#beverley brook

Have you noticed that every woman in Peter’s life tends to boss him around? Starting with his mother, a fierce Sierra-Leonian matriarch (we all remember why, according to Peter, African women have kids, don’t we? put a pin onto it); then Lesley, his white colleague/friend/dream girl, who basically bullies him on the basis of his professional inadequacy; then Molly, a mute fae housekeeper, who likes “doing” for the Folly (house-efs, anyone? I wonder if she’s paid… No, really, is she?) and has this strange codependent relationship with a man, who back in the days would be considered her white, human master, but granted, has always been a sort of a friend (The Masquerades of Spring); Stephanopoulos, “a terrifying lesbian”, whose wife we’ve never seen “on screen” (and thus, her being a lesbian is just a tag. And that’s why I’m convinced that the reveal will also be just a tag, even more convenient tag, ‘cos no love-life required, not that Peter has ever been interested in Nightingale’s love-life); Mama Thames, a scary goddess, who glamoured Peter with something seducing the first time she met him; Tyburn… well… Tyburn, who also glamoured him even before she met him; and eventually Beverley. 

Please also notice that none of these women ever bossed Nightingale around. Not even the goddesses. Not even Tyburn! Yes, I get that it’s kinda hard to boss Thomas around, what with him being an irritatingly polite century-old powerful wizard and all, but still. 

So, bossy women… I’ve been given to understand that a bossy black woman as a trope nowadays is frowned upon for being an uncomplimentary stereotype. Please correct me if I’m wrong. But bossy women in general… Granted, it was a thing back in the 2000s to early 2010s. All those “girl-bosses”, “girl powers”, “spice girls” whatever. And it’s also the period when the series started. I’ve also heard some whispers that the first book was developed from a failed pilot script, dated back in the mid 2000s, with a black female protagonist (which already sounds like a good plan, don’t you think?:))) So, okay, yeah, bossy women were a zeitgeist of the previous wave of feminism. The wave that writers like Steven Moffat and Joss Whidon had a fun time swimming in, despite their deep seated misogyny, which became quite apparent only when the wave had changed. I’m not saying that BA is a misogynist… yet. But with addition of Sahra Guleed, Helena and Caroline Linden-Limmer and most of the other female characters that will appear later in the series, including, to some extent, Danni Wickford — all of them are bossy. And all of them are ganging up on the poor Peter. Oh, poor Peter! My heart is bleeding for him! (that was sarcasm). 

I mean, if we start looking at it through the lens of the current wave of feminism, he begins to look like all those mostly right-wing cis-het men, oppressed by the women. I’m not going to dwell much on the historical aspect of black men’s relationship with power and respect, again, it’s something I’ve read about, I’m not an expert. But I’ve got questions. It’s hard for me to determine how exactly the movement against systemic racism in the UK differs from the one in the US (although, I can tell they’re different), however, I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that in regard to the police and the army being the two more accessible ways for a black man to gain some power and respect the UK and the US are not so different. And yes, Peter is portrayed as an A-levels failure, who had no other choice, and to make matters slightly worse, an idealistic type. And foolishly so, if we look at him through Lesley’s eyes. And apart from Lesley having a point here (re: the dialogue about order and chaos), Peter’s idealism seems strangely general. Later in the series he will be more concerned about the marginalisation of the demi-monde than his working class black community. One may say, of course, that the demi-monde is also his community, but still. If memory serves, in the later books there was one mention of Peter being stopped and searched by the police in his youth. One. I sincerely have no idea how all of this looks from the point of view of a COP reader, but for me, a white gal with an artificial knowledge about black racism, it seems like the series is pointedly colorblind. Although, again, if I’m not mistaken, there was a passage when Peter commented on Nightingale’s colorblindness (and how ironic is that?) I’d go further and say that the series is socially blind. Strictly speaking, Peter being a police officer is a class traitor (I believe in the US he might also be called a race traitor) and more importantly, he doesn’t reflect on the system at all. “Rivers of London” is copaganda, let’s have no illusions about it. But what with the protagonist being a mixed-race man with dark skin, one may hope that it will play some role. Otherwise, why would a white author choose such a character? But alas. And Peter’s power and respect dynamic, specifically in the relationships with the women in his life, accentuates this blindness. Not only that he appears as an “unthreatening black guy”, but he’s also, for the lack of a better term, a heel. 

Is him being a heel feminist enough? I’d say no. Because, diegetically, he may be a willing sub to all the girl-bosses around him, but let’s see what the narrative hints to us. And that’s when we go to Bev. Finally :))) 

In the first book, Beverley Brook has all the hallmarks of a manic pixie dream girl. Hot manic pixie dream girl. She is strange, she is a goddess, she wears screaming T-shirts and braids, perhaps not at all unusual hair-style for a young black woman, and yet it was specifically described. When she semi-stalks him under the aegis of facilitating on her mum’s request, she occasionally seems rather childish. Him indulging her by taking the Jag to UCH and then whining about that the trip took them twice as long as if they would’ve walked there. She will mature later in the series, specifically, after the hostage exchange. Yet the “dream girl’s” vibe will still be there. Because she’s a perfect girl for him. It’s almost like she’s tailored for him. She doesn’t take his bullshit, true, yet she doesn’t ask much of him either. She’s got no complaints about his job and the danger of it. She’s not a romantic kind of girl (eww, those romantic kinds of girls, right? Romance is nauseating, isn’t it?). She’s not bothered about his emotional constipation and inability to say “I love you”. It may be read as her not expecting too much of him. But then why is she staying with him? I mean, yes, he knocked her up, still. It is presented like she’s self-sustained, like he’s just a pleasant (the good shagger comment) bonus to her otherwise incredibly active and interesting life, which fulfills all of her emotional needs (except for shagging, apparently), so it is conveniently no needs for Peter to fulfill (again, except for shagging). What it seems like, however, is that she’s just pushed out of the way. She’s a perfect girlfriend, and perfect girlfriends don’t ask of their boyfriends (especially, if they are protagonists) things those boyfriends don’t like to do (they may boss them around, sure, a woman needs a hobby, so be it). Don’t nag them about their annoying traits or their jobs. Don’t irritate them with their worries. Perfect girlfriends are not humans, they’re shadows, they’re plus ones, even if they’re goddesses. Notice how we haven’t seen Bev doing something goddess-like since… the first book, I’d say. I don’t count the shotgun rescue from “Foxglove Summer” as something specifically goddess-like. Badass, maybe, but that only adds up to the pile. 

And speaking of “Foxglove Summer”. I remember a rather heated discourse about Bev and Peter… getting together, shall we say. Specifically about her using him to create a spark for the river Lugg without his fully informed consent. BA is known for being slightly tone deaf. The best example is of course Peter’s mental torment about the prospect of killing a suspect in “Amongst Our Weapons”… in 2020. And I don’t want to sound like those who think that men can’t be raped. Men can be raped. But I’ve been thinking why that particular scene in “Foxglove Summer” with all its controversial, although clearly not intentional, implications wasn’t a big deal either diegetically and not. And from Watsonian point of view I couldn’t find any other working reason than Peter being eager to get some with Bev. Simple as that. But it’s the Doylist point of view where things become a bit more questionable. I mean, think about it. Why would BA include such a scene? Why would he make this spark of life a sex energy? Why would he make this particular point jump-start their relationship? Don’t you find it a tiny bit suspicious that he made Bev suggest sex? It is rather vague in the book whether she did that out of necessity or because she wanted him. And I’m not saying that women who enjoy sex exist only as a misogynists’ wet dream. There are women who enjoy sex. Women have been fighting for their right to openly enjoy sex without being considered sluts for centuries, and it’s all very feminist. Except I highly doubt that it was feminism that brought us to that scene. I highly doubt that BA even thought about Bev when he was writing that scene. He made that situation a starting point for his OTP in the circumstance where Peter was grieving the betrayal of his first dream girl. That quickie in the river benefitted Peter way more than it might benefit Beverly, even if she actually wanted him. So, I’d say those controversial non-con vibes were not a big deal because they were for the good of the protagonist. 

The tenth novel of the bestselling Rivers of London urban fantasy series returns to the adventures of Peter Grant, detective and apprentice wizard, as he solves magical crimes -- this time, while on a family vacation in Scotland

Peter Grant is north of the border—but don’t worry, he isn’t in Scotland alone. It’s the summer holidays, so everybody has traveled up with him: Dr. Walid, Thomas Nightingale and his latest apprentice, Abigail Kamara; Peter’s best beloved Beverley Brook, the twins, Peter’s mum Rose, and, since his dad can’t be left on his own, he and his trumpet are coming too. And given Aberdeen has its own small but vibrant jazz scene, it would be criminal if there weren’t some gigs whilst they’re in town, so the band is also driving up.

What could go wrong—right? Stupid question really.

Why are there magic gulls terrorising the seafront? And what does this have to do with certain ancient families that seem to have a mystical connection with the sea and the massive offshore industry that has made Aberdeen the oil capital of Northern Europe?

When a man with gills is found dead on a boulevard, Police Scotland reluctantly avail themselves of Peter’s expertise. Between keeping his dad, the band and a pair of hyperactive twins out of trouble, Peter has to discover who the victim was, who killed him and why.