When I Needed Help

I haven’t written in a while. I know it’s bad when WordPress has a layout change and I am completely flummoxed by it. I can only apologise for my absence.

I haven’t been well. Not in my usual way this time, but on a more personal level.

Since the summer, my anxiety attacks were getting worse. I couldn’t eat. I didn’t sleep well. I was always sick and leaving the house was a nightmare I didn’t want to face anymore. It took one well-timed visit from my auntie Jeanette at a time when I was spiraling and all alone for the truth to be addressed.

I went to the doctors next day and I’ve been on antidepressants for a couple of months now.

I haven’t really told people. I’m doing so now because the hypocrisy of it has finally dawned upon me. For years I have stood by the belief that mental health is as important as physical health. I have cried loudly that there should not be a stigma attached to mental illness and the need for pills.

Then suddenly it was my illness. My pills. Suddenly I didn’t want to talk about it anymore.

I am now.

Hopefully this will be me getting back in to writing again. I have new ideas for the new year and some exciting news to follow this week.

I am sorry. And I am back.

In lieu of my usual questions, I ask my followers to reach out to people who are struggling in their lives. Give them the help they need.

And as always, the comments section is open to those who want to talk.

 

Barbie: Be You (and other good morals)

When I was young, I had a Barbie in a red skirt-jacket ensemble. I called her Alison to differentiate her from her identical sisters. She would take the pink train with moving window scenery to various meetings all away across America; or rather, what my young mind had gathered America was like from watching TV. Alison was a professor of archaeology and she would go the University of Salem, the University of Saved by the Bell, and the University of whatever Mary Kate and Ashley movie I just watched. She gave talks on the importance of dinosaurs, and explained to eager Action Man dolls just why Jurassic Park was the single most accurate movie of all time.

I could tell you hundreds of stories like this. The running soap opera that occurred when me and my cousin played Barbies together, and exactly why was Ken so determined to ruin his marriage with Aimee’s dolls; the time ballerina Barbie, Skipper and June in the striped jumper started a band/babysitting service; the time my Rapunzel doll discovered she had an evil twin because someone got me a doll I already for Christmas and I immediately wanted an epic showdown.

In short, Barbie was a big part of childhood. It was a big part of many of our childhoods.

That’s not to say Barbie isn’t flawed. There have been many mistakes over the years, including racism and cultural appropriation, bad body image encouragement, and downright sexist and ill-thought-out marketing exercises.

It’s why I was so excited to see this new advertising campaign:

Barbie’s power has always been that she can do anything. Yes, she has been a fairy, princess or mermaid in multiple dolls/movies. But she’s also entered career paths that have been male-dominated. She has been President before any real life woman in America. She has been an army medic, an Olympic skater and firefighter; and this was just the 1990s!

There’s a running joke in the phenomenal webseries Life in the Dreamhouse which fits in with this idea. Barbie will declare that they need a professional—for example a vet—to which Skipper would reply: “Weren’t you a vet?”. She has a whole room of her dreamhouse dedicated to her past uniforms, still in their original packaging. It’s a great series, full of charm and nods to Barbie history. It’s aware of its problems, just like the characters are aware they’re dolls. I would recommend people watch it, if only for its snappy writing.

Barbie encourages play as little girls want to play. If you want to be like Aimee and lead the life of a housewife and mother, there was toys and accessories for that. If you wanted to be like me and have an exciting life as a professor or rockstar, she could do that too.

I like dolls still. I’m more of a collector now, but I see the appeal of them. I still like the Barbie movies, old and new. And watching this new advert—this saccharine and almost too cute advert—I’m glad to see Barbie back doing what she does best.

The Shakespeare Conspiracy

This will be the first year since leaving high school that I am not on a course which wants me to understand Shakespeare. It is a pity, because I do enjoy most of his works. I’ve written about him in the past, but now seemed like a good time to talk about one of my favourite topics: Shakespeare conspiracy theories.

I’m hoping this will help any GCSE or A-Level students studying Shakespeare. I may do more posts like this in the future. If you have a question or request, send me a message via the Contact Me page!

The Authorship Question

There are those who believe that Shakespeare never penned the poems or play attributed to him. These people are called Anti-Stratfordians. The Authorship Question is one which aims to prove whether or not Shakespeare did write these things, and if he didn’t, reveal who did.

J Thomas Looney is amongst the most famous for this in his book The Shakespeare Identity, but many have questioned the authorship. Even recently, the movie Anonymous (as awful as it was) tried to address this question.

Popular true author theories include: the 17th Earl of Oxford, 6th Earl of Derby and Francis Bacon. My personal favourite is the belief that Christopher Marlowe, the playwright responsible for Doctor Faustus, faked his own death and continued writing as William Shakespeare.

There are many reasons why people believe that Shakespeare wasn’t the true author. The main reason is that Shakespeare was a glove-maker’s son. He did not have a university education, but he wrote plays which surpassed those who did. Not only that, but he makes references to things and places which he could not have seen.

The assumption that anyone other than an upper-class man who wrote as well as Shakespeare did is a fraud is a classist argument. Shakespeare spent years around theatres, and one can learn to do things by immersing themselves in to the environment. Great art does not have to come from a classroom. More than that, while Shakespeare references France and Padua, he also thinks France has lions and Padua has a dock. He creatively interprets what he has heard of these places.

Another reason why people think Shakespeare didn’t write the plays is because there are few existing records of his life. There are legal documents, his birth certificates etc. but no written letters. In the absence of biography, many take to his works to gleam information about his personal life. It can lead to contradictory information and it spawned the belief that the man could not exist. But this is not evidence of absence; it is absence of evidence.

A final comment on this theory is that it fundamentally misunderstands the theatre as it existed in Shakespeare’s times. We have his folio and it is easy to mistake it for the set-in-stone words of William Shakespeare. However his plays would have always been changing. Jokes would be added or scenes removed based on audience reaction. The plays were not written for any actor, but a specific actor within a specific acting troupe. The playwright had to be someone who worked with the troupe, who knew what kind of characters would work and who knew the kinds of stories the actors were competent at telling. This is difficult to accomplish when one is a nobleman using a poor man as a mouthpiece.

I think Kat says it best:

To me, it is obvious that Shakespeare penned his own works.

This is not the only debate which occurs when studying Shakespeare. Here are some more popular ones:

Shakespeare was secretly gay

A good one hundred plus of Shakespeare’s sonnets are addressed to the Fair Youth. We do not know who this youth was, but we know Shakespeare thought he was a very pretty boy. So this begs the question: was Shakespeare gay?

The answer is no. He had a wife (more on her later), and he had other female lovers, most noticeably the Dark Lady. Shakespeare was, going off this evidence, not gay.

He was very likely bisexual though.

While his works were not autobiographical, it was common to write poetry to those you were pursuing. One of the more famous sonnets of Shakespeare is Sonnet 52, which has this verse:

So is the time that keeps you as my chest,
Or as the wardrobe which the robe doth hide,
To make some special instant special-blest,
By new unfolding his imprison’d pride.

Shakespeare is talking about his lover’s erection. The sonnet is full of innuendo and euphemism. Some argue that he only admired the man, others claim that it was not autobiographical. It is a raging debate still.

Shakespeare created thousands of new words

Many words we use today—eyeballs and alligator for example—did not exist before Shakespeare’s time. You can find many words like this in Shakespeare’s work.

But Shakespeare did not create them. He popularised him. He is a playwright after all, and his plays needed to be understood. He had to use terms which would be understood by the masses.

For who did revolutionise language, the answer, as always, lies in teenage girls.

The Second Best Bed

In Shakespeare’s Will (the best joke in this post by far), he left to his wife Anne Hathaway “his second best bed”.

So was this a final insult to Anne after years of adultery?

The argument is certainly there. The idea of the second best bed presents to a modern audience the idea that his best bed was the one he shared with his mistress (or a male lover. I’m standing by bisexual Shakespeare). Shakespeare was a renowned philanderer who spent decades away his wife and had many affairs.

But when Shakespeare was writing, there was an interesting practice afoot. The best bed of the house did not serve the master. It was for guests. Instead, the master and his wife would spend their nights in the second best bed. Arguably, the bestowing of the bed is a symbolic gesture: here is the place we were once happy, and I bequeath it on to you. It is sentiment and memory, not material wealth. This is the line of thought taken by Carol Ann Duffy in her poem Anne Hathaway.

There are just some things addressed when studying Shakespeare. Are they all conspiracies? No. But they are interesting. And I felt like talking about Shakespeare tonight.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post.

Let me ask you this: which play is your favourite? Do you think Shakespeare wrote his works? And what do you think of the works?

Let me know your thoughts.

Death and The Twilight Zone

The Twilight Zone permeated popular culture in a huge way. An anthology of short and often surreal stories of horror or science-fiction, its commentary and scope was broad. Famous episodes include Time Enough at Last, where a man who just wanted time to read and no distractions from his reading. But when he is the last man on earth, his glasses break, leading the infamous ‘There was time now!’ scene, parodied in pop culture ever since. It is this kind of ironic surrealism which cemented The Twilight Zone as an American classic.

Some of my personal favourite episodes deal with the character of Death. In this post, I would like to explore the iterations of Death in The Twilight Zone, and consider why these characters are the way they are.

In the following episodes, Death is not personified. He is, however, alluded to through imagery and story type, and thus deserve some consideration.

Escape Clause (S01 E06), written by Rod Serling, presents a typically Death-related deal with for immortality. An old man makes a deal that he will live forever, with the stipulation of an escape clause should he change his mind about eternity. It is not Death who offers him this though, but the Devil (played by Thomas Gomez). The idea of Death bartering with mortality dates back to ancient Greek times, when Thanatos (the god of death) was tricked by King Sisyphus and chained up. While Thanatos was chained up no one could die. Thanatos was eventually released though, and Sisyphus was punished to eternally push a boulder up a hill in Hades. That it is the devil explains why the odds are stacked against him though. Because the old man is so bored with his life, he confesses to a murder he did not commit in hopes of feeling the electric chair. Unfortunately, he is sentenced to life in prison instead, and with no end to his life he would spend forever in jail. In the end, the devil claims the soul he knew he would possess.

