#but like. european man gets sent to a prison island because a person in a position of power wanted to get with his love interest but he | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cordeliaflyte · 3 years

Note

Would love to know your thoughts on the rutger bregman book when you finish it!!!

dearest merle! it took me months to answer this ask - something i'm ashamed of - but i finally got around to finishing the book today.

the below is a condensed version of the ten pages of notes i took while reading it, which are rather chaotic and repetitive at points - but in my defence, bregman repeated his own arguments too.

one of the main arguments that bregman makes is that "evil" or "immorality" - which we'll define as causing unnecessary harm - are rarely caused by the individual, but rather the society they live in. i agree - nothing exists in a vacuum. however, society, as a nebulous concept, isn't imposed on us by some imperceptible power - it is crafted by people. people in society have different levels of power, and the harm they can cause to others is directly proportional to said power - but be it on a micro or macro scale, our actions have an impact on others and while they are influenced by the society we live in, we must nonetheless strive to minimise the harm we cause - and few of us do.

bregman illustrates many of his arguments with heartwarming stories about people coming together in times of crisis - take, for example, natural disasters - and overcoming adversity, selflessly looking out for their neighbours. but crisis very often leads to the creation of divisions, an us vs them mentality, and a complete disregard for the safety of others. the current pandemic is a prime example - see the widening of class differences, the rise in racist hate crimes, and people refusing to take safety precautions because they are inconvenient to them.

another argument repeated quite often throughout the book is the fact that media cherry-picks the most sensationalistic and senseless acts of death and despair, because human suffering is simply more interesting that the mundane - people talking to friends, creating art, laughing and learning. again, i agree with him - many of the more tabloid-adjacent news outlets would have you believe that the everyday norm is dismembered heiresses being found on riverbeds and charming, precocious children being held for ransom in tiny basements. the news doesn't often focus on the mundane - but the mundane isn't just love and work and friendship and boredom and chores, it is also, for billions of people around the world, sexual violence, familial abuse, workplace and housing discrimination, etc. these things aren't sensationalistic either - they're frightfully common, frightfully boring, and thus, they're rarely reported on.

throughout his book, bregman mentions that when he told people what he was working on, they approached the idea that humans are good with a large dose of cynicism, simply because we are raised to believe humans are selfish (which isn't the case worldwide, not all cultures are individualistic). they pick the easier choice - accepting the image of the world and their fellow humans that they are presented with at face value. i'd argue that it is the tendency of humans to pick the easier choice, to obey, to avoid challenging their worldview that leads to - for a lack of better term - immorality (see definition in point 1).

often, when bregman presents his feel good stories about people cooperating in adversity, he also mentions troubling details that, again, show undue harm being done. one of the examples he used were six boys from tonga, aged 13 to 16, who were shipwrecked on an island, and instead of descending into a "lord of the flies" style madness, they built their small community on the basis of communication and cooperation, never resorting to violence, and acting mature beyond their years. after a year spent on the island, they were rescued - and promptly arrested, an event which was probably racially motivated. and the reason they were shipwrecked in the first place was attempting to flee their school, where, according to their reports, they were neglected.

bregman contrasted the example of the boys forming a peaceful society on a small island with the chaos that always ensues when adults in reality shows are put in similar situations. the contestants are pitted against each other by the show runners, who seek to frustrate them and make them lose control for the amusement of the audience. whenever contestants try to cooperate, form a mutually beneficial society for a short while - a radical idea - they are punished. "goodness" - i.e. harm reduction - and radical thought being punished just don't seem like particularly helpful examples for the "humans are inherently good" thesis

bregman seems to be a big fan of primitivism, constantly citing civilisation as a source of harm - a position i'm always sceptical about, because personally i love vaccines and dental care, but i know this is a knee-jerk reaction and bregman isn't plotting a return to a land without dentists. but what i do take ire at is the idea that humans are somehow "corrupt" versions of their natural selves and that our lives have grown too complicated, and only a return to "primitive" society can return us to the aforementioned natural selves.

tied to the previous point - his arguments remind me of the "noble savage"'... archetype? he seems to paint a picture of "primitive" indigenous people as role models for those "corrupted" by civilisation, who in turn must be saved by a return to their "purer" selves, instead of individuals with flaws and agency.

speaking on indigenous populations - bregman also invokes the inhabitants of the easter islands. for a long time, the world at large believed that a hundred years or so before colonization, the islanders effectively perpetrated a genocide, killing off a large proportion of their population - a claim which was later disproven. yay! humans can live in peaceful societies without committing genocide, and thus, are not inherently evil! disregarding the fact that european colonists later massacred a large part of the islands population, and sold most of the survivors into slavery?

i was very excited for one of the chapters, entitled "after auchschwitz". i was interested how bregman would reconcile his argument with the tragedies of the twentieth century - the holocaust, but also genocide, and to a lesser extent war in general.

(this chapter, i might add, was preceded by a quote by anne frank - you know the one, about the inherent goodness of people. i was hoping that bregman would comment on the fact that anne wrote the quote before she and her family were sent to a concentration camp)

so you can imagine my surprise when the chapter was not, in fact, about concentration camps or genocide. but rather about. unethical 70s sociological experiments.

no really! a chapter titled "after auchschwitz" was, in fact, primarily about the stanford prison experiment. an experiment that was, granted, inspired by concentration camps, but still. it's misleading to invoke "real", large scale violence, and focus instead on "simulated", small scale violence.

we all know that the stanford prison experiment was, as far as experiments go, rubbish to legendary degrees. it doesn't prove anything - but it does, perhaps, show that people under large psychological duress are capable of evil, even when they themselves are not "evil".

it is, i'd argue, the human tendency to obey authority and especially to conform to societies standards that poses the largest danger. disobedience is man's original virtue and whatnot.

and when he does briefly refer to concentration camps, bregman treats them like a very 1940s phenomenon, disregarding the fact that they have been around for much longer and still exist today.

in cases like that one experiment with electric shocks. you know the one. do not, perhaps, show an innate tendency to violence, but rather people succumbing to pressure. but history is full of unprovoked instances of violence, of pogroms and lynchings. there is usually an instigator, yes, but judging from reports, people in the right mindset don't need much persuading to butcher other people.

also re: electric shock experiment - those who thought they gave the assistant lethal shocks showed extreme guilt and some even cried but like... so what? what use is a conscience if it doesn't stop you from, to your knowledge, killing someone? are your feelings really more important than your actions?

he doesn't say this, but a lot of the arguments he presents do seem to boil down to "people aren't evil, they're just stupid!" which doesn't sound more encouraging, i'm afraid.

an alternative takeaway would be "people are good, unless they have power" - which isn't exactly a radical, revolutionary idea. most people have heard the maxim "power corrupts". but the thing is that almost everyone holds some amount power over others - the oppressed factory worker in a poor nation who works 12 hours a day for pittance might still execute power over his wife, who relies on him for money, and she in turn might hold power over her children, and so forth. and that power is often used to cause undue harm and exercise control.

he criticises machiavellianism, saying it doesn't reflect how society works, and one of his proofs is that his philosophies were espoused by bismarck, churchill, and stalin - hardly admirable figures in terms of (you guessed it!) causing harm. but i don't see how that discredits machiavelli? like all of the above were very succesful

and he keeps repeating the primitivism argument throughout the book which gets tiring. like i'm truly sorry you were born in the last 5% of human existence thus far when, in your opinion, humanity started going to the shits, but it's getting a bit tiring

he cites money and nations as concepts as harbingers of the current (negative) state of humanity, saying they're very recent concepts and have no basis in reality. they're artificial concepts, sure, but their effect is very much real, and while achieving a nation-less, money-less society is possible on a small scale, i think that at this point they are such large aspects of life that reigning them in seems impossible.

and invokes the noble savage again and again, showing himself in favour of tribal societies, depicting them as egalitarian - i'm sure many of them are, but many also have a strict hierarchy or like. practice fgm. once more he seems to treat tribal people as a monolith of goodness as opposed to... people.

he also cites prehistoric people, their egalitarianism and low rates of violence but. forgive me for my ignorance because i did not research this. how do people know. doesn't the definition of prehistory include a lack of records??

he also mentions that in small, tribal societies, conformism can be a good thing, as it makes people act for the communal good. this is another knee-jerk reaction of mine but i think of conformism as society's most significant vice, so this strikes very much against my beliefs

later on, he also says reproduction is another proof of humanities goodness. perhaps it's a controversial opinion, but i disagree. i find it hard to find reasons for reproduction that aren't egoistic. it's survival instinct, sure, but it's not an "inherently noble pursuit".

later yet, he brings up schools which grant large degrees of freedom to students and shows how they're good for developing their minds. this might be a me thing but i know from experience that when i'm granted freedom without structure, i do nothing - though perhaps that speaks ill of me, and not humanity.

there have, in fact, been many studies on schools like this being helpful to student development and i certainly won't argue with them - but let me nit-pick. bregman says that fewer students have adhd in these schools, as it is a condition caused by being locked inside a room all day which is not only offensive, but also just plain wrong

and also while showing how granting children freedom lets them develop (which i naturally agree with) he brings up that "dangerous playground" study. you know the one. this isn't a coherent argument, this is just my bias speaking , but as a child, i promise i had no desire to play with rusty nails in abandoned warehouses. i liked my boring playgrounds with wooden swings.

then there is a chapter on communism and how it could be a remedy to societies ailments. but bregman and i seem to operate on very different definitions of communism. he naturally starts with saying maoist china and stalinist russia and cambodia under pol pot weren't really communist which... sure, if you want to argue semantics, i'm all for it, but it's an old and essentially useless argument. if "real communism" has never been tried (as the author claims) - why?

and then we pass to perhaps the most bizarre fragment of the book. paraphrasing only slightly: "but why are we now so opposed to the word communism? when we pass each other salt at the dinner table, is that not communism? when we selflessly hold a door open for someone, is that not communism?" i.... no?? no it's not. that's not what communism is girl stop

he then also says facebook is actually communist in many ways since a lot of its value comes from photos people willingly share for free. i could not make this up if i tried.

i think that in most terms i agree with bregman on policy - direct democracy, school and prison systems, changes to the criminal justice system - and our reasoning is partially similar, but i don't think the information we both have access to proves that humans are inherently good.

and then come perhaps my least favourite arguments because i for one am a spiteful bitch but yes. it is time for christian ethics 101 and turning the other cheek.

he cites ghandi and mlk as examples of turning the other cheek working. i think ghandi went too far with his policy, what with saying "jews ought to have marched silently to their deaths or committed mass suicide to make nazis feel ashamed" and like. we do remember they killed mlk, right?

as an example of turning the other cheek, he cites humane prisons in norway, where prisoners are granted much larger freedoms than usual and are on equal footing with the guards, who aren't armed and act more as councillors. i don't really see how this is an example of turning the other cheek, though - the guards are not the victims of the inmates (it was a prison for violent offenders - many of them murderers). i agree with him that prisons, if they must exist, should treat inmates humanely and with respect, but i don't see how this relates to the turning of the cheek. statistically, many of these men probably murdered their mates in a drunken dispute, or killed their wives - and i don't think turning the other cheek would have helped their victims.

he also cites south africa in the sixties as an example of turning the other cheek, when anti-apartheid activists would meet up with pro-apartheid activists and talk - this included nelson mandela who had frequent talks with the leader of a white supremacist paramilitary organisation of afrikaners staunchly opposed to black south africans getting the vote. and it worked - the man, whose aim was starting a civil war, relented. but racism isn't a simple matter that can simply be solved by talking. and it is often a pragmatic policy which i don't disparage, but turning the other cheek and having to treat someone who refuses to acknowledge your humanity with an exorbitantly disproportionate amount of respect is inherently degrading.

skipping ahead, in the epilogue bregman lists ten rules he tries to live by, and one of them is, i shit you not, "don't punch nazis". and punching nazis doesn't stop them from being nazis, but turning the other cheek gets people killed

the rise of fascism is perhaps one the largest threats we are dealing with and fascists are not just isolated and misinformed (and in this day and age, ignorance is a choice). they are dangerous.

this is by no means an essay or an exhaustive list, just a slightly chaotic and much overdue collection of opinions which i don't know how to put under a read more. take care <3

23 notes · View notes

greatworldwar2 · 4 years

Text

• Wilhelm Canaris

Wilhelm Franz Canaris was a German admiral and chief of the Abwehr, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944.

Canaris was born on January 1st, 1887 in Aplerbeck (now a part of Dortmund) in Westphalia, the son of Carl Canaris, a wealthy industrialist, and his wife, Auguste. Canaris believed that his family was related to the 19th century Greek admiral and politician Constantine Kanaris, a belief that influenced his decision to join the Imperial German Navy. However, according to Richard Bassett, a genealogical investigation in 1938 revealed that his family was actually of Northern Italian descent, originally called Canarisi, and had lived in Germany since the 17th century. In 1905, at the age of eighteen, Canaris joined the Imperial Navy and by the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was serving as an intelligence officer on board the SMS Dresden, a light cruiser he had been assigned to in December 1911.

After the Battle of Más a Tierra, the immobilized Dresden anchored in Cumberland Bay, Robinson Crusoe Island and contacted Chile with regard to internment. While in the bay, Royal Navy ships approached and shelled the Dresden. The crew scuttled the ship. Most of the crew was interned in Chile in March 1915, but in August 1915, Canaris escaped by using his fluency in Spanish. On the way, he called at several ports, including Plymouth in Great Britain. Canaris was then given intelligence work as a result of having come to the attention of German naval intelligence. German plans to establish intelligence operations in the Mediterranean were under way and Canaris seemed a good fit for this role. After being assigned to the Inspectorate of Submarines by the Naval Staff in October 1916, he took up training for duty as a U-boat commander and graduated from Submarine School on 11 September 1917. Canaris spoke six languages with fluency, one of which was English. As a naval officer of the old school, he had great respect for Great Britain's Royal Navy, despite the rivalry between the two nations.

During the German Revolution of 1918–19, Canaris helped organise the formation of Freikorps paramilitary units in order to suppress the Communist revolutionary movements that were attempting to spread the ideals of the Russian Revolution into central European nations. Also during this period, he was appointed to the adjutancy of defence minister Gustav Noske. In 1919, he married Erika Waag, also the child of an industrialist, with whom he had two children. In the spring of 1924, Canaris was sent to Osaka, Japan, to supervise a secret U-boat construction program in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Unfortunately for Canaris, he made some enemies within Germany during the course of his secret business and intelligence negotiations, partially as a consequence of the bankruptcy incurred by the film-maker Phoebus Film in his dealings with Lohmann. At some time in 1928, Canaris was removed from his intelligence post and began two years of conventional naval service aboard the pre-Dreadnought battleship Schlesien, becoming captain of the vessel in December 1932. Just two months later, Adolf Hitler became Germany's new Chancellor. Enthused by this development, Canaris was known to give lectures about the virtues of Nazism to his crew aboard the Schlesien.

One month before Hitler's annexation of Austria (known as the Anschluss), Canaris put the Abwehr into action, personally overseeing deception operations designed to give the Austrians the impression of what appeared to be substantial German military preparations for an impending act of aggression. After the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland in September 1939, Canaris visited the front, where he saw the devastation rendered by the German military—seeing Warsaw in flames nearly brought him to tears and it was reported that he exclaimed, "our children's children will have to bear the blame for this". He also witnessed examples of the war crimes committed by the Einsatzgruppen of the SS, including the burning of the synagogue in Będzin with 200 Polish Jews inside. Moreover, he received reports from Abwehr agents about several incidents of mass murder throughout Poland. Canaris visited Hitler's headquarters train on September 12t, 1939, to register his objection to the atrocities. Canaris told chief of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) Wilhelm Keitel about the "extensive shootings ... and that the nobility and clergy were to be exterminated" to which Keitel informed him that Hitler had already "decided" the matter. After this experience Canaris began working more actively to overthrow Hitler's régime, although he also cooperated with the SD to create a decoy. This made it possible for him to pose as a trusted man for some time. He was promoted to the rank of full Admiral in January 1940.

With his subordinate Erwin Lahousen, he attempted in the autumn of 1940 to form a circle of like-minded Wehrmacht officers. At the time, this had little success. When the OKW decrees regarding the brutal treatment of Soviet prisoners of war related to the Commissar Order came to the attention of Canaris in mid-September 1941, he registered another complaint. Keitel reminded Canaris that he was thinking in terms of "chivalrous war", which did not apply, as this was "a matter of destroying a world ideology". Canaris had also worked to thwart the proposed Operation Felix, the German plan to seize Gibraltar. At a conference of senior officers in Berlin, in December 1941, Canaris is quoted as saying "the Abwehr has nothing to do with the persecution of Jews. ... no concern of ours, we hold ourselves aloof from it".

In June 1942, Canaris sent eight Abwehr agents to the East Coast of the United States as part of Operation Pastorius. The mission was to sabotage American economic targets and demoralise the civilian population inside the United States. However, two weeks later, all were arrested by the FBI thanks to two Abwehr agents who betrayed the mission. Because the Abwehr agents were arrested in civilian clothes, they were subject to court martial by a military tribunal in Washington, D.C. All were found guilty and sentenced to death. Due to the embarrassing failure of Operation Pastorius, no further sabotage attempt was ever made in the United States. After 1942, Canaris visited Spain frequently and was probably in contact with British agents from Gibraltar. In 1943, while in occupied France, Canaris is said to have made contact with British agents. In Paris, he was conducted blindfolded to the Convent of the Nuns of the Passion of Our Blessed Lord, 127 Rue de la Santé, where he met the local head of the British Intelligence Services, code name "Jade Amicol", in reality Colonel Claude Olivier. Canaris wanted to know the terms for peace if Germany got rid of Hitler. Churchill's reply, sent to him two weeks later, was simple: "Unconditional surrender".

Canaris also intervened to save a number of victims from Nazi persecution, including Jews, by getting them out of harm's way; he was instrumental, for example, in getting five hundred Dutch Jews to safety in May 1941. Many such people were given token training as Abwehr "agents" and then issued papers allowing them to leave Germany. However the evidence that Canaris was playing a double game grew and, at the insistence of Heinrich Himmler, Hitler dismissed Canaris and abolished the Abwehr in February 1944. Previous areas once the responsibility of the Abwehr were divided between Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller and SS-Brigadeführer Walter Schellenberg. Some weeks later, Canaris was put under house arrest. He was released from house arrest in June 1944 to take up a post in Berlin as the head of the Special Staff for Mercantile Warfare and Economic Combat Measures (HWK). The HWK coordinated resistance to the Allied economic blockade of Germany.

Canaris was arrested on July 23rd, 1944 on the basis of the interrogation of his successor at Military Intelligence, Georg Hansen. Schellenberg respected Canaris and was convinced of his loyalty to the Nazi regime, even though he had been arrested. Hansen admitted his role in the July 20 plot but accused Canaris of being its "spiritual instigator". No direct evidence of his involvement in the plot was discovered, but his close association with many of the plotters and certain documents written by him that were considered subversive led to the gradual assumption of his guilt. Two of the men under suspicion as conspirators who were known in Canaris' circle shot themselves, which incited activity from the Gestapo to prove he was, at the very least, privy to the plan against Hitler. Investigations dragged on inconclusively until April 1945, when orders were received to dispose of various remaining prisoners in July 20 plot. Canaris' personal diary was discovered and presented to Hitler in early April 1945, implicating him in the conspiracy. Canaris was placed on trial by an SS summary court. He was charged with and found guilty of treason. He was sentenced to death.

Canaris was led to the gallows naked and executed on April 9th, 1945 at the Flossenbürg concentration camp, just weeks before the end of the war. A prisoner claimed he heard Canaris tap out a coded message on the wall of his cell on the night before his execution, in which he denied he was a traitor and said he acted out of duty to his country. Erwin von Lahousen and Hans Bernd Gisevius, two of Canaris' main subordinates, survived the war and testified during the Nuremberg trials about Canaris' courage in opposing Hitler. Canaris died at the age of 58.

#ww2 #biography #second world war #world war 2 #world war ii #german history #german navy #spy history #unsung hero

16 notes · View notes

ltwilliammowett · 4 years

Note

Topic: Lady Jane Franklin ????

Oh yes and with very great pleasure, she was a fascinating woman. Quite the opposite what the society expected from her and yet she stood her man. Since I did not quite know what exactly you wanted from her, I simply chose her biography to give an insight into her life. But please don’t be angry if I put the whole thing under the continuereading line at some point, but the text is really very long and with the pictures even longer. But I hope you like what I wrote about her.

Lady Jane Griffin (Franklin) (1791-1875)

Jane Griffin was born as one of three daughters of John Griffin and Mary Guillemard on 4 December 1791. She was very well educated at home and thanks to her father could travel a lot early on, which she also did with passion, and was a very good friend of Eleanor Anne Porden, who was married to John Franklin and gave birth to him a daughter. Unfortunately she died on 22 February 1825, only six days after John left her for an Arctic expedition. When he returned in 1827, he became known as the man who had eaten his boots, and had to realise that his wife had died of tuberculosis. His daughter Eleanor was meanwhile raised by her friend Jane. The two quickly came together and already in 1828 they were engaged and married in November of the same year, even if it was only a small and very quiet marriage. Less than five months later she became Lady Jane Franklin because John was knighted. And she was always called Lady Franklin, never Lady Jane.

Interestingly, it is always said that she had never been photographed. But that’s not true, there is a single picture of her together with her niece. Sophia is the one in the middle and Lady Franklin sits on the side.

From 23 August 1830 to 1834 John left her alone in England as he commanded the Rainbow, 28 guns, and then stayed in the Mediterranean. Jane didn’t let this bother her either, but she accompanied her husband from time to time, but mostly used her free time and travelled to Africa, Syria and Asia. An incident brought her a little more trouble with her husband. She sailed on the Nile and met a young man named Johann Lieder. A smart young portestant missionary. He flirted very strongly with her and even lay down with her on a blanket. She even wrote all this in her diary, but she lacked this certain kind of passion which led to the conclusion that she had also had sex with him. Rather, she seemed to have no interest in sex at all, suggesting that she might have been asexual. Since her marriage was also free of children. The society had rather suspected John and there were even rumours in the circles in which the two moved that he allegedly froze his hangings during his Arctic expedition. But what really was the reason why the two had no children and whether she really had no interest in sexual activities can definitely not be said today.

Lady Jane Franklin, by Thomas Bock 1838

When John was promoted to Lieut. Governor of Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) in 1836, it didn’t take long for Jane to follow him with his niece Sophia Cracroft. Who was to live with them from then on. Jane saw Van Diemen’s as an opportunity to become active there and tried everything to change this island culturally and socially. Especially the female prisoners had done it to her. So she tried to give them a second chance with education and tried it instead of punishment with resocialization. John gave her his consent and so she could decide relatively freely and do what she wanted. Jane even founded a museum, a scientific society that became the first Royal Society for the Advancement of Science outside the UK. She also founded a scientific journal, a boys’ school, a botanical garden, an art gallery, a farm for peasants in the Huon. She paid one shilling per capita to get rid of snakes. She adopted Aboriginal children to see what happened when they were “civilized” - although she paid little attention to them herself and left “civilization” to others.

Only the men of society didn’t like that and so she, but also John, was repeatedly pointed out what kind of role she had to play and that would be a passive one. Also her very offensive flirting with Captain James Clark Ross, when he stopped in Tasmania to start his Antartis expedition, was considered too daring and was openly admonished to refrain. Ross but also Franklin didn’t seem to mind that much. At least there are no written statements or official reports about it.

Sir John Franklin, portrait by E.P. Hardy, engraved by D.F. Murphy, ca 1845

She was also interested in research. She was the first European woman to climb Mount Wellington and travelled by land to Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania’s wild west coast. On the mainland, Franklin travelled from Melbourne to Sydney, which in 1839 was considered a difficult journey and probably the first woman to do so. In 1841 she visited South Australia and New Zealand, taking countless notes on everything she observed. When John was called back under shabby circumstances in 1843 and heard that John Barrow, the Admiralty’s polar research man, was planning another search for a Northwest Passage, he strongly supported the command and got it. HMS Erebus and Terror and 129 crew members started in May 1845 with a big fanfare from the Thames, but they could not be seen again by any of their countrymen. In this time she travelled together with Sophia to America.

After two years without a word Jane took over the reins and began to ask the admiralty to conduct search expeditions. The earliest, ordered by James Clark Ross, was sent out in 1848, and it was only the first of about 40 expeditions that would search land, ice and seas in vain for 11 years. Many of the searches took place with Royal Navy ships under admiralty orders, but six were with ships owned or financed by Jane, using commanders and crews selected and paid by her. She even wrote to the US President and her wealthy American friend, Henry Grinnell, whom she had visited in 1846, asking for her help, and they responded by sending two ships owned by Grinnell and manned by the US Navy.

A sledge flag embroidered with Sir John Barrow’s motto ‘HOPE ON HOPE EVER’ made by Lady Jane Franklin for Lieutenant Bedford Pim. It was flown from HM sledge ‘John Barrow’ commanded by Pim when he made contact with the crew of ‘Investigator’ on 6 April 1853, during the Belcher Franklin search Expedition 1852-1854

The Royal Navy abandoned the search in 1855 after John Rae, the land explorer, brought artifacts from the Franklin ships acquired by the local Inuit, stories of men dying attempting to migrate south, and even reports of evidence of cannibalism. The accusation of cannibalism outraged Lady Franklin - English did not do such things, not under John Franklin’s supervision - and she purchased another ship, a luxury yacht, which Fox converted and dispatched with the experienced Arctic explorer and sled master, Francis McClintock. It was this expedition that finally found on 6 May 1859 a pile of stones with a document certifying that Erebus and Terror had been abandoned, the men now on foot, and that John Franklin had died on 11 June 1847. Jane could now rest, now that John was in peace.

The past years had been very exhausting for her and she started to travel again with the certainty that John would not come again. So in 1860 her way led her to New York and from there to Canada. But she was also awarded with the Royal Geographical Society’s Founder’s Gold Medal in that year. She surrounded Cape Horn and travelled again a while through America (San Francisco, Victoria and so on) until she travelled to the next one, via Hawaii, to Japan and finally to India.

But the year 1865 was a hard year for her because she heard rumours from Charles Francis Hall that there were still survivors of Franklin’s expedition based on Eskimo reports. She wanted to question him personally, and when she learned in September 1869 that he had returned from King William Island and relied on it with others, they set off with Sophia to meet him in the United States.

They circumnavigated Cape Horn again, stopped again in San Francisco, and then travelled further north on the Newborn steamship at the end of April 1870. After a few days among old friends in Victoria, they drove up the west coast to Alaska. On May 10, they stopped in Tongass and two days later reached Sitka, where they spent a month. In Cincinnati, Ohio, and later in New York, they reached the big destination of their journey, interviews with Hall. Unfortunately, no record of what happened between them has survived. At the time of their meetings Hall’s plans to reach the North Pole had been worked out, but he obviously agreed to renew his search for survivors later on or near King William Island.

Memorial for Sir John Franklin, Westminster Abbey, erected by Lady Jane Franklin, 1875

Already when she was in the 1980s, Lady Franklin’s attention was still firmly focused on Arctic affairs, and in 1875 she was actively interested in the preparations of George Strong Nares’s expedition to the North Pole and in particular Allen Young’s proposed search for Franklin’s plates. Among her ultimate concerns was the erection of a monument to her husband in Westminster Abbey, which was unveiled two weeks after her own death. It bore in part these words: “…erected by Jane, his widow, who, after long waiting and many in search of him, set out herself to search for him and find him in the kingdom of light…”. She died on July 18, 1875. At her funeral on July 29, among the palace bearers were the Captains McClintock, Collinson and Ommanney, R.N., as well as many other “Old Arctic” involved in the Franklin search. She was buried on the Kensal Green Cemetery in a tomb, West London, next to her sister Lady Mary Simpkinson.

#naval history #lady jane franklin #ask #very long post

91 notes · View notes

mermaidsirennikita · 6 years

Text

April 2018 Book Roundup

In April, I read silly books and I read books that were deadly (literally) serious. It’s possible that the most well-written book I read was Madeline Miller’s Circe, which I loved and found much more satisfying than Song of Achilles. But the most enjoyable book? It was Laura Thalassa’s Pestilence, the romance novel about a girl, an apocalypse, and a sexy horseman who spreads disease. What more could you want?

Pestilence by Laura Thalassa. 4/5. When the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse show up, all technology fails, sending the world into chaos. Then they disappear. Five years later, Pestilence has reappeared, and wherever he goes a plague kills everyone in his path. Sara, an ex-firefighter, has been sent to kill him. When that fails? She becomes his prisoner--with Pestilence claiming that he’s keeping her alive to make her suffer. Of course, that’s not what’s really going on, and yes, this is a full-blown romance novel. It’s also one of the most enjoyable books I’ve read all year thus far. Sara and Pestilence’s romance is ridiculous, engrossing, hilarious, and yes, pretty sexy. One thing I loved about this book is that while Pestilence is in his very nature a conqueror and pretty much a living plague--he’s also very boyish and inexperienced and the book makes that inexperience very sexy. Because Sara’s experienced. Sara is sarcastic, foul-mouthed, and pretty sexual; and very rarely do you come across a romance novel that lacks a serious alpha male. Like, yes, Pestilence has his dominant moments, but overall he’s more like... sorta hapless. I mean, spoiler alert, they have sex, what a shocker, and when Sara is annoyed that he’s not being more chill about it he’s like “I GAVE YOU MY ESSENCE SARA~~~~”. It’s one of those books. I loved it.

I Was Anastasia by Ariel Lawhon. 3/5. Anna Anderson was famous for pretending to be famous--after an attempted suicide, she claimed to be Anastasia Romanov, and was so convincing that people who met and were related to the grand duchess backed her. “I Was Anastasia” explores Anna’s life--backwards. Meanwhile, the story of Anastasia Romanov is told moving forward. Somewhere, they meet in the middle, as does the truth. In a basic way, this is a good historical fiction novel. It doesn’t reinvent the wheel. The thing is that if you know anything about Anastasia, you know about Anna; there aren’t any twists to be had. What kept this from being a four-star read, aside from the fact that it was a bit expected, was one thing concerning the grand duchesses that is pretty debatable from what I understand, and--I’m not sure it was necessary. But if you’re into the Romanovs, you may want to check this out.

Lady Killers: Deadly Women Throughout History by Tori Telfer. 4/5. A collection of write-ups on female serial killers. What sets this book apart is that, aside from Erszebet Bathory and Nannie Doss (as well as the Benders, vaguely) I really hadn’t heard about most of these women. Telfer steered clear of discussing extremely obvious women like Aileen Wuornos, instead focusing on cases that largely took place before the second half of the twentieth century, with one murderess dating back to the thirteenth century. Of course, this means that there was often more speculation and less hard evidence, but for most of these women I think there was a pretty good case to be made that SOMETHING was going on, even if it wasn’t as salacious as some might believe. And Telfer doesn’t just stick to typical American and European women, either--she touches about the Egyptian sisters Raya and Sakina, famous for killing a remarkable number of women, and Oum El-Hassen, a Moroccan murderess whose motives remain a mystery to this day. More than a profiling of these individuals, however, I’d call this book an analysis of how we interpret female serial killers culturally. Why don’t we take them as seriously as we do male serial killers? Why do paint them, often, as more sexual than truly frightening? Telfer doesn’t shy away from the gory details and while you might feel some empathy for these women, she doesn’t hesitate to report that some were very likely psychopaths, with no remorse--but then, that doesn’t take away from the fact that some were poor, some were abused, and some didn’t really see any better options for themselves. The Angel Makers of Nagyrev--not one murderess but a group of Hungarian village women who, over fifteen years, killed around 300 people for a variety of reasons--were particularly interesting and kind of heartbreaking. Highly recommend.

Tangerine by Christine Mangan. 2/5. In 1956, Alice goes to Tangiers with her new husband--a man she barely knows--John. Haunted by an event that happened while she was at school--an event she barely remembers--Alice struggles with anxiety and paranoia, and can’t adjust to the strange world of Morocco. However, her past catches up to her in the form of Lucy, her old school friend. This is essentially a 40s/50s film noir/psychological thriller movie a la Hitchcock in book form. Unfortunately, while I feel it would have worked as a movie of that style and era, the writing wasn’t attention-grabbing. Pretty, but a bit dull. I couldn’t tell much of a difference between the voices of Lucy and Alice, though they alternated, and the “twist”... I don’t need a twist in my thrillers--a real one, that is--but if there is going to be one it should be decent. This was fairly pedestrian. A missed opportunity, especially painful because the authorb describes Morocco so well.

Indecent by Corrine Sullivan. 3/5. Imogene has always envied the rich kids who went to elite boarding schools. Now a grown woman, she becomes a teacher’s assistant of sorts at a fancy prep school for boys--only to find herself attracted to one of the students. This is not an easy read. If anyone reads it and believes that Imogene’s victim--because horny seventeen year old boy or not, he is that--was the bad person here, nah. I don’t think Sullivan intends it that way at all. Imogene is a study of a predator who became that way through insecurity and arrested development. She thinks like a teenager. She constantly critiques herself--her body, her relative lack of sexual experience. She compares herself to teenage girls, for God’s sake, and is all impressed by a seventeen year old boy’s “experience” and “charisma”. By being in Imogene’s mind... You get how a predator becomes a predator. Some aren’t born that way, and the line between a woman in her early twenties and a boy in his late teens COULD conceivably get blurred--but it’s always the adult’s fault, and this book doesn’t shy away from that. I wouldn’t say it was a fun read, but it was interesting.

The Day of the Duchess by Sarah MacLean. 3/5. Malcolm, the Duke of Haven (yes) has a problem. He needs an heir--but to have an heir, he first needs a wife. Actually, he has one; but Seraphina, the title-chaser who “trapped” him into marriage left nearly three years ago. Now she’s shown up asking for a divorce, which isn’t all that easy to get. Malcolm makes her a deal: if she helps choose his next wife, he’ll grant her the divorce. Of course, Malcolm would far rather keep Seraphina around than have her select her replacement... so his real plan is to woo her into staying with him. This was a pleasant, enjoyable read that varied from the typical romance novel in that the hero has done a genuinely bad thing--not just a mildly upsetting thing--and there are very strong problems in the marriage. Malcolm and Sera are both pretty wounded by what they’ve done to each other and one major thing neither one of them could have really helped. The angst was real. And the sex scenes were good--lots of emphasis on female gratification in this one. But parts of the story were kind of like... too much comic relief for a novel with the kind of backstory this one has. I’m not saying it had to be a serious story AT ALL, but Sera has this chorus of sisters and I liked them at first but it become... too much. However, I’d still call it a solid historical romance.

Circe by Madeline Miller. 5/5. Known as the witch who turned Odysseus’s men into pigs before capitulating to his charms and will, Circe is a character who was present for or linked to some of the most interesting parts of Greek mythology. Here she gets her own epic, beginning with her birth as the nymph-goddess daughter of Helios. Eventually exiled to an island, far from the other gods, Circe encounters everything from sailors to fellow witches and kings, and even monsters. This is a literary fantasy, the writing as beautiful as it was in Song of Achilles, but dealing with a story much more dynamic and interesting. Circe is a character who is at times deeply caring while not losing her selfish and destructive streaks. She has reasons for her behavior, but she isn’t declawed in the least. Miller tells the more horrifying parts of her story with taste, and at times, humor; but you never lose the sense of the epic in this novel.

The Queens of Innis Lear by Tessa Gratton. 4/5. As the king of Innis Lear ages, his obsession with the stars and prophecy leave his kingdom in a perilous position. Drawing together his three daughters--the warlike Gaela, manipulative and child-starved Regan, and the favorite, Elia--Lear promises that he will name his heir. But no matter who he chooses, the sisters are prepared to go to war for the crown, and for the fate of Innis Lear. Obviously, this is a retelling of King Lear--Gratton evidently found the initial portrayal of Lear’s daughters lacking, and really takes that to task here. And to be sure, Gaela, Regan, and Elia have far more depths than the women in the original play. But the fact is that I could have done with more of them, and less of the perspective of others. When the story is with the sisters, it’s enthralling. But often, there’s the perspective of Ban, a pivotal character--an embittered bastard with remarkable power--but perhaps not the most compelling voice. Then there’s the fool’s daughter Aefa, Ban’s mother Brona, the sisters’ uncle, and more. Gratton also often delves into the past, revealing plot points but more than that developing the characters. Which is good. None of what is in this book is bad, really, but it’s held back from being as good as it could be by too much of the less important stuff. For example--Gaela and Regan have a very compelling, codependent relationship. Gaela is driven to be king, and Regan has sworn to support her no matter what and have children that will be Gaela’s heirs. The problem being, of course, that despite the fact that she’s the only one of the sisters in a loving relationship, Regan seems incapable of bearing a living child. The differing struggles of Gaela and Regan are amazing, and deserved more pagetime. With that being said, this is a super compelling story, and worth checking out.

I’ll Be Gone in the Dark by Michelle McNamara. 4/5. Michelle McNamara, as many know, died in the middle of writing her exhaustive book on the Golden State Killer--a title she coined. Obviously, the killer has since been caught, but he wasn’t when Michelle was researching. The result is a gripping, incredibly well-done book on a monster. It reminds me somewhat of In Cold Blood, but without the closeness to the killer--less sympathy, more drive to find and punish him. McNamara was up front about her own flaws, with the book itself highlighting her obsessive nature. But ultimately, the only thing I can really critique about her work is beyond her control; it is somewhat disjointed, as friends had to piece the book together after she died. However, it’s a remarkable example of true crime lit.

#book roundup #books #book recs

18 notes · View notes

gentlemansaurusrex · 5 years

Text

Evading the “Jaws” of Injustice

Hey y’all, for this week, we are going to dive into one of the most interesting military and judicial cases of the 19th and 20th Century. I discovered this topic, much like that of Belzoni through my 19th Century Europe class. This event was one of the biggest mass media events next to the sinking of the Titanic and the Jack the Ripper cases in London, England. Myself, as well as, many of my friends and colleagues have beaten this subject to death by reading a massive synopsis of this court case written thoroughly by a French lawyer. This court case that rocked France to the brink of war was the case known as the Dreyfus Affair. Before we get into the meat of this case, I must discuss the wonders of Geography.

Most people looking at a map can point out the location of France. For those who do not know, it is in Western Europe bordering Spain, Andorra, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and their historical rival of Germany. From 1870 to 1871, Germany, known as Prussia at the time, declared war against France through the artful statesman of the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The war was a result of Prussia’s ambition to have a unified German state. France saw this as a threat to their own ambitions. Prussia, coming from a very strong military tradition defeated France’s forces. The peace deal humiliated France and with that the historic area of Alsace-Lorraine (two geographic areas that form together). Today it is part of France, but historically the area, often through peace deals in war, has been traded back and force between France and Germany. Alsace-Lorraine has formed a unique language and cultured based on these circumstances. It is also a beautiful area where I spent a good chunk of time while on a trip to Europe. Now, reading this, you many really confused on why I am getting over excited about French and German geography. To answer this possible question, during the Dreyfus Affair, the Alsace-Lorrain region -specifically Alsace- was controlled by Germany. The man in question, Alfred Dreyfus, was Alsatian.

Now regarding Dreyfus’ Alsatian background, you may be wondering why that has anything to do with anything. Before we can talk about the whys, what’s, when’s, where’s, and all the simple questions, we must make it more confusing. Before Alfred served alongside Batman, he was an artillery officer in the French army who served as part of the General’s staff. One day, a lady was cleaning out an office and discovered a handwritten letter in the German Embassy in Paris. The letter was like a shopping list but instead of delicious French bread and the makings of a fine breakfast, it was planned from the French army. The list included plans for the use of different artillery as well as a note regarding a French colony off the coast of Africa known as Madagascar. After the letter was examined, the French Counterintelligence hired specialists to comb through their artillery officers handwriting to possibly figure out who wrote the note. This is where Alsace comes into play. Dreyfus was one of the men that the counterintelligence agents suspected. The reason being was that his handwriting was similar, plus he came from Alsace. While when Dreyfus was born, it was a French territory, it was then German. Due to loosely based evidence and the coincidences, Dreyfus was arrested.

The arrest came to a surprise to Dreyfus. I mean anyone accused of anything would be surprised, but Dreyfus was innocent, and most people knew it. His brother, Matthieu heard about the arrest and quickly went to get him out but was unsuccessful. Despite failing to get his brother out of jail, he still did his best to rally support pleading his innocence. Like most trials, there are usually multiple sides. This was the case for the Dreyfus affair as well. Unfortunately, more people were against Dreyfus because he was accused of betraying his country. During the investigation into Dreyfus, many already hated him but it became worse after finding out that he was Jewish. The newspapers and magazines exploded once they found this out. Paris was notorious for its anti-Semitic views. People in every walk of life became involved with this case now. There were those who supported Dreyfus, they called themselves Dreyfusards and there were those who simply hated him because of who he was called Anti-Dreyfusards. Looking at France, political divisions and instability are as common as a cold. This affair quickly engulfed the country, and many in the political arena involved themselves.

While France was fighting itself, literally, Dreyfus was sent to Devil’s Island off the coast of French Guiana. Dreyfus was the only person living on the island, aside from those who were supposed to watch over him. It was possible for Dreyfus to escape, but an escape would only make him more suspicious even if he did not commit any crime. During Dreyfus’ stay on the island he became sick. His French keepers treated him harshly where they eventually confined him to his room where he was chained to his bed. Despite limited mobility, Dreyfus could continue to write to his wife, Lucie. Lucie constantly encouraged Dreyfus to persist even if he felt like giving up and succumbing to his conditions. While Dreyfus sulked on Devil’s Island, he becomes a French national celebrity without knowing it as the affair grew to bigger proportions.

While the military was mixed on their stance during the affair, there were people who approached it neutrally then decided to take a stand. One such figure was Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart. Picquart went into the investigation seeking the truth. After discussing it with other French officers, politicians, and other officials, he concluded that Dreyfus was not the culprit. Picquart suggested that the criminal was Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. Esterhazy was known to indulge himself with liquor and prostitutes, which heavily affected his standing with the military. Despite substantial proof from Picquart that Esterhazy was the real spy, nobody would listen to Picquart. Eventually, the French higher authorities suggest that Picquart needed to take a break from the investigation indefinitely. He was then sent to Tunisia. The higher ups did their best to keep this information away from the press, but it was released eventually due to feuding parties within the military.

Prominent journalists who were Dreyfusards were Emile Zola, Georges Clemenceau (the mustache of WW1 France), and Leon Blum. Zola, who's named sounds like Arnim Zola from Marvel received fame in the middle of this affair because of his writing. The writing, known as J’Accuse, was a letter to the French government heavily criticizing the way that the affair was being handled. This was a huge win for the Dreyfusards. Clemenceau received fame from his magazine, L’Aurore. He was brave enough to publish Zola’s letter. Later, Clemenceau would become the French Prime Minister and Leader during World War One. Like Blum, he was a socialist and deemed radical that was against the Anti-Dreyfusard campaign of injustice. He too would become a French Prime Minister in the years leading up to World War Two. Anyways, the 12-year run of the Dreyfus Affair is about to be wrapped up thanks for Manuel Baudoin.

Baudoin was a leading lawyer of the second trial in 1906. He established that everyone and anything involved in this case was to be restored to normal like nothing had happened. This meant that Dreyfus, Picquart and Esterhazy were all free of charges. Which was great, except that it wasn’t. Dreyfus endured years of imprisonment but, became a national celebrity. Picquart suffered humiliation. Esterhazy eventually ran away from France. Some pros that came out of this negative affair was that France reviewed itself. Monarchist and reactionary forces did not win, but it was a huge success for a more democratic France. Dreyfus was reinstated with his rank and served France diligently. He fought in World War One and made it to 1935 which was one year before Europe fell into World War Two. Picquart died in 1914 due to a horse-riding accident, the same year WW1 started. The Dreyfus Affair was a mess, but it was one of the most publicized events in the world during its time. It is a neat piece of French, European, and journalistic history. Unfortunately, this was the second largest affair to rock France. While it had more of political implication, the Faure Affair where a French president was killed by his mistress is considered the first. I will leave you all with one last fun fact. Richard Dreyfus, the actor who played in Mr. Holland’s Opus and Jaws consider himself to be a descendant or close relative to Alfred Dreyfus. Richard Dreyfus also starred in the movie titled A Prisoner of Honor, where he played Picquart. Anyways, there is the Dreyfus Affair.

Next Week: Kurt Cobain and Nirvana

#history

0 notes

whyequality · 5 years

Text

topic reflection

The discourse community I am going to talk about is the Black Lives Matter Movement. The BLM Movement is an activist group whose main goal is spread awareness about racial systems and violence that harm black people and uplift those of color, specifically black individuals.

BLM protest against police killings of black people, and rougher issues such as racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.

Within the organization, a vast number of topics are discussed from colorism to police brutality. The organization not only talks about heavy issues but wants to find equality within those issues with outside forces.

The topic I want to discuss is racism, specifically racial injustice within the prison system and how African Americans are affected.

Racism is a very divisive topic; however, it needs to be discussed for there to be a solution.

Racism is the mistreatment against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Racism plays a vital role in this community. It’s the foundation of this country and causes many issues for a number of individuals.

The prison system in the United States is a lethal organization run by capitalists who profit off the incarnation of people. This “land of the free” has the largest prison population in the world, and the highest per-capita incarceration rate. Within this system and the millions of bodies incarcerated, black people take up the most space in the organization, even though we make up only 13%, whereas white individuals make up 77%. Black people make up nearly 40 percent of America’s incarcerated population and are more than five times as likely as whites to be behind bars. The reason for this is very controversial but lies around one idea. Race. Race is a massive element in the reason why prisons are filled with more black individuals than any other race. Black people have been deemed “unworthy” since the creation of this country and looking it to its creation can give a better answer as to why the prison system is filled with more black people than any other race.

Race is a huge factor in the creation of this country because the country began with the belief that the white skin was superior to any other race known. With acting on the belief that any other race was inferior to their own, white people began to commit atrocities to build said country.

In the making of this country, white people needed to build civilization. With their privilege and power, they enslaved millions of Africans. They stuffed boats with hundreds of men, women, and children and had them sail across the globe to build on a land very foreign to them. Because white people felt that they were superior, they treated black people like scum. Not only were we taken from our home, but they had us sleep and eat near/on our own feces. Some were thrown overboard for being sick or dying because of the lack of nutrition. Africans were sold and robbed of their pride and dignity. They weren’t even seen as human. Some were beat to the brink of death. They weren’t even allowed a bath or proper nutrition. For hundreds of years this mistreatment went on, allowing the racial improprieties to brew and grow, enabling years of entitlement and ignorance of black bodies. Slavery was eventually deemed unfit and abolished. But with this abuse of power for hundreds of years, this way of life and belief was/is instilled in minds of white individuals. So, if you get millions of Europeans who settled in the states to continually be taught generation after generation, they are superior and above anything in this world, what do you think that would create? I think it created a society of individuals who cause/caused a significant amount of displacement and hatred. Even though slavery was “abolished”, many still weren’t aware of this and continued to be enslaved. More than 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, there were black people in the Deep South who had no clue they were free. These people were forced to work, violently tortured, and raped. While these individuals weren’t aware of their freedom, many knowingly continued to work because they had nowhere else to go and knew no other way of living. Millions were born into enslavement and only knew this way of life. For those who got the chance to utilize their “freedom”, tried to make something of themselves in the country. But almost all were stuck here, not knowing their history. However, because black bodies were deemed “unworthy” and we weren’t even seen as humans, millions of us were criminalized. With the 13thamendment abolishing slavery, a gigantic number of white people lost their “workers”. This obviously made them unhappy. With little to no power still, and without a lot of us having no education, many of us were criminalized for nothing or small things that a white person could easily get away with. The 13thamendment allowed it to be unconstitutional to be a slave, granting freedom, except if you are a criminal. This loophole allowed black people to be arrested in mass. It was the country’s’ first prison boom. There was an influx of people being arrested for extremely minor things like walking on the wrong side of street or playing to loud with their families. The narrative for black people were completely misconstrued, with people for hundreds of years to discriminate against them because of ignorance. They were seen as menacing, creepy, and bad people who didn’t deserve rights. It gave them a narrative of being nothing but criminals.

Others tried to create businesses and for some, it became a reality. But many, and I mean many, were scrapping by. Black bodies were still seen as inferior and less than and had little to no money to keep themselves afloat. ¾ of black households were located in rural places. Many weren’t able to even get an education. The schools in their neighborhood, if they were established, were equipped with poor resources that couldn’t allow African Americans to become their best selves. They were poorly educated living in poor places. They weren’t offered jobs, were hung from trees, were called racial slurs, were spit at, were murdered, were raped, and were put in jail all because their hue to dark for their liking. White people ran the country and lived only in the way it suited them. Black people weren’t even considered a full person. And you would think with the abolishment of slavery, they would at least be seen as humans. But no, black people were continuously treated as less than. This loophole in this 13thamendmentallowed mistreatment to continue for years. If they weren’t being wrongfully accused, they were being segregated and not allowed places with whites. If they weren’t allowed near whites, they were being harassed in their “black only” places by whites. White people had so much power that black people had to sit at the back of the bus, get up out their seat for a white person, or simply not ride public transportation because they were just not white.

An example of the racial injustice within in American prison system is the story of the beautiful Kalief Browder. Kalief Browder was a young African American man with his entire life ahead of him. But, like many black boys, was at the wrong place at the wrong time. At 16, he was arrested for allegedly stealing a backpack. They were held in a cell because of the false accusation for a few hours. Then, they were taken to the Bronx County Criminal Court, where they were processed at the court's central booking. He was integrated and charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault. He was already on probation, at 16, and was not released. Bail was set and then denied because of his previous probation. He was only a young boy will so much to learn. He was already dealing with poverty and addiction in his family. They sent this teenager to one of the most infamous prisons with a huge number of corrupt and horrifying police and correctional officers on the planet. He was imprisoned at Rikers Island. The corrupt prison, like many others, was known for its "deep-seated culture of violence" where inmates suffered "broken jaws, broken orbital bones, broken noses, long bone fractures, and lacerations requiring stitches." Browder unfortunately was washed his own clothes in rusty sinks, was punched in the face by correctional officers, and even gang beat my 15 inmates. This only got worse when he was put in solitary confinement for nearly 2 years awaiting trial. His mental health was shot. He went through so much as just a teenager. Kalief maintained the fact that he was innocent. Because of this, judges threw him back in prison for not accepting a plea bargain. His case kept being thrown to the side after a handful of attempts for the judges to hear his case. After 961 days in prison, Browder had appeared before eight judges. His case wasn’t taken seriously. After all this, charges were dropped from the person who accused him of the initial crime and the accuser left the country without any word about the case. For 3 years, he was wrongfully imprisoned and suffered mental health issues as a result from being the prison. He hung himself for the final time and died on June 5, 2015.

The injustice he faced is unfortunately just another case of the prison system being unfair. He was falsely accused. He was an innocent person who got arrested for a crime he didn't commit. Lawyer tells them, to take a plea deal and get charged with something you didn't do, and spend only the mandatory minimum in prison, or you can go to trial and still get charged, but instead of mandatory minimum you get a higher sentence. Basically, you get punished for speaking up and saying you didn't do it as opposed to just taking the fall. This is America. This is the corrupt system millionsare faced with on the daily. And when the world already deems African Americans inferior, it becomes very easy for this life to become your life. This corrupt system, led by racist white men, perpetrate horrible acts of racial violence every day. I don’t want to be bias and make it seem like African Americans are the only ones that face injustice, but I am very passionate about it because contrary to popular belief, black Americans are the blueprint of this country but are given a perspective of the complete opposite. The justice system in this country is a huge failure. Kalief was a poor, innocent kid, a child. Was put through complete hell and torture for doing absolutely nothing. The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Young black kids are being targeted and denied their rights and it needs to stop.

Black Lives Matter initially started as a hashtag on Twitter in response to murderer, George Zimmerman’s, acquittal. He killed unarmed 17-year old Trayvon Martin. He was walking home from 7/11 when he was gunned down by the neighborhood watchman. The death sparked outrage across the country about the injustice Trayvon faced and the injustice black people face as a whole. The gained prominence and recognition with protest regarding more unjust killings of two African American men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. Mike Brown was accused for stealing from a nearby store and shot to death in the street. Eric Garner was choked to death by officers “trying” to arrest him. With the undeserved murdered of two innocent black men, BLM began protest, specifically in Ferguson and New York City.

A great number of black individuals were killed in response to the protest. Some were killed during the protest or killed in police custody. The death at the hands of police were barely brought to justice. This sparked even more outrage within the community. Race plays a huge factor on how black individuals are treated when it shouldn’t. Black individuals should be treated with the same amount of respect and dignity as anyone else.

That is why this conversation is important. Race plays a huge part in the treatment of black people and the injustices we face. To overcome it, we must first acknowledge the real history of this country. Accountability needs to be taken for every past event and future ones. This country has the potential to be great for everyone but won’t if the powers that be won’t recognize their faults in the creation it.

0 notes

nettlestonenell · 7 years

Link

Afterword

Here I am, five years to the day of when I posted the go-for-broke chapter of Don’t Give Out With Those Lips of Yours where Marion ‘dies’/is sent away to Germany, posting the final chapter of the entire Don’t series, as well as an afterword.

I have always thought of myself as a persuasive writer—certainly with regard to writing, that is what has most often drawn me to the process.

It might seem strange to say, a persuasive fiction writer, but it makes sense to me: getting the facts, figuring out the character, persuading a reader to buy into the fact that the story is genuine, [even though it is] set somewhere they’ve never been (time or place), and that the characters are believable and ring true.

Persuasion plays an even greater part in fan fiction. Can I, as an author, sell you on decisions this character—whom you may know quite intimately—will make? Do their words sound like them? How about the setting, the diction?

Not many know it, but I promised Glorious Clio that 2016 would see the conclusion of the Don’t Series. And I meant it when I said it. Well, 2016 proved a lot of things, a great many of them disappointing, and on this count I, too, failed 2016.

But here it is, February 9, 2017, and it’s DONE.

Funny, as Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree actually began in direct relation to my finishing the long work Death Would Be Simpler to Deal With—and fearing what came next.

What would I think about? What would I scribble notes about on random scraps of paper? What would I write?

It was 2010, the year of season one Sherlock in the US. The idea of an Alternate Timeline re-boot hung heavily in the air. And me? I couldn’t think about anything but Robin and Marian MOST OF THE TIME. Go to a concert—imagine every song through that lens, for example. I was still really, really burnt from the show killing Marian, and the failure to even follow through dealing with it on the scale it deserved. But mostly the show killing Marian. And Robin. And…[footage not found].

Look, Marian and Robin die OLD, their deeds accomplished, their lives fully LIVED. That’s how it works. It’s not JFK’s Camelot, a sort of short, limited run. It’s a lifetime. It’s-- Anyway…

I knew about AT or Uber-fiction from the Xena fandom, at the time the most famous of which was Melissa Good’s Dar and Kerry stories (Xena and Gabrielle’s dynamic transplanted into present day).

As for WWII? Anyone who examined my childhood would say that I was destined to create something about that era. Myself, I was raised in the post-war 50s. Yes, I am Older than Reblogginhood—but I’m not that old. But when one lives rurally, time does move slower, and despite my parents being born 1939 and 1941, they were raised more like turn-of-the-century babies. My mother recalls the installation of electricity in her home, a home that never saw running water. And so, despite living in a world with Original Madonna and Thriller, at my house we were listening more often than not to “Wonderful Songs and Inspiration” on Cincinnati’s WSAI (one of the program hosts was George Clooney’s dad/Rosemary Clooney’s brother). Big Band songs were often the standard, the soundtrack of a lot of our lives.

My father (more on him later) consumed WWII-centric film and television round-the-clock. From early days I saw war films (I may not know all their titles, but if Hollywood made it, chances are I saw it—multiple times), I went to bed at night to the sound of anti-aircraft guns, or submarines diving.

In the days of the big three networks, it was public television that most often showed my dad’s John Wayne films, Audie Murphy, documentaries, and (bless them) screwball comedies and serious dramas infused with pre-war or war time life of (often) civilians.

And that proved to be my jam. The lives of regular people, un-enlisted people, in the midst of war. Often, this means women. Sometimes, it means prisoners. And there’s simply not enough written or filmed about them for my taste. If the soldier’s role in WWII is well-documented (perhaps, even, in contrast with other wars, over-documented), the civilian/non-combatant story is nearly silent, with the exception of Holocaust literature.

So as Papa Nettlestone watched his war films, I was always like a research assistant, looking into the corners of frames, fixating on incredibly brief scenes and unnamed characters who seemed to fit into that class: ‘regular’ people and how they managed life during that war.

Shows like Jeeves and Wooster (and those period-filmed screwball comedies) showed me a pre-war lifestyle the wealthy in both America and Britain took part, or at least a facsimile of it.

And the timeline—the intersection of this period of human history: that a title-stripped Russian aristocrat raised in the opulent (and it could be said) out-of-touch Court of the Tsars could find himself in the war, become part of the new world following that war.

That an English lord born during the hoop skirts of the American Civil War, could see the colonization of India, women get the vote—and live to see the fashion of WWII, and the German’s plans to exterminate an entire people. Hot dog, that compelled me. Such drastic reorganization of the world, of society, of all European aristocracy. Still blows my mind.

But credit also must go to Clio, who stuck with me once she found Death, faithful in communication and reviewing. I knew she loved Hogan’s Heroes (at our house, also, required viewing), that team dynamic. I loved it, too, the soldiers now rendered non-combatants by virtue of the fact they are imprisoned—yet finding clever means of resistance. I loved The Great Escape (a film that has plenty for both me and my dad). Thomas Carter a definite character ‘descendant’ of Steve McQueen’s Cooler King, Hiltz.

I love stories about people hiding downed RAF pilots (Mary Lindell in One Against the Wind). Hiding Jews. Fusia Podgorska (Hidden in Silence) who hid thirteen people in her house’s attic for two and a half years, feeding and supporting them while she was still in her teens. Eight months of this time, German officers and their nurse girlfriends occupied the rooms directly below that attic. Charlotte-freaking-Gray (please, just the film version) getting stranded in France without a full cover story, unable to tell a soul who she really is, scheming to find a way to her crashed RAF lover, and living a constant knife’s-blade-edge away from being discovered.

Papa Nettlestone is a 1939 baby. He never really saw his father (that he would remember) until the man returned home after the war (Purple Heart, Battle of the Bulge). Papa N was six years old at the time. Their relationship was never less than damaged. So he’s that bridge between Then and Now, my dad, as is Zara--but he’s also quite strongly the story’s Carter.

Although what he would guaranteed say to me if he were ever to find and read these stories (which will never happen), is that they should contain battlefront action. And that it’s a great shame that they don’t.

Mind you, when I began writing this I had no thought to cultivating a series of stories. Apple Tree was meant to be a one-off as they say in television, not a back-door pilot.

It was just meant to get me over the hump of concluding Death. But, as with any good (I would say) short story, the final lines of it conveniently spiraled outward.

And then Clio said she would read the story forever in one of her reviews.

And that? That was clearly a challenge.

And Carter proved to be the necessary plot propulsion key.

I don’t know how long it took me to fully ‘break’ the story (obviously, via the series, certain plot beats were already there—but how to re-imagine them?), it happened over time.

I remember where I was standing in my house when I realized not only that Guy should burn down the barn, not the house, but that Marian wouldn’t die but would be sent away to a camp. (Originally, those two plot points happened more back-to-back in the narrative.)

I went with four stories primarily because that’s how many lines from the song I wanted to use. Purely dumb luck that it worked out so well.

I chose the Channel Islands after seeing an advertisement for the Island at War DVD series in a mail order catalog, and reading the small blurb saying the Nazis had occupied British islands, which left me suitably dumbstruck. I know A LOT about WWII for someone who has never studied it, as I said above. I’d never heard of these islands, much less their war-time past.

So, I looked them up.

Now, keep in mind: when I began this odyssey in November of 2010, the Internet was not what it is today. Today I can sit and watch YouTube video after YouTube video of Channel Islands travelogues. I can *see* Sark. Then, Google could find exactly ONE image to show me of Joe Kennedy (Carter). The Channel Islands had neither an official webpage nor a very good Wikipedia entry. I was largely flying blind. I wasn’t even certain the estate I’d imagined as Barnsdale (and its house) could feasibly be located on Guernsey.

The internet has vastly improved in Channel Island content in the intervening years. (Somewhat, likely, due to interest in The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society published in 2008, but of which I was unaware until a reader brought it to my attention in the review section of-–I believe—Lover’s Lane.)

As I learned new information I tried to make use of it—without mucking up anything I’d shared in the narrative prior.

Finding Sark was, quite frankly, the kind of plot/setting gift any writer would endlessly thank her muse for. It is, and I say this as a person having never been there, the almost perfect 1:1 stand-in for Sherwood.

I do have regrets. I regret not better outlining how the Sheriff even caught wind that Stoker’s sub was coming to Sark in Lips (sylvi10 caught me out on that giant oops when it was far too late to fix).

I regret that fanfiction.net turns all my double dashes (--) into (-) single ones. That its cut and paste interface erases my (*,&,+)s that are meant to help me insert lines where breaks need to be.

I regret not allowing for more of a story between Mitch and Eva, that I didn’t get to make better, fuller use of Freyga Tuckmann and most particularly ReichKaptain Lamburg (at one point there was a whole side story during the break in Lips right after the wedding that focused on the unit and Lamburg, with R/M only in the deep background).

I regret misplacing the notes (I will find them someday!) that name Allen and Eleri’s two daughters.

As a (fan? is that the right word here?) of A Tale of Two Cities, I regret not having Robin reference Dr. Manette’s being ‘returned to life’ in the wake of his own ‘death’ and Marion’s ‘death’ and rediscovery. (I will not elaborate here on the Sidney Carton/Charles Darnay similarity to Marion/Magda, but I will recognize that I see it in the narrative, and that reading a lot of Dickens in my formative years is doubtless to blame.)

And while I don’t at all regret the format/design of ‘Til I Come Marchin’ Home (I 100% believe that it is done in the right, and the only, way to best relate the stor(ies) at that point), I do recognize that it is a format not at all conducive to reading easily in choppily posted, stretched-out-over-time excerpts.

I do not regret, but will take a sentence or two to explain that if at times words for things or spellings alter, such as sometimes tire, others tyre—color or colour, it’s because I always thought of the original series as a sort of US/British hybrid. US in the sense that so much pop culture is from there, and a series as openly anachronistic as BBC Robin Hood is going to have that aspect to it, Hollywood sort of creeping in here and there, the word ‘Okay’ being thrown around. For that matter, though he’s become a German Kommandant, the Sheriff, to me, still pronounces his English the same as Keith Allen doing Vaisey. He still barks LEFT-tenant at Guy, though a German would say LOYT-nant. Robin still says ‘punch’ like Jonas.

I try not to regret that there’s a lot of Love in this story, a lot of couples. The BBC series is responsible for a lot of that, I think. Sometimes I wonder if it were to be placed in a bookstore (and not shelved as fanfiction) if it would get sorted into the ‘Romance’ section.

I did write it for myself—make no mistake, this is 5000% the story I Want to Read, and one of the reasons I wrote it down (that I write anything down) is because it started to become so immense I was having trouble keeping track of it all in my head.

I had gone to an October yard sale the year of the first story (some of you know this story), I bought a cassette tape of Time Life’s “Romantic Memories of the War Years”—filled with pre-war and war-era Big Band. A four tape series, they only had the first one. Because at that time I was doing a sort of Robin/Marian overlay to almost anything I thought about, I overlaid them on those songs, and it was a potent fit for me.

I had Glorious Clio on board, and soon enough sylvi10 joined in, and—much later—reblogginhood. I mention them in particular because while I was writing the story for myself, their comments—as do any comments—caused me to turn my attention to certain parts of plot and character, and the narrative changed in specific ways directly related to those reviews. (Which is a definite endorsement that readers should consider writing reviews.)

Allen Dale bloomed as fully as he did in the way that he did due to sylvi10, I’ve no doubt of that. Chatting with her about the stories, hearing her thoughts on Allen, her investment turned my brain to his corner, caused me to think more about him than I might otherwise have done. (Allan does tend to take over stories I write anyway, tbh.)

I had at least one reader caution me about putting Robin and Allen as the two main characters in the fanfiction description for Marchin’, saying it would make people think the story is about a romance between the two. But I couldn’t not list Allen as second-most-important in that story (and at times, first). For a great deal of Marchin’ is Allen’s story. He’s at a point in his grief and dealing with the war where he’s finally agreed after years of swallowing it down to become proactive. Where he’s realized that his path to handling what he did in the war is to pursue facing it, whatever the consequences.

Perhaps his personal life triumphs/finding the love of his life are his ‘reward’, then. The good that came to him from his agreeing to hunt down and conquer--face the bad. He would not have re-met Eleri, after all, had he not traveled back to put his memory of Annie to peace, and avenge and memorialize her death. And it is in Eleri, who is able finally to understand what he was during the war, to whom he needn’t hide any longer, that he needn’t be two-faced anymore.

There’s a definite Allen/Marion parallel (not 1:1 in any sense) in the series. From the first moment they meet when he, just, misunderstands 1000% about her, to the life that she leads (like him) where no one knows all the contradictory and self-transgressive it involves. And she misunderstands him, too, thinking he’s nothing more than a short grift con man.

But it’s Robin who, while he doesn’t see all about either, knows both for being more than is shown.

I wrote Edward/Miranda entirely for myself. I fell so HARD for them and their narrative. But some of the latter sections with them (particularly their backstory in Marchin’) is directly resultant of reblogginhood having commented that she would read about them if it were written. That made me feel okay (because by the time you’re that far in to writing a series of this scope you can find yourself TOTALLY distracted by audience expectations) to write those portions, which were, to me as a reader, a joy in every way. So, thank you for that.

I learned some things: I learned that if I, with the RL I have, with the lack of RL time-to-myself, can not only find time to write, but to finish, this is an accomplishable goal for anyone. If you want it.

There’s a lot of writing advice getting blogged around on tumblr, but being a writer can be boiled to the simplest terms: the thing about writers is, They Write.

You can go to school for writing for as many years as you like, and your instructors will tell you this, they will expect this of you, but until you embrace it yourself, you won’t really get it. Writers write.

Look at these ridiculous timelines:

Apple Tree – Nov. 1, 2010 - November 10, 2010 – completed in TEN DAYS!

Lover’s Lane – November 11, 2010 – January 18, 2011, it’s 67K words. In just two months’ plus one weeks’ time.

Lips – January 20, 2011 – March 24, 2012, 239K word count. Fourteen months. That is within spitting distance of the length of HP and the Order of the Phoenix, for reference, which has 257K.

The first stories are ridiculous because of how MUCH was accomplished, and how quickly.

I posted the final chapter of Lips from the hospital, after having a baby—largely because I knew from experience I wasn’t about to get many chances to work on Don’t anytime in the near future.

So, I came to Marchin’. Of which contemplating it is hysterical to me, because I had always expected it to be only just slightly longer than Apple Tree. [laughs maniacally]

Marchin’ – April 1, 2012 – February 9, 2017. (Completed, though not yet fully published on fanfiction.net) Final count will show it just over 220K words. 30K more than HP and the Goblet of Fire. [Yes, I realize the almost five-year timeline to finish this was really, really, not acceptable. Way tooooo long to expect anyone to still be hanging around. I am not Susanna Clarke. And not only because I never got close to the 308K final word count of JSAMN in a single one of the discreet stories.]

And please don’t forget the little bit of holiday side-fic of Zara and Carter, with gang-based Christmas flashbacks. Don’t: The Ghosts of Christmas Past, published January 2012, at 5K words.

And to be accurate, I was occasionally writing and posting other fic while also writing Don’t (including fic outside of BBCRH).

I learned that I can write to an epic length (an important discovery for a short story writer), I learned how to craft a chapter (feel free to tell me I failed if you disagree). I learned how to juggle 10K plot strings and tie them off in the ending.

I learned that in the beginning writing is easy, slick as soap in an empty-but-wet bathtub; words can pour onto the page. You’re building. But then something clicks over in your plot, and suddenly you’ve got a lot of things to juggle, a lot of stitches not to drop.

You have to navigate among and around what you’ve built. Writing speed slows, writing time can get eaten up referring back to what you’ve written before to make sure all your pieces fit. To make sure you’re still holding the strings of all your marionettes.

I learned (I already knew a little about this before) that sometimes, when the words are gross and sticky and not coming out onto your screen you must fight to put them there anyway. That 97% of scenes/writing is clumsy and workman-level rather than craftsman quality. But you have to put down the bones and sinew before you can go back and build on that and add the plump flesh, the other parts of it that add beauty and poetry.

You have to trudge at times before you can dance. And if you’re not willing to slog through, you’ll be done (but not finished), your work will stall—and you’ll never dance.

As for process, I wrote these straight through, beginning to end. Does that sound crazy? I don’t know. I got into the way of that due to posting updates online, I suppose. In the early days, I would always be posting something a little earlier in the narrative than what I was presently working on. But at some point that stalled out and I was publishing in tandem with what I had just done, having no other writing ‘banked’.

As for the ‘finale’, I will confess that portions of Carter’s journals used there were written—as many as five to six--years ago. And a lot of the reunion scene speeches were also conceived and written before the last chapters of Lover’s Lane were posted online (that was posted Feb 2012).

I don’t mean that as a brag, only, to say that the storyline has always been pretty closely orchestrated and set for some time. Not all the particulars, though.

Clio said something recently about it being difficult to get back into the swing of writing Don’t, but you know, I’ve never really been out of it all these years. I wrote the unconventional narrative format of Death as what I expected to be my way to work through Marian’s on-screen murder.

And I started Don’t even before I completed the ending of that story. And creatively and in any daydreaming, I have lived solidly in that world ever since. Spare time? Think about Don’t. Can’t sleep? Think about Don’t. People, that’s a long time. Am I over Marian’s death? Probably not, but that frustration point is more like background noise at this point. But Don’t’s been with me long enough that I don’t think it will ever leave.

I’ve been stalling a long time (telling myself to finish it first), not going back to Story 1 and reading straight-through sequentially to the end.

It’s startling to think I don’t have to put it off anymore.

Don’t has received its share of criticism—not necessarily hostile criticism (thankfully). A reviewer thinking Marion’s reaction to Robin upon seeing him in Story 1 is too stoic (yes, I may have been watching too many stone-cold Barbara Stanwyck films, but I stand by the characterization), LOTS of feedback on how Marion was not in ‘Til I Come Marchin’ Home, the notion that all four stories are too sad/depressing, just to name a few.

It was always a deliberate intention to keep Marion absent for most of Marchin’. She is, after all, a ghost at that time. And readers should feel the Marion-shaped hole she left just as much as do the characters. Even saying her name is at times too much a trigger for them. And almost every side-flash scene of Marion when she appears post-war refrains from using her name in a familiar way. As though she no longer even thinks of herself as Marion.

I do believe her absence and the emotion of her post-war storyline is more bearable when all of Marchin’ can be read as a seamless whole rather than in parts and pieces and stops and starts.

As for sadness—well, okay. Maybe? I’ll say it’s hard for me to judge. If it is sad, to me it is an exquisite pain, a pain felt on the way to coming joy. But then, I always knew the end. I always knew the pain would not end in loss and futility.

And the end, frankly, may not satisfy all. [spoilers] Everything that happened (even, took place pre-series) to our beloved Robin and Marion can’t be fixed, simply, by mind-blowing sex following their reunion.

But their scars and insecurities still present shouldn’t be taken as unreclaimable. Only, the time it takes to regain such things in a relationship isn’t covered explicitly in the plot.

Real world studies have been done about those imprisoned in the camps. Contact me if you want some links. Everything from (obviously) PTSD to a myriad of health complications plagued those liberated, often for the rest of their lives. To pay true respect to what Marion is to have been subjected to, is to admit that there is no easy fix for it, not simply a ‘spunky’ disposition that can overcome it.

As for why Marion stayed away, when taken as a whole, pieces of that puzzle are (without direct mention of Marion) everywhere within Story 4’s narrative (and strong correlations exist to it in earlier stories), spoken about, by, or with regard to everyone tainted by the war, from Allen to Miranda to Djak to Carter (and others).

As for the long timeline between Marion’s ‘death’ and her being located alive, I respect cries of ‘too long!’, but as a person older than reblogginhood, I say: a decade, when life is at its most distracting (as with small children to care for), passes as less than two years’ time in one’s carefree singleton twenties. Time simply shortens later into life.

From Story 1, Don’t has always been about the conundrum of sexual loyalty, just as the song it was crafted around. A loyalty that goes (according to the original song’s lyric) both ways, just as the woman is asked not to sit under the apple tree, the man is later on admonished (*significantly, but curiously, this lyric is absent from The Andrews Sister’s most-famous version of the song) “Watch the girls on the foreign shores, you'll have to report to me, When you come marchin' home. Don't hold anyone on your knee, you better be true to me… you're gettin' the third degree, When you come marchin' home”

Clearly calling out the woman’s mate who is currently serving overseas.

So the sexual loyalty question in WWII goes both ways. Let me be clear: I don’t necessarily believe jealousy and compromised sexual loyalty are a 1:1.

I would, in fact, mount a defense of BBC series Robin as not necessarily motivated by jealousy toward Guy. At least not ‘simple’ jealousy. (ie: you have Marian! And I don’t!)

With as much in-series as is NOT said between Robin and Marian (recall: he tells her he loves her when she’s dying/dead/unconscious—and when she recovers he doesn’t bother to re-state it), a partial dynamic of Marian/Robin’s relationship is what goes unspoken between the two of them. Yet Guy is held back by no similar scruples. He may pursue BBC series Marian openly, speak with her openly, offer her safety, a home, financial and societal security. In short, as given, Guy represents a future for Marian. (And to most people/certainly her peers and her betters, an ACCEPTABLE future, as Guy is allied with the present power structure and law-in-place).

In this, BBC series Robin is frustrated (and Don’t series Robin even more so). What can he offer Marian? What can Don’t Robin offer Marion? Even less. He has nothing of stability, no home, no financial means he can access. He cannot even offer her (with any certainty) that he, himself, will remain alive and accessible to her.

I confess, I kept from placing Marion into a fait accompli sexual relationship with Guy primarily because that felt like more weight than the story was prepared to bear, and secondarily because I find the idea of Geis’ sexual frustration really enjoyable, and it drives him very particularly as a character. A Geis who agrees to be put off by Marion repeatedly, when nothing truly stands in the way of his forcing himself on her is far more interesting than Geis as Marion-rapist. (Now, Geis as Anya-rapist is interestingly fraught in its own way, and faithful to the BBC series, as well.)

Sexual loyalty through the lens of female characters whose agency is compromised by something like an Occupation exists as well. Marion and Eva (on the BBC series more of a contrast than a comparison) here become two versions of a similar story. Yet the chance arose to give Eva, the more sexually transgressive (for the era depicted) with a bastard child and a confirmed sexual relationship with the Kommandant, offered the chance to give that character a happy ending sooner than that of her former mistress.

Early on, in a world where so little can be counted on, the question of Marion’s loyalty is of paramount importance to Robin, more so one might argue, than whether, even, she reciprocates his love.

The sexual aspect of her loyalty early on in Apple Tree and Lover’s Lane is almost always their departure point for argument. Marion expects him to have faith in her. But Robin, as would any of us (like the rest of Guernsey), logically assumes she is sexually involved with Geis.

Robin believes that sleeping with Geis would equal a betrayal of English values, and therefore, of him.

He carries the wound of Marion, at the time of their break-up fight, attempting to (in his eyes) use sex to manipulate him before she intends to leave him behind for America. And he knows, historically in their relationship, that Marion has never viewed sex in the same light as he has (and was socially expected to do).

Which culminates in the argument on Sark before Marion is returned to Geis following her kidnapping, wherein she attempts to get him to see that on the Islands during occupation, believing her agency is uncomplicated and without consequences in any sexual liaison is merely an illusion.

Hopefully, the series is more than just this debate/discussion. Certainly, to me it’s about more than sexual jealousy, but certainly that was an inciting catalyst.

Then again, maybe the overriding issue of sexual loyalty is just a notion I contemplate to try and defend the large number of hook-ups in finalizing the series…

But Don’t is also about heroism. At its very core.

I have personally long been fascinated by certain ‘hero’ narratives that see the heroes returning to normal life, such as the man instrumental in the Warsaw ghetto uprising who survived the war, moved to Florida, and successfully opened a chain of grocery stores. Or the Daniel Craig character/ real-life figure of the Jewish commando, Tuvia Bielski, who hid people in large numbers in the Polish woods in Defiance and went on to live a life in New York, running a small trucking company for 30 years--where his own children were ignorant of what he had done during the war.

For a long time this kind of “post war information”/return to normalcy always bummed me out. But as I’ve aged, I’ve honestly come to believe that this is wherein true heroism lies.

To know when to stop fighting. To manage to reclaim something of a ‘normal’ life. To enjoy the accomplishment of what was being fought for, the fruits of your wartime labors—and particularly for the oppressed people groups in WWII (Jews, the Rom), to partake in the society, culture, and family life/continuation of your people, as that is exactly what your enemies were trying to prevent you from doing.

To thrive in the wake of your oppression.

And in my age, I think I’ve realized that even though these heroes, these people who accomplished remarkable things during the war, then stop behaving quite so obviously heroic (no longer action movie stars) the heroism that they then face is a quieter one, one of learning to cope and process what the war did to them.

And really, it’s not flashy, but it is no less compelling. No less transformational, and dramatic as can be.

Some readers may still wish to argue that twelve years is too long a time, that it is impractical that Carter’s grandson is not well-acquainted with all that took place in the narrative. Rest assured; I’ve read more than my share of war and post-war narratives, of combatants and non-combatants alike, and the thread of survivors never again speaking of what happened to them, or simply never coming back home (though they lived) are more common than not.

Sometimes they find a way to speak of what happened to them, they speak only to others who experienced it, they go on to help curate a memorial—that safe space where they can speak and share about their experiences; they write it down, they paint it.

I’ve had two feedback responses that I think are important enough to include here for the general reader.

The first involves the gang not attempting to canonize Marion as a hero during the time she is missing/a thought that Marion should not feel quite so awfully, or make such drastic decisions based upon her wartime life choices.

Historically, honestly, that would have been pretty unlikely. The taint of collaboration would have overwhelmed any ‘redeeming possibility’ of Marion's resistance work as the Nightwatch (which it would not be simple to convince anyone she 100% was; the wrong accent--the fact no one ever really saw the Nightwatch, the fact Vaiser put forth that it was really Joss Tyr just for starters), and the fact Marion was female, in the 1940s; the world at large would hold the likelihood of her having been Geis' lover (recall: the importance of sexual loyalty) far above the slim chance that she was also the Nightwatch. Such things as promiscuity (especially with the enemy) weren't taken lightly, nor forgiven in females. Robin’s connection to her would have been colored by the notion she had been a scarlet woman, and him, doubtless unable to resist being in her thrall. (Honestly, as backward a notion that man is defined by an inability to resist his private parts as that a woman is in all situations responsible for what befalls hers). In fact, into the 1980s and 90s, the Channels were still fighting over who collaborated and who didn't. (Jersey records account for at least 900 illegitimate babies born to Islander mothers and German soldiers during the Occupation. As recently as 20 years ago the Islands were still in denial of this, despite Public Records being released that proved the numbers.) It was very divisive, a true crisis of the islands, and remains so to this day. So while I think, in later decades, yes, the world could embrace Marion as a hero, could believe her tale--those alive during the war, living out those years and trying to survive the wake of its ending, would not have been in a state of mind to accept her. In that starkly black and white, right and wrong, mindset of the times, she would have been condemned on all accounts. She would have had to be dead for real for her to be lionized, or even thought acceptable in Britain. Additionally, the National Secrets Act, which kept Robin & Co., and likely Carter from speaking about their war work for DECADES (if ever) following the war's end would have prevented anyone from talking about the Nightwatch, their time on Sark, etc., under penalty of imprisonment, and/or threat of a charge of treason. Not to mention being socially ostracized.

And Marion is that great sort of pragmatist/realist that fully understands this. And she's right, really. At least in that she's right that collaboration was not at all tolerated in the wake of the war. The taint she fears for Robin would have been 125% a real thing. He would have been tainted.

And we all know how skeletons in the closet are found and often via spin made into skeletons when they may not really be—in the political (or as he calls it, public) world. In fact, despite the majority of Islanders alive during the Occupation having died (and some, emigrated elsewhere) the Channels are still trying to work through and figure out how to accept WWII collaborators among them, how to speak of them historically. As said, it is still a tremendously divisive issue. So Marion's right in her conclusion about what association to her would bring about (even if her Nightwatch identity were known), but she's wrong in her understand of Robin. She's always hoped for that public life of doing good and legislating for Robin (no doubt because Edward was her standard for how a good man behaves/takes action), and she's right that Robin would excel at it, but she has never been able to get her head around the idea that Robin doesn't have any interest in that, playing that game, being that person—no interest in matters of state and diplomacy. It is that tragic flaw of a mistake/miscalculation she makes over and over again.

It may seem to go without saying, but let me thank you (any of you, all of you) for reading. Let me shower laurels on those of you who reviewed. I did write this work for myself, no doubt about it, but the encouragement of hearing from others reading cannot be undercut. It is an immense support to know as an author that your words matter to someone else out there.

And if you’ve been reading and you’ve never commented or checked-in, by golly, you’ll never find a better time than now.

I made some promises to myself, for when I finished Don’t. To buy all four CDs of Time Life’s Romantic Memories of the War Years (digital files of the original versions of many of the songs on them not available). To commission some fan art. To work to get the entire series posted to AO3.

But right now, I’m learning something new. I’m learning how to deal with surviving in the wake of completing a long, long work. As I mentioned earlier, when the end of Death came, I was already working on Don’t.

But, what now? What next?

I will never be over Robin/Maria(on). Of that you can be sure. But will I write more BBCRH? It seems doubtful, unless I do so to conclude at least one unfinished story (hi, sylvi10!). Don’t is certainly my ‘last word’ on the BBC series (I think). While I’ve not ‘gotten over’ them killing Marian (etc.), I have at least worked through it.

There was a time I thought to play around with writing “Widow Hood”, wherein Robin is killed in S2 in the Holy Land, not Marian, and Marian is the one left to reassemble the gang (re-recruit Will and Djaq back to England) and we sort of see if she can accept Guy into the gang, as the show had Robin doing, if she can forgive Allan’s betrayal, and see if she can overcome Robin’s loss (as the show had Robin ALLEGEDLY doing in S3). But I think my pursing that (at least as a whole) is pretty unlikely at this point.

What I do know, is I feel confident I can write to a longer form now, and manage chapter breaks to my own satisfaction if not others’. And somewhere out there, the promise of The Perfect Hat is waiting for me.

#the don't series #afterword #neftzer #'til i come marchin' home #fanfiction

0 notes