#sondheim is a family trait i guess | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

firesfelt · 3 years

Photo

afternoon, all ! finally getting my last ( for now... i already have Temptations ) intro up, and hopefully without a rushed ending because i suddenly have to do something lmao. while i’m not Wild about my intro graphics in general ( why does this one lowkey look stretched, for a start... ) but the fact that that ‘o’ is perfectly circling amanda’s eye ? an absolutely accident but *chef’s kiss* nonetheless. i’m writing this up while saving rp icons, so let’s see if i can multitask !!

( amanda seyfried, 30, cis woman, she/her ) AISLING O’CONNOR was seen listening to HAPPY BY LEONA LEWIS on their way to DIETICIAN. AISLING is known to be OPEN-MINDED & UNFORIGVING.

➜ so first thing’s first, aisling is pronounced ‘ash-ling’ ( or ash-lin depending on your accent/whether you drop your ‘g’s or not ) and although it would make my life so much easier when it comes to typing if she did, she really doesn’t take well to anybody calling her ‘ash’ ( i’m up for the challenge though ! give me someone in her life who can finally get away with shortening her name !! she doesn’t tolerate nicknames at all but can we change her ? let’s see ! )

➜ and with a name like aisling o’connor, i’m sure y’all really don’t need three guesses as to where she’s from. she was born in belfast, and is the oldest of six sisters -- all of them blonde, and all of them beautiful ( would it be obnoxious to submit wc’s for all of them ? possibly... will i do it anyway ? perhaps... ) she comes from a very family orientated family, so when her parents wanted to move the family out of ireland due to the conflict at the time, it wasn’t surprising that aisling’s aunt, uncle, and cousins came too, as well as her darling nanna.

➜ aisling landed in huntsville at the age of six, but you best believe her accent is still just as prominent now as it was while running around belfast. as the oldest sister, she took on a lot of responsibility within the household, helping to raise the little ones with a roll of her eyes a each request, but also while being easily ignored. her parents were in no way neglectful, but with five smaller children to look after, their focus simply wasn’t on aisling.

➜ this meant that aisling fell through the cracks a little, and issues that began to surface as a teenager went unnoticed. while she never actually had a problem with her weight, teenagers can be wildly cruel and the societal pressures of looking a certain way can lead to young minds being warped, so aisling was very aware that she looked different to her peers. she was more... thicc/curvy/buxom, as a way to put it.

➜ attention might not have been drawn to her body as much if her interests were different. aisling spent her childhood and teenage years in dance classes, drama workshops, and singing lessons, all with the goal of training in musical theatre and going on to become an actress. there was a certain body type that surrounded her, and it wasn’t one she possessed, herself.

➜ it never became a problem, though, until she did go to college for musical theatre. her parents wanted all six of their girls to go to university, and they promised they’d pay what they could towards it as long as they went. they’d support any course, any major, just please go to university. however, aisling dropped out after two years. teachers, professors, agents, casting teams, they all had something to say, something to critique, something to jab at, and it lead to aisling’s self-image crumbling to the point of severe unhappiness, and developing an unhealthy relationship with food. constantly being told to drop ten pounds, as one can imagine, had a pretty gnarly effect on her.

➜ while she knew it would be possible to make it anyway, to prove the industry wrong, to make change, to represent different body types so young girls in the future don’t have to doubt themselves like she did, aisling decided her own mental health was both too fragile to do that, and more valuable than doing that.

➜ i feel like i’m going on about this a bit too much lmao, so i’m gonna wrap it up a bit: she was able to recover from the disorded eating that formed as a result, and discovered a newfound passion about nutrition, and was able to care about it without obsessing. she really wanted to form new habits around food and body image, and realised that her perspective and beliefs actually went way back to childhood, and it then extended into wanting to help other people. eventually, aisling went back to school and studied to become a dietician, which she now is. she has a special interest in helping young woman recover from disorded eating patterns and develop a healthy relationship with food and their body, and stomping all over diet culture, but she sees all kinds of clients in general.

