#this reeks of north british

[dr-george-ordell]

SNIPPET OF CH 2 - "Hold Your Horses, It Only Gets Worse!"

[tyrantisterror]

At Sea Without a Map pt. 17

She's the first friend you've made in your entire (admittedly very short) memory, you are not letting Calibani get eaten without a fight! With a heroic athleticism you didn't know you possessed, you take a running leap off of the broken boat and onto the deck of your own, bridging the gap of water between you so quickly that no lurking beast below could hope to catch you. Unfortunately, you act so swiftly that you don't actually prepare well to land, and end up slipping when your feet hit the deck, sliding a ways until your sheer momentum sends you crashing into Calibani. On the other hand, you hit her with enough force to pry her tail out of whatever was holding it, and as you lie on top of her in a heap on the deck...

...well, she doesn't look particularly upset about it, at the very least.

You don't have time to dwell on your close proximity for long, though, as the boat shifts violently beneath you while the waves around it become larger and nastier. Quickly you get to your feet, steadying yourself with the railing as you look over the side to see something massive rising up from beneath the water.

What emerges is more hideous than you would have dared to imagine, a twisting collection of lumpy, tumorous flesh held loosely together by rancid sinews of rotting muscle tissue. One by one the pus-dripping flesh globs that make up the bulk of its mass begin to split open, their skin pilling apart to reveal a chaotic assortment of eyes and teeth. On occasion an eye will close and the flesh will seal over it, only for another tear to appear elsewhere in the beast's roiling surface like a fresh zit. All of this occurs as it continues its dread ascension out of the ocean, its body like some nightmarish pustule oozing its way out of the skin of the sea.

More gaping maws on the beast open, and soon you are hit with that familiar reek of halitosis as long, hideous tongues emerge from the rancid mass and slither towards your boat. You're fairly certain you know what killed the other sailors now.

As the hideous glob of rotting meat rises in front of your boat, ones of its twisted jaws opens and speaks with a soft, vaguely-British voice that has an oozing aftertaste of lewdness. "Oh my my my, what luck! Two tasty sausages for me! A crunchy one and a chewy one, how splendid! I can't wait to take you inside me!"

As you confront the worst nightmare you've seen yet, you consult your compass.

[6thofapril1917]

If You Play With Fire, Then You'll Burn - Chapter 5

“I’m not bitter,” Johnny spluttered. “But I didn’t join up with the SAS to play nursemaid to a talentless Boer who reeks of engine oil.” “And that talentless Boer drove a hundred and seventy miles through open desert on a tank of siphoned petrol, Cooper,” Mike shot back. “Give her a bit of respect.”

Private Sarah "Sarie" Meyer has hit rock bottom.

A year after her expulsion from high school, she's managed to build a new life for herself as a despatch rider with the South African Women's Auxiliary Army Service in North Africa. Ferrying messages, packages, and relief to Commonwealth units throughout the expanse of the Sahara desert, her life has gained a stability it hasn't had in years—until it all comes crashing down around her.

When a vindictive CO reveals a classified secret from Sarie's past, she finds herself ostracized from the rest of her unit, stripped of her duties, and facing a discharge. That is, until a chance encounter in a Cairo bar leads to a proposition from a new, radically unconventional unit of the British Army.

The SAS breaks with tradition. Sarie Meyer is going to shatter it.

eventual johnny cooper/original female character, multi-chapter.

read on ao3: chapter 5 - meer probeer beheer - 4.3k words

thanks to @reneetoile for beta reading!

taglist: @hesbuckcompton-baby @dcyllom @regseekings @frstcorinthians @lostloveletters

[jlhynde-insanitybrilliance]

UDLTTOM WORLDBUILDING RAMBLES: American Wizarding Society vs British Wizarding Society

This is like the 3rd installment of what is quickly becoming a series of long ranting posts about the lore surrounding Harry Potter & a current time-travel au I'm writing on AO3. But you don't need to have read the previous two posts to understand this one. (I still link them for those interested: pt 1, pt 2, pt. 3.) .

I think it's been fairly established that JK doesn't have much awareness of anything outside of Britain when it comes to world building. I've seen posts discussing how unrealistic the magical schools are and such. (Which obviously there can't be just 11 schools. I refuse to believe it. It exceeds my suspension of disbelief.) But this post isn't about that, but the whole societal structure of the American Wizarding society as a whole. I recently started watching my through the Fantastic Beasts films (I know I'm late to the show.) and as an American I can't help but to address some of this...

There's a lot to address & I'm sorry if this post gets a off on some tangents. But I'm just gonna jump right in with the things that bother me most.

1)The MACUSA reeks of British colonization.

As we all know, North America wasn't unpopulated when people from Europe started arriving. Native Americans, the Mayans, the Aztecs, Inuit people, and while some of them were nomadic others had established cities & advanced communities for that day in age. It was the religious zealot Protestants, aka Puritians, being driven out of England that pushed into these communities and brought with them this harmful religious dogma and pushed these people out of the homes and their lands. Like if you read into any of these cultures and their histories, you'll see that these communities were accepting of magic and in the HP world were probably very much wizards themselves.

And so the MACUSA doesn't make sense to me having been founded before the American Revolution, but after the Salem Witch Trials because in all likelihood wizards were being persecuted long before all that. Like I can't believe that the indigenous communities wouldn't have formed some sort of collective in order to combat these foreign invaders from overseas—Especially if they were wizards.

I mean so there had to be something before that, right? Like in all likelihood what I see happening is that these British wizards pushed themselves in with the Puritians (for whatever reason) and in the process brought with them their backwards views on muggles & blood politics & classism which wasn't a part of the original society. Because if you look at the indigenous histories you'll see that medicine men/women were respected members of their communities. Wizards and Muggles lived alongside each other just fine. But then the colonizers came & ruined that harmonious dynamic between the magical and nonmagical.

And that it's called the Magical Congress of the United States of America...It doesn't make sense unless that name came about after the American Revolution. Because before that it was referred to as the 13 colonies. Then it also took some time after the American Revolution for the 13 colonies to expand into the United States. (American didn't get all 50 states until 1959 with the purchase of Alaska from Russia and the forceful occupation of Hawaii.)

It makes more sense that there was a power struggle between two or more opposing Magical governments for the control of the Americas. And this would lead to a sort of Wizarding Civil War. Between the indigenous magical communities and the British, & Spanish, & French Colonies. It's a big place, huge. & it would be diced up and divided I think much more than than the muggle/no-maj community/government is.

The MACUSA being only on the East Coast makes more sense to me. (It also explains how there can only be one wizarding school in MA.) And how that school is a sister school of Hogwarts & how they are structured so similarly. Because watching the Fantastic Beasts films I don't feel like I'm watching American wizards, it more feels like I'm watching British Wizards with American accents.

And then the rest of the country is split up into districts or regions (much like it is in real life with: East Coast, Deep South, West Coast, Midwest.) where the indigenous practices and cultures are still prevalent.

I also don't buy into this idea that France and Spain would abandon their stake on the Continent. So in reality, it's more believable that Spanish Wizards would control Florida and expand all the way up to Arkansas, French wizards would Have control of Louisiana & Mississippi, East Texas, parts of Oklahoma, the British Wizards would have the colonies & maybe parts of the Great Lakes area like Illinois or Ohio, and then the rest of North America would be divided up into different territories amongst the indigenous communities.

Which then brings me to the second thing that bothers me: Rappaport's Law.

2) Rappaport's Law is a heavy-handed allegory for Jim Crowe & Segregation Laws.

As a white person, there's a lot in this topic that I am likely under informed and underqualified to unpack. It is a subject that would be better dissected by someone who understands the cultural histories and nuances better than me. But I read up a lot on random histories (because my Adhd brain leads me down some interesting research rabbit holes & I find myself fascinated by lore histories and folktales.) And I've learned a bit about the various histories pertaining to the Trans Atlantic Slave trade and how things like Voodoo made their way to America through the enslavement of various African tribes.

And again back to the British colonization, slaves were sold to the British by rival tribes & then some of those people made their way to North America when the colonies were formed , but that there was also a significant number of slaves that were indigenous to North America as well.

But how the indigenous communities were structured and how the tribal communities were structure were not all that dissimilar from each other. They both have an awareness of magic and similar spiritual practices. Again magic coexisting with muggles and what makes the most sense was that rival tribes would in fact sell the wizards into slavery and keep the squib/no-maj members of the village because they were less of a threat.

Which in turn would lead to most of the magical communities in North America being POC. Like honestly, I think they are the majority in the Americas. And the Rappaport Law, preventing the intermingling of no-majs & wizards would be heavily criticized because of the similarities to Jim Crowe and Segregation Laws.

And you might try to argue that because of the Statute of Secrecy, wizards wouldn't have any awareness of those muggle laws. But I argue that because of Slavery and most of the wizards being either slaves or negatively impacted by the European settlers would be very, very aware of those laws and prejudices & be actively fighting against them.

Like it was wizards creating and maintaining the underground railroad. It was wizards getting other wizards out and getting them away, regardless of whether or not they were magical because they were all slaves. And they would in fact still have muggles living side-by-side with them in these magical communities and spitting in the face of the Statute of Secrecy. And entire generations of no-majs would live and die in these communities and possibly even leave these communities to assimilate with other muggles and what not, but the American wizards would not be as cut off from the no-maj world like their British counterparts are.

3) Blood Politics would never be able to take root there.

Because most of them are unable to trace back their own bloodlines. It's why Americans don't have house elves working for them because it's Slavery, which they spent centuries combating and trying to escape. And why Grindelwald couldn't gain a foothold there because he was European and was actively killing muggleborns, squibs, no-majs like that wasn't their own people.

And this would also mean that, technologically, the magical communities in North America are more advanced. They are not stagnating like they are in Britain. Wizards are not a dying breed. They have a healthy growing population and low inbreeding rates, and advancements in magic and no-maj sciences. It's the sort of strength Grindelwald and Voldemort would want to recruit for their causes, but with how the majority of the continent is structured would never be able to.

[thank you for coming to my tedtalk.]

[tricornonthecob]

Dialect notes! Dialect notes! Dialect notes!

Because I missed my calling in academic research, I've spent a non-zero amount of time going down rabbit holes on early North American dialect for Along The Northern Heights. Is it worth doing all this research for a fanfiction of a PBS kids show from 20 years ago? Well it gives me considerable amounts of joy to write, so yes.

Anyway! I want to share a massive infodump, because writing gives me goodfeels and so does sharing! Please let me know if I am inaccurate or wrong about anything. I am not an academic and furthermore I do not want to spread misinformation.

MASSIVE WORD BLOCK UNDER THE CUT

A Pregame With Disclaimers About "Good" English

The history of Modern English is rife with Big Oof moments, and I'm not just talking about The Great Vowel Shift or Noah Webster deciding that the "u" in "colour" was silly. Especially in the late 18th century, there was a push to make accents more uniform and to establish a single "Good" English - and there is so much aggression towards what those scholars considered "Bad" English. And, in my extremely uneducated opinion, it seems like it's a conveniently moving target, just like "whiteness." In the context I'm in when writing, it positively reeks of shitting on any of the world's population groups that aren't Southeastern England. And, being from the United States, I know all too well the absolute shit that's been lobbed at AAVE for not being "Good" English.

This "Good" vs "Bad" way of looking at dialect is reductive, destructive, and boring, and I think it goes without saying I don't condone it in the slightest.

A Further Pregame With Received Pronunciation, or RP

the "generic" British dialect many of us outside the UK think of when we think of a British accent (a shame, I think, because the UK is so dialect-diverse and there are some absolute bangers on that damp island!) There are certainly a myriad of reasons for this, but probably the most common reasons/claims I've heard through my life are

A) 19th-century upper-class British folk wanting to have a more separate dialect from the other classes.

B) associations with the way the Royal Family has spoken English since at least Queen Victoria (a generic reasoning that we see happen along populations: imitating those in power)

C) 20th-century RP became "generic" in a similar way that the broad North American dialect* now associated with the United States and, to some degree, Canada, did - that is, it was further developed and use encouraged as the easiest to understand when recorded and played-back on period audio recording equipment (specifically radio and television.)

*a timeout is to be made here for the so-called Mid-Atlantic dialect at the dawn of "talkies" and early Hollywood. Its the delightful way of talking you'll hear in old black-and-white movies: slightly musical cadence, and combining the broad north american dialect with a bit of the non-rhoticity of RP. This dialect was mostly affectation and as anyone with living American relatives born before 1960 can tell you, mid-20th-century Americans largely did not speak it in normal settings.

Now, all of this is to say, RP as a dialect doesn't really appear until mid-19th century (although it would seem the loss of rhoticity we so associate with RP was a gradual shift starting in the very end of the 18th century.) Furthermore, the ways that we, 21st-century denizens, know RP don't come into their own until the 20th century and proliferation of audio-based mass media.

On to My Actual Point : 18th Century American Dialect (non-AAVE)*

*I make this distinction because the history of AAVE is a massive topic all on its own and I feel even less qualified to speak on it

It can't be ignored that the base strata making up Anglo-American speech patterns would have been as varied as where the original settlers/invaders came from, nor can it be ignored that the American Colonies were made up of more than just Anglo-Saxon descendants. Even back then, they were a mosaic of cultural interaction, which is why Thomas Paine declared America (at least the white part) a European, and not British, culture.

That being said, multiple primary sources indicate that the dialect of Anglo-Americans at the late 18th/very early 19th century was similar to "well-bred" Londoner dialect of the time (assuming there's enough of a distinction here from broad Southeastern UK,) and that this particular dialect was broadly spoken with less regional variance than the family of dialects in the UK.

This is made clear in vol 3 of Timothy Dwight's Travels in New-England and New-York, a collection of letters sent to colleagues in England:

"I shall not, I believe, offend against either truth or propriety if I say, that the English language is in this country pronounced more correctly than in England. I am not, indeed, sanguine enough to expect, that you will credit the assertion, nor that you will believe me to be a competent judge of the subject. Still I am satisfied that the assertion is true. That you may not mistake my meaning, I observe, that by a correct pronunciation I intend that of London; and, if you please, that of well-bred people in London."

(Dwight, Timothy. Travels in New-England and New-York vol 3 p 265)

Now in context he is only speaking of the New England region, and he does make a disclaimer here that he's not "a competent judge" of the subject, and we are certainly ignoring his hope that he won't be cited on the matter. But, his observation holds true from other primary accounts, especially William Eddis' Letters From America, which are composed of his observations (mostly of Maryland gentry) from 1769 to 1777. (His letters also happen to be an invaluable primary source for observations on culture and political commentary on the rising crisis between the colonies and Britain, from the perspective of a loyal well-to-do British subject.)

On the uniformity of language, Eddis has this to say:

"In England, almost every county is distinguished by a peculiar dialect; even different habits, and different modes of thinking, evidently discriminate inhabitants, whose local situation is not far remote; but in Maryland, and throughout the adjacent provinces, it is worthy of observation, that a striking similarity of speech universally prevails; and it is strictly true, that the pronounciation of the generality of the people has an accuracy and elegance, that cannot fail of gratifying the most judicious ear."

(Eddis, William. Letters from America, Historical and Descriptive. p 59)

if the odd comma placements are making it hard to read, you're not alone. 18th century writing is choc-full of what we might today consider run-on sentences, comma splices, or just generally cumbersome. Here's me paraphrasing as best I can:

"In England, almost every county has its own dialect, habits, and modes of thinking, noticeably different inhabitants that don't live very far from each other; but in Maryland and adjacent provinces, there is a notable similarity of speech, and its absolutely true that the generalized accent/pronunciation has an accuracy and elegance that won't fail to gratify a discerning ear."

----------------------------------------------------------

All this background I'm giving comes to this point: late 18th-century "well-bred" Londoner is the dialect I have chosen to loosely base what I write in Along The Northern Heights. I listen to alot of Simon Roper's work on youtube regarding the topic. I would say these two are probably the most valuable videos on the accent.

He makes disclaimers about not being formally qualified to speak on linguistics, and I would be remiss to not pass along those disclaimers.

That being said, what's in my mind is pastiche of that, the local "country" (read: appalachian) dialect in rural Virginia, the dialect work used in Turn:Washington's Spies and HBO John Adams, as well as some of the dialect you hear in PBS Masterpeice's Poldark, and various media I've watched/read from Living History re-enactors about reconstructing dialect.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I've made it a headcanon feature that James Hiller has a bit of a brogue that he feels pressured to correct, but slips into when he is excited or upset, I'd like to dig more into less-"proper" dialects of the time, and, if possible, the less-proper Philly accent. For shits and giggles, here's what I suspect is a dramatization of a modern-day Philly accent:

And then a very similar, a very real Baltimore Baldmer accent:

Honestly? Hearing both of these warms the cockles of my heart, because my late grandparents (especially grandma. *Especially* grandma) spoke with a Baltimore accent, which has similarities with the Philly accent. My aunts and uncles all speak it; its been normalized and blended with a virginia rural accent in mine (I say wadder, my grandma said wooder. I say toosdaye, my grandma said toosdee. I say ahn, grandma said ooowan. I say y'all, grandma said all youse/all you. I say "d'jeet," she said d'jeet, and you can pull d'jeet from my cold dead hands.)

In addition, you have the modern-day "High Tide" dialect of Okracoke, the Carolina Brogue.

trouble with Carolina Brouge, which is disappearing, is that its got too much modern-day southeastern drawl to really use as a basis for an 18th century Philly boy. Though it does seem like drawing out the "A" in water into wooder/woader is a commonality.

Anyway. That's been my infodump. I spent too long on this!

[claudia1829things]

"EMILY" (2022) Review

"EMILY" (2022) Review

I have been aware of only four productions that served as biopics for the Brontë family. I have seen only three of these productions, one of them being a recent movie released in theaters last year. This latest movie, the first to be written and directed by actress Frances O'Connor, is a biopic about Emily Brontë titled "EMILY".

This 2022 movie began with a question. While Emily Brontë laid dying from tuberculosis, her older sister Charlotte asks what had inspired her to write the 1847 novel, "Wuthering Heights". The story flashed back to 1839, when Charlotte returned home to the Haworth parish in West Yorkshire to visit before her graduation from school. Emily attempts to re-connect with the older sister about her fictional works, but Charlotte merely dismisses her creations as juvenile activities. Around the same time, their father Patrick, the parish's perpetual curate receives a new curate name William Weightman. While Charlotte, younger sister Anne and several young women seem enamored of the handsome newcomer, only Emily is dismissive of him. Emily accompanies Charlotte to the latter's school to learn to become a teacher and their brother Bramwell goes to study at the Royal Academy of Arts. Both Emily and Branwell return shortly to Haworth after as failures. When Branwell manages to find a job as a tutor, the Reverend Brontë charges William to provide French lessons to Emily. What began as lessons in French and religious philosophy lessons, eventually evolves into a romantic entanglement between the pair.

"EMILY" managed to garner a good deal of critical acclaim upon its release in theaters, including four nominations from the British Independent Film Awards. It also won three awards at the Dinard British Film Festival: Golden Hitchcock, Best Performance Award for leading actress Emma Mackey and the Audience Award. I have no idea how much "EMILY" had earned at the U.K. box office. But in North America (the U.S. and Canada), it earned nearly four million dollars. Regardless of this . . . did I believe "EMILY" was a good movie? Did it deserved the accolades it had received not only from film critics, but also many moviegoers?

I cannot deny that the production values for "EMILY" struck me as first-rate. I believe Steve Summersgill did a first-rate job as the film's production designer. I thought he had ably re-created Britain's West Yorkshire region during the early 1840s with contributions from Jono Moles' art direction, Cathy Featerstone's set decorations and the film's art direction. Nanu Segal's photography of the Yorkshire locations created a great deal of atmosphere with moody colors that managed to remain sharp. I found myself very impressed with Michael O'Connor's costume designs. I thought he did an excellent job in not only re-creating fashions from the end of the 1830s to the late 1840s, he also ensured that the costumes worn by the cast perfectly adhered to their professions and their class, as shown below:

However, according to a relative of mine, Emily Brontë's fashion sense had remained stuck in the mid-to-late 1830s, something that the 2016 movie, "TO WALK INVISIBLE" had reflected. On the other hand, "EMILY" had the famous author wearing up-to-date fashion for someone of her class:

And I must admit that I found those moments featuring actress Emma Mackay wearing her hair down . . . in an era in which Western women did no such thing . . . very annoying. Otherwise, I certainly had no problems with the movie's production values. The movie also included a fascinating scene in which Emily had donned a mask and pretended to be the ghost of the Brontës' late mother during a social gathering. The scene reeked with atmosphere, emotion and good acting from the cast. I also found the scene well shot by O'Connor, who was only a first-time director.

"EMILY" also featured a first-rate cast. The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Amelia Gething as Anne Brontë, Adrian Dunbar as Patrick Brontë, Gemma Jones as the siblings' Aunt Branwell, Sacha Parkinson, Philip Desmeules, Veronica Roberts and other supporting cast member. I cannot recall a bad performance from any of them. The movie also featured some truly excellent performances. One came from Fionn Whitehead, who gave an emotional performance as the Brontë family's black sheep, who seemed overwhelmed by family pressure to succeed in a profession or the arts. Alexandra Dowling gave a subtle, yet charged performance as Charlotte Brontë, the family's oldest sibling (at the moment). Dowling did an excellent job of conveying Charlotte's perceived sense of superiority and emotional suppression. I wonder if the role of William Weightman, Reverend Brontë's curate, had been a difficult one for actor Oliver Jackson-Cohen. I could not help but notice that the role struck me as very complicated - moral, charming, intelligent, passionate and at times, hypocritical. Not only that, I believe Jackson-Cohen did an excellent job of conveying the different facets of Weightman's character. The actor also managed to create a dynamic screen chemistry with the movie's leading lady, Emma Mackey. I discovered that the actress had received a Best Actress nomination from the British Independent Film Awards and won the BAFTA Rising Star Award. If I must be honest, I believe she earned those accolades. She gave a brilliant performance as the enigmatic and emotional Emily, who struggled to maintain her sense of individuality and express her artistry, despite the lack of support from most of her family.

"EMILY" had a great deal to admire - an excellent cast led by the talented Emma Mackey, first-rate production designs, and costumes that beautifully reflected the film's setting. So . . . do I believe it still deserved the acclaim that it had received? Hmmm . . . NO. No, not really. There were two aspects of "EMILY" that led me to regard it in a lesser light. I thought it it was a piss poor biopic of Emily Brontë. I also found the nature of the whole romance between the author and William Weightman not only unoriginal, but also unnecessary. Let me explain.

As far as anyone knows, there had been no romance - sexual or otherwise - between Emily Brontë and William Weightman. There has never been any evidence that the two were ever attracted to each other, or one attracted to the other. Many have discovered that the youngest Brontë sister, Anne, had been attracted to Weightman. In fact, she had based her leading male character from her 1947 novel, "Agnes Grey", on the curate. There have been reports that Charlotte had found him attractive. But there has been no sign of any kind of connection between him and Emily. Why did Frances O'Connor conjure up this obviously fictional romance between the movie's main character and Weightman. What was the point? Did the actress-turned-writer/director found it difficult to believe that a virginal woman in her late 20s had created "Wuthering Heighs"? Did O'Connor find it difficult to accept that Emily's creation of the 1847 novel had nothing to do with a doomed romance the author may have experienced?

Despite Mackey's excellent performance, I found the portrayal of Emily Brontë exaggerated at times and almost bizarre. In this case, I have to blame O'Connor, who had not only directed this film, but wrote the screenplay. For some reason, O'Connor believed the only way to depict Brontë's free spirited nature was to have the character engage in behavior such as alcohol and opium consumption, frolicking on the moors, have the words "Freedom in thought" tattooed on one of her arms - like brother Branwell, and scaring a local family by staring into their window at night - again, with brother Branwell. This is freedom? These were signs of being a "free spirit"? Frankly, I found such activities either immature or destructive. Worse, they seemed to smack of old tropes used in old romance novels or costume melodramas. In fact, watching Emily partake both alcohol and opium reminded me of a scene in which Kate Winslet's character had lit up a cigarette in 1997's "TITANIC", in order to convey some kind of feminist sensibility. Good grief.

What made O'Connor's movie even worse was her portrayal of the rest of the Brontë family. As far as anyone knows, Reverend Brontë had never a cold parent to his children, including Emily. Emily had not only been close to Branwell, but also to Anne. And Branwell was also close to Charlotte. All three sisters had openly and closely supported each other's artistic work. Why did O'Connor villainize Charlotte, by transforming her into this cold, prissy woman barely capable of any kind of artistic expression? Why have Charlotte be inspired to write her most successful novel, "Jane Eyre", following the "success" of "Wuthering Heights", when her novel had been published two months before Emily's? Why did she reduce Anne into the family's nobody? Was it really necessary for O'Connor to drag Charlotte's character through the mud and ignore Anne, because Emily was her main protagonist? What was the damn point of this movie? Granted, there have been plenty of biopics and historical dramas that occasionally play fast and loose with the facts. But O'Connor had more or less re-wrote Emily Brontë's life into a "re-imagining" in order to . . . what? Suggest a more romantic inspiration for the creation of "Wuthering Heights"?

I have another issue with "EMILY". Namely, the so-called "romance" between Brontë and Weightman. Or the illicit nature of their romance. Why did O'Connor portray this "romance" as forbidden? A secret? I mean . . . why bother? What was it about the pair that made an open romance impossible for them? Both Brontë and Weightman came from the same class - more or less. Weightman had been in the same profession as her father. And both had been college educated. Neither Emily or Weightman had been romantically involved in or engaged to someone else. In other words, both had been free to pursue an open relationship. Both were equally intelligent. If the Weightman character had truly been in love with Emily, why not have him request permission from Reverend Brontë to court her or propose marriage to Emily? Surely as part of the cleric, he would have considered such a thing, instead of fall into a secretive and sexual relationship with her. It just seemed so unnecessary for the pair to engage in a "forbidden" or secret romance. Come to think of it, whether the film had been an Emily Brontë biopic or simply a Victorian melodrama with fictional characters, the forbidden aspect of the two leads' romance struck me as simply unnecessary.

What else can I say about "EMILY"? A rich atmosphere filled the movie. The latter featured atmospheric and beautiful images of West Yorkshire, thanks to cinematographer Nanu Segal. It possessed a first-class production design, excellent costumes that reflected the movie's 1840s setting and superb performances from a cast led by the talented Emma Mackey. I could have fully admired this film if it were not for two aspects. One, I thought it was a shoddy take on a biopic for author Emily Brontë that featured one falsehood too many. And two, I found the secretive and "forbidden" nature of Brontë's false romance with the William Weightman character very unnecessary. Pity.

[dogcoding]

rush hour train. american canadian or possibly british guy in front of you reeking of axe body spray and refusing to move to let people off around you. the hood of his north face jacket is smothering you. this is your hell on earth

[mangotortoise]

God this last bit is going to be such a slog

Spoilers and incoherent thoughts under the cut

I think I'm not the biggest fan of this genre. It requires too much suspension of disbelief on a large scale that to me doesn't feel particularly realistic (namely how quickly attitudes change among the older generations), while also understanding that this is not the point. The point is to argue against the annoying rhetoric you'll see where it's "Well if society was run by a woman it would be better" which is very untrue. And the violence here isn't sensational (as i saw someone on goodreads argue), it's not man-hating, it feels grounded in what it's trying to say.

But I feel like with all these characters the message is getting fumbled a bit? Idk. It reeks of "a white British lady probably white femnist" wrote this (and I say this as a white American lady.)

Idk the specific scene that annoyed me was when Tunde discovered that Nina basically wrote his book and gave him no credit and we as an audience were probably supposed to feel shocked or be like, "yup this is just what happens to women flipped on it's head." But all I saw was, "Wow a woman from the global north is taming advantage of a man from the historic global south. Shocking."

Ugh idk. I'm only reading this for a boom club and I hope I can find a review or something that captures the ick I'm feeling better than I can write it out.

(At least Margo and Roxie are interesting.)

[rauthschild]

🇨🇦❌🇺🇸 The 51st State? Trump’s Delusions of Dominion

Trump��s claim that Canada should become the “51st state” reeks of desperation. On Air Force One, he declared Canada “totally reliant” on the U.S., claiming, “without our subsidy, Canada doesn’t exist.” Bold words from the leader of a nation drowning in debt, trade deficits, and geopolitical blunders. Trump’s delusion that the U.S. bankrolls Canada is as laughable as his promise to slash Canadian taxes “in half” and solve “military problems.” Reality check: it’s the U.S. that depends on Canadian resources, not the other way around.

Let’s talk numbers. Trump’s claim of a $250 billion trade deficit with Canada is pure fantasy. U.S. industries rely on Canadian aluminum, timber, and natural gas to power everything from Michigan homes to Silicon Valley factories. Shut off the spigot, and U.S. supply chains crumble faster than a Black Friday sale. If Canada slapped retaliatory tariffs? Good luck explaining to angry voters why their grocery and gas bills just doubled. In this so-called dependency game, Ottawa holds more cards than DC cares to admit.

Then there’s energy. Canada supplies nearly 10% of U.S. natural gas and a major share of crude oil imports. Cutting those flows would spark energy shortages across the Midwest and Northeast during freezing winters. Domestic prices would soar, while Europe, already reeling from Russian sanctions, would scramble to outbid for U.S. LNG. So who’s reliant on whom, Donald? Canada is America’s energy lifeline, and pulling the plug would lay bare the fragility of an empire running on borrowed time.

Economically, the U.S. can’t afford a trade war with its northern neighbor. Canada’s tightly integrated supply chains mean tariffs or restrictions would wreak havoc on U.S. industries, from auto manufacturing to agriculture. And the geopolitical fallout? A move against Canada would have China and Russia eagerly exploiting a divided North American front.

And when Trump boasts about U.S. power, what is he really talking about? A nation that can’t to do more than sanction its enemies, ironically turning those sanctions into blessings. Just look at Russia: those economic “punishments” turned it into the fourth-largest economy in the world, with full full economic sovereignty. Thank you sanctions!

And militarily? Spare us the chest-thumping. America’s track record is less “global policeman” and more “global paper tiger.” The humiliating evacuations from Saigon and Kabul are burned into the collective memory of the world. The U.S. fled the Taliban after two decades of failure, leaving billions in military hardware behind. Aside from roughing up former CIA assets turned drug lords in Panama, America’s post-WWII record is a parade of defeats, from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. A trillion-dollar defense budget, and they still can’t win against guerrilla fighters in sandals. The US can't fight itself out of a geopolitical paper bag.

Contrast that with Canada’s military legacy. With British support, Canada decisively crushed a U.S. invasion during the War of 1812 (with a fraction of the force). Not only was the American advance stopped, but Canadian forces marched into Washington and burned the White House to the ground. But hey, at least their flag was still there? 🤷‍♂️

Canada doesn’t need to be the 51st state. What it needs is for America to sober up and realize the world no longer revolves around its delusions of imperial grandeur. If anything, it’s the U.S. that risks irrelevance as the global order shifts toward multipolarity. Keep lighting the world on fire, and the blowback will come - perhaps even with a White House burning once again. But this time, the flag may not still be there.

- Gerry Nolan

[shut-up-rabert]

You know what? I'm tired of you guys hiding your Hindu hate through these social justice narratives.

At this point i'm convinced that you all just want a reason to be mad at things because you are miserable, and what better way to validate it than virtue signaling?

As someone raised in a Rajput household, I'll answer this from that perispective.

And the first thing I'll say as a so called "Upper caste oppressor Hindutva fascist" is that I'm tired of seeing people trying to keep the caste divide intact and cause a tryst where it does not exist. This does not reek of caste based divide and conquer any less than those "our caste beats all others" ahh WhatsApp forwards.

Is this really the best way to create caste equality? Forcing accountability where it does not belong? Let me assure you that any dalit woman in east India being tonsured/paraded naked over witch allegations does not gain any benifit from it, so how about spreading awareness that actually helps people like her?

How about spreading that information which makes the culprits accountable, and not ranting about an entire community which includes someone like me, or any other Rajput in my close and far circle who didn't do jack?

But again, you can't do that because of what I have said in the second paragraph.

"Upper caste hindu this upper caste hindu that" lets do one thing here, take any of your phrases above and replace the word upper class Hindu with any of the minority groups: Budhhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Schedule castes, Indigenous tribals, anything you want. Now let's say those sentences out loud, with a similar context:

(I AM VERY SORRY TO ANY OF MY FOLLOWERS FROM THESE GROUPS FOR WHAT I AM ABOUT TO WRITE. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ABSURDITY OF THIS POST AND I OFCOURSE KNOW THIS IS BULLSHIT)

"Do you know why seperate electorate were once being asked for? The answer is Dalits."

"Seperatism on North east was able to flourish because of Tribes in North east"

"Muslims in Kashmir willingly submitted to terrorists."

Sounds fucking outrageous, doesn't it? Dare we call it Bigotry? That's what it is, afterall.

But at the same time, you have no problem doing the same to particular caste groups. is it only Bigotry when only certain groups are being prejudiced against?

I am not going to go ahead and say that Rajputs at all did not have any role in Mughal/British expansion because of course they did, King of Amber is a shining example of this daughter exchange policy which has been romanticised for ages.

But how about a quick search of what the other kingdoms of Rajputana had to say about this idea? Or most Rajputs of India for that matter?

Since our champion of morality here cannot bring herself to speak the truth lest to ruin her fantasy of being a rebel who speaks against the system she is born in, I'll just bring that to you.

The thing is, this bullshit of Rajputs accepting Mughal treaties was only true for few. The rest? When the mughals attacked them for the first time, they died fighting this very regime, or their kingdoms were annexed during the wae, and it was their progenies that ended up succumbing seeing an unwinnable war.

This is not at all seen favourably by Rajput community, but let's be real here: Rajputs never succumed to Delhi Sultans, to Ghauri, To Ghazni, to shahs and so on during various encounters. To anyone before Akbar, or after him for most period. Yes, you have the curious cases of traitorship like Prithviraj's father in law and Shiladitya/Silhadi.

But Rajputs in general? They fought each and everyone of them. They fought from the first barbarian who sought to massacre the Hindus and loot our wealth, to Babur who had fucking canons when we were still using swords, to Aurangzeb who started showing tyranny on Hindus again.

This Mughal Rajput Alliance only lasted three generations, and only one of them where it's foundation was not crumbling I.e. Akbar.

The Mughal Rajput Alliance only lasted until the Rajputs were given the peaceful coexistence and preservation of faith that they were promised. Once their subjects and Dharma became a target, they rose and faced the empire again, even though it was even bigger now.

OP here uses Aurangzeb as an example of someone who had most Hindus serving in his court. What she does not tell us is that if Aurangzeb had left his court for some fresh air and opened the windows, he'd see Rajput rebellions against this very tyranny, barbarity and religious prosecution. He put up a strong resistance because he was objectively a capable ruler of a vast kingdom, but the Mughal kingdom had started dissolving in Rajput kingdoms again by that time.

Remember Amber/Jaipur? It was one of the earliest to break away. As was Mewar. As was eventually all of Rajputana. And central Rajput states.

Let's not forget Pahadi Rajputs who never succumbed.

Tell me now, dear admin. If Rajputs were these bootlicker clans who only cared for themselves, Why bother rebelling against a gigantic empire when they were still enjoying their privileges? Why not just convert because according to you that's what they did? It was the common man who was being persecuted, because like you said, he had them in court (and exempeted them from Jizya), so why bother?

"First to convert" my fucking foot. Yes, converting to a faith you believe in is not wrong but OP here seeks to point it out in a way that highlights so called hypocrisy of Rajputs and Jaats who preached Dharma on one end and converted on another.

Tell you what, likes of Shiladitya who were offered privilege in exchange indeed did. Rest? Need I bring records of what invaders dating all the way back to first middle eastern invaders did to prisoners of war? I think we all know what we will find there.

Now now, speaking of British Rule, it's is true that Rajputs allied with them, first due to their ongoing clashes with Marathas for support, and then to protect their kingdoms from the tyranny of british empire.

That is true, and where the decline of Rajputana as a state began, but again this does not blot the Rajput history entirely.

Most Taluqdars leading peasants rebellions alongside nobles were Rajputs. Thakurs of Gujrat were Rajputs.

Many leading the sepoy Mutinies were Rajputs. Almost all the sepoys were uppercastes infact, because of british recruitment policy for Bengal sepoys.

Mangal Pandey was Brahman. Kunwar Singh was a Rajput. Rana Ratan was a Rajput. Rani Laxmibai was a Maratha.

Even in British allied Rajput states, Rajput rebels arose from Rajasthan and Gujrat, against the interests of their empire-allied rulers. One of the instances involved rebellion by a kingdom with the king as the head of it, and others included Rajputs leading factions of rebels.

Gurjars and Jaats held strong rebellions in Uttar Pradesh.

So tell me: Why blatantly ignore the likes of Bappa Rawal, Maharana Sanga, Maharana Kumbh, Rani Laxmibai, Peshwas, Durgavati, Avantibai, Maharana Pratap, Prithviraj Chauhan, Mihirbhoj Pratihar, Anangpal Tomar, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj?

And their armies of millions? All fighting for Dharma and Swaraj? Many of who laid their lives resisting these attacks? Many who pushed them back Several times?

Why were the Mughals (and British) able to rule over India for centuries?

The answer is the so called saviours of dharma, upper-caste hindus. A simple google search would literally list all the available historical sources that state this.

The truth is, they ruled for centuries because they didn’t disrupt the existing social structure

Upper-caste Hindus gladly submitted to the Mughal crown as long as they could keep exploiting the lower classes.

The reason so much land in northern India is still controlled by Rajputs and Jatts today is a direct result of the Mughal strategy of governance through regional alliances. The Mughals focused on securing tribute and allegiance rather than directly dismantling the existing social systems, which let these elites continue exploiting lower-caste and landless people.

Even though he was intolerant, Aurangzeb was the Mughal emperor who had the MOST Hindus serving in his court. Undeniably under him places of worship of other faiths were destroyed and he killed rebels, but guess what? Pretty much all of the well-known Hindu kings of India have all done the same throughout history.

And let’s not forget—throughout Indian history, it’s the upper castes who have betrayed the people. Even during the revolt of 1857, there was no real support from them.

This whole image of the upper castes being the "saviours" of dharma is a lie.

Even today, many of you sanghis are letting politicians use your religion to incite violence against minorities while the country falls apart. Social and economic inequality is killing people; infrastructure is crumbling; pollution is deadly; and there’s tax terrorism, but you let them justify all this in the name of faith. Just know, history will never forgive you for letting this happen, you will never be the 'heros' you claim to be.

