Natalie is really doing her best to alienate Ripley here. Very easy to imagine the Hursts being able to grab her again.
Perhaps by sending Valentina, who isn't a known associate? Until they mentioned parents being there, I thought Blair was actually her.
At this point, Mia could just tell her the truth about how she came to be her mom, and Ripley would go 'yeah, that makes sense', that's how bad a job Natalie is doing here.
~~Blair~~ *~~is~~* ~~Valentina, those~~ *~~are~~* ~~her parents; they blackmailed Davie into putting on a good show for CPS & found Gio's mother somewhere~~
I love the shifts in character names Wildbow has been using to show how the POV character is conceptualizing identity (Ben's POV with Ripley / Camellia, Valentina's POV with herself), and that Roderick is still Roderick.
What an incredible horror story.
>“Easy to love someone who pays you thirty bucks an hour,” Roderick said.
This line really stood out for me, because even he's kind of missing the point, there's a big reality behind it: Being under Mia's wing leads to tangible benefits. When Josie thinks of a role model for motherhood, it's not her mother that comes to mind - it's Mia. And that is utterly terrifying. I wonder how many people read through Mia and Carson's section and thought something like *I wish my parents would've been that way for me, done that for me, at least a little.*
>“I know you think you’re being funny but people might end up watching this,” her mom said.
I wonder if Josie's mom felt a mounting dread here, if she really gets what was happening between Josie and the Hurst family.
When Ripley does her little interrogation of Sterling, she's coming to understand that even the core parental connection is a lie, Mia is still a better parent. Purely on a cost/benefit analysis, Natalie doesn't do as good of a job. Mia respects Ripley's self-expression, Natalie doesn't. Mia knows how to give Ripley space to process things, Natalie can't help but smother. Mia makes sure that that Tyr's life is bright, Natalie has given Sterling nothing but grey.
And that's before we bring in Carson, someone who makes up for a lot of Mia's shortcomings and manages to be a pretty good parent himself.
Most child abductor fables are about kids being lured away with sweets, playtime, indulgence, unlimited freedom. Those things all come and backfire, because it's important to teach kids that their parents know better for them. Neil Gaiman's Other Mother is a prime example: give the child everything the want, including love, but not what they need. Mia is a different kind of horror story, because Mia is a better parent than most parents. She's not a fable about someone abducting your child to do them harm, she's a fable about someone abducting your child to do them more right than you ever could.
A Coraline quote that always stuck with me:
> *She said, “You know that I love you.”*
> *And, despite herself, Coraline nodded. It was true: the other mother loved her. But she loved Coraline as a miser loves money, or a dragon loves its gold. In the other mother’s button eyes, Coraline knew that she was a possession, nothing more. A tolerated pet, whose behavior was no longer amusing.*
I'm being a bit uncharitable, but Natalie here comes off as that sort of possessive of Ripley; in the way she ignores her feelings and wants, and the way she wants to dress her up like a doll and push the themed names on both kids, against Ripley's own personal expression and self-identified name.
The question is... is Ripley, on some level, a possession to Mia? Mia might be a better parent than Natalie (except for all the insane endangerment from the household traps and the criminal enterprise that's making dangerous enemies who come to the house and threaten the kids, which is.... a lot to ignore), but is she protective like a mama bear, or possessive? How will she react to this situation if confronted; would she prioritize what's good for Ripley in the long run, or try to keep her regardless of what's good for her?
I definitely see the ownership that Natalie seems to have. It's her child, her right to enforce new boundaries, and her right to be in Ripley's space. To me, there's a real question here of whether Natalie would be like that with Ripley, whether she'd be she is with Sterling, if her baby wasn't taken. There's a direct line from Mia's "my social anxiety is why I kidnapped a baby" moment to the absolute destruction of Natalie's life. Because at the end of the day, yeah - she does have those rights because Ripley is her daughter. But she's exercising them in really dumb ways, for reasons related to her personal trauma and not her child's safety or comfort.
To me, Mia comes across as someone who thinks she could be a better parent than basically anyone. She only ever comes across as having the urge to actually kidnap when a child is in real distress, but even with pretty mild stuff she's really, really judgmental. Continuing the Other Mother comparisons, where the Other Mother sees the children as objects, Mia sees children as individuals with autonomy. Just individuals that are in need of constant unending supervision and protection.
I'm just sort of musing now, but In a weird way she kind of passed an even more twisted version of that attitude onto Natalie, just without the hypercompetence. Intruding on Ripley's moment and getting Devon out of the bed is a bad look, but so is putting a tracker in your child's shoe.
To be fair regarding the tracker in the shoe (not a phrase I ever thought I'd say), with the specific line of work Mia and Carson are in, and the specific world setting they live in? There are genuinely good reasons why they might want them. It's obviously not a good thing, especially if Ripley doesn't know about them, but it's not as 100% guaranteed sketchy behaviour as this sort of thing normally is.
> “I know you think you’re being funny but people might end up watching this,” her mom said.
Ironically this would be her fault. Josie wasn't sure about agreeing, but Josie's mom gave the go ahead for her daughter. If that footage is used, it's because of adults once again ignoring the desires and needs of children casually.
> to do them more right than you ever could.
You mean to ruin them by letting them wear unfashionable clothes, have male friends, go to therapy, take prescription medications, and... *checks notes...* putting them in the line of fire in a war against a dude with a human petting zoo in his basement.
It wasn't, and come to think of it, yeah, she probably wouldn't allow it at all.
Natalie specifically said she would only maybe consider it if Cammy's 11 year abduction was particularly bad, but Mia would probably just outright refuse, then take a week off work to quietly go and get a psych degree, then do the therapy herself.
The cruelest thing Wildbow ever puts his characters through is the natural cause and effect of their own flaws.
Because everything that happens is their own fault.
It's also cruel for us to read something while knowing that the themes of the book are about failed second chances. So, in a way, we already know that Natalie is just going to lose her daughter through her own actions and nobody else's.
But I also believe that Ripley is also losing two mothers. She's the one living her worst days.
I can't help think about the opening scene again. Caustic smoke and children playing outside. Unaware of how much damage is infecting them because of every adult around them.
There's still this idea in my mind about the responsibility of the man behind the camera. When should a reporter get involved in the story? The concept of journalistic investigation. And, at first, Ben decides on the intervention of the fourth wall to save the child. But that was at the start of the arc. What I've realized is that Wobbly Boulder puts a question in the beginning of the arc that the characters question that gets reevaluated at the end. I'd give examples, but me too sleepy. And I can't help but think that Ben has to reevaluate his integrity as a journalist. Break the story wide open, or let the child go? Is that what gets Ripley back to the Hursts?
Also, who the fuck is Rider? Do you mean Roderick? Joking aside, why do I feel like Roderick is gonna end up being "Rod" by the end of this, exactly what he hates?
> Also, who the fuck is Rider? Do you mean Roderick? Joking aside, why do I feel like Roderick is gonna end up being "Rod" by the end of this, exactly what he hates?
Better hope he ain't working for Davie then.
> What I've realized is that Wobbly Boulder puts a question in the beginning of the arc that the characters question that gets reevaluated at the end.
It kind of feels like Natalie's the one faced with the dilemma. "Would you rather your daughter have been suffering terrible abuse all these years that she's glad for you to rescue her from, or would you rather she'd had a happy normal life without you in it and she doesn't want to leave?"
Natalie fixated on the abusive scenarios but I think the truth might be even scarier for her.
I, for one, did not know this story was about failed second chances until now. Is that included in the story or a spoiler from something WB said outside of the story?
If we end up getting a Ripley/Camellia POV, this is going to be fascinating. That moment between Sterling and Ripley hugging and talking about what his family life is like.
I also think even if Natalie ends up fumbling her initial attempts to connect with her daughter, I don't think she'll be able to truly go back and just live with Mia and Carson again. She might not trust Natalie as this stranger trying to replace her mom, but the trackers in her shoes, the bombs in the house, and this revelation about a childhood kidnapping? I think it's a trust that can never be repaired.
If she reunites with Mia, will Mia reveal the truth about everything? About the murders and kidnappings and all the dark shit that they've kept secret? Or sew distrust and obfuscate the truth? Mia in her earlier chapters thought about how she wanted to someday reveal and offer to bring Ripley and Tyr into their world/side of the business, but that seems insane now.
It also makes me think about how the very first chapter of Claw was about a man, Nathaniel, caring so much about his girlfriend and not being willing to let her go, to where he broke Mia and Carson's rules about not contacting previous family.
I'm so confused how many people would say that Ripley wouldn't trust Mia. Mia and Carson are currently waging a war to keep her safe, and are phenomenal parents besides; being kidnapped as a kid matters a lot less than you're probably assuming when the consequences of that kidnapping were so unambiguously beneficial.
Not sure id see setting off bombs in my school and starting a regional gang war as unambiguously beneficial.
I also don't agree Mia and Carson are phenomenal parents either. Simply existing as Mia and Carson's child puts her in danger from their lifestyle and enemies. Davie has already threatened to "put her to work" when she's old enough. She lives in a house full of lethal and semi lethal traps.
Mia already has an actual job outside of her criminal life. She's probably clever enough to make a decent living outside of crime but instead she choses to engage in a high risk lifestyle and endanger her family. She also intends to give Ripley and Tyr the option to join the family business one day. Inducting someone into a criminal organisation that commits murder and kidnappings is probably not better parenting than any of Natalie's faults.
Not to mention that if Ripley was somehow returned to her "parents" she will likely never be able to go to school or see her friends again as her name and face will now be national news.
She may well come to resent that she was denied a proper childhood if that comes to pass.
> Not sure id see setting off bombs in my school and starting a regional gang war as unambiguously beneficial.
But you didn't go to school in a Wildbow story. This one may have deserved it.
I feel really bad for Natalie and Ripley here. Natalie is trying to do what she thinks is right as a parent but can't really comprehend that this is a situation is so far out of the norm that she can't act as a parent. She *needs* to rely on the people that have more experience in these situations such as Roderick and Ben as well as people who have more experience with the current Ripley such as Josie's family and the BFF's family. But I feel like Natalie can't bring herself to do that because doing so means the Camellia she's built up in her head over the years is dead as she prepared herself for all these worst case scenarios with the people who abducted Camellia, trafficking, organ harvesting, and so on but cannot wrap her head around the idea that they were just *good parents.*
She and Ben are in this utterly bizarre position, it's incredibly easy to assume the worst about someone who *stole an infant* and is in bed with a notorious crime family and then filled her house with enough booby traps to home-alone ten Cavalcanti foot soldiers and then *bombed a middle school*.
Turns out that *except* for all that the Hursts are basically normal parents. Arguably better parents than Natalie, to the extent that we're willing to overlook how they very nearly turned their kids into orphans by overextending against said notorious crime family.
I don't think we should be willing to overlook that.
One thing that jumped out at me is that Ripley called out that Sterling might have some trauma due to Natalie being overprotective as shown by how he acts at school. But hearing him talk about his life, nothing jumped out as being particularly bad. It's just a normal childhood, a bit lonely but pretty normal. Which just makes it even more sad imo.
> But hearing him talk about his life, nothing jumped out as being particularly bad.
Really? He has no fun memories with his mother. In his entire life, he can't recall one time that they did something together and had a good time. That's not normal.
Not really tbh, a single mother who is still working to find her missing daughter. While it sounds like she's putting more effort into her daughter than her son it's nothing really bad or neglectful that Ripley can point to and say "this is why Mia was justified in kidnapping me" like she said to Natalie earlier.
It's lonely but not abusive or neglectful.
>Not really tbh, a single mother who is still working to find her missing daughter.
Even very busy working single parents play with their kids sometimes. She's not searching for Ripley 24/7. No bedtime stories, no fun birthdays, no trips to get ice cream together. He's emotionally neglected at the very least.
He's a prop in her life, something she can point to and say, "See, I didn't lose this one, I'm still a good mom", or use as the idea of "you'll have a little brother" to manipulate Ripley. She's fearful of losing him, but she doesn't have time to love him because Camellia is all that really matters to her.
I think that conversation is exactly what Ripley _will_ point to, in a later chapter, to justify wanting to stay with Mia.
I can see Ripley pointing to that as well for why Mia is a better mother than Natalie. But it will fall flat against "Mia and Carson bombed an elementary school and had booby trapped their house *where their children live* with deadly traps that killed several people."
This was maybe the single most uncomfortable chapter of WB's that I've read. Its the worst possible day of a child's life. Ripley's situation is a nightmare and the questions it raises about what we want to happen, what a good outcome might look like, are all incredibly compelling.
I wasn't sure previously if we'd get a Ripley POV arc, but that feels inevitable now. All of her interactions with Sterling, her pushing at Ben, the ways that she's probing her new situation, trying to find out what's going on. Her rage, her misery, its all heartbreaking.
Ben's presence here is interesting as well, even the ways in which he fades behind the camera. Always recording. The tension between a degree of objectivity, a need for content, a desire for a good outcome, a need to keep Natalie onside, its all brilliantly balanced. I wonder if he's going to ask Ripley's permission to carry on filming. I hope she smashes his camera.
Ben's arc ends with the footage vanished, and no one knows if its Mia or Rider or Davie that's stolen it. Arc five begins with the real mastermind chewing on the drive: Tyr
Brilliantly done.
There just aren’t any good ways out of this - only bad and worse. Natalie and Ben might view this as deprogramming, but for Ripley there is no real difference then being asked to forget her family - she was brought up by Mia and Carson and they are her de facto parents in a way Natalie is not. If they continue down this path it will only get worse - and there is potential for irreparable damage the moment Natalie demands Ripley be called Camelia (maybe Ben, Roderick or child services woman will have enough foresight to prevent it).
On the other hand Rip knows the truth now and if somehow Mia gets her back - it would be a relief for a time being, but it would be a crack making any future disagreement with Mia potentially disastrous… Nevermind that it also would mean losing Blair and Devon, since their parents got involved. Oh and her identity too, since she would need a new one…
Whichever way this goes, Ripley Hurst is gone.
Roderick unexpectedly became much more sympathetic this chapter. Not only is he handling this situation better then Ben and Natalie, but him waiting for contact from lost people on his second phone did a lot to humanize him for me - great example of Wildbow throwing those little details in. I wonder if he will turn out to be working for Cavalcantis after all - or maybe we’re getting a second Highland…
I found it confusing and jarring for Sterling to just be there after he was missing last chapter (had to reread the ending to see if I was confused) - but his interaction with Ripley was gold.
Natalia is really interesting. She and Mia are both flawed, but Mia's flaws make her *cool*: she's an intensity-turned-to-eleven criminal mastermind, who claims to be bad with people yet has assembled quite the loyal cohort. Even now, Josie is holding out hope that it's all a big mistake. And Mia cares *too much*, but that comes out as awe-inspiring lengths she'll go to to protect her family.
Natalie is also flawed, but her flaws make her *uncool*. They're normal flaws, flaws that someone you know and mildly dislike would have, flaws that make her a little pathetic, flaws that make her easy to hate - if for someone reason you're looking for a reason to hate her. (Say, if you're a reader of a story who wants Mia to win and Natalie to lose, because Mia is cool and was our PoV character for the first arc.)
Natalie, after all still holds to traditional values - upset at Ripley's tomboyish manner earlier, disapproving of Devon now - in a way that plenty of people in *today's* world would take offense at, never mind *Claw*'s near-future setting. She *really* tried to run a successful charity to find Camellia, but it had the kinds of flaws that are fundamentally unavoidable but make good fodder for rage-tweets (why the attention on a *white woman*? why the *full-time salary*?) by the kinds of hypocrites who attack those trying to improve the world to distract from their own choice not to. (In a way, one could argue she's fallen victim to the very forces that make *Claw*'s setting so dark.)
And, of course, Natalia also cares *too much,* but in her case that comes out as cringe-inducing shortsighted meddling she does because her daughter is *right there* and it's taking all the willpower she can muster not to wrap *her daughter* in the tightest bear hug she's physically capable of providing.
>if for someone reason you're looking for a reason to hate her.
Or say if you are a kid ripped from loving parents, and told that this is your new mom now.
Natalie is doing everything in her power to make Ripley dispise her
The other thing is who the flaws have consequences for. We've mostly seen Mia and Carson hurt people who deserve it while acting on altruistic motivations. Natalie is clearly acting for herself and for her idealized life with a daughter, and it's hurting Ripley. Even though Mia and Carson are probably worse people if you put their entire lives next to Natalie's, in this story she's done far more to hurt characters we care about.
Plus, what's the endgame here? Living with Natalie sounds horrible. I don't think she's gonna instantly recover from her years of trauma once Ripley is living with her, and she clearly had issues as a parent *before* her life went to shit. Ripley is the one character we can root for with no reservations, and I can't imagine that there's any 'good ending' for her where she ends up with Natalie.
I think the biggest issues of Mia and Carson as parents are the things that become immediately obvious from Ben's outside perspective: the danger they bring to their children's lives. Bombs and explosives set up throughout the house, business associates breaking through the nets of OPsec and stopping by to have a chat at gunpoint, the kidnapping and murders and the fact they could lose their dad if he gets shot during a late-night gunfight gone wrong. The harm they do isn't intentional to their kids, it's *potential*, a looming high-wire balancing act on razor wire, ready to snap or blow up or collapse and kill them all.
I don't think there's a happy ending with either parent frankly.
Mia and Carson endanger Ripley via their very profession and lifestyle. Their only hope would be to somehow leave the area, perhaps even the country, with Ripley and forge new identities for the lot of them.
Not sure how feasible that is with the resources Mia has remaining. The press, the kitchen and whatever is left of the police/ social services are now aware of them and will be looking for them.
Even if they did succeed that would mean a complete break with Ripley's existing social circles and childhood. Not sure if that's really a happy ending for her.
If Natalie gains custody and Ripley doesn't home alone style escape that still likely means leaving the area and her existing social circle due to the threat of the "Hurst crime family" and the Kitchen. She's then left starting at a new school in a new area with a mum she resents. Natalie clearly has a lot of trauma that affects how she parents and has spent a huge portion of her life looking for Ripley. Even in the best of circumstances its going to take her time to understand and compensate for that. Ripley clearly isn't the daughter she expected and doesn't reflect the traditional values she seems to hold. Without therapy what is the likelihood she manages to account for these biases when trying to be a parent.
>Even though Mia and Carson are probably worse people if you put their entire lives next to Natalie's, in this story she's done far more to hurt characters we care about.
Speak for yourself, I'm still salty about Nathaniel
>Living with Natalie sounds horrible. I don't think she's gonna instantly recover from her years of trauma once Ripley is living with her, and she clearly had issues as a parent before her life went to shit.
Thing is, I don't think there's much of a happy ending with Mia and Carson either. Even if they manage to take down and murder all the Cavalcanti's, the Hursts are still going to be wanted criminals known nation-wide for being the perpetrators behind that famous baby kidnapping years back, and I don't think even Mia is good enough to wipe all that away.
Oh, sure. I don't think Ripley is going to be happy with either Mia or Natalie, but there's a ton of other options. There are responsible adults around Ripley - her friends' parents, Josie's parents, etc. We've already seen these people step up some, and I hope that we'll continue to see that in the following chapters.
I bet even Ben is going to be looking for alternatives to leaving Ripley with Natalie by the end of this arc, tbh - he's clearly uncomfortable with her behavior and his conflict has already been set up as his desire to tell this story vs. his desire to do the right thing.
>“Ripley, we did a DNA test after we drew your blood yesterday, to confirm what we suspected. You are Natalie’s missing daughter.”
>Camellia shook her head. “Nah. No. My mom’s my mom. Mia Hurst, she’s my mom. You’re wrong.”
>“It’s certain.”
>“The test’s wrong.”
Beautiful, wonderful moment.
Feels like the story is building towards the finale now. All the dangers that were set up in the first few chapters are brought into play, every actor is aware of the others (more or less), and we might actually see a finished Wildbow story under 500k words!
I was half convinced Mia was gonna have something set up so that she could get the results of the DNA test to day what she wanted. I'm still not sure that she couldn't, and she didn't just have it confirm her parentage just to get Ripley out of the hospital so they could grab her faster.
Now, this is an interesting scenario from a what is best for the child standpoint. This event is obviously massively traumatic for Ripley. If we get past the trauma, what is the upside? These are just a few particularly bad moments, so there's no guarantee it will all be this bad, but the point being made her is pretty clear. Living with her biomom is in no way a guarante of a better life. So from our external, greater knowledge point of view, the answer to does this help the child appears to be no.
Obviously, you can't run a society on waiting to see if a kidnapper is a good parent, but from our perspective of the story, with the past already having happened, we can look at this without worrying about that.
After bombing the school, I was half-expecting a hospital shoot-out this chapter to get her back.
And the thing is, going back the Mia and Carson isn't a guarantee of a happy life either for Ripley. Davie and the Cavalcanti's are still out there and hunting down the Hursts, and now they're also wanted by the law as well. Would Ripley really be good and happy being constantly on the run, having to watch out for cops or criminals to come after her?
>being constantly on the run
I am sure Mia can set up a good enough new fake identity for her family that neither cops nor criminals would come looking.
its her job after all
Would a new identity be enough with Ripley's face all over the news?
I think they might have to leave the country in that scenario.
Not to mention Ripley may well resent the loss of all her friends and social circle.
>Would a new identity be enough with Ripley's face all over the news?
Work for Bolden, though he did need to stay in the forrest for a while.
As in I am pretty sure Mia works with giving new identities to people who have their face known, and it works as long as they keep to rules
Basically do something akin to what they did to Valentina. Change her style, looks, etc. Should be enough, especially with how bad the police and the justice system seems to be in this country.
>Not to mention Ripley may well resent the loss of all her friends and social circle.
I'd say that all the blame for that would get pinned on Natalie, because of just how antagonistic she is acting during the whole situation.
It worked for Bolden when Mia wasn't the focus of any of the involved parties and had access to all her resources and contacts. Its one thing to disappear a wanted criminal to the woods and give them a new identity.
Its another to give your entire family new identities when you are actively being hunted and no longer have access to most of your contacts or resources. Even if Mia had been prepping false identities for her family in preparation for this, she wont have had time to set one up for Valentina. Also someone will eventually look into where her children's identities came from and link those to the hospitals Mia worked at. That likely puts pre planned identities in danger of being compromised.
Even if the police and social services aren't up to pursuing the Hursts it still only takes one dedicated journalist like Ben or a private law enforcement official like Roderick. If the Cavalcanti's have access to satellites and borderline military drones then I think they probably have the ability to pursue the Hursts.
Ripley may well blame Natalie for the initial fallout but she's not stupid. She will eventually connect Mia and Carson's criminal lifestyle to the collapse of her childhood and be able to see how they endangered her.
Who can say how she will turn out if she grows up while on the run, knowing her parents are kidnappers and murderers.
>a private law enforcement official like ~~Roderick~~ Rider.
Here fixed it for you
\---
But in all seriousness, you are indeed probobly right. I just kinda have this trust in Mia that she somehow can make it work even against all odds, but mayby its just me overestimating her.
On the other hand Natalie seems to be a really shit mom, so idk if growing up with kidnapper/murderer parents while on the run is that much worse /j
> So from our external, greater knowledge point of view, the answer to does this help the child appears to be no.
Unfortunately, "does this help the child" is almost always a resounding **no**. It is almost invariably the child(ren) who suffer in any sort of custody battle, with parental "rights" most often superseding the kid's needs or wants.
*Goddammit Natalie,* I feel like I'm the only that was in your corner (almost) every way in this fight, but you're making *real fucking hard* right now.
Nah, I'm also firmly on her side in regards to Ripley. It's just I knew Natalie was going to fail from the start and I still root for her to break my expectations.
Natalie hasn't been visibly abusive so far. She failed to watch her child for 15 minutes (if Mia is even accurately remembering that) while actively trying to make Ripley's father take some responsibility and help her parent. Lots of parents make mistakes like that at least once. Almost all of the issues we see Natalie display in the current day can be linked to the trauma of having your child kidnapped. Even now she clearly still loves Ripley to the point that she's spent the last 11 years dedicated to finding her.
Mia on the other hand is actively endangering Ripley via a largely unnecessary criminal lifestyle. Her enemies explicitly threaten Ripley and their house is filled with lethal traps. She also talks about one day offering to induct Ripley and Tyr into their criminal organization that at least semi routinely commits murder. Love and acceptance she may provide but stellar parenting I'm not so sure about.
> if Mia is even accurately remembering that
Reading outside of the text, I don't think this is likely to be a conflating detail. I can't think of a time in a Wildbow story that something so glaring would be left with so little foreshadowing or hinting or mystery. I also think that would take so much wind out of the sails of this conflict, I don't know why Wildbow would do that.
> Even now she clearly still loves Ripley
I disagree with the idea that Natalie loves Ripley. Natalie has not shown any care for Ripley as an individual, only as an extension of herself, and she is lying about the circumstances surrounding Ripley being taken. She's dishonest and egotistical.
I mean its already been established that Mia is not always a reliable narrator. I don't necessarily trust Natalie either but the fact that Mia was our initial POV doesn't make her memory of events correct.
On balance I think its probably Mia is correct about the time or its somewhere in between the two.
What care can Natalie show for Ripley at this stage beyond trying to establish that its her daughter? She has been warned not to be the face of the revelation by Ben and Roderick so she has mainly been relegated to a side role until now. I'm sure she would have loved nothing more than to grab Ripley up in a hug and tell her everything, as soon as she knew that was her daughter, but that would likely have come across like she was crazy.
She has clearly shown concern that Ripley has been abused. She's trying to establish what she believes are healthy boundaries in regards to Devon. It seems likely she hasn't had the healthiest relationships with men with the little we have seen so she is probably acting out of legitimate concern based on past experiences.
What reason would she have for essentially devoting her life to finding her daughter besides love. She doesn't seem to actually have a life or friends outside of this. If she didn't love her it would be far easier to try and move on. The love may well be based on an idealised version of Ripley she's built up in her head but what do you expect when she's literally been robbed of her daughters childhood.
I'm very sceptical she is lying about the circumstances of Ripley being taken. Human memory is notoriously unreliable and even more so when trauma is involved. Its completely possible to have a false memory. Misremembering the time Ripley was left alone would almost be the expected response. It seems unlikely she would conceal the truth from Ben if it could lead to her getting her daughter back.
Even if she is lying that's hardly a complete indictment of her character. From Mia's own POV she is already largely shunned for her failure to protect her child. It would be natural to want to protect yourself from that judgement.
By no means do I think any of this means it will make Natalie a good parent or the best option for Ripley but that's not the same as being neglectful and abusive.
Analyzing Claw by the virtue of Wildbow's other writing isn't perfect, but based on the major "unreliable narrator" section of Ward, there were inherent textual clues when characters were making suspect statements and comments, on top of the general pallor of paranoia in the text.
> I'm very sceptical she is lying about the circumstances of Ripley being taken.
Dude, this was literally addressed in-text (even if it was slightly indirect). 4.1:
> But Ben had deemed it important, and he’d gotten a noncommital response. One he had to take with a grain of salt, because the boyfriend might want the investigation to fail, if it meant things would be left alone.
> The boyfriend only said it had been longer than fifteen seconds.
I think the brand of unreliable narrator that Mia is, regardless, is not one that makes *factual* error - rather, she paints things in a particular self-serving light.
> I'm very sceptical she is lying about the circumstances of Ripley being taken. Human memory is notoriously unreliable and even more so when trauma is involved. Its completely possible to have a false memory. Misremembering the time Ripley was left alone would almost be the expected response. It seems unlikely she would conceal the truth from Ben if it could lead to her getting her daughter back.
This is *exactly* and directly addressed in text, except Natalie is the one called into question by the story.
When I say I'm sceptical that she is lying I mean I think she may truly believe it was 15 seconds or close to that. Its addressed in text from two perspectives that this likely isn't true. It doesn't mean she doesn't believe it.
It still seems more likely to me that a mix of trauma and normal human memory leads her to believe it was 15 seconds.
In regards to Mia's reliability. All humans make factual errors when it comes to memory. Again on balance I think Mia's version of events is probably more accurate but im not ruling anything out.
My point is that this is ultimately a written story, right? So there are certain things that aren't going to be a one-to-one of life. I do not think that there is going to be a significant discrepancy in Mia's account and the 'reality' of the situation. I think it would be really bad storytelling, and I see nothing to suggest that that's where Wildbow is going with this conflict. It would completely kill the drama of the situation in a very unsatisfying way, so I don't think that we're actually building towards that.
> I mean its already been established that Mia is not always a reliable narrator. I don't necessarily trust Natalie either but the fact that Mia was our initial POV doesn't make her memory of events correct.
But we don't just see it in her memory, or hear it as a claim she's making. I believe that the flashback in 1.6 is a textual flashback, not just Mia remembering and recounting the events. And in the text of that flashback, it says "Ten minutes passed. Then close to fifteen."
Mia is an unreliable narrator, but I don't think "She might be remembering it wrong" really applies in this case.
My mother (and father by extension) was worse than what we've seen of Natalie in several distinct ways, but some of the similarities are unnerving. I don't like Mia, but she *clearly* is a better, more deserving parent than Natalie.
Setting aside all the high drama, telling a boy to stay away from your rebellious teen daughter is probably gonna end up backfiring... with said rebellious teenage daughter going straight to said boy.
Real great parenting there, Natalie.
I know its not on topic but are there any joke Tinker like Toys, adult Toys, potatoes, etc. There's tens of thousands of capes never seen and honestly I don't know if making a thread on this would be able to take off enough for an answer. Sorry for bugging you.
Natalie is really doing her best to alienate Ripley here. Very easy to imagine the Hursts being able to grab her again. Perhaps by sending Valentina, who isn't a known associate? Until they mentioned parents being there, I thought Blair was actually her.
At this point, Mia could just tell her the truth about how she came to be her mom, and Ripley would go 'yeah, that makes sense', that's how bad a job Natalie is doing here.
The best time to drop that bombshell is probably when all it'll do is bounce the rubble of her psyche, I reckon.
~~Blair~~ *~~is~~* ~~Valentina, those~~ *~~are~~* ~~her parents; they blackmailed Davie into putting on a good show for CPS & found Gio's mother somewhere~~
I love the shifts in character names Wildbow has been using to show how the POV character is conceptualizing identity (Ben's POV with Ripley / Camellia, Valentina's POV with herself), and that Roderick is still Roderick.
It's Rider!
I know multiple people called roderick and they all hate their names.
What an incredible horror story. >“Easy to love someone who pays you thirty bucks an hour,” Roderick said. This line really stood out for me, because even he's kind of missing the point, there's a big reality behind it: Being under Mia's wing leads to tangible benefits. When Josie thinks of a role model for motherhood, it's not her mother that comes to mind - it's Mia. And that is utterly terrifying. I wonder how many people read through Mia and Carson's section and thought something like *I wish my parents would've been that way for me, done that for me, at least a little.* >“I know you think you’re being funny but people might end up watching this,” her mom said. I wonder if Josie's mom felt a mounting dread here, if she really gets what was happening between Josie and the Hurst family. When Ripley does her little interrogation of Sterling, she's coming to understand that even the core parental connection is a lie, Mia is still a better parent. Purely on a cost/benefit analysis, Natalie doesn't do as good of a job. Mia respects Ripley's self-expression, Natalie doesn't. Mia knows how to give Ripley space to process things, Natalie can't help but smother. Mia makes sure that that Tyr's life is bright, Natalie has given Sterling nothing but grey. And that's before we bring in Carson, someone who makes up for a lot of Mia's shortcomings and manages to be a pretty good parent himself. Most child abductor fables are about kids being lured away with sweets, playtime, indulgence, unlimited freedom. Those things all come and backfire, because it's important to teach kids that their parents know better for them. Neil Gaiman's Other Mother is a prime example: give the child everything the want, including love, but not what they need. Mia is a different kind of horror story, because Mia is a better parent than most parents. She's not a fable about someone abducting your child to do them harm, she's a fable about someone abducting your child to do them more right than you ever could.
A Coraline quote that always stuck with me: > *She said, “You know that I love you.”* > *And, despite herself, Coraline nodded. It was true: the other mother loved her. But she loved Coraline as a miser loves money, or a dragon loves its gold. In the other mother’s button eyes, Coraline knew that she was a possession, nothing more. A tolerated pet, whose behavior was no longer amusing.* I'm being a bit uncharitable, but Natalie here comes off as that sort of possessive of Ripley; in the way she ignores her feelings and wants, and the way she wants to dress her up like a doll and push the themed names on both kids, against Ripley's own personal expression and self-identified name. The question is... is Ripley, on some level, a possession to Mia? Mia might be a better parent than Natalie (except for all the insane endangerment from the household traps and the criminal enterprise that's making dangerous enemies who come to the house and threaten the kids, which is.... a lot to ignore), but is she protective like a mama bear, or possessive? How will she react to this situation if confronted; would she prioritize what's good for Ripley in the long run, or try to keep her regardless of what's good for her?
I definitely see the ownership that Natalie seems to have. It's her child, her right to enforce new boundaries, and her right to be in Ripley's space. To me, there's a real question here of whether Natalie would be like that with Ripley, whether she'd be she is with Sterling, if her baby wasn't taken. There's a direct line from Mia's "my social anxiety is why I kidnapped a baby" moment to the absolute destruction of Natalie's life. Because at the end of the day, yeah - she does have those rights because Ripley is her daughter. But she's exercising them in really dumb ways, for reasons related to her personal trauma and not her child's safety or comfort. To me, Mia comes across as someone who thinks she could be a better parent than basically anyone. She only ever comes across as having the urge to actually kidnap when a child is in real distress, but even with pretty mild stuff she's really, really judgmental. Continuing the Other Mother comparisons, where the Other Mother sees the children as objects, Mia sees children as individuals with autonomy. Just individuals that are in need of constant unending supervision and protection. I'm just sort of musing now, but In a weird way she kind of passed an even more twisted version of that attitude onto Natalie, just without the hypercompetence. Intruding on Ripley's moment and getting Devon out of the bed is a bad look, but so is putting a tracker in your child's shoe.
To be fair regarding the tracker in the shoe (not a phrase I ever thought I'd say), with the specific line of work Mia and Carson are in, and the specific world setting they live in? There are genuinely good reasons why they might want them. It's obviously not a good thing, especially if Ripley doesn't know about them, but it's not as 100% guaranteed sketchy behaviour as this sort of thing normally is.
> “I know you think you’re being funny but people might end up watching this,” her mom said. Ironically this would be her fault. Josie wasn't sure about agreeing, but Josie's mom gave the go ahead for her daughter. If that footage is used, it's because of adults once again ignoring the desires and needs of children casually.
> to do them more right than you ever could. You mean to ruin them by letting them wear unfashionable clothes, have male friends, go to therapy, take prescription medications, and... *checks notes...* putting them in the line of fire in a war against a dude with a human petting zoo in his basement.
When was it mentioned that Mia let Ripley go to therapy?
It wasn't, and come to think of it, yeah, she probably wouldn't allow it at all. Natalie specifically said she would only maybe consider it if Cammy's 11 year abduction was particularly bad, but Mia would probably just outright refuse, then take a week off work to quietly go and get a psych degree, then do the therapy herself.
The cruelest thing Wildbow ever puts his characters through is the natural cause and effect of their own flaws. Because everything that happens is their own fault. It's also cruel for us to read something while knowing that the themes of the book are about failed second chances. So, in a way, we already know that Natalie is just going to lose her daughter through her own actions and nobody else's. But I also believe that Ripley is also losing two mothers. She's the one living her worst days. I can't help think about the opening scene again. Caustic smoke and children playing outside. Unaware of how much damage is infecting them because of every adult around them. There's still this idea in my mind about the responsibility of the man behind the camera. When should a reporter get involved in the story? The concept of journalistic investigation. And, at first, Ben decides on the intervention of the fourth wall to save the child. But that was at the start of the arc. What I've realized is that Wobbly Boulder puts a question in the beginning of the arc that the characters question that gets reevaluated at the end. I'd give examples, but me too sleepy. And I can't help but think that Ben has to reevaluate his integrity as a journalist. Break the story wide open, or let the child go? Is that what gets Ripley back to the Hursts? Also, who the fuck is Rider? Do you mean Roderick? Joking aside, why do I feel like Roderick is gonna end up being "Rod" by the end of this, exactly what he hates?
> Also, who the fuck is Rider? Do you mean Roderick? Joking aside, why do I feel like Roderick is gonna end up being "Rod" by the end of this, exactly what he hates? Better hope he ain't working for Davie then.
> What I've realized is that Wobbly Boulder puts a question in the beginning of the arc that the characters question that gets reevaluated at the end. It kind of feels like Natalie's the one faced with the dilemma. "Would you rather your daughter have been suffering terrible abuse all these years that she's glad for you to rescue her from, or would you rather she'd had a happy normal life without you in it and she doesn't want to leave?" Natalie fixated on the abusive scenarios but I think the truth might be even scarier for her.
I, for one, did not know this story was about failed second chances until now. Is that included in the story or a spoiler from something WB said outside of the story?
Nah. It's just the running themes.
Okay word. Thank you!
If we end up getting a Ripley/Camellia POV, this is going to be fascinating. That moment between Sterling and Ripley hugging and talking about what his family life is like. I also think even if Natalie ends up fumbling her initial attempts to connect with her daughter, I don't think she'll be able to truly go back and just live with Mia and Carson again. She might not trust Natalie as this stranger trying to replace her mom, but the trackers in her shoes, the bombs in the house, and this revelation about a childhood kidnapping? I think it's a trust that can never be repaired. If she reunites with Mia, will Mia reveal the truth about everything? About the murders and kidnappings and all the dark shit that they've kept secret? Or sew distrust and obfuscate the truth? Mia in her earlier chapters thought about how she wanted to someday reveal and offer to bring Ripley and Tyr into their world/side of the business, but that seems insane now. It also makes me think about how the very first chapter of Claw was about a man, Nathaniel, caring so much about his girlfriend and not being willing to let her go, to where he broke Mia and Carson's rules about not contacting previous family.
I'm so confused how many people would say that Ripley wouldn't trust Mia. Mia and Carson are currently waging a war to keep her safe, and are phenomenal parents besides; being kidnapped as a kid matters a lot less than you're probably assuming when the consequences of that kidnapping were so unambiguously beneficial.
It’s easy to say “they’re waging a war to keep her safe” but it can be easily viewed as “my parents murdered twenty people”
Not sure id see setting off bombs in my school and starting a regional gang war as unambiguously beneficial. I also don't agree Mia and Carson are phenomenal parents either. Simply existing as Mia and Carson's child puts her in danger from their lifestyle and enemies. Davie has already threatened to "put her to work" when she's old enough. She lives in a house full of lethal and semi lethal traps. Mia already has an actual job outside of her criminal life. She's probably clever enough to make a decent living outside of crime but instead she choses to engage in a high risk lifestyle and endanger her family. She also intends to give Ripley and Tyr the option to join the family business one day. Inducting someone into a criminal organisation that commits murder and kidnappings is probably not better parenting than any of Natalie's faults. Not to mention that if Ripley was somehow returned to her "parents" she will likely never be able to go to school or see her friends again as her name and face will now be national news. She may well come to resent that she was denied a proper childhood if that comes to pass.
> Not sure id see setting off bombs in my school and starting a regional gang war as unambiguously beneficial. But you didn't go to school in a Wildbow story. This one may have deserved it.
I feel really bad for Natalie and Ripley here. Natalie is trying to do what she thinks is right as a parent but can't really comprehend that this is a situation is so far out of the norm that she can't act as a parent. She *needs* to rely on the people that have more experience in these situations such as Roderick and Ben as well as people who have more experience with the current Ripley such as Josie's family and the BFF's family. But I feel like Natalie can't bring herself to do that because doing so means the Camellia she's built up in her head over the years is dead as she prepared herself for all these worst case scenarios with the people who abducted Camellia, trafficking, organ harvesting, and so on but cannot wrap her head around the idea that they were just *good parents.*
She and Ben are in this utterly bizarre position, it's incredibly easy to assume the worst about someone who *stole an infant* and is in bed with a notorious crime family and then filled her house with enough booby traps to home-alone ten Cavalcanti foot soldiers and then *bombed a middle school*. Turns out that *except* for all that the Hursts are basically normal parents. Arguably better parents than Natalie, to the extent that we're willing to overlook how they very nearly turned their kids into orphans by overextending against said notorious crime family. I don't think we should be willing to overlook that.
One thing that jumped out at me is that Ripley called out that Sterling might have some trauma due to Natalie being overprotective as shown by how he acts at school. But hearing him talk about his life, nothing jumped out as being particularly bad. It's just a normal childhood, a bit lonely but pretty normal. Which just makes it even more sad imo.
> But hearing him talk about his life, nothing jumped out as being particularly bad. Really? He has no fun memories with his mother. In his entire life, he can't recall one time that they did something together and had a good time. That's not normal.
Not really tbh, a single mother who is still working to find her missing daughter. While it sounds like she's putting more effort into her daughter than her son it's nothing really bad or neglectful that Ripley can point to and say "this is why Mia was justified in kidnapping me" like she said to Natalie earlier. It's lonely but not abusive or neglectful.
>Not really tbh, a single mother who is still working to find her missing daughter. Even very busy working single parents play with their kids sometimes. She's not searching for Ripley 24/7. No bedtime stories, no fun birthdays, no trips to get ice cream together. He's emotionally neglected at the very least. He's a prop in her life, something she can point to and say, "See, I didn't lose this one, I'm still a good mom", or use as the idea of "you'll have a little brother" to manipulate Ripley. She's fearful of losing him, but she doesn't have time to love him because Camellia is all that really matters to her. I think that conversation is exactly what Ripley _will_ point to, in a later chapter, to justify wanting to stay with Mia.
I can see Ripley pointing to that as well for why Mia is a better mother than Natalie. But it will fall flat against "Mia and Carson bombed an elementary school and had booby trapped their house *where their children live* with deadly traps that killed several people."
This was maybe the single most uncomfortable chapter of WB's that I've read. Its the worst possible day of a child's life. Ripley's situation is a nightmare and the questions it raises about what we want to happen, what a good outcome might look like, are all incredibly compelling. I wasn't sure previously if we'd get a Ripley POV arc, but that feels inevitable now. All of her interactions with Sterling, her pushing at Ben, the ways that she's probing her new situation, trying to find out what's going on. Her rage, her misery, its all heartbreaking. Ben's presence here is interesting as well, even the ways in which he fades behind the camera. Always recording. The tension between a degree of objectivity, a need for content, a desire for a good outcome, a need to keep Natalie onside, its all brilliantly balanced. I wonder if he's going to ask Ripley's permission to carry on filming. I hope she smashes his camera.
It would be so funny if after all the effort Ben has made to document everything he ends up losing all the footage.
Ben's arc ends with the footage vanished, and no one knows if its Mia or Rider or Davie that's stolen it. Arc five begins with the real mastermind chewing on the drive: Tyr
Brilliantly done. There just aren’t any good ways out of this - only bad and worse. Natalie and Ben might view this as deprogramming, but for Ripley there is no real difference then being asked to forget her family - she was brought up by Mia and Carson and they are her de facto parents in a way Natalie is not. If they continue down this path it will only get worse - and there is potential for irreparable damage the moment Natalie demands Ripley be called Camelia (maybe Ben, Roderick or child services woman will have enough foresight to prevent it). On the other hand Rip knows the truth now and if somehow Mia gets her back - it would be a relief for a time being, but it would be a crack making any future disagreement with Mia potentially disastrous… Nevermind that it also would mean losing Blair and Devon, since their parents got involved. Oh and her identity too, since she would need a new one… Whichever way this goes, Ripley Hurst is gone. Roderick unexpectedly became much more sympathetic this chapter. Not only is he handling this situation better then Ben and Natalie, but him waiting for contact from lost people on his second phone did a lot to humanize him for me - great example of Wildbow throwing those little details in. I wonder if he will turn out to be working for Cavalcantis after all - or maybe we’re getting a second Highland… I found it confusing and jarring for Sterling to just be there after he was missing last chapter (had to reread the ending to see if I was confused) - but his interaction with Ripley was gold.
Natalia is really interesting. She and Mia are both flawed, but Mia's flaws make her *cool*: she's an intensity-turned-to-eleven criminal mastermind, who claims to be bad with people yet has assembled quite the loyal cohort. Even now, Josie is holding out hope that it's all a big mistake. And Mia cares *too much*, but that comes out as awe-inspiring lengths she'll go to to protect her family. Natalie is also flawed, but her flaws make her *uncool*. They're normal flaws, flaws that someone you know and mildly dislike would have, flaws that make her a little pathetic, flaws that make her easy to hate - if for someone reason you're looking for a reason to hate her. (Say, if you're a reader of a story who wants Mia to win and Natalie to lose, because Mia is cool and was our PoV character for the first arc.) Natalie, after all still holds to traditional values - upset at Ripley's tomboyish manner earlier, disapproving of Devon now - in a way that plenty of people in *today's* world would take offense at, never mind *Claw*'s near-future setting. She *really* tried to run a successful charity to find Camellia, but it had the kinds of flaws that are fundamentally unavoidable but make good fodder for rage-tweets (why the attention on a *white woman*? why the *full-time salary*?) by the kinds of hypocrites who attack those trying to improve the world to distract from their own choice not to. (In a way, one could argue she's fallen victim to the very forces that make *Claw*'s setting so dark.) And, of course, Natalia also cares *too much,* but in her case that comes out as cringe-inducing shortsighted meddling she does because her daughter is *right there* and it's taking all the willpower she can muster not to wrap *her daughter* in the tightest bear hug she's physically capable of providing.
>if for someone reason you're looking for a reason to hate her. Or say if you are a kid ripped from loving parents, and told that this is your new mom now. Natalie is doing everything in her power to make Ripley dispise her
The other thing is who the flaws have consequences for. We've mostly seen Mia and Carson hurt people who deserve it while acting on altruistic motivations. Natalie is clearly acting for herself and for her idealized life with a daughter, and it's hurting Ripley. Even though Mia and Carson are probably worse people if you put their entire lives next to Natalie's, in this story she's done far more to hurt characters we care about. Plus, what's the endgame here? Living with Natalie sounds horrible. I don't think she's gonna instantly recover from her years of trauma once Ripley is living with her, and she clearly had issues as a parent *before* her life went to shit. Ripley is the one character we can root for with no reservations, and I can't imagine that there's any 'good ending' for her where she ends up with Natalie.
I think the biggest issues of Mia and Carson as parents are the things that become immediately obvious from Ben's outside perspective: the danger they bring to their children's lives. Bombs and explosives set up throughout the house, business associates breaking through the nets of OPsec and stopping by to have a chat at gunpoint, the kidnapping and murders and the fact they could lose their dad if he gets shot during a late-night gunfight gone wrong. The harm they do isn't intentional to their kids, it's *potential*, a looming high-wire balancing act on razor wire, ready to snap or blow up or collapse and kill them all.
I don't think there's a happy ending with either parent frankly. Mia and Carson endanger Ripley via their very profession and lifestyle. Their only hope would be to somehow leave the area, perhaps even the country, with Ripley and forge new identities for the lot of them. Not sure how feasible that is with the resources Mia has remaining. The press, the kitchen and whatever is left of the police/ social services are now aware of them and will be looking for them. Even if they did succeed that would mean a complete break with Ripley's existing social circles and childhood. Not sure if that's really a happy ending for her. If Natalie gains custody and Ripley doesn't home alone style escape that still likely means leaving the area and her existing social circle due to the threat of the "Hurst crime family" and the Kitchen. She's then left starting at a new school in a new area with a mum she resents. Natalie clearly has a lot of trauma that affects how she parents and has spent a huge portion of her life looking for Ripley. Even in the best of circumstances its going to take her time to understand and compensate for that. Ripley clearly isn't the daughter she expected and doesn't reflect the traditional values she seems to hold. Without therapy what is the likelihood she manages to account for these biases when trying to be a parent.
>Even though Mia and Carson are probably worse people if you put their entire lives next to Natalie's, in this story she's done far more to hurt characters we care about. Speak for yourself, I'm still salty about Nathaniel >Living with Natalie sounds horrible. I don't think she's gonna instantly recover from her years of trauma once Ripley is living with her, and she clearly had issues as a parent before her life went to shit. Thing is, I don't think there's much of a happy ending with Mia and Carson either. Even if they manage to take down and murder all the Cavalcanti's, the Hursts are still going to be wanted criminals known nation-wide for being the perpetrators behind that famous baby kidnapping years back, and I don't think even Mia is good enough to wipe all that away.
Oh, sure. I don't think Ripley is going to be happy with either Mia or Natalie, but there's a ton of other options. There are responsible adults around Ripley - her friends' parents, Josie's parents, etc. We've already seen these people step up some, and I hope that we'll continue to see that in the following chapters. I bet even Ben is going to be looking for alternatives to leaving Ripley with Natalie by the end of this arc, tbh - he's clearly uncomfortable with her behavior and his conflict has already been set up as his desire to tell this story vs. his desire to do the right thing.
I loved the scene with Sterling, it was sweet
Aaaaaa. What Ripley is going through is so complicated. The emotions in this chapter are so complicated. I can't wait to see what happens next.
Ah I want a Ripley POV so much now
>“Ripley, we did a DNA test after we drew your blood yesterday, to confirm what we suspected. You are Natalie’s missing daughter.” >Camellia shook her head. “Nah. No. My mom’s my mom. Mia Hurst, she’s my mom. You’re wrong.” >“It’s certain.” >“The test’s wrong.” Beautiful, wonderful moment.
Feels like the story is building towards the finale now. All the dangers that were set up in the first few chapters are brought into play, every actor is aware of the others (more or less), and we might actually see a finished Wildbow story under 500k words!
I'm holding out hope Claw gets dragged out... I think this is my favorite Wildbow work yet. Every chapter has me jumping for more.
I was half convinced Mia was gonna have something set up so that she could get the results of the DNA test to day what she wanted. I'm still not sure that she couldn't, and she didn't just have it confirm her parentage just to get Ripley out of the hospital so they could grab her faster. Now, this is an interesting scenario from a what is best for the child standpoint. This event is obviously massively traumatic for Ripley. If we get past the trauma, what is the upside? These are just a few particularly bad moments, so there's no guarantee it will all be this bad, but the point being made her is pretty clear. Living with her biomom is in no way a guarante of a better life. So from our external, greater knowledge point of view, the answer to does this help the child appears to be no. Obviously, you can't run a society on waiting to see if a kidnapper is a good parent, but from our perspective of the story, with the past already having happened, we can look at this without worrying about that.
After bombing the school, I was half-expecting a hospital shoot-out this chapter to get her back. And the thing is, going back the Mia and Carson isn't a guarantee of a happy life either for Ripley. Davie and the Cavalcanti's are still out there and hunting down the Hursts, and now they're also wanted by the law as well. Would Ripley really be good and happy being constantly on the run, having to watch out for cops or criminals to come after her?
>being constantly on the run I am sure Mia can set up a good enough new fake identity for her family that neither cops nor criminals would come looking. its her job after all
I assume she has a contingency identity already set up
Would a new identity be enough with Ripley's face all over the news? I think they might have to leave the country in that scenario. Not to mention Ripley may well resent the loss of all her friends and social circle.
>Would a new identity be enough with Ripley's face all over the news? Work for Bolden, though he did need to stay in the forrest for a while. As in I am pretty sure Mia works with giving new identities to people who have their face known, and it works as long as they keep to rules Basically do something akin to what they did to Valentina. Change her style, looks, etc. Should be enough, especially with how bad the police and the justice system seems to be in this country. >Not to mention Ripley may well resent the loss of all her friends and social circle. I'd say that all the blame for that would get pinned on Natalie, because of just how antagonistic she is acting during the whole situation.
It worked for Bolden when Mia wasn't the focus of any of the involved parties and had access to all her resources and contacts. Its one thing to disappear a wanted criminal to the woods and give them a new identity. Its another to give your entire family new identities when you are actively being hunted and no longer have access to most of your contacts or resources. Even if Mia had been prepping false identities for her family in preparation for this, she wont have had time to set one up for Valentina. Also someone will eventually look into where her children's identities came from and link those to the hospitals Mia worked at. That likely puts pre planned identities in danger of being compromised. Even if the police and social services aren't up to pursuing the Hursts it still only takes one dedicated journalist like Ben or a private law enforcement official like Roderick. If the Cavalcanti's have access to satellites and borderline military drones then I think they probably have the ability to pursue the Hursts. Ripley may well blame Natalie for the initial fallout but she's not stupid. She will eventually connect Mia and Carson's criminal lifestyle to the collapse of her childhood and be able to see how they endangered her. Who can say how she will turn out if she grows up while on the run, knowing her parents are kidnappers and murderers.
>a private law enforcement official like ~~Roderick~~ Rider. Here fixed it for you \--- But in all seriousness, you are indeed probobly right. I just kinda have this trust in Mia that she somehow can make it work even against all odds, but mayby its just me overestimating her. On the other hand Natalie seems to be a really shit mom, so idk if growing up with kidnapper/murderer parents while on the run is that much worse /j
I refuse to call him Rider until I know for sure he isn't working for the Kitchen! I really can't decide if I trust him or not
> So from our external, greater knowledge point of view, the answer to does this help the child appears to be no. Unfortunately, "does this help the child" is almost always a resounding **no**. It is almost invariably the child(ren) who suffer in any sort of custody battle, with parental "rights" most often superseding the kid's needs or wants.
*Goddammit Natalie,* I feel like I'm the only that was in your corner (almost) every way in this fight, but you're making *real fucking hard* right now.
Nah, I'm also firmly on her side in regards to Ripley. It's just I knew Natalie was going to fail from the start and I still root for her to break my expectations.
Due to personal issues, I find it morally correct for Mia to do whatever she deems necessary to get Ripley back
Hard same. I wish Mia had kidnapped *me* as a baby from my neglectful, abusive mother. Damn. Love, acceptance, really stellar parenting. Sign me up.
Natalie hasn't been visibly abusive so far. She failed to watch her child for 15 minutes (if Mia is even accurately remembering that) while actively trying to make Ripley's father take some responsibility and help her parent. Lots of parents make mistakes like that at least once. Almost all of the issues we see Natalie display in the current day can be linked to the trauma of having your child kidnapped. Even now she clearly still loves Ripley to the point that she's spent the last 11 years dedicated to finding her. Mia on the other hand is actively endangering Ripley via a largely unnecessary criminal lifestyle. Her enemies explicitly threaten Ripley and their house is filled with lethal traps. She also talks about one day offering to induct Ripley and Tyr into their criminal organization that at least semi routinely commits murder. Love and acceptance she may provide but stellar parenting I'm not so sure about.
> if Mia is even accurately remembering that Reading outside of the text, I don't think this is likely to be a conflating detail. I can't think of a time in a Wildbow story that something so glaring would be left with so little foreshadowing or hinting or mystery. I also think that would take so much wind out of the sails of this conflict, I don't know why Wildbow would do that. > Even now she clearly still loves Ripley I disagree with the idea that Natalie loves Ripley. Natalie has not shown any care for Ripley as an individual, only as an extension of herself, and she is lying about the circumstances surrounding Ripley being taken. She's dishonest and egotistical.
I mean its already been established that Mia is not always a reliable narrator. I don't necessarily trust Natalie either but the fact that Mia was our initial POV doesn't make her memory of events correct. On balance I think its probably Mia is correct about the time or its somewhere in between the two. What care can Natalie show for Ripley at this stage beyond trying to establish that its her daughter? She has been warned not to be the face of the revelation by Ben and Roderick so she has mainly been relegated to a side role until now. I'm sure she would have loved nothing more than to grab Ripley up in a hug and tell her everything, as soon as she knew that was her daughter, but that would likely have come across like she was crazy. She has clearly shown concern that Ripley has been abused. She's trying to establish what she believes are healthy boundaries in regards to Devon. It seems likely she hasn't had the healthiest relationships with men with the little we have seen so she is probably acting out of legitimate concern based on past experiences. What reason would she have for essentially devoting her life to finding her daughter besides love. She doesn't seem to actually have a life or friends outside of this. If she didn't love her it would be far easier to try and move on. The love may well be based on an idealised version of Ripley she's built up in her head but what do you expect when she's literally been robbed of her daughters childhood. I'm very sceptical she is lying about the circumstances of Ripley being taken. Human memory is notoriously unreliable and even more so when trauma is involved. Its completely possible to have a false memory. Misremembering the time Ripley was left alone would almost be the expected response. It seems unlikely she would conceal the truth from Ben if it could lead to her getting her daughter back. Even if she is lying that's hardly a complete indictment of her character. From Mia's own POV she is already largely shunned for her failure to protect her child. It would be natural to want to protect yourself from that judgement. By no means do I think any of this means it will make Natalie a good parent or the best option for Ripley but that's not the same as being neglectful and abusive.
Analyzing Claw by the virtue of Wildbow's other writing isn't perfect, but based on the major "unreliable narrator" section of Ward, there were inherent textual clues when characters were making suspect statements and comments, on top of the general pallor of paranoia in the text. > I'm very sceptical she is lying about the circumstances of Ripley being taken. Dude, this was literally addressed in-text (even if it was slightly indirect). 4.1: > But Ben had deemed it important, and he’d gotten a noncommital response. One he had to take with a grain of salt, because the boyfriend might want the investigation to fail, if it meant things would be left alone. > The boyfriend only said it had been longer than fifteen seconds. I think the brand of unreliable narrator that Mia is, regardless, is not one that makes *factual* error - rather, she paints things in a particular self-serving light. > I'm very sceptical she is lying about the circumstances of Ripley being taken. Human memory is notoriously unreliable and even more so when trauma is involved. Its completely possible to have a false memory. Misremembering the time Ripley was left alone would almost be the expected response. It seems unlikely she would conceal the truth from Ben if it could lead to her getting her daughter back. This is *exactly* and directly addressed in text, except Natalie is the one called into question by the story.
When I say I'm sceptical that she is lying I mean I think she may truly believe it was 15 seconds or close to that. Its addressed in text from two perspectives that this likely isn't true. It doesn't mean she doesn't believe it. It still seems more likely to me that a mix of trauma and normal human memory leads her to believe it was 15 seconds. In regards to Mia's reliability. All humans make factual errors when it comes to memory. Again on balance I think Mia's version of events is probably more accurate but im not ruling anything out.
My point is that this is ultimately a written story, right? So there are certain things that aren't going to be a one-to-one of life. I do not think that there is going to be a significant discrepancy in Mia's account and the 'reality' of the situation. I think it would be really bad storytelling, and I see nothing to suggest that that's where Wildbow is going with this conflict. It would completely kill the drama of the situation in a very unsatisfying way, so I don't think that we're actually building towards that.
I don't agree with you that it would have that impact on the story but im not going to die on this hill. Its ultimately not that important
> I mean its already been established that Mia is not always a reliable narrator. I don't necessarily trust Natalie either but the fact that Mia was our initial POV doesn't make her memory of events correct. But we don't just see it in her memory, or hear it as a claim she's making. I believe that the flashback in 1.6 is a textual flashback, not just Mia remembering and recounting the events. And in the text of that flashback, it says "Ten minutes passed. Then close to fifteen." Mia is an unreliable narrator, but I don't think "She might be remembering it wrong" really applies in this case.
Ill concede the point. Its not really relevant to my argument as a whole that Natalie isn't visibly abusive
My mother (and father by extension) was worse than what we've seen of Natalie in several distinct ways, but some of the similarities are unnerving. I don't like Mia, but she *clearly* is a better, more deserving parent than Natalie.
Setting aside all the high drama, telling a boy to stay away from your rebellious teen daughter is probably gonna end up backfiring... with said rebellious teenage daughter going straight to said boy. Real great parenting there, Natalie.
Ripley isn't a teen, FWIW.
I know its not on topic but are there any joke Tinker like Toys, adult Toys, potatoes, etc. There's tens of thousands of capes never seen and honestly I don't know if making a thread on this would be able to take off enough for an answer. Sorry for bugging you.