#and his and thomas's relationship - their historical relationship

[cosmic-walkers]

okay im gonna get off of steve and tom wolf hall parallels but i can't get over the whole father parallel things.

the more i think about it, the more at least in the show the whole wolsey bastard situation probably pissed stephen off because he saw how dorthea was essentially treated the same way he was treated by his own father. wolsey probably reminded stephen of his own father, in a negative way. because he had to have known about it. he probably had such a high opinion of wolsey at first, and then saw how dorthea was hushed away like a nuisance, and again, that is what happened to stephen. it's like they were both punished for being born out of wedlock.

which is so funny because the contrast to thomas is that thomas also saw wolsey as his father, a father figure who saved him and whom he loved. one who would never hurt him, and actually gave him the chance to be well, him. they were both essentially 'sons' of wolsey, sons that he had brought up, both lowborn just like wolsey but they also had such different views. and stephen started to resent him, even if in secret. at least in the show - because historically wolsey and stephen were besties.

i know we don't really develop into stephen's mind, but we know his parental situation in the book is a sore spot for him and i *think* that context is left out of the show. but that would've been another awesome parallel between them.

now tho, if stephen and thomas were friends, and stephen saw how thomas treated his own bastard now that probably would've given thomas some points in his book--

[austinsarts]

The POV is that you dream about that guy you killed twenty years ago. I had this twisted idea that Stephen has nightmares about the people he had a hand in killing, and a headless Thomas Cromwell always pops up in his nightmares - or sometimes just his head.

colored versions of this wip under the cut

[kaurwreck]

for the ask game: LILAC CHARCOAL AND RASPBERRY

anon this is so sweet 😭

[ask game provided below for reference; if you'd like to play, please reblog from OP here:]

[the-crooked-library]

Nuance, Narratives, and Nosferatu

As of today, Robert Eggers' Nosferatu (2024) has only been in theatres for 4 full days; and, coincidentally, that is about as long as I am able to let my thoughts marinate before they demand to be communicated. Before going into any further detail, let it be known that this film was made by freaks for freaks; it exists for the goths, the gays, the monsterfuckers, the historians, and for all those who delight in moral and thematic complexity.

With that being said - spoilers under the cut!

There are two principal narratives running through the flesh of Nosferatu, both of them rooted heavily in the cultural and literary origins of the story. It is a nightmare; it is also an erotic fantasy. It is horrifying, and it is also achingly romantic. From what I've seen so far, the vast majority of discourse that has already emerged around the film is caused by people misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the relationship between these different lines of analysis; so please trust me when I say, from the bottom of my heart, that this duality is the very lifeblood of the movie.

The reason for that is, quite simply, that Nosferatu is a gothic horror film, set in 1830s German Confederation; and its plot relies on the same (sometimes contradictory) complexities often displayed in Victorian gothic fiction.

From the beginning of the movie, we are given to understand that Ellen Hutter met Count Orlok - the eponymous nosferatu - psychically, when she was very young. They spoke, she pledged herself to him, and was horrified to realize what she had done when he revealed his true visage to her in their first visual (and sexual) encounter.

Here, under the lilacs, the paths diverge.

The first reading of the film is perhaps the more straightforward. A young girl is essentially catfished and groomed by a much older, dangerous man. When they meet for the first time, she is a teenager; the lilacs that bloom where it happens become a trigger. He is the source of her madness and "melancholy" (depression), she has nightmares about him regularly enough that her husband is aware of them, and it is implied that she has been institutionalized in the past. Thomas Hutter is the physical representation of her one desperate hope for a normal life - but as the story progresses, she finds herself being denied even that. Orlok's psychic connection with her verges on demonic possession; in chilling, The Exorcist-inspired sequences, she writhes and mutters, prophesying a city-wide reign of death and terror. In pursuit of his claim on Ellen, Orlok terrorizes her husband, murders her friends - and, eventually, she gives her life to take him with her to the grave, saving the city from the plague he caused.

That is the horror element of Nosferatu; it deals with an exploration of childhood trauma, of PTSD, of difficulties maintaining a social life after the fact. It is easy to understand even from a modern viewpoint, and it pushes the film to its conclusion with a bleak, heart-wrenching punch.

The horror is not the only element of Nosferatu.

To contextualize the alternate - though just as correct - reading of the film, it is essential to understand that Ellen’s society was extremely sexually repressed, especially in regards to female and queer sexuality.

Both were severely medicalized, demonized, and restricted; and as such, when these topics do make an appearance in contemporary fiction, they are often inextricable from disgust and fear.

Dedicated as always to historical accuracy, Eggers maintains the same setting-based narrative coding.

In anticipation of morality arguments vis à vis monstrosity, depiction, and modern purity culture, let me clarify: this is something that works within his chosen genre. Horror, and especially gothic horror, invites a deeper analysis in regard to morality and motivation, and in this case, Eggers' homage to the origins of that genre grounds the narrative in its time and location, as well as fleshing it out much further than a purely modern cultural lens would permit. In this context, the details of Ellen's connection with Orlok become paramount to the understanding of the film.

As bits and pieces of their background become revealed, the audience realizes that her psychic gift did not begin with him - and neither did her melancholy, or her isolation. She was born with her abilities, and throughout her childhood, she was a bit of a tomboy by her contemporary standards, running wild in the woods near her father's property; however, once she foretold her mother's death, and once she was too old to get away with eccentricities, her father became frightened of her abnormality. She was isolated, confined indoors, and that is when her melancholy had begun. Painfully lonely and aching for some form of companionship, she called out into the ether; and Orlok responded.

Over the course of their story, he becomes the physical manifestation of everything Ellen perceives as dark and sinful about herself.

He is psychic, he is vicious, possessive, and blatantly sexual; her sensual affection with Anna parallels the evident and physical attraction he displays towards Thomas; and the social power he so easily commands is the same that she lacks, being a woman in a rigidly patriarchal society.

In the end, the severely questionable age gap, the murders, the coercion, the betrayal - all of that comes down to respect. Throughout the film, that is the one thing that Ellen is consistently denied. She is young when she meets Orlok, yes; but she is aggressively infantilized by her surrounding society even when she is a grown, adult, married woman.

It starts from the beginning of the film, when the Hutters visit the Harding family. During those scenes, the men are shown talking business - while the women play with children in the parlour; and the same social framing persists into the body of the film. When Ellen is suffering from what appears to be some form of mental illness, she is referred to as a child by multiple different characters; and when the condition progresses, she is swiftly diagnosed with hysteria and drugged - thus being forcibly removed from the discussion of her own illness. The general reactions to that illness - which is, in fact, a display of her psychic abilities - range from annoyance to fear to curiosity; it is seen either as a disability or a curse, rather than anything entirely innate to who she is. Her fears are dismissed. Harding tells her to learn some deference. Even closer to the finale, when Von Franz admits that she could have been a great priestess in another age, he does so with pity rather than anything else; in their industrial era, he cannot help but see her only as a tragic sacrifice - horrible, but necessary to save the city from a plague. Brought in to heal her, he instead guides her to her death.

All these aspects of Ellen's circumstances find a direct opposite in her relationship with Orlok. Unlike all other characters in the film, he only ever sees her as his equal, which is made even more evident when his interactions with Thomas and Herr Knock are brought into consideration. With both men, Orlok insists on being addressed by his lordly title, "as his blood demands it"; and yet, Ellen never calls him by any title at all, be it "My Lord" or even a simple "Herr." She argues with him freely, and there is a familiarity between them that he is demonstrated to never tolerate from anyone else. Similarly, while he disguises the covenant he makes with Thomas, the terms of his covenant with Ellen are laid out clearly, in full. He does not hide from her; she already knows the worst of him, the same way he knows that she is intelligent, that she is powerful, and that she is not meant to be demure and deferring. Again and again, Orlok insists that Ellen is not meant for humanity - and the true horror, the horror she cannot bring herself to face, is that he is right.

In a sense, he is a mirror held up in front of her own face. Ellen is painfully aware that she does not fit in, and that she never has. The "normal" society, epitomized by the Hardings (wealthy husband, pretty blonde wife, 2.5 kids), has no place for her - and actively dislikes her.

The film makes this ostracism impossible for the viewer to ignore. As the story progresses, it becomes evident that the other human characters - even those that do sincerely care for Ellen - never truly know her. Anna loves her, but wishes she would not talk of dreadful things - and lashes out as a result of that discomfort, scolding her. Sievers finds himself bewildered by her; Knock sees her as an object to trade; Von Franz pities her, Harding hates her, and Thomas cannot truly satisfy her, even after being touched by the supernatural himself.

Seeing a flash of a monstrous face while they are together, he flings her away. To him, his experience with Orlok is merely traumatic, and he wishes for nothing more than to leave it behind. However, to her, it is something she cannot help but crave; and she continues to wear her lilac perfume.*

All that to say - Count Orlok is, simultaneously, everything Ellen wants and everything she is terrified of being.

That specific dichotomy reaches its climax during their mutual finale. As it is to be expected from a vampire wedding night, they rejoin in a sequence of sex, blood, and renewed vows - and what is particularly notable is that (unlike Murnau) Eggers makes it clear that this Orlok never intended to kill his Ellen, despite his inability to resist her blood. Though he drinks from her through the night, he stops at cock-crow; and she guides his head back down herself, distracting him long enough for the sun to rise. It is a duet of accident and intention. He drains her; and she holds him as the sun drains him. They cling together as they end - on a bed that serves their wedding and their death.

It is romantic. it is unquestionably romantic. However, that does not mean that the horror isn't also present; Ellen's consent, under these circumstances, is highly debatable, and Orlok is cruel, amoral, and murderously possessive. At the same time, the characters are also acting out folkloric archetypes, with precious little adjustment to that framework - which further removes them from a modern understanding of morality. He is Death, a Koschei the Deathless, a monster; she is the Maiden, a Vasilisa, a damsel. I hesitate to liken them to the Beauty and the Beast, largely because in the original premise of that story, the Beauty falls in love with the kindness that the Beast consistently displays; and it is essential to stress that Orlok has none. He does care for Ellen, in his own way, but he admits to being incapable of love as she defines it in human terms;** and, curiously, that seems to be her primary concern when it comes to the idea of accepting his proposal - rather than all the blood and carnage.

What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that there are multiple ways of following a story, and multiple different stories in a film as nuanced as Nosferatu. Yes, it is about grooming and trauma. Yes, it is about finding love outside of the cage that is "polite society." I'm sure that it is many other things besides, with as many meanings as there are people in the theatres; after all, I am only one person, and the film grossed something over $40M in its first three days. The point is, really, that this is a story in which a rotting vampire is woken from centuries of deathlike slumber by a lonely voice asking him to be her friend; and whatever these two strange and aching souls do with that can go down any myriad of paths. The film trusts the viewer to interpret the narrative they choose.

* LILAC PERFUME - in fact, it is such a consistent favourite of Ellen's that Orlok smells it on her hair in the locket she sends with Thomas to the castle. Thomas never really learns the reason she likes that scent - even though he knows that preference well enough that he gifts her lilacs in the beginning of the film.

** ORLOK'S OBSESSION - this is a side note, but: the vampire wedding sequence reminds me strongly of the third season of NBC's Hannibal. I suppose that was to be expected, considering that Hannibal is also a Dracula offshoot, much like Orlok himself. When Ellen snaps at Orlok that he cannot love, he responds that "no; but only with you, I can be truly sated." Similarly - "Is Hannibal in love with me?" asks Will; and Bedelia responds - "Could he feel a daily stab of hunger for you, and find nourishment at the very sight of you?" I'd say if you liked that series, you should try and see the film. It works with a familiar blend of aesthetic horror.

[mysterycitrus]

Do you have any opinions or hot takes about Alfred Pennyworth?

im gonna upset the alfred girlies but my hot take for alfred is that he's bruce's most dedicated enabler and often hides behind being "the help" to disguise the fact that yeah, historically he has just stood by and let bruce do horrible things.

a lot of that is like... bruce is his kid, and alfred is bruce's father, but also they rarely vocalise it because alfred is british + bruce is bruce + would it be seen as a disservice to thomas wayne, whose death was a key instigator in bruce's path to becoming batman? i also think that alfred raising bruce in the wake of his parent's murder was always going to change how alfred held bruce accountable for the things he did. how can u be hard on a kid who's just lost everything, even when that kid goes on to hurt others, including his own kids? like bruce is alfred's son, and alfred loves bruce more than anyone else, including alfred's own children (irony).

that doesn't make him a bad person necessarily but it does explain a lot of his actions. sometimes, sure, he'll shout at bruce, and storm away, or be silently disapproving, but ultimately he'll still stand on the sidelines and watch rather than acting in the moment. it's easier to express disapproval after the fact than actually confront bruce and force some kind of change. it's easier for alfred to excuse his own behaviour this way, too. he'll lecture bruce about his sleeping habits, his protein intake, but it isn't common that he goes against what bruce actually wants. that maintains their relationship equilibrium.

i also think examining alfred's relationships with bruce's kids is interesting, especially since there's this pervasive idea that jason is alfred's favourite which is.... lol. the dynamics of dick's time as robin are always gonna be a lil funky as a result of its 40+ year timeline but both alfred and bruce both refer to dick as their boy. dick is a grandson figure, sure, but he's also like... alfred's other son in a lot of ways, as much as he is bruce's. alfred was that other parent when dick was growing up. and with that in mind, he also relies on dick as a support to emotionally regulate bruce.

that doesn't mean alfred only cares about bruce, obviously, but every successive person who joins the family is going to be tempered through the lens of bruce is alfred's son, and bruce is also alfred's employer. clearly bruce doesn't think of him that way, but it's still pervasive. that relationship will always have the foundation of a butler raising the traumatised, angry child of the couple who hired him, and then watching that child grow into someone who is the literal embodiment of my way or the highway. i imagine there's some guilt there. wondering what could have been prevented if he'd raised his voice.

