She-Hulk Hulks Out!

The reason why rants often generate more buzz here than other pieces is that they grab people’s attention. I pour hours into an analysis or a ranked list to minimal response, but a rant? If it’s topical, it’ll generate high levels of traffic instantly. Plus, rants are fun to write. Let’s be honest: would you rather me praise Werewolf by Night, or me call out the sexism peppering She-Hulk: Attorney at Law’s feedback? Yeah, I thought so!

She-Hulk: Attorney at Law has received nonstop assaults since its premiere. Whether it was calling out catcalling, or twerking with a big-name celebrity, or even confronting incel culture, the backlash has both been incorporated into the show’s narrative and completely missed the point. Nowhere is this more pronounced than the series finale, which utilizes its central gimmick to deliver a near-perfect conclusion thus far. Allow me to explain.

By the way, I’m about to spoil the ending, so…

Episode 9 begins with a campy callback to the 1978 Hulk series, except gender-flipped. The remainder has Jen grappling with taking the bait of Intelligencia in the previous episode. Forbidden from transforming into She-Hulk, Jen takes a trip to Emil Blonsky’s wellness retreat. Once there, she crashes an Intelligencia meeting and comes face-to-face with the orchestrator of her misfortune: a former date who’s jealous of her “unearned” powers.

Initially, this is yet another MCU action set-piece: Jen encounters an incel version of The Hulk, Emil has transformed into The Abomination, Titania reappears and Professor Hulk reappears from his absence. Everything is more of the same, until Jen calls the bluff, breaks the 4th wall and confronts the show-runners directly. She makes her way to K.E.V.I.N., The MCU’s “AI program”, and haggles her way out of a generic confrontation that makes absolutely no sense. She then returns with everything wrapped up how she wants. Dénouement over.

As expected, this ending was divisive, with many people deriding it for “jumping the shark”. But while I feel it could’ve been smoother, I still think it works for two reasons:

The first is that, honestly, She-Hulk breaking the narrative isn’t unique to this show. She’s been doing this since her comic debut in the 80’s. If anything, this is tame compared to some of the stunts she’s pulled there! Besides, the show has openly broken the 4th wall throughout its run, such that Episode 1 poked fun of it at one point. In other words, She-Hulk talking to the overlord of The MCU isn’t that farfetched.

The second is more complicated, but still worth mentioning: 4th wall breaks aren’t a unique concept. Movies and TV shows, particularly comedies, have utilized them for decades. In recent memory, both the Wayne’s World and Deadpool movies to-date used them excessively. With the former, they even had the protagonists stop their climaxes and “fix” them not once, or twice, but three times! If that didn’t kill their quality, then neither should this.

I don’t think the people complaining realize that 4th wall breaks can be effective and funny. In the case of superheroes, Deadpool, who stole the concept from She-Hulk, has done them in excess. His first movie had him not only poke fun at his actor, Ryan Reynolds, being Canadian, it had him lampshade the movie’s violence, engage in feminist discourse jokingly, call out the timeline of The X-Men movies, joke about how Hugh Jackman’s sexier than him and roast Wolverine’s briefly Aussie accent. The sequel doubled-down on everything, making fun of The Woman in the Refrigerator trope, calling out Frozen for ripping off Yentl with one of its songs and making fun of Domino’s superpowers, The X-Men as a dated allegory for racism, Cable being a DCEU wannabe with a lazy backstory and how Yukio says the same two lines constantly. It even ended with Deadpool going back in time to erase the film’s inciting incident. With everything I mentioned, and more I haven’t, how is She-Hulk confronting an AI “too absurd”?

I don’t think it is. Granted, that isn’t to call it “perfect”, as it could’ve had better buildup and been less on-the-nose. I also thought Daredevil being there was unnecessary, and I wish we’d learned more about why Professor Hulk left Earth other than introducing his son at the family dinner. But it’s too late to fix that, isn’t it?

Either way, the detractors are overreacting. The MCU has been chastised, especially recently, for not taking risks, yet when they do…we’re left with vitriol. It’s not always unwarranted-I thought The Mandarin reveal in Iron Man 3 was lame-but it usually smells of entitlement from people who can’t accept that comics and film aren’t the same. In the case of She-Hulk: Attorney at Law, it even reeks of missing the point of the character. She-Hulk isn’t a conventional heroine: she’s an everyday woman with a day-job who happens to have superpowers and likes throwing shade. Considering how The MCU has become formulaic, I’d say that’s a welcomed change.

That said, I still think Professor Hulk’s reasoning for being absent is lame. The inciting incident hyped us all for a grand reveal, so why cop-out?

A Sapphic-sticated Dinkley

I sometimes wonder if pop culture controversies spring up because the internet’s bored and needs something to get mad about. Take the Scooby-Doo franchise. Despite loving it as a child, I’ve rarely thought about it as an adult save occasionally humming its jingle. It’s not a bad series, it taught me about skepticism and not trusting authorities blindly, but, like many shows of the time, it's struggled to remain relevant since its inception and has constantly remade itself. We’re seeing that, for example, with HBO Max’s Velma, which sees Velma Dinkley reimagined as a detective who drops f-bombs.

While reworking templates is nothing new, what is new is exploring Velma’s sexuality. She’s always been an enigma here, as we know so little about her dating life compared to her friends: Fred and Daphne are hinted to have feelings for one another, while Shaggy’s interested in food and Scooby’s…a dog. But Velma keeps eluding everyone. Surely she’s interested in something, right?

As of a recent movie, yes. In Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo, Velma and friends meet an unusual woman that Velma develops feelings for. This isn’t a big deal: people have different romantic interests, and lesbians exist. Additionally, many children are gay, and it’s important that they feel validated. It’s not even like this is a stretch for Velma, who, like I said, is an enigma.

Sadly, I wish everyone agreed. Ignoring how this is direct-to-video, hence its quality isn’t guaranteed, the nerd of the Mystery Gang being a lesbian has angered many people. It’s almost sacrilegious that a cartoon character is attracted to the same sex, a “political statement” that’s “fulfilling a woke agenda”. Forget that Velma isn’t real, this is “Hollywood selling out again”. And that’s “bad”.

I have to address two issues here: one, people loving other people, assuming they’re capable of consenting, isn’t a “political statement”. I might’ve thought that in 2015, but I’ve since realized how small-minded that is. Being a minority shouldn’t be a political statement either, nor should having a disability. The external attributes of a person aren’t as relevant as their character. I say this to both sides of the political spectrum.

And two, Velma being gay in 2022 isn’t a big deal. Nor is it bold. Besides, I have to wonder why Linda Cardellini, who played Velma in the live-action movies, wearing a bikini in a deleted scene didn’t have the same outcry from the internet as her being a lesbian. Sure, concerned parents might’ve chimed in, but the internet ate it up like hungry dogs! Why is a woman being provocative okay, but not being interested in other women? Especially when the latter is tamer?

I mention these points because I don’t understand why this is an issue. There are plenty of real problems in the world, including, but not limited to, war, sexual assault and climate change. In the world of entertainment, equity and fair pay are hot button topics. Even over at Warner Bros. Discovery, there’ve been layoffs and budget cuts under the current CEO that’ve made working there a nightmare. In the grand scheme, Velma Dinkley being a lesbian isn’t that egregious.

I know that grafting traits onto a blank slate character is tricky, especially when not done properly. I’ve also no doubts that Velma being made a lesbian was a calculated decision. As for the movie in question, it could be trash, I don’t know! But that doesn’t make it bad that Velma likes women. Because some women like other women, that’s a fact!

“Okay,” some of you might be thinking, “why not create a new character altogether?” Firstly, equity’s important. Like how removing someone’s sexuality is wrong because there isn’t a fair share of queer representation yet, making a blank template character a lesbian is totally acceptable for the same reason. And secondly, whenever artists “create new characters”, it fares equally as poorly on the internet. Simply look at Selma and Love, Simon’s scrutiny for being “too political”.

Basically, there’s no winning. It’s like the saying goes, “You give them an inch, and they take a mile”. You can only play the game for so long, especially when the goalposts keep getting moved. Velma being a lesbian in one movie is one example, and it’s time people got over it. Life’s too short to stress over something that trivial.

Besides, this could end up making significant inroads for queer representation. Remember, being gay was taboo for a long time. And when it was discussed, it was usually played up for laughs or as moralistic tragedy. Normalizing queerness for the sake of it is relatively recent, and we have a long way to go. Velma Dinkley’s another step in the grander conversation. It’s messy, sometimes uncomfortable, but it’s inevitable. And if Bros flopping at the box-office is indication, it won’t always land the way its target audience wants.

Essentially, I want bigots to be honest about their bigotry. But if that doesn’t convince them, then perhaps swirlies are in order? Flush!

Milkshake Duck Choir

Writing about controversies in the Orthodox Jewish world is tricky. For one, there are genuine scandals, like the Chassidic education system and Yeshiva University’s stance on Pride. On the other hand, the Orthodox Jewish world receives unfair scrutiny that makes having conversations difficult. This is especially true when people make bigoted assumptions, like in the case of The Miami Boys Choir on TikTok. It sounds strange mentioning that, but to quote a wise old man, “We don’t pick the ballroom, we just dance!”

I, like many Jewish people, have always been aware of The Miami Boys Choir. I also had a passing knowledge of their tunes growing up. My parents played cassette tapes of their songs during car rides, and I got to hear them on the radio when Chabad bought airtime on a local station. The Miami Boys Choir was, simply put, as Jewish as you can get, and while they spawned imitators, they were the gold standard.

Which leads to their re-entry into the mainstream on TikTok. To be honest, I have no idea why now. I don’t know what drew non-Jews to them. Was it their voices? Was it their unusual dance moves? Or was it both?

Regardless, they’re all the rage now. It was also inevitable that they’d get press coverage in different outlets, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. But it’s their coverage in Rolling Stone where everything goes sideways. To be fair, coverage there’s a big deal! But with that comes the possibility for misconceptions, and nowhere is that noticeable than in the two stories the publication did, one in print, the other audio. Since they share overlapping themes, I’m lumping them together as one unit.

First, the written piece. On October 2nd, 2022, a writer named EJ Dickson tackled the explosion in popularity of this boy band. While short, the piece is pretty tame for the most part, but then it adds this line as a non-sequitur:

“Despite the seeming inevitability of one or more of these boys getting Milkshake Duck’ed (probably not a great idea to ask any of them about their opinions on Israel and Palestine), what is so charming about the explosive success of the MBC on TikTok is just how authentic it all seems.”

It’s here where I do a spit-take, cough heavily and reread that sentence in complete bewilderment. FYI, “Milkshake Duck” is an internet term where a person/group of high importance shoots their credibility in the foot. There’ve been plenty of instances of that happening recently, far too many to keep count, but that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant, however, is why Dickson included that. What does a conflict in The Middle East have to do with kids singing Jewish songs? Did I miss something?

It doesn’t end there (unfortunately). Dickson later went on a podcast detailing The Miami Boys Choir’s success, and…well, have a listen.

Again, I’m confused about the relevancy of kids singing Jewish songs with vaccinations. For one, anti-vaxers aren’t exclusive to Orthodox Judaism. They aren’t exclusive to Judaism period, you can find them anywhere. And two, how’s that connected to old videos? Many of these kids are now adults with jobs. This, therefore, is a form of retroactive projecting.

Speaking of, anti-vax sentiment isn’t as widespread in Orthodox Judaism as you’d think. It exists, but it’s not as prevalent as in, say, Christianity. But outside of that, I wonder if Dickson’s knows about the videos from The OU when mRNA COVID vaccines were first made available. Plenty of rabbis, even ones that outwardly looked to be anti-science, were promoting them as “Pikuach Nefesh”, or “saving a soul”. Judaism prides itself on health, and vaccines are no exception.

It'd be one issue if Dickson had apologized, but such isn’t the case. Dickson’s Twitter Feed once included (apparently) a now-deleted, tone-deaf jab at Shomer Negiah, or the practice of not touching hands with the opposite sex until marriage. You’d think with all the scandals surrounding MeToo that this’d be something to not mock…

I’m not happy. I’m not happy because Dickson’s clearly too biased to be fair, and I’m not happy because Rolling Stone decided that this wasn’t a red flag. But I’m especially not happy because the average reader will see and hear these remarks and make uninformed assumptions. That, in turn, will lead to confrontations of various kinds. Jews have enough of an upward battle daily trying to deal with our own nonsense, we don’t need this too. And given that Antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, this doesn’t help.

Aside from being unfair, Dickson hasn’t shown the slightest bit of remorse or regret. Like I said, this doesn’t exist in a bubble. Dickson has deep-seated animosity toward Orthodox Jews, and this feels like taking swipes at them. It doesn’t matter that Dickson ultimately praised The Miami Boys Choir, because that’s tainted with an ironic Milkshake Ducking.

If this still doesn’t seem like a big deal, think about it this way: let’s say another religious boys’ choir has a TikTok resurgence. Let’s pretend it’s a Muslim group, for instance. Now, let’s say a cover story was written, but it mentioned the possibility of some of the boys now being in ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Even if it’s “not baseless”, and that’s a big “if”, who cares? And why’s it remotely relevant?

You see what I’m getting at? It’s especially egregious because it makes The Miami Boys Choir’s success reliant on an irrelevant purity test. I get that Israel-Palestine is a complicated issue, but it’s not important here. And pretending that it is asks for unwanted trouble. It’s also journalistic malpractice.

I’d normally end with a defence of Dickson’s thinking, but I can’t here. Dickson did Orthodox Judaism dirty, and Jews deserve an apology. I don’t care if it means sucking up pride, it has to happen soon. But I’m not seeing it right now. And that I’m not seeing it is telling.

I also think Rolling Stone needs to issue a retraction. I don’t know how, but they have to do it. Orthodox Jews don’t need this, and it’s upsetting that I’m even writing this at all. Words matter. Especially when hundreds of sets of eyes see this and form unfair assumptions about a minority group. Essentially, please do better.

The Little Headache

I’ve made my thoughts on Disney’s live-action remakes known. I’ve also criticized their shameless marketing tactics. While I’ve seen and enjoyed a few of the remakes, they’re less movies and more attempts at marketing classics in a “respectable” medium, except without any of the soul. But they’re making money, so more are on their way. Case in point: The Little Mermaid.

I like The Little Mermaid. It’s not my favourite Disney Renaissance movie, it’s not even my favourite adaptation of the Hans Christian Anderson story, but it’s got catchy music, solid animation, a fun villain and ahead of its time theming. Some aspects, like Sebastian, feel dated, but more works than doesn’t. And, naturally, Disney now feels compelled to bring it to live-action. Joy!

I don’t have high hopes for this movie, let’s be clear. But while I’m positive it’ll be soulless, its casting appears to be a bright spot. In particular, the teaser had me sold on Halle Bailey as Ariel, especially since she can sing! No offence to Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast, she’s great in her own right, but vocals aren’t her strong suit. This is a definite improvement.

Sadly, I don’t think much of the internet shares my sentiments. We agree that it’ll probably be bad, but the reason why is where we differ. I think it’ll be bad because it won’t do enough to differentiate from the 1989 classic, save awkward updates for a 21st Century audience. The internet, however, thinks it’ll be bad because of Halle Bailey. Specifically, because she’s black and in a leading role. (Now that I’ve said the quiet part out loud, I’m going to have people tell me I’m wrong.)

Hollywood has a terrible track-record with racial casting. It often feels like they gloss over the distinct histories of their source characters to appeal to the lowest common-denominator. On the off-chance they “get it right”, it usually still falls short. This is a fancy way of saying that Hollywood sucks at representation, which is why their few successes feel impactful. Doubly-so when they change the ethnicity of a blank-slate character.

Ariel’s one such character. True, her origins are European, but the original author didn’t envision much for her outside of being a mermaid desperate to become a human. She’s also not real, so interpretations can play with what she’s supposed to look like. Look at Ponyo: that movie’s based on The Little Mermaid, but it’s set in Japan and changes the protagonist into a Japanese preschooler. Somehow, though, that’s acceptable...

I wonder why Halle Bailey being Ariel bugs people. Yes, she’s black. But so what? Mermaids aren’t real creatures with defined features. You’re not sinning against period authenticity, especially since black people lived in Europe thanks to immigration, trade and slavery. Besides, she’s not even human!

You want a true depiction of what mer-people are like? Watch Luca. I know it’s set in Italy and has an entirely different premise, but its depiction of the underwater race is probably the most-accurate I’ve ever seen. Mer-people wouldn’t be humanoid if they lived underwater. They’d most-likely have gills, fins, scales and specially-shaped ears. And they’d most-likely be a different colour to-boot. The “changing into humans on land” part is where the creative license comes in, but outside of that? Boom, there you go!

I know what this is really about, though. This is the internet feeling threatened by the presence of a black woman. According to them, that’s “woke”. And woke is “bad”. Forget that black women aren’t monolithic, that won’t do.

It’s here that I ask the internet to dunk their heads in ice water. Because that’s not only a racist mentality, it’s complete nonsense. You think a black actress “ruins the spirit of The Little Mermaid”? The original movie was about body dysphoria. In fact, the original story was about Hans Christian Anderson pining for the male lover he could never have. I suggest researching the story if this is shocking to you.

Honestly, nonsense like this makes it difficult for nerds to be taken seriously. Yes, Halle Bailey’s black. But so what? Plenty of black girls have responded well to the teaser, not unlike when redheaded girls responded well to the original movie. Film doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and if this paves the way for better representation, well…I’ll take that over the shameless griping of white men.

It doesn’t help that when called out, said white men play the victim card. Like how She-Hulk angered people by existing, this casting decision has done the same. And like it or not, two dozen review bombs aren’t changing its impact. There’s a reason the general public no longer trusts IMDB, and it’s because its users are so incredibly out-of-touch with reality. In many ways, it’s not hard to feel sorry.

I get it: change is difficult. We’re used to Ariel as a white redhead because she’s been that way for 30+ years. But change is also inevitable, and other people deserve their chance in the spotlight. It’s not even like I’m defending this movie, I still think it’ll suck. But it won’t be because Halle Bailey’s black. And it especially won’t be because she can’t sing, because she can.

Who am I kidding, though? The people complaining don’t actually care!

Christians, Let's Talk...

Something I’ve realized from finally catching Omicron is that playing catch-up with Blogger’s algorithm is a losing battle. I don’t have the time and energy to fight the metrics, and what netted big Views, while fun to write, doesn’t interest me quite as much anymore. So instead of playing this game, I’ll focus on my interests. Like this book I read recently, the drama that unfolded and if the backlash was worth ruining the life of its author. Yes, you read that correctly.

A while ago I wrote about the dangers of Christian Supersessionism. To quote myself:

“These terms might sound like no-brainers to Jews, but mainstream discourse doesn’t stop to think about them. The word ‘supersessionism’ even shows up as a spelling mistake, despite being a real concept. Therefore, I should also refer to them as two facets of ‘Christian Superiority’.”

The “plural” language here refers to another term I also mentioned, but I’ll focus specifically on the supersessionist part because people get prickly when confronted over it. Yet be it the language we use, the laws we practice or the history we’re taught, it’s as much a part of life as the implications for people who aren’t Christian. Even Western atheism, which arose as a rejection of Christianity, still dabbles in Christian Supersessionism, much to its chagrin.

Enter Rabbi Mike Harvey, and his book Let’s Talk: A Rabbi Speaks to Christians. I know Rabbi Harvey is protective of his rabbinic status, especially given his pulpit being stripped, but out of deference I’ll call him one anyway. It’s the kind of person I am, bestowing respect to people and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Besides, Rosh Hashanah has recently ended, and Yom Kippur’s around the corner, so I hope he’ll forgive me. Anyway, moving on.

Rabbi Harvey states in his introduction that he wrote this book to dispel any myths and confusion about Judaism. It’s not a long read, you can easily finish it in one sitting, but it’s chock-full of material. Rabbi Harvey tackles many sensitive issues, major and minor, in order to better create a dialogue between Jews and Christians, which he argues is necessary if we’re to understand one-another. For example, did you know that The Bridal Chorus isn’t used in Jewish weddings because of its ties to Richard Wagner? I always assumed it wasn’t a Jewish tune, but that was eye-opening to learn!

But he doesn’t stop there! Rabbi Harvey also criticizes Jewish institutions to show that this isn’t one-sided. Jews have been hurt by Christian Supersessionism, but they’ve put up barriers that’ve made dialogue tenuous at best. An example he gives is of a Christian visitor at his congregation who crossed her chest after kissing a Torah during a Shabbat service. Many congregants sneered at this, but he pointed out that her connection to something so spiritually-Jewish was strengthening her ties to Christianity. The little acts matter, something this book is also about.

Perhaps the secret of this book is how extensively researched it is. Rabbi Harvey pulls no punches when analyzing Christian and Jewish texts, showing how they evolved over time based on historical circumstances. I don’t agree with everything he argues, I don’t subscribe to The Torah being written by multiple, anonymous authors, but it’s still interesting nonetheless. If anything, he shows more respect to Judaism than many practicing Jews! (Not that he isn’t practicing in his own way, mind you.)

Essentially, it’s a solid book. So why all the blowback? I think that has to do with the domination of Christianity in the Western zeitgeist. People don’t like being taken out of their comfort zones. And here was Rabbi Harvey doing exactly that. Naturally, there was bound to be pushback.

However, was the extreme nature of it worth it? Was it worth making videos and internet posts angrily warning others to stay away? Was it worth him losing his job, his pulpit title, his original publishing agreement, and even, albeit temporarily, his Twitter account? And was it worth the endless harassment and doxing he received online? Was it worth, to use a term we’re familiar with, cancelling Rabbi Harvey?

The answer is, obviously, “no”. But while the backlash from extremists was unsurprising, what disappoints me are the moderates who let it happen. True, many didn’t know; after all, the world’s vast! Yet of those who did, passing it off as “not my problem”, or even deflecting with the phrase, “This isn’t reflective of ‘True Christianity’”, is unhelpful and enabling. If MLK Jr.’s statements about the “White Moderate” can be grafted onto any situation, it’s this. Except that instead of “white”, it’s “Christian”. This also includes those Christian-adjacent.

I’m not even sure what warranted this. Rabbi Harvey wasn’t forcing people to read his book, he was recommending it. He also wasn’t pushing it any more than other authors. I can honestly say that I’ve been more in-your-face about my writing before, and I’ve never published a book! Even if the caustic nature of his Tweets had been a “red flag”, in which case…fair enough, that doesn’t counteract the hate he got for pointing out what Jews have been saying for a while, but nicer.

Essentially, Rabbi Harvey’s personal life getting sabotaged over a book, irrespective of what people claim was in it, wasn’t justified. Nor are the continued attacks from people who still can’t fathom Christianity not being the centre of the universe. And yes, this is a callout to the Christian world. And no, I’m, not ashamed. Because if being nice yields results like this, then why bother? Why not fight fire with fire?

What can be done to remedy this mess? For starters, buy Rabbi Harvey’s book. I got it on Amazon for almost $30 Canadian, and I don’t regret it. In the long-term, however, a reframing of how Christianity relates to Judaism needs to happen. Remember, Christians vastly outnumber Jews. We can’t do this alone, and we need your help. Even if it gets messy, it’s necessary if we’re to be better off. And believe me, we will.

Now then, I think I’ll get me some more tea…

Calliope and Abuse

One of the traps an artist can fall into is utilizing someone else’s misery. It’s true that many people with power and influence abuse people regularly, but an artist? Art communicates thoughts and ideas, so we’re more disappointed when they’re the perpetrators. Such is one of the stories in The Sandman, a Netflix series adapted from the Neil Gaiman classic. Despite being unfamiliar with the graphic novel, I think Season 1’s bookend contains a profound example of this for our times. It’s titled “Calliope”, and it’s about artists abusing others to create art.

By the way, there’ll be spoilers. And since I’ll be discussing heavy themes, I suggest turning away now if abuse is triggering.

The episode opens with author and university professor, Richard Madoc, reading from his first book. He’s asked by a student if writing a book is easy, to which he answers no. This is the dilemma that we authors face: I took a course and wrote a 20-chapter manuscript, only to realize that my writing needed lots of work. Even now, 2 years later, I struggle with polishing my content. And I’ve grown as a writer!

Richard meets up that night with Erasmus Fry, a childhood icon, for inspiration. Fry shows him his trinkets, ending his tour with the source of his inspiration: a Muse name Calliope. Calliope has been Fry’s slave for decades, and he’s been abusing her to get story ideas. Realizing the Sun’s setting on his career, Fry gifts Calliope to Richard. This is setting up the episode’s conflict: is human trafficking worth it if it brings inspiration?

Initially, Richard’s conflicted. He knows that harbouring a slave is wrong, but he’s stuck. His agent’s contemplating cutting off Richard’s book advance if he doesn’t provide. As Richard struggles with his responsibilities as a writer and a slave who refuses to cooperate, we see him feel desperation. Realizing time’s running out, he succumbs and follows in Fry’s footsteps.

We never actually see what Richard does to Calliope. But the gash on his cheek suggests that it was brutal, and that she fought back. Regardless, Richard finishes his book, becomes a household name and abbreviates his name to Ric. He even regains his self-confidence, being interviewed for his “feminism”. But is he? Is it true progressivism if you’re secretly a monster? This issue has come to light on various occasions and with several artists, each time casting their work in a new and disturbing light.

The best example of this conflict of interest is when Richard’s interviewed by a journalist. Richard cites figures like Margaret Atwood for inspiration, but the journalist notices similarities with Erasmus Fry. She mentions that their styles are uncanny, despite Richard pretending otherwise. She also infers that Fry took his life shortly after gifting Calliope, a grim reminder of what abusers often experience when their control is relinquished. It’s also foreshadowing.

Of course, Richard keeps abusing Calliope. He breaks his promise to free her, stating that she’s more useful to him as a prisoner. He also won’t let her pray for help. Remember, Richard might be outwardly-progressive, demanding equity in the film adaptation of his book, but he’s anything but. Truthfully, he’s the exact same monster Fry was, except with a kinder edge.

This episode, while disturbing, reinforces the dangers that artists can easily fall prey to if not careful. Whether it’s abusing marginalized people online or on a movie set, plenty of well-respected individuals have been reminders of how authority can be misused. As an artist myself, it’s easy to hold a metaphorical leash over my readers, for example, and demand they read my work. I was tempted when I took a break from Blogging following my Zaidy’s passing. I didn’t do it, but my metrics still haven’t recovered fully.

The situation reaches its peak when Calliope secretly prays to the Muses. They’re unable to free her, but they hint at Morpheus, her ex-husband, coming to rescue her. This is near the end of Morpheus, or Dream, being in prison for 100 years, and she gets her wish when she reads of the sole survivor of Encephalitis-Lethargica, a sleeping disorder that plagued millions of people globally, awaking from her slumber. So she writes to Morpheus asking for his help. Despite Richard catching and scolding her, her letter makes its way to Morpheus anyway.

Richard eventually comes home one night to find Morpheus waiting for him. The lighting keeps Morpheus in a shadowy veil while he threatens Richard, stating that if it’s ideas he wants, he’ll get those in abundance. The next day, while giving a lecture to his students, Richard starts spouting story premises ad nauseam. It doesn’t take long until a student discovers him at a of nearby stairwell painting ideas on a wall in his blood. It’s creepy, but Richard finally realizes what’ll happen if he doesn’t release Calliope.

The episode ends positively for Calliope, who leaves Richard’s house to freedom, but also on a downer for Richard. Upon freeing Calliope, his affliction disappears. But so does his talent, making him into another washed-up author. It’s cathartic, but sad. And it’s a wake-up call to viewers. Because it’s never worth abusing people for your art.

This hits home because, like I said, so many artists I looked up to have let me down. Even outside of that, abusing people for your talent is a Faustian bargain. We’ve seen the consequences with Me Too. It begs the question of whether or not it’s worth it. Because is it? How do you reconcile art that you love being created by awful people, even those claiming to be progressive?

If “Calliope” is indication, it’s not possible to get away with that long-term. You might think you can, and it might look it short-term, but what goes around comes around. Remember, when you make a deal with The Devil, sooner or later he’ll come to collect. If it can happen to Erasmus Fry and Richard Madoc, it can happen to you! Don’t pretend otherwise!

I’ll end with that Harper’s Magazine piece I wrote. I have issues with some of it in hindsight, but the general sentiment remains the same. Regardless of “intent”, many signatories had enough baggage that it wasn’t genuine. It read as a cover to continue their abuse under the guise of open discourse, something a response piece pointed out. And it especially felt that way with how some of them behaved since. Words without actions are empty.

Ultimately, “Calliope” is a cautionary tale. She might not be real, but we all know a Calliope. And we all know an Erasmus Fry or Richard Madoc. If their fates mimic this episode, then we should take heed.

The Prickly Sabra

Life’s a Monkey’s Paw sometimes. I’ve wanted proper Jewish representation for Marvel film characters for a while. I’ve waited, but it simply wasn’t happening. And now that it is, I regret it. Let me explain.

This is Sabra. She’s an Israeli mutant. Despite existing since the 80’s, Sabra’s remained obscure in superhero discourse for decades. And now she’s been announced for Captain America: New World Order. She’s also being played by Shira Haas, who came to prominence with shows like Unorthodox. Cue the celebrations, a Jewish character’s being played by a Jewish person…right?

Not quite. But before I get into that, I’d like to share my two concerns on this matter:

The first is obvious: her name’s Sabra. The word “Sabra” on its own isn’t a big deal, it’s the Hebrew word for “cactus”, but given that it has partial ties to The Sabra Shatila Massacre, it’s not a great look. It’d be like playing The Bridal Chorus at a Jewish wedding: technically not “offensive”, but with a negative, historical connotation. It doesn’t help that The Sabra Shatila Massacre was relatively-recent, making this a little iffy. Not to mention, calling her “Sabra” is really lame.

The second issue’s more distressing: having an Israeli Jew in a movie about a “New World Order” is…tone-deaf? Jews have been accused of being global puppet-masters since The Middle Ages. Even now, George Soros is the punching bags of Antisemites desperate to blame American democracy’s failings on him. “New World Order” contains lots of baggage, and this doesn’t help.

Now then, time to dump the garbage:

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been going on for decades. It’s messy, unpleasant and has victims and perpetrators on both sides. It’s led to wars and casualties, and has gained the attention of the world. The discourse has also been poisoned by bad-faith actors of all stripes, sometimes with lethal consequences. But I’ve covered this in greater detail…

One of the biggest fronts has been online, particularly with PR. Twitter alone has dozens of dummy and propaganda accounts ready to take innocuous situations and warp them to fit an agenda. I should know, I’ve witnessed it firsthand! But it’s the lack of regulations that makes it so easy, and Shira Haas in an MCU film is another example of that. She’s the new Gal Gadot, but without the baggage.

As you’d expect, this led to intense arguing. On the Israeli side, people were calling this a win. On the Palestinian side, people claimed it whitewashed Palestinian self-determination. I can see the frustrations of the latter camp, Palestinian voices have long been marginalized, but it’s ridiculous that a woman who’s Israeli is being boxed into a reductive binary; after all, Haas might be anti-Zionist! We don’t know yet!

But I doubt that matters to her detractors. In their mind, Haas is the enemy because she’s Israeli, nothing more. It doesn’t matter what her political leanings are, she’s a supporter of Israeli occupation. There’ve been pushes to boycott Marvel until she’s removed. Never mind that Natalie Portman and Ayelet Zurer have been in Marvel roles prior...

So yes, Shira Haas is “bad”. This bothers me immensely. I’d expect this kind of open bigotry from the far-right, but progressives have increasingly disappointed me by not factoring in nuance to their critiques of Israelis. Israel has over 9 million citizens, and not all of them are Jewish. Many of them are Palestinian! And their views, as shown through surveys and videos, on Israeli society aren’t monolithic.

Not even Israelis are monolithic! There are so many viewpoints in that tiny country that despite there being a far-right extremist issue, as with most countries, the population’s quite diverse. And so are the politicians, with the most-recent government containing 7 political parties of different persuasions before it fell apart. Israelis don’t all think alike, and Haas is no different. Like I said, she could one day come out as anti-Zionist!

My concern is that people are overreacting based on minimal information. It’s not like there isn’t already a Palestinian Marvel character named Hayyan Zarour, because there is. It’s that Sabra’s Israeli, therefore Marvel “supports oppression”. This logic is biased and doesn’t make sense. It’s also tiresome.

I’m not sure what’d satisfy her detractors, other than her disappearing altogether. I support Palestinian self-determination! And I won’t act like Palestinian voices haven’t been shafted for decades! But silencing Israeli voices helps no one. Nor does dehumanizing them.

I get that this is a complicated position to be in. For as much as I wanted proper, Jewish representation in The MCU for the longest time, instead of empty lip-service, this wasn’t what I wanted. I also have no doubts that including Sabra was largely a calculated and financial decision. But that doesn’t excuse the backlash the character, and subsequently her actress, is receiving. There’s no shortage of other kinds of representation in The MCU thus far, so why not give someone else a turn for a change? What do you really have to lose with Sabra?