Livingston parish jail

Livingston Parish

2019.09.10 11:17 ScottishGinger Livingston Parish

Welcome to /LivingstonParish the home of All things related to Livingston Parish, Louisiana!
[link]


2023.01.30 22:34 Few-Temperature-8965 If your in Louisiana , Livingston parish just announced special hearing tomorrow at 6pm for kratom ban , please be there.

submitted by Few-Temperature-8965 to KratomKorner [link] [comments]


2023.01.30 21:01 Direct-Caterpillar77 OOP and her coworker from hell, The Rachel Trilogy

I am not The OOP, OOP is SayerSong
My "Catholic" coworker thought the church should foot the bill Feb 12, 2022
So as I have stated before, I have, for lack of a better word, lived an VERY interesting life. OH the stories I can (and will) tell. For now though, I will stick to the time I worked for a small Catholic newspaper. Now, just a disclaimer, I, myself, am NOT Catholic. But I luckily (well, at first), that did not stop me from being hired. This was both a blessing, in that it paid the bills and I got to do what I loved as the sole Graphic Designer, and a curse, in that I worked with some over the top people, including one that kept trying to "convert" me, a woman who was the epitome of being a "Karen" years before being a "Karen" was even a thing, and a man who was a deacon, who literally spearheaded a campaign with a subordinate of his to gaslight me, and then went on to harass another female worker as well, along with stealing commissions from yet another subordinate.
This story involves the "Karen," whom we will call Rachel (not her real name). Rachel had been hired as a secretary and additional receptionist (we were a small office of up to 10-12 people max at any given time). When she came on, she was married and had a child. Like me, she was initially not Catholic, but later became Catholic. I mention this, because it is important in the grand scheme of things. See, the only reason she became Catholic (and she openly admitted this to me and others in the office that WERE all Catholic and had been for most of their lives, if not all), is because she found out that by her and her son being Catholic, she could get the church to foot the bill for her sending her son to a Catholic private school, instead of a public one. She did this because she wanted a private education for her son, but didn't want to pay for it.
So she went through RCIA and had him go through RCIC and the whole 9 yards, then told their church that they "couldn't afford" to send him to Catholic school and got the church to pay for it instead (Catholic churches will help parishioners that want to, but can't afford to send their kids to Catholic schools, do so by paying for the school themselves, out of the money that has been donated by other parishioners).
So she got what she wanted. This frustrated a fellow co-worker when she found out, because she had been their sponsor and thought Rachel had been sincere in her wish to be Catholic. During this time, Rachel made it all but abundantly clear that she only plays "Catholic" when she needs to, so as to get what she wants or needs, like that money for the school, but has no intention of actually living the life of a Catholic. Now, I had no intention of living life as a Catholic either, so I can understand that part. But then again, I never had any intention of becoming a Catholic, and they all knew this.
Whenever Rachel's son needed to buy books, or get money for extra curricular activities, or lunch money or field trips, etc., Rachel would immediately go to her church's parish office, looking her poorest and most "vulnerable" and ask them to cover the amount. And they always did. Again, pissing off out fellow co-worker who was a member of the same parish and had sponsored them.
We all knew that Rachel's husband made a decent living, but apparently he either didn't know what she was really doing, or didn't care. Due to what would happen a few years later, I am guessing that he didn't know and thought that his money was paying for the school and all the amenities. Because while their son (who was a nice kid actually. and so was the husband the few times I meant them, and he did love his family), was getting all this paid for by basically everyone else, because of their "poor" status, Rachel was ... getting tanned and pampered. Yes. Rachel had started spending almost all her lunches either going to a tanning salon, getting $200-300 manicures and pedicures, getting some tattoos on her ankles and wrists, getting her hair professionally done and kept up on a weekly basis, and getting spa treatments at least once every two weeks. Basically, all the money she spent on her own personal upkeep would have been MORE than enough to cover her son's schooling at the private Catholic school.
What made it all the more ridiculous is that this woman went to tan so often that at one point she went past the normal orangish leathery look and started looking GREY. I kid you not. She had grey undertones to her tanning. Not fully grey, just enough of a grey undertone to make several of us question if she was starting to turn into a zombie or something. I do think my co-worker tried to tell the church, but without proof that Rachel was actively trying to scam them, and with Rachel "proving" that she was "poor" due to "bills," and them wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt, nothing ever came of it.
It, of course, then came as no surprise (at least to me) later, that she decided her husband no longer made enough money, was no longer "worth her time" and decided to actively seek out an affair because she wanted "something better" solidified, before fully giving up her cash cow, as it were. But that is another story that I will tell later.
Relevant comments from OOP
You would think. To this day, I have absolutely NO IDEA how she managed to get all that financial assistance from the church without all that proof.
And that's the point. If the church itself (as the business it essentially is) was the only "victim", it might not have been quite so bad. But she was essentially scamming all the other church goers that had donated and thought that their money was going to help kids that really needed it, and not a family that didn't. Her actions affected a LOT of people in that parish.
Yeah. Unfortunately this all happened shortly after the initial child-abuse scandal erupted (and there were a LOT more dioceses and archdioceses involved than a lot of people realized), and so they had bigger "concerns" on their hands. And no, that was NOT them trying to help all the victims. It was basically a stage of "Everyone cover your butts before they find out we were also involved!!!" type of situation. NOT the church's finest moment by far.
Except when you realize that the money the church was using was money donated by other church goers and was meant to help kids of families that legitimately could not afford to go to a Catholic school otherwise. So this was not just her scamming the church, but ultimately affected many other people as well.
How my coworker went from plotter to victim Feb 14, 2022
So, I have previously mentioned my co-worker "Rachel" from when I was working at a small Catholic newspaper, and how she had basically conned church into footing the bill for her son's education (something she and her husband could afford to pay out of their own pocket), while spending the money she had on herself. I mentioned that I did not (and do not) believe that he knew about this at the time, and here is the reason for that. I feel the need to once again reiterate the sheer entitlement of this woman. I mean, you could fill an entire MOUNTAIN RANGE with her entitlement and audacity.
You see, as time went on, and Rachel got more tanned, got her tattoos (which admittedly were nice ones), got her expensive mani-pedi's and her almost "Karen" hair cut, etc., she also decided that her nice husband was just no longer worthy of her. She began complaining constantly about how he didn't make enough money, that she felt she was now "too good" for him, how she had previously dated a local well-known business owner that she was sure she could still have, even though that business owner was married (not necessarily a lie as everyone in the area knew this business owner had a propensity for having extra-marital affairs. Sort of an open secret). She then started bragging that she could have any guy she wanted, and would even mention that she was starting to go onto dating sites (this was back before Tinder and Whatsapp, when you had to use Matchdotcom or eHarmony, etc.).
Of course, she would stop the cheating talk whenever her son was around (since it was an individual building, with a small staff, and a decent amount of space, we were allowed to bring in our children if we needed to. Especially since all everyone's children tended to be well-behaved and were old enough by this point to keep themselves busy and no one really took advantage of this). So her son, who was a preteen, would come by the office after school on a lot of days and wait for his dad to pick him up. During this time, however, while she would stop with the cheating talk, she would still make thinly veiled insults and derogatory comments about her husband IN FRONT OF THEIR SON, who would try to ignore her, but you could see he was uncomfortable with it.
When her husband would come pick the son up, she would ALWAYS find SOMETHING to criticize the poor man over. He was a couple of minutes late (LITERALLY he was 2-3 minutes late once and she blew up at him in front of everyone), he didn't pick up an earlier call fast enough, he was supposed to grab something from the store, but it was wrong, he wasn't dressed nice enough (he was in casual clothes on a day off, but it was still decent looking), he was dressed TOO nice (if he had just gotten off work), not "bright" enough or smart enough, etc. I mean, this woman was doing everything in her power to emotionally wreck this man, who was a very nice man. She even stated that he was always treating her nicely and it IRRITATED HER, because it made her feel like he "wasn't a real man"? Because he REMEMBER birthday's, anniversaries, got her flowers or presents, etc.
People, I WISH I had a guy in my life that would treat me HALF as well as this man treated Rachel. This behavior would get worse all the time. At one point, she got mad and spent the entire day at the office ranting and raving because she tried to make him jealous over a stranger and he DIDN'T ATTACK THE GUY. That would be like, common sense? BTW, her making him jealous was to "gush" over the way the guy looked. Instead, her husband just seemed defeated by her comments (by this point she had eroded away most of his confidence), and walked away.
Now by this point, she has really started running their finances into the ground with all her "me, me, me" pamperings and purchases, and he has FINALLY started to notice and get some of his shiny spine back. He starts insisting that she cut back on spending. She can't stand for this, so she decides she needs a "real" man who makes "real" money and will lavish her with anything she wants at any given time.
Enter AP. She finds the perfect "patsy" if you will (though I still am not sure who was really conning/using who in this relationship), on one of her dating sites. Only problem is that he is from Canada, and we are Mid-west USA. So start the long-distance, fully emotional affair. She would gush about him at the office, printed out the photos of himself that he sent her, and talk about how wonderfully attentive he was, how attractive he was, and how "RICH AND SUCCESSFUL" he was. Please note, this is IMPORTANT LATER.
Now, I myself had been trying some online dating and even an in-person matchmaking business around this time, so I was already having enough issues with the messes I had to clean up from the creeps I kept attracting, some of which were downright frightening. So I will admit that I was already jaded with the belief that there were a lot of scammers and liars that would use these venues to prey on easy targets. Thus, I was probably more than a little biased for this next part. Feel free to call me an AH for it, but I DID NOT TRUST THIS MAN. On ANY level. It took her a while to even get the first picture of him and that first pic was almost a glorified headshot. Like you see in a school yearbook (only older, like a teacher). It was apparently very recent, and he looked very healthy in it. Again, this is IMPORTANT LATER.
She said he was just getting out of a long marriage himself, and was going through a divorce and so he understood where she was coming from in regards to her own currently still ongoing, yet unhappy marriage.
After a few months pass and many more pics of him looking fine and dandy, I come into the office one morning to see her standing by the copier in TEARS. Utterly despondent. The reason? He had given her some bad news. Apparently he had been trying to figure out how to tell her. ... He had brain cancer and six months to live.
Yeah. Again, I am probably the AH here, and definitely jaded by the liars I have encountered and seen my friends encounter, because I had an ex and two of my friends had exes by this point, who had ALL THREE, at different points in time, pulled the "I have cancer" card to either try to guilt us into continuing to date them after we had broken up, or in one friend's case, as an excuse to break up with her. Also, I have had previous co-workers and family with cancer, and when it got that serious, they did NOT look that healthy. I tried to tell her that, but she refused to believe me. She said he wanted to come see her soon so they could consummate their relationship "before it was too late." So I just shut up about it, but refused to trust in this. I was positive that sooner or later, the other shoe would drop.
Anyway, SHE, bought him tickets to come see her, paid for a hotel for him to stay in, etc. NOW, remember that this guy was supposed to be "RICH AND SUCCESSFUL." But apparently all his money was tied up in his treatments, divorce and all this other stuff, and he couldn't pay for anything. I began to see a bit of karma here.
So he comes to visit (which did surprise me and make me feel a little bit guilty about thinking he may have been taking advantage of and scamming her), especially as he did actually match the photos he had sent. And she BROUGHT HIM TO THE OFFICE ALONG WITH HER SON. WOAH BOY. Remember the co-worker from the last post, that was Rachel's sponsor to become Catholic? She lit off! She was the assistant editor to the paper, and for all intents and purposes, second in charge (if you ignored the actual diocese and focused solely on in-office staff). She reamed Rachel up one side and down the other over this.
She basically told Rachel that while she could NOT tell Rachel NOT to have an affair, or what to do or not do in her private life, she COULD tell her that not only was it extremely inappropriate to bring her AP to the office, but that as a Catholic business, that was "family orientated," it would look bad on business as a whole. What if the Archbishop walked in while Rachel was "flaunting her AP around the office?" Nope. As long as Rachel was still married, she was NOT to bring any AP to the office. When Rachel tried to talk to our editor about it, who was himself a rather leaned back guy, he just reiterated what our co-worker had told Rachel before. NO AP IN THE OFFICE. She was not happy, but he never came by again.
Anyway, the trip lasted a week or so and another few months of her flying him out on her dime, and him needing assistance with this brand new miracle treatment that "cured" him of his cancer, and all hell finally broke loose.
Remember when I mentioned that her husband had started asking her to limit her spending? Well, turns out that he had also started paying closer attention to that spending. Even more so after AP had started coming for monthly-twice monthly weekend visits. And he was not happy with what he discovered. Namely that all the money he had been giving her for their son's education was NOT going to the school (she was still having the church pay all of that), but that now she was spending more on online dating sites and then on bring her AP from Canada once- or twice a month for a weekend at a time.
I guess he must have wanted to wait a while to get all his ducks in a row, because he never actually confronted her about it. I do know she got a bit worried at one point that he was distancing himself from her and seemed to have become very cold, but she couldn't figure out WHY because she honestly believed (YES, she STATED THIS) that "he was too stupid to notice her having an affair."
So one fine fall day it happened. I was in the back, in my office, eating lunch while reading the non-Catholic paper (as the graphic designer, I had a large room with 3 computers for my own work space, because it would become the space where we would put the paper together and when deadlines would loom, several people might all be back there at once. So essentially, I had the largest "office" in the building all to myself most of the time), when the scream issued from up front.
When I say everyone came running out, I do not jest. This scream had to have been heard in INDIA. And it wasn't frightened, or sad. It was INDIGNENT and ANGRY. We rush out to see a gentleman in a suit leaving the building and Rachel clutching a batch of papers, red in the face and looking like she is trying to strangle a rock for blood. She had just been served divorce papers. And she was having NONE OF IT. Somehow, she managed to convince herself that SHE would be the one to serve them when SHE was ready, and she had NOT been ready just yet, because she was waiting for her AP to propose to her (he actually did propose to her a while later, again, making me feel guilty for thinking he was a scammer) and with her OWN list of demands, etc. Among the divorce papers? Proof of her affair. Yeah. Rachel did NOT see that coming.
Now, you would think that this would be the end, and that Rachel would be HAPPY to let her "not worthy" husband go, so she could be with her "perfect" AP, but NO. If that were the case, then Rachel would not be nearly the entitled person that she was. She was NOT going to go down without a fight. She was going to "prove" that she was the "real victim" in all this. Even if it meant trying to commit fraud and trying to convince me to "give her forgery lessons." But that, dear ones, is a story for another day.
