Romance isn't Dead, just Repititive

Romance novels, to me at least, have always been about the same thing, some type of forbidden love and smut. A LOT of smut. The Virgin Lover and My Enemy the Queen are no different. The Virgin Lover shows the reader that Queen Elizabeth is a normal girl who is using her innocence of being of virgin, as well as her mother's reputation of sleeping around, to get herself ahead. But of course she falls in love with the one man she cannot have, and we deal with what the offer makes happen. 

My Enemy the Queen does something similar, except it is from Lettice's point of view, and it details her plot to keep Robert Dudley to herself. She narrates that she is Robert's lover when the Queen does not want him, but he favors Queen Elizabeth when he is in her favor. Lettice does not like this, and her infatuation with Robert becomes so obvious to the point that Elizabeth sends her home to her family (husband and children), because she needs to focus on what should be important to her. Instead, Lettice plots revenge on the Queen, intending to keep Robert for herself. Her husband dies, she conceives a child with Robert, and then convinces him that they need to get married regardless of how the Queen will feel. This romance novel is about how one of Queen Elizabeth's court maidens steal away the love of her life, preventing her from ever being with him. 

Sound like another case of forbidden love to anybody else? 

You Go Girl!

The whole time I was watching this movie all I could think was, "YASSS QUEEN!" Elizabeth from the beginning did not care that she opposed the views of others. She was sentenced to prison and almost death by her own sister for not viewing religion in the same way. She couldn't even lie to her sister and promise her to keep England Catholic after her death to ensure that she becomes Queen. Elizabeth was strong-willed, and had good ideas to make England better and to win the war with Spain, but the men in her court refute her commands, which of course make things worse.

Throughout the movie, Elizabeth tries to remain her kind and loving self, which nobody took seriously. The plot shows that in order for her to get her way, she had to change her appearance and demeanor to prove she did not need a husband or an heir. I feel that this dramatic switch also follows the portraits we were showed in class. The first couple portraits are soft; she also is not wearing wigs or make -up, then she has the large luxurious wigs and pale make-up to emphasize her stoic face. The movie shows us what led to the look she was known for, and it was because she was heartbroken and taken advantage of.

But her personality itself had always been sassy and strong. She had perfectly timed comebacks, she flaunted Lord Robert around even when she was supposed to be getting to know the Duke of France, and she killed those who wanted to overthrow her. She also was forgiving and compassionate. She remembered the good deed one lord made towards her when she was being sentenced to the tower, and spared him and his family when she sentenced to kill everybody else. She was able to laugh and dance regardless of the situations she was in, such as the time she came back from seeing the Duke of France in a dress and wig pretending to be a woman, she came back, laughed it off and started to dance with Robert. Queen Elizabeth in this movie constantly surprised me with her reactions, especially since we only know the one face she makes in the portraits, and I absolutely loved it.

What is Going on with Caesar?

First of all, I would like to say that it is very obvious that this show has a large budget.  Based on the costuming, the sets, the extras, and the large cast of main actors; this show needed and used a lot of money.  But did all of this extravagance help with the plot of the show? In a way, yes, it did. It allowed the show to set up multiple plot points for each character, which will carry out through the season and keep people's interest.  But for our sake, it didn't. I don't know about you but I watched this thinking that the main focus would be on Caesar, with maybe a side focus on Brutus and Antony. But I was wrong, which left me very confused.

If any of you were like me and only watched the two episodes we were assigned, Caesar really is not mentioned.  We see him get elected, give a speech, be crowned, and then stabbed to death. The focus of both episodes were more on Brutus and his mother, with the occasional side plot of Titus and the Caesar siblings (Octavian and Octavia). But just with our knowledge of Caesar's life and how he is portrayed in the show, I really do not see why they were so threatened by him.  These people just elected him into power, and then they realized they goofed and changed their minds, resulting in Caesar's impalement.

Brutus's character is also all over the place. Plutarch made Brutus seem brave and noble, whereas Rome made Brutus seem indecisive and dependent on other people to make decisions for him. Brutus went from being enemies with Caesar, to wanting to be his best friend, to wanting to stay his friend but still run against him, deciding to kill him, second guessing killing him as Caesar is waiting to be stabbed, choosing to kill him, and then felling horrible about it. This guy cannot make up his mind!

I guess if I watched from the beginning, these plot points might make more sense, but a lot of it seems extra to me. And props to whoever can give a summary of the entire season justice.

There is a LOT of Media

Before looking at the Wikipedia page that listed out all of the different types of media, I only assumed that physical ways to communicate an idea was considered media. We all know about social media, such as Facebook,  Twitter, Tumblr, etc., as well as print media, like newspapers and magazines.  Television was also an electronic version of media that I knew of before reading the article; but I never would have thought that food, light, and carpentry were sources of media.

I feel that we are all drawn to the types of media that directly give us the information we want when we want it, and that can also entertain us.  We can use Google for almost anything, Facebook to share random things and to look at what other random things are in your news feed, and YouTube to watch plenty of videos varying from pop culture news to gaming videos, and make up tutorials to the cinnamon challenge.  But we don't really come into contact with the other forms, such as paintings and architecture, because unlike during the Renaissance, we aren't drastically changing our style and our views.

Now on the talk of social media, which everyone has at least some version of, I personally only use Instagram, Vine, and Tumblr.  When I first got an Instagram, no one used it, so I thought it was just a photo editing app.  Next thing I know, everyone is using it and are requesting to follow me.  Vine and Tumblr are versions of social media that I have an account on, but only use to procrastinate, I don't actually post anything.  Now Facebook is where things get complicated.  I have an account, but since Facebook became less about what your "friends" actually post and more about ads and what they have shared, I have gotten really annoyed with it, and just don't use it.  Twitter and Pinterest are the types of social media I do not use.  I don't have accounts with either and I honestly don't understand how they work or what their points are, so naturally I just don't use them.

Then there is the topic of Youtube.  Is it considered social media, or is it not?  I consider it a form of social media because their is a possible form of two way conversation.  Their is the comment section where people can communicate with the video's owner or other viewers.  Some YouTubers have Q&A's where they answer their viewers questions, or host livestreams so that their viewers can watch and interact in real time.

Ultimately, social media is a form of media that can reciprocate communication, hence the word "social."

What Truly is "Tonypandy?"

What truly is "Tonypandy?" Grant and Carradine use the term all throughout The Daughter of Time to describe the outcome of certain historical events. Now, I know we have discussed the fiction versus history and what the true definitions are in class, so I won't pose it that way again. I believe we all came to the conclusion that history is a series of significant events that have been recorded, either by documentation, or audio and/or visual representation, to describe the past. Fiction is a fabrication of reality, which can sometimes seem realistic. Finally, historical fiction is using the fabricated world to tell the series of historical events.

I believe Josephine Tey uses historical fiction to tell her story of what she believed really happened to Richard III. Grant, the main character, is diving into all of this research that exists in the "real" world. All of the books, he uses and quotes from all had to be read by Josephine Tey herself before she could have put them into her novel. The author portrays herself as Grant in the story, and is bringing in other characters to help her solve the mystery of what really happened to Richard III.

But let's bring it back to Tonypandy, what is it? Grant presents the term tonypandy to Carradine, after he had informed Grant that the history we know of the Boston Massacre was fabricated into a larger event than what it actually was. We know it as a mass murder of Boston citizens after an uprising against the British soldiers stationed there, when it is revealed in the book that it was really only four people that had died. The story was exaggerated to get more press. Grant brought up the issue between the government of South Wales and looters, and how the story was exaggerated to make it seem that the government sent the military in on welsh miners. Grant used the name of the city, Tonypandy, that the riots took place in to describe events that were exaggerated in similar ways.

Tonypandy Riots of 1910 to 1911

So based off of Grant's and Carradine's examples of Tonypandy, I believe that it is the exaggeration of an event to get everyone to believe it is a "good" versus "bad" situation. The "good" being the victims, and the "bad" being the government. They speak of Tonypandy so much in this novel because they make the realization that the majority of the history of Richard III's time was written after his reign ended, which was in the Tudor reign, and the Tudor's were not very big fans of Richard III. Josephine Tey had to read through all of the Tonypandy herself to find her answer as to what really happened to Richard III, so she published her struggle of reading in between the lines in the novel as Grant's struggle.