#not as racist as the original novel in which i as i understand it he owns a slave plantation.

[camgoloud]

finally watching the interview with the vampire show as i have been thinking about doing for several months and. boy. that lestat sure can lestat!

[catholic-character-tournament]

Round 1 - Side A

Propaganda below ⬇️

Claude Frollo Propaganda:

This man got horny and his response was “that woman must burn”

I love him so much. More seriously Book Frollo is much more ambivalent than Disney Movie Frollo which makes sense because we're talking about Victor Hugo VS a children's movie. He didn't kill Quasimodo's mom, he took him in (when himself was only nineteen and already in charge of his own baby brother since their parents had died not long before) when he was left on the church's doorstep. I mean, he does quite a few reprehensible and slightly evil stuff afterwards but he had a good start, you know ? He taught Quasi to communicate by signs when he became deaf because of the bells. He was also very much into alchemy which was pretty cool. His behavior towards Esmeralda was still very much not okay but I'd like to point out that Phoebus is also a jerk in this one. And Quasi's quite a bit amoral because no intelligent enough to understand some stuff

I actually haven't gotten very far through the book yet but from the musical (not the disney one the other one it's SO GOOD) I can confirm he sucks at being catholic. literally tells a child over and over that he's ugly and unlovable until he fully believes it and won't let the kid go outside. https://genius.com/Alan-menken-out-there-lyrics (lyrics to the song in which frollo convinces quasimodo he's unlovable. ableist as hell and shitty in every way you can possibly imagine and it breaks my heart every time. feel free to listen to the actual track but it doesn’t get good until about 40 seconds in) frollo keeps saying it's good and right to punish sinners himself, and it's not right that the wicked go unpunished. there's a really satisfying moment in the musical where quasimodo sees him for what he is and repeats his words back to him (7:45 - 8:54, frollo is the one with the insanely deep voice) and it gives me goosebumps every time to hear that "yes you do" link to that video: https://youtu.be/HL7WZcTIgus

I honestly wrote this submission because I suffered from severe insomnia for being reminded that I might have poor taste when it comes to enjoying media since I enjoy Disney version of Frollo even after I watched other versions of this character. (I am so sorry the host yes I am that annoying anon lying in the dark little corner of your ask box. I have no other thing to do in my life so hello again) His character is different from the original novel version, and to be honest as an adoption, that is NOT necessarily WRONG. He had more struggles with his pride and his self-imagine in the Catholic framework. "Beata Maria, you know I am a righteous man, of my virtue I am justly proud" as the opening line of his villain song, clearly states his main struggle throughout the movie--pride and self-imagine (super-ego) vs lust and instinct (id). Once his self-imagine in the Catholic framework was on shaking ground, he bent his twisted sense of "righteous" to make him less painful. Tbh, the novel version used the example of Bruno d’Ast to justify his hornyness, so it's just classical Frollo behaviour no matter which version it is. (SMASH THE TABLE) HAVE YOU READ~~THE NOVEL~~ I REPEAT: HIS CHARACTER IS NOT JUST "I HATE WITCHCRAFT AND I AM HORNY AND RACIST". I REPEAT: HIS CHARACTER IS NOT JUST "I HATE WITCHCRAFT AND I AM HORNY AND RACIST". I REPEAT: HIS CHARACTER IS NOT JUST "I HATE WITCHCRAFT AND I AM HORNY AND RACIST". I am sorry for the noise pollution in your submission Google form. I should have taken my sedatives regularly. I am truly sorry. Also please don't bully me in the debate, novel/musical enjoyers. LOOK, I AIN'T YOUR ENEMY. I LOVE NOVEL/MUSICAL FROLLO, I JUST LOVE DISNEY VERSION AS WELL, I AM AS TORMENTED AS YOUR FAVORITE CATHOLIC PRIEST. I am not a native tongue, so I tried my best to express my thoughts/feelings/justification why Disney version should be a qualified candidate as well. If you tried to debate with me, I would be drowned in my poor English. Sorry again.

Javert Propaganda:

His whole deal is like, “can someone still be good even if they’ve broken the law? Can you still be godly if you’re a felon” He really believes that by upholding the law, he is absolutely in the moral right all the time. And when he realizes that’s not true, it absolutely destroys him

he is the law and the law is not mocked <3 he is also. so gay. i'm sorry i refuse to believe you're even a little heterosexual if you chase jean valjean for like over 20 years for breaking parole and/or bread theft and recognise him by his muscles and have a major moral crisis as soon as he's nice to you one (1) time also he gets called out by a child that one time?? that was fun ALSO HE UHH???? THINKS HE SCREWED UP ONE TIME AND LIKE. ASKS HIS BOSS TO FIRE HIM???? (the boss is valjean he doesn't know that yet dw abt it) also uh uhm. he jumps into a river,,,, but before he does that he feels the need to put his hat on the fence nearby so it doesn't get wet lmao he's so silly goofy <3333

[luckyladylily]

Followed from the 'men or bear' post and simply trying to be social,

never read (or watched) dune but why do you feel its over rated?

So I've overplayed it a bit over the years because it's fun, but I have basically two major problems with Dune.

The first of course is the standard early to mid 20th century problem of it was written by a sexist racist white guy, but also I can't exactly judge if Frank Herbert was unusually racist and sexist for the time. But it is very much there, and it very much impacts the quality of the series for me. I don't really talk about this much because a given when dealing with older sci fi.

The second point is where I really get my rant on. See, the thing is Dune isn't the worst book ever. But for many years, well into the 2000's, a very large and very vocal group of people insisted it was the greatest sci fi novel ever written. So, in high school, I pick up the novel.

Now you need to understand, I read voraciously as a teenager and at a very high level. I'm not saying I'm better than other people but when you've read Moby Dick you get an idea of what a master can do with words. When you've read Issac Asimov you begin to understand how ideas can be woven together in a mind expanding way.

So I pick up "The greatest sci fi novel ever written" expecting it to be, at the very least, good. It was not good. It did not even come close to meeting the least of my expectations. I was astounded that anyone considered *this* the greatest sci fi novel. Really? Better than Foundation? Better than Frankenstein? This shit won a fucking Hugo and a Nebula? People compared this favorably to Lord of the Rings?

It's not fucking Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, what is actually wrong with it. Starting off, the book has decent ideas, but they are not presented in a particularly inspired way, nor is it the best presentation of those ideas. It was the first time that a white guy presented many of these ideas that he borrowed from other sources to other white people, and I guess that counts as originality back then. But in that respect it is just uninteresting. The real problem is how it is written. Which is badly, both in terms of prose and plot.

I am going to link you to my rant on Dune chapter 1. I discuss prose and presentation in that rant. It is difficult to summarize because there is just so much wrong with it. But to give an example of where it falls short in plot, lets talk about an event early in the first book. This is a spoiler, so fair warning. I call this the most uninspired and unearned betrayal ever.

Paul, the main character, is the heir to the House Atreides. In order to set up the rest of the plot, Herbert needs House Atreides to be destroyed through treachery. But Duke Atreides, Paul's dad, has to be shown to be a brilliant, wise, and capable leader. No run of the mill treachery can get past him. To solve this problem, Herbert introduces Duke Atreides personal doctor, and Duke Atreides directly states to everyone (especially directly to the audience) that this man is 100% trustworthy and unbreakable because he has undergone special mental conditioning making him incapable of causing harm. In X many hundred or thousand years no man so conditioned has ever broken. He is an unbreakably loyal man. And thus we have a character Duke Atreides can trust implicitly, so he can later be stabbed in the back without looking like an incompetent moron.

So now you probably think this is where we set up the dangerous nature of the Baron Harkonnen (greatest enemy of House Atreides), somehow brilliantly finding some mental weakpoint, or maybe inventing a brand new form of mental torture that successfully breaks the conditioning, or something else establishing Baron Harkonnen as a force to be reckoned with. So, how did Baron Harkonnen break the unbreakable man?

He kidnapped his wife. That's it. Didn't even torture her in front of the man, just nabbed her and said "hey do my bidding or I'll kill her!" And the unbreakable man folds like a cheap suit. He doesn't even bother to get proof of life. So in the hundreds or thousands of years these supposedly unbreakable people have been around the secret all along was kidnap their loved ones. No one has ever tried that before? Really?

I need to stress, this is not a misdirect and no other explanation is given. We are genuinely supposed to buy that the doctor is effectively unbreakable, that the Duke is wise and correct to have accepted this at face value, and that kidnapping the doctor's wife was actually the twisted, brilliant treachery it's place in the story would suggest.

It is astoundingly bad plotting that only exists because Frank Herbert couldn't be arsed to give a fuck about the plot of his own book. Even worse, it isn't a hard plot hole to fill with a better betrayal that also made logical sense. For example, Herbert could have written a character that the Duke naturally trusted implicitly, perhaps a brother or close friend, and shown why and how that trust exists. This would make more sense, give the betrayal real emotional weight, and matter in a much more personal way to our protagonist.

But no, that would take effort. Frank Herbert, master of tell don't show, just parades out a character and directly tells the audience that he's 100% totally trustworthy no for realz bro, and then expects us to just go along with the idea that the betrayal was earned and isn't fucking stupid. This is the level Frank Herbert is on.

But anyway greatest sci fi novel ever written, am I right? Winner of both a Hugo and a Nebula!

This is why I hate Dune. Not because it is the worst thing ever, there are even things to like in it, but it is like millions of people collectively decided that Bicentennial Man was the greatest science fiction movie of all time and it won the best film oscar and people are comparing it to the all time greatest films ever made and I'm over here just. Sure, it tries to play with some interesting ideas but it's got structural problems, there are acting issues, the script is poor. There are things to like but it's mid at best! Is everyone in on some collective joke? Am I in the fucking twilight zone?

Now, in the couple of decades since I first read Dune the "best sci fi novel ever" nonsense has pulled back a lot. I don't think I've heard someone make that claim in years. But it can be fun to be a hater, especially when something deserves it.

Edit: I want to make it clear I don't think less of anyone for liking Dune. Dune is probably a great playground for fandom and god knows I don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to my personal favs. I also hear the new movies are good, and nothing about Dune makes me think it couldn't be adapted well.

[walks-the-ages]

Oh no, guys! People are thinking critically and writing (beautifully-detailed) critiques of the 2007 movie by infamous racist Ladd Ehlinger! Time to pull out the "fandom elder" card and claim anyone who critiques my favorite movie is being "shallow and reductive" without giving any examples whatsoever of either other people's "Shallow and Reductive Readings" nor my own, clearly superior reading that elevates the film to a sublime masterpiece of fiction, where anyone who does not like it simply doesn't understand it because they're only here from a children's show!

/end sarcasm lol.

Gotta love stans of racist media who see people writing beautifully crafted, detailed essays comparing their favorite adaption made by an extremely racist piece of shit and losing their cool completely once the fandom stops blindly worshipping that adaption and actually returns + reads for the first time the actual original work lmao.

You cannot be a "Fandom Elder" for Flatland. It's been around since 1884.

And no, you can't call people who are actually taking the time to read that original 1884 novel "shallow and reductive because they only watch children's shows"

when the movie you're so vehemently defending is probably even more childish and absurd than anything from the Gravity Falls show which I haven't even seen, but even I know its full of a lot of psychological horror from demonic possession and crap, and that, you know, Gravity Falls not only has twists, turns, and foreshadowing, but the creator is NOT a rampaging racist so bigoted he makes Republicans afraid to be seen with him.

Anyways, if you are new to the Flatland fandom, and you've only seen the movie, please do yourself a favor and enjoy the wide, wide world of Flatland being Public Domain, which means not only is the book completely free to read in multiple formats, it also has dozens of different adaptions of vastly, vastly superior quality to the 2007 movie by notorious racist Ladd Ehlinger.

If you want to check out more of what Flatland has to offer, checkout Rjalker's Masterpost of links:

[mermaidsirennikita]

I totally agree with everything you said about noncon/dubcon books. In general, when an author decides to change an already published book, the new edition should come out as "author's preferred text" or something similar. It's totally fine for an author to do that but not to make the original book disappear. It would be a great loss to lose the original texts, especially when it comes to old books, because of what you said: they reflect historical circumstances that can't be denied. Even with the best of intentions, it would be just another form of censorship. It is not healthy, or helpful, to pretend that uncomfortable and harmful things do not exist. In the broader sense, books with uncomfortable and painful subjects can help process trauma and also can help others to better understand or gain perspective on difficult situations. That is not to mention that in the case of romance, it should be a safe space to explore all kinds of feelings and desires. The key here is that, as readers, it is the easiest thing in the world to just stop reading when something is not our cup of tea.

Exactly.

And the thing is, I see two separate issues here, tbh. Because I see a lot of... white feminist takes... in romancelandia conflating consent issues in old romance novels with racism in old romane novels. And while these are both serious issues that need to be discussed, I don't think they should ever be considered equivalent. Because they aren't. Misogyny and racism (and queerphobia, which is less discussed re: issues in older books, but is certainly present) can certainly overlap, but while every woman can experience misogyny, not every woman can experience racism. And women who have experienced misogyny can be racist and benefit from racist, misogynistic society, right?

Plus, I mean—I think there's been a huge push in romance to address misogyny and consent issues over the last decade or so. There has been... less of a push to address racism. There's a really popular dark/mafia romance writer who gets recommended ALLLLLLLL the time despite it being a very well known fact in romance circles that she said some incredibly racist shit during the BLM protests, and therefore, we can assume, is hugely racist. (Danielle Lori. It's Danielle Lori. You're welcome.) With the rate at which she's recommended, I highly doubt everyone who's recommending her just... doesn't know. Everyone acted shocked and appalled when Tillie Cole published her KKK romance, but y'all, she's still publishing away! She's got her readers! We let that slide under the rug.

And there's the more casual racism in trad, too. Evie Dunmore's A Rogue of One's Own is a super popular tradpub title. Not only does the hero have a bastardized Shiva tattoo as a plot point (because he's... really into... Indian culture... I guess?)... he's also a bi man victimized by a dangerous gay villain. So, casual racism and casual homophobia in a book tradpubbed in 2020.

