#this is an analysis of stroud's writing

[vryfmi]

[major book spoilers]

my favourite concept that i barely see in l&co fandom being talked about is Lucy grieving Skull. whether you see their relationship as platonic or ship skullyle, it's stupid to deny the fact that Lucy grew to care about Skull, her actions in epilogue being the heartbreaking glimpse into the new reality for her and her friends after the events of TEG:

“I don’t know why you insist on having it with us for each meal.” (Holly) “It’s that horrid charcoaled skull Lucy insists on carrying around with her.” (Holly) I’d wrapped it up and taken it home, and kept it with me ever since, just in case.

here i want to say that im not a fan of idea of Skull eventually "coming back", re-materialising. it defeats the moral of Lockwood & Co and the growth that Skull underwent. past is meant to stay the past, living can only learn from it while dead will forever exist there. no one should disturb the dead, the past, it needs to be left at rest and let it hold its memory.

Skull wanted and longed for freedom, at first defined by breaking out of silver-glass prison, but later, very clearly defined by the peace of mind. he was scared of death as much as Bickerstaff was, that's why Skull turned his back on the other side, he chose to stay here, in the world of the living. i always read his decision to save both Lucy and Lockwood as him admitting that he could never be a part of the living world (cough could never compete with what lockwood, alive boy, could give lucy cough), so he pushed the two away as he stayed in the room with Marissa, Penelope and Ezekiel.

to me, the best ending to Skull's story is him passing on his terms, not the explosion destroying his connection with the source, but contemplating what he sees himself doing after Lucy suggested him staying with L&Co. Skull declines her offer. and chooses freedom.

obviously, that's my reading and how i prefer to interpret L&Co's ending. (it's also the reason i can't accept that christmas special as canon, im sorry, i hate happiness).

but that leaves Lucy and her newfound need of keeping skull near her at all times since Fittes HQ explosion, her wishful thinking that he'd come back. and i want to see her go through painful acceptance of losing Skull. losing a someone that she never got to know closer. losing a chance to get to know him as a friend, to admitting to have found a friend in Skull, a kindred spirit. losing someone who understood her and knew her deepest fears because these two deeply traumatised teens were so alike. losing something that she chose to define herself and her worth by. Lucy would have to come to terms with how much of a support system she had in Skull. and now, she'd have to navigate without it.

Lucy makes a remark that i can't stop thinking about.

Whenever I put my fingers on it, I got no psychic charge. The bone was dry and cold.

i could go on a rampage theorising why Lucy can't feel anything despite a) her having a strong Touch b) objects that are not sources are still able to hold strong psychic echoes. but i feel like Stroud was trying to wrap up the story and didn't want to introduce a whole new storyline of Lucy picking up fragments of Skull's past. which is a shame. i would kill for such story to be told. (please hit me up if you do.)

but say she really can't pick up anything, Skull is gone and there's not a psychic trace left of him. where does Lucy find herself then? constantly checking the skull with all her senses, wishing to see a green spark dance around the (former) source, to hear a whispery insult in her ear, to feel just anything with her touch. but it's all gone. there's nothing left. no one left. everyone else is moving on, hurries Lucy to get rid of that horrid old bone, but how can she? how can she bring herself to get rid of the only thing left? the only thing left on earth to remember a nameless boy by? the boy who could've been her friend, but she failed to trust him? failed to say thank you?

with each passing day Lucy’d feel worse because she knows how she looks to her friends, to agents, to the ones saving London from violent visitors every night, putting their lives on the line. and here she sits, wishing a ghost to appear in her attic room when she's the most vulnerable at heart.

bonus points for Lucy picking up a pencil and trying to recreate the boy she saw on the other side on paper while the memory is still fresh, while she still remembers. (but also, if we view books as Lucy's memoirs, it would make Skull's bare-bone description even more sad because that would mean older Lucy forgot the details).

what im trying to incoherently say is, Lucy would grieve. and having read almost all of the books Stroud wrote, i see that he has a very intimate relationship with grief and mourning the loss of someone dear to the point where he explores different sides and intensities of it, how each of his characters goes through it, in every single book of his. (i believe, i have three more books of his to read).

p.s. i don't want to be a hypocrite so here are fics about lucy grieving skull that i love to bits:

- i'm still painting flowers for you by terryh

- echoes by menina123

- it isn’t the same (but it is enough) by bluejay_07

- don't wanna go, but it's time to leave by fourohfourerror

[indelen]

Alright, I'm hideously behind and the world is awful so I’m just going to blitz through to the end because the next readthrough is starting soon and I'm not even done with this one, like what is this, high school English? So ....

This is my reread of the Lockwood and Co. Books, organized by @blue-boxes-magic-and-tea, I'll make a general summary of several chapters and then post bits and pieces that jumped out at me.

I go into a longer analysis of Fairfax and Annie’s relationship and how it relates to Lucy but I do want to say kudos to Stroud for portraying such a realistic unhealthy relationship. This is a young adult book and he could have easily made Annabel Ward a saintly abuse victim, but she wasn’t. She was in a complicated toxic relationship with a powerful man, she feared him but wanted his love and approval, she acted in ways that provoked him, which obviously was not smart but abused people do not act in relatable, logical ways. Abuse victims fight back, act in toxic ways, return to their abusers and do any number of seemingly illogical things and I think that it says a lot about Lucy that despite all her baggage, her young age, her “not like other girls” tendencies, her inability to relate to the life Annie had, she still felt an enormous amount of empathy for her and it was that empathy that saved them in the end.

Part IV, Chapters 23-24:

Lucy’s family and her past in Cheviot Hills is fascinating because she never speaks about them except for the very succinct and detached way at the very start and these small moments throughout the books that indicate they mean a lot more to her than she would ever admit to anyone. The fact that she keeps some kind of memory box far under her bed, the fact that she sees her sisters as concussed visions alongside Annie Ward and Lockwood who, for very different reasons, currently occupy her mind quite a bit, shows the family she left behind still has a huge hold over her.

I love George so much because he sasses and analyzes everything in front of him from literally the moment he regains consciousness.

Never going to be normal about Lucy using this sort of imagery about Lockwood. She’s reaching near Victorian levels of Beautiful Death prose. Lockwood is always ethereal, otherworldly and doomed. Too good and beautiful for this sinful earth. What’s interesting is that in literature this sort of imagery is usually reserved for the hero describing the heroine. It’s one of many times the “hero” and “heroine” tropes between these two that are pretty regularly subverted.

Fairfax is like Combe Carey Hall itself in that at night he transforms and the posh and valuable facade recedes to reveal a grotesque and horrible true nature underneath.

Fairfax is an abuser who cannot understand that his toxic relationship with Annie is entirely of his own making. From the beginning their relationship was not that of equals. He was of a higher social class than her and never did anything to bridge that gap because it would threaten his precious inheritance and he never viewed acting or this part of his life as permanent or worth preserving. He was just partying and having fun before he settled into living a rich man’s life. He hid his relationship with Annabel and Annabel, naturally, resented the shit out of being treated as someone’s dirty secret. She sensed how disposable she was to him and got jealous, manufactured conflict and fights, flirted with other men, all to get attention and to provoke a reaction from Fairfax. And he rewarded her for this behavior. He was obviously controlling and his lavish gifts were meant to pacify her. They also normalized their unhealthy dynamic, the locket explicitly referred to the toxicity of their relationship as romantic. You can’t write “my torment, my bliss” on a jeweled locket and give it to a girl and then be surprised when she kinda thinks you’re ok with the torment bit. And so round and round it went until … frankly I’m not even sure that one fight was any worse than all the others. Fairfax never saw Annie as a person, he saw her as beneath him, and disposed of her, out of possessiveness and anger sure, but also out of pragmatic convenience. As long as Annie lived she was a liability and posed a risk to his reputation and name. He can try and pitch their relationship as mutually toxic and harmful all he wants but the truth is only Annie was ever in danger in it.

And here is where I put my tinfoil hat on.

Because my theory is that Annabel Ward was drawn to Lucy and formed such an empathetic bond with her specifically because she saw Lucy as being in the same situation as her. Ghosts seem to have limited capacities and see things on a loop and devoid of context. To Annabel’s spirit the story of meeting a dashing young man through work, work both are passionate about and work that brings them intimately closer together, but he is of higher social class and is financially better off and also he holds a significant amount of power over her is, on paper, very similar. Lucy might not think Annabel is much like her, but Annabel’s ghost sees things in Lucy’s mind she recognizes. Her hidden emotions, the desperate besotted love she feels for a magnetic, powerful person in her life and the feeling of inadequacy and desire to be seen as good, as valuable to him are all familiar ones Annie latches onto. And while Lucy is too young and repressed and traumatized to recognize any of this, I think she still learns a lot from Annie. It’s not a coincidence that the biggest conflict between Lockwood and Lucy is that of inequality and disbalance of power. Lucy, from this point onward, will grow to dislike that Lockwood does not share anything with her emotionally and that he overrules or does not consult her opinions professionally. And to some extent I think it’s her learning from poor Annie Ward.

Yea OK this is where I have trouble buying the “killed instantly” story Fairfax tells to everyone including himself. The human neck is not made of LEGO bricks and it’s hard to kill a fully grown adult with a single blow. So unfortunately, and this is NOT A NICE MENTAL IMAGE so like, skip to the next point if you don’t want to read something that describes grievous bodily harm, abuse and murder, but unfortunately it’s very possible Fairfax very badly injured Annie but she did not die instantly. Like, he may have broken her spine, but while that would inacapitate her, it would not necessarily kill her. If this is true then she died a much slower and more terrible death. And a few things in the above section support this. Annie repeating she’s “cold” but not understanding why. The manifestation of sounds and how they overlap - the hammering that entombed her, tapping of a finger on plaster, the slowing beating of a heart. Did Annie die on some level aware that her lover was disposing of her even before her last breath? Ghostlock was not enough. She should have eaten him.

Very early on we get these hints of just how much of a capitalist nightmare Fittes is and how it slowly swallows up smaller agencies and clearly aims to become a monopoly and discards kids they have no use for. And also how many of those kids clearly fall through the cracks and end up in criminal organizations or doing the dirty work of wealthy unscrupulous magnates.

Book Lockwood is pretty violent in these low key, concentrated and brutally efficient bursts and it’s one of those things that remains enigmatically unexplained. It’s not just fencing too, it’s all sorts of stuff. In the next book he folds Ned Shaw like a tablecloth. Did Gravedigger Sykes teach him? Flo? Unexplained! Very hot though. You 100% can see where Lucy is coming from.

