Patriotism

[Bracton]

A friend of mine was once asked, ‘Don’t you think the novel is an inherently patriotic form of literature?’ My friend didn’t think so, and was rather stumped. I couldn’t make head nor tail of the comment; the only thought that crossed my mind was Jane Austen in a satirical sense. My question is, is JS&MR a patriotic novel?

The book is very English, and the magic in it is not just magic, but English magic. As far as we know, for Clarke, the only countries with magic are England and Scotland, and English magic seems to be the superior because of the Raven King. France, and much of Europe, seem to be without practical magicians aside from that wardrobe. Clarke is, however, critical of nineteenth century Britain. Then again both the Gentleman with Thistle-Down Hair and Stephen Black are angry with the slave trade and Sir Walter Pole’s treatment of Stephen Black is unusual. The references to the politics of the day are not flattering (Lord Portland’s wine cellar!) and much of Wellington’s success is down to Strange rather than anything about superiority of the English.

Clarke does give us a line to the effect, ‘the air of England is the air of liberty’, I couldn’t find the page reference but it is in with the explanation of Stephen Black’s origins. The note of the phrase is distinctly patriotic, but in the context of Stephen’s story it does not feel particularly patriotic, and the kind of liberty described is acknowledged (implicitly) as technical at best: Black was free but without any resources.

[Whitmore]

As I've said in other posts, JSMN seems to be a Blood&Soil, Gaia Theory for England, where English people and the English environment combine to create over much time a supernatural, hyper-dimension whence Raven King-like mystical legends spring. England as a seemless organism, etc.. So, no, I wouldn't call it patriotism as we today think of patriotism. I think Clarke is going deeper than that. Patriotism is usually a nationalist thing, while Clarke's "nativism" is regional. She's not very "united" kingdom, but always compares and contrasts the different regions and proto-lands of the UK. I also believe her timing is curious, as the UK of today and practically all the world is in the grips of the American global capitalist Mega-meme...which is the exact opposite of anything like the "Deep England" the Raven King is about.

My question to the dominant theme "restoring magic to England" is, what will be displaced; what will be shoved aside, overruled when magic is restored and the Raven King returns? Are the Johannites right on the money? Was the Summer King some dabbling of the RK with Christian themes like some Jesus-St. Francis of Assisi that he was forced to abandon and go underground again? If there is a next book, I doubt she has much wiggle-room to create a total RK takeover...as things have turned out much, much different in reality...

Quite honestly, whether you "see things my way" or not, I've not had a book take over my imagination and thoughts like this one in a long, long time!!!

[Lillie]

I suppose it depends on how you define patriotic.

The book is full of wonderful English stereotypes, English people being very English in an amusing way.

It also displays a great love of the country, warts, foibles and all.

It also clearly shows the regional differences that are present in England, (particularly the North/South divide) though I'm not sure about the Welsh being naturally humorous.

I've got to go do dinner now.
I'll think more about this while I'm cooking.

[Doktor Estrella]

I've been thinking about the concept of patriotism and how it applies to JS&MN since I first read this post. At its core, the England of JS&MN is very patriotic, though the country has clear territories of divisiveness because of the Northern Kingdoms ruled by RK versus the southern lands.

Part of the problem that I have in answering this question is the overhaul that the definitions of "patriot" and "patriotism" have undergone in my country (the U.S.) since 9-11 and its aftermath. I really can't speak as to whether or not the same thing has occurred around the world because this is the first time that I've actually had a discussion about it without the terms "patriot" and "patriotism" being used as a trigger of some sort.

What I can say is that I appreciate the version of patriotism that Clarke features in JS&MN because, hypocritical politics and practices aside, the citizens believe in and have a love for their country that defines what patriotism is at its basest state. I wish that nowadays it was so simple.

[Lillie]

It's difficult to be patriotic here without people tending to think you vote for the national front.

[Whitmore]

When I was in Germany, nationalism was of course a big topic. One German said to me he'd never be nationalistic or patriotic, but that he had all the pride in the world for being a Hamburger. The others in the room 'here, here-ed' his proclamation.

I've seen this time and time again: People tend to have a natural boundary to what they assume is their "land." And invariably, no matter what size that "land" may be, it's always smaller than the "nation" itself, often much, much smaller. This goes to human territorialism, which is all but impossible to understand. Watch a nature documentary and you'll understand the basics of some critter's territorialism in 90 minutes. But you'll spend the rest of your life trying to understand human boundaries and territory.

What I find dangerous is always assuming we can consolodate, consolodate, consolodate endlessly anon. I, for one, don't think the human is as unite-able as some think we are. I guess consolodation and breaking down are like tides coming in and going out in history. Cheap energy and high tech have led to a very Great Consolodation, but when the cheap energy is gone (soon oh soon), so will begin another round of break-up/down into more simple and numerous territories. Home will once again be really home, and far away will really be far away. The plug-and-play cubicle humanoid with his cell phone and iPod staring at a screen all his waking hours will soon be a dim memory of a bad nightmare...at least IMHO...

[Whitmore]

Another thought on the "patriotism" idea: It strikes me that the Regency England of JS&MN doesn't seem rebellious or unsettled in any serious way. This is not a novel of some wild times of socio-political upheaval like "Reds" or "Tale of Two Cities." Besides the distant Napoleonic Wars (which could have been left out of the book), everything seems rather peaceful on the whole. And that's what I find so fascinating about JSMN. Clarke suddenly takes England into a totally new type of revolution: the birth/rebirth of a Mega-legend. And this Mega-legend would sweep away everything before it in wholly anti-rational ways.

Today we tend not to know much about socio-political tensions pre-Industrial Revolution. We have Left v. Right, and have a difficult time doing Cromwell v. Charles, Edward v. Braveheart. Sure, the age-old conflict of consolidation v. don't-want-to-be consolidated is fairly clear. But it always seems, well, quaint, dated. We think we've solved class oppression--at least in theory. We today have such bigger fish to fry, don't we just...

In that glorious chapter where John Uskglass kicks Norman butt we get a taste of the confusion he creates--ostensibly to right a wrong--but even back then the Raven King is a force for anti-rationalism, anti-civilization. Hell, the Sidhe make even the livestock riot. But then comes magic to England again--at the very beginning of Industrial Revolution Hell--which Clarke greatly understates in only mentioning the Johannites.

This is an epic tale of force and power--but it's so veiled and mysterious as to what forces and powers are working against what.

As I understand, as Germany slid under Nazi domination, C.G. Jung sat back and ticked off element after element of his "collective subconscious will out" philosophy. In other words, nothing that happened with Germany surprised him, and he was certain that he had predicted it all. Maybe that's what Clarke is doing, describing a Jungian revolution. But the big question is, will a "Blood&Soil," rebellion-against-rationalism outburst go horribly wrong like Germany's?

[Lillie]

You can't just leave out the Napoleonic war!!!

It went on for years! Loads of people died...
We won!!!

Britain lived in fear of an invasion for years, we built all sorts of defences that are still there, Martell towers, forts along the south coast, earth works...
It was an important thing!

In fact the French did invade Pembroke in 1797.
They landed at Fishguard and were (in local legend at least) seen off by the Welsh, led by a six foot tall woman called Jemima, wielding a pitchfork who captured dozens of the French soldiers single handed.

[Whitmore]

Jemima Nicolas! Somebody needs to make a film about the whole Invasion. It sounds more like a comedy than a war...

Anyway, I guess my point was that Clarke describes King Henry's surprise and confusion as to what was the whole point is of the Fairy Invasion. And again, what does she mean to say about Regency Britain that needed the Raven King's return? The RK represents a whole different dimension. I mean, it's one thing to talk about the seething resentment of the lower classes against the upper class and how somebody needed to put all the wrongs to right, but the domestic animals rejoicing when the Sidhe show up?! I guess the barnyard critters are indeed the lowest class--always ready to riot. And she writes way too powerfully, i.e., JS&MN is too big of a book to just dismiss it all as boiler-plate "fantasy" handle-cranking--at least for me. But then it was Time's book-of-the-year and won the Hugo, too. She didn't spend 10 years writing a knock-off just to make a few pounds on.

I know, I know, I'm not supposed to let fantasy take over my life. I know I'm not supposed to go to Allegory-land. Tolkien was very firm on that topic. Maybe I should just see JS&MN as "light reading" and be a nice little hipster fanboy here on the only forum I know for the book. But what if ... what if the Raven King came back? Dude! Would you be there in a heartbeat or what? Laughing? Come on! Be honest! Hey, over here in the Colonies we've got literally millions of poor scunners who swear Jesus is coming back any day now... I guess it comes down to the whole nature of legends and their metaphysics...

...which brings up the whole question of why is there so much "fantasy" today? Just escapism? I think people are investing quite a bit of themselves in Tolkien, Harry P., etc. for it to be just pointless escapism. When you hear about some of the Tolkien crazies, hey, are they any different from the Jesuits? Ever since the Victorian Era fantasy has been slowly building momentum. It seems to be reaching for something. Whence, whither fantasy? Will it be just a sad burn-out like the Germans and their Wagner/Siegfried fantasies? We're supposedly fat and sassy here in the Modern Age, but are we really? How long will we park a body in the modern age whilst our minds do but cavort and play so far away in the Mother Europe of Imagined Yore?

[Lillie]

Yeah, that French invasion sounds like quite a laugh.

It's not very well known though.
I had to go the Fishguard to find out about it (it's only down the road, we were fetching a piano that we had got in a trade in an old ambulance, long story) anyhow, they are well proud of Jemima down there and we found out about her.

Welsh women can be quite scary!

Yeah, if the Raven King come back of course I'd join him.
Wouldn't we all?

But I don't think he fixed all the wrongs in England.
He didn't free all the servants and serfs in the North, in fact he just became their over lord.
He didn't do away with class distinctions, just sat on the big chair at the top of the heap.

The depiction of class in the book is always interesting, and though Strange wishes to teach magic to men who are 'not gentlemen', and to women, and is therefore marginally liberal in that sense, he doesn't mind keeping servants himself and talks down to anyone he considers not of his own class.
He also doesn't seem to have any idea about the reality of life for anyone who is not rich like himself.

Look at what he asked Childermass at the engravers. (I paraphrase) 'None of this servant nonsense, we will be master and pupil'.
And how did he think Childermass was going to earn his living in those circumstances?
Being Norrell's servant is his job, it puts food on the table and clothes on his back, and what ever he might or might not have spent his wages on, devoting his life to being Strange's pupil would not have earned him anything.

As for the deeper meaning of fantasy in general.
I don't know.
I probably don't care, and if that makes me just another stupid fan girl then I don't care about that either.
I read books I like, ignore books I don't like, I think about things if it pleases me to do so and I don't really care about any deeper or social meaning.

I used to care about stuff.
But then I stopped.

[Crucifer]

http://forums.foem.org.uk/images/misc/progress.gifBut the big question is, will a "Blood&Soil," rebellion-against-rationalism outburst go horribly wrong like Germany's?You forget, whitmore, the nature of the English in Clarke's world. There is no mass outburst, apart from that of Strange. Those magicians calling themselves Strangeite are, while accounting for a great proportion of magicians, a minority in terms of England. You are, I believe, comparing apples to oranges, and no real, rational logic based argument can be brought against it for this reason.

I doubt she has much wiggle-room to create a total RK takeover

I don't think that was ever the intention. JU left England for a reason, and if he'd wanted to return, what better time to do it than when there are magicians bringing magic back into the public eye, popularising it, and on whom he can blame any more scrupulous acts he may take to reclaim Northern England. We know for a fact that JU was in England, so why not take it over then? If Clarke had intended JU to take back his country, it would have happened in the third volume of JS&MN, so appropriately titled "John Uskglass".

And, in my capacity as moderator, can I ask that this conversation stick to the subject of "Patriotism", as it pertains to Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. Discussions regarding fantasy in the real world belongs in "The Pineapple". I believe this has been mentioned once before, and if I have to mention it a third time, I will split all irrelevant posts off into a separate thread, created for the purposes of that separate discussion.

Thank you.

[Whitmore]

I had to go the Fishguard to find out about it (it's only down the road, we were fetching a piano that we had got in a trade in an old ambulance, long story) anyhow, they are well proud of Jemima down there and we found out about her.

I looked it up on Wikipedia and it said the invasion was a bust from the start, that the "French" were actually a gang of convicts who found a wine cache and got drunk, and that Jemima rounded up 12 of the drunks with a pitchfork. That qualifies as humorous over here in the Colonies...

As far as the Raven King not really righting too many wrongs (sigh, pause) ... well, I think he found out that fairy and human are divergent races, especially with us racing ahead(?) with technology, rationalism, Adam Smith, John Locke and, and, and. I guessing that if you're King, and you'd like to change things for the better--then your changes would actually have to make things truly better and last. I might say he finally despaired when he tried a few thises and thats ... and saw that we mortals are very stubborn, very heads-down, very "in the box" thinkers.

Somebody once said that Einstein constantly imagined and thought about what it would be like to go beyond human intelligence--and for his efforts he was able to bring back some gems. Again, this is what fascinates me about this book, the whole idea of something, someone far beyond us.

As far as "keeping on topic," very well, I'll say I still think JS&MN goes a step beyond any rah-rah-rah patriotism. We over here in the Colonies have a very strange relationship with y'all. Somehow your victories are ours too. At least it used to be that way. You're like the big brother we're all proud of who stayed in the Old Country. In general, I think you and the other European nations must lead the way, showing us what is to be done post-colonial. You got lucky with the North Sea oil, but once that's gone you'll really have to fend for yourself--which is exactly what America will have to do once we're thrown out of our "foreign acquisitions," once all the cheap oil is done.

But yes, reading JS&MN at the start of the 21st century makes me think a new sort of identity is being sought or explored. So again, I wouldn't call it patriotism, perhaps an identity search. For centuries Britain rose and rose and rose as an empire, and identity was reminted so fast that anyone could hardly catch their breath. But now you're post-colonial (as we are soon to be too), and a Raven King is on the verge of coming, someone with a new-old, very old feel.

[Lillie]

Hey!
Don't knock it!
It's Fishguards only claim to fame!

The book isn't patriotic.
It's sarcastic.
All the way through it's poking fun at the English, our snobbery, our peculiarities, our general Englishness...
In a nice way, but still poking fun.

John Locke????
No, Hurley! Don't mention the numbers.....

[Lillie]

As far as the Raven King not really righting too many wrongs (sigh, pause) ... well, I think he found out that fairy and human are divergent races, especially with us racing ahead(?) with technology, rationalism, Adam Smith, John Locke and, and, and. I guessing that if you're King, and you'd like to change things for the better--then your changes would actually have to make things truly better and last. I might say he finally despaired when he tried a few thises and thats ... and saw that we mortals are very stubborn, very heads-down, very "in the box" thinkers.

Sorry, I had to go away and think about this.
What makes you think that The Raven King wanted to make anything better for anyone?
Can you give me some sort of quote that shows that aspect of him, because I really have never seen it.
I don't know what he's up to, but I never saw him as actually doing anything good for the general popuace. He arrived from somewhere, conqurered and ruled, just like William I, just like any other invader and the local yokels just had to choke while he elevated his friends to positions of power.

Don't get me wrong, I like him, he's cool. He's like Richard III, the real dark, ambivalent, King of the North.
But as far as I can see the only difference between him and other kings is that he could do magic, which he did, for his own purposes, not for the good of mankind in general or England in particular.


You got lucky with the North Sea oil, but once that's gone you'll really have to fend for yourselfDo you know how much fuel costs over here??????

[Bracton]

There was, somewhere, a reference to the Raven King’s subjects having a dream about building a tall dark tower and their suffering less from the plague. I think it’s in The Ladies. There’s also a footnote in JS&MR where he saved Bristol (I think) from the spell that sealed things; where Strange’s ‘pupils’ are awfully annoyed at Norrell’s ‘theft’ of Strange’s book. There was also a reference to the Raven King and a faerie host seeing off an invasion. (I will look these references up if anyone wants them – I’ve loaned my copy of JS&MR to my sister).

One thing that strikes me about the Raven King is that he is a law-giver, which is a very kingly thing to do, something that puts him up there with Edward the Confessor and Henry II in England and Justinian I in Byzantium. The idea of an English ruler as King and Legislator is powerful, as it took centuries for it to be acknowledged that the king had the power to change customary law. Legislator kings tended to be popular, kings of plenty those able to bring peace and order to their kingdoms. In many ways granting this body of law was an act of public good.

It would seem, based on JS&MR that Mr Norrell was half-right when he said that the Raven King had abandoned England; The Raven King left, but John Uskglass has remained, or at least returned occasionally. By the time of Norrell and Strange, John Uskglass has left his throne, transcended the tasks of governance; we see a similar transcendence in Norrell and Strange as they leave normal society for the company of one another and the practice of magic.

JS&MR is certainly a step beyond most forms of patriotism, surely any book worth reading would be. That does not, however, mean that there is not an element of it in the book. Clarke does indeed poke fun at seventeenth century Britain, and it’s politics. However, the novel is still set in Britain’s glory days, Britain is distinguished on the battle fields of Europe and a peculiarly English historical tradition is mapped. The characters are virtually all British – even in the chapters set in foreign countries and where we have foreigners, they are hardly important, complicated or admirable characters.

In an interview of Clarke’s I read/listened to, here or elsewhere, she says that she didn’t really consider whether or not other countries had their own magical traditions. This makes me think that the novel constructs (at least in part) an English identity, which sails close to patriotism. Not that patriotism is a dirty word in all contexts. Even if it was to the academic who asked the question.

[Crucifer]

All the way through it's poking fun at the English, our snobbery, our peculiarities, our general Englishness...

I agree wholeheartedly, Lillie. I really do.

I think that this is a concept that a lot of Americans (no offence intended) might fail to grasp. I know that the Irish as a nation often mock our own patriotism, and enjoy it, but the English (again, no offence) have a certain class of person that still thinks that the hundred years war is merely on hold until Britain can fight and win. I believe there is still an Imperial mentality floating around her pastures green, and it was this that Clarke was poking fun at. I didn't find it to be a patriotic novel as such, more a satire on patriotism (and that only a small aspect of a much greater whole).

[Whitmore]

There's the touchable, the imaginable, the perceivable. Magic tends to totally overturn everything we know in the touchable world, even the perceivable, to wander off into the imaginable quite darkly indeed. As I've told y'all, I've written a book and in it I'm saying we've tried "causes" (rally round my flag, men!), we've tried Adam Smith "free trade" (the opposite of causes) ... and both have pretty much failed. One because we just endlessly killed one another, the other because it's ruining the planet and has turned us all into zombie materialists wallowing in meaninglessness. Hey, what's left but magic? That's something I take away from JS&MN, too. Clarke isn't advocating anything more for the touchable world and its rationalist methodologies. And no, I reject the idea that the Raven King is a parasite or malevolent in any way. But in many ways Clarke has written herself into a corner...

The exact opposite of JS&MN would be "the other Clarke" (Arthur C. Clarke) and his 2001 A Space Odyssey. He also takes us "beyond" for the next step. But his next step is facilitated by our long, dilligent climb up the touchable ladder, us getting better and better with material, science, technology until the aliens arrive to be our belated foster parents and take us to the next level. S. Clarke, however, takes the exact opposite approach. For JSMN we seem to be approaching the end of the touchable ladder (of heads-down rationalism, science, logic and what they can do) and the RK is come to fling the ladder and us on it back down to good, solid but magical English ground. Now what? Again, I'd say it's possibly a patriotism, all this setting up to fling back to the ground. Yes I agree Clarke's Regency Britian is a very parochial, very self-absorbed, but still loveable. To me "over here" Clarke seems to be describing her Regency England as a dotty, beginning to get on uncle whom she loves dearly, but about whom she has no end of joy in telling endlessly unflattering stories. (woo! didn't end with a preposition! woo!) And believe me, she's doin' England proud.

I'm a card-carrying member of the far-too-flung White Diaspora of the "Northwest" as Tolkien called northwestern Celtic/Germanic Europe. Hey, I yearn for a Shire. My handsome German Mennonite wife yearns for a Shire too. I walk through the wilds up here in NoMinnesota and ... and imagine I'm in an Ur-forest of NoEuro. Sure, there's lots of Americans who appropriate Afro-blues, Native American animist religion, Mexican food, Eastern philosophy, etc., etc.--and try to be anything and everything but what they really are: Euro. But not me. Yet I know I'm stuck -- if not doomed in this cast-off experiment of yours. Reading a book like JS&MN awakens a pride-patriotism (or just a strong affinity) in me that I can't really live out as could you "back home"--even though you're just as squelched by the Modern as I. But I'm like a dog wherein the wolf has been bred out enough to make me only want to howl, but not know how to run with the real pack. Oh sure, to see a picture of me, you'd think I was in line for some title, but ... I'm ... not... Alas... ;) Hey, you're the pack, and soon enough--if you believe Lady Susanna--you'll be runnin' with the King.

[Lillie]

There was, somewhere, a reference to the Raven King’s subjects having a dream about building a tall dark tower and their suffering less from the plague. I think it’s in The Ladies. There’s also a footnote in JS&MR where he saved Bristol (I think) from the spell that sealed things; where Strange’s ‘pupils’ are awfully annoyed at Norrell’s ‘theft’ of Strange’s book. There was also a reference to the Raven King and a faerie host seeing off an invasion. (I will look these references up if anyone wants them – I’ve loaned my copy of JS&MR to my sister).

It's Ok. I know those passages.

In the first one no one knows what the tower was all about.
It was suggested that it was a protection from the plague, but that is not actually known, more like people trying to find a reason for the inexplicable.
A number of times it is mentioned that he had to be brought in the put right other peoples magic, but that's not particularly altruistic. It's no different from any other king who sent in his troops or who ever to sort out a problem in his kingdom.
Same with the Raven King and his fairy host fighting of the enemy. That's what all kings, good or bad, had to do back in them days.

On the other hand there are a good few examples of him being dictatorial, vicious, unfair and generally tyrannical.

[Crucifer]

I reject the idea that the Raven King is a parasite or malevolent in any way.

Who said that?


Clarke has written herself into a corner...

No she hasn't. The intention was clearly never for JU to take back England. He doesn't need to. He's tired of it. If she'd wanted him to take over, now or at some other point, she could a) have done it in JS&MN or b) implied that those were his intentions via the prophecy. He was in England. Furthermore, England knew he was there. England would, at his first request, have overturned the established order in order to place him as it's king. I don't know why you are assuming that JU wishes once again to conquer England.

this cast-off experiment of yours.

If I recall correctly, Whitmore, America cast off Britain, not the other way around. There was a war, remember? Boston tea party? Valley Forge? Any of this ringing a bell? You are the American. You should know your nation's history better than any of us.

There are certain remarks being made in this thread that are bordering on the offensive: assumptions that England now is the same as England then to mention but one. Please remember that the people on the other side of the screen are just that: people, and restrain yourselves.

You know who you are.

[Whitmore]

Crucifer, you seem bitterly opposed to me. Good. I'll go. This will be my last post.

[Lillie]

Who said that?


I suppose I might have implied it...
I didn't mean it that strongly though...

I like The Raven King.

Still a king though. ;)

[Lillie]

Crucifer, you seem bitterly opposed to me. Good. I'll go. This will be my last post.

:confused:

Who am I going to disagree with if you go away????

[Crucifer]

Whitmore, if you cannot take a simple refutation of your post, and a light reprimand after repeatedly crossing the line, that's your problem, not mine. Good day, sir.

[Bracton]

It's Ok. I know those passages.

In the first one no one knows what the tower was all about.
It was suggested that it was a protection from the plague, but that is not actually known, more like people trying to find a reason for the inexplicable.
A number of times it is mentioned that he had to be brought in the put right other peoples magic, but that's not particularly altruistic. It's no different from any other king who sent in his troops or who ever to sort out a problem in his kingdom.
Same with the Raven King and his fairy host fighting of the enemy. That's what all kings, good or bad, had to do back in them days.

On the other hand there are a good few examples of him being dictatorial, vicious, unfair and generally tyrannical.

The Raven King predates most modern notions of governance so to judge him by modern standards of what a good King is, is a little out of place – although hard to avoid. I think that we can say he was a competent monarch: he appointed ministers (William of Lanchester), attended to the good governance and defence of his realm and was even able to establish a system of laws. For a monarch, of that age, to take on the role of legislator he must be in a strong position: able to impose his dominance on his subjects and be in firm control of most of his realm.

[Lillie]

The Raven King predates most modern notions of governance so to judge him by modern standards of what a good King is, is a little out of place – although hard to avoid. I think that we can say he was a competent monarch: he appointed ministers (William of Lanchester), attended to the good governance and defence of his realm and was even able to establish a system of laws. For a monarch, of that age, to take on the role of legislator he must be in a strong position: able to impose his dominance on his subjects and be in firm control of most of his realm.

Maybe I just have this thing about authority figures...

Kings...
First against the wall when the revolution comes!

[Bracton]

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

[Lillie]

I'll get out my knitting! :)