This is not a review. Why not? Because it's fast and furious, and a review (I've written them too) takes time and thinking and researching.

A more simpaticx queer smurf

Back in 1959, Belgian comic artist Peyo gave the world the Smurfs—those little blue communitarians who all looked the same but had one defining personality trait. One was Clumsy, one was Grouchy, one was Lazy, and so on.

Then in 1967, Peyo had a real lightbulb moment. He introduced… Smurfette. What was her defining trait, you ask? Was she Witty Smurf? Scientific Smurf? Existentialist Smurf? Nope. She was Female. That’s it. Her entire personality boiled down to: Girl Smurf. Revolutionary.

Man, de Beauvoir says, is the norm whose superiority is normal as expected, and even required; woman, on the other hand, is the Other, excluded from the site reserved only for the norm by being obliged into occupying the usually negative place of non-normality.

Smurfette’s existence in an otherwise all-male Smurf village perfectly illustrates this: male is neutral, female is the anomaly.

Flash forward to 2025. Surely we've progressed, right? There’s a new Smurfs movie on the horizon. Smurfette is still the one and only gal in the gang, voiced by Rihanna, which is cool, but still—doesn’t fix the fact that she’s the only female blueprint in a whole sea of blue dudes.

And still no Queer Smurf. No Trans Smurf. No Nonbinary Smurf. Just one lonely Smurfette, holding down the gender fort since LBJ was in office.

So maybe think twice before taking your kids to see a movie that’s recycling gender stereotypes thriving since the Cold War. It might be animated, but the messaging isn’t exactly… revolutionary.

La Schtroumpfette et l’éternel fossé des genres (Maintenant avec Rihanna !)

En 1959, le dessinateur belge Peyo a offert au monde les Schtroumpfs — ces petits communistes bleus qui se ressemblaient tous, à un trait de personnalité près. Il y avait le Schtroumpf Maladroit, le Schtroumpf Grognon, le Schtroumpf Paresseux, et ainsi de suite.

Puis, en 1967, Peyo a eu une vraie illumination. Il a créé… la Schtroumpfette. Quelle était sa caractéristique principale, vous demandez-vous ? Était-elle la Schtroumpf Spirituelle ? La Schtroumpf Scientifique ? La Schtroumpf Existentielle ? Non. Elle était... une femme. C’est tout. Toute sa personnalité se résumait à : Schtroumpf Fille. Révolutionnaire, non ?

L’homme, dit Simone de Beauvoir, est la norme dont la supériorité est attendue, voire exigée ; la femme, en revanche, est l’Autre, exclue de l’espace réservé à la norme, contrainte à occuper la place (généralement négative) de la non-normalité.

L’existence de la Schtroumpfette dans un village de Schtroumpfs exclusivement masculin illustre cela à la perfection : le masculin est neutre, le féminin est l’anomalie.

Avançons jusqu’en 2025. On aura sûrement fait des progrès, non ? Il y a un nouveau film des Schtroumpfs à l’horizon. Et vous ne devinerez jamais : la Schtroumpfette est toujours la seule fille du groupe. Elle sera peut-être doublée par Rihanna — ce qui est cool, mais bon, ça ne change rien au fait qu’elle reste l’unique être féminin parmi une mer de mecs bleus.

Et toujours aucun Schtroumpf Queer. Aucun Schtroumpf Trans. Aucun Schtroumpf Non-Binaire. Juste une pauvre Schtroumpfette isolée, gardienne du genre depuis que Charles de Gaulle était président.

Alors réfléchissez à deux fois avant d’emmener vos enfants voir un film qui recycle tristement des stéréotypes de genre qui ont survécu à la guerre froide. Le film est peut-être animé, mais son message est monolithique.

Safe House at St. Ann’s Warehouse: A Safe House that turns into a Doll House

Walking into Safe House at St. Ann’s Warehouse, I didn’t know what to expect, but within minutes, I was completely drawn in. The young performer on stage was electrifying, Kate Gilmore—her presence crackled with emotion, switching between despair, vulnerability, and outright provocation with astonishing rhythm and volatility. I couldn’t take my eyes off her.

As someone who lived in London in the early ‘90s, the raw authenticity of it all immediately struck a chord. It felt like an echo of a past I had experienced—gritty, beautiful, unsettling. And for a while, I was completely on board.

But then, something shifted. Or maybe it didn’t, and that was the problem.

