I decided to read Washington Square, and now Catherine Sloper will haunt me all the rest of my born days.
She's the anti-Fanny Price and the anti-Anne Elliot, in that she's in a similar situation (so similar that I almost have to believe it was intentional) but makes all the wrong decisions because she happens to be stuck with horrible men. But her story's still worth telling because she still matters. She manages to maintain her dignity even in her small, pathetic story. She gets broken and it's sad, because she deserved better, yet the fact that she recognizes she deserved better is what keeps her strong in the end.
I should hate it but I don't, because instead of pure cynicism or mockery, there's compassion there, a recognition that even flawed, unremarkable people deserve our care. Almost nothing happens, yet in the week and a half since I read it, I keep thinking about it. I'm slotting it alongside Eugene Onegin as an anti-Austen story that fascinates me because of the sad ending. (And then I'm going to imagine that Catherine moves to Cranford and gets to experience sunshine and comedy and friendship).
Man I really can’t stand people who actively complain about a show not going the way they want it currently. Like, hypothesize the hell out of it, analyze, search for clues, and hopes, but once canon comes out, that’s canon. Deal with it I guess, sorry if the people you ship together had an argument and aren’t getting along. You might think it’s unrealistic but you’re not the creator? Sorry if your fan theory was contradicted, you’re not the creator? Sorry if you were positive about this characters personality but turned out to be wrong, you’re not the creator? Sorry if your favourite character that you thought would be central to the show died, but you’re not the creator. Make aus and have fun with it but don’t…..dismiss canon. If you didn’t have canon you literally wouldn’t have your show at all. You wouldn’t have the characters, or the memories.
Last but not least, stop complaining about lack of screen time for a clear background character. if you fall in love with a character that is clearly a background character, who is destined for limited screen time, own it. Wish for more, hope, enjoy what you get but don’t angrily demand more content that you are not entitled to.
Remember that every story has a writer. Every story has a beginning, middle, and end, dictated by the one who created it. And you have literally no say in that. People are gonna tell the story they tell. That’s that.
(Normally I’d want to be more polite about this but I’ve seen too many posts like this today, TOO MANY)
“…I killed you…”
I can’t be the only person that likes the new BBC/PBS Les Miserables adaptation, can I?
Oh no!
finding out that the woman I was just telling about frances burney’s mastectomy and how awful and traumatic it must’ve been for her is actually currently in treatment for breast cancer
Mr. Malcolm’s List is complete fluff with little weight or substance, but clearly everyone involved knew that and decided to make a sweet little film. The story is harmless, though I do wish Julia was the main protagonist--the actress playing her was clearly having the time of her life and she carried the movie on her back every step of the way.
Mr. Malcolm himself was incredibly...boring. Every time he opened his mouth I stifled a yawn. Seriously, could the casting director not have found someone more...anything. I don’t see how anyone could stay mad at this guy or have any strong emotions about him at all--he’s just way too bland. I’m not entirely sure if this is the actor’s fault, the writing, the bland character to begin with, or the directing, but all of these things come together to make a truly forgettable character.
Plus, his list is hardly unreasonable. Everything on his list is something any sensible person would want when picking out a boyfriend/girlfriend/partner/spouse. He just happens to be nerdy enough to have written his list down...and keeps it in his coat pocket, taking it with him everywhere he goes...That’s kind of dorky, but not particularly insulting.
All in all, I wish this bit of fluff had a sharper bite. Jane Austen, whose books clearly inspired this movie/book, had a far sharper and deeper bite.
Jane Austen had social commentary, this movie has...eye candy and geese.
This movie is by no means bad, but it’s not nearly as good or as clever as it wants to be and SHOULD BE. It’s just standard, like a big screen Hallmark movie, just with Jane Austen trappings instead of Christmas decorations.
Yep. Sweet potatoes totally work in this recipe. Like a little pie, and it travels well. Good for my lunchbox.
This is an interesting theory. If it is true, then maybe it’s one of the first times Littlefinger realized the power his words can have over other people’s actions. Maybe at first he felt guilty, but then the power started to feel good, leading him down the path to the man we meet in AGOT.