➜ so life has obviously taken a very different turn for her, but she’s really kind of,,, okay with that at this point ? it is what it is, and that pathway really didn’t suit her. she didn’t have the skin for the industry --- or maybe the industry shouldn’t require her to have such thick skin, but it’s in the past now.

➜ also, p.s, i really don’t want it to come off like i think that there’s no place for women in theatre that don’t have sutton foster’s body, y’know ? that ain’t it !!!! it’s more,,, the absolutely ridiculousness of the pressure actresses have to look a certain way, esp. in theatre where if you’re not really slim, but you’re not big enough for roles like madame thernadier/tracy turnblad/nadia mcconell/martha dunstock/etc, there’s no place for you ? or people act like there’s no place. also don’t want it to come off bad in that,,, obviously at the end of the day, aisling is a thin woman that’s a bit,,, curvy ? like oh poor thin white woman ? that ain’t it, that isn’t what i’m trying to do jshsbss. d’you get me ? tryin to comment on how the industry can be a bit Shit, without making it out like little white cis women are the ones discriminated against. hopefully y’all get me sjhnbssbs

➜ also, when i was Creating aisling, i was originally going to make her older, and was gonna use keri russell, which is a Fun Time. i absolutely love keri though so don’t be surprise if i pop up with a keri fc later on down the line, lmao.

➜ in terms of personality, i feel like the two traits i picked for her app are a little, like, contradictory in a way ? but i love characters with conflicting personality traits. she’s very open-minded, easy to talk to, very accepting, etc ( she’s kinda like a therapist in that when you talk to her, she’ll just kind of nod and not show any kind of,, Reaction either way, she’s just Observing until it’s her turn to speak. she’s just taking everything in and Receiving without judgement for the most part ) but when she’s personally hurt, in a way that directly impacts her ( usually related to her family, tbh ) there is,,, no forgiving. she’ll hear you out, and maybe be able to move on from it, but forgiveness for the big, big things is r a r e.

➜ like how gwen is always sort of,, Faking happiness, i feel like aisling is always sort of chasing happiness ? she always wants to do what’s best for herself, and loves and respects herself deeply, so she’s always making the choices that are more likely to lead to long-term happiness, even if it bloody well hurts in the meantime ---- like giving up acting.

➜ i feel like while emika is just a loner in general who can’t handle more than fwb situations and one night stands, and gwen doesn’t have the time to form proper relationships with people due to her shift work, aisling is just really, really unlucky in love. like, for whatever reason, things just don’t work out, or turn sour, or just... fall apart. there’s a long line of exes and flings, people she took home to her parents and people she thought it best not to, all of which ending in tears.

➜ at least she has her bunny rabbits, though. they’ll never let her down. their names are sondheim & shwartz, and they are her pride and joy.

➜ her family play a massive role in her life, and she doesn’t know any differently and wouldn’t want to. her nanna is, as you can imagine, really quite old at this point, and deteriorating health-wise, but the whole family band together to keep her well and try and keep her mind active.

➜ in terms of connections and plotting, again, i’m really open. i’m willing to give absolutely anything a go and try and work stuff out. i’m also always open to hearing ideas for plots people really want and seeing if any of my characters fit. but for loose ideas for now: failed relationships & exes ( there’s lots of room there ), clients ( definitely don’t have to have issues with food necessarily ! she also sees people for things like dietary restrictions due to allergy or recently diagnosed illness like diabetes or pcos or w/e, pregnancy, folks who just want to create a meal plan that makes their body feel its best, picky eating in kids, etc ! ) people she went to school with, other theatre-y folks to bond with, honestly absolutely anything.