The show’s musicality was striking—contemporary opera meets raw performance art—but I struggled to decipher the lyrics, which made it hard to grasp the protagonist’s journey. From what I could gather, she was an Irish woman haunted by childhood dreams of being a princess, still wearing that imagined crown into adulthood. A dangerous aspiration in a world filled with imperfect men. This seemed reinforced by fragmented video projections behind her—disjointed, evocative, but hard to piece together.

She was obviously struggling. Financially, emotionally. At one point, she found a decaying sandwich in a box, drank wine from another. There were hints of a mother, but no clear father figure. Maybe she grew up in a home for children? Birthday parties flashed by, but they weren’t exactly joyful. I kept searching for a clear story arc, a sense of who she was and where she was going, but it remained elusive.

Then, near the end, she turned to the audience. A confrontation. Were we responsible for her suffering? Were we complicit in her circumstances? It started to feel like the creators of the play were playing with a doll:

"Hey, maybe, she could take her clothes off."

"And then, she could have blood dripping from her face."

"She could open a fridge, and the barking of a dog would come out." What was that dog anyway, Cerberus?

"She could lie down in a coffin like Snow White."

"She could return to a childhood bedroom, a stage-set recreation of something lost."

These striking images were powerful, but without understanding the lyrics, they felt more like symbols floating without a clear anchor. The music was strident, the singing amplified—some audience members left, others dozed off.

Visually, the video projections were aesthetically effective, but I struggled to connect them to the protagonist’s unraveling. Was it chaos by design? A dreamscape of trauma and longing? Or was I just missing a crucial piece of the puzzle?

Safe House was a visceral experience—one I admired but couldn’t fully grasp.

Until March 2, 2025

https://stannswarehouse.org/show/safe-house/

The double as a literary motif has obsessed writers since the beginning of Romanticism: Poe, Hoffman, Maupassant, Dostoevsky and Beckett to name just a few. Incidentally, Sylvia Plath wrote her thesis on the double in two Dostoyevsky novels. Her thesis claims that both Ivan, of The Brothers Karamazov, and Golyadkin, of The Double, have attempted to repress troubling aspects of their personalities, resulting in the double. The drama and mystery of this theme has had a natural continuation into cinema with films, Dead Ringers as the perfect example.

The drama of the double is an encounter with another the divided self, with a part that is too...(wild, selfish, bad, childish) to be claimed. That double articulates something deeply familiar to the psyche that has merely become unfamiliar owing to repression of the “permeable”.

Otto Rank links the doubling to narcissism. My article about Joseph Conrad's The N**** In The Narcissus examines the double in this novel as the crew which could be interpreted as the superego, and the black man who is our subconscious.

The whole culture in Christopher Lasch’s terms is a narcissistic one as prone to fragmentation of the individuals who make it up. Object relations theory studies the internal mental representation of self and others... Form templates by which subsequent perceptions, especially of self and others, are shaped and defined. Splitting (see Melanie Klein, see pre Oedipal) demarcates pleasure and pain, love and hate. It is a difference that tolerates no ambiguity. Next stage is repression which tolerates ambiguity: the Oedipal period.

Splitting characterized by polymerization and separation. Projective identification is the attribution of split off characteristics to another and the continued identification with those characteristics through control of the other in fantasy or reality. Introjection is the attribution of the others characteristics to the self. Psychological content is exchanged between self and non-self without a loss of boundary.

Myths can be thought as a verbalization of rituals. This collective dream of a community of people expands our sense of self, finding what is lost, seeking to be whole.

Demeter: Demeter and Persephone are goddesses of the grain, the old grain and the new.

Quintessential intrapsychic double is Oedipus. He doesn't know he is the killer of the king his father nor that he has replaced him in his mother's bed. "I" is the basis of his search, although he becomes increasingly uncomfortable as he gets nearer the truth. He discovers that instead of two there is one: he is father and brother to his children, son and husband. There is permeability between the savior of his people and the killer. He is brutal with the old Shepherd who saved him as a baby. He treats Tiresias the blind prophet with contempt when he will turn into a blind prophet himself. Oedipus behaved with hubris when he ran into the King on the road, this hubris that leads him both to his doom and tragic insight.

Tragedy is the ritual celebration of sacrifice and renewal. Oedipus’ search for what turns out to be his own identity is central to psychoanalysis.

Object relations theory considers more the myth of narcissus then Oedipus as key to the pre-oedipal dilemmas of our world. Psychological basis of modern drama and film is pre-oedipal. The relationship to the mother is dyadic. Oedipal is Triadic, genitally focused.

