#it’s a little disjointed I wasn’t entirely sure how to portray it

[retroautomaton]

🤲💫✨

Previous Page || Next Page

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

The Critique of Manners: Part III

~Or~

A Somewhat Indecisive Review of “Emma” (Miramax, 1996)

I have a feeling this review is gonna be a little harder for me to write. Everyone knows that recaps and reviews are most entertaining when the writer has an intense dislike (or intense feeling of any kind) for the drama they’re reviewing. It falls to other writers to pan or praise this film as they will, but I simply don’t have many particularly strong feelings about it at all. I have neither that repulsed dislike for this movie such as I did for Emma 1997, nor that disappointed frustration as for certain aspects of Emma. 2020, but neither do I have a deep, profound love and appreciation for it as I do for Emma 2009.  

Written and Directed by American Screenwriter, director and actor, Douglas McGrath, Emma (1996) is rather what one expects it to be: a 90’s romance film. Perhaps it’s because I had expectations due to the era in which it was made, but I think I have a tendency to excuse some of the problems with this film. There are many unnecessary additions (for comedy’s sake usually and often quite cringe-y) and one definitely can’t claim that the dialogue hasn’t been tampered with. I don’t normally side with the “I do so miss Austen’s biting wit” crowd but, by ‘eck I felt it this time. That’s because Austen’s Biting Wit™ just doesn’t suit a fluffy 90’s chick flick (which this film is in a way that other big screen Austen adaptations of the time just aren’t – and I think approaching this film from the 90’s chick flick perspective is probably the best way to digest it.) This version, more than any other (except perhaps 2009) brings the concept of Emma-as-Matchmaker to the fore with a particular emphasis precisely because it’s a concept that fits well with the rom-com style of filmmaking used here.

The bones of this review, like my review for the ITV version, were written six years ago following my initial viewing only a select number of portions survive from that review (which is still on IMDb).

As with all my reviews I'll be comparing the script, characterizations and plot to the book and commenting on the authenticity and attractiveness of the costumes, and suitability of the houses and sets.

Let’s dive in.

Cast & Characterization

Emma is arguably the easiest of Austen’s works to read because of Emma’s generally good (if condescending and overly self-confident) character, and Mr. Knightley’s sober, mature but exceedingly pleasant manner. I had my doubts about Gwyneth Paltrow playing an Austen heroine, but I at least had faith in Jeremy Northam’s ability to portray the mature Mr. Knightly. My expectations were not entirely disappointed in either case.

My prevailing feeling about this film is that it’s not so much set in Jane Austen’s Regency England, but in an American fantasy of what Regency England was like. Perhaps the biggest factor that reinforces this impression is (of course) the casting choice for our leading lady, Gwyneth Paltrow.

Freckled, ruddy and thin as a twig, Gwyenth didn’t quite, to my mind, fit the physical description of Emma, who is supposed to be “The picture of health” according to Mrs. Weston. Add to this the Regency beauty ideal of a soft and shapely figure with regular features. Fair hair was generally preferred (and I have always imagined Emma as blond, although I’m given to understand that Austen’s idea of pretty generally favored dark hair), so I can’t fault Gwynnie there. What I can fault though is her so-so British accent.

I recently learned that the reason McGrath thought Paltrow would be a good choice was because she’s the only Texan he’d ever met who’d managed to entirely throw off her native accent; I guess he decided that if she could do that she could do any accent work? I guess? Seems questionable to me.

You know Joely Richardson was considered for this part? Gorgeous, refined (British) GODDESS Joely Richardson was passed over because Gwyenth managed to shake an embarrassing accent.

I hate American directors.

I’m not sure if it’s just part of the accent, or her attempt to sound upper class, but on this most recent re-watch it hit me for the first time how very nasal many of her line deliveries are. She also has this problem with looking (and sounding) sort of vapid and… just what is happening here?

Is she having a stroke at the end there?

A bigger problem than Emma’s casting, however, is her characterization.

Part of the above mentioned script tampering is in lockstep with some of the issues with Emma’s characterization here. Her very teenager-esque swings from vowing to never make another match again to immediately trying to think of another guy to set Harriet up with, and her getting carried away in potential scenarios “But if he seems sad I shall know that John has advised him not to marry Harriet! I love John! Or he may seem sad because he fears telling me he will marry my friend. How could John let him do that? I hate John!” (Especially when you never even really get to meet John Knightley in this version? Ugh, pass me with this shit) is so bizarrely childish it’s a little hard to stomach. She spends the movie going back and forth between mature and manipulative to childish and naïve and it just… doesn’t work for me.  Emma can be all of these things but the transition from one extreme to another here seems a bit disjointed to me.

Knightley was a bit of a disappointment to me in this version. That’s not Jeremy Northam’s fault because I can’t think of a better choice they could have made. McGrath showed much better judgment with his choice for Mr. Knightley than he did with Emma.

My biggest problem with this interpretation was how laid back he was when he was supposed to chastising Emma. Their quarrels became more like mere disagreements so the proposal line of lecturing her and her bearing it as no other woman would have isn’t entirely earned. Even in the big scene at Box Hill where Knightley is really supposed to lay into Emma, he starts off pretty solidly, but by the end so doe-eyed and apologetic it fails to deliver the sting of rebuke that is Emma’s biggest learning moment in the story. Perhaps they were trying to go for a more disappointed feel (the kind that makes you feel worse than being shouted at because you really respect the person you let down) but it just didn’t come through for me.

Also of note is the fact that, (I assume) because John Knightley isn’t really allowed time to be a character in this film, McGrath took some of John’s introverted tendencies and transplanted them into his more convivial older brother (“I just want to stay home, where it’s cozy.” – I mean I feel that, but this isn’t something George Knightley would say.) 

