#without divorcing or sacrificing my morals

[americankimchi]

footage of me debating with myself in multiple uninterrupted back to back 10+ minute voice notes to rowan as i play through triangle strategy like every single decision i make is of life or death importance

[kozukiodenprinceofwano]

Why Yamato staying in Wano is a good thing

Since the Wano Arc has ended, I've seen many people hating on Oda for making Yamato stay in Wano. I'll explain my view why that's a good thing, and a few other points.

First of all, Yamato staying in Wano is a good thing because they were forced to stay in Onigashima for most of their life. Roaming around Wano, talking to the citizens, and helping Momonosuke and the Scabbards, will slowly but surely make Yamato realize who they are as a person. Because they need to stop cosplaying as Oden and become their own person. I understand that Oden is Yamato's role model but taking over his identity without his consent, was never okay in my opinion. Pretending to be Oden and calling Momonosuke "son". Those are things that Yamato needs to stop doing. Immediately.

I've also seen Yamato fans in the fandom say things like this: "Nooo, Yamato I usually want you to stop cosplaying as Oden but not this time! Abandon Wano like the selfish bastard Oden did and join the Strawhats!" and that "Oden abandoned Wano despite being next in line to rule Wano" and it's like?? Are we following the same story?

Why do people ignore the fact that Roger needed Oden for the journey to the last island? Because you know, Oden can read the Poneglyphs? Without Oden, Roger would have never found Laugh Tale. When Toki got sick, Oden wanted to return to Wano with Toki and their children. Toki had to threaten Oden with divorce so that he continues his journey.

People in the fandom are also ignoring the fact that Oden was not the Shogun. His father was. Oden was just a Daimyo, and there were many Daimyos, so why are you blaming Oden for leaving Wano for a little while when it wasn't even his job to rule Wano? When Oden left Wano, everything was fine, so why would Oden think that something bad would happen while he was gone, when that never happened before?

Roger was a mass murderer who destroyed nations for childish reasons and he's also the reason why his wife and child died. Roger knew he was gonna die because of his sickness but chose to cause the death of an innocent women just because he wanted to have a child he's never even gonna raise. And yet I've never seen anyone in the fandom judge Roger for what he did.

Calling Oden selfish is completely ignorant to his character development because Oden matured and become more responsible throughout the course of the flashback. He became a very selfless man who put all the burden on his shoulders to protect and save everyone (hostages, family, citizens), and he sacrificed his own life by getting boiled alive, to save his retainers.

I've also seen people in the fandom call Yamato a better man than Oden and lemme just say it immediately, no, Yamato is not even close to being a better man than Oden. Yamato is just a Wannabe Cosplayer. If it wasn't for Oden being Yamato's role model, Yamato would have grown up as someone as evil as Kaido. Yamato wouldn't be who they are now if it wasn't for Oden being who he is. A selfless and honorable person.

Oden already showed admirable/responsible traits as a teenager (When the terrible drought happend, or when he conquered Kuri and turned it into a paradise for the citizens). Oden literally did more for Wano than his father and all the other Daimyos combined. Sukiyaki abandoned Kuri, while Oden conquered it by himself in a single night. And the other Daimyos only watched while Oden protected and saved everyone+fought Kaido on top of that. They never helped Oden. Never.

Fact is, when it comes to the morally good characters, Garp and Roger have much more flaws than Oden does. Garp let bandits raise his grandchildren and then had the nerve to wonder why Luffy and Ace became pirates+he let Ace die, and Roger slaughtered Squardo's crew+destroyed nations. Oh, and Shanks and Yasopp are deadbeat fathers. THEY are selfish bastards. Not Oden who grew into the most selfless person in the story.

Yamato staying in Wano for now is the better option because the Strawhats don't need a Wannabe Oden Cosplayer. Yamato should become their own person with their own goals and ambitions, and then join the Strawhats once Luffy comes back to Wano to pick them up. Yamato may not owe Wano anything, but neither did Oden. And yet Oden created a paradise for the citizens, ruled Kuri for years, and chose to sacrifice himself for everyone in Wano for years.

If Oden was selfish, then Yamato was creepy. Because Yamato, a 28 year old person, stalked an traumatized 8 year old (Momonosuke) who just lost his parents and country not that long ago (at least in Momo's mind), and also kept calling Momonosuke his son even though Momo doesn't even know Yamato. It's good that Yamato stays in Wano if that means that they stop being a creep who disrespects Oden and his family.

I have nothing against Yamato but they clearly don't know personal boundaries and made me feel uncomfortable many times throughout the arc.

[cowboyx2]

i’m Still thinking abt beeduo c!conflict and how people fan and actual characters have taken it! obviously we haven’t really seen any c!beeduo fights before so all we can do is speculate with what we know abt their separate characters. which fair enough i can see where someone could say this conflict could end in divorce or a loss of relationship but i full heartedly disagree

allow me to go on and write a full on analysis of sorts

i think it would be wrong to dismiss all of the evidence of both ranboo and tubbo’s friendships where they have had falling outs where even with that, they stayed friends! it would also be wrong to ignore all of UNBELIEVABLE OVERWHELMING evidence of how much they care, cherish and love one another!

1. they trust eachother so goddamn much.

they both have shared trauma (more specifically tubbo as of recent) with one another which shows a LARGE amount of trust. they have an actual living breathing son they took in together! it wasn’t just some responsibility that was thrusted onto them, they actively went out of their way to bring micheal into their home. not to mention that son is quite well taken care of, showered in love, protection and care.

all through their relationship trust has been a very big factor. in the beginning of their friendship, tubbo trusted ranboo enough to let him work (under?) him as a minutes man. which means he quite literally sat in on very important meetings of the state (wether he actually paid attention and did his job or not). and when he was exposed to be a traitor of some sort, tubbo did not look at him any different. bc goddamn -with history of traitors in l’manburg- if that doesn’t show trust

2. the absolute undeniable love they have for one another (wether you see it as romantic, platonic or somewhere in between)

with raising a son together and the large amount of trust they share aside, it is pretty obvious they love eachother in whatever way. ranboo quite literally before doomsday looked at tubbo and said he didn’t want to hurt him anymore than he has. ranboo leaves tubbo his favorite type of flowers, paid for a pissoff mansion they have yet to use, joined the syndicate to protect him.

on the tubbo side of things.., the entire argument where BACKED QUACKITY INTO A WALL while telling him if he executes ranboo then it will be TREASON??? tubbo rushing to tell ranboo he is infact not a bad person,, tubbo hovering around ranboo when tommy came back, tubbo hovering around him when ghostbut + tommy went to kill dream,, tubbo saying “and then we fell in love”,, tubbo half making nukes to protect ranboo, tubbo giving up the cookie outpost to (somewhat) protect ranboo.. please they genuinely love eachother so much

3. falling outs with other people and how they’ve always come back

looking at how badly clingyduo fell out which came from tubbo exiling tommy and probably pent up issues with one another.. i sincerely doubt ranboo and tubbo having a little bit of a disagreement with eachother would end with divorce. even with how bad clingyduo fought THEY STILL SAY THEYRE BEST FRIENDS?? my point being there is no doubt in my mind that beeduo can survive this and much more

and yeah to be fair clingyduo’s relationship is fairly strained but tubbo is very aware of that and he isn’t gonna want to lose someone he’s so close to again. tubbo for sure is self sacrificing and self sabotaging but he sure as hell loves ranboo and even if he thinks ranboo would do better without him, he isn’t gonna just let him leave

4. family over morals

ranboo notoriously never choosing sides and maybe that still is true but he has definitely chosen people. i really think if ranboo was put into a situation where he had to choose sides, he would chose tubbo’s everytime. morals are obviously very important to him but now that he has a son and husband, they take second priority after family..

for tubbo he is a very much someone who does infact put the greater good and population over himself and friends (ahem... him exiling tommy bc it was better for l’manburg as a whole). now though? after seeing what a decision like that did to his friendship with tommy? even if the tommy exile conflict changed his opinion of greater good over friends, i think ranboo would come over the greater good. look at tubbo defending him against execution which logically MIGHT have been a good decision to “keep traitors out of l’manburg”

5. conclusion

beeduo are best friends, share love and compassion, and are family. a small dispute over a cookie outpost, or picking different sides isn’t going to break that. the history, love, care and appreciation they share for one another is going to top absolutely anything they get into. i really don’t think either of them are willing to lose the other if it ever came to that, love (platonic or not) really does come before anything else.

there’s gonna be fights and arguments in every relationship, marriage, friendship but that doesn’t mean they’re gonna abandon one another.

[gamesception]

The Promised Neverland is kind of really good, actually?  I mean, yeah, I’m late to the party as usual, but I just binged the first season of the anime, and then the manga from that point on (the site I was on didn’t have any of the second season, but apparently it diverges from the comic and gets bad anyway, so maybe just read the comic to begin with).  And, I mean, spoilers, obviously, but I’m going to get into some extremely major spoilers here so if you haven’t read it or if you’ve only seen the first season of the anime maybe skip this post and read the manga, but...

...

I’ve tried and failed to write a big long post about all the ways it’s so good, how the main three characters are each so compelling, how its pitch dark but not cynical or misanthropic, with mortal stakes but not gore-porny, positive and optimistic without being trite or naïve, how choosing Emma out of the main three to be the primary protagonist and viewpoint character keeps the story from becoming a masculine militaristic power fantasy, how the antagonists are treated as characters and not just monsters - even the ones that are literal monsters, about how the story never supports or glorifies the idea of sacrificing the weak so that the strong can survive, about how empathy and understanding and a chance for peace are extended to every single villain without putting a burden to forgive on victims and without ignoring the need to fight those who refuse the offer of peace and uphold the status quo, how the story opposes oppressive hierarchies at every turn - not just those the monsters use to control the human children at the farms, but also how the monster elites use access to human meat to controller the lower social classes of monster society, and even to an extent within the human resistance.

But there’s just way too much to talk about to get it all into one big giant post, and I don’t have the stamina for a big extended ongoing project right now - or else I’d return to one of the like 12 I have on hold.

But, like, to pick just one thing....

ok, so eventually we learn what the monsters are and why they eat people.  They’re a weird sort of organism that can temporarily take on the characteristics of things they eat.  Eat a bird and grow wings, eat a bug and grow an exoskeleton, eat a human and gain a humanoid body and the intelligence to become self aware, learn language, form societies - for a while.  But if they go too long without eating people, then they lose their minds and revert to a bestial form.  In order to save the humans, the resistance leader Minerva plans to wipe out the monster society altogether.  After all, they literally have to eat humans to continue being people, there is no possibility of peace.

Protagonist Emma, though, has seen not just the horrific human farms and their cruel and corrupt rulers, but also their towns and settlements, their families and children.  She was even saved at one point shortly after her escape by friendly monsters who opposed the farm system, and even though it seems impossible, she wants to save both the humans and the monsters.

A more typical show, at least among those with premises as dark as The Promised Neverland, wouldn’t take Emma’s side in this.  She would be forced to ‘grow up’ and face the fact that she can’t save everyone.  Her naivety would get someone killed to break her heart and teach her to be hard and cruel as if those things are virtues.  Or, more likely, she wouldn’t be the viewpoint character to begin with, she’d be a side character whose ideals would get herself killed in order to elevate the male characters’ angst and justify their violence.  Either way, the message would be “Emma’s ideals were unrealistic and could never survive contact with the harsh reality of the world.”

TPN instead takes Emma’s Side.  She finds monsters who maintain a humanoid body and intelligence without eating humans, and they’re able to spread that trait to the rest of monster society while the humans all escape to the human world.  Now, as much as I don’t like the grimdark ‘there is no peaceful option’ hypothetical version of the story, this development could have been handled pretty badly.  Like, just reading it like that, it sounds like the story raised a big moral dilemma and then chickened out of it.  But that’s really not how it comes off while you’re reading it, for a couple reasons.

First of all, Emma meets the non-human-eating monsters early in the story, long before we get the explanation of how monsters in general work.  So by the time we learn that the monsters must eat humans to maintain their self identity, the audience already knows that there are exceptions and that an alternative exists.  The story never sets this up to be a moral dilemma in the first place, so when the issue is bypassed it doesn’t feel like it’s undercut itself.

More importantly, though, is the thematic & metaphorical content.  Because the monster society is a pretty explicit metaphor for unjust human societies, and monsters represent the people who make up such societies.  Not just the aristocrats who benefit from the unjust society, or those who directly enforce and uphold it, but also regular people.  People insulated just enough from the suffering and death that their lives are built on that they can turn a blind eye to it, but aware enough of their complicity in that suffering that they construct excuses to justify their part in it, and by proxy excuse those at the top who actually benefit from and shaped the society as it is.  People living lives simultaneously just comfortable enough to keep them docile, but precarious enough that they’re too caught up with struggling to maintain the tenuous grasp on the lives they have to feel like they can work towards anything better.  Monster society in TPN is a cage built out of the corpses of humans cattle, but built to imprison and enslave the monster civilians who eat them.

Hanging the story on the fantastical element of monster biology would divorce it from that essential metaphor while also endorsing an outright genocidal worldview, and TPN explicitly calls out the plan to wipe out the monsters altogether as just that - genocidal.  It never even pretends to entertain the notion that the audience should accept that plan as the right choice, even while it doesn’t condemn Minerva for pursuing it. When Emma is proposing her plan to Minerva, the deal she strikes with him is ‘I will try to make my peaceful solution happen, and if I succeed then you cancel your plan to wipe out the monsters’.  Minerva is eventually shown to be lying when he makes that agreement, but Emma isn’t, and note the if there.  If Emma’s plan fails, then she - and thus the narrative - accepts that Minerva’s plan to save the children is still better than leaving things as they are, even if it means wiping out all the monsters.  After all, the society IS monstrously unjust, and even the lower classes within that society ARE complicit in that injustice.

Minerva’s problem isn’t even presented as a matter of him hating the monsters too much to see a route to peace with them.  The story doesn’t frame the conflict between Minerva’s and Emma’s plans as hate vs. love or revenge vs. forgiveness.  It’s instead more of ‘hierarchy and division bad, mutualism/openness/relying on each other good’.  The point is to show how Minerva’s role as a figurehead who believes he has to project strength to uphold the hope that the other humans have placed in him has worn away his ability to rely on others or to be open to alternatives they offer, leaving him with rigid and inflexible thinking.

So when Minerva learns about the monsters who don’t need to eat humans, he doesn’t see an opportunity for a better outcome - potentially even an easier outcome since he doesn’t have to make enemies of the entirety of monster society - rather he sees a threat to his plan to starve the monsters back into an animalistic state.

