{"id":36,"date":"2007-04-26T19:23:30","date_gmt":"2007-04-27T02:23:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/2007\/04\/26\/you-are-what-you-eator-rather-what-you-represent\/"},"modified":"2007-04-26T19:23:30","modified_gmt":"2007-04-27T02:23:30","slug":"you-are-what-you-eator-rather-what-you-represent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/2007\/04\/26\/you-are-what-you-eator-rather-what-you-represent\/","title":{"rendered":"You are what you eat…or rather, what you represent."},"content":{"rendered":"

A lot of thoughts were twirling around in my brain after watching the movie Vertigo<\/em>. But the one that really wouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t leave my mind was the idea that the protagonist of the movie Johnny Ferguson is in love with a non-existent person. He is in love with an idea as opposed to a living, breathing human being. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m going to use Andrew Bazin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s essays “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” and “The Myth of Total Cinema” to discuss Judy Barton\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline Elster, the woman with whom Johnny Ferguson falls in love, and to what extent Judy actually becomes<\/em> the person, or idea, that she pretends to be.<\/p>\n

Here we go.<\/p>\n

In her attempt to represent Madeline Elster, Judy Barton transforms herself into an entirely new person with whom Johnny Ferguson falls in love. Johnny falls in love with a representation<\/em> of Madeline Elster\u00e2\u20ac\u201dnot Madeline herself. He never actually knew Madeline. Johnny always loved Judy, but not Judy for herself. He loves Judy as she represents Madeline<\/em>. Madeline never actually dies; at least not the Madeline that Johnny falls in love with. That Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthat construct\u00e2\u20ac\u201dstill exists.<\/p>\n

Johnny fell in love with an idea. I feel like we all do that sometimes when we fall in love with someone without really knowing them very well. We fall in love with the idea <\/em>of them. We fall in love with the person that we think they are. Everyone puts forth a representation<\/em> of themselves that isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t necessarily accurate. Or, we invent our own representations of people.<\/p>\n

When people initially fall for someone, often they put forth their best side. Or worse, they put forward the side of themselves that they think the person they are falling for will be attracted to. <\/em>It is very difficult for people to be confident enough with themselves to say, “Hey\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthis is me, take me for who I am\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6take me baby, or leave me.” (Rent\u00e2\u20ac\u201djust go with it). That requires an absurd level of self-confidence. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not that people usually completely change their personality and appearance to get someone (though this is exactly<\/em> what Judy does) but that people consciously or even subconsciously repress certain aspects of themselves that they perceive as unattractive (or think that the person they are pursuing will deem unattractive) and emphasize personality traits they like about themselves (or know that the other person will find endearing). In Vertigo<\/em>, Judy eventually represents herself as another person in order to be loved. This post<\/font><\/u><\/a> discusses how people sometimes change themselves in order to get someone to like them. I also really like Mary Caroline\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s thoughts<\/font><\/u><\/a> on Midge. I agree that Midge as well as Judy is willing to change herself in order to be loved. I just don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t think that she understands exactly how.<\/p>\n

People naturally customize<\/em> themselves when they want to be liked. People are very complicated! (duh, okay Robyn). They exist on so many different levels! There is so much to the personality of another person, and so many sides to discover. It is only natural bring out particular aspects of your personality when you want someone to like you. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s easy to do, too, because unless you are actually living with the person you are dating, you can highlight portions of yourself because you have limited contact with that person. They don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have access to all of you. And you don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have to give it to them.<\/p>\n

But this is a dangerous tactic, because eventually when two people get to know each other well enough, they will also know the parts of their personalities that aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t so endearing. And they (hopefully) will love each other for their faults as well as their charms, and love the annoying things the other person does and the weird quirks they have.<\/p>\n

Or they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re going to leave.<\/p>\n