[alovelywaytospendanevening]

Franz von Bayern, commonly known as the Duke of Bavaria, is the current head of the House of Wittelsbach. His family ruled Bavaria until the German Revolution of 1918. Were it not for the Act of Settlement 1701—which disqualified Catholics from inheriting the throne—Franz would be the rightful heir to the English crown, according to the Jacobite line of succession. He regards the matter as just a "charming historical curiosity."

The House of Wittelsbach opposed the Nazi regime in Germany. During the last years of World War II, Franz and his family were held captive as prisoners in concentration camps. About the experience, he stated: "We were prisoners, persecuted, but we were not victims of the Shoah. It wasn't up to us, who returned from exile to Bavaria and our old positions, to see ourselves as victims. But as contemporary witnesses dwindle, I realized it's important to talk about it." After the war, he studied business management at the University of Munich and became a passionate modern art collector.

Franz has been in a romantic relationship with Thomas Greinwald since 1980:

"We came from two different worlds, and the expectations placed on me meant that Thomas was often required to make sacrifices and allowances—much more so on his part than on mine. Especially in the earlier years, this often involved humiliation for him when he was not treated appropriately as my partner. Without his willingness to cope with this, my life and the fulfillment of my commitment would not have been possible."

The couple made their relationship public in 2023. Afterwards, Franz explained the move:

"Tolerance isn't enough. Without actually approving of it, one tolerates the way of life of others just because one is tolerant. That doesn't do justice to the situation; we want things to be a matter of course. Many people don't even dare to think about certain things because they're afraid of the consequences. If I had to define my life goal, it would be fearless thinking, essentially: freedom from fear."

[bottombaron]

identified books on nandermo's au bookshelf (so far):

"Guillermo's side"

(from left to right)

-an unidentified New Yorker book

-The Love Machine by Jacqueline Susann

the second salacious novel by the writter of Valley of the Dolls. about a handsome and promiscuous tv network insider named Robert Stone who lives in sin, has numerous female admires who love him no matter how he treats them, and is nicknamed The Love Machine.

-an unidentified book titled The Protectors

-New Moon Rising by Eugenia Price

the second novel in a trilogy called the St. Simons trilogy. a historical romance epic in the vein of Gone With the Wind with added faith-based messaging and same antebellum american civil war uncomfortableness.

"Nandor's Side"

-The Strange Fate of the Morro Castle by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts

(also titled Shipwreck: The Strange Fate of the Morro Castle) a historical 'true-crime' account and investigation into the 1934 fire onboard the luxury cruise liner Morro Castle which 134 people died in what seemingly was an accident. (Morro Castle was the second ship to be named such after the first was retired in the early 1900s)

-Bad Debts by Geoffrey Wolff

the first book in a series of autobiographical/semiautobiographical writings in which the author (Geoffrey Wolff) attempts to deconstruct the relationship he has with his con-man of a father.

-Lilo's Diary by Richard M. Elman

the second book in a trilogy about a Hungarian family at the end of WWII. each novel in the trilogy tells the same story from a different point of view. Lilo's Diary, coming after The 28th Day of Elul and before The Reckoning, tells the story of Lilo, a complex girl undergoing the changes of puberty and coming adulthood in the midst of doom and eventual betrayal.

[glitter-stained]

Wanted to elaborate what I meant when I say Alfred Pennyworth is the voice of the narrative.

It's not fundamentally a bad thing. Alfred is an old wise man, kinda like Gandalf. To me, he's the archetype of the "wise man trope" and that means he holds the wisdom, aka he is the one with the correct opinions and philosophy. One might argue that this trope can be subverted, especially with the manipulative old man who presents himself as the wise man but his "wisdom" is actually poisoning the others, but I don't think that's what's happening here, whenever he does something, um, worthy of criticism, Alfred isn't really presented as the one in power secretly manipulating everyone. He's the voice of wisdom. The issue is : we could debate about philosophy and whether there is a true universal wisdom in the real world, but this is a work of fiction: aka the correct opinion isn't about what's actually wise, it's just a) the opinion of the writers/dc editorial and b) what the writers and dc editorial have an interest in you thinking. There are so many people involved in the writing of his character, with a historical evolution associated with changes in culture, with blunders from past writers and clumsy strategies for dealing with them and questionable attempts at managing the public opinion... Of course such a character is gonna be a mess. That's why I'm pretty neutral about him and can't seem to really dislike him nor form any attachment, I can't really see him beyond his role as a meta voice amplifier. There's a fun game I like to place where I replace "Alfred Pennyworth" with "the narrative" in sentences.

This gives us an interesting reading on what he says and does:

"Upon Jason Todd's death, Alfred Pennyworth immediately begins blaming the boy for his own murder, a move apparently done largely to absolve Bruce of responsibility."

"Alfred Pennyworth believed Tim Drake should become the next Robin and worked to convince others of the fact."

"When Stephanie Brown becomes Robin, Alfred Pennyworth blatantly disapproved of it, apparently because of his attachment to Tim Drake."

"Alfred Pennyworth was the one to put up Jason's memorial case (as Bruce said he wanted him to), so that the man could continue to confront himself with this grief all the time and let it fuel him."

"Alfred Pennyworth sets in motion the We Are Robin movement, organising the children and encouraging them to action and leading to Duke Thomas first steps into heroism, while a side character child dies as a consequence of those events."

It's also a fun insight to keep in mind when considering his relationship to Bruce, especially the power dynamic between them (being the man who raised Bruce and simultaneously his employee):

"In several stories, it's mentioned that Alfred Pennyworth has a daughter, named Julia, who he abandoned in favour of his service of the Waynes; these stories suggest that Alfred Pennyworth prioritizes the Waynes over anybody else."

"Alfred Pennyworth and Bruce Wayne have a complicated relationship insofar that Alfred Pennyworth simultaneously serves Bruce Wayne as his employee, and was the one to raise him into the person he is today, in some intriguing form of conflict of interest."

You can also do this with fanfiction:

"The Alfred Pennyworth of fanfiction is often portrayed as loving and caring to characters even when this contradicts Alfred Pennyworth's canon opinion of those characters."*

And that's something to wonder about, when the narrative of a story is simultaneously subservient to the main character that will prioritise him over anything and an enabler with an interest in maintaining him within that cycle of grief.