And if that whole subplot isn’t explicit enough, Minerva’s internalized need to project strength also results in his physical body wasting away in secret from a condition he believes to be untreatable, but the moment he finally breaks down and admits he needs help Emma is able to point to a solution, one that again doesn’t come across as a cop out because again it takes the form of another character the audience was already introduced to a long time ago.

In a story arc that the second season of the anime adaptation apparently cut entirely, wow the more I hear about anime season 2 the worse it sounds.  And after the first season was so good....

...

Anyway, I tried to pick just one thing and this post still turned into a colossal gushing word cascade, and there are so many other elements to talk about.  Like how The ‘Mothers’ and ‘Sisters’ are menacing villains with seemingly no empathy for the children, but when Sister Krona realizes she’s lost the power struggle with Isabella she leaves the kids tools to help them, and then when Mother Isabella realizes the children have escaped, she covers up the route they used in order to buy them a little extra time to get away.  It’s these little touches - just as much as the short backstories that follow them - that show us how, while they might uphold the system out of fear for their own lives, and might have rationalize their part in it in order to live with the horrible things they’re doing, the mothers and sisters don’t actually hate the children.  Knowing that makes it believable when in the end Isabella does turn on the system, and every single one of the other mothers and sisters join her.

The bit when the fighting is mostly over and she tells the Mother at the house “it’s over, now we can just love them” and the other woman breaks down crying is so sad and human, it makes me tear up thinking about it..

Like I said, all the villains are characters, not just monsters.  They all have motivations for the horrific things they do - sometimes irrational, often selfish, but not even the most unforgivable of the monsters are just evil for evil’s sake.

Again, I’m rambling.  It’s just...  I’m used to these sorts of pitch dark dystopias being, for lack of a better term, kinda fashy in their messaging?  Or at the very least deeply cynical and misanthropic and just kind of mean spirited.  And TPN is so completely the opposite of that, in so many ways.

[nonbinaryeye]

9, 14, and 16?

9. Most disliked character(s)? Why?

Huh I was doing some thinking and it's actually quite hard to figure out which character I dislike. (On my first listen I hated Elias Bouchard. Oh, I hated him so passionately and so much! How I would my past self enjoy the finale... If I did not dive too deep into fandom... What a fool I am why is he my favorite character now nobody asked him to be!)

But some characters I'm not exactly a fan are:

Helen the Distortion. It's not about her being fake friend or secret tory I really loved this reveal about her I just never managed to find anything interesting or exciting as the rest of the fandom? But it's probably mostly because of how annoyed I was in season four when everyone was criticizing Jon for traumatizing people and completely disregarding Helen trapping people inside her...

Simon Fairchild... I'm sorry I just don't understand the appeal of him... Plus I don't like highs or any open spaces so I feel really bad for all the people he sacrificed yet everyone is like: Haha, funky grandpa. Really how is he from all the avatars the one getting the least of hate? (at least from what I saw)

Maxwell Rainer. I just vibe Beholding too much so I'm naturally opposed to Dark. Also he's body snatching loser he cannot even steal body without his stupid cult. (my apologies to all the Dark avatars out there...)

Gertrude Robinson. Okay she's absolute badass. But whole her life is one long line of very questionable moral choices with the ideology that the end justifies the means. I think she's amazing and interesting character but I still kind of dislike her for her actions.

14. Unpopular opinion about your fandom?

It's first time I'm experiencing some fandom on tumblr so I don't have comparison how much is this tma exclusive but some people are trying to police others people's opinions, ships and headcannons a bit too much (I don't even have that many followers yet I still managed to get some comments explaining to me that lonelyeyes divorce is just a meme and that I'm taking it too far... I won't even talk about trans headcannons discourse)

So yeah, whenever I'm posting anything that might be even just slightly controversial I always rather puts there so many disclaimers about this being only my take or my personal headcannon and that I'm not trying to attack anyone else's opinion or headcannon.

16. If you could change anything in the show, what would you change?

Multidivorce lonelyeyes are now cannon!

There are few things that I would prefer to be done or addressed differently but nothing I would really mund that much.

Maybe just...

I know not everything needs its resolution but I wanted one last proper one on one conversation between Jon and Melanie. They were on several occasions in season five talking about the other but never to each other....

[zatsysart]

incredibly, classpecting my fallout characters was a super fun experience

this is the part where i say “no i will not explain” but Actually. Explanations for my decisions under the cut

everything is copy/pasted from my discord server, hence its general messiness. all this is based off of @0pacifica’s aspect and class analysis essays.

Jules

First, her aspect. What is her story about? What has it always fundamentally been about? Fallout 3, as a narrative, is about how the Lone Wanderer chooses to fulfill their destiny. Though the confines of the story limits the player's choices, the questions it asks are clear - what kind of person will you become? Will you champion the people living in the Capital Wasteland, asking for nothing in return? Will you only aid as you see fit, seeking personal gain over altruism? Will you seek out opportunities to exploit others and cause harm? By shaming the other two endings (do nothing and allow the purifier to be destroyed or sacrifice someone else) the game tells you there is One True Canonical Ending: the LW dies activating the purifier, 'selflessly' sacrificing themselves as their father did before them. Each individual LW is characterized by how they choose to embrace or subvert that end goal.

While the overarching narrative of Fallout 3 emphasizes the LW's role as a martyr, Jules's character comes from a.) her relationship to that role and b.) her reaction to that role. This begs the question of what, exactly, is Jules's relationship to her role? 

 During her life in the Vault, Jules is taught that her role as her father's successor is too important to the community to carry personal vendettas against those who mock and shame her. She values her father's words as gospel since he is the only reliable source of emotional fulfillment she has. As a result, she devalues her feelings and tries to ignore the bullying she endures over the years. However, this is not without consequence - she feels isolated from her peers and lacks the emotional intelligence necessary to begin or maintain relationships. The idea of being a valuable part of the community is entirely conceptual to her, based only in her faith in her father's words. Upon leaving the Vault, Jules's primary concern is finding her father. She needs her father to give her a purpose, a meaning. Without him, she struggles to find meaning in the decisions she makes. 

Every choice Jules makes is framed with "Would my father expect this from me?" in mind. Though she does aid Megaton and many other citizens of the Wasteland along her journey, she has a limited amount of personal fulfillment she can gain from any one good deed. Her father is instrumental in her capacity to find meaning in her life. All this is to answer the question above. Jules has no personal or emotional investment in becoming a martyr. All the good she does in search of her father is just a consequence of using his morality as a framework for her behavior. Divorcing herself from that framework (which she does not manage to accomplish until later), she has no innate desire to help or harm people. Her personal goals and the goals of the story never intersect.

Now that we've determined her relationship to the role of martyr, we can begin to examine her reaction to that role. The LW doesn't fully realize their role in the story until after James dies. With his death, the LW must either accept or reject the shoes they've been left to fill. 

 Jules rejects this role. Violently. Now that her father is dead, she's lost all direction in her life. Without the emotional intelligence to understand the motivation behind his sacrifice, Jules sees his death as a senseless act of self-harm. This runs contradictory to her behavioral framework. If he - and by extension, her - are too important to allow emotion to rule their decisions, why would he sacrifice himself? What good are his skills and knowledge if he's not alive to share them? The short-circuiting that occurs as a result of this line of thought completely unravels Jules's already tenuous sense of meaning. She is left undone, and the emotional fallout causes her to reject everything about her father, including the role he's left for her to fill. Jules subverts the role she's meant to fill by abandoning the BoS to hunt the Enclave, and after, uses Charon as a conduit to restore the purifier.

 With these questions answered, we can determine that Jules's story is about finding meaning in the self. In order to complete her arc, she must find the answer to what her purpose is. This conclusion points to Light being her aspect. Light is the search for truth and meaning, the "one right answer".

So Jules is a Light player, frantically scrambling to find meaning and answers about her purpose. Great! Now, let's move on to her class. 

First, let's examine how the story treats her as a protagonist. Let's not mince words - the story bleeds her dry. It kicks her while she's down and punishes her for trying to subvert her martyr role. Though she does successfully complete her arc and find the answers she seeks, it is in opposition to the direction the story wants her to take. The story advances at the expense of her well-being. This parasitic story/character relationship leaves the Bard, Witch, Page, and Prince classes. 

Second, we must determine whether her aspect is manipulated or manifested in the overall narrative. This is fairly straightforward. Jules is overwhelmingly manipulated by Light. She is changed by searching for meaning in her life. This leaves the Bard and Witch classes. 

Lastly, we must determine whether she is changed by Light or if she herself changes the fundamental understanding of Light as an aspect. Though I have considered arguments for both sides, I believe Jules acts as an Alterant of Light. She begins the story with a superficial understanding of her purpose. When her father dies, her purpose is lost, and she must discover a new one. She is handed a role to fill, and she rejects it. Instead, she turns her understanding of meaning and purpose on its head in a way she previously thought impossible. As such, this grants Jules the Witch class. 

 To summarize, as a Witch of Light, Jules is a character who changes the meaning of answers and truth to advance her narrative.

Holliday

Aspect. What is Holliday's story about? There are 3 primary themes in Fallout: New Vegas - "Greed as a savage force", "Rigging the game", and "Living in the past vs embracing the future". Let's examine Holliday's relationship to each of these themes.

 1.) "Greed as a savage force". The society of the Mojave Wasteland is defined by greed. The want for more of what is not had is strong, with New Vegas itself serving as a monument to every kind of greed imaginable. Prosperous nations like the NCR and the Legion vie for more land, more wealth, more power. Greed is the undercurrent of most crime in the Mojave, from Jeannie May selling Carla Boone to the Legion to Alice McLafferty sabotaging competing caravans by hiring third parties to ambush them. Holliday rejects this theme altogether. When conflicts arise, she seeks a solution that benefits both parties, and, failing that, seeks to compromise. She puts others before herself in every regard, even if it means compromising her own comfort and safety in the process.

2.) "Rigging the game". The opening monologue Benny delivers to the Courier reinforces this theme. Luck is a fickle mistress, and winners make their own luck. Benny does it by hacking a Securitron and figuring out who was carrying the chip. The Courier has the opportunity to take their fate into their own hands, and, consequently, the fate of the entire Mojave. FNV encourages you, the player, to take an active part in the events that unfold. Regardless of the path the Courier chooses, FNV as a story cannot occur without them. The importance, then, is placed on how they choose to participate over whether they have a choice at all. What choices will they make? Who will they affect? 

Holliday's goal is to embolden the people of the Mojave with a strong sense of community. Rather than "us against them", she attempts to unite them under a common flag. She doesn't just want to help people, she wants to inspire people to help themselves. While she acknowledges that there will always be conflict among large groups, she tries to mitigate it by offering solutions that encourage mutualism or compromise. She aligns strongly with the Followers of the Apocalypse, who share her altruistic and progressive goals. She strongly opposes Caesar's Legion, who inspire fear in authority over respect for each other. To a lesser extent, she opposes the NCR and House, both of whom she believes are too absorbed in their desire for conquest to address the needs of their citizens. The choices she makes seek to empower the disenfranchised and strengthen community bonds, which was true before she ever became a Courier.

3.) "Living in the past vs embracing the future". FNV is heavily steeped in the conflict between past vs future. The NCR mimics the old world American democracy, Caesar's Legion the Roman Empire, and Mr. House clings to capitalism and RobCo Industries. The Brotherhood of Steel clings to the past so ardently that it forgoes the future, seeking to return to the old world, while the Followers of the Apocalypse embrace the new world and seek to progress it. Each companion in FNV struggles with their past in respect to their present. For example, Boone is haunted by Bitter Springs and Carla, keeping him stuck in the past unless the Courier intervenes and helps him process that trauma and move on. 

Holliday overwhelmingly embraces the future. She deeply cherishes her past relationships with The King, Timber, and Scarlet, but comes to the conclusion that, once she becomes an integral player in the game, she cannot allow them to hinder her progress. While she does her best to mend those relationships after her memories return, she never loses focus on her ultimate goal. It pains her to see those once-happy relationships strained, but she puts her personal desires aside for the greater good.

Of course, all three of these themes intersect. The decisions made by the courier reflect their propensity towards greed and their stance on regression vs progression. In summary, Holliday's collectivist goals reflect her distaste for personal greed and her desire to march forward into the future. From this, we can draw the conclusion that Holliday's story is about growth. "Growth" can mean a lot of things, though. In Holliday's case, her role in the story facilitates the expansion of FNV's narrative. Without her, the Mojave is just as greedy, unlucky, and caught between past and present as it ever was. For this reason, I have decided to designate her with the aspect of Space. Her path of growth is not raw and abstract like Life, nor is it untethered and spiraling like Hope. Holliday's growth is a directed force that spurs the narrative to grow.

Now, let's determine her class. 

1.) Symbiotic relationship to the story (mutualist, commensalist, or parasitic). The story of FNV neither bends in Holliday's favor, nor does it happen at her expense. Her relationship to the story is best summed up through commensalism. Like a tree frog and the host tree, the story makes abundant use of her skills and agency, and she has a mixed, mostly neutral relationship with it. That's not to say that she's uninvested in the story, but rather that she gains no great benefit from participating. Her growth is not exclusive to her, it affects everyone around her. This narrows down her options to Seer, Mage, Maid, and Sylph. 

2.) Manipulation vs Manifestation. Given Holliday's agency in her growth, she manifests Space. The aspect is used rather than changed in any meaningful way. This leaves her with Maid and Sylph. 

3.) Incidental vs Deliberate. Her aptitude towards growth doesn't necessarily benefit herself - she struggles in living with the idea of leaving behind those she cares about in order to progress the narrative, and compromising her safety for the well-being of others means her life is often at risk. Holliday is not deliberate in fostering growth, it's something that she is naturally inclined to do. This imbues her with the Maid class. 

In summary, as a Maid of Space, Holliday is a character who is wielded by the means of planned growth and development to advance others within her narrative.

Rosie

Aspect. What's Rosie's relationship to FNV's themes that I've laid out in Holliday's analysis? 

1.) "Greed as a savage force". Rosie is defined by her greed. After being shot by Benny, her goal is to acquire power through any means necessary to subjugate him. Once she has usurped him, her goal is to then further humiliate Benny by enacting his plan, only better. Power is her ultimate desire. 

2.) "Rigging the game". The choices Rosie makes benefit no one aside from herself. She uses her cunning and guile to heighten tension between opposing factions like the NCR and the Legion as a means to distract them from her own power plays. She manipulates House into trusting her so he will take her under his wing, and once she has extracted the resources she needs, she eliminates him without hesitation. 

