#(it is equally important for Elain to keep writing letters!)

[onceupona-chaos]

Shackles and bridges: SJM and the mating bond

I know there are a lot of posts about this, but I wanted to do one myself, so here we go.

DISCLAIMER: This is my interpretation as someone who is a very new member of this fandom and has more contact with “common readers”, since I was one myself until a couple of months ago. Everything here is based on textual evidence and my experience as an avid reader, so take a step back from any ship. But I will talk about the probability of a rejected mating bond, so if that's not your cup of tea, be warned. English is not my first language, so forgive me for any mistakes.

Be kind!

Also, minor spoiler for CC.

The mating bond is the most important element in SJM’s books and it's present in most of the main endgame couples. Aelin and Rowan, Feyre and Rhys, Nesta and Cassian, for example.

It’s described as this precious, sacred bridge between souls - or is it?

SJM is a very formulaic writer. We can draw several parallels with her writing, due to the way she structures her scenes and chooses her words.

We saw this explicitly with Nesta and Cassian in the Solstice scene, which is very similar to the one between Feyre and Rhysand: an emotional discussion, kissing tears away, lovemaking with “say it” and “you’re mine”, mating bond glowing between them, on and on.

Different characters, but same scenario, same process, same wording, almost the same scene.

However, considering that every mated couple until now ends up together HEA, I have the feeling that SJM is starting to explore the mating bond in different ways, otherwise every one of her books would be too… similar? In a way that the reader wouldn’t be surprised anymore, it would be the same story over and over.

To the ones who are faithful to those characters and to her books (her fans), this isn’t exactly a problem, but we have to consider the other readers as well, the bigger audience (SJM sold millions of copies, so not everyone who reads her books is engaged online).

For that exact reason, to approach a narrative element in a different way is very common among writers.

I’ll give you an example with Cassandra Clare and the parabatai bond (SPOILERS from TDA): the parabatai bond is an oath between friends who swear to protect each other. In TMI and TID, we have this bond between friends (Jace and Alec/ Will and Jem) that are almost brothers. However, in TDA, we have two parabatai (Julian and Emma) falling in love with each other, which is extremely forbidden.

The different ways a writer can approach the same elements are important to keep the readers engaged - not the reader who is a fan, but especially the occasional reader. Otherwise, it would be the “if you’ve read one, you’ve read them all” kind of thing, which is no bueno.

With that in mind, I really think SJM is starting to explore/ approach different sides of the mating bond.

Mate—not husband. The Fae had mates: an unbreakable bond, deeper than marriage, that lasted beyond death. (Heir of Fire/ ToG)

“But if they’re blessed, they’ll find their mate—their equal, their match in every way. High Fae wed without the mating bond, but if you find your mate, the bond is so deep that marriage is … insignificant in comparison.”

Another proof that SJM is formulaic: in both ToG and ACOTAR, the bond is presented for the first time in comparison to marriage, as something deeper and sacred.

However, Bryce, main character of CC (SJM book published before ACOSF), looks at it very differently:

“And at least he’s not some psychotic alphahole who will demand a three- day sex marathon and then call me his mate, lock me in his house, and never let me out again.” Which was why Reid—human, okay-at-sex Reid—was perfect.

This is such a contrast. To Bryce, the mating bond would take her freedom away (keep that in mind).

I’m not saying Bryce won’t have a mate or anything like that, but we don’t start reading CC with the same vision about the mating bond presented in the other books: a sacred bond, deeper than marriage. Bryce couldn’t care less about that, not once she wondered if Hunt is her mate.

Therefore, I don’t think SJM finally writing a different story about the mating bond so unthinkable. On the contrary, we see writers doing that all the time.

Also, I’m not saying Elain will reject it, but SJM is not only approaching the mating bond in different ways now, but she already structured a very solid base for a mating bond rejection to happen if she wants to:

ACOWAR

“You said your mother and father were wrong for each other; Tamlin said his own parents were wrong for each other.” I peeled off my dressing robe. “So it can’t be a perfect system of matching. What if”—I jerked my chin toward the window, to my sister and the shadowsinger in the garden—“that is what she needs? Is there no free will? What if Lucien wishes the union but she doesn’t?”

“A mating bond can be rejected”.

SJM already wrote a whole scene to explain the mating bond and how, for some people, is not this sacred thing and it can be rejected. Not only that, she directly approached that Elain could reject it if she wanted to, and that scene involved Lucien and Azriel.

“You are his mate. Do you even know what that means?”

“It means nothing,” Elain said, her voice breaking. “It means nothing. I don’t care who decided it or why they did—”

“You belong to him.”

“I belong to no one. But my heart belongs to you.“

Also in ACOWAR, Elain makes herself very clear: she would have ignored/ rejected the mating bond right there if Graysen still wanted a future with her, because she loved him. She would have chosen to follow her heart without hesitation.

The funny thing is that Azriel - Elain's current love interest - never saw that scene, never saw how Elain vigorously rejected Lucien for someone she loved or the way Graysen rejected her (I’ll leave this information to you).

ACOFAS

Those doe-brown eyes turned toward me. Sharper than I’d ever seen them.

“And that entitles him to my time, my affections?”

“No.” I blinked.

Her mouth tightened, the only sign of anger in her graceful countenance. “I don’t want a mate. I don’t want a male.”

Months go by and Elain is still uncomfortable with the bond.

ACOSF

“I am not always in this city to see my mate.” The last two words dripped with discomfort.

Her brown eyes were wary. Usually, that look was reserved for Lucien.

Elain only shrank further into herself, no trace of that newfound boldness to be seen.

At this point, it’s clear: the question "what if the Cauldron was wrong?" didn’t come out of nowhere, not only for Azriel, but in the narrative as well.

SJM had been slowly hinted at for three books now. I know she can change her mind, but if she wants to write about it, she made sure to write the perfect opportunity:

SJM already wrote a scene about the possibility of Elain rejecting the bond, that involved Elain, Lucien and Azriel, so it’s not coming from nowhere;

Lucien compared how different Elain is from the female who he had really loved;

They are both uncomfortable around each other;

Elain is romantically interested in someone else, who was part of that scene back in ACOWAR when we were presented to the possibility;

This someone else (Azriel) is interested in her;

SJM made sure to tie the romantic plot (Elain’s mating bond) with a political plot (Blood Duel);

The political plot is connected to the overarching plot (Autumn Court, Beron and Eris/ Koschei);

Mostly important: Elain is showing for three books that she doesn't want the bond;

"I don't want a mate. I don't want a male."

She literally said that with all the letters.

We can see this dichotomy between shackles (no freedom) x bridge (a connection) regarding Lucien as well.

"(Jesminda) She had chosen him. Elain had been … thrown at him."

He said that Elain had been thrown at him and also that they were shackled.

“Give her time to accept it.”

“To accept a life shackled to me?” (ACOFAS)

And then right in the next book (ACOSF) we have this:

“Well, I didn’t have a choice in being shackled to you, either.”

The declaration slammed into her. Shackled.(…)

Shackled.

Words beckoned, sharp as knives, begging for her to grab one and plunge it into his chest. Make him hurt as much as that one word hurt her.

SJM emphasized what that one word meant by repeating it and using italics. It’s another side of a mating bond: not a bridge of connection, but shackles with no freedom, no choice.

If Nesta was that hurt when Cassian (someone she loves) said that he didn’t get a choice in being "shackled” to her, can you imagine how is it for Elain and to actually have this bond with someone she don't love? And to Lucien as well?

The thing is in terms of storytelling, and by that I mean the plot, it’s undeniable that we already have everything that’s necessary to approach the matter of the mating bond in a way the reader has never seen before.

It’s a huge possibility, one that would make the regular readers interested (we have to remember that, not everyone who reads those books is engaged. They read them when it’s appealing).

If you want to look deeper, we can see little clues that point to that narrative path, too:

Elain shall wed for love and beauty.

The bond Elain had chosen.

Elain cut in sharply, “I am not a child to be fought over.”

Now, why hasn't Elain rejected the bond?

Because a writer doesn’t waist a good plot like that. Simple as that.

Let me tell you: SJM won’t waist that plot because a part of the fandom doesn’t like Elain, because 1) the online fandom itself is just a part of the readers; 2) inside the online fandom there are people who dislike Elain, who are neutral about her and people who like her; 3) SJM already know some people hate Elain, otherwise she wouldn’t have wrote this:

You think Elain is boring?

I think she’s kind, I’ll take kindness over nastiness any day. But I also think we haven’t seen all she has to offer yet.

SJM already told us she likes to write about disliked characters. She will write the story she wants to write and ACOSF is the major proof of that. If it’s a rejection or not, only she knows, everything could happen.

But SJM has been writing about mating bonds for years, do you really think the first time we get to see a rejection it would be for someone else’s POV? Or in a minor plot as if it isn’t a big deal? Especially when this rejection is directly related to a political plot and to the overarching plot?

No, not when SJM has enough material to write 700 pages and more, not when she has the opportunity to make a whole book out of this, one that is something entirely new for the reader, not when SJM built the perfect opportunity herself.

[propshophannah]

Wings & Embers analysis [1/2]

So @dreaming-about-somewhere-else sent me a message asking if I would explain how I read Nesta’s behavior in the ACOMAF extra chapter, Wings and Embers (provided here by @bookofademigod). So I started this post as an answer to that ask. It quickly became a lot bigger, and I realized I couldn’t leave out and lines because they were all so important to Nesta and Cassian’s behavior. So I’m posting my answer to the ask here!

It’s two parts and goes into some details about the clues to Nesta and Cassian being mates, but that was not the focus. So it’s not a comprehensive analysis of my thoughts on that. 

To @dreaming-about-somewhere-else I can certainly try to explain that scene the way I see and read it, and then you can decide what you think. So here goes!

When I read that scene, the first thing I think about is that Cassian spends the first few minutes having a fake, internal argument with Nesta in his head. So right off the bat, that signals to me that he is expecting to have a verbal sparring match with Nesta when he sees her.

But also, this makes me think about a concept in social psychology called The Self Fulfilling Prophecy. And without getting too technical, this idea has been proven to show (time and time again) that when we think people are going to act certain way, or to fall in line with our stereotypes of who we think they are (whether that’s based on our past experiences with that person, or by their appearance, or skin color etc.) they do. And that’s because our own unconscious actions toward people actually make those people act in accordance with how we think they’ll act.

An example would be: John, a teacher, meets his new 2nd grade class. But before class started, another teacher told John that one of his students, Lizzy, is a bad student. So when John is introducing himself to the class, and is getting to know the students, he unconsciously acts toward Lizzy as if she had already demonstrated to him that she is a bad student. This is turn, makes Lizzy act like a bad student because she picks up on how John is acting toward her. (It’s crazy how this works in the real world. It’s worth a google if you’ve never heard of it before.)

Moving on!

So Cassian walks into that house expecting Nesta to be argumentative and abrasive. So he unconsciously acts toward her as if she threw the first punch.

And he does.

When he reveals himself to her: “A blink is her only tell of discomfort or surprise—and he may or may not have let his wings spread a bit wider as she looked him over.”

I think he does this:

To physically puff himself up.

It’s also a male posturing behavior. Because in Illyrian culture, the bigger wingspan means the bigger penis. He’s peacocking for Nesta. (Cassian is an overgrown peacock.) He wants her approval.

And I think Nesta is smart enough to have read his motion and body language and to have figured that out. She sees everything. And she sees that he has just walked into her house and is puffing himself up for her.

So the first thing out of her mouth is, “You’re ten minutes late.”

Maas tells us that Nesta said this while she was moving to the fire. So the implication is that moving to the fire will hide their voices, but she’s also blowing him off a bit. She says this to him with her back turned. Which I read as her response to him puffing his wings up. She’s letting him know, in so many words, that he’s wasting his time trying to impress her. That this is not what they’re there for. It’s also a power move, same as him puffing his wings up is.

Cassian says: “I do have other duties, you know.”

And Maas writes that he does this with equal quiet and that he flashes a grin. To me that implies he he’s trying to goad her. He fails to realize that she was trying to shut whatever this flirty/male posturing thing he’s doing down. But he’s also implying that he has better things to be doing that deigning to visit Nesta.

Then we get another insert where he tells us he was flying around the house thinking up comebacks to hurl at her (Self Fulfilling Prophecy).

Nesta says: “Here I was thinking I heard you flapping around for ten minutes. It must have been a pigeon stuck in one of the chimneys.”

The implication of her response is that

She knows that his “other duties” line is a lie because she heard him flapping around above the house, and 

She equates his flapping/indecisiveness to come into the house—to a pigeon.

And what do we all know about pigeons? They never move! You’re about to run them over with your car and the damn things don’t move until the very last second.

And that’s HILARIOUS because it’s exactly what Cassian was doing. And it matches his dismissive insult to her (the line before) when he basically said he had better things to do with his time than come to the human lands and to see her. So insult for insult. Fair game.

Being compared to a pigeon pisses him off. And I’d say this is the moment when he escalated the situation, not Nesta.

“His temper rose with dizzying speed at the words, the absurd perfection of her. … He smiled, slow and vicious, precisely in the way he’d learned made her see red. A smile that he knew instantly unsheathed those lovely claws of hers.” 

He is mad because he is super attracted to her, AND because she called him out. So he gives her a smile that he knows will piss her off. He wants to piss her off. He makes the first move here.

And Nesta doesn’t give him the reaction he wants. She remains unmoved by his goading. The only reaction is “the delicate flare of her nostrils” and Cassian doesn’t not it as aggressive. It could just be her taking a deep breath to calm herself. (Or scent him, but that’s a theory for another day!) Instead Nesta asks how Feyre is. And all Cassian says is, “Busy.” And this is the saddest part of this whole scene because the next thing Maas tells us is that Cassian saw “A flicker of her throat.”

I’d argue, that’s Nesta steeling herself. Physically swallowing back her emotions. She’s worried about Feyre, and I think her feelings are hurt that Feyre didn’t come to bring the letter. Nesta shows, she doesn’t tell. And I know she was hurt because the very next thing out of her mouth is, “So busy she cannot deign to visit, it seems.”

That’s the kind of comment we all make when our feelings have been hurt, and we’re trying to cover it up. It’s easier, and safer, to hide than it is to admit that our feelings are hurt. Especially in front of strangers—especially in front of strangers we’re attracted to.

And Cassian fails to realize that. He goads her again by saying Feyre has a lot on her plate and adding a visit to the human lands, and by default a visit to Nesta, is too hard/unimportant for her to be bothered with.

[Pause here for a moment: One of Nesta’s biggest insecurities, is being left behind. Her mother left her, her father mentally left them. Then Feyre was taken, and she couldn’t get her back. And I think I might argue that she is letting Elain marry this hatful dude because she maybe wants to keep Elain close to her.]

And after Cassian says Feyre can’t be bothered to come visit, we get the first big moment of “Predator Nesta” (PN). Cassian says he can tell she is sizing him up. And she asks Cassian what his role in all of this is. And Cassian braces his feet apart (he’s posturing) and says he commands Rhys’s armies. THIS IS SOOO different than when Cassian told Feyre at dinner nonchalantly that he commanded the armies. At the Inner Circle dinner, Cassian blew it off as if it were nothing. As if it meant nothing about him.

But here he says it like it makes him important. And this tells me three important things.

Cassian cares what Nesta thinks of him. He wants Nesta to be impressed by him and all of his accomplishments. And “I command Rhys’s armies” is probably his BEST pickup line at Rita’s. There is no way that line has not gotten women into his bed.

Cassian has it so bad for Nesta he can’t see straight. Because what his moment of posturing/peacocking did, was put him in a vulnerable spot because it gave Nesta all his power.

He blindly, in his need to impress her, showed her his hand/cards. Meaning, she knew immediately that he was trying to impress her, and she took that and ran with it.

She asks if he leads all the armies, and he says he leads the important ones. (And let’s be fair, there was no right answer to her question, she had him by the balls either way. And he failed to see it.) And then she takes the opportunity he gave her, to completely dismiss him and his accomplishments.

And I’d argue that she does this for two big reasons.

Because she has it bad for Cassian and can’t figure out why. And I bet it scares her. It would scare me if I could sense a dangerous Fae male flying around my house. I wouldn’t know what to do with that. He’s the enemy. Even if he, Feyre, Rhys, Azriel are the exception to the rule. They’re still dangerous. And Clare Beddor was taken from her bed and murdered. (Ironic that Elain brings that up, when she and Nesta both end up getting taken from their beds and drown.)

