Progress in 2022 and Lyme SOT Therapy

Where have I been this last year?

Well, life has been crazy.  I haven't been on here in a long while.  So, I'll just give a quick recap of the highlights of my Lyme journey and the big moments that have impacted me and kept me from writing as well.

Last time I wrote about my Lyme journey I had just gotten a prescription for LDN and I was hoping it would help with something, pain, sleep, something. 

LDN has definitely been helping me sleep.  That alone, helped me gain energy and start to heal.  I felt like I was finally making progress on my health and I really attribute a lot of it to finally being able to get good rest, thanks to taking LDN. 

By the way LDN definitely gave me the weirdest lyme dreams for two weeks before it settle down.  And it takes about a month for you to start feeling the effects of it since it's in such small doses.  Just thought it was worth mentioning in case you're considering taking it. 

Dad has Cancer

Then somewhere near the start of this year, 2022, my dad was diagnosed with cancer.  As one might imagine that was rather stressful and emotional for my family and myself.  The extra emotional stress really made my health decline again.  I had a huge relapse on progress and symptoms worsened and some that I'd put in remission popped up again.  I had to do a lot of crying, letting my emotions out whether they were angry, or sad, writing, and so forth to help with that.  

Everyone deals with things differently, but allow me to say that you have to let out those feelings without judging yourself for them or your body will store it and suffer.  And if you're trying to heal from a chronic, or shall we say, long-haul illness, you can't bottle up those feelings.  I had a lot of people reach out to console our family about Dad's health, which I appreciated.  But I also had a fair number of people do so in a way that invalidated all my health concerns and feelings.  Cancer is bad, but so is chronic illness, so the people who told me I wasn't allowed to feel anger towards my father for not taking care of his health during this process, did not help me at all.  If you feel anger, you have to feel it.  You don't have to yell at your father, but you do need to process it and let it out, not stuff it down.  Am I proud of the fact that some of this made me mad at him, no?  But was it understandable?  Yes.  So I had to let it out so I could move on and heal.  

I digress a little, the point is that some people very much showed me that they don't understand anything about chronic illness or how hard it can be, or how much work it is to stay even marginally healthy for me.  I've learned to really appreciate the people who notice, or care, how hard this road is for me.  I've learned how few and far between these rare individuals are and I've tried to tell them all how much they've meant to me in this process. 

My immediate family and I were fine, we took the blows and supported one another and talked through our feelings and came out ok.  My dad and I understand one another and now, at the end of this year it's looking like he will beat cancer back and all will be well for him.  

Lyme Treatment Strategies and COVID-19

Ok, I don't know exactly when during this year I stopped taking things, or started other things.  But I'll try to cover the main points.

After my health declined I worked really hard to rest and do everything I could to take care of my own health.  I got my health back up a little, but strongly plateaued and was not making more progress, nor was I as well as I had been at the start of the year.  

My doctors and I decided that maybe we should start thinking about doing essential oils and giving my body a break from antibiotics.  And we started looking into SOT.

I started taking essential oils and then promptly got Covid-19.  A thing I'd been fearing for a few years.  I was knocked out hard, so tired and it did start to go into my lungs.  But with my doctors' help, I beat Covid-19 in a few weeks and did not have lingering symptoms, thank God. 

Needless to say, while I was flat out, I was having enough trouble eating and drinking that I didn't continue with the essential oils program.  So, I decided it was time to do testing.  Sometimes if you've been treating it's hard to get a positive test, because the treatment is effective in removing active bacteria.  But if you haven't been treating, or your immune system is down, you might be more likely to get a positive test, because the bacteria has started to grow again.

SOT Therapy - Supportive Oligonucleotide Technique Therapy

Briefest rundown of SOT therapy because I have brain fog and don't actually know that much science.  SOT is personalized medicine.  A lab goes looking through your blood sample for the actual strain of bacteria you have.  They take that and use it to make a very tiny thing that will bind to it and prevent that strain of bacteria from replicating.  Thus, if your main problem is with Lyme and you do Lyme SOT you should get a lot better, if you have other problems, or damage from having Lyme, you have to deal with those.  That's the theory anyway.  

I still firmly believe that Lyme and co-infections are my main problems, not damage from treating them, or not treating them, or mold, or whatever.  So, since my doctors agreed, we decided to order an SOT therapy for one of my infections.

In order to do an SOT therapy, you are required to get a positive blood test for the thing you're trying to treat with an SOT, as well as a blood sample to be sent to the lab that is going to make this treatment for you.  Having gone off of every medication for a couple of weeks due to illness, it seemed like the perfect time to do a blood test.  

I had even more of my old symptoms popping up.  So I decided to do the comprehensive, full panel for all the co-infections.  $900.  Ouch, but so worth it.  

In this age of online searches and webMD, I've heard of people convincing themselves they have things they don't.  I, apparently, have done the opposite.  I went and read through a bunch of co-infections symptoms and lists and decided I didn't really have any of them.  My symptoms, I concluded, could be explained by the big three, Lyme, Bartonella and Babesia.  

Well.  I was wrong.

Testing and Results

My $900 test came back and I had everything (not exactly literally, but it feels that way).  I had so many things I can't even remember what all I had.  I even had things I'd never heard of, despite all my internet searches.  I had Powassan virus, a thing I'd never heard of and apparently is very rare.  Yay.  I win at disease Bingo.  

So the testing was pretty conclusive, in the four years I've had Lyme and co-infections, I've tested a few times and never tested positive for Bartonella.  We suspected I had it based on symptoms, but couldn't prove it with tests.  Finally, this time, now that my immune system was weakened from Covid-19, I got a positive test result for Bartonella.  So, Covid-19 actually did me a favour.  Don't get me wrong, Covid and I aren't friends, but it was good for me in the end. 

For fun, I'll just list out some of the stuff I found out I had. (This isn't even fully inclusive)

Borrelia burgdorferi

Borrelia mayonii

Borrelia bavariensis

Borrelia californiensis

Borrelia turcica

Borrelia hermsii

Borrelia andersonii

Babesia microti

Bartonella henselae

Bartonella vinsonii

HGA - anaplasma phagocytophilum

Human Monocytic Ehrlichiosis (HME)

Rickettsia typhi

Powassan Virus

Tickborne Encephalitis Virus

West Nile Virus (I guess I really did have it after all)

Mycoplasma pneumoniae

Cytomegalovirus

Epstein Barr Virus

Parvovirus B19

Toxoplasma gondii

Streptococcal A (this one was high actually, so I may have a chronic strep infection too)

I mean, my God, no wonder I'm tired all the bloody time.  Look at what my body is trying to handle all by itself.  It's a ton of work.  Poor thing.  No wonder I struggle to feel well, and no wonder I'm sick.  Look at all those viruses!  This isn't even a full list.  These were just the moderate to high infections listed on my results.

Now, my testing was so conclusive that my doctors and I looked at the highest infection and didn't even have to debate which infection to try SOT for first.  We started with Borrelia burgdorferi, because it was a very high infection according to this test, and Borrelia is usually very immuno-suppresive.  So this is how we planned to start, by attacking that strain of Lyme first. 

Borellia Burgdorferi - Lyme - SOT

We sent a sample of my blood and the test results to a lab in Greece that would make my SOT therapy for me.  The lab sent me back my very expensive, "personalized medicine", treatment.  It was so tiny, that the whole treatment looked like one tiny bubble.  

Day 1 - November 7th

My doctor fixed the SOT up into an IV bag and administered it and I had a terrible herx reaction to it that night.  (Proof that it's working).

That evening I had a bit of a headache, expected from the IV and steroid, so I'm told.  Then I felt a little bit of an ache in my knees, but that's not unusual for me.  At 9pm the pain started to grow and then it moved to my right hip.  Then my left hip.  Then it settled for a good while in my lower spine.  I was super excited about this because I'd never had spine pain before and I thought, "oh, that's new! It's doing new things! That means it's working!".  I cannot overstate how excited I was about this development.  

The pain was fairly intense, but I was jazzed.  At 3am I had violent twitchies.  My right leg in particular was spasming so hard for about an hour that it was just kicking repeatedly.  It finally quieted down and I slept.  

Day 2 - day after SOT

I felt tired all day, couldn't keep my eyes open, but I also couldn't sleep.  I had less joint pain, but more muscle aches that were generally all over.  I felt a little nauseous and a little like I was coming down with a flu.  I had sore lymph nodes under the jaw and that general muscle achiness that you get.

Day 3 - Nov 9th

This day I had a low-grade headache all day and aches.  But nothing else.  Definitely feeling better than the day before.

Day 4 - Nov 10th

This day I had bad headaches.  I ached everywhere.  I essentially stayed in an Epsom salt bath for the majority of the day.  

At 2 am my spine was hurting again, slightly higher up this time than before.  And I had pain in my left elbow joint.  

Day 5 - Nov 11th

This day I didn't have too many symptoms.  I had a low-grade headache and I was a bit tired.

Day 6 Nov 12th 

I felt like I was coming down with a cold again and I had a headache again.

Conclusions on SOT

I have no other notes on what the other days were like.  But I seem to have a memory of it being similar to this.  Every other day I had pain and aches and the next day would be a low grade headache and fatigue all day.  

For SOT to be effective they want you to not take anything that is antibiotic or antimicrobial two weeks before you do a treatment and for one week following an SOT treatment.  The idea is to let the bacteria come out to play so that you can really destroy them.  

Since I had gone off everything during being sick with covid, and then stayed off for the blood test.  I hadn't taken anything for almost a month when I went in for my SOT for Lyme.  The herx reactions to the SOT seem to have tapered off through the month of November.

I was warned that many people see a dramatic increase in their Bartonella symptoms if they do an SOT for Lyme.  I guess that once Lyme starts to die off there is a bit of a power vacuum and Bartonella seizes the chance to really proliferate.  I'm not a doctor, that's just how I think it works.  But I also have brain fog, don't trust me.  Do your own research.

ANYWAY, the point is, I did in fact have a huge increase in my Bartonella symptoms.  My twitchies got out of control.  They are so bad they really have be considered muscle spasms.  One night, Dec 9th, I went out with some friends and my legs were out of control.  I could barely walk for the spasming was almost throwing my legs out from under me.  My boyfriend eventually had to carry me to the car, because I couldn't make it the two blocks under my own power.  That was the worst night for spasming and it hasn't been as bad since.  But I have to say that night, has made me rather cautious about planning to do anything.  Let's just say, I definitely am not doing any hiking these days. 

My conclusion is that the Lyme SOT is definitely doing its job.  I'm having herx, or die-off reactions and my symptoms are shifting are time goes on.  Lyme has a 90 day life-cycle, and SOT's job is prevent it from replicating by binding to it.  The SOT treatment lasts in the body anywhere from 3 to 6 months.  So we still don't know how things are going to shake out in the coming months.  It's only been about 2 months since I did the SOT treatment.  But I'm excited about the possibility that it is really killing off lyme and shaking things up.  I haven't had much luck getting die-off or remission with antibiotics thus far.  

