Were All Useless Alone. Its A Good Thing Youre Not Alone.

We’re all useless alone. It’s a good thing you’re not alone.

Happy 5th Anniversary, Stray Kids!

(PS: thank you @hyunebear for putting up with me working on this ( ;∀;))

It’s not a fully fleshed out thought but I’ve grasped it now and so here’s what I’ve got dangling…

It’s so interesting to me that of the many issues and annoyances I have with Rory’s character her decisions around Yale are so tied to men.

Though the show we have a general sense that Rory (and by extension Loralai who raised her) have a distain or disappointment when women make choices due to men. Mainly when these choices are not mainly or solely things that a woman wants, and take another persons (usually a man’s) wants into account we see Rory scoff or roll her eyes or frown intensely and question it. When someone else makes a decision due to a man they want to like them or respect them, Rory seems to like and respect them less (at least in that moment).

But when a man, one who’s good opinion and respect SHE wants, says something hard and hurtful Rory abandons everything she (and by extension he mother) have worked for since she was a child. At the very least she gives up the main goal that’s dominated the last 3 years of her life. A man doesn’t think she’s good enough, so she gives up trying.

And though everyone tries to understand and support her, to change her mind and make her want to go back to Yale and to reignite her goals for her future, it is once again a man (who Rory wants to respect her and have a good opinion of her) who says a hard and hurtful thing which makes her go back to Yale.

And in the middle of all of that it’s another man (her grandfather) who has so much influence on her ‘choices’. Firstly in his support of her leaving, and in his 180 in the face of the reality of her life Rory’s grandfathers support plays a huge role in her confidence in her decisions and path.

I just find it fascinating that the writers chose to remove so much of Rory’s agency in these ‘choices’. They don’t write that Rory struggles at college, having reached the pinnacle she was working for and realising it isn’t as fulfilling as she had hoped; that she struggles (like she first did at Chiltern) now she is among other gifted people and she is once again less exceptional; that the courses she takes feel uninteresting and she languishes without drive or a purpose.

No they choose to write her story as a man says something mean and so she runs away.

And again, they don’t write her return to Yale as Rory being revitalised by her time away and once again motivated to aim higher; they don’t have her realise that she does thrive surrounded by other intellectuals and though it’s tough she CAN rise to the challenge like she did before; they don’t have her realise her dream career or degree is actually different than she thought so she goes back and changes major or her classes.

No once again, the writers have a man say something mean and so she runs away. Only this time she runs away back to where she was before.

So in the face of disappointment or dislike, at least from men she wants to like her, the only ‘choice’ Rory is allowed to make is to run.

I haven’t read the book and only have vague recolections of the movie (though I remember sobbing violently at several points) but I hoped I’d love Netflix’s One Day adaption. And of course I did but one of the things I loved was so unexpected.

I love how they portrayed Sylvie.

Particularly how that relationship both ended and endured. How even at the start there were issues but the small kind you want to work on and work through. She knew her family were hard work but she was on Dex’s side and wanted him to be accepted: but still knew that her opinion was the one that mattered. Dex knew he didn’t fit it but he was trying so damn hard to, and hoped that if he kept trying it would be enough eventually. And she wasn’t this demon or harpy, even people who just met her liked her. She was a nice person.

So many times when the male lead is with another woman before they eventually get together with the female lead this ‘other woman’ is portrayed as toxic, unmanageable, cruel, snobbish, etc… or even just unpleasant to be around; someone we’re happy for the male lead to leave. Maybe it helps us to support the male leads pursuit of the female lead and not confront his poor behaviour as a romantic partner if that ‘other woman’ is unlikable and we’re happy to see her gone?

But here they made it clear: Sylvie is a kind nice woman who loves Dex, and didn’t handle the crumbling of their marriage well.

It was almost voyeuristic how we saw the breakdown of her and Dex’s marriage. It seemed so bloody real. New baby, no sleep, renovating the house, all of it building up until you’re being a bitch and you know you are, and you’re apologising after the fact for what you said but you don’t know how to talk around the fact that you still meant some of the things you said. And a partner who you know is struggling with direction and purpose, and you want them to do well, but *god* you’re the one fielding questions and having to go to bat for them every time someone asks, and as a result you never feel safe to take a break or question them yourself.