Relevant comments from OOP
Now, you would think that this would be the end, and that Rachel would be HAPPY to let her "not worthy" husband go, so she could be with her "perfect" AP, but NO. If that were the case, then Rachel would not be nearly the entitled person that she was. She was NOT going to go down without a fight. She was going to "prove" that she was the "real victim" in all this. Even if it meant trying to commit fraud and trying to convince me to "give her forgery lessons." But that, dear ones, is a story for another day.
She worked there for about 5 years, I think. The saga reached over the last 3 and a half to 4 years. For about the first year she was actually a pretty normal person. Or so we thought. I think the thing that finally got her fired was when she threatened to sue yet another co-worker's new husband because SHE hit our co-worker's car when trying to pull out of a parking space, that she had been leaving her car in, outside of business hours. That was sort of the beginning of the end for her.
Not for her. She was Catholic in name only, as a way to get the local parish church she attended to pay for her son's private schooling, so she could use the money she "saved" on herself.
EXACTLY! That was essentially what I kept expecting to happen! I still think he was basically bilking her. I mean, his cancer, that was supposed to "kill him in 6 months" was "miraculously healed" by a couple of well placed "injections". Um, NO. Not buying it.
My entitled coworker asked me for "forgery lessons" Feb 17, 2022
Okay. I have mentioned my entitled co-worker Rachel from my days working at a small Catholic newspaper before, but for this and upcoming stories, I think it is time to introduce the rest of the "circus" as it were. The ones that were working there, AT THIS TIME, are as follows (all names have been changed to protect both the innocent AND the guilty). People who worked here previous to this, and people who started after this point, will not be mention yet, as they are not relative to the story at this time.
The Archbishop: Our publisher, who did not come to the newspaper office that often and really doesn't feature in this story, but I wanted it to be understood that yes, there are three people that our editor answers to, as the newspaper IS considered part of the Archdiocese organizational structure. The other two that the editor is also responsible for answering to are the Chancellor and Vic-Chancellor who work directly below that Archbishop, but don't have any "official newspaper title."
Tom: Our mostly beloved, if a little dense at times, Editor and Chief, who was suffering some serious on/off health issues (important as it explains why so many rotten things happened under his watch, that he had missed).
Jane: Our then Assistant (or Associate as the titled changed at one point) Editor, who also sponsored Rachel during her RCIA and switch to Catholicism. She was basically the one in charge at this time, as Tom was often out of office due to his health issues.
Roger: A deacon and newly hired Advertising Exec who had not yet settled into his toxic, misogynistic, manipulative, thieving, gas-lighting ways yet. He was still getting a feel for how much he could get away with, and Jane was still able to provide a nice buffer between he and I at this point.
Lindsey: A writephotographer
Marcy: A full-time employee who split her work between part-time writephotographer, as well as part-time advertising associate working under Roger.
Rachel: A long-time receptionist/secretary who shared duties with Geena and was extremely entitled. She had a Soon to be Ex-Husband (STBX), a son and an Affair Partner (AP).
Geena: Another receptionist/secretary who shared duties with Rachel and had been working there for about a year and a half to two years by this point. Also worth noting that she was newly engaged to her long-time boyfriend (BF).
Kathy: Our office manager
And yours truly, me, the Graphic Designer.
There were others that would come and go at this time, but they were usually either people that were temps to help during peek printing times, freelancers that would help write/take photos, or our IT guy that would come in as needed. Basically, none of them worked IN the office on a regular basis. Anyway, I digress.
When we last left off, Rachel had been served divorce papers at the office and she was LIVID to say the least. And she spent the next several days letting us know this. Everyday, as she tried to get things organized, she was yelling and snapping and throwing a fit. At us, at customers, at advertisers, at pretty much everyone. She even verbally accosted a few priests and a nun to complain about her "horrible husband" and ask how she could stop this, since divorce is not readily recognized in the Catholic Church and an annulment is usually needed. Jane constantly had to tell her to cool it.
At one point she even started telling Geena that she should just break up with her BF, and not get married, as marriage was horrible, men were horrible, she wouldn't be able to trust her husband, and would just be worthless like all the others (mind you she was still singing the praises of AP at this point). Well, Jane finally had it, and the next time Tom was in, Jane went to him about all this. Because Rachel was actively trying to undermine Geena's engagement and it was making Geena VERY uncomfortable. And Geena didn't even talk about it all that much. But even the sight of her engagement ring would set Rachel off.
So Tom called Rachel into his office and basically told her that she had two choices. She could stop snapping at everyone and stop trying to convince Geena that marriage was bad, or she could just quit now. Because if she didn't stop those two things, she WOULD be fired.
She was smart enough to know that while Jane did NOT have the authority to fire her, Tom DID, and WOULD. So she stopped snapping so much, and stop deriding marriage in front of Geena. You'd think it would be all good at that point, right? We would FINALLY get a break from all the drama? NOPE. Get your popcorn out folks. Cause shit was about it hit the fan.
Rachel had decided to take ALL her pent up anger and frustrations and laser focus them onto ONE GOAL and ONE GOAL ONLY. She wanted REVENGE. So she decided to put all, and I mean ALL, her energy into making her STBX the most miserable man on earth. Though I am pretty sure that by this point, she had already previously succeeded.
Now, STBX, not being nearly as stupid as Rachel thought, did stay in the house and Rachel was the one forced out. So she went to stay at a hotel. I believe it was one of those where you could basically rent it like an apartment for a week at a time, no lease needed, and a kitchenette included. And they also split custody of their son 50/50 during this time. But her being without her house, her access to his money (as he had cut her off from his paycheck, with the exception of a small bit for child support even though he was not required yet), and her having to use her OWN money to buy things, all just added fuel to the fire of her wanting to get back at STBX.
Though it was not initially much of a revenge plan, as it basically consisted of her trying to take him for everything he owned, under the guise of deserving both alimony and child support, and was positive she could get full custody and the house. She decided that while tanning and constant hair cuts/dye jobs, were a continued must, she would forgo the weekly mani/pedis and twice monthly spa treatments. Instead she started looking for lawyers. Any that would explain to her that she was highly unlikely to get alimony under the circumstances (as she had been employed for several years, was NOT a stay at home mom, and had a good enough skill set and work history to remain employed or get a new job), she would dismiss from consideration almost immediately.
She was GOING to get HER alimony. She did eventually settle on a lawyer who was willing to do what she asked and try to bilk him for everything. So with that done, she started gathering all financial records, all past bank accounts, all information she could get. She started bringing all of this paperwork to the office, and anytime the phones weren't ringing, or she didn't have a specific job she had to do, she would instead poor over all this information. And that was when it happened.
We were on the second day of deadline (our newspaper deadlines lasted 3 days usually), and I had just finished pasting in ads to some of the pages (we had not yet gone fully electronic for our printing yet, so some ads needed pasted onto the hard copy).
Now Jane, who would sit in the back with me when I would layout pages, so I knew what stories needed to go on what pages, had gone back to her desk, so I was back there by myself. Rachel came up to me in a bit of a rush, waited for me to turn to her and shoved the two papers in my face and asked "OP, do these two signatures look the same?"
I stepped back, completely confused and looked at the two papers. I noticed that one was an official looking document with STBX's signature at the bottom, and the other was a plain piece of copy paper, where STBX's signature had been written about 3-4 times. After a moment, I realized though, that it was NOT STBX's signature, but attempts at STBX's signature. Not the worst attempt, I had ever seen at someone trying to copy another person's signature, but definitely not passable either.
I looked at Rachel and asked "Did you try to mimic his signature?" She nodded and I told her "You failed. Anyone with any training is gonna know they aren't the same."
"But do you think it's close enough to pass for someone who isn't trained?"
At this point, I was starting to feel VERY uncomfortable with this line of questioning, so I told her that I did not think it would pass mustard with anyone who was even slightly familiar with his signature (a bit of a lie there, because I thought some people not paying attention, might fall for it, but I didn't want roped into whatever scheme she was planning). Forgery is NOT something I was willing to get involved with on ANY level. I like my freedom and do NOT want to go to jail for ANY reason.
That was when she asked if I could teacher her HOW to get his signature "down." By this point, alarm bells weren't just ringing in my head, they were playing the complete 1812 Overture, cannons and all.
So I asked her what this was all about. And that is when she told me. She had been "getting" some of STBX's mail. And among them was a bank statement from a bank that STBX had not used for years. It turned out, that he had an account there back when he was in college (before they married), that he had let go into stagnation when they did get married, because they had combined finances and opened up a joint account at another bank. Apparently, at the time, he had less than a dollar in the account, and figured they would just automatically close it after a set time, so he wouldn't have to worry about it. Which, for that time period, was normal for accounts under a certain amount.
What NEITHER of them knew, was that after he had stopped paying attention, the school had apparently found a payment error and refunded him a few thousand dollars. Not much, but enough that when, years later, after having a lawyer going over everything in search of anything she could use, Rachel had found out about this long forgotten account. And she had called the bank. Since she was still his wife legally, she gave them HIS NAME, with HER address, so that she could get a statement as to what was still in the account.
Her plan was to perfect his signature and send in the paperwork for them to send HER a check, or transfer it into her new, single bank account.
I tried to explain to her that I did not think it would work and why. One, he would, sooner or later, figure it out (she was insistent he wouldn't and because he had forgotten he even HAD this account, let alone knowing it had any money in it), that they would want to talk to him or see him in person, and she said she could just have AP pose as him over the phone, as she had STBX's SSN and other info that she could have AP give them, and that it wouldn't be able to be in person anyway because it was in a completely different state, half a continent away. She was positive there was no way she could get caught.
But she really, REALLY, needed ME, as an artist, to show her how to forge his signature properly. WTF?!? Yes, I probably could have TECHNICALLY shown her and/or done it, IF I had wanted to, but NO. As I said before, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING IN JAIL. I don't want to risk that. My sister once told someone that if SHE was going to go to jail, it better be for a payout of MILLIONS and even THAT would still not be enough. I feel the same. Especially since I was a single mom to a 6-yr-old kid myself at the time, who was helping care for her disabled parents.
So I dimply told her no. That I could not and would not help her. NOW, Jane, had come back by this point, as Rachel had taken the no and somberly gone back up front mumbling about doing it herself and trying to figure out how to get the money. Jane looked at me and asked what that was about. And I told her. She looked at me as though my head had just flown off.
She was like "Wait, she asked you to COMMIT A CRIME?" I said, well, technically, she asked me to ABET a crime SHE would be committing."
Jane was NOT happy for several reasons. She said that this was beyond unacceptable and would talk to her. I told her that it was unnecessary, as I had already told Rachel no, and that she would most likely get caught anyway, but Jane insisted that she shouldn't have even asked me in the first place. So she did talk to Rachel, and while Rachel didn't actually apologize, she didn't get angry at me. She did come back though to bitch about how Jane had apparently overheard our conversation and yelled at her for that, saying she was not to ask people to take part in illegal activities for her divorce ever again (thank you Jane for not ratting me out). Jane admitted later that since Rachel hated her by this point anyway, she saw no reason to cause more drama with the truth, so she told Rachel she had heard the entire conversation from the hallway, taking the full brunt of Rachel's anger.
Rachel never did ask me about forgery again though. And while I do not know whether she got that money or not (it was never mentioned after that), she continued on with insisting on getting what she wanted, and that was bleeding STBX dry. Spoiler Alert: She didn't. She did get SOME small amount of Child Support, but that was only because she got 60/40 custody I think, but no alimony. She also did NOT get the house, or all the other things she thought she was owed. She did eventually get engaged to AP, who was now allowed back at the office during his visits, should he be visiting during that week, but ONLY to pick her up or drop her off, and showed up with a large shiny, engagement ring (no, I don't have proof that he paid for it, or that it was real, so there was still possibility of scamming, since she was not divorced yet at the time the engagement occurred).
But by this time, Rachel's time at the paper was starting to run it's course. She was burning bridges as it were, and when she went to leave the office one day, she did not pay attention to where she was backing up, and backed into Geena's fiancé's car (Geena had borrowed it), and came running in demanding that Geena and her fiancé pay for the damages to HER car, or she would sue. Worth noting here that Geena's fiancé was a lawyer. It was shortly after this incident that Rachel's time at the paper ended because no one was willing to put up with her entitled nonsense anymore.
No, I do not know what happened to her after this. Facebook was not a thing yet, or if it was, it was still college students only, and she did not keep in touch with any of us. In fact, she was cussing up a storm as she left. Most of it directed at Tom, Jane and Kathy, I think. Some at Geena and Roger. And thus ended the saga of Rachel.
And started a whole other saga of an ongoing fight between Tom and Jane, and eventually lead to Roger's decision that it was perfectly fine to gaslight me because I was apparently too good at my job. But those are stories for another day.
ETA: WOW... So some people suggested that I should google Rachel and see if she is married/still married to the AP. So I looked up some old issues of the Catholic Paper (couldn't remember her last name off-hand) and I had forgotten that she HAD managed to marry him before she was fired, but she had his last name during her last bit of time there. Okay. So I looked up her name with the newly married name and ... OMG, I wish I had not. Here is the most concise update I can give to what happened after she was fired. She still has the AP's last name, and is still using it as of 4 years ago (the most recent info I could find on short notice). Don't know if they are actually still married or not. But I CAN say that 4 years ago there was a road rage incident of which I am loathe to put details here, as this is considered a crime. Let us just say that she was fine, but others were not so lucky, and her life has definitely gone downhill.
Relevant comments from OOP
warriornun801
Holy shit...why do I have a feeling that the next saga is going to be a doozy
SayerSong
Because you have good instincts.
My only concern, is that I am not sure where it should be posted. I am not sure if it would fit better here, in EntitledPeople or BadBosses, as the guy involved eventually became my boss, and he did harass people that he was the boss of before then, but the majority of what he did to me was when he was simply my co-worker, and before he became my boss, but not sure he really fits what this sub would describe as being "entitled" as he didn't have a "me, me, me" attitude. There is also the interim story with Tom and Jane, which I supposed could partly fit here, in that Jane got used to being in charge and didn't want to give that power back to Tom when he got better, but again, I am not sure she could really be considered "entitled" otherwise. So I need to see what subs would be best for those, or if I should just do them as stand alone posts that are not part of any subreddit....
I am not The OOP
submitted by Direct-Caterpillar77 to BestofRedditorUpdates [link] [comments]


2023.01.29 21:50 Burgerkingsucks Screw Zodiac, which parish do you identify with?

Screw Zodiac, which parish do you identify with? submitted by Burgerkingsucks to Louisiana [link] [comments]


2023.01.24 18:35 Whey-Men An Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana Deputy Sheriff who worked at a jail is accused of extortion from an inmate.

submitted by Whey-Men to prisons [link] [comments]


2023.01.24 18:35 Whey-Men An Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana Deputy Sheriff who worked at a jail is accused of extortion from an inmate.

An Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana Deputy Sheriff who worked at a jail is accused of extortion from an inmate. submitted by Whey-Men to Bad_Cop_No_Donut [link] [comments]


2023.01.23 19:08 CCorgiOTC1 Post Burglary Advice

So my house was broken into in September on early Wednesday morning. The guy stole all of my jewelry and electronics ($10,000+), and then he went and robbed my neighbor. Within two days I had tracked him to a local pawn shop (I gave out a lot of flyers with pictures), and the manger called the police because he tried to pawn a very distinct piece of jewelry that I had a picture of. Despite the fact that the police knew who he was by Friday, the police would not arrest him for another two weeks when another pawn shop worker in the town over signaled to an officer to arrest the guy (I will refer to him as TB for the burglar). I asked for TB to be arrested or for them to get a search warrant, but the police were not interested in doing so (they told me that all the detectives were out of town at a conference, our jail was still damaged so they might not arrest him at all because they don't prioritize property crime). TB was finally arrested after I complained to the attorney general.
TB is being charged with 8 felonies (he stole from another house too), but they are only charging him for the items that he sold to pawnshops. Not the items that he stole or the burglary charges. So he is charged with illegal possession of stolen things and illegal possession of firearms, and possession of a fire arm by a convicted felon. I called my victim advocate to ask if he can be charged with the actual burglaries, having possession of the firearm that were recovered after police chase #1 that is my neighbor's, the fact that he is an unregistered sex offender (he is refusing to register so that he doesn't have to give an address), or even just for the amount of stuff he actually stole from me, but the ADA told me that she will only charge based off of what the police give her, and that the sex offender stuff is unrelated and would have to come from our Parish rather than the local PD.
So here is my question, how best do I go about navigating this trial? He was arraigned today, but I would like to get some sort of restitution or for him to reveal where he pawned my stuff so I can get some of my heirloom jewelry back, but I am not sure how to go about this because everyone is very unhelpful. It is worth mentioning that I live in a town that is run on the good ole boy system, so if the AG calls, they move quickly, but if I call, they pretty much just stonewall me. It has all been very frustrating, but I would like to get as much of my stuff back as possible because I can't just easily replace it.
submitted by CCorgiOTC1 to legaladvice [link] [comments]


2023.01.22 23:35 Amanda39 [Scheduled] The Woman in White, Walter Chapter VII to Walter Chapter II

