Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
real best friends are always a tiny bit platonic-gay (should they be of the same gender presentation)
*nudges you* You don’t say, platonic fiancee mine? ;-)
Plus Harriet loves musicals and singing so you KNOW she’d be up for a duet!
Exactly! ;-) Gosh, how fun would it be if someone could actually convince Joanna Sotomura and Dayeanne Hutton to do that?!
Do you like the idea of Bruce being Jewish?
Mmmm… I guess? Maybe?
See, here’s the thing: Bruce will never, ever be written as culturally Jewish in any way. Even small ways. Even like that one issue where Kate lit a Chanukah menorah or whatever. It’s not gonna happen. I don’t even mean any kind of religious observance, I’m talking any kind of observable Jewish identity. Bruce might be Jewish ethnically, but culturally he comes across as the WASP-iest of WASPs. And frankly, after 75 years of history, it’s too late to write him any other way. If Bruce started talking about what his Jewish identity meant to him at this point in the game, it would come across as tacked-on and fake to me.
Maybe I’m wrong there. Maybe there’s actually a writer out there who could write a story exploring Bruce being Jewish in a way that would feel organic and natural to the character. And maybe it would be fantastic. But even if there was, I don’t think DC would let them tell that story.
I think it’s quite likely, especially in light of the New 52 canon that Bruce and Kate are cousins, that Martha Kane was Jewish, and therefore Bruce is too. But I don’t think DC would ever let him be visibly Jewish, so as far as representation goes he’s kind of meaningless.
That’s just how I feel about it, though. I’m sure there are a lot of Jews out there who would be delighted for Bruce to be canonically Jewish, even if nothing was ever really done with it.
this was a nice episode. the kissing was very passionate. it encompassed all it needed to encompass. however, i think as with lbd’s episode 98, a lot of it rests on the actors’ chemistry and tension and less so on actual content. it’s a problem in trying to be observant about the episode when its goal is to blind with chemistry. but three things:
the thing: “if i loved you less, i might be able to talk about it more”. upon hearing it, it should’ve been cut. watching the episode a second time, i’ve somewhat come around to its delivery, but the first time, i remember being jarred by suddenly hearing it. it seemed out of place for his character to say that, considering the line right before it conveyed his feelings just fine. i love the line very much, but i love character believability more.
the amount of emma explicitly giving herself a pep talk thematically ties in with the show, but it’s cringe-worthy to watch. not because of the acting, just the realism of it. i do feel all of the stuff that emma told herself, we should have been able to infer as an audience. it makes the scene that much more powerful when you can see an internal monologue written all over a person’s face and not have it spoken to us. (in most adaptations, emma is silent. she pushes knightley away, and she stands for a couple of seconds and thinks before she runs after him. and you know what’s going through her mind.) again, no fault of the acting, just on the handling of it writing-wise.
what angered me the most was how easily alex was forgiven. he practically pulled out of the business, gave no indication whether or not he was coming back, and generally acted like a douche about the whole thing. emma was upset, but there wasn’t any anger? there was no mix of emotions going through her brain that included anger along with the sadness, not even a little bit? he should’ve known what leaving her hanging meant for the business as well as their friendship. there should’ve been a plan to handle what would happen if one of them suddenly decided to quit. and she should’ve been angry and balked at accepting his apology. because he was right. if he cared so much, he wouldn’t have run away in the first place. he shouldn’t be excused just because he decided to come back.
See, here’s the thing with that last point: Emma herself has just been let off VERY lightly by two people who, by rights, should probably still be mad at her (Annie and, even more so, Maddy). As she herself points out, she’s been making a lot of apologies lately, hoping that people will see she’s genuinely trying to do better and forgive her. For the most part (with the exception of Jane), she’s been lucky enough that that has happened.
