No Charity Case

Firstly, for anyone who doesn’t know Bob Tzudiker and Noni White are the co-creators and co-writers of Newsies (and are husband and wife!). The post the asker is referring to is by make-friends-with-the-rats, and is linked here for anyone who is interested (I know I usually tag the blogs I reference, but I don’t think this person wishes for me to tag them).

Also, can we start linking the posts in these asks, or at least start telling me whose account to look at, I need to search high and low to find them before I give you an answer!

Anyways, make-friends-with-the-rats (or Bev) recently talked to Noni and Bob! To quote the post, Bob and Noni “disliked the later introduction of Katherine as Pulitzer's daughter, because they felt that these characters shifted the dynamic of kids with nothing and no power making a difference to people with power swooping in to save the day.”

In other words, they disliked that Katherine, as a wealthy character, ‘saved’ the newsies (instead of the newsies making a difference themselves).

I understand why Bob and Noni think this, but I’d like to talk about ‘historical realism’ and Newsies.

Newsies is inspired by the 1899 strike but it is not a retelling of the real event (and that’s okay!). Many details of the strike are left out, and others are altered for dramatic effect. Newsies is not a movie (or musical) of historical realism. It’s a story which follows Jack Kelly, a fictional character. He’s based on a real strike leader, Kid Blink, but he’s still fictional — and also, if Jack is Kid Blink, then who is Kid Blink supposed to be? (That’s a joke!)

Anyways, Newsies follows a fictional strike leader, Jack Kelly, in a fictionalised version of the real 1899 strike. Noni and Bob were not trying to make an accurate depiction of a historic event, they were instead trying to make a story where powerless, working children defeated their wealthy and powerful bosses. Therefore, Katherine’s historical accuracy matters no more than Jack’s or Medda’s or even Pulitzer’s. It is fiction loosely inspired by a real event. And ‘loose’ is not an insult, it just means that Newsies includes the general ideas, events, and themes of the strike rather than accurately adapting it to the screen/stage.

Now, this is why I am not the Newsies fan to ask. I love every version of Newsies, and I love the differences between each media form and every new production, whether it is ‘historically accurate’ or not.

Firstly, including newsboys only was not historically accurate, but (as Bev says in the post) “Disney didn’t believe in newsgirls.”

The Broadway production included a newsgirl: Smalls (I’ve seen debates about whether Broadway Smalls is a boy or a girl since Laurie Veldheer said that Smalls was ‘supposed to be a boy,’ and was quite adamant about it, but Liana Hunt referred to her as the ‘girl newsie,’ and made her own backstory for her). Either way, Smalls was not played by a woman in the proshot, and, like the movie, there were no girl newsies in it.

In later productions, some ensemble roles have been played by women, like Buttons and Jojo in the 2017 Marriott Theatre production, and new roles have been created for newsgirls (mostly for Brooklyn newises) like Rafaela, Joey, and Hildy (Marriott theatre), and Stray, Scope, Splint, Mac, and Lucky (2022 West End production). In the West End, Spot is played by a woman too!

Spot Conlon was a real newsie, does making him a girl change the historical realism? Yes. Does it change the storyline of Newsies? Of course not. Racetrack Higgins was a real newsie from Brooklyn, does making him a Manhattan newsie change the historical realism? Yes. Does it change the storyline of Newsies? Again, of course it doesn’t.

Every interpretation of newsies brings something new and exciting, and I look forward to every addition. There’s nothing I hate more than seeing the exact same story done over and over again, especially since every production that isn’t the original will get compared to the ‘superior’ version anyways. No form of Newsies has historical realism, and that is more than okay! After all, it’s a movie, not a documentary film (there is nothing wrong with documentaries, I’d love to watch a realistic retelling of the strike, but it’s important to know that Newsies is not supposed to be completely realistic).

I do wonder if your dislike of Katherine comes from her class, connection, or gender. None of these reasons are morally wrong in the context of historical realism, of course, but we’ve already established that Newsies is a non-realistic story, inspired by a historical event, which follows the fictional character, Jack Kelly.

I think the addition of a traitor daughter is brilliant. I find it to be a very interesting storyline, and it works really well when Jack betrays the newsies as Katherine knows why she betrayed her father, so she struggles to understand why Jack (who is willing to go to prison for his friends) would turn his back on them. Her calling Jack out feels more personal, and her character is really interesting as she begins as a cold and sarcastic stranger but ends as a warm, caring friend. I love the inclusion of an upper class reporter discovering that these lower class kids are people rather than stories to be sensationalised. And I also love how Katherine gets involved in the fight by helping Specs instead of watching it unfold (I also love when Denton gets involved at the rally after he watched Crutchy get taken away — it shows how his character has grown from a reporter to an ally).

Katherine, as an upper class character, came up with the the Children’s Crusade and enlisted the help of Darcy and Bill (which I assume is what Bob and Noni meant by “people with power swooping in to save the day”). I understand why they think this, and it definitely changes the dynamic, but it wasn’t anything they couldn’t do alone (and it isn’t too different from the newsies getting Denton’s help). If Katherine wasn’t there, Jack already knew where the printing press was. If Katherine wasn’t there, Davey would’ve eventually thought of something similar to the Children’s Crusade. If Katherine wasn’t there, they would have found another way to print the papers (either by working it out with time, enlisting the help of Hannah or another sympathetic member of Pulitzer’s staff, or by fighting Weasel, Morris, and Oscar and forcing them to print it). Even the words Katherine uses in the article: they are Jack’s words.

The real difference is that Katherine’s class makes these things happen quicker. The newsies would have achieved a similar ending without her, it just would have taken longer and included more struggles. The Children’s Crusade idea doesn’t say much about her class, it’s just an idea that she happened to have. Anyone else could’ve thought of it, but the show was pushing that Jack, Davey, and Katherine were equally important to the strike’s victory.

In the movie, Sarah finds Denton’s article and they reprint it. Does Sarah Jacobs save the day? To an extent, yes, but also, no. Denton leaving impacted David so much, and he was ready to give up so Sarah was very important for the strike’s success. However, if Sarah hadn’t found Denton’s article, the newsies could’ve won their strike without Denton, it just would’ve taken longer and (of course) included more struggles. We forget that Newsies focuses on a small group of people. There were many problems with the strike and strike leaders did step down, but the main bulk of newsies carried on and that’s why they won. I suppose you could argue that, in the fictional Newsies universe, the leaders losing interest would end the strike, but I’d like to believe that someone else would find inspiration and step up, or use the anger of Denton leaving to push even harder.

