The Three Amys : That’s not how character growth works

I think it’s important to make clear something before we go on: I do not ship Shamy. In fact, for the majority of her run on the Big Bang Theory, I did not even particularly like Amy. Heck, let’s not pussyfoot about this… I hate Amy.

Hate her to my very bones.

So, if you were hoping this was going to descend into me waxing lyrical about Amy Farah Fowler, and how she saved the show or was the only one able to truly love Sheldon Cooper you are going to be disappointed . She’s not, Sheldon had love in his life before Amy. It wasn’t romantic in nature but it was love. He had friends and family who cared about him deeply. And the notion continually spouted that Amy is his one chance at romantic love because she’s so great, or she’s the only one willing to put up with his nonsense, or the only one who would ever be interested in him because he’s just that crazy, is factually untrue.

And I say that in what ever universe we’re speaking of.

But the sad thing is that when she first appeared I didn’t hate Amy at all. I liked her. I enjoyed her actress’ deadpanned delivery. And I found her relationship with Sheldon, even if neither of them were willing to identify it as such, to be sweet in its odd little way. They seemed to genuinely enjoy each other’s company and were able to understand each other more than anyone else in the world.

Probably because they were just so much alike.

But that was the problem.

She was too much like Sheldon.

And when the writers decided she was going to be a permeant fixture of the group… well they couldn’t have that. They already had Sheldon Cooper they didn’t need another one. But that left the question… who was Amy Farah Fowler?

They took some time deciding this.

In fact, an argument could be made that they never really landed on a final character. Instead, Amy fluctuated violently between several different personalities. And even her personal history seemed to vary, somewhat, between each personality. But I’m getting ahead of myself. So let’s take a step back, take a deep breath in to calm down, and meet the Amys.

Amy the First: The Smart Cookie

It was clear from the very first time we saw her on our screens that Amy, this Amy, was a character made to resemble Sheldon Cooper greatly. She spoke like him, she held the same stiff and awkward mannerisms, she even referred to the act of making love as Coitus. And yet, despite that, even as far back as her second appearance we can observe some initial differences.

For one thing Amy is not a Physicist… she’s a Biologist. Already far more interested in the physical world than Sheldon. A man who once confessed that he would like nothing more than to become a brain in a jar.

She’s interested in the social dynamics of the group enough to conduct social experiments on them; such as the false gossip she helps Sheldon spread around. Her comments may have a similar socially awkward ring to them, like Sheldon, but it’s clear when we look closer that it’s not because she can’t navigate social relationships. Until Sheldon she simply chose not to unless it would benefit her work.

And sometimes it did.

Does a woman who can attract the attention, funding, and subsequent marriage proposal of a Saudi Arabian Prince sound anything like the sad loner later episodes try to paint pre-Sheldon Amy as?

No.

Because it isn’t.

Who ever that Amy is she lives in a completely different world to the Amy of season four.

Amy the Second: A Highschooler reborn

As the writers of The Big Bang Theory continued on their journey to discover who exactly Amy was, and how exactly she fit into the dynamics of the wider group, they stumbled into our second variation of Amy.

This Amy just wants to be accepted.

To have friends.

To have Love.

To have, in fact, everything that was denied to her during her first High-school experience. She’d really like a second one please. And when she makes friends with Penny and later Bernadette it seems like all her dreams are coming true. Finally, she has the popular girl as her Bestie, along with her cute in the right light friend tagging along as their third wheel. She has a boyfriend. She has a social circle. She has it all.

Who cares what anyone else might say on the matter.

Who cares that when Amy first declared them ‘besties’ Penny didn’t even like her.

Or that Sheldon would really like their relationship to stay ‘of the mind’.

And who cares what Bernadette might feel about being called ‘cute-in-the-right-light’. Or ‘lucky’ that Penny and Amy even hang out with her. Or if she would have preferred to have a maid of honour who didn’t try to make Bernadette’s wedding all about herself. To the point of planning to have her own music when she walked down the isle. Wow. When you really think on it this version of Amy was a bitch to Bernadette.

Yep, who cares about anyone else or what they might feel on the matter. Because this Amy had a sad, friendless, background and so doesn’t she deserve nice things?

Yes, she does.

Or at least that’s the story she’ll spin to you.

