Examples allusion

In the modern age, I think one of the biggest questions anybody has had to deal with in a increasingly interconnected world from a religious perspective is the nature of how religious diversity came to be- not just internally, but externally.
The quran seems to at times explain religious diversity as a natural consequence and even ordainment upon humanity (5:48 and 10:99 come to mind here- if both are linked with each other than such would mean that some nations are meant to be as they are- even if they are what we would categorize as non monothiestic.
Quranically, such a nation could be seen potentially in Surah Yusuf. Egypt in this time is clearly implied to be pagan with Yusuf's conversation with his cellmates (12:36-42), and again in how the king's laws were different from Yusuf's (12:76). Yet the people in this verse seem to almost solely call on Allah only (when the egyptians speak of divinity, the word lilahi is used in places such as 12:31 and 12:51). If we assume the Wife of Al Aziz (Zuleikha as she is spoken of in exegesis, but also Rael) is speaking in 12:53, she does the same. In contrast, Egypt in the time of Musa amongst those who followed the Pharaoh mention waālihataka in the context of divnity- translated to multiple gods by most*).*
This could be a henotheistic situation like with the Quraish, but Prophet Yusuf aside from the prison does not do much preaching. There is a mention in Surah Ghafir (40:34) that Yusuf was rejected by the folk of Egypt, but this opens up more questions than answers (Egypt was not destroyed in Yusuf's time nor punished, nor does the quran call it's folk of that time disbelivers or mushrikeen....despite clearly being pagan. Neither does god state at any point that Yusuf was ordained to preach in Egypt. Yusuf likely was in Egypt during the Second Intermediate or Middle Kingdom Periods based on the ruler being referred to as a king if we attempt a historical contextualization, which were both dominated by pagan orthodoxy in the country.
Any criticisms on religion come from people that god narrates speaking, but not god themselves. It seems a small, but significant difference in comparison to how other nations in the quran are spoken of. 40:35 seems to continue on from this- but this verse may be unrelated to the matter (it also seems to be essentially be an allusion to cult like practices- the verse itself reads in what appears to be an orwellian matter in that folk should not question revelation at no point ever- it seems to follow in the maxim of such- "blessed are the minds who do not doubt, and cursed are those who do". Thus, it likely can and has been used to justify corrupt religious orthodoxies and institutions by silencing concerns of the layfolk, by arguing people do not have authority to question scripture or what it means. Essentially, it isn't blind following in all cases that the quran dislikes, but blind following of the right path is fine (and what "right" is can thus be made subjective to satisfy end goals). At the very least, from this verse solely. This would also likely be a favorite verse of those looking to justify spiritual abuse under the guise of well intentions.)
but at other times sems to argue that humans at some point recognized god for what they are, and that they chose to accept some kind of trust which seems to be in relation to living as humans, almost subliminally arguing that all people are somehow secretly aware of allah. Yet the quran also mentions that many folk can also be unaware or not know of god, that cities were not punished because they did know of a matter- that is the whole point of sending messengers. This in itself is an established point in jurispedence.
The verses that seem to indicate this are 7:172 and in 33:72. 33:72 seems to indicate man was very hasty in taking on said trust, to an almost shortsighted degree. However, 7:172 essentially opens up a serious question about personhood.
The claim that all folk somehow were brought forth in a primordial state to testify to god is a quran only claim- it is not as if we can go and ask somebody this happened. More importantly, considering that the quran directly shows evidence of god's interference with human consciousness by sealing hearts and ordaining paths or belief systems upon nations, we would not be able to gain a verifiable answer anyway. Since ideologies and understandings of the world are what influence actions (not the other way around, as a choice taken is always made in due part due to the convictions of a person), then it stands to reason that god sets both the cause and effect.
This would also justify fatalism (I've seen some try to argue for qadr allowing free will, but most arguments seem to be that there is a script but you can influence it a tad....which means we are mostly still bound by outside forces. The quran is even more confusing on this matter- at times it argues god is the only reason people believe or not, yet when the quraishi pagans use this very argument, they are accused of being decietful. The quran seems to want to uphold god's omnipotence and free will, and yet since the two will clash, seems to bungle both. The fact that the quran implies god created men to be upon the earth also seem to imply that humanity's acceptance of this trust and the expulsion of adam and hawwa seems to imply either events may not have been entirely free will oriented, but rather parts in a script that were unalterable (the fact that shaytan somehow managed to slink his way into heavean even after being banished seems to suggest that). Puppets on a stage, if you will, with long enough string that it looks like they have free will.
As for the issue of the primordial, what makes this so confusing is that it seems something from before birth (the opening of the book of deeds), is being taken into account in judgment. Generally, life is assumed to have begun at birth, not before.
The only way I could see this working is one of 3 methods- 1) mass mind wipes, 2) dharmic-style reincarnation, 3) ship of Theseus.
If we assume mass wind wipes were done prior to birth, then one should wonder why a person with no memories is being beholden to somebody who had said memories. Would the latter have done the same as the former? If we look at today, most wouldn't take up something so high stakes (existing as a human). Anti-natalism is a philosophical current in the modern day for a reason.
If we assume dharmic style reincarnation (the prototype souls were all regressed from being sapient to being infants), then essentially a lesser form of death has been experienced (the former cannot be seen as fully equivilent to the latter, and it cannot be possible to state either state would do the same actions in taking up the trust).
If we assume a ship of Theseus situation- god replaced each component of the old proto-souls with something new then but kept the same form- are those the same person as before? Is the delineation point form over substance? It doesn't seem like they are.
The only way that I could see this working is that the recognition of god is merely a recognition of the absolute in some form. How that happens in the living world is wildly dependent on various factors as enshrined by god or human actions. What may appear to be non belief in god may be in a sense, belief in some of his attributes. This is a mostly akbarian approach from what I can tell (though islam as a whole would be the most ideal path to take, it does not negate or subsume the others), but it seems to help avoid issues of mass damnation of humanity, and overall uphold god's mercy and salvation for other peoples.
Though one can argue since the quran mentions hell will be filled up, with all the nature of people being chosen to be guided or not, it could very well be the quran is arguing to a Calvinist style elect which would be seriously grim). Sometimes I wonder if in reading the quran pessimistically, is that perhaps how we should read it? It would lend itself to a more misotheistic understanding of god (as being evil or useless, but since the abrahamic god is all powerful, the former is the only possible approach in such a thought cycle- all actions would need to be reanalyzed as being conducive to some malevolent end.).
Of course, such a being would need to be rejected- if such a being would truly exist, and god was truly that- the only worship they deserve is to have their worship thrown into a fire and burned to never rise again. Essentially, allowing for the trust to be accepted by humanity was but the beginning of a series of malevolent machinations. To what end would be unknowable, but nothing good in general. It would be the inverse of the muslim thought process which argues even if we do not know something's occurence, there may be good in it. I'm not sure if this would be pessimism or simply being realistic or optimism vs cynicism sometimes between the two approaches.
Some would likely call such a view bizarre, but others would likely call it liberation from oppression, the only logical way to see faith, and an end to the evils of faith. I do wonder sometimes....in the modern day, the very concept of god by some is seen as having been the source of all, or perhaps most, evils. Granted, governments that espoused atheism were hardly better, but one could easily argue they made a cult out of their leaders, and thus see that as some kind of faith and condemn that.
If a prophet were to be sent down today, they wouldn't be dealing with people who would see miracles and scoff at them being of demonic origin, they would argue that and that even if they were from god, there's no guarantee god is good, citing history as their defense, or analogies to god as being an abuser, or that faith in anything at all in a religious context is a harmful thing. I wonder sometimes how a prophet of the past would react to that sentiment. It's not as if people are worshipping themselves, and even if they did try that argument of being beholden to one's desires- people would probably argue back that such an argument usually is used to justify abuse of people by depriving them of freedoms and safety, citing examples to do so. Or perhaps arguing in that god's mercy always comes with a price, or maybe by arguing heaven and hell both are eldritch hellscapes that lead to loss of self and existential horrors, or that faith in itself demands orwellian adherence and mindless obedience in one way or another- thus, corruption in religious institutions and the stifling of free thought isn't a bug, but a feature of faith. Granted, I'm sure all of these could be argued against in one way or another.
Ultimately, I think overall, god must be seen as being of mercy firstly. Otherwise, if this is overpowered at all times by other attributes, we wind up with all kinds of uneasy implications. Salvation cannot be gatekept, lest God becomes the demiruge. And while 40:35 may exist, the quran also asks people to ponder the quran. To ponder is to ask questions.
If god wishes to get mad at folks for reading and trying to understand, that is no god worthy of anything at all. It can, and must be rejected. Contexualization as always seems key.

Girlfriend(18) and her brother(22) are very close and this doesn't bother me. Recently though, he has been prodding at me with allusions to our bedroom life. For example he's been referencing the word shower alot after me and gf showered together for the first time. and throws me off by kinda jokingly saying things like"don't show you're face here again". He's even in one instance said it would be awkward if his dick was bigger than mine. And I'm thinking HUUUUH??? and when he says these things or messes with me my gf doesn't even defend me and sometimes laughs with him. Last night though I brought it up to her saying I thought his jokes were strange and that I felt disappointed that she didn't stand up for me because I cannot do that to her brother as I need to keep a good relationship with him. After this, she seemed to shut down and said I feel really bad for making you uncomfortable. And was more or less silent of the rest of the night. I asked her a few times what was up but she wouldn't tell me or didn't know. I might have came off a little harsh but I don't know.

This beef has, for me and I believe many of us, made me want to listen to Kendrick's previous works with the context of what we know post-Aubrey-cide. If you haven't yet, I'd definitely recommend going back to songs like DNA., ELEMENT., The Heart Part IV, N95, Rich Spirit... The list goes on, and I'm having a lot of fun discovering new layers of songs I've known well for years. The consistency of Kenny's artistry and values have really held up over time.
I did want to come back to the song "For Free??" though, because I feel like the Lucien reading for the character "Lucy" could have some more credibility now, and may even help us understand some of the things going on in the aftermath of Kendrick's four tracks.
Now obviously, in "For Free??", Lucy is Satan/Lucifer and serves to continue the characterization of the temptations of fame and wealth coming for Kendrick (or the character, whatever) throughout his journey through the rap industry. However, people have pointed out for years that "Lucy" could also be personifying Lucian Grange, the CEO of Universal Music Group.
I think when you consider the specific subject matter of Kendrick's initial parlay into the rap industry, it's a pretty good working theory, and frankly, an insanely clever way of working in some larger truths about the music industry while perfectly sticking to the themes of TPAB. But after seeing some of the preliminary fallout from this beef (which I think we can all agree goes a bit beyond music at this point), let's look at three lines in particular that stood out to me in the context of Lucien, Drake, and Kendrick:
"Lucy got million stories About these rappers that I came after when they was boring"

• This was the line that really got me thinking - the stories thing is hitting differently after the past two weeks. Considering Lucien and read in a darker way, "stories" could allude to Lucien/UMG using illicit temptations to their stars to get "stories" of them, thereby allowing them to more easily extort them and control their behavioreleases. Why DOES Drake drop underwhelming projects every year??

"Lucy just want your trust and loyalty, avoiding me? It's not so easy, I'm at these functions accordingly"

• Kendrick has clearly tried to resist Lucien thus far "avoiding me?", but UMG's power, and perhaps some compromised artists, are at all of these functions. Probably the same "(No More) Parties in LA" that Kendrick/Kanye talk about in that song (coincidence that that is their last collaboration before the "Like That (Remix)" ?? (I know Ye getting clowned for that but him spewing shit about Lucien is kind of what made me want to dig into this in the first place))

"Lucy gon' call you even when Lucy know you love your Father"

• "love your Father" could honestly be read a bit differently here than simply God, especially considering DUCKWORTH. and some of the father-themes throughout MM&TBS. Was Kendrick less susceptible to the dark side of the music industry's temptations because of his father's influence? I think you could make a good case. Drake had Dennis lmao

Anyways, sorry for the long post, but wanted to de-compress from the PE drama by listening to TPAB and couldn't help be fascinated by this angle of interpretation. I think Kendrick has really been making allusions to some of the nastier problems in the industry for a while. Have you found any similar bits of old songs that could be re-contextualized now?
Edit: I had three examples but typed “two lines” lol

1. Simile:
Definition: A figure of speech that compares two different things using the words "like" or "as."
Example: The night sky was like a vast canvas, scattered with stars as bright as diamonds.
2. Metaphor:
Definition: A figure of speech that implies a comparison between two unrelated things, stating that one thing is another.
Example: Time is a thief, silently stealing moments from our lives.
3. Hyperbole:
Definition: A figure of speech involving exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally.
Example: The suitcase weighed a ton, making it nearly impossible to carry.
4. Understatement:
Definition: A figure of speech where a writer deliberately represents something as much less than it actually is.
Example: The storm brought a bit of rain; nothing too major, just a small flood in the living room.
5. Personification:
Definition: A figure of speech where human qualities are attributed to non-human entities.
Example: The wind whispered secrets through the ancient trees.
6. Assonance:
Definition: The repetition of vowel sounds within nearby words in a sentence.
Example: The melody of the evening breeze gently swept through the fields of wheat.
7. Onomatopoeia:
Definition: The use of words that imitate the sound they describe.
Example: The door creaked open, and footsteps echoed in the empty hallway.
8. Alliteration:
Definition: The repetition of initial consonant sounds in neighboring words.
Example: The playful puppy pranced through the park, chasing butterflies.
*9. Oxymoron:
Definition: A figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.
Example: The comedian's humor was both dark and lighthearted, creating an unsettling joy.
10. Irony:
Definition: A figure of speech in which words express a meaning opposite to their literal interpretation.
Example: The fire station burned down while the firefighters were on vacation—what a twist of irony.
11. Pun:
Definition: A play on words that have multiple meanings or sound similar but have different meanings.
Example: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
12. Juxtaposition:
Definition: Placing two elements side by side to present a contrast.
Example: In the bustling city, the serene park offered a juxtaposition of tranquility amid the urban chaos.
13. Synecdoche:
Definition: A figure of speech where a part represents the whole or the whole represents a part.
Example: "All hands on deck" implies the need for the assistance of the entire crew.
14. Metonymy:
Definition: A figure of speech where one term is substituted with another closely related term.
Example: The White House issued a statement on the recent policy changes.
15. Zeugma:
Definition: A figure of speech where a word applies to multiple parts of the sentence.
Example: She stole both his wallet and his heart that fateful night.
16. Epiphora:
Definition: The repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses.
Example: The forest was mysterious, the mountains were majestic, and the rivers were enchanting.
17. Euphemism:
Definition: Substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for a harsh or blunt one.
Example: She passed away peacefully in her sleep, euphemizing the concept of death.
18. Anthimeria:
Definition: The use of a word in a grammatical form it doesn't usually take.
Example: She bookmarked the page to return to the thrilling story later.
19. Chiasmus:
Definition: A figure of speech in which the order of terms in one of the clauses is inverted in the other.
Example: "Do I love you because you're beautiful, or are you beautiful because I love you?" - Cinderella
20. Allusion:
Definition: A brief and indirect reference to a person, place, thing, or idea of historical, cultural, literary, or political significance.
Example: His ambition was Caesar-like; he aimed to conquer not only Rome but the hearts of its people.
21. Allegory:
Definition: A narrative in which characters and events represent abstract ideas or moral qualities . Example: Orwell's "Animal Farm" serves as an allegory for political corruption and the abuse of power.
22. Metonymy:
Definition: A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted with another closely associated with it.
Example: The pen is mightier than the sword, emphasizing the power of the written word over physical force.
23. Sarcasm:
Definition: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Example: "Nice job on the presentation," she said, her tone dripping with sarcasm as the audience chuckled.
24. Understatement:
Definition: A figure of speech where a writer deliberately represents something as much less than it actually is.
Example: The mountain climber faced a slight challenge as he ascended Everest, navigating only a few treacherous crevices.
25. Cliché:
Definition: An expression or idea that has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning.
Example: The detective followed the suspect's trail like a bloodhound, relying on the cliché methods of his trade. *

Hello I was wondering if someone could give me advice on how to improve for lit tomorrow and as the title says is it grade 7 worthy? Thanks
R+J
Throughout the play Romeo and Juliet conflict rises and climaxes several times. We can see this conflict adapt from servants of the family fighting mindlessly to Romeo and Paris fighting for love. This development also creates a sense of a tragic hero and the drama of ‘everything for love’. This goes against the patriarchal society of the time where love was arranged by the parents, not the sons fighting for marriage.
In my opinion conflict is presented differently per character for example Tybalt says “Peace, i hate the word, as i hate hell, all Montagues and thee” First of all we can see that this is a biblical allusion and to a certain extent a simile associating Montagues as hell. This quote isnt directly during or after conflict however this is before it, the buildup. In this quote the noun “peace” represents Tybalt calling Benvolio and instigating conflict. As mentioned earlier this quotes and especially the biblical allusion is incredibly impulsive especially because of the patriarchal society that the play was written and performed in, because of this the audience would have been deeply religious being impacted and disgusted every time hell or any other negative way of Christianity showed itself. This impulsiveness is present throughout the play and is a real problem. This also leads on to how the saying nowadays of every action has consequence and this quote does as we see Tybalt get killed ironically from Romeo while being impulsive getting vengeance for Mercutio.
Mercutio is a odd character, we see him change due to the result of conflict. He is a prime example of the effects of conflict as he Tybalt caused his demise. “Plague on both your houses” shows the way he changes. Now Mercutio isn't exactly blood related to any o the two house therefore not directly in the “ancient grudge” however he seems to be biased with Montagues. “Plague” symbolizes illness and death in those times, therefore from this we can see how Mercutio changes from being on the side of the Montagues to then become a neutral like Paris and highlighting the idea that the “grudge” is pointless. However, there is another interpretation of him losing trust and respect for the Montagues, this is because Mercutio said this just after he gets stabbed because Romeo didn't honour his family and fight Tybalt. Therefore we see a sense of family honour which is something the audience would be familiar with, they didn't go to the extent to brawls on the street yet they would stand up for their family so for Romeo to back down it makes him looks bad and shows that he isn't the person Juliet or other people think he is.
However we can now see from the extract a different perspective of conflict, prince, from someone who is seen as a neutral within the play keeping law and order as such between the 2 families. “purple fountains issuing from your veins” is in my opinion a metaphor of the threat of death. This is backed up from the connotations of “purple” being royalty and “Fountain” being a metaphor for blood gushing and therefore death, suggesting that he threatens to kill them and so call spill their royal blood. In conjunction to this we can see within the extract that Prince is in my interpretation very similar to Benvolio in the sense of peace as seen from “Throw your mistempered weapons to the ground”. However this in itself is rather passive aggressive from describing the “Rebellious subjects” as “mistempered” which is childish and mockery to the two families. It could also suggest as mentioned in the paragraph above the impulsive and hasteful severe and impactful decisions being made on the spot. Therefore, there is a link between Benvolio and Paris in terms of conflict but not obvious. Contextually speaking the audience would be part of a patriarchal society where royalty would be the top of society, and for royals to kill other royals it is unheard of and would cause a stir within the audience.
Now for Romeo and Juliet, she isn't directly involved with physical conflict however I think there is another conflict which is a key factor in this play, the conflict with religion and fate. We can see from Juliet going against religion from the sense of suicide. “O happy dagger” backs up this idea from “happy” having connotations of being content and “dagger” of suicide. When you combines this is shows that she is content to commit suicide. As mentioned in the first analysis, the audience is religious, and there were two main sins of the time: being married twice and suicide, so this suicide would cause the audience to react and gasp as this is unheard of. We can also see from Romeo the defying of fate as seen from “I defy you stars”. If you combine this quote with “star cross’d lovers” it really shows just how much Romeo is trying to go against his destiny. “star cross’d” suggests that these two lovers get closer and closer until they reach a climax where they then ever get further away and finally if Romeo is trying to “defy” the “stars” it shows he is going against his fate and wants their relationship to last. I think this is quite a abstract analysis but is definitely meaningful within the play especially with the context of the time period.
Jekyll and Hyde
Jekyll and Hyde is an interesting story with several dynamics shifting throughout the novella one of these include good and evil and the duality of man. We can see this phenomenon show itself in several so called Victorian gentlemen, upright gentlemen of society supposedly meant to repress their negative feelings and refrain from enjoying themselves. Furthermore with Jekyll and Hyde showing the effects of this. Perhaps this shows Stevenson's opinion on society and the effects of him being repressed and held from society similar to the negatives in Jekyll for being a Victorian gentleman.
First of all we can see this from Utterson. Utterson is a Character which we see quite a bit yet we never get to know much about him however there are a few times in the short story where Stevenson informs us of this. “I incline to Caines heresy.” this is a very strong biblical illusion showing the audience of the feelings Utterson has. From the use of “Caines heresy” it links to the bible story which the audience, being a very Christian society, would know of. The story where a brother, “Caine”, kills his other brother, “abele” and then banished to hell, however this relates the negative feeling of lust as “Caine” was jealous of “abele.” The use of “incline” shows he is interested and similar to Caine and “heresy”, meaning lust and jealousy. When you combine these two connotations it presents Utterson as having a jealousy of being normal and expressing his evil side as such.
Now for Jekyll and the extract, here we can see just how Jekyll is thriving for the evil side of him, Hyde. Shown from “Sold a slave to my original evil.” This is an example of another biblical allusion as the “original evil” represents the devil. The use of “my” might seem very insignificant to the overall allusion however there is another interpretation of how “my” shows its in him, so the devil is inside of him. This really shows the twisted and confusing nature of this novella where it revolves around how repressing your emotions gradually causes your evil, aggressive and inhumane to become stronger and stronger, also linking to animalistic feature of inhumane. Therefore contextually speaking the recent publication of Charles Darwin theory of evolution caused a stir within society and the idea of evolution and all animals come from a common ancestor would make the readers consider the implications of keeping emotions to yourself and the effects of this.
We now go back to Jekyll, showing yet another biblical allusion of “My devil has been long caged, he came out roaring.” This quote as mentioned is a biblical allusion but this time presenting animalistic features. This quote shows the animalistic nature within humans and how this may be evil. First of all “My devil” showing Jekyll possesses a devil, firstly this is shocking for the audience as they are god fearing and the reference of devil would scare them somewhat, but perhaps this shows more of Stevenson as a person, the frequent repetition of “devil” throughout the novella suggesting he has a devil inside of him and this is his only way of expressing it. “Long caged” representing the time of which his “devil” has been repressed and hidden away, perhaps a representation of his negative and harmful emotions. “He came out Roaring”, now there is two interpretations of this. One of them is showing that the “devil” which has been “long caged” physically came out roaring in a human manor, this can be represented as Hyde. However, the other interpretation is “roaring” symbolises strength as seen in nature with a lion’s roar showing his dominance over other males and prey.
Back to the extract, “i passed the yard where the constellations looked down on me.” this is really a personification of the constellations as the physically cannot “look down on him”, however you can go deeper then this and interpret is as a metaphor about god, how he is always watching and keeping a close eye backed up from the verb “looked”. However this can also suggest that his so called good part of Jekyll is still present and fighting for superiority, this is because it creates a sense of guilt and regret, however the bad side of Jekyll is getting too strong for even god to fix, showing the audience that you shouldn't mess with science or go against religion.

The political diatribe of “A Christmas Carol” is utilized to suggest the necessity of change withing society, and its rigid social structure, especially by those who enforce it such as the rich upper class. Dickens highlights the importance of change and especially redemption to alter the ways in which the upper class interact with their mistreated workers to improve the morality within society to minimize the suffering of the poor. This change is clearly represented through the character of Ebenezer Scrooge, who is used to convey the ideas of who the upper class currently are, what they will need to experience in order to redeem themselves, and also the moral and physical benefits not only to the working class, but also those who redeem themselves and continue to live honest and good lives.
Initially, Scrooge's character is an emblem of what the upper class are in Victorian society and modern society. Scrooge’s abhorrent description is used as a physical manifestation of the ways in which the upper class are detrimental to society, and highlights the necessity of change and redemption required for the moral betterment of society to reduce the suffering of the unfortunate working class. In stave 1, the weather is immediately described as “cold, bleak, biting weather: foggy wind.” The cold semantic field immediately creates a callous and hard atmosphere for the reader, and so can understand the “hard and sharp” heart of Scrooge, and by extension, the upper class. This may suggest why the upper class require change, as their vision is currently “foggy” like the weather to the plight of the poor, and they choose to maintain that ignorance as it was cheaper to keep the poor in these atrocious conditions. Similar to how Scrooge liked “darkness” because it was “cheap”, the upper class choose to be blind and remain unfamiliar to the pain and suffering of the poor in which they have inflicted onto them. Furthermore, The pathetic fallacy may reflect the poor working conditions of many working class citizens like Bob Cratchit, being forced to work in cold and biting conditions. Also, the adjective “bleak” may represent the future of the working class if there is no change and redemption in the upper class, being stagnant and unhopeful unless something is done. This evokes a sense of sympathy in the mainly uppemiddle class readers, and as a result, places responsibility on them to personally change their corrupt ways and choose a philanthropic path of redemption, adopting views similar to Dickens himself.
Dickens also represents how the bourgeoisie must change through Scrooge, suggesting that the upper class must actively seek and embrace redemption rather than remaining “idle” and enabling the suffering of the working class to perpetuate. During Scrooge’s interaction with the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, he announces that he “will live in the past, the present and the future.” the declarative sentence made by Scrooge highlights his eagerness to change his own ways and acts as an example for the upper class of the way they must choose to live with certainty and strength to protect those in need and utilize their power and influence to help many poor people such as the Cratchits. Furthermore, the verb “live” suggests that they must not only know of what they must do to change the ways that society has oppressed the working class but change to the core of their values and redeem themselves so that they are also able to spread the philanthropic philosophy of Dickens and prevent the suffering of the poor. Likewise, Scrooge’s use of the “past", "present” and “future” is representative of how the upper class must reflect on their “past” mistakes of oppression, change their “present” way of thinking of the working class, and work to the “future” to change the rigid structure of society that enables the working class to suffer at the hands of many of the upper class in order for the bourgouise to truly redeem themselves.
Finally, Dickens also represents the overwhelming benefits of redemption through the final character arc of Scrooge at the end of the novella. Dickens not only suggests the positives that redemption has on others such as the Cratchits receiving a raise, but also the self-benefits that redemption of character comes with. In the last stave, Scrooge exclaims that “I am as light as a feather”. This simile suggests that his redemption has enabled him rejuvination, even if metaphorically, as he is refilled with energy juxtaposed with his past self in which “external heat and cold” had little effect on him. Furthermore, the imagery of a “feather” suggests Scrooge’s freedom as he is compared to a bird with extreme freedom as he is freed from the shackled of sin and avarice which previously withheld his character. Alternatively, the imagery of “birds” may be a biblical allusion to the dove, which may suggest Scrooge’s now improved Christian values as he has redeemed himself from his previously sinful self. This is significant as Dickens pushes the benefits of redemption and its effects that not only effect their current life by minimizing the suffering of the poor, but also their after life as they are accepted by God once again.
In conclusion, the character of Scrooge is used as a vehicle to convey many of Dickens' philanthropic ideals to his middle/upper class audience in hope of societal change for the moral betterment of society. Scrooge’s initial description and atmosphere in stave 1 is greatly contrasted with Scrooge’s personality and atmosphere within stave 5, mirroring the drastic change in which the upper class must undergo for a possiblity of change in the rigid hierarchal system in the Victorian era.

1. Imagery: Prompt: Choose a setting (real or imaginary) and describe it using detailed sensory imagery. Imagine the sights, sounds, smells, and textures to create a vivid scene, just like a painter with words.
   
2. Metaphor: Prompt: Compare a personal experience to an everyday object or phenomenon in an unexpected way. For example, "My heart is a compass that always points to the north of your laughter."
   
3. Simile: Prompt: Write a series of similes to express intense emotions. For instance, "As brave as a lion facing the storm, as fragile as a petal in the wind."
   
4. Rhyme: Prompt: Craft a short poem or lyrics with a consistent rhyme scheme. Experiment with different rhyme patterns (ABAB, AABB, etc.) to enhance the musicality of your writing.
   
5. Meter: Prompt: Compose a poem with a specific meter, such as iambic pentameter. Pay attention to the syllabic beats in each line to create a rhythmic flow.
   
6. Alliteration: Prompt: Create a tongue-twisting line using alliteration. Focus on the repetition of initial consonant sounds to add a playful or musical quality to your writing.
   
7. Assonance: Prompt: Write a passage where the vowel sounds within words echo each other. Experiment with different vowel combinations to create a melodic effect.
   
8. Personification: Prompt: Choose an inanimate object and personify it. Describe its actions, thoughts, and emotions as if it were a living being.
   
9. Symbolism: Prompt: Select an object or element and explore its symbolic meaning. Connect it to broader themes or emotions in your writing.
   
10. Enjambment: Prompt: Write a poem where the thoughts flow continuously from one line to the next without a pause. Explore how this technique can create a sense of movement or urgency.
    
11. Repetition: Prompt: Repeat a word or phrase throughout a poem for emphasis. Consider how repetition can enhance the overall impact and meaning of your writing.
    
12. Free Verse: Prompt: Embrace the freedom of expression by writing a poem without adhering to rhyme or meter. Allow your thoughts to flow organically, exploring the beauty of formless verse.
    
13. Stanza: Prompt: Divide your writing into stanzas to create distinct sections with varying themes or tones. Explore how the organization of lines contributes to the overall structure of your work.
    
14. Theme: Prompt: Choose a universal theme (love, loss, freedom, etc.) and explore it through your lyrics. Delve into the nuances and perspectives associated with the chosen theme.
    
15. Tone: Prompt: Write a poem that conveys contrasting tones. Explore how shifts in tone can evoke different emotions and responses from the reader.
    
16. Connotation: Prompt: Select a word with strong connotations and use it in a poem. Explore the emotional baggage and cultural associations tied to the word within the context of your writing.
    
17. Irony: Prompt: Craft a poem with elements of irony. Create situations or lines that convey a meaning opposite to the literal interpretation, adding layers of complexity to your writing.
    
18. Allusion: Prompt: Reference a well-known song, book, or historical event in your lyrics. Explore how the use of allusion can enrich the depth and meaning of your writing.
    
19. Syntax: Prompt: Experiment with sentence structure to create different effects. Play with word order, sentence length, and punctuation to convey specific emotions or rhythms in your writing.
    
20. Diction: Prompt: Choose a specific mood or atmosphere you want to convey and carefully select words that evoke that feeling. Pay attention to the impact of your word choices on the overall tone of your writing.
    

Title: The Keep by F. Paul Wilson
Oversimplified plot: Vampire in WWII!
Sub-genre: fantasy, thriller, supernatural
Bechdel Test: Fail
Content Warnings: sexual assault, suicide
Opening Lines: A year and a half ago there had been another name on the door, a Polish name, and no doubt a title and the name of a department or bureau in the Polish government.
Rating: 2/5
Review: I absolutely loved the setting and premise of this novel. Something about two evil forces colliding and the mystery and intrigue of being picked off one by one in an old abandoned castle is just so delectable. There were some fascinating themes as well that I wish would have been explored more - for example, a Jewish scholar having a crisis of faith when a vampire reacts to a cross and the name Jesus Christ.
But the two major downfalls of this novel were the pacing and the treatment and descriptions of the lone woman. What started out as a slow build of tension ultimately lost the tension and was just slow. Finally, the amount of times talking about the boobs of the literal only named woman in this book was abhorrent. Honestly, get rid of that shit or proportionally talk about the dicks and balls of the men in the same detail.
Title: This Wretched Valley by Jenny Kiefer
Oversimplified plot: Four ambitious climbers hike into the Kentucky wilderness.
Sub-genre: thriller, survival
Bechdel Test: Pass
Content Warnings: child death, animal death
Opening Lines: What baffled them was the skeleton.
Rating: 3/5
Review: This was a fun and interesting read that should definitely be talked about in any "survival horror" discussion. Although it had a handful of tropes that I personally dislike (characters making dumb decisions, ham-fisted foreshadowing), it has a lot of interesting and unique takes, a solid start, and a satisfying - if a bit obvious - ending.
Title: Suicide Forest by Jeremy Bates
Oversimplified plot: What could go wrong if a group of tourists decide to camp overnight in the suicide forest?
Sub-genre: thriller, mystery
Bechdel Test: Pass
Content Warnings: suicide, sexual assault
Opening Lines: Suicide Forest is real.
Rating: 4/5
Review: Straight down the barrel, no nonsense, horror thriller. Very little fluff and bullshit, solid pace and build up, and a great ending. You know exactly what you're going to get just reading the title or shortened summary.
Title: The Paleontologist by Luke Dumas
Oversimplified plot: A haunted paleontologist returns to the museum where his sister was abducted years earlier.
Sub-genre: Mystery
Bechdel Test: Fail
Content Warnings: child death, child abuse
Opening Lines: Sixty-six million years after the asteroid Chicxulub slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula and set in motion the extinction of three quarters of life on Earth, Dr. Simon Nealy turned his gaze towards the heavens, oblivious to the terror hurtling toward him at unfathomable speed.
Rating: 4/5
Review: I never thought I'd like a book with talk of so much fucking bureaucracy. I was drawn in by the idea of a museum being haunted by dead dinosaurs a la Night at the Museum. But ended up sticking around for the atmosphere, intrigue, and mystery. Plus lots of fascinating concepts that will stick with me for a while.
Title: The September House by Carissa Orlando
Oversimplified plot: There are rules to these things. Everything is survivable. Even a haunted house.
Sub-genre: paranormal, haunted house
Bechdel Test: Pass
Content Warnings: child death and abuse, explicit and violent domestic abuse
Opening Lines: It was our dream house.
Rating: 5/5
Review: (FYI, this is a reread for me, and I posted a similar review earlier.) This one really surprised me. I thought maybe another haunted house or horror satire based on the first chapter, but this is just on a level of its own. The depiction of domestic abuse is one of the best I've ever seen. It's an insidious thing that sneaks up on you and the way that the haunting amplifies those themes was just masterful. Super solid 5/5 and I can't wait to see what else this author writes.
Title: The Devil in Silver by Victor LaValle
Oversimplified plot: A 5150 turns into a long-term stay.
Sub-genre: mystery, thriller
Bechdel Test: Pass
Content Warnings: suicidal ideation
Opening Lines: They brought the big man in on a winter night when the moon looked as hazy as the heart of an ice cube.
Rating: 5/5
Review: This was such an emotionally impactful read for me. I caught myself tearing up multiple times. If you're going into this wanting a supernatural entity haunting a psychiatric ward, you will be disappointed. This is a much slower and thoughtful story that focuses on the characters. One thing that I absolutely love about this book is that it's never a patient vs. staff situation rather than regular people vs. the system.
Title: Between Two Fires by Christopher Buehlman
Oversimplified plot: Unsure if God has gone AWOL, Lucifer decides to test his luck attacking Earth before starting his war on Heaven.
Sub-genre: Fantasy
Bechdel Test: Pass
Content Warnings: child death, sexual assault, animal death
Opening Lines: The soldiers found the donkey on Friday. It was lame and its ribs were easy to count; it was too weak to run from them or even to bray at them, but it didn't seem to have the disease. It was just old.
Rating: 5/5
Review: This book needs to be studied. You can have a class on this book in college. There are so many things to love about this book. It's written beautifully; there are no unnecessary words. Everything serves a purpose. The imagery is unforgettable. There will be images seared into your skull that you'll be thanking and flipping Buehlman off at the same time.
This is also one of those books that get better and better on rereads because you catch so many things. All the threads are so carefully woven, there are so many callbacks, biblical allusions, and little Easter eggs throughout; it is an immensely rewarding read for careful readers. I can't wait to read this again. I'll do it slower next time.
Check out my previous reviews and my Goodreads page if you want to be friends. Happy reading!

PART 1 HERE ***The paragraph numbers in this post continue from Part 1, as in, that post ended with paragraph 11, so this one starts at paragraph 12 instead of restarting at 1.***
12: All good so far, but, BUT, then Jesse appears in 5x12. Rick had made considerable progress up until then, such as symbolically shaving his beard (a practical choice, but also a manifestation of his desire to let go of "the fight" that Michonne wished for him), but then he meets Jesse. Many people say Jesse was a pointless blip in Rick's life, or that he had more chemistry/was better suited with her than with Michonne, and I myself originally hated this arc because I thought it was unnecessary since he seems to have forgotten her the episode after she dies, but now, I've come to a different conclusion. Realitychker20 and others explain it very well, IMO. When Jesse gives him a haircut, she makes an allusion to Lori, which causes Rick to shed a couple tears. This confrontation with the past, combined with Jesse's resemblance to Lori (in what she represents, not appearance or personality) and Rick's clean-shaven face harkening back to pre-apocalypse days, takes him right back, unconsciously, to the root of his trauma: Lori's death and his guilt about it. His mind has reverted back to that time, as shown when he says to Daryl that "Lori and [him]... used to drive through neighborhoods like this." This wound is now at the forefront of his subconscious, winning out over his desire to be with Michonne.
13: It is further shown that his trauma has overtaken him when later that first night in Alexandria, he and Michonne share a last moment together before she knocks him out in 5x15 (it's very telling that they don't interact much in the next 3 episodes after 5x12. They do have another moment after the one I'm about to talk about, albeit a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment right after Deanna offers them the job of being constables and Rick says yes to Deanna then quickly gives Michonne a look asking for her approval, to which she nods and smiles. It's very brief, but further proof that they're so in sync on many things (not all, as we can see at the moment)). They're talking about Deanna giving them jobs, whether they want one or not, and what it signifies to accept one. Michonne is ready to commit to a job and to Alexandria exploring a relationship with Rick, but Rick, who seemed to be leaning in that direction at the end of 5x11, is regressing, giving in to his fear. In his mind, it's absolutely necessary to fix everything that went wrong with him and Lori, and Jesse can provide that absolution for him. Yes, he's attracted to her, but his true motivation for seeking her out is to heal his Lori trauma, not because he feels this great bond with her (he already has that with Michonne). In addition to this, he, in a sense, turns down Michonne in favor of Jesse because it is far easier and less risky for him to be with someone who doesn't truly have his heart. If things don't work out with Jesse, he has far less to lose than if things don't work out with Michonne, namely, the pain he'd feel with Michonne's death would tear out his heart as viscerally as Lori's death did, perhaps even more so. So, being reminded of Lori through Jesse also reminds Rick of what he stands to lose should he truly allow Michonne into his heart.
14: Next, in episode 5x14, I think Rick kind of realizes the cause of his unhealthy fixation on Jesse, possibly after being shocked at his own cave-man-like instinct at the end of 5x13 when he reflexively reaches for his gun (that he got a hold of without informing Michonne, dun dun dun) and snarls (would you call that a snarl? or more like a look of contempt? I'm not sure. Also, that's the best clip I could find of the scene, with the least amount of annoying edits) upon seeing Pete place his hand on Jesse's back (he's obviously not shocked at himself in the moment, but perhaps later, off screen). He wants his group to legitimately try to integrate themselves into the community and for them to be accepted by the Alexandrians in return, so he unconsciously acknowledges that if he follows his base instincts in order to heal his trauma, he'll likely ruin his group's chances. We do see him at the beginning of 5x14 go to Jesse's house and kinda flirtily ask her about the broken owl sculpture, but I think that interaction really put the lid (temporarily) on his attachment to her. Pete then visits him and it further seals the deal for Rick to stay away. His visit seemed a little like a warning and Rick picks up on that, so he decides to forget his strange Jesse predicament. This is before Rick knows Pete is abusive to Jesse, so while he clearly does not like Pete and senses him to be off in some way, that's not enough to warrant the break-up of their marriage, and therefore decides to stop meddling. He even notices his wedding ring right after Pete's visit and takes it off. He's really putting 2 and 2 together between his need to rectify his role in Lori's death and Jesse. He senses the danger for his group, for Jesse, and for himself.
15: But unfortunately, Carol's got some bad news for him. She informs him of Pete's true nature immediately after deciding to let go of his irrational attachment, thus flinging him right back into Jesse's path. There's no way he can let things be now, obviously, though he is reluctant to jeopardize the group's haven. At the top of episode 5x15, Rick asks Carol why she cares about Jesse, which shows this reluctance. Carol reminds him of Ed, then says she knows why Rick cares, as she's "seen [him] talk to her," implying that Rick has a crush on Jesse. Rick's face during the anticipation of Carol's answer and in the aftermath of it, however, tells a different story. He does care about a woman being abused and genuinely wants to help her, but he knows that he feels particularly strongly about it not because of a crush, but because this is his chance to save Lori. He's scared of what that means for his group because since his feelings are so strong, he knows he'll have trouble restraining himself in subduing Pete. He could easily take it too far and ruin things for his group (which he almost kinda does, lol). But he's also subconsciously scared of what it means for himself, for his mental and emotional health. He wants to help someone in need, but this specific case hits too close to home. He senses he could get messily tangled up in his ulterior wishes and fears, all under the guise of honor and love?? (I don't think even he would use this strong of a word, but I can't think of a better one).
16: Later on in this same episode, Rick reveals to Jesse he knows the truth about Pete. He offers his help, but Jesse is alarmed at his heavily invested interest (they do barely know each other). She asks him, "Why do you care? Why is this so important to you?" Of course, we know why. It's because he doesn't "want [Jesse] Lori to die." He claims he "can help [Jesse] Lori... [and] can keep [Jesse] Lori... safe." He places a good amount of emphasis on the fact that he himself can, in fact, help her, save her. He feels so guilty about Lori's death, about the awful state of their marriage during the last months of her life, and about the fact that he didn't make an effort to mend it at all after months of silent contempt, despite Lori reaching out to him near the end (yes, I know Lori was the cause of their relationship's downfall at the end of season 2, and I'm not a Lori fan, but I mean come on, Rick really found the energy to hold on to that grudge for 7-8-ish months?? I mean, I suppose she did reject him pretty harshly without hearing a proper explanation of what went down with him, Shane, and Carl, so I guess Rick is justified... but still, that's pretty excessive considering Rick's character and his whole family loyalty thing. Anyway, I digress). He feels so guilty, and he now sees his opportunity to redeem himself through Jesse. He tells her he wouldn't help anyone else like he's helping her, and he's right, not because he wouldn't actually help other people in a similar situation as her, but because he's primarily helping Jesse because of her connection to Lori, in his mind, and no one else could be Lori for Rick but Jesse (I'm sure there's other women out there in the apocalypse who could also fit the bill, but you get the gist).
17: This next moment I'm going to talk about, Rick’s speech at the end of 5x15 that lent part of itself to the name of the Richonne spinoff, is ummm... probably a bit of a stretch, more so than my previous points. I'm not entirely sure if I should include it because it's a pretty iconic speech and to attribute some underlying Richonne/Rick trauma tones to it is... wild? blasphemous? 😐😬😐 IDK... but here goes (take it with a grain of salt). Yes, he’s talking about the Alexandrians having to open their eyes to the reality in front of them, but in an obscure way, he’s also subconsciously talking about himself having to open his eyes about Jesse and Michonne. He “wish[es] things weren't what they are,” meaning he wishes he didn’t have a reliance on Jesse to fix himself and wishes he could be brave enough to pursue his feelings for Michonne. He claims that in order “to live… to stay standing,” (i.e., be true to himself and be more fulfilled), he has to stop pushing away what he wants, he has to stop his irrational mission to change the past, and he has to fight for what’s truly important to him. He recognizes that his "way of doing things is done" and that it's "gonna destroy this place." If you go back to paragraph 9, where I explain the significance of Rick's line about the relative safety of his way of doing things compared to Michonne's dangerous way, it is evident he's unconsciously come to realize that he was wrong when he said those words to Michonne. He doesn't want to destroy himself, his potential happiness, by living in the "safety" of choosing Jesse, of choosing the easy, familiar pain instead of venturing out to find a better life for himself. Unfortunately, of course, he comes across as a raving lunatic when he says these (true and valuable) things, so Michonne is forced to save him from himself. Yet another perfect example of how they truly understand each other and how willing they are to help each other.
18: In episode 5x16, when Rick admits to Michonne in the holding cell that "it's like the train car [and] after the whole thing, [he's] still there," he's, perhaps now more consciously, admitting his problem of his tendency to get stuck in the weeds of the past. He says he couldn't tell her about the contraband gun because she "wanted this place," (i.e., she was subconsciously brave enough to want to pursue their connection), implying that he was too scared to do the same, and so he's been hiding stuff from her and distancing himself. When she asks him where he got the gun from (the gun being a symbol of Rick's trauma and the reason for his fixation on Jesse. Oh my god, someone help me, I'm looking wayyyyy too into this!!) just as Carol, Glenn, and Abraham join them in the holding cell, Rick's face looks like he wants to tell her the truth (Carol, Daryl and I made a pact to steal it and a couple others from the armory I feel super guilty about Lori and I'm transferring that guilt onto Jesse and I know it's a huge mess now), but Carol deftly gives a false answer before he can say anything (plus the vulnerable moment between them is broken by the arrival of these 3 characters).
19: Later on in this same episode, when Carol goes to wake up Rick, there is further evidence of him realizing he was wrong to push Michonne as well as his own inclinations away. He owns that he deserved getting knocked out by Michonne and he explicitly states that he doesn't "want to lie anymore." He knows what he has to do for himself, for Michonne, for Jesse, for the Alexandrians, and for his own group, so he starts putting this into practice soon after when he finally tells Michonne the truth about the gun (if you've read this far, I'm sure you can guess by now what I believe the deeper meaning to be, lol. Sorry, I've been at this for hours now. Plz send help). He tells her (and this is huge!!!) that she could've talked him out of it. Please recall the pattern that we see 4 times that I discussed at the way beginning of this analysis. Remember that he couldn't help but be swayed by her first 3 requests, and remember that he was on the verge, but hesitant, to accept being swayed by her 4th request, the request to better himself, emotionally-speaking. At the time she made that request, it was too much for him to accept, but he was heavily contemplating it because of the influence she has on him. His fear got the better of him upon meeting Jesse, and so, to run away from the scary thing Michonne asked of him, he became distant (colluded with Carol and Daryl about the guns and about a possible coup d'état). He didn't want to be talked out of his fear. Michonne, with her steadfast hope and optimism, tells him she'll stand by him whatever he decides to do. Later, after Michonne leaves, Rick calls to mind what Bob had told him several episodes before, in 5x02. Rick is turning over in his mind the idea that the nightmare, his own personal nightmare, will soon end, and also contemplates the new possibilities created by its end.
20: And so, this is the frame of mind we leave Rick and Michonne in at the end of season 5. A lot more hopeful (in Rick's case) than at the start of 5b. Sure, there's still 9 more episodes between this and when they finally do get together, and yes, he does still linger a bit on the Jesse illusion during these episodes, but if I'm not mistaken, those first 9 episodes of season 6 all take place within the span of like a day or two, at most. And the first episode of season 6 takes place, I think, the day after the events of 5x16. Not to mention the fact that from the time the group arrives at Alexandria to the end of 5x16, what?, like only 11-ish days have passed, right? I'm not 100% sure on the timeline, but if I'm in the ballpark, then it means Rick only knew Jesse for like two weeks before she died. Their relationship was a short-lived, intense emotional reaction on his part, grounded in fear and regret, the final remnant tethering him to the past, whose ultimate purpose was to make perfectly clear to Rick what he didn't want (and the dangers of clinging onto that despite not truly wanting it) and what he did want. There's also a 2 month time jump between episodes 6x09 and 6x10, as confirmed by Danai Gurira on the Talking Dead episode of "The Next World." It's not made very clear in the show, but it's a reliable piece of info from an insider. In those 2 months, I'm sure Rick mourned the loss of Jesse, but not for too long because A.) he barely knew her for two weeks, and B.) I'm like 99% certain he had, by that point, completely figured out the true cause of his being drawn to her. He became fully conscious that his regard for her was NOT because they were kindred spirits, and therefore, his heart wasn't too moved by her as to merit an extended grieving process. Like I've said before, Realitychker20 and many other fans have pointed out this, I think, very accurate interpretation of the Jesse storyline. Yvette Nicole Brown also explained it quite well in the Talking Dead episode for "Try."
21: What else did Rick become conscious of in those 2 months, I wonder? Maybe, possibly... yes, yes, I know. I know you know, too. Rick confirmed as much in The Ones Who Live, episode 5. That whole time they were living as a family unit, Rick was hyper-aware of his feelings for Michonne and was just waiting for the right moment to confess. Which he did. With the power of the mints.
22: Well, I think I've done it. Finally finished writing this dissertation, lol. I've gone insane!! Jk, jk, it was a labor of love. The beauty of this is that the story of Richonne has many more phases and layers that one could look into. Ultimately, I did this because I generally hate romance stories because many of them are just awful, unhealthy, toxic, or not nuanced enough to be realistic, but this is one glorious exception. I know there are other examples out there, but this one is very iconic and resonates so deeply with me because I know for a fact that these two characters, unquestionably, are soul mates. I mean, the fact that Rick admits to Abraham in episode 6x15 that he is, in fact, afraid to be so vulnerable as to allow him to be in a relationship with Michonne, but has the strength to do it anyway, just makes me love them even more (in this same episode, btw, we get the apple scene, in which he looks like an Adonis-type figure to me). I can only compare them with the other iconic rivals-to-lovers couple of over 200 years ago: Lizzie and Mr. Darcy.
To the people who stuck around for this whole thing, I'm greatly honored. I sincerely thank you for following me on this journey. Peace out, fellow Richonners!!
PART 1 HERE

I'm co-writing a microbudget feature that's about to go into production, and there are several characters and quotes that are intentional and obvious allusions to Beatles songs.
My question is this - is this something that should be legally cleared in some way or is this fair game?
An example is that a character is named "Maxwell Edison" and claims to be an expert in "pataphysical science," two allusions to the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer." He is nothing else like the character in the song, but just shares that name and alleged education.
I'm concerned about these examples because they're more specific than simply randomly quoted song lyrics, but we're essentially using characters in one medium that already exist in another. Thoughts? Thanks in advance.

Now that it’s been a few weeks since Fallout TV came and went, I can’t help but feel that the TV show is intended to resolve the ambiguity of players’ choices in the previous games so that any future game installments don’t have to work as hard to try to accommodate them.
Take the fate of the NCR, it appears that after New Vegas, regardless of whether you as the Courier aided them at the Second Battle of Hoover Dam, has collapsed. The loss of Shady Sands and the apparent rise of tinpot dictators like Sorrel Booker (a Dukes of Hazzard reference, btw) who declared themselves President of the ‘Guvermint’ along with Griffith Observatory being the NCR HQ suggests this.
Another example is the presence of the Prydwen. That means that The Institute is destroyed and synths are an endangered species, perhaps in hiding amongst the Railroad if they haven’t been destroyed, as well.
Finally, we come to New Vegas, which appears to have gone completely dark since the game’s conclusion. I doubt that any faction other than maybe Caesar’s Legion would leave it in this state, and we should have had at least allusions to the Legion in the show if the NCR’s collapse is as bad as it seems. Even so, there should be campfires lighting up the area if the Legion took up residence. This suggests that the city has been completely abandoned.
What does this all mean? To me, it seems to be setting up the TV show as a vehicle for the non-gaming audience to have a clear, unambiguous timeline of events in the franchise. To use terminology from Loki, the show is ‘pruning the timeline’ for the benefit of its new audience and writers of new game installments to not have to tiptoe around player choice in previous games.
Will this upset a certain demographic of gamers? Most certainly. Is this necessary? I think so from a business perspective. What does this mean for the story going forward? I have some ideas…
Overall, I think the TV show will primarily follow Lucy as she journeys across the Wasteland eastwards, eventually having a final showdown with her father and Vault-Tec. Along the way, she and her party will learn about locations from previous games and their current state, whether directly or indirectly. Sometimes it’ll be Cooper the Ghoul pointing out locations as they appear on the horizon, others they will be sidetracked to directly intervene in the affairs of wherever they happen to find themselves. The end result is the show will establish a clear, unambiguous timeline of how each game ended due to their respective protagonist’s actions.
I doubt they’ll be full Paragon or Renegade, to use Mass Effect parlance, but a blend of possibilities that the writers feel would be overall beneficial to the narrative they are trying to tell. Meanwhile, I believe Maximus will find himself in a difficult situation where he has to weigh the duty to the Brotherhood with what is the right thing to do, accentuated by what will almost certainly be the absolute corruption of Quintus’ leadership as he establishes his own splinter faction of the Brotherhood. I believe Maximus will eventually overthrow Quintus’ and lead the chapter under his command eastward to follow Lucy, redefining what the Brotherhood is in the process, hopefully something akin to Lyons’ Outcast Brotherhood faction in Fallout 3.
When this is all said and done, any future installment of Fallout would have a solid narrative to build upon, unencumbered by the past and giving a new generation of players and fans to shape the future of the Wasteland. For example, with realtime statistics on player choice for a Fallout 5 game, it could influence how a future television series arc would set itself up.

I've been listening to this amazing album for 3 weeks, and wanted to share some thoughts that I have not really seen too much discussion about yet, and that I think tie in to whatever third surprise may be in store for us (that Taylor seems to be signaling). As a close listener of the Tortured Poets album, I think one of the big themes of the album, beyond the personal story, is the role of the artist as creator (and destroyer) of worlds, and the “tortured” bargain that artists make in our society. When life is inspiration for the art, does that degrade or restrict the real life, and the artist’s humanity? I'll get back to this, but here's my prediction: I wouldn’t be surprised if whatever is coming next will serve to undermine those who are treating this album solely as tabloid fodder and looking to "paternity test" each song. I think it will be intended to more clearly draw parallels with other “tortured poets” throughout history.
I have stumbled upon two examples, from two different poets, that really seem like they could have served as inspiration, or a guiding framework, for the narratives in the Tortured Poets Department.
· The first - “The Snakecharmer” poem by Sylvia Plath. Now I honestly don’t know anything about Sylvia Plath, other than that she was known as a confessional-style poet who committed suicide, but I saw some analysis linking the Tortured Poets album, and the Fortnight song in particular, to Sylvia Plath. I also remember seeing social media posts of pictures of and questions about a Target barcode for something called “Serpentine” around the time Tortured Poets came out. So I googled Sylvia Plath and Serpentine, and found the Snakecharmer poem. (https://allpoetry.com/Snakecharmer ) Check out the poem and the allpoetry analysis of that poem, Low and behold if it doesn’t mesh so, so well with what I think is the huge social commentary theme of this album and a big point that Taylor Swift wants to make about her art!
· The second – Check out this New Yorker article, from December 2020, about “The Secret History of T.S. Eliot’s Muse.” (https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turnethe-secret-history-of-t-s-eliots-muse) Do I believe that Taylor Swift would have read and been inspired by this article? Yes, yes I do. Does the story of this article have parallels with the overarching personal story of TTPD? Absolutely.
Let’s start with the Snake Charmer poem, and the social commentary of this album. The allpoetry.com analysis of the poem states: “Through the metaphor of a snakecharmer, the poem depicts the act of creating a world, one that is fluid and ever-changing. . . .The snakecharmer, through his music, has power over this world, shaping and controlling it. However, the poem also suggests the transience of this created world. . . . [T]he poem reflects the modernist preoccupation with the interconnectedness of life and the role of the artist as a creator and destroyer. It also echoes the post-war fascination with the subconscious and the power of the imagination to shape reality."
If I’ve learned anything as a new Taylor Swift fan, it is that people are so excited about the upcoming re-recording of Reputation, and that that album is all about the snake imagery. But I’ve also learned that Taylor Swift has been sending messages about a “red herring,” sending signals about “braided” stories with this album, and sending signals about burning down the Lover house and moving on from these eras. And as a close listener of the Tortured Poets album over the last week, I think one of the big themes of the album, beyond the personal story, is the role of the artist as creator and destroyer, and the “tortured” bargain that artists make:
-- The Manuscript explains why Taylor Swift puts art out into the world - it's an act of catharsis, a need to create - and most importantly, once out in the world, "the story isn't mine anymore." Other people relate to and appreciate the emotions she puts into words and really vivid stories, and that’s why she has such devoted fans.
--Clara Bow is about the trade-off ("It's hell on earth to be heavenly."). The making and unmaking of the celebrity. She knows that the celebrity part of her job is part of the bargain she made to be able to create art that reaches the world.
--The in Summation poem that accompanied the album talked about “restricted humanity.”
--I think a lot of the songs in Torture Poets are grappling with whether celebrity is a kind of restricted humanity that prevents real, lasting human connection.
--A lot of the angry songs on the album (But Daddy I love him, Who’s Afraid of Little Old Me, Cassandra), and one of the saddest songs on the album (How Did it End?) are grappling with the dark side of celebrity: Her life as tabloid fodder, the media and the public's literally constant attention and judgment, stirring the pot, looking to create or magnify any kind of drama, always ready to raise people up and then cut them down to size.
--And then we get to the Prophesy, which I think is a very poignant song and a key to understanding why this album is called "The Tortured Poets Department." She thinks she doomed to never finding lasting love because “I got cursed like Eve got bitten,” and she begs to speak to someone who can change the Prophesy. The comparison to Eve is interesting because like Eve, she actively chose her fate (see Clara Bow). Is the curse part of the bargain?
-- The Albatross, with all of its literary allusions, is a powerful and hopeful answer to the question about whether she’s doomed to be a burden, a case of “restricted humanity,” because of her celebrity.
Now, what about that New Yorker T.S. Eliot article? It is the story of T.S. Eliot’s letters to his muse. Let me just quote from the second paragraph: “Eliot’s letters to Hale [the muse], who for nearly seventeen years was his confidante, his beloved, and his muse, were another matter. They don’t just repeat “gossip and scandal,” they produce it. Scholars have known about this correspondence since Hale donated Eliot’s letters to Princeton, in 1956, but for decades, the trove of documents remained a tantalizing secret—kept sealed, at Eliot’s insistence, until 50 years after both he and Hale had died.” What else do we learn from the article? That while Eliot was still married to someone else, he carried on this romantic correspondence with his muse, she greatly influenced his art, he talked to her of marriage and they even exchanged rings, with Eliot telling her: “This ring means to me all that a wedding ring can mean. . .” But when his wife died and he was free to marry her, he refused. There’s so much more in the article – go read it. But does any of this sound familiar? Doesn’t it roughly track the entire personal narrative of the album? A muse written into songs for a decade, the muses fall for each other in real life, imaginary rings, a promise to marry that turns out to be fake? “In 50 years will all this be declassified?” Doesn’t it explore similar themes as the album, like whether creative process itself restricts the artists’ humanity?
I wouldn’t be surprised if whatever is coming next will frame the narrative set out in this album in the context of other tortured poets throughout history. Because she has a confessional style of storytelling, it gets dismissed and just treated like tabloid gossip but she wants to make the point that it is art and an act of creation. She’s exploring very deep themes about the “tortured poet”: Does the creative process itself impair the real life of the artist? Does the act of putting art out into the world, with all that entails in our celebrity-centered culture, further restrict the artist’s humanity? I wouldn’t be surprised if the stories of other poets besides Sylvia Plath and T.S. Eliot are hidden within the lyrics of these songs, and Taylor Swift is somehow going to pull it all together with whatever this third thing is that she’s been signaling.

No, Ezra and Sabine would not be a “ship”
To qualify the title, no, Ezra and Sabine do NOT absolutely have to be a couple, but if they were to become one, it would NOT be a ship. A “ship” is a relationship that’s rushed and/or forced with no real development. Ezra and Sabine’s relationship has had years of development. Could they remain as simply friends? Yes, but ironically, it was their “friendship” that felt like more of a ship. It felt like the Ahsoka show, helmed by Dave Filoni, was going out of its way to tell us: “no, they’re not a couple, they’re just friends.”
I believe that Filoni made some very poor writing choices to stress something that didn’t really need to be stressed, such that it almost felt like he was in denial. The line “I love you like a sister” was never in Rebels, Filoni essentially had that retconned in, and like many I was put off by their (largely) emotionless reunion. Even if they were “just friends” I believe there would be a great deal more emotion displayed between two people that hadn’t seen each other in some ten years, especially when one of them was in a precarious situation when they parted. I also believe Ezra would be far more curious about Sabine being Force sensitive, perhaps even offering to help train her when she told him that her training hadn’t gone as well with Ahsoka. He did help to train her with the Darksaber, didn’t he? Why that never came up is another discussion, but for now, let’s focus on shipping.
In case you think I’m desperate to have them as a couple, no I’m not. I’m about the furthest thing from it. Like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers) I DESPISE shipping. Absolutely DESPISE it. With a flaming passion. Perhaps for this reason, and maybe some others, like many millennials and Gen-Z’ers (and perhaps some Gen-Xers and boomers), I’m generally wary of nearly all romance in fiction, and generally avoid it in my own work. The sad reality is that romance is perhaps the most abused genre in all of fiction, all throughout history. It has been so badly abused that many people, including myself for the longest time, have equated romance with shipping, though I’m slowly beginning to see that they are not the same thing, and one does not necessarily have to go with the other.
But sadly, many writers, through time immemorial, have not been able to separate them, going back into ancient times and perhaps even into pre-history, that is before languages were actually written down. Some of what is considered great literature; classics like Romeo and Juliet, are predicated on shipping, though at least the consequences of this “whirlwind romance” are shown to be fairly stark. Star Wars itself is no stranger to shipping, resulting in a very awkward incestuous kiss when Luke was shipped with Leia, then Leia was placed with Han and Lucas made Luke and Leia brother and sister, apparently having forgotten his original ship. Later Lucas essentially shipped Anakin and Padme, resulting in some of the most cringeworthy dialog in the history of film. Many fans of the Prequels even have been somewhat critical of Anakin’s portrayal, particularly in regards to the “romantic” scenes, with many describing them as “creepy”. Some have speculated that this was intentional, though personally I think it was just the result of bad writing on the part of George Lucas, and an impatience on his part for Anakin and Padme to become a couple, hence “shipping”.
One might wonder why this is so prevalent in fiction, and tragically, one does not have to look far. Fiction is merely a reflection of reality, therefore the reason that shipping is so common in our stories is that we fall so easily into it in real life. Indeed, entire cultures may be based around shipping, or at least very heavily wrapped up in it. Throughout history arranged marriages have been the norm, and the idea of marrying for “love” is something relatively new. To be fair, I’ve actually met people in arranged marriages who seemed to be fairly happy, but those same people were very open in telling me that many despise that aspect of their culture, and that it is quite normal for those in an arranged marriage to try to get out.
People might come together for “love” without marrying, but even then it often creates expectations that might turn into a burden. Even when a marriage is voluntary and for “love”, people are often left unsatisfied, such that today in the West the divorce rate is something like 50%. Happy, stable, long term relationships seem to be the exception across cultures and across the breadth and width of time. And yet pursuit of love and some kind of relationship seems to be the highest calling for many people, both in real life and in fiction. And it could be that the accumulated disgust is finally starting to boil over.
To be fair, this may not be the first time in history that the pendulum has shifted. You may recall that in Victorian times attitudes changed drastically, as compared to the previously bawdy Elizabethan times. Looking at a play from Shakespear, if you can understand the language, you’ll see all kinds of vulgar references, as well as what I believe are fairly sappy romances like in the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet, though I can’t say for certain whether Shakespear was actually endorsing that type of attitude towards “love” or presenting it as a cautionary tale, maybe even something to be ridiculed in some of his other plays.
But regardless, Victorians as you may well know had a very conservative attitude towards anything to do with romance, and would often avoid the subject in many places, or tread very carefully around it, as if walking on eggshells. It’s not that people stopped being romantic, in fiction or real life, but it was treated as something very serious and even dangerous, with many urges repressed or even suppressed entirely. This had all kinds of effects on society, both positive and negative. On the positive side, it reinforced the ideal of people being committed to their partners, and of marriage as a sacred institution rather than a “casual hookup” as was more common in Elizabethan times. Likewise it reinforced ideals of modesty and chastity, which may be coming back into vogue, though under different names. But just as there were positive aspects to these attitudes, so were there negative ones.
Just because the urges I described were repressed did not mean that they disappeared. In fact, they often morphed into things that many would consider “unhealthy”. From one statistic that I saw, in Victorian times about one in every 60 houses was a brothel, with the modern rate being closer to one in 6000. Additionally, the rights of women were often repressed, such that they could not fully express themselves and find their own identity, and path in life, as individuals. Just as Elizabethan ideals gave way to Victorian ones, so did the Victorian ideals gradually begin to erode.
Perhaps it began with the Jazz Age of the 1920’s (the “Roaring Twenties”), or with the increased interconnectivity of people traveling to different parts of the world during World War I, not to mention the cynicism that pervaded throughout the West in response to failed old ideals leading to the deadliest war in history up to that point, but many Victorian ideals began to be seen as a joke, and even resented for their “oppression”, which to be fair was not entirely unjustified. But regardless, people gradually, and at times not so gradually, became more and more “liberated” and promiscuous. This culminated in the Sexual Revolution in the late 1960’s, when what had previously been seen as a vice and even a sin was now seen as not only “normal” but as a healthy form of expression, a virtue even. And just as these ideas were embraced in real life, so too were they reflected in our films, TV shows, and other media, often to the consternation of older people and institutions, like the Vatican. The Catholic Church even went so far as to “ban” certain films, that is to declare them immoral for good Catholics to watch. Many of the films that were banned back then, or at least controversial, like The Graduate with Dustin Hoffman, are fairly tame by today’s standards.
It continued through the 70’s, at times warming and at times cooling through the rest of the century, until you could argue it reached a kind of crescendo in the early 21st century with the advent of so-called “dark romance” and the publication of books like Fifty Shades of Grey. (Ironically, many of the themes within this “dark romance” can trace their roots back to the Victorian era, yet another indication that repressing urges without addressing them often doesn’t work out as one might hope.) But as happens all too often, just as something reaches peak popularity is when it begins to go out of style, and that is what we may be experiencing right now. As weird as it may sound, we may actually have come full circle and may be on the cusp of a “New Victorian Age” (complete with “dark romance”, even). Web sites like Porn Hub and OnlyFans, as well as other similar sites, may be the new “brothels”, and what was once openly celebrated may be going underground, to an extent. The effects of this on society have been interesting to say the least, and at times I would even say bizarre.
Whilst many younger people seem content with these changes, many older people are concerned. I’ve seen a number of books, films, and other media receive positive reviews for example based specifically on their lack of romance. Many of these books/films, etc. fall into the “young adult” category, meaning that it is young adults obviously who mostly consume them. At the same time I’ve heard a number of older people, mostly boomers and Gen-Xers, criticize these same books/films for their lack of romance. Even some older millennials seem upset by the changes, as perhaps evidenced by Jennifer Lawrence’s latest film No Hard Feelings (though to be fair that film may be lampooning the older generation’s frustration as well as the younger generation’s frigidity). So just as in the past older people were concerned about the promiscuity of the youth, now it actually appears that many older people are concerned about the youth’s lack of promiscuity.
Who could have seen that coming? But to be fair, the younger generation hasn’t gone completely frigid. As stated earlier, much of the promiscuity has gone “underground”, or online, which many would argue is not very healthy as it might undermine actual relationships, whether they are romantic in nature or simple friendships. And speaking of that, friendships within stories nowadays often aren’t portrayed in a very authentic or compelling manner, perhaps because in ditching romance modern writers haven’t quite yet learned how to replace it with something else. In other words, the “New Victorian Age” may not be an exact repeat of the previous one, but may have its own twists and turns, for better and for worse.
This may all essentially be a manifestation of the Human Condition, in that we just can’t seem to find a happy medium, neither in real life nor in fiction. Thus we keep swinging from one extreme to the other, apparently getting wilder with each swing.
So where does all this leave us? What is it that we really want in our lives, and in our stories? Especially in regards to relationships? I think at some level we all want to see good and healthy relationships between people and/or characters, whether romantic or platonic. I believe at some point we would like to see good examples of both friendship and romance, and I would argue that the best examples of romance have them combined. Even a toxic relationship, if well portrayed or documented, can be instructive and serve as a good example of what to avoid in our lives that we might be happier and relate better to each other. A good relationship, by contrast, can give us something to aspire to and inspire us to not only look for the right kind of person to complement our lives, but to make ourselves worthy of that person. And here I’ll add that I’m perfectly aware that in real life (and thus in fiction) relationships can be very complicated and heavily nuanced, with elements of both “good” and “bad” in them. Just as people change over time so can the relationships between them change, at times getting better and at times worse, sometimes breaking entirely and sometimes growing stronger. Relationships can have just as many layers and dimensions as characters, more even perhaps, and a skilled writer should be able to reflect this complexity. At other times a relationship can be fairly straightforward, simplicity sometimes being the best approach. But regardless, the audience should be able to relate and identify with what they are seeing, such that hopefully they can incorporate the lessons from it in their own lives.
Where can we find good examples of relationships to study? There may be a number of them in the real world, but the trouble with studying real world relationships is that they’re often much more complicated than fictional ones (just as real people are more complicated than fictional characters), and for many of them it is almost impossible to know all the details and nuances because they are often kept private, understandably so, and even if they aren’t it can still be difficult, due to unique circumstances, to see how to relate them to our own lives. Additionally there may be far more disagreement about a real life situation than a fictional one, with many more points of view. To keep things simple, for the purpose of this article I would like to focus on fictional relationships. (And fair warning, there will be some spoilers.)
One of the best places to look, I would argue, would be the films of Hayao Miyazaki. (And this is pretty significant to Star Wars as you will see in a bit.) A film of his that stands out to me the most is Princess Mononoke. Like many of Miyazaki’s films it has elements of romance, and yet subverts them in a way that makes complete sense and feels very genuine, without taking away from any of the accompanying charm. It starts with two young people, San and Ashitaka, and as soon as they encounter each other there is a kind of expectation of romance. This may be inevitable to some degree when you have a man and a woman of about the same age encounter each other in a story, especially if they happen to be adolescents. The expectation may not be inherently bad, and Miyazaki does play with it. Both characters are thrust into dangerous situations, at various points end up saving each other’s lives, and at a certain point I think it is obvious that they have feelings for each other. I was certain that at the end of the film, they would be together, and if things had gone that way, it would make complete sense. Instead, they go in different directions, but remain good friends, and considering their backgrounds and differing worldviews, this ends up making even more sense to the story.
Essentially, Miyazaki could have gone for the more conventional, tried and true “love conquers all” narrative, where the characters’ feelings for each other would negate everything that comes between them, they would somehow find a common ground in spite of their differences, the romance would not only take over the narrative but somehow also solve all the problems in the story, and then the couple would live “happily ever after”. Such an approach is not inherently bad or wrong, and is fairly common in Western media and storytelling. We can see it in films like Fern Gully, and more recently James Cameron’s Avatar, both of which have been compared to Princess Mononoke. As you can probably guess, the problem is that at a certain point such a narrative can become fairly simplistic, and lack nuance.
Miyazaki’s films, by contrast, are very heavily nuanced, and are anything but simplistic. In Princess Mononoke the characters San and Ashitaka don’t help each other simply because they are “in love”, but because it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they might feel about each other. Yes, romantic feelings are certainly alluded to, but they are not essential to the plot, for it could have worked just as well without any romantic allusions. And ironically, this makes those allusions even more valid, even if they are unrequited. How so?
Consider that if love is essential to a given narrative, is it not relegated to being nothing more than a plot device? Again, this is quite common in Western media and storytelling, and is not inherently bad or wrong, but when it becomes a trope or cliche, I believe it is the essence of where shipping comes from. Many storytellers get caught up in this, usually without realizing it, and while a story can still work even with shipping, I believe that it usually works that much better without it.
This extends not only to Miyazaki’s handling of romance but also to other things like environmentalism, the conflict between man and nature, and the contrasting ideals of human progress vs. preserving the natural order. Movies like Fern Gully and Avatar, as already mentioned, handle these themes in a fairly simplistic and I would even say hamfisted manner, whereby all progress and technology is shown as being inherently “bad” and in service to “evil”, while everything that’s “natural” is shown to be inherently “good”. Even our notions of good and evil, and right vs. wrong, are challenged by Miyazaki, with nearly all of his characters having complex motives and multiple dimensions to them, as well as understandable reasons for doing the things that they do. Rarely can any one of his characters be branded as a simple “villain”, and rarely is any one individual the source of conflict in his stories, again in contrast to most Western narratives.
I’ll reiterate once more, a simple, straightforward narrative is not inherently a bad thing, whether the themes being dealt with are romantic or anything else. Sometimes it is in fact the best approach. But the best stories in my opinion are usually the most nuanced, that challenge our notions of what we believe to be true, and that force us to think about what we do with our lives and what we could do differently. To that end Miyazaki introduces all manner of themes and motifs within his films that are familiar to us but shows them in a light most of us might not have considered, thus giving more dimension to our understanding of things.
“How is any of this related to Star Wars?” you might ask. It is quite related, and you don’t even have to look all that closely to see it. A very influential figure within Star Wars was very heavily inspired by the works of Miyazaki, and that figure is Dave Filoni.
This video shows the connections in some detail:
https://youtu.be/Q_4L0BbSpHo?si=04jDo6qFCnZT135w
But to summarize if you’ve seen any of Miyazaki’s films, especially Princess Mononoke, I think the callbacks in Filoni’s work will be all too obvious, especially in Star Wars Rebels. Some of the scenes in Filoni’s work look like they were taken directly from Miyazki’s films, and many of the same themes and motifs often come up. The relationship between San and Ashitaka I would argue is very similar to the relationship between Ezra and Sabine, and not just because both couples rode wolves together.
Incidentally, Dave Filoni was also heavily involved in Avatar: The Last Airbender, which I would also argue was at least to some degree inspired if not by Miyazaki then by Japanese anime in general. The relationship between Aang and Katara was developed with great care and was allowed to build very slowly, as opposed to simply shipping them. Likewise other characters very gradually developed as individuals and in their relationships, at times stumbling as they did so, and making mistakes, before finding their way back to the right path.
All of this is in stark contrast to George Lucas, whose character development is often very rushed at best, and at times some might say almost non-existent. So essentially, even though Lucas has said that Filoni has been “like a son” to him, and I believe referred to Filoni as his “padawan”, I would argue that Filoni is ultimately as much a student of Miyazaki as he is of Lucas.
Again, you might ask, “What does all this mean for Star Wars?” It means a great many things. It means that Dave Filoni has taken Miyazaki’s lessons to heart, and can handle things like romance, as well as other kinds of relationships, quite well most of the time. Like Miyazaki he can play with romance, tease the audience with it at times even, leave the romance unrequited, and yet still have it feel satisfying. A prime example of this is the love triangle that Ahsoka was involved in with the young Separatist Senator, Lux Bonteri, and Steela Gerrera. As wary as I am of romance and as much as I despise shipping, love triangles I normally despise even more, but this one seemed to actually work. It never took over the main story, and even though Ahsoka’s feelings were ultimately not reciprocated, she still learned from the experience, and grew and developed further as a character because of it. The other characters involved in this triangle also grew and developed from their involvement, though unfortunately not all of them made it. All in all it was a good bit of storytelling and gave the audience something to consider.
When a relationship in one of Filoni’s stories does bloom into a full blown romance he also generally handles it quite well. For one Filoni is sparing with actual romance, so that when it does occur, it can be that much more appreciated. And rather than rushing or shipping it, Filoni normally takes his time to build it up. An example of this is the relationship between Kanan and Hera. Some might argue that this is perhaps the best developed romance in all of Star Wars, at least in Canon. Built up over four seasons, at times it wasn’t certain whether it was a romance or a friendship, or perhaps even a professional partnership. Perhaps even the characters themselves were not certain, though it was hinted all throughout the narrative that something was going on. To this day I don’t believe anyone can say definitively when it became an actual romance, and I believe Filoni did this intentionally because he wanted to be subtle, rather than making things too obvious and having the romance take over the narrative, as it usually does. When it finally did become obvious as to what was happening, it felt very much earned, in a way that is seldom accomplished in other works of fiction, including Star Wars.
The relationship between Ezra and Sabine was also fairly well written, for the most part anyway, at least in Star Wars Rebels. Ezra was almost immediately smitten with Sabine, but being a young teenage boy, it was understandable that he would feel that way about an attractive girl. Over time he learned to see her more respectfully, as a colleague and even as part of his adopted family, not just as a pretty face. Sabine for her part found Ezra annoying at first (c’mon, what teenage boy isn’t?), but as he matured and she found out more about him she came to understand and respect him more, and see him as a friend and almost a brother, with there being potential for something more.
There were times when the relationship could have been better written, like in the episode “Blood Sisters”, where Ezra was written to be a bit too immature to make Sabine look wiser. But overall, the bond between them developed fairly well; both saved one another at various times, and took risks and made sacrifices for each other’s sake. Both reassured and comforted the other when they needed it, and it was endearing to hear their banter when they became more familiar and trusting of each other.
So why then was I so disappointed in how they were portrayed in the Ahsoka show? The thing is, after how well their relationship was built up in Rebels, as I’ve already mentioned it was strange to see how lackluster and uninspired their reunion was.
Within the Ahsoka show itself Sabine was shown to be almost obsessed with finding Ezra, living in what used to be his home, watching a recording of him over and over again, and calling out his name as she woke up in the middle of the night. She even risked bringing Thrawn back into the Galaxy, which ultimately happened, just so she could see Ezra again. After all that, when she finally does encounter him, her reaction seems fairly casual, as does his, as if they’ve been apart for no more than a week, rather than 10 years. Not too much happens between them afterwards either. Like I said Ezra does not appear all that curious about what happened with Sabine, how she found him, and how it was that she was now Force sensitive. Sabine likewise did not seem curious about what had happened with Ezra, and how he had gotten away from Thrawn. And with Ezra rescued and returned home, suddenly it didn’t seem as though Sabine was all that interested in him anymore, nor he all that concerned with her, though they were just as far apart as they had been at the start of the show. To be completely honest it made me wonder what the point of the whole show was. Were they just working to set up Thrawn’s return to the Galaxy? As some have said, Ezra felt like nothing more than a Macguffin in the show. Was Sabine and Ahsoka’s search for him just a plot device?
Considering how skillfully Dave Filoni had written his stories in the past, what happened in this latest project of his does not make much sense. Was he so concerned about “shipping” and so desperate to avoid it that he inadvertently “shipped” them in the other direction? Was there some sort of external pressure on him about how to write this story to have more of an appeal to “modern audiences”? Maybe some combination of those factors?
And here I’ll add that when I say “modern audiences” I don’t mean that in a contemptuous sense, though you may think I do. If there is any contempt on my part it is for those in charge of telling our stories, or those in charge of those telling our stories, who do not seem to grasp these basic truths. The truth is that audiences at their core don’t really change throughout the ages, only superficially so. Trends come and go but certain truths and ideals are eternal, and universal. How people relate to each other fundamentally does not change, whether they are friends, or more than friends. And deep down, I believe everyone (or nearly everyone at least) wants the same things. Nearly everyone at some point wants some kind of a connection with another human being, to know that they are not alone in the world, and to know that there is someone else who sees and understands things as they do. While this desire can certainly lead to abuse, and absolutely has, it is still innate to us and is not inherently wrong. Finding ways of connecting and relating to other people is one of the great challenges of life, but many would argue it is the most worthwhile of challenges. It may be the whole point of life if you think about it. As complex as it may be, many would argue it is what makes life worth living, and likewise makes for the best stories. Just as it may be the whole point of life many would say that is what most stories are about at their core: people trying to relate to one another.
Sadly, just as in real life, most stories unfortunately don’t quite get it, and the Ahsoka show in my opinion was an example of this, made all the sadder by the fact that Dave Filoni had done quite well with these characters up to that point. We may never know for certain what exactly went wrong and why, or if it can ever be “fixed” at this point, but I can’t help but feel curious. Maybe in the future Filoni will find a way to make it make sense, but I’m not sure how. And to be completely honest I don’t feel quite as enthusiastic to find out as I used to.
Also for the record I would like to add here that there are other factors that put me off from the show, such as Sabine’s Force sensitivity, that came about without much build up. But in this article I specifically wanted to focus on shipping because there seems to be so much misunderstanding around it.
I hope that I was able to clarify some, if not most of this misunderstanding, so that people could better appreciate what shipping is, where it comes from, as well as what it isn’t. Many people today are understandably sick of shipping characters, myself included. But I hope people realize that in overcompensating for something, we often come back around into the very thing that we are overcompensating for. Or sometimes, into something even worse. This may apply to nearly every facet of life, by the way, not just shipping. Finding a happy medium in how we portray our fictional relationships may help us to better understand relationships in real life, as well as how to navigate them. Neither fictional nor actual relationships can ever be perfect but they can always be better. To this understanding then I hope that I was able to give my own modest contribution, and if nothing else I hope we can connect on that.

I'm about 1/3 way through Disquiet gods and at the place where >! Ushara reveals herself in the sky.!< Leading up to this I've been increasingly struck by what seem to be >! biblical allusions about the appearance of the watchers underneath the forms they take, with many eyes and wings, which strongly reminded me of the higher orders of angels described in biblical apocrypha especially in the preserved writings of the Essenes like the Book of Enoch and the Book of Ezekial. In addition, the whole views of the Cielcin of the world being a lie has a strong gnostic flavor, only made stronger by the fact that one of religions to survive is Zoroastrianism. !<
But the strongest indication is the following passage>! "It was as if the sky opened, as if that light from nowhere made straight the coiled paths from other time and revealed that higher plane—if only for a moment. The space beyond teemed with eyes lidless and pitiless, eyes that might have been carved of marble and set with gems. They slid across the heavens, fixed to great bands of glittering black, rotating rings within rings like the characters of her celestial speech—eyes seeing all. The great and terrible music swelled, but under it—as one might discern the metronome beneath the melody—I heard the ticking of some mechanism ancient and unfathomably immense." !<
This almost exactly reads like a description of the ophanim, the famous "wheels of flame" angels that are covered in eyes and first mentioned in the Book of Ezekial, which introduces a notion of a hierarchy of angels as he ascends through heaven. They are second to last as originally mentioned (third in catholic angel hierarchy) behind the "chayot ha kodesh" (seraphim and cherubim in catholic angel hierarchy.) Lastly, the book of Enoch itself describes a class of fallen angelic beings, the watchers, egregoroi in Greek, who were cast out from heaven for siring children with man, who became giants the nephilim and waged war on man. I assume all this allusion is intentional, although it's unclear exactly what tradition is being drawn most from (for example, Manichaeism similarly has the watchers and multiple rounds of creation, they appear in the Essenes, but also some catholic interpretations.) Where does this leave the "Quiet"?
(Spoilers for all of the Book of the New Sun series and Urth of the New Sun in particular below)
Lastly, I just want to point out how this setting (angels in space! Fluid notion of time... gnostic allusions... Neoplatonism) reminds me a bit of Gene Wolf's Book of the New Sun although there the angels are closer to "egregore." Also, it seems to me that Suneater is more 'critical' of this conception to some extent than Book of the New Sun was

Brian De Palma hates boring openings. He’s gone on record saying as much. De Palma thinks that opening shots consisting of either a) aerials of a city or b) a car driving somewhere are creatively bankrupt. How does he solve this?
He creates a devastating, electric opening—that’s how. The opening to Blow Out is nothing short of attention-grabbing. Two things make it so: a downright deadly Steadicam and De Palma playing into the sexist stereotypes of his filmography. Sleazy, total horror in prelude to a much more subtle, much more sophisticated horror.
For this scene, De Palma went to camera operator and Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown. He had just come off of doing the extensive Steadicam for Kubrick’s The Shining, so he was prepped for anything. Anything except for what De Palma had in mind. Brown wasn’t expecting Brian to request him to track a “crappy slasher parody”. And so, Brown unlearned most of what he did on The Shining and went into meticulously planning and memorizing the shot with De Palma. That’s something that often goes under-appreciated in Steadicam shots, especially more complex ones like this: they have to be memorized by the operator. It’s some truly inventive Steadicam work, as is the, at the time original, running tracking shots at the end of the movie.
One of the most effective aspects of this cold open is the immediate sense of mistrust it creates between the filmmaker and the audience. If the opening can’t be trusted, what else can’t be? It’s a clever way of establishing immediate tension without having to change the story. It’s also a smart way of holding tension without having to extend it scene-by-scene.
Heavy themes of obsession, paranoia, and the idea of accidentally finding something bigger than yourself run amok throughout Blow Out’s 103 minute runtime. In large part, this comes from De Palma’s own obsession with the Kennedy assassination. In an interview conducted by Noah Baumbach (found on the Criterion blu), De Palma mentions that part of the feeling he hoped to get across with the film was the same ones he experienced as he dove further into the conspiracy himself.
The heavy use—borderline abuse—of split-screen and split diopter shots adds to the paranoiac feel of the film by creating an information overload for the audience. The eye is unsure where to land, forcing the viewer to take all the information in frame in at once. The rest of the film, when the camera can only focus on what’s directly in front of it, is achieved through the use of shallow lenses.
This inability to let the audience focus on any one given subject at once also allows for much stronger usage of close-ups. They are few and far between here, so the ones that do happen are that much more impactful—even voyeuristic.
Another effective building block of this conspiratorial filmmaking comes from De Palma’s obsession with Hitchcock. He’s a big believer in part of what he [De Palma] calls “the grammar of cinema”: it’s the only medium in which you can show the audience and the character the same amount of information in any given moment. As such, the audience is taken on the same ride as Travolta’s character and led to the same near-delusions. However, by carefully controlling this flow of information, the director also lets the audience in just enough to create further suspense. Again, a trick picked up from Hitch.
I’ve used the word “obsession” a lot throughout this review. That’s because, at its core, that’s what Blow Out is all about. It’s both about the obsession of conspiracy and about its director’s own tendencies towards obsession. It’s an effective example of anxiety and suspense building, cementing De Palma as a master alongside Hitchcock. Any scene of Travolta in the editing room, meticulously going through every millimeter of tape to piece together his evidence is especially striking. It’s a careful exercise in both lens and audio trickery. The gear porn is an appreciated touch as well. There’s one editing room scene that stands out above the rest; when Travolta is checking the audio on a number of tapes, the camera slowly rotates in place, covering every bit of the room in one continuous, hypnotic motion; mimicking the reels on the tape machines. As Travolta’s character becomes more frantic, so too does the camera start to move faster and the audio becomes louder.
Present throughout are also a number of impressive indoor aerials. These were achieved through the use to carefully crafted sets with cranes overhead used to achieve the shot. This creates a surreal, dreamlike look to these scenes that separate them from the normal reality of the film. This is a look that’ll be explored multiple times throughout the runtime, culminating in the firework finale.
Cinematography is more than just camerawork, though. It’s also the department responsible for directing the electrical, lighting, and grips. The lighting of Blow Out in all of its technicolor noir glory is exquisite, especially on the 4k Criterion print. There’s enough colored lighting here to make Dario Argento blush. It’s striking and visually interesting to see bright reds, whites, and blues used in a chiaroscuro manner; bright colors contrasting with the film’s ideologies to create a dark, moody atmosphere.
Another factor to take into consideration when discussing cinematography is shot length. Here, De Palma opts for longer takes with a tight, controlled level of shot efficiency. If the story can be told effectively with only 1-2 shots in a given sequence, then it’s going to be told in 1-2 shots. There’s little wasted movement or placement, making for a perceived obsession regarding shot economy; De Palma admits to as much in the previously mentioned Baumbach interview.
A movie is more than just lighting and camerawork, though. For any narrative feature to work, it needs actors. The primary cast of Travolta, Allen, Franz, and Lithgow (but mostly Travolta and Allen) play up their noir tropes well. Travolta in the “wrong man” narrative fits like a glove. It’s the classic film-noir trope of someone stumbling into something bigger than themselves. On the other hand is Nancy Allen’s Sally; she’s sexy, naïve, and still dangerous—the perfect blend of femme fatale and damsel on distress. Franz is such a sleaze in so many different ways, that it manages to make my skin crawl. Seedy, secretive, and conniving; a grifter of the highest order. Lithgow, on the flip-side is cold and calculated. His killer is exacting and predatory; watching his character hunt down others is as tense as anything else.
Using actresses that were similar in appearance to Nancy Allen for the string of cover-up serial killings also lends to the general feeling of unreality. It makes the viewer double take each time, needing to confirm if the character is Sally or not. The most extreme example of this is actually a piece of stunt-work. In the opening scene of the movie, when the car takes a dive into the drink and Travolta pulls Allen out of the car, it’s actually a body double. Nancy Allen is very claustrophobic, so sticking her in a car filling up with water was nigh impossible for De Palma (who was also her husband at the time). Although it’s a bit of a goof onscreen, it does happen to lend itself well to the dreamier qualities of the movie.
The costuming in Blow Out does a surprising amount of heavy lifting as well. From those coordinating the conspiracy dressing in suits and ties: the uniform of politicians, bankers, and high society to Travolta’s plain, red shirts and working man looks—another type of uniform. In this way, De Palma is able to play visually with ideas of classism and how it often relates with conspiracy. It’s a subtle, but interesting way of conveying power dynamics.
In Blow Out, De Palma shows a rigorous attention to detail that pays off in spades by the end. From the news reports given onscreen throughout to the allusions to the revisiting of his previous works. At one point, there’s a movie that plays in Dennis Franz’ apartment that provides some diegetic audio; it’s actually De Palma’s debut feature, Murder à la Mod. For film fans, the movie also complements other movies like Antonioni’s Blowup and Coppola’s The Conversation; each of them involving obsessive characters reconstructing recordings.
Blow Out is one of De Palma’s best and easily one of his most technically impressive films. Through themes of obsession, paranoia, and the blurred line between reality and illusion, Blow Out engages audiences on multiple levels, inviting them into a world where nothing is as it seems. On every rewatch, another layer of the film reveals itself, only deepening its hidden, labyrinthine nature. This will always be an easy recommendation for me to give, especially to other fans of noir and genre filmmaking. The Criterion 4k release is worth every penny.
review on letterboxd

1. Simile:
Definition: A figure of speech that compares two different things using the words "like" or "as."
Example: The night sky was like a vast canvas, scattered with stars as bright as diamonds.
2. Metaphor:
Definition: A figure of speech that implies a comparison between two unrelated things, stating that one thing is another.
Example: Time is a thief, silently stealing moments from our lives.
3. Hyperbole:
Definition: A figure of speech involving exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally.
Example: The suitcase weighed a ton, making it nearly impossible to carry.
4. Understatement:
Definition: A figure of speech where a writer deliberately represents something as much less than it actually is.
Example: The storm brought a bit of rain; nothing too major, just a small flood in the living room.
5. Personification:
Definition: A figure of speech where human qualities are attributed to non-human entities.
Example: The wind whispered secrets through the ancient trees.
6. Assonance:
Definition: The repetition of vowel sounds within nearby words in a sentence.
Example: The melody of the evening breeze gently swept through the fields of wheat.
7. Onomatopoeia:
Definition: The use of words that imitate the sound they describe.
Example: The door creaked open, and footsteps echoed in the empty hallway.
8. Alliteration:
Definition: The repetition of initial consonant sounds in neighboring words.
Example: The playful puppy pranced through the park, chasing butterflies.
*9. Oxymoron:
Definition: A figure of speech that combines contradictory terms.
Example: The comedian's humor was both dark and lighthearted, creating an unsettling joy.
10. Irony:
Definition: A figure of speech in which words express a meaning opposite to their literal interpretation.
Example: The fire station burned down while the firefighters were on vacation—what a twist of irony.
11. Pun:
Definition: A play on words that have multiple meanings or sound similar but have different meanings.
Example: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
12. Juxtaposition:
Definition: Placing two elements side by side to present a contrast.
Example: In the bustling city, the serene park offered a juxtaposition of tranquility amid the urban chaos.
13. Synecdoche:
Definition: A figure of speech where a part represents the whole or the whole represents a part.
Example: "All hands on deck" implies the need for the assistance of the entire crew.
14. Metonymy:
Definition: A figure of speech where one term is substituted with another closely related term.
Example: The White House issued a statement on the recent policy changes.
15. Zeugma:
Definition: A figure of speech where a word applies to multiple parts of the sentence.
Example: She stole both his wallet and his heart that fateful night.
16. Epiphora:
Definition: The repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses.
Example: The forest was mysterious, the mountains were majestic, and the rivers were enchanting.
17. Euphemism:
Definition: Substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for a harsh or blunt one.
Example: She passed away peacefully in her sleep, euphemizing the concept of death.
18. Anthimeria:
Definition: The use of a word in a grammatical form it doesn't usually take.
Example: She bookmarked the page to return to the thrilling story later.
19. Chiasmus:
Definition: A figure of speech in which the order of terms in one of the clauses is inverted in the other.
Example: "Do I love you because you're beautiful, or are you beautiful because I love you?" - Cinderella
20. Allusion:
Definition: A brief and indirect reference to a person, place, thing, or idea of historical, cultural, literary, or political significance.
Example: His ambition was Caesar-like; he aimed to conquer not only Rome but the hearts of its people.
21. Allegory:
Definition: A narrative in which characters and events represent abstract ideas or moral qualities . Example: Orwell's "Animal Farm" serves as an allegory for political corruption and the abuse of power.
22. Metonymy:
Definition: A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted with another closely associated with it.
Example: The pen is mightier than the sword, emphasizing the power of the written word over physical force.
23. Sarcasm:
Definition: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Example: "Nice job on the presentation," she said, her tone dripping with sarcasm as the audience chuckled.
24. Understatement:
Definition: A figure of speech where a writer deliberately represents something as much less than it actually is.
Example: The mountain climber faced a slight challenge as he ascended Everest, navigating only a few treacherous crevices.
25. Cliché:
Definition: An expression or idea that has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning.
Example: The detective followed the suspect's trail like a bloodhound, relying on the cliché methods of his trade. *

One of the most interesting but also difficult aspects of TTPD is how much TS leans into the poetry of it all, using a huge amount of so-called “poetic devices” — this has made it difficult for some people to relate to or understand certain songs or lyrics but is part of the reason, I believe, that fans talk about how much replay value and depth it has.
A couple of my favorite examples:
Juxtaposition — the placing of two seemingly disjointed phrases or ideas next to each other (which creates a different effect than either part on its own)
“I’m so depressed I act like it’s my birthday everyday”
Zeugma — the use of one word in two different senses in one sentence
“You crashed my party and your rental car”
Honorable mention to the dramatic irony pervasive in the title track, wherein we the listeners can sense that the speaker is delusional but she is unable to see it (yet)
What are your favorite metaphors, similes, uses of hyperbole, personification, literary/musical allusion, unusual points of view, alliteration/consonance/assonance/slant rhyme, irony, meta-narrative or other poetic/literary device that stood out to you?

"First off, get your shit together. Panic doesn’t help. It never helps. Deep breaths, figure this out, make the right moves. Fear is the mind-killer. Ha. Geek.”
Welcome everyone to the third check in for Leviathan Wakes by James S.A. Corey. We continue with the story of Holden and his crew, and Miller, the detective in search of answers amid planetary conflict. In this third discussion we will be discussing Chapter Sixteen through Chapter Twenty Four.
Now, a note about spoilers!
The Expanse Series is an extremely popular book series and TV series. Keep in mind that not everyone has read any of these items. This book may be the first time a person learns about it. Please keep bookclub's rules on spoilers, and the consequences for posting spoilers, in mind.
Everyone has a different perception of what is a spoiler, so here are a few examples of what would be spoilers:

• “Just wait till you see what happens next.”
• “This won't be the last time you meet this character.”
• “Your prediction is correct/incorrect.”
• “You will look back at this theory.”
• “Here is an Easter Egg: ...”
• “You don't know enough to answer that question yet.”
• “How do you first-time-readers feel about this detail that was intentionally not emphasized by the author?”

If you're unsure, it's best to err on the side of caution and use spoiler tags.
To indicate a spoiler, enclose the relevant text with the > ! and ! < characters (there is no space in-between).
For any type of comment or idea that may be a part of The Expanse Series, just use proper spoiler labels, for example “In ” then describe the connection between books. Please be mindful when posting.
If you see something that you consider to be a spoiler, you can report it. It will be removed and the mods will look into it. To do so hit the “report” button, click on “breaks bookclub rules”, “next,” “spoilers must be tagged” and finally “submit”.
Hope you all Enjoy the discussion! Feel free to respond to any or all of the discussion questions below. Looking forward to discussing these chapters with you all!
Schedule
Marginalia
Hope you all Enjoy the discussion! Feel free to respond to any or all of the discussion questions below. Looking forward to discussing these chapters with you all!
Read on!

• Rogue

Chapter Summaries:
Chapter Sixteen: Miller - Miller watches a broadcast by the Martian government that blames “the Belt”-not the OPA-for the 2,086 Martian lives lost with the destruction of the Donnager. The Martian Navy will establish a military cordon in the Belt and take action to bring the attackers to justice. So far, it has destroyed 18 “illegal warships.” Miller realizes that if the situation escalates further, it will mean the end of everything he has ever known.
Shaddid calls Miller into her office, where Dawes is seated. Shaddid officially removes Miller from the Mao case and orders him to return all data on the case by the end of the day. Shaddid says his letter to Julie’s parents was a breach of policy and it didn’t go out.
Dawes tells Miller it’s not a good idea for Star Helix to be the organization that finds Julie. Earth and Star Helix need to keep their hands clean, but the OPA has the resources to do it right, and Mao was one of theirs. Miller points out that the Scopuli was the bait to kill the Canterbury and the Canterbury was the bait that ended the Donnager. Miller wonders why the suspects should be the only ones handling the investigation. Shaddid asserts that she’s not negotiating this. She dismisses Miller, telling him to go catch some bad guys. Miller agrees and leaves.
Later, Miller is back at the Blue Fog. The bar manager, Hasini, tells him he’s drunk and offers to get him home since it’s late. Miller contemplates “late”-he’s almost 50, so it’s too late to start again. It seems too late for anything. It occurs to him that he’s never seen a sky. He realizes the reason he’s feeling so low is not the job but the fact they took Julie away. He apparently has been talking about her all night, although he doesn’t remember. The bartender asserts that Miller is in love with her.
Chapter Seventeen: Holden - Holden and his crew are enjoying the aroma of coffee and food in the Tachi’s galley. No one is chasing them or knows where they are. They are assumed dead alongside the Donnager crew. They have water, fuel, and food, and they are well-armed. Holden says he’s inclined to take Johnson’s offer of refuge. The others agree. After giving the ship a thorough inspection, Holden finds Naomi on the operations deck. She’s working on the transponder. She’s done everything, including branding the ship as a gas freighter and entering the new name Holden chose: Rocinante. When Naomi asks what the name means, which is an allusion to the protagonist of Miguel de Cervantes’s 17th century novel Don Quixote.
Eventually, the Rocinante arrives at Tycho Station. Tycho was an early pioneer of massive Engineering projects that built the Belt’s habitats, making it now the largest mobile construction platform in the solar system. Despite that, it’s dwarfed by its latest project: the Nauvoo, a ship commissioned by a group of Mormons, who intended to embark on a 100-year trip to Tau Ceti, a star in the Cetus constellation that is similar to the Sol system’s sun. They enter an airlock, and Fred Johnson welcomes them to Tycho Station.
Chapter Eighteen: Miller - On Ceres, the six ships that took down the Donnager are hailed as heroes. The win gives Belters hope. Miller, meanwhile, feels stripped of years of lying to himself about being respected at his job. He’s nothing more than a functional alcoholic who’s been anesthetizing himself. Havelock was the only one who might have any respect for him. At least now he can stop trying to keep up appearances.
Miller thinks again of Dawes’s comment that the OPA has Holden. He questions how a ship could survive the Donnager attack without being all over the news feeds. He does the math to calculate the probabilities, but following up on all of them would take a year. Even when he narrows the options by ship type, the list is still too big.
Just as he starts getting returns on his log query, the government of Ceres collapses. Shaddid says Earth is pulling out of Ceres, but the Star Helix contract is still in place. Miller wonders if the 6 million people on Ceres are expendable. The OPA will step in to fill the power vacuum left by Earth but Mars will either take over the station or turn it to dust. Shaddid and Dawes were right, he thinks: Ceres under Earth contract was the best hope for a negotiated peace. By morning, Star Helix is all that separates Ceres from Anarchy. Shaddid calls Miller back to her office, where Dawes is waiting. She needs a strong team, and she doesn’t trust Miller. She fires him.
Chapter Nineteen: Holden - Holden wants to know why Fred and the OPA are interested in his crew. When Fred gets dodgy with answering his questions, Holden says he can tell the crew what he wants with them now or they will go back to their ship and try piracy. Fred talks about how war between Mars and the belt would be suicide and it’s only a matter of time before the combatants do something desperate, risking millions of lives.
Alex observes that Fred only talked about war and peace as options. There’s a third: a criminal trial, someone to blame for the current situation. As the only witnesses to the destruction of both the Canterbury and the Donnager, Fred calls them the ace in the hole and wants to use them to negotiate peace treaties. Weeks pass aboard Tycho and the crew are enjoying the amenities on the station. While Naomi, Alex and Amos find ways to entertain themselves, Holden feels out of place. He returns to the Rocinante, feeling more at home and considers everyone he lost as well as wanting vengeance. He eventually falls asleep.
Chapter Twenty: Miller - Ceres Station has become unmoored. Star Helix ended its contract, and the OPA has claimed control of the station. Physically it’s the same, but it’s altered political status has changed everything. Miller watches children play and envies their inclination to believe in their own invulnerability. Miller wants to find Holden, believing he may have information to aid in the search for Julie. Miller checks a message from Havelock, who has signed on with another security company, the Earth-based Protogen. He also checks ship logs, looking for leads. He sees the Rocinante and wonders why a gas hauler would be going from one consumer to another. Miller calls and asks Havelock for a favor, as he has no access, no weapon and is running out of money.
More riots follow and a curfew is set. Mars knows the Belt won’t win and the Belt knows it's nothing to lose. Miller works to find Holden and learn what happened to the Scopuli. Miller talks to an imaginary Julie, a construct he’s created to function as a companion. She thinks he’s pathetic for having nothing better to do than search for her. He books passage to Tycho but Havelock informs him that his “package” was headed for Eros, another asteroid station in the Belt. Miller changes his ticket to Eros.
Chapter Twenty One: Holden - On Tycho, Holden, Alex, and Amos are watching the war news. Mars is positioning itself as peacekeeper. Holden is impatient. He doesn’t want to hang around enjoying Fred Johnson’s hospitality—he wants to go after whoever destroyed the Cant. Naomi says they deserve their comfortable beds, food, and a chance to relax. She reminds Holden that he agreed to Johnson’s terms.
Holden says Fred owns them because he controls the purse strings. He thinks they should leave, get work, and make some money. The others are amenable, but they all want more time to unwind. Holden agrees to wait a few more days. Naomi tells Holden she’s been a bad XO because she’s been too pushy about some things, but he’s done a great job keeping them alive. Feeling proud, Holden thanks her. Naomi says he’s not captain just because McDowell died.
Fred tells Holden he wants to borrow the Roci. He needs a quiet ship to pick up something and bring it to Tycho. Holden doesn’t trust him and doesn’t want any part of a secret mission. Fred provides more detail: He needs someone to fly to Eros, pick up an operative named Lionel Polanski, and bring him back to Tycho. According to Fred, “Polanski” exists only on paper; someone used the name to check into a flophouse on Eros. Fred believes it’s a call for help. They negotiate: Holden won’t loan his ship, but Fred can hire the Roci and its crew. To conceal their identities, Holden suggests disguising the Roci to look like the gas freighter it’s supposed to be. Fred agrees to camouflage the ship, and Holden informs the crew they’re going to Eros.
Chapter Twenty Two: Miller - Miller is on a transport to Eros. The bar is open, and the drinks are cheap, but he’s not interested in drinking. He’s focused on Julie. A missionary strikes up a conversation. After a little back-and-forth about what religion the missionary is selling (he turns out to be Mormon), Miller reveals that he used to be a cop on Ceres, where he was born and spent his whole life. The missionary asks if he’ll ever go back, and Miller says no. He wonders why he doesn’t feel any loss.
Eros is filled with cheap casinos, sex clubs, opioid bars, and show-fight arenas. Miller stops at a noodle place and runs into Sematimba, an old friend he worked with on a difficult security case. Miller asks about Julie, but Sematimba doesn’t know anything. Miller says the case started out as an abduction but might be something big connected to the war. A riot breaks out nearby, and Sematimba leaves to police it. Miller heads toward a casino, reasoning that everyone who comes to Eros passes through the casinos.
Chapter Twenty Third: Holden - The Roci has arrived at Eros. After making their way through the casinos, they reach the flophouse. Amos tells Holden someone’s following them, giving a description of a man in a hat. A woman in the flophouse lobby orders Holden and the others to go with her. She points a small plastic gun at Alex’s head. Amos points his much more impressive gun at her. Several people barge in, shooting compact semiautomatics. A guy with a small machine gun advances toward Holden. Their tail—Miller—arrives and shoots the guy with the machine gun. Holden tells his crew not to shoot the guy with the hat. After the attackers leave, Holden introduces himself. The guy says his name is Miller.
Chapter Twenty Four: Miller goes into analytic mode. The flophouse ambush was sloppy; otherwise, Holden and his crew would have been taken or killed. Miller explains his presence: He’s looking for a crew member on the Scopuli. Holden says they’re also looking for someone who was on the Scopuli—someone who was supposed to be at the flophouse. Miller wonders if it’s Julie. They all head for the room Lionel Polanski is supposed to be occupying. Holden knocks on the door, but there’s no answer. Amos kicks in the door, revealing a dark room with an unpleasant smell.
They inspect the room. Holden orders everyone not to touch anything. They follow a trail of dark fluid, not blood, to the bathroom, where the smell is worse. The lights inside are all destroyed. Black tendrils reach toward the broken fixtures. In the shower stall, Julie lies dead, naked except for the tendrils and tubes coming out of her orifices and the bony spurs she’s grown. Miller orders everyone out. Sematimba arrives, and Miller tells him the girl he was looking for is dead in the room. He admits that he’s in over his head. He knows the attack was a set-up. He gestures toward Holden and tells Sematimba who he is

It's literally a paradox.
If all of the leaks were a setup, then Drake would know that Kendrick had been given Family Matters ahead of time and that Kendrick would have a response track waiting (Meet the Grahams), so Drake would then have a track ready to go revealing the trap. It would have gone, Drake drops Family Matters, Kendrick drops Meet the Grahams, then Drake drops a track right after revealing that he set Kendrick up. Part of the reason that MtG is so lethal is that Kendrick dropped it immediately after Family Matters (proving that he knew Family Matters was coming). It wouldn't have been nearly as powerful if he released it a day or two from now, so why would Drake setup a trap and then not utilize it?
If only some of the leaks were a setup (e.g. just the daughter rumor and the MtG cover), then that would mean that there is a real mole and they're the one who leaked Family Matters to Kendrick. So if that's true, then that mole would also have known about the setup and then so would Kendrick.
Drake setting this up is paradoxical because the way it played out, has it looking clearly to outsiders like he got outplayed by Kendrick. It's infinitely more likely that Drake got caught off guard and is doing the only thing he can, deflecting and trying to muddy the waters by latching onto attempts to spin the narrative by random internet posters. That way Drake doesn't have to actually commit to a specific narrative and if those random posts get debunked, he doesn't take a hit since he never actually said that's what happened, but he's more than happy to have it out there making the truth cloudy.
EDIT/further discussion about how the narrative can be twisted. I've seen people mention the contents of the MtG cover as "proof" that Drake set Kendrick up, this is part of twisting the narrative. People saying that it would be too obvious for all of that to have been in a suitcase, I agree, I don't think it was.
I have another explanation for the 6:16 and MtG covers, I believe that the 6:16 in LA cover was Kendrick challenging Drake to a "duel". There used to be a practice that if someone took off their glove and slapped another person in the face with it, they were being challenged to a duel. It was then a matter of pride that the other person had to agree to the duel. However, once at the duel it was considered respectable for both people to purposefully shoot wide, that way both people could walk away alive and with their pride intact. On the other hand, if someone comes in with the intent to kill, that's how you end up with a duel to the death. The death of Hamilton is an example of this, Burr claimed that Hamilton was clearly intending to actually shoot at him while some witnesses claimed that Hamilton was intending to shoot wide, but Burr shot and killed him. So the cover of "6:16 in LA" is Kendrick challenging Drake to a duel, to which Drake responded with "Family Matters" which is clearly intent to kill, then Kendrick dropped "Meet the Grahams" in response showing the same lethal intent.
The cover of "Meet the Grahams", the only person I've seen say that it all came from Drake's dad's suitcase is AK and that he got that information from someone in Kendrick's circle. Is that even true that he was told that and if it is, was what he was told true? Let's just say it isn't because I too want to play the narrative spinning game of what the cover could have meant.
Without AK, Kendrick hasn't said anything specific about the cover, so it's entirely possible that the items are there for different reasons and have different origins, some maybe not coming from Drake.

1. The shirt has a dog pissing on a fire hydrant, just like how Drake got his leg pissed on by T.I.'s friend. Then "Shortee Collection", Drake is calling Kendrick short and Kendrick is saying that this is part of his collection of Drake's stuff/information on Drake. It's entirely possible that this is something Kendrick bought specifically for the different meanings.
2. The prescriptions were stolen from Drake, proof that he has moles and that people surrounding him are willing to steal from him
3. The glove ties in with the duel challenge, notice how it appears to be a single glove with the tag still on it, nobody sells single gloves, so the other one would have been removed for a reason. Plus as other people have pointed out, Maybach tying in with Ross, so possibly some sort of play on Ross challenging Drake to a duel, where they both shot wide and now Kendrick and Drake were going to have theirs. Putting the choice to Drake on if he wanted to try and take that lethal shot or shoot wide. Then you of course have potentially allusions to the MJ/Drake discussions, as they both have worn the single glove. Same as the shirt, it's entirely possible that Kendrick bought the glove for these specific meanings.
4. I've seen a number of theories about the jewelry stuff, including that one of the receipts is for the ring from "Family Matters" that is supposed to be Whitney's, and it's entirely possible that Nadine Ghosn, the name on the business card, made Drake that replica. Further proof that Drake has a mole and that Kendrick is a step ahead of Drake.

I'm not saying that all or any of these are true, but I've seen a bunch of people running with AK's claims and then saying that the suitcase was a setup as well by making the same type of random attachments, so I wanted to show how you can spin a narrative and just because you can make a puzzle piece fit, doesn't mean that's where it goes.