The good news is that after the first week has passed from doing SOT, you can double down on treatments with antibiotics and anything else in your arsenal.  It feels like I'm making progress and I feel very hopeful about my future for the first time in a long time.  

The bad news is that even though this test I did was so conclusive that we didn't argue about which thing to tackle first.  And even though a lab was able to find the exact strain of Lyme we asked them to look for in my blood, and make me a personalized treatment, I am not considered sick by the CDC.  According to the CDC I do not have Lyme disease or any of the other diseases I tested positive for.  A lab was able to find a strain of Lyme disease in my blood sample and make me a treatment but I am not officially sick.  So, even if Lyme disease was an acceptable way to get disability, I wouldn't qualify, because despite the fact that we found it in my blood, I "don't have lyme disease".  

I don't want to get all bent out of shape about it, or make anyone else angry.  So, I won't say anything else on that topic.  I just thought it was important to mention. 

Next Moves - Attack Bartonella

But, let's stick to the good news for now.  I'm making progress.  I'm responding to the treatment and I'm hoping to start seeing improvements moving forward.  Right now I'm playing disease whack-a-mole.  Knock down Lyme a bit and up pops Bartonella.  

The next plan is to attack Bartonella.  I've ordered another SOT for the strain of Bartonella I seem to test the highest for.  Let's see when we get that back what happens next.  I'll try to keep better notes and keep this space updated a little more often. 

Why Netflix's new Persuasion is Such a Disaster

Netflix recently came out with a new adaptation of Persuasion and I wanted to love it.  Netflix has done some really solid stuff in recent years and I love a good Austen adaptation.  But ultimately I was extremely disappointed with this movie because it tried to be two separate movies and it failed at both.

This is going to contain spoilers, so if you haven't read the book, or watched the movie and you don't want spoilers, go do that first.  

Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth at the beginning of Netflix's 2022 Persuasion

This Persuasion (2022) starring Dakota Johnson and Cosmo Jarvis, is visually beautiful.  The scenes of sweeping cliffside romance, the seaside and the melancholy, achingly beautiful.  The classical music lilting you along on the journey as you watch the women walk towards the Great House in Uppercross beneath umbrellas with lanterns through the rain, gorgeous.  It's stunning, it's perfection and then it's suddenly jarringly modern and comical with acts that aren't funny.  It's trying to be two different movies, one that takes itself seriously and loves the romance and drama of Austen's novel set in the Regency era we've all come to know and love through her works, and the other poking fun at the strictures and restraints of life in that age while making Anne a modern 30 something who is drunk, rude and unhappy.  It is constantly undercutting itself in both regards.  It's a true shame. 

Austen is well aware of the unfortunate rules of her society and discusses in a nuanced way what a difficult life it is for women who often have to take into consideration financial security when they consider marriage.  She sketches out all the ways that this can be injurious to a person and the different ways you can go about making good and bad choices for yourself about marriage.  I do not need a modern attitude fitting for 2022 saying "an unmarried woman is not a problem to be solved".  First of all, don't lecture me about it, show me in the story.  Stop telling me what to think.  Second, in this era, an unmarried woman is actually a problem to solve.  Anne has two options for leaving her family as she tells us in the beginning, marriage or death.  And she wants to be married, very specifically to Frederick. 

Yet, this movie keeps going on about why should women want to marry.  There is no discussion of the hard choices necessary for women at that time.  In fact, in the book, we watch all these different types of marriages play out and we watch how it can be equally bad to marry just for financial stability as it is to marry someone for love who leaves you penniless and widowed.  The point is that you need to take all of the different factors into consideration to make the best choice for yourself.  

I personally would prefer you never lecture me on how you want me to think, but rather sketch out circumstances that make me agree with your line of thinking.  But if you must lecture me on 2022 values, for heaven's sake, do it in a modern retelling of Persuasion.  

The kind of disappointment that this movie was can be adequately explained by simply watching the first two minutes of the movie.  It opened with such a beautiful scene, Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth as young lovers on the cliffside obviously enamored of each other as she tells you she was once persuaded to give him up and we watch a single tear streak down his face.  It's gorgeous and it had my hopes up that this would be a truly beautiful movie.  And then it disappointed me because the next sentence was, and I quote "Now, I'm single and thriving; I spend my time drinking fine wines, enjoying warm baths, and lying face down on my bed.  Like I said, thriving."  This movie has gotten a lot of flack for being too modern.  I have to agree to an extent.  If you want to modernize Persuasion then do a modern retelling.  If you want it set in the Regency era, do us a favor and don't make Anne Elliot a rude, drunk person who discusses exes and nearly pees on screen.  I do not watch period dramas to watch people pee in the woods in their long skirts, or to watch sisters discuss "self-care," or have the man you're pining after go from being an "ex" to being a friend and all the "horror" of that.  I watch period dramas for the romanticism captured so beautifully in the opening scene, for the longing, for the painfully adhered to propriety and the knowledge that by staying true to your morals you'll have a happy ending at the end of the story in the most romantic and beautiful of English settings. 

If you want Anne Elliot to talk about being "single and thriving" in a facetious way and have it actually be funny, then I implore you to make it a modern retelling of the story.  This adaptation flickered from beautiful to modern in the most odd ways and it failed to be romantic because it was jarringly modern and it failed to be funny because it was weirdly regency/romantic.  It was neither thing and the audience felt the push and pull of both these mismatched tones throughout the whole movie.  Just when you'd think ok, it's just a quirky and fun adaptation of Persuasion, it's kind of funny, just roll with it, it would become sweeping and romantic and regency again.  Just when you were about to lose yourself in the drama of manners it would spring modern bullshit on you.  It kept clashing with itself and it was an unfortunate state of affairs.  Either movie could have been great.  I would have been happy to watch both.  But both tones constantly clashing with each other did not leave us with a satisfactory result.  

