i think platonic love is such a sick and rotten work. i would do it everyday for you (@iknowitwontwork)

On September 8, 1930, in the midst of the Great Depression, the world was introduced to Blondie Boopadoop, a dizzy blonde flapper created by Murat Bernard ‘Chic’ Young. Blondie debuted in newspapers across the country on that day. She was Chic Young’s fourth strip featuring a young woman, but this was the one to catch fire and eventually become iconic in the world of comics and media at large. It is hard to believe that the blonde hero of blissful domesticity turns 90 and that her stories remain tops with audiences the world over.

Blondie’s early days featured the star popular in dating circles. Her courtships made for several storylines. Blondie’s main squeeze, however, was bumbling playboy Dagwood Bumstead, son of millionaire industrialist, J. Bolling Bumstead. Dagwood introduced Blondie to his ill-natured father in the very first strip announcing their plans to marry. The elder Bumstead was aghast that his son would be interested in a woman of Blondie’s lowly social status.

For the next couple of years, the Blondie comics centered on the couple’s struggles to get the Bumsteads to agree to the pairing. Blondie does everything imaginable to no avail. In the meantime, she also entertains several other admirers – although Dagwood was never far away. With readership dwindling, Chic Young and the comic’s distributer, King Features Syndicate, decided Blondie and Dagwood should finally get married and in February 1933 they did much to the chagrin of the Bumsteads who disowned their son and heir. Mr. and Mrs. Bumstead only grudgingly acknowledged the union because Dagwood went on a hunger strike that lasted over 28 days spotlighted by daily coverage and countdowns that helped circulation. Every day people tuned in to see how Dagwood was doing on the hunger strike. After all, one of his favorite pasttimes has always been eating. One of my favorite Blondie scenes is of Dagwood emerging from his bed after the hunger strike to reveal loads of dishes under the covers.

It was after the marriage of the disinherited blissfully happy Dagwood and the carefree vivacious Blondie took place that audiences truly warmed to their humorous domestic escapades. Blondie and Dagwood became a happy family whose troubles reflected those of the readers’ in many ways. The couple started their married life penniless, as were most during the Depression, which lent itself to many enjoyable scenes. First Dagwood’s need to find work made great stories and eventually so did his relationship with his boss Mister Dithers. However, the charms of Blondie the strip relied on the couple’s home life and its place in the pantheon of all things domestic comedy, which was a revolutionary one at that as Chic Young insisted that the young Bumsteads share a double bed, not the twin beds audiences saw on all other domestic stories in media. (loc.gov) In fact, the Bumsteads did not share a bed in their movie incarnations.

As the strip continued its run, Blondie and Dagwood changed as did their family. Blondie, who started as an airhead of sorts, became the Bumstead voice of reason and Dagwood became the flake to whom all things happen. Part of Dagwood’s charm is he remains a child of sorts, an innocent whose zany antics we cannot get enough of and all because he can’t seem to get things quite right. Except his sandwich, which is a masterpiece every single time.

On April 15, 1934, the couple welcomed their first child, Baby Dumpling (later Alexander) who received almost as much media attention as baby Ricardo on “I Love Lucy” two decades later. Except without the power of television.

In 1941, Blondie and Dagwood welcomed a daughter, Cookie, whose name was chosen by hundreds of thousands of submissions in a contest run by Chic Young. Blondie’s popularity soared when the Bumsteads became a family in earnest in their home in Joplin, Missouri, including Daisy (family dog and Dagwood’s best friend) and the pups. At the height of its popularity, Blondie rivaled Peanuts. No doubt, this creation by Chic Young is one of the all-time greats in the pantheon of comic strips. I would say a masterpiece people have enjoyed for its love conquers all stories and wonderful drawings. It has been one of my favorites for years.

Aside from daily strips and Sunday editions, the Bumsteads have enjoyed comic book popularity as well with seven versions spanning from 1947 to 1976.

  As you probably know Blondie’s popularity jumped to screens and the airwaves as well. As far as the movies go, the story is that as the strip’s popularity grew, Columbia Pictures’ boss Harry Cohn decided that the characters had potential for a B-picture or two so he signed a deal with Chic Young. The result was a 28-picture, 12-year run between 1938 and 1950. All twenty-eight movies star Penny Singleton as Blondie and Arthur Lake as Dagwood. The first and best is Frank Strayer’s Blondie. Strayer directed more than a dozen of the Blondie pictures.

Some of the signature gags from the strip made it into the movies such as Dagwood running into the mailman every morning as he is late for work causing the mail to fly all over the place. That happened early in all of the movies welcoming devoted fans to the hijinks of their favorite family. Following Dagwood’s signature,” Blondieeeeee.” Dagwood’s legendary sandwich also made its way into every single one of the movies and into Webster’s New World Dictionary.

The first movie in the series sees the Bumsteads about to celebrate their fifth anniversary, but money troubles ensue. They have money troubles often in their history. In fact, the Bumstead budget, as Blondie mentions in one of the movies, is the pulse of the family. Dagwood asks for a raise from Mr. Dithers (Jonathan Hale), owner of the J. C. Dithers Construction Company, with whom Dagwood is always at odds just like in the strip. Blondie, on the other hand, orders new furniture (from an uncredited Charles Lane) since they just finished paying off other furniture. Her logic is impeccable, a logic inherited by an almost-too-cute Baby Dumpling (Larry Simms). Dagwood loses his job after getting into a jam at work, but makes up for it by wooing a wealthy businessman (Gene Lockhart) into investing with the Dithers Company.

Staying true to the comic strip, Blondie (1938) features several of the same characters throughout the series played by the same actors. Aside from Penny Singleton and Arthur Lake, Larry Simms plays Baby Dumpling in all of the movies. He was so popular in the role that he was credited as “Baby Dumpling” in Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) where he plays the Hopper Boy. Marjorie Ann Mutchie (as Marjorie Kent) makes her debut as Cookie Bumstead in Frank Strayer’s It’s a Great Life (1943), the thirteenth movie in the series and one of the few without “Blondie” in the title. More on that later.

Penny Singleton and Arthur Lake as Blondie and Dagwood in the first movie in the Blondie series

Rounding out the regulars that make up the Bumstead family is Daisy, the cocker Spaniel/Poodle/Terrier mix whose real name was Spooks and plays the Bumstead’s trusted pooch with flair. Spooks appeared in a good number of movies in character parts, but is best remembered as Daisy. The prolific Willie Best appears as a porter in the first movie and does what he can with the stereotypical part he is given. Best plays varied roles throughout the series and remains mostly uncredited. Fay Helm appears in several Blondie movies as Mrs. Fuddle, neighbor to the Bumsteads and Blondie’s best friend. Danny Mummert plays her son Alvin, Baby Dumpling’s nemesis.

The Blondie movies are typical B-fare. They are fun, perfect for Saturday mornings, but substance is hard to come by. There are a few hearty laughs like the one in Blondie with the talking scale in the hotel men’s bathroom. It advertises your favorite radio voice will talk to you and when it does, it tells Dagwood he’s a loser.

Probably the best part of the series, however, are the actors that appear throughout. If you are a fan of the great character players you’ll get to see the likes of Donald Meek, John Qualen, Edgar Kennedy, William Frawley, and Mary Wickes to name a few. Many future major Columbia stars also make appearances. I was quite surprised to see Rita Hayworth, for instance, play prominently in Blondie on a Budget (1940). She is an old friend of Dagwood’s who plays right into Blondie’s jealous hands. When Blondie was not trying to finagle the family budget in order to buy something, she spent her time worrying that Dagwood would leave her for another woman.

  Larry Simms, Penny Singleton, Arthur Lake and Rita Hayworth in BLONDIE ON A BUDGET

The Blondie movie series ended with Edward Bernds’ Beware of Blondie (1950) where we see Dagwood in charge of the Dithers Construction Company while the boss is on vacation. You can just imagine how well that goes. Adele Jergens plays Miss Clifton, a con woman who takes advantage of Dagwood’s innocence to get to Dithers’ money. Of course, all turns out fine in the end with one important resolution to the series to close out a continuous loop. The mailman (Dick Wessel) decides to end Dagwood running into him finally by delivering the Bumstead mail on his own time at night. No more dirty uniforms. No more bruises. No more scattered mail. Unfortunately, the day he decides to do his first night delivery is tax day and guess who runs out of the house to mail his taxes at the last minute.

By the time Beware of Blondie was made the stories were stretched thin. The familiar Bumstead elements held the movies together as the family survived all sorts of domestic misadventures. According to AFI, Columbia had lost interest in the series after the first fourteen installments. They released two movies without Blondie’s name in the title and stopped producing the series in 1943. However, audiences wanted more and production resumed for another fourteen movies making this series the longest in terms of pictures to date. When the Blondie pictures ceased altogether in 1950, Columbia intended to replace it with another comic strip series, but that fell way short at the box office forcing the studio to reissue all 28 Blondie pictures.

Penny Singleton, Arthur Lake, Larry Simms, and Marjorie Kent in the final picture in the series

America’s love affair with Blondie, Dagwood and the gang was not limited to movies, as we well know. The comic strip continued to strong readership and between 1939 and 1950, Blondie was also heard on radio. Arthur Lake played Dagwood in this version as well with Penny Singleton replaced by Alice White, Patricia Van Cleve and Ann Rutherford at various times. Blondie originally aired on CBS with Camel Cigarettes as its sponsor and later moved to NBC and Super Suds. Lake and Singleton made an appearance as Blondie and Dagwood on The Bob Hope Show following the 1938 release of the first movie, which led to their own show as a summer replacement for The Eddie Cantor Show. They originally aired on Monday evenings at 7:30 and just as the strip helped Depression-era audiences forget their troubles, the radio show helped them through World War II. Enjoy the following episodes of Blondie out of the funnies and into your homes…

From October 1939, “Dagwood Buys a New Suit”

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/13/items/OtrBlondie/Bd1939-10-30018DagwoodBuysANewSuit.mp3

  From April 1940, “The Gypsy Queen”

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/13/items/OtrBlondie/Bd1940-04-22043TheGypsyQueen.mp3

  From March 1944, “Abbott and Costello with Blondie and Dagwood”

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/13/items/OtrBlondie/Bd1944-03-02AbbottCostelloWBlondieDagwood.mp3

  From July 1944, “Plumbin Problems”

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/13/items/OtrBlondie/Bd1944-07-21PlumbingProblems.mp3

  From May 1945, “Socialite Blondie”

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/13/items/OtrBlondie/Bd1945-05-27SocialiteBlondiesocialAspirations.mp3

  From July 1947, “Three Week’s Vacation”

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/13/items/OtrBlondie/Bd1947-07-27ThreeWeeksVacation.mp3

  Unlike radio and the movies, attempts to bring Blondie to television proved unsuccessful. Its power were in the mediums already discussed, but it’s at least worth a mention that those in charge thought enough of the characters and their stories to give them several attempts at TV productions. The first such attempt, Blondie, premiered on January 4, 1957 on NBC and ran for one season. Pamela Britton starred as Blondie with Arthur Lake reprising his famous role once again. Stuffy Singer, Florenz Ames, Ann Barnes, and Harold Peary were also in the cast. In 1968, CBS gave Blondie a turn with The New Blondie, which also ran for one season. Patricia Harty and Will Hutchins star as Blondie and Dagwood in this version with real-life married couple Jim and Henny Backus as Mr. and Mrs. Dithers with Pamelyn Ferdin and Peter Robbins playing the Bumstead kids. As you can tell from the short run of both series, neither managed to capture the charm of the Bumsteads the other versions of their stories did.

Chicago native Chic Young drew Blondie seven days a week from 1930 until his death in 1973 producing more than 15,000 strips. His legacy, continued by his son Dean Young, is one of warmth and humor and home. No matter the decades that have passed, people still visit with the Bumsteads – 90 years after meeting them. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the laughter during difficult times.

Chic Young’s BLONDIE turns 90! On September 8, 1930, in the midst of the Great Depression, the world was introduced to Blondie Boopadoop, a dizzy blonde flapper created by Murat Bernard 'Chic' Young.

Hugh Jackman’s world tour: a personal comment

Hi, everyone! I know I'm a bit late, but I'm here to post a not-so-brief coverage of Hugh Jackman's world tour The man, the music, the show, or at least of the performance I've been able to witness myself. To be precise, I attended the concert held inside the Hallenstadion, Zurich, on the 19th of May, which, by a lucky coincidence, also happened to be my 20th birthday. It's been a long trip by train to reach Zurich, and I want to deeply thank my mum for being the kindest parent in the world and going through all of this just to give me the best birthday present I'll ever have had. Oh, please bear with my English, which is less than stellar, unless I’ve written something absolutely incomprehensible (in which case, please don’t hesitate to contact me!). I must say I’m very grateful that Hugh, knowing he was in a non-Anglophone country, purposefully spoke at a very slow rhythm. Thanks for being so considerate and kind. [Edited to put all this wall of text under a cut]

First things first, I have to say I had never been to such a big event, and concerts I had previously attended were nothing like this one. I mean, the only non-classical music concerts I had been to before were shows by Cristina D'Avena and/or Giorgio Vanni (who are Italian national stars specialized in anime theme songs), where the relationship between the artist and the public was completely different, in the sense that it was a given that, after the performance, they would have got plenty of time to meet every fan who wanted to do so for signing sessions, answering questions etc., with no additional price or need to preorder whatsoever. Well, things are obviously different when one's level of fame goes from "national" to "global", so what I felt was lacking more from Jackman's show was a real contact with the public... save a few horribly lucky exceptions. I mean, it's not like I thought he could do a signing session with over twelve thousand fans, but all in all, I reckon that seeing a concert with so little first-hand contact is not all that different than seeing said artist through a screen (which, BTW, we still had to do, since it was not humanly possible to see Hugh and the dancers from the furthest places without the aid of the maxi-screens). I'm sorry to have to start this post with a negative opinion, but I also have to say that this was absolutely the only bad thing about this concert; that, and the fact that Hugh always had a shirt on. Because, otherwise, I was totally blown away by the majesty of the music, as always happens when my ears are graced with hearing Hugh's fabulous voice, with the added bonus of the spoken intermissions, which were endless fun to listen to (and quickly translate to mum).

The show, as probably expected, opened in medias res, with no sort of introduction (apart from a very brief on-screen montage of various scenes taken from Hugh's filmography), but directly on the notes of The greatest show, which, thanks to the meta nature of its lyrics, may very well work as the most fitting show-opener of all time. The first verses of the song already worked very well when the film started at the cinema, but were no less than perfect to introduce a real-life show like the one that Barnum was about to start in-universe. Unfortunately, the version performed was the one from the official soundtrack – I say "unfortunately" because I prefer the film version, where The greatest show is actually two different songs and we manage to hear sad!Barnum's amazing verses at the end of the first part – albeit tweaked a bit to cut Zac Efron's solo lines out. Nevertheless, this song is breathtaking in every rendition, as are all songs from TGS, at least in my opinion, so I was still blown away right from the start of the show, and I remained in a state of hyper-excitation for its whole duration. After the show-opener ended, the first spoken intermission came, which made us understand from the get-go that this was going to be a little bit more than a normal concert, with the inclusion of these short but interesting comedic numbers by the star. This sketch consisted in a weirdly long declaration of the importance of numbers, which in the end was only functional to Hugh declaring in a depressed tone that he's fifty. A fact which matters not, seeing how he is still the sexiest man alive (disclaimer: I am not a gerontophile by any means, I usually lust over younger men and women, but Hugh's sexiness is something that transcends this, also because he objectively looks at least a decade younger than he is) and how insanely athletic he is for his age, a thing which we can confirm first-hand with all the crazy dancing he did on stage... and dancing while singing, may I add. And always with his shirt on, to boot. Man, that must have been hard. Oh, and he also said that, in case we were those horrible people who left before the show ended to have an easier time with the traffic, he would tell us when there'd be only two songs left. I wonder who on earth could have been that insane.

Immediately following this, Come alive came next, with its usual irresistible catchyness. The only negative side is that PT didn't actually put his red coat on in the epic and sexy way we see him do in the film, but I think I can live without that. I really liked the following transition, because, right after starting the show with his latest musical project, Hugh took us back to the start of his thetrical career, telling us how he still can't believe he won the audition to portray Gaston in the Sydney 1995 version of the Beauty and the beast stage musical (the theatric adaptation of the 1991 Disney Classic), seeing how he still had to take singing lessons. Now, the following part was my personal favourite of the whole show, given the fact that B&B is, in my opinion, the very best film ever created, as well as featuring my eternal OTP and sporting Alan Menken (the greatest composer alive) at the very highest of his career, who graced us with the most breathtaking songs I've ever listened to; oh, and Marjorie Biondo is my favourite singer on earth, to boot. So, you may imagine just how elated I was at the perspective of my favourite film meeting one of my favourite singers/actors! I had obviously already listened to Hugh's rendition of Gaston's songs from the official recording of the Sydney cast, just how I also watched Beauty and the beast in every language it's ever been dubbed into, because that's just how much of a fangirl I am; the only other film I've got such an extensive experience of is Frozen. That being said, I honestly reckon that Hugh's singing skills have dramatically improved during the almost-24 years that passed between that recording and this concert, even if he was already an excellent singer at the start of his career! Well, to put things shortly, Gaston was the musical number that followed, and it was undoubtedly the one that I enjoyed the most. The one performed was obviously the stage musical version, which is a bit longer than the original film version because of its lenghty dancing-only intermission; well, the crew didn't actually dance on tables, but the atmosphere was still there, thanks to Hugh being very in character as the sexy but sexist asshole that is Gaston, and the choreography involving tons of fake beer. That being said, since there was no LeFou present, the song was presented in a somewhat abridged rendition, starting from the "When I was a lad..." lines, but then recuperating some of the earlier stanzas and putting them out-of-order before the finale. The visual highlight of the number was Hugh lifting one dancer per arm to prove that Gaston has indeed "got biceps to spare", but sadly he didn't open his shirt like Gaston does in the film to show that every last inch of him's covered with hair. That was the saddest thing ever, imho. Still, I can confirm Hugh Jackman as being on the second spot in my ranking of the best Gastons ever, right after the inimitable Carlo Lepore, not to mention the fact that he's the sole and only baritone I can accept as Gaston. I mean, the character really needs a basso to fit his physical appearance and personality, especially in the film, and a basso also sounds much better in Gaston's songs, but Hugh somehow manages to make a baritone Gaston credible, like no other's been able to. Well, to be honest, maybe he's helped by the fact that he portrayed him in a stage musical and not in a film, so he didn't have to adjust his voice in order to be perfectly glued to the already-present face of a character; still, I regard this feat as something amazing, and you can't change my mind. As a side note, my mum, too, was quite happy during this number, because Gaston was pretty much the only song in the whole concert that she already knew; after all, you can't not know Beauty and the beast if you live with me, since I watch it obsessively every month (I'm still amazed by the fact that the videotape has never broken).

After an introduction with his own music repertoire, Hugh then went on to a small series of covers from different artists, starting with Fred Astaire's classic The way you look tonight (taken from the film Swing time), and on with other songs I had never heard him perform; which was a very nice surprise, because I really didn't expect to listen to anything new that evening! He thanked Switzerland for existing because that's where his parents first met (awww), which means that the country is very important for him, and thanked his public for being there for him, especially those of us who came by train or by plane – which means that Hugh Jackman thanked me, I'm definitely not delusional. But next time come to Italy, pleeease! After this, he performed I've been everywhere, which seems to be a popular Australian song where the singer mentions the hundreds of cities in the country that he's visited; this number was particularly hilarious because Hugh randomly added Zurich to the mix, and because, during an instrumental break, he asked the cameraman to show the audience the small screen where he could read the lyrics... seems that even Hugh Jackman is a human being after all, who would've guessed? Next came two songs from the film Dear Evan Hansen (absolutely watch it if you haven't!), which happens to be scored by the same Benj & Paul of The greatest showman fame, starting with the melancholy, but at the same time uplifting, You will be found, which was my personal favourite among the unreleased covers of this concert. The second song was the tearjerker For forever, a romantic ballad that Hugh aptly dedicated to his wife, and even played by himself on the piano, because apparently there's nothing this man can't do. The number was accompanied by pictures of Hugh, Deborra and their children on the screens, at which I literally couldn't not cry of too many feels... And, at the end of the song, she even went up on-stage to hug and kiss her hubby. Gosh, I envy her so much even as I still totally ship her with her husband, but really, Deborra Lee-Furness may very well be the luckiest woman alive. Returning to Benjamin and Paul, he then told us of how they composed and wrote This is me during a plane trip, one single day before a workshop where the film would be pitched. He then proceeded to recount the famous anecdote of how Keala Settle, who should've only sung this song at the workshop and wasn't to portray Lettie in the film, stunned everyone with her performance so much that she was immediately chosen for the role. This intermission, of course, served the purpose of introducing the night's special guest: the audience seemed to explode when Hugh announced Keala's entrance, to the point that I think that quite a few of them hadn't read that she would make an appearance. Anyway, even without her beard on her impression as Lettie is incredible, and her rendition of This is me was as breathtaking as always (incidentally, she also sang Tom's lines as well as her own). After her number had ended, she briefly thanked everyone who gave her the opportunity to play Lettie, and even the character herself, since she helped her become more determined, all while weeping tears of joy, which caused Hugh to cry, and... I can't. I just can't. These two are so amazing together and I want to see them in thirty more films singing and being happy one with the other.

After Keala exited the stage, a medley consisting of three songs from Les misérables started, introduced by footage from the film of Colm Wilkinson as the bishop giving Valjean the candelabra (you know the scene). The first part of the medley consisted of the aptly titled Valjean's soliloquy, which Hugh soloed with all the amazing skill we've already witnessed in the film. What I wasn't expecting, though, was for a background singer to own the spotlight as a full-on soloist: the second part of the series was none other than I dreamed a dream, in a rendition where a singer called Jenna Lee-James played Fantine. And, oh my gosh... I still have to listen to all versions of the stage musical, but what I know for sure is that I liked this performance even better than the one from the film (sorry, Anne!). I didn't think I would come out of a one-man show determined to check out a never-heard-before artist, but here I am, and it was definitely worth it; Jenna has got such a melodious, angelic voice, that I'm sure you'll be enchanted by her, too. The last number of the medley, as well as the closer of the first act, was One day more (which is already more or less a medley by itself, lol), where basically everyone had the opportunity to shine: since this is such a big ensemble number where almost every main character has got some solo lines, many different background singers managed to step out of the shadow and be recognized for their raw talent. While I'm somewhat sad that Bring him home wasn't included in the concert, this song was a truly satisfying act-closer, thanks to it epic proportions and majesticity.

After a well-deserved pause of twenty minutes for the artists, the second hour-long act opened with the cameraman gracing us with a glorious zoom-in on Hugh's butt (though I prefer his buttshots as Wolverine because here he was sadly wearing his trousers); it doubled as sexy and hilarious when the cameraman started to zoom out, only for Hugh to reprimand him and ask him to keep the focus on. By the way, at this point Hugh was already in-costume as Peter Allen, which means that he was wearing that absurdly sparkling jacket, so unfortunately it was a bit difficult to look at him without being blinded by all the *sparkle sparkle*. The initial musical numbers of the second act consisted in a series of freaking seven songs composed by Peter in various occasions and then posthumously used for the biographical stage musical The boy from Oz (I'm writing it here so that I don't have to repeat the various songs' origins every time), for which Hugh played the protagonist role in the Broadway version. The first one was obviously the legendary Not the boy next door, which was as spectacular as you can imagine, with the highlight consisting in Hugh taking the sparkling jacket off (for which my eyes thanked him in every possible sense) and spend the better part of the medley in a bright red shirt. All in all, this was probably the funniest number of the show; but then came the most irritating part, where Hugh invited a random man from the public to dance with him, and by "dance" I mean "being impossibly close and touchy-feely to the point that it was almost hard to distinguish where one ended and where the other started". I reckon it would've been sexy if the other person had been slightly hotter (for example, Hugh Jackman on Zac Efron brings infinite possibilities to mind), but he was just your regular middle-aged man, so no, there wasn't much fanservice for everyone except for him. I mean, Hugh even stroked. his. chest. Not fair. While rationally I know that it could never have been me because 1) I was as far away from the stage as you can get, since we bought the most economic tickets, and 2) he was in-character as Peter, so he needed a man, I'm still impossibly envious of this random man who's got the greatest luck of us all for no particular reason. Jeez, maybe I'm unneedlessly bitter, but I almost hope he's hetero, 'cause if he's either gay or bisexual, then he'd really have got the biggest luck of his life. Not-so-funny sketch aside, the show went on with a preposterous medley of songs from Peter's repertoire (and, indirectly through the musical, also Hugh's own) with no further interruptions: these were, in order, Best that you can do, the only one recycled from a previous musical, namely Arthur; Don't cry out loud, a pop song that Peter originally composed for a female voice, so it was a bit unexpected to hear Hugh sing it; I honestly love you, another pop piece, this one originally sung by Olivia Newton-John (which happens to be Hugh's childhood idol, by the way); Quiet please, there's a lady on stage, this one written, composed and sung by Peter himself; the iconic I go to Rio, where we found out that Hugh's red shirt actually concealed another layer of clothing – that is, the hilariously iconic pineapple shirt (and yes, he did use the maracas); and Tenterfield saddler, with which the medley closed. As previously mentioned, these songs were created by Peter for various different occasions, either for musicals or for more traditional albums, but were later reused for TBFO, sung either by Hugh-as-Peter or by other characters. All in all, this part was really enjoyable, and a totally deserved tribute to Allen's musical legend, even if one can question the inclusion of some minor pieces which kept the much more beloved I still call Australia home from being in the show.

After this, Hugh went on a speech about how dreams are important, and we know what this means: it's A million dreams time! The cutest thing is that this song was accompanied by a woman translating the lyrics into sign language... even though I must admit I struggle to conceive that a deaf would want to attend a concert, so the sense of the operation is a bit lost on me. Anyway, the version performed followed once again the soundtrack instead of the film, and once again I confess I prefer the latter, mainly because kid!Charity is also featured in it; on the other hand, it's true that the soundtrack version has got some additional verses, and the abrupt transition between the kid and the adult Barnum (which is much more nuanced in the film) is breathtaking. The parts were divided between Hugh Jackman as adult!PT, Jenna Lee-James as adult!Charity and another female singer whose name I'm desperately searching for as kid!PT. This song, which was already one of my absolute favourites, is still amazing in this rendition, but Jenna is possibly even better than Michelle (who is awfully talented in her own right), and now I really want to hear her sing Tightrope.

Following this, it was the turn for another long medley, this time a set of five covers from classic US musicals; this part of the show was introduced by Hugh confessing that he's got a very difficult upbringing... because there was only one TV channel when he was a kid, so he watched the same things over and over again (not that we do things differently even now that we can choose among many different channels), which led to his infatuation for old-style musical comedies. The songs composing this medley were: Luck be a lady tonight from the film Guys and dolls, then made even more famous by Frank Sinatra; Gene Kelly's preposterously famous Singing in the rain from the homonyme film, complete with fake rain and real umbrellas; I got rhythm from the film Girl crazy; Fred Astaire's Stepping out with my baby from the film Easter parade; and Benny Goodman's crazily-paced Sing sing sing. Needless to say, Hugh totally owned all of these songs, and I think this is the part of the whole show where his unadultered love for singing, dancing and generally being on stage shone through the most; of course the man is an excellent cinema actor, but you can clearly see that he's more elated when in a theatre or otherwise in front of an audience.

Immediately after came what was very probably the most physically prowing number for the cast, as well as the only non-sung one: after narrating that his brother was so much of an asshole that he discouraged him from taking dance lessons when he was a child, he proclaimed his happiness for having finally managed to study tip tap, which transitioned into a full-fledged tip tap routine with accompanying background music. This was admittedly the part of the show that I enjoyed the least, even if I did like it well enough (that's just to say how much I love this concert), because of the lack of singing and because I'm not the biggest fan of tap dancing. The funniest thing is that, at the end of the routine, Hugh exclaimed: <<Do you think that Ryan Reynolds could do that?>> and then did his Wolverine shtick using the battery sticks. Absolutely amazing. Oh, and after this exhausting number he turned back to drink, and even lampshaded the fact that we could take advantage of his tiredness to enjoy the view.

Then some brief footage from Australia was shown to introduce the members of a humanitarian organization called "Nomad two worlds", which made up the serious part of the show: the number in question consisted of a few men singing while two other men played the didgeridoo and a woman recited a poem. I should mention that all of these people were Aboriginals. After the end of the performance, it was explained to us that the woman who was on stage next to Hugh was actually a member of the Australian parliament who had a key role when their nation finally asked official forgiveness to the Aboriginals for the prosecution of their people. It was a very touching moment, indeed. With this over but still keeping on theme with Australia, Hugh performed a cover of Somewhere over the rainbow from the film The wizard of Oz (like his colleague and friend Nicole Kidman did in that film), and I wouldn't be lying if I said that I honestly prefer him over Judy Garland.

Then cam the most unexpected number of the whole concert, i.e., a cover of Mack the knife from Bertolt Brecht's Three-penny opera, which maybe would've fit better earlier in the programme; after which, Hugh actually told us that there were only two songs left, in case anyone wanted to leave early (I mean, does he think we’re crazy?). The following one was From now on, which I honestly expected to be used as the show-closer, but was nevertheless incredibly breathtaking; this is my favourite song of The greatest showman, in particular because it lets Hugh Jackman show everyone that he's truly the best belter of the world. From now on is also one of the two cases in which I prefer the soundtrack version of the song over the one from the film, since, like Tightrope, it features a bunch of additional verses. Unfortunately, though, Hugh performed an abridged version of the song, only starting with "I drank champagn with kings and queens...", maybe because it would've been difficult to hear him during the first part of the piece, which is sung while whispering. Anyhow, it was still exciting as heck, and the background dancers were even more amazing than usual. And, right when I was left asking myself what the final number would be, Hugh started singing another piece written, composed and sung by Peter Allen (albeit this time not in-character) and then used for TBFO; namely, Once before I go, which is incredibly fitting as a show-closer thanks to its lyrics. Thus the concert ended, with the main star, the special guests, the singers, the dancers and the orchestra bowing in front of the audience. I was appalled by the lack of an encore, and especially by the fact that no one in the public was apparently screaming for one like you usually do at a concert, but I was still utterly satisfied by the experience. Every member of the crew was simply fantastic, not just Hugh, and I'm very happy I've been so lucky to witness this show. ...I'm just still wondering why What a beautiful morning wasn't included in the programme, nor any other song from Oklahoma. That's jarring, I think.

Believe me, I would've totally stayed and bought some souvenirs, if it weren't for mummy, who wanted to go straight to bed; but, after all, she's already done so much for me, in exchange for nothing, that I can hardly believe it. She is the person I have to thank the most for this out-of-the-world trip and I couldn't be happier of being her daughter. So, many thanks to Hugh Jackman and all the others who made this concert possible, but even more thanks to the only one who made me being at this concert possible. Anyway, I simply cannot wait for Hugh to come back where he belongs to, now that his partecipation in The music man has been announced; I obviously won’t be able to go to Broadway to see the musical, but you can be sure I’m going to purchase the soundtrack album as soon as it comes out. What can I say, I love the man and I’m very happy he’s been able to realize both his personal and professional dreams.

If you've come this far, congratulations! I hope you've liked this totally unprofessional coverage, and I'd love it if you could link me to someone who's written a similar piece about a different performance, because I'm very interested in knowing how they differ between one another. Thanks for reading!

Pop Culture Based on Novels Part 4: The Brave Little Toaster

November is drawing to a close. For those participating in this year’s National Novel Writing Month challenge, this final week is often a huge push as everyone tries to close out their November goals. Hopefully everyone is satisfied with their progress and finishes the month with a bang! At the very least, you should feel proud of yourself for making the effort to set type to page.

In solidarity with those of you taking on this challenge, we’re spending the month taking a look at pop culture narratives based on novels. Last week, we covered the popular TV crime drama, Bones, which came to a satisfying conclusion earlier this year. Today, we’re discussing a pop culture work that has been around since my own childhood, one which I never would never have guessed was based on a novel: The Brave Little Toaster.

A Hard Sell

The 1987 film The Brave Little Toaster was based on a novella written by Thomas M. Disch titled The Brave Little Toaster: A Bedtime Story for Small Appliances, published in 1980. When he first approached publishers with his idea, they were reluctant to publish the story. In an interview with Strange Horizons, Disch states that the publishing companies believed that the notion of talking appliances was simply too farfetched for children to enjoy. Disch found their concerns to be ridiculous, considering the number of talking animal stories on the market. He persisted, and after publishing the story in  The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, he finally managed to get Doubleday to take up the publication through a five-novel contract that they had with him. By then, the film was already being worked on.

Disch was a skilled writer who produced both poetry and prose during his lifetime. His works include The Genocides (his first novel, published in 1965), The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of (winner of both the Hugo and Locus awards), and a sequel to The Brave Little Toaster, The Brave Little Toaster Goes to Mars, among other works. Disch was also part of the collaborative minds behind the 1987 text-adventure Amnesia released by Electronic Arts. He passed away in 2008, the result of suicide that may have been related to the passing of his partner of three decades, Charles Naylor, in 2005. Although Disch is gone, he lives on through his works.

