#vee's obsessions

[vee-obsessions]

Bridgeburn 2: Searching for Nancy Baty

There aren't many dates in The Bridgeburn Days, but there are enough pointers for me to be able to narrow Nancy Baty down.

Quite early on we get the first date - "1923, when Kitty was eight and Matron came". That would put Nancy's birth in 1915, making her a year older than my grandmother.

Off to the General Register Office I went. Baty can't be a common surname, I thought, and I was right; there were only 43 female Baty babies born either side of 1915. One of them was indeed a Nancy.

Name: BATY, NANCY     Mother's maiden surname: MC LAUGHLAN GRO Reference: 1915  J Quarter in SOUTH SHIELDS

There were no Nancies as a middle name, nor were there any names that looked like they might have become Nancy. So this was probably my girl. Just to be on the safe side, I also checked the 1939 Register. If Nancy was born in 1915, she would have been well out of the children's home and in service by 1939. We're told in the book that she goes to a place 'near London'. And sure enough, there she is.

Baty, Nancy. 23 May 1915, domestic servant. There are six people in the house including Nancy, who is the last one listed. The house is '49 King's End' in Ruislip-Northwood. Two of the other entries are closed, meaning they were born less than 100 years ago and the system doesn't know whether they're still alive.

So I was pretty sure this is the correct Nancy Baty, and that 'The Bridgeburn Days' was indeed autobiographical since its author was a servant just like Kitty in the books. Next - hunting down Bridgeburn itself.

[dirtgrubber]

“They’re… what are they doing? Is that Alastor, holding flowers?”

another banger of a chapter from “Of Saints and Sinners” by the amazing @morningstarwrites

[veevil]

That one relationship dynamic meme but these two dorks

[onesidedradiostatic]

do you think vox has one of these with velvette too

probably as a soft copy posted online with a caption instead of a physical photo though. just to complete the unholy trinity of it being a requirement to take a photo with vox if you're associated with him

[shadowsketches]

🦈Shark week!!!🦈

[nixienymphie]

More TOH doodles ... I have once again drawn half of these past midnight hajsjjsjs

Not a huge fan of how the Darius one turned out but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[randomchaotix]

Art dump

[doostyaudi]

Im obsessed with them it's so sickening... Head in hands

[potionorchard]

Okay, but because the Vees might totally vanish/perish after S2 and the show certainly won't have time to focus on it, I wanna talk about how fucked up Valentino's concept of love probably is.

IMPORTANT: I'm not naive. I know that there are some people out there in the world who are just plain abusers and that Val probably is one of those. I know that they get off on the power trip of control and misery they bring on to others.

However! I also don't it's a hard stretch to consider that a pansexual (who leans towards servicing men in romantic/intimate situations), Latino man in the 70s has probably seen his fair share of abuse in the sex industry. I don't think we will be getting information about Val's human life or past aside from maybe how he met Vox because it's just not integral to Hazbin Hotel as a whole.

That said, Valentino's concept of love seems to be based around it being conditional.

It's a give and take. He showers a subject like Angel in love and affection, overwhelms him with this Loverboy persona that he plays up until they're wound around his finger and in total need and dependency of his time, shelter, or affection.

That's why when the lovebombing doesn't work and instead, Angel pulls away from Val's control, Valentino switches to physical abuse to keep Angel under control, to rattle his mind until Angel can chase away his support network (Charlie).

And Valentino is uncomfortably good at what he does and how second nature it is to him. It's his entire business for him and his souls to be lusted after and desired, after all.

Does Valentino love Angel? No, I don't think he does *love* Angel. I think he's obsessed with him and to Valentino, I think that feels like love in his warped mind. Otherwise, why would he text Angel constantly and leave him these lovebombing voicemails in between his usual manchild temper tantrums? I do think Valentino is obsessed with the control he has over Angel and interprets that as some sort of misguided true affection.  There's a clear high point during the Poison song sequence where the two consensually have sex and it's addicting, but the rest is overflowing with Val's need to use Angel for all he's worth and Angel unable to escape from it.

But on the other hand, there's Valentino's on again and off again relationship with his business partner, Vox.

Now there's a lot to say about these two. They argue and fight and are clearly toxic, but at the same time, they dance, kiss, and hold each other in these soft moments of tender gazes.

It seems like Val may actually be in love with Vox. And I think he is!

However... look at what's normalized in Vox and Val's relationship.

Valentino's room is filled with cameras, about six and counting according a thread on Twitter that counted the frequency of Vox's cameras in the show. They're in Angel's dressing room, Valentino's directing space in the tower, and even following him in his favorite clubs. Vox is always watching Val and considering he can zap through the cameras in a moments notice, Valentino is never out of reach for Vox.

And Val knows this, according to the final episode of S1. He acknowledges the camera and seems into it, given that he flashes it a smile. It's normal for him.

Beyond that, Vox talks down to Valentino, infantalizes Val to his face. He doesn't take Val's tantrums seriously and ignores him, texting on his phone until Valentino grabs it and breaks it. Now one could perceive this as more physical violence from Val. After all, before that, he threw his glass at Vox as well. But Vox merely steps aside in silence and continues to ignore him until he believes for a moment, Angel has quit. Which you know... prompts an excited remark from him.

Furthermore, to stop Val's rampage, he roughly grabs Valentino and shakes him, even turning up his screens brightness to temporarily mesmerize the moth and stop him in his tracks.

And again, all of this is just... normal for Valentino. He doesn't question it. He doesn't resist it. Valentino is dependent on Vox. It makes sense. He's his business partner, he uses his technology for his work as the Overlord of Porn, and he relies on Vox for comfort and intimacy.

But Vox has all this control over Valentino and Val simply doesn't seem to question it. Ultimately, once again, this points to Val having normalized love being a form of control. It doesn't bother him how Vox keeps this form of control and lack of respect over Val, because why would it? Val does the same to the souls he owns.

Why would it be any different in the sex industry, in a cycle of perpetual abuse?

Anyways, this was just a few of my thoughts on how Valentino may just approach or reconcile love in his mind as an abuser and possibly a victim in the cycle given his likely origins in the sex industry both in his human and afterlife. I just wanted to muse a bit and I'm not sure where I was going with this.

Val just utterly fascinates me, that's all.

[hocooart]

Small Staticmoth Date (or maybe not)

I've been really into the idea that Vox obsesses over his sharks almost as much as he does over Alastor - to the chagrin of the other Vees.

[bark-ing]

Virgin remus lupin who's online niche is incredibly horny and freaky posts finally gets the chance to actually have sex and has a panic attack over of it

Regulus starts to kiss down his neck and his hands start going up remus' tshirt and suddenly remus cant breathe but not in a good way

[vee-obsessions]

There was a little girl

When I was young, I had a book called 'The Bridgeburn Days', by Lucy Sinclair. It was about a little girl growing up in 'Bridgeburn', a children's home in an unnamed town in the North of England, in the 1920s and 1930s. This is what the cover of the book, published in 1956, looked like:

The little girl's name was Kitty Barrowell, and the book followed her life from her earliest memories growing up there through to her return visit to Bridgeburn after having gone 'into service' in London, which was what all the girls at Bridgeburn were trained up for (the boys were trained for farm work).

Although the protagonist is named Kitty, the book is sharply and starkly autobiographical, and it's clear that Lucy Sinclair herself was the little girl who grew up in Bridgeburn. I can't tell you why I found it such a gripping tale, but I did. I was moved by Kitty's longing for something outside domestic drudgery, her anger at the cruelty of the big girls to the little ones, her bewilderment about the unfairness of a world where some children were born crippled because their fathers beat their pregnant mothers while others lived a pampered life.

I often wondered as a child what became of the intelligent, shy, imaginative 'Kitty'. Did Lucy Sinclair write other books? Did she stay in service? Was she happy?

As an adult I tried to answer these questions, but I hit a dead end wherever I went. The Bridgeburn Days seems to have made little impression on the literary world, although it received good reviews. It's been largely forgotten except for being quoted in some academic texts focused on the historical experiences of children in care. And Lucy Sinclair seems likewise to have made little or no impression on the world. Googling her gave me nothing. Maybe 'Lucy Sinclair', as well as 'Kitty Barrowell', was a pseudonym.

I also searched for Lucy in genealogy websites and newspaper archives, again with no success. Then I thought to look up her published. Gollancz. They still exist but are now mainly a SF and fantasy publisher, according to Wikipedia. But one other thing Wikipedia gave me was the fact that the Victor Gollancz Ltd archives are housed at the Modern Records Office, University of Warwick.

With little or no expectation it would come to anything, I did a search on the Modern Records Office's website, to see if there was anything that might point me in the right direction. And there was.

In the details of a contract ledger held in the Gollancz archives was a date and a name.

'The Bridgeburn days' by Lucy Sinclair (Nancy Baty), 12 Mar 1956.

Lucy Sinclair was in fact Nancy Baty.

Maybe I could find out more, with a name.

[lesbocringeglizzii]

shellevision doodle dump

[immabitqueer]

I just know Vox would piss himself in anger if he saw how bothered Alastor gets with Lucifer. Alastor barley gives Vox the time of day. He treats him at best as a minor annoyance, and at worst another petty drama for Alastor to get entertainment from. Oh, but with Lucifer? Lucy gets genuine malicious cussing and a song that doesn't end with Alastor as the clear winner, hell, a song that's a real back and forth argument rather than in Stayed Gone what were mostly Mean Girls style insults from Alastor. Alastor and Lucifer get in each other's face and push each other around. Vox would be sobbing desperately on the floor in the fetal position for 1/4 of that type of attention from Alastor.

[lesbianforlottie]

Bella Ramsey is doing an amazing job portraying p2 Ellie sorry not sorry. This fucking fandom is so toxic. If you're queer and hating on Bella for their looks this season then you're just as bad as the weirdo men in season 1 who hated on Bella for 'not looking like Ellie.' Just admit you only see p2 Ellie as a sex object because I was on TLOU editing TikTok and I have seen the shit people say about her. Y'all objectify the HELL out of her and it is so weird. But now the actor doesn't meet your beauty standards (Bella is fucking handsome but whatever) so you can't sexualize and objectify show Ellie womp womp... stop acting like children.

Also if you have such a big issue with the characters not looking their age then why don't I see people complaining about Dina's casting? Dina looks like a 16 year old and her actress looks nothing like Cascina. Oh wait... that's because you guys don't sexualize and objectify Dina the same way as you do Ellie!

This is the first and last you will hear from me about TLOU s2. I will be blocking the tag and enjoying the show (especially seeing Bella play Ellie cause... damn) like a normal person I genuinely dislike TLOU fans so much.

[skunkoon]

It's about the dynamics👌 The switching👌 You see my vision.