3.) "Living in the past vs embracing the future". Rosie's shared past with Benny as a Boot Rider is the only reason she does not kill him immediately upon their reunion. She wishes to rekindle her past relationship with him, regardless of how toxic it may be. As the daughter of the previous leader of the Boot Riders, she seeks to relive the past through the present by ruling over the Mojave as she once could have. 

Like Holliday, Rosie's story is about growth. Unlike Holliday, her growth is only defined by her momentum towards power rather than cultivating a better society. Because of this, I have decided to designate her with the Life aspect. Unlike Space, which ushers in the narrative through organized growth, or Hope, which creates thoughtlessly, Life is about growing as a fundamental concept. Through Life, development and consumption are inevitable. By understanding Rosie's relationship with greed and regressive ideals, she will find that, through her growth, there is no more mountain left to climb. Conservation of matter means that, eventually, there is nothing left to consume but yourself.

Class. What's Rosie's relationship to her aspect, and her aspect to the narrative? 

1.) Symbiotic relationship to the story (mutualist, commensalist, or parasitic). Mutualistic. Rosie's story focuses on her efforts to climb to the top of the food chain. Though she is eventually defeated, her arc isn't complete until she accomplishes this goal. This leaves her with the possibilities of Thief, Rogue, Heir, and Knight. 

2.) Manipulation vs Manifestation. Rosie changes the meaning of her aspect by personalizing it. It's no longer an abstract concept of "growth", but rather an understanding that she has endless momentum to barrel her way to the top, she need only take the reigns. This narrows it down to Thief or Rogue. 

3.) Incidentally vs Deliberately. Life acts on the narrative by changing Rosie and forcing a reinterpretation of her role and position as protagonist. She does not deliberately change the meaning of growth, but the momentum she requires over the course of FNV advances her narrative position. Life acts through her, changes her into the person she wants to become. Therefore, she is designated the Thief class. 

In summary, as a Thief of Life, Rosie is changed by growth, momentum, and success for her own advancement.

[cornwaiidesu]

a boohoo-y deep dive into my ~psyche~ cuz I had A Moment at work yesterday :P

I care too much about what people think of me. plain and simple. I have been this way since I was a little girl. my cousins would pick on me because I was the special baby girl out of the three of us and they were the two older boys. they would pick on me for being shy and soft spoken and liking girl things, and I wanted them to like me because I thought the two of them were the coolest boys in the world, so I grew to be a little tomboy. I wanted to like fighting games, and anime, and comics because those were "boy things".

but then when puberty started to set in, being a tomboy wasn't cute anymore. at least according to the bullies I had in middle school. usually boys who would call me a d*ke and make fun of me for wearing baggy t-shirts and loose pants and my dad's army jacket every single day of my life. "girls are supposed to be feminine" so obviously something had to be *wrong* with me and they would speculate shit about me directly in front of me. try to engage me in the conversation just to rub it in and of course that made me feel like shit.

so then in high school I try to flip the switch again. I start wearing tighter fitting clothes. I grow my hair out because I was constantly being dogged on my hairstyle even tho that shit was kind of REVOLUTIONARY FOR A 12 YEAR OLD LIVING IN IOWA. PROPS TO TEENAGE MRH. even back then I was a little punk. :3c I digress tho.

the beginning of high school was when I started my curse that lives on in me. I wear earrings every day of my life and I do because I convinced myself back then that I would be mistaken for a boy otherwise. and I still hold that fear because it was upheld! I started wearing dresses and skirts to school, but it didn't matter because dudes would still flip me shit and say that I was a predatory lesbian and strip me of my femininity. adults would still call me young man and sir despite being a 16 year old wearing make up, denim skirts, earrings, and covered in beaded necklaces. I would wear SO much jewelry to try to get it through people's minds that I was a girl.

but then through that came another weird thing where, like, though I was dressing ~feminine~ I was still "one of the guys" because I had a crude sense of humor and still liked comics and anime and wasn't as, for lack of a better word, "delicate" as my other (white) female friends. but then AGAIN I *couldnt* be one of the guys because it was a secret special task force essentially and I was just a stupid girl.

a lot of that fucked up my sense of self with my sexuality growing up too. I knew at a fairly early age that I was bisexual even though I didn't know there was a word for it, but I didn't want to admit to liking girls because that would mean my bullies were right about me, and if they were right about that then what if they were right about all the other horrible stuff they said about me being hideous, and gross, and weird?

because! if that was right too! a boy would never fall in love with me and have dance sex with me like Johnny and Baby do in Dirty Dancing! or would never save me from being sacrificed like Rick saves Evie in The Mummy! I'd be alone forever because boys would think I was big ugly butch with no value to them, and girls would think I was a predator and would always have to be on their guard to make sure I wasn't gawking and fawning over them. (and let's not even GET into how my religion fucked up my sense of morality about this. I have since grown out of it at least.)

every person I ever confessed to having a crush on has turned me down (mostly politely though, thank god) in my life except for one and a half. (one said they also liked someone else as much as they liked me, and since I had no self-esteem at 18 I was like "oh that's cool. let's date anyway." because I just wanted to have a boyfriend. that's the half.)

the other we kind of connected right away, whirlwind romance for me, but I don't think they ever quite felt the same way and that ended in an actual divorce anyway.

I've had three "relationships" my whole entire life and no more than that, and in my head i told myself thag was because I am fat, and ugly, and MASCULINE, no matter how hard I tried to be sweet and charming and pretty.

as I've aged I've learned about the systematic de-feminization of black women since all the way back to slavery times and shit and I won't claim to be an expert about that shit but it makes me cry that it's just ingrained into people's minds. it doesn't give us a single fighting chance from birth. it makes me feel like I'm going to be a lonely freak for the rest of my life because iowa is like one of the whitest places in the world, and my own internalized racism has convinced me all my life that I don't belong in black spaces because I'm not "authentic", I'm watered down. I've been called a half-breed and an oreo so many times.

I can't be black, I can't be white, I can't be a boy, I can't be a girl. I'm a copper penny in a jar full of nickels and dimes. I don't look the same, I'm not the same shape, and im not as shiny.

though I am attracted to women I have this OBSESSION with men, and to have a relationship with a man as PROOF. SOLID PROOF. that I am a valid woman, because there seems to be no other way for me to get the point across. and it's important for me to get the point across because I grew up with my business being the punchline, and curiosity of my peers, and the concern of my family. I couldn't exist without speculation from someone.

and then came a moment last year while I was at work, where a co-worker told me something that a person in another department who I did not get along with had told them. that I was a mean, jealous bitch who wanted them "out of the way" because they were getting too close to my friend that also worked at our store, and I was obsessed and in love with her and trying to stop a relationship from forming between the two of them. and it made me sick to my stomach. it was the thing I had been trying to steer clear from, from the moment I knew I was bisexual, but I hadn't tried hard enough. my anxiety shot through the roof. I had a panic attack. I broke down sobbing in the bathroom. this person was vengeful, I had nothing to do with them or that friend anymore, and I hadn't for months but they wanted to spread this rumor about me. and even if I truthfully denied it like I did, it didn't matter, because a person could take one look at me an think "you know, I can see that." because that's what people thought my entire fucking existence.

I cried off and on the rest of the day. I was too sick to eat dinner. I barely slept. and then I ended up puking what little food I had to eat that night anyway. I still barely ate the following few days I stayed home from work because I still felt so sick to my stomach with anxiety and at one point I got faint-ish when I had finally returned to work, and had to have help to get to the breakroom and force myself to eat. I bawled to my step-mother about it all, that I didn't feel comfortable at work anymore because it was just my words against theirs, and my bosses never held the person accountable for any of the other bullshit that they caused anyway.

it took me a VERY. long time to move past this incident. I think the only thing that ever ended up fully distracting me from it was covid and my uncle and my father's health both taking a turn for the worst last June. and even then, in between, I had such loooow moments. I self harmed and wrote mean notes to myself, stayed in bed for days. I wrote my own suicide note just to feel better, even though I knew I'd never do it. I was too chicken, but I just wanted to write it and pretend, just to release the depression pressure in my brain.

I've since been better for the most part. I know my parents love me and that I'm important to them, when just a few years ago I used to claim that I was an orphan because I was convinced that my father and my step-mother never cared to see me again because I was an ungrateful brat. I still get very lonely and long for a significant other but I'm kind of just coming to terms with the fact that unless I put myself out there, it won't happen, and im just too insecure to take the steps.

yesterday though, just for a second, out of nowhere, I thought about the claim that person had made about me even though the atmosphere at work has since changed, and things are patched up between me and my friend.

that gossiper is irrelevant now, but I couldn't help but have a little meltdown about it anyway because. like. apparently that's the vibe that I give off. because that's what everyone has said about me from day one of my life. and. I just. have to keep dealing with it. I'm stuck like this. and it sucks. and that little thought about it reminded me again.

[eyreguide]

Reviews of Jane Eyre Adaptations

An overview of my thoughts on all the film and television adaptations I have seen.

Jane Eyre 1934  Virginia Bruce And Colin Clive

This is the first talkie version of “Jane Eyre” and I think has the rather unfortunate timing to have come out during the Great Depression. For that is the only reason I can think of for making the story so cheery and sweet. Gone are moral ambiguities and dilemmas. Adele is Rochester’s niece, and Rochester is in the process of divorcing his mild-mannered and slightly mad first wife. Even Mr. Rochester is charming and affable (and quite obviously in love with Jane from the start); you don’t have to work hard to like him.

Jane herself is quite spunky and has no trouble expressing anything she is feeling. I find it funny how she calls out Mr. Rochester on everything. No wonder he is pretty straightforward with her. And Jane is acknowledged to be young and pretty in the movie- interesting since so many adaptations in later years get beautiful actresses to play Jane and then pretend they are plain.

I think because this version lightens the story so much, one can’t take it too seriously as an adaptation of “Jane Eyre”.

1943 Jane Eyre   Joan Fontaine And Orson Welles

There’s a much better attempt to adapt the actual novel in this version (as compared to the 1934 film version) which makes for an interesting transition from light to dark. The 1934 film being a little too happy and this version being a little too dark. Orson Welles plays the role of Rochester with such an intensity that makes him a little intimidating. No wonder Joan Fontaine’s Jane looks like a deer caught in headlights most of the time.

The script has some interesting changes to the story that perpetuates through several movie adaptations to follow. Helen Burns has her hair cut at Lowood instead of Julia Severn in the novel, and Jane heroically demands to have her hair cut as well. Jane is more directly the cause of Mr. Rochester falling off his horse as he looms up on her and she is unfortunately in the way instead of standing quietly by the side of the road. Jane also feels she has to defend Adele and asks Rochester to treat her more kindly- something Jane never does in the novel.

Other interesting innovations to the story include a St. John Rivers who is the Doctor for Lowood, and who provides Jane with lessons of morality instead of Helen Burns. Overall, this film is fantastically moody and quite romantic, and a very good film if you aren’t too concerned about fidelity to the novel.

1949 Jane Eyre Mary Sinclair And Charlton Heston

Studio One produced this hour long episode and it was apparently filmed live, so they had one big set for the whole program. Consequently the script centers on the Thornfield section, although it does show Jane leaving Lowood. The house party consisted of just Blanche (with Jane having to play piano for their amusement!)

Mary Sinclair as Jane does not bring much to the role. She says her lines and acts smitten as needed. Charlton Heston is an aggressive and overly masculine Rochester, and he doesn’t really capture the character very well either. It doesn’t help that he tended to over do the emotion somewhat.

The story is very chopped up, obviously, and everything moves very quickly. There really isn’t much to recommend this, unless you are a big fan of the novel, and you like old movies.

1952 Jane Eyre  Katharine Bard And Kevin McCarthy

This episode was also produced by Studio One and is very similar in script and features a similar set. They seemed to have a little more money in the budget though because the staging and sets were a little better. And Mr. Rochester was able to have a larger house party, that reflected the book more.

Katharine Bard was also not very memorable as Jane. She said her lines and was just there. Kevin McCarthy had this interesting nicer vibe to him. He seemed more friendly and sweet, while also being demanding sometimes. It’s still not a great characterization though.

Again, I would not really recommend this version unless you are set on watching all adaptations (and that’s a great idea!)

1956 Jane Eyre Daphne Slater And Stanley Baker

This early six-part British miniseries is available to watch only at the BFI in London. I was pleasantly surprised by how well this version adapted the story. Slater and Baker’s interpretation of the characters is wonderful and the dialogue/script follows the general plot of the novel very well. It does veer off from the actual dialogue of the book, but in this case, I liked the changes. It captured the gist of the scenes and the character’s emotions. The only really odd moments came from some of the more emotional scenes which would have been better with Charlotte’s words.

The childhood part of the story features the actress playing adult Jane, also playing Jane as a child, which is a little jarring, but it actually worked rather well. Slater was good at capturing the essence of a child. Young Jane in this version is also much more outspoken and Helen Burns feels more like an equal to Jane - much less overly religious and self-sacrificing. It made for a different dynamic but I enjoyed how it showed Jane and Helen’s close relationship

Unfortunately feisty, young Jane becomes much more muted and easily frightened as adult Jane. Slater’s Jane is still good though, despirt her timidity and is able to hold her own against Baker’s Rochester. Baker makes an imposing, brusque and rough Rochester, but he brought some nuance and emotional depth to the character. The miniseries also does justice to St. John Rivers and shows him as very formidalbe and controlling - perhaps the most cold and disturbing I have ever seen St. John portrayed. He attempts to read a letter that Jane receives without her knowledge, and also lies to Jane that Rochester has already moved on from her.

This was a wonderful version with many scenes and moments that I did not expect to be included in so early an adaptation.

1957 Jane Eyre Joan Elam And Patrick MacNee

This adaptation is much fun. It’s just… so weird. The interpretation of the novel is so bad, it’s like the writer was making fun of “Jane Eyre.” Jane is preachy and spiritual to the extreme. She doesn’t have a care for herself but just wants to help Mr. Rochester in any way she can. Which Mr. Rochester must be glad of since she excuses his lecherous advances on her because he drinks (alot apparently) and because he has had a troubled past. But after Rochester has tried to take advantage of Jane, he does fall in love with her and it’s cute how much attention he pays to her during his house party. Which gives Blanche a chance to be ridiculously catty.

Mason also gets interesting things to do in this adaptation. He doesn’t get quietly stabbed and bitten on the third floor- no he crashes down some stairs during the house party, bleeding and terrified. A supremely Gothic moment. And when Jane agrees to marry Rochester, Mason sort of slides into view and is all ‘I don’t think so.’ Mason has some attitude. The script for the adaptation is just over the top- down to little Adele scrabbling in the ashes for a toy when Jane finds her in the end after (a really quick) fire.

