#depending on the narrator's point of view and priorities

[wordsnstuff]

Guide to Writing From Multiple Points of View

Patreon || Ko-Fi || Masterlist || Work In Progress

I think it’s worthy that I note that this post is about a single story being told from multiple, interchangeable points of view rather than covering the subject of individual points of view such as first person, third person, etc. I’ve gotten a lot of questions about this over the years so I’ve made this as comprehensive and detailed as possible. 

PLEASE REBLOG | Tumblr suppresses posts with links :/

–

Make Each Voice Distinct

The most difficult part of writing from multiple points of view is the attention to detail it requires to make each character’s voice distinct and interesting to read. Your best tools in this are vocabulary and the character’s personal, unique thought process. What’s the first thing they consider when they feel the key emotions? What do they notice when they first meet someone or visit a new location? What are their personal priorities and how does this impact the way they interpret each event in their life? Even when you’re writing from third person, their thought process determines what they do next, so it’s imperative that you know your main characters really well.  

** It also helps to get into character when you sit down to write a particular scene featuring a character’s point of view. 

Create Clear Transitions Between POV

One of the most effective ways to let the reader know they’re in someone else’s head is by describing what that character is doing or thinking at any given moment. If you wish to forego the traditional format of each chapter having one single point of view, it’s important to train the reader to detect a shift in perspective with subtextual clues and a distinct voice in the narrator. Any manner in which you choose to accomplish this is acceptable as long as it’s always clear whose eyes they’re looking through. 

Keep Each Character’s Narrative Interesting

Each character whose point of view is present should have a distinct purpose and quality. Each character’s voice should have an appeal the others’ don’t, and each time you switch perspectives should be welcoming to the reader. If one characters POV parts repeatedly act as filler or a distraction, then it’s time to rethink whether their POV is necessary and whether there’s any opportunity you’re missing to bring something good to the table with their unique interpretation of events. 

Choose The Right POV For Each Scene/Event

Whether you’re switching POVs scene-by-scene or chapter-by-chapter, it’s important that you are using the POV that is the most interesting, efficient, and effective in getting across whatever message you’re sending to the reader, whether that be foreshadowing, thematic payoff, etc. There’s a certain amount of trial and error here, so be prepared to write the same scene over and over until you get the perspective right because this can make or break the quality of your story overall. It’s also helpful to create a trend between scene objectives and POV characters. 

Balance Without Repeating Information

Balancing time between POV characters is important, but if you’re going to show the reader the same thing twice, there has to be a justifiable reason, and it has to be written in a way that will introduce new information each time that is necessary to the story, and it must be revealing of that character’s personality, motivations, priorities, eccentricities, etc. Repeating the same scene multiple times isn’t about showing the reader it’s important that they remember that event. It’s a tool for character development and subtextual plot progression. 

Common Struggles

~ How do I know if this is right for my story?... Multiple points of view definitely complicates a story, no matter which way you chop it. If you’re telling a story in a more complicated genre or intricate plot line with intersecting timelines and various important, tiny details, this structure may complicate it to the point of the reader being confused or the immersion of your story being compromised. If the reader will spend more time trying to piece together every facet of your writing than actually enjoying the plot and becoming enthralled by the storytelling, then you may want to reconsider telling it from multiple points of view. 

~ How do I balance each POV character’s screen time?... I think this has a lot to do with planning. It’s important to seriously contemplate whether or not a character’s POV is necessary to propel the plot in an interesting and efficient way. If a character has no place being a perspective voice in the novel, that will usually manifest in you having a difficult time finding a place for them to speak. Listen to your instincts and focus on the story you’re trying to tell. In terms of balance, it’s also effective to reconsider which scenes are best told from whose perspective, and it’s crucial that you understand that telling stories from multiple points of view requires a lot of trial and error. You may have to write the same scene from each perspective a dozen times to figure it out. 

~ When is the right moment to switch POV characters?... It truly depends on the beats of your story, and where natural transitions occur. A lot of the time, writers put switches in easy places to detect right away, such as the beginning of a new chapter or the introduction of a new location. When you reach a point where the information or situation would be more effective being told from a different character’s point of view, that’s the time to switch. However, always be clear that the transition is clear, even if you begin by describing what the POV character is thinking or doing. 

~ How do I make key moments interesting if the reader has to see them multiple times?... Repetitive scenes should be few and far between in any story, including stories featuring multiple points of view. If you have a key moment or key characters that you need to introduce, and you make a point to do so through the lens of each POV character, you need to make sure that each POV character has their own unique reaction or interpretation of the character/moment and that you’re focusing on a new, important piece of information each time the reader sees the same thing again. They shouldn’t be focused on the same details they’ve read before. They should be noticing the details that other characters didn’t pinpoint in their own perspective. 

~ Should I structure my plot around POV characters or the POV around the plot?... It depends on the purpose of your story and the actual story that you’re telling. If your story revolves around the shared conflict of several people, but the differences in their interpretation or experience, then it makes sense to structure the plot around who the focus character is at any given time. However, in most cases it’s better that you design the plot and then delegate scenes to difference perspectives to deliver information in the most efficient and interesting way possible. 

Other Resources

Pros & Cons of Different Points of View

31 Days of Character Development : May 2018 Writing Challenge

31 Days of Plot Development : January 2019 Writing Challenge

Resources For Describing Characters

Resources For Describing Emotion

Alternative Method of Character Creation

Resources For Creating Characters

How To Fit Character Development Into Your Story

Connecting To Your Own Characters

Interview As Your Characters

Giving Characters Distinct Voices in Dialogue

Tips on Introducing Characters

 Writing Dialects/Accents

Tips on Character Consistency

Introducing Secondary Characters

Tips on Character Motivations

Resources For Plot Development

Guide To Plot Development

How To Foreshadow

Novel Planning 101

Tackling Subplots

Character Driven vs. Plot Driven Stories

Plot Structures

–

Masterlist | WIP Blog

If you enjoy my blog and wish for it to continue being updated frequently and for me to continue putting my energy toward answering your questions, please consider Buying Me A Coffee, or pledging your support on Patreon, where I offer early access and exclusive benefits for only $5/month.

[masterhandss]

Personally I don't see what you see in Geordo. He seems like such a scumbag to me and is the least likable charater in the whole series. He is always trying to get her alone to push her into things of a sexual/ more romantic nature without taking how she really feels into consideration. Like he "really wants her" and thats enough for him without caring what she really wants. Honestly he is the borderline non-con villian in my mind.

I mean, it's okay if you feel like that. To each their own.

Hmmm when I think about Geordo being sexually aggressive towards Katarina, I only really just think of the anime. The manga is a much more moe-fied and toned down version of the novels, and the novels does an okay job at balancing his desires for Katarina in all aspects. I'm not saying he doesn't have that trait in the other two mediums, I just think that they aren't as intense as the anime, so as someone who consumes all three versions I just tilt my head and go "huh." Of course I'm sure there are people who read the manga and novels that still feel uncomfortable about his behavior and that's valid too.

-> light novel spoilers ahead <-

tldr, there is a lot more going on to him than just someone who offers sweet words and questionable invitations to Katarina's ears, this may not be noticeable or acceptable to some people but we get to know more about how he thinks whenever the novels puts us in his point of view. You're free to dislike him as much as you want, but I like him & don't see him as a scumbag; and here's why:

I at least find it okay that Geordo is very serious about his pursuits for her because he is aware that she is dense and will not get it until you spell it in the sky. Everyone is just walking eggshells around Katarina hoping that the girl would just develop feelings for one of them to win the harem olympics. He knows that being dealt with a good card isn't enough, so he's actively taking action in order to win her heart. I mean I don't always agree with his methods either, like the "fait accompli" line or constantly inviting her to his room alone, but really, how much of that is something he really means to do vs how much of that is his excessive flirting + our minds assuming that he really means to claim her in that way?

Lines like that are really popular with japanese fans because it makes Geordo look "sexy" and "forward", which they enjoy in their fictional stories. He knows that his position gives him an advantage so he'll try to play his cards right and use it to increase his chances in victory.

It actually reminds me of a scene from the Hamefura StoryMe game, (don't really know how canon it is but I remember the JP ver. was advertised by @/hamhura) where Geordo indirectly asked Katarina how to woo a girl he really likes, and Katarina thinking he was referring to Maria, gives all the things he usually does in order to win her heart (visit her home, give her gift, dance with her in parties, be really forward about your feelings etc). I'm not saying Katarina approves of the ways Geordo attempts to win her heart, but there's some hilarity in knowing that Geordo already had and is constantly trying all the known ways to win over a girl in the world from a young age, and still has nothing to show for it. Like no awareness, much less any *feelings* lmao. So trying to make it obvious that he is interested in her romantically and sexually seems like the next logical step to him. I mean if you go by Geordo's logic and considering the time period this takes place in, he's pretty confident that he can get Katarina to love him back and they are engaged anyways so in his head he's in safe waters to attempt to make teases about such advancements if it gives him the smallest chance that Katarina would become at least aware of him through it.

Of course I know that stuff like that won't fly here in the real world, but maybe that's why I'm so lenient personally when it comes to his (debatably) sexual teases and advances, because it's a fictional story for a japanese audience. Doesn't mean I would approve any advances like that if it happens to me, it's just that it's hard to take his actions seriously when Katarina or the story doesn't take them seriously. Like, the girl would be pushed down to a bed by RufuSora and gives her a hickey and she still thinks the man is out for her blood.

He wouldn't even be entirely wrong, knowing the identities of the characters who Katarina knows has romantic interest in her in the novels, actions does speak louder than words when it comes to her. Like I said, whether or not Geordo really means what he says when the story teases the readers with sexual implications in his words and action depends on the reader in my opinion. They are there, I wont pretend they don't but I'd argue about the level of intent depending on what scene you're talking about.

The only scenes on the top of my head where he is very abrasive towards Katarina is the "fait accompli" scene, the Book scene form the anime (S1 EP8), saying he wants to lock her in his room (LN6) and the multiple times Geordo had invited her in his room at night alone (LN6 and LN8, i think).

I've already explained why I am okay with both Keith and Geordo's Book scenes from episode 8 of the first season because they are accurate representations of an exaggerated and unhinged versions of their desires towards Katarina so I won't bore you with those details again.

He mentioned in Volume 6 that he wants to lock Katarina in his room forever and keep her light to himself, which alarmed a few people when the book came out, but he said that in a moment where he feels super grateful and loving towards her because she knew how tired he was despite his fake face and without even saying anything. It was a moment where he felt so infatuated towards her that he wished the moment where he gets to rest in her arms would last forever, thus he made such a comment. I make it sound more dramatic than it was in Volume 6, it was just a quick comment honestly lmao.

For people who don't read the novels, that last part looks very sus and raises a few red flags I know, but to be fair we can't definitively say what his intentions are because Katarina never commits to those visits. Katarina has actually become wary of those invitations, because Keith and Mary have warned her that Geordo's intentions are sexual, but I'm not really trusting the word of the two people who are most distrustful and antagonistic to Geordo. They could be right, of course, but who can really say? We assume that they are correct because they care about Katarina and are wary of Geordo, but hamefura('s novels) is full of unreliable narrators anyways, it's not like Keith or Mary would consider the possibility of it being anything else because when it comes to the third prince they always fear the worst case scenario.

If you think about it, Geordo is probably aware that winning her over with a "fait accompli" won't work at all because it'll put him in a position that will make other people push him for the throne (which he doesn't want) or could ruin his reputation in high society if Katarina or her family react to it negatively. I'm not Geordo though, so I can't really say if he even have such fears and doubts in the first place, that's just my assessment based on the obstacles he has. On the outside he is really sure of himself and confident (which he arguably deserves) and on the inside he is very careful and insecure when it comes to Katarina.

Also like, spoilers but for someone who is very forward when it comes to his physical advances, Geordo is super weak when he is in the receiving end of those touches. He gets super embarrassed and easily flustered when its Katarina who is touching him, as if implying that to some extent that he's all just talk lmao.

I don't really agree that Geordo doesn't care about what Katarina feels at all, in fact his inner dilemma in the novels is that he doesn't know what to do because in every step he takes he might do something that could ruin his image in Katarina's eyes, be it pursuing or abandoning the throne or looking like a monster in front of her. He even halts his plans to make advances towards her during the Keith Kidnapping Arc, but threw it away because he knows how much finding Keith means to Katarina. He puts what Katarina want and doesn't want as his priority, so when what she feels is unclear that's when he acts on his own intuition. The only reason Geordo feels so confident to advance towards her sexually is because Katarina never rejected him before (because she doesn't know what they mean, and all of this is for the sake of simply making her aware in the first place)

I'm not trying to make anyone think that one has to read all the books in order to understand him, I think the manga does okay at conveying his feelings too. The anime really prioritizes on making him look "sexy" for the japanese female audience, so anything he does is sprinkled with spice whether we like it or not.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm overanalyzing all his actions just to justify them, everyone has the right to be uncomfortable with his advances if it seems too much for you. It's just that his actions, while over the top and unnecessary, are done to please the type of audience that hamefura caters to, and it's hard to take him completely seriously when the story doesn't either in my opinion. Doesn't mean he's right or that any of it is okay, but it's his method of trying to put a dent on Katarina's bakashield. When you're in a race versus your friends who Katarina all loves equally, he's gonna use whatever card he can get in order to win.

I like Geordo; I like how much of his feelings for Katarina forces him to reexamine himself and realize that he isn't a perfect prince at all, that he has lots of problems and flaws that he needs to work out in order to be someone worthy of her. I like the way he falls more and more in love with her in every interaction they have because he finally gets to have a genuinely and caring interaction with someone. I like how Geordo wants to do better and be better for Katarina and the people around him, and he wants to be able to thank Katarina directly for that through being able to show his love. I like that despite how much of a chad he acts in front of her, he's a blushing mess at the thought of Katarina returning his feelings. I find it funny when his "sexual advances" fails and gets thwarted because he's trying them on the densest person and most protected lady to ever live. I like how Geordo is so head-over-heals in love with her and how much comfort and warmth she brings to him by simply being her caring and bubbly self.

I guess it's just a matter of different perspectives. If you find him unlikeable or a villain, then you do you. I try to explain why I personally excuse his actions, but I know it wont fly with everyone. We all see each character differently and absorb the material in different ways. In fact it's probably a bad idea for me to defend him with material that isn't the anime nor manga yet lmao. I mean I'm not that much of a fan of Mary anymore, and I'm kinda scared and wary of her, but I know people don't see her the way I do and I'm okay with that.

Maybe its just me, who is the kind of person who just goes with the flow and doesn't think too hard because it's all fiction anyways

It's hard to tell all this from simply watching the anime, so I laid all my feelings down in hopes that someone out there would understand why I like him so much.

Thank you for the ask, you can ask more questions or call me out if I said anything insensitive or wrong, I know a lot of this is me overanalyzing things which might look like I'm jus stretching. As someone who is aware of the things to come in Hamefura X, I can say that I am both excited and nervous as to how everyone will react for the direction of Geordo's character.

[butwhatifidothis]

Do you personally believe that the war was started with good intentions? (I'm asking this to several blogs and wish to see opinions)

Ahhh, now that's a toughie.

It depends heavily on how sincere you believe Edelgard is with what she says she wants to do. If you genuinely believe that Edelgard genuinely believed war was the best - and only - way to achieve a better quality of life for those who are overlooked, weak, and/or born on the lower rung (among the myriad of other descriptors for those under privileged), then, well, yes, the war in your view would have been started with good intentions.

Me personally though? I just don't think so, really. imo there's just too many things about the war, what it ultimately resulted in, and the things brought up by CF's endings that are never said to be resolved - with Byleth, who is supposed to bring out the best of the routes' potential outcomes, being present at that - for me to honestly believe it was started with good intentions.

Edelgard states that the Kingdom and Alliance ought to be reunited back under Adrestia despite them being two independent nations with long-standing cultures separate from Adrestia (which are forgotten after the war according to CF's ending narration),

she mentions nothing of the starvation of Adrestia's citizens due to her war (you have to recruit and then talk to Ashe to find this out) (this would be fine - well, not really fine, but at least more acceptable - if, again, she hadn't been the one causing this starvation through her war),

she puts the people in direct danger in three out of four routes,

she continues her war despite initiating it with the stated goal of only taking down the Church but continuing it after she's disbanded the Church,

she lies about the Church dropping a bomb on Arianrhod to her allies in order to hide TWS' actions from them - people who pose a far more direct and larger threat to the people of Fodlan than the Church ever has, and whom she knows have already caused immense harm to her citizens in particular (Remire)

FEH mentions her not having any solid political reforms even after the war is finished which shows how little thought she put into her plans (not having an idea of what to do would be fine/more acceptable, if she hadn't started war certain that her way was the best for Fodlan. She can't say that and then also not be ready to implement some form of government without at best being wholly irresponsible),

the entire basis of the little political structure she outwardly describes would only further help the strong and do nothing for the weak (meritocracy will only elevate those with access to the means of elevation and even then is based entirely on what Edelgard views as valuable),

the people having to be spied on by Hubert constantly due to the amount of rebellions and risings that happen throughout her reign (Dorothea's paired ending with Hubert),

And with that last point mentioning endings, a large amount of CF's endings showcase that Fodlan harbors many of the traits Edelgard supposedly instigated the war for:

undue inheritance granted by birth (Sylvain and Lorenz each have an ending showcasing this to be true),

nobles holding ownership of land,

the loss of choice regarding political standing (Bernadetta being forced to take on House Varley's head position in at least two endings),

one person holding amalgamated power that wasn't rightfully theirs to begin with and that they have by forcefully taking power from others (Leicester and Faerghus being conquered, nobles being stripped of long-held power immediately after her coronation),

censorship of history being present after the war (Dorothea's paired ending with Edelgard, as well as propaganda being deployed even within the ENG ver. of the game, shown by Hubert outright saying that Edelgard hium and Byleth should "control the flow of [this] information")

With all this in mind, I can't honestly say I believe Edelgard had good intentions when starting the war. Every metric that would lean to that idea - keeping the people safe, wanting to elevate the less privileged, wanting to instate legislations that she has put ample thought in that she believes will help the people eventually, throwing away corrupt practices she perceived were being conducted by those she strove to overthrow - all don't happen. Even DLC bringing in Constance and giving Edelgard some sort of idea of what to do in one area of politics isn't stated to have done anything in the ending the support is attached to.

The best I can say for Edelgard's intentions is that she wants for humans to rely on their own strength to become strong, but even that idea is tainted by her continuation of that idea being to strip away support pillars many people rely on to get through life because they are based on a divine presence, not a human one. It means that Nabateans are not allowed to be present in Fodlan - or at the absolute minimum, allowed to hold any form of power - in her mind, because they "lack humanity." It means that the religious are weak-willed and can't survive on their own. It means that they are not allowed in her Empire, as shown by all four routes expelling them in some way (even CF, when she says before she initiates the war that Rhea as well as the servants of the Goddess must be killed in walking her path).

Like... to expand on one of the examples, Dimitri and Claude do not start the war, they have no idea that the implementation of political reforms must be made in the aftermath of war must be made, and yet their solo endings, while still vague on the exact details, give us an idea of how they're going about actually implementing the changes they want to do, with these changes being said to have a visible, positive impact on the people.

Dimitri installs a participatory government that allows for the common people to have a say in politics in order to have their voices and concerns heard directly from them as well as improving foreign relations in general, and Claude installs new trade routes between Fodlan and Almyra and sends forth Almyran reinforcements to assist in Fodlan's skirmishes with Imperial loyalists in order to foster better relations between the two nations. They are very simple explanations for how they're ruling and how they're accomplishing their goals, but they're a starting point. We have some clue as to how they get from Point A to Point B, and we see that they have a very clear, very directly positive result.

Edelgard? The one who started the war? Who started it with the presumption that she knew how best to rule it? Who knew that she needed to rule and implement changes in the aftermath of war ahead of time? She simply "reformed the class system." No how's, not even a simple one, she simply - supposedly - does it. And again, FEH (as well as some supports, like Ferdinand's) shows that she hasn't thought this through, that that part of ruling wasn't a priority for her when she started the war.

To me personally, that's not a sign of someone with good intentions. It's another sign that she mostly started the war in order to get back what she thought was rightfully hers, which was rulership of Fodlan under Adrestia's banner, with little care as to the outcome of her actions in getting that apparent birthright. None of the above results of her actions contradict this idea whatsoever, and many in fact bolster it (only she may decide who is worthy of promotion, only she may decide what the people are allowed to know of history, only under her watch may religion be allowed).