Sooo... while I think misogyny, consent issues, homophobia, and racism are all linked to different factors in the history of romance (though they do overlap in some books) I feel that it's pretty obvious that readers who enjoy the fantasy presented in a bodice ripper dubcon book (or a dark romance dubcon book published in 2024) are not coming from the same space as someone who'd read that KKK romance and think there's nothing amiss at all.

However, I feel it's so important to keep both content that I think is pretty harmless—I just don't think a book like A Hunger Like No Other, in which the consent is Bad, is going to reinforce a misogynistic society on a wide scale... I think it's there to accommodate a pretty common rape fantasy, and dude, rape fantasies are common and we should probs come to terms with how they can be and how people who have them can be feminists lmao—and content that I think is HARMFUL.

Because yeah dude. I think it's pretty fucked that A Rogue of One's Own is what it is. But I don't want it to be erased 50 years from now. I don't really want people to not know that Kleypas originally played into some pretty racist tropes with Hello Stranger. Not only because I want those authors to just have to own that shit... and for readers who enjoy them to have to reconcile with that... But because it's just like. Literally a record of the time in which it was published. Not the time in which it was set, because historical fiction never truly reflects the setting. The time in which it was published.

And there's a difference between why we're keeping that shit and why we're keeping that noncon/dubcon (though again, it can overlap). Good people aren't seeking out racist romance novels, applauding the antisemitism in a Heyer book, etc.

But it's like... to me... I would no sooner remove that content from a romance novel than I would watch a cut of Breakfast at Tiffany's without that horrible Mickey Rooney yellowface character.

I mean.... I grew up loving that movie. And when I became aware of what that was, I had to question some shit. I should have to question that shit. I should have to think about why anyone thought that was okay. Why people STILL think it's okay.

It seems small, but it MATTERS. These little bits and pieces of erasure add up.

And like... yeah. People may not give authors like Kleypas, who I imagine did not think herself a racist when she wrote the Hello Stranger shit, and who did seem to hold herself accountable and apologize, room. They may just go "fuck that racist" and dismiss her. And that's... just how it goes. They're allowed to do that. If you're South Asian and read that or hear about it and go "never reading her again"... I mean, your word is pretty much the final word there. She can't expect you to accept her apology.

I just also think it's really important that this information is available and that the text is availale so that people can make a choice, too. There are authors I read who have written books I wouldn't recommend. I've read them. I've gone "Man, this book is good otherwise, but this part is really not good" and I don't recommend them and I keep them in the back of my mind if I read more. We need to be able to make informed decisions, if we choose, about who we support. People can learn, but like... we shouldn't pretend there wasn't a time when they were fucked.

So. Yeah. A lot of things happening, some of which are harder to talk about than others. What frustrates me is that I think romance has a lot of convos about sexism and misogyny (and the should) but not as many about racism and queerphobia. And tbh, I think that means we miss the harder convos a lot of the time.

(Wonder why that is.)

[talas-first-lady]

Post the ranking of the male legends. Let the world burn. Let chaos reign. It's on brand for the show (please read this in a funny tone)

The official, correct ranking of male Legends from best to worst along with foolproof evidence which you can trust because I am a lesbian and I am not swayed by men of dubious attractiveness.

1: Gwyn Davies

Pros: Invented time travel so he could save the poet he spent his entire adult life pining for. Has some of the absolute best throwaway lines of S7 (with flawless delivery). Has literally never done anything wrong ever.

Cons: Not around for long enough, which was in no way his fault.

2: Ray Palmer

Pros: Delightful. Hilarious. Has great chemistry with every other character. Loves showtunes and Star Wars.

Cons: Spending billions of dollars to create a suit so you can be a superhero in a city that frankly has too many superheroes already is not a good look. Also he's way too intense in relationships.

3: Nate Heywood

Pros: He somehow manages to be the perfect combination of himbo and really smart. It shouldn't be possible. Also, I too am an overeducated nerd who is really into Tala and Maisie, so I relate to him.

Cons: He really sucks whenever he's in a relationship.

4: Jefferson Jackson

Pros: He's such a good guy through and through. He has been put through some deeply unfair things but still manages to always be a positive force. Deserves all the hugs.

Cons: His accent is ridiculous and I can't take him seriously because of that.

5: Mick Rory

Pros: Has any character on the show evolved as much as him? Probably not. He's a sweetheart. He writes romance novels. His relationships with other characters are always amazing.

Cons: We all had to watch him birth alien eggs through his nose and that can never been unseen. Way too attached to his shitty ex boyfriend.

6: Wally West

Wally is right in the middle because he is true neutral. Does he make the show better? Not really. Does he make the show worse? Not really.

Pros: Good karaoke choices.

Cons: It's really dumb that Death Totem Sara appeared to him as his ex (who he really wasn't with that long and who was very much still alive) instead of his mom (who was his only family for his entire childhood and fairly recently died).

7: Gary Green

Pros: Sweet, funny, endlessly relatable. He adds so much character to every scene he's in.

Cons: Does not understand boundaries at all. He's also very inconsistently written because obviously they didn't plan for him to be an alien from the beginning.

8: Behrad Tarazi

Pros: I enjoy the way his relationship with Zari has developed. And he's a great singer.

Cons: Weed is not a personality. They didn't bother to give him an actual personality until season 7, at which point I was already over him. I also don't like his fixation with Astra which was entirely about finding her pretty on Highcastle Abbey and has nothing to do with who she actually is.

9: Carter Hall

Pros: Had the good sense to die quickly before he could really annoy me.

Cons: Manipulative towards Kendra. Actively detracted from the 100th episode.

10: Martin Stein

Pros: Victor Garber. A+ singing.

Cons: Drugged and kidnapped Jax in the pilot. Racist, sexist, deeply selfish. He started to improve slightly but it wasn't enough.

11: Rip Hunter

Pros: Saw the potential in Sara Lance.

Cons: Told Gideon he loved her and then TURNED HER INTO A TRAINING SIMULATOR FOR THREE YEARS. He also flew her into the sun and into an atomic bomb. Lied to all the original Legends. Lied to Ava.

12: Leonard Snart

Pros: Had the good sense to die quickly. Also, I do enjoy him on The Flash.

Cons: Cruel and abusive to Mick almost constantly. Talk about kicking someone while they're down. He's an asshole to everyone, but the way he speaks to Mick is unforgivable.

13: John Constantine

Pros: He's a useful foil for some of the more optimistic Legends. Decent bisexual representation. Never met a weird unidentified substance he didn't want to put in his mouth.

Cons: He forced Charlie to face thousands of years worth of trauma, got Behrad and Charlie's friends killed in the process, and put the entire world at risk. Why? To save Astra, who he immediately forgot about and left to struggle on her own (again). He sent Desmond to hell. He abandoned Nora when she was a kid. He altered Spooner's memories despite knowing that having her mind messed with is a major source of trauma for her. Put the entire world at risk again by teaming up with Bishop. Lied to and manipulated Zari and had the gall to call it love. Also, if both Ava and Mick don't like you, you are clearly highly suspicious.

[castlephantom]

My biggest nightmare is if Netflix will adapted other Castlevania characters intro bunch of OOC's, race swapping characters' skin color. I'm not saying that because some N!fans think I'm racist (which is totally wrong to make such clames since I love to see characters having different skin tone). The problem is that thise changes actualy ruins the characters apparence and that is a biggest mistake.

