“Write” The Wrongs You See

There’s something called culture. People (especially USAmericans) think of culture as cultural dress, cultural food, cultural music. These are culture, but they are only the very superficial aspects of it. Like the icing on your cake. Far more deep rooted is the more meaty bits of culture: the attitudes, the ideas, the taboos.

There’s a guy on tiktok who has done a series that shows this very well, of Germans Vs Irish. In one video the German offers the Irish person two kinds of tea, green or black. The Irish person keeps putting off the choice with things like “Oh sure whatever is easiest”, “Which have you more of?” and, “Ah sure I don’t want to cause a fuss” whereas the German just wants a straight answer. This is a cultural difference of politeness.

Here in the UK, accents mark your class very openly. They let everyone know where you’re from (though this has become less pronounced in the last 50 years,) and what your background is. A lot of people (especially northerners, but also a fair contingent of working class southerners) face discrimination on the basis of their accents.

Some of us (myself included) even change register (though I believe USAmericans call it code switching) in and out of our regional accent and a close approximation of RP. We learn to do it because it makes us seem more intelligent (even though it shouldn’t) and helps us be taken more seriously.

Thus, our country carries a lot of baggage when it comes to accents. Especially those of the working class who have had their accents made fun of, or have faced discrimination based on it.

So when someone outside the country (usually USAmericans) makes fun of our accents they’re stepping on a lot of cultural taboos and boundaries. Especially because the “It’s Chewsday, gonnae wot-ch sum yewchube innit” is a working class accent.

Now, that’s not to say we can’t take a joke, but this is the kind of joke you share with someone who you have been friends with for a while. My boyfriend often will pick up on the way I say certain words, in much the same fashion I pick up on his idiosyncrasies of speech (English isn’t his first language so he says stuff like close the lights, which is adorable.) If we aren’t predisposed to liking you, then the joke you’re trying to make is more like an insult.

The way I like to think of it is if you were in a pub, and made those sorts of jokes to someone. If they knew you, and they liked you, they’d probably laugh along. If they didn’t like you or know you, they would punch you in the jaw.

Even now, after decades in Scotland, I still don’t sound Scottish. The English hear a slight lilt but that disappears as soon as I spend any time with them.

When Christopher Eccleston was cast as the Doctor in Doctor Who, people were surprised that he used his own northern accent, instead of performing with an accent like every Doctor before him. That was only 15-ish years ago.

Even now, this still happens - James McAvoy made a very vocal protest a couple of years back about a critic who complained about the use of Scots accents and only applauded the “plummy English” accent of one character in a play.

TL;DR: I noticed that the adults in Sofia the First get down on a child's level when they want to have a discussion, something that isn't seen in Jake and the Neverland Pirates. So I decided to do a bit of research on the topic and do a little analysis of why this is and what this says about both worlds.

Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist or a licensed professional. Just someone who overanalyzes preschool shows too much. Feel free to correct me if there's something I got wrong.

As a now parent and former educator, all of this.

I think this is actually what I love about Sofia’s universe/ The EverRealm at large (because this happens with many of the adults and children in Elena of Avalor as well).

Many educators and parents copy the learned behaviors of those around them when dealing with children, and I think you can actually learn a lot about how characters were (hypothetically) treated in past environments based on how they treat others.

Tilly gives what she wishes she could have received. The freedom her father denied her (present briefly in “Through the Looking Back Glass”) is given, perhaps a little too freely, to her nieces and nephew. However, it’s how she learned to survive the pressures put upon her.

So, while she does get level with the young folks in the show, she’s a little more distant and hands off in her approach to actually offering them assistance. Likely, this is because she doesn’t want to risk being overbearing.

Additionally, and this coming more from my background in education than parenting, is that I mark “Substitute Cedric” as the true beginning of Cedric’s redemption arc.

Why?

Precisely because of the leveling phenomenon.

It’s the first time Cedric is level with the youth for an extended period of time, and he’s honestly great at sharing his experiences with them when he chooses to embrace the level.

