whimsy hobbit!

Below is a list of all my articles organised. Press any underlined link to access that blog post.

GENERAL Welcome!

TELEVISION Ted Lasso From Boy to Man: A Glimpse into the Sexual Assault of Ted Lasso's Jamie Tartt. A Drag Path: The Connection Between Roy Kent and Jamie Tartt. The Case of Nate Shelley: A Lasso Lesson in Forgiveness.

Animal Kingdom

Willing and Able: Animal Kingdom’s Pope - The Sacrificial Son.

The Boys

The Soil We Grow In: A Study Into The Boys’ Homelander and Jurassic World’s The Indominus Rex.

FILM

Choosing the Bear?: Notes on Obsession (2026).

The Soil We Grow In: A Study Into The Boys’ Homelander and Jurassic World’s The Indominus Rex.

To Be Kind and Good: In Defence of Supergirl (2026).

The Plight of Man: Nolan’s The Odyssey (2026).

LITERATURE

MUSIC

1300ish words.

27th July 2026.

WARNINGS: Is it really spoilers if the poem has been around for 2000 years?

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

Don’t try to find the gods in men, you will only be disappointed.

- Odysseus, The Odyssey (2026).

Mankind is known for their flaws. Our flaws are what make us human, after all. But when do our flaws become less of a quirk and more of a problem? When do our human qualities become our downfall?

A plight is defined as “an unpleasant condition, especially a serious, sad, or difficult one”. Over the development of society, philosophers and theologists alike have narrowed down how humanity - although beautiful - is an unpleasant condition. There is an idea that the plight of man is one that is helpless, one that has fallen into sin and ruin. We see this in our history books, our religious texts, and modern news stories. Civilisation has always been on the brink of collapse, all due to our human nature. Our greed, pride, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth. It is inherent. It is human.

The plight of man is a central theme within Nolan’s The Odyssey (2026). The main tagline is “Defy the Gods” after all. Odysseus, hero of the Trojan War and favourite of Athena, is a mortal man with an inflated sense of self. I would too if I was a genius war veteran with a knack for strategy. It is an earned sense of self, he has the bite to back his bark. After winning the ten year war with Troy, Odysseus yearns return home with his men. To see his wife and son, Penelope and Telemachus. To be the King of Ithaca once again. He and his crew are whirled into a range of strange places and horrible events, losing more and more lives than the Trojan War took from them. In the end, only Odysseus returns to Ithaca - but he exiles himself so he could live with Penelope for the rest of his days. A great ending for Odysseus, yes - but at what cost? How many lives are worth one?

Odysseus has a tendency to defy the gods. Whether it be to defy Athena’s wishes of morality in war, or to defy the concept of the gods entirely - he holds himself higher than the gods. He has a belief that he, and he alone, can control his fate. This is his plight. He enables himself to fall into ruin, to become helpless despite his best efforts. He loses all his men because he wants to cheat the gods, though this only causes his men to die more painful deaths. He eventually learns that no matter what he does, there will be death. Is this karma? Is this what he gets for killing Trojans with a trick? Yes. Yes it is. Why place ourselves above the gods? Why place so much importance onto ourselves? We are not to be idolised. We are to be perceived. We are to be broken. We are to be mended - not perfected.

There is no humanity in war, but there is morality. There are unspoken rules. There are laws to abide by. The Trojan Horse? A rule-breaker. Odysseus’ strategic vision not only won the Greeks the war - but won them years of pain. The Trojan Horse was like bringing a hidden knife to a fist fight. It’s morally wrong in the name of all that is good. As Helen says, it was Agamemnon’s ambition that caused this war - not a rescue mission. Man’s greed for power. Man’s envy. Man’s pride.

The plight of man is not only felt by those directly involved, but causes damage on the periphery. Take Circe, for example. She is in her home and is frightened that Odysseus’ men will hurt her and take advantage of her. Their reputations as not just the people of the sea, but as hot-blooded men, precedes them. Their gluttony and greed makes them dangerous, makes them into the animals that Circe believes they are. They are returned to their “disguises”, as the plight of man is primal - animalistic and depraved. Even Polyphemus. He was hurt more than necessary due to Odysseus’ anger. Oh, how the horrors of man hurt all.

