#or we could also follow lewis carroll and go 'surprise it be a dream'

[advernia]

this is for that anon who asked about the danganronpa!ikerev au Σ(･口･) thank you for having an interest in this au, by the way! (´∀`) the format’s not exactly lore-ish per se since when luci and i talked about this, we plotted it out to be game-like - but still, here you go~ it’s like a prologue of sorts, i guess!

the tea party

everyone’s invited - red + black + neutrals + alice - except the tweedles + mousse, whoops. tho i was amusing myself with the idea that they could be something like ndv3′s monokubs, lol.

but since it’s also alice in wonderland themed, maybe the three are like some odd guides popping out randomly now and then??? they say they’re helping but dean’s too cryptic, dalim cycles between being vague or being an unhelpful bastard, and mousse... yeah.

the killing game tea party is set in the ikerev gardens / the civic center and in true danganronpa fashion, they can’t leave the premises. new rooms + places for exploration are also only unlocked after certain events. sometimes if they feel like it, the tweedles or mousse could open areas themselves, which makes them even more suspicious.

they claim not to be working with monoamon, but everyone calls bullshit bc how the fuck can they move so freely + open areas then??? they don’t answer that question at all, but eventually there’s the inkling that even they themselves don’t know why they’re granted that freedom too.

there’s no strict stuff about the time, but somehow everyone knocks out unconscious come midnight and wake up exactly at seven. food’s readily available at the tea party table, looking always fresh. they can see the outside, but some odd invisible barrier’s keeping them from going too far.

guests: red & black

no set protagonist, lol - let’s imagine everyone having their own routes!

the red + black main five wake up seated on their respective seats on the table. not simultaneously, mind you. the ‘protagonist’ wakes up first and when he does, he’s greeted by the sight of an odd stuffed rabbit with a monochrome pattern staring at him, wtf. 

“finally awake,” it says and protag’s like no shit sherlock but wait wtf - talking stuffed rabbit???????????????????????

it ignores all the basic questions (where am i, who are you, why can you talk etc.) but responds to the why am i bound / chained to this chair, and it says:

‘if you want to break free, you have to remember your title.’ and with that the rabbit hops away, leaving the protag either a) even more confused (kyle, zero, luka, fenrir), b) agitated (jonah, ray, seth), or c) thinking about the title (lancelot, edgar, sirius).

eventually after a moment of mental + physical struggle, their title hits them in the head and it spills out from their lips and hey presto, the chains on ‘em are suddenly lifted! by this time, their ‘rival’ chara wakes up.

‘rival’ chara can vary, pure (black vs. black) or cross (red vs. black). let’s say that the pure rivalry is your normal game mode and more centric around the chosen protag’s dynamic with his group (black or red) + a little with certain neutrals. the cross is your hard difficulty, probably filled with more bullshit, and has a storyline that involves everyone (with an ending that more or less still leaves you with tons of questions).

for pure black, luci likes the matchups of ray vs. seth & luka vs. fenrir. red, kyle vs. jonah & edgar vs. zero. lancelot and sirius are faced off with a rival from the neutral group, blanc and loki respectively.

for cross we have: ray vs. jonah, lancelot vs. fenrir, sirius vs. edgar, luka vs. kyle, and zero vs. seth. note that the rival chara isn’t exactly antagonistic by nature, results may vary depending on game difficulty lol.

anyway, eventually everyone wakes up and they get to remembering their so-called titles. it’s only after they’re free that they realize they can’t remember their names, much less anything else.

but by simply looking at each other’s outfits + introduction of self through titles... the other group aside, it’s logical to first assume that they know each other. their clothes have similar colors, their titles end with the same symbol, and they’re seated on the same side of the table... question is, why can’t they remember each other???

the rabbit pops up when the mood’s gone quiet, and it’s oddly chipper as it introduces itself as amon. it answers and ignores questions on a whim, and when it finally has enough it informs everyone that there are people still missing - without them, the tea party can’t start.

what the fuck is this tea party about, someone tries to say but amon’s gone away. left with not much of a choice, everyone decides to search the area for these missing people, with this ‘tea party area’ as the rendezvous point after maybe thirty minutes or so.

guests: neutral

these guys have a harder time bc unlike the red + black that are already grouped together, the four are located in separate areas and are also chained to something (a certain cat’s been chained to a damned tree). 

the protag will always encounter amon first, and the remaining three will meet dean, dalim, or mousse. tho instead of being told the remember your title phrase, they get a remember who you are instead.

they eventually remember, break free, and set out exploring the place in hopes of finding anyone else / jogging their memories. but before they’re found by either the reds or the blacks (or both), the white rabbit meets the mad hatter, and the cheshire cat meets the joker.

the neutrals at first are hesitant to go along with whoever finds them, but eventually they comply when they hear that these strangers also went through a similar experience as they did. when the four are brought to the tea party table, a round of introductions go on and now they’re fourteen in total - but there’s still one seat left open.

since the neutrals are obviously different / don’t pose any similarities with the two groups in any way, suspicion floats in the air. that mood is diffused immediately by the white rabbit, who everyone doesn’t mind actually listening to. he points out that maybe they should try finding that last person before really engaging into a proper talk.

everyone’s sure they’ve checked around, but there’s not much places to go when some barrier-like force holds them back from going to certain areas. but suddenly the cheshire cat hits the jackpot, discovering a path hidden by the rosebushes in the gardens that lead to... a chapel???

the moonlight shining down + the surrounding rosebushes makes the chapel look pretty, but that’s not what they’re there for anyway - when everyone walks to the chapel doors, they see that there are two large chains crossed together binding the door shut, the links of one chain all colored black and the other red - thinking that those chains follow a similar formula to those that bound them, the white rabbit suggests that they try confirming if someone’s inside first.

they shout, rattle the chains, peek through the windows, look around for any other entrances, but nothing. no one replies, no other entrances, the windows are made out of stained glass so you couldn’t see inside. someone suggests breaking the windows, but suddenly the tweedles + mousse appear out of nowhere, standing by the chapel doors.

majority go wtf who u and how’d u get here??? the three that suddenly appeared don’t care about that though, and instead stare at the kings. mousse holds two banners in his hand - dean takes the red one, dalim takes the black one... and go to the king of hearts and king of spades respectively.

the twins hold out the banners to the kings, expressions equally serious. they ask: who are you? and while the kings don’t answer at first, they regain composure and speak out their titles, taking the banners in their hands.

the moment the kings speak their titles the banners change form and take the shape of swords - suddenly weapons appear before the rest of the army people too, and while the whole thing is odd; the weapons are actually... sort of familiar to have by their side.

dean and dalim say nothing more and go back to where mousse stands - the quiet man looks at everyone with a strange glint in his eye, and like a whisper, he says: never forget - and they’re gone.

now everything’s just downright confusing again, but the kings decide to use their swords to take down the chains of the chapel, for starters. hey presto, it works! and with those gone, they could walk into the chapel...

guests: alice

the chapel looked pretty from the outside, and was equally pretty from the inside. intricately designed stained glass, neatly arranged pews, simple yet elegant tapestries, a grand cross by the altar, a body lying facedown by the altar... yeah, pretty.

...................... a body!?!?!??!?!

chosen protag gets to the body first, and surprise surprise, it’s a girl! the moment the protag shifts her body to see her face, a sharp pain pierces his head - she’s familiar, she’s familiar, but not a single concrete memory takes form.

everyone goes through this when they see her face, and when the last person who sees her has recovered a bit from the sudden headache, the girl starts to stir.... and when she focuses her eyes on the protag, his title comes out from her mouth and.... what the hell?

she’s not wrong, but how the hell does she know??? before anyone can get to asking her that, amon suddenly pops up from the chapel’s entrance, bathed in moonlight and looking extremely pleased. 

