#movies books essays

[reallybadblackoutpoems]

secrets of farming (1863) - john w. large

"yeowch augh taking damage ough eurgh"

[felix-lupin]

In Coraline, there’s a recurring theme with names and identity, and I personally don't think it's talked about enough. 

(As a note, this is dealing largely with the book, not the movie, although there are some hints of this theme in the movie as well)

Coraline’s neighbors constantly get her name wrong, calling her “Caroline” and not “Coraline”, to which she persistently corrects them. Despite her attempts, they never get it right, until chapter 10, in which Mr Bobo (Mr Bobinsky) finally gets it right.

"It's Coraline, Mister Bobo," said Coraline. "Not Caroline. Coraline." "Coraline," said Mr Bobo, repeating her name to himself with wonderment and respect. "Very good, Coraline."

It should be noted that, until this chapter, Coraline did not know Mr Bobo’s name either. In fact, it had never even occurred to her that he had a name. Up until then, she had just been thinking of him as “the crazy old man upstairs”, not as a person with a name. This moment, with her learning his name and him getting her name right, is a moment of genuine understanding and connection between the two, humanizing them both to each other.

Coraline’s other neighbors get her name wrong, which is representative of them not listening when she says anything, really, such as her telling Miss Spink and Forcible that her parents are missing and them literally not even acknowledging it at all??

"How are your dear mother and father?" asked Miss Spink. "Missing," said Coraline. "I haven't seen either of them since yesterday. I'm on my own. I think I've probably become a single child family." "Tell your mother that we found the Glasgow Empire press clippings we were telling her about. She seemed very interested when Miriam mentioned them to her." "She's vanished under mysterious circumstances," said Coraline, "and I believe my father has as well." "I'm afraid we'll be out all day tomorrow, Caroline lovely," said Miss Forcible. "We'll be staying with April's niece in Royal Tunbridge Wells."

Mr Bobo gets her name right after being corrected (only after being corrected alongside her using his name, mind you, showcasing her making an effort to listen to and understand him as well), which is representative of him actually making an attempt to listen and understand her. This point is further illustrated by a conversation Coraline had with the Other Mr Bobo in chapter 10.

As Coraline entered he began to talk. "Nothing's changed, little girl," he said, his voice sounding like the noise dry leaves make as they rustle across a pavement. "And what if you do everything you swore you would? What then? Nothing's changed. You'll go home. You'll be bored. You'll be ignored. No one will listen to you, not really listen to you. You're too clever and too quiet for them to understand. They don't even get your name right."

He equates those in the real world not getting Coraline’s name right with them not listening to her, and fundamentally not understanding who she is. So, somebody getting her name right, then, shows them actually listening to her, and being willing to understand who she is.

The mice in the real world know more than they should be able to know, and they also get Coraline’s name right.

"The message is this. Don't go through the door." He paused. "Does that mean anything to you?" "No," said Coraline. The old man shrugged. "They are funny, the mice. They get things wrong. They got your name wrong, you know. They kept saying Coraline. Not Caroline. Not Caroline at all."

They seem to know about the other world, somehow, on some level, and the dangers it presents. Them getting her name right represents them knowing more than they should know, more than they are told. Animals in general seem to have this type of quality in Coraline, actually.

The cat does not have a name. It says so in chapter 4, that cats do not need names. It says that this is because cats know who they are. But humans need names, because they do not.

"Please. What's your name?" Coraline asked the cat. "Look, I'm Coraline. OK?" The cat yawned softly, carefully, revealing a mouth and tongue of astounding pinkness. "Cats don't have names," it said. "No?" said Coraline. "No," said the cat. "Now, you people have names. That's because you don't know who you are. We know who we are, so we don't need names."

The cat shook its head. "No," it said. "I'm not the other anything. I'm me." It tipped its head on one side; green eyes glinted. "You people are spread all over the place. Cats, on the other hand, keep ourselves together. If you see what I mean."

This shows that, in humans, names are connected to our identities and who we are. Names are used to individualize and distinguish ourselves from each other. But cats do not need names to recognize each other, or be recognized.

"Oh. It's you," she said to the black cat. "See?" said the cat. "It wasn't so hard recognising me, was it? Even without names."

With or without names, it is still the same cat.

During the Other Miss Spink and Forcible’s performance, in chapter 4, they begin quoting Shakespeare. The specific quotes that they use are interesting to me when looked at under this lens of the importance of names, especially Miss Forcible’s.

"What's in a name?" asked Miss Forcible. "That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

"I know not how to tell thee who I am," said Miss Spink to Miss Forcible.

Now, of course, this is just them quoting Shakespeare. But. Why these quotes specifically? They’re at the very least notable when discussing Coraline’s recurring theme of names. Especially the quote about the rose. It makes me think of what the cat said earlier, about how cats are sure of who they are so they don’t need names, about how Coraline didn’t need the cat’s name to be able to recognize it for who/what it was.