And (I don’t know how intentional this was) but Dex’s joking tone which is clearly meant to relax and reassure just came across as him not taking things seriously or being trustworthy. Sylvie lists a whole range of food options for Jasmine while she’s out for the night, clearly showing she has prepped *everything* ahead of time: she isn’t leaving Dex in charge of finding or cooking Jasmine dinner, she’s leading him by the hand to the ready made stuff and telling him now to reheat it. Kind of like he’s a child too. It really shows how capable she feels he is.

And then Dex jokes about giving Jasmine crisps. He’s clearly trying to break the tense atmosphere and joke around with his wife, but it just comes across as ‘I wasn’t listening to you, I don’t realise how much work you’ve done, you were right not to trust me to cook dinner because look what I immediately suggested, you can’t rely on me’.

In all their conversations the tone of their voices just show they’re not sure how to talk to one another anymore, that they know everything they say will be taken the wrong way and so they have no idea how to speak.

It felt like no one was particularly demonised or made into a caricature. Just two people who were different, put under stress until they broke and grew apart. And Sylvie had been responding to this state of her marriage by having an affair, so she is clearly in the wrong there and the one who causes the divorce etc, but… I don’t know; here it comes across more as a plea for help or freedom in the midst of her confusion and less a lack of care or thought for Dex and her daughter (like I remember it coming across in the movies).

Even when they have the brief mention of dramatics and anger around the divorce, afterwards she’s back in the picture as a level headed co-parent: joking around to relate to Emma, sharing co-parenting pains with HER too (‘Jasmin’s learning the violin?’ ‘Yes that’s why we’re fleeing the country’). And genuinely congratulating them in their relationship and marriage.

You don’t see many ex-wives in media who are so openly concerned about how their ex-husband is handling his second wife’s death. She’s present, caring and supportive. And keeps reaching out to him well after she could be forgiven for stepping back.

So yeah I loved all of One Day and yeah it made me cry AGAIN, but I also loved how real they made those significant relationships look. How adult and complicated and messy and ‘no one was a monster/you were both wrong in different ways/there is no right and wrong’ they played out as.

Just because she wasn’t the ‘love of his life’ doesn’t mean she was a footnote either.

Just seen a post which reminded me anew of some of my frustration with the Fantastic Beasts series and the train wreck it became.

Firstly and mainly: Why did they align Grindlewald with ‘preventing the holocaust’?!

There was literally no need for this plot point as Grindelwalds viewpoint and justifications had had little to no fleshing out in the original material (HP1-7). As a result any subsequent opposition to him no matter how well intentioned, well reasoned, or factually accurate necessitates someone arguing that either the holocaust isn’t likely to happen (and so Grindelwald is lying) or has to happen ‘for the good of the world’. You can state that you don’t believe he truly wants to save more lives, that his current methods are violent, that his future plans also look to cause pain and suffering, that his actions will cause division in the magical community….. and still the only take away is that you have to argue in defence of the holocaust.

And one on my main frustrations coming off of this is there was so much you could have done with the character and they didn’t use *any* of it. All we know from the primary material is: grindlewald was a dark lord around the time of the 2nd world war; he went to durmstrang, he was expelled when he was 16 and spent the summer with relatives in the UK where he met and charmed/radicalised a young Albus Dumbledore; he was essentially a supremacist who thought that wizards were inherently better than muggles and therefore deserved to rule over them; when confronted about these views by Aberforth he fights him, during this fight Ariane is killed (and no one is sure who actually killed her); he eventually steals a wand which is the Elder Wand; he is defeated in a duel by Albus Dumbledore and imprisoned in his own jail; he dies regretful of his actions at the hand of Voldemort.

There is literally SO MUCH room to add things in there, and none of it called for explaining his actions as ‘he predicted the holocaust would happen and is acting to prevent it’.

And I just wish they had fleshed out those viewpoints more or have given any creative thought to that.

Grindelwalds supremacy system (to make it distinct from Voldemort’s) could have viewed magical ability as more important than breeding. It’s implied in the books that some people are better at or stronger at some types of magic (Gilderoy Lockhart is very talented at memory charms, Ginny’s bat bogey hex is particularly strong) so his system of oppression could be based upon magical strength. You could have assessment checks or test within his ranks that ensure only the magically strong progress; a magically strong muggleborn is more respected than a magically weak pure blood (think Hermione vs OG Nevil). This would also support his slogan Magic is Might, and the view that wizards are inherently better - it is clearly only magical talent that should be rewarded with promotion and responsibility.

And this system therefore has its own fundamental flaws - just as a system based upon class and breeding will encourage nepotism, stifle innovation, and reward mediocrity, a system based upon rewarding brute strength with access and approval will result in corruption, a strong gang mentality, and violence. Introduce characters that show this, just like the Malfoy’s did for blood supremacy.

And he should have been written as a supremacist: an eloquent, articulate, charming one but one with a flawed and corrupted world view. Someone who is able to win over people to his side, a charismatic leader figure. I wish they had modelled him more like a cult leader; someone who with the sheer force of their personality recruited wizards and witches to fight against the stature of secrecy (under which they and their families have lived their entire lives) and advocate for ruling over muggles. There’s something compelling about him, and once people are swayed by his view they find it hard to leave.

I wish they had orchestrated several confrontations with Dumbledore and Grindelwald where they fought head to head but circumstances always got in the way of them fighting to the death: one side was evacuating a position so one of them had to flee with the fighters to protect them, one was only on a recon mission and so fled to fight another day, one was injured in a previous fight and so was trying to escape the whole time, etc etc. There could have been a run up of fights (like Harry Potter and Voldemort had every year in the books - it’s formulaic but it works) leading up to the final flight between them at the end of the (supposed) 5th movie. The confrontation a long time coming and the audience dying to see them finally loose all against one another. And them not meeting before or outside of these fights? Harry/Dumbledore and Voldemort didn’t meet outside of specific fights, there are magical ways to hide and cloak yourself to prevent attack. Grindelwald stays in a secret location, unplottable and with few people around him: so the only times to attack him are when he moves into the open. There you go, lack of confrontations solved.

You could even have had him not graduate to violence right away, or have the violence be small and not able to be traced to him. Mirror the rise of the N*zi party and H*tler in that initially people don’t take Grindelwald seriously, then they won’t think the small time attacks are linked to him in anyway, then people start to agree with some of his points, and he is suddenly a leader of a ‘revolution’ and it’s too hard to oppose him now. The first few confrontations with Dumbledore or the audience stand in ‘good guy’ could even be before it’s known that he is behind any attacks and it’s literally a meeting of minds, a discussion of view points, the good guy thinks Grindlewalds behind these recent attacks but no one is going to believe him as Grindelwald is an upstanding public figure.

Don’t have him just waltz into a house and kill a baby for no f*cking reason just to remind the audience ‘oh yeah this is the bad guy, don’t like him’. Have him be charming and nice and persuasive to someone and then have a comment or a cut scene or something where he describes a future workforce of muggles to make magical products like someone describing a sweatshop, have him talk about managing the needs of muggles or ‘culling their breeding’ like a farmer would a herd of cows, have him mention the killing or maiming of a muggle like they are an animal or a pet. There are so many chilling ways to show lack of humanity or care, to show how beneath him he feels muggles are, and the absolute worst and most sloppy would be… to kill a baby in its crib for literally no reason.

And the magic system!!

I wished so much for something different for the USA but the system they got in this is just appalling.

And when you think about it, it could have been so much richer!

Like The Mayflower was 1620 and the Salem witch trials were in the 1690’s… so almost from the get go of the colonisation of America, the magical and non magically communities would have been separated. So for the majority of the colonisations cum settlement of the USA witches and wizards would have been in hiding.

In the UK we see magical enclaves hidden away in muggle surroundings (fake doors and walls, additional buildings squeezed between others) but these places and cities have been around since long before the Statute of Secrecy. London was the Roman city Londinium. So when the statue came into effect they had to seal away their magical districts and houses, but they still existed in the same space as previously integrated but now solely muggle architecture.

Not so the case in America. Chicago for example wasnt ‘founded’ as a city until the 1780’s. You could argue that as the magical community had been separate for almost 100 years at this point they might have walled off a whole section of the city for themselves to live in. Or even founded their own cities, which you needed magic to access. As colonisers/settlers moved West you could imagine a group of solely magical people creating their own enclaves. Society and muggle/wizard culture would have evolved completely differently than what it had been and became in the UK due to this concurrent growth and settlement.