The suitors are horrifically weak. They are weak minded, weak souled. Easily manipulated and easily angered. They are the splitting image of a sinful existence, aiming to be the ruler of Ithaca - with little care for the Queen. They have zero regard for Telemachus and his survival, they only wish to free up their path to the throne. Their egos are flattened by Penelope’s challenge, as they are painfully made aware that they will never fill the shoes of the mighty Odysseus. So when Odysseus shows himself and destroys all in his path, I begin to question how he is any different to the depraved suitors he has killed. Despite his rightful place on the throne, he knew his actions would cause exile. Is death the only path?

I adored Odysseus’ reflection. How he realised the plights of war. How he realised his actions were inexcusable. This reflection is the cherry on top for this film. It explores how his defiance of the gods will caused so much harm, and the only thing he can do to honour his dead is to sail West. To go with his love. To give his son the throne that was his birthright. So, despite the death - it was his final act of depravity. His final plight.

There is more. There is always more to discuss when discussing the helplessness and sinfulness of man. Odysseus explores all the seven deadly sins. His actions are all reflective of the horrors we find in our humanity. How our flaws, if left unchecked and unreflected upon, will be ours (and others) downfall. It is our condition to be flawed. To be human. It is our duty to reflect on our actions and build better connections. To make a better world based on our learning. To grow. Nolan’s The Odyssey (2026) explores how our flaws must be addressed. Must be identified before we let it become us. We place so much emphasis and importance onto others, we idolise them and are surprised when humans do what they are meant to do - be human. It is better to be imperfect that to be weighed down by the expectations of perfection. Our flaws make us unique, but we have to be wary of our flaws. We cannot let them run amok. We must develop strength. We must accept our plight.

Some final personal thoughts:

I’ve watched The Odyssey (2026) twice now. Once in IMAX (I do recommend) and once on standard screen. Both of my viewings were fantastic, I loved the storytelling the exact same both times. I picked up on some things I missed during the second viewing, which I believe makes a spectacular film. You can watch it over and over and learn something new.

Obviously, this adaptation (KEY WORD, ADAPTATION) of the Ancient Greek Epic has had some interesting backlash. What blockbuster film doesn’t? There are points that I agree with, such as the importance of female roles in the story and some superficial aspects of costuming (ie. Calypso’s costume) - but I do believe that a large portion of this film is lost on the audience due to the immense backlash.

870ish words.

15th July 2026.

WARNINGS

In this essay, there will be spoilers for Supergirl (2026). There will also be mentions of misogyny, death, alcohol, and human trafficking.

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

You’re not always nice, but you’re kind.

You’re not always perfect, but you’re good.

- Ruthye, Supergirl (2026)

Why do I need to defend a film about a woman? Because the world still sucks.

Last year, I watched Superman (2025). It quickly became one of my favourite films, bringing me a sense of calm and peace. It filled me with hope. In this film, they introduced lovely Supergirl - AKA Kara Zor-El. Kara was not as clean cut as Clark, she was actually portrayed as the polar opposite to his sunny disposition. So when they announced that a Supergirl movie was being made, I was excited for the wonderful DCU that James Gunn was creating. So it came to be a surprise when I saw such insane amounts of backlash for this film, until I remembered that unfortunately - this is the reality of a female-centred superhero film.

I’m over it.

I’m over superhero comics and media being a masculine space. Why is it masculine anyways? You create these characters and then complain when they are adapted, but your only complaint is that there wasn’t enough skin? These spaces can become toxic because of the weird claim there is on female bodies within media. So no, I don’t agree with any criticism surrounding this film. The backlash just shows how much we needed this film to be made.

So, here begins my defence of the newest DCU film.

Supergirl (2026) is different to Superman (2025). Both films tackle quite raw and complex issues in society, but I felt that Supergirl gave the creators an outlet to explore these issues in a more gritty manner. Despite the humour, this film was a darker version of the new DCEU we are starting to become accustomed to. It delves into themes of death and grief, whilst also touching on the child trafficking that occurs throughout the world. They do not make a mockery of such issues, they use it as both a plot point AND commentary point. The focus being on young girls who are taken away from their families for such primal desires is so important. This film allows the audience to think about why. Why include something like this in a sci-fi movie? It’s because even in intergalactic space, the patriarchy rules with such depravity. Kara cannot save every single girl, but she makes an effort to save the ones she can. That is enough. That is just. That is good.

Kara is not the perfect superhero. She is not the perfect person. She’s not perfect, full stop. She is an alcoholic, she is selfish, she is rude, and she is blunt. All of these characteristics make her a bit unlikeable. You know who else shares these characteristics? Tony Stark. Wolverine. Rocket the Racoon. Hell, even Billy Butcher from The Boys. Yes, these characters can be infuriating. But you know what else they are? Universally loved, despite their flaws. They are almost forgiven for their addictions and lack of empathy the second they do something good - so where is that same grace for Kara? The double standard is showing through this backlash. A woman does not need to be easily digestible. Not many are. Anger is allowed. You do not need to be perfect in order to be loved. We don’t need clean cut, we need real. Raw. Human. God forbid a girl is in her early 20s and experiencing a range of hurt. We see male superheroes commit war crimes when they’re upset, but they are easily forgiven because they have charisma. You know who else was charismatic? Ted Bundy. Why are we not holding everyone to the same standard? Especially in media, the one place we can replicate life and question our society with a reflective mind.

Supergirl is the ultimate girls girl. For those that aren’t familiar with the #lingo, ‘girls girl’ refers to a woman who is kind and supportive towards other women. Despite stopping Ruthye from avenging her family, she supports her growing mind by helping her not make a mistake that will haunt her. Kara is also extremely compassionate. Even though she was hesitant to help Ruthye, and more began to help because Krypto’s life was on the line - Kara still did everything in her power to make sure that the young girl was safe. Away from danger. She even played a stereotypical ‘blonde’ in order to protect her. Kara’s compassion is spectacularly powerful. The fact that such a soft and vulnerable emotion is harnessed as a form of shield and power is enlightening. Vulnerability is not weakness. Vulnerability is human. It is real and relatable and oh so important. We can all be strong like Kara if we are compassionate, even if we have to slowly come out of hiding with our more hard emotions.

On a less serious note before I close off, John Wick literally killed people for his dog. Kara is out here trying to save her dog. Same shit, different bucket. I too would be the same.

1070ish words.

11th July 2026.

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

Yeah. Insane concept. Bear with me and buckle up.

Urie Bronfenbrenner established a psychological theory coined as the ‘Ecological Systems Theory’. This notion focuses on how an individual’s development is heavily influenced by the environment in which they are raised. The soil in which they take root from the moment they are born. This psychologist argued that there were five systems that impact and sway growth and behavioural development: the microsystem (immediate environment and relationships), mesosystem (communication within this environment), exosystem (indirect experiences), macrosystem (society), and chronosystem (history). Humans, animals, all living things are the products of their environments. Each of these systems work together to develop a unique individual who experiences a range of challenges and opportunities. These systems do, however, provide an understanding of behavioural reactions and unconscious needs - especially when they are not within the status quo. If all of us are planted in the soil of our microsystem, do we have a choice in how we develop?

John Gillman, more commonly known as Homelander, is a notorious character within the action series The Boys. He is ruthlessly cruel, manipulative, and intense. He believes he is a god, the greater good, and uses his powers for selfish means. The question him is, are we born to be selfish?

The Indominus Rex. She is a genetic hybridisation of reptile, dinosaur, and abomination. She is the main antagonist of Jurassic World (2014), filling her primal urges for bloodlust with zero consequence. She, a genetically modified prehistoric reptile, uses her obvious size and strength to her advantage. The question for her is, are we to blame for the effects we have on others?

Homelander was brought up in a sterile, scientific environment. He was raised with an understanding that his powers were his only asset, the only thing that makes him worthy as a being. He develops a “god complex” because he is told over and over again that he is important - that his powers are important. He is then thrust into the limelight, a powerful being that can protect the US - protect the world. He is humanised to the population, given a fake backstory that includes parents who were present - unlike the scientists and tools he was raised by. He was born, forced to become a supe, and raised as if he was an experiment - not as a child. Despite his abilities, he was still a child. This impacted his life path, changed his whole trajectory - his potential of being good having been squashed before he could even have the choice. His microsystem failed him, which in turn impacts all his other systems. Society becomes afraid of him and his powers, which feeds into both the self-hatred and self-importance he developed. His behaviour is inherently caused by his upbringing, and he chose to continue to be this way. But what choice do you get after a while? If he was raised to be selfish, is that not his equilibrium? Despite what many believe, he cannot be fixed. His environments have destroyed him, have made him a monster. His soil was poisoned, and he never left. He never uprooted himself. He stayed poisoned and built an empire of darkness.

The Indominus Rex, on the other hand, has another barrier that Homelander does not need to overcome. Humans are inherently predisposed to being able to escape our primal instincts. We have adapted to develop a range of complex and complicated systems in our brains that ensure we do not lose our humanity. Obviously, Homelander loses his societal understanding of humanity - but he is still human. There are still neuron’s in his brain that stop him from accessing the prehistoric instincts that The Indominus actively uses. The Indominus is a genetically modified reptile, not a dinosaur that was ever born on this planet. She has a range of genes from a range of species that change her instincts and primal urges as a carnivore - most likely heightening them. She was then put into an enclosure with a sibling, who she ate due to her rapid growth in size - one the scientists could not predict due to her jungle juice of genes. She grows and grows and grows, eating from a claw and learning her instinctive behaviours in isolation. She manipulates the park workers by scratching the walls, enabling her to escape and wreak havoc onto the innocent citizens and animals. As an animal, she does not inherently have the autonomy we associate with humanity. She did not have a choice to be created, to be raised the way she was. In a way, her existence is pain. She does not know her purpose, as there is no space for her in the natural food chain anymore. Her soil was poisoned and she is acting upon these urges, as they would be needed back in Jurassic times.

Both Homelander and the Indominus Rex are extremely manipulative creatures, with the assumption that they developed this system in order to survive - as they are the “fittest”. Their environments created isolated creatures, but what if they were raised in different soil? Is it worth thinking this, when you cannot change the past? They lose themselves to their soil, because they have no choice but to stay. That is what is expected by society, their macrosystem - and for The Rex, her chronosystem. Expectations can rule us, can force our behaviour to go down a path of no return. It is hard to resist deepening your roots into horrid soil if you have no support to change. You cannot change by yourself, as much as modern society encourages. Hyperindepence is equally as bad as codependency, but sometimes we are predisposed to both depending on our microsystem.

960ish words.

21st June 2026.

WARNINGS

In this essay, there will be mentions of violence, murder, manipulation, and religious imagery.

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain says to God, heels digging into the ground as his final attempt of control.

“Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand,” God replies, a vengeance strong in his hand.

This tale as old as time (literally) argues the notion of jealousy as sin. That Cain killed Abel because he was solely jealous. But I think it’s about more than jealousy.

Responsibility. Noun. Something that is your job or duty to deal with.

Cain was jealous of Abel, that is undeniable. An older brother can act as a fatherly figure, one who has power and authority. Cain is responsible for Abel, despite Abel being an individual. It is Cain’s responsibility as the eldest brother to provide for his family. So when Abel is looked upon fondly by God, Cain would feel like he has failed at his role. Once he murders his brother, it is his responsibility to live with his actions. He has to reap the consequences, and it becomes his responsibility to never let himself become that version of himself again.

Andrew ‘Pope’ Cody is the second eldest of the crime family. He has two younger brothers and a nephew under his wing, all three of which are immature in their own ways. He is responsible for his family due to his undying loyalty. He is caught in a range of horrific acts of violence, stringing from murder to armed robbery - all in the name of family, responsibility, and a little bit of ego. But when does it become damaging to be responsible for so many people? When do we stop being responsible for others? When does this make us a sacrifice?

DISCLAIMER: I haven’t actually finished this show, I’ve only just finished Season 2. So take everything I say with a grain of salt, because there may be an update once I finish the show.

Pope will do anything for his family. This is a well-known fact amongst his brothers, his associates, and even the police. But the one person who knows how far that loyalty will go is his mother, Janine ‘Smurf’ Cody. Smurf manipulates Pope beyond belief. She has groomed and coerced him all his life, digging her claws into his mind from a young and impressionable age. Smurf was threatened by Catherine, Baz’s wife. Catherine grew up with the Cody’s, with a young Pope easily falling in love with her. Smurf knew the feelings Pope has for Catherine, and she uses this against him. She manipulates him, saying Catherine was a CI and was a danger to the family. The family he has been raised to be responsible for. To protect, no matter the cost. He kills Catherine to protect his family. He soon finds out that he killed her for no reason. That the danger was fabricated by Smurf in order to remove a distraction from her business. As the eldest brother, he is responsible for protecting his family - and his responsibility leads him down a path of regret and despair. Smurf was willing to sacrifice his mind and sanity for her own personal gain.

Craig and Deran are Pope’s younger brothers. They are his responsibility to keep safe and out of trouble. Despite the brotherly figure looming overhead as the boss of the business, Pope is still the one that is called to muscle his way out of problems. He is the no-nonsense brother. He gets shit done. He even cleans up after them, doing the dishes and cleaning out their apartments when he visits. Even with J, he checks in because his family is his responsibility. Due to this responsibility, Pope did time in prison. He took the hit for a job gone wrong due to the sloppiness of his brothers - because that is what he is supposed to do. He knew that it had to be him, not one of his little brothers. His unwavering loyalty to his brothers, and the deep responsibility he feels for them puts him in positions that make his life harder - but he does it despite this. His sacrifice is not thanked, however. He is his brother’s handlers, and they will never be grateful for that - or will never tell him.

Motherless. Basically fatherless. Left with her unstable uncles to raise her, Lena is the responsibility Pope never realised would be his. He sacrifices everything for Lena, he puts himself on the line because he feels unwavering guilt for the murder of her mother. Pope wants a life for Lena away from the violence, but his attempts only push her further into its grasp. His responsibility to his family ruins every chance he has to give Lena a life she deserves. He is responsible for her as a punishment for his actions, a forever blinding reminder that makes him fall deeper into the depression he doesn’t like to show.

1070ish words.

13th June 2026.

WARNINGS

In this essay, there will be mentions of horror themes, death, loss of autonomy, abuse, sexual assault, self-harm, and animal death. And obviously, movie spoilers ahead!

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a woman is in want of a husband. Or is that still the truth? According to Vogue, having a boyfriend and showcasing it to the world is seen as embarrassing. Now, this is due to the increase of social media users criticising women for loudly and proudly showing their boyfriends - which can be seen as a critique on women. But on a deeper level, it’s about a change in societal understanding. That dating a man CAN be super embarrassing, especially if they’re a loser!

Over the past few years, there has been an increase in Gen Z women opting to stay single. An upping of standards, realising the people in our lives should be of good quality - rather than filling a societal role. Because of this, when heterosexual women do want to find a partner - there is an opting for kind men. The nice guy who believes in equal rights and supports women. There are some great men in the world who tick so many boxes a lot of Gen Z women look for, and sometimes - they are lies.

Obsession (2026) is a horror film following a man named Bear and a woman named Nikki. Bear makes a wish for Nikki’s heart, however, his wish goes awry. Ending in death, death, and more death - my take on this movie is NOT at all profound. You’ve probably heard this a billion times from other, more reputable sources. But as a girl, who has had her fair share of interesting partners, I obviously have thoughts.

Bear is the epitome of the ‘nice guy’. He’s shy, kind, and is very unassuming. He is portrayed as the ideal guy, someone who would care for you because he truly does like you. He has fallen in love with his coworker, Nikki. He is battling between asking her out (like a normal person) or using a “One Wish Willow” he bought (because he is a wuss). When he chickens out of asking her out, he wishes her to be in love with him. Guess what, the wish is real guys.

Nikki, over the duration of the film, snaps between Nikki and ‘Nikki’. Despite her growing erratic behaviour, Bear doesn’t wish to CANCEL his wish - but to CHANGE it. Despite Nikki’s problematic performance around him and her friends, he is obsessed with the idea of her being obsessed with him.

I’m not gonna explain the whole plot of the film, so here are my thoughts:

Bear takes away Nikki’s autonomy. She communicated IN THE BEGINNING that she does not see him the way he does. He rips her of her choice. In toxic and abusive relationships, one party manipulates the other in order to gain control. Abusers yearn for control over their victims, for everything to go the way they want it - despite the feelings, desires, and needs of the other party. Despite Bear’s nice guy persona, he falls into this category. After watching Nikki destroy herself, he still wants to have his cake and eat it too. This inequality is something we see growing in many relationships in our lives, they start subtle and end horrifically. For many women, there is no escape.

We find out after Nikki becomes dangerous that despite this, Bear will find any opportunity to turn a blind eye if it means he can get laid. Many times we see Bear and Nikki become intimate, with Nikki usually lying there with zero emotion on her face. Bear has not only taken her autonomy, but has used this against her to fill his needs and desires. The real Nikki still shows herself from time to time, and we see as an audience that this causes more harm. It begs the question, how many women are silenced in these moments because their boyfriends are insensitive?

When Nikki is wished upon, it is like she is possessed. There are moments where the real Nikki comes back to the surface and freaks out. When she does become conscious, she begins to progressively move from yelling to harming herself. Her behaviour becomes erratic and horrifying, not dissimilar to someone going through a mental health crisis. Her friends show concern for her, and even Bear tries to intervene. However, all her friends and Bear do not actually do much to get her the help she needs - especially as those outside of the wish would see it as a mental health crisis. Bear wishes to edit his wish so that Nikki stops acting “crazy”, instead of cancelling his wish to save her from herself. Bear feeds on Nikki’s vulnerability, knowing that despite her frightening behaviour - she is obsessed with him. He craves that validation, despite not actually putting in the effort to truly know Nikki. Nikki harming herself can be symbolic for many relationships in life. Due to the genre, it obviously takes it very literal - but harming yourself in a relationship can look different to everyone. Many women experience this when they are unhappy, but we have been conditioned to soften the blow. To care for the other party’s feelings despite our own. To not be selfish, ever. Many women suffer in silence in their relationships, because they know they will not be supported by the one person who is supposed to be there.

All in all, Bear hardly knew Nikki. He did not put in the time nor the effort to truly know what makes her tick. Bear, who kills his cat through neglect and disposes of it horribly, hates himself. He does not think highly of himself, focuses on his obsession to keep him going, and truly has no goals in life. He uses and abuses Nikki to fulfil his most carnal desires, to make him feel needed and wanted - but it was never enough.

700-ish words. 19th January 2026.

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

A drag path, etched in the surface As evidence I left there on purpose, A sad sack, laying on the surface.

Can you find me?

I dug my heels into the gravel As evidence for you to unravel, A drag path, etched in the surface.

Can you find me?

The term 'drag path' has become popularised across social media, not because of its connection to the alternative rock band Twenty-One Pilots, but because of its meaning. A drag path is defined as a "physical or metaphorical trail of evidence someone leaves behind with the hope of someone else following it to help". It is ingrained in our humanity to fear being forgotten, and it is our primal urge to ensure we leave a trace for others to see. To leave a legacy, or for some, a cry for help. We dig our heels into the dirt, drag our feet until our shoes are scuffed. We leave a mark that others can follow to either help us or to help themselves. A drag path can be the foundational connection between two people, who are (in today's case) – Ted Lasso's Roy Kent and Jamie Tartt.

When we meet Roy Kent, his gruff personality and knack for leadership prove him to be AFC Richmond's fearsome force to be reckoned with. He is a senior player for the Premier League club, having risen through the ranks and established himself as one of the greats in the game. He built himself up from a young age, being scouted by Sunderland FC before moving to Chelsea FC, and went on to become a famous footballer from a working-class family in South London. He rose from the ashes and became THE Roy Kent. When he finishes his career at Richmond (at approximately 38-40 years old), he becomes an assistant coach and continues to use the 'Roy Kent Effect' to build up his team.

Jamie Tartt is a loanee player from Manchester City who is deemed an 'ace' and prodigy from a young age. He is AFC Richmond's striker with a "right foot kissed by God". When we meet Jamie, he is an egotistical 23-year-old who prioritises his own success than that of the team. Though his ego is backed by spectacular football skills, it becomes a main point of tension throughout the series for many characters. The Mancunian has had to survive life's toughest battles, with his parents being split and his father being abusive. He uses his early success to his advantage, removing himself from the toxic environment in which he was raised – however, the toxicity follows him.

Roy Kent is a legend. He paves the way to greatness and removes himself from his working-class struggles. He digs his heels into the pitch and leaves a mark, becoming the feared and adored Roy Kent. Fans of Sunderland, Chelsea, and Richmond have watched Roy fight to make a name for himself – from being a newbie to a legend on the pitch. He is an idol and role model for many aspiring football players – including none other than Jamie Tartt. Jamie, in Season 1 and later in Season 3, has admitted to having a poster of Roy on his wall when he was a kid. Jamie looked up to Roy and wanted to become like his idol, so he put in the work and made it into the Premier League.

How did Jamie do this? Through Roy's drag path. Simply put, Roy walked so that Jamie could run. They are connected through Jamie's ability to remove himself from a toxic upbringing using Roy's climb to success as inspiration. He followed the path to help himself, to improve himself, and not only become a better player – but a better person. Jamie continues to idolise Roy, which we can see in moments where Roy vocalises his pride in Jamie – as well as Jamie's vie for Roy's guidance. Roy also acts as a father figure for Jamie, filling his need for paternal validation and encouragement. Roy becomes more connected with Jamie over time, especially from the moment he consoled Jamie after he punched his father at Wembly. He recognises the similarities between their journeys and is more inclined to help grow Jamie once he sees the work Jamie has put in to change.

Roy's legacy will not only be his time in the Premier League, or even his growth from a boy from a working-class background, but will continue to grow as Jamie continues to succeed. Their legacies are interlinked, both digging their heels into the surface as evidence of their struggles – and as evidence of their successes.

400-ish words. 7th January 2026.

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

Ted Lasso, the man, is defined through his optimism and his ability to forgive those around him. Although he struggles with his own forgiveness regarding his father and his mother, he is always quick to forgive those around him. To most people, the term forgiveness can only be acquired if you earn it; however, Ted Lasso serves as a reminder to the audience that forgiveness is not earned – but given.

Now, it is a truth universally acknowledged that Nathan Shelley is one of the most frustrating characters in Ted Lasso. His descent into indecency and ill-intent is one that makes many people shout and scream whenever he has screen time (let’s not forget that Nick Mohammed is NOT Nate Shelley). Many fans of the Apple TV series have shown discontent online regarding the welcoming back of Nate to AFC Richmond. At first, I agreed – I felt that Nate did not earn Ted’s forgiveness, nor did he deserve to be welcomed back to the premier league club with open arms. But I realised soon after a short rewatch of the third season that we as the audience were reacting in the way Coach Beard did; rashly.

Yes, Nate Shelley became a negative impact on the AFC Richmond atmosphere and club outside of his ‘wonder kid’ coaching abilities. His actions, rooted in his insecurity and jealousy, were extremely damaging to both Ted and the boys on the team. However, Ted forgave Nate for his transgressions. He shows Nate a kind hand and welcomes him back, because Nate put in the effort to show that he had changed. But what if he’s not actually changed, what if he’s just missing the limelight? I hear you cry, but I ask you this in return – what if he has changed for the better? Shouldn’t he be given another chance?

6th January 2026. 800-ish words.

WARNINGS In this short essay, there will be a mention of physical and verbal abuse and a discussion on sexual assault. All abuse discussed occurs in a fictional world; however, it may be triggering for some readers. Reader discretion is advised. Spoilers for Ted Lasso Season 1 and 3 below.