But, of course, this does not apply for humans. We need our names to be able to know ourselves, to be able to tell others who they are.

In chapter 6, Coraline wakes up and is disoriented. This disorientation is compared to the feeling one might experience upon being suddenly pulled out of a daydream. In this comparison, forgetting one’s name is equated with forgetting who one is and where one is.

Sometimes Coraline would forget who she was while she was daydreaming that she was exploring the Arctic, or the Amazon rainforest, or darkest Africa, and it was not until someone tapped her on the shoulder or said her name that Coraline would come back from a million miles away with a start, and all in the fraction of a second have to remember who she was, and what her name was, and that she was even there at all. Now there was the sun on her face, and she was Coraline Jones. Yes.

The ghost children have also forgotten their names, and with it most of who they were. In chapter 7, when Coraline is locked behind the mirror in the Other World, one of the ghost children says that names are the first things that one forgets after death.

"Who are you?" whispered Coraline. "Names, names, names," said another voice, all faraway and lost. "The names are the first thing to go, after the breath has gone, and the beating of the heart. We keep our memories longer than our names. I still keep pictures in my mind of my governess on some May morning, carrying my hoop and stick, and the morning sun behind her, and all the tulips bobbing in the breeze. But I have forgotten the name of my governess, and of the tulips too." "I don't think tulips have names," said Coraline. "They're just tulips." "Perhaps," said the voice sadly. "But I have always thought that these tulips must have had names. They were red, and orange-and-red, and red-and-orange-and-yellow, like the embers in the nursery fire of a winter's evening. I remember them."

The ghost children may have their memories, but they have largely forgotten who they were. They may remember their tulips, and certain strong memories, but there is very, very little left of them, and they have forgotten who they once were, they have forgotten their names.

"That is why we could not leave here, when we died. She kept us, and she fed on us, until now we're nothing left of ourselves, only snakeskins and spider-husks. Find our secret hearts, young mistress."

"She will take your life and all you are and all you care'st for, and she will leave you with nothing but mist and fog. She'll take your joy. And one day you'll awake and your heart and soul will have gone. A husk you'll be, a wisp you'll be, and a thing no more than a dream on waking, or a memory of something forgotten."

The Other Mother stole their hearts and their souls and their selves. She stole who they were away from them, their identities and names and the names of those they loved, leaving nothing in her wake.

The same ghost that talked about the tulips and the names of the tulips struggles to answer when Coraline asks their gender, as well, and when they do eventually give an answer they seem somewhat unsure of it, as shown by the word choice of “perhaps” and “I believe”

"A boy, perhaps, then," continued the one whose hand she was holding. "I believe I was once a boy." And it glowed a little more brightly in the darkness of the room behind the mirror.

(I personally take this quote, specifically it "glow[ing] a little more brightly" after coming to this conclusion, to mean either that the ghost is happy at realizing that he was once a boy, or even to mean that he has become somewhat more tangible upon this realization; upon remembering something about his self, and his identity.)

As an aside, it's noteworthy to me that we never learn the Other Mother’s true name. She is simply “The Other Mother” and “The Beldam.” Never is an actual name applied to her, only titles. We do not truly know who, or what, she is. Beings without names are shrouded in mystery (or should i say mist-ery). The ghost children are benevolent mysterious beings, the cat is an ambivalent-leaning-helpful mysterious being, and the other mother is a distinctly malevolent mysterious being.

"Who are you?" asked Coraline. "I'm your other mother," said the woman.

"She?" "The one who says she's your other mother," said the cat. "What is she?" asked Coraline. The cat did not answer, just padded through the pale mist beside Coraline.

But in conclusion, names in Coraline are extremely important. I’m sure there’s probably more that I'm missing, and feel free to add onto this, but basically—

People need names to know and remember who they are, and forgetting one’s name is the first step to losing the rest of who one is. Names humanize a person; with a name, they are less shrouded in mystery, more clear.

Knowing somebody's name helps one connect to and better understand that person; it is the first step in getting to know them and see them as a full person, the transition from “the crazy man upstairs” to “Mr Bobo”. Names, to people at least, are one of the fundamental building blocks of who we are.

[mixelation]

see, at least when i was listening to truecrime when i worked, if they said something outrageous, i could pull my earbud out and go "can you believe this SHIT" to my coworkers

what am i supposed to do if i get mad at this guy debating if itachi could fight all 5 kage, explain to my coworker than itachi can cast genjutsu with more than just his eyes? i'd die

[blueskittlesart]

uh oh sisters. hunger games hyperfixation

[curiositykilledtheradiostar]

Personally I think the reason that the ending of HTTYD 3 just doesn't work, condensed and boiled down from the full essay in my brain, is that movie hiccup is far too cool and badass compared to book hiccup for them to wrap up the series in the same way.

