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.

Loss of Con for a Single Year

Uh. Huh. What? Where? Who? Huh.

I don’t know what to do with myself. I woke up and started to drive into downtown phoenix and then I realized I could have slept in. This also explained why there were no booth products crammed into my car. And why people gave my cosplay weird looks. Hey lady! If I want to dress up like the Tiger King that’s my business! Personally, I look good in a mullet.

In all seriousness, I know the con is just postponed, yet this is all still a weird feeling. I’ve been a part of this scene since the con was held out in Mesa and I was just a cute college student trying to attract customers to my brother’s table.

So what do we all do. We adjust to the new normal, as the media keeps saying. We show off our wares online. We show off wigs and weapons using Zoom. We support our local artists and eateries as best we can. And we geek on.

Be Kind to 2020 Graduates

The 2020 graduates are having an adventure and like most adventures it’s unplanned and sucky at the beginning. Some of the kids are the first American high school graduates in their family. Instead of airhorns and bobby-pined caps, they get being gathered around a screen waiting to see their name.

Many are trying to make this disappointment easier with celebrity speeches through Zoom and special events for student body presidents and valedictorians. Yet, there is a section of the population who keep very publicly telling these kids that things could be worse.

Put this adventure of these young people into perspective. Yes. Things could be worse. But this something they worked at for four years. Some while working multiple jobs, taking care of younger siblings, doing community service, temporary homelessness, dealing with family tragedy, and even learning a new language because they are new to this country. Some think teenagers are just whiners, but so many kids in this country have overcome all of the outside crap that children shouldn’t have to deal with in order to have this brief moment of pride.

Be kind to them. Give them a ear for them to vent to. Let them whine and then give them hope. Don’t give them stories of your own graduation to envy or try to cheer them up with your own self-indulgences. This moment is about them and it is for them to work through as they need. Be there for them. Be empathetic and sympathetic. Keep them safe in a time of disappointment. Help to make them smile and let them know that it’s okay to be sad. And most importantly, that this strangeness does not take away from their accomplishments. And this is a temporary situation that they can look back on with a story unique to all other graduates.

And remind them, adventures always start with something disappointing or frightening, but at the end they are the heroes who will have their own stories to tell.

An Ode to Spring (Copy)

(Clears throat)

Oh Spring, bringer of life

How I hate thee

With both of my watery eyes

I curse each blossoming tree

With my nose which runs like a river

I despise thy flowers in bloom

Due to thy lack of mercy

I may never be able to leave my room

Nature Studies (in an apartment)

Today we will follow the wild Clyde in his natural habitat. We find the specimen asleep in his tower. This breed prefers high places and sleeping upon carpeted or blanketed surfaces. We must creep up carefully for fear of-

Oh no! We’ve startled the beast. He keeps rubbing his head against my head. Oh the humanity! Stay back, camera man! It’s too dangerous!

This act of physical contact has attracted another creature, the timid Chester. Now although the Chester tends to hide instead of laying in plain sight like the Clyde, a Chester can easily be spotted by the long, orange tail usually left exposed.

The Chester has release his battle cry, a high-pitched meow, a truly pitiful sound. Back! Get back everyone! There’ s not telling how the Clyde will react. The Chester has attempted to climb the tower and the Clyde has given him a warning swipe near his nose. Still, the Chester cries.

And the Clyde tries to escape. He had leapt from the tower and we can see him run through the living room with the Chester close behind him. There is a mighty chase to be had! This is so exciting to catch on film! Look at the beauty of those furry blurs as they-

Aaaaaaand they just noticed a bowl of food and gave up to eat. Oh well.

What if Rapunzel Ran out of Toilet Paper

What if Rapunzel Ran out of Toilet Paper

Once upon a time there was a young woman trapped in a tower by the witch she thought was her mother. The tower had no door and the only way the witch went in or out was by calling for the young woman to throw down her long, luxurious hair.

“Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair!”

And the young woman would throw down her well-conditioned locks which went from the high window nearly to the ground below so her witch-mother could climb up. Everything Rapunzel had came from her mother who never let her go out into the world on her own. All of her food, soap, toothpaste, clothes, and gallons of shampoo only arrived when her mother came to see her each week.

Then, one day Rapunzel realized that she used her final roll of toilet paper. As she desperately searched the tower, Rapunzel realized that it would be three days before her mother would come with more supplies. Her stomach churned from her heavy dinner from that night-

…You know what. Never mind. This is hitting too close to home. Send T.P.