vox--2020-01-15--How Broadway’s Jagged Little Pill tries to reinvent the jukebox musical

Broadway seems to get a new jukebox musical every few months : There are ersatz Chers and Tina Turners and Carole Kings and Jersey Boys all over Times Square .
Still , there was something a little shocking about the very idea of Jagged Little Pill , the new jukebox musical based on Alanis Morissette ’ s seminal 1994 album that premiered on Broadway in December .
Jukebox musicals , surely , were for nostalgic baby boomers with tourist money to burn .
They can be well executed , but traditionally they are painfully sincere hagiographies that wedge their songs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too much , literalism .
So what was Alanis , the poster girl for Gen X ’ s ironic nihilism , doing on Broadway ?
Then Jagged Little Pill opened in Boston in 2018 , and the rumors began : As jukebox musicals go , the early buzz whispered , Jagged Little Pill was actually not that bad .
It had some astonishing performances .
It had fixed the jukebox musical .
Part of what made Jagged Little Pill so exciting , according to those early out-of-town reviews , was that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( “ And then they said I shouldn ’ t be myself , but I was !
And then I won a thousand Grammys !
” is usually how you can summarize a typical plot . )
Instead , first-time playwright Diablo Cody ’ s book tells the story of a suburban family caught in contemporary malaise .
Perfect mother Mary Jane ( Elizabeth Stanley ) is drowning under the weight of keeping up appearances , and she ’ s become dependent on opioids .
She ’ s also struggling to connect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , a committed activist who sings to Mary Jane that she ’ s “ frustrated by your apathy.
” But both Mary Jane and Frankie have to reconsider their understanding of each other after Frankie ’ s classmate Bella ( Kathryn Gallagher ) is raped at a party .
It ’ s still rare and unusual for a jukebox musical to have an original plot not focused on the artist themselves , so for many critics , Cody ’ s involvement was already an enormous step forward for the genre .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was met with initial raves , a counternarrative began .
For some critics , Cody ’ s book was the show ’ s weak link that let down Morissette ’ s music , a “ shaky and contrived ” mess of “ confusion and occasional silliness.
” One month after the show ’ s Broadway debut , the conversation about whether Jagged Little Pill is worth swallowing has calmed down a little .
So Vox culture writers Constance Grady and Aja Romano decided to take this time to talk through Jagged Little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ musical .
What makes them work , what makes them not — and is this particular musical any good or not ?
Constance : In the month and change that Jagged Little Pill has been out , we ’ ve had time for a rough consensus on the show to develop among critics , and it goes a little something like this : The performances are brilliant , but the book is overstuffed at best and a shapeless mess at worst .
Where you fall on the musical overall seems to depend upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re willing to give the most weight to .
I ’ ll put my cards on the table .
I think Jagged Little Pill is a mess , and I love it with my whole heart .
I had a blast at this show .
I laughed , I cried , I cheered .
I have only a glancing acquaintance with Alanis ’ s original album ( I was slightly too young and way too uncool to listen to Jagged Little Pill very much in the ’ 90s ) , but the music @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast so strong , that it was easy for me to let myself get swept away by everything that was happening onstage .
Like , try to sit there while Lauren Patten ’ s heartbroken Jo absolutely shreds “ You Oughta Know ” and not start screaming with catharsis .
You can ’ t !
It ’ s physically impossible !
That ’ s why the show has to stop dead for a standing ovation every night as soon as she ’ s finished .
On the other hand , I have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard jukebox musical problem of forcing its characters into position to sing a particular song .
And because this particular example is trying to do so much at once , giving every single character a disconnected subplot of their own , it doesn ’ t quite have time to pay off the tensions its songs set up .
“ You Oughta Know ” is a bit of a case study in this problem .
An Alanis musical absolutely has to have someone sing “ You Oughta Know , ” because it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To set up the song , the show puts together a love triangle , so we see Frankie become torn between her girlfriend Jo and new kid Phoenix .
But at the same time , the main concerns of Jagged Little Pill as a play are Mary Jane ’ s opioid addiction and the ripple effects from Bella ’ s rape , and it really doesn ’ t have time to make the love triangle feel like anything more than an afterthought .
The aims of this show as a jukebox musical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an original musical are at odds , and as a result , its center of gravity is warped .
This giant showstopper of a number is embedded in the slightest and weakest arc of the show .
And the only conclusion Jo gets after the heartbreak and rage of “ You Oughta Know ” is half a verse in the finale , which is … a pretty weak conclusion .
Having said all that , I actually think that as far as this genre goes , Diablo Cody ’ s much-maligned book is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cody managed to people the cast with characters who all have different personalities , but who all believably feel like they are the kind of person who would break into an Alanis Morissette song if given the chance .
That ’ s such a monumental achievement for a jukebox musical that I have to give her props for it .
Aja , where do you fall on Jagged Little Pill ?
Does the critical consensus feel correct to you ?
And do you love it in spite of the structure — or hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll be very upfront and say that I grew up with an unshakeable , nay , zealous , faith in the thoroughly integrated book musical , whose songs evolve organically from the book and the characters .
So the last two decades of musical theater have been pretty fraught for me , because I deeply resent the rise of the jukebox musical .
It ’ s a regression in form !
It ’ s everything Broadway aspired for decades to evolve beyond , now wrapped in a fancy marketing package as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theaters !
It ’ s cheating , Constance !
So , with all that said , I really do appreciate the spirit of Jagged Little Pill .
Its aims are pure , its ambitions are to become a real musical , and I ’ m mostly in its corner .
The creative team understands that you just shouldn ’ t treat Morissette ’ s music like that in any other pop biopic .
Most jukebox musical scores are light even if the subjects are serious , but Alanis ’ s music is raw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gen X mix of depression and angst , infused with societal malaise and a touch of addiction .
Even its upbeat moments veer into neurotic , manic , difficult .
JLP really couldn ’ t ever be a jukebox musical in that sense , because who ’ s actually gon na play Alanis on a jukebox ?
You play Alanis while screaming into your pillow at 3 am over a dirty breakup .
You play Alanis while eye-rolling at each other about how ironically self-aware you ’ re being about playing Alanis — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a scene meant purely to lampoon the cultural reaction to “ Ironic.
” But the fact that I ’ m talking about how a musical is breaking the fourth wall to answer the longstanding cultural perceptions about one of its songs is part of the inherent problems you run into with musicals like this one .
You have to work much harder to create characters the audience cares about as much as the songs themselves , and especially to get those characters to fit the situations prescribed by those songs .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most glaring examples of this , because this song is meant to be the show ’ s climactic showstopper , but it just doesn ’ t fit .
“ You Oughta Know ” is full of the kind of deep bitterness that results from a relationship that ’ s lasted years , not the uncertain , relatively new relationship it ’ s assigned to onstage .
Lauren Patten acts the hell out of Jo — who I read as emphatically nonbinary , FWIW — and she also gets one of the show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One Hand In My Pocket ” .
But her role is frustrating , because even though she ’ s one of the most compelling actors onstage , she ’ s working hard to fill a very thinly written part .
Remember , Jo is the strongest leg in that ultimately weak love triangle Constance mentioned , and the character seems to have been created just to deliver strong ( low-key queer ) anthems , not to do much of anything else .
We barely get glimpses of her life outside their relationship with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even understand that relationship before it starts falling apart .
Ultimately , the contrast between these giant , overly emotive songs and such an underwritten part just highlights just how lacking so much of the book is .
( Next time , just make the whole musical about the misfit genderqueer kid !
Done ! )
Diablo Cody ’ s book is overstuffed with too many social issues and too many characters , and it ’ s really obvious that much of this bloat is about finding ways to shoehorn in all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not they make sense and fit the plot or its characters .
“ Head Over Feet ” bizarrely gets split between two couples at once , as an attempt to give our main character , Mary Jane ( Elizabeth Stanley ) , some backstory with her husband .
Only this random nostalgia break abruptly happens in the middle of a bitter couples therapy session , where its placement makes no sense .
Similarly , turning “ Ironic ” into a purely throwaway meta-number seems like a wasted opportunity , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to match characters to songs instead of letting songs grow out of character .
Additionally , Tom Kitt of the Pulitzer-winning Next to Normal did the orchestrations and arrangements for JLP , and I felt like Next to Normal heavily influenced this show in spirit without influencing its approach to characterization and story structure — so I felt the ghostly imprint of a much better show about family dysfunction bleeding through at every turn .
Even so , there ’ s a lot to like about JLP .
The staging and choreography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Glen Ballard ( Morissette ’ s co-writer and Jagged Little Pill ’ s original album producer ) and Kitt are all fantastic and full of pulsing energy and heart .
Even though the characters are all little more than ciphers , Mary Jane in particular is the classic “ unlikeable ” Diablo Cody protagonist .
She ’ s really hard to take until she becomes almost heartbreakingly vulnerable , and Elizabeth Stanley really nails that performance .
