Stephanie M.

Stephanie M.

I'm a content writer and novelist who loves books, writing, theater, and my cat. I have published two novels and traveled to London and Paris.

Correspondent II

  • Plebian Penman
  • Common Writer
  • Aristocratic Author
  • Lurker
  • Pssst
  • Hand Raiser
  • Vocal
  • Outspoken
  • Extrovert
  • Sharp-Eyed Citizen
  • Town Watch
  • Detective Deskman
  • Penman Patrol
  • Actor
  • Successful Pilot
  • Animator
  • Well Read
  • Article of the Month
  • ?
  • Articles
    18
  • Featured
    14
  • Comments
    303
  • Ext. Comments
    172
  • Processed
    76
  • Revisions
    73
  • Topics
    38
  • Topics Taken
    5
  • Notes
    154
  • Topics Proc.
    36
  • Topics Rev.
    5
  • Points
    4700
  • Rank
    9
  • Score
    3150

    Latest Articles

    Animation
    75
    TV
    58
    Literature
    31
    Film
    49
    Film
    70
    Writing
    47
    Animation
    53
    Literature
    52

    Latest Topics

    5

    Should Conventional Theater Change to Accommodate Diverse Actors?

    Musical theater is a huge and well-loved medium, and in recent years has given us some cutting-edge hits (Legally Blonde, Wicked, Dear Evan Hansen, Hamilton, etc.) Yet there are some accepted "rules" of theater culture that still feel like stereotypes or "boxing in" actors. For instance: sopranos get the leads; mezzos and altos play "witches and britches." Tenors play romantic leads; basses play villains. Actresses past the age of 30 can expect to play mothers and grandmothers, but not love interests for their own sake. If you are a white male, you cannot convincingly play a male or female of any color (although I have conversely seen white women tapped to play WOCs). Actors with disabilities can only really expect casting in disabled roles.

    Most theater aficionados will tell you there are solid reasons behind this thinking, even truth. Then again, in 2019, should conventional theater change more to suit the needs and desires of actors? Could or should a musical be written to give an ingenue role to an alto or a hero role to a bass? Is it pushing the envelope to allow actors of certain orientations to play outside of them, or for a white actor to play a POC (outside of a historical context)? In short, what would and should truly "diverse," "inclusive" theater look like?

    • I think that, in some respects, it's easier for theatre to accommodate diversity than other media because, moreso than in any other medium, any actor who's qualified can take a particular role regardless of race, gender, or background. This is especially true of school performances, which have to work with the available students. I've seen a rendition of one of Shakespeare's history plays that featured Black actors, for example; and on YouTube I've found versions of Little Shop of Horrors where Seymour was biracial and the dentist was Asian. I've even found a theatrical version of the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape was played (really expertly, I might add) by a woman. – Debs 6 months ago
      0
    • Hi, Debs,That sounds really cool. I'm glad your theater experience was more inclusive than mine. My schools (high and college) had GREAT theater programs I so wanted to be a part of. But, esp. in the case of my high school director, I was not given that chance and I think it was because of cerebral palsy (couldn't prove it, and if I'd said something it would've been, "Oh, you just think everybody's picking on you.") But the truth was, even after calling my acting phenomenal on more than one occasion, that director in particular would only assign me chorus or walk-on roles. The justification was, "Well, the leads have to dance," but chorus lines are basically there to *dance*, at least in my productions. There were other examples of non-diversity there too, such as the lead *always* went to a first soprano--and the year it went to a mezzo, of course, I wasn't in the running. But, this director was *also* willing to cast a white girl as a Hispanic lead (but not a girl of color as a white lead) ??????Anyway, it's only been recently that I realized the full lack of inclusivity and diversity in the world at large and the theater world, so...there you go. Again, we need more stories like yours. – Stephanie M. 6 months ago
      1
    3
    Locked

    Toxic Love in Literature

    Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. Catherine and Heathcliff. Lily Evans and Severus Snape. Besides the obvious examples of unhealthy relationships in literature, there are also some that are commonly contested, like Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy or Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. Despite the toxicity of these relationships though, and despite the fact that from a twenty-first century mindset, they could be called manipulative or abusive, people still love them. People still read the stories of these characters and enjoy them.

    Do toxic relationships in literature have a particular pull? If so, what is it? What makes a relationship toxic, and are any of these, or others, redeemable? Is the woman always the "victim," or can men be victimized by toxicity as well? Are toxic relationships more "accepted" with white couples (you’ll notice none of these examples contain people of color or minorities)? Why is that? What about LGBTQ examples? Discuss.

    • I feel like it's in large measure of the potential for abusive relationships to function as narcissist's fantasies, even regardless of gender. For example, in a story like Twilight a woman gets to imagine herself being the object of affections of a man who's so infatuated with her he's willing to cater to her every desire (even if he also treats her quite badly). Whereas men get to fantasize about having a weak, passive woman who loves having them in control and being their willing slave. Part of it might also be that some people really are so desperate for a partner that they're willing to do anything for one, no matter how degrading. – Debs 3 months ago
      2
    • I should also add that, if anything, I think toxic relationships are more common in media with LGBT characters than without them, and that a big part of this is that something that anyone could recognize as creepy and awful if a man were doing it to a woman (i.e., rape, kidnapping, etc.), is more likely to be perceived as not that bad when it's a man doing it to another man, or a woman doing it to another woman. – Debs 3 months ago
      2
    Taken by hilalbahcetepe (PM) 1 month ago.
    3

    The Phenomenon of the Unlikable Female Lead

    Scarlett O’Hara is a selfish, stereotypical Southern belle. Julianne Potter (My Best Friend’s Wedding) made multiple attempts to break up a happy relationship out of a belief her best friend "belonged" to her. Emma Woodhouse could be considered on the fence, because while she is charming and engaging, she does meddle in others’ lives constantly, and looks down on those she considers "beneath" her.

    These are only a few examples of the unlikable female lead, in literature, film, and other mediums. These women are not inherently evil, but they are self-absorbed, gossipy, backstabbing, and at times downright narcissistic. Yet…a lot of people like them. Why? Is there a "happy medium" between perfect, Mary Sue women and evil women, and have these or other characters found it? Discuss this, as well as whether the unlikable female lead does female representation more harm than good overall.

    • As someone who studied the Mary Sue phenomenon in comparing why certain female characters are adored while others are ignored, I would like to share my findings.Female characters, like other characters are nothing more than projections of society's fantasies of what it means to be a "cool", "strong" and "powerful" woman. It may seem twisted, but if the female character is an extension of the male character, and is constantly influenced by feminist ideals, these are the type of women are portrayed. – Amelia Arrows 3 months ago
      3
    • I feel like this isn't really a uniquely female problem--there are plenty of obnoxious, self-absorbed, horrible male leads too. If anything, the problem is that society is more accepting of this kind of behavior in men than in women, so these male leads get a pass. – Debs 2 months ago
      1
    • And that in itself could warrant an entire, separate article. – Stephanie M. 2 months ago
      1
    • I think it's very important to mention Elaine Benes (Julia Louis Dreyfus) from Seinfeld here. She was arguably the first "unlikable" female character on US television. She was hilarious, witty, smart, independent, successful, yet extremely cynical, self-absorbed, blunt and occasionally downright mean. I think what made her character appeal to so many was how she came across as someone extremely "regular", someone you'd know in real life or run into on the streets. As opposed to other female leads on other shows that aired along with Seinfeld, she was decidedly more "human" and realistic, in contrast to the "beautiful and shallow" Rachel Green or the "clean freak" Monica Geller from Friends, for example. Elaine was known primarily for her acerbic sense of humour and general zaniness, while Rachel and Monica, I would argue, were better known for being "perfect" girls with quirks that made them funny.I think Larry David, in one of his interviews, talked about how the writing team on the show saw Elaine as "one of the men".And if anything, I think this portrayal of women in the media is nothing but a positive example, as it calls for the audience to look at women as funny, intelligent and relatable for a change, instead of viewing women as just "pretty" and quirky, though I think there dies need to be a balance: excessive portrayal of women in this direction could definitely cause potential harm. – Aniruddha 7 days ago
      1
    5

    The Allure of the Strange and Unusual at Human Expense

    Centuries ago, people who were "different" in any way–those with visible disabilities, facial deformities or marks, extreme obesity, or other conditions–often found "employment" in circuses and sideshows. They were ridiculed as freaks and shut out from society, and we now look back at their plights as an ultimate example of humanity’s inhumanity. We say we are too well-informed, too "politically correct," to parade people around for entertainment any longer.

    Yet, we also have reality television. These days, the "freak show" looks more like documentaries chronicling the lives of little people, large fundamentalist families, people who have broken away from extreme forms of religion or cults, and yes, the extremely obese or thin again. We also have documentaries that place miserably failing restaurants, hotels, and other businesses on display, mostly so the hosts can be lauded for saving them and the business owners, who are implicitly understood to be careless or stupid.

    Some reality shows are much gentler than others, doing their best to present their subjects with dignity and as real, three-dimensional people. Discouragingly though, the shows that seem to pull in the ratings and the viewers are the same ones that invite viewers to gawk and ridicule.

    Why is this? Is the nature of reality TV itself to present the most unusual of humanity at people’s expense–that is, is there nothing to be done about it? What does it say about us as humans that we continue to consume and enjoy this entertainment? Discuss.

    Some examples you might use:

    -The filthiest and most rundown establishments on Hotel Impossible or Restaurant " "
    -The shower scenes of My 600-Lb Life, which viewers and reviewers often call "the obligatory shower scene" (they’re often part of drinking games)
    -The most extreme or scary-looking cults in documentaries
    -The controversy and scandal surrounding the Duggar family, including the marriages of grown daughters and resulting spin-off series
    -Places featured on documentaries like Most Terrifying Places in America, Ghost Adventures, etc.

    • As someone born with disabilities, and was going to see how how the disabled are portrayed in books and films, i support this topic! On Facebook and many channels on Youtube post these outlandish stories about the unusual or disabled people and ending the story with no possitive outcome. We are then to only feel pity for them before we move on and click on another video showing the same type of content with giving a couple hearts and crying emojis to show our support.– Amelia Arrows 3 months ago
      3
    • Good topic. I was expecting mention of Hoarders! I'm not sure that the final item in the list at the end of your topic -- about Most Terrifying Places in America and Ghost Adventures -- fit with the other items in the list. The supernatural seems to me like a very different topic. – JamesBKelley 3 months ago
      2
    • Hoarders, yes. :) The paranormal stuff probably doesn't fit, on reflection. I included it because, depending on how people feel about the paranormal, they might malign believers as strange and "haunted" places as gimmick-y or places "normal" people shouldn't be. But yes, Hoarders or Hoarding: Buried Alive would fit much better. – Stephanie M. 3 months ago
      3
    • I really like this topic! There's something about society's fascination with the "other" and how we tend to interact with it in a one-sided relationship -- think circus freak shows. How have reality tv shows and things like YouTube broadened our awareness of the "other" and what work does it do to embrace the "other" into society, or otherwise ostracize it further? Should the focus be on integration/assimilation into society, or can folks with disabilities/abilities be more celebrated for creating their own communities? How can able-bodied people respect these marginalized groups? I'm super interested in this topic, and I would eagerly read a piece about it it. – Eden 3 months ago
      1
    6

    Real People, Film Portrayals, and Responsibility

    Most actors spend their careers playing fictional characters. However, many actors are chosen to star in biopics, Biblical epics, or similar films at least once. When an actor makes the switch from playing a character to portraying a real person, the gravitas factor goes through the roof, and while most actors will try to play real people respectfully and responsibly, there are some who arguably do it "better" than others. Just for one example, look at the many actors who have played Jesus Christ over the years.

    In your opinion, what does it take to play a certain real role responsibly and respectfully? How much of a production team’s choice is based on "casting type" and how much is based on say, personality or lived experience? What are some of the best biopic portrayals you’ve seen, of whom and by whom, and why? Discuss.