Yet, it IS worth noting that Cedric has to be forced into the position of being level with the young folks in that episode. However, once he is placed into that position of being “leveled,” he recalls the empathy he received from the only person who “leveled” with him.

His teacher.

Where Tilly seems to give what she wished she would have had, Cedric is still making the same mistakes of all the people who taught and raised him.

Cedric hunches to meet Goodwyn. He hunches around most everyone else too. It’s only his mother who even kind of attempts to find balance between them.

Prior to “Substitute Cedric,” Cedric keeps huge amounts of, as OP says, distance between himself and the youth characters.

Yet, afterwards, there are, at least, increasing instances of him getting “level” with Sofia and possibly James or Amber.

The forced leveling is nice foreshadowing for what we see of Cedric’s character in the reboot - someone who takes the posture of this former teacher consistently in RM - but it is interesting that this character’s journey begins by force and not by choice.

It’s in getting stuck to the chair that Cedric actually ends up being placed level with Sofia and the other characters and, when this occurs, we actually get to see something real in him instead of the grandeur he hides behind.

Again, I find this super meaningful as someone who used to work in education because I worked with admin who used to ask students questions from above and behind them instead of by meeting them face to face at level. I’ve also had to be the advocate for young folks more than once in situations with other teachers/ admin and I’m constantly moved by the small touches in RM.

Nettle lifting up Zane and righting him when he trips - again at Zane’s level.

Cedric getting eye to eye with Camila after she f’s up his classroom.

Cedric bending his shoulders to make eye contact but still direct motion during the opening of “Zane the Hero.”

Like, there are so many great “teacher” moments based on this exact phenomenon in the new series.

But, it’s worth noting that began, for Cedric, at least, by force.

All others, Roland, Miranda, Baileywick, etc, have come down to this place willingly and often since the first moment of the series.

I think it shows a lot about Roland’s growth beyond loss & the stuffiness of his parents. (Like Tilly, giving what he wanted but ALSO what is needed.)

For Miranda and Baileywick, however, I think that stems more from a place of humble origins. Neither of them are royalty by birth. However, they understand the value of hard work, community, and shared experiences with those around them.

So, they level.

With their charges, with their employees, with everyone.

There is both a risk and a reward in being level.

The risk is being vulnerable to touch, to attack, etc.

The reward is relationship.

There is nothing quite as rewarding as this:

When you make a joke like that, youre saying that now that Page can play men's roles, he has better roles to chose from, specifically because he transitioned into a man. You are making an assumption that he has access to roles available to cis men and that him being trans wouldn't affect his career or the way he is cast and his character is written.

Normally, I don’t weigh in much on this kind of discourse because I don’t often find myself having much to add. However, I just want to emphasize this because it’s so true.

I also wanted to add my perspective as a trans masc actor who auditions several times a year for things and often gets passed up for stuff because of director’s preconceived notions over how things “should” look/be/etc.

The number of times I, as a masc presenting actor with a decent sized vocal range, get turned away because I don’t fit the cis appearing stereotype someone is looking for is *a lot.* And, you can always tell when people are looking right through you too because you don’t “pass” the way they expect you to/ in the way they’re looking for.

I had a friend tell me once that any director worth their salt would kill to work with me because I could sing circles around the city I live in, and I just have to keep my chin up because someday someone was going to see that.

But, it’s hard to believe that when you constantly question whether or not you’ll be taken seriously as masc when you sing in certain parts of your register.

So many trans masc actors are at the mercy of casting directors’ creativity, even in shows that have had “gender bent” or “fluid” roles for a long time. (Shakespeare for example.)

You act the crap out of the part. You might fit the part perfectly in most ways, but, as soon as someone finds out about your gender, they suddenly see you differently, decide to play you differently, assume things about your ability differently.

(I just came off a show where my lead director was like this. Constant misgendering. Constant assumption that I lacked the ability to hit notes well within my range. Etc. Etc.)

