#its become satire my good sir.

[deppiet]

About the yassification of GO2.

Warning: the following text is highly critical of the second season of Good Omens. If you enjoyed it, I am happy for you, and a non-negligible amount of jealous as well. Please scroll past before I inevitably rain on your fandom parade.

So, I did the thing. I binged the entire second season of what was, up to now, my favorite show ever, in one sitting. And I have a great deal of things to say, but hardly any of them is positive.

Let me start by saying that I don't mind the cliffhanger or the melancholy ending, like at all. In our era of Marvel apologists and the instant gratification culture, it is necessary for media to persevere and add nuance to romantic relationships. That said, what transpired during the six hours leading up to this sort of unearned climax hardly contains anything remotely close to nuance.

Who are these people? I don't mean the new characters, all of them written as cardboard-cut anthropomorphic personifications of stereotypes, yassified to the point of representation losing its purpose and getting in the way of, you know, actual writing. I mean the protagonists themselves, Aziraphale and Crowley, up to now my favorite characters in the entire world and -up to now- tangled in a love story so beautiful I had, for better or for worse, devoted a large part of my creative output on it, making art, songs, and metas on why what those two entities had was as close to perfect as anyone can hope to find for themselves.

These are not the characters I knew. The characters I knew spent hundreds of human lifetimes revolving around each other in a treacherous yet familiar dance- they both knew the love was there, it was comfortable like an armchair that has taken the shape of the body using it for years. They argued the way old couples do, and of course, like all fictional beings that are counterparts of one another, had differences to settle, but what stood in their way wasn't misunderstanding or miscommunication, in was their fear of Heaven and Hell, and their fundamentally different approaches on how to keep each other safe.

What is all this teen angst? This will-they-won't-they silliness that lacks any nuance, thematic coherence, or literally even trace amounts of understanding of the source material? Where is the dark humor, the quotability, the chaotic overarching plot, the self conscious camp? The season is so cynically written to cater specifically to a certain part of fandom, that I am losing respect for the original work- because if Neil Gaiman doesn't care for these fictional beings, and he evidently doesn't, why should I?

The thematic core of what made Good Omens what it was, had always been the "Love in unexpected places" trope Sir Terry Pratchett knew how to write so well. It had never been about the fantasy, because Sir Terry wrote satire wrapped up in a supernatural package, it had never been about the romance, because when the ship becomes the end instead of the means, the love rings hollow, like artificial light trying to pass as sunshine. The beating heart of GO lies in its philosophy, in the beautiful notion that the agents of two oppressive systems at war have more in common with one another than with their respective oppressors. That being a nobody, a mere cog in a larger machine, says more about said machine than it does about you, and that you can try to break free and build a life for yourself, where a happy ending looks like a dinner at the Ritz with the one you love most.

Shoehorning an underdeveloped "romance" between Beelzebub and Gabriel not only feels like bad fanfic (disclaimer: I like the ship and feel like it could have worked if developed in any capacity, and presented in a more humorous and character-appropriate way. I hate with passion how much they watered down Beelzebub in order to make them stereotypically romanceable, adding the Ineffable Bureaucracy to the ever-expanding list of characters I don't care about anymore.) but also, it muddles and grossly undermines the thematic raison d'être of Ineffable Husbands. If the ramifications for defecting and fucking off with the enemy were a slap on the wrist for the respective leaders of both sides, well surely the system can't be that oppressive after all. And if fear of the oppressive system wasn't, after all, what kept these beings apart, surely these two entities don't like each other as much as we thought. Or rather, one is reduced to a lovesick puppy and the other to a brainless husk of a character, a plot device, a means to go from place A to place B without spending much brainpower on the logistics.

And if these two new people got to kiss I care not, for they are not the same people I rooted for (props, though, to the actors, who gave, somehow, an almost Shakespearean gravitas to their love affair, underwritten and dumbed down as it was. They both love the characters, and it shows in the minuscule yet brilliant ways in which they added nuance where the script had none.)

What was that thing with the lesbians about? Though straight passing, I have always known myself to be attracted to women as well as men, and I am always highly suspicious when an "ally" writer (see: straight, no shade to straight people among which I live because they are, like, the majority) decides to make all characters queer, in the face of real-world statistics and despite NOT being queer themselves. When a person like Nate Stevenson does it they get a pass because writers self-insert and because, when done well, it can carry a message of equality. But when the ally writer does it, unless it is pitch-perfect, I am forced to examine the possibility of them being calculating about it and trying to score representation points, often because they need the rep as a fig leaf to cry homophobia behind when people start complaining about the atrocious plot.

Nina and Maggie were boring. They had no personalities, no cohesive backstories, nothing to make us understand what they are to one another and to the overarching plot ("plot" is used loosely here, for there was no plot: the series ended where it should have started, with six hours of -progressively more offensive to my intelligence- fanfic tropes in a trenchcoat serving as the, well, "plot"). I didn't care whether or not they'd end up together, because I have no idea who they are. The blandness of the dialogue had the actresses, both very talented as evidenced in the first season, grasping at straws with what little characterization they were left to work with, and the "ball" was so unbelievably bad a plot device no amount of suspension of disbelief was ever going to make it right.

The minisodes, though at parts clever and philosophical, felt out of place. This was another narrative choice I had to raise my eyebrows at, because it felt like a bunch of executives sat around a table and watched Neil Gaiman's powerpoint presentation of what made Season 1 financially successful. They were shoehorned in, largely irrelevant to the, eh, "plot", and most of them lasted far more than I personally deemed welcome, or necessary.

What else is there to say? The wink-winks and nudge-nudges to the Tumblr nation? The in-your-face Doctor Who reference? The narratively myopic choice to make Crowley a former archangel? The cheese dialogue, not one bit of which was quotable?

I am distraught. I am grieving an old friend, and a part of my fandom life I cannot, in good faith, return back to after this gross betrayal. I am happy for those who don't see it, because I wish I could love this season past its flaws. However, the writing isn't simply mediocre, it is irrevocably, immeasurably, undescribably bad, so bad I am shocked to my very core, so bad I find it offensive to Sir Terry's memory and everything his own creative output was lovingly filled with.

I am passing all five stages of grief and very much doubt I will return to this fandom. I loved the original story and the characters with all my heart- now the aforementioned heart is broken, not by the breakup or anything as pedestrian as cheap romantic tropes. But because my old friends, my family of fictional beings, are no longer the ones I loved and could relate to.

Deppie out.

[lifepoast]

⋆｡ﾟ☁︎｡⋆ nichijou ☾ ﾟ｡⋆₊ ⊹

i finished nichijou today. it was the perfect watch for my life right now. i'm very busy, lonely and am not enjoying everyday things. i'm in the process of moving out of an apartment i have loved so much for 2 years, and i'm doing it alone because my roommate is out of town until well after our move-in date.

i'm very sensitive to the idea of serendipity and things coming to my life for a reason, even (or especially) little things like an anime from 2011. what are the chances a random piece of media falls into my lap and resonates deeply at the exact moment—and in the exact way—that i needed it to?! in truth the actual miracle is that no matter what i watch or read, my desire to connect with something outside of myself is so strong that it's like i can do it to anything in my path. and in further truth it's not actually a miracle at all, because this is to say nothing of all the other pieces i watch and read in the interim and fail to finish because they don't resonate. (i have tried to pick up many books since my last and have put them all back down—sir gawain and the green knight, crime and punishment, perfect spy...). of course it's more likely i will have resonated with something that i liked enough to bother seeing it through to the end in the first place. i know that, and yet it all feels so miraculous anyway. that must be the thesis of nichijou rubbing off on me—that "our ordinary life that passes us day by day may actually be a series of wonderful miracles." ୧ ‧₊˚ 🎐 ⋅

what i love the most about this—about nichijou—is its suggestion that satire and comedy can be compassionate. sometimes i think this doesn't occur to people at all. in the toolbox of things that can make a great satire, compassion is overlooked in lieu of tools that can be more construed as weapons: bite, caricature, sarcasm. many would argue satirical intentions are noble. the work of satire is done so that its author may ask something good of its audience: to be more discerning, to put certain illogical behaviours away, to recognise things for what they 'are' with fresh eyes. so is nichijou even satire? i think so. i at least think it uses the ethnographic methodology of satire (highlighting and exaggerating mundane blind spots), only to ask its audience of something different, for once: not ridicule nor criticism, but gratitude and tenderness.

if i imagine vividly enough, stay lucid and self-aware enough, and stay optimistic enough to forbid disaster from ending my narrative, anything that happens in my day-to-day could be reinterpreted into oblivion until it becomes a ridiculous, overblown, dramatically and situationally ironic nichijou skit. and like in nichijou, i could fashion any little thing into a miracle. but to do this faithfully to the series' mechanics, i would have to let go of self-consciousness and control. nichijou wouldn't be nearly as fun to watch if its characters reacted by letting the insane, illogical world they inhabit beat them into submission—if they resisted the narrative's push to treat every little thing in life with equal weight. through everything they maintain their sincerity, and tend to their friendships, and they hold fast to their ridiculous plans and ideas, and everyone and everything around them is all the better for it—not least of all the show's humour.

but i guess nichijou made me emotional today because it made me reflect on my days in high school. it shocked me to realise that what few meaningful and lasting memories i have of it are entirely confined within the friendship i had with my two best friends, no one else. even though they probably know that, i wonder what they would feel if i said it to them. how else to phrase it? you were my life. you are my frame of reference when i watch bittersweet tv shows about being a high schooler. when the tv shows go for the low-hanging fruit, when they reach for my nostalgia and ask, "don't you miss this?" i think of you—which is another way of saying, i say "yes." i haven't talked to either of them in a very long time now.

the three of us were so in tune, so similar, it felt like our personal faults were contagious. we felt like a three-way mirror. and i think in front of a mirror, we are all are afraid to be sincere, and to let go of self-consciousness, and control. so when we were in high school together, we let the chaos around us make us obsessed with those things, and that was a logical response, because we simply didn’t know how much better we could have made things for ourselves. how could we have?! we were so preoccupied with avoiding being “cringe,” otaku shit like nichijou and the lessons they wrought were off-limits!!

━━━━━━━ ˖°˖ ☾☆☽ ˖°˖ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

[cheese-greater-official]

When I speak my truth and say that the worst season of riverdale is season 1 what then

[blackswaneuroparedux]

I feel a sort of reverence in going over these scenes in this most beautiful country, which I am proud to call my own, where there was such devoted loyalty to the family of my ancestors – for Stuart blood is in my veins.

- Queen Victoria on Scotland

For a British monarch, Queen Victoria was extremely quick off the mark in making her first visit to Scotland in 1842, only five years after her coronation as Queen. Hooked on the stories of Sir Walter Scott, Queen Victoria toured the country with Prince Albert, spending several days in the capital at Edinburgh.

Then in September 1844 she returned to Scotland with Prince Albert and her young daughter Vicky at her side. This time she visited Blair Castle in Perthshire. They all enjoyed not only Scottish oatmeal porridge but its spectacular fresh landscapes, especially the Highlands, which captivated them both and inspired a rich new adoption of ideas. Later, they took on Highland life in the fullness of its tastes and traditions, something which was recorded in a wealth of artwork, not least in the Queen’s watercolours.

Victoria and Albert loved Scotland so much they inspired a trend for tartan and tweed across the kingdom. They returned over and over again, and after taking possession of Balmoral in 1848 they actually built a castle of their own.

Queen Victoria was a keen diarist and kept detailed records of her stays in Scotland, writing exhaustively about what happened each day: whether Albert’s hunting trips had been successful, who they dined with, her thoughts on the landscape, Highland pony riding, plans for scenes to sketch, details of the people she met, whether she liked them or not.

One of the most common urband legends of Victoria’s time in Scotland is that she and Albert got lost in the Highlands and sought shelter and hospitality in a poor family’s cottage.

Queen Victoria certainly never mentioned getting lost in the forest alone with Prince Albert on horseback, as depicted in the recent British drama series Victoria.

Queen Victoria never mentioned being forced to seek shelter with a kindly poor couple who cooked delicious trout over an open fire and let them stay the night, and there’s no record of her hiding her identity as Queen and learning to darn a sock like a “normal” person.

Still – you can see where this fanciful storyline came from. What we do see in her journal is that, for her, the wild Scottish Highlands were an escape from reality.

“After the constant trying publicity we are accustomed to, it is so pleasant & refreshing, to be able, amidst such beautiful surrounding, to enjoying such complete privacy & such a simple life,” she wrote in her diary.

And while and Albert avoided getting lost, they did have an idyllic pony ride accompanied by only one servant – as close to privacy as the monarch could really get.

“When I awoke the sun was shining brightly & it lit up the mountains so beautifully,” she wrote. “At 9, we set off, both, on ponies, attended only by Lord Glenlyon’s excellent servant, Sandy McAra, in his Highland dress, to go up one of the hills.

“We went through a ford, Sandy leading my pony, and Albert following closely, and then went up the hill of Tulloch straight over a very steep cabbage field, afterwards going round zigzag to the very top, the ponies scrambling up over stones & heather, & never once making a false step. The view all round was splendid & so beautifully lit up. From the top it was quite like a panorama.

“We could see the Falls of Bruar, the Pass of Killiecrankie, Ben y Gloe, and the whole range of hills behind, in the direction of Tay mouth. The house itself & the houses in the village looked like toys, from the height at which we were. It was very wonderful. We got off once or twice, & walked about. There was not a house or creature near us, only pretty Highland, black faced sheep.”

She added: “It was the most delightful, and most romantic ride and walk, I had ever had.”

Another time they cut it fine on a pony ride, with the Queen suddenly becoming worried about nightfall – “Got alarmed at seeing the sun sinking, for fear of our being benighted, & we called anxiously for Sandy to give a signal to Albert to come back. At length we got on the move, skirting the hill & the ponies went as safely & securely as possible.”

But they made it home just in time: “A long day indeed, but one which I shall not easily forget.”

And as for visiting a couple of unsuspecting-yet-kindly Highlanders at their cottage?

The only mentions of a “cottage” make clear this is no poor man’s house: “We got out at the Cottage, which is pretty & beautifully situated. There are some good Landseers in the room we went into.” With paintings by Sir Edwin Henry Landseer on the walls this is not exactly a poor man’s hut…

As she prepared to leave at the end of September, Victoria reflected on her time in Scotland: “I am so sad at thinking of leaving this charming place, & the quiet, liberty, & the pure air we have enjoyed. The action life we have been leading, peculiar in its way, has been so delightful.”

Having already lost her beloved husband Albert, Victoria found solace in Scotland and its people. John Brown was famously associated with Queen Victoria.

The Queen first mentioned Brown in her Journal on 11 September 1849, and from 1851 John Brown, at Albert's suggestion, took on the role of leading Queen Victoria's pony. In 1858, Brown became the personal ghillie (shooting guide and gun-loader) of Prince Albert.

After Prince Albert died in 1861, Queen Victoria went into deep mourning, becoming almost a recluse. In 1864, her daughter, Princess Alice, noted that the Queen had always been happy at Balmoral, especially when taking a ride in her pony cart. Why couldn't pony cart rides be made available at Windsor and at Osborne (the Queen's home on the Isle of Wight), with the Queen in the care of the man who so effectively led her pony at Balmoral? The Queen agreed and in December 1864 John Brown became a full-time servant. He was, as Queen Victoria put it in her journal, "indefatigable in his attendance and care".

By 1866 gossip about the relationship between the Queen and her extremely informal servant had started. Brown was the only person around Victoria prepared to "tell it like it was", and he often proved abrasive with members of the Royal Household: even, it is said, on at least one occasion giving the Prince of Wales the rough edge of his tongue. Rumours soon spread more widely, and Brown was featured in the satirical magazine Punch on 30 June 1866, and Queen Victoria came to be referred to by some members of her household (behind her back) as "Mrs Brown".