She does not want him thinking he has a right to try to impress her. She is human, he is Fae—what’s the point? She does not want a relationship with the Fae outside of stopping a war. She does not want to associate with them, to be in danger—all of that. So she shuts him down at every turn. I would honestly do the same.

[Pause for a moment: I’d argue this is a moment of Maas throwing in a little 3rd wave feminism. Because we are very aware in the 3rd wave, that it’s inappropriate for men to give us their unsolicited opinions about our appearances, AND that they are in no way entitled to hit on us just because we’re in the same room. So Nesta’s actions here are very in line with the 21st Century. And she’s not wrong to want to shut him down for trying to impress her.]

And Cassian, who is pissed at the dismissal (cuz let’s be honest, that line “I command Rhys’s armies” has without-a-doubt gotten him laid. That’s probably one of his best lines, and when it doesn’t work—he’s not happy), so he insults Nesta, by coming right back at her and implying that she does nothing of importance.

And it works. And Nesta’s reaction, gives Cassian back all the power he’d lost a moment ago. Nesta says:

“Why should I bother defending myself to a male who is so puffed up on his own sense of importance there’s barely enough space in the room for his enormous head?”

This is her articulating how she saw Cassian acting when he was peacocking to her a moment ago. She calls him arrogant and says his ego is huge—which is 100% correct in how he acted toward her. He thought he could impress her. He failed. She called him out on it. That’s fair game.

BUT what Cassian does next, is NOT.

And this is where I sometimes get defensive about Nesta in this scene, because I’d argue Cassian unknowingly acts like a dick. (so if I come off a little strong, it’s not you! It’s me!)

“Then he was stalking toward her, his long stride eating up the ornate carpet between them. She did not recoil, did not yield one step back. Only lifted her chin to meet his stare as he towered over her, spreading his wings slightly, and said through his teeth, ‘Do you have news from the queens?’”

AH! AAAAHHH! Not okay, Cassian!

Cassian—a HUGE, ancient, muscular, Fae warrior—stalked across the room in an angry moment toward a human woman with the intention of intimidating her. He let his feral-male-fae-primal-size override his better judgement, and the scene went from a normal verbal sparring match, to male intimidation based on size and the use of space.

Cassian takes Nesta’s space. And if anyone has ever done that to you, then you know how that feels. He physically gets too close to her on purpose. He towers over her on purpose. And he spreads out his wings to make himself appear even larger and more intimidating. THEN he commands information from her through his teeth.

So the visual is: Tall male, muscular, wider than necessary (cuz he’s using his wings like any animal does to appear bigger in the wild), he came up to her too fast, he’s standing way too close, and he is showing his teeth. He is doing everything wrong here, and Nesta is 100% allowed to react like an assertive badass to shut him down.

*Side note: I don’t think Cassian did this like Donald Trump does this. He didn’t want to assert male dominance to make her feel less than, or weak (although, if you want to argue that, I can’t refute it, because the evidence is there). I’d argue he did this because Nesta got under his skin, and she is just as much an apex predator as he is. And had he gotten a whiff of fear off her, he would have backed off immediately and probably apologised/let her know he didn’t mean it to scare her.*

BUT the fact remains. He escalated the situation. Not Nesta. We’re talking about The Rock Dwayne Johnson (Nesta is the dog?) standing less than a foot from you and looking angry. Props to Nesta because I would have pissed myself. (Personal moment: I love The Rock, I grew up in Hawaii, and Illyrian’s, especially Cassian, have always looked like Hawaiian boys to me. The tattoos, the body, culture—everything!)

And the next thing out of Nesta’s mouth is that she knows exactly what he is trying to do. She tells him, “Leader of the High Lord’s armies, and yet the brute remains. You cannot cow me with words, so you seek to intimidate me through your hulking size.”

That’s not an insult. That’s a cold hard fact. Nesta just called him out. (Shots fired!) So much of what Nesta says in this scene is her plainly explaining what an idiot/ass Cassian is being. And it’s easy to read her as just being rude because we all know Cassian, and we don’t really know Nesta (Nesta’s character is in the nuisance of her actions. She requires a lot more attention to figure out). But she is not being rude, she’s 100% within her right to call him out and explain his behavior. I think as readers, we tend to side with the characters we like most, and for us in this scene, it tends to be Cassian. And when he gets offended, we do to—even if we don’t know why.

Cassian’s response here to Nesta is GOLD. Because his entire takeaway from what she said was not that he was trying to intimidate her, it’s that she thinks he “hulking.”

I’m laffing rn! Because what an adorable, winged idiot! Cassian has it so bad for Nesta that he is concerned about how she sees him. And if that ain’t the cutest damn thing about that bat then idk what is! Especially cuz Mor (Amren?) told him he ogles his muscles in the mirror! Like, Cass is concerned that maybe he is too big! Or that Nesta does not appreciate his physique—which he clearly spends a lot of time on. XD (UGH. I’m so dead rn! This is probably the funniest moments in the whole series to me.)

And after his “hulking” line, Nesta continues with, “You need me far more than I need you. So I‘d suggest you merely agree, tuck in those bat wings, and ask nicely.” 

She’s explaining how he is acting, how she is not going to be intimidated by him, and how he needs to give her some respect. Again, not mean at all. Because she owes him nothing after how he acted.

And just to reiterate: She’s being assertive, not bossy, or bitchy. And she’s absolutely right. Cassian and them do need her far more than she needs them. (At this point they haven’t met with the queens/gotten a firm no on the Book of Breathings, and Cassian has not brought Nesta his book on military strategy.) It’s hard sometimes to see women, especially ones like Nesta who are abrasive in many situations, as being assertive and not bossy. But in this scene (as opposed to others) she is well within her right to say what she says. He got into her space, he challenged her. Fair game.

And Cassian’s response to this, is to “take a step closer, bracing a hand on the mantle, and leaned in close enough to breathe in that scent of hers.”

Excuse me while I slam my head down. Because he has just taken up more of her space, closed off more of her space by putting his arm on the mantle, and now they’re breathing on one another. Not okay to do to any female. But really not okay to do to a female who is a stranger ESPECIALLY when you’re clearly larger and more powerful than her. And considering Nesta’s past with Tomas…

BUT! This poor behavior is rewarded by Cassian getting a bite in the ass. Cuz, he again loses his power to her. Why? Because he scents that mating bond between them. (I’m on that ship even though it’s not yet canon). Her scent hits him so hard he can’t focus, and he tells us that it “took five centuries of training” to not allow his eyes to roll back in his head, as if her scent puts him in a trance. We get a few lines of his primal/instinct wanting to take over, and the POV ends with Cassian saying to Nesta, “There are other ways I could play nice, Nesta Archeron.”

To recap, Nesta’s last line to him ended with, “You need me far more than I need you. So I‘d suggest you merely agree, tuck in those bat wings, and ask nicely.”

To which Cassian says, “There are other ways I could play nice, Nesta Archeron.”

He takes her truthful, assertive words and makes them null-and-void. He discredits and undermines them by making a sexual innuendo.

Shame on you, Cassian.

And again, we all know Cassian, and we know that he is being a playful ass/goading her, right? We know he isn’t saying those things to be gross, or to objectify her, or to make her feel less than, but Nesta doesn’t know that about Cassian. She can only gather so much information. And we also have to remember that her life long biases as playing into how she is able to read him (again Self Fulfilling Prophecy).

So to some degree, I think we can argue that Nesta “sees too much” to not know where Cassian is coming from when he says this to her. But it doesn’t make it okay to say these things to her. It doesn’t make it okay to let them slide—even if they’re said from a place where the line between enemy and lover are blurred. And what I mean by that is, in this scene, they’re both attracted to one another. They’re both unsure what this “thing” is between them. And they both want the upper-hand.

So they are not only arguing in a real verbal-sparring-match kinda way, they are also testing the water. Seeing where they can push and pull one another. They’re testing one another’s boundaries. So sexual tension, and bias, and annoyance/anger are playing into their actions and responses.

So again. We get Cassian being an ass. And in response to him, Nesta dished out the same medicine. It’s a fair fight.

POV Switch to Nesta!