And, this is true of all trans folks in theater. Look no further than how many trans women are also doubted about their vocal ranges and techniques. Absolutely!

So, I see things kinda like what OP said about Paige’s ability to be cast in traditionally masculine roles acknowledged sometimes in a general way?

However, I don’t see it often specifically acknowledged in regards to the way trans men/ masc presenting folks are treated on stage/screen.

(To clarify my above point: I think this can carry weight for certain butch actresses with lower voices as well who have the ability to “pants” roles and do often also get passed over for similar reasons unless people are specifically going in with the intention to cast “diversely” or “all female.”)

But, to keep to the specific topic at hand, it often seems that people carry an assumption that trans men will get cis male roles easily. That it’s easy for us to break out of this box that people put around us. However, in truth, it’s really not, especially when/if you have other marginalized identity markers working “against you.”

(Examples: Being physically/mentally disabled, being BIPOC, having additional queer intersections, etc.)

And, I by no means am I saying that trans women don’t face similar or other discriminations in casting. They absolutely do!!

But, there is something specific about the two fold way that trans masc/ masc presenting trans folks but especially transitioned trans men are seen to be able to slot into society and gain a lot of power while also somehow not existing at all?

Like do trans masc folks gain something or do we not exist? We can’t exactly be Schrödinger’s person.

And, I find myself sitting with this a lot because I have been told that when I occupy this space I will have privilege that other folks will lose. It’s a weird thought to fight against to realize that it’s not necessarily about gains or losses, it’s just different forms of discrimination coming from the same trite structures because unless you pass perfectly you lose as a trans masc actor.

Like, it’s weird how bonded directors are to beards and particular face shapes or even just words that signify particular details.

So, like, it is very real that directors will pigeonhole you the moment they read the word trans on your application, no matter what you look or sound like. Period.

Thus, maybe, this is me just shouting into the void because this post hit me in the right-wrong spot at the right-wrong time, but I feel this. It’s very real. Painfully real.

Yet, and perhaps most importantly, I think the final point OP makes, about how “trans men transitioning benefitting them marks male privilege because it contrasts the treatment of women,” is excellent.

Why don’t we write femme/female characters with the depth with which we write men? Why aren’t those characters as “good” or as “desirable?”

In many ways, many more women have been written lately, but do they have the depth, nuance, and layers their masculine counterparts do?

Are we taking time to write characters that aren’t just tropes for women to play?

Because, truly, we should treat women and female characters better.

We should allow roles to be “pants’ed” when and where possible to give alternative perspectives on old traditionally “masculine” characters.

However, honestly? We should just write more nuance into female and femme characters to allow for a wider body of work for women.

Merlin v Princess Sofia Balthazar-Winslow

Merlin :: The Sword in the Stone (1963)/Parks

Starting a conversation by informing the other person that you KNOW their feelings, and you are acting based on the feelings you assume they have, without giving them a chance to tell you what feelings they ACTUALLY have… No one likes this!

You may have learned it from your parents doing it to you, in which case I can only imagine you didn’t like it either, but you still internalized it as an acceptable mode of communication because we are always internalizing stuff from our parents even though we don’t like it. It’s kind of a quintessential passive-aggressive parent move: “well, you never want to help me, you don’t appreciate everything I do for you” etc. It puts the addressee in the position of defending themselves and their actual feelings instead of inviting them to SHARE those feelings.

It is really easy to fall into this trap, especially for young neurodivergent humans, as I was also one, at one point in time. However, this is not limited to neurodivergent folks, and I’m tired of pretending it is.

Thus, regardless of what spectrum you fall into, it is worth taking time to unpack the desire to and/or beliefs that people are constantly trying to “get the upper hand in an argument” over you **for yourself.** It’s not for the benefit of the person you’re talking to, at least, it’s not necessarily for their benefit.

Truly, it’s for you and your peace of mind.

