#William Bingham

[46ten]

In times of such commotion as the present, while the passions of men are worked up to an uncommon pitch there is great danger of fatal extremes. The same state of the passions which fits the multitude, who have not a sufficient stock of reason and knowlege to guide them, for opposition to tyranny and oppression, very naturally leads them to a contempt and disregard of all authority. The due medium is hardly to be found among the more intelligent, it is almost impossible among the unthinking populace. When the minds of these are loosened from their attachment to ancient establishments and courses, they seem to grow giddy and are apt more or less to run into anarchy. These principles, too true in themselves, and confirmed to me both by reading and my own experience, deserve extremely the attention of those, who have the direction of public affairs. In such tempestuous times, it requires the greatest skill in the political pilots to keep men steady and within proper bounds, on which account I am always more or less alarmed at every thing which is done of mere will and pleasure, without any proper authority. [Hamilton to John Jay, 26Nov1775; bolded is my emphasis]

Hamilton, an 18-21 year old man who had not graduated from King’s College/Columbia, writing to John Jay, then an almost 30-year-old delegate from NY to the Continental Congress. 

The negative opinion of the multitude is period-typical, but Hamilton at sure a young age holding himself as different, indeed superior, that’s all him. 

Moreover, New England is very populous and powerful. It is not safe to trust to the virtue of any people.... You well know too, sir, that antipathies and prejudices have long subsisted between this province and New England.  To this may be attributed a principal part of the disaffection now prevalent among us. Measures of the present nature, however they may serve to intimidate, will secretly revive and increase those ancient animosities, which though smothered for a while will break out when there is a favorable opportunity.... Let your body station in different parts of the province most tainted, with the ministerial infection, a few regiments of troops, raised in Philadelphia the Jerseys or any other province except New England.

The ancient animosities between NY/NJ and New England!

And sometimes I find a little tidbit that I already knew but reminds me that I haven’t included Bingham on the list of folks with West Indian ties, who were also notably close to AH:  

William Bingham of Philadelphia, one of the richest men in America, served during most of the Revolution as Continental agent in the West Indies.

[americanahighways]

Top 25 Albums for AMA's 25th Anniversary Year

Top 25 Albums for AMA's 25th Anniversary Year @springsteen @tompettyofficial @hurrayfortheriffraff @ryanbinghamofficial @americanaquarium @adiavictoria @jasonisbell @brennenleigh @waxa_katie @johnnycash @lucinda_williams @lukasnelsonofficial @americana_andy_ @songsohia @brandicarlile @chrisstapleton @johnny_blue_skies1 @ryanadams @gillianwelchofficial @timmytychilders @ournativedaughters @john_prine @allisonrussellmusic @bigthiefmusic @drivebytruckers @amerianahighways #americanahighways #americanamusic #top25albums

Top 25 Albums for AMA’s 25th Anniversary Year 25 years ago, spurred by conversations that took place at South by Southwest in Austin, the Americana Music Association became a reality. In September 2000, the nascent organization held its first conference in Nashville. Two years later, the Americana Honors and Awards came into being. As the Association celebrates its 25th anniversary at this…

[demisexualnathanvuornos]

Clara Bingham (Nikki Delouch) Five More Minutes: Moments Like These (2022) 6/ 6

[denimbex1986]

'...The villain has been absent from Doctor Who for 57 years, but will return this November - now played by Hollywood star Neil Patrick Harris.

The 60th anniversary specials will see Harris's Toymaker pitted against returning Doctor Who star David Tennant, now playing the Fourteenth Doctor.

Also featuring in the episodes are Catherine Tate as returning companion Donna Noble, Jacqueline King as Sylvia Noble, Karl Collins as Shaun Temple, Bernard Cribbins as Wilfred Mott, Yasmin Finney as Rose, Jemma Redgrave as Kate Stewart, Ruth Madeley as Shirley Anne Bingham and Miriam Margolyes as the voice of The Meep...'

[atna2-34-75]

A visit to the de Young Museum (San Francisco)

George Caleb Bingham, Boatmen on the Missouri, 1846

William Morris Hunt, Governor’s Creek, Florida, 1874

William Joseph McCloskey, Oranges in Tissue Paper, ca. 1890

Alexander Pope, The White Swan, 1900

Thomas Pollock Anshutz, The Ironworkers’ Noontime, 1880

Grant Wood, Dinner for Threshers, 1934

[fatehbaz]

[E]very [interspecies] meeting in fact reminds us that the being we meet is and always shall be strange to us […]. When beings meet there is a distance between, such that in encountering the slug we also encounter something beyond the slug – a multitude of life we cannot sense. [...] So despite shared histories and the close proximity in which slugs and [humans] live, the slug retains a certain darkness as a creature apart; something is held in reserve […]. And so fleeting awareness of the irretrievability of the lives of others intensifies poignancy, such that despite a gulf separating the [human] from other creatures, some connection, however fleeting, is made to something – however strange. Refusing to dismiss the everyday and the banal is an ethical response. […] Slugs are there: sliming, chomping, and oozing around quietly and that should be enough to give them consideration.

[Text by: Franklin Ginn. “Sticky lives: Slugs, detachment and more-than-human ethics in the garden.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Volume 39, Issue 4. 2013. Bold emphasis added by me.]

---

So, can an insect speak? And if yes, do we understand it? Wittgenstein maintained that ‘if a lion could speak we would not understand him’, by which he implied that we do not share the ‘form of lion-life’ that would make lion language fully transparent to us […]. A similar insight was [...] expressed by [...] [a twentieth-century] honeybee researcher [...]: Beyond the appreciable facts of their life we know but little of the bees. And the closer our acquaintance becomes, the nearer is our ignorance brought to us of the depths of their real existence. But such ignorance is better than the other kind, which is unconscious and satisfied.

[Text by: Eileen Crist. “Can an Insect Speak?: The Case of the Honeybee Dance Language.” Social Studies of Science, Volume 34, Issue 1. 2004. Bold emphasis added.]

---

Animal studies scholarship tends to emphasize animal-human relations, encounters, and similarities. […] Jellyfish and other gelatinous creatures [...], however, float at the far reaches of our ability to construct sturdy interspecies connections [...]. Uexkull’s theory […] insists upon multiple worlds […], a capacious admission that a multitude of other creatures dwell as part of worlds that humans cannot readily or completely access or grasp. Three-quarters of a century later Terry Tempest Williams wonders what it would be like to be a jellyfish. […] [She] writes: “Perhaps this is what moves me most about jellies – their sensory intelligence […] the great hunger that is sent outward through the feathery reach of their tentacles. Imagine the information sought and returned.”

[Text by: Stacy Alaimo. “Jellyfish Science, Jellyfish Aesthetics: Posthuman Reconfigurations of the Sensible”. In: Thinking with Water. 2013. Bold emphasis added.]

---

Although we cannot ‘speak’ with nonhumans in any straightforward way, what we can and more importantly do do is become articulate with them in various ways. [...] If there is a way out of this historical impasse [alienation, climate crisis, global ecological degradation], [for some] it is not to be found in attributing some of ‘our��� qualities to ‘them’. It “would not be a matter of ‘giving speech back’ to animals […]. Perhaps the task is not to seek to compare the dance language of bees […] with human language, the ‘intelligence’ […] of Monarch butterflies with human intelligence, […] but rather (or at least in addition) to find a way of thinking about these ‘remarkable things’ that grants them positive ontological difference in their own right. […] [It] is concerned with what is always a multitude of others rather than a singular other […]; and it is radically nonanthropocentric […].

[Text by: Nick Bingham. “Bees, Butterflies, and Bacteria: Biotechnology and the Politics of Nonhuman Friendship.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Volume 38, Issue 3. 2006. Bold emphasis added.]

---

Starfish may seem to be still, but longer attention [...] shows them [slowly] moving, changing. [...] Then there are beings [like some insects] that experience hundreds, thousands of generations within a human lifetime. For such beings, the memories, learnings and modes of passing on experience are, it almost goes without saying (yet it must be said as it is so often not), radically different from any human’s in terms of the ways they experience change. The immensity of the alterity is, literally, incomprehensible to humans. We can't know what these beings know. But we can be aware that they have knowledges and experiences beyond us. [...] [W]e should know they live and experience and think beyond us. We should seek respect and be aware of how our lives are entangled […]. It is not abstract, or empty.

[Text by: Bawaka Country et al. “Gathering of the Clouds: Attending to Indigenous understandings of time and climate through songspirals.” Geoforum Volume 108. January 2020. Bold emphasis added.]

[pers-books]

THE WAR BETWEEN THE LAND AND THE SEA: RUMOURS OF NEW DOCTOR WHO SPIN-OFF

Some information contained below is from speculative reports for which the BBC declined to comment.

A new addition could be set to join The Whoniverse next year when the latest Doctor Who spin-off series 'The War Between The Land And The Sea' lands on BBC One and iPlayer.

The Mirror newspaper were the first publication to reveal the commission late last year, where it was reported the series would focus on classic Doctor Who foes The Sea Devils, a villain first seen opposite Jon Pertwee's Third Doctor in the 1970s before returning opposite Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor in 2022.

A source later told The Sun: "Doctor Who fans love the monsters and The War Between The Land and the Sea will hopefully give viewers something new and different to enjoy. The Sea Devils and their cousins, the Silurians, have both featured in 21st-century Doctor Who, so modern audiences are familiar with them too."

Production listings for The War Between The Land And The Sea suggest the fantasy drama is to commence production in September 2024, suggesting the series will air mid-late 2025 after Season 2 of Doctor Who.

Online CVs from those involved in the series state that the show will comprise of five 60-minute episodes which will air on BBC One and iPlayer in the UK. Also stated is that the series will be directed by Dylan Holmes-Williams, who directed Doctor Who Season 1 episodes 73 Yards and Dot & Bubble.

When it comes to casting, a member of Doctor Who forum GallifreyBase has suggested the series will be led by Freeman Agyeman, reprising her role as former Doctor Who companion Martha Jones.

She will reportedly be joined by Jemma Redgrave (Kate Lethbridge-Stewart), Ruth Madeley (Shirley Anne Bingham) and Bonnie Langford (Mel Bush) as members of UNIT.

The same contributor suggested the Sea Devils will appear in the series, however will not be the main focus of the show, which will be set in present-day in a rural English village. The series will be produced by Bad Wolf Productions.

The BBC declined to comment on The War Between The Land The Sea when approached by TV Zone.

Meanwhile, the latest series of Doctor Who has become the BBC's biggest drama of the year so far for younger viewers, as well as consistently being one of the best performing titles on iPlayer.

Season 1 of Doctor Who saw Ncuti Gatwa return as the Fifteenth Doctor, alongside Millie Gibson as Ruby Sunday after they made their highly acclaimed debut on Christmas Day in The Church on Ruby Road. Within the series, the Doctor and Ruby travel through time and space on adventures to unknown lands, to the Regency era in England, to outer space worlds and the sixties.

A BBC spokesperson told The Times: "Overnight ratings no longer provide an accurate picture of all those who watch drama in an on-demand world. This season of Doctor Who premiered on iPlayer nearly 24 hours before broadcast, and episode 1 has already been viewed by nearly 6 million viewers and continues to grow...

"Doctor Who remains one of the most-watched programmes on iPlayer and is the BBC’s top drama for under-35s this year, making it one of the biggest programmes for the demographic across all streamers and broadcasters."

Doctor Who is available on BBC iPlayer in the UK and Disney+ worldwide where available.

-- I don't mind telling you that I am very sceptical about this possibility. Partly because I'm not sure Freema would want to come back to the Whoniverse after the way certain sections of the fandom treated her back in the day, but also because she has a very busy TV and stage career already. I mean, I'd be delighted to see her and Kate Stewart working for UNIT together, but...

[autistic-writer-angel]

Surprise! Mooooore Angel asks!

Globe 🌎: (favorite place in the world/she's visited?)

Record 📃: (what's the story behind their name? Do they like it?)

Teamwork 🙏: (who does she work best with?)

Custom question: what would Angel's love language(s) be? (Gift giving, words of affirmation, quality time, etc)

-Nova☆

Thanks for the ask!

🌎 That's a tough one. Angel has visited so many amazing places! Her favourites, though, would probably have to be the Arctic and the Caribbean. Seeing the Northern Lights was an experience she'll never forget and she was in the Arctic for her thirteenth birthday. ("Can you believe it?! We're actually spending Christmas in the North Pole?!") The Caribbean is gorgeous too. She always thought it looked like something you only see in pictures, not something you ever expect to see in real life.

📃 For me, as a writer, the significance of Angel's name is she's a self-insert and Angel is my middle name.

In the canon, it was just a name her mother liked and decided it was a sign after she was born to the song "Angels" by Robbie Williams. (This is a partly true story; like I said, Angel is my middle name and the song that played before "Angels" was a song by an artist with my FIRST name!)

Her last name has no real significance. I just kind of liked it and I thought Angel Bingham had a nice ring to it.

And yes. Angel loves her name. She thinks it's pretty and so do a lot of other people. (Pretty much the first thing Dashi said to her was, "Angel! That's such a pretty name!") Plus, she loves that story.

🙏: Probably Captain Barnacles and Peso. She feels like they make her better.

Custom question: what would Angel's love language(s) be? (Gift giving, words of affirmation, quality time, etc) Angel's never really sure about this kind of thing. It would probably just be hugs (she's only a hugger with certain people) and just asking if they're okay.

[wibble-wobbegong]

Who is Peter Owens?

Okay so! Officially decided to separate Peter from the full saint post (in progress), though the theories merge together a little. If you’ve been keeping up with it, you probably already know a fair amount of this stuff!! This is just a deeper dive.

In short, Peter Owens is a theoretical character stemmed from wanting to understand the purpose behind ‘Peter’ being a name that’s repeated several times throughout S4. This will serve as both a theory and analysis, discussing why I think Peter exists and then analyzing his impact on the narrative!! I’m gonna use this post to discuss the 5 Peters, Peter’s role in the story, and his connections to Mike as his antithesis.

The 5 Peters

The kickstarter of this theory is the fact that Peter is a name repeated four times throughout the show. The repetition of names is something that never happens unless some important connection is meant to be made. For example, Billy and Will are both named William or how there are two other characters named Henry in earlier seasons. Repetitive names are a sign to pay attention!! For a name to be repeated four times in the same season with absolutely no allusion to who this could actually be?? That’s even more aggressive than the repetition of Henry’s name from earlier seasons. There is something very important about this Peter character and he could not be hinted at in previous seasons, but we NEED to be paying attention to him now.

Who are the four Peters mentioned by name in-show?