Smile counter is still at 9 since there was nothing much to grin at in these chapters, but I want to give a shout-out to George for chasing after Percy, a grown man armed with a gun remember, alongside Lockwood. Like that's good guts, George doesn't like action, he doesn't live for it like Lockwood does, but he doesn't shrink away from it either.

[karnesada]

Andruil Lore

Codex pdf download: DAO DA2 DAI DAV

Dalish myths

andruil, goddess of the hunt (from The Charge of Andruil, Goddess of the Hunt) - sister of the moon, mother of hares, lady of the hunt. the Ways of the Hunter, in the style of a song from the perspective of Andruil.

andruil's messenger - owls as Andruil's messengers. 'Always keep an eye out for the noble owl. You never know: Andruil might have a message for you.'

on bears, beloved of dirthamen - foxes traded their secrets to Andruil for wings (tf?)

the dales: a promise lost - warriors invoked the names of Elgar'nan and Mythal, and Andruil and Ghilan'nain, before a fight.

fen'harel: the dread wolf - Andruil mentioned as having taught the people the Ways of the Hunter.

ghilan'nain, mother of the halla - Ghilan'nain was captured by a "hunter", and prayed to Andruil for help. Andruil's hares bit through Ghilan'nain bonds, and Andruil turned her into the first halla so she could escape 

this is apocryphal and refuted in Veilguard  gandalfs_alt's analysis of this story & fen'harel and the tree (pre-veilguard - i put it into text but it's all her work)

the way of three trees (vir tanadhal)- Vir Assan (fly straight and do not waver), vir Bor'assan (bend but never break), Vir Adahlen (receive the gifts with mindfulness).

vir atish'an - the way of peace made by Sylaise in contrast to Andruil's Way of the Three Trees

World tales

a ghoulish delight - a codex from La Maison Verte in the Dales, on the history of the mansion. It was built on the ruins of a sanctuary dedicated to Andruil. The heart of that old shrine was an etched stone altar that was now in the grand hall of the mansion, that the realtor threw a party and a false seance around the altar.

a grey warden's journal - a Warden searching for [Alistair/Loghain/Stroud] on the Storm Coast. Amidst the false Calling, this Warden sang "the song of Andruil to myself to clear my mind as best I can." A fisherman this Warden convinced not to join the Wardens left with "a smile, humming the song of Andruil as he left."

a letter from the hero of ferelden (if both HoF and Inquisitor are Dalish): wishing the Inquisitor luck and stay true to the Way of Three Trees, and that Andruil would bless their hunt.

constellation fervenial - a Tevinter constellation that they suspect was tied to Andriul and the Way of the Three Trees

constellation servani - once thought to be a constellation of Andoral, the Old God of slaves and the Tevinter institution of slavery.

on the old gods - Andoral, the dragon of slaves, was felled by Garahel the Warden in the Fourth Blight (end of the griffons).

vallaslin: blood writing - according to Brother Genitive, Andruil the Huntress was only of the most highly revered elven goddesses

Ancient legends

andruil's gift - a prayer by the people that Andruil, "blood and force", not turn her gaze upon them and spare them from becoming her prey.

unreadable elven writing (a continuation of the prayer in andruil's gift) - "spare us the moment we become your sacrifice."

the ascension of ghilan'nain - (found in the Temple of Mythal) Andruil hunted Ghil's beasts for a year, at which point Andruil offers apotheosis, but only if Ghil destroys all of her monsters. Ghil complies, but spares the halla and the creatures of the deep sea at 'Pride's' urging.

elven god andruil - (found in the Arbor Wilds) a doozy of an entry.

when Andruil grew tired of hunting men and beasts, she began to stalk Forgotten Ones ("wicked things that thrive in the abyss") Andruil hunted them into the Void, an as yet undefined region of Thedas (speculation that deep into the Titan in The Descent was part of the uncharted abyss. The more times she went into the Void, she suffered longer and longer periods of madness. At last, she donned armor made of the Void such that people forgot her true face. Mythal lured her to a mountain, and they fought "for three days and knights" before Mythal's magic overcame Andruil and stole her knowledge of the Void. Andruil was apparently never able to find her way back to the Void afterwards.

fen'harel and the tree - (cw: sexual assault). Andruil captures the Dread Wolf and declared that he would serve her in her bed for a year to pay her back for hunting halla without her permission. She duels Anaris, who has also come to kill Fen'harel. The Dread Wolf tricks them both into wounding each other, and escapes.

geldauran's claim - the Forgotten One. "Let Andruil's bow crack...let them build temples and lure the faithful with promises."

pantomime theatre mask of andruil - the lady of fortune. "to narrative, she is purpose. She grants strength of clarity, but blindness to trickery. Blood and force, spare us the moment we become your prey."

sylaise, the heartkeeper - Sylaise is the "sister of Andruil [who] loved to run with the creatures of the wild."

song to sylaise - "Sylaise, whose breath rivals Andruil's spear" (see: Andruil's Gift)

Solas' dialogue

Morrison: "goddess of the hunt." Solas: "Or a goddess of sacrifice, to some." All but confirmed by the Andruil's Gift prayer and pantomime mask.

To Elgar'nan: "You would burn this world at [the Blight's] command, as Andruil did at yours."

Primary sources (letters, dialogue (not from Solas), etc.)

solas' letter to ghilan'nain (Elvhenan-era) - Solas claims that Ghilan'nain's apotheosis is because of Andruil. Specifically, "I hope you gain peace with Andruil. you would not be the first to sacrifice your morals for love."

ghilan'nain's reply to solas (Elvhenan-era) - Ghilan’nain declares that her apotheosis is not for Andruil, that Andruil petitioned on her behalf and that she “supports me, always, in everything"

about the freed slaves (Elvhenan-era report by Felassan) - the rebellion attacked warding sites to free Andruil’s slaves. The slaves’ life force was being drained by the wards to strengthen Andruil’s power. Unfortunately, the rebellion’s casualties were higher than the people they killed to get to the slaves. As punishment, Andruil spread lies that Fen’harel is trying to kill everyone, and makes an example of her people (vague, but obviously bad).

against the so-called gods - aftermath of disparaging the gods (Elvhenan-era report by Felassan): the Evanuris were raising knights empowered by lyrium. Fen’harel blasted this in a propaganda piece in Arlathan, insinuating that the Evanuris are weak and need the knights’ protection. People protested, and public sentiment turned against the knights. Unfortunately, Andruil and Ghilan’nain again made examples of the people and crushed the protests. Andruil decimated a village until all that was left was a crater, and Ghilan’nain took its people for her experiments.

note to elgar'nan (Veilguard-era) - Ghilan'nain says that the people "remember her as she was: a warrior of supreme skill. Lethal. Swift. Unsurpassed. I look forward to building a monument to her in our new empire."

Modern studies (Veilguard analysis)

elven gods and tevinter gods - We're still arguing about: Andruil (the hunt) = Andoral, Dragon of Slaves ("Andruil" and "Andoral" sound alike?)

[anis-book-club]

the screaming staircase: chapter 1

i finally started the lockwood & co. books, so here are my annotations so far!

annotations (mostly snarky comments)

"of the first few hauntings i investigated with lockwood & co. i intend to say very little...but mainly because, in a variety of ingenious ways, we succeeded in messing them all up." (page 3)

very on brand for you.

"so it was not exactly an unblemished record that we took with us, lockwood and i, when we walked up the path to 62 sheen road on that misty autumn afternoon and briskly rang the bell." (page 4)

how do y'all even get jobs??? (genuinely this will never not baffle me)

"'ok,' i said. 'remember our new rules. don't just blab out anything you see. don't speculate openly about who killed who, how, or when. and above all don't impersonate the client...'" (page 4)

i am looking 👀 through the autistic!lockwood lens.

"'fine, copy them quietly after the event. not loudly, not in front of them, and particularly not when they're a six-foot-six irish dockworker with a speech impediment, and we're a good half-mile from the public road.'" (page 4)

i like the air of personal experience that she says this with.

"'so...possibly not part of our case, then, if it was a mouse?'" (page 5)

me 🤝 lockwood i, too, say irrelevant things at inopportune moments.

"'so sorry!' she repeated. 'i was delayed. i didn't think you'd be so prompt.'" (page 6)

to be fair, i wouldn't have either.

"the air had that musty, slightly sour smell you get in every unloved place." (page 10)

oh, i love this.

"halls, landings, and staircases are the arteries and airways of any building." (page 11)

i feel like stroud has a very good idea of what makes a good, loving house/home.

"two sharp crashes sounded on the stairs. air moved violently against my face. before i could react, something large, soft and horribly heavy landed precisely where i stood. the impact of it jarred my teeth. "i jumped back, ripping my rapier from my belt." (page 12–13)

see! i never knew from the show that she felt it! i love that it's explained here in the book.

"'plenty of time for a cup of tea. then we find ourselves a ghost.'" (page 13)

literally, i love their relationship with tea. (i'm american, living in london. tea isn't a big thing back home in the states, but i'm really starting to feel like there's something sacred about it, and i love how it's such a staple at lockwood & co. it's so comforting.)

notes

—regarding: lucy and lockwood's interaction with mrs. hope/suzie martin

the dialogue lines themselves are almost identical between the book and the show, but instead of show!lucy reading book!lucy's lines and show!lockwood reading book!lockwood's lines, they exchange them. show!lucy instead reads book!lockwood's lines, and show!lockwood reads book!lucy's lines. i think this is so interesting? this initial interaction is used in the show to demonstrate that lucy is new to interacting with clients (i'm assuming jacobs handled most of that when she was working under him), and helps to cement lockwood as the charismatic, (mostly) professional leader. but in the book, it's stated from the start that she's already worked at least a few cases with lockwood & co., so she's experienced enough that she knows lockwood's habits and can take the lead.

i really like that in the books, lucy is allowed to be the leader more often. throughout watching the show, i've always felt like she usually can formulate strategic and sensible plans (her suggestion for her team under jacobs to leave the mill together and get help before facing the ghosts was the best plan in my opinion, but that's a topic for another analysis). i like that the book starts out with her taking that leadership position because i think that really demonstrates her cleverness.

—listen, reading the books answers so many questions i have from watching the show.

—i already love stroud's writing style so much.

tabs

lockwood

"'you know i've got an excellent ear for accents. i copy people without thinking.'" (page 4)

world building

"'you're very young.'/'that's the idea, mrs. hope. you know that's the way it has to be.'" (page 7)

"there was plenty of time till curfew, but night was falling and people were growing antsy...or nothing, at least, any adult there could clearly see." (page 8–9)

"when entering a house occupied by a visitor, it's best to get in quick..." (page 9)

"you see, a second rule you learn is: electricity interferes. it dulls the senses and makes you weak and stupid..." (page 10) additional annotation: inch resting

"having a watch with a luminous dial is my third recommended rule. it's best if it can also withstand sudden drops in temperature and strong ectoplasmic shock." (page 13) additional annotation: not sure why, but "luminous dial" is making me think of the radium girls

highlighted lines (usually extracts that i think are really pretty or well written)

"twisting moonbeams" (page 9)

"vanished among the mists and laurels" (page 9)

"the last light from the door panes stretching out like skewed coffins on the floor in front of us" (page 11)

bonus

r.i.p. to my mostly straight lines. gone too soon when i highlight while traveling on the tube.

[author-a-holmes]

Going to preface this is; I agree with you entirely. I 100% believe that the first chapter, scene, or even the first page are MILES more important than just the first line.

However, I feel this is a good opportunity to analyse the writing of these first lines because I don't know ANY of the books these lines come from (Except the Hobbit, of course)

Plus, I like a bit of literary analysis for fun, so, I figured why not. Because these lines DO tell you things about the books and the characters just through the words the authors have chosen to use.

Sure, it's not neccesarily the "grip the reader and throw them into the plot" kind of telling, but it's still important. In my opinion, anyways.

"There are many legends about my mother." Daughter of the Moon Goddess, Sue Lynn Tan

I find that a good way to look at first lines is to imagine how else they could have been written.

"There are legends about my mother". Without 'Many' it's giving a different, lesser, weight to the legends. Many implies that the legends vary too.

"There are many stories about my mother" has less gravitas than legends. Stories could be gossip. Stories could be made up or true. Legends implies the passage of time for the formation of these legends has been long.

Even the word 'Mother' over Mum or other parental honorifics is telling us something about our main character, and their relation to their parent. It's unlikely to be a playful, casual, relationship if she called her "mother."

***

"Mary Jekyll stared down at her mother's coffin." The Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter, Theodora Cross

If I thought the title of the book felt familiar, giving the main character the surname Jekyll in conjunction tells me immediately that this is some kind of retelling, or continuation, or expansion, around the story of "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde."

If the author had said "Mary stared down at her mother's coffin." we couldn't have had the confirmation of that link.

And stared down. Not looked, or gazed, or hovered over. She stared. Even without knowing anything else about this story, stared adds weight to the scene. A heaviness that hangs on the words and makes you read the scene slower. It's setting tone and pace for the rest of the opening scene.

***

"The temperature of the room dropped fast." Bartimaeus: The Amulet of Samarkand, Jonathan Stroud

I agree with you. There's actually not much to this opening line. But there's still something, because the temperature dropping has to be either unexpected, dangerous, or abnormal or it wouldn't be worth mentioning. The genre of the book would probably help determine which of those three it is, but I'm looking at these lines blind.

But it's also giving us a location for the characters. They're in a room. Which means they're inside. Which means it's probably not a natural change in temperature, no mattter how unexpected. So even with those seven words we've got a setting, and a problem, to make the reader go; "Uh oh; Why?".

***

"I've seen Steelheart bleed." Steelheart, Brandon Sanderson

This one I'm going to have to disagree with you a little. You're right when you said that this tells us quite a bit. That Steelheart is a person. That they don't bleed often. This implies they're strong, or powerful, or both.

Additionally, it implies that our main character has been around them long enough, and is either a close enough companion to have seen them weak or injured, and been allowed to retain that knowledge, or is an enemy strong enough to have MADE them bleed.

And that's where I think the hook is for a reader. We want to know who the narrator is? Is Steelheart a friend or foe to our MC? Under what circumstances did they bleed, if it's so rare that it warrants mention?

Some of the best, and subtlest, opening lines aren't the ones that "grab" a reader, in my opinion. They're the ones that make the reader ask questions. Who? What? When? Where? Or Why?.

***

"Kendra stared out the side window of the SUV, watching foliage blur past." Fablehaven, Brandon Mull

This is the weakest opening line for me. Which I find equally fascinating, since it's the one you said is most relateable for you.

For me, this doesn't tell me much of anything. I know a character name. It could be the main character, or it could be a side character that the MC is looking at, since we know Kendra isn't the one driving there must be at least one other person in the car.

I know they're in an SUV, and I know the surroundings have.... foliage. I don't even know if that's bushes or trees or a forest or fields (Although, admittedly, fields is a stretch).

For me, this line isn't telling me anything. Worse, it's not making me ask any questions. I know who they are. I know what they're doing. I know 'when' is a modern location since they're in a car. I kind of know where, but only in a vague sense that doesn't make me want to ask anything further. The only thing hanging is the why but there's nothing in this opening line that really alludes that there is a why worth questioning.

This could be nothing more than a trip into town, for all I know at this point.

However, the saving grace is "stared". Much like "The Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter", the use of stared adds a weigh to this opening line that it otherwise lacks. I feel like it could have used an adverb to strengthen it though, since unlike the Alchemist's Daughter, there's no other definitive and relateable setting like the funeral to add descriptor to the kind of stare this might be.

Is Kendra's stare blank? angry? bored? fearful? I just can't tell.

***

"The tired old carriage, pulled by two tired old horses, rumbled onto the wharf, its creaky wheels bumpety-bumping on the uneven planks, waking Peter from his restless slumber." Peter and the Starcatchers, Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson

This is my favourite kind of opening line, because it's giving us so much here. It's also the only one where we can tell from the opening line that it's 3rd person omniscient POV.

That gives us a chance to see lots of details, and the opening line gives it. It's a tired old carriage. With tired old horses. The repetition is intentional, and clever, it's a reiteration of the state of things. It's important, on some level, that the reader know this main character isn't in the lap of luxury.

And if he's travelling in via tired and old, we can infer that his other belongings, such as his clothes, are in a similar state. It puts an aged, worn, tone over the whole opening scene.

Rumbled onto the wharf. Creaky wheels. The author is really engaging the readers senses here. We've already covered sight, now we're onto sounds and for anyone who's ever been to the beach, scent as well. A wharf busy with boats and fishing is going to have a distinctive scent that's summoned just by the mention of the location.

And waking Peter from his restless slumber. I agree with you, restless slumber does imply that it was difficult to sleep in the carriage, or that he's nervous or anxious. But even the use of the word slumber over that of sleep, or even phrasing the whole sentence differently... Slumber just gives a heavy, worn down, feeling. Like he's been travelling for days and finally succumbed, even though it was restless and filled with disturbances.

This is the kind of opening line that really draws me in, because it paints me a scene and gives me a lot to go on. It makes me hopeful for the rest of the book.

***

And I'm skipping the Hobbit. I know the story too well to analyse it's opening line objectively like I did the others.

I'd be curious to know how on point I was with the story telling, the themes, etc, for some of these opening lines, since you said they're your favourite books. But no pressure.

Ultimately, I did the analysis for fun, but I also think it helps to highlight exactly what you were saying. Every reader is going to get something different out of a writer's prose, and so I don't put a whole lot of weight on the "OPENING LINES MUST BE PERFECT" rhetoric.

They don't have to be perfect. And even if an author gets close to what they think is perfect, someone else is going to find it lacking.

So to reiterate your final point, I agree; "People will give a work a chance. That's what the summary is for; to tell people if they'll like it so they can know to give it a try."

I have never, in my life, picked up a book and put it down after the first line. The first few pages, maybe, after the first few chapters, possibly. But never the first line.

The First Line

A lot of people out there will tell you that the first line of a novel is the most important. I've seen the wisdom that the first line must grab the readers attention, be some kind of a "hook" to draw them in deeper, or to tonally reflect the main themes. That the first line needs to throw the reader into the thick of it!

But how true is that really? It's been nagging me for a while now as someone who has started more fics than I've completed.

Out of curiosity, I grabbed a handful of my favorite novels and compiled their first lines.

"There are many legends about my mother." Daughter of the Moon Goddess, Sue Lynn Tan

This line doesn't really establish much about the plot of this book. Not the narrator's name, goal, conflict, or even the setting. We can make some inferences from the existence of legends around someone, but 'legendary' only narrows anything down because of the book's title. It is, however, indicative of the narration style and the novel's prose.

"Mary Jekyll stared down at her mother's coffin." The Strange Case of the Alchemist's Daughter, Theodora Cross

This line puts us right into a scene. Some real In Medias Res. Except... it's not really an action scene. It's a somber affair. And from Mary's staring, it's safe to say she has some heavy thoughts on the matter.

We can also make some assumptions from the wording choice. Looking down at the coffin suggests that she is standing over it, so we know at once this takes place during the funeral.

Interestingly--and I'm going to break my soft rule of not addressing the rest of the text here--this line does not allude to the novel's framing device.

"The temperature of the room dropped fast." Bartimaeus: The Amulet of Samarkand, Jonathan Stroud

This is another opening that's setting a scene instead of trying to introduce us to the cast or conflict, or even to the setting. Why is it getting colder? We can infer from the fact that the temperature is dropping fast that this probably isn't a good thing or at least not a normal thing.

"I've seen Steelheart bleed." Steelheart, Brandon Sanderson

This line fascinates me. It says a lot and, at the same time, very little. We know that someone named Steelheart exists, obviously. However, the narrator is giving gravitas to the sight of them bleeding. So we've already learned that Steelheart doesn't bleed very often, and seeing it was worth remembering. But who Steelheart is and why the narrator cares? Nothing in this line indicates that.

"Kendra stared out the side window of the SUV, watching foliage blur past." Fablehaven, Brandon Mull

I think this is the most relatable opening line I have listed here, since I can instantly in my mind picture the expression on Kendra's face knowing nothing else about her, or where she's going. We can guess she's probably not happy to be going there since she's staring out the window with what I would assume to be boredom. That's some conflict there. But, like, extremely minor conflict.

"The tired old carriage, pulled by two tired old horses, rumbled onto the wharf, its creaky wheels bumpety-bumping on the uneven planks, waking Peter from his restless slumber." Peter and the Starcatchers, Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson

Well this sentence rambled on a bit didn't it? But it's very evocative. It tells us very little about the story (beyond Peter's name) but it sets the scene beautifully. Not only is it evocative of the scenery, but the time period (from the horse-drawn carriage) and the tone as well. We also know that Peter wasn't sleeping very well, which indicates that he's either anxious about something or that sleeping in this carriage wasn't very easy. Or both.

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit

This is the kind of line that would get me murdered by a lot of writing advice that I've seen over the years. This line tells you next to nothing, not even whether or not its weird for hobbits to live in holes. What this line does do is ease us into the narration style that Tolkien employs, which is generally slow and descriptive.

Okay...?

So what was the point of all of that?

Well, this experiment has solidified my opinion on something. As I said, I've been having thoughts about opening lines, but I think that the actual first line of the book is not as important as the first scene of the book. None of these lines out of context are that good. Sure, The Hobbit is iconic, but that's not because that line itself is phenomenal. It's practically "Once Upon A Time."

But it works for the scene.

The first scene is far more interesting to me than the first line. I'm not so impatient that if the first line fails to captivate me I'll toss the book aside. And I know that's true for other people because H. Bomberguy posted a four-hour video on plagiarism and we all watched it.

What this means, I think, is that we don't need to treat our audience as if we're in an arms race against their dwindling attention spans as if we'll lose them forever to TikTok if the first sentence isn't the pinnacle of literature.

People will give a work a chance. That's what the summary is for; to tell people if they'll like it so they can know to give it a try.

If you were afraid to write, or to share your writing, because you didn't think the first line was good enough... I don't think that matters. I think that people won't hate it. Won't turn up their noses in disgust.

[maggotsandcream]

I’m going on a really long meta rant about The Bartimaeus Trilogy

Dang, it is 8 paragraphs long, I’m so sorry.

I was talking with a friend who read the Bartimaeus Trilogy back in high school and had finished the Lockwood and Co. books over the summer about how long the two series take to engage your interest. We both definitely agreed that Bartimaeus takes way longer than Lockwood, despite both of us preferring Bartimaeus (though both definitely enjoying Lockwood). It would be easy to pass this off as Bartimaeus just being way denser and Lockwood being more lighthearted fun, but I don’t think that’s the full answer.

I’m going to tell you something that might be a tad controversial for this fandom considering how much we talk about how amazing the Bartimaeus Sequence is: I actually returned Amulet of Samarkand to the library less than half read the first time I tried to read it. This isn’t entirely because of of AoS’s quality. The librarian who introduced me to the series sent me home with Sandry’s Book at the same time because I’d asked for recommendations for adventurous fantasy stories without any romance and learning about Tamora Pierce’s stuff kind of derailed any other reading plans I had that summer. (The same thing happened a couple years later when I brought home The Fellowship of the Ring and The Colour of Magic at the same time and did not read the Lord of the Rings until after I had finished every single Discworld book, but I digress.) But anyways, I got to the part just after Nat sent Bart off after he learned his name and did not pick it up again until that winter, when I decided to give it another shot, finished it in a frantic all nighter that night, requested Golem’s Eye and Ptolemy’s Gate the next day, picked them up on the next trip to the library, read each of them in a day, got very sad and emotional, and then got introduced to the concept of fanfiction when I went looking to see if there had ever been an alternate ending written for it. It was a very full 2 weeks and I was very tired by the end of it.

Clearly, it’s a really good series and a really moving one. Why is it so hard to start it?

My friend and I almost perfectly agree on the exact point the series gets truly interesting. I think it’s the fight in Pinn’s shop. She thinks it’s when Bart gets arrested. These are arguably part of the same scene. And my theory is that this is the first point in the series when you can’t actually tell exactly where it’s going.

To be clear, the story before that point isn’t bad exactly. It’s funny, it’s got a cool heist sequence, it’s got a lot of thought provoking world building. But I think in establishing Bart and Nat as actually competent at what they’re each doing, Stroud accidentally ruined a lot the suspense needed to suck you into a story. They’re too good at what they’re doing and the story unfolds exactly as you expect it to. And no, Bart learning Nat’s name doesn’t count towards suspense or twists or anything like that; from the moment it’s established true names have power you just know Bart’s going to figure out Nat’s name.

But! Then there’s the scene in Pinn’s shop when Bart fucks up HUGE and gets arrested and the obvious way for him to escape gets pointed out by the narration as being the kind of thing that would happen in a bad novel...and gets shut down immediately and brutally as impossible. And the way he does escape has consequences that at least I a middle schooler at the time did not remotely see coming. And the series goes off in an incredibly different direction than everything was pointing to and finally gets really good.

My friend then said that the reason boiled down to the house burning down halfway through the book in Amulet of Samarkand but as part of the first act for The Screaming Staircase and I can’t see the lie. Shit must hit the fan to be interesting, and what is Lockwood and Co. but shit being dumped onto the fan at regular and frequent intervals? Sure, the plot isn’t necessarily as deep as Bartimaeus, but the execution was phenomenal and you frequently got the impression that Stroud was having a hoot writing it.

I’m going to chalk it up to Stroud just getting better as an author after all that practice writing books between the two series for why it turned out that way.

[wolfpropaganda]

I think my absolute favorite way of writing villains came from the Bartimaeus Sequence. Like a lot of the time you understand exactly why they’re doing it, it makes sense, and they’re still terrifying. Some of them are genuinely funny and sympathetic, but they’re still 100% a threat, and you’re scared of them! My personal favorite is that poor djinn who some genius trapped in his decaying body. Like this character starts whimsically mauling a group of humans you’ve gotten to know over the course of the book, it’s completely unhinged and even if it wasn’t it still probably wouldn’t see their lives as anything more than a joke, but you understand. Even though this is a scenario where a sympathetic human character is pitted against an inhuman force of destruction, you understand that they’ve both been forced into this. Beneath the skin of terrifying and gruesome, it’s a tragedy. The series is so good at that

[chance-lard]

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!

[sosooley]

Rec list update. AGAIN. second part here and first part here

Wyatt Earp. Frontier marshal - Stuart N. Lake Well. This is where fame started. Earp would have been forgotten in the Arizona sands (as he wanted), but after the scandalous boxing match between Fitzsimmons and Sharkey, the forgotten Earp was remembered with unkind words by the entire biased press of San Francisco, and after, many years later, Lake became interested in him. And accidentally made him a national hero at a very hard time. Of course, he SIGNIFICANTLY embellished the biography and wrote it as if from the perspective of Wyatt himself, which caused further confusion. Western knight in a white hat on a white horse, defender of orphans and the poor, an ideal man. Uh-huh, yeah, damn it. But we owe everything to this book. 

There is an opinion that the old man didn’t like Lake, so he sabotaged his story in every possible way, telling the writer less than a captured partisan would say.

Tombstone. An Iliad of the Southwest - Walter Noble Burns book that started it all, and produced a number of fictional but iconic phrases (like i’m your huckleberry). It's funny that the book came out before the Frontier marshal, but didn’t hit the jackpot. In general, this is understandable, the Frontier marshal is aimed in structure and style at the reader who needs an interesting spirit-uplifting reading. This book is hard to read, isn’t focused on one person, but as an introduction to the origins of the legend (and this is really the creation of a legend) - definitely a must-have.

Wyatt Earp's Tombstone Vendetta - Glenn G. Boyer  the author claims that this story was told to him by the son of a man who once personally knew Wyatt VERY closely since the time of Tombstone (the person chose to remain anonymous) and that this man accidentally got involved in almost all historical events (and the author also personally annoyed a bunch of Earp's relatives, Kate's relatives, Matty’s and McLaury’s). And sometimes he gives out SUCH unexpected facts that it’s just really hard to believe. But it's wonderfully written. There is a GORGEOUS DOC here, he is just GORGEOUS. Well, ship-moments are just f u c k i n g  good. I recommend reading with a touch of critical thinking. But if at least half of what was told is true - boy oh boy.

The World of Doc Holliday - Victoria Wilcox is the perfect source of material where Doc lived and traveled. Written in the spirit of travel writing in short articles. A golden book for people with ADHD, the brain receives interesting information in short articles  about the life of those times, about the transport system of America. A very nice reading. But the information regarding Doc is outright bullshit occasionally.For a biography, you'd better read Gary Roberts.

Tombstone's Treasure. Silver Mines and Golden Saloons - Sherry Monahan is the holy bible of Tombstone's material. A VERY detailed description of the inner city cuisine, saloons and mines, just a hell of a lot of interesting and useful information, written in an easy and entertaining way, I strongly recommend

Kurukshetra and the O.K. Corral: A Comparative Narrative Analysis of "Wyatt Earp" and the "Mahabharat." -  Scott R. Stroud Mahabharat. And the history of the Earps. And a huge number of COINCIDENCES. Incredibly hilarious reading, incredibly hilarious references. No, I'm serious, the parallels are incredibly transparent and obvious, you wouldn’t believe me. And another beautiful parallel are Krishna-Doc. oh god, I'm crying. The quote about death-the-destroyer-of-worlds sparkled with new colors. 

Hour of the Gun - Robert Krepps novelization of the 1967 movie. That was directed by the same man who directed the 1957 movie Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The level of gay tension is just overwhelming. The author ships docatt with the fury of a thousand suns. Strongly recommend. gay gay homosexual gay.

The Earps talk - Alford E. Turner a series of sanitized and annotated interviews that Earps gave throughout their lives. A good insight into the heads of the brothers, but we must remember that Earps formal education sucked, although they were smart men, but speak SO artistically, as they allegedly did in the interviews, they hardly could. Doc could. Brothers? I don’t think so

TOMBSTONE An original screenplay. Fourth draft - Kevin Jarre  basically the title speaks for itself. 4th version of the script, there are a lot of scenes that weren’t included in the film. The script was greatly reduced and cut, which only benefited the movie, as there are no side lines and a bunch of unnecessary characters. Well, the cherry on the cake is a canonized docatt, I showed this quote once. With an almost spoken declaration of love. Lord, we've been robbed

Wyatt Earp Meets Doctor Death - Andy Rausch  an outright fanfiction. Imagine Jack the Ripper in the wild west. The dialogue is golden, but the characters are fucked up. And Josie is also The Ripper. Have you watched the Miike Snow clip Genghis Khan? There's a manic woman at the end - that's the same vibe

Tombstone: The Earp Brothers, Doc Holliday, and the Vendetta Ride from Hell - Tom Clavin is a nice non-fiction book, with more attention on Earp and Doc than Clavin's other books.

The Saga of Doc Holliday - Victoria Wilcox

books:

Southern son

Dance with the Devil

Dead man’s hand

AUTHOR CAN  *:･ﾟ✧  S U C K  MY   D I C K *:･ﾟ✧ sorry but thats shit

[riqtides]

I know this is a pjo blog, but what books (pjo or not) would you consider to be a 10/10 or perfect of whatever score you use?

I think I might actually expand this blog to be a more general book blog rather than just pjo (though pjo is ofc my ultimate favorite).

a bunch of my book opinions are on my goodreads: www.goodreads.com/tiffanybooks (pls befriend me i’m trying to become more active on there), but here’s a rundown of stuff I’ve been loving lately:

Series

- The Poppy War series by R.F. Kuang: The second book in this trilogy just came out a few months ago, so it’s the perfect time to read it. It’s a fantasy series that takes a lot of inspiration from Chinese folklore, mythology, & history. All of the characters are extremely complex, often-terrible people and the series touches on a lot of important analysis on class and race conflict, war, religion, etc. Warning: this series definitely is grim/dark and has some heavy material.

- The Bartimaeus Trilogy by Jonathan Stroud: I just reread this series and it is so underrated--it’s written for children but honestly anyone can and should read/love it. Bartimaeus is a five-thousand-year-old boisterous djinni who gets summoned by a teenage magician and it documents the corruption of the magical government of London.

- Six of Crows duology by Leigh Bardugo: If you’re into fantasy heists this is perfect. It has lots of complex characters and relationships, intricate world-building and politics, and the best heist scenes. The only con is that in order to really understand what’s going on, you have to read the Grisha trilogy (a hit-or-miss).

- The Folk of the Air trilogy by Holly Black: If you’re into fae stories, enemies-to-lovers romance, court intrigue/politics, and scheming, this series has all of it! It follows Jude, a mortal, as she schemes her way to power in the Faerie world, and Cardan, a Prince of Faerie. Definitely a page-turner and will keep you up late reading it!!

- Monsters of Verity duology and Villains series by V.E. Schwab: Honestly, anything by V.E. Schwab is incredible--she does urban fantasy and stories about magic so well.

- Arc of a Scythe series by Neal Shusterman: I read this during finals week when I was supposed to be studying for my exams, so you know it’s a page-turner. This series takes place in a utopian world where society is advanced enough that death no longer happens naturally, so people only die permanently when they’re killed by scythes. The books follow two scythes-in-training and brings up a bunch of really interesting questions about death, morality, religion, knowledge, etc.

And of course I always reread Harry Potter but that’s a given lol

Standalone:

- I’ll Give You the Sun by Jandy Nelson: A coming-of-age novel about two twins, Noah and Jude, as they navigate family tragedy, art, love + sexuality, and find their way back to each other. It’s a beautiful, whimsical novel, but you have to deal with some purple prose and insta-love/soulmate concepts--imo, definitely worth it!!  

- Anything by Madeline Miller: I’ve read The Song of Achilles and part of Circe so far and love them--she does an incredible job of keeping readers engaged and really making you feel for these thousand-year-old characters, humanizing even the villains of history so that their stories are incredibly compelling.

I’m gonna cut this off here but if you wanna discuss anything book-related/give me recs/add me on Goodreads (goodreads.com/tiffanybooks)/talk to me about books please let me know! One of my 2020 goals is to read more and actually write down/communicate my thoughts on the stuff I’m reading :’)

[vryfmi]

[major book spoilers!]

a mildly long analysis of skull and Lucy's relationship in TEG in light of recent Stroud's interview answer.

also i need this video on my blog

[audio transcript of The Writing Community Chat stream:

CJ (host), reading a question from NeeveDaFoe: I need to know why Skull is more powerful than Ezekiel!!!

Jonathan Stroud: Well, I think the power that he has is through his connection with Lucy. I think, ultimately, the message of Lockwood & Co books, and indeed most of my books, is that you get your strengths through the connection with others, love and mutual support. So, our friend, the skull, ultimately, gains his power through the relationship he's built up with Lucy over the course of the books, despite all his rude comments.

CJ, laughing: Nice!

/end transcript]

it's not like i didn't know it beforehand, the message is very clear in the books and especially in how skull and Ezekiel are juxtaposed in their confrontation. that skull looks almost like his alive self minus transparency and gauntness of his features, while Ezekiel has barely anything that would make us think he used to be human. he's disconnected from reality, he views himself as an ascended being. meanwhile skull is there to be a sarcastic menace and definitely not to save Lucy bc he definitely didn't grow to care for her.

but the thing is that Lucy tried to put her trust into skull only now. it wasn't even her first decision when confronting Marissa and Ezekiel, far from it. she'd freed skull only when Lockwood came in and she wasn't afraid to face whatever was at hand alone. being strangled by insane old woman possessing her granddaughter's body or get ghost-touched by Ezekiel or skull at that matter — doesn't make much of a difference. she did promise skull to free him, she got the taste of what it's like to be stuck on The Other Side, so she delivered, trusting that skull won't hurt her nor Lockwood when the two of them were seconds away from taking Marissa down, even if it was the last thing she did.

saying that skull payed back Lucy for freeing him just doesn't seem right. she was feeding him empty promises the whole book to the point where both skull and Lucy knew that they had this same conversation over and over again to no avail. but skull kept bringing it up. while Lucy couldn't bring herself to trust skull even after all help he provided for her and her friends.

but her attitude changes once she meets skull on The Other Side, the person that he once was. or at least that what she thinks in that moment because that's the same skull she was talking to for the past 2 years. Lucy has a clear disconnect: seeing not just an obscure grimace in the jar but a whole person before her. it strikes that The Lucy Carlyle Formula™ button and she aches with sympathy describing skull's appearance, acknowledging that he passed away at young age, at her age. whether she sees her situation and her inevitable demise in him, or is simply struck with "there's more to just the skull (a literal bone), there's a person before her", Lucy has a full 180 on skull from that point forward. but it's too late and it's her fault. skull gets taken away and Lucy is left alone in the kitchen. how much did she regret not listening to skull, not trusting him, not getting to know him? apparently a lot judging by their second (technically third) run into each other on The Other Side:

A wave of something washed through me. Relief? Pleasure at seeing something familiar in this dreadful place? Whatever it was, it made me warm. (TEG)

[i know what you are]

but if Lucy had time to ponder, so did skull. it makes sense that he'd say 'Shared names come with trust'. i believe he told the truth there and he forgot his name for good but still made it clear for Lucy — it's a bit too late for getting to know each other, especially after Lucy was giving him a cold shoulder, when that hammer was still on her belt. for all he knew, Lucy and her friends could've had not made it across Dark London and he'd be forever trapped in Fittes basement or worse. in any other situation he'd have no one to blame but circumstances, but here it would've been Lucy's fault.

and yet, despite all that, despite all rude comments and headbutting, skull's more human than Ezekiel because of Lucy, and he's stronger than Ezekiel because he cares for and loves Lucy. not my words, Stroud's. whatever sick manipulations and control Ezekiel had over Marissa and vice versa, it stood no chance against two mean teenagers that fought their way through trauma with humor, sarcasm and gratuitous bum jokes.

now leave me alone to sulk over skullyle

[kestrelknight]

hi.. 3, 12, 22, 25 <3

3. I had to go sit down and list out what books I think I read... I'm far away from my bookshelf currently, so it's harder to remember. I'll make this books I read for the first time: The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber, The Old Ways: A Journey On Foot by Robert Macfarlane, and three of my favorite Witcher books, The Last Wish, Sword of Destiny, and Baptism of Fire. Honorable mention to the The Amulet of Samarkand by Jonathan Stroud, which I read for the first time, and had a blast with Bartimaeus and his footnotes.

12. I was warned ahead of time that Season of Storms Was Not Very Good! Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino was fine, but I did find the section that Jacob Geller referenced in his Searching For Elysium video to be the most affective, and the rest of it, not very. Mountains of the Mind was a little lackluster compared to Macfarlane's other writing, but I wasn't too disappointed, as that was his first book after all.

22. Oh, definitely The Dawn of Everything! It's a brick. I was very intimidated to start it- but once I did, I found it very witty and engaging, as I should have expected from any work with Graeber's involvement.

25. Try to keep up with the email subscriptions I've signed up for! So far it's going well. Also I think to reread the Witcher series, as I've seen so much excellent analysis and fanart online...and it might be fun to contribute, with a firmer grasp of the source material. Otherwise, I think my main aim is to allow myself to reread more books; it's never the same as the first time, or when you read them as a child, but every book I reread this year was so comforting and engaging. Fly By Night by Frances Hardinge, and The Hobbit, were particularly wonderful to revisit as an adult. Basically, to have more fun with reading.

[qualityhomeworkanswers]

For this assignment i have chosen st Joseph health system (Trinity Health), i have also attached an initial paper i submitted on this healthcare organisation. its imperative to build up on it, Swot analysis on St Joseph Health System (Trinity Health) Assignment SWOT Analysis This week’s assignment will allow you to generate content that you will incorporate into the Market Analysis section of your Final Project. To prepare for this assignment, read Chapter 4 of the course text and the article by Simoneaux and Stroud (2011). You may also want to review the recommended article by Valentin (2001). During the analysis stage, you consider external factors that pose possible threats to or provide opportunities for your organization and compare these factors against your HCO’s internal operation to diagnose its strengths and weaknesses. Many HCOs have found it useful to conduct a SWOT analysis. SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and weaknesses refer to elements that are internal to the organization; opportunities and threats are external to the organization. An effective SWOT analysis helps the marketing team determine the healthcare organization’s position in a particular market place as well as the positions of its competitors. By analyzing the current market and the deficiencies of the HCO’s competitors, and by assessing the HCO’s internal strengths and weaknesses, the marketing team can reposition the organization to meet and exceed the needs of its customers. For this assignment, you will conduct a detailed SWOT analysis of your chosen healthcare organization for your Final Project. Discuss your selected organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and possible threats. The SWOT analysis should include the following five components: Strengths – An organization’s resources and capabilities that can be used as a basis for developing a competitive advantage. Weaknesses – Limitations of an organization to meet the needs of its determined customer base. Opportunities – External conditions that may reveal certain new opportunities regarding profit and growth. Threats – Factors or changes in the external environment that may present threats to the organization. Summary/Recommendations - After conducting your SWOT analysis, write a paragraph in which you provide your recommendations to the CEO of your chosen healthcare organization. Also state how you will use this information to create a marketing plan that will ensure the following: The organization’s resources are not wasted Time is well spent Marketing efficiently is improved The assignment Must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including the title page and references page) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text. Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. attachment STRATEGICPLANNING11.docx attachment 04CH_Stevens_Healthcare.pdf

For this assignment i have chosen st Joseph health system (Trinity Health), i have also attached an initial paper i submitted on this healthcare organisation. its imperative to build up on it, Swot analysis on St Joseph Health System (Trinity Health) Assignment SWOT Analysis This week’s assignment will allow you to generate content that you will incorporate into the Market Analysis section of your Final Project. To prepare for this assignment, read Chapter 4 of the course text and the article by Simoneaux and Stroud (2011). You may also want to review the recommended article by Valentin (2001). During the analysis stage, you consider external factors that pose possible threats to or provide opportunities for your organization and compare these factors against your HCO’s internal operation to diagnose its strengths and weaknesses. Many HCOs have found it useful to conduct a SWOT analysis. SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and weaknesses refer to elements that are internal to the organization; opportunities and threats are external to the organization. An effective SWOT analysis helps the marketing team determine the healthcare organization’s position in a particular market place as well as the positions of its competitors. By analyzing the current market and the deficiencies of the HCO’s competitors, and by assessing the HCO’s internal strengths and weaknesses, the marketing team can reposition the organization to meet and exceed the needs of its customers. For this assignment, you will conduct a detailed SWOT analysis of your chosen healthcare organization for your Final Project. Discuss your selected organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and possible threats. The SWOT analysis should include the following five components: Strengths – An organization’s resources and capabilities that can be used as a basis for developing a competitive advantage. Weaknesses – Limitations of an organization to meet the needs of its determined customer base. Opportunities – External conditions that may reveal certain new opportunities regarding profit and growth. Threats – Factors or changes in the external environment that may present threats to the organization. Summary/Recommendations – After conducting your SWOT analysis, write a paragraph in which you provide your recommendations to the CEO of your chosen healthcare organization. Also state how you will use this information to create a marketing plan that will ensure the following: The organization’s resources are not wasted Time is well spent Marketing efficiently is improved The assignment Must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including the title page and references page) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to the course text. Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. attachment STRATEGICPLANNING11.docx attachment 04CH_Stevens_Healthcare.pdf

For this assignment i have chosen st Joseph health system (Trinity Health), i have also attached an initial paper i  submitted on this healthcare organisation. its imperative to build up on it, Swot analysis on St Joseph Health System (Trinity Health)

Assignment

  SWOT Analysis

This week’s assignment will allow you to generate content that you will incorporate into the Market Analysis section…

[rhetoricandlogic]

The Screaming Staircase - Jonathan Stroud (review)

OVERVIEW: When the dead come back to haunt the living, Lockwood & Co. step in . . . For more than fifty years, the country has been affected by a horrifying epidemic of ghosts. A number of Psychic Investigations Agencies have sprung up to destroy the dangerous apparitions. Lucy Carlyle, a talented young agent, arrives in London hoping for a notable career. Instead she finds herself joining the smallest, most ramshackle agency in the city, run by the charismatic Anthony Lockwood. When one of their cases goes horribly wrong, Lockwood & Co. have one last chance of redemption. Unfortunately this involves spending the night in one of the most haunted houses in England, and trying to escape alive. Set in a city stalked by spectres, The Screaming Staircase is the first in a chilling new series full of suspense, humour and truly terrifying ghosts. Your nights will never be the same again . . .

FORMAT: The Screaming Staircase is book 1 in a series of books in the Lockwood & Co. series. It is a YA novel that has mystery, ghost hunting, modern day England, and a little humor mixed in with adventure. It stands at 390 pages. It was published on September 17, 2013 by Disney-Hyperion in the US and August 29, 2013 by Doubleday Children's Books in the UK.

ANALYSIS: Jonathan Stroud's novel Heroes of the Valley was one of the first few novels I read and reviewed for Fantasy Book Critic. It was not a favorite novel of mine and I was very critical of it. The premise for the Lockwood & Co. series seemed interesting, so I figured I'd give it a try. After all, all authors are allowed to have one bad novel – in this case Heroes of the Valley. Let me just say that I loved Lockwood & Co. The entire book was interesting, captivating, and just all out amazing.

Lockwood & Co. is essentially a modern-day version of the Ghostbusters. The only difference is the ghosts have completely overtaken the world and are causing multiple problems for people throughout England and the 'Ghostbusters' in this case are young teenagers.

Young teens and young adults are the only ones to handle the issue, as they are the only ones who can 'see' the ghosts. And we all know you can't fight what you can't see. This leaves a bunch of teenagers working for various firms throughout England that cater to the elimination of ghosts and other spooky objects. Lockwood & Co. is a small, private firm. It does not have the manpower or access to resources/money that other, larger firms may have, yet they are one of the best firms and given a very prolific case – after a string of some other odd misfortunes.

The entire novel is extremely fast paced and well-written. The main characters are extremely detailed with backstories and unique personalities. Lockwood, the owner of the firm, is mysterious and a bit quirky at times, while Lucy is a bit timid, facing tough times and plagued by a past that won't seem to leave her alone.

One of the main things that really made this book shine is its spooky, eerie feel to it. It wasn't scary, as in 'horror' scary. It was scary in a sense of ghost stories around the campfire scary. The ghosts that are faced in this novel are dangerous, have a past they keep reliving, and are not afraid to attack anyone who might try to eliminate or compromise their ghostly bodies.

There are several quirky/humorous elements to the novel that help relieve some of the spook/eerie factor. For example, one of the characters tests a ghostly object by bathing with it. There are also several humorous asides thrown in there that really made the book shine.

It should be noted that while this may sound like just any other middle school/YA ghost novel. It isn't. There is mystery, adventure, and spooky factors that really make this novel stand apart from the what seems like dozens of ghost novels published for this audience.

Everything about this book just screams (no pun intended) excellence. If you are familiar with Stroud's previous work in the Barimaeus series, you will find this fairly similar in writing style.

Overall, this is another amazing read for 2014. Even though it is a YA novel, it is written in a style that makes it ideal for audiences both young and old – NOTE: some of the backstories for the ghosts are a bit graphic and scary, so I wouldn't say to go too young.

One of the best and most captivating novels I've read in a long time.

[bpbarnes-blog1]

The Internet and Citizenship

Citizenship is traditionally defined by four key factors: knowledge, expression, joining publics, and taking action (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). However, Bennett et al. (2011) argues that the Internet and social media have inherently changed the nature of citizenship. Following World War II, the traditional dutiful citizen was defined as someone who frequently followed news, identified with a politically engaged organization, conveyed political views through formal establishments, and contributed to organized action (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). However, the definition of citizenship has evolved as more information than ever before has become available to individuals online. Not only have the Internet and social media changed the means and frequency that individuals are able to acquire political knowledge, but technology has also created new outlets for expression, easier ways to join publics, and unique ways to take action. Nonetheless, while the Internet and social media have improved the quality of modern day citizenship, technology has also presented some threats to its ideal definition. Ultimately, the Internet and social media hinder the principles of citizenship due to a variety of factors such as the rise of fake news, potential echo chambers, the spiral of silence, “slacktivism”, and a notion of less personal investment. Yet, I propose a range of solutions to combat each of these issues  to further our company’s mission of using technology to encourage citizenship and political engagement across the nation.

Political knowledge is an important factor of civic competency, as it is necessary for individuals to maintain a basic awareness of their government system and current events in order to truly take advantage of citizenship. Traditional aspects of political knowledge include a general understanding of history, current events, how the government works, current office holders, and candidate positions (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). In the past, citizens primarily acquired this information from authorities, teachers, journalists, and public officials (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). However, the rise of Internet and social media has changed who can disseminate information online. Now, anyone can access the Internet and post generally whatever they desire. While this has given more individuals a voice, it has also posed obstacles to political learning.

The rise of fake news has become one of the most prominent threats to political knowledge in the Internet Era. Fake news can be defined as verifiably false information (Weeks, “Fake News, Misinformation, and Misperceptions”). According to Wardle (2017), misinformation in the media can take a variety of different forms, such as satire or parody, misleading headlines or visuals, misleading content, wrong context, real news impostors, manipulated content, or fabricated content. The 2016 presidential election was littered with misinformation, for instance, a headline proclaimed that, “Pope Francis Endorsed Donald Trump for President,” which was later proven to be false (Weeks, “Fake News, Misinformation, and Misperceptions”). Wardle (2017) claims that fake news is consistently believed and shared by citizens from both parties arguing, “Whether it’s the ‘rogue’ Twitter accounts that no one has been able to independently verify, the Trump executive order meme generator, users re-tweeting a post by Jill Stein’s parody account desperately wanting it to be real, or claiming Vice-President Pence has deleted a tweet condemning the Muslim ban when it was still sitting on his timeline from December, the Left is showing that it is just as human as the Right.” While the rise of fake news has become increasingly problematic, there are precautions citizens can take to protect themselves from misperceptions in the future.

Despite the widespread surge of fake news, our company provides insight on how dutiful citizens can use the Internet and social media to their advantage, in order to avoid the consumption of misinformation online. First, I would like to present a list of techniques to determine the credibility of news online. The ideal citizen would analyze whether providers of digital news utilize any of the following methods of deception: click bait headlines, compromised URLs, an overwhelming presence of advertisements, fear or emotional appeals, a lack of original reporting masked by the use of selective links, or frequent biased phrases such as “we all know.” Other factors to consider include the quality of sources and graphics, as well as the use of factual data. Furthermore, the Internet allows citizens to seek immediate and reliable analysis of information via fact-checking websites such as factcheck.org or politifact.com. That being said, the ideal citizen can use the Internet to their advantage by ensuring that they consume political information from sources that provide only quality journalism.

Another threat to political knowledge is the development of echo chambers online. Echo chambers can be defined as isolation from political disagreement (Weeks, “Partisan Media and Selective Exposure”). While research has not proven the reality of echo chambers, there is an existing concept that echo chambers may result from of an increase in partisan media, which in turn has generated a more fragmented society. Much has changed since the 1980s when ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Chicago Tribune were the four main media contenders broadcasting news (Weeks, “Partisan Media and Selective Exposure”). In today’s increasingly saturated media environment, individuals have the option to consume a variety of niche programs that cater to their pre-existing beliefs. As a result, Americans are more polarized than ever before. In Stroud’s (2011) piece on niche news, he discusses the concept of selective exposure, or the idea that individuals seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs. While this theory has not been proven, there is some evidence that when presented an option, partisans prefer LinkedIn news (Weeks, “Partisan Media and Selective Exposure”). Ultimately, it is possible that partisan media and algorithms online trap individuals in echo chambers or filter bubbles, thus increasing the probability of selective exposure. This is a potential threat to political knowledge because individuals are choosing what they believe to be true, as opposed to digesting unbiased factual information.

Despite the potential development of echo chambers, the opportunity to gain a comprehensive view of political knowledge still exists. One of the greatest benefits of the Internet and social media is the breadth of information that is readily available to all citizens. The ideal citizen would take advantage of the Internet by following news targeted at both liberal and conservative parties, so as to remain unbiased in forming his or her beliefs. This could involve following candidates personal accounts on social media from both parties, watching a variety of cable news programs, as well as reading online journalism from diverse, credible sources such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. In addition to consuming diverse media, it is important to be aware of the algorithms on social media that may be filtering out differing pinons. Citizens should make sure their social media “friends” or “followers” remain politically diverse.

Political expression is another form of citizenship that is essential to civic competency. Expression and deliberation can take the form of cooperation, negotiation, or persuasion (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). Citizens traditionally manifest these methods of expression by writing letters to editors, writing petitions to public officials, or speaking at public hearings (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). However, the internet has changed the way political expression and deliberation can occur online.

Not only do the Internet and social media pose threats to political knowledge, but digital media has also generated barriers to citizens’ expression and deliberation. Research shows that the spiral of silence is an increasing threat to political engagement (Weeks, “Spiral of Silence and Privacy Online”). The spiral of silence refers to the idea that social media creates an environment in which citizens are less likely to discuss issues online (Weeks, “Spiral of Silence and Privacy Online”). It is possible that this sentiment derives from citizens’ fears regarding the privacy of their personal information. Pew (2014) shows that very few adults express confidence that their records will remain private and secure online. Moreover, individuals feel that social media is the least secure medium (Pew, 2014). With the outbreak of scandals such as the recent Cambridge Analytica data breach, it is clear why citizens feel their information is not protected online. In March of 2018, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm, harvested the data of over 50 million Facebook users without their consent (Granville, 2018). The firm’s goal was ultimately to generate targeted digital content that would affect users’ political beliefs (Granville, 2018). Another example of citizens feeling unsafe about posting information online was following the Snowden-NSA story. Pew (2014) revealed that, “People reported being less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in social media than they were in person—and social media did not provide an alternative outlet for those reluctant to discuss the issues in person.” While it is clear that individuals feel unsafe expressing their political beliefs online for various reasons, there are still ways to get involved in deliberation online.

Even though many citizens fear for the security of their information, our company would like to suggest safe ways for individuals to participate in political expression and deliberation in the digital sphere. The Internet is a public sphere that encourages free speech and offers various forums for debate. Many news sites have developed comments sections that allow citizens to directly express their reactions or beliefs about particular stories. Most of these sites provide the option of remaining anonymous, which is a helpful tool for those who feel they hold a minority opinion and are afraid of getting attacked for their beliefs. However, incivility online has become an issue when individuals abuse this right. The ideal citizen would remain civil online, only using the anonymous feature when necessary. Furthermore, citizens should avoid derogatory, hateful, or unprofessional language when expressing their opinions online.

Joining publics is another key pillar of citizenship. This refers to the idea that citizens must exercise their right to become effective group members (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). Joining publics can take the form of organizing political proceedings, scheduling meetings, developing consensus, building leadership skills, and understanding what groups do (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). Traditionally, dutiful citizens joined hierarchical organizations such as service clubs, political parties, or political organizations (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). However, the Internet and social media have invented new definitions of what it means to join publics.

 #Activism, or “Slacktivism” has been identified as a threat to the traditional idea of joining publics. Slacktivism can be defined as, “The kind of activism undertaken when you “do something” about a problem by tweeting or posting links to Facebook without any intent of ever actually doing something. Nothing more than a nonsense feel good gesture so that one can say they “did something about” whatever trendy cause they’re pretending to care about; usually only lasts a week or two before the cause is completely forgotten (i.e. it stops being cool to forward/retweet on the subject.” Gladwell (2010) would argue that slacktivism is a threat to civic competency because—as opposed to joining publics in traditional ways— individuals are less willing to take part in group activities, and only willing to engage in low-stakes and low-cost interactions that are based on weak ties. Gladwell (2010) claims that online organizations lack the hierarchy and organization that existed in past political efforts. Gladwell (2010) uses the example of the Greensboro sit-ins to demonstrate how citizens in the past were highly devoted to organized group action with strong leadership, such as the civil rights efforts organized by Martin Luther King. Occupy Wall Street was a movement that originated online but lacked the hierarchy and organization to excel as a successful group effort.

           On the other hand, our company would like to point out the innovative opportunities the Internet has created for citizens to join publics online. It is easier than ever before for citizens to access groups online through social media. Facebook is a platform that allows individuals to form or join groups online with just the click of a button. In contrast to Gladwell’s argument, the Internet has demolished geographical barriers, generating the ability to reach more individuals across the world than any offline group could imagine. Furthermore, the Internet has granted closer and more direct access to political groups than in the past. Now, social media has given citizens the possibility to directly message party leaders or group organizers through their personal inbox. One example of how to engage with publics online is as simple as signing up for an email list, such as the Democratic National Committee. Just by entering an email address, citizens can gain membership in this group that will in turn grant them access to news updates, event invitations, and fundraising efforts. Thus, the ideal citizen would utilize the ease of online access to serve as effective group members in political organizations.

The fourth key pillar of citizenship is taking action and participating in political efforts. In terms of citizenship, taking action can be defined as the right to participate in politics (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”).  Different forms of taking action can include voting, canvassing,  campaigning, donating money, attending rallies, or fundraising (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). Traditionally, citizens took action in activities managed by top-down organizations with little personal authority (Weeks, “Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era”). However, the Internet and social media have entirely transformed the way individuals can participate in political efforts.

Critics of the Internet and social media claim that technology has created a notion of less personal investment in political efforts; thus, posing a threat to ideal citizenship. In the same vein as Gladwell’s argument on the negative effects that slacktivism can have on joining groups, the scholar claims that social media and #Activism lessens individuals’ motivation for political participation. Critics claim that social media presents lazy loopholes to taking meaningful action. For example, after the Bastille Day attacks in Paris, individuals all over Facebook changed their profile pictures to flaunt a filter of the French flag to display their support for the victims. While this may have spread awareness about the issue, it gave users an arguably undeserved sense of feeling as though they had taken action, as opposed to actually donating money, volunteering for relief efforts, or creating tangible change.

Nonetheless, our company would like to provide solutions regarding how citizens can use the Internet and social media to take meaningful political action. One of the benefits of using the Internet for political participation is the fact that it is not just for elites, but rather offers more democratic opportunities (Weeks, “Political Participation and Expression on the Internet”). In other words, the Internet offers low-cost participation, regardless of age, income, and education (Weeks, “Political Participation and Expression on the Internet”).  Individuals no longer have to participate in top-down organizations in which they have little individual agency. Social media serves as a two-way form of communication in which individuals can spark conversation that may not have been possible in the past. The ideal citizen could use social media sites such as Twitter to call out politicians, journalists, and ultimately engage with news on a new level. For example, individuals were able to voice their dismay over the Flint Water Crisis, urging Governor Rick Snyder to step down (Weeks, “Political Participation and Expression on the Internet”). Also, the #MeToo movement has inspired women across the world to speak up and share their stories of sexual abuse. Furthermore, social media can be used to organize political efforts offline. One example of a time in which social media was successfully used to generate political participation was in Facebook’s Get out the Vote effort. According to Raine (2012), “Social media platforms have become a notable venue for people to try to convince their friends to vote. 30% of registered voters have been encouraged to vote for Democrat Barack Obama or Republican Mitt Romney by family and friends via posts on social media such as Facebook or Twitter.” Ultimately, the ideal citizen would utilize social media and the Internet to their advantage by engaging with politics via sharing, retweeting, liking and commenting on news stories. Not only would the ideal citizen engage with news online, but he or she would also use social media as a means to organize political participation offline. This can be done by sending out event invitations on Facebook, creating donation pages, or encouraging individuals to take part in rallies, protests, or canvassing efforts in various communities.

Overall, the Internet and social media provide ease and access to various aspects of citizenship that did not exist in the past. Despite the threats that technology poses to political engagement, citizens that take the initiative to gain awareness and understand how to best exercise their civic rights will benefit the most from the Internet Era. The Internet and social media provide citizens with access to more knowledge than ever before, new outlets for expression, quick and easy ways to join publics, and a variety of methods to take action. The ideal citizen will take advantage of technology, as it is likely that the presence of online politics will only increase in the years to come.

References

Bennett, W.L., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating civic engagement: Contrasting models of citizenship in youth web sphere. Journal of Communiation.

Gladwell, M. (2010, 4 October). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. The New Yorker.

Granville, K. (2018, March 19). Cambridge Analytica: What You Should Know as Fallout Widens. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambridge-analytica-explained.html

Pew Research Center. (2014, August 26). Social media and the ‘spiral of silence.’

Raine, L. (2012, November 6). Social Media and Voting. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/political-engagement-and-social-media/

Stroud, N.J. (2011). Niche news: the politics of news choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wardle, C. (2017). Fake news. It’s Complicated. First Draft.          

Weeks, B. Fake News, Misinformation, and Misperceptions. [PowerPoint Slides].

Weeks, B. Nature of Citizenship in the Internet Era. [PowerPoint Slides].

Weeks, B. Partisan Media and Selective Exposure. [PowerPoint Slides].

Weeks, B. Political Participation and Expression on the Internet. [PowerPoint Slides}.

Weeks, B. Spiral of Silence and Privacy Online. [PowerPoint Slides].

[the-record-columns]

Oct. 11, 2017: Columns

Charles Gilliam, a gentleman

By KEN WELBORN

Record Publisher

On the front page of this edition of “The Record” there is a photograph of Mr. Charles Gilliam, who, along with his daughter, Jan, visited our offices during the Apple Festival on Saturday.

Our connection with Mr. Gilliam goes back several years when he made a random visit to The Record and it was as though a huge library of information had just opened its doors to me.

  Mr. Gilliam, the long time owner of the Ronda Hardware store, told me that he had retired and that the window displays in our offices caught his eye. In no time it was obvious that this man knew more about my old stuff than I did, and from there we had one of the most pleasant and educational visits ever.

 In addition to discussing the items of history on display here, we soon realized that we knew some of the same people. One of Mr. Gilliam's favorite people turned out to be none other than the late Ray Stroud, the president of the Wilkes Savings and Loan Association in Wilkesboro. He referred to Mr. Stroud as a great kid and a great adult who was very appreciative for the opportunities he had been afforded, and was glad and thankful to be able to be in a position to give back to others. I told Mr. Gilliam my own story about buying my first home in the early 1970’s and my dealings with Ray Stroud, and the loan I had applied for. When he found that I didn't have a job, he threw his pencil in the air and assured me I was going to have to find one to get a home loan. It is a long story, but the short version is that he got me in touch with Paul Cashion, who hired me to work at his sheet metal shop, later gave me a job at his radio station, and even helped me begin Thursday Magazine, predecessor to The Record.

 So, in effect, Ray Stroud is why I have the job I have to this day.

 We swapped stories for a good while that day and I was truly sad to see Mr. Gilliam leave.

  However, it wasn't too many weeks until he stopped by again. This time, he laughed and said he didn't have all day, but that he had noticed something on his previous visit that caught his eye. He was referring to a black and white porcelain sales display for Black-Draught (pronounced drohft), a vegetable laxative which has been around since 1840. An interesting aside, a young Dolly Parton sang a jingle for the laxative which included the line “Black Draught makes you smile from the inside out.”

 Honest.

 At any rate, if you look again at the photo on the front page, you can see the display in question. Looking closer you can see it still has three individual doses of Black Draught “for sale” at the bottom. The customer would pull one out and the others would drop down for the next customer. Many, many years ago, they sold for 20 cents each, not a small amount of money for the time. Mr. Charles Gilliam gave me those three packages to put in display on the occasion of his second visit. “Makes it look complete, doesn't it.” he said with a smile.

 Mr. Gilliam's daughter, Jan, told me on Saturday that her dad wanted to make sure he made it to The Record if he didn't make it anywhere else. I took that as a great compliment and assured them they were as welcome as a summer breeze, and we truly had a great time reminiscing and reliving the days when things were slower and we all knew everybody in town. He tried to apologize for taking up so much time and I assured him that clearly, my time was his time, as long as he chose to stay. My mind kept going back to his wonderful comment on his initial visit to “The Record” years ago, “Like being in my old store again.”

 Always the gentleman, there is just no downside to a man like Charles Gilliam. My only complaint about him is that I haven't had the pleasure of knowing him all my life.

  Good versus Evil

By LAURA WELBORN

 We all can be either good or evil.

Case in point, the recent Las Vegas shootings.

 There does not seem to be any answers as to why someone would do something so horrific.   Maybe we all have the potential for evil.  Maybe when we don’t judge others and include them in our community we bring forth the good that lives in us all.  I truly believe there is no excuse for bad behavior but I will be more aware of others in everyday situations to not be judgmental and to be inclusive with my body language and words. 

Acknowledging people with a smile, watching for signs of distress can be a way of not judging and including them in our community.  I am not saying we can stop evil but maybe we can tip the scales towards good.  How often do we get so absorbed in our own world that we don’t look up and see the people around us?  How often do we lend a helping hand? Say a kind word?  I do believe it is part of mindfulness  and intentional living within a community that cares has the ability to combat evil.   So how do we stop our own rage and stress?

The first step is to stop judging others, even the most difficult ones- that means not to label people but to look towards the good and bring that out. 

Knowing what our own hot buttons and prejudices are goes a long way to not letting others trigger our behavior.  Thubten Chodron writes in working with Anger that our buttons are our responsibility.  Mindfulness self-analysis can help us be prepared to recognize our own triggers of judgement and anger so that we can stay in our “good” zone.  It makes me wonder what this Steven Paddock person had that triggered such a violent reaction and how does one go from being annoyed to violence?  The quote from a Buddhist teacher “Someone tells you to go to hell and you are foolish enough to go there?” is a good reality check to responsive anger.  Pausing and not having an immediate response is a way to stop anger and escalation of conflict.  The RAIN technique developed by Michelle McDonald to let go of stress so that we don’t over react to conflict:

R- Recognize what is happening.  This is particularly important to recognize what we are feeling and how our bodies are reacting.  This keeps us from directing blame and judging immediately what we perceive as the problem.

A:  Accept it as it is.  Allow it to happen and acknowledge the truth of what is happening without judging it, trying to push it away or trying to control it.

I: investigate with attention. What emotions are you experiencing?  Are these emotions helping you let go of the stress or bringing up more unpleasant emotions and painful feelings?  This step is important to recognize what it is that you need to let go of the emotion that is causing you distress.  The next part of this step is to give yourself what it is you need in order to let go- this could be feeling love, friendship, acceptance to the part of you this is hurting.

N- Non- Identification.  Part of recognizing, accepting and investigating is understanding it is not you, it doesn’t define you.  It is like a passing cloud that you can watch without response and stay in a calm peaceful place.

Mc Donald’s book “Mindful driving” is about the RAIN technique that was inspired when she observed taxi drivers in traffic and felt that there was a lot of stress around time.  Its all about what “trips our trigger” to rage and stress.  Maybe if more of us use it there will be less rage or evil in our world.  We can only hope.

Laura Welborn, Mediator and Counselor

Radical Islamic Ideology--a plague against humanity

 By EARL COX

Special to The Record      

 In 2004, an alert Maryland police officer saw an Islamic woman in an SUV videotaping a bridge’s support structures. He arrested the driver, Ismail Elbarasse—a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative. An FBI raid on Elbarasse's home unearthed a trove of Islamic doctrinal books and key Muslim Brotherhood documents—which became evidence in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history.  

 Islam’s books are “the real bomb,” Muslim reformer Islam al-Behery said. Its ideology is “its blueprint” for world domination. A document from the Elbarasse raid outlines the Muslim Brotherhood’s phased plan to destroy Western civilization from within:

 Phase One:  Secret establishment of leadership.

Phase Two:  Gradual public profile by infiltrating government, the judiciary, finance, 

         intelligence, police, prisons, military, education and religious institutions. 

Phase Three: Escalation prior to conflict and confrontation with rulers using mass media.

Phase Four:  Publically confront the government using political pressure. Weapons training 

          domestically and overseas in anticipation of zero-hour.

Phase Five:   Seize power to establish the Islamic state.

 Other documents outline the plan to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia (Islamic law). Sharia is based on the Quran and other Islamic writings. Moderates see it a spiritual struggle, or outwardly observe it for fear of reprisal. But for radicals, sharia is the legal and political foundation for jihad and global rule, a power play to force Islam on the world. The D.C.-based Center for Security Policy calls it a “totalitarian ideology” controlling all legal, political, military, economic and social life. No other laws or governments may coexist with sharia. It’s primarily political, not religious; though in America it masks itself as a religion to manipulate the First Amendment as a front for seditious activity. 

 The Quran requires all Muslims to wage jihad (holy war) against infidels (non-Muslims). Jihad calls for multiple stages and platforms—violent and pre-violent. An Elbarasse memorandum calls the pre-violent “settlement process” in North America “civilization jihad” to destroy the Western way of life. In jihad’s final, violent stage, non-Muslims convert or die. Though jihad is obvious in North America and Europe, it’s not limited to the West.

 The phased plan is a template for radical Muslim subjugation. Indonesia, a secular, mostly moderate Muslim-majority democracy, is a case in point. Its motto, “Unity in Diversity” reflects its six religions and 300 ethnicities. Though religious parties’ gains in national elections have been paltry, locally elected lslamists passed more than 400 sharia ordinances, according to economist.com. Christian incumbent Basuki Tjahaja “Ahok” Purnama lost a recent governor’s race when radical Islamists told Muslim voters that Islam forbids voting for Christians. A video of Ahok’s rebuttal was edited to appear he was insulting the Quran. Charged with blasphemy, he lost the election and was sentenced to jail. 

 Ahok’s conviction—accompanied by violent rallies and death threats--shows the chilling influence on pluralism by “hardline Islamism that the government and judiciary are reluctant to oppose,” said Time reporter Nicola Smith. In Indonesia, radical Islamists have advanced their plan for global dominance to Phase Four.

 Then there’s Iran, whose visceral anti-Semitism and poisonous Ideology infuses jihad and sharia, but with a twist. The late Ayatollah Khomeini, and his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sidestepped Shi’a belief that the Mahdi (12th Imam), a quasi-messianic figure, must return before waging jihad, and adopted an ideology promoting a senior Shiite cleric to theocratic political power over Shiites worldwide. Khomeini offered himself as successor to the 12 Imams, thus “inherit[ing] the mantle of leadership directly from Muhammad,” said expert Clare Lopez. 

 Khomeini inserted his doctrine into the 1989 constitution, in which the regime’s objective is global conquest under sharia rule and nuclear dominance is a surefire path to achieve that goal.

 Iran and its proxies not only menace Israel’s existence and portend regional upheaval; the “bomb” of Islamist ideology threatens the lives and freedoms of every sovereign nation in the world. 

  Pass the pinto beans please

By Carl White

Have you ever walked into the kitchen and been taken over with the smells of a pot of pinto beans on the stove and golden-brown cornbread just coming out of the oven?

Maybe it’s a memory from the past or it happened a few days ago. For me, it’s both! Growing up around great cooks, it occurred often. I realize that people eat beans around the world; however, I believe that we have our own culinary and hospitality twist in the south.

The perfect bean recipe is important, the right high oven temperature is important for the cornbread and then the special additions must be considered. Chopped onions are a common garnish for the top of your beans and having the right Chow Chow relish can make all the difference in the world. There are many recipes and over time, if you are lucky enough to try several, you will settle on a favorite.

Fall get togethers often feature food, I was recently invited to attend Ken and Laura Welborn’s annual gathering before the Brushy Mountain Apple Festival.  Pinto beans are the featured entrée. Laura follows a more traditional recipe that includes the addition of a ham hock for added flavor.

Cornbread was prepared three different ways and there were at least three Chow Chow relishes available. Without a doubt the best Chow Chow was made and brought by Margie Roberts. She said she mixed grated cabbage, onions, green, red and yellow sweet peppers with a small hot pepper, “just enough hot to let you think it might be there.” Then add a little salt, sugar and white vinegar and when it’s all stirred together, put it in a half gallon mason jar and refrigerate, no heat required. It will last up to three months, that is if you don’t eat it all in the first week.

Someone brought Sorghum Cane Molasses which was tasty on a piece of cornbread. Someone else brought Molasses Cookies which are heavy in texture and have a chewy taste from the past that makes you want to travel back in time. The conversations were pleasant and everyone seemed to have a great time. We did not have steak, hamburgers, hotdogs or lobster. We enjoyed the humble and gracious Pinto Bean. Southern hospitality at its best.  

On Sunday, I was at a covered dish family gathering. There were all sorts of fine looking food that I knew very well was going to taste great. A few people were running a little late due to the distance of their drive. But when they arrived and opened the back of their SUV a large crock pot was retrieved. It was carried in such a way that you knew it was still hot. As they got closer to the table to set down their covered dish, one of the guests said, “I know what that is, it’s Pinto Beans and that’s my favorite.” Well sure enough she was right. A big hot pot of pinto beans and a large tray of cornbread.  

It was a fine gathering! It was good to see everyone and there is always some food left over in case you want to take something home; however, the pinto beans were all eaten. There were a few conversations about memories of pinto beans and the good old days.

Well, for me, this week has joined the list of the good old days. A week that I witnessed the power of southern hospitality brought to life by a rehydrated bean and the value of companionship.

Pass the Pinto Beans and please don’t forget the Chow Chow.

  Carl White is the executive producer and host of the award-winning syndicated TV show Carl White’s Life In the Carolinas. The weekly show is now in its eighth year of syndication and can be seen in the Charlotte viewing market on WJZY Fox 46 Saturday’s at 12:00 noon. For more on the show, visit  www.lifeinthecarolinas.com  or you can email Carl White at Carl@lifeinthecarolinas.com.    

Copyright 2017 Carl White