People, painting with a big brush, come across most clearly, remember their facts most completely, and speak most coherently when they try to approach things from a place of calm. The place of “the person I’m communicating with is not trying to dunk on my thoughts, but instead engage with me from a place that is likely as deeply meaningful to them as it is to me,” is much calmer than its opposite.

The place of “this person may have not considered x,y,z piece of information I have and will point out,” is much calmer than assuming the person across from you does have all that information at their disposal.

Finally, the place of considering that “this person running on no sleep and an entire pot of coffee made a typo when talking about their special interest and didn’t actually mean anything offensive by it” is both much more likely and much less anxiety inducing than its opposite.

All of these things can be clarified by asking, yes. But, even more so, by learning to assess preconceptions that you might hold coming into a disagreement of any kind. Truly, I mean this from fan theory/head canons, to history, to literature, to pretty much anything under the sun.

To give you a microcosmic view of what I mean by this.

When my kiddo wants to eat all the cupcakes, which when we make them, they often think it’s possible to do and claims they want to, but I can’t give in and LET them have them. Right?

Many folks, one of mine included, would rage over how you have to just have one, and only at a certain time, and no you can’t lick the bowl because x, y, and z isn’t done. So, then you too step up to meet them.

This is not what we do in my house. One, because I breathe, I remember the ghosts of my past aren’t mine to recreate. Two, this is my house. No one has a say in what I do in it, or how I help my kid process the world. Three, they’re (almost) four. We’re teaching debate not actually in Socrates’ seminars. So, let’s see where we’re at today.

With all of what I’ve held in my past and all of what I want for the future in mind, I can calmly refute each argument, step by step, while not assuming any terrible intentions from a kid who will be four in a little under a month.

In the macrocosm of the internet space, three things might happen in relation to this microcosm.

Sometimes, you ARE going to be right. And, painful as it might be, you may need to cut the loss that someone else wants to be wrong. You can choose to let them or continue your patient convincing. But, if they don’t want to budge, walk away. That’s my advice. These days, they might not even be real … which is a scary thought.

Sometimes, we are the four year old who wants what we want, who doesn’t want our opinion changed, and we’re met with hard fact that needs/ought to change our minds. It’s human to go through that growth. Even more so, it’s human to realize there is no single blanket solution to every problem.

Sometimes, however, there is no argument to “win” at all. Sometimes, you may even want the same thing as the person you’re “arguing” with, and you can’t see past the small minutiae that doesn’t actually matter much (especially in relation to fan theory and pettier arguments) to see the you do agree because you’re so bogged down in the phrasing.

This happens, to a lesser degree, in offline conversations regarding things like politics as well. But, it’s not quite as neatly tied up when I’d try to explain it.

What ends up happening when this does is that bigger problems and bigger threats end up taking you both out while you squabble over something you both technically, mostly agree on, but you disagree on the how to do it.

'cinema is dying' okay but everyone is flocking to their local cinema to see a beautiful hit musical, and so many have shown up this weekend that licensers decided to extend its theatrical release for another week, a massive rarity in the current climate

We made a day of it. Got hot chocolate from a local shop, not Starbucks, got some fancy cookies, and I wore a tie.

We let them look at anything they wanted. Let them ask questions about anything they wanted.

They fell in love with some super random pieces.

A statue of a ram that they were upset was not named anything because “Ram” is not “a real name.”

A painting of Paradise Lost in an East Indian style.

But, they asked me loads of questions about Van Gogh. Why I liked him, why he was special, “why the paint looked like that.”

Kiddo was 3 1/2.

Making art - of all forms - accessible is about making space, time, and allowing questions to form organically.

What filming theater does is take art that has become expensive to create because of the lighting, the technical skill of the performers, the time it takes to write and adapt a myth to the quality that Anaïs Michell did, etc and allows average people an affordable means of accessing that piece of art.

It allows people to ask the questions, it allows them to make the time to see it locally instead of having to drive sometimes dozens of hours away to access it, and it’s an incredible thing that should be done MORE because it allows MORE theater to be produced equitably for those actors and writers.