1. Lab Peter

2. Peter, Owens’ Son

3. Petey McHew

4. Peter Bingham

I did, however, say that there are five Peters! There is another Peter tied to the show by name, but he isn’t mentioned in the show itself. His name is;

5. Peter Ballard

The first step is to figure out what the connecting factor is between all these different characters! They’re all in very different settings with very different roles. Seemingly. Let’s get the facts down for each of these characters.

Lab Peter | 4x01, 6:19

The Peter in the lab isn’t given a last name, so we only know him as Peter. Brenner only refers to him as Peter. We never actually see who exactly it is that he’s talking to, we only know that a Peter is present in the lab at the time of Henry’s massacre. I could only find one potential subject to be Lab Peter, because of his lack of a last name compared to the other ones.

The man on the right is the only one of the military men whose last name isn’t visible. Here we have Miller in the middle, the man on the left has a last name too short to be Ballard.

My eyes aren’t the best, but I’m pretty sure these are Blackmen and Thatcher.

It’s possible that the man without a last name is meant to be Peter, but it seems unlikely because Brenner calls for two people, Peter and Alan. Our Peter traveled in a group of two, and these three traveled as a trio. There’s a chance this is Peter, but it doesn’t line up with information we’re given from the other Peters.

The two facts about Lab Peter; was at the lab at the time of the massacre and he was with someone named Alan.

Peter, Owens’ Son | 4x03, 3:11

When the government raids Owens’ house, they shuffle through old boxes and they take things, including a non-descript metal box and someone named Peter’s box of school projects. He’s most likely Owens’ son, considering he kept the school projects in his house and then being school projects indicate him having been younger with Owens and living with him long enough to gather a box full of projects. The fact that his wife is aware and she’s the one upset about the projects means she was attached to him as well, but she isn’t involved with anything in the lab as far as we know.

^ the projects

The facts of this Peter? Owens’ wife attached enough to him to suggest he wasn’t just a lab kid, the projects indicate that he was involved with the Owens for a length of time, and he’s most likely their son.

Petey McHew | 4x04, 22:47

“But can I tell you a story? 1978, I was at summer camp. And my counselor Drew told me and everyone in Cabin C the true story of the Victor Creel massacre. And little Petey McHew… you know Petey, right, Ruth? Yeah. Little Petey McHew started sobbing right there on the spot. Full on hyperventilating.”

And here we have the story of Petey McHew! The most prominent thing about McHew is his fear of Victor and the fact that he was at summer camp. We also know that ‘Ruth’ and ‘Rose’ were familiar with Petey. Those names are relevant because they’re also repetitive in the story.

Ruth, Nevada is the neighborhood which Owens lives and where NINA lies.

Rose is something relevant to the Creel home as well as a connection to Owens.

The pillow is only visible when Owens stands during his argument with Sullivan (the military guy), hence the connection.

Peter Bingham | 13:37

The boy that looks like Will? That’s Peter Bingham. He’s the Peter that we know the least about. He’s using salt, wearing orange and blue, and he has the same haircut as Will in S4.

In the background, on the pinboard, there’s another summer camp reference! The flyer for Camp Know-where, the summer camp Dustin and Suzie went to, is pinned. It’s the version for 1986, but you can see the computer logo in the middle of the top of the flyer! On the official site, they describe every day as being an adventure, which lines up with the phrase “Adventure is Calling!” plastered on the flyer.

Peter Ballard

This is the tweet where they denounced the connection between Peter Ballard and Henry Creel. Of course, you should always take what the Stranger Writers say with a grain of salt, but the fact that they also addressed the difference between Enzo and Dmitri in the same tweet, which actually is true, does make me more inclined to believe them. They’re drawing a connection, and while one could be real and one could be fake, parallels are often used to reveal the truth.

Just like how Enzo was a fake name, an entirely different name for an entirely different thing. Enzo has been used before by Hopper, referring to the waiter as Enzo in S3 when he gets stood up by Joyce. Enzo is not the name of a character. Peter Ballard, in the same way isn’t the name of a character. It is, however, relevant to the story somehow.

The biggest thing about Ballard is that his only connection is to Henry. There’s nothing else about him, simply a name meant to hide the connection between Vecna, 001, and Henry. They could’ve chosen any name, but they chose Peter.

Peter’s Role in the Story

So we have all this information, but how does it come together? Who exactly is Peter, and what purpose does he serve in the narrative?

There are 3 major connections within the 5 Peters; Henry Creel, Sam Owens, and summer camps. Diving into those connections helps us build the story of Peter Owens (though i’m sure his name already gives you a bit of a hint).

Connecting the Dots

How does Henry play into the different stories of a few of the different Peters?

Lab Peter - The Peter mentioned is referenced right before Henry’s massacre, as well as being a worker for the lab. The lab was sort of built for Henry; to study him and his abilities, to control him, to recreate him. Anyone involved in the lab somehow has a direct tie to Henry Creel. In the lab, we don’t even have confirmation who Peter actually is, so it is a popular theory that Henry is called Peter in the lab!

Petey McHew - This is one of the more direct connections because of the mention of Victor Creel, specifically the story of Victor supposedly murdering people. The person actually behind those murders is Henry. Victor is also Henry’s father.

Peter Ballard - Quite honestly the most blatant tie to Henry, considering it was a cover name for his character. Peter Ballard has no other connections to any other character.

Now, this seems to be pointing in the direction of Peter being another version of Henry; someone to add on top of the ever growing list of characters that are secretly Henry. It heavily points to 001 actually being referred to as Peter in the lab, even.

The problem with that, however, is that it doesn’t explain why Peter is so heavily connected to Owens and not Brenner. We’ve never even seen Owens and Henry interact and Owens was strangely absent in the flashbacks to the lab.

I considered that Henry had been living as Peter and Owens’ son at some point, but that doesn’t make sense when paired with Brenner’s obsession with him and his need to control him. Brenner and Owens have a strained relationship, they barely trust each other in S4. If Brenner was going to leave Henry in someone’s hands, it wouldn’t have been Owens.

Alongside that, there are also things in these stories that directly connect to Henry that don’t align with what we know about Henry. Peter is scared of Victor — scared of the damage he can do. Henry states that he views his father as naive and pathetic, he never saw his father as someone to fear. Victor wasn’t a good father by any means, but he did love Henry. He never directly caused him harm and tried to protect him (though his thinking is flawed). There is zero reason for Henry to be scared of Victor, especially in relation to those murders.

As for Peter Ballard, it makes no sense for Henry to also be Peter when we look at the parallels drawn to Enzo’s false name in that tweet. If it were a statement on its own, it would be deserving of suspicion, but there’s an intentional inclusion of Dmitri. Parallels are something we use all the time to determine the reality of a situation, so that parallel is meant to be used to reveal the truth again.

Henry Creel is not Peter.

So who else could he be? Why does he still have such strong connections to Henry if he isn’t Henry himself?

Now, we turn to Owens’ son. Here’s the thing. Owens has incredibly strong ties to the Creel family for some reason despite not seeming to be involved at all.

When Owens is presented with the photo of Chrissy’s body, he claims not to know anything about it. His reaction says the opposite. When the military leaves, Owens immediately goes to check on NINA information. Later, when his agents have picked up El and they’re in the restaurant, he says, “A war is coming to Hawkins.”

