#like they were nowhere near the stage of getting together at that point imo

[rebelcaptain4life]

Ok I seem to be very much in the minority but Lucy pranking Tim by saying she has feelings for him was actually hilarious and I was dying seeing Tim trying to put her down gently 🤣🤣🤣

[shadowsong26x]

So this is in response to a post I came across earlier that otherwise was making some very excellent points about anti-intellectualism and the importance of studying things like art and history, etc.

Except.

One of the points it was talking about was the idea of replacing classics with YA/fanfiction/etc. as the basis for the literature aspect of education. And the refutation of that was that we shouldn’t replace “thought provoking and stimulating media with media that’s just designed to entertain and sell“

And here’s where I have a problem.

Not because we should not study/stop studying classics. There are several reasons for doing that, many of which are good ones.

But because the idea that those two things are mutually exclusive really gets under my skin.

(As a note, most of what I’m going to discuss in detail comes from English and French literature, because that is where the majority of my reading/background is.)

First of all, let’s just jump right in and start with one of the first names that comes to mind when talking Classical Literature: what the hell do you think Shakespeare was doing? Theatre during the 16th and 17th century in England (and most of Europe) was not considered high/intellectual art. He was writing mass entertainment. Did he also put together things that were profound/thought-provoking/stimulating? Absolutely. And I would argue that the fact that he does both is part of why he has endured in a way that some of his contemporaries did not. Like, occasionally you’ll see one of Fletcher or Johnson or Marlowe’s plays done, but nowhere near the frequency or ubiquity of Shakespeare.

And the same can be said for Moliere. Theatre was not a respectable place to work or write; that’s why the great 17th-century French playwrights (Moliere, Corneille, Racine) wrote under stage names. And yet, Moliere wrote Tartuffe, which, among other things, got him into actual legal trouble. And then followed that with Dom Juan (one of my favorite works of his), which is, among other things, includes a prologue commenting on that censorship, and is largely making a Point about hypocrisy (as is Tartuffe; he was on a Theme for a while there).

And then you look at 19th-century writers, and Dickens runs the entire spectrum. He absolutely wrote to make a point and provoke thought, but there’s a reason  he wrote serially, and that was to keep interest/entertain an audience and earn a profit.

Alexandre Dumas (pere) who wrote The Three Musketeers (one of my absolute favorite novels) and The Count of Monte Cristo, was writing at least in part to entertain his audience. His work was also published serially, but he was paid by the line rather than the word (which makes him, imo, more accessible than Dickens, though admittedly some of that may be that I’ve read more modern translations rather than contemporary/19th-century ones).

Which brings me to my next point.

The advantage to working with the classics as text is not because they are high art, or because they were written with the intention of provoking thought as opposed to entertaining an audience. The advantage is that the things that have endured, regardless of why they were written, are the ones that balance those two fairly well. Being both entertaining and giving something for the audience to dig into if said audience so desires. The preachy moralistic philosophical treatises disguised as novels don’t really have the same impact as other classics; the absolute dreck (and there is absolute dreck in every period of popular literature, fight me) tends to not stand the test of time. (some of it does; sometimes because it’s important for genre reasons, sometimes because of other sociocultural factors, sometimes by sheer coincidence; but the majority of what lasts does so for a Reason).

The advantage to working with modern literature (yes, including things like YA and blockbusters) is accessibility. And there’s also variance in writers working in the same period, of course. Like I mentioned before, look at Dumas vs. Dickens. You can also examine Shakespeare vs. Marlowe.

Look, anti-intellectualism is absolutely a problem. I’m not denying that. And we study the classics for a lot of reasons, and one of them is the idea that there should be common cultural touchstones/reference points. But the idea that entertainment and depth are mutually exclusive; the implication that studying modern popular literature can’t provide some of the same thought-provoking and/or stimulating discussion is limited and, frankly, a little elitist/gatekeepy. It also often adds extra layers of difficulty in approaching the literature in question. And, yes, there is value in probing those layers and learning about the context/the way language and morality and ideals shift over time. Ideally, there should be room for both. Honestly, I think there’s value in looking at things side-by-side; the Classic and then a modern piece that addresses some of the same issues/themes. One of my high school English teachers did that; looking at a couple of Star Trek Borg episodes when reading...I think it was 1984? That sounds right.

There’s just a lot more modern dreck to wade through, because it hasn’t had time to be winnowed away and leave the ‘good’ pieces to stand the test of time.

tl;dr: the high-art low-art dichotomy is BS and approaching media, especially literature, that way is an incredibly flawed take.

[a-little-slice-of-fandom]

Opinions on Sixway

Don’t worry, they’re mostly positive

So obviously Six made its broadway debut yesterday and I’m so happy for both the queens and for Toby and Lucy. It’s amazing to see how far this production has come since May 2019 and I seriously hope the show continues to grow even more.

