Kristen Lopez, Popcorn Disabilities, Bloomsbury Academic, November 2025.
Thank you, NetGalley and Bloomsbury Academic, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.
Prepare to question your responses to disability, not only as depicted in the films that are discussed, but also in relation to friends and strangers with a disability and government and non-government disability policies. Kristen Lopez has opened a discussion that, while concentrating on films, raises questions about a broad range of issues related to disability. In doing so, Lopez has created a narrative that is superbly knowable about numerous films. Some are obviously relevant; others raise important questions that conflict with understood meanings about disability and its depiction. It is the range of examples, the preparedness to see positive aspects amongst the dross, and to succinctly criticise the latter that gives this book its gravitas. I sometimes felt offended, after all I have some knowledge of the issues. Or so I thought! But this is another strength of Lopez’s work. Questioning one’s own responses to the films and her ideas is a valuable tool for making the most of the information in Popcorn Disabilities.
Some of the chapter titles provide useful clues to the issues Lopez sees in the films she describes. ‘Silent Saints and Tragic Monsters’ immediately reminds anyone who has seen films that include disability of the way in which people with disabilities have been portrayed. Why? Is the question such a reader and film goer must ask. ‘War and the rise of the Bitter Cripple’, again, an easily recognisable trope. In contrast, ‘Black and Disabled’ raises no such recognition. Again, why? ‘Disabled Horror and the Horror of Disability’ is such a profoundly distressing image, and so too, are the realities raised in the chapter. ‘Pretty Disabilities’ the opposite image to that in the previous chapter, also casts a wide swathe through audience reception of characters with a disability in films. As an audience can we acknowledge our own feelings about disability and the ‘costume’ it wears to placate us? See Books: Reviews for the complete review.
Australian Politics
Australian hearts are shattered – and some would-be leaders have broken them further*
Amy Remeikis
Dec 20, 2025, updated Dec 19, 2025
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and frontbenchers Andrew Bragg, Julian Leeser and Jonathon Duniam at Bondi Beach. Photo: AAP
There is no denying Australia’s sense of safety has been shattered. There is no denying antisemitism exists in Australia and that the fears of the Jewish community have been horrifically realised in a way that perhaps we will never recover from.
There is no denying that in the days and months to come we will learn more about what could, should and didn’t happen to prevent what was supposed to be an unimaginable tragedy in Australia.
Jewish fears of an attack have been very real, with schools, synagogues, sporting and religious events requiring additional security. There are few communities (Muslims an exception) that would ever understand the cultural and psychological impacts of that. For Jewish people, last Sunday’s massacre came on top of those effects.
But there is also no denying that rather than try to promote unity, healing and a national stand against all forms of hate, some have sought to exploit that tragedy amid a completely unprecedented moment in Australian political history.
Never before has there been an opposition that has blamed a government for an act of terror and mass murder. Before Sunday, the rule for both major political parties was to place national unity ahead of any political gain.
In modern political history, Labor has been in opposition when Australia has experienced these nation-shaking acts. It has, in response, held firm to whatever line the Coalition government of the day was promoting.
This included in 1996, when Labor immediately pledged supportfor the Howard government’s gun laws; 2002, when then-Labor leader Simon Crean travelled with John Howard to Indonesia after the Bali bombings that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.
In 2005, Kim Beazley followed Howard’s denial of reality and refused to label the Cronulla race riots as “racist”, as Howard had immediately responded by saying “I do not accept that there is underlying racism in this country. I have always taken a more optimistic view of the character of the Australian people”. The thinking at the time was that political unity was more important than sparking a political fight. Even if it meant denying an all-too-obvious reality.
After the 2014 Lindt Cafe siege, where two of the 18 hostages held by Man Haron Monis were killed after a 16-hour stand-off with police, Bill Shorten gave full support to Tony Abbott.
In 2019, when a right-wing Australian extremist murdered 51 Muslims at two mosques in New Zealand, Labor did not jump to question the government’s inaction on what had been growing security agency concerns about the right-wing threat in Australia.
Never has there been a time where politics has been played so blatantly, so openly at the expense of a terrified, traumatised community and the wider nation at large.
On social media, Aaron Smith has already comprehensively debunked some of the claims made by former Coalition Kooyong MP Josh Frydenberg, who announced his political comeback in the midst of a grief-stricken, but factually incorrect, speech in Bondi.
Sussan Ley immediately jumped to questioning what “values” migrants had brought to Australia, a continuation of a line she launched in November in the latest bid to save her political skin.
Andrew Hastie, now considered the most likely Liberal leadership contender, was more blunt in his interview on Sky News, declaring: “The real question is, who are we letting into our country?”
