Dumas mitc today at 5 20 pm im gay sorry
Philosofishal by Carrie Tangenberg
A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams
Although this one wasn’t for my classics publication club, I have wanted to read it for years. As a engage, it’s a relatively fast read, so I was able to tuck it in among other readings.
Spoilers possible.
A Streetcar Named Desire may be a enhanced, more entertaining play than The Glass Menagerie, but together they suggest a pattern of playwright fixation on the destruction of fragile, helpless women at the hands of hapless or hostile men. Yet, although critics claim that Stanley is the catalyst for Blanche’ s tragedy, I see undeniable, culpable shades in the sorrows of sister Stella and would-be husband Mitch. Besides these influences, a case can be made that Blanche needs little nudging by anyone to plunge her into her ultimate abyss, a place she seems headed for from the start. Either way, the question is posed clearly before the tragedy is complete: Who is to blame?
The tragic arc is a twisted wood root. Plunging through the rich soil of clever, careful staging, eerie overlays of music and echoed sounds, and crisp, character-making dialogue, the reader (not just the play
What Do You Want Me to Write About?
Those of us who write crime novels will happily portray the most heinous criminal activities as ‘normal’ behaviour for our bad guys, even though we’re not murderers, rapists, or terrorists ourselves, and abhor such things in the authentic world.
How about a discussion on how far writers of fiction can or should go (and how to go about it convincingly) in the pursuit of realism and credibility when writing from the POV of the ‘bad guy’, or even that of other characters whose ethical, political, religious, spiritual, or other beliefs and behaviours differ or even conflict with the author’s own?
My current WIP is nominally finished, but awaiting the editor’s views and suggestions. Its plot features a group of extreme racist terrorists. Scenes written from the POV of those within the group portray attitudes and use racist terminology I’d never use in my own life, but it’s the way these sinister thugs think and speak.
Other, more palatable characters, obviously act and speak very differently, and those scenes written from their POV reflects this too, though some of my police officers tend to utilize bad language a lot (as my research has shown they do
Today A Continuous Lean put up a post entitled “The Enduring Appeal of Ostentatious Loafers.” What does “ostentatious” allude to in this context? Why to bit loafers, Prince Albert slippers, and Belgian Shoes.
Here’s the preppiest passage:
… By the eighties the Gucci loafer came to represent the pretentious bravado of pastel wearing undesirables. From a sartorial standpoint, the shoe sat dormant for a decade plus (although to be fair, it never did lose it’s ironclad influence on unwavering preppy hotbeds like the UES, Palm Beach, and the Cape) before it was embraced by neo-trads who were infatuated by anything that once graced the pages of Take Ivy. While today the Gucci bit loafer is not as ubiquitous as it once was, it still remains a favorite of those men that could argue for hours about their favorite Whit Stilman film, and are forever in search of a girlfriend named Muffy.
Head over here for the entire story. And to appease the less-ostentatious members of our readership, stay tuned til tomorrow, when we’ll present a gallery of vintage Allen Edmonds images sent over by the company. — CC