#like any organisation and any army but currently they're fighting a just war and working hard

[sanctus-ingenium]

Been binge reading TVM and I LOVE IT. Bowman was already my favorite character but this story has already skyrocketed for me just how much I adore him. Though Felix is a very close second just cause of how he is with Carmen. I’d also love to know more about the Rangers.

1. Did you draw from any particular real world inspiration for them?

2. What’s the backstory behind how the Rangers came to be? Any little stories of particularly notable members you’ve thought up?

Yay awesome.. it's definitely the bowman book so I'm glad the focus on him is working hehe

1. Yes! The rangers are almost entirely a play on the Fianna, a band of heroes and hunters from Irish mythology. I strongly recommend you check out their stories because they're some of the greatest stories you'll ever read - start with the salmon of knowledge and then try diarmaid and gráinne. Fun fact, in older drafts of my books I call the rangers The Fianna but I found it messy.

As for real world inspiration, there's actual irl rangers as well, stewards of national parks and rare habitats. The rangers in Inver do not fight faeries so much as they manage the Ruad and ensure it is safe, and in Pascal's time (the far off distant future of 2017) rangers have become more ecologists than anything else, as their deep knowledge of the region and huge archives of faery activity over the centuries lends itself wonderfully to monitoring habitat health. So many of the ecologists I know were also used as inspiration hehe

2. The rangers of the Ruad (not the Greys) were founded by Finbarr Ó Casaide as part of the war that founded the state of Inver. He and the first rangers built the main Spikes barracks because (if you check the habitat map you'll see) there's a broad stretch of ancient yew wood north of the Lough, ideal for making bow staves. So Finbarr was a Spikes ranger. He and the others engaged in guerilla warfare against the werewolves led by the first D'Ouilly traitor, in particular the Tanet sect.

This is a short book I do want to write (it's on the table!!) eventually but you can find out more about Finbarr and his mortal enemy Olivier by searching the names on my blog. I'm stuck on mobile for the time being but I did write a pretty long summary of the pair of them and their relationship dynamic a few months ago.

Notable rangers include Finbarr himself but also Bowman André, who was the ranger who drafted the treaty between ranger organisations and the new werewolf monarchy, enshrining the terms of their operations in the Ruad into law. Although Finbarr's side lost their war, André's negotiations led to the current state of the ranger barracks as both gender neutral and independent of royal law, self-governing and so on. These wins came from the fact that any time the monarchy tried to employ its own army into the Ruad to protect trade or fight faeries or whatever, the soldiers would inevitably desert, or start pissing and moaning about it and why can't we just get the rangers to do the work instead. The flip side ofc was that most rangers are convicts who joined or were pressed into the service, because so few people willingly join an organisation that forces you to spend months at a time in the most dangerous habitat known to man, with no-one but other rangers for company.

Another notable ranger is Sharps Captain Torben, he's extremely famous and well-liked in the Régian [victorian] era due to his notoriously kind and gentle touch, as well as his good decision making skills meaning that there were almost no civilian fatalities under his watch for years at a time.

Finally another famous ranger is Hooks Captain Celeste, in 1969 she anticipated the disaster that almost swept Cánamac town away and ordered an evacuation before the tidal wave struck the town. I've written about that disaster on my sideblog @ranticore ;)

[canmom]

re the shit happening in palestine

nobody knows what will happen i guess, but like. what's most likely? my doomscrolling brain can produce possibilities from 'genocide to rival the worst of the 20th century' through 'syria-style proxy war' all the way up to 'first act of wwiii', and I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop of the start of the ground invasion that would presumably make the sickening carnage of the last couple weeks look like nothing. meanwhile the countries around Israel are flinging a handful of rockets at US and Israeli military bases.

so like Israel's got to know that if it sends its whole army into Gaza, then Hezbollah etc. will attack and things will get much worse for them, so at some point they have to back down right? they're already having to play desperate PR damage control after they blew up that hospital, and even the U.S. is starting to say out of the corner of its mouth 'hey that's a bit much there buddy, go easy on the civilian slaughter'. on the other hand Israel seems to be pushing even fashier to enforce a pro-war sentiment internally - locking up any Arab citizen who says something anti-war, banning news orgs like Al Jazeera who don't toe the line, etc. like is it just going to fall back to the status quo plus several thousand bodies, or are we too far from that equilibrium at this point?

and as for Hamas and its allies - obviously they would have known that if they carried out a massive, bloody attack on Israel, the Israelis would go completely berserk and launch an even larger reprisal on the population of Gaza. ergo, they had to have believed that whatever they would achieve through such an attack might be 'worth that price', and have some sense of how things might go next - and they're still fighting, shooting rockets etc., but what's their current objective, just to survive as an organisation until other countries get pulled in against Israel?

really what i want to have some reason to believe is that there might be any remotely plausible way this can still work out to a 'better' state of affairs (no ethnic cleansing, no megadeaths - but also no more ghettoes, and somehow, end-of-apartheid-style negotiations to abolish the current Israeli state so that Palestinians can return home with equal legal rights etc.).

i see people talking like here is how the Palestinians will still win, that this is the first act in the overthrowing of Israel, even defining various neighbouring Islamic states as 'the resistance', because you need a team to cheer for I guess, enemy-of-my-enemy logic. but what seems more likely to come from that kind of escalation would just be a massive war which, if recent wars are anything to go by, will kill a lot of people and push every state/group involved to greater levels of internal repression, but eventually peter out without any sort of clear outcome. so... is Israel somehow much more fragile than it used to be? is there reason to think the US would cut it off?

anyway. for some historical comparisons - the Haitian Revolution took a little over 12 years (1791-1804) between the initial slave revolt and establishing an independent country (which promptly got squashed with debt and trade sanctions by the bitter European powers). in South Africa, the ANC turned to insurgency in the wake of the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960, and about 31 years later negotiations began for the end of apartheid (during the collapse of the USSR, which shifted the priorities of the US etc. who had been backing the apartheid gov). the Algerian War of Independence lasted about seven years (1954-1962). if this anti-colonial war is going to follow a similar trajectory... well, it depends when you start counting I guess, but probably it would take a decade or more to approach any sort of 'resolution' you could name.

the status quo obviously couldn't last indefinitely, you can't just keep a population in a massive prison and gradually bleed them out and not expect them to fight back, but in terms of ways this could fall down, there are some obviously very bad outcomes (nakba 2, surviving palestinians in Gaza exiled to e.g. egypt) that could establish a new equilibrium (apartheid state annexes the whole region after sufficiently depopulating it to establish a majority). that's not implausible, it's basically what happened in the U.S.A., Canada and Australia - the settler population now outnumbers the indigenous ones by orders of magnitude, and maintains a complicated legal regime to control the surviving population (reservations etc.). that's presumbly the outcome the present state of Israel 'wants' to achieve, gradually enough that it doesn't look too bad on TV. however, it's not there yet - in the combined territory of Israel and Palestine, there's presently roughly equal numbers of people defined by the census to be Jewish vs Palestinian.

conversely... the state of Israel's constantly broadcast fears about a combined 'one state solution' resulting in the Jewish population being treated the way the Israeli state currently treats the Palestinians (ethnic cleansing, massacres etc.), and the great-replacement birthrate bullshit, are surely completely overblown (notably the much smaller white population in South Africa was not banished at the end of apartheid), but what happens rather depends exactly how the state of Israel might collapse and who would hold power afterwards. and... in South Africa, the apartheid government in the last few apartheid years started to realise it had lost the game, and was making some paltry concessions - which the Israeli gov. is not doing at all, seeming to prefer to rush headlong into an 'us or them' war of annihilation, confident the U.S. will let it do whatever reckless shit it wants?

all in all it's a horrifying mess and I find it hard to feel any sort of hope that it won't just get worse in one of a dozen different ways. would love to be convinced otherwise. i always assume things will go in the bleakest way possible, which is not a very reliable mindset.