The Agatha Christie Project Update

Thursday, October 16, 2025

I know, I know, it's been forever since I've added anything to The Agatha Christie Project page!

The truth is that I just haven't been very motivated to put my bookish thoughts online for quite a few years now. But I am going to try and get the ball rolling on this project again, this time, without an end date. I hate deadlines in all aspects of my life, so we'll just not have one for this project and I'll get books reviewed as I get around to them.

One thing is for sure, though, I am saving up to add to my Christie collection of hardbacks. I've realized that I only want to collect books that I love so the bookcases need to be weeded. But for those beloved authors, I will go out of my way to buy special copies of their books. With designs that I love and that I feel add to the mystique and adventure promised within the pages. Christie is one of those authors, and I am enjoying the experience of adding pretty editions to my sadly lacking bookshelf bearing her name.

When do you read Agatha Christie? Do you have a season when you want to just reach for her books, or is it an all-year-round thing?

Read More

No, fans have not turned on Keira Knightley

 

Photo Credit: Keira Knightley at Netflix The Woman in Cabin 10 London News Photo 
 
First of all, can we just admire how beautiful Keira Knightley still is at 40. There is such grace and poise in how she is aging, so much sparkle, and I hope and pray that other actresses feel like they can follow suit. That it is okay to enter different seasons of your life and to allow your body and your face to change. If Helen Mirren can do it (here's an interview with Helen on Allure), so can every other actress out there, and it would be such a healthy thing for society rather than having so many women absolutely run from natural aging.

Back to the topic at hand. 

In case you haven't heard, Keira Knightley was hijacked during an interview about her latest film, where the interviewer grilled her about her knowledge of JK Rowling's pro-woman views and if she knew about them before agreeing to be cast as Professor Umbridge in the full-cast audiobook series of Harry Potter that's about to be released. Yes, that's a long sentence. But it completely changes the perspective of the reader by phrasing it as Rowling having a "pro-woman" stance instead of "anti-trans." 

Keira, bless her, responded with a laugh showing the absurdity and misplacement of the question, and graciously called people to figure out how to get along with one another because we are a diverse group of beliefs and opinions and mutual respect is important. I'm paraphrasing.

She's right. We will never move forward as a society if we cannot agree to disagree and move on from topics of contention.

But that reasonable response has resulted in a bit of a Keira Knightley witch-hunt and reinvigoration of the "boycott Rowling" crowd. Both of which are completely uncalled for and extremely dramatic, something that frustrates me as I grow older because drama is just so absurd.

But I did just think of something else that is bothering me.

Why Keira? Is it just because she was "to hand" in an interview? Or is it because she's the most well-known female in the audio cast (from my perspective)? Or . . . what? Because I see famous male names like Hugh Laurie, Matthew Macfadyen (now that's kind of funny that they're in the same audiobook series!), Kit Harrington, Simon Pegg, James McAvoy, and Riz Ahmed (maybe not everybody knows his work, but I do) in the cast but it doesn't seem that they were pressured the same way as Keira.

How is that okay? Now that I'm really thinking about it, I am quite upset that she was jumped like that, out of the blue, when it seems none of her male costars have had to put up with the same absurdity or endure the same online witchhunt. She was simply being diplomatic in her response! Or are these people only upset if someone doesn't voice their disdain for Rowling, not if they are acting in a Harry Potter production? I wouldn't be surprised if that was it. They're fine so long as the actor hates Rowling.

TikTokers and Redditors are not the majority of people. They're just not. Are they the most vocal, oh yes, but do they reflect the beliefs of every single person, absolutely not. So they really should just be viewed as the vocal 1% and treated as such. A flash-in-the-pan knee-jerk response of online rage isn't going to impact my love and admiration for Keira Knightley and her varying roles in the slightest. And I can guarantee you that she has a ton of fans IRL who will never know about this "controversy" and wouldn't care even if they did because they are not chronically online. What next? A call to boycott the PotC franchise? I don't think so. The rage echo chamber is getting old and it's showing how little the 1% actually spend amongst the rest of us.

Now, back to the actual reason for the Rowling question in the first place, the Harry Potter full-cast audio book series! It sounds amazing!

I look forward to intense pangs of hatred and loathing for Professor Umbridge that I know Keira's voice acting will deliver. And, wow, give me my Hugh Laurie as Dumbledore! He's an absolute fav of mine from waaaaaaay back in the 90s, yes, I am that old! I truly hope the full-cast audiobooks of Harry Potter live up to the hype!

Read More

The Social Media Paradox: How Critiquing TikTok Trends Fuels the Fire

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Created using Canva

"It’s ironic: The louder we shout about toxic trends, the more oxygen we give them. In our quest to critique, we risk becoming unwitting megaphones for the very content we claim to oppose."



1. The Algorithm’s Unforgiving Math

Social media platforms thrive on engagement—any engagement. When YouTube commentary channels dissect TikTok trends (overconsumption, rage bait, exploitative family content), they inadvertently amplify the reach of those trends. Even disapproval signals relevance to algorithms, boosting visibility for creators and their controversial content. In my opinion: “The best way to stop the fire is to cut off the oxygen supply.”


  • The Attention Economy: Every view, comment, or critique feeds the machine. Creators profit from outrage, and platforms profit from division.

  • The “Critique Trap”: Well-intentioned criticism often introduces niche trends to broader audiences, sparking curiosity in viewers who’d never have encountered them otherwise.



2. The Rise of Meta-Commentary

YouTube’s “commentary on content” culture creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Creators analyze trends to condemn them, yet their videos become the trend—a hall of mirrors where outrage drives clicks. This mirrors broader cultural dynamics:


  • Vicarious Stress: Watching critiques of platforms you don’t use (for example, I don't have TikTok) can create “secondhand anxiety,” wasting emotional energy on distant dramas.

  • Moral Licensing Trap: Viewers may feel virtuous for “resisting” trends by watching critiques, yet still contribute to the ecosystem.



3. Breaking the Cycle: Practical Steps

A. Starve the Algorithms

  • Silence = Impact: Ignoring trends and their critics denies both the oxygen they crave. Mute keywords, block channels, and curate feeds to exclude meta-commentary.
  • Redirect Attention: Follow creators who focus on solutions (e.g., mindful consumption, creativity) rather than dissecting problems.

B. Reclaim Your Mental Space

  • Audit Your Consumption: Ask, “Does this content enrich me or drain me?” If it’s the latter, click “Not Interested.”
  • Channel Curiosity Productively: Replace trend-watching with hobbies, faith-based content, or skill-building (e.g., cooking, DIY projects).

C. Advocate Quietly

  • Model Alternatives: Share positive, life-giving content—art, family moments, service projects—to counterbalance cultural noise.
  • Teach Critical Thinking: For parents, discuss social media’s pitfalls proactively (e.g., “Why do you think this trend went viral?”) without directing kids to specific toxic content.


A Personal Reflection:
“I’ve deleted my ‘trend critique’ playlists. It’s freeing to realize I don’t need to be a cultural watchdog. My time is better spent creating, connecting, and cultivating peace than shouting into the void.”


Closing Challenge:
What if we treated toxic trends like a passing storm—acknowledging their existence but refusing to stand in the rain? The quieter we become, the less power they hold.

    Read More

    “How to Murder Your Wife” (1965): A Mixed Bag of Laughs and Cringe

    Wednesday, October 1, 2025

    Jack Lemmon shines as Stanley Ford, a lifelong bachelor cartoonist whose drunken antics and reluctant plunge into marriage drive this dark comedy. The film’s humor hinges on his physical comedy—think expanding waistlines from Italian cooking and lightbulb-electrocution mishaps. His habit of acting out comic strip scenes before drawing them adds genuine laughs, showcasing Lemmon’s genius.


    The Good: Vintage Lemmon

    • Physical comedy gold: Slapstick moments (like the infamous lightbulb scene) highlight Lemmon’s talent.
    • Creative flair: Reenacting comic strip scenarios blurs fiction and reality in clever, absurd ways.
    • Charming chemistry: Virna Lisi’s character softens Stanley’s edges, offering glimmers of genuine connection.

    The Dated: 1960s Gender Dynamics
    The film’s “battle of the sexes” premise hasn’t aged well:

    • Misogyny as punchlines: Women are reduced to objects (bachelor parties turn wakes for “lost freedom”) or manipulators.
    • Marriage as imprisonment: The mustache-growing rebellion feels tragic, not funny, in today’s context.
    • Scantily clad stereotypes: Lisi’s wardrobe choices prioritize male gaze over character depth.

    The Uncomfortable: Mutual Manipulation
    Both genders weaponize distrust:

    • Stanley’s friends celebrate freedom when weddings collapse.
    • Wives use emotional blackmail (no motorcycles, no mustache, no independence).
    • The title’s dark premise—fantasizing spousal murder—feels jarringly mean-spirited.

    Verdict: A Time Capsule, Not a Blueprint
    While How to Murder Your Wife offers laughs through Lemmon’s brilliance, its gender politics clash with modern values. It’s best viewed as a cultural artifact—a reminder of how far we’ve come (and how far we still need to go) in portraying mutual respect in relationships.

    Rating: ⭐️⭐️⭐️ (for Lemmon) / ⭐️ (for messaging) 

    Read More