Now, does the setup of her having this intention make sense? Definitely, yeah. Being told by the one family member you have left of this supposed grand birthright that belongs to you and your country and how this evil race of godly beings is stealing it away from you and you must fight to get it back - after you've experienced the horrific lost of every single other family member you know and love to torture you were forced to witness and after you yourself were horrifically tortured and after you've come to the realization during the torture that the Goddess everyone loves and worships didn't help you - and with the torture happening to you in the first place (again, according to your one family member) because other people that aren't you and your family wanted power that rightfully belonged to you and your family....... uh, yeah, that can make more than a few people go a little extreme in their grabs for power. In that regard Edelgard is extremely sympathetic and understandable... just not good.

Again though, this is me personally! I'm not gonna sit here and say that seeing her intentions as good is an invalid view of Edelgard or anything. Hope I answered your question!

[thelittleredheadedmusician]

Sunrise Shadows

Rating: G 1,882 Gen AO3

It was late, or early depending on your perspective, and Steph was that bone deep tired that came after a fight to save the fate of the world. Which was fine, they’d won, but she didn’t really know where in the world she was and Steph really just wanted to crawl into bed. Maybe take her suit off first. Possibly slap some Neosporin on her cuts and scrapes. But mostly sleep.

She flicked through the channels on her comm, trying to find one not already filled with chatter. The all clear had been called about ten minutes ago now and clean up was well underway. But Steph was a Bat so it’s not like she could be much help clearing rubble or relocating displaced civilians. Her skills lay in kicks to the face, sassy remarks, and boots on the ground interpersonal interactions. Heck, not to mention she was only sixty percent sure she was currently standing in Prague. It might be Vienna. All Steph could do now was sit on the rooftop and wait.

The sun was rising on her left and she had lost track of time at some point but Steph was fairly certain it’d been dark in Gotham when she left. Taking a zeta from the Batcave to the Watchtower and stomping down the glee she still got whenever the computer announced her arrival as Batgirl.

Oracle was coordinating everything from the Clocktower which was lucky because the chaos on the comms made it sound like the Watchtower’s tech was down. No wonder she was still sitting here watching the sun rise over Eastern Europe. No Watchtower, no teleporting back to Gotham. Plus, the speedsters and, well, everyone else sounded a little busy. Making Steph with her super minor injuries, minimal destruction of public property, and... blondeness? (She was really tired; her brain was running out of battery and the internal monologue was losing steam) very low on the list of priorities.

Kicking her feet a bit, Steph allowed herself to get comfy on the edge of the roof. Thankfully, her thigh belt made it through today’s encounter meaning her snack supply did too. Steph pulled a chocolate chip granola bar out and tore it open with relish. She hadn’t realized how hungry she was until she started chewing. Then her stomach growled.

Steph was on her third granola bar and making a physical note in her phone to restock once she slept when she heard her name as part of the litany of sound that floated across the main channel.

“Batgirl? Batgirl this is Oracle, please respond.”

“This is Batgirl,” she said quickly, before someone could interrupt. The Flashes had been narrating rescues without realizing it seemed.

“I’m pinging your location as still in Prague, is this correct?”

Huh, Steph had been right the first time. “Uh, yeah O. I’m just waiting for retrieval.”

“Noted. Sorry about the delay. Dispatching a pickup to your current location.” Babs was all business as the abrupt cut of her switching to a different channel echoed over the line.

Steph waited, check ins and confirmations filling the empty space Oracle had left. She was still listening in, they all knew, just having a private conversation with whoever was playing ferry. Which honestly was kind of weird. Who wasn’t on the main channel right now? And what made them so special the almighty Oracle deigned to give them their own channel in the middle of all this? Ok, end of all this, but still. Steph was Babs’s friend, protege, pain in the ass, and she didn’t even get a private page.

“Oracle to Batgirl,” Babs came back, brusque. Though Steph thought it was just a mix of exhaustion and the voice modulator.

“This is Batgirl,” Steph tried for chipper and landed somewhere decidedly south of it. Honestly, she was just glad everyone else on the line had gone silent at the word ‘Oracle.’

“Please keep your current location, pickup will be arriving soon.”

Steph didn’t even get the chance to say thanks before Babs was moving on to the next thing, which was apparently sending Blue Beetle to help with a fire in San Antonio.

Turning her mic off, Steph settled in. Soon meant anywhere from five minutes to an hour in these types of things. At least she had a nice view and some snacks left in the meantime.

Movement out of the corner of her eye had her turning away from the sunrise. A shadow on the rooftop behind her seemed to shift. Steph blamed her growing exhaustion for making her see things but the shadows seemed to deepen, darken even as the sun climbed.

Instincts kicked in, Steph swung her legs around and scrambled from the edge of the roof. She flicked her bo staff out. Stepping lightly, Steph crept towards the spreading darkness. It was off, the kind of weird that put her on high alert. And it was getting impossibly darker.

Something seemed to be taking shape in the blackness, moving towards her from the depths. Steph was reminded suddenly of Peter Pan as a lone figure of shadow separated itself from the rest.

In a blink, Steph wasn’t looking at a man made of shadow, but a man. An impeccably dressed man with a top hat, dark glasses, and a silver topped cane that glinted in the morning light.

He smiled at her, but Steph didn’t change her stance. “You must be Batgirl,” he said in an accent Beryl would describe as posh. Steph suddenly missed Beryl and hoped that Knight and Squire made it out of today unscathed.

“And you are?” Steph tried for snarky as she lowered her bo staff to point at him. If he knew who she was then maybe he’d know better than to pick a fight with her. Steph was so tired she didn’t actually think she could win. She feared she wouldn’t even be able to hold him off until her pickup got here.

“The Shade,” he smiled as he said it and there was something more than pride.

Steph narrowed her eyes, but otherwise didn’t move. “I’ve heard of you. Whose side are you on today?”

“Always my own,” the smile twisted into a smirk at his joke. “Though currently I am assisting your Justice League.”

Cautiously, Steph collapsed her staff and straightened. “Technically, I’m also a private contractor. I’m guessing you’re my ride?”

He hummed and Steph couldn’t tell if he was annoyed and hiding it with amusement or amused and hiding it with annoyance. “I apologize for the wait. There was a bit of a misunderstanding between myself, a Mr. Constantine, and a, uh, Phantom Stranger about who was to come here and who was to fetch the Teen Titans from South America. Apparently, their jet was rendered inoperable.”

Steph laughed to herself at Tim and his team getting stuck. She could just imagine Rose and Cassie arguing. The demigoddess and ex-assassin both too worn out to do anything but snipe at each other. Or maybe Cassie and Kon were doing cleanup, leaving the rest to wait like Steph had.

The beginning of The Shade’s apology came back around to the forefront of Steph’s mind. It explained why Babs had switched to another line, that was a list of some relatively antisocial/social to only very specific people magic users. They probably weren’t too thrilled to be used as a superhero ride share either. So, their own line? Made sense.

“Totally understandable,” Steph waved off. “It’s not like I have anywhere else to be.”

The Shade smiled and inclined his head. “Thank you, Miss Batgirl. Now, if you would?” He held out a gloved hand, though his gloves were silk compared to her own reinforced leather with proprietary Wayne Tech rubber grips.

Still a tad leery, Steph’s desire to go home and fall asleep far outweighed any concern over going anywhere with The Shade. He wasn’t a Gotham villain, arguably wasn’t a villain at all, and she did kind of have a monthly midnight brunch with Harley and Ivy. And Selina seemed to have permanently moved into the Manor. Not to mention Steph started her crimefighting career stopping Cluemaster, her dad. So, Steph took his hand.

He took a step back into the shadows and Steph went with him. She caught him glance at her out of the corner of her eye as the shadows rose up and began twisting around her ankles first. He seemed surprised, but Steph was just as at home in the shadows as him. Granted, the inky darkness that was consuming them faster by the moment was darker and much much colder than the ones she was used to. Not to mention sentient.

Soon, Steph was surrounded by the darkness. She no longer felt entirely real. The only way Steph was even sure she existed was the weight of another hand holding hers. Her thoughts came and went before she could even register them. Suddenly, it all came back to her: Steph was being taken back to Gotham courtesy of The Shade and his shadows. She couldn’t see him but the grip on her hand told her he was there, somewhere in the black. That grip began tugging her forward and Steph walked.

One step.

Two step.

Three step.

The world around her seemed to lighten incrementally, though Steph had no idea how she was able to tell.

Four step.

Five step.

On the sixth step the darkness lifted, uncurling from around her until she was left standing on the rooftop of the GCPD in the shadow of the Batsignal. An inky puddle under her feet and a few tendrils still slipping off her calves.

The Shade lifted their linked hands, almost as if he was passing her off at a ball in a period film. Steph took her cue, walking towards the floodlight that shone in the still night sky. She let go of his hand once she was firmly in its glow.

Steph turned back to him though, wanting to thank him before he disappeared. What came out of her mouth instead was “That was so strange.”

He chuckled, “That generally is the sentiment when I accompany someone.”

“What’s the sentiment when you don’t?” she asked before she could stop herself.

“Abject terror.”

“Ah.” Well she did ask. His smile flickered somewhere in the direction of sly. “Right,” Steph sighed. “I just wanted to thank you for this. I know you’d rather not do this-”

“Understatement.”

“-but I really appreciated it. So, thanks.”

He tipped his hat in an absurdly gentlemanly way. “You’re very welcome. Just, don’t expect it to happen again.”

“Noted.” And then Steph did something that could only be chalked up to extreme exhaustion.

Steph shot finger guns at The Shade.

He smirked and the shadows gathered around him. The Shade stepped backwards into the growing darkness. Then he was gone.

Smacking her head, Steph turned towards her apartment. She flicked on her mic as she pulled out her grapple. The voices in her ear had disappeared when she went into the shadows but came back as soon as she stepped out of them.

“Batgirl to Oracle,” she cut in and swung out over Gotham.

“Go for Oracle.”

“Consider me home and signing off for... Signing off.”

[banterandwit]

Gothic Literature- Drawing on feminist readings of Gothic Literature analyse the way in which Gothic Literature has responded to the changing roles of women in society.

The Gothic genre has always been viewed through the lenses of psychological thriller or horror. The strange and uncanny of it all causes the unease that we as readers have come to love. But what is it that causes such unease and why do the writers of such a genre become so entranced by it? The stories of The Castle of Otranto, Carmilla, Rebecca and Twilight are excellent in their own right. Yet the path of most fruition in understanding these stories is through the lens of feminism. Through it one can begin to unravel the role of women throughout history and it’s ever changing presence. As such this essay will establish what each of the stories define as the roles of women beginning with The Castle of Otranto and how Hippolatia is depicted as Walpole’s ideal women as opposed to Isabella or Matilda who are naïve and do not understand their role in society. Next, the essay will look at Carmilla and how Le Fanu’s vampire is the embodiment of the threat of feminism in the era and the freedom to womanhood that Carmilla represents by removing the male from sexual relations. The story of Rebecca will look at the twentieth century woman and the breakdown of norms and Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight will look at how this breakdown has shaped the modern role of women.

 The Castle of Otranto (Walpole, 2001) written in 1764, follows the story of Manfred, the lord of the Castle and his family. Walpole’s novel indicates the dominant, infallibility of men as opposed to their “damsel in distress” (Siddiqui, 2016) counterparts. In the nineteenth century, women had no rights and were considered second class citizens, and received “unworthy inheritance, such as bible, books and household goods” (Gilbert and Gubar, 2006). Hippolita, Manfred’s wife, is a prime example of this since she is so willing to accept divorce from her spouse simply because he said so. Walpole (2001) explains in the novel that “a bad husband is better than no husband” and without pleading or begging, Hippolita accepted the fate her husband wrote for her. In fact, she has no place to argue- she has submitted herself to her husband “physically, economically, psychologically and mentally” (Siddiqui, 2016). Due to this, Hippolita is the exemplary form of womanhood in The Castle of Otranto. She accepts her divorce and, in the novel, explains that she will “withdraw into the neighbouring monastery and the remainder of life in prayers and tears for my child and –the Prince’’ (p.90-91). She does not fight for her rights and gives herself to God because that is what is expected of her, something she tries to pass on to Matilda and Isabella when she explains, ‘’It is not ours to make election for ourselves; heaven, our father and husband must decide for us’’ (Walpole, 2001). This further highlights Hippolita’s ideology that the men of the family and in the lives of the women have priority in life, being dependent and subservient on these men is what is expected of women and hence the role of women should be of servitude to their husbands and fathers.

 Matilda and Isabella are younger than Hippolita and have less of an understanding of how they should be dependent. Although Hippolita tries to explain to them, Matilda only understands through her own experiences. As a female child of Manfred, she is introduced as “a most beautiful virgin, aged eighteen” (Walpole, 2001) as if to say those are her only qualities- she is good looking and at the age to marry. However, she is still a woman and therefore “equally dismissed since under the prevailing system of primogeniture only males could be heirs” (Ellis, 2010). She is neglected by her father and even when she tries to comfort him after Conrad’s death she is met with “cruel emotional attitude” (Putri, 2012). Walpole (2001, p.21) writes:

“She was however just going to beg admittance when Manfred suddenly opened his door; and it was now twilight, concurring with the disorder of his mind, he did not distinguish the person, but asked angrily, who it was? Matilda replied trembling, “my dearest father, it is I, your daughter”. Manfred stepping back hastily, cried “Begone, I do not want a daughter”, and flinging back abrupty, clapped the door against the terrified Matilda”

 Due to this, Matilda must accept that due to her gender she is expected to be treated in such a manner and her father will not give her any affection. Putri (2012) writes that for Manfred- “it would be better that Matilda be neither seen nor heard.” (p.7). Isabella who is Conrad’s fiancée is forced by her father to marry Manfred after Conrad’s death. She too is a victim of the patriarchal society in which she lives. She must marry Manfred even if there is no love there and only after Matilda’s death does Theodore accept her, and she becomes Lady of the castle. Even after this, the assumption would be that she becomes subservient to Theodore as opposed to her father. Therefore, the role of women in The Castle of Otranto is subservience to the men in their lives and this is their calling.

In contrast, Le Fanu’s Carmilla (2005) originally written in 1897 is the story of Laura and Carmilla, two young women who do not obey such a patriarchy and are in a lesbian relationship. Before Carmilla, vampires were predominantly male such as Lord Ruthven from John William Polidori's The Vampyre (2017). Signorotti (1996) argues that Le Fanu’s choice of creating a powerful female vampire was because it “marks the growing concern about the power of female relationships in the nineteenth century” since this was the time “feminists began to petition for additional rights for women. Concerned with women's power and influence, writers . . . often responded by creating powerful women characters, the vampire being one of the most powerful negative images” (Senf, 1988). It is for this reason that Carmilla is depicted in such a frightening and sensual way by Laura. She represents the allure of women as sexual beings with fangs dangerous enough to topple the patriarchy that the women in Walpole’s novel held to such esteem. Laura recounts one night that:

“I saw a solemn, but very pretty face looking at me from the side of the bed. It was that of a young lady who was kneeling, with her hands under the coverlet. I looked at her with a kind of pleased wonder and ceased whimpering. She caressed me with her hands, and lay down beside me on the bed, and drew me towards her, smiling; I felt immediately delightfully soothed, and fell asleep again. I was wakened by a sensation as if two needles ran into my breast very deep at the same moment, and I cried loudly. The lady started back, with her eyes fixed on me, and then slipped down upon the floor, and, as I thought, hid herself.” (Le Fanu, 2005)

Carmilla is liberating her fellow woman from the grip of a male dominated life and the needles of freedom cause her pain from the familiarity she initially grew up with into an unknown but free world where their union without a male partner gives them liberation from male authority.

 The exclusion of the man is further shown by General Spielsdorf’s recount of when he tried to catch the vampire that was causing his niece, Bertha, to become ill. He watches from the door as he saw “a large black object, very ill-defined, crawl, as it seemed to me, over the foot of the bed, and swiftly spread itself up to the poor girl's throat.” (Le Fanu, 2005). Carmilla takes away the male inclusion and leaves him a voyeur to a union that is beyond the heterosexual norm. This is a freedom from the patriarchal society that has ruled over women for centuries into a freedom over their own lives both physically and psychologically. Signorotti (1996) explains that “Le Fanu allows Laura and Carmilla to usurp male authority and to be stow themselves on whom they please, completely excluding male participation in the exchange of women.” (p.607). This exchange symbolises the change in normality. Not only are women becoming independent from males for their living needs, they are also becoming free in their sexual needs. Where The Castle of Otranto focused on the ideal women being subservient and dependent on the male in one’s life, Carmilla focuses on the threat of women to oppose Walpole’s standard of servitude to the patriarch that controlled their lives and of their bodies as factories for new male heirs. Carmilla is the free women that Walpole’s characters never dreamed of.

 Rebecca (Du Maurier, 2007) was written in in the twentieth century (1938) and is the story of the narrator’s marriage to Maxim de Winter and the subsequent flashbacks to her time in Manderley where she learnt about her husband’s first wife Rebecca and her lingering presence even after her death. Nigro (2000) argues that although the common assumption about Rebecca is that she is manipulative and convinced everyone she is flawless, she was justifiably murdered according to the second Mrs. de Winter. “What if, however, Maxim is the one who is lying, and Rebecca was as good as reputation held her, if his jealousy was the true motive for her murder?” (p. 144). Furthermore, Wisker (1999) points out that Du Maurier is known to have unreliable narrators. Therefore, finding the truth behind Rebecca’s character, flawed or perfect, becomes difficult. This difficulty blurs the lines between gender roles and conformity. The superiority of men is shown by Mrs. Danvers’ comparison of Rebecca as a man, “"She had all the courage and spirit of a boy, had my Mrs. de Winter. She ought to have been a boy, I often told her that. I had the care of her as a child. You knew that, did you?" (Du Maurier, 2007) showing the importance of being a “man” at the time and how they were seen to be superior. When the audience finds out about Rebecca’s imperfect character, one of her detrimental features is that she is promiscuous and why Maxim killed her. Maxim’s murder could therefore be because he was constrained by what people would think if his wife was expose to be a “harlot” and murdered her to uphold the principles that Walpole emphasised- something he cannot go against in his social circle, whilst Rebecca herself was trying to be as free as Carmilla and trying her best to live a happy life unconstrained by social norms and patriarchal glances. The role of gender and women becomes blurred in Rebecca as these roles begin to breakdown and become synonymous to both genders.

 Maxim’s attitude towards his new wife is almost paternalistic, treating her like an immature girl referring to her as “my child” and “my poor lamb” (Du Maurier, 2007). Where Mrs de Winter wants to become more mature, Maxim tries to keep her away calling it "not the right sort of knowledge" (p. 223) and telling her “it’s a pity you have to grow up” to block her from gaining the maturity that she craves. As a result, Mrs de Winter becomes trapped in a purgatory between maturity and upper-class standards and immaturity and the life she has come from. This entrapment is what the patriarchal norms establish, the damsel that must be guided by a firm male hand because of her ignorance as opposed to the woman being on equal footing to the man and someone who can take care of themselves. It is this standard that the narrator is held to and is also the standard Maxim held Rebecca to and subsequently murdered her because of. The shame from having a free woman as a wife is what led him to his crime. It is for this reason that the ultimate villain of Rebecca is in fact the patriarchal system in which the characters are confined. Wisker (2003) argues that the aristocratic setting of Rebecca “was to represent an unease at the configurations of power and gendered relations of the time.” Pons (2013) furthers this argument and explains that “the ultimate gothic villain is the haunting presence of an old-fashioned, strict patriarchal system, represented by Maxims mansion, Manderley, and understood as a hierarchical system.” This configuration of patriarchy established in the eighteenth century by Walpole is that of servitude for women and dominance for men. However, in an era where women have more power and have freedom as expressed in Carmilla suggests that these roles are becoming unfulfillable and it is because of this system that the characters are led to “hypocrisy, hysteria and crime.” (Pons, 2013). Thus, the role of women as a strict social etiquette breaks down and although they are treated still as subjects, the shift in power to give women their freedom is evident.

 Twilight (Meyer, 2012) written in 2005, follows the story of Bella Swan who falls in love with a vampire and the subsequent life they have together. However, it is subject to great controversy especially because of Bella herself. She seems to conform to female roles that are more akin to Hippolita than Carmilla. Rocha (2011) argues that “Bella illustrates female submission in a male dominated world; disempowering herself and symbolically disempowering women.” She sees herself in a negative light that is incapable of doing anything herself and is totally submissive in nature becoming a pawn in the life of the men of her life. Mann (2009) argues “When Bella falls in love, then, a girl in love is all she is. By page 139 she has concluded that her mundane life is a small price to pay for the gift of being with Edward, and by the second book she’s willing to trade her soul for that privilege” (p.133) and hence has a Hippolitaian quality of sacrifice for the pleasure of men and hence develops nothing about herself. Mann (2009) continues to say that “Other than her penchant for self-sacrifice and the capacity to attract the attention of boys, Bella isn’t really anyone special. She has no identifiable interests or talents; she is incompetent in the face of almost every challenge...When she needs something done, especially mechanical, she finds a boy to do it and watches him. (p.133) This leaves Bella as a “damsel-in-distress” (Rocha, 2011) where Edward becomes her saviour. Thus, the role of women in Twilight seems to be that of a possession to enhance the male being.

 It could however be argued that Twilight contains a relationship that female readers can relate to in its ability to show the “women’s powerlessness and their desire for revenge and appropriation.” (Jarvis, 2014) and how the heroine proves to the hero ‘‘their infinite preciousness’’ (Modleski, 1982) bringing the hero to contemplate, worry and obsess over the heroine in a way that the female reader can share “the heroines’ powerlessness and accompanying frustration.” (Jarvis, 2013). This leads to what Nicol (2011) explains is the ‘‘complexities of female sexuality for women in the twenty-first century’’ in so far as it provides a ‘‘socially sanctioned space in which to explore their sexual desires.” These desires are evident in Bella and Edward’s first kiss, that Bella describes:

 “His cold, marble lips pressed very softly against mine. Blood boiled under my skin, burned in my lips. My breath came in a wild gasp. My fingers knotted in his hair, clutching him to me. My lips parted as I breathed in his heady scent.” (Meyer, 2005, p. 282)

 This sexual tension is introduced earlier in the book where Bella is told that ‘‘Apparently none of the girls here are good-looking enough for him’’ (Meyer, 2005 p. 19). Jarvis (2014) explains that because of this any “female who secures the inaccessible Edward will rise in the esteem of her community” and since she is claiming him, someone who thinks of herself as “ordinary” (p. 210) the excitement for both Bella and the reader who is caught in this sexual act- almost participating in it- is why the sexual nature of the book is so enticing. Therefore, although Bella can be seen as holding the values of Hippolita, the Twilight saga speaks volumes in its showing of the complexities of the social code that twenty-first century women must abide by. They are expected to be as obedient as Hippolita whilst being as sexual desirable as Carmilla or Rebecca. Bella’s metamorphosis from the ordinary human to the alluring vampire symbolises this. Women’s roles therefore have changed to give them more freedom, but they are still expected to behave like Hippolita when the “freedom” they have been given.  

In conclusion, the role of women and their identities have changed over the centuries. Walpole’s eighteenth-century idealism was that of the subservient woman that belonged to the patriarchal figure in their life in order to produce a good heir. The nineteenth century however became the start of the empowerment of women and much of the anxiety in Carmilla is her powerful nature as a woman to do as she pleases, removing the man and the patriarchy from Le Fanu’s world. She is thus depicted as a vampire- alluring and deadly- much like giving freedom to women who cannot control nor be trusted with the power they could be given. Rebecca leads to the twentieth century where the woman has been given some freedom to do as she pleases so long as it is under the watch of a man. Maxim’s murder and subsequent second marriage where because he could not control his first wife. The twenty-first century culmination of these roles comes in the form of Twilight where the heroin seems bland on the surface but actually shows the metamorphosis of womanhood through the centuries from that of a second-class servant to the ultimate freedom away from the patriarchy that Le Fanu’s Carmilla started centuries ago. As a result, the role of women has been fluid through the years. The ultimate goal of feminism is to have equality and the books that have been mentioned show that equality can only be achieved if any form of patriarchal culture is removed- a feat that has yet to be conquered.

[lizzybeth1986]

Quick Thoughts on The Royal Heir, Book 1 Chapter 1

• We're back! Hopefully with a better series this time, but I'm not going to keep my hopes too high.

• If my QTs are clogging up your dash, I recommend you block these particular tags: #trh quick thoughts, #trh qts, and optionally #long post.

• Much like my Book 3 QTs, I will be exploring as many playthroughs as I possibly can to see how each LI's route is being written. Last book, this experiment definitely helped me figure out that they were putting more effort into some characters and less into others, and I'd still like to keep an eye out for these things as much as possible.

• I feel this QT might be shorter than my usual (edit: joke's on me - it's not!! 🙈), mostly because the opening chapter itself is...pretty light, and is mostly meant for us to spend time and have fun with our chosen LI. Plus a tiny smidgen of buildup to the premise, which is having a child in Cordonia. But I do have a theory about the overall theme that I'm going to be expanding on towards the end of the chapter.

• Okay that's it for preliminary explanations, it's time for me to start with the chapter! XD

• Ooh. Oooooooh. This loading page now has tidbits about Cordonian society!! Interesting.

• Title: Happily Ever Afterwards

Alternative Title: Be Grateful We're Letting You Have This Much Sex For Free This Week, Because That's The Last Time It's Happening.

• I'm extremely offended they're making me wear that Pepto Bismol outfit again.

•

...thanks so much for reminding me you still don't care about Hana, PB! 🙄 Everyone else remains to be some version of "loyal", but Hana is still considered more for her skills than for her own steadfastness, even though she was the most hardcore-loyal of the four (SHE LEFT HER FREAKING HOME. HER FREAKING FAMILY. FOR YOU. While the other three were certainly loyal and honorable to the MC, they definitely didn't have to completely cut ties with their families to do right by the MC).

• The "fairytale" aesthetics of the frame story were what drew people into TRR in the first place, so it's not too surprising that the LIs and MC give a nod to the flagship series with a "once upon a time". If you're with Liam, it goes straight from "falling in love with the Prince" to what his relationship with her taught him, before the happily ever after. If you're with one of the other three LIs, it specifies that she came there for Liam but fell for someone else. Sounds a lot like Maxwell's book 😄 In Maxwell's playthrough, in fact, there is a reference to it when the MC calls him a "famous author".

•

(Screenshots organized as follows: 1 - Liam, 2 - Drake, 3 - Maxwell, 4 - Hana. Liam's and Hana's are my own. Drake's from @thefirstcourtesan, and Maxwell's from Kaitlyn Walker's YouTube channel).

The other interesting thing to note is that in Liam's playthrough, he leads the narration. While in everyone else's the MC is the one who steers it. One reason I can think of is that the narrative still treats this story as Liam's story as much as it is the MC's (if I'm right about the theme) - which...has honestly always been a sore point with the fanbase in TRR. That would depend on how us and our baby are now further involved with Cordonia in the story. Another factor for why she leads the narration...could be that essentially, the MC took initiative in the other three relationships, while in Liam's case it was he who took a more active role by proposing to her.

• The little story ends with this question from the MC:

Question: But what happens after Happily Ever After?

Answer: Mess. In Cordonia it's always mess.

• Cordonians (specifically the upper classes, since I don't know enough about the common populace to tell, since they're, yknow, practically invisible) are addicted to tea, apples and fucking shit up where they don't even need to.

• ANYWAY. What (literally) happens after 'happily ever after' is a tropical honeymoon on Liam's private island. In the case of the other three, he allows them access to the place and gives the staff instructions on making the stay comfortable for them.

• Now, since Liam owns the island and has probably visited it a could times, he shows more familiarity with it. He tells his wife that on previous trips the island had more rustic accommodations, but the villa they're now staying in was prepared recently. Additionally, the butler welcomes Hana, Maxwell and Drake as newcomers to the island, considering it's their first time. With Liam, there is an air of familiarity - he calls the butler by his name (Javier) and enquires about him and his wife (Mariana) - to show us perhaps how familiar he is with this holiday spot.

• Why the hell does everyone call Liam "Your Highness"? It's been two whole books since he became King, and the proper title for a monarch is "Your Majesty". How is it that Constantine gets to rake the MC over the coals for calling him Your Highness, yet Liam has to hear this from practically everyone. From Javier to freakin' Protocol-Monitor-Madeleine! The disrespect, I tell you!

• Okay so we're having a candlelit dinner by the ocean, and we get our first OOTD. Cute beach dress, has bright flowers and some crochet work on the bodice. I bought it because I couldn't bear to have Esther stay another minute in that Pepto Bismol of a dress.

• LOL @ all the LI responses to "this spot is right where the sharks are!"

• Tuna sashimi and pineapple aioli, huh? I have never had either so idek what that's supposed to taste like (someone on this writing team likes pineapples). I remember having to cut down on tuna during pregnancy, which meant no more Subway sandwiches since the tuna sub was the only one I liked at the time. IIRC most of my family were also cautioning me against pineapples and papaya during my first trimester!

• My gosh this butler doesn't waste much time jumping into assumptions huh?

• Also Javier, why is Cordonia's future so dependent on the well-being of my foetus even if I'm not ruling the country?

• Does Cordonia have sex ed? My money is on no. (esp in the Hana route).

• So there are two parts to the way the premise of wanting to have kids is built up in this sequence. In the first part, the LI impresses upon the MC the need to have children soon after the wedding. The second part addresses the urgency - the "why right now?" factor, and explores the LI's personal emotions towards having children. This bit also feels a bit like a follow-up to the Valtoria balcony scene in Chapter 15.

• The first part is pretty similar for Drake, Hana and Maxwell - all three of whom are now married to a Duchess and are aware that securing the duchy is important. They word it in their own distinctive styles, but the gist is pretty much the same. In Liam's case, since he is the king of the country, he speaks more about Cordonia and its tensions with neighbouring countries.

Take note of this because I'll be returning to this point later. (also who are the writers trying to convince about Cordonia's size. "Small kingdom" my ass).

• I'll be going by the LIs' personal reasons to have a baby now, one by one, along with a summary of their views on children in the Valtoria balcony scene last book (since this scene clearly references that diamond scene if you've bought it last book).

(Screenshots: Liam's and Hana's screenshots are mine, Drake's is from @thefirstcourtesan and Maxwell's is from Kaitlyn Walker's YouTube channel)

- Liam: Liam's love for family and need for children is well-known throughout the series. In Book 1, he's dropped hints about wanting to have a different kind of family dynamic from the one he'd experienced as a child, and in Book 2 there were multiple references to wanting to not be Constantine - both as a King and as a father. In the balcony scene in Book 3, Chapter 15, Liam tells us a number of things - about the value of having more heirs for succession, of him always dreaming of having at least 3 children, about Kenna, Cordonia's most legendary warrior queen which leads to an interesting factoid about how the rules of successions for both the throne and duchies are not gender-specific (he also cites Olivia and Penelope as being in line to inherit their duchies). In this sequence Liam undoubtedly has more to say about the political aspect of having an heir than the personal, but his statement about "someone missing" in their lives is of no surprise when he's been enthusiastic about kids for three books straight.

- Drake: Drake perhaps gets the lengthiest 'personal' bit of all, revolving around his eagerness to be a father and his own family history. This scene has Drake speaking of wanting a child with "your eyes and my hair", but most of all of Savannah and her little family, and wanting the happiness his sister is experiencing now. The writing often manages to tie Drake's thoughts about his future family with his past: in the Valtoria balcony scene, his memories of his father and his desire to bring up his own kids the way Jackson did are dominant in the conversation on children. He speaks at length about the absence of a proper 'home' so far in his life (stating that his room at the palace always felt like "a room in someone else's house") and how high on his priority list the prospect of having children is. The Valtoria scene shows him eager to have kids asap, and this scene builds up the same urgency. You're left in no doubt that he wants those kids now.

• Maxwell: Maxwell's route of this scene soundly pretty sudden, tbh. In his Valtoria scene, Maxwell expressed doubt and nervousness when it came to children, citing the example of Bartie ("I love palling around with little Bartie and everything, but if he bonks his head or something, I can just hand him back to Savannah. When it's your kid, you're the one people hand him to."). While this is referenced in TRH's dialogue when Maxwell jokes about forgetting diapers and baby socks - it's a pretty big jump from the man who didn't exactly feel ready to have children yet, and not enough work was done to justify that shift. This could be somewhat excused in the beginning of Book 3, when the narrative had just begun to treat him like an LI, but they've had an entire damn book and several months after to reflect on how to write him properly. That is...if they actually gave a damn.

- Hana: They don't even have the excuse of "relatively new LI" in Hana's case. Because she is the lone female LI married to a female MC, her scene should have been a lot more extensive and explored her urgency to have children so soon after their wedding, a whole lot more. There are tiny changes, like the one where she hints at the "logistical concerns" that come with two women considering a family, and where she speaks of giving her child the childhood she never had (which, frankly, is an extremely vague statement and could be applicable to more than one character in Cordonia). But there is urgency that, again, isn't properly explained in the scene. Even Hana's Valtoria scene doesn't have much that would explain why she would want a child barely weeks after her wedding. The Valtoria scene does have her outlining her dreams for the duchy (along with a joke about her enacting "Beauty and the Beast") and her happiness at the thought of being a mother (she maintains that out of the things expected of her, motherhood is the one she looked forward to). They could have spent some time thinking up a reason for why Hana would rush this, even before anything has happened, or outlined something personal and not ultra-generic. Both Maxwell and Hana deserved a lot better than this.

• Maxwell speaks about possibly forgetting diapers (PLS NO MAXWELL NO) and baby socks (um okay not as bad but depends on the climate), and one of the MC's dialogue options is to say..."diapers and socks are overrated". Guys your kid won't care how much fun you are when they have a bum rash.

• A-ha! Diamond scene. First-chapter diamond love scenes always come cheap in these series' (12 diamonds) and are usually quite a steal.

• ESTHER HAS NEW LINGERIE OMG I'M SO HAPPY I'D BEEN WAITING FOR THIS MOMENT FOR SO LOOOOONG 😭😭😭😭

• ...and it is also matches Liam's underwear. Maxwell's too 😅

• The scene is nice, there are variations between the ways the LIs work up their appetite before they finally roll in the...well, sand 😅 Maxwell has what they call an "ocean duel", Hana's fulfills her lifelong dream of carrying and spinning around her wife on a secluded beach, Drake chases the MC through the water...and Liam just enjoys being a huuuge tease, okay? 😂

• Oh God, why are they still using the old LoveHacks sexytimes music. That "DHUM-boom-ta-doom-DHUM" beat drives me nuts, and not in a good way. You have better music now, PB! Like the sexytimes tunes from RCD and PM. Use those!

• My gosh this entire group is quite horny for dominant duchesses, aren't they. Every last one of them. Each playthrough has these four gazing at the MC in wonder and telling her some variation of "I think you ordering me around is hot". Olivia could trample over them all with spiked heels and they would thank her!

• As always, when something suspicious happens, my dumbass MC goes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and never thinks about it again until shit actually goes down. This woman will never learn, will she.

• Anyway! We now move on to the rest of the honeymoon, summed up in three-four varying scenes per LI:

(Screenshots: Liam's and Hana's screenshots are mine, Drakes is HIMEME's YouTube channel, and Maxwell's is from Kaitlyn Walker's YouTube channel).

- Liam: Focused and dedicated. And insatiable as hell. Sex on a bed (SHOCKING!), sex after his wife points out what could be an apple constellation during stargazing (the MC effectively killed Liam's boner for Cordonia, I see), sex after having chocolate strawberries at a sunlit pond, sex again on a bed (Why is he getting four? 🤔). While the staff is still around somewhere on the island. This is a man with a mission.

- Maxwell: Fun and playful - kind of a "let's live wild and do daredevilry while we can!" vibe. In one Maxwell and the MC cliff dive into the ocean, debating over the wisdom of such risky adventuring when they may possibly be having a baby. In another, the MC watches, concerned, as Maxwell eats a raw squid appetizer. There is a nice callback to Maxwell's House sigil - the kraken - when he tells her that a squid would never hurt a fellow squid. The third shows them playing Strip Monopoly in the comfort of their bedroom.

- Hana: Adorable, caring and looking through every detail. Hana's three scenes involve her showing the MC the sights around the sunlit pond (which Hana and the MC lovingly call the "Hana Lee Honeymoon Itinerary"), watching the sunset under blankets, and this little scene of them choosing sperm donors for their baby:

It's a nice addition, but it still doesn't explain why they couldn't have waited a few more months. Nothing has happened yet in the timeline of the story, the women are (they believe) finally safe and happy, and while Javier seems to believe that babies born to a couple that consists of two women pop out of nowhere, I'm hoping the denizens of their duchy will have at least a little more common sense (this is Cordonia, so "hope" is the operative word).

- Drake: Langorous, relaxed and contented. Stargazing on the beach (I wonder whether this was a nod to the meteor shower scene in Book 1), whiskey on a patio/balcony/whatever in the afternoon, and eating roasted pork by the fire. Plenty of sex but also lots of outdoors, which means lots of the stuff Drake enjoys doing.

• Aaaaaand it's time for sexy scene 2! The couple are now relaxing in bed on the last day of their honeymoon, and the LI proposes a momento in the form of a sensual photoshoot (which comes with artwork of the LI in their underwear, posing for the MC) The male LIs pose with their hands at the back of their heads, smirking at the camera, while Hana strikes a coy pose, leaning against her hand. It's a quick, fun scene that's supposed to squeeze as much alone-time out of the couple as possible, because from here on the focus may shift to other things. Basically this chapter is meant to be one giant (but largely safe for readers) smutfest. I like the artwork - it's different and I guess meant to be a little more realistic than the usual full-page art in the books (like the engagement and wedding photos with your LIs last book), which is why I think it takes a little getting used to. I know it took me some time!

• Maxwell got an underwear upgrade too!

• We've now come to the end of our honeymoon, our bags packed and ready for our return to Cordonia. The chapter ends with us seeing a "familiar face", who could either be Liam (if you married someone else, and he doesn't show any expression) or an unspecified person (if you married Liam, and he looks ultra happy). Now that could either be related to some paparazzi-related stuff, if the flash of light was paparazzi-related, or it could be a fake-out and he's actually brought along the rest of the gang to surprise you. Idk and I don't want to speculate too much on this, mostly because something more interesting caught my eye.

• So that's it for my thoughts on the scenes themselves! On to the "general thoughts" section.

• General Thoughts and Potential Theories:

- As a first chapter for a new series that is still tied to an older one, it worked. It mirrors the light feel and sensibility of TRR's very first chapter, in that both chapters build an illusion of a fairytale-like place, with hints of the darkness within emerging the next chapter onwards (in this series though - since we're already familiar with Cordonia - the darkness is lightly hinted at this chapter itself). In a lot of ways I think we're going to see a lot of parallels between TRR and this new series.

- Unfortunately, one of those similarities also includes the imbalance in the writing for the LIs. Specifically with Maxwell and Hana. It's the most glaring in the dinner scene, which builds for us the premise on which this entire book stands (the topic of pregnancy). There are ways you could have them make the jump from nervous about having kids to excited, if you tried - there are elements in their storyline that could have helped us understand their urgency.

- I played Liam's route first, and was happy overall with it but I still have my misgivings. The good in terms of Liam's story is that he gets importance because the story is also about him and his country, where we are staying. He gives us some very important details in his route, and personally I like that his role as Guide To The Intricacies And Nuances of Cordonian Society still exists...but you can't deny that there were things in his storyline which should have been addressed and never were. I hope those are addressed this book. If they do the same this time around, it will only be to their detriment.

- Also, I find it highly ironic that Drake is the one to mention Savannah and Bartie when it was MAXWELL who was more involved in helping her with the child. Sure, he was - as he confessed in that Valtoria scene - more the "fun uncle" type, but he was still pretty heavily involved. Still keeping track of what Savannah needed and what Bartie would want. In his own final Book 3 scene, Maxwell is shown having an amazing rapport with little Bartie, playing peekaboo with his nose. I can barely count scenes involving Drake and Bartie with the fingers of one hand. Why couldn't Maxwell reference that last moment in Book 3, drawing up some inspirational moment from it? Like spending more and more time with Bartie changed the way he felt about kids? Or maybe that Savannah or Bertrand said something regarding the joy children bring to him. Anything that gives us some idea of when this shift happened.

Maxwell may have been new last book. It may have been a struggle to know what to do with him last book. But that isn't the case right now. By now they should have settled in their writing of him and figured out ways to make his story make sense? To give him more depth rather than simply reducing the man to the court jester? Maxwell's story was supposed to be about him growing, the scene in Valtoria was supposed to be about wanting to be a good father for his future children but fearing he might fail...yet the writers have the same man say the exact opposite. Maxwell's family history was thrown away for no good reason last book, and was replaced by Savannah drama. There was more space given to Savannah's love story with Bertrand (which didn't NEED the entire book to gain fruition) and Drake (optionally) enjoying humiliating Bertrand. That time, energy and effort could have gone in building up Maxwell, getting an insight into what happened to the Beaumonts that they became so poor...but no. The only Beaumont that mattered seems to be Savannah (and we know exactly why). And going by the fact that they're going to force an entire wedding storyline involving Bertrand and Savannah down our throats, that still seems to be the case.

- Hana's is even more worrying considering that it was poles apart from the rest of the playthroughs and therefore SHOULD have had more thought. Yes Hana loves the idea of being a mother. Yes Hana loves children and has a nurturing nature. But the urgency is still the same as the others' in her playthrough, and it made absolutely no sense. There was a clear dissonance between their current situation and the rush these two were in.

Hana's deserved at least some more time in her dinner scene. Maybe one where she could speak about growing up an only child, with no companions and not even toys. She could explain the loneliness involved in having a small family with parents who gave her more duties than affection, and then speak about giving her kid a better childhood. There isn't even any discussion about which of them should be the person carrying (we know it will be the MC, but why it has to be her in their case is anyone's guess).

What the team have done here is give Hana the bare minimum, after an entire two books of giving her even less than that. I know I'll probably be judged for thinking negatively rather than being cautiously optimistic, but the fact is that the moment this team feels they can get away with tossing scraps or less than that, they can and will do it. It's not stopped them before: not from botching up Hana's storyline, not from giving Hana fans a reception full of goof-ups and shoddy writing, not from pairing her with her bully. Perhaps last year I would have been happy and grateful to see Hana and the MC calling each other "my wife". This time...I refuse to settle for just mere scraps. If you can give thought and care to Liam and Drake's storylines, you'd better be able to do the same for Hana and Maxwell, otherwise what's the point of reviving this book? What's the point of using Hana specifically in two of your ads as bait for your lesbian/bi/wlw fans?? Might as well let the entire series rot in the trash where it belongs in that case.

- I've heard theories about our child becoming heir to the throne, thanks to a possible future arc that may make Liam unable to have children. I personally hate this possible plot line for two reasons:

1. As it is the MC gets more importance than she deserves, whether or not she actually puts in the work. She becomes a front-runner during the social season even if she fails. She becomes a Duchess even if she lacks even the most basic skills, while Hana who has done way more than she ever had for the country gets nothing, not even a needle-point's worth of land. She becomes Champion of the Realm even if she is literal garbage throughout that book, when that title could have easily gone to Olivia or Hana instead if she didn't earn enough to get it. And now to have her kid be made an heir to the throne? For no good reason? Get outta here.

2. Forcing Liam into yet another storyline that is tragic and painful (and I'm pretty sure the writers will find yet another excuse to write a thesis on Drake Walker in the time they could be using to let Liam actually break down, or vent. If they couldn't be bothered to explore the man's feelings when his own father died, do you really think they will bother with him in this??) on top of whatever else he's had to experience so far? At this point I can do with less of that. I'm honestly sick of storylines that put Liam in very uncomfortable, painful situations with very little space for him to air out his grief. Give the man a fucking break. Let him have some breathing space to rule his goddamned kingdom, get him a fantastic therapist and get him better friends while he's at it. Pushing him into yet another messed-up situation when you've barely even scratched the surface with what his experiences have done to him, is really just drama for the sake of drama, nothing else.

- Nonetheless, since this is about a pregnancy and a future heir, I believe there will be plenty talk about succession, and about the importance given to fertility and children in Cordonian society. But as with the social season in Book 1, the engagement tour in Book 2, and the wedding + Unity Tour in Book 3, I believe the pregnancy itself is a frame story. The kind of story that justifies the glitz, the glitter, and the glamorous events...that can serve as a temporary gloss to cover the conflicts within. All while the inner stories reveals those conflicts, layer by layer (again, if it's done right. Book 3 is a good example of a great premise ruined by bad writing. I sincerely hope this book does not go in that direction).

- Remember those screenshots I put up in that dinner scene from Liam's route? About Cordonia's tensions with its neighbouring countries, and how the country may be viewed as vulnerable? I think that's where the actual theme of the story lies.

Books 1 and 2 mostly revolved around the illusion of Cordonia - the fairytale kingdom - before the MC herself is confronted with the tensions brewing within. Book 3 was about strengthening Cordonia through resolution of internal conflict. It was about learning about the intricacies of the country, its most powerful duchies, their histories and identities, Cordonia's messy, complicated history - to tackle the problems that lay within.

I feel like Book 4 would be taking a natural progression from resolving internal conflict to finally standing united as a nation against outside forces. Constantine - in his conversation with the MC in Shanghai - hints not only at groups within Cordonia that wanted to destroy the monarchy, but also foreign powers ("suffice to say there are those who envy Cordonia's prosperity...". Not the royal family's - but "Cordonia's").

Keeping a united front and showcasing strength through pride in the country - ergo 'patriotism', or perhaps 'national integration' since Cordonia is home to many different cultures and geographical locations (I originally wrote 'nationalism here, but now realize there may be negative connotations attached to that word in today's times: thanks @musicallisto!) is often viewed as an asset against alien forces. The MC is now a part of the monarchy/nobility, and will be irrevocably tied to the country's future - so it makes sense that she will now dig into the deepest and most intimate parts of Cordonia's history, and go several steps further in helping to unite the nation.

- Why do I theorize 'patriotism' or 'national integration' as being a theme? There are several reasons for this:

The Unresolved Storylines: We still have a ways to go in understanding Cordonian history. We don't know which other forces were involved in previous assassinations, and we don't have a clue what happened to Liam's mother. All we do know is that other people and groups that we have probably not even seen yet, may have been involved. Francesco (who also knew Liam's mother) and Xinghai, the only foreign delegates/visitors that we got to network with in Book 2, have minimal roles so far but SEEM to have had some influence when they were introduced earlier. Francesco particularly could have some sort of role to play, given what we were told about him in Book 2. Now would be a good time to explore why he needed contacts with these people (other than the fact that Xinghai is Hana's dad). It's possible that nothing will happen and we may not even see these two, or exchange any important information, but I'd still hope that there is some importance to their appearances in Book 2.

The Connections We Made In The Engagement Tour: Meeting Francesco in Capri was related to getting access to EU markets for Cordonian products. The engagement tour itself revolved around grabbing international attention towards Cordonian problems - one of which was the tsunami that hit Portavira, which we learn more about in Book 3. There is a possibility that these threads may be picked up in the future.

Both the above points hint at possible threats, or allies. At this point we can't exactly determine who is friend and who is foe, but it is clear that neighbouring countries - and indeed countries we have associated with in the past - will play a pretty big role in the way we view Cordonia, and in the way we direct the narrative of this country.

The Artwork: I love this part of my theory because it is the most based on actual evidence rather than guesswork. The idea of a nation depends as much on items of familiarity and symbols, as it does on history. It's why countries have national animals, anthems, fruits. Why art depicting national and local legends can often be considered almost sacred. The book has barely even begun yet, and already it is FILLED with all kinds of things symbolic to Cordonia.

Let's first take a peek at the cover art:

Now let's ignore Liam's and Drake's (busted) faces in this cover and focus on what the three are holding.

The MC holds a rattle in her hand, and the jewel within the rattle looks similar to a ruby, which has been associated more than once with apples in the story (Cordonia's most valued variety of apple is the Cordonian Ruby, Liam's wedding gift to the MC is a ruby in the shape of an apple. The same rattle shows up in the second cover [on the left] as well. It's a stretch, I know, but I've got better evidence. Stick with me).

Liam holds a onesie with a crown design on the front - and we know that "for crown and country" is a popular phrase, especially for toasts, in Cordonia. Drake holds out a toy lion: the lion is the national animal, and holds a place of pride in the national Coat-of-Arms. The throne on which the MC herself sits, is blue and gold - both considered national colours. That's at least 4 symbols related to Cordonia vying for our attention on the same cover!

I mean, even Book 3 had just two major symbols - the apple (related to Cordonia) and the phoenix gown (related to Valtoria) - featuring on its cover.

The biggest proof to me, however, is not the cover, but the loading page. To be more precise - what is written above that loading page. A number of Choices books (BB, for instance) write little factoids about the world they are building above the loading bar, which players can read while they're waiting for the chapter to load. This wasn't a common practice with TRR, but they've definitely started it now! Some of the commentary is usual stuff - about gaining advantages through outfits, welcoming you back to Cordonia, etc...but THIS TIME there are tidbits of information given to us as well. And 80% of those involve apples!

Here are a few I managed to catch. One fact on the importance of apples in Cordonian culture, two specifically on the Cordonian Ruby itself including a rare recipe, and two old proverbs (this isn't the only time we've heard apple-related proverbs in the books - in Book 3 for instance, Bertrand refers to their trip to Fydelia as 'slicing two apples with one knife'). Proverbs in general often give us an idea of what people within a region hold up as important, as so connected to their life experiences that they can use those familiar objects as motifs for things that they see in daily life (eg. proverbs in my home state, Kerala, often refer to things/animals we find locally: jasmines, coconuts, jackfruit, dogs, elephants).

The fact that the apple features so often and with such emphasis in the loading page itself - and we have already seen what this simple fruit means to Cordonia - indicates to me that this national symbol - and the idea of the nation itself - will be of great importance. Not only will we be exploring foreign relations, IMO, but we'll also be learning how to build a national narrative that will benefit and strengthen Cordonia.

What's also interesting is that the apple symbolizes fertility to the Cordonian people as well - the apple cutting ceremony during a wedding (as explained by Regina to Leo's fiancée in RoE) is "a symbol of the fruit the tree will bear - you being the tree, of course", and there are chances that the fruit may feature often within the context of pregnancy/having children as well.

• That's all for now, guys. I hope to write more and theorize more as the chapters progress! Until then, I hope you enjoy this one, and I'd love to hear what you have to say.

• I did the Hana screenshots for this chapter, since the first chapter allows me to play repeatedly within losing keys, but I won't be able to do so from Chapter 2 onwards. If there are any Hana fans out there who keep screenshots of scenes in their route and are interested in sharing, I'd love to hear from you and will definitely credit you for the screenshots I put up!

• If you'd like to be tagged in future QTs, please let me know! Tagging @nikkisha16 for now since she asked xD

• Until Saturday, folks!

[media304-blog]

Proposal

Concept

 ‘Around the World in Six Months’ is about exploring the different experiences individuals have had during the Covid-19 Pandemic and lock down. Having participants from all over the world such as England, China, Melbourne and New Zealand we are able to explore the impact Covid-19 has had throughout the world. Focusing on individuals' experiences, our documentary will also draw content from archival news footage as we will be able to highlight real time ways each country handled the outbreak.

Ultimately we want to focus on people’s personal experiences during the lock downs and how the outbreak has impacted their livelihoods, mental health and how they have adapted to the ‘new norm’. ‘Social connection is essential to every aspect of our health.’ (South University, 2018) Due to the high pressure environment society is under to keep everyone’s physical health safe and stop the spread by placing countries in Lock down the impact of stress, fear and anxiety is on the upraise due to the unpredictable times society is in. During interviews with each interviewee we will focus on personal experiences of this time drawing from key focus questions:

Firstly an introduction of themselves and the country they’re in.

What was your experience of lock down like?

Has social isolation had an impact on your Mental Health?

How have you adapted to the ‘New Norm’?

What did you do to fill in your time?

Research

We will be using an expository mode of film making to create our documentary. Our interviews will allow people to tell their stories, which we will back up with news footage. The inspiration for the film is to show how bad COVID-19 is and compare countries such as England, China, and Australia. We are aiming to expose the differences around the world, to make it clear how it is affecting the world. One example of an expository documentary is ‘The Dust Bowl’ directed by Ken Burns (2012). This mode is used by interviewing people who have lived through The Great Depression, whilst using footage and photography to back up the interviews. This is a good example of what we are trying to do with our film, because we are also going to interview people who have gone through or are going through a major event. Another documentary that uses an expository mode is ‘Nanook of the North’ directed by Robert J. Flaherty (1922). This film uses text narration as the ‘voice of god’ to expose the subject. This is the inspiration for using text narration in our documentary, to summaries our findings at the end. As well as using text narration for some parts, we are also going to use a voice over as our ‘voice of god’ throughout the film.

Treatment

Introduction:

Each scene will be fairly similar in terms of the positioning of the interviewee. Due to the restrictions of Covid-19 the control will ideally be handed over to the interviewee who will then be interviewed via video-call and positioned in a stance where they see fits best in the environment they are in. Each scene will be split up between the focus questioned below across the three interviewees;

Firstly an introduction of themselves and the country they’re in.

What was your experience of lockdown like?

Has social isolation had an impact on your Mental Health?

How have you adapted to the ‘New Norm’?

What did you do to fill in your time? 

Each scene will consist of:

The participants: Who have been affected by covid in four parts of the world; New Zealand, Australia, England and China. They will be sitting in a location of their choice and use a device they have available. Ideally, would prefer a laptop or computer to accomplish a stable mid-shot however will leave this to their discretion. The interview will be conducted in an informal setting allowing the participants to feel comfortable. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic intimate details could be shared. Hence the reason for the informal setting.

Camera techniques:

Depending on the device the interviewee has any special effects or animation will have to be done in post-production as mentioned in the introduction of the treatment camera techniques is restricted and we will have to tidy any imperfections in post. 

Framing:

Lighting: We strongly feel that the lighting will be out of our control therefore any glitches or preventative measures we can put in place would be our utmost priority to make post- production a little smoother.

If this can be achieved the participant will sit in a room with natural lighting and ensure the participant has positioned the device in view of their mid facing the light opposed to the camera facing it.

Sound: Due to the nature of this topic background music or emphasised music during the interview will be an inappropriate selection however with the opening scene; a voice over of the prime ministers in these respected countries will be played from their covid updates. The sound of paparazzi lights will assist this followed by new reporters during this pandemic. This  will intentionally be in order of the interviewees to allow the audience to experience these countries at the same time introducing where they come from.

Editing approach: We intend to approach the edit in capturing the raw details of the information shared; at the same time structure how the pandemic had similarities between the countries showcasing the covid reports, asking the same questions and capturing the emotions that some of them have encountered.

 The editing we will be doing in post production will be transitioning from one interviewee to the other. The opening scene will consist of news reports in a collage form placed freely one at a time in a shape of the world map. 

The voice over will be played one at a time with photographic flashes used as a transition between the voices and the pins that will be placed to pinpoint the countries we will be visiting via video calling. We will showcase the diversity of the participants by displaying either their flag or language used from the respective countries followed by an animated pane travelling from one pinto the other.

Rolling credits will consist of photographic images from these countries that will be supplied by the participants to showcase their struggles they encountered or how their townships were affected. 

Production design: It is difficult to establish or plan a production design with the conditions we are working with. The majority of our skills will be in post production tidying the interviews and cutting as little as possible to capture the rawness of the interview. In saying this our production design will vary, our predictions are they will be taken in the lounge and this is our preference or a room with no distraction or unnecessary background noise. We will direct or guide as much as possible before filming to ensure the best position at the same time ensuring the participants are comfortable in us doing so. Once the participants and the interviewer is comfortable and frame is appropriate we will conduct the interview allowing breaks when necessary or if necessary.

Overall our aim is to capture the raw emotions these participants have encountered during this pandemic and showcase to an audience not only are they alone in the struggles but also display the struggles this pandemic has caused on a global platform.

Shot List

Interview Shots -

All of our interviews will be conducted via the online platform Zoom. This allows us to communicate internationally. The footage throughout interviews will be a Mid shot as this framing allows us to focus on the subject in more detail. Conducting interviews via video call makes it difficult for us to explore different ranges of shots, although using a mid shot will allow each interviewee to easily frame themselves for the interview. 

Animated Shots - 

We will be using animated transitions throughout our documentary to highlight key points of information and weave our interviews together. Using animated transitions will allow us to share points of statistics about Covid-19 similar to the way it has been used in the 2016 Film 13th by Ava DuVernay. This is an engaging way to get information out to the audience to back up the archival footage and interviews.

Ethical Issues

The ethical issues that could arise would be consent of the people we are interviewing and permissions to use news footage. To combat these, consent forms will be used, so that the participants fully understand what they are contributing to. As for the news footage, we will make sure that we reference every clip we use and that we have a right to use them. YouTube will be our main source of news clips, which becomes fair use when it is uploaded. We will be double checking that everything we use is in the public domain and that we do not use too much of one clip, so as to follow the rules of fair use. The way we will make sure we are representing the participants correctly is not taking their comments out of context or twisting their words. We will present their stories in the way they presented them to us, making sure to get the right information across.

Reference List

Burns, K. (Producer, Director), & Duncan, D. (Writer). (2012). The Dust Bowl [Motion picture] United States: PBS. 

DuVernay, A. (Producer, Director) (2016) 13th [Motion Picture] United States: Netflix.

Flaherty, J. R. (Writer, Producer, Director). (1922). Nanook of the North [Motion picture] United States: Pathé Exchange. 

South University (2018). Why Being Social is Good for You. Retrieved from https://www.southuniversity.edu/news-and-blogs/2018/05/why-being-social-is-good-for-you

[craftcrit]

Gothic Literature- Drawing on feminist readings of Gothic Literature analyse the way in which Gothic Literature has responded to the changing roles of women in society.

The Gothic genre has always been viewed through the lenses of psychological thriller or horror. The strange and uncanny of it all causes the unease that we as readers have come to love. But what is it that causes such unease and why do the writers of such a genre become so entranced by it? The stories of The Castle of Otranto, Carmilla, Rebecca and Twilight are excellent in their own right. Yet the path of most fruition in understanding these stories is through the lens of feminism. Through it one can begin to unravel the role of women throughout history and it’s ever changing presence. As such this essay will establish what each of the stories define as the roles of women beginning with The Castle of Otranto and how Hippolatia is depicted as Walpole’s ideal women as opposed to Isabella or Matilda who are naïve and do not understand their role in society. Next, the essay will look at Carmilla and how Le Fanu’s vampire is the embodiment of the threat of feminism in the era and the freedom to womanhood that Carmilla represents by removing the male from sexual relations. The story of Rebecca will look at the twentieth century woman and the breakdown of norms and Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight will look at how this breakdown has shaped the modern role of women.

 The Castle of Otranto (Walpole, 2001) written in 1764, follows the story of Manfred, the lord of the Castle and his family. Walpole’s novel indicates the dominant, infallibility of men as opposed to their “damsel in distress” (Siddiqui, 2016) counterparts. In the nineteenth century, women had no rights and were considered second class citizens, and received “unworthy inheritance, such as bible, books and household goods” (Gilbert and Gubar, 2006). Hippolita, Manfred’s wife, is a prime example of this since she is so willing to accept divorce from her spouse simply because he said so. Walpole (2001) explains in the novel that “a bad husband is better than no husband” and without pleading or begging, Hippolita accepted the fate her husband wrote for her. In fact, she has no place to argue- she has submitted herself to her husband “physically, economically, psychologically and mentally” (Siddiqui, 2016). Due to this, Hippolita is the exemplary form of womanhood in The Castle of Otranto. She accepts her divorce and, in the novel, explains that she will “withdraw into the neighbouring monastery and the remainder of life in prayers and tears for my child and –the Prince’’ (p.90-91). She does not fight for her rights and gives herself to God because that is what is expected of her, something she tries to pass on to Matilda and Isabella when she explains, ‘’It is not ours to make election for ourselves; heaven, our father and husband must decide for us’’ (Walpole, 2001). This further highlights Hippolita’s ideology that the men of the family and in the lives of the women have priority in life, being dependent and subservient on these men is what is expected of women and hence the role of women should be of servitude to their husbands and fathers.

 Matilda and Isabella are younger than Hippolita and have less of an understanding of how they should be dependent. Although Hippolita tries to explain to them, Matilda only understands through her own experiences. As a female child of Manfred, she is introduced as “a most beautiful virgin, aged eighteen” (Walpole, 2001) as if to say those are her only qualities- she is good looking and at the age to marry. However, she is still a woman and therefore “equally dismissed since under the prevailing system of primogeniture only males could be heirs” (Ellis, 2010). She is neglected by her father and even when she tries to comfort him after Conrad’s death she is met with “cruel emotional attitude” (Putri, 2012). Walpole (2001, p.21) writes:

“She was however just going to beg admittance when Manfred suddenly opened his door; and it was now twilight, concurring with the disorder of his mind, he did not distinguish the person, but asked angrily, who it was? Matilda replied trembling, “my dearest father, it is I, your daughter”. Manfred stepping back hastily, cried “Begone, I do not want a daughter”, and flinging back abrupty, clapped the door against the terrified Matilda”

 Due to this, Matilda must accept that due to her gender she is expected to be treated in such a manner and her father will not give her any affection. Putri (2012) writes that for Manfred- “it would be better that Matilda be neither seen nor heard.” (p.7). Isabella who is Conrad’s fiancée is forced by her father to marry Manfred after Conrad’s death. She too is a victim of the patriarchal society in which she lives. She must marry Manfred even if there is no love there and only after Matilda’s death does Theodore accept her, and she becomes Lady of the castle. Even after this, the assumption would be that she becomes subservient to Theodore as opposed to her father. Therefore, the role of women in The Castle of Otranto is subservience to the men in their lives and this is their calling.

In contrast, Le Fanu’s Carmilla (2005) originally written in 1897 is the story of Laura and Carmilla, two young women who do not obey such a patriarchy and are in a lesbian relationship. Before Carmilla, vampires were predominantly male such as Lord Ruthven from John William Polidori's The Vampyre (2017). Signorotti (1996) argues that Le Fanu’s choice of creating a powerful female vampire was because it “marks the growing concern about the power of female relationships in the nineteenth century” since this was the time “feminists began to petition for additional rights for women. Concerned with women's power and influence, writers . . . often responded by creating powerful women characters, the vampire being one of the most powerful negative images” (Senf, 1988). It is for this reason that Carmilla is depicted in such a frightening and sensual way by Laura. She represents the allure of women as sexual beings with fangs dangerous enough to topple the patriarchy that the women in Walpole’s novel held to such esteem. Laura recounts one night that:

“I saw a solemn, but very pretty face looking at me from the side of the bed. It was that of a young lady who was kneeling, with her hands under the coverlet. I looked at her with a kind of pleased wonder and ceased whimpering. She caressed me with her hands, and lay down beside me on the bed, and drew me towards her, smiling; I felt immediately delightfully soothed, and fell asleep again. I was wakened by a sensation as if two needles ran into my breast very deep at the same moment, and I cried loudly. The lady started back, with her eyes fixed on me, and then slipped down upon the floor, and, as I thought, hid herself.” (Le Fanu, 2005)

Carmilla is liberating her fellow woman from the grip of a male dominated life and the needles of freedom cause her pain from the familiarity she initially grew up with into an unknown but free world where their union without a male partner gives them liberation from male authority.

 The exclusion of the man is further shown by General Spielsdorf’s recount of when he tried to catch the vampire that was causing his niece, Bertha, to become ill. He watches from the door as he saw “a large black object, very ill-defined, crawl, as it seemed to me, over the foot of the bed, and swiftly spread itself up to the poor girl's throat.” (Le Fanu, 2005). Carmilla takes away the male inclusion and leaves him a voyeur to a union that is beyond the heterosexual norm. This is a freedom from the patriarchal society that has ruled over women for centuries into a freedom over their own lives both physically and psychologically. Signorotti (1996) explains that “Le Fanu allows Laura and Carmilla to usurp male authority and to be stow themselves on whom they please, completely excluding male participation in the exchange of women.” (p.607). This exchange symbolises the change in normality. Not only are women becoming independent from males for their living needs, they are also becoming free in their sexual needs. Where The Castle of Otranto focused on the ideal women being subservient and dependent on the male in one’s life, Carmilla focuses on the threat of women to oppose Walpole’s standard of servitude to the patriarch that controlled their lives and of their bodies as factories for new male heirs. Carmilla is the free women that Walpole’s characters never dreamed of.

 Rebecca (Du Maurier, 2007) was written in in the twentieth century (1938) and is the story of the narrator’s marriage to Maxim de Winter and the subsequent flashbacks to her time in Manderley where she learnt about her husband’s first wife Rebecca and her lingering presence even after her death. Nigro (2000) argues that although the common assumption about Rebecca is that she is manipulative and convinced everyone she is flawless, she was justifiably murdered according to the second Mrs. de Winter. “What if, however, Maxim is the one who is lying, and Rebecca was as good as reputation held her, if his jealousy was the true motive for her murder?” (p. 144). Furthermore, Wisker (1999) points out that Du Maurier is known to have unreliable narrators. Therefore, finding the truth behind Rebecca’s character, flawed or perfect, becomes difficult. This difficulty blurs the lines between gender roles and conformity. The superiority of men is shown by Mrs. Danvers’ comparison of Rebecca as a man, “"She had all the courage and spirit of a boy, had my Mrs. de Winter. She ought to have been a boy, I often told her that. I had the care of her as a child. You knew that, did you?" (Du Maurier, 2007) showing the importance of being a “man” at the time and how they were seen to be superior. When the audience finds out about Rebecca’s imperfect character, one of her detrimental features is that she is promiscuous and why Maxim killed her. Maxim’s murder could therefore be because he was constrained by what people would think if his wife was expose to be a “harlot” and murdered her to uphold the principles that Walpole emphasised- something he cannot go against in his social circle, whilst Rebecca herself was trying to be as free as Carmilla and trying her best to live a happy life unconstrained by social norms and patriarchal glances. The role of gender and women becomes blurred in Rebecca as these roles begin to breakdown and become synonymous to both genders.

 Maxim’s attitude towards his new wife is almost paternalistic, treating her like an immature girl referring to her as “my child” and “my poor lamb” (Du Maurier, 2007). Where Mrs de Winter wants to become more mature, Maxim tries to keep her away calling it "not the right sort of knowledge" (p. 223) and telling her “it’s a pity you have to grow up” to block her from gaining the maturity that she craves. As a result, Mrs de Winter becomes trapped in a purgatory between maturity and upper-class standards and immaturity and the life she has come from. This entrapment is what the patriarchal norms establish, the damsel that must be guided by a firm male hand because of her ignorance as opposed to the woman being on equal footing to the man and someone who can take care of themselves. It is this standard that the narrator is held to and is also the standard Maxim held Rebecca to and subsequently murdered her because of. The shame from having a free woman as a wife is what led him to his crime. It is for this reason that the ultimate villain of Rebecca is in fact the patriarchal system in which the characters are confined. Wisker (2003) argues that the aristocratic setting of Rebecca “was to represent an unease at the configurations of power and gendered relations of the time.” Pons (2013) furthers this argument and explains that “the ultimate gothic villain is the haunting presence of an old-fashioned, strict patriarchal system, represented by Maxims mansion, Manderley, and understood as a hierarchical system.” This configuration of patriarchy established in the eighteenth century by Walpole is that of servitude for women and dominance for men. However, in an era where women have more power and have freedom as expressed in Carmilla suggests that these roles are becoming unfulfillable and it is because of this system that the characters are led to “hypocrisy, hysteria and crime.” (Pons, 2013). Thus, the role of women as a strict social etiquette breaks down and although they are treated still as subjects, the shift in power to give women their freedom is evident.

 Twilight (Meyer, 2012) written in 2005, follows the story of Bella Swan who falls in love with a vampire and the subsequent life they have together. However, it is subject to great controversy especially because of Bella herself. She seems to conform to female roles that are more akin to Hippolita than Carmilla. Rocha (2011) argues that “Bella illustrates female submission in a male dominated world; disempowering herself and symbolically disempowering women.” She sees herself in a negative light that is incapable of doing anything herself and is totally submissive in nature becoming a pawn in the life of the men of her life. Mann (2009) argues “When Bella falls in love, then, a girl in love is all she is. By page 139 she has concluded that her mundane life is a small price to pay for the gift of being with Edward, and by the second book she’s willing to trade her soul for that privilege” (p.133) and hence has a Hippolitaian quality of sacrifice for the pleasure of men and hence develops nothing about herself. Mann (2009) continues to say that “Other than her penchant for self-sacrifice and the capacity to attract the attention of boys, Bella isn’t really anyone special. She has no identifiable interests or talents; she is incompetent in the face of almost every challenge...When she needs something done, especially mechanical, she finds a boy to do it and watches him. (p.133) This leaves Bella as a “damsel-in-distress” (Rocha, 2011) where Edward becomes her saviour. Thus, the role of women in Twilight seems to be that of a possession to enhance the male being.

 It could however be argued that Twilight contains a relationship that female readers can relate to in its ability to show the “women’s powerlessness and their desire for revenge and appropriation.” (Jarvis, 2014) and how the heroine proves to the hero ‘‘their infinite preciousness’’ (Modleski, 1982) bringing the hero to contemplate, worry and obsess over the heroine in a way that the female reader can share “the heroines’ powerlessness and accompanying frustration.” (Jarvis, 2013). This leads to what Nicol (2011) explains is the ‘‘complexities of female sexuality for women in the twenty-first century’’ in so far as it provides a ‘‘socially sanctioned space in which to explore their sexual desires.” These desires are evident in Bella and Edward’s first kiss, that Bella describes:

 “His cold, marble lips pressed very softly against mine. Blood boiled under my skin, burned in my lips. My breath came in a wild gasp. My fingers knotted in his hair, clutching him to me. My lips parted as I breathed in his heady scent.” (Meyer, 2005, p. 282)

 This sexual tension is introduced earlier in the book where Bella is told that ‘‘Apparently none of the girls here are good-looking enough for him’’ (Meyer, 2005 p. 19). Jarvis (2014) explains that because of this any “female who secures the inaccessible Edward will rise in the esteem of her community” and since she is claiming him, someone who thinks of herself as “ordinary” (p. 210) the excitement for both Bella and the reader who is caught in this sexual act- almost participating in it- is why the sexual nature of the book is so enticing. Therefore, although Bella can be seen as holding the values of Hippolita, the Twilight saga speaks volumes in its showing of the complexities of the social code that twenty-first century women must abide by. They are expected to be as obedient as Hippolita whilst being as sexual desirable as Carmilla or Rebecca. Bella’s metamorphosis from the ordinary human to the alluring vampire symbolises this. Women’s roles therefore have changed to give them more freedom, but they are still expected to behave like Hippolita when the “freedom” they have been given.  

 In conclusion, the role of women and their identities have changed over the centuries. Walpole’s eighteenth-century idealism was that of the subservient woman that belonged to the patriarchal figure in their life in order to produce a good heir. The nineteenth century however became the start of the empowerment of women and much of the anxiety in Carmilla is her powerful nature as a woman to do as she pleases, removing the man and the patriarchy from Le Fanu’s world. She is thus depicted as a vampire- alluring and deadly- much like giving freedom to women who cannot control nor be trusted with the power they could be given. Rebecca leads to the twentieth century where the woman has been given some freedom to do as she pleases so long as it is under the watch of a man. Maxim’s murder and subsequent second marriage where because he could not control his first wife. The twenty-first century culmination of these roles comes in the form of Twilight where the heroin seems bland on the surface but actually shows the metamorphosis of womanhood through the centuries from that of a second-class servant to the ultimate freedom away from the patriarchy that Le Fanu’s Carmilla started centuries ago. As a result, the role of women has been fluid through the years. The ultimate goal of feminism is to have equality and the books that have been mentioned show that equality can only be achieved if any form of patriarchal culture is removed- a feat that has yet to be conquered.

[staringatthetwinsuns]

On writing Luke Skywalker as a character with a disability (meta thoughts)

Inspired by this post and the immensely thoughtful reblogs that go with it, I am going to try to consolidate my thoughts, advice, pet peeves, and feels about writing Luke Skywalker as a character with a disability (and perhaps touch a bit on Anakin/Vader). This is something I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about, and I don’t see it talked about very often, but now that I know I’m not the only one who thinks about it, I thought I'd try to share my perspective at least and start a conversation. Please feel free to add to, question, or outright argue with anything here.

First, a disclaimer: I am not an amputee, a doctor, an occupational therapist, or anyone else with relevant personal experience. I have personal reasons for caring deeply about this, but the most important ones are probably just wanting to see my favorite character written well and wanting to see diverse characters represented in fiction in general, so. Take this as you will.

Also, I will say in advance that I mix person-first language ("person with a disability") and identity-first language ("disabled person") here, because I know there are people who prefer both.... apologies/warnings in advance if you strongly dislike or are triggered by either.

So, first things first, and this is really just general writing advice that could apply to any disability or ANY aspect of a character's appearance… to what extent is is even necessary to address Luke's prosthetic hand in fic? The post I linked to above was really talking about art, and in that case, I suppose you do have to make some sort of choice—to draw Luke with a natural-looking hand like he had in ESB, a black glove as in ROTJ, or a metal hand like in the sequel trilogy. In fic, however, it doesn’t always need to really be addressed at all. Again, this goes for ANY aspect of a character’s appearance, and the golden rule is: Would the POV character (the character whose point of view we are in at the moment) notice or care at this particular moment in the story? You know how it feels weird when you read a bad YA fantasy novel and the narrator says something like "I looked at him with my brilliant purple eyes, which perfectly accented my flawless ivory skin"? That’s unnatural because actual people (even teenagers, shock! horror!) don’t really go around thinking about their own eye color or how flawless their skin is (unless they're incredibly unlikable, and then why would we want to read about them?). They’d be slightly more likely to be thinking about it if their skin WASN'T flawless and that zit they found this morning was bothering them, etc. Cardinal rule: don’t mention anything the narrator or POV character wouldn’t logically be thinking about at the time.

So, whether you even need to mention Luke's hand at all probably depends on a number of factors: Whose POV are we in? When does the fic take place? (Luke's going to be more aware of his new hand between ESB and ROTJ, for example, than decades in the future.) Does anything specifically happen that reminds the POV character of the fact that his hand's a prosthetic?

Which brings me, I suppose, to the next thing: Whether it even counts as a disability at all and the fact that, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T, you still can't really ignore it as if his hand just magically regenerated.

So, first. Is having an amazing cybernetic limb in the Star Wars universe a disability? I say a cautious yes… or at the very least, it's a medical condition on the same level with say, wearing glasses or contacts or having a hip replacement or something in the real world?

I do think it depends on a lot of factors though, and movie canon, at least, doesn’t give us a lot of answers. We don’t really know how much feeling Luke has in his hand… pressure/pain is established, but what about heat or cold? Does it hurt at all (aside from pain sensors)? Is it stronger, weaker, less flexible (more flexible? That's a bit hard to imagine?) etc, than his other hand? I think it PROBABLY counts as a disability and at least counts as something that would affect his daily life in AT THE VERY LEAST small ways. More on that later.

I don’t actually remember what Legends had to say about any of this but again, movie canon doesn’t give us a lot. Here are some of the things I appreciate fanfic writers thinking about, though. (For the record, I am GUILTY AS HELL of overlooking some of this stuff myself in certain fics though, so don't feel bad if you have too… just suggestions for things we probably SHOULD be considering!)

1. How different is the sense of touch or the range of movement in Luke's prosthetic right hand, compared to his left hand? Does it affect the way he does things? Does he favor one hand over the other in certain situations because of this? Does this change as time goes by and any differences become his norm? (I'd personally think there'd be some difference… not necessarily better or worse, but different, and that over time it would definitely start to feel normal.)

2. How different does it look or feel to other people? 1980s-era special effects aside, look at the rest of the technology in the universe. Look at your own hand for goodness' sake. I can’t imagine it’s a perfect replica. Like, I can see the bones and veins in my hand. My fingernails get too long and split and have ragged cuticles. There's no WAY that anyone would even WANT a prosthetic hand that realistic, so. There's got to be some difference. Especially in a romantic or sexual situation, especially fairly soon after ESB, it seems weird not to mention this. I HAVE seen fics that addressed the body temperature issue, either by having the other character be surprised that his hand WAS warm or stating that it wasn't? I guess I personally don't think that heating would be a priority and that it might therefore be cooler than his other hand? Again, definitely not always necessary but, in certain scenes might be important and gets sometimes ignored.

3. There is no f-ing way that Luke’s hand actually ages, so… while I agree that the "Oh all the skin just fell off" idea is stupid, what DOES he do as he ages? Go for the metal model because it doesn’t look the same anyway so it doesn't MATTER if he ages? Get the skin updated to look more like whatever age he is now? Just… have a random 22-year-old-looking hand even though the rest of him is 50?

4. Regardless of whatever you go with for #3, either the entire hand or some of its parts must need replacing over time. Anyone who thinks people use the same prostheses for 30 years doesn’t know anyone who actually uses one (or hasn’t known them for very long, anyway), and even if you play the "advanced technology" card.. want to show me a 30-year-old car, airplane, or space shuttle that has NEVER HAD A PART REPLACED EVER? Can he do the maintenance himself (one-handed? Well, at least he has the Force?) or does a medical droid need to do it, etc?

5. What does the REST of the galaxy think about this? The only canon instances of ableism I can think of are Obi-Wan’s "more machine now than man" in ROTJ, and Dooku's not-so-nice thoughts about Anakin's arm in the ROTS novelization (although Palpatine obviously feels differently in the same scene), but… on the whole is there any stigma attached, or not? If so, is Luke more like "screw it," or is he somewhat self-conscious? What do Leia, Han, Chewie, Wedge... whoever else is in the fic, think? I mean, seriously... imagine a loved one losing a limb. You might not CARE (you shouldn't CARE, in the sense of loving them less or differently, and I don't think any of the above characters would either) but it would still be a thing to get used to?

6. Back to technical stuff, just how much of his arm IS mechanical anyway? Definitely seems to be more than he actually lost to Vader. (This Quora post is fascinating.) Again, usually not relevant since Luke never wears anything but long sleeves after ESB (which is a travesty; look at those ARMS on Dagobah), but… might be relevant if he’s naked in your fic? ;)

7. Related to #6, how obvious is the point where the synthskin meets his natural skin? This could probably be barely noticeable (theatrical makeup experience FTW?) but, might not be? Is this the reason he always wears long sleeves? XD I can't imagine synthskin can tan or grow hair or anything, right???

Okay, so assuming you've put the thought into your headcanon for the above (I… really hadn’t either until recently though, and my fics are all inconsistent so… no judgment either way), let me come back to this "minor thing that affects your life in small ways" thing.

I don’t really get the impression that, with Luke anyway, this particular fandom pays TOO MUCH attention to his prosthetic hand to the point where it feels like a fetish. I have read a COUPLE of fics that felt icky that way, but many more involving Anakin/Vader. If anything, it gets kind of over-ignored as a perfect replacement that is exactly like his biological hand in every way.

That's just not possible. It's not. And even if it WERE scientifically possible (in a very cyberpunk-ish world, no less) would anyone BOTHER to make a cybernetic hand with ugly veins, scraggly cuticles, and age spots?

So. Even if you don’t consider it a disability, it’s a THING. I don’t think my wearing contacts is a disability, but I still can't open my eyes underwater, and if I nap in the afternoon my eyes get dry and gunky, and if I drive somewhere and lose a contact I legally and literally CANNOT drive home (never happened but, anxiety FTW?), and don't forget that one time I lived through a major earthquake and all the supermarkets ran out of food because the roads were closed, you better bet I was worried about what would happen if I ran out of One Day Acuvue before the courier services opened back up (actually go to an eye doctor and get that awful glaucoma test? *shudder*). Similarly, someone who can walk normally on an artificial hip or knee isn’t disabled in the same sense that someone who uses a wheelchair is, but they still set off metal detectors and can’t sit comfortably in certain positions. It may or may not be a major thing, but it is a thing… and it does seem weird to me that a lot of writers seem to treat Luke’s hand as a perfect replacement when it CAN'T BE. For example:

1. It's metal in his body. I’ve translated enough medical documents to know that THAT IS A THING. Metal detectors, MRIs, whatever… there are times when metal vs. organic material is a thing.

2. He can't possibly have the same fingerprints, if he has any fingerprints at all. It MIGHT be possible for a planned amputation but… that hand was lost. Any biometric-type military clearance Luke has now has to be reset/redone. Finger vein identification etc. is probably a no-go period. (NEW THOUGHT: Unless the Alliance had his fingerprints on file... doesn't REALLY match up with the rest of the technology of the world, but... cool possibility?)

3. Maintenance. Especially considering if he’s going to live on a water planet with exposed mechanical parts with no one else to help him do maintenance if needed *side-eyes Rian Johnson*

4. Ongoing pain? This is a headcanon of mine anyway. From what I understand, phantom pain comes from the brain sending out signals to a limb that is no longer there, and getting no response. Since Luke’s hand DOES have feeling, I don’t think he’d have that kind of ongoing issue, BUT. I do think there’d be pain right after he got it (again, talk to anyone who’s had a joint replaced?) and I kind of imagine his hand aching whenever he was reminded of Vader or of losing it. Not a necessary thing to work in, I suppose, but that’s a headcanon I use a lot.

5. Identity as a disabled person? I have seen this addressed in some fics, and I agree that it might not have a place one way or the other in a story that has nothing to do with disability, but… I do sort of see Luke being especially compassionate to other veterans or victims of the war, and to people with disabilities in general, maybe especially because he now knows that’s something he shared with his father? I also like it when fics address the fact that not everyone in the galaxy has access to what I assume was the top-of-the-line model for the Alliance’s biggest hero, at that Luke might feel guilt about that, or at least a desire to help others?

6. Vanity/self-esteem? Luke doesn’t seem like a hugely vain person to me but… would he be at all self-conscious about meeting someone new and getting the awkward questions? Does he tell the truth, and if so how much of it? Or does everyone just already know? (That wouldn’t necessarily be LESS awkward though?) Like everything else, this probably depends on when the fic is set.

7. Is there anything he’s not supposed to do, like get wet (especially without the skin, oh dear sequel trilogy)???

I guess on the whole I see Luke as a not-vain person who probably wouldn’t care THAT much about appearances (except everyone does a little, right?), but I do think his hand would be a constant reminder of Vader, for better (after ROTJ) or worse (between ESB and ROTJ). I don’t think it would be as life-changing as losing a limb in the real world today, but I also don’t think he’d go months (or even a day really) without even thinking about it, with zero changes to anything whatsoever.

I think it’s really important that the technology in Star Wars is shown to be helping and healing people, rather than just blowing things up. I LOVE that people have taken that ideal version of a prosthetic limb and made strides toward actually creating it in real life. But I also think that just ignoring the fact that Luke IS a character with a disability (however rendered-minor it is by said technology) does a huge disservice to the character and to diversity in pop culture in general.

So… long story short, I’d love to see more fics that did address this, even if it’s casually and in passing. While there are certainly situations in which the best choice is "it doesn’t matter in this scene," if anything I see Star Wars fics going too far in the other direction… not really considering this as a part of the character and the world?

[wickedbananas]

Time to Act: Review Responses Just Evolved from "Extra" to "Expected"

Posted by MiriamEllis

I’ve advocated the use of Google’s owner response review feature since it first rolled out in 2010. This vital vehicle defends brand reputation and revenue, offering companies a means of transforming dissatisfied consumers into satisfied ones, supporting retention so that less has to be spent on new customer acquisition. I consider review responses to be a core customer service responsibility. Yet, eight years into the existence of this feature, marketing forums are still filled with entry-level questions like:

Should I respond to reviews?

Should I respond to positive reviews?

How should I respond to negative reviews?

Over the years, I’ve seen different local SEO consultants reply in differing degrees to these common threads, but as of May 11, 2018, both agencies and brands woke to a new day: the day on which Google announced it would be emailing notifications like this to consumers when a business responds to their reviews, prompting them to view the reply.

Surveys indicate that well over 50% of consumers already expect responses within days of reviewing a business. With Google’s rollout, we can assume that this numbers is about to rise.

Why is this noteworthy news? I’ll explain exactly that in this post, plus demo how Moz Local can be a significant help to owners and marketers in succeeding in this new environment.

When "extra" becomes "expected"

In the past, owner responses may have felt like something extra a business could do to improve management of its reputation. Perhaps a company you’re marketing has been making the effort to respond to negative reviews, at the very least, but you’ve let replying to positive reviews slide. Or maybe you respond to reviews when you can get around to it, with days or weeks transpiring between consumer feedback and brand reaction.

Google’s announcement is important for two key reasons:

1) It signals that Google is turning reviews into a truly interactive feature, in keeping with so much else they’ve rolled out to the Knowledge Panel in recent times. Like booking buttons and Google Questions & Answers, notifications of owner responses are Google’s latest step towards making Knowledge Panels transactional platforms instead of static data entities. Every new feature brings us that much closer to Google positioning itself between providers and patrons for as many transactional moments as possible.

2) It signals a major turning point in consumer expectations. In the past, reviewers have left responses from motives of “having their say,” whether that’s to praise a business, warn fellow consumers, or simply document their experiences.

Now, imagine a patron who writes a negative review of two different restaurants he dined at for Sunday lunch and dinner. On Monday, he opens his email to find a Google notification that Restaurant A has left an owner response sincerely apologizing and reasonably explaining why service was unusually slow that weekend, but that Restaurant B is meeting his complaint about a rude waiter with dead air.

“So, Restaurant A cares about me, and Restaurant B couldn’t care less,” the consumer is left to conclude, creating an emotional memory that could inform whether he’s ever willing to give either business a second chance in the future.

Just one experience of receiving an owner response notification will set the rules of the game from here on out, making all future businesses that fail to respond seem inaccessible, neglectful, and even uncaring. It’s the difference between reviewers narrating their experiences from random motives, and leaving feedback with the expectation of being heard and answered.

I will go so far as to predict that Google’s announcement ups the game for all review platforms, because it will make owner responses to consumer sentiment an expected, rather than extra, effort.

The burden is on brands

Because no intelligent business would believe it can succeed in modern commerce while appearing unreachable or unconcerned, Google’s announcement calls for a priority shift. For brands large and small, it may not be an easy one, but it should look something like this:

Negative reviews are now direct cries for help to our business; we will respond with whatever help we can give within X number of hours or days upon receipt

Positive reviews are now thank-you notes directly to our company; we will respond with gratitude within X number of hours or days upon receipt

Defining X is going to have to depend on the resources of your organization, but in an environment in which consumers expect your reply, the task of responding must now be moved from the back burner to a hotter spot on the stovetop. Statistics differ in past assessments of consumer expectations of response times:

In 2016, GetFiveStars found that 15.6% of consumers expected a reply with 1–3 hours, and 68.3% expected a reply within 1–3 days of leaving a review.

In 2017, RevLocal found that 52% of consumers expected responses within 7 days.

Overall, 30% of survey respondents told BrightLocal in 2017 that owner responses were a factor they looked at in judging a business.

My own expectation is that all of these numbers will now rise as a result of Google’s new function, meaning that the safest bet will be the fastest possible response. If resources are limited, I recommend prioritizing negative sentiment, aiming for a reply within hours rather than days as the best hope of winning back a customer. “Thank yous” for positive sentiment can likely wait for a couple of days, if absolutely necessary.

It’s inspiring to know that a recent Location3 study found that brands which do a good job of responding to reviews saw an average conversion rate of 13.9%, versus lackluster responders whose conversion rate was 10.4%. Depending on what you sell, those 3.5 points could be financially significant! But it’s not always easy to be optimally responsive.

If your business is small, accelerating response times can feel like a burden because of lack of people resources. If your business is a large, multi-location enterprise, the burden may lie in organizing awareness of hundreds of incoming reviews in a day, as well as keeping track of which reviews have been responded to and which haven’t.

The good news is…

Moz Local can help

The screenshot, above, is taken from the Moz Local dashboard. If you’re a customer, just log into your Moz Local account and go to your review section. From the “sources” section, choose “Google” — you’ll see the option to filter your reviews by “replied” and “not replied.” You’ll instantly be able to see which reviews you haven’t yet responded to. From there, simply use the in-dashboard feature that enables you to respond to your (or your clients’) reviews, without having to head over to your GMB dashboard or log into a variety of different clients’ GMB dashboards. So easy!

I highly recommend that all our awesome customers do this today and be sure you’ve responded to all of your most recent reviews. And, in the future, if you’re working your way through a stack of new, incoming Google reviews, this function should make it a great deal easier to keep organized about which ones you’ve checked off and which ones are still awaiting your response. I sincerely hope this function makes your work more efficient!

Need some help setting the right review response tone?

Please check out Mastering the Owner Response to the Quintet of Google My Business Reviews, which I published in 2016 to advocate responsiveness. It will walk you through these typical types of reviews you’ll be receiving:

“I love you!”

“I haven’t made up my mind yet.”

“There was hair in my taco...”

“I’m actually your competitor!”

“I’m citing illegal stuff.”

The one update I’d make to the advice in the above piece, given Google’s rollout of the new notification function, would be to increase the number of positive reviews to which you’re responding. In 2016, I suggested that enterprises managing hundreds of locations should aim to express gratitude for at least 10% of favorable reviews. In 2018, I’d say reply with thanks to as many of these as you possibly can. Why? Because reviews are now becoming more transactional than ever, and if a customer says, “I like you,” it’s only polite to say, “Thanks!”. As more customers begin to expect responsiveness, failure to acknowledge praise could feel uncaring.

I would also suggest that responses to negative reviews more strongly feature a plea to the customer to contact the business so that things can be “made right.” GetFiveStars co-founder, Mike Blumenthal, is hoping that Google might one day create a private channel for brands and consumers to resolve complaints, but until that happens, definitely keep in mind that:

The new email alerts will ensure that more customers realize you’ve responded to their negative sentiment.

If, while “making things right” in the public response, you also urge the unhappy customer to let you make things “more right” in person, you will enhance your chances of retaining him.

If you are able to publicly or privately resolve a complaint, the customer may feel inspired to amend his review and raise your star rating; over time, more customers doing this could significantly improve your conversions and, possibly, your local search rankings.

All potential customers who see your active responses to complaints will understand that your policies are consumer-friendly, which should increase the likelihood of them choosing your business for transactions.

Looking ahead

One of the most interesting aspects I’m considering as of the rollout of response notifications is whether it may ultimately impact the tone of reviews themselves. In the past, some reviewers have given way to excesses in their sentiment, writing about companies in the ugliest possible language… language I’ve always wanted to hope they wouldn’t use face-to-face with other human beings at the place of business. I’m wondering now if knowing there’s a very good chance that brands responding to feedback could lessen the instances of consumers taking wild, often anonymous potshots at brands and create a more real-world, conversational environment.

In other words, instead of: “You overcharged me $3 for a soda and I know it’s because you’re [expletive] scammers, liars, crooks!!! Everyone beware of this company!!!”

We might see: “Hey guys, I just noticed a $3 overcharge on my receipt. I’m not too happy about this.”

The former scenario is honestly embarrassing. Trying to make someone feel better when they’ve just called you a thief feels a bit ridiculous and depressing. But the latter scenario is, at least, situation-appropriate instead of blown out of all proportion, creating an opening for you and your company to respond well and foster loyalty.

I can’t guarantee that reviewers will tone it down a bit if they feel more certain of being heard, but I’m hoping it will go that way in more and more cases.

What do you think? How will Google’s new function impact the businesses you market and the reviewers you serve? Please share your take and your tips with our community!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

from The Moz Blog https://ift.tt/2IktMyl via IFTTT

[judedoyle]

It’s sort of a corny project, assembling songs by women and non-binary people at the end of every year. It’s a very dopey, dated, 1990s, Women Who Rock! version of feminism. I mean, I think there was a reason for that iteration of feminism — year-end lists are still dominated by men, and my favorite albums fall through the cracks just about every year for that very reason — but it begs the question of why you’d do it now, when it has been established fact for many decades that you do not have to be a man to make music.

The reason I do it is that it keeps me honest. This year’s list, for example, is all women; I don’t know of any albums by non-binary people that came out this year, though I’m sure there were some. But even within that narrower subset, I am blown away by how many kinds of songs by women there are — how wildly different women are in their voices and priorities and visions, how the word “woman” sums up so much but, somehow, doesn’t tell you anything at all. Making the list, I can start to feel like I’m assembling my own little pantheon, selecting a hall full of different archetypes or visions of what womanhood can be, so that listeners can wander through and pick the vision that best suits their needs or their own self-identification.

That task seemed particularly important this year. Trumpism insists so much on homogeneity — on the second-class status of all women, sure, but also, on the supremacy of whiteness, on heteronormativity, the importance of only admitting one specific Ivanka-esque type of woman to even exist as a person worthy of consideration. I wanted to select as many different versions of womanhood as I could, to show something about what “being a woman” could potentially mean.

Nor is this really a “best songs” list this year, if it ever was. I never agree with other writers’ year-end lists, and I can never put everything I love onto one cohesive mixtape; this started as twenty-four songs, and it could be thirty, or fifty, and still feel incomplete. There are songs I loved that are missing. What this is, I think, is a list of the songs that felt most like 2017; that reflected the mood and the predominant anxieties of the moment. They tend to fall into themes: Songs about fascism, about men, about grief, about God and magic. Putting them together is not just about lifting different women’s voices up, but about writing a kind of collective diary of one very strange year.

“2016,” Nadine Shah, Honeymoon Destination

Nadine Shah gets neglected, on the list of musicians I like, because she’s not showy. She just plugs away, making quietly excellent, sort-of-PJ-Harvey-ish songs for voice and guitar. This song starts out in that quiet, excellent mode, in an assortment of mundane details: She’s thirty, she’s depressed, she’s getting addicted to true crime TV, all her friends are on weird diets. Then history comes staggering into the frame — what is there left to inspire us with a fascist in the White House? — and suddenly, you’re aware that you’re hearing the voice of a biracial British Muslim woman living through Brexit and Trump, and that it is incredibly crucial. She pulls this trick a lot on Holiday Destination, angrily raking the state of the world through her songs, and though it’s sometimes incredibly on the nose, well, it deserves to be. This is that kind of year.

“Aryan Nation,” EMA, Exile In The Outer Ring

If Nadine Shah’s anger is elegant and British, EMA’s is scuzzy and loutish and American. I got to hear this album before its release, which makes me particularly fond of it, but I like to think I can still be objective. What stuns me about it is that it manages to pull off “populism,” as a stance, without ever overriding or ignoring identity. The narrator here is pulling away from the whiteness and ugliness of the United States under Trump — she’s “a refugee from the Aryan nation,” as she puts it — but she’s still located firmly among the 99%. “Tell me stories of famous men / I can’t see myself in them” is a demand that rings throughout the whole album, which mixes intimate songs about emotional abuse and misogynistic dude friends with big songs about downward mobility and class struggle, “identity” politics with politics-politics. In this song, the men standing outside the casino, the face of the elite, register as nearly demonic figures; they might be demons, I think, since “in their eyes are things that you and I will never know.” But their evil expands and takes on new facets, depending on who you are. There’s a double indictment: EMA’s Everyman can’t see herself in the nation’s “famous men” because they’re famous, but also because they’re male. Either way, she’s ready to burn it down.

“No Man Is Big Enough For My Arms,” Ibeyi, Ash

Oh, man. I love this song. I would probably love it for the title alone, to be honest. But I cannot escape the feeling that, were Leftist Asshole Twitter to get ahold of its existence, they would hate it more than seventeen Hamiltons combined. It’s an incredibly simple piece of music: Just the Diaz sisters singing the title phrase over clips of Michelle Obama’s speeches, and specifically her 2016 campaign speech about Trump’s history of assault and what our nation owes its girls. If the election had gone another way, or if the tone were valedictory, it absolutely wouldn’t work; it would probably represent the same corny, self-satisfied #centrism that I’m sure some podcast is accusing it of as we speak. But this isn’t a victory lap. As the mournfulness of the singing should make clear, it’s a funeral dirge: For a historic moment that passed into a historically racist backlash, for the vision of a better world that never came to pass, for a promise to our daughters that wasn’t kept. As much as Democrats loved the idea of “when they go low, we go high,” or Michelle Obama herself, that wasn’t the vision of women and girls that carried the day. We’ve all been brought low now.

“When the World Was At War We Kept Dancing,” Lana Del Rey, Lust for Life

If you told me, back in 2014, that I would be relying on Lana Del Rey for insights into the national psyche, I would have either laughed you out of the room or thrown myself out of a window to defeat your grim prophecy. Yet here we are, with a song by Lana Del Rey about American politics and the rise of fascism, and I kind of like it. Granted, her proposed solutions — they are, in order, “youth,” “truth,” and “dancing” — are all (intentionally?) vapid and Lana Del Rey-like. But the core question — is it the end of an era? Is it the end of America? — is one that’s haunted me all year. Welcome to 2017: Things are so bizarre and depressing that Lana Del Rey sounds normal.

“Let’s Generalize About Men,” Crazy Ex-Girlfriend

Here’s the thing, guys: I fucking loved Al Franken.

I loved him early on. I had every crappy Al Franken book of “political humor” in high school. I listened to his radio show on Air America, even as Air America collapsed into a smoldering pile of debt and garbage. I was so thrilled to share a room with him at Netroots Nation that I texted my parents, and they texted back that they were proud of me, like it had taken some feat of exceptional skill and intelligence to be in the same room as the keynote speaker at an event. I teared up watching him talk about sexual assault in the military, how we were failing those women. And I know women who worked on his first Senate campaign. They loved Al Franken. I loved Al Franken. Al Franken could have been President, on the back of all the women who loved him.

Al Franken can roast in the pits of Hell.

The creators of “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” almost certainly did not intend for this song to air the same week as the Weinstein allegations and the Shitty Media Men list. They had no control over how its lyrics — right now we’re angry and sad! It’s our right to get righteously mad at every member of the opposite sex! — would land in an environment where seemingly every famous man was publicly accused of sexual atrocity. Nevertheless, in a few short weeks, this song has become my chief emotional release valve for dealing with an endless wave of sexual trauma, and the one thing that can reliably make me laugh. This is probably the one song I’ve listened to most in 2017, and it’s not even from a “real” pop album.

I don’t know why this makes me laugh as hard as it does. I think it’s the deranged cheerfulness of the music, and how triumphant they all sound. They’re just listing lazy ’90s sitcom tropes about gender, but Gabrielle Ruiz puts so much mustard on the phrase “all men only want to have sex,” my God. And, in an age, when #notallmen routinely swing by to remind you of all the stuff they’re not doing, you have to admire the magnificent troll job of lyrics like “there are no exceptions / all three billion men are like this!”

Of course, you’re not meant to agree with them; there’s a whole trip through straight ladies’ condescending homophobia, just in case you missed the point. But when they finally get to the verse about all the other stuff that all men do —  all three point six billion men, and also, Al Franken — well. It is a song that is of its moment. That kicker would no doubt be less brutal, in a pre-Weinstein universe. But it’s funnier when you believe it could be true.

“Boyfriend,” Marika Hackman, I’m Not Your Man

The concept of this song — Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl,” from the girl’s point of view — is so simple, I can’t believe it hasn’t been done before. And maybe it has! But  it’s hard to believe it’s been done better, because this is, moment-for-moment, my favorite song of the year. It’s really just four jaunty minutes of Marika Hackman telling some poor schmuck about how excellently she fucked his girlfriend last night: “It’s fine ‘cause I am just a girl / it doesn’t count,” she sings, and it’s one of the most coolly vicious moments in any song this year. In another year, it might not even strike you as all that political. But in a year especially full of male sexual aggression and cluelessness, of Robert in “Cat Person” and the vanguard of the Left scoffing about “pats on the backside,” frogs using cuckolding metaphors and seemingly every single Hillary-hating talking head getting exposed for rubbing his penis on coworkers, “Boyfriend” feels like the snarl of rage that’s been bubbling under every conversation. I mean: Among other things, she is literally cucking this dude. It could be pretty gross. But I’ll allow it.

“Green Light,” Lorde, Melodrama

Sometimes you do need a fun, blockbuster pop song. Despite Lorde’s much-vaunted writing skills, several lyrics in this are just plain goofy: “We order different drinks at the same bars,” for example, is what everybody does at bars, including people who are on a date with each other. Later, she snarls that her ex is a “damn liar” for claiming to love the beach, a line which summons up a long history of passionate and incredibly specific anti-beach sentiments, and raises the serious possibility that she’s singing about Anakin Skywalker. But if you can get past the mental image of Lorde swinging through the club with Darth Vader, each of them taking sips from a single shared gin and tonic, there is a sense of propulsive longing to this song, a sense of being so excited you’re almost sad, like the twinge you feel on Christmas morning when you realize there’s nothing left to wait for. That sense of pre-emptive nostalgia defines many of the great moments on Melodrama; Lorde is both vibrating with joy over how new and full of potential her world seems to be, and sad that it won’t always feel like this. That feeling defines a lot of youth, too. Many songs aim for that epic sweep; Jack Antonoff has a retirement fund because of it, “Tonight, Tonight” and “1979” were the ones people played when I was young enough to actually feel it, but this year, that big, hopefully hopeless, Gatsby-invoking chorus was the closest to the real thing.

“Say You Do,” Tei Shi, Crawl Space

This is another record that got under-rated as the result of being simple, pretty and specific in its ambitions when the context demanded Big Statements. There’s nothing wrong with big statements, and this list is full of them. But this is four perfect minutes, no wasted space, no false steps, and it makes me happy every time I listen to it. Granted, it’s aiming for that same cheesy ‘90s mom-jams vibe that a lot of people aim for these days; viewed through a certain lens, this is basically a HAIM song. But HAIM actually released an album this year, and none of the songs were as good as this one. The whole album is like this; intentionally lovely, boundary-pushing without being self-indulgent, excellently crafted. It’s skated just under the radar, maybe precisely because of those qualities. But crises pass, and craft keeps standing.

“Frontline,” Kelela, Take Me Apart

Even simple, blockbuster pop songs are not always as simple as they seem. It was only when putting this list together that I realized all the songs I’d classified as “just fun” were about the same thing. They’re all about women contesting men’s narratives. You don’t know me like you say you do, Tei Shi insists; you’ll always deny that we’re going in circles, Kelela says here; even Lorde, God bless her, is incredibly clear on the fact that her ex does not like the beach, despite recent statements to the contrary. (Is systemic corruption at play? Is Lorde’s ex in the pocket of the powerful beach lobby? Only time will tell!) I don’t think I got the appeal of ‘90s R&B nostalgia before now; here, especially in the pre-chorus, it’s simultaneously sexy and meticulous, propulsive but airbrushed at the same time. But within that is Kelela herself, who has been gradually moving to the forefront of her own songs for years now, becoming a persona rather than just another instrument: Coming up with the Sun around me… now I’m up and I won’t be taken down, she sings. The fact that the defiance is intimate makes it no less political. I believe her.