Speculation about Queen Victoria's 20 year relationship with Brown, following the early death of her husband Albert in 1861, started in court circles almost as soon as the unlikely friendship itself did when the queen was in her mid-forties.

Victoria's daughters joked about "Mama's lover", and the then Duke of Edinburgh (the queen's second son) claimed he had been evicted from Buckingham Palace because he refused to shake the servant's hand.

The news of 1866 carried a piece in the Gazette de Lausanne, a Swiss paper, that read, “On dit…that with Brown and by him she consoles herself for Prince Albert, and they go even further. They add that she is in an interesting condition, and that if she was not present for the Volunteers Review, and at the inauguration of the monument to Prince Albert, it was only in order to hide her pregnancy. I hasten to add that the Queen has been morganatically married to her attendant for a long time, which diminishes the gravity of the thing.” Most assuredly, no British paper carried such a tale, but once the word spread of the Queen’s supposed affair, there was no reining it back in.

In the United Kingdom it was Alexander Robertson’s pamphlet “John Brown: A Correspondence with the Lord Chancellor, Regarding a Charge of Fraud and Embezzlement Preferred Against His Grace the Duke of Atholl K. T. of 1873” that first openly suggested that Queen Victoria and John Brown had married morganatically - this being related to, or being a marriage between a member of a royal or noble family and a person of inferior rank in which the rank of the inferior partner remains unchanged and the children of the marriage do not succeed to the titles, fiefs, or entailed property of the parent of higher rank.

Citing one Charles Christie, ‘House Servant to the Dowager Duchess of Athole at Dunkeld House,’ Robertson claimed that John Brown was regularly noted as entering Queen Victoria’s bedroom when the rest of the household was asleep. Robert purported that Victoria married Brown at Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1868, with Duchess Anne standing as witness. The Duchess of Atholl vehemently denied Robertson’s allegations. Robertson went on to make other incendiary allegations without any proof including that Brown and Queen Victoria had a love child which as given up for adoption in Vaux, Switzerland.

Meanwhile, in our more recent times  various newspaper revelations went as far as suggesting that the two had actually married based on newly unocvered letters from Victoria’s courtiers. Indeed a film was even made: "Mrs Brown" became the title of a 1997 film about the relationship, starring Dame Judi Dench as Queen Victoria and Billy Connolly as John Brown.

In 1872 John Brown knocked down a would-be assassin in what was the fifth attempt on Victoria's life. John died at Windsor Castle on 27 March 1883, aged 56, by some accounts because he was too devoted to Victoria. It is suggested that had he taken to his sick bed at the first sign of a chill, he would have survived, but his sense of duty was such that he carried on working until it was too late. He was buried at Crathie.

Were Queen Victoria and John Brown married? Historians are divided over this contentious claim. Those that have believe it have based their views on four pieces of information, none of which is in itself conclusive. But they believe that, when taken together, help swing the balance of probability in favour of a wedding having taken place:

After Victoria's death, two sets of mementos were placed in her coffin, at her request. On one side was placed one of Prince Albert's dressing gowns, while on the other was placed a lock of Brown's hair, along with a picture of him and a ring worn by Brown's mother and given to Victoria by Brown.

The published diary of the Liberal MP, the 1st Viscount Harcourt, for 17 February 1885 related a second-hand story told to his father, the then Home Secretary, by a renowned gossip, that on his deathbed in 1872 the Revd Dr Norman Macleod, the chaplain to Queen Victoria,stated that he had conducted a marriage ceremony between John Brown and Queen Victoria.

The Daily Mail on 2 September 2006 reported a similarly second-hand story in which a late senior member of the Royal Family had said that documents confirming a marriage had many years earlier turned up in the Royal archives at Windsor, and been destroyed.

After Victoria's death (a full 18 years after John Brown's own death), Edward VII tried to destroy everything connected with Brown, including busts and photographs. A life-size statue of Brown at Balmoral, commissioned by Queen Victoria after his death, was only saved by being moved to an obscure part of the estate where Edward was unlikely to find it.

My own view is that it’s a much ado about nothing. Although much of the gossip about John Brown and Queen Victoria was seen as ridiculous steps were taken to suppress information, for instance, when Queen Victoria died her daughter Princess Beatrice removed pages from the queen’s journal ‘that might cause pain” in her own words. People have msiread the intent behind such actions. The Royal family down the ages have always doused more petrol on the fire by simply trying to quell any rumours of impropriety that it invites unfounded wilder speculative tittle tattle.

It is clear, despite public gossip, there was nothing immoral in Queen Victoria’s relationship with John Brown. Queen Victoria would never have contemplated sex with a servant. People forget how rigid social roles really were and how seriously people viewed them in Victoria’s age despite the hypocrisy we have come to see them with.

Furthermore, she was never alone to carry out an affair having court ladies always within shouting distance. That was the whole point of having a royal court and doting ladies in waiting about the place.

The significance of Queen Victoria’s attraction to John Brown was that he - at worst - made a career out of her. He never married, had few holidays and devoted his life to the queen, and he was a walking encyclopedia of her like, dislikes, moods and needs. As a downright selfish person this greatly appealed to the queen. She liked him because she needed to be fussed, cosseted and spoiled. He told her the truth, spoke boldly to her and importantly too; unlike her family and senior courtiers, he was not afraid of her. Above all, when Prince Albert died Queen Victoria needed a male friend — she never really made close friendships with women — and someone to lean on. John Brown supplied all that.

Victoria’s visited Balmoral in her beloved Scottish Highlands in the late autumn of 1900. The Queen could not know it, but it was the last time that she would see the new castle which Prince Albert had erected in her words as his ‘own work… as at Osborne’ and which had become a box of intensely personal memories.

So deeply did the Queen feel her first visit to Balmoral after Prince Albert’s death in May 1862 (in pouring rain) that she wrote with painful dread to her eldest daughter, the Crown Princess of Prussia of the strange reality of everything: ‘Oh! Darling child… the stag’s heads – the rooms – blessed, darling Papa’s room – then his coats – his caps – kilts – all, all convulsed my poor shattered frame!’ (cit., Delia Millar, Queen Victoria’s Life in the Scottish Highlands, 101). Even the Queen’s lonely pursuit of spinning wool, which later became synonymous with her early widowhood, had been a vigorously traditional Highland activity (Ibid, 76). Now her widowhood of waiting was drawing to an end, forty years later, with the Queen’s approaching death.

The Queen’s unknowing leave-taking of Scotland took place gradually, over these last days at Balmoral. Touchingly, she was still referring to ‘tea’ – although by now, it consisted only of arrowroot and milk  – drinking it at her secluded Highland retreat of Alt-na-giubhsaich. Queen Victoria’s last day included luncheon in Prince Albert’s rooms with her youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice and her Battenberg children. She left Balmoral fittingly, with the weather ‘wretchedly gloomy & dark’ whilst with her, she had a wreath to take back to Windsor, to place on the tomb of the Prince Consort at Frogmore; possibly it also contained the Balmoral heather she loved so much. Perhaps there may have been a presentiment, within the sentimental.

The Queen’s trusted doctor, Sir James Reid was with her at Osborne when she died, so presumably, the Queen would have had the comfort of a Scottish voice at her side, in between her lingering states of consciousness.

After her death, the Prince of Wales spoke a moving sentence of gratitude for Reid’s devoted service: ‘You are an honest straightforward Scotchman… I shall never forget all you did for the Queen’ (read Christopher Hibbert, Queen Victoria: A Personal History, pg. 494).

Significantly, the Queen instructed amongst the many sentimental items to be put in her coffin ‘some of which none of her family were to see’, a photograph of her devoted Highland servant, John Brown, which she ordered to be placed in her left and, with a lock of his hair. These were both tactfully hidden inside a silken case, the handiwork of the Queen’s late wardrobe maid Annie MacDonald, wrapped in tissue paper.

Afterwards, the Queen’s left hand was covered with Queen Alexandra’s flowers. Also put into the Queen’s coffin was a simple sprig of Balmoral heather, which Sir James Reid covered with a quilted cushion – made especially to fit the coffin – to preserve the Queen’s privacy in death.

Scotland was at her funeral, in the form of her Highland ghillies, as the Queen’s German grandson, Ernst Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse, wrote in his private memoirs: ‘[The moment] when her coffin was lowered in the mausoleum at Frogmore, remains unforgettable to me… I remained a moment there alone. When I looked about me, there were kneeling near me all of her ghillies [Highland servants] from Scotland, all strong, sturdy men, who were weeping there uncontrollably like sons for their mother…’ For her funeral, the Funeral March by Handel was substituted as per the Queen’s instructions, for music by Chopin and Beethoven and importantly, Highland dirges.

The sarcophagus or tomb chest was hewn from a flawless block of grey Aberdeen granite from the quarries at Cairngall in Scotland. Three attempts were made before this one was successfully carved out and it is purportedly the largest of its kind ever to have been hewn for such a use.

It was an appropriate Scotch bed for the Queen’s final sleep. Upon this sarcophagus, the effigies of Prince Albert and Queen Victoria lie still, a more sublime rendering of their marriage bed, staring into the beyond. Touchingly though, the head of Queen Victoria’s effigy is half-turned towards that of Prince Albert, as if it somehow suggesting that he died before she did. As in life, she is leaning, straining after the beloved husband that she mourned for half of her life.

The fact that their sarcophagus was quarried in Scotland is an appropriate choice for a royal couple who loved that country so much, becoming a little more Scotch with every visit. Appropriately for the Queen, parts of Eastern Central Scotland still celebrate Victoria Day, the last Monday before or on 24 May, Queen Victoria’s birthday.

Scotland was indeed with them, in the end. And continues to be with the House of Windsor.

[invisibleicewands]

[...] A sign on the door of his dressing room, where we meet, reads: "Fame is a vapour, popularity an accident, and riches take wings. Only one thing endures and that is character." Character is Sheen's speciality. He won't go into specifics of how he spends months readying himself for a role - it's as if he feels such preparation is too simple to merit comment. "There's no mystery," he explains. "You have to listen to them, read about them, watch them. Just that." [...]

[...] "I could never do impressions when I was at school," he says. "Never tried to. I still don't think I'm very good at doing impressions now, because that's not really what I do."You don't want the audience to be constantly thinking about how like a person or not like a person you are," he says, with slight impatience. "You want them to be on the inside of the character and think about what they are feeling and what is going on for them."The secret to his hard-won, chameleon-like abilities is, he claims, repeated viewings of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. "If my daughter watched a film that she liked, then she would want to be the characters from the film. So I would find myself having to be all seven dwarves. It meant that the more I'd do, the more I realised that it actually did sound like them - and that I might be quite good at doing this. But I would never have discovered that if it hadn't been for my daughter."Sheen's daughter Lily, eight, lives in Los Angeles with his ex, the actor Kate Beckinsale. He divides his time between acting in London and New York and spending time with her there. "It's a hard balance," he says. "I want to be around her but at the same time I have to do the kind of work that I want to do."He has family in Wales, where he was raised. There, he grew up with a very different ambition: "I wanted to be a football player first," he says. Having bested a young Tony Adams several times during a youth tournament, he was asked to join the Arsenal youth team at 12. His parents were unsure, and he got into acting at school instead. His hometown, Port Talbot, is where Sir Anthony Hopkins and Richard Burton also grew up. "You couldn't get a less theatrical town really," he says. "The Welsh are kind of innately expressive, I suppose, but that doesn't go to explain why one town would produce actors."But his family dabbles in theatrics. "My father gets work as a Jack Nicholson lookalike," says Sheen. "He does an American accent, or his Welsh version of it, as Jack and he gives it real welly. And that makes up for not being exactly like him," he says.Sheen junior left Rada in 1991 before completing his course, to take up a role in When She Danced, alongside Vanessa Redgrave. His Romeo at the Royal Exchange in Manchester the following year brought rave reviews (the critic Michael Coveney described him as the best young actor of his generation) and a television series - Ruth Rendell's Gallowglass - followed. He has dabbled in blockbusters - the vampire flick Underworld, its sequel Underworld: Evolutions and a role in Blood Diamond. But it was The Deal in 2003, written by Peter Morgan and directed by Stephen Frears - the team behind The Queen - that brought him to widespread attention. "There had never been anything like it before," says Sheen. "Until The Deal you only ever saw Blair or people in those positions in a satire or a comedy. You had never been asked to actually watch contemporary events through contemporary political figures as a drama before, and of course since The Deal there has been quite a bit of that."Despite his screen work, he remains more comfortable with theatre. "I think I'm becoming more relaxed in front of a camera," says Sheen. "I suppose I'll always feel slightly more at home on stage. It's more of an actor's medium. You are your own editor, nobody else is choosing what is being seen of you."Martyn Hesford, who wrote Fantabulosa!, has nothing but praise for him: "There's something anarchic in his performances, something that draws you to him. Even when he plays Blair there's something there, something which is like a slight wink. That's so rare - he's definitely one of the best actors of his generation. He put life into the character of Kenneth Williams. It was the first time, I think, that a script I'd drawn was better than I'd imagined."His portrayal of David Frost in Frost/Nixon, Peter Morgan's play about the series of talks between the British interviewer and the disgraced president, is so captivating that even American audiences, unimpressed by his mimicry of someone they are barely familiar with, are carried through the story. He is going to test the divide between screen and stage by reprising the role in a film version, directed by Ron Howard, next year.And after that? "I go back to Britain and do another film with Stephen Frears and Peter Morgan, and the whole team who made The Queen, about Brian Clough. I play Brian - it's based on that book The Damned United. There's a film coming out later this year called The Music Within, which will be the next thing you'll see me in." [...]

[themousefromfantasyland]

The Creatures of Yuletide: Santa Claus

Well, this is the end. I finish my series talking about Holiday creatures and traditions with the most popular gift-giver of all time, Mr. Kris Kringle, Santa Claus.

First of all we need to disperse some myths: He wasn't created by Coca-Cola, and although they immortalized the red and white look, they didn't invent it, the same with his image as jolly old man.

The Coca-Cola ads are from 1930's. This Puck cover is from 1902

Santa Claus started his life as the dutch gift-giver, Sinterklaas. Sinterklaas was a cartoonish version of St. Nicholas that delivered gifts to children on December 5th, Eve of St. Nicholas Day. The name Sinterklaas is an abbreviation of Sint Nikolaas, St. Nicholas. At this point he didn't had reindeers or sleighs. He travelled by horse and was accompanied by Zwarte Piet (the Black Piet) a stereotypical caricature of a black servant.

In his Dutch form he was imagined to carry a staff, ride above the rooftops on a huge white horse and have mischievous helpers who listened at chimneys to find out whether children were being bad or good. These features all link him to the legend of Odin, a god who was worshipped among the Germanic peoples in North and Western Europe prior to Christianization.

Dutch immigrants brought the character to America, more specifically to New Amsterdam, now New York City, along with the custom of giving gifts and sweets to children on his feast day.

Following the Revolutionary War the already heavily Dutch influenced New York City saw a new surge of interest in Dutch customs. In 1804 John Pintard, an influential patriot and antiquarian, founded the New York Historical Society and promoted St. Nicholas as patron saint of both the society and city. On December 6th 1810 the society hosted its first St. Nicholas anniversary dinner and Pintard commissioned the artist Alexander Anderson to draw an image of the saint to be handed out at the dinner. In Anderson's portrayal he was still shown as a religious figure, but now he was also clearly depositing gifts in fireside stockings and is associated with rewarding the goodness of children. While "St. Nicholas day" never quite took off in the way Pintard wanted, Anderson's image of "Sancte Claus" most certainly did.

A year before New York Historical Society's feast, american writer and historian Washington Irving wrote a very untraditional portrayal of St. Nicholas in his satirical fiction Knickerbocker's History of New York.

"At this early period was instituted that pious ceremony, still religiously observed in all our ancient families of the right breed, of hanging up a stocking in the chimney on St. Nicholas Eve; which stocking is always found in the morning miraculously filled; for the good St. Nicholas has ever been a great giver of gifts, particularly to children."

He described a jolly St. Nicholas character who flew in a reindeer pulled sleigh and delivered presents down chimneys.

In 1822, Clement Moore wrote the poem that would cement the image of St. Nicholas as a fat jolly gift-giver, "A Visit from St. Nick", today "The Night Before Christmas". In his poem St. Nicholas no longer visited children on the eve of his feast, but in Christmas Eve, and he travelled in a sleigh pulled by eight reindeers, Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, and Blitzen, with Rudolph as a later addition.

Moore drew upon Irving's description and Pintard's New Amsterdam tradition and added some more Odin-like elements from German and Norse legends to create the all-winking, sleigh-riding Saint and also the names for his flying reindeer.

It's important to note that at this point St. Nicholas wasn't a saint anymore, but he still wasn't Santa, he was almost a elf, and everything about him, including his sleigh and reindeers were described as tiny. That's how Santa can come down chimneys without a problem.

Nicholas started to become Santa when cartoonist Thomas Nast did an initial illustration in an 1863 issue of Harper's Weekly, as part of a large illustration titled "A Christmas Furlough".

In a way Thomas Nast can be considered the true inventor of Santa Claus, who becsme in his drawings and illustrations a normal-heigh jolly fat man who travelled in a flying sleigh. In later Nast drawings a home at the North Pole was added, as was the workshop for building toys and a large book filled with the names of children who had been naughty or nice.

In his later 1881 illustration named "Merry Old Santa" the modern Santa character really begins to take shape.

Now we need to talk about the English Father Christmas.

In early medieval England, the pagan Saxons honoured the Frost or Winter King, who had a lot in common with Odin. But, as Christianity became dominant, this figure became more closely associated with the festival celebrating the birth of Jesus.

That was the birth of old bearded figures who personification the feast. This also can be traced back to Odin, which was also used to personify the Yule season.

By the 1400s, he was thought of as a chivalric knight called Sir Christmas, and by the Tudor era he had been charmingly renamed Captain Christmas. He wasn't a gift-giver to children, but a figure who incited people to celebrate the Yuletide feasts.

This made him an enemy of Oliver Cromwell’s righteous government, which outlawed Christmas, fearing that it had become an excuse for unholy drunkenness. In response, the defenders of the tradition renamed the figure Old Father Christmas to make him sound more venerable.

When the monarchy was restored and Charles II took the throne, Father Christmas kept his new name.

When Christmas became popular again in the 19th century, so did Father Christmas, appearing as the Ghost of Christmas Present in Dickens's A Christmas Carol, greeting cards and advertisments.

In the early 16th century, Martin Luther – the German founder of Protestantism – considered Sinterklaas, St. Nicholas, too similar to pagan Odin. Instead he decreed that it was the Christkind who brought gifts.

The Christkind was a magic version of Baby Jesus, and he visited children on the Christmas Eve instead of the Eve of St. Nicholas Day. Later he became a golden haired female angel. Her visits on Christmas Eve may what inspired Santa's visits on this day instead of the traditional December 5th. Her name also became associated with Santa, but been anglicaized as Kris Kringle.

Resuming, Sinterklaas, Father Christmas, Christkind, with a little bit of Odin inspiration, became a single gift-giver figure in the US and North America, and that's how we got Santa Claus.

Now it's important to note that since the 19th century, Santa and Father Christmas became HUGE sources of inspiration for advertisers and department stores. Using a "living Santa" in your store to draw children and their parents goes back to this period. Some use this as to why Santa means nothing more than just the commercialization of Christmas.

However, the sources of Santa are way older, and the character was used for everything, from advertisments to army propaganda.

I'm personally very fond of Santa as a character and to me he means much more than a department store mascot. He's an personification of the jolliness of the holiday, of the children innocent belief in the fantastical and of the transformative power of charity.

I think it's impossible to look at Santa and say, he's just a mascot, considering the number of life's he affected.

Santa is without a doubt a symbol of magic and goodwill, and on this Christmas Eve I hope he brings much more than just toys to you and your family.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy Yuletide to all, my friends!

[rebelcourtesan]

My D&D Build for Angel Dust - Revised

Last year, I created a D&D character build for Angel Dust.  Since then, I have gained more experience in building characters and because of the new music video, which added metric shit-ton of character depth for Angel Dust, it’s got me reexamining my build and I decided to revise it.

For those who don’t know, Angel Dust is a spider demon in hell who happens to be a gay porn star.  Flirty, rude, seductive, and addicted to drugs and sex, Angel Dust smashes Eggboys with a club while firing tommy guns.  

***Stats***

Charisma: Highest Stat.  As a seductive performer, this must be Angel’s top stat.  We want this maxed out as soon as possible.      

Dexterity: Second Highest.  Angel is quick on his feet and relies mostly on range weapons.      

Constitution: Third Highest  Angel is no front line fighter, but he was slammed to the ground and was not phased by it. 

Wisdom: Fourth Highest.  Angel was able to see a sneak attach in time to push Cherry Bomb out of the way..  

Intelligence: Fifth Highest He’s not the brightest, but I wouldn’t put this as his dump stat either.  

Strength: Dump stat. 

***Race***

In the previous version, I wasn’t aware of the Simic Hybrid race that can grant an extra set of appendages, however, I still believe the best race for Angel Dust is Tiefling.  Angel gets +2 added to Charisma score and if you choose the (a subclass of Tiefling) you can add a +1 to Angel’s Dexterity. 

As a Tiefling, Angel gets resistance to fire damage and gains Darkvision.

Choose the Entertainer background which nets Angel Proficiency in Acrobatics and Performance.  Acrobatics because Angel is a nimble fellow and Performance because a porn star is a performer and he is an excellent pole dancer.  

Alright, just like last time, we are taking a dive into Bard. however, we’re going to do something different from last time.

Bard Level 1

As a Bard, Angel can give his allies Bardic Inspiration (1d6) as a bonus action.  It can be added to an Ability Check, Saving Throw or Attack roll.  Angel has as many Bardic Inspirations as he does his Charisma Modifier, so we want his Charisma as high as possible, but not only for Bardic Inspiration. 

Charisma also serves as the ability modifier for Bard spells.  Granted, Angel doesn’t use spells, but there are some spells that mimic his scathing insults.  Choose spells that charm and verbally cuts down foes.

Spell Recommendation:

Vicious Mockery:  You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range. If the target can hear you (thought it need not understand you), it must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or take 1d4 psychic damage and have disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn.

Tasha's Hideous Laughter: A creature of your choice that you can see within range perceives everything as hilariously funny and falls into fits of laughter if this spell affects it. The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or fall prone, becoming incapacitated and unable to stand up for the duration. A creature with an Intelligence score of 4 or less isn’t affected.

Bard can choose up to three skills to put their Proficiency in.  Select Intimidation (he backed Travis down with an insult, Deception (he tricked Charlie and Vaggie into giving him free room and board), and Perception (being a sex worker in Hell, he has to be on the look out for danger).

Bard Level 2

Angel Dust gains Jack of all Trades which allows him to add half his proficiency bonus to all skills that don’t already have a proficiency bonus.  Having been a gangster in the living world been in Hell for decades, he certain picked up on a number of skills.  

Also, gets Song of Rest which allows allies to gain an extra 1d6 of healing during a short rest.  I know Angel Dust isn’t really a healer, but hey, it’s still useful to have.  

Bard Level 3

Expertise let’s Angel double his proficiency bonus in two skills he already has proficiency bonus.  Choose Performance and Acrobatics. 

At this level, Angel can choose a Bard College.  This time we’re going with a different college: College of Satire.  

Angel Dust gains a proficiency bonus in Sleight of Hand and Thieves Tools.   

He can also use Tumble as a bonus action which can allows Angel Dust use the Dash or Disengage action, climb at his moving speed, and take half damage from falling until his next turn.  

He can access 2nd level spells for Bard.  I would recommend:

Crown of Madness:  One humanoid of your choice that you can see within range must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or become charmed by you for the duration.    

We’re going to leave Bard behind.  With his mafia background and living in Hell has given Angel an edge in a fight.  

Fighter Level 1

Select Archery for Angel’s fighting style.  It’ll give him a +2 to attack rolls with range weapons.  

Second Wind will allow Angel Dust to heal himself as a bonus action for 1d10 + Fighter Level.  This can only be used once per Short or Long rest.  Angel Dust did recover quickly after being slammed down on the ground by Sir Pentius.

Fighter Level 2

Action Surge gives Angel a second action on his turn.  Can be done once per Short or Long rest.  

Fighter Level 3

For Martial Archetype, select Sharpshooter (UA) gives Angel Dust Steady Aim which gives the following benefits for the rest of his turn: 

• The attacks ignore half and three-quarters cover.

• On each hit, the weapon deals additional damage to the target equal to 2 + half your fighter level.

This can be done up to three times per Short or Long Rest.  

Fighter Level 4

Ability Score Improvement: Add both points into Charsima.  We want this maxed out as soon as possible.  If you have an extra point, put it towards Dexterity.  

 Now we’’re going to round out Angel Dust with some melee fighting skills.

Rogue Level 1

Angel Dust gets another Expertise.  This time choose Deception and Perception.

With a level in Rogue, Angel Dust can now add Sneak Attack (1d6) damage once per turn to any successful attack with advantage.  He can also do this in melee if an ally is within 5 ft of the target.  The weapon must be a finesse or a range.      

Rogue Level 2

Cunning Action lets Angel to Dash or Disengage or Hide action as a bonus action.  I know he already has this with College of Satire, but he can only use Tumble three times per rest.  This will make a good back up for any long encounters. 

Rogue Level 3

For the Rogue Archetype I’m going with Swash Buckler to round out Angel’s fighting prowess.  Fancy Foot Work will began attacks of opportunity after a success hit with a melee weapon saving a bonus action for something else like Bardic Inspiration or Cutting Words.  

Rakish Audacity lets Angel add his HIGH Charisma modifier to Initiative.  Also, if by chance he’s within 5 ft of an enemy, he doesn’t need an advantage to do sneak attack damage.   

Rogue Level 4

Use Ability Score Improvement to bump up Angel’s Charisma as it’s his most useful stat.  If it’s already maxed out, bump up Dexterity to give him greater ability with range weapons and armor class. 

Rogue Level 5 

Uncanny Dodge Angel can use his reaction to halve damage whenever he takes a hit from an enemy that he can see.

Rogue Level 6 

Expertise again.  This time pick Sl;eight of Hand and Intimidation.

Rogue Level 7

Evasion works well as Angel will either take half or no damage against area effects. 

Rogue Level 8 

Abilty Score Improvement again. If Angel’s Charisma is already maxed out, then put points in Dex.  If by change Dex is maxed out, put the extra points into Constitution.  

Rogue Level 9  

Panache will let Angel use his by now high Charisma (Persuasion) check to charm enemies or give them a disadvantage in attacking him.  

Rogue Level 10 

Ability Score Improvement again.  By now your Charisma should be maxed out.  Next should be Dex, if that is maxed out then put them into Con.    

Rogue Level 11 

Reliable Talent will hone Angel’s skills.  Whenever he uses a skill check that includes his proficiency, any roll below a 9 is considered a 10 on the die.  

Rogue Level 12  

Yet another Ability Score Improvement.  You know the score.  If Charisma is already maxed out, redirect points to Dex or Con. 

Rogue Level 13

Elegant Maneuver will come in handy with Angel’s high Dex score granting him an advantage with a bonus action.

Rogue Level 14  

Blindsense gives Angel pretty good hearing.  If he hears invisible creatures, he can pinpoint their exact location within ten feet of him, making it hard to get the drop on him.

You’ve created Angel Dust, a demon spider who relies on his Charisma and Dexterity in role playing and combat.  He’s multi-talented which comes from being part of a crime family and scuttling along the underbelly world of Hell.  The build might not give him four arms, but the Dexterity should make up for it.  

The downside is he’s not a strong fighter as he prefers range weapons, but the abilities and skills he has will let him handle himself if they get within melee reach of him.  And he has abilities such as Bardic Inspiration that can help his girl pal Cherry Bomb out in a fight.  

[msilwrites]

INSOLENT (Odd Women Series) - ONE

A/N: I am actually quite tired of women falling for jerks, giving up their lives, being dominated/ controlled by their men, without giving some sort of fight that I want to try and create a series of short stories with female leads with self-respect, standing up for themselves or rejecting these chauvinist/ misogynist men. 

Also, guys, do you have any situation in a romance book you’ve read that you have hated (you know, with an assholic male lead?!), so I can make a story out of if and so that our Female Lead, Ingrid can ruin it! Please please suggest me some!  (You can also give me a different face claim!!)

WARNING: If this isn’t your cup of tea, you may move on to other stories. Tumblr has many stories!

Genre: Satire/Humor/Comedy

Our Male lead in this story is Tom... well, he has been used in a lot of stories as some sort of a ‘dominant’ especially after that Jaguar commercial. LOL! I’m a big fan of his, he just is really a good and sexy villain. I can’t help but use him as a face claim.

Second; Let’s use the secretary trope... it’s just so commonly used, so probably I’d give it a twist.

Ingrid Hawkes- is an original character

                                                  INSOLENT

Ingrid looked from left to right, seeing if there was anyone in the hallway. The last thing she wanted was to get caught leaving her cubicle, and buying snacks for her, her colleagues, and department boss for their secret tea breaks at the pantry. It was not really forbidden to buy afternoon tea. Just don’t let the CEO catch you. The last time she went on a snack run, she had caught the attention of their CEO, Thomas Hiddleston.

Thomas Hiddleston. The mention of the name or a simple thought about him makes the hair at the back of her neck stand. It does not matter how attractive and debonair he was. That man had caused her and her department some sort of trouble when she and her colleague was caught in the last snack run. 

She and her colleague, Leena were buying scones and dessert at Waitrose when suddenly Leena’s expression change into mortification.

Long story short, Ingrid helped Leena escape and bring the desserts back for tea safely, unnoticed. Whilst she on the other hand, was caught by Tom, and was reprimanded and brought to the HR. 

Despite that, she had gotten off lightly, with just a simple warning of ‘Don’t let Tom catch you again...’ because the HR department was in cahoots with theirs and is also a ‘beneficiary’ of the afternoon snack runs.

Seeing that the coast was clear, she waves goodbye to her friend, Leena who was at her cubicle before heading to the lifts.

Re-reading the list of request, and counting the money that her co-workers had given her, she hadn’t notice the lift arriving on her floor and its doors opening.

“Are you coming in? or are you waiting for Christmas?” a deep sounding voice from inside the lift said.

Ingrid looked up and to her horror, finds Tom Hiddleston in the available lift. She froze and didn’t know what to exactly do. 

“How long do you plan on standing there?!” he said impatiently.

“Oh, no... no... I was waiting for...” she pauses, thinking of an excuse. “You may go ahead Mr Hiddleston...” she says meekly when she couldn’t think of anything and waved him off.

“Waiting for?!” he asked sharply.

“For pigs to fly...” was her witty retort, it was the first thing that came out of her head and spewed it out immediately hoping that he will think she’s mental, shake his head off and leave with the lift. However, the result was quite opposite. 

“Get In! Hawkes!!” he scolds her, making her stand up straight and get inside the lift. 

Ingrid stands far away from him, and cowered in the corner, whilst he heaved a big sigh and snapped his head to her direction.

“What?” he asked, seeing the way she looked at him.

“What? What?” she asked back.

“What are you looking at?!” he was irritated.

“Oh... you sir...” was her simple reply. It was so simple yet it irked Tom how honest this woman is. He might be familiar with all the lusty looks he gets from women, but he didn’t like the way Hawkes looks at him. It was something he couldn’t pinpoint.

“And why is that?”

“Because I’m not blind sir... or do you expect me to close my eyes?”  a cheerful grin spread across her lips which further annoys him.

“You--!” but before he could even continue, he was cut off by the sound of the bell, indicating that the lift doors have opened.

“Oh! well we have reached the 1st floor!  Have a good day, Mr. Hiddleston!!” she says,saluting him as she quickly ran out of the lift, the sound of her heels clucking echoed throughout the large reception hall.

Tom clenched his fist. He was not used to being answered back by others, especially by a mere secretary, because everyone is afraid of him. But this woman named Hawkes, seems to have no shame at all. He shook the thought of her out of his head, he had other important things he had in mind.

                                                          ********** 

“Oh my... look at him...” Ingrid’s friend, Molly says, as she tilted her head to the direction where a handsome man was standing, waiting to be seated by the maitere’d. “He’s handsome!” she exclaimed.

Ingrid look at where Molly was directing her with her head, and out of shock, spits out the wine she was drinking off her mouth.

“Ingrid!!” Molly chastises her.

“I’m sorry! I can’t help it...” Ingrid tries to suppress her giggle, whilst Molly throws her a napkin to wipe herself. 

“You’re such a boor!” Molly chastises her playfully.

“I said I’m sorry...” she giggles. 

“So what was that all about?!” Molly ask, curious at Ingrid’s reaction. Her friend Ingrid, is respectful and well-mannered most of the time, unless someone offends her.

“That’s the devil himself...” was Ingrid’s simple reply, causing Molly to chuckle.

“Your boss?!” Molly tries to clarify.

“The one and only...” she confirms.

“Damn, Ingrid... your boss it hot!!” Molly adds, looking at Tom Hiddleston from afar. His ginger blonde waves were swept back nicely and impatience were written in his cold blue eyes. 

“Yes, I’m sure you don’t mind going to hell if he was the devil?” Ingrid said dryly. 

Molly glares at her, but brings her attention back to Tom. “And he has a date!” she adds, sounding very disappointed referring to a seductive looking woman who just entered the place.

“Of course he has Molly! What do you expect from an international playboy?” Ingrid adds, as she stabs her canapes with a toothpick and takes one big bite.

“And she’s a supermodel...” Molly sighs as she turned her attention back to her friend. However, her attention suddenly returned to Tom when she realizes that he and his date were headed to their direction.

“Ingrid!! their headed here!!” she exclaims.

“Wait? What!” Ingrid’s eyes widened in fear. There was no way she would let the big boss of her company see her here. So she did the fastest but the most foolish way she could think of, covering her face with a napkin. 

“Bloody hell, Inggy! do you think that will work?!” Molly says as she narrowed her eyes at her friend, she looked ridiculous. 

Fortunately, Tom didn’t notice her, or ‘recognize her’ because of the napkin covering her face, but it did get a reaction from him. His eyes twitched and his mouth frowned at the woman who seems to be trying to look like a ghost and unfortunately for Tom, he and his date are seated at the table right behind this odd woman.

“He can’t see you anymore, take that thing off!!” Molly says, grabbing the napkin away from her head. “You look ridiculous!” she adds.

Ingrid tried to look for him, and see if the coasts was clear. Much to her chagrin, Tom was seated right behind her. His back facing her. 

“Do you wanna go somewhere else?” Molly offered, since they were done with their food. They didn’t have to stay long as they have initially intended. 

Ingrid smiled and shook her head, saying ‘No’. She made a slight tilt of the head at the table behind her and indicated that she was listening to Tom and his date’s conversation.

“Since when did you become a gossip monger?! Molly whispered.

“No I’m not, I’m just really curious!!” Ingrid whispered back.

Molly sighs in resignation, and in the end also became curious and kept quite, trying to hear the conversation from the table behind. 

They both heard the soft rasp of his chuckle “Now Miss Gusev...” he starts, and he sounded very seductive with the way he said the woman’s name. Ingrid can almost imagine his facial expression.

“You have the entire night to decide if you wanna partake in this relationship... But you are to abide by my rules and in return, I will introduce you to a world of pure pleasure...” he sounded so sexy that his date and Molly looked like they were going to melt, but not Ingrid. In fact, she wanted to laugh at how cliche it sounds. 

It was as if he got it from some R rated romance novel. Ingrid cringe at the thought and then shuddered.

“Yes...” his date answered with a whisper. In fact, she sounded as if she was shaking. Not in fear though, but in lust!

“Brilliant! Because I’m going to need you to sign a document for me.” he said as he pushed a folder towards the woman.

Molly and Ingrid cocked a brow when they heard ‘sign a document’. It felt odd why someone should even sign a document when entering a relationship. Well, unless if it’s marriage of course. 

Turning her head to behind her, she saw Tom’s date take the brown file and shakily took a pen out from her clutch. The woman’s eyes widened and looked back at Tom.

Written in the documents  were terms in conditions that his date had to abide in like, being his beck and call no matter what time and wherever he is. She would have to respond to all his calls at all times, and in case of formal events, he would be in charge of her clothes. In fact, the woman looked a little shocked as she looked back at Tom. 

“B-but Tom... I don’t need this amount... “ his date said, pointing to the last page of the contract. Though it was common in the modelling industry to receive such proposition, it never meant that she doesn’t feel uncomfortable every time it comes up.

Molly and Ingrid looked at each other, knowing what it probably was. And the former suddenly realize that being in or pursuing a relationship with this man was not something ideal. 

Sensing the woman was about to back out of their relationship, Tom clears his throat. “Don’t overthink things... It’s just my way of taking care of you.”

“I see...” she paused. “Why... why this?” she said, pointing to a clause on the piece of paper. 

“There’s a reason why my relationships don’t last long. I’m not able to give emotional support that you might request from me... So I am giving you the upper hand in the relationship. It is to allow you the right to call it off when they can no longer stand my ways, --”

The woman was about to be convinced, but was distracted when the woman at the table behind Tom broke into a loud laugh, breaking the sexual tension she and Tom were having. 

Ingrid couldn’t help but laugh at the last part about women not withstanding Tom’s ways. Oh, if only this date directly worked for him, she’d be out in the first  day.

“Ridiculous!!” she continued laughing loud, capturing some of the the patron’s attention. Tom, irritated, got up and went to the table behind him to reprimand whoever that was who ruined his moment. 

Ingrid kept laughing and Molly playfully reprimands her to stop, whilst trying stifle a laugh but in the end, failed to do so. Since Molly knows the stories about her friend’s boss through her complaints, she very much understood why Ingrid laughed so hard. 

“ She can try working for him, I bet she’ll be out in an hour when he starts his demands!” Ingrid tells her friend. She remembered Tom’s secretary crying in the bathroom before, crying is understandable especially when someone so young and inexperienced works directly with someone as unkind and demanding as their CEO. The poor thing immediately tendered her resignation when she couldn’t take anymore of his demands and attitude.

“Inggy... stop laughing...” Molly’s face suddenly turned fearful. “Inggy.... please” she pleaded.

Ingrid did stop laughing but realized it was too late when she saw Tom, standing just right beside her with a look of disapproval. She gulped when she saw the expression on his face. 

“Well... well... well... I should’ve known! What are you doing here Hawkes?” he said sharply, saying as if she had no right to be in the restaurant. Well, she really didn’t. How can a mere secretary afford a meal at a three star michelin restaurant?!

Ingrid grimaced. “Eating sir? am I not allowed to eat at a place of my choosing...” though she talked meekly, her expression said something else otherwise. There was a mischievous glint in her eyes, as if waiting for the right opportunity.

“Still as insolent as ever...” Tom rolled his eyes and sigh. 

Ingrid laughed in a creepy manner, which made Tom furrow his brows and Molly shake her head, already knowing what was her friend’s reply going to be.

 “You have no power here.... Thomas William Hiddleston...”

Tom was flabbergasted upon realizing which movie that line came from and manner that she used it. In addition, he was surprised with her response that he was left speechless.

                                                             **********

“Oh Inggy... I thought I was about to die there...” Molly complained as they both ran out of the restaurant, whilst getting a murderous look from Tom Hiddleston. But she couldn’t contain her laughter. “You’re a bloody rascal!” 

“What?! you got a free meal off him! what’s there to complain about?!” Ingrid reasoned, pertaining to the fact that they didn’t pay the bill, and told the staff secretly that Thomas Hiddleston is paying for them. For all the trouble that mean bastard had caused her, paying for her meal was not even enough.

“Are you not afraid of getting fired or him dragging you to hell?!” Molly reasoned, already afraid for Ingrid.

“Nope... I don’t work directly for him... besides what can he do? It’s not office hours, nor are we in the office! As I said, he has no power here!”  she reasoned and Molly laughed. Moreover, she had the protection of the her department head. She won’t easily get fired.

“I can’t believe you used that as a retort, you were creepy by the way!” Molly teases.  

“Thank You!” was Ingrid’s response as she bowed.

Molly laughed and didn’t say more, knowing that her friend would all have the wittiest response in the world. 

“Miss... wait!” a female voice calls them from behind. They both turned around in unison to find Tom’s date, the supermodel, trying to catch up to them.

“Wow... she’s really tall!” Molly comments as she admire the woman.

“Yes, may I help you?” Ingrid says, as she fully turned to face her.

“Thank you for back there...” the woman says, taking her hands and squeezing them in gratitude.

“Huh? Thank You?” Ingrid tilts her head and looks at the woman questioningly. “I don’t know what I did?”

“I... I was about to give in to him. If you didn’t laugh, or say that... I would have ended up with him.” the woman says, referring to the complaint Ingrid had uttered whilst she laughed. “ I already have low self-esteem” the woman admits which made Ingrid and Molly shocked. How can a very beautiful woman have low self-esteem?!. Shouldn’t she have men like Tom wrapped around her finger.

“And it made me realize that the last thing I need is a relationship with a man who’s emotionally distant...” she looks down sadly. 

“Well then....” Ingrid reaches for the woman’s shoulder and gives it a squeeze. “I want you to know that your are very beautiful, from the bottom of my heart! And that you deserve a man who treats you and will love you better!” she says sincerely which not only made the woman moved, but also her friend Molly. Tom, again, no matter how handsome, rich, or capable he is, if he didn’t have kindness, then there is no point being with someone who’ll end up letting you down.

The woman smiled and embraced her in response before walking off to another direction, but not before waving at them. 

“That was really kind Inggy... I am proud of you!” Molly says as she looks at her friend. “In fact, I’m surprised you’re capable of saying such things!” she added.

“ I meant what I said to her. Every word. What are you trying to imply woman?! That only nonsense spews out of my mouth?  You wound me, Molly!” Ingrid said, her expression trying to feign hurt and Molly just laughed in response. 

Molly’s expression suddenly changed and it didn’t go unnoticed to Ingrid. “ Don’t tell me he is just right behind us?”

“I think we should run...” Molly suggests. 

“I think that’s a good idea...” was Ingrid’s response and with that, both of them broke into a run.

The Next Part of this story is here;  Troll (Odd Women Series) - TWO

A/N:  I will be editing this because I probably have made a number of grammatical errors. I hope you enjoyed the story. FYI. It will be a series of one shots. 

[danielmouradjensen]

Canterbury Tales - in a historical/social context

In this essay the reader will be enlighten with an extremely short introduction to Canterbury Tales and the skillful poet behind this unique master piece, written in Middle English. Due to the size and focus of the paper, the Pardoner’s Tale, the Parson’s Tale and the wife of Bath’s Tale, including the prologues, will be selected among the 24 stories in Canterbury Tales. It will therefore be these three tales, which will be placed in a historical and social context. The main question in the essay is, “Which historical events are worth mentioning when discussing, the three specific tales, in Canterbury Tales?”

In Canterbury Tales (1387 - 1400.), the readers are introduced with a variety of personalities, like the Pardoner, the Parson, the Clerk, the Knight and the Wife of Bath. These mentioned characters are all pilgrims heading towards Canterbury. The tales are not written in Latin or French, which were languages preferred at that time but in Middle English. The Canterbury Tales were meant for a specific group of people and not the whole population in England1. Reading aloud was regarded as a social event in the time Chaucer.

It is also presumed that Geoffrey Chaucer did not write to achieve the benefits of fame. Canterbury Tales were of course handwritten on various manuscripts because it was much later, more specific, in the year 14762, that William Caxton introduced the first printing press in England. When the tales, which are quite amusing, were written, it was in a time or period of war, sickness and despair. It is from within the tales that the reader learns more about the society in the late Middle Ages. It is worth mentioning, that Chaucer had an advantage among his peers, in that he was a member of the court of King Richard II of England (1367-1400).

Furthermore, it is quite important to take notice that Chaucer the Poet uses a light satirical tone when introducing the many characters, in the different tales. Geoffrey Chaucer, as the genius he was, created a persona who is himself, in order to be part of the tales. In Canterbury Tales, the author and the narrator merge - another unique feature in the tales.

The Pardoner’s tale, the Parson’s tales and the Wife of Bath

As promised, the three tales will be placed in a historical (social) context: the role of the Church in England, the Great Western Schism, the Lollards, and the Hundred Year’s War as well as the Black Death. The Peasants’ Revolt, in 1381, will unfortunately not be discussed in this essay. This historical event would be interesting in connection with especially the Knight’s Tale.

The Pardoner’s tale

But, sirs, one thing that slipped my memory when I spoke my tale: I've relics, pardons in My pouch, in England none could finer be, The pope's own hand entrusted them to me. If anyone devoutly has resolved To make a gift and by me be absolved, Come forth at once and meekly on your knees Receive my pardon. Or, if you so please, Take for yourself a pardon as you go--One fresh and new at every town--just so You offer to me, all the while we ride, Some pence and nobles that are bonafide. (l. 919 – 930, Canterbury Tales, “the Pardoner’s Tale”)3

Is the Pardoner a charlatan or a true holy man? Geoffrey Chaucer describes this character as a man more interested in selling relics and enjoy life’s pleasures than helping others of the goodness of his heart. As an example from “The Pardoner's Portrait”: “He'd make more money in one day alone Than would the parson two months come and gone. So he made apes, with all the tricks he'd do, Of parson and of congregation too.” (l. 703 – 706, Canterbury Tales, “General Prologue”)4. However, in line 708 Chaucer writes: “In church he was a fine ecclesiastic”. The theme in the Pardoner´s tale is that the root to all evil is money. And money is what the pardoner likes. A greedy man who speaks about greed. Again, it becomes evident that Chaucer does not find the Pardoner worthy of his position as a man of the Church. Because of irony, the reader has to read between the lines.

In the late Middle Ages many historical events occurred, among them was the Western Schism (1378-1417), which resulted in a slit of the Roman Catholic Church. During a very long period, rivalries for the papacy led to a deep political crisis within the Church. Even after the truce with France, in 1389, England continued, very firmly, to support Rome, not Avignon, and would not offer any real solutions to end the Schism5. In the tales, it is also from Rome where the church authority derives from.

It is here, it is very interesting to talk about the role or status of the Church in England, during the lifetime of Chaucer. Was the Church in England strong or weak? At the time of Chaucer, the church was weak due to the Western Schism, mentioned above, the Black Death (1346–1353) and greedy/selfish churchmen6.

In England, the Black Death, which almost killed half of the population and the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), led to an increase of self-serving churchmen – like the Pardoner in Canterbury Tales. The people of England were in pain and needed help and guidance, which meant a great opportunity for greedy and self-absorbed men of the church to exploit it. To further elaborate on the Hundred Years' War, which Geoffrey Chaucer himself participated in, even more death and suffering befell the people of England. France was also hurting and bleeding. The long war did not only bring serious social and economic changes in the English and French societies but also affected the writing of Geoffrey Chaucer.