“took you lot long enough. now... let’s have a mad time, shall we?”

fourteen men, one woman... how many can survive this tea party?

miscellaneous stuff

hours before oliver is tragically murdered, alice and the protag will have a conversation in the chapel - it’s like alice is gauging the protag’s resolve, and at the end there’s a promise. alice leaves first after that, and as he watches her leave the protag gets the odd feeling that he’ll never see her again... which proves true, since he’ll be condemning her to death come the trial. oof.

first trial always ends up with oliver as the victim and alice as the executioner, lol... but luci and i like the idea of anyone could’ve murdered oliver granted that they were at the wrong place at the wrong time - in any route, it always happens to be alice. was it by accident, or by choice??? hmmm....

her memento item changes depending on the protag! so for example, if zero or fenrir, the item is a pair of earrings. loki or sirius end up with a choker. ray with a necklace, edgar with a wristwatch, etc... the item proves useful on the last trial.

it’s actually a shame that oliver and alice are cut off immediately??? the former proved to be knowledgeable of the machinery present in the building, and the latter was actually like blanc in the sense that she could get everyone to calm down and listen... plus since she was familiar to everyone and vice-versa, she might have been helpful in regaining their memories. so much for that.

amon finds their deaths very convenient himself, stating that the mad hatter + alice were going to be a pain and would spoil the tea party if they lived any longer. to why that was, no one’s quite sure yet. amon seems to dislike blanc, too.

each executioner’s punishment is recreated through a unnervingly realistic diorama set up in that one place they frequently go to... thus alice’s can be found in the chapel. the actual bodies of the victims + executioners are actually nowhere to be found, though... that aside, why exactly was this being done??? was it because amon was simply a sick bastard??? or as morbid as it was, were the dioramas meant to send a message??? hmmmm.....

murder cases & themes also vary throughout routes! usually, the victims or executioners are related to the character’s route theme in the sense that they’re the opposite of it or are burdened differently about it as compared to the protagonist...

so say for example, zero’s theme is purpose / duty.... chances are the victims / executioners on his route are people who are also strongly related to this theme. whiiich means that ray or luka could play a role on his route lol whoops spoilers or for ray, who deals with guilt... people who deal with certain burdens are of interest. whiiiiich means that edgar or kyle are probably involved whooops

danganronpa itself has philosophical + psychological themes, so add that up with lewis carroll’s alice in wonderland which is philosophical by nature... and you get a shit ton of questions about judgement + morality + causality + life + death + truth + deceit that recurs on every route.

delivery and angles vary - for example, loki’s route takes a bleak perspective on causality through his flippant decision-making at the beginning. though quite the unreliable narrator, one can get the idea that kyle is obviously haunted and gravely affected by the deaths he witnesses, whether a victim’s or an executioner’s.

big question: is there a mastermind, or is this all in their head??? has everything gone mad, or was this an inevitable reality??? curious indeed...

[imagitory]

Favorite twst boys?

Oooohoohoo, you wish me to talk about my Night Raven College baes? Let’s see then...

Ace Trappola ~ Okay, so I should admit right off the bat that I have a huge soft spot for the Heartslabyul dorm in particular. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll are one of my favorite things ever, and so most adaptations of those works tend to give me some amount of glee, even the really flawed ones. But for Ace specifically, it took me a little while to warm up to him, given that he can be a real prat, but once he and Deuce really rallied around Yuu (especially when they dropped everything on their winter break and took the bus all the way back to school during the Scarabia incident to try to rescue them and Grim -- MY HEART!!!), I fully adopted Ace as my second trash son and that was that. I also loved Ace’s development in the Ghost Bride story line, as well as his admittedly harsh, but still rather fair tear-down of Riddle immediately pre-Overblot. Ace can be really harsh sometimes, but that also makes him an incredibly honest sort who won’t take anyone else’s bull and won’t let anyone push him around -- yet at the same time, he’s also lighthearted enough that he never takes himself too seriously. In some ways he kind of reminds me of Jounouchi Katsuya from Yu-Gi-Oh!, and that’s definitely a compliment.

Deuce Spade ~ MY ORIGINAL TRASH SON. I loved Deuce pretty much from the get-go, considering how passionate he was about trying to fix the mistake with the chandelier and how adorable he was casting the only magic he could manage (“COME FORTH, CAULDRON!” XDD). Then there was the whole “chick” incident where we not only saw his delinquent side which he tries so desperately to hide on full display for the first time, but we also got to see how much he truly loves his mom and how friggin’ stupid and yet absolutely sincere he is, and I just fell in love with Deuce even more. The Wish Upon a Star event where we learn Deuce wants to basically be this world’s equivalent of a sheriff after having been such a delinquent in his younger years only made me feel all the more for this guy -- him wanting to be so much better than he was even if he’s not the smartest, strongest, or most talented guy around I find so compelling and likable.

Riddle Rosehearts ~ Yeah, I know, a lot of Heartslabyul love, but like with Ace, it took me a LONG while to warm up to Riddle. I thought he was a total jerk and I wanted nothing more than to give him a good telling-off (“go ahead, use that stupid collar on me -- I don’t have magic for you to block, you bullying prat!”) until Ace got around to punching Riddle in the face and then tearing him a verbal new one for me. It honestly took Riddle’s Overblotting for me to feel the least bit sorry for him, but it was how sincerely he acted after the fact in trying to make up for his mistakes that really softened my heart to him. Riddle has lived his whole life following rules and convention to the letter, and it’s made him miserable, so now that he’s come to grips with the fact that he doesn’t need to be miserable in order to live an upstanding life, he’s softened a bit. Even with this, though, that rule-abiding, upstanding attitude isn’t always hard to shake, and I think it makes for a much more balanced outcome than if Riddle just went hog-wild and stopped caring about everything -- because the whole reason Riddle followed the rules so closely is he wanted to do what was best for all and to be the best he could be, too. His motivation for being so strict came from a deep passion for leadership and order, and I’m glad that passion of Riddle’s wasn’t dampened, but instead given nuance. Now he can focus his passion more effectively, rather than lashing out in all directions indiscriminately. Like Ace as well, I loved Riddle’s development in the Ghost Marriage plot line, particularly his individual side story with Malleus. It really showcased Riddle’s noblesse oblige moral code, which I personally find the most compelling and likable aspect of his personality.

Jack Howl ~ JACK IS A GOOD BOY. Anyone who disagrees can fight me. (LOL, not really, but...) Like with Deuce, I liked Jack pretty much immediately. From the start, he just came across as so much more down-to-earth and honest than either of the other two main characters from Savanaclaw (even if Jack is also a total tsundere, but honestly, if you’ve watched any kind of anime, you’re fluent enough in “tsundere” as a language to know exactly what Jack really thinks of something). He was sort of depicted as a black sheep in his own dorm, and -- honestly? -- I’m a sucker for characters that are sort of on the fringes and don’t quite conform to what people expect them to be. Add to that how passionate Jack is about working hard and being the best he can be in his own right, as well as how deathly loyal he is, and he’s just overall a character I would love being friends with.

Jamil Viper ~ Jamil was the first character who Overblots who I actually felt sympathy for long before we see his side of the story in flashback form. Part of this admittedly is because I could sort of see where Jamil and Kalim’s story was going ahead of time, but the other reason is that I could see how much work Jamil put in all the time. Even though yeah, it was a real dick move to try to foist out Kalim so he could become Head of Scarabia instead, and yes, he manipulated things to make everyone see Kalim as cruel and irrational, it doesn’t change the fact that Jamil still acted like a Dorm Head a lot more than Kalim did a lot of the time, in the sense of making sure things run smoothly. Kalim definitely brings amazing enthusiasm to Scarabia as its leader and inspires a lot of positive feelings in the people around him, but if there’s a problem, it’s Jamil who often ends up fixing it, not Kalim. And from the start, I really felt for this guy who Kalim -- simply due to privilege -- didn’t seem to acknowledge he was demanding so much of, without receiving the same kind of attention and appreciation in return. I never disliked Kalim for this, because I could tell Kalim didn’t mean it maliciously and admittedly Jamil really should’ve said something since Kalim adores Jamil and would have likely been more than receptive to hearing what he had to say...but at the same time, given their power imbalance, it’s also not completely unsurprising that Jamil didn’t feel like he could say something. The best part about Jamil for me, at least, ended up coming out after he was allowed to finally speak his mind. Yeah, maybe he’s a little meaner now. Yeah, maybe he’s not so patient or amiable now. But he’s also allowed to show more of that deep, searing passion and ambition he’s been bottling up for so long. I loved seeing how much he enjoys dancing and performing through the Fairy Gala event and the recent Pomefiore chapter. I’ve loved how thoroughly (and pretty justifiably) distrustful he is of Azul. I’ve loved how he’s sort of on the fence emotionally about looking after Kalim the way he used to and making sure Kalim doesn’t expect his service the way he subconsciously did before. Jamil is one of the TWST characters who surprised me the most in how much I enjoy him, and I honestly can’t wait to see how much more he grows.

Epel Felmier ~ I WILL PROTECT THIS BOY, OKAY. Not because he’s delicate-looking, but because damn it, if he wants to eat macaroons and steak with the wrong fork, then he should be allowed to just go out and do it. I absolutely love the contrasts we’ve already seen in Epel so far. For as sweet and bishounen as his face is, he has a real rough, informal side fitting his background as a kid from the country, and yet he also has his “Prince Charming” moments too. He completely on his own comes up with the idea to arrive riding a horse when trying to impress the Bride during the Ghost Marriage event, and yet he’ll also tear into a bunch of ghosts who dare mistake him for a girl. Epel reminds me of a friend of mine from high school who also was a lot gruffer and more cynical than his short height and cute face would suggest, and it makes for a very interesting character, I think. You can’t pin this kid down or put him in a single box, and I think that’s awesome.

