#a cornish book of ways | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

meichenxi · 4 months ago

Text

UK accent bias, discrimination, minority languages and the question of the 'default, normal' english speaker

today I came across something overtly that is usually a covert problem, and I wanted to take a chance to talk about the questions it raises about what it means to be 'normal' and speak 'normal english' in an anglocentric, global world.

let's start at the beginning. I was aimlessly googling around and came across this article, discussing ergodic literature:

I hope that you will see what angered me right away, but if not:

brogue? inaccessible, insufferable brogue? that is so difficult to read you might want to relieve your frustrations by harming a housepet, or striking a loved one?

what????? the fuck??????

my dearly beloathed. this is not a made up sci-fi language. this was not written for your convenience.

this is the glaswegian dialect.

this is how it is written. scots, which is very similar to this, is a language whose speakers have been systematically taught to change and hide and modify their speech, to not speak it in the classroom, to conform. this is NOT comparable to any of the made-up dialects or ways of writing in cloud atlas or any other specularative fiction. the suggestion of ir is deeply insulting.

(the line between various 'dialects' and 'languages' I speak about here is by definition sometimes political, sometimes arbitrary, and often very thin. what goes for the glaswegian dialect here in terms of discrimination goes for scots in general - which is, in fact, even more 'inaccessible' than glaswegian because it has a greater quantity of non-english and therefore non-'familiar' words. speakers of different englishes will face more or less discrimination in different circumstances. caveat over.)

you can find it on twitter, in books, in poetry; and more than that, on the streets and in living rooms, in places that this kind of england-first discrimination hasn't totally eradicated.

an imporant note - this book in question is called Naw Much of a Talker, and it was written originally in Swiss-German and then translated into Glaswegian to preserve similar themes and questions of language and identity. rather than detracting from anything I'm saying, I think the fact this is a translated piece of fiction adds to it - it has literally been translated so it is more accessible, and the article writer did not even realise. it also highlights the fact as well that these are questions which exist across the globe, across multiple languages, of the constant tension everywhere between the 'correct' high language and the 'incorrect, backward' 'low' language or dialect. these are all interesting questions, and someone else can tackle them about german and swiss german -

but I am going to talk today about scots and english, because that is how the writer of this article engaged with this piece and that is the basis upon which they called it 'insufferable brogue', the prejudice they have revealed about scots is what I want to address.

so here, today, in this post: let's talk about it. what is 'normal' english, why is that a political question, and why should we care?

as we begin, so we're all on the same page, I would like to remind everyone that england is not the only country in the united kingdom, and that the native languages of the united kingdom do not only include english, but also:

scots

ulster scots (thank you @la-galaxie-langblr for the correction here!!)

scottish gaelic

welsh

british sign language

irish

anglo-romani

cornish

shelta

irish sign language

manx

northern ireland sign language

and others I have likely forgotten

there are also countless rich, beautiful dialects (the distinction between dialect and language is entirely political, so take this description with a pinch of salt if you're outside of these speaker communities), all with their own words and histories and all of them, yes all of them, are deserving of respect.

and there are hundreds and thousands of common immigrant languages, of languages from the empire, and of englishes across the globe that might sound 'funny' to you, but I want you to fucking think before you mock the man from the call centre: why does india speak english in the first place? before mocking him, think about that.

because it's political. it's ALL political. it's historical, and it's rooted in empire and colonialism and all you need to do is take one look at how we talk about Black language or languages of a colonised country to see that, AAVE or in the UK, multi-cultural london english, or further afield - the englishes of jamaica, kenya, india. all vestiges of empire, and all marked and prejudiced against as 'unintelligent' or lesser in some way.

and closer to home - the systematic eradication and 'englishification' of the celtic languages. how many people scottish gaelic now? cornish? manx? how many people speak welsh? and even within 'english' itself - how many people from a country or rural or very urban or immigrant or working class or queer background are discriminated against, because of their english? why do you think that is?

if you think that language isn't political, then you have likely never encountered discrimination based on how you, your friends, or your family speak.

you are speaking from a position of privilege.

'but it's not formal' 'but it's not fit for the classroom' 'but it sounds silly'. you sound silly, amy. I have a stereotypically 'posh' english accent, and I can tell you for a fact: when I go to scotland to visit my family, they think I sound silly too. but in the same way as 'reverse racism' isn't a fucking thing - the difference is that it's not systemic. when I wanted to learn gaelic, my grandmother - who speaks gaelic as her own native language - told me, no, you shouldn't do that. you're an english girl. why would you want to learn a backward language like gaelic?

discrimination against non-'english' englishes is pervasive, systematic and insidious.

it is not the same as being laughed at for being 'posh'. (there's more about class and in-group sociolinguistics here, but that's for another post)

and who told you this? where is this information from? why do you think an 'essex girl' accent sounds uneducated? why do you think a northern accent sound 'honest' and 'salt of the earth'? what relationship does that have with class? why does a standard southern british english sound educated and 'intelligent'? who is in charge? who speaks on your television? whose words and accents do you hear again and again, making your policies, shaping your future? who speaks over you?

think about that, please.

and before anyone says: this is so true except for X lol - I am talking about exactly that dialect. I am talking about that accent you are mocking. I am talking about brummie english, which you think sounds funny. I'm talking about old men in the west country who you think sound like pirates, arrrrr.

(actually, pirates sound like the west country. where do you the 'pirate accent' came from? devon was the heart of smuggling country in the uk.)

so. to this person who equated a book written in scots, a minority and marginalised language, to being 'insufferable, inaccessible brogue':

and also to anyone who is from the UK, anyone who is a native english speaker, and anyone abroad, but especially those of you who think your english is 'natural', who have never had to think about it, who have never had to code-switch, who have never had to change how they sound to fit in:

it might be difficult to read - for you. it might be strange and othering - to you.

but what is 'inaccessible' to you is the way that my family speaks - your english might be 'inaccessible' to them. so why does your 'inaccessible' seem to weigh more than theirs?

and why does it bother you, that you can't understand it easily in the first go? because you have to try? or because perhaps, just perhaps, dearly beloathed author of this article, after being catered to your entire life and shown your language on screen, constantly - you are finally confronted by something that isn't written for you.

and for the non-uk people reading this. I would like you to think very carefully about what a 'british accent' means to you.

there is no such thing. let me say it louder:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BRITISH ACCENT

there are a collection of accents and languages and dialects, each with different associations and stereotypes. the clever aristocrat, the honest farmer, the deceitful *racial slur*. there are accents, languages and dialects that you hear more than others because of political reasons, and there are accents, languages and dialects which are more common than others because of discrimination, violence and the path of history.

if you say 'british accent', we - in the UK - don't know exactly what you mean. much more than the US, because the english-speaking people have been here longer, we have incredibly different accents just fifty miles away from one another.

but we can guess. you probably don't mean my grandmother's second-language english - even though, by american conversations about race, she is the whitest person you could possibly find. you don't mean my brother, who sounds like a farmer.

you mean my accent. tom hiddleston's accent. benedict cumberbatch. dame judy dench. sir ian mckellen. and they are all wonderful people - but what sort of people are they, exactly? what sort of things do they have in common? why is it that you associate their way of speaking with all of the charming eloquence of 'dark academia' or high levels of education, and my family's english with being 'backward' or 'country bumpkins' or 'uneducated' or, more insidiously, 'salt-of-the-earth good honest folk'?

we are an old country with old prejudices and old classes and old oppression and old discrimination and old hate. my brother speaks with a 'farmer' west country accent; my aunt with a strong doric accent that most english people cannot understand; my father with a mockable birmingham accent; my grandmother with a gaelic accent, because despite the fact that she is from the UK, as scottish as you can get, english is not her first language.

these people exist. my grandmother is a real person, and she is not a dying relic of a forgotten time. her gaelic is not something to drool over in your outlander or braveheart or brave-fuelled scottish romanticism, the purity and goodness of the 'celt' - but there are fewer people like her now. and I would like to invite everyone to think about why that is the case.

if you don't know, you can educate yourself - look up the highland clearances, for a start, or look at the lives of anglo-romani speakers in the UK and the discrimination they face, or irish speakers in northern ireland. like many places, we are a country that has turned inward upon itself. there will always be an 'other'.

and then there's me. raised in southern england and well-educated and, however you want to call it, 'posh'. so why is it that it is my voice, and not theirs, which is considered typically british all over the world?

I think you can probably figure out that one by yourself.

when you talk about the 'british accent', this is doing one of two things. it's serving to perpetuate the myth that the only part of the UK is england, rather than four countries, and the harmful idea that it is only england in the UK that matters. (and only a certain type of people in england, at that.)

secondly, it serves to amalgamate all of the languages and accents and dialects - native or poor or immigrant or colonial - into one, erasing not only their history and importance, but even their very existence.

dearly beloathed person on the internet. I have no idea who you are. but the language scots exists. I'm sorry it's not convenient for you.

but before I go, I would like to take a moment to marvel. 'insufferable, inaccessible brogue'? what assumptions there are, behind your words!

is it 'insufferable' to want to write a story in the language you were raised in? is it 'inaccessible' to want to write a story in the shared language of your own community?

I don't think it is.

I think it takes a special sort of privilege and entitlement to assume that - the same one that assumes whiteness and Americanness and Englishness and able-bodiedness and cisness and maleness and straightness as being the 'standard' human experience, and every single other trait as being a deviance from that, an othering. that's the same entitlement that will describe Turning Red as a story about the chinese experience - but not talk about how Toy Story is a story about the white american middle class experience.

people do not exist for your ease of reading. they do not exist to be 'accessible'. and - what a strange thing, english reader, to assume all books are written for you, at all.

and despite the fact that the text that prompted this was written by one group of white people, translated into the language of another group, and critiqued by a third - this is a conversation about racism too, because it is the same sort of thinking and pervasive stereotyping which goes into how white people and spaces view Black language and language of people of colour around the world. it's about colonialism and it's about slavery and it's aboutsegregation and othering and the immigrant experience and it's about the history of britain - and my god, isn't that a violent one. it's inseparable from it. language is a tool to signify belonging, to shut people out and lock people in. it's a tool used to enforce that othering and discrimination and hate on a systemic level, because it says - I'm different from you. you're different from me. this post is focusing more on the native languages of the UK, but any question of 'correct language' must inevitably talk about racism too, because language is and has always been a signifier of group belonging, and a way to enforce power.

it is used to gatekeep, to enforce conformity, to control, to signify belonging to a particular group, to other. talking about language 'correctness' is NOT and never CAN be a neutral thing.

it reminds me of a quote, and I heard this second hand on twitter and for the life of me cannot remember who said it or exactly how it goes, but the gist of it was a queer writer addressing comments saying how 'universal' their book was, and saying - no, this is a queer book. if you want to find themes and moments in it that are applicable to your 'default' life, 'universals' of emotion and experience, go ahead. but I have had to translate things from the norm my entire life, to make them relatable for me. this time, you do the translation.

I do not speak or write scots or glaswegian, but I grew up reading it and listening to it (as well as doric and gaelic in smaller measures, which are still familiar to me but which I can understand less). for me, that passage is almost as easy to read as english - and the only reason it is slightly more difficult is because, predictably, I don't have a chance to practice reading scots very often at all. it isn't inaccessible to me.

(I was about to write: can you imagine looking at a book written in french, and scowling, saying, 'this is so insufferably foreign!' and then point out how ridiculous that would be. but then I realise - foreign film, cinema, lyrics increasingly in english, reluctance to read the subtitles, the footnotes, to look things up, to engage in any active way in any piece of media. this is an attitude which even in its most mockable, most caricature-like form, is extremely prevalent online. *deep sigh*)

because. what is 'inaccessible'? it means it is difficult for people who are 'normal'. and what is 'normal', exactly? why is a certain class of people the 'default'? could that be, perhaps, a question with very loaded and very extensive political, social and historical answers? who is making the judgement about what language is 'normal'? who gets to decide?

I'd also like to note that this applies to everyone. it doesn't matter if you are a member of an oppressed group, or five, or none, you can still engage in this kind of discrimination and stereotyping. my scottish family, who have themselves had to change the way they speak and many of them lost their gaelic because of it, routinely mock anglo-romani speakers in their local area. I have an indian friend, herself speaking english because of a history of violence and colonialism, who laughed for five minutes at the beginning of derry girls because the girls sounded so 'funny', and asked me: why did they choose to speak like that? my brother, who sounds very stereotypically rural and 'uneducated', laughs at the essex accent and says that he would never date a girl from essex. I had a classmate from wales who was passionate about welsh language rights and indigenous and minority language education but also made fun of the accent of her native-english speaking classmate from singapore. it goes on and on and on.

take the dialect/language question out of the topic, and I think this reveals a much broader problem with a lot of conversations about media, and the implicit assumptions of what being 'normal' [read: white, anglo-centric, american, male, straight, young, able-bodied, cis, etc] actually means:

if something is written about an experience I do not share, is it inaccessible? or is it just written for someone else?

so, please. next time you want to write a review about a dialect or language you don't speak, think a little before you open your mouth.

the rest of the world has to, every time.

#lingblr #langblr #scots #scots language #glaswegian #urghhhh #this was a bit of a rant and angry and entirely unresearched #if anybody wants to bring up any examples or correct me in any way #especially about names of other language groups that I'm not in (I just looked them up on wikipedia)#I will gladly edit and accept correct and conversation!#rarrrrghghghghghg #I am biting and killing

89 notes · View notes

darkficsyouneveraskedfor · 11 months ago

Text

Silver Lining 2

Warnings: non/dubcon, speech impediment, bullying and other dark elements. My username actually says you never asked for any of this.

Characters: silverfox!Bucky Barnes

Summary: You have an unpleasant encounter with an older man.

Note: I was going to add this to the bookstore au but realised Bucky is a side character in Steve’s and not old so….

My warnings are not exhaustive but be aware this is a dark fic and may include potentially triggering topics. Please use your common sense when consuming content. I am not responsible for your decisions.

As usual, I would appreciate any and all feedback. I’m happy to once more go on this adventure with all of you! Thank you in advance for your comments and for reblogging.

You leave the cafe with your lukewarm cup. You were so anxious you'd almost forgot about the pepperminty goodness. You sip, slightly disappointed in the temperature. Still, it's yummy and you have your bag of books in hand. The day has been a mild success.

You walk along the icy pavement, the season nipping at your cheeks. Most people complain about the snow but it's your favorite. You don't drive so you don't worry for a slippery commute, you have your heavy-treaded doc martens and a downy coat.

You head down Ironwood hoping to catch a streetcar car only to find it skimming past. You sigh and drop your shoulders. You could use the exercise and it would be so bad as long as the path behind Jerry's Submarines isn't snowed over.

You cut through to the next street along a short alley and hop over the bank between the sidewalk and the road. As you do, you slip and stumble, a pair of headlights turning just as you fall into the street. I long fearsome honk blows in your ears.

You whip around to face the driver, raising your hand in an apologetic wave. Not the smartest move but the street isn't usually that busy. You brows pop up as you recognize behind the wheel. Oh boy. Not again.

You skitter away hoping he didn't recognise you too. That very same man who invaded your personal bubble and insulted your taste. Lisa doesn't believe it when you say you're cursed but it's hard to deny from your vantage point.

You get to the other side and keep your head straight, marching away without looking back. He drives by slowly past your peripheral and you dip onto the path, letting out a breath. Alright, no way you'll see that jerk again.

There's a blanket if snow over the path but not enough to deter you. You kick through the powder as you bob to the music in your earbud. You know, Mariah Carey's non-Christmas tunes aren't too shabby either.

You come out on Orchard, sipping your mellowed candy cane cocoa and swing the paper bag carelessly. You could start your podcast. You have more than enough resources now and the new books will be the cherry on top.

As you stride along Orchard towards Cornish, a car door opens and shuts. You don't see the figure before you until they step over the curve and nearly take you off your feet. You drop your cup, spilling what's left of the cold hot chocolate.

“Oh, oof, d-dude–” you sputter out as the liquid drips down your lilac docs.

“Dude?” The man grips the bag in his left hand, his other opening and closing in a tight fist. No way.

“Ew,” you let out the syllable without filter.

“Ew?” He eyes you head to toe.

“Y-yeah, y-y-you're following me.”

“Following?” He growls, “you girls sure do have quite the imagination these days.”

“B-b-but… you saw me….g-go down the path.”

“I wasn't even looking at you, doll,” he scoffs.

“D-d-doll?” You scowl.

“Oh, don't even--I could call you worse.”

“L-leave me a-alone,” you back up, gripping the wire handle of the shopping bag tightly.

“Happily,” he sneers, “I have a job so get out of my way.”

He shoulders past you, harshly. Your trads slip on the salted walk as you grunt and turn to eatch him strut towards the house just a few feet down. You rub the sore spot left by his gruff impact.

You shake your head a leave, thinking better of shouting ‘old man’ at his back. You probably shouldn't antagonize him. So you spin and tuck your hands into your pockets and carry on.

Your street is only a few blocks away. By then, you've almost forgotten about the strange encounters. The closer you get to the haven of your bedroom, the more excited you are to crack open your new books.

Your parents house is trimmed in bright coloured lights and the lawn decorated with plastic candy canes and full entourage of fake reindeer. The familiarity of your childhood home is both comforting and stagnating. You can't believe you're still here.

You go inside, leaving your wet boots on the mat as your mother calls your stepdads name from the kitchen. You unzip your coat and hang it on the rack mounted against the wall. You reclaim your bag of books and make your way to the front room.

“Dean,” your mom calls again as she appears in the hall, peering in after you, “oh it's you.”

“Just me,” you drone and continue towards the stairs. You stop at the bottom, “mom,” she keeps from retreating and looks back at you, “need help?”

“Oh, no honey, I almost got it figured out. So, how's the job hunt?”

You try to smile. Oh, that. You can't live off severance forever and the settlement is never going to happen.

“Good,” you lie, shifting the bag behind your hands.

Maybe you should be a bit more prudent. It's an investment, for your podcast. You just need to figure out how to record. And how not to stutter every other word.

You're only thirty. You have time to smooth out details. Don't you?

You turn and plod up the stairs and into your bedroom. The clutter greets you along with the nest of blankets tangled in your bed. What are you even thinking? You can hardly keep your room tidy.

It's not your fault. Your mom says so. Lisa too. But it has to be. You had it all, a good job, a nice apartment, independence. You blew it all. If you'd just kept your mouth shut.

But wasn't that the problem? Isn't that why you're getting therapy? So you can speak up next time. So there won't be a next time.

You sniff and sit at the desk, adding the bag to the mess. You hang your head in the darkness as the snow reflects the sheen of street lights through the window. It takes time, Lisa says, but you feel it running out.

#bucky barnes #dark bucky barnes #dark!bucky barnes #bucky barnes x reader #drabble #series #au #silver lining #mcu #marvel #avengers #winter soldier

179 notes · View notes

recoord · 2 months ago

Text

Neil Gaiman allegedly sexually assaulted someone while writing The Graveyard Book

The discussion on Reddit, here.

Podcast transcript, here. Credits for the transcript to Tara O'Shea.

"K" is the pseudonym used by the victim sharing her experience:

Rachel: On the 4th of April, 2007, Neil Gaiman flew K from Los Angeles to Heathrow for a fortnight's holiday together in the UK alone, the two of them. K tells us she was excited to be on this amazing trip with her famous boyfriend and not have to sneak around.

From his messages to her, it seemed like he was too. Neil Gaiman met her on arrival and they then took a taxi to Gatwick Airport to fly to Inverness in Scotland. They visited Loch Ness and stayed at his house on the Isle of Skye for three days. They then flew to Cornwall and drove to Red Ruth in the far south west of England. They stayed in an old tinners cottage with a wood burning stove hidden up a bridal path.

It was advertised as affording complete privacy. He spent the days in Cornwall mostly writing the graveyard book and then they'd occasionally go for walks or drives. She sent us photos from that trip.

Beaches, pubs, cliffs, glens, scarves, the heavy grey skies of the Scottish and Cornish summer. She looks happy. When you see their faces together in the photos, he's unshaven, craggy, she's around 22. She looks so, so young. But she said there were fights. Lots of them.

K: There are a lot of arguments. There is a lot of roughness that I felt compelled to take.

CONTENT WARNING for graphic descriptions of SA

Rachel: What the photos also don't show is K's intimate agony. She told us that on that trip, she had her period and then a bad urinary tract infection.

K: I couldn't sit down. He would say, you know, I want to fool around, like, you know, and I would say, okay, we can fool around, but you can't put anything in my vagina. You just can't because I will die. And it didn't matter. He did it anyway.

Paul: He did it anyway. Although you told him you were in pain.

K: Very specifically said you cannot put anything in me. Please don't. It will hurt very badly and it will make things worse than they already are. Because I know for sure I remember forsure in Cornwall saying those words out loud. It wasn't just a discussion about like that hurts.

Like because I can't remember if I said that hurts. Don't do it or like please stop. I can't remember those other instances. I know we discussed it. I know it was a big part of why he would get upset at me and I knew that it was like something that I had to do to keep him around. Like it was expected of me, but in Cornwall, I remember because of that UTI and it was so painful that like I couldn't do anything. Like I couldn't enjoy the fact that I was in or like I was just in like screaming agony and I know I said it out loud then.

Rachel: On the 16th of April 2007, Neil Gaiman drove K to Heathrow for her flight back to Los Angeles. She says they stopped several times along the way so she could pee because of her UTI. She says it felt more painful because of the penetrative sex he allegedly performed on her without her consent. As to this specific allegation, Neil Gaiman's clear position is that it is false and again he denies any unlawful behaviour with her. He didn't respond to any other specific points or questions about this trip.

From episode 4 of the Tortoise podcast series.

#neil gaiman #neil gaiman allegations #cw sa #the graveyard book #sources

38 notes · View notes

inkyvendingmachine · 9 months ago

Text

Mobs and Stalkers Season 4, Episode 3

�� Call of Cthulhu: Haunted Hijinx Masterpost 💀 Call of Cthulhu Season Four Masterpost (Coming Soon)

Warning: This campaign is an edited version of a Call of Cthulhu scenario from the Tales of the Crescent City book. While a lot has been changed, there IS spoilers for it throughout these posts.

Who is this guy and why is he following us? Why are we following him?? Why are we interreacting with mobs again??? How does this keep happening to us?????

Art Credit: @inkdemonapologist : sketching + inking @inkyvendingmachine : concept + colouring

IT IS THE NEXT MORNING. EVERYONE WAKES UP AND NOBODY (who slept over at JDS) IS MISSING, OR DEAD.

THAT’S GREAT.

Bendy even slept on top of Jack during their slumber party, trying to give the same comfort as an Beans might give. It might’ve been weird otherwise, but after all the hectic nonsense going on and not being able to feel safe going home, in this case it was welcome.

Joey slept on his research notes.

But it is a work day (at least it’s friday,,,) so the cots are shuffled away before people start coming in and questioning the group about the spontaneous night in. And foreseeing this might be a future issue if stuff goes haywire and they have to hide out at JDS more, Joey takes the holiday opportunity to get everyone out of the office for a while. Enjoy New Years Eve off, go party! Also New Years, to recover from the party. And also… the day AFTER New Years, to do all the things you meant to do on New Years but you were recovering from the party!! Look how nice Joey Drew is, giving so many thoughtful days off. Nobody come back until Thursday or else.

While everyone else is getting some work done, Joey checks in on Norman who didn’t even call in. He seems fine, but he’s still adamant about staying at home. Okay you do you.

(Joey sends Susie to hang out with Norman, as his inside woman and also because the Norman vs. Susie perception of the world will be nice when more things just. C h a n g e.)

The team has two big leads for trying to find Alan Leroy: Chandler Kreel and Amanda Cornish. Both of them are apparently good friends with him, and with addresses in hand, they split up to try and track down the danged clarinetist that they probably need to get to.

Jack and Sammy drive downtown to a bunch of law offices with apartments above, searching for Amanda. They’re able to get to her door pretty easily, but Amanda isn’t the one who answers. Her sister does! Luckily Jack’s there to run introductions because otherwise Sam’s scowling face probably would have just been turned away at that point. Sitting in the waiting room, Amanda soon joins them and admits that the last time she saw Alan was at a christmas party they went to… but seems to be kind of standoffish about any other information.

After some more charming by Jack, it’s revealed that she thinks he might be in trouble with the mob, and uh, Sammy… looking the way he does……. Maybe made her think they were the mob?? But with confirmation that, no, they super aren’t the mob and in fact are trying to find Alan before he possibly gets in trouble with a mob or two, she’s a bit more relaxed. Something weird is happening, because Alan really doesn’t seem like the type to be in trouble with the mob. And the last weird thing she remembers happening with Alan was… well, he got freaked out over some book she gave him for the holidays!

What’s so scary about a book? It was a pretty interesting read, here she’ll go grab it for ya!!!

Sammy is looking away Sammy is looking away Sammy refuses to look in any direction near Amanda as she, indeed, brings out a little black book with the Yellow Sign on it.

Jack immediately feels it wiggle into his head. But at least he’s able to wrap up the conversation with her in a… semi-normal manner? While Sammy’s eyes, darting anywhere else, find a photo on the mantelpiece that features Alan Leroy and friends, hanging out at a party scrawled with the note: Skinner Place, May, 1934… and Sammy is CERTAIN he recognises the man.

Oddly, his clarinet in the photo is missing one of the extensions he'd expect for a professional player...…….

Joey and Henry take the brown Mercedes to check out Chandler Kreel, who luckily lives in a nice part of the city that feels like a Mercedes might be somewhat… less… easily noticeable.

He answers the door but seems extremely nervous, like Amanda was. Leroy is great! So good at clarinet you wouldn’t even know he was down a finger!! Also totally a swell guy who shouldn’t be in any trouble so why are you heeerree??

Through Joey’s uh, storytelling skills, and Henry's good calming daditude, they get the idea he’s a loyal friend who wants to make sure he’s helping his buddy and not handing over information to the mob or any other parties that might be after Alan… Which means, he probably has information on where Alan is. Since it’d be suspicious to just plain ask, Joey goes the heartfelt “please reach out to us we’re here to help,” direction and hands off contact information.

While returning to the car, Henry and Joey find someone oogling over it… and this time it’s not some girl trying to declare herself Henry’s lifelong love, but the pale-faced man in a black suit that’s been seen everywhere recently. Their conversation is short, as the man mentions looking for a “wandering player” that needs to be returned to his place, and he walks off after some vague threats about what happens if you are in his way. Or if you lie to him, don’t do that either.

His mask-like face doesn’t move while communicating any of this.

Henry tells Joey once they’re alone that he thinks that guy is Fowler. He has the same nervous fidget Fowler used to…

Jack and Sammy go to stop by Norman’s on the way back, and find that… his place is apparently a block down from where it used to be!!

GREAT!!!!

When he answers the door and is immediately and frantically questioned about this, he takes a look around and confirms, shrugging and simply stating “it seems like I’ve moved.”

He invites them in for a housewarming party.

Susie and Norman have been playing cards. There’s no updates on Avadon. Jack and Sammy update them about the few tidbits of information they’ve found, and Norman finds a piece of junk mail to hand off to Jack before they head out. Since… the address on there seems to have changed too, so if Norman ends up moving again, well… they’ll know where he is!

The four of them meet back up at JDS to exchange information about Alan Leroy, and also eject the yellow sign from Jack’s head asap. Sammy's still worked up about this clarinetist's missing E flat extension, but Joey dismisses this as old news -- obviously; he's missing a finger. Keep up, Sammy. Peter has kind of also met back up with them, leaving a message on Joey’s phone talking about sightings of the masked man going through some magic shops in the city. And the fact that despite all his digging, he really can’t find anything about where this Leroy guy came from…

Joey tries to call Peter back by memory and it doesn’t work. We’re not going to talk about the fact that Joey has Peter’s number memorized. Pulling out his phone book, indeed, Peter’s number on paper has changed and that one DOES work.

Before they get much of a conversation going at all, Joey hangs up on Peter to try something. Instead of dialing a number in, or looking one up… he just wills himself to dial a number in to call Alan Leroy.

It kiiiindaaa works.

Joey manages to call Alan Leroy’s phone, but the same servant picks up and insists that Alan hasn’t returned home. Joey hangs up on him.

Peter gets a call back. Okay so there’s those Magic Shops he wants to check out, and also he has a lead on the gangster guy who shot the gun during the charity event. To keep Peter from doing nonsense alone and probably being abducted to Carcosa, Jack and Joey decide to go with him to investigate magic shops, while Sammy and Henry uneasily go to the bar to find info on the gangster guy, once Sammy is reassured that this won’t be like last time and all he has to do is eavesdrop. This surely will only go well.

At the bar, Henry casually brings up the charity dinner shooting while trying to fish for information, and maybe he talks a little too much, because suddenly all eyes are on him. What! Sammy wasn’t doing any talking so Henry was just trying to… do….what Joey would do? Henry trying to do what Joey would do has never gone wrong before…

Sammy and Henry are in a mob car, only kind of against their will. They are escorted to a restaurant, where they meet the extremely average looking Italian mob boss, Johnny Nero, who wants to know what they know about this pale masked man. At first it seems like they’ve made another great terrible get-yourselves-kidnapped-by-a-mob mistake, but the boss seems surprisingly rattled, and after some grilling from Sammy, Nero admits that… he’s seen some stuff that shouldn’t be…

… and Sammy hits the nail on the head when he asks, have you seen the y͟el͜l͘ow sig̵n?

Henry steps in and decides to offer to help him… to get him on our side, and understand that we are not a threat to him, we’re simply trying to remove the same thing from the city. After some pressure, Nero is convinced, and goes through the extremely normal process of Henry writing eldritch symbols with his own blood to remove the sign from him. After the nightmare has been yeeted from his brain, Nero turns out to be a wee bit nicer: he gives us all the info he has, but insists that if we find whatever the pallid mask guy is looking for, to give it to him so he can use it to get the guy gone.

And then he kicks them out without even offering them a ride back to their car at the bar.

Wrow.

What an extremely average super not classy even mob boss.

That’s gonna get you a terrible review on yellowp my dude.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, it’s time for

✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*SHOPPING✧･ﾟ: *✧･ﾟ:*~~!!

The first store is called Cool Jewel Skull. It has cool jewels and skulls. Surely that’s exactly what it says in the book, because it’s extremely not a legit shop, and Jack spends the entire walk to the next shop dunking on it to keep Joey's spirits up. They did find out that not just the Phantom but Leroy had been through it though!

The next stop is an apothecary, and it does seem a lot more actually occult stuff. The guy recognizes a photo of Leroy and confirms he came through looking for protective charms, but when he went to buy one, he dropped it upon touching it and immediately left?? Then the Pallid Mask guy came through later… Not much info on him, except that he was creepy, but we already knew that. The interesting thing is though, the charm that Leroy dropped? It has the same symbol on it that Henry uses to expel the yellow sign from people’s heads. So… weird that he didn’t take it with him…. And seemed allergic to it as well.

The three leave and try to go to the last shop on the list… but the address is missing from the paper now. Like… completely gone. Joey gets the great idea to try his “I'm going to will myself there” trick and closes his eyes, imagining a route to this store he’d never been to before, and giving Jack directions to drive there. Suddenly Jack slams on the brakes and manages to keep from completely smashing into… a man in a suit… and a pale mask…. There’s definitely a dent in the bumper now though, because Jack wasn’t that quick, and apparently a moving car is not more solid than this thing is.

Joey immediately starts cursing him out, but he insists that Joey called him?? before going around to the side of the car and opening the back seat door… where Peter is sitting. Not having this AT ALL, Joey tries to beat him out of the car with his cane, only to be thrown back against the dashboard.

With Jack frozen in terror and Peter having an oddly difficult time moving to even the other side of the car away from this pale jerk, Joey immediately decides he cAN AND WILL RIP THIS ASSHOLE OUT OF EXISTENCE.

And… somehow, it works.

It sure tears something into him alright, and manages to boot him out of the car, giving enough time for Joey to demand Jack step on it. And Jack, panic stricken, somehow manages to follow the command and at least not run into anything else as they drive off into the night – But just as he’s hit the gas pedal, he does feel the cold of both glass shards and … something else, as he gets touched by a hand smashing through the window in the last second.

Luckily Jack bought the first car on the market in the US that had safety glass so he’s not going to be fucked up much from this in the physical department, except for his wallet maybe.

Mentally though? Memories flood in…

memories of a time he visited a dream with his eyes closed, and almost had his head removed.

After they’re at a safe distance, a shaken Peter manages to pull the door closed.

And thank them.

#call of cthulhu: haunted hijinx #sammy lawrence #joey drew #henry stein #jack fain #susie campbell #norman polk #peter sunstram

64 notes · View notes

oblivious-idiot · 10 months ago

Text

happy birthday lockwood and co!!!!

it's officially been a whole year of having lockwood and co on our screens!!! HOW CRAZY IS THAT???

anywho. soppy post alert below. now, i haven't been that caught up and fully invested in a show, or even a fandom for that matter, in a VERY long time. it's hard to put into words how much all of this means to me, but we'll give it a shot.

lockwood and co, to put it simply, is one of the best things that has happened to me in a very long time. to not only be invested in a fabulously captivating show, but to feel seen and understood by the characters too!! these guys literally mean so much to me because i literally see myself in them 10 fold - they are so kind, funny, unapologetically themselves, selfless, proud, stubborn, and overall just kids trying to get by. they are so relatable but so unique all at once.

as well as the show and books being so goddamn wonderful and marvelous, i just wanna say something for this fandom too. i've never known a fandom be so resilient even AFTER the show got cancelled to still thrive, have an online and now an in-person event for the fans to talk to people like jonathan and gina (who we quite literally wouldn't be here without them), joe cornish, and ali, ruby, and cameron!

you guys have literally changed my world in so many ways, and i can gladly say that i have grown so much, in myself and in happiness, because of the wonderful friendships i've made here. @impossibleclair was the first person i became friends with here (!!! love you clair), shortly followed by the likes of @losticaruss and @wellgoslowly - who i love with my entire heart. you guys have shown me so much love and support, i adore you

i hope that eventually one day this year i might even be lucky enough to meet some of the lovely friends i've made here too!! (looking at you, month of july)

i'd like to just shout out so many of the wonderful people i now know because of this silly little show - if i have missed out anyone please know it wasn't on purpose!! @wellgoslowly @neewtmas @avdiobliss @waitingforthesunrise @ettadear @rainysaturdayafternoon @impossibleclair @thisgameissonintendo @uku-lelevillain @ikeasupremacy @occasionally-normal-things-here @paranorahjones @strawberrycowgirly @demigoddess-of-ghosts @givemea-dam-break @jesslockwood @kazbrekkerfast @krash-and-co @bobbys-not-that-small @maraschinomerry and anyone else who's a mutual or has interacted with me!!! i adore you all

thank you for making this past year so wonderful and full of love and encouragement!! yall don't know how much i appreciate you all

much love, allie x

#lockwood and co #anthony lockwood #lucy carlyle #george karim #lockwood & co #locklyle #save lockwood and co #renew lockwood and co #lockwood #lockwood netflix #lockwood and co anniversary #lockwood and lucy #lockwood and co netflix #george cubbins #lucy joan carlyle

71 notes · View notes

wolverinesorcery · 2 years ago

Text

UNBLENDING CELTIC POLYTHEISTIC PRACTICES

Celtic Umbrella

This lesson is largely focusing on the insular Celtic nations & Brittany (Ireland/Eire, Scotland/Alba, Wales/Cymru, Cornwall/Kernow, Isle of Man/Mannin, & Brittany/Breizh) - traditionally regarded as 6 out of the 7 Celtic nations. Galicia/Galizia is the 7th, but because of a mix of the below + my own lack of knowledge, I won't be covering them.

The vast swath of Continental Celtic cultures are a different but equally complex topic thanks to extinction, revival, varying archaeological artefacts and the work of modern practioners to piece unknown parts back together.

This will serve as a quick 'n' dirty guide to the insular Celtic nations, Celtic as a label, blood percentages and ancestry, the whats and whys of "Celtic soup", and how to unblend practice.

The insular Celtic groups are split into two language groups: Brythonic languages and Gaelic languages.

Brythonic languages are Cymraeg/Welsh, Kernewek/Cornish, & Breton

Gaelic languages are Gàidhlig/Scottish, Gaeilge/Irish, & Gaelg/Manx.

The language split leads to certain folkloric and religious figures & elements being more common within the language group than without. All of these nations had historic cultural exchange and trade routes via the Celtic sea (and beyond). Despite this, it is still important to respect each as a home to distinct mythologies.

Pros/Cons of a broad Celtic umbrella

Pros

- Used within celtic nations to build solidarity - Relates to a set of cultures that have historic cultural exchange & broad shared experiences - A historic group category - Celtic nations’ culture is often protected under broad legislation that explicitly highlights its ‘Celtic-ness’.

Cons

- Can be used reductively (in academia & layman uses) - Often gives in to the dual threat of romanticisation/fetishisation & erasure - Conflates a lot of disparate practices under one banner - Can lead to centring ‘celtic american’ experiences. - Celtic as a broad ancestral category (along with associated symbols) has also been co-opted by white supremacist organisations.

In this I’m using ‘Celtic’ as a broad umbrella for the multiple pantheons! This isn’t ideal for specifics, but it is the fastest way to refer to the various pantheons of deities that’ll be referenced within this Q&A (& something that I use as a self identifier alongside Cornish).

What about blood % or ancestry?

A blood percentage or claimed Celtic ancestry is NOT a requirement to be a follower of any of the Celtic pantheons. The assumption that it does or is needed to disclose can feed easily into white supremacist narratives and rhetoric, along side the insidious implications that a white person in the USA with (perceived or real) Celtic ancestry is 'more celtic' than a person of colour living in a Celtic region (along with other romanticised notions of homogenously white cultures).

Along side this, a blood percentage or distant ancestry does not impart the culture and values of the Celtic region or it's recorded pagan practices by itself. Folk traditions are often passed down within families, but blood percentage is not a primary factor within this.

Connecting with ancestry is fine, good, and can be a fulfilling experience. It stops being beneficial when it leads to speaking over people with lived experiences & centres the USA-based published and authors - which can lead to blending/souping for reasons further on.

What is 'soup'?

Celtic soup is a semi-playful term coined by several polytheists (primarily aigeannagusacair on wordpress) to describe the phenomenon of conflating & combining all the separate pantheons and practices from the (mainly) insular Celtic nations into one singular practice - removing a lot of the regionalised folklore, associated mythos, & varying nuances of the nations that make up the soup.

Why does it happen?

The quick version of this is book trends and publishing meeting romanticisation and exotification of Celtic cultures (especially when mixed with pre-lapsarian views of the Nations). It's miles easier to sell a very generally titled book with a lot of Ireland and a little of everywhere else than it is to write, source and publish a separate book on each.

This is where centering American publishers and authors becomes an issue - the popular trend of USA-based pagan publications to conflate all celtic nations makes it hard to find information on, for example, Mannin practices because of the USA’s tendency to dominate media. Think of Llewellyn’s “Celtic Wisdom” series of books.

It has also been furthered by 'quick research guides'/TL;DR style posts based on the above (which have gained particular momentum on tumblr).

The things that have hindered the process in unblending/"de souping" is the difficulty in preserving independently published pamphlets/books from various nations (often more regionalised and immediately local than large, sweeping books generalising multiple practices) along with the difficulty of accessing historic resources via academic gatekeeping.

All of this has lead to a lack of awareness of the fact there is no, one, singular Celtic religion, practice or pantheon.

Why should I de-soup or unblend my practice?

Respecting the deities

It is, by and large, considered the bare minimum to understand and research a deity's origin and roots. The conflation of all insular Celtic deities under one singular unified pantheon can divorce them from their original cultures and contexts - the direct opposite to understanding and researching.

Folklore and myth surrounding various Celtic deities can be highly regionalised both in grounded reality and geomythically - these aren't interchangeable locations and are often highly symbolic within each nation.

Brú na Bóinne, an ancient burial mound in Ireland, as an entrance to the otherworld of the Tuatha Dé Danann.

Carn Kenidjack & the Gump as a central site of Cornish folk entities feasts and parties, including Christianised elements of Bucca’s mythology.

The Mabinogion includes specific locations in Wales as well as broad Kingdoms - it’s implied that Annwn is somewhere within the historic kingdom of Dyfed, & two otherworldly feasts take place in Harlech & Ynys Gwales.

Conflating all celtic pantheons under one banner often leads to the prioritisation of the Irish pantheon, meaning all of the less ‘popular’ or recorded deities are sidelined and often left unresearched (which can lead to sources & resources falling into obscurity and becoming difficult to access).

Respecting the deities

Deities, spirits, entities, myth & folklore are often culturally significant both historically and to modern day people (just average folks along with practitoners/pagans/polytheists and organisations) located in the various Nations

A primary example is the initiatory Bardic orders of Wales and Cornwall.

Desouping/Unblending makes folklorist's lives easier as well as casual research less difficult to parse. The general books are a helpful jumping off point but when they constitute the bulk of writing on various Celtic polytheisms, they become a hinderance and a harm in the research process.

A lot of mythology outside of deities & polytheisms is also a victim of ‘souping' and is equally as culturally significant - Arthurian mythology is a feature of both Welsh and Cornish culture but is often applied liberally as an English mythology & and English figure.

Celtic nations being blended into one homogenous group is an easy way to erase cultural differences and remove agency from the people living in celtic nations. Cornwall is already considered by a large majority of people to be just an English county, and many areas of Wales are being renamed in English for the ease of English tourists.

How can I de-soup?

Chase down your sources' sources, and look for even more sources

Check your sources critically. Do they conflate all pantheons as one? Do they apply a collective label (the celts/celts/celt/celtic people) to modern day Celtic nations? How far back in history do they claim to reach?

Research the author, are they dubious in more ways than one? Have they written blog articles you can access to understand more of their viewpoints? Where are they located?

Find the people the author cites within their work - it can be time consuming but incredibly rewarding and can also give a good hint at the author's biases and research depth. You may even find useful further reading!

Find primary sources (or as close too), or translations of the originating folklore, e.g The Mabinogion. Going to the source of a pantheon’s mythos and folklore can be helpful in discerning where soup begins in more recent books as well as gaining insight into deities' actions and relationships.

Ask lots of questions

Question every source! Question every person telling you things that don't define what pantheon or region they’re talking about! Write all your questions down and search for answers! Talk to other polytheists that follow specific Celtic pantheons, find where your practices naturally overlap and where they have been forced into one practice by authors!

Be honest with yourself

There’s no foul in spreading your worship over several pantheons that fall under the celtic umbrella! A lot of polytheists worship multiple pantheons! But be aware of the potential for soup, and make sure you’re not exclusively reading and working from/with sources that conflate all practices as one.

If you approach any Celtic polytheistic path with the attitude of blood percentage or 'ancestral right', stop and think critically about why you want to follow a Celtic polytheistic path. Is it because it's the most obviously 'open' path to follow? Is it a desire to experience what other folks experience? Being critical, turning inward, and really looking at yourself is important. Originally posted in the Raven's Keep discord server

#celtic polytheism #celtic paganism #celtic soup #celtic #celtic reconstructionism #celtic revivalism #celtic polytheist #celtic pagan #celtic religion

484 notes · View notes

chance-lard · 2 years ago

Text

Book!Lucy & Lockwood vs Show!Lucy & Lockwood: A VERY LONG Deep Dive

So I finished the Netflix adaptation of Lockwood & Co.

Overall, I think it was a respectful adaptation, which, despite some plot changes, kept largely to the spirit of the books. At minimum, Joe Cornish actually seems to like L&Co, which is way more than can be said about most adaptations these days. Hooray!

But I wanted to write a bit about one of the bigger changes they made: namely the dynamic between Lucy and Lockwood.

I’ve seen people saying that the Locklyle adaptation to screen was very true to the books, just without Lucy’s close personal voice, and sped up a little in the romance department (“Stroud doesn’t mention what Lucy was doing with her hands! They could have been on Lockwood’s face in the books!” etc).

Respectfully, I disagree quite a bit with this. While some argument could be made about it having shades of their relationship from THB/TCS onwards, I actually think Show!Lucy’s attitude towards Lockwood is a 180 from the way she views him in TSS and TWS.

IDK, this might be a bit of a controversial opinion judging by what I’ve been seeing in the L&Co tag and general ways people have interpreted TSS and TWS in the years since their publication, but I’m going to try to back my argument as best as I can, focusing only on those books.

I’m using the original paperback UK editions of both the Screaming Staircase (2013) and The Whispering Skull (2014).

Spoilers for the show and VERY mild spoilers for books 3+ (literally just the name of a new character/type of ghost + stuff already shown in the show that wasn’t shown until later in the books)

Another warning: this analysis is 5500(!!!) words long, and mostly quotes from the book. If you’d like to just read the main bits, look at the intro/conclusion to each section and read the TLDR; at the end.

PART 1: THE NETFLIX SHOW

Before diving into differences, there are things I do think stayed the same between the show and the books:

Lucy and Lockwood banter, swap one-liners and occasionally squabble.

Lucy remains unimpressed with some of Lockwood’s more slapdash schemes.