Lets look at Issac. In Curse of Darkness, he acts like that both because of the curse and his devotation to Dracula. In the show, he black Muslim and is going what game Hector does, since they gived N!Hector the worst adaptation to be a like a pet to Lenore.

Nocturne shows how you can do even worst. The prefect example are thise three particular characters: Orlox, Drolta and Annette. They having the most European names and made them black. Orlox as an Aztec was pretty questionable to me and they turned intro a sexy man. Annette is a former slave and claimes that no one understands her pain and being rude. When I saw this I was like; "That isn't Annette. That's someone that just have her name and is literally an OC character." But Drolta... really? They did her design to be like someone serves some c*nt in that show.

The original Orlox is a man that schemes in the the novel Kabuchi no Tsuisoukyoku, Annette is a kind girl that was ready to sacrifice herself then to became a vampire under Dracula's hands, Drolta is an old sorceress/witch and Isaac is affected by the curse.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

Speaking of Breaking Bad, I saw a post on Reddit shared the screenplay of Season 3 finale "Full Measure," when Mike held his gun at Walter, asking him to go downstairs to the laundry, he said, "Unfortunately, I have to do, Walt." and there's a line in Mike's inner dialogue that read something like "he had some respect for Walt". But in your opinion, when did Walt lose that "respect," or it's more like in Season 3, Mike liked to think he respected Walt because it made it feel "professional and rational"?

So, I have a number of issues with this.

Someone Shared a Draft

A lot of people like to go hot wild doing metas on drafts of works (granted may not be the case in this instance, but bear with me). They see working drafts of novels, screenplays, etc. and treat it as a hidden gospel truth that the author was denying them and the real purpose behind whatever they watched.

What it is is what it says on the tin, a draft.

It was not what made it into final form, and while perhaps interesting, whatever was cut or altered in there was done so intentionally and for a reason.

Using it to judge the end result (e.g. is Atticus Finch secretly a racist because he was racist in the original draft of To Kill a Mockingbird) is silly to me as they are not at all the same thing.

It's not a secret treasure map.

Someone on Reddit Posted a Thing

The other I see a lot is some wise spokesman comes along and, golly gee, they found the super-secret leaked thing that no one else has ever gotten their hands on with no reference to any legitimate sources it may have come from.

I'm not saying this doesn't happen or it's not a thing but I also think it's good form to be a little dubious about things as people on the internet can or do lie for something as little as internet attention.

But Back to Your Thing

Having not seen this script, or knowing what they put in screen directions (as this would be a screen direction as Breaking Bad never has once done narration) I'm a little dubious to believe they'd put that in there. Not helping is that this is something usually the director of the episode would decide (the screenwriter can do it but it's a little heavy handed to write in "now here's the part where Walter feels sad")

To answer your actual question, I don't think Mike ever really respected Walter. I think he initially pitied him, and we see him sighing and telling Walter "you know, you really should have someone watch your house" but very early into their acquaintanceship he's telling Gus that Walter's an absolute mess of a person and is telling Walter to sit down, do his job, and don't worry about Gus.

Now, I don't think Mike came to strongly dislike Walter until after Gus's death and when he's pressured back into joining. Even then, I wouldn't call it hatred, as he understands why Walter did what he did (he also thinks it's stupid and Walter could have kept his head down and gotten paid off and they'd all be happy) as he still does things like tell Walter he's a petty stupid man (which uh consequently gets Mike killed).

Respect though? I don't think Mike ever respected Walter. He acknowledged Walter as being dirty, just as he himself was, but that's not something Mike really respects as a personality trait so much as it means they're all in the same line of work. He also saw Walter as in over his head, but that's not respect.

[rappaccini]

I get what you're saying. I adore him in spiderverse though I think he's better in the comics, but I get the feeling the writers think they have to bend and twist other characters to prop him up, which isn't needed at all. Its like how they changed Miguel to an asshole, Peter is made to look incompetent and careless and Gwen's entire character is sacrificed and water down to sell her as a love interest. I lowkey get the feeling they're gonna try to make it to where Peter's more inferior than him: like how they're framing it so far, Peter couldn't do this, or that, he couldn't save this person but Miles can cause he's better. He's special. And yes, he is a great character but you don't have to water down other characters for his sake. He's already great on his own. I mean as someone who loves both Peter and Miles I think they should be able to coexist without putting one another down, but it kinda feels they're setting up the story to be that way. And while yes, hit at the critics and racists who bash Miles all you wany, but putting it to where you think he's a superior than Peter because...whatever isn't exactly the way to do it and will only make things worse.

yeah, i feel that.

i wrote a whole novel about how i hate that gwen's been watered down to make miles look more special, so i won't repeat that here.

man i feel sorry for comic miguel fans. they've been fighting for their lives bc of atsv. i have conflicted feelings about this version of miguel, because on the one hand i think the role he plays in the movie works and he's a great villain, but i still wonder if they could've come up with a different plot for atsv that didn't revolve around responding to the backlash against miles, or at least made someone who isn't another poc the face of the backlash.

peter b though... hm. one of the biggest problems with him in the comics pre-itsv (which still pops up, but less lately) is that he keeps being built up as this oh-so-special chosen one that all the other spider-ppl have to kiss the ring of (especially miles), and it's so annoying. so taking him off the pedestal and saying 'no, he's kind of a loser' is very satisfying.

it also highlights how the presence of miles in his life can inspire him to finally grow the hell up for good instead of being stuck in this constant state of arrested development. and since itsv was most people's first impression of miles, it was SO important for miles to not be following peter around with puppy dog eyes, and for peter to instantly understand and appreciate how special miles is (because if peter does it, so does the audience).

atsv is where i think the problem comes in. peter b being so benched doesn't track with his characterization. like, you're telling me a girl miles went on one bus ride with who friendzoned him is risking her life to come see him, but the guy who mentored him for days and loved miles so much he decided he wanted to be a father because of him won't? no. absolutely not. if anyone was going to sneak away from the society to see miles it should have been peter. and no way in hell would he be grinning taking selfies with his baby while miles is being hunted by the society. they flushed the miles-peter dynamic down the toilet to replace it with miles-gwen and it sucks.

it also doesn't work with the metacommentary. because let's be real: the canon events all center around peter parker. he's the blueprint, and the movie doesn't mention it at all. like, isn't that weird? there are more peters at hq than any other type of spider-person, and nobody mentions it? wouldn't peter be uncomfortable with being put on a pedestal like that? wouldn't miguel have a huge inferiority complex about not being peter parker? wouldn't this be a great opportunity for the original spider-man to tell the racist fans who won't accept miles that they're full of shit? why is he just wandering around in a robe and slippers.

as for miles being superior... i think btsv is what'll make or break it. as of the end of atsv, miles thinks he's better than the spider-society and that's why he thinks he's going to be able to break canon. he's proud of himself for "beating" them, he keeps telling gwen he's gonna be the guy who'll be different for her (he won't), he wants to be the most special spider-man who gets to cherrypick his canon events and he hasn't considered that the idea that canon events are mandatory might be the real problem. if btsv revolves around miles realizing he's wrong and helping everyone else break their canon too, i love it. but if btsv ends with the theme of 'sure, canon exists, but some people, like miles, are special enough to be the exception' instead of 'everyone deserves better' that undermines the whole story. i'm just gonna wait on it.

[amorremanet]

People bashing the monster Hua Cheng trend for ~ruining the themes for the novel~ as if people haven’t been doing that to their original canons since fanfiction and fanart first came into being………

as if old school fans of Sherlock Holmes didn’t ignore the fact that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted the stories to just be over by resurrecting Sherlock in their own stories way before ACD went “YE GOD FINE I’LL BRING HIM BACK JUST STOP COMING TO MY HOUSE AND THROWING YOURSELF AT MY FEET TO SOB ABOUT HOW I LITERALLY RUINED YOUR LIFE”………

as if people haven’t been deliberately making the Cthulhu mythos less appallingly, unnecessarily racist, antisemitic, and xenophobic for literal decades because HP Lovecraft’s bigotry was often Too Much even for his period-typical racist, antisemitic, and xenophobic contemporaries………

as if people in old school Star Trek zines didn’t undermine Gene Roddenberry’s entire idea of the magical space future having humanity evolve beyond our petty bigotries by writing homophobia toward Kirk/Spock (whether explicitly or in how they wrote the relationship/usually manifested as something we in the 21st century would call internalized homophobia)………

as if people haven’t been deliberately undermining the prescriptivist, essentialist, and fundamentally misogynistic take on gender in the Bespectacled Teen Wizard books (which loves to police and shame girls and women for anything about them that gets considered “mannish” or “masculine,” like Rita Skeeter’s ~notably large hands~ and Millicent Bulstrode being beefy and Not Pretty In The Face Department, but also shames and polices girls and women for being “too girly” and “too feminine,” e.g., Cho Chang, Fleur Delacour, Lavender Brown, basically all of the “other girls” whom Hermione, Ginny, Luna, Tonks, and sometimes Angelina Johnson are supposed to Not Be Like) since 15+ years before Joanne publicly revealed herself to be a raging transphobe and open misogynist………

as if one of the most popular wishes in the Hannibal fandom hasn’t always been “Will Graham has a nice day” when the entire point of the series is “Bryan Fuller refuses to let Will Graham have a nice day because he’s decided that actually, Will Graham is horny about his perpetual lack of nice days and about the cannibalistic psychiatrist/performance art serial killer who has dedicated himself to making every day the worst possible day of Will Graham’s life, but like, in a romantic, horny way”………

Like, seriously, come on.

“Monster Hua Cheng undermines the themes of the novel!! Monster Hua Cheng is, uhhh, ABLEIST because, ummmmm, BECAUSE I SAID SO!!! Monster Hua Cheng is bad and wrong and nobody should enjoy it, how dare you enjoy anything that isn’t 100% canon-approved!!!!”

Just say that you’re vanilla about monster romance and that you don’t understand how fanfiction works, then go

[antoinetteodaliazenick]

The censorship problem

Today's topic will be regarding censorship in children's literature.

TW: Mentions of outdated views including racism, transphobia, mentions of fat shaming, and brief mention of several indecent explicit relationships.

Some authors are jerks.

Let me explain, authors like Dr. Suess and Roald Dahl, to name a few, have ideas that are considered offensive. Books including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Green Eggs and Ham, classics of literature, are under close examination, due to the authors supporting outdated viewpoints, and the publishers requiring books to uphold ‘modern’ standards. Many publishers have banned, which in this context means the removal of all versions of a text, multiple books by these authors from shops and libraries as they believe these books fail to reach the above criteria.

I believe that publishers should not be allowed to remove all versions of a book from stores due to the outdated views of the author, if the book contains no offensive comments or imagery or if it can be easily altered. Whilst Agatha Christy’s novel, And Then There Were None, had a necessary change of title, not once but twice, this edit made sense, as the original and first edit title was blatantly racist. However, not all censorships are for understandable reasons.

I will be asking whether the edits are just an attempt from corporate companies to appear inclusive, and the double standards of publishers and corporate companies.

Would you ban the work of an artist? If we are alright banning the creative work, work that holds no offensive commentary or viewpoints, written by classic authors, why is art any different?

Many artists have outdated and offensive viewpoints. For example, Leonardo De Vinci had an explicit relationship with several of his students. This blatant clash with societies modern expectations is neither noted nor discussed as a topic of concern. We fail to ask whether Da Vinci’s actions may have been expressed in his creative work. We neglect to notice the double standards that many classic writers face. If we let Da Vinci’s work pass without question, simply because he is considered a classic artist, then shouldn’t authors work also go unquestioned because it’s a classic?  If it is societies belief that classic author could be influencing their children with their outdated prejudice, then shouldn’t it be vital to make sure that children do not view the works of classic artists? After all, mightn’t this work have a negative effect?

If we are going to examine, to an almost microscopic scale, every way in which a children’s book might contain degrading and offensive social commentary, then shouldn’t artists be put under the microscope as well?

The ban of 6 Dr. Seuss books, and unnecessary censorship of words in Roald Dahl’s books, such as cutting out the word fat in context of Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and removing the description of the witches as ugly, from his book The Witches, once again strikes as unnecessary. The removal of descriptive words for characters is ridiculous. If we are getting rid of the word fat, shouldn’t the word skinny and beautiful also be removed? After all, skinny shaming is a sadly common thing. By getting rid of words like fat, we are further enforcing the negative ideals that skinny is better. Publishers must be careful to refrain from pushing equally unhealthy standards. It is better to leave in words like fat and ugly to avoid unconsciously pushing skinny and pretty ideals.

Now, it is acknowledged that Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss held outdated viewpoints. Both authors made racist comments, and Dr. Suess created stereotypical, racist cartoons and had a hatred for foreigners, something that his publishers and family, rightfully, disagree with, but censorship of his work to such a level, is unnecessary. Large companies, including the publishers of Roald Dahl and Dr. Seuss, want to make it appear they are doing something to tackle division. However, this comes at the cost of classic children’s books. I mean, did Roald Dahl’s publishers really need to change the description of Oopma Loopmas from small men to small people?

However, his children books contained little of this offensive imagery or language. The most extreme case of this racism in his children’s work is when he included a stereotypical cartoon of an Asian man and an offensive description of Asian people. These types of outdated drawings can be easily edited, or the publisher can put a disclaimer at the beginning of the book, stating that the don’t support any racist views.

Also, if we are so worried about outdated viewpoints appearing in the media, should the Harry Potter books go under close examination? After all, doesn’t J.K. Rowling tick all the boxes for an author with outdated views? She’s made transphobic comments online. By the standards of the publishers who publish books by Dr. Suess or Roald Dahl, her books should undergo editing. Yet they haven’t. Why is this? Because they still sell, because ‘it was a misunderstanding’, because the publishers have decided to distract us with the new games and merchandise that’s put out under the Harry Potter name?

When considering edits to children’s books, we must look at the motives of the company. Companies like Disney, who, in some cases, want to appear that they are being progressive, despite focusing attention on the wrong things. Children’s books should not fall victim to corporate schemes and quick money making. They shouldn’t be unnecessarily edited so that the CEO’s of the company can complement their inclusivity.

Timeless pieces like The Cat in the Hat and James and the Giant Peach, cannot and should not be altered for using descriptive words like fat.