Vil Schoenheit ~ All right. Before the Pomefiore chapter, I thought there was no way in Hell that I would ever warm up to Vil. His slapping of people’s butts in the Fairy Gala event, his superficial focus on exterior beauty, and his bullying, condescending attitude toward Epel in particular really made me dislike him from the get-go. But then the Pomefiore chapter started and we reached the auditions...and I found myself agreeing with just about every critique he made, in contrast to Rook’s sunnier, fawning reviews. It made me feel like I was watching American Idol or America’s Got Talent and agreeing with Simon Cowell (which I honestly almost always did, whenever I watched those!). And as the Pomefiore chapter’s unfolded, I’ve seen that fascinating contrast in Vil. Yes, he’s very superficial -- but his dream is to act and be an idol, and in that world of celebrity, appearances are important. Yes, he’s very conceited -- but he’s also an incredibly hard worker who’s put in a lot of effort to improve himself and his talents to the point that he should be proud of them. Yes, he’s almost cruel in how relentlessly he pushes people -- but he never holds anyone to a standard he wouldn’t also expect of himself. Yes, he’s very forceful and sees his way as the only way -- but he does truly want those people to succeed in his own weird way, even if he can’t properly express it. Not to mention the fact that he’s constantly typecast as villainous characters, and he just wants to be a hero who makes it to the final curtain call!! My heart!! It’s made it so that like with Jamil, I’ve found sympathy for Vil long before he Overblots, and so I’m all the more eager to see how both the Overblot itself and its aftermath impacts Vil as a character and his relationships with the other characters.

Malleus Draconia ~ Oh, come on, who doesn’t love Tsunotaro? This precious child needs all of the love and party invitations in the world! (And yes, he may be an immortal fae, but he’s still a precious child to me, so there.) I would totally love chatting about gargoyles and grotesques with him. X3

[papermoonloveslucy]

LIZ HAS THE FLIMJABS

December 30, 1950

“Liz Has the Flimjabs” (aka “A Severe Case of Flimjabs”) is episode #112 of the radio series MY FAVORITE HUSBAND broadcast on December 30, 1950.

This was the 14th episode of the third season of MY FAVORITE HUSBAND. There were 31 new episodes, with the season ending on March 31, 1951.  

Synopsis ~  Liz wants a mink coat from George, so she pretends to be sick in order to get his sympathy - and the coat!  George is on to her tactics, and decides to give her the scare of her life - literally! 

Note: This program served as the basis for the “I Love Lucy” episode “Lucy Fakes Illness” (ILL S1;E16) filmed on December 18, 1951 and first aired on January 28, 1952.  The role of the Doctor was taken by Hal March, who was actually playing an actor friend of Ricky’s named Hal March pretending to be a doctor.  On television, Lucy also adopts a psychological illness in addition to her physical ailments. There was no mention of Christmas or New Years on the television show. 

“My Favorite Husband” was based on the novels Mr. and Mrs. Cugat, the Record of a Happy Marriage (1940) and Outside Eden (1945) by Isabel Scott Rorick, which had previously been adapted into the film Are Husbands Necessary? (1942). “My Favorite Husband” was first broadcast as a one-time special on July 5, 1948. Lucille Ball and Lee Bowman played the characters of Liz and George Cugat, and a positive response to this broadcast convinced CBS to launch “My Favorite Husband” as a series. Bowman was not available Richard Denning was cast as George. On January 7, 1949, confusion with bandleader Xavier Cugat prompted a name change to Cooper. On this same episode Jell-O became its sponsor. A total of 124 episodes of the program aired from July 23, 1948 through March 31, 1951. After about ten episodes had been written, writers Fox and Davenport departed and three new writers took over – Bob Carroll, Jr., Madelyn Pugh, and head writer/producer Jess Oppenheimer. In March 1949 Gale Gordon took over the existing role of George’s boss, Rudolph Atterbury, and Bea Benaderet was added as his wife, Iris. CBS brought “My Favorite Husband” to television in 1953, starring Joan Caulfield and Barry Nelson as Liz and George Cooper. The television version ran two-and-a-half seasons, from September 1953 through December 1955, running concurrently with “I Love Lucy.” It was produced live at CBS Television City for most of its run, until switching to film for a truncated third season filmed (ironically) at Desilu and recasting Liz Cooper with Vanessa Brown.

MAIN CAST

Lucille Ball (Liz Cooper) was born on August 6, 1911 in Jamestown, New York. She began her screen career in 1933 and was known in Hollywood as ‘Queen of the B’s’ due to her many appearances in ‘B’ movies. With Richard Denning, she starred in a radio program titled “My Favorite Husband” which eventually led to the creation of “I Love Lucy,” a television situation comedy in which she co-starred with her real-life husband, Latin bandleader Desi Arnaz. The program was phenomenally successful, allowing the couple to purchase what was once RKO Studios, re-naming it Desilu. When the show ended in 1960 (in an hour-long format known as “The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour”) so did Lucy and Desi’s marriage. In 1962, hoping to keep Desilu financially solvent, Lucy returned to the sitcom format with “The Lucy Show,” which lasted six seasons. She followed that with a similar sitcom “Here’s Lucy” co-starring with her real-life children, Lucie and Desi Jr., as well as Gale Gordon, who had joined the cast of “The Lucy Show” during season two. Before her death in 1989, Lucy made one more attempt at a sitcom with “Life With Lucy,” also with Gordon.

Richard Denning (George Cooper) was born Louis Albert Heindrich Denninger Jr., in Poughkeepsie, New York. When he was 18 months old, his family moved to Los Angeles. Plans called for him to take over his father’s garment manufacturing business, but he developed an interest in acting. Denning enlisted in the US Navy during World War II. He is best known for his  roles in various science fiction and horror films of the 1950s. Although he teamed with Lucille Ball on radio in “My Favorite Husband,” the two never acted together on screen. While “I Love Lucy” was on the air, he was seen on another CBS TV series, “Mr. & Mrs. North.” From 1968 to 1980 he played the Governor on “Hawaii 5-0″, his final role. He died in 1998 at age 84.

Bea Benadaret (Iris Atterbury) was considered the front-runner to be cast as Ethel Mertz but when “I Love Lucy” was ready to start production she was already playing a similar role on TV’s “The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show” so Vivian Vance was cast instead. On “I Love Lucy” she was cast as Lucy Ricardo’s spinster neighbor, Miss Lewis, in “Lucy Plays Cupid” (ILL S1;E15) in early 1952. Later, she was a success in her own show, “Petticoat Junction” as Shady Rest Hotel proprietress Kate Bradley. She starred in the series until her death in 1968.

Ruth Perrott (Katie, the Maid) was also later seen on “I Love Lucy.” She first played Mrs. Pomerantz, a member of the surprise investigating committee for the Society Matrons League in “Pioneer Women” (ILL S1;E25), as one of the member of the Wednesday Afternoon Fine Arts League in “Lucy and Ethel Buy the Same Dress” (ILL S3;E3), and also played a nurse when “Lucy Goes to the Hospital” (ILL S2;E16). She died in 1996 at the age of 96.

Bob LeMond (Announcer) also served as the announcer for the pilot episode of “I Love Lucy”. When the long-lost pilot was finally discovered in 1990, a few moments of the opening narration were damaged and lost, so LeMond – fifty years later – recreated the narration for the CBS special and subsequent DVD release.

Gale Gordon (Rudolph Atterbury) does not appear in this episode.

GUEST CAST

Frank Nelson (Dr. Stevenson) was born on May 6, 1911 (three months before Lucille Ball) in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He started working as a radio announcer at the age of 15. He later appeared on such popular radio shows as “The Great Gildersleeve,” “Burns and Allen,” and “Fibber McGee & Molly”.  Aside from Lucille Ball, Nelson is perhaps most associated with Jack Benny and was a fifteen-year regular on his radio and television programs. His trademark was playing clerks and other working stiffs, suddenly turning to Benny with a drawn out “Yeeeeeeeeees?” Nelson appeared in 11 episodes of “I Love Lucy”, including three as quiz master Freddy Fillmore, and two as Ralph Ramsey, plus appearance on “The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour” - making him the only actor to play two different recurring roles on “I Love Lucy.” Nelson returned to the role of the frazzled Train Conductor for an episode of “The Lucy Show” in 1963. This marks his final appearance on a Lucille Ball sitcom.

The doctor’s surname may be a reference to noted costume designer Edward Stevenson, who designed gowns for Lucille Ball in more than a dozen RKO films and would eventually become costume designer of “I Love Lucy” after the departure of Elois Jenssen in 1955.

EPISODE

ANNOUNCER: “And now, let’s look in on the Coopers. It’s evening, and Liz and George are sitting in the living room admiring their Christmas tree."