I understand why people don’t like that Katheirne is Pulitzer’s daughter. Noni, Bob, and anyone else who doesn’t like Katherine’s connection to Pulitzer are entitled to their opinion. Wouldn’t life be boring if everyone thought the same thing? Some people (like me) love it and others hate it.

The best advice that I can give you, or anyone, is to think about how you can improve on things you don’t like. Newsies is a fandom and, like any fan space (solo or communal), you can alter and change whatever you like. I’ve seen posts that offer alternatives like Katherine disowning her father, or that Pulitzer disowning her. I’ve seen people suggest that Katherine is Denton’s daughter instead (which would age Denton up and age Katherine down). I’ve also had a conversation where someone suggested that Katherine is Medda’s daughter who decided to play a part (using a regular theatregoer who works for the Sun to publish these papers under her fake name — as she still wouldn’t use her real name… which I suppose would be Larkson/Larkin). All of these alternatives would change her social class.

My point is that Newsies can be whatever you want it to be. If you don’t like something, try and add to it or transform it into something new and interesting that you love.

The big fight happened in the morning, but everyone was too injured, exhausted, and pessimistic to look for Jack. So, they spent the day tending their wounds and sulking at Jacobi's deli instead.

Katherine found them, lifting their spirits by announcing that they made the front page (above the fold!). For anyone who is confused or curious, this would've been an afternoon or evening edition (I've always assumed it was from 4pm-ish considering that the fight was in the morning).

Crutchie wrote the letter that night.

Sometime in the night, or the early morning, Specs visited Crutchie. He was too injured to come to the window, but he managed to give Specs the note (likely through the other inmates).

The day after the fight, there was still no sign of Jack.

The strike was over without a leader, and they knew that however many days they could go without making money, Pulitzer could go longer. So they decided to work until their leader returned, or maybe they gave up entirely.

But then, as they're buying their papes, Davey noticed that Weasel was nervous. He wasn't the laid back man from before ("Well, for them kind of answers, you gotta ask further up the food chain."), he couldn't defeat the newsies and he was now worried (just like Pulitzer) that the newsies, unionised, had the most power.

So Davey stepped up, he told everyone to walk away, and many kids followed him. The strike wasn't as hopeless without Jack as they thought. Jack wasn't an army of newsies.

Pulitzer wasn't scared of Jack: he was scared of them.

However, they still looked for him. They could carry on without him for a day or two, but they needed his leadership in the long-term (and also, he's their friend, and they're worried about him).

JACK Every newsie who could walk was out there this morning, selling papes like the strike never happened. DAVID And I was right out there with ‘em. If I don’t sell papes, my folks don’t eat. JACK Save your breath. I get it. It’s hopeless. DAVID But then I saw this look on Wiesel’s face. He was actually nervous, and I realized this isn’t over. We’ve got them worried, really worried. And I walked away. Lots of other kids too, and that is what you call a beginning.

(Inserted this extract for to evidence the morning's events).

Jack has been hiding with Medda since he ran away.

He likely spent the night at the theatre, since the newsies would've checked his 'penthouse' immediately after the fight or after King of New York.

So let us speculate what happened. How did Specs lose Jack? And why did Davey not know about the letter or how badly Crutchie was injured?

Here is Jack's retelling:

JACK Specs brung me a note from Crutchie at the Refuge. I tried to go see him. I went up the fire escape. They busted him up so bad, he couldn’t even come to the window. Now, what if he don’t make it, huh? Are you willin’ to shoulder that? For what, half a penny a pape?

So, sometime after King of New York, Specs checks on Crutchie, and gets the letter.

Somehow, he gives it to Jack. I have some options:

He went to the theatre to ask Medda if she'd heard from Jack and found him there.

Jack went for a walk and Specs found him wandering aimlessly in the street.

They crossed paths, Jack going to the Refuge, and Specs on his way back from the Refuge.

Jack then reads the letter. (Yes, him wiping away tears in the gif above is NOT the first time he's reading it. I like to think his first read looked a lot more like his Santa Fe breakdown.)

Anyways, he then goes to see Crutchie for himself. To apologise, to tell him that everything will be okay, and to break him out.

Did Specs tell him that Crutchie couldn't come to the window? I don't see why he wouldn't.

It seems that Specs' main job is to keep Jack informed (he immediately ran to the Journal after the prices rose, he was the first person Jack chose to assign a borough to, and he was on lookout for any reinforcements).

So Jack knew about Crutchie's injuries, and likely took Specs with him to help, but they soon realised that an escape was too dangerous when Crutchie was so wounded (unlike Crutchy from the movie, Crutchie from the musical doesn't seem to mind being carried when necessary). Or perhaps Crutchie refused for another reason, like not wanting Jack and Specs to get caught too.

On the walk back, Jack is devastated, and begs Specs to keep his secret for just one more day, promising to soon return.

It's a lie, of course, Jack tells Medda that night that he's going to leave New York, and she spends the night finding enough money to help him.

If he wanted to leave, he had to lie to Specs: he cared about the strike, and was not against using tough love to help his friends in the long run, (like when he showed Katherine where Jack's 'penthouse' was).

[Backstage at the Bowery theatre, Jack sports no sleeves and a black eye as he paints a new backdrop for Medda and reads Crutchie’s letter.] MEDDA Here’s everything I owe you for the first backdrop. Plus this one. And even a little something extra, just account’a because I’m gonna miss you so. JACK Miss Medda, I… MEDDA Jack. JACK You’re a gem. MEDDA Just tell me you’re going somewhere, not running away. JACK Does it matter? MEDDA When you go somewhere and it turns out not to be the right place, you can always go somewhere else. But if you’re running away, nowhere is ever the right place.

He spends early hours of the morning painting, re-reading Crutchie's letter, and getting no sleep.

If he leaves New York, he leaves Crutchie for dead and the strike will fail.

So he paints on the wood (at the back of a backdrop). It shows newsies being crushed by a giant, Joseph Pulitzer, and their strike banners are scattered nearby. Jack feels responsible for their suffering, for putting them in danger, and then – instead of being the hand to push the shoe away – Jack was going to abandon them.

He re-reads the letter again. It makes him feel even more guilty.

Crutchie was supposed to come with him. They were supposed to enjoy Santa Fe together, but Jack stood in the theatre, ready to run away from his troubles... even if that would make everyone else's suffering worse.

Medda knows he doesn't really want to leave, but Jack isn't thinking rationally right now. He's having breakdown after breakdown and he just wants his struggles to end as soon as possible with as little pain as possible.

Before he and Medda can dive deeper into the topic, Davey comes running in and Medda decides to leave the two of them alone to talk.

Whether or not Specs knew where Jack was staying, it's obvious that he didn't tell the newsies that he saw Jack at all. Davey and Les were surprised to see him and Katherine was shocked to see Jack's dishevelled state.

DAVID How about lettin’ a pal know you’re alive? MEDDA Why don’t I leave you with your friend. DAVID Where did you go? We couldn’t find ya. JACK You ever think I didn’t want to be found?

LES There he is, just like I said. JACK For cryin’ out loud, where’s a fella gotta go to get away from you people? DAVID There’s no escapin’ us pal. We’re inevitable.

JACK Word is, you wrote a great story. KATHERINE Hey, you look like hell.

Specs may or may not have known where Jack was hiding (remember the three options I provided earlier), so, depending on the context there are different explanations for why he was looking for Jack.

He knew that Jack was in the theatre, but promised not to tell anyone, so he pretends to be looking and hopes someone else will find him.

He knew that Jack was in the theatre, but realises during the night that he might run away or step down as leader, so encourages Davey, Les, and Katherine to try the theatre.

He didn't know that Jack was in the theatre, and he promised not to tell anyone about seeing him, so he decided to look with everyone else (and was actually trying to find him) whilst pretending that he hadn't seen Jack since the big fight.

He didn't know that Jack was in the theatre, but realises during the night that he might run away or step down as leader, so he rushes to find Jack during the search. The other newsies would be furious with him if they knew of the secret he was hiding, so Specs needed to find Jack before Jack's absence gave him no choice other than to confess.

If Specs knew where Jack was hiding, he probably told him about the newsies selling again, rushing off when they were beginning to line up and returning before they began searching for Jack.

Alternatively, Jack may have found out about the newsies selling again by sneaking out to check or by Medda sending one of her friends to check (I assume she wouldn't be going out in her comfy, informal dressing gown). Either way, this spy would've seen them lining up from afar and would've walked off before Davey and the other kids began walking away.

Well... I might as well finish the day (this is for my sake, not yours, I'm rusty!). Pulitzer reads Katherine's story and, by the late evening, she is being chastised in his office. Then Jack, too cocky for his own good, invites Pulitzer to the rally and ends the night in the basement, sleeping on an old printing press.

Here is an article covering his death, from the Kingston Daily Freeman: Monday evening October 4 1909.

Below the images, I have typed out the article (as some people may have screen-readers or might struggle to read the text on the image for other reasons).

ALBERT PULITZER COMMITTED SUICIDE. By Telegraph to The Freeman. Vienna, Oct. 4. -- Albert Pulitzer, a brother of Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the New York World, committed suicide in this city yesterday. It was evident that he made doubly sure of death, for all indications pointed to the fact that he had first swallowed poison, and then standing in front of a mirror, had sent a bullet from a revolver through his right temple. An empty poison bottle lay on the table in Mr. Pulitzer's room. Early yesterday evening Mr. Pulitzer dismissed his attendants and asked to be left alone. Sometime later Dr. Pollak, who has been attending Mr. Pulitzer, called to make his usual visit. He entered the room and found Mr. Pulitzer lying dead on the floor in front of his dressing table. The doctor announced the tragedy and notified the authorities. Mr Pulitzer is said to have suffered a nervous breakdown. He was very depressed over the failure of his physicians to benefit him. New York Oct. 4. -- Albert Pulitzer was the founder and formerly publisher of the New York Journal, but sold that property a number of years ago. He has spent most of his time in Europe since 1895 until two years ago, when he came to New York and announced his intention of starting a newspaper in this city. The project was not put into effect and Mr. Pulitzer returned to Europe.

It is difficult, and often impossible, to explain such things.

Albert suffered from 'Neurasthenia.' You've probably never heard of it, since it is considered obsolete, so let's explore the nature of this illness.

It was described as 'nervous exhaustion,' and was thought to affect upper class, overworked Americans (because the neurologist exploring Neurasthenia, George Miller Beard, was American).

The symptoms include (but are not limited to): chronic fatigue, poor appetite, headache, heart palpitations, insomnia, anxiety, and a depressive mood. As you can see, the illness was regarded as affecting mental health and physical health. Due to this, it was regarded as debilitating, but not fatal.

Today, we would consider Neurasthenia to be Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), or an anxiety/depression disorder.

Albert, in 1909, did not have the support he needed, and the medical field did hadn't explored mental health enough to help him.

Albert was four years younger than Joseph, and was fifty-eight when he took his life.

It seems that Albert struggled with his mental health long before 1909. This article discusses an encounter between Albert and Joseph, happening between 1867 and 1872.

Both brothers seem unbothered by and desensitised to death. Perhaps this is because (despite coming from a large family) they were the only two children to survive to adulthood, and lost their father when they were young.

I suppose the brothers could have felt like death was the only guarantee in life: like a terrifying inevitability that they had no say in.

We know that Albert thought about death long before his suicide, and maybe the thought of dying at his own hands comforted him. And, due to Joseph's own depressive nature and lack of compassion, Joseph felt like he couldn't (or perhaps he just didn't want to) give his brother affection.

I tried to research Joseph's reaction to Albert's death, but I could not find anything. Although, the lack of documentation suggests that he was not overly distraught.

This is quite different to his reaction when his favourite child, Lucille, died from typhoid fever in 1897, when Joseph was in a state of deep mourning. It is important to remember that Joseph perhaps expected the death of a sibling, since it had happened so often, but was not expecting the death of his child.

Now, before I address anything, it's important that we make some things clear (this explanation isn't for you, ands01tgo3s, but I need to include it so no one gets the wrong impression). Mayer loves and cares for his son, and David loves and respects his father. It's just that their interactions can be rather awkward. They do have a father-son bond, of course they do, but Mayer's fatherly relationship with Jack is far warmer.

Okay, so I have my own thoughts (I believe they're called headcanons) about Mayer which are quite different from your theory. However, I'm going to do my best to help you with yours.

The reason I don't believe Mayer to be an orphan has much to do with the novel extract below.