This is an episode worth mentioning because of director Mitchell Leisen. Leisen is known for his work on a movie called Death Takes a Holiday (1934). It tells the tale of Death, making a deal with a lord to stay in his castle so that he may learn about humanity and why they fear him. It was a well-received movie and is still considered great today for its depiction of a sympathetic and more human Death than what was usually shown. I would recommend anyone watch this movie.

The Grave (S03 E07) uses Death imagery, but the supernatural culprit is a ghost. Written and directed by Montgomery Pittman, the episode focuses on the murder of a man. The murderers visit the grave, and one of them dies. It worries them and they visit at the same time as the sister. The sister Ione, played by Elen Wilard, is seen at the grave site, and a mysterious shadow fluttering behind her as the Grim Reaper’s cloak. The episode ends with her laughter.

Like the last episode, Death does not exist as a character but as a symbolic figure. That figure is The Grim Reaper is first mentioned in 1847, though the figure is a traditionally Germanic and English one dating as far back as the 15^th Century. He carries a scythe to harvest souls and take them to the afterlife. This is the most common depiction of Death in Western literature and media, and the one utilised here. He is intimidating, he is otherworldly, and he is a danger to everyone he comes across.

The Twilight Zone does star Death as a character in three of its episodes. There are interesting overarching themes to these very different iterations.

His first appears early on in the series in the second episode of the first season, named One for the Angels. It was written by Rod Serling and directed by Robert Parrish. Death in this episode is played by Murray Hamilton, and he appears as he warns a con-man that he will die at midnight. Death is duped in to agreeing to a stay of death until the man finishes one last job; he then quits the business so that he can never be taken. The man feels he has won, until Death must take a young girl in his place.

The man eventually persuades Death to take him instead of the girl by distracting him. Despite all of this, Death is fair. He sticks by his word, even when the con man does not. He confirms he is going to Heaven. He smiles. He may not be as amiable as the Death characters to follow, but he stays by his word.

The Hitch-Hiker (S01 E16), based on The Hitchhiker by Lucille Fletcher, presents Death as more of a gentle character. A woman has a near-death experience, and she spends the episode avoiding a hitch-hiker (played by Leonard Strong) who seems to be following her. No one else can see him though, leading her to suspect that he coming after her. It is not until she calls her mother in a panic and hears that her only daughter died in a crash that she realises that she has been dead all along. The hitch-hiker then appears in the back seat and asks ‘I believe you’re going… my way?’

Death here is not obtrusive, nor is he insistent. He gives her a chance to accept her fate at her own pace. He allows her to come to terms with what happened. He is kind and he is understanding.

My personal favourite Twilight Zone episode comes in season 3 (E16), called Nothing in the Dark. Written by George Clayton Johnson and directed by Lamont Johnson, it’s about an old woman who is terrified of Death. She saw him in a crowd some unspecified number of years ago, and she has been convinced ever since that he is coming after her. To keep Death at bay, she locks herself away until she is forced by her conscience to come to the aid of a man who was attacked outside her home.

Most noticeable for many about this episode who the character of Death. First, he is played by a young Robert Redford before his career really started to soar. Secondly, Death does not appear as one would expect. He is not serious, old or dower. He is young, attractive and he is surprisingly full of life. He charms the old woman and when she realises who he is, he remains just jovial and kind.

The realisation is a clever one. Death presents himself as a figure of authority, a young police officer. He keeps up the lie and asks her questions about her self-imposed exile. She knows her home will be torn down soon, but she is scared to leave in case Death finds her, never realising that she has let him in. It is only when she points Death out to another person and they cannot see him that she realises Death has no reflection.

It also has this glorious piece of dialogue:

‘You see? No shock. No engulfment. No tearing asunder. What you feared would come like an explosion is like a whisper. What you thought was the end is the beginning’

It’s a brilliant episode. One of the best in all the seasons. When she goes with him, there is nothing to fear. There is only peace.

In the end, Death as a character is never about Death as a character. He is a conductor, and the story belongs to those who are about to die. The narrative is about how people deal with death as a concept, whether it is bargaining, denial or fear. In the end though, death must always be accepted by our protagonists.

Fear of death is exploited through its imagery, but Death himself is never anything to be afraid of. Death can appear as anyone—as shown by his numerous actors—and his morals and roles change depending on the narrative. There is no canonical Death, not even in The Twilight Zone. We can draw comparisons—that Death is always male is common in Western media as the dichotomy to the feminine life is often juxtaposed—but there is only one factor worth noting: Death is never the villain, even if we must admit that death is usually a bad thing. Death is patient, Death is fair, and Death is kind.

The reason why is up for interpretation. I posit that it’s because we all fear death in some way, even if we do not fear dying ourselves. We like to imagine Death will be gentle because should we meet him as these characters do, we would like him to be kind to us. That is my thought.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post.

Let me ask you this: do you have a favourite Twilight Zone episode? Is there an interpretation of Death outside of the series that you like? And what do you think Death would be like in this world?

Let me know your thoughts.

Top 5 Animated Villainesses

It is a truth universally acknowledged that everyone loves a bad boy. From our Mr Darcys to our Gastons, villainous or unlikeable men have dominated culture and media. We like our villains and we find charm in the anti-heroes.

Yet the wicked women of media don’t get the same love. They are admired, at least on the Disney front, but evil women aren’t given the same spotlight.

So I’ve compiled a list of villainesses from animated series or franchises who I think are too good to hate. For the sake of ease, I’ve discounted anti-heroes a la Catwoman and Maleficient. These are women we are meant to root against, but somehow don’t.

These are my top 5 animated villainesses.

5. Poison Ivy (from DC’s Batman franchise)

I have Ivy so low only because she bordered too close on the anti-hero line. In some comic series like Birds of Prey, she is the anti-hero. And [Spoiler Alert] she makes a heroic sacrifice in Rocksteady’s latest instalment in the Batman game series, Arkham Knight.

Ivy was first introduced Detective Comics #181 in 1966. Once a brilliant scientist, she is now an eco-terrorist. I always liked that she had a doctorate. She was Dr. Pamela Isley (Or Lillian in her original conception). She could command plants to do her bidding.

Ivy is an interesting character. She is femme fatale and a seducer of men, but she hates them all. She calls humans meatbags and would kill thousands if it meant saving her plants. Her only real soft spot is for wayward women and for children, especially for Harley. She was recently confirmed as LGBT and in a polyamorous relationship with Harley, making one of two confirmed queer characters on this list. She’s housed orphans before, sympathising with childhood trauma.

Me too.

As is unfortunately the problem with comic characters though, she is often sexualised in her designs. She sometimes appears more human than plant, sometimes not, however she is nearly always scantily clad and posed erotically. See this Arkham Asylum cutscene for an example.

As a final note on why I like her, there is an alternate timeline of Batman set in Victorian times where Bruce Wayne runs the Asylum. Ivy is there because she is a suffragette. How could I not adore her?

4. Mystique (from Marvel’s X-Men franchise)

Mystique is a staple of X-Men lore. She is the blue-skinned shape shifter who consistently makes top villain lists. She is the other confirmed LGBT character, a bisexual bent on mutant supremacy. She’s the mother of Nightcrawler and the adoptive mother of Rogue.

I like her because she’s a woman with a cause. Her best incarnation is definitely X-Men: Evolution. I like that she’s seductive but it is her intelligence more often than not which helps her evade capture. I also liked that she could look like anything she wanted but loved her default even though it marked her as a target for bigots.

I will always prefer the likes of Magneto and Mystique to Charles Xavier though. More on that some other time.

Mystique constantly makes the top comic villains list, and it’s easy to see why. She’s morally ambiguous, powerful and something of role model to me growing up.

3. Fairy Godmother (from Dreamworks’s Shrek 2)

In the four movies in the Shrek series, only one of them has been a woman. It’s a pity, because she is one of my all-time favourites. Fairy Godmother is the typical image of what a fairy godmother should be. She’s soft-spoken, jovial and glittery. Behind the glitter though she is a mastermind, a blackmailer and a corporate giant.

I like that she is a mother and a doting one. She does everything in her power to make sure that Charming has a happily ever after. She’s powerful, she’s sinister, and she has some of the best lines and scenes in the movie.

But I can sum her up in this musical number:

2. Demona (from Disney’s Gargoyles)

Gargoyles was a Disney show unlike anything else at the time. It ran during the Disney Afternoon in the US, a two-hour block of Disney cartoons played every day after school. It was in competition with shows like Duck Tales and Chip ‘n’ Dale Rescue Rangers. It was nestled amongst the cute, the bright and the colourful.

In 1994, Gargoyles first aired. It was critically acclaimed for just how different and epic it was. The tone was dark, the stories complex and there was a real passion to just how much went in to it. The story begins in medieval Scotland at the castle. It is here that the Gargoyles live, creatures which are stone by day and mighty protectors by nights. The Captain betray the princess one day, and the Vikings smash the Gargoyles, killing them all bar the two who are scouting and the three in the shadows of the rookery.

Goliath, the protagonist, goes to save the princess, but the mage thinks he has killed the princess. He turns them all to stone, which the clause that they will return to life when the castle rises above the clouds.

Flash forward a few hundred years, and the Gargoyles have reawakened in current day Manhattan. This all happens in the five-part opening of season 1.

One of the central villains of the series is the Gargoyle Demona, who sold out the castle in hopes of them reclaiming their home. It did not work as she had hoped, and thousands of year alone with her guilt corrupted her mind. Once she was Goliath’s lover, his angel of the night and his second-in-command. Now they are sworn enemies, both battling old feelings clashing with new hate.

It is very Shakespearean. Demona would be easy to symapthise with, if she would only accept the blame for what happened. It is because she blames others that the audience knows she is irredeemable. What makes it worse, we do see a younger Demona in a few episodes. This was in full of life and optimism, an idealist not yet jaded by her self-inflicted solitude.

She’s a complex character, more than we usually get from a Disney show. The series went on for three seasons before it continues in the comics. I may do a post about this show one day. There is a lot to talk about.

1. Ursula (from Disney’s The Little Mermaid)

The best of the Disney brood for sure. Ursula has no origin story, at least not one we are privy to. We know she lived in the castle once, but when and why are mysteries. She is not like the other merpeople, since she practices magic is an octowoman and not a fish.

Body language, HA

Her villain song is incredible. Poor Unfortunate Souls has some of the best lines, and this verse always makes me smile:

The men up there don’t like a lot of blabber
They think a girl who gossips is a bore!
Yes on land it’s much preferred for ladies not to say a word
And after all dear, what is idle prattle for?
Come on, they’re not all that impressed with conversation
True gentlemen avoid it when they can
But they dote and swoon and fawn
On a lady who’s withdrawn
It’s she who holds her tongue who get’s a man

It’s nice to see a woman who is comfortable in her own skin. She is overweight, but she could change that if she wanted to. Her design was based on the famous drag queen Divine, and Pat Carroll does as amazing job bringing that theatricality to her. She’s a fabulous villainess in red lipstick, and I will always have a soft spot for her.

Some honourable mentions: Zira from Disney’s The Lion King 2 (she has a lust for being bad); The Evil Queen from Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (the original and the trendsetter); The Changeling Queen from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (I like the drama and the manipulation).

That’s it from me! I’m sorry about my August silence. With my dissertation deadline I was far too busy to blog. But I’m back and I have a lot planned.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post.

Let me ask you this: do you prefer villains to heroes? Are there any others you would have on your list? And does Disney just do the best bad guys?

Let me know your thoughts.

Women in Comics – Guestblogging at Verbal Remedy

In the run-up to the launch of Friday’s Feminist this Friday, I wrote a two-part series for Verbal Remedy, a social community project based in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Both come with content warnings for sexual and physical violence.

The first post was titled: Women in Comics: Women in Refrigerator.

It explores how comic writers and creators use the rape, death, brutalisation or depowerment of its superheroines for the advancement of a male hero’s story arc. It uses the examples of two Batgirls: Barbara Gordon and Stephanie Brown.

Here is an excerpt:

A fundamental difference can be summed up with two examples from the same universe. Barbara Gordon, the most famous Batgirl, was shot by the Joker, paralysing her spine. She stayed this way until the New 52 reboot. Batman has his spine broken by Bane in Batman #497 (1993). By the events of Knightquest: The Search, Bruce’s back is healed and he is able to reassume his mantle.

The second post was title: Women in Comics: The Sexy Lamp Test.

It explores how comic artists and creators sexualise their female characters solely for the male gaze. Notable examples of this are Power Girl and Starfire from DC Comics.

Here’s an excerpt:

From another juggernaut in the comic world comes The Sexy Lamp Test, coined by Captain Marvel writer Kelly Sue DeConnick. The guiding principle is that a female character that can be replaced with a lamp or any other inanimate object while still maintaining the integrity of the plot is not a suitably developed character. In DeConnick’s own words, “if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft”. The aim of the test is to highlight the problem of female characters who are used as a prize, possession or object for the sake of a plot, much in a similar style to a Damsel in Distress. Think Princess Daphne in Don Bluth’s 1983 game Dragon’s Lair, who could quite easily be exchanged for a lamp in gossamer lingerie.

Friday’s Feminist’s first post will explore how male victims of rape and sexual assault are portrayed in comics. I hope you’ll all read my posts over at VR, and maybe you’d like to check out my new blog too!

You can now like Friday’s Feminist on Facebook.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post.

Let me ask you this: can you think of any examples of sexy comic heroines in impractical or impossible clothes/poses? Are there any heroines that have suffered unnecessarily? And what are some good examples of representation you can think of?

Let me know your thoughts.

Finding Wonderland – Professor Robert Douglas-Fairhurst in Newcastle

On the 19^th May, I had the pleasure of seeing Professor Robert Douglas-Fairhurst of Oxford University give a talk at Newcastle University. His subject was Finding Wonderland. There is a link to an archive recording of the talk here, but these were some of the highlights.

In 1990, The New York Times published an article about Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Its title is an apt one: That Girl is Everywhere. Alice’s story has been translated internationally, and has left its mark almost everywhere: in the business world, in the gaming world, even in the food world:

The Richmond Tearoom, Manchester [Image from foodinliterature.com]

Supposedly, the Alice stories are the most quoted English text after the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, and it’s easy to see why. Lewis Carrol is responsible not only for the birth of several new words—chortle, frabjous—but also phrases like curiouser and curiouser.