The Death of a Flower

Near the end of my high school days, I decided to rewatch a few childhood favorites with my younger brother before I left for college. One of the films on the list was The Brave Little Toaster. I remembered it containing a large number of dark themes for a kid’s movie, and was intrigued to see how I felt about it as an adult. The darkest scene was the horrifying junkyard scene where broken down cars sing about their lives before being smashed down by a crusher. Thinking of this scene in particular, we decided to amuse ourselves by counting how many characters in the movie died. By the time we passed 20, the game stopped being as funny.

One of the characters that I remember counting during our morbid game occurred toward the beginning of the movie. The appliances find themselves in a meadow, where they run into some trouble with the local wildlife and get separated. While trying to find the other appliances, Toaster stumbles upon a flower growing alone in a single ray of sunshine. Upon seeing its own reflection in the toaster’s shiny surface, the flower falls in love with its new false companion and tries to get the toaster to stay with it in the clearing. Toaster, feeling uncomfortable and needing to find the other appliances, brushes the flower off and retreats from the clearing. After losing its companion, the flower is seen wilting, seemingly unable to continue living after discovering how lonely it had been. The scene stood out to me due to the symbolism of a flower (often symbolic of innocence) dying after falling in love (with itself?).

I was surprised to learn that this same flower shows up in the novel. In the book, it is a daisy that speaks in verse. When she sees herself in Toaster’s reflection, she imagines the reflection is a male flower and falls in love. I haven’t read the novel myself, so I don’t know if this scene ends with the flower’s death.

Gender Discussions

A notable difference between the book and the movie revolves around gender. In film, it is often difficult to create characters with no genders due to voice acting. Voice actors typically have distinctly gendered voices, and the characters they voice often take on those genders even if the connection is unintended. The same goes for the Brave Little Toaster film. The appliances have distinct genders and pronouns in the film due to the constraints of voice acting.

The novel is not limited by these same constraints. The appliances have no genders in the novel. This is highlighted by a scene that doesn’t make it into the film in its entirety. Fans of the film might remember a scene where Blanket is blown away from the group by a terrible storm after setting up as their tent for the night. After an exhausting night, the appliances find Blanket in a tree and work together to bring him back down. The scene plays out a bit differently in the novel.

When Blanket blows away in the storm, it is a pair of squirrels that find it named Harold and Marjorie. The squirrels help rescue Blanket, and get a chance to meet the rest of the appliances as well. Upon discovering that the appliances have no gender, the squirrels are baffled by the concept. A discussion about having no gender is an interesting concept to find in a kid’s book from the 80’s, but it is not a surprise for Disch’s works. The Poetry Foundation notes that Disch’s work was often known for containing “gender-bending conceits”.

Surprising Moments from the Film

As with any film adaptation of a print-based work, the novel and movie differ significantly from one another. The basic plot, however, is relatively the same: the appliances find themselves separated from their Master and set out to find him so that they can continue to serve him. Their adventures take many twists and turns along the way. I don’t know about the book, but the film offers many startling moments that you won’t find in children’s movies today. Here are a few of my favorites:

Aneurysm. In the beginning of the film, the appliances get into an argument with a grumpy old air conditioner. The oldtimer tells the appliances that they shouldn’t try to find the Master, and continues to berate them with unnecessarily unkind words. When they stand up to the AC-unit, it flies into a rage that causes it to overheat and explode. The appliances feel bad for the now dead unit, but move on with their journey.

The Junkyard scene. This is perhaps one of the most memorable scenes in the film due to its terrifying and dark nature. As mentioned earlier, this scene takes place in a junkyard and features a number of cars singing about their amazing lives before being crushed to death by a scrap machine (you get to watch them as they are crushed). The vehicles all know what is coming, and an unlucky few of them located close to the scrap machine find themselves constantly sprayed by the crushed remnants of their fellow anthropomorphic automobiles. To add darkness to the scene, the cars also sing about how worthless they are. Looking back, I feel like this scene was where a significant portion of my brother’s and my death list came from.

Boobs. I don’t know why I noticed this image the last time that I watched the old static-ridden VHS my family has owned since the 90′s. The picture appears for only a second or two when the Rabbit-ears TV set tries desperately to capture the attention of the Master and his girlfriend. The man in the box rips several photos out of a filing cabinet while ranting about how amazing the junkyard is for used appliances. One of his photos (the one on the top of the stack) features a nude woman with star-shaped pasties over her nipples. In more recent editions, a bikini or bra was added to the photograph.

Sacrifice. In the end of the film, the Master finds himself on a collision-course with the scrap machine that previously spent an entire scene crushing terrified automobiles. He’s trapped, and a crushing seems inevitable until Toaster throws itself into the crusher’s gears in order to save him. It is smashed and twisted between the gears, but ultimately stops the machine and saves the Master, seemingly at the cost of its own life.

The above moments aren’t all of the dark moments in The Brave Little Toaster, and I can’t yet say whether or not the novella carries similarly dark themes. Given that Disch is also known for works that offer dark views of the future, it is possible that his novella contains similarly dark themes. Given this intriguing mystery, I know what I’m reading next.

Do you have a favorite novel that you’d love to see adapted into another medium, or know of any that have already received adaptations? Leave a shout-out in the comments! You can also connect on Twitter at @Popliterary, or send a message. 

Be sure to check out my home Wordpress page for bonus content! 

And as always, if you have a literary device you want to know more about, or a game, comic, show, or movie that you want to see make an appearance on the blog, leave a shout-out in the comments!

Hi Kieron, long time reader, third time questioner here. You've posted previously that you research, plan and essentially 'story/worldbuild' for quite some time before putting hand to keyboard. My question is, how do you know when you're ready to start writing? Are you like the Alexander Hamilton of character development wherein you're "never satisfied" or do you suck it up and write for story and passions sake?!

Okay, I’m just going to have a ramble on this one.

Well, “never satisfied” is an inescapable part of doing any art. Whatever you do, it’s never enough. So get used to that.

Research and Worldbuilding aren’t 1:1 things, it’s worth remembering. It’s also worth remembering there are many philosophies on this one, and much of what follows has exceptions.

At least in part to the Tolkien-derived fantasy sorts, there’s been a swing to “All worldbuilding is terrible. Just make it up as you go along” as a philosophy among the more credible writers. I have some time for that.

The problem with getting in love with the worldbuilding is that worldbuilding is simultaneously i) a lot of work ii) not actually writing a story iii) possibly actually causing you to write a worse story due to the amount of effort you’ll take to cram all your carefully wrought worldbuilding in, which inevitably distorts your story.

(I say “Inevitably.” That’s not true. Let’s say there’s a pressure there, and it can be seductive.)

Point ii) is the main one. Worldbuilding is, I suspect, best done with a sense of direction.

I was on a panel at NYCC a couple of years yet, with Marjorie Liu. She was talking about Monstress, and how hard it was for her to get started on it. She had so much of it, but no story. Fundamentally, she realised it was that her lead wasn’t there. She didn’t have a character. She had a middle-earth but no Frodo. You can’t do anything before you have a Frodo.

I visibly had a head-banging moment on the panel, as I realised that was the problem with the project I was then working on. I had an intricate setting I was very fond of, and a story structure to explore it, but there wasn’t a Frodo. I needed a Frodo.

(This was the project I put on the back burner when I had the idea for Spangly New Project.)

Point being, always be aware of why you’re doing it. Also be aware that with all the worldbuilding in the (er) world, you’ll set fire to some of it when writing the book. Some of the best bits of writing is when you’re exploring a setting, and the more you front load that before you really know what you want the setting to DO the more you’re doing work which you will either i) bin or ii) distract you from what your story is actually about. If you’re writing Fiction, keep your Frodo in mind.

(It’s also worth noting that while I’m implicitly talking about Fantasy/Sci-fi settings, worldbuilding is in all projects.)

Research is a different beast. Research is abstractly infinite. For a modern period, there’s more resources than any individual would be ever familiar with. Worse, there’s as much takes on it as evidence. You research any singular event in (say) World War II and you’ll have all these historians takes on it, plus whatever commentators outside it and so on. Whichever Truth you go with, some people will think it’s untrue.

(It’s different for hard facts, of course, but even then you’ll find that historically speaking, many facts are less hard than you’d hope.)

There is a school of writing which basically argues you should do no research and look up facts as and when you need them. I have some sympathy with it, and any writing will involve that. Hell, even something as ludicrously over-worked as THREE involved me looking up a bunch of stuff, not least as I forgot it. Also, Professor Hodkinson going “Er… no” a lot.

It’s also worth noting that excess research has many of the perils of excess worldbuilding. The more you know about a period, the more likely you are to be tempted to include it, for no reason at all, or hang your stories off things which someone simply won’t know or care about. I fall into this one a lot, I suspect, but I do try to mitigate it.

However, the “no research, just write” philosophy does cause its own problems, as exemplified by Mitchell and Webb.

If you’ve done no research and just look for facts you have no idea of anything, you can end up with the above. If you’ve got no idea what the questions you should be asking, you’re fucked.

(It’s also worth noting that the ability to edit the truth is also necessary in any complicated story. What is a fact worth defending? If you’re writing a military or spy book, or anything with a complicated chain of command, I guarantee that many dozens more people would be involved in any given decision. Almost everyone narrows that down, as to render a story vaguely comprehensible. Look at Uber, where we basically get a handful of high ranking people on each side. Everyone does that.)

My research is normally driven towards a single goal - getting a feel for a setting and finding my story. Often I have a core suspicion of what my story will be as I start (in fact, it can be hard to angle your research without it) but there’s a freedom to change that based on what you discover. In the case of the 455 special, I suspected I’d do a story about one of the two latter day sacks of Rome, but I didn’t know which. My research was, to some degree, about “auditioning” whether the gothic or the vandal sack would express what I was trying to express better.

(There is also the negative research - as in, finding that the story idea simply can’t be made to fit the period at all.)

When you’ve got the idea of what the story *is* would be the point I would suggest starting writing. The 1920s special has been problematic, for reasons I’ll probably go into in the issue notes, as while I had it conceptually nailed down to start with, the specific execution was elusive. I read enough until that clicked into space, and then I could abstractly start writing it (using research to fill the gaps). 

Really, the deadline is the greatest motivator. Research and Worldbuilding is also a form of procrastination. “Oh, I need to write something now. I better give it a shot” is as basic as it gets.

The other thing you ask about - planning stories - is a sufficiently different topic to save for another time, I think.