I truly believe, if given the opportunity, most people would see Hadestown live after having seen it in the theater. But, it’s also just not feasible for most folks to go and do that!

Also, it should be testament to the film industry that what people really want IS something beautiful, artistic, with a powerful message, and simple costumes and set work. Things that are made by human hands without all the “latest and greatest” of technology.

There is something so beautiful about the simplicity of things human beings put together by the fruits of their hands and their labors, and I think this should be a hard wake-up call to so many before we lose the ability to create it.

describe your version of jekyll & hyde (or any in-universe oc / character) and how they’d get along (or not) with prev’s version. i’ll start ✌️

Henry Jekyll — maybe surprisingly, he’s a psychiatrist. fake as fuck, ain’t NOTHING about this guy good, queue Façade. walking the line between a dick and a charmer. kind of witty & sarcastic, but you can never tell if he means it or if he’s just demeaning. very romantic, but has issues within himself (🏳️‍🌈 + workaholic) that he needs to get sorted out.

when he created Hyde, he didn’t mind indulging in his “second and worse” self. the one murder is where he had to draw the line though. (then Hyde clocked his shit & basically said: “bro YOU’RE SO FAKE that YOU don’t know who you are. I didn’t kill that guy! dumbass” “then who did?”)

Edward Hyde — he starts off being absolutely pure evil & takes advantage of the fact that, at first, jekyll not remembering the “transformations.” sneaking some of the formula into a flask and an unsuspecting jekyll drinking it. might kill sir danvers because he pisses him off

then he meets a very lovely individual and some of her, combined with the desire to be admired without faking everything, rubs off on him. he’s not good by any means — getting into petty fights at the aforementioned individual’s expense, trampling a girl for funsies, etc. he’s very carefree and a danger to everyone around him + himself, probably some level of self-hatred that might be known as Henry Jekyll, but at least he’s not fake.

and at least he can do good if he wanted to — because if edward wants something, like pre-HJ7 jekyll, he will do everything to achieve it.

( also VERY gluttonous holy shit. my hyde is actually a bit bigger than my jekyll because dude just does not eat. hyde’s also very sexual — almost always shagging some guy in some closet, ironically. shots shots shots shots shots + illegal substances!! hj7 not included )

Very much based on the novel by RLS:

Henry Jekyll:

Begins as a young, witty, idealistic transmasculine college student from Scotland who stole his/their dowry money to pay for school, where he befriended Laynon and Utterson. Yet, never revealed his double life.

Sir Danvers takes all of them to a party and teaches them how to woo women where Layon is scared shitless, Jekyll is disgusted by the behavior, and Utterson learns it’s best to “just blend in.”

Slowly, in an effort not to be discovered and outed, Jekyll loses most of his principals and becomes kind of disgusted with himself.

In a last ditch effort to transition completely, he creates the serum HJ7. Leading us to -

Edward Hyde:

Hyde is literally a younger Jekyll - impulsive, idealistic, and a little scatterbrained. (Hence, how he ends up tripping over a small child … he literally doesn’t see said child.)

However, the “uncanny feeling” everyone gets around him is due to his gender non-conforming appearance that Jekyll has learned how to avoid.

“Hyde” - Jekyll uninhibited by Victorian rules - eventually befriends and becomes a beloved member of the community of Soho - the forever queer community of London- and begins to embrace the Scottish identity that Jekyll had abandoned. He also embraces all the ideals and beliefs Jekyll has lost in favor of conforming to the strict beliefs surrounding “goodness” and “masculinity” in Victorian society.

How would they get along with prev’s character/ version:

I do not think they would like each other very much. As much as Jekyll tries to fit in because he/they have to, the part of him that comes out in Hyde, and still very much exists beneath the surface, hates even himself for giving up his hopes and ideals as much as he has in favor of passing himself off as a “good Victorian gentleman.”

In the end, it’s why he fears Hyde. He knows Hyde is actually what is “good” about him, and Jekyll himself is what’s evil.