[givemearmstopraywith]

Re: n****l horoscopes: I unfollowed them a long while ago citing Inexplicable Bad Vibes, so I am feeling very vindicated rn... down with misinformation!

don't reblog or you'll get blocked / (telling this story bc i had a couple of people ask what i meant when i referred nh being xenophobic) i followed and unfollowed off and on for years but what got me was a couple of years ago they used the term wop pejoratively towards italians- i think started because it was columbus day? which like. go the fuck ahead, im not someone who sits around acting like italians are poc or something but my actual grandfather, who left italy in the 1950s because the economy was destroyed after mussolini and emigrated to a very small, very white town in canada, was harassed both in and out of the workplace by white anglos and the term "wop" was what he was called. i have family members who were physically assaulted in xeonophobic attacks specifically because they were italian immigrants in the 70s/80s and "wop" is the term that was used to describe them. the term refers to, and i am not making this up, the sound of two pieces of shit being slapped together. that's the etymology, at least in terms of the crackers who threw it around forty years ago were using it. am i gonna sit here and say i experience racism on account of being italian? no, of course not, but you have be genuinely stupid not to recognize that xenophobia against europeans, especially towards italians, continues to be fucking rampant, especially in extremely anglo (british) communities.

at the time i sent nh an ask politely asking them not to use that term, and they were completely belligerent and unapologetic. i'm not saying people should be offended by this at all, it was a personal offence because that term has a personal history in my family, which is almost entirely comprised of first generation immigrants, but it just. reeked. that side of the family is also where my jewish and romani ancestry comes from, i'm extremely protective of it because i still live around the people who were beating the shit out of my mom and uncle as kids for not being white enough, and that, for me, was where i finally gave up on trying to see the good in nh's blog (there isn't any). like i said, im not going to sit here and say cancel nh for using the term wop, its entirely relative in north america because italians do not face oppression here, but on the whole i'm pretty nh is not as smart or knowledgable as they pretend they are. scratch the surface of 90% of what they post and its either nonsense or something you can find on wikipedia.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Canadians sit at the top half of North America and look south with moral superiority. We compare ourselves with that cesspool to the south and maintain that we are better.

This week, that moral superiority was on full display across Canada. Quebec Premier François Legault stated that there was no systemic discrimination in Quebec and only a “very, very small minority of the people that are doing this discrimination.”

Over in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford commented, “Thank God we’re different than the U.S. and we don’t have the systemic, deep roots they’ve had for years.”

Later, Stockwell Day, a former cabinet minister in the Harper government, in giving a commentary on CBC Newsworld, stated, “There’s a few idiot racists hanging around, but Canada is not a racist country and most Canadians are not racist. And our system … is not systemically racist.” He went on to compare the mocking he received as a child who wore glasses with racial discrimination.

These three examples come from high-profile individuals whose comments are influential and very public. I wonder, on the other hand, how many people in politics or corporate boardrooms share their point of view. Fortunately, Premier Scott Moe didn’t deny racism; otherwise, he would have had the Gerald Stanley case thrust in his face.

Canadians have a collective naivety that we are free from the sin of racism. The bad examples of the United States and South Africa are tossed around as examples of extremism that doesn’t exist in Canada.

But as people of colour, we have grown up in a country that has both a history and a present that reeks of racism. Slavery existed in Canada under both French and British rule. We learned in school that Canada was the terminus of the underground railway, giving sanctuary to runaway slaves from the United States. What we didn’t learn was that their descendants were segregated and ghettoized. Chinese labourers built the railway in British Columbia, but a head tax kept them separated from their families.

The story of the Indigenous people is one of neglect and genocide. If we didn’t sign treaty and take reserve land, we were starved into submission. The government wanted to settle the West and we were considered an impediment to settlement. We were colonized by the churches and the federal government. Colonialism is also racism.

The racism and repression continue to the present. Last November, the Globe and Mail obtained a document from the RCMP that stated that from 2007 to 2017 the RCMP fatally shot 61 individuals, and one third of them were Indigenous people. This winter, the Winnipeg police killed three Indigenous people within the span of 10 days, causing the Indigenous Bar Association to call for an inquiry.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada @abpoli @torontopoli

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

Encrusted With Iron

(Against the Negative Force of Stupid People)

Stephen Jay Morris

2/25/2022

©Scientific Morality

Yesterday’s news mirrored the way it was in America, in 1939, when the Nazis invaded Poland. The newspapers shouted out headlines while radio broadcasts featured BBC correspondents reporting with the sound of gunfire in the background. The British reporter sounded like a schoolmaster, pronouncing each syllable perfectly under fear of the “Nazi grammar police,” holding him in the crosshairs of a government-issued rifle. His voice reeked of both condescension and broadcaster professionalism. American radio broadcasters, like Edward R. Murrow, are an endangered species, so the BBC’s reporters deliver the world news.

The sky was gray as my doctor told Pamela and I that a big snow storm was imminent that night. About eight inches, he said. As I type this, I look out my window to see what looks like dandruff falling from the sky. Most countries other than the USA plan their military invasions to take place in the winter. Napoleon tried that in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. He lost.

American conservatives boast of America as being the best country in the world. Actually, when it comes to conservatism, we are the worst! We are also the worst Leftist country in the whole fucking universe! Like the person who suffers from narcissist personality disorder, they spout delusional bragging. Whenever a narcissist references the USA, he says, “My country!” However, a sensible person will declare, “Our country!” How many times must I repeat this objective truth?

At this point, Right Wing Conservatives are in a political dilemma. They always enter into wars with some Authoritarian leftist country and, as such, America is a force for good. However, what happens when they engage in war with a White country, run by nationalist Fascists? It’s a bad look. Russia’s Putin is no different from American Conservatives. They both want the same thing: a prosperous Ruling Class and a docile peasantry who are behaved and fearful of the Corporate Government. Don’t fuck with Putin’s government! Go pray to your Jesus because the Ruling Class wants Mo’ money!

American Conservatives have no criticism of Putin. This same schmuck was a hardcore Communist Tankie who ran the fucking KGB! They imitated the tactics of the CIA: torturing leftists and imprisoning government critics. Then, in 1990, Putin suddenly embraced Nationalism, and all was forgiven.

Russia has always had a hard-on for Ukraine. Look at how Stalin assassinated the Jewish Marxist, Leon Trotsky, who was born in Bereslavka, Ukraine.

America is having a gang fight with Russia. Putin wants Ukraine’s oil, but America wants it, too. In the late 1960s and early 70s, the New Left got a lot of shit for supporting North Vietnam; we were labeled “traitors.” Conservatives said we should be put in detainment camps. Now it’s the Right’s turn. America is openly opposing a country with whom the Right has no quarrel. The once self-styled “patriots” are now traitors! Hey, Chuds! You are stuck in the mud. Let’s see if you could talk your way out of this one!

P.S. Putin hates Jews.

[trulyinspiringmovies]

Die Another Day

“Die Another Day” loses its mind, goes off the deep end, and becomes a somewhat parody of itself.

James Bond is on a mission in North Korea to shut down African conflict diamonds for weapons trade. During his mission, Colonel Tan-Sun Moon is alerted by his right-hand man, Zao, that James Bond is actually a British spy. A fight breaks out and the Colonel is presumably killed. Tan-Sun Moon’s father is heartbroken and detains Bond. Bond is imprisoned and tortured for 14 months until he’s eventually traded by the British government for Zao. Bond must now find who Tan-Sun Moon’s contact was and he suspects that there’s a mole in MI6.

The Bond series has gotten to an age where it’s gone senile. This movie has lost its mind. From the start of the movie, we see that the classic 'Bond shooting the camera' opening had a horrible CG bullet added. That should’ve told me right off the bat that this movie would have an unnecessary amount of CG. Say what you will about the older films, but at least they had practical stunts that made the action tangible. The main villains of this movie are a bunch of North Koreans. Being Korean myself, I could immediately tell who wasn’t actually Korean and who wasn’t even speaking Korean at all in the movie. I won’t hold it against this movie because I’m sure there are times when actors butcher a foreign language and I don’t catch it because I don’t speak that language. I just found it funny that the filmmakers thought that they could get away with having some actors speak a completely different language and pass it off as Korean. This movie had potential in the beginning. The villains seemed competent and threatening. The movie actually decided to have Bond lose for once in his career and have him tortured for 14 months. I was looking forward to how Bond would take the attempt at breaking his mind and body. I wondered how he would be able to carry on with a mission after being emaciated. Turns out that none of that was addressed. He was trapped in a North Korean prison for over a year and he came out looking well-fed and hairier. He slipped back into being the same Bond he was in every movie. The entire runtime of this film is littered with bad edits, bad sound design, bad sound mixing, bad CGI, bad sexual innuendos, and bad science. The editing is atrocious. Some shots were cut too early. Some shots lead into another shot confusingly. A lot of the action scenes had no visual clarity. The sound design was lazy. The sword fight scene had like only three stock sound effects playing every time the swords made contact. The sound mixing needed work. Sound effects would play over the music and sometimes even the dialogue. As mentioned before, the CGI reeks of the overconfidence of the early 2000s. This movie was probably written by a middle schooler who just learned what sex is and finds it hilarious. Every scene has some sort of sexual innuendo for no reason. Speaking of the writing, this movie has a twist that’s obvious, but so unbelievable that it ended up still being surprising. I had the thought in my head midway through the movie and told myself that there would be no way this movie would try to pull that kind of twist. Lo and behold, this movie had the balls to pull the trigger. I cannot believe that this is an actual Bond movie. I’m glad these Pierce Brosnan movies are over.

★★

Watched on October 27th, 2021

[serialreblogger]

You want to talk more about the bigotry in Harry Potter? Go ahead! I've actually heard stuff like that before, but have yet to do much research on it personally and it's been a while since I read it, so I'm interested.

WELL

Before we begin I should start with a disclaimer: this analysis will be dedicated to examining as many bigoted aspects of Harry Potter’s writing as I can think of, so--while I personally am more or less comfortable balancing critical evaluation with enjoyment of a piece, and strongly advocate developing your own abilities to do the same--I know not everyone is comfortable reading/enjoying a story once they realize its flaws, and again, while I think it’s very important to acknowledge the flaws in culturally impactful stories like Harry Potter, I also know for some people the series is really really important for personal reasons and whatnot. 

So! If you’re one of those people, and you have trouble balancing critical engagement with enjoyment, please feel free to skip this analysis (at least for the time being). Self-care is important, and it’s okay to find your own balance between educating yourself and protecting yourself.

On another note, this is gonna be limited strictly to morally squicky things to do with Rowling’s writing and the narrative itself. Bad stuff characters do won’t be talked about unless it’s affirmed by the narrative (held up as morally justified), and plot holes, unrealistic social structures, etc. will not be addressed (it is, after all, a kid’s series, especially in the first few books. Quidditch doesn’t have to make sense). This is strictly about how Rowling’s personal biases and bigotry impacted the story and writing of Harry Potter.

Sketch Thing #1: Quirrell! I don’t see a lot of people talking about Quirrell and racism, but I feel like it’s a definite thing? Quirinus Quirrell is a white man who wears a turban, gifted to him by an “African prince” (what country? where? I couldn’t find a plausible specific when I was researching it for a fic. If there’s a country which has current/recent royalty that might benevolently interact with someone, and also a current/recent culture where turbans of the appropriate style are common, I couldn’t find it). Of course, it wasn’t actually given to him by an African prince in canon, but it’s still an unfortunate explanation.

More importantly, ALL the latent Islamophobia/xenophobia in the significance of the turban. Like, look at it.

“Man wears turban, smells like weird spices, turns out to be concealing an evil second face under the turban” really sounds like something A Bit Not Good, you know? If you wanted to stoke the flames of fear about foreignness, it would be hard to do it better than to tell children about a strange man who’s hiding something horrible underneath a turban.

Also, Quirrell’s stutter being faked to make you think he was trustworthy is a very ableist trope, and an unfortunately common one. “Disability isn’t actually real, just a trick to make you accommodate and trust them” is not a great message, and it’s delivered way too often by mass media. (Check out season 1 of the Flash for another popular example.)

Sketch Thing #2: The goblins. Much more commonly talked about, in my experience, which is good! The more awareness we have about the messages we’re getting from our popular media, the better, in my view. 

For those who haven’t encountered this bit of analysis before: the goblins in Harry Potter reek of antisemitic stereotypes. Large ears, small eyes, crooked noses, green/gray skin, lust for money, control of the banks, and a resentful desire to overthrow the Good British Government? Very reminiscent of wwii propaganda posters, and in general the hateful rhetoric directed towards Jewish people by other European groups from time immemorial. 

I’m also extremely uncomfortable with how goblin culture is handled by Rowling in general. Like, the goblins were a people that were capable of using magic, but prohibited by the British government from owning wands. That was never addressed. They also had a different culture around ownership, which is why Griphook claimed that the sword of Gryffindor belonged rightfully to the goblins--a gift isn’t passed down to descendants upon death, but instead reverts to the maker. This cultural miscommunication is glossed over, despite the fact that it sounds like Griphook’s voicing a very real, legitimate grievance.

To be honest, apart from the antisemitism, the way Goblin culture is treated by the narrative in Harry Potter is very uncomfortably reminiscent to me of how First Nations were treated by English settlers in North America, before the genocide really got started. The Goblins even have a history of “rebellions,” which both raises the question of why another species is ruling them to begin with, and more significantly, is eerily reminiscent of the Red River Rebellion in Canada (which, for the record, wasn’t actually a rebellion--it was Metis people fighting against the Canadian government when it tried to claim the land that legally, rightfully belonged to the Metis. But that’s another story)

In sum: I Don’t Like the implications of how Rowling treats the goblins.

Sketch Thing #3: Muggles. Ok because we’re all “muggles” (presumably) and because I’m white, talking about this might rapidly degenerate into thinly-veiled “reverse racism” discourse, so please y’all correct me if I stray into that kind of colossal stupidity. However, I am not comfortable with the way non-magical humans are treated by Rowling’s narrative.

The whole premise of Harry Potter is that Evil Wizards Want To Hurt The Muggles, right? Except that it’s not. Voldemort’s goal is to subjugate the inferior humans, rule over non-magical people as the rightful overlords, but that’s hardly mentioned by the narrative. Instead, it focuses on the (also egregious and uncomfortably metaphorical) “blood purism” of wizarding culture, and how wizards would be persecuted for their heritage.

But muggles, actual muggles, are arguably the ones who stand to lose the most to Voldemort, and they’re never notified of their danger. We, the muggles reading it, don’t even really register that we’re the collateral damage in this narrative. Because throughout the series, muggles are set up as laughingstocks. Even the kindest, most muggle-friendly wizards are more obsessed with non-magical people as a curiosity than actually able to relate to them as people. 

I dunno, friends, I’m just uncomfortable with the level of dehumanization that’s assigned to non-magical humans. (Like, there’s not even a non-offensive term for them in canon. There’s “muggle,” which is humorously indulgent at best and actively insulting at worst, and there’s “squib,” which is literally the word for a firework that fails to spark.) It’s not like “muggles” are actually a real people group that can be oppressed, and like I said this kind of analysis sounds a bit like the whining of “reverse racism” advocates where the powerful majority complains about being insulted, but... it kind of also reeks of ableism. People that are not able to do a certain cool, useful thing (use magic) are inherently inferior, funny at best and disposable at worst. They suffer and die every day from things that can easily be cured with magic, but magic-users don’t bother to help them, and even when they’re actively attacked the tragedy of hundreds dying is barely mourned by the narrative. 

It gives me bad vibes. I don’t Love It. It sounds uncomfortably like Rowling’s saying “people that are unable to access this common skill are inherently inferior,” and that really does sound like ableism to me. 

Either way, there’s something icky about consigning an entire group of people to the role of “funny clumsy stupid,” regardless of any real-world connections there may or may not be to that people group. Don’t teach children that a single genetic characteristic can impact someone’s personhood, or make them inherently less worthy of being taken seriously. Just, like... don’t do that.

Sketch Thing #4: The house elves. Everyone knows about the house elves, I think. The implications of “they’re slaves but they like it” and the only person who sees it as an issue having her campaign turned into a joke by the narrative (“S.P.E.W.”? Really? It might as well stand for “Stupidly Pleading for Expendable Workers”) are pretty clear.

Sketch Thing #5: Azkaban. Are we gonna talk about how wizarding prison involves literal psychological torture, to the point where prisoners (who are at least sometimes there wrongly, hence the plot of book 3) almost universally go “insane”? This is sort of touched on by the narrative--“dementors are bad and we shouldn’t be using them” was a strongly delivered message, but it was less “because torturing people, even bad people, is not a great policy” and more “because dementors are by their natures monstrous and impossible to fully control.” 