After dinner, David and Jack went out on the fire escape for a breath of air. Jack stood on the steel grating and gazed in the window at Esther singing Les a lullaby and Sarah reading the paper to Mayer. The longing in his eyes was unmistakable. David had always considered his family a pain in the neck, but now, suddenly, he realized just how lucky he was. "Why don't you stay here tonight?" he asked.

"No thanks. I got my own place, you see. But thanks. Your family's real nice, David. Reminds me of my own, in fact."

Something about the way that he said it made David realize that Jack was lying, that he had no family. But he also saw how important it was for his friend to have this bit of make-believe, so he nodded and went along with it.

"I'd introduce you to them," Jack went on, "but they're out in Santa Fe, looking for a new home for us. A ranch where we can raise cattle. Soon as they find it, they're going to send for me and I'll be on my way."

"I hope it doesn't happen too soon," David said. "I've got to learn how to be a newsie first."

"Don't worry. I won't go till I teach you everything."

I feel like Mayer would have taught David about how important families are if he were an orphan growing up (since he would have shared how he once longed for a family). But the novel shows that David realised how important a family was (specifically how important a family was to an orphan) right there on the fire escape.

It is a difficult conversation to be had, however, and perhaps it was too awkward to discuss with David. I just see Mayer as a more open and honest parent, but perhaps he only told Sarah about it.

I also feel like David wouldn't be calling his father 'sir' and being overly formal unless that's how Mayer interacted with his father. However, David could've easily picked this up from school, his neighbours or even the parents of his friends.

Personally, I always believed that Mayer grew up with strict or even abusive parents, and his experiences led him to swear to himself that he'd be a more gentle father. But, equally, he could have grown up with absent (or dead) parents and therefore sworn to be an active and involved parent. After all, he's supportive of his children, even when it is unsafe to do so.

Esther on the other hand worries greatly for her children's safety, leading me to believe that she was put in danger (possibly neglected) in her childhood and never wanted her children to feel the same way she did. She makes an effort to ensure that her children never feel uncomfortable, uncared for, or afraid for their lives.

Anyhow, I've always believed that Mayer and Esther immigrated from Poland to America together as late teens/young adults in the late 1870s, perhaps whilst Esther was pregnant with Sarah.

Although it seems that you're referring to Mayer growing up as an orphan, so let's focus on making that work. While the numbers of Polish people immigrating to America began to climb drastically in the 1870s, it doesn't mean that people didn't immigrate sooner.

His family may have been facing poverty and decided to dedicate the last of their savings to getting Mayer out (or even going with him but dying on the way or shortly after they arrived from illness).

Or maybe Mayer was already orphaned by the time he decided to leave, sneaking his way onto a ship or profiting from another family's kindness (which would explain why Mayer treated Jack as a son and offered him resources when he decided to leave for Santa Fe).

Perhaps Mayer gloated about Jack's role as a strike leader to make him feel important, since Jack's success would have been rarely celebrated, and if it was celebrated, it would likely only be for a fleeting moment, (Kloppman is a busy man), so Mayer wanted to make a big deal out of Jack's leadership. Personally, I believe it's because Mayer is very interested in strikes and making a change as a socialist, but I'm just trying to give you some evidence here.

Wanting David to stay in school is most definitely connected with Mayer's lack of opportunity growing up. He worked as a tailor and then in a piano factory, and he doesn't want his son to end up like him. He wants David to be financially comfortable (and comfortable enough to help the entire family leave the tenements). He pushes his children to do well, but hasn't walked a mile in their shoes because he never had the chance to growing up.

Jack, on the other hand – not knowing what to do, getting older every day and going nowhere, and wanting to start a new life – that is something Mayer can relate to, and he doesn't want Jack feeling the same worthlessness he did when he was alone many years ago.

I think that's just about everything I can help you with. I hope you enjoyed my thoughts. If there's anything I missed or any follow up thoughts of your own, please let me know!

Daily (or close enough to daily) posting isn't possible for me anymore. When I resume posting regularly, once a week (for analysis) is a more reasonable option.

And, when I return, I want to be less involved in the fandom. It isn't a hostile place whatsoever, but it brought me far too much stress. I stopped posting because I was worried I was somehow enjoying Newsies wrong, which isn't true at all. No one specifically made me feel this way, and I'd like to make it clear that no one said anything to me either. I know there are people out there who hate my posts, and that is completely fine. You can't win everyone over. But I was always anxious when posting, I would edit and re-edit drafts because I was frightened the fandom would take an issue with my thoughts and rip me apart.

I was very defensive, especially when people would respond to my posts criticising other parts of the fandom or hot takes they've seen elsewhere, and I apologise for that.

I also know exactly who sent me some of the anonymous asks, and although I wish they'd have just been more open with their criticism/thoughts, there's a reason I provide the anonymous option. I also understand why they decided to go anonymous, and (if they're reading this), I encourage them to continue. Truly, the asks are brilliant. They give me things to explore, and it gives you things to read (although I don't think the person who sent some of the asks actually read my answer, unfortunately).

But, yeah, I don't need to defend my opinion (of liking all kinds of Newsie-related things), and I won't try going forwards. I will not get caught up in defending the movie/stage musical, either.

I'll ignore that pit of worry in my stomach because there truly isn't anything to worry about. How I choose to enjoy media on my blog is my business. I'm so glad that some people like my posts; that's why I put my thoughts and jokes online in the first place. But I need to worry less about being hated. I try my best to include everyone when possible (like when I stopped using Crutchie when talking in a multimedia sense and replaced it with Crutchy/Crutchie), and if people wish to ignore, disagree with, or harass me, then so be it. The world will keep spinning.

That was a lot, but please let me assure you that my love for Newsies isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But I am also in no rush to post.

Thank you for your ask!

Davey would definitely be seen as 'annoying' and 'pick me' by some viewers. The reason I think this is probably the same reason you do: Katherine gets this treatment!

This is a chain of responses from a Reddit thread titled "What musical protagonist do you strongly dislike?" I've drawn over the username and profile pictures for obvious reasons. I'm not here to condemn them whatsoever; I'm just making observations about what was said.

From this thread, we see that Red believes Katherine is "unconfident" but also "desperate to push herself in the action when no one wants her there." I'm not really sure how that's possible, but female characters are often criticised more than their male counterparts, which is largely due to people's own issues with women or something they retained from their upbringing. Either way, I struggle to see how Katherine can be simultaneously unconfident and pushy.

Red prefers love interests to be a "barely-there crush rather than a full character," because why should she have her own storyline when her purpose is for Jack Kelly to fall in love with her?

I've already spoken about this concerning Sarah (What does Sarah Jacobs want?), where I outline the need for both main lovers to have their own aspirations and character growth. Just as Katherine and Jack pushed each other to believe in themselves, Sarah may have been inspired by Jack or something else in the newsie circle he introduced her to.

Back to Red. If Davey were a girl and Katherine were a man, their comment might name Davey instead. Is it the love interest they want as a "barely-there" character, or do they just not like women taking centre stage? And, let's be honest, if Davey were a girl, she probably would be the main love interest because Disney likes that kind of thing. Red, of course, would hate this too. If the "my dad is the villain" twist is too "basic," I can't imagine how they'd view the "new kid" trope.

Not that it matters, but I really like the "my dad is the villain" twist.

In Blue's opinion, Katherine is not important to the plot. Katherine Plumber, the reporter, isn't important to the plot. She's "useless," or (as Red labels her) "unnecessary."

A later comment in this thread from Red (responding to someone saying they prefer Denton) reads, "Same, there was no point combining him with the love interest in the stage version, they could’ve just cut the romance and kept Denton."

Firstly, "the love interest" vs "Denton" interests me. Again, is it romance they don't like, or do they not like main characters being women? And, secondly, why couldn't they keep Katherine but cut her romance with Jack? Why do they need to keep the male reporter when we can explore this new character, which allows us a glimpse into the sexism of the era?

If Davey were a girl, she would probably be seen in the same way Katherine views Davey, irrelevant (I'm pretty sure I've spoken about this before, but I believe that Katherine only sees Jack as the leader until Davey steps up in act 2). Anyways, a gender flipped Davey would undoubtedly be hated by many of the fandom because some Newsies fans are... well, sexist. She would also be regarded as "annoying," "crazy," and "immature."

But, on that same breath, a gender flipped Jack Kelly would also receive this treatment. A female Racetrack would be seen as "pick me" and 'obnoxious' rather than the witty gambler the fandom knows him as. Of course, most fans (like you and me) would see the character for who they actually are because their gender is the least interesting thing about them. It's easy to listen to the vocal minority, but most people can see beyond a character's gender.

For those who dislike women, making Davey a girl would make her positive traits a problem and her negative traits a problem (instead of her being an imperfect human being). Strangely, women are judged more harshly, and she'd be seen as taking the rightful place of somebody else. While Katherine is seen as replacing her movie counterpart, Denton, I feel like Davey would be hated for being Jack's right-hand woman when it 'should' be Race or Specs or Crutchy/Crutchie or Blink or even Boots (he's a little young, but he has the spirit). Let's be realistic, though, the fandom is pretty convinced that Race is Jack's right-hand man, so that's who Davey would be vilified for 'stealing' Race's 'rightful' place.

Well, that's about it for audience perception. If you'd like me to dig any deeper, let me know! I'm not sure if you'll be as interested in what I'm about to explore, but I figured a little extra wouldn't hurt. (I do have a section discussing how you think her relationship with Jack and Katherine would be interesting, but I'm not quite sure I've addressed it how you wanted me to.)

The fandom would view her differently, but what about the other characters?

If Davey were a girl, she'd face a similar struggle to Katherine. But Katherine is most importantly a reporter, just as Davey would most importantly be a co-leader. She'd still have her reluctance to join the strike and the feeling that she's responsible for her family, which is more important from an individual standpoint than her gender (you know, because many girl newsies would have rallied behind her, but also because the male newsies got over Katherine's gender very quickly).

Those outside the newsie circle may view a girl Davey as the 1899 version of a 'pick me,' but I really don't think the newsies would mind at all. Initially, of course, she'd face the same backlash, but Davey is a very sarcastic character and could outwit Jack just as Katherine did. If both Katherine and Davey were gender swapped, I'd find the idea of a reverse deli scene quite funny, since Katherine (male) would tell Davey (female) "I'd like to save any exclusive for a real strike leader."

I don't think it would affect Davey's relationship with Jack too much (other than the fact Disney would consider making the pair romantic... which is actually very interesting). But I find her relationship with Katherine most interesting. If Katherine is not gender swapped, it would be nice to see them both support each other in their goals when others underestimate their abilities because of something as irrelevant as their sex. We don't really see too much of period-typical anything with Newsies because Disney is Disney, but also because it isn't relevant to the main storyline (the musical can only be so long!).

I feel like, fandom-wise, the last thing we'd need is a Davey vs Katherine vs Sarah war (although Davey doesn't need to be a girl to be in this discussion, he's already a contestant). Jack really has his pick of lovers. If Davey and Katherine were both girls, I'm so sure that more people would ship them, maybe even more than Katherine and Jack. I don't really have any proof for this one, I just feel like there would be less tension between them if they were both girls (although, if they were both fighting over Jack Kelly, maybe not, haha).

Anyway, enough of that because I have no idea what I'm talking about.

The most interesting thing about flipping Davey's gender (in my opinion) is Sarah and Les. Assuming their genders stay the same, Sarah would still be the eldest child, and Les would now be the eldest son. So Les, in theory, may have been the chosen breadwinner because of societal standards. Would he go alone, or would one of his older sisters accompany him? Perhaps (similarly to the novel), Sarah or Davey would insist on joining Les just as Les insisted on selling with David.

Or maybe, because he's so young, Mayer and Esther would instruct one of the older children to keep Les safe. If that were the case, would Sarah/Davey continue sewing lace dollies, or would they decide to sell with Les?

Of course, there were plenty of newsgirls, so Sarah and Davey would likely sell with Les. Or maybe, to keep their little brother in school, it would only be Sarah and Davey selling. Sarah doesn't become a newsgirl in the movie, but that could be because she didn't need to. Esther doesn't initially like the newsies, and it was David who suggested the job.

Maybe, like how Sarah wears David's clothes in Hard Promises, they'd both wear their father's clothes and pretend (as hard as they could) to be boys. Although, since you specified Livesies Davey, this may be of no interest to you.

Now, I have already discussed their family dynamics at length (post: Let's Discuss the Jacobs' Family Dynamics), but I feel that we can't truly explore this topic without including his household.

I have made a conscious effort to not repeat myself. I will be using similar evidence and talking points, but I assure you that the analysis is quite different.

The family's role was significantly reduced in the movie, so most of the evidence I use comes from the earlier script, Hard Promises.

A Note on Authority:

We know that David interprets authority differently from the other newsies (just look at how he initially interacts with Weasel). He's more respectful and polite, and can't bring himself to break these imaginary (yet important) rules.

David watched the boys in front of him carefully so he would know just how to behave. They acted tough, flipped their quarters in the air, and scornfully addressed the man giving out the papers as Weasel, though his real name was Weisel. But when David's turn came, he found that he had been too well brought up to do any of these things. He simply handed Weisel his dime and said, "Twenty papers ,sir, if you please."

Now, while his mother is stricter on acting/speaking properly (which you can check out in this post), I've always assumed this to be something he learned at school, especially since the Jacobs family are, from what we see, 'healthy' for the period. An overly polite respect for adults, therefore, is likely something instilled in Davey from school.

At home, he is more casual, yet certainly more nervous than his siblings. Until the strike, he isn't a very relaxed character at all. Les, on the other hand, is presented as a more carefree child, but he is a child after all.

It depended on the teacher really, but corporal punishment was a common practice in the home and at school. Mayer and Esther don't believe in hitting their children, but Mrs O'Leary (Les' teacher from the novel) or David's teacher may have supported physical discipline. In those times, teachers could act 'in loco parentis' (in place of the parent), giving them the legal right to discipline students however they saw fit.

If their teachers felt strongly about the importance of hitting children, they may have used excessive or more frequent force on the Jacobs boys (and to Sarah when/if she attended school – I believe it to be a 'when').

Most guides of the era suggest using corporal punishment sparingly, but students felt that violence was commonly and unjustly applied.

Tools used for corporal punishment include (but are not limited to): canes, rulers, paddles, belts, sticks, rods, leather straps, or the teacher's hand. Students could be hit on their palms, knuckles, back, or bottom.

However, teachers could theoretically use what they wanted wherever they wanted. Just look at this English case from the 1860s: the Eastbourne manslaughter. Below is an extract from The South Australian Advertiser (11th September 1860). There isn't one in the original extract, but I put two paragraph breaks in for your sake.

It is important to note that this did not occur in a traditional school, but rather in the man's own home (which he educated his students in).

One morning young Cancellor was found dead in his bed. The body was carefully covered over. It had white kid gloves upon its hands and long stockings drawn far up over the thighs; nothing was visible but the face. Hopley suggested that the boy had died of disease of the heart, and wished a certificate from the surgeon and immediate burial. At one moment it appeared likely that the whole affair would be hushed up. But mysterious stories of midnight shrieks and bloodstained instruments of punishment began to be whispered about. The servants had seen blood upon the linen in Mrs. Hopley's room, and had heard sounds which convinced them that the miserable wife had spent the night in the frightful task of preparing the body to pass a superficial investigation, and getting rid of the traces of violence which would testify against her husband. Then came the real investigation. The gloves and the stockings were stripped off, and the legs and the arms of the corpse were found to be coated with extravasated blood, "the cellular membranes under the skin of the thighs were reduced to a perfect jelly; in fact, all torn to pieces and lacerated by the blows that had been inflicted." There were two holes in the right leg about the size of a sixpence and an inch deep, which appeared to have been made by jobbing a thick stick into the flesh. The appearance was that of a human creature who had been mangled by an infuriated and merciless assailant. All these appearances coincided but too faithfully with what was now learnt of the conduct of the schoolmaster. A servant girl who had slept next to the pupil-room heard the boy crying and screaming under blows and her master talking and beating. She listened at 10 o'clock, when the torture was going on, and she awoke at 12, and it was still proceeding. Then the cries suddenly ceased, and nothing after was heard during that unquiet night but the stealthy movements of the wife, who was, with womanly devotion, doing her fearful task of hiding the traces of the tragedy.

Other (non-violent) disciplinary methods – such as the dunce hat, writing lines, being forced to stand on a stool for hours, solitary confinement, and detention – were also used in schools in the 1890s.

The unfairness and extreme punishments are quite similar to the experiences of the boys who had been to the Refuge. Here's an extract from that post (which is actually quoting an article!):

Some months ago, a smart, intelligent lad, in the employ of a prominent law firm of this city, was led astray by evil companions, and induced to rob his employers. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, and at the intercession of the gentlemen whom he had defrauded, was sent to the House of Refuge. One day last week he failed to perform his allotted task, and in consequence was so outrageously whipped that he died in a few days afterward -- death being, in the opinion of the surgeon, the result of this inhuman chastisement. In addition to this instance of cruelty, it is stated that the boys are but half fed and are worked beyond their strength.

While it was a guarantee you'll suffer in the Refuge, this wasn't true for school. It depended on the teacher. So I guess the relevance of this section depends on your opinion, since we can't prove anything. Nonetheless, it's interesting to think about.

Mayer Jacobs:

In Newsies, Mayer is presented as a gentle father. We see in the Hard Promises script that he isn't too stressed about his children, and has faith that everything will turn out just fine.

ESTHER God help us, Mayer, he's just like you ... he thinks he can change the world. MAYER Maybe he can.

Despite this, David appears to follow orders and address Mayer like he were an authoritative parent.

MAYER David. It's late. David hesitates, then starts back inside the open window.

INT. DAVIDS APARTMENT LATER SAME NIGHT The window opens quietly and DAVID and JACK climb into the apartment. LES and SARAH are both asleep. MAYER'S voice comes from behind the curtain. MAYER'S VOICE David? DAVID Yes, sir. MAYER pulls back the curtain, sees JACK and DAVID. MAYER They let you go? JACK Sort'a. MAYER studies the boys, he knows that is not the truth. MAYER Get some sleep.

Yet, he isn't afraid of his father at all, and his reactions have more to do with his nervous energy. In Hard Promises, he and his mother roll their eyes when Sarah announces that she and Mayer are socialists, which an overly polite son wouldn't do.

MAYER I try to do what's right. But sometimes that makes it hard to make a living. A silence. SARAH glares at JACK in defense of her father. SARAH My father and I are Socialists. ESTHER and DAVID roll their eyes.

The Jacobs family are a family. They have affection for one another and care about looking after each other. David calls Mayer 'papa' instead of 'father,' once again displaying the lack of formal expectations within the household.

DAVID This is only the beginning, papa. The longer I work, the more money I'll make. MAYER You'll only work until I go back to the factory, and then you are going back to school, like you promised.

Mayer is a good father. From what we see, he is gentle but firm. Even his relationship with Esther is healthy. Men were permitted to hit their wives just as mothers were permitted to hit their children, but the family don't believe in violent love. It's a healthy way to view relationships, and a sets a good example for their children. This is likely where David gets his cautious stance around violence: he's been taught by his parents that aggression is a last resort.

His dad would be the opposite of his schoolmaster. His teacher would punish and intimidate, and his father would disapprove and debate. It's nice that David and Les have safe adults in their life, especially since corporal punishment can instill a connection between authority and pain.

I believe that Mayer never hit his children, likely because of his own upbringing. When his children were physically punished at school, he'd show empathy instead of the all too common 'you probably deserved it.' Perhaps David got into the habit of hiding this from his pop so he wouldn't be upset, or maybe Mayer urges him to talk about what happened and he's too embarrassed to repeat it.

Look, I'm just making assumptions here. It's clear that their relationship is awkward at times, and a lack of communication could be the cause. It seems like Mayer wants to have a closer bond with his son (and likewise Davey wishes to be closer with his father), but there's something stopping them from doing so.

Mayer has a more fatherly relationship with Jack, so it seems that the thing stopping him and David from having the same is David's previously mentioned nervous energy.

Esther Jacobs:

Esther is the stricter parent, and David is closer to her than his father.

Perhaps it's the authoritative way she hold herself. After all, some people are comforted by the safety and stability offered by a capable leader. Growing up, especially as a more anxious person, Esther was probably David's rock – decisive, grounding, and supportive.

Her opinion is important to him, which likely inspired his immediate dislike for Jack. Knowing her opinion of newsies, he also assumes Jack is a criminal (which he is, but did David really have to imply that Jack wasn't arrested for stealing food?). It's almost like he wanted to appease his mother by selling papers, but not becoming friendly with the crowd she disliked.

"But what will you do?" Esther asked. "I'll sell the World!" David said. And then, before his parents could argue the point "It's the best job for a boy like me! You get to be outside all day, instead of holed up in one of those awful sweatshops. And some of the boys make a dollar a day." "I won't have it," Esther said. "Those newsboys are orphans and toughs. They'll turn you into a criminal."

His value for her approval made her disapproval hurt the most.

INT. DAVID'S APARTMENT - NIGHT The Sun is on the table; the headline reads "Newsies in Revolt." DAVID faces down ESTHER'S fury as MAYER, sympathetic, supports his wife. LES watches. SARAH sews, listening. DAVID I can't get another job! They're depending on me. ESTHER Your family is depending on you! DAVID They're trying to cheat us! MAYER You're children! What do you know about making a union? DAVID What I learned from you. ESTHER And look what happened to him! DAVID I'm a newsie, mom! The newsies are on strike, so I'm on strike. That's what father taught me. And that's what I'm going to do! ESTHER impulsively strikes DAVID across the face and instantly regrets it. DAVID is shocked. Then he turns and climbs out onto the fire escape. ESTHER turns and looks at Les. ESTHER From now on, you stay home.

Esther doesn't usually hit her children, and from the shock that she'd even do such a thing, I believe that this is the first time. Similar to Mayer, she was likely hit growing up, and in her moment of anger, when David disobeyed her orders, she did what the adults in her childhood did to her.

She acted on an impulse, but it doesn't negate the effect this had on her son. The safe environment he grew up in just mirrored the punishments inflicted on him at school. Not only that, her other two children witnessed it too.

When he leaves, she doesn't rush after him. She refuses to let herself be vulnerable and immediately orders Les to stay home. We don't see her apologise to David, and I don't believe she ever would. I feel like they'd both avoid discussing it because neither of them want to face the uncomfortable topic.

After this situation, David might instinctively duck away from his mother's hand, and it would make Esther feel terribly guilty.

The next time he goes against her, she looks to her husband. The two of them were worried sick for David, and she most definitely cried to Mayer after the incident. Yet, while Esther's authority is her weakness, Mayer's weakness is his dismissive attitude.

He doesn't want to make things worse, and he believes that the strike will succeed.

MAYER Your mother and sister lost their jobs today. (David shocked) Some boys from the paper ruined their lace. LES Otto and The Delanceys. ESTHER This has to stop, David. Mr. Fisher needs a delivery boy. I want you to - DAVID I can't quit now, Mom, even if I wanted to. ESTHER Mayer. MAYER He'll do what he has to do, Esther.

It puts Esther in a difficult situation because she doesn't want to remind her children of the last time, but she also needs to keep her children safe.

Yet, for Mayer, this situation is equally as difficult. Last time, he supported his wife, and he now feels the need to support his son.

When David suggests leaving the house, however, Mayer and Esther are in agreement again. Again, they are a family who truly care for one another, and they don't want to be separated.

DAVID I'll move out till this is over. Esther looks at Mayer, pleading him to stop David. MAYER That won't be necessary. We'll manage.

Reassuring David that he doesn't need to leave to keep his family safe is probably the best decision Mayer could make. He is certain in his answer, which is reassuring, and he emphasises the we: he isn't alone.

Esther's silence is also a purposeful decision. She's making an effort to be less authoritative and stern, and it makes her more human. She's making a point to be gentle and thinks before acting.

David likely respects her more for it, and he's forgiven people for worse (I mean, just look at part one). He's very intelligent and sympathetic, and (after a discussion with Sarah) probably understood why she did what she did. Does it change what happened? No. But the slap won't sour their relationship in the long term. I mean, after trying to attack Jack, David certainly knows what it's like to raise his hand to someone he cares for.

Sarah Jacobs:

Sarah is the best big sister anyone could ask for.

I love her. You love her. Les loves her. David loves her. We all love her.

No one feels nervous on her watch, especially her little brothers. She's the sibling you can tell anything to. She and David are especially close because they are close in age. They look after Les, but they don't seem to value his opinion so much (he's nine). Sarah and David, on the other hand, are equals power-wise, where neither is in charge of the other. They speak regularly and regard each other as confidants.

INT. DAVID'S APARTMENT SAME TIME NIGHT Sarah slips into bed. Unable to sleep, she looks over and sees DAVID watching her. They read each other's thoughts.

JACK They'd'a locked me up again. I hate that place. It reminds me a.... (trails off) SARAH Your brother? (Jack surprised) David told me. JACK That's what I hate about families. Nobody keeps their mouth shut. SARAH You don't have to lie to us.