Dyonisus: myths seeks to overcome death and insure fertility. Greek drama grew out of activity rituals. Dionysus is god of wine, theater and fertility. Nietzche: Dionysus is the archetype of tragic drama: Dionysian/ apollonian division is also doubling..

Orestes. Murders his own mother - violence is often associated with doubling. Inverted version of Oedipus is also a fundamental type of tragic hero. Doubling relationship between them, and in his relationship to his sister Electra who becomes his mother and himself.

Doppelganger: the other who the protagonist encounters as another self or part of the self but he is stronger. In Narcissus, Tiresias informs the water nymph Lirione that her son will live as long as he does not know himself. Narcissus cannot survive self-knowledge, unlike Oedipus.

Doubling involves splitting and multiplication. Darwin: man is an animal, he influences the double in 19th and 20th Century. About the Fuegians in South America, Darwin vacillates between recognitions of common Humanity and shocked registers of savage otherness.

Civilized subjects are now confronted with the proximity of primitive Origins and impulses in every human being. The double was explored in Greek literature, but Darwinism and psychology bring it back. A child as it grows turns to other objects to love. If not he becomes a narcissistic: grandiosity. The object relations theory focuses on narcissism more than Oedipus.

The rise of new Sciences brings the double to the fore. Before, the order of creation was God - man - animal. Now these borders are blurred: a godlike man creates, man is an animal, god is dead. Frankenstein is a case of double, in fact we call the monster after his creator.

Modern protagonists have only fleeting insights about their condition or about their selves, insights that they are unable to sustain. The second self is the shadowed shelf surrounded by uncanniness, who knows secrets.

Many remarks above are inspired by The Drama of The Double, a book by Katherine H. Burkman that is warmly recommended for anyone interested in reading deeper about this subject.

Is it egocentric to believe in aliens?

Our planet is peopled by thinking creatures, therefore we imagine the same of other planets. Aliens have been typically reported to have two legs and two arms and an overlarge head and eyes, a tiny mouth, no hair. They look like a cross between a fetus and a skeleton which has lost some of our organic properties: they don't look like they would sweat or bleed.

They could be analyzed as a product of our subconscious, and of our fascination with forms that are nearly human: ghosts, zombies, severed limbs all linger on the boundaries of humanity. Such constructs challenge our perception of what it means to be human and alive, and tend to inspire us with terror. What happens to “me” when I die, besides putrefying, and where was I before I was born?

Is my body me?

Whether we believe in an afterlife or not, our body becomes separated from our soul, intelligence, consciousness, emotions, once we die. Whatever happens to everything else, our body decays after our death, and that's awful. It becomes alien. The ovule fecundated by a spermatozoid also lacks consciousness, and emotions, and intelligence, if not soul according to some religions.

And is my hand, severed, still me? And is that photo of my stomach's endoscopy a representation of “me”? It seems that in our guts, in our entrails, death and putrefaction loom more menacingly than in our external appearance that defines us as humans. After all, our pancreas does not differ much from a bat's.

The mystery of our boundaries (interior/exterior, dead/alive, whole/divided, psychical/physical) informs all horror films, Alien and its skinless creatures come to mind. These are different from reported images of aliens. ETs are described as being inorganic by people who claim to have seen them, while creatures imagined to provoke terror are ultra organic.

If aliens look like fetuses, do UFOs look like our rockets?

As humans we tend to project our own essence and it's hard for us to imagine something really different. Reports of UFOs are suspiciously close to our own technology: a flying saucer is a metal rocket that projects light, only round instead of elongated.

It is remarkable that their name and shape refer to a container of food -think breast- that crosses the sky in a circular movement. Our technology is mostly inspired by the phallus (rockets, racing cars, skyscrapers, gas pumps, syringes, plugs). Aliens as a fantasy of femaleness?

Or a suppression of masculinity as portrayed stereotypically: aliens have no body hair, no muscle mass, and no erections for sure. They're movable brains.

An appealing theory has it that aliens planted Amanita muscaria on the Earth. People who have sampled this toxic mushroom (carefully enough to be able to tell the tale: I do not recommend trying this) have had out-of-body experiences. Some had the impression they floated way, way above the Earth and explored the cosmos.

Aliens would have given us this way of experiencing the outer world rather than by physical means. While I know this is sweet folklore, the concept implies that aliens might transport themselves, or communicate using completely different means from us. No metal, no fuel, no electromagnetic waves.

Is there life on other planets that is not particularly intelligent?

To go back to alien intelligent life, we could imagine there is life on other planets that is not particularly intelligent. The creatures, deer-like, would lead gentle, unremarkable lives that do not necessitate the development of thinking. It is meditative to imagine a planet without wars, without facebook, without famines nor obesity.

I let myself dream of Planet Earth where Man would never have happened: a kind of paradise with huge areas of savannah, rain forest, ice pack, taiga, tundra, all pristine. Rhinoceros, unconcerned about the value of their horns, roam freely. Whales swim with no threatening boat in sight. Dodos only have to worry about their next meal.

Does evolution necessarily lead to the development of intelligence?

But life without intelligence doesn't actually make sense for a system in the long term. If life appears on a planet, if from an inert environment, something alive (and what is alive? Basically something that is complex and can die if that complexity is destroyed. When we die, our complex bodies get taken over by bacteria that is a less organized form) happens, it's going to evolve. Complex creatures are not going to just happen, ta-da, from one day to the next. That's if we take a scientific point of view, and not mythological!

If there is evolution from simple to more complex, then intelligence is going to give select creatures a massive edge as it has on our planet, and is bound to happen eventually. It could be that one planet hosts more than one species with intelligence, like we had Neanderthal, and Homo floresiensis at some point, and gosh, I really miss them.

Could a planet be inhabited with just one big jelly?

The alternative to this scenario is a planet where there is just one entity. Maybe something like a mycelium. This organism is not in competition with anything else, but works and evolves cooperatively. I imagine a kind of cloud that moves like a huge sea creature, a bit foamy perhaps, that changes color, and changes shapes. It might not need to develop intelligence, but then again it might as it morphs and expands and needs to use different resources.

I like to think that the intelligence of this organism is wise, because it does not know competition, conflict, violence. And maybe it could impart some of its wisdom to us by finding a way to communicate: stay tuned. We'd stop killing each other, and trying to outdo our neighbors, and to own more and more and more than we need, to leave less and less resources to others, like who needs to possess 165 billion dollars when we could share the planet in peace and justice?

Written fast and furiously by - - Arabella von Arx

All images from wikimedia commons.

Gertude Stein's Paris France is infuriating, arrogant, simplistic, and ... a lot of fun to read. Her style, bare and repetitive like a song, is not as stylized as in some of her other books. The sentence patterns, loose but not too loose, are repetitive without driving you to distraction. Combined with the humor and the wit, the style makes for a more pleasant read than say A rose is a rose is a rose, and actually succeeds in courting musicality.

Stein muses about what France is at its essence, and this is the distillation of her analysis, if you can call it that:
"So there are two sides to a Frenchman, logic and fashion and that is the reason why French people are exciting and peaceful."

This sentence appears in modified versions on nearly every page, as a necessary conclusion. The question is, who the hell did Gertrude Stein think she was to be able to resume France in the 1900-1940s in a sentence? An arrogant prick, that's who. But a sympathique prick, no doubt.

Below she argues the French perceive themselves as Latin because they are logical. Ok. Maybe. Then she states logical people do not want to go to war, and certainly Stein proves by that deduction that sheis not French and logical, because in fact the logical Romans really had a thing about going to war all the time.

"When you first really get to know the French one of the first things that puzzles you is the insistence upon their latinity. They do not consider Italians or Spaniards latin, but they the french are latin, they insist upon being Gauls but all the same they are latin. Finally I realised that what they meant was that the spirit of latinity was kept purer by them the Gallo-romans than it was in Italy which lost its latinity when they were overcome by barbarians and never recreated it, they might take on the forms and symbols of Rome but essentially the latin culture went out of Italy and it never existed in Spain so its true home has been France. And there is a good deal of truth in it all. At first I did not know what they were talking about but gradually I did begin to feel what they meant by their latinity.

They meant of course logic, the only people who were interested in logic were the Romans, logic because logical people are never brutal, they are never sentimental, they are never careless, they are never intimate, in short they are peaceful and exciting, that is to say they are French. The French understand war because they are logical, they do not care to go to war because they are logical, and to be logical is to be latin. That is what I was gradually understanding. It took me a long time to really understand it."

She assembles paragraphs of sweeping judgments, some of which are intriguing, others simplistic, often both. These ramblings, which are not actually rambling in the sense of over loquacious but in their lack of depth, are intercut with stories and anecdotes whose importance seem to originate from having been witnessed by Madame Stein, or have happened to people known by her, Dukes for example.

Stein and Toklas at their most stylish

Stein feels quite confident in answering the question of how come France was the cultural capital of the world, or at least of the Western world in the late 19th century/early 20th century. This bygone era has become history, as the French capital has lost this title to New York City, and Beijing, and Berlin, and Kinshasa, and Singapore, and Delhi. Despite her ironical, distanced tone, Stein's excitement at having been a part of the Parisian scene is still palpable:

"So the 20^th Century did need France as a background. France might play with the idea of the destruction of the family as the beginning and end of everything but it could never convince any Frenchman and so France was a background for beginning of the 20^th Century, it had had its one real effort to believe that the family and the things the family holds in its hands and walks on and eats and drinks and which belong to that family, they had their try-out of trying not to believe and that’s it the beginning of 19 century in the first french revolution, but it really was not interesting. Wars yes and excitement yes, but really not interesting. There is no logic to it, no civilization to it and no fashion. So when the 20^th Century was going to start in to try it out all over again, the Frenchmen were very content to be in it but not of it." I guess her writing teacher did not tell her about getting rid of "so" in her texts.

Some of her judgments do not apply to modern France, and it raises the question of whether France has changed, or Stein was wrong. She states that the French do not punish their children. Now, the French punish their children much more than Americans, even corporeal punishment is common in all classes of society.

Despite the book being called Paris France, it's full of anecdotes about Stein's neighbors in the countryside, and these stories do work as a windows on France before WWII. The content seems to have been the result of the following process: Stein and Toklas take a walk with their dogs close to their countryside home. They run into people and have a nice little chat with them. Stein the genius extracts a great insight about France from the meeting, and a relevant anecdote.

The book is short, written in an easy tone, fun, and not a bad read for anyone interested in that period of French history. Personally, I have sympathy for Stein, because she was a woman, a lesbian, and made no mystery about it. In the vein of the self aggrandizing, flamboyant, vociferous celebrity, she gets my vote over Hemingway, even if he had a hell of a sharp pen. And below, as a parting gift, is a story with a nice narrative, and striking images, such as these small boys on oversized bicycles because the French were not rich enough to give bicycles to their children. Children bikes probably didn't exist. Here's this sweet piece:

"Helen Button was her name and she lived in war-time. She lived somewhere but the thing that is important is that she lived during war-time.

There is a great deal of war-time in history and Helen Button lived in it. (...)

Of course children do go in and out as they like a great deal more in war-time than in peace-time for there is not much use in just staying at home while it is war-time.

Helen Button started out with her dog William. As they were walking along suddenly William stopped and was very nervous. He saw something on the road and so did Helen. They neither of them knew what it was at first and at last as they approached very carefully they saw it was a bottle, a bottle standing up right in the middle of the road. There had been something in the bottle but what, it looked dark green or may be blue or black, and the bottle was standing up in the middle of the road not lying on its side the way a bottle on the road usually is.

William the dog and Helen the little girl went on. They did not look back at the bootle. But of course it was still there because they had not touched it.

That is war-time.

When Helen went out there were a great many little boys on the large bicycles about. The bicycles were so tall that they cannot get on the seat at all but they were all over the country wriggling from side to side to have their ride and when they saw water and some of the roads were under water they went forward and back through the water to make it splash. That was because their big brothers and their fathers were gone away and that made so many more little boys able to play.

Then Helen did know it was war-time.

Helen and her dog William were out every day and almost every evening and they always saw someone. They knew a boy named Emil who was a big boy with very large eyes and a dog named Ellen. Ellen the dog had been born in the country against which they were fighting. Emil looked at his dog and wondered if he could love him. The dog loved Emil but could Emil love him.

As Helen and her dog William came along Emil's dog Ellen sniffing along the side of the road in the sand and finally went sniffing up the bank. Helen's dog William went sniffing too. Perhaps there was game there, very likely because in war-time men did not go shooting nobody hunted anything only dogs and cats hunted in war-time, Emil the boy with large eyes sighed about this. He said dogs hunt in war-time but they do not get much, anybody could see two or three dogs going together to hunt and waiting to see if anybody saw them because in peace-time of course they can not go hunting. Then Emil said but cats in peace-time or in war-time, they sit and watch and prey. (...)

Helen had a grandmother and when she had been the age of Helen there had been war-time. She told Helen how one day she had a slice of bread and there was very little bread to be had, but she did have a good big slice and she was just commencing eating it. A soldier came along an enemy soldier on a horse, he stopped and got off this horse and not roughly but he did, he took the slice of bread out of her hand, she had just had one bite and he gave it to his horse who ate it and he went away on his horse and he did not say anything."

Please note: I have tried to reproduce the text's random capitalization. For Stein, all French people seem to be men, and a dog named Ellen is a he. In the story of Helen, the characters all have English names or English spelling of French names. My guess is that Stein could not be bothered to find out the real names or relevant spellings. Or she invented the whole thing. Which is still pretty gracious.

Stein's famous portrait by Picasso

And finally an anecdote, but that illustrates how injustice could affect a woman, and a lesbian's life. Stein left her art collection as a trust to her partner Toklas. When the collection became extremely valuable in the early 60s, the Stein family had it seized while Toklas was away from France, on the pretext she was not taking care of it properly. Toklas was never able to recover it, despite legal action. It's also distressing that Stein did not leave the collection to Toklas as an inheritance. Selling one piece would have saved her from her poverty in her late years.

Published and written by - - Arabella von Arx

People waiting in line with social distancing

We got together virtually and talked about how we are experiencing the pandemic, what are our fears and our hopes.

We’re sad that some people have died, suffered, and that a lot more will. We’re worried for that risk which is all around us, and might take away some of the people we love, and ourselves too, naturally.

We wonder what ways, or rites, we can come up to to express that sadness, to mourn as a community, now (virtually) and when the pandemic is over (a ceremony in cemeteries, other ideas?).

* * * * * * *

Our world will be changed, it will never be the same, and we are trying to think of ways to veer it in a direction we value: more wholesome, just, zen. Less consumerism? Less production? Less pollution?

Some of the things that are happening are good, some are bad. Below is a list. We want to have our voices heard about how this pandemic is handled: social action. Two proposals, one physical: we stand at our windows with posters expressing our views: lives over dollars, save small businesses, help to illegal immigrants, suspend rents, suspend mortgages, etc.

Virtually, we could have a day of action where we all express on the internet (instagram, fb, twitter) our political views through photos, memes, statements.

TABLE COMPARING THE NEW NORMAL AND THE NEW NEW NORMAL

CORONAVIRUS PERIOD	THE NEW NORMAL (post covid19)
Bad hair cuts	Lose.
Less commuting	Keep.
More work from home	Either or.
Less traveling	Keep? More environmental solutions.
Less flying	Keep. Bring back transatlantic ships, they pollute less.
Less socializing	Lose. More “in the flesh” events.
Lots and lots of time on the Internet	Lose.
Lots of sex with one partner (or two)	Keep.
Less work	Keep.
Less pollution	Keep
More time with loved ones	Keep
More time alone	Keep?
More physical exercise	Either or
More caring	Keep
Hospitals overwhelmed	Lose
Small businesses endangered	Help from govt, from us
Virtual parties	Keep (for people who are sick, isolated, depressed, far)
More cooking!	Either or.
No restaurants, gigs, concerts, shows, exhibitions	LOSE!
Virtual shows, gigs, art.	Keep
People lose their job	Help from govt, from us
Some people have more access to health, some have no insurance	Justice, equality.
Illegal immigrants get no help	Justice, equality.
We read more	Either or.
Bad teeth	Lose.
Lots of time with pets	Keep.
Feeling we’re in this together, everyone	Keep!!!
Hairy legs, and other places on the body	Either or.

At the end of this long tunnel of isolation, we want to celebrate too. Maybe pick a date, and have a huge dance party at the park where everyone brings their own music and dance our liberation.

Skyping from NY to MD

We would love to have your comments, ideas, reactions, feelings, below!

This was contributed by Ingrid Norton, Nupur Mathur, Hyojin Yoo, and Arabella von Arx

bilingual blog bilingue de la curiosité

Monday, December 15, 2025

Natalie Palamides offers herself in sacrifice in "Weer" at the Cherry Lane Theater

Friday, July 11, 2025

Smurfette and the Eternal Gender Gap (Now with Rihanna!)

Wednesday, February 26, 2025

Safe House at St. Ann’s Warehouse: A Safe House that turns into a Doll House

Monday, June 3, 2024

The obsession with the double: doppelgängers, Jekyll and Hide, Frankenstein, and more

Thursday, October 12, 2023

Are aliens just a projection of our subconscious?

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Paris France by Gertrude Stein is infuriating, simplistic and ... a lot of fun!

Monday, March 30, 2020

What should we keep of the new normal?

TABLE COMPARING THE NEW NORMAL AND THE NEW NEW NORMAL

We would love to have your comments, ideas, reactions, feelings, below!