I’m watching Season Two of The Last of Us (there will be no spoilers in this piece!) over the summer with some friends, and we get to a part including an on-screen ritual disembowelment. A child character watches the ritual disembowelment, then stares another character down and makes a slicing motion across his stomach as if drawing one of the curved ritual sickles across it. I remember being completely jolted out of the show as I realized that even if somehow they shielded that child actor from actually seeing the SFX organs spilling out of a strung-up SFX human being, they still had to direct that child to make that motion across his stomach as if cutting into himself, right next to an actor holding a weapon, probably telling him to “look like he was threatening to kill someone” or some similar stage direction. I remember thinking that there’s no way this 8-ish year old child could have understood the impact of this role even if he did personally consent (as opposed to a caretaker making the decision) to act in The Last of Us, and, much like the victims of family vlogging on social media, I wondered whether he would grow up to watch this show back and wonder why in the world his caretakers let that happen to him. 

And even if this child does not sustain long-lasting mental trauma, why is he working? We don’t think about this phenomenon enough. We have child labor laws for a reason; children are easily exploited and should therefore not be working at all, instead focusing on school and brain development. The money is also an issue; generally, parents are in charge of almost the entirety of any payment, and are also in control of signing the child up for events and acting roles. This situation, as I’m sure is obvious, could very easily turn abusive; children cannot stand up for themselves, but are tasked with working a job and making money which the parents then mostly keep. The child does not have a genuine capability to consent to any of this because of their young age and inability to understand the full consequences of what they are agreeing to.

So what am I saying? Should we only have adult actors – no movies with children in them in any capacity? Yes, that is pretty much my point. I think our only ethical options in the acting world are either for adults to act the roles of children or for CGI and motion capturing to be used for any child roles necessary. We could also do animated productions with adult voice actors. 

Wouldn’t this make the productions cheesy and obviously fake? Maybe. I don’t really care. Personal entertainment isn’t everything, and we certainly shouldn’t be sacrificing ethical treatment of children for a limited believability increase in a production we already all know is fictional. I’ll take a slightly uncanny valley CGI Renesmee (don’t search that name up unless you’ve already watched Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1) over a real little boy making a disembowelment gesture over his own stomach in exchange for money that will be kept by his caretakers any day, and really, so should we all.

This article initially appeared in a print issue of the Monitor published Oct. 31, 2025.

I’ve wasted hours of my life watching horror movies. I like to think of myself as a film buff. I grew up surrounded by movies, thanks to my four older siblings. From “Kill Bill” to “Star Wars,” we saw all the classics, and over time, I developed a real passion for cinema. But despite all this love for cinema, there is one genre I simply cannot stand: horror.

I still remember the first horror movie I saw,  during my freshman year of high school. I went in skeptical but curious, thinking that maybe I was missing out on something. Two hours later, I realized that wasn’t the case. The jumpscares seemed cheap, the story felt redundant and I ended up bored rather than scared. That disappointment turned into something stronger over the years: a lasting aversion to horror movies.

A few weeks ago, one of my best friends insisted that I give the genre another chance. He swore that the newest “Conjuring” movie was “different,” that it was “really scary.” Spoiler alert: it wasn’t. Although this one was supposed to be based on a true story, I sat there frustrated by the lack of originality in the plot. I realized, once again, that horror movies just weren’t for me.

The hype of horror movies is built on false advertising—trailers are always much more intense than the movie itself. Once the lights go down, the suspense evaporates and all that’s left is a predictable, shallow story. I honestly find documentaries about the paranormal scarier than most horror movies.

On the other hand, thrillers are sometimes scarier and much more entertaining than horror movies. Films like “Get Out” or “Sinners” keep you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. The tension builds naturally, not through loud noises or ghosts jumping out of closets, but through genuine psychological pressure. Thrillers make you think, question and squirm in your seat.

I quite enjoy reading and writing the English language. Some parts of English are more fun than others, of course; I always prefer to read a good novel rather than take part in a grammar lesson. My friends have called me an “honorary member of the grammar SWAT team”. I contend that grammar is irrelevant if one is not involved in the writing of an academic or journalistic document.

However, there is one place in English where improper grammar sends me into a rage. This is when someone elects not to use the Oxford comma.

Some explanation is necessary for those who are unfamiliar with the Oxford comma. The Oxford comma, also known as a serial comma, is the comma before the final item in a list of three or more items. For example, in the phrase “lions, tigers, and bears” (oh my!), the Oxford comma is the one that comes after the word ‘tigers’. This comma may not seem like a lot, but its use is critical.

Unfortunately for all lovers of the Oxford comma, the Hilltop Monitor’s copy editor is required to edit in strict compliance with the Associated Press (AP) style. AP style does not include the Oxford comma. This is an outrage! When used properly, the Oxford comma makes writing clearer, cheaper and easier to read.

A simple example suffices to prove the necessity of the Oxford comma. Take the following sentence about inviting one’s children to a party:

“I invited John’s children, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to the party”

The English language uses a comma to offset appositives—words that further describe or clarify a subject. This makes the above sentence ambiguous. Are Washington and Lincoln the names of John’s children, or separate invitees altogether? I think John would know, but anyone else is clueless. The sentence is not clear. This matters very much, as the side dish I would bring to such a party depends on whether the guest list includes presidents.

Compare this with the alternative:

“I invited John’s children, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln to the party”

In this example, it’s very clear who is invited to the party, and I will be able to spend my Friday night with John’s children and two dead U.S. presidents—or whoever else shows up. See? It’s so much better, and I know what type of occasion I will be attending.

The Oxford comma can also save you money. In 2014, five Maine commercial drivers filed a lawsuit against their employer for unpaid overtime. The dairy company hadn’t been paying the drivers overtime, pointing to a Maine law. The law exempted workers who were involved in “[t]he canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of [perishable goods]” from overtime pay. Careful rereading of this statute identifies an ambiguity: is “packing for shipment or distribution” one item? Or, are “packing for shipment” and “distribution” two separate things? The company settled for five million dollars.

The moral of the story? Include your commas, folks. They save lives, money and time.

There are a few—some might say many— widely held sources of complaints amongst Jewell’s student body; whether it is the persistently inconsistent, yet dependably uncomfortable, building temperatures or the inconvenient lack of parking. Amidst these things we all care to complain about are laundry services and etiquette. I asked a few students about their experiences.

Not long ago, an unnamed senior experienced what some would call, or at least the senior would, a blatant disregard for basic laundry room etiquette. After placing her clothes in the Melrose dormitory washers, she left her dryer balls on each washer lid with the intent of conveniently placing them with each load once they were moved to a dryer. However, a fellow Melrose resident had other plans. The senior returned promptly, a short thirty-five minutes later, to find her dryer balls missing.

The senior, a force to not be reckoned with, waited to see who the culprit was. It did not take long before the culprit revealed themselves. The culprit denied knowing how the dryer balls wound up in their laundry. However, the senior remains convinced that the dryer balls were taken and used by the culprit and not a mysterious third party. Understandably, the senior does not find the idea of a random havoc inducing laundry room distuber convincing.

When asked about her thoughts on appropriate laundry room etiquette, the senior responded, “As a rule, don’t touch other people’s stuff.” She did, however, add a few further considerations: “Because laundry is free, I think it’s okay to move someone’s clothes from the dryers into the washers after waiting five to 10 minutes. It also makes sense to me to move laundry out of the dryers. If you really don’t want people to touch your stuff, do what I do and make sure to move your laundry soon after it is done.” The senior further emphasized, “If it’s not to free up washers or dryers, leave other people’s things alone.”

Proper laundry room etiquette is a topic that students often discuss. Students tend to fall on two sides of the issue. On the one hand, many students argue residents should remove their own laundry within the five to 10 minute window, give or take a few minutes. It’s your stuff, you are responsible for it, or so the argument goes. Other’s adopt the position offered by the previously mentioned senior. As college students, we all have busy lives. It’s understandable if a resident forgets their laundry or does not return to move it for a while. Laundry is free, so it’s not much of an inconvenience for others to move laundry from washers to dryers. However, residents should not take offense if their laundry is moved after five to 10 minutes.

Besides appropriate laundry room behavior, students also have serious complaints about laundry services. Sophomore Kandace Gill notes, “Machines are often broken or occupied, so I usually go off of campus to the laundromat to avoid any issues.” While students enjoy free services on campus, they come with several problems. Many students complain of the lack of washers and dryers available. Yet, the biggest inconvenience is probably the weak dryers. It often takes two to three cycles to fully dry clothes, even when students only partially fill dryers.

To mitigate these problems, students have devised a few coping mechanisms. Some, like Gill, do their laundry off campus either at parents’ houses or at other locations. Some students do laundry at less busy times, such as on Sunday mornings when most students choose to sleep in. To navigate around drying problems, many students choose to air dry their damp clothes when one dryer cycle is not enough.

One of the perks of going to Jewell is free laundry. Undeniably, inappropriate laundry room behavior and recent service issues take a bit of the shine off of the deal. With a shift to more thoughtful laundry room etiquette and a few maintenance repairs, laundry would be one less topic for Jewell students to complain about.