QAnon Conspiracy podcast link https://www.buzzsprout.com/1016881/4783994

jason blazakis: (00:00) It's exploded, unfortunately, via social media and it has inspired individuals to carry out acts of violence. dana lewis - host : (00:13) Hi everyone. And welcome to our 20th edition of backstory. I'm your host, Dana Lewis. This backstory is about a right w dana lewis - host : (00:13) ing conspiracy group that got started online. It's called QNR. There is nothing funny about paranoid conspiracy theories winging their way across the internet. They influence people to think things like COVID-19 is a virus created by the so-called dark state in America to remove president Trump from the white house or Democrats like Hillary Clinton or part of a child sex ring, torturing children. There may be hundreds of thousands of Q Anon followers, including the guy who recently drove his truck with weapons through the Gates of Rido hole prime minister Trudeau's residence in Ottawa, Canada, and in 2016, a man armed with a rifle, stormed comet ping pong pizza in Washington, believing the Democrats were running a child sex ring there. And then there was the case of a man who murdered a reputed mafia boss on Staten Island, who now says in court, he was a follower of Q Anon. And if you look closely, you will see Q posters and t-shirts at Trump rallies. Speaker 1: (01:25) A curious theme popped up at the president's campaign style rally last night signs t-shirts stating we are Q or Q Anon. Speaker 2: (01:34) Some even think Trump is Q and he seems to speak to his disciples. Yeah, Speaker 3: (01:40) This represents what store, what store mr. President, dana lewis - host : (02:08) Dangerous stuff. So here we are in an election year and the FBI identifies conspiracy theories as potential domestic terrorism threats, specifically citing Q Anon, a group that believes there is a deep state working against president Trump. The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories, very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve into a modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts. And that's why on this edition of backstory, we are doing a Q story because there are people running for Congress who are followers of Q Anon. I kid you not like Marjorie Taylor green, a Georgia Republican, unknown : (02:54) You know, about the Q movement. Are you familiar with what that is? I Speaker 4: (03:00) Am familiar with that. So I'm very familiar with it though. Do you think he was a bad thing or, or is it just sort of, I mean, what's your opinion, honestly, everything that I've heard of Q I hope that I hope that this is real Speaker 5: (03:13) Then Lauren bull bird who just won the GOP nomination in Colorado's third district. Speaker 4: (03:19) The other thing that Q says, and this is the stuff that we don't, we just don't want to think about. Um, and many Americans don't want to know about, but Q is saying that they participate in pedophilia and spirit cooking and spirit cooking. They had that spirit cooking dinner. That was something else that came out in those. Um, John Podesta, WikiLeaks email re release. Remember that Q is trying to tell people on these forums unfortune, and he's trying to tell people the truth. dana lewis - host : (03:50) So to understand whether Q Anon is a cult or a new religion or a widespread mental disorder, this Jason Blazakis written a piece for the Soufan intelligence group on QAnon. And he joins me now from California. How are you Jason? I'm doing well. Um, Dana, it's, it's good to be here. I'm on your show. The Q in the Anon, meaning the Anon is anonymous and who the heck is a cute, yeah, that's a, that's a, it's a great question. Even the people who call themselves a nons are essentially followers of Kew. Don't really know they have a, there's a lot of speculation ranging from president Donald J. Trump could be Q, um, John F K a, um, um, Kennedy jr. Um, didn't really die in a plane accident. He could be cute. Um, he could be a guy and, um, the government with a military intelligence background with, uh, accused security clearance, which means, you know, when you have Q clearance and the governments, you have nuclear, um, access secrets, uh, it could be any number of individuals. jason blazakis: (05:02) Um, you know, who could be que, um, you know, I have my own theory, my own theory, which hasn't really been written about. And I, I may write something on it later is that it's, it's part of a large disinformation campaign, um, organized by a state to stir up trouble. Um, and, and the way that Q communicates, um, certainly has led to a lot of individuals becoming adherence to, uh, this, this movement, a state, a state, I have some concern that it could be part of a state disinformation effort. And if you look at the timing of the creation of cue, um, it was created, um, in essentially the first queue and non post was in 2017. Um, not that long after, um, president Trump's election, less than a year after it. And, and, uh, the focus of, of Q is to ensure that, uh, president president Trump stays in power as he does battle against a deep state network of individuals who are trying to use SERP his power. dana lewis - host : (06:05) And you're going to tell me it's another Russia conspiracy? jason blazakis: (06:08) I wouldn't go there yet. Um, but I do have some concerns that at a minimum, at a minimum, um, there are States like Russia who may be amplifying the messages of the individuals who feel that they are Q Anon followers or adherence, um, making it look like it's a movement larger than it really is. Um, but one thing I hope to do, and I wear many hats. I work at the Soufan center as you introduced me, Dana as a research fellow, but I also am a professor at the Middlebury Institute of international studies in Monterey, California is we're going to start studying the syntax of the messages related to, um, Q Anon, um, when Q and nom posts a new message. Um, it's called a huge drop. Um, generally, um, in the past he has posted in, um, various, uh, uh, freedom boards, like four Chan, eight Chan, eight Kuhn, and then study sort of the, that transition in terms of language, um, how it's evolved, um, to get any kind of insights as to whether or not, um, the syntax could be traced back, um, with Stickley, um, perhaps to another country, maybe this is an individual, um, that's publishing, um, in writing that that is not really using, um, English or does not have English as a first language. Speaker 5: (07:21) So this is one hypothesis I have that I'm really interested in exploring here. Um, dana lewis - host : (07:28) Why Jason, are you taking your time because you're a serious analyst to write about this group and why am I taking my time? Cause I think I'm a serious correspondent to broadcast something about them. Speaker 5: (07:39) I mean, they have suddenly been held Speaker 6: (07:44) With serious regard by a lot of different agencies, including the FBI. Speaker 5: (07:48) Yeah, absolutely. So I guess a little background about myself. I have been in the federal government for 20 years, I guess Q a non folks will automatically say, whatever I have to say is, is null and void because of a significant trust they have with individuals who worked in the federal bureaucracy. You're another one of the deep state. Yeah. They said, yeah. And I left the DC deep state. So maybe that makes me a little bit better than those who remained in. Right. But I worked in the counterterrorism Bureau at the state department studying terrorists. Um, you know, whether it's ISIS, Al Qaeda, um, understanding who the individuals are within these networks. So the U S government could sanction them. Um, and to sanction individual or organization, you have to study them deeply. Um, so I've always been interested in extremist movements. Um, you know, 10 and a half years, I was following counter related issues, primarily focusing on, um, uh, Salafi jihadist groups. jason blazakis: (08:40) But in 2016, the British government actually made a decision to designate a white supremacist group called national action. And it was from that point forward, I started looking at the more of the radical right, mill you in which Q Anon certainly sits. Um, I've become more in Q Anon. Um, given that background, um, more recently over the last couple years, um, because it's attracted a very wide following, um, it's exploded unfortunately, um, via social media. Um, and it has inspired individuals to carry out, um, acts of violence. Um, one was the situation in New York where an individual killed a mafia boss, um, because, uh, he felt that he needed to do justice. Um, by carrying out that attack against the mafia bus, you had a situation and, um, the Hoover dam area in Arizona where a Q Anon follower, um, parked his vehicle and blocked the bridge, um, and he was armed. jason blazakis: (09:37) And then you, the more recent incident showing next to a non has gone overseas, where you had an individual who was consuming, um, to a non content, um, and people could argue, um, other experts say, well, he wasn't that actively involved in Q Anon. He only had a few posts. Um, but that individual carried out, um, a ramming, um, attack against the prime minister of Canada premise or Trudeau's house in Rideau. Um, and thankfully, um, he was stopped. He couldn't do harm. Um, he was well armed, um, but 30 minutes before he actually did that attack, um, where he worked on Instagram, he reposts that one of the conspiracy theories that, um, QNR has put forward before talking about so-called event two Oh one, talking about a pandemic, talking about COVID and how all of this is being created by essentially, um, a deep state, what bill Gates in cahoots. Speaker 5: (10:31) Right. So, um, for me, I'm running to blink my eyes fester and fester Jason, as we get lost in the mud here with this, but I mean, they're pretty incredible events. And then there was one with pizza gate, right? He's one of the highest profile one. What would you absolutely. So pizza gate, um, predated Q Anon, but a lot of people point to pizza gate as being sort of the, the father of the, the Q Anon, um, conspiracy and, and pizza. Gate's really important to understand in the context of Q Anon, because what Q Anon about is about as a conspiracy theory directly relates to the pizza gate conspiracy. So you had, um, an individual who was within the, um, um, uh, Hillary Clinton campaign who had essentially, um, his emails hacked. Um, his emails were published on WikiLeaks and 2016. Um, and in those emails, he's talking to the owner of a Washington DC pizzeria called comet ping pong. And in those, um, exchanges, um, there are discussions between the proprietor of comment thing, pop pizza, and, um, the campaign, um, individual Podesta, um, within the Clinton campaign. And they're talking about pizza, they're talking about toppings and there are conspiracy theorists looked and examined this language and felt that somehow that's code words for children, um, who are being exploited by adults essentially, um, Speaker 6: (12:06) That they believed that Hillary Clinton was deep in bold. Then Democrats were deep involved in holding children hostage and pedophiles and be assaulted. And that allegedly this, this man came to believe that that was taking place in the basement of the pizza store. Speaker 5: (12:23) Correct. So they're, they're the, the, the final thinking was essentially as in, at punk pizza, there is a basement where children are being held. There are part of a, um, you know, being captive part of a pedophilia ring run by, um, people like Hillary Clinton and Podesta, um, in this man from North Carolina was reading all this online and all of this was being discussed online and it felt he that take it upon himself morally to do something about that. So he traveled from Carolina to Washington, DC, armed [inaudible], um, started shooting, um, went downstairs to the basement, um, and didn't see any children. Um, there were no children there. Um, it was clearly, um, false information, Speaker 6: (13:04) Got his weapon, as I understand it kind of with the revelation of, Oh gosh, this actually isn't taking place. Right. But exactly the fact is that people like that on the internet come to believe some of these wild conspiracy things from Q a Speaker 5: (13:20) Oh, absolutely. People read this, not just individuals who are associated with pizza gate, which predated Q and on, but afterwards you had individuals who actually have taken action. And this is part of the reason why the FBI and the Phoenix field office, um, Q and on to be a domestic terrorism threat. Um, and I, I think for good reason, because individuals, particularly during a pandemic when people are trapped at home, um, they're reading information online about all these conspiracies. They feel helpless. And if they have some kind of secret understanding, um, which maybe these conspiracies, um, give them that they have some kind of secret understanding about this, like conspiracy has happening by the deep state, they could do something about it, um, because they now are empowered and they can take power back from these two are running the world, Speaker 6: (14:08) Be clear, Q Anon says there isn't really a pandemic. It's a concern. Well, I shouldn't say that they say it's a conspiracy created by the left, by the Democrats against president Trump. Speaker 5: (14:21) So you have individuals most certainly, um, uh, based on my research, a preponderance of individuals who are adherence or say that they believe Q Anon, um, guidance that believe that there is a plan demic. There was even a movie made by Q and non followers, um, called pandemic that said this was a stage by the new world order and people like George Soros, um, to essentially, um, you know, take power, um, and to eliminate eMoney enemies. Um, but in terms of the, the actual Q and on, um, the individual who posts, um, Q drops as they're called, um, essentially posts on the various boards, he's under like little coded messages from yeah. Coded messages that Anon, um, adherence, decode. He said that COVID-19 was real. Um, but it was a good thing be prepared for it. Um, and I think the thinking behind that as many decoders believe is that either Genesis for the beginning of what a non calls, the great awakening, many Speaker 6: (15:24) People are going to get this great awakening. And we're talking about a few dozen people on the internet, are