For an “interesting” way of looking at the story of “Jane Eyre”, this adaptation scores high marks.

1957 Jane Eyre (Italian) Ilaria Occhini And Raf Vallone

This adaptation is in Italian, and the copy I have has no subtitles, so I’m reviewing this with only the acting and the gist of the scenes to go by.

This is a 5 part adaptation (oddly each episode is not quite the same length) and it begins with Jane meeting Mr. Rochester by felling his horse. From there, Jane’s childhood is told through some flashbacks. Some of the more interesting adaptation choices this version makes is to have Jane much older when she finally leaves the Reeds house. And a new sort of character is introduced - by the name of Jack Lloyd. He seems to be a combination of John Reed and St. John, in that he is Jane’s cousin on the Reed’s side (maybe?) and is in love with Jane from the beginning. While the first episode mostly deals with Jane’s childhood, we still get scenes in the next three episodes to what the Reeds are doing and especially Jack Lloyd. Jack also turns up at Thornfield to take Jane away to visit sick Mrs. Reed. I was very entertained by what seemed to be Mr. Rochester’s jealousy over Jack! Another interesting thing about this script is that Mr. Rochester hires a gypsy and listens in on the readings she gives (just like in the 2006 miniseries). And then, he comes out to comfort Jane because she has become distressed.

The feel of this adaptation is very dramatic, there is an emphasis on Gothic elements (forbidden rooms, screams, portentous secretive glances) and the audience sees things from Bertha’s point of view a couple times, as she wanders Thornfield’s halls. Jane and Rochester are smitten with each other very quickly. I found it funny how often they stare at each other as if there was no one else in the room. (Sometimes there was.) Jane can seem a bit moony, and Mr. Rochester has a few mood swings. He can seem really nice one minute and then suddenly speak very sharply. This adaptation is a bit slow, and takes some interesting liberties with the story, but I found it very entertaining and romantic. And Mr. Rochester regains his sight in a dramatic moment in the end during the wedding. A nice dramatic wrap-up.

1961 Jane Eyre Sally Ann Howes And Zachary Scott

This one-hour television production for “Family Classics” was introduced by Joan Fontaine which was a nice surprise. Opening credits start with Grace Poole getting herself some alcohol. Mr. Rochester’s entrance is not quite as dramatic- he is sitting in a chair in the darkened library when Jane goes down to get a book and he startles her when he speaks. I actually really liked this adaptation. Sally Ann Howes was again serviceable as Jane, nothing special in her interpretation. Zachary Scott as Rochester brought something different to the role as compared to the previous American hour-long television productions. His Rochester was more aristocratic in ways, he sometimes- and very vaguely!- put me in mind of Dracula. Not that he was vampiric, just in the way he carried himself. And maybe because he was dark and thin.

The script manages to include a “Rivers��� section where Jane actually gets a proposal from St. John- something that hasn’t happened in the previous film adaptations I have seen. And St. John is rather egregious and plump- not very like the Apollo of the book. And if I’m not mistaken, this is also the first time they flash back to Thornfield burning down while Jane is away- breaking up the Rivers section with a scene with Rochester.

If I had to pick the best of the American hour-long productions, I would pick this one. Which is viewable free at the Paley Center in Los Angeles and New York.

1970 Jane Eyre Susannah York And George C. Scott

I feel that this version is the first to approach the story of “Jane Eyre” as it is, rather than as a dramatic rendering. It’s somber and dreamy and pretty straightforward in portraying the scenes. Not that the characterizations are all correct. Susannah York’s Jane is mature- reflective of the actress’s age undoubtedly, and George C. Scott is curiously cold and dry most of the time. St. John Rivers is surprisingly passionate and eager to marry Jane even though he still doesn’t love her.

The production benefits from location shooting (first version to shoot on the moors?), and wonderful music which goes a long way to filling in the passion and romance that is lacking in the actors. Much attention is paid to the character of Helen Burns here which is a plus- the audience really gets to see how Helen helped Jane to grow. The script in itself is okay, until the blundering line of Rochester’s “But I loved her once, as I love you now.” when Rochester has shown Bertha to Jane and the wedding party. I find that line basically undermines Rochester’s love for Jane. It is important to understand that Rochester did not love Bertha at all so then Rochester doesn’t seem so much like a jerk.

Well. This version has some issues, but to see it after the previous versions, it is a breath of fresh air because it comes closer to recreating the novel proper.

1972 Jane Eyre (Czech) Marta Vancurova And Jan Kačer

I have not re-watched this version in a long time, so this review is very brief:

A friend was able to find this rather obscure adaptation made in 1972 Czechoslovakia. The copy she found is in Czech with no subtitles, so I can’t understand a word of it. However, I will comment on the overall tone that I received from the four hour adaptation- melancholy and artsy (perhaps reflective of a low budget). Not as much passion to certain scenes as one would expect, but I did enjoy this adaptation and they did a good job with condensing the material. Except for the Lowood portion of the story, which they cut out.

1973 Jane Eyre Sorcha Cusack And Michael Jayston

This is the best version of Jane Eyre to date. I wouldn’t say there was an overall tone for the miniseries- it comes off as a straightforward interpretation of the novel. Production values are lacking in that set design and blocking are less than inspired, but it does have great costumes and outdoor sets. There are really just two reasons why this is the best version in my opinion. Script and characterization. The script uses much of the novel’s dialogue (finally!!), and sometimes brings out interesting elements of humor that one might not have noticed before. And I feel like Jane Eyre has many funny moments or comments that are mostly overlooked in other adaptations. And in condensing the material they kept so much of the story intact it’s surprising. I am only disappointed by how they shortened the Gypsy scene by having Jane discover Rochester too quickly. But every other important scene is done beautifully.

As for the actors, I am only disappointed in Juliet Whaley’s Young Jane, whose acting is stilted sometimes, but she was young. Sorcha Cusack portrays a nice blend of shyness and independence and Michael Jayston is superb as Rochester. His performance is nuanced and mesmerizing. Stephanie Beacham is probably the best Blanche I have ever seen as well- she comes off as snobbish and selfish but I can see how she might be captivating and charming to men.

There is not much else I can say about this, my favorite adaptation. I think every one who is a fan of the novel should see this version.

1983 Jane Eyre Zelah Clarke And Timothy Dalton

Another mini-series adaptation, this version had a bigger budget it seems than the 1973 version. Set design and lighting are improved, and the show even got it’s own theme! The show was also 30 minutes long per episode which gave a different, more leisurely pace to the scenes. It seems like they wanted to make sure each episode ended on a little cliff-hanger. But with the pace slower, it sometimes felt like the actors were speaking too slow. There were long (introspective?) pauses and they even broke up scenes with time lapses and set changes. The proposal scene for instance starts in the library and Jane runs out to be alone in the garden.

As an adaptation of the novel, this is the second best film version because it has so much time to give to telling the story. Zelah Clarke as Jane is a little monotone sometimes, but she does a good job showing Jane’s spirited side. Timothy Dalton’s Rochester is imperious and masterly, and very charming. The script has a proper charades scene and Rosamond Oliver makes her first appearance in this adaptation. They also show an older Eliza and Georgiana which is another first.

Overall, this version is very good and is only ranked behind Jane Eyre 1973 because of dialogue/script changes and characterization.

1996 Jane Eyre Charlotte Gainsboroug And William Hurt

This version takes a fresh look at the novel. The flow of the narrative is different- much faster in pace, so that some scenes happen quickly right after the other- giving time no doubt to show the more leisurely and melancholy scenes of Jane and Rochester alone. During Brocklehurt’s first visit to the Reeds, he immediately takes Jane away to Lowood, and there is a quick transition from Helen Burns dying to older Jane by her graveside then walking to take the coach to Thornfield. And as soon as Jane flees from Rochester and a bigamous marriage, Thornfield is on fire and the audience knows that Rochester has been injured before we know what has happened to Jane.

The overall tone of the movie emphasizes Jane and Rochester’s loneliness, which makes the film very poignant. Any “supernatural” elements to the story is minimized- Mr. Rochester does not loom up on Jane, but passes her by and then slips on ice (like in the book), and Bertha’s madness has a touch more realism and sympathy when she pushes Grace Poole to her death and then jumps after her. And again, Jane does not hear Mr. Rochester’s voice calling to her (though there is that one instance where maybe you could hear him whispering her name on the winds?) but instead she looks into her heart and knows she must go back and find out what happened to him. Even the Rivers aren’t her cousins, but just happened to be taking care of Mrs. Reed, and eventually of her effects.

This is a beautiful film- great sets, locations, vistas. The music is beautiful and haunting. Despite the truncated adaptation and the one-sided portrayal of Rochester, I really enjoyed this film. Especially for the pathos of Jane and Rochester’s romance.

1997 Jane Eyre   Samantha Morton And Ciaran Hinds

Truthfully, I dislike this version. It makes me laugh though, because I don’t understand how they could have gotten so many things wrong. The script is awful, Ciaran Hinds is horrible as Rochester, and Samantha Morton is a little annoying. Though that is probably the script. So let’s start there. We have your average truncated adaptation which makes sense- they cut things that most shorter film adaptations cut, but the dialogue! It’s too modern and direct. Jane addresses Rochester in a way that is not in keeping with her sense of propriety. Of course Rochester doesn’t hold much with formal conversations with Jane in the book, but his conversation in this film has none of the poetic prose of the novel. It’s all very cliched and off-putting.

Since Grace Poole is made a much bigger mystery in this version than in previous ones- Jane’s eagerness to rehabilitate her make sense, but is an unnecessary addition to the plot. Especially as Jane keeps harping on what Grace Poole is doing. Ciaran Hinds as Rochester is shouty and brutish and especially distasteful after the failed wedding. He throws Jane’s luggage down to the first floor and drags her to the garden, blaming her for not loving him enough to be his mistress. The only time I liked Samantha and Ciaran’s chemistry was after the fire in Rochester’s bedroom, when he took her hand. After that it was too much panting and open-mouthed kissing. Yikes.

The only scene that was enjoyable was when Jane comes back from visiting Mrs. Reed (curious how they lead up to that scene, but did not show her with Mrs. Reed at all) and Mr. Rochester is happy/annoyed at seeing Jane walking into Thornfield. It was a cute scene. Other than that, I wouldn’t really recommend this if you wanted a romantic version.

2006 Jane Eyre   Ruth Wilson And Toby Stephens

Another BBC mini-series of which I always expect alot. In some ways this adaptation delivered and in others it fell short. Production values were excellent of course. Ruth Wilson as Jane was a revelation. I’ve always thought it was hard to portray Jane’s inner emotions as detailed in the novel but Ruth manages to make her thoughts visible facially. Voiceovers were really not necessary. She’s just so good and so nuanced, well-rounded, I loved her portrayal of Jane. There are a couple of scenes in this version that have never been previously adapted. Namely the “carriage scene” when Rochester takes Jane to Millcote to buy dresses. The carriage scene dialogue with Adele in tow is so cute and playful and shows a wonderful side to all three characters. There is also the scene where Jane runs out in the rain to catch up to Mr. Rochester the night before their wedding. The dream sequence also makes it in- with Jane holding a baby while being kept away from Rochester. All scenes that I very much enjoyed watching.

Disappointingly, the script in general didn’t quite capture “Jane Eyre” in my opinion. The dialogue and changes to Mr. Rochester’s character specifically did not feel right. And of course there is THAT scene on the bed that really felt out of place for the story and for Jane’s principles. And why does Mr. Rochester hire a gypsy to trick Jane? It seems like there’s an attempt to minimize some theatrical elements (Rochester cross-dressing, the voice across the moors- now scientifically explained!) to maximize on other theatrical elements (dream sequences, Rochester’s bed on fire- which looked like a pyre, and the terrifying secret in the attic). There really doesn’t seem to be much point to emphasizing one and not the other.

Mr. Rochester often seemed a little immature, too boyish maybe, in his eagerness to collect dead insects maybe? I never really felt that Toby Stephens captured Mr. Rochester’s sophistication. The efforts to increase the sexual tension did not improve my opinion of Rochester, because Rochester getting Jane into bed was just a low blow. For the most part, I’d watch this version for Ruth Wilson and some of the humor and playfulness they put into the story.

2011 Jane Eyre Mia Wasikowska And Michael Fassbender

This version is a complete and refreshing surprise. Judging from the trailer, I thought it would be melodramatic in the extreme with an emphasis on the darker Gothic elements, but nothing could be further from the truth. The set design, lighting, and camera choices could be seen as dark, but they are also realistic to the times and what seems to be the vision of the director, Cary Fukunaga. Which appears to be to present the story of Jane as she lived it, completely tuned in to her thoughts and feelings. A very refreshing idea. Many versions have added or filmed sequences of the story in which Jane did not participate- for example, Thornfield burning down or scenes between Blanche and Rochester, but the story stays with Jane practically the whole way through, with camera angles highlighting that the audience is experiencing everything through Jane. This really changed the experience of viewing the movie- it felt real and not like a spectacle.

The script helps alot in this, it condenses the story but stays true to every part of it. Even with the narrative structure changed, it still hit all the important scenes, and stayed true to even the lesser characters in the story. It is surprising what scenes are not included in the movie- for instance the tearing of the veil- so that the focus of the story is more on Jane and Rochester’s relationship but even with that the more Gothic elements are not completely marginalized. There is still a sense of things not being quite right.

Mia Wasikowska as Jane is excellent; strong and intelligent, and fantastic at conveying her inner emotions through body language. One of the many things I loved in this version are all the shots of Jane walking/pacing restlessly. Mia somehow conveys that there is “a vivid, restless, resolute captive” inside of her. Michael Fassbender is commanding and sardonic and tender and teasing, sometimes all at once and sometimes flipping between the emotions at will- quite amazing to watch. He can be so intense that you are a little afraid of him and then so pleading and desperate that your heart breaks for him.

The movie was understated and simple and more powerfully emotional because of it. Personally, this would be my second favorite adaptation after the 1973 mini-series. Despite the inevitable condensing of the story, and an ending that felt a bit abrupt, it was so refreshing to watch a version that did not overplay the story and kept the focus on Jane.

2013-14 The Autobiography of Jane Eyre Alysson Hall And Adam J. Wright

This web series has Jane, a 21 year old university student, working as a nanny for Mr. Rochester’s daughter Adele. She vlogs about her life, and through the videos we get to meet all the people in her life.

I was really impressed by how close they stuck to the novel - adapting scenes that are often disregarded in other adaptations (granted they have a lot more time with this series) but also to make some scenes from the book modern must have been a great challenge. And I was really mostly happy with how they managed to make everything fit in their world.