Welcome back to The Woman in White, aka "Portrait of a Jackass on Fire."
This week we're reading Walter's Narrative Chapter VII to Walter's Narrative Chapter II. (This book does not lend itself well to coherent schedules. The last chapter begins with "It was between nine and ten o'clock..." and ends with "Like a shadow she passes away in the loneliness of the dead.") Please use spoiler tags for anything beyond that, as well as for any spoilers for other books.
Walter continues his discussion with Mrs. Clements, and learns about Anne's history, and the history of her mother. Mrs. Clements and her husband had been living in Welmingham about 23 years ago when a newlywed couple, the Cathericks, moved to the neighborhood. Mrs. Catherick was a lady's maid who had turned down Mr. Catherick's proposals in the past, but had suddenly decided that she did want to marry him after all--presumably to cover the fact that she was already pregnant.
Four months after they'd moved in, Mr. Catherick catches Sir Percival giving his wife expensive jewelry and lace handkerchiefs, and concludes that they're having an affair. He catches them whispering together in the vestry, Mr. Catherick hits Sir Percival, and Sir Percival kicks his ass, attracting the attention of neighbors, so now everyone knows what's going on. Mr. Catherick leaves Mrs. Catherick and moves to America (although they're still legally married.)
Sir Percival also takes off immediately after this but, surprisingly, Mrs. Catherick remains in Welmingham, despite everyone judging her for the scandal. Mrs. Catherick is determined to make everyone respect her. Her husband sends her money, but Mrs. Catherick is too proud to touch it. Instead, she lives on money from Sir Percival.
At this point, Walter thinks about what he's hearing and realizes that Mrs. Catherick, despite her claims, is probably staying in Welmingham because Sir Percival is making her stay there. If everyone there judges her, then that means she has no friends to tell the Secret to. Walter considers that the Secret may simply be that Sir Percival is Anne's father, since the date of Anne's birth makes it clear that she was conceived before the Cathericks married. Seems unlikely, since everyone in Welmingham already suspects him of that, but it's worth looking into. Mrs. Clements is able to tell him the name of the man Mrs. Catherick had worked for prior to marriage (Major Donthorne), so Walter can contact him and see if he knew Sir Percival.
(I am so, so stupid. This is my third time reading this book and I'm only now realizing that "Donthorne" is probably pronounced "Don thorn." I had been reading it all this time as "Don't horny." I was all set to make a joke about how Mrs. Catherick should have taken the Major's advice.)
Anyhow, this is the point in the story where, if Mr. Fairlie could see me, he'd probably complain about the secretions coming out of my eyes, because fuck is this part of the story sad. Mrs. Clements was basically Anne's adoptive mother. Mrs. Catherick gave her to Mrs. Clements to raise, and then would periodically change her mind, ripping the poor kid away from Mrs. Clements and probably giving her lifelong abandonment issues or something, only to get bored of her and give her back to Mrs. Clements. Finally when Anne was ten, Mrs. Clements's husband died, and Mrs. Catherick took Anne with her to Limmeridge, which of course is where she met Mrs. Fairlie. When they got back to Welmingham, Mrs. Clements was going to move to London, and Mrs. Catherick refused to let Anne go with her. That was the last Mrs. Clements saw of Anne until Anne ran away from the Asylum.
And now Walter can no longer hide it from Mrs. Clements. Anne is dead. After more than a decade, Mrs. Clements had finally been reunited with her little girl, only to lose her forever.
I may be bawling my eyes out, but Walter is stronger and he's here for a purpose. Mrs. Clements doesn't have what he wants--she doesn't know the Secret. In fact, she's pretty sure Anne never really knew the Secret in the first place. Walter's only option now is to visit Mrs. Catherick.
Walter goes home and finds that Laura is extremely depressed. She feels like she's a burden on Walter and Marian, and worries that Walter will like Marian more than he likes her because of that. (Walter politely refrains from replying "LOL have you seen Marian's face?") I want to make what happens next a discussion question, so I'll try to describe this without interjecting my own opinion: Walter tells Laura that her drawing has improved so much, it's now professional quality, so he's going to take her pictures to work with him and sell them. He'll bring the money that she earns back for her to hold onto separately from the money he earns, so she can see how much she's helping.
Of course, her drawings are actually crap, and he isn't really selling them, he's basically giving her an allowance. Walter still has the drawings hidden away to this day and still cherishes them. (He also manages to spoil that this story will have a happy ending, or at least that there will be happy times at some point.)
Walter goes to visit Mrs. Catherick, and Marian writes to Mr. Fairlie to make him write the narrative we read earlier, in case it reveals anything they can use against Fosco. Mrs. Catherick proves to be a hard, cold, emotionless woman who doesn't care that her daughter is dead, and isn't interested in assisting Walter with revenge against Sir Percival. However, she does accidentally give Walter a couple of clues: she laughs at the idea of Sir Percival being from a great family ("especially by the mother's side"), and briefly seems terrified when Walter mentions the vestry.
The only real sign that Mrs. Catherick has anything resembling human emotions is her obsessive pride in having earned the approval of the townspeople. They aren't scandalized by her anymore. She's spent the past 20+ years trying to become the most respectable person in town, and now she stands in front of her window all day, waiting for the clergyman to walk past, to see him bow to her, like a monkey in a Skinner box pressing a button for a peanut. It's depressing as hell. I almost feel sorry for her. Almost.
When Walter leaves Mrs. Catherick's house, he sees the guy who tried to pick a fight with him in Blackwater Park. The guy must have seen Walter go into Mrs. Catherick's house, and is now reporting to Sir Percival. Walter follows him to the train station without being seen.
Thanks to the two clues Mrs. Catherick accidentally gave him, Walter decides to go to the vestry and check out the record of Sir Percival's parents marriage, to find out who his mother was. The clerk has some difficulty letting him in: the vestry has two entrances, one from outside and one from inside the church, but the outside door is difficult to unlock, and the door that leads into the church can't be unlocked at all. The vestry is cluttered and dusty, filled with old papers and crates containing broken wooden decorations.
Walter searches through the registry and finds the marriage record. It looks a bit odd, crammed into the bottom margin of the page. He unintentionally makes note of the previous and next entries as well: they stand out because the husband in the previous entry has the same first name as Walter, and the next entry (on the next page) is twice the size of a normal one, since it was from a double wedding.
Walter talks to the clerk who let him into the vestry, and learns that, while this guy is a "parish clerk," there's also a "vestry clerk" who's basically a lawyer who oversees the marriage records. The current vestry clerk is the son of the man who was vestry clerk when Sir Percival's parents married. Walter decides to visit him. On his way, he gets "trapped" into fighting with two of Sir Percival's spies, and ends up in jail, awaiting trial for assaulting them. Fortunately, Walter is able to contact Mr. Dawson (the doctor who treated Marian's typhus, and who knows Walter from Walter's brief visit to Blackwater Park), who is able to pay his bail. It's clear to Walter that Sir Percival, not realizing that Walter would get bailed out, was trying to delay Walter's investigations. Sir Percival must be planning to do something very soon.
Walter goes to to the vestry clerk and learns something interesting: the clerk's father had kept a backup copy of the registry. When Walter looks at this copy, the marriage record isn't there! The bottom margin on that page is larger than normal because the record for the double wedding required a new page. Sir Percival's Secret is that he had forged his parents' marriage record so that he would be legitimate and inherit his father's estate and title. At the time that this story takes place (the 1850s), this crime would have been punishable by deportation to Australia, but at the time that the crime was commited (the 1820s) it would have been punishable by death.
Walter decides to return to the vestry, mistakenly thinking that if he makes a copy of the vestry's entry, it could be used as legal evidence. Along the way, he once again gets chased by Sir Percival's thugs. He escapes them by running through a field and almost gets lost, but somehow ends up at the home of the parish clerk, where he finds the clerk panic-stricken because the keys to the vestry have been stolen. Walter takes off running toward the vestry, and runs into another one of Sir Percival's lackeys, but this one mistakes him in the dark for Sir Percival. They arrive at the vestry to find it on fire. Sir Percival is inside, struggling to get out: the broken lock has completely jammed, trapping him in the flames. As far as Walter can determine, Sir Percival must have stolen the keys with the intention of tearing the page out of the register, but he'd lit a match to see what he was doing.
It turns out that locking yourself in a cluttered room filled with paper and dry wood and then lighting a match is a stupid, stupid thing to do. It also turns out that Sir Percival does not like being locked up against his will. I suspect Anne and Laura would have appreciated the irony.
A fire engine is on its way, but won't be in time to rescue Sir Percival. Walter organizes a group of men to turn a beam from an abandoned cottage into a battering ram, and even climbs onto the roof to break the skylight, but, alas, his heroics are in vain. Oh well.
Walter is now stuck in town for the inquest, and for his own trial, which gets dismissed when his accusers don't bother to show up. (Walter also notes during this time that, despite the brief time since the fire, "rude caricatures" have already been drawn on the remains of the vestry. I just want to take a moment to appreciate the fact that human beings have not changed in the slightest in the past 170 years, and also that Sir Percival's place of death is probably now marked by a badly-drawn penis.)
Forgive the pun, but it's been a pyrrhic victory. Laura is now free of Sir Percival, and we've learned the Secret, but any hope of using Sir Percival to establish Laura's true identity is now gone forever. Walter must now return home, where he and Marian will try to figure out what to do next...
...except first, Walter gets a letter from Mrs. Catherick, of all people. It goes something like this:
Dear Walter,
Heard you set Sir Percival on fire. That's awesome. If I were younger, I would hump your brains out. In lieu of humping, why don't you come to tea? I can tell you about all the ableist slurs I used to call my dead daughter. Humping is also acceptable if you're into old ladies like u/escherwallace is. We absolutely must have tea punctually. Casual sex schedule is more loosey goosey.
("We absolutely must have tea punctually. Casual sex schedule is more loosey goosey." was shamelessly stolen from u/DernhelmLaughed. Uh, to be clear, we were discussing Mrs. Catherick's letter. u/DernhelmLaughed did not invite me to tea and casual sex.)
In all seriousness, the letter does open with Mrs. Catherick saying she'd have made out with Walter if she were twenty years younger, which is freaking bizarre, considering how obsessed she is with being seen as respectable. She then reveals the missing details about the Secret:
Mrs. Catherick's husband was the parish clerk, and Sir Percival bribed her with a gold watch and other presents to get the vestry key. He snuck into the vestry several times, in order to study the records and make sure his forgery would look believable. Mrs. Catherick figured out what he was doing, but played along for the bribes, not realizing that she was making herself an accomplice to a capital offense.
Of course, all the stuff we heard from Mrs. Clements then happened. (Note to aspiring writers: don't give two characters who are this closely connected similar names. Mrs. Clements and Mrs. Catherick are way too easy to get mixed up.) Mrs. Catherick then threatened to expose the Secret, which is when she learned that doing so would condemn herself as well as Sir Percival.
Fast forward a decade to Mrs. Catherick and Anne returning from Limmeridge. We learn the real reason Mrs. Catherick didn't let Mrs. Clements take Anne with her to London: Mrs. Clements had sided with Anne when Mrs. Catherick tried to make her stop wearing white, and Mrs. Catherick just wanted to spite her. The irony is that after Mrs. Clements moved, Mrs. Catherick changed her mind about Anne wearing white. She realized that it made people pity Anne, which in turn made them more sympathetic to Mrs. Catherick.
Fast forward another decade or so. Mrs. Catherick is angry because she just got a letter from Sir Percival, refusing to let her leave town, and she mutters something to herself about how she could destroy him by exposing his Secret. She realizes right after she says this that Anne is listening, and now she's terrified that Anne will repeat what she's just heard. Her fears are realized the next day, when Sir Percival visits and tells her to "turn the idiot out."
I mentioned something about this in the first discussion summary, but I need to emphasize it now. Idiot was not just an insult back then. It was also a functioning label for the most severe form of intellectual disability. In modern terms, what Sir Percival actually said was "Get the retard out of here."
Anne fought back the only way she could. She threatened to expose the Secret unless Sir Percival apologized to her. That's all she wanted, just to be treated with respect for once. But Sir Percival thought she was going to expose his Secret, so he had her committed, to hide her away so she couldn't tell the Secret to anyone. And Mrs. Catherick "did her duty as a mother" by insisting on a private asylum, which, as I also explained in a previous discussion, were more prestigious but also significantly worse in terms of how they treated the patients.
(Mrs. Catherick says that she cannot repeat Sir Percival's language, because she's "a member of the rector's congregation." The only thing I'm a member of is Reddit, so there's nothing stopping me from saying fuck Sir Percival, fuck Mrs. Catherick, and fuck the ableist horse they rode in on.)
At this point, Mrs. Catherick confirms what Mrs. Clements and Walter had already suspected: Anne never actually knew the Secret. The idea that she could ruin Sir Percival by exposing his Secret had developed into a delusion, where she genuinely believed that she did know the Secret, but she never actually knew it.
Moving on... after reading Mrs. Catherick's letter, Walter gets a letter from Marian informing him that she and Laura had to move. Uh-oh, looks like something must be happening with Fosco. On the way home, Walter thinks about how he'll never expose Sir Percival's secret. The cousin who should have received the inheritance will get what's left of it now that Sir Percival is dead. The only thing that would happen if the Secret were exposed is that it would associate Laura with scandal. And that's why Walter is using fake names in this book... wait, what? Oh yeah, all of the names in this book are fake. Not that it matters, since this is really a fictional novel anyway, but still, that's a bit weird to think about. Walter actually chose to name himself "Walter Hartright." Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, it turns out Fosco found where they were staying, and that's why they had to move. Fosco said some gross stuff that Marian won't repeat to Walter, but he also said that he prevented the Asylum owner from finding the house and recapturing Laura...
...except Marian now realizes that that doesn't matter, because Sir Percival is dead and the Asylum doesn't care about "Anne Catherick" if no one is paying for her. Anyhow, they moved, and hopefully Fosco won't find the new location. But the important thing is that defeating Fosco is now their only hope at proving Laura's identity.
One last thing: Walter hears back from Major Donthorne. He'd never been visited by Sir Percival when Mrs. Catherick worked for him. But you know who did visit him?
Philip Fairlie. Laura's father. You know, Laura, the girl who looks exactly like Anne. Yeah. That explains a lot.
I'll end this summary with Walter's words:
So the ghostly figure which has haunted these pages, as it haunted my life, goes down into the impenetrable gloom. Like a shadow she first came to me in the loneliness of the night. Like a shadow she passes away in the loneliness of the dead.
submitted by Amanda39 to bookclub [link] [comments]