Now, Emma is obviously very grateful for that. She’s also in a mood where she’s very much focused on things like redemption and forgiveness. In that state of mind, do you really think it would make sense for her to turn around and give Alex a tongue-lashing for leaving? She wants other people to accept her apologies, and she’s been lucky enough that mostly they have; wouldn’t it be a tad hypocritical for her to turn around and refuse to accept Alex’s apology? What he did wasn’t worse than some of the things she’s done, and I bet Emma knows that.
About “If I loved you less, I could talk about it more”: First of all, the line before it is also an expression of not being able to express his feelings properly: “I don’t have the words to tell you how in love with you I am.” Far from contradicting the “If I loved you less,” line, I think it goes hand-in-hand with it. But secondly, I don’t think that line - in any version - is Knightley saying he’s literally incapable of expressing his feelings for Emma at all. Think of what he says right before that in the novel: “I cannot make speeches, Emma.” He’s saying he’s not the type who can make long, romantic speeches, not that he’s incapable saying anything romantic.
But also, there’s this: Yeah, Alex is telling Emma how he feels about her now. And he seemed to do just fine at it. But how long did he hesitate to tell her these things? He’s obviously been in love with her for a long time. We don’t know how long he’s been aware of those feelings - Brent said back in an interview in April that he already was playing Alex as aware of his feelings for Emma, but I don’t know ‘canon’ you consider that. But regardless, I think it’s a fair interpretation to say that Alex may well have hesitated to tell Emma how he felt for a good long while, and I think to a large degree that’s what he’s talking about when he says that if he loved her less, maybe he could talk about it more. I kind of see it (in both this version and other versions) as him saying that if his feelings for her weren’t so strong, if it wasn’t so very important to him that she feel the same way, and if he wouldn’t be so very crushed to learn that she didn’t, it would have been easier for him to come forward and tell her about his feelings for her. The higher the stakes are with telling someone something, the harder it is to say, IMO.
I’ve been thinking about Emma and Alex’s relationship, trying to get excited for tomorrow’s episode (I know, I’m probably the only person here who has to *try*…).
I think it has been consistently shown in EA that having Alex in her life makes Emma a better person. He actively looks for and promotes the good in her, acts as her conscience at times (debatable whether that’s a good thing), and at key moments seems to challenge/inspire her to be her better self.
But is the opposite true, that Alex is a better person for having Emma in his life? I want to think this is the case—otherwise why would I root for their relationship?—so help me out, folks! Please?
I think Emma’s passion and idealism are things that Alex really needs in his life. He’s very practical, which is great, but it’s the kind of practicality that could easily turn to cynicism if he didn’t have someone like Emma around him who believes so much, and feels so much, that she makes him start believing too. Think about it - Alex gets asked multiple times why he works with Emma when he finds her methods so frequently troubling, and it’s a valid question. More than that, why is Alex working in the “Love & Lifestyle” industry in the first place? It doesn’t really fit what we know of his personality. But he’s there because of Emma. Think of what he tells her in Episode 32 - “You help people. You were born to do this, so don’t ever give up.” As much as he rolls his eyes when he talks about them ‘making the world a better place’, the reason he works with her is because he truly thinks they can, in some small way, and that’s the kind of idealism Emma brings out in him.
As much as I hate everything about how Emma handled the possible cancellation of Annie’s wedding, she actually made a valid point that Alex’s first instinct was to worry about their company’s financial losses, not Annie and Ryan’s happiness. That doesn’t mean I don’t think Alex also cared about what would make them happy - he clearly did - and it also doesn’t negate the fact that Emma, in assuming she knew what was best for Annie and Ryan, was arrogant and took control of other people’s lives where she had no right to. But underneath all her flaws, Emma’s idealism, her belief in love and her determination to help others, are actually good things about her, things that I do think have a good effect on Alex in the way they balance out his cynical side.
While this doesn’t fall into the category of ‘making him a better person’, I also think Alex’s comments about why he would never date Jane are quite relevant to what he sees in Emma: “She’s all business; the two of us together would be all work and no play.” Emma is the opposite of that. Emma is fun, she’s bold, she’s exciting (good lord, I’m starting to sound like Frank Churchill), she makes Alex laugh. She surprises him. I think those are things Alex needs in his life, and clearly he’s self-aware enough to know that, too.
trying again! x and q.