I do have some issues with this as an adaptation though. Sometimes I lose focus on what some episodes are trying to adapt from the novel - it doesn’t always flow well for me, and I had an issue with Jane taping people in the beginning without their consent. I mean she can accidentally leave the camera on, but she doesn’t have to post it. But the reason why that bothers me is because Jane is supposed to have better sense than that. She can be a bit naive, but she always knows what’s right and wrong. But then again, it is difficult to adapt this kind of story! The audience would want to see these people!

The actors were all really excellent in their parts. Jane of course was so endearing and quirky - definitely different from Jane in the book, but believably the modern version. Mr. Rochester had a wonderful sense of humor and it was evident from the beginning how much he cared about Jane. Their romance was so sweet and developed very well throughout the videos. The Rivers were also believable surprisingly - I mean especially when it came to the St. John character - now called Simon. St. John in the book would be very difficult to modernize I think - because he’s so zealous and religious, selfless but selfish. They made Simon a little bit too dorky and cute, but he was also stubborn and unsympathetic to others which fit. There were some changes made when it comes to Grace that made the story work very well, and a new character - Suzana - would often steal the show with her sassiness.

It is disappointing that towards the end they had to recast the actor who played Rochester which leads to a sort of rushed and incomplete ending. I think they did the best they could, but for a series that has done such a wonderful job bringing so much of Jane Eyre to life, it’s unfortunate they left out so much of the ending.

This adaptation had it’s ups and downs for me, but I always felt there was a lot of love for this book in every episode, and the writing and the story planning was often exceptional in adapting the book. I was always happy to get a new episode and it was such a great experience getting a little dose of Jane’s story every week.

2000 Jane Eyre the Musical Marla Schaffel And James Barbour

Okay, the musical. This is the Paul Gordon version. I’ve seen SO MANY comments bashing the musical by people who have never really listened to it just because it’s “Jane Eyre” with singing, and “Jane Eyre” shouldn’t be a musical (OMG!). I have to say I was never a fan of musicals before listening to this version. (Except for “The Sound of Music” which…is a little bit like “Jane Eyre” isn’t it?) At any rate, it took awhile for me to come to grips with all the singing, so I can understand where people may come from but I hope that at least some of the people who turn their backs on this musical might actually like it if they really listened to it.

I do love this musical. I think adding music to the already lyrical text heightens the emotion of the story and can very easily put you into the mindset of each of the characters. The ability of Paul Gordon to work in actual text from the novel into the lyrics is amazing as well (something I come to realize even more as I listen to other Jane Eyre muscials). In terms of condensing the story, all the major scenes are there for the most part, and without too many additions. I love that they even have Rochester as the Gypsy which is rarely done in Janian adaptations. The tone of the whole show is somber- in set design and music, but there are moments of humour- with Mrs. Fairfax most often bringing in the comic relief.

Marla Schaffel is marvelously grounded as Jane- her characterization is balanced between propriety and passion- something that is hard to do in a straight production, but when Jane can sing in privacy, it can all come out. :) James Barbour is commanding as Rochester (and not only because of his voice, which is a glorious baritone). His performance is more layered than many Rochesters I have seen, having a certain finesse or gracefulness while also being gruff and abrupt. The other characters are mostly spot on with the exception of Mrs. Fairfax (played by Mary Stout) who plays her good-natured but a bit doddering. And St. John Rivers is not quite the jerk he is in the novel. Though he still doesn’t love Jane when he asks her to marry him.

1952 Sangdil Madhubala And Dilip Kumar

I have not re-watched this version in a long time, so this review is very brief: An Indian film released in 1952. Whether or not this film is an adaptation of the novel is perhaps debatable. The setting is completely changed to India and there are changes to the story reflecting Indian culture. Yet, the basic story of Jane Eyre is there and many scenes are taken from the novel- notably the Gypsy scene (with Shakur impersonating a male astrologer) In my opinion this is a very enjoyable representation of the novel. Kamal is played with a strong moral sense, shyness and innocence. Shankar is admirably played with much angst and playfulness.

[adriennegillis]

J and G wedding

Dearest Jenni and George,

(Sorry George – you don’t know me. I’m the one that divorced Uncle Tom and was forever exiled to a land far, far away - LOL…how do you do – nice to meet you.)

Congratulations on your upcoming wedding!

As I’m sure you know, Kristina has asked everyone to share their thoughts on what makes a marriage healthy and strong. 

I was married for 24 years – that’s a long time – not “forever” (although it felt like it – ba dum dum), [That was a joke] but a long darn time. During those 24 years and subsequent ones after, I researched and analyzed marriage and relationships in general. I think especially if you “fail” at something, you really want to understand it! I’m going to tell you honestly what I learned.

There are a couple of components to a long relationship. First there is love, which you obviously have or you wouldn’t be getting married. Love is very complex and has different stages and depths. It can be light and fluffy and it can be very deep – all within the same relationship. When there is love, the other person’s happiness and welfare will always be important to you. Then there is respect. Respect for each other means you value who that person is at their core and what they think and how they see the world. Respect is key. When you have respect for the other person, you can really listen to what they have to say about something because you trust their moral and ethical compass and appreciate their take on things. Even if you don’t agree on the subject, you respect them enough to try and understand their viewpoint and have a meeting of the minds. If you lose respect for each other, even if you still love each other, the relationship starts to break. It’s my opinion that resentment is what deteriorates respect. Resentment is a series of little things that can build up and over the course of time and begins to form a wall between you. So respect is just as important as love in maintaining a healthy and happy relationship. If you feel respected and loved you will be happy and want to keep your relationship healthy.

A key component to happiness in a long relationship is maintaining “who you are”. Each of you should give each other the freedom to do the things that make you happy and the space to nurture yourselves. You can’t stop participating in friendships or things you enjoy for the sake of being a couple. This may seem like a no brainer, but I’ve seen it time and time again – especially with women. A decade goes by and they don’t know what their interests are anymore and he wonders what happened to the interesting person she used to be and she resents him because he doesn’t even understand all she has “sacrificed” for their relationship…don’t even go there. Take a day or two a month and nurture your own interests and support your partner in theirs.

You know that old saying “never go to bed angry”? It’s kind of true, although being up at 2am trying to hash through a difference can be ridiculously unproductive. It has to do with resentment. If you don’t resolve things, they become resentment. I would say the healthiest thing to do is very clearly tell the other person why you are upset about something. For instance - when you say/do this/that, it makes me feel sad/mad. Then the other person can explain they didn’t mean to make you feel that way and maybe, if warranted, change the little thing they are doing or saying. 99% of the time they didn’t intend to make you feel the way they did. Where the trouble comes in is when you don’t express yourself in a positive, straightforward way and you just think things in your head (he/she never takes out the garbage and I’m always stuck doing it, etc.) and more and more those thoughts become a self-fulfilling prophecy which continues the cycle, and creates more resentment. When you find yourself feeling resentment – stop. Think about it. Is it a “real issue” or just a perceived issue? Do you want to feel this way? Choose to deal with it head on or let it go and release it.

Sharing your physical, emotional and mental space with another human being every day for many years is kind of a big deal. There will be times when you get on each other’s nerves – that’s normal. How you handle it determines how happy and healthy the relationship will be. When you’re mad – think before you speak. You can’t take back what you say so make sure you really want to say it. Try not to use the word “never”. If someone says to you, “You never do this or that”, you immediately start trying to defend yourself and point out all the times you did this or that they say you “never” do…which gets you off course and away from the point. Better to say “I need you to do this or that” or “when you do this or that, it makes me____”. This creates a much more productive a discussion. Respect your partner enough to listen when they share what they are thinking or feeling, without judgement and work through it. Sometimes just being heard and understood fixes it.

You know the saying “Marriage is 50/50”? It’s not. Sometimes it’s 60/40, sometimes 80/20 – but the important thing is each of you needs to give 100% and not keep score. (Keeping score leads to resentment). If you ever feel you aren’t “getting” something you want/need, make sure that you’re giving it. Be kind, generous, loving and compassionate with one another all the time. People say marriage is “work”. I don’t think it has to be and probably shouldn’t be thought of that way. It’s more of a “partnership”. People in general tend to get a bad attitude about doing “work”, “going to work”, “having to work”. In a good (and fun) partnership, both partners bring something to the table, pick up the slack for one another for the good of the partnership, are equally invested in a successful outcome and each have a voice. The choices and decisions you make should be of benefit to the “partnership”. If they aren’t, you better stop and evaluate what action you’re taking.

Don’t forget to have fun. Having fun is what makes life lighter and gets you through the mundane, repetitive aspects of life as well as the stressful ones. Be light and childlike with one another sometimes, notice the little things and have a thankful heart. Being a “grown-up” married person doesn’t mean you can’t stomp puddles, play in the sand or giggle over nothing. Those times remind you to keep loving each other.

Everything is a choice. You can choose to be happy. You can choose not to make a big deal over little things. You can choose to put each other first (if you are both doing it, it feels great). You can choose to let go of things that don’t strengthen or support your relationship (like anger, resentment, hurt, etc.). You can choose to see each year as another part of a grand adventure the two of you are sharing – which I sincerely hope you do!

Here’s to your grand adventure…

All my love, Aunt Adrienne

[adventure-hearts]

Epilogue Celebration: “Couples”

The Epilogue is my favourite timeline for Sora x Yamato, so ofc I’m going to use this prompt as an excuse to talk about them. But how do you sum up a vision built on almost 20 years of headcanons and stories? Here is my modest attempt...

“State of The Art”

As of 2028, Sora and Yamato (40) have been together for around 10 years. The exact timeline of the relationship depends on which of them you ask; when they got back together at the end of the 2010s, they took a while to go from a no-strings-attached relationship to being an official couple. It took them even longer to decide to get married, since both were pretty wary of marriage. 

When, after a few years of dating, Yamato was assigned by JAXA to an astronaut training course in France, he asked Sora to come and live with him. Making things legal made immigration bureaucracy less complicated, so they just took the extra step and eloped. The only witnesses at their wedding were their Digimon partners (something Takeru cries over to this day)! They lived in France for a few years and had two kids, Hana (6) and Ren (3), who were born there. During this period, Yamato, who had a position at the European Space Agency, completed two space trips, while Sora worked at a big Parisian fashion house. 

In 2025, after Yamato’s international assignment ended, they relocated to Japan, and Sora decided to start her own fashion label, to great success. Since both make decent money, they now live in a lovely house with a garden and have a comfortable financial situation. This is where we find them at the time of the Epilogue.

Raising the Kids

Sora was initially scared of becoming a mother. Growing up with everyone treating her as a “mom friend” and feeling responsible for the well-being of others, in addition to the pressures of belonging to the Takenouchi family, she was hesitant to have a child unless she was sure she would not mess it up. Yamato, on the other hand, craved kids (being very fond of his nephew Théo) and secretly dreamed of having a child with Sora, but didn’t push the subject much until Sora decided for herself.

Sometime after Hana’s birth, after it was clear that they both were made for parenthood, they were happy to expand the family, but there were a few health issues during pregnancy and childbirth. Baby Ren was born premature from an emergency c-section, and they were told conceiving again was very unlikely. So, with some regret, the Takenouchi-Ishida family was complete.

Sora and Yamato are usually on the same page when it comes to raising Hana and Ren. They value their happiness and freedom above everything else, and living abroad influenced them and made them have a pretty modern approach to parenting. 

Yamato was raised with practically no rules or adult supervision, and Sora was the opposite, so they try to find a balance for their kids. It’s usually Sora who enforces rules, because Yamato is very easily manipulated by the kids who tend to get their way around him every time. By contrast, Yamato is the hands-on, overprotective dad who truly believes his children to be faultless and superior to all other kids, something Sora tries to balance a little to make sure the kids are polite and unspoiled.

It isn’t always easy to juggle work-family balance, but they have a lot of help and support from their parents, especially since they moved back to Japan. Hiroaki, in particular, is a keen baby sitter, but all four grandparents almost fight over who gets to watch the kids when Yamato and Sora are working!

Relationship Dynamics

Sora and Yamato are very passionate and devoted to each other (after all, they’ve been in love since they were teenagers, even though it took them a long while to get together), but they also have a somehow atypical relationship.  They aren’t openly demonstrative in public. They were the last of the group to start a family. They don’t share a last name (because Sora is an only child and heir to an important iemoto family, like her mom, she didn’t change her name after marriage; a recent law allows Yamato to keep his birth name, but the kids are Takenouchi). They eloped instead of having a big wedding. They have demanding careers that involve traveling abroad and off-planet. They happen to both be former Chosen Children (although Sora “retired” from Digimon business in 2010).

This means that they are pretty independent, and they are used to spending time away from each other. The saying “absence makes the heart grow fonder” is key here! Yamato and Sora make sure to treasure every second they do spend together and enjoy it to the max. Friends joke they are weird, but behind closed doors they are constantly on the honeymoon phase, because they don’t really have time to get bored with each other.

Supporting each other’s careers is an important aspect of the marriage. They are both passionate about their jobs. Sora made it clear, from the start, that she would not be willing to get married or have kids if that meant sacrificing her dream of becoming a fashion designer or that she wouldn’t accept anything other than an egalitarian partnership with her husband and co-parent. Luckily, Yamato is a good housekeeper and sharing chores hasn’t been much of a problem here (though she still struggles with some of the habits he acquired living with his Dad). Sora is also very understanding of Yamato’s dangerous job and can handle it better than most (though of course she worries!).

Although Sora moved across countries for the sake of Yamato’s job, and has to take care of the kids alone when he was off in space (which required her to postpone her career plans for some time), Yamato was also the main person who supported her decision start her own fashion house in Japan. Nowadays, he’s usually the one who misses work to stay home with the kids while Sora works weekends and late nights, running her growing fashion empire.

Yamato has only been on one space travel since the kids were born (he spent eight months away from home in 2026) and now has a very flexible schedule that lets him spent lots of time at home. This coincided with the period when Sora was building her brand and achieving success, and so was more busy than ever. They try to arrange their schedules so they don’t spend more than two weeks apart and Sora devotedly schedules “dates” so they have quality time together. But both know it’s inevitable that he will be called again, especially if a threat appears or if world governments decide to invest in a Mars mission, so this work-family balance may face some challenges in the near future.

For them, emotional distance can be more of a problem than physical distance. They tend to avoid discussing problems and fears when they aren’t together, and so sometimes they feel a little isolated with their feelings. Sora often feels very overwhelmed with her many responsibilities (running a successful label alongside with helping her aging mother with the Ikebana school), but is too proud to ask for anyone’s help, and can feel disgruntled when she feels Yamato isn’t paying enough attention to her. Meanwhile, when Yamato has an important work-assignment in his hands, he throws himself headfirst and can become distant. He often feels guilty for neglecting his wife and kids and worries about not being present enough, because his fear is that history will repeat itself. 

