Gothic: Movies about Writing

And now for something completely batsh*t.

Long before I ever actually read Frankenstein, I was weirdly knowledgeable about its creator, Mary Shelley. And therefore, when I was flipping though late night television long ago and probably watching channels I wasn’t supposed to be, I discovered a young Natasha Richardson running panicked down a hallway while Julian Sands made out with Gabriel Byrne. They addressed each other as Byron, Shelly, and Mary, so naturally I kept watching. What I had stumbled upon was 1986’s Gothic directed by Ken Russell, a man who had to have been high most of the time (and if he wasn’t, the inside of his brain must’ve been a scary, brightly colored place).

This is meant to be a horror movie, but the monsters are pretty obviously the result of a bad trip.

There are several films that attempt to capture the idea of Mary Shelley winning the famous “let’s tell ghost stories” night against Byron, Shelley, and John Polidori (more about them later), but this is the only one that really focuses on the amount of opium likely ingested that night. This is NOT A CHILDREN’S FILM. Hell, I don’t this film is probably appropriate for most adults.

The madness open with Percy Shelley rowing Mary and her step-sister, Claire, to the shore of Byron’s villa. The moment he exists the boat, ye olde fangirls chase Percy up the lawn i hopes of tearing his clothes as a souvenir. You know, that whole poets being the rockstars of their day comparison. I don’t care how popular, I don’t think anyone every squeed at a poet. Sorry poets.

The characters/historical figures are established by extremes in the first 8 minutes. Byron is a lustful rogue who instantly makes Mary uncomfortable. Percy is a ridiculous child who just wants the attention of those around him. Claire is a wild thing determined to keep up in her recent and abusive affair with Byron. John Polidari, Byron’s person doctor, is just weird and uncomfortable with a sense of being both as lustful as Byron yet sexually harrassed by him (everyone man in this is established as bi from the get-go). And finally Mary, the quietest and most sensible of the group.

They decide to play a game in the giant house where the director fills the set with obvious sexual allegories, clockwork figures (that are very obviously people in costumes) and annoyed servants. The game is ended abruptly with Percy crawling out on the roof in the midst of a lightning storm and reminding Mary of her father’s favorite theories about electricity.

Drunk, high, and in hopes of an orgy, the group starts to read aloud from a book of ghost stories (while Percy makes out with Mary and feels up Claire at the same time…yep, you read that right). The stories instantly show Parallels to Mary’s future such as doom for Percy near water and the loss of a child. It feels like most movie versions about this night like to do this, Make it seem like Mary cursed them all for tragedy by writing Frankenstein. Nevermind that this whole group suffered from mental illness that was added to with booze and opium.

Byron decides they should “conjure” a ghost which Mary is unnerved by due to her own desires to bring her recently stillborn baby back to life. Even though they declare that they will make up their own ghost stories you never really see this - just more orgies, Claire having a seizure, Byron ordering a half-naked maid to pretend to be his half-sister, and Mary realizing that Percy is infatuated with Byron.

Here, I finally make a writing observation besides the poet thing. Percy Shelley is portrayed in Gothic as both being fascinated and attracted by Byron, but also as if he wants to be Byron. Sometimes writers think that by mimicking the behavior of their literary idols it will improve their craft. You know those people who only use a typerwriter and drink rum because Hemmingway did the same. Or only use a quill pen and hide oneself in a room because Emily Dickinson was a shut-in. Or pine after a girl named Laura because that’s what Petrarch did.

From that point, the movie 45 minutes of nightmare fuel involving more sex, miscarriages, boob eyes, near suicide, mud baths, philosophical conversations about death and homosexuality and religion, and Frankenstein’s creature following Mary around the house until she sees an image of her son William dead (which really did happen). The characters argue whether this is all the result of their minds or a creature of the night.

The end of all of this crazy is the idea great literature and horror comes from nights of great f*&%ed-up events. A part at the end involving modern tourists informs the audience that from Polodoiri’s obsession with blood and Byron came the novella the Vampyre and Mary’s insistence to bring back the dead came Frankenstein.

Once again, a movie about writers relies on the idea of their biography being directly linked to their works. Only in this case, it involves a lot of Julian Sands being naked and, at least for me, that does not inspire much in the way of literary genius.

By the way, despite my sounding so critical of this bizarre film, I do own it.

I’m too lazy to check who owns this. Just don’t sue me, please.

Crimson Peak: Movies about Writing

I’ve seen this movie at least once a year since it came out. Crimson Peak includes some of my absolute favorite supernatural tropes: a Gothic house, a woman who is both the victim and savior, ghosts who are both frightening and helpful, and utilizing the social norms of the Industrial Era compared to the “old world” European settings.

Crimson Peak is an atmospheric thriller about Edith (Mia Wasikowska), a writer and the daughter of an American businessman, who marries the charming Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) despite reservations of those around her (Jim Beaver plays her father and Charlie Hunnamam plays her old friend Dr. Alan McMichael). Thomas whisks Edith away to live him and his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain) in their crumbling English estate, Allendale Hall to pursue his attempts to make the manor lucrative once again. It is not long before Edith is the center of mysterious visitations from those no long living.

The movie is written by Matthew Robbins (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Dragonslayer, *batteries not included, etc) and Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth, Hellboy, The Shape of Water, etc.). The director is, naturally, also del Toro. Of course, this might be partially why I adore this film. Guillermo del Toro and I have many similar loves - Ray Harryhausen, Charles Dickens, fairy tales, Disney movies, the Haunted Mansion, Richard Matheson, Poe, and classic horror movies including Freaks and one of my all-time favorite films The Uninvited from 1944. I desperately want to get a beer with this man and just geek out for hour about books and movies. WHY CAN’T THIS HAPPEN?

Let’s get down to the parts of this story that relate to writing. This is a mystery so warning: MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

After an experience of her deceased mother delivering her a cryptic warning as a child, Edith Cushing has grown up as an aspiring writer of supernatural fiction. The early scenes of the film focuses heavily on her writing ambitions and how society mocks her efforts. An exchange between Edith and the mother of her childhood friend shows how little she cares about their opinions, as well as her attempts to build a somewhat morbid reputation.

“…our very own Jane Austen. Though she died a spinster, didn’t she?”

“Actually, Mrs. McMichael, I’d prefer to be Mary Shelley. She died a widow.”

Edith shows up early at the publishing office, covering in ink from doing corrections while she waits. THE NOVEL IS NEVER DONE - I TELL YOU!!!! Movies that take places in the mid- 1800s up through the 1910s always show the publisher or editor reading the whole manuscript while the writer sits there anxiously. How do they do this? Do the pair sit there four hours together in uncomfortable silence? Is this potential buyer just skimming? Are there bathroom breaks?

Either way, the scene in Crimson Peak keep this pattern of Edith on the edge of her chair while the publisher (played by Jonathan Hyde who still haunts my childhood at Van Pelt, the hunter from the original Jumanji) criticizes her for being a woman who wrote a ghost story (“It’s not! The ghost is a metaphor for the past” as Edith insists) without love story in it.