Do you think it’s possible that Littlefinger tricked Brandon into thinking Lyanna was kidnapped by Rhaegar? All four were in the same area around the same time and it’s definitely within his MO. Not to mention that he just came off a brutal beating from Catelyn’s betrothed and we know what he’d do to get his competition out of the way.
I’m going to preface this with saying that I don’t think we have direct textual evidence disproving this theory. I’m skeptical on Watsonian grounds - first and foremost, it requires Littlefinger to know of Lyanna’s disappearance well before Brandon himself learned of it. While he was recovering from a serious wound half the width of the continent away.
I also dislike this theory from a Doylist standpoint.
First, in terms of LIttlefinger’s backstory, he’s the little guy everyone underestimated, only realising too late that he was their biggest problem. That sort of thing requires time and buildup on the villain’s part; I can’t help but feel that it takes some of the punch out of Littlefinger successfully orchestrating the start of the War of Five Kings if this is his second successful attempt at kicking off a war.
Second, I don’t think it adds anything, really. It doesn’t tell us anything new about Littlefinger (we already knew he’s manipulative), it doesn’t tell us anything new about Brandon (we already knew he was rash). The idea that Brandon learned about Lyanna’s disappearance and believed it was abduction works as a story no matter the source the original news came from.
What if next season the writers kept up the unreliable narrator device?
There could be an episode next season centering on the Massacre at Vassy - the start of the many wars of religion - where Louis de Bourbon (Prince of Conde) tells Ramira HIS side of the story. In his version he is the only one fighting for Protestants to have the same freedoms and rights as everyone else. This would make for a more rounded character and an interesting look at how Louis sees himself. With his narration he becomes a freedom fighter for the oppressed. Protestants can’t teach/study at Universities, hold certain jobs, worship in public in many cities/provinces. He sees himself as the Huguenots’ savior in many ways--their version of Martin Luther King Jr. He can even physically look thinner and more dignified instead of fulfilling the short/fat one dynamic he has with Antoine when Catherine is narrating.
Since other shows set in this time period do not have the unreliable narrator device, this show should use it to their advantage. This story is filled with people manipulating each other--why not manipulate the audience while you’re at it?
Plus it gives Ramira some internal conflict: who does she believe? Maybe Catherine could try to make her into one of her Flying Squadron (spy/seductresses) but Ramira doesn’t like this, so hearing Louis’s side of the story could help bring tension between her and Catherine, giving Ramira something to do next season since historically she never existed and could easily be overshadowed by the show’s historical figures and events.
Some favourite staging moments in productions of Shakespeare plays:
Clarence actually getting drowned in a barrel of wine on stage in Richard III; it was a small barrel, they stuck his head into it as he struggled, pulled him out for an instant as he gasped for air and screamed, his head was wet and sopping, his face all red
Macbeth clutching his empty hands to hold an imaginary child, casting a clawed shadow on the wall
Ophelia ripping out hanks of her hair to give to people during her ‘flowers’ scene (obviously fake hair in real life)
Benedict in Much Ado About Nothing hiding from Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro, taking a swig from a can of beer that happened to be full of cigarette butts and spit-taking it all over Don Pedro and Leonato
who then awkwardly pretend to check if it’s raining
Angelo in Measure for Measure taking off a bloody cilice belt from around his thigh while saying ‘Blood, thou art blood’
Also a really good bit where Angelo shows up in a two way mirror later on when the Duke’s speaking to himself and cursing him; the Duke turns to point at the mirror and there’s Angelo, in the chain of office, pointing back, accusing the Duke as much as the Duke does to him
The moment in Julius Caesar where Brutus asks his servant Strato - who’s been sitting with his back to the audience and wearing a hat with a wide brim - to help him commit suicide; Strato stands while taking off his hat to reveal that he’s played by Caesar’s actor
(a collective gasp went around the theatre; really lent a whole new meaning to ‘Caesar, now be still. I killed not thee with half so good a will’)
After a frantic chase scene in The Comedy of Errors which ends with all the cast collapsed across the stage in exhaustion and the scenery itself falling to bits…a pair of underpants falls from the ceiling, and Dromio of Ephesus (who’d tried in vain to retrieve them at the start of the play) crawls over several other characters, seizes them and screams in triumph
Caption: How your day is actually going.
The Devils (Ken Russell, 1971)