I believe that classic children’s books should not be banned or censored by the publishers for the simple fact that the authors hold outdated views, or the book was written a while ago.

Are we going to let publishers get away with slap-dash censorship when it is completely unnecessary? Are we going to ignore the double standards of artists compared to authors? And forget the fact that publishers are unconsciously pushing standards like skinny and pretty.

It is crucial to fully comprehend the steps publishers are taking to modernise books so that we can avoid unnecessary censorship.

Thank you for reading :)

Next post will be talking about the safety of certain work industries for women and what steps need to be taken for a safer future for these industries.

[kamreadsandrecs]

Title: The Night Ocean

Author: Paul La Farge

Genre/s: historical, mystery, literary fiction

Content/Trigger Warning/s: racism, classism, antisemitism, homophobia, drug use, cheating

Summary (from publisher's website): Marina Willett, M.D., has a problem. Her husband, Charlie, has become obsessed with H.P. Lovecraft, in particular with one episode in the legendary horror writer’s life: In the summer of 1934, the “old gent” lived for two months with a gay teenage fan named Robert Barlow, at Barlow’s family home in central Florida. What were the two of them up to? Were they friends–or something more? Just when Charlie thinks he’s solved the puzzle, a new scandal erupts, and he disappears. The police say it’s suicide. Marina is a psychiatrist, and she doesn’t believe them. A tour-de-force of storytelling, The Night Ocean follows the lives of some extraordinary people: Lovecraft, the most influential American horror writer of the 20th century, whose stories continue to win new acolytes, even as his racist views provoke new critics; Barlow, a seminal scholar of Mexican culture who killed himself after being blackmailed for his homosexuality (and who collaborated with Lovecraft on the beautiful story “The Night Ocean”); his student, future Beat writer William S. Burroughs; and L.C. Spinks, a kindly Canadian appliance salesman and science-fiction fan — the only person who knows the origins of The Erotonomicon, purported to be the intimate diary of Lovecraft himself. As a heartbroken Marina follows her missing husband’s trail in an attempt to learn the truth, the novel moves across the decades and along the length of the continent, from a remote Ontario town, through New York and Florida to Mexico City. The Night Ocean is about love and deception — about the way that stories earn our trust, and betray it.

Buy Here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-night-ocean-paul-la-farge/8614852

Spoiler-Free Review: This wasn’t entirely what I was expecting, but it was a pleasant surprise, especially since I blasted right through it. I honestly wasn’t expecting to be so compelled by the prose given the way the book appears to be formatted, but hey: it was very readable despite occasional moments of confusion regarding who was talking at any given point in time.

Just to get this out of the way: no, one doesn’t need to be deeply familiar with Lovecraft’s life, or even Robert Barlow’s, to understand and enjoy this book. As long as one knows that Lovecraft was a deeply racist, classist, misogynistic, and antisemitic person, and that these tendencies appear across all his writing, then one should be fine. And even if one DOESN’T know (though I find that hard to imagine, given that it is 2023 and the most recent brouhaha over Lovecraft’s politics happened way back in the late 2010s - which is around the time this book came out, incidentally), one will find out soon enough in this book. It’s probably one of the main “true” things that this book presents. Because what this book is about (among many other things), is truth and lies, and how the latter can sometimes be hard to differentiate from the former if it’s compelling enough.

In line with that, this novel also tries to tackle what happens when we figure out the truth - and the truth turns out to be undesirable or painful (or both). Lovecraft played around with the idea that there are some truths out there that are so destructive, they can literally drive a person mad; this is the most common fate met by the protagonists of his stories. This book does something similar, but the destruction is more on the level of the self, and one’s relationship with other people and the rest of the world. This was, in my opinion, the most interesting part of the novel, and where most of conflict springs from. Does one WANT to believe the story being told? What if it’s not true? How IMPORTANT is it to one that the story being told is true? What lengths will one go to, to determine if it is? And what happens when what one feels doesn’t align with external evidence? Is truth something one FEELS, or is it something one PROVES? Unfortunately, the difference between the two is not always clear - both in this novel and in the real world.

This book also plays around a lot with intertextuality: the way texts reference other texts in various ways both obvious and subtle. This book contains both, with references not just to Lovecraft’s work (though obviously the story references his work the most), but to the immense network of twentieth-century SFF fandom. If one is the kind of reader who’s deeply familiar with the names and faces of that period of SFF, then one will be able to tease out a LOT more references than I managed to, since I’m just not as familiar with all the people mentioned and referenced in this novel. Fortunately there are footnotes provided, so any vague references were at least explained, but I’m sure googling names will prove just as helpful.

Another idea this novel plays with is the idea of people AS stories: that is to say, what makes us who we are, as individuals and perhaps as cultures, is the stories we tell about ourselves, and maybe the stories we tell TO ourselves, too. Is it possible to entirely change who one is just by changing the story around oneself? An interesting question, not least in the age of the internet where it’s easy to change how one is perceived - and therefore, who one IS - just by telling a different story in a sufficiently compelling way.

Overall, this was a really compelling read in ways that I hadn’t expected, but was pleasantly surprised by. It asks a lot of interesting questions about truth and our relationship with the truth, framed around two bittersweet romances, one of which might, or might not, have happened.

Rating: five strange journals

[catholic-character-tournament]

Round 2 - Side A

Propaganda below ⬇️

Claude Frollo Propaganda:

This man got horny and his response was “that woman must burn”

I love him so much. More seriously Book Frollo is much more ambivalent than Disney Movie Frollo which makes sense because we’re talking about Victor Hugo VS a children’s movie. He didn’t kill Quasimodo’s mom, he took him in (when himself was only nineteen and already in charge of his own baby brother since their parents had died not long before) when he was left on the church’s doorstep. I mean, he does quite a few reprehensible and slightly evil stuff afterwards but he had a good start, you know ? He taught Quasi to communicate by signs when he became deaf because of the bells. He was also very much into alchemy which was pretty cool. His behavior towards Esmeralda was still very much not okay but I’d like to point out that Phoebus is also a jerk in this one. And Quasi’s quite a bit amoral because no intelligent enough to understand some stuff

I actually haven’t gotten very far through the book yet but from the musical (not the disney one the other one it’s SO GOOD) I can confirm he sucks at being catholic. literally tells a child over and over that he’s ugly and unlovable until he fully believes it and won’t let the kid go outside. https://genius.com/Alan-menken-out-there-lyrics (lyrics to the song in which frollo convinces quasimodo he’s unlovable. ableist as hell and shitty in every way you can possibly imagine and it breaks my heart every time. feel free to listen to the actual track but it doesn’t get good until about 40 seconds in) frollo keeps saying it’s good and right to punish sinners himself, and it’s not right that the wicked go unpunished. there’s a really satisfying moment in the musical where quasimodo sees him for what he is and repeats his words back to him (7:45 - 8:54, frollo is the one with the insanely deep voice) and it gives me goosebumps every time to hear that “yes you do” link to that video: https://youtu.be/HL7WZcTIgus