Despite the rejection and her decision type her stories from then on to hide her gender, Edith’s father buys her a beautiful fountain pen. I point this out because the pen is important a the end of the story. She also, as she is typing out this manuscript for another attempt at publication, meets the dashing rogue of the tale, Sir Thomas Sharpe Baronet. He compliments the story in front of her, not knowing she is the author. Seriously, if Tom Hiddleston complimented my writing I would probably marry him too (the fact that he is Tom Hiddleston does help, though).

Mr. Cushing has Thomas Sharpe and his sister, Lucille, investigated by a private detective (played by Burn Gorman who will always be Owen from “Torchwood” in my mind) and finds information that make him insist that Edith’s heart be broken so she does not pine too long for Thomas. Thomas does this in the masterful stroke of her attacking her novel. He gets mean, basically she her characters have no realism or true emotion, just the mimics of characters from other books. Harsh, dude! Harsh.

As this is a horror story, Edith’s father then dies in a violent and mysterious way, leaving Thomas a chance to apologize and marry Edith. There are only two things in this movie that bug me. 1) a dog get murdered. 2) When Thomas begs the forgiveness of our hero, he talks about a sting that connects his heart to hers. This is line clearly paraphrased from Jane Eyre and Edith, as a writer and reader, should have recognized such a cheesy line.

Arriving at Allendale Hall cuts down on Edith’s writing as she is a new bride in a haunted house with a psychotic new sister-in-law. There is one scene were Thomas asks her the fate of her main character and she honestly tell him that she doesn’t know - how a writer cannot control completely the decisions their characters make. I’m not going to give away all of the jumps and ghostly entities, but I want to go back to the theme of Edith as a writer.

In climax of the film, when Edith discovers she is trapped in a Bluebeard plot of greed and incest, Lucille attempts to force her to sign over the last of her inheritance to the Sharpes. As this battle of wills takes place, Lucille proceeds to BURN EDITH’S MANUSCRIPT! Bitch! Oh no! She did not! Edith proceeds to stab Lucille in the shoulder with the fountain pen her father gave her. You get it? It’s like a metaphor or something.

The film ends with Edith writing the tale of Crimson Peak, revealed to the audience in form of a published book. So, she’s finally a published writer after all. Happy ending. Right.

Not my image- Belongs to Universal Pictures

The Addams Family (Morticia, the Writer): Movies about Writing

In the early to mid 1960s, TV families adhered to strict code. “Ozzie and Harriet”, “Leave It to Beaver”, and even “The Beverly Hillbillies” expected the nuclear American family to be made up of perfectly groomed children and a husband and wife to always sleep in separate beds (they were also all white, but that’s a rant for a different day). Their culture ad worldview never went far from the picket fence surrounding their manicure suburban lawn. Then came “The Addams Family”. Unlike the Munsters, they were not monsters but humans who lived a supremely naive and happy existence believing the world to be as excepting and strange at them (sorry, Munsters fans, but I always found them to be kinda snobby). Besides being the first TV family where the mother and father slept in the same bed (however they were forbidden from ever showing both people in the bed at the same time), the Addams clan generally showed kindness to everyone they met. The problem was that their ideas of kindness were often misinterpreted.

One reason why I love re-watching the original TV show is because of the relationship between Gomez (John Astin) and Morticia (Caroline Jones). They are both dedicated stay-at-home parents (when told the children will have attend school Gomez declares that he’ll be lost without them) who are madly in love, but also share and discuss almost everything as equal partners. The only time this doesn’t happen is when it’s to create a comedic foible of a plot like Morticia thinking their broke because she mishears Gomez on the telephone and doesn’t want him to know that she’s worried. Morticia is a housewife, but she is also an artist, an amateur botanist, knows fencing and modern culture, and is highly intelligent. Gomez never does the “no wife of mine” routine, instead acting as her encouragement. However, as Morticia really runs the house and Gomez relies on her for most things, I think the writers ran into issues keeping this subtle. TV at the time said the “man was the head of the house”. I imagine that had to start writing more to keep this sort of free thinking in check and it shows how a story like the episode I’m about to summaries comes about in retro TV.

SPOILERS AHEAD

“Morticia, the Writer” is an episode in the second season where they revisit an upset from the very first episode - fairy tales. The Addams Family is appalled that the killing of sweet dragons and the oven roasting of hospitable witches could be allowed in children’s books. Morticia decides she’ll write new fairy tales to offer as a school reading alternative. She sets up a writing space and typewriter in the cave located under the Addams’s home. I like this cave. It comes complete with a lever for turning the echo on or off and a creepy cousin who just lets out a joyful, crazed laugh when addressed. Mortiicia declares it’s the closest thing they have to a lonely garret (note: the house does have a garret, but it’s where Lurch the Butler apparently does clay modeling).

This episode makes me think of NANOWRIMO (National Novel Writing Month - Look it up if you’re out of the loop). Morticia kicks Gomez and all other distractions out of the cave, determined to meet a deadline she has set for herself. She doesn’t leave for food, sleep, or making out with her husband. She states, “all work and no play gets books done” - Seriously, I want to ask Stephen King if that’s why he put that in the Shining? Gomez observes that Louisa May Alcott must have looked this obsessive when writing Little Women. Sort of a strange book for an Addams to reference, but they are a cultured, well-read family. Plus, Alcott wrote a lot of thrillers and short ghost stories in her career so it actually makes sense when you think about it.

Morticia actually finishes her first novel in 2 days, 10 hours, and 37 minutes. My jealousy know no bounds. I can barely finish my 50,000 words during November (and that was before I had a full time job). At first, Gomez is his usual supportive self, clearing their shelves of Dickens and Gibbon to make room for everything she is going to write. Then, Uncle Fester (played by former child star Jackie Coogan who had an interesting life) points out that if she becomes a best seller, she’ll go on book tours and Gomez won’t be able to go along when the children are in school.

He is furthered worried when Morticia only takes a 10 minute break between books and, of course, wants to use that time to tell Gomez about her novel “Cinderella, the Teenage Delinquent” (which I want to read). In a moment of weakness, Gomez is convinced by Uncle Fester to change the novel so all of the traditional fairy tale elements are put back in. They believe that this will cause the publisher to turn down the book and his marriage will be saved. Gomez does feels guilty, but still continues to do it. This is possibly one of the most anxiety ridden plots of anything about a writer. Stop editing without the authors final say! It feels like watching your favorite book be waterdown and rewritten as a movie (I’m looking at you - Ella Enchanted the movie!).

The publisher shows up at their house to praise Morticia for the book she doesn’t realize Gomez changed. Excited about being in print, Morticia gets back writing by having her dinner served on TV trays (I love a good TV tray - I should note that I don’t own a kitchen table) and not seeing Gomez despair over what he did. Then the publisher returns to show her the first copy and Morticia is finally able to read what was published.