[bmpmp3]

sorry to be a bit of a hater but i do wish youtubers weren't so scared of making their videos just like, "reviews", whys everything gotta be a "video essay" all the time. every day my recommendations are filled with 40 minute videos titled "_____: An Underrated Masterpiece" where the first like five minutes are reading the wikipedia definition of "masterpiece" in a somber voice with dramatic themed text on screen. please just tell me how good or bad you think something is and use the rest of the runtime to explain why. you dont need to put on all these airs

[mostlyvoid-partiallyflowers]

The most recent episode of Interview with a Vampire let's us see Lestat's side of the story and see how it compares to Louis' accounting of their relationship. As a result, it reaffirms just how unreliable of a narrator Louis is, but it also further illuminates elements of his character that the director and writers have been playing with since the beginning of the show.

There's this part in the episode where Lestat turns to Louis and apologizes and it's framed with Lestat turned to Louis on one side and Claudia on his other side. They're the angel and devil on Louis' shoulders, but who is the angel and who is the devil? And as my friend said, Armand and Daniel are placed into that same dynamic with Louis later on. We are being asked to decide who to trust, who's telling the truth, who's the good guy, but the fact of unreliability robs us of that decision.

This whole story is about Louis, he's the protagonist, though not the narrator, and he is constantly being pulled in two directions, no matter when or where he is in his story. He's a mind split in two, divided by nature and circumstance. He's vampire and human, owner and owned, father and child, angel and devil. He's both telling the story and being told the story. His history is a story he tells himself, and as we've seen, sometimes that story is not whole.

Louis is the angel who saved Claudia from the fire but he's also the devil who sentenced her to an life of endless torment, the adult trapped in the body of a child. He's the angel who rescued Lestat from his grief and also the devil who abandoned him, who couldn't love him, could only kill and leave him.

He's pulled in two directions, internally and externally at all times and so it's no wonder that he feels the need to confess, first to the priest, then Daniel, and then Daniel again.

He's desperate to be heard, a Black man with power in Jim Crow America who's controlled by his position as someone with a seat at the table but one who will never be considered equal. He doesn't belong to the Black community or the white community, he can't. He acts as a go-between, a bridge, one who is pushed and pulled until he can't take it anymore. He's a fledgling child to an undead father, he's a young queer man discovering his sexual identity with an infinitely experienced partner. He's confessing because he wants to be absolved, that human part of him that was raised Catholic, that child who believed, he wants to be saved. He wants to be seen.

Louis wants to attain a forever life that is morally pure, but he can't. He's been soiled by sin, by "the devil," as he calls Lestat, and he can never be clean again. Deep down, I think he knows this, but he can't stop trying to repent. He tries to self-flagellate by staying with Lestat and then tries to repent by killing him, but can't actually follow through. He follows Claudia to Europe to try and assuage his guilt. He sets himself on fire, attempts to burn himself at the stake, to purify his body, rid himself of the dark gift.

Louis is a man endlessly trying to account for the pain he has caused and he ultimately fails, over and over again, because he can't get rid of what he is. A monster. He's an endlessly hungry monster. He's hungry for love, for respect, for power, for forgiveness, for death. He's a hole that can never be filled. He can never truly acquire any of those things because he will always be punishing himself for wanting and needing them in the first place. He will never truly believe he deserves them and as a result, can't accept them if they are ever offered. He can never be absolved for he has damned himself by accepting the dark gift and thus has tainted himself past the point of saving.

[variberry]

i salute you, geronimo stilton fandom

[sentiniel]

hbomb's blast of james somerton really makes me think back to other older youtubers who have been doing their good work, performing critical research and analyses into niche fields who then had their work plagiarized from their videos and henceforth wanted to stop making content.

yeah and also they got pushback from the internet saying the degree of plagiarism they'd experienced is a made up problem.

this is a sideways post.

[meraki-yao]

RWRB Book Thoughts: Ellen and Oscar

Re-reading RWRB and thinking about Oscar and Ellen. The thing is book Ellen and Oscar's relationship scares me because it's like the worst-case scenario of my own parents (they're a lot better now but covid was hell) So I understand it.

Ellen and Oscar are soulmates. As in they are both intelligent, stubborn and headstrong. They are very similar people. Unfortunately this is a case where it's like forcefully pushing two North ends of a magnet together: Ellen in particular wants and needs a complimentary relationship instead of collaborative relationship, which is why Leo works for her: Leo is meek compared to Oscar. He really just listens and generally agrees with Ellen. His appearances are limited in the book but when he does show up he doesn't really have his own opinion. Ellen wants/needs someone who won't speak up against her.

Honestly? I, kinda feel sad for Oscar. He said it himself, "We're both too fucking proud. But God, that woman. Your mother is, without question, the love of my life. I'll never love anyone else like that." It's sad to know that he never stopped loving Ellen while vice versa isn't true, and to know that she's it for Oscar.

When it comes to parenting I honestly think Oscar is the better parent. It was really shitty of him to leave without telling Alex and June and that evidently really hurt Alex til this day, but when it comes to the other parent things? I was re-reading/listening to Chapter Four today when he goes to DC for Christmas, and both Alex and June are so much more comfortable with him. Part of that is probably because he doesn't carry the inherent pressure of being the fucking president, but part of it is that he really cares about his kids as they are. Ellen downplays June's passion for journalism and pressures her into a political job that she didn't want at all, while Oscar "raved about June's latest blog post for The Atlantic". Ellen immediately started piling up all the political consequences of firstprince literally minutes after Alex plucked up the courage to come out to her while Oscar gave him relationship advice. This isn't to say Ellen isn't a good mother, she is flawed, as Oscar is, as all parents are. But if we're looking at non-crisis moments, Oscar's actions are more comfortable for his children.

There's a reason June initially wanted to go to California and be close to her dad. Yesterday I talked a little about how I hated how Ellen and Alex treated June at the earlier chapters of the book. Well in the rest of the book it's implied that she has a much closer relationship with Oscar, jumping into his arms when he arrives at the White House, him picking her up and spinning her when they arrive at the lakehouse.

Either way, Ellen and Oscar clash becasue they're too alike, and my opinion is that Ellen tends to fan the flames more, see Christmas dinner where Oscar suggests campaigning with them to help and she immediately shoots it down with "you can't be serious". Anyways, the children suffer the most. And uh, speaking from experience here, that shit never goes away. My parents are still together and are a lot better compared to the past, but I flinch at any sound of argument/angry yelling because of all of their fighting.

And there's this one paragraph in the book: "Even before Alex's parents split, they both had a habit of calling him by the other's last name when he exhibited a particular trait. They still do. When he runs his mouth off to the press, his mom called him into her office and says ' get your shit together Diaz.' When his hard-headedness gets him stuck, his dad texts him, 'Let it go, Claremont'" and God that's so shitty? To know, to be reminded that one parent hates the part of you that is from the other parent. Even if that's not what Ellen and Oscar's intention is, that's what it feels like, and it's really, fucking, shitty.

I wonder how would book Alex feel if he know that there was an alternative universe out there where his family was functional. I wonder how would he feel if he knew that movie Alex doesn't have his loving sister, but has loving, gentle parents who have a healthy, functional relationship.

My guess, is that he would say that he'd choose his life and his sister no matter what, and he means it because he does love June, but deep down a part of him would be jealous of movie Alex for having a smaller but healthier and happier family.

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

a streetcar named marge: a character study of marge simpson through the lens of tennessee williams

trigger warning for brief but not graphic mentions of assault & abusive behaviour throughout

wacky, absurd comedy ‘the simpsons’ has been airing since 1989 and remains an integral part of the pop culture ecosystem. its self-referential humour and parody structure work in conjunction with one another to effectively satirise the lives of lower-middle class america. set in the town of springfield, that shares its name with approximately thirty other towns across the states, the simpsons strikes the balance between relatable and outright absurd that keeps the show entertaining. the show slots neatly into the cultural zeitgeist of the 1990s and 2000s, and has constructed spoof after spoof of the significant political, social and pop culture moments of each season’s respective time period. most notably, the second episode of the fourth season titled ‘a streetcar named marge’ draws on tennessee williams’ ‘a streetcar named desire’, using the histrionic character of blanche dubois to create commentary on marge’s role in her relationship with her husband, homer. the episode’s main plot follows marge auditioning for and starring as blanche in springfield’s local production of ‘a streetcar named desire’ and depicts parallels between blanche and marge’s romantic lives. homer is likened to stanley kowalski, famously portrayed by marlon brando in the 1951 film adaptation of the play; a brutish, loud ‘uncouth lout’ who dominates both his wife and delicate sister-in-law. the core themes this comparison explores include the notion of animalised masculinity, marge’s passiveness and invisibility, and the idea that the character of blanche is used as a vehicle for marge’s unexpressed feelings regarding her husband.

williams’ descriptions of stanley throughout the play draw on a notion of animal masculinity; stanley is described upon his introduction to the audience as having ‘animal joy his being [which] is implicit in all his movements & attitudes…his heartiness with men, his appreciation of rough humour, his love of good drink and food and games…’ this description paired with blanche’s comment that he is ‘a little bit on the primitive side’ demonstrates the beginnings of a semantic field of animalism, characterising stanley’s masculinity as almost being below humanity, simply base and primal in comparison to his more humanised counterparts such as mitch and steve. we can also see these traits, particularly ‘rough humour…love of good drink and food’ echoed in homer simpson’s characteristic obsessions with food and beer that are consistent throughout the entire shows run so far. similarly, ‘a streetcar named marge’ has lewellyn sinclair, the director of springfield’s ‘a streetcar named desire’ production, aim to depict that ‘blanche…is a delicate flower being trampled by an uncouth lout-’. additionally, lewellyn gives ned flanders (who plays stanley) the direction that he is ‘pulsing with animal lust’, again referencing williams’ construction of animal masculinity that encourages the audience to view stanley’s desire as less than human.