Jack pushes past David and heads out the door. EXT. STREET SAME TIME DAY JACK emerges from the building and starts down the street. DAVID calls down from the fire escape. DAVID Jack! Wait! JACK, too agitated to wait, walks on, tugging at his collar, ripping it off, tossing it aside. DAVID scrambles down the fire escape, drops to the alley, and runs to catch up. DAVID Sarah told me what happened. (Jack nods, keeps walking) I didn't mean what I said to you the other day.

She's level-headed and remains calm in stressful moments (I know she screams when the Delanceys are attacking her and her family but I said stressful, not dangerous). When David and Jack lose faith in the strike, Sarah finds a way to convince them to continue fighting.

We don't see her talking to David about it (as he storms off), but we see her learning the information she needs to encourage him. They share a bedroom for goodness sake, I'm certain that she eventually reads the full article to him. He's still bitter that Denton abandoned them, but there is a reluctant forgiveness as soon as he, Sarah, Les, and Jack turn up at Denton's door. That boy read the article I just can't prove it! He was so quick to trust Denton again as soon as he agreed to help.

SARAH David. It’s Denton’s article. ‘The Dark Truth; Why Our City Really Fears The Newsies Strike’ by Bryan Denton. ‘Last night I saw naked force exercised against mere boys, the newsies, who were…’ David refuses to listen; he angrily steps out on the fire escape and stares off into the city. Sarah keeps reading to herself. What she reads disturbs her.

(The scene below is from the filming script).

SARAH (decisively) You're not going to run away. They'll just come after you. You have to fight them. JACK They got it all wrapped up, Sarah and nothin' I can do is gonna make one bit of difference. SARAH You're wrong. You touched people you don't even know about. She removes the stained pages from her shawl. SARAH Denton's story. JACK Denton looked out for hisself just like I gotta do -- so save it. SARAH Just listen! 'The men who run this city are terrified of the Newsies strike -- because other child laborers in the factories and sweatshops are hearing the message of the Newsies leader --' LES That's you! He's writin' about you! SARAH 'In the voice of Jack Kelly, these children hear strength and pride. Most of all, they hear hope…' Jack listens questioningly. JACK Keep reading. Can these words really be about him…?

What I like most about Sarah is that she has the best qualities of both of her parents. She's got Esther's certainty and Mayer's softness, and it makes those around her respect her opinion the most.

Neither of her brothers would flinch around her at all. If anything, she's a source of comfort for them. They both allow themselves to act immature around her because she's their big sister. She didn't get angry at Les when he put food with her lacework, and the brothers know she won't shout or hit or punish them if they begin to sulk.

Sarah, with a basket of lacework, is coming down the street, Les dawdling behind, in a bad mood. SARAH Les, come on -- you're supposed to be helping me today. LES (sulking) I'd rather be soakin' scabs.

David refuses to listen; he angrily steps out on the fire escape and stares off into the city.

She has more patience than most of us.

Les Jacobs:

Everyone flinches around this little menace.

I'm just kidding... mostly.

They're just playing along with him when they run away but I have no doubts that Les is an aggressive child. Like if Crutchie didn't jump back, I'm convinced that he'd push him over.

Sarah has the patience of a saint. Davey and Les do not.

Despite their age gap, they've probably thrown a few punches at the other. And I have a feeling that their fights never had a clear winner. They'd be careful to annoy each other but not go so far as to hurt.

Still, they'd both flinch away when the other raised a hand. Muscle memory.

In a way, we see the same issue Esther faces (Mayer struggles too, although he doesn't act on it). He's been brought up roughly by his teachers, and he uses force to scold Les (who he is often in charge of). He was manhandled, so he manhandles others. It's not a great cycle.

Of course, Les is his little brother and not his son, which changes the dynamic significantly. Siblings are often rough with one another, but it still doesn't excuse the aggressive behaviour.

Les even thinks he's gotten away with it for a second. He checks behind him for a second before David grabs him. Although this is funny, it tells us that he was expecting his brother to punish him, which isn't really okay.

Look, I understand that siblings are often violent towards each other, and it isn't malicious. However, there is a power imbalance between the two brothers based on the fact that Mayer and Esther put Sarah and David in charge of him.

Of course, this would begin a whole other conversation about whether you should leave your younger children in the care of your older children, but it was common in those times (and in many households, it's common today). Somebody has to look after Les, and it's whoever is with him in that moment.

Parenting Les isn't Davey's job. Could he be a more gentle brother? Absolutely. However, he and Les are typical siblings:

As is often the case with brothers, while David considered Les a pest, Les worshiped David and wanted to copy him in everything he did, from the way he shot marbles to the way he combed back his hair.

They get on each other's nerves, and that's ok. We can't all be Sarah Jacobs (although I'm sure Mayer and Esther ask their sons why they can't play nicely like Sarah).

When push comes to shove, the brothers would defend each other from anything, and they both know that. Les is fond of roughhousing/playfighting, and David is easily annoyed, so fights are bound to happen. I feel like if Davey ever flinched because of Les, he'd remember that he's twice his size and push him over. And, as the energetic child he is, Les would get up to continue annoying him.

At the end of Watch What Happens (Reprise), Davey removes Les' hat so Jack can smack him with his own cap. Les snatches his hat back and hits Jack in the chest with it. Les sees Jack as an older brother, and the newsies playfully (and affectionately) hit each other all the time.

Davey, however, takes Les by the shoulders, laughing, "Okay," as if to say 'Don't hit Jack, hit me.' Again, they expect a bit of aggression from the other, but it isn't malicious.

(Jack's uncomfortable, maybe Les hitting him reminds him of his relationship with his little brother Michael).

And I love the moments when David is a more gentle brother to Les. When they run offstage, we can see Davey with his arm wrapped around Les' shoulder. Their relationship isn't all rough-and-tumble and mutual irritation. At times, David acts more like Sarah when talking to Les, and that's because (although siblings hate to admit it) he loves him deep down. As soon as the strike is won, Davey picks his little brother up in excitement.

I don't feel like this one needs a conclusion like the others, as I've summarised each family member already. However, I'd like to note that flinching doesn't always mean distrust or fear; it's a reflex. Even if a person has never hit you before, if you think they might hit you based on what you know hitting looks like, it is normal to wince or flinch in anticipation.