Odd Ends & Miscellaneous Opinions

This man is going to die, isn't he? Like ive been suspicious for a while but after that big speech... mans a goner.

I love how all the generals etc just pause whatever the fuck they are doing so they can eavesdrop on Yan Zheng and Fan Chanyu.

They are invested in the drama. They are willing to do so much ridiculous bullshit to help Yan Zheng keep up the ruse. Sure, it's mostly bc he's their boss, but you know they want to know the tea as well.

Pretty much everyone is like, bro, just tell her. But he's committed to the bit and they are not missing out on the free entertainment. These are probably the most entertaining shenanigans they have ever seen in their entire military careers.

But also Yan Zheng for fuck's sake, just tell her. Like they are trapped on a mountain with limited resources and bro is just wasting those resources and all his generals time (they probs have very little to do anyway but still) so he can live his Hannah Montanna double life.

Like he has a whole separate private tent so he can larp as Yan Zheng and then jump back to being the Marquis, and I know I'm overthinking it, but that tent was probably needed by someone else, or could have been put to better use.

Ep 17 now and that bitch deserved to get slapped. What do you mean this is their first kiss!? I get that both of these people suck at communicating and we need conflict to keep us going for 40 eps but come on.

It reads less as tragic miscommunication/desperate attempt to show you care and more as you are being a dick right now.

I just keep telling myself, its setting up character development, it's setting up character development, he needs to suck a bit now so he can be better later.

(MILD SPOILER FOR EP 13)

Okay so in ep 13, Song Yan and Fan Chanyu have their tift over the lantern, right, and Chanyu humiliates him in front of the neighbors.

Now once he leaves, she says to Yan Zheng that she's still not happy even after getting a bit of revenge against her ex.

You see, I, well attuned to western conventions of storytelling, went "oh this is set up for a romantic moment where Yan Zheng suggests they light a lantern together. "

Because Chanyu mentioned she had never lit one with Song Yan, and we see she feels a little sad she was never able to participate in that tradition, even if she hates the guy.

So obviously Yan Zheng is going to buy her a lantern and they'll put it in the river together and it ties into the themes of revenge vs love and how love is more satisfying and fulfilling than revenge could ever be because hate is self destructive etc'

Cut to about a minute later and Yan Zheng and Chanyu are dragging that bitch into a back alley to beat his arse while the small child counts to ten around the corner.

I just want to start off by saying that I don't think Nightingale and Molly are a couple in the current canon. It's pretty explicit that Nightingale is ace and i think that's really cool :)

My theory is that this isn't what Aaronovitch initially intended and if you look at the early books in the series, you can see the traces of a different story line being set up for these characters.

So allow me to walk you through my reasons for this theory and why i think it's interesting.

I was sent down this rabbit hole by one nagging question that refused to leave my brain:

Who the fuck made that nude painting of Molly?

If you haven't read the first book in a while, this is the necessary context:

Peter is setting up the tech cave in the coach house. He gathers that the loft has been used as a painting studio at some point in the past, although the room doesn't seem like it's been used in a long time

While moving things around, he finds a series of old paintings tucked away in a corner.

One is a painting of a man Peter says looks a lot like Nightingale but older and with different coloured eyes (this is before Peter learns that Nightingale is immortal and aged backwards, so we can assume is this Nightingale - although the different eye colour is interesting).

One of the other paintings is a very sensual nude piece of Molly.

Which naturally leads one to ask, as Peter himself does, who convinced Molly to undress for that painting?

We can assume it was likely a wizard. Also because Molly is easily recognisable to Peter, we can gather the painting was done at the earliest in the 30s around when she would have stopped ageing. Although the painting of older Nightingale indicates it might have been done post-war (assuming they were painted around the same time).

The fact that this painting is right next to a portrait of Nightingale, from a literary analysis perspective, does suggest a link between two paintings and their subjects. It does seem intentional on the behalf of the author that the painting of Nightingale (which implies a secret about him that we learn later) comes directly before the reveal of the painting of Molly (which suggests another secret we have yet to learn).

This is all very circumstantial, but the events that follow when Peter holds a sort of den-warming party are very suspect.

It goes something like this:

Peter invites Beverley and Lesley around to see the tech cave.

While they are chatting, Molly shyly enters the tech cave and looks around somewhat furtively and generally seems a little on edge.

Very shortly after, Nightingale himself appears and sits around awkwardly.

Everyone and everything is very awkward

Nightingale excuses himself.

Then Molly runs after him

Peter, Beverly and Lesley are left in the tech cave and this exchange happens:

'Awkward,’ said Beverley. ‘You don’t think she and Nightingale…?’ asked Lesley. ‘Ew,’ said Beverley. ‘That’s just wrong.’ ‘I thought you and her [Molly] were friends?’ I asked. ‘Yeah, but she’s like a creature of the night,’ said Beverley. ‘And he’s old.'

So like what was going on there?

If we interpret this scene with the understanding that Molly and Nightingale are a couple, it kind of makes sense.

We can assume: Nightingale gives Peter permission to take over the old studio. Molly remembers the painting and goes up to find it or see if Peter found it. Nightingale sees her, maybe also remembers the painting and goes after Molly. Everything is awkward and so they quickly leave.

The fact that Lesley, who is well established to the most perceptive character in the series, is picking up on something between them seems pretty damning.

But my big piece of evidence comes from another, seemingly unrelated aspect of the book.

Isis aka Anna Maria de Burgh Coppinger

This is a real historical figure and a kind of random person to include in the novel.

She was the mistress of the fourth Earl of Sandwich and Henry Ireland, who faked a Shakespearean manuscript - probably the reason Aaronovitch knowns about her.

This is the important part: She lived with Henry Ireland for a time, but because they weren't married, she pretended to be his housekeeper.

This was a very common excuse used by middle and upper class men so they could have their mistresses live with them while maintaining respectability.

Nightingale calls Molly the housekeeper despite the fact that she isn't actually an employee.

This leads Peter to briefly questioning whether she's a slave and that entire conversion is extra funny with this interpretation. But importantly, Peter calls out how its strange that he calls her the housekeeper when she's really a resident of the folly.

Having a character comment on something or call it out is a very common tool authors use to highlight something they want the reader to pay attention to.

Beverly acknowledges the weirdness of the interaction in the tech cave, Lesley straight up suggests that there's something going on there, and there's an entire conversation where Peter questions Molly's exact role in the Folly.

There's also a whole other character who was a mistress that posed as a 'housekeeper' to avoid detection and doesn't really seem to have much of a purpose in the story, yet is a fairly substantial side character.

Peter only briefly mentions this part of her backstory here:

"...Mistress of John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich and live-in lover of the famous Shakespearean scholar Henry Ireland."

There sure seems to be a lot of instances where the author appears to be guiding us to question the exact relationship between these two characters.

It also makes sense that Nightingale and Molly would have to hide their relationship as its well established that there's some fairy racism in this setting. I'll refer you back to the comments Beverly made in the coach house for an example. Also in Foxglove Summer Beverly mentions right at the end that one of her sisters is married to a fae and that is very 'scandalous'. (guess Beverly has some subconscious bias against fae).

So we can imagine that a relationship between Molly and Nightingale probably would have been considered even more scandalous by the elitist wizards of the Folly.

So in conclusion: There is evidence to suggest that Aaronovitch was planning on Nightingale and Molly being a couple.

Although it's clear that Aaronovitch changed his mind at some point and generally I think this is for the better because:

It would make Nightingale look like a real arsehole for keeping Molly as his mistress for so many years and denying having a relationship with her. You could argue that because of the fairy racism stuff, there's a personal safety risk maybe, but in the modern era of the story there's no real reason he shouldn't at least tell Peter or people close to the Folly. I mean, I like a complex flawed character which Nightingale already kinda is, but it would really strain his likeability.

and

2) It would be a bit cliché. Don't get me wrong, I love a good forbidden romance and I would be down for a secret affair with the maid plot line, but it is cliché. I think the direction Aaronvitch went with in making Nightingale ace is more novel and interesting for sure.

I guess Nightingale and Molly could still have a sort of ace 'life partners' thing going on, which does seem to be the case, but that still leaves the very crucial question of:

Who the fuck made that really horny nude painting of Molly?

I doubt it was Nightingale. Or idk maybe he wanted to do an anatomy study and Molly was down.

Personally my preferred explanation that fits within the current cannon is that David was one who made the painting.

There's an interesting detail when Peter first enters the coach house where he notes that it looks like Molly hasn't cleaned in there for years.

"Unlike those in the rest of the Folly, these sheets were furry with dust—I didn’t think Molly had ever cleaned in there."

It's been sort of shut up, perhaps, like the lab in the main folly that's always locked.

If this was David's painting studio, it would explain why both Molly and Nightgale feel weird about being in there and left the space unused for so long.

I like the idea that David and Molly maybe had a thing because a) it gives him another way to haunt the narrative and b) it adds a layer of depth to Nightingale and Molly's relationship as he's essentially taking care of his best friend's widow.

This explanation is sadly very straight, but I think it's the most interesting, cannon-compliant explanation. Although then we have to ask who mad the painting of Nightingale postwar, so it's not perfect.

If anyone has any possible canon explanations for the painting of Molly I would be happy to hear them, because I can't really think of anything the truly fits.

And by that, I mean there are a lot of similarities between Nightingale's description and Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. I don't know if Aaronovitch intentionally drew on this iteration of Sherlock, but I feel like the comic artists may well be using him as a reference.

or idk. maybe all posh English stock characters are just that similar.

I had more or less the same feelings about Internet Girl when it first came out. In that song, the verses feel like they're building to a critique of internet culture and the scrutiny that comes with being a famous woman online, but all we get is EAT ZUCHINNI.

The closest to poignant the song gets is with these lyrics.

In your feelings, 'cause you need me so

Keep on breathin', 'cause you never know

What I might do

It just might be you

It reads as a critique of obsessive stan culture "In your feelings, 'cause you need me so" and the last lines seem to reference how idols are told to act flirty and promote parasocial attachments "you never know / What I might do / It just might be you" It suggests that the narrator/idol might just sleep with you, yes you, crazy fan person, so you'd better keep watching and buying merch etc.

Then there's the lyric:

Click it, click it, ooh, you hate it, jealousy's so overrated

Haven't you heard? I'm the internet girl

Yeah, it isn't my fault that it's always my turn"

This does a faint nod in the direction of toxic online communities and harassment which drives 'clicks' regardless. A type of toxicity that is often directed at women particularly; see literally every Katseye controversy ever.

Even the dreaded baby voice "I'm getting out of here" ties into to the themes set up in the song. The line that comes before it "It's all too much, I fear" points to the idea of being overwhelmed by social media pressure.

All the vague gestures at satire make the EAT ZUCHINNI bit even more frustrating because it's clearly referencing oral sex which could be read as satirical if the song was better written but it just reads as tacky and kinda of gross given the other lyrics. Like, if the song was good satire I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're mocking how silly sexual lyrics and euphemisms (especially the fruit/vegetable based euphemisms that are common in kpop) are crammed into songs unnecessarily. But in this case I think it is just that.

In an alternate reality where Internet Girl was well written, the song could've have had Electra Heart energy and been a satirical examination of a self-absorbed and self-destructive rising star like Oh No or Prima Donna Girl.

BUT NO. We get nonspecific gestures at meaning and satire but nothing that holds up if you think about it for more than five seconds.

Pinky Up suffers from the same issues lyrically.

The verses establish the idea that the world sucks, so we're gonna cope with it by partying and getting into trouble because nothing matters anymore. See:

"One day, soon, the world's gonna end

I'm gonna make out with my new bestest friends

I wanna live large, right before it all burns down"

and

"I wanna get high right before we're in the ground"

even the kinda of stupid

"Us against the world, shaking ass in the parking lot

If we get arrested, haha, baby, laugh it off"

All this build on the central theme of everything sucks so lets just be dumb for a bit and forget about it.

The reference to Socrates isn't well incorporated imo but I can see how it was intended to link with idea of we're going to act dumb and ignore the worlds problems. Although Albert Camus and absurdism would probably have been a better philosophic reference given the themes the song is trying to have.

But then the chorus is just 'PINKY UP' without even a connecting lyric like 'so we're gonna put our pinkies up' which would still be a bit out of nowhere, but as it is, there is no connection between the ideas set up in the verses and the main chorus. The only connecting lyric is

"I-I-I-I bet it goes like this"

Which does not make sense as a connecting lyric. Like was does 'it' refer to in this line?

Clearly, the chorus was designed specifically to go viral and be played at clubs and was probably written separately from the rest of the song with the verses tacked on later. Which is not a good way to write a song. Regardless, they weren't obligated to try and have themes in the verses. It could have been a fully nonsense club banger type song. But once they had attempted to add some meaning into the song, it baffles me that they didn't even try to make the verses link with the chorus at all.

In the cases of both Internet Girl and Pinky Up, I was so close to liking the song. I don't mind all the individual components, but the end result is less than the sum of its parts. It seems that the writing team put more focus on creating viral soundbites than writing a coherent narrative.

Both songs introduce interesting ideas and themes that make you think the song is going to mean something, but they simply don't deliver. There's no depth or elaboration. The conclusion to the themes of internet virality is EAT ZUCHINNI and the theme of coping with the awful state of the world is summarised with PINKY UP. Its so close to meaning something within that context its frustrating. It would take minimal rewrites to give the song a message about continuing to be cheerful and have fun in the face of adversity but it fails to even do anything that corny.