you, Speaker 5: (15:30) And I know it's impossible to tell, but, you know, take a guess just it in the tens of thousands, or is it, I think, I think we're at least in the tens of thousands now, there's, um, you know, individuals who are essentially what they call it like red pilled, um, people who have seen the light, um, they see that there is first and foremost, a deep state that exists that is trying to, um, work as a secret cabal, um, to, uh, you serve the president, president Trump, who is essentially the white Knight of this, this movement. Um, and on the second part of this thinking is that if this great awakening occurs, once you see and become enlightened, um, there's going to be a battle for the soul of, of, of America. And you have to do something about it. And is there potentially an armed battle? Speaker 5: (16:18) Um, I look at Qanan as a cult, um, and cults, particularly Paul step leave. And apocalyptical like thinking, um, you know, things like a great awakening where there could be a battle between good and evil, um, you know, white hats versus black hats in the context of how [inaudible] describes them. Um, white hats being essentially the Q Anon followers, um, within the government who are doing battle against the black hats who are, um, sickness and part of this deep state conspiracy. Um, whenever you had to think about the world and Manichaean terms like human on puts forward, there is this definite risk of, of turning to a via apocalyptical like scenario. And if president Trump were to say lose, or it looks like he will lose, my fear is that you have to, and on adherence who may try to take, um, you know, matters in their own hands and carry out acts of violence to try to stop the, the, from the state to make sure the great awakening occurs or to stop those who are trying to stop the great awakening, Speaker 6: (17:16) Like the guy who went into the pizza store, they have been convinced, and they've been consuming this stuff Speaker 5: (17:23) They'll believe that this wasn't a fair election, but in fact it was something done by the deep state and they have, they have got to stand up maybe with weapons and fight it. Absolutely. And, and even, um, Q post on COVID-19, he said, um, this is going to be used by the Democrats to create COVID-19, to create mass hysteria. Um, and it's all of an eye towards the election. So Hugh himself is talking about COVID-19 in the, of the election, how Democrats could use it as essentially a bulwark against president Trump, um, and therefore making the election look illegal. And at the same time, you have the rhetoric of the president, of course, saying that, um, the, the president poll numbers aren't as bad as they're saying. Um, but if you have say male and voting, um, which would be a responsible thing to do during COVID-19, um, that that's somehow cast as a dispersion upon the possible results of the election. So I think the president himself unfortunately, has played in the hands of some of these two non followers by saying that the election itself is already perhaps not credible because of COVID-19. And because of the ideas behind Malin voting, which he said will lead to fraud. And if there's fraud related to the election, then president Trump loses because of fraud. That's going to be very upsetting to Q a non followers. Speaker 6: (18:37) So Jason, does the president unknowingly unwittingly plate Q a non followers, or do you think that he is aware of QA, Speaker 5: (18:48) Um, and actually dropped some Speaker 6: (18:51) Things that may benefit him in, in with certain things? Speaker 5: (18:55) Well, I'll tell you, Q Anon thinks the president is messaging secretly to them. Um, I have no evidence that the president believes that he somehow was secretly messaging to Q Anon, but if there were a couple of tweets, right, one was quarry, we had over a hundred team. The other one used something about with his friends in the UK who supported the UK and the queen, and saw that in Q Anon is a coated drunk. No, absolutely the Q and M people that see how you use quarantine and how you made us a hand gesture that looked like a queue. Um, but he has indeed retweet it. Um, Q Anon followers over a hundred plus times. I think last night I read through, um, media was maybe up to 145 times, um, Donald Trump jr. Eric Trump have tweeted and retweeted memes, um, and, um, other Q and non follower rhetoric before. So they're, they're, I think they're, they're not doing it because necessarily there are two and on followers, or believe in Q I think they're not just being careful with our social media feeds and then two and non followers, you know, being the conspiracy serious, they are read something into it. I'm like the president is signaling something special to us. Um, Speaker 6: (20:08) I understand that though, that sounds pretty sinister to me. Speaker 5: (20:12) They have retweeted tweets from Q and non followers and the president, I'm not Q and himself, but QNR followers adherence people on social media who believe in Q, um, and, and the president has retweeted them. Um, so, you know, he probably doesn't know that he's retreating Q and non followers. Um, I don't think he's being necessarily careful about what he retweets. Um, clearly he has a, uh, a capacity to, to retweet many things, um, later, which he has removed or deleted his own tweets, um, or his campaign team or the waste house have disassociated from those tweets. Or they've said that that's not really what he was meaning. Um, so I, I don't think tensional on purpose, um, by the press. I think it's unintentional, but the, the problem is because he's not careful about what he says over social media. It is really riling up these individuals who are not followers and then believe essentially in bolsters. The theory is that somehow president Trump is, um, perhaps to himself or trying to motivate, um, to a non people to support him in some fashion. And there is a political element to this too, beyond the Trump's. Um, you know, there are, um, last count, there was a journalist who said that there was more than 66 Q and non followers running for various state and federal offices. So you have this normalization that's occurring with Q Anon as well. And that makes it really dangerous. How many more than 60? Speaker 6: (21:45) I mean, I'm shocked by that. And I, I was reading in the Atlantic and they, by the way, they didn't call it a cult. They call it a new religion, Speaker 5: (21:55) The kind of religion. Yeah. There's religious overtones to it. Absolutely. They think it'll be adopted current at least Speaker 6: (22:02) 35 current or former congressional candidates have embraced Q according to an online tally, but a nonprofit media matters. Speaker 5: (22:12) Yeah. Yeah. And I think that same journalist who has continued to study this as they put it at 66 and there's another 30 plus who, um, are running for office right now, um, many, uh, lost already. Um, but people who were running to be become members of Congress. And I think there was one member, um, potentially, um, one individual that may get elected, um, out of Georgia memory serves, I forget her name off the top of my head, but you may actually end with a scenario where you have, um, a que non follower in Congress. Um, and that's the danger of, of this movement, um, that somehow it becomes more normalized. Um, a lot of people call it a fringe movement, but slowly, um, you have more and more people reading, um, consuming, watching videos like planned DEMEC who actually believe what's being written, um, and then may become followers themselves, or somehow by virtue of passing along this video to other people in their Facebook group, um, it becomes more of a normal thing. Speaker 5: (23:11) Um, and, and that's really dangerous storing a pandemic. You're taking it very seriously. Oh, absolutely. Um, you know, there are people who, who are trapped. Like I said, who are, we are living in uncertain times? Um, when you feel uncertain, you feel powerless. Um, conspiracy theories have resonance in ways in which can motivate individuals to join the movement or at worst, um, you know, become, um, an entity or individual who carries out violence on behalf of a moon because of something they saw online. Um, you know, pedophilia is a terrible thing. Um, and if people actually believe some of the things going on, like the most recent conspiracy theory put forward by Q Anon that somehow Wayfair the furniture company was selling essentially, um, material. Um, and, and, um, for really high prices, $13,000 for a stack of cabinets, um, people are saying, well, um, that's some part of a ring of, of children being sold by, by Wayfair, which was completely wrong. And, but it took off on social media and had an impact on Wayfair and they had to respond. So, um, you see this danger, if you actually think a child's in danger, um, you want to do something about it. And if you believe that conspiracy, um, you may actually do something about it and there was no, there, there, and that's the challenge with, with Q and on, and, and the threat it poses, please, Louisiana, Speaker 6: (24:34) Like wildfire through the internet, um, over, over several years now. Right. So now you, um, from, from Reddit to Facebook, to Twitter, Twitter now has taken down some 7,000 accounts, um, linked to Q Anon. Do you think that that's a good idea? Is it going to do anything or is this just sort of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted? Speaker 5: (25:00) Um, I think unfortunately it's more the latter, but I will say it was a good decision, um, to take down, um, in authentic, um, Twitter accounts and handles associated with the Q and M movement. And I think, um, in addition to taking down those 7,000 and removing them outright, um, probably I think I read 150,000 we're, we're limited in some way as well. That's a positive action Reddit, um, was the first out there in 2018 to take action against Q Anon. Um, particularly those that were, uh, putting out conspiracies on the subreddit board known as our conspiracy board. Um, and then you have YouTube actually I noticed about three or four weeks ago, and this could be happening much longer than that, but [inaudible] videos now have underneath of them a box that says like, this is a far right conspiracy, um, which it is, and it's good. Speaker 5: (25:49) They have that fact checking box. And then I think we probably both read that Facebook may be taking a decision soon, um, to remove to a non-related, um, groups as well, um, to non is all over Facebook, um, private groups and public groups in the context, from my perspective, these are good decisions because these are mainstream social media platforms that touch so many more people than say four Chan, um, eight Chan or eight Q and ever have. Um, so you're, you're I think, inherently making their reach, um, less impactful by taking those actions. My fear is though, um, it's, it's a little too late, um, and they may migrate to another service, uh, and, and the, the, the conspiracy will continue on and particularly problematic is the fact that they may have a member of Congress or people on state assemblies in the United States who are, um, politicians who could be advocating things, um, from a policy perspective that are problematic. Speaker 5: (26:44) Um, so yeah, I think again, barn door, um, was closed after a horse left. Like you said, Dana. Well, I mean, that's always been the intelligence debate with, uh, terrorism. Do you, do you allow these things to kind of bubble at the surface so that you can monitor them or do you pull them off and push these people underground? And it makes it much more difficult to get after some of the more extremists that, that may be contemplating violence. Yeah. Now that is the dilemma. You remove them from open source platforms in which you could observe them. And they go to the encrypted communications in which they're more difficult to track that is, that is the dilemma. From my perspective, I'd rather have fewer individuals as part of a movement, um, and have a more difficult time monitoring them. Um, you know, you still can go into those encrypted apps. Speaker 5: (27:40) You can break the encryption, you can insert an individual who pretends to be part of a group and it gets bad at, um, online and can still, you know, infiltrate that encrypted network. Right. Um, in, in that chat group where if it's telegram that joined that telegram group. So there are still law enforcement tools, um, time honor, that can infiltrate in groups that are more secretive in nature. Um, from my perspective, I'd rather just have them fewer have fewer recruits and members in adherence. And I think that's why I think the actions taken by Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, um, Silicon Valley writ large like Reddit's action in 2018. It's very important because it can limit the, the number of individuals who are consuming this information. I just want to also add tech talk has unfortunately become another Avenue in which the pizza gate conspiracy, which a lot of people thought was dead in 2016, had a second life because it took off, um, and tick tock again. Speaker 5: (28:34) And then tick talk actually made a decision to, I think, remove the hashtag, um, pizza gate, um, remove some of the other Q Anon hashtags. And that's really important because tech talk is now sort of the viral social media platform. And it seems like they're taking early action against that, um, proliferation over their platform, which is a good thing. Jason Blazek is with the Soufan center, mind blowing stuff, and really intriguing. And thank you so much for taking the time to kind of lay this out for me. No, my pleasure Dana is a pleasure to be with you and to be with your listeners in may Speaker 2: (29:13) Follower of Q Anon was arrested in New York, attempting to assassinate democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, a woman from Illinois armed with a dozen knives. When Trump tweets about the dark state, he feeds conspiracy theories that are not harmless Spiricin theories and their close cousin, fake news are socially destructive and dangerous, especially for those with mental illnesses. You and I will no be hearing more about Q and even if we don't care to I'm Dana Lewis, thanks for listening. Please subscribe to backstory and share it. We need your support to make this grow, and we'll talk to you again soon. [inaudible].