So what if someone decides to keep the image they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve created for themselves. Maybe they pretend to be a pious, unrighteous person when they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re actually a big creep, in order to get the guy or girl. What happens if they just go on pretending? What does that mean? Are you who you pretend to be? Are you the person you represent? If you pretend to be a good, caring, selfless person long enough, you sort of become a good, caring, selfless person. Brad expands in his post<\/font><\/u><\/a> on the idea that we might just all be the products of what we produce. Believing this makes every little action you do incredibly important, because what you do is what you are. People can decide who they want to be, you know. We can make those decisions. The mind is a really powerful thing (and the prize for Captain Obvious goes once again to Robyn!) But seriously. You\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re all sitting at your computers right now reading this and thinking\u00e2\u20ac\u201dno way. Each person has a specific, inherent (or influenced) nature that they will always come back to.<\/p>\n

Maybe. Maybe. But I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m doubtful, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll be honest. I think people can make themselves whoever they want to be. You can make yourself think<\/em> whatever you want to think. And you can convince<\/em> yourself of who you are. You can essentially create yourself.<\/p>\n

The human mind isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t set in stone. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s adaptable and moldable like playdoe. (Playdoe!) The mind is like the mantle of the Earth. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a plastic\u00e2\u20ac\u201dit\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s elastic. It stretches and bends. You can sculpt it however you want. Eventually, we become our representations. All we are<\/em> is a representation. Figuring this out is terrifying, because all of a sudden you realize that your entire existence is just a representation, and you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re not pretending anymore. The representation of yourself is<\/em> you. You are<\/em> the person you represent.<\/p>\n

We see an example of this sort of creating in Portrait of Jennie<\/em>. Eben tries to create a representation of a person through art. We talked in class how upon the completion of the painting, Jennie asks Eben, “Is that really me?” He replies, “It is<\/em> you.” His portrait is more than merely a representation of Jennie. The portrait is Jennie. It is Jennie as Eben is able to capture her on canvas. It is a reality in itself, not merely a copy. Art, even when it is representing life, is life itself.<\/p>\n

In Vertigo<\/em>, the stakes are much higher. Akin to Portrait of Jennie<\/em>, in Vertigo<\/em> a character tries to represent another character. Except instead of representing the character through the medium of art, a character is represented through the medium of another person<\/em>. In Portrait of Jennie<\/em>, Eben attempts to represent Jennie on a canvas. In Vertigo<\/em>, Judy attempts to represent Madeline through herself<\/em>. In the ultimate act of representation, Judy becomes<\/em> Madeline.<\/p>\n

Judy originally pretends to be Madeline Elster so that Mr. Elster can murder his wife and everyone will suspect that the murder is suicide. In order to make this work, Judy has to pretend to be inhabited by the ghost of Carlotta, so it appears perfectly reasonable when she jumps off a church tower. So, in a nutshell, Judy Barton is representing Madeline Elster who is representing Carlotta.<\/p>\n

Phew.<\/p>\n

Oh my gosh, before I continue can I just say that the actress Kim Norvak plays the role of Judy Barton who plays the role of Madeline Elster who is inhabited by the ghost of Carlotta.<\/p>\n

Representation upon representation upon representation upon representation. Crazy<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Okay, anyway, back to what I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m trying to say. Johnny falls in love with Mr. Elster\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s wife, Madeline. Except\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand this is the kicker\u00e2\u20ac\u201dJohnny never actually meets Elster\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s wife Madeline. He falls in love with Judy Barton\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline! He never loves Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u201dhe has always loved Judy! But that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s inaccurate, because he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s never met Judy either (until later in the movie). Johnny falls in love with a non-existent person. Tyler suggests<\/font><\/u><\/a> in his blog the possibility that Judy doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t exist at all, and is a complete construct in Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s head. I think Tyler meant that Judy might literally not exist, but I want to argue that even though Judy is alive as a human being\u00e2\u20ac\u201dshe ceases to exist when she gives up her identity, because we are all only concept. Madeline-as-represented-by-Judy isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t real,<\/em> she\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s an idea that Judy and Mr. Elster created to fool Johnny. Johnny loves a complete construct. And not only a construct of Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u201dJohnny falls in love with Judy while she is pretending to be Madeline while pretending that Madeline is possessed by Carlotta.<\/p>\n

Therefore, when Madeline dies, Johnny hasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t actually lost the woman he loves to death. He lost the woman he loves when Judy stopped representing her. When Judy reverts back to being Judy instead of Madeline-inhabited-by-Carlotta, the woman that Johnny loves stops existing.<\/p>\n