#sero.intro #intro ➜ aisling.#about ➜ aisling.#body image tw #eating disorder tw

6 notes · View notes

everydayducksoup · 4 years

Text

Because I can finally post it: here’s my absolute shithouse off-my-ass this-is-secular-school-now-I-can-write-REAL-politics-into-my-work essay. “Who Gets Eaten and Who Gets to Eat: Morality and Socioeconomic Mobility in Aravind Adiga’s White Tiger and Stephen Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”

In a society where honest work just doesn’t cut it, there’s always murder- at least, for the protagonists of White Tiger and Sweeney Todd. Both works make use of fictional narratives and stylistic language to destabilize narratives of wealth as moral judgement and expose the forces in society which push individuals, especially amongst the lower class, into immoral action and emotional detachment in exchange for socioeconomic stability and advancement. With Adiga presenting the story of driver-turned-entrepreneur Balram Halwai, and Sondheim the Victorian English revenge drama of Sweeney Todd’s mass murder and cannibalistic enterprise, the ‘dark side’ of capitalism, justice, and class dynamics comes to light.

In his essay, “capitalism, caste and con-games in Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger”, Snehal Shingavi presents us with two common narratives about poverty- where it is either “overcome by virtue of moral fineness (so that to be rich is to deserve) or by moral corruption (so that any upward mobility marks ethical opprobrium)”(Shingavi 7). However, neither of the works presented adhere to this conflation of wealth with morality, because they take a different look at the way our society works. In Sweeney Todd, it is constantly emphasized that vice and immorality are universal traits: in the song Epiphany, Todd sings “we all deserve to die/ even you Mrs. Lovett/ even I” (Sondheim 38), and similar judgements are made throughout the rest of the play. Meanwhile, The White Tiger expresses the opinion that goodwill is only an option for those with privilege- “here, if a man wants to be good, he can be good. In Laxamangarh, he doesn’t even have this choice.” (Adiga 262).

This decision to separate morality from the act of gaining capital does something incredibly important: it undermines the idea of the poor as apolitical or moralizing figures, establishing their autonomy. When we acknowledge this, we can more thoroughly experience the injustices that drive these characters to violent means. Both protagonists are literally denied justice- Todd is framed for a crime by Judge Turpin and sent to the penal colony as part of his plan to steal his wife, Lucy; and Balram is expected to take the blame for his master’s wife when she runs over a young child. The statues of law are shown to be ineffective within modern society due to class imbalance- the reality is, as Balram says, “the rule of the jungle”. Both protagonists take on cannibalism (one literally, the other figuratively) as their own brand of justice outside the system that has failed them. Sweeney and Lovett sing, in A Little Priest: “the history of the world my dear/…/is who gets eaten and who gets to eat”(Sondheim 48), while Balram expresses the new caste structure of postcolonial India as “there are just two castes: Men with Big Bellies, and Men with Small Bellies. And only two destinies: eat—or get eaten up.” (Adiga 54)

Rather than marking the distinction between rich and poor through morality, these works employ the binary of filth and cleanliness as a signifier of socioeconomic position. From the first, Todd describes the poor of London as “vermin” and claiming that the subjugation by the upper classes “(turn) beauty into filth and greed” (Sondheim 2). Similarly, Lovett’s introduction, The Worst Pies in London revolves entirely around the spectacle of how disgusting her situation is: “is that just revolting?” (Sondheim 9). This state of perpetual impurity is both a direct result of economic equality, and a contributing factor in its continuation. Adiga demonstrates the impact of cleanliness over filth by showing Balram successfully “passing” in middle-class society by copying his master’s habits- he stops chewing paan, starts brushing his teeth, dresses simply, changes his posture, and he is suddenly unrecognizable as the poor driver he still is. The authority given to anyone who can present well enough within the expectations of their society strips yet another layer from the connection between ethics and wealth- through appearances, Lovett’s pie shop is successful despite selling its clients human flesh. However, this effect is not only felt through the common motif of a façade, as it also serves to prove that the currency of this society is necessarily aggressive.