(*not that's there's anything wrong with fanfic being different from canon, obviously, I'd rather read so many Alfred Pennyworth is a Saint fics than fics than treat Steph or Jason with the contempt they're sometimes treated with by Alfred and the canon)

[nepenthean-sleep]

tumblr user nepenthean-sleep's favorite griddlehark fics of all time

hi. i promised a continuation of my griddlehark recs series literally a year ago and never posted it. this is because my life went and exploded in 14 different insane ways and i have been Going Through It. however, as a parting gift to 2024, one of the Years of all time, i present to you, from my personal and extremely picky collection: my all-time favorite griddlehark fics of various ratings.

and if you do, I'll know it's you T - astardanced a short collection of one-shots done in different literary styles: thomas malory, william shakespeare, and jane austen. this fic is so incredibly well done and it made me want to eat drywall. the shakespeare one in particular had me screaming

semi-charmed kinda life E - strangedelight / @griddlebait okay many people already know of this incredible fic nicknamed "sckl" but for those that don't: it's a long multi-chapter fic set in the 1990s. this is probably my favorite fanfiction, of any fandom, ever. my god the dyke drama, the portrayal of butchness, the nuance, the historical (yikes) accuracy, the slow burn, the poignancy, the tension!! the prose is incredible and every chapter leaves me hanging on the edge of my seat.

God Is Dog Spelled Backwards M - labyrinthineRetribution / @thatneoncrisis labyrinthineRetribution is one of my favorite writers in this entire fandom and this fic does not disappoint. it's a multi-chapter modern au where griddlehark are roommates and harrow suddenly adopts this weird dog. it's as much about weird magical dogs as it is about grief and loss and resentment and shared custody of a vibrator. labyrinthineRetribution is, as always, masterful at writing a griddlehark relationship that really channels the weird dysfunctionality and homoeroticism of the canon relationship and stays true to gideon and harrow's canon personalities.

fancy footwork & a bleeding bloodline M - JodsTablet / @jods-tablet this fic has been keeping me awake at 4am lately because i keep rereading it LMAO. multi-chapter professional ballet au. as someone who is dance and theatre-adjacent myself, i just absolutely love this fic so much. it really captures the thrill of performance and practicing and production, and how these emotions heighten the tension (be it positive or negative) between gideon and harrow. there are a lot of parallels to canon as well, which i really love, and i'm so excited to see where this fic goes. also i love g1deon, mercy, and augustine in this fic so much ❤

like the gates of hell E - Ptolemia post-ntn oneshot. this fic made me laugh so fucking hard, the dialogue is amazing. "yorf it" has, unfortunately, made it into my vocabulary. the fic is sweet (well. as much as post-ntn griddlehark can be, considering the corpse stuff) but its also deeply funny and comedic.

and then, for the returning favorites (aka copy-pasted from my previous rec series):

you're still the one pool where i'd happily drown E - valancytrinit / @valancietrinit long post-ntn speculative multi-chapter. i love everything about this fic. i was literally hanging on every word when i read each chapter for the first time. the writing is incredible. there is a shower scene that is legitimately fucking shakespearean. additionally, i absolutely love the way that harrow’s mental health is portrayed in this fic as someone who struggles with similar conditions.

illbringthestrap69420 liked your post E - imalwaysstraight / @nooomagnus long multi-chapter college/uni au. the enemies to anonymous tumblr mutuals to lovers fic. listen. this fic is an incredible experience for dramatic irony enjoyers. this fic is like dramatic irony: the fic. i love this fic so fucking much. another fic that has kept me on the edge of my seat while reading.

We Have Always Lived In The Apartment T - labyrinthineRetribution / @thatneoncrisis long multi-chapter modern au. (deep breath) one of my favorite tlt fics of all time. not to spoil anything, but the writing reminds me a lot of tamsyn's own writing style: there's weird identity shit going on, there's weird homoerotic shit going on, there's weird mystery shit going on. the girls are Heinous and there's bones. what more could you want from a tlt fic.

for better, for worse T - mutterandmumble oneshot. college AU. oh my god this one is hilarious i was crying laughing. two absolutely insufferable lesbians argue in a wendy's drive-through at 2am. one of my favorite fics of all time.

thank you to all the writers listed here for sharing your work with the fandom! i've had so much fun reading and rereading these fics ❤ thank you for all your hard work and thoughtfulness in writing these characters that are so dear to so many people.

[cosmic-walkers]

I think it's a shame that there were little to no personal letters recovered by Thomas Cromwell (more than likely because as people suspect, his household destroyed them), because I would've loved to see more insight between he and Mary, and why despite everyone else at the time turning his back on her, he did try his best to restore her to favor. And at the very least, he looked after her how he could. Mary, of course had others, like Chapuys, but historical evidence supports that she and Thomas were close.

We know that this was a man who lost his own daughters and was from what we know kind to them, so if we were able to learn more about him outside of politics and his time under the service of Henry, I wonder if his daughter's deaths could have been a result on his softness toward Mary and attempting to stick his neck out for her when he could.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Using Past Tense for Historical Writing

Why Use Past Tense?

Historical writing requires writers to describe and discuss historical events.

When writing about these historical events, a writer should use past tense so the reader knows the events being discussed happened at a previous time and place.

What is Past Tense?

Past tense refers to the use of verbs in a sentence to describe an action that took place at an earlier point in time.

How to Use Past Tense

People commonly use past tense verbs when sharing the events of their daily life with others.

1. The way people tell stories about their personal lives in past tense and the way a writer depicts a historical event are similar:

“Pete went to the store and bought groceries.” “Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense.”

2. While sharing these stories/events, a writer can designate a specific point in time:

“Lisa arrived at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 17, 2019.” “Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech on August 28, 1963.”

3. It is possible to indicate the frequency of past actions as well:

“Shannon rarely ate dairy products due to her lactose intolerance.” “Winston Churchill often smoked cigars during his time as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.”

4. Writers should maintain consistent use of past tense when discussing or analyzing such stories or events:

“Kyle watched a recording of the Apollo 11 moon landing as a child, which pushed him down the path to becoming an astronaut.” “Abraham Lincoln’s decision to end slavery impacted the relationship between the North and South.”

When to Use Present Tense

There are some instances when a writer can use present tense in historical writing.

The most common reason to use present tense is when comparing patterns of behavior between the past and the present.

Typically, such comparisons are reserved for concluding sentences or the conclusion paragraph.

“The war on drugs in the 1980s demonstrates the consequences of declaring war on abstract concepts, yet the trend persists.”

Source ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

[ideas-on-paper]

On Carlo and Romeo's relationship & homosexuality in Victorian schools

In my quest to find out more about Carlo and Romeo's lives at Monad Charity House, I have once again resorted to my tried and tested method of historical research, this time with a primary focus on Victorian boarding schools.

Along the way, I stumbled upon Lord Alfred Douglas, aka "Bosie" Douglas, the lover of Oscar Wilde. As people familiar with them may know, their gay romance caused quite a stir in 1895 due to the (in)famous trials of Wilde for “gross indecency”, the tragic result of which was that the latter was convicted to two years of hard labor that ruined his health.

Both already had their fair share of gay affairs beforehand though - Bosie specifically was very popular among his peers during his time at Oxford University, being excellent at sports, artistically gifted and incredibly handsome, so it's not too surprising he hooked up with some of his fellow students. What absolutely had me rolling on the floor was this statement, however (quoted from this page):

"[...] we argue that the English public schools in the last part of the nineteenth century tolerated, if they did not actually encourage the development of strong homoerotic friendships between students."

