#but the stuff i left out wasnt as relevant to a review

[cyanlastride]

the colorado kid has torn through my mind over the past several hours

i was scrolling through tv shows i could watch when i saw haven. my parents watched haven when i was younger, and i remember bits and pieces of it. i was surprised, however, to see stephen king mentioned in the show summary. i read my first king book, the gunslinger, long after my parents finished haven, and before the gunslinger i really had no interest in king. now, even though ive still only read a handful of his books besides the dark tower, i jump every time i see his name, or anything nineteen.

i watched the first episode of haven with intent for the first time, and after something like 6 ad breaks decided that tv was not worth my time. also, though the show was interesting it didnt feel like king, other than it being set in maine. obviously i am no expert of what does and does not feel like king as i swore that donnie darko was a king adaptation when i watched it recently, but whatever. a quick wikipedia search confirms that only the setting and the idea of the colorado kid are king-inspired, along with a couple of references to stuff like IT. still havent read or watched IT. at the end of the day im a dark tower fan, not a king-horror fan, and surprisingly the fanbases have relatively small overlap. anyways, while im on wikipedia, i decide to quickly check out the colorado kid page.

and of course, my eyes immediately spy out the words dark tower.

"The review of The Colorado Kid in today’s issue of today's USA Today mentions that there was no Starbucks in Denver in 1980. Don’t assume that’s a mistake on my part. The constant readers of the Dark Tower series may realize that is not necessarily a continuity error, but a clue."

and just like that, im hooked. you see, im the type of nerd that grinned like a fool when i noticed the name of the bus company in the dr sleep movie. i love finding the little references and connections to the dark tower, so much so that the entire reason why i bought and read fairy tale was because i thought the staircase on the cover looked like the eye of the crimson king. the dark tower reference ending up being much more mundane in that book, but i still enjoyed myself.

so i wasnt able to sleep because i want to find my special little dark tower easter egg just for me oh boy oh boy, and now ive spent at least that last 4 hours starting and finishing the colorado kid which has left me unable to sleep because i cannot stop trying to come up with theories and trying to figure out how the fuck a starbucks existing in denver in 1980 when the first one didnt open there until 1992 on our/kings(?) level of the tower has any fucking relevance to the colorado kid who we already know exists on a different level of the tower to kings level because im assuming the forwards/afterwards are canon like they are in the dark tower books.

also, completely separate to the dark tower relevancy discussion, my main question about the colorado kid is as follows: where the hell did he get the steak from? either my man has been carrying around a cooked steak in his suit all day including into the fish n chip place, or he got it somewhere presumably after the ferry, so on the island? there cant be that many places that serve steak on the island, and with how the setting is described i find it unlikely they wouldnt be able to track down a witness who remembers an out of towner ordering a steak to go. so he was most likely given that steak by someone, someone who knew him well enough to want to give him a steak to eat with his bare fucking hands and then either purposefully doesnt speak up when he is found dead or never finds out about his death. im also willing to bet that the mysterious steak-bearing stranger saw and moved the colorado kid after he choked, because seriously if you were sitting enjoying some steak on the beach cuddled up with a trashcan one why are you rawdogging your steak next to a trashcan two when you start choking are you not going to attempt to stand, or lean over, perhaps over the trashcan, to attempt to choke out your steakbit? let gravity do some of the work, and right into the appropriate receptacle no less? like seriously my man mustve been going through something when he started choking on his steak he just sat there chilling, completely unbothered. if he was in any normal "ohgodhelpmeimchokingtodeath" position when he died he shouldve been face first in the sand. so yeah the colorado kid one hundred percent met with someone who gave him a steak, watched him choke on it, and then sat him up against a trashcan and just left.

maybe it was one of the furries or vampires or whatever. they were having some sort of fancy dinner when jake and callahan showed up, right? was that steak or human? also i seem to remember their little "come watch the humans fuck up their world lol hehe 9/11" teleport door hallway having something to do with russian currency, not sure what the connection is there but my brain seems to think theres something.

last thoughts before i give up for the night: not bothering to factcheck this but i think the dark tower series was completed in 04 and this book's afterward was dated 05 so the whole of the tower is potential context here. also the stand is one of the few other king books ive read and i think boulder colorado is important there too? its either the target city for the good survivors or the place where the sheriff comes from, i think? or maybe its the city the katet passes through in wizard and glass? i dont remember anymore my memory is awful and its late. if the kid ever went todash we at least know he started and ended on the same level of the tower cuz of his wife. the starbucks thing is bothering me too, like why is it significant that hes on another level of the tower, and one thats so similar to our own like they have starbucks during the cold war but with the way they talk about airplane regulations im assuming 9/11 still happened so it cant be that different. im starting to think that king just said that to turn people who were miffed about colorado kid onto the dark tower to increase sales or something but he posted this on his blahag so like i really doubt that.

im boutta pass out, damn you king, damn you colorado kid

[supercantaloupe]

this oklahoma fucks

my thoughts on the oklahoma revival (6/8/19 matinee) under the cut! 

this show. i was absolutely blown away. i see a lot of shows (one glance at my theater page will tell you that much...) and at this point it’s rare that i see something which i feel in my gut from start to finish how incredible it is, but, wow, oklahoma lives up to the hype. it’s 2 hours and 45 minutes plus a 15 minute intermission, and i swear i didn’t stop grinning or giggling for that entire 3 hours.

it’s also sometimes a rarity now for me to go into a show blind. i certainly was familiar with oklahoma before today -- i knew the basic storyline, i’d even heard some of the songs from this cast, and hell, the musical’s almost a century old (it basically founded the modern broadway musical!) -- but i didn’t know it very intimately going in. from the moment i entered that theater, though, i was enraptured. 

the show has a comfortable feel to it, with its old-timey wild-west drawling dialect and a loveable-as-always rogers & hammerstein score, but it’s reimagined in a way that makes it feel both completely new and completely familiar at once. it’s an intimate theatrical experience, one i haven’t really felt since great comet took its final bows. i’ve always been a fan of intimate and innovative productions but this show really excelled. playing in the round is the perfect way to welcome an audience into your world on a personal level, but oklahoma takes it a step further. there isn’t even a shift in lighting from the beginning of the show; it looks the same from the momeny you walk in and sit down through the first two numbers. it’s a small detail but it really works wonders in creating a world that the audience feels a welcome part in from the get-go. and that’s not even mentioning the tables onstage, the crockpots full of chili, the table of yet-to-be-made cornbread (all of which gets to be enjoyed by the audience during intermission!). and the string band right there on stage! with pedal steel and mandolin and banjo! what better way to welcome your audience into your world than to incorporate real elements of americana: a barnyard hoedown, a cultural centerpiece in american mythos and identity. (plus, i’m always a sucker for country twang in my music and a band onstage. pit musicians never get enough love!)

and man oh man, the cast. they are all phenomenal. my selected and personal commendations go out to mary testa, whose aunt eller COMMANDED the room and oozed a lovable familial flavor; ali stroker, for her charming, bubbly, and completely endearing brand of wildness in her portrayal of ado annie; patrick vaill, for his deeply chilling performance as jud; rebecca naomi jones, for the surprisingly deep layers of thought and emotion she brings to her laurey; and to damon daunno, for his downright enchanting vocal performance, southern drawl, and ass-waggling swagger all the way to the drama of his more serious scenes, like in “poor jud is dead” and the wedding (dudes got raaaaange. just sayin.). i need a cast album immediately!

it needs to be mentioned how much personality and charm put into every aspect of each actor’s performances. the choreography was just wonderful, from the corn-shucking “many a new day” to curly and will prancing around the stage slapping their thighs (there’s a lot of chaps and a lot of ass wiggling in this show. make your peace with that right away.) to the delightful hoedown-style group dancing in “farmer and the cowman”. i’m absolutely delighted at how seamlessly integrated the wheelchair-bound ali stroker is in every aspect of choreography -- it’s skillful, it’s full of personality, it’s unique and fun to watch. really the only choreography (and really the only scene in general) that i failed to fully appreciate was the dream ballet: as cool as it was, i personally am just Not A Dancer in any shape or form and such an interpretive, almost contextless solo dance kind of flew over my head. i still appreciate the artistry and skill involved in it but i’m sure there are other people out there who got a lot more out of that scene than i did.

to take a moment to appreciate the more technical aspects of the show: firstly, i was impressed by the subtlety employed in the sound design. i’m pretty sure all the actors were all wearing body mics (pretty much standard practice nowadays), though they were either very hard or downright impossible to spy. (nice job to the costume and hair departments for concealing those even from audiences so close!) my theory is that the mics were placed higher up on the actors’ heads, effectively concealing them in their hair and distancing the mic from their mouths -- thereby lessening their ability to pic up the actor’s voices. in a huge, proscenium-style theater, that’d be a problem, but here, in a theater and a show where intimacy is the name of the game, that works. you still heard the actors’ voices from where they were onstage, not just pumped in from speakers (if they were at all!). effects were used sparingly but to great effect: i noticed even in the opening number the reverb effect used only at the ends of certain words or lines to evoke the echoing of a voice over the prairie, which i thought was a very nice touch. and in addition to body mics there were handheld and stage mics, which indeed functioned as handheld and stage mics, with a clear auditory difference between when the actors used them and when they didn’t. again, this built up the believability and intimacy of the world, as well as contributing another layer of coolness to certain scenes (like “poor jud is dead”, which is done almost entirely in the dark and almost entirely on one handheld mic between curly and jud. the upped volume and closeness evoked using the handheld mic brought the entire audience in that much closer into that small and intimate space of the smokehouse and heightened the tension masterfully.)

and, oh my god, the lighting. the biggest snub of the tonys this year is oklahoma not even getting a NOMINATION (atw turn on your location i just wanna talk). i mentioned before those house lights not changing from when you enter the theater through the first few numbers but when they do -- when curly and laurey lock eyes and really consider each other -- there’s a sudden and unexpected shift, going from the bright full house lights to dark everywhere, with the stage lit completely in a dreamlike green. and just as quickly as it came it goes, snapping back to those full house lights again. what a simple but very strong way to convey a message! the show also makes really great use of directional lighting, projection, and colored ambient lighting, with the latter i find particularly notable in the late part of the barn party scene when laurey has her encounters with jud and curly (with these interactions lit a cool and creepy red, mostly by the colored fairy lights strung from the ceiling among the streamers). also an effective surprise is this show’s use of blackouts, its use of complete darkness. i’ve seen a lot of shows but i’ve NEVER seen a show use a blackout like this before. 

for example, in the scene leading up to “poor jud is dead”, when curly goes to talk to jud in the smokehouse, the lights suddenly cut out, entirely, like we’ve stepped into a dark and sordid little corner of the world, jud’s domain. the whole beginning of this scene is played ENTIRELY in the dark, with naught but the sound of the two men’s conversation to tell us what’s going on. it’s creepy as hell and so effective. and then, as curly sings, a projector comes on, shining onto the back wall of the theater, an extreme black-and-white closeup, first of jud, then of curly, and of the two of them together, literally being broadcast from a camera held right up then and there. and after the song, after the projection fades away, we get a single spotlight, a pinpoint of light streaming from above; it shines onto the table directly between the two men, illuminating that patch of space, casting an eerie glow on the scene. and then, finally, the end, when auntie eller walks in, and the lights fade up just a bit, like would realistically happen if someone cracked open the door in a dark room. everything about the lighting in this scene plays up the creepiness of jud, the unpredictability of his madness, it plays with the suspicion and nerves of the audience by literally depriving them of information in the form of visuals. it plays similarly to jud’s and laurey’s encounter in act ii, when the lights cut to complete black again as he kisses her. we can’t see them, but we hear everything: kissing. metal clinking. footsteps, retreating. and then, those red party lights fade in, just enough to see laurey retreat to the opposite end of the stage, just enough to see jud’s unbuckled belt and confused, angry expression.

yeah, this oklahoma doesn’t pull its punches when it comes to jud. they make it crystal fucking clear who he is and what he’s trying to do. the lights, the sound, the whole production works to this end. and it doesn’t pull its punches with its finale, either. those of you familiar with the original show know that jud shows up to the wedding with a knife, and after a skirmish with curly, ends up falling on it and dying. this oklahoma did something else: jud shows up, asking only for a kiss from the bride and to give a gift to the groom. inside the box he brings is a shiny pistol, thrust into curly’s hand and trained on jud, standing open and ready for death, a forced assisted suicide. and after several long, tense, silent seconds, curly pulls the trigger. (i actually wasn’t even sure if they were going to go that far, but, yeah, they did that.) and the blood that splatters both on jud’s shirt and on the faces and white wedding outfits of laurey and curly is copious, and raw. it stays there for the rest of the show, a reminder. the finale ultimo is no longer a happy, triumphant reprise of the title number. it’s sung, powerfully and communally, by everyone with dead-fucking-straight faces. 

this isn’t your grandmother’s oklahoma, that’s for sure. 

what it is is a fantastic new staging of one of the biggest, most familiar classic pieces of american theater ever written. it’s simultaneously a back-to-its-roots retelling and a refreshing new take of classic material. it manages to be fresh and nostalgic, old and contemporary, mythologized and contemporary all at once. it’s not quite a masterpiece, but it’s damn near close to it. 

in short, i haven’t seen a show this good in a long time. if you get the chance, you should too. it’s not one you’ll want to miss.

[edwad]

If you had to choose 10 marxian econ books for someone who has only read marx, what would you recommend

by “marx” i have to assume you mean capital because that really is the root of “marxian econ”. it won’t suffice to just have read the manifesto or something like that and i don’t want to recommend books that will be saying things that you’re totally unfamiliar with because you’re skipping straight into the secondary literature which already largely assumes a reader which is familiar with capital. anyway, heres a list, which isnt in any particular order and which includes a few things that i’m still working through for myself:

1. essays on marxs theory of value - isaak rubin 

hugely important book which essentially all value-form theory derives from. written by an extremely knowledgeable marx scholar who had a much better idea of what marx was doing in capital than most marxists today. last month brill published a book called “responses to marxs capital” which includes some of rubin’s other writings, most of them being published in english for the first time. hes a huge figure in the literature and definitely worth looking in to. 

2. marx, capital, and the madness of economic reason - david harvey

i was obviously going to put something of harvey’s in here and i think his last book is a fairly good summary of the best of what hes done up to this point with some welcome additions (the visualization of capital, the stuff on anti-value, etc). not perfect but he definitely provides a good framework for how to understand the geography of capital which doesnt require necessarily agreeing with him on everything. honestly, if you keep up with harvey at all you’ll be able to tell that its mostly just typical harveyisms with the inclusion of some stuff from his recent talks (which have all been almost exactly the same). 

3. in the long run we are all dead - geoff mann

maybe this looks more like a book on keynesian rather than marxian econ, but its real argument is that keynesianism as a long historical project (meaning long before and after keynes himself) has been an immanent critique of liberalism and revolution and that keynes is to us what hegel was to marx. a really great book that covers a lot of ground which isnt always explicitly economic, but definitely worth the read if you have the patience. if you want a longer review, i left a pretty lengthy one on amazon a few months ago where you can get a better idea of what i got from this book, what its limitations are, and why i think its so important. 

4. monopoly capital - paul baran & paul sweezy 

an older book which hasnt exactly aged well, but its thesis has become extremely popular again since the crisis. written by baran and sweezy, the fathers of “the monthly review school” of economics, its played a huge role in the direction of marxian debates from the 1960s up until today. the authors were both tending in the same intellectual direction in their earlier works (sweezy’s theory of capitalist development and baran’s political economy of growth, the former still being considered one of the best introductions to marxs work and its relevance to the 20th century, with much controversy of course) and this was the result of them coming together to talk about what they saw as a monopoly capitalism which was fairly different in character than the “competitive capitalism” of marx’s day and therefore had to be dealt with differently. 

5. capitalism - anwar shaikh

probably the most ambitious work the left has seen in a long time which tries to thoroughly critique neoclassical theory and develop an alternative economics which is rooted in what shaikh calls the “classical” school (”classical-marxian” would probably be more appropriate but i think hes trying to downplay his reliance on marx). in it, shaikh takes a good look at many of the competing schools of thought (neoclassical, post-keynesian, sraffian/neo-ricardian, etc) and sees how they stand up analytically and empirically, taking issue with their underlying assumptions and the inevitable problems which arise from building a theory on false foundations. 

one of his bigger points is that the neoclassical theory of “perfect competition” is nonsensical but wasnt thoroughly combatted by heterodox economists, who only made it so far as asserting the “imperfect” nature of competition, which, in shaikh’s eyes, is to simply add imperfections after the fact into the theory which necessarily begins with the absurd assumption of perfection. the book’s argument is that the theorists of “imperfect competition” still rely on the theory of “perfect competition” as their starting point and never really manage to escape the latter because they havent actually created an alternative way of thinking about competition, they’ve just inserted a complication into a theory which was a completely unrealistic assumption to begin with. much of his attack is directed at the monthly review school and the idea of a “monopoly capitalism” which is supposedly different in form than the allegedly “perfect competition” of capitalism during marxs life. in this sense, this book serves as a counterbalance to the MR approach and is also probably the most successful attempt at situating marxs TRPF within an empirical study of kondratiev waves. 

hes also got a website with a bunch of resources and a lecture series from a course he did on the material in the book which is pretty interesting, but it assumes a good deal of familiarity with economics. 

6. a history of marxian economics - michael howard & john king (2 volumes)

this is a pretty thorough history of the internal debates among marxian economists ever since the death of marx all the way up to 1990. it covers a lot of ground and doesnt shy away from controversies where marx didnt come out on top. of course, a good amount of this is subject to the interpretation of the authors and they definitely have a great deal of input, but its a very impressive work which i frequently use as a marxian encyclopedia of sorts. 

7. the making of marx’s capital - roman rosdolsky

despite some problems, rosdolsky’s classic book on the development of marx’s critique of political economy is easily one of the most important marxological works ever written and it still holds a lot of sway. taking the grundrisse as its starting point, the author unpacks marx’s project and constantly asserts marx’s method and in particular his explicit reliance on hegel’s logic, pitting marx (as he was in his drafts) against the then contemporary thinkers and critics which were prone to misusing or misunderstanding the arguments in capital. as a disclaimer and partial criticism of rosdolsky’s portrait of marx, i dont believe that we can simply say that marx in the late 50s was identical to the marx of the 60s and 70s that wrote and published capital, but i also dont think that means we necessarily have to discount the grundrisse (or theories of surplus value, etc) simply because they werent written at precisely the right time for marxs thinking. 

i only just got my own copy a couple of weeks ago so i cant say too much more but i have skimmed through chunks of the pdf and its totally unavoidable in the secondary literature so im not totally unfamiliar. its one i plan on tackling in full very soon.

8. moneybags must be so lucky - robert paul wolff

another marxological one, this tiny book is a literary analysis of capital and in particular the first part of volume 1. wolff does a great job of deconstructing the arguments in chapter 1 to try and clarify what marx is doing and why with a lot of humor and philosophical tangents. one of his biggest points is that marxs heavy reliance on irony was the only adequate way of capturing the contradictory nature of capitalism and is therefore part of the theory itself, rather than simply being a way to dress up the theory and make it more palatable to readers. i approached this book after id already “read marx” too, but it was extremely useful because it wasnt until i read it that i finally started to actually understand marx. for that reason, i dont feel particularly bad about recommending it to anyone thats already familiar with capital because it does a great job of making the most difficult part of volume 1 infinitely more exciting and comprehensible – especially since its never enough to just read capital once. 

9. the production of commodities by means of commodities - piero sraffa

against my better judgement, i’m putting this on the list knowing full-well that i’m going to be harassed by an anon which has been on my ass for about a year now ever since i first recommended sraffa’s book in a reading list despite the fact that ive never finished it (barely even read it to be more precise). i do, however, know that its had a huge influence on the trajectory of marxian thought since 1960 and that many of the thinkers are still trying to recover from the theoretical displacement implicit in sraffa’s thesis. 

its a math-heavy book (which is why i havent been able to wade through it) and its status as a work coming from the “marxian” approach is hotly contested, but its certainly had its way with the marxian school (not to mention the neoclassical school, which has an easier time simply ignoring sraffa entirely), generating countless debates among scholars, many of whom simply wish that this book had never been written. for a short summary of the debate and whats apparently at stake, ive got an old post where i worked out some of the initial responses to sraffa and how this has snowballed into the controversy that it is today. ive got it on this list because of how unavoidable it is. you cant go into the secondary literature at anything resembling an intermediate level without knowing sraffa’s name and why everyone feels so strongly about him.

10. an introduction to the three volumes of karl marxs capital - michael heinrich

i dont quite like that im ending this list with a book that presents itself as an “introduction” when we’ve already established that this is a bunch of recommendations for someone thats already acquainted with capital, but sadly this is the only full-length book that heinrich has in the english language and its reading of capital is so unorthodox that it feels totally alien against all the traditional interpretations of marx. honestly, it doesnt feel like an introduction in the first place, reading more like a challenge and an intervention into the secondary debates about what marx is saying in capital which derives from the german debates which constitute the parameters for the “neue marx-lekture”, or “the new reading of marx”, which sits uncomfortably among the more typical marxisms that surround it on all sides, especially among non-german theorists/readers. 

as far as the dominant reading of marx goes, nearly everything this book says betrays marx’s project, but heinrich knows marx very well, better than most of us (as even his biggest critics readily admit). this may be considered reflective of a “new reading”, but that doesnt mean the old ones are any better or that this one is necessarily a “revisionist” project as many claim (or at least, i wouldnt consider it to be revising marx even if its guilty of revising “marxism”, which is by no means necessarily a bad thing). on the contrary, i think heinrich has the best understanding of marx out of pretty much everyone else right now and thats why i wanted to end with this one. yes, you should read all of the others, especially since you cant understand the way we read and think about marx without coming across the work of people like sraffa and sweezy, but that doesnt really change the fact that heinrich points to a big problem with the way we read and think about marx, that the debates have been getting it wrong all along and largely misunderstanding marxs actual project, miscontextualizing it and falling into dogmatism for various political or academic reasons. 

what heinrich does is to show how the way marx is read and interpreted often misses or downplays the most crucial elements of what marx is actually trying to get across. marxs critique of political economy simply gets converted into a newer, more correct political economy which simply builds on the classical school (shaikh), or it suffers in the hands of those that believe its foundations need to be updated as if it isnt all that relevant anymore (sweezy and baran), or that many of its categories are lacking utility and can simply be done away with (sraffa). rubin’s work plays a big part in establishing the NML reading and harvey draws on heinrich’s scholarship a lot, but nobody really does it as well as heinrich himself and i genuinely think hes lightyears ahead of everyone else. a lot of people are starting to agree and i was one of the most recent converts on the heinrich hype train which has been growing for the last couple of years. 

any day now, we should be getting one of his older books, the science of value, in english and i plan on devouring it as fast as i can, but sadly its been in limbo for several years, with its initial release scheduled for 2014 (if i remember correctly). in the mean time though, we’ve only got his introduction to capital and a bunch of shorter pieces/videos.  

so i guess thats my list of 10 things to read after marx with some explanations on why i think theyre important, culminating in ideologically correct heinrich-worship. this was sorta fun and if you have any other questions feel free to ask. 

[robobee]

thoughts on SP Resurrection

disclaimer: you’ve seen this before. but i’m doing it anyway, just putting out my opinion of the new book out there. i’ll refer to it as spx, though, because its easier. i’ll divide it by non-spoilery, then spoilery.  // content is ALL up for discussion, thru IM/ask/reblog. lots of questions below, and answers are appreciated. // almost a review but not rlly 

the plot was..,, confusing. muddled, tbh. there was a lot going on but it didnt really mesh very well. it didnt pull you in so much as make you feel that you were suddenly in the middle of the action but had no idea what was going on. basically a marvel fight scene, with all the jump cuts. messy.

the omen darkly thing was pretty well done, i’d say. but omen is a.. little too lucky character. he could be a damned leprechaun with all the coincidences. that said, i love him anyway

some twists were really unexpected, but others were somewhat predictable** 

spx focuses on valkyrie’s character a lot but it doesnt really commit. we know what she’s going to do, we know what’s going to happen. i believe derek landy is skilled enough to have better plotlines, it’s just.. alright i guess

a lot of new information is heaped on like ‘oh whoops that was it all along hahaha’ in a way very similar to that one post where its said that “JK Rowling announced that dumbledore rollerbladed everywhere. but it wasn’t mentioned bc it wasnt relevant to harry’s journey”. 

a lot is left unexplained, and just.. it doesnt make you curious it just makes you slightly mad

the american president is absolutely Tonald Drump. but again, its just jarring and a little like ‘why is this here’ bc theres no clear impact and too many pages devoted to it. like i get it’s setup but its almost just boring.

we dont really get clear info on what happened to most of the characters after the events of tdotl? i get you want mystery, but there was a lack of closure

spoilers below(i’ll keep it short lmao) (lmao so i lied its kinda long)

in random order:

**- the Tipstaff Twist(TM) was absolutely unexpected and i legit gasped. but uh,, another administraitor?? getting old.  but.. he’s prev. been a clear ally and against erskine ravel? erskine held the same views about Mortals, so why didn’t Tipstaff ally with him? - the ‘lethe is savant’ thing i predicted, but only a few pages before it was revealed so props to derek anyways.  - ‘skulduggery will OVERCOME!!’ yeah. we knew.  - ‘will valKYRIE RETURN??’ yea

the Chancellor China thing was very intriguing but, again, confusing. should we be on china’s side or against her or just wary of her?

 the Nihilist Squad 2.0 was a little... almost, almost unnecessary, given how it ends with them not really being arrested or even mentioned. thats a little,, ‘um what’. what happens to nero? he was injured, and didnt clearly leave the scene so ???

fletcher !!!  

his presence was random, his entrance very clearly a deus ex-machina and there’s a gaping lack of info on a lot of stuff: - how did fletcher telep. into meloir’s house? doesn’t he have to have been there? what tf was fletcher doing there beforehand -how did he even know that val/skul needed help

fletcher immediately got Stabbed On Arrival(TM), which is a big mood, but still, landy very clearly just wanted him away to create difficulties. but gone w/o even a single line.. too clear

his character is like a bland slice of stale toast wtf - he literally has like barely 3 lines but,,still,,;; no personality  

where was he for the last half of the book - its clearly said he’ll be fine in a couple days, and are you seriously telling me Mage Healing can’t fix him quicker? A FUCKING STAB WOUND IS AN ISSUE??

um are you telling me that little nero punk is better than a natural teleporter who’s had years of practice 

HOW ARE THERE SO MANY TELEPORTERS??? wasn’t it a major plot device how fletcher was the ONLY teleporter? and shunters cant travel to different dimensions? thats teleporters, shunters go to alternate realities. but eh its derek he’s using the Author Power i guess

evil!skul... um... ok?? sudden, not that well written, just a bit.. meh

abyssinia. sudden, weird, just concerning. somebody else said this, but what the fck??? vile had a girlfriend???? um??

the darquesse thing was interesting, i’ll give it that much but also really confusing tbh

how are the rules imposed in corrival academy? can they stop students from leaving - wont that be a violation of some bill of rights

a lot of set up but no resolution. i get it, first book in a series but its planting TOO many seeds

auger was.. a good concept but weird. it honestly felt like part of the book was cut out, at least to me

> never was great! loved the representation and how literally nobody was even remotely concerned, they just fine ‘aight’ and that was super refreshing. an indian person is mentioned, and temper fray is very sudden but a good character. but it’s almost like we’re instantly expected to know this character but we’re not. there’s not really much intro on him which is :/

still, good to see poc inclusion 

+ thats it for now + i JUST finished spx and.. um i might have already forgotten it + cant think of more stuff rn. 

+ i’ll probs reread it and update though