The Problem With Broadway Revivals: They Revive Gender Stereotypes, Too- Page 2

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 2/25/18 at 11:54pm

Oh yeah, I know it's about depriving choices, and that's what annoys me. It's dangerous thinking to try to "ban" every single piece of art that has something even remotely problematic in it. If you start doing that, then eventually, you have to strip away everything, and you have nothing left. Humanity is inherently problematic, and while it's never good to glorify that, it's also a reality that we need to face.

I don't like Dear Evan Hansen. I think the show is preachy for all the wrong reasons and does a terrible job at representing mental illness. However, I'm not about to go writing up pretentious thinkpieces and claiming the show is Bad and that we shouldn't put up productions of it anymore. I get that the show means something to other people, so if I ever take another trip to New York, I'll just skip seeing it and find something more fitting to my tastes. 

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 2/26/18 at 12:53am

Also, if you don't think Carousel romanticizes abuse, you're in a dreamworld. And this time it will be a man of color abusing a white woman. Perfect. 

JULIE JORDAN, the character romanticizes abuse. Not the show itself.

I swear to god, people do. not. understand. this musical.

It's meant to be disturbing. Julie Jordan doesn't recognize her "Me Too moment" cause that is accurate to the time period this takes place in. This show is steeped in her toxic love and moral grey. Carousel makes you uncomfortable because it is uncomfortable. It's a Sondheim musical before Sondheim stepped into the picture.

[bk]

Posted: 2/26/18 at 1:18am

Bettyboy72 said: "I still don't understand why women are just supposed to accept the outdated context, but other minorities are allowed outrage and changes are made. Should we accept Ching and Ling in Anything Goes just because racism and "chinky" characters were acceptablethen? Hell no.

Also, if you don't think Carousel romanticizes abuse, you're in a dreamworld. And this time it will be a man of color abusing a white woman. Perfect.

And the more I think about Waitress the more Im grossed out. I know its based on a film, but a marrieddoctor unethically beds his patient, who is in an physically and sexually abusive relationship. Yuck."

Then don't see those shows, pretty simple.  You are obviously bothered by what is featured in a huge number of older shows, movies, books, that are set in different times.  That's your loss, but doesn't give you or anyone else the right to ask for art to change.

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 2/26/18 at 7:51am

Outdated context?   Are there no more abusive men?  Or abusive relationships, for that matter?  Do "nice" people not stray from their marital vows?   I was unaware we had found Nirvana.

 

The important thing, in reference to Waitress, is that the lead character FINDS the strength to say no more, to stand up for herself and get herself in a better place.   

 

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 2/26/18 at 8:53am

After Eight said: "It's about depriving peopleof choices.It's about providing only what is deemed acceptable, and quashing/extirpating/banning everything else.

Sounds great, doesn't it?"

Sounds disgusting, and it's exactly what people do nowadays. Complaining about anything that doesn't conform to the current political climate. 

Completely oblivious to the art of storytelling. Whatever a character does in a certain situation in a certain show is by no means depriving any people of another opinion, or what is generally deemed acceptable, whatsoever.

 

Updated On: 2/26/18 at 08:53 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/26/18 at 7:00pm

JULIE JORDAN, the character romanticizes abuse. Not the show itself.

The show does as well through the character, the book and the score.  Liliom is a much better example of the "show" not romaticizing the abuse.

I swear to god, people do. not. understand. this musical.

Many do.  They just disagree with you.

It's meant to be disturbing. Julie Jordan doesn't recognize her "Me Too moment" cause that is accurate to the time period this takes place in. This show is steeped in her toxic love and moral grey. Carousel makes you uncomfortable because it is uncomfortable. 

It doesn't make you uncomfortable for long.  Only very briefly.  Rodgers & Hammerstein were careful to wrap the uncomfortable moments in layers of lush romantic melodies and/or cute light comedy.  They were much more successful and confident in showing discomfort with South Pacific and to a lesser degree, The King & I.

It's a Sondheim musical before Sondheim stepped into the picture.

It's an interesting way to try and shoehorn yet another unnecessary comparison to Sondheim, but it's not that at all.  It was very R&H.  If you really need a Sondheim-before-Sondheim-was-Sondheim comparison, try Of Thee I Sing, Lady in the Dark or Finian's Rainbow.

[CallMeAl2]

Posted: 2/26/18 at 7:08pm

Tim Carter said in the article:

“It is almost impossible to rescue the show from Julie Jordan’s apparent acceptance of domestic abuse,” Mr. Carter said. “The only sensible solution — in my view — is to accept the problem and then engage with it, rather than, say, sanitizing the work to remove the problem in the first place. Otherwise there’s no end to it.”

I agree. You accept the problem as is and then present it to the audience through your own modern point of view. That's the way we have been doing Merchant of Venice and Othello for ages. You don't have to change the work itself - you change how you feel about it and what it means in today's world.

When I was in Jr High I read Gone With the Wind for the first time. I loved the story, but the racial attitudes made me very uncomfortable. I still had older relatives who's views weren't all that far from the white folks in the novel.

I have re-read the book several times since then, most recently last year. Much time has passed, and those old relatives and their ideas are gone and have been repudiated.

Of course the book is still the same, but it's not uncomfortable now as much as it is instructive. Rather than see it as trying to say that this is an accurate portrayal of black and white people during and after the Civil War, I now see it as a glimpse at how southern white people in the early 1930s saw the world and their history. These were their myths and stories.

Sometimes we look at something like segregation and wonder "What were they thinking?". Well, GWTW is what they were thinking. Segregation was accepted because they had a very particular and isolated culture with a specific view of the world. It doesn't justify or excuse anything, but it does on a human level explain what was going on in their heads.

It's the same with Julie Jordan and Carousel. We need to face the fact that we used to be those people that thought such abuse was only a minor sin. Art holds the mirror up to us and that is an uncomfortable place to be. Good. We could use some discomfort with our R&H songs.

The same goes for MFL. As for Pretty Woman, I got nothing. I have no idea why that thing exists.

Updated On: 2/26/18 at 07:08 PM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 1:46pm

As somebody who sympathizes with the viewpoints expressed in the article, I think shows like Carousel should be seen and discussed. I also think the problem with dissecting art with authors who obviously had good intentions is that it's painted in such a black/white manner in which either you critique the hell out of it to the point of missing any sort merit the piece has or you have traditionalists who cannot accept any sort of critique that may exist and wants to shut down any discussion.

I think real dialogue can come out of these pieces and a piece like Carousel is definitely a piece that is worthy to be the center of discussion. It is art and one Broadway's best offerings.

I also felt the My Fair Lady team was very articulate in their responses and I respect the hell out of them for being brave to tackle it head on. Of course, My Fair Lady, knowing where Shaw stood and how he wanted his audiences to root for Eliza's independence from Higgins and was taken aback that that didn't quite work out the way he wanted, is a much easier piece to discuss in this context and to defend.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 1:59pm

I think real dialogue can come out of these pieces and a piece likeCarouselis definitely a piece that is worthy to be the center of discussion. It is art and one Broadway's best offerings.

This would make sense if it was promoted with sensitivity and with the intention to generate discussion about how women were treated then in relation to present times. To simply put it out there as a classical romance makes the producers and creative team highly offensive and insensitive imo. It's not like everyone going in knows what they're in for.

I like the music but watching this man beat up these women is problematic. If you want to sympathize with him because he's a tormented character, why no sympathy for a tormented man who would do the exact same today? 

 

 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 2:34pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "As somebody who sympathizes with the viewpoints expressed in the article, I think shows likeCarouselshould be seen and discussed. I also think the problem with dissecting art with authors who obviously had good intentions is that it's painted in such a black/white manner in which either you critique the hell out of it to the point of missing any sort merit the piece has or you have traditionalists who cannot accept any sort of critique that may exist and wants to shut down any discussion.

I think real dialogue can come out of these pieces and a piece likeCarouselis definitely a piece that is worthy to be the center of discussion. It is art and one Broadway's best offerings.

I also felt theMy Fair Ladyteam was very articulate in their responses and I respect the hell out of them for being brave to tackle it head on. Of course,My Fair Lady, knowing where Shaw stood and how he wanted his audiences to root for Eliza's independence from Higgins and was taken aback that that didn't quite work out the way he wanted, is a much easier piece to discuss in this context and to defend."

