Search Results

Introduction One of the most common pieces of writing advice is deceptively simple: Write what you know. For many writers, that means drawing from real life. We borrow mannerisms from friends. We "steal" snippets of conversation overheard in coffee shops. We build characters from old teachers, former coworkers, difficult relatives, and people we met exactly once but never forgot. Reality is often where fiction begins. The problem is that reality doesn't always stay in the background. At some point, nearly every writer hears a version of the same question: "Is this storyline about [redacted person]?" In Euphoria Season 2, Episode 7 ("The Theater and Its Double"), Lexi Howard directs a provocative, highly unauthorized autobiographical play called Our Life. The production famously causes explosive drama among her friends when they realize it satirizes their personal lives. Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes it's complicated. Sometimes the writer suddenly realizes that the character they thought was fictional may be far more recognizable than they intended. This is where discussions of libel usually begins. Fortunately, most fiction writers will never face a libel claim. So I ask you, dear reader: How close is “inspired by” allowed to get before it becomes legally risky? Table of the Contents Introduction Section 1: What Libel Actually Means for Fiction Writers Section 2: Identification (or The “Invisible Name Tag” Problem) Section 3: “It’s Fiction” Is Not a Shield Section 4: The Amplifiers of Accusation Section 5: The Fiction Writer's Best Defense Conclusion Section 1: What Libel Actually Means for Fiction Writers Libel is a written false statement that harms someone's reputation. It's different from slander in that slander is about spoken false statements that harm someone's reputation. For fiction writers, three ideas matter most: Identification: Can someone reasonably identify the real person? Defamation: Does the portrayal harm reputation? Falsity: Would readers interpret the portrayal as describing real facts about that person? Notice what's missing from that list: intent. A writer can genuinely believe they have created a fictional character and still find themselves facing questions about whether a real person is recognizable on the page. Fiction is not automatically protected simply because "it is fiction." The question is not whether you intended to write about a real person. The question is whether or not readers think you did. The original "Burn Book" is a handmade prop from the 2004 teen comedy, Mean Girls, filled with rumors and insults about students and faculty. It's filled with libelous statements. Section 2: Identification (or The “Invisible Name Tag” Problem) By all means, stay true to the source. My whole brand is about getting those authentic details for your stories. The danger zone here isn't about realism. Libel for fiction writers is about traceability. Most writers assume identification requires a name. Nope! A character becomes “identifiable” and "traceable" when multiple anchors align: Job + location + timeline match a real person Unique quirks (speech patterns, habits, backstory) Social network overlap (“everyone in that circle knows”) Imagine a novel set in a small town. One character is: The only veterinarian in town Known for raising alpacas Recently divorced Ran unsuccessfully for city council Writers often focus on obvious identifiers while overlooking the cumulative effect of smaller details. A profession might not identify someone. A profession plus a location might. Then add a timeline, a personal habit, and a recognizable life event? Suddenly the character begins to point toward a specific individual. For example: "Character A": Works at a specific small-town newspaper Recently divorced Known for a specific catchphrase or behavior Even if unnamed, readers in that community may directly map it to a real journalist. And the argument of "nobody outside of my town will know" fall flat when the audience that matters is a workplace, church, school, or local community. Not the general public. "Character B": Works as the only pediatric nurse practitioner in a mid-sized suburban clinic Known for never taking lunch breaks and eating granola bars while charting Drives a distinctive bright yellow compact car with a bumper sticker about books Recently involved in a public workplace conflict over scheduling changes Even without a name, coworkers, patients, or parents in that clinic’s orbit could quickly narrow this down to one person if the combination is distinctive enough in their shared environment. "Character C": High school theater director in a small school district Famous for insisting every production include at least one “unexpected” casting choice Always ends rehearsal by clapping twice and saying the same short phrase Previously directed a regional competition-winning musical that local news covered Lives in the same town where they teach and often appears at school events outside work hours Here, identification becomes even easier because multiple public-facing touchpoints (school + media coverage + repeated behavioral pattern) reinforce the real-world mapping effect. Problems tend to arise when writers stop collecting details and start reconstructing individuals. One is inspiration. The other is replication. Think of identification less as a single clue and more as a constellation. One star means very little, but ✩₊⁺⋆₊✧ enough stars arranged in a pattern becomes an unmistakable correlation. ✩₊⁺⋆₊✧ Section 3: “It’s Fiction” Is Not a Shield Disclaimers don’t override identifiability. I dearly adore fanfic writers and YouTube essayists and all that they do but "no copyright infringement intended💚" carries quite literally no legal weight. I have some thoughts on working some witchcraft for your writing but, under no circumstances, is "Under U.S. copyright law, fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights held by a copyright owner. It allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission in certain contexts, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Whether a specific use qualifies as fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis by weighing several factors. These include the purpose and character of the use, such as whether it is commercial or nonprofit educational; the nature of the copyrighted work itself; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the whole work; and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the original work. Importantly, the fact that a work is unpublished does not automatically prevent a finding of fair use, but it is still considered as part of the overall evaluation of these factors." a protective spell. Disclaimers can communicate intent, but they don't erase recognizability. "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." is seen in many upon many books. However, if readers can reasonably identify a real person and believe the story is making unfair factual claims about them, the disclaimer is unlikely to be the deciding factor. The same principle applies outside the manuscript. Authors occasionally strengthen identification without realizing it through interviews, social media posts, newsletter updates, or conversations at events. The more a writer publicly discusses who inspired a character, the easier it may become for readers to connect the dots. There are a few well-known cases where authors have effectively “collapsed the distance” between fiction and real-life inspiration through interviews, essays, or public commentary—sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Let's consider The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger. While the novel is fictionalized, readers and critics quickly noticed strong parallels between the character Miranda Priestly and Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. At first, the connection was mostly speculative, grounded in the author’s former role and the novel’s detailed depiction of a demanding fashion magazine environment. However, in interviews and public commentary, Weisberger and others associated with the story acknowledged aspects of real-life inspiration, reinforcing what audiences already suspected. Over time, those remarks (combined with widely discussed similarities between real and fictional figures) helped solidify the association in public perception, contributing to debate about how closely fictional characters can resemble real individuals without explicitly naming them. More over, the more a story is “sold” as inspired by reality, the less protective the fiction label becomes. Gossip Girl blasts from the TV Show Gossip Girl regularly published defamatory reputational claims of high schoolers and beyond. Section 4: The Amplifiers of Accusation Not every recognizable character creates problems. Even Anna Wintour can get a laugh out of her role of inspiring The Devil Wears Prada. To say, "it's fine because it's true," isn't true. Truth can be a defense against libel, but rumors, assumptions, and personal memories are not the same thing as verifiable facts. Risk generally rises when fiction attributes serious wrongdoing or serious falsities to someone that readers can identify. Examples might include: Corruption or bribery (especially in public office or corporate leadership) Sexual misconduct (beyond harassment, including coercion or assault allegations) Discrimination or hate-based behavior (racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc.) Financial crimes beyond fraud (embezzlement, money laundering, insider trading) Endangerment or negligence (causing harm through reckless professional conduct) Abuse of power or authority (misuse of institutional position for personal gain) Sabotage or intentional wrongdoing in a workplace or organization Treason or betrayal of an organization, state, or group Cover-ups or obstruction of justice (hiding wrongdoing or interfering with investigations) False medical or scientific conduct (misdiagnosis, falsified research, unethical experimentation) Blackmail or coercion Exploitation (financial, emotional, or professional exploitation of others) Criminal conspiracy or association with criminal networks Perjury or lying under oath (or implied dishonesty in formal settings) Substance abuse portrayed in a way that implies real-life irresponsibility in professional contexts Once a reader successfully maps a fictional character onto a real individual, the interpretive process can shift from “this is inspired by” to “this is revealing.” At that point, narrative details are often re-read as evidentiary rather than imaginative. Even elements that were originally intended as exaggeration, thematic symbolism, or composite construction may be retrospectively treated as disclosures about the real person’s behavior or character. This can lead to a form of “confirmation bias reading,” where readers selectively interpret ambiguous or general traits as supporting evidence of a pre-existing identification. Once the mental link is established, neutral or fictionalized behaviors in the text may be reframed as indirect admissions, while coincidences are treated as corroboration rather than chance or genre convention. In more extreme cases, readers may begin to treat the fictional work itself as a semi-documentary source, attributing higher credibility to the narrative than to any disclaimers, interviews, or authorial intent. This is especially likely when the author has discussed inspiration publicly, because even vague acknowledgments can be reinterpreted as partial confirmation of all inferred details. As a result, the boundary between narrative construction and perceived factual reporting becomes unstable: the story is no longer read purely as fiction, but as a coded account of real-world conduct, with readers effectively “upgrading” implication into perceived fact. Section 5: The Fiction Writer's Best Defense The safest and most creatively rewarding approach (preferably before publication) is often one in the same: 📣📢CHANGE IT📢📣 Get those creatives juices flowing again, friend. Edit the architecture of the character. Instead of building a character from one person, build them from two—three—five! Learn from different personalities and introduce different traits. Change their occupation. Their partner's type. Explore more of the earth and move the story setting elsewhere! Change the order of events.** **Caveat to the instructions: Your mileage will vary. If it's a workplace romance, probably don't change the job. If it's based on a historical location, keep the story there and change other things. If the timeline super duper matters, throw things off with other tactics. You'll ultimately want to ask yourself these three questions: Could someone who knows the real person recognize them in this character? Could a stranger reasonably infer this character is based on a specific real person? Does the character contain any direct real-world anchors (name, job, place, timeline, or anecdote) that point to one identifiable individual? Do multiple details combine into a traceable match to a specific real person or incident? And if the answers to all four are NO, you're generally in the clear from a recognizability standpoint. (This is where I disclose that I am not a legal advisor 😬) And look at the silver lining: a transformed character can become stronger because of this care!! A copied person is limited by reality. You spin the tale of your character and can reach no bounds. (!!) Don't hide your source material. That's not what this is about. The goal is to create something new enough that the source material no longer matters. The above photos are from Degrassi's version of Facebook called Facerange. The platform was often used to spread libel Conclusion Fiction doesn’t get into trouble for being inspired by reality. The trouble starts when reality is still intact on the page. Writers often worry that changing too much will make a story feel less authentic. In practice, the opposite is usually true: Observation creates the authority but it's the writer's transformation of what is observed that creates such lovely fiction. The details we collect from the real world are valuable because they help us understand how people speak, work, grieve, celebrate, avoid questions, tell stories, and otherwise reveal themselves. But our job as writers is not to reproduce those people exactly as we found them. We must build something new from what we've learned. You want a transformation of reality instead of a roadmap that points back to it. When a character can no longer be reliably reverse-engineered into a single person, when their traits no longer converge into a recognizable silhouette, they become fully fictional in the only way that matters for writers: independent, self-contained, and no longer dependent on their origin story. Don't disguise what's real, rebuild the reality entirely and the character becomes free. Legally safer. Narratively stronger. No longer tethered to the logic of any one life. Able to behave in ways that real people rarely can, or would. It becomes something that only exists because you rebuilt it. How thrilling, Katherine Arkady

Introduction Coming from the age of watching Gossip Girl, 90210, and The O.C. while in my formative years, I love a good tale where rich people have too much time on their hands and not enough morals to mind their business. So when Cruel Intentions was announced, I was all about it. The premise of Cruel Intentions has been rebooted, reimagined, and retooled plenty of times. This series has been in the works for a very long time. According to the 2024 series' Wikipedia page: "The series, set in a Washington, D.C., college among rich students, follows two manipulative step siblings who are ready to do anything to maintain their status. It features a cast led by Sarah Catherine Hook, Zac Burgess, and Savannah Lee Smith. Plan for a television adaptation of the film started in 1999 at Fox with a prequel series that was later retooled as the 2000 direct-to-video film Cruel Intentions 2 following its cancelation due to creative concerns. In 2015, NBC picked up a television pilot for a continuation of the film's storyline with Sarah Michelle Gellar returning but later passed on the project. Amazon announced a new project's development for Amazon Freevee in 2021, with Neal H. Moritz returning as an executive producer. It was given a series order in April 2023, and moved to Prime Video several months later. Filming took place in Toronto and began in June 2023. Cruel Intentions premiered on Amazon Prime Video on November 21, 2024, to generally mixed reviews. In March 2025, the series was canceled after one season." If you want to know how this series is similar to the other versions, this is not the post for you. However, if you want to know what made the writing of the series particularly interesting, please, read on. Because the thing is, I didn't realize it was so allusion-heavy until Episode 5, so it warranted a second watch to really gather the references together. And there are a lot! Why so many? What's the point? Did it even add to the story? Short answers: Class consciousness. Class consciousness. Yes. But first, let's give a little background on the story. Quick Links to Sections: The Series as a Whole Allusions vs References The Allusions in Question Episode 1 - Alpha Episode 2 - Beta Episode 3 - Gamma Episode 4 - Delta Episode 5 - Epsilon Episode 6 - Zeta Episode 7 - Eta Episode 8 - Theta Class Consciousness Conclusion The Series as a Whole This series is based off of the 1999 cult classic of the same name starring Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Philippe, and Selma Blair. That 1999 film is set in New York City among rich high schoolers. According to the IMDb page: "Kathryn Merteuil and Sebastian Valmont are seductive, manipulative step-siblings who get what they want when they want it. Kathryn makes a bet with Sebastian: Sebastian must bed Annette, daughter of the headmaster at their school, before the end of summer break. Annette has stated that she would wait until love and marriage to sleep with a man. If Kathryn wins, she gets Sebastian's vintage 1956 Jaguar Roadster. If Sebastian wins, he gets Kathryn, the only girl he knows he'll never have. Also in play is Cecile, a naïve girl whose mother had enlisted Kathryn to help her fit in at her new school. However, Kathryn (with Sebastian's help) plans to ruin Cecile's reputation as revenge on Kat's ex-boyfriend, who left her for Cecile." We gotta take it a step further because the 2024 Cruel Intentions is based off of the 1999 Cruel Intentions and that's based off of Pierre Choderlos de Laclos' 1782 novel Les Liaisons dangereuses. You see how the references and retellings go deep. There's also really good 1988 film with Glenn Close and John Malkovich called Dangerous Liasons. That's set in prerevolution Paris (with some stellar costuming!) and is the closest retelling to the 1782 rendition. That's my favorite and I highly recommend watching that above all. Glenn Close and Michelle Pfeiffer are *chef's kiss* Allusions vs References Readers, I felt like Steve Rogers/Captain America in The Avengers while watching this. You know the scene: Nick Fury: I don't know about that, but it is powered by the cube. And I'd like to know how Loki used it to turn two of the sharpest men I know into his personal flying monkeys. Thor: Monkeys? I do not understand. Steve Rogers: I do! I mean, at the very least I knew there were references being made. Or...allusions? What's the difference? What is an Allusion? An allusion is a subtle or indirect nod to something outside the text—like a wink to literature, pop culture, mythology, history, etc. It's not spelled out; you have to get the vibe or know the source to fully appreciate the meaning. Purpose: Allusions add depth, irony, or commentary. They reward viewers/readers who are "in the know." Key traits: Indirect, clever, layered, sometimes blink-and-you-miss-it. Example: If a character says, “Call me Icarus,” right after doing something reckless, that’s an allusion to the Greek myth—implying pride, downfall, etc.—without explaining it outright. What is a Reference? A reference, on the other hand, is more explicit. It name-drops or clearly points to something. It can be playful or on-the-nose. Purpose? Often used for humor, style, or to anchor the story in a particular cultural context. Key traits? Direct, obvious, recognizable. Example: If a character says, “This is giving Gossip Girl,” they’re referencing that show directly—you don’t need context clues or literary analysis. TL;DR: Allusion = subtle, requires interpretation Reference = direct, calls it by name But here's the twist: in pop culture (especially a show like Cruel Intentions that leans into both highbrow and lowbrow), the line between allusion and reference is super blurry. Something might start as a reference, but act like an allusion based on how it’s used. The Allusions in Question Here are the references that I was able to catch while watching 2024's Cruel Intentions. Each drop down includes the script lines surrounding the reference/allusion and an explanation. Episode 1 - Alpha 6:30 - Evolutionary Necessities / “Missing Link” / “How Darwinian” LUCIEN How drunk are you? BLAISE Well, I want you to do terrible things to me till I beg you to continue. LUCIEN So, very or not at all? BLAISE [chuckles] Say what you will, but, uh, at this point in the night, I'd argue it's an evolutionary necessity. LUCIEN How Darwinian. [CeCe approaches them] BLAISE There's our little missing link now. Allusion Type: Intellectual/Scientific Allusion Source: Charles Darwin & Evolutionary Theory Explanation: Blaise and Lucien’s banter about "evolutionary necessities" and calling CeCe the “missing link” is a mocking, pseudo-intellectual burn, alluding to Darwin’s theory of evolution. The “missing link” is often referenced in discussions of human ancestry—a dig at CeCe's supposed lack of sophistication. Why It Matters: Sets the tone for their elitist, sardonic worldview and uses “highbrow” language to insult in a “lowbrow” way. 7:40 - "If my grandma had wheels, would she be a bike?” CECE What’s this? What’s Rourke doing here with her? They watch Rourke whisper something to Gemma. She giggles. As CeCe takes off through the party, Blaise following. BLAISE Gemma Davenport. Say. Isn’t she running against your girl—? CECE He wasn’t supposed to be in town tonight, let alone here, at our victory lap, squiring around the competition like a goddamn billboard for the opposition! BLAISE Oh, we are in a little bit of a twist about this, aren’t we? CECE Did you know about this? BLAISE If my grandmother had wheels would she be a bike? CECE What? I don’t care about your grandmother. What am I supposed to tell Caroline? Reference Type: Slangy/Cultural Reference Origin: This is a popular idiomatic expression, often used to dismiss hypothetical or circular arguments. Common in Eastern European memes and speech, notably in some viral clips. Explanation: Blaise is being dismissive or sarcastic—saying “what ifs” are pointless. Why It Matters: Injects absurd humor into a highbrow setting, contrasting with their earlier Darwin reference. Shows Blaise's flair for the dramatic and ridiculous. 9:04 - “Horse’s head in his bed” CAROLINE I need to speak to Rourke. Now. Caroline walks off, single minded in her pursuit of Rourke. CeCe and Lucien trail her, talking over each other. CECE What do you think this means? Realistically? I mean, pulling something like this so close to the election? LUCIEN Good ol’ Rourke. What do we think, horse head in his bed? As they make their way through the party, the sound of the far off [SMASHES] gets more noticeable. CECE (CONT’D) Okay, hypothetically... is he cheating on you? Did you break up...? LUCIEN (CONT’D) Or a spider. A bunch of spiders. That seems infinitely worse to me than a horse’s head. CECE (CONT’D) Or are you still together but it’s just that Alpha Gamma’s backing Gemma Davenport instead of you now? LUCIEN (CONT’D) Seems like he’d be afraid of spiders. The macho guys usually are. Could do snakes though. Very phallic. CECE (CONT’D) If they’ve jumped the fence, we could have real trouble... LUCIEN (CONT’D) Right here in River City? CeCe finally registers Lucien talking— CECE (CONT’D) (to Lucien) Can you shut up? Allusion Type: Cinematic Allusion Source: The Godfather (1972) Explanation: Lucien is referencing the infamous Godfather scene where a severed horse’s head is placed in a man's bed as a warning. He’s jokingly suggesting they should intimidate Rourke with similarly dramatic mob-style tactics. Why It Matters: Adds theatrical menace and frames Lucien’s schemes as operatic or overly cinematic—very Cruel Intentions vibe. 37:45 - “One-man rendition of Stomp” Rourke is in a rage, barreling through the party ROURKE Everybody get the fuck out! If you don’t live here, I don’t wanna see you! BLAISE Okay! Way to show your dominance... Blaise leads him into the kitchen. Rourke smashes around, looking for a glass. Giving up, he just takes a swig— BLAISE (CONT’D) Why the one-man rendition of Stomp? Reference Type: Pop Culture / Performing Arts Source: Stomp, the percussion performance group known for using everyday objects as instruments (banging trash cans, etc.) Explanation: Blaise is mocking Rourke's angry outburst, comparing it to Stomp—implying he’s loud, messy, and dramatic. Why It Matters: Satirical. Uses artsy performance reference to poke fun at emotional immaturity. 42:10 - “Swan Lake” / “Von Rothbart” As Caroline’s door swings open to reveal Lucien, lounging against the door frame, looking a little worse for wear. LUCIEN I believe congratulations are in order. CAROLINE What ever are you talking about? LUCIEN You can drop the act, we’re all happy to have danced your little Swan Lake. CAROLINE And I’m free of Von Rothbart forever. Allusion Type: Classical Ballet Allusion Source: Swan Lake by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky Explanation: This isn’t just about ballet—it’s a coded takedown of Rourke. In Swan Lake, Von Rothbart is the manipulative sorcerer who curses Odette and controls her fate. Here, Rourke is being cast as the Rothbart figure—controlling, deceptive, maybe even predatory—and Caroline is positioning herself as Odette, finally breaking free of his spell. Why It Matters: The allusion flips the power dynamic—Caroline is no longer the pawn in Rourke’s grand performance. It’s also a very Cruel Intentions move to reframe interpersonal drama through the lens of high art. 43:30 - “Oh captain, my captain” Lucien leans over Caroline's shoulder and sees the name and picture of the author—BEATRICE WORTH. Caroline looks at Lucien, an eyebrow raised. LUCIEN No such thing as bad publicity? CAROLINE Just bad news. (to Lucien) You’ll need to finish the job. Lucien salutes her with a grin. LUCIEN O Captain, my Captain. Allusion Type: Literary Allusion Source: Walt Whitman’s poem “O Captain! My Captain!”, famously re-used in Dead Poets Society Explanation: Lucien sarcastically references the poetic tribute to a fallen leader—either mocking Caroline's command or her martyrdom in their scheme. Why It Matters: Layered meaning—depending on tone, it could read as sincere, mocking, or both. Also ties to themes of rebellion and authority. Episode 2 - Beta 12:03 - “Unless the twin I absorbed in utero miraculously reappears” RY I'm not a fan of your dad's politics. ANNIE Okay. BEATRICE Ry. RY I was about to say that, even though I'm not crazy about your dad's political positions, I respect that you're your own person who has your own views. ANNIE I am. Unless the twin I absorbed in utero miraculously reappears. RY What? ANNIE Nothing. Oh, I think it was an episode of House or something. [She laughs and clears her throat] I-I do have my own views. I'm just trying to put them all together right now. RY Well, I look forward to hearing them. Reference Type: Medical Drama / Dark Humor Direct Reference: House M.D., Season 3, Episode 2 – “Cane & Able” Explanation: Annie jokes about having conflicting opinions—unless her absorbed twin returns to weigh in. This is a morbidly funny reference to a medical plotline in House where a “vanishing twin” (absorbed in utero) may be influencing a boy’s hallucinations. Why It Matters: This is high-key House humor: dry, smart, and a bit twisted. It also shows Annie’s self-awareness, and maybe her love of niche medical trivia. The joke is also a layered way of expressing internal conflict—Cruel Intentions-style—wrapped in a flippant delivery. 33:00 - “Phalaris used to burn his critics to death inside a hollowed-out bronze bull?” CAROLINE You're suddenly all out of pretty words about Lucien and my choices. BLAISE As of now. CAROLINE Did you know that Phalaris used to burn his critics to death inside a hollowed out bronze bull? BLAISE If I recall, Phalaris was burned alive inside the bull too. CAROLINE Idiot. Allusion Type: Historical Allusion with Symbolic Undertones Direct Reference: Phalaris, a tyrant from ancient Sicily, and the Brazen Bull—a torture/execution device allegedly used by him to roast people alive. Explanation: Caroline brings up the brutal image of Phalaris burning his enemies alive inside a bronze bull—a moment dripping with menace, metaphor, and a slight Greek tragedy flair. Blaise, in classic buzzkill fashion, jumps in with: “If I recall, Phalaris was burned alive inside the bull too.” He’s technically correct (legend says he was overthrown and executed the same way he killed others), but this is not a TED Talk—it’s a power play. Why It Matters: Caroline invokes historical cruelty to make a point—likely drawing a parallel to the unchecked ego or tyranny of someone nearby (cough, cough Rourke). It’s a clever burn masked as a history lesson. Blaise, instead of vibing with the metaphor, turns it into a smug trivia contest. Caroline’s muttered “idiot” is less about factual inaccuracy and more about emotional illiteracy. He missed the point, killed the mood, and proved himself an intellectual lightweight wearing a heavy vocabulary. 34:00 - “Until the fucking curtain comes down” CAROLINE Delta Phi has always promoted a culture of community, of support. And we will continue to empower the women of Manchester College. PROTESTERS It is classist! It's exclusionary! And it's violent! Racist! CAROLINE We will continue to fight to defy expectations. To stand stronger, to unite this house against the forces, the people, that try to divide us, to undermine us, and all the good we have achieved in the name of Delta Phi. PROTESTERS [Chanting] Hey, hey! ho, ho! Greek life has go to go! Hey, hey! ho, ho! Greek life has go to go! Hey, hey! ho, ho! Greek life has go to go! Hey, hey! ho, ho! [Chanting continues] CAROLINE You may think you have power. You may think you can take us down. But just know... we will be here. I will be here until the fucking curtain comes down. Allusion Type: Philosophical / Literary Possible Source: Desiderius Erasmus or general theater metaphor “What is life but a play in which everyone acts a part until the curtain comes down?” — commonly attributed to Erasmus (though similar sentiments appear in Shakespeare and later thinkers) Explanation: Caroline declares to the protesters that she’s staying “until the fucking curtain comes down”—a dramatic vow of endurance. It’s got serious “last-act energy,” echoing that old philosophical idea that life is performance and death is the final curtain. Why It Matters: Caroline’s always been theatrical, but this line injects gravity—she’s casting herself as someone committed to the role, to the bit, to the cause… until the literal end. Bonus Layer: By swearing in the line, it also modernizes the quote—think Erasmus by way of Succession. It's a reappropriated classical reference with bite. Episode 3 - Gamma 6:26 - “The girl who lived, come to die.” BLAISE If it isn't Caroline Merteuil. The girl who lived, come to die. CAROLINE Well, that's awfully tired. Allusion Type: Pop Culture Reference / Literary Echo Direct Reference: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two (2011) Voldemort: “Harry Potter. The boy who lived... come to die.” Explanation: Blaise greets Caroline with a heavy-handed Voldemort line, casting himself as the dark wizard and Caroline as the resurrected target. Caroline, unimpressed, dryly responds: “Well, that’s awfully tired.” Why It Matters: Blaise’s choice of words is dramatic, theatrical, and… yeah, kind of tired. Caroline calls it out, instantly flipping the power dynamic back in her favor. It shows how this world thrives on references—but also how sharp you have to be to wield them well. Blaise quotes Voldemort; Caroline critiques the script. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Voldemort says this quote in the movie. Not even the book. So Blaise isn't even getting down to the source material. 18:30 - “She’s a look-alike... You ever seen the movie Dave?” LUCIEN The lady will be paying. ANNIE [Clicks tongue] Well, then, I guess it's on me. CASHIER ID? ANNIE Yeah. CASHIER Cassidy Featherstone? ANNIE Sir, I'm... CASHIER The vice president's daughter? LUCIEN [Applauding] Damn, Cassidy, you really are the best that they've got. She's a look-alike. CASHIER She's a what now? LUCIEN A look-alike. They have them for, like, those, uh, higher-level people. It's a thing. You ever seen the movie Dave? CASHIER Yeah, with, uh, Kevin Kline. LUCIEN Right. Based off a true story. CASHIER Okay. I guess I never really realized. LUCIEN Do you think that the vice president's daughter would be hanging around in... [phone buzzing] ...forgive me if I'm offending you, but do you really think she'd be hanging around a place like this? CASHIER So, you're being for real right now? ANNIE Completely real. Yeah, I've been with the second family for, ugh, God, it feels like lifetimes at this point. CASHIER Well, you look almost identical. ANNIE I mean, I better after what I went through. Allusion Type: Film Reference / Political Satire Direct Reference: Dave a 1993 film starring Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver Explanation: Lucien defuses a suspicious cashier by claiming Annie isn’t really Cassidy Featherstone (the vice president’s daughter), but a look-alike, just like in Dave. In the film, an ordinary guy impersonates the U.S. President, leading to heartfelt political chaos. Lucien sells it by calling it a “true story,” lol. Why It Matters: Lucien’s reference works on two levels: He’s bullshitting the cashier with a niche political comedy from 30 years ago. Elite mischief. He’s referencing a movie about impersonation to cover up a real case of impersonation—hella meta and sneakily brilliant. Huge bonus written in that this cashier has seen Dave. 33:30 - “Easy, Joe Friday.” CECE Miss? Excuse me. Can I offer you a serving utensil? Or a napkin? When you use your hand... BLAISE Leave them be, CeCe. CECE But there are a lot of very accessible valuables in this room we need to keep an eye on. BLAISE Easy, Joe Friday. Caroline knows what she's doing, so just for tonight, try being a normal human being. CECE I really dislike you sometimes. BLAISE Right back at you. Allusion Type: TV Reference / Character-Based Sarcasm Direct Reference: Dragnet’s Sgt. Joe Friday Explanation: CeCe is trying to keep the party under control, worrying about etiquette and valuables. Blaise cuts in with, “Easy, Joe Friday”—referencing the ultra-serious detective from the old-school police procedural Dragnet, known for his catchphrase: “Just the facts, ma’am.” Why It Matters: Blaise is mocking CeCe for being too by-the-book, like a party cop. It’s classic Blaise: using a vintage cultural reference to throw someone off their high horse. Also? He low-key gives her credit—because Joe Friday always got the job done. The insult is smart, subtle, and salty—like most of Blaise’s best jabs. Episode 4 - Delta 8:08 - “They screened Breathless in my French New Wave cinema class.” Annie knocks on the door of Beatrice's dorm room. Beatrice opens it and sighs. BEATRICE Oh. I thought you were my food. What do you want? ANNIE Nothing. Um, I like your bangs. BEATRICE They screened Breathless in my French New Wave cinema class, so... ANNIE And they look really good. They look really French. BEATRICE What do you really want? ANNIE Nothing. Seriously, I just...I-I wanted to see how you were. Allusion Type: Film Reference / Style Signal Direct Reference: Breathless (or À bout de souffle, 1960), directed by Jean-Luc Godard. Explanation: Beatrice attributes her new bangs to a screening of Breathless—the cornerstone of French New Wave cinema and of women cutting blunt bangs after watching too much existential drama. Jean Seberg’s iconic pixie-banged look in the film became shorthand for insouciant chic. Why It Matters: This isn’t just a beauty comment—it’s a vibe flex. Beatrice is announcing she’s film-literate, disaffected, and aesthetically dangerous. Annie compliments the bangs sincerely (“they look really French”), but Beatrice can smell an ulterior motive a mile away. French New Wave = stylish alienation = perfect for Cruel Intentions Gen Z edition. 36: 22 - "The heart wants what the heart wants." BLAISE Guess the heart wants what the heart wants. LUCIEN Ain't that f*cking right. Allusion Type: Common Phrase / Misattributed Quotation Direct Reference: The title is from a letter by Emily Dickinson. The saying was popularized in 1992 when it was quoted by Woody Allen in an interview about his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. Explanation: Blaise drops the line like it’s deep, and Lucien responds with a grim, “Ain’t that f*cking right.” It sounds poetic, tragic, and timeless—but the origin? Messier than people realize. Woody Allen used this phrase in an infamous interview when defending his deeply controversial relationship with Soon-Yi Previn. Sooo...not exactly Dickinson. Why It Matters: This is a perfect example of false literary elevation—saying something you think is profound without knowing its baggage. In a show obsessed with appearances and intellectual flexing, this line reveals how easily sentimentality masks darker truths. Whether Blaise knows the origin or not, it lands with weight—just maybe not the kind they intended. If Caroline had been there, she definitely would’ve called them both idiots. Episode 5 - Epsilon 11:00 - "[His] girl Friday" BLAISE He already offered me the job. LUCIEN Oh, offered you the job as in, "negotiate your salary" kind of way, or a little pat on the back and, "Any friend of my son has a place in my administration," kind of way? BLAISE Stay out of it. LUCIEN I just want to make sure that your Scott's girl Friday is over by Monday. BLAISE Or what, Lucien? LUCIEN I guess we'll see, won't we? Allusion Type: Film & Literary Reference Direct Reference: His Girl Friday (1940), starring Cary Grant & Rosalind Russell Explanation: His Girl Friday is a classic screwball comedy about a sharp-witted female reporter caught between her ex-husband (also her boss) and her professional ambitions. The title itself turned “Girl Friday” into shorthand for a resourceful, overqualified assistant/sidekick—a term that originally comes from Robinson Crusoe (where “Man Friday” was Crusoe’s loyal servant). Lucien uses it to suggest that Blaise is just a useful political pawn in Scott’s world—someone doing the legwork rather than holding real power. And yeah, technically Annie would be the Girl Friday for Scott, but Lucien’s goal isn’t to make a perfect analogy—it’s to undermine Blaise. He hijacks the term for his own agenda, which honestly, is the Cruel Intentions way. Why It Matters: Lucien’s snarky remark is two insults in one: He’s undermining Blaise’s power—implying that this “job” is more about nepotism than competence. He’s predicting Blaise’s downfall—with “over by Monday”, he suggests this arrangement won’t last. Given that His Girl Friday is about outmaneuvering manipulative men, the irony is chef’s kiss. 23:25 - Bal á Versailles LUCIEN Sorry I'm late. ( Claudia kisses ) CLAUDIA Good to see you. LUCIEN Well, uh, someone smells nice. What is that? CAROLINE Bal á Versailles and barely concealed rage. LUCIEN Well, I'm glad I missed it. CAROLINE Let's get you a drink, so the fun can begin. CLAUDIA Oh, here. Share mine. Allusion Type: Luxury Cultural Reference / Mood Descriptor Direct Reference: Bal à Versailles – A French perfume by Jean Desprez, launched in 1962. Explanation: When Lucien off-handedly asks, “What is that scent?”, Caroline doesn’t just answer—she curates a whole mood: “Bal à Versailles” A perfume associated with old money, excess, and French aristocracy (a.k.a. exactly what she embodies). “…and barely concealed rage.” A reminder that beneath the glamour, she is seething. Essentially, Caroline frames her emotions like a luxury brand—elegant, refined, but still dangerous. This is not just a perfume; it’s a controlled weapon. Why It Matters: Bal à Versailles itself is a statement. This is the perfume of Marie Antoinette vibes: decadence, powdered wigs, and impending disaster. Bal à Versailles literally invokes the Palace of Versailles—the opulent playground of France’s doomed elite. In the original novel, the aristocrats were so out of touch that revolution became inevitable. Caroline, in referencing this scent, is aligning herself (knowingly or not) with that same aesthetic of doomed privilege. Caroline’s anger isn’t out of control—it’s bottled, aged, and applied with precision. She is both self-aware and performative. Even in her fury, she makes sure it’s delivered in the most expensive way possible. This isn’t just a throwaway line—it’s characterization in a bottle. Plus, I love the callback to the source material. 👏👏👏 Episode 6 - Zeta 11:20 - “The Theme is Paradise Lost” CAROLINE What is all this? CECE You said to get refreshments. CAROLINE I didn't mean that kind of coke. The theme is "Paradise Lost." When you think "Paradise Lost," do you think "soda"? CECE Well, when I think "Paradise Lost," I don't really think "party" either. The themes aren't really what I'd call celebratory. I was discussing it with Professor Chadwick, and he says it's really a story about the ultimate punishment for disobedience. Allusion Type: Literary Classic – Paradise Lost by John Milton (1667) Reference Level: Direct + Thematic Commentary Explanation: Caroline is throwing a 21st birthday party for Lucien and—because this show can’t just do “Under the Sea” like the normies—the theme is Paradise Lost, John Milton’s epic poem chronicling Satan’s fall from Heaven, the corruption of mankind, and the banishment from Eden. CeCe, ever the voice of bizarre logic and inadvertent genius, points out the obvious: “The themes aren’t really what I’d call celebratory.” And she’s right! Paradise Lost is a tale of: Disobedience Exile Pride And literally losing paradise Hardly what you’d expect at a party with a bar and a cake. This party isn't about celebrating innocence—it’s about leaning into corruption. Caroline and Lucien are, in a way, casting themselves as fallen angels who chose the fall. It's giving, "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." Why It Matters: It’s a perfect satire of how elite kids turn high art into party aesthetics. Paradise Lost becomes a metaphor for Lucien’s arc: charming, dangerous, and self-exiled. CeCe unintentionally nails the core conflict of the show: everyone here is getting punished for disobedience—whether they know it or not. 21:20 - “Persepolis but with Less Fire” BEATRICE This is a pretty great party. It's like Persepolis but with less fire. BLAISE Don't talk to me. BEATRICE That's rude. Allusion Type: Literary & Historical Reference Level: Direct & Thematic Explanation: Persepolis was the capital of the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE), located in what is now Iran. Founded by Darius I (or Darius the Great) and later expanded by his successors, it was a symbol of Persian power and wealth. The city was famous for its grandeur, featuring monumental architecture, incredible art, and grand palaces. It was a symbol of the Persian empire’s might and its ability to unify a vast and diverse collection of peoples under its rule. Persepolis was sacked and burned over the course of five months by Alexander the Great in 330 BCE, a dramatic event often symbolic of the fall of empires. This destruction is often referenced as the end of an era of Persian glory. Why It Matters: This comparison draws an ironic parallel between the grandeur of the party and the fate of Persepolis, which was destroyed by fire after becoming a symbol of opulence. It ties directly into the central themes of the show: decadence, moral collapse, and self-destruction. The party may seem extravagant now, but we know that things are bound to combust in typical Cruel Intentions fashion. Episode 7 - Eta 1:30 - "In the court of public opinion" ELLA Honestly? It's like they're playing checkers, and you're playing chess. BEATRICE You know, for the first time in a long time, I feel good. I feel like I really accomplished something. I did what needed to be done. ELLA Maybe you should call that reporter. BEATRICE No. I'm out of the limelight. Let the entire institution of Greek life hang itself in the court of public opinion. They can humiliate themselves for a change. Allusion Type: Legal and Social Commentary Reference Level: Direct (legal and social context) Explanation: Court of public opinion refers to society’s informal judgment of people, institutions, or actions. Unlike a formal courtroom, this “court” is where people are judged by public sentiment, media, and gossip. It's a reference to the judgment of society rather than a formal judicial decision. Beatrice’s comment about letting Greek life hang itself “in the court of public opinion” suggests that she’s stepping back from the drama, allowing the fraternities and sororities to face the consequences of their actions without her interference. Greek life’s actions will be scrutinized by the wider world—and the consequences may not be as formal or legal, but they’ll be just as significant. Why It Matters: This line underscores Beatrice’s cleverness and her strategic detachment. Rather than participating in the Greek system's downfall or trying to “fix” things, Beatrice knows that the weight of public opinion is often the most powerful force for punishment and accountability. It also reflects the show’s larger themes of image, power, and reputation, with Beatrice positioning herself as an observer and manipulator, understanding that the public’s judgment can be a far greater weapon than any formal legal consequences. The irony here is that Beatrice is distancing herself from the chaos, yet she is still indirectly controlling the narrative by letting others self-destruct in the court of public opinion. She’s not innocent—she’s just letting the system eat itself. 14:50 - “Two Clean-Cut Men Spreading God’s Word” + “Avon Ladies” + “Olive Branches” LUCIEN Who do we have here? Just two clean-cut men spreading God's word, or is this the Avon ladies calling? BLAISE Scott, here, wanted to say he's very sorry for fighting you. SCOTT Yeah. BLAISE Okay? He's very torn up about it, so, forgiveness would mean a lot to him. LUCIEN Well, olive branch accepted. But if you'll excuse me, I have some decorating supervising to do. SCOTT I don't like olives. They're too salty. BLAISE Keep it rolling. No more olives. This set is a triple threat of references! Allusion Type: Biblical, Cultural, and Commercial References Reference Level: Direct References + Metaphor Explanation: Lucien’s first line is a witty jab—a clever way to question their motives: are they here to spread peace and ask for forgiveness (like a missionary), or are they here to sell something (like Avon reps)? Clean-Cut Men Spreading God's Word: referring to missionaries or evangelists who often spread religious teachings, sometimes with a “clean-cut” image of purity or wholesomeness. It’s a nod to the pious and selfless. Avon Ladies: This is a pop culture reference to Avon representatives, who are door-to-door salespeople, primarily women, selling beauty and health products. The line here plays with the idea of salesmanship, comparing the sincere act of spreading religious messages with something more commercial and superficial. Olive Branch: The olive branch is a classic symbol of peace from Greek mythology and Christianity, often representing forgiveness and reconciliation. Lucien’s flippant acceptance reveals how the show often plays with superficial gestures of peace, which are common in manipulative settings. Why It Matters: Lucien’s play on words shows how these characters are constantly questioning motives. He juxtaposes two very different kinds of outreach—one that is genuine and spiritual (spreading God’s word) and another that’s commercial and manipulative (selling products). It speaks to the dual nature of their intentions—they might be offering forgiveness, but it’s a transaction rather than an authentic gesture. The olive branch reference (though accepted by Lucien) is ironic. The gesture of peace is often a sign of true reconciliation, but Lucien’s casual acceptance suggests he’s only going through the motions—he may accept the peace symbolically, but not genuinely. This also reflects the broader themes of manipulation in the show, where actions are rarely pure or sincere. 21:30 - William Blake CECE Now, all I need is proof of number 27. ANNIE (Sighs) I don't have that one. CECE The sun is descending in the west, and here you stand before me, unpierced and unproven. ANNIE Is that... Is that William Blake? CECE Some of it. Doesn't matter. All tasks must be completed. No exceptions, no exemptions. Allusion Type: Literary Allusion to William Blake's book The Marriage of Heaven and Hell Reference Level: Moderate/Indirect Reference Explanation: CeCe’s line is a deliberate allusion to themes found in the book specifically the Proverbs of Hell section. In this work, Blake explores the idea that spiritual and moral growth comes through trials and challenges. "The sun descending in the west, the evening star does arise. / To bring the night. / To bring the night." Why It Matters: The line that CeCe paraphrases references the passage of time and the inevitable judgment and testing that must occur for one to prove their worth. “The sun is descending in the west” alludes to the end of a phase or cycle, which is often tied to judgment or introspection. This could represent a moment of reckoning, where one’s actions are measured, akin to how Blake’s work often explores how individuals must pass through trials to achieve higher understanding or transformation. “Unpierced and unproven” refers to the idea that Annie has not yet undergone the necessary trials or spiritual rites of passage to be considered worthy or fully formed to join the sorority. Similar to how Blake's proverbs suggest that tests of character and inner strength are essential for spiritual or personal development. CeCe’s allusion fits well with the show’s broader themes of moral judgment, transformation, and the quest for power. Episode 8 - Theta 14:10 - "He's not Flowers for Algernon." BLAISE What's funny? BLANDSMAN No, it's just, I don't know. You fucked Scott right into this presidency and fucked yourself right out of the house. BLAISE What do you know, Blandsman? BLANDSMAN I know that I was in the meeting when Scott saw all the checks you had him sign. He's dumb. He's not Flowers for Algernon. BLAISE (chuckles) I told you it was Lucien. BLANDSMAN Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You keep blaming him, but we both know what's gonna happen when the National Board gets that report tonight. Allusion Type: Literary Allusion to Flowers for Algernon, a 1959 short story and 1966 novel by Daniel Keyes. Reference Level: Direct Reference Explanation: In the story, the protagonist Charlie Gordon, a man with an intellectual disability, undergoes an experimental procedure to increase his intelligence. For a time, it works — he becomes a genius. But the change is temporary, and he eventually regresses to his original cognitive state, leading to a tragic and emotionally charged ending. Blandsman is dismissing any hope that Scott is some kind of latent genius or misunderstood intellect. Unlike Charlie Gordon, who briefly experiences heightened intelligence, Blandsman suggests Scott never had any hidden brilliance to begin with. He’s not “on his way up” or temporarily low-functioning — he’s just plain dumb, and always will be. This comment adds an edge of cruelty, mocking Blaise’s earlier manipulation of Scott and highlighting how little credit Scott receives, even among insiders. It also exposes how Blaise’s schemes are crumbling — she’s lost power, and even her scapegoats (Lucien, Scott) are no longer useful or credible buffers. Why It Matters: The reference to Flowers for Algernon isn't just a jab at Scott — it's a reminder of the fragility of intelligence, status, and transformation in a world where manipulation is currency. Unlike Charlie Gordon, Scott isn’t undergoing any internal journey; he’s a pawn in someone else’s game. And Blaise? She’s rapidly losing control of the board. It also subtly aligns with the show’s themes of performance, perception, and self-delusion — everyone is pretending to be smarter, nobler, or more powerful than they really are. But sooner or later, the façade slips, and what’s left behind isn’t always sympathetic. 14:50 - "Suppose I Framed Roger Rabbit, too?" SCOTT Hey, uh... ( clears throat ) ...you didn't take that money, right? Because Blaise told me you did. LUCIEN Okay, and I suppose I framed Roger Rabbit too? SCOTT No, no, I-I don't think so. LUCIEN Why the fuck would I steal the money, Scott? I'm rich. SCOTT Yeah, Blaise is rich too. LUCIEN No, man. He's poor as dirt. SCOTT Oh, come on. The guy wears Dolce & Gabbana underwear. LUCIEN They're not real. They're fake. Just like he is. Fuck. Allusion Type: Pop Culture / Film Allusion to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988) Reference Level: Direct Reference Explanation: Lucien is referencing the live-action/animated noir-comedy in which a cartoon rabbit is accused of murder — and it turns out to be part of a much larger conspiracy. The title itself became shorthand for outlandish scapegoating, as the film hinges on Roger being falsely accused despite how ridiculous it seems. Lucien's comeback plays on that very absurdity. By comparing Scott’s belief to a Roger Rabbit-level conspiracy, Lucien implies that Blaise’s story is equally cartoonish and obviously false. It's also a subtle dig at how gullible Scott is — the idea that Lucien, ever the Machiavellian schemer, would stoop to such cartoonish antics is laughable to him. Why It Matters: This moment captures Cruel Intentions’ talent for weaving high and low culture. Lucien isn’t quoting Shakespeare — he’s tossing in a sardonic nod to an iconic '80s film to underscore the absurdity of the situation and deflect blame. But under the wit, there's weight: Lucien, who’s been actually scheming all season, hides in plain sight by mocking the very idea of deception. It’s the classic “the devil wears Prada” move — hide the truth behind a punchline. 20:00 - God's Rocks SCOTT Hey, did, uh, Dad tell you the good news? BLAISE Um, no. Not yet. RUSSELL He was talking so much he didn't give me a chance to tell him. I paid back everything that he owed. SCOTT Isn't it great? Look, I know you did it because you needed the money, but I decided rocks don't matter. BLAISE Rocks? SCOTT Yeah, God's rocks. Look, my dad understood. He helped me with the report. It went in, just like we messed up on the books. Just like you said. Allusion Type: Biblical Reference Level: Indirect Reference Explanation: In what might be his most wide-eyed, morally earnest moment, Scott refers to “God’s rocks” — a charmingly literal description of the Ten Commandments, the biblical laws inscribed by God on stone tablets and given to Moses on Mount Sinai. By calling them “rocks,” Scott isn’t being sacrilegious — he’s just simplifying. He’s trying to say he’s moving past guilt and legalism. Scott has accepted that the financial misdeeds he was wrapped up in (fudging numbers, signing checks, being manipulated) were wrong, but also forgivable. In his mind, he confessed, got help from his dad, and the report is in. The moral ledger of The Commandments no longer hold power over him. He’s off the hook even if he’s also (unknowingly) trivializing millennia of religious law and reducing divine commandments to inanimate objects that can be tossed aside once you’ve done your paperwork. His simplicity highlights just how little he truly grasps the weight of morality, guilt, and consequence in the world around him — especially among the schemers like Blaise and Lucien. It’s also a twist on a “grace over law” ideology — he believes in understanding, not judgment. Why It Matters: Scott’s “rocks don’t matter” line is the purest expression of how naive goodness functions in this series. In a show obsessed with schemes, manipulation, and performance, Scott stands out by being genuinely earnest. Whether you see him as a fool or a moral center, this line positions him as someone trying to make peace with wrongdoing in a world that thrives on exploiting it. It’s not just about money — it’s about forgiveness. About grace. About deciding that being good might matter more than following the rules carved in stone. 24:50 - "Why are you crying into the wall like an Amish schoolmarm?" CECE No, no. Tanya. Tanya. I don't care if you think it's a fire hazard because I will personally set you on fire myself. CAROLNE Not even your hypothetical arson can ruin this, CeCe. CECE Caroline, I'm sorry. I just want everything to be perfect, but you have no idea the insolence that I'm up against... CAROLINE CeCe, we did it. We have Annie. We won. CeCe begins to cry and walks to a corner. CAROLNE CeCe? Why are you crying into the wall like an Amish schoolmarm? CECE (inhales deeply) My mother told me I'm very unattractive when I cry. Allusion Type: Cultural & Psychological Reference Level: Moderate / Indirect Explanation: Amish communities are often depicted as embracing a lifestyle that values restraint, modesty, and discipline, particularly in emotional expression. “Crying into the wall” evokes the image of a person trying to hide their emotions, as if they are ashamed of their vulnerability. The comparison to an “Amish schoolmarm” further exaggerates the stereotype of stiff emotional control, suggesting that CeCe is embodying this repressed, overly disciplined figure who cannot openly express her sorrow without shame. This allusion is layered with irony: CeCe’s public display of emotion contrasts with the very idea of the Amish cultural norm she is compared to. The term “schoolmarm” also carries connotations of teaching authority, which further highlights CeCe’s complex character: someone trying to maintain control and hide personal vulnerability, despite her emotional breakdown. Why It Matters: The Amish schoolmarm comparison underscores CeCe’s inner conflict. She’s in a moment of profound emotional release, yet the stigma she feels about showing weakness makes her want to suppress it — which is why she hides her face against the wall. The absurdity of this cultural stereotype highlights CeCe’s attempts to balance her personal feelings with her outward stoicism in a world that rewards emotional control. Additionally, it speaks to family dynamics (as CeCe mentions her mother’s harsh judgment about her crying) and the social pressures CeCe feels as someone who is expected to be strong and composed. This allusion to Amish culture, while played for comedic effect, deepens the viewer's understanding of CeCe’s struggles with vulnerability — not just with Caroline, but with the expectations placed on her by her upbringing. Did you catch any others? Let me know in the comments. Class Consciousness It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody when I say that formal education, especially collegiate, has become somewhat of a privilege. Imagine amassing thousands upon thousands of dollars in student loans to get a degree that is essentially a key into higher society. Imagine spending thousands of dollars to join and stay in a fraternity or sorority that is also essentially an exclusive club in the exclusive parts of society. And imagine those thousands of dollars being a drop in the bucket. Hardly a thing to think about. That's the case for these characters. They've been raised in a rich echo chamber where they can even be quoted saying, DialogueExpress.com That the characters are able to say these allusions—furthermore, to casually say them, is a way to "say you're highly educated without saying you're highly educated." The characters quote modern pop culture, sure, but they also quote classical/historic/niche/etc. pieces. Things only the highly/well educated folk know. It's like they're speaking in code of "I know more because I'm richer than you." It's class consciousness with a superiority complex. Conclusion In the eighth episode, Blaise (surprisingly) hits the nail on the head when he says, "Everything's about the money, Scott...The only people with the luxury of saying it's not about the money are those who already have it...What do you think it takes, Scott, just to even step foot through the doors of a place like this? Money. It costs money. It costs money to get in, and it costs money to stay in. More and more of it every year. To fit in, to have an audience with the alumni, to have people take you seriously. Everything costs something. So, yeah, maybe it's not about the money for you, Scott. But when you don't have it, everything is about the money." So, for those where it's not about the money, the language they use to manipulate, charm, and lean into corruption might be beautiful and intelligent. But the power is being able to understand what is said between the lines. This aesthetic snobbery used as ammunition. Do you know Latin? With fourteen minutes left in the season, the sisters of Delta Phi Pi start speaking Latin. Thank you, Thestelmer on Reddit for looking further into this. "Adoro te devote" is a prayer written by Thomas Aquinas. From Wikipedia, they say this much: Does this necessarily mean anything for the moment? Does the prayer add anything other than the superior air of speaking Latin? Doesn't matter. They know it and you don't, so ... Always read between the lines, Katherine Arkady P.S. Not for nothing, Sarah Catherine Hook, who plays Caroline, is also in Season 3 of White Lotus. If I had a nickel for every time the Clintons were brought up in a scene with her, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.

Introduction POP QUIZ: What sounds more natural? a beautiful old wooden box OR a wooden beautiful old box Keep going: Which of the following sound more natural? an old, little lovely cottage OR a lovely, little old cottage a large, red Canadian truck OR a red, large Canadian truck a silver elegant serving spoon OR an elegant silver serving spoon I know you hear it in your head. Something is off about "a wooden beautiful old box," "a lovely little old cottage," "a red, large Canadian truck," and "a silver elegant serving spoon." But why? Reader, I bring you: OSASCOMP (Gesundheit) Ah yes, OSASCOMP, an acronym given to the conventional order of adjectives in English and note that many people who follow the rule every day have never heard of. Which is why I find it so fascinating. It's not especially cool because it exists, it's especially cool because most people know it without realizing that they know it. And I bet Dollars to Donuts that you know it, too. Table of the Contents Introduction Section 1: What Is OSASCOMP? Section 2: Explicit Knowledge vs Tacit Knowledge Section 3: More Than Just Grammar Section 4: The Fiction Writer's Version of OSASCOMP Conclusion Section 1: What Is OSASCOMP? In English, multiple adjectives preceding a noun follow a strict, often subconscious order: Opinion, Size, Age, Shape, Color, Origin, Material, and Purpose Opinion: Lovely, beautiful, strange, awful, delicious Size: Big, small, tall, tiny, huge Age: Old, new, young, ancient, antique Shape: Round, square, long, flat Color: Red, blue, greenish, yellow Origin: French, American, solar, lunar Material: Cotton, wooden, silk, metal Purpose/Qualifier: Sleeping (bag), frying (pan), walking (stick) Key Rules and Usage Determiners first: Articles (a, an, the), possessives (my, your), and demonstratives (this, that) come before all descriptive adjectives. Subjective to Objective: Subjective opinions come first, while factual, essential, or permanent characteristics (like material or purpose) stay closest to the noun. Commas and "And": When adjectives are from different categories, you usually do not need commas (e.g., a big red ball). If they are from the same category (coordinate adjectives), use a comma or "and" (e.g., a long, thin, narrow road). Purpose Exception: Purpose adjectives often act as part of a compound noun (e.g., tennis racket, sleeping bag) and rarely move It helps to think of the order as moving from the most subjective description to the most objective description: What you think → How big it is → How old it is → What it looks like → Where it's from → What it's made of → What it's for Imagine you're introducing an object to someone. You start with your impression of it ("beautiful"), then describe its physical qualities, then where it came from, then what it's made of, and finally what it does. English speakers naturally move from opinion to purpose. ✨ Some Examples for You ✨ 1. A beautiful (opinion) small (size) old (age) round (shape) blue (color) French (origin) wooden (material) jewelry (purpose) box. 2. An ugly (opinion) large (size) new (age) square (shape) white (color) American (origin) plastic (material) storage container. 3. A charming (opinion) tiny (size) ancient (age) narrow (shape) green (color) Irish (origin) stone (material) cottage. 4. An elegant (opinion) long (size) modern (age) rectangular (shape) black (color) Italian (origin) leather (material) dining table. 5. A wonderful (opinion) huge (size) young (age) slender (shape) brown (color) Canadian (origin) wool (material) hunting dog. Few people (researching author not included) consciously think through this sequence before speaking or writing. This order comes from instinct developed through years of exposure to the language. You know more than you think you do! And, if you're a fan of acrostics (where the first letter of each line (or paragraph) spells out a hidden word, name, or phrase when read vertically), I have a fun one for you: Old Spiders Always Spin Colorful Orange Mittens Perfectly Just imagine lil' geriatric arachnids spinning together orange mittens for the 8,000 lil' pedipalps of their 4,000 grandchildren. Section 2: Explicit Knowledge vs Tacit Knowledge Most of us think of knowledge as something we can explain. We know the capital of a state. We know how many days are in a year. We know the definition of a word. This is explicit knowledge: information that can be easily articulated, recorded, and shared. But much of what we know doesn't work that way. Linguists, psychologists, and educators often refer to this other type of knowledge as tacit knowledge: knowledge gained through experience rather than formal instruction. Children are rarely taught OSASCOMP. Instead, they absorb it through thousands of conversations, books, television shows, classroom discussions, and everyday interactions. Over time, patterns eventually stop feeling like patterns and just become the default way things are done. OSASCOMP reminds us that, from the outside, expertise often looks like instinct. What feels automatic is frequently the result of years of accumulated experience operating just below conscious awareness. Much of what we know operates below the level of conscious awareness: We recognize when someone interrupts a conversation at the wrong moment. We know when a joke has gone too far. We can often identify a familiar face from across a crowded room before we've consciously registered who we're looking at. We can tell when a sentence sounds natural long before we could explain the grammatical rules behind it. We don't consciously sort adjectives into categories before speaking. We don't pause to consider whether "wooden" should come before "beautiful." We simply know. It's like Neature Walk's now famous "you can tell [it's an aspen] by the way that it is." After being exposed to an experience enough just below conscious awareness, you can just tell. OSASCOMP shows us what tacit knowledge looks like inside of language. But the same mechanism doesn’t stop at grammar—it shapes entire systems of behavior. Section 3: More Than Just Grammar OSASCOMP is useful on its own as a grammar pattern, but its real value shows up when you step back from language entirely. The same invisible pattern that governs adjective order governs far larger systems: professions, institutions, and cultures. We are constantly absorbing structure without being explicitly taught the structure itself. We learn social expectations without ever being handed a rulebook for them. We learn workplace norms without anyone formally outlining them. We absorb cultural customs, professional habits, and unspoken standards simply by participating in the environments where they exist. And because these patterns become automatic, they also become difficult to describe. This is why experienced practitioners in any field often sound vague when asked to explain what they do. Not because the knowledge isn’t real, but because it operates below the level of constant attention. A musician may not be able to immediately articulate why a rehearsal feels wrong, only that it does. A teacher may shift the structure of a classroom on instinct, responding to dynamics they recognize but don’t consciously itemize. A mechanic may hear an engine and register that something is off long before they can isolate the specific cause. An experienced nurse may walk into a room and sense that something is unusual before any measurable detail has been identified. In each case, perception is happening faster than explanation. This is the same mechanism OSASCOMP exposes in miniature. The more familiar a system becomes, the more it hides itself. Language simply makes the pattern visible. What once required attention becomes instinct, "how things are." Second nature, if you will. Section 4: The Fiction Writer's Version of OSASCOMP For writers, this matters because it is often exactly this invisible layer—the part practitioners can’t easily explain—that carries the most authentic detail. When writers conduct research, they often begin with facts. They ask questions like: What tools do you use? How long does training take? What does a typical day look like? What procedures do you follow? And these questions are useful. They are very necessary. But accuracy alone still leaves a world flat, because it remains external to the logic that governs it. When doing research and speaking with folk, *pay attention* to phrases like: "That's just how it's done." "Everybody knows that." "You'd never do it that way." "That feels wrong." "I never really thought about it." These comments often point toward assumptions and habits that are deeply embedded within a community. Dig deeper and ask why. Get that authenticity from understanding what people take for granted. It can be tricky to get this information. To simply ask somebody, "What has become so normal that you don't think about it?" is likely to be met with "I don't know." Because they don't think about it. Your job as a writer and researcher is to eventually get to the tacit knowledge questions. Ask the explicit knowledge questions first. Peel back those layers. Get the facts and read between those lines to find the spaces your "Why's?" can fit. The goal is to move from what they know to how they know. When someone says, "That's just how it's done." How did you learn that? Who taught you? What would happen if someone didn't do it that way? Is there ever a situation where you'd break that rule? What does a newcomer usually get wrong about this? Can you remember the first time you saw it done correctly? When someone says, "Everybody knows that." How would a beginner find that out? When do people usually learn it? What clues would tell someone that if nobody explained it to them? Has anyone ever not known that and gotten into trouble? If you had to teach it to a new hire, how would you explain it? Is it written down anywhere, or do people just pick it up? When someone says, "You'd never do it that way." Why not? What feels off about it? What problems would it cause? Have you ever seen someone try? What's the difference between the wrong way and the right way? How can you tell the difference at a glance? When someone says, "That feels wrong." What specifically feels wrong about it? What would feel right instead? Can you point to an example? How do you know when something is right before you can explain why? Is it a safety issue, an efficiency issue, a cultural issue, or something else? Would everyone in the field agree with you? When someone says, "I never really thought about it." Could you walk me through what you actually do? What's the first thing you notice? What about it are you paying attention to that a beginner might miss? How do you make that decision in the moment? What signs tell you it's working? If I followed you around for a day, what would I see you doing automatically? If you only ask for facts, you learn what people do. If you keep asking questions, you learn how they think. That comparison matters because readers are remarkably, fantastically, scarily good at sensing the difference. Readers rarely evaluate authenticity by checking facts. They instead respond to patterns. They notice when a character reacts the way a real person in that world would react. They notice when a setting seems lived in rather than assembled from a list of details. A story becomes more convincing when characters interact with their world in ways that reflect the habits and assumptions of the people who inhabit it. Just as English speakers unconsciously follow the rules of adjective order, people unconsciously follow thousands of social, professional, and cultural rules every day. They know which mistakes mark someone as an outsider. They know which shortcuts are acceptable and which are dangerous. They know what feels right, what feels wrong, and what "everybody knows." As writers, our job is not simply to collect information. It is to uncover the assumptions, habits, instincts, and unwritten rules that shape how people move through the world. Facts help us describe a world. Tacit knowledge helps us understand it. Conclusion Most English speakers use OSASCOMP correctly without ever learning its name. The rule exists beneath explanation. Things are observed rather than taught, enacted rather than stated. And that's the point! Much of what we call knowledge is not conscious at all, but absorbed until it feels "second nature." OSASCOMP is a teeny, tiny, microscopic, blink-and-you-miss-it, almost comically small fragment of the far larger tacit knowledge system. What it points to is larger: the way humans take repeated experience and turn it into instinct, until structure disappears into behavior. Every profession, every practice, every community develops its own version of this. Not rules in the formal sense, but accumulations of judgment and habit that settle so deeply they stop registering as choices. They become the air inside the system. For fiction writers, this is a structure to get in, on, and around to. Facts will give you accuracy. They will tell you what tools are used, what procedures are followed, what a day looks like when it is described from the outside. But accuracy alone still leaves a world flat, because it remains external to the logic that governs it. A character does not become convincing because they can describe their world. They become convincing because they move through it correctly—because they recognize what matters without needing to translate it into explanation. Because they flinch at the right thing. Because they ignore what an outsider would overread. Because they carry assumptions that never surface in dialogue, but nonetheless shape the story. OSASCOMP, in this sense, is not the subject. It is the reminder: every world has an order beneath its language. And the task of the writer is not only to describe that order, but to make it felt by the reader without ever naming it. Picture those elderly, overqualified-for-this, faintly bureaucratic knitting spiders one more time for me, Katherine Arkady

Here's a going list of my Spotify playlists. I feel like these could be an audio companion for other writers, too. You crave that authentic character inspiration and the vibes for storytelling need to be immersive. You, as a writer, have to feel it! Each of my playlists is tailored to achieve the energy of those emotions and understand those nuances to the real-life experience. Find Your Ideal Writer Energy with POV Playlists I've written before about building a writing environment that actually helps you get words on the page. For me, playlists are a huge part of that. This is an ongoing collection of the playlists I make for myself while I'm writing or experimenting with an idea. Some help me get into a character's head. Some match the mood of a scene. Others are just there to keep me focused when my brain wants to wander. Not every playlist is tied to a story, either. Sometimes "writer work" means querying agents, editing, writing a blog post I'm overthinking, or trying to stay on task during my day job. I have playlists for those days, too. You'll find my featured playlists below on Spotify and YouTube Music . If you're looking for even more, my blog posts have longer lists and ideas for other music streaming services. I hope you find one that clicks and helps you settle into your story a little faster. 💚 Go to Spotify Get the Long Lists from My Blog Go to YouTube Music Sample Playlists

Explore some "procrasti-writing" resources like polls, short stories, and interactive fiction to inspire you creativity and keep your writing fun! Procrasti-Writing Resources Writers are going to procrastinate. These resources are activities close enough to the general act of writing that you could convince yourself that you were "pretty much writing" this whole time. Writer-Centric POV Playlists You crave that authentic character inspiration and the vibes for storytelling need to be immersive. You, as a writer, have to feel it! Each of my playlists is tailored to achieve the energy of those emotions and understand those nuances to the real-life experience. FIND IDEAL ENERGY *Some* Books I Read While Researching… Properly writing about a topic requires properly researching the basics, the not so basics, and the culture of your chosen topic. Below are topics that I've studied and *some* of the following books I've read within that topic. Always always ALWAYS look to your local library for educational tools! TAKE A PAGE OR TWO Polls and Questionnaires Practice for your memoirs with some insightful polling and questions about your own writing experience. Readers: there are activities for your pretty eyes to gaze upon, too! Explain to your physical body what goes on in your spiritual head. Answer the questions and feel productive! ANSWER TO EXPERIENCE Interactive Fiction Participate as the main character in this choose-your-own-adventure-style interactive fiction titled "Missing The Forest for the Tree," a stoner comedy where you're home from a hard day's work only to find that you're out of weed! Do you call a friend? Do you go to a party? Do you get through the night free of any spoilers from The Forest? DIVE INTO THE STORY

< Back Recipe for a...Dinner Party Preparation Time: 160 Minutes | Cook Time: 160 Seconds The Apartment 1 Graham, boyfriend, clean cut 1 Rosemary, Girlfriend, new age traditional 4 7:30 Dinner Invitations for this Friday 3 RSVP'd guests, work colleagues of boyfriend in assorted flavors 3 Bottles of Wine 5 6 Meals to serve The Sauce 1 secret 2 realizations 4½ spilled tears Before preparation, have Graham remind Rosemary that this dinner party is very important for his career. Have Rosemary ask what decade it is that his career rode on her homemaking skills. Set a timer for guest arrival in one hour while dinner is prepared. Opt for a simple, yet exciting meal like braised chicken quarters with mashed redskin potatoes and green peas. Graham must be prepared with proper dress pants and a beard trim. He will change his dress shirt from a blue one to a white one at Rosemary's request. This is good. While dinner is finishing up in the oven, Rosemary should change into her outfit for the evening. Don't forget to add the diamond earrings Graham bought her as a bribe to move to this town. Graham’s three colleagues should show up at the same time. If they don't, the last will show up shortly after the first bottle of wine is opened. Add wine to their glasses to begin the evening. Slowly begin incorporation of conversation between Graham, Rosemary, and the work colleagues, adding more wine for flavor. When there is a knock at the door, have Graham answer it. There will be another colleague, Colby, on the other side of the door. He did not RSVP but allow him into the mix anyway. Rosemary will invite the colleagues to the dinner table for their meal. Upon seeing Colby, she will blanch. Excuse Rosemary from the dinner party and bring her to a rolling boil inside the safety of a bathroom. When breathing exercises are completed and makeup is fixed, remove Rosemary from the bathroom, careful–the shock of seeing Colby may still shatter her. Graham will question Rosemary to see how she’s feeling. Leave that be, and turn attention to separating chicken legs for each of the colleagues. Graham will mention the bread and butter has not been set out. Rosemary will leave once again for those and another bottle of wine. Colby will excuse himself from the table and slip to the bathroom. Rosemary will run into him. Have Colby tell her, "I'm sorry, I had no idea who your husband was." Rosemary will shake her hands to shut him up and rush back to the party. She will forget the bread but not the butter. In passing each other again, Rosemary will ask Colby, "Who shows up without RSVPing?" Build a good energy around the table as guests begin to dig into their servings. Have Colby mention how “it's kind of warm in here.” Roll his sleeves up at cuff width. Repeat until the left cuff is high enough to reveal a crescent moon tattoo. Return gulp of wine from Rosemary's mouth to her glass when she catches sight of the tattoo. Quickly tip the wine glass over so that it spills on her dress. Pierce Graham's anecdote about the office to mention how clumsy she is. Excuse Rosemary to the bedroom to change into a long-sleeved dress. Surround the table with sounds of food happily being chewed and of silverware–the top shelf kind only used for these occasions–scraping together in delight. Rosemary will take this as a sign that things will go as Graham had wanted them to. Scrape up a question about how a work related project was going. Avert Rosemary's eye contact any time Colby speaks. Slip more wine into everybody's glass. At this point, meal size will be reduced to about half on everybody's plates. Remind everybody that there is more where that came from. Reach Colby's arms across the table to get more red skin potatoes. Covertly steam Rosemary’s last nerve for 4-6 seconds as soon as she notices that Colby is putting the tattoo on full display and looking at her while doing so. "Oh wow," Graham will whistle. "You have a tattoo of a moon just like Rosemary." Colby's eyebrows will rise. "Is that so?" Reduce suspicion by saying he found it a while back in the book of a tattoo artist at North Star Tattoo. Skim just enough off the top of Graham's brain to collect a statement: "That's where Rosemary got hers." Mince Colby's words very carefully here. "Fancy that." Warm Graham’s face–giving special attention to his smile. Pile a forkful of Rosemary’s juicy chicken thighs into his mouth. This will, in turn, return the dinner table to easy conversation. Rosemary's blood will drop in pressure. This is good. The table will begin to bubble again with more talk about something work-related. Stuff each guest with their meal so they'll be more willing to stay for a coffee. This is when Graham would sell them on his Big Idea, but, due to changes in guest list, Rosemary may just hurry it all along. Lift six dinner plates from the table and have Rosemary walk them to the kitchen sink. Scoop grounds into the coffee maker and consider offering bourbon as an option. Rosemary will hope this night is almost over and things will be fine as she pours only bourbon into her own mug. Bring Graham into the kitchen with everybody's silverware in tow. He will start to rinse the dishes and put them in the dishwasher. While doing so, he will thank Rosemary for handling a surprise guest so well. Nod her head furiously as means to move the conversation back to Graham's other colleagues. She will leave to see “who wants coffee?” Carve out a space for Graham to put a realization into his tender, too positive brain. Fold over Graham's attention to Rosemary when she returns. Sit back while the boiling occurs: "Didn't you say you got that tattoo as a match to somebody else's?" "I did." "You never told me who." "Haven’t I?” Graham will recall, "A former boyfriend." Colby will feel the need to enter the kitchen for that coffee. Shake Rosemary's head. She'll swallow hard. "It was a little bit more than that. It was an engagement." Graham's eyebrows will rise. At this high point of his investigation, they will not set. "You've been engaged before?" "Once. Yes. To him." Rosemary's shoulders will likely sink. That's the least of anybody's concerns. "And you never thought to tell me?" "I never thought I'd see him again." "I feel like that's important to tell your boyfriend." "That's where you and I differ." "I work with the guy, Rose." "I had no idea." "Neither did I," Colby said. Three colleagues, well-done in their craft, will know the correct social cues to excuse themselves. They will say how well everything was prepared and how much they enjoyed their night, however it will be an early morning. Colby will stand up to leave but Graham will hold out a hand out for him to stay. "Why didn't the wedding happen?" "Graham, I don't think we should– "Quiet, Rosemary." Baste Graham with a searing, oily pause. "I want to hear it from Colby." Reserve Rosemary to the side while Graham approaches Colby to ask, "Why didn't the wedding happen?" Colby will shake his head. "Whatever Rosemary told you is the truth." "Rosemary also said you were just a boyfriend," Graham will say to poke holes in the story. "She said you ended amicably." "Begrudgingly so, yes." "What do you mean by that?" Graham will press. "It's been two years since we last spoke, I can't rem–" "Two years?" Graham’s volume will double. "Graham," Rosemary will slip into the discussion. "It's not what you think." The gaze Graham will sear into Colby is normal, but no less shocking to experience. "Rosemary and I had been dating for three years before getting married. Two years ago." "Graham I–" "Is that where you went before our wedding?" Scatter any back-up plan Rosemary had by having her wilt over the dining chair and say: "I just needed closure." "For what? " Graham boiled over. "It was to return a gift. I wanted to make sure that the box, a symbol of our past, was not an obstacle with my future with you. But he insisted that I kept it." "Because it was a gift.” Colby will explain. “It was only ever a gesture of good will.” But a concern will toast up in Graham’s quickly frying mind. "What does the box look like?" "A two-toned wooden box with dovetail joints." Graham will notice Rosemary wince. He will also roll to the bedroom to get the very box Colby just described. The very box that Rosemary used to hold her most heartfelt trinkets. No logic will be spread, sprinkled, or spooned over Graham's mind before he upends the box and dumps the contents as he walks to the fireplace, finally tossing the box into the roaring fire. "Graham–!" Rosemary will shriek. Neighbors will likely pound on the floor. This will not knock down the bubbled over emotions. The final step, all anyone can do from here, is to watch the box char and crumble. Yields: Remnants of a past and present love life. No career advancement for Graham. A new lease on Oak Boulevard for Rosemary…and Colby. Back to Anthologies