The beginning to Nesta’s POV makes me laugh because homegirl is all business saying Cassian is dangerous (which is true!), but the third sentence she says is, “Then there were those enormous wings…”

She, on some level, has gathered that Cassian’s/Illyrian’s wingspan means something about penis size in their culture (I’d argue the first time he puffs them up in this scene is when she gathered this info), and she is likely mystified by his wings for their rarity and power (she’s never seen them until Feyre brought the boys), and because she’s attracted to them. On some level Nesta is into those wings. They mean something to her. Whether it is purely sexual, or the idea of freedom and escape, or if the power they exude (cuz they’re huge and must be muscular and incredibly impressive to behold) is somehow being tied to safety, she’s picking up on that. That need.

Cuz then she goes right into talking about how powerful Rhys is, that Cassian serves Rhys, and the love between Feyre and Rhys. These all could be argued to speak to Nesta’s insecurities and life wants.

Then she tells us Cassian is dangerous, “Not the handsome face, but those hazel eyes … They had a way of assessing everything and everyone.”

She gives us three gems here:

She’d been thinking about how pretty Cassian is, and  

She is scared that he will see who she really is beneath the walls.

*More of a side note* She knows he can see beneath her walls. Mates anyone? Mates are equals on some level, so why would Nesta’s mate not be able to see through her walls?

Are you crying yet? UGH. Insecure Nesta breaks my heart. Then Maas lets us all know about that “snapping fire” that is “blazing” between them. Not an accident—that’s a physical representation of the sexual tension between them.

Then Nesta hints at her magic power (yes, there are a bunch of great posts floating about how 1 or all the Archeron sisters are demi-fae) when she writes that Nesta, “Held that gaze, willing him not to see too far, too deep. Better to keep him distracted with the barbed words, the utter dismissal.”

She’s telling us that she is putting all her energy into hiding herself. Hiding who she is. And why do we hide? Because we are insecure or ashamed or because we don’t want to be found. Nesta and Cassian are similar in this regard, but I’d argue Nesta does it on a level Cassian can’t touch.

Then Nesta calculates the “offer” (sexual innuendo) Cassian threw her way. She tells us she knows he threw it out there to “test” her and “find another weakness.” She’s acknowledging the game they’re both actively playing, the verbal sparring match they’re both actively participating in.

Nesta decides to go with, “If I wanted a male pawing at me, I’d sooner ask one of the hounds.”

She’s equating his skill in the bedroom to a clumsy, thumbless dog, and she’s saying an actual dog would probably be better than him.

Cassian responds with, “Have you ever been with a male, Nesta?”

He is implying that she can’t possibly know what she’s talking about (he’s rubbing up on that mansplaining line), and he means to insult her no matter what her answer is. If she says no, then she shouldn’t speak about what she doesn’t know. And if she says yes, then obviously the men she’s slept with have no skill, and he, Cassian, could teach her a thing of two about her own body and pleasure.

Cassian has her by the balls with this question, and she knows it!

So she answers his question with a question to buy time. “Have you?”

To which Cassian answers her question with a question. “I asked first, sweetheart.” (Yes, I think this ‘sweetheart’ was meant to be condescending because I think Cassian knew she was a virgin when she didn’t answer, and that he had her by the balls no matter how she answered.) He then adds, “Unless you prefer females?”

Nesta responds by placing “a brazen” hand on his chest—taking back the space between them/claiming the space as her own (she is a lot smaller than him, this is the only real way she can do it)—and leaning into him. The whole time her mind goes from thinking about how nice his body is, to how hot he is (use of the word “fire” just another non-accidental way to point to sexual tension and them being mates), to how much smaller she is, and BOOM!

With that thought, Nesta’s mind immediately goes back to thinking about how dangerous Cassian is and how arrogant. (We find out when she tells us about Tomas, just why her mind went back to defense mode.)

So Nesta leans in, and now Cassian is the one straightening his posture aka backing up and away from Nesta. HA. HA. She wins—

BUT no, because then she denies the question with her answer, and Cassian pounces to regain that upper hand.

Cassian: “You haven’t answered my first question. Or are all these other questions a diversion?”

Nesta: “What is it to you?”

Cassian: “More questions.”

Then he gives her a cocky grin because he knows he’s got all the power and that she is avoiding the question. Which means he knows she’s embarrassed or insecure about it.

And that’s when Nesta has a light bulb moment. She realizes that Cassian thinks she is inexperienced and embarrassed to be a virgin. So she gives him the answer that will wipe the cocky grin off his face.

She leans into him more, brushes her body against him (cuz her body is what this is all about/what he wants to know about), she sees it working cuz his pupils expand, his body stiffens (LOL), and she says no, she’s a virgin. 

Then digs her hand into his leathers and says, “Why should I have bothered? By the time I came of age, I was surrounded by low-born brutes and bastards.” And says she’d rather masterbate then “sully” herself with them.

And she gets the reaction she wanted. He’d planned to make her feel inferior regardless of how she answered the “are you a virgin” question. Fair fight in my opinion. And just as exploitative of him and he was planning to be of her. And Nesta knows she has him by the balls here. She practically heard that arrow strike the target.

And pause for a second. She threw the word bastard in there for him, not gonna deny that. But she then tells us it was designed to wound him “if he thought too long on it.” 

So, yes, she used the word bastard as a dig at him, but it was veiled. She implies here, that she said it with the same inflection and cadence that she would say, “By the time I came of age, I was surrounded by low-born brutes and assholes.”

The dig was not that she said he was a bastard, or that he is lesser because he is a bastard. The dig is that she, herself, is implying that bastards and brutes are not good enough for her. Because she recognizes that Cassian’s whole macho arrogant-ass act in this scene has been about him trying to get her to pay attention to him.

Well no one intimidates Nesta Archeron into paying attention to them. No one demands she pay attention to them. She is not an object with which men/males should posture and peacock to get attention from. That’s not how this works (and it’s actually pretty true to life). If Nesta (or any girl) wants to give you attention, she will. So in an equally inappropriate, yet significantly more cunning way (again she doesn’t have the hulking size to do it like he does), Nesta lets him know that he is wasting his time peacocking for her.

And good for her. She is a strong, assertive woman. And he came into her house, looking for a fight. He got into her face and tried to intimidate her. She’s working with what she’s got. And she is responding to what he dishes out first. She is not the aggressor here. He is.

But also, Nesta is hiding. She is trying to push him away because (as we find out later in this scene) she knows that Cassian can see who she is beneath her walls. And I don’t even think Nesta likes to see who she is beneath her walls. She is insecure, and hiding, and so horribly broken by what happened to her mother. That’s where her whole act comes from (as far as we know). That and the fact that her *cough* magic *cough* is that she feels everything too deeply. She doesn’t want to feel somethings, so she pushed them down and buries them beneath walls of fire and steel.)

Moving on!

Then Nesta starts thinking about how she hasn’t been with a man and why. We get a line about her knowing she had no future with Tomas (I’d argue it was her magic/ability to see too much. She knew he was a dick. But also, she has a mate out there.).

“She swallowed, shutting out the memory of what he’s said and done. The sound of her tearing dress. No—it hadn’t gone that far, but… The blind terror in those moments he’d tried, before she’d screamed and clawed her way free. And never told anyone.”

And now we get another reason why Nesta kept coming back to why Cassian is dangerous. She had a horrible history with men. She in no way wanted Cassian to think he could intimidate her, or take her space, or even come on to her. And this is a big part of why.

Then she see’s that Cassian has recognized, to some degree, what kind of memory she’d become lost in. And I think she’s 100% right when she ways it changed her scent. I think that’s part of her magic. Memories and control over memories can camouflage her.

But Cassian sees. And rage stills his face. And Nesta has a very VERY visceral reaction to see this. It says, “It robbed her of breath, of any sort of sense that she might indeed have the upper hand as he ground out, ‘Who.’”

Notice, Cassian did not say “Who?” he said, “Who.” It was not a question. It’s more a command/a statement. He knows someone hurt her and he wants to punish them.

She blows him off, oddly enough, to protect Tomas. (So when people say Nesta is heartless or a bitch—I’m standing over here pointing to the fact that she didn’t was Cassian to punish a man who tried to rape her because death-by-Fae-male is too much even for an asshole like Tomas. A fact Nesta and I disagree on. LOL) Then Nesta tries to move away.

And Cassian grips her hand, pinning it to his heart:

“He gripped it, faster than she could detect, and pinned it there. His heart was beating at a gallop now—a thunderous, mighty gallop. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous, this male. If only for the fact that he made her feel so out of control. That she had no idea what he’d do—what she’d do—if he found her vulnerable for even a moment.”

This passage is GOLD! We get so much! I hope I don’t miss anything. HERE WE GO!

He grips her hand over his heart. We don’t know if physical contact makes their bond stronger/makes him more able to read her. But I think it probably does. Proximity. Ya know?

His actions (holding her, rage, asking who, galloping heart) tell her all she needs to know about who he is: Cassian is the EXACT opposite of her father (Tamlin and Tomas). Cassian is a man of action. He will not sit by and let her starve (or let her mother die), he won’t sit on his ass while she is tortured UtM, and he would go with her to the wall to save her sister.

This makes him to be dangerous. Not because he is not the type to sit on his ass, but because he is the type to do it for her. To make a promise he will keep. To be there for her. (something her father and Tomas never do. Can you imagine someone tries to rape you and you can’t even count on your own father to do anything about it?)

She tells us she HATES not being in control, and cassian makes her feel out of control.

This is all another visceral reaction because this turns her on. In a sexual way, but in a “this is all I’ve ever wanted” way. And that makes Cassian (and what he offers her) dangerous. Dangerous because she likes it/him and that makes it a vulnerability. This is a longing she has been stuffing down and hiding. The last thing she tells us is that she has no idea what she would do if he found her vulnerable.

Because the one thing she can’t be is vulnerable. If she openly loves, then people (her mother) can die. If she openly asks for help, then people (her father when she begged him to find a cure for the mother) can let her down. If she’s in a relationship (Tomas), then men can try to hurt her. If she isn’t strong, then people can take her family (Tamlin takes Feyre, twice). The list goes on.

Cassian asks if someone hurt her, and she notes how guttural his voice is. Meaning he is having a visceral reaction (fussy-fae-bullshit, she’s his mate and someone hurt her).

And her answer is basically, would you find me vulnerable if someone had tried to hurt me?

Nesta: “Would it change anything if someone had? Would it make you see me differently, treat me differently?”

Cassian: “It’d make me hunt them down and shatter every bone in their body.”

This is an honest interaction between them. There are NO walls up here, no game of words being played. Nesta is FLOORED that this male is so willing to “fight for her honor” and no one has ever done that. And so she asks a heartbreakingly honest question that is: would you see/treat me differently/see me as vulnerable if someone had hurt me.

And Cassian’s answer is everything she’s ever wanted to here. He says: No, I would not treat you any differently, but I would murder the son of a bitch who tried to hurt you.

And Maas tells us that the truth in his words/promise sends a shiver down her spine and that she is not scared of him. Dare I say he has maybe won her trust here?

(UGH. Nesta Archeron, my heart!)

Nesta: “You don’t know me. Why bother?”

“Cassian snarled, inching closer, his hand gripping hers—then paused. As if the question sunk in. As if reality sunk in. He blinked. ‘I’d do it for anyone.’”

This is stone cold proof, that Cassian is having a more than friends/I’m a good guy moment. He is so lost to his almost bloodlust at the thought of someone hurting her (his mate), that he growls as if insulted that she would ask him why he would bother for her sake. Then he snaps back to reality and says he would do it for anyone—which is 100% true. Cassian is a stand up guy.

(there is also talk of keeping promises, and I think since mommy dearest roped Feyre into making a promise (that could have very likely been a binding Fae-deal if the mom was Fae or Demi-Fae), I think she might have made Nesta promise to protect Elain. It’s a thought.)

Then Nesta digresses about why his sincerity makes her angry—because it forces her to look at her own lack of it. She mentions how he sees and speaks the truth. We know Nesta can see the truth, but she doesn’t often speak it. Not like Cassian does. And she talks about how he saw her the day they met and “weighed her … actions when they’d lived in that cottage.”

She talks about how she acted like her father when they lived in the cabin. She was so consumed with her hate for him and for him letting her mother die, that she was willing to let them all starve just to prove a point and to punish him.

Punish him, because HE WAS THE FATHER. It was HIS RESPONSIBILITY to take care of his childrens. NOT NESTA’S.

This is a big issue for me, when people get on about how Nesta let them all starve. NO. Nesta was a CHILD. She was as much a victim of a lazy father as Elain and Feyre were. It’s such a micro-aggression. I can’t stand it. The idea that a woman, and the oldest daughter, is supposed to care for the family when there is no mother present. UGH. Leave your gender norms at home. 

And far more importantly: We must be careful not to shift the blame away from the perpetrator and onto the victims. It’s like saying Nesta deserved to be almost raped because of what she was wearing when she broke up with Tomas. No.

People use the argument that they’re an older sibling, or they would never do that to their siblings—not valid arguments. Life experience dictated how we act toward one another. The Archeron sisters come from a messed up family, and Nesta was likely the only one old enough to really grasp that the father sat on his ass and let the mom die. He murdered her in Nesta’s eyes.

And when Feyre went out into the forest (because she’d made a promise and not out of the goodness of her heart, let’s be clear) to find food for them, she was as good as enabling the father’s  laziness and complete lack of parental responsibility.

And that pissed Nesta off. And instead of seeing how she had become just like the father (okay to sit on her ass and watch them die), she buries that truth about herself and uses her self hate/cowardice/selfishness to hate Feyre. Feyre as good as brought booze to an alcoholic in Nesta’s eyes. And it’s not a wrong interpretation either. Because it’s 100% correct. It’s just a different lens with which to examine the situation. People enable alcoholics and addicts and lazy people, and bratty kids every day. Just because Feyre helped her sisters doesn’t mean she wasn’t by default enabling a father who gave up on his responsibilities.

And Nesta tells us that “she didn’t know what to do with it, that rage.” She tells us it still hunts her and makes her want to rip the world apart. Then she tells us:

“She felt it all—too keenly, too sharply. Hated and cared and loved and dreaded, more than other people, she sometimes thought. Could sift between them all in a matter of moments, like she was trying on different sets of clothes, and no one could tell or care. Except him. He could see it, feel it.”

So this gives us two gems:

Nesta might be some kind of empath. Or at least be able to able to use emotions in a magical way similarly to that idea.

She knows Cassian can tell. And she hates being vulnerable. Him being able to tell, makes her vulnerable.

She goes on to explain how she knew Cassian had seen the real her the first time they met, and how she’d wanted to hurt him for it. That’s a natural reaction to being found vulnerable. You eliminate the threat/the thing that makes you vulnerable. She doesn’t want to get hurt. She doesn’t want him to hurt her.

AND HOLY SHIT! Cassian, in that exact moment, reads her mind/her emotions. He sees that she is thinking about how she wanted to hurt him for seeing who she was beneath the walls. He rubs the back of her hand with his thumb. He’s consoling her.

And then a log shifts in the fire—AKA Maas is telling us that something between them shifted. Fundamentally shifted. Because the fire is a metaphor for the fire between them. It has been all scene.

And embers explode and light flares into the room—the scene has literally been illuminated.

And Nesta Archeron realizes that she has been staring at a beautiful, fae male who is holding, and rubbing, her hand. And she notes that Cassian blinked and that his mouth parted, meaning he’s doing that breathy inhale we all do right before we kiss someone/when we want to kiss someone. ALSO, this is a moment where Nesta (and the reader) is aware that Cassian’s lips are parting/he blinked because suddenly there’s Nesta. Nesta the woman behind the walls and the anger and the emotions she can try on like dressed. He sees her, and they both know it.

And then they both get lost in this moment together. Somewhere in the calm eye of the storm. And that’s when Cassian leans in and Nesta tips her head to expose her neck.

POV Switch to Cassian! 

[onward to part two!]

[janiklandre-blog]

Sunday, March 5, 2017

9:25 a.m.  very cold but sunny   a lonely Sunday morning - somewhere I read about the Sunday blues - earlier I have also written about all the people going to church - obviously a way to combat the Sunday blues. I tried - but rarely found services inspiring. For a while Paco and I attended the 6th Avenue Methodist Church in Brooklyn. Paco's second wife Elaine - 16 years younger than he, she dumped him and I met him - Elaine before being with Paco had found her way to the church of Finley Schaef - then off Washington Sqare to the West, Finley had been the first minister to speak out against the Vietnam war from the pulpit. His church was called the peace church - a group my friend Ari Salant was part of, Resist, met there and I went with him, Grace Paley was there - and days before I met Paco I had gone there with Robert Goldscheider and my sons - our sons - to see the San Francisco Mime Troupe performing at the church. My son later tried joining them in San Francisco, alas they said something to the effect that too many Jewish boys from New York were coming (our Jewish name does make us Jewish - there is my Jewish grandfather and Robert's Jewish father - Robert later with his third wife Janet joined a synagogue - my lose affiliations have been Christian, my sons never sought any, as far as I know.