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2, I really really like your nuanced analysis. As a person who prides himself on his progressive views, I’m sympathetic to not supporting art or entertainment that seems to advance abuse. But I also think there is something to revisiting morally flawed works of the art from the past. It can lead to instructive conversations. As someone once said, the best disinfectant is sunlight. I’m reminded of a few years ago when a new version of Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer was redacted to change every n-Word to a another word (I think it was “slave&rdquo. As one black comedian said, I’d rather be called n***** than slave. But also, we can choose to read the book as it was written and discuss it (I believe Twain didn’t think the n-Word was appropriate, but wanted to tell the story in a way that was true for its time period). He was trying to illuminate the moral decay, not hide it. I’ll admit I’m not familiar with Carousel and it seems like this work of art has morally flawed view of abuse. I will say that I thought the recent revival of The King and I was thrilling. I wasn’t overly familiar with the show (had never even seen the movie) and thought they did a good job of balancing being truthful to the source material while mitigating some of the problematic elements. 

[BuddyStarr]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 3:02pm

dramamama611 said: "Outdated context? Are there no more abusive men? Or abusive relationships, for that matter? Do "nice" people not stray from their marital vows? I was unaware we had found Nirvana.

The important thing, in reference to Waitress, is that the lead character FINDS the strength to say no more, to stand up for herself and get herself in a better place.
"

I had some problems with Waitress.  Most of the show was about the abuse.  it's only in the last 10-15 when everything becomes 'bright and cheery"  it was very awkward to watch that for 2 hours. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 4:55pm

blaxx said: "

I think real dialogue can come out of these pieces and a piece likeCarouselis definitely a piece that is worthy to be the center of discussion. It is art and one Broadway's best offerings.

This would make sense if it was promoted with sensitivity and with the intention to generate discussion about how women were treated then in relation to presenttimes. To simply put it out there as a classical romance makes the producers and creative team highly offensive and insensitive imo. It's not like everyone going in knows what they're in for.

I like the music but watching this man beat up these women is problematic. If you want to sympathize with him because he's a tormented character, why no sympathy for a tormented man who would do the exact same today?



"

I think that is a very fair point and it is really dependent on the production team. If a production just plays it straight, I think there is still value in discussing how art and society has looked at domestic and spousal abuse. I remember being in law school and studying the model penal code in Crim. The MPC was a very liberalizing model for states to adopt to update their outdated criminal laws created in, if I remember correctly, the 1962, and in a lot of ways it was. However, one subject in which it was totally outdated and many states (if not all) have become much more up-to-date about was the subject of rape. MPC still defined rape as the perpetrator being a man and the victim being a woman and penetration was required and force, threat, etc. was required outside the context of the female victim being unconscious or under the age of 10. Most surprisingly was that there was a marital exception meaning a husband could never be charged with raping his wife. 

Thank goodness many states adopted much more updated laws on rape. However, I found that to be very telling in the attitudes people had regarding spousal abuse and assault on wives during that period.

As for having no sympathy for troubled people who commit crimes, I studied criminal justice system and the school-to-prison pipelines and how our criminal justice system preys on those who are most vulnerable to commit crimes (often times these are non-violent, petty crimes) and how our society is structured in a way to make recidivism more probable. I also studied the states based on race, gender, residence, etc. So I try to have more sympathy than most for people who commit crimes while knowing there are real victims out there who also deserve justice. I think one can understand people but also believe they deserve to face the consequences of their actions.

Miles2Go2 said: "

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2, I really really like your nuanced analysis. As a person who prides himself on his progressive views, I’m sympathetic to not supporting art or entertainment that seems to advance abuse. But I also think there is something to revisiting morally flawed works of the art from the past. It can lead to instructive conversations. As someone once said, the best disinfectant is sunlight. I’m reminded of a few years ago when a new version of Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer was redacted to change every n-Word to a another word (I think it was “slave&rdquo. As one black comedian said, I’d rather be called n***** than slave. But also, we can choose to read the book as it was written and discuss it (I believe Twain didn’t think the n-Word was appropriate, but wanted to tell the story in a way that was true for its time period). He was trying to illuminate the moral decay, not hide it. I’ll admit I’m not familiar with Carousel and it seems like this work of art has morally flawed view of abuse. I will say that I thought the recent revival of The King and I was thrilling. I wasn’t overly familiar with the show (had never even seen the movie) and thought they did a good job of balancing being truthful to the source material while mitigating some of the problematic elements."

Thank you for this nice response. Carousel is problematic in a lot of ways but at the same time, I don't believe Hammerstein nor Rodgers intended their work to be seen as some sort of endorsement of spousal abuse. I do think it will take a production company who is talented at balancing the text and Billy's character and Julie's character with balancing what we know of domestic violence today. I think the wrong way to go about it is to not acknowledge that we have grown in our knowledge of this issue and we should work to fight the problem because it is still a problem we are facing today and much more prevalent than people even realize despite all of the attention this issue has received. 

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 04:55 PM

[binau]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 4:57pm

BuddyStarr said: "dramamama611 said: "Outdated context? Are there no more abusive men? Or abusive relationships, for that matter? Do "nice" people not stray from their marital vows? I was unaware we had found Nirvana.

The important thing, in reference to Waitress, is that the lead character FINDS the strength to say no more, to stand up for herself and get herself in a better place.
"

I had some problems with Waitress. Most of the show was about the abuse. it's only in the last 10-15 when everything becomes 'bright and cheery" it was very awkward to watch that for 2 hours."

I mean, the whole point of the show is that she is in this horrible, abusive relationship and is trying to get out. And then she does. We are on her side. Isn't that something to be celebrated? (I take the point someone made about the questionable ethics of the doctor/patient relationship though. That is something that hasn't been ok for decades). 

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 04:57 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 5:08pm

Also, I personally did not find Waitress offensive. However, I do understand my that as a gay white make, I’m prone to viewing things unconsciously through the lens of my white male privilege. While certainly not the deepest exploration of spousal abuse, at no point did I feel the show endorsed domestic violence of any sort. And in this era of the #metoo movement, its themes are also sadly still entirely relevant now as they sadly would’ve been during any previous era.

[binau]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 5:21pm

Are you being sarcastic or serious? First, why have you mentioned the word 'white' in that paragraph? In this context especially (Waitress the musical), it is not relevant at all that you may be white or not. It might be relevant that you are a 'male' - but because we are humans and we (most of us at least) have empathy, it is possible to use our cognition to understand the perspective of others without being female. It is an absolute myth propagated by our insane identity-politics cohort that you can't understand someone's experience unless you belong to a particular oppressed group and have 'lived experience'. And indeed, belonging to a particular oppressed group can sometimes distort someone's perception just as much about a particular event/situation as not belonging to a particular group (this is why for a while now, it is unfortunately common for people to suggest racism and sexism exist in situations where they simply do not). Thus, being an 'oppressed minority' does certainly not make you an authority of whether a particular situation is 'problematic' or 'offensive'. 

Biases will exist in different ways whether you interpreting a situation from the perspective of a male or female - and the way to move forward is to try and adopt the scientific method and use reasoning/logic to overcome these biases. Not to dismiss someone's opinion and take another one's as 'true' because of their identity. This is a very dangerous and non-scientific precedent. 

But finally, if we want to 'swallow the kool aid' and suggest that one's own identity really is absolutely pivotal to how we interpret the world (it is, but not as much as they'd have us believe) then - as gay men - one of the LEAST privileged groups in the whole world - we must not let people suggest our perspective comes from a place of 'privilege'. We are not privileged. 

 

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 05:21 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 5:40pm

I only offered up my whiteness as another example where I have privilege that may unconsciously bias me in certain situations. I understand it may not be relevant here. I also consider myself a very empathetic person. Part of that, for me, means being willing to consider how my privilege affects my views as much as I try to not let my privilege affect them. It’s certainly not a given that a person with privilege cannot put himself or herself in the shoes of the others. I like to think I do that daily. I also think part of that empathetic response is being willing to take a step back and consider whether I have allowed my privilege to interfere with my views without meaning to.

