#she essentially plays a role close to a double agent

[lolottes]

I saw the other reblog thread but I propose two slightly different ideas due to the fact that Danny is hurt not to be visited by his parents:

-In both cases, Danny has been in there for months or years. Sam, Tucker and Valerie (maybe helping out other students/ex-students) are barely holding the town together between the DrFentons and the GiWs and the powerful ghost that keeps coming out. Phantom regulars have become reluctant allies. Jazz does not come near the grounds at all but is almost constantly at FentonWork to watch over his parents, monitor the portal, link information between the liminal team and their allies in the realms.

-the team pass by chance above the city when Jason feels an attraction and they go to investigate the city. When they arrive everyone stares at them, the town looks like it has some weird damage.

-The Outlaws were nearby during one of the attacks and will investigate. They arrive just after the ex-phantom teams have dealt with the situation and evacuated. The damage is done and the civilians are evacuated which gives the impression of a ghost town (lol?) then approaching the cemetery Jason feels an attraction

The difference would be in prioritizing it outside of Danny who would either be dealing with global level threats or visibly traumatizing the GiW's influence on the city.

Danny's friends have no idea where he is. Their guess was more that he was captured by the GiW and Tucker is on the verge of madness to find no trace of him on their servers even with the help of Tecnus.

The Outlaws are investigating a small town in Illinois. They don't get very far into town though when Jason feels a weird tug at his chest. He can't help but follow it to a graveyard and then to a specific grave. It is there he witnesses something he never thought he'd experience from an outsider's perspective. A boy trying to claw his way out of his grave.

[weekend-whip]

I’m listening 👀 (also not me just going back through the legacyverse and oc stuff because I’m Invested)

Mmmmmmmm okay-

The Alignment Swap isn’t even a Full AU, just some fun thoughts I played around with until I decided to give it all one home:

Jesse’s still the Elemental Master of Surprise, and the Fuchsia Ninja, but he’s got more of Olivia’s role of being in an extremely gray area: still kinda caring about the people he’s close to, but much more focused on furthering his own agenda. He deems himself “evil and unredeemable” after failing to save Miranda, and instead of “masking” himself as a hero, he “masks” himself as the villain he thinks he is. He embraces the more entertainer/trickster side of his personality that “canon” him tends to suppress when he’s not Fuchsia. Have you heard “Ladies and Gentlemen” by Saliva? That’s his bad boy theme asdfghjk

Miranda still gets crushed by a building, but comes to the realization that she could just improve her whole body with mechanics instead of just half, thus she works on essentially turning herself into a Nindroid and tries to convince others to do the same (there’s also a bit more to this but that would cross into canon spoilers SO NOPE–) Just know she goes a little ‘evil scientist route’...and also blames Jesse for making her like this, especially when he confronts her about it.

Olivia, then, I guess takes on Jesse’s role as support for the Ninja, and instead of seeing the Elemental Compass as something to exploit, it becomes something to protect for her. She’s still part of the Shark Army, but works as a double agent instead (along the same lines as Bridget)

Aurora’s bitter about not inheriting the Element of Ice, and abuses her visions to manipulate others into doing what she wants, and instead makes it her life’s work to somehow steal it away from her father. This leads her to Julien to brainstorm an idea for how to do it. She does this in the form of creating a son that should–technically–steal it for her, and from there she could manipulate Zane into giving it up to her...but it backfires.

Harleigh...technically doesn’t really change personality-wise lmao, but instead of protesting her dad she sticks by his side the whole time and assists him with his schemes (which, still, is the opposite of what she’d actually want to be doing, technically). 

Sunni basically just becomes Jay’s bully instead of his biggest fan cuz she feels jaded about being rejected asdfghjkhgfd

Meanwhile the Heartstopper AU is just a series of details/ideas that have been living in my mind rent free since April:

Cole has “Nick’s Life”, but he’s the one that was outed as gay (with people still pushing him to be with girls instead).

Jesse has “Charlie’s Life”, but he’s the one exploring his bisexuality (but absolutely definitely likes Cole, he knows for sure). 

Miranda would be Tori but a younger sister (still popping up at random times to scare Jesse asdfghj that’s too perfect)

Kai and Skylor would be Tao and Elle (which I debated with myself for a very long time over it but the more I think about it the more I see it’s a GREAT fit, except Kai’s the one trying to “protect” Cole from Jesse snksnksnk) 

And after much ado about nothing I have recently pinned Nya and Olivia as Tara and Darcy because when ELSE will I have an excuse to further explore that potential angle for their relationship??? Plus Kai and Nya still get to be siblings

Zane would be Issac and/or Aled, and I have no idea how I’d squeeze Lloyd and Jay into this but I’m ruminating (did play around with the idea of Lloyd as Issac, Zane as Aled who would eventually date a nonbinary Pixal, and Jay as Michael without potential shipping with Mira but ho hum we’ll see how far that gets) 

I want Vania as Imogen. I must. 

Chad’s Ben and Harry rolled up into one because I can’t feasibly give those roles to anyone else I love them too much hhhh (just this time around Cole would be the one that’s “old friends” with Chen instead of Kai I suppose while Chen is Jesse’s Ex)

Also ‘Want Me’ is like a flagship Aftershock song for me so there’s that

Anyway I do wanna doodle some of my ideas for these one day so be on the look out for that (such as Miranda constantly spooking Jesse, Cole giving Jesse the nickname ‘Jess’, Cole punching Chen (Yeah!!! YEAH!!!!), The Snow Day Scene, Cole carrying Jesse at the beach (AAAAAAA), and the First Kiss Scene *lies down*) 

Like I said very guilty pleasure but my brain goes brrrr and I follow the hum

[dreamteamspace]

So this stream I got a bit confused with what was going on with the whole spiel with schlatt and dream, and I dont actually think theres a traitor. However if there was one why not niki ya know? I mean, he kept saying how it would be way more unexpected than eret in the independance war, and literally everyone so far has been thought of as a potential traitor to pogtopia,, except well,, why not niki? She also had this letter to her "dear friend" that sounded like a new turn for her character and idk man why not?

Alright I’m a very texting type of person and you’ve got my started on my hyperfixation here we go-

My thoughts on the whole situation and why I think Fundy is the traitor:

I think from Dream’s perspective: Everything makes sense. I’m HIGHLY certain that Schlatt’s deal, which Dream said is “Something Wilbur and Tommy would never give him”, was that L’Manburg will either cease to exist (become part of the Dream SMP, and we know neither Wilbur not Tommy would ever do that), or that Dream would essentially become leader of it.

That’s why, in this flip situation, if he wins, he wins all of it. This also makes sense, as Dream is 100% alright with Wilbur just blowing it up, too: Because essentially he achieves the very same thing: L’Maburg/Manburg is no more.

Dream is absolutely right that he was never on their side or really on anybody’s side. Dream is his own side. It’s his server. He IS the Dream SMP, in that sense, just like Tommy is the spearhead of the rebellion right now.

I’m also fairly certain Dream will pull a lot more people than they think into this, and I think they ALSO know, in a meta-way, that they won’t be fighting only Schlatt and Dream and one traitor. He’s just letting them wallow in their security, although I have to say he LOVES dipping in his dramatic implications about what he’s doing or will do. In this case, he might’ve managed to keep quiet to let them think they’re safe.

So for Dream: Either they win, and L’Manburg is his/no more, or Wilbur sees they start losing, and L’Manburg is also no more. Honestly? He just has to make Wilbur panic hard enough to hit that button... and then he wins. It would be bad if he loses, though, so I do think he’ll pull together for this. He’s very competitive.

(Lot more juicy theory as to who the traitor is under the cut)

I predict that a good portion of BadboyHalo, Georgenotfound, Sapnap, Punz, potentially also people like Thunder or Alyssa?, are going to join Dream’s side. Sam seems close to the rebellion, but he’s also friends with George and Sapnap, but I just can’t see those two seriously fighting against Dream. If the stakes really are high, they’ll flip over to him, although I also can’t see them convincing Sam.

Most likely, George and Sapnap are just going to stay out of it entirely, and let Sam fight on the side of the rebellion. Maybe the current pet war might change that, though, say if Sapnap develops a new hatred against Tommy or even Sam? (I dont know what the pet war’s at atm but didn’t Sapnap and Sam fight over pets?), he would join in on Dream’s side. George? I have no idea. Most likely he just won’t be there. He doesn’t want to go against Sam (Who provides him with like. Everything), but he also doesn’t wanna fight Dream. IF he fights, though, I’m tempted to say he’d be on Dream’s side, but I’m honestly not up to date enough on his streams to say for certain.

As for the traitor: I actually haven’t seen Niki’s letter (to my great regret, I saw the news float around though), since I’m very focused on watching Tommy and Wilbur’s POVs. Honestly, if it’s Niki? That would be MASSIVELY surprising, and the biggest brain move I’ve ever seen. It’s possible, but I honestly don’t think it’s likely.

They’ve kept their characters fairly consistent, and while this IS kindof meta to say, I don’t think (with how things are atm), that Niki would betray L’Manburg, UNLESS she’s doing a double-agent thing and plans on tricking Dream in the end. That I could potentially see happening.

But knowing that she changed the anthem from Wilbur’s posessive “My L’Manburg” to just “L’Manburg”, that she’s been loyal even when they kinda half left her alone with Schlatt to tax her, and even during the pet wars she never strikes blood, but rather takes hostages and wants a sincere apology... I don’t see it right now. Then again, I don’t watch Niki’s streams on the SMP, so I could be wrong, as I’m not quite familiar with the intricacies of her character on the SMP besides the surface level.

On on hand... I also doubt whether there is a traitor at all, and Dream is just hoping to drive them apart and make sure they don’t get things done as efficiently as they could, because they’re busy pointing fingers at eachother, suspecting eachother, potentially even throwing somebody out once the tension between them snaps.

He needs to win this fight. If he does, he gets EVERYTHING. What they think of him after that point doesn’t matter, so the lie doesn’t matter. They can laugh at him afterwards, but he’ll still have won. I don’t know how many actually highly important details Dream would drop into conversation like that.

Consider, he does have a traitor. Why would he tell them he has one there? Why tell them that they’ll never guess? It just sows chaos in their group, and that’s what he wants. If he DID have one, he might just not say anything.

On the other hand: He might just be dramatic like that honestly. We all know they’re meta-fighting for the next spot in a sad-ist animatic, so Dream could very well be taking a more active role to insert himself into the story and cause some drama. Even if he DOES have a traitor on the inside, saying it still sows chaos. It’s a little risky, but if it really is something they won’t guess, then the chance that they’ll suspect the wrong person might be high enough, and make it worth it.

If he DOES actually have a traitor, my top sus are honestly Fundy, Tubbo, and maybe Ponk. I’m very sure it’s NOT Wilbur, Tommy, Sam, or Quackity.

Ponk doesn’t seem like the type of person to be reliable enough. He’s just kinda in it for the ride, and he’s too quiet to set a focus on. I don’t think Dream even considered him on the side of the rebellion for certain until today. It is, however, still possible. Tommy seems to trust him, and he’s not in deep enough for them to intently interrogate him on his loyalty, cause they know he’s more laid back when it comes to that. He feels only half in the rp to begin with, just wanting to fuck around with everyone. And then, BOOM, he’s actually been playing a massive role this whole time. It’s a little bit of a safe target, too, albeit a little underwhelming.

Tubbo... listen. We all love Tubbo. Tommy loves Tubbo, and we know Tubbo cares greatly for Tommy. Tubbo also seems(?) to care for L’Manburg. But I just....

It’s Tubbo, man. I have no idea. He seemed SO close to ACTUALLY flipping over to Schlatt before the festival. Everyone keeps pushing him around like this innocent tiny kid when he has the biggest third eye out of everyone and is the only one actually doing any work.

Tubbo has stated before that his official motivation is that he just wants peace for everyone. He just doesn’t want to fight and wants to do fun stuff. So of course he sounds horrified at the prospect of having to hunt down Tommy after Tommy was exiled, but happily went along with the festival. He was excited to do his speech. Schlatt actually placed responsability on them for once. He truly did seem happy about that.

It doesn’t matter as much to Tubbo who’s who. What matters is that the fighting preferrably stops, and they all just have a good time. Dream gave the line “I’m very convincing”, so I think he did actually have to convince the traitor, if there is one, to join his side. It wasn’t automatic.

Technically speaking, if L’Manburg is no more, and they’re all part of the Dream SMP again, doesn’t the fighting stop? If there’s no nation to fight over, then there’s no reason to fight. If L’Manburg is no more, then Schlatt has 0 power, and if Dream takes over, he could’ve promised to un-exile Tommy and Wilbur. And then they’re all part of the Dream SMP! No more fighting! Everyone’s on the same side!

Tubbo seems to care less for nations or sides, and much more for people, and for the people around them to be happy. His switch to enthusiasm at Schlatt’s festival came quickly, because many of the people he cared about still partook in it, and he never did hurt Tommy, because he does care about him.

But Tubbo DID say the line “may the festival begin” after his speech, and they knew what that would start. So why? In a way, I think Tubbo waged his options. Who does he care about more? Tommy, to his knowledge, is on Wilbur’s side. He might’ve decided in a moment of uncertainty that Wilbur and Tommy’s opinions of him are more important to them than the opinions of the other people there. Mostly Tommy, because we know those two would die for eachother. They chose Tommy over everyone else at that festival, potentially even over their own motivations, over their own gut.

Fundy, in fact, has MANY reasons to be the traitor, but isn’t quite obvious in that sense. They thought he was a traitor, actually, but once he showed them his diary, he essentially convinced all of them very certainly that he’s not the traitor, and they believed him. Dream joined the call later, so it’s possible he heard that part or Fundy told him about it (They’ve all been known to listen in on convos sometimes to know whats going in. They have to in order to build a good story line.)

Fundy has all the reasons. Reason number one, to me, is Fundywastaken. It’s canon in the Dream SMP lore, they just surprisingly haven’t done anything with it. During the independance war, that wasn’t a thing yet, and since they ARE a thing in canon now... they’ve never actually fought eachother. In fact, as things are now? We’re EXPECTING to see Dream fight his canon fiancé. Fundy officially joined the fight when Tommy asked him, confirming that they can count on him and that he will fight. We know for certain that Dream will fight.

If Fundy isn’t the traitor and doesn’t become one, then Dream and Fundy are inevitably meeting in battle on the 16th.

Consider his storyline: We’ve all been highly expecting Fundy to either punch Wilbur in the face or at LEAST be dissapointed in him or SOMETHING. He hasn’t, as far as I’m aware. He’s just standing there near him, very very quietly, giving a firm but quiet “yes” when Tommy asked him if they could count on him.

Fundy hasn’t expressed much to Wilbur at all, despite heving been left alone with Schlatt by him, despite how much he deserves to be angry at him for being patronized and not trusted with anything.

And, y’know... He’s officially Dream’s fiancé. The others don’t seem to know yet, and I don’t know how many people do know or not. It’s possible they just don’t know, and of course Dream wouldn’t tell them anything, not even tell anyone, this close before a fight. Dream might not even tell his close allies out of fear that the information could spread or that they could turn on him.

So honestly... Fundy seems the most likely for me to be the traitor, especially because there’s been plenty of foreshadowing for it, there’s a good setup, he has good reasons, and it wouldn’t seem like a cheap plottwist, but rather a gradual change.

Not to mention that meta-wise, Fundy has been actively involved in the rp and been dropping some pretty good lines himself. This isn’t something that Dream would have some non-rping person do.

I’m also kindof sure it’s not Technoblade, because Dream laughed it off and half-indicated that it is (Tommy: “I bet it’s Technoblade” Dream, cracking up: “I didn’t say that, you said that”), because he profits from doing so. He profits from them thinking Technoblade is the traitor. And also I really, really don’t think Techno would team up with Dream in this rp. Then again, Dream recently proclaimed to be on the side of chaos.... so who truly knows? I’ll definitly be surprised if it’s Techno, but I suppose it is a possibility. I just don’t think Techno can be convinced to much of anything, unless of course all it took was saying “Hey it’s Schlatt and Me against like 6 people so if we want an actual fight for once-” “Finally some bloodshed and war. I’m in”. I mean, I doubt it, but I’m leaving the possibility open.

TLDR: Dream wins if he wins the fight OR if Wilbur blows everything up. The traitor is likely either Fundy, Ponk or Tubbo, and I think there will be more people fighting on Dream’s side than just Schlatt and one traitor.

[insanityclause]

Cats review: a sinister, all-time disaster from which no one emerges unscathed

Tim Robey - The Telegraph

(Zero stars)

Dir: Tom Hooper. Cast: Judi Dench, James Corden, Idris Elba, Ian McKellen, Jennifer Hudson, Taylor Swift, Francesca Hayward, Jason Derulo, Rebel Wilson

Pre-judging Cats based on the widely ridiculed trailers wouldn’t be fair, especially once you realise they did it a lot of favours. They hid the big numbers. They silenced the singing. Minimised were James Corden’s wobbly pratfalls into piles of dead fish, Idris Elba’s leering expressions, and the entire role of Ian McKellen as Gus the Theatre Cat.

Once seen, the only realistic way to fix Cats would be to spay it, or simply pretend it never happened. Because it’s an all-time disaster – a rare and star-spangled calamity which will leave jaws littered across floors and agents unemployed. For the first time since the head-spinningly dire dadcom Old Dogs in 2010, I'm giving a film no stars.

At every turn, you imagine the panicked justifications. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s stage musical ran for 21 years in the West End and has grossed $3.5bn worldwide. Memory, sung by the depressed ex-glamour cat Grizabella, is a household favourite even your gran has covered. All of Tom Hooper’s last three films have won Oscars, somehow, and doesn’t the eclectic cast have something for everyone?

It becomes a scramble to get out alive. What worked in the round off Drury Lane in 1981 – a  suspension of disbelief, with the whole cast pirouetting in cat-suits – has been converted into a computer-aided hellscape so off-putting you may suspect eye failure. Hooper's Cats has an impossible job recovering from its own surreally charmless visual... I can’t say style. Choices certainly abound. Not one of them is good.

Meanwhile, the Frankensteinian marriage of live performance, “digital fur technology” and human/cat anatomical splicing – the boobs! they have boobs??!! – has such endlessly sinister impact that the film's U certificate ought to be an 18.

As it starts, a writhing pillowcase is flung into an alley off Piccadilly Circus, containing Victoria, an unwanted ingénue cat played by pretty, helpless ballerina Francesca Hayward. From all around her, a chorus of disembodied faces, atrociously wedded to the efforts of the effects team, bear down; a ghoulish synthesised arrangement of the overture gathers force; already, we know we’re in deep, deep trouble.

Jokes don’t save us, since Lee Hall’s script tries every cat idiom in the OED to find a funny one. Plot, too, can’t come to the rescue, because T.S. Eliot’s source poems didn’t provide one. As each cameo performance comes and goes, the mind boggles at which of them – according to judging matriarch Old Deuteronomy (a deeply earnest, inescapably hilarious Judi Dench) – could possibly be deemed top cat.

First contender Jennyandots is a lazy house tabby in the desperate, crotch-scratching shape of Rebel Wilson. Her big number has mice in a doll-house with human faces, and cockroaches in march formation, one of which she gobbles down in mad close-up. With its nightmare production design and nauseating lurches in scale and perspective, it might be the ugliest big-screen musical sequence ever mounted.

But let’s not count our chickens quite yet. In come Jason Derulo as a sleazy playa called Rum Tum Tugger, and Corden’s greedy-guts Bustopher Jones, neither carrying a tune to speak of, and both made to strip off outerwear and get furrily naked, sans genitals. McKellen, meanwhile, is caught lapping backstage from a dish, tongue loose. It’s one of a thousand giffable moments an audience won’t be able to delete.

Grizabella (Jennifer Hudson) traipses about in shadow, shawled in what look like the remains of four other dead cats’ pelts. Hooper gets her to do Memory at the base of a lamp-post, essentially duplicating his one-shot I Dreamed a Dream for Anne Hathaway in Les Misérables. No Oscars here: when J.Hud hobbles amateurishly into the ball for a double-the-pathos reprise, my adjacent colleague was reduced to a senseless, cackling wreck for a full minute.

An hour and a quarter in, I wondered if Taylor Swift, who’s nowhere to be seen, had forced her management at knife-point to yank her out of the edit. But no. She drops by on a suspended moon and is gone in the space of a song – Macavity – which comes closer than anything before it to genuinely working.

Swift is catlike and can sing, which – guess what? – turn out to be attributes helpful in a Cats musical. If we pretended this bit was just her weirdest ever pop video, and ignored Elba’s Macavity – sashaying in with shiny chocolate fur for the worst shots of his life – we might just about live with it. Finding any high point in Cats, though, takes some serious scratching.

[tlbodine]

1970s: Supernatural Young Folk

Since we did murderous infants last week, I thought that would segue nicely into the next two films on my 1970s horror list: The Omen and Carrie. 

Directed by Richard Donner, The Omen (1976) is the first of a film franchise concerning a family who unknowingly adopts the Antichrist. After his newborn dies shortly after birth, an American ambassador of great wealth and ambitions to the White House is convinced to take another baby, whose mother died giving birth. He agrees to the swap, raising the child as his own and not telling his wife about it. But young Damien is an odd, quiet child, and misfortune follows him. As shadowy figures step into the family’s life, and people around them begin to die in odd circumstances, the father’s suspicions are raised...but not in time to save the family from disaster. 

The Omen is an interesting case. It certainly cashes in on the religious-horror themes that had previously been popularized in earlier films like Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist. There are a number of Omen novels as well, which were in fact written as novelizations and tie-ins for the original screenplay, not the other way around! 

The film unspools at a slow pace and gives essentially no lines to young Damien, who is not so much an agent of evil in his own right as a figure who inspires evil deeds and misfortune. It’s not even entirely clear how much awareness or agency he has in regards to his demonic powers -- although the iconic final scene, where he looks back at the camera during his father’s funeral and smiles, sure hints to a sinister undercurrent. It’s a genuinely chilling visual. Another memorable and chilling scene involves uncovering the graves of Damien’s birth mother (who is inhuman) and the baby (who was clearly murdered after birth). The score is quite effective, too, if a bit overwrought. 

I will say that, in the context of the films we’ve watched so far, the leading couple have probably the healthiest marriage...but it’s a low bar to clear. The husband of course keeps a major secret from his wife re: the identity of their child, and at one point he refuses to allow her to abort their second child because he wants to....prove a prophecy wrong. Neat. What’s striking about The Omen is how, just like in It’s Alive!, a story that should ostensibly be centered on a mother’s struggles and trauma is instead focused on just how hard/inconvenient fatherhood is. 

The hardest thing about watching The Omen in 2020 is that, at this point, it has been copied and satirized so many times that it can’t help but feel hopelessly derivative. It is extremely hard to watch the film without thinking of Good Omens or even the recent horror-comedy Little Evil, which directly satirize the film. The concept is interesting -- what if shadowy forces conspired to place an evil devilspawn in the hands of wealth and power -- but at this point perhaps audiences are too cynical. We expect the devil’s spawn to come from wealth and power, tortured priests notwithstanding. 

* If I were to retell this story, and I might one day, it would be from the perspective of a parent who is convinced of his child’s evilness and uses it to justify his cruelty. The question of “What awful power could cruel belief inspire in someone” is one that I find infinitely more interesting than religious horrors but, well, that shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. 

** I really do actually recommend Little Evil, which is very funny and also an oddly wholesome take on the premise. 

Carrie, made in 1976 by director Brian DePalma (yes, the guy who made Scarface and The Untouchables) came out two years after Stephen King’s debut novel and played a big role in rocketing King’s career. It stars Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie and a young John Travolta before he became a punchline. 

I remember watching Carrie for the first time as a young teen -- maybe 14 -- at a sleepover, and it resonated with me then and continues to resonate with me now in a way that is probably all-too-common for young girls. If you have ever been bullied or outcast, this movie is likely to hit close to home. 

The story centers on shy, socially awkward young Carrie, a teen who lives alone with her religious fanatic mother whose idea of parenting involves reading Bible verses, smacking her child with a Bible, and locking her up in a closet. Thanks to her sheltered upbringing, she has a hard time relating to the rest of the world, and her classmates spring on her for it with the cruelty of wild dogs. But what they don’t know is that Carrie has powers of telekinesis...and when she’s pushed too far, the whole town suffers her wrath. 

Carrie is a great, primal story of pain and revenge, and although it’s been remade several times, the remakes feel utterly unnecessary. You get everything you need to out of the original, thanks in part to the authenticity and vulnerability that Spacek brings to the role. 

Something I really appreciate about Carrie is that it has a reasonably light touch. Compared to other types of misery-porn (cough, Joker, cough), Carrie doesn’t present a world where everyone is maliciously cruel. Sure, many of the people in her life are awful, but there are plenty of others -- like her well-meaning but ultimately misguided phys ed teacher -- who try to help but go about it the wrong way, or just don’t know what they’re really getting into, or whose gestures go awry. And that seems more authentic to me. Carrie’s world is painful not because everyone in it tries to cause her pain, but because no one she encounters is able to do anything to solve her existing pain -- and that feels very true-to-life.

Anyway, by this point in history you surely don’t need me to tell you what happens in the story: She’s invited to prom, voted prom queen as a joke, and then “pranked” by having a bucket of pig’s blood dropped on her, humiliating her in front of the school and triggering her murderous telekinesis before going home and dispatching of her mother. The thing is that even though the revenge does not end well -- she literally brings the house down upon herself -- it is incredibly satisfying to watch. In real life, hurting the people who tormented you probably doesn’t help, but boy is it cathartic to watch on the screen. 

Bonus: Try the Carrie drinking game where you take a shot every time someone in the movie gets slapped. You’ll be properly fucked up by the end of the film. 

Double Bonus: After Psycho, I think Carrie has more screeching violins than I’ve ever heard in a film. It works, though, as a nice auditory signal of her power. 

[dyinglightroleplay]

𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐈𝐂𝐒.

NAME : Arabella Petra Figg RELATIONSHIP TO THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX : Member ( active - duty ), On-call Non - Magical Physician AGE / BIRTHDATE : 37 Years Old / born 16 July 1942 at 10:02pm EST ZODIAC SIGN : Cancer ( sun ), Virgo ( moon ), Aquarius ( rising ) EDUCATION : Université de Paris / Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie ( MD ) BLOOD STATUS : Pureblood Squib

𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐍𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒.

✧     Benjy Fenwick ( platonic ) ✧     Peter Pettigrew ( antagonistic ) ✧     Gabriel McKinnon ( player’s choice )

𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐄𝐍.

Directing the makeshift infirmary created at Order Headquarters following the Battle of Hogwarts.  She’s yet to hear a full report of the battle’s events.

𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐒 : 𝐓𝐀𝐊𝐄𝐍.

PLAYER : Mod Rivka FACECLAIM : Rachelle Lefevre URL : @aerabella

𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍.

TRIGGER WARNINGS: BLOOD SUPREMACY, GASLIGHTING, ALLUSIONS TO THE SHOAH, WAR

ZERO / RISING. * How is your character perceived by others?  What mask do they wear, and is there more than one?

The biggest current conflict in Arabella's life is, frankly, that she's essentially leading two of them --- --- she's spending her days ( and three nights a week on call ) at Charing Cross Hospital, working as a general surgeon, and her nights ( and nearly every waking hour she isn't working ) making herself available for Order business.  These two worlds hardly dovetail in any convenient, meaningful way, and often, Arabella feels more like she's being slowly - pulled apart between them than she is bridging any sort of gap.  And, as the War progresses this feeling only intensifies for her, bringing a new companion in doubt.  Albus' move to the Ministry saw one of her major remaining ties to the Magical world frayed, and she can't help but feel lost ; the disintegration of her relationship with Alastor, no matter how necessary or mutual, hasn't helped that.  Arabella has always relied on her uncanny ability to seek strongholds in people, rather than places, in friends rather than family, to keep herself tethered to the life she's chosen.  But even that is called into question as the Order steadily begins to turn inward, as bonds strain, as the stakes raise in ways she's not even certain herself she can withstand.  

Something I'd really like to investigate with Arabella is how much of her literal existence is affected by continual, subtle gaslighting --- --- even unconsciously, bias lives so intertwined with Magical politics that not a single day goes by where she doesn't question her place in this world, or her ability to participate in it.  Losing Albus’ influence only fuels this, leaves her unsteady enough to begin to doubt her own competence, her own power ; while she may not have Magic, she's never felt its lack as keenly as she has in the days since the news of the Battle of Hogwarts broke.  And of course, she's grown used to fighting this, she's grown used to proving herself time and again at tests that never would have been presented to her if she could wield a wand.  But the weight of displacement wears, a quiet wound she doesn't dare mention for fear of seeming too needy, too weak, too much.  Arabella has spent her life taught, continually, that who she is, who she was born to be, is something of an accident, a problem, a tragedy, something to be hidden or forgotten, something to be ashamed of.  And the fear in that self - fulfilling prophecy --- that by asking for help, that by speaking about her insecurity or her fear, that by appearing anything but self - possessed and certain she's somehow proving them right --- keeps her from growing past it.Additionally, I'd really like to explore the shape Arabella's role in the Order takes, as a non-magical person.  We know that she spends her life as this 'double agent', continuing undercover and keeping an eye on Harry as he grows up on Privet Drive --- --- how does she get to that point?  What about her training, her personality drew Dumbledore to that conclusion, fostered that trust?  And what is she doing now, in his absence?  She's a woman with military training, an accomplished physician, but these are not valuable skills to Magical eyes ; how does Arabella translate her accomplishments for Magical colleagues in order to establish her competence and earn their regard?  And what does she do with it, once she's finally managed to earn it?  What inspires her to carry on even after the fall of You Know Who, even after Lily and James' deaths?  Why does she continue to devote her life to a world that has, from the moment she was born, tried so hard to forget her ?

And perhaps it's the nature of a woman brought up across two worlds, but Arabella is a woman of contradictions.  She is brutally soft, she is tender in equal measure as she is tough.  From a very young age, she understood that she, and she alone, was responsible for her happiness, for her safety, for her security, for her love.  Coming of age the non-magical child of pureblood parents taught her early that no one would make space for her, if she did not demand it.  And does that necessarily always make her the easiest to get along with?  Of course not.  But has it made her singleminded, driven, powerful in ways that she would not have been otherwise ?  Absolutely.  She exists in a space entirely of her own making, and taking that space is a purposeful, continual choice.  Arabella is, above all, protective of this, and careful to only allow people into that space who will respect it, or help her maintain it.

Ruled by her emotions ( a true water sign ! ), Arabella thinks with her heart, with her gut.  She's intelligent, well - spoken and well - educated, but pragmatism doesn't serve her ; she's action - oriented, stubborn, and proactive.  Still, she is steady - handed, and is less about the rush of acting before thinking and more about the dominant emotion of the action --- --- while she allows her emotions to dictate her choices, time has given her the benefit of perception and self - awareness.  She learnt empathy long before she decided to pursue medicine, and discovered the joy in using her perceptiveness to bring others peace early in life.  Guided, always, by her heart, Arabella presents a calming, opening presence, but it is not one that she abides being used or taken for granted.  And again, this is where her fundamental duality comes into play ; she can be generous, kind, and affectionate with those she trusts with those energies, but she can be equally cold, distant, or aggressive with people who've proven themselves unworthy of that emotional labor.  Protecting herself --- because, truthfully, she doesn't trust others to do it --- takes precedence here.

A classic introvert, Arabella can come across as quiet or aloof, but her rich inner life --- and vibrant energy, shown to those who know her well --- fills her time and keeps her from retreating inward or closing herself off fully.  However, she has a distinct confrontational side, and one that is not always to her advantage ; Arabella wears her anger, just like her heart, on her sleeve.  Despite this, she is not a good arguer, preferring instead to sort through her own feelings first to address her needs, if possible.  Sensitivity and intuition rule here, as well, and while Arabella is at her most obvious when angry or frustrated, she is very particular about whether or not 'fighting it out' will serve her, or simply take away her peace.  This combination is interesting, especially for a woman who prioritizes herself, especially for a woman stretched between two worlds as she is --- --- Arabella is, truly, the sort of unbothered who can decide if a confrontation will not be worth it long before it comes to a head.  In this way, her anger is valuable to her --- --- not as a weapon, but as a means to separate out what is and is not worth her investment. 

ONE / THE SUN. * Choose one to explore : what about their personality, general preferences, sense of self / ego, or fundamental traits attracted you to them?

I have .... so quickly fallen in love with Arabella, in the same way I fell in love with Davey, as an opportunity to really dig deep and explore intersections in this universe that don't usually get much attention.  With Arabella, there's a chance to delve into how Squibs interact with the magical world in a time where their very existence is questioned even more than it usually is --- --- where do Squibs fall in the hierarchy desired by blood purists ?  What part of their identity is more valuable, is more important, is more easily leveraged, politically and interpersonally ?  And what does it feel like to be part of a sub - group so small that you might very well be the only you you know ?  But even beyond that, Arabella presents the opportunity to look into the worth of a woman's work, and how its gauged in a society that fundamentally considers her to be 'broken'.  Children raised in magical homes who end up without magic don't have that Hogwarts Moment that Muggleborn children do ; at eleven years old, at ten, maybe even earlier, Arabella's entire world got infinitely smaller, rather than broader.  She was raised in one culture and fundamentally turned out of it, how does she cope with the intersection ?  What life does she chose ?  How does a Witch who can't perform magic parse her own identity and how does she go about making space for herself to just exist ?  And all of this, of course, viewed with the Dark Lord's war as the backdrop .... I can't wait to tell the rest of her story.  I can't wait to hear it.

The Order is not Arabella's first time amongst soldiers, but it is undoubtedly her first time fearing for them.  Albus was never a man of great explication, preferring to work as close to omnisciently as possible in what was, at least she'd believed, an attempt to protect anyone else from the pain and loss of the great labor of war.  But as the recruits skewed younger, as the faces seated 'round the meeting's table grew rounder, softer, before they became fewer altogether, Arabella caught herself thinking less and less like an Officer.  And the newest ones, the youngest ones, they are fierce and indomitable in ways the Order undoubtedly needs to re - invigorate their efforts, but is that worth this ?  Is that worth losing them ?  It seems absurd that a world of magic, armed with the fantastic and limited only imagination, could fall so easily into a pattern repeated in the wake of the waste laid to the Muggle world mere decades before.  She wants to be hopeful, she wants to see that ferocity and conviction and let it reassure her, let it comfort her, let it reignite her own fire.  But Wizards are so ineffably human, in this way --- --- as prone to mistakes as they are to a fervent refusal to acknowledge them.  So she worries, instead.

TWO / THE MOON. * Which color would you associate most strongly with them and the emotions that dominate them?  Describe however you’d like.

MUTED TONES.  Lavender, clary sage, rose quartz --- --- soft but lingering, perfumed, precious, protective.  Spring rain on windowpanes making watercolor, worn - in knits, velvet or silk, the thatch of an aging floral sofa run - through with unmistakable cat scratches yet beloved all the same, comfortable all the same.  Multi - colored capsules and oils, blood seeping pink through the white threads of sterile gauze, the faint - orange stains of iodine left behind and the quiet yellow of sterile soap caught under cut - short fingernails.  The blue - lipped hush of the operating theatre, and the lavender tinge of dawn that greets her as she leaves ; sunset - colors of desert and death, white enveloping as some believe it will always do, when life leaves this world.  The sweet melt of candlelight across a familiar face, the pale gold pinch of a well - baked challah, burnished gold and the cream droplets of dried wax. 

THREE / MERCURY. * What is this character’s area of expertise? Where do they excel?

Several years of Medical study and residency later, Arabella is currently practicing as a hospital - based general surgeon.  She spent two tours of French Army duty as a field medic, first at eighteen ( and simply an assistant ) and again at 35 and running her own team.  She's also an active participant in Médecins Sans Frontières, helping to train younger physicians in field strategies they might use abroad, and while she hasn't yet had the pleasure of taking a humanitarian trip herself --- blame this war, of course --- she very, very much wants to.

Despite being unable to accomplish any Magic on her own, Arabella takes careful consideration and great pride in finding and placing protective objects and plants in her personal spaces.  Growing up so entrenched in Magical culture meant she sees the efficacy --- and the appeal --- of utilizing crystals, candles, oils or scents, and herbs for their healing, safeguarding, and enriching properties.  She's also a rather adept Tarot reader --- --- the grey area between everyday magic and Magic is expansive.  

[thevividgreenmoss]

A good or great writer may refuse to accept any responsibility or morality that society wishes to impose on her. Yet the best and greatest of them know that if they abuse this hard-won freedom, it can only lead to bad art. There is an intricate web of morality, rigor, and responsibility that art, that writing itself, imposes on a writer. It’s singular, it’s individual, but nevertheless it’s there. At its best, it’s an exquisite bond between the artist and the medium. At its acceptable end, it’s a sort of sensible cooperation. At its worst, it’s a relationship of disrespect and exploitation.

The absence of external rules complicates things. There’s a very thin line that separates the strong, true, bright bird of the imagination from the synthetic, noisy bauble. Where is that line? How do you recognize it? How do you know you’ve crossed it? At the risk of sounding esoteric and arcane, I’m tempted to say that you just know. The fact is that nobody—no reader, no reviewer, agent, publisher, colleague, friend, or enemy—can tell for sure. A writer just has to ask herself that question and answer it as honestly as possible. The thing about this “line” is that once you learn to recognize it, once you see it, it’s impossible to ignore. You have no choice but to live with it, to follow it through. You have to bear with all its complexities, contradictions, and demands. And that’s not always easy. It doesn’t always lead to compliments and standing ovations. It can lead you to the strangest, wildest places. In the midst of a bloody military coup, for instance, you could find yourself fascinated by the mating rituals of a purple sunbird, or the secret life of captive goldfish, or an old aunt’s descent into madness. And nobody can say that there isn’t truth and art and beauty in that. Or, on the contrary, in the midst of putative peace, you could, like me, be unfortunate enough to stumble on a silent war. The trouble is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There’s no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.

Today, perhaps more so than in any other era in history, the writer’s right to free speech is guarded and defended by the civil societies and state establishments of the most powerful countries in the world. Any overt attempt to silence or muffle a voice is met with furious opposition. The writer is embraced and protected. This is a wonderful thing. The writer, the actor, the musician, the filmmaker—they have become radiant jewels in the crown of modern civilization. The artist, I imagine, is finally as free as he or she will ever be. Never before have so many writers had their books published. (And now, of course, we have the Internet.) Never before have we been more commercially viable. We live and prosper in the heart of the marketplace. True, for every so-called success there are hundreds who “fail.” True, there are myriad art forms, both folk and classical, myriad languages, myriad cultural and artistic traditions that are being crushed and cast aside in the stampede to the big bumper sale in Wonderland. Still, there have never been more writers, singers, actors, or painters who have become influential, wealthy superstars. And they, the successful ones, spawn a million imitators, they become the torchbearers, their work becomes the benchmark for what art is, or ought to be.

Nowadays in India the scene is almost farcical. Following the recent commercial success of some Indian authors, Western publishers are desperately prospecting for the next big Indo-Anglian work of fiction. They’re doing everything short of interviewing English-speaking Indians for the post of “writer.” Ambitious middle-class parents who, a few years ago, would only settle for a future in Engineering, Medicine, or Management for their children, now hopefully send them to creative writing schools. People like myself are constantly petitioned by computer companies, watch manufacturers, even media magnates to endorse their products. A boutique owner in Bombay once asked me if he could “display” my book The God of Small Things (as if it were an accessory, a bracelet or a pair of earrings) while he filmed me shopping for clothes! Jhumpa Lahiri, the American writer of Indian origin who won the Pulitzer Prize, came to India recently to have a traditional Bengali wedding. The wedding was reported on the front page of national newspapers.

Now where does all this lead us? Is it just harmless nonsense that’s best ignored? How does all this ardent wooing affect our art? What kind of lenses does it put in our spectacles? How far does it remove us from the world around us?

There is very real danger that this neoteric seduction can shut us up far more effectively than violence and repression ever could. We have free speech. Maybe. But do we have Really Free Speech? If what we have to say doesn’t “sell,” will we still say it? Can we? Or is everybody looking for Things That Sell to say? Could writers end up playing the role of palace entertainers? Or the subtle twenty-first-century version of court eunuchs attending to the pleasures of our incumbent CEOs? You know—naughty, but nice. Risqué perhaps, but not risky. It has been nearly four years now since my first, and so far only, novel, The God of Small Things, was published. In the early days, I used to be described—introduced—as the author of an almost freakishly “successful” (if I may use so vulgar a term) first book. Nowadays I’m introduced as something of a freak myself. I am, apparently, what is known in twenty-first-century vernacular as a “writer-activist.” (Like a sofa-bed.)

Why am I called a “writer-activist” and why—even when it’s used approvingly, admiringly—does that term make me flinch? I’m called a writer-activist because after writing The God of Small Things I wrote three political essays: “The End of Imagination,” about India’s nuclear tests, “The Greater Common Good,” about Big Dams and the “development” debate, and “Power Politics: The Reincarnation of Rumpelstiltskin,” about the privatization and corporatization of essential infrastructure like water and electricity. Apart from the building of the temple in Ayodhya, these currently also happen to be the top priorities of the Indian government.4

Now, I’ve been wondering why it should be that the person who wrote The God of Small Things is called a writer, and the person who wrote the political essays is called an activist. True, The God of Small Things is a work of fiction, but it’s no less political than any of my essays. True, the essays are works of nonfiction, but since when did writers forgo the right to write nonfiction?

My thesis—my humble theory, as we say in India—is that I’ve been saddled with this double-barreled appellation, this awful professional label, not because my work is political but because in my essays, which are about very contentious issues, I take sides. I take a position. I have a point of view. What’s worse, I make it clear that I think it’s right and moral to take that position, and what’s even worse, I use everything in my power to flagrantly solicit support for that position. Now, for a writer of the twenty-first century, that’s considered a pretty uncool, unsophisticated thing to do. It skates uncomfortably close to the territory occupied by political party ideologues—a breed of people that the world has learned (quite rightly) to mistrust. I’m aware of this. I’m all for being circumspect. I’m all for discretion, prudence, tentativeness, subtlety, ambiguity, complexity. I love the unanswered question, the unresolved story, the unclimbed mountain, the tender shard of an incomplete dream. Most of the time.

But is it mandatory for a writer to be ambiguous about everything? Isn’t it true that there have been fearful episodes in human history when prudence and discretion would have just been euphemisms for pusillanimity? When caution was actually cowardice? When sophistication was disguised decadence? When circumspection was really a kind of espousal?

Isn’t it true, or at least theoretically possible, that there are times in the life of a people or a nation when the political climate demands that we—even the most sophisticated of us—overtly take sides? I believe that such times are upon us. And I believe that in the coming years intellectuals and artists in India will be called upon to take sides.

Arundhati Roy, The Ladies Have Feelings, So . . . Shall We Leave It to the Experts? (Based on a talk given at the Third Annual Eqbal Ahmad Lecture, Amherst, Massachusetts, February 15, 2001; compiled in The End of Imagination)

[bountyofbeads]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-investigator-calls-for-probing-saudi-officials-in-khashoggi-killing/2019/06/19/cf5ee594-91f3-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html?utm_term=.49cf53cef527#click=https://t.co/Bt6fPPbor1

“Evidence points to the 15-person mission to execute Mr. Khashoggi requiring significant government coordination, resources and finances,” says @AgnesCallamard urging close look at role and culpability of #MBS and other high level Saudi officials

#JustForJamal

U.N. investigator calls for probing Saudi officials in Khashoggi killing

By Carol Morello and Kareem Fahim | Published June 19 at 7:42 AM | Washington Post | Posted June 19, 2019

A special U.N. investigator on Wednesday called for further investigation of high-level Saudi officials, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Agnes Callamard, a human rights expert who is a special rapporteur for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, released a 101-page report on her months-long inquiry into Khashoggi’s death at the Saudi  Consulate in Istanbul.

The report provided new, grisly details of Khashoggi’s death that Callamard gleaned from listening to audio provided by Turkish authorities. The audio captured Saudi agents discussing the dismemberment of Khashoggi’s body before he arrived at the consulate, as well as his killing, the report said.  

Callamard said the culpability for Khashoggi’s killing extends beyond the 11 Saudis who are on trial in a closed-door judicial proceeding in Saudi Arabia. She called it an extrajudicial killing, possibly involving torture, for which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible, and she said Saudi authorities had participated in the destruction of evidence.

Although Callamard said she found no “smoking gun” incriminating the crown prince himself, she said he had played an essential role in a campaign of repressing dissidents and almost certainly knew that a criminal mission targeting Khashoggi was being planned.

“Evidence points to the 15-person mission to execute Mr. Khashoggi requiring significant government coordination, resources and finances,” she wrote. “While the Saudi government claims that these resources were put in place by Ahmed Asiri, every expert consulted finds it inconceivable that an operation of this scale could be implemented without the Crown Prince being aware, at a minimum, that some sort of mission of a criminal nature, directed at Mr. Khashoggi, was being launched.”

Asiri, Saudi Arabia's former deputy head of intelligence, is one of two senior Saudi officials implicated by the kingdom’s prosecutors in the killing, and the only senior official on trial.

[The assassination of Jamal Khashoggi]

Callamard’s account of Khashoggi’s death is the most definitive to date, even though her inquiry was hampered by Saudi Arabia’s refusal to allow her to visit the kingdom to conduct interviews. The United States has so far avoided apportioning blame, saying it is still learning details.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Trump have deplored the killing of Khashoggi, who was a contributing columnist for The Washington Post in the year before his death. But they have said the relationship with Saudi Arabia, a key ally in the administration’s campaign against Iran, is too important to be sidetracked by a single incident.

Pompeo recently said the United States, invoking emergency powers due to the rising tensions with Iran, will sell weapons worth $8 billion to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Callamard said she found insufficient evidence to conclude that either Turkey or the United States knew or should have known and warned Khashoggi of a threat to his life. Nor did she find evidence that U.S. intelligence had intercepted the crown prince’s communications suggesting he wanted Khashoggi dead.

Callamard was harsh in her assessment of Saudi Arabia and its response to Khashoggi’s death. She said the kingdom has taken only “timid steps” to prosecute 11 suspects. She noted that the trial is closed and that not even the names of the accused have been publicly released. Saying she was concerned about a miscarriage of justice, she called for the trial to be suspended.

Callamard said she was permitted to listen to audio recordings that captured events inside the consulate in the days before Khashoggi visited and on the day of his killing. They amounted to 45 minutes of conversation — a fraction of the seven hours of audio captured by Turkish intelligence.

Some of the audio was hard to make out. “For instance, on the basis of recordings, the Special Rapporteur could not reach firm conclusions about what [she and her investigators] were told was the sound of a ‘saw’ in operation. The Turkish authorities undoubtedly have more information and intelligence about events in the Saudi Consulate than they were willing or able to share with the inquiry,” the report said.

According to the report, 13 minutes before Khashoggi entered the consulate on Oct. 2, two of the Saudi agents, Maher Mutreb and Salah Tubaigy, a forensic expert, discussed dismembering the body.

“Joints will be separated,” Tubaigy told Mutreb. “First time I cut on the ground. If we take plastic bags and cut it into pieces, it will be finished.” Khashoggi’s name was not mentioned, but rather he was referred to as the “sacrificial animal” by Mutreb.

The report also said that Tubaigy “expressed concerns” about what was about to transpire, telling Mutreb: “My direct manager is not aware of what I am doing. There is no one to protect me.”

The audio tape suggests they attempted to make Khashoggi believe he would be kidnapped, not killed, and repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

After Khashoggi arrived at the Saudi Consulate, he was invited to the consul general’s office and asked whether he would return to Saudi Arabia.

“He responded that he wanted to return in the future,” the report states.

But the Saudi agents, using the pretext of an Interpol warrant, said they were there to bring him back to the kingdom.

[Read Jamal Khashoggi’s columns for The Washington Post]

More conversation followed, the report said. Khashoggi insisted that people were waiting for him outside, as one of the agents tried to persuade him to send a message to his son. “What should I say?” Khashoggi asked. “See you soon? I can’t say kidnapping.”

“Type it Mr. Jamal,” one of the agents replied. “Hurry up. Help us so that we can help you because at the end we will take you back to Saudi Arabia and if you don’t help us you know what will happen at the end.”

Then, in the recordings, “sounds of a struggle can be heard,” the report said.

In her report, Callamard painted a poignant picture of Khashoggi, as if trying to bring him alive through his struggles and successes.

An important but traditionalist journalist in Saudi Arabia, Khashoggi changed his opinions as a consequence of the Arab Spring. Increasingly isolated by his views, he went into self-exile but had to leave his wife behind. Living in the Washington area, he had little income, little security and little status, making him lonely and unhappy, Callamard wrote. His decision to remarry suggested he was preparing to live a fuller, more settled life, she said.

Callamard’s long-awaited report significantly amplifies her preliminary findings released in February. She said then that Khashoggi was “the victim of a brutal and premeditated killing, planned and perpetrated by officials of the State of Saudi Arabia.” She said Saudi Arabia had “seriously curtailed and undermined” Turkey’s attempts to investigate.

Khashoggi was killed Oct. 2 by a team of Saudi agents who were awaiting him at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul when he went in to get some documents for his impending remarriage.

The Saudis initially insisted he had left the building, but it was later revealed that a body double had been sent out the back door while his fiancee waited outside near the front door. That was among the several turns in Saudi Arabia’s story, including a claim that he died in a fistfight. But evidence emerged showing that he was killed inside the building, dismembered and his remains removed to an unknown location.

The CIA has determined it is likely that Khashoggi was ordered killed by the crown prince, the day-to-day ruler whom Khashoggi had sometimes criticized in his columns in The Washington Post.

The head of Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Commission, Bandar bin Mohammed al-Aiban, has called the reporter’s death an “unfortunate accident.” He said the kingdom will not agree to an independent, international investigation, because that would suggest doubt about “the integrity of our judicial apparatus.”

Khashoggi’s death has spurred international outrage and trained attention on the crown prince, tarnishing his reputation as a reformer. In March, 36 nations publicly censured Saudi Arabia and demanded an impartial and transparent investigation into Khashoggi’s death.