“Deadly Valentine,” Charlotte Gainsbourg, Rest

It’s hard to come up with an elevator pitch for this one. It’s the Stranger Things soundtrack, but also a French disco, but also Charlotte Gainsbourg singing about her sister’s suicide. Any one of those elements could undermine the other, but somehow, they don’t. This year has been full of albums about grief — reasonable, given that it feels like most of us are grieving something — but the opulence of Gainsbourg’s, the way it calls on the musical history of the family to dramatize the loss of one of its members, stands out. I get so caught up in the catchiness of this one, so blinded by all the disco lights, that I can almost miss Gainsbourg mourning in the background (“I’m my own shadow / you are my little hurricane”). Which, I think, is the point.

“Los Ageless,” Saint Vincent, MASSEDUCTION

Annie Clark is a very cool musician. One of the last great cool musicians, maybe. Cool has been on the way out, though, in this century; what you find sexy and mysterious, I might just see as repressed and withholding. Clark does not like it when her audience gets too close. She doesn’t do “raw.” The emotion in her songs gets refracted through intellect, through reference, through character, through irony; often, and especially on her last album, she seems to be playing a parody of herself, as if she can only be a pop star by putting scare quotes around her own personality. This is often very appealing; it’s why people point to her as an heir to David Bowie or David Byrne (or, presumably, other celebrity Davids). It can also be frustrating, when you want to make a direct connection and she doesn’t let you. I don’t know why MASSEDUCTION is different; maybe the breakups Clark has been through have worn down her defenses, maybe working with living schmaltz factory Jack Antonoff has thawed the ice a bit. But this chorus is huge: Big, melodramatic, honest, painful. It’s not something I knew she could do.  

“Jukai,” Jhene Aiko, Trip

I TOLD YOU PEOPLE ABOUT JHENE AIKO AND YOU WOULDN’T LISTEN.

Sorry! I was super into Jhene Aiko in 2014, the first year I made this list. I talked about her all the time and people looked at me like I was an idiot. Back then, she just sort of floated around, appearing on dudes’ songs. It took a while for her own aesthetic to take shape. She had vague, New-Agey ideas about spirituality; she talked a lot about weed; she made regrettable puns. (How regrettable? Her first album is called Souled Out, featuring a song called “Lyin’ King,” so, you tell me.) Even when her aesthetic finally did take hold, her label kept making incredibly cash-grabby statements about how there’d never been a Frank Ocean for the female demographic. So that was how people saw her, I think — just a stoner riding a trendy vibe. Someone you could write off.

If I told you, in 2014, that Jhene Aiko would be turning in a 22-song conceptual exploration of her brother’s death and her own substance abuse, and that it would begin with a song about Aiko entering the “Sea of Trees,” which is a common place for Japanese people to commit suicide, and that you would be hearing Jhene Aiko seriously sing lines like “I envy the dead,” and that critics would love it, I do not think you would have believed me. But here we are, with the harrowing, serious Jhene Aiko statement about death and grief that the world didn’t know it needed. Women shouldn’t have to bring themselves to their knees to be taken seriously. So the best thing to know, about Jhene Aiko, is that this was always there.

“Wildwood,” Tori Amos, Native Invader

The Tori Amos “return to form,” if you ask me, occurred way back in 2011, with Night of Hunters. But, at least since the 2014 critical re-evaluation that accompanied Unrepentant Geraldines, it’s widely agreed that she’s all the way back on her game. So if I tell you that Native Invader is great, that several songs are as good as anything she’s ever done, that’s not surprising. If I tell you that she’s still doing concept albums, but that it’s started working— this album is, in no particular order, about climate change, the Dakota access pipeline, her mother falling severely ill, and the Native American ancestors on her mother’s side of the family; in typical Tori Amos fashion, the endangered bodies of the planet and her mother and her ancestors get all tangled up together, until, by the final song, they seem like the same being — maybe that doesn’t surprise you, either. But this might: I finally get what she’s doing with the ‘70s soft-rock thing.

In plenty of Amos’ late-00s work, maybe all the way back to “Crazy” on Scarlet’s Walk, she’s tried to signify “sexiness” with what sounds like smooth tunes for dudes with heavy mustaches and ladies with feathered hair. Given that Amos gained her initial fan base by running on wild, primal intensity (this is either a song or a scene from The Exorcist; I’m honestly still not sure) her fixation on suddenly sounding mellow was bizarre and frustrating. “Crazy” worked fine, but “Sleeps With Butterflies” almost derailed her whole fucking career.

Yet here we are, with another sexy-’70s Tori Amos song. It’s mellow; it’s smooth. There are bongos on it. And yet, I know what it’s doing now. This is an album about aging and death; the death of wild nature, the all-too-possible death of her mother, the impending adulthood of her now-17-year-old daughter, and the fact that Amos, within the foreseeable future, will become part of her family’s oldest living generation. The point of the ’70s sounds, I think, isn’t that Amos believes they’re current; it’s that they are part of Amos’ youth, echoes of the songs she fell in love with as a teenager. These songs are to Tori Amos as Tori Amos records are to me — something precious from a world that has ended, a little bit of being young that she gets to carry around. “Wildwood” summons up a wild, healing, erotic relationship with Nature (don’t @ me) but also sounds as if it’s mourning that communion, and the woods, which may not be there for her own grandchildren; it sounds, like the Lorde song, as if it is about both happiness and the inevitable end of happiness, nostalgic for something that is happening right now.

“Om Rama,” Alice Coltrane, World Spirituality Classics 1: The Ecstatic Music of Alice Coltrane

When you talk about Tori Amos, you’re always talking about God. Her worldview is deeply pagan, not in the New-Age sense, but in an earned way; when she sings to the woods as a living creature, asking it to heal her, you know she’s serious.

That was my second-favorite album of 2017. This is my favorite. I don’t know how I found it; I think it just got introduced into my Spotify feed through some algorithm. And I’m not even sure if it qualifies; sure, it was released this year, but all the actual music was recorded decades ago. It wasn’t even intended for mass release. This is Alice Coltrane’s attempt at writing devotional music for her ashram; it was meant to be heard by the ashram, and no-one else.

Yet I am hard-pressed to think of anything else like it: A female composer, from the 20th century, wrestling to communicate her own experience of God. There’s so much going on in here; traditional chanting, gospel music, ’90s synths that sound like the Twin Peaks soundtrack, what we used to call “soundscapes.” You float from one texture to another, one worldview to another, linked only by Coltrane’s own sense of the divine. It’s incredibly intimate; maybe too intimate, since you’re very aware that the state of Alice Coltrane’s soul was not intended for people outside her own religious community to pass comment on. But it’s also incredibly beautiful, a synthesis that somehow goes beyond what “God” sounds like in Western music (choirs, mostly) or Eastern appropriation, and becomes its own, new sublime.

“Tabula Rasa,” Bjork, Utopia

Here is an unexpected thing about having a baby: Bjork makes me cry now. I’d always listened to her, given that she belonged to that sacred constellation of ‘90s “alternative” ladies that makes up about 80% of my personal value system. But I tended to view her with respect, rather than love; she struck me as a cerebral artist, technically brilliant but not too intimate. Then I found myself breastfeeding at 3 AM, listening to “All is Full of Love” and crying, or singing “Hyperballad” to the baby in the bath, and I realized the emotion had always been in there. I just hadn’t felt it yet.

Utopia adds a few entries to the list of “improbable words Bjork has trilled on a record,” including “Kafkaesque” and “patriarchy.” But she’s serious about the patriarchy thing. This record is, like the title says, her utopia — her matriarchal island, where nature can still hold sway, where mothers are never defeated in their ability to protect their daughters, where, after all the dirt and awfulness of the year, we might be able to get clean. She’s less singing than she is invoking it into being.

Some of the details on this song are small, petty, specific: A bad divorce, a father who led two lives. But the whole thing centers, as stories of matriarchy always do, around a mother and her daughter. When Bjork finally starts witching out, singing her preferred solution into being — “Tabula rasa for my children / not repeating the fuck-ups of the fathers” — it’s hard to imagine a better hope to take into the new year.

[ncmagroup]

  Before you can improve your sales presentations, it’s important to have a strong understanding of the difference between demonstrating and presenting.

We’ve seen it time and time again that salespeople (and sometimes even managers!) have been using these terms interchangeably but these two things are very different. And knowing the distinction will make all of the difference when improving your sales presentations.

Let me explain…

Demonstrating vs. PresentingWhen you demonstrate, you’re still in the process of gathering information. However, when you present, you are confirming that what you are saying is correct and defending the ROI of the offer.

Standing up in front of a customer or prospect to show him how the product works is not necessarily the same as presenting. When you’re demonstrating, you should try to speak and listen simultaneously.  While presenting, you’re listening for a reaction and only looking for the affirmative nodding of the head from the audience, which signals agreement with everything that you’re saying.

When you present, you’re looking for a positive reaction but when you demonstrate, you’re anticipating a negative one.

Here is the reality that many of us are all too familiar with:

When somebody is not seriously considering adding something new to their life, you say to them, “You know I’d like you to start doing this thing,” or “Let me suggest this for you to do.”

If the person you were telling this to wasn’t seriously considering implementing your suggestions, they may give you a very “service” answer – something along the lines of “Yeah, yeah, that’s good. Yeah, that sounds interesting.  Mm-hm.”

However, once people begin to seriously consider pursuing something new (after all, that’s what we’re doing when we sell somebody something), you will be the one helping them with a new or slightly new endeavor. Why?  Because they’re going to take on that challenge with you side-by-side from here on out. They are going to do something with you that they’ve never done before.  And when they really start to think about changing, some of the challenges and reasons that they’ve been doing it the way that they have will naturally rise to the surface. They begin to focus on all the possibilities that could take them in the wrong direction. That’s actually a good sign because it implies that the person is truly considering the implementation.

Now that you understand demonstrating and presenting, let’s dive into our top 5 tips that apply to both. These top tips will help you improve your sales presentations and land your next deal.

Our Top 5 Tips to Help You Improve Your Sales

Since the dawn of PowerPoint’s existence, salespeople have been using it to make presentations and pitch their services. They were used as support for presenting an offering. Now over 25 years later, salespeople in general still approach PowerPoints the same exact way. So much has changed in how sales is done that we need to take a step back to reevaluate.

Chances are that you, as a B2B salesperson, are responsible for having some kind of sales deck in your arsenal. Some companies may have their marketing teams prepare these, while for most others – you’re on your own. Perhaps dependent on the products or services you’re selling, you may have a few presentations at the ready. It’s time to rethink and revamp the materials you have to help guarantee it’s going to have an impact and actually aid your sales process.

Present Versus Send

First things first: How many of your decks do you actually present – either in person or via screen share – and how many are just being sent as an email attachment for your contact to look over? What you’re using when you’re making a live presentation should be entirely different than what you’d send to someone.

An actual deck you present would essentially contain only talking points and items that would require you to elaborate on and explain. If you attached that deck to an email, whoever would be on the receiving end would completely miss out on any necessary commentary. Can you imagine their confusion? Now maybe you’ve spoken with that contact previously so perhaps they do have some necessary background, but how about anyone they forward that particular email to? You get the picture. That’s why all decks should be differentiated into those you would speak to and those meant for being distributed without additional narration. Making this distinction when using a sales deck is crucial and will impact your success.

Clear and to the Point

Your B2B buyer is busy. You’ve probably had trouble getting in touch with them and even had meetings fall through due to constant conflicts. So why would you ever burden them with an overstuffed, dense deck? Whether you’re actually presenting it to them live or sending it, make sure the presentation has clearly stated objectives and gets to the point. Placing one idea per slide will help streamline and focus the flow of the deck. Including too much unnecessary material will only help you lose a prospect’s attention and potentially the sale.

Keep it Interesting

If your sales deck has slide upon slide of company background, etc., you can bet many people won’t want to continue. Making the deck about them and how you intend to help, serve, or ease specific pain-points is how you’ll keep them engaged in your offering. It’s great to include some background, especially some relevant client testimonials for example, but overall you should limit how much you talk about you and keep the focus on them. Stop trying to sell yourself and get them sold on your idea.

What’s the Point?

Having a next step in mind when using a sales deck is key. If you’re presenting it live you should have an idea of what you’d like to do next. A follow-up discussion? A proposal? When sending a presentation via email maybe you can include some kind of CTA (call to action) so that they can easily access relevant additional information and you can gauge their interest level in a secondary way. Knowing exactly what the point and the ultimate goal of showing a prospect your sales deck helps everyone stay on the same page and moves the process along.

It’s All in the Details

If you’re sending someone an email with your sales presentation attached, they really don’t want to see “SalesDeck.pptx” in their downloads folder when they’re trying to open it. Renaming the file while keeping in mind what the deck is to them is an additional thoughtful step they’ll be grateful for. So instead of “SalesDeck.pptx”, try naming it something like “XYZ company Presentation for ABC company.pdf”.

Notice that .pdf? Sending a PowerPoint (or the equivalent) file is cumbersome. The file is large and do you really want them editing your presentation anyway? Taking a moment to make the file a PDF will ensure the file will fit as an attachment and your prospect won’t be able to make any edits. It also looks much sleeker, is more secure and easier to open.

Speaking of easier to open… Attachments are generally really annoying. If you and your company have the ability to avoid the seemingly necessary evil, then why don’t you? Uploading the file and simply sending the prospect a link is quite easy and can even give you a way to track whether they’ve viewed it.

Sales presentations should improve and evolve. Taking time to get your decks in order should be a priority that needs to be revisited regularly to ensure they are effectively providing value to your prospect and helping you make the sale.

But preparing for your next presentation isn’t the only thing you need to do to make sure you’re on track to close your next deal. Take it a step further, our Calendar Management Checklist to help you structure your day more wisely

  Go to our website:   www.ncmalliance.com

How to Improve Your Sales Presentations Before you can improve your sales presentations, it’s important to have a strong understanding of the difference between demonstrating and presenting.

[bloodymisanthropist]

I had an epiphany

This is especially for those of you who have seen the Black Butler II “Ciel in Wonderland” OVA - if you’ll recall, at the end of the episode, it turned out that Sebastian had been narrating the story the whole time - no surprises there. However, before I go on, naturally, if he had been narrating it, it would have been from his point of view, his perspective, words, and twists on it - he would have been the one to paint a picture of the characters, who represented them, and the story would have deviated depending on how he wanted it to go. So, now that that’s been addressed - Sebastian had been reading to Ciel (or more so his comatose body) - and if you paid special attention to detail, you will have noticed that there was a freshly brewed cup of tea on the dresser - now, whether that was from force of habit, or not, it doesn’t matter. Now, the reason I’m stating all these things is because I basically want to call out any of those who have said Sebastian doesn’t care about Ciel and point out what bullshit that is (whether or not you ship it is irrelevant - that’s not my point.) I mean, think about it. Technically, when Ciel’s soul was stolen by Claude, Sebastian should no longer have been bound by the contact seeing as he had already helped Ciel find out who killed his parents (in the anime.) The only reason he had to stick around was to help Ciel regain his soul/memory, so he could finally fulfill his end of the bargain and eat his soul, but he especially did not have to fucking read stories to Ciel, take care of him and make him tea when he was under commission. And, like I stated earlier - naturally, Sebastian would have been in control of the story, and how it went on - and the whole premise of the this version of the story was that Ciel was Alice, and he had to journey to find the white rabbit - Sebastian - and ultimately, to wake up and recall what happened to him. And once he did so, before the Queen, Madame Red, had a chance to behead him, Sebastian came and saved him, and brought him back home. This is Sebastian’s story - this is what he wishes would happen, how he sees things. He wants Ciel to regain his memory, and he wants to be able to save him. And if he only were to do so out of wanting Ciel’s soul, he would not have cared for him, pampered him the way he did. That’s all there is to it. And he could have gone on a rampage after Claude stole Ciel’s soul, he very well would have chosen to hunt down Claude then and there and kill him. But he didn’t. Instead, he chose to stay behind and take care of Ciel in the meantime, when, if all he cared about was Ciel’s soul, the alternative should have been his priority. His priority was to take care of Ciel. If that doesn’t show he cares, if that doesn’t make it obvious, I don’t know what does.

[gordonwilliamsweb]

Democratic Super PAC Uses Familiar Political Play To Hit Trump On Medicare

“Our lives are on pause. We’re worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

— Priorities USA Action in a TV and digital ad aired as of May 19

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, announced a new digital and TV ad series criticizing President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Among the ads is a 15-second spot, titled “Pause,” that alleges Trump is trying to cut Medicare during the global health emergency.

“Our lives are on pause. We’re worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Trump is putting us at risk,” the commercial’s narrator says.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

The PAC, which was formed in 2011 to support President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, has been tapped by Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as his preferred choice among Democratic super PACS for big-donor giving.

This ad caught our attention for two reasons. First, the term “Medicare cuts” has long been volleyed between both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House — and often has proven to be a powerful political tool.

Second, the connection between “cuts” to Medicare and the coronavirus pandemic was a new concept we wanted to explore.

We reached out to Priorities USA Action to ask for the basis of these statements.

Josh Schwerin, a PAC spokesperson, sent us links to news articles and confirmed that the “$451 billion in cuts” referred to Trump’s 2021 proposed budget for Medicare.

Asked to pinpoint where the $451 billion came from, Schwerin pointed us to a February ABC News article that said the president’s budget plan would “whack away at federal spending on health care over the next 10 years … including $451 billion less spent on Medicare.” He also sent us links to a February Washington Blade article and February press release from Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) — both of which also cited that figure.

Cuts Or A Reduction In Spending? An Argument That’s Been Around

In fall 2010, a few months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans aired midterm campaign ads attacking Democrats for “cutting” or “gutting” Medicare. The reason was the law included a $500 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare over 10 years, which would be used to help fund the ACA.

The Obama administration said the reductions in spending would come from lowering payments to Medicare Advantage plans and providers and would not affect the level of care that Medicare beneficiaries received. They also said it would help make the Medicare system more financially stable.

Now, almost 10 years later, Democrats are using the same language to criticize the White House’s long-term plan for Medicare spending.

“‘Cuts’ is a term that has been thrown around for many years,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This is a semantic issue that often gets politicized, often in an election year.” (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Neuman explained that what is being considered here is a reduction in the projected increase in spending over a certain period. This reduction is based on estimates of how much the government is projected to spend on programs — factoring in proposed policy changes — for the following 10 years, taking into account current levels of spending, assumptions about economic growth and trends in the use of Medicare coverage, said Neuman.

Trump’s 2021 budget blueprint for Medicare estimated that spending would increase each of the 10 years. But the estimate also suggested that the administration’s proposed policy changes would reduce the spending increase compared with estimates of what would be spent if the changes were not implemented.

“Let’s say Medicare spends $100 in 2020 and is projected to spend $200 in 2021,” Neuman said. “If the budget said we’re going to reduce the growth in spending by $25, that’s a reduction in an increase. But other people might call that a cut.”

Sources:

ABC News, “3 Things to Know About Trump’s Budget Plan for Medicare, Medicaid,” Feb. 11, 2020

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “First Travel-Related Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detected in the United States,” Jan. 21, 2020

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Confirms 13th Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus,” Feb. 10, 2020

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Medicare in the 2021 Trump Budget,” Feb. 13, 2020

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The President’s Budget Saves Medicare $600 Billion While Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs,” Feb. 10, 2020

Commonwealth Fund, “That $716 Billion Medicare Cut: One Number, Three Competing Visions,” Aug. 16, 2012

Congressional Budget Office, “Proposals Affecting Medicare — CBO’s Estimate of the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 Budget,” March 25, 2020

Rep. Jahana Hayes press release, “Rep Hayes Condemns Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Health Care, Social Security, SNAP, and Education Funding,” Feb. 13, 2020

CNN, “February 10 Coronavirus News,” Feb. 10, 2020

Email exchange with Josh Schwerin, senior strategist and director of communications, Priorities USA, May 21, 2020

FactCheck.Org, “Competing Claims on Trump’s Budget and Seniors,” Feb. 18, 2020

The New York Times, “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded: a Timeline,” May 26, 2020

Office of Management and Budget, “A Budget for America’s Future,” Feb. 10, 2020

Phone interview with Marc Goldwein, senior policy director, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, May 22, 2020

Phone interview with Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation, May 22, 2020

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, scholar in health care and retirement policy, American Enterprise Institute, May 21, 2020

Phone interview with Paul N. Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 22, 2020

PolitiFact, “‘Honest Ad’ Mostly Wrong About Trump, Taxes and Medicare,” July 26, 2019

PolitiFact, “Republican Exaggerations About Cutting Medicare,” Oct. 11, 2010

Priorities USA, “Pause – Medicare” ad, May 19, 2020

Priorities USA, “Priorities USA Action Launches New TV and Digital Ads Linking Coronavirus Devastation to Trump’s Failure to Lead on Response,” May 19, 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Newsroom, “Pelosi Statement on Trump Budget Summary,” Feb. 9, 2020

The Washington Blade, “Trump’s Budget Seeks Increased HIV Funds — But Housing, Global Programs Cut,” Feb. 12, 2020

The Wall Street Journal, “Biden Campaign Indicates Priorities USA Is Preferred Super PAC,” April 15, 2020

The Washington Post, “Democrats Engage in ‘Mediscare Spin’ on the Trump Budget,” March 15, 2019

The Washington Post, “What Trump Proposed in His 2021 Budget,” Feb. 10, 2020

World Health Organization, “Statement on the Second Meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee Regarding the Outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV),” Jan. 30, 2020

World Health Organization, “WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic,” March 12, 2020

The Number Itself And What It Means

We reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, for its take on that $451 billion figure but have not heard back.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the actual figure could be anywhere from $400 billion to $600 billion, depending on how calculations are done. His analysis relied on the executive branch’s Office of Management and Budget calculations and landed on a figure close to $505 billion. Other variables, such as “likely savings from drug price reform” — yet to be enacted — move it closer to $600 billion.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came up with a similar estimate: $501 billion. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate, not including savings generated from proposed drug pricing reforms, was closer to $400 billion.

In all cases, though, the reductions in Medicare spending would be achieved through proposals such as lowering payments to providers and paying the same amount for the same health service offered in different settings.

Goldwein said these proposals for Medicare reform are largely bipartisan and “either mimic or build upon” those advanced during the Obama era. He also said that, in his organization’s view, the “cuts” are savings to the Medicare program and beneficiaries, who would see lower premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs.

The policy experts said it’s likely the reductions in spending wouldn’t directly affect the care that Medicare beneficiaries receive. But provider groups have complained that lower reimbursements might drive some doctors to leave Medicare. Hospitals have argued against the proposal for equalizing payments for similar services because they say their overhead expenses are higher than those of a doctor’s office or off-site clinic and their higher rates help finance other necessary services.

Timing Matters

The Priorities USA Action ad also alleges that Trump is trying to cut Medicare “in the middle of a deadly pandemic.” But the timeline of events doesn’t support this statement.

The White House released the 2021 budget proposal on Feb. 10 — well before the COVID-19 outbreak had become a part of our national consciousness.

The first domestic case of COVID-19 was announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus a “public health emergency of international concern” on Jan. 30.

On Feb. 10, the day the budget was released, the CDC put out a press release stating there were 13 cases of the disease in the U.S. CNN also published an article that day stating the vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths had occurred in China. Authorities didn’t announce the first U.S. death from COVID-19 until Feb. 29. The WHO declared a pandemic on March 11.

“These budget proposals were probably developed well before the pandemic hit the U.S. and hit it hard,” said Neuman. However, she added, “the administration hasn’t disavowed these proposals, but they also haven’t pushed them forward.”

Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care and retirement policy at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said it was a “ridiculous statement to connect cutting Medicare spending to the COVID crisis.”

“The implication of the video that this is going on actively while we’re in the middle of this crisis, that’s dead wrong,” said Antos.

Our Ruling

The Priorities ad said Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts “in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

This is an exaggerated attack, even before the pandemic is layered on top of it. The dollar figure itself is “in the ballpark” of what the policy proposals would generate in spending reductions, giving this ad a sliver of truth. However, in the Trump budget, the amount is spread over 10 years — important context that was omitted.

What’s in Trump’s budget proposal is not a direct cut to Medicare. Instead, Priorities uses the age-old political tactic — employed on both sides of the aisle — of holding up a reduction in projected spending growth as a “cut.”

Moreover, the ad leaves the impression that Trump is trying to whack Medicare for seniors at a time when panic is particularly high because of the coronavirus. But that connection to the pandemic is also misleading. The presidential budget was released weeks before most of the nation began to comprehend the threat of COVID-19.

The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts and context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Democratic Super PAC Uses Familiar Political Play To Hit Trump On Medicare published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[stephenmccull]

Democratic Super PAC Uses Familiar Political Play To Hit Trump On Medicare

“Our lives are on pause. We’re worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

— Priorities USA Action in a TV and digital ad aired as of May 19

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, announced a new digital and TV ad series criticizing President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Among the ads is a 15-second spot, titled “Pause,” that alleges Trump is trying to cut Medicare during the global health emergency.

“Our lives are on pause. We’re worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Trump is putting us at risk,” the commercial’s narrator says.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

The PAC, which was formed in 2011 to support President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, has been tapped by Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as his preferred choice among Democratic super PACS for big-donor giving.

This ad caught our attention for two reasons. First, the term “Medicare cuts” has long been volleyed between both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House — and often has proven to be a powerful political tool.

Second, the connection between “cuts” to Medicare and the coronavirus pandemic was a new concept we wanted to explore.

We reached out to Priorities USA Action to ask for the basis of these statements.

Josh Schwerin, a PAC spokesperson, sent us links to news articles and confirmed that the “$451 billion in cuts” referred to Trump’s 2021 proposed budget for Medicare.

Asked to pinpoint where the $451 billion came from, Schwerin pointed us to a February ABC News article that said the president’s budget plan would “whack away at federal spending on health care over the next 10 years … including $451 billion less spent on Medicare.” He also sent us links to a February Washington Blade article and February press release from Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) — both of which also cited that figure.

Cuts Or A Reduction In Spending? An Argument That’s Been Around

In fall 2010, a few months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans aired midterm campaign ads attacking Democrats for “cutting” or “gutting” Medicare. The reason was the law included a $500 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare over 10 years, which would be used to help fund the ACA.

The Obama administration said the reductions in spending would come from lowering payments to Medicare Advantage plans and providers and would not affect the level of care that Medicare beneficiaries received. They also said it would help make the Medicare system more financially stable.

Now, almost 10 years later, Democrats are using the same language to criticize the White House’s long-term plan for Medicare spending.

“‘Cuts’ is a term that has been thrown around for many years,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This is a semantic issue that often gets politicized, often in an election year.” (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Neuman explained that what is being considered here is a reduction in the projected increase in spending over a certain period. This reduction is based on estimates of how much the government is projected to spend on programs — factoring in proposed policy changes — for the following 10 years, taking into account current levels of spending, assumptions about economic growth and trends in the use of Medicare coverage, said Neuman.

Trump’s 2021 budget blueprint for Medicare estimated that spending would increase each of the 10 years. But the estimate also suggested that the administration’s proposed policy changes would reduce the spending increase compared with estimates of what would be spent if the changes were not implemented.

“Let’s say Medicare spends $100 in 2020 and is projected to spend $200 in 2021,” Neuman said. “If the budget said we’re going to reduce the growth in spending by $25, that’s a reduction in an increase. But other people might call that a cut.”

Sources:

ABC News, “3 Things to Know About Trump’s Budget Plan for Medicare, Medicaid,” Feb. 11, 2020

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “First Travel-Related Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detected in the United States,” Jan. 21, 2020

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Confirms 13th Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus,” Feb. 10, 2020

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Medicare in the 2021 Trump Budget,” Feb. 13, 2020

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The President’s Budget Saves Medicare $600 Billion While Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs,” Feb. 10, 2020

Commonwealth Fund, “That $716 Billion Medicare Cut: One Number, Three Competing Visions,” Aug. 16, 2012

Congressional Budget Office, “Proposals Affecting Medicare — CBO’s Estimate of the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 Budget,” March 25, 2020

Rep. Jahana Hayes press release, “Rep Hayes Condemns Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Health Care, Social Security, SNAP, and Education Funding,” Feb. 13, 2020

CNN, “February 10 Coronavirus News,” Feb. 10, 2020

Email exchange with Josh Schwerin, senior strategist and director of communications, Priorities USA, May 21, 2020

FactCheck.Org, “Competing Claims on Trump’s Budget and Seniors,” Feb. 18, 2020

The New York Times, “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded: a Timeline,” May 26, 2020

Office of Management and Budget, “A Budget for America’s Future,” Feb. 10, 2020

Phone interview with Marc Goldwein, senior policy director, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, May 22, 2020

Phone interview with Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation, May 22, 2020

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, scholar in health care and retirement policy, American Enterprise Institute, May 21, 2020

Phone interview with Paul N. Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 22, 2020

PolitiFact, “‘Honest Ad’ Mostly Wrong About Trump, Taxes and Medicare,” July 26, 2019

PolitiFact, “Republican Exaggerations About Cutting Medicare,” Oct. 11, 2010

Priorities USA, “Pause – Medicare” ad, May 19, 2020

Priorities USA, “Priorities USA Action Launches New TV and Digital Ads Linking Coronavirus Devastation to Trump’s Failure to Lead on Response,” May 19, 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Newsroom, “Pelosi Statement on Trump Budget Summary,” Feb. 9, 2020

The Washington Blade, “Trump’s Budget Seeks Increased HIV Funds — But Housing, Global Programs Cut,” Feb. 12, 2020

The Wall Street Journal, “Biden Campaign Indicates Priorities USA Is Preferred Super PAC,” April 15, 2020

The Washington Post, “Democrats Engage in ‘Mediscare Spin’ on the Trump Budget,” March 15, 2019

The Washington Post, “What Trump Proposed in His 2021 Budget,” Feb. 10, 2020

World Health Organization, “Statement on the Second Meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee Regarding the Outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV),” Jan. 30, 2020

World Health Organization, “WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic,” March 12, 2020

The Number Itself And What It Means

We reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, for its take on that $451 billion figure but have not heard back.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the actual figure could be anywhere from $400 billion to $600 billion, depending on how calculations are done. His analysis relied on the executive branch’s Office of Management and Budget calculations and landed on a figure close to $505 billion. Other variables, such as “likely savings from drug price reform” — yet to be enacted — move it closer to $600 billion.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came up with a similar estimate: $501 billion. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate, not including savings generated from proposed drug pricing reforms, was closer to $400 billion.

In all cases, though, the reductions in Medicare spending would be achieved through proposals such as lowering payments to providers and paying the same amount for the same health service offered in different settings.

Goldwein said these proposals for Medicare reform are largely bipartisan and “either mimic or build upon” those advanced during the Obama era. He also said that, in his organization’s view, the “cuts” are savings to the Medicare program and beneficiaries, who would see lower premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs.

The policy experts said it’s likely the reductions in spending wouldn’t directly affect the care that Medicare beneficiaries receive. But provider groups have complained that lower reimbursements might drive some doctors to leave Medicare. Hospitals have argued against the proposal for equalizing payments for similar services because they say their overhead expenses are higher than those of a doctor’s office or off-site clinic and their higher rates help finance other necessary services.

Timing Matters

The Priorities USA Action ad also alleges that Trump is trying to cut Medicare “in the middle of a deadly pandemic.” But the timeline of events doesn’t support this statement.

The White House released the 2021 budget proposal on Feb. 10 — well before the COVID-19 outbreak had become a part of our national consciousness.

The first domestic case of COVID-19 was announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus a “public health emergency of international concern” on Jan. 30.

On Feb. 10, the day the budget was released, the CDC put out a press release stating there were 13 cases of the disease in the U.S. CNN also published an article that day stating the vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths had occurred in China. Authorities didn’t announce the first U.S. death from COVID-19 until Feb. 29. The WHO declared a pandemic on March 11.

“These budget proposals were probably developed well before the pandemic hit the U.S. and hit it hard,” said Neuman. However, she added, “the administration hasn’t disavowed these proposals, but they also haven’t pushed them forward.”

Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care and retirement policy at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said it was a “ridiculous statement to connect cutting Medicare spending to the COVID crisis.”

“The implication of the video that this is going on actively while we’re in the middle of this crisis, that’s dead wrong,” said Antos.

Our Ruling

The Priorities ad said Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts “in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

This is an exaggerated attack, even before the pandemic is layered on top of it. The dollar figure itself is “in the ballpark” of what the policy proposals would generate in spending reductions, giving this ad a sliver of truth. However, in the Trump budget, the amount is spread over 10 years — important context that was omitted.

What’s in Trump’s budget proposal is not a direct cut to Medicare. Instead, Priorities uses the age-old political tactic — employed on both sides of the aisle — of holding up a reduction in projected spending growth as a “cut.”

Moreover, the ad leaves the impression that Trump is trying to whack Medicare for seniors at a time when panic is particularly high because of the coronavirus. But that connection to the pandemic is also misleading. The presidential budget was released weeks before most of the nation began to comprehend the threat of COVID-19.

The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts and context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Democratic Super PAC Uses Familiar Political Play To Hit Trump On Medicare published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[dinafbrownil]

Democratic Super PAC Uses Familiar Political Play To Hit Trump On Medicare

“Our lives are on pause. We’re worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

— Priorities USA Action in a TV and digital ad aired as of May 19

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, announced a new digital and TV ad series criticizing President Donald Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Among the ads is a 15-second spot, titled “Pause,” that alleges Trump is trying to cut Medicare during the global health emergency.

“Our lives are on pause. We’re worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Trump is putting us at risk,” the commercial’s narrator says.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

The PAC, which was formed in 2011 to support President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, has been tapped by Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as his preferred choice among Democratic super PACS for big-donor giving.

This ad caught our attention for two reasons. First, the term “Medicare cuts” has long been volleyed between both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House — and often has proven to be a powerful political tool.

Second, the connection between “cuts” to Medicare and the coronavirus pandemic was a new concept we wanted to explore.

We reached out to Priorities USA Action to ask for the basis of these statements.

Josh Schwerin, a PAC spokesperson, sent us links to news articles and confirmed that the “$451 billion in cuts” referred to Trump’s 2021 proposed budget for Medicare.

Asked to pinpoint where the $451 billion came from, Schwerin pointed us to a February ABC News article that said the president’s budget plan would “whack away at federal spending on health care over the next 10 years … including $451 billion less spent on Medicare.” He also sent us links to a February Washington Blade article and February press release from Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) — both of which also cited that figure.

Cuts Or A Reduction In Spending? An Argument That’s Been Around

In fall 2010, a few months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans aired midterm campaign ads attacking Democrats for “cutting” or “gutting” Medicare. The reason was the law included a $500 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare over 10 years, which would be used to help fund the ACA.

The Obama administration said the reductions in spending would come from lowering payments to Medicare Advantage plans and providers and would not affect the level of care that Medicare beneficiaries received. They also said it would help make the Medicare system more financially stable.

Now, almost 10 years later, Democrats are using the same language to criticize the White House’s long-term plan for Medicare spending.

“‘Cuts’ is a term that has been thrown around for many years,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This is a semantic issue that often gets politicized, often in an election year.” (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Neuman explained that what is being considered here is a reduction in the projected increase in spending over a certain period. This reduction is based on estimates of how much the government is projected to spend on programs — factoring in proposed policy changes — for the following 10 years, taking into account current levels of spending, assumptions about economic growth and trends in the use of Medicare coverage, said Neuman.

Trump’s 2021 budget blueprint for Medicare estimated that spending would increase each of the 10 years. But the estimate also suggested that the administration’s proposed policy changes would reduce the spending increase compared with estimates of what would be spent if the changes were not implemented.

“Let’s say Medicare spends $100 in 2020 and is projected to spend $200 in 2021,” Neuman said. “If the budget said we’re going to reduce the growth in spending by $25, that’s a reduction in an increase. But other people might call that a cut.”

Sources:

ABC News, “3 Things to Know About Trump’s Budget Plan for Medicare, Medicaid,” Feb. 11, 2020

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “First Travel-Related Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Detected in the United States,” Jan. 21, 2020

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “CDC Confirms 13th Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus,” Feb. 10, 2020

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Medicare in the 2021 Trump Budget,” Feb. 13, 2020

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The President’s Budget Saves Medicare $600 Billion While Reducing Out-of-Pocket Costs,” Feb. 10, 2020

Commonwealth Fund, “That $716 Billion Medicare Cut: One Number, Three Competing Visions,” Aug. 16, 2012

Congressional Budget Office, “Proposals Affecting Medicare — CBO’s Estimate of the President’s Fiscal Year 2021 Budget,” March 25, 2020

Rep. Jahana Hayes press release, “Rep Hayes Condemns Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Health Care, Social Security, SNAP, and Education Funding,” Feb. 13, 2020

CNN, “February 10 Coronavirus News,” Feb. 10, 2020

Email exchange with Josh Schwerin, senior strategist and director of communications, Priorities USA, May 21, 2020

FactCheck.Org, “Competing Claims on Trump’s Budget and Seniors,” Feb. 18, 2020

The New York Times, “How the Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded: a Timeline,” May 26, 2020

Office of Management and Budget, “A Budget for America’s Future,” Feb. 10, 2020

Phone interview with Marc Goldwein, senior policy director, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, May 22, 2020

Phone interview with Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation, May 22, 2020

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, scholar in health care and retirement policy, American Enterprise Institute, May 21, 2020

Phone interview with Paul N. Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 22, 2020

PolitiFact, “‘Honest Ad’ Mostly Wrong About Trump, Taxes and Medicare,” July 26, 2019

PolitiFact, “Republican Exaggerations About Cutting Medicare,” Oct. 11, 2010

Priorities USA, “Pause – Medicare” ad, May 19, 2020

Priorities USA, “Priorities USA Action Launches New TV and Digital Ads Linking Coronavirus Devastation to Trump’s Failure to Lead on Response,” May 19, 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Newsroom, “Pelosi Statement on Trump Budget Summary,” Feb. 9, 2020

The Washington Blade, “Trump’s Budget Seeks Increased HIV Funds — But Housing, Global Programs Cut,” Feb. 12, 2020

The Wall Street Journal, “Biden Campaign Indicates Priorities USA Is Preferred Super PAC,” April 15, 2020

The Washington Post, “Democrats Engage in ‘Mediscare Spin’ on the Trump Budget,” March 15, 2019

The Washington Post, “What Trump Proposed in His 2021 Budget,” Feb. 10, 2020

World Health Organization, “Statement on the Second Meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee Regarding the Outbreak of Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV),” Jan. 30, 2020

World Health Organization, “WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic,” March 12, 2020

The Number Itself And What It Means

We reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, for its take on that $451 billion figure but have not heard back.

Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the actual figure could be anywhere from $400 billion to $600 billion, depending on how calculations are done. His analysis relied on the executive branch’s Office of Management and Budget calculations and landed on a figure close to $505 billion. Other variables, such as “likely savings from drug price reform” — yet to be enacted — move it closer to $600 billion.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came up with a similar estimate: $501 billion. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate, not including savings generated from proposed drug pricing reforms, was closer to $400 billion.

In all cases, though, the reductions in Medicare spending would be achieved through proposals such as lowering payments to providers and paying the same amount for the same health service offered in different settings.

Goldwein said these proposals for Medicare reform are largely bipartisan and “either mimic or build upon” those advanced during the Obama era. He also said that, in his organization’s view, the “cuts” are savings to the Medicare program and beneficiaries, who would see lower premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs.

The policy experts said it’s likely the reductions in spending wouldn’t directly affect the care that Medicare beneficiaries receive. But provider groups have complained that lower reimbursements might drive some doctors to leave Medicare. Hospitals have argued against the proposal for equalizing payments for similar services because they say their overhead expenses are higher than those of a doctor’s office or off-site clinic and their higher rates help finance other necessary services.

Timing Matters

The Priorities USA Action ad also alleges that Trump is trying to cut Medicare “in the middle of a deadly pandemic.” But the timeline of events doesn’t support this statement.

The White House released the 2021 budget proposal on Feb. 10 — well before the COVID-19 outbreak had become a part of our national consciousness.

The first domestic case of COVID-19 was announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus a “public health emergency of international concern” on Jan. 30.

On Feb. 10, the day the budget was released, the CDC put out a press release stating there were 13 cases of the disease in the U.S. CNN also published an article that day stating the vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths had occurred in China. Authorities didn’t announce the first U.S. death from COVID-19 until Feb. 29. The WHO declared a pandemic on March 11.

“These budget proposals were probably developed well before the pandemic hit the U.S. and hit it hard,” said Neuman. However, she added, “the administration hasn’t disavowed these proposals, but they also haven’t pushed them forward.”

Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care and retirement policy at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said it was a “ridiculous statement to connect cutting Medicare spending to the COVID crisis.”

“The implication of the video that this is going on actively while we’re in the middle of this crisis, that’s dead wrong,” said Antos.

Our Ruling

The Priorities ad said Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts “in the middle of a deadly pandemic.”

This is an exaggerated attack, even before the pandemic is layered on top of it. The dollar figure itself is “in the ballpark” of what the policy proposals would generate in spending reductions, giving this ad a sliver of truth. However, in the Trump budget, the amount is spread over 10 years — important context that was omitted.

What’s in Trump’s budget proposal is not a direct cut to Medicare. Instead, Priorities uses the age-old political tactic — employed on both sides of the aisle — of holding up a reduction in projected spending growth as a “cut.”

Moreover, the ad leaves the impression that Trump is trying to whack Medicare for seniors at a time when panic is particularly high because of the coronavirus. But that connection to the pandemic is also misleading. The presidential budget was released weeks before most of the nation began to comprehend the threat of COVID-19.

The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts and context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/democratic-super-pac-uses-familiar-political-play-to-hit-trump-on-medicare/