“I believe we have some power over who we love, it isn’t something that just happens to a person.” - Amy

.

.

“I think the poets might disagree.” - Laurie

she’s so me

five comfort characters, five tags

tagged by my baby @fairyysoup

1. steeb obviously

2. lane kim

3. eloise bridgerton

4. amy march

5. tasm peter parker

npt: @katsu28 @headkiss @oncasette @sanguineterrain @skullrock

character introduction via instagram profile!

cast: heeseung ✗ fem.reader

synopsis: when you told your long-term rival and latest hook-up, heeseung, that you are pregnant with his child; you didn't expect said topic to be involved in your rivalry!

genre: romantic comedy, slice of life, coming-of-age, slow burn, drama, rivals since childhood to [redacted], college/university au, pregnancy au, future parents au, fluff, angst, mature content (explicit smut)

taglist? closed

release: part 1 out now

message from the moon: THIS IS NOT A SMAU cause i think using social media profile (and a little description) can describe a character so much. i think that this fic can prosper more as a written fic with the intricacies between hee and (y/n)'s complex relationship ;) also, this is 2/2 out of my bday gift to yall

(L/N)(Y/N) aka meg march: business management major at hybe uni. mitski fan. part-time daycare attendant and babysitter. heeseung’s rival.

KIM MINJEONG aka beth march: multimedia major at hybe uni. (y/n)’s roommate 1/3. aspiring filmmaker. girlfriend of sigma mu frat’s vp, jung sungchan.

SHIN RYUJIN aka jo march: design and visual communication major at hybe uni. (y/n)’s roommate 2/3 and high school best friend. graphic designer and model. a bisexual demiromantic queen.

LEE CHAERYEONG aka amy march: performing arts (dance) major at hybe uni. (y/n)’s roommate 3/3. a member of the core dance team in the want2dance crew. comes from a wealthy family of performers and artists.

LEE HEESEUNG aka raphael: communications (journalism) major at hybe uni. small forward/shooting guard and captain of the hybe uni's basketball club, decelis. aspiring sports journalist and photographer. (y/n)’s rival.

CHOI BEOMGYU aka michaelangelo: performing arts (music) major at hybe uni. heeseung’s roommate 1/3 and high school best friend. guitarist in an indie band, txt. the complete opposite of heeseung regarding (y/n) and her friends.

YANG JEONGIN aka donatello: philosophy major at hybe uni. heeseung's roommate 2/3. an up-and-coming twitch streamer in the content creator group, stray kids. another "rival" of heeseung, gaming rivals actually cause both of them are competitive af.

LIM JIMIN aka leonardo: anthropology major in hybe uni. heeseung's roommates 3/3. part of the want2dance crew alongside chaeryeong and also an assistant choreographer. has a background in ballet, contemporary, and hip-hop and that's why he has to take care of his upper body (and why he is a gym bro)

taglist: @raeyunshm @leilasmom @evidive @boba-beom @endzii23 @fluffyywoo @camipendragon @hiqhkey @wccycc @cha0thicpisces @y4wnjunz @yeehawnana @beansworldsstuff @kimipxl @blurryriki @amazzwon @reallysmolrenjun @stealanity

© writingmochi on tumblr, 2021-2024. all rights reserved

amy march core

The SX3 dilemma

Meg March ESFJ 3w2 sx/so (From Little Woman)

Intro

Hello there! im sorry for not posting much I've been having a bit of hard time this semester with graduation and school admissions. Thats why my posting hasn't been consistent at all. However, im gonna try and at least finish the healthy/unhealthy enneagram series. Im writing this post cuz I've noticed that there is a bit of misunderstanding of what is the SX3 and how we identify them. As well as some differentiation between an E2 vs E3.

What is an SX3

Sexual Three "Charisma" or "The Cheerleader"

"Sexual Threes seek to experience Essential Value through their desirability and the magnetism of their attraction displays. Sexual Threes want to be the most magnetic person in the room. They feed off of generating intrigue, mystique, and even controversy, and they aren't much concerned with being liked or pursuing practical achievements. Competition in Sexual Threes revolves around being the most attractive and having the most captivating sexual display, and they're most likely to have cultivated a striking personal flavor meant to stand apart from others. People of this type are not interested in generic beauty, so some Sexual Threes, especially performers, play with attractive yet experimental personas or go for an overtly sexy image.- (P.209 John Lukovich, The Instinctual Drives& The Enneagram)

However, while I really like this definite of SX3 id like to add that the attractiveness of the SX3 isnt necessarily physical. It can be like the materialism of the SO3 or the Humility of the SP3. The SX3 desires to find an ideal partner in which they can find success and love. The SX subtype is ALL about interpersonal connection.

How to differentiate them from other types

I think the easiest way to different two types from each other is usually through core desire and triads. most people usually confuse them due to the squishy nature the SX3 has. Imo unlike the SO3 which are usually easier to spot due to their leadership, ambition and overall way they carry themselves. The SX3 is somewhere in between the SO3 and the SP3. The SX3 MAY have the assertiveness of an 8. However, they can also have the playfulness of a 7. The timidness of a 6, the calmness of a 9 or the desire of love of the 2. Which is why I think relying on the look of the type can fall short a bit when it comes to looking for traits. So I think the more important aspects of them can be seen as:

Love+Validation+Status

I think allot of people forget that the E3 core desire is validation so they create an image (a performance if you will) to show the world.

Unlike the E2 the SX3 will NOT sacrifice their own needs in those for the partner. The 3s desire is their own and so are their ambitions. The SX3 is an idealist romantic and what doesn't fall in that image will be cut out.

NOTE: The relation to the other individual doesn't need to be romantic necessarily.

Image

yes, they are an image type BUT unlike the other two heart types the 3 has a need to attract through conventionality. Unlike the SX4 they don't pose as hurt, broken and sad individuals or the SX2 more sacrificing nature the SX3 will use "whats in" or what their target of desire likes.

Characters that are SX3

Charlotte York 3w2 sx/so

Finnick Odair 3w2 sx/so

Lestat Di Lioncourt 3w4 sx/so

Amy Dunn 3w2 sx/so

Dionne Davenport 3w2 sx/so

Johnny Storm 3w2 sx/so

Steve Harrington 3w2 sx/so

Fiona 3w2 sx/so

Sansa Stark 3w2 sx/so

Lady Dimitrescu 3w2 sx/so

Dennis Reynolds 3w2 sx/so

Emma Frost 3w4 sx/so

Ino Yamanaka 3w2 sx/so

Rosalie Hale 3w2 sx/sp

P.S This post came to mind cuz im low-key regretting making that SX3 Azula post. As well as rethinking my typing of Tomie.

New Chapter~

In which Rhea is a Jo March Rising, Amy March Moon in her Elle Woods Era and feeling the heartbreak of your best friend getting a boyfriend. Also to my core I believe Wilhem got his crest from eating Rhea out so there's that :)

“I’m not in love with her. I love her but it’s not like that,” Rhea explains herself. “It would be easier if I were in love with her. Do you know how embarrassing this is? ‘My best friend is in a happy relationship with my cousin and I’m sad about it.’ It’s pathetic. 

“I don’t want to… get married to her or anything. She’s my sister, my family. I should be happy for her but I can’t help but feel like I’ve been dumped. In five years, they’re going to get married and have babies and what about me? I’ll be, what, the girl Mum used to live with and Dad’s cousin? I’ll be the auntie who makes the best dessert. I’ll be ‘extended’ family.”

“Whenever I have the privilege to bite into your baking, I see God and man does She look like you.”

“Flattery will get you nowhere.”

“I don’t understand you,” he says perplexed. “That sounds like love to me.”

Sitri sits up, brushing her hair aside, letting the bed sheet drap off of her. “Do you love me?”

“Honestly, you are Athena to me. You are my muse; always a hair out of reach. I’d give you my heart in exchange of inspiration. Your will and happiness is everything to me but no. I’m not in love with you.”

It isn’t like that. She doesn’t want Sitri to be out of reach. Sitri just makes her feel… secure. “I want to be loved. I want to be the most important person to someone, I… I just want her to need me like I do her,” she pleads to the heavens. “I’m just so tired of being a placeholder.” 

"i suppose marriage has always been a financial proposition, even in fiction."

Little Women (2019), dir. Greta Gerwig

the idea of marriage has always been strange.

for me, well i'm bisexual, and i never thought that marriage would be a prospect to me because i didn't think i'd ever be capable of loving one person for the rest of my life. then, i watched Little Women (2019). it wasn't this epiphany, but a slow realisation about how i'd been brainwashed to believe that marriage was the way to fulfilment. while there are many things about Greta Gerwig's adaptation that i'd like to discuss, sisterhood, womanhood and youth being few to mention, i would like to focus on this concept of marriage as it is represented through the eyes of Jo, who up until my tenth watch, i identified with the most.

Jo March, as self-described, is frumpy, homely and unlike any woman, Theodore Laurance would ever want to marry. i too have always felt like that. never be the one to be asked out, or even noticed by boys in school, and when i realised i liked girls too, it became a taboo subject that left me with slurs and various degrees of internalised homophobia. growing older, I've realised that perhaps it is me being a poc in a majority-white setting that has made it so difficult to feel the right to be loved by others romantically. or maybe it's because i've been stagnant in my approach to sexuality that it's scared others away. enough self-evaluation: Jo sees marriage like a prison, and that makes sense. or does it?

a perfect home life, yes. a nuclear family, the husband, the wife, the children, the white picket fence and a warm hearth to surround when it gets cold outside. even though the love between marmie and father is one to be idolised, it is caring and unconditional love that surrounds Jo, and yet she finds herself opposed to the very notion of marriage.

the setting that the march family sit in is quiet, a cottage core aesthetic (to use contemporary reference) where the only people they interact with are the Laurences, the Hummels and one Mr. John Brooke. when Teddy and Jo pair off and become quick and steadfast friends the natural conclusion is that they'll get married and have a hoard of children while living a mildly happy life. it works for Meg and Mr. Brooke, so why wouldn't it work for Teddy and Jo?

to me, it's very clear. it's clear for the moment Jo leaves her family home and moves to New York to work in a boarding house. meeting the foreign professor is this sign shouting "THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN WHAT YOU KNOW!" he applies a different school of thought and challenges her in a way that Laurie and her family never did. the challenges she faces, the rejection from the publishing house, not being chosen to go to France with Aunt March, and most significantly the death of Beth, all push her to the conclusion of finishing her book and getting it published.