The hateful, radicalised man who led Sunday’s abhorrent terror attack, moved to Australia from India 27 years ago, when Howard was prime minister. His son, who has been charged with terror offences, was born in Australia.
There were migrants who lost their lives on Bondi Beach on December 14, including a Holocaust survivor. Ahmed al-Ahmed is a migrant who risked his life disarming a gunman. Reuven Morrison, a migrant, lost his life saving others by throwing bricks at the gunman, giving people precious minutes and seconds to get away. Russian Jewish couple Boris and Sofia Gurman died trying to stop the attack before it started.
The question isn’t “who are we letting into our country?”, it’s “why are we letting grasping politicians spread further hate and division?”.
Howard has always accepted the plaudits of being the man who changed Australia’s gun laws, even as his stated plan was never fully implemented (like the national gun register). But he proved he was willing to burn that legacy by labelling a rational response to a deadly attack – the tightening of gun laws – a “distraction”.
Howard launched his attack despite admitting in the very same press conference he was “not aware” of what national cabinet had decided on gun laws, “apart from a brief dot-point presentation as I left an interview at the Sky studio”.
Ley has been cheered on in the media for equating the hundreds of thousands of Australians who marched against a genocide with the Bondi terror attack against the Jewish community.
No rational, compassionate person would argue that antisemitism isn’t an issue in Australia, or that there have not been people who have used the legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions against Palestinians as cover to target Jewish people for being Jewish.
But to claim that protesting a genocide (a finding supported by the United Nations, genocide scholars and experts and every major humanitarian organisation) is akin to bearing responsibility for Sunday’s terror attack is to break with reality.
To claim that recognising the state of Palestine, in common with the majority of world nations, means the Albanese government has blood on its hands, is beyond rationality.
And no one, despite the breathless coverage, has been able to explain how a further crackdown on universities would have thwarted two disturbed men who had, at least from the reporting, no known contact with universities.
Accusations began flying before any information was known, with fingers immediately being pointed where it best served established interests.
Jewish voices urging for an end to the false equation and for unity have been largely ignored, as has another former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who has also urged unity.
There is no going back to where we were before December 14. Not only was Australia’s shaky sense of safety irrevocably shattered, the social contract Australians relied on their politicians to uphold, to place the nation’s needs above politics, has been destroyed by the Coalition.
How any of this helps Australia’s Jewish community, let alone the nation as a whole, is apparently not something they care to ask themselves.
Amy Remeikis is a contributing editor for The New Daily and chief political analyst for The Australia Institute
*The quotes have been omitted. They can be seen on x.
From a thoughtful Facebook post by Mick Farley
In the nine days since the Bondi mass shooting, almost every part of this tragedy has been dragged into someone’s political narrative. The victims, the community, the memorial, even the grief itself, all pulled apart and repurposed for point‑scoring.
All except one thing.
𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗹𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
I don’t vote for his party, so this isn’t about political alignment. It’s about conduct. While others have used the grief of a shattered community to advance their own agendas, the Prime Minister has been the only public figure who hasn’t tried to weaponise this moment.
He didn’t centre himself.
He didn’t retaliate when he was booed.
He didn’t escalate.
He didn’t redirect the grief toward a geopolitical argument.
He didn’t turn a memorial for victims of a mass shooting into a platform for anything other than respect.
In a week where almost everyone else has tried to claim this tragedy for their own purposes, 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝗻‑𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲. And that restraint, that refusal to exploit a community’s pain, has shown more genuine concern for the victims than any of the loud, opportunistic commentary that’s followed.
𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿.
Sometimes leadership is measured not by what someone says, but by what they refuse to turn into a spectacle.
#australia#humanity#AnthonyAlbanese#Albo#BondiBeach#jewishaustraliansAnthony Albanese#peace
American Politics
From: TRENDING US SHOWS, Facebook post
THE RETURN OF IDEALISM: “THE WEST WING” TRIUMPHANTLY RECLAIMS THE OVAL OFFICE!
In an era of political chaos and fractured narratives, the news we’ve all been waiting for has finally broken! The West Wing is making a triumphant return to our screens, serving as a powerful beacon of idealism in a world that needs it more than ever! 
Original creator Aaron Sorkin is reportedly back at the helm, bringing his signature rapid-fire dialogue and unwavering belief in the power of public service. 
But this isn’t just a nostalgic trip; the revival promises to tackle the complex challenges of 2025 with the same intellect and heart that made the original a global phenomenon. 
Fans are buzzing: which iconic cast members are returning to the halls of the White House? 
Can the “Bartlet spirit” survive in today’s digital age? As the nation watches, this series is set to prove that leadership and integrity never go out of style!
I am enjoying watching The West Wing as an antidote to the current American political scene. Lawrence O’Donnel, who wrote some episodes, and also appeared in one, showed the reunion of the actors celebrating the 25th anniversary. This was held at the White House when Joe Biden was President.
I also enjoyed reading and reviewing Joshua Stein, The Binge Watcher’s Guide to The West Wing Seasons One and Two, Riverdale Avenue Books The Binge Watcher’s Guide, August 2024.
Reading The Binge Watcher’s Guide to The West Wing while also watching the 2024 Democratic National Convention could not have been more propitious. At the same time Joshua Stein deftly outlines the real stories associated with some of the episodes, the way in which he points to criticisms of some of the positions held by President Clinton and demonstrates the demeaning way in which women were treated, thereby undermining the dream that this series seemed to portray, another possibility of a better West Wing is unfurling in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention. Together with the enthusiasm, joy, abounding optimism and inspiring speeches, there are words of caution and solid understanding of what it means to govern, to adopt the mantle of responsibilities of the presidency and West Wing staffers.
These realities are worth thinking about when reading The Binge Watcher’s Guide to the West Wing. As Michelle Obama opined, people running for office are not perfect, and cannot be expected to be. Committed Democrats must continue to work to win office, regardless of how well their contribution is acknowledged and publicly appreciated. Everyone cannot expect perfection from others – there is no time for pettiness. In this instance, she and others cautioned that working for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz to become President and Vice President is too important for such minor concerns. In short, the dream and essential reality being offered by this team must be supported. So, at the same time as reading that our West Wing heroes and heroines can be less than perfect, that the president’s ideals and policy initiatives are not always the height of integrity, and squirming at the way in which women’s contributions and lives are not valued it is also worth maintaining the wonder with which we watched The West Wing in our unadulterated enthusiasm to believe in a better political way and integrity beyond that possible in an environment in which to introduce worthwhile polices winning is necessary.
The forward explains the writer’s purpose and his belief about what politics is and what it should be. He began writing in 2015 and is informed by the political events of 2016. There is a section on The West Wing 25 years later, that includes President Joe Biden’s decision not to run for a second term of the presidency. Each chapter covers one or more episodes. The introduction to Season 1 includes the Reagan quote about the problem of government, the cynicism invoked by that idea and The West Wing as a reaction. Before setting out the details of each episode, the introduction highlights some of the issues that will be covered and Stein’s responses to these.
The book is well organised, with enough information to provide the main storylines, the subtexts, whether these were based on some real event and both the episode arch and the contribution the episode made to the longer-term dramatic arches. Details of the personnel such as the major characters; recurring characters; and the production staff covering the creator and writer, the director and producer, executive producer, the musician and composer of the West Wing theme, and other major contributors to the production staff are included. Recurring plot lines are listed. References to ‘Sorkinisms’, in reference to the creator and writer are a feature of the book. The detail in each chapter covering one or more episodes makes a wonderful read, as do Stein’s comments and the references to the moral and political imperatives associated with each event.
Reading The Binge Watcher’s Guide to the West Wing Seasons One and Two was an engaging return to the series which to date I have watched twice. With this book’s illumination of events that I might have seen differently I look forward to watching The West Wing again. In particular, the term ‘patriot’ used by Ainslie (a Republican staff member) about her Democratic Party colleagues now resonates more strongly with me, as an Australian reader who was new to the term then but has now heard it used almost unremittingly in the context of current American politics. Ainslie’s observation was prescient, suggesting that although The West Wing may not have worn well in some ways, it still has something to say that is worthwhile. Joshua Stein’s book makes a valuable contribution to understanding the series and is important in the current American political environment. It is also engaging, fun and a temptation to sentimental reminiscences – yes, a thoroughly enjoyable read. Thank you, Joshua Stein.
International Women’s Writing Online Conference
Jocelynne Scutt sent me the following about an interesting online conference, Registration is open and all are welcome.
Registration Open: International Women’s Writing Online Conference
“Women’s Writing Association” <womenswritingassociation@gmail.com>
Thursday 15th to Friday 16th January 2026
This online conference will be an interdisciplinary, cross-period, and global exploration of the role and impact of women’s writing, which is dedicated to the discussion of a broad range of women’s writing from any time, period, and place. We will discuss the popular and the literary; bestsellers and genres; poetry and prose; screen and script; writing for games and digital spaces; creative non-fiction; life-writing, biography, and memoir; and journalism and other forms of cultural production.
We will be thinking and talking about the pasts, presents, and futures of women’s writing on a global scale. We will explore women’s voices and artistic practices; the changing landscape of and about women’s writing; forms and mediums; the archival and the digital; textual and sexual politics; resistance and re-imaginings; interventions and intersections; and all of this across a wide range of disciplines, time periods, and texts.
We hope you will join us for this exciting event, which will bring together scholars, researchers, students, and enthusiasts to share their research, insights, and perspectives in an open and inclusive atmosphere.
Please register on one of the following links, which will also give you free membership of the new International Women’s Writing Association for 2025-26:
Full fee
International Women’s Writing Online Conference 15th – 16th January 2026 | Falmouth University
PGR/Unwaged
International Women’s Writing Online Conference 15th – 16th January 2026 (PGR) | Falmouth University
Excerpts from Dervla McTiernan’s email – more on her forthcoming book
In October we talked about the very first spark of the book (and you voted for your favourite idea … which, thankfully, was Three Boxes!), in November I took you through the edit, and this month we’ve reached the strange alchemy of covers, titles and blurbs.
Titles are everything.
Covers are everything too.
And then there’s the blurb (or cover copy, as it is sometimes called) … a few hundred words to explain a 100,000-word novel. A tiny smudge of a description that will hopefully (and oh that’s a small word for such big feelings!) make you, the reader, excited to read.
Here’s mine:
Someone’s been watching. Someone’s been waiting.
Alexis Turner walks into the police station to report an assault. By the end of the day, she is nowhere to be found.
Soon after she disappears, three identical packages arrive at three very different doors: a respected psychologist’s home, a socialite’s mansion, and a struggling single father’s run-down apartment. Inside, each gift is perfectly tailored to its recipient — and each will tear apart the life of its intended victim.
Detective Sergeant Judith Lee is smart and experienced, but this is no ordinary case. Someone with intimate knowledge of their targets is orchestrating these attacks. Someone who knows exactly how to hurt each victim where they’re most vulnerable. And she’s convinced that somehow, it connects back to Alexis Turner.
As she races to uncover the connection between three seemingly unrelated people, Judith discovers she’s no longer just investigating the game – she’s being forced to play.
God, it’s both terrifying and exciting to be sending that out into the world. What do you think? Does it match the original idea? I think it’s pretty close, though Judith wasn’t in my mind when I started out. If you picked this book up in a book shop, would you want to read it?
After the blurb, of course, comes the cover and the title.
As you know, I’ve been calling the book either Three Boxes, or The Box Book, both of which are very much working titles. I tend to put off the process of choosing a title for as long as possible, because it’s so difficult.
Together, a title and a cover need to convey: genre, tone, story
It is amazingly hard to come up with a title and a cover design that will do all of that. The cover needs to tell you what genre it is, so it needs to be similar to other covers, but it needs to be different enough that you, the reader, will notice it, and it needs to shout enough about the story that you, the reader, will want to pick it up! And the title needs to be cool and fresh and tell you something about the story and not be the same title as the hundreds of thousands of titles that have come before. Oof!
For this book, we’re going to have one cover for the US, Canada, Ireland and the UK, and a very different cover for Australia and New Zealand. It’s a little too soon to show you the Australia / New Zealand cover, but I’m excited to be able to share with you what’s happening in the US and Canada, as well as in the UK and Ireland.
I can’t tell you how many versions of various covers we went through before we landed on this. It probably looks deceptively simple, but believe me, every element of this cover has been considered and debated and revised about ten times. I think it’s the right cover for the US/Canada and Ireland/UK right now, and it hits all of the key elements (genre, tone and story)
But I’m curious about your thoughts! First of all, how important is a cover and a title to you when you buy a book? When was the last time you picked up a book in a book shop from an author who was totally new to you, on the strength of the cover alone? And what does my US cover say to you, about this book? Do you think it’s a good fit for the story I’ve been telling you about? Vote in the poll, or drop me an email and let me know.
Click here to vote in the poll!
In January I’ll be able to show you the Australian / New Zealand cover, which is very different, and it will be interesting to hear your thoughts on which one you prefer.
Cindy Lou wanders into Civic and finds a fun Mexican restaurant
Fonda is certainly not Wahaca, the Mexican restaurant I visited in Paddington Square a couple of years ago. However, it has a charm of its own – lovely staff, pleasant seating, even though it is on a busy corner, and food which is flavoursome and plentiful. And, it is very reasonably priced. I enjoyed the evening.
Creamery & Co
This is a pleasant coffee shop in Gunghalin. The staff are friendly and made my coffee to perfection. There is a good range of pastries, but the ricotta and spinach roll was my choice on this occasion.
Christmas Eve at The Duxton
A snack at The Duxton was a nice pre-Christmas Day occasion. It was sunny with a slight breeze; the service was quick and the food just right.
Robin's Room 