The Black Death had a huge impact on the English society as a whole, not only were people dying but the way they died was horrific. There is a line/phrase saying: “there were hardly enough living to care for the sick and bury the dead”7. The plague affected the economy, politics and religion. It also had an impact on culture and arts. What is quite interesting is that the plague as well as the Hundred Years' War actually empowered the people.

Geoffrey Chaucer knew because of his place in the higher classes, the realities of the church and the abuses of the clergy. This gave Chaucer the opportunity to use humorous irony in the tales. Making fun of the mischiefs of the clergy was not something new at that time8. In addition to this, Chaucer was acquainted with John Wyclif, theologian and reformer, which contributed to a harsher stand towards the clergy in England.

No institution in fourteenth-century England was so often the object of satire as the Church. The great organization, with its wealth, its power, and its conservative traditions, might have been expected to offer a safeguard against social decay; but the Church itself was a fruitful breeding-ground for the very things, which were disorganizing feudal society. (A Chaucer handbook, p. 35)9

Going in depth with the Pardoner’s Tale, Death has a vital role, and might be viewed as the plague, which, stated above, ravaged England. Death, or the personification of Death, was something that Chaucer’s audience could identify with. The Pardoner’s Tale is the only tale set during the Black Plague.

The Parson’s Tale

There was a good man of religion, too, A PARSON of a certain township who Was poor, but rich in holy thought and work. He also was a learned man, a clerk; The Christian gospel he would truly preach, Devoutly his parishioners to teach. Benign he was, in diligence a wonder, And patient in adversity, as under Such he'd proven many times. And loath He was to get his tithes by threatening oath; For he would rather give, without a doubt, To all the poor parishioners about From his own substance and the offerings. (l. 477 – 489, Canterbury Tales, “General Prologue”)10

In the Parson’s Tale, the reader is now introduced to a different character than the Pardoner. It is the last and longest tale in Canterbury Tales. The funny thing is that, the tale is not even a tale:

It is a penitential manual,  a  curious  choice  because  nearly  all such  vehicles  of religious  in­struction were prepared  by the clergy or by mystics.  It is largely derivative, using  material common  to  so  many  treatises  that  only  a few  of the  actual sources can be established with some certainty. (Sermon and Penitential in The Parson’s Tale and their Effect on Style, p. 125)11

The Parson tells the others that he does not want to amuse them and therefore he chooses instead a sermon. From the Prologue: “You won't get any fable told by me; For Saint Paul, as he writes to Timothy, Reproves those who abandon truthfulness for fable-telling and such wretchedness.” (l. 31 - 34, Canterbury Tales, “The Parson's Tale PROLOGUE”)12

He could definitely be viewed as a more positive face of the church, according to Chaucer, than the persona, which the Pardoner represented. It is also worth noticing that, from the descriptions in the Prologue, the Parson, the Knight and the Ploughman represent the three traditional spheres of medieval society13.

It could also be worth placing “the Parson’s Tale” in context with the Lollards. As mentioned before, Chaucer was in contact with John Wyclif, who was convinced that the Bible and God had the highest authority and that the clergy should not own property. He also translated the Bible into Middle English14, which made it a lot easier for those who did not understand Latin. The Lollards followed John Wyclif and in the beginning, his supporters were from Oxford University and the royal court but the “movement” became increasingly popular outside “the inner circle”. The Lollards were critical towards the Church, which of course made them quite unpopular with the established clergy. The monastic leaders were not keen to follow or abide the views of John Wyclif and his followers. During the Black Death, Wyclif saw many flaws and weaknesses in the Church. It was believed that Rome was the enemy, and that the devote Christian only needed the local pastor and congregation15. The Lollards also saw sacraments as fake, which meant the reformers wanted to change the core in the Catholic Church. Wyclif died naturally even though the Church wanted him executed for heresy.  

There could also be links between Parson’s tale and the ideas of the Lollards. According to Frances McCormack,16 there could be some similarities with the vocabulary in the tale and that of the Lollards. As also stated in the beginning that Chaucer did not write to a large group of people, he had a specific audience (like the royal court) and among these members were those who, in one way or another, supported the ideas of the Lollards.

The Wife of Bath’s Tale

She was a worthy woman all her life: At church door with five men she'd been a wife,             Not counting all the company of her youth.(No need to treat that now, but it's the truth.) She'd journeyed to Jerusalem three times; Strange rivers she had crossed in foreign climes; She'd been to Rome and also to Boulogne, To Galicia for Saint James and to Cologne, And she knew much of wandering by the way. She had the lover's gap teeth, I must say. With ease upon an ambling horse she sat, Well wimpled, while upon her head her hat Was broad as any buckler to be found. (l. 459– 471, Canterbury Tales, “General Prologue”)17

Another very interesting character and pilgrim in Canterbury Tales is the Wife of Bath who sounds more like a modern woman and a feminist from the late 20th century than a woman from the late Middle Ages. This eccentric character, actually named Alison (line 804, The Wife of Bath's Tale PROLOGUE), is not afraid to speak her mind about former husbands, marriage and her sex-life. She does not sound like what a typical pilgrim should be and act. As an example, in the following quote, the reader learns what men’s “instruments” are actually used for:

That learned men I not provoke to oath, I mean to say that they were made for both--That is, both for relief and for our ease To procreate, so God we not displease. Why else should men into their ledgers set That every man yield to his wife her debt? And how can he pay this emolument Unless he use his simple instrument? That's why upon all creatures these are set, To urinate and also to beget. (l. 125 - 134, Canterbury Tales, “The Wife of Bath's Tale PROLOGUE”)18

She is one of the few women among the pilgrims, but she is not afraid to speak her mind and rebel against the patriarchal powers19. The Pardoner tries to interrupt her by flatter, but it does not work and she continuous:

The Pardoner spoke up immediately. "Now dame, by God and by Saint John," said he, "As a noble preacher on the case you'll pass. I almost wed a wife, but then, alas, Why buy it with my flesh, a price so dear? I'd rather not get married, not this year." "Abide," she said, "my tale is not begun! No, you'll be drinking from another tun, Before I'm through, that tastes much worse than ale. (l. 163 - 171, Canterbury Tales, “The Wife of Bath's Tale)20

In “Feminist Readings in Middle English Literature”, a very important point is made: “Recognition of the cultural meanings that are spoken through female voices can be a starting place for the exploration of forms of power and power relations in the Middle Ages.”21 The Wife of Bath (still looking for husband number six), is also a woman who has been on several pilgrimages. Furthermore, she is a woman who travels alone. In her tale, the readers learn about the knight, who rapes a fair maiden and as a punishment/challenge must answer what it is women what most of all. The queen who offers the knight a second chance is none other than Guinevere, the wife of King Arthur. What is important to point out, is that stories of King Arthur were quite popular at the time of Chaucer. Alison speaks of magic and magical creatures, which at that time, the established Church viewed as pagan beliefs. The tale begins with:

In the old days of King Arthur, today Still praised by Britons in a special way, This land was filled with fairies all about. The elf-queen with her jolly little rout In many a green field often danced. (l. 857 - 861, Canterbury Tales, “The Wife of Bath's Tale)22

When exploring the Wife of Bath’s tale in a historical context, it is also interesting to look at the Beguines in the mid and late Middle Ages. The Beguines were women who devoted their lives to God. In a time where there were more women than men, this specific life of a Beguine provided a safe haven for women without husbands.

The conclusion of the essay

When the Geoffrey Chaucer created the 24 spectacular tales, which were not only amusing and ironic/satirical, it was in a period of war, illness and despair. It is from within the tales and prologues that the reader has the opportunity to study the English society in the late Middle Ages. It is also worth mentioning, that Chaucer had an advantage among his countrymen, in that he was a member of the court of King Richard II of England (1367-1400).

A crucial religious and historical event took place in the western Christian world, which without doubt affected the religious thoughts and views of many people, in the different layers of the societies, in the late Middle Ages. The Western Schism (1378-1417) resulted in a slit of the Roman Catholic Church. During a very long period, rivalries for the papacy and/or authority led to a deep political crisis within the Church.

At the time of Chaucer, the church was weak due to the Western Schism, mentioned earlier, the Black Death (1346–1353) and corrupted churchmen.

In England, the Black Plague, which almost exterminated half of the population and the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), led to an increase of self-serving churchmen – like the greedy Pardoner in Canterbury Tales. The people of England were in pain and were in seek of help and guidance, which meant a great opportunity for greedy and self-absorbed men of the church to exploit it. As mentioned in the essay, the Black Death had a huge impact on the English society as a whole, not only were the population dying but the way they died was unbelievable. There is a line/phrase, to further illustrating the Black Plague, saying: “there were hardly enough living to care for the sick and bury the dead”. The Black Death affected the economy, politics and religion. It also changed the culture and arts (including, the writing of Chaucer).

Placing “the Parson’s Tale” in context with the Lollards, makes som sense. As mentioned before, Chaucer was in contact with John Wyclif, who was convinced that it was only God and the Bible, which had the real authority. That the clergy should not possess property, which they indeed did. The Lollards were critical towards the Church, which of course made them quite unpopular with the clergy. The monastic leaders were not keen to follow or abide the radical views of John Wyclif and his supporters. During the Black Death, Wyclif saw many flaws and weaknesses in the established Church. Geoffrey Chaucer knew, due to his status and as member of the royal court, the realities of the church and the abuses of the clergymen. This gave Chaucer the opportunity to use humorous irony in the tales. Chaucer had an idea on how the clergy should act and was frustrated with how they actually acted, as an example the Parson vs. the Pardoner.

It is also worth recalling that, from the descriptions in the Prologue, the Parson, the Knight and the Ploughman represent the three traditional spheres of medieval society. Another very interesting female character and pilgrim in Canterbury Tales is the Wife of Bath. She sounds more like a modern woman and a feminist from the late 20th century than a woman from the late Middle Ages. She might even represent some women in this specific period.

Bibliography

Blades,William. The Life and Typography of William Caxton, England's First Printer - With Evidence of his Typographical Connection with Colard Mansion, the Printer at Bruges. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Byrne, Joseph. Encyclopedia of the Black Death. ABC-CLIO, 2012.

Creighton, James Joseph. Chaucer's Presentation of the Church in the Canterbury Tales. Master’s theses, Loyola University Chicago, 1957

Evans, Ruth and Leslie Johnson. Feminist Readings in Middle English Literature: The Wife of Bath and All Her Sect. Routledge, 2005.

French, Robert Dudley. A Chaucer handbook. New York, 1947.

Manly, John Matthews. Some New Light on Chaucer. Henry Holt, 1926.

McCormack, Frances Mary. Author of Chaucer and the Culture of Dissent: The Lollard Context and Subtext of the Parson's Tale Four. Courts Press, 2007.

Palmer, J. J. N.. England and the Great Western Schism, 1388-1399”, The English Historical Review Vol. 83, No. 328 .Jul., 1968.

Rowland, Beryl. Sermon and Penitential in The Parson’s Tale and their Effect on Style. Florilegium 9, 1987.

Black Death: The lasting impact by Professor Tom James, last accessed Monday, October 24, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_impact_01.shtml

General Prologue, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, english.fsu.edu/canterbury/general.html

John Wycliffe and The Lollards, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollards.html

The Pardoner's Tale, last accessed Friday, October 21, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/pardoner.html

The Parson's Tale PROLOGUE, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, english.fsu.edu/canterbury/parsonpro.html

The Wife of Bath's Tale, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/wife.html

The Wife of Bath's Tale PROLOGUE, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/wifepro.html

1 John Matthews Manly, Some New Light on Chaucer (Henry Holt, 1926), 76.

2 William Blades, The Life and Typography of William Caxton, England's First Printer - With Evidence of his Typographical Connection with Colard Mansion, the Printer at Bruges (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 62-63.

3 The Pardoner's Tale, last accessed Friday, October 21, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/pardoner.html

4 General Prologue, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, english.fsu.edu/canterbury/general.html

5 J. J. N. Palmer, ”England and the Great Western Schism, 1388-1399”, The English Historical Review Vol. 83, No. 328 (Jul., 1968): 516

6 James Joseph Creighton, “Chaucer's Presentation of the Church in the Canterbury Tales”, (Master’s theses, Loyola University Chicago, 1957): 13

7 Black Death: The lasting impact by Professor Tom James, last accessed Monday, October 24, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_impact_01.shtml

8 James Joseph Creighton, “Chaucer's Presentation of the Church in the Canterbury Tales”, 11

9 Robert Dudley French, A Chaucer handbook (New York, 1947)

10 General Prologue, last accessed Sunday, Monday 24, 2016, english.fsu.edu/canterbury/general.html

11 Beryl Rowland, “Sermon and Penitential in The Parson’s Tale and their Effect on Style”, Florilegium 9 (1987): 125

12 The Parson's Tale PROLOGUE, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, english.fsu.edu/canterbury/parsonpro.html

13 Black Death: The lasting impact by Professor Tom James, last accessed Monday, October 24, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/black_impact_01.shtml

14 John Wycliffe and The Lollards, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/varia/lollards/lollards.html

15 Joseph Byrne, Encyclopedia of the Black Death (ABC-CLIO, 2012), 214

16 Frances Mary McCormack, Author of Chaucer and the Culture of Dissent: The Lollard Context and Subtext of the Parson's Tale (Four Courts Press, 2007)

17 General Prologue, last accessed Sunday, Monday 24, 2016, english.fsu.edu/canterbury/general.html

18 The Wife of Bath's Tale PROLOGUE, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/wifepro.html

19 Ruth Evans and Leslie Johnson, Feminist Readings in Middle English Literature : The Wife of Bath and All Her Sect (Routledge, 2005), 1.

20 The Wife of Bath's Tale, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/wife.html

21 Ruth Evans and Leslie Johnson, Feminist Readings, 2.

22 The Wife of Bath's Tale, last accessed Sunday, October 23, 2016, http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/wife.html

[do-rey-me]

If you don't mind me asking, what is discworld? Don't awnser this if you don't want to.

omg I dont know when you sent this I am so sorry if it's been A While. but. hi thanks for asking abt my hyperfixations I really do appreciate it. unfortunately this post is going to be incomprehensible so ill link a few other, better posts explaining this at the END.

SO discworld! if u were at all into Good Omens, guess what! Sir Terry Pratchett, one of the authors, also wrote a fuckton of other books when he was alive

Discworld is a massive series of comedy/satire fantasy books set on a flat (one may even say,,,, disc) world on top of some huge elephants on top of a big ass turtle swimming through space for all eternity. so given this is already wacky let's go back and start confusing you in a different way

there are 41 books just taking place in this world, which scientists have described as "a fuckton". on top of that, these books dont always go after the same characters, or take place in the same part of the disc! so that's where the flow charts come in. I'll link a few at the end. there are a whole bunch of series' within discworld, following different characters and storylines. most fans recommend to start just abt anywhere except the first book, simply because its exactly that. the first book, lacking experience and the great writing weve come to expect out of sir terry. when I was really lil I did fall into the trap of trying to read the graphic novel version of that first book and then, like many others, did not read any of the discworld books for approximately a decade.

my dad started with "Night Watch" which is smack in the middle of the city watch series, and managed to convince my stepdad to do the same, the absolute madman. meanwhile I, a sane person, really started with "Wee Free Men" which is the beginning of a YA story following a young girl, Tiffany Aching, as she becomes a witch. I think they're a fantastic introduction into discworld partly because they're YA and also have that good good audience surrogate protagonist.

however, if that doesn't interest you as much, fans have created a plethora of flowcharts to see what book you should start with. i think theres 7 storylines you can follow? but as long as you like well written stories, and don't mind fantasy/comedy (and hell, even if you do mind I think you'll still like it??) I genuinely dont think you can go wrong with a lot of the books?

again, I know that this post is incredibly rambly, and that anyone with adhd has scrolled past all of it so HERE are some better/shorter posts explaining:

https://butleroftoast.tumblr.com/post/185127477193/the-discworld-is-a-series-of-books-about-satirical

https://aughtpunk.tumblr.com/post/185645841391/liked-good-omens-then-check-out-sir-terry

https://theconversation.com/a-beginners-guide-to-terry-pratchetts-discworld-55220

and HERE are them there flowcharts:

https://goddamnshinyrock.tumblr.com/image/148060525420

https://imgur.com/a/Yqipw#hkJR0Dx

[fleurderussie]

As  you (probably) know the Oscars ceremony is coming and, to my biggest surprise, I managed to watch almost all nominees of the year. 2019 brought us a lot of wonderful, meaningful films (I am so in love with “Once upon a time in...Hollywood” and “Parasites”), but the one that impressed me most, impressed me so much that today I’ve watched it for the second time, is 1917. Just when you think that everything’s been said and done about war, Taika Waititi and Sam Mendes show up with their powerful anti-war pictures. If Taika’s main tools are laughter and satire, Sir Sam chooses subjectivity to help him transfer his message to the audience. The WWI, or the Great War, in Russia seems to be in the shadows of horrific Civil War and WWII, but for the British it is extremely important.  What touched me most was the dedication addressed by Sam Mendes to his grandfather Alfred Mendes who served in the Great War as a messenger and who inspired the director to write 1917 in the first place.  The fact that such personal story could find its way to the minds of thousands is truly impressive. Honestly, as I left the cinema, I couldn’t speak for several minutes, afraid of not being able to hold my tears any longer.

The plot seems pretty simple at first glance. Two soldiers need to go from point A to point B in order to save 1600 lives. I didn’t expect much from it and decided to go out of sheer curiosity: how did it win the Golden Globe and got 10 Oscars nominations? I answered this question after 10 minutes of the film. And it’s not even about technologies or “one-shot” thing (though it DOES matter), it’s about psychology and the ability of the creators to say so much without speaking. I love good dialogues, but here they would simply look out of place. And what a pity that George MacKay (just checked out his interviews - what a humble young man!) wasn’t nominated for the best performance. I think it takes a special talent to portray a person, having short dialogues, with only your eyes giving away your feelings.

The film has a lot of powerful scenes. A group of young - too young! - people just sitting and listening to the crystal clear voice of their fellow soldier, singing “Wayfaring Stranger”. Enchanted by its beauty and unusual contrast to the ugliness of the war surrounding them, they forget about everything, finding some peace for some time. But we can’t forget and, looking at those who are about to go to the real battle and most probably die, I’m struck by the thought that a lot of soldiers enlisted in the WWI were hardly 18. Boyish faces that will have to carry the horrors of war, literally or figuratively, as an unfaded seal. Their youth and innocence are highlighted throughout the whole film by the main symbol - cherry trees. Mercilessly cut down cherry orchard is an obvious but still sad metaphor for lost young lives. 

 The tragedy, unsaid but shown, follows us together with the cameraman that created real miracles (fingers crossed for Roger Deakins). All the hell the character(s) go through is becoming alive and the whole film suddenly resembles Dante’s story: it burns and stops us from breathing. And yet the film gives hope: the mentioned cherry trees will bloom again to remind us to continue our journey. No matter how difficult the path is, there’s always somebody whose picture we keep in the pocket, somebody worth coming back to.

[unicornery]

For my own amusement, I started tracking how the songs from the Billboard Hot 100 from this week in 1974 have been used in movie soundtracks. Feature Films only people! As you read, you will see the “gimmes” that made me think of the idea, but I’m putting this behind a cut because there ended up being so many which had a soundtrack match. As a reminder, you can follow along as I do the Hot 100 each week corresponding to which classic AT40 and VJ Big 40 get played on SiriusXM ‘70s on 7 and ‘80s on 8 respectively with my ever-changing Spotify playlist. 

100. “Beyond the Blue Horizon” - Lou Christie. This one is a cheat because when I looked it up on Spotify it showed up on the Rain Man soundtrack. The only song I could have told you off the top of my head was in Rain Main is the Belle Stars’ version of “Iko Iko.” Rain Man marked the first soundtrack appearance for Christie’s version. 

98. “The Air That I Breathe” - The Hollies. Very memorable appearance in The Virgin Suicides, which had the score done by, wait for it, French electronica duo Air. The song would go on to be heard in other movies. 

90. “Billy Don’t Be a Hero” - Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods. The Paper Lace version appears in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Both acts topped the charts with the song on opposite sides of the pond: Paper Lace in the UK and Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods in the US. [Update: the BD&H version may be in "To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday"] 

87. “Hollywood Swinging” - Kool & the Gang. This oft-sampled track first appeared in a feature film in the 2005 Get Shorty sequel Be Cool. 

84. “La Grange” - ZZ Top. Armageddon first, followed by others. 

68. “Band on the Run” - Paul McCartney and Wings.  I didn’t search for this at first because I didn’t think there would be anything, but then Jet was on the chart at #27, so I did a twofer search on imdb. Jet has not been in any films (save “One Hand Clapping, a rockumentary on Paul, which I don’t count for purposes of this discussion) but “Band on the Run” appears in The Killing Fields, in a shocking scene that contrasts the light tone of the pop song with the horrors of the Khmer Rouge’s executions of Cambodian citizens. 

66. “For the Love of Money” - The O’Jays. Has been used many times, according to IMDb the first feature film use was the Richard Pryor roman a clef (if I’m using that right, I only know it from Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man) Jo Jo Dancer, Your Life Is Calling. 

59. “Rock Around the Clock” - Bill Haley and his Comets. Notably used in Blackboard Jungle, the song is on this 1974 chart for its appearance in American Graffiti. 

55. “Rock and Roll, Hoochie Koo” - Rick Derringer. First one that comes to mind is Dazed and Confused bc I had that soundtrack, but it has been in others.

49. “Love’s Theme” - the Love Unlimited Orchestra. The swirling strings of this song indicate that someone is indeed falling in love. That’s my way of saying, if you think you haven’t heard this, you have. Imdb has it in Mean Girls, among others. 

47. “The Way We Were” - Barbra Streisand. The titular song of the 1973 film The Way We Were, starring Barbra and Robert Redford. A little long, but worth a watch bc Barbra is amazing in it. At the 1974 Academy Awards, Marvin Hamslich won Best Original Song honors for this tune, and was awarded Best Original Dramatic Score for his other musical work on the film. I always think of Lisa Loopner’s big crush on him.  

44. “Don’t You Worry ‘Bout a Thing” - Stevie Wonder. First feature film usage was the 1998 Eddie Murphy flop Holy Man, which surprised me as it’s such a good song, you’d think it would have been in something earlier. Notable given Eddie’s impression of Stevie Wonder he performed on SNL! 

42. “Rock On” - David Essex. Michael Damian’s cover (or remix as described by Patton Oswalt) was recorded for the 1989 2 Coreys classic Dream a Little Dream, and per imdb, David Essex’s original appears in the alternate-history comedy Dick, from 1999. 

37. “Oh Very Young” - Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam. Surprisingly, this sweet song appears in the gross-out bowling comedy Kingpin. 

36. “Jungle Boogie” - Kool & the Gang. This song may have been used in the most films and tv shows of any I’ve researched so far, but its first appearance was in Pulp Fiction. 

34. “The Payback - Part 1” - James Brown. First feature film appearance was in 1995′s Dead Presidents. A different James Brown track appears on the soundtrack for racist-ass Melly Gibson’s Payback from 1999. 

33. “Help Me” - Joni Mitchell.  Another why’d-it-take-ya-so-long shocker, this mellow tune first appeared in the 2018 sci-fi movie Kin, narrowly beating Welcome to Marwen from 2019. 

31. “The Entertainer” - Marvin Hamlisch. The title theme from the Redford/Newman team-up The Sting. Hamlisch won a record-tying third Academy Award in 1974 for Best Original Score for The Sting.  It seems at this time Best Original Score and Best Original Dramatic Score were separate categories. Hamlisch would win Grammys for both this and “The Way We Were,” eventually becoming an EGOT winner in 1995.

30. “Eres Tú” - Mocedades. This Spanish Eurovision entry notably appears in the buddy comedy Tommy Boy when Chris Farley and David Spade’s characters sing along with the radio. 

28. “Midnight at the Oasis” - Maria Muldaur. Catherine O’Hara and Fred Willard perform their own rendition in the Christopher Guest film Waiting for Guffman. That should be all you need, but imdb has the first film appearance for the song as 1995′s Falcon and the Snowman. 

24. “Let it Ride” - Bachman-Turner Overdrive. This lesser-known but not less great BTO jam has appeared in a handful of films, the first being Ash Wednesday, starring Elijah Wood and directed by Edward Burns and not Garry Marshall. Note: it does not seem to be in the Richard Dreyfuss gambling movie Let It Ride, a classic VHS cover of my youth. 

18. “Mockingbird” - James Taylor and Carly Simon. Memorably performed by Harry and Lloyd in the dog van in Dumb and Dumber, later joined by a Latinx family on guitar and vocals.  Before that, Beverly D’Angelo and Chevy Chase’s characters also sang it on their road trip in National Lampoon’s Vacation. I couldn’t find an instance where James and Carly’s version played in a movie but I am sayin’ there’s a chance. That it could be someday. 

16. “Tubular Bells” - Mike Oldfield. This instrumental is best known for being the theme to The Exorcist, but I was surprised to learn from the Wiki entry that it was not written for the film. Tubular Bells or something that’s meant to sound like it has been in a ton of other things, generally uncredited. Of note: Mike Oldfield would go on to do the score for The Killing Fields. 

14. “Seasons in the Sun” - Terry Jacks. Now here is the type of song that ‘70s haters point to as an example of the whiny wuss rock that they feel over-dominated the era. It’s not one of my favorites but I appreciate it for how weird it is. I suppose being translated into English from a French/Belgian poem will do that to ya. Before I did my search, I imagined I would find it in a Farrelly Brothers movie or two, possibly the Anchorman sequel. However, the only feature film match I found was the 2002 indie flick Cherish, a movie I have never seen despite being confronted by the cover many times at rental places over the years. Before today, when I watched the trailer, I would have told you it starred Jennifer Love Hewitt and was about “a band trying to make it.” It turns out I am thinking of the 1999 film The Suburbans. Anyway Cherish seems aggressively indie and very of-its-time in a way that makes me want to watch it. 

13. “Dancing Machine” - The Jackson 5. The song appears in the Blaxploitation spoof I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, as well as the movie of Starsky & Hutch.

11. “Lookin’ For A Love” - Bobby Womack. This was in the movie of The Ladies Man starring Tim Meadows as his SNL character Leon Phelps. I almost skipped this one but I’m glad I didn’t because Tim Meadows rules.

8. “The Loco-Motion” - Grand Funk Railroad (the single and album it was on are credited to Grand Funk). We have our second song from the Kirsten Dunst/Michelle Williams movie Dick. Since that was satirizing Nixon and Watergate, well done to the filmmakers for including these 1974 hits!  It appeared in one earlier film, My Girl 2. 

5. “Come and Get Your Love” - Redbone. Known to modern listeners for appearing in Guardians of the Galaxy. [Sidebar: if you can find a way to listen to the With Special Guest Lauren Lapkus episode T.G.I.G.O.T.G.OST (Thank God It’s the Guardians of the Galaxy Original Soundtrack) with Sean Clements and Hayes Davenport, do it!] The song first appeared in Dance Me Outside, a Canadian film about First Nations youth, which is a cool parallel with Redbone being composed of Native American musicians. “Come and Get Your Love” is also in Dick! 

4. “Best Thing That Ever Happened To Me” - Gladys Knight & the Pips. Another SNL feature pops up on our list, 1994′s It’s Pat: The Movie. 

3. “Hooked on a Feeling” - Blue Swede. ALSO known to modern listeners as being from the GOTG, but possibly only in the trailer? I’m fuzzy. The song ALSO also appears in Dick, and its first feature film appearance was Reservoir Dogs. 

2. “Bennie and the Jets” - Elton John. You know it, you love it, you cackle at the gag in Mystery Team. IMDb has this song down as first appearing in the low budget feature Aloha, Bobby and Rose, from 1975. It is ALSO in My Girl 2, with proper credit for Sir Elton. 

1. “TSOP (The Sound of Philadelphia)” - MFSB featuring The Three Degrees. IMDb says this appeared in the Al Pacino film Carlito’s Way, and I have no reason to doubt them because it means we are done! Thanks for readin’ and rockin’ along. 

[sclfmastery]

//Also, while I absolutely adore G/Omens, like, everything it is about and stands for, and how it was executed, I really do wish fans would keep it in its own separate space, apart from DW.  I log in here to see DW, and I log into my Crowley blog to see G/Omens.  But this dash is as much or more covered in G/Omens stuff.

And I understand people like to draw comparisons between Crowley and Ten (even though to be blunt I couldn’t imagine two more different people, and I think Tennant does a very good job of articulating their differences). 

I also understand (and agree) that G/Omens is so good because the ending is unequivocally happy, with no loose ends, and our culture DESPERATELY needs that right now.

But.

  The stuff goes untagged, and I can’t help but almost resent G/Omens for stealing writing partners away into its whirlwind rush of popularity. 

I started out adoring the book and miniseries, which I fully intend to purchase once released, and being so eager to write Crowley, and I even had planned to dress up as Crowley for Halloween....

....and now I’ve become so totally overexposed to that ONE fandom and all its content, that I honestly can’t wait until the fever pitch of popularity boils down, and eases up, and it can become a fandom in which we can all again be longtime but casual participants.  

It’s gotten so that every ounce of content that’s queerplatonic or gay, no matter how circumstantial the ties with Ineffable Husbands, has people screaming LOOK iT’S THEM! And sure fine I’m like REALLY HAPPY that this gives people so much joy! I am! And I don’t want to shit on that AT ALL. But like, this isn’t the first yin-yang QP couple.  Sir Terry and Neil didn’t invent old happy gay couples, y’all. It also  isn’t the first use of Jewish or Christian iconography to tell a satirical story.  Granted, it IS one of the BEST, but my gosh. Let the less popular, more obscure pairings and fandoms out there breathe :(  Or at least don’t steal our thunder and our time and our resources. 

[claudia1829things]

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review William Makepeace Thackery's 1848 novel about the life and travails of an ambitious young woman in early 19th century has generated many film and television adaptations. One of them turned out to be the 2004 movie that was directed by Mira Nair. 

