistic yet beautiful and sentimental. I'm moved. Friends with different stories, struggles, aging ordeals, heartaches and illnesses bravely faced their own realities, laughed, cried and worked through the challenges, together. Even Wikipedia says that "The stories between friends in their last years of life, people who say some words like "It is not the end, we're still alive"" in the synopsis. This drama made wonder about life a lot. I found out that Namjoon had recommended this drama after I had already finished watching it months ago- but it felt good, I don't know why, though.

• Birthcare Centre (산후조리원) : This drama is about motherhood, but in a realistic way. There are mothers from different walks of life, some are first time moms some have 2 kids already. Some are young some are not. Celebrity moms and regular moms. These very different women meet in a postpartum care centre and it's beautiful. This is a tribute to every parent out there, especially the mothers. They really go through a lot to raise kids. It covers the mental and emotional journey of a mom after giving birth. As someone who has always wanted to be a mother and hoped to raise her own kids someday, I loved this drama.

• Navillera (나빌레라) : This drama has a few things in common with Dear My Friends, which is one of the reasons why I chose to watch this drama in the first place. It was also great to see a male ballet dancer (who are called 'ballerino', btw) being the protagonist for a change. I had to present a project on Alzheimer's disease and it's genetic component last year. I instinctively studied Alzheimer's and made a cool project. I even discussed Alzheimer's with my assessor quite matter-of-factly. I actually looked up some case studies on Alzheimer's and dementia but I had never felt what an Alzheimer's patient probably feels, so closely. I loved the message, dreams don't have an age bar and that you're never to old to be happy. The best 명대사 has to be “죽기 전에 나도 한 번은 날아오르고 싶어서” by 심덕출.

• When the Camellia Blooms (동백꽃 필 무렵) : This drama had  romance, comedy and suspense, all the key elements. I've laughed and I've cried while watching this drama. Personally, I've always admired Gong Hyo Jin. Even the character she played of a single mother, Oh Dongbaek was flawlessly awesome. And of course, Kang Haneul! His character was adorable! Motherhood, fatherhood, childhood, love, sacrifices, humility, kindness, simplicity, good music, good acting, lovely elderly characters, social media addiction, lack of money, whole lot of money plus unsuccessful marriage - you'll find it all here. To top it all off there's a serial killer they gotta find! This drama tells us that social status doesn't matter. You can have a dream, you can fall in love. Age, class nothing matters.

• The Fiery Priest (열혈사제) : Crime and Comedy. It's like the chocolate-caramel cake that I love! The comedy part gives you a chance to breathe and takes you away from the overwhelming emotional scenes and the intense action. Also, playing the kickass, unconventional character of Kim Hae Il, Kim Nam Gil seemed super cute, of course I had a crush on him! But his character was a priest. Am I in trouble, God? His action scenes are superb with his amazing kicks and stunts he did himself.

• Doctor John (의사 요한) : This drama touched on the subject of death like no other. This actually changed my perspective on hospice medicine. I love everything about this drama specially how they were not afraid to tackle sensitive medical cases and focused on empathy which I think is very important for all doctors and nurses to have for their patient. Even their love story was so beautiful. The way the story unfolds itself with its main focus on the medical side yet with the perfect hint of romance makes it a delightful and must watch. I felt Kang Si Young, I really did. I've rewatched this drama thrice and bawled every single time.

• It's Okay, that's Love (괜찮아, 사랑이야) : Finally a realistic kdrama about mental health. Kdramas have mostly portrayed people with mental illnesses as an "incomplete person" who just meet the love of their life and become complete. Their illness just goes away. But that's just not the case. Most people with mental illnesses live with their mental illnesses and their significant others are just people who love them despite that. They have to live with it, get treated. It takes effort. This drama depicts that. It covers mature themes, complex personalities,  family issues and health in a forthright manner yet manages to maintain an upbeat mood.

• Sound of Your Heart (마음의소리) : This is a sitcom that features episodic adventures of a family. This drama is pure comedy. It's a light-hearted, super funny drama that I often watch when I'm in a bad mood. It makes me laugh, so so hard.  It's ridiculously hilarious! I laughed like a madwoman! I never knew I could laugh so much! Lee Kwang-soo was perfect for this role. He seamlessly pulled off every joke. He's indeed a master of comedy. Even the name of this sitcom is beautiful. I don't know if the translated English name appeals to you, but the original Korean name seems really beautiful to me (glad I decided to learn Korean).

[thealexchen]

i’ve actually read both of the articles that you mentioned earlier! I could see where both of them were coming from at varying points, though shannon liao’s struck me as a tad harsh, as someone who felt very seen by Alex, particularly with regard to her asian-american identity, and the cultural details and familial attitudes you see displayed throughout the game (especially in episode 5.) I could see why others would like them to be more overt, but they’re still present & relevant as is, imo.

I'm happy you read and enjoyed them! Well, since we’re on the subject, I might as well give my fuller thoughts about all this. This answer got horrendously long, so I'm putting it under a read more. I really wanted to talk about this more fully, so thank you for sending this ask!

I definitely see Robert's point in his article. Alex didn’t need to be Asian for the story of True Colors to be told, but it’s still meaningful that she is so that Asian fans and fans of color can look up to her and feel represented. The Chens buck a lot of stereotypes too: Mrs. Chen was not a “tiger mom” and her kids and husband remember her fondly. Mr. Chen doesn’t push Alex and Gabe to excel in school, and in fact neither Alex nor Gabe went to college, but they still had happy futures. Alex isn’t the best friend or the Asian schoolgirl or the dragon lady or the Asian nerd. But at the same time, when Robert says "Alex never really talks about her thoughts on Chinese culture,” that’s like— well, what’s wrong with talking about it? Why not talk about it more explicitly? The words “Asian” and “Chinese” and “Vietnamese” aren’t even used in the game when "gay" and "lesbian" were, and that's a little disappointing.

I figured people would figure out Alex was at least Chinese because of her last name, but I saw some streamers unsure of what Alex’s ethnicity even was (“Alex is… Chinese, right?”). That was disappointing because Asians tend to be treated as a monolith when we’re so internally diverse. Also, it’s completely possible to miss that Alex and Gabe are also half-Vietnamese. Their mother’s name is Giang “Wendy” Chen, a Vietnamese name, but that’s only in the credits. There’s far less Vietnamese (and Southeast Asian) rep than Chinese, so I wish that had been made more explicit.

In Life is Strange 2, Sean and Daniel’s struggles (personal and institutional) were centered around their identity as half-Mexican boys. True Colors almost seemed to be going in the opposite direction in that Alex’s Asian heritage never really becomes plot-relevant, but Alex and Gabe’s background comes into focus in the last chapter.

Part of Shannon’s critique was that because Alex’s parents aren’t in the picture, the game can’t explore Asian culture through a familial lens. There is some truth to that: for children of immigrants in particular, their parents are their strongest (and sometimes only) link to their race and culture. I thought a big missed opportunity was exploring Alex’s possible sense of isolation and struggle to reconnect with her Asian heritage after being separated from her family.

After growing up with two Asian parents, eating Asian food, celebrating Asian holidays, likely speaking Asian languages, etc. it would have likely been disorienting and lonely for Alex to suddenly be raised by non-Asian foster parents and lose all those traditions all at once. Possible comments like “I really miss Mom’s pho” or “Do you know how difficult it is to find hoisin sauce in the stores around here?” could have inferred more at that specific kind of loss and isolation in Haven Springs. The game touches upon this very briefly when you look at Gabe’s shrine, and Alex does comment “I don’t even know if I’m doing this right… but I felt like I had to do something.” In this way, I find it especially poignant that she still held onto cultural traditions after so long.

But I still thought Shannon’s critique was overly harsh. The little details really do add up, like in Alex’s childhood home, and meant a lot to me too. And most importantly, there was representation behind the scenes too: Alex was voiced by two(!) Asian American women and the lead writer, Felice Kuan, is Chinese. I think Alex naming her mouse Shu-shu was my favorite detail. Because it’s the one detail you can’t miss. Every streamer remembers Shu-Shu’s name and loves how cute she is and they can probably infer it’s a Chinese term. It just is so visible and empowering in that way and my heart felt warm every time I heard someone say “Aw! Shu-shu!"

But that doesn't mean Alex's Asian heritage didn't matter at all. I really appreciated that Alex's backstory still mattered because she came from a poor, working-class immigrant family. Her life circumstances were used for drama, but none of Alex's suffering was racially motivated and that felt tastefully done. I’m gonna paraphrase a comment I saw on alliebeemac’s playthrough of episode 5: "It's no coincidence that both Alex and Ryan lost their mothers at a young age, but because Ryan's father was a military veteran and had a high-paying job as a Typhon foreman, he got to keep his childhood whereas Alex's entire world was torn apart... And if you want to look at it even more metaphorically, the white patriarch Jed was able to preserve his own image as a hero and 'good old boy' of Haven by literally sacrificing an immigrant family to the mines with the expectation that nobody would come looking for them. Whether you're an immigrant or whether you're a foster child, the system is saying 'we don't care about you.'"

And at the end, Alex tells Jed, "You want to look away and pretend the men you hurt weren't people. But I won't let you.” It's a deliberate stand against Jed (a white man)’s dehumanization of poor laborers, including her Chinese immigrant father. Jed isn't explicitly portrayed as a racist, but his actions come from a privileged, and subsequently racist and classist place. For me, it worked better than LiS2's portrayal of racism because it was subtler and more personal. Alex stands up against Jed out of a personal sense of justice for her brother (and her father).

Do I wish we had more? Yeah, absolutely. I wish Alex got to actually speak Mandarin or Vietnamese in the game because that's so rare in games, even though I knew that would be unrealistic because Erika Mori is Japanese. I wish the character artists had at least made a version of Alex and Gabe’s models without shoes, because it just didn’t look right to see them wear shoes in the house (especially in bed??) and even LiS2 had Sean and Daniel in their socks in some scenes. I wish Alex and Gabe talked more about their family while Gabe was still alive and Alex could have had that comfort of someone who misses the food and customs they used to celebrate. But like I said, one piece of media isn’t gonna please everyone. And Asian representation in particular is so tricky because not only is there not enough of it, but Asian Americans are so diverse and come from so many different backgrounds. Children of immigrants are going to feel more connected to their Asian heritage than third or fourth gen kids or mixed race kids for example. Everyone is going to have a different definition of “Asian culture” and “accurate representation.”

But on a meta-level, it really means so much to simply have an Asian face on the box of a major Western game ❤️ Like even just seeing the way Alex's eyes crinkle when she smiles or how other characters find her attractive (like Steph’s note during the LARP preferring Alex’s natural black hair), it feels so affirming. It’s incredible to see an Asian girl be called the hero of her own story, to see her succeed and fail and cry and laugh and fall in love and kiss another woman and be comfortable in her bisexuality. It acknowledges that the queer community includes Asians, that Asian girls can also be curvy, that Asian girls can and do struggle with mental health. And like Erika Mori said, Alex is a fully-realized character and that’s what makes her so compelling, first and foremost. She also has a strong moral compass and dreams and fears and is such an incredible role model for people of all backgrounds, and that’s what makes her identity as a queer woman of color so much more meaningful.

[princesssarisa]

Some more “Little Women” remarks: the problem of Beth

I honestly think most commentary I’ve read about Beth’s character is bad, both academic and from casual readers.

I understand why. She’s a difficult character. Modern readers who love Little Women and want to celebrate it as a proto-feminist work need to contend with the presence of this thoroughly domestic, shy, sweetly self-effacing character, seemingly the opposite of everything a feminist heroine should be. Meanwhile, other readers who despise Little Women and consider it anti-feminist cite Beth as the embodiment of its supposedly outdated morals. Then there’s the fact that she’s based on Louisa May Alcott’s actual sister, Lizzie Alcott, and does show hints of the real young woman’s complexity, and yet she’s much more idealized than the other sisters, which often makes readers view her as more of a symbol (of what they disagree, but definitely a symbol) than a real person.

But even though the various bad takes on her character are understandable, they’re still obnoxious, and in my humble opinion, not founded in the text.

Here are my views on some of the critics’ opinions I least agree with.

“She’s nothing but a bland, boring model of feminine virtue.”

Of course it’s fair to find her bland and boring. Everyone is entitled to feel how they feel about any character. But she’s not just a cardboard cutout of 19th century feminine virtue. So many people seem to dismiss her shyness as just the maidenly modesty that conduct books used to encourage. But it seems blatantly obvious to me that it’s more than just that. Beth’s crippling shyness is actively portrayed as her “burden,” just like Jo’s temper or Meg and Amy’s vanity and materialism. She struggles with it. Her parents have homeschooled her because her anxiety made the classroom unbearable for her – no conduct book has ever encouraged that! In Part 1, she has a character arc of overcoming enough of her shyness to make new friends like Mr. Laurence and Frank Vaughn. Then, in Part 2, she has the arc of struggling to accept her impending death: she doesn’t face it with pure serenity, but goes through a long journey of both physical and emotional pain before she finds peace in the end. Her character arcs might be quieter and subtler than her sisters’, but she’s not the static figure she’s often misremembered as being.

‘She needs to die because her life has no meaning outside of her family and the domestic sphere.”

In all fairness, Beth believes this herself: she says she was “never meant” to live long because she’s just “stupid little Beth,” with no plans for the future and of no use to anyone outside the home. But for readers to agree with that assessment has massive unfortunate implications! The world is full of both women and men who – whether because of physical or mental illness, disability, autism, Down Syndrome, or some other reason – can’t attend regular school, don’t make friends easily, are always “young for their age,” don’t get married or have romantic relationships, aren’t able to hold a regular job, never live apart from their families, and lead quiet, introverted, home-based lives. Should we look at those real people and think they all need to die? I don’t think so! Besides, it seems to me that the book actively refutes Beth’s self-deprecation. During both of her illnesses, it’s made clear how many people love her and how many people’s lives her quiet kindness has touched – not just her family and few close friends, but the neighbors, the Hummels (of course), the local tradespeople she interacts with, and the children she sews gifts for who write her letters of gratitude. Then there’s the last passage written from her viewpoint before her death, where she finds Jo’s poem that describes what a positive influence her memory will always be, and realizes that her short, quiet life hasn’t been the waste she thought it was. How anyone can read that passage and still come away viewing her life as meaningless is beyond me.

“She needs to die because she symbolizes a weak, outdated model of femininity.”

SparkNotes takes this interpretation of Beth and it annoys me to think of how many young readers that study guide has probably taught to view her this way. No matter how feisty and unconventional Louisa May Alcott was, and no mater how much she personally rebelled against passive, domestic femininity, would she really have portrayed her beloved sister Lizzie as “needing to die” because she was “too weak to survive in the modern world”? Would she really have turned Lizzie’s tragic death into a symbol of a toxic old archetype’s welcome death? But even if Beth were a purely fictional character and not based on the author’s sister, within the text she’s much too beloved and too positive an influence on everyone around her for this interpretation to feel right. This seems less like a valid reading of her character and more like wishful thinking on the part of some feminist scholars.

“She's a symbol of pure goodness who needs to die because she’s Too Good For This Sinful Earth™.”

Enough with the reasons why Beth “needs to die”! At least this one isn’t insulting. But I don’t think it’s really supported by the text either. If she were a symbol of goodness too pure for this world, then she wouldn’t forget to feed her pet bird for a week and lose him to starvation. She wouldn’t get snappish when she’s bored, even if she does only vent her frustration on her doll. She wouldn’t struggle with social anxiety, or dislike washing dishes, or be explicitly described as “not an angel” by the narrator because she can’t help but long for a better piano than the one she has. Now of course those flaws (except for accidentally letting her bird die) are minute compared to her sisters’. It’s fair to say that only “lip service” is paid to Beth’s humanity in an otherwise angelic portrayal. But it seems clear that Alcott did try to make her more human than other saintly, doomed young girls from the literature of her day: she’s certainly much more real than little Eva from Uncle Tom’s Cabin, for example.

“She’s destroyed by the oppressive model of femininity she adheres to.”

This argument holds that because Beth’s selfless care for others causes her illness, her story’s purpose is to condemn the expectation that women toil endlessly to serve others. But if Alcott meant to convey that message, I’d think she would have had Beth get sick by doing some unnecessary selfless deed. Helping a desperately poor, single immigrant mother take care of her sick children isn’t unnecessary. That’s not the kind of selflessness to file under “things feminists should rebel against.”

“She’s a symbol of ideal 19th century femininity, whom all three of her sisters – and implicitly all young female readers – are portrayed as needing to learn to be like.”

Whether people take this view positively (e.g. 19th and early 20th century parents who held up Beth as the model of sweet docility they wanted from their daughters) or negatively (e.g. feminists who can’t forgive Alcott for “remaking Jo in Beth’s image” by the end), I honestly think they’re misreading the book. I’ve already outlined the ways in which Beth struggles and grows just like her sisters do. If any character is portrayed as the ideal woman whom our young heroines all need to learn to be like, it’s not Beth, it’s Marmee. She combines aspects of all her daughters’ best selves (Meg and Beth’s nurturing, Jo’s strong will and Amy’s dignity) and she’s their chief source of wise advice and moral support. Yet none of her daughters become exactly like her either. They all maintain their distinct personalties, even as they grow. Admittedly, Beth’s sisters do sometimes put her on a pedestal as the person they should emulate – i.e. Amy during Beth’s first illness and Jo in the months directly after her death. But in both of those cases, their grief-inspired efforts are short-lived and they eventually go back to their natural boldness and ambitions. They just combine them with more of Beth’s kindness and unselfishness than before.

“She wills her own death.”

Of all these interpretations, this one is possibly the most blatantly contradicted by the text. Just because Beth’s fatal illness is vague and undefined beyond “she never recovered her strength after her scarlet fever” doesn’t mean it's caused by a lack of “will to live”; just because she interprets her lack of future plans or desire to leave home to mean that she’s “not meant to live long” doesn’t mean she’s so afraid to grow up that she wants to die. It’s made very clear that Beth wants to get well. Even though she tries to hide her deep depression from her family and face death willingly, she’s still distraught to have her happy life cut short.

I’ll admit that I’m probably biased, because as as a person on the autism spectrum who’s also struggled with social anxiety and led an introverted, home-based life, I personally relate to Beth. If I didn’t find her relatable, these interpretations would probably annoy me less. But I still think they’re based on a shallow overview of Beth’s character, combined with disdain for girls who don’t fit either the tomboyish “Jo” model or the sparkling “Amy” model of lively, outgoing young womanhood, rather than a close reading of the book.

[iamthenightcolormeblack]

Pride and Prejudice 1940: "When Pretty Girls T-E-A-S-E-D Men Into Marriage"

Made during the Great Depression, this classic black and white film is loosely based on Austen's novel and is set in what is likely the 1830s rather than the Regency Era (late 18th century to early 19th century). It is an escapist piece which capitalizes on nostalgia for a simpler time by transporting its viewers to a chocolate-box vision of the past, while paying homage to Austen's social satire by delivering plenty of laughs along the way.

Overall Thoughts on the Film:

The first time I watched this movie, I was confused because the plot as well as the setting was revised significantly (the events after Darcy's first proposal are changed to hasten the happy ending; Darcy's letter and Elizabeth's visit to Pemberley are not included in this movie). This changing of plot points makes the 2005 movie a much more faithful adaptation in comparison with this version, in spite of the creative liberties both take with the novel.

Production Design:

The movie is a typical example of Golden Age Hollywood productions, with beautiful actresses and melodramatic flourishes added to increase the drama. Some of the lines are delivered very quickly, in keeping with the comedic style of the time.

The music: definitely not historically accurate. A lot of sentimental, "ye olde timey" string arrangements that emphasize emotions or fast-paced waltz music for balls/parties.

The 1830s costumes are beautiful; it seems as if no expense (or quantity of fabric) was spared in making them. The bonnets are way taller and have more decorations than typical 1830s bonnets. Some of the patterns/fabric choices are very 1930s, and the costumes are exaggerated in such as way as to make the wearers look like fancy turkeys.

Hair and Makeup: very 1930s, with finger/sausage curls, plucked eyebrows, lipstick/lip makeup, and long lashes.

The sets: the dollhouse-like interiors are lavishly gilded and made to look as opulent as possible. Outdoors scenes are lush, with lots of flowers and bushes; the garden in which the second proposal takes place is gorgeous. The set design transports the viewer into an idyllic vision of the bucolic English countryside.

The Lead Actors:

With the exception of Laurence Olivier, the majority of the actors are American, since this is a Hollywood production. Many of the characters in the film's imaginary vision of pastoral Britain speak American or make clumsy attempts to imitate British English.

Greer Garson: while she is definitely too old for the part, she perfectly conveys Elizabeth's intelligence, outspokenness, and sarcasm. Her facial expressions are killer as well; with the arch of an eyebrow along with a snarky side eye, she captivates us all. All in all, Garson effectively shows off Elizabeth's impertinence through her nonverbal acting (this reminds me strongly of Jennifer Ehle's Elizabeth Bennet).

Laurence Olivier: he effectively conveys Darcy's pride while hinting at his deeper feelings beneath the surface (I can see why Colin Firth spoke so highly of Olivier's portrayal of Darcy). Most importantly, the film emphasizes Darcy's intelligence; he is certainly Elizabeth's intellectual equal. While this portrayal of Darcy is very accurate to the book, Darcy's pride does go away pretty quickly (he and Elizabeth form a tentative friendship early on) and his social awkwardness isn't immediately obvious thanks to his charm. Also the unflattering hairstyle with the greasy hair and painted on sideburns makes me sad.

Key Scenes:

Opening scene: The title card appeals directly to the audience's nostalgia for a sentimental, romanticized past: “It happened in OLD ENGLAND (this was actually capitalized), in the village of Meryton…” The Bennet women are at a fabric shop, where they gossip with aunt Phillips about the rich people moving into Netherfield Park.

The carriage race: this scene, which isn’t in the original novel, represents the rivalry between the Bennets and Lucases. The mothers both want their daughters to be the first to snag the rich bachelors.

The first ball: There is a historical anachronism as the music is a waltz by Strauss, who became popular in late 19th century, specifically the Gilded Age; far too early for the Regency Era or 1830s England. Other changes from the original novel include Elizabeth meeting Wickham before Darcy; other events from Aunt Phillips’ ball (which isn’t included in this movie) and Wickham and Darcy’s confrontation are included in this scene.

Elizabeth’s impression of Darcy at the ball: she puts on airs and mocks his casual dismissal of her as tolerable (definitely a parallel with the 1995 version, where Jennifer Ehle does the same, but privately with Jane).

Great comedic change: Darcy introduces himself to Elizabeth after calling her tolerable and asks if she will dance with him (this originally takes place at Mr. Lucas' ball). Right after rejecting Darcy, she instantly agrees to dance with Wickham; in a humorous moment, Darcy evacuates to a corner of the room to sulk while seeing Wickham dance with Elizabeth.

The “Accomplished woman” scene: the dialogue lifted directly from the book for the most part. Darcy, in a departure from his trademark seriousness, shows off his playful side when reacting to Caroline Bingley's "turn about the room." I particularly like this added repartee from Elizabeth Bennet to Darcy, which is clever but also foreshadows her prejudice: “If my departure is any punishment, you are quite right. My character reading is not too brilliant.”

Elizabeth can't stand Mr. Collins: After twirling about his monocle, he pronounces that: “It might interest you to know my taste was formed by lady Catherine de Bourgh.” The best part of this scene is when Elizabeth plucks a wrong note on her harp when Collins gets really annoying.

The Netherfield ball (which is now a garden party):

Elizabeth running away from Mr. Collins: She looks rather ridiculous, almost like an overdressed turkey, in a white dress with puffy sleeves as she runs away from an overeager Collins. Then she hides in the bushes while Darcy helps her to hide, telling Collins he doesn't know where she is. It's fun but most likely not something a proper lady and gentleman would do (two people of the opposite gender out alone, shock!).

The archery scene: Darcy attempts to teach Elizabeth how to shoot a bow and arrow, even though he doesn’t hit the bullseye. She goes on to impress him by perfectly hitting the bullseye every time; Darcy learns his lesson: "Next time I talk to a young lady about archery I won't be so patronizing." Caroline Bingley, very passive aggressive as usual, shows up for her archery lesson right after and it's absolutely perfect.

Mr. Collins attempts to introduce himself to Mr. Darcy: Laurence Olivier captures Darcy so perfectly in this scene (really set the precedent for Colin Firth). When Mr. Collins starts talking (inviting Elizabeth to dance with him) Darcy tries to keep himself well-composed but has a pained expression on his face as if he’s about to pass out. Olivier masters the way Darcy can look so miserable but also disgusted and proud at the same time.

Mr. Collin's proposal to Elizabeth: I like the added touch of Mrs. Bennet pulling Elizabeth back by her skirt when she tries to run out of the room. The dialogue is taken directly from the book, and the scene is made even funnier when Collins holds on to Elizabeth's hand desperately and doesn’t let her get away. My only quibble is that Elizabeth isn’t indignant enough when Mr. Collins doesn't take no for an answer.

Elizabeth and Darcy at Rosings: I like that Olivier subtly indicates that Darcy is clearly affected upon seeing Elizabeth at Rosing, hinting at deeper feelings beneath the surface. I also like how the scriptwriter emphasizes that Darcy indirectly praises Elizabeth and enjoys their conversations, while she remains convinced that he hates her. Sadly, the original dialogue of the piano scene is not included, which is unfortunate as it allows Darcy to reveal his introvert tendencies, calling into question Elizabeth's assertion that he is unpardonably proud.

First proposal: The famous opening lines are mutilated with awkward punctuation: “It’s no use. I’ve struggled in vain. I must tell you how much I admire and love you." While the rest of the dialogue matches up closely with what happens in Austen's novel, both of the actors aren’t emotional enough; instead Elizabeth cries very daintily, and Darcy remains serene, which conflicts with the book's description of both of them being very angry and defensive at each other.

THE SCRIPT:

The first half of the film up to Darcy's first proposal follows the events of the original book closely, though certain blocks of dialogue are moved elsewhere and other events such as Mrs. Phillips' party are skipped over. The most significant changes, besides updating the setting to the 1830s, are made to the second half of the book to squeeze the key events of the story into the movie before delivering the inevitable happy ending.

Brilliant Quotes:

Mr. Bennet's reaction to Mrs. Bennet's despair over the situation of their 5 unmarried daughters: “Perhaps we should have drowned some of them at birth.”

Darcy insists Elizabeth cannot tempt him: “Ugh. Provincial young lady with a lively wit. And there’s that mother of hers.”

Darcy is an arrogant snob: “I’m in no humor tonight to give consequence to the middle classes at play.” (Technically the Bennets are part of the gentry; they just are less wealthy than Darcy).

Elizabeth's reaction to Darcy pronouncing her to be tolerable at best: “What a charming man!”

Elizabeth rebuffs Darcy's offer to dance after overhearing his insult: “I am afraid that the honor of standing up with you is more than I can bear, Mr Darcy.”

Elizabeth favors Wickham after witnessing the bad blood between him and Darcy: “Without knowing anything about it I am on your side.”

Mrs. Bennet's comment after she sends Jane to Netherfield under stormy skies: “There isn’t anything like wet weather for engagements. Your dear father and I became engaged in a thunderstorm.”

Mr. Bennet's reaction to Jane's fever: “Jane must have all the credit for having caught the cold…we’re hoping Elizabeth will catch a cold and stay long enough to get engaged to Mr. Darcy. And if a good snowstorm could be arranged we’d send Kitty over!”

The sisters' description of Mr. Collins: “Oh heavens! what a pudding face.”

Caroline Bingley at the Netherfield garden party: “Entertaining the rustics is not as difficult as I feared. Any simple childish game seems to amuse them excessively.”

Darcy reassuring Elizabeth after helping her escape Mr. Collins: “If the dragon returns St. George will know how to deal with it.”

Darcy learns his lesson after Elizabeth beats him at archery: “The next time I talk to a young lady about archery I won’t be so patronizing.”

Elizabeth comments about a curtain: “Oh that’s pretty. It’s a pity you didn’t make it bigger. You could have put it around Mr. Collins when he becomes a bore.”

Elizabeth on Kitty and Lydia: “2 daughters out of 5, that represents 40% of the noise.”

Elizabeth sees Lady Catherine for the first time: “So that’s the great lady Catherine. Now I see where he learned his manners.”

Lady Catherine's attitude towards philanthropy: “You must learn to draw a firm line between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.”

Darcy takes Elizabeth's advice: “I’ve thought a great deal about what you said at Netherfield, about laughing more...but it only makes me feel worse."

Elizabeth and Darcy have a conversation with Colonel Fitzwilliam: “He likes the landscape well enough, but the natives, the natives, what boors, what savages … Isn’t that what you think, Mr. Darcy?” With a smile: “It evidently amuses you to think so, Miss Bennet."

CHANGES FROM THE BOOK:

The first half of the film up to Darcy's first proposal follow the events of the original book closely, though certain blocks of dialogue are moved elsewhere and other events such as Mrs. Phillips' party are skipped over. The most significant changes, besides updating the setting to the 1830s, are made to the second half of the book to squeeze the key events of the story into the movie before delivering the inevitable happy ending.

With the exception of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, the portrayals of the characters are (generally) true to the book.

As I said earlier, the film neglects any sort of historical accuracy when setting the story in romanticized "Old England," where genteel people pass simple lives that revolve around dresses, tea parties, social gossip, and marriages. A lot of Austen adaptations present an idealized vision of Regency life, where people are dressed immaculately, flawlessly adhere to "chivalry," and find love in the ballroom. This contributes to the misconception that Austen's novels are shallow chick-lit books with flat characters who live for lavish parties and hot men, instead of stories of unique, complicated women who happen to be well-off but aspire towards love, respect, or independence instead of being content to make economically advantageous marriages. Austen's novels are character novels and she doesn't waste time writing about dresses or tea parties; balls, while exciting, are just another part of daily life for her characters rather than some Extremely Big Special Once In a Blue Moon Event.

Austen's multifaceted view on marriage turns into a game of matchmaking. She recognizes it as necessary for women to survive in the patriarchy, since they cannot provide for themselves unless they marry well, but at the same time, presents marriage as a means for freedom if it is a loving partnership between two people that respect each other. In contrast, marriage is a game of manipulating the partners into wanting to marry (ex. Lady Catherine and Darcy's trickery). Also, it seems to be a given that Elizabeth will marry for love, unlike in the book where it is uncertain whether she will achieve this.

Kitty and Lydia's antics are viewed much more sympathetically as those of young people having fun; in the book, their behavior harms the family's social reputation, reducing the chances the Bennet daughters have of making good marriages.

Louisa Hurst, Georgiana Darcy, and Aunt and Uncle Gardiner are not in the movie.

Wickham is introduced much earlier than in the book; he is friends with Lydia from the very beginning. Interestingly, he doesn't begin to trash-talk Darcy until Bingley leaves; in the book he does so much earlier, before the Netherfield ball.

Darcy is more considerate towards Elizabeth at the Netherfield party (ex. rescuing her from Collins), until he overhears Mrs. Bennet scheming to get the daughters married. Elizabeth forms a tentative friendship with him until finding out that he separated Jane from Bingley.

Jane is more obviously heartbroken over Bingley's departure than in the book, where she keeps her pain to herself. In the movie, she runs away to cry, which is uncharacteristic of her.

Collins is a librarian instead of a clergyman. I dislike this change because some Austen scholars/fans think that Collins being a clergyman is a deliberate choice as part of Austen's social criticism. Collins is representative of how hypocritical the Church is, since he worships Lady Catherine's wealth instead of God, and preaches moral lessons instead of actually using religion to help people. My theory is that the change was made because of the Hays Code, which led to the censorship of movies for "unwholesome" or "indecent" things; the religious criticism could have been offensive.

Elizabeth reacts rather too kindly to Charlotte marrying Collins by showing concern for the loveless marriage. While she does worry about the lack of love in the marriage, initially she is extremely surprised, outright shocked, and confused.

The scene where Darcy tries and fails to talk to Elizabeth (the "charming house" scene in the 2005 movie) just before the proposal is removed.

Darcy's letter is skipped over and Elizabeth overcomes her prejudice of Darcy very quickly, as shown when she tells Jane she regrets rejecting his proposal. This is contrary to the book, where overcoming her prejudice is an emotionally exhausting and slow process that continues all the way up until the second proposal.

The Pemberley visit is removed; instead, Elizabeth returns home to the news that Lydia has eloped. Visiting Pemberley is very important as part of Elizabeth's re-evaluation of Darcy's character and provides an opportunity for Darcy to show Elizabeth that he has changed for her. The visit is key in increasing Elizabeth's love for Darcy, and removing it means that the characters have less personal growth (also wouldn't it have been great for the audience to be treated to another gorgeous estate of "Old England?"). Instead, Darcy visits Longbourn on his own and offers his help in finding Lydia. When the news comes that Wickham accepts very little money in exchange for marrying Lydia, it isn't as shocking as it is in the book because Darcy had already expressed his intentions of helping Elizabeth earlier.

Here's the change that bugs me the most: Lady Catherine becomes good; though she is a busybody, her main priority is Darcy's happiness. Her confrontation of Elizabeth is a scheme hatched between her and Darcy as a test to be certain of Elizabeth's love. This does not make sense on so many levels: first, Darcy insists that "disguise of every sort is my abhorrence," so why would he resort to trickery, however well-intentioned, to find out if Elizabeth still loves him? Second, Lady Catherine is a social snob and objects to Elizabeth's low connections; also she has an arranged marriage planned for Darcy. Third, in the book, because Elizabeth likes Pemberley and gets along really well with his sister Georgiana, Darcy would have had some evidence that Elizabeth, in the very least, cared for him. And the added claim that Lady Catherine approves of Elizabeth because she likes rudeness and thinks Darcy needs a humorous wife irritates me further because the marriage of Elizabeth and Darcy is revolutionary since it was made in defiance of societal rules!!! Why, why, why in the name of comedy did they have to do this?!

Darcy kisses Elizabeth (in a stagey and melodramatic way) after she accepts his second proposal. Seems a bit uncharacteristic of him.

All the sisters get married at the end. Happily ever after.

CONCLUSION

This movie certainly was not aiming for faithfulness to Austen's novel; it ignores her detailed portrait of Regency era society and its attitudes and focuses on the "light, bright, and sparkling" aspect of Pride and Prejudice that gives the story its timeless appeal.

All in all, this comedy of manners is definitely a classic thanks to the clever dialogue and jokes within the script, along with some great acting.

@appleinducedsleep @dahlia-coccinea @princesssarisa @colonelfitzwilliams @austengivesmeserotonin