How would he know that? Ever since November 1983, there has never been a body that looked like Chrissy’s. It’s a completely new style of killing. In fact, this is the only one that could’ve feasibly been done by a person. What the general points out doesn’t necessarily eliminate an ordinary person. Yet, somehow, Owens knows that this means a war is coming to Hawkins. The only way he’d know anything about what a body like that means is if he was aware of the true nature of the 1959 Creel murders. He doesn’t go searching for Victor. He was on the inside. He knew about Henry and his abilities. He knows about Henry’s anger, about his motivation and what these kills would lead to.

Arguably, Owens knows even more about Henry than Brenner. When talking to Will in S2 after his episode, he asks a series of typical questions until Will brings up his feeling that the Mind Flayer is evil. Owens’ response?

“What do you think the evil wanted?”

HOW would you make the jump from ‘big evil sky shadow this kid is seeing due to trauma’ to it wanting something? It’s never interacted with Will directly. Will has just been seeing it. It doesn’t even chase him till Halloween!! Owens had no reason to ask that question. Yet he did.

Owens questions things someone with no knowledge shouldn’t be questioning. I’m not saying that he knows Henry is behind the Mind Flayer. He’s asking the right questions though.

More so, I bring up the rose thing again. Owens is also tied to the rose of the Creel house.

Owens knows so much about Henry, and yet we know Henry can’t be Peter. It doesn’t make sense. Somehow, Owens has knowledge of the Creels, their history, and Henry’s endeavors without there ever being a direct connection made.

Here appears to be a roadblock. What other character could possibly be Peter? None of our current characters knew about Victor and had those same ties to both Henry and Owens. That’s when an anon suggested to me that Peter may be a character we haven’t met yet.

There’s something about Henry’s character that makes him feel somewhat… incomplete. Or rather, there’s room to expand upon the cause of his and his abusers actions. Henry is heavily queercoded and the same language that’s used to describe Will is used to describe Henry. They parallel each other in so many ways, through trauma and powers, and there are hints towards parallels of queerness, yet they’re never really expanded upon. We never see the blatant comparison for sexuality as we do for their artistic ability or being traumatized. They’re both “sensitive,” but as far as parallels go, that one is the only obvious one (broken seems to be more about trauma than queerness, though it’s applicable to both). Why have all these parallels and hints towards queerness only to stop with their toes on the line?

What I’d like to point out is that the lab seems to function as a sort of allegory for conversion therapy. Henry was sent away to Brenner because he needed to be fixed, because something about him made him different and whatever it was was the thing Virginia hated. She didn’t seem to know about his powers, and Henry appeared to be the idolized American child (white, blond, blue-eyed, able-bodied, skinny). If what she hates is what we can’t see, and Henry is already queercoded, it’s likely she hates him for his queerness and wanted to send him to Brenner so he could “fix it”.

How would Virginia know this about Henry? Sexuality is something that, if not told, has to be discovered. Henry was a young kid, only 12, there isn’t much he could’ve been doing alone that would out him.

Remember how I said Henry and Will’s parallels are a bit incomplete? Another question; do you think Lonnie’s hatred of Will stemmed entirely from the fact that he was a quiet kid who liked art? That Lonnie decided Will was queer based off that alone? It’s possible, but remember that Mike was part of Will’s life when Lonnie was still around. Lonnie may have hated Will for not being stereotypically masculine, may have made some assumptions, but with how affectionate Will and Mike were before S3 it’s safe to assume they’ve always been like that. Two boys being affectionate is a way more reasonable jump of logic (not that lonnie/homophobes are reasonable). Will’s queerness would probably remain under tight wraps if it weren’t for Mike. Hell, Will’s love for Mike is how Jonathan knows he’s gay. Sexuality on its own doesn’t have to be romantic to be true, but Will’s arc with his sexuality is heavily based on his feelings for Mike.

Taking those facts, let’s say something similar happened to Henry. Henry was somehow discovered, prompting the Creels to move and for Virginia to want to send him to Brenner (she also possibly sexually abused him in her own attempts to fix him). Who would Henry have been with at the time? Who would recommend Brenner to Virginia? Who has strong ties to the Creel family?

Peter is Owens’ son. The Creels lived in Ruth, Nevada near Owens. Henry and Peter most likely met at a summer camp, or at least went to one together (possibly another allegory for conversion therapy, but i’m not 100% sure they were sent to the camp for being gay) and grew close. Most likely, they were best friends and a little more, just like Mike and Will had been.

Peter was always scared of Victor, a very religious man who loved his family and wanted to protect them from demons. Victor had a gun he sat outside with at the Creel house, one he planned on using to shoot the demon tormenting his family. Victor is a religious man with a gun who loves his son. Peter is a gay kid, and Victor would most definitely had blamed Peter for “influencing” Henry. Peter had every reason to be scared of Victor.

Owens has a relationship with Brenner and works with him. We don’t know much about Owens’ view on gay people, but considering it was the 1950’s and he’s got a close relationship with Brenner, I wouldn’t be surprised if Owens had worked with him on a conversion therapy project. Of course he’s never been okay with hurting kids, but he’s also always been dedicated to saving them. Owens and Brenner are men of science, and science at the time was flooded with propaganda that stated homosexuality was a curable disease. Owens wanted to help cure these children, hence his grid shirts and role as the web of the spider, but he’d never do so through the extremes Brenner would.

If the Owens and the Creels discovered their children were gay, gay together, Owens could very well have recommended Brenner to Virginia for when they moved away. Brenner ran a location in Hawkins, Indiana, posed as a hospital with electrocution materials at the ready (Terry Ives was shocked till her brain was scrambled). Electro-shock therapy was a very common treatment.

Of course, after Henry’s powers were discovered, Brenner was no longer interested in fixing him but became obsessed with understanding his abilities.

Basically, Peter is Owens’ son and Henry’s childhood lover just like how Will is the son of a homophobic man and has his own childhood lover.

How Peter Influenced Henry

How did Peter actually impact the plot, beyond just being the one Henry got caught with? It does in fact go further beyond, and this is where we bring in one more Peter that I haven’t mentioned yet. He’s never said by name, but he is in the show.

This painting on the left from the Russian church is a painting of Saint Peter. He’s most known for two things; holding the keys to the kingdom of heaven and his written vision of the Second Coming of Christ, called the Apocalypse of Peter.

The Apocalypse of Peter, when you look into the visions listed (punishments for sinners) they tell a very similar story to what we’ve been seeing in S4 and hint at what’s likely to come in S5. Not every prediction will be used, but a lot of them will. These are written in order of the actual listed punishments in the apocalythe, but only some of them have happened; others are predictions for future character events.

“Blasphemers are hanged by the tongue.”

Blasphemy; the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk:

This is an unfulfilled but predicted event for Mike. This will likely play into effect during his trance in S5, but you never really know with this series.

“Women who adorn themselves for the purpose of adultery are hung by their hair over a bubbling mire.”

Unfulfilled, but not surprising. She’s been emphasized for a reason, we’re just yet to learn why. It seems she may end up partaking in Henry’s punishments, which makes sense given his attitude towards her through Billy.

“Murderers and their allies are tormented by venomous creatures and numberless worms.”

Is now a good time to mention that there’s a pretty good chance Peter died?

“Liars whose lies caused the death of martyrs have their lips cut off, with fire in their body and entrails.”

The victims were all martyrs and Jason’s lies led to their deaths, as if not for the conflict they may have been able to come up with a real solution quicker. It seems like he has fire in his ‘body and entrails’ to me! Get fucked.

“Men who take on the role of women in a sexual way, and lesbians, fall from the precipice of a great cliff repeatedly.”

