Articles“I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar…ish.”

Posted on September 28, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[This piece was originally posted at Bitch Flicks.]

“Why should a woman who is healthy and strong/blubber like a baby if her man goes away/weepin’ and a-wailin’ how he’s done her wrong/that’s one thing you’ll never hear me say.”

These are strong words from Laurey Williams in Oklahoma!, a young woman who’s just overheard that her romantic sparring partner, Curly McLain, is attending the box social dance with someone else. She declares, “What do I care about that?” and then launches into “Many a New Day,” leading all of the other women in an ode to independence from those heartbreakers who aren’t worth their time.

The song is catchy, spirited, inspiring – and total bullshit. For it’s not long until Laurey is right back to crying over Curly, flirting with Curly, and eventually marrying him.

“Many a New Day” falls under the category of songs I like to call “Hear Me Roar…Sort Of” numbers. These songs are obligatory feminist-ish productions where female characters pay lip service to the idea of being independent and strong, but it’s not long before they’re running back into the arms of the men they previously decided weren’t good enough for them.

Nellie Forbush has one of these numbers in South Pacific, the irrepressibly catchy “I’m Gonna Wash That Man Right Outa My Hair.” (Skip to the 2:40 mark in this video) here.

Nellie is declaring her intention not to have anything more to do with Emile de Becque. Her willpower lasts right until Emile comes back and woos her some more. Then she launches into “A Wonderful Guy” with twice as much enthusiasm and fervor as she did the previous song (here).

Eliza Doolittle also has a “Hear Me Roar…ish” song in My Fair Lady, tearing down Professor Higgins with some bitingly witty put-downs in “Without You” (here).

Of course, the ending has her returning to Professor Higgins and seeming to want to reconnect with him. The ending is more ambiguous than the conclusions of Oklahoma! and South Pacific, but one gets the sense that those two crazy kids are going to make it work.

Now, not all of these “Hear Me Roar…ish” songs are presented in the same context. No one is disappointed when Nellie Forbush decides not to want to wash that man right out of her hair, because Emile de Becque is a catch and a half. Besides, all throughout “I’m Gonna Wash That Man,” she sounds like she’s trying to conform to her friends’ opinions and convince herself of something she doesn’t really want to do in the first place, and it’s not until “A Wonderful Guy” that she follows what’s true to her heart. In that case, Nellie going back on her big independence number doesn’t feel like a betrayal of character at all.

Laurey Williams, on the other hand, makes me shake my head in dismay. I’m so proud of her when she decides to forget about Curly, and so disappointed when she runs crying into his arms half an hour later. I’m mostly disappointed because Curly is one of the worst human beings in all of musical theater, who tries to convince his romantic “rival” through song to kill himself, who has a duet with a would-be rapist and still comes off as the creepier of the two characters.

Mostly, though, I’m curious about the reasons behind writing these “Hear Me Roar…ish” songs, especially the two numbers from the Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals. If the women are just going to end up with the men they’re declaring independence from, what’s the point of these songs at all? Did Rodgers and Hammerstein realize in both cases that they didn’t have a big musical number for all of the women in the show, and write these songs to give their female chorus members something to do? Did they decide that three solo songs and two duets for Mary Martin were not enough, and want to give her yet another number? (If that’s the case, I really can’t blame them for that, because Mary Martin is made of magic.) 

Or is there something else at work here? Is it possible that these songwriters felt an internal struggle between some feminist instincts and typical musical theater conventions? The “Hear Me Roar-ish” numbers are so catchy and irresistible, it’s almost like the composers and lyricists knew that women of the future would belt them in the shower after a bad breakup. 

I wonder if we hear the “I am independent woman!” songs, followed immediately by the “Just kidding, let’s get married!”, because of internal conflicts on the part of the songwriters. Maybe they like feisty, independent women who voice their opinions, but they like conventional happy endings just as much, and that’s why Laurey and Nellie change their minds so quickly.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 10 Comments

Blog PostsFeeling “Eh” on Eponine

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Theresa Basile

The film version of Les Miserables will hit theaters on Christmas Day 2012. I’m pretty psyched, especially after seeing the first trailer. I felt apprehensive about the casting of Anne Hathaway as Fantine, but she managed to break my heart with the first few bars of “I Dreamed a Dream.” I think this film will be a huge success, both critically and commercially.

Given the international excitement surrounding the film, this seems as good a time as any to admit that I’m not very fond of Eponine.

I feel like I’m committing heresy among Les Mis fans by saying that, but it’s the truth. Eponine, the international spokeswoman for girls crushing on their male best friends who swoon over the richer, more popular girl, has never moved me the way she’s moved many girls and women my age. I feel for her and I’m sad when she dies, but she’s never been my favorite character in the musical, and sometimes I feel bewildered by the amount of love Les Mis fans have for her.

I shouldn’t be bewildered. Eponine, after all, has the torch song for all teenage girls suffering from unrequited love, the show-stopping “On My Own,” sung here by the incomparable Lea Salonga.

It’s show-stopping, all right, because the plot of the play stops entirely in its tracks once Eponine opens her mouth.

Don’t get me wrong – I will never in my life pass up an opportunity to hear Lea Salonga sing. She is magnificent. But by the time “On My Own” comes around, the revolutionaries are about to fight in the battle of their lives, the battle that might determine the whole future of France, when the poor folk rally against the 1 percent and the Mitt Romneys – and the play has to stop so a street urchin can sing about the boy she likes who doesn’t like her back.

Of course, Eponine isn’t the only character who has the “pity me, my life is so sad” song. The whole play is a “pity me, my life is so sad” song. But at least Fantine in “I Dreamed a Dream”  has problems other than “the boy I love doesn’t love me back.” Fantine sings, “The boy I loved didn’t love me back and he knocked me up and left me to support a kid all on my own, to the point where I’ll have to sell my hair and two front teeth and become a prostitute just to keep my daughter from starving.” (Based on the trailer for the Les Mis movie, “I Dreamed a Dream” will happen after Fantine becomes a prostitute – which, in my opinion, is a good storytelling choice. The song will be much more devastating if it happens after Fantine has hit rock bottom.)

And yes, I know that Eponine has more problems than “the boy I love doesn’t love me back, because he loves this other girl, even though she wears short skirts and I wear T-shirts, and she’s cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers.” She’s poor and her father is abusive and cruel. But she doesn’t sing about any of that. Her songs all revolve around Marius.

(To be fair, my indifference to Eponine might have less to do with the character itself and more to do with the fact that “On My Own” is one of the most overplayed songs in musical theater history. It’s a lovely song, but it’s the go-to-song for every girl who wants to impress the audience with her big pretty voice and gravitas.  Case in point: Rachel Berry.)

Meanwhile, many Les Mis fans who love Eponine hate Cosette. Cosette isn’t as sympathetic because she’s spoiled and rich and doesn’t have many problems, at least not compared to the other characters in the play. Do the Cosette-haters remember that this spoiled, rich, privileged adult started off as a starving little girl who was abused and neglected by her foster parents? Who was also teased by her foster parents’ daughter – Eponine?

Maybe they don’t. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that the little bug-eyed Cosette who sang “Castle on a Cloud” turned into the wealthy, pretty Cosette at the end of the musical. The Forbidden Broadway parody of “Castle on a Cloud” includes this lyric:

“Lost in the labyrinth of this plot/you’ll be relieved when I get shot…”

Except…Cosette doesn’t get shot. She’s one of the only major characters who’s still alive by the end of the play. Eponine is the one who is shot. Could it be that the writers of Forbidden Broadway confused young Cosette for Eponine?

They wouldn’t be the first to make that mistake. When Samantha Barks was cast as Eponine for the upcoming film version of Les Miserables, my first thought (after “THANK GOD it’s not Taylor fucking Swift”) was, “I can buy her as Anne Hathaway’s grown-up daughter.” Then, a second later, I remembered that Amanda Seyfried as Cosette was playing Anne Hathaway’s grown-up daughter, and that Eponine and Fantine are not related by blood, not even a little bit.

Maybe the Cosette-haters are making the same mistake that I and the writers of Forbidden Broadway did. Maybe they conflate adult Eponine with young Cosette. It’s an honest mistake. They even wear similar outfits.

For whatever reason, I’m not a big fan of Eponine. She’s fine. She’s just not close to my favorite character in the show. She wasn’t even my favorite character in the book.

You know who is my favorite? Javert. Even as an eighth-grade nerd who occasionally pined for my own Marius, my favorite character was always the antagonist, the vengeful police officer who obsessively tracked down a fugitive for decades.

Maybe there was something wrong with me as a child. When I got the Les Miserables 10th Anniversary Concert VHS for one birthday, it wasn’t “On My Own” or “A Little Fall of Rain” that I watched over and over again. I fast-forwarded to “Confrontation” and “Stars” and “Javert’s Suicide.” I am very nervous about Russell Crowe’s ability to sing those songs, especially when I’m used to the amazing Philip Quast.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , | 21 Comments

Blog PostsStoneybrook Revisited: BSC #20-#24

Posted on September 24, 2012 by Theresa Basile

#20 – Kristy and the Walking Disaster
This book reveals something very important about Kristy Thomas: she’s grossed out by loose teeth. Bloody, loose teeth really, really bother her, in fact. This seems like a strange character trait. I wonder if Ann M. Martin thought that Kristy was too much of a stereotypical tomboy and gave her this little quirk to round her out a little bit.

Speaking of strange character traits, this is a book where Kristy gets a crush on a boy. Raise your hand if you buy this plot development. No one? Okay. (Side note: I hope I’m not offending any LGBT readers with my constant “Kristy is a lebsian” jokes. The reason why I make this joke is largely due to this piece of fanfiction. Enjoy.)

Another thing about Kristy? She’s a huge brat and a hypocrite. She constantly talks about Watson being a jerk and saying jerky things, even as this man helps her put together her kiddie league softball team. Watson Brewer is a really nice man and Kristy is always belittling him – it makes me want to smack her. She also cancels a BSC meeting for a Krushers game, and can you just imagine what would happen if another club member wanted to cancel a meeting for one of her extracurricular activities? It would NEVER HAPPEN.

Aside from Kristy’s jerkiness, though, this is a pretty cute book. Kristy’s Krushers is a decent plot device, and reading about kids playing sports together is more interesting to me than reading about individual babysitting jobs.  The title doesn’t really fit the book, though. Jackie Rodowksy’s klutziness is really a B or C plot. But I suppose Kristy and the Walking Disaster is a catchier title than Kristy and the Krushers or Kristy’s Softball Team.

Also, the other baby-sitters are barely in this book. They have a few lines here and there and are always hovering in the background, but the real spotlight is on Kristy, Bart, and the kids on the team. That rarely happens in a BSC book.

And there are a few times when Kristy genuinely amuses me. There’s a part where she offers to do David Michael a favor, and he gets suspicious, wanting to know what Kristy wants in return, and Kristy’s all, “I actually didn’t want anything, but hey, now that you ask…”

#21 – Mallory and the Trouble with Twins
Do you know how many times I read this book when I was a kid? Neither do I. (It’s been a long time.) But I think I read it at least a dozen times – for the same reason that I loved both versions of The Parent Trap, and watched all of the made-for-TV-movies starring the Olsen twins, and was heartbroken when Sister, Sister was canceled. I wanted a twin sister when I was a kid, and thus all stories about twin girls were fascinating to me.

So, I was really excited about re-reading this book, and when I finally got to it, I realized that it wasn’t as good as I remembered. It’s still a good one, but I had built up the memory in my head to something much more epic.

I do enjoy the Marilyn-and-Carolyn name-switching games, and I’m terribly amused when they commit to switching places and trick Claudia right before Marilyn’s huge important piano recital.

I’m also discovering that Mallory Pike really does have a good head on her shoulders. I remember Mallory being much more pathetic and whiny than she’s been in her first two BSC books. Maybe she develops the whiny, pathetic trait in later books. She does a good job looking after the twins, and while I’m surprised it takes her half a book to realize that Marilyn and Carolyn don’t like wearing the same clothes all the time, she catches onto it pretty quickly considering that she’s only eleven.

This is another book where Mallory emphasizes that Dawn is an INDIVIDUAL who has INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, and doesn’t like doing what everyone else does. (Someone really needs to make a Hipster Dawn Schafer tumblr account and macro.) And then, in the last chapter, Dawn decides that she needs to get her ears pierced after seeing Mallory, Jessi, and Claudia get their ears done. Oh, the irony. Dawn sucks.

#22 – Jessi Ramsey, Pet-Sitter
I was not looking forward to reading fifteen chapters about Jessi looking after pets, but I completely forgot that the eighth-grade babysitters have a fight in this book! I love it when the babysitters fight!

The fight: Mary Anne, Dawn, and Claudia are tired of their jobs and the extra responsibilities. They’re also sick of Kristy, who, in my unbiased opinion, is a psycho controlling dictator who thinks it’s okay for her to boss around people her own age. Mallory and Jessi decide to be Switzerland in this scenario, but none of the eighth-graders are making neutrality easy for them. In the end, it all works out, because they have elections and each person unanimously votes for all of the officers to keep their old jobs. And Kristy promises to be less bossy, and promptly forgets about said promise for the rest of the series.

The climax of the fight is a little…well, anticlimactic, but I appreciate any book that calls Kristy out for not doing any actual work in the meetings (aside from being a control freak).

Also, Kristy marches into Claudia’sroom and tapes her dumbass checklist over Claudia’s pictures on Claudia’s bulletin board, because Kristy is a terrible person. On the other hand, Mary Anne cries at one point for no real reason, and when Dawn calls her out, Kristy exclaims, “I didn’t do that! Mary Anne cries all the time!” And that’s pretty funny, and accurate.

Oh, the pet-sitting main plot. Boring, yet nice to get a break from too many annoying kids. Frank the parrot helpfully says, “Where’s the beef?” I have to remember that this book was published in 1989.

#23 – Dawn on the Coast
This book is so boring that I can’t even remember many details of what happened in it, despite the fact that I finished reading it two hours ago (from the time I’m typing this entry). Here’s the plot: Dawn visits her father and Jeff in California. She misses California and thinks about staying there permanently, like Jeff does. Then she changes her mind and goes back to Connecticut after all. THE END.

No, really. That’s the book! That’s IT!

Well, no. I’m lying. The babysitters have a going-away pizza party for Dawn even though she’s only leaving for two goddamn weeks. Who has a goodbye party for a friend who’s taking a fucking vacation?!

And even though the narrator of the book is in California, we STILL have to be subjected to a Karen Brewer sitting job. I thought Karen and Andrew only saw their dad every other weekend. Why are they in every book? Doesn’t Karen have her own spinoff by now?

#24 – Kristy and the Mother’s Day Surprise
This is amusing: in the first chapter, Kristy made a specific point of mentioning that Karen and Andrew were staying at the Brewer-Thomas mansion for longer than usual, and I groaned because I was expecting extra Karen time. Yet she was much less annoying in this book than in earlier books. I guess Karen is less annoying when she’s sprinkled throughout a book instead of limited to her own Very Special Chapter.

Anyway, Kristy and the Mother’s Day Surprise is an excellent example of how good babysitting does not always equal good storytelling. In this book, Kristy decides to give all the mothers in Stoneybrook a break and have the BSC watch their kids for a day. Unlike some other crackpot schemes of Kristy’s, this is a legitimately good idea – I’m surprised that the mothers didn’t break down and sob with happiness and gratitude when the BSC reached out to them. But it doesn’t lead to a very interesting story. Kristy has an idea, they organize the idea, they execute the idea, and all is well. The end! There isn’t even any decent baby-sitter drama. Oh, but Watson and Elizabeth adopt a little Vietnamese baby, in a plot that’s kind of cute but kind of dull.

However, much is made of the fact that Mary Anne Spier doesn’t have a mother, and everyone is awkward about that fact – especially Kristy, who is trying very hard to be more sensitive and less bossy. This drama seems a little manufactured, almost like Ann M. was writing this book and forgot herself that Mary Anne’s mom is dead, felt bad, and wrote it into the “plot.”

At the end of the first chapter, Kristy is thinking about the definition of family, and it’s all sentimental and trite, until she gets to this part about her bio dad: “And there’s my real father….But, no, he doesn’t count. Somebody who never writes,  never calls, never remembers your birthday, never says he loves you, doesn’t count at all.” Um. OUCH. Surprisingly bleak and realistic. I’m not used to genuine emotion from these books. Someone help me!

Beginning of chapter 2: “As president of the Baby-sitters Club, I get to run the meetings. I adore being in charge.” Oh, thank god – I’m much more comfortable making fun of Kristy’s control freak nature than empathizing with her.

Oh, speaking of uncomfortable, Mimi appears in the book several times and is already visibly fading and forgetting things. Kristy comments that it’s not funny at all, and I agree. Sorry – I can’t snark about Mimi.

I *can* snark on Kristy’s wildly inappropriate thoughts about Stacey and Jessi meeting for the first time. As the eighth-grade baby-sitters are reuniting, Mallory and Jessi get to the meeting. Stacey says hi to Mallory, and then turns and says, “I guess you’re Jessi Ramsey.” Kristy, somehow, interprets this comment as Stacey calling attention to the fact that JESSI IS BLACK. She thinks Stacey is making a big deal about Jessi’s race (because JESSI IS BLACK), but I think Stacey is just making a segue from greeting Mallory to introducing herself to Jessi. In short, I think Kristy is being the unintentionally racist one by noticing racism in Stacey that isn’t there.

Now that I’ve read 25 BSC books (including the first super special), I’m going to write my current ranking of babysitters from favorite to least favorite: Claudia, Mary Anne, Stacey, Mallory, Jessi, Kristy, Dawn. We’ll see if this changes as I proceed.

Coming up next on Stoneybrook Revisited: Mary Anne loses her cat, the BSC has a summer vacation in a weird alternate super-special timeline that doesn’t coincide with the original series timeline, Jessi baby-sits a movie star (because that makes sense), and Stacey returns. Claudia also loses her grandmother, but again, I’m probably not going to be able to be snarky about that book.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 5 Comments

Blog PostsThis is Not a Post About Kristen Stewart

Posted on September 22, 2012 by Theresa Basile

You know how, a few weeks ago, I didn’t write a post about Fifty Shades of Grey? Well, now I’m not writing a post about Kristen Stewart.

I’m not writing a post about Kristen Stewart even though her name has been all over the news. Apparently, she cheated on Cedric Diggory, and people are very mad about that. People are calling her “trampire,” dumping her from their films, and telling her that she’s a dirty slut for breaking his heart.

At the same time, other people are leaping to her defense. Some writers are talking about why slut-shaming Kristen Stewart is bad for young women. Other actors are talking about why growing up famous is difficult.

There’s very little middle ground in the discussion about Kristen Stewart. She’s either a hell beast whore succubus who broke Robert Pattinson’s heart, or she’s both a victim of pervy Rupert Sanders and some kind of feminist icon for exploring her sexuality.

I don’t want to write about Kristen Stewart because I don’t want to jump on the hater train. I don’t think an actress should be dumped from the sequel of her film because of personal life issues. I don’t think she deserves to be raked over the coals for an issue that only personally concerns a small number of people (herself, her boyfriend, her married lover, and his wife and children). I don’t think she owes anything to her fans or followers for the choices she makes in her private life. I don’t think it’s fair that she gets the bulk of the criticism while her older, married director is left relatively unscathed.

I also don’t want to write about Kristen Stewart because I’m equally reluctant to turn a Hollywood actress into a feminist hero because she boinked a married man. Unlike a certain writer at Alternet, I’m not “glad” that Kristen Stewart cheated, because I don’t think young women who fantasize about Edward Cullen are necessarily going to carry those fantasies around for the rest of their lives. I don’t think she’s a victim of evil Rupert Sanders, and casting a 22-year-old grown woman as a “victim” is infantilizing and, to me, the opposite of what feminism is about. I also don’t think Jodie Foster has a feminist leg to stand on when she defends wife-beater Mel Gibson and chooses to work with child rapist Roman Polanski, and I think maybe she should reconsider those choices of hers instead of spending time talking about how hard it is to be famous.

I don’t think Stewart is a victim or a hero. I don’t think she should be shunned by society for sleeping with a married man, but nor do I think she should be glorified for it in some kind of backlash to the backlash.

I also don’t think the fact that she cheated is any of my business in the first place and therefore not worth blogging about.

And that’s why I’m not going to write about Kristen Stewart.

Well, no, I’ll say one thing about Kristen Stewart: I might be the one person who thought she was better in the Twilight movies than in Into the Wild. Her mouth-breathing poutiness drove me bonkers in Into the Wild but I thought she made Bella Swan considerably less annoying than she was in the books.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Blog PostsCould a Woman Be Mr. Darcy?

Posted on September 20, 2012 by Theresa Basile

Have you seen The Lizzie Bennet Diaries? You should really see The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. It’s a great adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in the form of a web series, narrated by our favorite Lizzie Bennet and edited by her best friend Charlotte Lu. This is the first episode:

Watching these videos is like falling down a rabbit hole. I spent a whole evening catching up on the series instead of doing work, and I consider it time well spent. This series is a cute and clever way to update Pride and Prejudice, and I think the casting is perfect for the eight characters we’ve seen. I’m still impatient for Mr. Darcy to show up (or William Darcy, as he’s called in this series).

Then I started thinking about my own updated version of Pride and Prejudice, a project that’s still in its brainstorming stage.

Yes, I have a plot bunny in mind for another Pride and Prejudice adaptation. What a relief. There simply aren’t enough Pride and Prejudice adaptations to begin with and the world desperately needs mine.

What can I say? Pride and Prejudice is my favorite book. I reread it once a year and watch the BBC miniseries with my mother every Christmas vacation. It makes sense that I would want to create my own modernized version of the story where the genders of Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy are reversed.

For several months now, I’ve been obsessed with the idea of a role-reversal Pride and Prejudice where a witty, clever, energetic young man named Ben crosses the path of a wealthy, reserved, snobby young woman named Darcy.

How do they meet? Well, it’s terribly simple. Ben is the pianist in an indie music duo with his older sister Jane, and they’re about to perform at a concert in a small bar with a small audience. Meanwhile, who should be in the audience but two big names in the music industry: the rich, successful talent agent Charlie Bilson, and the even richer, more successful Darcy Williams, owner of a prominent record label. Jane and Ben’s music duo plays a concert, and Charlie is not only impressed with their catchy pop tunes, but instantly smitten with Jane. Darcy is less impressed and is blunt with Charlie when they have a moment alone: she thinks Jane is very talented and pretty, but needs to ditch her brother and his corny lyrics that sound like they were ripped from Taylor Swift’s middle school diary.

Ben, of course, overhears this and is furious. When he and Jane go on for an encore, they surprise the audience with one of their less commercial tunes, one where Ben has a complicated solo that he kills. This time, Darcy is genuinely impressed, but when she meets Ben after the show to compliment him, he thinks she’s being insincere. He instantly dislikes her while she finds him intriguing. And thus the plot is set up.

In this brainstorm, some of the characters (Jane, Mr. Bingley, Lydia, the Bennet parents, George Wickham, Georgiana Darcy) remain the same sex as they are in the original story, while others (Elizabeth, Mr. Darcy, the Bingley sisters, Mr. Collins, Charlotte Lucas, Lady Catherine de Bourgh) switch sexes. I envision the Wickham character as a fellow musician who befriends Ben by talking about the rich girl who cheated him out of his inheritance and broke his heart. Instead of getting a crush on him, Ben gets more of a heterosexual man crush on another cool musician type. I haven’t quite worked out the details of the Charlotte/Collins story, Lady Catherine, or the Lydia/Wickham plot, but the wheels are still turning.

Right now, the plot details aren’t my main concern. I’m not even committed to the music plot (it was the first one that popped in my head and I’m willing to change it). I’m wondering if this idea is even worth pursuing – if anyone but me would want to see a gender-swapped Pride and Prejudice.

Let’s face it – Pride and Prejudice is typically more popular with women than with men, and a lot of us are really into Mr. Darcy. Are (straight) women going to be as interested in a story where the snobby character (who turns out to be a really good person after all) is a rich woman who gets to play the romantic hero? Are they going to be interested in seeing a man brush off this woman for half of the movie while she’s awkward with him?

Maybe. I don’t know. Here are the reasons that a gender-swapped Pride and Prejudice appeals to me. I like the idea of portraying a quiet, more reserved woman who’s often dismissed as a snooty bitch, but turns out to be a total catch. I like the idea of a woman getting to be the romantic pursuer without seeming pathetic. I like the idea of a woman getting to deliver a version of a love confession that is both heartfelt and hilariously rude, of the “I love you even though your connections are terrible and your family is an embarrassment to be around!” variety. I like the idea of a male Elizabeth, snarky and clever and smart but too impressed with himself, having his world completely turned upside down when he realizes that the rich bitch he can’t stand is in love with him.

Or maybe the idea of a gender-swapped P&P appeals to me just because I want to see if it CAN be done.

So this is where I put the question to the readers: can it be done, and done well? Or is this modernized take on Pride and Prejudice with a boy Lizzie and a girl Darcy a project that would only appeal to me?

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , | 23 Comments

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 6.06 – “All the Way,” 6.07 – “Once More With Feeling,” and 6.08 – “Tabula Rasa”

Posted on September 18, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[Note: I’m writing a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “All the Way”
INCIDENT: Memory modification followed by sex
PERPETRATOR: Willow Rosenberg
VICTIM: Tara Maclay

The specifics: Willow and Tara got into an argument about Willow’s dangerous use of magic. The fight took place in the middle of the Bronze and was left unresolved by the time they went to bed that night. At home, Willow tried to talk to Tara again, but Tara, still angry, wasn’t in the mood to resume the conversation and wanted to go to bed. Willow suggested that they forget the fight ever happened. She then performed a spell to wipe the memory from Tara’s mind. Tara, no longer remembering the fight, happily invited Willow into their bed.

In the next episode, she and Willow were more romantic and cuddly than ever and had sex several times. Then Tara found out about the memory wipe, and expressed a desire to leave Willow. In the episode after that, Tara told Willow how betrayed she felt, and gave her an ultimatum: “go for a week without using magic, and then we’ll see.” Willow performed another memory spell that took away the memories of everyone in the group. When Xander accidentally broke the spell, Tara realized what had happened, and she broke up with Willow and moved out of the house.

The mind of the perpetrator: Willow doesn’t see anything wrong with her use of magic and she resents Tara for criticizing her. When Tara criticizes her, Willow’s response is disturbing, to say the least:

“TARA: You are using too much magic! What do you want me to do, just sit back and keep my mouth shut?

WILLOW: That’d be a good start.”

Here, Willow really doesn’t sound any different from a misogynistic, abusive boyfriend who wants his girlfriend to shut up and keep her opinions to herself.

Later, Willow is contrite, but she still doesn’t think she did anything wrong – or at least, she refuses to admit it to herself. She uses the forgetting spell to make Tara happy again. Willow wants to avoid responsibility, and she also wants everything to be nice and happy with Tara. When Tara confronts her in “Tabula Rasa,” Willow admits, “I just wanted to make things better. Better for us.”

Willow’s used to Tara being a completely supportive girlfriend – a cheerleader, if you will – and is uncomfortable with this change in the status quo of Tara challenging her. She doesn’t want to see that Tara is still supporting her and is criticizing her use of magic to help her. She’s too afraid of losing Tara, and she sees one fight leading to several fights that will lead to Tara abandoning her. Of course, she fulfills this own prophecy by violating Tara again.

The victim’s perspective: A memory wipe would be an act of betrayal to anyone, but it’s especially hurtful for Tara, someone who already had her mind and sanity horribly violated by Glory in season five. Ironically, Willow was the one to save Tara’s mind at the end of the season. Now, she’s the one taking Tara’s memory away.

Tara’s no dummy, and she sees through Willow’s excuses.

“TARA: You don’t get to decide what is better for us, Will. We’re in a relationship, we are supposed to decide together.

WILLOW: Okay. I realize I did it wrong.

TARA: You did it the way you’re doing everything. When things get rough, you don’t even consider the options. You just do a spell. It’s not good for you, Willow. And it’s not what magic is for.

WILLOW: But I just wanna help people.

TARA: Maybe that’s how it started, but you’re helping yourself now, fixing things to your liking. Including me.”

Tara’s not exactly known for standing up to Willow or criticizing her in any way, but she’s laying down the law here. She doesn’t like this pattern of behavior in Willow and she doesn’t want to leave her, but she doesn’t want to risk getting her mind played with again.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

There’s something called “informed consent,” and Willow violated it. She wiped Tara’s memory and then had sex with her the episode later – sex that Tara would not have consented to after such an argument, had she remembered that the argument took place. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Willow raped Tara.

Tara, though, doesn’t mention this when she confronts Willow. Willow wiping her memory at all is the biggest violation to Tara, regardless of what Willow did afterwards.

Given Tara’s history, it makes sense that the memory modification would bother her more than anything else. Tara’s family tried to “fix her to their liking” as well, telling her that she was part-demon. Much like her parents tried to “fix” her to their liking, Willow’s trying to do the same thing.

Tara recognizes that this is all a form of control. What she wants is irrelevant, and much like she rejected her family, she rejected Willow for trying to “fix” her. Willow would be horrified to be to compared to Tara’s family, I’m sure, but the comparison is an apt one.

Willow believes that what she did to Tara isn’t really wrong because her intentions were good. These episodes show that, when it comes to consent, the intention of the perpetrator doesn’t matter. If you take away a person’s memory because you’re a controlling asshole or if you take away a person’s memory because you want things to be nice between you, the person is still violated either way.

I think these episodes did a very good job of showing why Willow had a problem with controlling others, and why that was a bad thing. Unfortunately, much of the follow-up wasn’t strong, and Willow’s need to fix people to her liking, as Tara aptly put it, was pushed aside in favor of magic=drugs metaphors. I think the show could have provided some very strong commentary about consent and control if they had continued with this path.

Rapists and violators don’t rape and violate because they lose control over themselves; they do it because they (for whatever reason) want to control others.Willow’s problem was portrayed as controlling others until the end of episode nine, but was portrayed as an issue of self-control from “Wrecked” on, and it was a huge missed opportunity on the show’s part.

P.S. Even though Willow deserved every bit of Tara’s criticism and then some, she still received approximately 100% more criticism of this action than Angel did with his TWO memory-wiping stunts in “I Will Remember You” and the season four finale in his own show. Fuck you, Angel.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Blog PostsLady T Recommends “Boys vs. Girls”

Posted on September 16, 2012 by Theresa Basile

The next project I’m going to recommend is a New York City-based musical called Boys vs. Girls. Intrigued? You should be!

Boys vs. Girls is a musical about a pair of twins who – wait for it – couldn’t be more different. From the description at the Kickstarter page:

“Katie and Adam Moretti could not be more different for a set of twins. Adam is the president of his class and all around popular guy. Katie is a stay-at-home, bookworm who would rather go unnoticed then have anyone even mention her name. But when Katie starts to tutor their neighbor with only three weeks left before graduation, their worlds collide and their relationships are tested. See who comes out the bigger person, who’s left behind and who finds their own way in a world where it’s always Boys Vs. Girls.“

Why I’m recommending this project: I love stories about twins. I will write about this at length at another time in the near future, but it bears repeating: I love stories about twins. And this is a show about twins! Twins who may have shared a womb at one point, but are very different people! Except it looks like they might find out that they have more in common than they think they do.

I’m also intrigued by the title. Why is this show called Boys vs. Girls instead of something twinny? Could it be that this show is going to explore the different challenges that Adam and Katie might face in this world? Are Adam’s and Katie’s struggles going to be different based on the prescribed roles that our society determines for boys and girls? I think that might very well be what happens in this play – and it’s all going to be set to MUSIC!

Boys vs. Girls needs $1500 for their public reading and they’ve earned $165 so far. They have 15 days left to raise the rest of the money. That averages to about $89 a day. Would you like to be one of the people who gives a percentage of their daily goal? Of course you do! If you can, toss 10 bucks towards Boys vs. Girls, or spread the message to someone else who might be interested.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | Leave a comment

ArticlesRoss and Rachel’s Caustic Rom-Com Conventions

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[This post originally appeared at Bitch Flicks.]

I recently indulged in some Friends-related nostalgia with a good pal of mine over a rainy weekend. We took fifteen episodes over two days and I was reminded why I was obsessed with this show during my first two years in high school. I loved Chandler, Lisa Kudrow, the chemistry among the cast members, Chandler, the way the show made typical sitcom cliches seem original and funny, the “comfort food” nature of the show, and Chandler.

One thing I did NOT love was the aspect of Friends that most people were obsessed with: the on-again, off-again relationship of the TV sitcom supercouple, Ross and Rachel.

I’ve spent some time looking at different romantic comedies and the cliches that are used and re-used in cookie-cutter scripts, and I finally pinpointed the reason why Ross and Rachel always bothered me as a couple: over ten years (seriously, ten years!) of a will-they-or-won’t-they relationship, they managed to cover almost every single one of my least favorite rom-com cliches.

He loves her. She’s oblivious until he’s with someone else, and then he’s oblivious. In the pilot episode of the series, Ross tells Rachel that he had a crush on her since high school, and she admits that she already knew. He asks her if he could ask her out sometime, and she seems receptive to the idea, and it’s a cute moment between them.

But we can’t have something as simple as a man asking out a woman in episode two, her saying yes, and seeing the two of them date over time and eventually fall in love, now can we? No, we must insert drama and other complications. In this case, this drama results in Rachel conveniently forgetting that Ross liked her and becoming completely oblivious while he mooned after her for an entire season, making her look stupid and unobservant and him look pathetic. When she re-learns that he has a crush on her, she decides that she likes him too, but whoops – he’s moved onto someone else, and now, instead of a season of Ross whining, we’re treated to six episodes of Rachel being jealous and bratty to his new girlfriend.

When Ross is pining for Rachel, he’s a whiner. When Rachel is pining for Ross, she’s a jealous brat. Why am I supposed to root for them to get together?

“We’re still in love (during season premieres and season finales).” Unfortunately, this “we only like each other when we’re with other people” trend doesn’t end after the second season. Ross and Rachel finally date, and then they break up, and then Rachel realizes that she’s still in love with Ross when he moves onto Phoebe’s friend Bonnie. Then she realizes she’s still in love with Ross, again, at the end of the fourth season and runs off to ruin his wedding. She tells him she still loves him at the beginning of season five, but then gets over it for some reason. Then they get married in Las Vegas at the end of the fifth season, and Ross doesn’t annul the marriage because it’s implied that he still has feelings for Rachel, but then conveniently forgets about those renewed feelings at around episode six. Then they have a baby together at the end of season eight, and they consider getting back together at the beginning of season nine, but that desire is forgotten by episode two.

Is there something about the months of May and September that make Ross and Rachel fall back in love? Or is there something wrong with my suspension of disbelief, as I simply don’t buy that the same two people can fall in and out of love with each other that many times?

Jealousy is romantic. The worst thing that Ross ever did in his relationship with Rachel was become a jealous, possessive jerk after she got a new job. (I consider that worse than his sleeping with the copy-shop girl when he and Rachel “were on a break”). The worst thing that Rachel ever did in her relationship with Ross was run off to England to stop his wedding even though he had happily moved on to someone else.

To be fair, Friends was initially honest about these issues and showed why the characters were in the wrong. Monica criticized Ross for being jealous, and his inability to get over his jealousy cost him his relationship with Rachel. Phoebe (and Hugh Laurie, in a great guest appearance) criticized Rachel for being selfish and wanting to end Ross’s wedding.

But then Ross says Rachel’s name at the altar. And at the end of the series, Rachel chooses Ross over a great new career opportunity in Paris with no apparent job to fall back on.

In the end, it doesn’t matter that Ross lost Rachel when he was jealous, or that Rachel realized it was wrong to break up his wedding. In the end, Ross wins Rachel over her career, and Rachel gets to be with Ross instead of watching him marry someone else. Getting them together in the end seems to retroactively reward them for their previous bad behavior, justifying their actions as okay because they were really in love the whole time!

“Uh-oh. The placeholder love interest is more likable than the endgame couple. I know – we’ll turn them into jerks!” I can’t be the only one who thought Emily was a much better match for Ross than Rachel was. Ross and Emily had more in common than Ross and Rachel and he was more likable when he was around Emily – more genuinely romantic, more energetic, and she seemed to appreciate his geeky side more than Rachel did.

This was not a good thing for the Friends writers, apparently. Ross and Rachel were meant to be the endgame couple no matter what. The only thing to nip the Ross/Emily relationship in the bud was to turn Emily into a jerk who made him stay away from Rachel and move out of his apartment.

Why did they like each other, anyway? What did Ross and Rachel have in common, aside from being two decent human beings who have the same friends? He had no respect or interest in her career and she had no respect or interest in his. He thought she was selfish and spoiled and she thought he was a geek and an intellectual snob. Yes, opposites sometimes attract, but sometimes I didn’t know why they even liked each other, much less loved each other.

The chase to the airport. They actually had a chase to the airport in the last episode. I mean, really?

“Oh, wait a minute,” you might be saying. “You’re telling me that you weren’t moved by the last scene where they got back together for real?”

Well, of course I was moved. I’m not made of stone, people. She got off the plane!

Yes, I “aww” and I tear up at their last scene together, as ridiculous as it is. To me, that’s a testament to how much Schwimmer and Aniston sold every step of the relationship. No matter how contrived the writing was, they committed to those romantic moments. Sometimes they made me forget how much their relationship got on my nerves. But when I’m re-watching old Friends episodes and indulging in some nostalgia, I tend to fast-forward the dramatic Ross and Rachel scenes, because those are too many cliches for me to handle with one couple.