George wonders if it is time to take the Christmas tree down but Liz doesn’t want to. They agree to put away their presents instead and start to talk about the gifts they didn’t give or get.  

Liz nearly bought George a set of matching golf clubs. George says he nearly bought her a mink jacket. He says he saw it in the window at Millers, but realized he couldn’t afford it. Liz sadly reminds him that she has never had a fur coat and wonders if they could afford it if they all their Christmas gifts to the store. George says it still wouldn’t be enough, but Liz wants to wear something special to the Atterbury’s New Year’s Eve party. 

Next morning, in the kitchen, Katie the Maid asks Liz why she is so sad. Liz tells her about her mink jacket dreams. Liz solicits Katie’s opinion on how she can’t best get George to get her a mink jacket in time for the party.  Liz decides to play sick since George always gets her what she wants when she’s ill. 

After dinner, Liz and George contemplate what to do. Liz suggests going to the movies to see Harvey starring Jimmy Stewart, which is playing at the Strand. 

Harvey is a comedy about a man whose best friend is a six-foot tall imaginary rabbit. It premiered just ten days earlier before this broadcast and starred James Stewart. The film won an Oscar for Josephine Hull. The screenplay was based on the 1944 Broadway play of the same name by Mary Chase which won the 1945 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. 

Before Liz can tell George the second feature, she starts to writhe in pain!  Amid moans and groans, Liz details the pain for George. She says she used to have these attacks as a child. When she says the only thing that sometimes helps is little gifts to make her happy, George gets suspicious.  He quickly leaves the room to make a phone call, which Liz thinks is to buy her a mink jacket, but he has actually called the doctor! 

End of Part One

Bob LeMond presents a live Jell-O commercial, giving a basic recipe for preparation of all delicious six flavors!

ANNOUNCER: “As we look in on the Coopers once again, Liz is pretending to be sick and George, who is worried about her, has called the doctor.”

The doorbell rings and George admits Dr. Stevenson (Frank Nelson). Before seeing Liz, George tips him off that Liz may have a rare disease and that the only cure is a mink coat! George asks him to give her a good scare and the Doctor agrees to play along.  

Entering the bedroom, Liz immediately tells the Doctor she feels much better.  But after a quick exam, the Doctor diagnoses Liz with a rare tropical disease from the West Indies called the ‘Flimjabs’. The only cure is to operate and remove her ‘torkle’ but warns her that she will never be able to ‘yammle’ again. The Doctor explains that ‘yammling’ is an involuntary peristalsis of the transverse clavis. 

GEORGE: “Doctor, do you have to remove the whole torkle?” DOCTOR: “Maybe we’ll be lucky and can save half of it. After all, half a torkle is better than none.” LIZ: “Well, I should say so!  I’d hate to think of never yammeling again!”

The Doctor says that they must now wait 24 hours and see if she turns green. 

DOCTOR: “If you turn green, three hours later (snaps his fingers) gone.” LIZ:  (snaps) “Gone?”  DOCTOR: (snaps) “Gone.”

For the television script, the ‘Flimjabs’ was renamed the 'Gobloots’ - a rare tropical disease that carried into America on the hind legs of the 'boo-shoo bird.’ It can necessitate a person having to undergo a 'zorchectomy’ – total or partial removal of the 'zorch’. Even if doctors are able to save half a person’s 'zorch,’ the patient will never be able to 'trummle’ again. 'Trummling’ is a mysterious involuntary internal process. Finally, if you turn green while suffering from the 'gobloots’ you will be dead in 30 minutes!  

Iris Atterbury drops by to see Liz on her way to the Bridge Club meeting. Liz tells her that she has been diagnosed with the Flimjabs. 

IRIS: “Oh, how exciting! This will make Betty Ricky’s gallstones look sick! She’ll be absolutely green.” LIZ: “She's not the only one. That’s one of the danger signs. I may turn green.”  IRIS: “With a green face and red hair, you’ll be out of this world.” LIZ: “Yes, that’s what I’m afraid of.”

Iris is overcome with emotion at the thought of losing Liz. She doesn’t want to leave, but the ice cream for the Bridge Club meeting is in the car and it’s melting! 

That night, Doctor Stevenson returns to check on Liz. Answering the door, George confesses that he’s put a green light bulb in Liz’s bedroom light. As soon as George turns on the lights, Liz shrieks seeing her green hands! Her face and hair have turned green, too!  Liz thinks the men have Flimjabs too, because they are also green, but then the truth sets in. 

LIZ: “Oh, no!  This is the end!  I’m looking at the world through green colored eyeballs!” 

Liz dramatically declares that she’s dying. George accuses her of being over-dramatic. 

LIZ: “I’m sorry, George. But I don’t die every day and it’s new to me.”

Before her imminent demise, Liz confesses to all the car accidents she’s had and hidden by having the car fixed without telling him.  

LIZ: “In fact, the only thing left of the original car you bought is the ashtray in the back seat!”

Then Liz bravely confesses to pretending to be sick to get him to buy her a mink coat. George also needs to make a confession: it was all a trick. There is no such thing as ‘Flimjabs’ and the light is from a green light bulb!  

The phone rings and it is Iris, tearfully calling from the Bridge Club meeting. The girls have just had a memorial ceremony for Liz by turning her chair to the wall and smashing her teacup in the fireplace. Before Liz can tell Iris that it was a joke, she learns that they all chipped in and bought her a goodbye present: a mink coat!  Liz hangs up in tears. George is confused.

GEORGE: “Isn’t that what you wanted?” LIZ: “Yeah, but I have to die to get it!”

END OF EPISODE

In the live Jell-O commercial, Lucille Ball and Bob LeMond play a couple of nomads lost in the desert. Lucy uses her ‘Isabella Clump’ voice as ‘Smith’. Bob is looking for his camp, near a big dune. 

LUCY / ‘SMITH’: “A dune? What’s a dune?” BOB: “What’s a dune????” LUCY / ‘SMITH’: “I dunno. What’s a-dune with you?” 

Smith sees a mirage - a big bowl of Jell-O! After describing the six delicious flavors, Bob suggests they go home. 

BOB: “Go home? We’re lost in the desert!”  LUCY / ‘SMITH’: “Why don’t we each take one of those cars.” BOB: “What cars?” LUCY / ‘SMITH’: “The ones over there. That’s a two-car mirage!” 

The same date this episode was broadcast, columnist Sid Shalit in the New York Daily News reported that a television situation comedy was being prepared starring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in the mold of “My Favorite Husband”.  Clearly, the radio series was winding down. This was the final episode of 1950 with only 16 episodes left. 

Meanwhile, in addition to radio and television, Ball was on the nation’s movie screens in two 1950 films: The Fuller Brush Girl and Fancy Pants. 

[earisu1]

Jennifer, and Lewis Carroll’s Alice / Jennifer Through the Looking-Glass

Original date of the posts: 7 and 8 of October, 2007

Disclaimer: this theories and ideas do not belong to me but to PokerNemesis, if the owner wants me to take them down I will.

Jennifer, and Lewis Carroll´s Alice.

“I think that the creators of the Rule of Rose game were influenced in a number of ways by Lewis Carroll’s Alice stories: Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871). And if we think of the game as Jennifer’s dream, then an influence from the Alice stories on Jennifer’s imagination really should not be too surprising as I would expect that these stories would very familiar to a young girl in England around 1930 (or even today). 

In both of the Alice stories, Alice’s adventures occur in a dream. Jennifer’s adventures, in Rule of Rose, may also be occurring in a dream.

In Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice is led to a strange world by chasing after a white rabbit. In Rule of Rose, Jennifer is led to a strange world by chasing after a little boy. Later, in the “Sir Peter” chapter, Jennifer will spend her time chasing after a white rabbit.

Alice transitions to Wonderland by falling (down a well, reached via a rabbit hole). Jennifer transitions from the orphanage to the airship by falling (into a coffin).

In Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Alice’s adventures occur on the “other side” of a mirror (the world that seems to exist on the other side of the glass if one thinks of a mirror as being a window). In Rule of Rose, in the “Unlucky Clover Field” chapter, one gets the following response if “x”is pressed while standing near the mirror in the men’s lavatory (accessed from the 3rd airship corridor):

“…Could it be because it is cracked? For a moment, the reflection in the mirror looked like the old orphanage…”

This suggests to me that the world of the airship is a sort of through-the-looking-glass version of the world of the orphanage. And I have come to think that analysis along these lines can shed a lot of light on various events and elements in the game, as well as aspects of plot structure. So I want to give the discussion of this matter its own blog-post: “Jennifer, Through the Looking-Glass”.”