The White Tiger presents this struggle through the metaphor of the rooster coop:

“hundreds of pale hens and brightly colored roosters, stuffed tightly into wire-mesh cages…pecking each other and shitting on each other, jostling for breathing space…on the wooden desk above this coop sits a grinning young butcher, showing off the flesh and organs of a recently chopped-up chicken… the roosters in the coop smell the blood from above… they know they’re next.” (Adiga 147)

This analogy presents the inherent violence in the situation: if you are a poor rooster, no matter how much you preen your feathers or how peacefully you stand, your neighbors will only continue to peck at you and try to climb over you, and you will still be in line for the slaughter. If you are the rich butcher, the only way you can survive is to continue killing chickens, because that is your trade, regardless of how nicely you treat them, and if you let them out of the cage you lose it all. In order to gain power in this society, Shingavi points out, one must forsake both their origins, their emotional ties; and their morality, their societal ties. For Balram, this is the killing and torture of his family by the state, which relieves him of his caste; and the murder of Mr. Ashok, which relieves him of his servitude. For Todd, it is the knowledge that “Lucy lies in ashes” and he’ll “never see Johanna” (Sondheim 44); as well as his plan to murder the Judge. The disconnection of morality and capital allows for a system wherein justice is obtained through violence, the truth revealed through con-games, and social mobility and betterment come at the cost of human lives.

However, the values of the system do not reflect directly on the people within it- Balram, Todd and Lovett are still emotional, human figures, who have the capacity for grief and empathy. Both protagonists harbor a young boy throughout the course of the story- Balram his nephew Dharam and Lovett and Todd their young employee Toby- neither of which are related to their grander schemes. Both openly grapple with the loss of their familial connections, with Balram commenting “I’ve got no family anymore. All I’ve got are chandeliers” (Adiga 97) and Todd addressing a monologue to his lost daughter in the song Johanna (Quartet): “Goodbye, Johanna/ You're gone, and yet you're mine… And though I'll think of you, I guess/Until the day I die.” (Sondheim 63) The biggest distinction between the two works comes through this aspect: Balram succeeds in separating his personal life from his business and channeling the cold methods of the system even in his charity- giving bribes in exchange for the life of a young boy killed by one of his employees- while Lovett and Todd let their emotions drive them to ruin.

In his essay, “Mayhem and Morality in Sweeney Todd”, Alfred Mollin points out the way Sondheim uses musical references to demonstrate Todd’s descent into righteous rage and madness. The use of the music of the Dies Irae from the Requiem Mass, a piece which is immediately recognizable to a western audience as representing a sort of divine “judgement of the wicked and the good”(Mollin 3), shows that his intentions lie directly outside of the give-and-take of the system around him. In this sense, Balram’s parallel in the play is more in the character of Mrs. Lovett, who acknowledges the entrepreneurial potential of their situation and acts almost exclusively out of “thrift”- almost, because she is also in love with Todd. This affection goes directly against the preestablished tenant of the system, emancipation from emotional ties, and thus leads to their downfall. It is only fitting that Shingavi would refer to this tenant as a “murder”, as it is literally the realization that Lucy is alive, brought about in the third act of the play, that sets off the eventual demise of Lovett and Todd.

These narratives present the worst faces of our modern, heavily unequal society- the failures of justice, of capitalism, and even of human empathy. Through them, we can see past the façades imposed on daily life, worn by rich and poor alike in their pursuit of self-betterment. They express a more nuanced story of class inequality and the forces that control our society, recognizing that bringing about a just and fair environment is not a matter of taking out the boogeymen of billionaires or capitalism, but rather a process of unlearning and replacing systems that value aggression as social capital. The authors acknowledge the autonomy and potential for both good and evil present in each member of society and analyze how the world around it undermines them. These works remind us that- regardless of our personal stance or our actions- we function within the same cannibalistic system. Like the chickens pecking each other in the rooster coop or the public eating Mrs. Lovett’s pies- if we are not working to change the system, we are accomplices in this cannibalism.

#my writing

5 notes · View notes