Onto the less central characters

I question also the choice of Toni Colette for Harriet Smith. I mean I actually liked her performance more on this watch than previously but I just don’t think she’s pretty enough for Harriet, and she looks a bit clumsy (though that might have more to do with her costumes.)

I also noted that McGrath bumps Harriet’s comprehension skills up just a scooch. Emma never has to explain the “Courtship” riddle to her, Harriet figures it out on her own after a while, while she never manages to in the book.

Now we come to the crux of Jane Fairfax, played by Polly Walker. I don’t care for this choice. My issue is the simple fact that she just isn’t believable to me as a demure, wronged character like Jane Fairfax. Seriously she looks like she would sooner throw Frank across the room than take his cruel teasing, and not in the subtle way that Olivia Williams managed to. They never even utilized her by including some of Jane’s more pointed returns to Frank’s jabs, which they even managed to squeeze into the massively cut down TV movie.    

Speaking of Frank; Ewan McGregor, though generally delightful, was so under-used. Frank and Jane’s plotline always kind of gets shafted in Theatrical release adaptations of this story. It’s not as bad here as it is in say, the 2020 adaptation (they were in that version so little I actually forgot what their actors looked like), but it’s still pretty stunted.

I find it interesting that Ewan McGregor himself thinks his performance in this movie isn’t good; and I’ll agree it’s not his best (certainly it’s no Obi-wan Kenobi) but I thought he did a pretty good job with obviously unfamiliar material

Also if the Davies screenplay of ’97 made Frank’s character too caddish, I think this version didn’t make him caddish enough. I mean he’s hardly around enough to really develop his flirtation with Emma, and they merged Strawberry Picking and Box Hill into one sequence so we never see Frank’s ill humors. I can perhaps excuse this, since it seems like a nuanced story really wasn’t what McGrath was going for here, I think. This is a lite version of the story; schmaltzy fluff for teenage girls’ movie nights. Frank’s ill humors wouldn’t really have fit the tone of this version at all.

Interestingly enough, though it’s taken me a long time to make this decision, I think Alan Cumming might be the definitive Elton? He’s the only one who doesn’t immediately read as a slime ball from the get go. I mean he’s got all the warning signs that Austen wrote into him, but no more than that. He’s not slinking about greasily or obviously pandering (at first), so Emma’s uneasy realization of what’s really happening here isn’t a hundred miles behind the viewer’s (maybe just fifty).

There are as many Mrs. Eltons out there as there are adaptations of this story, and they’re all pretty great (funky accents aside), but other than the 1997 take, this one might be the least great to me. She’s not nearly pushy enough, because Mrs. Elton would never let Emma prompt the conversation when she could do it herself.

  Also, I think McGrath misunderstands Mrs. Elton’s brand of New Money vulgarity. He has her talking with her mouthful, clanking her utensils on her plate as she eats, putting biscuits which she’s bitten into back onto communal plates, which I think even Mrs. Elton would know not to do. Table manners are pretty basic; the couth that Mrs. Elton lacks is of a more nuanced social kind – for instance, what is and isn’t considered gauche to talk about (like how big one’s brother in law’s house is or how many horses he keeps.)

(A sudden thought has just occurred to me: is Mrs. Elton just a more mean-spirited Hyacinth Bucket from Keeping Up Appearances? “It’s meh sister, Mrs. Suckling! That’s right, the one with an estate in Warwickshire and the two barouche landaus!”)

Sophie Thompson’s Miss Bates is chatty and one of better takes on the character, but lack of necessary background hinders her impact on Emma’s story. The comedy in her scenes is some of the best and actually made me laugh, although I think she was just way too giggly.

Miss Bates’s mother, Mrs. Bates, is played by Sophie Thompson’s real-life mother Phyllida Law in a completely coincidental quirk of casting. (I noted in this film how very much Emma Thompson, Sophie’s older sister looks like their mother.)

My only other serious issue with characterization in this adaptation is the representation of Mr. Woodhouse. He is somehow simultaneously more cheery and more disagreeable than he is in the book. His chiding about the cake at the Weston’s wedding seems more like a scolding rather than an anxious admonishment. In one of the first scenes, during Mr. Woodhouse’s “Poor Miss Taylor” speech, he says he cannot understand why she would want to give up her comfortable life with himself and Emma, to have “mewling children who bring the threat of disease every time they enter or leave the house,” and he says this IN FRONT OF ONE OF HIS TWO DAUGHTERS.

Of course in the book, Mr. Woodhouse does lament Miss Taylor marrying, leaving and even having children – but this is all in the context of the danger childbirth presents to Miss Taylor (And the fact that he can’t stand losing a companion). These are his complaints – not the children themselves. In addition, his elder daughter has quite a fine number of children, all of them very young, of whom Mr. Woodhouse is very fond. He’s a character that needs to be carefully handled because, much like his daughter, it’s very easy for him to become unlikeable.

For the rest of the time, though, he just sort of cheerily laughs and is very at ease, when Mr. Woodhouse, as a chronic hypochondriac should be made anxious by just about everything.

Sets & Surroundings

One thing I find interesting about this adaptation is that the houses they chose to use are all of a very neo-classical Palladian style, which I believe (given her disdain for the contemporary trend of knocking down England’s great houses just to rebuild them in a more fashionable style) Austen may have disliked to some degree.

One such house is Came House in Dorset, which was used as the Woodhouse’s estate, Hartfield. Now Hartfield is, I think, described as a well-built modern house so this could be pretty accurate (although Modern could refer to the red bring, boxy style of Georgian architecture, such as the houses used in the 1997, 2009 and 1972 versions.)