to add to this semantic field that both the original play and simpsons episode share, ‘a streetcar named marge’ recreates the infamous ‘stella!’ scene wherein stanley screams his wife stella’s name from below her balcony in a desperate attempt to win her back after physically assaulting her. the simpsons replaces the original incident of domestic abuse with an example of homer’s weaponised incompetence instead, where he fails to pull the lid off his can of pudding in marge’s absence as she rehearses next door with flanders: ‘[screeches] oh no! …so i can open my own can of pudding, can i? shows what you know, marge.’ he then shouts ‘marge! hey marge!’ in the garden while marge looks on from flanders’ bedroom window, referencing stanley screaming for stella below her balcony. marge comments dryly, ‘keep yelling, you big ape.’ the use of the insult ‘ape’ serves to contribute further to the characterisation of homer / stanley as animalistic and dehumanised. both the simpsons and williams animalise masculinity to demonstrate the danger of it, presenting it as uncontrolled and wild in comparison to the average male. in this moment, the simpsons subverts the narrative of the original play. in williams’ original, stanley’s screams draw stella downstairs to him and they embrace as she ‘forgives’ his abuse. in the simpsons’ version, marge instead responds with contempt for her husband and appears disgusted and unforgiving. in the wider context of the show, marge is largely portrayed as a very passive housewife character, including in this episode. in the opening scene of this episode, the following exchange takes place:

HOMER

and where exactly are you going?

MARGE

i’m auditioning for a play.

HOMER

well, this is the first i’ve heard about it.

MARGE

i’ve told you several times. it’s a musical version of a streetcar na-

HOMER

excuse me, marge! i think if you told me, i would remember. i mean, i’m not an idiot!

MARGE

hm. well, i-i thought i told you. i’m sorry honey.

HOMER

it’s okay. we’re none of us perfect.

the audience is shown marge informing homer of the play multiple times before this exchange, to which he repeatedly and absentmindedly replies ‘sounds interesting.’ despite being in the right, marge timidly apologises to homer and accepts blame she does not deserve. this interaction contrasted with her later contempt for him demonstrates how the role of blanche has encouraged marge to see her husband’s flaws rather than ignoring or tolerating them as she usually does. additionally, marge’s initially failed audition again presents her as passive and defeated by her husband’s lack of support. lewellyn witnesses marge’s phone call to homer and recognises blanche’s delicateness and defeat in her:

MARGE 

(into the phone)

homie, i didn’t get the part. you were right. outside interests are stupid.

LEWELLYN

wait a minute.

MARGE

(into the phone)

[groans] i’ll come home right away. alright, i'll pick up a bucket of fried chicken, extra skin…rolls, chocolate cream parfait-

LEWELLYN

[snatches phone from marge]

stop bothering my blanche!

marge’s admission, ‘you were right. outside interests are stupid’, shows her beaten down by homer’s lack of support for her interests and suggests that she was ‘stupid’ for branching out outside of her duties as a parent and housewife. this echoes blanche’s eventual exhaustion and ‘defeat’ after stanley’s aggressive, dismissive and abusive treatment of her.

marge’s attitude towards abusive behaviour in general is notably submissive: when rehearing the scene where blanche breaks a bottle in order to attack stanley and defend herself, she struggles to get into character and gives a lacklustre performance. lewellyn encourages her, ‘passion, mrs simpsons, this man disgusts you.’ in a later rehearsal a few scenes later, marge argues, ‘i just don’t see why blanche should shove a broken bottle in stanley’s face. couldn’t she just take his abuse with gentle good humour?...i just don’t see what’s so bad about stanley.’ this is a clear reference to her relationship with homer, wherein she has consistently, throughout the show so far, responded to his boorish behaviour with passive disapproval, attempting to make light of the ridiculous or unkind situations that homer creates with his behaviour. lewellyn retorts with ‘stanley is thoughtless, violent and loud. marge, every second you spend with this man…he is crushing your fragile spirit.’ lewellyn’s description of stanley is interposed with homer’s comedic but frustrating attempts to use a vending machine wherein he screams and charges at the machine, and proceeds to honk repeatedly at marge from the car to rush her into leaving. this pushes marge to a breakthrough where she suddenly becomes genuinely angry at ‘stanley’ / homer, directing that fury at her stanley (flanders), who’s face morphs into homer’s:

[car horn honking]

HOMER

marge, move it or lose it!

MARGE

[lunging at flanders]

♪ i'll twist this bottle in your face ♪

LEWELLYN

hallelujah! i’ve done it again!

ned, you’re supposed to overpower her.

FLANDERS

[straining]

i’m trying, im trying!

this scene exemplifies the extent to which marge is usually subdued and quiet, by creating a stark contrast with the outburst she has here. lewlleyn’s reminder that blanche is ‘disgusted’ by stanley is reminiscent of marge’s very real but very repressed disgust at her husband. marge’s demeanour in the episodes leading up to ‘a streetcar named marge’ is largely resigned to homer’s typically thoughtless behaviour. comparing her usual quiet disapproval with her strong reaction to homer in this scene demonstrates the extent to which she usually fits the descriptions of blanche so far in the episode - that of a ‘delicate flower’ with a ‘fragile spirit.’ these comments on blanche’s character oppose those of stanley and paint the two as contradictory. stanley is a brutish ape whilst blanche is the flimsy rag doll in his grip. ‘a streetcar named marge’ relies upon this contrast to illustrate that marge and homer’s relationship is dominated by homer’s careless masculinity which serves to leave marge feeling resigned, defeated and unheard. however, while blanche becomes weaker over the course of the play and becomes less like herself due to stanley’s behaviour towards her, marge also becomes less like her usual self due to homer but becomes stronger and more assertive instead. the character of blanche serves as a vehicle for marge’s repressed resentments and frustrations and facilitates both her and homer’s understanding of their relationship.

homer’s eventual understanding of marge is illustrated by the final scene of the episode; homer congratulates marge on her performance as blanche and explains, ‘it really got to me how…blanche was sad, and how that guy stanley should have been nice to her…the poor thing ends up being hauled to the nuthouse…when all she needed was for that big slob to show her some respect.’ marge’s demeanour shifts and she reacts with ‘...homer, you got it just right.’ homer muses, ‘hey, you know, i’m a lot like that guy…like when i pick my teeth with the mail and stuff.’ the classic structure of a sitcom like the simpsons requires that things are resolved or return to the status quo by the end of each episode, and while marge and homer’s relationship becomes peaceful once again due to homer’s realisation, it is not necessarily returning to its previous state; if it did, their relationship would be strained due to homer’s lack of consideration for marge’s feelings. instead, marge finally feels seen. marge is understood and has asserted herself. as is suggested by the play’s title, ‘a streetcar named desire’ has desire itself as its core and central theme. the audience are shown stanley’s desire for sex and power, blanche’s desire for validation of her beauty, stella’s desire to have stanley’s baby. these desires are what drive the plot of the play and motivate each character to act in ways that push their desires into being realised. similarly, in ‘a streetcar named marge’, the audience are shown homer’s desire for food, drink and so on but more significantly, marge’s inherent desire to be seen. she makes repeated attempts for her family, particularly her husband, to notice her and take an interest in her endeavours which is consistently ignored until the end of the episode. the opening scene exemplifies this:

MARGE

i haven’t been in a play since high school…and i thought it would be a good chance to meet some other adults.

HOMER

(not looking away from the television)

sounds interesting.

MARGE

you know, i spend all day alone with maggie…and sometimes it’s like i don’t even exist.

HOMER

(still looking at the television)

sounds interesting.

marge’s invisibility within her family and within the wider context of springfield is interestingly addressed in raphael bob-waksberg’s fifteen-tweet poem entitled ‘does marge have friends?’ the poem explores marge’s role in the show via the lens of her relations to other people, e.g ‘who are marge’s friends? is helen lovejoy a friend? sarah wiggum? agnes skinner?’ the third stanza questions ‘who tells marge to leave the brute, knowing she won’t? ‘you don’t have to stay. you deserve so much more.’’ the use of ‘brute’ to describe homer is a sentiment that ‘a streetcar named marge’ hones in on, and is a descriptor that we can again see paralleled with the original ‘a streetcar named desire.’ as previously explored, stanley is described as ‘primitive’, a familiar adjective in the context of homer. additionally, bob-waksberg uses a hypothetical voice to tell marge ‘you deserve so much more’ to illustrate that there is no real friend in marge’s life to tell her this themselves. in williams’ original play, blanche’s isolation is also addressed and it is shown to make her an easier victim for stanley’s abuse; eunice reassures stella in the final act ‘she couldn’t stay here; there wasn’t no other place for her to go.’ blanche is alone aside from stella, who has her institutionalised, and this makes her all the more vulnerable as she has nobody to tell her not to accept abuse. this is another way in which ‘a streetcar named marge’ subverts source of its parody; where blanche is abandoned and becomes weak and ‘mad’ from stanley’s abusive behaviour, marge is empowered by the character of blanche and experiences the opposite of abandonment - she is finally seen and acknowledged. 

‘does marge have friends’ also touches on another moment where marge can be likened to blanche in a more roundabout way. as a succinct character study of marge, the poem alludes to her relationship with maude flanders. stanzas six to ten speculate on the nature of their relationship, asking ‘does she [marge] see in her late neighbour a cautionary tale? seldom-remembered, semi-anonymous maude - could this fate too befall marge?’ this is vaguely reminiscent of blanche’s relationship with stella in the sense that marge mourns maude and blanche mourns stella and while their respective reasonings are different, the central theme here is the mourning of a fellow woman for her ‘smallness.’ while marge mourns maude’s invisibility and sees the same in herself, blanche mourns stella for being dominated by stanley, a ‘common…animal’ and mourns stella’s insistence on forgiving his abusive behaviour as she does in the infamous ‘stella!’ scene. blanche says to her ‘you go out with a man like that once, twice, three times when the devil is in you, but to live with and to have a child by? well then i tremble for you…’ to blanche, stella is a cautionary tale of the consequences of accepting abusive behaviour from a ‘rough’ man, and as bob-waksberg puts it, ‘could this fate too befall’ blanche? it can and it does, as she concludes the play having been assaulted by stanley herself. it can be argued that blanche’s mourning of stella matches the way a hypothetical friend would mourn marge’s relationship with homer, worrying about her wellbeing in the face of his carelessness and strong personality. furthermore, bob-waksberg describes a hypothetical scenario between marge and maude that echoes blanche’s encounter with the local paperboy: ‘perhaps, once at a summer barbecue, when both were still alive, maude grabbed marge's hand under the table and held tight. what prompted this sudden connection, this sudden expression of— what was it, warmth? the two weren't close— acquaintances, sure, had they ever even hugged? and yet here they were, holding hands, silently, secretly, while their children shrieked and their husbands grilled the hot dogs.’ this moment depicted in the poem is soft, mundane and warm. in ‘a streetcar named desire’, scene five demonstrates these same themes, wherein blanche says to the paperboy ‘i want to kiss you - just once - softly and sweetly on your mouth.’ the direction then follows, ‘[without waiting for him to accept, she crosses quickly to him and presses her lips to his.]’ this exchange shows blanche seeking the same ‘sudden expression of…warmth’ that bob-waksberg discusses, echoing the same principle that in this interaction, ‘the two weren’t close.’ it must, however, be acknowledged that blanche’s advances on the young paperboy, while seeking warmth, were arguably predatory where marge and maude’s interaction is less romantically charged and more platonic and equal.

the final parallel to be noted between ‘a streetcar named marge’ and ‘does marge have friends?’ lies in the final five stanzas of the poem. bob-waksberg describes marge in her garden on a sleepless night, encountering maude over the fence: ‘maude, pale as a sheet, her eyes wet with tears.’ she goes on to say to marge ‘it’s not the calm before the storm that frightens me, it’s the calm that follows.’ this is evocative of blanche’s rise and fall through the play; the ‘storm’ in question being the assault carried out by stanley and the ‘calm that follows’ being her subdued but also hysterical, dreamlike-state in reaction to the assault that results in her being institutionalised. ‘a streetcar named marge’ depicts this ‘descent into madness’ by having marge / blanche fly around the stage on a harness with flashing lights and a smoke machine in the background, in typical overexaggerated simpsons fashion.

at its core, the simpsons is about dysfunctional american families. homer is both a ridiculous and exaggerated buffoon character but circumstantially lives the life of the average working class / lower middle class american man that stanley kowalski also lives. while homer’s unsupportive behaviour towards marge is often played off humorously throughout the show’s run, ‘a streetcar named marge’ uses the intensity of williams’ play to construct a legitimate criticism of homer’s actions and a commentary on marge’s invisibility, unexpressed resentments and her experiences of marital dysfunction. as the title suggests, ‘desire’ itself is at the core of both williams’ play and the simpsons episode based upon it, and marge’s inherently repressed desire to be seen and appreciated is finally realised via the adoption and subversion of williams’ classic play and its connotations regarding the transfer of power between characters. marge is finally seen by homer, and she no longer has to depend on the kindness of strangers.

[gaargoyle]

From my meanderings among space marine fans, they seem to have an extreme distaste for the Ian Watson books on principle, mostly for Space Marine. They won't explicitly say it this way, but it seems to be for the fact that he depicts space marines as being embarrassing, shameful, disgusting, tribalist frat boys.

That isn't very cool. Space marines are supposed to be cool and badass! It isn't cool to show them being obsessed with bodily fluids or having extremely bizarre homoerotic relationships with each other. How dare he!

But imo, modern 40k does a very poor job of emphasizing its supposed status of being "satire." They're always like, oh the Empire is bad! Believe us it's bad, look how bad it is! But meanwhile their books and media end up just reinforcing that space marines are badass and amazing and that their fascist extremism is justified. And that almost everyone who rebels against the Empire is being influenced by Chaos or Genestealers or whatever the fuck.

And like I get it, if these things weren't seen as cool enough, the minis would never sell.

But I've had enough of this limp satire!!! Stop! It isn't working, I'm tired of that!!!! Please. We can start by going back to depicting space marines as weird cultish freaks. Ian Watson was right! He got the satire right!!!