Q: A ship you’ve abandoned and why.
I used to kind of ship Damian and Mar’i Grayson (because their characters - or more accurately, Mar’i and the Damian equivalent character, Ibn al Xu’ffasch - were together in the Kingdom Come ‘verse, and were really cute together), until I realized that since, unlike in Kingdom Come, in the mainverse Dick and Damian are adoptive brothers, main verse!Damian would be mainverse!Mari’s uncle. Which is super-squicky. Incest ships (i.e. anything closer than cousins) are a no-no for me.
X: 3 OTPs from 3 different fandoms.
Anne & Gilbert (Anne of Green Gables)
Piper & Leo (Charmed)
Lois and Clark (DC Comics, et al.)
13 and 15!
13. two headcanons
Headcanons. I am so bad with headcanons.
#1: A lot of fandom seems to imagine Damian as Muslim because of his Arabic heritage, but I don’t see the Al Ghuls as religious and never have. (Ra’s practically considers himself a god, and Talia I think believes generally in destiny and a higher power but isn’t devout in any specific religion.) I tend to think Damian, at the age we saw him in canon, is an agnostic and a skeptic who considers himself far too “smart” for religion. He might find a place for it in his life when he gets older, but I certainly don’t think he was raised to it.
#2: Dick and Cass, who are the Batkids who express themselves the most physically, most often communicate with each other without speaking a single word. A single raised eyebrow or tilt of the head tells them all they need to know. After Bruce died (“died,” that is), Cass had a really hard time expressing her grief verbally. Dick let her vent her feelings out physically by sparring with her, instead. He got more than a few bruises that way, but it helped them both let their feelings out.
15. pitch a series you’d like to read
I want a Rose Wilson/Joey Wilson series where neither of them is evil (or whitewashed, in Rose’s case, or magically non-disabled, in Joey’s) where they bond as siblings and try to figure out who they want to be with Slade out of their lives and there are cameo appearances by various Titans.
How about 6 & 8?
(Hey, Rena! *hugs*)
6. three characters you admire
Ack. Also too numerous to list, but: Nightwing, Oracle, and Superman
8. an arc you’d like to see on the big screen
No Man’s Land or Judas Contract. Or Kate Kane’s origin story.
But if we define “arc” a bit more loosely, then the whole period after Bruce’s death - with Babs training Steph as Batgirl, Dick & Dami as Batman and Robin, and Cass becoming Black Bat (but written with a LOT more respect) and all of that - that would be GREAT to see on the big screen (or better yet, a TV show.)
10, 4 and 9?
4. five negative things- arcs, deaths, events, issues - that stuck with you
*makes a face*
9. a dream team up
Cassie Sandsmark, Lorena Marquez, Kara Zor-El, Cassandra Cain, M’gann, and Irey West as (part of?) the future Justice League.
10. a character who deserved better from the text
Ha. Haha. There are too many to list so let’s go with Cass.
7 and 12 :]
7. two characters you’d like to see swap powers
Oooh, interesting. I’m gonna go with preboot Raven and Solstice for the contrast:
Their powers are both tied to emotion, but Kiran is light while Raven is darkness, which seemed to cause Raven literal pain. It would be interesting to see how she handled having those powers herself.
It would probably be a bit like the episode of the Teen Titans cartoon where Raven and Starfire switched powers.
12. four favourite single issues
*laughs* Oh, I once started a LONG post about this and never finished it. Just four?
Tales of the Teen Titans #44 (Dick becomes Nightwing), Tales of the Teen Titans #50 (Donna’s Wedding), Birds of Prey #108 (Babs vs. Spy Smasher, all my Birds feels), and Legends of the Dark Knight #120 (Cass becomes Batgirl, awesome Batfam interaction).
