Originally Posted by Strawberry Curls
...Russell was in very close proximity to a rambunctious five yo ...Gabriel Hughenfort. Russell may not have had much in the way of hands on experience with young children, but she could hardly have missed how Helene and Iris handled the child during that long and confining journey.
I've pondered why (other than it was necessary for the plot) Russell and Estelle did not go with Holmes and Damian. Moving the sleeping child would have been difficult, but furthermore I have dealt with a 5 yo who witnessed his father be very badly injured. It shakes a child's foundation to see a parent injured, incapacitated and not able to be the strong invincible person they need in their life. In my experience it was wiser to not allow the child to see her father injured. Now if the separation is extended, as this one may well be, that will pose different problems with trust and security. Either way, Estelle has much to accept in her very young life. I'm excited to see how it all unfolds...
... in "The God Of The Hive." Still trying to accept that title.
I concur Curls, VS. Really think Mary (might as well tap into that more "feminine side that has red blooded emotions and not always stick to "Russell", the more "pedagogical" side her memoirs so often are) does know a bit more about children than she lets on or, perhaps, is willing to admit to herself. Love it the way she and Alistair/Ali handle the two Darling kids in JUST. And look at the way she handles 14 dogs in BEEK - that's certainly a "motherly" thing to do if you think of it, particularly the way she did it...
She's benefited from a pretty terrific role model in her own mother - great memories for her, as she tells them to "posterity".
I agree about the impact of the trauma seeing her father so incapacitated may well have had on Estelle. She is used to him going in and out of her life (her mother's choice it seems more than Damian's) so being separated from him and with her "grandmother" may not be that much of a problem - the novelty alone for Estelle would be enthralling I would think - she and Mary would find each other "most interesting" - or so I suspect and we will see in the new book.
As far as the "why" can you seriously see Lestrade "arresting" Mary, particularly when she is the only responsible adult around to take care of a child? He would arrest either Damian or Holmes or both whatever their condition. It's more than likely Holmes and Damian are decamping to the continent and such a journey isn't really appropriate for a 5 year old. (Though her first flight with Mary is on the extreme side of adventure too. Probably quite a bit shorter than what they would have had to endure with the "guys" though.) And four are more obvious than a 2 and 2, especially when attention is called to them by the presence of a child and serious incapacity.
I think I'm going to find myself referring to this next edition as something like:
OUAT-TGM - said "wistfully" / Part 2 of LANG or LANG Continued / The New Book / or the book who's title they really didn't get right... I too can NOT do GOTH. And there are so many reasons including the total misalignment of religious symbolism drawn by LRK and the Big Apple people. They just don't "get it" (or I don't). I'd even take GODO which is both very funny as an "homage to" and goes along with ideas found it Pogo - far closer to Laurie's gentle humor plus the theological overtones she writes that resonate with both works: the comic strip and the play. This choice, to me, is so uninspired in terms of the cross atlantic cultural exchange. If one creates myth it's better to find the "gods" in the story, not forced upon us in the title. I am also keenly aware that for those who scan titles this may muddle the theological perspective Russell is slowly unfolding to us with new age radicalism that the rejection of the original title was trying to avoid.
I am entirely unconvinced of a God in the Hive to begin with; what are we talking about? Is this some kind of a super, invisible "King" bee? Or are we getting into Paganism? Pantheism? Naturalism? Or is it merely a literary illusion? I'm both mystified and highly annoyed. Laurie speaks from a circumspectly discrete view that never the less is predominately Judeo-Christian. To add in a humanistic deity is jarring to say the least. Maybe that's the intention and maybe, as I've said, I don't get it. But it appears as a huge mistake to me. Yes, I know we've looked at interesting interpretations of The Song of Songs
which includes strong references to Hinduism, we've explored cults in several works so Laurie doesn't ignore the broad stroke of religion and is prepared to spend a little time in education as she writes but that is not the same as titling. To name a book is to say something about the author and the book in it's entirety; not to select a part and add distortion to that particular aspect or plot twist or new character. It doesn't do justice to the work nor to the author. At least that's what I think and I could be on a rant here.
And if you take the historical meaning for the initials GOTH: then LRK is no Barbarian, nor writes even close to the violence, the immediacy of descending terror, the brute strength one would need to emulate these warriors - Lee Child maybe, Laurie, NO!!! But I'm ranting. However, if Russell ever puts on a black dress it will be to "knock Holmes dead" and not to whiten her own face to deaden the feminine, appear androgynistic, put on GOTH even for All Hallow's Eve (can't imagine her celebrating that anyway) nor - to wear black that is - for any reason other than to be herself.
I decry the decline of enlightenment, the weakening of learning and cultural exchanges the lessening of decency even in acronyms. GOTH does that very thing to me and I decry those so oriented to Marketing and mammon that they settle for those things. The only possible redeeming value is that LRK tops the best seller list next year, wins every award possible and - just to thumb a nose at this nonsense - wins the lottery of at least 14 zillion and privately reprints this book under it's correct title and sends a copy to every one of us!!!!!
(I know, I know - legality intrudes; but it is a much nicer dream!)
(Guess the choice (and by no means am I putting down the "winner" whoever that turns out to be) is not my favorite either.)
By the way Elizabeth: I thoroughly enjoyed your comments. Could feel a vibrating chord responding in agreement or appreciation all the way through your note so thank you! Can't wait to hear from you again.