Rest assured, though, because marital problems are a rarity. Years have helped them communicate better and they know each other inside out; this a mutually satisfying, supportive, and harmonious marriage all around.

Random Couple Headcanons for the other Chosen

Miyako & Ken - Happily married eternal lovebirds; the kind that don’t shy away from embarrassing their kids in public.

Mimi - Surprisingly uninterested in serious romantic relationships, she decided to have a baby on her own.

Takeru - Went through the marriage, baby, and divorce phase while still in his mid-twenties. His ex-wife is a French Chosen Child who lives in Japan, and who has since remarried. They have a very friendly relationship for the sake of their son and share 50/50 custody. Since his divorce, Takeru enjoys the single life to the max, without any desire for a serious relationship with anyone except maybe one woman.

Taichi - Recently went through a litigious divorce and is having trouble with his ex-wife. He’s been trying to make sure his son isn’t affected by this, and has been relying a lot on his sister and his closest friends for moral support. 

Koushirou - Married a fellow researcher and is by all accounts very happy.

Jou - Happily married his high-school sweetheart, who is also a doctor.

Iori - His wife was one of Miyako’s former co-workers and her protegée, and she now stays home and manages the family. They married very young because they didn’t see a point in waiting to have a committed and stable family.

Hikari - Married an older man who died suddenly of cancer a few years back. She lives with her parents who help her raise her little boy. Has a lot of suitors.

Daisuke - Never married, but had a son with an ex-girlfriend when he was pretty young. He’s currently engaged to a handsome, wealthy American restaurateur named Dave.

[fierce-little-miana]

Why do I like Medea?

@irleughlivelyatalanteangodfan asked “May I ask what you like most about Medea?”

To which my first reaction is what is there not to like?

Of course of course someone might answered me that even in the more positive version of the myth Medea is at the very least a murderer. In the worst version she is a fratricide, infanticide, and mass-murderer. So there are indeed things to discuss.

First I must say that I love Medea the most at her worst. I do believe the academics working on the myth finding trace of older versions in which Medea is not at her worst are producing necessary content because it is solid and necessary academic work. And it is not uninteresting to see how with each newer version her depiction tended to be blacken. There is indeed something to be said of a myth that goes from a mythical magical woman to a murderous vengeful woman, especially when this woman is powerful in her own right (her magic) and foreign (three things that ancient Greeks despised). But that is not the appeal of the character to me.

No I love Medea in her murderous rage. I love everything that “dark” Medea stands for. One of the main thing being:

Feminine Rage:

This the name I give to something that became, without me noticing it, one of my favorite tropes in media. It is when a woman just snaps when confronted for the umpteenth time with something fundamentally unfair, fundamentally degrading, that is only leveraged against her because she is a woman.  

There are ways women are supposed to bear pain, humiliation, or attacks against themselves, that are dignified and are positively recognized by society. Gendered ways. While a man is going to fight against adversity a woman is going to endure it. I personally find it extremely disempowering. Resilience has good sides of course but it is not proactive, it is enduring a situation up until it changes of its own accord. Yet this is what women are taught to do. And women are taught to be resilient in the eyes of a society that covers them with outrages specifically because they are women.

A woman who ends up resorting to violence is a great transgressor. Violence is a transgression that might get women completely shun from the “civilized” world (whereas it is not automatic for men). And yet I think there is a secret fear/desire for a lot of women that they are actually one step or two away to falling into primal violence (I am not saying that all women feel like that obviously but the idea seems to speak to too many to be described as only personal).

I recently found this quote that goes in this sens pretty well:

“almost every woman i have ever met has a secret belief that she is just on the edge of madness, that there is some deep, crazy part within her, that she must be on guard constantly against ‘losing control’ — of her temper, of her appetite, of her sexuality, of her feelings, of her ambition, of her secret fantasies, of her mind”

Elana Dykewomon “Notes for a Magazine”

Women are divorced from their violent impulse, from a part of themselves, for the best and for the worst. This feminine rage is powerful way to reconnect with this part of themselves in a eyes of a society that keeps on tormenting them.

That’s what Medea story is in the end. A total dip in primal violence to avenge all the offenses she had to bear because she is a woman. And she only can regain her dignity, and a real agency through this violence.

Medea’s story is incredibly gendered. Sure there is the theme of who is the real criminal: the one committing the crime or the one not preventing it and benefiting from it? But it is mainly the story of a woman who sacrificed everything she had (rank, reputation, honor, morality) to make her husband and family succeed. She got her husband out of all dangerous situations they faced together, and has even offered him opportunity he wouldn’t have had without her. The story of Medea is the one of an older woman whose husband can’t use her anymore after having made her sacrifice everything.

So Medea snaps and exercises powerful violence on her husband and everyone who is working with him to strap her of what remains: her sense of self (I don’t know if it is in every version but in at least some of them Creusa asks to be able to wear Medea’s wedding dress to her own wedding). She punishes them all and finds herself back in the process. Even if she has to suffer excoriating pain in order to do so (killing her own sons) as long as the others suffer more than her and are punished according to their crimes she will not falter.

Medea is feminine rage at its peak, uncompromising and lethal. There is something extremely cathartic in this for me.

The story of Medea is also the story of a foreigner in an hostile land. It is less important than the woman part for me but still essential. And that is why I really like that in the french comic book by Le Called and Peña they do present her as significantly different from the Greeks women and significantly darker.

Not like any other:

Medea, like most of characters in myth, is related to gods. Circe is her aunt, so she is related to Hecate, which is unsurprising considering that she is a magician (a deeply feminine power in most greek myth). But she is also the granddaughter of Helios (actually all four of her grandparents are gods or close to be). But Medea isn’t just related to gods, she behaves like one.

Medea destroys not only Creon and his daughter but in some of the version she is responsible for the burning of the entire city. Exactly like an angry god who has been disrespected by members of a community and brought their anger on all the community (granted the citizens of Corinth did not like her but still).

But it is the punition that she reserve to Jason that strikes me as the most god-like. In ancient Greek myths gods often punishes humans or other gods who had wronged them with fates worse than death (like Prometheus or Lycaon of Arcadia). This is exactly what she does to Jason. She takes everything from him, everything, but she leaves him alive so he has to live through his punishment. He is left with nothing except maybe the shame of being Jason. Even in the Divine Comedy (written in the 14th century and not directly concerned with the Argonauts or Medea) Jason is placed in Hell for what he did to several women.

Medea is superior to nearly everyone else she runs into in her story and her actions in Corinth is a way for her to reclaim that.

A reasonable women:

Medea most famous deed might have been the killing of her sons in Corinth to annihilate Jason but even in this she keeps on being rational. She might fall prey to primal violence but she still plans and executes it with meticulousness.

After all apparently her name comes from the verbs μήδομαι / mêdomai which means to meditate, and might come from an earlier root meaning: understand/conceive.

Medea is victorious thanks to the power of her reason and cleverness. She doesn’t kill Pelias, she convinces his daughters to do so by tricking them into believing that they are going to make him young and healthy again. She gets the Golden Fleece. She gets the very dreadful idea of how to slow down her pursuing father’s fleet. Medea is not only powerful because she is a great magician. She is powerful because she is a smart, ruthless, dedicated woman.

In Corneille’s version, Pollux (an Argonaut whose role here is to be the confident of Jason) has this to say about Jason’s plan of marrying Creusa :

“Bien que de tous côtés l'affaire résolue

Ne laisse aucune place aux conseils d'un ami,

Je ne puis toutefois l'approuver qu'à demi.

Sur quoi que vous fondiez un traitement si rude,

C'est montrer pour Médée un peu d'ingratitude :

Ce qu'elle a fait pour vous est mal récompensé.

Il faut craindre après tout son courage offensé ;

Vous savez mieux que moi ce que peuvent ses charmes.”

Basically this replica starts with Pollux saying that he knows Jason isn’t going to listen to him but still what he is doing to Medea (repudiating and banishing her) is not cool. He finishes by “We need to fear her offended courage / You know better than me what her spells are capable of.” To which Jason answers something along the lines “no worries, her banishment should be enough to tame her”. To this Pollux retorts:

“Gardez d'avoir sujet de vous en repentir.”

Which roughly translates as “Be careful to not end up sorry about it.” Later in the play it seems that Medea has accepted her fate and she has given her wedding dress as a present to Creusa. Everyone thinks that everything is going great and this what Pollux as to say about this:

“J'eus toujours pour suspects les dons des ennemis :

Ils font assez souvent ce que n'ont pu leurs armes.

Je connais de Médée et l'esprit et les charmes,

Et veux bien m'exposer aux plus cruels trépas,

Si ce rare présent n'est un mortel appas.”

He starts by saying that gifts from enemies are always suspicious and dangerous and then say that since it is something from Medea he is ready to bet his life that it is a deadly trap (and by the way he is absolutely correct). This is how the verse from the middle of the replica translates:  “I know of Medea her spirit and her spells”. We can see that in this version, Pollux is deadly sure that Medea isn’t going to take that laying down and that she is going to be a formidable foe. But it is not only her magical ability that he recognises as dangerous (even if he insists a lot on it), it is her courage and her mind (reason).

Medea isn't cold, she burns bright, but she is still a calculating strategist whose magic is as dangerous as the way she uses her mind.

In the end, Medea embodies one of my favorite trope which is woman giving in to a justified burning anger more than ready to bear the consequences of said anger. She does so while acting and thinking like a god and being the best strategist in the room.

A god-like angry clever scorned woman? What is there not to love in her?

[mommy-and-leader]

How Henrietta Lacks’ Story Taught Me How to be a More Compassionate Leader in Healthcare

The story of Henrietta Lacks is both a story of miracles and of tragedy. The history of the HeLa cell is truly the stuff of scientific miracles. However, the story of Henrietta Lacks, the patient who unwittingly donated the cells, and whose family has suffered as a result, is heartbreaking. In reading Rebecca Skloot’s best-selling book, I admit that I read the story through the eyes of a leader in healthcare. I was ready to defend my field and my peers in the field. However, as I read both the personal story of Henrietta Lacks and the Lacks family, as well as the story of the HeLa cell, I was astonished at the amount of betrayal I felt as a warrior of science. Many criticize Skloot’s book as reminiscent of a novel, and problematic in the way that she reports it like she sees it- from sexually transmitted diseases, child abuse, abusive marriage, child molestation- Rebecca leaves no stone unturned in her ten-year mission to learn about Henrietta Lacks and her contribution to science.

Christoph Lengauer, the first scientist that was willing to speak with the Lacks children, said it best by stating, “Whenever we read books about science, it’s always HeLa this and HeLa that. Some people know those are the initials of a person, but they don’t know who that person is. That’s important history” (Skloot, 2011, p. 266). Rebecca Skloot’s book was successful in uniting the person, Henrietta, with the cells. The cells were not the only important discovery in science. The story of the person was important for healthcare and could teach us a lesson about being a compassionate caregiver in healthcare.

Critics state there are problematic elements in Skloot’s portrayal

In a poetic analysis of the book, Lantos (2016) reinforces the idea that Skloot’s book further exploits the Lacks family in its overshare of private details of their lives, namely Deborah’s abusive marriage and divorce, the imprisonment of her children and details of the crimes, and even the amount of Deborah’s social security check. Daniel Podgorski, a literature reviewer for the Gemsbok, comments on Skloot’s exploitative position relative to the Lacks family, stating that she, however, tells an important and even story (Podgorski, 2016). Podgorski (2016) states:

Skloot adopts a neutral tone throughout her book and presents the facts of the cases and lives involved evenly, and, in doing so apolitically, manages to expose the inextricable story of racial segregation operating above and with scientific progress in the twentieth century without sacrificing journalistic integrity…she presents all people in her book as part of this one grand narrative of humanity, each a character as in a novel, susceptible to moral and critical judgments by the reader, and a human being, and so representative of a faction of reality (Podgorski, 2016).

While most of the Lacks family disagrees, two Lacks men have come forward regarding their feelings of contempt toward Rebecca Skloot, and HBO, who produced the film portrayal of Skloot’s book. Bustle reports that Lawrence and Ron Lacks (Henrietta’s son and grandson) feel exploited by Rebecca in the same way that they felt exploited by Johns Hopkins. “Skloot portrayed the Lacks family as falsely uneducated and poor. ‘She made us stereotypes…people think we’re dirt poor’” (Truffaut-Wong, 2017). Lawrence Lacks even goes on to tell the Bustle reporter, “It’s bad enough Johns Hopkins took advantage of us. Now Oprah, Rebecca, and HBO are doing the same thing. They’re no better than the people they say they hate” (Truffaut-Wong, 2017). However, the article goes on to give a comment by HBO, stating that the film had overwhelming support from many Lacks family members.

In my reading of the book, I found a number of details cringe-worthy in their honest horror, and I admit that they horrified me as a woman and as a mother. First, there was Day’s character as a young husband and father. Early on in the book, in Chapter 1, Day is painted as an adulterer (Skloot, 2011, p 13) and later on, it is explained that the sexually transmitted diseases he passes on to his wife, Henrietta, are the reason why her cervical cancer is so aggressive. Later, in Chapter 15, Deborah’s physical and sexual abuse by her uncle, Galen, is another one of those details that breaks your heart and keeps you up at night. You wonder if you can do without hearing these atrocities suffered by this family. Then you keep reading on and get to the part where Day, her father, did not protect her from this incestuous monster (Skloot, 2011, p. 113) and you want to both kill Day again and embrace Deborah in all her suffering. This rollercoaster of emotion keeps you reading voraciously and really humanizes this family.

While I do agree that these details are of a very private nature, they served their intended purpose in conveying the message that Henrietta was a real person. She is not just a cell. She is a real woman who had a real family- who are still alive today- and still suffering from the aftermath of the notoriety of the HeLa cells, which were taken without Henrietta or her family’s consent, and have changed the face of medicine (and made millions since their theft). What makes a person or a family more human than the reality of their flaws?

How the story helped me in my role as a leader in healthcare

This story is not only an exposé of all of the skeletons in the Lacks family closet, but it was a discussion on racial disparity and medical mistrust in the African American community, and of informed consent, or the lack thereof, for Henrietta and the Lacks family. It was the story of any and all of the above. As an African American woman visiting a public ward in the 1950s, Henrietta had no choice when it came to research, as was the same with all the black patients at Johns’ Hopkins’ public colored ward (Skloot, 2011, p. 29). This was the era of racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. Black patients had no choice but to trust the word of their doctors, and not many words came from these doctors. They weren’t informed of many details of the treatment for Henrietta’s cervical cancer, nor were they informed of the cells they took from her in research, nor were they informed of the fruit of those cells- a medical revolution.

