swamp ophelia

Fuck it. Why the tits not? I shall practice what I preach and unpack some of Trinity's self-gaslighting/her skewed perception of reality/the rewriting she does of her own narrative. Largely because I think it's: under-discussed and FASCINATING, especially in a wider conversation surrounding unhealthy coping mechanisms (which are on FULL display throughout season 2) and as a trauma response.

It was literally my first day of being a doctor...

I kinda love the fact that the first words out of her mouth are just....like, girl, it GENUINELY LITERALLY was: not!!!! Both because, y'know, s1 we had the Langdon line of doctor being a 'title you have enjoyed for, what, 90 days?' So, working 90 days backwards from the date of the 5th of September 2025 (season 1's date), that gives us a doctor graduation date of arooound about: the 7th of June.

And alongside: Whitaker in this season now being a resident without a badge/Rick the surgery intern informing Robby "I was a med student 2 weeks ago." That places our in-world (and, I believe, out-of-world) graduation/doctor becoming date at: around about the 20th of May 2026. So, loosey-gooseyness accounting for in the 'what, 90 days?' being a lowball estimate - doctoring the fuck up occurs: end of May/beginning of June. AKA: very much not the start of September. If...If we're talking about this literally. Which: u used the word, so I'm gonna.

And she could've meant: my first day at PTMC as a doctor (except she said my first day of BEING a doctor, being exists outwith: where one bes. It simply: do be, you see?). Or there could be some bizarre bend-over-backwards reason she graduated later. OR it could just be that: 'it was literally my first day of being a doctor' just Feels Right to Trinity in terms of the impact/framing of her pain/this experience.

...and Langdon gaslit me...

mm, this line may just be my white whale, y'all. Bc I already have: #issues with the way people use gaslighting. But honestly? In WHATEVER sense we use it: it ain't what happened.

For the, what I would call, proper/actual definition of gaslighting: it's a bit like abuse in that: this is actually a specific thing with a specific meaning that is not an all-encompassing umbrella term for 'someone being a bit mean to you'. One of the main things both abuse and gaslighting require is: time. These are SUSTAINED, PROLONGED, PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR that build-up and have an accumulating/compounding effect OVER TIME. Because gaslighting, taken directly from the original novel/origin of the term is: a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR - it's designed by a husband to make his wife feel like she is going insane, because he repeatedly denies her experiences/reality (eg: hearing footsteps - which she IS, and which he KNOWS because: he is the source of them - but he continually dismisses this notion because 'well the house is empty, so you must be imagining things!'). And he does this often enough that she does begin to question her sense of what is real and what is not and can she trust her own self and her own senses? It's a form of psychological abuse.

Now, if I'm feeling #Generous and I choose to apply what has taken on a more colloquial form of gaslighting where it isn't a sustained attempt to drive someone insane over the course of many months in a prolonged campaign of psychological abuse, what gaslighting would be at its most basic/fundamental/essential components to call something gaslighting is: A truth exists. Let us say it is the fact that: Santos saw Mel wearing a yellow t-shirt. Santos saw this, with her own two eyes, and was certain, in the moment, that Mel was wearing a yellow t-shirt. And, indeed: she was! Perfectly correct. Langdon: also knows this. For a fact. Langdon informs Santos flatly that, uh, no, Mel's t-shirt was definitely black. For whatever reason: Mel cannot be found to prove or disprove this one way or the other, and nor can anyone else. It's a straight he-said/she-said. Langdon continues to insist, with absolute certainty, that Mel's t-shirt was 100% black and Santos must have seen someone else/gotten confused with a different day - so that Santos begins being uncertain of what she actually saw and what is real.

This is obviously: a silly, simplified, hyperbolic example. It highlights, however, the relevant features for gaslighting which is that: 1)- Santos has to be RIGHT. 2)- Langdon has to make Santos BELIEVE she's not right but is in fact wrong based on: because I said so/convinced you of that fact.

Tragically: this never happens! Langdon calls Santos out several times over the course of the shift over a variety of incidents/issues. They all: happened. Eg: when he tells her their biPAP patient Stone does not need to be intubated, nor does he need a chest tube: the patient does not need to be intubated nor does he need a chest tube! This is not and CANNOT be gaslighting fundamentally because: he is calling Santos out on actual verifiable things that she actually did do or say wrong. That's not gaslighting that's just: the truth. (We can debate the appropriateness of the method of delivery - but it is not gaslighting).

And whhhhy am I a #stickler for this. Well, first off: words matter. They mean things. If you're gonna use them: use them properly. I feel like that's reasonable.

Secondly: you know who IS gaslighting Santos, by both technical definitions of the word laid out above? Yeah. Santos herself. Because I don't believe she's lying to Whitaker in this scene/deliberately fudging things to present herself more sympathetically/to show what happened as being worse. I think that is GENUINELY how it has come to exist and be in her mind.

And we all do this - humans, as a rule, our memories are imperfect. We forget details. Or we change them. Or we can't quite remember properly so we fill in a blank. Our memories of an event are never ever going to be a perfect, proper reproduction of the event exactly as it happened - that's just...not a thing (I guess unless you have a perfect memory, but, u know, for most humans). Santos is just doing this at: a whole new level. Where I believe that, for HER, this IS a true reflection of how she feels like her first day with Langdon went (and consequently: why it's affected her so strongly months and months later).

It's just that, OBJECTIVELY - as viewers who have: a god's-eyed view of this series and can analyse (and rewatch) scenes over again: we know that how she remembers it is NOT what actually happened. So she's rewritten it/changed things (likely unconsciously, and likely over time, repeatedly going over every interaction with Langdon and every time she remembers it, a tiny change happens - a word, an expression, the tone - until gradually, over time, bit by bit, very 'frog in the boiling water' it gets worse and worse and more and more traumatising - and she's had no one to push back against this/course-correct because: no one can verify the colour of the t-shirt. It's just been her, in her head, rotating these things and this man and likely splashing on other incidents and blurring lines between other reprimands and scoldings and now there is: a giant emotional clusterfuck that is very difficult to uncluster.

So her being AWARE of this term and this concept but not SELF-aware enough to realise that: she's been doing it to herself makes me want to go chew on concrete it's so juicy-tasty-excellent-fascinating.

and made me question my skills over and over.

This is another thing that, OBJECTIVELY: never happened. Langdon NEVER questions Santos' skills or ability - he questions her lack of EXPERIENCE (which is, again, just...a basic fact. She has only been a doctor for 3 months. She has objectively less experience than someone who's been one for 2/3/4+ years) and her decision-making/over-confidence: aka her penchant for putting in orders when she was told she HAD to run them by a senior resident or attending first.

But at no point does he tell her she cannot do this - in fact, even after she fucks up (and: nearly kills a guy, which, u know, i feel like we really dont talk about enough in terms of this whole scenario but that's...a separate issue) but he NEVER kicks her out/refuses to teach her because he thinks she's a hopeless fuck-up. Indeed - he continues to let her assist with and observe procedures and talks her through them in terms of 'when you do this procedure' - as in: this is a thing I believe you will absolutely do in the future/are absolutely capable of doing.

Even in That One Scene in 1x09 - he never actually says, or even implies, he doesn't think she can do this (quite the opposite, actually). Loathe tho I be to open this: worm can, let's do it, let's throw the worms all over the floor, fuck it. Before we do, let us remember that these worms are the product of: what Langdon knows. Which is different to what we as an audience know. Not least because: Santos told him SHE was wrong abt the diagnosis of the seizure patient and Mohan was right, but she wouldn't listen to her.

Is it... is it hubris OR ignorance that makes you think that you know more than other residents that have two to three years more experience...

1)- Is it ignorance OR is it hubris - something that Collins and Garcia have both previously accused Santos of being. 2)- she...she DOES do this lmfao. And she HAS done this. Repeatedly. To both Langdon himself and to (as per Santos' fake-confession/his knowledge/what he's basing this one) to Mohan (whom Langdon is: very specifically defending/upset for in this scene btw). But she repeatedly makes decisions on her own/disrespects and argues with people who have more experience than her. Sometimes she's right to do this - Langdon has seen: 0 of these times.

It doesn't matter! Stupid OR arrogant,

Hey, it doesn't matter WHY she's doing this, stupidity or over-confidence (aka: a far cry from 'santos u are a fucking eejit who couldn't tell ur aorta from ur abdomen'). Either she's a moron, or she's just arrogant/over-confident: it doesn't matter/that's not the point. The point is.....

you need to realize that you are a beginner, which means your job is to shut up, listen, and learn

Okay let's make a couple of things real clear here: is this an appropriate way to speak to a newbie/trainee: no! Is it an appropriate way to speak to anyone: no! Is it a good means of communicating information: no! Is it a good teacher moment: no! Is it a good person in general moment: no! Is the content of what's being said fundamentally wrong in spite of all of that? Also: No.

0/10 for delivery, student satisfaction score currently: negative a million, but he's also: not wrong. She IS a beginner. She IS here (at the TEACHING HOSPITAL) to learn. Robby points this out - 'that's why it's a four year program' - there's a reason they don't punt baby doctors directly from medical school into the big bad world and it's because: you need EXPERIENCE to teach you the things that you can't learn from school.

This is also: not something you tell someone that you believe has: no skills/does not belong here. Because if that were the case you would not believe them to have the capacity to: learn anything at all. Langdon obviously DOES see potential in that - it's why Santos has continued to assist him/have procedures explained to her all day and why he wants her to LEARN. He would just like her to do that in a way that: does not (in is eyes/from his perspective) disrespect/disregard/undermine her fellow residents.

Again: he communicates this APPALLINGLY, he's behaving like an asshole here - that is not up for debate. Just. Purely CONTENT wise. Some food for thought.

because so far today, the only thing you have been successful at is proving repeatedly that you know nothing.

This is also: unfortunately true (from Langdon's perspective). Before I expand/explain on this seemingly rage-bait statement, let me note one thing: what he says is that 'what you have been SUCCESSFUL AT PROVING' is that you know nothing. Now. This is me being: a rat-bastard stickler again (I do that, I have an English lit degree, which is essentially just a degree in being: a rat-bastard stickler) specificity is important!!! Especially when we throwback to him telling her that HER JOB right now is to: be wheesht and gain knowledge.

So, again, yes, terrible delivery, assholish presentation, absolutely awful, the works, please see above etc etc. BUT. There's actually a reasonable bit of insight in here, if you just look purely at WHAT he's saying and pretend they're discussing this in a pleasant setting over tea and scones in a park or some shit.

He's telling her that her JOB is to: shoosh and learn. He's also telling her that she has only been successful in proving what she doesn't know. (Which is NOT the same as 'you know nothing') it is what it says: what you have proven to be today is all the things you DON'T know. I need/want you to stop that. Your JOB is to learn and gain experience. I do not need or want you to try and prove yourself to me right now - it is NOT helping; either you, me, your fellow residents, or our patients. Sit down and shut up and stop trying so goddamn hard to impress everyone: it's having the opposite effect of what you want. You're trying to push in and prove to everyone how much you know and how smart you are and it's just exposing your lack of experience. You don't need to do this. I don't WANT you to do this. Just. Your JOB/all that is expected of you right now is to: learn. Not to be perfect or prove anything. Just be here and take everything in.

Now, again, that is: NOT what comes across/is obviously not what is sticking in Trinity's head (or anyone else's). But I DO think it's interesting/important/relevant to note that: Langdon sees her. He sees the pressure she's putting on herself. He understands WHY she keeps butting in and WHY she keeps contradicting and WHY she keeps trying to do all the procedures and flex her giant medical guns at every one in her vicinity: he gets that she's trying to impress and prove herself and prove that she belongs here and she can make it here (and he probably knows all of this becaaaause: yeah. he does that shit, too lmfao. And ask him and his benzo addiction where that road leads some time).

So he does NOT communicate this well and I'm not saying that this is what Santos should have managed to get out of him: yelling at her in front of her coworkers/that she needs to sit down and analyse the contents of this man's words to try and find their #TrueMeaning (bc that's MY job, thank u very much) but just: something to consider from a viewer perspective.

Also, as I mentioned: he's right. FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE. If you actually go and pick through every season 1 scene that Langdon and Santos have together up to this point (which I: have done, actually) it's genuinely fascinating. Because they both, but Langdon in particular ,really just get a condensed 'Greatest Hits' style album of each other. Except in this case it's: Santos' Worst Bits. Any time she makes a mistake, or a wrong call, or doesn't know something/gets something wrong (which: she's going to do! because she's human and new and this is expected! it's why she's supposed to present her cases!) but yeah, Langdon just pretty much witnesses: 101 Fuck Ups by Trinity Santos. Her cool catches, her saves, her insights, her performing well under pressure and with tricky procedures that we as an audience see and that other characters see: yeah Langdon sees none of that. He just sees her at her worst. So, from his POV, all she actually HAS successfully proven to him is that she: doesn't know nearly as much as she thinks she does.

Which, AGAIN, does not justify his behaviour or the way he spoke to her etc etc etc, official disclaimer coming at y'all once again on this. But it IS, at least in my opinion: extremely interesting. And a very good reminder that: our experiences are not these characters' experiences. They make decisions and judgement calls and form opinions of others based on limited information. And that's always very important to keep track of/keep in mind.

friday night lights ⇾ 1.01

She played bass on 10,000 songs, including the most-played track of the twentieth century. She was paid $55 per session. Her name never appeared on the albums.

Gold Star Studios, Los Angeles, 1964. A woman in a cardigan walks past the receptionist, a Fender Precision bass in her hand like a briefcase. She doesn’t sign autographs. She signs a timesheet.

Her name is Carol Kaye. In three hours, she will record what will become the most-played track of the twentieth century. She’ll pocket fifty-five dollars and head to another studio, on the other side of town, for the next session.

The record label will never put her name on the album.

Between 1957 and 1973, Carol Kaye took part in roughly 10,000 recording sessions. Not as the featured artist, not as a guest, but as a hired hand. She was part of an anonymous collective nicknamed The Wrecking Crew—elite studio musicians who actually played the instruments on your favorite records while the famous bands posed for promotional photos.

The work was relentless. Three albums before the day was over. Stale coffee in paper cups. No rehearsal. The charts arrived minutes before the tape rolled. If you couldn’t read a chart and nail the take in two tries, you didn’t get called for the next session.

Carol could do it on the first try.

She started playing guitar in grimy bars at fourteen because her family couldn’t pay the electric bill. Music wasn’t a romantic dream for her. It was survival. It was a job—factory work with better acoustics and lower pay.

But she was faster and sharper than almost everyone else. She corrected charts in pencil while the producer was still explaining what he wanted. In one session in 1968, she told a famous producer his arrangement sounded like a dying dog. She chose her own line. They kept her version.

That descending bass line that drives the Beach Boys’ “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”? Carol Kaye. The propulsive groove of “These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”? Carol Kaye. The acoustic-guitar intro to “La Bamba”? Carol Kaye. The iconic theme from Mission: Impossible? Carol Kaye.

She invented techniques on the spot, out of sheer necessity. When the bass sound was too muddy for AM radio, she stuck felt under the strings and used a hard pick instead of her fingers. The tone cut through the static like a blade. It became the sonic signature that defined 1960s pop.

Bassists spent years—decades—trying to crack the secret of the Beach Boys’ gear to get that sound. They were studying the wrong people. They should have been studying Carol.

She received no royalties. No residuals. No gold-record ceremony. No credit on the album sleeves. When “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’” hit number one, Carol was already back in a studio cutting a soap jingle.

The biggest bands mimed her bass lines on TV variety shows. New York marketing departments decided a mom in classic clothes didn’t fit the rebellious-youth image they were selling. So they simply left her name off the album credits.

For thirty years, almost no one cared. The truth only began to surface in the late 1990s, when music researchers found the same union contract numbers on thousands of hit records. The very documents meant to preserve studio musicians’ anonymity betrayed them.

Think about it. Every time you heard “Good Vibrations,” “River Deep – Mountain High,” the Righteous Brothers, Nancy Sinatra, or Sonny and Cher, you were hearing Carol Kaye. She composed the soundtrack of an entire generation’s youth.

And yet the records still say nothing. She’s now over eighty. She wrote instructional books. She trained countless bassists. She is finally starting to be recognized by music historians who uncovered the truth about The Wrecking Crew.

But she never got what she deserved: her name on those albums. Credit for the music that defined an era. Recognition that those bass lines everyone associates with the “Beach Boys” were, in fact, Carol Kaye’s.

Fifty-five dollars a session. Ten thousand sessions. The most-played track of the twentieth century.

X