AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT FEUILLY! thank you friend 😀
- so. he’s a complete nerd. like, he really is. His Brick description is not so much a list of personality traits as a list of special interests. That, actually, says a lot about his personality. He’s passionate, and enthusiastic, and a giant nerd.
- kind of awkward too? he’s pretty confident about his knowledge of said interests, but he talks about them – all the time. even when it’s not really related to the subject at hand. He rants whenever someone – willingly or not – gives him the opportunity to. he gets so offended on the behalf of others and injustices and betrayal. every single time. Bless him.
- He considers his own education as a way to deliver himself. He learned to read and write by himself, and while this would be impressive about anyone, but it’s even more knowing what we do about Feuilly’s background. He probably started working/apprenticeship really young, because the orphanage or wherever he was staying wouldn’t – couldn’t – have kept him on forever. But he still taught himself to read, seeing it as a mean to rise up beyond his circumstances. That’s more than hard work – that’s hope and ambition and dedication and desparation all blended together.
- and he never loses that? it’s liked to his passion, really – he knows he/the world can be better, and he holds on to that, always strives towards that, even though his life must have been really difficult sometimes.
- honestly he’s like the opposite of Grantaire in many ways – he has every reason in the world to be bitter and cynical, but he’s not. he’s so passionate (I’ve said it like three times oops) and he’s so. trusting? like. even more than Combeferre, who wasn’t surprised when the generals didn’t come to their aid. Feuilly was genuinely heartbroken over it, like – you’d have totally expected him to know that these higher-ups would have let them down like they’ve let them all down before, and he’s been let down a lot in his life, but he didn’t. whether he’s instinctively trusting or makes himself trust because he refuses to be bitter is a matter of interpretation, but. that’s really something.
- it’s one of the reasons I picture him as a bit younger than most of the fandom does, really, because 1) being a worker in the 1820s/1830s (or today really) doesn’t at all mean that he has to be older than students, especially if it’s such a big deal that he never got to go to school in the first place, and 2) that idealism and trust and enthusiasm sentimental aspect of his personality just seems different than the sort of laid-back experience of the older members like Bahorel and Bossuet, idk.
- oh man this is already so long why.
- I haven’t even gotten to fanon/improvised traits I like to give him.
- he’s just. a cutie. okay I’ll try to find other posts I’ve written about this before and reblog them.
my gripes about the way Feuilly is portrayed in fandom is usually when two (often related) things happen: his canon personality gets replaced by a bunch of classist cliches, like grumpy, swearing, fighting, macho, rude, close-minded etc, or when he becomes a sort of Bahorel-lite, with fighting, drinking, swearing, loud, and always mentionned as part of ‘BahorelandFeuilly’, never as an individual person (I dislike Bahorel’s characterisation in that too, but he usually is at least a little better? closer to his actual personality? anyway)
besides these two frankly terrible trends, I think, as with every character in this fandom, we have some leeway when it comes to personality traits. We have the descriptions in the book, which are frankly both precise and vague at the same time it’s kind of beautiful, as well as the way they’re played in the musical, different movies/shows/etc. so. my take on characters is not more valid than any other that’s done with, you know, some thoughts and consideration for the material and implications.
i always feel a little iffy about fandom using ‘hard-working’ as Feuilly’s main quality – usually in sortings or ‘les amis as … ‘ posts, ‘cause…
okay, it’s not that he’s not hard-working, because he is! he does so much! and it’s a good quality! but with Feuilly it’s in large part because he has to, because really for him there’s no other choice.
it might work for other characters (no one ever calls Enjolras or Combeferre hardworking when they most definitely are? I wonder why – except no, I know why) saying the main thing about Feuilly is that he’s gounded and hard-working and values hard honest work above everything else, to me, feels like. you take the one guy in the entire group that’s known to be working class, the only one who has to work to survive in a group of privileged students, and the first thing fandom says about this character is like ‘oh boy! he works so much. he loves working to survive, it’s so deeply intrinsic to his personality as to be his main traits. working fullfills him, it makes him happy’. idk. it feels a little like mocking the socioeconomic inequalities that force him to work himself to exhaustion everyday just to survive. especially when you ignore everything else we know about him, his enthusiasm for the outside world, his knowledge, his compassion and his passion for learning, etc. which are, btw, highlighted way more than the hard-working part in the actual text
combeferre screaming “someone hold him back” when courfeyrac is going to where gavroche is on the barricade always gets me and makes me super emotional
no offense but every skein of yarn should be center pull
And not require yarn gynecology to find the end.
Reblogging entirely for “yarn gynecology”
well this makes the term fingering yarn that much more awkward
I am upset that nobody took this opportunity to write “gyarnecology” instead.
Someone should think about Joly having to deal with his two best friends being the worst at serious emotional talk; one will make everything a joke and the other will rant endlessly and never manage to properly say what he thinks after two hours.
Someone should also think about Bossuet and Grantaire staring at Joly and loving him a little bit more every time he’s being a sensible human being capable of telling them how much he likes them (also, how damn frustrating they can be)
No but seriously.
This all goes hand-in-hand with the whole “NO ONE CARES ABOUT BROADWAY ANYMORE~~~ /SADFACE” BS spewed by Broadway industry/NYC tourism board people.
Like, they’ve got this narrative in their head that people just suddenly lost all interest in theater one day and are trying to paint themselves as the victims of an uncaring public completely oblivious to the fact that attendance went down around the same time that ticket prices started inflating into the hundreds for seemingly no other reason than “they felt like it.”
Back in the ‘90s you could get orchestra seating tickets for a popular new Tony Award winning show for somewhere between $80-$100.
Now? Theaters are charging the same amount for seats in the nosebleed section with an obstructed view. It’s ridiculous. Orchestra seat tickets these days are going for as high as $500. That’s a 400% increase over the course of twenty fucking years.
Imagine spending ~$1000 on a night out with your partner and that doesn’t even cover the cost of dinner.
Outside of lotteries – which not every theater does, aren’t highly advertised, are not easily accessible to people who work/are visiting – it’s literally impossible to buy a pair of tickets without ending up spending somewhere between $200-$400 unless you’re seeing a show that’s been running for over ten years.
People can’t afford to go to Broadway anymore.
Or if they do, they have to save up or wait for a sudden influx of money and then choose one show that they really want to see that year and hope anything else will still be open by the time they get the money to see that.
You cannot continue to price more and more people out of Broadway theaters and then 1) complain that no one’s coming anymore so they must not care, and 2) complain that people are finding other ways to try to experience these unnecessarily exclusive shows.
The film industry was partially founded on the idea of making theater more accessible to people who couldn’t patronize Broadway. When did the theater industry decide that film was its enemy?
No wait, I’m not done.
People want to see the shows.
That’s why bootlegs exist! Not because people are selfish, but because they can’t afford the only means of actually seeing them.
You really think that people who pay for bootlegs wouldn’t happily pay for a legitimate professional recording?
Why do you think Andrew Lloyd Webber is slowly working his way through his entire catalogue and putting out DVD’s? Of even the FAILED projects! And people are watching them! They’re watching them so enthusiastically that he’s in the process of reviving at least one of those epic failures!
For fuck’s sake even the Metropolitan Opera has a partnership with one movie theater chain to livestream their productions because they understand this very basic concept that people will pay to experience something they really want to but not if they can’t afford it.
Also, What does it say that every time a musical is filmed and released, it always has big named stars attached to it, it’s always labeled with ‘movie of the year’ and always tops the box office for the weekend it’s released?
The fact that Phantom of the Opera with gerard butler earned back more than twice it’s budget despite heavy criticism. Hairspray from 2007 earned almost 3 times. Mama Mia earned back 12 times its budget.
Because i can afford ten dollars to see a movie, i might even be inclined to see a movie twice or three times in theatres, and still buy it on DVD for 25$ when it comes out. which, all in all is less than 60$.
Clearly the point ins’t that musicals aren’t popular, despite what pop culture would like to tell you about theatre kids. Musicals are always popular, and movie musicals almost always do well financially, and id bet money its because it’s a lot easier to take a chance on seeing a new movie for less than the cost of a dinner than to see a broadway show for the cost of a mortgage payment.
I can think of three live shows filmed, off the top of my head (Rent, Shrek and Cats) and they’re all very well done, (i mean, cats as a show is kind of generic) I own a copy of all three, and to be honest I’d rather have copies of these shows as filmed on stage then the ones i have that are actual movies. Stage performance is an entirely different medium than film performance and you can’t really encourage people to embrace a new art form if youc ant expose them to it.
ok but are you telling me Courf and Marius WOULDNT have a ukulele duo because I frankly find that hard to believe