Alice is an enduring figure, and one whom changes and influences to her will. Alice is difficult to pinpoint, even for Alice herself. She is called monster, flower, snake and housemaid. She grows giant and then tiny. She physically and mentally changes, so much so that she is everything we want her to be, and therefore nothing at all.

The Alice books are books of doubling. The characters are doubles, the books are doubles, and even Alice is a double. The real Alice was named Alice Liddell, and she was photographed numerous times by Carroll. We know physically she looked nothing like the story character, but the story was written for her enjoyment. Even Carroll was a man of doubling. His moniker, Lewis Carroll, was a whimsical man who loved puzzles. But the real man, Reverend Charles Dodgson, was a dull mathematician, and someone whom many considered unremarkable.

The irony of course is that the story is a remarkable one. You don’t have to have read it to remember it. Following that white rabbit and falling down the rabbit hole is an image that has been ingrained in our cultural memory. The entire scene is a magic trick, a pun of sorts; as she is falling, she is falling asleep, and she enters a dream world. Everything about the book is a magic trick: white rabbits, top hats, growing and shrinking etc.

That is not to say the books are wholly original. Carroll was very much a product of his time by sending Alice underground. It was something of a fashion to do, with the world around them providing inspiration. The streets of London were torn up to make way for sewers and transport. They were still discovering dinosaur bones at this time. Many popular fairy tales had a changeling motif.

Douglas-Fairhurst further mentioned a theory I find to be very interesting. Another famous underground idea, at least to those of a Christian culture, is Hell. The infamous Hatter’s tea party echoes a Dante-esque scene of comedy—characters stuck in a place where time has stopped, never moving on and never going anywhere. The story was even originally called Alice’s Adventures Underground. She never refers to it as Wonderland in the story. Wonderland is a concept from the Romantic era, depicting a land of imagination, much like Palgrave’s poem The Age of Innocence.

For all its bizarre rules, Wonderland is a place of constancy. The Queen of Hearts will always order heads off, but everyone will always survive. It will always be 6pm at the tea party. Alice Liddell may have grown up, but in Wonderland, she is always a seven-year old dream-child.

We love our Alice. She is virtuous, but with all the vices a child should have. She is threatening, she is stubborn, she is lost. We retell her story in countless ways because it is part of our cultural memory now. We love our Alice stories.

Douglas-Fairhurst also talked a great deal about Carroll’s personal life, and the myth surrounding the man. His talk is worth listening to if you’re interested. These were but a few fascinating tidbits.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post.

Let me ask you this: what is your favourite Alice adaptation? Have you read it recently? And who is your favourite character?

Let me know your thoughts.

#ToTheGirls

#ToTheGirls is trending on Twitter today, and I’m in love with it. They’re 140 character letters to young girls, or past selves, telling them things you wish you knew at their age. Some tweets are funny. Some tweets are heart-breaking. Some are just eye-opening.

And being the trend follower that I am, I have a few letters I wish I could send to my past self, and girls like me. Here’s a selection.

Dear readers, this is To The Girls.

—

To The Girls,

Your voice matters. You are raised to believe that you should be seen and not heard. Girls are not afforded the same rights to indulge in opinions as boys are, but that is a mistake. What you have to say is just as important, and you should never apologise for using your voice.

—

To The Girls,

Feminist is not a bad word. I know I was in high school when I decided I was not a feminist. A boy had called me it, and said it like he had called me a bitch. I knew my cheeks were red and stained with shame to be tarred with that brush. The media told me it was bad to be a feminist. Now I’m older, I realise I always was. Never be ashamed for believing you are equal.

—

To The Girls,

Other Girls are not the enemy. Somewhere in my childhood, other girls became this separate species, and one I wanted nothing to do with. Other Girls conformed to gender and therefore were stupid. They brought the entire gender down with their pink and sparkles. Now that I’m older, I realise that they are not at fault for liking those things. Don’t tear Other Girls down for your own means.

—

To The Girls,

Your body is not Wikipedia. People are not allowed to come up to you and suggest changes. And while we’re at it, no one is allowed to touch you without your permission. If you’re uncomfortable, make someone know. Let everyone know. Tell someone you trust, or shame the creep if you’re in public. Your body is not up for public debate.

—

To The Girls,

You’re allowed to like comics, and games, and sports, and everything else that you’ve been told girls shouldn’t like. Don’t let people make you feel bad about it. You’re not sacrificing your femininity, and you don’t deserve to be harassed for it.

—

There are so many lessons young girls aren’t taught. It’s okay to enjoy or not to enjoy sex. It’s okay to have body image issues, and there are ways to deal with them. You are not flawed, and you don’t have to be ashamed to talk about your body.

When I was in middle school, I was given a cursory sex ed lesson. One hour to explain periods and pregnancy. What I took from it was I’d bleed once a month and women can’t have sex with each other. Obviously it’s more in-depth than that, and women very much can.

