Harry and Megan dubbed "fucking grifters" Part Deux

[Qbish]

Harry and Meghan slammed by Spotify executive after podcast deal ends | The Independent

The old thread got closed, just as I was trying to quote tweet someone! So I've started this one, because this shitshow is still rumbling on

I disagree @Ridemeginger . What we have, is a male (Dickens') perspective of what she did and how she was treated, and what trauma she had as a result. He does not write of her formative years, and how she may have been abused either by persons or the patriarchal system. And we can easily view her adult story through the prism of coercion these days. Let alone generational trauma.

But it would take a talented writer, and talented producers, to bring it to fruition.

Let alone take into account generational trauma, I meant to write.

And, in post-Bridgerton life, it would be easy to bring in a race element. As with Wide Sargasso Sea.

What she had done to her, she does to Estelle. It's not hard to psychoanalyse it.

Or, she is trying to give Estelle the power she never had.

It's a rich seam that someone could mine.

The Miss Havisham thing. I'm kind of with @Ridemeginger . Problem with Meghan is that she clearly wants to have profound ideas about the world but is not smart enough to do so, so they all come off as superficial.

I get the sense she's seen the fim Great Expectations but not read the book. She wants to do a 'Wicked' on it, but Miss H genuinely doesn't have enough as a character I don't think. Meghan could make her early trajectory as exciting and third wave feminist as she likes but ultimately the story arc ends with agoraphobia, terrible hygiene and child abuse.

I'd rather see a rehabilitation of Mrs Gargery, Pip's monstrous sister. That would be great fun.

Or how about profoundly misjudged historical female characters whose actual lives were so much more interesting, independent-minded and complex than mainstream popular history gives them credit for? Anna of Cleves or Mary I for example. That would be cool.

How about Eleanor of Aquitaine? Most girls have heard of Jeanne d'Arc (hysteric, delusional puppet of heartless mercenaries) but not of Eleanor, who ran several countries, went on Crusades, divorced her first husband, founded the Plantagenet dynasty and led one of her sons in rebellion against her other two sons and their father. Mum of Richard the Lionheart FFS. There's LLLOOOOAAADDDDSSS of material there for Netflix who're desperate to get their very own blocbuster version of Game of Thrones. Sex, skulduggery, pomp and grandeur, high politics, and scope for exploring the West-East cultural divide.

So so many missed chances Megsy!

She doesn't wanna give Estelle power tho cos she arranges for Estelle to be married off to a violent drunk who hits her, remember?

Let's be honest, the Miss Haversham story sounds boring. It will take a lot to make most people excited to watch it. It is also a bit samey - there are tonnes of period dramas around. The take will need to be fresh and interesting.

I think talented and imaginitive people (not me!) can take the most unlikely things and make them compelling.

I don't think there have been any signs of people like that on Harry and Meghan's team so far.

There was an acedemic who commented on this, I read it in the fail, a decent article for once.

she said, making Estelle a strong woman, is literally making a program to show a strong woman being destroyed by being jilted at the alter, that she then lives her life in her wedding dress, a recluse, adopts a girl to abuse her and others, and dies horribly. Because the ending can’t be changed.

so all it would achieve is to create a feminist character, to watch her burn.

Well, to be fair to Dickens, he did invent her, so I think his perspective is somewhat paramount. I agree that he wrote her character through the male gaze, and probably a good dose of misogyny. But the story of Miss Haversham, victim of the patriarchy, isn't a unique story or giving us any sort of new insight - we all know how women were treated in that era, before the Married Women's Property Act etc. All women were in the same boat, whether they grew up in happy homes or not. Any new angle on the background story would still lead to a miserable and completely self inflicted conclusion, rather than freedom, redemption, fighting the system or goodness coming out of misery.

She used Estella as a weapon against all men, and filled her head with cruelty. That's not giving her power. Giving her power would be giving her an education as good as any man could have and allowing her the freedom to be the mistress of her own destiny. Only if you equate feminism with hating men is her conduct vis a vis Estella feminist.

It might make an interesting documentary to look into the conditions of the time that produced the likes of Miss Haversham, but the actual character herself, with all that Dickens wrote about her, is, imo, stupid, pathetic and cruel. Not the makings of a good fiction series character.

I don't think Meghan (or Harry) probably know anything much about the. character or the surrounding history. They probably just thought, "Woman jilted, wronged by a man, that's a feminist story."

Somehow I don't think Harry's big on intertextuality.

Julia Quinn's novels were just light and airy and insubstantial. They were just a bit of fun. Miss Haversham and patriarchy and feminism and child abuse sounds like hard work and a bit of a downer to be honest.

Yes, but she also wants Estelle to taunt men. Whilst clearly dealing with her own issues. It's so wonderfully complex. A really rich seam.

Anyway, back to the ongoing trainwreck!

Terrible ideas, tedious shows, zero talent: Meghan and Harry’s trainwreck podcast career | Podcasts | The Guardian

And here is New York magazine. Now, it quotes the Sun, but it's clear that the coverage tide is turning in the US.

Netflix’s Ultimatum for Harry and Meghan: No Work, No Pay (nymag.com)

Good quote from the Guardian piece:

Their current woes, it seems, come from giving up the good stuff too early. As an entity, Harry and Meghan are only interesting for as long as they can destabilise the monarchy. Their Oprah interview did that. Their documentary did that. Harry’s book Spare did that. Archetypes did not do that, and as such was roughly as interesting as listening to changing-room chatter in the world’s most insufferable yoga studio. As such, it is increasingly clear that only fumes are left in the tank. It might be time for Harry and Meghan to go away for a while and work out who they actually want to be now.

Other things that are interesting about Dickens are who he hung out with - his wider circle included several female writers like Florence Oliffe. It's real rabbit hole stuff for me about who else they were the backstories to (in RL not just in literature), and what influences they had, and why, especially regarding the nascent suffrage/anti-suffrage movements, workers' movements, and political shifts in women's education.

Oh wow the Guardian are usually quite sympathetic to their plight of leaving/trying to destroy the monarchy and even they’re turning on them now.

Seriously, what have they done to piss so many people off 😬

The guardian would not have commissioned that article even 6 months ago. Quite the 360 turn.
The guardian loves “destabilising the monarchy” where possible and so I assume they think HM are no longer helping to achieve this goal (infact probably turning people into monarchists) so no need to defend them any longer!

No time for any of them. But it amuses me that these two are 'grifters' whereas the rest of the family are .....?

The Guardian have been off-message for a while now, but they still daren't allow comments!

Doing their duties with a smile on their face and not chucking everyone under the bus who dares disagree with them. Stuff like that.

The sweetest little scam of all time. 1066 - 2023.

Well Harold has certainly tried to milk it. Shame he's failed and made a right tit of himself in the process. Sussex Royal USA!. Yes dear.

So before 1066 kings behaved well, did they?! 😂