Isn’t it wild how gay men and women are said to fall from the great cliff repeatedly? How Mike has yet to do this action under Henry’s influence, and yet there are signs of him not only going back to the cliff but doing so during his trance? Where no one can save him?

“Those who do not heed the counsel of their elders are attacked by flesh-devouring birds.”

Kinda what he gets for not listening.

“Women who had premarital sex have their flesh torn to pieces.”

Are you starting to see the pattern between all the people who’re predicted targets? 

“Sorcerers are hung on a wheel of fire.”

So, it seems the Peter may have had an influence on Henry’s future goals considering how many similarities there are between Peter’s Apocalypse and Henry’s plan of action.

I doubt Peter quoted these types of punishments as an exact plan, but it very much so seems like he’d been angry at those who oppressed people like him and Henry, which makes perfect sense if he had a conversion therapist for a father. If Peter had been enduring homophobic rhetoric his whole life, only to find out he was the very type of person his father sought to fix, of course he could learn to hate people like Owens; people who were at the top ranks of society, who got to live their lives how they pleased and control everyone they’d decided was below them.

Peter’s beliefs could’ve been a motive behind Henry’s actions. Obviously, Peter alone wasn’t a motive, but I think he played an important part as to why Henry started killing in Hawkins —why he was even in Hawkins in the first place. Peter spoke of a world where the people who hurt them were finally brought down, a world where they could be saved. Henry could make that happen. Henry understood what Peter was talking about on a deep, deep level. He felt it too. Losing Peter, the one person who showed him kindness, probably played a role in Henry’s chosen path of salvation and revenge, though he’s twisted things to fit into his own moral/ethical code.

Now, what’s really interesting is that Henry and Will are parallels and antitheses. In the same way, I think Peter is meant to be Mike’s antithesis.

Mike’s Antithesis

This last part shouldn’t be too long! Basically, when we look at the narrative, Peter is being built as Mike’s antithesis in a similar way to how Henry is built as Will’s antithesis. Without having Peter as a canonical character, and therefore having no guaranteed understanding of his personality and moral code, this will mostly be based off of everything I’ve talked about this far in the theory.

Where are they similar? Both of them grew up in peaceful, suburban class homes with passive fathers who were pretty openly homophobic. Ted isn’t to the extreme that Owens may have been, but he’s made more than his fair share of snide remarks and there’s a Reagan sign in front of the house. There’s also the way that the boy they’re both in love with had a scary, homophobic dad with a gun.

On a deeper level, they both play very similar roles in the narrative. Henry and Will both fight for a lot of reasons, but just like how Will finds his courage and strength in Mike, Henry may possibly doing the same from the memory of Peter. This is also where they start to diverge a little bit, becoming antitheses to each other.

Where Peter finds sanctuary in hating those above him, Mike finds sanctuary in the people on his level. Peter only looks up at he could’ve had, but Mike doesn’t even bother being jealous of the people above them. He looks left and right and finds the beauty in the people around him. They’re his best friends! Peter and Mike both want to be able to be themselves, but their approaches to that are different. They share their views with the people around them, taking leadership roles (Saint Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which serve as leadership and faith encouraging tools over the people) and guiding people to follow their beliefs too. Peter encouraged revenge and an us vs them attitude. Mike encouraged community, always tells his friends how amazing they are and serves as a beacon of hope for the people around him more often than not.

Where Henry is dark and Will is light, Peter is despair and Mike is hope. Where Henry is rejection and Will is acceptance, Peter is hatred and Mike is love.

Mike and Will are a version of Peter and Henry. They’re the ones who end up together. Peter and Henry lacked so much love, it was what drove Henry to become the monster he is. Will has been surrounded by love, it sets him on the path of goodness Henry never had. Where Henry lost his childhood love and was left alone, Will and Mike pulled through. It’s sort of perfect that Peter would be introduced as Henry’s old love interest in the same season Mike and Will finally get together. Showing Peter too early as a parallel to Mike and Henry’s crush may have given too much insight into byler.

Another fun little thing; Mike has a lot of imagery regarding crosses this season for reasons unknown. Saint Peter died via crucification, but he was crucified upside down. Makes me wonder what that could mean for Mike, seeing as how Henry is the “upside down” version of Will, in a sense. Definitely nothing good, but interesting nonetheless.

I think that’s everything! At least, the important stuff. Any other small details I find about Peter will go under ‘#petergate’ and general posting about Peter will just be tagged with his name, ‘#peter owens’. He’s a little fucked up but he’s also just a little guy. You ever met a 12 year old? He’s pretty normal tbh

Thank you for reading!!!

[hitchell-mope]

Middle names

Michael Edward Wheeler. After Ted.

Jane Theresa Joyce Hopper. She got to choose her middle names. When Joyce found out she got Eggo’s for every meal for a month. She’s still not sick of them.

Lucas Davis Sinclair. His father is a fan of Sammy Davis Senior.

Maxine Geraldine Mayfield. After her biological father Gerald

Dustin Carl Robert Henderson. Claudia’s a fan of the Reiner’s

Suzanne Mary Bingham. After Jesus’s mother. Not Magdalene.

William Vincent Byers. Lonnie chose Jonathan’s middle name. So Joyce insisted on choosing Will’s middle name. And Joyce likes Starry Night

Jonathan Lawrence Byers. After Lonnie.

Nancy Karen Wheeler. After Karen. The Wheeler parents are really imaginative aren’t they(?)

Joycelyn Edna Byers. After her mother.

James Montague Hopper. Rome and Juliet was his mother’s favourite play.

Argyle. He’ll never tell. BUT. He has told Jonathan that “Argyle” is a nickname made up out of his initials.

Steven John Paul George Ringo Harrington. His mother is a MASSIVE Beatles fan.

Robin Marilyn Buckley. Her mother is a fan of Marilyn Monroe.

[demisexualnathanvuornos]

Clara Bingham (Nikki Delouch) Five More Minutes: Moments Like These (2022) 3/ 6

[galleryofart]

George Washington Lansdowne Portrait

Artist: Gilbert Stuart (American, 1755 -1828)

Genre: Portrait

Date: 1796

Medium: Oil on Canvas

George Washington stands before you in a full-length portrait by Gilbert Stuart. Here is Stuart at his best, painting a Washington for the ages, grand not as a king but as a stalwart representative of democracy. The painting, done in 1796, is known as the Lansdowne Portrait because it was a gift to the Marquis of Lansdowne, an English supporter of American independence, from Senator and Mrs. William Bingham of Pennsylvania.

Explore the portrait using three different filters: symbolic, biographic, and artistic. Each filter highlights an element in the portrait and provides unique information and a distinct interpretation. What does it symbolize? How does it relate to Washington? And, what techniques did the artist use to render it?

Symbolic This filter explores symbolic meanings and interpretations of objects in the portrait. Many of the objects in the painting never really existed, but were chosen by the artist to convey specific ideas to viewers.

“He is surrounded with allegorical emblems of his public life in the service of his country, which are highly illustrative of the great and tremendous storms which have frequently prevailed. These storms have abated, and the appearance of the rainbow is introduced in the background as a sign.” - Advertisement for the first exhibition of the Lansdowne portrait in 1798.

Biographic This filter explores historical events and biographical information about Washington the man, and the leader. Here, we see Washington in 1796, the last year of his presidency. Who is this man? What has he accomplished in his life?