Apparently, homosexuality in boarding schools was so common people made off-hand jokes about it. In the novel Rites of Passage by William Golding, the protagonist finds a fellow traveler engaged in oral sex with a sailor, thinking of it as "that silly schoolboy prank". Admittedly, Golding wrote his novel in the 20th century, so we don’t know for sure if the 19th-century attitudes portrayed in it are accurate, but this might imply that sexual interaction between schoolboys was fairly common.

In the first edition of Tom Brown's School Days by Thomas Hughes, published in 1857, there was even a passage of the protagonist insulting two boys who were clearly in a sexual relationship with senior boys, with the author commenting that "everyone who studied at Rugby would understand why this passage was necessary". (Hughes himself was Christian and condemned homosexual relationships; the concerning passage was cut out in later versions).

This does not mean, however, that all the boys attending boarding schools were gay - rather, because boarding schools were restricted by gender, they had their first sexual experiences in this male-only environment. Many of them would try the exact same thing out with a girl later and find they enjoyed it much more. However, there were also those who never felt any desire to try it out with a girl - and given how close Carlo and Romeo were, I would honestly be more surprised if there wasn’t anything romantic going on between them.

I mean, it’s not like the entire LoP community isn’t already shipping Carlo and Romeo, but in case there was ever any doubt about it, take it from me: I’m positive these boys were gay.

And in case anyone feels like pointing out that “well, actually, the setting of Lies of P is based on France”: Homosexuality was already decriminalized in France as early as 1791 by the National Constituent Assembly, making France the first Western European country to do so - or rather, the penal code drafted with the intention to only punish "real crimes" made no mention of homosexual acts in private. Still, it was a major step for gay rights.

[delta-back-alive-brother]

The depiction of me in the arms of another man, one that I despise for the animal-like qualities he despises; he is what you call a simp, a pervert and a debauchee, he cannot keep his excitement in his pants at the sight of Thomas Jefferson who was purposefully made appealing by JenniCatznies, another artist you possibly are acquainted with, and he does not deserve the attention of the public so as not to feed in the hunger he expresses in men “oiled up” and divested of their clothing, personality and dignity. He is dangerous, and I dread his relatives and those who live near him, forced to endure him roaming the streets in which he lives, flies buzzing after his trail. Withal, I have not been acquainted with his awful character in person and I have no desire of doing so, the notion of drawing us together therefore is absurd and questionable from a standpoint from an outsider ; the frivolity of our relationship as drawn is IDIOTIC as are you for even conjuring up this awful vision. The culture of drawing two men who have never even seen eye to eye being intimate is truly worrying in the circles of the website and it is a portal to the state of moral decay that has washed over our world and obscured the technological progress we made by dumbing our brains down, refocusing our attention from God and actual problems to fictional men licking each-others mouths in a perverted fashion that suggests inexperience of the artist ; the notion that this an acceptable pastime engagement is false and especially dangerous in the minds of likes of you. Free Yourself. Additionally, you tried to portray me as submissive, something you would know was not true if you tried to analyze my personality as a professional artist would. I do not sway with others ; I bend them to my will and women are made submissive at my sight which is how a proper woman is to be at the sight of a man however I have no interest in discussing this with you which is why I had kept this short in hopes that the message would be more clear to your minuscule brain. The realization of misdeeds you have commuted should encounter you once and then you will apologize; prayers are in order which I will pray For you not out of like but out of love and plea for the Lord not to send you to hell in spite of the distress you have blatantly caused ; you are miserable and I pity you-enjoy the day Amen. 

.Surely a repressed romance novel antagonist

Let me just adjust my glasses real quick—You claim. To despise Simpbox Anon with the fury of a thousand suns. Yet here you are, writing paragraphs about him like some kind of Victorian widow swooning over her sworn enemy's scandal letters. You're not disgusted, you're invested. And at this point—You're more invested than actual shippers.

"He is dangerous, and I dread his relatives and those who live near him, forced to endure him roaming the streets..." My guy, you just painted him like some sort of oiled up Sweeney Todd, haunting the streets with his likes for historical figures. That isn't disdain—It's lore. You've crafted an entire mythology around this man. It's surely giving slow-burn enemies to lovers.

"The culture of drawing two men who have never even seen eye to eye being intimate is truly worrying..." HAH! Says the man who just wrote a dissertation about another man's animal qualities. You are not worried about moral decay—You're worried about how much your mind PANICKED when you saw that yaoi art.

"I bend [women] to my will and women are made submissive at my sight..." Dear gods. This is the most "I've never spoken to a woman" statement uttered. You don't bend others to your will—You daydream about being a dom while folding like a literal lawn chair the moment someone looks at you with mild authority.

"Prayers are in order which I will pray for you not out of like but out of love..." Classic "I don't like you but I'm absurdly obsessed with your soul" maneuver. This isn't piety, it's fanmail. If God did send you a vision, it wouldn't be of damnation—it'd be of Simpbox Anon leaning in, grabbing your chin and kissing you.

THE VERDICT—You're not fooling anyone. You LOATHE Simpbox Anon the way Romeo loathed Juliet before their first kiss. And the best part about why are you so mad? You know it.

Go ahead, clutch your prayers. But when you close your eyes tonight, we both know who'll be there.

By the way. "—by JenniCatznies, another artist you possibly are acquainted with." He's my husband.

@jennicatzies @gastroentred @biblicalvampireemmy

[mean-scarlet-deceiver]

Something I think is interesting about Percy is his relationship with conflict.

His first appearance shows that he's very unafraid of it — as I loveeee bringing up, he was in service on Sodor for mere hours before he saw Henry wheeshing Edward and he decided to jump right in and wheesh this relative-to-him-absolutely-gigantic engine right back, and made said gargantuan back off, and he was totally chill about the whole thing. "Oh, that's nothing — you should hear them in the workshop." He's used to handling conflict this way. No doubt he's historically been unafraid to resort to his buffers or to sneak-attacks or, as we see here, just literally out-"shout" anyone and everyone.

We also see that his motives for jumping in are to defend others. He's instinctively David against Goliath and he fights for others, not himself. And I think this quality remains consistent with him — he's always very ready to take up for the underdog.

The way he takes up for them changes, though. One book later, when it's Gordon being a jerk to Henry, Percy is moved to act. But instead of challenging Gordon, he just comforts Henry. And I think this remains consistent, we never see Percy get into a good scrap in the yard ever again.

There are a lot of forces that would result in this rather rapid shift in Percy's approach to conflict. One is that Percy wasn't on Sodor very much longer before he found that he was out of his depth in some ways. He's used to handling himself in a yard, but his first venture on the main line nearly resulted in a massive wreck and, of course, it may be relevant in "Gordon's Whistle" that it was Gordon who was very gracious to Percy in the aftermath of that incident, perhaps Percy has a special respect for Gordon for that reason.

But, more broadly, Percy is a bit less exuberant than he was on arrival cos he's since grappled with how his new BIG environment means he's not as effortlessly comfortable in his own paint as he used to be.

Also, no doubt, Percy found that the Fat Director wasn't, like... wild about Percy's old habits of handling conflict. (I think it was Houseboat n' me who were joking once in the DMs about James loving to watch a good scrap — he wouldn't fight himself lol, he's more one of the guy who stands well back in the crowd and yells — and how this is one respect in which Sodor may have been a bit dull for him. Percy, however, woulda been one of the lads trading buffers lol!) I think Percy might have held his own against the rather repressive influence of the big engines longer (same with Thomas's undoubtedly overbearing moments when Percy is transferred to his branch line), but he doesn't want to upset his boss either, and that's a circle I dunno if Percy even to this day is sure that he knows how to square. He has a lot of genuine respect for the Fat Controller. This is better than the times he had bosses he didn't and couldn't and didn't even have the chance to respect — but it is constraining.

A lot of his canon stories afterwards (Wilbert stories and TVS) seem to feature "characterization drift," but I think a lot of them make sense in this context of Percy who no longer feels free to handle conflict in the way he best knows how. So sometimes he feels he just has to take it (ugh), or he has to seek advice/have someone better at railway politics intervene (phew), and I often think of a lot of his chronic TVS vocabulary confusion as a bit of Obfuscating Stupidity. Just not liking where the current conversation is going and therefore by chaotic but muted instinct throwing a curveball to try and derail things. Gordon and Thomas love explaining things to him like he's an idiot. So give 'em something to patronise him about. Then maybe they'll stop fuckin' acting Like That.

[theirwolfbicanthrope]

So a few weeks ago I finally watched Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (2023). And I have…thoughts. Some that were vaguely touched on in a post I made not long after watching. (That was just a bit of pondering - and complaining - about the way Thomas’ desire for financial and career security is positioned as greedy in the recent remakes.) Having had a little time to sit on it and think about the film, I’m ready to dive in a little deeper. 

(Aka I started writing this a day or two after initially watching, forgot about it, stumbled on this in my drafts, and decided screw it, I’m gonna finish this.)

Now I admit it probably is a little unfair to bring Nosferatu (2024) into this because it certainly had a bigger budget and more resources, and I acknowledge that. But seeing Robert Eggers’ take before this one by David Lee Fisher did not do it any favors. Additionally, the similarities and differences between these two remakes are truly fascinating to me. Also, the limitations of this one are not the problem, imo. Overacting, underacting, weird CGI, lower production value costuming and sets are not the flaws of this film (I mean the acting is an issue with some characters, but if the writing hadn’t been so clunky and muddled and heavy-handed, that might not have been as grating). 

So really, this post is half review of the 2023 remake and half a rambling examination on the relationship between Nosferatu films and their original source material, Dracula, and how Dracula adaptations would later influence Nosferatu remakes (fitting, maybe more so because elements of Nosferatu would influence Dracula media too).

Because like, on paper the 1979 remake feels like it should be the most obvious one to point to since they didn’t even bother to use the silent film’s names for the characters, choosing instead to take directly from the novel instead - and here we get our first influence from other Dracula adaptations over the book, because they mix up Lucy and Mina. (Which has always, always been one of my more trivial pet peeves yet it will never fail to make my eye twitch.) It also leaned heavily into a tragic romance angle (although in this one it was purely one-sided), seeming to take note of the way recent Dracula media kept leaning more and more towards a doomed, brooding romantic with the titular vampire.

But that brings me back to these two films which are both so clearly made in not just a post ’brooding romantic Dracula’ era, but a post-FFC’s Dracula one. While Eggers’ opted to take his remake and go for a more historically accurate, somewhat grounded approach, this movie is really just an attempt to recreate the silent film but with dialogue, modern perspectives and - of course - a dash (or more) of influence from Dracula adaptations.

What is so interesting to me is that these two films exist in such similar time frames, it’s just that the process of being made and released are drastically different. Based on wikipedia, this particular remake was financed (via kickstarter) in 2014 and then filmed during 2016, and Eggers’ version was first announced in 2015, a script by 2016 which is now floating around online. Then Fisher’s movie finished filming on schedule only to languish in what seems to be post-production and distribution hell, while Eggers’ attempt continued to fall through repeatedly before finally coming together and being filmed in 2023 - which just so happened to be the same year this movie was first screened. Ultimately, both got released in the last quarter of 2024, and I don’t think it’s jumping to conclusions to say that the release of Eggers’ version probably helped this movie at last see the light of day on streaming. 

Despite the fact that their announcement to release time frame overlaps, the drastic difference in the course of events and the disparity in the hierarchy of filmmaking make it unlikely either one influenced the other. AND YET - both films put an emphasis on Ellen having a pre-established connection to Orlok that predates Thomas, and posit the idea that Orlok is ultimately coming to Wisborg for her specifically. 

This goes beyond the infatuation that Dracula has for Lucy in the 1979 film. That particular remake does not imply any connection between them predating Dracula’s glimpse of Lucy’s photo. It does not show Lucy feeling a pull to Dracula - instead she outright rejects him when he comes to her, asking her to join him. She is full of a righteous conviction that Dracula cannot shake - not so much in God, but in the love between her and Jonathan, in herself. (Lucy not only discovers the knowledge that she can stop Dracula if she allows herself to be sacrificial bait to ensure his demise, but she actively works to render his new home unsafe for him so he has nowhere to go if she fails. She is out there sanctifying the house he bought and the coffins she could find, all while Jonathan remains at home in a catatonic state and everyone else dismisses her.) 

These remakes, however, want to explore the idea that Orlok and Ellen already have a connection somehow, that Thomas is specifically chosen for this reason, that Orlok comes to Wisborg specifically for her. And both films - because this is a post FFC’s Dracula world - want their Ellens to feel a pull towards him, too. 

(Sidenote: I’m not saying this as a condemnation, just an observation. And full disclaimer, I personally do ship the Hutters and the Harkers in many versions, and then Orlok with one or both Hutters in most versions. Likewise with Dracula and one or both Harkers.)

But while Eggers’ goes all in with his “Demon Lover”, dark and tragic triangle approach, this film feels uncertain of where exactly it’s going and what exactly it’s doing. Ellen supposedly has dreams of Orlok, but we are never privy to them - we are simply told about them, and only earlier on. Ellen talks to Ruth (Harding’s sister in this, like the original) about her dreams, that she is seeing a shadow in them that lingers when she’s awake. We are never shown such a thing. While we do witness a dream of hers that seems related to the events unfolding, it is bizarre, does not actually feature Orlok in it - it actually starts with Ellen hearing Thomas call her name in the distance, but Thomas does not appear in it either - and is never referenced again. (I’m not even getting into the fact that she’s pregnant in the dream despite the fact that there is no talk of pregnancy or even wanting a child in any other part of the movie.) Ellen also goes on to tell Ruth she feels drawn to this shadow and conflicted over it. 

We have a moment where Ellen is talking about Thomas and also the shadow, and says “She loves him,” and I admit, I am not quite certain which “him” she’s referring to. It makes sense that she’s talking about Thomas, but the phrasing is awkward and unclear. And then this leads to Ruth talking about different kinds of love, including “forbidden” love, and it is heavily implied she’s a lesbian and is sort of coming onto Ellen? This is also never really brought up again. (Okay to be fair, earlier on Ruth and Harding argue over her not being married and she’s very insistent on not marrying, so they did lay some groundwork. Only to then drop it. This is a pattern.)

Oddly enough, during the first half of this movie, Ellen, her relationship with Thomas, and her ‘told but never shown’ dynamic with Orlok felt eerily similar to what I’ve read and been told of Eggers’ 2016 draft. This Ellen feels unfulfilled, unloved; there’s a sense that she struggles to love Thomas, while Thomas seems mostly happy to be married but less interested in who he’s married to (he cannot even tell her he loves her when leaving, after she says it to him). Ellen speaks of her dreams that make her feel confused and feels a pull towards darkness. Thomas is obsessed with attaining wealth and being just like his best friend Harding (here named Wolfram), while Ellen doesn’t care about such things.

To be quite honest, had I not read that this was filmed in 2016, I’d be convinced that the writer/director here had seen Eggers’ early script and took some of it to heart when making his own version. This film’s Thomas even knows, as he languishes in Transylvania, sick from his travels and Orlok feeding on him, that Orlok is specifically targeting his wife. A strong indication that these remakes are both - consciously or not - heavily influenced by adaptations of Dracula as much as the novel itself and nearly as much as the original silent film.

Plus, neither 1922 and 1979 give any indication that Thomas/Jonathan and Ellen/Lucy do not love each other or are not happy together. I already spoke of ‘79’s Lucy and her faith in their love, and on Jonathan’s end there’s plenty of evidence that he loves her in return. While he seems to be unmoved by Lucy’s sacrifice at the end, this feels like part of his transformation. My personal interpretation of Jonathan at the end was that becoming a vampire/nosferatu has turned him into the worst version of himself - rendering him unfeeling and unaffected, detached from that which made him human, which made him Jonathan. Hence not remembering Lucy or their relationship after returning home even before he turns. He is newborn in his vampirism, he does not have the sadness or loneliness of that movie’s Dracula, who has been such a creature for too long. And though financial success/economic concerns are present in the original and maybe vaguely so in the ‘79 film, Ellen/Lucy are not so outspokenly against Thomas’ financial worries. There is no indication that Ellen or Lucy are unhappy, unfulfilled, or longing for some secret darkness. They do not want Jonathan to go, and seem to have some sixth sense that something awful will happen, but it is not due to an already existing psychic or spiritual connection with Orlok/Dracula.

In a lot of ways, 1979 - despite using names from the novel for its characters - honestly seems to be the least influenced by adaptations of Dracula. Probably because it came earlier on, while 2023 and 2024 both came after FFC Dracula and its enduring influence over the world of Dracula media, for better or worse. Coppola’s lavish and over the top adaptation itself drew from Nosferatu (mostly in regards to Dracula’s shadow and I think the noticing of Mina’s picture - I could be completely misremembering, but these seemed to originate from the 1922 film, not the novel itself). The 1992 film went in hard on Jonathan Harker being stuffy and overly prim and proper, with Mina being sexually unfulfilled/frustrated and craving something more, something darker - and though it is not the originator of the reincarnation plot, it was the one to solidify it in pop culture and truly cement the concept of Mina and Dracula being the real romantic story, that they had a preexisting connection that Jonathan was ultimately the third wheel in.

(I did, through an ask sent after my post discussing the remakes’ depiction of Thomas and his relationship with money, find out that an early draft of the 1992 Dracula is accessible online and included Jonathan being very focused on money/coming across greedy, which makes me think that might be the root of 2023 and 2024 taking similar approaches.)

What is interesting is how 2023 and 2024 clearly exist in this post Dracula 1992 world and are influenced by that version, but in different ways both movies seem to try to reject it as well. There’s of course Eggers’ discussing how he didn’t want to do the romantic hero version, he wanted Orlok to be an asshole evil vampire while still exploring a twisted triangle between him, Ellen, and Thomas. But 2023 rejects this influence by basically just…dropping it after a point.

All that foundation laying and variation from the original silent movie? Pretty much goes nowhere and means nothing, and I am left wondering what was the point. Those dreams? That pull? Ellen feeling something for the shadow? Just dropped. The only additional, on screen moment between the two (and calling it that is a stretch) comes when Orlok finally feeds on Thomas - Ellen dreams that she’s there, sort of, and can see what’s happening. While this is indicated through editing in the original, this film explicitly shows her viewing what’s happening through a watery window while she sleepwalks. And…yeah. That’s basically it. The rest of the film sticks much closer to the original version, with a few added moments and minor alterations here and there. 

Harding’s sister Ruth dies and he becomes convinced Knock did it, while Thomas tries to convince him that the plague is no mere plague but the curse of the vampiric Orlok - sound familiar? I swear, did these two directors hang out at some point? - but Ellen’s plot suddenly becomes painfully identical to the silent film. Whatever additional meat was given to her now means nothing. (We even find out in this version she’s of Romani descent, which is what the protection charm she gave to Thomas comes from and I think is supposed to explain her “mystical” nature - but we find this out in a scene between Thomas and the nurse who believes his talk of Orlok and vampirism at the Transylvanian hospital, and it’s never acknowledged again.)

While 2024 decided to give Ellen a connection to Orlok and make her the central figure from the getgo through to the end, 2023 seems to give it to her for a little added flavor that is burnt up early on, and then decided to remain firmly focused on Thomas. Even with the unflattering portrayal of the character, Thomas in this specific film has the most consistent character arc. Which is truly frustrating, because again - this iteration of Thomas is absolutely insufferable and an awful husband. All the negative things said about Thomas in Eggers’ remake, even the most biased? Yeah, all that can be applied to 2023’s Thomas Hutter and more. (In fact, I won’t lie - the dialogue between Thomas and Orlok at the dinner table the night of his arrival reads like a parody fic fed by some of the most outrageous anti-Thomas sentiments I’ve seen on here and heard of from others.)

Where Eggers’ Thomas is allowed to show Ellen love from the start, in this version, Hutter cannot tell his wife he loves her back before he leaves, holds the charm she gave him with little regard even as a token of her concern for him, and happily sleeps with a Romanian local during his stay at the inn before reaching the castle. He’s rude and completely dismissive of her. Also it’s implied that though they’ve been married a year, they have not actually had sex? (As I type this out, I am pondering if this was what the pregnancy in her one dream related to, a desire to procreate with her husband already. It would have helped if it had been acknowledged at any other point. This movie is not overly subtle with a lot of its dialogue, but then it has other elements where I think I get what it’s saying but if I’m not reading too much into it, it is being painfully vague and obtuse.) 