I honestly wrote this submission because I suffered from severe insomnia for being reminded that I might have poor taste when it comes to enjoying media since I enjoy Disney version of Frollo even after I watched other versions of this character. (I am so sorry the host yes I am that annoying anon lying in the dark little corner of your ask box. I have no other thing to do in my life so hello again) His character is different from the original novel version, and to be honest as an adoption, that is NOT necessarily WRONG. He had more struggles with his pride and his self-imagine in the Catholic framework. “Beata Maria, you know I am a righteous man, of my virtue I am justly proud” as the opening line of his villain song, clearly states his main struggle throughout the movie–pride and self-imagine (super-ego) vs lust and instinct (id). Once his self-imagine in the Catholic framework was on shaking ground, he bent his twisted sense of “righteous” to make him less painful. Tbh, the novel version used the example of Bruno d’Ast to justify his hornyness, so it’s just classical Frollo behaviour no matter which version it is. (SMASH THE TABLE) HAVE YOU READ~~THE NOVEL~~ I REPEAT: HIS CHARACTER IS NOT JUST “I HATE WITCHCRAFT AND I AM HORNY AND RACIST”. I REPEAT: HIS CHARACTER IS NOT JUST “I HATE WITCHCRAFT AND I AM HORNY AND RACIST”. I REPEAT: HIS CHARACTER IS NOT JUST “I HATE WITCHCRAFT AND I AM HORNY AND RACIST”. I am sorry for the noise pollution in your submission Google form. I should have taken my sedatives regularly. I am truly sorry. Also please don’t bully me in the debate, novel/musical enjoyers. LOOK, I AIN’T YOUR ENEMY. I LOVE NOVEL/MUSICAL FROLLO, I JUST LOVE DISNEY VERSION AS WELL, I AM AS TORMENTED AS YOUR FAVORITE CATHOLIC PRIEST. I am not a native tongue, so I tried my best to express my thoughts/feelings/justification why Disney version should be a qualified candidate as well. If you tried to debate with me, I would be drowned in my poor English. Sorry again.

Tammy Propaganda:

Absolutely insane catholic girl. imagine a horse girl mixed with a boy band girl mixed with the girl from youth group with a bedazzled bible. that’s Tammy.

She’s a character from an somewhat-obscure play that is only mentioned briefly but the fandom loves her. Literally the only things we know about her from the play is that she’s catholic and likes boy bands.

[swashbucklery]

Also look I watched Oklahoma this week for the first time. Like, the 1950s cowboy musical about murder Oklahoma, which is incredibly easy to find on Disney+, and okay.

1) I have one of the songs stuck in my head and it’s A BAD ONE and I can’t get over it because I want to talk about this musical for approximately 85029402 hours but also I cannot stress enough how much I don’t recommend watching it. It’s so complicated? It’s - ok it’s almost exactly the same way I felt when I read Ian Fleming’s entire collection of original Bond novels in a single summer, which is to say: it’s a deeply unsettling encapsulation of the profoundly racist, sexist, and homophobic normativity of the 1950s without intending to be.

It’s fluffy “fun” pop culture! I the viewer am expected to feel entertained and carefree because this is a puff movie or a campy spy novel. But the baked in values - the clues the story includes to imply someone is weird, the casually demeaning language, the overt racism - are so jarring that it’s impossible to experience the fun without interrogating the time in which it exists. (And, I think also, with Oklahoma it feels so much like the basis for a lot of the modern hard-right ‘values’ that I can’t look away)

2) Like, ok. Right off the bat I’m going to say half this movie is PROBLEMATIC AT BEST there are in theory two intertwining romantic arcs and one is A Man In Brownface Being A Racist Caricature Of Someone From The Middle East hooks up with The Town Idiot Woman Who’s Too Dumb To Understand Sexual Consent (she sings a song about it) and they’re in a love triangle with Local Idiot Man Who Can’t Count To Fifty; we go downhill from there.

3) Assuming you decide to handwave that AND THAT IS A BIG IF the OTHER half is: cowboy wants to date girl. But she lives on a farm! And the Local Farm Hand is into girl and he’s Gross. We know he’s Gross because it’s implied in the first scene that he purchases pornography and is probably a masturbator, and that is going to set us up for the scene in the finale where he tries to kill everyone THIS IS A REAL MOVIE I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS IS A REAL MOVIE.

4) But also as the setup to this romantic conflict, the cowboy sits down with the farmhand and sings a duet that’s basically: hey jackass you should kill yourself for being Gross. WHY IS THIS -

ON THE POSTER THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE SMILING IN A FIELD. THIS IS A FAMOUS MUSICAL.

ANYWAY THEN LATER VARIOUS THINGS HAPPEN AND WE SING A LOT OF SONGS THAT ARE PRETTY FUCKING FRAUGHT, ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD ALL GET ALONG BUT IF WE CAIN’T GET ALONG WE SHOULD SHOOT EACH OTHER

AND THEN THE COWBOY MURDERS THE FARMHAND

HALF AN HOUR AFTER HIS WEDDING TO THE GIRL

AND THEN THEY GO ON THEIR HONEYMOON

AND SING A SONG

ABOUT HOW OKLAHOMA IS A STATE NOW AND THEY’RE SO GLAD TO BE PART OF

AMERICA NOW?

AND NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE MURDER BECAUSE THAT GUY WAS A GROSS PORNOGRAPHY PURCHASER WHO DIDN’T FIT IN WITH OUR COMMUNITY

Anyway it’s so fucked up you guys it’s so fucked up IT’S NOT EVEN ONE OF THE MOVIES ON DISNEY+ WITH CONTENT WARNINGS ABOUT HISTORICAL CONTENT THAT NO LONGER REFLECTS SOCIETY’S VALUES.

[corvidcall]

I love the Hunchback of Notre Dame movie too and I did not know there was a musical, what didn't you like about it? Do I wanna know how bad it is

i have been waiting years for someone to ask me about the stage musical

Probably you haven't heard about it because 1. I don't think it's very good (and the world operates based solely on my opinions, right?) 2. for union/profit reasons, it has never been on Broadway and likely never will (apparently Stephen Schwartz and Alan Menken, who also composed the original Disney film, said the stage version HAD to have a full live choir on stage, and getting the choir on a Broadway production would have required different union negotiations, and Disney didn't think it would be profitable. I honestly think they're probably right)

ANYWAY this got way too long so it's all going under a cut. I have some nice things to say in there, too! I swear!

i saw it in 2018 in Seattle, and while I love to talk shit, there are definitely things that I liked about it!! I went to see it because Joshua Castille was in the title role (he played Ernst in the Deaf West production of Spring Awakening). As you might know, I am a trained ASL interpreter! So I really wanted to support a Deaf artist, and I wanted to see how they approached my favorite Disney musical (and how the interpreters handled it!!!)

Joshua Castille was honestly incredible, and everything they did to incorporate his Deafness into the role was really cool. When he was by himself/with the gargoyles, he used ASL, but Frollo refused to sign with him and would only respond if he spoke, which I thought was a great extension of the way Frollo has treated Quasimodo his whole life (ie "I am abusing you for your own good"). When Esmeralda and Quasimodo start becoming friends, she tries to pick up some signs from him, which I thought was a great element. During Quasimodo's songs, one of the gargoyles would sing the part while Castille performed it in ASL. Here's a video of "Out There", if you're interested to see how it worked.