I wasn ’ t as moved as other audience members were by the scene where “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her head , but boy did I appreciate it as a way of drawing out that song ’ s complex , layered meanings , and as a way of elevating the jukebox musical itself .
If we have to have jukebox musicals , and it seems we must , I ’ d rather have a dozen Jagged Little Pills that don ’ t quite work than a dozen blander , frothier musicals that do .
Constance : I absolutely agree on Jagged Little Pill ’ s massive ambitions , and I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are both its saving grace and one of its biggest problems .
We can see this basic paradox not only formally but also thematically , because whoa , boy , does this musical have ambitions of handling a lot of different social and political themes .
And it honestly only really has space for maaaaaaaaybe one and a half of them .
Most obviously , this is a musical about the opioid addiction crisis .
Frankie ’ s mom Mary Jane is addicted to pills , and over the course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jane ’ s addiction , its roots , and all the ways it ’ s begun to warp her ostensibly perfect suburban mom life .
That plotline works nicely , I think : “ Smiling ” in particular , in which we see a disoriented and alienated Mary Jane going backwards through her day ’ s routine , really succeeds at making Alanis ’ s music feel fresh and new and character-based , is staged in an inventive and effective way , and is also genuinely moving .
We ’ ve also got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would say is handled in a way that feels … basically fine .
Sure , some of the protest scenes are a little cringe-inducingly earnest , and yes , songs like “ Predator ” and “ No ” get extremely literal interpretations ( “ Predator ” can more or less survive it ; “ No ” can ’ t ) .
Still , Cody ’ s book gets nicely nuanced in the way she talks through the concerns here , especially when it comes to who believes whom and why .
The plotline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story in a thoughtful way .
And Kathryn Gallagher gives a really grounded , smart performance as Bella throughout this subplot .
And then , sort of stuffed into the corners of the play , we ’ ve got Frankie ’ s political activism , and that just does not work at all .
This plotline seems to want to cover basically all the progressive causes du jour , including climate change and , in a very bizarrely weighted moment , school gun violence .
There ’ s also the barely-sketched-in subplot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girl adopted by a very white family , plus the sexual politics of her queer love triangle between Jo and Phoenix .
Those issues are just kind of … there .
They take up space , they inspire some extremely energetic rage-dancing — but there ’ s no room for the show to explore them as fully as they deserve .
It begins to feel as though it ’ s just going through a checklist of issues for the wokeness street cred , rather than caring about those issues for their own sake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait for it , the ultimate irony of Jagged Little Pill : The show doesn ’ t care enough about any of the issues it ’ s cycling through to make them meaningful — when the whole point of the Jagged Little Pill album is the terror of caring too much .
Alanis ’ s album was an instant legend in part because it captured the zeitgeist of a generation that had turned toward ironic detachment to cope with the lack of control they felt over the world and their own lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ terror and anxiety of letting yourself care for anything at the end of a century in a culture increasingly veering towards nihilism .
Her lyrics embraced her own neuroses and the power of her own bitterness in ways that also enhanced and amplified her hesitant , constantly-deflected shows of genuine affection and positive emotion .
They made us feel how hard it is to love and care for anything .
And look , everyone knows that a suburban nuclear family is always a deceptively idyllic allegory for larger societal disquiet , right ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we look at the vast pantheon of stories that use this trope , too often suburban malaise itself is treated as the problem and not a symptom of something larger .
I think that ’ s the basic mistake Cody makes here : She treats most of her characters like they ’ ve been inducted by default into the national suburban burnout epidemic , and that ’ s the reason they ’ re all in individually self-absorbed hazes that keep them from connecting to each other or even listening to each other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front , I also think her storyline is strangely non-critical of the male members of our family , who both are actively dismissive of the pain of the women in their lives until they magically aren ’ t anymore , in ways that aren ’ t really fully examined or dealt with . )
These characters are performing their default identities , both individual and collective , and hitting their trope marks so they can get into position to sing their big Alanis number : the angry adopted child rebelling through feminism ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depressed wife for not making him feel loved ; the all-American jock who implodes under the pressure of getting into a top school by going to a dangerous high school party .
It all feels perfunctory .
But a cast full of characters truly inspired by Alanis Morissette would be fighting with themselves every step of the way about where they wanted to go , and why , and why they ’ re even this invested when it ’ s clear nothing matters at all .
Jagged Little Pill , the album , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humanity while being stuck in a bucolic modern hell : It ’ s about characters loudly and angrily trying to fight through that malaise to something better and more authentic .
But here the characters ’ struggles collectively feel far more performative than sincere .
In a musical full of fight songs , there ’ s very little fight at all .

Broadway seems to get a new jukebox musical every few months: There are ersatz Chers and Tina Turners and Carole Kings and Jersey Boys all over Times Square. Still, there was something a little shocking about the very idea of Jagged Little Pill, the new jukebox musical based on Alanis Morissette’s seminal 1994 album that premiered on Broadway in December. Jukebox musicals, surely, were for nostalgic baby boomers with tourist money to burn. They can be well executed, but traditionally they are painfully sincere hagiographies that wedge their songs into their subjects’ lives with much, too much, literalism. So what was Alanis, the poster girl for Gen X’s ironic nihilism, doing on Broadway?
Then Jagged Little Pill opened in Boston in 2018, and the rumors began: As jukebox musicals go, the early buzz whispered, Jagged Little Pill was actually not that bad. It had some astonishing performances. It had fixed the jukebox musical.
Part of what made Jagged Little Pill so exciting, according to those early out-of-town reviews, was that it eschewed the traditional biographical jukebox musical plot (“And then they said I shouldn’t be myself, but I was! And then I won a thousand Grammys!” is usually how you can summarize a typical plot.)
Instead, first-time playwright Diablo Cody’s book tells the story of a suburban family caught in contemporary malaise. Perfect mother Mary Jane (Elizabeth Stanley) is drowning under the weight of keeping up appearances, and she’s become dependent on opioids. She’s also struggling to connect to her daughter Frankie (Celia Rose Gooding), a committed activist who sings to Mary Jane that she’s “frustrated by your apathy.” But both Mary Jane and Frankie have to reconsider their understanding of each other after Frankie’s classmate Bella (Kathryn Gallagher) is raped at a party.
It’s still rare and unusual for a jukebox musical to have an original plot not focused on the artist themselves, so for many critics, Cody’s involvement was already an enormous step forward for the genre. But after the show moved to New York and was met with initial raves, a counternarrative began. For some critics, Cody’s book was the show’s weak link that let down Morissette’s music, a “shaky and contrived” mess of “confusion and occasional silliness.”
One month after the show’s Broadway debut, the conversation about whether Jagged Little Pill is worth swallowing has calmed down a little. So Vox culture writers Constance Grady and Aja Romano decided to take this time to talk through Jagged Little Pill and the problems of the jukebox musical. What makes them work, what makes them not — and is this particular musical any good or not?
Constance: In the month and change that Jagged Little Pill has been out, we’ve had time for a rough consensus on the show to develop among critics, and it goes a little something like this: The performances are brilliant, but the book is overstuffed at best and a shapeless mess at worst. Where you fall on the musical overall seems to depend upon which aspect of the show you’re willing to give the most weight to.
I’ll put my cards on the table. I think Jagged Little Pill is a mess, and I love it with my whole heart. I had a blast at this show. I laughed, I cried, I cheered. I have only a glancing acquaintance with Alanis’s original album (I was slightly too young and way too uncool to listen to Jagged Little Pill very much in the ’90s), but the music is so undeniable, and the young cast so strong, that it was easy for me to let myself get swept away by everything that was happening onstage.
Like, try to sit there while Lauren Patten’s heartbroken Jo absolutely shreds “You Oughta Know” and not start screaming with catharsis. You can’t! It’s physically impossible! That’s why the show has to stop dead for a standing ovation every night as soon as she’s finished.
On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that this show suffers from the standard jukebox musical problem of forcing its characters into position to sing a particular song. And because this particular example is trying to do so much at once, giving every single character a disconnected subplot of their own, it doesn’t quite have time to pay off the tensions its songs set up.
“You Oughta Know” is a bit of a case study in this problem. An Alanis musical absolutely has to have someone sing “You Oughta Know,” because it’s one of her best and biggest hits. To set up the song, the show puts together a love triangle, so we see Frankie become torn between her girlfriend Jo and new kid Phoenix. But at the same time, the main concerns of Jagged Little Pill as a play are Mary Jane’s opioid addiction and the ripple effects from Bella’s rape, and it really doesn’t have time to make the love triangle feel like anything more than an afterthought.
The aims of this show as a jukebox musical and the aims of this show as an original musical are at odds, and as a result, its center of gravity is warped. This giant showstopper of a number is embedded in the slightest and weakest arc of the show. And the only conclusion Jo gets after the heartbreak and rage of “You Oughta Know” is half a verse in the finale, which is … a pretty weak conclusion.
