The Wee Writing Lassie’s Top Fourteen Odd Characters from Gilmore Girls: The Nineth Character

It may not seem like it at first, but Mrs Kim is kind of awesome.

Mrs. Kim

The strict, Uber Christian, rock and roll banning mother of the best friend of the second main character is not someone you would ever think of as being totally awesome, but that’s Gilmore Girls for you. Even the most tired, or over used character archetype is breathed fresh life into. Granted when she first steps onto the scene she is not cool or awesome at all, in fact her strict control of Lane could even be called abusive. And it’s not until Lane is kicked out of the house, and moves in with her bandmates that Mrs Kim is forced to grapple with the idea that if she doesn’t bend just a little, she will lose her daughter for good.

She doesn’t become nice, but over the course of the later seasons of Gilmore Girls she dose start to show support to her daughter and the things and people that are important to her in her own pushy, demanding way. The biggest one being when she arranges tour for her daughter’s band round different churches when it looks like they’re flagging and losing momentum. Pretty big leap from throwing said same daughter out of your house for just liking the wrong kind of music. Let’s hear it for character growth.

If you’ve enjoyed this wee post remember to follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t already. Also check me out on X, Goodreads, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, Spotify, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Kofi. And remember to subscribe to the Wee Mailing List before the end of the month to discover the Top Odd Character of Gilmore Girls. Until next time, stay safe and have an excellent day.

The Wee Writing Lassie’s Top Fourteen Odd Characters from Gilmore Girls: The Tenth Character

My favourite Patty moment is when, not two seconds after meeting him, Patty hits on Richard.

Miss Patty

The Dance Teacher of Stars Hollow, much like Taylor Patty seems to be involved in a surprising amount of Town meetings and events. Grants that’s probably mostly because they use her Dance School to host the Town Meetings, but still. Given her saucy, and sometimes outrageous attitude you’d think she and Taylor would have absolutely nothing in common. But that just goes to show, you can’t always judge the Dance Teacher by her sex obsession.

The Wee Writing Lassie’s Top Fourteen Odd Characters from Gilmore Girls: The Twelfth Character

Ain’t no one does “Bitch” like a Gilmore.

Lorelai “Trix” Gilmore

The Reigning Lorelai of the Gilmore clan until her untimely death during the original run of the series. She is the true enemy of her daughter in law and practically a stranger to her granddaughter , and great granddaughter. And yet she is particularly close to her son – Richard Gilmore – who refers to her lovingly as ‘Trix’. How big of a bitch is Trix? Well, put this is perspective she makes Emily look mellow.

The Wee Writing Lassie’s Top Fourteen Odd Characters from Gilmore Girls: The Thirteenth Character

I’ll be honest if this were a more selective list, this guy would probably not have made the cut off – but that’s not the choice I made, and that’s not the world we live in now. So onward we must go.

Taylor Doose

I’ll be honest I often feel a bit sorry for Taylor Doose – I mean no one in town likes him at all. He looses by a land slide in favour of Jackson – a character who I think so little of that he’s one of the few that actually didn’t make the cut on this very extensive list of characters ; in most towns meetings he’s usually the butt of the joke; and even his own family can’t really hide their contempt for him. And yet, perhaps because of how little people think of hi,, Taylor is actually a man who it’s very dangerous to underestimate. He’s arguably the most powerful man in Stars Hollow – not just from his role as selectmen, but because he basically owns all of it.

And while he usually plays the villain to Lorelai and or Luke’s escapades, when we take a step back we might come to see that in fact, Taylor is not an evil man at his heart. And in fact many of the festivals, and activities he plans for the town are usually intended to make money for the town. To build something for the town. Granted sometimes he’s just doing it to make money for his own business, but we’re a capitalist society since when did that become something we automatically shame. You can’t have it both ways, eventually you gotta pick a lane.

The Wee Writing Lassie’s Top Fourteen Odd Characters from Gilmore Girls: The Fourteenth Character

What Ho, Wee Readers and welcome to my newest Blog series The Wee Writing Lassie’s Top Fourteen Odd Characters from Gilmore Girls. Can anyone tell what franchise I’m currently fixated on? Okay, most of you will probably already know how this goes by now – for the next thirteen days I will release one blog post a day, and at the end of the month I will reveal my top choice in my newsletter. I would recommend signing up to that now, to not be left hanging on that front. This series is a little longer than my usual stuff, mainly because there were so many characters to choose from and I didn’t really see the point of limiting myself to just seven.

In fact, I actually split the original planned blog series into three separate series’s – which is why you will not be seeing the likes of a Lorelai Gilmore or a Luke Danes on this particular blog series, as they’ve made it into their own lists respectively. So if you don’t see a character you think should have a place on this list, don’t panic – there’s still a chance they’re showing up later, just not in this month’s series.

With that out of the way, let’s all breath deeply and dive on it.

Sophie Bloom

We’re starting our delve into the weird and wacky world of Gilmore Girls with a very minor character. Her name is Sophie Bloom and she owns the local music shop. Beyond her occasional interaction with Lane and the other members of Hep Alien, there’s really not a whole much to say about her. Which is probably why she’s so low down on this list. In fact she may not have made it at all if it wasn’t for the woman she’s played by – may I introduce you to Carole King. Singer and Songwriter behind the Gilmore Girls Theme song, ‘Where you Lead’. Which when you listen to it after you’ve watched the revival and heard those promised ‘four last words’, starts to sound almost like a direct inspiration for the show.

The Wee Archive: Morality and the Afterlife: or the Narrative Shakiness of a fixed Moral centre in CBS’ Ghosts – The Conclusion

And now we come to our final conclusion, where like all good writers, theories, and essays before me I must lay out my conclusions for all to see. And yet I feel that the argument has already been said.

In my first post I laid out not only my intention for this blog series, but also established the disturbing changes to the story that came through the simple act of writers trying to fill out their expanded episode run. An argument therefore could be made that when introducing the concepts of ‘hell’ and heaven’ as real places that defiantly exist, into the lore of the show little thought was given to the implications of that particular form of afterlife being made the real one. Particularly when there were characters who were not Christen in life.

In my second post however, one could say I lambasted this theory of thoughtlessness by examining the character of Thorfinn – a Viking raider that died by being hit by a bolt of lightning – and his role as the ‘scapegoat’ or ‘the one who is always in the wrong’ within the series. Although it is still unlikely that the writers of Ghosts CBS, are extolling the virtues of a Christian faith, as actually being a baptised Christian is never once mentioned as a possible requirement for being ‘sucked off’. Instead what we seemed to be seeing are the lingering effects of Christianity upon the afterlife depiction of American pop culture that still wishes to distance itself from the complication of religion in general. Wherein it is not vital to have been a Christian in life to get into ‘Heaven’ so long as you were a good person – but a ‘good person’ as defined by whatever the value system of America at the time. I am not saying that shows depicting the afterlife made in countries outside the US do not do this as well, merely that as Ghosts CBS is a very American show, it would naturally use the current American values, or at least a specific set of American values, as what defines a good person. And as Thorfinn is the character most stark opposed to the level of bland niceness held up by the character deemed ‘the moral centre of the show’ it is only logical that he would become the punching bag of the writers.

This was highlighted to an even greater degree when we dissected the chosen heart of the show – Scoutmaster Pete. Who while certainly not an inherently evil man, was more than capable of displaying his own cruelty and hard heartedness towards his fellow ghosts. Which in a vacuumed would be fine, every character needs at least one flaw, but the fact that this goes entirely unmentioned by the narrative implies that the writers aren’t even aware that they gave him this flaw at all. And therefore it’s really hard to swallow when he starts lecturing both the audience and the other ghosts on the writers chosen moral of the week. And this was a shame as the BBC version of Ghosts showed, characters like Pete could be interesting and provide top quality story opportunities when you allowed them to acknowledge their flaws, instead of holding them up on some kind of pedestal which any character, even the most virtuous is going to enviably fall from, even if it’s without the writer’s consent.

And in our two final posts we delved into the disrespect this handholding, and over explaining of almost everything – but particularly, and most annoyingly the chosen “morals” of the episode shows towards the audience. The writers don’t trust that we are able to pick up on their moralising from the actual story they’re telling, but rather have to pause the action midway through so Pete or sometimes Sam can give a little speech on what we’re supposed to be taking away from this. And how when a writer disrespects the audience so throughly it naturally translates to disrespect for the characters as well.

So, what have we taken away from this? Well, I hate Pete. But more than that, I think we can safely say all this certainly demonstrates the dangers of trying too hard doesn’t it? Strictly speaking most of the the audience will already have the “modern” values the show is espousing down flat before they watch a single episode. No one particularly thinks pillaging is a good idea anymore, or that you should hire children to work in your factories. And as for the morals they actually bother to have a character lecture you on, well it just speaks to the writers insecurities in their own work. Ultimately when you have to be that blatant, to the point that you actually have a heaven and hell to send the characters off to depending on what side they took on your argument, how well did you actually show that argument in the first place? It becomes even shakier when the morals you are apparently espousing as right are actually disgusting, or morally flawed themselves.

Ultimately what I feel we’ve learned here is when it comes to assigning a set moral centre in your ghosts sitcoms ,starring people from a wide variation of different times and cultures, the best and easiest course is just not to.

If you’ve enjoyed this post, and would like to see others like it as soon as they come out, remember to follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t already. And hop on over to X, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, TikTok, Youtube, Goodreads, Kofi , Spotify, and Facebook where I am also active. Until next time Wee Readers, stay safe and happy, and have a very bonnie day.

A Defence of the Jurassic World Films : a literary message rediscovered

What Ho wee readers, and welcome to the newest post of the Wee Writing Lassie. You know what’s a wonderful feeling, watching a film – or in this case a series of films – that you had previously written off as stupid, or dumb, or ‘not as good as the originals’, and discovering that not only were you really wrong with that assessment, but that these seemingly dumb movies have actually reached a depth a nuance that before only existed in the original source material. No, too specific an example to be relevant to anyone but myself? Oh well, at least I’m writing the post.

To clarify, recently I have had the pleasure of rewatching all of the films in the Jurassic Franchise. And I found something absolutely remarkable, the newer films – the Chris Pratt films as they’re called within my family – are better. And no, I’m not just talking compared with with the second and third Jurassic Park films, which everyone can sort of agree where lack lustred additions to the franchise – I’m talking about the original film as well. Yes, yes, I know, the horror, the horror, but I’m not saying that it was a bad film; I’m not actually even saying it was bad compared to the newer films. What I really mean is that when you look back to the original book ‘Jurassic Park’ by Michael Crichton, and the deeper messages it was trying to convey – the danger of corporate sponsorship of science, and the horrors that can be unleashed by genetic engineering done for the pure pursuit of profit – between the two film trilogies , it’s the newer one that actually convey those messages.

Okay, let’s take a step back here, all the way back to 1990 in fact – to when Michael Crichton published his grim prediction of what science working for profit and profit alone, could be capable of. And he called this, harrowing story of genetic engineering gone wrong – Jurassic Park. You know the basic story already: very rich man decides he wants to make an amusement part like no other, an amusement park filled with Dinosaurs. But things start to go slightly wrong because the Dinosaurs are proving a little too dangerous for his people to handle, his investors get very anxious and so they demand that he have experts look over the park before it’s allowed to open for the public. Experts come in, are shocked and awed by the dinosaurs – all seems to be going well for our rich man, then a storm hits, the lights go out and shit, as the expression goes, hits the fan.

That sounds about right, doesn’t it? That’s the basic plot for both the original book and the first film anyway. I never said it got everything wrong, it’s just some of the details were lost in adaptation. But the devil, as the saying goes, is found in the details. One of the first thing that is changed, or cut out in the transition from page to screen is the level of control, that Hammond and his employees have lost over the dinosaurs even before the storm hits. In the film one employee has been killed by a raptor who didn’t even get out of its box-cage, and some of the dinosaurs have started to breed despite the fact they should all be female. That’s about it, and then a greedy and ungrateful employee shuts off the power to the island, and everything goes down hill from there. In the books … the dinosaurs haven’t just been breeding without Hammond’s team’s knowledge, they’ve been escaping the island. Granted, only the smaller dinosaurs so far – but seeing as our main characters spot several juvenile raptors escaping on a boat leaving the island before the storm hit, I’m guess it won’t be too long before the others follow.

Another thing the film changes from the book is Hammond himself – in the film he’s a cuddly old man, who truly wants to make something wonderful and real for all the children of the world, not just the rich ones. And when it becomes apparent how dangerous the park he’s created actually is, he agrees that it’s something that should be shut down.

In the book he’s out to make money, pure and simple – he only listens to the trained experts he’s hired to run and build his park when they’re telling him what he wants to here, never admits the park was a bad idea from concept and does everything possible – in mental gymnastics – to avoid taking responsibility for it. And oh yes, was completely planning on making another one of them if he ever escaped the park – which thankfully in the book he doesn’t. Nope, he falls down a hill after getting spooked by a fake dinosaur noise and breaks his ankle. Then he gets eaten by tiny dinosaurs.

Hmm, an old millionaire capitalist who instead of learning and being humbled from his mistakes, and trying to fix them later in in his life, instead doubles down on them and dies in a humiliating way? Well, doesn’t that sound familiar. Don’t get me wrong, Attomburgh’s performance – he was a star, but the Hammond of the Book wasn’t meant to be a star, he was meant to be a Hate Sink. There was nothing redeemable about him, nothing cute or grandfatherly – he was a monster, as big a monster as the dinosaurs he helped create. An unnatural creature was this late stage capitalist typhoon, a beast not worthy of pity or mercy … but something that must be killed, that must die if life, or at least human existence, has a hope of continuing.

I’m not trying to call for the heads of all late stage Capitalist millionaires, or the CEOS of our biggest money making monoliths – before anyone mistakes that last bit of poetry for a call to arms. Rather, what I’m saying is that after reading it – that appears to be what the book is trying to convey, if maybe not in those exact words. It’s an anti capitalist, anti Science for profit book and while the film has hints of that, the true depth of that message, and how obvious it really is – is lost under the spectacle of the Dinosaurs. Because that’s what the first film is it’s a spectre thing – ooh look at the pretty dinosaurs, look at how sharp their teeth are, look run away they’re trying to eat you. Let’s not think too deeply on the endeavours and the process that brought these horrors to life, don’t look at the man behind the curtain – he’s only cuddly old Attenborough anyway. No, need to worry about the future, or think what other horrors science – and biological science in particular- will bring if conducted only for profit.

And all the Jurassic Park films work this way, I might add. Oh the second one tries to have a deeper message of animal conservation, but it still ends with a t-rex roaming the streets of New York City, like a modern day scaly King Kong. And the third one even has the gall to show a picture of pterodactyls flying towards the main land, like it s a whimsical magical thing we should stand in awe of – rather then what it actually is, the beginning of another horror film.

This is a problem that the Jurassic World Trilogy manages to side step entirely. Mainly because it’s first film – Jurassic World – begins from the starting premise: ‘What if Jurassic Park Opened, and people got bored of Dinosaurs?’ This works on both a story and a meta level, because, no, there’s nothing exciting about seeing dinosaurs on the screen anymore. We were well into the age of CGI, and pretty good CGI, by the time Jurassic World came along – so it was no longer enough to just put a dinosaur on the screen to captivate an audience. You had to try harder, make it bigger, make it more exciting – which is exactly what the scientists at Jurassic World were told to do when they made the Abominable Rex. “I believe the word you used was, ‘cooler’, in your note.” – Says Henry Wu to the owner of the park, when he’s confronted with the results of his mad science. And this new dinosaur is a creature of mad science, no, no, it’s a creature of for profit science. Wu and his team were told to make an attraction that was bigger, cooler, that had a name that was easy to pronounce: and so they smashed together different DNA, and what they made was an actual monster. A creature that kills, not because as a large predator it needs to eat, but because it finds it fun. Which means it’s killing a heck of lot quicker, and more, than any other predator on the island would.

And the Second Film – Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom – continues this theme by introducing another genetically made Dinosaur monster, but this one was specifically designed to be sent into war zones as a weapon. And the villains are selling it, along with the rest of the dinosaurs they could get out of the now defunct’Jurassic World’ before it was destroyed by a volcano – it makes sense in context – to the highest bidder. No longer any bullshit about ‘bringing joy to children’ by these money men, their motivation is laid out naked for the audience to see. Money, dear boy, money. And the devastation this of this for profit science is no longer contained to a single amusement park – oh no, for you see the Dinosaurs get out. Mainly because our heroes let them out – but still!

Which brings us to the last, and by far the best of the trilogy: Jurassic World Dominion.

Dinosaurs live amongst us! This is the reality, the world, that our for profit science has wrought, now we have to live in it. It could have stopped at that: Dinosaurs running rampant all over the world, and humans have to do what they have to, to survive against the horrors their own science has wrought upon them. That would have been a pretty good film, by itself, a pretty good ending to the trilogy but Dominion, goes two steps beyond. You see, society hasn’t ended with the introduction of man-made dinosaurs – it’s adjusted. People illegally farm them for pets and meat, they train them for the military, they throw them in cages and make them fight in underground tournaments. Giant herbivore dinosaur wonder into lumber yards and have to be shooed out by experts, they roam the wilds in great herds and have to be caroused away from danger by Cris Pratt. And most frighteningly at all, none of this has been the wake up call for the corporate world to stop its bullshit with biological science.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d like to introduce Dr. Lewisham Doderson, a man who Wikipedia claims is the main antagonist from both Jurassic world novels as well as the first film. Erm, I can’t speak for the second novel but as for the first – while he does set some of the shenanigans into play, it’s really the dinosaurs themselves who are the main antagonists. However, he’s certainly the main antagonist of Jurassic World Dominion, and it is he who far more resembles the book Hammond, than anything Richard Attenborough ever touched.

He’s out to make money, just like he was in the original film – though he’s played by a different actor this time round – but he’s not going to do it by making dinosaurs, please we’ve already got a planet full of those. No, this time he’s ordering Wu to make him locusts, locusts that attack any crop that hasn’t been grown from his own biologically engineered seeds. And he hides all this research, along with a now throughly broken Wu, under a sanctuary for the dinosaurs.

The lesson here?

Trust no one – especially giant corporations who’s main purpose is reaching their bottom line.

If you’ve enjoyed this surprisingly anti capitalist rant – I’m not personally against money, or even capitalism as a concept, but like the biological science of the Jurassic franchise it’s a terrible destructive force in the wrongs hands – why not follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t done so yet. Also check me out on X, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Spotify, Tumblr, TikTok, YouTube, Goodreads, Facebook and Kofi. Also if you wish to discover which Jurassic World Beast is the best subscribe to the Wee Mailing List before the end of the Month. Until then Wee Readers, stay safe, be happy and have a very bonny day.

The Wee Archive: A Question for Amalphia Treadwell

Question 4 – For Ariel Amalphia

Wow, it’s been quite a while hasn’t it? You’ve got a bunch of teenagers in the house now, that must be fun. No, no, you’re right I don’t seem to age at all do I? Anyway back to you, so teaching at the Castle School now. Exciting. What would you say your greatest joy as a teacher has been thus far? Any student in particular that stands out?

Amalphia: I’m actually just a counsellor at the school when I’m not busy elsewhere – if I can help one person avoid dark dungeons and mad scientists, that will bring me great joy. I’m also acting in an advisory capacity during the televised competition that’s taking place at the castle at the moment. All the students are fantastic, of course, and I don’t have favourites. Though, I know Ariel and Alexander are up to something. I just hope it’s nothing too terrible… But you know what’s going to happen now.

Wee Lassie: Out the door for me?

Amalphia: Got it in one.

If you’ve enjoyed this small glimpse into the mind of Amalphia Treadwell why not check out her author, Ailish Sinclair’s blog here, along with her Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, TikTok, Goodreads, Facebook , YouTube, and Kofi. If you’ve enjoyed this very mildly pretentious question of mine, follow the wee blog if you haven’t already, and don’t forget to check me out on Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, TikTok, Goodreads, YouTube, Facebook and Kofi.

Check out Fouetté on Amazon today.

Four Questions for Amalphia Treadwell: The Third Question.

Remember Sign up to the Wee Mailing Listing to hear the final question on December 31st.

Question 3 – For Fouetté Amalphia

Hello, well things have certainly taken off for you – new film out, married…with one, two, four kids – strange, that one doesn’t really look like you – and one more on the way. Tell me, because my readers would really like to know – yes I have real readers now – what’s new in the life of Amalphia Treadwell?

Amalphia: What’s new? Well, yes, this baby. And yes, the father is my best friend Justin. It’s not a secret. There’s also going to be a new Steampunk ballet at Christmas. A few of us are in that. Then there’s my growing family, as you noted. My deepening relationships… *A dreamy look passes across Amalphia’s face, and then she glares at the Wee Lassie* Do you see that chocolate cake out there in the garden?

Wee Lassie looks out the, still open, door.

Amalphia: Go closer, that’s it, right out the door.

And the door is locked behind the Wee Lassie.

Check out Fouetté on Amazon today.

Also, if you’d like to start from the beginning check out Tendu – which is made free for Christmas – on Amazon.

Four Questions for Amalphia Treadwell: The Second Question.

Well here we go again, wish me luck. Remember to sign up to the Wee Mailing List to hear the last question I managed to ask Amalphia Treadwell.

Question 2 – For Cabriole Amalphia

Hello again, it’s me I’m back – I’m with a real newspaper this time. So how do you feel about doing a follow up interview…great…that’s great.

(One soft ball interview later to lull her into a false sense of security)

So, we’ve all seen the photos of you and Will Hearst, would it be fair to call him the new man in your life? Tell me how does he differ, if at all, from your former lover Aleksandr Zolotov?

Amalphia: Oh, you want to know about Will’s new company? That’s great.It’s great. I have LOTS of info to give you.

Wee Lassie: No, actually, I—

Amalphia: There’s these promo leaflets, and these photos, and this is the tour schedule… *Amalphia looks momentarily horrified before continuing* Come and see us soon. I’m sure you’ll love it.

And the Wee Lassie is pushed out the door again.

Check out Fouetté on Amazon today.

Also, if you’d like to start from the beginning check out Tendu – which is made free for Christmas – on Amazon.