As it was this weirdly spiced-up version of Persuasion with its new, modern Anne was awful.  This Anne is modern and feisty.  This Anne says what she thinks and does what she wants, propriety be damned.  This Anne would never have given up Frederick if she really loved him.  This Anne announces to whole dinner parties that Charles Musgrove used to want to marry her first.  Why would this Anne have ever let anyone persuade her into not marrying a man she truly loved?  It makes no sense.  The book character was persuaded into a lot of things she didn't really want to do, as well as out of a lot of things that made her happy, and only learned how to stand up for herself at the end of 8 years of reflecting on how this had made her very unhappy.  That's what makes her story so compelling, that Anne grows.  After all those years of longing and pining, she finally has a second chance to stand up for herself and go after what will really make her happy.  She isn't drunk, rude, or improper, she just learns how to say no to things that won't make her happy (marrying the wrong person for instance) and she finally gets what she wants.  This new Anne didn't grow, she was just improper throughout.  That being said, there were many things I did like about this version.

The Elliot family in Netflix's Persuasion 2022

Ok we've already talked about the opening scene.  So, let's go a bit chronologically for a moment.  I like the way we meet her father looking into the mirror surrounded by his many portraits of himself.  Likewise we concisely meet Elizabeth proud of herself and her father, simultaneously dismissive and cruel towards Anne.  Mary's main accomplishment in this family is marrying well and being of important rank.  I enjoy that we find out The Elliot family is broke when the creditors barge into the home and literally take cakes out of Elizabeth's hands.  It's a bit odd in tone, but I found it amusing.

Lady Russell in Netflix's Persuasion 2022

Now we meet Lady Russell.  And honestly she doesn't need to be in this version of Persuasion at all.  We could've put the blame on the Persuasion not to marry Frederick on her family.  The opening scene concisely sets up for us that Anne has given up Frederick with no mention or need of Lady Russell.  She persuades Anne of nothing else later so she's truly unnecessary.  Anne decides on her own to be slightly distrustful of Mr. Elliot and also persuades herself to be slightly into him without Lady Russell's encouragement.  Lady Russell is strikingly blunt in all of her scenes with Anne's family in a way that would've been improper, she makes loud pronouncements about what they must do, she makes faces at their behavior across the table at Anne.  And she accomplishes nothing in later scenes.  Later, Lady Russell is the source of Anne believing that Frederick is engaged to Louisa and it would've been the easiest thing to have that misinformation come from Mary.  

It seems Lady's Russel's purpose is to be improper.  To be loud, and a bit forward and abrasive and to discuss having affairs while traveling in foreign countries, all of which I could've done without.  Especially since we discuss our foreign affairs right after Louisa falls and we're supposed to be concerned she'll never recover, not be laughing about travelling to have affairs.  Since we do have Lady Russell in this movie, it would have been nice if she'd had more point, perhaps persuaded Anne of more things or into considering Mr. Elliot or mentioned even once that she'd persuaded Anne not to marry Charles Musgrove perhaps.  

The only thing I do like is that Lady Russell's presence allows Anne to tell us in conversation that she's still not over Frederick because aside from her mother and Lady Russel, Frederick Wentworth is the only person who ever really saw her, understood her and loved her.  I do like that detail. And I don't mind that Lady Russell tells her she was wrong then, but needs to move on now.  But other than that, she really isn't given enough to do in this movie's plot.  And honestly since we have Anne constantly talking to camera we could have had her tell us directly.  My preference would have been that she tell her rabbit, with whom Anne also converses, but I didn't get much say in the direction of this movie.

I appreciate that Anne understands why Frederick wouldn't write to her after he's made a bit of money a few years after they broken engagement, saying that "he respects himself too much to beg. He didn't fight for me because he could never value a love that wasn't offered freely." And I rather love the thought that she has followed his career through newspapers and news of the navy.  But I hate that she talks to camera to tell you about it.  She continues talking to camera throughout the movie and it's obnoxious.  

The modern phrasing feels out of place and obnoxious, especially when it comes immediately after direct quotes from Austen, such as, "We were not all born to be handsome" followed by "it is often said if you're a 5 in London, you're a 10 in Bath."  What rubbish!  It doesn't feel funny, it just feels out of place and irritating.  

It seems I'm not the only one who thinks this dialogue doesn't fit the movie.

The clothes aren't really appropriate either.  Wearing modern looking button-downs, ruched sleeves on Anne on her fancy dresses, coats that are drop waisted not high waisted.  Gem colors instead of the pale pastel gowns that were fashionable in upper society in the Regency era.  I do appreciate that they wear their clothing more than once since that would've been realistic, but I wished the cut of the clothing on Anne was a little bit more Regency and a little less 1910 in some places.  Is it the end of the world that the clothes aren't right?  No.  But they are right often enough that it's distracting to me when they get them wrong.  Again, they could've placed this in any era and not been confined by the Regency setting.  I don't know why they chose it if they didn't want to stay within it's language and clothing.  

What era does this outfit belong to?  Not the Regency era.

Anne wearing black to meet her rich cousins the Dalrymple's 

For instance they have Anne wear black to meet the Dalrymple's.  You don't wear black unless you're in mourning.  It's ridiculous.  It's distracting.  And then she tells this odd story about a nightmare about a giant octopus.  It's painfully awkward.  Then Mr. Elliot saves it a bit.  And this is how she decides that maybe she's charmed by him, is that he's not the worst company of all time.  This smacks of desperation.  I can't stand it.

Anne wearing all black to meet her cousins.

Mr. Elliot wearing black because he IS in mourning.

I love that Anne speculates about what Frederick might think about seeing her again on the journey to Uppercross.  Is he still angry with me?  What if he's been pining for me day and night all these years?    I also love that Anne travels with a rabbit companion on the way to Uppercross and indeed throughout the movie.  I love that it's never mentioned and that she never discusses it or explains it to you, but that she's often holding it for comfort.  I prefer her talking to it than to camera as well.  

Anne and her rabbit companion in Netflix's 2022 Persuasion

I enjoy that she knows exactly what Mary will say in order and is completely right.  I think in a more modern retelling of Persuasion this version of Mary would be delightfully funny to hate.  Even though this still feels modern I love her complaining about the flowers "my in-laws sent me that lovely bouquet, isn't that sweet, they'll only rot of course and then I'll feel even worse than if they hadn't sent anything at all.  How unkind is it to remind a dying person of decay?"  I love how melodramatic that particular line is.  I actually laughed out loud at it, as well as this one, "I'm so close to death I can feel my organs decomposing." 

Mary comes the closest to pulling off the modern thing.  It suits her character best to rail on men and go on about other subjects more modern in tone, like being an empath and that being the reason she can't tolerate sitting with her children when they're ill.  It's much closer to being funny without being jarring because it's in line with who she is as a character.  But I hate when she goes on about self-care and gratitude.  I want to escape this century's nonsense not hear more of it in a faux regency setting. 

Charles Musgrove is much more patient with Mary and I like seeing this version of him on the screen.  He carries her when she's tired and tries to remind her to be more grateful.  It's cute actually.

Mary and Charles Musgrove from Netflix's 2022 Persuasion

Louisa is much more likeable in this movie, which makes it harder to watch her be stupid and nearly die, and also harder to forgive Frederick for leading her on when he only wanted to make Anne jealous.  It does seem an odd choice to have Louisa try to persuade Anne to take Frederick and then come to Anne later and ask permission to have him for herself.  It doesn't seem to jive with the sweet-hearted character they've created Louisa to be in this version.  She also doesn't seem like the impetuous person who would jump off a large wall unadvisedly in this version, so her jump comes out of nowhere.  

I absolutely hate that Anne is often drunk.  That she shouts at Frederick from across the way through the open window in her underwear and then hides and drops a whole gravy boat on her head in her drunken state.  I hate that she is drunk at the dinner when she finally spends the evening at the Great House in Uppercross and that she rudely announces to the whole table that Charles first wanted to marry her.  It's so tacky.  It never would've happened with her character even in a modern setting, but in this setting, it's outrageously improper and it makes me like her less.  Combined with the fact that she refuses to sit next to Frederick you can see why he's visibly hurt by her behavior.  So it actually makes sense that he'd tell the whole table defensively that he's ready to marry anyone who is kind to him.  Is it still horrible?  Yes, but you can't blame him in this version.  

You feel Frederick is justified in being angry and hating Anne a little at this point.  So you have no problem with him paying such attention to Louisa who is sweet and kind and lovely.  In fact, I think we can actually see Frederick being in love with Louisa and not Anne in this version.  Louisa is everything proper, sweet, kind and attentive, unlike Anne in this version.  I still feel sorry that she has to play piano and watch Frederick dance with the lovely Louisa in such an attentive and romantic fashion.  But you also feel she deserves it a little after being so unutterably rude. 

I do find it amusing that Anne meets Frederick again for the first time in 8 years with jam on her face and a bread basket on her head talking about how handsome Frederick the sailor is.  It's cute, and funny with the children being so entertained even if it's inappropriate.  It's charming so I give this one a pass.  

This shows that Anne drinks too much, is inappropriate and rude, but really very much drunk too often.

I love the scene where she's playing Marie Antionette in the woods with the bluebells and that when the kids get too agressive with beating "the bad Queen" with sticks, Frederick saves her.  And she's so unjustified in asking him not to be angry.  Which is why I like him the better for saying "what would you want me to be?" and when she has no answer, just walking away.  I hate that she uses the word "ex" about Frederick.  It's so painfully bland and it's an almost insulting way to describe someone you're still so desperately in love with.  

All the scenes with the children are completely adorable, the way she plays with them and they laugh with her.  I love that she plays Marie Antionette with them.  I love that she plays Captain Wentworth right before she meets him.  I love that she asks the little boy James to hug her so tightly she can't feel her body anymore.  It's a touching and beautiful way to talk about how sad she feels without telling the camera for once. 

As much as I loved the scenes with the children I'm equally appalled by the fact that they have Anne wander off into the woods where we watch her get ready to pee and that's how we have her overhear Frederick and Louisa talk about Anne being proud and too easily persuadable.  I do not watch period dramas to remember that people need to pee.  I hate this as an addition to such a nuanced and beautiful story about when it is and is not appropriate to be persuaded into and out of things and when it is and isn't a good idea to marry.  

I'm so appalled that they included this, I honestly don't even know what else to say.

The Universe has a plan, though, we are told.  Apparently the plan is for the Universe to annoy us throughout this entire film with ridiculous anachronisms.  It feels like they tried to add the humour and style of Bridgerton to this simply because it was popular and well received, not because it would suit this film.  As far as other influences on this movie, it feel obvious that the 2007 Persuasion was a large influence.  We have Harville recognize the name of Anne Elliot and we see more of Frederick's feelings, like we do in the 2007 version.  The ending with her reading the letter and running after Frederick also seems inspired heavily by the 2007 version.  

I always appreciate seeing a bit more of Frederick's feelings.  So I appreciate seeing Captain Harville instantly recognize her and knowing that he's been privy to many conversations about Anne and how much Frederick was in love with her.  

I appreciate that we see a lot more genuine emotion from Frederick in this Netflix 2022 Persuasion

I do like when she talks to Benwick about poetry about how it's a tragedy that poetry can only truly be enjoyed by those who have suffered true loss and at the same time that it's not safe for them to read so much poetry.  They have to remember that they are young and must rally and move on somehow.  I like the honesty in this exchange.

Mr. Elliot is smug, arrogant, openly not a gentleman, and yet Anne is more smitten with him in this version.  Elliot tells Anne he doesn't want to lose his title to a new son through Mrs. Clay.  It's a ridiculous thing to admit to her.   

Mr. Elliot is charming only in a very arrogant way

I love the scene on the beach where Anne and Frederick finally talk.  He tells her "I've lived with a thousand different imagined versions of you over the years, some to rail against, some to cherish."  He tells her there's no-one quite like you.  He basically tells her he wants her in his life no matter what form that takes and he feels he can only have friends.  He admits that his resentment had created a prison.  It's clear he wants more and she takes it as he only wants to be friends.  I love that he tells her he always thought what would Anne do here because she's calm and focused and thoughtful and smart and good in emergencies.  

And it was a beautiful scene until they ruined it with more modern dialogue.  

Honestly this was so disappointing

After the accident I love that Frederick admits he knew Louisa was infatuated and he did nothing to discourage her and that he believes he led her to believe he was a person who would catch her.  It makes more sense that he would feel responsible for her behavior since he seems to have led her on more in this version and she seems less wild and willful in general. 

When she finally is told that Frederick is engaged we get this scene of her crying in the bath, telling us, "I've always imagined myself confronting this moment with grace. I would astonish myself and others with my quiet dignity, my ability to endure. Statues would be erected in my name.  In memory of Anne Elliot who suffered cosmic loss yet really held it together quite impressively." But the sad part is that the Anne Elliot from Austen's Persuasion really did and we loved her for it and this Anne does not confront anything with grace or quiet dignity.  She is loud and drunk and rude and talks to camera throughout it all.  We almost don't feel sorry for her, because her own rude behavior has driven Frederick away.  In the book, and in every other adaptation I've seen Anne does face all of this hardship with quiet grace and dignity, while she has no opportunity to talk with the man she still loves privately and must endure watching him pursue another.  In this version Anne's an inebriated rude woman responsible for her own sad fate by driving away the man she still loves with bad communication and behavior while she is given many opportunities to tell him how she feels. 

Whereas in other versions we know very much how Anne feels and Frederick is more of a mystery, I love that in this version we see Frederick's feelings much more clearly.  We see him hurt, and angry and pining after her, almost, but always not quite able, to say he still loves her.  

But really does Anne need to believe that Frederick is engaged?  Don't they have enough obstacles?  The 8 years of estrangement, the not knowing that the other person is still in love with the other, the family still not respecting Frederick, his resentment and hurt over the past, her distraction with Mr. Elliot?  Do they really need her to believe that he is engaged while he thinks she's engaged?  It's really too much. 

But I do like the ending though.  I like that Captain Harville lets her know that Benwick and Louisa are engaged.  I love that she reads Frederick's letter, since it's such a lovely letter, and that she runs to find him (and it doesn't take her five minutes to get there, sorry 2007).  "I have thought many times about how to tell you this, but the pain of love unrequited rendered me silent.  Tell me not that I am too late. My love for you has never faltered." The way they embrace is so lovely. With relief and disbelief and happiness and the way you feel when you finally come home after such a long absence.  The song at the end is hauntingly beautiful and lovely.  And I adore the last scene of Frederick and Anne on the cliff, reunited at last.  

All in all, this movie could have been two separate and good movies, a modern comedy version of Persuasion that I would've enjoyed and the sweeping romantic version of Persuasion that this movie flickers in and out of throughout.  Either version would've been better than the mismatched tone of doing both at once, trying to lecture us on modern morals while bouncing back and forth between being a romantic period drama and a story of a drunk modern heroine.  It could have been great and instead it was greatly disappointing.  

Oh my goodness, this is gorgeous... it might be a great movie!

Wait, let's see what they do with the dialogue...

What?  You've said what?... 

Let's leave this disaster!

If you want to see where I rank it amongst the other Persuasion adaptations, or amongst all the Jane Austen adaptations, you can find them below.

Persuasion - Movie Adaptations Ranked

Ranking ALL the Austen Movie Adaptations

And if you still want more...

All Things Jane Austen

Detailed Discussions of all the Austen Movie Adaptations

To see my ranking of Every Jane Austen Movie Adaptation, go here.

For my discussion/ranking of all the Pride and Prejudice adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Persuasion Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Emma Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Sense and Sensibility Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Mansfield Park Adaptations, you can go here.
For my discussion/ranking of all the Northanger Abbey Adaptations, you can go here.

For my discussion of the Lady Susan Adaptation (Love and Friendship), you can go here. 

For my discussion/ranking of all the "Not-Quite-Austen's" you can go here.

Why it was an Unethical Classist Statement that Kim Kardashian wore Marilyn Monroe's Dress to the Met Gala

I don't normally pay any attention to celebrities.  Frankly, I'm too busy living my life, staying on top of bills and health demands, and trying to live in the moment with trips to the beach and relaxations away from a screen that I almost never know anything about what celebs are up to, or the latest buzzes in pop culture and social media.  But recently a friend wanted to know what I thought about the Kim Kardashian debacle surrounding the wearing of Marilyn Monroe's dress to the Met Gala

Screenshot of Tweet from Elite Daily on Twitter

I hadn't heard about it so she gave me a quick recap and wanted to know if I had any opinions.  We had a long chat, and I've since done some research and it turns out I have a lot of feelings and opinions on this subject.

Kim Kardashian wore the iconic dress that Marilyn Monroe wore to sing Happy Birthday to JFK, the president at the time.  Marilyn was stitched into the skin-tight nude silk dress right before going on stage to sing a sexy, sultry rendition of Happy Birthday to the President with whom she was having an affair.  This was May 19, 1962.  A few months later Marilyn was found dead in suspicious circumstances. The dress the song, the affair, it was all a scandal.  The silk dress had been dyed to match Marilyn's skin color so that it would appear as nude as possible and it was stitched on her that night as it was only meant to be worn by Marilyn one time.  Cut to modern times and the "happy birthday" dress is bought by Ripley's in 2016 for $4.81 million.  Next thing you know it's being worn to the Met Gala by Kim Kardashian who had to diet to fit into it, allegedly damaged it, and had to practice walking up the stairs in a way that wouldn't damage it before she changed into a replica.  

Normally, I really couldn't care less what Kim Kardashian wears or does.  It doesn't affect or bother me.  I don't hate her, or love her, I just don't care about what she does with her life.  So why do I have such strong opinions on this matter?  Well, I'll tell you.

To me, the question isn't whether Kim Kardasian should have worn it.  To me that is the wrong question. As far as I'm concerned the right question begins with the idea of whether or not the Marilyn Monroe "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" Dress is an object worth preserving or not.  It doesn't matter who owns the dress.  Yes, Ripley's owns the dress and could in fact burn it if they so chose.  But they had it on display as part of their collection of historical objects, making a statement to me that they believed it was worth preserving.  If it is, then it should be treated with care, not worn by anyone.  If it's not, then it doesn't matter who wears it.  

The thing that makes me believe it was unethical for Kim Kardashian to wear it, is the very fact that the public does not have access to the dress.  Normally this dress is put behind glass in a darkened room so that light will not decay it, and kept at a temperature controlled stable humidity.  You and me, mere peasants, are not allowed to even touch it.  So, there is no way in hell, they'd let the likes of you and me wear it.  

So, why does Kim Kardashian get to wear the dress?  

Screenshot of Tweet from Hyperallergic on Twitter

People were outraged, museums were outraged.  But they all seemed to be asking the wrong question.  How much did she pay to wear it?  Does Ripley's have the right to loan the dress?  Did it get damaged?  Not that these aren't important facts to examine in the case.  I just don't think they are the question at the heart of the problem.  Anyone who thinks about it for five seconds knows that wearing an old garment puts that garment at risk for damage.  And it is interesting to note whether or not she paid to wear it.  And questions of what right's a private collector has are interesting.  But none of those get at the heart of the matter and they are being used to deflect genuine criticism with explanations that are equally tangential to the heart of the matter.

Did she damage it?  They state the dress had previous damage before Kim K wore it and then maintain that Kim Kardashian's wearing of the dress didn't cause any extra or new damage to the dress.  But that doesn't matter.  The fragility of the dress is not debated.  The potential for harm/damage isn't denied.  So, the fact that it didn't get damaged is lucky and nice, but the dress should really never have been endangered in the first place.  That's like saying, well I didn't make the children wear seatbelts, but they survived the crash, so it's fine.  Yes, it's great they didn't get hurt, but they should never have been endangered in the first place.  Don't confuse the issue of what is the correct thing to do by a lucky outcome out of bad circumstances.    

Did she pay to wear it?  They claim that she did not, she did make donations and they maintain that's different.  But these aren't the right questions.  Why does Kim Kardashian have access to this dress at all?  

Why was she allowed to wear it at all?  She has no claim to the dress.  She's not a Marilyn Monroe descendent.  She's not wearing it to star in a movie about Marilyn where they wanted to use the real dress.  There is no reason Kim should have been allowed to wear it.  The only claim Kim Kardashian has to be able to wear the dress is a higher social status.  She has fame, wealth and an ass that people love to photograph.  So what gives her the right to wear the dress?  Nothing.  She has no more right to a piece of history than I do.  But she's allowed to wear it because she is famous and wealthy.  Did she pay to wear the dress?  No.  But she got to wear it because she has money and fame.  That more or less amounts to paying to wear the dress. 

Photo of Marilyn Monroe sourced from
Flickr - Antonio Marin Segovia

And I'm sorry, but that's some classist bullshit.  

American ideals believe in the idea that we are all individuals who are born with the same rights and ought to have the same inherent privileges.  And that's a great ideal to believe in and try to make more real in our world.  But allowing celebrities to have access to history in a way that allows them to endanger and damage that history is just reprehensible.  It undermines the ideal that all people are created equal and have the same inalienable rights.  It sends a message that they are more important than the public.  That what they want matters more.  That they can have anything they want because they are special, aka have more money and fame than the average person.  

I find this upsetting and not just because I think that history and historical objects should be preserved.  I find it an unethical statement of privilege for the rich and famous.  That only those with money and influence can have access to history and art and culture.  It starts to suggest that only those in the right class have certain rights and that only leads down a slippery slope of believing that some people are more equal than others.  

The very way in which Ripley's tried to defend the action of loaning the historic dress to Kim K to wear shows that they didn't believe it was a good thing for the dress.  They argue that she didn't rip the dress, it was already fragile and damaged.  Then they try to argue it was ok that she wore it, by saying that she practiced walking up the stairs so she wouldn't ruin it, and that conservators helping her into the dress wore gloves.  This just fills me with rage.    

If the dress was so fragile that it was already ripping at the seams, it is clear that it shouldn't have been worn.  It was already in fragile state and shouldn't have been further endangered.  Kim K had to go on a crash diet to even fit in it, yet another reason this was a bad idea.  She couldn't wear the dress, so what made anyone think it was ok for her to wear the dress?  

She had to practice walking up the stairs in a way that wouldn't rip the dress, convincing me further it was a bad idea to wear the dress.  It was so fragile and the dress was so tight on Kim Kardashian that she had to practice walking more carefully because there was a very real danger of her truly ripping the dress apart by climbing the stairs.  

AND the conservators who work with the dress weren't even allowed to touch it with bare hands.  But Kim wore it on her body, with all the natural oils that all human skin contains, touching the dress all over.  

Don't worry, they said, we took precautions, even the conservators who work with the dress didn't touch it.  We only let Kim Kardashian wear it so that she's the only one with the privilege to ruin it.

We normally keep it temperature and humidity controlled.  But we let Kim Kardashian sweat in it.

We normally keep it in a dark room so that light won't decay the fabric faster, but we let Kim Kardashian take it outside and have bright photographic strobe lights flash the dress repeatedly.  You and I, mere peasants, can't use flash photography in the museum to get a picture of the dress on a stand, but Kim gets to use strobes to have pictures of her wearing it.

Even the curators aren't allowed to touch it, but we let Kim Kardashian do all the things we know are bad for the dress.

Why?  Because she's famous.  Because she wanted to.  Because she can do anything she wants because she's rich and powerful.

What kind of repulsive statement is that?  

Yes, the dress is privately owned and they can loan it to anyone they want.  But the statement they made with this loan is that the average person is not worthy of touching the dress and Kim Kardashian is worthy of wearing it because she is of a higher class than everyone else.  I think that's just sick.

I'm not the only one who thinks this evinces entitlement.  A screenshot of a tweet from Foul Mouthed Mom agrees that entitlement is at the heart of the problem.  Original tweet can be found here. 

And why that dress to start with I ask?  Why did Kim Kardashian want to wear it that badly anyway? 

It's a dress associated with a scandal, she chose to wear it in the most scandalous way, by crash dieting and raising questions about the health of that as well as questions about damage to the dress.  What was the point of all that?  It seems to me she wanted to raise scandalous attention for herself and she knew that wearing a dress attached to a historical scandal in a scandalous way would get her immeasurable attention.  And it did, in what I find is the most egregious way to get attention possible.  She endangered a piece of history because she had the privilege and fame that allowed her the opportunity to do so.   

I read an article where she made noises about caring about American history and not wanting to damage the dress at all.  She tells the public that she didn't wear body make-up because she was concerned about the dress.  What a bunch of hogwash and nonsense.  If she truly cared about the history of the dress she wouldn't have worn it.  She would have worn a replica and been photographed next to the original dress not in it.  She demonstrated that she only cares about herself and what she wants, not preserving history.  

Ripley's claimed she was respectful saying:

"The museum added, “From extensive research to following guidelines such as no body makeup, only wearing the dress for the short red-carpet appearance, and making absolutely no alterations, she has become a steward — and added to — its history.”  Find the article here. 

Would a steward of history choose to wear the dress and risk damaging it?  I think not.  A steward?  My ass!  Sorry, her ass.  I'm sorry, but calling her a steward of history for this dress reminds me of the Steward of Gondor and this horrifying scene.  

Sure, she's a steward of history in the same way this man is a Steward of Gondor.  Sacrificing important pieces to his own selfish whims for no real gain.  So, I guess Ripley's is right, we can consider her a steward.  However if they meant to imply that she acted in the real definition of a steward then they're all wrong.  

Definition of Stewardship according to Merriam-Webster

The act of squeezing her body into a fragile historical garment (actually too small for her) that is normally deemed in need of exact temperature, humidity and light control is not an act of careful or responsible management of something entrusted to your care.  Had she truly been concerned about protecting the dress from potential damage by wearing it she wouldn't have worn it at all. 

To me, it is not a question of whether Kim Kardashian is worthy of Marilyn Monroe's dress, or whether she's tarnishing the memory of Marilyn Monroe, or whether it ruins the authenticity of the dress to be degraded by her wearing it, as I've seen others suggest.  If anyone is going to wear a scandalous dress, I guess it might as well be in another scandalous moment such as this.  To me, the right question is do you think the dress is an historical object worth preserving or not?  

Ripley's bought the dress in 2016 for $4.81 million dollars and had it displayed in a meticulous way that suggests they believe it should be preserved for posterity.  If that's what they think, then it shouldn't have been loaned to anyone ever, not Kim Kardashian, not anyone.  If they don't think it needs to be preserved it ought to be something others can wear on loan with equal (or I would urge greater) precaution.  

If the "Happy Birthday Mr. President" Marilyn Monroe dress is only available to loan to the wealthy celebrities, Ripley's is making a horrible statement about privilege and class.   Ripley's have made it very clear that they believe in a class system where only the rich and famous are entitled to free access to history and important pop culture objects.  And as far as I am concerned, that's just unethical. 

References for further reading.

Kim Kardashian did not damage Marilyn Monroe’s dress, Ripley’s says

Kim Kardashian is accused of damaging Marilyn Monroe's dress

Kim Kardashian Allegedly Damaged Marilyn Monroe Dress at Met Gala

The Story Behind Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday” Dress

Why Experts Say Kim Kardashian Shouldn’t Have Worn Marilyn Monroe Dress at Met Gala

The Tragic Full Story Behind The Death Of Marilyn Monroe