Amy the Third: The Other One

Ultimately even the most jerky characterisation has to find something to settle on. I would like you to meet the third Amy… she is there. Yes, while as uncomfortable as the other Amys sometimes were you could at least say that they had a personality.

They had passions.

They had wants.

They had desires.

And most importantly for a character on a comedy show… they were funny.

This Amy is not.

Mainly because this Amy was turned into the straight man for everyone else’s wacky personalities to bounce off of. But not like a proper ‘straight man’ who actually has to have some comedic timing of his own to keep up with his comedy partner. Oh no, this Amy is as if they snatched the most boring person from our world, deposited her straight into the middle of this comedy, and just expected us to root for her.

They did try to give her some jokes after she married Sheldon. But seeing how most of them were just copied from previous lines of Bernadette and Howard they fell flat. And had the added effect that they made her seem like she hated her own husband.

That’s right… you heard me.

This Amy hated Sheldon.

While there can be no doubt that Amy one and two loved Sheldon deeply, even if they didn’t always respect his boundaries, Amy Three simply didn’t. I’m sure there are many of you out there feeling offended at this notion but I will stand fast by my claim.

This Amy did not love Sheldon.

If anything she hated him.

But that made sense because this Amy wasn’t made to love Sheldon… she was made to lecture him. She was the ‘voice of reason’ to his ‘actually interesting character’; this Amy’s purpose was to point out to Sheldon when he’d gone too far. This is why she talked to him as if he was a small, rather stupid, child up to the point of explaining ‘empathy’ to an adult man who is a literal genius and telling him it’s something he could really work on. Sheldon Cooper knows what empathy is Amy, you condescending cow, and when you actually watch the entire show it’s clear that he actually doesn’t have a true problem with feeling it himself.

What he has a problem with is recognising when other people need it.

It’s recognising and understanding the emotions of others even when they’re not being completely honest about them. And sorry Amy that’s not an Empathy problem that’s a ‘Theory of Mind’ problem.

If we’re being honest the person with an ‘empathy problem’ is Amy. She’s so busy being ‘morally superior’ to everyone in her life that she honestly treats people worse than Sheldon who, remember, in story, is actually meant to treat people badly.

She belittles Penny for her intelligence; she talks down to Bernadette for her career or her interest in her own bloody children. She barely acknowledges Raj. Her interest in Howard wavers depending on the storyline – for instance while they bond over their shared love of Neil Dimond in one episode in another they’ve apparently not hung out alone together in years and Amy finds it weird to do so now – the only person this version of Amy seems to consistently like is Leonard.

Something that the earlier Amys would never have done.

But, for my argument at least, that makes sense, because this is not the same Amy. This is not the same Amy that found Leonard tedious when she first met him; this is not the same Amy who just didn’t get her motor running by Leonard. This is the Amy who is so busy lecturing Sheldon on how hurt Leonard is on his contribution to their paper being overlooked by Scientific America that she implies Sheldon’s contribution was lesser. Despite the fact that he wrote it and worked out all the math while Leonard… had a lucky hunch.

This woman doesn’t love Sheldon Cooper… she tolerates him.

She even basically admits as much in the final episode. All right so that’s a tad over dramatic but still…this Amy is the worst of all Amys. And what Sheldon should have done once he was finished his very sweet speech to his friends, you know the people that had gotten over themselves and decided to come and support Sheldon because they actually loved him, was turn to Amy and say…

“And to you my wife, my work partner, for who’s insights I will always be grateful for, I think I’m ready to let you go. Amy, I want a divorce.”

But alas that was a world that we were never allowed to see.

If you’ve enjoyed this wee post remember to follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t already. Also check me out on X, Goodreads, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, Spotify, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Kofi and of course check out my Substack. Until next time stay safe, and have a bonnie day.

The Many Worlds Interpretation: Continuity, and why it’s hard even with just the one show

It’s strange to consider just how many spin-offs have come from the Big Bang Theory. With the release of Stuart Fails to Save the Universe that puts us up at a whopping total of three spin-offs all, to some extent, successful. Admittedly it’s a little soon to tell with Stuart Fails to Save the Universe but with each returning cast member it is getting good advertising. And as for the others, Young Sheldon had seven seasons, and was very critically and commercially successful; and Georgie & Mandy’s: First Marriage has been renewed for a third season already.

Most shows would call one well-received spin-off a success, The Big Bang Theory has done it thrice.

It is undeniably impressive.

Thus, we should be very forgiving of all their continuity slip ups.

Yes, continuity, that sacred cow for fandom that always seems to be the first thing the writers throw out the window when they’re making a spin-off. Never in all of Cheers run did Frasier mention he had a brother, and in Friends it never came up once that Joey had a nephew but there they both were front and centre when it came time to make a spin-off.

Young Sheldon is the biggest offender of this of course; it can’t help but be, seeing as it’s trying to tell the story of Sheldon Cooper’s childhood as a, somewhat, wholesome family show. Rather than the dark carnival fun house that much of Sheldon’s comments on The Big Bang Theory made it seem.

George Cooper Sr. can’t be a wilful, and possibly repeat, philanderer who once shot his Tv when his Football team lost. No sir, we can’t manage to make that character sympathetic so out the window you go. Hello, stern but loving father figure that supports his youngest son even if he’ll never fully understand him.

Sheldon can’t be a completely ostracised loner, who routinely gets beaten by bullies, sisters, and older brothers alike. No, he has to have at least one friend. And the bully? Why that was just a little girl. Really, he had a good childhood. Heck, for a short time he was even popular in high school. You see where I’m going here?

I’m not saying the main character in ‘Young Sheldon’ doesn’t have trials to overcome or hardships to endure, he’s still Sheldon Cooper, but overall the picture is much sunnier than what previous cannon led us to believe.

I’m certainly not the first fan to notice the discrepancies between what was said on ‘The Big Bang Theory’ and what we saw in ‘Young Sheldon’. Many have proposed theories that Sheldon may be lying… on The Big Bang Theory. Seemingly because Young Sheldon is not shot as a traditional sitcom. Therefore obviously it’s the story we’re meant to take at one hundred percent face value. Just disregard the fact that the show is literally framed as Sheldon writing his memoirs. No doubt to later publish it where it will be consumed by some portion of the general public.

No, no reason to fudge the details there.

No reason to give his Dad a post-death glow-up. No childhood wish fulfilment trying to be lived out on the page here, no mothers whose dignity he might be trying to preserve.

No clearly he was lying on the Big Bang Theory… because it has a laugh track.

Regardless that is just a theory; just a way of trying to weld one continuity with another… much like my own.

And just like my own there is one perfect argument that makes all those theories crumble. The one argument that we cannot hope to fight against and it’s the meta one.

The writers of young Sheldon wilfully disregarded established facts about the Big Bang Theory’s Mythos so they could tell the story they wanted to tell. That is it. There is no greater conspiracy here. When Sheldon first said those things about his past on The Big Bang Theory he was not lying. He was not acted like he was lying. He was not written like he was lying. He was telling the truth. And he was doing so because the writers found it funny. They found it funny to have his father shoot his Tv. They found it funny, at least at first, to imply he had many affairs. But that didn’t make a sympathetic character so it was changed.

We all know it’s true, there’s no point fighting it. When the writers of the Big Bang Theory, and its respective spin offs, set off to make their stories and their jokes continuity is the first to fall at the wayside. Especially when that continuity might hinder the story they’re currently trying to tell. And this holds true even within the original show itself.

For instance, when Leonard disproves Sheldon’s newly discovered Element, and Sheldon is forced to retract his paper, Sheldon claims that the only time he ever retracted anything before was when he was a child and it was to his brother. That he was forced to concede that his brother was indeed the greatest ninja in all Texas. Just forget about that time he was forced to retract his findings of his North Pole expedition at the beginning of season three, when he discovered they were messed with by Leonard, Raj and Howard. No, the writers want us to feel at least a little happy about Leonard disproving his friend’s newly discovered element. And me we wouldn’t be if the characters acknowledged the only other time in living memory Sheldon had been forced to retract his findings.

So, what have I just done? I hear you say. Have I disproven my own theory right out of the gate? And to that I say no. Because my theory, my theory of Many Worlds, was not constructed under the delusion that this was the great purpose the writers were working under. That they actually wanted us to watch their show this way. No, my theory was constructed under the notion that this is the show, the world, they made anyway regardless of their intentions.

So, to all those smarty pants who might show up in my comment section, trying to blow a hole in this theory might I just say: I already know. I already know Amy’s mother changed actresses because they wanted a bigger name to play her for the wedding. I already know most continuity that doesn’t line up with each other is either because the writer’s didn’t care or wilfully ignored established facts. That’s not the point.

The point is by doing this, by taking all these short cuts through the road of continuity, and insults to the viewers basic memory skills, they have built something new. Something amazing even. And like many a great discovery before them … they did it accidentally.

And there we have it… The Many Worlds Interpretation: The Accidental Masterpiece. Now, maybe next time we can actually start talking about it.

The Many Worlds Interpretation: The Only Way to Watch the Big Bang Theory Universe

In this ever changing, and quite frankly sometimes terrifying, world we live in it’s good to remind ourselves that there are somethings that will always be true: 2+2=4, Andy Burnham is an unelected muppet, and there’s no show in existence that’s funnier than ‘The Big Bang Theory’.

Yes, that’s right I said the Big Bang Theory. Punching bag of all those wannabe intellectuals who think it makes them sound so smart, or enlightened, to rag on a genuinely funny, well-acted, mostly well-written, show that has managed to become so popular and beloved by the public that not only did they get twelve seasons out of it but three spin-offs as well.

Having said that, and I can see the hypocrisy here, I wouldn’t be writing these words if it were a show without faults. Because let’s face it, no show is without faults, and certainly no show that I’d talk in detail about. Because at the end of the day there’s only so many times you can say, this was brilliant, or this really made me laugh before you end up repeating yourself. If anything I think a show with flaws is more interesting because they force the viewer, if they are so inclined, to think deeper on the subject, to ask themselves why this isn’t clicking with them.

Why does this character feel off?

Why does this storyline or plot feel unthought through?

And does it actually say more about me than the show that all this bothered me so much?

But I digress… sort of… because now we come to the point. Recently, I was rewatching the Big Bang Theory for the 111th time. While I wa watching all the errors of continuity, characterisation, large dynamic altering events that happened in one episode and then went completely unacknowledged in the rest of the series, that you can easily spot after you’ve watched a series that much, I was suddenly struck with an idea.

A viewer experience altering idea.

And the idea was: String Theory.

It’s all String Theory.

If you’ve ever watched the Big Bang Theory you maybe somewhat familiar with String Theory. It’s the theory of everything, how all life, science and matter actually work in the universe. And more importantly for our discussion, it is the theory that Sheldon Cooper, arguably the most important person in the Big Bang Theory extended Universe, has devoted his whole life to studying.

One of the aspects of String Theory is that it states that there is not just one universe but many. An infinite number of universes in fact; any event that might have happened in the universe has happened somewhere out there in the infinite. An infinite number of Sheldons, Leonards, Amys, Pennys, and the rest all living their lives as if they were wholly and uniquely their own. Wow, wouldn’t it just be something if we could see what was happening in those universes?

And maybe that’s the point of all of it.

Of all the mistakes, and recasting, and plots that should have gone somewhere but were seemingly never mentioned again almost like they’d never happened at all. All the character retools and vital information previously established about a character that was thrown out the window for the sake of a joke or the conflict of a single episode.

Can you see where I’m going here?

Yes, that’s right I intend to make the argument that when we watch the Big Bang Theory or any of its spin-offs we are not viewing one universe, with one linear timeline, we are watching many.

Many Sheldons.

Many Leonards.

Many Pennys.

Many Big Bangs.

All combined to give us one fantastic show.

Over the next few… however long it takes me to complete this series… I will go into specific instances where this interpretation is not only the only way these episodes, and plot lines, make sense but also the only way to watch them with any enjoyment whatsoever. And in my next post I’ll be addressing the main, and most solid argument, against this theory.

If you think you can guess what that is comment down below and see if you’re right.

Hopefully I’ll see you soon.

The Wee Writing Lassie’s Many Marvellous Reads – Book 2 : The Playlist

And now as always welcome to the final post, the Playlist. Thank you all for your patience with the time this series took to publish. I can try and give an excuse, say that I got very caught up in my new Substack account where I intend to publish short fictions set in the same worlds as the books I’m working on, and while that would be true it would still be an excuse.

All I can say instead is I’m sorry it took so long and I hope it was worth the wait.

Now, check out the Playlist below and let us put the past behind us.

