#blog post
Total words written: 17647
Words written today: 2774
Excerpt:
“What do you want to be when you grow up?” Riann asked, apropos of nothing. She and Rafe were lying head to head within the cool, shaded enclave of the old willow tree. Sunlight dappled the ground, filtering through the willow fronds in mesmerizing patterns. Earlier, Rafe had tried sketching the patterns, attempting to mimic their natural beauty, but he had given up the task now in favor of basking in the warmth.
“A superhero,” Rafe said eventually. “I want to make people happy, and help them when they’re sad or in trouble.”
“That’s ambitious,” Riann said. It was a neutral statement.
Though Riann didn’t see him shrug, she heard the soft swish of his shoulders moving against the dirt. “I’ve got magic,” he replied casually. “What’s the use of that if I don’t use it for good?”
Comments: I wanted to post an update earlier, but unfortunately real life has been conspiring against me these past few days. I’m about 2 days behind, but I think another good 2-3k day should get me back up to par! I’ve finally started fleshing out my characters, which has been exciting. Still, though, I’m not cut out for long-form writing! It’s indescribably hard to craft a compelling, cohesive narrative that lasts longer than 5k, especially when I’m pantsing my novel this year lol. NaNo is fantastic, but I’ll be glad to return to short stories once the month is done.
11.8.18 //
I have now rewritten my SOP 5 times, each time changing something drastic about the structure or the information I reveal or the narrative thread I weave, in order to address the various weaknesses I’ve identified. I’m starting to grow increasingly frustrated and demoralized, because somehow no matter how much editing I do, the SOP doesn’t seem to get good enough to be proud of, or even just okay with. Every time, I chip away at a weakness just enough to think “Yeah, this is why I edit; every edit makes it better,” but there’s always enough of that weakness left that I can’t definitively say “I’ve addressed this and can move on to something else.”
I know that my SOP has come incredibly far from my first draft, and I amhappy with small bits and pieces of it, but the thought of having to rewrite it yet again to correct a glaring structural weakness is just…so incredibly demotivating. Especially because I’m having to identify these weaknesses, figure out how to address them, and then implement those changes almost entirely on my own, without second opinions or constructive criticism from a third party. It is exhausting having to pinpoint my flaws and then switch mindsets and address those flaws without becoming embroiled in insecurity and self-loathing for having those flaws in the first place, irrational as that is.
I’ve tried to remain positive throughout this process, taking the little external feedback I’ve gotten with an open mind and reminding myself that every edit brings me closer to my final SOP. I know I’m a good writer and a better editor, and these skills serve me well; hell, I made it through 5 rewrites before starting to feel frustrated, and I’m incredibly lucky to have gotten that far. But I’m finally starting to feel the stress and the panic, and it’s not a great feeling, to be honest.
I don’t know. I’m writing this post in an attempt to process my frustration and put it into words so I can move on and return to editing with restrengthened convictions. But I also kind of want to reassure anyone else out there who’s feeling frustrated that you’re not alone. I know I went into this process thinking writing a SOP was simple and easy, and I must be stupid if I was having so much trouble with it, but I’m starting to realize that the frustration and the constant rewriting is part and parcel of the writing process. It doesn’t make me stupid to be working on a sixth rewrite. It doesn’t make me stupid to have been editing this SOP for almost a month. And I’ll get there, eventually. Every draft is better than the last, and ultimately I’ll have a statement that’s good enough to submit. I just have to keep on keeping on, I suppose.
It’s been something like 10 months since I last posted here, so I figured I should mention the biggest changes in my life. I am now a senior in college. I haven’t changed majors or fields of study. I’m going to take a gap year after I graduate, during which I’ll be applying to MD/PhD programs. I’m planning on taking the MCAT some time in the next few months, but I definitely haven’t been…
all in varying stages of development! I’ll try to update this often :)
—fall with me (sero hanta x reader)
a little sleep deprived and susceptible to spilling secrets as a result, y/n lets it slip to hanta that they want to fall in love. want to know what it feels like for your heart to hurt when you’re not around someone, what it feels like to slow dance in the rain with someone, to stay up for hours just to spend time with them. what it feels like to get heartbroken, to hurt so badly because the love runs so deeply. hanta wants to be the one to do all of those things with y/n—so he creates a plan to accomplish everything they listed off when they were truthful in their sleepy state.
—unwind(iida tenya x reader)
uptight iida clashing with carefree support student y/n. enemies to friends, lots of iidas hand movements
So… my NSFW content seems to really have a better hit than my SFW content. Seriously one commission I made?? Around 1000 notes now! Cant believe it! And it was an NSFW one too!
So I have a thought. Idk if I’m actually going to go through with it but because my NSFW content hits a lot better than my SFW stuff, I can either make a separate blog dedicated to only NSFW content, or shift the main focus of my main blog to NSFW Content.
What do you all think? Other twst writers, your opinion?
Emily and I had to rush to get to the Roman Baths on time, but when we got there it was a cool experience to have. The site of the Roman Baths was actually rediscovered and turned into a museum in the late 1800s. The baths themselves are actually below street level, but when the construction began for the museum, buildings were built above the baths. The interior of the area surrounding the baths bears resemblance to what one would expect from Ancient Rome, with tall pillars, a terrace, and statues erected to Roman gods and goddesses. Without given any of this information about the baths or without much prior knowledge about authentic Roman life, somebody visiting the baths could easily believe the Great Baths and the pillars and statues surrounding it were actually authentic and discovered with the baths themselves rather than a later construction.
There was a lot to see in general and Emily and I found with every turn more things to discover, though we did have to rush a bit because we arrived slightly late due to the fact we left Glastonbury later than scheduled. Along with the main baths, there were hot springs, a temple to Minerva, other artifacts on display like pre-Roman coins, and realistic looking videos in different parts of the baths depicting life-size Romans going about their daily lives using the public baths, bartering at markets, and more. I wish we had had more time there– even if we had made it on time, a half hour wouldn’t be enough to properly appreciate everything there– but it was still an enjoyable experience and a rather nice change of pace from the more typically English sites we saw on our trip.
I feel as though the British Museum could have been a more enjoyable experience if being there didn’t feel so rushed. There was no reason for Monique and me to be rushing– we had several hours we could spend there– but there were just so many people in the museum. It felt as though we had to keep moving and moving so we wouldn’t be in anybody’s way. Compared to Camden Market, it felt like there were more people, though I don’t think that is actually true, but, because it made the museum space feel smaller, it felt that way.
Still, there were many interesting things to see there. The museum is largely historical, with exhibits dating back from ancient times to closer to modern day, organized largely by region of origin. We probably spent more time in the Ancient Greece section than any other because that is a personal favorite of mine. I had expected a bit more as far as Greek god sculptures because I had seen images online, but I realized afterward that the photos I was thinking of were from the Louvre, not the British Museum. We went through the European section and found many different exhibits, one particular one I enjoyed being a pendant of Thor’s hammer in the Nordic part. In the Arabic section, there were several garments, which I thoroughly enjoyed and found to be quite beautiful.
I think the problem I had with the British Museum is a problem I felt like was present in a lot of the trip, especially when we left the smaller cities for activities in places like London and Paris. While many of the sites we saw were interesting, the sheer amount of people often also there made it difficult to truly enjoy and appreciate what we were seeing. Of course, this is the way of things with touristic sites and not something that unfortunately is very changeable, but still, it made some of the experiences we had here a bit less enjoyable.
Independent Exploring: The British Library
After visiting the Tower of London on Tuesday, a group of us got lunch and then went to the British Library. Though a technical library, it in some ways bore more resemblance to a museum than a traditional library. There were many art pieces on display in the halls. We explored in search of the copy of Virginia’s Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway that one of us had been looking for and struggled at first to navigate. We went to an area titled Manuscripts, which did not have it nor were we even permitted to enter.
After being given directions by multiple workers at the library, we found it along with a trove of other interesting exhibitions. There were writings not only for works of literature, but music, maps, historical documents, and other things. I have something of a fondness for classical music, so I enjoyed looking at the sheet music and placards about the works of Chopin and Bach as if I could actually comprehend the meaning behind the notes on paper without the oratory accompaniment. While there we also saw Shakespeare’s First Folio and an assortment of other things related to him. We, unfortunately, were not allowed to take photos inside the exhibition hall. Another collection I particularly enjoyed was actually the maps– I quite like to look at them and there was one in particular from the 1400s depicting Europe, Asia, and Africa that was illustrated that I thought was quite lovely and wished I could look at closer because some of the writing on it towards the northern part of the map was written upside down. Along with Mrs. Dalloway, there were manuscripts from numerous other works including Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. We went to the gift shop afterward and I bought a couple of postcards for myself, one featuring a vintage copy of a fashion magazine from the late 1800s and another with the U.S. Declaration of Independence (why a postcard with this on it was being sold in the British Library is beyond me, but I wanted it, in any case). Overall it was an interesting experience, but I do feel like the things to actually do there were a bit limited.
Independent Exploring: Camden Market
For the long weekend, while most of our class was away in Belfast, my friend Monique came up from Germany to visit. We spent our Saturday, along with her friend Cleo who is working as an au pair in London, at the Camden Market.
Camden Town had very little to offer until the early 1970s when it became a hub for the punk-rock movement. Today it offers street markets filled with nearly everything imaginable, from quintessential touristy trinkets to vintage clothes, Lolita and Harajuku fashion, beautiful paintings, rugs, countless food stalls and more. We explored as soon as we got off the Tube, walking up the street past numerous vendors. From stall to stall, store to store, the music changed ranging from the punk rock that made the area famous to EDM, classic rock, Latin, and more. The whole area was extremely colorful– there was street art and even shops were decorated so they stood out with bright colors and animals like dragons and elephants above the entrances of some. Eventually, we reached an area off the streets where the market continued with several more stalls and small stores. Monique and Cleo had already eaten lunch with Cleo’s host family, but I was happy to see how many vegan stalls there were.
We explored several stores, even stopping in one vintage clothing shop and had an almost 80s-like montage of trying on different hats and sunglasses. I didn’t find anything there, but later I found a stall that bought vintage denim jackets and embroidered them. I ended up buying one there for twenty pounds with “Rebel Rebel” stitched on the back (David Bowie felt very appropriate there). It seemed every turn we took there was more stuff; the market never ended. Monique and I also went into a photo booth. Although it was crowded there, it didn’t feel like there were too many people. Apart from tourists, whose ages varied, the majority of the people there seemed to be around our age. Overall we had a really great time and I would recommend Camden Market to anybody who is interested in shopping in a more alternative scene. Although it is touristy now and many of the things sold there are a bit kitschy, there are some gems if you look for them.
Cultural Experience: Britain and Socialism
Something I noticed during my time here in London is the fact that unlike in the U.S., “socialist” isn’t a dirty word. While I haven’t spoken to any native Brits about their opinions on the matter (politics is a tricky subject to discuss with anyone, especially strangers) I’ve seen numerous adverts on the streets for things like Marxism 2019– “a festival of socialist ideas,” a Karl Marx walking tour, other socialist events being held by universities in Bloomsbury, and a socialist newspaper stand on the day we went to Westminster Abbey as we walked by the Trump protests.
I found this so interesting because while there are more progressive politicians now who are using the term in some way (typically as “Democratic-socialist” rather than full-blown “socialist”), it is still very much a word of controversy in the United States, one that brings back images of the Second Red Scare, of the Hollywood 10, of Russian spies, of extreme fear that our democracy in the states could somehow collapse if citizens were given rights to things like free healthcare. I had heard before that the United States was the only country in which the idea of socialism had immediately abhorrent connotations, but nonetheless, the sheer normalcy of socialism as a political ideology is very interesting to me and was not something I expected or intended to observe, but just kept seeing again and again on the streets of London. I likely won’t speak to anyone about their political ideologies while here as it was recommended we avoid doing so, but still, based on sheer observation, the political climate here differs quite a bit in this way from the United States.
Review: The Globe’s 2019 production of Henry IV: Part 1
Admittedly, I had high expectations for Henry IV: Part 1 and so perhaps for that reason it came up so short for me. We were going to see it at the Globe and we had already watched two extremely excellent Shakespeare productions at the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Bridge Theatre. While these factors might have elevated my expectations, I think regardless, the Globe Theatre’s production of Henry IV: Part 1 was objectively subpar.
Changing genders in a play can be an extraordinary way to explore and create entirely new dynamics for characters and their relationships. Unfortunately, this play did none of those things, nor did it in any apparent way even attempt to. The genderbent leads, Prince Hal, Hotspur, and Falstaff were simply played as men. Giving women lead roles traditionally played by men and playing it the same as one might with men cast in the roles isn’t inherently bad, but it’s certainly a missed opportunity as far as doing something more interesting with the roles goes. The leads were not the only characters to be cast as the opposite gender– two others were Mistress Quickly and Glendower’s daughter, otherwise known as the Welsh Lady. Both times, this gender change is only played for laughs rather than anything meaningful for the production. Mistress Quickly was dressed up enough as a woman that the actor appeared feminine, but not so much that the audience would not recognize that the actor was indeed a man in order to spark laughter from the audience, which sort of worked. Later in the play, Mistress Quickly speaks a line about being a true woman with a knowing look at the audience who, of course, knows she is being portrayed by a he. To me, this had negative and dangerous implications. The Welsh woman being portrayed by a man without any attempt to cover the fact the actor playing the role was male was another cheap gag at gender that was not actually very funny at all.
Something else I really disliked about this production was the portrayal of Hotspur and Lady Kate. What makes their relationship interesting to see on stage is their quick-witted, playful jabs at one another and shared passion. Once again, this production did not do any of this. Instead, Lady Kate was simply clingy and desperate for her husband’s love while he had only disdain and mockery to offer her. Nothing about this was enjoyable to watch; instead, it was just a bit sad and made Hotspur come across as less likable.
Another smaller issue I had was with the fact that Hotspur’s uncle was portrayed by a man who looked to be in his early twenties while Hotspur’s actress had to be at the very least in her thirties. The actors in the production were not necessarily bad, but the overall direction they seemed to have been given and the way the play was staged was just not great. While the play could have been serious and made its audience legitimately care about the outcome of a literal war, it relied too heavily on humor, often cheap humor, to entertain and overall was of a much lower quality than what one would expect from a renowned Shakespeare theatre.
In the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 2013 production of As You Like It, Rosalind, portrayed by Pippa Nixon, when assuming the disguise of Ganymede, takes on a male appearance. With hair cut short and styled with gel to one side and a collared blue shirt, Ganymede looks as though he is a boy, perhaps a preppy boy rather than traditionally masculine, but a boy nonetheless. Because of this, her romantic interactions with Orlando (Alex Waldmann) come across as very homoerotic.
In Act 3 Scene 2, Rosalind/Ganymede sits closely next to Orlando as they converse about Orlando’s poems that he so abuses the trees with, his lovesickness, and Ganymede’s supposed cure. As they do this, they share what is presumably a blunt. This act, particularly in this context, has some undeniable phallic implications. Staged so close to each other as they interact with each other and even touch one another, from the viewpoint of the audience that is far less close to the actors as the camera that has filmed the scene, Orlando and Ganymede appear to be a gay couple. When Rosalind/Ganymede asks Orlando if he is truly in love with Rosalind, he responds “Neither rhyme nor reason could express how much” and despite speaking these things about the woman he is in love with, he looks at Ganymede with a look of such adoration that he might as well be declaring his love to Ganymede rather than Rosalind, though it would happen that he is actually doing both.
While Nixon and Waldmann’s portrayals of these characters have obvious sexual tension, when Rosalind/Ganymede directs Orlando to call her “Rosalind”, this is not only a man imploring another man to call him by the name of a woman, but specifically the woman the two characters have just discussed in great length that Orlando loves. Not only this, but Ganymede suggests Orlando aim to woo him as Rosalind. While it is her under this guise, Orlando does not know this and is agreeing to engage in flirting (more so than he already has been doing) with another man. He is very clearly interested in Ganymede as more than a friend and does little to hide this. During the time in which the play was written, there were no labels to be put on sexualities like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or anything else and instead, sexuality was related more to actions in a single moment of time than any identity and who Orlando feels attraction to is demonstrably fluid. When Nixon’s Rosalind asks Orlando to show her where in the forest he lives, the simultaneous hesitancy and eagerness she displays make the interaction almost resemble a contemporary exchanging of cell-phone numbers. Thus, in this RSC production, Orlando and Ganymede are very clearly framed as two boys flirting with one another, clearly interested in one another and clearly queer.
In Act 5 Scene 3 of Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part One, King Henry IV has implemented a battle strategy in which there are numerous decoy kings impersonating him on the battlefield in order to confuse and frustrate his enemy. It works, as Douglas kills Blunt who was disguised as the king and believes he has triumphed, only for Hotspur to tell him “No, I know this face full well/A gallant knight he was; his name was Blunt,/Semblably furnished like the king himself” (Shakespeare 5.3.20-22). This occurs several more times offstage and in the following scene, Douglas exclaims “Another king! They grow like Hydra’s heads” (Shakespeare 5.4.25). While there is no number of how many King Henrys are in the fray, based on that statement it is likely a lot.
This strategy King Henry executes also connects directly to both the idea of theatre and throne, and while successful on the battlefield, could lead the audience to some potentially questionable notions about royalty and what it truly means to be king. The decision to insert numerous decoy-kings into the battleground is not something that could have been predicted because sumptuary laws were in place during the time in which the play took place as well as the time it was written and being performed. Therefore, doing so was technically illegal. In general, the theatre was the only place in which somebody of a lower station might dress up as though they were from any higher class, much less royalty itself. In the middle of a war though, King Henry has staged his own sort of theatrical production with several other soldiers playing the role of him. If we are to look at words alone, sometimes the place of battle during war is even called a “theater.” Thus, in a meta-fashion, Shakespeare has staged a performance with a man playing King Henry IV, and the king has staged one of his own and cast other soldiers as him, sumptuary laws broken twice over.
While doing this keeps Henry IV safer on the battlefield than he likely would have been otherwise, the idea that anyone could dress in kingly attire and thus in the minds of those around him, become a king, is perhaps the very reason these sumptuary laws existed. This scene demonstrates that when Blunt and numerous others assume the identity of the king and are truly believed to be the king until they are unmasked. Therefore, if somebody in Elizabethan England acquired the attire befitting a member of a higher class, they could become a part of that class with nobody the wiser. This fluidity in something that those of greater affluence and stature would like to be concrete and unchangeable arguably demonstrates the fickleness of being a member of the nobility. While it was often argued at this time that those of wealth and status had such because of divine right by God, this seems to present an alternative. They have these things because the society they have constructed says they should have these things and should somebody ingratiate themselves into said class with those things that qualify those already there, such as clothing, they could contradict this belief entirely. The play demonstrates in other scenes that this only goes one way– at least for royalty. Prince Hal may hang around with tavern folk, but it is rare anybody around him truly forgets he is the prince. Still, were he disguised while doing so rather than making himself known as the prince, perhaps he would be believed to be just another tavern-goer.
William Shakespeare’s Richard III and in TNT’sWill threatricalize English history. Both the play and television series depict a historical figure, but the way this is done caters more to their contemporary audiences. For Richard III this involves not only affirming his suspected villainy for Elizabethans, but both playing into it and inviting the audience to come along and watch his plots unfold as co-conspirators. Still, there is no question that even if portrayed by an actor or production as sympathetic, in his actions Richard III is evil. It would likely be approved of by his Elizabethan audience that Richard should be portrayed as deformed and immoral and that the Tudor dynasty that ends the War of the Roses should be a happy ending that ushers in better times on account of the fact the audience members were living in that present Tudor dynasty. This also would likely align with the perspective of the Great Chain of Being, a notion many Elizabethans subscribed to and something that is depicted in many of Shakespeare’s other plays. While Edward IV did take the throne for himself, being the oldest York, he was still the person who after conquering was supposed to ascend. If he perished, Edward Prince of Wales, his son, should have been his successor. Richard’s killing of others in line, such as his brother George, Duke of Clarence, and usurping the throne for himself is a flagrant violation of this God-ordained hierarchy and thus when Richmond takes the throne from Richard, order is restored.
Will depicts a London that is wild, raunchy, and likely not entirely true to the real Elizabethan London. Though London likely wasn’t as conservative as some period pieces, particularly older ones, may depict it, this almost punk-rock London is portrayed as intense and bohemian, somewhere not quite safe, but full of art, excitement, and potential. The trailer features modern music with a heavy bass and an encounter between Will and Alice Burbage that undoubtedly leads to sex. The addition of the theory that Shakespeare was a closeted Catholic could also speak to the contemporary audience viewing the show, particularly due to the fact the show came from the United States, not England. In 2017 when the show premiered, the U.S. was and still is facing religious turmoil. Earlier in that year, Trump enacted an executive order that effectively banned those from Muslim dominant countries from coming to the U.S. Even while the show was running its first season, a white supremacist rally occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, with attendees chanting things like “Jews will not replace us” and one even injuring and killing counter-protesters with his car. A London that is hostile to Shakespeare’s religion is something contemporary Americans could recognize if not personally relate to.
In this way, it can be argued that when one is theatricalizing history, one is taking meaning from it that aligns with the cultural values of the contemporary society in which the author lives, rather than the history itself. This is because history cannot truly be known at all; while it is possible to know basic facts, even ones’ personal account of an event in their own life could vary greatly from another present. Because of this, when theatricalizing history, it often makes sense even to handle it in a way that makes sense to modern audiences of the era in which the dramatizing is taking place.
“Why should I settle for mediocre when I know I’m worthy of exceptional.”
- g.d. (settling)
I’ve been watching The Ellen Show for the last 11 years, - watching this whole situation unfold has been shocking and so upsetting. I have read multiple articles from multiple sources, so that I can have the most non-bias and balanced opinion of this situation. I’m also taking everything with a pinch of salt because we all know what humans can be like.
From what I’ve read there have been numerous complaints about some of the senior staff at The Ellen Show and some complaints about Ellen DeGeneres herself. Three Executive Producers have been fired due to Warner Bros. external investigation, the Executive Producers have yet to release statements, Twitch has been promoted to Co-Executive Producer, he said that there has been nothing but “love” behind the scenes and Ellen has apologised for her behaviour and has said that season 18 will come back “stronger”.
It also seems that the Producers kept Ellen in a bubble, they didn’t let staff talk to her, they didn’t let them interact with her, they made Ellen believe that everything was fine behind the scenes and when there were complaints they kept it to themselves; which is why Ellen has no idea any of this was going on.
It also seems as though Ellen didn’t have a lot of input in how the show was run behind the scenes, she trusted her Producers to the point that she became complacent and believed everything was fine. I also believe that Ellen is not a self-aware person, she genuinely didn’t know that she coming off cold or stand-offish to some people and there was no one to check Ellen when this happened. The complaints of racism (that have been reported) hold no weight in the situation, saying that its hard to tell two black people apart from each other because they look alike is not racist. it’s an observation. Also producers asking people for their “sources” isn’t a bad thing when you work on a team, you’re supposed to work together.
This is not a clean-cut / black-and-white situation - there are many factors that go into this; one of the most important being that The Ellen Show is based in California which is one of (if not the) most liberal states in the US, which means there are going to be a lot of social justice warriors and “woke” people that work for Ellen and The Ellen Show; which is why I’m taking all of this with a pinch of salt. A person can tell a joke or scare someone, different people will take it a different ways, some of them will laugh, some of the them will get offended and others will brush it off (which is what seems to have happened with Kevin Leaman). There will also be people who for whatever reason will not like working with particular people and will do whatever they have to do to get them fired or “cancelled”. Some people are also saying that Twitch was promoted because he is black, which is completely false - Twitch has been working on The Ellen Show for years, he started of a guest with SYTYCD, then turned DJ / dancer and he’s now basically co-hosting The Ellen Show and Ellen’s Game of Games. Also, of course if you fired three Producers, you need someone to replace them and Twitch is by far the best choice.
This may be very controversial but I’m going to say it anyway… the people going to the press, telling them about the situation at The Ellen Show are no better than the people they are accusing. Why? Because they knew all of this was going on for YEARS, they said NOTHING and allowed new employees to walk into a toxic work environment, which allowed the situation to get worse. If you know something is wrong and people are being treated badly, you should say something, you tell your boss and you don’t stop until you find someone who will listen to to you or you take it upon yourself to improve the situation. You don’t just walk away from the job and then run to the press.
I really do hope the accused were interviewed, I hope they had an opportunity to defend themselves and apologise for how they have treated people. I don’t believe in the Media being the Judge and the Jury. I don’t agree with cancel culture, noting good ever comes of it, we need to accept that people have done wrong, learn from it and move on. Not silence them and take away their ability to get a job or provide for themselves and their families.”, I don’t want people to loose their jobs because they offended someone with a joke. I also believe in second chances and I believe people can change if they are willing to do so. I do hope The Ellen Show comes back stronger in September, I hope things get better for the staff and I hope Ellen has a bigger responsibility / more input on what goes on behind the scenes of her show (or hires someone specifically to do that for her) and I hope this never happens again.
Edit:Everytime I don’t know what to say or explain myself, Kevin Hart sums it up perfectly “We’re letting people control and dictate the start and finish of people’s lives, and if we are in a time of finding any type of solution to the fight of equality and change, which seems to be a global fight now — a global fight of people being treated fairly, change, understanding and accepting the past, but preparing for a better future - if people [have done something] wrong, the idea of canceling those people, and ending whatever career or thing they have…If it’s just over, then what’s the teachable moment for them? What, it’s over, and then you can’t do nothing else for the rest of your life, because you made a mistake?”
- Kevin Hart explains why he supports Ellen and Nick Cannon amid scandal
I’m honestly feling sick and shocked at this point - I don’t know what to say… Ed Glavin, Kevin Leaman and Jonathan Norman have been fired from The Ellen Show, Twitch has been promoted to Co-Executive Producers and Ellen has said that she wants the show to ‘come back strong‘ in September.
Ed Glavin was fired due to accusations of abuse, Kevin Leaman has been fired but is insisting that he has been used as a “scapegoat” and “his attempts at humour caused offence“
In a staff meeting video call, Ellen said:
“I apologize for anyone who’s feelings I’ve hurt. I’m not perfect. I’m multi-layered and I learn from my mistakes. I care about each and every one of you. I’m grateful for each and every one of you.”
Sources:
