Stroke of Midnight chapter 7, Elsie chapter

So, where were we?

I CLEANED OFF THE REMNANTS OF THE MAKEUP THAT I HADN’T cried away. Got the lipstick that still looked like clown makeup off, and even gave Frost a makeup cleansing cloth so he could do his own face . We were clean and neat and presentable when we started back to the crime scene.

...you know, being off the grid for about a month let me forget the pleasures of reading Laurel K. Hamilton. Namely, realizing that the author seems to have no idea whatsoever how normal people behave. Merry has been wandering around the fairy mounds with her lipstick smeared across her face for hours. She never, not once, took time to clean up her own face.

I do not wear makeup, mostly because I hate cleaning the damn stuff off. I get that it's a pain in the ass to mop lipstick off everything that isn't lips (Which is why I like that lipstain stuff, and the stuff that flakes off after a few hours. It looks real shitty when you take it off, but at least you don't get neon red stains on your nice blouses)

OH LOOK SHE EVEN MANAGED TO GIVE FROST A BABY WIPE.

And see, silly me, I assumed that sometime between her interview with Aunt Crazy and her phone call to the FBI razor blade, she'd taken a quick trip to the bathroom to clean off the lipstick. BUT NO. WE MUST SEE THE EVIDENCE THAT MERRY IS SO DESIRABLE HER BOYFRIENDS SMEAR HER LIPSTICK IN FRONT OF THE PRESS. FOR PAGES.

We needed to have finished the questioning of the witnesses before then in case they said something that we didn’t want the human police to know. I wanted justice, but I also didn’t want to make the bad publicity worse by sharing some dark secret with the human world.

You know what these books are like? They're like those e-surance commercials that riff on Geico while making fun of old people. THIS ISN'T HOW THIS WORKS. YOU DO NOT GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT WITTNESSES TELL THE POLICE AND STILL GET TO CLAIM THE HIGHER GROUND.

They get stopped by random guards...but we take a break from that so one of Merry's men can make out with her hair.

I have finally crossed over to the dark side and begun watching Game of Thrones. I am neither impressed nor unimpressed (In a nutshell, FUCK the Lannisters with one notable exception, I like Daneryes but good fucking God she and Sansa are both dumber than a sack of potatoes, I am an eternal Jason Moama fangirl, and I'm pretty much just watching in the hopes that Arya Stark and Tyrion Lannister take her brothers and run off into the woods somewhere.)  But what it has made very clear is that Laurel K. Hamilton has no fucking clue what epic means and the comparison between ASoIaF and Merry Gentry is about as apt as a comparison between good beef jerky and road kill toads.

Also: why are they standing in the hallway thinking about going to the press conference? Why are we having another press conference? Was I smoking something last month when I thought there was plot here? WHAT IS GOING ON.

...uh, halucinations about dead trees, apparently. Merry touches Mistral with the magic ring of fertility and this happens:

The tree represented the Goddess, and the power of faerie; the hill was The Hill. We stood at the center of the world, but the center of the world changed at the thought of the gods. In this moment , this was the center, and Mistral and I stood at that center.

Christ, Laurel. WORDS SHOULD NOT WORK THIS WAY. You're at the center but it's not the center because the center changes and I'd advise you to use your fucking thesaurus but I already know how well that'll go.

And then we get an etherial voice going "YOU ARE THE CHALICE" and I guess that would be kind of meaningful...but no. Nope. Sorry. Merry's messianic complex is not interesting. At all.

“If I am not real, then you cannot kiss me.” “You cannot be real.” “You were always my doubting Thomas, Mistral.

OH FUCK YOU.

I'm sorry. Thomas is just my favorite deciple (and Peter, because I'm pretty sure Peter's nickname was "fuck up" behind his back. Pretty much everything from the Garden of Gesthemene on is "How can Peter fuck up this time?") because (according to my personal headcannon) he loved Christ too much to believe in the resurrection without personal proof.

And I really, REALLY do not like seeing one of the more dramatic characters in the Gospels being pulled out here to draw yet another paralelle to further facilitate Merry's rise as Fairy Jesus. It's kind of like getting slammed upside the head with a bedpan.

When they're done making out in the relm of fairy LSD, Merry and Mistral are...sigh...grinding in public with poorly described genitalia.

He whispered against my face, and I could not focus enough to see him. “Do you want to ride the storm?” His breath was hot against my skin

Do you want to ride the storm. Good greif, that's like something a twelve year old would say. That's not romantic, that's a billboard for a thrill ride. You know, there is a self published book about a were-rollercoster (The chosen were-rollercoster. Because it's red) and all I could think when I read that was Well, Six Flags ought to sign up for that ride.

And thank god, the chapter ends there.

And now...Elsie.

There's a long episode involving her grandfather's watch that I'm going to skip. The gist of it is that Arthur took it, broke it, blamed it on a slave, and Elsie spoke up for the slave and got Arthur in trouble and oh isn't she sorry but that's EXACTLY HOW EVERY EXCHANGE BETWEEN ARTHUR AND ELSIE GOES.

And no one punishes Arthur for taking the watch and lying about it because everybody who isn't this book's incredibly narrow definition of Christian is a horrible person who will ruin their children.

Seriously. That's what the book is trying to say.

And then we have more pages about how horribly everyone else treats her because of how she told on Arthur.

Meanwhile Elsie's Aunt Adelaide tells Horace he's being an ass to his own kid. He promptly blows his top and bites her head off.

All that Adelaide had said was true; yet Elsie never complained, never blamed her father, even in her heart; but, in her deep humility, thought it was all because she was "so very naughty or careless;"

This is probably the biggest error this book--and this branch of Christianity--makes. Humility has been interpreted for years as an undervaluing of one's self and talents, a kind of self-depreciating sabotage of anything remotely resembling confidence and self-esteem. The reason for this is glaringly obvious--the less confident an individual is, the easier they are to manipulate. The less self-esteem a person has, the more likely they are to compromise their values and safety to preserve a relationship. Elsie's undervaluing of her own self-worth is being presented as a positive character trait, rather than as a symptom of gross systematic abuse and negligance.

The biggest danger of this kind of thinking is that it makes your self-worth something utterly dependent on how other people perceive you, which leaves you wide open to many forms of manipulation and abuse, not to mention depression as you continually fail to measure up.

Thing is, I don't see that the Bible--specifically, the gospels--or the early and/or saner teachings of the church place any emphasis on the undervaluing of the self. Instead, there's a strong warning about the polar opposite, yet equally unhealthy attitude--the undervaluing of other people. Drawing your self-worth from how much better you are than the other, constantly calling attention to how much better you are, and generally trying to make those around you feel like shit so that you feel better about your own self is just a symptom of the same illness. It's not even really an opposite--both traits are founded in the same issue--a poor sense of self-worth. And there are many, many places in the bible where the value of the individual is, if not outright emphasized, then at least highlighted. Probably the corniest is "love your neighbor as yourself". If you don't love yourself, how can you love your neighbor? Christians are not commanded to devalue themselves or anyone else--ever. For any reason. If anything we are required to do exactly the opposite--value everyone, equally, no matter what, no differences and no excuses.

Holding up the battered psyche of an abused little girl as an ideal attitude is sick.

 And fortunately the chapter ends there without any massive infarctions on the part of any adult.

...that won't last.

I am still alive

Sorry for the long silence, guys. Combination of personal and job related factors (plus own laziness) conspired to make me not want to do shit for several weeks. Wanting to pull the entire world over your head and vanish forever tends to do that.

Don't worry. Updates will now try to resume on a regular schedule. I think.

Stroke of Midnight chapter 6, Elsie chapter four and five

Next up, Merry calls the fed who investigated her father's murder. And now it's obvious LKH is avoiding plot like it's got plague. Again.

Gillett is the guy's name. Obviously, somebody in the Hamilton house bought a new set of razor blades when she was casting around for monickers.

Everybody's like "OH NO DO YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA" so that means we're going to have another goddamn pissing contest. One that is even MORE valid than Anita's because Anita is at least some kind of official cop in her universe, whereas Merry is a PI, and more attuned to divorces than actual court cases.

However, I seem to be wrong; it turns into a pissing match between Doyle and Galen because Doyle didn't know Merry had a fed's private number and Galen did. Look, is there a REASON why no one in this series can have a decent peer to peer relationship?

I looked into Doyle’s face as I held Galen to me. Did Doyle not know that my heart’s list had grown larger, and that his name was on that list? The way he was acting, he seemed jealous, or envious, or angry.

And this is how we know that this is not polyamory, but something like the polygamous relationships in the FLDS. None of these men like being in a relationship with anyone other than Merry. None of them do much more than tolerate each other. Merry is the only one happy because she doesn't have to commit to any of these guys. It's not good and it's not healthy. The guys should not be at each other's throats ALL THE FUCKING TIME if this relationship was actually working.

So she calls her pet fed, talks for about three minutes, realizes that he REALLY wants to investigate and that he won't be controllable, regrets it and tries to hang up. So we go through the positive relationship in about three pages and move on to who has the bigger whatever.

And then Merry has a cathartic moment. Which would be significant if it weren't treated like her very last catharsis before getting over a deep wound.

Guys, sometimes you never get over things. Recovery and healing both indicate a process, and it's one most people, including myself, never stop working on. The attitude that you can be healed--that there comes a point where you don't have this whatever-it-is hanging over your head--and that, by extension, if you haven't fully healed you're being clingy and wrong-headed--is stupid and sick. It's a process, not a race. You're better today than you were yesterday, even if it doesn't feel like it, and you'll be better tomorrow than you are today, even if you don't believe it. Merry is "shoulding" all over herself...and by extension, shitting on other survivors by somehow implying that a single episode of crying and greif can heal a wound.

It's also kind of irritating that the ONLY form of character development LKH can muster up is "getting over old wounds". Not, you know, making new friends and bonds and new careers, and having more experiance to deal with situation X, or making choices that bring a new and bigger perspective into the character's life. Nope, it's only by dwelling on what we've already done that these characters can advance.

This utterly pointless chapter ends with Merry getting a group hug and a very big cry.

On to Elsie.

So last time Elsie got sent to bed without supper because she disobeyed a poorly explained instruction. Today, we get a really interesting exchange. See, Elsie has friends from outside the household over. Lucy and Hubert, specifically. And Lucy asks Elsie what happened last night. Elsie explains about her punishment. It's Lucy's reaction that is interesting:

"Was that all? why my papa wouldn't have punished me for that," said Lucy. "He might have scolded me a little if I had done it on purpose, but if I had told him I had forgotten, he would only have said, 'You must remember better next time.'" ..."He must be very strict indeed; I'm glad he is not my papa," replied Lucy, in a tone of great satisfaction.

You know what? It sounds like Lucy has a very healthy set of parents, AND as if she's doing exactly what children need to do: comparing the behavior of strange adults to safe ones. She's analyzed Elsie's situation, decided that it's not normal, and has decided that this "not normal" is something she NEVER wants to deal with.

Elsie, however, does not have the same healthy frame of reference. Because both the elder Dinsmores and her father have strongly limited her contact with outsiders, she doesn't know how other children behave. She's desperate to retain her father's love, and one of the elements of retaining that love is gratitude. Over and over in the book so far Horace has overheard his daughter defending his bad behavior towards her. This is what motivates most of his warm responses. Isolated people, especially children, are very dependant on the people doing the isolation--be it an abusive spouse, a cult leader, or a bad parent. When a fact comes to light that threatens their isolater/abuser, it threatens the foundations of their security. They have to defend the abuser to maintain what they believe to be their own safety and security. This is one of the primary motives behind isolating a victim (the other being that the victim has no resources to leave on). They'll have someone with the tenacity of a rabid dog as a defender. An abuse victim who has not woken up yet will fight for their abuser to the hilt, not because they care, but because they believe their own well-being is threatened if anything happens to this person. The illusion of security and safety is that valuable to them. In the primary audience for this book--ten to sixteen year old homeschooled girls--this scene re-enforces that outside criticism of the adult figures in the child's life is dangerous and should be regarded as an attack--and that the child is their primary line of defense. Many homeschool children are taught how to lie to CPS--are actually drilled so that they all have the same story no matter what--to protect their parents from repercussions. I remember being deathly afraid to go outside before 2PM because someone might come and take me away from my parents, and my parents didn't do the whole "CPS is evil" thing.

Another example of Horace isolating Elsie is his refusal to let her go on a pleasure trip the Dinsmores had planned. His excuse is that he had planned to go too, but since he couldn't, his daughter won't be going either. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as the kid's lived eight years without him. It's not about her safety--it's about him maintaining control over the girl in every possible aspect. When she sends a servant to town to pick up some candy for herself, Horace intercepts and burns it.

And again: Both Elsie's defense of her father and her father's treatment of her are currently treated as good things.

Elsie sends Lucy to ask Horace for her candy. He sends Lucy back and demands Elsie come herself. He asks her why she sent her friend and she says that she was afraid of him.

Horace then drags out "Abuser tactic number 99995"

 "If I were a drunken brute, in the habit of knocking you about, beating and abusing you, there might be some reason for your fear, Elsie," he said, coloring with anger; "but, as it is, I see no excuse for it at all and I am both hurt and displeased by it."

 Why NO Horace ,you don't beat your kid. You only threaten to do it, as you did over the episode with the snake. You also limit her food and contact with friends, seemingly arbitrarily, criticize everything she does (including crying when your behavior hurts her) demand perfection when an ADULT wouldn't be capable of it, and threaten frequently to take EVERYTHING she values away from her. Now you are holding the first personal pleasure this kid has asked for in several pages. WHY THE FUCK WOULD SHE NOT BE AFRAID OF YOU.

One way an abuser will defuse an accusation of abuse is to say that there are so many worse things they could be doing, how could this thing ever be considered abusive? Beating is bad, but not beating a child, or a lover, does not excuse things like limiting outside contact, food choices and emotional behavior. ABUSE IS WRONG, and even if there are bigger abuses out there, that does not make the abuses any individual experiance smaller. The oppression olympics do not exist, nobody gives out gold medals to the truely suffering and tell the merely miserable that they need to try better next time. Everyone's pain is valid, and being damaged by a parent who limits themselves to emotional abuse is damage, just as if you were physically beaten.

Elsie's response is, as usual, pretty heartbreaking:

"I'm afraid he doesn't love me much," sighed Elsie in low, tearful tones, "for he hardly ever lets me have anything, or go anywhere that I want to."

I said it yesterday, I'll say it again: Children with confidence in their parents' love will practice rejection and defiance with their parents because they feel absolutely safe in doing so. They know that even if they get negative consequences, they will remain loved and safe. This practice, especially in the first ten years of life, enables the adult to reject unwanted lovers, or pressure to go along with an activity they do not want to participate in. They are secure in their self worth. A child so perfectly obedient they won't even cry in public is a possible indicator that the parent/child relationship has been sabotaged, and that the child believes their behavior and compliance dictates their self worth. When a parent teaches their child that behavior=value, they create an easily manipulated adult who believes the only way they have value is to do as they are told--wheither or not the order is healthy, wheither or not they want to.

Which brings me to the next disgusting point in this awful, awful book

But Elsie shook her head sadly, saying with a little sigh, "No, Lucy, you are very kind, but I cannot disobey papa, even if he should never know it, because that would be disobeying God, and He would know it."..."Oh!" she murmured half aloud as she covered her face with her hands, and the tears trickled through her fingers, "how soon I have forgotten the lesson papa taught me this morning, and my promise to trust him without knowing his reasons. I don't deserve that he should love me or be kind and indulgent, when I am so rebellious."

The sabotage of the parent/child relationship also sabotages the child's spirituality. To quote Fight Club:

Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?

I really cannot express how rivited I was by that scene. It was one of the most shattering moments I think I've ever had, like I was hearing my own brain scream at me. But I probably didn't interpret it the way the author and moviemakers intended. When a child's relationship with their parents is sabotaged, they view every authority figure with the same expectations--that their value is completely determined by their compliance, by what they can do. This is dangerous enough when one is dealing with spouses, lovers and bosses--it becomes lethal when applied to the concept of divinity. First, it means whatever relationship you enter into with your god is already sabotaged. You already have a performance-based relationship and will not seek help and guidance from your form of divinity, rather turning to them only when you feel you have something worth bringing to them. Second, and far more importantly, it leaves you wide open to manipulation via a mediator. Your pastor, leader, priestess, whatever, can very, very easily make obedience to them the same as obedience to God. Having any kind of mediator between yourself and the divine is INCREDIBLY dangerous, but it is increasingly more so for people who had strong performance-based expectations on themselves as a child. (Note: There are good mediators out there, but they are the ones who usually understand how dangerous their role is for their following, and take steps to educate their followers and limit their role in their respective body.)

Things have gotten to the point where Elsie's former tormentors are starting to come to her defense, asking if maybe Horace is going too far. This is presented in the book as an outside attack on Horace.

And so in the middle of all of this, here comes Chloe with bible verses ready to comfort Elsie.

"Darlin'," said Chloe, earnestly, "didn't you read to your ole mammy dis very morning dese bressed words: 'If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,' an' de other: 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.' Go to de dear, bressed Lord Jesus, darlin', an' ax Him to forgive you, an' I knows He will."

One: I like how Chloe's accent disappears when she's reciting bible verses. Kind of weird how a woman who can't say "blessed" can say "advocate".

Two: NO. NO YOU FUCKING DID NOT. YOU DID NOT. YOU DID NOT JUST COMPARE A CHILD'S INABILITY TO COPE WITH EMOTIONAL FUCKING ABUSE TO SIN. YOU FUCKING WASTE OF FUCKING ELECTRONS WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE DOING GIVING THIS BOOK TO LITTLE KIDS FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.

The story drew me right into the life of the main character and I found myself wanting to be just like Elsie - with such a pure heart and such strong faith! I didn't want to stop reading, and when I finished the book, I wanted the next one in the series right away. I even loved the Foreword to the book which is full of fascinating information about the history and the social customs of the 19th century. This modern version is very well-written and much easier to read than the original 1868 text. The characters really come to life! The book inspired me to want a much closer walk with the Lord!--Amazon Review

 This is a wonderful story of a little girl who put God first no matter what the cost. It is a must read!

My 9 year old daughter and I have been reading this series together at bedtime. She loves it and I'm happy to read it to her as it gives the example of a a girl, woman, wife and mother with a Godly Character. I'm hoping my daughter is influenced for the better with this story. I wish more books were written like this in today's world where evil and witchcraft seem to be approved reading & viewing material for our children. My daughter's only wish was this could be created into a movie, but if it was I would want them to stick to the book and not dramatize the story with falsehoods like they do so many others.--another Amazon Review

But goddamn it I'm making it through the rest of this chapter TONIGHT.

 So the next morning she goes downstairs and Horace is treating her with coldness as usual.  Elsie takes Lucy to her father's drawing room to look at something. Arthur follows her, they have an arguement, and he pushes her over. On her way down, she knocks over one of Horace's vases. It breaks. Horace comes in and Arthur tells him Elsie broke it on purpose. He shouts at her, sends her upstairs, and locks the door on the other children. Lucy defends her after a few minutes, and Horace sends her back downstairs.

Explosive anger is very damaging for a child. Children do not understand how upset adults get when something bad happens. They cannot cope. It is up to adults to control themselves around children.

 She was thinking, "Papa says I am naughty sometimes, but oh! how very naughty he would think me if he knew all the wicked feelings I had yesterday."

I hate this book. I hate this book. OH GOOD FUCKING GOD how much I hate this book.

 The next thing that happens is Horace restricts her allowance. He gives her the full amount, but he requires her to account for every cent she spends. So now she'll have to ask herself if her father will approve of any item she buys, thus further restricting what she can and cannot do. And while he phrases it as a responsability, we're not that far off from the Candy incident.

Which Horace brings up almost immediately.

"Candy, half a dollar; remember, Elsie, there is to be no more money disposed of in that way; not as a matter of economy, by any means, but because I consider is very injurious. I am very anxious that you should grow up strong and healthy. I would not for anything have you a miserable dyspeptic."

Horace then explains that he wants to limit the amount of contact Elsie has with Lucy because he overheard some of the things Lucy said about him.

Horace then analyzes what Elsie bought the previous month and then this happens:

"She is a dear, unselfish, generous little thing," he said to himself. "However, I may be mistaken; I must not allow myself to judge from only one month. She seems submissive, too,"—he had overheard what passed between her and Lucy at parting—"but perhaps that was for effect; she probably suspected I could hear her—and she thinks me a tyrant, and obeys from fear, not love." This thought drove away all the tender feeling that had been creeping into his heart; and when he next met his little daughter, his manner was as cold and distant as ever, and Elsie found it impossible to approach him with sufficient freedom to tell him what was in her heart.

YES. BECAUSE GOD KNOWS HOW YOU ARE THOUGHT OF BY YOUR CHILD IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT CHILD'S WELL BEING AND SECURITY GOD FORBID YOU PUT HER EMOTIONAL NEEDS FIRST YOU GODDAMN FUCKING ABUSIVE FUCK.

End of chapter.

Midnight chapter 5, Elsie chapter four part 2

CALLED MAJOR WALTERS OF THE ST. LOUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, who had been in charge of our security at the airport the day before. I called from the only land line phone in the Unseelie sithen. The phone was in the queen’s office.

Good, good, we're advancing the plot and bringing in previously mentioned characters. I'd like to know how a land-line phone can, you know, work in an ever-shifting magic place but--

Which always looked to me like a black and silver version of Louis the Fourteenth’s office if he had liked going to Goth dance clubs for the dissipated rich. It was elegant, dark, expensive, and exciting in that chill-up-your-spine way; modern, but with a feel of the antique; nouveau riche done right. It was also a little claustrophobic to me. Too many shades of black and grey in too small a space, as if a Goth curtain salesman had persuaded them to cover every inch of the room with his wares.

Plot? No. Let's firmly establish that THIS IS GOTH. IT'S GOTH. GET IT? IT'S GOTH.

And the sad thing is it's so fucking limited to movie, vampire goth. It made sense with Jean Claude et all because movie vampires, but here? When there are so many other options? And for that matter, why is the immortal old-as-rocks fairy queen fixated on a 90s subculture version of a 1000's era asthetic? Why doesn't the immortal fairy queen get to have her own stuff?

Long-ass infodump about how the cops relate to the fairy, which would be so much more interesting than Vanilla Sex Scene Number 2358.

And then we decide to shoot everything about humans-in-the-fairy-mounds in the foot.

See, a big point of the guards protecting Tyler, Andais's new whipping boy, was that humans in the sithen had to be protected. They were valuable, cherished by all, and well guarded from harm because, you know, kidnapping victims.

One of our noblemen had lured her away centuries ago, but he’d grown tired of her. To stay in faerie she needed to be useful, so she learned shorthand and computer skills. She was probably one of the most technologically savvy people in either court.

Yeah, we forgot all of that.

Also: If she leaves the fairy mounds she ages and dies instantly. So in short, she can't leave the mounds. So somebody--probably the Queen--told her that if she doesn't want to die instantly and horribly she needs to learn how to use technology so far removed from her era that its nearest relation is a weaving loom. The fact that she did it speaks for a pretty incredible mind, but that is probably one of the most terrible situations mentioned in this book so far.

So Merry calls the cops and the very first thing their assigned officer does is chew Merry out for not letting his cops into the fairy mounds for the second press conference.

I like him already. I mean, he's being a bit of a piss-ant right now, but he's the very first character to actively call Merry out on her shit.

And Merry proceeds to manipulate the shit out of him. See, he's got a cushy job once he retires from this one and it's looking bad that he let the princess get shot, so her inviting the cops down into the mounds to investigate a murder will make him look good.

...nevermind that anybody with two brain cells will point out that not having the cops down there in the first place is what got the reporter killed.

Then the cop brings up Merry's dad's murder, and it's a pretty good conversation...that is promptly ruined by Merry being more insiteful about the cop. Because topping all the other characters is more important than, you know, actual human interaction. The chapter ends with Merry thinking about how being nice first is better than being mean because you can always be mean later.

Thirty six people highlighted it. I don't get you people.

Meanwhile, back in Elsie:

I went looking at the amazon reviews for the "Life of Faith" updates by Mission City Press, and I found this...thing. 

It's a bible study based on Elsie Dinsmore. For young girls.

Because this is absolutely what we want little girls to be studying.

So Elsie and Dad are going to Ion, to visit the Travillas. And it's relatively boring, noted only by how absolutely fucking creepy the positive interactions with Elsie and Horace are:

"Dear papa," she murmured, laying her little cheek against his hand, "how good God was to spare your life! If you had been killed I could never have had you for my papa."
 "Perhaps you might have had a much better one, Elsie," he said gravely.

 "Oh! no, papa, I wouldn't want any other," she replied earnestly, pressing his hand to her lips.

Emotional incest is a thing, y'all. And that's what the thing looks like.

One thing that is very, very clear, however, is that Martha Finley does not like the positive interactions. The negative treatment of Elsie is far more interesting than her positive moments. When a writer does not like a scene, they don't put a lot of effort into it. This scene? It's the literary version of mayo.

The gentlemen soon went out together, and Elsie spent the morning in Mrs. Travilla's room, chatting with her and assisting her with some coarse garments she was making for her servants.

Slaves. The word is slaves. These books were written contemporaneously to the civil war. Either during or immediately after. So all these glowing descriptions of happy slaves on beautiful plantations under the merciful hands of their masters? Were written so close to the end of slavery that newly freed slaves themselves could buy a copy and go "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU".

Also: Who reads a book this tone-deaf and goes "YES THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WHAT I WANT MY CHILDREN TO BE READING."

Oh right. This guy. 

So she gets lots of sympathy from Mrs. Travilla, and then Edward Travilla decides to take Elsie off to the gardens.

Alone.

While her dad is upstairs in the library.

Nothing happens, but it's creepy too. And again: We're giving young girls these books to study as "life lessons". So if Decon B. decides to take Annie off into the corner alone, he can say "Why, look at Edward Travilla!" and the little girl will just go along with it.

They go through dinner and Elsie goes off by herself to read. Because she's eight and she's bored. Travilla finds her and they have a perfectly lovely exchange. And by lovely I mean WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT

"Oh! please let me have it," she pleaded. "I shall not have much time, for papa will soon be calling me to go home." 

"No, no, he is not to take you away; I have made a bargain with him to let me keep you," said Mr. Travilla, very gravely. "We both think that there are children enough at Roselands without you; and so your papa has given you to me; and you are to be my little girl, and call me papa in future."

Because I don't think we're going to get that far, let me remind you that in a later book, Edward marries Elsie. So the man saying this to a child is her future husband. Who marries her with her father's permission and encouragement. If this is not the picture of grooming I do not know what is.

Elsie, being a neglected eight year old struggling to bond with her only living parent, panics and runs to her dad, and of course the entire exchange is dismissed as a friendly, happy joke and not, you know, completely fucking inapproprete behavior between a child and an adult. 

 And Horace's reaction is...yeah.

"Pooh! nonsense, Elsie! I am ashamed of you! how can you be so very silly as to believe for one moment anything so perfectly absurd as that I should think of giving you away? Why, I would as soon think of parting with my eyes."

Oh Elsie, you abused child who is currently being emotionally abused by fucking everyone, how could you dare be so silly as to believe that the parent who has been cold, emotionally distant and deliberately cruel at the drop of a hat would give you to the best friend he has known longer than you? How silly.

ELSIE IS A CHILD. ELSIE DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERIANCE TO PROPERLY JUDGE ADULT BEHAVIOR AND TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JOKE AND A REAL ACTION. ELSIE'S ONLY EXAMPLES OF ADULT BEHAVIOR ARE THE INCREDIBLY ABUSIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HERSELF AND HER RELATIVES NONE OF THIS IS HER FAULT AND NONE OF THIS IS OKAY.

The result of isolating children from others is that it gives them a highly distorted view of reality. They do not get the chance to compare the adults they know to the adults around other children. They don't get to compare their own behavior and treatment to that of their peer group. Normal, to them, is whatever lies at home. If home is safe, well adjusted, and not rife with toxic ideas (racism, homophobia, unhealthy religious mania) then this can work. But if ANYTHING about the home is toxic, the child comes to believe at best that toxic is normal. At worse they come to believe that healthy behaviors--ie dating, dancing, not being beaten--are actually unhealthy and that the only "good" way to live is in the toxic miasma of their family's thought systems and beliefs. The culture shock when they are finally allowed to interact with society only results in a confirmation that outside=bad.

A child secure in her relationship with her parents would understand that her father would never do this. A child secure in her relationship with her father might even play along--rejecting daddy is a safe behavior for young girls, because they know there will be no consequences and that daddy will continue to love them, and it gives them practice for telling romantic partners "no" in the future. Elsie is not a safe, happy little girl. Her relationship with her dad is very insecure, aided by Horace's outright sabotage of their bonds every chance he gets. OF COURSE she's going to assume that dad is rejecting her for real. He rejects her for real every damn day.

So they go home, Elsie gets put to bed by Chloe, and the next morning everything's back to normal.

And the next sequence is just....GOD.

Elsie and two of her aunts go for a walk. The aunts decide they don't want the little kid hanging around them, so they send her home alone, something her dad forbade her. To his credit, once she explains this Horace forgives her--because, you know, inadvertant disobediance needs to be punished the same as everything else, even if it's just a threat of withheld violence--and then Elsie mentions that she cut through a meadow on her way home. Horace reacts...well, pretty much the way he reacts to everything:

"Through the meadow?" said Mr. Dinsmore; "don't you go there again, Elsie, unless I give you express permission."
 "Why, papa?" she asked, looking up at him in some surprise.

 "Because I forbid it," he replied sternly; "that is quite enough for you to know; all you have to do is to obey, and you need never ask me why, when I give you an order."

NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Horace has a damn good reason for keeping Elsie out of that meadow, and if he told her that reason she'd never go. A child asking why when told no isn't usually being defiant. They're trying to understand how the world works. Being suddenly forbidden to go to a place when you've been there a thousand times before is certainly courious. But instead of explaining why, Horace makes it a thing about obediance and loving him, and not what it really is, which is a matter of Elsie's safety.


So a few days later Elsie and her friends are out playing and one of them shoots an arrow into the meadow. Elsie has forgotten all about Daddy's new rule, mostly because he didn't attach it to anything important, it was a one time exchange, and Elsie is out having fun with her friends. So she runs into the meadow to get the arrow, and only remembers that she's not supposed to be there when she gives the arrow over.

So she runs to tell Horace how she disobeyed him.

"That is no excuse, no excuse at all," said he severely; "You must remember my commands; and if your memory is so poor I shall find means to strengthen it."

Again: No connection to any real-world thing. Elsie is just told "Do it or else". It's a matter of Horace's control over Elsie, and nothing else. Elsie is to obey because she loves her father and she's a good girl. Not because there's anything real behind it.

So she gets sent to bed without supper.

And then this happens the next morning:

And leading her forward a few paces, he pointed to a large rattlesnake lying there. "O papa!" she cried, starting back and clinging to him. "It will not hurt you now" he said; "it is dead; the men killed it this morning in the meadow. Do you see now why I forbade you to go there?" 

"O papa!" she murmured, in a low tone of deep feeling, laying her cheek affectionately against his hand, "I might have lost my life by my disobedience. How good God was to take care of me! Oh! I hope I shall never be so naughty again."

This story, or a version of it, appears ALL THE TIME in Christian circles. It was tired and trite when this book was written. The value of ignorant obedience is repeated over and over and over again, and it's something that can get young girls KILLED. Instant, ignorant obediance is utterly worthless. It does not protect the child, it does not develop the child's reasoning skills, and it leaves the child incredibly vulnurable when they are adults, because they will never have learned the thinking skills they need to function. Obeying parents does have value because parents do know more than children.

Needless to say, this is considered one of the positive exchanges between Horace and Elsie.

And while we are still not done with this chapter, we're going to stop there.

Stroke of Midnight and Elsie--chapters 4

 In our last chapter, Merry Gentry finally grew a spine and developed a plot.

It takes about a paragraph for her to lose the former.

Look, I get that Andais is psychotic, sadistic and a very bad leader, and that she'll kill people on a whim. But everything about her is so overwhelmingly negative that we (when we have fucks to give) want Merry to stand up to her, challenge her, and get rid of her. That's part of why the last chapter felt surprisingly energetic--Merry's going to do what we've wanted her to do for several books: Stand up to her Aunt.

Now I swallowed the words because if she planned on blaming me for the deaths, even indirectly, I was sunk. Not only would I not be having the police to help me solve the crime, I would most likely be bleeding before I left this room. There is a saying in the Unseelie Court, “You visit the queen at your peril.” What sense of misguided justice had made me forget that?

Misguided jus--TWO PEOPLE ARE DEAD MERRY AND THE KILLER HAS A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING AWAY AND ONE OF THEM WAS A REPORTER. ALL YOU NEED TO UTTERLY DESTROY THE FAIRY FOOTHOLD IN THE STATES IS FOR A BUNCH OF REPORTERS TO START SNOOPING. GOOD. FUCKING. GOD.

And she bows to Andais, thus perfectly encapsulating everything that's wrong with Merry's character: She submits to stupid shit and refuses to stand her ground and follow through when it matters. She's the lesser of two evils, not the bastion of good that LKH wants her to be.

We waste a few minutes establishing that the Queen doesn't know who the fuck Beatrice, the dead fairy, is. 

 I realized that she was trying to pick a fight with me. She’d never done that before.

HAVE WE BEEN READING THE SAME GODDAMN BOOK LAUREL? ANDAIS HAS DONE NOTHING BUT PICK FIGHTS WITH MERRY FROM THE VERY FIRST BOOK AND MERRY HAS DONE NOTHING BUT AVOID THEM READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN WRITING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

We then spend another few paragraphs obsessing over Merry's lipstick, and how it's smeared across Frost's face.

THEN the Queen asks how a reporter could go wandering around the Sithen when she's got spells on it.

Uh...because he's a reporter. They do that. It's like trying to herd kittens. It doesn't work and it'll end with claws on your shin.

So FINALLY Merry asks for the cops. Incoherantly, because she's so frightened of her aunt that she gets hysterical.

Consistancy. It does not work that way. Merry makes a big show of having steel only to collapse at the first twitch from her Aunt. It's a good portrayal of an abusive victim but that is NOT how Merry is being played at any given time. When she's not with Andais she's the steel-and-whipcord iron plated Riply-esque Bitch LKH wants her to be...and when she's with Andais she's limp and floppy.

Except when she has to stand up to Andais. You know. Like she did in the last book. When she knocked the Queen down to her knees.

Merry gets the Queen to agree to having both the cops and the press involved in the investigation in VERY short order. Mostly so that we can move on to the Queen obsessing over why Barinthus never tried to make a king out of her son the way he's trying to make one out of Merry.

“I have not liked many things of late. Answer the question, Kingmaker. I know that if my brother, Essus, had been willing, you would have had him kill me and put himself on the throne. But he would not slay his own sister. He would not have that sin on his heart. Still, you thought he would be a better king than I a queen, didn’t you?”

Why would a non-Christian immortal, magical being with active, tangible Gods use "sin" in their every-day vocabulary? The Sidhe, as we are reminded over and over and over again, do not have a human (by which LKH means white anglo saxon protestant) sense of morality. So why would she refer to her own murder as a "sin"? That's a very specific theological concept. These things were not raised WASP the way their author was. They would not immediately think of fratricide as a sin. A crime, treason, a grave wrong, a blood debit, maybe, but not a sin.

It's just really out of place is what I'm saying.

So the Queen keeps asking Barinthus why Cel was ignored in favor of Merry when Cel even asked Barinthus to kill his mom for him. And Barinthus finally says it plain:

Barinthus answered her, blood flowing from his mouth. “You are a better queen than Cel will ever be a king.”

The Queen thinks about this for a second, then drops the punishment:

 The sound came with her words. “Meredith, you will do nothing with Barinthus that will chance you being pregnant by him. Nothing, is that clear?”

And given how Merry obsessed over not getting to give any of her men oral sex in the last book, I'm betting this is the entire reason we had that previous scene. It can't be Merry defying her Aunt and giving anybody she wants a BJ, oh, no. It has to be because the Queen made her do it.

Everybody files out of the room and the chapter ends.

On to Elsie.

And guys? This is about to get disturbing. Character development is a completely foreign concept to this author. The character traits someone has are the character traits they're going to have later. They MIGHT be migitated a little so that they're "better" after they're Saved True Christians, but most of the really nasty shit continues on throughout the series. Most of the dangerous, negative traits displayed by the male characters will continue after they Get Saved, and will be portrayed as positive traits from then on out.

Elsie's dad continues to ignore her for a week over the stage-fright episode. Today, however, he's being nice to her. This is called "intermittent re-enforcement" and it's a very, VERY powerful manipulation tool. It's the principle behind most gambling set-ups, addictive games and abusive relationships. If an individual receives positive outcomes in intermittent cycles, they become more likely to remain in a negative situation. It enforces a belief that if they continue to try hard, things will improve. They'll hit a winning streak. They'll stop being abused.

In this case, Elsie has been punished by a withdrawal of affection. Now, for no reason whatsoever, she's getting it back. Dad is talking to her and being nice. I've been in a couple of abusive relationships where I became afraid of my abuser's kindness. It was a warning sign that they were softening me up and that bad shit would soon go down. I preferred meanness and cruelty, because at least that could be predicted and managed. But Elsie is eight, and she doesn't have the coping skills of a (then) twenty three year old. So she walks into the dining room and sits down next to her daddy, all excited about breakfast.

And then the boom comes down.

"Elsie, will you have some meat?" asked her grandfather. 

"No," said her father, answering for her; "once a day is as often as a child of her age ought to eat meat; she may have it at dinner, but never for breakfast or tea."

..."If you please, papa, I had rather have some of those hot cakes," said Elsie, timidly, as her father laid a slice of bread upon her plate. 

"No," said he decidedly; "I don't approve of hot bread for children; you must eat the cold." Then to a servant who was setting down a cup of coffee beside the little girl's plate, "Take that away, Pomp, and bring Miss Elsie a tumbler of milk. Or would you prefer water, Elsie?" 

"Milk, if you please, papa," she replied with a little sigh; for she was extremely fond of coffee, and it was something of a trial to give it up. Her father put a spoonful of stewed fruit upon her plate, and as Pompey set down a tumbler of rich milk beside it, said, "Now you have your breakfast before you, Elsie. Children in England are not allowed to eat butter until they are ten or eleven years of age, and I think it an excellent plan, to make them grow up rosy and healthy. I have neglected my little girl too long, but I intend to begin to take good care of her now," he added, with a smile, and laying his hand for an instant upon her head.

He's restricting her food, exerting control over one of the few areas of pleasure and choice Elsie gets. Admittedly some of it sounds like good advice (Who the fuck gives a kid coffee?) but it's not being presented to Elsie as a change for the better. It's presented as a control from Dad. And no one else has to follow these rules. It isolates Elsie from her age group yet again. She's singled out for special, perceptively negative treatment, and that makes her a fine target for the other kids.

The next paragraph is absolutely heartbreaking:

The slight caress and the few kind words were quite enough to reconcile Elsie to the rather meagre fare, and she ate it with a happy heart. But the meagre fare became a constant thing, while the caresses and kind words were not; and though she submitted without a murmur, she could not help sometimes looking with longing eyes at the coffee and hot buttered rolls, of which she was very fond. But she tried to be contented, saying to herself, "Papa knows best, and I ought to be satisfied with whatever he gives me."

And that is how intermittent re-enforcement works. She got positive imput the first time she ate the designated breakfast, so she'll continue to eat the designated breakfast in the hope that maybe, someday, her obediance will please her father into loving her again.

Guys, obediance as a method of gaining love and acceptance DOES NOT WORK. If someone is healthy, they'll love and accept you reguardless. Obeying to earn the love of someone overwhelmingly negative towards you simply leaves you open to abuse and GREATLY lessens the odds of you seeking help or leaving the relationship. Abusers will actively work to enforce a culture of instant obediance simply because it makes seeking your own health (IE LEAVING) the ultimate, unthinkable disobedience. If you want to get specific, in the modern target audience--homeschooled Christian girls--it will foster an attitude best expressed in the Stay at Home Daughters Movement. Going to college and getting their own life is presented as the ultimate disobedience and will result in the loss of the only love-source--their fathers--that they know. (There is no emphasis whatsoever on a mother-daughter relationship in these fundamentalist circles) That they can develop other sources of positive input once they leave the home, and that these sources will be far, far healthier, is never, ever presented. Instead, they are told that no one will ever love or accept them out there. Thus you have thirty year old women staying at home under their father's control, running his businesses for him and usually helping to raise the last of their younger siblings. Marrige to an equally controlling male is the only acceptable way to leave the home. And because they've been raised to believe that love is something to be earned through obedience--that only good children get to be truely loved--they will do everything in their own power to follow the rules.

And yes, the other kids--mostly Arthur--tease Elsie about the simple meals. Finally he teases her to the point of tears in her father's hearing. He decides to send for her, excusing her from lessons for the day. She's scared of what Dad will do to her, with very good reason--every encounter with Horace has been overwhelmingly negative for her.

And once again, we start with a positive:

He held out his hand as she entered, saying with a smile, "Come here, daughter."

It was the first time he had called her that, and it sent a thrill of joy to her heart.

And then go directly to the controlling negative, and holy shit is it a doozy:

"You have been crying," he said, in a slightly reproving tone. "I am afraid you do a great deal more of that than is good for you. It is a very babyish habit, and you must try to break yourself of it."

Abusers like to control the outward expressions of emotion of their victims. Unless they're an absolute sadist, and few of them are ever really sadistic, tears or negative emotion from the victim makes them feel incredibly guilty. They react in many different ways--explosions, further punishments, extravagant expressions of remorse and generocity--but it all has the same end: making the negative emotions go away. The other reason is someone is more likely to reject the abuser when they're experiencing negative emotion. It's just like the pain of burning your hand makes you take your hand off the stove, the pain of being with an abuser will make you want to leave them. Repressing the emotions goes a pretty long way towards deadening them.

This repression is bad for an adult. It has horrific consequences in a child. I'm saying "negative emotion" instead of anger or sadness because negative emotion is expressed by feeling anger or feeling sad. You can actively feel neither and still be experiancing powerfully negative emotion. Negative emotion has to be expressed. If it is not allowed to pass through "good" mental channels--ie, anger, crying--then it will create a new channel, which is usually self destructive. ELSIE IS EIGHT YEARS OLD. She's been told over and over by her only sources of positive imput that anger is not a safe way to express negative emotion. Anger on her part gets a lot of negative feedback, so she's repressed it, and turned most of it inward onto herself, something fueled and created by her religious beliefs. She cannot be angry at the adults in her life, but she can be angry at herself for sinning. But she still has one release valve: It's safe for her to cry. Which is why she cries every. single. chapter. She has every right to be angry for this situation. She's abused, neglected, extremely isolated. But anger isn't safe, so she cries helplessly instead. With the negative emotion expressed, the pressure is off and she can go back to being whatever passes for happy in Elsie's world.

But now Dad is saying that she can't cry. The last good, healthy channel for negative emotion has just been blocked off.

I lived for several years in a situation where it was unsafe for me to cry, where any attempts to express negative emotion got immediately ridiculed and lectured. If I tried to leave the room I would be followed. If I went into my room on my own, I would be heard crying and be interrupted. This was when my self-injury issues skyrocketed out of control.

This book is a manual for child abuse, and it's still being marketed today to isolated, sad, emotionally neglected little girls as an example for their own behavior.

Dad then follows this psychological nuke up with another positive--he's taking her to see the Travillas! And we're going to stop there. There's a lot left in this chapter but I think that's enough overwhelmingly disturbing shit for one day.
 

AND THE BOOK. IT IS LIVE.

Yep. We're good to go right at midnight this time. Here's your buy links:

Barnes and Noble
Smashwords
Kobo
Amazon

Also, guys? Two years. TWO YEARS. I've managed to keep this up for TWO YEARS. Exiles itself (Well, the story it's leading up to) has been my obsession since 2007. Seven years of writing, and two years of non-stop self-pubbing fun. Thank you guys. It wouldn't have been as cool without you.

Have a good 4th of July, even if you guys aren't in the US, and happy reading.

Ivory Scars, Iron Bars Release: INCOMING

Just a couple more hours, my lovelies. Brace yourselves. :D