but the question becomes, why was i more satisfied with the ending of Jo and Friedrich (the professor) than with her getting her book published? i guess it becomes the conversation of what romantic films have periodically presented us with the 'happy ending', which has been, falling in love, getting married, having oodles of children and then dying. to be honest, it's not just romantic films, it's the disney princesses that surrounded me in childhood. its stereotypes that are perpetuated even further into media, and are ingrained into young girls from a young age. even now, as I'm meeting adulthood for the first time, the questions of marriage, kids and the future keep on cropping up in conversations. i don't think i was ever conscious of my own bias when watching films, but watching Little Women for what seems to be the 100th time makes me wonder what it really means to be married, what that commitment really means. Is it like Jo says, an 'economic proposition' or is it something much more than that?

author note:

amy and laurie >>>> jo and laurie

serious question, why is it a core problem for radical feminism to exclude men? do you think all anti-racism should include white people? should all LGBT+ activism include cis/het people? aren't white lives matter/white history month and straight pride march/straight pride flag silly and offensive suggestions? men can be oppressed because of their race, sexuality etc but men aren't oppressed for being men so why does every single kind of feminism have to include/pander to men's issues? if the patriarchy oppresses men too why don't they form their own group to fight against/dismantle patriarchy? why do they need every group of feminists to fight for them in a system that men as a whole benefit from, especially when the average woman is way more sympathetic to men's issues than the average man is to women's issues?

Serious answers:

Because some men are female, like trans men, and we face every single issue cis women face, plus transphobia on top of that.

Because sexism, misogyny, the patriarchy, and toxic masculinity are not just problems women face. Men also suffer from these issues.

Because we are stronger in unity. "Divide and conquer" is ancient knowledge. Splitting everyone off into tinier and tinier communities makes us weaker.

Because the cis man who wants to be a feminist and join with you to take down the patriarchy is far more your ally than Sarah Palin, Amy Comey Barrett, or Melania Trump.

Because separatism is literally never the answer.

At the end of thee day, I can't force and don't want to force anyone to include men in their personal feminism. If you don't include men, that's your choice.

To that end, I'm not trying to change radical feminism to force it to include men. Radfems can exclude men all day long. I do not care, because personally I think radical feminism is toxic and not worth changing or saving. I think it deserves to fade away into obscurity and take its racism, transphobia, and separatism with it.

okay i get it feminine women find NLOG narratives grating but these video essays about NLOG characters in historical dramas are soooo obtuse. like you really think youve analysed the story critically when your point boils down to jo march/anne shirley/anne lister werent all that for going against everything that was expected of them, or when the character trope youre critiquing are REAL people

there’s nOt LiKe OtHeR giRLs, and then there’s existing in an insular or conservative culture as a woman and being unable to exist in peace in any way other than a way that ACTIVELY makes your life harder. i live in a conservative place by and large and im okay dressing in any way that doesn’t have me be a focal point, so i’ll wear something that i dont feel entirely myself in and be fine. but man it’s tough out here for decidedly masc presenting women, who, if anything, check all the conservative dresscode boxes. and that’s NOW. like present day.

what these critiques fail to take into account is that what youd consider NLOG is often performatively so? like youre not just unlike other girls, you’re unlike other girls in a way that’s appealing to men or other such women or whoever decides things are cool. so much of being NLOG is about declaring that you are not like the other girls. and then listing out the ways that you are then not.like the other girls (but you’re still thin, light skinned, have long hair, have a carefully curated wardrobe dw).

ig it’s distancing yourself from admitting you’re preoccupied with figuring out how to perform femininity or feminine appeal or maybe not wanting to be hyperfeminine but youre still straight, or maybe youre at lvl 1 NLOG and you think hyperfemininity and critical thinking is a real life dichotomy or smth

idk what to tell the ytuber but anne lister was decidedly not like other girls. i dont think she’d even call herself a girl if she were plonked into the present day. anne shirley was either born ND or was put through a traumatising system early and for long enough to never be able to look at the world the same way as the kids brought up safely and with loving, money-having parents. and both of these characters loved women too much for you to conclude that they scorned “feminine” qualities (and therefore, the other girls).

you really cant ignore the context of the time. it took so little to not be like other girls. and so many of her points kind of made my heart sink. is attention to clothing and caring about feminine coded things all that there is to being a woman? if anything a historical setting lets you see there’s more to gender and that people contain multitudes. esp w little women, jo and amy are written as foils and share many core features that make them THEM, more so than their clothing or style or the way they choose to come across and the things they scoff at. they’re two ends of the SAME spectrum

where people get the idea that existing as a masculine woman is easy i do not know. i think people too often conflate being gender non-conforming, with actively rebelling against and/or denouncing gendered expectations, with the NLOG trope/phenomenon as seen in social media/published media

you would really make a “we need to talk about…” video about these women and characters while wearing jeans and having your hair down and wearing bright lipstick..

Well-known political expert, author, journalist, and CEO David Rothkopf is blasting conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court after their disastrous rulings last week, warning the Court is now a “threat to democracy” and suggesting some justices should be “considered” for impeachment.

Rothkopf, also a national security and foreign policy commentator, is a columnist for The Daily Beast and the author at least seven books, including American Resistance.