“He is the best and the greatest man the world ever knew….Neither depressed by disappointment and difficulties, nor elated with a temporary success. He retreats like a General and attacks like a Hero.” —Composer Francis Hopkinson

Artistic This filter explores the history of the artist and artistic techniques used to create the painting. What techniques did Gilbert Stuart use to capture a Washington who disliked posing? Why did some people call Stuart a genius?

“Genius is always eccentrick, I think. There is no knowing how to take hold of this man, nor by what means to prevail upon him to fulfil his engagements.” - Abigail Adams, writing of Gilbert Stuart, who would make her wait 16 years for delivery of her finished portrait. John Adams said that Stuart “keeps me constantly amused by his conversation.”

[polycule-playoff]

Last Edited: 15 September 2024

Polycules that are in the running:

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Twilight Sparkle, Pinkie Pie, Applejack, Rainbow Dash, Rarity and Fluttershy

Stephen King's It

Richie Tozier, Eddie Kaspbrak, Beverly Marsh, Bill Denbrough, Ben Hanscom, Stan Uris, Mike Hanlon, Kay McCall, Audra Phillips and Patty Blum

Sherlock Holmes

Irene Adler, Sherlock Holmes, John Watson, Mary Morstan, and Godfrey Norton

Doki Doki Precure

Cure Heart, Cure Diamond, Cure Rosetta, Cure Sword and Regina

A3!

Tsumugi Tsukioka, Tasuku Takato, Hisoka Mikage, Homare Arisugawa, Azuma Yukishiro and Guy

Persona 5

Akira Kurusu/Ren Amamiya, Ryuji Sakamoto, Ann Takamaki, Yusuke Kitagawa, Makoto Niijima, Futaba Sakura, Haru Okumura, Goro Akechi, Sumire Yoshizawa, Morgana and Yuuki Mishima

Akira Kurusu/Ren Amamiya, Hifumi Togo, Chihaya Mifune, and Lavenza

Witch's Heart

Claire Elford, Noel Levine, Ashe Bradley, Wilardo Adler and Sirius Gibson

Ensemble Stars!!

Leo Tsukinaga, Tsukasa Suou, Arashi Narukami, Izumi Sena, Ritsu Sakuma, Mao Isara, Hokuto Hidaka, Subaru Akehoshi and Makoto Yuuki

Stranger Things

Steve Harrington, Eddie Munson, Jonathan Byers, Nancy Wheeler, Robin Buckley, Argyle, Chrissy Cunningham, Eden Bingham, and Vickie.

Star Trek DS9

Elim Garak, Julian Bashir, Miles O'Brien, Keiko O'Brien, Kira Nerys, Jadzia Dax, Odo Ital, Quark, Worf, Ezri, Sisko, Lwaxana Troi, Kasidy Yates-Sisko, and Lenara Kahn

The Owl House

Luz Noceda, Amity Blight, Willow Park, Hunter, and Gus Porter

Dracula

Jonathan Harker, Mina Harker, Lucy Westenra, Quincey Morris, Jack Seward, Arthur Holmwood, and Abraham Van Helsing

The Breakfast Club

Brian Johnson, Andrew Clark, Allison Reynolds, Claire Standish, and John Bender

Winx Club

Bloom, Stella, Tecna, Musa, Flora, Aisha, Sky, Brandon, Timmy, Riven, Helia, Nex and Nabu

Resident Evil

Leon S Kennedy, Claire Redfield, Ada Wong and Helena Harper

The Case Study of Vanitas

Vanitas, Noe Archiviste, Dominique de Sade and Jeanne

Scooby Doo

Fred Jones, Daphne Blake, Shaggy Rogers, Velma Dinkley, Hot Dog Water, and Crystal.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Darla, Angel(us), Drusilla, and Spike/William

The Legend of Zelda

Revali, Zelda, Link, Mipha, Sidon, Yona, Paya and Tauro

The Magicians

Fen, Eliot Waugh, Margo Hanson, Josh Hoberman, Quentin Coldwater, and Arielle

Haikyū!!

Kiyoko Shimizu, Yachi Hitoka, Yamaguchi Tadashi, Tsukishima Kei, Bokuto Kōtarō, Akaashi Keiji, Kuroo Tetsurō, Kozume Kenma, Hinata Shōyō, Kageyama Tobio, Oikawa Tooru, Iwaizumi Hajime, and Ushijima Wakatoshi

Genshin Impact

Cyno, Alhaitham, Kaveh, Tighnari, Dehya, Nilou, Faruzan, Dunyarzad, and Candace

Kaeya, Rosaria, Albedo, and Sucrose

Neuvillette, Wriothesley, Navia, Clorinde, Zhongli, Childe, and Furina

Kujou Sara, Gorou, Arataki Itto and Sangonomiya Kokomi

Heaven Official's Blessing

Xie Lan, Hua Cheng, Mu Qing, Feng Xin, Yin Yu, and Quan Yizhen

Torchwood

Jack Harkness, Gwen Cooper, Rhys Williams, Owen Harper, Ianto Jones, and Toshiko Sato

Spiderman

Peter Parker, Harry Osborn, Mary-Jane Watson, Gwen Stacy, Liz Allan, Felicia Hardy, and Johnny Storm

Beastars

Legosi, Louis, Haru, and Juno

Lupin III

Lupin III, Goemon Ishikawa XIII, Daisuke Jigen, and Fujiko Mine

Demon Slayer

Tengen, Makio, Suma, and Hinatsuru

Omori

Sunny, Kel, Basil, and Aubrey

Cookie Run

Herb Cookie, Vampire Cookie, Sparkling Cookie, Mint Choco Cookie, and Cocoa Cookie

The Grail Quest

Percival, Galahad, Bors, Dinadrane, and Blanchefleur

Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair/Super Danganronpa 2

Hajime Hinata, Kazuichi Soda, Fuyuhiko Kuzuryu, Sonia Nevermind, and Akane Owari

Zero Escape

Akane Kurashiki, Junpei, Sigma Klim, Carlos, Diana, and Snake

Roswell New Mexico

Nora Truman, Louise Truman, Theo, Tripp Manes and Roy Bronson

Max Evans, Isobel Evans, Michael Guerin, Liz Ortecho, Kyle Valenti, Maria DeLuca, Alex Manes, Jenna "Cam" Cameron, Heath, Dallas Haines, Greg Manes and Anatsa

The Raven Cycle

Blue Sargent, Richard Gansey, Ronan Lynch, Adam Parrish, Noah Czerny, and Henry Cheng

Warcraft

Khadgar, Kalecgos, Illidan, Kael'thas Sunstrider, Vashj, Arthas Menethil, Jaina Proudmoore, Nathanos Blightcaller, Sylvanas Windrunner, Tiffin Wrynn, Varian Wrynn, Halduron Brightwing, Thalyssra, Lor'themar Theron, and Rommath

Welcome to Demon School Iruma-kun

Suzuki Iruma, Asmodeus Alice, Valac Clara, Azazel Ameri, and Purson Soi

My School President

Gun, Tinn, Sound, Win, Tiw, Por, Yo, Nook, Pat, and Kajorn

Bad Buddy

Pat, Pran, Korn, and Wai

Guardian Tales

Knight, Elvira, Arabelle, Beth, Priscilla, Yuze, Bianca, Loraine, Eva, and Camilla