Another, Claydon House in Buckinghamshire played the role of Donwell Abbey. I think this might be the worst exterior ever used for Donwell, from a book accuracy perspective. Utterly Georgian, with its’ square façade, Claydon house sort of directly contradicts Austen description of being “Larger than Hartfield, and totally unlike it, covering a good deal of ground, rambling and irregular…” not only is the architecture totally wrong, so is its’ situation, in Georgian fashion, perched on a hill, when Donwell (a very old building) is supposed to be “Low and sheltered”.

Mapperton House is maybe the grandest house yet used for Mr. Weston’s Randalls (I’ve already covered in my review of Emma (2020) why this is a problem – although in this version, as in the 1997 adaptation, there’s no full panic over the snow, so this is less of a problem, but a house like this is still too grand for the reasonably sized Randalls of the book), but it fits the usual 15th-16th century house type that always seems to be used for Randalls.

A myriad of other great houses were used for interiors, however other than Crichel House (Dorset), which was used for Donwell’s interiors, I can’t find information on which ones where used for what. They include Breakspear House (Harefield), Coker Court (Somerset), Stafford House (Staffordshire) and Syon House & Park (Middlesex).

I really appreciate the interiors which were all very colorful and even included doors and molding painted the same color as the walls which is a very Georgian decorating convention, although it looks odd to the modern viewer.

Costumes & Hair

As a rule, the costumes (Created by Ruth Myers) in this movie are pretty damn good, composition wise, but the arrangement leaves a lot to be desired. Myers talked extensively of wanting the costumes to be colorful and bright like the water colors of the time, which she achieved brilliantly. What I find funny is that she talked about using color as if it would be controversial from a historical accuracy point of view, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

The evening wear is generally excellent

My only question around evening wear here is… what’s up with the waistline on Harriet’s ball gown? Why is it going up in the middle? Toni Collette (who actually gained weight for the role, since Harriet was described as “Reubenesque”) verged on looking a little dumpy throughout the film and awkwardly bumping up her waistline in the middle really didn’t help.

I’m pleased to report that is is the one version where Miss Bates’s evening-wear is allowed to look like evening wear. Even Maiden Aunts wore shorter sleeves and lower necklines at dinner or balls. They fussed her up with some lace gloves and frilly fichus but it follows the conventions of the time. I appreciate that immensely, though I have the sneaking suspicion that it’s because of Sophie Thompson’s age.

At 37 Thompson was an unconventionally young choice for Miss Bates, a character who previously had only been cast as older than 50 (Prunella Scales, who would play the role later in 1996, was 64). Indeed, Douglas McGrath almost passed Thompson over for the role on account of her age, but reconsidered after seeing her in spectacles. It seems possible to me that since Thompson was considered young they dressed her “young” as well.

The daywear is where the costumes start to really fall apart. There are a lot of looks here worn in the day that are VERY not day/outerwear appropriate, especially on Emma, most especially the yellow dress she’s wearing while driving that carriage (which, btw is inappropriate on a whole OTHER level). Can we just talk aboutt he cognative dissonance of bothering to put a bonnet on her when her arms and boobs are just hanging out like that? Like, it would almost have been less egregious to just leave the bonnet where it was.

But then there are a lot of Emma’s day-wear looks that are perfectly suitable and appropriate. What I find ironic about that is that most of the short-sleeved, low-necked “Evening-gowns as day-wear” looks are worn OUTSIDE in the sun and most of the long-sleeved, sun protecting, day-wear appropriate looks are worn INSIDE.  She’s also got a profusion of dangling curls in day-time settings that are also more evening-wear appropriate (to match the dresses, perhaps?)

I’m also pleased to report that even in day-wear Miss Bates gets a break from brown in this version. Her clothes are nice, but not fancy like Miranda Hart’s in Emma. 2020, and I like to think that nice thick shawl with lace overlay is the one mentioned in the book that Jane’s friend Mrs. Dixon sent along home with her for her aunt.

My only problem with Mrs. Elton’s kit is that it’s all perfectly nice, but none of it is overly-nice. There’s no extra trim, no unnecessary lace, not even any bold colors. I hope Myers and McGrath didn’t take Mrs. Elton’s line in the book about her fear of being over-trimmed seriously.

Let’s talk outerwear. There’s a lot of going into town with JUST a shawl on in this movie (usually over short sleeves), and I’m sorry but I don’t think that’s how outer-wear worked in this time period. A shawl is good enough when you’re taking a turn in the garden but not for going out in public into town, unless maybe you’re wearing long sleeves, or perhaps paired with a SPENCER.

Never mind Mrs. Elton’s line about a shocking lack of satin at the end of the movie, I’m more concerned about the shocking lack of spencers. There are precisely three in this film. I counted (and the sleeves on Emma’s look like maybe they’re too long for her?) Mrs. Elton sports the only redingote in the film.

Jane Fairfax is, as always, in her classic Jane Fairfax Blue™,

although she has some nice white gowns at some points too.

Now, onto 

Definitely a bit more colorful than the 97 adaptation. Mr. Knightley benefits most from the addition of colors other than green. He’s even got some smashing waistcoats and a very nice blue evening coat (I couldn’t get very good shots of them though). The problem is; those trousers? NOT. TIGHT. ENOUGH.

Also… you all see it, right? I circled it in red so you should. Yeah. Knightley is dancing in boots. WTF RUTH? Please! You’re better than this! Who dances in Prussians like that? I ask you! (Frank also wears boots to the Cole’s dinner party so that’s two strikes.)

I’m not sold on Frank’s looks. His day-wear is a bit sedate for such a confirmed dandy (I believe he’s called a “coxcombe” in the book?) and his evening wear… well he apparently only has the one look.

And speaking of Frank’s look in this film, I’d like to know at whose doorstep I should lay the blame for what Ewan McGregor himself has called “The Worst Wig Ever”; and why the hair designer in charge decided to model Frank’s aesthetic on a theme of “Chucky meets the Mad Hatter”.

This hairstyle not only looks dreadful, it’s not at all fashionable or authentic to this time period! Fashionable mens’ hair styles at this point were all relatively short. A Beau Brummel coiffeur, or a short Roman style, or a fashionable head of curls like Mr. Elton’s! Not this farmer chic. Robert Martin’s hair is more fashionable than Frank’s!

The tune they chose for Emma and Knightley’s dance is a baroque melody (so a hundred or so years out of fashion) called “Mr. Beveridge’s Maggot” and as is pointed out in the video linked above, and is the same tune and dance used for Lizzie and Darcy’s big dance in Pride and Prejudice (1995).

I get why it was used in P&P because, slow, stately baroque tunes are often used as on-screen short hand for snobbish character like Mr. Darcy. It’s not super intense either, like the baroque tune used in P&P 05, which was chosen for more romantic effect. So why use this kind of “stuck up” tune for what should be a romantic dance? Maybe because it was used in the 95 P&P which became, almost instantly, one of the most popular Austen adaptations?

Quick note on the dancing and music in this movie. I’m not an expert on English Country dance (I’ll outsource that by giving you the usual link to Tea with Cassiane’s analysis on YouTube) but I’ll add my two cents  - I know Cassiane gave this a pretty favorable three full dance slippers but I think the way all of the actors and dancers move looks very poorly rehearsed and kind of sloppy. I think everyone just spread out way too much.

Douglas McGrath’s Script

I have to say one of the things this film did very well and brought to the forefront is how insular Emma’s life is. The opening credit sequence brings this to our attention right away by showing a spinning globe which, once it slows down is shown to be, literally, Emma’s whole tiny world. Hartfield, Donwell, Randalls and Highbury. That’s it. It’s perhaps not a very subtle device, but it does get the job done and very succinctly too.

I would now like to talk about my issues with the script of this movie; I have some problems with it. Very different problems than it’s 1996 counterpart though.

 First let’s go over the comedic device that jumped out to me most in this movie: the awkward pause.

I think it’s only used twice but they both bothered me.

First there’s the pauses while Emma and Mrs. Weston grill Knightley on whether he considers Jane Fairfax romantically. It’s all written as very “OoOoOooo” with Knightley answering their interrogations and then sitting between them awkwardly as they stare him down as, none of his answers giving either Emma or Mrs. Weston satisfaction. This is one of the most teen rom-com moments of the film to me.

Next there’s all the quiet stretches while Emma and Mrs. Elton have tea at Hartfield. I don’t like the use of awkward pauses in this case because (as I mentioned in Mrs. Elton’s characterization section) it’s so ludicrous to me that there are pauses in this conversation at all. Surely the point of Mrs. Elton is that she loves to hear herself talk and her conceited obsession with the idea that everyone around her must only benefit from hearing her opinions. There should be no conceivable reason why Emma should have to prompt conversation like she does in McGrath’s version of this scene, except to derail Mrs. Elton’s constant self-important yammering.

Watching it this time around I found myself wondering exactly what McGrath wanted to do with this film. I mean I’ve been attempting to decipher exactly whether the changes made were conscious and based on artistic vision, or whether they were changed because the source material just flew over McGrath’s Hollywood Director head.

I mean he gets the important plot points across, but there were other scenes that I had issues with: namely, the Archery scene. This is a pretty intense part of the book because Mr. Knightly goes from astonished, to indignant, to truly vexed with Emma in a short period of time. But this scene in the movie is very casual. The part where Emma’s arrow goes wide and into the general direction of Knightley’s dogs, and he takes an opportunity to make a quip and says “try not to kill my dogs” particularly annoyed me. My issue is that this totally ruins the tension of the scene; and why are Knightley’s dogs sitting BEHIND THE TARGETS ANYWAY? Knightley is a sensible man, and one who knows better than to let his dogs rest in a place where stray arrows could hit them!

The dialouge is very jarring because it flips back and forth beetween being alright, and period appropriate and then it will just spring a very modern turn of phrase and pull you completely out of the setting. I know this is something that’s been brought up with the 2009 version as well but maybe it’s because the actors in that version have (in my opinion) better chemistry that it simply doesn't stick out to me as much.

The comedy in general in this movie just makes me cringe a lot of the time (Sophie Thompson’s “oh sorry, napkin” bit notwithstanding). Like the soup thing when Emma and Harriet meet Mr. Elton after visiting the poor, and the random kid that gets tossed into this scene with Emma… just doesn’t work for me.

Wikipedia describes McGrath’s tweaks on Emma and Knightley’s banter (which really weren’t changed that much, textually) as “Enlivened” to make the basis of their attraction more apparent, which… I’m sorry but nothing about the exisiting banter isn’t lively if delivered in a lively manner. And I wouldn’t exactly call Gywneth’s performance lively, because she has to concentrate to keep that accent up.

I mentioned already that what McGrath essentially did with Emma was take Austen’s story, and remove the nuance (Such as lightening Frank’s infractions in his relationship with Jane and, while not totally contradicting, but also not highlighting the economic commentary of the story that is thematic in Austen’s novel) in order to make a straight up 90’s comedic romance film (Which, if you doubt this, look no further than Rachel Portman’s Oscar Winning but very dated score).

My Question is why? Why bother when the SAME STORY had been adapted into a HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL, modernized rom-com THE PREVIOUS YEAR, which actually, even while being set in the 90’s, did the story greater justice, with far more insight and quality?

Emma (1996) was always going to be over-shadowed by Clueless. At the end of the day this whole movie was kind of a futile effort because despite excellent production quality, the actual contents are watered down and, in my own opinion, pretty roundly mediocre.

Final Thoughts

When I first watched both of these versions I came at it from a very one-or-the-other perspective. I forgave McGrath’s film because it was light and colorful and I’d heard Davies’ version praised so highly at that time as the only faithful, definitive version (only to be let down by it in almost every possible way). But coming right down to it now, it’s hard for me to really excuse McGrath’s effort because a version of Emma that doesn’t take itself seriously enough is almost as bad as a version that takes itself too seriously.

It never fails to jump out at me how diametrically opposed these interpretations are, from the characterization right down to the tone and lighting.

McGrath’s Emma is light in every sense of the word, where Davies’ is dark and ponderous. McGrath’s Knightley is laid back where Davies’ is aggressive and ferocious. Frank, in McGrath’s version, is let off easy by the narrative playing down his moodiness, while in Davies there’s an overshadowing dark-cloud of off-putting caddishness.

Ribbon Rating: Tolerable (58 Ribbons)

The more I watch the 1996 adaptations of Emma (invariably back-to-back) the more firmly I am convinced that Andrew Davies’ made for TV film was (in some ways) a direct response to McGrath’s motion picture.

Tone: 7

Casting: 7

Acting: 5

Scripting: 5

Pacing: 4

Cinematography: 4

Setting: 5

Costumes: 6

Music: 5

Book Accuracy: 6

[wordsablaze]

8/13 - daily sentences

A Dozen Denials Soulmate-identifiers exist to make things easier unless you’re Jaskier, who’s equally as deep in love as he is in denial. But there’s only so many excuses you can make to avoid the truth… (aka jaskier’s soulmate is definitely a witcher, just not the one he first assumes)

A/N: i wasn't entirely sure of this trope but i used it so every day, you get one random sentence your soulmate says stuck in your head.

previous chapter

-

Jaskier talked enough for the both of them.

For the both of him and his soulmate, that is.

He’d always been a loud child and no amount of disciplining could change that about him but it took many a year for him to ever feel bad about it.

“Julian, stop talking nonsense, you’re going to make your other half hate you!” his sister says not for the first time and not for the last time when he tries telling her about different instruments for the third time that week.

“But maybe they like music too?” Julian, too young to be deterred by the annoyance in her tone, argues.

His sister rolls her eyes. “They only get one sentence, it won’t make sense to them.”

Julian’s face falls as he considers this; he hadn’t meant to confuse the person who’s supposed to love him and he’d hate for them to stop loving him for the same reason everyone else seems to, especially if it’s before they even meet.

His sister takes his worrying as an opportunity to leave and by the time he looks up again, tears glistening in his eyes, he’s in a room as empty as his previous excitement.

-

“What if I only said one sentence a day?” Julian asks the gardener he’s taken to following because as long as he helps with the weeds, he can talk as much as he wants.

The gardener raises an eyebrow at him. “That sounds awfully difficult, Julian.”

But Julian just shakes his head. “I could tell them where we are! And they could come find me! Oh, I have to try!”

The gardener sighs, resisting the urge to remind Julian that his soulmate is probably not going to be welcome in Lettenhove given the heartbeat and scars he’s sporting, and slowly nods. “What are you going to tell your tutors?”

Julian frowns, spinning a small flower in his hands. “I’ll pretend I’m ill, they always leave me alone when I’m ill! Does pretend coughing count as a sentence?”

“I don’t think so,” the gardener replies, not wanting to dampen the child’s spirits any more than he has to. He doesn’t see Julian again for a week and just as he’s starting to feel uneasy about the absence of chatter on his rounds, the boy returns with a glum expression.

“It didn’t work?” he asks gently.

“Being quiet is useless,” Julian declares angrily, and neither of them say any more on the matter.

-

“You’re not him,” Valleria says bitterly one morning.

Jaskier looks over at her and frowns. “Who?”

“You’re not my soulmate,” she clarifies.

Jaskier just frowns, looking over her in case she’s injured because they both knew that very well before they bought a room last night and he has no idea why she’s bringing it up when they specifically agreed not to.

Valleria sighs. “This has been fun, really, but he said something about Lyria and I-”

“You were thinking about him while we-” Jaskier cuts himself off, pinching the bridge of his nose for a moment to try and avoid saying something he’ll regret.

“I’m sorry but he hasn’t mentioned a place before and I have to go!” Valleria sounds like she’s asking him more than she’s telling him and he doesn’t have the heart to stop her because he’d do the exact same.

He leans over and places a small kiss on her cheek. “Write me if you find him, won’t you?”

“You’ll be first to know,” she promises.

Jaskier half wants to try telling his soulmate where he is again but now that he’s older and less naive, he knows there’s a witcher out there waiting for him who won’t abandon their path for his sake so there’s really no point trying.

-

“Have they said anything today?” Priscilla asks quietly.

Jaskier jumps, relaxing when he sees it’s only her and shaking his head as he stares at the darkening horizon. “No, must be another one of the quiet days.”

Priscilla hums as she settles on the roof beside him, elbowing him to make room for her. “Just your luck to be destined for someone who barely speaks. It’s actually very funny, you know.”

Scoffing, Jaskier turns to her. “And you?”

“They declared their love for soup right in the middle of my set. A total nuisance, if you ask me, almost sang about tomatoes instead of romance,” she grumbles, neither of them pointing out the fact that she’s probably going to eat nothing but soup for at least a week.