Reading Amygdala

The Wee Writing Lassie’s Many Marvellous Reads – Book 2 : The Conclusion

Ultimately my conclusion for this book review is very simple: don’t judge the book before you’ve actually read it. It would be easy to disregard Amygdala as nothing but a rather distressing book for a very specific brand of furry if all you do is look at the character designs. But, I want to make it clear, it’s more than that.

In fact it’s not really that at all. Sure, characters talk about having sex, a lot, but the story is in no way geared around that. This is not p***, it’s a political thriller gushed up in a fantasy world. The fact that the players here are animalistic monsters just adds another aspect for the writer to explore.

How would creatures that are so different to us, who don’t die, or age past their point of maturity, whose bodies don’t rot in the ground, govern themselves? Where does the animal end and the civilised remember of society begin?

The answer, for some of these questions, is a hard society in which failure is not tolerated and children are not valued as anything besides food. And yet, what I found so fascinating is that the qualities of kindness, mercy, and compassion can still flourish in the members of this society. They are not uniform monsters; they have the ability to choose a different way of being. And so the reader is forced to wander, if maybe that choice – the choice between compassion and coldness, or good and evil – is the greatest asset any of us possesses. So if someone tries to take away that choice, even if they claim it’s for the best of reasons, how good can that person really be?

All fascinating questions and all things Sam Fennah has fun exploring throughout ‘Amygdala’. So pick up a copy today and start expanding your mind now.

The Wee Writing Lassie and her Many Marvellous Reads – Book 2: The Plot

Well, here we are again … I hope this one didn’t take quite as long as the last one but to be honest I’ve lost count on how many weeks this took.

Outline of the Basic Plot

I have split the main basis of the plot into three parts even though in actuality there were a lot more moving parts and cogs to the machine than that. But as I don’t want to over bloat this post with a too detailed description I’ve decided to break it down into three main parts. Lucy’s Plot: which outlines the exploits of Lucy Lacemaker through the book. Celia’s plot: Which follows the Yolsh investigation. And the Court Plot: Which will cover the intrigues in the ruling class and their foolishness.

Lucy’s Plot

Lucy’s plot begins with her as a ‘fowler’ living on the streets. This might sound particularly sad but in this world all children live on the streets. It’s only once they’ve grown older and have ‘proven’ themselves that they get to come inside and sleep in a proper bed. Lucy’s doing alright though, she’s managing to avoid the chop shops that want to eat her and has made friends with a bookseller that’s taught her to read. But everything changes when she bumps into an old friend who’s involved with some dodgy dealings. One exploded ‘dollhouse’ later and she has to flee for her life to an entirely different city. There, through some cunning trickery, she becomes an ‘inker (that’s newspaper reporter to us humans). Unfortunately she soon discovers that her new boss is more entangled with the dodgy dealings she fled from than she could ever have thought possible.

Celia’s Plot

The Yolsh – that’s police to us muggles – are called in to investigate when a dollhouse explodes. Determined to find the truth the lead investigating officer brings in a private investigator to help. Celia, haunted by voices in her head and the demons of her past, is reluctant to take up the offer but agrees to take the job anyway. They follow the leads from the small town where the explosion took place to fighting pits, and toy shops, and all across this terrible country of theirs until they finally find …Lucy. And then well, my readers, that’s when things start to get interesting.

The Court Plot

And here is where the hanging threads of both our other plots get tied together and sewn back into the great tapestry that is the mystery of this book. I’m going to try and keep this as vague as possible, even perhaps, to the the point of causing confusion in the reader. Because I don’t want to rob you of the joy of piecing all the different pieces together. Of working it out, or failing to, before the author pulls back the curtain and reveals all both to the reader and the characters alike. I didn’t do this with the last review because let’s be honest at this point in the timeline who doesn’t know that Ned Stark dies?

So, I will proceed with caution.

Okay, where to start? Well, in times past the Kivouachians were ruled by a giant beast known as Freyda. But she was a monster, who made her people into monsters, and so she was overthrown by her children. Or at least the three children that mattered: Sombra: the Grand Architect ; Winifred: the Grand Whisper; and most important of all … Locket: the Grand Voice. Ever since the day these three overthrew their mother they’ve ruled their people with a firm, logic based, system of laws. Kivouachians may be animals but they do not have to be uncivilised ones.

They believe, at least most of the time, that their rule, their laws, are the only thing keeping their savage subjects from falling into complete decline. So why would anyone fight against them? But things are going wrong. There’s a conspiracy in the shadows. Things are being leaked to the public that should have been kept silent. There’s more at stake here the one dollhouse exploding. History long best forgotten is about to repeating; and waiting in the wings, for the fallout of all this chaos, is Methusa. Her manifesto clutched in her claws. A manifesto that speaks of enforced kindness and societal pity. It’s a dream shes had for many years ever since the death of the only child she ever loved. She’s going to make the world right and no one, not even Locket, is going to stop her this time.

There, I think that’s just about vague, and informative enough, to get people interested in reading this book … which really is the whole point of a book review if you think about it.

Themes of the Plot

The Ability to choose

The people in this story are not good people not a single one of them – and yet the book poises the question if we take away even just the choice to do bad don’t we make good completely irrelevant. It’s our ability to choose, how we live our lives, the people we help, that truly makes a society.

Take away choice and all you have left is a dictatorship … and those never last.

Surprise Twists in the Plot

Probably too many to count and each one more shocking than the last.

Adaptational Changes to the Plot

Well, it has a completely different plot to the YouTube series so … everything? Yep, everything seems like the right word here.

The Wee Writing Lassie and her Many Marvellous Reads – Book 2: Characters

Favourite Character

Cecilia

Cecilia is a former Yolsh (that’s policemen for us humans) dragged back into working with her old colleagues when a Dollhouse (brothel, I told you this wasn’t a kid’s book) mysteriously explodes. She has a dark past, even considering the world she lives in, and is haunted by voices in her head that won’t let her be.

I think Cecilia has the, perhaps, dubious honour of being my favourite character in The August Few because despite the fact that she lives in a world where might makes right literally there’s something in her that feels that it – or at least the way her people go about showing it – is fundamentally wrong.

How do I explain this better?

In Cecilia’s society a person can be anything they want to be, in theory, so long as they’re strong enough. Doesn’t matter what your gender is or your sexual orientation, or on vey rare occasions your disability, if you’re strong enough or smart enough you can accomplish anything.

That sounds nice doesn’t it?

Empowering even.

Except well … what happens to people who loose?

Remember the people of this society are monsters in more than just appearance. Their society does not encourage compassion for those who they deem ‘failures’. Failures are beheaded, their brains destroyed and their bodies put on display in the most humiliating way possible and used to carry the next wave of monsters. And that’s if you’ve been lucky enough to survive to adulthood …. if you’re a kid who fails you just get eaten.

Which now that I say it out loud may be a less awful fate.

All characters believe that this way of doing things has made their society strong; and if you find yourself failing in that society then it clearly has to be your own doing. Your own mistakes. No wider circumstances involved here. And when I say every character I do mean every character even the ones fighting to change things.

The closest we come to a proper rebuttal of this belief is a character like Cecilia who while she doesn’t dispute that this seems the only way her people can exist in any kind of society – they are all animals after all – doesn’t believe it makes their world a great one, but rather a sad one.

And that’s the point … a world with no rebuttal to any one prevailing rhetoric is never going to be a Utopia, regardless of what that rhetoric is. This is a sad world, but it is only those like Cecilia, who are not quite in step with what is considered normal, can truly see it for the tragedy it is.

Least Favourite Character

Lucy Lacemaker

Lucy Lacemaker is the main character of the story. Starting the tale as a fowler ‘that’s child for the muggles in the audience’ the book is essentially her coming of age story, at least from her perspective. It is the story of how she grows from a scrappy fowler just fighting to stay alive to an ingenious inker whose skills of forgery are coveted even by the antagonists of the book.

During this journey she comes to whole heartedly embrace and love ‘Locket’s Law’ (that’s might makes right for the laymen) and expounds on its virtues to anyone who will listen.

Now you would think given the fact that I clearly don’t like ‘Locket’s Law’ that that is the reason that I don’t like her. Well, I’d like to say for the record that no it is not. Alright, not wholly. This is an alien society, full of alien creatures and individuals, so I can accept that they will have some views, and practices, that I find slightly repugnant. And I’m more than an experience enough fiction lover, and fantasy lover, to enjoy them and often like them anyway. And yet, there is just something about Lucy’s views by the end, or rather the way that she expressed them, that really set my teeth on edge.

It was as if only she was smart enough to really see and understand the beauty of their society. That only she was mature enough to understand how it really worked. And by the end every time she heard someone’s sad backstory, or reason for why they might not whole heartedly agree with the way the society was run, she would just keep repeating that it was their own fault. That they were just blaming society for their own mistakes.

Now, don’t mistake me, when I say I don’t like Lucy Lacemaker I’m not calling her a badly written character. No, indeed not, I think she’s probably the most well written and rounded character in the book. And I think this attitude that she develops near the end is quite deliberately put in there by the author. Not because he is arguing for this kind of world, or even that the Kivouachians can only exist in this kind of world, but because that attitude not only gives her the motivation she needs to outwit the antagonists of the book but because I don’t think he intends for her to be correct at all.

Because no ideology, no matter how right one individual may think it is, is ever going to be wholly correct and right for the world. The world, both theirs and ours, is made up of a patchwork of greys and exceptions. So when Lucy calls people too naive to understand she’s really just showing her own naivety. And I’m ninety nine percent sure of this because she’s called out on this crap … by Cecilia. Who warns her near the end of the book to be careful on the words she says when she’s high on logic.

Man Cecilia is such a cool character … why can’t these books be solely about her again?

Oh well, maybe Lucy will improve by the sequel. I mean she can’t possibly get worse right? Right?

Character most changed in the Adaption

It might be a stretch to call Satellite City an adaption. Because truthfully it’s not really. For one thing it came out years before the book was even a thing. And also, it’s made by the same author. However, it is still very relevant to the discussion – and the nearest thing we have to an adaption of any kind for this world – so I’m just going to push ahead with it like it is one.

Satalite City is a Web Series made by Sam Fennah and starring him as well. It resolves around these groups of creatures called the Kivouachians who are from a place that existed before the big bang. In fact, its destruction caused the big bang and everything that existed after that.

The Kivouachians we meet in the series are refugees from that world, that place, that existed before. Though I never did understand how they survived the death of their world. Still, that is who they are and the series is basically a slice of life show, sprinkled with a bit of cosmic horror and political machinations, as we watched these monstrous abominations just try to live their day to day lives.

And the leader of these monsters is a creature known as Ludwig.

Ludwig

In the show Ludwig is, as stated above, the Leader of the Kivouachians, the Grand Voice if you will. It is his goal to lead his people to a grander glory and a return to if not their home world, then an earth he will make very much like it. And he will do this by mixing the blood of his people with earth creatures. All this so that his people can rise again because what Ludwig believes more than anything else is that their home was a great place. A place where anyone could be anything so long as they were strong enough. A place where the weak died and the strong more than survived they thrived. What he believes is Locket’s Law.

In the book Ludwig is a rebel who one hundred percent believes the antagonists anti-locket rhetoric. Oh, he doesn’t start off the book doing so, but much like Lucy this is his coming of age story too, so that’s certainly how he ends it he book. However, before we dismiss this as just a complete rewrite I of the character it’s worth noting that he is a child. Technically speaking. Having not reached his moment of maturity.

Maybe the biggest change is that the book Ludwig hasn’t yet become anything yet. Not who he was in Satellite City, not someone else, he is still … waiting.

Character I was surprised by my reaction to the Most

Locket

Locket is the Grand Voice of the Kivouack – it is her law that rules the land. It is her will that governs it so. She believes whole heartedly in the right of the strong not only to rule over the weak but to destroy them completely.

Now, from everything else I’ve said here you would think that would be someone who I would hate. And believe me, before I actually read the book I really thought I would. But gosh damn it she’s just so fascinating… and it’s hard to hate a character that makes her book such a good read.

She’s not the straight monster that I expected to find when I sat down to this book. She doesn’t growl or slobber or sneer ‘Mr. Burns style’ over her fallen enemy. In fact, despite creating the law that would make it socially proper to do so, she doesn’t seem to be particularly happy about any of her victories at all. She’s polite and open, though not currently convinced, to the possibility that her way might not be the right one. There is only one thing that Locket believes in, more than even the animalistic nature of her subjects, and that is the power of logic.

She doesn’t believe in morality as we, humans, would define it; so you can’t approach her with the argument that her way is wrong because it is evil. You must approach with the argument that her way is wrong because it does not work. And that is where her enemies fail because their entire argument is based on the concept of morality. Of doing something not because it is effective for society but because it is morally right to do.

Now, I am not in anyway trying to say that that is not a decent start to an argument but it’s not the way to convince Grand Voice Locket. And the truth is that her opposers can’t really make that logical argument that this ‘might makes right’ way of life is hurting their society because they don’t actually think it is. They believe that their society has advanced under this law; they just don’t believe that’s enough of an excuse for all the lives lost in favour of it. They argue for stagnation over carnage.

A proper argument against Locket’s law, or at least part of it, might be that every child has the potential to be anything when they are born. To aide and enrich their community in ways that we might not even be able to conceive of yet. So, shouldn’t they have the right to grow and flourish and reach their fullest potential in safety? Who knows what the fowler you throw in your soup pot could have done for society in fifty or sixty years. What inventions, books, art, or designs we may have lost when that life was cut short. You say that this law means that only the strong, only the smart, survive to enrich their community but I say only the lucky survive. And luck gives nothing back to society, it only takes.

Perhaps that might have convinced Locket, at least for a moment, but that would rely on the person making the argument actually believing it. But none of them do and so Locket wins by default. You would think that would make her happy and in a lesser written character it might, but that’s not who Locket is.

Not really.

We would like to interrupt your regularly Scheduled Programming with something completely different.

Hi, Wee Readers, well I’m back, and no this is not the follow up to my last post, sorry. But don’t worry I am still working on that and eventually you will see just what I thought on Amygdala’s characters. Well, some of them anyway. You will sit back and behold it in all its glory and you will think – this took a month to do?

But now onto our current post and why its subject matter had to take precedence over finishing my ongoing blog series.

You see … I’ve started a Substack account. Yes, that’s right. Specifically one to share my work; short stories, flash fiction, even sometimes the very occasional poem; that connects to the books I’m working on. In that, they’re set in the same universe.

I would like you, old wee readers and new, to please click the link below and subscribe. Do so now and be the first to read my opening story : The Man in the Salt. A short story of a man who vanishes from a doorstep and finds himself in a desert made all of salt. Click the link below, and subscribe while you’re at it, to find out what happens next.

The Writer Charlotte Burnett

The Wee Writing Lassie’s and her Many Marvellous Reads – Book 2: An Introduction and a Warning

Title: Amygdala

Author: Sam Fennah

Genre: Science Fiction, Fairy tale (proof if there ever was one that this genre is not always for kids), and Fantasy.

Format: Paperback, hardback, and Audiobook. (I recommend the audiobook if you’re going to read this book it’s very well made. It has its own album music and everything.)

Published: 13th February 2023

Wee Writing Lassie’s Shelf: What the Fuck did I just Read

Reasons for Reading: I enjoyed Sam Fennah’s online show Satellite City and was interested to follow these characters into a more fantastical setting.

A Warning: This is not a children’s book. I repeat despite many of the characters being basically talking animals this is very much not a children’s book.

In fact it covers topics and images that most adults would find disturbing and uncomfortable to the point where I started to reconsider reviewing it for ‘The Wee Writing Lassie and her Marvellous Reads’.

Eventually I decided to go through with it because not only is it very well written, and surprisingly thought provoking in its themes and prose, but it’s one of the most unique books I’ve ever read. Having said that do not pick this book up without preparing yourself first.

The characters are monsters, both literally and figuratively, who live in a society that believes wholeheartedly that might makes right. They eat their own young; have *** with headless bodies; and display their fallen enemies like trophy prizes. And even then I’m still not really covering the true horror that is this world. Having said that … it is still a really well written book so if you can get past that it’s worth a look at. Again … so long as you’re an adult. I cannot even begin the state how much this is not a kid’s book.

If you’ve enjoyed this wee post remember to follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t already. Also check me out on X, Goodreads, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, Spotify, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Kofi. Until next time stay safe, and have a bonnie day.

A Visit to Aden Park – The Playlist

And so we end our tale here, wee readers, on the sound not of silence but music.

A Visit to Aden Park

I hope you enjoy listening to this playlist as much as I enjoyed making it.

If you’ve enjoyed this wee post remember to follow the Wee Blog if you haven’t already. Also check me out on X, Goodreads, Instagram, Mastodon, Threads, Pinterest, Tumblr, Spotify, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Kofi. Until next time stay safe, and have a bonnie day.