Thinking it was the editors at the publishing company she declares, “Mr. Boswell and his hired assassins have ruined my work!” I love this lament. I think I’ll say it the next time Microsoft Word tries to autocorrect me.

Gomez does finally fess up when copies of the altered book really do wind up in Wednesday and Pugley’s required school reading. Mortica chooses to see this as proof that the “only thing publishers will print is junk”. I won’t comment on that line. I’ll just leave it right here for all of you authors to enjoy.

Image copyright of MGM and 20th Century Fox. Caroline Jones as Morticia Addams

Family Guy (Brian Writes a Bestseller): Movies about Writing

I’m going to assume everyone knows the premise of the adult cartoon “Family Guy”, but just-in-case the basic idea is a series of random events occurring to Peter, his wife Lois, their teenage son Chris, their emotionally abused daughter Meg, their British-accented baby Stewie, and their pretentious talking dog Brian. It’s been on for years, I promise you. Most of the characters are voiced by creator Seth McFarlane so I’m not going to give you the whole cast list. You can look it on imdb.com if you’re curious.

“Brian Writes a Bestseller” comes from season 9 (see I told you it’s been on for a long time). An ongoing theme has been Brian the dog wanting to be a professional writer. The episode opens with his only published work, a drama with a plot suspiciously similar to the film Iron Eagle entitled Faster Than the Speed of Love, being sent to him. His publisher has given up on the novel and mailed 300 boxes worth of copies to the author. The joke about his failure goes a step further when Stewie realizes the copies of the book are packaged within shredded additional copies of the same book. At least, Brian declares defeat and swears he will give up writing.

First of all - ouch! What kind of contract did he have with this publisher? I know it was all a gag for opening of the episode, but. . . oh man. Just ouch.

In a fit of rage, Brian complains how all of the “crap” on the bestseller list is currently self-help fodder that he could churn out in three hours of writing time. Stewie (who I would like to remind you is a devious baby with a thick U.K. accent and several doomsday devices in his toy box) happily encourages Brain to try this writing exercise. Brian finishes Wish It, Want It, Do It in 3 hours and 27 minutes, referring to it as a “big steaming pile of book”.

Off topic, but I have referred to some of my books in their first draft phase with similar monikers. There’s one my boyfriend and I still call “the gilded turd” because upon first edit I discovered it wasn’t AS BAD as I originally thought - but still not great. He’s never actually read it. He just calls it that based on my own self-criticism and complaining. . . and I never told him the real title.

In case you can’t tell from the episode title, Wish It, Want It, Do It becomes an immediate success after it’s published by Penguin (for you book nerds, there’s a sex joke about the Big Five company about 4 minutes into the episode then again right before the 11 minute mark). Brian hires Stewie to be his overzealous publicist. It takes no time for Brian to become a nightmare celebrity who takes out all of his aggression on Stewie. He also tries to use his fame to hit on women, but mostly it creeps them out. Yes, human women. The dog dates human women - mostly blondes. Don’t. . . don’t think about that one too hard. Either way, you get where this episode is going. Let’s move on.

Personally, I’ve yet to have the opportunity to become a garbage human being thanks to fame, but I can relate to the idea of writing to a trend in hopes of building a name in the business. This concept is something all established authors tell you not to do, but everyone tries it anyway. I’ve know people who have tried to ride the vampire trend, the werewolf trend, the erotica trend, the historical romance trend, etc. What happens most times, is the writer gets bored because it’s not the story he or she wants to be working. Now, if it’s something that can be churned out in 3 an a half hours and published without editing and published without edits, that’s different. But that’s also why “Family Guy” is a cartoon.

New Girl (Eggs): Movies about Writing

Time for another TV show - “New Girl”. I’ll probably do a few blogs about this one as I have quite a few comments about various episodes.

For today, though, I’m just focusing on “Eggs” from season 2. For those unfamiliar with the show: it’s about a quirky teacher named Jess (Zooey Deschanel), who lives with recovering douchebag/OCD overachiever Schmidt (Max Greenfield), former Eastern European basketball player/idealistic weirdo Winston (Lamorne Morris), and eternal screw-up bartender/potential love interest Nick (Jake Johnson. Other regulars on the show include Hannah Simone playing Jess’s model best friend Cece, who Schmidt pines for, and occasionally Damon Wayans Jr. as Coach, a former roommate uncomfortable with Jess’s outward displays of emotion. Not sure if Coach is in any of the episodes I’m going to be covering here - by Damon Wayans Jr. is hilarious in this show. Just saying.

The episode itself is about being an “adult” and a sense of creation. That description makes it sound semi-deep, but you’ll see what I mean. The whole thing opens on Jess and CeCe toasting their gynecologist friend and her wife announcing that they are pregnant. Nick sits with them, getting steadily more uncomfortable as the discussion turns to how many eggs the women have remaining and chances of getting pregnant being more difficult after 30. The main plot of the episode becomes about Jess freaking out that she’d going to miss the chance to be a mom. In addition, there’s a whole side plot about Schmidt banging his boss (Carla Gugino) which is funny, but really has no bearing on this blog. Apologies to Schmidt’s gross plot line.

The other large event within the episode Nick being inspired to finally write the zombie novel he’s been talking about for a long time. This burst of energy comes from him seeing Winston at his new nightly radio station job, amazed by how responsible and “take charge” his friend suddenly is within his own life.

Here is one of the best writing jokes in the episode is placed. Nick accuses Winston in doubting his ability to finish a novel. Winston replies “Sometimes I get the feeling that you don’t want to write.” The audience is treated to a flashback of Nick with scraggly facial hair subtly pushing a laptop to the floor and throwing his hands up in defeat when it breaks.

This is a truth of writing. One of the hardest parts is STARTING. Just sitting down and staying focused to complete an entire plot. Scene will come to you and there will be this feeling of invisibility. Then, you hit a wall. More experienced writers will usually skip that wall and continue with what they can to keep the pace going, returning to problem areas later. But when a lot of people write a first novel, they the let the walls block them completely. I like that show was trying to make a joke about both what a slacker Nick is, but also how difficult starting a large project can be.

Winston promises to be the first to read Nick’s novel and attempts to encourage him by saying “Just sit down and write!. You ain’t Hemingway.” . Nick misinterprets this as needing Hemingway-like adventures in his life for writing (said adventures starting with doing research, because Nick knows very little about Hemingway). His answer to this is to drag Winston to the zoo while shouting “real life experience” and taking shots from a flask, dubbing it “writing fuel”.

Quick shout-out to Winston in this episode. Besides being my favorite character on the show (just watch an episode where he tries to do a jigsaw puzzle - it’s amazing), Winston is the only other character besides Jess who is really good with emotions. In this episode, despite that he should be sleeping days for his new job, he goes with Nick on this unrelated-to-zombies zoo journey because he wants to show support. Luckily, I have Sidney Reetz and Kira Shay for this and generally they provide me with non-Hemingway related booze and encouragement (because I’m allergic to whisky and I think Hemingway was an ass).