“Watching debates about Supreme Court here and elsewhere is the latest study in GOP efforts to normalize the unconscionable, the corrupt, and the contra-constitutional. This is a court in which a majority of those on the right took their seats under questionable circumstances,” Rothkopf said at the start of a lengthy thread on Twitter.

“Of them, a cloud of corruption hangs over Thomas & Alito. Kavanaugh took [his] seat despite allegations against him that were not properly investigated. Questions surround his payoff of personal debts. Gorsuch’s ascension is also clouded by questions surrounding Kennedy’s departure,” he says.

READ MORE: ‘Treacherous March of Normalization’: ABC News Slammed for ‘Puff Piece’ Profile on Moms for Liberty

Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for months over his relationship with billionaire GOP donor and businessman Harlan Crow, who reportedly has had business before the high court. The far-right wing justice and his wife, Ginni Thomas, (who has been accused of working to undermine the 2020 presidential election results,) may have received gifts totaling over $1 million in luxury vacations, travel, food, lodging, and clothing. Experts say Thomas was required to disclose portions of those gifts and that he did not.

Justice Samuel Alito is also the beneficiary of luxury travel, including a fishing trip to Alaska courtesy of another billionaire, and a trip to Rome during which he delivered a highly-criticized speech just days after delivering his opinion striking down Roe v. Wade. That trip was reportedly paid for by a religious liberty organization whose leader reportedly bought Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Indiana home.

Indeed, Rothkopf also skewers Justice Barrett, or at least her confirmation.

“Barrett received her seat in a rush to judgment that was unlike any we have ever seen and completely contrary to the way the GOP Senate treated prior Dem nominees (Garland). In the time since the majority took over, they have cast aside one core principle after another,” he observes.

READ MORE: ‘Tyranny’: Legal Expert Says Ruling in Favor of Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Makes It ‘Impossible’ to Respect Supreme Court

“Stare decisis went out the window. (Precedents were ignored without any sound justification.) Promises to honor past decisions as established law (like Roe) proved worthless. Past claims that the right valued originalism and condemned judicial activism were wholly ignored,” Rothkopf charges.

“When precedent went against them, absurd arguments drawing on ancient and irrelevant legal decisions were used to supersede the clear intent of the framers and decades, sometimes centuries of legal precedent.”

Last week, he says, we saw “a decision on affirmative action that ignored precedent, reality, and justice and contained, in its carve-out for military academies, a sub-decision that refuted the logic of the main opinion. In the case of reversing the Biden student loan decision,” Rothkopf writes, “a brand new doctrine was presented out of whole cloth. The decision regarding the ‘right’ of a website designer to refuse to do work for a ‘gay’ couple was based on both a lie and a hypothetical, should never have been taken on as a case and was grossly wrong on the law,” he adds.

Rothkopf appears to believe the conservative justices will not stop.

“These judges are acting with impunity because they believe a GOP controlled Senate will never challenge them and that a fundamental flaw in the way the Constitution grants power to underpopulated states assures that the document that was created to evolve never will,” he writes.

And he suggests some of the Supreme Court’s justices might need to be impeached.

“They also know that Senate rules essentially mean they can act with impunity despite their wholesale corruption and the fact that several of them should, in all likelihood, be seriously considered for impeachment.”

READ MORE: Sotomayor Slams ‘Embarrassing’ SCOTUS Anti-LGBTQ Decision That Marks ‘Gays and Lesbians for Second-Class Status’

Pointing to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, he adds: “This is, as [she] has said a constitutional crisis. This is an illegitimate, rogue institution that is seeking to reverse decades of progress and impose the will of a white, wealthy, Christian, male, straight minority on the majority of Americans.”

“This is a moment that calls for action on the part of Democrats in power to use their ability to call Senate hearings and to challenge this extremist cluster of judicial terrorists wherever possible. But more than that, it demands absolutely clarity from the voting public,” he says.

Rothkopf warns conservatives in the Court are poised to do even more damage to democracy and the American people.

“Unless Democrats win the presidency, hold and increase their majority in the Senate and retake the House, this tiny band of malevolent and dangerous actors will gut many of the most important provisions of the past century and a half of American law.”

“They will destroy lives and put millions of others at risk. Next year’s election must be in part, about this threat to democracy even as it is also about the threat posed by GOP presidential candidates. Stop. Consider the consequences.”

He warns minority Americans will continue to see their civil rights “stripped” away.

“Consider the basic rights that will be stripped away from women, people of color, our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, voters, and all who believe in the ideals that have guided American leaders as we have struggled to perfect our nation,” he says. “The only people who can save us are you and your fellow voters. The only way to do so is to mobilize, be active, donate to candidates and remain committed to defending our country against the threat posed by the MAGA GOP in our legislature and our judiciary. Starting right now.”

Little Women in 1994 and Little Women in 2019

Little Women is a novel written by Louisa May Alcott in the 19th century. It is a slice-of-life story that follows the March family, which consists of four sisters, Meg, Jo, Beth, Amy, their mother, Marmee, and their father who has been deployed far from them. We see the different people who enter the lives of the March family such as Laurie, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Brooke, and Friedich who fall in love with their family. We get to know these ordinary but extraordinary little women, their struggles, characters, ambitions, and relationships.