2023.01.20 03:30 AndrewDaTurtle-23 I am requesting downvotes, I don’t care about karma so downvote me as much as possible (unrelated image ).

I am requesting downvotes, I don’t care about karma so downvote me as much as possible (unrelated image ). submitted by AndrewDaTurtle-23 to teenagers [link] [comments]


2023.01.19 20:57 dwredbaker Time-line of baptist history

1606
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1616
1620
1628
1629
1630
1631
1633
1634
1635
1636
1638
1639
1640
1641
1643
1644
1645
1646
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1670
1671
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1698
1699
submitted by dwredbaker to OldPaths [link] [comments]


2023.01.19 04:46 BotanicalFamily ⛔️⛔️ Action Time! Please Read!⛔️⛔️

Including the Livingston Parish, LA ban attempt, we have had 4 kratom ban bills introduced in the past couple of days.

We Need To Act!

Here's what to do. First, comment on these states Legiscan bills and tell them why Kratom shouldn't be banned.
South Carolina - https://legiscan.com/SC/comments/H3742/2023
Mississippi - https://legiscan.com/MS/comments/HB364/2023
https://legiscan.com/MS/comments/HB5/2023?mibextid=Zxz2cZ
West Virginia - https://legiscan.com/WV/comments/SB220/2023

KCPA BILL SUPPORT

Mississippi - https://legiscan.com/MS/comments/SB2244/2023
Virginia - https://protectkratom.org/virginia

Let's Get Started!

Tomorrow should be a busy day for all of us. Don't slack on this! We need to ban together like we did in 2016 and push these ban bills out the door.
Don't ever think someone else is going to do it for you. You have a voice and it's free to use.
Let's get it!
submitted by BotanicalFamily to Vendorsofkratom2 [link] [comments]


2023.01.19 04:44 BotanicalFamily ⛔️⛔️ Action Time! Please Read Post! ⛔️⛔️

Including the Livingston Parish, LA ban attempt, we have had 4 kratom ban bills introduced in the past couple of days.

We Need To Act!

Here's what to do. First, comment on these states Legiscan bills and tell them why Kratom shouldn't be banned.
South Carolina - https://legiscan.com/SC/comments/H3742/2023
Mississippi - https://legiscan.com/MS/comments/HB364/2023
https://legiscan.com/MS/comments/HB5/2023?mibextid=Zxz2cZ
West Virginia - https://legiscan.com/WV/comments/SB220/2023

KCPA BILL SUPPORT

Mississippi - https://legiscan.com/MS/comments/SB2244/2023
Virginia - https://protectkratom.org/virginia

Let's Get Started!

Tomorrow should be a busy day for all of us. Don't slack on this! We need to ban together like we did in 2016 and push these ban bills out the door.
Don't ever think someone else is going to do it for you. You have a voice and it's free to use.
Let's get it!
submitted by BotanicalFamily to BotanicalFam [link] [comments]


2023.01.16 21:26 im_tafo Henry Fielding, Joseph Andrews

v Characters:
· Joseph Andrews: Joseph Andrews is a young man from a relatively humble background who has a famous sister named Pamela, whose life is the subject of a well-known biography that demonstrates the rewards of virtue. Later, Joseph learns that Pamela isn’t his biological sister and that his real father is a gentleman named Wilson—who lost Joseph at a young age but remembers the strawberry mark on Joseph’s chest. Joseph is handsome and capable, earning the attention of the noble Sir Thomas Booby, then later Thomas’s wife, Lady Booby, who decides to make Joseph her footman. Joseph tends to be naïve, and after the death of Sir Thomas Booby, it takes him a while to realize that Lady Booby is trying to seduce him. When Joseph rejects her advances, Lady Booby uses rumors spread by her servant Mrs. Slipslop as an excuse to fire Joseph, causing Joseph to leave her house in London and go back to the country where the main Booby residence is located. There, Joseph hopes to reunite with his longtime love, Fanny, who is a poor former chambermaid but who is beautiful and virtuous. Along the way, Joseph meets up with his old friend parson Abraham Adams, who travels with Joseph for most of the book. Joseph’s journey home is full of comical mistakes and misunderstandings, with the honest and loyal Joseph often getting taken advantage of by the more hypocritical characters around him. Nevertheless, Joseph doesn’t give up, and ultimately his persistence pays off with him getting to marry Fanny and live together happily.
· Abraham Adams: Adams is a parson who supports his wife, Mrs. Adams, and six children on a very small salary—it’s later revealed that this is only possible because of the extensive “loans” that Adams receives from others. Adams runs into Joseph when Adams is on his way to London to sell some books of his sermons, but he has to turn back because his wife replaced his sermon books with shirts. Adams is bookish and carries around a copy of the works of the Greek playwright Aeschylus, although his knowledge also has important gaps. Fittingly for a man who intends to publish so many sermons, Adams likes to give lectures to the people around him, but in spite of being a generally kind man who cares for Joseph and Joseph’s love, Fanny, Adams often fails to live up to the high ideals he preaches. Perhaps the most notable moment of Adams’s hypocrisy is when he gives Joseph a long lecture on the necessity of accepting God’s will with stoicism, only to be interrupted by the news that his youngest son, Dick, has drowned, causing him to go into a wild fit of grief. He learns just minutes later that Dick is fine and is equally excessive in his happiness. Adams overindulges and fails to live up to the high standards that he preaches. At the same time, however, Adams has positive qualities and ultimately helps bring Joseph and Fanny together.
· Fanny (Frances Goodwill): Fanny is a former chambermaid of Sir Thomas Booby and Lady Booby who has known Joseph Andrews since childhood and is in love with him. In many ways, her story mirrors that of Joseph’s sister Pamela, who was also a chambermaid who acted chastely and who earned the affection of the noble Squire Booby. (At the end of the book, it’s revealed that Pamela is actually Fanny’s biological sister, not Joseph’s.) Joseph spends the beginning part of the story searching for Fanny, until his friend and traveling companion parson Abraham Adams happens to find her by accident. They continue to travel together until they reach their destination, where, after a series of setbacks and reversals, they ultimately get married and live happily ever after. Franny isn’t thin or delicate, and she has blemishes that make it clear that she isn’t from the upper class. Men on the road often try to attack her, although each time, Fanny is saved at the last minute. Fanny is also virtuous and frequently proves herself to be kinder and more loyal than characters in higher social classes. Although it’s revealed at the end of the story that Fanny is not as poor as everyone thought she was (her birth parents being Gaffar and Gammar Andrews), Fanny nevertheless represents how goodness isn’t connected to social class and how virtue can be even better than nobility.
· Lady Booby: Lady Booby is Sir Thomas Booby’s wealthy and slightly eccentric wife. She takes an early interest in a boy Thomas hires named Joseph Andrews, deciding to make him her personal footman. But when Thomas dies suddenly, leaving Lady Booby as a widow with a fortune, she wastes little time in pursuing Joseph romantically. Joseph rejects Lady Booby’s advances, and so she finds a pretext to fire him. Even after firing Joseph, however, Lady Booby can’t stop thinking about him. When she finds out that Joseph is planning to marry a woman named Fanny, Lady Booby does everything she can to intervene in the wedding, but despite some early success, she can’t stop the marriage. Despite all of Lady Booby’s manipulating, she gets a somewhat happy ending, finding a captain in London who makes her forget all about Joseph. Lady Booby represents the selfishness of the wealthy and how they don’t account for the feelings of other people around them.
· The Pedlar: The pedlar is a seemingly minor character who ends up playing a large role near the end of the novel. He first appears at an inn to lend Abraham Adams money to pay off his debt he owes at an inn, even though the pedlar himself is very poor. Later, he happens by chance to save Adams’s son Dick from drowning. He then tells a story that helps everyone realize that Joseph Andrews is actually the son of Mr. Wilson, and that Fanny is actually the daughter of Gaffar and Gammar. This raises both Joseph’s and Fanny’s social statuses, paving the way for their marriage. The pedlar represents how the poorest people are often the most generous, while also perhaps providing a parody of contrived plot twists where characters suddenly receive a great fortune.
· Pamela Andrews: Pamela is a character who first appeared in the novel Pamela by Samuel Richardson. She is famous everywhere for her virtue. Joseph Andrews believes that Pamela is his biological sister, and his own chaste, determined behavior makes him similar to Pamela in many ways (although Joseph’s adventures tend to have more absurdity to them). Although the narrator mentions Pamela’s virtue many times, the praise she receives is so excessive that it suggests her behavior may be an act, rather an example of model behavior.
· Wilson: Wilson is a plain-looking man that Joseph Andrews, Abraham Adams, and Fanny meet after sheep-stealers scare them off the road and they all take refuge at Wilson’s house. Wilson appears to be a minor character at first, giving an unusually long monologue about his past, which involved living a life of hedonism and womanizing in the London theater world before ultimately meeting his wife, Harriet, and settling down. After his marriage, Wilson’s eldest son was mysteriously stolen away from him, although Wilson remembers his son’s strawberry mark on his chest. As it turns out, Joseph is actually Wilson’s son, although this isn’t revealed until the very end of the story, right before Joseph’s marriage to Fanny. After Joseph and Fanny’s marriage, they go to live happily with Wilson and Harriet. Wilson provides a contrast with Lady Booby, providing an example of a higher-class character who is more honest about his flaws, and who shows that not all virtuous characters need to have made lifelong commitments to chastity.
· The Narrator: Although the narrator may seem invisible for large portions of the story, their commentary plays an important role in setting the tone of the novel. The narrator is most prominent at the beginning of each book and near the very beginning and end of chapters, where they sometimes go on philosophical tangents related to the story’s themes. The narrator almost always praises nobility and describes upper-class characters as virtuous, even though they often tell the story in a way that highlights the hypocrisy of this seeming virtue. The narrator often uses heightened language, for example, describing a battle between Joseph Andrews and some hunting dogs as if it were a scene in an epic poem. This mock-epic tone carries throughout the whole book and sometimes highlights the ridiculousness of the events while at other times giving mundane events an added dignity.
· Mrs. Slipslop: Mrs. Slipslop is a woman in her 40s who serves Lady Booby, but who nevertheless maintains such a high opinion of herself that she looks down on other servants. Because she is past menopause, she is not afraid of getting pregnant if she has sex with men, and she’s particularly aggressive towards Joseph Andrews. Although Mrs. Slipslop schemes to get closer to Joseph, her plots usually work against her, driving him even farther away.
· Squire Booby: Squire Booby is Lady Booby’s nephew and he later marries Pamela. He originally comes from Samuel Richardson’s novel Pamela (although there he is referred to as Mr. B— or the Squire). Squire Booby becomes a key figure in Lady Booby’s plot to break up Joseph Andrews’s and Fanny’s upcoming marriage, although ultimately, he supports the wedding.
· Gaffar and Gammar Andrews: Gaffar and Gammar are the parents of Joseph Andrews and Pamela Andrews (although it is revealed at the end that Joseph and Fanny were switched at a young age, meaning Fanny is actually their biological child and Joseph isn’t). Their social class, while not at the top, is important because the revelation that Fanny is actually their daughter helps convince other characters that she is a worthy match for Joseph (in part since their other daughter Pamela was a worthy match for Squire Booby).
· Beau Didapper: Beau Didapper is a distant relation of Lady Booby who sees Fanny on the road and immediately decides to attempt to rape her. He is of noble blood but doesn’t have an impressive appearance, standing only about four-and-a-half feet tall. He is yet another character who demonstrates the selfishness and lack of morals among the nobility.
· Leonora: Leonora is the protagonist of a story-within-the-story that a woman tells in a coach. She is vain and dumps her lover Horatio when she has a chance to woo the seemingly even nobler lover Bellarmine. Bellarmine, however, isn’t as rich as he appears, and he rejects Leonora after her father’s marriage proposal is too stingy. Leonora shows the dangers of superficial thinking.
· Betty: Betty is the maid at the inn where Joseph Andrews is taken after he is gravely injured during a robbery on the road. When her boss, Mr. Tow-wouse, refuses to help Joseph, Betty often takes it upon herself to do something, demonstrating how sometimes people without significant means are nevertheless more generous than richer people.
· Harriet: Harriet is Wilson’s wife and Joseph Andrews’s mother (although this isn’t revealed until near the end of the book). When Wilson gives a winning lottery ticket to one of Harriet’s relatives, Harriet sends a small portion of the money back to him. Wilson decides to woo her to get the rest of the money, and it ultimately leads to a long-lasting marriage.
· Mr. Barnabas: Mr. Barnabas is a clergyman who has supposedly come to Mr. Tow-wouse’s inn in order to give last rites to the gravely injured Joseph Andrews, but he seems more interested in enjoying Mr. Tow-wouse and Mrs. Tow-wouse’s hospitality, putting off his visit to Joseph as long as he can. Mr. Barnabas is just one of many religious characters in the story who seems to enjoy earthly pleasures more than his faith indicates he should.
· Mr. Tow-wouse: Mr. Tow-wouse runs the inn where Joseph Andrews is taken to recover after he’s robbed on the road and seriously injured. Mr. Tow-wouse is a selfish man whose main concern is how Joseph is so inconvenient for him and his inn. He also harasses his maid Betty behind his wife, Mrs. Tow-wouse’s, back.
· The Squire: Many characters harass Fanny on the road, but there is one squire who shows particular persistence in trying to kidnap her, sending many servants (including his captain) out to do the job. He owns some hunting dogs that attack Joseph Andrews and Abraham Adams, but he calls off the dogs and invites both men to dinner. Though he seems hospitable, it’s mostly all a ruse to get closer to Fanny—though in the end, he gets caught and his efforts fail.
- Minor Characters:
· Thomas Booby: Sir Thomas Booby is the husband of Lady Booby, and he is the one who first notices Joseph Andrews at a young age and hires him. He dies early on, allowing Lady Booby to pursue her infatuation with Joseph.
· Trulliber: Trulliber is a parson known for his immense size and his greediness with eating. He initially entertains parson Abraham Adams, but he throws Adams out of his house when he finds that Adams just wants a loan.
· Mrs. Tow-wouse: Mrs. Tow-wouse is Mr. Tow-wouse’s wife. Like him, she is selfish, showing little concern for the life of the gravely injured Joseph Andrews.
· Bellarmine: Bellarmine is a character in a story-within-the-story that a woman tells in a coach. He has just gotten back from Paris and makes a grand entrance at a ball, causing Leonora to drop her lover Horatio to pursue him instead.
· Horatio: Horatio is a character in a story-within-the-story that a woman tells in a coach. He loves Leonora and offers to marry her, but she dumps him for Bellarmine, and Horatio forgets about her.
· Scout: Mr. Scout is a tricky country lawyer who advises Abraham Adams that the marriage of Joseph Andrews and Fanny will be legitimate, before turning back around and advising Lady Booby about the different ways she could stop the marriage form happening.
· Mrs. Adams: Mrs. Adams is Abraham Adams’s wife. Though she tries to be supportive, she sometimes doesn’t understand her husband and so makes his life difficult, as when she replaces his books of sermons (which he intended to sell) with extra shirts in his traveling bag.
· Dick: Dick is the youngest (and seemingly favorite) child of Abraham Adams, in part because he is learning to read Latin like his father. Adams gets the news that Dick drowns, but it turns out that the pedlar saves Dick’s life.
· Justice Frolick: Justice Frolick is a crooked justice who favors the rich and is willing to help Lady Booby prevent Joseph Andrews and Fanny’s marriage by sending them both to jail for stealing a twig.
· The Captain: There are a couple unnamed captains in the story, the most notable one being the captain whom the squire orders to attempt to kidnap Fanny.
· The Surgeon: The surgeon treats Joseph Andrews’s injuries at Mr. Tow-wouse’s inn, although he doesn’t predict good odds for Joseph and doesn’t seem to care, showing how people without money, like Joseph, get ignored.
· The Hunter: The hunter is a man who exchanges stories on the road with parson Abraham Adams, each telling the other about their nephew. Adams is talking to the hunter when Adams hears Fanny being attacked and rushes to save her.
· The Host: Many inns in the story have nameless hosts and hostesses. One of the most notable ones commiserates with Abraham Adams over a gentleman who never follows through on his promises to bestow gifts on other people.
· Peter Pounce: Peter Pounce is one of Lady Booby’s servants. He first gives Joseph Andrews the news that he’s been fired by Lady Booby.
· Leonard and Paul: Leonard and Paul are characters in an early reading book that Dick reads aloud when Abraham Adams wants to show off his son’s skills.
v Themes:
· The Vulnerability and Power of Goodness: Goodness was a preoccupation of the littérateurs of the eighteenth century no less than of the moralists. In an age in which worldly authority was largely unaccountable and tended to be corrupt, Fielding seems to have judged that temporal power was not compatible with goodness. In his novels, most of the squires, magistrates, fashionable persons, and petty capitalists are either morally ambiguous or actively predatory; by contrast, his paragon of benevolence, Parson Adams, is quite poor and utterly dependent for his income on the patronage of squires. As a corollary of this antithesis, Fielding shows that Adams's extreme goodness, one ingredient of which is ingenuous expectation of goodness in others, makes him vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous worldlings. Much as the novelist seems to enjoy humiliating his clergyman, however, Adams remains a transcendently vital presence whose temporal weakness does not invalidate his moral power. If his naïve good nature is no antidote to the evils of hypocrisy and unprincipled self-interest, that is precisely because those evils are so pervasive; the impracticality of his laudable principles is a judgment not on Adams nor on goodness per se but on the world.
· Charity and Religion: Fielding’s novels are full of clergymen, many of whom are less than exemplary; in the contrast between the benevolent Adams and his more self-interested brethren, Fielding draws the distinction between the mere formal profession of Christian doctrines and that active charity which he considers true Christianity. Fielding advocated the expression of religious duty in everyday human interactions: universal, disinterested compassion arises from the social affections and manifests itself in general kindness to other people, relieving the afflictions and advancing the welfare of mankind. One might say that Fielding’s religion focuses on morality and ethics rather than on theology or forms of worship; as Adams says to the greedy and uncharitable Parson Trulliber, “Whoever therefore is void of Charity, I make no scruple of pronouncing that he is no Christian.”
· Providence: If Fielding is skeptical about the efficacy of human goodness in the corrupt world, he is nevertheless determined that it should always be recompensed; thus, when the "good" characters of Adams, Joseph, and Fanny are helpless to engineer their own happiness, Fielding takes care to engineer it for them. The role of the novelist thus becomes analogous to that of God in the real world: he is a providential planner, vigilantly rewarding virtue and punishing vice, and Fielding's overtly stylized plots and characterizations work to call attention to his designing hand. The parallel between plot and providence does not imply, however, that Fielding naïvely expects that good will always triumph over evil in real life; rather, as Judith Hawley argues, "it implies that life is a work of art, a work of conscious design created by a combination of Providential authorship and individual free will." Fielding's authorly concern for his characters, then, is not meant to encourage his readers in their everyday lives to wait on the favor of a divine author; it should rather encourage them to make an art out of the business of living by advancing and perfecting the work of providence, that is, by living according to the true Christian principles of active benevolence.
· Town and Country: Fielding did not choose the direction and destination of his hero’s travels at random; Joseph moves from the town to the country in order to illustrate, in the words of Martin C. Battestin, “a moral pilgrimage from the vanity and corruption of the Great City to the relative naturalness and simplicity of the country.” Like Mr. Wilson (albeit without having sunk nearly so low), Joseph develops morally by leaving the city, site of vanity and superficial pleasures, for the country, site of virtuous retirement and contented domesticity. Not that Fielding had any utopian illusions about the countryside; the many vicious characters whom Joseph and Adams meet on the road home attest that Fielding believed human nature to be basically consistent across geographic distinctions. His claim for rural life derives from the pragmatic judgment that, away from the bustle, crime, and financial pressures of the city, those who are so inclined may, as Battestin puts it, “attend to the basic values of life.”
· Affectation, Vanity, and Hypocrisy: Fielding’s Preface declares that the target of his satire is the ridiculous, that “the only Source of the true Ridiculous” is affectation, and that “Affectation proceeds from one of these two Causes, Vanity, or Hypocrisy.” Hypocrisy, being the dissimulation of true motives, is the more dangerous of these causes: whereas the vain man merely considers himself better than he is, the hypocrite pretends to be other than he is. Thus, Mr. Adams is vain about his learning, his sermons, and his pedagogy, but while this vanity may occasionally make him ridiculous, it remains entirely or virtually harmless. By contrast, Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop counterfeit virtue in order to prey on Joseph, Parson Trulliber counterfeits moral authority in order to keep his parish in awe, Peter Pounce counterfeits contented poverty in order to exploit the financial vulnerabilities of other servants, and so on. Fielding chose to combat these two forms of affectation, the harmless and the less harmless, by poking fun at them, on the theory that humor is more likely than invective to encourage people to remedy their flaws.
· Chastity: As his broad hints about Joseph and Fanny’s euphoric wedding night suggest, Fielding has a fundamentally positive attitude toward sex; he does prefer, however, that people’s sexual conduct be in accordance with what they owe to God, each other, and themselves. In the mutual attraction of Joseph and Fanny there is nothing licentious or exploitative, and they demonstrate the virtuousness of their love in their eagerness to undertake a lifetime commitment and in their compliance with the Anglican forms regulating marriage, which require them to delay the event to which they have been looking forward for years. If Fielding approves of Joseph and Fanny, though, he does not take them too seriously; in particular, Joseph’s “male-chastity” is somewhat incongruous given the sexual double-standard, and Fielding is not above playing it for laughs, particularly while the hero is in London. Even militant chastity is vastly preferable, however, to the loveless and predatory sexuality of Lady Booby and those like her: as Martin C. Battestin argues, “Joseph’s chastity is amusing because extreme; but it functions nonetheless as a wholesome antithesis to the fashionable lusts and intrigues of high society.”
· Class and Birth: Joseph Andrews is full of class distinctions and concerns about high and low birth, but Fielding is probably less interested in class difference per se than in the vices it can engender, such as corruption and affectation. Naturally, he disapproves of those who pride themselves on their class status to the point of deriding or exploiting those of lower birth: Mrs. Grave-airs, who turns her nose up at Joseph, and Beau Didapper, who believes he has a social prerogative to prey on Fanny sexually, are good examples of these vices. Fielding did not consider class privileges to be evil in themselves; rather, he seems to have believed that some people deserve social ascendancy while others do not. This view of class difference is evident in his use of the romance convention whereby the plot turns on the revelation of the hero’s true birth and ancestry, which is more prestigious than everyone had thought. Fielding, then, is conservative in the sense that he aligns high class status with moral worth; this move amounts not so much to an endorsement of the class system as to a taking it for granted, an acceptance of class terms for the expression of human value.
v Symbols:
· Strawberry Mark: The strawberry mark on Joseph Andrews’s chest symbolizes the importance of heredity in 18th-century Britain and how it defined a person’s social class, but it also perhaps provides some humorous commentary on it. The mark plays an important role in the plot, as it confirms that Joseph is the gentleman Wilson’s son. This is extremely important, because it gives Joseph the status to marry his true love Fanny and to live comfortably with her. But there is also something funny about his birthmark looking like a strawberry, rather than something more noble or majestic. A strawberry is a small fruit, and the mark on Joseph is small, suggesting how, from an outside perspective, heredity and social status might not be so significant, despite their massive significance to the events of the story.
· Aeschylus: Parson Abraham Adams is known for always carrying around a book by the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus, which he’s had for 30 years. The book hints at Adams’s studious and bookish nature, but it also symbolizes his hypocrisy, suggesting that Adams’s supposed love of education might be shallower than it appears. Despite Adams’s great affection for Aeschylus, he doesn’t seem to read much outside of Aeschylus, suggesting an unwillingness to branch out and seek a more well-rounded education. Adams also hypocritically says that religious men have little to learn from plays, despite the fact that Aeschylus is a playwright. This shows how, while Adams purports to believe in education and preaches about it, his own education is selective and not always consistent. As is often the case, Adams finds it difficult to practice what he preaches. Adams’s book of Aeschylus meets its end when Adams gets distracted during Joseph Andrews and Fanny’s reunion, and the book burns up. The burning of Aeschylus is ambiguous—on the one hand, it’s yet another example of Adams’s absent-mindedness and carelessness. On the other hand, however, perhaps the burning of Aeschylus represents a new start for Adams, since in the end, the best thing Adams does as a preacher is to help bring about Joseph and Fanny’s wedding.
v Protagonist: Parson Adams, fictional character, the protagonist’s traveling companion in the picaresque novel Joseph Andrews (1742) by Henry Fielding. One of the best-known characters in English literature, Parson Adams is an erudite but guileless man who expects the best of everyone and is frequently the victim of deceit. Undaunted, he continues on his absent-minded, kindly way, his sense of humour and his belief in the goodness of others intact.
v Antagonist: Lady Booby loves Joseph, so why can't she let him go? She's out for herself when she fires Joseph from his job, tries to foil his marriage to Fanny, and can't seem to let him alone. Although Joseph wouldn't have his amazing adventure without Lady Booby's prodding, we have to call a spade a spade. This lady is the antagonist, through and through.
v Setting: The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and of his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams, was the first full-length novel by the English author Henry Fielding to be published and among the early novels in the English language. Appearing in 1742 and defined by Fielding as a "comic epic poem in prose", it tells of a good-natured footman's adventures on the road home from London with his friend and mentor, the absent-minded parson Abraham Adams.
v Genre: Joseph Andrews, in full The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and of His Friend Mr. Abraham Adams, novel by Henry Fielding, published in 1742. It was written as a reaction against Samuel Richardson’s novel Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded (1740). Fielding portrayed Joseph Andrews as the brother of Pamela Andrews, the heroine of Richardson’s novel. Described on the title page as “Written in Imitation of the Manner of Cervantes, author of Don Quixote,” Joseph Andrews begins as a burlesque of Pamela, but the parodic intention of the novel soon becomes secondary, and it develops into a masterpiece of sustained irony and social criticism. At its centre is Parson Adams, one of the great comic figures of literature. Joseph and the parson have a series of adventures, in all of which they manage to expose the hypocrisy and affectation of others through their own innocence and guilelessness. The novel draws on various inspirations. Written "in imitation of the manner of Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote" (see title page on right), the work owes much of its humour to the techniques developed by Cervantes, and its subject-matter to the seemingly loose arrangement of events, digressions and lower-class characters to the genre of writing known as picaresque. In deference to the literary tastes and recurring tropes of the period, it relies on bawdy humour, an impending marriage and a mystery surrounding unknown parentage, but conversely is rich in philosophical digressions, classical erudition and social purpose. The impetus for the novel, as Fielding claims in the preface, is the establishment of a genre of writing "which I do not remember to have been hitherto attempted in our language", defined as the "comic epic-poem in prose": a work of prose fiction, epic in length and variety of incident and character, in the hypothetical spirit of Homer's lost (and possibly apocryphal) comic poem Margites. He dissociates his fiction from the scandal-memoir and the contemporary novel. Book III describes the work as biography.
v Style: Fielding's novel Joseph Andrews was a major innovation in form and style. He claimed that he was writing a new type of literature-“a comic epic in prose". The preface to Joseph Andrews is significant in that it endeavors to expound a theory of the novel. According to Fielding, the new type of novel would combine the state and serious purpose of the epic with the realism and humor of comic writing. The novel is richly comic and utilizes a wide range of comic techniques, including irony, coarse physical humor, bathos, and comic set-piece situations. Joseph Andrews is written in imitation of the manner of Cervantes the author of Don Quixote. Indeed, after the initial ten chapters, the herò along with Parson Adams is cast onto the roads to encounter a series of misadventures before they reach their destination. The picaresque mode helps Fielding in the development of his comic theory - that of ridiculing the affectations of human beings. The picaresque mode of the novel helps the author make his characters encounter a variety of people and a large section of society on the long journey from London to the countryside. Though admittedly loose in structure, Joseph Andrews is unified by a theme. All its incidents and characters project the theme of a discrepancy between appearance and reality, affectation and truth, hypocrisy, and inherent goodness. Written in the picaresque tradition Fielding's Joseph Andrews is a great novel of all times. It is one of the most successful novels for the magnetic beauty of its structure. In this novel plot and characters are not related by a cause-effect scheme. The unity is achieved by means of recurrent themes. Fielding vividly depicts the character and their manners in Joseph Andrews. He also gives a realistic picture of eighteenth-century English society with its vices, follies, and frivolities as well as good qualities like charity, benevolence, and chastity.
v Point of View: The point of view of Joseph Andrews is third person omniscient.
Tone: Lighthearted, Didactic. Fielding definitely tackles serious themes, but he does it by constantly poking fun at his best characters – especially characters who take themselves too seriously. Parson Adams is a great example of a pious parson, but he also wears a pretty obvious toupee.
submitted by im_tafo to CosmosofShakespeare [link] [comments]


2023.01.15 03:17 Thereminista I Need a Bit of Advice...

I recently picked up the family trees again and got back to adding "twigs" on those long branches, and it reacquainted me with the most stubborn of walls. I have one ancestor I cannot find anything at all about, though I found plenty on his neighbors and friends of the period. His name was John Skirvin (not always spelled that way) who married Mary Ann Kitchen. He was born in 1750 or 52 In Colonial Virginia (possibly Cameron Parish, Loudoun County, or near by environs), moved west to Kentucky in 1788 and died in 1836 at a ripe old age with a bucket load of kids and descendants. Beyond this info, I have found NOTHING. Everywhere I've looked has turned up nothing. Not a scrap. Not his parents, not his place of birth, not a boat he could've come in on, just nothing. He was right in the thick of where the Revolutionary War took place, but I haven't found him listed anywhere. The earliest record I have is a tax record that shows he was living with a Samuel Thornton, owning some livestock, and a Kentucky court case where in he states that the court should question Ignatius Wheeler, who has known him from 1776. Wheeler's family is also in the Loudoun area, and he served in the Rev. War. Beyond those two items, I have nothing to work from other than a (so far) separate branch of the family who spell their name "Skirven" instead of with an "i". I've been all through their tree too, trying to see if there is a link. The closest possible is one George Skirven who was a wheelwright, and who was in jail once for a debt of less than $10 pounds. He escaped from that jail, along with another young man. That was in (ta-dah!) 1750, about 60 miles from where John might've been born. After that jail break, I have no idea where George ends up, so he could have hoofed it out of Chesterton, Maryland where he'd lived and been jailed, and headed for the new areas in Virginia. He is my current best bet to be John Skirvin's potential father, though coincidental location and time are all I have. At this point, I know that they all hail back to Scotland and/or England, but Colonial records are spare. I'm not near any of the big archives or libraries, but I've checked all kinds of places online.
The ones I've been to are: The Library of Congress, Ancestry, LDH, Maryland Archives, Indiana Archives, and some misc. libraries. I also hired several "genealogists", probably mostly amateurs. I've managed to clear up about 90% of the mysteries over the many years I've been at this, and I'd sure like to go to my grave with the biggest questions solved. So here is my "brick wall". If anyone has ideas where I can look next, I'd sure like to know. I can't travel, so I'll have to rely on what I can get to via mail or internet. I'm scraping the barrel to afford to do any more so I'm hoping someone can help point me in the right direction. Thanks so much for your time!
PS - I should mention that I've been doing a LOT of transcription for various libraries and archives in order to pay back some karma for help I've received in the past. I've transcribed Civil War logs, Rev. War letters, Death Lists, and cataloged hundreds of old photos and postcards. I figure it would be the best way to help since so many others have made records available that I needed. I do it for fun, so it's not just a one time thing.
submitted by Thereminista to Genealogy [link] [comments]


2023.01.14 16:46 SFMatchThreadder Match Thread: St Johnstone vs Livingston Scottish Premiership

This match is now over. Join the post match discussion here

FT: St Johnstone 2-4 Livingston

St Johnstone scorers: Jamie Murphy (65'), Connor Mclennan (67')
Livingston scorers: Stephen Kelly (8', 15'), James Penrice (39', 81')
Venue: McDiarmid Park
Auto-refreshing reddit comments link
LINE-UPS
St Johnstone
Remi Matthews, Liam Gordon, Andrew Considine, Alex Mitchell Cameron Macpherson, Ryan McGowan Daniel Phillips, Graham Carey Connor Mclennan, David Wotherspoon Jamie Murphy, Adam Montgomery, Drey Wright, Stevie May, Nicholas Clark Thelonius Bair.
Subs: Michael O'Halloran, Ali Crawford, Elliot Parish, James Brown.
____________________________
Livingston
Shamal George, Morgan Boyes, Jack Fitzwater, James Penrice, Nicky Devlin, Sean Kelly, Stephane Omeonga Jason Holt, Andrew Shinnie Scott Pittman, Bruce Anderson Kurtis Guthrie, Stephen Kelly Stephen Ayomide Obileye, Steven Bradley.
Subs: Cristian Montano, Esmaël Gonçalves, Jack Hamilton, Jackson Longridge, Dylan Bahamboula.
MATCH STATS via BBC
St Johnstone Livingston
Possession 55% 45%
Shots 14 11
Shots on Target 5 5
Corners 5 5
Fouls 13 10
MATCH EVENTS via ESPN
8' Goal! St. Johnstone 0, Livingston 1. Stephen Kelly (Livingston) left footed shot from outside the box to the bottom right corner. Assisted by Steven Bradley.
15' Goal! St. Johnstone 0, Livingston 2. Stephen Kelly (Livingston) right footed shot from the centre of the box to the bottom left corner. Assisted by Nicky Devlin with a cross.
39' Goal! St. Johnstone 0, Livingston 3. James Penrice (Livingston) left footed shot from very close range to the centre of the goal. Assisted by Bruce Anderson following a corner.
45' Substitution, St. Johnstone. Connor McLennan replaces Graham Carey.
45' Substitution, St. Johnstone. Jamie Murphy replaces David Wotherspoon.
45' Substitution, St. Johnstone. Cameron MacPherson replaces Alex Mitchell.
50' Substitution, St. Johnstone. Daniel Phillips replaces Ryan McGowan because of an injury.
64' Stéphane Oméonga (Livingston) is shown the yellow card for a bad foul.
65' Goal! St. Johnstone 1, Livingston 3. Jamie Murphy (St. Johnstone) right footed shot from the centre of the box to the bottom left corner. Assisted by Nicky Clark.
67' Goal! St. Johnstone 2, Livingston 3. Connor McLennan (St. Johnstone) right footed shot from the centre of the box to the centre of the goal.
69' Liam Gordon (St. Johnstone) is shown the yellow card for a bad foul.
70' Substitution, Livingston. Scott Pittman replaces Andrew Shinnie.
70' Substitution, Livingston. Jason Holt replaces Stéphane Oméonga.
76' Substitution, St. Johnstone. Theo Bair replaces Nicky Clark.
76' Substitution, Livingston. Kurtis Guthrie replaces Bruce Anderson because of an injury.
81' Goal! St. Johnstone 2, Livingston 4. James Penrice (Livingston) left footed shot from the left side of the box to the top left corner. Assisted by Stephen Kelly.
84' Substitution, Livingston. Ayo Obileye replaces Stephen Kelly.
Don't see a thread for a match you're watching? Click here to learn how to request a match thread from this bot.
submitted by SFMatchThreadder to ScottishFootball [link] [comments]


2023.01.14 00:48 GeraldGeeTMZ 2pac’s Daughter Taliyah Bria

I Started this blog to expose something I think should’ve been exposed years ago but was covered up a few times online A subject based off the fake death of a celebrity who left so many hints behind for us about his plans that I’m surprised this isn’t more of a popular subject. The 7 day theory. For instance.. By 2pac Shakur suggests “something happening over the course of 7 days to him” that is known to this day, by songs he recorded. He always talks about dying...in almost every song “at a young age.” The song “When I Get Free” for example read these lyrics for his next planned move: “ My cellmates suicidal cause his mother died... And my C.O. is a lady, and Im thinkin' maybe me and her can hook up a scheme...to be Swayze Cause she keep on callin' me baby To a young motherfer facin' eighty?? thats enough to make you crazy.. Now how long will it take, to get her hooked ? Got her watchin me liftin weights, sneakin looks I devised a plan....Im in the trunk while she drives the van Aint no disguise “Ima die” as a man If we make it then Im takin' it to Hell All them n****z that was frontin' while I sat up in the cell Locked in jail, I couldnt touch her? so I planned your misery ? The n* you don`t want to see.” He renamed himself Makaveli after a character who in history, “faked his death.” There’s a whole book based off of the character and how he came to “fake his own death” which 2pac admitted to reading and studying while he was in jail. When he was released he came out with “The 7 Day Theory.” An album named Makaveli based off the book he studied. Coincidentally, when 2pac was fatally shot in Vegas, he was in the hospital for 7 days, before he was pronounced “dead.” Some witnesses explained on documentation that some saw him leave by ambulance, and some saw him leave by helicopter. A lot of people have come across the agreement that this man did in fact plan his own, or fake his own death. 2pac Shakur also has a song titled, “A Letter To My Unborn Child.” Since 2009-2010 there have been rumors circling the social media scene about a daughter 2pac Shakur hid in Canada. The rumor seemed confirmed to a few after his group “The Outlawz” and specifically “Young Noble” was seen communicating to her through twitter publicly...an account by the name of “officialbabygrl” which a few people had already claimed, was “2pac’s daughter. “Taliyah’s given name at birth was “Bria” but she explained her name was changed by her “parents” in tribute to Aaliyah Haughton who passed in a plane crash in 2001. Rumors became even more specific when Kidada Jones came into the picture of rumors, being as though she dated 2pac Shakur before his “death” and that she is indeed the best friend of late singer Aaliyah Haughton. After some backlash and negative comments came out regarding Taliyah’s parents changing her name at a young age. The combo soon behind her name actually became a huge trend to social media. In other worlds, Tupac and Aaliyah (Taliyah) became a thing on all social media platforms. The 2 artists officially by the year 2010-2011 became a popular and fictional: “couple goals,” or “item” through google search and through different photoshopped images. 2pac Shakur also changed his name growing up, or so his parents did. Who were born Black Panthers. “Lesane Parish Crooks” was his name, before it was changed to Tupac. After the very first claims people found it suspicious that designer Karl Kani had followed Taliyah via Instagram. Karl Kani is known for his take over during the 90’s fashion era. Working with artists such as Snoop Dogg, Biggie, 2pac, Aaliyah and even Kobe Bryant. Her name is Taliyah Bria but she was actually born: “Bria” her name was legally changed and finalized in Canada, in the year August 2006. As a tribute following the artist “Aaliyah Haughton’s” death in 2001. It’s not documented why she is living in Canada, nor who her parents are, no names are given, nor are family members names listed or are available through online search.

2pac #conspiracytheories #2pacdaughter #taliyahbria #taliyahbriadad #taliyahbriafather #exposed

submitted by GeraldGeeTMZ to u/GeraldGeeTMZ [link] [comments]


2023.01.13 02:00 buckeye_runner Ruh Roh it's a...

Ruh Roh it's a... submitted by buckeye_runner to ShitMomGroupsSay [link] [comments]


2023.01.13 00:45 Mean-Collection-1114 Ruh Roh it's a...

Ruh Roh it's a... submitted by Mean-Collection-1114 to u/Mean-Collection-1114 [link] [comments]


2023.01.12 21:24 StarGG4358 Avoid this person

Avoid this person submitted by StarGG4358 to dontputyourdickinthat [link] [comments]


2023.01.12 20:24 punims Ruh Roh it's a...

Ruh Roh it's a... submitted by punims to BrandNewSentence [link] [comments]


2023.01.12 17:57 CynthiaDewey Ruh Roh it's a...

Ruh Roh it's a... submitted by CynthiaDewey to u/CynthiaDewey [link] [comments]


2023.01.12 17:28 KS_Brian Livingston Parish sheriff received campaign donations from contractor that runs Lifehouse rehabilitation center

Sheriff Jason Ard, who proposed the kratom prohibition ordinance that his brother Jeff introduced to parish council, has been receiving campaign contributions since 2013 from Smith Tank and Steel, a construction contractor who sponsors Life House, a Christian drug rehabilitation center with two locations in the area.
Members of Life House testified in favor of a ban at the kratom prohibition ordinance hearings in Ascension Parish in August.
https://www.kratomscience.com/2023/01/11/livingston-parish-louisiana-wants-to-ban-kratom-jan-12-hearing-scheduled/
submitted by KS_Brian to kratom [link] [comments]


2023.01.12 16:36 potato_for_cooking Ruh Roh it's a... Tickle in my "Urge To Burn" Zone

Ruh Roh it's a... Tickle in my submitted by potato_for_cooking to ShermanPosting [link] [comments]