These cells crossed the world. In 1952, they were the first living cells shipped via postal mail. They helped develop the polio vaccine, the cervical cancer vaccine, and many drugs. They were the first cells ever cloned and were also the first cells ever hybridized with the cells of an animal- a human-mouse hybrid. The discoveries were endless and are still being made. The fruit of the research of the HeLa cell was ample, and the financial gain was enormous. However, this was all unbeknownst to the Lacks family. In fact, they were unaware of the existence of these cells until 1973- more than 20 years later! It wasn’t until 1975 that the Lacks family knew of the immense contribution to science and the commercialization of the cells after a reporter for Rolling Stone interviewed them and published a story about Henrietta Lacks. Their mother’s cells now had a name, and a family, and her medical history was out for the world to read about.

This is what pulled on my heartstrings. As a medical professional, I am a bleeding heart. I regularly encounter some of the most vulnerable sick people who just need someone to take care of them and often to advocate for them. Here was this woman- a poor and educated minority who just wanted to trust her caregivers- who died at the age of 31. She left behind a family of many small children, one of whom was disabled. That family defined struggle. They were uneducated, poor, and struggled into adulthood. Henrietta needed a caregiver, an advocate. Her children needed this, too. When they learned of their mother’s cells and notoriety, they felt deceived and rightfully so. Here they were struggling from health issues of their own and could barely get medical insurance- yet their mother’s cells created much of what we think of when we think of modern-day healthcare. Where were the Lacks’ caregivers? Why did no one in the medical field feel that they needed to be taken care of, in their vulnerability?

 With this lesson of bioethics and medical mistrust: How do we prevent this from happening again?

Though Henrietta’s contribution to science was immense, it was done without her consent or the consent of her family. When Henrietta was identified and her family was made aware of the enormity of this situation, the Lacks family was still kept in the dark. The scientific and medical community continued to take advantage of the Lacks’ by deceiving them into giving blood to further their research into Henrietta’s genome and disguised this as “cancer testing” (Skloot, 2001, pp. 183-189). There were so many opportunities for the medical community to make this right, but no one stepped up to bat.

So how do we make sure that this never happens again? First, we need to remember why we went into this field- to help others, to save lives. Some of those that I have worked with in healthcare are caregivers in every sense of the word- they are bleeding hearts and some of the most moral and ethical people that I have ever met. Physicians down to nurse’s aides, almost everyone I have worked with have come into this field to make this world a better place by helping those that we can. As a leader in the field, this is an important trait that I look for in all members and prospective members of my team. In order to prevent this from ever happening again, we must convey a culture of ethics and compassion. By selecting and hiring ethical employees and fostering ethical decisions by acting ethically and helping your employees act ethically, you instill a compassionate and compliant environment (“How Managers”, nd). Talking through decision-making and being seen as a moral authority are important to convey an ethical and compliant culture in your organization.

As a caregiver in healthcare, it is always important to put yourself into the patient’s shoes. What if this were you? What if this were your mother? Always treat the patient as you would like for your family to be treated- or like you would like to be treated, yourself. Always be an advocate- just because you understand doesn’t mean they do. Informed consent was a big deal in this book, and it is a big part of the mistake that we do not want to be duplicated. It is important to talk through every diagnosis, every treatment, every procedure, until they understand. It is good practice to make sure that they can reiterate and explain it back to you. Informed consent is not only a form to be signed- it is peace of mind for both the caregiver and the patient.

Conclusion

In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot goes into detail regarding Henrietta and her family’s life in order to tell a story apart from the story that was currently understood as conveyed by science- the story of the HeLa cell. By separating the story of the HeLa cell from the story of the Lacks family, Skloot effectively conveys the ramifications of the HeLa cells’ scientific contributions and commercialization on the Lacks family. Rebecca Skloot’s portrayal of Henrietta Lacks and her family may have been intense, but that intensity was key in conveying the central idea of the abhorrent treatment of the Lacks family by the medical and scientific community. This book was meant as a lesson, and I hope that the whole field hears it loud and clear.

    References

How Managers Can Encourage Ethical Behavior. (nd). Lumen Learning: Principles of Management. Retrieved March 8, 2020 from: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-principlesofmanagement/chapter/how-managers-can-encourage-ethical-behavior/

Lantos, J. D. (2016). Thirteen Ways of Looking at Henrietta Lacks. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 59(2), 228-233. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/1876059666?accountid=35812

Podgorski, D. (2016). Creative Journalism: American Race Politics, Perspective, and Shifting Culture in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. The Gemsbok. Retrieved from: https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and-articles/tuesday-tome-immortal-life-henrietta-lacks-rebecca-skloot/

Skloot, R (2011.) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Broadway Books

Truffaut-Wong, O. (2017). What Does the Lacks Family Think Of 'The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks'? The Movie Portrays Their Heartbreaking Story. Bustle. Retrieved from: https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-the-lacks-family-think-of-the-immortal-life-of-henrietta-lacks-the-movie-portrays-their-heartbreaking-story-51712

[baabulilm]

Life history of Imam Zainul Abideen(Radiyallahu anhu)

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Hazrat Syedina Imam Zain-ul-Abideen[38 AH - 95 AH](RadiAllahu  Anhu )’s actual name is Hazrat Syedina 'Ali ibn  Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ) and he was the great-grandson of Beloved Prophet Muhammad( Sal-lal-lahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and was the son of Imam Husayn(Radiyallahu Anhu).He spent two years with his illustrious grandfather Sayyiduna Ali (Radiyallahu Ta'ala Anhu), ten years with his uncle Sayyiduna Imam Hasan(Radiyallahu Ta'ala Anhu)and eleven years with his father, Hadrat Imam Hussain(Radiyallahu Ta'ala Anhu).

Hadrat Imam Zain al-'Abideen (Radi ALLAHu Ta'ala Anho) was blessed with beautiful character, which he definitely inherited from his illustrious forefathers. He looked after and administrated hundreds of houses of the poor and hunger stricken. He dressed the naked and the destitute ones and paid their debts and loans. But he himself took simple meals and put on simple dress.He administrated and looked after nearly a hundred guardians-less family in Medina; most of them comprised indigent, helpless and crippled, handicapped and paralytic ones.None of these families knew that Hazrat Syedina 'Ali ibn Syedina Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ) was the one who managed and run their lives. But after his Wisaal, when the aids were discontinued they came to know that Hazrat Syedina Ali ibn Syedina Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ) was their helper and friend.

He like his grandfather, cultivated land and palm date orchards. All the human qualities and attributes were collectively present in his personality. He was the complete specimen of tolerance, forgiveness and self-sacrifice. During the prayers he would get himself so absorbed that he did not have any attention towards anything except God.He was one of the greatest Aabids of his era. He traveled to Mecca, on foot, twenty times and continuously guided and conducted people through the attractive melody of the Qur'anic verses.He is known as Zayn al-Abidin ("Beauty of the Worshippers or the one who surpasses others in worship").He is also referred to asImam al-Sajjad("the Prostrating Imam")andSayyid as-Sajjadina war  Raki'in "Leader of Those who Prostrate and Bow".

His brothers include 'Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn and 'Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn(Radiyallahu Anhum) who were martyred in the battle of Karbala.Hazrat Zainul Abideen could not take part in the battle,because at that time he was indisposed and  after the battle he was the only male left alive from the family of Imam Hussayn(Radiyallahu Anhu). In the immediate period after Karbala Imam Zainul-Abideen was treated in a harsh and unkind manner by the tyrannical powers of the time.  After the grotesque manner his father as well as all male members of his family were killed by Yazid’s forces, Zainul Abideen was made a prisoner of the despotic ruler, Yazid.After his release he returned to Madina and devoted his time in worship of the Creator and serving the Creation.

He was martyred by a Syrian Monarch Waleed Ibn Abdul Malik by poisoning and passed away in Madina Munawwara. He is buried in Jannatul Baqi burial ground.

Opinions of great Ulema about him

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Abu Haazim says, I have not seen any Jurist more exalted than him.Zahbi and Ainiyah have said,We have not seen any Quraish more exalted than him.Great Jurist Hadrat Imam Maalik (Radiyallahu Anhu) says,He is from the Men of ExcellenceIbn Abi Shaiba says,“In Hadith, the most exalted chain of transmission is that which is narrated from Imam Zain al-'Abideen, (Radi ALLAHu Ta'ala Anho) where he narrates from his father Imam Hussain (Radi ALLAHu Ta'ala Anho).  “[Masaalik as-Saalikeen]Hadrat Imam Zain al-'Abideen (Radiyallahu Anhu) was always prepared to sacrifice everything he had for Islam. He sacrificed all his wealth twice for Islam. He was a very generous person. He used to discreetly send money to the poor people living in Madinah Shareef and none of them knew that the money was coming from him. The only time this became known to them, was after his wisaal.[Tarikh al-Khulafa]

His service for poor and destitute

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

All the human qualities and attributes were collectively present in his personality. He was the complete specimen of tolerance, forgiveness and self-sacrifice.He looked after and administrated hundreds of houses of the poor and hunger stricken. Daily a number of goats were slaughtered in his house and he distributed all their meat among the afflicted. He dressed the naked and the destitute ones and paid their debts and loans. But he himself took simple meals and put on simple dress.When the nights would become dark and all the people went to sleep, Hazrat Syedina  'Ali ibn Imam Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ) would get up put the food in a sack and on his shoulder.He covered his face so that he is not recognized. Then he took that food to the houses of the inflicted and have-nots and gave it to them.He administrated and looked after nearly a hundred guardians-less family in Medina; most of them comprised indigent, helpless and crippled, handicapped and paralytic ones. None of these families knew that Hazrat Syedina 'Ali ibn Syedina Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ) was the one who managed and run their lives. But after his Wisaal, when the aids were discontinued they came to know that Hazrat Syedina Ali ibn Syedina Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ) was their helper and friend.Hazrat Abu Hamza ath-Thumali, who was one of the friends of  Hazrat Syedina 'Ali ibn Husayn ( Radi Allahu Anhu ), asked his servant to briefly define the character and morals of Hazrat Syedina Ali ibn Hussain ( Radi Allahu Anhu ). He said: "I am at his service for so many years. Whatever I saw was righteousness, piety and purity. My master helps and assists the people and solves their problems, with all the difficulties worries and preoccupations that he himself faces." 

His patience over atrocities and slanders

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

He was a person with great patience. After the Battle of Karbala, HE was marched to Damascus in chains and in the time of Abdul Malik bin Marwan , he was arrested and chained. He was then forced to walk from Madinah to Syria in chains. With all this, he never complained or said one word about his condition in the Court of Allah . He instead remained patient and made Shukr (thanked Allah ) on every step. Imam Zain al-'Abideen's most loyal student Sayyiduna Imam Zuhri could not bear to see the Imam in this condition, so he went to Abdul Malik bin Marwaan, and had the great Imam released. He then took him back to Madinah Shareef with great respect.[Khazinat al-Asfiyah, Vol.1, Page 31/32] - A person once swore at Imam Zain al-Abideen (Radi ALLAHu Ta'ala Anho) and made slanderous remarks to him.In response, Imam Zain al-Abideen (Radi ALLAHu Ta'ala Anho) said to him: 'If the attributes, you accuse me of, are found in me then I repent to Allah Azzawajal and ask for forgiveness. If the attributes are not found in me then on your behalf I ask Allah Azzawajal for forgiveness and repentance.'The person saw Imam Zain al-Abideen's patience and was overwhelmed by it. He stood up, kissed Imam Zain al-Abideen (Radiyallahu Ta'ala Anho) on the forehead and said:'May my soul be sacrificed for you! Whatever I accused you of was wrong. I seek forgiveness from you and I request you to pray to Allah Azzawajal for the acceptance of my repentance.' Once a person asked Imam Zain al-'Abideen about who will be looked upon as pious and good on the last day and he said,“That person, who when he is happy, his happiness does not drive him towards wrong and that person, when he is angry, then his anger does not remove him from what is right.”In other words,when you are happy, you should not let your happiness take you towards bad deeds and when you are angry, then you should not allow your anger to blind you from that which is right.[Masaalik as-Saalikeen]Imam Zain al-Abideen (Radi ALLAHu Ta'ala Anho) agreed to pray to Allah Azzawajal on his behalf.

His Worship and Fear of Allah

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

After the shahaadat of his blessed father Imam Hussain (Radiyallahu Ta'ala Anhu), he completely divorced himself from the materialistic world. He spent all his time in the remembrance of Allah. He would pass his days and nights thinking of the tragedy of Karbala and weeping. When Hadrat Imam Zain al-'Abideen (Radiyallahu Ta'ala Anho) used to sit down to perform wudhu, then his face used to become pale, and when he stood in Namaaz, then his complexion would change to such an extent, that it would be difficult to recognise him.The people would ask, O Beloved of the Prophet (Sallallaho Alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallam)! What has happened to you?and he said,O People! Namaaz is a time when you are present in the Court of Allah. Who is so naive as to smile and look happy, when he is standing before his Creator.[Awaarif al-Ma'arif, Page 475]He used to perform one thousand rakaats of nafil salaah every night. One night whilst he was performing his nafils, his house caught on fire. The people were rushing around trying to put of the fire, but he continued his Namaaz with total sincerity. After he completed his salaah, the people told him that his house had caught on fire and yet he continued reading his Namaaz without any showing any sign of panic.He said, You were trying to extinguish this fire, and I was trying to extinguish the fire of the hereafter. [Khazinat al-Asfiyah, Vol.1, Page 31]

His passing away from the Dunya

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

He was poisoned by Waleed bin Abdul Malik and was thus made shaheed on the 18th of Muharram and according to some narrations on the 12th or 22nd of Muharram at the age of 57 or 58. He passed away in Madinatul Munawwarah and his Mazaar Shareef is in Jannatul Baqi. Few have said that his Mazar Sharif is in Egypt and there is a Mosque and Shrine of Imam Zain al-'Adideen in Cairo, Egypt as well but the majority have accepted his Mazar Sharif being in Jannatul Baqee , Madina Munawwarah. ALLAH Knows the Best!After his wisaal, his camel placed its head on his blessed grave and cried.His son Hadrat Imam Baqir(R.A.) tried to move it away, but it refused. In the end, he said, “She will die in this exact place.” Eventually she did pass away at the Mazaar of Imam Zain al-'Abideen. [Masaalik as-Saalikeen, Vol. 1, Page 207]

[shamelessinnerbeast]

Gift | Background for these two created by my friend below the cut |

Music for them : Love on the Brain - Rihanna

After the Pleasure King was defeated by Kiryu in Kamurocho, she left Tokyo as she had told Kiryu so she could begin another business somewhere else. She ended up in Osaka and located her first business in Sotenbori. As she was involved in a very peculiar kind of business... she quickly got in touch with people managing cabarets, including Majima.

