We'll see when summer comes

"Beneath The Golden Willow"

Except Dracula is a story that plays itself straight. The vampire himself is not stupid. He’s possibly the oldest vampire of all which means he upgraded from animal instinct and mindless echoes of past memories to someone who’s regained his critical thinking skills. The story begins because he’s already adapted to how the modern world works now by hiring a solicitor who understands modern laws.

He knows now that he doesn’t have to march into London with an army like he used to; He can just buy property and the laws of London are forced to respect that. Similarly he’s already experimented in and discovered loopholes to vampire rules and limitations; Vampires are bound by the permission of owners so he simply uses his solicitor to buy and own a bunch of properties. If he needs to be invited in, Dracula hypnotizes someone to let him in.

Vampires need to return to their grave every dusk/dawn (whichever comes sooner), which causes their coffin to act as an anchor that limits how far from it they can travel? Dracula simply rations the earth of his grave into fifty coffins and spreads them across London so his range becomes exponentially larger.

All of these things make the story almost come across as a deconstruction and it might just be! It’s just that Dracula the novel became such a trendsetter that people nowadays see it as playing things fully straight. It almost feels as if the novel is written with the idea that readers have a basic understanding of vampires and their rules, so part of the thrill comes in the revelation of how the titular vampire is working around these rules. Likewise I’ve heard it used to be a trope in English literature for a traveler to visit some foreign land with a monster and escape by going home. But here the foreign aspect of the story is just the first (and final) arc; The monster’s plan hinges on coming to the UK itself!

Jesus wept. You saying the King of kings, the LORD of Heaven’s Armies, is acting like a woman (derogatory)? He in His humanity is our ideal as a species, He as Christ is YOUR (men’s) ideal as a husband, and you say this behavior He exhibited is beneath the male ideal?

…

The post this stems from is even worse.

Walsh should tell that to the American soldiers who broke down and wept upon hearing the news of the Japanese surrender in 1945 as they were preparing to board the planes for the invasion. They cried because they realized that they were going to be allowed to live the rest of their lives instead of bring torn to shreds by gunfire as they planned.

How dare somebody get emotional after a robbery when they have a moment to take in what happened. He's thinking about how his entire life could have just been taken. His future wife, future kids who he'd never know because they would never exist, all of his future experiences for the next half century were in the hands of a senseless, violent maniac.

Yeah, yeah, we can pull out the whole Jesus wept thing. He cried for Lazarus, and He cried for Jerusalem. But He is hardly the only man who has cried. Jeremiah earned himself the moniker "the weeping prophet." David was moved to tears when brought face to face with his sin. Elijah cried about his situation. The Bible does not shame men for their tears. There is no verse that says women must remain the sex to cry while men must remain stoic, with the exceptions of birth and death. There is no verse.

The Bible does not promote the idea that you must have it all together. In fact, it speaks to being honest, sharing burdens with people of the church. While there is something to be said for men and women groups in a church, the Bible very clearly does not say burdens must not be shared with a spouse. By refusing to cry in front of your wife, you are not upholding a picture of Godly masculinity, but rather are using masculinity as an excuse to be proud.

You don't want to look weak or vulnerable in front of the one you are one with? Like seriously, your wife, your husband, is one with you. The Bible clearly states that. And that is the person you will not be vulnerable in front of? Whatever for? It boils down to pride. Matt Walsh is promoting and endorsing prideful behavior, when as Christians, we are not supposed to.

"We can't look weak to the women"- your Savior was beaten, stripped, and hung on a cross for a criminal's death for all to see, and you know which disciples sat and watched? Who did not lose respect? Who did not lose love? The women. The women were right there, watching Jesus at His weakest and most vulnerable moment. And Matt would have men remain stoic around their wives. So they don't look weak.

Have some humility.

There are times when tears must be held back. There are times when it goes from emotional overflow to just being whiny. That is true regardless of gender. That does not mean men should not cry in front of their wives. Yes, some men are naturally more stoic, and there's nothing wrong with that. But for heaven's sake, that is not some arbitrary standard for all men.

Keanu Reeves As Jack Traven

link to PDF

I'm a music teacher and I think about this ALL THE TIME. There are basically no songs now that everyone knows. (Aside from like... The National anthem??? Happy birthday???)

On one hand I love that more niche artists are getting bigger platforms and are able to find and connect with their audiences. On the other hand, especially after the pandemic, there are tons of kids who literally don't even know Row Row Row Your Boat or Twinkle Twinkle. And I worry deeply all the time about what that does! When you can't sing together. When none of your friends listen to the same music you do. When you don't have any stories or songs or art that gives you a shared connection and identity and meaning. When art becomes something you consume privately rather than something that is shared, something communal.

This guy just becomes ever more relevant as time goes on