[foreststarflaime]

I did my part today in The Bad Class, it was me in the trenches with one other guy defending stories told in mediums other than books against the world (the entire rest of the class) 🫡 (things I used below the cut)

It saddens me that the academic community is so biased towards anything other than published books. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a writer myself and I adore books, but they’re missing out on so many good stories that hit so much harder in mediums other than words on a page!!! ✨Stories of all kinds are equally precious✨ pass it on

Defending movies: Inception!!! If you’ve not seen it, it deals a lot with dreams and layers of dreaming, and thinking about reality. In it, there’s a gimmick where you have a certain ‘totem’ (item) that you can use to determine if you’re in a dream or awake, and the main character’s is a top—if he’s in a dream, it will never stop spinning, but if it’s reality, the top will eventually be stopped by gravity. (Spoiler alert) At the end of the movie, the mc finally gets home to his kids like he’s been trying to the whole movie, and as he embraces them in the background a little out of focus, you see his top on the table, spinning—and right before you could expect it to start to wobble, the soundtrack peaks (thank you Hans Zimmer you master) and cuts off and the screen goes black, leaving you to your own conclusions. It’s such an effective moment and it really would not be the same in a book!

Defending video games: Crisis Core lmao. I love how it uses game mechanics to characterize Zack in such a unique and creative way!!! The DMW is the main thing that comes to mind here, in particular in the final battle, but over the whole game and how it gets you used to it as well. You get a new thing every time Zack gets a new friend, and that’s the source of your strongest attacks throughout the game, a thing you’re constantly thinking about and relying on—which is such a cool way to characterize Zack, because then you realize your thought process has basically been turned into his! He loves his friends, they’re everything to him, and they’re the source of his strength! Which makes the final battle so so devastating when they’re fading away and you get to see, nay experience, his last thoughts as they’re happening. It’s so devastating in a way I’ve rarely been devastated before, and it would not be the same in words. Also there’s the funny haha that this adhd puppy’s brain runs on gambling because he has to get extremely lucky to be able to focus on anything lmaooo

Defending comic books: Loki Agent of Asgard!!!! My beloved! So this is the comic book run where Loki becomes the god of stories, and everything about how it was done here is just. SO so genius. When I say these comic books were a formative experience for me I mean it. But I’ll focus on the things that were great specifically because of the medium here, otherwise I’d be gushing for hours. Yknow how comic books generally have little narrator text bubbles telling you what you need words to describe? And then maybe have a different one for the thoughts of the character? Well this had that, and the narrator bubbles were styled like little scrolls. When you get towards the end of the run, after Loki has realized his power as the god of stories, you get to a part where he’s facing the gods of the gods, telling them a story—and then the little narrator scrolls have the speech bubble thing drawn off from them, to Loki. It’s been him as the god of stories narrating his own story the entire time, writing his own destiny. Such a powerful moment, blew my mind—you could do something similar in a normal book I guess, but it was just so impactful here that I think it wouldn’t be exactly the same. And also, earlier (I think in the second volume), a different future version of Loki is time travelling using his story god powers to write the past to his own ends (you don’t know his connection to story yet, so this is an example of such good foreshadowing), and to do this he reaches out of the panel and jumps into the margins to travel around the story!!! Mind-blowing stunning 1000/10

The strength of books: I just realized why I like my specific imagery-laden style of writing so much in the middle of class while I was explaining this. So in On Fairy Stories (the book the discussion was about for the day), Tolkien talks about how the invention of the adjective was the most important thing for the invention of fantasy, because it helps you change things—for example you can say things like the red sky or the green sun, and people can imagine that. There’s a linguistic concept called mental models which explores how we think in metaphors to understand more abstract concepts—for example, a lot of people tend to view how electricity works in terms of the flow of water. In fantasy, we can take our words and especially our adjectives and metaphors, and we can craft new mental models that wouldn’t work in the real world, and create our own worlds doing that to great effect. I find myself doing this SO much now that I think about it! And that’s something you can do really really well with words that doesn’t lend itself as well to adaptations in other mediums.

And that’s the thing, really—you can do things to amazing effect if you write them using the strengths of the medium you choose! That’s why adaptations rarely work I think, people just don’t play to the strengths.

[konzilijum]

sneak peak into...

FIRST ISSUE OF KONZILIJUM! :)

Our independent (maga)zine, inspired by punk fanzines from 80s/90s, striving to spread education for *free* (you will be allowed to print it and share it yourself if you want, too).

This month's issue will contain a variety of articles (analysis of "The silence of the lambs", album of the month "Smak" (1975), feminist discussion of internalised misogyny, "Glass menagerie" short essay, playlist of the month, etc.!)

[delicatepoets]

on undying friendships for @fightingdragonswithwho​ <3

graceland too - phoebe bridgers / daisy jones and the six / leonard cohen - boygenius / a league of their own (2022) / a little life - hanya yanagihara / ladybird (2017) / the seven husbands of evelyn hugo - taylor jenkins reid

[atticcreationz]

As someone who is VERY fascinated with adaptation in film (who spent quuuuuuite some time back in college obsessing over it for assignments) and who adores the graphic novel, my biggest takeaway from Nimona is that it is an EXCELLENT adaptation. Especially considering how much that production went through! Like, all of the changes and things they expanded on made sense for the transition from book to movie. My second takeaway is that I love it <3 Please go watch it I beg of you 🙏