Chandler and Monica, on the other hand – that’s where the magic was.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 11 Comments

Articles“Won’t Back Down” Causes Mixed Feelings

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Theresa Basile

[This post originally appeared at Bitch Flicks.]

On September 28, 2012, Won’t Back Down will hit the theaters. This is a movie starring two well-known, respected actresses, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Viola Davis. It has two female characters. One of them is a woman of color. They are two characters who work together in the pursuit of a common goal. They have lives that do not revolve around men. Their eventual triumph is a triumph of female collaboration.

This movie sounds like a feminist’s dream come true. It will probably pass the Bechdel test with flying colors and show a realistic portrayal of two women who become close as they fight a common enemy. And this common enemy is one of the greediest, most evil foes in American history: the teachers’ union.

*sigh*

I really shouldn’t be surprised. We live in the age of Corporations Are People, so of course a film financed by a conservative activist is going to portray a teachers’ union as the villain. After all, Waiting for Superman didn’t succeed enough in its propaganda to demonize unions and public schools, so the producers have no choice but to try their hand at fiction instead.

This is not exaggeration. An February article from The New York Times, “In Reality and Film, a Battle for Schools,” states the following:

 “For Walden, the film is a second shot at an education-reform movie. With Mr. Gates and the progressive-minded Participant Media, Walden was among the financial backers of the documentary ‘Waiting for ‘Superman.’ ”

 That film, released in 2010, advocated, as potential solutions to an education crisis, charter schools, teacher testing and an end to tenure. But it took in only about $6.4 million at the box office and received no Oscar nominations after union officials and others strongly attacked it. 

‘We realized the inherent limitations of the documentary format,’ said Michael Bostick, chief executive of Walden. Now, he said, the idea is to reach a larger audience through the power of actors playing complicated characters who struggle with issues that happen to be, in his phrase, ‘ripped from the headlines.'”

“Ripped from the headlines.” That’s an accurate description, as the story of the film is ripped from several different headlines about parent trigger laws (laws that allow parents to overturn public schools if they get enough signatures on a petition – 51%). “Inspired by a true story” also leads the audience to believe that this is a fictionalized version of a successful implementation of the parent trigger law – except that’s not the case. The parent trigger law has never been successfully been implemented, and moreover, Won’t Back Down takes place in Pennsylvania – a city that doesn’t have such a law in the first place.

But that’s not the only reason why Won’t Back Down appears to be problematic. Take a look at the trailer:

It’s only two and a half minutes long but I can’t keep count of all the cliches in such a short amount of time. I do think it’s interesting that the trailer only shows us two teachers – Maggie Gyllenhaal’s daughter’s Bad Teacher and Viola Davis’s Good Teacher – and we’re immediately led to believe that Davis’s character is the exceptional, rare Good one while the cartoonish Bad Teacher is indicative of most of the people at that school.

Of course, I haven’t yet seen the film myself. Other former teachers have, though, and they point out the way the film portrays teachers and unions as villains. Sabrina Stevens, in “Why ‘Won’t Back Down Just Doesn’t Stack Up’,” writes:

 “I personally remember lots of overstuffed rolling tote bags (an especially popular option among teachers who needed to bring work home after school ended) and reusable coffee mugs (popular among us newbies who often worked such long hours we barely saw daylight during the fall and winter months) in the school I worked in. Likewise, the school day itself was often a whirr, with teachers bouncing around among 25, 30 or more students at a time during lessons; moving in and out of meetings, planning and professional development sessions; and making calls and handling other daily logistics during “free” periods.

Yet in the movie, it is repeatedly asserted that the union contract prevents exactly this kind of work from taking place. (I suppose all those graded papers, lesson plans, letters of recommendation and after-school activities just happen by magic?) In this school, the contract and the union that backs it are blamed for teachers not helping kids and refusing to work after school. And except for the two teachers closest to the desperate mother played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, these teachers don’t appear to do all that much during the school day, either. The dour, bitter teachers on display during the first two-thirds of this movie looked very little like the committed, passionate teachers I know– though I suppose it’s easy for a screenwriter to misread teachers’ bouts of fatigue or frustration as bitterness if they don’t understand where that frustration comes from. Managing 30 or so people at once requires a constant stream of attention and thousands of split-second decisions every day. Add to that inadequate resources and escalating demands, and formerly bright smiles will indeed begin to dim.”

The film seems to have an overwhelming anti-union message. So what does that have to do with feminism?

Well, frankly, I’m really annoyed that there’s a movie with two women in the lead roles – three, if you include Holly Hunter’s antagonistic eeeevil union leader – and I can’t go see it because of the teacher-bashing.

I like to see movies with women in the lead roles. I especially like to see movies that have two women in the lead roles. I want to financially support movies that give women storylines that don’t revolve entirely around men. And now there seems to be such a film, that also happens to be dedicated to kicking a group that’s already down.

I feel like Hollywood bought me a kitty cat, made me fall in love with that kitty cat, and then crept into my room at night and punched me in the face.

Thanks, Hollywood. Thanks a lot.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Blog PostsStoneybrook Revisited: BSC Books #15-19

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Theresa Basile

#15 – Little Miss Stoneybrook…and Dawn
This book is SO DUMB and I love it.

First of all, there’s the title. The title. She couldn’t just call it Dawn and Little Miss Stoneybrook? No, that wouldn’t be dramatic enough. It’s Little Miss Stoneybrook…dramatic ellipsis…wait for it…we’re not going to tell you which babysitter it is! It could be Kristy! Or Claudia! Or Mary Anne! But no, it’s…I can’t believe it!…Dawn!

I’m so glad she revealed WHICH babysitter it was in the title. I would not have been able to handle the suspense otherwise.

This is one of those random, out-there plots where all of the eighth-grade babysitters are completely stupid and irresponsible and only the sixth-graders have their heads on their shoulders. They all get insecure when Charlotte Johanssen specifically requests Claudia for a sitter, and then decide that proving themselves as babysitters depends on their proving themselves as effective stage moms for a local pageant.

Also, in a rare case of a plot following through several books, Dawn’s brother Jeff moves back to California, and Dawn and her mom are sad. Yay for continuity? Meanwhile, cool-as-a-cucumber Dawn has a miniature meltdown when she’s jealous that she didn’t get a special induction ceremony like Mal and Jessi did. WHATEVER.

