E. Bronte's Wuthering Heights (THE NOVEL) was a fave of mine as a kid. I read it too young (that's a long story--the short: I had no trouble with the time-switches and language because I so wanted to copy everything an older sister did, I just plowed through). I will not harm my innards with watching this film. I sure enjoyed Discordia's takedown, though. Emily's soundlessly clicking her fingers, too. Whatever moor she's wandering. (And, yeah, that's a projection: the real Emily turned away a long time ago.) Thank you.
Love this but why mention that the couple in front of you had Down's Syndrome? Why not just say there was a couple in front of you? The notable thing about them was the fact that they were "grappling amorously". Any other info feels like a strange voyeuristic ableism — like it is worth remarking upon that people with Down's are out and about in society. If they were Black would you have mentioned that as set-dressing too?
So would you specify if they were white? I'm just encouraging you to question why you chose to include that detail, and whether it added anything to the piece other than implying that a person being anything other than white and able-bodied/neurotypical is worth remarking on, thus positioning those people as the norm and everyone else the other. And that's to say nothing of how you aligned autism with being "mentally challenged".
It sounds to me like you're upset by the very idea that people with Down's syndrome exist in public spaces. You aren't protecting people with Down's, you're protecting yourself from having to think about them.
Not at all. I'm asking why the author thought it was worth mentioning at all, when they didn't include details like that about anyone else in the piece. I made that clear in my previous comment. You're just taking me in bad faith in an attempt to discredit my comment.
It's worth mentioning because it's a striking detail. The race of the couple in question would not be a striking detail.
You're projecting your own prejudices onto the author of this piece, who was merely acknowledging that people with Down's exist. You should really work on these issues in private or with a therapist.
Dude…just stop, we left this shit back in 2024. We all have bigger issues rn than:“um….you mentioned a detail in passing, why though? Is it because you are secretly a bigot??” Like this gotcha shit is what got us into this mess in the first place, understand that, or build a time machine, so you could go back to pre-musk twitter and randomly accuse people of being bigots to your hearts content. Also, Autism IS a disability, what are you on about?
I didn’t know the director was English so it’s extra jarring listening to her vapid justification for her "reinterpretation". Given the film's commercial success, we're likely to see much more cultural vandalism.
I'm glad you wrote about this because most reviews seem to be taking this movie more seriously than it deserves. I haven't seen it, but I can kind of believe Emerald Fennell read it at 14, didn't understand it, forgot almost everything about it, and made the movie from there. In interviews, she referred to the setting as "Victorian" despite the fact that it takes place in the 18th century. I think to some people Victorian is everything between the two Queen Elizabeths.
Speculating that a character could be "very autistic" just because they seem "mentally challenged" is... yikes. Ableist in ways I do not have the energy to go into, and horrible to read for anyone who is autistic because of how disparaging and dismissive it is. Good grief.
Any use considering that maybe the author is autistic and maybe you might consider not running around in the world thinking you’re the authority on how neurodivergence should or shouldn’t be discussed? Good grief.
Fuck I meant *Linton Heathcliff (fixed in post, if you came here from the email with the typo you can't get mad at me now)
I haven't seen the movie, but Discordia's review brings to mind the movie "Beethoven," which was about a St. Bernard.
E. Bronte's Wuthering Heights (THE NOVEL) was a fave of mine as a kid. I read it too young (that's a long story--the short: I had no trouble with the time-switches and language because I so wanted to copy everything an older sister did, I just plowed through). I will not harm my innards with watching this film. I sure enjoyed Discordia's takedown, though. Emily's soundlessly clicking her fingers, too. Whatever moor she's wandering. (And, yeah, that's a projection: the real Emily turned away a long time ago.) Thank you.
Love this but why mention that the couple in front of you had Down's Syndrome? Why not just say there was a couple in front of you? The notable thing about them was the fact that they were "grappling amorously". Any other info feels like a strange voyeuristic ableism — like it is worth remarking upon that people with Down's are out and about in society. If they were Black would you have mentioned that as set-dressing too?
idk probably
So would you specify if they were white? I'm just encouraging you to question why you chose to include that detail, and whether it added anything to the piece other than implying that a person being anything other than white and able-bodied/neurotypical is worth remarking on, thus positioning those people as the norm and everyone else the other. And that's to say nothing of how you aligned autism with being "mentally challenged".
It sounds to me like you're upset by the very idea that people with Down's syndrome exist in public spaces. You aren't protecting people with Down's, you're protecting yourself from having to think about them.
Not at all. I'm asking why the author thought it was worth mentioning at all, when they didn't include details like that about anyone else in the piece. I made that clear in my previous comment. You're just taking me in bad faith in an attempt to discredit my comment.
It's worth mentioning because it's a striking detail. The race of the couple in question would not be a striking detail.
You're projecting your own prejudices onto the author of this piece, who was merely acknowledging that people with Down's exist. You should really work on these issues in private or with a therapist.
Dude…just stop, we left this shit back in 2024. We all have bigger issues rn than:“um….you mentioned a detail in passing, why though? Is it because you are secretly a bigot??” Like this gotcha shit is what got us into this mess in the first place, understand that, or build a time machine, so you could go back to pre-musk twitter and randomly accuse people of being bigots to your hearts content. Also, Autism IS a disability, what are you on about?
I hear it has ZERO SEMAPHORE 🤨
I didn’t know the director was English so it’s extra jarring listening to her vapid justification for her "reinterpretation". Given the film's commercial success, we're likely to see much more cultural vandalism.
This replaced watching the movie for me. I chortled. Thank you!
I'm glad you wrote about this because most reviews seem to be taking this movie more seriously than it deserves. I haven't seen it, but I can kind of believe Emerald Fennell read it at 14, didn't understand it, forgot almost everything about it, and made the movie from there. In interviews, she referred to the setting as "Victorian" despite the fact that it takes place in the 18th century. I think to some people Victorian is everything between the two Queen Elizabeths.
Speculating that a character could be "very autistic" just because they seem "mentally challenged" is... yikes. Ableist in ways I do not have the energy to go into, and horrible to read for anyone who is autistic because of how disparaging and dismissive it is. Good grief.
> Ableist in ways I do not have the energy to go into
Why don't you take a fucking nap then?
Any use considering that maybe the author is autistic and maybe you might consider not running around in the world thinking you’re the authority on how neurodivergence should or shouldn’t be discussed? Good grief.
It's true, I AM literally retarded!
How is it that you can go through life this fucking retarded?