Before I start, can I just reiterate that I have no bias towards any cast of Six? Anything I say here are genuine things I’ve noticed and I’m not trying to favour one cast over another.

Things I liked!:

The new costumes for Aragon, Boleyn, Seymour, Cleves and Howard! They’re all just improved versions of their old costumes that are better suited to their body types and more glitzy for broadway. What’s not to love?

In fact, I know this might be an unpopular opinion but I actually really dig Britt’s new Cleves costume and it fits with Britt’s more melodramatic and grandiose version of Cleves, and those make me gayer by every second. Although I don’t really see other versions of Cleves wearing this outfit, I think Britt suits the new additions. And again those boots

THE LIGHTING!!! They seriously must be going for an award at the Tony’s for their lighting, because a) it’s referenced a lot more throughout the show and b) they’re making a lot more use of it during the megasix.

I swear there’s been really small additions to the band arrangements(I come from a musical family so I pick up on these things) but, for lack of a better way of describing it, they’re mostly to do with bulking out the sound of the music than changing the songs (if that makes sense) and they’re actually really good so no complaints here.

The stage didn’t look nearly as big as I worried it would be. The stage in Boston seemed so massive but this one doesn’t seem nearly as big, which is good because sometimes big stages with smaller shows don’t work well together. It’s bigger than the arts, but nowhere near as big as the Sydney opera house so 🤷🏻‍♀️

The queens are just so confident. There’s no broadway nerves in sight and that’s great. Seeing how far they’ve come from the first sixcago performance only a few months ago is amazing and I’m so happy for all of them. From the moment they step on from Ex-wives they own the stage and kill it.

This is more of a general US observation but I like it so I’ll mention it but Andrea’s very quick and snappy as Boleyn. She’s not waiting about to think of her insults, she’s saying them really rapid fire and without hesitating. It offsets Abby’s more awkward and apologetic version of Seymour and just works as a good contrast between the two.

Also the queens backing up Andrea in DLUH seem so personally invested/offended by everything she does. Like almost screaming “WHAT?” And sounding so confused at “YOU’RE LIVING WITH HIS WIFE”. Idk if there’s like anything to analyse here but idk I liked it so I’m mentioning it. Deal with it.

Heart of Stone made me cry. ‘Nuff said.

THEY WENT FOR HOH AND I’M HERE FOR IT. IT IS SO FUCKING LOUD AND SO OVER-EXAGGERATED AND ITS AMAZING!

(in fact everything is louder and more over-exaggerated which was definitely needed for this bigger theatre imo)

“But we cannot guarantee that you’ll still walk at forty :)” Miss Abby Mueller you never fail to deliver on that line.

Wow I really love Brittney Mack.

That’s it.

That’s the point.

Okay but real talk her Cleves was always so melodramatic but they’ve taken this to the next level and I’m for it. Idk what exactly she does at the “take my fur” bit for Get Down but the crowd went WILD so I can’t wait to find out!

I think there’s been small, subtle changes to the backing vocals of AWYD but they really work. Plus, I’m a massive fan of the more angry and betrayed Howard’s in general so Sam delivers as always. She’s the only Howard I know to literally cry on multiple occasions and I love her for it.

I just hope we get more Mallory Howard’s in future because I’d love to hear her rendition of AWYD.

The argument after AYWD makes it seem seem like the queens are 30 seconds from ripping each other apart. Like they’re all at the end of their sanity and about to explode and honestly? I think that works more for the American queens.

That random fucking cowbell before IDNYL. It literally made me cry with laughter and makes me wonder what the fuck Parr’s original song was going to be. I know they’re still in preview stage for the show so I’m excited to see if any more extra lines or gags like these are added into the show as time goes on.

In fact that cowbell features at other points too I think, along with extra cymbals. And they crack me up. Seriously they’re so random.

Speaking of IDNYL, Anna seemed to be leaning into the softer side of Parr than she usually would and I’m here for it! US Six always had a more melodramatic than friendly Cleves and a more angry Howard, but something is needed to offset these characteristics. A softer, more insecure Parr is exactly what’s needed here.

Also the extra beats (idk how to phrase it) in the reprise of IDNYL were a really unexpected change but they work so well. Again, it’s bulking out the sound of the show but in a good way. Nothing seems cluttered which can be an issue when stuff is added to an arrangement.

Bonus mention goes towards the alternates. They haven’t actually done anything (since they weren’t on last night) but I love them so I’m mentioning them anyway.

Things I’m not so sure about:

The playbill/promotional pictures. This sounds so random but like,,,Anna, Adrianna and Brittney look very whitewashed in these pictures, especially Anna. I seriously hope this was just the result of a really really badly chosen filter and nothing more.