The two of them met in order to discuss business several times, sometimes exchanging threats, as she was as vindictive as always and willing to take over the whole area. Realizing their businesses could rather complete each other, they eventually put an end to their « bickering ». After things finally calmed down, they kept seeing each other, first to establish their plans of action for their businesses, but little by little they started also to go to bars, to karaoke or simply out for a walk and a little chat.

When Majima asked her how he was supposed to call her, she replied she never gave her real name and, hoping she'd finally tell him, he said he'd settle for « Barbie » in the meantime. The thing is she never told him her real name (bad memories probably linked to it) so he'd always call her « Barbie ».

The girls at Club Sunshine started referring to them as « the old couple » since every time they saw them together they'd be either laughing, being flirtatious or yelling at each other as if they were going to jump at each other's throat... Especially her, but she quickly appeared to have the ultimate talent of pushing all his buttons down in no time.

The girls kept making remarks about how Majima seemed so much into fiery passionate women like the Pleasure King. Basically, everyone seemed aware of his crush. Including the main woman involved.

One day, she finally went straight to him, before letting out a « Invite me. » and, as Majima got all startled, she said they should stop pretending and that if he wanted to fuck her, he better invited her first.

Their first date started normally, playing pool, drinking, but she then asked him to get a 9mm so they could shoot stuff along the riverside. All that while drunk. When Majima refused, she became angry at him for being so « serious » and such a « killjoy ». Majima decided to stick with her to make sure she'd not get in further trouble. The last thing they needed was someone calling the cops.

They finished the night on a bench by the river, eating fried food Majima had bought and finishing some sake. They talked essentially about their past, his past as a yakuza and her past as a man and a prostitute, before she turned into a « business woman ». She kinda warned him that she was all about business and money but also that she was « fucked up » and commented on how funny and ironic it was that the very first true date of her life would have been with a man she hadn't had sex with. Majima retorted they could easily change that but she went home on her own.

Still they saw each other again. Again and again. They started an affair and things seemed to go really well for them, whether it came to their relationship or to their business. However, it turned out things weren't going so well in reality.

Basically, Majima asked her to marry him and she announced that she was leaving him, even leaving Osaka in the hope of finding herself a rich old man she would marry. She told him she always wanted to become rich, immensely rich, and that it was not Majima who would allow her to realize her dream and that she didn't love him anyway. Then she left Osaka, leaving Majima behind.

Two years passed and Majima married Mirei Park, only to end up disappointed and quite distraught again... and divorced.

Majima is nearly 30 years old when he meets with his « Barbie » again, in Tokyo. They meet in a dead-end street, which makes Majima remark that she's the one feeling cornered now. After some seriously awkward silence, he finally asks her how things are going now.

She married the rich old man she wanted, persuaded him to disown his children so she would get everything he possessed when he died and Majima understands easily, knowing her, that she then very efficiently « helped » her old husband to die.

She tries to explain him that, to finally get to this point, she sacrificed everything, everything just to be rich, to be where she is now. She swallowed her fears, clenched her teeth when people were mocking her or belittling her, she sacrificed her time, her whole days and nights, she gave away her body, she beat and humiliated others and she also let herself get humiliated and beaten, she gave up on all the values, all the morals she once held dear to her heart. And of course she put an end to every single lovestory that had started in her life. Majima, in Osaka, didn't stand a chance from the very start.

Majima finally asks her if it was worth it, if she'd do it all over again now (including leaving him), and she says yes without a single hesitation, without an ounce of regret. But she confesses that she lied to him, that she was in love with him but that money has always been her top priority, not feelings, not love, and she wanted to make things easier for him by giving him a good reason to hate her before she left.

Only to have Majima retorting he loved her enough to accept her stupid plan and to help her find a rich guy they would have killed together. Awkward silence again then they part ways again none of them being sure of anything at this point.

Time passes and it appears the rich dead man's heirs who had been disowned took it to court and took back all the heritage, leaving her with absolutely nothing. Basically, she lost her Kamurocho business, she lost the heritage so she finds herself with no money at all.

When Majima and her cross paths again, she's back to square one. She's working the streets in a shitty area (she fell really really hard). Majima first thinks of leaving like he hasn't noticed her, but feels totally unable to do so and finally approaches her.

Of course, this time, she seems really really happy to see him. She's a lot more flirtatious etc... and is actually exactly like when she needed to get something from him, back in Osaka after she had to leave Tokyo and her business there.

Majima ultimately refuses to help her since he's sure she's gonna use him like before then abandons him as soon as she doesn't need him anymore and he doesn't want to go through that again. She gets mad at him and he grows angry very quickly too. They have a violent argument and she even threatens to kill herself if he doesn't get her out of here. It could be just lies and emotional blackmail ; he knows she's manipulative and a liar, but he still feels like she didn’t lie about everything, especially about being attached to him. He just can't take the risk and take her home.

In the car, « I Wanna Take You Home », which is a special song for them, is on the radio and she soon starts to look away, feeling very sad, just to brutally turn the radio off, saying she can't listen to it anymore.

They finally reach Majima’s current flat and she goes straight to the bathroom which doesn’t surprise him since she had to deal with clients before he arrived. But the minutes pass and she’s still in there ; Majima kicks the door down and sees her with some pills he instantly smashes away. She tries to calm him down, swearing she didn’t take anything. But she had planned to take them initially tonight, not knowing she’d see Majima again (so she actually was sincere when saying she’d kill herself).

Realizing they still love each other, they sleep together. When Majima wakes up the next day, she’s practically at the door, ready to leave. She promises she’ll come back soon and that she has unfinished business (debts to pay) to attend to before she can finally stay with him. She also of course asks if he can lend her some cash, refusing to tell him anything and asking him to trust her. He still lets her go (last chance left to her).

[That’s all for now. It’s a resume and I hope I didn’t make too many mistakes when translating. It adds explanations also to the brutal change in Majima’s personality and behavior, since his “Barbie” is really fucked up too and the emotional shock didn’t help him.]

[inhonoredglory]

I love LOVE how selfless Hiccup is, but do you think he would ever be truly happy without Toothless? As the years went by after HTTYD 2, I struggled when thinking about canon because it just struck me as painful- I could only remember Hiccup's pain as he mourned his father. I'm afraid THW will make me feel like that in the long run. I just cannot imagine Hiccup without Toothless, happy. Not entirely. Idk. I'm confused. Maybe your reading on THW might shed some light into it for me?

Thanks for asking this… it really is an important question and one that is relevant on the entire theme of the film series and in life in general: At some point most, if not all, of us will face a loss that makes us doubt there is ever the possibility of happiness afterwards. It might be the death of a loved one, the divorce of parents, the loss of a best friend… In both films, we see Hiccup face this kind of loss and it isn’t easy. Hiccup, even in THW, still feels the sting of Stoick’s death––is he worthy of the chieftainship? Is he strong enough to be his father? In the comics, his own people question his ability to lead. But Hiccup’s response to this is to “try” (as he said in Stoick’s funeral)––to always aspire for the goal, to never give up, to always aspire (as Astrid told him in her pep talk on the cliff) to be the person he always was––bold, reckless, moral, true––instead of focusing on the failures he might be.

With the loss of Toothless, it hurts too, just like the loss of his Dad. It hurts hard. Toothless is more a part of his soul than anything in the entire world. He will hurt a long time and the pain will sting. But you know what gives me hope? This moment,

He smiles at the end there. Because for all the reasons that Hiccup lost Toothless, he lost him willingly. He chose a life without Toothless for Toothless’ own sake. And you know what makes Hiccup truly happy? The happiness and completeness of Toothless.

In a sense, all of us are selfish. We do only what makes us happy. Sometimes we value the happiness of other people more than what would make us happy, and we call that selflessness (and I still do, by convention). But really… we make someone else happy over our own happiness because that person’s happiness makes US happy too.

Sometimes it’s not an easy happiness, but it’s a satisfaction that overpowers our need to serve our own immediate emotions. In HTTYD1, Hiccup gave up his father’s approval for Toothless, because doing the hard, right thing gave him more than sacrificing his friend for his father’s love.

And that’s exactly what Hiccup does in THW. It’s important to see Toothless looking fulfilled and right in the Hidden World with his dragonkind because that’s where he belongs, leading his people and creating a family of Night Furies that will carry on the legacy of Toothless’ love. Hiccup knows Toothless needs to be there. He would love to have Toothless by his side forever, but if Hiccup had done that, he would feel terribly guilty for keeping Toothless from the life the dragon should be leading. And by letting Toothless go, Hiccup feels satisfied that he has done the best thing for someone else. Selflessness has its own rewards, and that is the joy of bringing someone else’s dream to fruition. Hiccup will find comfort in this, because above all, Hiccup loves Toothless––with a love that knows no bounds and a love that hopes and believes.

He will be happy. It might not be today. It might not be next year. But he will be happy, because he knows in his heart he has made Toothless’ life better. And he knows in his heart he has done the right thing. And he knows in his heart that dragons are safe because of him and Toothless’ choices. He knows he has made a difference in the life of his friend; he has made a difference in the story of the world. Hiccup will be happy because he has experienced love, and that is all any of us could wish for. There is always a reason to go on, to be hopeful, to try. Like Hiccup always does.

I hope that helps, my friend. If anyone out there knows the power of not giving up, it is Hiccup.

[monicalorandavis]

Review: “A Beautiful Day in The Neighborhood”

I had my doubts about Tom Hanks as Mr. Rogers. Hear me out. While I trust Tom Hanks’ acting talent, and charisma, and all-around affability, Fred Rogers he is not.

And that’s no shade to Tom Hanks. It’s just that Fred Rogers was an alien - in the best sense of the world. A total original, he somehow managed to be a huge television star without sacrificing his moral integrity or sacrificing his vision for the show. He was never afraid to have the tough conversations, the ones about death, divorce, and war. And, it was because of his willingness to dive head first into things that he emotionally empowered those around him, children and adults, spiritual people and atheists, to express themselves too.

So, feeling the way I do about Mr. Rogers, and considering the Tom Hanks I’ve known in the last 33 years, I thought it an insurmountable task to portray a man as saintly as The Rog. There are no mere mortals (let alone actors) who are lovely enough to be the teacher, television personality, puppeteer, musician, producer, writer and minister (all on a paltry PBS budget no less!). And yet, Tom Hanks was tasked to do it.

Now, I will concede that Hollywood has no one better for the position. It’s true. Tom Hanks seems like the dream dad, or better yet, grandpa. He’s so, so funny and seems like he’s got a wealth of stories and perhaps a well-honed skill like skipping stones up his sleeve. He’s as good as it gets...in Hollywood.

But, to limit the scope of this film because I don’t feel like Mr. Rogers was absolutely, perfectly cast is sort of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The film is excellent. Tom Hanks is excellent. I just somehow found myself wishing I could stop the constant comparisons between the real Mr. Rogers and Tom Hanks. The performance Tom Hanks delivers is worthy of consideration come Oscars season - though I don’t think he’ll win. He opens up a chamber of his heart that feels personal and true and the only trick employed seems to be speed, i.e. the lack of it.

Yep, good old-fashioned silence bridges the gap between Tom Hanks’ natural snappy personality and the gentle quietude of Fred Rogers. Apparently, taking such time was torture for the actors on set. But, it was necessary. Long, silent pauses made the real “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood” vibrate with human emotion. We don’t want to be quiet. We fill in the quiet with chatter. And Fred Rogers’ gift was being able to give you that space...until you couldn’t stand it anymore. With the pace slowed all the way down, Hanks feels like the gentlest, and least judgmental, church parishioner you’d ever wish to cross paths with. He’s not perfect, and knows life is full of ups and downs, and thus allows the broken people a glimpse of the light. Enter Matthew Rhys.

Everyone’s been trying to get me to watch “The Americans” and now I know why. Matthew Rhys not only has “Mr. Steal Your Girl” vibes (ask Keri Russell) but he’s got some magic combination of macho intensity plus intellectual arrogance that somehow does not come off nearly as horrible as that sounds. Whereas Tom Hanks was cursed with the constant comparison to his real-life counterpart, Rhys was granted the freedom to fly in any direction he pleased. His Lloyd Vogel was based on the real-life journalist commissioned to write an editorial about Mr. Rogers for Esquire magazine. He’s snarky and sarcastic and his wife and editor seem just about done with him. When Mr. Rogers meets Lloyd he intuits that he’s an untapped faucet of emotional pain. For someone like Lloyd this is as good a diagnosis as type 2 diabetes. Mr. Rogers is not deterred. He loves people like Lloyd. The broken ones.

Lloyd is quickly enthralled by Mr. Rogers’ genuine goodness because he, himself, struggles to release the garden of anger he’s carried since his mother’s death. This realization, and dive into Lloyd’s childhood, bears some of the most touching moments of the film. Marielle Heller’s dreamy direction carries us in and out of the present, and into Lloyd’s dreams to harvest up some of the things he’s buried deep down. When we get to the pain regarding his mother’s death, we meet her, sick, in bed, but without any bitterness. Instead, she glows. She tells Lloyd, “I know you’re holding onto this for me” and we know what she means. The grudge. The hardness. The defense mechanisms. And with that, and the kindness of Fred Rogers, Lloyd softens.

I recently read a piece about the forgotten side of Mr. Rogers, the artistic side. He was apparently a perfectionist (as the best are) and devoted precious hours away from his family to create “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood”. The impact that his children felt was immense. The impact that he made on countless other children was maybe larger. So how did he reconcile his life at home and his life as an adored public servant? He kept working. Not always the best strategy to bridge the gap widening between you and your teenage sons. And that’s where Tom Hanks and Mr. Rogers find common ground. Like with all good characters, you must find the humanity - the flaws, blemishes, and quirks that ground them in this mortal coil.

“A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” was tasked with a heavy order that mostly delivers. It’s not the original. Oh well. But what it imparts on viewers, and hopefully viewers who never saw the original “Neighborhood”, are the glorious tenets of Fred Rogers and great performances by Matthew Rhys (serious Oscar contender) and Tom Hanks (medium Oscar contender). But if awards and all that jazz mean nothing to you and you need a film to teach your bratty nieces and nephews about kindness, then this is it.