“Well, here’s to nuisances,” Jaskier laughs, but he doesn’t have anything to toast so he just throws his arms out, almost slapping Priscilla in the process.

She glares at him but nods, letting her head rest on his shoulder. “Here’s to the nuisances we’re destined for.”

-

“Geralt! My dear witcher, how have you been?” Jaskier asks as they reunite one spring.

Geralt waits until Jaskier lets go of him before smiling. “Could be worse.”

Jaskier just rolls his eyes. “You are incorrigible. A whole winter apart and that’s all you have to say? You are aware I’m a bard, yes?”

They’ve started walking by the time Geralt hums in acknowledgement. “I could almost imagine you talking my ears off the whole time.”

Only very mildly offended by such things at this point, Jaskier just laughs. “What, one sentence a day wasn’t enough to satisfy you?”

“It was quiet, sometimes,” Geralt replies slowly, almost like he’s not entirely sure what he means.

To be honest, Jaskier doesn’t either. Though he had spent several days ridiculously drunk and several more in a creative daze so perhaps those are what Geralt is referring to - maybe he doesn’t talk to himself nearly as much as he thinks he does.

“As were you, Geralt, so we can call it even! Now, are you going to tell me anything interesting or is this going to be just like last year?”

Geralt nudges him playfully but does start telling him about a harpy they’d hunted so Jaskier doesn’t complain, simply smiles and drinks in each one of Geralt’s words, silently fashioning them into lyrics as they walk because he doesn’t want to miss out on a single one of his soulmate’s words.

(little did he know he’d yet to hear any of them.)

-

yes the time skip structure is a little disjointed but idk how else to portray it, things are getting pretty messy for poor jaskier and the sheer amount of Destiny he's misinterpreting :p

-

thanks for reading! masterlist | witcher blog: @itsjaskier | next chapter

[rulesofromance]

the flatshare, beth o’leary

OFFICIAL RATING: ★★☆☆☆

first read: 2/01/21

i’ve been putting this review off because, if i can be upfront, this book just really fell flat for me. i went into it with mediocre expectations and really wanted to give it a fighting chance but i just could not for the life of me get into it. 

also, not that this is important, but i usually pick books based on how nice i think the cover looks. i included the cover that was on my copy, but my favorite is this one. 

alright i know i broke structure for the hating game, but thats because my brain was still fried. i’m gonna go back to the positives/negatives thing because i think it works well and it helps me keep my thoughts organized 

the positives:

⇢ the premise! seriously i did really like the premise of this. it was unique, fresh, i felt like it had the potential to be done extremely well. unfortunately, in my opinion i think it fell a little short. 

⇢ the portrayal of abuse, and specifically gaslighting. i think one thing this book does insanely right is the way abuse, and leaving an abusive relationship, is portrayed. at first, we feel kind of iffy about tiffy’s asshole of an ex, but she doesn’t yet recognize that he was abusive, and so neither do we. the only hints we get are from her friends, who don’t say anything explicit but refer to him being controlling. but slowly, as the book progresses and there’s more space in between tiffy and her ex, she starts to realize that her relationship was not okay. that he would actively make her question herself, that he would gaslight her. AND SHE GOES TO THERAPY! 

⇢ uhhhh honestly. i don’t know. that’s it. like, genuinely. 

the mediocre:

⇢ this novel is closed-door, meaning no sex actually happens on the page. it’s fade to black, cut away, etc. etc. and this written v well! i felt like there were always smooth transitions, and it wasn’t as abrupt as some other closed door novels can be. 

⇢ the johnny white subplot. it was cute, and possibly one of the only things i cared about for the entire novel. but it felt kind of ... abandoned on the side of the road? it was pushed off and then given like a 3 sentence resolution. 

the negatives:

⇢ oh boy. where do we begin. leons inner voice, probably? i know, i know there are people who have written countless defenses for his inner voice, and for the writing style on leons point of views. i get it. i see your arguments. i do not care. his chapters are written with very few personal pronouns, and even fewer complete sentences. it’s disjointed and a bit hard to read, and it robs leon of any real personality. i understand if during dialogue, he was more reserved as the point is supposed to be that he’s a reserved person, but when his ENTIRE inner voice is written like that, it’s hard to actually see him as a character. 

⇢ the notes. the notes. the notes. ARGHHHH i wish they had been done.. better. i wish most of this book had been done better. leon and tiffy do most of their communicating through the notes, which would be a very cute idea but unfortunately there was usually no description or thought process in between notes, and leon stuck to maybe one sentence. so, we get a long wordy note from tiffy, not explanation, and then a short note from leon that conveys no personality or emotion. for most of the book, we’re stuck reading them correspond through notes with leon saying almost nothing and then all of a sudden hes into her now?

⇢ they had such little chemistry. it felt like neither character was fleshed out fully beyond their independent plot points. and i didnt find that they had chemistry, at all? i think bottom line i just didn’t care about their relationship. they didn’t pull you in, and because most of there talking was done through the notes and leon mainly said nothing, we had so little to go on. and when they finally did meet, it felt like we were seeing the author speedrun a relationship. 

⇢ the side characters. they were annoying, i dont know how else to say it. most of the time gerty just came off as rude, like, that’s it. and her entire existence was solely because she was a lawyer, and leon needed a lawyer for his brother. mo existed to.... i dont know? be a therapist? but not tiffy’s therapist? be gerty’s secret lover? be the “soft” to gerty’s “hard”. we only heard from mo and gerty when tiffy was going to them for advice, and they lacked .. depth... purpose. and then you have rachel, who i guess was there to be devils advocate? she was tiffy’s OTHER best friend who gerty hates, because jealousy ofc. all rachel is there to do is to talk about sex, and encourage tiffy to get back out there.  

⇢ this is probably a me specific thing but, i had personal issues with the way tiffy was described? it seemed like more than once tiffy was described as TALL but not fat, never fat. there was even a point where leon specifies that he thought she would be “dumpier” but was happy she wasn’t. it just felt... eh. i dont know. whats the point in making sure we know shes not fat? 

overall, i don’t know. i really wanted to like it, but i cannot help the fact that i didn’t. i definitely understand the appeal, for some people, but for me  it just felt.... odd. the premise was cool, the execution was bad, case closed bring in the dancing lobsters. 

[mirrorfalls]

Wonder Woman - assorted thoughts

(This disjointed excuse for a review made possible by contributions from Baroness @lauralot89 and viewers like you. Thank you.)

Well, I suppose I should start this with a disclaimer that I’ve never seen any of the other DCEU movies (it took me a good long while just to warm up to Harley’s Squad costume), so those who view this one in the context of the DCEU’s arcs and themes as a whole may find additional reasons to be elated or disappointed. That said...

It was good. Not great, but with the numbers of things that it - that any Wonder Woman origin, really - had to juggle, that was perhaps never in the running...

Alright, the way I see it, the chief stumbling-block in Wonder Woman’s mythos (at least, where connecting her to the wider DC Universe is concerned) is... well, the mythology. To accept the Amazons, the audience must also accept that actual Gods exist, and that those same Gods have been influencing human society and behavior since the dawn of time. This is kind of a problem in the modern superhero genre, which is largely built on individualism, emphasizes both good and evil as conscious human choices, and distrusts any authority that isn’t 100% deferential to the hero 100% of the time (I believe @ragnell has some choice posts on the modern trend of pitting Wonder Woman against her own pantheon, and how toxic it is as a storytelling choice). When Diana and Steve are making eyes at one another, for instance - do they love each other for what they are, or are they merely dancing to Aphrodite’s will?

(Thor weaseled out of this by portraying the Asgardians as a distant alien kingdom whose pre-Avengers interactions with Earth amounted to “dropped a Plot Coupon here a couple millenniums ago, also inspired some old stories” - but from what I understand, mortals have never been as important to Norse myths as they have been to Greek ones. Thor and Loki are first and foremost princes and brothers in their own Godly realm, not stewards of mortal functions like love, communication, or dying.)

Wonder Woman tries to head this problem off by emphasizing Ares (and maybe Zeus...?) is the only Olympian still alive by 1917, but even then, there’s a delicate balancing act. Make Ares too big of a villain, and the audience will come away with the impression that all (or at least most) human evil can be blamed on some upstart God; too little, and you’re left wondering whether our heroine made any difference at all in the grand scheme of things. I can’t say Jenkins and the writers didn’t try for balance, but it came off more as bet-hedging - there’s a big song-and-dance about how beating up one guy won’t accomplish anything, and yet that one guy was the reason Steve had to make his big sacrifice at all...

In vaguely related topics - hinging the central conflict on “stop the bad guys from fucking up the peace process” rather than “turn the War in favor of the good guys” is a neat idea on paper, but in practice it sort of feeds into that “did we make any actual difference” issue. To mitigate this, I think the movie should’ve portrayed more of the War from the cheap seats, show off just how much the average citizen's life sucks and how much they have to gain from peace. There are little allusions to things like racism and PTSD, but give me a soldier who tries to charge into No Man’s Land because he just can’t take being cooped up in the trenches anymore; give me a mother who has to divide a single, half-rotted apple among five children; give me the specter of polio and typhus and Spanish Flu hanging over it all, preying on a populace too tired and poor and uprooted to even bathe regularly.

(I suppose I should also say something about the Diana’s birth, which I believe was the biggest pre-release kerfuffle among fandom, but the bet-hedging is even worse in this department, like the writers are leaving a backdoor open to any combination of retcons. @bluefall-returns, you have any particular thoughts on this?)

As for the villains... Field Marshal Whatshisface and Dr. Poison are largely disposable, though I liked the Doctor’s quarter-mask, and that scene where they laugh and twirl mustaches over all the generals trapped in the gas-filled room give me some good Evil Family Bonding feels. Which is more emotion than Ares ever roused... I didn’t hate him as much as everyone else who saw this movie seems to, but I was begging and praying that for once, the authority figure who’s (apparently) on the heroes’ side wouldn’t turn out to be the traitor, and I was bitterly disappointed. I like the Perezian touches on his armor, but I really wish they kept his face to two glowing coals over a field of black; having his face be actually visible in the helmet just makes him look like a Ren Faire escapee.

Okay, that’s enough whining about the cons. The pros - Diana’s childhood is absolutely adorable; Themyscira as a whole is a gorgeous, functional society that left me wanting to see more; Gadot’s accent isn’t nearly as distracting as I thought it’d be; Steve’s little band is pleasantly diverting without being distracting; Etta is also adorable (though after seeing what @themyskira had to say about the fish-out-of-water bits, I went to get my first refill during the London sequence so I probably missed quite a bit of her); and praise Gaea, there’s no obnoxious #notallmen moral like in the 2009 DTV.

Most of all, though, I loved the use of the Lasso. Unlike previous adaptations, which mostly turned it into a fancy grappling hook during fight scenes (if they didn’t ignore it entirely), here it was almost like a Green Lantern Ring, constantly moving, constantly changing shape, always dangerous. Come to that, I also loved how the Amazons were more than a match for the German soldiers despite being five centuries behind in weaponry, and the scene where Diana charges into No Man’s Land is the first time in a long, long time any superhero movie actually managed to get my blood pumping.

(That said, I agree with @renaroo that there was too much slow-mo; bullet-timing bracelets be damned, it got real old real fast.)