Word of Honor/Faraway Wanders

Wen Kexing, Zhou Zishu, Han Ying, Jing Beiyuan, and Wuxi

The New Teen Titans

Dick Grayson, Koriand'r, Victor Stone, Rachel Roth, Joseph Wilson, Donna Troy, and Garfield Logan

Baldur's Gate 3

Astarion, Gale, Lae'zel, Karlach, Shadowheart, Wyll, and Durge

Kagerou Project

Ayano Tateyama, Shintaro Kisaragi, Takane Enomoto, and Haruka Kokonose

NU Carnival

Eiden, Aster, Morvay, Yakumo, Edmond, Olivine, Quincy, Kuya, Garu, Blade, Dante, Rei, and Karu/Garu

Project Sekai

Kanade Yoisaki, Mafuyu Asahina, Mizuki Akiyama, and Ena Shinonome

Riverdale

Archie Andrews, Jughead Jones, Betty Cooper, and Veronica Lodge

Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu

Zane Julien, Kai Smith, Jay Walker and Cole

Mysterious Lotus Casebook

Li Lianhua, Qiao Wanmian, Di Feisheng, and Fang Duobing

Trigun

Vash the Stampede, Nicholas D. Wolfwood, Meryl Stryfe, and Milly Thompson

[rolledspinepodcasts]

Dark Horse Presents

Aliens: Havoc (1997)

Aliens: Havoc #1-2 (1997)

by Mark Schultz & Kent Williams & Leif Jones & Duncan Fegredo & D’Israeli & John Totleben & Arthur Adams & Gary Gianni & Geof Darrow & George Pratt & Igor Kordej & Paul Lee & John K. Snyder III & Mark A. Nelson & Peter Bagge & Brian Horton & Dave Taylor & Kelley Jones & Guy Davis & Kellie Strom & Jay Stephens & Jerry Bingham & Kevin Nowlan & Frank Teran & Joel Naprstek & Travis Charest & P. Craig Russell & Adrian Potts & Sean Phillips & Rebecca Guay & Jon J. Muth & Kilian Plunkett & Ron Randall & John Pound & Gene Ha & Vania Zarouliov & Sergio Aragonés & John Paul Leon & Derek Thompson & David Lloyd & Moebius & Dave Cooper & Mike Allred & Tony Millionaire

[aemiron-main]

Did Joyce And Hopper Pull A Walter?

So, beware of Fringe spoilers ahead, but I’m wondering if Joyce and Hopper brought back the wrong will.

I talked in this post about Peter Bishop from Fringe vs Peter Owens, and today, I want to talk about some of the other Peters in ST/Peter Bingham vs Peter Bishop from Fringe and how those two may connect to Will.

So, to summarize, regarding what the title says about “pulling a Walter,” Walter Bishop from Fringe crossed over into another timeline because his son, Peter, in Walter’s OG timeline, had died. Walter then took the Peter from the other timeline back to Walter’s original timeline & raised Peter as if he’d always been in that timeline/as if he was Walter’s original son.

(Walter literally had “the wrong kid,” which has me Staring at Hopper’s line from S1 regarding Will’s vanishing and “the wrong kid”)

And when we look at Peter Bingham, he bears quite a resemblance to Will:

And Owens (who seemingly has a son also named Peter) refers to Will as “son”:

And he also says he “gets it” re: Joyce losing Will in S1:

Which is why I’m wondering how Will connects to all of the Peter stuff/to Peter Bishop from Fringe (and also, staring at Peter Bingham adding too much salt vs all the talk in S1 about how much salt was needed for a sensory deprivation tub.)

And I’ve talked in this post and this post about Warm Will vs Cool Will and how we’re seeing two different Wills during his vanishing- and I also talked here about how we see two different versions of Castle Byers (and of course a different Will in each Castle Byers) in the UD.

And I talked in this post about how the Will at the hospital seems to be a different Will than the Will that Joyce saw in her couch vision.

So- did Joyce and Hopper bring back the right Will?

And while it may seem like a stretch to run a bunch of seasons with the “wrong,” Will/while I’m not even fully convinced that’s exactly what they’re doing, it’s worth noting that having the wrong version of somebody present and their loved ones not noticing is a CONSTANT thing in Fringe, it happens repeatedly with multiple different people, and seeing as how Fringe is a huge source of inspo for ST, the “wrong,” Will being present/in the wrong timeline is something that I think is still very much on the table.

And also, Peter Bishop, although seemingly alive in the timeline he’s currently in/the one Walter brought him to, actually has a grave in that timeline, because the original peter died as a child:

Which has me staring directly at the William vs Billy grave weirdness (and at the fact that Will had a funeral and therefore very, very likely has a headstone with his name on it- which Henry also likely has one too):

And there’s just always something gnawing at me about a.) all of the shapeshifter references in ST, b.) how Will is constantly in front of a “The Thing” poster in S1 EP1/the night of his vanishing (with The Thing mimicking the appearance and behaviours of people) c.) the two different Wills that we see d.) the Will-Henward parallels and the use of the word “one” when it comes to Will

Like. What is going on??? Did one of the Henwards shapeshift into one of the Wills at some point somehow??? How does it all connect??

Anyway! Something’s definitely going on here- did Joyce and Hopper bring back the wrong Will? How come we never actually see Joyce and Hopper leave the UD/escape HNL with Will? Why is there a character named Peter who strongly resembles Will?

[yr-obedt-cicero]

What are your thoughts concerning the Reynolds’s Affair theory presented by Tilar Mazzeo in her biography on Eliza?

I read it a long while back and I’ve always wondered your thoughts on it. Do you think it is plausible? I think it is, but you are much more familiar with the people involved and the situation.

This took a bit longer than expected to answer because I had to write down everything I wanted to cover, because there is a lot to unpackage with this biography and topic. Personally, I don't find it extremely likely, nor convincing. There is the slight possibility, but it doesn't line up as well as the affair. For anyone that wants a run down of what will be discussed, I answered here what I will essentially be debating whether is true or not now. My goal here isn't to dissuade anyone from picking up the book or reading it, because it has it's useful and enjoyable moments. But there are some major issues concerning it, although this isn't a review of the book itself.

Basically, Mazzeo takes the claims the Reynolds affair never happened. She claims the whole story was an elaborate cover up for Hamilton's actual financial embezzlement of government funds. While doubting the story that the infamous pamphlet tells isn't bad, or disagreeable by any means - it definitely deserves to be questioned with all the mystery surrounding it - as it's more than likely Hamilton constructed the whole thing with self-serving bias. But this claim isn't exactly the brand new discovery that Mazzeo flaunts it as.

Maria was the first to claim that the affair never truly happened, and while her account is definitely considerable. And the authenticity of Maria's letters is an interesting issue to discuss. There has been debate over whether Hamilton made them available to be compared with a handwriting sample of Maria's. William Bingham said he never saw the original letters, but then later claimed that he did. And honestly, Hamilton may have also been dubious to trust Maria again to give an accurate sample, considering afterwards he believed she was part of the blackmail scheme all along. Although the letters could be fake, I am also inclined to think Hamilton would have destroyed the originals, and was desperately trying to replicate the missing evidence so his story was believed. Granted this is all just speculation, and regardless doesn't support or disassinuate he may have been involved in any financial embezzlement.

Anyway, Mazzeo didn't actually find the evidence she suggests, instead she found gossip and made a theory from it. Mazzeo essentially recycled the original charges against Hamilton, that provoked him to write the pamphlet in the first place, without offering additional evidence. There is no actual support of any financial wrong-doing, just speculation. Seemingly Mazzeo forgot that actually it wasn't just Hamilton's word that cleared him of suspicion.

