Welcome to Not Enough Lifeboats

A few weeks ago, I was reading up on people’s reactions to the current chaos plaguing the Federal Government (of the United States). One person noted that they felt like they were in the scene in the movie Titanic when the musicians start playing the song “Nearer My God to Thee”. This triggered my goblin brain to start watching scenes from the 1997 movie, a few documentaries, and interviews from survivors.

Which led me to the movie A Night to Remember (1958).

A Night to Remember is probably the most accurate movie about the maritime disaster ever made (sorry Cameron fans). It was based on a book with the same name by Walter Lord, who had been obsessed (much like Cameron) with the tragedy. Lord interviewed 63 survivors of the sinking, creating cohesive timeline of events.

I have not yet had the chance to read the book, but I have watched the movie. And I liked it better than the 1997 one.

A Night to Remember primarily focuses on the sinking of the Titanic. The narrative follows several characters - some fictional, but most based on real people - and how they either survive or parish. My personal favorite is the survival of the baker. In the movie (his story varies by retelling), he gives up his seat in a lifeboat for another person, knowing he’d likely die. He then gets blind stinking drunk, starts throwing deck chairs overboard for people to use for flotation, climbs to the back part of the ship, and rides his way down before gently entering the water. He then treads water for about two hours in near freezing temperatures before he is pulled into a lifeboat. He doesn’t give in to hypothermia, he doesn’t drown, and he doesn’t panic. 

Normally, that amount of alcohol that the baker (may have) consumed would have actually been a detriment to surviving the cold. But because of the alcohol, the baker didn’t panic. Nor did he go into shock - which is likely why so many people died of hypothermia. 

He stayed calm and survived. His name was Charles Joughin.

Joughin was an outlier. His odds of survival were almost nil when gave up his seat.The vast majority of Titanic’s staff died with the ship along with a disproportionate number of third class passengers and men. The laws of the sea (in those days) dictated that women and children were to be given priority for lifeboats…at least the upper and middle class ones. Poor women and children were still given priority, but not as much as their first and second class counterparts.

Classism at its finest.

And though women and children were first asked to enter the lifeboats, some of them refused to. At first it was because the women felt safer staying on the Titanic. After all, they’d been told the Titanic was unsinkable, so why would they get in a much smaller “less safe” wooden lifeboat? Then they began to realize their actual danger, and the women wanted to stay with their husbands. Such was a woman’s duty in those days. They knew they would likely die or maybe they were still in denial about the danger they were in. It’s not fully clear.

Still, sexism at its finest.

Of the children on board, only every second class child escaped the ship. Only one first class child died - a two year old whose parents lost track of her baby brother and refused to be separated until he was found. The girl’s baby brother had already been placed in a lifeboat by the boy’s nurse. The family never knew he had already escaped. 52 children (a little over half) from third class died. More first class men survived than third class children.

The Titanic did not have enough lifeboats for every passenger on the ship, but it had enough for regulations. Those regulations had never imagined a ship Titanic’s size, so had never been updated. It was also assumed that ships in the area (because there were so many in the Atlantic at that time) would get to a wreck site in time for people to be picked up from the first round of lifeboats, then go back to the sinking ship, and pick up more distressed passengers.

On the night Titanic sank, the California was the closest ship. However, after a nasty interaction it’s Titanic’s wire operator, the California’s operator signed off and went to bed. There wasn’t another operator on the ship to take his place. The Titanic set off multiple rockets which the California saw. However, again, it was assumed that such a large ship was unsinkable and that the rockets were some kind of weird celebration in the middle of the night. 

Should the California have checked out what was going on?

The California was significantly smaller than the Titanic. I think that even if they had responded and tried to help, it wouldn’t have made huge difference. People would have still ended up in the water and quickly died of hypothermia. However, the losses wouldn’t have been as terrible. We’ll never know though.

So, the partially filled lifeboats had nowhere to drop off the first round of evacuees. Why didn’t they go back to the pull people out of the water?

To be blunt, the people in the water would have likely swarmed the lifeboats and caused capsizing. More people would have likely died.

Thus, the survivors in the lifeboats got front row tickets to the horror of listening to people die. They heard the screams and they could do nothing to help without risking more people dying. Eventually, a boat was able to go back and a few people were pulled from the water. It was too little too late for the majority.

At the end of A Night to Remember, the following text is shown: “despite the tragedy, the sacrifice of those lost on the Titanic was not in vain, as new maritime safety measures like sufficient lifeboats, constant radio monitoring, and the International Ice Patrol were implemented to prevent similar disasters in the future.”

But why weren’t these things implemented before the tragedy. Why did it take the deaths of over 1,500 people - over two thirds of the passengers on the Titanic - for these changes to be made? Why did the Titanic crew ignore the ice warnings? They did the radio and wire operators prioritize sending passenger messages over ensuring they could still communicate with the ship closest to them?

Tragedy begets change. Disaster begets action.

We aren’t at the part of the Titanic sinking where the orchestra plays “Nearer My God to Thee”. We are at the part where the lifeboats are just starting to be filled. The first class is boarding first, but not all of them know or even think the ship is sinking yet. 

The next little while is going to be painful and chaotic. The people who are going to be the most impacted will not be offered seats on those lifeboats.

Walter Lord provides a hard critique on Edwardian culture and class. He points out the classism and the final dregs of Gilded Age hyper capitalism that caused the disaster. He calls out the hubris of man over nature.

I wonder what history will say about this era of American history.

Until next week.

If you liked this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you guys like to hear from me.

Welcome to the Overwhelming Desire to Run to the Wilderness

 Has anyone else felt like these last few weeks have felt more like years?

Well at least the Eagles made it to the Superbowl. I grew up rooting for the Eagles. Dad had a love/hate relationship with McNabb back in the 2000s until he was traded to DC. Sadly, he's not here to watch the game with me, but I do like to think that he's providing a little "divine intervention" for this game.

That being said, seeing the Eagles at the Superbowl is probably the only thing he'd be excited about. 

My dad was a civil servant and even worked on The Hill (that's Congress for people outside of the Washington DC area) for a long time before moving into Non-Governmental Organizational work. If he hated the administration between 2016-2020, he'd be absolutely livid over this one.

I'm personally very frustrated. My own work is taking things one day at a time, even though we aren't a government agent. My personal life isn't all sunshine and roses - mainly because my cat was diagnosed with kidney disease last fall. We had to make an emergency trip to the vet this morning. I miss my dad.

If I didn't know that I would not do well, I'd run off and become a mysteriously cranky old hermit in the wilderness.

But I've read Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild. I know that the reality of living off the grid is far from the fictional romanizations that I've read in books and seen in movies.

You might recall that last year, I was on a Mount Everest kick. Specifically, I was hyper focused on the 1996 tragedy. I watched a ton of YouTube videos and read three books on the events that led to a group of climbers dying after reaching the top of the mountain. One of those books was Krakauer's Into Thin Air. It's his version of the disaster. He had been on one of the two expeditions that chose to climb. He'd been hired to write an article about the changing industry around tour groups climbing Everest. It was only a coincidence that disaster struck.

Prior to publishing Into Thin Air, Krakauer had famously written an article for "Outside" magazine and then the full length novel Into the Wild on one young man's ambition to leave civilization and live in the wilderness. 

On paper, I have a few similarities to Chris McCandless - the man who would become the focal point of Into the Wild. We both grew up in the Virginia suburbs right outside of Washington DC. Our dad's worked for the government. We both had/have a passion for the great outdoors. I honestly saw a bit of myself in McCandless. 

Except, I didn't leave after college to become a wanderer of the United States. I never loss touch with my parents or my sibling and I never spent much time off the East Coast.

But I wanted to. 

There was a time where I wasn't sure what I was going to do after college. Sure I was getting a good degree from a really good school, but I didn't have much in the way of grades and I was honestly a bit burnt out from academia.

Directionless, I applied to job about job after job until I managed to find one in a category I'd thought I'd like: market research. It would take almost another decade before I changed careers completely and started to find a passion. 

However, there was a part of me that just wanted to take off and see where I ended up. 

Unfortunately, I need a bit more stability than the wandering lifestyle allows. I like plans and routines. I budget and stick to it (when my life isn't out of balance). I research and crowd source (almost to my own determent) before making a decision. I don't like uncertainty.

McCandless knew what he wanted to do and he didn't mind not knowing what the future held. He enjoyed moving from one place to the next. He did do research (at least he bought books to use as references) and the chances he took were calculated. 

His downfall came from underestimating how river flows can change and bad information (though no one would know that until over a decade after he passed away). 

McCandless did well wandering up and down the West Coast. Some of Krakauer's research includes notes on his experiences in the Pacific Northwest that reminded me of my time spent on a road trip with my cousins, camping deep in Mt. Olympic National Forest. I could also easily picture his time in the Southwest after spending time in Arizona with my aunts - hiking Tucson, exploring Flagstaff, and seeing the Grand Canyon. 

His trip to Mexico in a canoe was my favorite part of the book. I've never tried to sneak into another country before (and I don't plan on doing so), but McCandless made it sound both dangerous and exciting. His tenacity in trying to canoe to the Pacific Ocean from the Colorado river basin was amazing.

I don't recommend anyone trying to recreate it in 2025.

It's no wonder McCandless though he could also conquer Alaska. He'd done well in the lower 48 and managed to travel a little around Mexico under the radar (again, I don't condone this action). He managed to hitchhike his way from the Dakotas to Alaska. It's unclear how he got into Canada without a passport or ID - he'd given himself a new name and there wasn't anyway for his parents to track him (they'd hired a private investigator). All of this in about two years.

Alaska should never be underestimated. The closest I have ever spent time somewhere like Alaska would be my trip to Iceland and I never left Reykjavík. I can't imagine trying to live out in the wilds of Iceland - they don't even have large animals that could kill you.

Around this point, Krakauer pauses his retelling of McCandless's adventures and recounts one of his own that nearly ended in disaster. In his early 20s, Krakauer attempted to climb one of the more famous mountains in Alaska solo. He wanted to try a more difficult route and planned to be away from civilization for a few weeks. Krakauer nearly died in his attempt (falling and bad weather), but he made it back to the small isolated town in the shadow of the mountain before he ran out of supplies. During much of his expedition, Krakauer could see the lights of the town, but they couldn't see him. Rescue would have been unthinkable. 

Similar circumstances surround McCandless's misadventure. He actually wasn't that far from civilization. The only reason not many people were around was because at that time of year, the melted glaciers cause the rivers to swell to the point where they are very difficult to cross. If he had opted to take a map - instead of explore at his leisure - he might have been able to find a safe crossing point. 

McCandless did actually try to leave his camp. He got a point in early summer where he felt he had accomplished his mission and wanted to return home - where ever he might have defined that. Except the river had swelled. There weren't any flight paths where he was, so no planes or helicopters overhead. He could have set a noticeable bushfire, but (as his family noted) he would have never wanted to light up the beautiful wilderness, even to save himself.

What likely happened to McCandless was that he started eating a plant (wild potatoes) that he thought was safe, but may have been moldy. The mold would have caused him to slowly become paralyzed and unable to digest any food properly. This is what led him to starve to death in an old bus that was used as a camp shelter.

McCandless died a few weeks before help would arrive. He was found in the bus he'd used as a shelter wrapped in his sleeping bag. The bus had been a shelter for hunters and overnight hikers. It remained in it's original location until 2020. Too many people were taking too many unnecessarily risks to get to it.

McCandless was a smart, kind, and unique person that seemed to be able to make friends where ever he went. He probably could have survived in Alaska and made it home with a little more preparation and humility when speaking with the locals. Who knows what he might have accomplished. 

Roughly two decades separates me and McCandless in age. While he was wandering around the lower 48, I was learning to walk and talk not too far from where he grew up. But his yearning to leave civilization and dive headfirst into the wild is a familiar one.

I feel bad for McCandless's family and a sense of loss of what might have become of his life. Krakauer includes other stories of people who left civilization to wander into the wilderness, but were never heard from again. It's likely that McCandless would have remained an unknown if his tragic death hadn't drawn so much media attention.

It's tempting to want to run away into the wild to get away from the overwhelming oppression that is our current state of affairs. It doesn't solve anything though. And it's still being romanticized. During the pandemic, cottage core (where people dressed up and pretended to live in a small cottage) and homesteading were popular escapes. There are YouTubers showing how they were able to make it living off the grid in tiny houses with vegetable patches and chickens. There are plenty of pictures on social media of women in cotton dresses happily tending to their flower patches and young men living out of their vans with a dog.

I think everyone has a small itch to escape the modernity of our modern society, especially when it feels so chaotic. But I have responsibilities and other interests to keep me occupied. As overwhelming as it all is, I know I'm needed where I currently am.

And lets be real, I would totally die trying to pet something that I shouldn't try to pet.

Until next week. 

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Welcome to Book Social Media

2025 has barely started and already part of my country is on fire while another part -the part I’m in - is buried under a foot of snow. In my personal life, things have been crazier than ever - mostly good. I was also sick much of last week with a bad cold (thankfully it wasn’t COVID, I tested negative) and finding time to relax has been tough.

I’d say I need a vacation, but I just got back from my winter break (my work closes the last week of the year since so many people take off and not much can get done). So, no vacations for a while. How do I deal with the negativity in the world right now without being able to run off?

Reading.

Since roughly 2022, I have set aside time to read from a book (or two) everyday. I chose to mostly read physical books with the occasional digital or audiobook thrown in because then I have a physical item on my nightstand taunting me to not forget about it. I have a bad habit of forgetting about digital and audiobooks I’ve downloaded. I also am trying to keep up with my ability to actually read words (I struggled with reading for a long time) and analyze text. I also enjoy learning new things in nonfiction books.

To track my books, I joined GoodReads during the pandemic. In addition to helping me keep up with reading, it also provides me with a steady stream of free books in the form of their giveaways. Even though I keep winning these free books, I continue to occasionally hit up my local used/independent bookstore and Barnes and Noble. So now I have a huge TBR (to be read) pile next to my bed and lining one of my bookshelves. The other bookshelves showcase the books I’ve conquered finished. Some of the books I finish end up going to my sibling or mother (and my dad while he was still with us), some end up in one of the local little libraries (usually the advanced reader copies I wasn’t thrilled with), and some are traded in at my local used bookstore (in order to buy more books).

After completing a book, I like to go through what other readers have said. What they liked or didn’t like about the book and what they also recommend reading.

This is how I first stumbled upon the remains of BookTube.

BookTube is the part of YouTube dedicated to, what else, books! Mostly comprised of readers (there are some writers and publishers mixed in) and their reading lists. Prior to watching BookTube and joining GoodReads, I wasn’t super interested in connecting with other readers (writers yes, reader shrug). I felt that my reading was more of a private activity and would only provide reviews and recommendations on books my writer friends had written (and I had read).

I still think of my reading as a private activity and I don’t feel like my reading choices say all that much about me. Sure I have preferences - romance is okay in small doses, cozy mysteries are always a delight - but the books I read and am interested in are all over the place. 

However, I have noticed that some people on social have made reading their entire personality.

Now, I’m sure most of the reading “aesthetic” floating around online comes from a genuine love of books and stories. There is no denying that, especially when some of the BookTubers are spreading information about book bans. The funny skits are entertaining and I enjoy getting good book recommendations.

What I’m not enjoying is the gamification, criticism, and superiority complexes the overall book community is currently tearing itself over.

Enter stage left BookTok.

BookTok is BookTube with shorter video times and a younger audience. One might say it’s cesspool of the battle of the generations with Gen Z leading the charge on TikTok and the older generations still preferring the longer videos of YouTube. BookTok is a natural evolution in the current ongoing social media shifts. It’s easy to go viral and take things wildly out of context with the limited amount of time per video - like Twitter before it became X or Vine. 

Pared with GoodReads and an unexpected pandemic keeping everyone home for over a year, BookTok has made “reading cool again”. There are tons of videos providing reviews, recommendations, analysis, book hauls, and character studies.

Wait…book hauls?

Yeah, I guess some BookTokers and BookTubers are getting famous for how many books they have gotten their hands on (usually bought) and how excited they are to read them. Similar to clothing hauls from thrift stores or cheap online retailers like Temu (ugh!), book hauls are somewhat seen as a status symbol for having extra cash and intelligence for how many books a person owns. I’m a little fuzzy on how many books these influencers actually read, but they are buying tens to hundreds of books at one time to show their audiences.

At least the authors get paid (as long as they aren’t used or second hand).

GoodReads has made it possible for readers to easily share with each other their read count. Every year, GoodReads allows readers to set a goal for how many books they hope to read. At my most ambitious, I went for 50 books in one year. This year I opted for 30 because my goal of 40 for last year was tough and I have a few really big reads (between 500-1000 pages) I want to try this year. The people putting over 50 books are impressive. I’m baffled by the people who want to read more than 100. Clearly they read a lot faster than me (I’m a notoriously slow reader).

This massive amount of reading is reflected in the posting schedule for BookTok.

To keep the algorithm happy, YouTubers and TikTok creators have to constantly be producing content. This massive workload is one of the many reasons I never want to be an online content creator (my online stuff is for me and I am uninterested in going viral). This has also led to people accusing BookTok creators of not actually reading the books they are reviewing and promoting or that these influencers are only picking “easy” books to read.

I don’t know what makes a book “easy”, but the biggest targets of these critiques are influencers promoting romance, fantasy, the combined genre of romansy (the words romance and fantasy squished together), historical fiction with an emphasis on romance, and cozies. As a reader of cozy mystery, I take umbridge to this. However, I also can’t help noticing that these genres (and combined genre) are geared towards young women.

Oh boy, do we have a new can of worms to open.

Now, I admit that I’m not a fan of a lot of the most criticized authors. Sarah J. Maas and Colleen Hoover book descriptions make me cringe. But I will not yuck someone else’s yum. They clearly have fans for a reason. Even if I think they aren’t great (and at times deeply disturbing), that doesn’t mean I should knock down someone who enjoys these stories. After all, I have my schlock that I like to read and would never consider “high art” (eyes my Uglies, Pretties, and Specials books from my teen years that have been getting some heat lately).

I won’t even knock the people going out of their way for “spicy” books. I will question the choice to make some of the cover art look like the book is appropriate for people under the age of 16, but I won’t knock the people reading these books. They help satisfy an escape fantasy for the readers. I do not enjoy sex or “spice” in my books - the use of the word spice instead of sex is due to censorship on YouTube and TikTok to create an advertiser friendly environment (someday soon, I hope linguist scholars come out with a series of studies about language shifts around this type of censorship and the effects on language overall). I tend to skip over those scenes if they pop up. Other people are into it. 

And that’s okay.

The amount of hate outside of valid criticism is obnoxious. I admit I enjoy listening to valid criticism with a good analysis of text, but I don’t enjoy listening to people saying that a book is simply “trash” because it’s not their preferred genre. 

No one is a superior reader because they only read the “classic”; those books are  mostly written by dead white guys anyway so the classification is relative. And no one is a “fake reader” because they only read “spice”. People are allowed to like what they like. People are allowed to provide criticism without name calling or judgement. 

Stop telling young women and teenage girls that the stuff they like is “bad”. Their taste is still growing and changing. For all you know, the next Austen or Brontë or Plath or Morrison is mixed in with Maas and Hoover.

I’m not even going to get in to it with some of the other big controversies going around. The book tracker Fantasy is having some interesting bugs with its AI interface and the woman who said that there were too many words on book pages are not topics I have enough information on to form an informed opinion. Also, GoodReads seems to have started a new badge system for when people read popular books in certain categories, further adding to the gamification of reading, which is a thing I guess.

It’s no one’s business what I am reading. If someone wants to share or vlog about their favorite books or current reads, more power to them. Healthy and valid criticism is fine. Unrelenting hate is not. Reading shouldn’t be treated as status symbol - though there are decent arguments as to why it inherently is - and “spicy” books aren’t necessarily bad (see the Bible for details).

I am a reader and by virtue of you reading this blog, so are you. Enjoy the “classics”, learn something new, be political, or try a new genre. You never know what gems you might find.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you like hearing from me. 

Until next week.

Welcome to a Haunting Christmas Story

There is an old Christmas tradition of telling scary stories at Christmas time. Modern times have (mostly) drifted from this practice, leaving all things spooky to the season of Halloween. However, there are still some frightening tales that are famously told and retold every year.

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens is the most well known Christmas horror story in modern times. You might be wondering why I call it a horror story when it has such an uplifting ending and is presented as family friendly - even the Muppets have adapted the story.

Yet, when I was a small child, watching my first adaptation of the story with Scrooge McDuck and Mickey Mouse in a half hour short, the scenes with Pete as the Ghost of Christmas Future always terrified me. Other adaptations have upped the spooky factor such as the Scrooge musical with Albert Finney that sends Mr. Scrooge to hell or the Disney version with Jim Carrey (if the animation doesn’t frighten you, the ghosts really will). Scrooged even has a dead body in it (though it’s more sad than frightening).

Even my favorite adaptation with George C. Scott (sorry Muppets) has some intense moments that leave the audience tense with suspense. When the Ghost of Christmas Present shows the children - Ignorance and Want - hiding under his robes, I jump back.

A Christmas Carol may be a traditional story, but there are other famous terrors of the season. 

Krampus has recently become an icon of holiday horror in the United States, though his folk legend origins in Germany are very old. There are now movies about Santa’s not so friendly companion and he makes frequent appearances in pop culture.

One could argue that Dr. Seuss’s character of The Grinch is very loosely related to Krampus in his hatred of Christmas and as a polar opposite to Santa (stealing rather than giving presents). The live action Jim Carrey version of the movie has a few scary moments that are overshadowed by the crude comedy. How the Grinch Stole Christmas is not a proper scary story, but it’s also not a saccharine one. It falls into that in-between space that other stories like Nightmare Before Christmas and A Christmas Carol do.

Another traditional Christmas baddie is Grýla along with her sons known as the Yule Lads. Much like Krampus, Grýla kidnaps naughty children around Christmas time and eats them. The Yule Lads are pranksters who, in modern times, give presents like Santa Claus to the children of Iceland. However, Grýla’s cat, known as The Yule Cat, continues to be an ominous presence - eating anyone who doesn’t receive new clothes to wear before Christmas Eve.

Moving away from the traditional and folk lore, there are plenty of 80s style slasher movies set around Christmas to satisfy the horror lover. Black Christmas has been remade a few times and there are a number of slashers where the mass murder dresses up at Saint Nick like in Silent Night, Deadly Night.

And then there’s Germlins. This movie mixes the dark fantasy styles of the 80s with a bit of creature feature, shaken well with Christmas spirit. For many an 80s child, this movie is an essential at Christmas time.

This year, in the Christmas tradition of haunting tales, we got the remake of Nosferatu - it was worth waiting 102 years for this one. Part gothic, part art house, all horror, this movie is intense. It flows like a dream…or nightmare. The camera transitions are smooth, yet uncomfortable. It takes place in early winter - complete with a Christmas scene. It drips with cold atmospheric tension that send shivers down the spine. 

So in the meaningless time in the last few days of 2024, pop in a spooky holiday movie and curl up with a hot beverage. You’ll make it through this winter yet.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y’all like hearing from me.

Until the next week.

Welcome to the Tale of Rebecca

A few months ago, I wrote a blog post about the gothic novel "Bluebeard's Castle" by Anna Biller. While the writing was solid, I found the characters to be insufferable. It's an excellent character study on what causes women to fall for and stay with bad men. However, some of those bad choices the main character made could have easily been prevented with a quick Google search.

I am not victim blaming. I am saying she had the technology to fact check her handsome creep and chose not to.

But that's all in the past. I've moved on to other books within the genre - books like "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier. 

"Rebecca" is one of those classic books (and movies) that everyone has (likely) heard of. It's most famous for having a protagonist without a name, a lot of twists and turns, and some queer subtext. Alfred Hitchcock directed the 1940 movie starring Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine. There's also a Netflix adaptation that I am ignoring. 

"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again."

It's a haunting opening line to be sure. Our nameless narrator meets the much older Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter while on holiday with her employer, Mrs. Van Hopper, in Monte Carlo. They have a whirlwind romance (kind of sort of) after Mrs. Van Hopper is taken ill. Then decide to get married when Mrs. Van Hopper gets better and wants to return to America. Mrs. Van Hopper warns the narrator about marrying the mysterious de Winter, but is so unpleasant about it that I don't blame the narrator for running off.

The honeymoon is wonderful - or so we're told; it's not included in the text. Then, they arrive at Manderley and things start to unravel. Everyone expects that the nameless protagonist is about to step into the previous Mrs. de Winter's place, do things as she did, and prefer things as she preferred them. The narrator is so uncertain of herself - she is very young after all - that she goes along with the established routine. However, Maxim seems to be pulling away. Hurt and jealous of a dead woman, the narrator becomes even more timid and falls into more elaborate fantasies - which she is already prone to do. 

Rebecca...

Enforcing the traditions of the previous Mrs. de Winter is Mrs. Danvers, who seems to hate the narrator. There are a few intense scenes between the two women, which culminates in a nasty prank by Mrs. Danvers using the narrator to emotionally hurt Maxim. Mrs. Danvers loved Rebecca de Winter and thoroughly blames Maxim for her death.

For good reason, but that's getting into spoiler territory. 

The first half of "Rebecca" builds up the character, Rebecca, into this mythically perfect person who is wonderful and kind to everyone. Except, perhaps, she wasn't so nice to Ben, the neurodivergent (they didn't have this word in the 1930s when this book was published, but it's clear he is not neurotypical) "beach hermit" who wanders around the grounds of Manderley. He seems afraid of Rebecca and claims that she wants to lock him away.

This is the first clue that Rebecca is not the saint we and the narrator have been led to believe. The next is a reaction from estate manager and family friend, Frank Crawley after the narrator confesses that she's afraid that Maxim doesn't really love her (anymore). Frank seems to be warry of the memory of Rebecca - almost like he had a bad experience or two with the women. Plus there's this creep, Jack Favell, coming into the house when he's been told to stay away.

Spoilers

Maxim hated Rebecca, but couldn't divorce her for a variety of upper class 1930s English reasons. She slept around, did (unspecified) terrible things, and may have been bisexual (it is also not specified). Her death might have freed him from her physically, but not emotionally.

Maxim may be portrayed (and often interpreted) as a classic upholder of traditional upper class patriarchy, but he's also someone who has clearly been emotionally, if not verbally abused for years. I feel a lot of people overlook this fact because "patriarchy" and "he gets away with [spoilers]". I feel that his quick romance with the narrator is a bit of a read flag, but the narrator is so nonthreatening that Maxim might have felt safe for the first time in decades. 

Patriarchy...

Rebecca is often interpreted as the antithesis to Maxim's traditional patriarchy. She's bold, outspoken, sexually liberated, possibly queer (we only have that one declaration from Mrs. Danvers that doesn't verify anything), and knows what she wants out of life. This isn't a bad or wrong interpretation, but I do think it minimizes the horrible things she did (and is implied to have done) to Maxim and some of his friends (like Frank, Beatrice, and Giles).

Daphne du Maurier once admitted that she is bisexual - long after she published "Rebecca" - and that admission seemed to have made Rebecca the character look more sympathetic to the casual reader. 

However, I don't think Rebecca is a feminist character or a foil for the patriarch. She's an interesting character and seems to defy the patriarchy, but also feels comfortable moving within and weaponizing it against other characters - especially Maxim. There's a moment during Maxim's confession where divorce is brought up and Rebecca (according to Maxim) tells him that it would be far too scandalous for him to divorce her after four days of marriage; such a thing would ruin him (but weirdly not her).

Also her implied treatment of Ben (as suggested by Ben) should really put a stop to people's rosy analysis of Rebecca.

Queerness...

Is "Rebecca" a queer novel?

Yes in the sense that at least three characters might be queer. The first two characters are obviously Rebecca and Mrs. Danvers. Though never explicitly stated that the two are queer (Rebecca would be bi and Mrs. Danvers a likely lesbian), Mrs. Danvers at one point does declare that Rebecca never loved a man. This could be interpreted a few ways such as Mrs. Danvers being so in love with Rebecca that she is in denial about her many affairs with men (including her cousin Jack) or that Rebecca was such a narcissist that she only loved herself. Either way, Rebecca is likely bisexual like du Maurier and Mrs. Danvers only has eyes for her.

The third possible queer character is Frank Crawley. I haven't seen Frank come up as much in the queer discourse about the book - some people seem to think he should have paired up with the narrator. However, I'd like to make an argument that Frank is in love with Maxim.

1. Frank is a bachelor and implied to be a similar age to Maxim - being a bachelor isn't a sign of being queer in the early 1900s, but it is a hint. 

2. Frank seems to already know the big bad thing Maxim did and is perfectly happy to help cover it up as best he can - I know his job is on the line, but his actions are a little more over the top than an employee-employer implies.

3. Frank is completely devoted to Maxim in a healthier way than Mrs. Danvers was to Rebecca. He maintains healthy boundaries with Maxim and the narrator. When he is with the narrator, I get nothing less than platonic vibes (such great evidence I know) from him.

4. Frank is completely repulsed by the memory of Rebecca. There's a conversation between the narrator and Frank where he all but confesses that Rebecca made a pass at him and Giles (who is Beatrice's husband and brother-in-law to Maxim). Giles either enjoyed it or was very confused by the encounter (it's not really made clear in the text), but Frank implies he nearly jumped out of his skin. Based on what we're told about Rebecca and her conquests, she wasn't used to being rejected by anyone. This was the moment I started questioning if Frank was gay.

And that is why I think there are actually three queer characters running around the pages of "Rebecca". Rebecca is the "bad" queer representation, while Frank is the "good" queer representation. Mrs. Danvers is the queer representation that should have been "good", but ended up getting beaten down by the powers that be and had a break from reality. 

However in the movie, since Mrs. Danvers is implied to be a lesbian, she has to die in a house fire. Thanks Hayes Code. She is the only character "punished" for their actions during the course of the story.

That's also not the only change made between the 1940s movie and the book that's due to the Hayes Code interfering with the adaptation. There are a couple of other changes - one really big as to change the morality of the text - that happen. There's a great YouTube video about the adaptation if you're interested and are familiar with the book and/or movie.

Gothic Romance...

I love a good gothic aesthetic tale, but gothic romances are a toxic mix of red flags and tragedy. Though I did enjoy "Rebecca", I can't say that I was rooting for any of the characters other than Frank (he's a good guy). It was a bit more to my taste than "Bluebeard's Castle". I wouldn't call "Rebecca" a feminist book, but it is a critique on the patriarchy, class, gender, and social issues. "Rebecca" is a book full of queer subtext that can be overanalyzed to literary scholar's hearts content.

Do I recommend "Rebecca"? Yes, it's a good classic read. 

Wow, I spent like two hours getting all my thoughts out about this book. I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me...

Until next week. 

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off), please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Autumn in France

For the record, I have never seen "Emily in Paris", nor do I want to. I know of it's existence and that many people find it hilariously inaccurate to the real experience of living in France - not to mention the stereotyping. My first trip to France certainly wasn't a reenactment of "Emily in Paris". My life might be an occasional comedy, but a romantic one, it ain't. 

This was my first trip to France. I went with a group of relatives and a friend. I took a ton of pictures, ate a lot of great food, and had a wonderful time seeing the sites (and shopping). I didn't drink any wine - my life has had to be alcohol free for almost a decade at this point and I don't miss it...much. I went to Paris and Bordeaux. 

Paris was filled with people - kind of like New York City. Paris occasionally smelled bad - kind of like New York City. Paris had a lot of cool things to do - kind of like New York City (you get the point). 

What makes Paris unique is it's history, architecture, and style. Often all three of these elements meet in the many churches, museums, and landmarks haphazardly scattered throughout the city. And though the Olympics had blown in over the summer, the only remains of the event were the interlocking rings children were climbing for pictures in front of the Eiffel Tower. 

Speaking of the Eiffel Tower, I don't think I've ever seen so many people taking selfies or with a professional photographer to get that perfect Parisian shot of the world's most famous tourist trap. Apparently, it's a big deal to hire people for those idealized Instagram shots to make you look like it's just you and an admittedly beautiful tower. You just have to navigate that sea of people and hope the well armed cops don't mess up your shoot.

Despite what the painters and photo filters might suggest, Paris wasn't all decked out in fall colors this October. Temperatures ranged from the 50s to 70s F (or 12 - 22 C for you non-Americans) and, though I did see some people bundled up, I was usually in a light jacket or simple long sleeves. The trees were mostly a shade of pale green to light orange and hardly any leaves were on the ground. It felt like early fall instead of the mid-season it should have been.

Many a French person commented that it was climate change to blame for the odd weather.

Halloween isn't really celebrated in France - at least not like how it is in the UK, let alone the US. There were a few decorations here and there in shop windows, but no one had their balconies done up. Pumpkin spice could only really be found in American chains like McDonalds and Starbucks. Speaking of Starbucks, their menu is so much more fun in France. They have a range of donuts that we don't have and I just barely missed out on the pumpkin spice flavor (it was already sold out).

Not that I was eating in American chains while in Paris (there was a stop at Starbucks in Bordeaux for a quick drink, but that was it).

Mostly, I ate in one of the many cafes that line the streets of Paris. The best (and cheapest) ones are typically further away from the main tourist attractions. Less people to watch, but a relaxing experience. And even if the food isn't great, you're still in Paris and it's better than eating back home - or so my family kept saying.

By the time we reached Bordeaux, I was craving a little something different and politely asked to try French Chinese food. Oh boy did we luck out with the cafe we found. I'd never tasted Mapo Tofu so fresh. It wasn't mouth tingling spicy like how we serve it in the US, but it had a lot of flavors. The dumplings were also wonderful and served with black vinegar instead of soy sauce.

Bordeaux could be much more easily be compared to Washington DC if DC had winding alleyways instead of large avenues. Bordeaux is a World Heritage Site City and has strict building codes to maintain its status. This means that many of the roads are made of cobble stone that are roughly the width of a single car, buildings aren't allowed to get much higher than Saint Andrew's Cathedral, and several old buildings that survived World War 1 and 2 have been converted into museums and art experiences. It is also home to the longest pedestrian shopping street in Europe - Rue Sainte-Catherine.

I found Bordeaux to be a little on the spooky side with it's winding alleys and dark cathedrals. St. Andre (or Andrew's in English) was very dark - only lit by candles and what remaining light slipped through the windows in the early evening. There were a few electric lights in one area for a late Mass, but the overall space was eerie. It probably didn't help that there was an organ concert going on while I was wandering around. 

Early morning fog rises from the river and blankets parts of the lower city - which is of course where the older sections are. It's an easy set up for a horror story about vampires or werewolves - maybe a cat person if the writer is feeling original. It's less crowded than Paris and the streets tend to clear out much earlier - with the exception of the houseless population and their dogs (I only ever say them keeping to themselves). There aren't a ton of street lights either. I think there should be more horror stories set in Bordeaux - with a romantic leaning of course (we're still in France). 

I was unable to see a lot of the city's green space since they had a fair going on in the main park near where I was staying, but when I left the city for a tour of the nearby vineyards (with wine I couldn't drink) it was clear that fall was just arriving to the region. Bordeaux is South of Paris - about 2 hours by the high speed train (can we please get some America) - and is close enough to the ocean that submarine factories existed on the river going through the city. 

Bordeaux is most famous for its Bordeaux wines. As the city and surrounding area are World Heritage Sites, the wine makers are under pressure to maintain the culture and practices that make the region famous. 

Unfortunately, climate change is throwing a wrench into the system. 

Yes, even wine is being threatened by what we humans have been doing to our planet. The heat that ripens grapes and makes them sweet, also make them more alcoholic. While that may not bother some people, it does change the composition of the wines being produced. This requires changes in harvesting, processing the grapes, and maintaining the health of the vineyard. For a region that's been making wine for over 2000 years, this is a lot of changes to juggle in a short amount of time.

Climate change is actually pretty well talked about in France. They openly acknowledge the changes and how its affecting everything from the weather to agriculture. A small comment on how warm the city is for October will sometimes lead a French-person to respond with "well, that's climate change". 

But the best spooky thing to do in France is to trek down into the Paris Catacombs. The were originally built because the city started falling into itself - a disturbing fun fact I was completely unaware of. The official city tour takes the curious well below the metro and sewers into an underground maze. Though the original purpose of the catacombs was to help stabilize the city, it quickly became clear that it was also a good place to store dead people. I say clear, but really I mean that one of the kings declared that cemeteries could no longer be within the city limits of Paris and dead people had to go somewhere, so into the stabilizing tunnels they went.

The audio guide tells visitors that there are millions of men, women, and children lying in rest under the city of Paris. Literally, the current citizens of the city are walking over the bones of their ancestors. This underworld even includes the French Revolutionaries that ended the monarchy. There are more dead bodies in this space than living above it.

And an underworld it is. The passage leading into one of the many viewing areas of Paris's dearly departed is etched with the famous phrase "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here" in French. Past that entrance you'll find low ceilings, winding passageways, and human remains. 

What could be creepier?

Oh right, there's literally no barrier between you and those human bones.

Yeah, I was expecting the public area of the catacombs to have the actual human remains behind some kind of glass or plastic wall to prevent people from being able to touch them or accidently back into them - the bones line both sides of the walls and the passages are kind of narrow. They politely ask that you don't touch the bones, wear your backpack on your front, and have cameras everywhere. I still wonder how often someone accidently touches a dead person. 

At the end of the tour, the grand finale includes a brief description of a concert that took place in the catacombs in the late 1800s. I think it would have been pretty cool, until I remembered that they wouldn't have had electrical lights. Candle light, plus Mozart's Funeral March, plus dead bodies equals a nope situation for this adventurer. 

Autumn in France is very pretty. The food is excellent, the weather mild, and there's plenty of tourists around to people watch. I enjoyed my time back in Europe - it's been almost a decade since my last trip. Fall is a beautiful season to go. 

Until next week.

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a message. I love hearing from my readers and I hope you like hearing from me.

Welcome to the Kid’s Made For TV Halloween

 I honestly can think of a better title.

When I was still in elementary school (nearly thirty years ago…shivers), I took an early October trip to Disney World. This was before Halloween had really taken off into the phenomenon at theme parks it is today and Disney World was focused on its 25th anniversary celebrations (yes, I saw the Pink Castle).

While on that trip, I first road the Tower of Terror…and didn’t like it. I was pretty young and it was before Disney had changed the ride to its modern (less intense) setting. I much preferred the spooky Haunted Mansion.

However, since it was close to Halloween, Disney played its first (made for TV) movie about one of its park ride, The Tower of Terror (1997), on one of their channels. It starred Steve Gutenberg (whom I knew from Three Men and a Baby) and a very young Kirsten Dunst. Did it scare me? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Much more than the ride. 

For a long time I thought the movie was a fever dream. It was rarely shown on TV and might have become part of childhood lore without the advent of the Internet. In the early Wild West days of YouTube, I found someone who uploaded the whole movie - in multiple ten minute parts. It was eventually taken down (like many of those early YouTube bootlegged movies) and I struggled to find a copy, even through Amazon, until I found a bare bones DVD at Target. I grabbed a copy.

Guys, this movie still hasn’t been added to Disney+. 

The Haunted Mansion has TWO theatrical movies! Why can’t we get a new Tower of Terror. The ride has as much of a cult following as Haunted Mansion.

I digress.  

The Tower of Terror isn't the only made for TV movie that shaped my childhood. It especially isn't the only Halloween themed made for TV movie that I anxiously hoped to see year after year. So today, I bring you a list of made for TV and direct to video/DVD movies that shaped younger years during the month of October. 

This list will not include long episodes of shows (sorry "House of Villains" fans) nor will I include anything I can't fully prove existed (I guess this means I have to leave off the "Are You Afraid of the Dark" TV movie I swear existed). All of these movies were made in the 1990s to early 2000s. These are in no particular order. 