This simple story has been adapted to film a whopping six times since its publication. People may wonder why this story needs to be retold so many times but it is one for every generation. Even though Little Women is set in the 1800s, the tale is timeless and deserves to be adapted to film for every generation to enjoy and learn from.

The two most recent film adaptations are the ones from 1994 and 2019, respectively. With the 2019 remake so close to the previous one, many people had doubts about Greta Gerwig’s take on this film. However, it proves to be a worthy retelling of this classic with the most promising young actors of our generation and a modern take on a timeless tale.

Cinematography

Little Women (1994) used cinematography in a way that makes you feel at home. It’s whimsical and almost like looking at a moving version of a greeting card. This is completely fit and appropriate for the theme of the story. The lighting is consistent, soft, cozy, and reminiscent of holiday films and Disney movies. Wide shots are used to establish surroundings and close up as well as extreme close up shots are used to establish intimacy, emotions, and the close relationship of the family.

Little Women (2019) uses cinematography in a completely different but equally, – perhaps even more beautiful way. It shows how different emotions, time periods, and state of minds can be portrayed just by tweaking a few things with the way scenes are shot. Gerwig’s version isn’t consistent, styles changing as we watch the past and the present unfold. The past is told with sweeping movement and lots of activity to emulate the energy and light of the chaotic but charming March sisters. The “present” or older era is told with a locked frame, farther away from the sisters. This gave amazing contrast when it comes to the emotional state as well as more clearly told a non-linear story. We see the whimsy and pure joy of the Marches’ childhood when everyone was innocent, happy, and united. In contrast, the older Marches are resigned, separated, and watching each other from afar.

Characterization

In terms of characterization, Little Women (1994) stayed true to its source material and established everyone’s personalities early on. Jo is headstrong, feisty, and spirited. Meg is gentle, kind, and a romantic at heart. Beth is reserved, quiet, generous, and talented. Amy is the baby, a little snooty, annoying, and ambitious. Then we have Laurie, a lonely young lad just wanting to be a part of a family with someone to play with. Some inconsistencies come up when the time jump happened such as Amy’s sudden aloofness and sophistication. We don’t see a trace of the vibrant little girl we saw for the first half of the film. Jo also goes through some changes, it wasn’t as drastic as Amy’s and we still see Jo’s core character despite her opening herself up to love and connection.

Little Women (2019) also stayed true to these characterizations with a few exceptions. There was a creative decision to have Florence Pugh play Amy all throughout the movie even when she was supposed to be a child. While this may be an odd choice, it somehow worked and made the film more cohesive. We see how Amy grew into a sophisticated young lady but still see glimpses of the younger, vibrant Amy. Jo had a different development from the source material as well as the 1994 adaptation. The Jo in the 2019 film was a little more stubborn, a lot more spirited, and independent. This Jo loved her freedom and independence too much but expressed the very real dilemma of being lonely while being so. This is an incredibly powerful concept that the 1994 film didn’t address. Jo doesn’t fall in love here unlike the 1994 version, she simply feels lonely and wants to be loved.

Acting

There is nothing really bad to be said about the acting for both films. Both had an outstanding cast that delivered the emotions, the depth, and the personalities that the characters needed. It’s also interesting to note that both films chose to cast the most promising young actors of their particular generation, drawing in the most appropriate audience for the films at the time of their release.

However, there is something to be said about the incredible performances the 2019 cast gave in the film. Most notably, Saoirse Ronan, Timothee Chalamet, and Florence Pugh. Ronan captured Jo’s vivacious essence so exceptionally and gave the character such life. Chalamet brought more understanding to Laurie’s loneliness and desire to be part of a close family. Finally, Florence Pugh gave unbelievable depth to Amy, who is more of a shallow character in the previous adaptation. Pugh showed us Amy’s ambitions, feelings, and sense of obligation. It’s an incredible new angle for this character.

Emotional Impact

Both the 1994 and 2019 version of Little Women will touch the heart of anyone. Both films do a good job of letting the audience get attached to the characters to be able to empathize with them when they are angry, happy, and heartbroken. We experience life with them, as if we are part of the family. It helps that both films were also directed by women, which gave unique insight to the little women’s struggles and bond.

Little Women (2019) and Little Women (1994) tackled many of the same issues and some different ones, as well. The 1994 film went into more social issues such as poverty, racism, and discrimination. The 2019 film tackled issues such as loneliness, obligation, and life after marriage. Little Women (2019) had a bit more of an emotional impact because of the great storytelling for each character, leading the audience to become more attached to them and empathize with the struggles and loss.

Storytelling

The 1994 version of Little Women establishes exposition (Block, 2008) in the form of a narration from Jo’s point-of-view at the very beginning of the film. This continues all throughout and is a consistent tool for storytelling. The events unfold in a linear fashion and we grow up with the March family. The main conflicts come in the form of Laurie’s confession and Beth’s illness and death. Jo has to deal with losing her childhood friend after an emotional rejection and losing her beloved sister. The resolution comes as they accept the loss, Laurie and Amy reveal their marriage, Jo inherits Aunt March’s estate, and finds love in Friedrich.

In the 2019 film, we see many of the same events and even the same dialogue used but the storytelling is completely different. Gerwig uses a non-linear way of telling the story, opening the film with a quote from the original novel’s author, Louisa May Alcott saying, “I’ve had lots of troubles, so I write jolly tales.” Jo is grown up and already trying to make a name for herself in New York City. From there, we get flashbacks from their childhood that fill in the blanks of what’s happening in the present. There is only one exposition to establish the past “7 years earlier”, the screen tells us as Meg and Jo are getting ready for a party. After this, the film uses color and lighting to differentiate the past or their memories from the present. The present has a colder quality with muted color palettes of browns, blacks, blues, and reds. On the other hand, the memories have a warm quality, almost like everything is bathed in sunlight or candlelight. Everything looks cozy and vibrant, just as the March girls. Beth’s death is paralleled by the happy memory of her recovery only years prior as Marmee turns in her chair to reveal Beth sitting up. In the present, this scene is mirrored but as Marmee turns, the seat behind her is empty and she breaks out into sobs. From there, Gerwig’s interpretation of the classic starts to digress. The 2019 film addresses Jo’s need for independence along with her overwhelming loneliness that makes her desperate for love without loving back. She portrays hidden heartbreak hearing about Laurie and Amy’s marriage instead of the immediate happiness shown in the 1994 version. The ending is ambiguous, insinuating that the ending in the book that Jo wrote was not the ending that she chose for herself. The resolution is a little clearer as we see Jo and her family in the school that she established in the late Aunt March’s home.

The 1994 version is a little shorter than the 2019 adaptation but the modern, unusual take made the time go faster. The non-linear storytelling was also effective in getting the audience to understand the relationships and character development better. It gave context and a whole new angle to things.

Chemistry and Relationships

Again, both films did a great job with the casting and development. All the actors had a magical chemistry that really led you to believe they were family. Everyone’s love and friendship was palpable. You could feel the bond of the sisters through the screen and the way Laurie fit in so seamlessly within the family. Christian Bale and Wynona Ryder’s chemistry was outstanding, creating a romance-that’s-not-a-romance that devastates the audience when Jo rejects Laurie.

With a longer running time, the 2019 film gave way to developing the relationship between Laurie and the other March sisters, as well. We see him bond with Meg, Beth, and Amy in different ways, making his integration into the family much more natural. Chalamet and Ronan’s chemistry as friends and almost-lovers is also phenomenal. Their bond as best friends and Chalamet’s subtle moments of falling in love was the cherry-on-top. We also see how Amy and Laurie’s relationship grows and the audience isn’t as blindsided by it as in the 1994 version.

Romance

Romance was handled a little differently from the 1994 adaptation to the 2019 film. The former had more of a romantic undertone that leads the audience to believe that Jo had fallen in love with Friedrich and that she plans on marrying him. On the other hand, the 2019 version chose to go a different route and play things ambiguously. Jo doesn’t seem to be as obviously in love with Friedrich although she seems to be fond of him. She is lonely, yes, and has moments of weakness. But she values her freedom too much and doesn’t want to be a wife. In the end, we see Friedrich with the family at Jo’s school but it’s unclear whether or not she has a romantic relationship with him. The audience is left to choose what to believe.

All in all, I loved both versions of the film but I preferred the modern remake from Greta Gerwig. Of course, I may be a little biased because prior to this, it was already one of my favorite films of all time. I have watched about a dozen times and can never tire of it. Watching it again knowing all the different aspects that go into filmmaking and with the goal to observe the techniques, storytelling, and its overall appeal and quality, it gave me a whole different experience and made me love the film even more. The visual story of Little Women (2019) is truly brilliantly done. It gave new meaning to an adaptation that was already made multiple times. I love the changes that were made for the plot. As a writer with the same principles as Jo, I found myself relating to the 2019 version of her a lot which is probably what makes this resonate so much with me. I love that Gerwig didn’t go for the conventional ending and instead went for ambiguity so that the audience can choose their own ending. Loneliness can be a powerful thing to battle with especially if you value your independence and this film addressed it perfectly. This classic tale can be retold over and over again and it would be just as powerful. The stories of these little women will continue to touch each generation of little women.

GETTING TO KNOW YOU

respond to the following prompts. include as much or as little as you want; you don’t have to answer them all ! / tagged by: stole from @kenoebi. tagging: you.

NAME / ALIAS: amy

BIRTHDAY: march 25

ZODIAC SIGN: aries

HEIGHT: 5'5"

HOBBIES: roleplaying, traveling, hiking

FAVORITE COLOR: teal

FAVORITE BOOK: impossible to choose

LAST SONG: shake it off by T SWIFT

LAST MOVIE: you are so not invited to my bat mitzvah (and it was SO CUTE)

LAST SHOW: queen charlotte (I CRIED!)

RECENT READ: a chateau under siege (trying to find a new series of mystery novels)

SOURCES OF INSPIRATION: prequel trilogy, its novelizations, the legends novels and also current Disney ones. Also husborth lol

STORY BEHIND URL: before i started writing padmé i worked on a character "getting to know you" thing that I stole from tumblr, and i was trying to like... boil down her character to the one core conflict. To me, it's that she's always torn between doing what she feels is her duty and following her heart's desire.

Day 2

This is a question I have had for  while. What are your feeling on all the olympians? Like all of them. Thanks if you answer lol(can’t believe I even remembered 2 days)

Oh wow, ok, I’m excited about this question and will do my best. Been thinking about it all day. I’m going with feel as the operative word. I am not a Hellenic polytheist (I am a Christian; anyone can ask me about this☺️) but the gods are real and dear to me as part of humanity, so yes, I have feelings. In a way, your ask is as much about me as it is about the gods. So you’ll get my completely personal take. I will not give you subversive fan theories or analyses on why they are problematic. I’m also a synesthete, so bare with me; my sensory process is what it is.

Zeus — I feel like we’d date. A friend of mine told me that he reads my fanfiction but his powers enable him to watch it like a telenovela. He’s a warm, gregarious energy to me. I live for silly Zeus memes but I think what we all miss is how likeable he is. Large and scary on the outside, but full of wonder at his core. He’s the visionary behind Olympus after all. He’s a swan, a glittering shower, he wants thrones for all his kids, crowns for his brothers and sisters. My favorite myths include just how much he delights in his kids. Like when Artemis and Apollo are born and he’s just like here, have the sun, have the forests. Or when he rescues little Dionysus by putting him in his own body until he’s done growing. I think his presence would feel so alive you wouldn’t really care who he was or what nonsense he’d been up to.

Poseidon - ya know, he’s a mysterious dude. He’s moody, a little weird. Thinking of him makes me imagine my fears of the bottom of the ocean. Of the kraken, of trenches, places with no light and freaky pressure changes. Almost like he’s specifically the lord of the deep. Of any god, I’m most afraid of him. (Feel free to psychoanalyze in the comments) Also I imagine him as a hunky merman. I picture him in deep greens. I think of that folk song full fathom five. Choleric. Hard to please. A sense of weariness.

Hera — I think we oversimplify her rage. I see her in bright golds. Fresh smells, peaches, a crisp essence. She’s glamorous, a leader. But has battled her insecurities hard. There’s a frustration and anxiety close to her surface. And I’m not so sure her issues are really with Zeus. I feel like there’s a deep wound there from the titan war and perhaps Zeus has great compassion for it. Rosalie Hale and Amy March are both strong Heras to me. Daenerys Targaryen is a Hera. Hera is the feminine form of hero, by the way. Somehow it’s been lost as a noun, which is a shame.

Demeter — I picture Demeter as my sister, who, by the way, is lovely. It just fits too well. She’s a gentle, sensual woman. She enjoys food, dancing, comforts. Of any gods, I would want her on my side. A better ending to the Judgement of Paris is that Demeter divided the apple evenly and served it with humus and peanut butter. The koine suffix meter means mother. Demeter is a giver, she’s the full moon, the mom friend, the feeling when your s/o makes your lunch or kisses your head at night.

Hestia — heckin sweet. She and Zeus are the closest of the siblings. You go domestic ace-spec girl. Like I bet she’s just so pretty and kind. See previous headcanon posts.

Ares — everyone who’s been here knows how I feel about Ares. I can’t resist finding one single nugget of lovability and letting it take over. He’s Zeus and Hera’s most difficult traits all in one guy. He’s intense and moody like Zeus but with the anxiety and insecurity of Hera. He’s angsty, kinda tortured. I think he’s often taken for granted as the “strong one.” He holds a lot inside in order to be there for others. I think he supported Hera beyond what he was ready for as a little boy.

Hephaestus — Blacksmiths are cut. Have you met a blacksmith before? Lemme tell you, I’m a huge horse person and I have. They come in with their their truck and their strong arms and they pick up those little horsie feet and it’s everything. And that sad backstory of being raised in a cave? Please. You want Hephaestus.

Athena — She intimidates me. She’s not one I identify with much and sometimes have a hard time with. I have felt in the shadow of “Athena” type women. To me she’s that cousin who’s in med school or law school or literally just passing third grade math. A golden child. Homer calls her “a stately dame … graced with all the noble gifts of womanhood” in song 16 of the Odyssey. Which sounds great and maybe it is. But the irony of perfection is it’s never really what what we find most beautiful is it? We never romanticize precision.

Apollo — oh, buddy. I love you. Somehow the god of order and reason and also the biggest himbo of all. Still in therapy from both his lovers turning into plants. He’s so pretty and so brilliant but he’s the god of song. Apollo is #sadgirl through and through. Somehow a melancholic, a genius, and an innocent all in one. Spencer Reid vibes, definitely. He makes me nostalgic for something I can’t quite reach.

Ya know what, someone ask me about just Apollo sometime. I wrote loads of fiction about him in 8th grade and I had a dog named Apollo. I really miss that dog.

Artemis — There’s a kind of prickly charisma to Artemis. And culturally, she’s beloved. Katniss is Artemis. So is Scout Finch. I love that the Greeks gave us an all girl mashup of Peter Pan x Where the Wild Things Are x Moonrise Kingdom. Yet, she gives me a little sense of melancholy too. Sexuality aside, she made a fascinating choice when she vowed eternal girlhood, celibacy, and to never become a mother. She chose autonomy over intimacy. She chose innocence over heartbreak. I wonder if she ever sorrows for the road not taken. Even an immortal life is only one life. And yet, I want her to be free. I would lose my shit if she ever for one second knew grief or regret or even jealousy. It would crush me for romance to displace her friendships. I hope she’s just perfectly 100% happy. She means a lot to me.