I don’t know why we don’t talk to young girls. We teach them not to ask questions, and then we’re very confused as to why they’re not talking to us about their worries. I was not a happy young girl.

But I’m happy now. And I think it’s time we start protecting young girls.

A short post tonight. I’m sorry. I was inspired.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post.

Let me ask you this: what would you tell your younger self? Do you think young girls today suffer through a lot? And why do we have a culture that doesn’t protect our young girls?

Let me know your thoughts.

Zayn Leaves One Direction; What’s Wrong With Our Reactions

So One Direction is starting to split up, and I’m not that bothered. I like a few of their songs, but at the end of the day, One Direction is not for me. Ten years ago, they were exactly the kind of boy band fodder I’d have loved. The only concert I’ve ever been to was a Westlife one, which I think speaks volumes about my music taste.

Aged 12, my wardrobe was plastered with posters of McFly and the Jonas Brothers. Now it’s just Nick Jonas, but I’m an adult woman now and I don’t enjoy him with the same fervour my child-self did. There’s a lot more lust and critical awareness now.

What I’m saying is that I understand the One Direction phenomenon. The biggest bands have always had this kind of following of young girls and teens. For how refined people want you to think they are because they enjoy The Beatles, their popularity was boosted by the throngs of young girls and women who loved them. Beatle Mania was looked down upon, and like all good things in media, was pushed by young girls.

I was devastated when my favourite bands broke up, or members went solo. But we live in a different culture now, and society has changed.

Some things have come to light with the announcement that Zayn Malik has left One Direction. I’m going to speak out in his defence, and address some of the problematic and downright hateful things that have come to light since.

You can say what you want about it, but when Justin left *NSYNC, no one accused him of being a terrorist. A popular joke I’ve seen is that Zayn has left the band to join ISIS. This wouldn’t have happened if Harry had been the one to leave. Zayn was raised Muslim, his father is Pakistani-British, and he feels a strong connection to his Asian roots. He has been unapologetic in this, and damn right he should be. But he’s not White British, and that opens him up to jokes stemming from Islamophobia. Apparently what makes you beautiful is snow white skin and a pure British heritage.

There’s a very strong and racist edge to some of these comments made towards him, some from fans, others from people who just like controversy. And what really gets me is that Zayn has always spoken out in defence of his bandmates, getting in many arguments on Twitter over it. There is a definite silence from the others now. There’s an argument that Zayn owes them, and I disagree. They don’t respect him enough to speak out for him. He doesn’t owe the band anything. True friends would support him.

Speaking of Twitter, something started on Twitter which we should never condone. #CutForZayn started trending. Something similar happened years ago with #CutForJustin. It’s in essence pictures of people, mostly teenage girls, showing themselves or the consequences of them self-harming.

It’s a kind of emotional manipulation, and one I often warn people to look for in controlling relationships. It’s a “You made me do this” ploy. The people doing this hope that Zayn will feel guilty enough to stay with the band.

There are plenty of things wrong with this, but on a more basic point, we have the romanticisation of self-harm. Encouraging young girls to cut for a boy band is not healthy, but they don’t know any better. All I can see when I hear about this is the stranger on the metro last week. She was young enough to be wearing a primary school uniform, and she sat with her mother, surrounded by all these shopping bags. And this girl was so happy to be sitting there, kicking her legs and staring with utter adoration at a heart shaped One Direction key-ring. She didn’t know what would happen this week. She was just happy to have a plastic key-ring, enough to kiss each band member. It’s a toxic culture that encourages young girls to hurt themselves.

But it’s not the answer. Hurting yourself over something like this is never the answer. And dear reader, if you do harm yourself in anyway, please seek help. There are resources for you, and you deserve to know that you are cared about.

I am not going to shame these young girls for being upset. They are entitled to be upset, and no one should mock them for that.

I am going to shame the people who use Zayn’s race for a reason to hate and abuse him.

I am going to shame the people who encourage young girls to hurt themselves and then belittle them for it rather than trying to help them.

And finally, I am going to shame the adults who do shame these young girls.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another post. This one was rushed and I apologise. I’m just becoming agitated with it all.

Let me ask you this: have you seen anything malicious in the media lately about this story? What do you feel about it? And in something lighter, what was your first band to break up?

Let me know your thoughts.

Trick ‘r Treat (2007)

Halloween drew the short straw with memorable characters. Christmas has Santa, Rudolph and the elves. Easter has the bunny. Valentine’s Day has a naked archer baby. The closest that Halloween has the brilliant Jack Skellington from The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even he is in the middle of a custody battle with Christmas. Horror certainly has a plethora of memorable characters—Hannibal Lecter, Jigsaw, Jason—but none are suitably festive enough to fill that pumpkin-shaped void.

Thankfully, in 2007, a movie came along and did its damnedest to fill it in. From first-time director Michael Dougherty came the cult classic Trick ‘r Treat. I should forewarn you that this will not be a spoiler-free review, but I will try to keep it to a minimum.