[binau]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 5:51pm

I honestly don't think there is a need (or that it is scientifically accurate) to elevate yourself as some kind of amazingly privileged, well-off person because you happen to be white and male. Being white and male can offer some advantages, but your 'privilege' in society is based on so much more than your group identity, and in fact is probably more largely explained by individual differences. For example, your intelligence especially (which will have a major impact on your education potential, job performance and career success), personality factors (if you happen to be highly conscientious, out-going and friendly you will have better outcomes), socioeconomic status of your family, region where you grew up, friends, health - it is amazingly complex. The concept of 'privilege' is so utterly overly simplistic they make it sound like if you are a white straight male you've good all the tools you need to win at life. You just simply don't. It's not how the world works. If ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, there are certainly advantages to being a white, straight male. But there is much more variation WITHIN identity groups than BETWEEN identity groups that we seem to only focus on the, no pun intended, skin deep issues. I suppose the concept of 'intersectionality' has helped add complexity but seems to be used in a rather inconsistent way and is more about the intersection of group identifies rather than considering individual differences. 

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 05:51 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 5:56pm

I’d also say I found the conclusion of Waitress more believable than the quick conclusion of the recent revival (didn’t see the original production) of The Color Purple. As much as I enjoyed the show, it just seemed like it wrapped everything up too quickly in a way that seemed unrealistic to me. I did not feel that way about the Spielberg movie or the source material by Alice Walker, although admittedly the book was more in diary/letters form (which was part of its genius).

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 6:13pm

qolbinau said: "I honestly don't think there is a need (or that it is scientifically accurate) to elevate yourself as some kind of amazingly privileged, well-off person because you happen to be white and male. Being white and male can offer some advantages, but your 'privilege' in society is based on so much more than your group identity, and in fact is probably more largely explained by individual differences. For example, your intelligence especially (which will have a major impact on your education potential, job performance and career success), personality factors (if you happen to be highly conscientious, out-going and friendly you will have better outcomes), socioeconomic status of your family, region where you grew up, friends, health - it is amazingly complex. The concept of 'privilege' is so utterly overly simplistic they make it sound like if you are a white straight male you've good all the tools you need to win at life. You just simply don't. It's not how the world works. If ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, there are certainly advantages to being a white, straight male. But there is much more variation WITHIN identity groups than BETWEEN identity groups that we seem to only focus on the, no pun intended, skin deep issues. I suppose the concept of 'intersectionality' has helped add complexity but seems to be used in a rather inconsistent way and is more about the intersection of group identifies rather than considering individual differences."

Thanks for the respectful conversation. I think we’ll just simply have to agree to disagree. I certainly agree that just because someone is born white or male, doesn’t mean that person will necessarily have an easier life. Some of that relates to the intersectionality that you mention. But science (research) does tell us that our society is much more forgiving of the faults of those with privilege while being more punitive towards those with less privilege. I’ve seen this in my own life where perhaps I’ve received preferential treatment in some instances due to my whiteness and maleness while perhaps also receiving unfair treatment due to being gay.  One example of privilege is the rate and severity with which black and brown young men are incarcerated when compared to white men with similar offenses. I’d also say privilege goes the other way too. Those with privilege may have their desirable traits enhanced while those without privilege may have to go further to receive acknowledgement. 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 11:19pm

I find it flabbergasting that anyone would say that Carousel the show romanticizes spousal abuse or domestic violence, or even that the character Julie herself romanticizes the abuse.  

Spoiler below: 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

When Billy kills himself, Carrie tells Julie that she is better off now (with Billy dead), and asks Julie "am i right?", and Julie answers her "you're right, Carrie".  The character herself finally realizes that she is better off with her husband dead, even with a baby on the way.  It's hard for the show or the character to be much more against abuse than recognizing that the wife is better off after the abusive husband has killed himself. 
 

End spoiler

 

As for the person who referenced "watching this man beat all these women" in reference to Carousel, it is clear that the person has never actually seen Carousel.  Only one woman (not plural women) were ever hit by Billy, and it is not shown at all (hence we don't "watch" it) - it is only talked about after the event happens once offstage.  And it is handled pretty realistically - lots of people today stay in abusive relationships because of the apology/kindness/loving phases that punctuate the abusive phases.  If someone were always cruel and violent, it is less likely that people would enter into relationships with them at all, but people stay (even today, not just in the late 1800's when Carousel was set) in abusive relationships because the abuse is followed by an apology, a promise to change, and kind, loving treatment.  Until the next time the whole cycle repeats. Recognizing this reality does not "romanticize" abuse - it explains it and depicts it realistically.  It answers the age-old question "why don't you just leave him?", which Carrie asks her friend Julie, and which people today still ask adults in abusive relationships.

Or the abuse victims "stay" because they are children who are entirely financially and legally dependent on their parents and cannot just walk away as much as they might want to and as much as they recognize from an extremely young age that the cycle will keep repeating forever. or until they can reach adulthood, become financially independent, and escape.  

 It is an issue that lots of people still have to deal with today, and our stories deserve to be told as much as the stories of people privileged enough never to have had to deal with domestic violence as part of their upbringing. The story is sadly just as relevant today as ever. And the message of hope that it ends with, with the local doctor giving the graduation speech that Louise can make what she wants of her life and not be held back by the legacy of her parents, and not have her life be hurt permanently by the legacy because she is free to build her own life as she chooses, is an absolutely critical and uplifting message for abuse victims to hear.  It gives hope that a better life is possible ahead, even with a rocky start that she couldn't control. Also a timely message today. 

 

 

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 11:19 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 11:35pm

adam.peterson44 said: "I find it flabbergasting that anyone would say that Carousel the show romanticizesspousal abuse or domestic violence, or even that the character Julie herself romanticizes the abuse.

Spoilerbelow:



End spoiler



As for the person who referenced "watching this man beat all these women" in reference to Carousel, it is clear that the person has never actually seen Carousel. Only one woman (not plural women) were ever hit by Billy, and it is not shown at all (hence we don't "watch" it) - it is only talked about after the event happens once offstage. And it is handled pretty realistically - lots of people today stay in abusive relationships because of the apology/kindness/loving phases that punctuate the abusive phases. If someone were always cruel and violent, it is less likely that people would enter into relationships with them at all, but people stay (even today, not just in the late 1800's when Carousel was set) in abusive relationships because the abuse is followed by an apology, a promise to change, and kind, loving treatment. Until the next time the whole cycle repeats. Recognizing this reality does not "romanticize" abuse - it explains it and depicts it realistically.

Or the abuse victims"stay" because they are children who are entirely financially and legally dependent on their parents and cannot just walk away as much as they might want to and as much as they recognize from an extremely young agethat the cycle will keep repeating forever.or until they can reach adulthood, become financially independent, and escape.

It is an issue that lots of people still have to deal with today, and our stories deserve to be told as much as the stories of people privileged enough never to have had to deal with domestic violence as part of their upbringing. The story is sadly just as relevant today as ever. And the message of hope that it ends with, with the local doctor giving the graduation speech that Louise can make what she wants of her life and not be held back by the legacy of her parents, and not have her life be hurt permanently by the legacy because she is free to build her own life as she chooses, is an absolutely critical and uplifting message for abuse victims to hear. It gives hope that a better life is possible ahead, even with a rocky start that she couldn't control. Also a timely message today."

I do wish you’d have used the spoiler alert feature (which totally hides the spoiler unless you touch it) as I received this in my email and read the first line of the spoiler before I stopped reading. Nevertheless, your synopsis makes me want to use my Delta Skymiles and Hilton points to fly into NYC just to see this. I just might do it!!! 

Updated On: 2/27/18 at 11:35 PM

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 11:51pm

Sorry about that - i have tried before (and again tonight) to use the spoiler tag feature by highlighting the text that i want to hide, and selecting the spoiler option in the editing box, and the spoiler box appears, but without the text inside.  Sorry that the manual labels don't hide the text effectively.  If anyone knows how to correctly use the feature, i'll try to edit what i posted to incorporate it. 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/27/18 at 11:55pm

adam.peterson44 said: "Sorry about that - i have tried before (and again tonight) to use the spoiler tag feature by highlighting the text that i want to hide, and selecting the spoiler option in the editing box, and the spoiler box appears, but without the text inside. Sorry that the manual labels don't hide the text effectively. If anyone knows how to correctly use the feature, i'll try to edit what i posted to incorporate it."

You have to select the spoiler option first then type your spoiler info inside the box itself. It won’t do it for you. 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 12:04am

Thanks.  Edited to add the spoiler box.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 12:07am

adam.peterson44 said: "Thanks. Edited to add the spoiler box."

Thank you!!!