During missions, they work equally and trust each other with their lives and the job.

They care about each other’s wellbeing.

Basically, when things are going well between them, or when they are in high-stakes circumstances and need to cooperate, there isn’t too much of a difference between Show!Locklyle and Book!Locklyle.

But as Tolstoy (lmao) says, all happy families agents are alike, all unhappy families agents are unique in their own way. With that said, I think the differences between Show!Locklyle and Book!Locklyle are best explored through the way conflicts are handled.

In the show, there are 5 major arguments between Lucy and Lockwood:

Episode 2: Lucy feels upset and hurt because she thinks Lockwood only views her as an “asset”.

Episode 4: Lucy is upset that Lockwood doesn’t believe/doesn’t want to admit that she is talented enough to talk to the Skull

Episode 5: Lucy gets mad at Lockwood being self-sacrificing/death-seeking after they escape from the Winkmans.

Episode 7: Lucy calls Lockwood a boy with a “cold dead heart of stone”, and is upset that he won’t let her and George in on his past.

Episode 8: Lucy is furious at Lockwood using dangerous methods at the auction, that “every relic hunter in London is out to kill us”, and that Lockwood is acting self-sacrificially again.

There are also the following minor squabbles:*

Episode 1: Lucy rolls her eyes at Lockwood for forgetting the chains at Mrs Hope’s house.

Episode 1: Lucy mad at Lockwood and George for the toothbrush cup initiation test.

Episode 2: Lockwood gets annoyed and brusque with Lucy for keeping Annabel’s source and trying to communicate with her ghost. After Lucy is nearly possessed, he flintily tells her he will burn the source, and that they have more important bills to pay.

*Note there might be some more minor squabbles, but they weren’t significant enough to make their way into my notes

The most important takeaway here is that Lucy is the one who initiates most of the arguments! We can also note Lockwood’s response to Lucy’s anger: mostly he mutely self-reflects as she shouts and storms away, then later he comes to her to apologise and promises to do better.

The one time Lockwood gets mad at Lucy (Ep 2) we are a) not shown the bulk of the argument (there’s a cutaway after the fight with the ghost to Lucy justifying herself), b) it’s anger born of worry, and c) Cameron’s delivery of the lines is quite measured and muted.

In essence, when it comes to conflict, Lucy is the one holding the cards in the relationship between the two of them.

We also know the show is set much earlier than the books (which take place over the span of a whole year). Show!Lucy isn’t acting this way out of concern for a Lockwood who she’s known and loved for ages. Rather, Lockwood is someone she is not impressed by at all from the outset. The show is setting up what makes Lucy special here: unlike the adults, the other agents, and maybe even George, she’s the only one who can see through his “prodigious entrepreneur” mythos to the hurting teenager beneath.

Within the logic of the show’s universe this makes sense. Unlike Book!Lucy who is a judgemental grump (and is why she has “no female friends”; TWS p80), Show!Lucy is a more confident girl coming right off the back of losing someone she loves dearly.

Having experienced an arguably greater loss than Book!Lucy at this stage in her life, Show!Lucy seems adamant to prevent anyone else she cares about going down the same path. For Book!Lucy, this is a realisation she only comes to near the end of THB.

So to summarise, in the show, Lucy is a hurting, no-nonsense girl, unimpressed with Lockwood’s antics and objective enough to act as his “chain to earth”. From the way Lockwood responds to Lucy’s upsets, we get the sense that he’s quite sincere and maybe more in touch with his emotions than he shows on the surface.

The show portrays two people gradually learning to trust each other and perhaps slowly, mutually discovering their feelings as they do.

PART 2: BOOK: ACTIONS

The show uses disagreements as watersheds for character development, but they don’t play as significant a role in the books. Still, I went through TSS and TWS and made notes of every time there’s conflict between Lucy and Lockwood because the differences are quite telling.

TSS:

Lucy is mildly irritated/snarky at Lockwood for the entirety of the Hope case in TSS, and is angry when he forgets to bring the chains.

Lucy is angry at Lockwood for talking about the Annabel case and getting her name in the papers (TSS, 231)

Lockwood gets angry and berates Lucy for keeping the Annabel source (TSS, 179-181)

Lockwood calls Lucy “too sensitive” and accuses her of getting too close to ghosts (TSS, 248-249)

Lockwood is furious at Lucy for trying to talk to Annabel again (TSS, 284)

TWS:

Lockwood angry at Lucy for talking about the door on the landing (TWS, 116)

Lucy angry at Lockwood (and George) for taking her Listening for granted (TWS, 258)

Lucy scolds Lockwood for brushing off/slapping down George (TWS, 398)

Purely by numbers, they get mad at each other fairly evenly (rather than it being one-sided from Lucy, a la the show).

But numbers themselves don’t tell a full story. In fact, after looking at the particulars, I was surprised to see just how unbalanced their relationship is in the first 2 books (TSS in particular), and how much Lucy sits under Lockwood’s thumb for the whole thing.

Let’s look:

THE SCREAMING STAIRCASE

The Hope House - Lockwood forgetting to bring the chains.

This is the argument that plays out most similarly to how it does in the books. Lockwood asserts that filings “will be fine” for a job like this. In both mediums Lucy lets him go, but in the show she rolls her eyes and tuts, while in the books she tells herself “now (isn’t) the time”, takes a deep breath and changes the subject. In my opinion, this difference is insignificant.

BUT: in the book, the chains get brought up again. On p39, Lockwood suggests they should leave the house because it’s too dangerous, it is Lucy disagrees and thinks they should stay (as an aside, compare this with Lockwood’s behaviour in the show, particularly when escaping Winkman at the auction!).

Lockwood “condescendingly” tells her that her head isn’t in the right place, and Lucy once again accuses him of making bad decisions by leaving the chains out. Lockwood in turn first blames George (as he does in the show), then goes on to blame Lucy!

How the argument resolves is also interesting. Lockwood smiles at Lucy, and ribs her:

‘How’s your anger management going, Luce?’ (p40).

This effectively defuses Lucy’s rage (she likens his smile to “the sun coming out”).

Only after she’s no longer at the peak of her anger does he admit fault:

“He clapped his gloved hands together briskly. ‘Alright, you win'” (about staying at the house). (p40).

Even in the very first pages, we see Lockwood comporting himself as Lucy’s superior. We get the sense he doesn’t take her anger very seriously. Lucy also doesn’t seem to be able to stay mad at him for long.

Now, I've seen readings of Lockwood smiling in this moment as him being simply unable to stay mad at Lucy. That's definitely one interpretation, but I personally don't agree with it. Lockwood has a patterned habit of using his smile to get out of trouble:

“Lockwood took a deep breath; perhaps he realized he had to explain himself to George and me, as well as to Barnes…(Explanation). He switched on his fullest, most radiant smile.

Barnes winced. ‘Put those teeth away’” (TSS, p426)

And:

“‘Papers that almost certainly don’t exist,’ I growled…I didn’t look at him; if I had, he would have given me the smile, and I wasn’t in the mood for that.” (TWS, p258)

Though as we can see, by TWS Lucy has definitely wised up haha

Lucy’s name in the article

On paper, this argument is similar to the one in the show. The major difference is at no point in the books does Lucy explicitly tell Lockwood to keep her name out of the papers.

In the show, this argument leads to one of its biggest disagreements (Ep 2):

Lucy: I told you to leave me out of it.

Lockwood: And I told you I'd handle it. What are you so worried about? It's all true.

Lucy: We haven't even solved the case yet. What if Hugo Blake sees that and comes after me?

Lockwood: Well, then, we'll look after you, Luce. You're our biggest asset.

Lucy: Asset? Is that all I am, then? Just something to make you money? You think that you do things so differently. But you're just like the rest of them. You're as bad as everyone back home.

In the books, Lucy does not get angry when the article comes out (p217). She only gets upset after she’s pulled in by DEPRAC to see Hugo Blake. When the argument erupts, George is also there and it plays out like this (p232):

Lucy: “Don’t touch me. Because of your article, I came face to face with a murderer tonight, and funnily enough, I didn’t enjoy the experience.”

Lockwood: “Blake is not going to come after us”.

George: “Or if he does, it’ll be very, very slowly, hobbling on a stick. He’s over seventy years old.”

After Lockwood and George’s further justifications about why Blake is not going to “get them” (p232-233) Lucy thinks:

“What (Lockwood) said made sense, as usual. It was good to be out in the night again, with my sword and my colleagues at my side. The distress of my brief encounter at Scotland Yard was slowly fading. I felt a little better.”

We know from this that Lucy’s anger was one borne from worry and fear of Blake. By successfully alleviating that fear, Lucy’s anger at Lockwood dissipates. At no point is she mad at being treated as a showpony or asset by Lockwood. In fact, going back to when the article comes out (p 217), we’re presented with the following:

Lucy: “I still don’t know why you mentioned me but not the necklace.”

Lockwood: “It doesn’t hurt to emphasise what a star you are. We want other clients to come running, eager for your services.”

He doesn’t use the word “asset” here, but you can easily replace the word “star” with the word “asset" to get the original lines that triggered the argument in the show. To this statement, Book!Lucy has no reaction at all (the topic changes).

[As an aside, Lockwood also obliquely calls Lucy and George “inessential” on p214, which they also don’t comment on. Also, at various points he calls George and Lucy “fishwives” (p 272) and Lucy “sensitive” because she’s a girl (p 353) (lmaooo what an ass).]

Lockwood, Lucy and Annabel

I’m lumping these three arguments together because they follow the same pattern: Lucy tries to talk to Annabel, Lockwood gets upset that she keeps trying. What is absolutely fascinating is just how he treats Lucy when he is upset, and how Lucy responds to his anger in turn.

The first argument begins the morning after the fight. Lockwood says:

“Why, Lucy? I just don’t understand! You know an agent has to report any artefact she finds. Particularly one so intimately connected with a Visitor. They must be properly contained.” (p179)

He continues berating her like this (with a lot more anger than he ever displays on the show).

Lucy tries to apologise:

“Yes. I said I’m sorry! I’ve never done that sort of thing before.” (p180)

But Lockwood is still angry:

“So why did you do it now?”

Lucy spends the next page trying to explain why she took Annabel’s source, but even after her apologies and justifications, Lockwood is still furious:

“You forgot? That’s it? That’s your excuse?” (p 181)

The three of them talk a bit more about the mechanics of how Annabel ended up in the house, then when Lucy is in the middle of talking, Lockwood cuts her off again, and they have this whopper of an exchange:

“I hope you’re not trying to change the subject, Lucy,” Lockwood said in a cold voice. “I’m in the middle of ticking you off here.”

I set the case down. “I know.”

“I’m not finished, either. Not by a long chalk. I’ve got a whole heap more to say.” (Lockwood loses his train of thought here). “The point is: don’t do it again. I’m disappointed in you.”

Lucy meekly takes Lockwood’s lecture:

“I nodded. I stared at the tablecloth. My face felt cold and hot at the same time”

Lockwood’s one-sided lecture of Lucy lasts a whole five pages!!!

But he’s not done. It comes up again on p248 where Lockwood accuses Lucy of being 'too sensitive’ (in both the psychic and emotional way), and of getting “too close to (the ghosts)”. Then, in a 180 from the dynamics of power in the show (remember, Lucy threatens to quit several times), Lockwood threatens to fire her!

“You need to be careful, Lucy,” Lockwood said, and his voice was flat and cold. “Wicked ghosts aren’t things to trifle with. You’re keeping secrets again, and any agent who does that is endangering the rest of us. I’m not having anyone on my team who can��t be trusted. You understand what I’m saying?”

Again, Lucy takes this lecture meekly and submissively:

I did understand. I looked away.

In the final argument about the matter (p284) we learn that Lucy is actually a bit scared of Lockwood.

“You deliberately let her free?” Lockwood said. “That was a stupid thing to do.”

When I looked at his face, my heart quailed. “Not free,” I said desperately. “Just…freer.” (emphasis mine)

On p285 Lucy starts crying/tearing up because she thinks Lockwood:

“...Would not forgive me…this was the end of my employment at the company”.

Ordinarily, you might be able to argue that her fears are misplaced and subjective (because of her narrow perspective). This rings a little hollow given Lockwood’s threat on p248.

Does Lockwood ever apologise to Lucy during the Annabel affair? Once, when at his suggestion, Lucy tries to talk to Anabel, and things go awry:

“I’m so sorry. I should have never asked you to do that. What happened? Are you OK?” (p192)

It’s a sign that Lockwood does care about her wellbeing, despite his general distance from Lucy and the way he carries himself, which is as a figure of authority, and more importantly, as Lucy’s employer.

Seriously. We like to joke in this fandom that Lucy is too wrapped up in her own head thinking that Lockwood is out of her league to notice that he actually likes her. But reading the books again with detailed notes, I think Lucy’s impression is actually accurate.

In fact, writing this up sparked a memory of reading TSS for the first time (prior to the release of TWS), I remember thinking there wasn’t going to be a romance between Lucy and Lockwood. I couldn’t articulate it fully at the time, but I imagine it was because of how much older Lockwood seemed and how much control her asserts over her behaviour, combined with the way early book Lucy (to borrow Holly’s words from THB) “can’t say no” to Lockwood.

It is only by the end of TSS, does Lockwood finally say to her:

“I trust your Talent and your judgement and I’m very proud to have you on my team. OK? So stop worrying about the past!” (p436)

It’s still a tad condescending (think: praise from kindergarten teacher) but it’s a momentous occasion because as shown, prior to the Combe Carey Hall case, Lockwood seems to respect and trust her very little. This bookend leads nicely into their growing dynamic in TWS.

THE WHISPERING SKULL

Lucy, Lockwood and the skull in Bickerstaff’s manor:

By The Whispering Skull, Lucy and Lockwood’s relationship has evolved (which would make sense given the 6 months between books 1 and 2) and consequently the way they conflict has too. However, they still don’t ever reach the level of direct conflict they do in the show. Take what I consider to be Lucy’s biggest upset at Lockwood in the first 2 books:

On page 258, Lucy says:

“Forget it! What happened to us treading carefully, Lockwood? I’ve a good mind to go back home!”

Lockwood begs her to reconsider. Lucy remains angry. She says:

“You’re taking me for granted. Me and this house.”

However, it should be noted that although she mentions Lockwood by name, she’s actually angry at both Lockwood and George (yup, he’s there too). She calls them “both mad” for expecting her to agree to their scheme. She then stalks away from them in a rage, leaving “the others” (not just Lockwood) to follow.

In short, her anger isn’t directed at any particular trait of Lockwood’s (such as recklessness or foolhardiness), but rather at having been duped by both George and him. Nevertheless, it shows that she’s become more comfortable at expressing her anger in general by this point.

Lockwood’s door on the landing

As in the show, after the skull tells Lucy about Lockwood’s door, she confronts him about it.

In the show, after Lucy brings it up, Lockwood responds by diverting the subject:

Lockwood: That is not just a nick. You need to get that looked at. Could be some toxins got into your blood.

Then:

Lockwood: You're not Marissa Fittes.

Lucy: Cause you can't handle being my Tom Rotwell? Second best?

(This response is OOFT and also VERY Show!Lucy imo)

Another difference: in the show, Lockwood clearly believes Lucy, but doesn’t want to admit that she might be talented, because he’s used to being the most powerful one.

In the books, Lockwood just flat-out doesn’t believe her:

Lockwood lowered his mug; he spoke flintily. “Yes, I know (the door). The one you can’t stop asking about.” (p116)

He also calls her a “prima donna” (lmao LOCKWOOD).

Here, again, Lucy responds a bit more huffily than she probably would have in TSS:

We stood there, glaring at each other. (p117)

Lucy defends George

I think this argument, from page 398, though minor, nicely summarises Lockwood’s general attitude in conflict.

“Lockwood, we’ve been so blind! He’s desperate to investigate it. He’s been obsessed with it all this time. And you just kept criticising him, slapping him down.”

Lockwood responds at first by doing what he typically does (justify, accuse):

“Yes of course I did! Because George is always like that!...It’s just how he is! We couldn’t possibly have known.”

But compared to the chains argument in TSS where he deflects until the end, moments later:

His shoulders slumped. “You really think he’s affected by the ghost?”

Perhaps it’s because of the imminent danger George is in, but this time he takes Lucy’s anger seriously. Unlike the chains argument from the beginning of TSS, he doesn’t put on airs or “give permission” to Lucy when he senses he’s in the wrong. This way, they work together to prepare to get George back.

PART 3: BOOKS: THOUGHTS

“Wait,” you say, “Doesn’t this just prove that the show is like the books? Sure, it might have skipped that weird employer/employee stage from TSS, but it at least follows their relationship in TWS well, right?”

To this I say, yes, but also no. We need to take into account the role the arguments play in both mediums.

In the books, since Lucy is a very personal narrator, the arguments are a good way of showing the Locklyle relationship unmarked by her own thoughts. Although Lucy is quite inaccurate at judging what people feel and think (see: Holly), she’s not the kind of unreliable narrator that makes up things people say or do.

In the show, since we don’t get to see Lucy’s internal monologue; the arguments are instead used to show how Lucy feels. To that end, I can understand why they made her more direct/in touch with her emotions during them – if she didn’t say anything, the audience probably wouldn’t know.

SO: to get a full picture of her relationship with Lockwood, we need to examine both her acts AND her internal feelings.

What does Lucy feel in the show?

In the show, although Lucy does like Lockwood, she hates (or at least is troubled by) the following: he’s reckless, he’s (over) confident, he’s arrogant and loves the spotlight. But her two primary issues with his character seem to be:

His death-seeking nature:

“What does any of it mean if we end up stabbed or dead at the bottom of the Thames with nobody left to care?“ / “To be honest, the bottom of the Thames used to be a far more appealing place to be.”(Ep 8)

His distance/mystery:

“You might be able to turn your feelings on and off like a tap, but I am drowning here, Lockwood.” (Ep 2)

“At the centre of you is just a…” “A what? A cold, dead heart of stone?” “Yeah, maybe. But who knows, though? 'Cause you don't actually show anyone.” (Ep 7)

Is this the case in the books?

Nope. Not at all. This is the absolute biggest difference between Show!Locklyle and Book!Locklyle.

Lucy has very little to say about Lockwood’s general recklessness because, well, she is reckless too (this is the case in the show as well – makes her look just a little bit like a hypocrite).

In regards to his death-seeking nature: Lucy doesn’t even pick up on it until the Skull of all people points it out, and that is definitely much further along than in TSS and TWS.

But why doesn’t she see these signs? It ties back to how Lucy feels about Lockwood’s distance/mystery in TSS and TWS which is, well: she loves it.

Show!Lucy can’t stand Lockwood hiding things from her and running off madly towards “any old mystery”, and that’s what makes her a good grounding force for Lockwood there.

Book!Lucy fully drinks the Lockwood kool-aid and buys into his grand myth.

From the very outset, Lucy immediately likes Lockwood. Unlike Show!Lucy who compares him negatively with the people “back home”, Book!Lucy thinks:

“Lockwood, I already liked. He seemed a world away from the remote and treacherous Agent Jacobs; his zest and personal commitment were clear. Here was someone I felt I could follow, someone perhaps to trust.” (TSS, p 112)

We also get Lucy’s opinion of Lockwood “throwing himself” into missions the very first full day she joins:

“Vigorous and energetic, eager to throw himself into each new mystery; a boy who was clearly never happier than when walking into a haunted room, his hand resting lightly on his sword hilt…It already pleased me to think of walking into darkness with Lockwood at my side.” (TSS, p 127)

She starts buying the “Lockwood narrative” very quickly too. When Lockwood says:

‘This will be one of the three most successful agencies in London…And you can be a part of that, Lucy. I think you’re good, and I’m glad you’re here.’ (TSS 129)

Lucy thinks:

“You can bet my face was flushed right then – it was a special triple-combo of embarrassment at being found out, pleasure at his flattery and excitement at his spoken dreams.” (TSS 129)

We see her continued fall into Lockwood’s all-consuming orbit on the next page:

“For a moment, as he said this, it all made perfect sense…when he smiled like that it was hard not to agree with him.” (p 130)

Contrast this to the show, where instead she cooly responds, “Thank you,” then immediately asks: “How do I know you’re good enough for me?” (Ep 1)

Show!Lucy clearly isn’t buying it from the beginning, and continues to not buy it. We can see the difference after the Hope House case when Lucy is talking to George.

George: “Maybe if you'd been more interested before you went charging.”

Lucy: “That was Lockwood's decision. I've only just started. What am I supposed to say to him?” (Ep 2)

George: “You're meant to say no. You have to, or you'll make him worse.”

George is another character who works well to contextualise Lucy’s behaviour towards Lockwood. In the show, George sees Lucy as someone capable of reigning Lockwood in. Whereas in the books, he sees Lucy as equally at fault for being reckless.

“When is going to be the time? When you and Lockwood are both dead, maybe? When I open the door one night and see the two of you hovering beyond the iron line?...All you and Lockwood care about is going out and snuffing Sources, as quickly as you can! ” (TSS, p 139-140)

Rather than deflect blame onto Lockwood as she does in the show, she says:

“Because that’s what makes our money, George!...If you were less obsessed with it, we’d have done twice as many cases in the last few months…We waited all afternoon for you.” (TSS, p140)

The “makes our money” line sounds a lot like something that would come out of Lockwood’s mouth, and makes me wonder whether she’s parroting something he said at this stage. Conjecture aside, it shows the reader that Lucy is firmly on Lockwood’s side – as established, Lucy “never says no” to Lockwood, and everyone else knows it.

I suspect part of the reason this continues for so long is because Lockwood never is too approving of Lucy, which causes Lucy to scrabble for the rare moments of his approval.

“Moments before, he’d been promising to incinerate the locket. Now it was the key to all our troubles. Moments before, he’d been giving me a rollocking; now I was the apple of his eye. This was the way it was with Lockwood. His shifts were sometimes so sudden that they took your breath away, but his energy and enthusiasm were always impossible to resist.” (TSS, p 190)

“As usual, the full warmth of his approval made me feel a little flushed.“ (p TWS, 108)

Although by TWS Lucy is far more comfortable with Lockwood to his face, she can’t help but put him on a pedestal at the back of her mind, which marks the remaining difference between the show and the books.

“One full year after my arrival at the agency, the unrevealed details of my employer’s early life remained an important part of his mystery and fascination.” (TWS, p 40)

Even George calls her out on it:

“Oh, come on. You love all that mystery about him. Just like you love that pensive, far-off look he does sometimes.” (TWS, p 55)

Putting aside the “haha Lucy has an obvious crush on Lockwood” part, what’s interesting is that George specifically hones in on Lucy enjoying the “mystery” of Lockwood – although she does want to find out what’s behind the door, she also is drawn to, rather than repelled by (unlike Show!Lucy) the part of him that keeps things hidden. Her encounter with the Fetch in THB shows her precisely what is underneath that mysterious facade of Lockwood’s, and that (combined with Holly) is what, I think, finally scares her out of her idolatry.

As for Lockwood, we can only guess at his thoughts in the book, but we do know that he’s far less open than he is in the show. It is George who reveals to Lucy that Lockwood’s parents are probably dead (TSS, 114).

Lockwood only really brings up his parents (and quickly moves on to other matters) at the END of The Hollow Boy (p 391).

I think he makes a concerted effort to act as Lucy’s employer, to the extent that he hardly asks about or takes an interest in her personal life at all. Compare the line in the show where Lockwood says:

“Interesting outfit, Luce. Didn't have you down as a fan of unicorns. Or rainbows.”

To the book, where not only does Lockwood never comment on Lucy’s appearance, that line is a callback to a line said by George:

“Ooh, Lucy – I’ve never seen you wearing that.” (TSS, p175)

In fact, I’d maybe even go so far to say that the show has snatched bits from George’s relationship with Lockwood and Lucy respectively and repurposed into Locklyle dynamics [see: George worrying about Lockwood’s recklessness, George upset at being treated as an asset (TWS, p107)].

This isn't to say that he doesn't care about them: he very clearly does and it is most clear in moments of crisis. But Lockwood is such a unique character, plus a known Stepford Smiler, and so "typical" signs of feelings of happiness (smiling at Lucy etc) shouldn't be taken at face value when trying to ascertain how he feels – and this is true until THB.

I don’t want people to think I’m cherry picking moments of tension between Lucy and Lockwood to make a point here. Once again, Lockwood does care about Lucy. When Lucy isn’t caught up in her Lockwood-filter, and when Lockwood isn’t preoccupied with his role as THE Anthony Lockwood, they share plenty of moments where they joke, laugh and generally act like teens, which the show captured just fine.

But those moments of cheeriness belie a narrative backbone that is very different. Lucy in the books is just 14 years old, and she’s looking for a (metaphorical!!!) “grown up” mentor after losing her father and being betrayed by Jacobs. Meanwhile, Lockwood is trying his best to shut the door on his childhood and act wiser than his years.

Thus when they meet, Lockwood just happens to be playing that authority figure Lucy thinks she needs (but we know she doesn’t!), and is only happy to oblige by continuing to play that role until slowly Lucy (and George) start breaking down his guard.

TLDR;

Show!Locklyle has a far more balanced dynamic than Book!Locklyle, which is objectively pretty “boss and employee”. Perhaps controversially, I don’t think Lockwood felt anything other than general workplace fondness/friendship for Lucy for most of TSS (at least until Combe Carey Hall).

Most importantly: Lucy in the show hates and is hurt by Lockwood’s secrecy, but Book!Lucy fawns over the very shadow consuming his soul – that is, until her rather rude awakening at the end of THB.

The ramifications of these changes have also spilled onto the characters. Lucy in the show comes off as more strong-minded, practical and confident, whereas book Lucy seems tougher, more of a tsundere (ye) and more love-starved. Lockwood in the show is the same attention-hungry “politician”, but more sincere, troubled and subdued. Whereas Lockwood in the books is crueller (remember that time he threatened to shut a kid in a coffin?), flashier, more competent and a huge brat (affectionate).

Which Locklyle is better is a matter of personal taste. In the show there’s arguably more dramatic tension, and the relationship is more tender/romantic and caring overall. But I think there’s something to be said for how unique Lucy and Lockwood’s dynamic is in the books, and the very carefully written unfurling that takes them to the end of TEG.

Either way, I hope I’ve convinced any readers of this giant word vomit that the show and book dynamics are two very separate beasts.

Agree? Disagree? Found it interesting? Hate my guts? Let me know what you think!!!

Till next time!

#lockwood and co #lockwood and co spoilers #anthony lockwood #lucy carlyle #this thing is absolutely massive i hope it doesn't wreck the app #if i see a typo or factual error after i post i will perish #locklyle #i guess

340 notes · View notes

ravenquills · 3 months ago

Text

The View Can Wait | Amit Thakkar x MC

summary - You and Amit share a tender moment walking back to Hogwarts after an outing to Hogsmeade

warnings - fluff, drabble, GN!MC

notes - first time ever posting my writing :S sincerest thanks to miles for supporting and encouraging me

word count - 610

Amit strolled alongside you, arms linked, occasionally nodding and humming in response as you chattered about everything and anything that came to mind. He found your voice soothing and your way of speaking charming, so sitting back and simply listening to you ramble was one of his favorite activities. In turn, when it came to things he was really passionate about—like Astronomy or Gobbledegook, or Mooncalves as of late—he became the talker and you—the listener.

Breathing warm air on your mittened hands, you mumbled, “I can’t believe that Cornish wizard bred another creature.” The audacity of the repeat offender was astounding. “Honestly, I think they should fund him. Who knows what kind of new species might come out of this.”

Amit nodded as he glanced over at you and let out an affirmative hum. It was a simple exchange, but to an attentive lover like you, it came across as more like: That wizard is out of his mind, but he is a genius.

After a short lull filled with the calming sounds of nature winding down for the night and your footsteps on the cobbled path back from Hogsmeade, you chimed in. “So how far are you into your astrolog-”

“Astro-no-my, my star...” Amit tilted his head and glanced sidelong at you, gently correcting you. He lost count of how often you’d made this mistake. At first, he dismissed it as a common slip. Plenty of others mixed the two up; it was understandable. But months into your relationship? One part of him thought you were just being playful and turned this into an inside joke. Another part wondered if you were genuinely confused. Either way, he didn’t have the heart to be upset with you over it.

“Go on, you were saying?” He chuckled softly, his breath a visible puff of air in the crisp autumn evening. Noticing the way you went quiet at his interruption, he felt a pang of anxiety, worried he might have upset you. But you continued in your usual bubbly manner, allowing Amit to let out a subtle sigh of relief.

“Did anything in particular catch your attention yet?” “Plenty,” he replied, pulling his hand out of his pockets and wrapping his arm around your waist. “But I think that can wait until we’re back inside.” You looked up at him and tilted your head quizzically. Without you saying a word, Amit sensed your confusion and blurted out, gesturing with his head to the side, “I think we could just enjoy the view for now!” At the mention of the ‘view’, you turned to look in the direction he indicated. Completely unaware, you two stumbled onto the little sitting area with benches and streetlights overlooking Hogwarts. There it stood, breathtaking and grand against a backdrop of a starry sky.

You couldn’t remember the last time you’ve seen the skies this clear; a rare treat this rainy autumn. Amit had been in low spirits all term, missing his stargazing sessions. Hence why you gifted him the book you mentioned earlier. It wasn’t even out on bookshelves yet! Courtesy of your good friend Ominis and his family’s connections.

As you admired the castle, Amit melted at the sight of your eyes twinkling with awe. A warm smile spread across his face. He pulled you into a tight embrace, pressing a soft kiss to the top of your head. “I love you,” he whispered, his voice airy and gentle in your ear.

You giggled softly, nestling closer to his chest. “I love you too,” you murmured back, your voice muffled by his coat. The view of the castle, magnificent as it was, faded into the background…

#hogwarts legacy #hogwarts legacy fanfic #amit thakkar #amit thakkar x reader #amit thakkar x mc #amit thakkar fanfiction

17 notes · View notes

isfjmel-phleg · 5 days ago

Text

October 2024 Books

Flower Fables by Louisa May Alcott

Alcott's first published book. Rather didactic little fairy stories, but charming in their way.

Hospital Sketches by Louisa May Alcott

A memoir of her time as a nurse during the Civil War. Not a very long book, but it showcases her skill in humor and pathos.

Foundling by D. M. Cornish

Very impressive world-building! Maps, illustrations, a glossary that adds another hundred or so to the page count. In the midst of all this, the story and characters got a bit lost for me, though, and I had a hard time keeping up with it.

The Watsons Go to Birmingham - 1963 by Christopher Paul Curtis

Like the eponymous family, I went to Birmingham earlier this year and had a moving experience touring the 16th Street Baptist Church and the park across the street. So I went into this book expecting a historical fiction explorations of the events of 1963. And yes, it does deal with that; it's thematically important, but most of the book is about Watson family drama, particularly the narrator's relationship with his determinedly delinquent older brother, and it's quite some time before going to Birmingham even happens. The family dynamics are the heart of the story, and it accomplishes that well. It was just very different from my expectations (which is an observation, not a criticism).

Bud, Not Buddy by Christopher Paul Curtis

This one hit home emotionally for me more than the previous title. I can see why it won the Newbery. The balance of Bud's tragic circumstances with humor throughout is effective.

The Sky Over Rebecca by Matthew Fox

A beautiful story that made me sad. It's looking for answers to issues of death, but tragically the worldview can't find them. It's a lovely friendship story, though.

The Ghost Sitter by Peni R. Griffin

Told from the perspective of a young ghost who doesn't realize she's dead and has some unfinished business to address before she can move on. Not my favorite of Griffin's works that I've read, but a poignant little story if you can look at it as an exploration of the role of the ghost in folklore.

Otto from Otherwhere by Peni R. Griffin

Very different from the previous title, about a boy from an alient planet who gets stuck on earth for a while and has to try to assimilate--which is difficult because he doesn't speak English and he doesn't entirely look human. Maybe not the most original premise, but an interesting story.

The Deadly Daylight by Ash Harrier

I spent a lot of this book waiting for the girl with the on-the-nose name and the potentially fatal sunlight allergy to find out that she instead has light-based superpowers that were being suppressed her whole life...but this is not that sort of story.

It's a mystery. A pretty striking one, with memorable characters. There was a content issue that I could have lived without, but on the whole an enjoyable book, and I would be interested in reading the rest of the series if they ever become available in the US.

Patricia's Secret by Ruth Daggett Leinhauser

I think I added this book to my tbr because it's about a girl living on an air force base in the 1950s, and as someone who grew up on base for most of my childhood, I was curious to see a fictional depiction of military family life from several decades before my time. There's some dated attitudes (toward girls, which is era-typical), but it's a cute story.

The Secret of Goldenrod by Jane O'Reilly

Girl makes friends with a talking/sentient doll she meets in the spooky abandoned old house that her father is fixing up, and actually maybe the biggest plot twist is that this is not a scenario for a horror story, the doll is not evil, and it's actually a whimsical fantasy interwoven with a more dramatic story about family dynamics and how a hostile town gets a change of heart.

The Patron Saint of Second Chances by Christine Simon

A Wodehouse-like scenario of deceptive/misunderstanding shenanigans, but told in a much blander style than Wodehouse's. The humor of the story would have shone more with some livelier prose.

The Lost Library by Rebecca Stead and Wendy Mass

A very charming story that took me by surprise sometimes! I think I could tell which chapters Mass must have written--something intangible that reminded me of her style in The Candymakers.

Rufus by Catherine Storr

A weird, weird story about a troubled boy who steals an artifict that somehow enables him to alternate between his own present and ancient times, which is a character development opportunity. Not my favorite of Storr's, and I'm not totally sure what I think of.

The If Game by Catherine Storr

A boy whose emotionally distant father is keeping important family secrets from him suddenly finds himself able to walk through doors that lead him into an alternate version of his life. The fantastical elements serve the main story, which is about the protagonist's complicated relationship with his father. It definitely intrigued me.

The Underground Conspiracy by Catherine Storr

I as an adult could tell exactly what the teenage protagonist is getting roped into, long before she realizes it, and it was worrying. Sort of a mystery or thriller? As ever, Storr writes interesting character dynamic.

The Mirror Image Ghost by Catherine Storr

Less of a ghost story and more of a time-slip story. There's family drama in the main storyline, connecting with the story of the grandfather, who managed to escape Germany during WWII although the rest of his family didn't. There's a lot to unpack in that background, and Storr isn't afraid to opt for the more complex and challenging options in the outcome of the narrative.

The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud

Stroud's prose is as ever beautifully polished. I enjoyed Bartimaeus as a narrator, with all those footnotes. I just couldn't get into the story, so I don't think I'll be finishing this series.

The Necromancer's Apprentice by Beverly Twomey

A charming story exploring themes of grief, with a very creative approach to what a necromancer does in this fictional world.

Artificial Condition by Martha Wells (reread)

I love Murderbot but I really struggle to adapt to the terminology of technical sci-fi, which presented some challenges when I first read this series. This time, I am deliberately taking it very slowly and carefully, without having to worry about due dates. I understood this one much better this time around! and enjoyed it.

The Locked Garden by Gloria Whelan

I am not immune to intriguing-looking middle-grade books with "Garden" in the title. This turned out to be interesting historical fiction set at a hospital for patients of mental illness around the turn of century, but the garden of the title is much less central to the narrative than its presence in the title would suggest. I appreciated that Whelan had every opportunity for a cliched outcome but does not take it.

Comics

Hilda and the Troll, Hilda and the Midnight Giant, Hilda and the Bird Parade, Hilda and the Black Hound, Hilda and the Stone Forest, and Hilda and the Mountain King (reread)

I had a random hankering for this series. It's suitable for fall.

Justice Society of America 2007 Vol. 3-4

The overabundance of characters continues to be this book's primary flaw. There's never enough space to adequately develop character arcs for everyone. Grant (the reason I'm reading this) gets a moment in the spotlight when his severely scarred face is restored...by a villain, which results in Grant's joining this guy's cult and developing Acquired Situational Narcissism. Potentially interesting stuff, but it's not followed through on. By the end he's back to square one, except with a girlfriend now. No further exploration of the consequences of his destroying his father's house, for instance. Going to leave everything to nonexistent fic writers, I guess.

The Flash #750 (special edition)

I have no context for what was going on in the main story, but the various short pieces were fun, as was the reprint of Barry's first appearance in the 1950s.

JSA Vol. 10

Someday I'll get the full context for this series, but I bought this volume for its story involving flashbacks to the original JSA team, including Grant's father.

Justice Society of America, Vol. 1: The New Golden Age + issues #6-12

Twelve issues was not enough space to develop everything that was going on in this series, and honestly I was more interested in the Lost Children angle than I was the main plot about the daughter of Batman from an alternate world. (I love the batfamily, but they don't need to be in the JSA book, let alone half-taking it over.)

#random personal stuff #hi I once again have Opinions they may or may not be correct

16 notes · View notes

l-carlyle · 2 years ago

Text

Lockwood & Co. feature on the January 2023 Issue of the SFX Magazine

I'll put the text under the break if anyone can't access the photos :-)

"JOE CORNISH IS HAUNTED. NOT BY ANY BONE chilling apparition or plate-flinging poltergeist but by a time. A vanished age, of strange torments and diabolical dread.

“This is a world of draughty houses and windows that don’t quite close properly and creaky floorboards and clicking pipes,” he tells SFX, smiling over a Zoom connection. “The world I remember from my childhood, before double-glazing and insulation!”

Welcome to the phantom-infested Britain of Lockwood & Co. It’s a little like the 1970s, only even weirder. Adapted from the popular series of books by Jonathan Stroud, this new Netflix offering pits swashbuckling teens against the unquiet dead in a London spilling over with paranormal activity. Even the local A-Z, you strongly suspect, drips with ectoplasm.

ANATOMY OF A GHOST “I love supernatural stories,” says Cornish, who serves as lead writer and director on the eight-part series, “and it’s unusual to find a story where the science of ghosts has been so thoughtfully defined. There’s a broad set of rules for ghosts that most stories adhere to, but there’s not really an almost Darwinesque analysis of different types of ghosts, different species, different behaviours, a taxonomy.

“The idea that they can kill you by touching you completely changes the dynamic of a ghost story, brings it into the action-adventure realm. So you get everything great about a ghost story but these other genre elements really take it into a new place. “On top of that you’ve got terrific worldbuilding. This takes place 50 years into a ghost epidemic, and the world has really changed because of it. Different economics and different social structures have emerged. Because young people are more sensitive to the supernatural, which is a classic trope in ghost stories, it’s extrapolated into this world where young people are employed by massive adult-run agencies to detect and fight ghosts. “So it’s a pretty amazing bit of thinking, based on a very attractive set of genre ideas that have been around for ages but have never really been reinvented in such a clever way.”

It’s a more analogue world, where technological progress stuttered. And that’s a premise that appeals to Cornish, who made his name with the hand-tooled, micro-budget joys of The Adam And Joe Show – a pioneering ’90s celebration of geek culture, knocked together from toys, love and cardboard – before promotion to the big screen as director of Attack The Block in 2011.

“The world changed tack when the problem started, because everything that would be regarded as pseudo-science became real science,” he explains. “So the world stopped at the time of Amstrad word processors! “It became a more industrial world, because iron and salt and water can repel ghosts, so suddenly these almost Victorian industries are revived. Also, in a weird parallel way, old things are suddenly scary. Anything with an ancient history is potentially lethal, because it might be the source of a ghost.

“For me it felt like the early ’80s, when I was a teenager, because that was kind of pre-digital. It was a world that still had analogue media and you could buy records and fanzines. There was a world of printed youth culture that existed in a social way, that wasn’t on telephones and computers. You communicated in a much more person-to-person way back then. So that was pleasing for me as well – the series has this kind of retro-contemporary feel to it that’s half modern and half 50 years ago.” The spectral aesthetic in Lockwood & Co also takes inspiration from the past. “We started by looking at Victorian spirit photography. Because photography is pre-digital, it’s chemical, the ghosts feel very different, like a real physical presence. They feel as if they exist in the world of natural physics – we can’t really get away with hiding them.

“In other movies or TV shows you might glimpse a ghost as a jump scare and then it’s gone. Our ghosts are really present, and our characters fight with them, so we had to come up with a design that you could really train the camera on, and involve in an action sequence, and would be able to leap around and dive and swoop and bolt into a corner.

“They’re all made out of smoke, they’re all made out of something ethereal. There are lots of different types in the series, lots of colours and densities and shapes. We tried to get away from super-digital ghosts and make them feel like they could really exist in a science experiment.”

Lockwood & Co looses its phantoms in some genuinely creepy abodes. What’s the secret of bringing a legitimately goosefleshing haunted house to the screen?

“We worked really hard on lighting, and light levels, making sure stuff was legible enough but that you’re also slightly peering into the shadows. I think sound is hugely important, and also silence. A lot of modern media is frightened of silence and when nothing happens that’s often the most interesting moment. We tried not to do too many jump scares. We do one or two, but we try and create an atmosphere of creeping fear rather than give people heart attacks.”

Stroud’s five-novel Lockwood series launched with The Screaming Staircase in 2013 (the TV version adapts this tale but also goes beyond it, Cornish reveals). Its young ghostbusters are Lucy Carlyle, gifted with psychic powers, and Anthony Lockwood, the dashing and enigmatic founder of the only agency to operate without adult supervision. The show captures the dashing spirit of the books, quippy heroes slicing at wraiths with rapiers, but plays things commendably straight.

“It’s a very sincere endeavour,” acknowledges Cornish. “We believe in the characters and we believe in the world. Stuff like this only works if you really commit to it and decide that it’s real. I don’t love shows where the characters are winking at the camera, or there are meta jokes. I want the world to be completely absorbing and credible.

“One of the most important and compelling things for people who love these books is the relationship between Lockwood and Lucy. It’s a relationship that has an enormous fandom – there’s an amazing amount of fan art out there. It’s a sort of unrequited will-they-won’t they relationship. This is a world where young people shoulder an incredibly grave burden, at a time in their life when they shouldn’t be thinking about death, or mortality, all the things that older people have to think about, and yet here they are, armed with weapons, having to fight things that could kill them.

“But then another brilliant thing about the novels is that if you get too depressed you get more vulnerable, so the ghosts can get you if you feel too bleak. So they have to cheer each other up and make quips and jokes, for safety purposes. We just approached the whole thing as if it was completely real.”

Given the rabid fandom, getting the casting of the leads right was crucial. Bridgerton’s Ruby Stokes ultimately won the role of Lucy. “She’s the centre of the story,” Cornish tells SFX. “She’s vulnerable, damaged, kind of abused and exploited as a child, comes from a broken home, has lost her father, yet has incredible gumption and ambition and a very strong sense of self-preservation. “She has this gift that she really doesn’t want, and she packs her bags, runs away from home and sets out to London with no qualifications, nowhere to stay the night. Her powers are an expression of her emotional sensitivity. In the book it’s like teenage emotions are being made into a supernatural power.

“So we just had to find an incredible young actor who felt like she could do it, and who you believed had that inner emotional life. Before I did this I always wondered how castings worked, whether there was some super complicated methodology. But a person just walks into the room and you go, ‘Do I believe that she’s Lucy?’ Ruby was actually one of the first people we saw, and we all just went, ‘Oh, there she is! There’s Lucy Carlyle!’”

Newcomer Cameron Chapman bagged the title role. “Lockwood was much harder, actually,” shares Cornish. “We saw hundreds and hundreds of actors, and Cameron came in pretty late in the day, at the eleventh hour. And that’s equally hard, because he’s got to be sort of handsome and cool and yet really vulnerable and haunted. He’s got to have swagger and braggadocio but also be a bit of a bullshit artist. He’s like a sort of teen entrepreneur. In the ’80s everybody wanted to be a teen entrepreneur, and he’s that made flesh. But he’s also wounded and secretive and has sort of a death wish.

“Cameron had all that. Weirdly, he looks very like the illustrations on the book covers, and he wears that long coat really well. He does the charisma, he does the vulnerability, he’s a bit of a dick – not in real life, in terms of acting! – and then he can be very romantic and swoony. It’s a heck of a part for a young actor.

Out of the three main actors [Ali Hadji-Heshmati plays George, Lockwood’s second-in-command] he’s the guy who really hadn’t been on camera before, but he does an exceptional job.” But while fan approval is vital, even more key is winning the heart and mind of the man who dreamed up Lucy, Lockwood and their spook-riddled world in the first place.

“Jonathan has been very involved from the start,” says Cornish. “I formed a relationship with him in order to get him to give us the rights to the book, and then we’ve let him read every draft of the scripts. He’s come to visit the set, he’s sat down with the actors. He’s really into it and he’s been extraordinarily supportive, but sensibly he said to us, ‘Look, you go and do your thing. I understand this is a different beast, between the page and the screen.’

“But I hope, and I trust, that he has been surprised by how much we’ve just stuck to what he’s done. Because it’s really, really good. He’s provided pretty incredible material.”

Lockwood & Co is on Netflix from 27 January.

#lockwood and co #l&co. netflix #ruby stokes #cameron chapman #ali hadji-heshmati #lucy carlyle #anthony lockwood #george karim

399 notes · View notes