Hermes— what a mysterious dude. Honestly, I’m not sure what even to do with him. He’s … detached. Like just kind of a stinky guy in stinky rafting sandals. Paradoxically he looks the most human, would seem to be v cool towards humans, and yet is just as magical and strange as can be. I’m pretty sure I literally saw him in Asheville. @heljos , he’s special to you, speak of Hermes sometime.

Aphrodite— above all, Aphrodite is hopeful. My favorite epithets for her are “laughter-loving” and “foam-walker.” Even the specific wording of “mother of desire” as opposed to “lust” or “love.” There’s all kinds of things you can desire. Fun, humor, joy, health, self-acceptance, friendship. Aphrodite and Dionysus are the Pippin and Merry of Olympus. But as a Artemis’ opposite, I think there’s a part of her that grieves her freedom. To be the goddess of beauty and love means being defined by perception and relationships. That’s why I give her such a distinct personality when I write about her. I bet more than anything she wants identity. *follow or ask me for more on this.

Things that have the same energy: Dionysus and Tom Haverford.

Peredur48

peredur48

After years of complaints triggered by the rowdy behaviour by hen parties of young women, wearing very short skirts and sashes emblazoned with vulgar slogans while tottering drunkenly through the streets and disturbing the peace, the City Council decided the time had come to take action to restore order and decorum to the City Centre at weekends. To everyone’s surprise, the Council’s new strategy involved the reintroduction of a penalty that had not been used for generations: corporal punishment.

A small cohort of female Corporal Punishment Enforcement Officers has been recruited and trained in the use of a kind of punishment strap which is used on the bared buttocks of young women found to have broken the new public order regulations. These punishments are administered summarily at the Central Police Station, unless an accused person chooses to exercise her right to a hearing in the Magistrates Court, where a heavy fine, or even a custodial sentence may be imposed. Most of those arrested seem to opt for the strap, as it means that the matter is over and done with, straight away.

The new strategy is popular with the public. It has also achieved some success in reducing the incidence of female rowdiness in the city streets on Saturday nights. Perhaps inevitably however, for a hard core of young women, the prospect of a sound thrashing has provided a perverse incentive.

Miss Amy Scargill, for example, the young woman shown in the photo being given a severe dose of the strap by Enforcement Officer Mavis Rigby, has been punished in this way on no fewer than six occasions in the last three months. She appears to have attached herself to hen parties where the other girls claimed never to have seen her before, and then behaved very badly, getting herself arrested by Community Support Officers, who put her in handcuffs and marched her off to the police station to be dealt with.

“Oh yes;” said Officer Rigby, who agreed to be interviewed by our researcher after dealing with Miss Scargill, who was limping back to the changing room with a dazed expression on her face and a spectacularly reddened, welted backside. “She’s definitely become one of our regulars. I’m told she even asked one of the officers whether she’d be prepared to do this privately; little madam!”

(gifs - judicial)

Dana was arrested last night for brawling in a city centre pub during her friend Sadie’s hen night. Rather than undergo protracted criminal proceedings almost certainly leading to a hefty fine, she has opted to receive corporal punishment this morning.

Why, we might ask, would a young woman voluntarily submit to being stripped naked in front of witnesses in a noisy, draughty police station, strapped down and then soundly thrashed with a whippy cane? It means that the matter will be swiftly concluded, of course. It won’t be hanging over her head for weeks , or even months. In Dana’s case, it also means that her holiday plans won’t have to be put on hold.

Of course, there could be some other reason.

“Fetch the strap”. I can smell the leather. Your belt. A punishment strapping. I am to be whipped. My stomach falls away. How will you do it? Over the back of the sofa? Over a couple of pillows on the bed? Held down across your lap, tears dripping onto your knee high boots? Or tied because you know I can’t take a thrashing of the severity you are going to give me without straightening up and trying to get away? Knowing you’re going to make me count out my age in cane strokes afterwards if I don’t take my whipping with a reasonable amount of stoicism? Pushing your panties into my mouth to stop me making too much noise as the leather lands. Knowing I will be sore for at least a week afterwards. Knowing I deserve it and knowing you care about me enough to punish me when I need to be corrected when nobody else does. Rewarding me so richly with allowing me to pleasure you afterwards.

peredur48

Phoebe has been learning about how to tie people up for fun, using an instructional video on YouTube. She is visiting her friend Myrtle, whose parents were supposed to be out for the evening. Things were just getting really interesting when the girls were alarmed by the sound of Myrtle’s parents’ car returning unexpectedly. Perhaps they have left something behind. Phoebe is smitten with regret that she did not pay more attention to that part of the course which dealt with how to untie your friend in a hurry, when you have bound her tightly to the window frame.

you know how in little women it’s laurie’s whole thing that he wants desperately to be a part of the march family and would have married any of them basically. like yes yes he and amy fell in love i know i love them too but i’m just stating facts that he knew basically the moment he met them all that he needed to be one of them because he has this insane longing for the type of familial bond they have that he doesn’t. anyway the point of this post was going to be that i was going to compare him to kit herondale but as i was typing all of that about laurie i thought to myself. bella swan core. so now i have to contend with that as well. should i put twilight in the kit and ty timeless amv what if i did that. what the hell we’ll see how it fits. we got very off track my point was literally just going to be that yeah it’s awesome that kit and ty fell in love but on god he would have shot his shot with any of those blackthorns fr