    • An example of Jesus Christ would be Robert Powell from Jesus of Nazareth. He is so committed in his role that 99% of the time he does not blink. Of course, his line delivery is convincing. In fact, whenever I think of a live-action Jesus now, I think of Powell's performance. To play a real role responsibly and respectfully, you would need to study that character's life and habits and replicate them to the best of your abilities. Experience in, say, boxing would help if you are playing Muhammad Ali, and having an authentic accent would help if you are playing someone of another race. A good example of how Hollywood casting ruined a character (and actually disgruntled her real-life counterpart) is Ingrid Bergman as Gladys Aylward in The Inn of the Sixth Happiness. The look was wrong (Gladys had dark hair and was short), the accent was wrong (she had a Cockney accent), and her story was portrayed inaccurately (most of the details were correct, but Hollywood added a love story). Maybe include a rant of sorts of how Hollywood likes to add (or used to add) unnecessary love stories, even if there was no hard evidence for it in real life. – OkaNaimo0819 6 months ago
      4
    • This is an amazing topic! I wonder if the responsibilities change depending on the fact that the character of portrayal is still alive or not.As great as both movies were, Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman, I have to admit that I was more invested in Rami Malek's performance as Mercury as opposed to Egerton's because I knew that Elton John is still around. – kpfong83 6 months ago
      0
    • I think it takes a lot of research, first and foremost as well as passion to get to understand the person you're portraying to such a level where you almost morph into them. Recently I really loved Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly in Stan & Ollie, particularly Coogan, who went beyond the well-known image of Stan. He could have played him as a caricature. Instead he made him human and relatable to the point where, even though we don't know that much about Stanley Laurel as a person beyond his performances, we believe him to have been as sensitive and complex as he was portrayed by Steve Coogan. On the other hand we have Renee Zellweger, who although did her research very well, didn't go beyond the caricature level. I know I'm in minority when I say this, given all the accolades, but I wasn't as invested in her Judy as I wished I could have been. I wanted to sympathise with her, instead I found myself noticing the pout and the way she talked thinking "okay, she studied her quite a lot". – danivilu 3 months ago
      0
    3

    Recreating the Beauty of Saving Mr. Banks

    Saving Mr. Banks (2013) was something of a groundbreaking film for Disney. The company had done films based on true stories before, but Saving Mr. Banks was the first to juxtapose the story of a Disney classic’s making with the story of the original work’s author. Saving Mr. Banks met with critical acclaim and is also one of my favorites in the canon. In fact, I’d very much like to see more films like this.

    Do other films in the canon, live-action or animation, lend itself to this type of storytelling? Would actors or viewers be interested in say, learning about the personal lives and struggles behind the makings of Disney’s Golden, Bronze, or Renaissance films? Are there untold stories to be mined from animators (e.g,, Walt’s Nine Old Men, female animators, etc.) and other production staff/voice actors? Discuss.

      1

      Sorting Quizzes: Why Do We Like Them So Much?

      Potterheads enjoy asking each other which Houses they’re from, and once you become a Potterhead, one of the first things you want to do (at least in personal experience) is get formally Sorted via a well thought-out quiz or app. It’s not uncommon to go on social media and find people sorting their favorite media characters into Houses, putting HP Next Generation characters into Houses through fanon, and debating the traits of certain Houses and how they are or are not represented. (I myself am a proud supporter of Slytherin House redemption).

      But, why all the fuss over this little bit of HP canon? Why do people get sorted over and over again, identify with more than one House, and so on? Several reasons worth exploring exist. For one, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are just sort of "there," while Gryffindor and Slytherin get all the attention. House Sortings are the closest we’re probably going to get to a "real" Hogwarts if we can’t afford trips to Orlando. Sortings help us craft new, fantasy-based identities that may help us handle some real-world problems to a degree. We might be looking for a "perfect" Sorting experience that hasn’t been achieved yet.

      Is it all of this? None? Are there facets not yet considered? Discuss.

      • I feel like it stems from a desire to understand yourself at a deeper level. The premise of the series is that the Hogwarts house you belong to is supposed to tell you something about yourself, even if it isn't always immediately obvious what, as well as surround you with a community of (more or less) like-minded individuals. People like this idea, and so they try to find ways to make it work for them. – Debs 6 months ago
        2
      • I believe that people are eager to sort themselves into houses, because they want to belong to something. Millions of people are in love with the Harry Potter universe, because they prefer it to their own reality. Classifying oneself as Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin, or Hufflepuff allows people to identify with something that is greater than themselves. It acts a method of justification for their personalities, and people want to feel that it separates them from others. – nicolemadison 6 months ago
        2
      • To add on, I personally felt really validated and felt like I could finally accept my personality better while growing up. For example, before I became a Potterhead, I was almost embarrassed to be a smooth talker and that I could switch around my words well enough to sound really manipulative, even though it was not in my intention to be like that. However, after being sorted into Slytherin, I began to feel proud and truly understand that it wasn't a bad thing after all. I really owe it to the Sorting Hat for that one. – Dorothy 6 months ago
        1
      • Robert Caialdini author of Pre- suasion talk about how people need to have questions answered and will give there attention to topics which propose one in order to find out the burning question of why, this sounds like good topic to explore – Gkcopy161 6 months ago
        0
      2

      The Explosion of WWII Women's Fiction

      My most recent Artifice article was about the feminine spirit in Holocaust-centered YA literature, and I enjoyed every minute of prepping and writing it. I also enjoy Holocaust-based fiction (in small doses) because it so often focuses on heroism and brutality in real, thought-provoking ways. The stakes are already built in and a lot of times, couldn’t be better.

      But then I had a thought. Lilac Girls, The Guernsey Potato Peel and Literary Society, Lost Roses, The Girl in the Blue Coat, Flight Girls…there is a LOT of WWII women’s fiction around these days, not all Holocaust-based. And I wonder, what is it about this sub-category that is or has become so compelling? Are other women in other time periods as compelling, and what could authors explore to give them their due? Have writers overused this category or are there more stories to be explored?

      • Wonder Woman 2017 is one other, though not the same time period but definitely a precursor in that regard. (And I suppose, Linda Hamilton in the hypothetical.) – L:Freire 6 months ago
        0
      • I think it's because women became more independent during this time. They took over men's jobs in the factories, joined the army as pilots, and even acted as spies or saboteurs. There is a wealth of possible stories just from this period. I don't think it's overused yet. It's close, but not quite. However, World War I women could also be explored, particularly those in the Red Cross, as well as the 1920s. (These periods particularly interest me.) – OkaNaimo0819 6 months ago
        0

      Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

      Latest Comments

      Stephanie M.

      Yes, I’m sure that drinking game would leave me completely blitzed. Also, I have noticed the poor grammar. A lot of the contributors come from the Deep South, which might explain things but also exacerbates the stereotype that all Southerners are less intelligent than most people. The whole thing is intensely frustrating, especially if you are or ever were in the English language, literature, or education fields.

      'My 600-Lb Life': Dead Weight TLC Should Shed?
      Stephanie M.

      I would love an authentic African princess. Again, can’t speak to it personally, but I’m absolutely sure people of African descent in any country get sick of being associated primarily with slavery and colonialism. I’d also like to see such a princess with deep, dark skin tones and her hair down, drawn in an authentic, textured fashion. (For example, the only place I’ve ever seen Tiana with her hair down is in fan art. She looks AMAZING with her hair completely down, and I wish Disney had taken advantage of that).

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative
      Stephanie M.

      You have a good point there. They totally made up Pocahontas’ entire story, which, I kind of understand that, but I think it’s way too romanticized. As for Jasmine, Moana, etc., I see now that they took the easy way out. I think Disney is afraid of exploring non-Caucasian cultures for any number of reasons, and that fear is translating into a new generation of xenophobia.

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative
      Stephanie M.

      I agree, and it’s a bit of an “ouch” in a good way. I’m working on a dystopian novel where the protagonist is legally blind. She’s also Caucasian (because I want to focus on disability as a minority and her journey to live in the world with one). But one of her mentor figures, so to speak, is a WOC, and a very dark young woman at that (late teens). I’m trying not to focus on it since (A) My MC wouldn’t see it or really care and (B) I’m not a POC and don’t want to get anything “wrong.” But do you think I should say some more about that? What would be your thoughts on showing this person as an authentic WOC?

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative
      Stephanie M.

      The only black doll I ever had was American Girl’s Addy (in the mid ’90s). My parents never said I couldn’t have them, but I guess it just never occurred to me that white girls could play with dolls of color. Looking back now, I wish I had. I actually find dolls of color more attractive than white ones now.

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative
      Stephanie M.

      Yes, there is a distinct line between fiction and nonfiction, and there is no such thing as politically correct history. The goal of this article and others like it is, I think, not to identify directly with characters so much as analyze what they *can* contribute and teach.

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative
      Stephanie M.

      Esmeralda is a favorite of mine, too. She’s in my top five Disney princesses or honoraries. I’d love to see a live-action actress tackle the Disney iteration of the role, although I question whether it would be done justice. My concern would be that, as with Jasmine, she’d be played by a mixed-race actress who looks white, thus appeasing the majority. My other, somewhat more pressing concern is that she’d be played flat and like a distressed damsel in the name of toning her down.

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative
      Stephanie M.

      Good point there. I’d certainly be upset if they finally gave us a princess with a disability, only to turn her into a bird or cat or something. Or worse, cure her in the third act.

      How Princesses of Color Have Improved the Disney Princess Narrative