Finley's church was a lively place - but then Finley became involved with the youthful assistant Nancy, his wife with the youth minister - Finley and Nancy a pair to this day - the liaison of his wife did not hold long - still the Methodist church too a dim view, Finley list his church (now condos) - worked in a bar for a year - then made apologies and was assigned the church in Brooklyn - this was around 1973 and Park Slope still a waste land where we could have bought a house for peanuts and I wish we had. While there, the area became gentrified and by the time Finley retired - I visited him and Nancy in Saugsrties not too long ago - it had become a posh neighborhood and a posh church.

After Elaine dumped Paco she was banished from his church, but Finley - and many other people - loved Paco, the charming and prolific azrtist. At times we walked to the church from our second avenue loft - over the Brooklyn bridge, up Flatbush avenue - we loved these long walks, took interesting photographs - all gone - we allotted two hours, still often came after the service had begun and Finley would stop and grandly welcome his painter friend and probably call me his wife - there was talk we might get married in a church ceremony, not the civil one - no legal obligations. We never did.

Finley had a strong theatrical flair - his services were theatrical and fun - he was of Catholic Lithuanian background but had converted to the Methodist church. The church was also very political, much attention was paid to events in Latin America and demonstrations were joined.

At the end of the service we always were invited to the Parish House - a select group - to a lavish brunch and often ended up in nearby Prospect Park. These were not lonely Sundays.

However, in the spring of 1988 when Paco decamped to East Hampton without me (he had waited until it got warm) - on mother's day I went alone to the church where I met Patty Lee Parmelee from my German group and the German woman theologian Soelle was visiting and Patty said, we are going to the Parish house - and I said, I am coming and Nancy stopped me and said: I don't think there is enough room.

Wham bam - only as an adjunct to Paco had I been welcome. Interesting. I did write them a letter and for many years stayed out of contact until I ran one day in the street into Finley who embraced me warmly, asked where I had been - he had forgotten all about that mother's day - by then he had retired and they had left New York - and invited me to come to Saugasrtie's - where I also have another friend who gave me warm hospitality. I spent a lovely weekend there - alas I no longer have the get up and go of my younger years - though coming Tuesday I will test if I can still catch the 5:49 to New Haven and find a bus there to take me to Northampton - a trip I enjoyed not that long ago.

Well, C.B. has shelved me - avoiding any conflict - unwilling to sit down for a talk - finding excuses not to see me. Which also does bring once again the highly critical letter of me I received from another friend - reminding me that when I met Robert G. in 1953 he had three close friends - Lenny, Kenny and David - he and Lenny Harvard law, Kenny and David Harvard med (( did write a novel about them in 1964, after Robert an I had attended his 10th reunion of Harvard law - a theatrical weekend) I did send the novel to a major publisher, got it back saying, very interesting, keep working on it - alas I never learned to work on my writing, In any event, Robert proudly told me of the mutual admiration society the four had formed - three were Jewish, Robert had a Jewish father - determined social climbers - aware of the importance of giving each other support and building each other up. Gesine in Germany is one of my women friends building me up - alas not all women are. So often I de experience women tearing each other down - a late glaring example the granddaughter of Dorothy Day at Mary House. I am aware of the envy and jealousy I have encountered - also sometimes disappointing friends - I can think of three - who met me when I was teaching at Columbia, expecting me to rise in the ranks - social climb myself! - disappointed when I sang: Hallelujah, I'm a bum again - hanging out with bums - not climbing socially but declining. Downward mobility they call it. It has not been voluntary poverty - I've now been around the Catholic Worker for more than 20 years - readily give them credit for making me part of their family - for giving me a home away from no home on ,many lonely days - feeding me a lot of food - and yet at this  very moment deeply disappointing me.

I have lived many different lives with many different groups of people - for many at the CW there has been great continuity in their lives - Roger going back to the 50's - Jane going back to the 70's - Dorothy Day's granddaughters - Kate who now is promoting her book - they have mountains of photographs, letters, books that go back to the time if my birth - 1933 when inspired by Peter Maurin the first issue of the Catholic Worker was published - a penny a copy - peddled in Union Square - a penny a copy to this day and still in the same format - I've read much of Dorothy's excellent writings - her memoir The Long Loneliness, very openly talking about her early days, her recently published extensive journals, a lot of her other writings - it is a fascinating story - what the synergy of two people created - a vital movement that today encompasses the world - and crfeated great continuity in the lives of many people whom I met and watched - good people.

After C.B. drew me in after 1997 - I helped her in the kitchen - saving my life on the day of the 2000 fire, when I left my apartment minutes before a feroceus fire broke in to go and help her in the kitchen.Having just returned from 10 years in Bolivia she knew few people in New York and cherished me as a friend - until very recently - when at the behest of her dear friend M.H. I too was put on their list of the old and feeble minded - to be tolerated as long asd they don't open their mouth. M.H. who always had followed C.B.to my house and was welcomed by me, found it deeply offending how dared I asking to be included when she was asking out C.B. for a humburger. She insulted me, ran off - and later said - I'll talk to you when you'll be a sweet silent old woman.

I guess when you have grown old and not climbed socially - have status and money - that is to be expected. Having watched the C.W. all these years I have come to realize that while the myth declares everybody equal - there too is rank and status and in earlier writings I often wrote about watching French Christine - the general's daughter of aristocrstic background - fighting tooth and nail to climb in the ranks - and glad for myself not to share that ambition. It caused her much grief - she constantly felt left out - she and I did have a few very pleasant encounters and we did like each other - but most of the time she was seeking out "people of value".

The young people who arrive - their youth much valued - if they so desire, quickly rise - immediately there writing in the paper is valued, they are invited on journeys to South Korea, Russia, Afganistan, Iraq and on and on - they are asked to give talks - I turned 60 in 1992 - I was appreciated washing dishes, chopping carrots and later labeling the newspaper - 80.000 copies not long ago, now reduced to 30.000 - postage too expensive. I quickly realized that bar coding would be cheaper than hand labeling - but a woman who has died, Kathy Temple - asked before her death fow a vow that bar coding would never be used - and so people continue to hand lable - it's a bit like in Russia where three people under communism were given the same job to maintain full employment and make sure everybody had a job..

I did it when I was joined by an interesting French priest - who introduced me to interesting French writers - on the tip of my tongue - an early critic of communism whose chauffeur he had once been, later an inmate in a German concentration camp - he was refused housing at CW when evicted in Brooklyn, was a mad driver and died shoveling his beat up Toyota out of the snow. I acutually was asked to write his obituary - I had much liked him

Then all kind of discord broke out in the mailing room - also I preferred writing this here now blog - I no longer was wanted in the kitchen - and alas, not a published author I ended up in a rather numerous category of poor, lonely old women who are greeted kindly and then ignored.

But the place does abound in interesting characters - Jane always talked of writing a Gothic Novel and I hope she has - weirdness abounds - and you don't have to go to any theater, there is enough theater there. Still - it is time for me to widen my circle - and deal with the fact that I can come as silent observer, but there are so many pwople with a great need to talk and men do assert themselves - and boy, do they talk and talk - but forbid women to talk, not only me. Must accept realities.

And so goes my life. Went for an icy walk yesterday, listenened to the ever crazier news - went out to buy the Sunday Times - quickly escaped a violent encounter between two men - violence in the air. Read the Sunday Times, slept rather well - left house at 7 a.m.. - empty cold streets, tons of litter - Bean not very cosy -loud militsry sounding music - a worker sawing metal - walked - ran into a couple people I knew, stopped at the bakery where I've gotten into talking to the woman from former Yugoslavia, 49, a grandmother, drives daily 40 minutes - does not know where in former Yugoslavia her parents came from, does not talk to her Muslim mother - has some nerve problem and barely sleeps but says she is never tired - a bit worrisome, I find - and here I am, spending my lonely Sunday morning g writing - enjoying writing - it's 11 I'll call a friend

Got her answering machine - I know she's not in church but likely out with her daughter. Yesterday I noticed what looked like an interesting lecture at the Deutshes Haus at NYU - modern German authors - since Goethe Haus on 5th Avenue closed I've lost touch with German writing - still - it still is of interest and so I'll skip the CW brunch.