So far, the United States has not joined the criticism. Pompeo said the administration is still working to identify the responsible parties, and he offered assurances that the United States will hold all accountable.

Fahim reported from Istanbul.

[occidentaltourist]

i liked the premiere a lot & most of the stories theyre setting up look really good. im a bit frustrated though that it seems lena's story was all about james? and reducing her to just his girlfriend

Hi there. I’ve seen this reaction floating around, and while I understand that’s probably how it seems at first glance, my view is the story itself - at least in this episode - is actually the exact opposite. 

If the story were truly centered on James, IMO the focus would have been on his legal struggle, and having substantial scenes related to the fallout for him - personally and professionally. What we got instead was:

Scenes focused on LENA, and Lena’s emotional and tactical reactions to his situation. James’s scenes in this episode served only to further Lena’s and Kara’s storylines.

A variation of what we saw in S3, with Lena and Sam: the lengths to which Lena will go in order to help someone she loves. In this case, she essentially double-crossed her mother to get valuable intel she could use to trade with the DA for James’s freedom.

Is it going to come back to bite her? Of course it will. It always does. It’s also probably a parallel, in some critical ways, to Kara herself (and the looming Russian Kara story). Unintended consequences of actions taken with the best of intentions. 

Two lengthy sequences between Lena and Lilian, shedding light on and setting up numerous things: the ongoing tension between Lena and Supergirl, questions about what role Lilian will play going forward (I mean, do we really believe she’s turned over a new leaf and that’s all there is to it?), Lena’s “business decision” about selling the Image Inducer which somehow - coincidentally - is also serving a positive public and civic purpose. The link with the Graves and by extension, Agent Liberty, more Luthor backstory … the list goes on and on. 

IMO Lilian/Lena in this episode were actually more satisfying than pretty much the entirety of Kara and Alura in S3b! That’s how many layers and questions they packed into those scenes. 

Where I think the James and Lena storyline will ‘even out’ in a way, is if and when James decides he’s not content to give up being Guardian. Thus imperiling not just the deal Lena made to secure his freedom - but her business interests too. 

I’m honestly disappointed that they wrapped up the legal trouble part so quickly, because there was a lot of potential there, to develop James and also the James/Lena relationship more. But I do think there’s still potential in the storyline they seem to have chosen instead - and at least from the premiere, it seems they’ve already done a better job of having most of the main characters tied into the Big Season Long Plot. Which is a plus. :)

TL;DR Is Lena in a relationship? Yes. Is that even remotely close to being the defining aspect of her storyline this year? Maybe I’m wrong, but at least to me - the answer seems to be an unequivocal NO. :) 

[wowerehouse]

[rubs temples] because god FORBID we ever be able to play a damn thing in chronological order amirite

I had JUST BARELY like, made peace with Ihz’s timeline. Just barely. It’s fucked up and annoying but I could ALMOST construct it into something vaguely sensible. And then you’re given a quest hook IN THE VALE OF ETERNAL BLOSSOMS, meaning you HAVE to have gone through the post-Garrosh vale in order to get there, and then fucking. Vol’jin shows up, after Garrosh arrives on Pandaria.

So I have two options. 

Option 1: Retcon the appearance of the Vale and the source of tension behind letting people in. It’s standard (and ultimately well-founded) paranoia about letting people who keep releasing the Sha into the most sacred and delicate part of Pandaria, they do it, and then later on Garrosh shows up and fucks everything. This is possible because Ihz has been at least a month and possibly closer to two ahead of the Alliance girls this whole time, so there’s time.

1.5 is that Ihz has just straight up never been to the Vale in canon, and I’m leaning that way. Since Talet is far behind, the girls would actually see the Vale, and it might well be post-Garrosh by that point.

Option 2: Attempt to actually construct a coherent timeline out of this absolute bullshit nonsense. Obviously Vol’jin showing up at Domination Point would have to be...essentially a flashback, Ihz quietly desperately wishing she had a protector here. 

Because Ihz....I always planned for Ihz to be as close to a double agent during the actual rebellion as possible. Her apolitical history, the tabard she wears, and the extremely jingoistic commanders she’s managed to please in the past despite her general personality, could offer her a bit of protection. Possibly, just barely, enough to let her slip beneath the radar for just a few weeks longer.

Armies march on their stomachs. And a rebellion, very much unlike Garrosh Hellscream, will understand the necessity of a supply chain. It’s dangerous for her, though, they’d suspect her implicitly. The role of double agent informant is likely better played by Unnamed Orc Warrior Therapist. I just know Ihz plays some kind of quiet role in Vol’jin’s revolution and it is deeply annoying that I’m not actually able to work out what it is yet.

Anyway part of me would hate to give up the chance to actually play Ihz being offsides and quietly funneling shipments to the rebellion, getting away with it mostly because Garrosh can’t be bothered to do fucking math. But it is probably a better idea to go with option 1.

[harperxainsworth-blog]

CHARACTER RELATIONSHIPS TASK : 001

The Informant : Hyunjin

Harper has yet to work closely with Hyunjin but that hasn’t stopped him from learning about the kind of person and agent they seem to be. He’s started piecing together what he knows about the informant and what he’s seen firsthand and feels a surprising kind of admiration towards them. Perhaps it’s because he can sense they have similar skills but Hyunjin is able to play the part way different than Harper has to.

The Driver : Nila

Harper loves to play games and Nila has been on the same page with him since day one. They work well together and he’s reminded of why he first joined when he’s with them. One second it’s harmless fun and the next it’s very real danger but they both love the adrenaline all the same. He hasn’t been very mindful of the rules when he’s with them and he knows that may get him in trouble but he really cant help it when they get along so well. If he had to rely on someone in a tough situation, it would be Nila.

The Combatant : Levi

Before CODA, Harper couldn’t imagine getting along with his boss or anyone higher in rank. He doesn’t like feeling controlled or having to put up with strict rules—he never had practice when he basically raised himself. It wouldn’t work if Levi wasn’t so easy to like. He carries himself confidently without being obnoxious about it. Harper hopes to learn more about the combatant.

The Hacker : Mortimer

Harper feels like he’s working double-time when he’s around Mortimer but in a good way (he likes trying to figure people out). There’s just a lot going on with him. He thinks Mortimer is essential to their team but finds it hard to label him. With some more time he’s sure he could figure out everything that goes on in Mortimer’s head, if only they worked together long enough.

The Historian : Vald

Harper has had the pleasure of teaming up with Vald already and finds the man extremely interesting. He enjoys hearing what the other has to say. For Harper, it’s easy to get along with the other thrill-seeking spies, but he’s most interested in gathering knowledge on topics he’s never had access to before. Vald fits right in and has held his own so far. Harper appreciates that.

The Thief : Bobby

Bobby’s particular skills are right up Harper’s alley. The stealth and trickery it takes to accomplish what the thief has so far is impressive to him. Harper hasn’t had an opportunity to learn much more about the agent but he knows to keep an eye out for him and hopes to get a chance to pick his brain some more.

The Weapons Expert : Eden

Harper rarely finds himself waiting for someone else’s next move with anticipation, so the weapons expert has been a breath of fresh air. Impulsive and daring—he’s happy Eden is a part of the team. A big part of his job is to study people and unfortunately (for him, not for the mission) people could be predictable and boring. The same cant be said about Eden and Harper likes that. So what if he’s only adding fuel to the fire?

The Codebreaker : Henry

Every interaction he’s had with Henry has left him amused and intrigued. Harper thinks Henry is incredibly important to the team but he can tell the codebreaker lacks that confidence. Part of him is jealous of how intelligent Henry is, would probably hate him if they weren’t on the same team, but another part just wants to help him with the social skills he lacks. He has never seen so many of his suggestive comments go over someone’s head. It would be frustrating if it wasn’t so endearing.

The Sleeper Agent : Lena

There is much more to Lena than meets the eye and Harper wants to know what it is. It always excites him to be around people with many layers and Lena is no exception. She’s beautiful, inviting, and she knows how to lead people on. While other’s may overlook these qualities, Harper knows the value in getting people to believe what you present to them.

The Fabricator : Noah

Harper is appreciative of Noah’s skills during a mission. He knows half of what they accomplished so far wouldn’t be possible without his expertise in forgery. Apart from work, Harper hasn’t gotten a chance to learn more about Noah. The agent seems like a quiet person or perhaps he’s just keeping his distance, it wouldn’t be the first time Harper’s role had someone cautious. 

The Assassin : Klara

So far Klara has been quite fun to be around. Even on a high stakes mission he knows he can count on her to get the job done and look good while doing it. Though he’s never voiced his opinion, he admires her role on the team and finds it most important. Harper knows that if it came to a life or death situation Klara could handle it. She is definitely someone he wants to have in his corner.

Do they suspect anyone of being a double agent? With his role being what it is, he assumes he hasn’t garnered a lot of trust amongst the group nor has he trusted anyone. Harper would rather assume any of them could be a double agent than get tricked later on.

What do they believe happened to Agent Thursday? Harper assumes the murder is connected to Vronsky but the situation doesn’t help the trust issues he has with the team as a whole.

[inoahfewthings-blog]

Gender and Sexuality Portfolio Post Two: Connection to Foundational Course Concepts

          Understanding an individual through a psychological lens allows researchers to deepen their studies of human cognition, emotion, and behavior. Similarly, observing and recording categorization of a specific identity is essential when examining persons as an entire group through a sociological and anthropological lens. These social sciences are flexible in the manner in which they tend to incorporate one’s identity, which includes those of a gender and sexuality scope. As we define our identities and place ourselves in society, we rediscover the true meaning behind human nature and societal expectations. Creating and enacting an identity is very complicated. There are five fundamental ideas that help us create and defy boundaries preset by society: the social construction of gender, agency, privilege, oppression, and intersectionality. To simple understand human identity, and more specifically in this paper, black feminism and womanism, is to better conceptualize these terms and relate them to one’s lived/living experience.

           In relation to black feminism, we see this huge social construction of gender, that is, we see categorization of a label implemented and upheld by society (Foss, Domenico, & Foss, 2013). It can also be seen as the creation and enactment of gender. Before “doing” gender, one must define it. Society constructs what gender is, what it looks like, how people should act accordingly, and what the consequences are if one does not choose to do so. In Patricia Hill Collins’ article on black feminism and social construction (1989), we see the construction of what it means to be a White man, or rather a “Eurocentric masculinist”, opposed to being a Black woman, specifically an “Afrocentric feminist”, in America. She says that this Eurocentric masculinity can completely invalidate black feminist thought by the knowledge-validation process (p. 752). This means that because White men are considered the prestigious group of experts in society, they control the knowledge, or the narrative, distributed to others. Secondly, they remain credible for the sake of power over that knowledge. That being said, White men have control over this knowledge-validation process, which can be used to further suppress Black feminist thought by invalidating their curriculum and experience. This ideology is toxic but very realistic. Contrarily, she says that Black feminists take back this knowledge, and give out their own narrative, through shared histories, family structures, and patriarchal oppression. In other words, we take back our power by reinforcing our experiences and opposing the silence rendered onto us by Eurocentric masculinists. To connect this back to my initial paper, Black girls are opposite of the mythical norm, and therefore find power and resilience through this social construction of gender.

           With social construction of any median comes agency. Agency can be defined as choice, or truly believing that one has the ability to make a change on any social, economic, political, etc. issue (Foss, Domenico, & Foss, 2013). Black feminism approaches agency in the simple fact that it is not just defined as feminism alone. It takes on a second identity (which will be addressed in depth later). Black women recognized that their needs were not being met by the original feminist movement, so they decided to create an identity that would; they took the initiative to implement change for the betterment of themselves. “Black women have always been doing the work, creating their own political and social movements that don’t depend on traditional feminism at all” (The Root, 2018). This out-group marginalization caused Black women to create and endorse their own movement for justice. The video quotes Layli Phillips from The Womanist Reader, stating that, “unlike feminism, and despite its name, womanism does not emphasize or privilege gender or sexism: rather it elevates all sites and forms of oppression…to a level of equal concern and action” (The Root, 2018). Again, black feminism and womanism are movements that began with a choice of acting outside of the norm, or in this case (white) feminism. Black feminists essentially became agents of their own cause.

           Generally, there is a certain privilege that Black women have, although at times it may seem nonexistent. Privilege is the advantage or power that one from a prestigious group has over those who are stigmatized and outcasted (Launius & Hassel, 2015). This privilege may be intentional or unintentional and can easily be (un)seen in the matrix of social rule. Brittney Cooper, author of Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers her Superpower, explains how Beyoncé is an extremely influential and powerful figure and uses her platform, or her privilege, to express her ideation of Black feminism. The author says:

         In 2016, we got Lemonade. It became really clear why somebody like                  Beyoncé would want to have this sort of arsenal that you get from Black              feminism because Black feminism helps you think about what happens                when you’re the most powerful chick in the game, you’re married to one of          the most powerful dudes, and he still won’t treat you right because he is              intimidated by your power…Black feminism can hold that Black girls have            hurts and pains that no one else has ever listened to (The Root, 2018).

Beyoncé released one of the most influential albums of 2016 expressing her right to feminism and has recently embraced Black culture and feminism simultaneously. Through privilege of her concerts, Superbowl performances, and triple platinum selling albums, Beyoncé continuously spreads her #BlackGirlMagic by giving voice to the international injustices that all women of color face.

           Just as a coin has two side, there is a counterpart to privilege, and that is oppression. Oppression is prejudice and discrimination expressed towards the marginalized or “disadvantaged” group (Launius & Hassel, 2015). It should be noted that there are oppressed people within an out-group (i.e. Black women in the original feminist movement and trans-people in the #BlackLivesMatter movement). Oppression is intentional limitation placed upon all that one can do. As a Black feminist, Maya Rupert expresses why she was always anti-princess until she got a closer look of what the role of a princess really means. The initial thought is that princesses are damsels in distress and are often caught in love triangles: cliché cliché. However, as Rupert closely examined the position of a princess, she discovered that Black girls were not fit for the “typical” criteria.

          She explains that White women suit stereotypes of weakness and helplessness which inevitably aligns them with the princess role, while Black women are stereotyped as naturally strong, animalistic, and their beauty has never been acknowledged nor celebrated in Western culture (Rupert, 2018). She goes on to say that, “…it hadn’t happened to me. I didn’t grow up feeling locked into the princess role, but rather locked out…Princess culture — the celebration of a fairy tale version of femininity and romance — damages girls because it offers a limited vision of the roles girls can play, but also because it offers a limited vision of which girls can play those roles” (Rupert, 2018). The author has not experienced the oppression of being the princess, rather she has experienced the limitation, or oppression, of automatically being ruled out of the role because her identity does not fit societal standards. However, there is a brightside to this nuance. Oppression in the media has changed just in the past few years. We now see Black princess: Princess Tiana from The Princess and the Frog, Princess Shuri from The Black Panther, and a real-life princess, Meghan Markle, newly crowned as the Duchess of Sussex. This ideology is a double-edged sword but, overall, gives empowerment to Black feminist even in a state of oppression.

          As mentioned earlier, Black feminism embodies a double identity. Generally, the identity itself represents intersectionality. It is a double stigmatization for the simple fact that one who identifies as such is Black and a woman. Launius and Hassel describe intersectionality as a multi- facet construction of an individual’s experience, meaning that we see an overlap in one’s identity: from race/ethnicity, to age, to gender, to sexual orientation, to socioeconomic status, and so on and so forth (2015). In an article written by Holland Cotter (2017), we see the intersectionality in being a Black female artist. In 1965, a board of artists from New York, called Spiral, worked together to produce propaganda for the Black Power movement. Out of 15 African American members, only one was a woman. Black women got so tired of being overshadowed and brushed off, that they branched out and started their own artistic movement called Where We At which essentially was the foundation and development of what Black feminism is today (Cotter, 2017). Defining themselves in the duality of their identity gave them space to voice their needs and requirements of the Black community as a whole. Through this concept, we see how Black women used their agency to overcome oppression. Additionally, we can make the connection that these Black feminists used Goffman’s approach of minstrelization to play into their privilege (Coston & Kimmel, 2012).  

         Society tends to forget the complex yet simple organization of being a Black feminist. The identity itself is not easy; to experience everyday with (un)intentional jabs at your identity is not easy. But our requests of society are simple; we simply desire having our voices heard and lifted in the name of justice, and to hold others accountable for our suffering. That is all. That is Black feminism. To be defined and socially constructed by society, to embody the intersectionality of gender and race, to be both privileged and oppressed, and to be an agent in which to embrace more is to understand Black feminism on a micro- and macro-level.

  References

Alexander-Floyd, N. G. (2012). Disappearing Acts: Reclaiming Intersectionality in the Social

Sciences in a Post-Black Feminist Era. Feminist Formations, 24(1), 1-25.

 Cohen, C. J., & Jackson, S. J. (2016). Ask a Feminist: A Conversation with Cathy J. Cohen on Black

Lives Matter, Feminism, and Contemporary Activism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 41(4), 775-792.

 Collins, P. H. (1989). The Social Construction of Black Feminist Thought. Signs: Journal of

Women in Culture & Society, 14(4), 745-773.

 Coston, B. M., & Kimmel, M. (2012). Seeing Privilege Where It Isn’t: Marginalized Masculinities

and the Intersectionality of Privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01738.x

 Cotter, H. (2017, April 20). To be Black, female, and fed up with the mainstream. The New

York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/arts/design/review-we-wanted-a-revolution-black-radical-women-brooklyn-museum.html

 Cox, A. (2014). The Body and the City Project: Young Black Women Making Space, Community,

and Love in Newark, New Jersey. Feminist Formations, 26(3), 1-28.

 Deblaere, C., & Bertsch, K. N. (2013). Perceived Sexist Events and Psychological Distress of

Sexual Minority Women of Color: The Moderating Role of Womanism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 167-178.

 Foss, S. K., Domenico, M. E., & Foss, K. E. (2013). Gender Stories: Negotiating Identity in a Binary

World. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

 Jackson, S. J. (2016). (Re)Imagining Intersectional Democracy from Black Feminism to Hashtag

Activism. Women's Studies in Communication, 39(4), 375-379.

 Jones, L. V. (2015). Black Feminisms: Renewing Sacred Healing Spaces. Affilia: Journal of Women

& Social Work, 30(2), 246-252.

 Launius, C. & Hassel, H., (2015). Threshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies: Ways of

Seeing, Thinking, and Knowing. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

 Morton, B. (2016). ‘You can’t see for lookin’’: how southern womanism informs perspectives of

work and curriculum theory. Gender & Education, 28(6), 742-755.

 Nyachae, T. M. (2016). Complicated contradictions amid Black feminism and millennial Black

women teachers creating curriculum for Black girls. Gender & Education, 28(6), 786-806.

The Root. (2018, April 12). Breaking down Black feminism [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Sl_Fu47js

 The Root. (2018, March 6). Why feminism fails Black women [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9KMtf_e_ew

 Rupert, M. (2018, May 12). How a Black feminist became a fan of princesses. The New York

Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/12/opinion/sunday/royal-wedding-princess-race.html

 Shaw, J. B. (2015). I don't wanna time travel no mo": Race, Gender, and the Politics of

Replacement in Erykah Badu's "Window Seat. Feminist Formations, 27(2), 46-69.

 Smith-Jones, S. E., Glenn, C. L., & Scott, K. D. (2017). Transgressive shades of feminism: A Black

feminist perspective of First Lady Michelle Obama. Women & Language, 40(1), 7-14.

[marjaystuff]

Elise Cooper Interviews Stephanie Marie Thornton

A Most Clever Girl by Stephanie Marie Thornton brings to life in fictional form, the true story of Elizabeth Bentley, a Cold War double agent. Readers are presented with the psychology of a spy, the dangers, betrayals, and motivations.

Bentley was an American citizen who spied for the Russians until she became an FBI informant. She was recruited by the American Communist Party to spy on fascists since she worked at an Italian library. After being fired because she was anti-Fascist, she became a spy for Russia. Along with her lover and Russian handler, she helps to build the largest Soviet spy network in America, becoming known as the uncrowned Red Spy Queen.  

Once WWII ended, she had qualms about spying for the Russians since they were no longer allies.  After Elizabeth refused the Russian intelligence demands to turn over her contacts’ names, she was put on the assassination list by the Soviet secret police, NKVD, the predecessor to the KGB. This prompts her to become an FBI informant, testifying at the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Readers get the gist of Elizabeth’s story in the form of a dialogue between her and a fictional character Catherine Gray.  Catherine showed up at Elizabeth’s doorstep demanding answers to the shocking mystery she uncovered about her family.  As Catherine listens to Elizabeth's harrowing tale, she discovers that the women's lives are linked in shocking ways. Faced with the idea that her entire existence is based on a lie, Catherine realizes that only Elizabeth Bentley can tell her what the truth really is.

Anyone interested in an espionage book will enjoy this story. Readers will be immersed in the dangerous world of spies. They will question who is an American patriot and who is not. An added bonus is the writer’s notes at the end of the book, 19 pages explaining all the changes that the author made in persons, places, and timelines.

Elise Cooper:  How did you get the idea for the story?

Stephanie Marie Thornton: I was looking for an amazing spy story during the Cold War. After I started digging, I found out about Elizabeth Bentley who parallels Whittaker Chambers.  He also ran a Soviet spy ring and turned an informant for the FBI. Unlike Chambers, Elizabeth was discounted by the FBI and was left on her own.  They knew what she was telling them was true because of Project Venona, a counterintelligence program that decrypted messages transmitted by Soviet intelligence agencies.

EC:  What is truth versus fiction?

SMT: True: she ran the largest Soviet spy ring in the US.  The letter from FBI Director Hoover was factual although there was no record of him having a meeting with her.  I made her lover Vlad up, but she was on the Russian hit list.  Also true, after she confessed to the FBI, she essentially took down the Golden Age of Soviet espionage.  

EC:  Is it true she helped to convict Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?

SMT:  She never had any physical evidence because great spies do not leave trails.  The FBI wanted her help to document and get guilty verdicts.  She relied on hearsay, but her testimony led to their being found guilty. I put in this quote, “words matter, they are like bullets.”  I wanted to show that what she said led to the death of three people, all accused of being spies.

EC:  How would you describe Elizabeth?

SMT:  A prickly protagonist.  She tried to spin in her autobiography that she was matronly.  Sometimes she was arrogant, fearless, and early on naïve. I think she had courage to face down the Soviets.  I think she was complicated and intriguing.

EC:  What were her motivations?

SMT:  During her college days she never had any close friends and her parents had died when she was young.  She felt aimless and fell in with the American Communist Party during the Great Depression.  After traveling to Italy, she realized the Fascists were dangerous.  To stop Fascism, she joined the Communist Party.  While there she felt some camaraderie and that she had a purpose.  It was justifiable in her mind to be a spy because she thought the Russians and the US were on the same team to fight the Nazis.  I think her motivations were a combination of loneliness, being anti-Fascist, and falling in love with her handler.  

EC:  What role does Catherine Gray play?

SMT:  She is the fictional character that allows Elizabeth to explain herself.  She represents the readers who are doubtful about what Elizabeth said. They want to understand how this highly educated young woman, an All-American girl, became a Soviet spy and yet still considered herself a patriot.  With Catherine I was able to call out all Elizabeth’s discrepancies and to ask questions.

EC: What do you want the readers to get out of the book?

SMT: I think she was a product of her time.  We live in a very divisive world today.  I wanted to show that she made some decisions a lot of Americans would not agree with, but maybe they could understand her motivations, to stop Fascism. People can agree to disagree.

EC:  What about your next book?

SMT:  It is set during the 18th and 19th century in Europe.  The protagonists are a mother and daughter.  As with all my books, my mission is to shed some light on forgotten women in history.  It will probably be out in 2023.

THANK YOU!!!

[alixofagnia]

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo Episode IX Speculation

Ascension of power does not equate to maintenance of power.

I think Kylo is going to be overthrown in the first half of the film. By necessity, there will have to be a time skip, maybe anywhere from 6 months to a year, but not longer than that because I don’t think Kylo will be able to hang on to his position. I would be highly surprised if he made it past a handful of months and here’s why:

General Hux

Hux was played up for comedic effect in TLJ, but it’s somewhat undermined by examples of real leadership, engagement with fellow, high-ranking FO officers, and the distinct feeling that this man is more cunning than you think. That’s not to say that Hux will hit epic levels of villainy; but he will most assuredly continue to be an antagonist to Kylo and, with Snoke’s murder, he will now have a justified reason for being so.

How could Hux go about it? 

Aside from the fact that he’s basically in charge of the FO military, Hux could go after Kylo with a smear campaign by revealing his true identity. Of course, this hinges on whether the galaxy at large knows that Kylo Ren of the First Order is Ben Solo, son of rebel Generals Leia Organa and Han Solo. Evidence points to the negative:

-Poe seems unaware of Kylo’s relation to his revered general, both in TFA and TLJ

-Han and Leia speak about Ben in a hushed, private conversation in TFA; they never speak his name aloud (though mostly, of course, to withhold information for dramatic effect)

-barely anyone in the FO is shown wanting to make eye contact with Kylo Ren; I doubt they know anything personal about him

-Finn clearly has no idea

-it’s unclear how Rey found out; in TLJ, she not only knew Ben’s family history but she knew that Luke redeemed Darth Vader, which I didn’t think was common knowledge based off of Bloodline. Alternately, I suppose Chewie could’ve filled her in on the way back from Starkiller Base, during a shared grieving moment for Han (which also explains why she knows but not Finn).