1, 2, & 5 ;3
1. a character you’d be happy never to see again
Tarantula. Although I’ll qualify that by saying that if it gave Dick a chance to come to terms with the rape, and it was written respectfully, I would make an exception there.
2. top five ships (canon or not)
Dick/Babs, Clark/Lois, Bruce/Selina, Wally/Linda, aaaand… hmmm. Diana/Steve, maybe?
3. top five costumes
Steph’s Batgirl costume, Dick’s blue fingerstripe Nightwing costume, Kate Kane’s Batwoman costume, Kiran Singh’s preboot Solstice costume, and Harley Quinn’s classic costume. (For more favorites - on the heroic side, anyway - see this post!)
5. five positive things- arcs, deaths, events, issues - that stuck with you.
(1) Dick’s transition from Robin to Nightwing
(2) “We made you a warrior. You made yourself a hero.”
(3) No Man’s Land
(4) Donna’s wedding
(5) “We live in hope.”
Would Gal Gadot be considered a PoC because she is from Israel??
I’m personally not the best person to ask this considering I’m not Jewish. I’ll refer back to this. It is to my understanding that while Jews are not considered white, some can be white-passing, while some aren’t. On Gal Gadot being considered a woman of color, well, hmm, thoughts by my Jewish followers?
I’d say you’ve got it pretty much right. Let’s start with the easy part: Gal Gadot is not a PoC because she is from Israel, because while that’s where she was born, she’s ethnically Ashkenazi (European) Jewish. Similar to Natalie Portman, Ayelet Zurer, and other actresses who were born in Israel but have Ashkenazi roots. If Gal Gadot was ethnically Israeli, she would most definitely be a PoC, but that’s not the case.
Now, the tougher question: Are Ashkenazi Jews PoC?
Ashkenazi Jews, like pretty much all Jews except converts, trace their roots back to the Levant, as the post you linked to mentioned. But with modern Ashkenazi Jews, you have to go pretty far back to find those roots, and after all if you go back far enough everyone is descended from PoC. How far back do you have to go before it becomes irrelevant? I don’t have a good answer.
As the post you linked to also discussed, racists and white supremacists most definitely do not consider Jews (Ashkenazi or otherwise) white. In fact, they consider us a huge “threat” to the white race. Now, you could argue (and I have seen other Jews make the argument) that we shouldn’t let white supremacists define our identity, but at the end of the day it’s a question of white privilege more than skin color, and Anti-Semitism is and always has been couched in explicitly racist terms. You can’t honestly claim it’s purely religious discrimination when Anti-Semites frame their hate in terms of the “Jewish race” and display equal prejudice towards Jews who are not remotely observant.
So, in the eyes of white racists, we are not truly white, and therefore don’t benefit from white privilege in the same way that “real” white people do. But most Ashkenazi Jews certainly look pretty dang white, and that’s a privilege in itself. Does that make us white or white-passing? Again, I don’t have a good answer.
The fact of the matter is, I know Ashkenazi Jews who unequivocally label themselves as white, Ashkenazi Jews who consider themselves white with qualifications, and Ashkenazi Jews who firmly consider themselves to be PoC (albeit white-passing ones).
For me, personally, it would feel dishonest to label myself a PoC. I look white. Everyone in my family looks white. I check off “White” whenever I have to fill out my race on a form.
And yet, I’m also aware that there are people out there who wouldn’t consider me white at all, and that makes a difference. So there isn’t an easy answer to the question.
To be on the safe side, I don’t challenge any Ashkenazi Jews who choose to label themselves as PoC, but otherwise I avoid categorizing Ashkenazi Jews as PoC. To me, Ashkenazi Jews fall into a kind of indeterminate category of “not PoC, but not exactly white either”. Others see the issue differently. I wish I had a simpler answer to give you, but it’s not a simple question.
However, the important thing is: If you’re going to label Gal Gadot a PoC, it should be because you consider Ashkenazi Jews PoC, not because you’ve incorrectly assumed that her nationality and her ethnicity must be one and the same. The issue is confused enough without spreading misinformation.
Page 1 of 136