The Folly Irregulars discussion

Technically falls right after Rivers of London.

Link to the story: http://temporarilysignificant.blogspo...

Carol. wrote: "Technically falls right after Rivers of London."

Who said that, do you know?

Because I finished Rivers of London yesterday afternoon and since this was only a very short story, and placed between Rivers of London and Moon over Soho, I decided to read it yesterday evening and I was kind of puzzled about some refecences.

I'm going to spoil now, so if you haven't read the story yet, you might probably want to stop and do so first.

The first thing, that put me of, was this line, right in the first paragraph:
(view spoiler)[ "I say “we” but my role, unofficially handed down from the Commissioner’s office, was to stay as far away from any Olympic venues as was consistent with my duties. I guess they were worried about property damage, what with Covent Garden burning down, the ambulance hijack, that business in Oxford Circus and the thing that happened in Kew that was totally not my fault." (hide spoiler)]

While I do know what he meant with "Covent Garden burning down", the other three things are a mystery to me. I mean, I listend to the audio book of "Rivers of London" on my way to work, but while I'm often very tired in the mornings, I'm pretty sure I didn't doze of that often and deep to not grasp this big parts of the story without realizing it.

Then, this bit: (view spoiler)[ "And they stayed warned off because Nightingale was famous by that point as the most dangerous wizard in Europe." (hide spoiler)]

When was that established? In Rivers of London, while one gets the expression that Nightingale is kind of famous or more likely infamous and it has something to do with the war, nothing substantial really is said about it. So where does Peter this suddenly know from.

Then, the whole thing with the duel. Well, okay, Peter kind of tricked him and never intended to follow though with that suggestion, but the confidence he radiates in this scene does not fit with Peter I imagined from book one. He would more like have told us, that it is important as a copper while not actually feeling the confidence to at least make the best effort to fake it.

Well and then some minor points, like the refecence to the galmour everybody and theire brother tried to put on Peter - I just counted three occasions in RoL (Mother Thames, Father Thames, Tyburn) or the Folly being decimated at "Ettersberg". Tyburn dropped that name on him in RoL, but Peter didn't know what it means and certainly had not time to ask Nightingale about it.

All those things keep distracting me and I was thinking more about them than about the actual story, so maybe I not totally fair, when I right now find it to be just slightly above avarage.

Maybe someon of you can help me and tell me where all that information can be found or suggest a better time to reread it in relation to the other books.

I've neither read the short story nor your post (so as not to see spoilers) but to answer your question about placement, it is listed as such on Ben Aaronovitch's website.

Nyssa wrote: "I've neither read the short story nor your post (so as not to see spoilers) but to answer your question about placement, it is listed as such on Ben Aaronovitch's website."

Thanks. Somehow I managed to overlook that. Do you plan to read the short story? In his suggested order`If so, maybe when you've done it, we can discuss it. I'ld like to know, what you think about it - and it's placing in the timeline.

Miriam wrote: "Nyssa wrote: "I've neither read the short story nor your post (so as not to see spoilers) but to answer your question about placement, it is listed as such on Ben Aaronovitch's website."

Thanks. S..."

Oh yes, I plan to read anything I can get my hands on! lol
I'm still working on Midnight Riot, but will read The Home Crowd Advantage when done.
I have already purchased the 5 Rivers of London: Body Work, #1 graphic novels (Before realizing there was an omnibus available), but I'm a bit lost on Rivers of London: Night Witch & Rivers of London: Black Mould #1. I'm not sure the Night Witch omnibus is on Amazon US, and I don't see one at all for Black Mould.

I think the NightWitch omnibus just got released... I don't think Black Mould is that far yet.

I need to re-read this short, Miriam, but I have a feeling I know what you are talking about. Although Ben's website says the order, it does have the feel of later in the series. Maybe after Nyssa reads, we can discuss.

The Black Mould Omnibus is announced on Amazon.de for mid 2017. I just preordered.

:)

I found the Night Witch omnibus but there is no listing for the Black Mould omnibus, yet, on Amazon US.
Hopefully, it'll be there when I'm ready for it.

Carol. wrote: "Maybe after Nyssa reads, we can discuss. "

I've just read it and the examples given by Miriam did give me pause, but not enough to distract me from the story. I am curious a to the point of the story, though. It just seems so ... random.

Nyssa wrote: "Carol. wrote: "Maybe after Nyssa reads, we can discuss. "

I've just read it and the examples given by Miriam did give me pause, but not enough to distract me from the story. I am curious a to the ..."

Well, in that way I'm like Peter - "Easyly distracted" *LOL*

But you are right. The purpose of that story has me still puzzled. When I reached the end I was like: "What? That's it? Are you serious?"

I'm still wondering if that was the complete story what Aaronovitch published on his blog.

Black Mould is up to issue 3 of 5 in the comics issues. It's generally a month or more after completion before the collected edition is released. I'm enjoying the issues thus far.

I just found (view spoiler)[ the hijacked ambulance. (hide spoiler)] It's Moon over Soho Chaper 6 and it's a rather wild action scene.

I still have to find the other incidents mentioned though.

I was thinking that maybe the time line resulted from every book being set in the year it was published, and so mayboo "moon over Soho" had been set after the Olympics, but that doesen't fit either. It was published in 2011 and from Peters remarks it's pretty clear that it's set in the summer just after he became an apprentice.

So, well, maybe we'll never know. It's not that important though, because the story didn't really spoil that much, but well... easyly distracted.

One other question though to those who've already read them: What about the graphic novels? Is their placement in the timeline right? And how much do I have to know about the novel to understand and savour them? I got Night Witch just yersterday and I'm all giddy to read it - and Body Work, too - but I don't want to spoil myself.

Miriam--I finally had some time to re-read and give your thoughts some thought. ;)

First, for the issue in the opening paragraph, I originally assumed it was part of the Aaronovitch 'throw-away' style that lets us know Peter has had adventures. I think he does it once in Rivers of London, when he's talking about trouble Leslie/he were in, something like "totally not counting that thing with the fur coat."

Now that I look at it, I think all of those events were in the future! I guess they were worried about property damage, what with Covent Garden burning down, the ambulance hijack, that business in Oxford Circus and the thing that happened in Kew that was totally not my fault." , well, that almost sounds like Moon Over Soho (view spoiler)[ when he has to save the life of the Thames boy, Ash (hide spoiler)].

"That business in Oxford Circus" probably references (view spoiler)[being buried under the subway platform with the result of the station closing (hide spoiler)] in Whispers Underground.

I can't find a Kew reference at the moment, but I'm really not good with geography of places I've never been, so it could have been mentioned.

And, hmm, good point about Peter's knowledge of Nightingale 'as the most dangerous wizard.' I'd say that starts to happen later in the series, as Peter pieces together the story (the hints seem to go throw all the books) of Nightingale in the war.

On the re-read, my perception is that Peter is summarizing what Antonin is staying about that time period, There's a sentence or two that is a direct line from Antonin and then it switches to Peter's summary. So I think that Peter doesn't necessarily know (but interesting that he isn't surprised) but this is Antonin's thought.

I think, I found the answer to all those anachronism in the story. Aaronivitch said in the introduction of the timeline he gave on his blog that he wrote the story before he had the timeline pinned down. But since he had no chance to change the date later - the Olympics where in the summer of 2012, no changing that - he just left it be and was "philosophical" about it.

Ah ha, I missed that little blurb at the beginning.

But that's a little confusing, isn't it, because then he himself places it too soon in the chronology. I assumed his statement that 'this is not publication order' meant all the other bits were in line.

Well, I found a timeline on the internet that places RoL in 2012 so that RoL to WUG would cover 2012, but last time Christmas Day was on a Sunday was 2011 - before last year that is - which would place the first 3 books in 2011. With BH then placed in spring 2012 the chronology would work.

So maybe he reworked that later because he developed a plotline that would need all the books being dated later.

Finally realised that this story was on Ben's website.

I enjoyed it. Yeah, so it doesn't fit the established time line that well. Don't care.

Loved the way Peter dealt with the problem.

I STILL haven’t read this short! Got to get off my butt.

Margaret wrote: "Yeah, so it doesn't fit the established time line that well. Don't care.

Loved the way Peter dealt with the problem."

Agree. I'm not one to stick to timelines, as long as the overall character is consistent. I can barely remember the difference between 2010 and 2012 in my own timeline, so it's not like I'll keep Peter's straight.