I’ve read some discussion on the original silent film, where it discussed this sort of exaggerated innocence between Ellen and Thomas at the beginning and that they’re ‘childlike’ before Thomas leaves, discussing the influence of the filmmakers’ backgrounds as soldiers. As well as the fact that some of them were gay. Now, I can’t say whether or not that was director David Lee Fisher’s intention, but I struggle to see it. Maybe that’s a me problem. Even if that was the intention, did he have to make Thomas the worst husband who only cared about becoming “the richest man in Wisborg”? 

Thomas’ arc in Fisher’s remake isn’t so different from his arc in Eggers’, on paper. Unfortunately, while Eggers made his Thomas more sympathetic over the years of working on his script, this movie went hard for having Hutter be a shitty, obnoxious, greedy, dismissive asshole of a husband. Instead of Thomas learning to take his wife at her word about these otherworldly things and that money won’t save them, it’s Thomas learning he actually loves his wife and should treat her better, also stop being a greedy bitch, and maybe man up some. But it’s too little, too late, and doesn’t feel that sincere. Perhaps his lesson was that his greed was the root of all this suffering. Which, whoo boy - but I have a whole other post ranting about how frustrating THAT kind of storyline is in this day and age.

There were interesting ideas in Fisher’s remake, which might be the most annoying part of how underwhelming it was and how close it ultimately remained to the original. Trying to emulate the visual look and style of the silent film gave it a chance to explore those ideas in interesting and different ways from the theatrical remake. But probably because it bound itself so closely to its source - despite other adaptation influences - all those different ideas ultimately fizzle out, and it becomes basically a rehash of Murnau. What feels like a building towards something deeper between Ellen and Orlok goes nowhere, and in the end they have as little interaction here as they did in the silent film. Thomas and Ellen declare their love for each other after he returns, but it feels empty and unconvincing. (Not helped that Ellen has no idea he cheated, and he definitely doesn’t bring that up in his apology.) Ellen sacrificing herself to stop Orlok because it’s the right thing to do? I believe it. Doing it to save Thomas because she loves him? In this version? I don’t buy it in the slightest.

I decided against really getting into the acting because again, it’s the writing/direction that I have the most problem with. I will say Orlok and Ellen are both pretty well portrayed but I feel weird naming anyone because I know Orlok’s actor is on tumblr. I will say he was criminally wasted. The rest of the cast give performances ranging from passable to ‘overeager theater kid’. To sum up my feelings on Fisher’s writing and directing - I found both to be underwhelming, murky, clunky, and uncertain. Sometimes it will lay its themes out in overly heavy-handed dialogue, and sometimes it’s so painfully vague I have to wonder if I am simply reading into things that aren’t there - at least to me.

My apologies if this is all over the place and not the most concise review/examination of the 2023 remake and how Dracula/Orlok can’t escape the shadow of FFC. Really this was more about getting my thoughts out. And maybe also work on my rusty as shit meta writing. In a stunning twist, I might make gifs of this movie’s Ellen at some point. Look, she was absolutely lovely, and I have a soft spot for the actress. 

Anyway, come talk to me or send me asks about Nosferatu films or the Throuple if you like! The brainrot is still strong. 

[meraki-yao]

RWRB Full-Cast Audiobook Imaginations

So with the sequel on the horizon, we’re not that far from a full-cast re-recording of the audiobook, right?

I listen to the audiobook more than I read the book, mostly because I can listen to it while doing other stuff, and no offence to the original narrator, but while it’s good, it’s not the best. I kind of cringe at his British accent for Henry.

So I have a lot of thoughts.

The thing is with an audiobook, we can get both the wonderful vocal performance of the movie cast, and the iconic book lines, the ones that didn’t, and frankly, could never have made it into the movie due to format restrictions:

Sexy explicit sex scenes

Sexy explicit sex lines “For fuck’s sake, man, you just had my dick in your mouth, you can kiss me good-night”, “I want you to fuck me”, “I’ve been thinking about your mouth on me all well”

Emails in their entirety

Email openings and endings “Huge Raging Heache Prince Henry of Who Cares”, “First Son of Shirking Responsibilities”, “Horrible Revolting Heir”, “First Son of Founding Father Sacrilege”, “Haplessly Romantic Heretic Prince Henry the Utterly Daft”

Email historical quotes “The whole is a mass of fools and knaves; I could almost except you”, “I meet you in every dream”

Swearing and explicit language “fucking shit” “I fucking love you, okay?”

Internal Struggle

Iconic lines that didn’t make it into the movie for adaptation and story purposes “I’m never gonna love anybody in the world like I love you” “I love him on purpose”, “America, he is my choice”

Like, imagine hearing all of this in Taylor, in Nick, in Sarah and Uma and Ellie and Rachel and Thomas and Aneesh and Cfiton etc etc 's voice. Just imagine it!!!

Another thing to add is that to put it in simple terms, the current version of the audiobook does the dialogue lines closer to theatre acting: more enunciated, more inflection, and slower. Which is fine in its own right (I’m a theatre kid). But with the cast audiobook, hopefully, we can get them to do something closer to film acting, i.e. closer to reality, reading the lines as they would if they were to shoot those scenes.

Which is gonna make big moments like sexy times and confrontations a lot of fun :D

And something really entertaining to think about is now that we also know the cast and their dynamic is thinking about how much fun they would have while recording the book, especially when they have scenes together. And it’s not necessarily just Taynick, it’s group scenes with the whole Super Six, like the karaoke scene in chapter seven, or the Texas Holiday Scenes with Firstprince and Junora.

Like, Imagine it, the actors in the same recording studio, maybe even on the same couch:

Taylor and Nick laughing while reading off the insults from the earlier frienemies days of their relationship

Taylor and Nick squirming and playfully hitting each other when recording lines for sexy scenes like the first night, or the tack room, or Wimbledon

The cast shouting and booing (playfully) whenever someone messes up a line in their group scenes

The chaotic fun that is the LA karaoke scene, everybody’s laughing, Ellie gets to be the singular sober person while everyone else acts drunk, Nick singing Don’t Stop Me Now shittier (Nick has the voice of an angel but book Henry can’t sing for shit),

Taylor and Nick giving each other hugs after screaming at each other for the Kensington confrontation

Nick grinning smugly at every book height difference mention (:<

More of Taylor speaking Spanish!!!

Thomas gets to be a proper asshole villain who later turns into awkward older brother who's trying

Ellie gets to do the pie metaphor grief monologue  

Taylor gets to do another speech (he’s really good at delivering speeches)

 I want to quickly reiterate that I am in no way unhappy with what we got in the end for the movie; I love it to pieces. However, as Matthew and Casey said, there are two “canonical” versions of the story now, and since audiobooks are an option, it would be really nice to connect this aspect of the movie verse with the book verse in some sort of middle ground.

So yeah Audible? Amazon? Get on with it!!!

@almightaylor this was the long post I mentioned, I literally started this in July lol