Black Knight

This rests on the assumption that the kids have perfect knowledge and understanding of what's happening in the house. But the scenario you posit above is likely completely wrong. The Lady killed Peter Quint not because he was in her path, but because he took the necklace. We learned from Hannah in this episode that the necklace is quite old; it's probably the Lady's necklace from the time she lived in the house. Peter removed it from its place, and that's why he died. If the necklace had nothing to do with it, why did the show spend time on the necklace at all? Why show Peter going to get the necklace? It could easily have been written that the kids saw him in the hallway after he left Rebecca's room, as he was about to leave the house. Why otherwise did the Lady first drag Peter's body back into that room, instead of straight down the stairs? Because she wanted to return the necklace to its proper place. But what would that have looked like from the kids' perspectives? Up until the Lady killed Peter, they obviously didn't know that she could kill (Miles yells "What are you doing to him?" and such). And critically, they didn't know that Peter took that necklace. So to small children, of course it would seem that Peter died for the reason you said, because he happened to be in the path of the Lady. But we viewers have more knowledge. The Lady didn't kill Dani previously because the kids kept Dani out of her path, but because Dani hasn't done anything to draw her ire.

Yes. The last time Hannah and Owen replay their scene, "Owen" says point blank that he's her. Hannah's subconscious was having "Owen" say certain things in order to help her consciously realize that she's dead. This journey through her mind and memories and other ghosts' memories was triggered by (the real) Owen asking Hannah to go to Paris with him. That's not possible for her, but she didn't know it because she hadn't accepted that she's dead. Up until that moment, she could carry on just fine not knowing this, because there's nothing about her existence at Bly that requires her knowledge of being dead. But then Owen asked her to go to Paris, and she loves him and would at least consider agreeing. So her subconscious knew it was time to make her aware that she's dead. I think her subconscious picked Owen for two reasons: Again, she loves him. Second, he's a man who has thought and also experienced a lot about how minds and memories work; he told her about Thomas Merton's writings. Poor Hannah. I suspected she was dead, on account of her not eating, but was hoping it was a red herring since she and Owen are so cute together. And while Hannah always seemed okay with the idea of Bly being her home forever, Owen clearly wants to leave the area. I don't think he'd be very happy if he died and had his ghost trapped at Bly, even with Hannah. Rebecca insisted that there are times when Peter's "himself" and when he's not, and Peter didn't seem to remember speaking to Rebecca nastily the previous time she'd seen him. That's certainly very much like Miles's possession, now isn't it? I think Peter, like Miles, was inhabited by an older ghost who's the really nasty one, and when Peter died, that ghost switched to Miles. And Miles also has Peter's ghost hanging around...

That was mostly my take on it, except that he hadn't taken her back to the water yet (the story takes place in a very short time frame, so the water wasn't yet better - when the guys show up at his house, they're talking about how there's nothing to catch). She just had the power to teleport herself from the water tank and take on human form. He should have done a little less bragging about all the fish he had taken out of the ocean, recognizing that she's a creature of the sea. When he brought up money again at the end, I knew that was it for him. I think she was curious about what manner of man he was, was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and get to know him since he had saved her, and ultimately decided he wasn't different enough from other fishermen. Perhaps it's just supposed to be a variation on the scorpion and the frog - the frog taking the scorpion across the river, the scorpion stinging the frog, and when the frog asks why, replying because it's a scorpion. It was obviously in the mermaid's nature to be vicious. But all the same, she didn't have to spend any time getting to know him, so I think it's more complex than that. From the POV of a creature of the sea, he's a monster, taking all this fish he cannot possibly eat himself, for money. He also exhibited some domineering ("bow to me!") and possessive ("MY CATCH!") traits towards her, as if he didn't quite see her as someone with agency. Consequently, to her he's fair eating.

There are plenty of monsters and they're getting tons of airtime; the point is that most of the monsters are human, like the mother and stepfather in this episode.

What did Elena write on her chalkboard at the end? I could only make out "HELP", but it seemed like there was another word written underneath. Or was it just random chalk marks?

There'll probably be one actress tugging once early on as a nod to readers of the books, and that'll be it. No actress wants to have her performance burdened with a tic that's not even true to life. It was cartoonish even in the books, where people only read about it instead of seeing it, and wouldn't work at all on TV. No surprise that Rand/Elayne/Min/Aviendha will be polyamory instead of polygamy. I wonder if they'll only do that by involving the women with each other, or if any of the women will be allowed to have an outside male lover. Or they could do both, by having Elayne and Aviendha be more than friends, while Min has another male love interest. She was always kinda the fourth one in the quad.

The only thing I can say for sure, GaT, is that it's that long because Rowling wants it to be that long. No publisher or editor can dictate anything to an author who's sold as many books as she has. She does not have to take anyone's notes, except to stick them in her circular file. It does seem pretty typical of authors who reach that untouchable status: The books get longer and longer while having more and more filler. I just finished Silvia Moreno-Garcia's Mexican Gothic. It's largely an atmospheric mood piece, and I wish we knew Catalina better, to be more invested in her, since she's the damsel in distress that brings the protagonist into the situation, but it was a good read. I did not expect the novel explanation for the goings-on, and the climactic sequence is quite exciting. Now I've started on Adam Higginbotham's Midnight in Chernobyl. I watched the excellent HBO miniseries about Chernobyl last year, so when I saw this book for sale at my Costco, I decided to pick it up. I'm not far into it, but I think the author does a very nice job so far of explaining technical processes, like how a nuclear power plant works, in a way that is readable for a layperson like myself.

I remember Scarlett complains about his not even having died in battle so that she could brag about it. So, in terms of characters getting what they deserve, it's probably better that Scarlett didn't get to play war widow than that he got to die in battle, even though it sucks for him.

I read that book a while ago and loved it. The early portrayal of Tamsen did bother me too, but that gets better.

I just read it's an 18-hour trip. Maybe the prospect of their own 18-hour bus ride should they test positive for covid in an away market will get more players to start being careful. I saw a picture of the Cards' July 29th game, a whole bunch of players gathered close together on the mound, not wearing masks. Idiots.

And, if after all this time, players don't understand - or accept, whichever - that they need to wear masks and socially distance in the dugouts, that tells you how they are likely behaving in the clubhouses, on team flights, and in their personal lives. No wonder that 1) players got infected 2) they infected a bunch of teammates.

When that day comes, I hope he will be able to be kind to himself and accept that he was only four. My best friend (mother of two) pointed out that you can't ask a 4-year-old to throw you your life jacket. They don't have that kind of wherewithal. Plus, she wouldn't have wanted to let on that anything was wrong, so that he would stay on the boat where he'd be safe(r).

This is so heartbreaking: Speculation, but it does fit in with her son's account that she got him onto the boat and then he looked back to see her slip under the water.

The reports I've seen say that her son said that they both went swimming. But he got back to the boat and she didn't.

It's so hard for me to think about her final moments and her son. All she wanted was to give him a fun outing, and instead he loses his mother and is traumatized. And if she knew she was in trouble at the end (as opposed to getting knocked unconscious immediately), she must have been so terrified thinking of her son being left all alone on the lake. Thank goodness he was found. Re: the comments about the amount of news coverage, I agree with others that it's pretty well covered in certain places: on social media and the younger pop culture sites, as well as LGBT sites. It's the mainstream media that's been relatively quiet, and I think that's because of the timing of this in respect to Glee. Yes, Glee was a huge show, but it was also a teen show, and the mainstream media can be pretty snobby about those, especially once they've stopped airing. She didn't die when Glee was still on the air, as Cory Monteith did, and she didn't die so many years later that the generation to which the show was most important had made it up the ranks of mainstream media and had lots of nostalgia, as Luke Perry did. But regardless of mainstream media attention, Rivera leaves an important legacy. Heather Hogan over at Autostraddle wrote well about this: