#look at me! nellie's doing an analysis! | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

burningvelvet · 10 months ago

Text

A very long analysis on Heathcliff, his relationships, and his origins: or, how Wuthering Heights drove me insane :)

Links to my previous WH analysis (which aren't required to read this post!): 1) my post analyzing heathcliff & his relationships with cathy2.0/isabella/hareton / 2) smaller post analyzing heathcliff & the earnshaws in relation to theories about his parentage / 3) misc. heathcliff/cathy analysis

On Heathcliff's origins, his mysteriousness, and his arrival to Wuthering Heights:

As I mention in that 2nd link, I think the theory of Heathcliff being Mr. Earnshaw's son is an interesting theory of conjecture because even if not true (and it probably isn't) it allows us to more deeply explore the generally accepted basis of the canon, which is that Heathcliff is not related to them, but nevertheless is still caught between the labels of "family" and "outsider," just like he would have been if he had indeed been a bastard, a step-child, or even more formally adopted. Under Mr. Earnshaw's wishes Heathcliff shares a room with the children, he is given equal gifts and clothes as them, and he is preferred over Hindley. And while he may not be in line to inherit legally, he ends up inheriting anyway, an idea which lends itself to the novels Joseph-approved theme of predeterminism/fate.

So I'm not dead-set on any singular interpretation or theory as to Heathcliff's role in the story or the details of his background. Much of his character is inherently mysterious: his race and age are unknown, his family history and origins are unknown, what he was doing for 3 years of Cathy's marriage and how he acquired his wealth are unknown, some of his feelings and motives are highly debatable (as I discussed in my post about his odd dynamics with Cathy 2.0, Isabella, & Hareton: https://www.tumblr.com/burningvelvet/738901817580290048/my-analysis-on-heathcliff-and-his-relationships), & whether English was his first language is also questioned (many people including myself have wondered at the line where we're told he "repeated over and over again some gibberish that nobody could understand," though it could have just been panicked child's speech).

Many academics have noted how Wuthering Heights follows various testaments of the Gothic literary tradition, not only by the involvement of death, violence, ghosts, etc., but also in the use of incestuous themes (whether literal or metaphorical) and the use of the Other in Heathcliff, aided by the mysteries of his origins and his racial ambiguity.

As for Heathcliff not revealing much about his childhood, I believe this part of it could be due to trauma as well as regular childhood amnesia. He may not remember anything. A lot of people don't have many memories from before the age of ~6 anyway — and I just looked it up— his real age is never given but he is believed to be around the same age than Cathy who was described as "hardly six years old." I had thought they were a little older for some reason. He's also said to have been "speaking gibberish" which I once considered may have been indicative of a foreign language and/or accent but now, because of his age and probable low background, it may have been due to his just being very young and maybe unsocialized and shy. It actually makes my heart ache when Nelly describes him :(

Here's an excerpt from chapter 3 describing Heathcliff's childhood:

"He threw himself into a chair, laughing and groaning, and bid them all stand off, for he was nearly killed—he would not have such another walk for the three kingdoms.

'And at the end of it to be flighted to death!' he said, opening his great-coat, which he held bundled up in his arms. 'See here, wife! I was never so beaten with anything in my life: but you must 'en take it as a gift of God; though it's as dark almost as if it came from the devil.'"

We crowded round, and over Miss Cathy's head I had d peep at a dirty, ragged, black-haired child; big enough both to walk and talk: indeed, its face looked older than Catherine's; yet when it was set on its feet, it only stared round, and repeated over and over again some gibberish that nobody could understand. I was frightened, and Mrs. Earnshaw was ready to fling it out of doors: she did fly up, asking how he could fashion to bring that gipsy brat into the house, when they had their own bairns to feed and fend for? What he meant to do with it, and whether he were mad? The master tried to explain the matter; but he was really half dead with fatigue, and all that I could make out, amongst her scolding, was a tale of his seeing it starving, and houseless, and as good as dumb, in the streets of Liverpool, where he picked it up and inquired for its owner. Not a soul knew to whom it belonged, he said; and his money and time being both limited, he thought it better to take it home with him at once, than run into vain expenses there: because he was determined he would not leave it as he found it. Well, the conclusion was, that my mistress grumbled herself calm; and Mr. Earnshaw told me to wash it, and give it clean things, and let it sleep with the children.

Hindley and Cathy contented themselves with looking and listening till peace was restored: then, both began searching their father's pockets for the presents he had promised them. The former was a boy of fourteen, but when he drew out what had been a fiddle, erushed to morsels in the great-coat, he blubbered aloud; and Cathy, when she learned the master had lost her whip in attending on the stranger, showed her humour by grinning and spitting at the stupid little thing; earning for her pains a sound blow from her father, to teach her cleaner manners. They entirely refused to have it in bed with them, or even in their room; and I had no more sense, so I put it on the landing of the stairs, hoping it might be gone on the morrow. By chance, or else attracted by hearing his voice, it crept to Mr. Earnshaw's door, and there he found it on quitting his chamber. Inquiries were made as to how it got there; I was obliged to confess, and in recompense for my cowardice and inhumanity was sent out of the house.

This was Heathcliff's first introduction to the family. On coming back a few days afterwards (for I did not consider my banishment perpetual), I found they had christened him 'Heathcliff': it was the name of a son who died in child-hood, and it has served him ever since, both for Christian and surname. Miss Cathy and he were now very thick; but Hindley hated him: and to say the truth I did the same; and we plagued and went on with him shamefully: for I wasn't reasonable enough to feel my injustice, and the mistress never put in a word on his behalf when she saw him wronged.

He seemed a sullen, patient child; hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley's blows without winking or shedding a tear, and my pinches moved him only to draw in a breath and open his eyes, as if he had hurt himself by accident, and nobody was to blame. This endurance made old Earnshaw furious, when he discovered his son persecuting the poor fatherless child, as he called him. He took to Heathcliff strangely, believing all he said (for that matter, he said precious little, and generally the truth), and petting him up far above Cathy, who was too mischievous and wayward for a favourite.

So, from the very beginning, he bred bad feeling in the house; and at Mrs. Earnshaw's death, which happened in less than two years after, the young master had learned to regard his father as an oppressor rather than a friend, and Heathcliff as a usurper of his paren's affections and his privileges; and he grew bitter with brooding over these injuries. I sympathised a while; but when the children fell ill of the measles, and I had to tend them, and take on me the cares of a woman at once, I changed my idea. Heathcliff was dangerously sick; and while he lay at the worst he would have me constantly by his pillow: I suppose he felt I did a good deal for him, and he hadn't wit to guess that I was compelled to do it. However, I will say this, he was the quietest child that ever nurse watched over. The difference between him and the others forced me to be less partial. Cathy and her brother harassed me terribly: he was as uncomplaining as a lamb; though hardness, not gentleness, made him give little trouble."

From this excerpt we see that Earnshaw 1) despite being racist toward Heathcliff, is also wildly protective of him - so much so that he kicks Nelly out of the house FOR DAYS for initially not allowing Heathcliff to sleep in his childrens room 2) Earnshaw doesn't like Cathy that much, and prefers Heathcliff over her; later when he dies he has a nice moment with her, but still asks her why she can't be a better child (lol) 3) Earnshaw did not name Heathcliff on his own accord but Heathcliff is named after Earnshaw's own son that died!!! And that says a lot; we're also never really told how Mrs. Earnshaw felt about him being named after her dead kid, or if she had a part in it or not, or if she grew to like Heathcliff too — she just dies soon after - however, I think we can all assume she always favored Hindley over Heathcliff, since we're told Hindley's jealousy grew after her death 4) Heathcliff is described by Earnshaw as a "gift from God" which I find kind of suspicious because Earnshaw struggled so much just to get him home... um, God had no part in that, Mr. - unless he's referring to the kids existence imo. At any rate, if Heathcliff isn't biologically related to Earnshaw, we're still led to have the sense that Heathcliff is sort of predestined to be there 5) Heathcliff was indeed a bit scraggly/unkempt when he arrived, but imo that doesn't mean he was necessarily a homeless orphan; if he did have a mother/family, they probably would have been living in harsh conditions anyway just by being impoverished, and if not, maybe he was just a bit dirty from wandering outside like normal kids do, and like he's so fond of doing anyway on the Moors later on - he could have just been playing outside when this white guy comes along and takes him under his coat! 6) Earnshaw says he asked around for the kids parents and felt obligated to take him on, though the kid was struggling... so yeah, regardless of if he's omitting other info or if he's his father or not, we can infer that he essentially kidnapped Heathcliff.

After re-reading this excerpt, I don't think it's as likely that Earnshaw had seen/known Heathcliff personally prior to his taking him home, but I still don't think any of this totally disproves the theory that Earnshaw could have been lying to Mrs. Earnshaw/omitting certain information.

Why was Mr. Earnshaw in Liverpool to begin with? I and many others often assume it was some sort of a business trip, and it probably was, but after re-reading the part where he leaves, I can't actually find anything to definitively confirm what he was actually there for. He could have been in Liverpool specifically to take Heathcliff with him. Another thing that doesn't make any sense is the fact that he walked all the way there alone: "I’m going to Liverpool today, what shall I bring you? You may choose what you like: only let it be little, for I shall walk there and back: sixty miles each way, that is a long spell!’"

He's then gone for 3 whole days. Meaning according to him, he walked 120 miles in 3 days, half of that while carrying/dragging a struggling small child, who he says he took because it would be his easiest option: "his money and time being both limited, he thought it better to take it home with him at once, than run into vain expenses there."

He's contradicting himself, because if he was so concerned about finances then he never would have taken on another child, as Mrs. Earnshaw immediately supplies (meaning if he was on a mission to retrieve Heathcliff, he didn't tell her): "Mrs. Earnshaw was ready to fling it out of doors: she did fly up, asking how he could fashion to bring that gipsy brat into the house, when they had their own bairns to feed and fend for? What he meant to do with it, and whether he were mad?" Ummmm you're telling me there isn't something a little suspicious or weird about any of this?!

And why would he be walking in the first place when he has horses — was he really so tight on money as to not want to support/feed them on a journey, or did he just not want to be recognized or attract attention, or did he not want to deal with a child riding on a horse for the first time? I assume carriages/wagons were out of the question for costs, and I know people walked a lot back then, especially in rural farmlands, but that is a very long journey as he himself says. What was so important? Did he even go to Liverpool at all? And why did he bundle Heathcliff up as if to hide him? To avoid suspicions about having a bastard child, etc.? And we're told Mrs. Earnshaw was expecting him home earlier, and we get no indication if she knew Mr. Earnshaw's plans or whereabouts.

And why does Mr. Earnshaw act so upbeat and nonchalant about all of this, when we're told he's usually really stern? Ie he supposedly treats Nelly well eg, telling her he'll bring her back fruits on his journey, but then he LOCKS HER OUT OF THE HOUSE FOR MULTIPLE DAYS for not following his orders about putting Heathcliff in the children's room on his first night there.

Where tf did she even go lol? Am I forgetting some part about her family having a nearby house? How far did she have to walk to get there, alone and unaccompanied as a young woman? Probably less than 120 miles in 3 days, but still! He's known Nelly her whole life, and he's supposedly known Heathcliff for a day (in which time Heathcliff has already led him into physical exhaustion), and yet he already prefers Heathcliff over her as well as his own children.

Even excusing Nelly being a narrator of debatable reliability, and being sometimes contradictory & biased against Heathcliff, Mr. Earnshaw's behavior still seems a bit outlandish and it makes sense that Mrs. Earnshaw would ask him if he had gone mad. I course, I may be looking too far into this, but how can I not?

Heathcliff's trauma, his relationship with Mr. Earnshaw, Earnshaw as kidnapper, and race:

I think Heathcliff is certainly severely traumatized. I'm not a psychologist but Nelly's line "hardness, not gentleness, made him give little trouble" is textbook childhood CPTSD, and it is partly due to Earnshaw indeed being a kidnapper with a white saviour/"white man's burden" complex.

I think the following quote by Nelly supports this kidnap view, in that she actually refers to him being kidnapped; Emily may also be encouraging us to speculate on even the most outlandish theories of his origins like Nelly does:

"‘A good heart will help you to a bonny face, my lad,’ I continued, ‘if you were a regular black; and a bad one will turn the bonniest into something worse than ugly. And now that we've done washing, and combing, and sulking—tell me whether you don’t think yourself rather handsome? I'll tell you, I do. You're fit for a prince in disguise. Who knows but your father was Emperor of China, and your mother an Indian queen, each of them able to buy up, with one week’s income, Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange together? And you were kidnapped by wicked sailors and brought to England. Were I in your place, I would frame high notions of my birth; and the thoughts of what I was should give me courage and dignity to support the oppressions of a little farmer!'"

Like in Charlotte's Jane Eyre, Emily also borrows taboo Romantic and Orientalist imagery and racializes the gothic Other figure, because this idea of the foreign/non-white body was a source of anxiety to a lot of white British Victorian readers. This is a popular concept in Gothic literary studies & a lot has been written on it, so I won't go into it too much.

Like Charlotte's Bertha Mason, Linton Heathcliff's identity as being mixed race is essential to his character — in the narrative, him being white-passing is supposed to relate to his identity being more Isabella/Linton (as also evidenced by his name) and less Heathcliff's, who is disappointed not to see his own resemblance in his son.

Since we seriously don't know Heathcliff's true origins, we can't ascertain his ethnicity (given his descriptions/epithets/Nelly's speculations, he is likely fully or part Roma, South-Asian, or African), and we can't tell if he or his family/mother were highborn, enslaved, or simply free, but we do know that slavery was still very active in England in the late 1700s when Heathcliff is a child, and his hometown Liverpool was the center of the slave trade, so connections to slavery either ancestrally or during his hiatus (a popular theory, explored in the book Heathcliff: the Lost Years by David Drum) are possible.

More evidence for the theory of Heathcliff having a previous history of child abuse and unknown early trauma, possibly relating to the slave trade (which doesn't necessarily discount the Earnshaw parentage theory either imo, and if anything may make it more likely if his reasoning for taking Heathcliff was that he wouldn't want his biological son enslaved) — is the portion where Nelly describes Heathcliff and how he initially took Hindley's abuse stoically:

". . . a sullen, patient child; hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley's blows without winking or shedding a tear, and my pinches moved him only to draw in a breath and open his eyes, as if he had hurt himself by accident, and nobody was to blame. This endurance made old Earnshaw furious, when he discovered his son persecuting the poor fatherless child, as he called him. He took to Heathcliff strangely . . ."

When Nelly adds that Earnshaw called Heathcliff "poor fatherless child," I see this as ironic whether Earnshaw is his biological father or not, since he is still the closest thing he has to any sort of "father figure" nominally, and symbolically in line with the view of Earnshaw as flawed micro-colonizer. In the act of standing up for Heathcliff over his own teenage son and future master of the house, he is basically acting as a pseudo-father preferring one son over another; for Hindley, the blow is deepened by Heathcliff not being Earnshaw's son in name.

For clarity's sake, whenever I refer to Mr. Earnshaw as Heathcliff's unofficially adoptive father or father figre, I do so sort of hesitatingly. Mr. Earnshaw/Heathcliff do not have a regular father/son dynamic; we're told that Heathcliff did not embrace but rather fought Mr. Earnshaw the entire 60 miles back to the Heights.

Surely the above may be hyperbole, but we must keep in mind that Mr. Earnshaw's gifts for Cathy/Hindley/Nelly were lost or destroyed in the process: most symbolically, Mr. Earnshaw's struggle to obtain Heathcliff led to Hindley's fiddle being broken, Cathy's whip being lost, and we're never told what happened to Nelly's gift of fruit, but we can assume it was lost or never got to be obtained as a result of his preoccupation.

Heathcliff's relationship with Mr. Earnshaw is complicated because of the racial power imbalance & as I said, Earnshaw having a white saviour complex & basically kidnapping Heathcliff despite (or so we're told) not fully knowing if Heathcliff had a family or not. Most important are Heathcliff's own feelings about the situation; Earnshaw's wild affection is clear.

We're told by Nelly's observations that Heathcliff clearly did not have a great love for Earnshaw: "I wondered often what my master saw to admire so much in the sullen boy; who never, to my recollection, repaid his indulgence by any sign of gratitude. He was not insolent to his benefactor, he was simply insensible; though knowing perfectly the hold he had on his heart, and conscious he had only to speak and all the house would be obliged to bend to his wishes."

When Mr. Earnshaw was dying, Heathcliff was sitting with Cathy who was singing to Earnshaw. When they realize Earnshaw has finally passed, Heathcliff seems to genuinely grieve as equally as Cathy (Hindley is at college at this time):

"The poor thing discovered her loss directly — she screamed out — 'Oh, he's dead, Heathcliff! he's dead!' And they both set up a heart-breaking cry." Later when Nelly returns from getting help: "I ran to the children's room: their door was ajar, I saw they had never lain down, though it was past midnight; but they were calmer, and did not need me to console them. The little souls were comforting each other with better thoughts than I could have hit on: no parson in the world ever pictured heaven so beautifully as they did, in their innocent talk . . ."

Yet we also know by Heathcliff's odd dynamics with Nelly and Hareton, and even by some of his behavior around Catherine I (who is the only person that most of us can agree he really loves), we can see that, probably due to trauma, Heathcliff does not know how to show affection "normally."

By his earlier disconnected reactions to Hindley's abuse, we can see that early on he had trouble reacting to negative emotions as well, which probably led him to his later emotional dysregulation & bursts of rage/frustration, which make complete sense in his situation and are why we can still often sympathize with him in his path of vengeance, even despite his abusiveness.

So we do not know the full extent of Heathcliff's feelings toward Mr. Earnshaw, and whether he truly had deep affection for him or somewhat resented him, but whatever his feelings were, they were clearly complex. As we all know, Heathcliff is capable of feeling very strongly, and when he does, he is usually vocal about it (see: literally most of his dialogue). He can't go 30 seconds without roasting someone lol. But he is oddly ambivalent and quiet about Earnshaw.

You could also (& countless academics have) argue that Earnshaw/the Earnshaw family is essentially a microcosm of colonization, Heathcliff is symbolically captured/enslaved by Mr. Earnshaw (which highlights how white saviourism is oxymoronic), and then actually becomes almost literally enslaved by Hindley later on.

On Heathcliff and Hindley:

Both are extremely flawed. Both are wildly in love with women who die from labor, both become abusive single fathers, both are defined by their grief and feelings of revenge, both want to kill each other all throughout the story, both actually try to do so to varying extents. Heathcliff saves Hareton from Hindley's negligence by catching him, Hindley saves Isabella from Heathcliff's abuse by tackling the latter (in what I think is one of the novels best sequences, Isabella's narration of the period of Heathcliff and Hindley's fighting and her escape). Heathcliff's bond with Hareton, like Hindley's bond with Isabella, is both manipulative and touching in turns. Ditto for their bonds to Nelly.

Many people believe Heathcliff had a role to play, directly or indirectly, in Hindley's death. Evidence for this: 1) teen Heathcliff wishes Hindley could drink himself to death but acknowledges doctor Kenneth says he won't: "‘It’s a pity he cannot kill himself with drink,’ observed Heathcliff, muttering an echo of curses back when the door was shut. ‘He’s doing his very utmost; but his constitution defies him. Mr. Kenneth says he would wager his mare that he’ll outlive any man on this side Gimmerton, and go to the grave a hoary sinner; unless some happy chance out of the common course befall him.’" 2) later, Kenneth remarks to Nelly that "He's barely twenty-seven, it seems; that's your own age: who would have thought you were born in one year?'" 3) Joseph once accused Heathcliff of attempting to murder Hindley during their fight ("And so ye've been murthering on him?") - in which Isabella said Heathcliff had to barely restrain himself from not killing Hindley. Joseph later adds suspicion to Hindley's death when, after Heathcliff explains to Nelly how Hindley had been suffering from the effects of alcoholism but died suddenly in the morning, Joseph "confirmed this statement, but muttered: "I'd rayther he'd goan hisseln for t' doctor! I sud ha' taen tent o' t' maister better nor him—and he warn't deead when I left, naught o' t' soart!'" (trans. from WH Reader's Guide site: "'I'd rather he'd gone himself for the doctor! I would have taken care of the master better than him—and he wasn't dead when I left, nothing of the sort!'"). So Heathcliff told Joseph to fetch Kenneth which left Heathcliff alone with Hindley, who was then dead when Joseph/Kenneth arrived.

My own theory is that Hindley probably choked on his own vomit (a common form of death by addiction) because of Heathcliff's description of he and Joseph finding Hindley "snorting like a horse; and there he was, laid over the settle: flaying and scalping would not have wakened him." It is after this that Heathcliff is alone with Hindley and he dies. Heathcliff can be seen as guilty through inaction imo, though he would justify it by saying he was letting nature take its course.

Heathcliff and Hindley take turns enslaving each other throughout the story. Hindley's seniority, legitimacy, and race give him advantages, while Heathcliff's early favoritism by Mr. Earnshaw and his later accrual of wealth, wit, and strength give him some advantages. We're told by Nelly (and she's biased, but she's the main source we have) that Hindley bullied Heathcliff immediately, to which Heathcliff weaponized Mr. Earnshaw in his favor, as evidenced by the horse scene.

If, when Hindley returned to become master of Wuthering Heights after Mr. Earnshaw's death, his wife Frances had taken a liking to Heathcliff, or if Hindley had simply matured in his time away — in other words, if Hindley had decided to grow up and let bygones be bygones — I wonder if Heathcliff would have done the same, and decided to be peaceful & not to continue their childhood rivalry.

The bulk of Heathcliff's lust for revenge really stems from Hindley's treatment of him after Mr. Earnshaw's death, when Hindley, as the new Mr. Earnshaw, really does follow through on that childhood promise during the horse scene to use his wealth/power/independence to render Heathcliff miserable, and to turn him out or keep him enslaved. Possibly at the beckoning of Frances (which I mention later,) Hindley succeeds in fulfilling this childish power fantasy, and this is partly what inspires Heathcliff to obtain the means of flipping the script and later rendering Hindley a weakened dependent.

Although Hindley is racist/absorbed his parents racism, note that Catherine was not/did not, and so Hindley's true hatred of Heathcliff imo is more motivated by jealousy/envy for his father's affection than it is anything else, & his own feelings of inadequacy & self-hatred which likely would have existed anyway & were just fuelled by being "usurped" in his father's affection.

I really blame Mr. (& Mrs., though we sadly have so little insight into her character) Earnshaw for Hindley/Heathcliff's rivalry, because I feel like we can assume Mrs. Earnshaw must have favored Hindley more when Mr. Earnshaw started favoring Heathcliff, considering Hindley's hatred increased after the grief from his mother's death, — and this favoritism & parental split is bound to deepen the split between their favorites.

Hindley's hatred of Heathcliff really increased after his father & then his wife's deaths (meaning he had prolonged complex grief), which I'm assuming compounded & brought back his feelings of his original grief for his mother, resulting in further hatred of Heathcliff who had nothing to do with any of it but whose arrival Hindley just subconsciously associated with his mother's illness/death & his father's emotional abandonment (which we could consider a mental death which took place before his physical death; imo Hindley's whole character is defined by grief).

To enhance their pseudo-brotherly rivalry, which some may say is reminiscent of Abel/Cain (especially if you believe the theory/opinion that Heathcliff murdered Hindley or was otherwise in any part to blame for his death), we again have the fact that Heathcliff was named after Hindley's dead brother.

Heathcliff is actually Heathcliff 2.0, and maybe it was Mr. Earnshaw's grief that led him to use Heathcliff 2.0 as a replacement child the way Hindley uses Mrs. Earnshaw 2.0 as a replacement mother.

All throughout the story we have people being named after each other and taking on each other's roles, ie the whole 1st/2nd generation parallels (we could extend it to be 1st/2nd/3rd since I've highlighted the narrative importance of Mr./Mrs. Earnshaw), Linton Heathcliff, Cathy 1.0/2.0. — but we know nothing about Heathcliff 1.0 other than that he died in childhood.

Was he Catherine's age, younger, or older? Did Catherine see Heathcliff as a replacement brother? Did Heathcliff 1.0 die before Catherine was born? Was he Hindley's age? Did Hindley already have grief/trauma from Heathcliff 1.0's death and resent Heathcliff 2.0 for usurping not only him, but his dead brother's place?

We're told that "the family" gave Heathcliff 2.0 his name, but I assume Mrs. Earnshaw and Hindley may not have been involved due to us never seeing that they care for him — and Joseph may have had a role in it, but he's also rarely thoughtful, and Nelly was gone — so could Cathy have suggested the name Heathcliff? (which brings to my mind Edward Rochester telling Jane Eyre to "give him his name" when he proposes to her, asking her to call him "Edward" — this would be poetic of Catherine/Heathcliff's relationship).

The meaning of the names Heathcliff/Hindley are very similar; they also share the same initials, syllable count, and the "ee" sound. Heathcliff is a combination of "heath" (a synonym for "moor"; what he and Cathy love to roave on) and "cliff." In meaning, apparently (according to some sources on Ancestry.com) Hindley is a habitational name from hind 'hind, female deer' and lēah 'woodland clearing' — which is basically another way of saying heath/moor. So there is a lot of similarity in their names, and this tainted brotherly theme, both of which must have been intentional.

Regardless of whether Heathcliff & Hindley are foster brothers or half-brothers, this naming choice is still a sign that Heathcliff was predestined to be part of the family, and lends itself to the other themes of predeterminism in that Heathcliff ends up becoming the master of the Heights after Hindley the way he would have if he were his biological brother.

Mr. Earnshaw telling Hindley he'd bring him back any gift he chose, and then returning with that gift having been broken by Heathcliff, are ample reasons to explain the hatred that moody 14-year-old Hindley immediately feels for him, who was about half his age and therefore an impractical playmate. He is more like a new sibling, and like an older sibling, Hindley is horrified at being overshadowed by the family's new addition. Since we don't know whether Hindley knew or was close to Heathcliff 1.0, we can hesitantly assume he may have been upset by the naming.

On Heathcliff, Hindley, and Frances:

I would like to briefly touch more on Hindley's wife's death (so closely followed by his fathers death) bringing up feelings of his mothers death. Hindley's wife Frances Earnshaw is the second Mrs. Earnshaw and she only comes to the house right after Mr. Earnshaw dies. I believe Hindley parallels his father, Frances parallels his mother (so like many men, he metaphorically "married his mother"), and that Frances also has some similarities to Heathcliff.

Frances has an unknown origin story and Hindley keeps her background from his father on purpose, and this could have been intended to parallel the first Mr. Earnshaw from possibly keeping Heathcliff's origins vague: "What she was, and where she was born, he never informed us: probably, she had neither money nor name to recommend her, or he would scarcely have kept the union from his father."

Frances also immediately dislikes Heathcliff... just like Hindley's mother, the first Mrs. Earnshaw, did: "Mrs. Earnshaw was ready to fling it out of doors: she did fly up, asking how he could fashion to bring that gipsy brat into the house, when they had their own bairns to feed and fend for? What he meant to do with it, and whether he were mad?"

We don't know why Frances dislikes Heathcliff, but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume it has to do with his race & status, because it is only after her disapproval that Hindley banishes Heathcliff to the role of a servant/slave, we can assume. We can also assume Frances disliked Heathcliff from the beginning, since we're never told that she took a liking to him like she initially does with Catherine; we are only ever told she dislikes him:

"She expressed pleasure, too, at finding a sister among her new acquaintance; and she prattled to Catherine, and kissed her, and ran about with her, and gave her quantities of presents, at the beginning. Her affection tired very soon, however, and when she grew peevish, Hindley became tyrannical. A few words from her, evincing a dislike to Heathcliff, were enough to rouse in him all his old hatred of the boy. He drove him from their company to the servants, deprived him of the instructions of the curate, and insisted that he should labour out of doors instead; compelling him to do so as hard as any other lad on the farm."

It is after the last quote that we learn Cathy and Heathcliff become increasingly "feral" outdoors, as Heathcliff is forced to toil in outdoor labor, and Cathy insists on keeping him company while he's at it. At this point they are both essentially orphaned, and then neglected and abandoned by Hindley and Frances, the new Mr. and Mrs. Earnshaw, who take on the roles of the former Mr. and Mrs. Earnshaw, who were similarly neglectful and emotionally abandoning to their children.

On Cathy and Heathcliff:

In the beginning, Lockwood reads this diary entry from Catherine I which proves the prior analysis in that she compares Mr. Earnshaw 1.0 to Mr. Earnshaw 2.0 (Hindley):

""An awful Sunday,' commenced the paragraph beneath. 'I wish my father were back again. Hindley is a detestable substitute — his conduct to Heathcliff is atrocious – H. and I are going to rebel — we took our initiatory step this evening."

Notice how in the death of Mr. Earnshaw and then under the tyranny of Hindley (Mr. Earnshaw 2.0), Cathy and Heathcliff are often sharing each other's emotions, and their bond is very twin-like. They both cry & grieve in their room in unison after Earnshaw dies, and although Heathcliff is the one primarily sentenced to torment by Hindley, Cathy doesn't abandon him to it and instead often keeps him company in his punishment, recalling when she was younger and her father would try to keep Heathcliff away from her to punish her.

Even when Cathy does sort of abandon Heathcliff to marry Edgar, in her speech after Heathcliff leaves, she says that her plan was to use her control over Edgar to benefit Heathcliff, so she really never intended to abandon him at all. Abandonment, attachment issues, separation, loss, grief, being torn away from someone/somewhere/something, are all major themes in this story, often expressed by familial and more often filial experiences.

Cathy and Heathcliff's relationship basically embodies all these themes the most poignantly, in that Heathcliff abandons her because he thinks she's abandoning him and he can't bear it and would rather leave than be left; then as soon as he returns, Cathy ends up actually physically abandoning him by dying! And later on, her ghost taunts him (I believe most of us can take the ghost plot as canon & not hallucinatory considering how many characters attest to it), and he once again returns to her like he did before.

Their whole relationship is about overcoming obstacles to separation, and being determined to retain their attachment as an act of defiance (even if it means defying life, death, physics, etc.) — this is why they're considered the most romantic couple in literature even despite their awful behavior most of the time, because in writing/literary pedagogy as a general rule it is almost always the goal of romantic leads to overcome obstacles which separate them from their lover, – and Heathcliff and Cathy take this goal to a new level by overcoming not only their childhood punishments of separation from one another, but overcoming the impossible obstacles of LIFE AND DEATH to reunite in the spirit realm where no one can separate them again — not even God.

Both Catherine and Heathcliff say that they know they won't go to heaven; God literally doesn't want them, and he has abandoned them, and this is the ultimate abandonment/seperation. Thus, all they have in the universe is each other — and if their relationship didn't work in life, they're determined to make it work in death!

Some final thoughts on Mr. Earnshaw and the making of Heathcliff:

Due to all of my previous explanations, I consider Mr. Earnshaw a possibly well-intentioned man but who ultimately failed all of his children (along with Mrs. Earnshaw) by 1) emotionally neglecting/abandoning Catherine because she was a "bad child" & acted more boyish than Hindley, 2) emotionally neglecting/abandoning Hindley in favor of Heathcliff (and maybe it was partly because Hindley was becoming a moody teenager and Heathcliff was comparatively younger/easier to handle bc of his trauma-induced subdued nature, but whatever his reasoning, it had disastrous consequences), 3) emotionally neglecting Heathcliff too by not being involved enough in his integration with the family & not checking in on him and Hindley, 4) straight up just not being that involved to begin with and not seeming to teach his children anything, hence why they're all bratty and grow up to be deeply maladjusted.

Notice how Nelly's motivational speeches to Heathcliff, and her taking care of him when he was sick, have an extraordinary affect on him, meaning Mr. and Mrs. Earnshaw probably didn't show him even half as much attention or real affection. Like most English fathers at the time, Earnshaw thought his job as father/master was to merely provide provisions, leave the children with the women to be actually raised, and be done with it. The most unique thing he does in his life, and indeed his whole role in the story, is bringing home Heathcliff.

Maybe most importantly, I also just realized that Earnshaw kidnapping Heathcliff parallels Heathcliff kidnapping his own son after Isabella dies (and also him kidnapping his daughter-in-law Cathy II), and while this narrative parallel works if Earnshaw is merely Heathcliff's adoptive father, it also could be working to suggest that Earnshaw was his biological father, knew Heathcliff's mother had died, and so went back for him and took him by force. If Heathcliff's mother had recently died (or been separated from him), this would have compounded his trauma of being taken by Earnshaw, and this would have furthered his childhood memory loss, which could be another reason why I don't think Heathcliff remembers very much about his origins.

Heathcliff has much in common with Frankenstein's creaure. Yet, he is essentially a self-made man, his own creator and creature. We are even led to think of him as inhuman, as Isabella suggests with her referring to him as such and even calling him vampiric. And he does bear a lot of similarity to John Polidori's Lord Ruthven, from the first vampire novel The Vampyre (a Byronic tale, based on Byron's short story Augustus Darvell). Heathcliff's canonically mysterious origins and mysterious hiatus are necessary to his character; like Isabella and Nelly, we're supposed to question him and form our own opinions on the matter.

42 notes · View notes

retrieve-the-kraken · 1 month ago

Text

Okay, preliminary thoughts, after first time watching season 3 of Heartstopper.

SPOILERS!!!

(Some of these are just me screaming and probably lack context, i just wrote this really fast whilst watching, and then forgot what else was happening.)

MY BABIES ARE BACK!

- Not me doing a happy dance and squeeing with joy when Isaac says “I’m not in the mood to give my friends a vocab lesson.” SAME!

- Crying already.

- TORI!

- Nellie, like a good doggo, waiting for her dad outside the bathroom, really got me. That look!!!!!

- I loved Hailey Atwell as aunt Diane, but I still missed Olivia Colman so much… she made too much of an impact as Sarah, and you can really feel her absence.

- Screaming at the fact that they got Annette Badland (from Ted Lasso and Big Boys) to be Darcy’s gran!!! I love her, she’s perfect.

- OMG The Teachers ™

- If episode 3 was already getting to me and then episode 4 was super sad, I was still unprepared for the scene where Nick cries in Tao’s arms. (Something something Nick in his superhero outfit trying to be Charlie’s superhero, but also needing to cry, will delve more into that in my full episode analysis…)

- I weep every time I reread the comic when Charlie goes to talk to his parents, but hearing everything out of Charlie’s mouth made it even worse. I’m a mess…

- I honestly looooooved how they did episode 4, with the quick catch-up flashback structure and two perspectives. I didn’t think it would work, but it was great.

- It took me a whole 5 seconds to realize that when Nick said “vintage camera” he was referring to the HANDYCAM that Will’s dad used, and I honestly never thought I would feel the urge to punch Nick Nelson but I did…

- “I hope that when you get back you don’t feel like you have to lie to us anymore.” LOOOOOOOVED that whole home video they did for Charlie, perfect vibe, it was so nicely done. But that line really got me… Isaac was perfect this season.

- More crying…

- OMG the Charlie painting!!! All of Elle’s paintings! I wonder who made those really? Whose style is it? Have they ever talked about it??? I need to know!

- “I hope I get a soul”, “I hope I get mental health”. I didn’t know I could ask for these things for Christmas…

- Imogen was hilarious and so beautifully developed this season. Much like Nick, she’s going through a whole self-discovery phase, but hers is not as perfect.

- HENRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

- “Is this the boyfriend?” I need to talk soooo hard about the contrast between the two families. Nick has a whole family that loved him, except that he doesn’t get along with his brother and he has an absent dad, whilst Charlie has a difficult relationship with his family, but his sister really seems to get him. You can see the contrasting environment at Christmas, with the disjointed vibes at the Spring household, and the very warm and welcoming vibes at the Nelson household…

- Every time Tori pops us out of nowhere, it’s perfect. Love the spooked look on David’s face.

- Dysphoria talk!

- “Spare us the details”, “No! I want all the details!” I am Isaac and Isaac is me.

- I watched the trailer… I watched the clips… but I NEVER expected that Michael would be so FUCKING PERFECT. I need more of him. “Beautiful chaos.” I was in tears.

- “I don’t want to keep hurting you.” IMOGEEEEEEEN. Love this whole storyline. Can’t wait for more of them.

- Drunk Charlie!!! He’s so horny. Whilst drunk Nick is a little sad. And drunk Imogen is a bit of both. I’m more of a drunk Tara: extra anxious.

- As someone who just experienced a major meltdown at work, over which I’m still embarrassed, I love how Tara also went from “I want to die” to “IDGAF about anything” because that is the right response.

- The radio show scene proves that Yasmin Finney’s voice should be on everything. I could listen to her read scientific papers to me. Does anyone know if I can make her my satnav voice?

- Sincerely disappointed that Elle’s mum did not kick down the door and barge in and slap the interviewer, whilst Mr Argent tried to hold her back and Tao filmed the whole thing.

- But I wrote down everything that Elle said, because that’s going into my arsenal. “Trans people are not a debate”. PERIODT.

- Love how we see Nick hanging out with other people more, especially Tara, and how encouraging Tara is. Their friendship is so lovely.

- I honestly thought that Tao would say “I’m improving, I might even become the next… Elle Argent.”

- I never thought I would identify so hard with a fictional bisexual teen boy, but in the comic, and now here, when Nick talks about how much of his true self he was repressing before he figured out he was bi… I feel that.

- The whole uni road trip was perfect, but it felt too short. Also I wish we would have gotten the scene in which Nick and Charlie facetime and Nick gets a preview of Naked Charlie ™. *Was not prepared

- A little disappointed in Charlie’s rock band outfit, it looked nothing like the one in the comic… also, after seeing Joe Locke as Teen in “Agatha All Along”, I would have killed to see him in all black tight clothes. Nick’s head would have exploded, though…

- Although this season was definitely hornier, it wasn’t quite horny enough. Here’s hoping that season 4 (which will definitely happen) will be the horniest ever.

That’s it for now… I need to rewatch already…

#heartstopper #heartstopper season 3 #i did a lot of happy dances during this #i also cried a lot

9 notes · View notes

silentfcknhill · 8 months ago

Text

Vincent Phantomhive Theories (That Butler, Nursing)

Ok this is kind of a tangent so bear with me, but because I really love Vincent Phantomhive as a character I've been thinking a lot about the little bits we do get to see of him, and that chapter about him and Ciel cooking with Diedrich in particular.

Heavy spoilers below.

So on the surface it seems like just an innocent slice-of-life chapter that also serves to give a little backstory on Ciel's home life and his connection to inheriting Rachel's asthma. But as we learned later, not everything was as it appeared in this chapter. Namely, for one, it wasn't even Our Ciel at all cooking with Vincent but his twin, which was foreshadowed by the mysterious line about not wanting 'fake brothers' at the end.

Knowing this and that everything in this series usually has a hidden meaning, I began to wonder what other little insights could be gleaned from those seemingly innocuous moments. Especially about Vincent in particular, because there are some other oddly important-seeming panels and dialogue that went unresolved as of yet just like the 'fake brothers' line did until the twin reveal.

And because I love to overanalyze, that one simple little moment of Diedrich telling him his food sucked actually opens up a whole lot of possibilities about both characters that go much deeper than Vincent being able to cook or not. It started off as a funny thought experiment of whether he sucked at cooking, but then the implications started popping up behind each hidden door of possibility.

Normally it could be said 'it's not that deep', but I think we've established with this manga that it very much usually is that deep. I haven't seen anyone suggest some of these things, namely the cricket-match conspiracy part, but if it's already been done I apologize.

I have seen people point out Vincent's potential shadiness before but it usually wasn't fully fleshed out in terms of his motives, and the posts were usually done by people who seem to be criticizing Vincent. My post is a bit different because I love him either way and this is more just a character analysis weighing the possibilities.

So in case anyone else is interested, here are some of my thoughts on what the different possibilities are for why Diedrich said Vincent's cooking was bad and what they could mean for the characters on a larger scale. In no particular order:

1) Vincent's cooking was not great but also not terrible and Diedrich overplayed how bad it was due to being a grump. Definitely possible, Vincent claims to have never cooked before and that is probably true because he grew up very wealthy with cooks, similar to Ciel who is shown to not even be able to tie his own shoes properly without Sebastian.

Then again, Ciel is also a child and his parents died before he could even be trained to do stuff like shoot a gun properly since Sebastian taught him all that stuff in the flashback to their first days of the contract. Vincent likely would've been much more independent than Ciel, even as a rich man.

That said, it is possible that Vincent is capable of doing things but chooses not to. Diedrich also comes from wealth but he admits to enjoying cooking himself, while Vincent is shown to be good at getting other people to do stuff for him such as getting Diedrich to make him food in school when he was sick (that instance was likely partially a troll tactic to demean Diedrich since he hammed it up and made Diedrich physically feed him too which was surely not necessary).

If he got used to making other people do stuff for him like cooking, then it stands to reason he had no practice and might not be great at it. Diedrich is also a negative nelly so chances are he would jump at any imperfection in a dish that he knows very well and is attached to from his homeland, and he is always looking for an opportunity to take Vincent down a peg. It matches their bickering banter in general.

2) His cooking was actually as good as, or even better than Diedrich's, but Diedrich couldn't and wouldn't admit it consciously. Possible since Vincent claimed to use the recipe precisely, and if that was true then it should have been at least just the same as Diedrich's quality, so whether the dish was objectively good or bad doesn't matter because what matters is that if Vincent did indeed follow the recipe and did not make mistakes then it would have tasted the same as Diedrich's, so it would be what Diedrich subjectively considered good.

Diedrich is a perfectionist so it's possible nothing would've been good enough to earn verbal praise, and he is also so tsundere that he is loath to give a compliment, especially to Vincent. If this option is true then it might have even annoyed him that Vincent cooked a perfect German meal because Vincent is not only not German but he was British, and the Germans considered them to have bad taste in food.

So not only was he annoyed that an Englishman showed him up at his own forte, but that it was fucking Vincent who was effortlessly perfect at everything once again, and he didn't want it to go to Vincent's head by admitting another of his natural talents, especially since Diedrich had probably worked hard and put effort to get good at cooking while Vincent was treating it flippantly.

This is supported by the fact that Diedrich blames Vincent being British for his shitty German cooking. It was true that there was a huge cultural difference due to food preferences of England being considered 'bland' by the rest of Europe, and those of Germany being considered more 'tart/flavorful' in England. Their differences in culture are brought up multiple times through complaints from Diedrich and teasing jokes by Vincent, as well as the tense behind-the-scenes frenemy rivalry between the two countries being a big part of the manga plot overall.

However, this cultural difference can't be the sole reason for Diedrich insulting the food because if Vincent actually used Diedrich's recipe and didn't make mistakes then it wouldn't matter if he was not German, it should have been just like the German version and Diedrich wouldn't have noticed any difference.

3) His cooking was terrible on purpose and he did it to troll Diedrich so he'd have to make it all himself. Seems to be within character for Vincent for sure when it comes to Diedrich because he likes to mess with Diedrich's head in general and make him do a lot of extra work. It wouldn't have been motivated by laziness though, because he spent just as much time making it himself the first time, so if it was intentional it was done as a power play to remind Diedrich he was still his 'fag' (assistant) and he could make him do anything at any time.

Plus, he seemed more motivated by playing house than actually making a good meal for Rachel himself anyways, as he seemed to steal credit for it when she asked so he clearly didn't care about needing to make it himself. With this option, he would've had to covincingly fake what seems like genuine shock when Diedrich told him the food was gross, but that is also not uncharacteristic of him as a master liar and manipulator by reputation. More evidence of/context for this theory is used to possibly debunk #4 below.

4) His cooking was terrible by accident because he thought he was following the recipe but messed it up. This is possible due to seeming legit shocked when Diedrich told him that it was bad, but his reaction may have been a little too shocked and coy to be real. Also, he is usually shown to be competent when actually trying and if he were that careless in his tasks and unable to pay attention to detail then he wouldn't have been 1) entrusted with such an important position by the Queen in the first place, and 2) able to carry out his duties with such skill and precision that it earned him a reputation for exactly that.

The potential debunking of this option is where we get into conspiracy territory. Depending on your interpretation of him as a character, it is not entirely clear the extent of which his symptom of being distractible is real versus just an act to manipulate people/get them to do what he wants and then claim ignorance later. Since his sister Francis claims he was always a bit irresponsible even in youth, it could possibly be both...though she is also not the best judge of responsibility since she's so strict that to her everyone is irresponsible. Still though, it's possible he might be a bit in his own world but his convenient cluelessness at certain moments could be exaggerated and used as an excuse, particularly with Diedrich.

Or the whole entire thing could be an act. In fact, the main example of his forgetfulness was the whole 'forgetting about the Prefect meeting back in school' thing, and that easily could've been an elaborate game to get the end result he himself said he wanted on the boat: Diedrich as his 'loyal German dog' aka slave. If he skipped a Prefect preparations meeting, he knew Diedrich would have to do all the work, which would make him angry and confront Vincent. He purposefully made it even worse by trolling Diedrich by pretending to nap during the school day and on the lawn no less, which they were not supposed to be laying on, and by breaking more school rules such as calling Diedrich by his first name. He knew all this would provoke the bet that he knew he'd win through cheating/outsmarting, like Ciel later does in the Public School arc.

This theory is given more weight when you consider that Vincent deliberately commented on how all Germans must be rude if Diedrich is, which he figures will provoke Diedrich into making a similar blanket claim about his dormitory which he can pretend to get offended by and have a justification for the bet. It would be hypocritical for him to get offended by Diedrich stereotyping a whole group otherwise, when he himself had just done the same thing first. I have seen people say he was just being a hypocritical jerk, but it seemed more deliberate and calculated to me. Like Ciel in the Blue Cult arc when he put on the whole concert as a misdirect to catch the group dumping bodies, and tbh in most arcs, the Phantomhives are known for their Xanatos gambits and misdirections to get what they want.

There was probably a reason for everything Vincent did in the flashback, because Vincent is usually shown to be very outwardlt kind and supportive to everyone but Diedrich. He is a gentle, passive father who cannot bear to discipline his children. He compliments people on their insecurities like Ann's red hair. He even was very polite to Baron Kelvin despite his friends being rude to Kelvin. So why would he act differently around Diedrich? Because if he wants to get control of a mean man, then he has to earn his respect first by speaking his language.

But why did he even want to gt control of Diedrich in the first place? Well, maybe he was tasked to. The whole plot being a request from the Queen makes sense considering Vincent is seen reading a mysterious letter with what looks like her insignia after the cricket match in the gazebo and right before Diedrich approached him about what his request is.

She is shown making power plays against Germany throught the franchise by setting up her German cousin Georg von Siemens to be unalived at Ciel's party to stop Germany from advancing their tech to match England's, and also in the whole Emerald Witch arc which takes place in Germany and involves the German military and their building 'cold war' with England and her interest in Sieglinde as a weapon for England's benefit.

Notably, Diedrich was forced to intervene against his own country in this arc due to the loyalty he owed to the Phantomhives, so it's very possible he was intended to be used for purposes like this and that is why the Queen wanted Vincent to set that pawn up for the future if needed. That might've been the reason he was at that school to begin with, he might have been undercover like Ciel was. This would have been only a couple years after his mother, the former Queen's Watchdog, died and so he was probably eager to live up to the expectations placed on him and would have done anything to succeed.

Diedrich even seems to be aware of being used for this purpose, which explains him being so depressed he developed a stress-eating addiction and why he seemed resentful of his friendship with Vincent, and Vincent's family in general who he still can't get free of.

Vincent asked Diedrich in the flashback to look after Ciel if he died, and Diedrich even asks if this was an order. It would seem weird for a friend to ask that unless they felt obligated/coerced. It would also make sense why he said he was almost glad Vincent was dead in the scene with Undertaker, the 'almost' meaning 'if only he didn't live on through his son and I was actually free of this debt'. That's why he always compares Ciel to his dead father in a negative way.

Not to say he and Vincent weren't actually friends on some level, if anything it seemed they had a lot of past sexual tension and possibly some unrequited feelings on Diedrich's part that he is still resentful over due to Vincent leading him on. But I do think his friendship with the Phantomhives was not balanced, as referenced by the 'Unbalanced Triangle' chapter title with him, Vincent and Ciel on the cover, and that he was most assuredly being used to some extent.

If this is the case and the whole school cricket thing was one of Vincent's chess games, then it's also why Vincent deliberately pretended not to know what he would make his request when they first made the bet, because he knew Diedrich would never agree to it but would have to honor his promise later if it was already made because Diedrich took rules and obligations so seriously.

If this all was true, then it seems that pretending to be bad at cooking would be just another ploy, as listed in theory #3 above, albeit with lower stakes.

5) Somehow he has a reverse Midas Touch with food and is so terrible at cooking that he was able to butcher the meal despite actually honestly trying and successfully following the recipe to a T without making any mistakes. This seems unlikely from a realistic standpoint but could be used in fiction for comedy purposes since fiction doesn't have to make sense entirely. It would seem a bit odd for Vincent though because this is never shown to be the case otherwise and he is not portrayed as a butt-monkey character but rather a frighteningly competent one through reputation and the tangible results of his actions that we see proof of.

6) Alternatively, the seemingly comedic moment could've been a red flag for something deeper, as most seemingly lighthearted jokes are in this series. Foreshadowing of what? This is where we get back into conspiracy town. Well, the bad meal could have been symbolic from when Vincent mentions the most important ingredient in a meal is love, and Diedrich questions his ability to love at all.

If Vincent is telling them that love is the main ingredient in a meal and yet can't cook it properly, he is basically confessing as much in his own words, hence the special attention Yana paid to show his smirk of acknowledgement after Diedrich questions his potential to love and how there is no protest from Vincent or any follow-up at all and it is left 'hanging' like Ciel's 'no fake brothers' line before the twin reveal. Nothing in this manga is left hanging forever, the clues are always there and there are no such things as coincidences in this series.

I don't think Vincent is incapable of love entirely, but I do think he was very repressed and emotionally isolated due to preparing his whole life for his role as the Queen's Watchdog, meaning he couldn't safely get attached to anyone lest anything happen to him or the other person. He also seems to have trauma around attachment from losing his mother when he was 15 and having to take up the very job that killed her, knowing at any time he could be next if he failed in his duties (and it's entirely possible this is exactly what happened and why he died).

Keep in mind the meal he was making was not only for Rachel, but to nurse her back to health while she was sick. Because his marriage to Rachel was arranged by her and Ann's father, while I do think he began to care for Rachel as a companion over time, it seemed more of a platonic co-parenting marriage of convenience type situation. Vincent makes comments indicating his infidelity at various points, such as offering to flirt with 'German beauties' with Chlaus.

This is why Diedrich commented on the lack of love in his marriage, because he knew Vincent personally from when they were kids and knew how hard of a time he had opening up to the vulnerability of such an emotion. The bad taste of the meal might have confirmed Diedrich's seemingly irrelevant comment earlier and it's possible that Vincent's bad meal was a manifestation of the lack of actual romance in his marriage and/or his fear to open himself up to love in general.

Aside from just the love and marriage aspect, since he is partially non-human and Undertaker is his direct ancestor (father or grandfather etc) then Vincent's soul is probably 'tainted' by darkness to some extent, so that could also explain why something so intrinsic to human life as food/eating would not come naturally to him. The Phantomhive line is constantly referred to as cursed and not supposed to exist, likely as a result of Undertaker breaking shinigami code by interfering with life through procreating.

While he is half-human, the bad cooking, if it was real, may be a nod to his connection with death through being half-shinigami and/or marked for death already by fate. So of course he can't put his 'heart and soul' into making a meal if his heart and soul are cursed with flaw. Any result of a 'soulful' endeavor on his part would naturally reflect his true genetic and spiritually tainted nature.

#vincent phantomhive #kuroshitsuji #black butler #diedrich kuroshitsuji #what is the true extent of his dubious nature? could it be a combo of these options?#he is a character shrouded in mystery since we only see him through other people's memories which can be altered by their own perceptions

16 notes · View notes

the-owl-tree · 1 year ago

Note

as someone who has watched literally nothing about mlp but had always had an interest in it and its fandom like xenofic bugs in a jar, im living for this new pony tangent. what are your favorite and least favorite brony tropes, when it comes to the fan media they make?

you and me ngl lol i’m both surprised and not surprised at the response to my mlp posting, the mlp and warriors community feel like they’d definitely cross over lol

also good god this got long

I feel like I have to preface that the community was a huge inspiration to me and the sheer amount of creativity that people put into their pony projects is still amazing. It’s so clear that a lot of the songs, animations, literature, and general fan creations came from a place of love and a lot of that inspired me to try new things! For all the bad press “bronies” got (and let’s be real, a lot of media outlets just wanted to mock them), it’s clear that a lot of older fans were having a blast creating. I still listen to a lot of the songs from the community and watch lullaby for a princess or rise the moon from time to time because of how much they still hold up.

I guess lore is a double edged sword? Because on one hand, I love reading too deeply into media that does not call for it. I loved reading the analysis on class divisions in mlp and I really liked the critical side of the community, it helped me really develop my own skills as a kid and helped me question a lot of the stuff that I was consuming. I loved watching reviews of episodes or hearing what my favorite artists thought! I think a vocal community can definitely be a double edged sword, but it really did encourage me a lot in speaking up about my interests.

But I don’t know if that’s a trope lol so I guess…definitely the sociopolitical analysis of pony society. The ones that picked at the show and what it intentionally or unintentionally would say. I love that stuff, it’s super fun to dig into. But on the other side, lore was something a lot of people held up as the best aspect of the show, and there was this sort of clamoring for the writers to dump more and more. Which, look, a lot of the original lore was weaved within dialogue or conflicts, it wasn’t quite “dumped” on the audience as it became in the newer seasons.

But there was this sort of fascination by some on war and the military in the pony universe. This obsession with royal guards and political conflicts, and I guess in some ways I get it? But also, look, it was peddled by a lot of self-proclaimed military bronies. It does not help the show did in fact do a little pandering with one of the episodes actually featuring an alternate universe where the ponies go to war and we get to see them in full armor 😭 like there was this big fascination of the princesses killing and leading battles and it just was not for me.

Hm….maybe nextgen stuff? I always did like the idea of seeing what happened next and all the various pairings. Though sometimes that did give a lot of artists the chance to be edgy and admittedly a bit inappropriate for the pony show. Like with lore, double edged sword I suppose. Can’t complain too much, I was a pretty edgy kid and loved angst and edge and drama! Still do but I keep it for my uh older audience OC’s.

Hm let’s see….fascination with side characters. Maybe because the show indulged them a little too much. I can’t blame the fandom for everything when the writers weren’t exactly tempering expectations. But that’s the same reason why I enjoy it! I loved seeing people provide full on backstories and character to ponies who were mentioned once (someone gave the idea that Woah Nellie is an outspoken activist and i still love that).

But yeah! Honestly? The ultra violent military obsession has always just been the weird one for me. It’s fine and I get why some people would be interested in the social and politics dynamics of a pony military, but I think the people who really liked it just liked the idea of the ponies going to war with cool weapons and fancy armor and not much else (gotta show how MANLY mlp is amiright guys)

I feel like there’s others but nothing is coming to mind rn other than the insane amount of sexual content.

#deer rambles #like the idea of analyzing the military’s role in equestria is…fine?#but the peddlers of it were self proclaimed ‘military bronies’#many of which who were idk how else to say it #pretty uncritical of the military itself #and lead to this fixation on sparkly ponies killing each other #mlp chatter

11 notes · View notes

melonteee · 1 year ago

Note

Melon, I hope this message is not too overwhelming for you.

I just wanted to say that I'm very grateful for all the content you have on your channel. I discovered your channel while I was working on a very stressful environment and dealing with depression. Every time I had to do overtime work and was up until 2 am trying to finish it, I put one of your videos and laughed through the stress. Even If I didn't know anything about Yu Gi Oh or One Piece, I was always super entertained by your analysis and opinions, and felt a little better.

I started reading One Piece (I'm on chapter 10) because of your videos and your analysis of the characters. (I know more or less what happened between the first chapters, Alabaster, Punk Hazard and Gear 5 BECAUSE I GOT SPOILED EVERWHERE JDSFHSDH)

TL;DR: Thank your for all your hard work and comedy, for your honesty and your kindness.

PS: You convinced me to not watch the Live Action too, but that's a plus (?)

AHHH please give the live action a chance yourself! I know I'm a negative nelly but it's because it's really just not for ME personally and I fully believe everyone should give different shows/movies a try just to see if it speaks to them instead! 🙏 There's no harm in looking, after all!

BUT thank you so much for this message, it really means a lot to me due to the fact both Yu-Gi-Oh and One Piece pulled myself out of a dark place too - One Piece especially came along at an incredibly numb, directionless time in my life and it truly uplifted me. I'm incredibly privileged to be in a position where I can talk about it for a living now and it means so much to me that my content is helping others as well. I hope I can continue to make content that improves your days and entertains you for a long time to come anon 💖

#ask

19 notes · View notes

judasisgayriot · 9 months ago

Note

howdy! the way you talk about heroes is just… so real. if i may ask, do i have a specific reason for why you didn’t like heroes reborn? (i’m honestly the same, got bored after the first ep and didn’t bother with the rest) i love reading your longer analysis post, and i’m a sucker for for a good rant!

but if you don’t wanna be a negative nelly, i’ll settle for your smuttiest petrelli headcannons jk, jk

Hi!! Thanks haha I always gotta be Real, like I’m in a 17-year toxic relationship with this show where I do love it but also I’m a hater about a lot of it and it does inspire some real rants lmao, like do not get me started. Me and my gf will literally say 1 thing about scourge of my life heroes nbc and it WILL turn into a 4 hour analysis/yelling session. Or that one time I wrote 1700 words about Nathan Petrelli in response to an ask about him (you just had me reading through my own “heroes ramblings” tag and lmao, why am I actually so hilarious but also unhinged about this stupid 2000s nonsense. Get a grip anni.

ANYWAY that said, I was like really excited and enthused for heroes reborn at the time but it’s been long enough since I watched it (not since it aired, in comparison to ‘heroes classic’ which I’ve rewatched about 5 times since lol) that I honestly have forgotten pretty big chunks of it at this point. I think it being aired only 5 years after heroes ended meant there wasn’t enough nostalgic clamour for its return yet but it was also long enough that people probably kinda moved on already, it’s a really weird one. I appreciated seeing the returning characters but they fucked up or killed most of them anyway and they couldn’t get back some of the major players (including my personal blorbos lol, like cmon you couldn’t have pretended Nathan wasn’t dead just for me???). I also remember just not really caring about most of the new characters, the plot being kind of a stupid mess (I mean what’s new there, looking at you clusterfuck heroes s3, but at least I had my boys the petrellis despite everything lmao) and it just kind of being a giant letdown. Been a while though like I said. Gotta keep it real tho 😂

Anyway re your last point the petrellis are the most compelling thing about the show, the layers of Machiavellian Catholic incestuous unhingedness in that family are everything to me and what keeps me around. Most of the time Peter and Nathan are too ‘on the edge’ and Nathan is too goddam repressed for me to confidently headcanon anything beyond unholy levels of mutual obsession happened between them in canon, EXCEPT the villain!nathan scene where he’s like ‘there’s some things I needed to talk to you about that just couldn’t wait’ and pointedly bites his lip (oh they were about to fuck nasty there, mark my words) AND the entire s2 deleted scene where Nathan despairingly talks about getting young Peter drunk in their treehouse like he desperately wants to forget it but can’t. Man what was that all about. Can someone fucking explain that one to me please. Have that on my desk by MONDAY, Tim Kring-

#asks #anon #heroes ramblings #whoops did I do a MASSIVE heroes rant again. i warn you ask me anything about this insane yet mediocre show and I’ll start yelling #and won’t stop for 4 hours. sorry. always been like this.#should I reblog my 1700w Nathan rant again lmao. like ANYONE wants or needs to read that again. shall I inflict it on the world.#also thanks for the ask genuinely asfhfjlllh can you tell I have Things to Say.

3 notes · View notes

without-it-all · 2 years ago

Photo

Nelly Farhid

------

I chose to do a digital art piece for my project because the topic of being lonely is incredibly prevalent in art, literature, and all aspects of human culture. I wanted to bring together different references to highlight how truthful a solitary existence is to our human experience. I chose to represent a film, as well as a quote that encapsulated my thesis from the comparative analysis essay. Though my piece may look simple to some viewers, there was a lot of thought and consideration that went into it, both in my selections as well as composition. I spent a lot of time reconfiguring the lettering I placed upon the image. I wanted the words to characterize themselves, such as with the placement of the word “over” literally being placed over “me.” Another example is the placement of the word “me” itself, being placed upon the hand, asserting one’s place within the story of the image. All of these little things were highly intentional, and though they may seem small, help make the piece more personal, relatable, and understandable. My goal was to express not only the pillars of individualism and being alone, but to also emphasize how this concept is one that is widely recognized and spoken about through different mediums such as film or literature.

#Unessay Project

0 notes

the-modern-typewriter · 4 years ago

Note

Good day! Just writing to let you know; I love your podcast! It's the perfect length and I learn so much about writing and analysing stories. Toodle-o :)

Ah, thank you so much! :) I’m (and my co-presenters when I passed this message on) so glad you are finding it helpful.

In case people are wondering, this is our podcast. It’s free to listen to.

Each week we read aloud a short story - sometimes we’ve written it ourselves, and sometimes it’s from one of our favourite classic authors. Then we discuss our thoughts and give some critical analysis.

You can find all episodes here, on our website, including links to listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and a bunch of other places which is why I have mostly avoided other links below.

So far our episodes have been:

1) The Magic Shop - H.G Wells In the first ever episode, Matt, Mel and Simone read and discuss a quirky story from H.G. Wells, renowned for his work in science fiction including his novels War of the Worlds and The Time Machine.

2) Poison - Matt Bowles An original piece by my co-presenter, and friend. If you just want to read the story, you can do so here.) Poison is a dark, horror-romance about a half human, half goddess of the Underworld. We also discuss literature and how it can be used.

3) Nyarlathotep - H.P Lovecraft This week, Donald McGregor joins us to talk about H.P. Lovecraft. We talk about the concept of cosmic horror, how H.P Lovecraft came into being, and the difficulties of adapting his work to other formats.

4) When the Tide is High - Melody Bowles An original piece by other co-presenter, and friend. You can read the story here.) When The Tide Is High is a mysterious mermaid story, and if you get a LGBTQ vibe…so did I. We chat about that and discuss how myths and legends should be used in modern storytelling.

5) The Adventure of the Speckled Band - Arthur Conan Doyle We read and discuss Conan Doyle’s favourite of the Sherlock Holmes stories. We discuss the mechanics of the detective fiction genre, debate Watson’s usefulness, and talk about how Conan Doyle himself viewed his work and his success.

6) The Garden Party - Katherine Mansfield Katherine Mansfield was one of the most prominent short story writers of the early 20th century, and this week we’re looking at one of her most famous stories. We give our own interpretations of the ending and discuss the context of her life.

7) And they all lived happily ever - Simone/the-modern-typewriter It’s me! I did a separate post about my story here, including links to read and listen.) But you can read it here. The episode deconstructs the fairytale ‘happily ever after’, discusses satisfying story endings, using footnotes in fiction, tips for writing dialogue and more.

8) The Tell Tale Heart - Edgar Allen Poe We discuss Poe’s most infamous story, with a focus on unreliable narrators, prose style, and tropes of gothic fiction. Find out why his death is still a mystery – and did he really know how the universe was created?

9) Henry and Eliza - Jane Austen This week’s story is ‘Henry & Eliza’ from Jane Austen’s Juvenilia collection. The story is a savagely comedic parody which takes aim at the ‘virtuous heroine’. We discuss Jane Austen’s life, the themes she wrote about and more.

10) Bearskin - The Brothers Grimm The Grimm Brothers are renowned for their dark fairy tales, collected from across Europe. We look at a slightly unconventional one and discuss their distinctive style, modern adaptations of fairy tales, and why bears are good at dancing.

11) Mr and Mrs Elliot - Ernest Hemmingway This snappy relationship story from Ernest Hemingway has multiple interpretations. We discuss how time has changed how we look at it, Hemingway’s distinctive style known as iceberg theory (or writing in negative space) and how very many cats he had.

12) Nelly’s Hospital - Louisa May Alcott This story was written by Louisa May Alcott to educate children about the war. We discuss the story’s themes, Alcott’s life and why we love Jo March from Little Women.

13) When I was a witch - Charlotte Perkins Gilman Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s story When I Was A Witch features a female protagonist from New York whose wishes start to come true. We discuss villains, poetic justice, fake news and more.

14) A drama in the air - Jules Verne The ‘father of science fiction�� tells unusual tales that break the conventions of modern storytelling. We examine this air ballooning escapade and discuss its vibrant characters, the structure of the story, the importance of translation, and how genres are defined.

15) The Gift of the Magi - O Henry O Henry’s most famous story about a young couple buying each other the perfect Christmas gifts. We discuss sacrifices in romances, writing the perfect twist and more.

Upcoming next is The Star Child by Oscar Wilde and The Dream by Mary Shelley.

We will also be doing more original story episodes in the next few months, starting with Matt this month (March), Melody in May and me in very early June.

If you have questions or thoughts you can either message me on here, or talk to any one of us on Twitter at:

Matt: @mattbwriter

Mel: @ficcaholic

Simone: @T_M_Typewriter

#podcast #short stories #literary criticism #litcrit #the short story workshop

196 notes · View notes

kirsteninthesun · 3 years ago

Text

Statistics Project

I’m interested in doing sort of a statistical analysis project for the cost of each doll accessory. Curious about the core collections of the original six- I saw a post on Reddit about it and I want to figure out who’s the cheapest/most expensive.

My hypothesis is Samantha’s core collection will be the cheapest, closely followed by Molly. I window shopped her collection because I have Nellie and the prices compared to Kirsten’s stuff are really good. Molly is also pretty good. I would say Kirsten and Josefina are pretty evenly matched with the discrepancies showing up between individual outfits (not overall) and I think Addy will be the most expensive, based on the crazy prices I see for her stuff online.

I’m going to take samples of sold items- 10 pristine condition, 10 slightly damaged or missing components- average them out, excluding outliers.

Doing this for the core six and any collection items they share that are comparable. IE, summer dresses, winter dresses, special outfits, meet outfits, trunks, beds. Even if the item wasn’t originally the same price they may be comparable.

This should hopefully be helpful for sellers too. If anyone wants to do this and help/do their own version of calculating average costs, that would be awesome, and we can put it into a masterpost or Google Doc.

By the end of this I should have a spreadsheet comparing costs, an average price for each doll item, and a breakdown of what the market looks like. How expensive is Kirsten’s lunch across time? Are we doomed never to see an Addy item sell for market or below? It’s up to me, and my autism, to find out.

#statistics #american girl dolls #dollblr #agblr #doll blog #kirsten larson #doll collection #addy walker #samantha parkington #molly mcintire #josefina montoya #felicity merriman

14 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 3 years ago

Text

“Daughters’ skirmishes with mothers cut close to the bone, working the borders of identity often blurred by shared location within the home. With their responsibility for the reproduction of domestic roles, mothers lay centrally in the line of command over the lives of their daughters. Of course their authority was shared power—power that originated with wages earned by husbands and fathers.

Traditional patriarchy had been in decline for some time in the late nineteenth century. Without land to disperse, fathers had been losing their authority over their sons’ destinies, and as they moved to cities and took up work outside of the home, fathers were less and less involved in the delegation of work within the home. But in fundamental and important ways, they still ruled.

Those responsible for advising girls on their role in life reminded them of their continuing need to curry favor with fathers —and with reason. The Victorian patriarch could appear unexpectedly, thwarting plans, making pronouncements, breathing moral fire. Yet he was not always successful in these less and less common rulings. When opinion at home had congealed elsewhere—particularly when mothers and daughters agreed—the Victorian patriarch could find his authority hollow. Especially as daughters matured from childhood and found their lives inscribed with the expectations of gender, fathers receded from the line of command, expecting of their daughters, as they did of their wives, not obedience but domestic ministration.

Fathers’ familial responsibility for daughters translated into responsibility for guidance in two particular arenas beyond the walls of the home. Men were responsible for supervising their daughters’ academic education and for assisting them in their studies in religion. This responsibility is well communicated in the kinds of gifts bestowed by fathers on daughters on birthdays—prayer books, writing books, pens, dictionaries, atlases, library subscriptions. Fathers’ responsibilities for higher duties were reflected in their stern communications with daughters at midcentury. Agnes Lee received letters re- inforcing the importance of studies from her father, Robert E. Lee, in the 1850s when she was away at a female seminary.

He took issue with a bit of exuberant homesickness: ‘‘I must take you to task for some expressions in your letter. You say, ‘our only thought, our only talk, is entirely about our going home.’ How can you reconcile that with the object of your sojourn at Staunton! Unless your thoughts are sometimes devoted to your studies, I do not see the use of your being there.’’ It was often fathers to whom daughters recited lessons, and whose words of commendation were particularly meaningful. Fathers’ responsibilities for their daughters’ educations represented a vestigial authority for a family’s competency in the world—and continued when responsibility for other aspects of daughters’ lives had receded.

The same was true, though to a lesser degree, for fathers’ responsibilities for daughters’ souls. Kathryn Kish Sklar has written powerfully about the intertwining strands of patriarchy and evangelical culture which bedeviled Catharine Beecher’s quest for a conversion experience early in the nineteenth century. As mothers took up their newly won roles as moral exemplars, they supplemented but did not replace fathers as the guardians of familial faith. Robert E. Lee encouraged his daughter’s relationship with God as well as her studies, and his daughter wrote back a shy profession of faith, offered to her father as to one to whom it was owed: ‘‘I have something to tell you which I know will make you very happy. It is, I believe both of your daughters are Christians. I am sure Annie is, and O Papa I am resolved to doubt no longer that there has been a great and blessed change wrought in my wicked heart.’’

Though absent from the day-to-day dealings of the household, fathers’ interest in the state of their offsprings’ souls extended to the their moral training as well. Margaret Tileston’s diary, which included financial accounts, also included a moral accounting with her father. ‘‘I told Papa of a lie I told him about a week ago, last Tuesday or Wednesday.’’ It was in such a grave consciousness of his paternal responsibility for the character of his daughter that Albert Browne wrote a long letter to his daughter Nellie as she was preparing to leave school, ending with the admonishment that ‘‘a true christian woman, should make it a religious duty, to blend gentleness and dignity, as to win love, and command respect.’’ Albert Browne had no doubt of his authority over his daughters’ transition to womanhood, just as over other family matters.

…The conservative Ladies’ Home Journal in 1895 attempted to re- affirm masculine authority in what must be seen as a reactionary challenge to feminized domesticity. In reasserting ‘‘The Father’s Domestic Headship,’’ the Reverend Charles H. Parkhurst, D.D., acknowledged a ‘‘great deal of domestic reciprocity’’ but pronounced that ‘‘the husband and father is the point of final determination.’’ He sought an analogy for the moral authority of hus- band and wife in anatomy: ‘‘The bone and sinew of character will probably be a quotation from the father, and the delicate tissue with which it is over- laid will as likely be a bequest from the mother.’’ This late-century contrast between the strong force of paternal dictum with the more diffuse ‘‘tissue’’ of the maternal presence acknowledged a long-standing reality—that absent fathers would need to make their authority felt concisely in worded dictates, rather than through the steady example of a more present maternity.

By 1895, however, when Parkhurst was writing, he was in many ways too late. His assertion of masculine hegemony in the household was regressive— and claimed an authority for fathers in their daughters’ lives that they could not count on. Those girls in the postwar years most likely to reveal their dependency on paternal dictates—for instance, the reformer Jane Addams growing up in the late 1860s and Mary Thomas away at school in Georgia in the 1870s—used their fathers as live models of correct conduct with good reason, for both their mothers were dead. If daughters empowered by the increasing moral authority of their mothers were beginning to feel free to challenge paternal prerogative, fathers themselves showed, over the nineteenth century, a diminishing sense of identification with their daughters.

Fathers like Robert E. Lee and Albert Browne took seriously their paternal responsibility for providing guidance to their maturing daughters, but that guidance often required setting a new form of reference—the inscribing of gender on girls defined previously by their status as children. Albert Browne’s advice to Nellie intended to prepare her for that new station. He reminded her that leaving school would require that she end her time as a ‘‘mere’’ schoolgirl to take her part ‘‘in the drama of life’’ as ‘‘a true woman.’’

Doing so would mean surrendering part of her genetic inheritance, and becoming only part of who she had been. For Browne admonished his daughter to emulate her mother’s qualities of ‘‘mildness and amenity, love and kindness,’’ so ‘‘as to temper and subdue any unruly and unamiable tendencies which may have come to you from your Father.’’ This gendered lesson, of course, was a distancing one which signaled the attenuation of a relationship as well as a stage of life.

Girls who had been accorded the freedom of childhood by fond fathers found this withdrawal of paternal identification to be painful. Writing in the late century, Mary Virginia Terhune recounted such a moment: ‘‘I have now before me the picture of myself at ten years of age, looking up from the back of my pony into my father’s face, as in the course of the morning ride we daily enjoyed together.’’

They had been conversing about politics, and the child had offered an apt analysis. ‘‘My comments called up a smile and a sigh. ‘‘ ‘Ah, my daughter! If you had been born a boy you would be invaluable to me!’’’ Terhune recalled the sense of destiny. ‘‘I hung my head, mute and crushed by a calamity past human remedy or prevention. There is a pain at my heart in the telling that renews the real grief of the moment.’’

Terhune had been taking advantage of a latitude granted to Victorian children of both sexes; she observed that some of ‘‘the finest women, physically and mentally,’’ were ‘‘famous romps in their youth.’’ Such girls, she noted, ‘‘during the tomboy stage lamented secretly or loudly that they were not their own brothers; regrets which were heartily seconded by much-enduring mothers and disappointed fathers.’’

Literary historians have observed that the 1860s saw the emergence of a new literary type—tomboys—who, as Barbara Sicherman has observed, were ‘‘not only tolerated but even admired—up to a point, the point at which they were expected to become women.’’ The extension of the rights to romp and play to girls confirmed their identity as children, a state that often ended surprisingly and arbitrarily, with fathers’ rejections.

Terhune’s memory of paternal humiliation recalls from earlier in the century young Elizabeth Cady [Stanton]’s realization that she could not remain the confidante and paternal protégé she had been as a child. In her perhaps mythic retelling of the tale, that youthful epiphany produced a sense of injury and injustice which would help to fuel the woman’s rights movement itself. Both Stanton and Terhune gained their sense of betrayal from the contrast between their spirited childhoods and their sense of gendered destiny descending to restrict them in their teens.

Mary Virginia Terhune concluded with an admonition to fathers which gave them responsibility for this curtailment of aspiration in the world: ‘‘Your girl wants to help her father and to be of use in the world. Make her feel that a woman’s life is worth living, and that she has begun it. Do not brand her from the cradle, ‘Exempt from field duty on account of physical disability.’’’ For both Stanton and Terhune, it was a shock to discover that life ‘‘as a romp,’’ ‘‘as a half-boy,’’ in fact as a Victorian child, was only temporary, conditional. Their fathers, who often had invited their daughters along in their common round, withdrew that invitation as they approached maturity.

By later in the century, urban fathers were often absent from the beginning of their daughters’ lives, working in shops and offices away from home. When Louisa May Alcott commented on this new order, as she did most pointedly in An Old-Fashioned Girl, she depicted the father of her modern family as absent, ‘‘a busy man, so intent on getting rich that he had no time to enjoy what he already possessed.’’ In a later passage, he ‘‘had been so busy getting rich, that he had not found time to teach his children to love him,’’ neglecting both sons and daughters. His son he ordered ‘‘about as if he was a born rebel,’’ and was always ‘‘lecturing him.’’ His daughters, however, he let ‘‘do just as they liked.’’

By today’s accounting, the Victorian father was notable for the extent to which he assumed and discharged a role as paterfamilias. However, that brief moment (if there ever was one) when fathers presided supremely over a small, nurturant family was in decline as soon as it was constituted. The movement of men’s labor outside of the home also removed them from their role as the preeminent guide and adjudicator of their daughters’ conduct. As women challenged men’s domestic authority, so did men increasingly abdicate, letting go of prerogatives they were not in place to oversee.

Girls remained dependent on fathers, however, a condition that their increasing participation in the labor force would diminish but never erase. Conservative advice givers made it their business to remind girls of this status. Multiple authors in the Ladies’ Home Journal, starting with the Journal ’s editor, Edward Bok, urged on girls their responsibilities to practice as apprentice wives in their ministrations to their fathers. ‘‘Helping her father to remember his daily engagements, seeing that his accounts are properly balanced, following his personal matters—all these things enter into the life of a girl when she becomes a wife,’’ Bok wrote.

A girl should not imagine ‘‘that her father represented a money-making machine, bound to take care of her and give her a good time,’’ the Journal ’s columnist Rush Ashmore added. It was the daughter who owed her father a good time. She should remember that it is ‘‘her honor to be his daughter’’ and greet him with a smile. ‘‘He who is out in the busy world earning the bread and butter doesn’t want to be met with complaints and cross looks; he wants to be greeted with a kiss, to be entertained by the mind which he has really formed by earning the money to pay the teachers to broaden and round it, and to be able to look at the bright, cheery girl, neat in her dress, sweet in her manner and ever ready to make merry those who are sad.’’

Increasingly teenage daughters’ approaches to fathers, like those of their mothers, focused on the interaction of two separate worlds. Advisers’ exhortations that daughters should be affectionate and ‘‘pet’’ their fathers rather than ‘‘obey’’ them suggested the ways in which the family had become an arena of intimate exchange rather than hierarchical responsibility. Increasingly fathers did not induct their growing daughters into adulthood but instead looked to their daughters to offer them an escape from that world.”

- Jane H. Hunter, “Houses, Families, Rooms of One’s Own.” in How Young Ladies Became Girls: The Victorian Origins of American Girlhood

#history #gender #american #victorian #jane h. hunter #how young ladies became girls

4 notes · View notes

mrs-nate-humphrey · 3 years ago

Note

do you think blair is as bad as chuck and gossip!dan? because i can’t help but feel like if “potential to drive someone to suicide” is the metric then she’s also pretty damn culpable - i know her relentless bullying of her peers is largely portrayed in a humorous light, but just by looking at jenny’s experience it’s pretty clear that existing in that environment would be godawful. not to mention apparent nelly yuki’s tights-related night terrors. morbidly curious about your thoughts lol

I don’t actually know how to answer this! So, “potential to drive someone to suicide” isn’t exactly the metric, because that can’t be measured in an objective way. That said, we all know suicide-baiting is bad, obviously.

I do think fandom doesn’t hold Blair accountable for a lot of really damaging behaviour, tbh. But I think narratively, she’s different, because unlike Gossip Girl & Chuck, Blair’s behaviour stems out of needing to retain her position. She’s doing it to protect herself. Which doesn’t make the harm go away, obviously. But it’s different from like, Chuck assaulting someone or Gossip!Dan posting a picture of a 14 year old Serena in a transparent dress on the internet. To me, there’s a distinction there. So within the context of like - fictional universe - I think Blair can be redeemed. I’ve spoken about that a decent amount. She just has a lot of unlearning to do. And a lot of therapy to undertake. And to realise that her worth as a person isn’t changed or threatened by other people around her.

If Blair were a real person, and not a fictional character? My analysis would probably be different. But she’s not, and so I’m just looking at this stuff within universe.

Chuck, I don’t think can be redeemed. Gossip Girl, also, isn’t blameless. I don’t buy the whole “just publishing tips other people sent in” - like, I don’t think you can run a site like GG without understanding and realising how much destruction you’re causing.

#there was also points in blair's arc where it looked like she'd actually get character growth #anywayyy #meta #suicide ment #anon #im cutting out the jenny bit because it's not actually directly connected #got distracted there #saving it in drafts though so i can flesh it out later as a post of its own

5 notes · View notes

retrieve-the-kraken · 1 year ago

Text

Heartstopper season 2 play-by-play analysis

We’re in Paris! I can’t believe the Paris trip takes up so much of the time of the season. I do love the pacing of the season, and how they distributed events and moments throughout it, making the most of the locations and situations. I know that most interior scenes were filmed back in the UK, but they really squeezed as much as they could from their stay in Paris (and I need all the bts content from that, what we’ve gotten so far is not enough!). Like Trixie Mattel and Katyana said, only two things can shut down the Louvre: Beyonce and Hearstopper, apparently, who would have thought? It felt like such a nice change of scenery, and really gave the show and the characters a whole new dimension.

On with the episode!

EPISODE 4 - CHALLENGE

- The coach is Blue and Yellow™. And of course a lot of green, especially in the form of Charlie’s iconic green Fjällräven backpack and Nick’s hoodie.

- Nick being super sad about not sitting with Charlie, and Charlie trying to be all upbeat about it, and challenging him to not kiss him for two days. I love their banter.

- Tao’s miserable face as he realizes that, not only is Nick sitting with him for the trip, but Elle doesn’t want to sit with him either. And Nick is oblivious to the fact that the date didn’t go well…

- Ben clearly doesn’t realize how indiscreet he is about his fixation with Charlie. Even Isaac notices something strange is up.

- Ugh, I loooove how much we’re slowly inching our way to finding out more about Isaac. I love that he asks Charlie how he knew he liked Nick, and how he’s trying to figure out how this compares to how he feels about James. God, if that hasn’t been my entire life before I realized too…

- If nobody had told me that Kit Connor didn’t speak French before, I would have simply thought “wow, how lucky that they found the perfect Nick Nelson AND he happens to speak French already.” (I really don’t know if it sounds good or not, but it convinced me…) Also Nick’s little excited face when he’s talking to his dad, because he’s still excited about the possibility of seeing his dad, he hasn’t come to the realization that the effort should come from both parts.

- Also Tao’s face when he realizes that Nick is speaking fluent French and he’s not hearing things. And their cute little bonding moment talking about it. Even when Elle looks over at them, they seem to be looking at something (on a phone?) and talking and laughing. Bonding!

- Mr Farouk actually having a little smile on his face when they’re finally in Paris.

- Ugh, seriously, what is up with Ben??? He doesn’t care about even playing it off for Imogen, and she very quickly catches on.

- “I thought you’d find it awkward sharing with Nick. Just standing next to Elle makes me feel like I’m being electrocuted.” I don’t think I’m quite on board with this completely, seeing as in the show Tao already knows about Nick and Charlie… I thought it would have made more sense if he’d been more like “I just want to make sure that there’s no hanky-panky whilst we’re all in the same room,” and then Charlie could get all flustered and go “ugh you sound like my dad, and no, we’re not doing any of that, not yet…”

- But I love that we got the handholding scene across the space between the beds.

- The teachers being so awkward and adorable. Now kyth!

- Tao should have apologized to Elle for what he said, but at least he extended an olive branch in the form of a bottle of apple juice. And she accepted.

- The dynamic between Nick and Charlie has seriously become so perfect and in tune, the way that Joe and Kit riff off each other whilst being perfectly in character is just chef’s kiss.

- Darcy interrupting the kiss made me think of an ideal world in which Darcy gets adopted by Sara, and the Golden Retriever siblings fight about stupid things all the time, like who’s more in love with their respective partner, and who do they think Nellie loves more, and she continuously barges into Nick’s room when Nick and Charlie are making out and goes “sorry for interrupting the gayness, but I can’t find my phone charger, can I borrow yours? Thank you, my twin. You may proceed with the gayness.”

- “I need a drink. An alcoholic drink.” “We probably shouldn’t drink.” “I need a croissant then”. Number one on the quotes that I’m glad made it right off the comic page.

- “Mischief maker. I’ve influenced you.”

- The I heart Paris hoodie, and Darcy touching the bust’s boobs. Peak Darcy.

- James saying that it’s nice to be with other gay people, and Isaac looking a bit uncomfortable… honey, just because doesn’t seem to respond to people of the opposite sex doesn’t automatically make them gay. Unless he’s using gay as an umbrella term…? Instead of queer…? James knows about Darcy and Tara, and about Charlie, but he doesn’t know about Nick, or presumably Sahar. He’s making assumptions about Isaac.

- Nick not getting why people continue to be fascinated by the fact that he speaks French, or the fact that his dad is French. He’s such an oblivious little pumpkin.

- And that heart to heart between Charlie and Tara. “Me and her were all that mattered.” And Tara being jealous about how Charlie and Nick talk about their feelings.

- The Tao and Elle conversation and whole cutesy montage. And Tao making the French tourists crouch for the photo and everything, figuring out how to talk to them without actually speaking French.

- Peak Ben Hope, seeing Nick waving at Imogen and immediately pulling her toward him, in this horribly possessive manner. Glad that Imogen got fed up with him and bolted. Poor thing has been miserable since arriving at Paris because of Ben, and she at least approaches Nick’s group to ask if she can hang out, which could not have been easy (especially to Nick, with whom she had a disagreement).

- By the way, Imogen in her Paris outfit is giving off major Margot Robbie in Barbie vibes.

- Elle asking Imogen if she even likes Ben, which you can tell that Nick so badly wanted to ask (Elle and Nick even exchange knowing glances), but he didn’t because he knew that he had already tried to warn Imogen about Ben, and maybe she won’t listen to him, but she’ll probably listen to another girl.

- Imogen jumping on the TaoElle ship. “Maybe I don’t have the best track record in relationships (looks knowingly at Nick and he laughs), but I think being honest is better than living with regret”. Yes, Imogen. Like when she took a chance and told Nick that she liked him and then asked him out, and even though he didn’t reciprocate, they still ended up as friends, and he’s so protective of her, and he’s probably the best friend she didn’t know she needed.

- Nick internalizing what Imogen just said too.

- Will Gao is so histrionic, I adore him.

- The whole montage of Mr Farouk arguing (is he arguing? Sorry, but to me French men always sound like their arguing) with the waiter without any subtitles, and then going something about no onions and something else and “I’m serious, big man, I get bloated, it’s not funny, cheers”, made me think for a moment that I want to learn French just so that I can know what he was saying. (The moment has passed).

- The whole Nick and Charlie trying not to sit together all the time majorly backfiring when Ben ends up next to Charlie. The horror. Charlie turns his body toward Tao as much as he can without actually sitting sideways, and Nick is about to throw his whole body across the table.

- Detective Imogen is fully on it now, she’s about to blow this whole case wide open.

- I’ve had escargot and I’m never doing that again. It was fun to try, but yeah, I also felt bad for my terrible decision.

- I may never completely understand the magnitude of Charlie’s eating disorders, because I can’t imagine what that’s like (I used to think that I might have an ED because I’m often so particular about food, because of my anxiety, and at times textures and strong flavors can be overwhelming, but I’ve learned to deal with it, the way I managed to overcome it on my own was kind of similar to the way that Noora from SKAM did, but it was never of the magnitude of Charlie or Noora), but I understand the pressure of “oh shit I ordered this and now I have to eat it because people are watching but I really don’t want to” and fearing making myself sick because of the pressure and the shame and the anxiety of feeling trapped in that situation. Made worse, in Charlie’s case, by Ben sitting next to him and actively looking at him.

- “I haven’t spoken to you in ages”. Sir, that is not a coincidence, there’s a reason for it. Don’t pretend like you don’t know it, SIR.

- I love the panicked look on Nick’s face as Ben starts talking to Charlie. He had seen the seating arrangement and panicked, but then he relaxed for a bit, probably thinking “nah, this asshole wouldn’t dare try to say anything to Charlie in front of everyone, he wouldn’t be so bold”, but then Ben is inexplicable… So Nick nearly rushes off his seat to Charlie’s side to do what? Ask Ben to switch seats with him? Just wedge himself in there until the meal is over? He probably has not a clue what he’ll do but by GOD he will stop this interaction before his boyfriend has to endure it any longer.

- Imagine being Ben (just for a painful second), being so self-centered, being so preoccupied with the paranoia of people watching you all the time and watching your every move and trying to figure you out, that you’d go around being an asshole, especially to the boy that you “like”, to the point where those actions and shitty attitude lose you said boy, only for you to lose all self-awareness when in proximity to said boy, and you’re suddenly staring at him openly, trying to strike up a conversation, and not getting the fucking hint that said boy doesn’t want to talk to you, doesn’t even want to look at you. Imagine those walls crumbling down but you’re absolutely convinced they are still up. Imagine that now people can see right through you and call you out, and you get defensive and start calling them names… Imagine being down so bad for someone (or whatever feelings that you might think you have for said boy) that you’re not even making sense anymore, even later boldly telling said boy’s boyfriend that you want said boy back (even though said boy’s boyfriend is basically twice your size and hates your guts and could probably knock you out with a single punch). Imagine…

- But then imagine being Charlie, a curly-haired human embodiment of sunshine and rainbows, and having to sit next to your ex/assaulter. Period.

- Imogen going off on Ben like we all love to see it, but let’s face it, she was kinder than I expected her to be, by telling him he has issues that he needs to resolve. Go to therapy, Ben! Your energy’s off, Ben! She’s basically telling him what Charlie will repeat in other words later, about him working on himself to be better before he hurts somebody else.

- She calls out Ben for being obsessed with Charlie twice very loudly. Ben would rather chew off his own hand before admitting it, but Imogen hit the nail right in the head. ( kinda want to be given a reason why not one of Charlie's friends jumped up at that, like "wait, what is this about Ben Hope being obsessed with you?" unless they're waiting for Charlie to bring it up himself it at all. But seeing Charlie's reaction, and Nick's horrified face, you'd think they'd be a little curious as to what that is about...)

- And Elle smiling when Imogen says that it’s time she focuses on herself. Yes, Imogen, stop thinking about boys for a while, and focus on what you want.

- I have rewatched everyone’s faces so many times: from the guy over Imogen’s shoulder laughing and trying to look over, to James catching all the tea, to all of Ben’s mates sniggering, but my favorite is that boy between Ben and Harry with the super-expressive eyebrows very dramatically questioning Ben’s whole attitude.

- As everyone’s been saying, when even Harry Greene calls you out, you know you’ve hit a low point.

- Nick and Charlie coming to comfort Imogen, and her questioning if she should have done that so publicly (the answer is Yes, because he very publicly treated you very badly too, so… tit for tat). And her wanted to make sure if maybe something happened between Ben and Charlie, but then saying it doesn’t matter as soon as she sees how uncomfortable it makes him.

- And her saying that it would be easier if she liked girls, which… how many times do women in general say that? Relationships aren’t easy, no matter who you love, but there’s a preoccupying trend if the consensus is that ‘if sexuality was really a choice, the number of women who would choose to be lesbians is very very high’. What does that say about straight cis men, in general?

- Tao finally getting his head out of his own ass long enough to realize that Nick is really trying to bond with him.

- Tao about Elle “she’s everything, I’m just Ken”.

- Nick being adorable telling him that he thinks Tao is also all those things, and telling him that he does like him.

- I thought that Tao’s whole plan was giving Nick and Charlie privacy by dragging Isaac to the vending machin (And Charlie and Nick making the most of that little privacy). But it’s so sad when you realize that it was because Nick said the word “loudly” to describe him, and it made him remember that it was his loudness that outed Charlie last year. Poor baby.

- Seriously, the chemistry this season is off the charts, the intimacy between Nick and Charlie is so beautiful and warm and Kit and Joe are magical. And the way that they’re always checking with each other. “Is this okay?” A very enthusiastic "YEAH”, “we should stop”, “okay.” Love them.

- Isaac falling asleep with the book on his face is so relatable. How many times have I woken up because I fell asleep reading and the book just smacked me in the face? Too many to count.

- Charlie’s little “oh f—” cut to music.

Ceci episode é brought pour vous by CROISSANTS™. (Je n'e parlez pas français).

#heartstopper #heartstopper season 2 #heartstopper analysis #hearststopper netflix #heartstopper in paris #heartstopper play-by-play analysis #nick and charlie #tao and elle #tara and darcy

16 notes · View notes

castiel-kline · 4 years ago

Text

More thoughts on 15x18, because I’m really struggling with it. (I have lots of feelings, and a lot them are Not Pretty)

Let’s talk about the issue of Cas’s “true happiness.”

First of all, “true happiness” was never in the terms of the deal. The Empty never said Cas had to be truly happy, it only said he had to give himself “permission to be happy.” That ain’t the same thing. I feel like “true happiness” is an unreachable goal. It’s a light at the end of the tunnel that you can never reach because it doesn’t really exist. You can certainly find it in little moments along the way, but it’s not an epiphany. It’s a process. “Permission to be happy,” on the other hand, can be manufactured. It can be, “I feel like crap right now, I hate myself and my life is terrible, but I WILL be happy about watching this movie or hugging my friend.” Example- I did this today. I’ve been in a funk after this episode (hello, crippling attachment to fictional characters!) but I went over to a friend’s house and I met her new dog for the first time. And he jumped on me and I laughed and I thought, well- I still feel like crap. I still have a lot to process. I still have deadlines for actual life stuff looming over me and spiking my anxiety. But I will be happy now for this adorable little fluffball and my friend who I haven’t seen in months. I gave myself permission to be happy.

And Cas in that scene didn’t look happy to me. He looked miserable. He looked like he was two seconds from shattering. We’ve seen Cas genuinely happy before- 14x08 comes to mind, when he laughed from pure joy at seeing Jack again. When he smiled at that little girl in early season 10. Hell, even season 6 Cas looked 1000 times happier when he went in to hug freshly-re-souled Sam than Cas did in *that* scene. When Cas is happy, there’s a lightness to him. It’s like some weight has been lifted. Cas in this episode wasn’t lightest when the Empty took him, but when he was talking to Jack. And that’s saying something because that was a fucking depressing conversation.

And the lines everyone is talking about- “What I want is something I know I can’t have.” and “Happiness isn’t in the having. It’s in just being. It’s in just saying it.”

Oh boy. I saw a post today calling that toxic positivity, and it’s right. Cas basically said I Will Speak the Happiness into Existence Whether I Feel it or Not.

He also said “I wondered what my true happiness could even look like, and I never found an answer.”

First off, honey, true happiness wasn’t part of the deal. But he did say he never found an answer. Which means, presumably, that whatever was going on in this scene wasn’t true happiness. He just dropped the pretense of it, and gave himself permission to be happy at a very strategic time in order to take out Billie and stop her from killing more people. Dean, yes, but Sam and Jack as well. If there was a chance they were still alive, you can damn well bet that Cas was gonna take it. Because he’s a strategist. He was a soldier for millions of years and he commanded Heavenly armies. I feel like that’s not a job Michael or Raphael or whoever else would give to just anybody.

So what if what Cas wanted but could never have was happiness? And he forced himself to feel some so the Empty would come, and that’s why he was so “oh wow I love my friend.” And I’m not disputing that there’s love there. I don’t vibe with Destiel and I think something has got to be reciprocated before it can be canon, but whether it was platonic or romantic or something in between or something different altogether those two definitely had something going on. That is in no way an excuse for Dean treating him like crap for years, but we’ve all looked for the best in people, in things, even if they hurt us or disappointed us or really fucking pissed us off. Kinda like what I’m doing right now LMAO

And if you watch closely, Cas takes a fucking minute after he mentions Jack. He looked like he was in so much pain. His voice cracked when he mentioned Sam. In making the choice to sacrifice himself he was condemning himself to never seeing Sam again. Never seeing Jack again. And Sam and Cas love each other so damn much, and Cas loves Jack more than anything else. That was bound to be hard. Probably one of the hardest things he’d ever had to do.

So of course he focused on Dean. Because he loves him too, even though he probably shouldn’t sometimes, and he mustered up enough happiness for the Empty to come, and found some pride in himself and how he’s grown. I do believe he sort of accepted himself, and let go of some of his self-loathing at the last second. He cobbled together some last-minute peace. I’m proud of him for that.

But I think I hate it, in all honestly. I DESPISE it as an ending for Castiel. It doesn’t do him justice in the slightest. It doesn’t begin to be in that realm. It was a mess, it was poorly written, he felt out of character (the fucking disconnect from Cas in his scenes with Jack this ep vs. this monstrosity... whoa nelly. I have whiplash). But I have to believe that there’s something like this in there, or I will go insane. I’m far too attached to Cas to just let this go without settling on an interpretation that isn’t “gay angel goes to superhell.” Totally valid to cope with 2012 tumblr humor, but dear god am I really struggling with this. It was bad, but I need to take it somewhat seriously for my own sanity.

And he’s dead. He’s gone, probably permanently. And the knowledge of that alone is enough to make me cry (listen... Castiel has gotten me through some crap in my life. I MISS him) and I will forever be angry that his ending wasn’t even about him. So hopefully my analysis helped you a little bit, if you’re in a Cas-loving pit and clawing your way out like me.

I just think the timing of it was too perfect for Cas not to have been aware of what he was doing. It was too deliberate. And though I am all for Cas getting some kind of canonical queerness (even though all the SPN angels are technically canonically genderfluid/nonbinary/non-conforming, somewhere in that broad spectrum), I still think what he wanted but could never have was much more to do with himself rather than Dean. He really didn’t have to die, though, certainly not so terribly. I think I actually preferred his death in All Along the Watchtower. I wouldn’t trade late seasons Cas for anything, though, because (excepting this) he was rad. Killing the game. Dadstiel, Sam and Cas’s friendship- I loved watching those flourish in the late seasons. And everything I loved most about it was done so dirty. I’m just so tired. I wish I could mourn him without being angry and bitter at the writers.

#spn spoilers #kitkat rambles #i just really needed to get this out of my system somehow #lord knows i'm always going to love cas though #spn #don't mind me #spn meta #maybe

15 notes · View notes

northernstories · 4 years ago

Text

African American Literature Suggestions from NMU English Department

The English Department at Northern Michigan University has prepared this list of several dozen suggested readings in African American literature, with some materials also addressing Native American history and culture. The first section contains books that will help provide a context for the Black Lives Matter movement. It includes books that will help readers examine their own privilege and act more effectively for the greater good. Following that list is another featuring many African American authors and books. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it does provide readers a place to start. Almost all of these books are readily available in bookstores and public and university libraries.

Northern Michigan University’s English Department offers at least one course on African American literature every semester, at least one course on Native American literature every semester, and at least one additional course on non-western world literatures every semester. Department faculty also incorporate diverse material in many other courses. For more information, contact the department at [email protected]. Nonfiction, primarily addressing current events, along with some classic texts: Joni Adamson, Mei Mei Evans, and Rachel Stein, editors. The Environmental Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics, and Pedagogy. This classic collection of scholarly articles, essays, and interviews explores the links between social inequalities and unequal distribution of environmental risk. Attention is focused on the US context, but authors also consider global impacts. Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. A clear-eyed explication of how mass incarceration has created a new racial caste system obscured by the ideology of color-blindness. Essential reading for understanding our criminal justice system in relation to the histories of slavery and segregation. Carol Anderson, White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. A very well-written but disturbing and direct analysis of the history of structural and institutionalized racism in the United States. Gloria Anzaldua, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Anzaldua writes about the complexity of life on multiple borders, both literal (the border between the US/Mexico) and conceptual (the borders among languages, sexual identity, and gender). Anzaldua also crosses generic borders, moving among essay, story, history, and poetry. James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time. A classic indictment of white supremacy expressed in a searing, prophetic voice that is, simply, unmatched. Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me. A combination of personal narrative in the form of the author’s letter to his son, historical analysis, and contemporary reportage. Angela Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? In this succinct and carefully researched book, Davis exposes the racist and sexist underpinnings of the American prison system. This is a must-read for folks new to conversations about prison (and police) abolition. Robin DiAngelo, What Does It Mean To Be White? The author facilitates white people unpacking their biases around race, privilege, and oppression through a variety of methods and extensive research. Ejeris Dixon and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarshnha, editors. Beyond Survival: Strategies and Stories From the Transformative Justice Movement. The book attempts to solve problems of violence at a grassroots level in minority communities, without relying on punishment, incarceration, or policing. Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. The most well-known narrative written by one of the most well-known and accomplished enslaved persons in the United States. First published in 1845 when Douglass was approximately 28 years old. W.E.B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk. Collection of essays in which Dubois famously prophesied that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line.” Henry Louis Gates, Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow. Must reading, a beautifully written, scholarly, and accessible discussion of American history from Reconstruction to the beginnings of the Jim Crow era. Saidiya Hartman, Lose your Mother: A Journey Along the Atlantic Slave Route. In an attempt to locate relatives in Ghana, the author journeyed along the route her ancestors would have taken as they became enslaved in the United States. bell hooks, Black Looks: Race and Representation. A collection of essays that analyze how white supremacy is systemically maintained through, among other activities, popular culture. Harriet Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Narrative of a woman who escaped slavery by hiding in an attic for seven years. This book offers unique insights into the sexually predatory behavior of slave masters. Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America. A detailed history not only of racist events in American history, but of the racist thinking that permitted and continues to permit these events. This excellent and readable book traces this thinking from the colonial period through the presidency of Barack Obama. Winona LaDuke, All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life Any of LaDuke's works belong on this list. This particular text explores the stories of several Indigenous communities as they struggle with environmental and cultural degradation. An incredible resource. Kiese Laymon, Heavy: An American Memoir. An intense book that questions American myths of individual success written by a man who is able to situate his own life within a much larger whole. Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color This foundational text brings together work by writers, scholars, and activists such as Audre Lorde, Chrystos, Barbara Smith, Norma Alarcon, Nellie Wong, and many others. The book has been called a manifesto and a call to action and remains just as important and relevant as when it was published nearly 40 years ago. Toni Morrison, The Source of Self-Regard. An invaluable collection of essays and speeches from the only black woman to win a Nobel Prize in literature. Throughout her oeuvre, Morrison calls us to take "personal responsibility for alleviating social harm," an ethic she identified with Martin Luther King. Ersula J. Ore, Lynching: Violence, Rhetoric, and American Identity. Ore scrutinizes the history of lynching in America and contemporary manifestations of lynching, drawing upon the murder of Trayvon Martin and other contemporary manifestations of police brutality. Drawing upon newspapers, official records, and memoirs, as well as critical race theory, Ore outlines the connections between what was said and written, the material practices of lynching in the past, and the forms these rhetorics and practices assume now. Claudia Rankine, Citizen: An American Lyric. A description and discussion of racial aggression and micro-aggression in contemporary America. The book was selected for NMU’s Diversity Common Reader Program in 2016. Layla F. Saad, Me and White Supremacy. The author facilitates white people in unpacking their biases around race, privilege, and oppression, while also helping them understand key critical social justice terminology. Maya Schenwar, Joe Macaré, Alana Yu-lan Price, editors. Who do you Serve, Who Do You Protect? Police Violence and Resistance in the United States. The essays examine "police violence against black, brown, indigenous and other marginalized communities, miscarriages of justice, and failures of token accountability and reform measures." What are alternative measures to keep marginalized communities safe? Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? The authors, in very easy to read and engaging language, facilitate readers in understanding the ---isms (racism, sexism, ableism etc.) and how they intersect, helping readers see their positionality and how privilege and oppression work to perpetuate the status quo. Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. An analysis of America’s criminal justice system by the lawyer who founded the Equal Justice Initiative. While upsetting, the book is also hopeful. Wendy S. Walters, Multiply / Divide: On the American Real and Surreal. In this collection of essays, Walters analyzes the racial psyche of several major American cities, emphasizing the ways bias can endanger entire communities. Booker T. Washington, Up from Slavery. Autobiography of the founder of Tuskegee Institute. Harriet Washington, Medical Apartheid. From the surgical experiments performed on enslaved black women to the contemporary recruitment of prison populations for medical research, Washington illuminates how American medicine has been--and continues to be shaped--by anti-black racism. Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Autobiography of civil rights leader that traces his evolution as a thinker, speaker, and writer.

If you would like to enhance your knowledge of the rich tradition of African American literature, here are several of the most popular books and authors within that tradition, focused especially on the 20thand 21st centuries. Novels and Short Stories James Baldwin, Go Tell It on the Mountain James Baldwin, Giovanni’s Room Octavia Butler, Parable of the Sower Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man Langston Hughes, The Ways of White Folks Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God James Weldon Johnson, The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man Nella Larsen, Passing Nella Larsen, Quicksand Toni Morrison, The Bluest Eye Toni Morrison, Beloved Richard Wright, Native Son Drama Lorraine Hansberry, A Raisin in the Sun Ntozake Shange, For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide / When the Rainbow Is Enuf August Wilson, Fences August Wilson, The Piano Lesson Poetry A good place to begin is an anthology, The Vintage Book of African American Poetry, edited by Michael S. Harper and Anthony Walton. It includes work by poets from the 18th century to the present, including Gwendolyn Brooks, Lucille Clifton, Countee Cullen, Rita Dove, Robert Hayden, Langston Hughes, Yusef Komunyakaa, Claude McKay, Phillis Wheatley, and many others. Here are some more recent collections: Reginald Dwayne Betts, Felon Wanda Coleman, Wicked Enchantment: Selected Poems Honorée Fanonne Jeffers, The Age of Phillis Tyehimba Jess, Olio Jamaal May, The Big Book of Exit Strategies Danez Smith, Don’t Call Us Dead

#blm movement #blm #african american literature #reading list #english

35 notes · View notes