So, I would posit that the basic story put about, the one the galaxy knows, is that Kylo Ren hailed from Luke’s small academy, turned on Luke, killed his fellow students, one of them being Ben Solo, and joined Snoke as his apprentice.

At the least, then, Hux knows Kylo Ren has a personal link to Luke Skywalker, which is memorably reinforced by his TFA warning and TLJ reminder to Kylo about personal interests. But with their relationship being what it is - competitive, hostile - I wouldn’t put it past him to have some extra dirt on Kylo, gathered prior to TFA, that he’s been holding on to; certainly, he will have it now that Kylo’s taken hold of the power vacuum left by Snoke, a role Hux surely felt he was better qualified for.

This wouldn’t be a difficult smear campaign to pull off. Only consider how badly a secret identity, one with close ties to the enemy, would threaten Kylo’s position within the FO:

“Kylo Ren is a New Republic and Resistance sympathizer, a double agent and traitor! He is the son of rebel scum, but not just any dirty rebel: he’s the son of Leia Organa, the most dogged enemy of the Empire and First Order! At her behest, he aided and abetted a Jedi in the assassination of Supreme Leader Snoke, and then allowed her to escape! He has seized power in order to restore the Republic!”

Can’t you just see Hux spitting that out over a loudspeaker?

It’s made painfully clear that Kylo has no real allies in the FO. He never really engages with any FO officer other than Hux, though he has a smattering of brief interactions with Phasma, poor Mitaka, and a few Stormtroopers. But that smattering few are not equals; they take orders, not question them. They are not in positions to keep him in power.

We briefly saw the Knights of Ren in TFA and they will likely have a role in IX, but we also don’t know the nature of their relationship to their leader. If some or all are Kylo’s former Jedi mates (as alluded to in TLJ), then do you suppose they share Kylo’s view about a new order, a new balance? Or did that view only come to Kylo as he was ForceSkyping with Rey? Is Kylo’s view and aspiration for power motivated by lineage? Politics? Ideology? A mix? Is it even truly his aspiration? 

I’m getting slightly off topic. 

Suffice it to say, I don’t think the Knights of Ren will be particularly helpful in Kylo’s ability to maintain his position. At least, not in an area where it really counts: bureaucracy. And say what you will about it, but years of bureaucracy and the re-centralization of power was how the Emperor actually conquered the galaxy, not massive-scale battles or “new tech” WMDs alone.

Back to the point: Kylo’s visible instability on Crait could only have made a poor impression on the FO military, hitherto shown to be highly ordered and rigidly structured, if nothing else. And I’m not just talking about his gross waste of FO resources for, what, 40 rebels in a crumbling base, but also on a single man who turned out to be, well, a freaking wizard! Imagine following someone like that, putting your trust and loyalty into someone so obviously unhinged and undone? (Nobody bring up real-world comparisons lol!) 

Essentially, Kylo will struggle with leadership. He will not turn out to be politically and diplomatically gifted, like his mother (because that would be a bit out of character at this point), and it will be to his detriment. Of the two men, Hux is repeatedly shown to be the carefully calculating and cunning one, not Kylo, who is a loaded gun waiting to go off. He will bide his time, discreetly sowing the seeds of discord and gathering support even as he secretly (or not secretly) launches an investigation into Snoke’s death. The results of this investigation may play out in the opening of IX wherein Kylo’s position is shown or implied to have been tenuous from the minute we left him in TLJ.

In light of Carrie Fisher’s death and confirmed omission from IX, I wonder if the film might open on Leia’s funeral. After her prominence in TLJ, I don’t see how it will be believable that Leia is alive and well in some OTHER part of the galaxy. It would be along the lines of “she’s lost the will to live” and it just falls flat, particularly since Luke (and Rey, to an extent) renewed her hope in TLJ. For speculation purposes, let’s say her death occurs off-screen and that it comes very early on. The information could reach Kylo, he has a strong reaction to it (especially if he didn’t know that Leia survived the Raddus explosion), which triggers the Force connection with Rey.

[Speaking of which, I don’t think that part of their relationship is over with; I think it will continue to be explored in IX, but not so much as it was in TLJ. In TLJ it was used to establish intimacy; in IX, it will by nature have to take on a different role, probably less occurring but more dramatic, in order to prevent overuse/overdependence, which will deteriorate its effectiveness.]

Anyway, this connection with Rey, particularly if he expresses regret at their last parting or grief over Leia and Luke, may be observed by Hux, who uses it as his opportunity to overthrow Kylo. Presumably, Hux will not be able to see Rey, but he will be able to hear Kylo and use whatever he says against him. Alternately, Hux may initiate an arrest or even an assassination, which Kylo escapes. After his escape, Hux puts out the smear campaign as well as a bounty, making Kylo a wanted fugitive of the FO. He won’t find recourse with the Resistance, not after Crait, so he can’t join Rey, and anyway, he won’t yet have become the balanced equal she deserves.

As a fugitive, I think the second half of the movie will find Kylo on his journey to self-discovery and self-reconciliation. It would also be an opportunity to visit different worlds within the Star Wars galaxy, some so far removed from the political feuding that Kylo will be able to find that inner peace and resolve he needs. Maybe he will begin atoning by helping those suffering under the effects of both the FO and the Resistance in some way; not that he’ll “get all mushy” about it, he’s still got the heart of Han “Scoundrel” Solo, after all.

Something like that.

What I will say is that I can’t see IX featuring the big space battles we got in TLJ. 1) it’s not an even fight right now; hell, it’s not even an underdog fight, with the Resistance so crippled and 2) since the question TLJ mulled over is about balance (grayness), then the message of IX will have to be along the lines of coexistence. Right? 

We’re talking small scale conflict, with large scale effects. 

And then Rey and Ben will be free to fly off in the Falcon, retire somewhere green where Ben can take up calligraphy again and Rey will design/build space crafts, and every once in a while they’ll answer the call to bring balance to the galaxy, like some kind of married vigilante Force users.

Or something like that.

[things-i-think-and-junk]

Storytelling Elements and Undercover Jon

 I’m going to preface this essay by quickly stating that I’m going to try to remain unbiased. This is neither pro-Jonerys or anti-Jonsa. I’m going to try to talk about this just using storytelling and film analysis. This theory that is floating around doesn’t work when contrasted to the usual methods of storytelling and plot twists that GRRM and D&D have employed throughout this series. Jon undercover doesn’t work and is a failed plot device.

So what is the basic idea of Undercover Jon? For those that don’t know, it’s that during the entirety of Season 7, Jon Snow was infiltrating Daenerys’ base camp and swaying her to his side, seeking to gain her aid, her armies and her dragons in the fight to come. He used any means necessary, one of them being the long con. He’s playing the game essentially, acting as a double agent. His loyalty is to the North and he is manipulating Dany, telling her what she wants to hear and influencing her emotions so she feels compelled to help him.

What it boils down to is that Jon is deceiving her and it will be revealed in some great plot twist in Season 8.

Okay, so now that we’ve established the idea, why doesn’t it work?

Let’s begin with the basic idea of suspense as outlined by Alfred Hitchcock, the master himself:

“There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”

So why is this detailed quote important? Because this is something that is often employed by storytellers, specifically those in film based media. You can get away with shocking twists, but you need to let the audience in on the secret in someway. The most common means is foreshadowing, whether direct foreshadowing or indirect. We have two different examples of this in the show specifically.

Let’s start with direct foreshadowing for one of the more shocking moments to happen in the first seasons, Ned Stark being betrayed by Littlefinger. Since then, we’ve learned not to trust or believe Baelish in most everything he does, but there was a time when we were still uncertain about him, naive and innocent. However, we were given a direct warning from the start, around the time that Ned was investigating Jon Arryn’s death. Littlefinger told the audience what we needed to know:

We were informed that Baelish was someone we shouln’t believe and there was something about him that was dangerous and untrustworthy. A number of people didn’t (much like Ned) because we were lulled into thinking that Ned was the hero of the story rather than a false protagonist. So when this happened:

It was genuinely surprising.

Direct foreshadowing is letting the audience in on the secret, setting up a big reveal that will happen. It might be subtle, but it is there, something we can point to later. It’s a conversation that we were privy to, which is extremely important for any type of long con of this nature.

Let’s compare with indirect foreshadowing, which is symbolism and tiny clues that we, as detectives are to go over.

One of the biggest reveals in the show overall was R+L=J. Jon is the hidden prince, the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna and this bombshell was saved for the climax of the show, Season 7′s (technically Season 6′s) finale. It came out of nowhere and was such a shocking twist!

...Or was it?

There was no conversation with the audience in the same way we had with Littlefinger, but the evidence was there from the beginning: Ned never speaking of Jon’s mother, Ned’s defense of the Targaryens and the murder of children. My personal favorite evidence of indirect foreshadowing was this little easter egg:

Literally: RLJ (R+L=J).

We have had the evidence sprinkled from the start, it was clearly there, but it was a matter of recognizing it or piecing the clues together. It wasn’t so well hidden that no one saw it coming. In fact, GRRM said once in an interview:

“At least one or two readers had put together the extremely subtle and obscure clues that I’d planted in the books and came to the right solution… So what do I do then? Do I change it?! I wrestled with that issue and I came to the conclusion that changing it would be a disaster, because the clues were there. You can’t do that, so I’m just going to go ahead.”

Again, this was something that was supposed to be subtle, but we had the clues available to us. GRRM does not spring anything on the audience and neither do D&D, the character motives are pretty well spilled out from the beginning. If a major character makes plans to go through with some form of deception, then we are made privy to those plans, allowed in on the conversation.

There has been no direct foreshadowing for Jon to go undercover and manipulate Dany. We have not been given a conversation that discusses the idea. The last time Jon infiltrated a group to receive information, there was something to alert the audience that this was the direction he was going.

First, we have Halfhand’s advice to Jon shortly after they were captured:

Jon: “They died because of me.”

Halfhand: “See that it wasn’t for nothing.”

Then we are shown the setup for the plan:

Halfhand: Mance is gonna march on the Wall. When he does, one brother inside his army will be worth 1000 fighting against it.

Jon: They’ll never trust me.

Halfhand: They might, if you do what needs to be done.

We are directly told that Jon will begin infiltrating the Wildlings, which is followed closely by Halfhand building up Jon to be a traitor. It culminates in a fight where Halfhand sacrifices himself and instigates Jon to kill him. Only that way is the deception complete and Jon is given access to the Wildlings.

Even in the books, the set up for this is directly told to the reader with Halfhand giving this quote:

“Then hear me. If we are taken, you will go over to them, as the wildling girl you captured once urged you. They may demand that you cut your cloak to ribbons, that you swear them an oath on your father's grave, that you curse your brothers and your Lord Commander. You must not balk, whatever is asked of you. Do as they bid you ... but in your heart, remember who and what you are. Ride with them, eat with them, fight with them, for as long as it takes. And watch." - A Clash of Kings, Chapter 68, Jon VIII.

Let’s compare this to another situation and another big reveal, Roose Bolton’s betrayal of Robb in the Red Wedding. This didn’t come as a complete surprise because the audience was shown that Roose was beginning to turn, specifically during his scenes with Jaime. Rather than capture Jaime and return him to Robb, as he would be expected to, he releases Jaime and sends him back to the Lannisters. They are cordial (enough) with each other and we are given a glimpse into Roose’s desire to find the best deal for himself.

When he stabs Robb, we already knew that he was colluding with the Lannisters, even if we didn’t know the exact means he would betray Robb or what he would receive from them.

So now let’s look at Season 7 Jon. In the episodes before and after his arrival on Dragonstone, we were not told directly that he is infiltrating Daenerys’ camps or attempting to repeat his previous deception with the Wildlings. There is no conversation similar to what he shared with Halfhand and no moments that the audience were left to feel suspense for him in being discovered.

Remember, when Jon is with the Wildlings, there are several moments where they doubt his loyalty and the stakes are upped for him. In the books, Mance orders Jon to sleep with Ygritte to prove his loyalty. In the show, he’s questioned by almost every Wildling he comes across. Even Ygritte displays an awareness that Jon is playing her and we have another instance of direct foreshadowing.

Ygritte: “Don’t ever betray me.”

Nothing like this exists in Season 7. We have Sansa urging Jon to be smarter than Robb and Ned, to listen to advice, but that was culminated in Jon placing Sansa in charge of Winterfell, showing his trust in her abilities and advice. This is when Jon and Sansa begin separate journeys in Season 7. Sansa’s journey is her ability to enter the game and come up against a more seasoned manipulator, Littlefinger.

Jon’s arc this season has been preparing for the coming war, something that Daenerys is clearly meant to be part of as Melisandre said herself:

Melisandre: “I believe you have a role to play, as does another.

We are even shown in the first episode the different threats that Jon and Sansa will be dealing with separately. Jon believes the greatest threat is the Night King, while Sansa believes it is the people who play the Game of Thrones. Throughout the series and novels, these two have been on these two separate arcs. Jon has nothing to do with King’s Landing, as his story has always tied in to the Others. Sansa’s has always had to do with the Lannisters and Baelish.

For Jon to suddenly become involved in the Game of Thrones, we would need some sort of foreshadowing, either indirect or direct that this is a method he would use.

So what evidence do we have about Jon’s character in Season 7?

Let’s start with the first episode. Jon is sitting in judgement on Alys Karstark and Ned Umber, deciding if he should punish them for their father’s treachery. With all of his men and sister telling him to take their lands away and give them to someone else, what does Jon do?

This is a use of direct foreshadowing because this is repeated in Ep. 3:

We the audience have been shown that Jon will not judge someone for the actions and cruelties of their parents, it doesn’t come as a surprise then that he is willing to extend a bit of faith and trust in Daenerys, as he did with Alys Karstark and Ned Umber. He will focus instead on the coming war rather than rewarding or punishing as leadership sometimes dictates.

The entire focus of his council is to begin preparations and training for the army he will need.

What about Jon asking the advice of others or taking council, something he is criticized for in the first episode?

Well, he has a moment of asking Sansa’s opinion about Tyrion and his character, a parallel to the moment in Season 6 when she pointed out that she was not asked about what sort of man Ramsay is. He learned his lesson in that and asked Sansa’s opinion.

However, we are shown that it doesn’t always relate to what he is going to do. Jon makes his own decisions and acts as he thinks is best. He makes the decision to go south and parlay with Daenerys, all without consulting his men before hand or even alerting Sansa to his decision. Even when they protest, it is clear he has made up his mind.

What can we take from this scene? Is he going south to manipulate Daenerys?

The evidence says no. There has been no buildup for it, no evident payoff and no clues left for the audience to glean that this is his intention. Jon is capable of deception, but deception without clues and foreshadowing? That’s not likely.

Let’s return to the idea of suspense. We are given no stakes to invest in. The only concrete plan we have is: Daenerys has an army and dragons, Jon needs to convince Daenerys to use army and dragons in the coming war. That’s it. Nothing else has been established or said beyond that. Instead, we have the characters directly telling us how that alliance will be achieved. Tyrion says it himself in Ep. 3:

Tyrion: Give him something by giving him nothing. Take a step toward a more productive relationship with a possible ally.

Compromise is the key for them to forge an alliance. The terms of that compromise are even clearer in Ep. 6. Convince Cersei to join the coming war rather than to continue fighting Daenerys at present, thus creating a truce and allowing everyone to face the greater threat. Daenerys temporarily gives up her claims on the throne, Jon bends the knee. Very simply spelled out and it even comes with a side of suspense, as our focus is now on whether or not they can convince Cersei.

The questions about Jon/Dany’s alliance or even winning her help are concluded in Ep. 6. We are told by Daenerys: “we will do it together, you have my word.” The filmmakers and show runners do not add anything in to clue us, the audience, that we have reason to doubt her in this or there is any reason Jon would need to keep convincing her. There is no look shared between Tyrion and Daenerys, no conversation with Jon worrying about if Dany can be trusted. These clues are important to storytelling because, as I stated a few times before, suspense is key.

The only twists that we have coming our way are Cersei’s treachery, Jon’s parentage and the revelation about Jon and Dany’s relationship. All you need to do is look at how each of these moments were set up, showing us that these would be important conflicts in the next season.

Jon’s Parentage:

Bran and Sam talk about Rhaegar and Lyanna’s marriage, while we are shown the flashbacks, allowing us to see that this is true. Just like Bran, we are part of the visions. Afterwards, it is directly stated: “He needs to know the truth.” There is no surprise in this, no twist that we can’t see coming. Jon will eventually be told the truth.

Jon/Dany’s Relationship:

As Jon enters Dany’s cabin, Tyrion comes from out of the shadows, revealing he has witnessed and guessed what is about to happen. As Jon and Dany make love, there is a closeup on Tyrion’s face, clear displeasure there as he returns to his rooms. Again, we are shown that there is conflict brewing. Tyrion doesn’t approve of what is happening and we are aware that it will likely come up in some way.

Cersei’s Betrayal:

This one is key, especially in contrasting Jon’s possible deception. We have Cersei come to the Dragonpit and declare that she agrees to the terms of the truce and that she is summoning her men to come and aid in the fight. Our heroes feel relief and leave, they are convinced that she will keep her word.

The next scene with Cersei has her coming in while Jaime plans on the army’s route to Winterfell. The following conversation allows us to see that Cersei has no intention of keeping her word. She ridicules Jaime for meaning to fight with them, she lays out her plan and spells it out for us. What’s more, none of this is a surprise when we compare it to her other moments this season, specifically when it comes to the insurmountable odds that she is up against.

When told she can’t beat Dany’s dragons and armies, Cersei doesn’t back down, saying that she will continue to fight. Underhanded methods have been shown to be Cersei’s M.O, as we saw in Season 6. Again, visual clues that she might act in a dishonorable, sneaky way.

She hears that she can’t beat Dany’s dragons and army? What does she do? She goes back on her word to let the army be dwindled down or wiped out by a separate threat. We had foreshadowing and clues that this would happen, it doesn’t come out of nowhere to surprise us. There is even a conversation that this is the plan and this is what she is doing.

So what can we take from all of this? What I hope you gather is that twists don’t come out of nowhere, that they are built upon and clues are left to alert us that something like this is a probability, whether direct or indirect. We, in some form, need to be told that this is something that is happening and conflict will come from that.

There is no evidence supporting Jon being undercover, not in filmmaking and not in storytelling. Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but the evidence is always right there in front of us and it isn’t present here.

[deniscollins]

9 Ways to Support Small Businesses

How many of the 9 recommendations below to help small businesses during the pandemic do you currently do? What ones can you add to your personal list? Why? What are the ethics underlining your decisions?

In the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic, consumers buoyed small businesses with gift card purchases and online fund-raising campaigns. But as the pandemic persisted and restrictions constrained operating hours, many independent businesses continued to struggle.

Throughout the country, owners have creatively come up with strategies to keep businesses afloat, which benefits consumers, proprietors and a neighborhood’s commercial health

“There’s a multiplier effect,” said Bill Brunelle, the managing partner of Independent We Stand, an organization that helps its small-business members nationwide with marketing. “If you buy at a hardware store, that owner may hire a local accountant, while the employees may go to local restaurants and other nearby stores. The success of one business can steamroll through the economy.”

Ande Breunig, a real estate agent in Evanston, Ill., said, “Everyone complains about the lack of retailing, but we can only keep these businesses afloat with our participation.” Ms. Breunig started a Facebook group hoping to motivate residents to increase their support of local shops and services.

So how can consumers contribute to this virtuous cycle, especially during the all-important holiday season? Here are some tips to consider.

Buy Local

Before you reflexively hit “place order” with an e-commerce behemoth, find out whether a local retailer offers the same item. Independent bookstores, for example, can often order and quickly receive your selection. While you can get many things online, “go for a walk, go into a store, keep your mask on and shop,” said Ellen Baer, the president and chief executive of the Hudson Square Business Improvement District, devoted to an area west of SoHo in Manhattan. “Think of the people on the other end of the purchase.”

But shopping locally does not necessarily mean forgoing all online sites. Platforms like Bookshop and Alibris connect users to small booksellers. Clothing boutiques can sell through sites like Shopify, Lyst.com and Farfetch, as well as Sook, a newcomer that also hosts stores selling housewares.

When sending gifts to out-of-town friends and family, look for independent stores in their towns. And don’t assume that an e-commerce site can out-deliver a local business — even online sites have experienced delays because of the pandemic’s supply-chain disruption.

Go to the Source

There are always times when you need delivery. But on other days, think twice about how you order takeout. Rather than using a delivery app, ask for curbside pickup: Sites like Grubhub and Uber Eats charge restaurants fees that can reduce already thin margins. Instacart and Shipt, two companies that offer shopping and delivery, also charge the merchants who use the sites.

And while it is easy to purchase through a so-called digital shop on sites like Facebook and Instagram, shopping through third-party apps typically reduces the net profit for the merchant. (Facebook, which owns Instagram, has waived selling fees through the end of the year but will re-evaluate the practice in January, a Facebook spokeswoman said in an email.)

Be Social

Help bolster a business’s social media presence by “liking” hardware stores, dry cleaners and other independent shops on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. Write positive reviews, post photos generously of purchases, and don’t forget to tag the businesses. And consider slightly broader efforts, like community email lists and social media groups like Nextdoor.

Retailers are savvy when it comes to selling, but many don’t fully understand that social media plays a crucial role, Ms. Breunig said. Through her Facebook group, she started an “adopt a shop” effort, in which residents select a store and commit to shopping there once a week (with no spending minimum) and posting about their experiences on Facebook. Within five days, Ms. Breunig said, 24 Evanston stores were “adopted.”

Beyond Charity

You can double the effect of philanthropic efforts by involving small businesses whenever possible. Order meals for essential workers from independent restaurants. Shop local when buying for clothing drives. And even if it’s a bit more expensive, purchase from local markets for food drives.

Suzanne Fiske, the director of on-air development for WHYY, the public radio and television stations in Philadelphia, had yet another idea. “Our listeners care about the mom-and-pop shop next door that is having trouble during the pandemic,” she said, so she asked donors on social media platforms to name their favorite local business when they contributed to be read aloud. The station awarded the two with the most votes — Horsham Square Pharmacy in Horsham, Pa., and MYX, a Bryn Mawr, Pa., start-up that creates a custom-blend beverage dispenser — radio advertising worth $3,500. The promotion also motivated listener donations, with more than 700 contributors calling on the day of the small-business challenge, close to three times the typical number, Ms. Fiske added.

Loyalty Counts

Service businesses — including personal trainers and hair salons — have especially been affected by the pandemic since they are among the trickiest to reopen. Gift cards help, but so does generous tipping for the ones that are open.

And remember that small businesses rely on regular customers, even as they try to attract new ones. Like so many others, Symone Johnson, who owns Indulge Hair Salon LLC in Englewood, N.J., was unprepared for a sudden closure in March. She began making videos to help her clients style their own hair without charge and hosted virtual sessions to recreate an online version to allow socializing.

Her clients offered to pay, but she declined, she said. “I didn’t do it for the financial benefit — it kept me busy and I didn’t think of myself.” New clients came after watching the videos, she said, and both they and the pre-existing clientele showed their generosity. “Instead of a 20 percent tip, it became a 50 percent tip,” Ms. Johnson said.

Accept the Rack Rate

Everyone loves a discount, but perhaps now is not the time. If you can afford it, pay full price.

Participate in Community Efforts

While the pandemic has left many feeling isolated, local business organizations are trying to fill the void with socially distanced community programs that can spur economic activity.

The Chamber of Commerce in Wellfleet, Mass., on Cape Cod, for example, is sponsoring a monthlong, online bingo contest in which each square is a “call to action,” including donating to a local nonprofit or taking a virtual class.

Share ideas with local business organizations or municipal governments seeking ways to help. Downtown Phoenix is expanding its traditional holiday market, Phoestivus, to use empty storefronts to showcase the creations of local artisans as well as some retailers’ inventory. Items displayed in the storefronts can be purchased on smartphones using QR codes or other forms of touch-free payment.

“It’s a way to bring a community out,” said Samantha Jackson, the senior director of strategy and community affairs at the nonprofit Downtown Phoenix Inc. “There are people who don’t come downtown who stick to their neighborhoods who are surprised at how nice it is.”

Offer Your Skills

If you’re an accountant, a lawyer, a banker, or a digital marketing specialist, to name just a few, local businesses may welcome your help. Kimberly Pardiwala, for example, who most recently led a business that arranged group sales for Broadway shows, grew concerned that restaurants would again suffer with the onset of cold weather. The Larchmont, N.Y., resident approached David Masliah, the owner of the town’s popular Encore Bistro to order prix fixe dinners regularly for her neighborhood association. “We are all so separate now, so it’s important to restore our community,” she said.

Practice Kindness

Proprietors are under enormous, sometimes existential, pressure right now, so share emotional support when you can. Ask retailers how they are holding up and inquire about employees who may now be unemployed.