And, this is the book with the eight-year-old Sabrina Bouvier, not to be confused with the later eighth-grade Sabrina Bouvier. There are two people with that name running around Stoneybrook, Connecticut, but only one Kristy Thomas. Okay then.

#16 – Jessi’s Secret Language
It’s Jessi’s first book! It’s also the first Very Special Episode Book, where Jessi gets a regular baby-sitting client in Matt Braddock, a child who is profoundly Deaf.

There’s a lot of talk in this book where Jessi can relate to Matt and Haley’s feelings of isolation because she’s black and also an outsider in their town. The analogy actually isn’t bad. I think there’s something to be said for a story that attempts to draw parallels between different types of prejudice and the ways different marginalized groups experience those prejudices. But, because this is a BSC book, the writing is a little ham-fisted and the message comes across as, “Black people and Deaf people are totes the same, y’all!”

“My family is black. I know it sounds funny to announce it like that. If we were white, I wouldn’t have to, because you would probably assume we were white.” This is a surprisingly astute observation for a BSC book. Too bad that Jessi, like the other BSC narrators, keeps describing Claudia as “exotic.”

Hmm, Jessi is not planning on becoming a professional ballet dancer in this story. She sees it as a hobby, albeit a very important one. I wonder when that changes.

Now, I’m reading this book with a fresh perspective. I took two sign language classes in college and learned about Deaf culture as well as actual signs. From what I remember, the book seems to be pretty accurate. It was a realistic choice to show how some families will learn sign language (the Braddocks) while others (Adele and Katie Beth’s family) wouldn’t.

And, Kristy? The snobby treatment you got from your neighbors when you moved to Mitt Romney’s neighborhood is NOT THE SAME as Becca’s family treated like crap because she’s black! Rrrr, I know she meant well, but I wish the book hadn’t gone there.

#17 – Mary Anne’s Bad-Luck Mystery
Oh, another “spooky” book. I am SO GLAD we have another one of these.

Mary Anne wonders how Cokie Mason got the nickname “Cokie” from “Marguerite.” I don’t get it either, M.A.

“Our president holds meetings with a pencil stuck over one ear, wearing a visor. She says she feels more official that way. I haven’t mentioned this to her, but I’ve never seen the President of the United States sitting in a director’s chair, wearing a visor.” Mary Anne snark is the best snark of all.

I’m glad that Jessi and Mal are the ones who are the most paranoid about the chain letter and superstitions. I was getting a little tired of the two eleven-year-old characters being the most mature ones in the club. Still, you know the girls are acting silly when Kristy is the sensible one.

It drives me crazy when two characters write notebook entries at the same time. I always picture them talking while they’re writing and I find it SO distracting.

“She wasn’t wearing a costume, but she had smeared green makeup on her face and stuck a plastic wart on her nose. She looked like a young, blonde witch. I told you Dawn is an individual.” …This is sarcastic, right? Mary Anne thinks that Dawn is an individual because she dressed like a witch for Halloween? Mary Anne’s girlcrush on Dawn is rather annoying and a little sad, not unlike Kristy’s real crush on Mary Anne.

#18 – Stacey’s Mistake
Stacey McGill is such an author’s pet. She’s the first character to get a fourth POV book when she’s not even a member of the club anymore.

Anyway, there are three things about Stacey’s Mistake that really stick out in my mind. I tend to like Stacey books and this one is no exception, but my favorite BSC books are usually the ones that are the most ridiculous, not the least.

First, I hate the tendency of the BSC books to make everyone apologize after a fight even if only one person’s really at fault. I get that Martin and her ghostwriters are trying to emphasize community and collaboration or whatever, but practically every time I pick up one of these books, both characters have to apologize even if one hasn’t done anything wrong. In the last super special, Kristy and Dawn both had to apologize to each other even though Kristy was the only one being a brat. In this book, Kristy has the opposite problem. This time, Claudia dances with a boy Kristy *cough* “likes,” and by the end, they both have to apologize – Claudia for taking the attention away from Kristy, and Kristy for “overreacting.” No! If a girl visibly likes a boy and then her friend starts flirting with him, she is well within her rights to be miffed at that! Why do these authors insist on making characters apologize for being angry when they’re entitled to be angry?

Second, Kristy’s eyes “light up” when she meets this boy that she winds up liking. Why? Because the boy is really into sports. All “Kristy is a lesbian” jokes aside, we’re supposed to believe that “liking sports” is such a unique quality? If being a sports fan was all Kristy needed in a man, shouldn’t she have had seventy boyfriends by now?

The third thing that strikes me is the obvious fact that no one edited this book. In the first chapter, where Stacey goes through the obligatory introductions and tells the readers about each BSC member, she makes explicit reference to the events of Little Miss Stoneybrook…and Dawn, regarding Jeff’s departure. She talks about Dawn and how she’s upset that Jeff left. In the last chapter of this book, Stacey doesn’t get why Dawn is upset, until Dawn tells her that Jeff has gone back to California. Stacey has to learn information that she already explained to the audience fourteen chapters ago. This has got to be one of the most egregious cases of NO EDITING in BSC history, and it’s only book #18. Amazing.

#19 – Claudia and the Bad Joke
What tricks our memories play on us. I don’t remember this book being so infuriating the first time I read it, but certain details didn’t stick out when I was a kid.

The most frustrating aspect of Claudia and the Bad Joke is not the way Betsy almost entirely escapes consequences for playing a prank that makes Claudia break her leg. It’s also not the way the baby-sitters decide to handle the situation by starting a prank war with Betsy, instead of doing the responsible thing by talking to her mother, or at least refusing to take on a client who caused physical harm to one of their members.

No, what infuriates me about this book is a small detail, a passing comment that happens at a meeting. It’s the first BSC meeting after Claudia comes back, and when talking about club business, Dawn reminds everyone that Claudia still owes dues from when she was in the hospital.

These assholes want Claudia to pay dues from the time she was in the hospital.

Even though she got injured on a babysitting job. Even though she couldn’t work and therefore doesn’t have money to give to dues. That doesn’t matter. These supposed “best friends you’ll ever have” want to take blood from a stone and make Claudia chip into dues even when she has a work-related injury.

The baby-sitters are jerks, y’all.

Coming up next on Stoneybrook Revisited: I read five more books, four of whom I read only once as a kid because they bored me, and one of my all-time favorites. Stay tuned!

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment