#what a profound and heartwarming example of a found family!!!

[jaiette]

maritime mother and magical moppet ✨🐠🦌

[featheredglasspen]

Review: The Dollmaker of Krakow by R.M. Romero

The Dollmaker of Krakow by R.M. Romero displays a powerful message that hope is necessary and can be found in even the darkest times. The worst of humanity is outweighed by the very best of humanity -- from the innocence and playfulness of children, the kindness of neighbors, the bonds of friendship, the togetherness of family, to the limitless capacity of the heart to love. Review under the cut.

Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ★ 1/2

The Holocaust is a difficult subject to write about, let alone when your target audience are children, but R. M. Romero managed to pull it off in this novel. The fantasy elements can be an enticing entry point into an important and emotionally challenging topic. However, don't let the fact that it's a children's book keep you from reading it. 

The Dollmaker of Krakow is a beautifully written, profound, and poignant story that will leave its imprint on a reader of any age. The historical detail within the book is interesting and accurate, and Romero cleverly weaves this together with fantasy to appeal to all type of readers. Rich with fairy-tale tropes, the book really tells two parallel stories: the fate of the Land of the Dolls, and the fate of Poland and its Jewish citizenry. Narration hops back and forth between the worlds, maintaining a straight up comparison that surely works for the intended age-group. The parallels are quite simple: A wicked witch creates a horde of fearsome, insatiable rats who overrun the Land of the Dolls -- terrorizing, abusing, and killing the doll population. Meanwhile, Hitler deploys the Nazis over Europe -- terrorizing, abusing and killing Jews.

The writing is simple but poetic, and encourages younger children to establish empathy with the victims. Through Karolina's perspective, you get to see the heartbreaking cruelty of the Nazi regime --and the crimes are told in a way that all ages could understand them. Polish folklore is incorporated into the story, adding insight on Polish culture, and on the historical context of the novel. One example is the Lakanica, the spirit of the meadow that would become the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing ground. The only thing you have to remember is that it’s slow-paced and not complex enough to expose you to new information about WWII, so it’s highly possible you read about what you already know, i.e. stars worn, concentration camps, cruelty towards Jews, disappearances, invasions, etc. I will admit there were parts I was hoping for more new, stimulating content. My favorite character in the book is undoubtedly Karolina. She is full of love, compassionate, and she will stop at nothing to help her friends. How fitting that in this tale -- a doll, normally taken as a mere copy of humanity, feels and exhibits more humaneness than actual humans who purport to decide who is a worthy human and who isn’t. As for the human characters, they are well-crafted, and feel very -- well, human. In the story, Jozef and his daughter, Rena, are among the groups persecuted in Krakow. Through them, Romero emphasizes the effects of the Holocaust on individuals who lived, breathed, and contributed to society before their persecution. This was very important as victims are often forgotten as people, and remembered as statistics instead. The dollmaker, Cyryl, despite his fears and advantages, chooses a difficult path -- showing that even one person can make a difference in the world by being brave enough to protect those he cares for.

It’s an interesting take on the nutcracker. I think that’s what drew me into the book in the first place besides the gorgeous artwork. The nutcracker is not a story I am familiar with, but I do remember watching movies about it growing up at Christmas. It’s a heartwarming story and it can put a new perspective on the historical aspect of World War II. I do recommend that children should read this, but only for those who can understand the grave impact the war had on the world and in history.

Until next time.

[thestile1972]

Book Review: Chris Arnade’s “Dignity”

By Jason Segedy

January 6, 2020

Occasionally I read a book that helps me to see things that I knew intuitively to be true, but couldn’t articulate properly, and consequently helps me to have a better understanding of the cultural world that we inhabit.

Chris Arnade’s Dignity is one of those books.  

Why?  

It is partly the stories that he tells.

The stories in this book are poignant – often humorous, and just as often heartbreaking.  You cannot read more than a few pages in this book without reading about poverty, or racism, or – most omnipresently - drugs, and the terrible things that addiction has done to people and to the places that they live.  

It is partly the photos.  

The photos, like the stories, are poignant.  Some of them are heartwarming, while, again, others are heartbreaking.  All of them are compelling, beautifully composed, and masterfully produced.  The complexity and the humanity of the people who are depicted in them comes through in ways that many similar photographs seem unable to capture.

It is partly the writing.  

This book is very readable.  Arnade is a fluid, crisp, and efficient writer.  He is not given over to long expostulations or flowery turns-of-phrase.  The writing is a sort of journalism that we seldom encounter nowadays – prosaic, without seeming detached or clinical; sympathetic, without seeming overly-sentimental.  

But, more than anything, what has helped me is the framework that this book provides for understanding today’s America.  

Before I get into all of that, allow me to briefly describe who Chris Arnade is and how he got to the place where he wrote this book.

After two decades of working on Wall Street as a bond trader, Arnade grew dissatisfied with his line of work, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis:

“I wasn’t in the mood for listening to anyone, especially other bankers, other academics, and the educated experts who were my neighbors.  I hadn’t been for a few years.  In 2008, the financial crisis had consumed the country and my life, sending the company I worked for, Citibank, into a spiral stopped only by a government bailout.  I had just seen where our – my own included – hubris had taken us and what it had cost the country.  Not that it had actually cost us bankers, or my neighbors, much of anything.”

He began taking long walks from his Brooklyn neighborhood - sometimes as long as 15 miles - to reduce stress, and to explore the parts of New York City that many people describe as dangerous or uninteresting – places like Hunts Point in the South Bronx.  

Arnade began to carry his camera on these walks, talking to anyone who would talk to him, and with their permission, would photograph them and their surroundings.

This process of interacting with flesh-and-blood people, rather than flickering images on a computer screen, ultimately caused Arnade to wrestle with who he was and where he was going:

“What I started seeing, and learning, was just how cloistered and privileged my world was and how narrow and selfish I was.  Not just in how I lived but in what and how I thought. . .like most successful and well-educated people, especially those in NYC, I considered myself open-minded. . .and reflective about my privilege.  I read three papers daily, I watched documentaries on our social problems, and voted for and supported policies that I felt recognized and addressed my privilege.  I gave money and time to charities that focused on poverty and injustice.  I understood I was selfish, but I rationalized.  Aren’t we all selfish?  Besides, I am far less selfish than others, look at how I vote (progressive), what I believe in (equality), and who my colleagues are (people of all races from all places).”

Ultimately Arnade quit his job and began driving all over the country – racking up 150,000 miles on his car over a three year period, and visiting a broad and culturally diverse cross-section of this nation.

As he describes in great detail, he saw how messy life is - all too often filled with pain, injustice, and problems too big for any public policy regime to truly address.  

But he also saw how resilient people can be, and how community can thrive in the most unlikely of places (like McDonald’s) amidst the pain and poverty.  In a word, he found what many people would find most unlikely in stigmatized places full of marginalized people – dignity.

The framework that Chris Arnade articulates through stories, photos, and commentary focuses on three things:

·        The front row/back row dynamic

·        The enduring importance of place in a spatially-agnostic world

·        The power of non-credentialed forms of meaning

I’ll cover the three of them in order:

First, the front-row/back-row dynamic is a powerful lens for viewing our present moment in time.  Arnade’s metaphor, as you have probably already guessed, takes us back to grade school – where the high-achievers, go-getters, and social extraverts sat in the front row of the class; while the kids of whom little was expected lingered unnoticed in the back.

The United States has always been a country that has tried its damndest to avoid acknowledging the reality of social class.  Our meritocracy (which is both real and imagined) has much to offer, but one of its real shortcomings is an inability to grapple with social class.  When we Americans do occasionally think about social class, we always tend to think that it is simply about how much money that one makes.  

But class is about far more than that.  It’s not just about annual income – it’s also about net worth (and the insulation from sudden financial disaster that comes with it); occupation and profession (do your back or your knees hurt at the end of the workday?); and educational attainment (did you graduate from college; and, if so, where did you go to school?)

Paul Fussell, in his book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, identifies nine social classes:  Top Out-of-Sight; Upper; Upper Middle; Middle; High-Proletarian; Mid-Proletarian; Low-Proletarian; Destitute; Bottom Out-of-Sight.  The first three are clearly the front row, while the last five are clearly the back row.  “Middle” is just that – a way-station between the front row and the back row, and a place that not as many people as we would like to believe pass through.

But beyond income, net worth, occupation, and educational attainment, there is one overriding thing that separates the front row from the back row:  cultural power.  

Cultural power is the power to define reality.  The front row makes the rules.  It decides what is important and what is not.  It decides who is important and who is not.  It decides which places matter, and which ones don’t.

The back row might greatly outnumber the front row, but that doesn’t matter.

The front row has cultural power, and it is a type of power that is self-replicating and self-reinforcing.  It is about who sets the agenda, who decides what will be discussed (and on which terms), what is cool or politically correct; and conversely, what is uncool or politically incorrect.

It is the type of power that is wielded by the insiders in both political parties, by the people who run major for-profit and non-profit institutions, by the people who control the media; and by the upper middle and middle class functionaries who serve and/or benefit from the status quo created by those insiders and the organizations that they oversee.

McDonald’s looms quite large in this book, and it is a great example of an institution that (while a corporate creation of the front row) is very much looked down upon by those in the front row, while being simultaneously embraced and beloved by those in the back row.  

Like many of us in the front row, Arnade had always thought of McDonald’s as a place to be avoided, or joked about, or perhaps visited to “slum it” just for fun. What he realized time and again on his journeys is that for those in the back row, McDonald’s is a place to socialize; to get satisfying cheap food; to get clean water; to charge a phone; and to get free Wi-Fi.  

In short, a place that you and I sitting in the front row might see as a soulless corporation that is part of the problem; many people in the back row see as a low barrier-to-entry community center where they will be accepted, and where they can get simple things that they need without having to follow a bunch of seemingly arbitrary rules, or navigating a big, faceless bureaucracy.

Second, Arnade does a wonderful job of explaining the enduring importance of place to a world that is increasingly spatially agnostic, and often actively privileges certain front row places over back row ones.    

But, as he points out, even in the centers of front row cultural power like New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, there are plenty of back row places.  The South Bronx, Anacostia, and South Central are only a short drive away from the Upper East Side, Capitol Hill, and Brentwood.

And then there are the vast stretches of America where virtually every place is composed of people in the back row – small places like Portsmouth, Ohio; Cairo, Illinois; and Selma, Alabama; as well as larger places like Bakersfield, California; Gary, Indiana; the north side of Milwaukee; and the east side of Cleveland.

Chris Arnade firmly rejects what I call “The U-Haul School of Public Policy”.  His writing about place is honest, realistic, and often profound:

“I was part of a global group of lawyers, bankers, business people, and professors who are their profession first and a New Yorker, Brit, or Southerner second. . .

. . .In their minds, staying put is a mistake.  If you stay, you limit your career, you limit your wealth, and you limit your intellectual growth.  They also don’t fully understand the value of place because like religion, it is hard to measure.  What is the value of staying near the family that raised you or in the valley where you were born?

Had I asked those in my hometown when I visited why they stayed, why they were still there, I would have gotten the answer that I heard from Cairo, to Amarillo, to rural Ohio. They would have looked at me like I was crazy, then said, ‘Because it is my home.’

It is an answer that is obvious, because there is value in home. . .The front row doesn’t fully get that because they don’t see that value. . .

When communities and towns are destroyed, partly because of the front row’s policies of globalization, the front row solution is, ‘Well, just move.’ Buffalo is dying, so just leave Buffalo.  Or Appalachia or the Rust Belt or Texas or Ohio or wherever they see suffering.  It doesn’t matter where people work, where they live, or where they raise a family.  If a factory moves and a town dies, then workers can just move.

Never mind that place, family, and friends are often the only network many people have, the only community that provides them a vital role, because what matters is growth at all cost – even if it is brutal – and that requires everyone to always be economic migrants.”

Finally, Arnade discusses what he calls “non-credentialed forms of meaning” – things like family, faith, place, and race.  These are all things that you inherit without having to do anything:      

“People respond to humiliation in different ways, but the most common response is to find a source of pride wherever possible, even if that means in places the status quo doesn’t approve of.  It means trying to find a community or activity that values them.  For those in the back row, that means a place that doesn’t demand credentials.  

Living in the place that you grew up doesn’t require credentials.  It’s a form of meaning that cannot be measured.  Family doesn’t require credentials.”

Arnade’s writing about religion, like his writing about place, is moving, and impressed me more than anything else in this book.  

He writes about religious faith with a degree of honesty, respect, and authenticity that I almost never encounter in an age where dismissive and infantile rejoinders about “the Flying Spaghetti Monster” are taken by some of the world’s leading intellectuals to be the final word on a philosophical debate about the existence of God that is as old as humanity itself.  

He describes faith and religious people in the complex and realistic way that I know them to actually be in real life, not in the two-dimensional caricatures that people in the front row so often use to dismiss them:

“When I walked into Hunts Point, I expected that the people there, those most impacted by the cold ruthlessness that our world can dish out, would share my atheism.  Instead, I found a strong belief in the supernatural and faith manifested in almost every form, mostly as a belief in the Bible.”

“Mixed with faith in God is a strong belief in the reality of evil. . .When you’re up against evil, whether the mysterious efforts of demons or all-too-explainable effects of drugs, the front row’s world of science, education, and smart arguments doesn’t do much for you.”

Many of the people that Arnade writes about – homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes - are people whose religious beliefs and life experiences are nuanced in ways that many people in the front row would have a difficult time understanding.  

They are people whose hardships, trials, and tribulations have helped them to see truths about life that many of us with comfortable lives have trouble seeing.  

As C.S. Lewis said:

“Prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in that danger.”  

Arnade continues:

“When I walked into the Bronx I was an atheist, something I was sure about. Standing years later outside the Gospel Lighthouse in Bakersfield I wasn’t so sure.  To my educated lifelong friends I might have said I was now agnostic, or still an atheist but one who appreciated religion.

Like most in the front row, I am used to thinking we have all the answers.  On Wall Street there were few problems we couldn’t solve with enough smarts, energy, audacity, or money.  We even managed to push death into the distance; with enough research and enough resources – eating right, doing the right things, going to the correct medical specialist – the inevitable could be delayed, and mortality could feel distant.

With a great job and a great apartment in a great neighborhood, it is easy to feel we have nothing for which we need to be absolved.  The fundamental fallibility of humans seems outdated, distant, and confined to a few distant others.  It’s not hard to imagine that you have everything under control.  

The tragedy of the streets means few can delude themselves into thinking they have it under control.  You cannot ignore death there, and you cannot ignore human fallibility.  It is easier to see that everyone is a sinner, everyone is fallible, and everyone is mortal.  It is easier to see that there are things just too deep, too important, or too great for us to know.  It is far easier to recognize that one must come to peace with the idea that ‘we don’t and never will have this under control.’ It is far easier to see religion not just as useful but as true.”

Reading Dignity put this often antiquated-sounding passage (with its talk of temples, Pharisees, and tax collectors) from the Gospel of Luke (and one that I’ve read dozens of times) into a fresh, contemporary light:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God I thank you that I am not like other people – robbers, evildoers, adulterers – or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance.  He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’”

I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.  For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

-Luke 18:9-14

Chris Arnade doesn’t have a six-point plan for fixing what is wrong with America. This book isn’t a white paper describing an innovative new public policy framework. Some reviewers have (quite unfairly) criticized Arnade for this.

But they are missing the point of this book.  Thinking that there is "a plan" for fixing this is exactly what someone in the front row would think.  I should know, because I'm one of them.  We always think there should be a plan.  And we always expect someone in the front row like Arnade to come up with one.