Until (duh duh duuuuh) he brings her back.<\/p>\n

This is exactly like when people fall for movie stars because of the role that they play in a movie. Hell\u00e2\u20ac\u201dI\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m sure some people out there are in love with Kim Novak in the role she played as Judy\/Madeline\/Carlotta. But they don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know Kim Novak! Have they talked to Kim Novak? Shared a cup of coffee? No! But people have these obsessions, and their love for the representation of someone is quite real. But the people they love don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t actually exist<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This reverts back to the same idea in Portrait of Jennie<\/em>. Leighton comes to this “startling conclusion” in her commentary on Vertigo<\/font><\/u><\/a>. She mentions that both Eben and Scottie manage to fall in love with non-existent people. Eben is in love with Jennie\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6.but it isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t certain whether or not Jennie is actually real. She is certainly elusive enough\u00e2\u20ac\u201dshe clearly doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t exist in the same time frame as Eben, her age constantly shifts, the facts don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t line up, and we never know exactly where she is. We can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t pin her down. “Where I come from, nobody knows\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6.” Yet regardless of her reality, or rather lack thereof, Eben loves Jennie. His love is a certainty. It doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter if she\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s an image, or a ghost, or a construct of his own mind. It simply doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter. He loves Jennie anyway. Carmen also talks in her blog<\/font><\/u><\/a> about how both Eben and Scottie (am I the only one who thinks of him as Johnny?) “fall into the trap” of loving something that isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t real. She reminds us that even though Eben and Scottie are fictional characters, we are all capable of falling in love with an idea.<\/p>\n

Johnny similarly loves Madeline in Vertigo<\/em>. So what if the Madeline that he loves isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t really real? She is real for Johnny. But then this goes back to our good friend Stanley Fish. Is perception the only reality? What is going on here? In Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline, “We no longer know the difference between subjective and objective, imaginary and real, physical and mental\u00e2\u20ac\u201dnot because we are connected, but because there is no longer a secure place from which to ask these questions” (“Film and Reality” 140).<\/p>\n

What is death when Johnny isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t in love with a living, breathing person? Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s death matters not at all. As Midge so perceptively says to the Doctor when Johnny is in the mental hospital,<\/p>\n

“He was in love with her\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6he still is.”<\/p>\n

Just as Jennie\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s death makes no difference to Eben in Portrait of Jennie<\/em>, Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s death is utterly irrelevant to Johnny. He doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t need a living Madeline to be in love. He just has to create her. Since Eben and Johnny are both obsessed with an idea, they try to represent their idea in a type of art. Johnny decides to recreate his conception of Madeline in Judy so that his love once again has a living, breathing shell. In this way, both Eben and Johnny are artists. They are both trying to represent a woman using different mediums.<\/p>\n

Bazin says in his essay “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” that “the quarrel over realism in art stems from a misunderstanding, from a confusion between the aesthetic and the psychological, between true realism, the need that is to give significant expression to the world both concretely and is essence, and the pseudorealism of a deception aimed at fooling the eye or for that matter the mind); a pseudorealism content in other words with illusory appearances” (168). It doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter that Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s construct of Madeline isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t actually real, because he is content with the illusion of her reality. Bazin talks in his essay “What is Cinema” about the “preservation of life by a representation of life” (166). As rational thinkers, we know that we cannot bring anyone back from the dead. But “it is no longer a question of survival after death, but of a larger concept, the creation of an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal destiny” (167). After Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s death, Johnny attempts to create through the medium of Judy an ideal representation of the woman he once loved. He cannot bring Madeline back from the death, but he can<\/em> make a new Madeline. He can make her so realistic that she might as well be<\/em> Madeline. This is so ironic because Judy always was<\/em> Madeline.<\/p>\n