I think that in other productions, they've tried to kind of incorporate the fact that Quasimodo was deaf in the book? But I believe they started by having Hearing actors in the role, which is... well. It Is. But I saw it with a Deaf actor in the role and he was great. I thought that Quasimodo's hearing loss was a good thing they brought in from the original novel that actually really added to the production.

Not... everything was as good of a choice as that one.

See, it's specifically a stage adaption of the Disney movie. It uses all the Disney songs. One would think that it would maybe be aiming to have the same themes as the Disney movie, the chiefest of which is... let's say "internal vs external monsterhood." Quasimodo looks like a monster, but he is a good person, whereas Frollo looks normal, but is, inside, a monster.

You know what you wouldn't want to do, if that's your main theme? Start the show off with Frollo's sad backstory!!! He and his brother were orphans! They were raised by the church! His brother ran off with a Romani woman and Frollo didn't see him again until he was on his deathbed, when he asked Frollo to raise his son for him. That son was Quasimodo!

Like... why add this? Why give this character a sad backstory? A family that he loved? I don't understand what I'm supposed to get out of this. Is it... to justify why he's racist? Because I didn't really need a justification for that. It honestly makes his abuse of Quasimodo even weirder- like, he loved his brother and would have done anything for him, but is abusing his brother's son? I know it HAPPENS, but it just... feels so out of line with the rest of the story, I really can't fathom what I as an audience member am supposed to take away from it. This backstory doesn't add any richness or depth to the story. It takes away from it! And like... so Frollo was sad. Do you care? Clap if you care.

They made a bunch of changes to Pheobus, but I don't really care that much about that, beyond the fact that I think they made him somehow suck even more (iirc his intro song is basically "i just got back into paris from The War and im here to FUCK" like... ok i guess.)

But I'd say my number one biggest problem with the show is the changed ending. Esmeralda dies in this one. She gets tied to a pyre, and Quasimodo rescues her, but she's inhaled too much smoke, so she tells him he's been a great friend to her and then she dies.

I know this is more accurate to the novel. But like... I don't care about that? I don't think you can grade the quality of an adaption based on it's faithfulness to the source material. Why would anyone bother adapting anything, if that were the case? Some things don't work in adaption, and sometimes you're using the adaption to send a different message than the source material. An adaption should be able to stand on it's own, otherwise, why did any of us fucking bother? If a movie is based on a book, I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy the movie, and likewise, they shouldn't include things from the book that don't make it a better movie!

The original novel was focused on the importance of architecture, how buildings were the primary way ideas were spread and preserved before the printing press. Hugo was concerned that the actual Notre Dame cathedral was in disrepair, that France would lose an essential part of it's history. If a good adaption was really only about being faithful to the source material, then we should be upset that that's an idea that has not been represented in most adaptions of Hunchback! I mean, sure, it's not represented in them because that's a problem that got solved, so we don't really need to spread the good word of historical preservation, but it's in the original! And also, the themes about social justice AREN'T in the original, so we should be mad about all those, too, right? (If you haven't seen Lindsay Ellis's video about Hunchback, I'd recommend checking it out. she talks a lot about the evolution of the themes in various adaptions.)

I'm saying all this because, while I know that Esmeralda dies in the book, and that basically every character in it kinda sucks, I think that really undercuts the themes that the Disney movie was going for (like I said, "internal vs external monsterhood"). Quasimodo and Frollo both are in love with Esmeralda, and she does not return those feelings. Quasimodo is sad and hurt, but he also is happy to have Esmeralda as a friend, and wants her to be happy as well. Frollo would rather she die than not be with him. This is one of the key points of contrast between Quasimodo and Frollo. Even their songs about Esmeralda are thematic opposites!!! Hellfire vs Heaven's Light!!!

So having her just die at the end makes that whole thing pointless. She doesn't get to be with the man she's actually in love with. Quasimodo doesn't get to complete his arc, where he accepts her decision and is happy for her. Frollo basically got what he wanted! What does this change add to the story, other than another token attempt at being "more book accurate," a thing nobody with an ounce of sense in their head should actually care about?

The stage musical uses the same music as the Disney movie, which were building to the themes and the conclusion that was shown in that movie, but it has a different ending, so those themes don't pay off. It's like they bought a lego set and used it to build something entirely different. Like, you CAN do that, but I'm not going to believe you when you tell me you actually built the lego set as it was intended.

Also I thought all the songs they added for the show sucked ass.

[thosearentcrimes]

I was going to read the next Dune book once I figured out which one it was, when I realized I still hadn't read the original. In Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Thomas Edward Shaw (né Lawrence) narrates his experiences of the Arab Revolt as a participant of the British mission to it. The testimony ranges from routine to highly implausible, but so long as you don't actually believe any of the claims he makes, it makes for an interesting read.

There are five major elements the author blends and transitions between quite seamlessly. The most common is descriptions of the geography of Arabia. As all physical descriptions, this does extremely little for me, but could be of interest to people with visual imaginations.

There is also a fair bit of reporting of both details and general principles of guerilla warfare. As with all texts about guerilla warfare, the principles are incredibly simple. Volunteer forces are even more dependent on morale than usual, the most important principle is to conserve forces, the function of guerilla warfare is ersatz strategic depth, and some way or another you should try to slowly compose a regular force in a location protected by your guerilla strategic depth because you don't want to fight a guerilla war if you don't really really have to. This can all be found in any of the major texts, while the applications and local contexts are all fiendishly complicated and non-transferable.

The author also spends a great deal of time racially characterizing the Semite, and more rarely anyone else he happens to run into. Very unpleasant stuff, but arguably useful as a reminder of just how racist people were about a hundred years ago. But while the racists certainly have gotten a lot more subtle, the substance of the arguments is entirely unchanged. As always, it is almost entirely characterizing obvious cultural adaptations and socio-economic phenomena as being instead genetically encoded, and a pathetic sense of superiority.

Sexuality occupies a fascinating amount of space. I won't try to puzzle out the author's, since he mostly doesn't see fit to share it, but I will note that he is on balance neutral towards homosexuality, and viscerally opposed to heterosexuality, and doesn't appear to consider women's sexuality at all. Mostly it seems like he hates and disdains women, and consequently considers straight sex undignified and condescending at once, like bestiality. But when he's not being a massive piece of shit, he can be quite endearingly tender about homosexuality. Or disquietingly bizarre.

Finally, the author has a mortification of the flesh and scrupulosity OCD problem the size of Jupiter. This manifests in very weird ways, and was certainly not helped by the whole attempted rape and torture thing, or the several years of deceiving his friends to best subjugate them to an empire he definitely still likes but also definitely understands it is not actually nice to be subject to. Others might think the arguably pathological mentalities are the result of these experiences, but I think it's more likely part unfortunate coincidences and part self-fulfilling prophecy.

Returning to the joke from the beginning, Dune obviously does owe a lot to Seven Pillars. Some of the pathologies even rhyme - both obsessed with genetics but in Dune it shows up with a far more individualist bent, partly because it's American but mostly because it's a fantasy novel with a protagonist. Also Dune/Seven Pillars forces you to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with Frank Herbert/Thomas Shaw. Oh and the misogyny, though Herbert is terrified where Shaw is dismissive. The big difference is Herbert is a massive homophobe. 50 years of social progress, everyone!