I’m actually surprised by how many of you wanted a full review after I featured it on my Top 5 Werewolf Movies list. Trick ‘r Treat is a movie that deserves more recognition though, so I’m happy to step up to this one.

This is Trick ‘r Treat.

First a little context. Trick ‘r Treat was intended to have a theatrical release, but was ultimately shelved by Warner Bros. The reason for this is up to fan speculation, but my feeling is that it’s probably something to do with the school bus scene. Regardless, it eventually got a straight-to-DVD release, and accumulated a cult following at a surprising rate.

So first, let’s address the plot. It’s not a traditional one. We have multiple plots running simultaneously because it’s an anthology. The stories overlap, characters playing roles in numerous parts of the movie. Their connection is a simple one: it’s a Halloween night in a small New England town.

Right off the bat, I have to say that there is something gorgeous about the way this movie was shot. The sets are gloriously festive, and the establishing shots look so orange. I love how authentic the shots of fall are, and the way the street festival looks. Production-wise, this movie has incredible scenery.

The music too is so very creepy. Composer Douglas Pipes knows exactly how to put things in a Halloween mood. It’s not too horror-based, but it’s most definitely suspenseful and at times even really innocent. The music is done masterfully.

The movie starts with a short story about a woman who blows out a Jack-o’-Lantern, despite her husband’s protests. What happens to her sets the stage for the rest of the movie. It’s gory, gross, but not a slasher. There is a real art to this scene.

The star of the movie in my eyes goes to the principle. Steven Wilkins, played by Dylan Baker, is a character with a big respect for Halloween. He’s one of the most fun characters in the movie. When people disrespect his favourite time of the year, they end up dead. He poisons a child’s candy, he drinks the blood of a woman in the street. Possibly the only creepier thing about this movie is his relationship with his son. He’s a fun villain. There’s a brilliant scene where he’s burying a body, and his son yells at him out the window. When asked why he’s being shushed, Steven replies:

“You’ll bother the neighbours!”

I love him.

Then there’s Laurie, played by Anna Paquin. She is the only virgin amongst her sisters and friends, and she plans to use Halloween to change that. I talked about this scene in my Werewolf list, but again, I adore how subversive this part is.

My only real problem with the movie comes from the School Bus scene. It’s a flashback to 30 years ago, with a bus full of children with various mental disabilities. Their parents, embarrassed by their children and exhausted with the care they needed, and they paid him to get rid of the children. It’s just an awful scene, and emotionally distressing. The children don’t know what’s happening, but they sit and let themselves be chained to the seats. One of the children, just desperate to go home, escaped and drove the bus straight off the quarry.

This scene is attached as a prologue to the story involving a group of kids who are playing a trick on Rhonda, a girl who is constantly bullied. They pretend to be the undead children, and scare her in to knocking herself out. Unfortunately, one of the group kicks a Jack-o’-Lantern in to the lake…

Another problem with this scene is that it’s performed by children who aren’t that talented. It’s not ambient as the other scenes, and it takes away from the spooky atmosphere. All and all, this is the weakest of the stories.

The finale finally introduces a character we’ve seen many times through the movie. That is Sam, played by Quinn Lord, who also goes by Peeping Tommy. Sam existed before Trick ‘r Treat. He stars in an animated short from 1996 called Season’s Greetings, also from Dougherty. His name comes from Samhain, a Halloween precursor with Celtic roots. Sam is the enforcer of Halloween traditions, from the sanctity of the Jack-o’-Lantern to the importance of giving out treats to people who come to your door. He is there to punish those who don’t abide by the sacred traditions.

We meet Sam when Kreeg, played by Brian Cox, refuses to give the trick-or-treaters any candy. The result is a chilling climax, an entertaining fight sequence, and possibly the creepiest interior shots I’ve ever seen.

Trick ‘R Treat, and particularly the demon spawn that is Sam, has been given a cult treatment similar to Repo! The Genetic Opera. People are avid about it, especially around Halloween. There was a tie-in graphic novel published by Wildstorm Comics, and even Vinyl Pop has a Sam bobble head. Plus with the announcement of Trick ‘R Treat 2, more merchandise is on its way this Halloween. Sam exists in various forms of merchandise, and it’s easy to see why. Menacing, malevolent, and just the right amount of cute, Sam is just right to be the figure-head of Halloween.

Closing thoughts on the movie is that it’s good Halloween fun you can have all year around. It’s shockingly short at only 82 minutes, and there’s a lot of child death in it. But it’s a brilliant movie, and I eagerly anticipate the sequel. This is me, the queen of the babies when it comes to horror, is giving this the full five stars.

And so, dear readers, we reach the end of another review. I hope you enjoyed it.

Let me ask you this: do you have a straight-to-DVD movie that you think deserved a theatrical release? What did you think of Trick ‘r Treat? And do you have a Halloween movie you love?

Let me know your thoughts!