Now, my usher said there wasn’t a post-credits scene, so I only stuck around for about thirty seconds into those, but the Cast List was a pleasant surprise. Euboea! Mnemosyne! Artemis! Sure, none of them had any on-screen names or relevance, but it goes to show someone who worked on this movie cared, and I salute them for all this sequel fuel respect for the source material.

Oh, and the soundtrack was great. More memorable than any Marvel movie I’ve seen, but we’ll see if that holds up a couple weeks down the line...

[cluelessnamelessao3]

But It’s Not Funny

13. I’m So Tired

Since that disjointed conversation with Frisk your head had been reeling with all sorts of questions based on the half-conversation you’d had. Their warning about your safety was also on your mind. You couldn’t help but wonder what could possibly have you in danger?

Sure, there were rumours of humans being verbally abusive toward monsters—you had seen it yourself, but as of yet, there were no incidents of human on monster violence… at least, as far as you were aware.

Perhaps you needed to keep up with the news better?

Then again, if there wasn’t any human on monster violence—well, what happened to Frisk? A bigger question might be, what happened to Asriel? He looked wilted and as though he was ghastly ill. Was he hurt? Or was it something more?

Actually… you didn’t know what happened to monsters when they got hurt. You didn’t know what happened when, or if, they got sick. You weren’t entirely sure if monsters could necessarily die the way people died. It was a morbid train of thought, but you were suddenly feeling as thought it was an important thing to know.

Not to mention, Asriel was certainly not a typical monster. Would he even get sick the same way?

As you lay in bed, eyes tracing the sculpted patterns of the white textured ceiling in your cheap apartment, you realised that you might need to do some reading—or ask your friends more. Maybe Sans—you stopped that thought, you would have better luck asking Papyrus to help you in this endeavour. Sans was a good friend, but also lazy.

Feeling satisfied with that line of thought, your brain flickered over to dissect Frisk’s mention of your ‘aura’.

They were right; you were unnaturally good with pets. You’d been a peacemaker of sorts in school, growing up. You had always been the one to come upon and rescue animals, even the mangiest of them. You were never troubled by your little furry customers despite putting them through the torture of baths, grooming, and other care.

Luna was just one example of a pet who calmed down considerably after being around you. As a youngster she was rough, boisterous, and she was big. She had been somewhat unruly, though loving. Luna was a tough girl, but after you adopted her, she evened out. She calmed down significantly. She was a gentle beast. A gentle giant, so to speak. Though, not so giant, just kind of thick and sturdy.

With thoughts of Luna, you drifted off.

 The blankets and sheets pooled around your waist as you sat up in bed. You yawned as you blinked the sleep from your eyes. Your hair was almost as ruffled as your sleep clothes, and you felt all too comfortable to consider getting up.

You were about to flop back down, the thought of more sleep on your mind, when your phone began to ring.

You answered quickly, voice thick with sleep and your mouth just a bit dry, “y-ello?”

“When are you going to visit, dear?”

All of a sudden, you were hit with a flurry of emotions; the briefest flash of disbelief, curbed by the heat of anger, and followed by an overwhelming sense of dread. You didn’t hate many things, certainly, but you hated this. You hated surprise calls from her. You hated that she made you feel so gross. The last time you saw her was as you were packing to leave the house.

“I’m… not sure.”

There was a pause on the other end of the line, marked with a put-out sigh. The silence stretched, and you absently rubbed your feet against the fabric of your sheets, waiting for her to speak.

“Well, you can’t avoid your home forever… your brother misses you! I miss you!” Sickly sweet, and completely false.

You felt nauseated.

She continued at your silence, “How about you come up this next weekend to see your dear mama and brother?”

The way she called herself your mother irked you despite the way her voice made you feel ever so small.

“I’m not su—”

“You’re never sure, but sometimes you have to make a sacrifice for your family. Don’t be so selfish. Come visit me and your brother,” she chattered, “There is a whole family gathering happening next week and I would really like for the family to be present for pictures and all.”

Even after having lived on your own for some time, just her voice was able to bring up memories of a less tolerable life. You did not want to go back to that dollhouse. Living a picture-perfect life, posing for the outsides, yet seeing the ugly truth at home. The neglect and the torment endured within that broken household with an overcompensating yet cruel stepmother, an absentee father, miscreant children and dead spouses was no place you would want to return to.

Uneasily you replied simply, “I can’t,” before hanging up the cell phone.

The hand that touched the phone felt dirty, and your cheeks were wet with tears. Frustration, that gut-wrenching dissatisfaction at the outcomes of life gnawed your insides as you lay motionless. Your body felt weak, exhausted more than you’d been before answer the phone. Some people just sap the life out of others. This was one of those times.

Guilt, a useless emotion, welled beneath the surface of your ire. The anger never lasted long. You wondered if you overreacted. You tried, pointlessly, to remind yourself of the negative impact she has had on your life. You tried to reason out that truly you owed her nor your stepbrother anything. You argued that the only reason she wanted you there was to portray that false ideal; she had not changed.

Your phone dinged, breaking you from your ruminations.

Asriel [6:38 am]

We still need to speak to you.

Another message followed the first:

It is impertinent that no one knows that we talked, or what we talked about. Frisk has more to say. Meet us at the SHOP @ 7:00.

You frowned, looking first at the time, just to confirm that it was indeed as early as the text-timestamp stated, and second at the date, to make sure what you already knew: no work today. Frisk didn’t mean your shop, did they?

You only had a little bit of time to get ready and get going if you wanted to try to get there anywhere near seven o’clock.

You weren’t exactly sure what was going to happen, but you were going to get some answers. Or, well, at least try to.