This may the lst of my longblogs at least for a while - tomorrow at 9 a.m. I am to see the eye doctor about the cataracts - he gave me a long form to fill out and extensive material to read - others have told me about the tedious eye drops - and then I'll see how the day develops - Tuesday early I plan to leave for Massachusetts and let's see how this will go. I will take my ipad and see if my daughter-in-law can give me some lessons - many do write on it at length - and then also, those of you who have followed my writing - is it ten years? - have been witness to my waning and waxing energies - somebody called it being a prisoner to our emotions - I would love to keep going at my present rate - since my energies began waxing once again and M.H. and C.B. have been so totally offended by an "energized Marianne" - how dare you not be sweet and even tempered - I have done a lot of organizing, taken care of many things that my waning energies don't allow me to do - when I feel so blah, oh, so blah - yet my psychiatrist friends have assured me "Marianne "you don"t know what real depression is" - and I am thankful to them - thankful I never listened to the pill happy nurses who tell me - you MUST take pills - and worried about others in my life who may suffer from more serious forms of depression than I do. With me until now it has been a passing condition - when I barely find three words to stay - stop writing this here blog - do feel like, hey can't you pull yourself together - this all started after my mother killed herself in 1982 - days before her 80th birthday - she had had with indignities of old age. Only I wished she had not done it the way she did. A year later I for the first time urgently wished for death myself. It threw me and those close to me into terrible disarray. It took me time to learn about waning and waxing energies - I often have not dealt well with it - allowed my anger to surface - but am working hard at trying to be as palatable as possible to myself and to those around me. Whomever I may have offended, please forgive me - and those of you who recites the Lord's prayer, please listen to the words you utter and act on it. A la prochaine, until next time, as French Chrstine used to say - she is now in Paris, battling cancer, would like to be called on her cell phone which is terribly expensive, has not seen to getting hold of a computer - here she only went to the library where a kind young man helped her. Well - perhaps she does not have the energy. I do miss her. She did understand what others do not.

Last - I wish I had learned to write in word - as things get long - my email mode gets a bit rebellious. Still, thanks again Ken, and now Molly to getting me were I am. Marianne

[mikemortgage]

How rising employee activism is driving corporate change

Global consulting giant McKinsey & Co. recently announced it would exit its contract with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency — a relationship that had delivered it US$20 million in revenue. In a letter explaining the shift, McKinsey managing director Kevin Sneader said the firm would not conduct any business that in any way supported “policies that are at odds with our values.”

In making this move, McKinsey joins the ranks of Google, Microsoft and several major airlines who have all recently made values-based public statements about government initiatives they would not support: providing artificial intelligence technology to the military, selling software to ICE or flying refugee children separated from their parents at the U.S. border.

What do all these corporate moves have in common? They were in large part motivated by company employees, unhappy with the idea that their employer — and even worse, their own efforts — might support policies and initiatives they found morally unacceptable. Objections took the form of writing memos, speaking publicly and even resigning.

This phenomenon of the empowered employee reflects two new realities facing organizations. The first is an increase in social and political activism among the general public. Politics has become pop culture, replete with memes, viral videos and daily news as entertaining as reality TV. Engaging is now as easy as joining a #boycott or deleting an app: far less challenging than marching in the rain or ringing doorbells with a petition. A recent study by TBWA called 2017 “a banner year for protest that set the wheels in motion for a new era of activism,” with 85 per cent of Americans participating in some form of social/political engagement.

Another new reality facing company leaders is the growing expectation that the corporate world act as an agent of positive change in a broken world. With trust in government falling precipitously, consumers increasingly look to the private sector to take on the big issues of the day. In a recent study by SproutSocial, two thirds of those surveyed said it’s important for brands to take a stand on the major social and political issues.

Even Wall Street agrees. In a letter to global CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that government is “failing to prepare for the future” and that every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. “Without a sense of purpose,” Fink wrote, “no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential.”

While the notion of companies adopting a higher purpose is not entirely new, the stakes are higher, and the expectations are greater than ever — especially with the growing internal pressure from employees. “People are increasingly standing up for their values in their personal lives,” according to Elaine Dinos, founder and CEO of Kindred Lane, a purpose advisor. “These individuals are carrying this urgency of action into their workplaces,” she told me. In turn they expect corporate leadership to share their values and their drive to make a difference.

Addressing employees’ activist urges becomes even more critical as the competition for talent grows more intense. “More and more we are seeing organizations focus on ensuring that they have a clear and authentic purpose,” according to Caren Fleit, managing director of the Global Marketing Officers Practice at organizational consulting firm Korn Ferry. “Purpose is critical to employee engagement, commitment and retention, especially among millennials, who will soon make up 50 per cent of the workforce,” she told me. Korn Ferry’s research shows that culture is the top consideration when prospects choose to join an organization — vs compensation and benefits five years ago.

The imperative to engage is clear; but how to do it right is not as obvious. There can be ferocious blowback when a company seems to insincerely jump on a social bandwagon for the sake of capitalizing on a hot issue. Witness the withering criticism that Pepsi endured for showing C-list celebrity Kendall Jenner stop a riot by popping a can of soda. On the other hand, there is also risk in sitting on the sidelines. The National Football League maintained a stony silence for 18 months after the kneeling protests began, allowing President Trump and others to take control of the narrative and declare the NFL “weak and out of control.”

My book Marketing in the #FakeNews Era discusses why organizations must first start with an introspective look at what issues are important to them: where is there an authentic connection to a bigger societal issue. It may come from collective beliefs, issues affecting the business, or issues of particular importance to their customers. IBM, for example, was particularly active in the debate about Dreamers, children brought to the U.S. illegally, because they employed many Dreamers and had a critical need to recruit technical talent from around the world.

A critical next step is to conduct an honest assessment of where the company has permission to engage. There are some issues that are indeed important, but where a brand’s voice may not be credible or welcome. Part of this assessment should include a look at the company’s history. No one wants to be Audi, producing a stirring ad about equal pay for women, while at the same time sporting a dismal record of placing women in the executive suite.

When embracing a broader purpose or engaging in a social/political issue, companies must make sure they have the right people at the table, evaluating the work and bringing the right sensibilities to the process. There are too many nuances and sensitivities underlying these highly charged issues for even the most well-intentioned to be able to spot, understand and navigate them all. This caution once again reinforces the need for a truly diverse team, to maximize the chances of taking on difficult issues with a sufficiently empathetic touch.

Finally, and returning to the starting point of an activist workforce, it’s more important than ever to keep in touch with employees: what their core values are, what issues they care about, what societal challenges they personally feel. Whether by appointing a “purpose officer” as some have done recently, or by creating forums for ongoing and open dialogue, organizations must ensure they understand their employees’ deeper motivations. Doing so will only raise the likelihood of a more engaged and effective organization and minimize the risk of ending up as tomorrow’s headline fodder.

Peter Horst is a keynote speaker and founder of CMO Inc., a global marketing advisory firm. He has led marketing at Hershey, Capital One, General Mills, and is on Forbes’ Top 50 Global CMO list. Peter is the author of “Marketing in the #FakeNews Era: New rules for a new reality of tribalism, activism and loss of trust.”

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2mHfjQ9 via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

[deniseyallen]

Senator Portman Joins Ohio Colleagues in Supporting Ohio’s Preeminent Vehicle Testing Facility, Urging Transportation Secretary to Change Automated Vehicle Policy

Ohio’s Transportation Research Center is the Largest and Most Sophisticated Independent Vehicle Proving Ground in North America 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) joined his Ohio colleagues of both parties in the House and Senate to send a letter urging the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao to change the previous administration’s automated vehicle policy, which excludes Ohio’s Transportation Research Center (TRC) – the largest and most sophisticated independent vehicle proving ground in North America – from certain partnership and funding opportunities that are important to the development of safe and effective regulations for this emerging technology.   

In January 2017, on the final day of the Obama administration, then-Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx designated 10 automated vehicle (AV) proving grounds to serve as the department’s preferred partners for developing future AV-related policy.  The previous administration purportedly set out to designate these proving grounds in order to advance shared, national goals concerning the safe deployment of automated vehicles.  However, Senator Portman and his Ohio colleagues were and remain critical of this last-minute policy announcement because Ohio’s Transportation Research Center, the largest and most sophisticated independent vehicle proving ground on the continent, was notably omitted from this group.  

 Upon joining his colleagues on this bipartisan letter urging Secretary Chao to reconsider the previous administration’s policy, Senator Portman released the following statement: 

“In the interest of creating the safest, most effective AV policies, the Department of Transportation should be able to determine its partners for testing this new technology based on merit, not favoritism.  As events in the past year have made tragically clear, our policies for the development, testing, and deployment of automated vehicle technology can have a direct impact on the health and security of our fellow Americans, both behind the wheel and on the street.  That is why my colleagues and I believe that the Department of Transportation ought not to have its capacity to partner with organizations like TRC – whose decades of vehicle testing and wealth of relevant expertise are second-to-none – restricted for arbitrary or political reasons.  We should work together toward policies for automated vehicle technology that, in equal measure, promote American industry and protect human life.  I am confident that there is no better place to find a partner in this mission than the Transportation Research Center in East Liberty.” 

NOTE:  In April 2017, Portman hosted U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao for a visit to TRC and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty.  Secretary Chao saw firsthand how TRC Ohio has become a global leader in autonomous vehicle research development. This facility has significant importance to Senator Portman because he worked to protect the NHTSA testing center by urging the General Services Administration (GSA) to keep its facility there after plans had been made to change locations. Following Portman’s letter, the GSA announced that the location would stay. 

The Ohio delegation letter to Secretary Chao is below and linked here. 

July 17, 2018

The Honorable Elaine L. Chao

Secretary

United States Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Madam Secretary: 

As the department continues to support the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles, we are writing to follow up on delegation letters from February 2017 promoting Ohio’s Transportation Research Center (TRC) as an ideal vehicle proving ground site. 

As you know, on January 19, 2017, the department released a list of ten sites to be designated as Automated Vehicle Proving Grounds (AVPGs). Despite TRC’s status as the largest independent automotive proving ground on the continent and its decades-long record of continuous automotive testing, it was not included on this list. 

TRC, located in East Liberty, Ohio, is already a key facility in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s development of regulations for highly automated vehicles. Among TRC’s 18 distinct test tracks are a 7.5-mile multi-lane oval track and a 1.5-mile winding road course, alongside many other courses and facilities that allow for vehicle testing on a wide variety of pavement types and conditions and in all types of weather. 

At your April 12 appearance in front of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, you testified that the site selection was not fair and seemed not to have been based on any discernible criteria. We are grateful for your willingness to consider expanding this list, especially considering that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 set aside $20 million for entities “designated as automated vehicle proving grounds.” 

Absent the AVPG designation, TRC is thus at a competitive disadvantage to those locations chosen in the department’s site selection. Consistent with all applicable rules and regulations governing your work, we respectfully request that you expand the list of designated AVPG sites and reconsider TRC for inclusion on this list. 

Should expanding the list of sites prove infeasible, though, we request that you consider getting rid of the AVPG designation altogether. Given the unfairness of the site selection and the need to create the most effective framework for testing autonomous vehicles, the department might be better served by eliminating this arbitrary constraint and basing its decisions on solid criteria, availing itself of the resources best equipped to meet its goals. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request, for your leadership on this issue, and for your service to our nation.

###

from Rob Portman http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=97D20CF0-C197-4EE6-97DA-4D0E191A67F6

[lilyroseweiss-blog]

Teen Vogue Stays In Vogue: Keeping Up with the Times by Trying to Represent Them

I haven’t picked up an issue of Teen Vogue in a while. A couple years, kind of a while. And whether this was because I simply “grew out” of a time in which I found its content relatable, or simply thought I “should” grow out of it, either way, I definitely stopped reading. 

Thumbing through issues for today’s talking-back, I found myself subconsciously searching for maybe incredibly gendered ad-content, or specifically arduous articles about the importance of toner, that I could write disappointedly about. And, to be fair, this was a very biased perspective to enter this decision with; that Teen Vogue must pander to the insecurities or questions of teens in stereotypical ways (and admittedly, I very possibly was evoking ideas about other magazines on the present one, but that’s another issue) that I could push back against. 

Instead, however, I found an issue with none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton, against a backdrop of an artistic American flag, displayed proudly on the cover. While this wasn’t entirely surprising—during and in the wake of the election one could find Hillary Clinton’s face on many a cover—however, I was enticed as to how a teen-centric magazine would utilize such imagery and evocation. Hillary Clinton’s face is paired with the headline, “nevertheless, WE RESIST”—a clearly even more specifically pointed indication of what the pages went on to hold. I was intrigued, surprised, and curious about what might be between the cover page and Tampax® ad on the last. 

And while I feel passionate about multiple topics presented within the issue, such as writing responses to the five amazing young “trailblazing talents” listed on Teen Vogue’s “21 Under 21”(edited Nylander 58) and the questions they asked the former Secretary of State, or the article titled “Squad Goals (edited Nylander 16) detailing the lifelong bond of previous Clinton staffers—and the suggestions the article posits, or the detailed exploration of the powerhouse that is Congresswoman Maxine Waters in order to reiterate the work and strength she represents, attempting to accomplish all this in one post runs the risk of leaving each feeling unfinished or incomplete (at least, I think. Final project maybe?). Moreover, I wanted consciously avoid simply airing frustrations that I feel so often spin me around in circles, only to come out of such a tornado without any answers. 

So, all this is to say that, I really appreciated the headline “WHY I MARCH” by Kimberly Drew, the title of an article exploring the writer’s own discovery of purpose in the wake of anger. And, like many others, the last election left me angry. Disappointed—yes, confused—definitely, temporarily disheartened—unfortunately, but also really just angry. Additionally, weeks later I left to study abroad for a semester, a departure date that left me incapable of going to the first Women’s March (at least, specifically termed as such), an event I saw as an important opportunity to pushback, and channel my anger into something good. 

This past winter, I had better timing luck. The second annual Women’s March was to take place the day before I left to return to Grinnell, and my whole family (granted, this is my mom, my dad, and me) made sure to go. It was the warmest day of the winter so far, and the sun shined startlingly brightly. Multiple people throughout the day could be heard exclaiming, “The sun shines on the Women’s March.” And it really felt like it did.

But something else that I overheard was young marcher turn to her mother and ask, “Everyone’s marching for a lot of things. What are we marching for?” a response presumably to the wide variety of signs and cheers. This stuck with me. And I think this is what jumped out at me so significantly early on in the issue. In the Letter from the Editor, Elaine Welteroth—the person who asked Hillary Clinton to guest edit the issue—plainly states: “Some will say it’s too partisan, too political, to retrospective, too ‘echo-chambery.’ This issue isn’t for them. It was designed for the millions who acknowledge that until women, girls, people of color, members of the LGTBQ community, immigrants, and the economically disadvantaged are on an equal playing field, we must hold a space for these critical conversations” (Welteroth 12). And I think, maybe in a couple years, this might answer that little girls question. That there’s a lot to fight for. 

So, I suppose—especially in the context of this politically charged issue—this is where youth culture meets need for change. I suppose Teen Vogue has changed significantly (to an extent) from the time in which I turned to it for nail trends and fashion advice in middle school (a time unkind to most). An adult, the editor, sees a space that can be occupied by educational, motivational, and arguably encouraging pieces, and takes it, for the betterment of a younger generation. And in this way, this blog post has veered almost entirely from what I thought it would initially center upon.

So here are a couple takeaways I gathered from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s edition of Teen Vogue:

They’re still going to try to sell you perfume and face wash

Moving into the post-grad world, I’m trying to keep in mind the advice afforded by Kimberly Drew: “One cannot go to every protest, but we can all live with conviction. Ask yourself: What am I willing to fight for, and how do I make that fight part of my daily life?” (Drew 75)

Diversity is still significantly lacking in commercial representations 

Hillary Clinton doesn’t mind “seeing articles about the search for the perfect makeup remover next to essays about running for office” (Clinton 12)—not sure what to do with this information yet

“Resistance and resilience” (Clinton 12) seem like they should be written in block letters in as many places as possible

Works Cited:

**All citations from same issue, various articles and authors** 

Welteroth, E. ed. Clinton, H. R.  2017. “nevertheless: WE RESIST.” Teen Vogue, 4, December 5, Full issue.