⋆˚꩜｡⋆

Abuse in fiction is a very thin rope for writers and actors to walk on. If portrayed well, viewers may feel seen and understood; however, if not, it can lead to a range of issues, including invalidating victims, undermining the seriousness of the issue, and numerous other negative implications. Luckily, in my opinion, Apple TV’s Ted Lasso approaches the abuse of Jamie Tartt in a delicate but raw way that not only validates victims, but breaks the hearts of all viewers. Jamie Tartt, although being a young man with a promising future, is a victim of abuse. As the viewers learn throughout the series, Jamie has been abused by his father physically, verbally, emotionally, psychologically, and – what will be the focus for this post – sexually.

In Season 1, Jamie attends a gala for a children’s charity with the AFC Richmond team. One aspect of the gala was the opportunity for the attendees to bid for a date with an AFC Richmond footballer. When sitting at his assigned table, Jamie encounters an older woman after he spills some hot food onto his chest – which he ices with an ice cube. The lady flirts with him, saying she wishes “[she] was that ice cube”. She tells the striker that she “will be bidding for a night with you.” Jamie corrects the woman, saying it was a date rather than the whole night, where she responds with a seductive “we’ll see” before stalking off. Jamie is visibly uncomfortable in this scene; however, his surrounding peers jeer and ridicule the 23-year-old, saying he doesn’t have to have sex with the woman – but insinuate that some other sexual activities would need to occur. Jamie leaves the table, aggravated at this reaction, with Keeley trailing behind. Later, Jamie is on stage being bid on by Keeley and the old woman. His facial expression when the older woman started bidding was one of complete and utter discomfort, rather than the disgust that the fellow characters perceived it as.

Now, with the context of the few scenes in Season 1, it is important to note that Jamie’s father has not sexually abused Jamie himself (as far as we are aware) – but he has put his son in a risky position that caused sexual assault. In Season 3 of Ted Lasso, Jamie and Roy are riding bikes in Amsterdam, looking for a windmill. In this scene, Jamie opened up to Roy about his previous experiences in Amsterdam, answering Roy’s previous question earlier in the episode on how Jamie knows so much about the capital. Jamie explains to Roy that he has been to Amsterdam twice, with a notable visit with his father when he was 14. His father took Jamie to the red-light district to lose his virginity to “those ladies behind the windows”. Roy responds to Jamie’s admittance, saying that it “must’ve been traumatising”. Jamie deflected with humour; however, gave an honest response, saying “no, dunno, don’t remember”.

In the UK and the Netherlands, 16 is the age of consent. Jamie’s father, having taken him to lose his virginity at 14, is not only putting a minor at risk, but caused child sexual abuse. Alongside the sexual assault occurring, Jamie’s honesty regarding his loss of memory of the event lines up with the studied psychological response when dealing with traumatic events, where traumatic or highly stressful events can cause a fragmented or complete loss of memory. Jamie is a victim of child abuse through sexual assault, which was encouraged and caused by his father. There is arguably an understanding that the visit to the red-light district acts as a rite of passage, where Jamie’s father was allowing Jamie to go from boy to man. This activity, however, displays the negative idea that the passage from boy to man is traumatising in nature – underpinned by Jamie’s father’s own toxic masculinity and ill-acceptance.

Jamie Tartt is a diverse and exponentially complicated character. He has a complex background that informs his every word, thought, belief, and action. In short, Jamie Tartt is a victim of abuse. His discomfort towards the older woman in Season 1 is uncovered as more than normal, but as an uneasiness due to his previously experienced sexual assault. His father has produced an upbringing for Jamie that is violating in almost all aspects of the word, and through this has destroyed the original path he would have taken to become a man. His father’s need for power caused Jamie to fend for himself, where we see him battling his trauma through negative behaviours, to then learn to slowly heal and grow with them as a reminder of what to not become.

Hello everyone and welcome to my blog!

I plan on writing short commentaries and essays on all things pop culture. Please note, most of these are not as edited as one would want, but they are more for your enjoyment rather than your grammatical critique. Also, I do not cite anything when I write so I encourage you to do your own research if you feel something needs to be explained further!

These writings are the intellectual property of whimsy hobbit! and are written from the crevices of my brain. I do not consent any of my writings to be published by others on any other platform.