1. The Tower of Terror - since I started this post with a rambling explanation on my early memories and quest to find this movie, I might as well mention it first. This movie is spooky with a few intense scenes (spoilers: the elevator falls at a couple of points in the plot). Though there isn't any reference to the TV show "The Twilight Zone" - which the ride supposedly lives in - it keeps a lot of the same plot points in the ride's story. Kids over the age of 7 or 8 should be okay to see it. Sadly, Disney has given this movie the "Disney House of Mouse" treatment and pretends it doesn't exist.
2. Halloweentown 1, 2, and High - Nothing says Halloween more to a 90s and 2000s kid than one of the Halloweentown movies. I'm particularly fond of the first two movies (maybe because I really liked Marnie and Luke as a couple). I'm including Halloweentown High because it's one of my sibling's favorites. I'm glad Debbie Reynolds was in these movies as she brings a bit of cozy class among all the fun camp. No Halloween is complete without watching at least one of the movies. We do not acknowledge Return to Halloweentown. 
3. Don't Look Under the Bed - Disney Channel Original Movies are going to pop up a lot on this list and this is one of the best in their horror category. Though not scary for adults, this movie was eventually pulled from the October rotation because of parents complaining about how the movie scared their kids. There are plenty of intense scenes, especially when Boogeyman/Boogey-person shows up. This movie is primarily about how forcing kids to grow up too fast is bad for their emotional development (it's not explicitly stated, but it is heavily implied) and that children shouldn't have to step into an adult role when they are clearly not ready for it. It was one of my favorites as a kid and I honestly thought it was lost media until Disney+ finally added it to its library. 
4. Alvin and the Chipmunks Meet the Wolfman - if ever there was a love letter to the Universal Wolfman movies, this is that movie - which might surprise some of you. Alvin, Simon, and Theodor are in a school production of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but when Alvin is banded from all things spooky due to nightmares, Theodor steps up into the Mr. Hyde role. At first timid, Theodor's attitude changes overnight after getting bitten by a "dog". Alvin and Simon visit Madam Raya - an Elvira like character - who tell them to bop Theodor on the head with something silver to save him. Luckily, their next door name, Mr. Lawrence Talbot, has a cane with a silver wolf head that was originally a bullet that killed his great grandfather. Are you seeing where this plot is going? I still enjoy this movie and watch it every year (I have it on DVD). The songs are kind of catchy and there's plenty of fun chaos with only a couple of intense moments. This is a good introduction horror movie to little ones. 
5. Scooby Doo on Zombie Island/Scooby Doo and the Witch's Ghost - technically these are two separate movies, but I'm counting them together because they are part of the four movie series that kicked off the 2000s revamp of Scooby Doo. They are not long episodes. They are stand alone movies that share a universe. Zombie Island is a straight up horror movie. As the name implies there are zombies roaming an island. Many a parent thought they were putting on a fun Scooby Doo movie only to scar their kid for life with Zombie Island. Witch's Ghost isn't as scary as Zombie Island, but this movie is all about the fall. It takes place in a small New England town haunted by a witch who reminiscent of the Salem witch trials. This movie also introduced the Hex Girls - an eco goth band with witchy vibes. Witch's Ghost takes some liberties with witchcraft as a modern religious movement (um, no Wiccans are not a hereditary group and popped up in the early 1900s). I'd recommend these movies for older kids. 
6. Mom's Got a Date with a Vampire - part of me still finds it funny that Mr. Sheffield from "The Nanny" played a vampire trying to date Sabrina the Teenage Witch's Aunt Hilda in this 2000 Disney Channel Original Movie. When a divorced mother of three is set up by two of her children on a date with a mysterious man to get her out of the house (because she had rightfully grounded them), craziness ensues when the mysterious man turns out to be a vampire. Lizzie McGuire's dad...I mean...Malachi Van Helsing comes to help the kids save their mom. I haven't rewatched this one recently, but I do remember being very worried for the mom while she was in a trance. Also, seeing all these actors I was familiar with from other shows I enjoyed was a lot of fun. Good for a family movie night.
7. Twitches/Twitches Too - I can't leave two of my favorite witches off this list. Tia Mowry and Tamera Mowry star as two long lost twin sister and heirs to a magical kingdom, sent to the non-magical Earth (our world) to be kept safe until they are unexpectedly reunited around their 21st birthday. Together they learn of their magical and royal roots while working to fulfil a prophecy that might turn deadly. It's a fun fantasy story that is light on the scares, but qualifies as a part of the Halloween lineup. Alex/Artemis was my favorite growing up because of her awesome writing powers and her association with the moon and all things nighttime. This movie is particularly good for your more feminine leaning kids. 
8. The Scream Team - apparently this movie was supposed to be a backdoor pilot to a TV show that was never picked up, which means I can include it on this list. Scream Team has a great cast including Kat Dennings, Eric Idle, Tommy Davidson, and the great Kathy Najimy. This movie is about death and accepting when a loved one leaves us unexpectedly. Idle, Davidson, and Najimy are ghosts helping two kids, who recently lost their grandfather, find their grandfather's ghost and get him to cross over to the next life - all while avoiding a fire welding angry ghost named Zachariah Smith. It's a heartwarming and fun take on a serious and sad subject. 10 out of 10, I recommend, though maybe for kids over the age of 7.
9. Phantom of the Megaplex - I love this Disney Channel Original Movie and was disappointed when Disney stopped showing it regularly in October. Not only is Micky Rooney a great addition to the cast, he brings a certain charisma and nostalgia for older movies that elevates the story from simply silly to meaningful. The movie roughly follows the plot of Phantom of the Opera (if you think of oldest brother, Pete, as the Christine of the story...that might be giving too much away). There's a phantom running around causing mayhem on the night of a major movie premiere. Siblings, Pete (who actually works at the Megaplex), Karen, and Brian are on the case to find out who the mysterious phantom is. Hopefully they can dodge the cinema sitter, love rivals, and actual responsibility to catch the phantom in the act. It's just a shame that Pete's manager is MIA for most of the night after "firing" the previous theater's owner, Movie Mason (he didn't actually work at the Megaplex, but "volunteered" to help with the premiere preparations). This movie is all about the love of classic cinema and how movies themselves are magic. One of my all time favorite lines comes from Movie Mason: "When we arrive in this world, magic is all around us. You simply have to see a baby discover a butterfly or a toddler splash in the bath for the first time. Yet, as the years pass, simple pleasures aren't quite so simple to find. Myths and legends fall away. Santa's secrets are revealed. Card tricks lose their fascination. True wonder is hard to come by. But there's always... magic at the movies". It's sweet and not really that scary. Good for kids all ages. 
10. It - Yes, I'm talking about the 1990 Steven King TV miniseries. Yes, I'm counting it. There wasn't a kid in the 90s or 2000s how didn't know someone who saw this movie way too young and swore it was the scariest thing they had ever seen. It was a staple of Halloween sleepovers and caused a generation of kids to be wary of clowns. But let's be real, the 1990 It isn't scary. The 2017 and 2019 movies are much, much better. The 1990 version is campy and funny. Not that I recommend showing a ten year old this movie (because that's how it's now advertised as). However, this made for TV movie was a staple of my childhood - not that I wanted my parents to know I'd seen it. I also didn't find it scary as a kid (probably because my first actual horror movie - which I was also way too young to watch - was Arachnophobia, which set the bar high for spider horror). I do think that it's a good intro horror movie for the more mature preteens to Steven King. Plus it has Tim Curry in it and he was a major part of any 90s kid's childhood.

Are there any made for TV movies you remember for the Halloween season? I have some vague memories of TV movies on ABC Family that I swear existed (like the "Are You Afraid of the Dark" movie), but can't remember the names or plots of - just that they were scary. Are there some modern TV/direct to streaming movies that you enjoy during the Halloween season? My sibling loves Under Wraps (2021). Let me know in the comments. 

If you enjoyed this post (or it really pissed you off) please like, share, and/or leave a comment. I love hearing from my readers and I hope y'all like hearing from me.

Until next week.