zedcharlieoverheat

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Right there with you, Edward.

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Lt. Edward Little is a Good Officer!

Be sure to read Parts 1 and 2 as well - lots of interesting points to consider.

META WEDNESDAY: lt Little, Captain Crozier and Do As I Say Don’t Do As I Do + Conclusions (3/3)

tldr; lt little seeks clarification, captain crozier is being cryptic, and some thoughts on leadership

during crozier’s questioning of lt hodgson,, lt little once again asks his command officer how they should proceed in a very practical matter – how to defend the camp. and crozier doesn’t fucking answer! he doesn’t even acknowledge that his first lieutenant adressed him!

as mentioned before, crozier operates as if they are all on an equal playing field. when edward asks questions like this it’s not a way for him to say ”boss i’m so scareds” he is asking his captain for instructions as to what to do next. when he doesn’t recieve an answer, or an order, why wouldn’t he assume that crozier doesn’t care about the things he is concerned about? as mentioned earlier – crozier never clarified why they shouldn’t focus on the netsilik, and never explains what he is thinking and what he knows.

if i was lt little i wouldn’t think my captain trusted me either. it’s not strange that your own confidence in your abilities start to crumble when you find yourself in a very dire situation, with no guidance or reassurance from your major lifeline – your captain – and you are left fumbling in the dark trying to figure out what he actually wants from you.

moving on to the scene before crozier’s party heads out to take a look at the bodies and the ”crime scene”.

i’m not surprised that francis ”very clear plan” failed.

in this scene francis gives edward an order. the objective is clear – don’t hand out any guns.

lt little says that the marines want to perimeter and arm additional men, and that they might do so ”with our without us”. to which francis replies – ”they are us, edward. remind them”. at this point crozier has only hinted twice that there might be trouble brewing in their own ranks, when speaking in lt little’s presence. once during the scene in episode seven where tozer requests permission to arm a few more men (among them hickey), and francis shuts him down. then again during the scene where hodgson describes what happened during the hunting parties outing. hinted at.

and lt little is supposed to follow orders isn’t he? crozier leaves very little room for comprimise, so what is little supposed to do here? he might deduce that something is going on, but he can’t be sure exactly what, and if he were to act on an assumption of what crozier wants and get it wrong…

crozier then says ”give sargeant tozer as many pairs of eyes as he wants, but as long as the fog holds off have the armoury prepare fast kits but don't arm any additional men"

which could be read as a guideline for little. except that it only dictates what he should do as long as the fog holds off. so what is he supposed to do when the fog rolls in?

when lt little is about to object? or ask for further instructions and information? crozier lashes out and shuts him down. which is not how good leadership works – in a way fitzjames sort of shields lt little here by telling crozier that he needs to head off. and while i think fitzjames is well-intentioned when he tells lt little to ”keep the men calm”, it makes an already unclear set of directions even more vague.

lt little is supposed to do exactly what his captain tells him to do, under a specific set of circumstances. he is supposed to follow an order – but beyond that order he is supposed to improvise? trust his own judgement? how, when francis hasn’t given him enough information about what he is facing? when francis just moments earlier once again dismissed lt little, further undermining his confidence in himself and his trust in his commanding officer?

once again crozier reacts when something happens or is just about to happen – while lt little has asked at least twice in this very same episode what they are supposed to do, and how to prepare. lt little is concerned about how to face an enemy that crozier knows doesn’t exist – yet he still refuses to tell lt little why they need to focus on something else!

lt little understands why they need to keep the armoury shut. or at least he thinks he knows why. he has already picked up on the discontent within the camp – but his captain still hasn’t explained if this is a counter measure against a mutiny or simply to prevent a bunch of people who are already wound up about the netsilik from having access to guns. or is it both? who knows, not lt edward little!

besides, the question of arming the men has been floated since episode seven. crozier denies tozer’s request, but doesn’t tell lt little the truth about why he did so. the shambles at the armoury could have been avoided or at least delayed if crozier had recognised lt little’s qualities as an officer – his proactive thinking, his practicality and so on.

not sure exactly how they could have planned ahead for this scenario, but let’s say that they had opened the armoury – but with limited access to ammunition. ”if something happens you have a gun, and by storing the ammunition this way you will quickly gain access to it, and no one will steal or hoard ammunition for themselves”. or something.

but the captain waits waits, lt little worries and ah fuck the deadline is today!!!

"all we have are our instincts and training", and the armoury

little obviously tries to calm hodgson down because he needs his help in managing the camp in crozier's absence. but to me it also reads as him trying to tell himself that if he keeps acting on what his training and his experience as an officer has taught him. he is trying to show not only empathy for hodgson but also for himself. since they only have each other in this - as their captain has made them doubt all these things.

supporting each other in difficult situations is not strange, but it is strange when your officer’s support group is built on the foundation that they can’t be sure if you will take them seriously or not.

it is not strange that edward crumbles a bit at the armoury. this scene is sometimes read as lt little being undecisive or unassertive – the problem here is once again that crozier never explained anything.

the crew at this point fear the netsilik – with no one to reassure them that it isn’t a threat. and when their superior officers (ie the lieutenants) don’t have the knowledge to disprove this then paranoia is bound to take hold.

obviously there are other things going on here regarding the mutiny, and while ”we heard things in the fog, it was scary” might be a legit concern for some of the men, others are plotting.

lt little has already failed to achieve the objective of keeping the armoury closed. a very simple, direct order. but he has been given no directions as to what he should do now, and he doesn't have fitzjames there to back him up.

what is he supposed to do here? realistically there is not much he can do, and he can't be sure that his authority still carries. he wavers because he knows that the men don't trust him like they used to, and he's not even sure if he can even himself (the captain doesn't seem to do so).

so he decides that damage limitation as the only viable option, despite knowing that crozier wouldn’t fully grasp the situation as it played out for lt little in the moment.

crozier returns from his excursion and is obviously upset that his order hasn’t been followed to a t. the problem is that when francis issued this order he didn’t take into consideration that it is lt little who has to deal with any potential fallout. he is the officer ”on the ground”, who reads the situation and is supposed to make decisions based on what he considers to be the best option. the one who revises the plan based on what has changed since his senior officer gave the order.

crozier did a poor job preparing lt little for this – he didn’t share what information he had, and he made his plan based on an assumption that things would remain static. as if his order was clear and simple and nothing could interfere with such an easy task (that even lt little should be able to do, duh /s).

lt little has no intel and gets thrown into the lion’s den at the armoury. hodgson has gone to fetch fitzjames, and dundy is off doing whatever it is dundy does. to the audience it’s pretty obvious what is going on, but to lt little it isn’t – because he has not been told why the armoury needed to stay closed, or what resources he’s got at hand to to do so.

crozier wants something done a certain way. but he doesn’t provide the tools for that plan to be concievable. his ”very clear plan” is anything but clear, imo.

when the captain leaves he tells lt little that they are all part of the same group and that little needs to make sure that everyone in the camp, marines and sailors alike, understand this.

when he comes back he says ”actually, just as i suspected there is a fraction within the camp who are about to cause serious issues and circumstantial evidence says that hickey killed john and mr farr”

crozier, earlier that day: we are all in this together (go wildcats!)

crozier, a few hours later: i knew it, the call is coming from inside the house!

crozier, almost right after this: time to cut up lt irving and prove that you should have known what i knew and that the both of you fucked up :) as soon as i turn my back you cause problems :)

CONCLUSIONS

this is, despite what one would think, not a francis crozier hate rant. i like francis, he was my first favourite character in the show. but with every rewatch his interactions with the lieutenants becomes increasingly frustrating to watch.

we know that crozier is clever and experienced, and going by what we do know about his past (in the show) he's proven himself to be a competent and well-liked officer. he proved to be an excellent 2-I-C to sir james clark ross only a few years earlier. we also know that despite his flaws he is fundamentally well-intentioned and that he can be both kind and compassionate.

but this sadly never quite shines through in his on-screen interactions with his closest subordinates, he appears a lot more comfortable with the crew than with his officers.

i'd like to think that the terror's officers - their captain included - got on well, and that what we see in the show is the result of them all dealing with what is obviously a very freightening and stressful situation.

i don't think crozier actually dislikes little for instance, i'm of the opinion that crozier is rather fond of him. so why do they all become ships in the night?

it's a stark contrast to the dynamic on erebus. le vesconte, gore and fairholme may be slightly apprehensive of sir john's leadership, but they trust fitzjames. sir john also trusts fitzjames, and while acting as the middle-man between the officers and sir john he is confident in his abilities and his own good judgement. he is trusted by both superiors and subordinates, and in turn he trusts them. which makes losing lt gore and lt fairholme in such quick succession so augh!!!! the erebus gang suffered!!!

speaking of fitzjames – in episode five, and they carry blanky down below deck, it is fitzjames who asks hodgson if he is alright. it's fitzjames who calls out to him when he, francis and the rest of the men step out on deck.

again, these are all adult men and it is the 1840's. neither the lieutenants nor jopson for that matter are children depending on crozier’s guidance in all matters. but as a commanding officer he is not only supposed to make decisions and hand out orders, he is supposed to make sure that his orders are clear and comprehensible.

the lieutenants work together for him (they run the terror splendidly in crozier’s absence!) but he often undermines them in front of others, when they are often left trying guess what he wants from them.

it’s a sweet moment when francis gives edward a friendly slap on the arm in episode one, and edward smiles at him acknowledging what the captain just said. i think more moments like that, and an exchange of knowledge would have done the lieutenants a lot of good. it wouldn’t have changed anything, and it wouldn’t have saved anyone, but it would have been some reassurance on what was, in joseph conrad's words from the heart of darkness, their travel through the night of the first ages, leaving barely a sign, and no memories.

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Absolutely fantastic research done by @cdr-edwardlittle regarding Edward Little’s family tree. It also addresses my longstanding question - why didn’t he have a middle name?

Well worth the read.

Edward Little's Genealogy

When looking for potential descendants of the Little family, we can quickly figure out that only his sister Margaret Ann had children of her own, and her descendants can be traced down to this day, but not an exclusively female or male line

Even when going back as far as the 17th century on his mother’s side, I still couldn’t find any leads

So I tried my chance on his father’s side, but since the only useful information about him online was his approximate date of birth, his date of death and some parts of his record as a purser and paymaster in the Royal Navy, I tried to find more clues at the National Archives

Once again, here is what I could make out of Edward’s family tree, with his parents and siblings,

What interested me this time were the names given to the children, many of them were named after members of Sarah’s family and I wondered if we could have some clues about any of Simon Little’s family members, especially when some of the names were given to more than one of their child (Cornelius, Margaret, John, Jane/Janet) 

Their firstborn daughter is Elizabeth Jane, (Elizabeth being the name of Sarah’s mother and sister), could Simon’s mother have been named Jane ?

Their firstborn son is James Cornelius, (Cornelius being the name of Sarah’s father and brother), could Simon’s father have been named James ?

Simon’s date of birth is uncertain, given that his age seems to vary depending on the source:

From his burial certificate, he was 84 in 1852, 

(birth estimated to be in 1768-1769)

From the 1836 Survey of age and services of Purser, he was 62 in 1834 

(birth estimated to be in 1772-1773)

From the Census records, he was around 65 in 1841 & 80 in 1851

(birth estimated to be in 1771-1776) but we know that the ages on census records are often rounded up or down to a multiple of 5

Simon Little was a Purser & Paymaster in the Royal Navy from 1795 to 1843, he was the only Purser & Paymaster in the Royal Navy by that name at that time, one newspaper article mentions him being a clerk on the Audacious during the “Glorious First of June” (and also confirms him being Edward’s father)

Burial Register of St Helier Parish

ADM 6/193 The National Archives

Morning Herald 29 July 1852

The Navy list, 1844

ADM 36/11734, Audacious’ muster (01 Jan 1793 - 31 Oct 1793), the National Archives

With this, I tried to find any Simon Little that could match all these criteria and the only one I could find is this one: Simon Little, born or baptised on Dec 15th 1769 in Terrona, Dumfriesshire

This closely matches Edward Little’s father being 84 in July 1852 as stated in the burial record

But there is also some circumstantial evidence with the names of the family members, as on this record, Simon’s parent’s names are James and Jean (Jane), which matches my theory that our Simon could have named his firstborn daughter and son after his and his wife’s parents

This Simon’s brothers were named Archibald and John, and our Simon named one of his son Archibald John

And this Simon’s sisters were named Margaret and Janny, and our Simon named three of his daughters Jane Margaret, Margaret Ann and Louisa Janet

In trying to find more information on any Little family from Dumfriesshire, the results always mention the Little family Clan, which the Simon Little mentioned above was a part of

And the Little family being from Scotland could also explain why one of their child (Archibald John) was baptized in Scotland

I always wondered why Edward was the only one with a sole given name, was there a special meaning to it ? When reading about the Little Clan’s history, we can learn that “Edward” was the name of the founder of the Clan

The ancestry of Edward Little "of Meikle-dale", founder of the clan, can be traced back through Normandy and Norway to Ingiald Ill

https://electricscotland.com/webclans/htol/little2.htm

Another clue may also be the lack of information available about the Simon Little from Terrona, which could match with our Simon moving to England and joining the Navy in 1793, since no date of death seems to be listed

With the information on Wikitree and the clan website, Simon’s father, James, even seems to have been a descendant on the Lairds of Mickledale : 

Monumental Inscription, Ewes Churchyard, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, UK. Published in ‘The Ewes Valley - An Historical Miscellany’ by Brenda I Morrison & R Bruce McCartney, 2000, ISBN0951785818.

68) “Here lyes Thomas Little son to the Laird of Mickledale an honest gentleman and well beloved by all the country who dyed in April 27th 1665 his age 67. Here lyes Simon Little in Wrea son to the aforesaid Thomas Little who departed this life 23rd January 1716 aged 77. Also Simon Little In Terrona son to the above Simon Little in Wrea died February 8, 1757 aged 72 years. Also Margaret his spouse died 8th March 1787, 88. Here also lyes interred James Little in Terrona who departed this life April 7,1799 aged 58 years. And Jean his spouse of Pious Memory died March 1, 1808 aged 74 years. And Margaret their daughter who departed this life September 26, 1793 aged 21 years. Likewise their children John and Janet died in infancy. In memory of Archibald Little in Terrona died in Langholm 14th August 1850 aged 76 years. Erected to the memory of Simon Little tenant in Terrona who died September 1757 aged 72 years.”

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Little-13729

And more information about the genealogy of the clan’s Lairds from the Clan Little website :

Another Simon Little, grandfather of David the last chief, was chief at the Union of the Crowns when Border warfare officially came to an end.  Simon's son Thomas, and Thomas' son David, were the last Littles to be Lairds of Meikledale.  David was given work as a groom at Windsor Castle.  The chiefly line can be traced down to yet another Simon Little in Nittyholme, Canonbie in 1745 "the linear heir male of this family".

https://clanlittlesociety.org/clanhistory.php

However, the clan does not currently have a chief and no male line has been traced down to today

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Hiding from responsibilities

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Go read Strangers over on AO3!

strangers fic neddie little i would've drank tons of gin with you and kept you alive forever

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Way to go, Jopson! Now enjoy the crippling anxiety and self-doubt that will likely follow you around for years!

Sincerely,

An adult who was formerly “a joy to have in class”

[zedcharlieoverheat]

I could not agree more with this! Poor Ned.

Edward Little should have been allowed to swear 😤

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Joplittle - go check it out!

STRANGERS, CHAPTER ONE. read it here. updates weekly/bi-weekly.

As he strummed the final chords, ending the song early, Ned watched the stranger dump a handful of notes into his case. A folded stack of red, blue, and orange hit the bottom of his case with an audible noise, and Ned clenched his jaw to stop it from dropping onto the pavement. The man quietly closed his wallet and slid it into his pocket as Ned met his eyes. They were bright. So fucking bright. Brighter than the morning and twice as pale. Ned swallowed. He tried to smile, but his face just twitched instead. “I’m not that good.” “I found it quite beautiful.” The stranger had a nice voice. Spoke nicely, if not a little strained. Like he was holding something back. Tears, maybe, but Ned really wasn’t that good. Then he spoke again, tilting his head as he asked the question, “What’s your name?” Ned almost gave him a fake one. It wasn’t like he hadn’t done that before. “Ned.”

London, 1996. Edward Little has been given a second chance, and second chances are horrible things.

[zedcharlieoverheat]

More thoughts on Jopson that are worth reading.

all our major stewards being defined by their most personal, human aspects (their interests, dreams, relationships, decisions) vs. jopson being introduced in a direct act of service. continuing to be defined, throughout the entire narrative, by that role of service.

the anecdote about his mother is made in relation to crozier. the first we see him once he's bedridden is in relation to crozier. even in death, he exists only in relation to crozier. after death, too. his personal, most vulnerable moments in this show do not exist outside of their relation to crozier. his personhood does not exist outside of him.

tommy dies a marine, trying to play the hero. gibson dies in his lover's arms, and is figuratively taken with him via cannibalism. bridgens dies in heartbreak and after carrying his lover into death, as if he's going to meet him there. they all die as something else. jopson is the only one that dies a steward, still crawling towards his captain.

how lovely :)

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Absolutely fascinating deep dive into Jopson. I would also like to know what he really thought of Little.

i am humbly requesting jopson for the character breakdown

and I sincerely thank you for your request!

how I feel about him: eyeing him affectionately, though with suspicion, from a distance... why suspicion? look, I love jop, and he remains one of few characters that I've dedicated a solo post to here. but... 'I've shot smaller hawks than you' — I believe him. his steadfast loyalty to crozier makes him utterly intimidating to me, and I genuinely don't think I'd like to be under him on the rank ladder.

that aside (or included!), he's a prime chew toy for analysis; he also makes me sad. as I mentioned in my tommy ask, the stewards share this willingness to perform necessitated by their role. of our stewards jopson is the one most defined by his role of service (and is basically always seen around command, with few exceptions). where does his professional veneer end? who is he when he isn't around command? there's also the tragedy of his self-denial, but, of course, I've talked more on that here.

then there's the more or less only scene (with dialogue) where he isn't around command: keeping watch over a soon-to-be-hung hickey. oh, the intraclass violence of it, baybee!! two sides of the same coin, one cosying up to authority for survival and the other pushing it away... I think jop's internalised this idea of 'good' and 'bad' poor — the 'good' hard-workers that neither complain nor ask for more versus the 'bad' skiving malingerers (thanks to @/beecheyislandgloves for amazing back-and-forth on that). working on a post that touches on this...

in more or less the only scene where jopson can entirely let down the steward's performance, it's because crozier's ordered him to put the noose round hickey's neck. it's maybe the sole scene where he has effective authority over someone, and the only person it's over is a fellow working-class man. fucked up, no?

so yeah, I feel both 'jop I love you' and 'jop don't look at me' in equal measure. strange, strange man. far more pressingly, I like his freaky eyes and his hair swoops make me sad. also, shoutout liam garrigan hand hair. what?

everyone I ship him with: before we're in too deep with these asks, I should confess that I'm not even that into shipping — it's more of a lovely take-it-or-leave-it side-dish for me. that said, jopzier is very intriguing to me. mostly when it's majorly psychosexual and deeply unrequited!! also, I don't know if it's because jop seems to be bit of a golden boy in this fandom (?), BUT I think his obsession with crozier would extend to everything, and that includes a degree of colonialist prestige. by that, I mean... the sun will never shine on jopson, but if it shines on crozier then he gets some of its light. AKA, jopson will never be the face of any great expedition or discovery, but crozier might, and jopson would feel that through him.

of course, I don't mean to imply that's jopson's reasoning for being a steward (or anything in his dynamic with crozier) — he's here to earn his living. but. I still sometimes think it would be an interesting facet for their relationship. crozier gets his flowers, jopson watches on in simultaneous love, possessiveness, and hunger.

now, do I give myself a laugh by totally excluding joplittle? I could. no, I'll mention them — joplittle amuses me in its popularity, and I haven't read or engaged with the dynamic much, but I appreciate it. mostly if it's like, a proxy relationship with crozier. crozier is their ghostly third. y'know? oh, I also wonder what jopson sincerely thinks of ned. I think he's secretly judging him all the time, just silently in the background. contrary to putting me off, this interests me in them even more.

non-romantic otp for him: eeeh, crozier again, probably. romantic, paternal, sexual, platonic, employer, all of the above — I just think they're interesting whatever you do. jop's anchored himself and his identity to crozier, yet crozier's free to move and exist without him. that binds them, however their dynamic manifests. otherwise, I love jopson and hickey's dynamic in that brief scene with them. 'guys that annoy each other' otp?

unpopular opinion: as ever, I'm not entirely sure what's popular and what isn't, but I'll take a stab: his resolute loyalty to crozier is at least equal part survival as it is anything personal. that isn't to say he doesn't like the man! just that for a steward (especially the captain's steward), a job well done is having a job at all. but he is weird about him.

other than that, I suppose what I mentioned earlier about intraclass violence and my vague implication that he shares in the glorification of empire via crozier might be unpopular in some circles. I also think that he's just... yeah. he's possibly a meanie to the people he dislikes, and I honestly support him for that.

something I wish happened in canon: alright, I don't actually wish we'd seen this, but: jop in a lieutenant's uniform! also, I think more interactions with other stewards or pretty much anyone that isn't command would've been interesting. I think that would've taken away from how he's constructed as a character though, so that's more of a fannish indulgence that can be satisfied through fanfic for me.

oh, and I do think everyone should get one (1) scene with des voeux, just to see how it goes. personally, I think he would be found dead with bite marks after an interaction with jop.

well, it's a goodnight from me and thanks again for the ask westerly! I hope this finds you well :)

[zedcharlieoverheat]

These are fantastic! Love the choices for each.

As I looked, there was a pale horse, and its rider’s name was Death

Follow-up to my previous post More under the cut!

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Nedward and Jops… my favorites.

-> 14/∞ CHARACTER DYNAMICS in The Terror: Jopson & Little

[zedcharlieoverheat]

T-shirts are coming! Spread the word!

Hi Terror tumblr! I'm going to be dropping a pre-order for these hand-printed Terror-inspired t-shirts on my Etsy this Tuesday, July 15th! Since getting into the show in November, I've designed and carved all of these prints, and I'm so excited to finally be selling t-shirts with my art on them. Pre-orders will take place on my etsy page at etsy.com/shop/thegingerbeck

Please reblog and spread the word!

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Aw… This captures Little’s experience so well, in only four “frames.”

Another trend from tiktok that i’m about 3 months late for

(Version with regular colors and lighter bg under the cut)

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Oh my god, the energy between these two…

do you like the way the water tastes?

like gunfire

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Does anyone else see Jopson and Neptune?

[zedcharlieoverheat]

Ooooh I can’t wait to read this!

set my teeth in the silver of the moon

· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·

Summary: A werewolf had moved in next door to Thomas Jopson.

He couldn’t tell you for certain why he believed that to be the case, only that he tended to be right about such things, and when the moon was full his new neighbor, Edward Little, acted quite peculiar indeed. Which is precisely why, that particular summer evening, Thomas found himself curled up in one of the wicker chairs on his back porch, glass of wine in hand, staring across the valley towards the old Franklin property as dusk slowly descended upon the sleepy town of Erebus, waiting for Edward to appear.

Or: The arrival of Erebus’ newest resident, one Edward Little (single, 36, werewolf), turns Thomas Jopson’s quiet life on its head - launching him into a summer of depravity, wickedness, and obsession as he uncovers just how far he’s willing to go in pursuit of his desires.

· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·· · ─ ·✶· ─ · ·

(15955 words) by Spirk_kock Chapters: 1/3 Fandom: The Terror (TV 2018) Rating: Explicit

Warnings: Graphic Depictions Of Violence Relationships: Thomas Jopson/Edward Little, Francis Crozier & Thomas Jopson Characters: Edward Little (1811-c.1848), Thomas Jopson, Francis Crozier

Additional Tags: Dead Dove: Do Not Eat, Alternate Universe - Werewolf, Alternate Universe - Supernatural Elements, Alternate Universe - Modern Setting, dubcon, Stalking, Breaking and Entering, Disturbing Themes, Explicit Sexual Content, monster fucking, Werewolf Sex, werewolf/human sex, Knotting, Breeding Kink, Light Puppy Play, Urination (sexual), Urination (non-sexual), Watersports, Piss kink, Scent Kink, dark sexual fantasies, Body Horror, Sexual Body Horror, Horror, Substance Abuse, Self-Medication, Implied/Referenced Suicide, Implied/Referenced Suicide attempt, Implied/Referenced Overdose, Implied/Referenced Death by Overdose, Angst, Angst with a Happy Ending, Hurt/Comfort, Humor, despite all of these tags I consider this to be a lighthearted / humorous / sexy fic, with lots of elements that might disturb (but could also titillate) some readers, Additional Warnings In Author's Note