Yes, it should go without saying that the economic divergence between people and places is having social and political ramifications that are becoming impossible to ignore.  And yes, we need to think, and think hard, about how to fix that.

But the purpose of Dignity is not to offer policy solutions.  It is to listen, learn, understand, and document what is happening to back row America.

The listening, learning, and understanding must come before any policy solutions can be proffered.  

And whether any of us like it or not, we need to recognize that “policy solutions” may be of limited or little use.  Many of the challenges and problems that Arnade is documenting are social, cultural, and even spiritual – and they are deeply complex. They do not easily lend themselves to a tweak of a legislative dial here, or the pull of a policy lever there.

The economic and cultural gutting of Portsmouth, Ohio, or of the east side of Cleveland, was decades in the making, as each fall of a socioeconomic domino knocked down many others.  

Data and statistics, important as they often are, never tell the entire story about a place.  

If we are to hope to help these places and the people living in them, we first need to get to know them as people.  

People like us.  

People with dignity.

I have the utmost respect for Chris Arnade.  In addition to the pleasure of having read his book, I have had the fortune to interact with him every now and then on Twitter.  He is a thoroughly decent person.  He was willing and able to acknowledge his own imperfections, and he decided to get out and begin to do something about them.  

I have learned a lot from his example.  His book has helped me to see my own selfishness and narrowness more clearly, and to think hard about what it might mean for me to be a better person.

I hope that you will take the time to read his book, and to look at his photographs. The people and the places that he depicts are worthy of your consideration.

[nemrut]

Fanfiction: The Changeling by Annerb (Harry Potter)

Summary: Ginny is sorted into Slytherin. It takes her seven years to figure out why.

Rated: Fiction  T - English - Drama/Angst -  Ginny W. - Chapters: 11   - Words: 189,186 - Reviews: 392 - Favs: 1,248 - Follows: 1,008 - Updated: Apr 19 - Published: Apr 19, 2011 - Status: Complete - id: 6919395

Link: fanfiction.net

So, I burned through this in the last few days and I have to say, it has been quite a while since I last enjoyed a Harry Potter fanfic this much. The way I understand it, there are three stories planned, two of which are complete as of this point, the first one about Ginny through the years 1-6, culminating with the Battle of Hogwarts, than the period after the war and before her return to Hogwarts to finish year 7 and then the last story which has yet to be posted about year 7.

I think the way this story stands out to me is the way it handles the Harry Potter cast in general, in that it has an excellent handle on each and every character. Every person is pretty much their canon self. Malfoy, Snape, Fleur, the Weasley's, they're are all perfectly in character. I think this is pretty much the most perfect depiction of Draco Malfoy that I have yet to see in fanfiction. He is exactly as he is in the books, no dumber and no smarter.  Ginny, of course is changed but not in a way that replaced her character with someone else entirely but rather that she is still  Ginny, only changed through her different life experiences.

I didn't mention Harry, because him I felt the one changed the most, but also in a good way. With Ginny being a different character and thus actually a bigger influence on him did allow for some genuine changes in his character and an openness to reflect on himself and others in a different way than before. He is still a good character and distinguishably himself but a bit more developed.

The OCs, speak all the Slytherins and some Ravenclaws I actually really enjoined. I completely agree with @Newcomb in that Antonia, the whole time, reminded me also of Ophilia Karait, only not as a cheap knock-off but rather based on the same character archetype, that of the immensely competent, cunning and mysterious older Slytherin girl.

Here is a confession of mine: I fucking love the immensely competent, cunning and mysterious older Slytherin girl archetype. Honestly wish there were more of her pulled off competently. Her taking Ginny under her wing is something I was super happy about. As such, her presence was enjoyable whenever she appeared and she never overstayed her welcome as she's used sparingly. (Here I confess that I also was shipping her with Ginny, but it never broke the story for me as the Harry x Ginny thing is being built up rather organically)

Ginny has two friend-groups in Slytherin, one being her two best friends Smita and Tobias and the other being the girls of the parlor and I find that while the latter group may not have been developed as much as I would have liked, I still appreciated each and every character.

The friendship between Tobias and Ginny worked really, really well for me. It's true that Tobias is not a groundbreaking character, however, there is such a profound sense of friendship in the way that he interacts with Ginny, that he actually became one of my favorite characters in the fic. I thoroughly enjoyed his interaction with others and the interesting parallel he served to Snape. In a way, it was  very subtle and clever critique of Snape. Tobias and Snape serve very similar roles, only Tobias never allowed himself to be broken and twisted by life as Snape and never took it out on the helpless by being incredibly bitter and mean-spirited.   Spoilers after the cut but the conclusion before for those who do not want to click further:

It has its flaws but nothing at all game-breaking and if you at all like Harry Potter fanfiction and the wizarding world, you owe it to yourself to at least check it out. 5/5

The story also had me genuinely fooled that Tobias and Ginny had grown apart, that what happened to their group, the incident at the Ministry and Smita's absence were enough to break apart their group, especially with Ginny spending less and less time with him, clearly not knowing how to handle this. So much so, that I it was an actual surprise that Ginny told Neville that Tobias had been spying for them. I guess my only complaint in that regard is that I wish there had been a hint or something to foreshadow this, or maybe there was and I missed it. Which leads me to Smita and while she is the less impactful person, her role I actually enjoyed even more. Yeah, her character doesn't leave much of an impression, I honestly had already forgotten her name but it's so rare to see such a realistic portrayal of the development of friendships in a medium where friendships are celebrated to the point of giving you unrealistic expectations of them.

Sometimes, people grow apart, for better or for worse. Smita was an incredibly important person for Ginny for a few years but that's simply not something that necessarily will always stay that way and that's fine as well. There wasn't a big fight or an ideological rift between the girls, just different priorities and life took them on different roads. Sometimes friendships can't be saved and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I honestly loved this.

The Parlor was something that I also loved. It's a clever invention, one that feels particularly fitting into the Harry Potter mythos and works exceedingly well in the story as it serves to explore Ginny's characters in a multitude of ways, as both a regular member desperately seeking advice, companionship and a place to belong and later as a leader who is responsible for each and every single individual in it and is probably the thing I am looking forward the most in the third story, to see Ginny trying to rebuilt the Parlor, to invite new girls into it and see on whom she will ultimately pass the torch to.

In general this has been a great story exploring Slytherin, one of the best I have seen in fanfiction. There is no Slytherin wank, no bashing. Slytherin is not a "pit of snakes". It's not Game of Thrones with schoolchildren where every character is Littlefinger, Varys or Cersei. No senseless scheming or arbitrary ranks or whatnot. They are just kids for the most part, but it is still distinguishable from the rest due to its unique nature.

As a whole, Ginny has been an excellent character to use for this, genius even. Since she is a year younger, the story gives us a new cast to play with and at the same time, removes her from canon events enough that the focus is always on her journey and not necessarily derailing the plot, although the canon elements are still happening in the background and shaping her life. Ginny finding her place in Slytherin has been a gripping journey, one told expertly with not a spelling mistake in sight and with smart stylistic choices.

For example, I loved that her first year was basically a haze, as both her worldview being shaken and being controlled by Riddle had a tremendous impact on her, one that she couldn't shake for a while. It was carving her own space with Quidditch, the life-line that the Parlor threw her and making friends with Tobias and Smita that ultimately allowed Ginny to get on her feet and finally claim her place in Slytherin, which was, on a whole, really satisfying to read.

Ron dressing in Slytherin colors to cheer on his sister was also one of the more heartwarming moments in HP fanfiction that I've seen in a while. It deserves mention that I also loved how her family reacted to her being in Slytherin, how they tried but their prejudices would get in the way at times and say thoughtless things but which they also ultimately were able to overcome.

As to the negatives, I guess I agree that there could have been a bit more characterization on the Parlor girls, although I guess that will come in the third story. Still, some more distinction among the girls outside of what they pursue wouldn't have hurt. And while I appreciated the story not having Ginny derail the plot by overtaking it, as this is very much a Slytherin Ginny story and not a Dark Lady Ginny story, I have to admit it's a bit weak that Ginny's influence on Slytherin hasn't really altered anything so far. Sure, I guess there will be a slightly more positive perspective on Slytherin as a whole, especially in the younger years, but the fact that Ginny and the additional Slytherins who stayed had virtually no impact on who died and who didn't is a bit weak, especially since Ginny had a device that was able to suck up all magic which, in hindsight, was a bit OP, way too good and ultimately still pointless. "I'll have twenty" indeed, that thing is probably the best magical device after the Hallows and  better than the freaking cloak.

I liked that the Slytherins faced stark consequences for their bravery. There was death, injury and fallout from that, stuff that the second story explores in an interesting manner, only that the impact is really only felt by them, not by the plot at large, if that makes sense. Their impact is restricted to them alone, not the larger picture. Could have led to more or less deaths of canon, something like that. Make things better or worse and not have them stay exactly the same. Looking back, that is really disappointing. The second story, while still interesting from start to finish, does get a bit overly angsty at times, especially Harry but at the same time, Harry's conflict with the Ministry is something that I really appreciate and found to be the most realistic I have seen and I am including canon in that. I quite like the trajectory that is being set up and I hope this will ultimately lead to Harry to becoming something other than Auror and that this will allow the story to throw off the last shackles of canon. Snape (and I don't think there is any chance of Ginny naming any of her children after him, if they have any) has been handled really tastefully, I have to say. Also rather in character, he hasn't been glorified or bashed. Instead, there was nuance in the way the story used him and different characters saw him differently and all for good reasons. As I said earlier, Tobias is a nice contrast to Snape and while admittedly he wasn't in as extreme of a situation as Snape ultimately found himself, he managed to handle himself much better than Snape did at that age. Characters in general haven't been whitewashed, the Malfoy's being great examples of that. Even after their turn, they didn't do a 180 but rather remained their slightly antagonistic, aloof selves who aren't suddenly super regretful and nice but rather awkward, distanced people who don't quite know what to do.

Narcissa going "you might not have helped me but rather doomed me as a traitor if I'm still getting thrown into prison" was one of my favorite lines in the story. Not a lot of stories do that. Even Harry, he's not being treated as the next Merlin or something but rather the rock to the scissors that was Voldemort. Sure it was important but that doesn't mean they like him any more for it or value his input outside of the public perception of him. The fact that Harry is not leading the Ministry in any shape or form and rather has only some minimal influence that he has to carefully balance is fascinating and super believable.

I think, ultimately, that is the greatest strength of this story. It is so very grounded and mature that it never overextends itself and knows exactly what it is it wants to do and then efficiently does it. This is not a story that has been written on the fly but rather was meticulously planned and edited and the effort is shown and has paid off in every line.

[tocinephile]

Ada’s Top 10 Films of 2018

In tandem with this post, I’ve also recreated this list in Letterboxd.com, you can find it at: https://letterboxd.com/palindr0me/list/adas-top-10-films-of-2018/

Between Christmas shopping, baking a couple hundred cookies, and rewatching Bad Santa every December, I try to take a peek at critics’ lists of the top films of the year (even if I myself manage to procrastinate well into February to compile my own list each year). On December 31st a good friend and fellow writer published his list, the opening sentence of his blog proclaimed 2018 was the best year for film this century and that’s when I began to panic. 

Though I was far from finalizing my list, I had thought 2018 to be one of the worst years for film in recent history! I immediately starting chasing all the award season favourites plus other talked about films at TIFF 2018, and spent as much of January in front of a screen as possible. I hoped against hope that I somehow missed all the good films of 2018. 

A month later I will say this: 2018, it wasn’t as bad as I thought! However, after much brainstorming and revisions to the order of my list, I will say that not a single film stood out for me as the year's best, which is very rare. So here are 10 films (and then some) in not much of a particular order that I think should be talked about for 2018. 

Qualifying films for Ada’s Top 10 Films:

• any film that screened at a festival that I attended in 2018  • any film with a Canadian theatrical release dated in 2018   • is listed on www.imdb.com as released in 2018 

1. Widows 2. Hotel Mumbai 3. Destroyer 4. Capernum 5. The Hate U Give 6. Love, Simon 7. Isle of Dogs 8. Pick of the Litter 9. Shadow 10. Transit 

Honourable Mentions: 

 • Shoplifters   • Free Solo   • BlacKkKlansman   • A Star is Born   • Vox Lux   • Everybody Knows   • The Other Story

1. Widows 

I firmly believe Widows film came in under the radar considering all that it embodied. In a year of diversity in film, Widows is made by a man of Caribbean descent (Steve McQueen), written by a woman (Gillian Flynn), starting FOUR women - 3 of which are of a visible minority (Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Cynthia Enviro, and Elizabeth Debicki), and Daniel Kaluuya portrays one cold-blooded villain. And on top of that, Widows is good entertainment! I may have a soft spot for heists and ass-kicking women, but I’d like to think I know a good thriller when I see one. I feel that Widows didn’t get the love it deserved and so I'm mentioning it first. 

2. Hotel Mumbai 

I saw Hotel Mumbai last year and it is dated 2018 across the web, but it is coming to theatres soon and I assure you it’s good entertainment for your buck. I saw it in the midst of back to back films and long work days during TIFF 2018, worried that I’d accidentally nod off. Instead, I couldn’t close my eyes if I tried. Again this ensemble cast film is more about entertainment value that cinematic artistry, and I never compared the story on screen to historical facts, but what I took in was enough to stay with me and rank it amongst one of the best times I had in a movie theatre in 2018. 

3. Destroyer 

Destroyer is fresh in my mind having only seen it a few weeks ago. Due to the nature of my volunteer work with TIFF, it was one of the films this year that I kept walking into mid-movie (much to my dismay). I purposely avoided the ending of the film and then had no opportunity to see it again until recently, giving me lots of time to forget anything I might have accidentally absorbed. Fully aware that it was going to be a dark, depressing watch, I quickly found myself engrossed in the story reminiscent of the HK police dramas that I grew up with about divided loyalties and double agents. Director Karen Kusama pushes Kidman's character well past the point of likability but the story keeps you invested in the events as they unfold. That's when you know you've got a good story. 

4. Capernaum 

Also fresh in my mind is Capernaum, a Foreign Film nominee in this year's awards season. This film that looks at extreme child poverty from Lebanon is at once heartbreaking and endearing. The film follows young Zain but is supported by a host of complex characters, ch with a detailed back story of struggle and survival. Together they give the film a fullness and weaves a world where although individuals' actions fall into a decidedly grey area, no explanation is required to justify them. It is a world unknown to the majority of people who will see this film, but it is utterly engrossing. 

5. The Hate U Give 

This was a last film on my list of 2018 movies to watch before compiling this list and I'm really thankful I didn't get lazy and skip it. While there's no single aspect to make it truly stand out in awards season, it's a shame that The Hate U Give isn't getting quite as much love as Green Book nor BlacKkKlansman because it delivers a similar powerful message, from a different angle that actually made it the differentiator for me. The story comes from the eyes of young black teenager girl named Starr, wonderfully portrayed by Amandla Stenberg, and addresses an aspect of being a visible minority that speaks volumes to me: assimilation. Compared to other common themes (oppression, profiling, etc) 

6. Love, Simon 

When I think of light hearted, entertaining but impactful teen-targeted, coming of age tales, I like to compartmentalize them by the decade. Now maybe I'm getting too old, or maybe it's become so ok to be and do whatever you want that no individual story can resonate anymore, that I don't have too many examples from the 10's, but Love, Simon is definitely one of them. It's not heavy nor gritty, rather glossed over in fact (the main character even admits it), but the message shines through and it's a really fun film that I think will remain a crowd pleaser for years to come. There is a place in our hearts for movies like this one, it's easy to go over the top or fall flat in this territory but I think Love, Simon really hit the nail on the head. 

7. Isle of Dogs 

Wes Anderson + endearing tale about dogs, I mean, come on! None of my defenses would be strong enough to dislike this film! I wish I'd had a chance to rewatch it so that I offer you more than just a rehashing of all the things I love about Wes Anderson's style and trademarks. 

8. Pick of the Litter 

Perhaps 2018 was truly the year of the dog, not just in the Chinese Zodiac but in film as well. Pick of the Litter was my most memorable documentary of the year, I did not make it through the intro without tearing up (it was really embarrassing and thank god the friend I went to see it with was sniffling harder than me) It was truly a journey, and insightful too, it goes way beyond humour and cuteness, and believe me there was a lot of cuteness. The thing that hit home most about Pick of the Litter for me besides the idea of guide dog named Phil (and we still always wonder how Phil and his human are doing!) as how invested I became in the litter's story through the course of the film. 

9. Shadow 

Ok, here's my Chinese film of the year. Joke aside, Zhang Yimou's Shadow is not on this list merely because I need an Asian film to fill a quota. With the possible exception of Isle of Dogs, the films on my list this year were selected largely based on story over style... Except this one. This is all style, it's a visual stunner that really puts the director back at the top of his game. He devotes the film to a steely palette that's at once cold but exciting. Come to the think of it, the story wasn't bad either. 

10. Transit 

If you haven’t seen Transit, I have some advice for you. This is not a spoiler so please take it into consideration. Transit is adapted from the 1942 novel by Anna Seghers with a few modernizations that calls for a leap of faith. As an audience member, be prepared to suspend believe and it will make all the difference in your enjoyment of the film. I wish someone had told me this beforehand so that I didn’t spend half the movie trying to make sense of details that had little bearing on the plot. I spent days after the fact trying to decide whether I loved the film or it didn’t make any sense. Thankfully the conclusion I came to was that Transit is a lucid tale of love, loss, longing, and humanity. Characters and story mirror each other in early meanderings that creates an almost surreal existence contrasting against the harsh realities of events taking place around them. There is profound sadness, but there is also beauty. 

Honourable Mentions: 

You'll note from above my list of honourable mentions is getting to be almost as long as the top 10 itself (in fact it was probably just as long until I trimmed a few films off... You don't need me to tell you about Avengers: Infinity War and Black Panther) 

I saw Destroyer, Capernaum, and The Hate U Give quite recently, but until I had, Shoplifters and Free Solo had firmly been in my top 10. 

 I'm typically not a fan of Japanese cinema, but there are always exceptions and Shoplifters was definitely one that defied the odds. It broke from the often tiresome mold (to me) of demure characters, restraint, and complicity that's often portrayed in that country's cinema. The message of making your own happiness and family being those that loved you most regardless of genetic ties was heartwarming and resonating. 

Free Solo ranked amongst the fictional narratives on my list for thrilling and edge of your seat viewing. It takes a lot to keep me wide-eyed griping the arm of my chair in the theatre in anticipation and fear for an hour and a half. I love heights and I was scared witless. 

BlacKkKlansman and A Star is Born are seemingly award show favourites, though not winning as many awards as they might have hoped, both have strong scripts, powerhouse talent, skillful direction for the former, and one of my favourite songs of the year from the latter. They truly are amongst some of the best films made in 2018. 

Vox Lux is one of those films that warrants a discussion after viewing, at least for me. Though it feels like the film scored points neither with critics nor audiences, there’s a part of me that’s drawn to intricate explorations of the selfish and narcissistic. Natalie Portman was great in the role in my opinion. To make an unlikable character worth watching is not an easy feat, especially when the possibility of redemption isn’t really on the table. Like Destroyer, it takes one hell of an acting performance and skilled direction to pull this off. I guess this is where some thought Destroyer nailed it, and pretty much no one thought Vox Lux did.

Everybody Knows (Spain, thought director Asghar Farhadi is Iranian) and The Other Story (Israel) were also amongst the most enjoyable foreign films I watched in 2018. I'm not sure if The Other Story got Canadian distribution but Everybody Knows is playing at TIFF Bell Lightbox right now for those who want to see it. Both are dramas centred around families. 

We're well into 2019 films now and I'm really hoping for some standouts this year, at least in my eyes. I mean, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does have a July release date after all! As well, we're about to wrap another decade in film so even more lists charting the best of the last 10 years. But first, we got some more movies to watch!

[morrisbrokaw]

My Favorite Books and Podcasts for Making (and Keeping) Better Relationships

It may or may not be true that one of my go-to wedding gifts—before I may or may not have heard the gasps and witnessed the expressions of horror by newlyweds upon unwrapping—was the book “What Predicts Divorce.” I mean, hey: If you’re going to be in a successful, until-death-do-us-you-know-what type of relationship, you should want to know the science of divorce, amiright? In my defense, I’m pretty sure I am right about the (unscientific) fact that 80% of the time it’s more important to know what you should not do than what you should do in a situation if you hope to survive. Example? Is that a tasty chanterelle mushroom growing there… or perhaps a Deadly Dapperling? Literally, deadly—hence its name. And, to be fair (more to my defense?): With the divorce book I’d also include a hefty gift card or cash tucked behind front cover with a witty (I thought) set of instructions, something about heading to their favorite café or bar for a cliché date-night to be executed expertly with a ritual of reading about/discussing divorce—so you don’t end up as one. Good luck.

Okay, to be honest: I didn’t actually write “good luck.” Too snarky. But mostly because relationships aren’t luck. They’re work. And as a social scientist who studies these human systems we call marriage, family and friendship, I’m of the mind that we mindfully should arm ourselves with some mind-rich knowledge about how to both make our relationships—all of them, no matter if they’re of the chosen or biological variety—awesome. Okay, at least good. But, hopefully awesomely awesome! One thing we researchers know for sure: relationships are a little bit art and a little bit science. And yes, for sure, you can increase your chances of success by knowing more your own contributions to and choices in them (aka, did the way I just roll my eyes move us a notch closer to divorce, or did it serve as a humor-moment and thus worked in our favor?). To help you with all of that and more, I’ve picked my favorite books and podcasts for making and keeping better relationships. It should be noted: Some have been on my list for a long time, my go-to relationship 911 classics (and now my chosen wedding or engagement gifts). Some are newer to my favorites list because either they’re just newer in publication date and/or (yay) they finally came across my radar—usually thanks to a geeky friend/therapist and/or fellow relationship researcher.

BOOKS

So, if you want better, wiser, and/or more delightful relationships of many varieties, you’re wise to keep these five titles by your bedside:

What Shamu Taught me about Life, Love, Marriage by Amy Sutherland.

Trust me, it’ll change not only your current marriage and/or future marriage, but every encounter with every other human being in every context—as in forever more. ABSOLUTELY. FREAKIN’. BRILLIANT! And practical. And so obviously simple that it’s a once-in-a-lifetime kind of eye-opener about our own and others’ behavior. It’s also one you can read in a couple of hours, although if you’re like me you’ll re-read chapters every few months so refine your thinking and techniques. (Oh, and please don’t tell my kids or husband about the book; I’ve been secretly shamuing them and want to continue the experiment for another year or so before giving each of them a copy in their holiday stocking.)

The Relationship Cure: A 5 Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendships by John Gottman and Joan DeClaire. Any book by the relationship guru John Gottman is a book you’ll want to read. As I’ve written/said/shouted/preached before and will again now: his longitudinal research on marriage is the gold standard. He and his research team can predict divorce with over 90% accuracy based on just a few key communication behaviors. In this book, he’s applied those observations—in practical, smart, easy-to-apply lessons—to help all of your relationships. It’s one of my all-time favorites. Never loan your copy to someone; you won’t get it back.

The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman. See above comments about Gottman and his landmark work and relationship brilliance. Copy/paste here. Then buy a case of these books and gift to everyone you know—keeping one for yourself and one for your spouse/future spouse/significant other… and maybe a spare in your purse for those my-head-is-about-to-explode-because-he-forgot-to-_____-again moments. You won’t find more credible advice about how to shift, often just slightly, your tone of voice, word choices, or even facial expressions to make your marriage those among the masters (and not the disasters). Oh, and if you suddenly become obsessed with how the principles are changing your relationship, you might take it to the next level with the Gottman’s “DIY marriage repair” kit: The Art and Science of Love: Home Couples Workshop DVD box set. It’s a little pricey at $175, but trust me: priceless! And about .02% the cost of divorce court. And they even have done research on the effectiveness of their workshops. Spoiler alert: for many couples, it’s proven as or more effective than therapy.

I Only Say This Because I Love You: Talking to your Parent, Partners, Kids and Sibs When You’re all Adults by Deborah Tannen. This is one of my all-time favorites. Okay, almost all of Tannen’s in her series are faves, including the first “You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation” and its offspring, born a few years later: “That’s Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships.” Why so much Tannen-love? She’s a Georgetown Professor of Sociolinguistics who has been able to—with her witty writing and rich, profound examples—explain exactly how it’s almost always how we say something, not what we say, that will make or break our relationships. It’s possible you’ll garner the concern of everyone around you while reading; most of us nod like bobble-heads as we consume her examples and explanations. These are the perfect companion pieces to Gottman’s books.

If You’re in My Office, It’s Already Too Late: A Divorce Lawyer’s Guide to Staying Together by James Sexton. Just out, this has become a new favorite! So much so, it might be making its way into future wedding gift boxes. Many who know me would say “really?” Are you promoting the advice of a divorce lawyer? Here’s what I like and why I highly recommend: Sexton reverse engineers marriage success. He’s seen the worst of the worst (the unthinkable WORST and then some) of couples—literally a thousand and then some of them. And after being on the front lines of those marriage disasters, he’s been able to capture here—with sharp writing, hard-hitting advice and heart-warming clarity—exactly what the relationship researchers are suggesting. And, he does so in a way that I think will resonate with a lot of people in a way that we (ugh, it’s hard to admit) researchers and professorly-types sometimes don’t. As such, I give this book my stamp of credible-relationship-self-help approval.

PODCASTS

Maybe you’re not an avid reader? I’ve got you covered—and so does the world of podcasters. (Remind me: what did we do before the invention of the podcast? Seriously.) If you want better, wiser, and/or more delightful relationships of many varieties, you’d be wise to subscribe to these four of my fave relationship-enhancing podcasts:

Where Should We Begin? Hosted by Esther Perel. Wow. WOW. Wowwowowo. Someone said it better than I ever could: “This podcast is free therapy.” Yes, Perel is a brilliant couples therapist. And yes, she essentially—in funny, heartwarming, powerful and heart-opening ways—invites us into her therapy sessions to (and these are her words) “learn, explore, and experience alongside the couples who have been gracious enough to let us in.” Begin your next hour with a listen to “Where should we begin?” If you don’t learn something and think about your own intimacy and relationship in a new way, you weren’t actually paying attention.

Dear Sugars hosted by Cherly Strayed and Steve Almond. If I had added a sixth book to my five-favorites above it would have been “Tiny Beautiful Things: Advice on Love and Life from Dear Sugar” by Strayed. No one does radical empathy about life and relationships better than Strayed. Together with Steve Almond—growing out of their advice column that gave way to Strayed’s Tiny Beautiful book—their Dear Sugars Podcast brings to your ears and heart that same fundamental and formidable logic found in the book and in their earlier advice columns: that of making raw sense of human emotion and our often nonsensical, illogical, complex relationship experiences. You. Will. LOVE. And learn. And their advice will seep into your consciousness—often when you least expect it.

Modern Love, a weekly Podcast based on the weekly and crazy-popular New York Times column by the same name. I mean, of course, this is one of my faves. And I’ll be surprised if it isn’t one of yours soon too. These are “Stories of love, loss and redemption,” and while hosts Meghna Chakrabarti and Daniel Jones don’t know it yet, I consider them friends. Because they’re with me as I fold laundry, drive between the two states I currently call homes, and even as I bathe. I mean who doesn’t want to listen to, for example (recent episodes): “Single Woman Seeking Manwich,” “When Mothers Bully Back,” and “GPS For my Lost Identity.” You do. And you will keep coming back for next week’s episode once you binge-listen to all in the archives.

Hidden Brain, an NPR Podcast hosted by Shankar Vedantam. Yes, this is a less obvious choice. But holy moly, I cannot stop listening to Hidden Brain, I once listened to more than a dozen episodes back-to-back on an overseas flight. The intersection of neuroscience and social science is not only absolutely fascinating, I find that every episode teaches me something—if not immediately obvious—about human relationships. In their own words, this is a Podcast using a combination of “science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.” I mean, hey: who doesn’t want to know more about that?! #RelationshipGeeksUnite

BONUS recommendation: A DOCUMENTARY So, maybe you’re neither a podcast nor book-lover. I’m here for you too. How about an award-winning, lighthearted documentary about the “crazy concept” of marriage? The 2017 documentary “I Do?” is one that I found so fascinating and insightful—with no easy answers and no stock advice, just an intimate look at the question “when we say ‘I Do’, what exactly do we say ‘yes’ to?”—I hosted this documentary shortly after its launch at the university where I taught. The post-viewing discussion with the producer/director and a panel of marriage and family therapists was so robust and interesting we struggled to get everyone out of the auditorium; they wanted to know/discuss more! My Rx to you and yours: no matter if you’re newly dating or been married 58 years, watch it together and talk about what marriage and commitment and the long-haul means (and doesn’t) to you. I guarantee you’ll have a LOT to talk about. And that’s really the goal, because even the research shows that when couples even watch a fictional movie about relationship dynamics and then discuss it, it has positive benefits for their own relationship. If you don’t want to have a book-club-date-night with your partner, then please do make some popcorn, turn off those damn phones, and watch this film: I Do? Documentary – A Lighthearted Documentary About the “Crazy” Concept of Marriage

Carol Bruess, a professor emeritus at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, studies and writes about relationships, is highly fluent in emoji, loves parentheticals, and is preparing her best happy-dance for empty-nest-time next year (but shhhh—don’t tell her kids because they think she’s going to be all weepy). Check out her research, books and sewing/design shenanigans over at carolbruess.com.

  The post My Favorite Books and Podcasts for Making (and Keeping) Better Relationships appeared first on Wit & Delight.

My Favorite Books and Podcasts for Making (and Keeping) Better Relationships published first on https://workbootsandshoes.tumblr.com/

[gwynnew]

'Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas' turns 40: An oral history of Jim Henson's holiday Muppet musical

‘Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas’ (Photo: Sony Home Pictures Entertainment/ The Jim Henson Company)

When it comes to Christmas specials, either Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas is among your favorites, or you haven’t seen it yet.  Jim Henson’s captivating musical, starring an ensemble of delightful Muppet critters, has never attained the holiday ubiquity of, say, A Charlie Brown Christmas (with which it shares a gentle humor and sincerity) or the subsequent The Muppet Christmas Carol, releasted in 1992, two years after Henson’s death. For years, it was impossible to find on home video. Nevertheless, Emmet Otter and his friends have maintained a devoted fanbase since their special first aired in December 1977, a following that’s bound to grow now that a 40th anniversary edition of Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas has been released on DVD.

The 53-minute film tells the story of Ma Otter and her son Emmet, who live a simple but joyful life by the river in Frogtown Hollow.  With Christmas around the corner, mother and son know that they’re too poor to buy each other gifts, so each secretly enters the Frogtown Hollow talent contest in hopes of spending the prize money on Christmas.  Emmet, with his woodland friends, forms the jug-band of the title, but must ruin his mother’s income-generating washtub to make a washtub bass; Ma decides to perform a song, and makes a similar, O. Henry-esque sacrifice. When the talent contest takes a surprising turn, Ma and Emmet think all is lost — until they receive the best Christmas gift they never expected.

In addition to being a heartwarming piece of entertainment, Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas was a landmark film for the Henson Company. More cinematic and ambitious than any of the Muppets’ previous television projects — with full sets, animatronics, and puppets custom-built for the story — the special paved the way for Henson-produced feature films like The Muppet Movie and The Dark Crystal. Even as he moved onto bigger things, Emmet Otter remained a favorite project of Henson’s throughout his life. His collaborators, including Muppet performers Frank Oz and Dave Goelz and songwriter Paul Williams, still feel the same way. As Goelz told Yahoo Entertainment, Emmet Otter “got right at the essence of Jim’s philosophy — the decency, the sense of giving. And we need that more than ever these days.”

To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas premiere, Yahoo Entertainment had a conversation with Oz and Goelz (soon to be reunited onscreen in director Oz’s documentary Muppet Guys Talking), who spoke together for the first time about their Emmet Otter memories.  Yahoo also talked to Williams, who shared the stories behind timeless songs like Ma Otter’s ballad “Our World.” Here is the oral history of Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas, from three of Henson’s closest and most devoted collaborators.

Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas (Photo: Sony Home Pictures Entertainment/The Jim Henson Company)

Jim Henson and his crew shot Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas in Toronto in March 1977. (The Muppet Show had premiered five months earlier, and Henson’s puppets were still best-known as residents of Sesame Street, then in its eighth season.) The hour-long film, based on a children’s book of the same name by Russell and Lillian Hoban, was adapted for the screen by Muppet Show writer Jerry Juhl.  To write the songs that were crucial to the musical story, Henson approached singer-songwriter Paul Williams, one of The Muppet Show’s early guests and the writer of contemporary radio hits like the Carpenters’ “Rainy Days and Mondays” and Three Dog Night’s “An Old-Fashioned Love Song.”

Paul Williams: I just hit it off beautifully with Jim and with the Muppeteers right from the start. I loved their humor. I love that there was kind of a dark edge to them, with all the bright and sparkly stuff they were doing. But Jim said, “We’re gonna do a special based on a children’s book called Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas.” And he also mentioned that down the line, they were going to be be tackling their first feature-length motion picture, and that he thought this would be a great introductory thing to see how well we worked together. It was interesting because the kind of music that it required was very different than anything I’d ever done.  It was what I would refer to as “Americana.” 

All of the characters in Emmet Otter’s world, more than 30 including non-speaking roles, were played by six puppeteers, Henson included. Frank Oz, the Muppets’ star performer, puppeteered Ma Otter — but unusually, the man behind Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Animal, Bert, Grover, and Cookie Monster was dubbed with the voice of another performer, singer Marilyn Sokol.   

Frank Oz: I would be thrown in jail if I tried to sing those songs. Songs that beautiful needed a beautiful voice; it was always intended that way. I just performed it with the dialogue live, and then in post-production Marilyn put her voice in. But Marilyn had already recorded those songs, so on set I could sing to Marilyn’s tempo and feeling and everything. And she was a beautiful singer. 

Watch Ma (voiced by Marilyn Sokol, puppeteered by Frank Oz) and Emmet (Jerry Nelson) perform ‘Ain’t No Hole in the Washtub’:

Dave Goelz, best known for the character of Gonzo, had just recently become a Muppet performer. He started out as a builder in the creature workshop, where he built several of the puppets for Emmet Otter. In the special, he played Wendell porcupine, Emmet’s slow-witted but lovable best friend.

Dave Goelz: Wendell Porcupine was a breakthrough for me at the time, because I’d only done one season on The Muppet Show and I was really a beginner. And I had some success with that character just ad-libbing in the studio. You know, Wendell had a crush on Emmett’s mother. He just loved her and he wanted to spend time with her and it was all kind of strange. But that was just off-camera.

Oz:  And can I say, since I did the mother: I don’t think that obsession was truly platonic.

Goelz: [laughs] I wasn’t gonna go there.

Oz: No, Wendell was a great character, Davey. I love Wendell. He’s so pure. 

Rounding out the cast were fellow Muppet performers Jerry Nelson, who played Emmet; Richard Hunt, who played Emmet’s bandmate Charlie; and Eren Ozker, who played the minor female characters (and had been the only female performer on the first season of The Muppet Show).  All of the performers played multiple creatures; for example, every performer in Emmet Otter’s cuddly jug-band doubled as a member of their ill-mannered rock-and-roll rivals, the Riverbottom Nightmare band.

Goelz: In the bad guy group, I had this catfish. And I had fun doing the fish because we built a squirt mechanism into him so he could spit water. That was his wise-guy thing. Frank’s was that he was extremely tough, his word was law. [laughs] And it was just fun to do these idiots.

Oz:  My guy [Chuck] — he was the leader of the group. In high school, you know when you’ve got the bad guy everybody follows, and he’s a guy who just is so cool? I saw him that way. He reminds me of guys in high school that I was scared of. [laughs]

Goelz: Oh yeah, absolutely. “I’m not hungry, I’m huuuungry.” [laughs] Oh, I loved it. Frank oftentimes will find a moment like that, and it will just be a standout in a whole television show or film. In Muppet Christmas Carol, it was Sam Eagle talking to young Scrooge about a career in “business.” The obscene lust that Sam Eagle had for “business!” Just finding those little moments that you never, ever forget.

Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas (Photo: Sony Home Pictures Entertainment/ The Jim Henson Company)

The songs in Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas are meant to sound like timeless American standards, songs that Ma Otter and her family would have been singing for generations. A few titles were suggested by the book, but the majority were invented from scratch by Paul Williams, who found working with Henson and the Muppets to be uniquely inspiring.

 Williams: There’s such an amazing energy that you get working around Jim. I think the more calm you are, the easier the flow of the creative source. If I get tense and say, “Oh my god, I gotta finish this,” things slow down a little bit. But if you can stay as relaxed as Jim seem to be? The songs just poured out of me.

Oz: Paul got the spirit of Muppets and Jim. Not everybody can, you know? People don’t often get the fact of the sense of purity and the sense of play and the sense of integrity of character. They sometimes, as an adult, try to make things clever or funny. But Paul just approached it the same way Jim did, and we did. He had that ability to, in a way, be one of us in the musical realm.

Williams: I think the big mistake that a lot of songwriters make when they’re writing for a musical is to try to write a hit song. And I never did that.

Goelz: But you know, he wrote this lovely song “Barbecue” — “Barbecue lifts my spirit, I swear it never fails” — you know, it made me want barbecue whenever I heard it. And then he turned right around and created this incredible spiritual, “When the River Meets the Sea,” that seems like it’s been around forever. It’s so eternal and it’s so profound. I used to sing it to my kids every night when we put them to bed.

Watch (from left) Harvey Beaver (Jim Henson), Charlie Muskrat (Richard Hunt), Emmet Otter (Jerry Nelson), and Wendell Porcupine (Dave Goelz) sing ‘Barbecue’:

Williams: I remember eating barbecue, and that I would always get it under my nails. I think maybe the first line I got was, “The sauce mama makes’ll stay there forever if you dare to get it under your nails.” And I think that because I was such a middle-of-the road writer, writing for the Carpenters and Three Dog Night, that that first line is very personal: “When you meet somebody who don’t like soul food they still got a soul, and it don’t mean that you ain’t got rhythm if you don’t like rock and roll.” There’s probably a little bit of something defensive in that about, no, I’m not part of the Laurel Canyon, Crosby-Stills-Nash-and-Young crowd, or that hardcore rock-and-roll, Rolling Stones music is not what I wrote. But just because I don’t write rock and roll doesn’t mean that I don’t have a soul. [The next line is] “If your taste’s like mine you like cider not wine” — which is interesting because I’m 27 years sober now, but at the time I definitely preferred wine. But I thought, it’s for the kids. 

Oz:  The music was just the most beautiful stuff. Paul’s written other stuff for us and it’s beautiful, but somehow this is really extraordinary.

Williams: I love the way that “Our World” and “Brothers” come together at the end. You know, I’m an old hippie. In the ’60s I was up in San Francisco with flowers in my hair like everybody else was, and my love beads and my tie dye T-shirts and camouflage pants and work boots and long hair and a top hat with a feather in it. So “Our World” is very, very much in that spirit. It’s a little hymn, you know? It’s like a little hymn. 

Watch The ‘Our World/Brothers’ medley from ‘Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas’:

When characters perform songs in the story, they actually “play” their individual instrument parts. The tracks were pre-recorded, so they weren’t making the music live — but the Muppeteers put enormous effort into getting it right.  

Oz: We all worked hard on that. If you look at Wendell playing the jug — Davey got that jug track, and he rehearsed that jug track alone. I got the washtub track with a single string. We each got our own part and rehearsed it, and then when it was mixed together, we knew our parts. And we always took pride in the fact that we didn’t fake all that stuff; we really rehearsed that very well. We’d do that for The Muppet Show too.

Emmet Otter was a labor of love for all involved, but days of shooting with puppets could be repetitive and tedious. This is illustrated, hilariously, by an outtake reel of a single shot included on the DVD. (Watch it below.) In the 10-second shot, Ma (Oz, pre-voice dubbing) and Emmet are standing outside a music store that is being trashed by the Riverbottom Nightmare band. A drum is supposed to come rolling out of the door and land in front of them. When the drum doesn’t land in the right place, Henson resets the shot again, and again, and again, a total of 33 times, while the puppeteers ad-lib between takes.

Oz: The drum rolling was classic. I remember we rehearsed it. Jerry and I were underneath the set, just like all the other performers, so we’re in two holes. And in the rehearsal it landed beautifully, perfect  — so we thought, we’ll do it again. It must have been 30, 40 takes? But Jim would not give up. We’d be there all day long.

Watch The outtakes reel for the drum-rolling scene:

Goelz: That’s the thing that differentiates the Muppets: nobody else is crazy enough to do this.

Oz: It’s true. These days you have CG, and it’s just not as much fun because you can always throw money at something and do it. But when we did it with Jim it was real time. And so you had to be a little bit crazy – and Jim was, in that regard. He would just do anything. And I think Davey’s right, nobody actually understood the depth of experience we went through to fulfill Jim’s vision.

Goelz: That commitment is so deep and so persistent. It was actually a lesson about life, too, for me anyway. I went on from there and I thought: If something’s really important, you do whatever it takes.

Oz: What was funny to me was, that take was like shooting dice. There’s no way you could control that drum! [laughs] It was just blind faith that it would do it again.

Goelz: It’s probably worth saying that Frank and Jerry were in a lot of pain during that, because underneath that set, when you have your arm stuck in a hole, there are all these beams that go right through where your head is supposed to be. And so your head can’t be where it normally is on your shoulders; you have to put it off to the side somewhere. And it hurts like crazy. And when you go over and over like that for as long as that was, you’re in a lot of pain. And in spite of that you have to perform; you have to compartmentalize it.

Oz: And that’s what we learned from Jim. And Dave does the same thing and Richie Hunt did the same thing — all of us did the same thing, where I say, we just sustained the pain to get the performance. All of us did.

Goelz: And at the same time, Frank was still throwing in ad libs after every failure. 

As a puppeteer, Goelz had his own unique physical challenge on Emmet Otter set: performing the catfish in a full tank of water during the Riverbottom Nightmare Band’s performance. (Watch it below.)

Goelz: That was a scary thing, because the set-up was, the fish tank was built into the set. It had a hole in the upstage side, away from the camera, and a wetsuit arm glued securely into it so you could fill the tank with water, put the arm inside the wetsuit on, and then somebody would put the puppet on your hand. And I was sitting on a forklift truck; there was a palette on a forklift truck that held me at the right height so I could put my arm into this tank. I remember just the whole time I was terrified that somebody might come along and turn the switch, and if that palette went down, my arm would just be cut off like a guillotine! [laughs] I think Frank knew that and he really loved it.

Oz: I love anytime when somebody else is in pain. Sure. [laughs]

Goelz: Especially me, for some reason.

Oz: Oh there’s many reasons.

The Riverbottom Nightmare Band performs their signature song. Performers include Dave Goelz as the catfish dancing in the water tank and Frank Oz as lead singer and keyboardist Chuck. 

Though filled with old-fashioned charm, Emmet Otter actually employed a savvy blend of age-old puppetry techniques and cutting-edge animatronic technology. Engineering wizard Franz “Faz” Fazakas, a frequent Muppet collaborator, designed the rowboat that could be steered along the set’s 50-foot river, and rigged versions of Ma and Emmet that could be operated via remote control while they were on the water. 

Goelz:  The boat was super high tech. The radio-controlled Emmet and the radio-controlled boat worked together so Emmet could row it around, just like a real rowboat.

Oz: And while the boat was being rowed around, Ma could be singing, because of the remote control. However, when it got into a closer shot, Jim just put the boat in front of the river — so we’re on the studio floor, and the camera’s shooting at us past the river in the background.

Goelz: For close-ups, they wanted to use hand puppets for better manipulation than you can get with a remote control figure. Same thing was done in The Dark Crystal actually, same exact technique.  But then on the same shoot, we also had puppets marionetted. So occasionally in long shots, you’d see Emmet walking across this big wide shot as a marionette. And that was very primitive; they looked pretty silly walking along with their feet kicking out as they walked. But to me it’s all part of the charm. I just love that it’s that way.

‘Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas’ (Photo: Sony Home Pictures Entertainment/ The Jim Henson Company)

Emmet Otter’s Jug-Band Christmas premiered on Canadian television in December 1977, followed by an HBO premiere in 1978 and a network premiere on ABC in 1980. The critically acclaimed special provided a groundwork for the Muppets’ feature films, which took Henson’s detailed world-building, groundbreaking special effects, and Muppet-specific cinematic techniques to a new level.  Williams went on to write songs for The Muppet Movie, The Muppet Christmas Carol, and the 2008 stage adaptation of Emmet Otter. The tale of Frogtown Hollow continued to hold a special place in the hearts of those involved — including Henson, who included one of Emmet Otter’s songs in the musical program he designed for his memorial service (held in New York City on May 21, 1990, five days after his death).  

Williams: The last thing that I ever expected was to hear “When the River Meets the Sea” at Jim’s funeral. It was an especially emotional moment in the funeral for me. But I think that the songs in Emmet Otter, and the way that Emmet Otter rolled out, is exactly what Jim wanted. I think it’s a gorgeous little jewel of the Muppets at their best.

Oz: If people made Emmet Otter these days, they would make it for little children. We never made it for children. We just did it for ourselves, and so we enjoyed it for ourselves.

Goelz: None of us talked about it — especially Jim — but I think that this show represented Jim’s philosophy very accurately. And I think in all of our work, a part of it may have been that we were trying to show a world the way we’d like the world to be.

Oz:  It’s such a chancey thing that Jim always did, which is take a chance on real purity and sweetness. We don’t want cloying, we don’t like cute — but sweet is legitimate. And Jim just went for it.

Goelz: You know, we just did two shows with the Muppets at the Hollywood Bowl back in September. They were literally like these long, extended Muppet Shows. And we had packed houses, eighteen thousand people in the audience. You could just feel their hunger for decency, and innocence and whimsy. The world really wants that right now.

Watch Ma Otter sing ‘When the River Meets the Sea’: 

Read more from Yahoo Entertainment:

‘Labyrinth’ Turns 30: Brian Henson Shares Memories of David Bowie, Jim Henson, and the Grouchy Goblin Hoggle

Frank Oz admits ‘it hurt’ to give up Muppets, says they’ll never be as ‘touching and soulful’ (exclusive)

‘Princess Bride’ at 30: Cary Elwes on the scene he dreamed up, his battle scar, and those extreme fans