Eventually, Winston calls out Nick for just being “drunk at the zoo”, messing with his “adjusted schedule”, and being scared of actually finishing anything. This results in Nick staying awake for 14 hours typing up “Z is for Zombie", his first finished novel which includes the dedication “To Winston, have a nice summer”. Winston declares it is the worst thing he ever read and Nick admits that the word search he included in the novel has no words in it.

Still, the roommates all declare that they are proud of Nick for at least finishing the damn thing. Winston starts to read it allowed, and like many first first drafts, it’s awful. Actually, it’s even worse than most first drafts, but everyone has to start somewhere.

Overall, I’ve said most of what I wanted to say about writing how it’s depicted in this episode already throughout this blog, but just to repeat - boo procrastination, yay encouragement, and don’t put crossword puzzles in zombie novels until they have something to do with the plot.

Image owned by Fox

Castle (Flowers for your Grave): Movies about Writing

I know this isn’t a movie, but I wanted to take a break from the long, melodramatic biopics and watch something quick and fun. Why the first episode of the TV series “Castle”? Why not? Nathan Fillion is my favorite space cowboy and sometimes I just have to watch him…in a respectable manner of course.

First of all, I know that the crime TV genre is very over done, yet continues to be popular. This blog isn’t about the overarching trope of prime time detectives with a gimmick beloved by everyone’s mom. This blog is about how writers are depicted and viewed by me (because it’s my blog, after all) and it just so happens that the gimmick of “Castle” a struggling crime writer who gets to do police ride-along to cure his writer’s block. I should also point out that I own every season on DVD.

Looking beyond the moral and legal implications of a writer without proper training getting to be on the front lines of homicide cases, Castle is also a comedy. The two leads and all side characters are fantastic, witty, and acted with honesty and charm. Again, I own the DVDs so naturally I liked it for more than Nathan Fillion, but he was the reason why I started watching.

The episode opens with Richard Castle (Fillion) enjoying the spoils of the final book in his popular “Derek Storm” series, having killed off his stale yet popular character. At the same time, Detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic - great name, right?) and her department investigate a series of crime scenes that have been copied from the pages of Castle’s books. To help profile the killer, Beckett contact’s Castle at the perfect moment that he is nine weeks behind on his new book.

While on the case, Beckett is disappointed that Rick Castle is narcissist party boy and Castle is disappointed when the case seems to easy to solve. What? Even real life needs a twist - as his bestselling author poker buddies tell him. Also, damn it, James Patterson! 12 years at Barnes and Noble and I can never escape you! Not to be a spoiler, but, surprise! Castle is write. They almost arrest the wrong guy. I won’t give more detail than that so I don’t get a bunch of angry people who still haven’t watched this episode that aired in 2009.

As a writer, Castle actually covers a lot of emotions and habits that are quite realistic. Not the wealth. Him being filthy rich and living in a fancy New York apartment supporting a famous actress mother and an Ivy League eligible daughter is the most unrealistic thing after him being made a police consultant.

Writer’s block is a true epidemic and they don’t cover it in any conventional emotional training. Losing motivation and wanting to tell a story is draining. Anything that makes you want to write again is like being given a free, giant ice cream sundae on a hot day. I don’t blame the character for wanting to chase the high of turning Beckett into a character.

The amount of knowledge Castle has to be working in homicide is based around the research he had to for each book This is seriously realistic. Nothing sucks a writer in faster and take them off on a tangent like research. Writers can become near experts on a topic in search of realism in a book. After that, the hard part is deciding how much of this juicy new knowledge is usable within a story.

Image property of ABC. You know, ABC - AKA Disney. PLEASE DON’T SUE ME! I throw myself upon the mouse’s mercy!

The Barretts of Wimpole Street - Movies About Writing

This is a fictionalized tale of how famed poet Robert Browning fell in love with aspiring poet Elizabeth Barrett, Barrett is depicted as a kind woman of intelligence, but poor health and, along with her siblings, is trapped in a household under the thumb of an emotionally abusive father. It was made once in the 1930s, but this is me talking about the 1954 version.

The Barretts of Wimpole Street is also about how writing gives people an escape and brings them together. The overbearing Mr. Barrett, played by John Gielgud, refuses to provide the healthy environment his favorite daughter Elizabeth (called Ba by the family), played by Jennifer Jones, to overcome lifelong illness. He keeps his daughters and sons in fear of his whims and their love for Ba seems to be the only thing that gives them some courage to argue with their father. The obsessive behavior Mr. Barrett shows towards his invalid daughter gets downright creepy at times.

Being bedridden, every knows about and encourage’s Ba’s poetry, even her doctors and the household staff. The movie sprinkles her poems between scenes so this writing acts as the narrator, showing that the film makers respected their subject as a poetess, not just a good dramatic topic.

Ba corresponds with local poet Robert Browning (played by an over zealous Bill Travers) for writing advice. Eventually, they fall in love first through letters then by Browning insistently coming to visit her. The movie still insists how being writers is so important to the pair and how Browning wants her continue to be a poet even as his wife.

Spoiler alert: A very true historical moment in the movie is Ba’s doctors insistence that as she shows more strength she needs to get away to Italy. There was a belief that dry air and warmth helped with tuberculous. Naturally, when her father refuses to let her go, it’s Browning who takes her Italy through elopement. And bring her dog, Flush, without question.

Hopefully the Brownings leaned Italian

In reality, I really did admire Barrett Browning because she was a woman who was confined to a bed for much of her life. Yet even from that position, she used her smarts and later her fame to fight against the oppression of women, child labor, and slavery. Of course, what really endeared her to me was her love for her dog, Flush (first I watched this I was probably 10, but that dog is so sweet).

Something that this melodrama gets full marks on it the idea of seeking criticism especially (in the same theme as Devotion) as a woman in a time when it was hard to be taken seriously as a writer. But in this case that criticism comes a healthy, mutual, and equal relationship between Ba (Barrett) and Browning.

In reality, Elizabeth Barrett Browning did not become famous until after her death, despite her husband’s support and promotion. Once again, society questioned whether he secretly wrote or heavily edited Elizabeth’s work. Despite knowing this truth, as a movie about a writer I love how everyone encourages her (save for her dick dad, of course).

Property of MGM

Dreamchild: Moveis about Writing

I’ll keep this one brief as it is more about how writers can effect those around them who inspire them than it is about the writer himself. Dreamchild was a small budget 80s film produced by Verity Lambert (see history of “Doctor Who”) telling a fictionalize account of an elderly Alice Liddell Hargreaves visiting the United States from England for the 100 year birthday of Lewis Carroll, the man who wrote Alice in Wonderland for her and her sisters.

First, so get 3 things out of the way.

First: Yes. I sought this movie out as a child and I have read parts of the book it is based on. I desperately wanted to see this because I knew the a lot of the known history of the Liddell family and Reverend Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) and because the film includes some of the most amazing Jim Henson Creature Shop creations of all time! These puppets are full size, moving versions of the first book illustrations and they are gorgeous, genius, and the stuff of nightmares. I saw a photo of the Mad Hatter and I knew I had to find this movie as a kid.

Second: Let’s get the historical accuracy out the way right now. The film shows Mrs. Hargreaves and her ward, a teenage girl named Lucy, being wined and dined at the expense of Columbia University for the centenary celebration. In reality, 80 year old Alice Hargreaves was escorted by family members including a younger sister who is not included in the film.

Third: I will not be giving my personal thoughts or known theories of Charles Dodgson’s sexuality or why he was friends with children. I’m focusing on how the movie depicts him. And even that will be… a little difficult to explain.

Dreamchild jumps back and forth between 80 year old Alice Hargreaves (Coral Browne), an extremely proper English lady confused by the fuss over Alice in Wonderland, and 10 year old Alice Liddell (Amelia Shankley), a slightly bratty, but spirited girl who enjoys the friendship she and her sisters share with the Oxford mathematics professor Charles Dodgson (Ian Holm). Elderly Alice begins to be haunted by memories of her friendship with the stammering, shy grown man from her childhood. She watches a romance unfold between her orphaned ward Lucy (Nicola Cowper) and a former reporter (Peter Gallagher) who steps in as Mrs. Hargreaves agent when various advertisers want to use her status as the “real live Alice” to sell their products.

Alice’s flashbacks start with simple afternoons of telling her mother how Dodgson confides in her as a child and how he loves her, to which her older sister explains that he loves them all and they all enjoy his silly poems and photography. These simple memories start to warp into scenes from the novel in which elderly Alice is scolded, questioned, and berated by the Mad Hatter, March Hare, and the Caterpillar (all performed by the Henson creature shop).

Spoiler alert: Eventually, Alice comes to terms with her memories, realizing how she shied away from Dodgson’s feelings of love for her. No where in the film are these feelings acted upon, but they are shown through the grown man’s staring at Alice intently, him attempting to asking Alice about marriage, her own awkward feelings about him wanting her attention especially as she grows older, and Mrs. Liddell burning his letters to Alice when she’s too old for appropriately hanging out with him. In the end, she comes to terms with the idea that he did love her, but regrets that she was not kinder to him or cherish the story he wrote for her more dearly.

As this being a film about a writer, it shows two aspects of the process. The first, a primary theme is how if a book becomes famous that it can effect the people involved. Alice felt like the girl in the book was never truly her, but as her memories return she realizes that much of the character truly was inspired by her and her sisters silly, yet childlike logic. Still, as an adult she hated that people wanted her to BE Alice. She hated the idea of anyone expecting her to have really dreamed of a fantasy land. Proper English ladies do not follow rabbits, after all. In truth, the real Alice Hargreaves did sell her original copy of Alice’s Adventures in wonderland when she was a grown woman and sometimes seemed to resent being asked about “Lewis Carroll”.

Dodgson himself is socially awkward and does better with communicating with children than adults. From what I understand of Lewis Carroll, this is fairly true. Although he was child photographer and had many “young friends” who he wrote the Alice stories for, the movie focuses on the way he created the first concept to amuse the Liddell children on a boating trip. He is so wrapped up in their smiling, amused faces he doesn’t care that he is keeping the party from their tea (a true crime in Victorian Britain). But the movie is also about the sensitivity of a writer. He wants Alice to keep the copy of Alice’s Adventures Underground all of her life and is proud enough of his work that he recite it after publication. The film makes sure to include a part of quote:

“Lastly, she pictured to herself how this same little sister of hers would, in the after-time, be herself a grown woman; and how she would keep, through all her riper years, the simple and loving heart of her childhood: and how she would gather about her other little children, and make their eyes bright and eager with many a strange tale, perhaps even with the dream of Wonderland of long ago: and how she would feel with all their simple sorrows, and find a pleasure in all their simple joys, remembering her own child-life, and the happy summer days.”

This sums up Dodgson as a writer well in Dreamchild. He was disappointed in the idea of Alice growing up and not enjoying his stories any longer and he hoped that she wouldn’t forget. No writer wants to be forgotten if their work had a specific audience.

RIP IAN HOLM who did a great job of being kinda creepy, but not TOO creepy in this movie.

Images copyright Thorn EMI and MGM distribution. Don’t sue me. Pretty Please

Devotion: Movies About Writing

First of all, understand that 1946 was NOT concerned with historical accuracy. This melodrama spent more time on building “woe is me” moments than it did researching the Bronte family. My boyfriend gave it the alternate title “Devotion or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Tuberculosis”.

Second, I’m not really sure what induced me to watch this movie for the first time in years. I didn’t like it as a kid and I didn’t find much to recommend it now.

The story focuses on the idea of the 4 Bronte siblings in an artistic rivalry and, more heavily, on a made-up love triangle between Emily, Charlotte, and (spoiler alert) the man who in reality became Charlotte’s husband. One historically inaccurate piece is the Bronte Sisters being told by their aunt that with all of their worry about novels and poetry, they’ll never get husbands. At the time this story takes place, they would have been in their mid to late 20s Pssh! That’s old maid status in that time!

Devotion stars some of the greats at the time trying to earn some Oscars - Ida Lupino, Olivia de Havilland, and Sydney Greenstreet. I’d mention Paul Henreid, but he gets so over-the-top sometimes that this was NOT his best work. Just saying.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t show some merits of the Bronte’s as artists. The movie opens with a title card staying how 2 of 4 Bronte kids were geniuses - which I find as a big ole F*$@ YOU to Anne Bronte. Okay, I confess I’ve only read a little of her poetry, but I have been to her grave in Scarborough. I feel like they wouldn’t have given her a nice tombstone and an icon on the tourism map if she’d been a lousy writer. I also know that The Tenant of Wildfell Hall is considered one of the first great feminist novels - which I know because my friend had to write a paper on it during university and she told me all about it during lunch over several days.

The movie also addresses some of the struggles for writers at that time, starting with the lack and expense of paper. Emily and Charlotte fight over wrapping paper at the start of the film because they both want to use it for writing something long that would use it all up. They also discuss the patronage needed in an artistic field if you want to eat on a regular basis or the need for thankless jobs like being a governess. However, the need for male pen names because of society’s problems with women writers at the time is glossed over.

Devotion wastes no time in reminding its audience that the only brother, Branwell Bronte was an alcoholic painter, depicting him as a bully to Anne, in need of Charlotte’s guardianship, and constantly under Emily’s criticism yet dependent on her. Luckily the movie leaves out some patriarchal theories that was actually the author of all of his sisters’ works (I’m looking at you fictional character played by Stephen Fry in Cold Comfort Farm!).

Cold Comfort Farm: Here’s Fry’s character Mybug asking Kate Beckinsale’s character Flora Post if she believes “women have souls”. Image property of BBC Films - don’t sue me. I’m an avid Doctor Who and PBS Masterpiece fan. You need me as much as I need you, BBC!

Devotion does cover where inspiration comes from for a writer, but it does this poorly and obvioulsy. Anne and Charlotte are both so disgusted by their employers as in their governess work, it is supposed to be the backdrop of Jane Eyre and Agnes Grey (which I own and might finally read after all of this). And a derelict house left abandoned on the moors gave Emily the idea for Wuthering Heights. All three of these ideas are credited by historians, by the way, but the movie makes it very obvious without any detail. I don’t feel like inspiration is always obvious, but sometimes worms it’s way in and we realize later where the idea came from.

Some things I do like in the film from a writing point-of-view includes the praise and fears of the siblings, but again this is handled in an over-the-top way. All 4 have a certain amount of jealously towards each other’s talents, which can happen even at the same time as loving someone else’s work and desperately wanting to succeed. But that want for mutual success is lost in the movie to the constant head turns and near swoons of despair.

The same goes for the need for critical analysis and praise of their work. Emily especially is shown as more secretive and protective of her writing. Anne is willing to just keep trying with a sort of blind optimism. Charlotte is the one who seeks the help of professionals that could get her published and defends her own work with logic. She’s the one overjoyed when famed novelist William Makepeace Thackeray gives them praise.

I don’t know if these are the actual personalities of the women, but this does cover three of the major personalities of many writers I know. I’m a little disappointed that my personality matches more of Emily Bronte’s reactions in the film. Wuthering Heights is not my favorite Bronte book. Jane Eyre is. Duh. But the thing is - the movie claims that this supposed love triangle was where the emotion within Wuthering Heights came from, proving that the screenwriters never read it. The point of Wuthering Heights is how toxic people can be and call it love not how 2 sisters should fall for the same boring dude.

Still, the part of this movie that bugs the crap out of me is the idea that the Bronte sisters could have never written of love and loss the way the did without experience that include a ridiculous unrequited love, a single man to be the object of 2 sisters’ affections, and the poorly filmed dream sequences of betrayal. In the end, Devotion reduces their lives to stereotypes and tragedy.

Poor Bronte’s.

Devotion: Arthur Kennedy as Branwell, Ida Lupino as Emily, Olivia de Havilland as Charlotte, and Nancy Coleman as Anne as the Bronte siblings playing on the Yorkshire Moors. Image property of Warner Bros. Don’t sue me please! All you’ll get is a collection of Funko pops and empty notebooks too pretty to write in.

Misery: Movies About Writing

Stephen King has said that of all of his characters, Annie Wilkes is the one he would not want to be quarantined with. Especially if she was his number one fan.

I’ve read this book once and only once. The movie I’d only ever seen pieces of until now and I have to say: nothing puts editing critiques into perspective like watching Misery. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the story, but just in case, it’s about an injured writer who is in the clutches of a deranged woman who adores his books.

First, the movie in general. I confess I get excited to see Lauren Bacall and Richard Farnsworth in something that I haven’t seen a million time. And of course Kathy Bates is brilliant and horrifying. It does weird me out that it’s Rob Reiner film. Before this he had directed such serious dramatic works as This is Spinal Tap and the Princess Bride . . . alright and Stand By Me which is a little more hard hitting, but also based on a King story. By the way, the screenwriter for Misery is William Goldman, author/screenwriter of the Princess Bride. That’s your random trivia of the day.

First of all, I just want to point out that Wilkes isn’t AS AWFUL in the movie. In the book, some of her actions almost made me throw up. In the movie, she’s still awful, but a fraction less awful (I don’t want to give away anything in the book so just know that I found the movie slightly tamer . . . slightly).

I actually watched this as background noise while going through some editing notes for my next novel. In both the book and the movie there is that moment Annie forces the author Paul to burn his latest book which she found filthy. Of course, the typed pages she sets on a grill are the only copy and she is threatening his well-being if he doesn’t light a match over it. I imagine there are some who watch this and think that the manuscript is no where near as important as Paul’s food, medicine, and life. But this really is one of the most gut wrenching scenes for any creator. You put months and years into a story or any artistic endeavor. It’s not like in those old movies where they write it overnight and it’s perfect as is. Writing a novel especially takes literal blood, sweat, and tears (usually during the editing process) not to mention a bit of booze or chocolate (usually during the writing process).

To anyone who has ever had a project lost, especially to the horror that is computer glitches, you know the frustration and sorrow it causes. The first time this happened to me I was twelve and the floppy disk (that’s right - I’m old) with my first attempt at a novel saved to it stopped letting me open the novel. A friend of my brother’s claimed he knew how to retrieve the file and took the disk from me. I waited several weeks before re-starting the process and trying to remember everything I’d already written once, only to have him then tell me that 1) he’d totally forgotten he’d promised to fix it and 2) that there was no way he could fix it, why did he say that? Although I am clearly still bitter at this betrayal of my trust to he’d have an opportunity to briefly look like a hero, I do have to thank him for one thing. My anger towards him helped me move on from my anger towards the entire situation and I did rewrite the book. Several times, actually, but that’s another story.

In the film version of Misery, they don’t really cover Paul’s thought process at this time, but I’d hate to confess that it’s a little similar to my own in the book. His bitterness and rage towards Annie helps him to keep thinking about how he’s going to rewrite that “filthy” novel just to spite her.

This brings me to other major writer moment of the movie. Annie insists that Paul write a novel the resurrects her favorite character, a romance icon called Misery (get it? Huh? Huh?). When he starts this novel begrudgingly, she gives him serious critiques about continuity. And he has to admit that she’s right. This is possibly the most realistic and undeniably frustrating moment in a writer’s life. When someone whose opinion you don’t even want makes you write something better.

That having been said, I still wouldn’t want her hovering over my bed to get me motivated. Damn it, Annie Wilkes!

Image copyright Columbia Pictures, Nelson Entertainment, and Castle Rock Entertainment (please no one sue me, I’m poor)

Upcoming Blogs: Movies about Writing

Back in June and July, I tried to keep myself motivated with movies and episodes of TV shows specifically about writers or the process of writing. Some were comedies. Some were biographies. Some were helpful. And some were batshit. The next few blogs will be a review of some of these films from a writing point of view.

In Defense of Ring Around a Roses

Brief History: First, let’s get one thing straight - this isn’t about the bubonic plague. I know the whole of the internet wants to fight me on this and I even let people think it is because I’ve been told I sound like an insistent snob when I argue about it. For the sake of this blog, I’ll be stating the facts as I know them. But also, just to be honest I thought this Mother Goose rhyme was about the Black Plague for a long time. First of all, the Black Death was most prominent in the 14th Century and then popped up around Europe in large patches every 20 to 40 years until the 1600s. The earliest versions of “Ring Around the Roses” can only be traced to the late 1700s and that’s German version which seems very different in meaning. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t about a disease, but most historians think cholera or scarlet fever would be more likely. Other theories include it being about fairy rings, old pagan well-wishes (although this falls into that timing problem again), and simply being a children’s game full of superstitious phrases meant to bring good luck.

Analysis: In keeping with the disease them, people really didn’t start that theory until after WWI. But it makes sense with modern versions, but again, still can’t be the Black Plague. “Ring around a roses” was rumored to be what patterns the Black Death left on the body. The Bubonic plague didn’t cause rashes like people think, it causes horrible, puss filled growths in key areas of the body. This would be more logical with other diseases, specifically scarlet fever. By the Nineteenth Century, doctors still believed good smells could ward off sickness, hence the posies, and “all fall down” you know. However, earliest versions had nothing to do with the dark sounds of ashes and falling. They were about rose trees and squatting and being the first to win the game.
Blame it on the Spanish Flu: After Wold War I the world changed, not just from weapons and economic depression, but from the widespread and misnamed Spanish Flu. You can look up the Flu for yourself . It’s been in the media a lot lately. I suggest BioGraphics youtube channel’s take on it, which includes medical research as well as how it spread and effected society. By World War II, soldiers were mostly like haunted by the diseases of their predecessors and had sickness on the brain. What else did the they have on the brain? Anything they could think of which included old Mother Goose recitations. You have to keep your mind active in the down time and what better way than to speculate how the most common child rhyme could be a link the most famous disease in history?
Final Thoughts: Where’s the Covid 19 Nursery Rhyme, huh?

In Defense of Ladybird Ladybird

Brief History: No, sadly this isn’t about the Greta Gerwig film (which is fantastic, by the way). It’s about a Ladybug who is told to hurry home because her children died in a home fire, save for one named Ann. It’s hard to say just how old this one is, but it was first published in the 1700s and earlier version were just about a link between bugs and fairies. Sometimes it’s associated with a game of saying the rhyme when I ladybug lands on a child then the kid makes a wish when the insect flies away. Ladybugs are good luck in many cultures as symbols of the Virgin Mary, Norse goddess Freya, Greek god Zeus, and Egyptian sacred scarabs.

Analysis: The house burning aspect of the most popular versions are theorized to be about the persecution of witches or Catholics in Europe. There’s also the idea of it being about the superstitions that create ties between insects and disease or insects and harvest. For it being so dark initially, Ladybird Ladybird actually doesn’t have a super dark analysis to it. Oh wait. Unless you count all of those Catholics and witches burned at stakes.
Blame it on the Victorians: Other than an outbreak of ladybugs ruins the world’s citrus crop in the 1800s, I got nothing here except the usual morbidity in children’s lit the Victorians loved. But the citrus thing happened in California and Florida so can I actually write about it in this section? Too late, already did.
Final Thoughts: I want to know more about Ann, the surviving ladybug child. How much will bug therapy cost after such trauma? Why isn’t there a verse about that?

In Defense of Oranges and Lemons

Brief History: This nursery rhyme starts off with a list of church bells in London and ends with the lines, “Here comes a candle to light you to bed, And here comes a chopper to chop off your head! Chip chop chip chop the last man is dead”. This includes a game just like London Bridges where the last person under the folded hands of two other people gets their head “chopped off”. The reason for the “Oranges and Lemons” is because several of the neighborhoods within the poem were places where fruit was either imported or sold. Earliest versions weren’t quite this dark, mostly just giving aspects of London near each church bell, but some believe this is related to the movement of the plague through the city one of the many times it held the people hostage. There are also theories that the earlier versions were a metaphor for marriage and the “chopper” was a reference to the awkward wedding night. One final theory involves the tour of neighborhoods trying to warn of things needing avoidance like crime and drugs.

Analysis: First time I ever heard this rhyme was probably in the 1951 film Scrooge, but I never really noticed it. Places where I did notice it were the book 1984 by George Orwell, the original Wicker Man Film, The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman, and the episode of Doctor Who entitled the God Complex. All of these aspects of media do no bode well for uses of this song. Need another example? How about a 1940s thriller/horror film called 7th Victim? It’s about a young woman who moves to the city after her successful and beautiful older sister goes missing. The main character is signing the final lines to a group of smiling elementary children. Oh yeah and it the first movie to try taking a serious look at Satanist cults. . . just saying. Do I really need to analyze this.

Blame It on the Victorians: Sooooo the addition of the bit about chopping off heads was first recorded during the Victorian era. What was wrong with them?

Final Thoughts: That’s right! I’m torturing all of us with a song about a tour of London. Someday we will be able to leave our houses again. Someday.

In Defense of London Bridges

Brief History: This is a pretty well know rhyme, but just in case you never heard this repetitive ditty, this is the story of the failing construction and locking up ladies. There’s actually nine verses, yet still no clear plot! It goes as far back as the Middle Ages, when Britain was under shifting control from Saxons to Danes… or was it the other way around. Over 600 plus years the bridge was built and rebuilt while suspected of being the witness to major events. The transition from pagan tradition to Christian culture (some people theorized that the bridge’s structural issues came from not performing a sacrificial ritual of a child upon its first creation - nothing says stand strong for 600 years like the blood of kid, I guess). A Viking attack. Heads of traitors on pikes to warn enemies sailing on the Thames River. The drowning of a Jewish ship being exiled from London. Tudor hops and homes built on the bridge’s surface adding weight to the crumbling stones. Basically, the bridge kept literally falling down and being rebuilt. When they were going to rebuild it again in the 1970s, a rich man bought the crumbling bridge and took it to the United States.

Analysis: Here is where I’m going to talk about the unnamed “lady”. It’s been speculated that the lady is a historical figure connected with the bridge. There were at least two medieval queens who either had connections to the construction or taxing of the London Bridge. Some think the lady, called Lady Lee in some older versions, could be a reference to the Leigh family of nobles who held political power for a time when a member became Mayor of London. I think it’s more likely that the Lady is a metaphor instead of a specific person. A tad disappointing and less morbid than my usual choice of theories, but hear me out. There are 3 main metaphor theories I found:

1) the Lady represents the Virgin Mary and her protecting the city from Viking attacks.

2) the Lady is the River Lea which connects to the Thames. . . Not sure what the significance is of that and it’s boring metaphor. Maybe the Rive Lea had less waste in it until it mixed with the Thames?

3) the Lady represents human sacrifice. Beside the sacrifice of a child to secure the strength of a bridge, Romans believed in the “sacrifice of a shadow” to strengthen a new bridge. A person stood near the bridge’s foundation and their shadow was measured. Bridge builders would bury the measurement in the stones. What’s the catch? It was believed that the owner of the shadow used would died within 40 days. So dance along, Lady Lee.

Blame it on the Victorians: From the 1700s up to the 1900s, parents loved to teach their kids rhymes that could be sung a round like London Bridges, Ring Around the Roses, Row Row Row your Boat, and Oranges and Lemons. Most of these had a darkness or moral lesson to them (look up Orange and Lemons and wonder how decapitation got into a kids’ song). By the time the Victorian era was ending, the darkness the was a part of life. It wouldn’t be until post-WWII culture would start to clean up nursery rhymes to protect their kids from the darkness.

Final Thoughts: You know where London Bridge is now - ARIZONA! You know. The desert with very few natural large water sources. Look it up! Also look up the movie Bridge Across Time staring David Hasselhoff as a Lake Havasu City lawman hunting down the ghost of Jack the Ripper.

Upcoming Blogs - In Defense of

Just to announce and prepare: the next few blogs on this page will be In Defense of Mother Goose. However, since we all have staying healthy and at home on the brain, the selection will be based on Nursery Rhymes related to the importance of being kept inside or to major catastrophic events. There’s surprisingly quite a few, however the history behind them is sparse. So we’ll see how long this will be the theme before the lack of accessible research drives me mad.

Travel? What's that?

Have you found yourself repeatedly listening to songs like “Go the Distance” and “Life is a Highway”? Have you been obsessing over movies with distant places in the title like Under the Tuscan Sun and An American Werewolf in London? Did you check yourself spending an hour and a half scrolling through Google maps trying to figure out the easiest ways to get through the 5 boroughs of New York City?

It sounds like the lack of a vacation away from you living room in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic is finally getting to you. But there’s another suggestion. How about a trip to Imagination Land! Oh look, a store made of ice cream! And there’s a stampede of llama wearing top hats! Oh boy! Let’s ride on the Zeppelin that runs on a dislike for people who refuse to wear masks in public!

What? I’m fine. Why do you ask?

Shadow Moon: A Tale of Defeat

Raise your hand if you love the film Willow. I know there are lots of you otherwise Disney wouldn’t be dusting it off and bringing it back with new small-screen stories. But I’m not here to talk about the new. I’m here to talk about the past, a painful, painful past.

Now, raise your had if you tied to read the trilogy of novels written by George Lucas and Chris Claremont that provided a sequel to the popular 80s film. Fewer of you. That’s to be expected. Lastly, raise your hand if you actually finished that trilogy. What? Is that crickets I hear? I thought as much.

I owned multiple copies of the first book. Many purchased it for me based on the many amazing elements that were put into this literary endeavor. First, it was supposed be the tale of the beloved baby, Elora Danan, grown up. Everyone knew how much I loved that movie and the idea of giving me more of the story seemed like such a great idea at the time. Second there was the artwork, simplistic yet detailed with many of the earmarks of mid-90s fantasy. Characters had a Boris Vallejo quality while still showing the feminine character as heroic. Plus, there was a dragon on one. Thanks artist Ciruelo Cabral for the artwork. I think I stared at the cover longer than I actually spent reading the book. Third, this was 1995. We still believed in George Lucas as a writer. This was before the dark time of the prequels. And this was a post-X-men Phoenix Saga world. We had complete faith in Chris Claremont’s ability to give us something featuring our favorite characters and make it epic.

I can’t give you an actual review of these books because, despite trying many, many times, I NEVER FINISHED EVEN THE FIRST ONE. About every 5 year starting in 1996 or 1997 through my college years I tried. Each time I read I made it a little farther in the first novel and every just that little bit would take me a weirdly long amount of time. I can give you a little synopsis of what I read: Willow has a dream of riding on talking dragon, sees a baby Elora again, and then some critical characters are killed off. That’s just the first two chapters and that’s as far as I ever got.

I looked the novel up on Wikipedia and whoever wrote the entry must have made it about as far as I did because their synopsis is just a longer version of what I just gave in the above paragraph. This book did not get great reviews.

So why? Why was is such a let-down? Why can’t I get beyond chapter 2? Did anybody? Did anyone finish the whole series? Were they satisfied with the ending? No. Really. I want to know because I feel like this story is a valuable waiting for writers to share. Please comment below if you have an answer. Thanks

Here’s a link to the first book’s front cover:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Moon_(novel)#/media/File:Shadow_Moon_(novel).jpg

Grant: A Historical Rant about a Historical Mini-Series

I know I’m a little late on this review, but I finally finished History Chanel’s 3 part mini-series about Ulysses S. Grant. Also, think of this sort of like a Yelp review - even though I mostly enjoyed this series, this review is for me to vent about what was missing in my opinion. This my pretentious Karen moment, but every now and again you have to get it out of your system.

First, the good stuff.
1) They tried to downplay alcoholism as an actual issue and disease, not just a character flaw nor the reason for problems with his presidency.

2) Multiple historians were used instead if the same 4 white dudes who they use for all of the WWII stuff.

3) Fisher Stevens, Ron Chernow, and Leonardo DiCaprio were amongst the producers. I just think that’s cool.

4) It depicted Grant as a real person showing the good and the bad.

5) The focus on Grant’s changing views about African American rights and how complicated it was. His parents were abolitionists. His in-laws were slave owners. But he was one of the Union generals who actually pushed to let Black men join the army.

5) There was good use of Civil War re-enactments and virtual maps.

Stuff that bugged me.

1) Not enough about his relationships with his wife and kids. I know the focus was on his time in the war, but they managed to fit in plenty about how his dad picked on him and how his peers/buddies felt about him.

2) Where was his love of marbles? You think that’s not important. Then you don’t understand Grant’s marble and how he never lost them.

3) The fake beards were just…just awful. Lee’s and Lincoln’s were especially bad. The actors looked like they had carpet samples on their faces.

4) Now, the real thing that irked me- the lack of detail about Grant’s fight for Native American rights. One of my favorite Grant stories is how he became friends with a Seneca lawyer named Ely Parker when Parker came to his rescue in a bar fight! It’s a great story! Then, Parker wanted to join the army and was told by Secretary of State William Seward that the Civil War was a “white man’s war”, Grant went over Seward’s head and made Parker his military secretary. Parker wrote the surrender at Appomattox! He got respect from Lee! And when Grant was president, he and Parker tried (and failed) to give indigenous people more rights as U.S. citizens. But by all means, feel free to skip over most of that 4 hour documentary.

Parker, some other guy, and Grant at Appomattox. Okay, I was too busy ranting to find out who the middle dude is. Sorry.

Still Sneezing

Can’t concentrate. Head too full of goo. What? I know it’s been a week! Allergies don’t have a schedule! I mean, they can be seasonal, which is sort of like a schedule, but - You know what. Shut up!

List of things you should stop saying to people with bad allergies:

1. Have some local honey!

   We have the honey. We have all of the honey. Why can’t you find honey? Because of your allergic friends.

2. I take so and so. You should try it!

   Oh, we’ve all tried it, but thanks for trying

3. Shots are supposed to be helpful

   Been there. Done that.

4. Wait, you have a cat and you’re allergic? You should get rid of it.

   You shut your filthy mouth! I mean. . . No. I stand by my “shut your filthy mouth” response.

For those of you feel like I’m just being whiny and grumpy, that’s great. Let me get back to sneezing and come back next week when I can breathe better. For those of you who understand why I am grumpy, may solidarity carry us through the spring and may panicky people stop buying all of the tissues.