John Rucker was a high school English teacher in North Carolina when he stumbled upon something interesting: Whenever he took his two dogs hiking, they would run into the tall grass and bring him back box turtles. Like a gift, his Boykin spaniels would gently lay them at his feet, unharmed.
He mentioned it to a few people, and soon, biology teachers from the University of North Carolina started reaching out to him and asking whether he would take their students out so they could put transmitters on the turtles to study them.
Several years later, the outings were so successful, Rucker was fielding calls from wildlife veterinarians and zoologists who were studying turtle populations.
“Because turtles aren’t easily detected in the wild by the human eye, I could see that I was on to something,” said Rucker, now 73.
Now, two decades later, Rucker’s spaniels are a highly in-demand, specialized team trained to sniff out box turtles by following their urine trails.
The dogs — Yogi, Ruger, Jenny Wren, Lazarus, Scamp, Skeeter and Rooster — travel across the country with Rucker helping to track turtle populations and identify threats and diseases.
The “final girl” is a trope in horror movies, referring to the female protagonist who remains alive at the end of the film, after the other characters have been killed, when she is usually placed in a position to confront the killer.
I’m no horror buff but I think I have a bit of a grasp of the rules of classic horror films, for which the Fear Street trilogy clearly pays a lot of homage and respect and references–even while challenging those narrative rules.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how I’m surprised by the centrality of the homosexual characters and the different levels at which the trilogy as a whole approaches the characters. The homosexual narrative/experience is prominent in Part 1 given the surprise of a homosexual protagonist, but it’s absolutely central to Part 3’s conflict and how we understand the wrongful demonization/witchification of a queer woman. The classic horror movies usually have these unspoken rules of punishment: deviant behavior usually results in those characters being killed by the monster. Notably indulging in drugs or sex. And these deaths aren’t sympathetic; the audience is prompted to feel anywhere from indifference at the death of canon fodder to thrill or even satisfaction. We root for the usually inevitable survivor, very often a “final girl” thanks to the likes of Halloween or Alien, but everyone else… kinda expendable and/or “deserved” it.
So in a classic tale, queer characters would have been deemed deviants and either would have succumbed as victims or been the monsters themselves. (Carrie a bit in this vein where her forced social isolation has made her an outcast. Thelma has really been on my mind because it’s a horror movie where I can never decide if Thelma is ultimately “monstrous” as a result of the indoctrination that cultivated homophobia in herself and that resulted in her taking out the perpetrators. I think about the last scene and I don’t know what I’m supposed to take away from it: fear of Thelma’s self-awareness? What?)
But classic horror was made in a different social and cultural mindset. I think it’s (more?) accepted by the majority today that homophobia is wrong so there’s no surprise that we can have a protagonist like Deena or feel sympathy for Sarah, and yet Fear Street does grapple with those classic unwritten rules. Simply by making the heroine gay–and to make her romance a central motivating factor of her determination and survival–flies in the face of painting her as a deserving victim. We get the sense early that Deena is likely the Final Girl. (We get multiple survivors, but you’re never quite sure who will die at the outset of a horror movie but you get the sense of the candidate who will make it through. Sometimes the “subversion” is that everyone dies.) Fear Street gives us two gay ladies who survive–and not only survive but come out more accepting and accepted.
Because homophobia is a huge antagonistic factor in the Fear Street trilogy. Part 1 has it present moreso as Sam’s internal struggle to embrace and openly express with her feelings. There’s a lot less social pressure or condemnation. Part 3, though, does not work unless you recognize the harm of homophobia being written into the cultural fabric of society. It is homophobia that vilifies Sarah in the eyes of the town Union, her homosexuality the cementing piece of otherness that makes her uncontrollable, wild, independent–everything that primes her to be labeled a witch. It’s so easy to think of Sarah as a witch because she doesn’t conform, isn’t silent, isn’t married, isn’t under the care of a man, seems to be too good at husbandry, kisses a woman. You have to understand how easily she was made into a scapegoat to understand the twist–and to feel sympathetic to this injustice. You should feel angry and frustrated and sad on Sarah’s behalf, that she was wronged, that she has only been trying to do right throughout her life and afterlife.
Fear Street is taking those characters who would typically be “monstrous” in a classic horror tale and making them rather heroic.
This also is at work with the Shadysiders, particularly Kate and Simon. The in-universe narrative is that who cares about the death of Shadysiders? They’re poor(er), low(er) class and thus relatively worth less (or outright worthless). And yet what we find out is that their marginalization and poverty and lack of opportunities isn’t accidental or self-inflicted: it is deliberately orchestrated and they are literally sacrificed for the benefit of their wealthier neighbors. These aren’t faceless, meaningless victims of random tragedy, but targeted, the souls turned murderous literally named and chosen for that fate. Even in death they are marginalized, as with Kate and Simon who are highlighted in the media as druggies, a story that “justifies” their “heinous acts”–and yet Fear Street makes sure we know this is a smear. Fear Street makes Kate and Simon sympathetic to emphasize their humanity, their dreams, going against the grain of the classic horror movie tropes. Of course these two would be slated to die in a classic horror movie (Alice as well) because of the easily slapped on archetypes and labels, but Fear Street makes it feel like their fates were unjust and wrong whereas in a typical horror film, we’d be led to be indifferent or feel satisfaction/warning from their deaths rather than sorrow.
Who is the actual enemy? A man in power. A cop. The person who in a classic horror film should be the one to swoop in at the end to lend some nominal hand in stopping the terror or at least clean it up and help reassert semblance of normality, the wail of police sirens a reassurance. But in this case, the man of law enforcement is literally causing all the hell and murder.
Well then.
It’s funny because when I watched Part 1 I thought: Was R.L. Stine this socioeconomically conscious and critical? Stine might not have been, I don’t know I gravitated more towards Coville, but these films definitely are and I was surprised to see the social messages that emerged. Horror is usually rooted in the real world fears of the contemporary time and it’s fascinating to me to see the underlying fears propelling the Fear Street narrative.
The gays aren’t the enemy, the canon fodder, the monsters in this instance–we are now allowed to be not those things. But I think about how I would have given Sarah Fier a pass raising up hell in Union because I saw get town as so monstrous on its behavior already that I wouldn’t have thought of Sarah getting revenge as monstrous and how our narratives of “monsters” are very complicated because having been positioned as monsters for so long in a narrative, sometimes we appropriate that position for ourselves in order to take power and how that has been a thread of some trend for long enough now that I was surprised when Fear Street didn’t take that route but made Fier a genuine victim of circumstances and prejudices who, by the accepted rules, kept her dignity and compassion and love, who died a martyr rather than a sinner…
Her death was a genuine tragedy redeemed by a genuine triumph of Deena and Sam’s victory and redemption and fulfilled romance.
And somehow that’s surprising. No demonization of any of them, even given the literal possession of Sam. We know it’s against Sam’s will and she doesn’t murder anyone.
They’re just… heroes. Heroines. Who defied victimization. In two different eras.
We got to be that. We got to be central to the narrative. We got to win.
the netflix app on my tv got stuck and i’m being forced to watch fear street without knowing if there’s demon possesions, which could be a problem for me
i can’t switch, change or pause (can’t even fix the volume)
my choices are:
reboot the tv
suffer
Yes and no. Technically there are possessions but they are not presented as a typical possesions. They are more similar to zombies. The possessed just go on a mindless violent rampage
@crazyintheeast oh! Thank you. That should be fine then. My only problem is when they make unnatural voices, start walking on walls, do creapy sounds with body horror and stuff like that. It used to be worse, but now I kind of deal with it
Also, I ended up rebooting the tv anyway cause it wouldn’t even let me fix the volume, but after 20 minutes in, I’m curious to see where it goes 😅
None of this although there are some gruesome murders slasher style. Hope you enjoy it :)
I’m gonna go on a rant and say that while on twitter and tiktok stans are too young to remember what happened when ya franchises came out in cinemas here on tumblr there may be someone who does
i CLEARLY remember this tactic most of us fell for when the main actors (like rob pattinson and kristen stewart or jennifer lawrence and josh hutcherson) in these movies played coy or ambiguously around each other and the people would FREAK OUT because we were there, speculating about off screen romances and stuff. and it worked the miracle as marketing because stans got so much invested in these fake couples and went crazy on off hand comments in interviews and weird pitch black paparazzi photos, everything to make us all hope the romance was happening outside their characters.
and i get it, its work, they get paid, it’s all right. but im seeing the whole thing again, this time with wlw/mlm couples. and it irks me beyond reason. we’ve all seen the offscreen behaviours of some fan-favourite actresses, like brigette and fivel from atypical’s casey and izzie or erana and mia from the wilds’ toni and shelby and… i mean. they all act coupley and smitten and it would be fine, really, if it wasnt for marketing
because you see that’s the thing that i fucking hate, the fact that having queer rep on media is so incredibly important for queer youth and hollywood knows very well that a gay couple can boast the rating of even a shitty show because the gays are starved and tend to leach on whatever rep they can get their hands on
but at the same time what the fuck, this thing has been corrupted by money and capitalism in the way that hollywood is starting to profit off queer kids need for rep, using explicitly and affirmed straight actresses for it and maybe it doesnt sit right with me the fact that we all experience, to various lengths, discrimination and hate
tf some of us live in places where we can be fired or beaten up or killed for being queer and they just… they tell these straight actresses, who have no fucking idea what it means to be gay, to play gay, to show off affection and stuff.
and it feels desecreting, it feels wrong, because queer love, which we live and we fight and we die for, is used as a marketing tool. it’s nothing more than a way to make more money and im sorry if this seems too much but it really makes me angry
Brigette Lundy-Paine is non binary and Mia Healey is bisexual and trying to demand that actors reveal their sexuality before taking a role is far far more messed up then any marketing
as for the first part of your critic, I’m just gonna leave this here because I already replied
and for the second part, this is not about the actors’ sexuality at all. they could be part of the community and the whole practice still wouldn’t be okay. what I’m talking about is the way that something like queer love and its freedom, which is the first and more important object of most lgbtq+ fights, is practically mercified as a marketing tool, and mind you, the industry knows this.
i guess i am just, maybe wrongly, pissed off because i am a non binary lesbian and i have had to fight every day of my life since i was like 14 to be accepted, or at the very least to defend myself from discrimination coming from everywhere. and this is a common experience for every queer person. and when i see that the very thing that make people hate crime me or discriminate me and for which i fight long and i fight hard is used as nothing more than a business tool, well then i get pissed off.
again, this has nothing to do with actors sexuality. still wouldnt be okay if they were queer. but, on a parenthesis, since most of them (not all) are not, and we know because most of them explicitly state their heterosexuality or being cisgender, well then this is another thing that pisses me off. because it’s not even people who can actually understand what it means to be queer.
Everything is business. That’s how capitalism works and there is nothing to be done it
But it does. And not just actors , the same goes for writers and so many others. There has been many cases where they were forced to out themselves or they were outed exactly because of this attitude which is very harmful
Saying they are straight or cisgendered doesn’t mean anything. Just because someone is rich or famous just doesn’t mean they are comfortable or safe enough to come out. Actors and creators sexuality is absolutely non of our business unless they chose to willingly and without pressure share it with us
the netflix app on my tv got stuck and i’m being forced to watch fear street without knowing if there’s demon possesions, which could be a problem for me
i can’t switch, change or pause (can’t even fix the volume)
my choices are:
reboot the tv
suffer
Yes and no. Technically there are possessions but they are not presented as a typical possesions. They are more similar to zombies. The possessed just go on a mindless violent rampage
But got to warn you that in the third part Fear Street 1666 there are a lot of religious themes since it’s set in the past and there we also see a priest who gets possed. His possession is slightly different then the typical zombie like rampages of the other possesion but it’s just basically like 30 seconds of mumbling nothing over the top scary
If you can deal with zombie and slasher type of violence you will probably be ok