Jennifer Through the Looking-Glass

“Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871), Alice’s adventures occur on the “other side” of a mirror (the world that seems to exist on the other side of the glass if one thinks of a mirror as being a window). In Rule of Rose, in the “Unlucky Clover Field” chapter, one gets the following response if “x” is pressed while standing near the mirror in the men’s lavatory (accessed from the 3rd airship corridor):

“…Could it be because it is cracked? For a moment, the reflection in the mirror looked like the old orphanage…”

As I mentioned already in my previous post, “Jennifer and Lewis Carroll’s Alice“, this suggests to me that the world of the airship is a sort of through-the-looking-glass version of the world of the orphanage. And I have come to think that analysis along these lines can shed a lot of light on various events and elements in the game, as well as aspects of plot structure.

Consider the above two illustrations, by John Tenniel, in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.

Alice is shown making the transition from the normal room to the “looking-glass” room. Look carefully at both the clock and the vase in each illustration. In the looking-glass room the clock and vase have faces consisting of eyes, a mouth, and and a nose. And in the story, objects such as chessmen, inanimate and non-communicative in the normal room, can move around and talk.

In the orphanage world of “The Little Princess” chapter, there is a save-point, but it doesn’t speak to Jennifer. Nor do any other objects of that world speak to Jennifer. But as soon as she makes the transition to the airship world of “The Unlucky Clover Field” chapter, objects start talking to her:

The headless Bucket Knight requests: “Lass, please help me find my head. Once I am whole again, I’ll return the favor.”

Rubbish Bin tells Jennifer: “My belly is as dark as night and as deep as the abyss. Anything in the world that is dropped will be collected inside it.”

The door with the gift box tells Jennifer: “Give me a beautiful butterfly, one per person. Is that clear? No gift, no entry. Is that clear? Give me a butterfly. Give me a butterfly. Find one and you shall be invited to join the Aristocrat club.” And later: “You call this a beautiful butterfly? Are you blind? Give me a beautiful, beautiful butterfly, and then you will be allowed to join the Aristocrat club.”

Scissors also speak to Jennifer: “No thanks necessary. No thanks necessary. You might have been better off being bound than free to feel pain. So scary!”

In the Alice story, Alice is dreaming while on BOTH SIDES of the looking-glass, so the transition at the looking-glass is not one of leaving the waking world to enter a dream world. She has already, unknowingly, left the waking world before going through the looking-glass. Similarly, if Jennifer is dreaming the story of the Rule of Rose game, she is dreaming on while BOTH SIDES of that transition from the orphanage world (where objects don’t speak to her) to airship world (where objects do speak to her).

The initial looking-glass room, that Alice transitions to, is a room that looks very much like that room she came from, but it has been transformed by fantasy elements. The airship world that Jennifer has transitioned to, via the initiation ceremony at the end of “The Little Princess” chapter, has lost most of its resemblance to the orphanage, but I propose that it IS the orphanage transformed by fantasy elements.

The shared identity between the airship and the orphanage can be seen in correspondences such as the arrangement of bunk beds in both worlds.

The shared identity is also revealed in other ways during the game:

At the end of “The Bird of Happiness” chapter, we observe, as Eleanor walks to the gift box with the dead red bird, a direct transition from the world of the airship to the world of the orphanage. 

In the airship’s First Class Guest Sector, one can use a secret door to get to a secret room (where the revolver can be found). The secret room, however, is in the orphanage! One can find this same room in the attic of the orphanage during “The Funeral” chapter.”

Notes: one of the interpretations of the game, and I believe the most plausible, is seeing it as a dream. On the other hand we have the classic fairy tales which are a heavy influence for the plot and are all over the place. It’s very cool to note the similarities between the orphanage and the airship, even if it’s kinda hard in a first play through since you see the orpahanage for a very brief time at the start of the game. It always frustrates me when let’s players don’t notice it right away, especially at the end of the Bird of Happiness chapter, what a good ending scene!

[meqacool]

11102017 This month I read / listened to 7 books total, I was on vacation though which gave me a lot of time!

1. Heartless by Marissa Meyer - This book pulled me in from the first page, it is incredibly well written and I could hardly put it down. We follow our main character Cath, the woman that will someday be the Red Queen, who tries to live up to her parents expectations, while at the same time fulfilling her own dreams. It’s about first loves and big plans and a fight between good and evil. While the ending is, of course bit predictable I enjoyed every minute and might have even shed a tear or two.

2. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol (Kindle) - After finishing Heartless I needed to know where Meyer got her inspiration from so I read this one, finished it in a day, was surprised by the world Caroll created, but most of all I was shocked how much authors, filmmakers and many more made out of such a small book! While it was an absolutely magical world most of the characters only made very short appearances and were definitely not described at lively as they seem in Meyers novel or certain movie adaptions! Still it was a fun quick read and I am happy to have finished this one.

3. I See London, I See France by Sarah Mlynowski - A cute summer contemporary about two best friends who embark upon a journey through Europe. I went through it super quickly because it wasn't very demanding. While the emphasis is definitely on the romance it also deals with topics like mental health and anxiety which made it more interesting. I hoped for a bit more description of the places the girls went to, I think that really fell short, it mostly takes place in the hostels or bars/restautrants. 

P.S.: I LOOOOOVE the hardcover edition.

4. We Were Liars by E. Lockhart - I feel like I am the only one who only read this now. We Were Liars is a fairly short novel, mostly set on the private island the Sinclairs own. Our main character Cadance tells us about her summers on the island and tries to find out what happened one particular summer, the summer she can't remember, the summer after which the headaches started. There’s not much more to tell without spoiling anything, just know that this is not a quick, happy read but more like the opposite. Still entertaining and with a MAJOR plot twist.

5. They Both Die At The End by Adam Silvera (Audible) - Like so many others I read this because I wanted to know if they actually both die at the end! And of course I won't tell you! Adam Silveras new book is set in a world where Death Cast calls you in the early hours of the day you’re going to die, it is, however ever explained how this works. We follow Mateo and Rufus, who both get the call on the same day and decide to spend their last hours together, in between there are some short blurbs from other characters, which really adds to the story. While I don't really get the concept and workings of Death Cast, I liked both main characters which really kept me going. The ending was dramatic and well done, this is definitely a different kind of YA contemporary.

6. The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood (Audible) - I read an excerpt of this back in my school days and I'm happy that I finally picked it up. Atwood’s Handmaids Tale is set in a dystopian state of Gillead in which women have almost no say in their own lives and so called Handmaids are given to households to bear them children. We follow the story of Offred, Handmaid to a powerful commander as she tells us about her new and old life. She is written so realistically as well as the other characters she encounters. It is so interesting to read about how differently people deal with such a drastic change in society’s order. Still I felt like something was missing, the action, the great plot twist. I guess the way the story was told made it more realistic but it simply wasn't my cup of tea. Nevertheless a great piece of fiction that sometimes doesn't feel like fiction at all.

7. The Underground Railroad by Colson Whitehead - This was absolutely not what I expected! The Underground Railroad takes us back to the days of slavery, since I am not well educated about this part of history I learned so much, thanks to this book! Whitehead reimagines the Underground Railroad as an actual Railroad, connecting several states and safe houses with each other, when our main character Cora flees from her master, she embarks upon a journey through the tunnels of the railroad, running from state to state, being captured and released and captured again. Whitehead did a damn well job describing the cruelty which African Americans had to suffer from and I just hoped throughout the whole book that Cora would get her happy ending. Overall a well written book that will probably teach you one thing or the other.

And that was it for September wooo! I hope some of you might pick some of these books up, I can highly recommend almost all of them. If you read one don't hesitate to let me know what you thought of them! 

Until then xx

[michelemoore]

Takhuk

October 29, 2019

Michele Moore Veldhoen

Are we Living in a 21st Century Version of Wonderland?

Our recent election triggered in my mind thoughts of Lewis Carroll’s nonsensical Wonderland. Did you ever read Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland? Not until I was an adult reading them aloud to my kids did I experience my first (and, now that I think of it, only) reading of nonsense literature. The book was a surprise. I had been under the misconception that Alice’s adventures would annoy me. I was too serious of a reader then to consider nonsense worthwhile.  As I discovered, Carroll was not just writing to entertain children. He was also using nonsense to satirize British Victorian society’s strict and prudish rules of etiquette, which, apparently, were in glaring contradiction to the way the English had behaved for centuries before that era unfolded. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Victorian morality:

“Between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, orderly, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality

I suppose Carroll, as a writer, was quite drunk with the fodder offered by a society that evolved in just a few decades from being outspoken and rowdy to prudish and polite. Since he lived throughout the era, he likely watched in horror as men had to be more and more circumspect in their manners around women, whose crinolines grew wider by the month. As for children, well, they were best seen but not heard.

If Carroll was alive today, he might suffer writer’s block. There’s just too much fodder for words.

We see it all these days, aggressive, cruel, bloodthirsty right alongside tender-minded and orderly.

While Carroll’s Wonderland skewers politicians, royalty and adults in general, it is first, a book of entertaining nonsense for children.

But I do feel Carroll was also contemplating some sobering ideas. This may be why his book came to mind this past week.

A quick refresher - Alice is an adventurous girl who flings caution aside and follows a rabbit down a rabbit hole to indulge her curiosity. She wanders through Wonderland, meeting a fantastical array of talking creatures, rabbits, cats, lizards, birds, mice, ducks and dogs, with whom she has absurd or nonsensical and therefore frustrating conversations. But Alice is not afraid to argue with these adult sounding creatures, a fact which no doubt gave young Victorian readers great satisfaction. She was also not afraid to simply blow off the worst of these characters and carry on with her adventures through Wonderland.

Carroll was making a hero of Alice but was he also saying to his readers not everything in this world makes sense, adults least of all, and trying to make it so is futile.

Nor is Alice afraid when she meets sinister characters such as the Queen of Hearts who orders Alice’s beheading on every other page. During the trial of the Knave of Hearts, Alice stands up to the Queen’s insanity, defending the Knave fearlessly. She survives the episode, head intact.

Was Carroll telling children to speak truth to power? Was he saying: Queens and those with authority are mad and dangerous, you must speak up?

Like many of us in Canada, I have been thinking lately about the world’s current state of political turmoil. The wacky disorientating world Alice experienced seems a good analogy. The general sense of total, utter, nonsense that imbues Carroll’s 19th century Wonderland is a fair comparison to today’s incomprehensible state of affairs. Hookah smoking, mushroom munching caterpillars and all.

Like that stoned caterpillar Alice could not understand, today’s politicians of every stripe around the world talk nonsense, evade questions and generally talk in circles. Worse, some, even here at home, break the law, neglect to mention the facts, spread lies, scorn the poor, scorn entire populations, scorn scientists and journalists, scorn anyone that does not agree with them. The contortions and rages some of them get themselves into is a sight to behold and makes me sometimes want to send them relief in the form of a good long dunk in a cold mountain lake.

Of course, in the records of organized human society, there is nothing new about any of this behavior. Power corrupts us and has been corrupting us from the first opportunity. What is new for us, or at least me, is the breakdown of so many governments that were built over decades and in some cases centuries to guard against such corruption. We have had the luck now and again to enjoy the rise of truly good leaders – many at the community level, some at the highest levels, who recognized the danger of concentrated power and created institutions and organizations to limit it in the hands of government.  Because history has proven over and over that corrupted leaders produce in society intolerance, extremism, violence, and war.

These days, attempts are being made by many corrupted politicians and others to dismantle or discredit the institutional structures upon which much of the peace and prosperity of the world has been built. These are the ones I would dunk in a nice frigid Rocky Mountain alpine lake.

In Alice’s Adventures, there is no plot. No purpose. No goal or endgame. There is only a series of increasingly bizarre interactions and conversations that culminate in Alice’s final exchange with the Queen of Hearts who, when she shouts “off with her (Alice’s) head”, causes Alice to lose her temper and take a swipe at the Queen. Suddenly, the Queen and all her court are just a pack of cards, which moments later become leaves Alice’s sister brushes away from her face in order to wake her from her dream.

Are we all dreaming today’s Wonderland? When will we wake up? What is our endgame, our purpose, our goal? Is it not what we have all believed throughout our lives, to create and live in peace and mutual prosperity?

Is it true that

not everything in this world makes sense and trying to make it so is futile.

Oh yes, there is definitely futility in trying to explain everything we do. But do we not hear around the world too many excuses for intolerance and greed masquerading as necessary action or inaction? Does it make sense, for example, to fuel war on a continent (Africa, for example, where war materials are sold by almost every country you can think of including Canada), only to then have the millions who run from the devastation come to the gates of those same countries in need of refuge?  

Do we agree that

often, adults are mad, and we must stand up in the face of their madness to defend the innocent.

Yes, adults with unbridled power and money do indeed go mad. For many of us, just a little too much can do us in. I learned that in 1984 in Reno, Nevada. I have not gone near a slot machine since!

Real madness though, leads to serious nonsense, to the seriously absurd. It leads to those fleeing war and violence being branded criminals instead of victims. It leads us over cliffs. Down rabbit holes.

Despite the disorienting and disturbing nature of today’s politics, I do believe that sensible heads will prevail here in Canada and elsewhere.  The extreme absurdity that this world wide epic struggle for power is producing will, one day, be remembered, not as a dream like Alice’s, more likely a nightmare. But even nightmares come to an end. We do know how to climb out of rabbit holes.

Let’s go out from this weighty blog with something light, shall we?

First, from Will Rogers:

"Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."

Next, from Tom Blair:

Politicians are like diapers. They both need to be changed often. And for the same reason.

And, from John Lennon:

If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliché that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that’s his problem. Love and peace are eternal.

So, friends, Love. Peace. Have a beautiful day in Wonderland.

[huishengchang]

Interviewed by ficus S, Translated by Penny Lim Tainan-based Alice Hui-sheng Chang is a sound improviser, art therapist and co-founder of sound organization Ting Shuo Hear Say. Alice weaves between the many facets of her practice with a focus on social connections, togetherness, and the possibilities of non-lingual communication. As a musician, she creates performances as site-specific responses, using a dynamic range of timbres and textures to amplify the acoustic qualities of a space, while also responding to the social conditions in the room. She regularly collaborates with fellow artists/musicians, including 12 Dog Cycle, an experimental duo with sound artist Nigel Brown. Alice is currently working on her solo 12-track album based on Lewis Carroll’s "Alice in Wonderland." She is also projecting towards a forthcoming residency in Belgium early 2021. lololol sits down with Alice to discuss her experiences with sound, connection and the nonverbal.   Q: Can you talk about your work with sound in Tainan? Before returning to Taiwan, Nigel [my partner] and I had performed in Melbourne, Europe and various places. We mostly played for audiences who were familiar with the scene of experimental music, and we appreciated the coming together of people from common backgrounds and shared languages. When we returned to Taiwan 12 years ago, there was a sense of freedom to go beyond the limitations we had previously put on ourselves. Sometimes we would perform for first time listeners of experimental music, which would bring a fresh energy, a new curiosity or excitement to the room. To this day, the audience for Ting Shuo Hear Say remains quite a mix—having people come from different musical backgrounds, it is a constant challenge to translate our music to a diverse crowd. Q: On top of running Ting Shuo Hear Say, you are also an art therapist and sound artist. Do these fields of work correlate with each other? In my own practice, my work as an artist and art therapist go hand in hand. When I run group art therapy sessions, I try to respond to the various expectations or non-expectations in the room. I seek to ‘hold’ the variety of connections that make up the flow of energy in the group. This act of holding is important in my art practice as well, in which I explore how people connect with each other. I use voice as my instrument because it is the most direct communication, and when I perform, I feel I am creating a spider web for holding everything together. When audiences come from different backgrounds, the weight of how each individual leans into the performance varies quite a lot. I try to tune into what is happening in the space, it could be emotions, states of being, or all kinds of body expressions—Is he relaxed? How much of her hair is standing up? Are they immersed in their own inner reflection or inner imagination? For me it is all these small observations that reveal the connections in the room. The observing process is not so much in the head, it is more empirical; by experience and practice, observations become heightened and there is a sensitive tuning process involved while I respond to the collective feeling and atmosphere in the space. Q: As a performer, how do you see your relationship with the audience? There’s a saying, “Two step forward and one step back,” which gives me an image of someone perpetually getting somewhere, slowly. This image relates to my own interpretation of existential theory, which is that loneliness is the core of our existence, and while we come and go as individual bodies, a core aim of life is to connect with each other. During my performances, sometimes I do feel such a [connection between people]. For me, performing is not about selling an idea, it is a medium for people to transition together and enter a realm of suspended space and time. This process involves trusting that every individual has his or her value and identity. Trusting that in a finite time, togetherness will happen and will happen here, and afterwards, we will separate again. My way of engaging with people is very different from the educational system in which I grew up. My school system upheld a hierarchy between teacher and students and maintained that students should be shaped or formed into a certain mold. I believe that everyone is different, there is no unified way, and in my performances, the audience takes in something as their own reflection, their mirrored self, and directs this feedback into whatever they are thinking or whoever they are in that moment in time. After the performance, every individual takes away some residue from the collective experience.