“This humanoid species is monstrous and impossible to control” is, once again, a very concerning message to deliver, and it doesn’t actually address the real issue of “prison torture is bad, actually.” Please, let’s not normalize the idea that prison is inherently horrific. Of course, prison as it exists in North America and Britain is, indeed, inherently horrific and often involves torture (solitary confinement, anyone?), but like--that’s a bad thing, y’all, it’s deeply dysfunctional and fundamentally unjust. Don’t normalize it.

Sketch Thing #6: Werewolves. Because Rowling explicitly stated that lycanthropy in her series is a metaphor for “blood-borne diseases like HIV/AIDS”. The linked article says it better than I could:

Rowling lumps HIV and AIDS in with other blood-borne illnesses, which ignores their uniquely devastating history. And Lupin’s story is by no stretch a thorough or helpful examination of the illness. Nor is its translation as an allegory easily understood, beyond the serious stigma that Rowling mentioned.

That Lupin is a danger to others could not more clearly support an attitude of justifiable fear toward him, one that is an abject disservice to those actually struggling with a disease that does not make them feral with rage.

This definitely ties into homophobia, given how deeply the queer community has been affected by HIV/AIDS. Saying a character with a condition that makes him an active threat to those around him is “a metaphor for AIDS” is deeply, deeply distressing, both for its implications about queer people and their safety for the general population, and for the way it specifically perpetuates the false belief that having HIV/AIDS makes a person dangerous.

Sketch Thing #7: Blood Ties. This isn’t, like, inherently sketch, but (especially for those of us with complicated relationships to our birth families) it can rub a lot of people the wrong way. Rowling talks a big talk about the folly of “blood purism,” but she also upholds the idea that blood and blood relations are magically significant. 

Personally, I’m very uncomfortable with the fact that Harry was left with an abusive family for his entire childhood, and it was justified because they were his “blood relatives.” I’ve had this argument with ultra-conservative family friends who genuinely believe it’s a parent’s right to abuse their child, and while I don’t think that’s what Rowling is saying, I do feel uncomfortable with the degree of importance she places on blood family. I’m uncomfortable with the narrative’s confirmation that it is acceptable (even necessary) to compromise on boundaries and allow the continuation of abuse because “it’s better for a child to be raised by their Real Family” than it is to risk them to the care of an unrelated parent.

Genetic relations aren’t half as important as Rowling tells us. For people with a bad birth family, this can be a damaging message to internalize, so I’ll reiterate: it’s a pretty thought, the love in blood, but it’s ultimately false. The family you build is more real, more powerful and more valid than any family you were assigned to by an accident of genes.

I can think of one or two more things, but they’re all a lot more debatable than what I have here--as it is, you might not agree with everything I’ve said. That’s cool! I’m certainly not trying to start a fight. We all have the right to read and interpret things for ourselves, and to disagree with each other. And again, I’m not trying to ruin Harry Potter. It’s honestly, as a series, not worse in terms of latent bigotry than most other books of its time, and better than many. It’s just more popular, with a much bigger impact and many more people analyzing it. I do think it’s important to critically evaluate the media that shapes one’s culture, and to acknowledge its shortcomings (and the ways it can be genuinely harmful to people, especially when it’s as culturally powerful as Harry Potter). But that doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t enjoy it for what it was meant to be: a fun, creative, engaging story, with amazing characters, complex plots, heroism and inspiration for more than one generation of people. 

Enjoy Harry Potter. It is, in my opinion, a good series, worth reading and re-reading for enjoyment, even for nourishment. It’s also flawed. These things can both be true.

[xxgoblin-dumplingxx]

Sick Little Games: Cutting Room Floor- 1

You leaned forward off the wall and pulled your jacket a little closer. It had been a slow day and the fog rolling in brought a chill with it... And chased away potential customers. And that was a problem because it had been a slow day. A really slow day and you didn’t have enough money yet to buy a place to stay for the night. 

You knew that you could talk into any police station, give your name and tell then that you were a run away. They’d book you and take you to a Juvie. Which. Was at least warm. And the foam mats were marginally more comfortable than some cardboard and concrete. 

There are some things you could do. You could pick a pocket or two, pray someone had some cash on them. The rest of it you could just drop in a mailbox. Minimizing Karmic damage, you supposed. Like stealing from big box stores instead of the mom and pop ones. And only taking from people that had wrist watches the cost at least a few hundred. Sure. People got gifts but not generally expensive watches. At least you figured. Why would they? Not when a phone did so much more. Still, you weren’t quite ready to pack it in. Thieving was dangerous. And picking the wrong pocket could be a one way ticket to a Oak Lawn across town. It was a last resort. 

You looked up towards the sky and sighed. It was overcast. And it had been for days. All you wanted was some sun. Some warmth. You’d been shipped to California, made your way to Houston, New Orleans, Alabama. Anywhere warm. Anywhere you could find some sun. A new temporary home. Something... Just something. Anything to fill the hole you felt in your chest. The ache that never really left no matter how high you got. But maybe it was a sign. Maybe it was time for you to move along and find some greener pastures. And a job. A real job. Not just posing for perverts or smuggling to get a fix. But then, moving on cost money too. The last thing you needed was to end up on a government watch list. It was bad enough that your step dad’s fucking cultists were still looking for you.

When the rain started to fall you sighed. It was a sign. Definitely a sign. And you weren’t thrilled at the thought of having to sleep in this never ending drizzle. And in the cold. It was all you really needed to tell Karma to fuck off for the night. And, as you looked around, just up the street, there was the perfect mark. 

An unassuming guy in a dark suit. Light brown hair in a professional cut. Slightly receded hairline. His watch and shoes were expensive. And he was helping an elderly woman. She was dressed expensively enough. Maybe his mother. Or a doting aunt. Possibly even a grandmother. But it didn’t matter. As he half turned to help her, you could see the outline of a wallet and your stomach growled encouragement, prompting you forward. It had been a while since you’d had a hot meal. The mission was full of weenie waggers and you were tired of getting hit on by toothless old men and women who reeked of old sweat and cheap cigarettes. Tired enough to throw karma to the side. And as you reached forward, reaching for the wallet that might buy you a night out of the cold, you didn’t expect the middle aged looking guy to throw you head first into a van that was screaming to a halt. 

__________

“Ah, fuck,” you groan. The light above your head was bright. Too bright and your head was pounding. 

“Language,” a cultured British voice scolded. 

“Sorry,” you apologize without thinking about it. Too confused and disoriented to tell her to fuck off. You hear the sound of liquid being poured into a cup and it makes you pick your head up, cringing at the light.

The woman, the same elderly woman you had seen early gives you something like a sympathetic look and slides a mug across the table. “I suppose,” she said, “That you were desperate.”

You shrug and glance suspiciously at the mug, “You ever slept under a bridge?” you ask.

The woman gave you a level look and shook her head, “No,” she admitted.

“Look, I won’t do it again,” you say quietly, “I’m just trying to get out of town.”

“And go where?” she asked. 

“Just... somewhere,” you answer, “Maybe back north. Get some work.”

“Doing what?” she asked.

“Whatever pays,” you say shrugging. The woman frowns, the wrinkles around her mouth deepening and you get the distinct impression that she’s looking through you. Searching for something. But you already know she’s going to find you wanting. Everyone does. 

“Sounds dangerous,” she said.

“So’s picking pockets but... that guy. His watch cost a couple grand. And his shoes. Italian Leather. New. I figured he might have some cash to spare,” you explain. They have you dead to rights. You may as well be honest.

“To spare?” she asked, quirking an eyebrow. 

“Why would I take from someone as bad off as I am? Or make someone as bad off as me?” you murmur, glancing away. 

For a long moment, there’s no sound but the woman stirring sugar into her tea. Looking away, looking towards the glass you’re pretty sure is a two way mirror, what you don’t see is that she’s smiling. But, when she clears her throat and you look up, she looks serious.

“I’ll level with you,” she said, sipping her tea, “We’ve been watching you. We know you... And we’ve got a job for you. If you’re willing.”

“And If I’m not?” you counter. 

“Cops will be her in 6 minutes and you’ll do at least 10 years with all the stuff we can give them on you.”

You hang your head slowly and exhale. 

“What do I have to do?” you ask quietly.