The Parr peplum. I genuinely do not understand why they had to change Anna’s costume because it was pefect as it was. The changes to the other costumes? They all make sense to me and I love them. But this...it’s just odd to me. Maybe it’s because I love both Anna and Parr’s OG costume anyway but it’s something I personally dislike and I don’t apologise for my opinion.

Not being allowed to film the megasix... but lets be real here who is actually listening to that rule?

[bellamygateoldblog]

I fucking love Echo. Bellamy doesn’t deserve her but I think he and Clarke deserve each other. Like I wanted Bellarke to happen so I could see Echo thrive by herself and I’m pissed that her arc this season involves her relationship with B so much cos the flashback to the ring only showed me how much he has manipulated their relationship (cutting her off with a kiss gross). He constantly moves his bar for forgiveness out of Es way but will move it for C in a heartbeat and I 😡

I can’t work out if this is the typical ‘i want her to be a strong independent woman!' (i think the other woman deserves her love interest. I think a romance makes her lesser. I think denying a badass female character love is revolutionary and not at all reinforcing rigid female character types) i see so much from bellarke shippers? In that case why shouldn’t Clarke get to be a strong independent woman, too? Echo can thrive by herself and still be loved. Also, how does a Bellarke canon need to affect Echo at all? If Echo’s to be alone “to thrive” why shouldn’t Becho just break up and that would be the end of it? There's no reason this would require her boyfriend to get together with a different woman. If you meant something different send me another message and i’ll correct myself.

S7 isn’t Echo revolving around Bellamy as his ‘girlfriend’, their relationship has always ran much deeper than that and plays a big part into her own personal development. They go way back. They’ve been having significant interactions for time, so many examples i can’t even list them- but the point is, he’s been apart of her life way before they went to space, and represents a stage of major growth for her. (truthfully don’t understand that argument that it “came out of nowhere” or “had no development” like what are you even talking about? It’s been here the whole goddamn time!)

Bellamy saved her life, she wanted to save his. Echo saved his life before he saved her life, Bellamy saved her life before she saved his- it’s what they do. The romance is obviously tied into it and she’s grieving that too, but he’s also her family, his actions gave her a family, with him gone she feels like his murderers stole the rest from her because she just isn't secure in her belief she means anything to spacekru, or anyone else, without him. Raven, Octavia, even Hope, keep on voicing her worth back to her. That’s why those scenes between these women were so significant. This arc has always been about Echo, not Bellamy. He isn’t even in the season. His kidnapping was a catalyst to embracing who she is and letting herself heal from her trauma, detaching herself from those demons that continue to haunt her.

This was said about Echo in season five, too. That she’s ‘only Bellamy’s girlfriend’ when in season five, and right here in season seven, they’ve specifically emphasised her connections with non-Bellamy characters??? In both seasons she’s had meaningful dynamics with a bunch of different characters, all which helped shape her own character and allow us to get to know her better.

I’m not sure i believe the kiss was ‘that’ bad? It doesn’t make it less concerning on Bellamy’s part but it wasn’t there specifically to say something about their relationship, it’s a pretty typical trope. I also don’t believe in the ‘power imbalance’ between them, with Bellamy pushing forgiveness out of her way when if anything the flashback showed us it was Echo that was stalling the development of romantic connection on the ring, not Bellamy. The ‘power imbalance’ between Becho was never there, regardless of what Bellarke shippers say (that argument from them is ironic imo).

I do agree, though, he forgives Clarke really easily. At first i found it outrageous he took 3 years to forgive Echo for Octavia’s near death experience when it only took a matter of minutes for him to move past Clarke’s many hurtful actions, because surely you’d be more crushed by a friend’s betrayal than an enemy’s? But i attribute this simply to her being the protagonist (put in a position by the writers where she has very little believable meaningful relationships. So it has to be forced if they want to convince us she’s important and cared about in-universe. No real effort has ever been put into building up her relationships naturally). I was also discussing this with @nomattertheoceans where we said, pretty much, the show makes it so there’s another big threat looming over to conviniently move past any smaller scale conflict between their characters. Something else to focus on, something bigger, ‘forgive me now because we don’t have time to spend on grudges.’ In space with Echo, though, they had time to sit with their feelings.

Neglecting to hold someone accountable and adjust your relationship when they cause you harm only makes you extremely vulnerable to being exposed to more harm from that person. Bellamy suffers from this imo. Most characters with relationships with Clarke suffer from this. There’s been a couple times a character has probably regretted saving her life after she’s thrown it back in their faces. But the thing is- this is about Echo. There’s absolutely no reason anyone should be bringing up Clarke, or comparing her to Clarke when she has almost nothing to do with her? Especially in seasons five and seven where Clarke is so disconnected from everyone else.