Now this is going to be a little confusing for a moment. (unless you are already confused, in which case this is going to be extremely<\/em> confusing). Bazin talks a lot about photography as a representation of reality, saying that “the photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it. No matter how fuzzy, disoriented, or discolored, no matter how lacking in documentary value the image may be, it shares, by virtue of the very process of its becoming, the being of the model of which is the representation, it is<\/em> the model” (169). Bazin explains that photography represents life in such a way that even though “the photograph and the object itself share a common being, after the fashion of a fingerprint\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6photography actually contributes something to the order of natural creation instead of providing a substitute for it.” Thus, “the logical distinction between what is imaginary and what is real tends to disappear. Every image is to be seen as an object and every object as an image” (170).<\/p>\n

This blog<\/font><\/u><\/a> also talks about the idea that you can have two different creations coming from the same source. The post comments that Madeline and Judy are “identical in appearance, yet different light bulbs, and still part of the same light fixture\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6” I want to argue that Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline likewise adds to the order of natural creation. We have no idea of the personality of the real Madeline. And clearly Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t Judy. So in her creation of a representation of Madeline, Judy essentially creates an entirely new human identity. With whom, of course, Johnny falls in love.<\/p>\n

I would like to compare Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline to Bazin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s theory on art. He comments that, “the photograph allows us on the one hand to admire in reproduction something that our eyes alone could not have taught us to love, and on the other, to admire the painting as a thing in itself whose relation to something in nature has ceased to be the justification for its existence” (170). Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline becomes a thing in itself outside of its ties to Madeline the human being. New life has been created.<\/p>\n

We can only compare Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s representation of Madeline in Vertigo<\/em> to Bazin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s interpretation of cinema as a whole. Bazin says that “an approximate and complicated visualization of an idea invariably precedes the industrial discovery which alone can open the way to its practical use” (171). Johnny has a visualization of Madeline in his head; the Madeline that he fell in love with. He just needs a shell to put her in. In reference to cinema, Bazin says that “cinema even at its most elementary stage needed a transparent, flexible, and resistant base and a dry, sensitive emulsion capable of receiving an image instantly\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6all the definite stages of the invention of the cinema had been reached before the requisite conditions had been fulfilled” (117). This is the same case for Johnny. He doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have a living, breathing Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u201dbut he has a conception of her, and that is good enough. All he has to do is find a way to represent his idea.<\/p>\n

I would like to point out some examples in the movie Vertigo<\/em> where Judy is portrayed as more of a conception than an actually living person. First, let\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s go to the scene where Johnny takes Judy home after having dinner with her for the first time. When they get back to Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s apartment, Johnny tells Judy that he would like to see more of her, and wants to “take care of her.” After hearing this, Judy sits down by the window. As the audience, all that we are able to see is her black profile in contrast with the bright green backdrop of the curtains. We don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t see any actual features of Judy; only an outline of her body is visible as she questions Johnny, “Why\u00e2\u20ac\u201dbecause I remind you of her? That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not very complimentary\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6and nothing else?”<\/p>\n

Johnny replies, honestly, “no.”<\/p>\n

She counters with, “That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not very complimentary either.”<\/p>\n

In this scene, the character of Judy doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter at all. We are only able to see her black outline, without any physical characteristics or features. This is a reflection of the fact that the individual components that make up Judy are irrelevant to Johnny. He only requires Judy to be a profile, as she appears in this shot. He only needs a shell in which to put the characteristics of the woman he loves, Madeline.<\/p>\n

In the next shot, we view Judy head-on. Yet half of her face is simply a dark shadow. This is the first evening thus far that she has spent with Johnny. At this point, she is still trying to remain herself, Judy, even though Johnny is only interested in her because she reminds him of Madeline. The shadow on half of her face appears to slowly erode Judy away, so it appears that soon she might lose herself entirely. The side of her face by the window, away from Johnny, is still illuminated in this shot. But the portion of her face closest to Johnny is only darkness. Johnny is slowly eliminating Judy and replacing her with his idea of Madeline.<\/p>\n

The next scene I would like to analyze is after Judy and Johnny return from shopping for clothing. Judy pleads with Johnny “\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6couldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t you like me<\/em>, just me the way I am?…when we first started out, it was so good\u00e2\u20ac\u201dwe had fun! And then you started in on the clothes\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6well I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll wear the darn clothes if you want me to if, if you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll just, just like me.”<\/p>\n

