Ilyrana of Candlekeep

The movie is captivating, but the book is twenty kinds of terrifying, even now, ten years after I first read it. As disturbing as the movie may have been to some, the things Selick added really serve to cushion just how horrific the story really is.

First of all, the character of Wybie does not exist in the book. Coraline is facing all of this nearly alone, with her only help coming from the sly comments of the cat, a warning from the circus mice, and the stone given to her by her neighbor, presented with no comment but that it “makes the unseen seen.”

Second, the Other Parents are never quite as warm (and, dare I say, normal) as they are in the gifs above. They’re described as having paper-white skin and the Other Mother’s hair is said to move on its own, and her long, red, claw-like nails don’t ease any uncertainty that she is absolutely, positively up to no good. The first time Coraline meets them, they (and the rest of the Others) seem to be playing roles (for whatever reason, Coraline does not seem to pick up on this), like they all know what to say and what to do and are simply waiting for Coraline to make her move in their terrifying play world. This is shown to be partly true when the Other Parents tell her they know she’ll be back soon after she refuses the buttons - this time, to stay.

Third, the Other Mother commits atrocities that really should not have been in a book for anyone not fully grown up. She physically deforms the world around Coraline to slow her progress in their game beyond any mild traps the movie portrays, and, instead of turning the Other Father into the wandering pumpkin-thing seen in the film, she simply ceases to use him and throws his body away in the cellar, leaving him to rot with whatever bit of sentience he has left. She begins to lose her touch, as Coraline gains the upper hand. Her world doesn’t just become a nightmare - it falls apart completely. No creepy but oddly cool bug furniture here, just the house that now appears to be a child’s drawing. Whatever the Other Mother is (a beldame, but something tells me she’s much more ancient and powerful than that), she does not give half a hump about what she has to do to ensnare Coraline. Destroy the supporting characters of her twisted creation? Done. Allow herself to be dismembered to ruin Coraline’s life in the normal world? Not even gonna bat an eyelash.

On a final, personal note, imagine eight year-old me, ignored by my parents, absorbed in the story and identifying with Coraline from the start. Imagine me finishing this bloodcurdling book and immediately thinking of my basement, where there is still a locked door that my grandmother swears up and down is nothing more than a storage room, but has not once in my (or my mother’s) lifetime unlocked.

A decade later, at the Opening Night of the Coraline musical, I was sitting next to Morgan, Merilee’s youngest daughter, and told her how her not being scared had made the book happen. And she said “I was terrified. But I needed to find out what happened next. So nobody knew.”

Me:

*Jaheira says something*

Viconia: WHAT. I have never done anything wrong in my life EVER.

My Charname:

Skyrim in Real Life

I want to start out by telling everyone that this idea of Lolita Fashion is 100% incorrect.

Not to seem harsh to you, anon, a lot of people unfamiliar with the fashion make this mistake (including my mother! She was alarmed by the name, but she did her research on her own and was happy with what she learned!)!

I just want it be stated right here at the beginning that Lolita fashion has nothing to do with the book by Vladimir Nabokov or fetishizing young girls. In fact, everyone I know within the community, as well as myself, are disgusted by the the world’s tendency to romanticize the book and dread people bringing it up to us.

That said, what is Lolita fashion, and why does it get mistaken for something sexually deviant?

(edited for more accurate history and added links!)All fashion involves a lot of history, so I’m going to abridge this pretty brutally:

Lolita fashion came about in Japan in the 80s and 90s, largely inspired by the aesthetics of Visual-Kei bands. There are a lot of other influences and more of a story behind it all, but there’s the start.

Allegedly, it was also inspired by fashion movements popping up in the 70s as a way for people (of any gender) to dress more modestly! So it may actually have roots in a push-back against emerging styles that felt too revealing to members of the fashion community.

But it’s definite that its origins are directly linked to the Visual-Kei music movement. You will also notice that modern Lolita looks are reminiscent of Victorian and Edwardian era fashion.

Researcher Masafumi Monden explains that this is an example of “transcultural flow,” in which Japanese designers (where Lolita originates), other Eastern designers, and Western designers shared ideas back and forth to evolve the fashion and subculture together into what it is now, which is really neat!

What’s even MORE interesting is that the rise of Lolita is what many would consider a punk movement, because it was a form of counter0culture expression created and adopted by many women and teenage girls specifically to resist societal expectations of their behavior, down to the way they use language to speak!

In his paper, Urban princesses: performance and “women’s language” in Japan’s Gothic/Lolita subculture, Isaac Gagne briefly explores the history of women’s speech, or the manner of speaking historically expected for women to use in Japan, and you can read about members of the Lolita community basically inventing words and a sort of dialect in their forums online in the late 90s and into the 2000s in order to more easily communicate with people from different places while also excluding outsiders of the fashion who may seek to mock/harass them.

Researcher Ann Nguyen writes refers to Lolita as a rebellion, and as a kawaii or “cuteness” revolution. She found in her research of the subculture that Lolita exemplifies self-expression through the power of reclaiming one’s autonomy and others’ perceptions of them through fashion. Nguyen interviewed teenagers and women much further into their adulthoods (aged into their forties) who have participated in the fashion, and the responses solidified the concept of using Lolita fashion in order to take part in a fantasy of freedom and happiness beyond the expectations of daily life. 

TL;DR, Lolita fashion evolved as both a response to society’s expectations of people, especially women and girls, and it is a sophisticated counter culture that involves unique language, design, and rules and ideals, which has become a global phenomenon that’s inclusive of all cultures, races, and genders.

Relating it to p*dophilia or other such things is not only totally missing the point, but it’s dismissive of the very clearly stated intent of the Japanese designers who began the movement, as well as everyone who has followed their steps and contributed since it began.

Are you getting it now?

Wearers and followers of the fashion were never and still aren’t trying to seduce anyone with their frills; it’s literally the opposite! Lolita fashion has always been a way for wearers to step outside the “norm” and feel, maybe for the first time in our lives, like we’re doing something for ourselves; I’ve personally never had men at my feet because there’s a pink rabbit printed on my dress, and I’m glad.

It wasn’t even until the 90s, about two decades after the fashion’s earliest beginnings, that the name Lolita was coined in Japan and stuck.

How that happened is actually sort of a mystery and the topic of mild debate within the Lolita community! Some say the name alone has a link to the book, but even they are adamant that the book as NOTHING to do with values, influences, and interests of the fashion and the community. And they’re correct!

I say it’s the topic of mild debate, because after about thirty years of outsiders to the fashion asking “why do you call it Lolita if it’s not about the book,” and trying to justify our fashion to people who don’t even wear it and who otherwise aren’t interested, We Just. Don’t. Care why “it’s called that,” because we understand two very important things:

Most subcultures don’t name themselves, and once a name is established by whatever means popularized it, members of that subculture are not going to shake the title even if they try. A fifteen year old me insisting to people “it’s not emo, it’s scene” comes to mind, though on a less extreme level. The Lolita community can never seem to avoid the connotations of the name, but the name exists regardless and in the end doesn’t matter since we know we aren’t trying to emulate anything from the novel. It is totally unrelated!

We are not dressing this way to seduce men (or anyone)Read that, and then read it again, everyone. To believe that women (or anyone else) who dress in Lolita are trying to seduce men by acting like little girls is to believe that we ONLY get dressed with the goal of seducing men. But that’s really nothing new.Moreover, the idea that Lolitas would spend upwards of 100-1000 dollars (yes! that much!) on a single coordinate to impress some dude we pass on the street is absurd and would even be hilarious if so many people didn’t actually think it’s true. People really believe that! That I put on a pink wig and rocking horse shoes in my one-horse town because I think men will like it! In fact, in most Lolitas’ experiences, men are pretty put off by the look. Like I said before, the fashion is based on Victorian and Edwardian styles with a goal of dressing more modestly. Media or some (none that I’ve met) wearers of the fashion CAN sexualize the fashion with their representations of it, but that does not reflect or represent the goals and ideals of the fashion and the community.

Here is a really wonderful video of a European women traveling to Japan and interviewing members of another Japanese fashion sub-culture. She asks why they dress the way they do, and they discuss feeling empowered and included by their clothes, friends, and other members of the fashion sub-culture. Please check it out!

In the twelve years I have been interested in Lolita fashion (since I was twelve), the fashion has never been seductive or sexual to me or anyone else I speak to in the community.

Instead, it’s a community of people who love expressing ourselves through ornate and carefully constructed “coords,” meaning coordinates, that show off our personal styles and abilities to put together new and beautiful artworks of fashion! Although there are always some petty people anywhere you go, in my experience the community is a positive one that has always encouraged me and made me feel pretty and talented from the very start.

Lolita is fun, expressive, and it’s for everyone.

I could go on and on about this. But the point is: people dressing in Lolita are dressing for OURSELVES. And that’s that. Thank you for the ask, it really gave me a chance to talk more about something I love!

Sources under the cut!