"VANITY FAIR" covers the early adulthood of one Becky Sharp, the pretty and ambitious daughter of an English not-so-successful painter and a French dancer during the early years from 1802 to 1830. The movie covers Becky’s life during her impoverished childhood with her painter father, during her last day as a student at Miss Pinkerton’s Academy for Young Ladies, where she meets her only friend Amelia Sedley – the only daughter of a slightly wealthy gentleman and her years as a governess for the daughters of a crude, yet genial baronet named Sir Pitt Crawley. While working for the Crawleys, Becky meets and falls in love with Sir Pitt’s younger son, Captain Rawdon Crawley. When Sir Pitt proposes marriage to Becky, she shocks the family with news of her secret marriage to Rawdon. The couple is ostracized and ends up living in London on Rawdon’s military pay and gambling winnings. They also become reacquainted with Amelia Sedley, who has her own problems. When her father loses his fortune, the father of her beau, George Osborne, tries to arrange a marriage between him and a Jamaican heiress. Leery of the idea of marrying a woman of mixed blood, he marries Amelia behind Mr. Obsorne's back, and the latter disinherits him. Not long after George and Amelia's marriage, word reaches Britain of Napoleon's escape from Elba and control of France. Becky and Amelia follow Rawdon, George, and Dobbin, who are suddenly deployed to Brussels as part of the Duke of Wellington's army. And life for Becky and those close to her prove to be even more difficult. The first thing I noticed about "VANITY FAIR" was that it was one of the most beautiful looking movies I have ever seen in recent years. Beautiful and colorful. A part of me wonders if director Mira Nair was responsible for the movie's overall look. Some people might complain and describe the movie's look as garish. I would be the first to disagree. Despite its color - dominated by a rich and deep red that has always appealed to me - "VANITY FAIR" has also struck me as rather elegant looking film, thanks to cinematographer Declan Quinn. But he was not the only one responsible for the film's visual look. Maria Djurkovic's production designs and the work from the art direction team - Nick Palmer, Sam Stokes and Lucinda Thomson. All did an excellent job of not only creating what I believe to be one of the most colorful and elegant films I have ever seen, but also in re-creating early 19th century Britain, Belgium, Germany and India. But I do have a special place in my heart for Beatrix Aruna Pasztor's costume designs. I found them absolutely ravishing. Colorful . . . gorgeous. I am aware that many did not find them historically accurate. Pasztor put a bit more Hollywood into her designs than history. But I simply do not care. I love them. And to express this love, the following is a brief sample of her costumes worn by actress Reese Witherspoon:

I understand that Witherspoon was pregnant at the time and Pasztor had to accommodate the actress' pregnancy for her costumes. Judging from what I saw on the screen, I am beginning to believe that Witherspoon's pregnancy served her role in the story just fine. Now that I have raved over the movie's visual look and style, I might as well talk about the movie's adaptation. When I first heard about "VANITY FAIR", the word-of-mouth on the Web seemed to be pretty negative. Thackery's novel is a long one - written in twenty parts. Naturally, a movie with a running time of 141 minutes was not about to cover everything in the story. And I have never been one of those purists who believe that a movie or television adaptation had to be completely faithful to its source. Quite frankly, it is impossible for any movie or television miniseries to achieve. And so, it was not that surprising that the screenplay written by Julian Fellowes, Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet would not prove to be an accurate adaptation. I expected that. However, there were some changes I could have done without. Becky Sharp has always been one of the most intriguing female characters in literary history. Among the traits that have made her fascinating were her ambitions, amorality, talent for manipulation and sharp tongue. As much as I enjoyed Reese Witherspoon's performance in the movie - and I really did - I thought it was a mistake for Fellowes, Faulk and Skeet to make Becky a more "likeable" personality in the movie's first half. One, it took a little bite not only out of the character, but from the story's satirical style, as well. And two, I found this change unnecessary, considering that literary fans have always liked the darker Becky anyway. Thankfully, this vanilla-style Becky Sharp disappeared in the movie's second half, as the three screenwriters returned to Thackery's sharper and darker portrayal of the character. I was also a little disappointed with the movie's sequence featuring Becky's stay at the Sedley home and her seduction of Amelia's older brother, Jos. I realize that as a movie adaptation, "VANITY FAIR" was not bound to be completely accurate as a story. But I was rather disappointed with the sequence featuring Becky's visit to the Sedley home at Russell Square in London. Perhaps it was just me, but I found that particular sequence somewhat rushed. I was also disappointed by Nair and producer Jannette Day's decision to delete the scene featuring Becky's final meeting with her estranged son, Rawdy Crawley. This is not out of some desire to see Robert Pattinson on the screen. Considering that the movie's second half did not hesitate to reveal Becky's lack of warmth toward her son, I felt that this last scene could have remained before she departed Europe for India with Jos. Despite my complaints and the negative view of the movie by moviegoers that demanded complete accuracy, I still enjoyed "VANITY FAIR" very much. Although I was a little disappointed in the movie's lighter portrayal of the Becky Sharp, I did enjoy some of the other changes. I had no problem with the addition of a scene from Becky's childhood in which she first meets Lord Steyne. I felt that this scene served as a strong and plausible omen of her future relationship with the aristocrat. Unlike others, I had no problems with Becky's fate in the end of the movie. I have always liked the character, regardless of her amoral personality. And for once, it was nice to see her have some kind of happy ending - even with the likes of the lovesick Jos Sedley. Otherwise, I felt that "VANITY FAIR" covered a good deal of Thackery's novel with a sense of humor and flair. I have always found it odd that most people seemed taken aback by an American in a British role more so than a Briton in an American role. After all, it really depends upon the individual actor or actress on whether he or she can handle a different accent. In the case of Reese Witherspoon, she used a passable British accent, even if it was not completely authentic. More importantly, not only did she give an excellent performance, despite the writers' changes in Becky's character, she was also excellent in the movie's second half, which revealed Becky's darker nature. Witherspoon was ably assisted with a first-rate cast. The movie featured fine performances from the likes of James Purefoy, Deborah Findlay, Tony Maudsley, Geraldine McEwan, Eileen Atkins, Douglas Hodge, Natasha Little (who portrayed Becky Sharp in the 1998 television adaptation of the novel), and especially Romola Garai and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Amelia Sedley and George Osborne. But I was especially impressed by a handful of performances that belonged to Bob Hoskins, Rhys Ifans and Gabriel Byrne. Bob Hoskins was a delight as the slightly crude and lovesick Sir Pitt Crawley. Rhys Ifans gave one of his most subtle performances as the upright and slightly self-righteous William Dobbins, who harbored a unrequited love for Amelia. Jim Broadbent gave an intense performance as George's ambitious and grasping father. And Gabriel Byrne was both subtle and cruel as the lustful and self-indulgent Marquis of Steyne. In the end, I have to say that I cannot share the negative opinions of "VANITY FAIR". I realize that it is not a "pure" adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery's novel or that it is perfect. But honestly, I do not care. Despite its flaws, "VANITY FAIR" proved to be a very entertaining movie for me. And I would have no problem watching it as much as possible in the future.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous said: I didn’t know too much about the late British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton until I followed your superbly cultured blog. As an ivy league educated American reading your posts, I feel he is a breath of fresh air as a sane and cultured conservative intellectual. We don’t really have his kind over here where things are heavily polarized between left and right, and sadly, we are often uncivil in our discourse. Sir Roger Scruton talks a lot about beauty especially in art (as indeed you do too), so for Scruton why does beauty as an aesthetic matter in art? Why should we care?

I thank you for your very kind words about my blog which I fear is not worthy of such fulsome praise.

However one who is worthy of praise (or at least gratitude and appreciation at least) is the late Sir Roger Scruton. I have had the pleasure to have met him on a few informal occasions.

Most memorably, I once got invited to High Table dinner at Peterhouse, Cambridge, by a friend who was a junior Don there. This was just after I had finished my studies at Cambridge and rather than pursue my PhD I opted instead to join the British army as a combat pilot officer. And so I found out that Scruton was dining too. We had very pleasant drinks in the SCR before and after dinner. He was exceptionally generous and kind in his consideration of others; we all basked in the gentle warmth of his wit and wisdom.

I remember talking to him about Xanthippe, Socrate’s wife, because I had read his wickedly funny fictional satire. In the book he credits the much maligned Xanthippe with being the brains behind all of Socrates’ famous philosophical ideas (as espoused by Plato).

On other occasions I had seen Roger Scruton give the odd lecture in London or at some cultural forum.

Other than that, I’ve always admire both the man and many of his ideas from afar. I do take issue with some of his intellectual ideas which seem to be taken a tad too far (he think pre-Raphaelites were kitsch) but it’s impossible to dislike the man in person.

Indeed the Marxist philosopher G.A. Cohen reportedly once refused to teach a seminar with Scruton, although they later became very good friends. This is the gap between the personal and the public persona. In public he was reviled as hate figure by some of the more intolerant of the leftists who were trying to shut him down from speaking. But in private his academic peers, writers, and philosophers, regardless of their political beliefs, hugely respected him and took his ideas seriously - because only in private will they ever admit that much of what Scruton talks about has come to pass.

In many ways he was like C.S. Lewis - a pariah to the Oxbridge establishment. At Oxford many dons poo-pooed his children stories, and especially his Christian ideas of faith, culture, and morality, and felt he should have laid off the lay theology and stuck to his academic speciality of English Literature. But an Oxford friend, now a don, tells me that many dons read his theological works in private because much of what he wrote has become hugely relevant today.

Scruton was a man of parts, some of which seemed irreconcilable: barrister, aesthetician, distinguished professor of aesthetics. Outside of brief pit stops at Cambridge, Oxford, and St Andrews, he was mostly based out of Birkbeck College, London University, which had a tradition of a working-class intake and to whom Scruton was something of a popular figure. He was also an editor of the ultra-Conservative Salisbury Review, organist, and an enthusiastic fox hunter. In addition he wrote over 50 books on philosophy, art, music, politics, literature, culture, sexuality, and religion, as well as finding time to write novels and two operas. He was widely recognised for his services to philosophy, teaching and public education, receiving a knighthood in 2016.

He was exactly the type of polymath England didn’t know what to do with because we British do discourage such continental affectations and we prefer people to know their lane and stick to it. Above all we’re suspicious of polymaths because no one likes a show off. Scruton could be accused of a few things but he never perceived as a show off. He was a gentle, reserved, and shy man of kindly manners.

He was never politically ‘Conservative’, or tried not to be. Indeed he encouraged many to think about defining “a philosophy of conservatism” and not “a philosophy for the Conservative Party.” In defining his own thoughts, he positioned conservatism to relation to its historical rivals, liberalism and socialism. He wrote that liberalism was the product of the enlightenment, which viewed society as a contract and the state as a system for guaranteeing individual rights. While he saw socialism as the product of the industrial revolution, and an ideology which views society as an economic system and the state as a means of distributing social wealth.

Like another great English thinkers, Michael Oakeshott, he felt that conservatives leaned more towards liberalism then socialism, but argued that for conservatives, freedom should also entail responsibility, which in turn depends on public spirit and virtue. Many classical liberals would agree.

In fact, he criticised Thatcherism for “its inadequate emphasis on the civic virtues, such as self-sacrifice, duty, solidarity and service of others.” Scruton agreed with classical liberals in believing that markets are not necessarily expressions of selfishness and greed, but heavily scolded his fellow Conservatives for allowing themselves to be caricatured as leaving social problems to the market. Classical liberals could be criticised for the same neglect.

Perhaps his conservative philosophy was best summed up when he wrote “Liberals seek freedom, socialists equality, and conservatives responsibility. And, without responsibility, neither freedom nor equality have any lasting value.”

Scruton’s politics were undoubtedly linked to his philosophy, which was broadly Hegelian. He took the view that all of the most important aspects of life – truth (the perception of the world as it is), beauty (the creation and appreciation of things valued for their own sake), and self-realisation (the establishment by a person of a coherent, autonomous identity) – can be achieved only as part of a cultural community within which meaning, standards and values are validated. But he had a wide and deep understanding of the history of western philosophy as a whole, and some of his best philosophical work consisted of explaining much more clearly than is often the case how different schools of western philosophy relate to one another.

People today still forget how he was a beacon for many East European intellectuals living under Communist rule in the 1980s.  Scruton was deeply attached in belonging to a network of renowned Western scholars who were helping the political opposition in Eastern Europe. Their activity began in Czechoslovakia with the Jan Hus Foundation in 1980, supported by a broad spectrum of scholars from Jacques Derrida and Juergen Habermas to Roger Scruton and David Regan. Then came Poland, Hungary and later Romania. In Poland, Scruton co-founded the Jagiellonian Trust, a small but significant organisation. The other founders and active participants were Baroness Caroline Cox, Jessica Douglas-Home, Kathy Wilkes, Agnieszka Kołakowska, Dennis O’Keeffe, Timothy Garton Ash, and others.

Scruton had a particular sympathy for Prague and the Czech society, which bore fruit in the novel, Notes from Underground, which he wrote many years later. But his involvement in East European affairs was more than an emotional attachment.  He believed that Eastern Europe - despite the communist terror and aggressive social engineering - managed to preserve a sense of historical continuity and strong ties to European and national traditions, more unconscious than openly articulated, which made it even more valuable. For this reason, decades later, he warned his East European friends against joining the European Union, arguing that whatever was left of those ties will be demolished by the political and ideological bulldozer of European bureaucracy.

Anyway, digressions aside, onto to the heart of your question.

Art matters.

Let’s start from there. Regardless of your personal tastes or aesthetics as you stand before a painting, slip inside a photograph, run your hand along the length of a sculpture, or move your body to the arrangements spiraling out of the concert speakers…something very primary - and primal - is happening. And much of it sub-conscious. There’s an element of trust.

Political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, defined artworks as “thought things,” ideas given material form to inspire reflection and rumination. Dialogue. Sometimes even discomfort. Art has the ability to move us, both positively and negatively. So we know that art matters. But the question posed by modern philosophers such as Roger Scruton has been: how do we want it to affect us?

Are we happy with the direction art is taking? Namely, says, Scruton, away from seeking “higher virtues” such as beauty and craftmanship, and instead, towards novelty for novelty’s sake, provoking emotional response under the guise of socio-political discourse.

Why does beauty in art matter?  

Scruton asks us to wake up and start demanding something more from art other than disposable entertainment. “Through the pursuit of beauty,” suggests Scruton, “we shape the world as our own and come to understand our nature as spiritual beings. But art has turned its back on beauty and now we are surrounded by ugliness.” The great artists of the past, says Scruton, “were painfully aware that human life was full of care and suffering, but their remedy was beauty. The beautiful work of art brings consolation in sorrow and affirmation…It shows human life to be worthwhile.” But many modern artists, argues the philosopher, have become weary of this “sacred task” and replaced it with the “randomness” of art produced merely to gain notoriety and the result has been anywhere between kitsch to ugliness that ultimately leads to inward alienation and nihilistic despair.

The best way to understand Scruton’s idea of beauty in art and why it matters is to let him speak for himself. Click below on the video and watch a BBC documentary broadcast way back in 2009 that he did precisely on this subject, why beauty matters. It will not be a wasted hour but perhaps enrich and even enlighten your perspective on the importance of beauty in art.

So I’ll do my best to summarise the point Scruton is making in this documentary above.

Here goes.....

In his 2009 documentary “Why Beauty Matters”, Scruton argues that beauty is a universal human need that elevates us and gives meaning to life. He sees beauty as a value, as important as truth or goodness, that can offer “consolation in sorrow and affirmation in joy”, therefore showing human life to be worthwhile.

According to Scruton, beauty is being lost in our modern world, particularly in the fields of art and architecture.

I was raised in many different cultures from India, Pakistan, to China, Japan, Southern Africa, and the Middle East as well schooling in rural Britain and Switzerland. So coming home to London on frequent visits was often a confusing experience because of the mismatch of modern art and new architecture. In life and in art I have chosen to see the beauty in things, locating myself in Paris, where I am surrounded by beauty, and understand the impact it can have on the everyday.

Scruton’s disdain for modern art begins with Marcel Duchamp’s urinal. Originally a satirical piece designed to mock the world of art and the snobberies that go with it, it has come to mean that anything can be art and anyone can be an artist. A “cult of ugliness” was created where originality is placed above beauty and the idea became more important than the artwork itself. He argues that art became a joke, endorsed by critics, doing away with a need for skill, taste or creativity.

Duchamp’s argument was that the value of any object lies solely in what each individual assigns it, and thus, anything can be declared “art,” and anyone an artist.

But is there something wrong with the idea that everything is art and everyone an artist? If we celebrate the democratic ideals of all citizens being equal and therefore their input having equal value, doesn’t Duchamp’s assertion make sense?

Who’s to say, after all, what constitutes beauty?

This resonated with me in particular and brought to mind when Scruton meets the artist Michael Craig-Martin and asks him about how Duchamp’s urinal first made him feel. Martin is best known for his work “An Oak Tree” which is a glass of water on a shelf, with text beside it explaining why it is an oak tree. Martin argues that Duchamp captures the imagination and that art is an art because we think of it as such.

