Page 1

July / Aug 2014

Di sney Animati on

Changing Worlds

EACH TIME I COMPILE FEMNISTA, I AM pleasantly surprised at the contributions of my writers. They always find something new and interesting to think about, even when tackling familiar things. Originally, this issue was going to be about early America, but unfortunately, there isn‟t a lot of material set pre-Revolution, or during the Revolution, for that matter; so I opened it up to Europe as well. It evolved into a mishmash collection of stories set in “evolving times.” From the major transformations of the legal system to the upheaval in France, this issue peruses the best and worst of society during a dark period in history. It tackles religion, historical figures, classic literature, modern structures catered to historical whims, and individuals on both sides of the Atlantic during the turbulent Revolutionary period. The Georgian era (during which most of this issue is set) is one of my favorite time periods. It was an age of tremendous scientific, legal, and humanitarian advancements (finally, a “sea clock” that could measure longitude was invented, tested, and successfully executed; the legal system as we know it changed forever in England to reflect an “innocent until proven

guilty” worldview; and the slave trade was abolished in England), while also being a time of shocking cruelty and violence. War raged on several fronts, both for independence and a new government in France. A king and queen lost their heads, a new nation was born, and for the first time, England had lost a major territory. On a purely fashionable note, skirts got bigger, wigs got taller, shoes got higher, and foppish behavior became “the thing”—something Baroness Ortczy capitalized on when she invented one of literature‟s first “secret identity heroes” in the form of Sir Percy Blakeney, Baronet by day and Scarlet Pimpernel by night. It‟s not an era I would choose to live in, but it‟s gorgeous on-screen and romantic to read about. It‟s my hope that this issue causes you to reexamine things you know, and discover things you don‟t. Happy perusing! -Charity



LET THEM EAT CAKE Marie Antoinette 8 THE ORIGINAL SUPERHERO The Scarlet Pimpernel 12 MOTHER OF A NATION Abigail Adams 16 FATHER OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM William Garrow 20 TYGER BURNING BRIGHT William Blake 24 TIME MACHINE Colonial Williamsburg




TRUST THE FRENCH Marquis de Lafayette 34 A VIEW ON SIN The Scarlet Letter



All our upcoming issues have open spots! Weâ€&#x;d love for you to contribute! Upcoming Issues: Underrated Tales, Monsters & Madness, A Family Affair Request or claim your topic by e-mailing the editor. E-mail Femnista: 3


enjamin Martin sits at the end of the stairs having put his children to bed, overwhelmed by all he has lost that day. He saved his son Gabriel, but lost his son Thomas and all that he owned—including his precious children's innocence.

They saw the brutality of war on their front steps. In his pain and rage, they saw him, a bloody man who long ago butchered his innocence. His story coincides with that of a nation trying to stand tall, proudly, free. It needs those who believe in something more than present safety, who understand what they are truly fighting for. "You have done nothing for which you should be ashamed," Charlotte, his sister-in-law, tells him. "I have done nothing," he replies. "And for that I am ashamed."

Few stories stick at the forefront of my mind when I think of a truly good movie. But every time I see The Patriot, I see something more, something deeper, a truth that gives even greater meaning to the trials the characters face—most notably, Benjamin Martin's. The man whose sins, he knows, will come visit him again someday, and exact vengeance. The cost is a steep one—a terrible one, but it isn't all that comes to pass. He‟s a widower, and a father. His heart aches for his departed wife, his motherless children, and the past he can‟t forget. He‟s a wounded soldier who hears the drums of war sound again. He 5

refuses to vote for a levy or to fight, yet knows the men around him and what they strive for. War will definitely come. Standing before them, he states, "This war will be fought, not on the frontier or on some distant battlefield, but amongst us. Among our homes. Our children will learn of it with their own eyes. And the innocent will die with the rest of us." War comes quickly, like a thief, into his home. When Col. Tavington of the Dragoons coldly shoots Thomas in the back for trying to free his brother Gabriel, Tavington looks down at Benjamin's stricken face and says, "Stupid boy." Tavington has just stripped something from Benjamin, not just his son. Benjamin and Gabriel will never forget those words. This is the making of what Benjamin will become. He realizes he has to protect his family a different way. He joins the army, easing back into the soldier he once was, savvy and knowing. He knows what he's defending, and has the strength to see it through. I think that is what so many of his men respect—

not just his prowess, but his steady belief in what he's fighting for: home. Many fought for that simple reason, completely aside from the idea of freedom, although there were so many who filled the ranks because they did believe in that ideal. Through the course of the movie, he becomes "The Ghost", the nemesis of Col. Tavington. Though there are times when the brutal life he knew comes back to him, Gabriel reminds him that they are better men; men that stay the course, and do the honorable thing. When Martin loses him, the flag Gabriel faithfully mended reminds him of the worthiness of the cause for freedom. That enables him to carry on. He stays the course. He returns to fight alongside his men, leading them valiantly in the next battle where he confronts Tavington again—the man who took two of his sons. Yet, even as he first glimpses him, Benjamin's comrade in arms alerts him that the line is faltering—the men are turning back. He must make his choice. Benjamin turns aside, and seizes a flag and

waves it high, yelling for his men to hold. Boys, men, old men—they turn back after him, to the fight, and they take the ground. This is the power of faith and belief. Many people just need someone who will enable them to hold the course. That day Benjamin Martin was that man for everyone there fighting for everything that mattered: family, friends, freedom. Though he does get to kill his adversary, Benjamin fights for the cause to the end. Benjamin has a brutal fight with Tavington. The battle is being won, but it looks like Benjamin might die. Fortunately, Tavington doesn‟t have that satisfaction—and neither does our hero, at least not in the way he originally intended. He set out for vengeance, but it was his sons and his faith that endured through it all, and that has changed him. In the moment when he‟s sure of his personal victory, Tavington sneers, "It appears that you are not the better man." Before Benjamin kills him, he answers, "No. I'm not. My sons were better men."

Elora Carmen Shore has been writing for almost fifteen years, and has published a short story titled Eloise and her first collection of poetry titled A Road to Count the Days By, available on Amazon Kindle. Her poems have appeared in several magazines, such as Moon Drenched Fables, Moon Washed Kisses, and Vox Poetica. She is currently working on a romcom and a fantasy trilogy. She likes to keep things diverse. Elora can be found at her blogs, Pendragon and Out My Front Door.

I constantly mull over the feeling of personal grace aligned with the fight for freedom in this movie. I think it has much to do simply with showing The Man—his sins, his fears, and his fight for his own spiritual freedom to escape from the wretchedness of his own sins. A man that needs to feel grace, to be forgiven, and to forgive himself of his past. I believe Benjamin reached his freedom when he realized what was truly worth believing in and fighting for—Gabriel and Thomas taught him that. They believed in the chance to make a better nation—to an extent, grace for their country, and a new birth. Benjamin emerges as a defender of freedom, and as living evidence of true grace. He finds his place, and I'm happy to say, it was worth it. Freedom for a nation, and grace for The Man. ♥



id Marie Antoinette ever utter those famous words, “Let them eat cake?” in response to the starving masses of Paris? Whether she did or not doesn‟t matter; it encompasses the indulgent lifestyle of the French aristocracy, in comparison with the poverty of the people of France, during the pivotal months leading up to the French Revolution. History is written by the victors, and we can‟t trust the voices of contemporary Parisians due to bias. Perspective colors every aspect of life, and someone on the outside looking in has no more insight into Marie Antoinette than she had into the poor people of France. If she said it, and if she didn‟t, it nevertheless served its purpose in vindicating the loss of her head. If you can transform a human into a monster who cares little for her subjects, there is no “sin” in dispatching with her life.

of humanity‟s evil, not in her indulgent lifestyle but in what happened to her, and an example of the sorrow of idleness. For all the distractions in her life, did Marie ever feel the emptiness of it? I can only imagine what went through her mind as she ascended the scaffold, knowing her children would soon follow. Alas, in real life there was no Sir Percy Blakeney to save them. She was young, beautiful, and had fallen from power; stripped of her wealth, distractions, and happiness, she had only her life… and it was taken from her.

However history regards Marie Antoinette, I find it difficult to see her as anything except pitiable, a woman born into and encouraged to live a life of meaninglessness. She is a reminder

The first time I indulged in the film Marie Antoinette, it struck me how delicious it was yet how ultimately empty also, like a cream puff pastry, pretty on the outside but with nothing 9

inside. At first, this alarmed me, because it felt wrong somehow to touch on such a historically tragic figure without plumbing the depths of her emotions… but the longer I thought about it, the more I realized that the film itself is a metaphor for Marie‟s life, an illustration of its opulent emptiness. Marie has everything her heart desires, from towering piles of tea cakes to miles of shoes, but is happiest in the quiet simplicity of her cottage, far from court and dressed in linen rather than embroidered silk. She finds the tedious routines of court absurd (why should she stand there half naked, while her ladies figure out which one has seniority on that day to dress her?), and gambles, eats, and indulges in other momentary pleasures in an attempt to sate the bitter emptiness of her soul. Often, after a night of frivolity, Marie is left alone and her former happiness fades, for it was only an illusion. As a woman who has everything, who is wed to one of the most powerful (if young, and at times foolish) monarchs in Europe, why is she still so

unhappy? Of course, we cannot know if this was true of the real Marie, but it isn‟t difficult to imagine trying to cover up unhappiness by indulging in all the world has to offer; I have done it myself. When the laughter fades and the sun rises, though, I am still myself, as Marie was still the same person, in the same place, at the same time. Scripture tells us not to accumulate worldly goods and “store up our treasures on earth,” not because God doesn‟t desire these things for us, but because they are ultimately meaningless. Tea cakes can be eaten, silver tarnishes, diamonds can be taken away, and at the end of our lives, all we are left with is life itself. Marie took none of her wealth with her to pay her first and last visit to Madame le Guillotine, just as we will take none of our wealth, fame, or possessions with us when we die. Marie is no different from the rest of us; she died and went alone to face her Creator and atone for her life. While we can‟t know the inner-workings of Marie‟s mind, her lifestyle

suggests if she had any faith, it had little impact on her life. Unfortunately, this was the case for many Parisians at the time. The Church stood as a custom and tradition rather than a personal decision, and Marie‟s court went about their philandering unhindered. God is as absent from their lives as from the Revolution. I don‟t mean to say He wasn‟t present, but He wasn‟t invited, which made all the difference. The French Revolution stemmed from the ideals of the American Revolution, but far from being a beacon of hope in a changing world, it became a reign of terror that led France into years of division, poverty, and godlessness. France endured a brief, bloody period and reverted back to a pseudomonarchy that stemmed other equally futile attempts at revolution. Though the French of the period idolized the Colonial Revolution, they didn‟t emulate it. There was no godly delegation to pray over this decision, and no commitment to righteousness. In Marie‟s life, we see the result of an absence of inviting God‟s presence, just as in Revolutionary France, we see the result of godless government. Humans, absent of God‟s compassion and love, executed men, women, and children who were innocent of all but being the aristocracy. Sadly, modern society echoes this godlessness. Many do not invite him into government or into their lives, resulting in widespread unhappiness and the accumulation of worldly goods, but cream puffs and new shoes won‟t fill the emptiness of a life without purpose. Happily, our solution to a meaningless life is simple: invite God into it. ♥

Charity Bishop is fanatical about all things historical and costume drama. Sadly, she can no longer “eat cake” due to food allergies, so she spends her free time learning gluten-free baking instead. She lives with a snit of a half-Siamese cat, and devotes her free time to writing books, blogging, and searching for spiritual truth in all aspects of life… when she isn‟t editing Femnista!



ometimes the best literary characters wear the silliest wrappings. No one would ever imagine that The Scarlet Pimpernel, hero to the French aristocracy during the Revolution of the 1790s, was, in fact, the foppish Sir Percival Blakeney.

The Scarlet Pimpernel is courageous and daring, risking his life countless times in order to save the lives of others. He always puts the needs and care of other people before his own. Sir Percy on the other hand, struggles to have an original thought that does not include the height of fashion or popular entertainment of the time. He peacocks in front of his peers, and is disparagingly known as the greatest fop in all of London society. Percy and the Pimpernel are as far removed from one another as humanly possible, yet they are the same man. Not all superheroes were bitten by spiders or had gallons of steroid serum pumped through their veins. Some of them were still just men,

like Batman and like Hawkeye and like Iron Man. Sir Percy truly is the precursor to these superheroes. Percy wears a facade when out in society as himself, just like all great heroes must do when they spend their free time saving the world. Or, in Percy‟s case, a small section of the world. Superheroes remind their audiences that good can triumph over evil. They never give up the fight, even when the cause seems hopeless. Sir Percy wears his mask as proudly as any of the “real” superheroes in the literary world. If anything, Percy has a far more difficult time of it as himself than most of the superhero alteregos. Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are billionaires/playboys. Clark Kent is a geek 13

reporter. But Percy plays the fool, the fop, a complete incompetent. Never once does he blink at the eye rolls his peers shoot his way. He never hesitates to draw himself up to his fullest height and superciliously recite his ridiculous little ditty about The Scarlet Pimpernel. He must hear the whispers, the murmurs that Marguerite, the love of his life, was absurd to marry him . . . the considerations of how such a fool ever attracted such a charming woman. It never deters him that none of his peers save a very few know him as the man he really is, a man who plans elaborate escapes for the French nobility so they can avoid the caress of Madame la Guillotine. He is more than his friends see, than his king sees, than his fellow noblemen see. Percy is a great reminder that God does not call the equipped, he equips the called. The only thing this man has going for him is his wealth. Percy is a financially secure aristocrat, like Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark. But that‟s all he is without the courage to act on his convictions. The difference between Percy and any other man in England is that he saw the need in France and he answered the call to do something about that need. Percy became the hero that the world needed, at that moment. God could have called anyone to step up to the plate, but He didn‟t, He chose Percy to take a stand and make a difference. The world needs heroes like Percy. The downside to his story is that it isn‟t true. Percy is only a literary character and he didn‟t save people from the guillotine, let alone the crown prince of France. No one saved the crown prince or tried to rescue the French nobility. Was there a Percy out there during the French Revolution? Was there a man or a woman who burned with the desire to right a horrendous wrong? What stopped him or her? God has a plan for every individual, a grand purpose for that person to

fulfill. It can be marriage, career, or anything in between, but there is a purpose for everyone. Countless thousands of Jews were saved in Hungary because of Raoul Wallenberg. Without David Wilkerson, Teen Challenge would have never gotten its start and set thousands of addicts on a new path. Irene Sendler smuggled over 1,000 children out of the Warsaw Ghetto at personal risk to her own life. These individuals and thousands more like them in history didn‟t simply stand by and do nothing. Percy might be merely a literary device but he fills a void that reality created. Somewhere, a Percy could have fought against the atrocities of the French Revolution, but didn‟t, for whatever reason. So Baroness Orczy created him . . . a grand hero of epic proportions who burns with righteousness. Sir Percy might not have been real, but his very existence is a reminder that stepping out in faith leads to great deeds done in the defense of humanity. Superheroes don‟t have to wear capes and spangled tights in order to save the world. Sometimes a little grime around the eyes and handkerchiefs stuffed into the cheeks serve the same purpose. The true moral to his story is that Percy didn‟t let his purpose go unfulfilled, and neither should we. ♥

Carissa Horton is a bit sentimental about her favorite fictional characters. She dabbles in many handicrafts (sewing, knitting, writing, costuming). She currently works for Compassion International, which finds sponsors for third world children, and dreams of being an agent at a publishing house. She blogs about life, faith, relationships, and fandom in her free time.



emember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation." When we think of the ones who forged America, our thoughts immediately turn to the Founding Fathers. We tend to forget that behind every great man, there is a great woman. Abigail Adams was one of a kind. Born to a Congregationalist minister and his wife, Abigail was reared in Colonial Massachusetts. Though she did not receive a higher education, she was what we would consider today as “home schooled.” This sharp lady adored books and she devoured most of the classics that men were educated on. Though young, her opinions on

women‟s rights were formed early. Her uniqueness piqued the interest of country lawyer John Adams. He admired her intelligence and they soon fell in love, and married. Six children followed (two of them died young) and though they had the beginnings of a normal Colonial family, they were anything but that. The fever of independence was running high among the colonists and it wasn‟t long before John and Abigail contracted it. Although not as popular as others because of his brash manners, John was the one to stir up the emotions of the 17

people and the other Founding Fathers. Meanwhile, it was Abigail he turned to for counsel. Her advice and levelheadedness was precisely what he needed to help spawn a revolution. In his letters to her, he tenderly called her his “Dearest Friend.” While John and the other founders were away at the Continental Congresses, writing the Declaration of Independence and other important documents, or when he was an ambassador in Europe, Abigail stayed behind at home. Not only did she tend to the chores women of her era saw to, including raising the children, her influence went further. She ran the farm, educated the children and oversaw the finances. On top of all that, Abigail wrote to

John, encouraging him to remember the ladies and their best interests, arguing for them to have equal rights. Though he privately agreed with her, he brushed her concerns aside. One issue that the Adams‟ were in agreement on was the matter of slavery. Like many others from Massachusetts, they opposed it on moral and religious grounds. They refused to employ slaves, opposed family members who did, and years later, Abigail taught a young black man in their home. Had it been Abigail at the Continental Congress, she would not have backed down. “I wish most sincerely there was not a slave in the province. It always appeared a most iniquitous scheme to me—to fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those

who have as good a right to freedom as we have. You know my mind upon this subject.” She fervently wrote to him. John, on the other hand, hoping to appease the Southern members of the congress, agreed that slavery would be part of the new nation and would gradually be phased out. When he became the second president of America, John often heeded what Abigail said on matters. Unlike her predecessor, she was active in running the young nation. Thomas Jefferson, who was a chauvinist, thought so much of Abigail, that he too was impressed by what she had to say. She was the only woman who‟s opinions he valued. Clearly Abigail was a woman ahead of her time. What drove her exactly? The answer is simple: her faith. Abigail‟s father was a minister; she was raised in Puritan tradition. She read the Bible to her children daily, which her son John Quincy Adams later attested to. When John Quincy went to Europe as a young ambassador, she charged him to remember his Christian faith. Modern scholars now question her faith. It seems that when she and John Adams were younger, their faith was more Orthodox. As they aged, they embraced many of the beliefs of the Unitarian Church. Whatever her religious beliefs, it was the basis of her and John‟s motivation to support the Revolution. They believed that God created mankind to be independent and free, and that no tyrannical government could squelch the indomitable human spirit. ♥

Veronica Leigh is an aspiring novelist, who lives in Indiana with her family and six furbabies. Her obsessions range from Jane Austen to the Holocaust to the TV show Once Upon a Time. She has published two short autobiographical pieces and hopes to see more in print. She also lurks on her blog.



n 2009, the BBC released a new period drama series which afforded us a look into a concept unknown to many: the quickly changing legal world of the late 1700‟s. The main character of Garrow’s Law is young barrister William Garrow, played brilliantly by Andrew Buchan.

It explores legal and societal issues from the 1780‟s, such as quick, merciless trials, the way the poor had to fend for themselves, and the different punishments given to men and women. Most BBC period dramas are well researched and can teach you something about history, but this one goes one step further: Garrow and many of the other characters are based on real people and most of the cases directly come from the records that exist of London‟s criminal court in the 18th century! Who was William Garrow? How does what we know about him and his legal profession compare to the portrayal in Garrow’s Law? What legal rights do we have thanks to him?

He was born in 1760, the son of an Anglican priest and schoolmaster. Educated at his father‟s village school until age 15, William became apprenticed to the attorney Thomas Southouse in London. The law interested him and he spend much time going to the Old Bailey criminal court to observe the cases. Two years later, Garrow apprenticed to Mr. Crompton, a “special pleader.” This profession no longer exists but was the forerunner of the modern lawyer. Despite not having had a formal education in the Law, Garrow became a barrister in 1783. The late 18th century was an exciting time to work in the legal field. The American Revolution had just ended and many soldiers returned home 21

the use of false witnesses to get someone sentenced was widespread. Garrow tried to get the truth out of the witnesses and with his clever questions and moving speeches, introduced a “new school” of advocacy, likely unknowingly! His fame and impact were already evident during his lifetime, as in 1799 it was written of Garrow: “He has long monopolized the chief business. No man is heard with more attention by the court, no man gains more upon a jury, or better pleases the common auditor.” In Garrow’s Law, he takes up cases of victims of the legal system: poor people accused by the rich and powerful, minorities, revolutionaries, etc. That Garrow took these kind of cases in reality is clear from the records of the Old Bailey. How he really felt about these people we can never truly know, as Garrow left behind no written sources. Still, it isn‟t far fetched to call him a fighter for social justice and equal legal rights for everyone. In the case of slavery, however, his opinion is presented very clearly. When Garrow was offered a job managing sugar planters‟ official legal business, he said, “If your committee would give me their whole incomes, and all their estates, I would not be seen as the advocate of practices which I abhor, and a system which I detest.” to England looking for work. The Revolution in France was ongoing and reform was in the air; people started talking about and pleading for rights and democracy. Garrow made a name for himself in the criminal court in the next decade. Though Garrow took cases for the defence and the prosecution, in 83% of the cases he was counsel for the defence. This was a relatively new thing at the time. Before 1696, people accused of a serious crime weren‟t even permitted to have counsel and in Garrow‟s time, many of them still had to defend themselves, especially the poor. Garrow was committed to giving everyone a fair defence and worked pro bono for those accused who could not pay him. Garrow‟s commitment to a fair defence surfaced in his aggressive and confrontational style of cross-examination. The legal system was biased against the accused and

In the BBC series, this statement provides the foundation for Garrow to act as counsel in a real historical case: the Zong massacre. In 1781, slavers threw 132 slaves overboard and claimed the insurance money. The insurance company refused to pay; in the series, Garrow acts as counsel for the insurance company. Though in reality he wasn‟t connected to this case, it‟s a good example of how reality and dramatic invention can be mixed to present an interesting historical story in a way which is watchable and easy to relate to for modern viewers. Garrow didn‟t only defend the innocent and helpless but also took cases of real criminals. He first coined the phrase “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and in this respect he was far ahead of his time. After all, it was not until the late 19th century that this opinion was carried by

everyone in the legal world and included in laws and constitutions! His personal life was almost as interesting as his professional pursuits. He had a so-called “irregular relationship” with Sarah Dore; they lived together unmarried. With Sarah, he had two children, a son in 1781 and a daughter in 1784. The couple was not married until 1793, for reasons nobody has yet found out. In Garrow’s Law, Sarah is presented as the wife of Lord Arthur Hill, one of the richest and most powerful men in England. Though it is true that Sarah Dore had a relationship with Hill before she was with Garrow and even bore Hill a son, she was never married to him. This fictional storyline invents adversity between Lord Arthur Hill and Garrow and Sarah. Hill accuses Garrow of adultery with his wife and refuses to let Sarah see her son when she goes to live with Garrow in series 3.

Tryntsje Cuperus is a 30-year old Dutch woman working as a PhD student in veterinary science. She‟s an Anglophile and history lover, so her favorite movies are period dramas and her favorite books are classics or historic novels. She loves animals and nature and her favorite season is spring. She also blogs.

In reality, the son of Sarah Dore and Hill was taken in and raised by Garrow, but financially supported by Hill. If there was ever any true enmity between the two men, it was never committed to paper. This difference between historical reality and the BBC series is again understandable from a dramatic viewpoint and gives the series the opportunity to showcase the treatment of women in the 18th century through the character of Lady Sarah, and her struggles to maintain parental control over her illegitimate child. Still, it is good to note that the differences from reality in the series are larger for Garrow‟s personal life compared to his legal career! Garrow‟s life and work were largely forgotten by the 21st century, both in the wider and in the legal world. With Garrow’s Law, the BBC brought to life both an interesting historical era and a remarkable person who influenced the legal system we have today. ♥



yger! Tyger! burning bright / In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye / Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

The first time I read those words, as well as the rest of the poem, I fell in love with William Blake‟s poetry. It spoke to me, and some of his poems seemed Christian, like the lines in “The Lamb” where he compares a lamb to Christ. Years later, I took British Literature and studied Blake (among many other writers and poets) and I came to realize that like so many others, he was searching for something. The Georgian Era was a time of change. Blake and many other writers, artists, and musicians were reacting to the tight-laced suppression of feelings during the Age of Enlightenment. Instead of viewing nature through a critical lens, Blake opened himself to description and sensual descriptions. This is evident in poems like “The Clod and the Pebble” where the little clod makes a heaven for itself in the midst of an ugly life and the pebble makes a hell for itself in the midst of a beautiful life. In the poem, “My Pretty RoseTree,” Blake tells us that his “rose turned away with jealousy / and her thorns were my only delight.” “The Shepherd” tells of a simple shepherd and his duties caring for his sheep. If you delve too deeply into Blake‟s poetry, you find more than simple description. Blake‟s bitter writings on marriage and his belief in its inherent lack of love are found throughout his poetry. He considered marriage to be suffocating, though he himself was married. Plenty of rumors abound that he did not stay faithful to his wife, Catherine, though none can be proven. He disagreed with marriage and many of his poems paint it as an ugly institution as in “The Garden of Love” where he claims that it binds “with briers my joys and desires.”

Poems like “The Tyger” and “The Lamb” show that he sought something greater than himself. As you read the lines, it‟s apparent he heard the answers somewhere but they weren‟t the ones he wanted. In “The Lamb,” Blake discusses how God called himself a Lamb and was once a child. I think that part appealed to him; the God in heaven who comes down to visit lowly man and starts life as a child. It appealed to Blake‟s love of stories and myths. But when it came to Jesus dying on the cross, raising three days later, and asking for his followers to live like Him and die to themselves, that was asking too much. In “The Tiger,” he recognized God‟s strength, but though he was searching for answers, he didn‟t want to put in the effort the truth demanded of him. He liked his life where he could do as he pleased. His legacy is simply a bunch of very bitter poems, some beautiful poems, and some poems that show how close he came to understanding what the Gospel really meant. So though I will always enjoy a handful of Blake‟s poems, I do so with bittersweet enjoyment and hope that my legacy points to Christ when I am dead and gone. ♥

Carol Starkley lives in the beautiful state of Connecticut. She has a husband, three daughters and live-in mother-in-law, three cats, five fish, and a hamster. She works part-time while working and going to school. She loves to write, read, and take pictures of life around her. Her blog is updated infrequently, but she hopes to change that after she graduates. She‟s a Christian, and hopes that ultimately her life will point to him. She sometimes blogs. 25


ave you ever wondered what life was really like during the 1700s? Reading books and watching movies can only go so far toward helping you understand how people lived and worked hundreds of years ago.

Since time machines have yet to become widely available, most of us have no way to revisit the past. If only there was a place where people recreated Georgian life, so we could see and experience it first-hand. Oh, wait—there is! At Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, you can do precisely that. I first visited Colonial Williamsburg in the early „90s. Pre-teen me had read all the American Girl books about a girl named Felicity who lived in Williamsburg during the colonial era. I learned from them that the historic center of the city has been restored to

look the way it did in the 1770s, on the eve of the American Revolution. Although I considered history to be one of my least-favorite subjects in school (I was twelve; please forgive me), I loved learning about how people lived in days gone by. Around that same time, we moved to North Carolina, and our first spring there, my dad had to attend a conference in Williamsburg, VA. I convinced my family we should all go along so we could experience the colonial recreation for ourselves. Weâ€&#x;d been to many living history spots over the years, and we 27

favorite places. We would plan our vacation routes so we could stop there for a day or even just drop in to eat a meal. And the best part? It continues to grow! New houses are restored, more reenactors are hired—it keeps getting better and better. I went back in 2011, my first visit in almost a decade, and I was astounded at how it had grown.

expected this to be similar: a handful of restored buildings, a dozen tour guides in period clothes, a few people demonstrating handicrafts, maybe a blacksmith. I hoped there would be a gift shop. Imagine our delight when we stepped onto the cobblestone streets of Colonial Williamsburg. Not a small cluster of restored buildings, but several streets lined with them! Not a dozen tour guides, but hundreds of reenactors in period dress! Not a few handicrafts being demonstrated, but shop after shop where you could see people plying their trades. (And yes, there was a blacksmith.) Not just a gift shop, but store after store where you could buy recreations of household items, books about the town, and more, plus several restaurants where you could eat food prepared from colonial-era recipes! Paradise! My whole family fell in love with Colonial Williamsburg. In fact, it became one of our

On that first visit, we discovered many different ways to learn about and experience colonial life in Williamsburg. We began by buying the tour package that let us traipse through the Governer‟s Mansion, the Raleigh Tavern, the powder magazine, and homes of people great and small. I particularly loved the houses, the way they gave me a glimpse of the world inhabited by colonists in all different walks of life. And the reenactors fascinated me. Most of them are portraying a specific character, or even historical figure, complete with name, personal history, and an occupation. I was encouraged to engage them in conversation, and although I‟m still too shy to talk to them much, I‟m blessed with a father who loves to ask questions. That first visit, I was young enough to be unembarrassed by him accosting reenactors, asking them, “Now, who are you? What are you doing? Tell us your story.” They gladly did just that. They explained what they were doing, whether it was cooking, sewing, or making a pair of boots. They told us their historical character‟s names, where they were born, what their parents did, if they were married, if they had children, how long they‟d lived in America, what their aspirations were— this budding writer was fascinated indeed. The shops and restaurants are all open to the public, as are most of the gardens. The shops are one of my favorite things to visit. I love browsing their wares: period clothes and accessories, hand

-bound books and journals, quill pens, clay pipes, hand-dipped candles, mob caps, tricorn hats, books that explain various facets of colonial life, and more. While I haven‟t gotten into wearing period clothes while I‟m in Williamsburg, I love buying little things like soap, hats, and candles there. My family loves Shield‟s Tavern, with their unforgettable crayfish chowder, meats with savory sauces, and mulled cider. We ate there on our very first visit, and although it closed for a few years, it's back open again and as splendid as ever. We‟ve recently learned that if you want to experience living as a colonial American for more than a few hours, you can even rent a restored house to stay in overnight. There are a multitude of these lining the side streets of Colonial Williamsburg, and they‟re furnished with antiques and replica furnishings, but also have modern plumbing and electricity. I can imagine

myself wearing period clothing, seated at a desk in one of those houses, writing in a hand-sewn journal with a quill pen—it would be as close to a time machine as I‟m ever likely to get.♥

When she's not writing, Rachel Kovaciny passes the time by reading, baking, watching movies, crocheting, blogging, and homeschooling her three children. Her least favorite activities are house-cleaning and wearing shoes, and she's been known to go to great lengths to avoid both. She blogs about books, and also has a personal blog that talks about movies and other important things.



veryone loves the spontaneous history question, right? Okay, so not everyone loves history, but bear with me. Here‟s a good question for you: Who did Pocahontas marry?

If you answered John Smith, you‟re wrong! It‟s a person humanity and popular opinion has taken and made invisible: John Rolfe. His name has been ignored, his history forgotten, and in the end, only a few people know about him, in particular, those who sat through all of The New World movie. Yes, he was the husband of Pocahontas, but more than that, he was one of the people who kept the New World colonies from failing. His main business on the shores of Virginia was growing a rare Spanish tobacco, something that, had he been caught by the Spanish, would have been enough evidence for a

death sentence. He grew tobacco to help free England from the clutches of Spain, who had cornered the tobacco trade years before. John Rolfe was born in Heacham, Norfolk, England, the son of John Rolfe and Dorothea Mason. He was baptized on May 6, 1585. As he grew older, he became a wise businessman who, along with others, saw an opportunity in the New World. During the crossing from England, at Bermuda, his first wife and child died. In 1610, he arrived at Jamestown to find that only 60 colonists remained, their numbers depleted due to 31

famine and disease. But business was business and Rolfe had a job to fulfill. The complaint with the first tobacco taken from the New World was its bitterness, so from the time of his arrival, John Rolfe strove to develop a better strain for export back home to England. In 1614, he married again, this time to the daughter of Chief Powhatan. Her name was Pocahontas. She was about 19 and he was 29; both had been previously married. Her first marriage was to another American Indian, but the fate of this union is not known. It is possible he was killed, or died from some illness, or her father annulled it so she could marry Rolfe. She was christened Rebecca and she and her new husband lived on a section of land that was a wedding gift from her father, which was later known as Varina Farms. It was here that little Thomas Rolfe was born and John continued the tobacco business, aided by Rebecca. In 1616, the Rolfe family went on what would have been considered a public relations trip to England, where Rebecca was viewed as visiting royalty. They planned to return home in 1617 but she fell ill and died while in

England, and John left for the New World again, leaving his son in the care of others until Thomas was older. John continued his business, and in 1619 he married again, a woman named Jane Pierce. They had one daughter, Elizabeth, in 1620. John died suddenly in 1622, in a manner unknown now to historians. It could have been during the Indian Massacre of 1622, or another such skirmish, or he may have just died from illness. He was only about 37 when he died. Elizabeth Rolfe died when she was 15 years old in 1635, and Thomas Rolfe came back to Virginia at some time during his life. He married an English settler and many First Families of Virginia can trace their lineage back to both American Indian and English roots. Yet if you ask someone today about Pocahontas, they'll say "She was in love with Captain Smith, right?" And if you were to ask who she married, many people would answer "Captain Smith." I know this to be true because I was watching Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader, and that question came up, who did she marry? The guy said John Rolfe even though he thought it was wrong, his wife said Captain Smith, and the 5th Grader said Captain Smith. John Rolfe is the man who is lost in history, the person that people should know about, yet he is overlooked in favor of a mythical romance that never took place. He was a pious, God-fearing man and he loved his wife, Pocahontas. His true desire for this marriage is found in a letter sent to the Governor of the colony at that time: John Rolfe was an honorable man, and claimed he was not motivated by "the unbridled desire of carnal affection, but for the good of this plantation, for the honor of our country, for the Glory of God, for my own salvation… namely Pocahontas, to whom my hearty and best thoughts are, and have been a long time so entangled, and enthralled in so intricate a labyrinth that I was even a-wearied to unwind myself thereout."

He loved and was loved in return. Above all, he remains an earlier sort of “Founding Father” and shouldn‟t be lost to modern whims and faked romances. He was real, flesh and bone, a man of integrity and vision. He lost those he loved but persevered onward; he helped to support the colonies in Virginia, was a diplomat, businessman, and loyal husband, and laid the foundations for what America would become: land of the free, home of the brave. ♥

Caitlin Horton: While I usually spend my writing time composing research papers for college level history classes, original fantasy stories and articles for Femnista are never far from my mind! I am an avid reader, sewer, literary animal doll maker who spends a good deal of time thinking about places like Narnia and pondering how to bake Twelfth Night cake. But mostly, I am a 20-something who lives a life blessed in the knowledge that I am God's child, that my life has a purpose within the scope of His plan, a love of history and helping little children. And remember, every day can be like Bilbo's "adventure" if you are willing to take the "ordinary" and add some "extra" in front of it! I also blog about my crafts! 33


hile most Americans have heard the name Lafayette, many of us don‟t know who this influential man was. Yet from Fayetteville, Arkansas to Lafayette Street in New York, Lafayette‟s influence on our culture is undeniable.

It all started 239 years ago in 1775 France. An 18 year old French nobleman, Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette listened with rapt attention as the Duke of Gloucester, King George III‟s brother, spoke at a dinner party about his sympathetic views of the American Revolution. A fire burst in Lafayette‟s heart that couldn‟t be put out. He saw the Americans as fighting the tyrant British (of whom France had many issues with) for liberty and glory, and he desperately wanted a taste of it. Lafayette sought out American help, particularly Silas Deane, an American diplomat to France, and asked for a position in the American army. But giant obstacles loomed in

Lafayette‟s path. As a high ranking, affluent nobleman married into a very wealthy family, he couldn‟t do as he pleased. When King Louis XVI got wind of his plans, he forbade Lafayette from involvement, fearing the British would see his trip as political validation from the French court; but Lafayette wouldn‟t be stopped—and with his own money he bought a ship and escaped France, leaving behind his pregnant wife, Adrienne, without telling her. Perhaps on board La Victoire homesickness finally sank in, as he wrote an apologetic letter to Adrienne, begging her to forgive him. Once on American soil, Lafayette and his companions traveled miles by foot to Philadelphia. Worn out 35

and on strange land, he was turned away by Congress, who wasn‟t interested in giving any more glory-seeking foreigners commission. Undeterred, Lafayette offered to pay his own way. Congress readily agreed. After all, who would turn down free soldiers? A few weeks later, he was assigned to work with General George Washington and within a month, he tasted battle for the first time at the Battle of Brandywine. He bravely helped rally their troops and was shot in the leg. Washington had his personal physician sent for and recommended Lafayette for a higher position in the army. Lafayette continued to lead troops and even stayed with the Continental Army through the awful winter in Valley Forge. Throughout this, Lafayette and Washington developed a strong rapport, sharing confidences and writing to one another often. The general came to refer to Lafayette as a son, while the young French soldier practically worshipped him as a friend and father-figure in his life.

In 1778, a French-American alliance was finally realized, championed by Benjamin Franklin who was staying in France. When French ships sailed to Boston, Lafayette decided to return briefly to his homeland. King Louis XVI put him under house arrest for a week upon his return—but it was merely a formality. Lafayette was renowned as The Hero of Two Worlds now. Using his even greater influence, he persuaded the king to send more French soldiers to the Americans‟ aid. Adrienne gave birth to their third child, whom they named Georges Washington Lafayette. In May 1780 Lafayette returned to America and rejoined the ranks, taking charge of a command. He evaded British troops and doggedly chased Cornwallis throughout Virginia. Joining other troops, they hemmed Cornwallis in. The British commander surrendered October 19, 1781. Lafayette returned to France as a celebrated hero. He kept busy with projects that suited his passion, including drafting a French human rights bill with the help of Thomas Jefferson and advocating freedom for slaves.

Despite his revered fame among France, the shadow of the French Revolution fell on his household. His reputation sunk in the mire of his noble background, unwillingness to join the Radical parties and controversial attempts to control violent French mobs. Eventually fearing for his life, Lafayette planned to escape with his family to America, but he was captured by Austrian forces which France was at war with. Meanwhile his wife Adrienne was shuffled through French prisons and house arrests, fearing for her life as her mother, sister and grandmother were guillotined.

Faith White lives in Texas and works full time in retail. She has been writing stories since her early teens, mostly to entertain her sisters. She loves period dramas, superhero movies, and Korean dramas and thrives on history and world culture. She also blogs!

Only their American associations saved Adrienne‟s life and eventually garnered her family a passport to come to America. Instead she sent her son to live with George Washington for safety, and she and her two daughters traveled to Austria, where they were given permission to reside in the prison with Lafayette. Lafayette was finally released after five years of imprisonment. His family eventually returned to France and resided in the countryside. In 1825 Lafayette returned to America for the 50th year anniversary of the nation‟s birth. He travelled from state to state, drawing crowds who lauded him as a national hero. Cities, towns and streets were named after him in his honor. Old comrades embraced him and traded stories and memories, including James Armistead Lafayette, a former African-American slave who served as an invaluable spy under Lafayette. James had taken Lafayette‟s surname after he was freed, having used the former general‟s recommendation letter to gain his freedom in court. Finally in 1834, the Revolutionary hero Lafayette died at 76 years old. He was buried in France and, according to his wishes his son cast dirt from Bunker Hill over his gravesite. ♥ 37


in is a heavy-handed word, bearing the load of all sorts of wrongdoing and evil connotations. A sin can be seen as the smallest mistake in human eyes, or the most horrendous travesty ever done.

The word has a negative and impacting ring to it, because it‟s a word of great significant proportions. It‟s the reason for all the unhappiness, evil and tragedy in the world, the reason for God having to send His only Son into the world to die for us, why we need forgiveness, and the reason for man‟s ultimate downfall, from the Garden of Eden to the end of the world as we know it. You see, sin isn‟t just a word Christians use in place of the world‟s preferred uses of “mistake,” “mishap,” or “misstep.” These words do more than just dumb down the meaning of sin, they also make it seem that it is something we can correct on our own. We can easily

fix our mistakes, right? Step back into the right path on our own, correct? No, of course not. There is an unyielding weight to the word “sin,” for it carries every facet of our separation from God in the Garden and the price He paid to free us from its grasp. I hope you can see that sin is a mighty word as well. Evil has power in the world, and sin is the word for our use of it. When we lie, cheat, steal, swear, lust or covet, we aren‟t simply making “missteps,” we let the power of evil to seep through us into our actions and lives, affecting everyone around us and our relationship with the Creator of all that is good, pure and holy. 39

is a Hollywood-ized and self-proclaimed “freely adapted” version of a religious story. It is a fact universally acknowledged that Hollywood is secular and makes movies that eschew reverence for the Christian faith. But that doesn‟t excuse the fact that they took a hammer and bludgeoned the source material. Absolutely no respect is paid to Hawthorne‟s symbolism and ideas, character motivations and religious observances. The Scarlet Letter is a religious book that deals with weighty issues, something that should not be skimmed over. Let me take a short moment and say that as a cinematic work alone, I cannot dislike the film as much as others are prone to. Gary Oldman is one of my favorite actors; I love period pieces, forbidden romance, unusually haunting scores, and I must admit that despite my deepest reservations, I like happy endings, even if they‟re not in the book. I enjoyed the movie despite myself, but can‟t defend it against dissenters because I agree with them. It is a movie freely adapted indeed, straying as far as you can from the original source material while still calling it an adaption. The original The Scarlet Letter (1850) seems to view sin in a similar light. It revolves around the consequences of a single sinful act between two formerly pious people, Reverend Dimmesdale and Mrs. Hester Prynne. Their adultery brings about a child, a physical manifestation of their sin, and a very large embroidered red letter A, which Hester is forced to wear by the townspeople as a constant reminder of her sin. Dimmesdale doesn‟t come forward until his dying day as the father of Hester‟s child, but the sin weighs on him just as heavily, a hidden symbol of his secret guilt and shame. The book deals with the strict rules and unbending religious order of the Puritans and is full of symbolism. Their adultery isn‟t treated lightly, and remains recognized throughout the book as a wrong act chock full of consequences, a sin to be forgiven, not merely a mistake. The 1995 film adaptation has different views. Of course it differs, you might say, as the film

The biggest flaw is the way the filmmakers chose to portray Hester and Dimmesdale‟s sin. They didn‟t even call it an outright “mistake.” Instead, the film portrays the act and consequences of their sexual intimacy as at least semi-right, because it‟s true love. When Hester and Dimmesdale learn of her husband‟s apparent death, they decide to consummate their love because it is no longer “adultery.” Their conversation beforehand revolves around how long Hester must remain in mourning before she can marry again. After one minute of reflection and consideration, the pair give in to their desire for one another. Never once throughout the movie does the issue of sexual intimacy outside of marriage come up as a sin. The townsfolk see Hester‟s actions as sinful because she is going outside convention and is supposed to be in mourning. They call it adultery because there is no outright proof of her husband‟s death, and she is still bound to him after death for a pre-determined duration of time (of course, as Hester finds out later, her husband is still very much alive, but by then the damage is already done). Hester stands up for herself,

defending her actions and those of her lover, whom she refuses to name (to Dimmesdale‟s chagrin), standing trial, going to prison, having her child and then being branded with the embroidered scarlet letter in public, all while holding to her belief that society and convention are wrong, not her. Feminism and legalism issues aside, the biggest problem is that Hester and Dimmesdale adhere to their belief that their passion isn‟t wrong; society‟s views are. It‟s true that the rigid Puritan society deemed adultery very wrong and severely punished those in error for their transgressions, sustaining views and methods that were often harsh and unyielding and in need of tempering by mercy, forgiveness and second chances; but Puritan society‟s inherent beliefs weren‟t legalistic concoctions meant to oppress, they came from the Bible‟s statements that sexual intimacy must be within the bounds of marriage. The book‟s Hester and Dimmesdale knew that, and when they protested and argued they were arguing with their consciences and with God, not merely “society.” The movie‟s characters are purely 20th century incarnations that channel

modern views, challenging the morals of society and the rules of the system. ”Why do you wait? Put it on. It is not a badge of my shame but your own,” Hester says while on the scaffold having the scarlet letter pinned to her breast. Her love is true, so where could the sin possibly be? Or so Hester, Dimmesdale, and the secular Hollywood backing them contend. Love is love, regardless of race, gender or religion. Do what makes you happy, as long as you‟re not hurting anyone. People make mistakes, but it makes us human. Sin, what sin? So many superficial modern morals put into the mouths of characters originally symbolic of Adam, Eve and the Fall. “Do you not believe that you have sinned?” the judge asks of Hester. “I believe that I have sinned in your eyes, but who‟s to know if God shares your views,” Hester replies. Later on, her child follows by saying, “Who‟s to say what is a sin in God‟s eyes?” in voiceover as her parents ride off into the sunset to start a new life away from society‟s oppressive rules. But even though it feels good to root for true love to win out, it is a betrayal to how God really works to say that Hester and Dimmesdale deserved to win and were redeemed by their love. They sinned, simple as that, and needed God‟s forgiveness, not their society‟s. They could have been truly redeemed by admitting to fault before their Lord, putting their guilt and shame behind them, and choosing to move forward. It‟s such a shame Hollywood had to get in the way of what could have been their happy ending. ♥

Hannah Price: I am a person who thrives on creativity and love to be inspired by the creativity of others. My passion is storytelling in all its forms of expression. Some of those loves are American Sign Language, theater, film, audio drama and the varied mediums of art (painting, drawing, etc.). I want to be involved in film production someday, as I am already involved in theater production and would like to be able to turn my hobbies into a full time occupation. 41


ar is a topic Hollywood loves to tackle. It provides big themes (heroism, conflict, freedom) and the chance for action on a grand scale. However, if you take a look thorough film history, war is often presented through scope of the Civil War or WWII.

More recent clashes like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan get a fair share of screen time but there‟s is relatively little cinematic representation of the rest of history‟s conflicts. This is especially surprising in the case of the fight that gained our nation‟s independence: the Revolutionary War. Fortunately, we have The Patriot, with a strong story and impressive production values. For the lead character, the goodness of the members of his family provides the tether he needs through terrible physical and emotional strife. Benjamin Martin is a farmer in colonial South Carolina who gained notoriety for his fierce

fighting in the French-Indian War. A widower, he wants to live peacefully with his seven children, but history has other plans. The British are oppressing it‟s far away colonies and when Benjamin doesn‟t vote for South Carolina to succeed from Britain, his oldest son, Gabriel, signs up for the Continental Army anyway. During a mission to deliver dispatches, a wounded Gabriel takes refuge at home, inadvertently bringing the British Army onto his father‟s land. From there, the story spirals into a combination of faith, patriotism, and the evils of war as Benjamin fights at first for his family and then for the cause his sons believed in enough to risk their lives. 43

more than I can bear.” This is repeated upon Gabriel‟s death and Benjamin nearly leaves the war effort. But the sight of the mangled American flag Gabriel was mending leads Benjamin to a final confrontation with Tavington. When Tavington taunts Benjamin that he isn‟t the better man, Benjamin responds with “No, my sons were better men.” Further evidence that his family is what guides Benjamin is the use of a recurring symbol in the film: the North Star. This begins very early in the film when one of Martin‟s daughters tells her younger sister that the North Star represents their mother. The star shows up often, as Benjamin looks at it or tentatively begins to move on romantically with his sister-in-law. The symbol shows up again when Benjamin gives his new daughter-in-law a necklace with the North Star on it upon Gabriel‟s marriage. It is a sad moment when Benjamin finds the necklace after her death. The strength of the positive influence Benjamin‟s family has on him is clear because of these touches throughout the film.

Martin is a prime example of the type of conflicted hero Hollywood loved to write around the turn of this century. Just the year before, Ridley Scott‟s Gladiator brought that sort of leading man onto screens. At first, Benjamin is passionate in his reluctance to enter into a war now that he has a family to consider, saying this war will be fought close by and “our children will learn of it with their own eyes.” When his fighting instincts take over while saving Gabriel, Benjamin savagely tomahawks a British soldier and the audience understands his reticence about war even more. The film opens with a voice-over of him saying “I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me and the cost is

Violence is a significant part of the negative aspects of himself and the world that he wants to fight against. A war film is an excellent vehicle for exploration of this idea, and in more than one way. The bloodthirsty nature of Benjamin‟s actions while rescuing Gabriel are something he wants to avoid, and he becomes uncomfortable when someone praises his performance in the French-Indian War. During the various advances made by the militia, Gabriel stops his compatriots from killing the British prisoners and Benjamin sides with his son. Furthermore, this film in general is a step forward in the level of realism shown in battle scenes. Muskets, bayonets and canon fire are all viscerally presented, in one case taking off a soldier‟s head. Not only is this representation of war authentic, but it is necessary for audience to see as it generates empathy with the lead character and drives home the awful realities of war. It isn‟t romantic, it‟s brutal.

The Patriot is a big spectacle of a war film but also has a lead character who clings to the goodness in his family as a guide through some of the toughest experiences of his life. It truly brings the Revolutionary War to the screen as never before. Other films about the period may focus on the politics of creating a new nation or maybe even the French-Indian War (like The Last of the Mohicans) but the war that resulted in the birth of our nation gets a grand, though fictionalized, treatment in The Patriot. ♼

Rachel Sexton is from Ohio and has a Bachelor's Degree in Communication Arts. She loves her parents and her dog Lily. But what you really need to know is that she has to have acting, film, reading, and dance in her life and her favorite fandoms are Star Wars, Harry Potter, Jane Austen, and Once Upon a Time. Plus, she is most described as quiet and her biggest vice is cupcakes. Oh, and her main hobby is editing fan videos.


Claim your topic before someone else does!

Halloween: Monsters & Madness Creatures, villains, and everything that goes “bump” in the night! Topics Taken: Sleepy Hollow, Frankenstein, Evil Creatures in Middle -earth, The Monster Squad, King Kong, Morgana, Angel, Loki, Maleficent, Rumplestiltsken.

Sept/Oct: Underrated Tales In this issue, we delve into stories that aren‟t considered “classics” or that are little-known, in an attempt to introduce a new generation of readers and watchers to some largely undiscovered works. Make sure your favorite story isn‟t left out by writing an article about it for us! These Topics Are Taken: Firelight, Brideshead Revisited, The Making of a Lady, John Carter, The Longest Journey, The Sinking of the Laconia, My Brilliant Career, The Painted Veil, A Tree With Deep Roots, LMM‟s Emily Books, Combat, Onegin, North and South.

Nov/Dec: A Family Affair Family dynamics. Topics Taken: The House of Eliot, Little Dorrit, Game of Thrones, Little Women, Anne & Margot Frank, Pride & Prejudice, While You Were Sleeping, Emma, Sherlock & Mycroft.

Femnista July / Aug 2014  

The Patriot, Marie Antoinette, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Abigail Adams, William Garrow, William Blake , Colonial Williamsburg , John Rolfe, Mar...

Femnista July / Aug 2014  

The Patriot, Marie Antoinette, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Abigail Adams, William Garrow, William Blake , Colonial Williamsburg , John Rolfe, Mar...