Having said all that, I actually think that as far as this genre goes, Diablo Cody’s much-maligned book is pretty solid. If nothing else, Cody managed to people the cast with characters who all have different personalities, but who all believably feel like they are the kind of person who would break into an Alanis Morissette song if given the chance. That’s such a monumental achievement for a jukebox musical that I have to give her props for it.
Aja, where do you fall on Jagged Little Pill? Does the critical consensus feel correct to you? And do you love it in spite of the structure — or hate it because of it?
Aja: I’ll be very upfront and say that I grew up with an unshakeable, nay, zealous, faith in the thoroughly integrated book musical, whose songs evolve organically from the book and the characters. So the last two decades of musical theater have been pretty fraught for me, because I deeply resent the rise of the jukebox musical. It’s a regression in form! It’s everything Broadway aspired for decades to evolve beyond, now wrapped in a fancy marketing package as a cheap trick to get people into theaters! It’s cheating, Constance!
So, with all that said, I really do appreciate the spirit of Jagged Little Pill. Its aims are pure, its ambitions are to become a real musical, and I’m mostly in its corner. The creative team understands that you just shouldn’t treat Morissette’s music like that in any other pop biopic. Most jukebox musical scores are light even if the subjects are serious, but Alanis’s music is raw emotion. It’s the classic Gen X mix of depression and angst, infused with societal malaise and a touch of addiction.
Even its upbeat moments veer into neurotic, manic, difficult. JLP really couldn’t ever be a jukebox musical in that sense, because who’s actually gonna play Alanis on a jukebox? You play Alanis while screaming into your pillow at 3 am over a dirty breakup. You play Alanis while eye-rolling at each other about how ironically self-aware you’re being about playing Alanis — a move the musical itself parodies, in a scene meant purely to lampoon the cultural reaction to “Ironic.”
But the fact that I’m talking about how a musical is breaking the fourth wall to answer the longstanding cultural perceptions about one of its songs is part of the inherent problems you run into with musicals like this one. You have to work much harder to create characters the audience cares about as much as the songs themselves, and especially to get those characters to fit the situations prescribed by those songs.
“You Oughta Know” is one of the most glaring examples of this, because this song is meant to be the show’s climactic showstopper, but it just doesn’t fit. “You Oughta Know” is full of the kind of deep bitterness that results from a relationship that’s lasted years, not the uncertain, relatively new relationship it’s assigned to onstage.
Lauren Patten acts the hell out of Jo — who I read as emphatically nonbinary, FWIW — and she also gets one of the show’s other big numbers, “One Hand In My Pocket”. But her role is frustrating, because even though she’s one of the most compelling actors onstage, she’s working hard to fill a very thinly written part. Remember, Jo is the strongest leg in that ultimately weak love triangle Constance mentioned, and the character seems to have been created just to deliver strong (low-key queer) anthems, not to do much of anything else.
We barely get glimpses of her life outside their relationship with Frankie, and we really don’t even understand that relationship before it starts falling apart. Ultimately, the contrast between these giant, overly emotive songs and such an underwritten part just highlights just how lacking so much of the book is. (Next time, just make the whole musical about the misfit genderqueer kid! Done!)
Diablo Cody’s book is overstuffed with too many social issues and too many characters, and it’s really obvious that much of this bloat is about finding ways to shoehorn in all the Alanis songs you know, whether or not they make sense and fit the plot or its characters.
“Head Over Feet” bizarrely gets split between two couples at once, as an attempt to give our main character, Mary Jane (Elizabeth Stanley), some backstory with her husband. Only this random nostalgia break abruptly happens in the middle of a bitter couples therapy session, where its placement makes no sense. Similarly, turning “Ironic” into a purely throwaway meta-number seems like a wasted opportunity, but that’s what happens when you’re trying to match characters to songs instead of letting songs grow out of character.
Additionally, Tom Kitt of the Pulitzer-winning Next to Normal did the orchestrations and arrangements for JLP, and I felt like Next to Normal heavily influenced this show in spirit without influencing its approach to characterization and story structure — so I felt the ghostly imprint of a much better show about family dysfunction bleeding through at every turn.
Even so, there’s a lot to like about JLP. The staging and choreography, together with the additional music by Glen Ballard (Morissette’s co-writer and Jagged Little Pill’s original album producer) and Kitt are all fantastic and full of pulsing energy and heart. Even though the characters are all little more than ciphers, Mary Jane in particular is the classic “unlikeable” Diablo Cody protagonist. She’s really hard to take until she becomes almost heartbreakingly vulnerable, and Elizabeth Stanley really nails that performance.
I wasn’t as moved as other audience members were by the scene where “Uninvited” invites us into the darkness in her head, but boy did I appreciate it as a way of drawing out that song’s complex, layered meanings, and as a way of elevating the jukebox musical itself. If we have to have jukebox musicals, and it seems we must, I’d rather have a dozen Jagged Little Pills that don’t quite work than a dozen blander, frothier musicals that do.
Constance: I absolutely agree on Jagged Little Pill’s massive ambitions, and I think you’re correct, Aja, that they are both its saving grace and one of its biggest problems. We can see this basic paradox not only formally but also thematically, because whoa, boy, does this musical have ambitions of handling a lot of different social and political themes. And it honestly only really has space for maaaaaaaaybe one and a half of them.
Most obviously, this is a musical about the opioid addiction crisis. Frankie’s mom Mary Jane is addicted to pills, and over the course of the show, we delve into Mary Jane’s addiction, its roots, and all the ways it’s begun to warp her ostensibly perfect suburban mom life. That plotline works nicely, I think: “Smiling” in particular, in which we see a disoriented and alienated Mary Jane going backwards through her day’s routine, really succeeds at making Alanis’s music feel fresh and new and character-based, is staged in an inventive and effective way, and is also genuinely moving.
We’ve also got the date rape plotline, which I would say is handled in a way that feels … basically fine. Sure, some of the protest scenes are a little cringe-inducingly earnest, and yes, songs like “Predator” and “No” get extremely literal interpretations (“Predator” can more or less survive it; “No” can’t). Still, Cody’s book gets nicely nuanced in the way she talks through the concerns here, especially when it comes to who believes whom and why. The plotline plays into Mary Jane’s addiction story in a thoughtful way. And Kathryn Gallagher gives a really grounded, smart performance as Bella throughout this subplot.
And then, sort of stuffed into the corners of the play, we’ve got Frankie’s political activism, and that just does not work at all. This plotline seems to want to cover basically all the progressive causes du jour, including climate change and, in a very bizarrely weighted moment, school gun violence.
There’s also the barely-sketched-in subplot of Frankie’s angst as a black girl adopted by a very white family, plus the sexual politics of her queer love triangle between Jo and Phoenix. Those issues are just kind of … there. They take up space, they inspire some extremely energetic rage-dancing — but there’s no room for the show to explore them as fully as they deserve. It begins to feel as though it’s just going through a checklist of issues for the wokeness street cred, rather than caring about those issues for their own sake.
Aja: And that is, wait for it, the ultimate irony of Jagged Little Pill: The show doesn’t care enough about any of the issues it’s cycling through to make them meaningful — when the whole point of the Jagged Little Pill album is the terror of caring too much.
Alanis’s album was an instant legend in part because it captured the zeitgeist of a generation that had turned toward ironic detachment to cope with the lack of control they felt over the world and their own lives. Alanis’s songs explicitly voiced the terror and anxiety of letting yourself care for anything at the end of a century in a culture increasingly veering towards nihilism. Her lyrics embraced her own neuroses and the power of her own bitterness in ways that also enhanced and amplified her hesitant, constantly-deflected shows of genuine affection and positive emotion. They made us feel how hard it is to love and care for anything.
And look, everyone knows that a suburban nuclear family is always a deceptively idyllic allegory for larger societal disquiet, right? That’s the trope. But when we look at the vast pantheon of stories that use this trope, too often suburban malaise itself is treated as the problem and not a symptom of something larger.
I think that’s the basic mistake Cody makes here: She treats most of her characters like they’ve been inducted by default into the national suburban burnout epidemic, and that’s the reason they’re all in individually self-absorbed hazes that keep them from connecting to each other or even listening to each other half the time. (On that front, I also think her storyline is strangely non-critical of the male members of our family, who both are actively dismissive of the pain of the women in their lives until they magically aren’t anymore, in ways that aren’t really fully examined or dealt with.)
These characters are performing their default identities, both individual and collective, and hitting their trope marks so they can get into position to sing their big Alanis number: the angry adopted child rebelling through feminism; the overworked absent dad who resents his depressed wife for not making him feel loved; the all-American jock who implodes under the pressure of getting into a top school by going to a dangerous high school party. It all feels perfunctory. But a cast full of characters truly inspired by Alanis Morissette would be fighting with themselves every step of the way about where they wanted to go, and why, and why they’re even this invested when it’s clear nothing matters at all.
Jagged Little Pill, the album, isn’t about characters performing simulacrums of humanity while being stuck in a bucolic modern hell: It’s about characters loudly and angrily trying to fight through that malaise to something better and more authentic. But here the characters’ struggles collectively feel far more performative than sincere. In a musical full of fight songs, there’s very little fight at all.


vox--2020-01-15--Trump wanted to repeal an anti-corruption law so US businesses could bribe foreigners

Shortly after taking office , President Donald Trump grumbled to his secretary of state about a decades-old US law that bars American companies from bribing foreign officials and pledged to repeal it — which , incidentally , would make it easier for his company to get lucrative contracts abroad .
This comes from a new book by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig , who won a Pulitzer Prize as part of a larger team covering Trump and Russia , titled A Very Stable Genius : Donald J. Trump ’ s Testing of America .
The book comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( unsurprisingly ) got an advance copy and published some of the more eye-popping tidbits on Wednesday .
The most jarring is a scene from spring 2017 , when Trump and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tussled over the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 .
That law , according to the Justice Department , makes it “ unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.
” Trump , the Post reports , bristled at that restriction .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American companies aren ’ t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas , ” Trump reportedly told Tillerson .
“ We ’ re going to change that.
” Per the authors , the president expressed frustration “ ostensibly because [ the law ] restricted his industry buddies or his own company ’ s executives from paying off foreign governments in faraway lands.
” “ Ostensibly ” is an important modifier here : It ’ s unclear whether Trump was explicit in his anger that his company couldn ’ t bribe foreigners , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ interpretation of his comments .
Given his desire to make US companies more competitive in the global market , it ’ s certainly possible Trump had that in mind more than his personal fortune .
Either way , it says a lot about the president that he spent any amount of time in power advocating for more corruption and bribery , not less — particularly since he ’ s been trying to convince the American people that he ’ s an anti-corruption crusader as part of his impeachment defense .
That defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for anyone who has been paying attention to Trump since , well , basically forever , but this anecdote just further illustrates how little Trump cares about fighting corruption in foreign countries .
If anything , he seems to want more corruption .
This revelation on its own is explosive , but there are others worth noting in the book .
Trump ’ s infatuation with Russian President Vladimir Putin is well chronicled , but Rucker and Leonnig ’ s work shows Trump was champing at the bit to meet the dictator even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House : “ During the transition he interrupt [ ed ] an interview with one of his secretary of state candidates , ” Rucker and Leonnig write .
He cut in to ask : “ When can I meet Putin ?
Can I meet with him before the inaugural ceremony ?
” Trump finally got the chance to meet with Putin at the 2017 G20 summit in Hamburg .
After their talk , the authors write , the president considered himself a newly minted Russia expert — more so than Tillerson , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interacting with Putin during his decades at ExxonMobil .
“ I have had a two-hour meeting with Putin , ” Trump reportedly told Tillerson .
“ That ’ s all I need to know .
...
I ’ ve sized it all up .
I ’ ve got it.
” And during an undated meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi , Trump made clear he was not brushed up on geography , telling the leader that the threat from China isn ’ t so bad since “ It ’ s not like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border.
” The problem is that India does , in fact , have China on its border .
According to one Trump aide who spoke to the reporters for the book , Modi was likely left gobsmacked by that meeting .
“ This is not a serious man .
I can not count on this man as a partner , ” the aide characterized Modi as thinking .
The aide noted that afterward , “ the Indians took a step back ” in their relationship with the US .
Put together , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , impetuous , astoundingly uninformed president potentially willing to commit crimes to get ahead .
If all of this is true , it bolsters the case that Trump is a truly unfit president .

Shortly after taking office, President Donald Trump grumbled to his secretary of state about a decades-old US law that bars American companies from bribing foreign officials and pledged to repeal it — which, incidentally, would make it easier for his company to get lucrative contracts abroad.
This comes from a new book by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig, who won a Pulitzer Prize as part of a larger team covering Trump and Russia, titled A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America. The book comes out next week, but their paper (unsurprisingly) got an advance copy and published some of the more eye-popping tidbits on Wednesday.
The most jarring is a scene from spring 2017, when Trump and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tussled over the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. That law, according to the Justice Department, makes it “unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.”
Trump, the Post reports, bristled at that restriction.
“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump reportedly told Tillerson. “We’re going to change that.” Per the authors, the president expressed frustration “ostensibly because [the law] restricted his industry buddies or his own company’s executives from paying off foreign governments in faraway lands.”
“Ostensibly” is an important modifier here: It’s unclear whether Trump was explicit in his anger that his company couldn’t bribe foreigners, or if that is just the authors’ interpretation of his comments. Given his desire to make US companies more competitive in the global market, it’s certainly possible Trump had that in mind more than his personal fortune.
Either way, it says a lot about the president that he spent any amount of time in power advocating for more corruption and bribery, not less — particularly since he’s been trying to convince the American people that he’s an anti-corruption crusader as part of his impeachment defense.
That defense was always a bit hard to swallow for anyone who has been paying attention to Trump since, well, basically forever, but this anecdote just further illustrates how little Trump cares about fighting corruption in foreign countries. If anything, he seems to want more corruption.
This revelation on its own is explosive, but there are others worth noting in the book.
Trump’s ignorance hurts US foreign policy
Trump’s infatuation with Russian President Vladimir Putin is well chronicled, but Rucker and Leonnig’s work shows Trump was champing at the bit to meet the dictator even before he officially took over the White House:
“During the transition he interrupt[ed] an interview with one of his secretary of state candidates,” Rucker and Leonnig write. He cut in to ask: “When can I meet Putin? Can I meet with him before the inaugural ceremony?”
Trump finally got the chance to meet with Putin at the 2017 G20 summit in Hamburg. After their talk, the authors write, the president considered himself a newly minted Russia expert — more so than Tillerson, who spent years doing business in Russia and interacting with Putin during his decades at ExxonMobil.
“I have had a two-hour meeting with Putin,” Trump reportedly told Tillerson. “That’s all I need to know. ... I’ve sized it all up. I’ve got it.”
And during an undated meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump made clear he was not brushed up on geography, telling the leader that the threat from China isn’t so bad since “It’s not like you’ve got China on your border.”
The problem is that India does, in fact, have China on its border.
According to one Trump aide who spoke to the reporters for the book, Modi was likely left gobsmacked by that meeting. “This is not a serious man. I cannot count on this man as a partner,” the aide characterized Modi as thinking. The aide noted that afterward, “the Indians took a step back” in their relationship with the US.
Put together, these excerpts paint a picture of a selfish, impetuous, astoundingly uninformed president potentially willing to commit crimes to get ahead. If all of this is true, it bolsters the case that Trump is a truly unfit president.
A very stable genius indeed.


vox--2020-01-15--Trump signed a “phase one” trade deal with China. Here’s what’s in it — and what’s not.

After more than a year of negotiations , billions of dollars in tariffs , moments of intense escalation , and temporary detentes , the United States and China signed “ phase one ” of a trade deal .
President Donald Trump called it “ a momentous step , one that has never been taken before with China , towards a future of fair and reciprocal trade.
” That depends a bit on how you define momentous step .
This “ phase one ” deal , which the US and China reached in December , will cool trade tensions between two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it stops short of the comprehensive trade and reform agreement the Trump administration wanted when it launched its trade war with China in 2018 .
Instead , China has agreed to make purchases of about $ 200 billion worth of US goods over a two-year period , including almost doubling its agricultural purchases to $ 40 billion .
China also made concessions on intellectual property , currency , and access to financial services , and it ’ s promised to halt the practice of forcing companies to turn over their technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representative .
The US , in exchange , will call off and reduce some tariffs , though taxes on $ 360 billion in Chinese goods will stay in place .
President Donald Trump is selling this deal as an enormous win , but the administration did not get the structural changes to China ’ s economy that it wanted , including tackling things like Beijing ’ s huge subsidies to Chinese companies .
It ’ s still not clear if China can or will totally fulfill this obligation to buy US products , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guarantee is only for two years .
Given all that , this partial trade deal might not be able to make up for the pain the trade war caused .
“ I wouldn ’ t call this a trade agreement , ” Marc Busch , a professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University , told me .
“ It ’ s more a cessation of hostilities , phase one , coupled with some barter.
” The Trump administration has dubbed this deal “ phase one , ” implying that this is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its negotiations with China .
Robert Lighthizer , the Trump administration ’ s top trade representative , said the US and China still have a lot to resolve on those big structural issues .
But some experts are skeptical phase two is going to be a thing .
“ Phase one , and done ” is a phrase that ’ s going around , said Brad Setser , a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and former US Treasury official .
“ It ’ s hard to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he told me .
“ In some sense , phase one was made possible by the recognition that China wasn ’ t willing to move on the big , structural issues , ” Setser added .
In other words , this might be the best deal the administration can get from Beijing right now .
A “ phase one ” trade deal is clever branding , especially if , as the administration and Trump himself have hinted , phase two negotiations won ’ t start until after the 2020 election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is more of a trade truce between the world ’ s two biggest economies , which is good for the US , China , and the rest of the world .
But this is not quite the “ historic ” deal the president is claiming — though he ’ s going to sell it that way , no matter what .
A deal is better than no deal , but don ’ t expect much more Washington and Beijing have been locked in a trade dispute for nearly two years .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this partial China deal , but it ’ s a reprieve from months of uncertainty and threats of tariff increases .
The two sides announced the deal in December , but the text remained under wraps until the signing on Wednesday .
( It ’ s now posted . )
As of last Friday , the White House had not seen the Chinese translation of the approximately 80-plus page deal , Reuters reported .
Chinese officials also had not publicly discussed much about this phase one deal — Washington was the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This might seem minor , but last spring , the US and China were reportedly close to a trade deal , but talks broke down after Chinese officials made changes to the text and backed away from some of their commitments .
US officials , including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , have said the phase one deal hasn ’ t changed in translation .
The big-ticket item that ’ s been advertised is China ’ s commitment to purchase $ 200 billion in US goods over two years , including $ 40 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in manufactured goods .
That sounds like a lot , but a few things to keep in mind : The US-China trade war hit American farmers hard , especially in products like soybeans .
Recovery isn ’ t likely to happen overnight , and even Mnuchin has said it will take time for China to “ scale up.
” What ’ s more , experts told me that China very much needs certain agricultural products , such as soybeans and pork ( a swine fever outbreak wiped out its supply ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fill that need .
The question is whether this deal now makes it more likely China will import those products from the US , or if China would have moved in that direction anyway even without the tariff mess .
And this all depends on whether US farmers can have the capacity to produce this amount , which some experts say is also in doubt .
According to the USTR , the deal also “ addresses numerous longstanding concerns ” over intellectual property , and to that end , China “ has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcing or pressuring foreign companies to transfer their technology to Chinese companies ” as a condition for doing business there .
The deal will also modestly open up financial services in China to US companies and China will agree not to manipulate its currency .
( The US will no longer label China as a currency manipulator . )
As for the United States , it canceled additional tariffs on about $ 160 billion of Chinese goods that were originally slated to go into effect in December 2019 .
It will also cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in goods introduced in September — but keep existing 25 percent tariffs on $ 250 billion in Chinese products .
So duties will remain on some $ 360 billion in Chinese goods .
Chinese retaliatory tariffs on $ 100 billion in US products will also stay in place .
The administration previously said it would review China ’ s progress , likely in 10 months — so right around the 2020 US presidential election .
And that ’ s it .
It ’ s a modest deal with a lot of question marks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Scott Kennedy , senior adviser and trustee chair of Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , said it ’ s still “ better to have this deal than to not have ” it .
“ It has certainly calmed financial markets , and it has stopped the outward freefall in the relationship , and there are some elements of this deal that are good for Americans and make China ’ s economy a little bit more open , ” Kennedy told me .
He cited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology transfer , more modest access to Chinese financial markets , and the inclusion of a process to settle disputes .
Those are wins , even if minor , for the administration .
“ On the other hand , ” Kennedy added , “ it ’ s a very narrow deal .
It ’ s far short of the administration ’ s original goals , and the US and the international community has paid a very large price for what is a relatively modest deal.
” Or another way of putting it : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy to win .
Of course , in the administration ’ s telling , officials aren ’ t done yet .
This is just the preliminary deal to something greater .
“ We ’ re keeping the tariffs on because we ’ ll use that for another one , ” Trump said at a rally in Toledo , Ohio , this week , likely referring to the “ next phase ” of this trade agreement that is supposed to tackle the big structural issues in China ’ s economy , such as subsidies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is few experts think such a phase two is possible .
It ’ s much more likely the US settled because this is all it could get out of China — and for Trump , it was worth it to have something he could brag about ahead of the 2020 election .
“ This is not success , this is Donald Trump ’ s theater of success , ” Matt Gold , a professor in international trade law at Fordham University , told me .
That doesn ’ t mean China and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least make an effort at negotiating .
Indeed , the US and China just announced they ’ re holding semiannual talks to discuss reform and disputes .
“ Guess what ?
” Gold said .
“ We had that before Trump , and they were discontinued because of Trump .
Almost everything Trump accomplishes is basically solving a problem that Trump created .
”

After more than a year of negotiations, billions of dollars in tariffs, moments of intense escalation, and temporary detentes, the United States and China signed “phase one” of a trade deal.
President Donald Trump called it “a momentous step, one that has never been taken before with China, towards a future of fair and reciprocal trade.”
That depends a bit on how you define momentous step.
This “phase one” deal, which the US and China reached in December, will cool trade tensions between two economic superpowers that have rattled the globe.
But it stops short of the comprehensive trade and reform agreement the Trump administration wanted when it launched its trade war with China in 2018.
Instead, China has agreed to make purchases of about $200 billion worth of US goods over a two-year period, including almost doubling its agricultural purchases to $40 billion.
China also made concessions on intellectual property, currency, and access to financial services, and it’s promised to halt the practice of forcing companies to turn over their technology, according to the United States Trade Representative.
The US, in exchange, will call off and reduce some tariffs, though taxes on $360 billion in Chinese goods will stay in place.
President Donald Trump is selling this deal as an enormous win, but the administration did not get the structural changes to China’s economy that it wanted, including tackling things like Beijing’s huge subsidies to Chinese companies. It’s still not clear if China can or will totally fulfill this obligation to buy US products, and even if it does, the guarantee is only for two years.
Given all that, this partial trade deal might not be able to make up for the pain the trade war caused.
“I wouldn’t call this a trade agreement,” Marc Busch, a professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University, told me. “It’s more a cessation of hostilities, phase one, coupled with some barter.”
The Trump administration has dubbed this deal “phase one,” implying that this is just the beginning, not the end of its negotiations with China. Robert Lighthizer, the Trump administration’s top trade representative, said the US and China still have a lot to resolve on those big structural issues.
But some experts are skeptical phase two is going to be a thing.
“Phase one, and done” is a phrase that’s going around, said Brad Setser, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and former US Treasury official. “It’s hard to see how you get to a phase two,” he told me.
“In some sense, phase one was made possible by the recognition that China wasn’t willing to move on the big, structural issues,” Setser added.
In other words, this might be the best deal the administration can get from Beijing right now. A “phase one” trade deal is clever branding, especially if, as the administration and Trump himself have hinted, phase two negotiations won’t start until after the 2020 election.
Trump’s trade deal, then, is more of a trade truce between the world’s two biggest economies, which is good for the US, China, and the rest of the world.
But this is not quite the “historic” deal the president is claiming — though he’s going to sell it that way, no matter what.
A deal is better than no deal, but don’t expect much more
Washington and Beijing have been locked in a trade dispute for nearly two years. It’s not over with the signing of this partial China deal, but it’s a reprieve from months of uncertainty and threats of tariff increases.
The two sides announced the deal in December, but the text remained under wraps until the signing on Wednesday. (It’s now posted.)
As of last Friday, the White House had not seen the Chinese translation of the approximately 80-plus page deal, Reuters reported. Chinese officials also had not publicly discussed much about this phase one deal — Washington was the party talking about Beijing’s commitments.
This might seem minor, but last spring, the US and China were reportedly close to a trade deal, but talks broke down after Chinese officials made changes to the text and backed away from some of their commitments. US officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, have said the phase one deal hasn’t changed in translation.
The big-ticket item that’s been advertised is China’s commitment to purchase $200 billion in US goods over two years, including $40 billion in agricultural products and about $75 billion in manufactured goods.
That sounds like a lot, but a few things to keep in mind: The US-China trade war hit American farmers hard, especially in products like soybeans. Recovery isn’t likely to happen overnight, and even Mnuchin has said it will take time for China to “scale up.”
What’s more, experts told me that China very much needs certain agricultural products, such as soybeans and pork (a swine fever outbreak wiped out its supply), so it was already looking for places to fill that need. The question is whether this deal now makes it more likely China will import those products from the US, or if China would have moved in that direction anyway even without the tariff mess.
And this all depends on whether US farmers can have the capacity to produce this amount, which some experts say is also in doubt.
According to the USTR, the deal also “addresses numerous longstanding concerns” over intellectual property, and to that end, China “has agreed to end its long-standing practice of forcing or pressuring foreign companies to transfer their technology to Chinese companies” as a condition for doing business there.
The deal will also modestly open up financial services in China to US companies and China will agree not to manipulate its currency. (The US will no longer label China as a currency manipulator.)
As for the United States, it canceled additional tariffs on about $160 billion of Chinese goods that were originally slated to go into effect in December 2019. It will also cut in half tariffs on $110 billion in goods introduced in September — but keep existing 25 percent tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese products. So duties will remain on some $360 billion in Chinese goods. Chinese retaliatory tariffs on $100 billion in US products will also stay in place.
The administration previously said it would review China’s progress, likely in 10 months — so right around the 2020 US presidential election.
And that’s it. It’s a modest deal with a lot of question marks still attached. But some experts, like Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and trustee chair of Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it’s still “better to have this deal than to not have” it.
“It has certainly calmed financial markets, and it has stopped the outward freefall in the relationship, and there are some elements of this deal that are good for Americans and make China’s economy a little bit more open,” Kennedy told me.
He cited the modest changes to intellectual property, forced technology transfer, more modest access to Chinese financial markets, and the inclusion of a process to settle disputes. Those are wins, even if minor, for the administration.
“On the other hand,” Kennedy added, “it’s a very narrow deal. It’s far short of the administration’s original goals, and the US and the international community has paid a very large price for what is a relatively modest deal.”
Or another way of putting it: Trade wars are not good, or easy to win. Of course, in the administration’s telling, officials aren’t done yet. This is just the preliminary deal to something greater.
“We’re keeping the tariffs on because we’ll use that for another one,” Trump said at a rally in Toledo, Ohio, this week, likely referring to the “next phase” of this trade agreement that is supposed to tackle the big structural issues in China’s economy, such as subsidies for companies or state-owned enterprises.
The problem is few experts think such a phase two is possible. It’s much more likely the US settled because this is all it could get out of China — and for Trump, it was worth it to have something he could brag about ahead of the 2020 election.
“This is not success, this is Donald Trump’s theater of success,” Matt Gold, a professor in international trade law at Fordham University, told me. That doesn’t mean China and the US won’t talk, or at least make an effort at negotiating. Indeed, the US and China just announced they’re holding semiannual talks to discuss reform and disputes.
“Guess what?” Gold said. “We had that before Trump, and they were discontinued because of Trump. Almost everything Trump accomplishes is basically solving a problem that Trump created.”


vox--2020-01-15--After a controversial season finale, The Magicians is leaning into grief

The concept of the end of the world comes up frequently on The Magicians , Syfy ’ s gloriously wild fantasy TV series about depressed 20something magicians , based on Lev Grossman ’ s best-selling book trilogy .
But the show ’ s upcoming fifth season — which debuts Wednesday , January 15 — really feels like it might be staring down the End Of The World , on both a textual and metatextual level .
“ It ’ s traditional that season five is the apocalypse season , ” Magicians co-creator and executive producer Sera Gamble said at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It just happens on shows like this , where each season the Big Bad gets a little bit bigger .
...
The fear is always that the plot and the stakes get so big that the intimate moments between characters are lost because you don ’ t have time to do it .
A shark is about to eat your face.
” In the world of The Magicians , there ’ s always a metaphorical shark about to eat somebody ’ s metaphorical face .
But as the show launches its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to eat the show ’ s face , if you ’ ll let me stretch this metaphor to its absolute breaking point .
The Magicians ’ season four finale was controversial — to put it mildly — among the show ’ s passionate cult fanbase .
To this day , mentioning The Magicians offhand on Twitter often invites discussion of just what happened in that finale , some of it angry .
I ’ m going to spoil what happened in a moment ; for now , let ’ s say an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can read more from me on this topic right here . )
But The Magicians has an ace up its sleeve — if season five tends to be the apocalypse season on genre shows , it ’ s also often the grief season .
On Buffy the Vampire Slayer , Buffy fought a god and grieved the death of her mom .
On The X-Files , Mulder and Scully nearly lost each other and tried futilely to stop the alien conspiracy from invading the Earth .
On Supernatural , where Gamble cut her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost everything on their way to the actual apocalypse with God and the Devil and all that jazz .
And when I asked Gamble if maybe it was intentional to line up the apocalypse with the grief The Magicians ’ characters feel over season four ’ s big death , she simply grinned .
How grief unites the characters of this often scattered show In The Magicians ’ season four finale , the series killed Quentin Coldwater ( Jason Ralph ) , who had been its protagonist and the audience ’ s window @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debut .
Quentin ’ s main function in the story was to knit everything together .
If you had two characters who didn ’ t seem to have a connection , Quentin was often the shortest possible route between them because he knew everybody .
So the irony is that , from a purely logistical standpoint , Quentin ’ s death ended up helping the writing team craft a more cohesive start to season five than the show had in season four .
( That season dawdled quite a bit before the halfway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Now , every character has something immediate to react to , and the show ’ s habit of scattering those characters across dimensions , timelines , and universes ( sometimes four or five at a time ) has a thematic throughline that cuts across the distance .
“ There was a fear of , without Quentin , the show splinters off into six different tiny shows that don ’ t really relate to each other .
But it actually did the exact opposite , I think , ” said executive producer Henry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same way that a death in real life brings a family together because they haven ’ t seen each other for a while , his death really centered the show , especially in the beginning [ of the new season ] because all our characters were feeling the same thing in completely different ways .
But they have a singular touchstone.
” And at the same time , the characters realize they ’ re facing the end of the world — and maybe the ends of the world .
In true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple apocalyptic scenarios , which could feel over the top but for the fact that in reality , the 24-hour news cycle achieves roughly the same effect every day .
The quest for the season , such as it is , begins when a strange creature approaches Julia ( Stella Maeve ) — the character who ’ s closest to being the show ’ s protagonist at this point in its run — and tells her the world must be saved .
But the creature would rather have someone who , y ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off this task .
The Magicians has always cheekily leaned into the idea that heroes in fantasy stories too often look like Quentin — which is to say white , male , and conventionally attractive .
But most of the show ’ s characters other than Quentin haven ’ t fit that paradigm , and arguably Quentin himself , who was bisexual , didn ’ t either .
So killing off Quentin also functions as a kind of meta-commentary on The Magicians ’ earnest attempts to transcend both its genre and its source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the end .
( The show ’ s producers consulted with Grossman when they first considered killing Quentin , and he gave them his blessing . )
As audacious as it was , the choice to kill Quentin caused at least some of the show ’ s audience to rebel .
Quentin might have been just another white guy protagonist — but he also had rich storylines about his struggles with depression and a complicated romantic history with his friend Eliot ( Hale Appelbaum ) .
As one of the few characters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few bisexual men on television , Quentin meant a lot to a lot of viewers , and in 2020 , when a show can be kept alive single-handedly by a particularly passionate fanbase , alienating any portion of that fanbase is dangerous .
“ I think our job is to be really strict with ourselves when we ’ re writing something like [ Quentin ’ s death ] , ” Gamble said .
“ You can ’ t just toss off something like that .
We didn ’ t do any of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lane .
We ’ ve picked like six or eight lanes on this show , but we do know what those lanes are , and that ’ s important because you have to know what to be able to prioritize .
In a world where you can make choices to keep safer or take more risks with your story and you know that your story needs risk to live , knowing why you make the show , knowing the most important kind of stories that you want to tell — that really is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like the apocalypse ( and vice versa ) And yet the fans ’ passionate outcry after Quentin died ultimately worked its way into the show .
“ We started working on the new season right when the end of the previous season was airing .
We were working on the outlines for season five , episodes one and two , at the craziest moment in terms of the reaction from the fans , ” said executive producer David Reed .
“ So you can ’ t help but have that in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re working on something that ’ s creative .
There ’ s some of that in the way that we chose to have the characters deal with their grief.
” I hadn ’ t seen any episodes of the new season when I talked to The Magicians ’ creative team about what to expect , but now , I ’ ve seen the first three .
They ’ re real and raw , but they ’ re also funny and frantic .
They ’ re very recognizably part of this show I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — while also adding new shades to the characters , shades informed by their grief .
Which brings me back to the idea of the grief season being the apocalypse season .
After all , when you ’ re grieving , doesn ’ t it feel like the end of the world ?
If you ’ ve lost someone you love , going outside and seeing people who aren ’ t wrecked by sadness can feel slightly surreal , as if everybody else is watching one show but somebody changed the channel on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is The Magicians ’ default state , so grounding that frenetic energy in a feeling as palpable as grief just heightens the show ’ s powers .
“ We made a decision , a chance to be really truthful in a way that we knew would lose people .
It upset us .
But what we weren ’ t doing was bullshitting people about what life is .
It ’ s fragile , and even the most charismatic , wonderful , vivacious people get sick and/or die , ” said co-creator and executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grieve , and see a great movie and laugh .
The two are not mutually exclusive .
They ’ re only mutually exclusive in bad movies and bad TV and bad plays .
But life is so layered.
” Will this gambit to make The Magicians reflect the devastation some of its viewers feel help the show win those viewers back ?
It ’ s hard to say , but the early episodes of season five are an impressive example of a series sticking to its guns even as its fans threaten to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showrunners increasingly seem scared of their audiences , The Magicians is daring its fans to bring their own sadness to its biggest apocalyptic story yet .
“ The idea of stopping the apocalypse in itself comes into question , ” Gamble said .
“ And [ the characters ] realize that they maybe have to do some destroying to create.
” The Magicians season five debuts Wednesday , January 15 , at 10 pm Eastern on Syfy .
The first four seasons are on Netflix .

The concept of the end of the world comes up frequently on The Magicians, Syfy’s gloriously wild fantasy TV series about depressed 20something magicians, based on Lev Grossman’s best-selling book trilogy. But the show’s upcoming fifth season — which debuts Wednesday, January 15 — really feels like it might be staring down the End Of The World, on both a textual and metatextual level.
“It’s traditional that season five is the apocalypse season,” Magicians co-creator and executive producer Sera Gamble said at a press event the show held in December. “It just happens on shows like this, where each season the Big Bad gets a little bit bigger. ... The fear is always that the plot and the stakes get so big that the intimate moments between characters are lost because you don’t have time to do it. A shark is about to eat your face.”
In the world of The Magicians, there’s always a metaphorical shark about to eat somebody’s metaphorical face. But as the show launches its fifth season, the shark is now about to eat the show’s face, if you’ll let me stretch this metaphor to its absolute breaking point.
The Magicians’ season four finale was controversial — to put it mildly — among the show’s passionate cult fanbase. To this day, mentioning The Magicians offhand on Twitter often invites discussion of just what happened in that finale, some of it angry. I’m going to spoil what happened in a moment; for now, let’s say an incredibly important character died. (You can read more from me on this topic right here.)
But The Magicians has an ace up its sleeve — if season five tends to be the apocalypse season on genre shows, it’s also often the grief season. On Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Buffy fought a god and grieved the death of her mom. On The X-Files, Mulder and Scully nearly lost each other and tried futilely to stop the alien conspiracy from invading the Earth. On Supernatural, where Gamble cut her teeth, the Winchester brothers kinda sorta lost everything on their way to the actual apocalypse with God and the Devil and all that jazz.
And when I asked Gamble if maybe it was intentional to line up the apocalypse with the grief The Magicians’ characters feel over season four’s big death, she simply grinned.
How grief unites the characters of this often scattered show
In The Magicians’ season four finale, the series killed Quentin Coldwater (Jason Ralph), who had been its protagonist and the audience’s window into the world of magic since its debut. Quentin’s main function in the story was to knit everything together. If you had two characters who didn’t seem to have a connection, Quentin was often the shortest possible route between them because he knew everybody.
So the irony is that, from a purely logistical standpoint, Quentin’s death ended up helping the writing team craft a more cohesive start to season five than the show had in season four. (That season dawdled quite a bit before the halfway point kicked the story into gear.) Now, every character has something immediate to react to, and the show’s habit of scattering those characters across dimensions, timelines, and universes (sometimes four or five at a time) has a thematic throughline that cuts across the distance.
“There was a fear of, without Quentin, the show splinters off into six different tiny shows that don’t really relate to each other. But it actually did the exact opposite, I think,” said executive producer Henry Alonso Myers. “His death, in the same way that a death in real life brings a family together because they haven’t seen each other for a while, his death really centered the show, especially in the beginning [of the new season] because all our characters were feeling the same thing in completely different ways. But they have a singular touchstone.”
And at the same time, the characters realize they’re facing the end of the world — and maybe the ends of the world. In true Magicians fashion, the season will feature multiple apocalyptic scenarios, which could feel over the top but for the fact that in reality, the 24-hour news cycle achieves roughly the same effect every day.
The quest for the season, such as it is, begins when a strange creature approaches Julia (Stella Maeve) — the character who’s closest to being the show’s protagonist at this point in its run — and tells her the world must be saved. But the creature would rather have someone who, y’know, looks like a protagonist pull off this task.
The Magicians has always cheekily leaned into the idea that heroes in fantasy stories too often look like Quentin — which is to say white, male, and conventionally attractive. But most of the show’s characters other than Quentin haven’t fit that paradigm, and arguably Quentin himself, who was bisexual, didn’t either. So killing off Quentin also functions as a kind of meta-commentary on The Magicians’ earnest attempts to transcend both its genre and its source material, in which Quentin remains alive through the end. (The show’s producers consulted with Grossman when they first considered killing Quentin, and he gave them his blessing.)
As audacious as it was, the choice to kill Quentin caused at least some of the show’s audience to rebel. Quentin might have been just another white guy protagonist — but he also had rich storylines about his struggles with depression and a complicated romantic history with his friend Eliot (Hale Appelbaum). As one of the few characters with mental illness and one of the few bisexual men on television, Quentin meant a lot to a lot of viewers, and in 2020, when a show can be kept alive single-handedly by a particularly passionate fanbase, alienating any portion of that fanbase is dangerous.
“I think our job is to be really strict with ourselves when we’re writing something like [Quentin’s death],” Gamble said. “You can’t just toss off something like that. We didn’t do any of that lightly. Shows have to pick a lane. We’ve picked like six or eight lanes on this show, but we do know what those lanes are, and that’s important because you have to know what to be able to prioritize. In a world where you can make choices to keep safer or take more risks with your story and you know that your story needs risk to live, knowing why you make the show, knowing the most important kind of stories that you want to tell — that really is our North Star.”
How grief can feel like the apocalypse (and vice versa)
And yet the fans’ passionate outcry after Quentin died ultimately worked its way into the show.
“We started working on the new season right when the end of the previous season was airing. We were working on the outlines for season five, episodes one and two, at the craziest moment in terms of the reaction from the fans,” said executive producer David Reed. “So you can’t help but have that in your head and in your heart when you’re working on something that’s creative. There’s some of that in the way that we chose to have the characters deal with their grief.”
I hadn’t seen any episodes of the new season when I talked to The Magicians’ creative team about what to expect, but now, I’ve seen the first three. They’re real and raw, but they’re also funny and frantic. They’re very recognizably part of this show I’ve loved for several seasons now — while also adding new shades to the characters, shades informed by their grief.
Which brings me back to the idea of the grief season being the apocalypse season. After all, when you’re grieving, doesn’t it feel like the end of the world? If you’ve lost someone you love, going outside and seeing people who aren’t wrecked by sadness can feel slightly surreal, as if everybody else is watching one show but somebody changed the channel on you. “Changing the channel” is The Magicians’ default state, so grounding that frenetic energy in a feeling as palpable as grief just heightens the show’s powers.
“We made a decision, a chance to be really truthful in a way that we knew would lose people. It upset us. But what we weren’t doing was bullshitting people about what life is. It’s fragile, and even the most charismatic, wonderful, vivacious people get sick and/or die,” said co-creator and executive producer John McNamara. “You can grieve, and see a great movie and laugh. The two are not mutually exclusive. They’re only mutually exclusive in bad movies and bad TV and bad plays. But life is so layered.”
Will this gambit to make The Magicians reflect the devastation some of its viewers feel help the show win those viewers back? It’s hard to say, but the early episodes of season five are an impressive example of a series sticking to its guns even as its fans threaten to abandon ship. In an age when showrunners increasingly seem scared of their audiences, The Magicians is daring its fans to bring their own sadness to its biggest apocalyptic story yet.
“The idea of stopping the apocalypse in itself comes into question,” Gamble said. “And [the characters] realize that they maybe have to do some destroying to create.”
The Magicians season five debuts Wednesday, January 15, at 10 pm Eastern on Syfy. The first four seasons are on Netflix.


vox--2020-01-15--The drive to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, explained

For Jennifer Carroll Foy , the fight against sexism started in high school .
Her class was watching TV coverage of the historic 1996 Supreme Court decision United States v. Virginia .
In a famous majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the Court found that the previously all-male Virginia Military Institute — a prestigious military college in Foy ’ s home state — would have to admit women .
Foy agreed with the decision , but the boys in the class were outraged , she told Vox .
Her male best friend even came up to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to VMI , he would go too , because “ I want to be there to watch you when you fail.
” They both went to the military college , but only Foy graduated — one of the first black women to do so .
She went on to become an attorney and , in 2017 , one of a historic number of women elected to the Virginia House of Delegates .
Now , in 2020 , she ’ s the sponsor of a measure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex , enshrining in the US Constitution the principle of gender equality that Ginsburg argued for in United States v. Virginia .
To become law , the amendment must be ratified by 38 states .
And on January 15 , 2020 , Virginia became the 38th state , with the ERA passing both houses of the state legislature .
However , there are still major legal and political hurdles to clear in order for the amendment to officially become law .
But Foy believes that , now more than ever , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country for enacting a constitutional change that ’ s been decades in the making .
“ Women are fed up , ” she said , “ and we ’ re now in positions of power.
” Virginia ratified the ERA .
It ’ s just the beginning of another fight .
The Equal Rights Amendment is simple .
Here ’ s the text : But these few words have been wending their way through American politics for nearly 100 years , as Vox ’ s Emily Stewart writes .
First introduced in 1923 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1972 .
But because it ’ s a constitutional amendment , it still had to be ratified by three-quarters of the states , or 38 out of 50 .
Thirty-five states ratified the amendment quickly , but then momentum slowed , in part due to the work of anti-feminist advocates like Phyllis Schlafly in the mid to late 1970s .
However , things have picked up again in recent years , with Nevada ratifying the amendment in 2017 and Illinois doing so in 2018 .
Foy says the resurgence of interest stems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women ’ s March , the Me Too movement , and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even after he was publicly accused of sexual assault .
“ Women are now understanding that none of our fundamental rights are really guaranteed , ” she said .
Virginia also tried to ratify the amendment in 2018 , but Republicans in the state legislature quashed the effort .
In 2019 , however , Democrats took control of the legislature for the first time in 20 years .
And on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the state Senate .
“ In passing this resolution , we ’ re finally on record as supporting women ’ s rights as human beings , equal to men , ” Foy said in a statement , “ something that must also finally be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
” Ratification in Virginia , however , is far from the end of the fight over the ERA .
Congress set a deadline of 1982 for states to ratify the amendment , meaning Virginia ’ s decision comes almost 40 years too late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove this obstacle .
In November , the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to eliminate the deadline , and it ’ s expected to pass the full House .
But such legislation will have a harder time in the Republican-controlled Senate .
Meanwhile , some states are actively fighting the amendment .
Last year , Louisiana , Alabama , and South Dakota filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the federal government to let the 1982 deadline stand .
And President Trump ’ s Justice Department issued guidance earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to change the deadline .
Whatever happens next , a court battle over the amendment is all but inevitable .
The ERA would guarantee gender equality in the Constitution for the first time Despite the obstacles , advocates say the fight is crucial because the ERA would send an important message of gender equality to the entire country .
Right now , the Constitution doesn ’ t explicitly address sex discrimination at all .
The ERA would change that , Emily Martin , vice president for education and workplace justice at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Vox .
“ It would , at the most fundamental level , recognize that gender equality is a foundational principle for the United States.
” There are laws on the books that ban sex discrimination in some arenas .
The Equal Pay Act , for example , requires that men and women get equal pay for equal work .
But , Foy noted , “ laws can be changed just as easily as legislators change their minds ” ; a constitutional amendment is more permanent .
Moreover , a constitutional amendment would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discriminatory laws or practices in court .
Federal courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as conferring some protection against sex discrimination , Martin said .
But adding an explicit ban on such discrimination in the Constitution would likely force courts to take the issue much more seriously .
People could use the Equal Rights Amendment to challenge anything from unequal pay to restrictions on abortion , Martin said .
And it wouldn ’ t just affect women ’ s rights .
By banning discrimination on the basis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well , offering protections to gay and trans people regardless of their gender .
Many legal scholars and LGBTQ rights advocates — including supporters of the gay and trans employees challenging discriminatory practices in three cases currently before the Supreme Court — have argued that discrimination against gay and trans people is , in essence , discrimination on the basis of sex .
“ This kind of discrimination is all bound up with each other , ” Martin said .
Moreover , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism for gender equality around the country , Martin said .
In recent years , “ we ’ ve seen this need and hunger and energy around women ’ s organizing , around women demanding equality , ” she explained .
“ The push for the Equal Rights Amendment is part of that and builds on that.
” And for Foy , her home state ’ s role in ratifying the amendment is especially meaningful .
“ Virginia has been on the wrong side of history so many times , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage , Virginia has fought against desegregation , and Virginia fought against women ’ s right to vote.
” Things are changing in the state , and the historic number of women in the legislature is a big reason behind that change , Foy said .
Now , Virginia can be the state “ to put everyone on notice that women are here and we will be heard .
”

For Jennifer Carroll Foy, the fight against sexism started in high school.
Her class was watching TV coverage of the historic 1996 Supreme Court decision United States v. Virginia. In a famous majority opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court found that the previously all-male Virginia Military Institute — a prestigious military college in Foy’s home state — would have to admit women.
Foy agreed with the decision, but the boys in the class were outraged, she told Vox. Her male best friend even came up to her and told her that if she went to VMI, he would go too, because “I want to be there to watch you when you fail.”
“I told him, ‘Challenge accepted,’” Foy recalls.
They both went to the military college, but only Foy graduated — one of the first black women to do so. She went on to become an attorney and, in 2017, one of a historic number of women elected to the Virginia House of Delegates.
Now, in 2020, she’s the sponsor of a measure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which would ban discrimination on the basis of sex, enshrining in the US Constitution the principle of gender equality that Ginsburg argued for in United States v. Virginia. To become law, the amendment must be ratified by 38 states. And on January 15, 2020, Virginia became the 38th state, with the ERA passing both houses of the state legislature.
However, there are still major legal and political hurdles to clear in order for the amendment to officially become law. But Foy believes that, now more than ever, there’s momentum in Virginia and around the country for enacting a constitutional change that’s been decades in the making. “Women are fed up,” she said, “and we’re now in positions of power.”
Virginia ratified the ERA. It’s just the beginning of another fight.
The Equal Rights Amendment is simple. Here’s the text:
Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
But these few words have been wending their way through American politics for nearly 100 years, as Vox’s Emily Stewart writes. First introduced in 1923, it passed Congress with bipartisan support in 1972. But because it’s a constitutional amendment, it still had to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, or 38 out of 50.
Thirty-five states ratified the amendment quickly, but then momentum slowed, in part due to the work of anti-feminist advocates like Phyllis Schlafly in the mid to late 1970s. However, things have picked up again in recent years, with Nevada ratifying the amendment in 2017 and Illinois doing so in 2018.
Foy says the resurgence of interest stems from a combination of factors like the Women’s March, the Me Too movement, and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even after he was publicly accused of sexual assault. “Women are now understanding that none of our fundamental rights are really guaranteed,” she said.
Virginia also tried to ratify the amendment in 2018, but Republicans in the state legislature quashed the effort. In 2019, however, Democrats took control of the legislature for the first time in 20 years. And on Wednesday, the measure passed the House of Delegates and the state Senate. “In passing this resolution, we’re finally on record as supporting women’s rights as human beings, equal to men,” Foy said in a statement, “something that must also finally be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.”
Ratification in Virginia, however, is far from the end of the fight over the ERA. Congress set a deadline of 1982 for states to ratify the amendment, meaning Virginia’s decision comes almost 40 years too late.
Democrats in Congress are working to remove this obstacle. In November, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to eliminate the deadline, and it’s expected to pass the full House. But such legislation will have a harder time in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Meanwhile, some states are actively fighting the amendment. Last year, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Dakota filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the federal government to let the 1982 deadline stand. And President Trump’s Justice Department issued guidance earlier this month stating that Congress does not have the power to change the deadline. Whatever happens next, a court battle over the amendment is all but inevitable.
The ERA would guarantee gender equality in the Constitution for the first time
Despite the obstacles, advocates say the fight is crucial because the ERA would send an important message of gender equality to the entire country. Right now, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly address sex discrimination at all. The ERA would change that, Emily Martin, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, told Vox. “It would, at the most fundamental level, recognize that gender equality is a foundational principle for the United States.”
There are laws on the books that ban sex discrimination in some arenas. The Equal Pay Act, for example, requires that men and women get equal pay for equal work. But, Foy noted, “laws can be changed just as easily as legislators change their minds”; a constitutional amendment is more permanent.
Moreover, a constitutional amendment would give people more tools when they challenge discriminatory laws or practices in court. Federal courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as conferring some protection against sex discrimination, Martin said. But adding an explicit ban on such discrimination in the Constitution would likely force courts to take the issue much more seriously.
People could use the Equal Rights Amendment to challenge anything from unequal pay to restrictions on abortion, Martin said. And it wouldn’t just affect women’s rights. By banning discrimination on the basis of sex, it could implicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as well, offering protections to gay and trans people regardless of their gender.
Many legal scholars and LGBTQ rights advocates — including supporters of the gay and trans employees challenging discriminatory practices in three cases currently before the Supreme Court — have argued that discrimination against gay and trans people is, in essence, discrimination on the basis of sex. “This kind of discrimination is all bound up with each other,” Martin said.
Moreover, the effort to pass the ERA will bolster activism for gender equality around the country, Martin said. In recent years, “we’ve seen this need and hunger and energy around women’s organizing, around women demanding equality,” she explained. “The push for the Equal Rights Amendment is part of that and builds on that.”
And for Foy, her home state’s role in ratifying the amendment is especially meaningful. “Virginia has been on the wrong side of history so many times,” she said. “Virginia has fought against interracial marriage, Virginia has fought against desegregation, and Virginia fought against women’s right to vote.”
Things are changing in the state, and the historic number of women in the legislature is a big reason behind that change, Foy said. Now, Virginia can be the state “to put everyone on notice that women are here and we will be heard.”