Heartbreaking.<\/p>\n

As Judy begins her speech, the camera shoots Judy head on as she is hopeful that Johnny will accept her for who she is. Yet as she continues her monologue the camera angle slowly swirls around so that we are able to see less and less of Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s face as she loses hope that she will be able to retain her identity. In addition to the camera movement, during this scene the figure of Johnny casts a shadow on Judy, emphasizing the fact that Judy is losing herself to Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s dark obsessions. While the physical body of Judy will still exist, the concept of what makes Judy Judy is being swallowed by the person Johnny wants her to be. The camera also moves upward as Judy is speaking, cutting off part of her head. This further emphasizes that Judy is not important in herself\u00e2\u20ac\u201donly Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s conception of Judy is relevant. Upon the completion of her speech, the camera has now completely spun so that the cut is from behind Judy. We aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t able to see any of her face as she accepts the loss of her identity in order to be loved.<\/p>\n

Only Johnny is visible, staring at Judy as he responds to her with, “the color of your hair.” Judy buries her head in her hands with a groan of defeat. She knows she can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t win\u00e2\u20ac\u201dJohnny will never love her for herself. She goes up to Johnny and the following dialogue ensues;<\/p>\n

-“If I let you change me, will that do it? If I do what you tell me, will you love me?”<\/p>\n

-“Yes\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6.yes.”<\/p>\n

-“Fine, all right then, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll do it, I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t care anymore about me.”<\/p>\n

Johnny only loves Judy as Madeline. He doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t give a damn about Judy as Judy. In this moment, Judy accepts this fact, and completely renounces her own identity in order to be loved. She sacrifices herself for Johnny and accepts the death of Judy. For me at least, this is the most powerful moment in the entire movie.<\/p>\n

I want to also take a look at the scene where Judy comes back to the apartment after being completely made over as Madeline, sans her hairstyle. While Johnny tells Judy to pin back her hair like Madeline\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s, we get a camera shot of Judy standing in front of a mirror. As the audience, we only have access to a shot of Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s back. We view the front of Judy through a reflection in the mirror. This is because the Judy before us isn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t really a person, she is only a conception\u00e2\u20ac\u201da reflection of an idea that Johnny loves as materialized in Judy.<\/p>\n

After Judy fixes her hair, she walks back into the apartment fully transformed into Madeline. As she walks into the room, a haze appears to surround her so that we are unable to see Judy clearly. This supports the idea that the person who walks into the room is not a real person. The figure entering is a conception.<\/p>\n

When Johnny finally kisses Judy, his head and shoulders get in the way of the audience\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s view of Judy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s face, so that she completely disappears from our line of sight. As the kiss continues, the camera is set on Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s back. We are unable to see Judy at all, except for her hands. Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s body is entirely blocking our view. This goes along with the fact that Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s notion of Madeline has entirely consumed Judy so that she no longer exists as a human being even in the scene.<\/p>\n

The setting around Johnny and Judy changes during their epic kiss. The two are momentarily transformed back into the past to emphasize the fact that Johnny is not kissing Judy, but a conception from his past. Throughout the entire kiss we still only see Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s face until the very end, when we finally catch a glimpse of Judy\/Madeline. Yet even this small glimpse is overcast by a shadow from Johnny. The kiss shared by Judy and Johnny serves to further confirm the fact that Judy has lost herself completely and become merely an extension of Johnny\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s mind.<\/p>\n

Everyone always talks about the big moment at the end of the movie where Judy dies. But if we look at this movie through the idea that Judy is just a representation, she has already been dead for a long time now; back when she decided to give up her identity for Johnny. Madeline Elster\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s literal death likewise didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t matter either\u00e2\u20ac\u201dMadeline only dies when the idea of her is no longer being acted out. So I know you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re really sad that this blog too is about to come to an end. But the idea presented will hopefully remain in your head.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A lot of thoughts were twirling around in my brain after watching the movie Vertigo. But the one that really wouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t leave my mind was the idea that the protagonist of the movie Johnny Ferguson is in love with a non-existent person. He is in love with an idea as opposed to a living, breathing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.elsweb.org\/robyn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}