Q: Do you always work with an audience? Sometimes, without an audience, I can work with images or texts in my head. Sometimes, there are from dreams I have had, stories I have read, or just inspirations from my own imagination. I once made a performance using a scene from a Haruki Murakami novel, which described a feeling of sinking down into the ocean, sinking down, losing breath, continually sinking, and so on. I did a couple performances with this departure point. Perhaps for me it is a sad narrative about someone who has lived a life not having their own say and feeling getting more and more choked up. What attracts me to such sorrow is its complexity. Sometimes I find that images are able to describe what language cannot. The ocean, forests, the moon, and scenery…these are typical themes for poets and artists because there are no words that can quite describe them. I attempt to embody an image by putting it inside my body; I feel it and try to form it out. It is an attempt to translate something indescribable to other people. Whilst this process can be understood as a way of communication, it could also be understood more poetically as an artist putting her body in a very imaginative, emotional, complex state and performing it. Q: How do you describe your sound palette? I do not listen to a lot of music, in fact, I find everyday sound much more fitting to my palette of sound--the bathroom fan, vertical roller gate, all the daily industrial or natural sounds that we live in--they embody a language that is honest and real. My voice is shaped by the soundscape of my environment. After performing for many years, it is easy to become fixed, and I try to make myself more flexible. Sometimes I sense an intuition and there is a voice coming out; sometimes I mute that intuition and work with something else. Quite often I work with the feedback people give me about my performances. One of my lecturers from university had once commented that, in my work, silence is more important than the voice. His comment made me reflect on how to use time, how silence still holds certain attention, and carries the residue of the sound that had come before it. It holds an imagination that reflects back to the viewer, like a black mono painting or the blank spaces in Chinese painting. Q: How do you experience space and time in your work? In my earlier work, during my university years, I performed a lot in stairwells, hallways, transitional spaces, as I worked with the idea of travelling. It was not a matter of going from one point to another; it was about the tunnel, the transitional process that happens in between. This practice of working in a perpetual cycle of suspended time and space is perhaps influenced by minimal music or drone-based stuff. Both Nigel and I in our 12 Dog Cycle band, and my other duo with Saxophonist Rosalind Hall, work with this idea. Someone had commented that our music always feels like it is starting and ending all the time, because we are constantly working against the flow, not following any situation and continually surprising ourselves. Q: Is there anything specific you are working on right now? I have always wanted to develop my art therapy practice further. Since coming back to Taiwan, I have spent a lot of my time setting up Ting Shuo and more recently, I have been busy raising our child. But now I find my art practice is becoming more diverse—I have been running workshops for children from age 0 to 6 as well as for old people over ages 60 to 80. Next month, I am running workshops with people who are blind. Meanwhile, I am also working on my solo album, “Alice in Wonderland,” based on Lewis Carroll’s 12-chapter storybook. I will be working on this album and text/contemporary scores in the next few years. (update / 2020.05.26)

[lindsaynsmith]

Twilight of the Racist Uncles

Twilight of the Racist Uncles https://ift.tt/2OXdv5O

There is a family friend, a man I’ve known for decades. A highly educated man with total financial security in his recent retirement. A man who always had a good story to tell or an interesting side of a conversation to hold up. Then, a few years ago, he got on Facebook. Reading his timeline became an exercise in watching a man’s descent into madness. Over the summer I was surprised to learn that he had purchased three very expensive AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. When I asked why, he said, “For the race war that’s coming” in a tone that suggested no further explanation would be necessary.

If you are under the age of fifty, the odds are that you have at least one older person in your life who has gone down this road in the last few years. If you are white, I am certain of it. Lamenting our older relatives’ journey down the rabbit hole of right-wing paranoia and vituperation feels, at times, like my generation’s version of having the big talk about putting Nana in a nursing home. “Losing a parent” has dual meanings for us after 2016. We’re dealing with the loss of people who are very much alive—but who have become such chaotic stews of anger, persecution complexes, racism, and half-assed conspiracy theories that they can no longer hold a normal conversation.

Intergenerational tension is hardly new; it dates roughly back to mankind’s mastery of fire. In this case, though, more than a typical generation gap separates us, thanks to a nearly irresistible system designed to draw in old white people and get them hooked on an outrage fix they end up needing every bit as much as their Lipitor.

Though Fox News binging is typically blamed for this phenomenon, viewership data doesn’t support the argument. Fox News tops cable news ratings, but cable news is a small, declining market compared to, say, televised sports, Netflix streaming, or anodyne sitcoms. The number of people sitting saucer-eyed in front of the TV all day watching News Corp render the arts of satire and parody moot is significant in Nielsen terms but quite meager compared to the audience of Monday Night Football.

Spend a full hour reading right-wing Facebook. It is like a funhouse mirror; you’ll feel the what-was-in-those-cookies sense of having entered a fantasy world of grievance and rage.

What has truly fueled the Boomers’ transition from “means well, but sometimes frustrating” to Trumpian insanity is Facebook. There the fix is constant. There all of their worst impulses are collectively reinforced, constantly rewarded, and ceaselessly amplified.

The last generation of Americans who will enjoy anything approaching financial security in old age could spend the Golden Years we’ll never have golfing, going on cruises, driving RVs, or watching The Price is Right. They could choose to be happy, having lived their entire lives in a system from which they extracted every benefit and which they subsequently dismantled at the altar of lower taxes.

Instead, they’re spending their days on a speedball of right-wing propaganda and a platform that gives them an audience of . . . well, everyone. And it turns out that 24-7 access to reinforcement and an unceasing stream of conspiratorial thinking is pushing some of them over the edge.

Spend a full hour reading right-wing Facebook. It is like a funhouse mirror; you’ll feel the what-was-in-those-cookies sense of having entered a fantasy world of grievance and rage—a Lewis Carroll version of The Turner Diaries, a John Birch Society children’s book for sundowning grandpas. It is a barrage of propaganda crafted around the biases of old white people to exploit their deepest racial fears and authoritarian-follower personality traits. Much of it makes Fox News look tame and responsible by comparison. Toy commercials could only dream of reaching kids as effectively as the right-wing noise machine hooks our elders.

Now imagine looking at that for hours per day, every day.

What would be left of your brain after several years of that? Like the president they so blindly love, the brains they once had become a puddle of Cracker Barrel sausage gravy strewn with flotsam and jetsam[*] of the Greatest Hits of the reactionary playbook. These are randomly sampled, irrespective of time, logic, or coherence. Immigrant caravans! Soros! New Black Panthers! Vince Foster! Card Check! Seth Rich! Uranium One! MS-13! Crisis Actors! Anchor babies! Whitewater! Her emails! Cap and Trade! Thugs! Birth Certificate! Every obsession is equally relevant. And the right time to be very, very mad about all of it is right now.

Thus their thought process becomes that of a sentient car window sticker of the Punisher logo with a Blue Lives Matter overlay. It’s not pretty. And it’s going to get worse with time. Boomers have long since taken over Facebook and often feel like its only active users. Younger people have transitioned to Instagram (nearly wordless), Twitter (annoying but succinct), and Snapchat (conveniently ephemeral). What once resembled an online high school reunion now feels now like the 5 p.m. bitch session at the Peoria Applebee’s.

The magic is how it unites otherwise disparate factions of America’s very worst people and provides a single trough that all will love bellying up to. The apotheosis of Zuckerberg’s brainchild is the synthesis of AM radio call-in shows and every local newspaper’s online comment section into a single, feculent holding tank. It’s everything you could ever want, if you are old, white, and incoherently angry for no good goddamn reason at all.

For more than three years the media and public have subjected Facebook to increasing criticism on account of its data use and privacy practices. It’s fun watching god-complex tech bros criticized for the first time in their lives, like Mr. Zuckerberg’s Congressional scolding.

Like the president they so blindly love, the brains they once had become a puddle of Cracker Barrel sausage gravy strewn with flotsam and jetsam of the reactionary playbook.

Privacy concerns are not frivolous. Some of Facebook’s and other social media sites’ practices are horrendous. Yet this framing misses the point. It is a media narrative capitalizing on our desire to blame someone else when we realize just how much information we’ve fed into a mystery box.

In the long term, the damage done by Facebook will have little to do with the way it counted and sold our Likes to all comers. Futurelings will wonder not how Facebook got our data—Surprise! We gave it to them in the name of finding out “Which Game of Thrones Character Are You?” They will wonder how we ignored for so long the way it greased the skids for a large, wealthy, influential demographic of Americans to lurch toward authoritarianism. Right-wing media planted the seed. Then social media told everyone that it’s okay, everyone else is doing it too. You’re not alone. You can say the n-word out loud again. After decades of having to bottle it up in the name of namby-pamby liberalism, you can be proud once again to blame it on The Jews.

It is popular to demand that Facebook better police content, but no amount of vigilance against “fake news” or banned neo-Nazis will ameliorate the function it serves for Boomers as a place to feed off of one another’s bottomless rage. Is it good that Alex Jones was banned for repeatedly advocating violence against specific groups? Of course! Ban all the other Alex Joneses too! But that won’t fix the underlying problem, and it won’t reverse Facebook’s slide from frivolous fun to toxic quicksand.

What once resembled an online high school reunion now feels now like the 5 p.m. bitch session at the Peoria Applebee’s.

Russian bots, false information, and loathsome racist mouthpieces like Richard Spencer are all bad things. But what makes Facebook so bad is, well . . . people. Everyone’s viciously racist aunt and pull-tab uncle and dad and grandma and old friends whose mouthpiece was once limited to the forwarded chain email now have an audience the size of the whole world.

And so the aging members of Facebook’s user base feed off of one another, writhing in their grievances and anger like chinchillas taking a dust bath. Younger users aren’t ditching Facebook because of Alex Jones; they are leaving because listening to all of America’s uncles at once is our literal nightmare. It is unpleasant enough to deal with our own aging relatives. What’s the appeal of a platform that also makes you deal with everyone else’s?

Facebook didn’t invent Boomers’ susceptibility to naked racial fearmongering or their yearning for a bygone America that never was. It did offer them a convenient meeting room where they could gather to share their own delusions and learn new ones. Social media connects the like-minded. Now we see the consequences no one paused to consider—what would happen if we created a single, self-sustaining Galaxy Brain of all of humanity’s worst impulses?

Facebook’s core premise is that networking people is inherently good. It turns out that networking shitty, racist people served only to better organize and strengthen their hatreds. Old relatives who once screamed into the void now know they have like-minded peers listening, Liking, and responding in kind. Rather than concocting their own baseless conspiracy theories, the magic of Facebook unites them around the Greatest Hits—the blacks, the immigrants, the Jews, the liberals, the government—and writes the script for them. Facebook was the medium that allowed the right to homogenize reactionary politics into a single, connected mass of outrage, and the consequences we see today are just the tip of an iceberg.

[*] For the curious, flotsam is material that entered a body of water accidentally whereas jetsam, which shares a root with “jettison,” is material thrown overboard intentionally.

via Latest – The Baffler https://thebaffler.com October 30, 2018 at 06:05PM

[cstesttaken]

Do You Operate in a Social Media Bubble? 3 Questions to Ask

In Lewis Carroll’s fantastical tale Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, the eponymous heroine discovers a very different world on the other side of a mirror, occupied by people and creatures she never imagined could exist.

Yet, were we to look into the same looking glass, we would see ourselves reflected. Any different realities, ideas, and viewpoints of another world would remain out of view.

Welcome to the world of social media filter bubbles — where what you see is very definitely NOT what you get.

“Sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”

I can’t trust my social media feeds anymore. My various streams, timelines, and news feeds made it easy to believe it was impossible that the United Kingdom would vote to leave the European Union; that Australia would re-elect the Liberal government; and that Donald Trump would become the Republican nominee.

In reality, the EU referendum was decided by a very narrow margin, reflecting a far more polarized and divided country than most people realized. Meanwhile, the Australian election was so close that at the time of writing, I still don’t know who will be the new Australian prime minister. As for the U.S. presidential race, well, I’m clearly missing something.

I don’t rely on social media for my news and current affairs, so I was aware from other sources that the EU referendum and Australian election were going to be much tighter than any social media commentary might suggest. Yet many demographics increasingly get most of their news and opinion from social, without always clicking to read the detailed analysis behind the slogans and headlines. No wonder so many Remain voters were shocked and surprised by the outcome of the EU referendum. These trends also make filter bubbles open to politically motivated manipulation.

There are always at least two sides to any debate. Yet instead of providing a window onto the world, social media has become a massively distorted and personalized fantasy. Our own social media access increasingly reflects our own views, values, and opinions, strengthening our resolve and justifying our beliefs, while hiding or distorting any objective appreciation of the alternatives.

“What I tell you three times is true”

We are bombarded with so much content and information every day that conscious or unconscious filters are not only inevitable but also necessary to help us make sense of it all.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we are less likely to follow, read, and engage with those with whom we disagree. Be honest — whether you vote Republican or Democrat, Leave or Remain, Left or Right — are you more or less likely to follow someone with polar opposite views?

While we may have some alternative voices in our networks, chances are that they are far fewer and often tolerated only up to a point. If you’ve ever blocked, unfollowed, or hidden someone’s posts from your newsfeed because you don’t want to see any more of their objectionable-to-you views, then you’re already guilty of reinforcing your filter bubble in the name of comfort.

Echo chambers are nothing new. We’ve always had a choice of which news sources or media pundits to follow — Fox News or CNN, Glenn Beck or John Oliver. Each choice usually has a clear bias. The one-way broadcast nature of mass media, however, is very different from the free-for-all, shout fest of social.

Social media has allowed us all to become media pundits, shouting loudly about whatever beliefs are most important to us right this moment to a much wider audience than we may realize.

Social media algorithms also have the potential to further reinforce and amplify filter bubbles by tracking our behavior to give us more of what we like and less of what we don’t. If we regularly click “like” on news stories that align with our views, we’ll see an increase in similar stories from similar sources.

And filter bubbles aren’t confined to political beliefs. They can be shaped by religion, science, even our individual sense of humor — whatever our beliefs and values are. For example, my wife’s social media environment is starkly different from my own, even though we share many of the same beliefs. Our individual social media environments have become personalized far more than broadcast mass media ever could.

 “You know very well you’re not real”

What can marketers learn from this? Can filter bubbles prevent your content or message from getting through to the very people you hope to reach? The short answer is “yes,” and it’s probably only going to get harder as increasing social media dependencies, algorithms, and the sheer amount of competing content further change the landscape.

Marketers can learn from the ways in which the EU referendum played out in social media.

1. Are you trapped in your own filter bubble?

Businesses and marketers can be just as blinded by filter bubbles as anyone else — particularly when guessing at the beliefs, wants, and behaviors of their target customers or audiences.

One clear example was the excruciatingly painful social media campaign by the Stronger In Europe camp that targeted young voters. The #Votin campaign (“Vote In”, get it?) worked on the not-very-deep-nor-accurate insight that young people sometimes drop their “g” when talking. A video was pushed in social that combined grating third-rate electronica beats with fast edits of “yoof” stuff like partying and graffiti, overlaid with chunky captions such as WORKIN, EARNIN, RAVIN, CHATTIN, SHARIN, LIVIN, GOIN, etc.

Source

Not exactly cutting to the heart of the political debate. Instead, this embarrassment of a campaign seemed to carry the simplistic message that votin’ was sorta cool and hip, yeah? This was a view of youth as seen from inside a very different filter bubble.

I’ve certainly worked with and for a few companies over the years that developed similarly distorted and unrealistic views of what the customer experience should be, because the decision-makers within the business lived inside a different social media filter bubble to the rest of us. This can lead to products, content, and customer experiences that might seem logical internally but leave customers cold.

HANDPICKED RELATED CONTENT: Social Media Mistakes: What Brands Should Do to Avoid Epic Fails

2. Will your information even be trusted inside someone else’s filter bubble?

What might make perfect logical sense in one filter bubble might seem like nonsense in another, particularly when it draws upon differing assumptions.

A strong theme among Leave voters in the EU referendum was a deep distrust of economists, experts, and elite politicians, summed up by Leave campaigner Michael Gove’s infamous statement that “people in this country have had enough of experts.” Yet, the Stronger In Europe campaign continued to rely on those same economists, experts, and elite politicians without first addressing the reasons for that distrust.

What sources of information will your audience trust? Can you use influencers to gain authority?

3. Are you addressing the right issues?

Different audiences may have very different ideas of the key issues in a particular debate. For some, the EU referendum was about immigration. For others, it was about business. For yet others, it was about sticking it to the bureaucrats. Each required a very different approach to address those concerns.

Similarly, your perception of customer needs, expectations, and values may be very different from what your intended audience perceives from the other side of the looking glass.

Most marketers already use customer personas to gain some understanding of these differences. However, many merely note which social networks each persona uses so they can plan where, when, and how to distribute their content.

Instead, consider the different ways in which each persona will form distinct filter bubbles within those networks, shaping their attitudes and opinions. Will your content be welcomed or ridiculed? Will it even reach them at all or might it be filtered out for not appealing to the opinions and themes of that particular bubble?

Before we can understand the filter bubbles of our customers, we have to recognize and admit to our own. We are all trapped in filter bubbles of our own making and they’ll only become stronger and more distorted by algorithms and personal preference over time.

Yet, by using data and detailed analysis, we might be able to see the world through different eyes. In the end, there is no true reality. There’s just how each one of us perceives the world, recalling the final line of Through the Looking Glass, “Life, what is it but a dream?”

This article originally appeared in the of Chief Content Officer. to receive your free subscription to our bimonthly print magazine.

Cover image by Joseph Kalinowski/Content Marketing Institute

Source

http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/2016/11/social-media-questions/