Bias claims as a source of evidence

The root of Mazzeo's argument solely consists of Maria's denial to the affair, and Monroe's skepticism. But it's faulty to see Maria as any less self-serving as Hamilton in this situation. Maria had every reason to lie if it saved her skin. Her relationship with Hamilton as his mistress was cut off, her husband had been arrested—And to do the contrary, by admitting the affair, would accomplish nothing but a torn reputation and name.

Secondly, Monroe was just as guilty of bias. When Muhlenburg, Venable, and Monroe confronted Hamilton about the issue in 1792, their sole intent was to give Hamilton a chance to explain or resign before they sent their information to Washington - who was president at the time - before they ruined his name and reputation. The fact that they seemingly never forwarded the information, they must have believed his explanation of the affair. Monroe's further doubts about the situation wasn't likely a case of true disbelief, but rather that he was hanging onto the hope of it being true because he hated Hamilton and his party. Take into account, he was a close companion of Jefferson's. His word should hardly be seen as any hardcore evidence in a situation where the two are of opposite parties, and can utilize this to their advantage and ruin the other's name.

Mazzeo cites no actual evidence of financial wrongdoing on Hamilton's part throughout it. But she instead looks to everyone else's hearsay and contradicting word to prove a some point here, which isn't solid evidence. And it contributes greatly to the terrible taste the book puts in your mouth as you read it due to all it's inaccuracies. Her sources are conflicting and bias enemies like Adams, or Latrobe who was also accomplices with Jefferson like Monroe.

Lack of evidence, despite repeated searches

A major plot hole in this theory, is that Congress conducted two deep investigations for two years after the Reynolds affair while Hamilton was still the Treasury Secretary, but there was zero success of finding any hints to possible embezzlement or impropriety. There was the instance in which Hamilton had used a foreign loan to pay a domestic debt, although Congress didn't authorize it or the use. But Hamilton claimed Washington had sanctioned him to, Washington said he could not recall the conversation. Which was likely because he was alienating himself from the situation it was becoming.

Later on 1801, Jefferson appointed Albert Galatin as Treasury Secretary. Galatin had searched through the Treasury books, but again found nothing that could imply criminal embezzlement. Which is definitely notable, because Galatin would have been aiming to find anything that could be used against Hamilton (Since we like using political enemies as sources). And again, just like Mazzeo, there's never been a case of a historian actually finding contemporaneous and evidential indication of embezzlement. It says a lot about the veracity of the original charges.

Hamilton's lack of financial greed

Not to mention, it doesn't fit any of Hamilton's actual characteristics. Hamilton never majorly valued accumulating wealth for himself, which was actually a large concern to his friend's who often worried what would come of his debts and refusal to take on higher paying jobs. It was often a large clash between him and his college friend, Robert Troup, who even joked to Rufus King in 1802 of how they would have to pay for his funeral expenses (Foreshadowing).

Hamilton even shot himself in the foot a few times to avoid being controversial when related to finances. He went so far as to renounce his veteran's benefits after being assigned Treasury, out of the worry he would be accused of prioritizing paying the soldiers for his own benefit. To which, Eliza struggled for years to reverse after his death to keep her family afloat. So, these repeatedly shown morals of Hamilton's wouldn't make sense if he was truly stealing government funds for his own selfish use.

Why would he even have James Reynolds as an accomplice?

Don't get me wrong, Hamilton did have associations with the sort of men that would plot something like this, like John Church and William Duer. And I wouldn't put it past him to actually do something similar with them. But what doesn't make sense - and what Mazzeo fails to ever mention - is why Hamilton wasn't working with them for this sort of thing, but instead Reynolds? Who was a penny-ante thief, and was quickly caught for trying to cash in benefits for veterans who had died without families. He hardly seems like the most credible person Hamilton would hypothetically trust in this serious of an offense. Hamilton even addresses this himself in a draft of the Reynolds Pamphlet;

Taking it even for granted that a Secretary of the Treasury was unprincipled enough to be willing to speculate for gain in ways inconsistent with his office and character is it probable that he should have been disposed to give my confidence to a man of such a description and make use of him as an instrument? He must have been a very stupid one indeed if he could not have contrived objects large enough to have interested men of much greater importance and with whom he could have been perfectly safe. The supposition, besides ascribing to him a wickedness with which his enemies have liberally charged him, ascribes to him also  a degree of folly with which he has not before been charged.

Source — Draft of the “Reynolds Pamphlet”, [25 August 1797]

And any actual money made in these alleged transactions evidently never made it's way to Hamilton's own purse. The available evidence clearly shows Hamilton was losing every cent he gave to Reynolds. So, what would have been the goal with throwing national dollars at some citizen man? Blackmail as an explanation for such transactions is far more sensical.

Eliza's impossibly-fathomed forgiveness isn't source material

By far, the worst argument Mazzeo made was the claim that the Reynolds affair obviously couldn't have happened because Eliza just forgave him too easily. To quote, Mazzeo said;

What makes it hard to reconcile the life of Eliza Hamilton with her response to Alexander's infidelity is that we have to posit a personality change occurring suddenly in the summer of 1797. We have to believe that the affair crushed her spirit and turned her from a feisty child of the frontier to a victim of her own self-deception. We have to posit that Eliza simply could not handle the reality of Alexander's affair and would do anything to keep him. When he dies, in a duel fueled at least in part by the scandal, she carries on for decades insisting that Alex- ander has been maligned, idolizing him and insisting on his virtue.

In short, when it comes to Alexander, Eliza begins to look a bit foolish.

Source — Eliza Hamilton: The Extraordinary Life and Times of the Wife of Alexander Hamilton, by Tilar J. Mazzeo · 2019

I don't know who actually thinks that because Eliza forgave Hamilton for the affair, which would have made Eliza so weak and ridiculous, so inconsistent with the women Mazzeo felt she'd knew so well, that it just couldn't possibly have happened. Now, if Mazzeo had taken the time to research the historical context surrounding women and the upperclass society (Which she fails to do, ever, in the biography), she might have known affairs were not uncommon by any means. And the Hamiltons' associated with many men who did the same, like Governor Morris, and lived in places where it was incredibly popular, like Philadelphia. And the society that Eliza was raised in would have taught her that, if anything, the affair was her fault and she wasn't exceeding at her wifely duties enough to please her husband. If we are actually going to try and understand the wider picture that is Eliza Hamilton with the fragments we have from history, we can start with the societal pressure and lessons women were imprinted with from the patriarchy. Of course, we will likely know her true sentiments. But blaming herself and overcoming the turmoil to either forgive herself or her husband, is a lot more convincing than; Eliza took a hit for a man who stole, and he was too much of a coward to admit to it, so instead decided to publicly humiliate his wife to spare himself. Because she loved him that much.

Even so, would subjecting herself to the public shame of an extramarital affair - because as I said, she would have naturally been the most shamed and blamed in the view of a misogynistic society - for a cowardly, selfish, thief, who obviously is willing to use his wife as a scapegoat, truly fit resilient and independent Eliza? If anything, I think that better suits Mazzeo's definition of being “foolish” and “ridiculous”. I don't know where the mindset of forgiveness for infidelity - especially during historical time periods - was that unbelievable.

-

Anyway, that's my take. In general, the book pisses me off with it's many inaccuracies and disservice to Eliza. But I hope this helps regardless.