When I first saw “An Oak Tree” I was confused and felt perhaps I didn’t have the intellect to understand it. When I would later question it with friends who worked in the art auction and gallery world, the response was always “You just don’t get it,” which became a common defence. To me, it was reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen’s short tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid or incompetent. In reality, they make no clothes at all.

Scruton argues that the consumerist culture has been the catalyst for this change in modern art. We are always being sold something, through advertisements that feed our appetite for stuff, adverts try to be brash and outrageous to catch our attention. Art mimics advertising as artists attempt to create brands, the product that they sell is themselves. The more shocking and outrageous the artwork, the more attention it receives. Scruton is particularly disturbed by Piero Manzoni’s artwork “Artist’s Shit” which consists of 90 tin cans filled with the artist’s excrement.

Moreover the true aesthetic value, the beauty, has vanished in modern works that are selling for millions of dollars. In such works, by artists like Rothko, Franz Kline, Damien Hirst, and Tracey Emin, the beauty has been replaced by discourse. The lofty ideals of beauty are replaced by a social essay, however well intentioned.

A common argument for modern art is that it is reflecting modern life in all of its disorder and ugliness. Scruton suggests that great art has always shown the real in the light of the ideal and that in doing so it is transfigured.

A great painting does not necessarily have a beautiful subject matter, but it is made beautiful through the artist’s interpretation of it. Rembrandt shows this with his portraits of crinkly old women and men or the compassion and kindness of which Velazquez paints the dwarfs in the Spanish court. Modern art often takes the literal subject matter and misses the creative act. Scruton expresses this point using the comparison of Tracey Emin’s artwork ‘My Bed’ and a painting by Delacroix of the artist’s bed.

The subject matters are the same. The unmade beds in all of their sordid disdain. Delacroix brings beauty to a thing that lacks it through the considered artistry of his interpretation and by doing so, places a blessing on his own emotional chaos. Emin shares the ugliness that the bed shows by using the literal bed. According to Emin, it is art because she says that it is so.

Philosophers argued that through the pursuit of beauty, we shape the world as our home. Traditional architecture places beauty before utility, with ornate decorative details and proportions that satisfy our need for harmony. It reminds us that we have more than just practical needs but moral and spiritual needs too. Oscar Wilde said “All art is absolutely useless,” intended as praise by placing art above utility and on a level with love, friendship, and worship. These are not necessarily useful but are needed.

We have all experienced the feeling when we see something beautiful. To be transported by beauty, from the ordinary world to, as Scruton calls it, “the illuminated sphere of contemplation.” It is as if we feel the presence of a higher world. Since the beginning of western civilisation, poets and philosophers have seen the experience of beauty as a calling to the divine.

According to Scruton, Plato described beauty as a cosmic force flowing through us in the form of sexual desire. He separated the divine from sexuality through the distinction between love and lust. To lust is to take for oneself, whereas to love is to give. Platonic love removes lust and invites us to engage with it spiritually and not physically. As Plato says, “Beauty is a visitor from another world. We can do nothing with it save contemplate its pure radiance.”

Scruton makes the prescient point that art and beauty were traditionally aligned in religious works of art. Science impacted religion and created a spiritual vacuum. People began to look to nature for beauty, and there was a shift from religious works of art to paintings of landscapes and human life.

In today’s world of art and architecture, beauty is looked upon as a thing of the past with disdain. Scruton believes his vision of beauty gives meaning to the world and saves us from meaningless routines to take us to a place of higher contemplation. In this I think Scruton encourages us not to take revenge on reality by expressing its ugliness, but to return to where the real and the ideal may still exist in harmony “consoling our sorrows and amplifying our joys.”

Scruton believes when you train any of your senses you are privy to a heightened world. The artist sees beauty everywhere and they are able to draw that beauty out to show to others. One finds the most beauty in nature, and nature the best catalyst for creativity. The Tonalist painter George Inness advised artists to paint their emotional response to their subject, so that the viewer may hope to feel it too.

It must be said that Scruton’s views regarding art and beauty are not popular with the modern art crowd and their postmodern advocates. Having written several books on aesthetics, Scruton has developed a largely metaphysical aspect to understanding standards of art and beauty.

Throughout this documentary (and indeed his many books and articles), Scruton display a bias towards ‘high’ art, evidenced by a majority of his examples as well as his dismissal of much modern art. However on everyday beauty, there is much space for Scruton to challenge his own categories and extend his discussion to include examples from popular culture, such as in music, graphic design, and film. Omitting ‘low art’ in the discussion of beauty could lead one to conclude that beauty is not there.

It is here I would part ways with Scruton. I think there is beauty to be found in so called low art of car design, popular music or cinema for example - here I’m thinking of a Ferrari 250 GTO,  jazz, or the films of Bergman, Bresson, or Kurosawa (among others) come to mind. Scruton gives short thrift to such 20th century art forms which should not be discounted when we talk of beauty. It’s hard to argue with Jean-Luc Godard for instance when he once said of French film pioneering director, Robert Bresson, “He is the French cinema, as Dostoevsky is the Russian novel and Mozart is German music.”

Overall though I believe Scruton does enough to leave us to ponder ourselves on the importance of beauty in the arts and our lives, including fine arts, music, and architecture. I think he succeeds in illuminating the poverty, dehumanisation and fraud of modernist and post-modernist cynicism, reductionism and nihilism. Scruton is rightly prescient in pointing the centrality of human aspiration and the longing for truth in both life and art.

In this he is correct in showing that goodness and beauty are universal and fundamentally important; and that the value of anything is not utilitarian and without meaning (e.g., Oscar Wilde’s claim that “All art is absolutely useless.”). Human beings are not purposeless material objects for mechanistic manipulation by others, and civil society itself depends upon a cultural consensus that beauty is real and every person should be respected with compassion as having dignity and nobility with very real spiritual needs to encounter and be transformed and uplifted by beauty.

Thanks for your question.

[siriusist]

Can you explain why Anne Elliot is your favourite Austen heroine?

Surely! (This literally took like, two and half hours of writing and editing. What is my life).

Background:

So, essentially, to get into this analysis, I have to preface this with Persuasion being written in 1817, near the end of Austen’s life and published six months after her death. Really, if you compare the type of satirical protagonists she was writing at the beginning of her career (see Northanger Abbey, which convinced my entire English Literature 2 class in university that Austen was insipid despite being prefaced as a gothic parody), to later, Pride and Prejudice, to Persuasion, I think it really traces the development of Austen as a writer (Austen referred to her in one of her letters as “a heroine who is almost too good for me.”)

Not to say she didn’t have more ‘mature’ protagonists early on; Elinor Dashwood from Sense and Sensibility is really my second favourite protagonist from Austen’s works, and she is essentially the one person in the Dashwood household who keeps everything together; without her, the entire operation would fall apart. It’s the reason why she’s the ‘sense’ in the aforementioned title.

But where Anne Elliot differs I think, is that Elinor, despite being the ‘older’ sister, is never really seen as being devoid of prospects in regards to her future and marriage, despite the family falling on hard times. Anne, on the other hand, is actually a marked difference from Austen’s usual protagonists. Whereas her other protagonists are usually concerned with climbing the social ladder of society (or essentially, scorning the playing of this game in society, but still knowing it’s expected of her anyway (See Lizzie Bennet), Anne is from a noble family that due to her father Sir Walter Elliot’s vanity and selfishness, is on its descent down on the social ladder, a caricature of the old, outdated, titled class in a world of new British industry. 

Sir Walter Scott, and the Changing Ideal of The Gentlemen in Society:

This is another place where Jane Austen differs in her characterisation and brings up an important contrast that is lacking in her other work to an extent in terms of her other main heroines: while the other heroines are more concerned with upward mobility through marriage because that is what society has expected of them, Anne Elliot’s father (who’s will dominates her own), is concerned with DOWNWARD mobility. The idea that he will be seen as ‘lesser than’ for allowing his daughter to marry someone she loves. 

The difference is, is where you have CHOICE to an extent in a burgeoning middle class family, even if you were marrying for money, you have that upward mobility. You have opportunities. When your family is so focused on maintaining the facade of an untouchable deity, you are literally frozen into that mold, even if you want to be a part of that changing world and changing model of what should be considered an ‘ideal’ match, or a modern pairing.

While unadvantageous matches are dismissed in other Austen works, it is often due to the person having some fault of character (I.E: Philanderer, drunkard, etc.) that’s obviously not going to change anytime soon, and what someone is, to an extent, able to control. People are able to control whether they cheat on someone or not; people are able to control showing up and embarrassing themselves at social functions if they have an inkling of self-awareness. And these matches are usually rejected outright because of the family’s concern for the daughter’s feelings (See Lizzie and Mr. Collins, for example, even though it would be an advantageous match (-INSERT LADY CATHERINE DE BOURGH QUOTE HERE-)

But the sad thing in Anne’s case, I think, is that it shows the dying breed of noblewomen, who, once they get ‘older,’ have nowhere to go but down socially if they don’t become a ‘spinster’ or completely devoted to their family household and name. These older, more distinguished families during 1817, were slowly and surely becoming more and more obsolete, and I think it’s VERY astute of Austen to recognise that. Men could now make their fortune at sea- they COULD be “new money.” More and more, these noble people who didn’t work and didn’t have a profession besides being a member of the landed gentry, were becoming more and more dated in the movement of England towards mechanisation and the new Victorian age of industry. 

‘Captain Wentworth is the prototype of the ‘new gentleman.’ Maintaining the good manners, consideration, and sensitivity of the older type, Wentworth adds the qualities of gallantry, independence, and bravery that come with being a well- respected Naval officer.

Like Admiral Croft, who allows his wife to drive the carriage alongside him and to help him steer, Captain Wentworth will defer to Anne throughout their marriage. Austen envisions this kind of equal partnership as the ideal marriage.’

Meanwhile Sir Walter does not present this same sort of guidance for the females in his life. He is so self-involved that he fails to make good decisions for the family as a whole; his other two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary, share his vanity and self-importance. While Anne is seen as a direct parallel with her good-natured (dead) mother, she still has to deal with these outdated morals, before coming her true self. She still has to learn to support her own views, even if they are contrary to those in a position of power in her life, and essentially, dominate her day-to-day dealings and her actual character of how she defines herself.

Becoming One’s Self: Learning Self-Assurance and The Positives of ‘Negative’ Qualities:

The one thing I do love about Anne is that she doesn’t have a ‘weakness of character,’ contrary to Wentworth’s bitter words which are clearly directed at her when they first meet again after so long. That’s one thing I usually see (predominantly male) commentators say Anne’s fault is as a female protagonist is as simple as a reading of the title; namely, that she’s too easily persuaded.

However, that’s an overtly simplistic view. Often people directly correlate an individual being persuaded as simply being ‘weak-willed.’ Anne Elliot is anything but. She constantly rebels against the vanity of her father and the stupidity of her sisters, at the same time being aware of the social structure in which they must operate. She is the individual at the beginning of the novel who is dealing directly with money; and while this was at the time often seen as a ‘man’s’ role, it is Anne taking control of getting their family back into good stead and out of debt after her dippy father gets them into debt and remains completely useless throughout the entire procedure except to complain about who they might let the house out to, simply because they ARE ‘new money.’ She IS open to new roles in society, and new conventions. 

This leads directly to the biggest criticism levelled against her at the beginning of the novel: that after being dismissed by Anne, Captain Wentworth basically publicly declares (because #bitteraf) that ‘any woman he marries will have a strong character and independent mind.’

The funny thing is, Anne already has these. She never lacked them. ‘What ‘persuasion’ truly refers to is whether it is better to be firm in one’s convictions or to be open to the suggestions of others.  

‘The conclusion implies that what might be considered Anne’s flaw, her ability to be persuaded by others, is not really a flaw at all. It is left to the reader to agree or disagree with this. ‘

Anne is not stupid in that she is convinced or persuaded by any Joe Schmow who comes along; she considers the opinions of those she respects. She ultimately comes to the right decision in marrying Wentworth later in life, but it’s understandable how a nineteen year old would doubt this decision when advised by those adults around her. It is now that she is older, in considering other people’s opinions, that she is more likely able to come to her decision herself, rather than letting other people’s opinions overweigh her own.

‘Anne is feminine in this way while possessing none of what Austen clearly sees as the negative characteristics of her gender; Anne is neither catty, flighty, nor hysterical. On the contrary, she is level-headed in difficult situations and constant in her affections. Such qualities make her the desirable sister to marry; she is the first choice of Charles Musgrove, Captain Wentworth, and Mr. Elliot.’

Ageism: Austen’s Hinting at an Age-Old Philosophy against the Modern Woman:

At twenty-seven, Anne is literally considered a woman ‘far past her bloom of youth.’ She is constantly surrounded by younger women, both demonstrating interest in her father and in Wentworth. While ageism wasn’t clearly developed as a recognised societal practice in the 19th century, I think it demonstrates, when Jane wrote this so close to her death, and having never married herself, the pressures on women in society even later in life. This is seen more bluntly in the character of Charlotte Lucas in Pride and Prejudice, but I think the fact that people constantly remind Anne of something she cannot control could arguably draw parallels to social status and how birth status cannot be controlled, by a more modern reading of the piece. Women cannot control ageing, any more than a man can control being born into a lower class. But while men could continue to marry for upward mobility or money (up to ridiculous ages and with ridiculously younger wives), women don’t have that luxury once they are ‘past their prime,’ even if they also have the avenue of upward mobility through marriage (see Charlotte Lucas again).

Lost Love, aka THEY TOTALLY MIGHT HAVE BONED BUT PROBABLY NOT:

“There could have never been two hearts so open, no tastes so similar, no feelings so in unison, no countenances so beloved. Now they were as strangers; nay, worse than strangers, for they could never become acquainted. It was a perpetual estrangement.” 

The best thing about Captain Wentworth and Anne Elliot’s love story is that we already knew they WERE in love; as opposed to all her other stories, which involve individuals arguably falling INTO love rather than HAVING been in love (Looking’ at you, Mansfield Park), Wentworth x Anne Elliot was a THING. They were a hot and HEAVY thing. 

I essentially have nothing to add here except that makes their entire story 10000000x more painful when they clearly still have feelings for one another and have to run in the same social circles.

That is all.

Separate Spheres: AKA LETS ALL HELP EACH OTHER MMKAY AND BE EQUAL PARTNERS IN LOVEEEE:

Lastly, Austen also considers the idea of ‘separate spheres.’

‘The idea of separate spheres was a nineteenth-century doctrine that there are two domains of life: the public and the domestic. Traditionally, the male would be in charge of the public domain (finances, legal matters, etc.) while the female would be in charge of the private domain (running the house, ordering the servants, etc.). 

This novel questions the idea of separate spheres by introducing the Crofts. Presented as an example of a happy, ideal marriage, Admiral and Mrs. Croft share the spheres of their life. Mrs. Croft joins her husband on his ships at sea, and Admiral Croft is happy to help his wife in the chores around the home. They have such a partnership that they even share the task of driving a carriage. Austen, in this novel, challenges the prevailing notion of separate spheres.’

As mentioned before, from the beginning of the novel, as a noblewoman, Anne is already crossing the line of separate spheres by undertaking financial and legal matters since her father is essentially too much of a pussy to do so (this antiquated ideal of gentlemanly qualities). She has already made a discreet step into the public domain by her actions, without ever really truly making a bold statement. 

By the insertion of the Crofts within the narrative, it really foreshadows how this sort of relationship can work as equals, and how such an amalgamation of the spheres should not be looked down upon. It’s a subtly progressive message that none of the other books really deal with (besides perhaps a tad in Sense and Sensibility with Elinor), and I love her all the more for it.  ♥