Americans think about their national identity in a way unique to them, due to how recently their country was ‘created’. Wouldn’t this translate to the magical community? Would magical family’s talk about coming over on the ‘first Portkey’ the same way people claim they can ‘trace their family back to the Mayflower’? Would they measure their standing in the magical community not on wether they were pure blood, or from a Noble House… but instead on if their ancestor helped found a city, or settle a state?

Immigration/emigration/refugees, what makes someone American, the fight for American citizenship… does this translate to the magical community? Do they view European Wizards or Asia-pacific wizards as ‘not American’ if they’ve only recently moved, or working on a temp visa? Do they worry about other wizards and witches overstaying their visas or their welcome, and disrupting the American system of government? Is their a feeling of the ‘old world’ magical communities being slow and behind, stuck in the antiquated past?

In the UK setting of the HP books grounding the racial struggle in the class system worked perfectly as anyone living within that system understands it and accepts it intrinsically - the arguments and fights over blood purity are just British classism given a different name. But what’s the American version? Is it how recently you settled (is something like ‘first Generation witch’ similar to mud-blood, but it implies your parents only recently came to the USA and so you’re not a real citizen yet?) or if your family has been here from the start (Mayflower Mast families is slang for those who came over with the first port-key, the Mast of the first ship) or where you settled (just as some cities in the USA are seen as historical or ‘established’, is there a similar viewpoint to living in an all magical city vs living in a muggle city and hiding).

And due to the long lives of magical people you could have introduced characters in America who were the Malfoy’s or the Black’s - not due to pedigree or age or being titled, but because their grandparents founded/built/created the American St Mungos, the USA’s diagon Alley. Heck even have someone at MACUSA is called Ilvermorney because their grandmother founded the school. They have a younger sibling still there but they are working their way up the Autor ranks, likely going to aim to run MACUSA at some point, their aunt did in the 1870’s…. Basically make them the Kennedys of magical America.

The list just goes on and I get so angry when I think about what could have been! There were so many cool things they could have done when expanding the world of HP to another country, or when fleeing out the main villains methods and plot. And to see that waste on what they did do, which is now cancelled anyway… it’s just so soul destroying.

Dexter is a cautionary tale of the need to accept discomfort as a part of life, with Emma as his contrast and aspirational example.

Throughout the show Emma embodies determination and self assurance. The only reason she thinks she can change the world is.. because why couldn’t she? In contrast Dexter has no idea what he wants and kind of resents having to even think about it, hence his jumping between careers and looking for purpose for the whole show.

While Em knows what she wants emotionally (the satisfaction or having made a difference, the achievement of doing what she always wanted) but isn’t sure on the specifics of what that will look like (I’ll write plays, no write poetry, no I’ll teach, okay no I’ll write a book), Dexter knows the specifics (I’ll be rich and famous) but doesn’t know what he wants emotionally (‘what will that look like?’ ‘I don’t know’).

While Dex is always running from uncomfortable feelings Em faces then head on and comes out the other side, able to learn from them.

As Dex is travelling to put off making long term decisions, Em has taken the first opportunity to do what she wants: writing, be it books, poems or in this instance plays.

On holiday Dex can’t allow himself to admit that he fancy’s Em and to leave it at that, he has to run from the honesty and vulnerability of that moment by adding on ‘but I pretty much fancy everyone’. In doing this you could argue that he looses his chance with her for several years, where as Emma’s confidence could have resulted in them getting together much sooner.

Dex misses his mothers last birthday because he doesn’t want to face reality. Instead of reacting to the fear and anger and pain of her diagnosis by spending every moment he can with her, or sitting down to have heart to heart talks with her, or helping her out in any meaningful way Dex runs away and numbs himself with substances, and is passed out for the little time he is in her presence.

When he’s nervous people won’t (or already don’t) like him on TV he again turns to substances to numb his feelings, and (instead of taking Em’s advice to ignore them) looks for reassurance from hangers on who don’t actually know him that well. He can’t sit in that worry/fear/discomfort so he finds a way to stop feeling.

When Dex’s marriage falls apart we see him running away to Paris to visit Em. And sure there are ulterior motives here (his hope and assuming that this could be the start of their romantic relationship) but the writer shows him literally traveling away from the country where his failed marriage, child and previous life were as he is show to be angrily talking about his divorce. As an image it appears like he’s running away from the reality of the divorce or running to Em for a distraction. It definitely supports Ems assumptions that he’s not serious about a relationship with her; she’s seen this behaviour in Dex before.

It’s even funny how in small ways we don’t see him handle upsetting things until the very end. Talking about his first marriage and the production the day became? Dex admits he didn’t want to rock the boat so he didn’t fight anything/reject anything/ have much say at all in his wedding. Sylvie drops off Jasmine? Dex is still at the cafe so Em is the one managing slightly awkward small talk. Jasmine practising her violin? We get a brief moment with Dex too but mainly it’s Em sitting through the recitals. In that last episode when they’re struggling with fertility, Em is the one who sits down and talks out her anger and fear and worry, where as Dex (who probably knew what the root of it all was) was happy to leave her to process it how she need to and support her while she did. If she hadn’t brought it up he wouldn’t have said anything.

That’s not becisarily a bad thing (Dex could have known that Em needed to process it herself before talking to him) but it is interesting that the writers engineer Dex to avoid all these moments of emotional discomfort. It reinforces his characterisation of being avoidant when confronted with conflict.

In contrast we kind of constantly see Em having to face hard moments and working through them.

Don’t know what to do with your life? Move to London to try and aim to work in your dream field. London life and restaurant job not going the way you planned? Commit to Dex’s suggestion of teacher training. Time to confess a secret? Here’s a hugely personal one about my past feelings for you. Past crush admits he kind-if fancy’s you? Stick to being honest about your past feelings and don’t take the opening to downplay them. You feel shit about your life and your secret affair? Well let’s turn that into motivation to finally write that book.

Not happy with your long term partner? End the relationship.

Emma’s whole confrontation with Ian is a masterclass in facing difficult conversations and emotions, being vulnerable and open and honest about your feelings, and finding empathy for another outside your point of view. And look what she gains from facing that hard in comfortable conversation? Closure, and a kind of friendship, one that lasts even after she dies.

When Dex confessed that he hoped they would start a romantic relationship in Paris, Em sits him down and starts that hard conversation about how she doesn’t think that is 1) what he even wants and 2) would work between them. She doesn’t brush off of hide from the conversation. And then when she has more information and time to think she commits to Dex.

Even after they sleep together there’s a scene of Em laying the ground rules, making it clear to Dex what she will and won’t stand in this relationship. That’s an awkward conversation to have but Em doesn’t hesitate and makes sure he knows from the get go what she expects and deserves. The writers are constantly showing us ‘Em doesn’t run from uncomfortable feelings’.

And then the tragic twist of fate: Emma is gone and Dexter finally has to learn to live with emotional discomfort. He can’t keep running because there is no escaping this, not like he did with his mum. Like he says to Imaginary-Emma ‘why would time change anything’. He is going to feel like this forever, there is no escaping it. Finally he is learning to face it, manage it, and work through it.

Of course Emma is far more than a literally device and is her own layered and well established character. But in this regard for Dex it’s almost as if she’s the final lesson for him to work through to grow up enough so he can eventually choose to return to the place they met.

And it could even come across as a reward for him; in learning to live with those difficult emotions, his reward is being able to remember Emma fondly, and to return to the place they met to seek out those memories. The memories are bittersweet, but now he remembers Emma as she was and not how she never got to be.

Like his dad said, he is eventually able to ‘live [his] life as if she were still here’ but in order to do that he first had to accept that she was gone.

Just finished The Fall of the House of Usher and wow I have thoughts.

……….

Verna is fascinating!

My interpretation (I have read literally NO Poe so sorry if this is obvious) if that Verna is a personification/demon/something for Choices and Decisions.

When she first meets the Ushers she offers them a choice: here is a possible outcome of the decisions you’ve already made, which might well happen on its own, but would you like to *ensure* that it happens? What would you choose to give up to get what you want? I don’t think she’s *creating* this outcome (as it’s literally what Madeline said would happen while they bricked the CEO into the wall) but she’s saying she can make sure certain possible outcomes are the only ones that happen.

Death and killing might be part of her powers but at least in the case of the Ushers she’s only killing the children because the deal was none of them survive Roderick.

I think her deal with Madeline and Roderick is a mix of be careful what you wish for as you’ll get it in unexpected ways, and exposing their own hypocritical choices. The Ushers believe they are entitled to the company due to their father, that it is their legacy, that if he had only acknowledged them and planned for them to continue the company in their name they would have everything they deserve. But in order to get that legacy, they have to behave in the exact same manner their father did, and think only of themselves while not plan to leave anything for their children.

Verna even offers choices to the other people we see her interact with.

For Perry she reminds him he could choose to stop recoding people, choose not to peruse his brothers wife, choose to end the party. It’s not too late. Even at that party when she tells Morelle to ‘leave now’ it is still a choice, one Morelle doesn’t take which leads to its own consequences. And in the run up to the party we’re shown so many moments when Perry could have chosen differently and the outcome would have been different: having the party at all, inviting Morelle (he turns away and then back to offer her a ticket), Napoleon saying he’s better than this and doesn’t need to become a drug pusher, the building not having water and so choosing to use the assumed water on the roof… right up to the last moment when he chooses to give the signal for the sprinklers to go on.

And her conversation with Perry Verna almost admits it: the series of decisions which lead to him, some small ones, a big one, and then another smaller on and now here he is. Choices he wasn’t involved in have led to him being there that night. And she loves bad boys because they always make all the wrong choices.

For Camille she refuses entry to the lab multiple times and offers her the choice to turn around and go home: it won’t change her fate as she’ll die either way, but if she goes home she’ll die in her sleep instead of being torn apart. She doesn’t *need* to see everything with her own eyes, she already has the proof. But Camille chooses to revel in her sisters shame, to twist the knife, and so she dies painfully.

And Napoleon is told the cat he wants to buy isn’t for sale and to choose to go back home to his boyfriend (and likely confess his actions) but he pushes through with his money and demands that he should get what he wants. He even has a moment within his confrontation with the cat when he thinks this might be a drugged hallucination, but instead of stopping or calling his boyfriend he continues to destroy their home.

Victorine also gets choices: the file of perfect patient data is handed to her but she doesn’t have to call Verna back about the human trial. Verna asks at multiple points if this procedure is safe, if the surgeon has agreed, even if her patient data is safe in this clinic. And Victorine chooses to lie at every opportunity, chooses to sacrifice this woman’s life in the pursuit of her dream. And so she is haunted by her lies, driving her to a more gruesome death than necessary.

For Tammy Verna shows her how to make better choices from their first meeting: we only saw one other sex worker play out the fantasy scene pretending to be Tammy but their interactions with Bill were surface level. When Verna appears as Candy she plays fake-Tammy as caring about Bill, showing Real-Tammy how she could be a better partner from the get go. Verna compliments his cooking, says she’d been craving his ‘famous chicken Alfredo’, asks about his work earnestly and listens to his replies. Even later, when she is Tammys hallucination double, she keeps showing Tammy how she could choose differently: Bill would probably set your fight aside considering another sibling has died, you could call him? Bill would probably be concerned about your health, you could apologise? And after her breakdown Verna pretends to answer Bills call (which Tammy had thrown across the room) and apologises to him for how he’d been treated. The whole time Verna is telling Tammy ‘it’s not too late, you could choose to be kind, you could choose to make yourself happy’: like Camille it wont stop her inevitable death but it could have been easier. And again she didn’t have to die in this manner, she could have gone in her sleep but her chosen treatment of Bill and her own guilt over her decisions has been keeping her awake.

For Frederick, Verna even admits that she has chosen his manner of death *due* to the choices he made: he would have died in his car from a heart attack but he chose to take his wife home, chose to torture her, ‘chose to pick up the pliers’ and so here are the consequences of his decisions.

For Lenore, the only innocent in the whole family, Verna wants her to know that her *choice* to give a statement, her choice to break with her family and get her mother out, will have lasting consequences. That Lenore’s decision will have changed the world.

That Verna’s power focuses on choices is further emphasised with her knowledge of ‘what people would have been’ as I think that’s an expansion upon what different choices would have led to. Of people had chosen differently then this is what they would have become.

And in Verna’s interactions with Pym all of the moments she references are ones where choices are made: the choice to leave a man in the desert, to abandon a guide in the snow, to assault a woman in the arctic. Moments when a choice or decision was made.

So I think she is a bargainer, or demon of decisions, and while she isn’t inherently evil she has her own morality as seen when she chooses deaths which are painful or peaceful, depending on a persons actions.

And really the message of the whole show is choices and their consequences.