#Christian fiction discourse

[marietheran-archived]

See, everyone is saying that the problem with most Christian art is that it's afraid to talk about difficult things, but I'm not actually sure that this is the crux of the issue? Certainly, there are many people who seem to expect "Christian art" to 100% positive, but at the same time, art doesn't have to be dark to be good, and many Christian books do showcase some quite grim stuff -- and still suck.

Either it's that maybe they're only setting the book in a dark place, and that isn't enough (perhaps it's internal conflict that is needed here, not just difficult external circumstances), or it's that the writing is simply poor. And I'm beginning to think it might be the latter, but I don't know what causes it.

Does the problem lie with too-lax editors or lack thereof? Surely there have to be Christians capable of writing well in the right circumstances?

[fictionadventurer]

It sounds like Joe and Ken focused on telling stories, stories that being stories focused on the world and characters they knew. While Pete's were more focused on delivering a message with story flavored wrapping.

This is very much the case, but the difference seems to go even deeper than that, to a fundamental difference in worldviews that affect how they approach story.

Episodes written by Joe Fallon and Ken Scarborough respect children as people. Children have been shaped by their experiences and have unique personalities. Children are curious and have brains--they are driven to explore new things and can draw conclusions from what they see and do. Children are already people who deserve respect, and like all of us, they're growing into different people as they learn new things and have more experiences. The child characters can thus be the drivers of their own stories and come to learn lessons for themselves. The child audience can relate to those characters, be drawn into the story, and learn what it's trying to teach without having every detail explicitly spelled out.

Episodes written by Peter Hirsch seem to approach children as people-in-training. They might have one or two personality traits, but instead of coming from and interacting with other elements of their background, they're just pasted on, like a sticker you can put on your Generic Child Prototype. These blank-slate children need to have knowledge poured into them so they can become Properly Educated Adults. So in his episodes, these child characters will go through their story with a question, and the adults--the real people--will tell them the information in great detail so these characters--and the watching audience--can go off into the world knowing what the writer has decided they need to know.

In Joe and Ken's episodes, flaws are funny, and can create funny conflicts that will teach the children better ways to approach problems. In Pete's episodes, flaws are horrible things that need to be pointed out, labeled, and sanded away, so these children can grow up into the perfect model of what a Good Adult should be. The first approach is engaging, and celebrates diversity of personality in a community, while the other becomes bland in the interests of shaping all the members of a community into the desired mold.

Comparing the two approaches provides a shockingly thorough lesson in how one should and should not approach writing and education. Story and character and message are all intertwined. Trying to force the message onto the story and characters makes for something bland and generic and unrealistic. Letting the characters shape the story and letting the story bring out the message makes for something much more unique, organic, engaging, and real. And yes, maybe I've come to this conclusion by spending far too much time thinking way too deeply about a bunch of shows for elementary-aged chlidren, but that doesn't mean it's not fascinating to see how, even within the same show, an writer's personality and approach to the audience can make such a vast difference in the quality of a story.

[brown-little-robin]

.

[anonymous-witness777]

Sorry I can't agree with that last addition. I'm admittedly cringe, and love cringe. People will bash what they bash. You can't do a thing about it. Spiteful movies are one thing, but genuine, earnest cringe often contains a beauty lacking in more self-aware "nuanced" affairs. Neutrality is overrated. Haven't you ever encountered preachy media whose message you disagree with entirely, but find yourself being nearly won over by its sheer conviction? The lack of eloquence is almost a plus.

To add to that, my own experience is that younger artistic people seem to enjoy my more dogmatic works. The older people may look askance but the people my age seem to crave conviction.

Please don't take away the crayons from low-budget Christian horror films. It's genuinely one of my favorite genres at this point.

"He has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."

"He has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."

Not encouraging making bad art on purpose, to be clear -- encouraging a release from anxiety and from the expectations of the secular market. So the Christian artist is a fool. So they're no C. S. Lewis. So what? The clunky animation and questionable narrative structure of The Crippled Lamb speaks a word no Disney movie can speak. James Hampton built an altar from cardboard and tinfoil, and the Lord is honored on it. A certain ten seconds of the messy, terribly-made The Coming capture the cosmic terror of God in a way no mainstream horror film has even attempted.

Don't make art defensively, but don't make art fearfully. Protagonists are allowed to be vanilla. Sometimes you'll get bashed. Sometimes you'll make things that are cringe. It still glorifies God when made in earnest, I promise. It's okay.

LISTEN! CHRISTIAN MEDIA DOESN'T WORK IF IT IS MADE OUT OF SPITE FOR THE LACK OF MEDIA FOR US TO ENJOY! YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING, NOT JUST AIR YOUR GREIVANCES ABOUT NOT HAVING ANYTHING YOU LIKE! STOP IT! THEY MAKE FUN OF US WHEN WE DO THIS! PLEASE!

[gayleviticus]

i saw a post today on r/openchristian where someone asked if people there believe in the trinity and there was a reply that was like 'how could anyone? have people not read the scholarship?'

and i think it crystallised something about progressive christian spaces that has bugged me - and it's not 'people spout heresy' 'people say things i dont agree with', but rather than i think for progressive christians (esp online) there's a bit of a 'problem of theological method'. and by that i dont even mean like, people are using methods of interpreting scripture i dont agree with.

but i think there's a bit of an issue where, for example, conservative evangelicalism explicitly teaches people to read scripture in a v specific way. inerrancy is a clearly defined doctrine. lots of resources model prooftexting and mustering up the bible as evidence for certain positions. there's lots of apologetics that teaches tactics for deflecting errors or inaccuracies in the text. bart ehrman and his ilk are peddlers of lies.

and i think when people step out of that bubble, there isn't really an obvious alternative method for them to read scripture theologically. and so people might often turn to the kind of secular historical-critical work that was forbidden in evangelicalism and go ham with that.

i don't have anything against secular historical-critical academia; i think at best it deepens our understanding of the human side of the Bible and at worst it makes conjectures that are perfectly reasonable from a purely naturalistic perspective if not from the eyes of faith. but it's not an approach designed to nurture faith or approach the Bible as a theological text; Bart Ehrman is not the arbiter of people's faith.

i think progressive methods of reading scripture theologically certainly exist (whether orthodox or not), but i think compared to say, evangelical inerrancy, they are much more implicit and subtle. they aren't as explicitly defined and taught to people, and people can use similar phrasing to mean quite different things.

and i feel like within progressive christian circles that can sometimes put people talking past each other, because one person is reading scripture totally metaphorically, one person is reading it according to a historian who said the last supper is fictional and Paul never existed, someone else is still using an evangelical inerrancy framework, someone else is interpreting through the ecumenical creeds as filters for the core literal non-negotiables of the christian story (what we could call creedal orthodoxy perhaps).

and in a way i think this can be harder to navigate even than like, catholic vs protestant discourse, bc in those debates there's more meta-language around differences in perspective (e.g. sola fide, sola scriptura). but i feel like progressive christian circles lack this kind of consistent meta-language that can lead to people talking past each other entirely

(heck, even 'progressive christian' is vague - i've always used it as the broadest possible umbrella term for christians w left-leaning politics, and 'liberal christian' more for people who deny supernatural elements of the religion etc. but some people will do the total inverse and swap the terms around)

edit: while i'm making this post i'll plug the podcast 2 feminists annotate the bible, which imo does a great job of modelling (if not explicitly teaching) a good solid progressive approach to the bible that isn't just relentlessly ceding ground to secular scholarship but also genuinely tackling the text while respecting it's value. (probably what we might call an inclusive creedal orthodox approach). i think it's pretty goated

[utilitycaster]

re the previous post I could make a pretty long post about how arguments over Who In Fiction Deserves Redemption are maybe foundational Bullshit Fandom Discourse but also specifically in invoking religion in dumbass ways (I once saw someone say Christianity invented the concept and like. I assure you it didn't.) but specifically if you're going to go the Jewish route the tenets I'd go for based on the book of Jonah are:

declining to offer someone the opportunity for redemption is itself a problem, though you could also tbf read that as "refusing the orders of god" which might be more the intention of the text, but doesn't matter because

If someone demonstrates sincere intent to change, that alone is sufficient reason to hold off on any punitive action, even before they've specifically made amends

if you whine about someone being redeemed after they demonstrated a desire and intent to change, god's gonna kill your favorite plant and tell you to shut the fuck up

[inkiblot]

Philosophy Regarding Antiship Logic

( !! PLEASE READ !! This is my person belief and idea that I wanted to share. Please respect it! I'm always up to have a friendly chat but please don't be rude. Thank you!) I've been reflecting on modern philosophy and its influence on contemporary fandom culture, particularly the discourse between "proship" and "antiship" communities. I believe I have reached a compelling conclusion regarding the moral foundations of this debate.

To begin, let us define "antiship." The term generally refers to fans who disapprove of certain fictional ships and their supporters on the grounds that these relationships are problematic or morally objectionable. However, this raises a fundamental question: What constitutes moral wrongdoing?

This is where the antiship argument begins to unravel. The phenomenon of antishipping is primarily observed in Western society or within fandom spaces heavily influenced by Western social norms, whereas Eastern fandom cultures exhibit a relative lack of such discourse. This discrepancy suggests that the moral framework underlying antishipping is not universal but rather culturally contingent.

Drawing from the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, we can further deconstruct this issue. Nietzsche critiqued the origins of morality, particularly its foundation in Judeo-Christian teachings. If we accept his argument that morality is not an absolute truth but a construct shaped by historical and religious influences, then the moral objections posed by antishippers become questionable. How can one claim that a particular ship is "immoral" if the very concept of morality is rooted in millennia-old doctrines that are not universally accepted?

Furthermore, within the antiship community itself, there exists ongoing contention over which beliefs or ethical stances are "more morally right." This internal conflict highlights a broader philosophical issue: If morality is not an objective truth but a subjective construct, then no single moral stance can be definitively proven superior to another.

Additionally, one could argue that antishippers’ beliefs regarding the morality of certain ships could, in some cases, be interpreted as racially or culturally insensitive, if not outright xenophobic. There have been instances in which antishippers have engaged in such behavior, particularly when moral judgments about shipping are imposed upon works from cultures with different ethical and historical backgrounds. By applying a Western moral framework to media originating from non-Western cultures, antishippers risk reinforcing ethnocentric biases and disregarding cultural contexts that do not conform to their own moral perspectives.

Ultimately, the purpose of this argument is to illustrate that the antiship perspective lacks a stable foundation. Concepts of "right" and "good" are not objective realities but rather socially and historically contingent ideas. Thus, moral condemnation within fandom spaces is inherently flawed, as it relies on a framework that is neither universal nor absolute.

[inthehouseoffinwe]

I saw your cool post about the Sindar's treatment of the silmaril. I think the strange logic behind Luthien/Dior/Elwing's claim to the silmarils is likely a consequence of Tolkein's Catholicism and "turn-of-the-century" worldview leaking into the work (which can be seen in multiple other examples, particularly Miriel being portrayed as a "bad mother" who doesn't obey her husband and ruined her son's life by refusing to come back to life ASAP and Indis is the "good woman" who steps up to serve Finwe, whose descendants are favored by the Valar). He thinks that an important/beautiful item ought not to truly belong to its creator, but to the "public benefit" and therefore under the Valar's true possession (although I personally wonder what benefits the silmarils ever brought to anyone, other than pathological addiction to their light). Ultimately, handing over the silmaril is a sign of absolute obediance to the Valar and the only reason they fight Morgoth. So it appears that they value obediance more highly than their duty to protect the children of Eru from Morgoth, which is in line with Catholic principles of the supreme will of divine beings.

Furthermore, Tolkein builds Arda on the very notion that certain races (elves, and above them, Maiar and Valar except Sauron and Morgoth) are just ontologically pure and superior (biologically/racially divine) to all others. So even if they do something wrong (commit theft), they are somehow still right if it is not against Eru's will. The support for this is in Letter 183, he says "...So even if in desperation 'the West' had bred or hired hordes of orcs and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right." This notion is obviously highly problematic under modern standards of morality and equal rights for all. Nonetheless that is probably how Tolken legitimized Luthien and her descendant's theft of the silmaril -- they are part-Maia, superior by nature to all other elves, especially those that have kinslayed. It would explain why Dior wasn't burned by the jewel when he killed dwarves for it, and why Elwing justifies her claim to the jewel as "my grandma wore it and my dad died for it" without actual legal entitlement to it. Granted, trauma is also an explanation, but the explicit reason given in the text appears to be based on an assumption of innate superiority through part-Maia heritage (as Luthien was only able to retrieve the silmarils through Maiar powers and love for Beren, when no full elves could).

So all of these premises are very objectionable by secular standards of equality, governance, and property law. But Tolkein was a devout Catholic who grew up and fought for the British Empire, which also espoused a racial heirarchy. And all of this bled into the Silmarillion and created certain incongruencies in the treatment of various characters.

Hi Anon, thanks for sending this!

I'm going to break this reply down into points for the sake of coherency, but there is something I want to address first:

I am not Christian and whilst I’ve grown up around several, cannot speak for all their beliefs in detail. However, having had my own faith completely warped to make points which are the opposite of what I believe, I avoid using religion as a base for discourse unless I am certain of what I am saying, and have made sure it won't be interpreted the wrong way.

In general, there's a disturbing trend of painting people who follow a religion as inherently backwards or oppressive. No time is taken to understand their beliefs, the complexities behind them, and if these beliefs are even being understood and applied within the right context.

Tolkien using his faith as a base for his fictional world is not inherently bad nor should it be seen that way.

With this in mind, let's dive into things!

1. Breaking the Miriel/Indis narrative into simple good and bad does a disservice to the characters and the author. We simply don’t get enough time with the characters or this part of the story to make a clear cut statement.

I don’t see Miriel portrayed negatively at all. When Tolkien speaks of the effects of Miriel's death, he writes them in the shadow of what actions Fëanor and Finwë took because they could not let her go, rather than blaming Miriel for leaving. Fëanor is what he is because of what he (and Finwë) chose to do with his mother's memory and absence.

Miriel herself is treated gently, her exhaustion deemed reason enough for her departure, and her death written in ambiguous terms:

‘She went then to the gardens of Lórien and lay down to sleep; but though she seemed to sleep, her spirit indeed departed from her body, and passed in silence to the Halls of Mandos.’

She is not blamed for leaving, rather the opposite. It seems she had no choice in the end. Other elves blame Finwë for his decision to marry again, not Miriel for leaving:

'...many saw the effect of the breach... judging that if Finwë had endured his loss and been content with the fathering of his mighty son, the courses of Fëanor would have been otherwise...'

Later on when Tolkien writes of Finwë’s preference for his eldest, Finwë is put in the spotlight for making a bad decision/reacting the wrong way to his loss. Miriel remains innocent.

'But the shadow of Miriel did not depart... from his heart; and of all whom he loved Fëanor had ever the chief share of his thought.'

Miriel being a 'bad mother' seems to stem from fanon interpretation.

Indis is also interesting because we see little to nothing of her as her own character. I would argue if she really was the 'good woman' she would have stayed with Finarfin and supported him in maintaining her husband's legacy rather than returning to the Vanyar.

Regarding her children, Fingolfin is written as someone as guilty as Fëanor in the initial instigation: another prince who let his pride and arrogance blind him to the point where he was picking fights and vying for leadership as much as his half-brother. His later decisions may have been better, but I don't see corrolation between Indis marrying Finwë and him becoming a great (but guilty) king. Finarfin too is left to his own merit, and we don't hear much about her daughters.

(I’d add that under this argument, Elwing should be punished for abandoning her children. Instead we see her descendants rise to become great kings and wise elves. We could say not being allowed back to ME is a punishment, but that’s a different discussion.)

But in essence, I think the early 20th Century ideas of a good/bad mother/wife aren't seen here.

2. I agree that Tolkien has a 'public benefit' approach to things. Interestingly, the Valar's apparent right to the silmarils only occurs after the Trees go out, as they are supposedly a way to restore them.

There is a strange relationship here regarding the Treelight. The light was supposedly for everyone, and Fëanor’s creation is seen as his even by the Valar. Then the trees go out and suddenly everyone has a right to the stones. Now morally you can argue Fëanor should have given the silmarils, but in terms of ownership, they are his. The light was for everyone. He took what was for everyone and made something his own from it that everyone acknowledged belonged to him.

I also agree that the Valar demanded obediance over their duty to protect to children of Illuvatar, however disagree on the allignment with Catholic principles which leads me to the next point.

3. Tolkien has stated in his letters that the Valar made a mistake and essentially went against Eru when they raised the Pelóri (I can't remember the letter number) to fence off Valinor, and left the men and Elves in Middle Earth to suffer.

He makes it clear that the only truely divine and supreme being is Eru, and the Valar, though emmiseries or angels of a sort, can and do mess up. They should not have been silent and left Beleriand to Morgoth and Middle Earth to Sauron. Manwë especially fell into pride and arrogance.

4. Regarding letter 183 ‘the West’ referred to are people within Middle Earth specifically, such as those of Gondor and Rohan. The point Tolkien’s making is regarding larger causes vs the good and evil people are capable of.

People can do bad things, but these actions do not necessarily mean their ultimate Cause is wrong. There is a difference between an action and the reason for it, one does not necessarily negate the other.

In this case, he says if the West (Gondor, Numenor, etc) bred orcs to attack men working under or around Sauron, the action would be wrong. But this doesn’t automatically make their ultimate goal of defeating Sauron wrong - Sauron is still a very real threat and must be defeated for everyone's sake. What happens regarding people who use brutal means of achieving this goal is separate to this goal.

This is something I think we can still agree with.

5. We can trouble Maia = inherent goodness/supremacy considering Sauron, Saruman, and the Balrogs, but I see what you mean.

However, I think the problem lies with how Tolkien percieves the Fëanorians more than the Sindar and Melian's line. Tolkien believes the light within the Silmarils ultimately belongs to the Valar, and everything that happened because Fëanor didn't means the Noldor have no claim to the gems. Going back to letter 183, the Cause of the Fëanorians is Wrong. They can do good things like fighting Morgoth, but remain ultimately 'bad.'

With this thinking, basically anyone has more of a right to the Silmarils than the Fëanorians. Luthien is superior to other elves because she hasn't hurt anyone or been the aggressor more than because she is part Maia. That's just a bonus and gives the impression she is less inclined to evil.

Furthermore her Cause is good. And her actions, driven by love, are portrayed as good. For Tolkien, she fulfils every need to take the claim of the silmaril.

Regarding Dior, I think here is when we see some of that Empire mindset rather than a religious one. Killing the dwarves for something they actually have more of a claim to screams colonial violence the British Empire was well known for.

I don't think the Maia heritage actually matters. It's Luthien who is generally referenced when they speak of her descendants, and I think that's because of her actions more than her mother.

6. Now all this in mind, we have to remember Tolkien uses a named narrator, and to keep within that he says he is merely translating writings into modern english. As such we can pull literally anything and everything written into question, to the point of taking something he believes about the writing and completely flipping it around.

Final Thoughts:

Arda was no doubt shaped by Tolkien's personal beliefs in empire and religion. But in reading the text only through this there is a danger in broadsweeping whole ideas into binary right and wrong when the points he is making are much more complex. Ultimately he deals with the human, and keeps to a loose style to evoke thoughts and discussion. It's important to remember that in any discussion of his work, we can hold opposing opinions and still be right. We don't have to follow his singular narrative.

~ Sorry this got so long, but you raised some very interesting points and ideas and I wanted to spend time on them. I know I haven't spoken much on the silmaril itself so if I missed something, please feel free to send another ask :)

[centrally-unplanned]

My take on Dante Theology discourse is that the book is obviously an impressive piece of literature dealing with wide themes of man and morality, that never claimed it was making any concrete theological claims. Any criticism of the book itself on that axis is bogus.

But also that there are many people out there - more than have read The Inferno probably! - that do kneejerk treat its concept as theological canon, and that is both a fair enough thing to criricize and in fact it is difficult to explain why its criticism-worthy without admitting that all Christian conceptions of hell are equally fictional. And not just because Christianity is wrong inherently; Christian traditions have constantly vagueblogged and flip-flopped over what hell actually is. That is why Dante's tale so easily slipped into canon, it is filling a vacuum.

[feelthesturmanddrangintheair]

On Nosferatu and Dracula, Mina & Ellen

I loved Nosferatu but I hate the online discourse about it. It’s literally making me crazy. This is a pic of all of you bitches right now:

I have a huge problem with literal readings of this movie at all. It’s obviously not the point of the damned thing. But, Ellen/Thomas shippers, I'm coming for you now.

I’ve noticed people online, on tiktok, tumblr etc, shipping Ellen/Thomas the exact same way I’ve seen Mina/Jonathan since Dracula Daily. And the Mina thing already frustrated me, but the Ellen one makes me crazy.

(they’re not the same character)

But I guess I understand the instinct?

Modern vampire media is obsessed with the male vampire as the sexual/romance object. Twilight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Buffy. (Interview with a vampire doesn’t count (lol count) cause it’s all from Vamp perspective. Also it's profoundly gay). (However Anne Rice does get enormous kudos for basically dragging the vampire from hammer horror into boyfriend material, so it is relevant i guess?).

The modern approach is that the subtext has become text “Yes we do like dracula and we do want to fuck him thank you very much”.

It’s always been the subtext of Victorian vampire stories - which were riffing off the already dark, brooding male figures in literature before that (Rochester, Byronic heroes, also Byron) and combining them with Eastern folk tales. In the original Dracula Mina and her plucky group of fuckbois slay the vampire. He is defeated and good Christian morals are preserved.

However, Dracula is that bitch - he’s an object of fascination for everyone in the book, especially Mina. The title of the book is “Dracula” not “Jonathan Harker is a good husband actually”. 

In the late 19th century gothic literature, the vampire and the monster was The Other. They were feared but also hypnotic - a beguiling, seductive other. Some women gave in to such temptation (Lucy) and some stood stoic in the face of it (Mina). But the temptation was still there. That is why it is powerful to triumph over it.

The Text: Dracula is scary and we shall defeat him The Subtext: But also don’t you think Dracula is kinda sexy?

That is and remains the subtext in all good gothic horror novels of the 19th century: you don’t literally want to fuck death or a monster but also, maybe in your subconscious, you kinda want to fuck death. You might want to fuck the monster. Maybe you want to be bad.

So when movies began making vampire stories - Dracula, Nosferatu - this theme became stronger in the visual medium. The monster was sexual, and the tension of the film was always the push and pull of attraction and horror between it and the fair maiden.

Later in the 20th century, it became more explicit, like everything else. Sexy vampire movies and exploitation movies in the 70s give way to Francis Ford Coppola’s ridiculous, fantastic, opulent “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” in the 1990s. A film that labors with every breath to faithfully adapt the novel, then throws that labour away to turn Mina into Dracula’s reincarnated soul mate. I find this movie perplexing but fabulous. I have watched it probably 6 times in the past 3 years.

And then the 2000s teen vampire obsession. You have Buffy obviously, with her litany of vampire boyfriends (I’m a Spike fan - Angel is BORING). Hilariously for this discussion, Buffy is a slayer who dates vampires, so it’s less Mina/Dracula and more Van Helsing/Dracula. 

(huh there is a market for that)

But where Buffy took what Anne Rice did and turned it into a weekly fun drama for teens (and tweens who probably should not have been watching), Stephanie Meyer evolves the vampire again. Twilight exploded the Vampire Boyfriend into the mainstream. In the early 2010s you couldn’t escape YA vampire and monster boyfriend fiction. You even had the CW jumping on board with The Vampire Diaries ffs

So after Twilight, wanting to fuck a vampire or monster became somewhat mainstream.

In the 2020s, vampires being the main love interest has fully transcended the subtext from the original stories. The monster has become a protective puppy in our beds. Say it with me “We have defanged the vampire”. And like all big, crazy trends, eventually they run out of steam and become unfashionable. There is nothing particularly shocking left to milk from this archetype. Vampires became dull, untrendy, old news. They were supplanted by dystopias and fairy courts.

(I think ACOTAR is more honest about what readers actually want - most people aren’t monster fuckers. Most people’s interest in vampire erotica is rooted in a powerful, sexy, somewhat feminine man magicking you away from your hum-drum life. Twilight is the dishonest version of ACOTAR. ACOTAR says “Yeah we just wanna fuck Howl from Howls Moving Castle leave me alone”)

I digress.

Dracula Daily started in 2021. A simple idea: using substack, send the text of Dracula out, on the timeline that matches the epistolary novel’s dates. Tumblr being tumblr, we latch on and from 2022, the yearly run of Dracula Daily is an integral part of the tumblr experience. 

Like a book club with thousands of members, Tumblr has basically conducted a multi-year close reading and textual analysis of Dracula.

What has been most surprising is the volume of readers who have discovered the incredible character of Mina, and her sweet and strong relationship with Jonathan.

I think, in comparison to the often milquetoast relationship between these two on screen (I'll call it the cuckification of Jonathan) and the reduction often of Mina to a swooning maiden, Stoker’s original text is a revelation. 

In the book, Mina is a headstrong, intelligent and resourceful operator. Without her, the group would have failed and Dracula would have England in his thrall. The men around her respect her. She works tirelessly to save Jonathan in the first place, then England.

Jonathan and Mina make an excellent team - once reunited, her determination to extinguish the thing that killed Lucy, and his first-hand knowledge combines to help defeat him. A now oft-quoted section shows that when Mina has been bitten and is in Dracula’s thrall Jonathan writes:

“To one thing I have made up my mind: if we find out that Mina must be a vampire in the end, then she shall not go into that unknown and terrible land alone. I suppose it is thus that in old times one vampire meant many; just as their hideous bodies could only rest in sacred earth, so the holiest love was the recruiting sergeant for their ghastly ranks.”

Very sweet stuff. Very wife-guy. Isn’t Mina lucky?

So we now have so much fandom for Mina and Jonathan.

And it’s very sweet and interesting - it’s presented often as a radical, subversive take “I think Dracula sucks and is abusive. Mina and Jonathan belong together!”. It’s a classic “only on tumblr would this be considered a radical take”. But also “Only in the 21st century is this a radical take”.

It’s like Christine/Raoul shippers in the POTO fandom (I am one but however it’s because I truly do not think Christine is right for Erik. Read the masterwork “A Stroll on Sunday” that’s what I want for poor Erik). There’s nothing wrong with thinking the canonical breeding pair are well-suited; however the fixation on them and vilification of the interloping monster is perhaps missing the point of the entire text.

I’m so sorry Tumblr, thinking Mina should be with her Good Christian Husband Jonathan is not a life-altering take. Tumblr has subverted too close to the sun and started reinforcing Victorian values. We/Tumblr should be studied in a lab I stg. The brain gymnastics involved in this one is too insane.

And now we’re seeing this bleed into the Nosferatu discussion. I really liked and agreed with a lot of what Princess said in her video about Nosferatu & the Gothic Appetite:

But to bring this shipping focus to Nosferatu, is even more insane. Eggers' Nosferatu is far more focused on Ellen’s connection to Orlok than Dracula/Mina in the original Dracula text. I really liked what Eggers' said in this interview:

“In the novel, Stoker’s Dracula is seemingly moving to London, to England, for world domination. And, but this is all a demon-lover story. Ya know, Orlok is going to Wisborg for Ellen and no other reason. And that, that’s more interesting to me as a storyteller”

Nosferatu is different to Dracula in that it strips the vampire-hunting gang out of the text. It takes a lot of the unnecessary excess of the text and pairs it down to a fairy tale. One town, cut down the plot, remove excess characters, keep it simple. For me, I feel the result is way more focused than the original plot (and the Coppola movie).

Instead of Quincy, Seward and Arthur you just have Friederich. And Friederich is not a valiant hero like our noble trio. Instead of friendship and brother’s in arms saving the day, Friederich abandons Ellen and Thomas and succumbs to the monster. There is so much more darkness and despair in Ellen’s story because of this change. 

Those changes centralize the relationship between Ellen and Orlok in a way Dracula never did. It also does it in a less shit way then the Coppola film with its terrible reincarnation storyline.  

With Ellen and Orlok central, the Ellen/Thomas argument makes even less sense. Ellen cares about Thomas of course, she doesn’t want any harm to come to him.

But she also says to him “You could never please me as he could”. 

Thomas symbolises the status quo - a husband who leaves you to go to work, to ignore your strangeness and potentially also flatten it. Ellen says “It all ended when I first met my Thomas”. She grew up abnormal, supernatural and sexual - she alienated her father and family, and had a connection to a supernatural ancient demon during her teenage years. But the presence of Thomas removed that.

Some may see that as a saving grace - symbolising Thomas’ love as healing and protecting Ellen from the forces of darkness. That is a fairly simple, Christian reading - the healing love of matrimony and gender norms. However, you can also see this as a squashing of her powers and uniqueness. As Von Franz says:

“In heathen times you might have been a Great Priestess of Isis. Yet, in this strange and modern world your purpose is of greater worth.”

He does not view Ellen’s powers as an affliction but as matter-of-fact and part of who she is. He reframes those powers as something different - not a curse or possession. He compares her to the respected priestesses of an old world. 

Ellen chafes against the role of the good, noble wife. She does not want to be an angel in the house, and she does not want to be left at home while Thomas works. She clearly enjoys the honeymoon part of the marriage. The first scene we have between them Thomas gets ready to leave for work, leaving Ellen in bed crying: “The honeymoon was yet too short!���

It’s a Romeo and Juliet style scene - Thomas trying to leave the bedchamber as he must, and Ellen trying to convince him to stay and enjoy their married life. Thomas, like Romeo, does not realise the horrors that await him.

When he returns and tells her he must go away on a business trip, her reaction is less romantic and more frantic: she throws down the lilacs he bought her and eventually shrieks “Can’t you see that it doesn’t matter? If you leave nothing will matter!”

Throughout the movie Ellen fights Thomas leaving with everything she has. She has premonitions, she knows nothing good will come of his trip. She does not want to be a little wife and does not want to be left behind in domesticity. 

(this is in contrast to Anna and Friederich, who are blissfully happy in a traditional marriage. He talks of his sexual appetite, she produces babies for him. He runs a shipping business, she stays at home with their children. He is brash, masculine and doesn’t listen. She is sweetness and light, hosts their guests and never causes trouble. And they both die. Their goodness, their adherence to Christian values does not save them)

Ellen however plays the part of the hysterical woman. She does not remain quiet, she does not remain sweetness and light. She has fits, she is hypersexual, she speaks her mind and speaks about death.

If you watch Nosferatu and think Ellen would be happy as Thomas’ little wife at any point, I think you have missed the point. Thomas’ personality or qualities are besides the point - he is part of patriarchy, part of status-quo living, part of her subjugation and squashing her into a role she could never fit into. She says as much when he returns and they have their infamous fight by the fire:

“Well, where is it? Your money? Your promotion? Your house? Where is that which is so precious to you? Have you paid back kind Harding your debt? Have you repaid him with this plague that infects his wife?”

She is furious that she warned him not to leave her, that he did and the bad thing happened. That he seemingly sacrificed their love for a sack of gold. Women, in parts of culture and history, blocked from seeking work and income of their own, were therefore subjected to their spouses ambition and therefore neglect. If she was happy with having less materially, and more in her marriage, that was not a decision for her to make. Her husband made it, and the consequence was being left to her loneliness with an increasing brood of children to take care of.

Ellen does not want this. She spends the entire movie telling Thomas this. And at no point does he get it.

I think this is why it's so important that Orlok says:

“It is not me. It is your own nature… Love is inferior to you. I told you, you are not of Human kind… I am an appetite, nothing more”

Orlok is a symbol of all of Ellen that is not able to be seen, heard or appreciated in her world. She has an appetite of her own, love is inferior to power and control. In her marriage, unlike Anna’s, she is the one with the sexual appetite. She wants, she asks and calls. 

There is no future of Ellen and Thomas happily together. There is only death - either the way that played out in the film, or Orlok killing Thomas. But if Ellen and Thomas somehow defeated Orlok with both surviving, like Mina and Jonathan, I doubt they’d happily go on to have a child and name him Friederich. Ellen would leave, one way or another.

Ellen is a woman trapped in a society that does not want her, or at least wants to cut her down, contort her to the right size and shape. Reduce her expression, shut her up and leave her at home while the real men do the real work, including hunting vampires.

And this is why I find Stoker’s ending to Dracula so fucking frustrating. Mina is kept outside of the plans (for good reason - she has a channel to Dracula’s thoughts and worries he can see what she sees, but this is created by the author and so I get to critique it) and bears witness to the destruction of Dracula. While I don’t need a girlboss in every story, Mina is somewhat side-lined in this process and I don’t love it. She follows this by becoming the normal and good house wife to Jonathan and producing some progeny to name after their slain heroes.

(sidebar I think it would be more meaningful if Mina had a daughter and named her Lucy, the name of her dearest friend who was horrifically killed but don’t mind me)

Ellen is very different from Mina here. Her connection to Orlok is not the reason to keep her distance - it’s the reason she must get closer than anyone else. She takes control, speaking to Von Franz and getting what information she must to help her plan Orlok’s destruction.

Like many people, I see the final scene as both a sacred bond (a matrimony) and a heroic sacrifice. It can be both. Ellen can both know what she needs to do to save her love and the innocents around her (kill Orlok), she also knows she is the reason for their suffering (girl clean up your mess!) and knows that luckily, this is also what her dark heart has longed for.

It’s not often the thing you must do is also the thing you desperately, secretly want.

Ellen knows there’s no life after this. There’s no world where she becomes the happy mother and wife Mina Harker. There is only darkness and despair.

Eggers Nosferatu is a fairy tale that warns about the prospect for unusual, modern, sexual women. I read the ending of Dracula, of Jonathan saying “My wife is so happy now” and I think of Betty Draper shooting pigeons in the backyard. You’re telling me that educated, brilliant Mina Harker is happy being relegated to the home? There will always be something that rubs me the wrong way about Mina’s ending in Dracula, and the way the fandom has decided to blindly celebrate it. Ellen is an amazing antidote to that feeling.

Nosferatu is brilliant because it is honest about women and their status in this world. It allows room for Ellen and her own foibles. And it allows the darkness and the monstrous to coexist with the feminine. The ending is not a girlboss ending, it does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. It makes me uncomfortable - it is a gothic horror. The status quo is not maintained at the end of the movie - Orlok has disrupted their world, and it cannot be undone.

Ellen and Thomas are not a love story, and to pretend they are is to take the piss out of the entire thing.

[femsolid]

First of all, if you want to talk about Nuns, do so with respect, since intelligence is clearly not all there for you. Your ignorant speech clearly reflects you know nothing of Catholicism, Christ, or the Virgin Mary, yet you speak so confidently when you are so ignorant and have never been part of the religion as a whole, yet such confident statements betray ignorance of the faith, its history, and profound role Nuns have played in shaping culture and society. You have no understanding, no knowledge of its history, and consequently, no knowledge of Nun history or the way they have shaped history and culture. You lack insight into their contributions and the broader context of the religion. Keep your beliefs, but don’t pretend to know or understand something you clearly don’t, refrain from speaking on matters you don’t understand or have any knowledge of, and have some goddamn respect. I can guarantee they possess greater worth, more intelligence, impact, and have done more for this world than you will ever have or seem to grasp. Avoid the arrogance of assuming you know everything and can speak of it so freely, as this kind of arrogance — often seen in those who view the world through a narrow, self-centered lens like you stupid Americans who can only think of yourselves and your braindead, laughable example of knowledge of anything in the world — diminishes meaningful discourse. Stupid, ignorant buffoon, thinking the world revolves around her and her perpetual ignorance.

Must be that good old Christian humility, mercy and grace that motivated this stunning and divine prose.

I was complimenting the nuns I met on their dedication to celibacy and sisterhood actually. And I thought they were kind. I just said that it was meaningless in terms of feminism because they idolized male figures (real and fictional) and were agents of a patriarchal religion.

Apparently this makes me a "stupid ignorant buffon." Strange because I'm one of the few people who has actually read the Bible.

I know you lot are not the biggest fans of freedom of speech, what with all the massacres of non believers, but I'm actually going to keep speaking and writing about everything I want, whether you like it or not. It's called living in a democracy instead of a theocracy.

You act all offended like you're owed some reverence for believing in sexist nonsense and persecuting non believers for centuries. And you even have the nerves to insult me as you request respect and silence. Again. The Christian modesty and goodness.

Also, repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about without being able to point out what I said that wasn't true and offering any correction, is not a good look. If you could be more precise I'd be happy to consider your rebutal.

Finally, no I do not respect religions. I never will. Faith is credulity. It's not a respectable way to see the world. And your religion is a hateful and misogynistic death cult. I respect nuns as human beings but I don't respect their beliefs. Christians need to realise you're not above the rest of us. You can't kill us and get away with it anymore. And you can't silence us.

PS: I'm not American at all but nice try. English is not even my first language. Aren't the USA a very religious country anyway? Weird country to blame atheism on.

[doberbutts]

the assassin's creed Gamer Discourse has been so wild to me because everyone was pretending to care so much about the sanctity of Japanese culture/history or the feelings of the Japanese fanbase and now that the game's actually out they're all making insanely racist comments about Asians

Yeah it's wild to me- I understand at least the concern about shrine destruction as these are holy and sacred grounds/objects, but Ubisoft also patched them Day One so that it no longer is a possibility. And this concern happens after a Ghost of Tsushima fan engaged in irl shrine desecration- so despite the crowing that GoT is a more respectful game to Japanese culture, it seems as though it's not even that's what causes people to act out like that.

Also not for nothing but you can absolutely 100% break shit in Rise of the Ronin in shrines and temples so like. Be consistent if you're going to have a fit about a fictionalized story idk.

Also also I am a little meh about that because while I 100% understand the concern and wanting to be respectful to things considered sacred and holy, the previous game Valhalla had us breaking into Christian monasteries and destroying them by breaking windows, kicking down doors, plundering and looting, and killing everyone inside- as well as casual destruction of various props. I understand that Christians (tm) have a lot of well deserved ire towards them but like... is that not destruction of a sacred and holy space? If we are allowing this within one religion's sacred and holy space, why does another religion get to be immune? The Ezio trilogy had you kill the Pope - is that not the pinnacle of sacrilege?

And thennnnnn you have all of these "concerned Gamers" who cite racial sensitivity and being respectful of culture etc as the reason they don't like Shadows... while also being incredibly racist in pretty much every comment and having absolutely zero knowledge on the known history or culture of the setting. Wild.

[essenyare]

I'm from Taiwan, and I write my works in both Chinese and English. I’ve noticed that in some Chinese-speaking RE metaltango fan circles, having Krauser as a bottom is considered unpopular, not because it’s inherently degrading, but because it’s a way of preserving a particular aesthetic preference. (If you want to deep-dive into that, I could talk for three days straight, it’s tied up in gender politics, cultural difference, and so much more. Feel free to DM me.)

That said, in my high school AU, Leon is a transfer student with zero sexual experience, no topping, no bottoming, nothing. So when it comes to his first time with Krauser, he’s understandably nervous. And Krauser, being a genuinely considerate and good-hearted kid, raised as a cishet boy with limited understanding of queer sex, finds himself both concerned and reflective, aware of their body size difference, of Leon’s fear, and most of all, of how much he loves and respects him.

So Krauser would say, almost instinctively: “If you’re really scared... I can be the one to take it.”

Now, stepping outside the fic for a moment. For the people who doesn't know, in some strains of East Asian feminist discourse, writing BL/mlm fiction has been framed as a kind of "misguided male-love obsession”, “pro-male” that must be resisted. Personally I think that’s reductive and absurd. I’m a pansexual female and hell, I’ll write whatever the fuck I want. But I also get where the anxiety comes from: in places like China, Japan, Korea, and even Taiwan, it’s already difficult for cishet women to push back against social structures, let alone freely explore gender and desire in fiction.

East Asian societies (especially Chinese-speaking ones) aren’t exactly built on independent thinking. In contemporary China, the gender binary remains heavily policed, and LGBTQ+ identities are still systemically discriminated against. In my country Taiwan, while far more progressive (same-sex marriage is legal here), still carries deep-rooted Confucian misogyny that differs from the Christian-based misogyny you see in the West. So the rhythm, tone, and goals of feminist resistance here are shaped by different histories, and require different tools.

Back to the fic: What I personally believe is that penetration ≠ power, and the position someone takes in sex doesn’t automatically map onto emotional dynamics. Some people are just tops. Some people are just bottoms. And sex? It’s not limited to putting something into a hole. Not even close. Think clitoral orgasms. Think non-penetrative intimacy. There’s no right or wrong way to do it.

Given the AU’s setting: North America in the 1990s, and the fact that these are two teenage boys who’ve only just begun to figure themselves out, I imagined Krauser thinking something like:

“We’re both guys. That means we’re already outside the man-woman script. So maybe I don’t have to be the one doing the penetrating.”

Yes, that’s still coming from a traditionally heteronormative understanding of sex, and that’s intentional. He’s a teenager. He’s a product of his time. I’m writing him with that in mind, because writing characters with emotional complexity, psychological realism, and historical context, that’s part of the fun for me.

After all, canon Krauser isn’t just some rigid, emotionless military man. He’s someone who deeply mourned the loss of his team in Operation Javier. He’s someone who trained Leon, fought him to the death, and still died with words of recognition and love on his lips. He’s a man of principle, of feeling.

So in my high school AU, with a healthy family and a stable upbringing, there’s absolutely space for him to be a teenage boy full of care, desire, and deep respect for the person he’s falling in love with. He would understand Leon’s fear. He would see it, and instead of mocking it, he’d offer protection without humiliation.

And isn’t that what fanfiction is for? To give them the ending the canon never allowed.

[cokicito]

Tw: talk of csa (I'm gonna be VERY crass about it, please protect yourself if it's not something you're ready for), proship discourse

As someone who had the j o y of experiencing csa multiple times throughout my childhood, I just want to express how much I fucking hate antis. My experiences are not comparable to a fucking drawing. I WISH the predators that came after me had resorted to drawings and fantasies. Like, they can't tell the difference in morality between some drawing of a loli and me being forced to give a forty year old man a blowjob when I was eight... really? You seriously think these two are at the same level of 'heinous'?? Fuck right off. Defending lines on paper while telling actual victims how to cope with their trauma. You have more empathy for fictional beings than REAL HUMANS.

I can tell you what it felt like. I can describe every single incident in vivid, excruciating detail. I can explain how this affected my development. I can tell you how this trauma continues to influence the way I interact with people, the way I see myself, the way I view society, it affects every single fucking part of who I am. I've had to deconstruct my entire psyche and put it back together piece by piece. I can tell you all of this. A drawing can't.

And this is without mentioning the fact that most artists, professors, and authors are 'proship'. Being an 'anti' is such a chronically online thing, it's so staggering to me to realize there are people IN REAL LIFE who don't see the issue with censorship.

"So you support pedophilia??"

If this is your first argument, congratulations! You have the same reasoning skills as a fourth grader, making leaps in logic based on wild assumptions fueled by emotions. What YOU find upsetting is not universal. Problematic content is how I cope with my trauma, who the fuck are you to tell me I'm wrong?!

Every time an anti pretends to know me better than I know myself, I can't help but think of my dad. He's an amazing liar and an even better manipulator. This condescension antis bring into the conversation give me such violent urges. I know who I am. I am telling you who I am. And you shoot back with "actually, you're THIS way". HELLO??

I'm TELLING you I don't like this shit irl

I'm TELLING you I don't condone this irl

I'm TELLING you this helps me process my trauma

Why the FUCK is your first response to assume you know best?? Who the fuck are you to me?

Antis' perception of the world is so fucking narrow they can't even fathom the possibility of someone experiencing life differently.

I could go on and on about how anti sentiment is rooted in conservative Christian extremist beliefs but I am tiiiired

[w1ng3dw01f]

Portrayals of Secularism and Religion in Lost, Explained Through Scholarly Thought

--

As I rewatched this series with my friends this semester, I realized that Lost (TV 2004) offers a compelling narrative that explores the complex connections and contradictions between secularism and religion. While there are tons of articles about the religious aspects of Lost, there are almost none about the secular, and I wanted to talk about both.

I specifically draw from Talal Asad, Tomoko Masuzawa, Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison and Susan Harding to explore how the show interrogates examples of knowledge production within religion and secularism in ways that reflect and complicate contemporary critiques of secular modernity through the characters and groups.

Introduction / Theoretical Framework:

A way of knowing refers to how different cultures, religions, and societies define and produce knowledge. It is the systems of belief and reasoning that shape how people understand the world. A way of being, on the other hand, is how individuals embody these beliefs in their daily lives. It manifests through traditions, practices, and experiences shaped by their unique social and cultural contexts (Masuzawa, 2005, 12). While they are very much associated with how people have studied religion, these two concepts also tie into secularism. To understand the tension between secularism and religion, it is essential to define them. 

Secularism, a ‘Western’ concept, is often understood as the separation of religion from other aspects of life, such as politics, education, and science. The term has become almost synonymous with modernity, one of secularism’s various projects. It claims neutrality, positioning itself as independent of religious or spiritual influence. However, secularism is not merely an absence of religion. It is a pervasive framework that shapes everything from scientific inquiry to public discourse and everyday life (Asad, 2003, 9; Daston and Galison, 2007, 32). It reflects Eurocentric assumptions about what constitutes legitimate knowledge and practice. Thus, secularism is not a neutral or static concept. 

Conversely, there is a modern concept of religion which overcasts any definition of the term we may have had previously. While religions are generally seen as systems of beliefs, values, and rituals, the way they have been categorized is deeply influenced by Western colonial history. European scholars created hierarchies that positioned Christianity as the dominant or “universal” faith while labeling other traditions as “minor,” “tribal,” or “superstitious.” These classifications were not neutral or natural; they were constructed to reinforce Western dominance over other cultures (Masuzawa, 2005, 11).

Both secularism and religion are shaped by history, power, and Western, Christian, and colonial perspectives. The very notion of separating religion from public life emerged during the Enlightenment, when European powers established their cultural norms as universal while dismissing other ways of knowing as outdated or irrational. Over time, this perspective has cast religion, especially non-Christian ones, as inferior to the secular (Masuzawa, 2005, 14). Even within the West, the boundaries of secularism are constantly shifting, requiring ongoing reinforcement to uphold its authority over alternative ways of understanding the world.

A binary between secularism and religiosity can look like this:

Secular:

- Mastery over nature

- Fact

- Progressive

- Peaceful

- Modern

- Reason

- Free-thinking

- Objective

- Good / Evil 

Religious:

- Harmony with nature

- Fiction/faith

- False

- Regressive

- Violent

- Ancient 

- Dogma

- Brainwashed

- Good / Evil

This boundary is unstable because it can overlap or sometimes, slightly confusingly, be interchangeable. There are many grey areas, typically because these categories are historically constructed rather than inherent and how often they can blur together in practice. These are also common stereotypes rather than inherent truths.

With this theoretical groundwork established, we can now examine how Lost exemplifies these concepts.

Lost, for those who don’t know, is about a group of people whose’ plane (commercial flight) crashes on an island. They need to learn how to survive—together—especially as they navigate the island’s mysteries, the inhabitants of the island, and even a scientific organization that once operated there. Beyond that, there are instances of time travel. And, a constant of the series is non-linear storytelling through flashbacks and flash-forwards.

When I say that Lost is a fantastic tool for exploring the binaries and other tensions between secularism and religion, I mean that in the way the show continuously dramatizes tensions between secular and religious worldviews in ways that align with academic critiques of secularism. Whether intentional or not, the show serves as an exploration of how knowledge is constructed, contested, and destabilized in both historical and contemporary contexts.

Man of Science vs. Man of Faith:

One of the largest themes throughout the show, and the most blaring example of secular and religious discourse being present in this show, is Man of Science vs. Man of Faith, two very different ways of knowing and being. Jack Shephard, the doctor and self-made leader of the survivors of the plane crash, is thematically known as a Man of Science. His training as a surgeon shapes the way he approaches problems. He believes in evidence, logic, and fixing things through practical solutions. John Locke, embracing a more mystical, intuitive way of being while on the island, almost as a sage type, is a Man of Faith. He sees the island as a place of destiny and purpose (Lostpedia). The dynamic of these two characters can be defined as friends and enemies, with their worldviews dictating how they see each other and the world around them. This can be seen in Season 1 episodes, “White Rabbit,” and “Exodus, Part 1," and further in the episodes titled “Orientation,” and “Man of Science, Man of Faith” in season 2. 

One scene from "White Rabbit" shows Jack and Locke in discussion. Jack expresses to Locke his hesitations because he sees his dead father in different parts of the island. It perfectly exemplifies the divide between religious and secular ways of knowing and the binary between the two characters. Additionally, it reflects a broader historical debate about how we define and pursue knowledge, particularly with what can be considered credible (Asad, 2003). This is also not the first time Locke’s perspective is implicitly or explicitly framed as irrational within the show’s narrative, despite being presented as a valid alternative. That reflects how modern secularism privileges science as the dominant way of understanding reality, which is an extensive part of Talal Asad’s and Tomoko Masuzawa’s argument—in their books, “Formation of the Secular,” and “The Invention of World Religions”—that secularism and modernity are historical and political projects rather than a universal truth. 

Furthermore, there are other characters beyond Jack and Locke who experience personal conflicts that blur the secular-religious divide. 

Desmond’s journey is one of the most direct challenges to the modernist faith in empirical knowledge. His experiences on the island blur the lines between rationality and faith. In season 3, after surviving an explosion and exposure to an electromagnetic anomaly, Desmond starts experiencing consciousness-jumping through time (Lostpedia, “Before Your Eyes.”). Later in the series, Daniel Faraday—arguably the show’s most committed “man of science” outside of Jack—attempts to explain Desmond’s experiences through physics, but his theories prove inadequate. Desmond’s survival ultimately depends not on scientific reasoning but on an emotional, almost mystical connection: his love for Penny (Lostpedia, “The Constant”).

In the next season, he begins having prophetic visions, particularly of Charlie’s death. These premonitions are demonstrably real within the logic of the show, yet they defy scientific explanation. This directly challenges the secular assumption that knowledge must be empirical and measurable to be valid. 

By redefining the scientific concept of a “constant” as something deeply personal and unquantifiable, Desmond’s story subverts the idea that knowledge and truth are solely determined by empirical methods. His arc suggests that intuition, love, and premonition—qualities often dismissed as irrational—may hold just as much, if not more, epistemic weight as logic and measurement. This directly undermines the secular assumption that rationality and faith exist in opposition, instead portraying them as intertwined.

Mr. Eko represents a different kind of faith than Locke. As seen in Season 2 Episode 10, before the island, he became a priest through unsavory means tied to a misunderstanding. As a crime lord, he attempted to fly drugs out of Nigeria as there was no market for them. The day of the flight, they disguise themselves as priests. As they were about to take off, his brother Yemi, an actual priest, was shot and killed by the military chasing after them. The plane ended up taking off without Eko and the man was mistaken as a real priest by the military. The man then proceeded to become an actual priest under a fake name to keep himself safe and continue his brother’s work (Lostpedia, “The 23rd Psalm”).

When he sees Yemi’s apparition (the smoke monster in disguise) on the island in season 2, Episode 21, Eko believes it is a divine message, while Locke dismisses it as just another island vision. Unlike Locke’s mystical faith, Eko’s belief is shaped by institutional Christianity but operates independently of rigid doctrine. However, his arc questions religious authority and its intersection with power. His pre-island transformation challenges the secular assumption that religion exists separately from politics and violence. Eko’s rejection of confession, once with Yemi in Nigeria and a second time with the smoke monster on the island, also suggests, similar to Asad, Masuzawa and Harding, that religious meaning is shaped by individual interpretation rather than institutional structures. 

In Season 6, Episode 9, we see Richard Alpert’s backstory. After crashing on the island in 1867 on a ship, gains his immortality (a secularly impossible concept) from Jacob, the protector of the island. This was part of a deal. Jacob would give him immortality and Richard would act as an in-between for Jacob and everyone else who arrives on this island, a good number of whom view Jacob as some kind of deity  (Lostpedia, “Ab Aeterno”). The amount of blind faith Richard has in this man afterwards as he does his bidding and acts as a medium between him and the rest of the island’s inhabitants, reveals the similarities between religious and secular governance structures—both require belief in an unseen guiding force. 

Conversion Narrative and Other Themes Surrounding Fundamentalism:

Locke’s storyline exemplifies a conversion narrative. He goes from an ordinary man to a believer in the island’s mystical destiny. He goes from needing a wheelchair due to a paralyzing injury to being able to walk again, instantly healed when he wakes up upon the crash of the plane. For him, this newfound ability is an undeniable sign of the island’s supernatural power (Lostpedia, “Walkabout”). Like a religious convert interpreting the world through faith, Locke begins to see the island’s influence everywhere and becomes its most ardent believer. His journey aligns with themes explored in Susan Harding’s “The Book of Jerry Falwell”, which examines the intersections of secular, religious, and political discourse in the rise of Fundamentalism and the Born-Again Christian movement. One of her key arguments is that conversion, often marked by baptism, reorients an individual’s worldview. Those who undergo this transformation begin interpreting their experiences through a spiritual or divine lens, seeing evidence of higher powers in everyday life. The converters, once ‘unsaved’ individuals, are then saved (Harding, 2000). Locke’s testimony of transformation parallels what Harding describes as the creation of new subjectivities through evangelical storytelling.

In contrast, Jack has a conversion, which is much more drawn out. He repeatedly challenges Locke and the Others, refusing to accept their faith-based explanations. However, as the series progresses, Jack’s stance changes. Toward the end of the show, he begins to embrace notions of destiny and sacrifice, culminating in a savior complex that ties his sense of purpose to the island. His shift reflects the broader tension between faith and reason—a central theme in both religious and secular discourse.

Furthermore, an actual baptism occurs on the show. Claire asks Eko to baptise her and her baby, Aaron, after Charlie testified over and over again that it was important so the baby could be saved (Lostpedia, “Fire + Water”). It’s an intense, aggressive insistence, especially since his only drive to save the baby came from hallucinations leading him to thinking he had to save the baby. It is never really explained why Charlie had these hallucinations, but the show correlates it to him being a recovering heroin addict. Additionally, it was a discussion with Eko that led Charlie to the conclusions he made. Claire, skeptical but emotionally vulnerable, is upset at Charlie at first for literally taking Aaron and trying to baptise him in the ocean, which might have caused the baby harm. The next day, she also seeks Eko’s advice. Meanwhile, Eko and Claire discuss why a baptism may be important and what that means for her and her baby. Harding notes that testimony works because it often bypasses rational persuasion and instead appeals to emotions of fear, and care (Harding, 2000). Charlie’s tactics fail, but Eko’s gentle way of framing it does. Claire and Aaron end up getting baptised due to the relational trust and belief that Eko fosters. 

A different example of Evangelical Christian dynamics is the (not so cleverly named)  inhabitants of the island: The Others. This is a group of people who mostly end up and decide to live here, but have a strong sense towards protecting themselves. On top of gathering info on them from the outside world (they have a network of people), they have people infiltrate the survivors and pick out those who are deemed “good.” They then take these “good,” people to live with them. To those not deemed “good,” they come off as highly secretive and aloof. Their secrecy, strict initiation processes, and emphasis on faith in the island create a strong insider/outsider divide. Each of these mirrors aspects of Fundamentalism. Conservative Protestants mentioned in Harding’s book had a strong sense of how right they were in their ways of knowing to the point of infiltrating secular spaces to show the truth, and how those not in the religion would have to be set outcasted,  set aside (as Harding herself recounted experiencing) or shepharded’ (Harding, 2000, 64).

Beyond that, many characters undergo moments of “fall and redemption” that echo the structure of evangelical testimonies. The character with the most stretched out fall and redemption arc as well as the most known in the series is “Sawyer” Ford, an asshole conman who becomes a very likeable and reliable leader. This narrative approach is especially prevalent among leaders—religious and political—who use personal stories of past struggles and redemption to establish credibility, a sense of humanity, and gain followers  (Harding, 2000). Jerry Falwell, Francis Shaeffer, and Donald Trump have often utilized this technique. It is in this way, as well as a few other narrative techniques that people such as them like to paint themselves as prophet figures. It can be argued that Benjamin Linus of Lost tries to do similar things in his manipulations of the people around him.

Knowledge Production:

Something important to epistemology and broader scientific knowledge is atlases. Scientific atlases do more than compile knowledge; they actively shape what is considered legitimate and train practitioners in how to see. In their book, “Objectivity,” Daston and Galison describe atlases as tools that refine the scientific eye, a concept that can be applied to Lostpedia’s role in guiding viewers' engagement with Lost. Like an atlas that organizes exemplary images to instruct observers, Lostpedia structures vast amounts of information—from plot details to thematic analyses—helping both new and seasoned fans navigate the show’s intricate world.

As a reference work, Lostpedia reinforces what is significant and how it should be interpreted, much like an atlas that teaches users to categorize specimens. By highlighting recurring numbers, symbolic references, and character arcs, it trains fans to recognize patterns and hidden meanings, shaping their perception of the show just as atlases shape scientific observation. Moreover, Daston and Galison emphasize the immense effort, resources, and meticulous documentation required to produce atlases. While Lostpedia is crowdsourced rather than the work of a single author, it similarly represents a massive collective endeavor to map Lost’s narrative universe—much like anatomical or astronomical atlases map physical realities. Just as atlases for new scientific instruments require even experts to learn how to see anew, Lostpedia provides a dynamic space where fans continuously refine their interpretations as new theories emerge.

Now, to address epistemological frameworks in regards to some groups of characters.

Jacob himself, and his counterpart known simply as the Man in Black by the fandom, or the Smoke Monster in the show, represent another piece of religious and secular knowledge production: good vs evil. Jacob, seen as a deity, wants to prove to the Man in Black, a devil-like figure, that people can be inherently morally good. So, he keeps bringing people to the island (by plane or boat crash, or some other way), and the Man in Black, often through appearing to people as dead loved ones, keeps trying to corrupt them to show that they can’t be inherently morally good (Lostpedia, “Ab Aeterno”). This is a very clear binary between the two that echoes both religious and secular notions. 

Additionally, certain Others more tied to Jacob than most have call and response phrases: (a) What lies behind the shadow of the statue? (b) He who protects us all. This ritual speech functions like a sacred password. It implies a secretive, esoteric system of knowledge and loyalty. It divides insiders from outsiders not based on felt experience or personal narrative, but on access to hidden knowledge and correct performance.

However, just as modern secular states often claim to be neutral while enforcing their ideological structures, Jacob presents himself as a distant, rational authority figure while covertly maintaining control over The Others through Richard. Moreover, Jacob's moral authority mirrors the secular power enacting and legitimizing suffering in the name of a ‘greater good’ (Talal Asad, 2003). The Man in Black, like individuals discussed in Asad’s “On Suicide Bombing,” is cast as irrational and dangerous precisely because he resists the terms of moral order. Such a framework brings knowledge production into sharp focus, particularly with how the show dramatizes who gets to define truth, morality, and reality on the island (Asad, 2007). If we think of the island as a microcosm of the modern world, the conflict between the two becomes not just a moral or spiritual struggle, but a struggle over epistemic authority: who has the right to know, to name, to define what counts as knowledge and what does not.

The D.H.A.R.M.A. Initiative (standing for Department of Heuristics and Research in Material Applications) is thus a perfect juxtaposition to The Others. They were hinted at throughout the series, but were first actually introduced in season 4 (Lostpedia, “Season 4”). Stationed on this island, this organisation is inspired by Hindu and Buddhist concepts of “dharma.” The logos represent the I Ching, a Taoist method of divination. In the show's context, “dharma” refers to a duty or responsibility, interconnectedness, and the pursuit of a "right way of living". The Initiative's stated mission is to study the island's unique properties for the betterment of mankind and world peace, aligning with the Buddhist concept of seeking enlightenment and the Taoist concept of harmony with nature (Lostpedia, “The DHARMA Initiative”). However, the Initiative represents a modern, scientific project of knowledge classification and control, much like 19th-century European anthropology’s approach to “world religions,” explored by Masuzawa. To reiterate, there exist no truly neutral classifications, only defining ways of being through Western secular-modern thought (Masuzawa, 2005, 14). The Initiative embodies a similar colonial impulse regarding the island. Rather than engaging with the island’s mysteries on its or The Other’s terms, they attempt to systematize and dominate the local knowledge, completing electromagnetic experiments because of the Island’s specific properties, and ultimately unintentionally making it possible for a nuclear incident to take place (Lostpedia, “The Incident, Parts 1 and 2” ). The Initiative met its end when The Others (or, The Hostiles, as they were called by DHARMA) wiped them out with gas. The downfall of this group suggests that institutionalized, empirical approaches to knowledge are not universally applicable. Instead, they are an example of how knowledge, scientific or religious, as historically and ideologically constructed, can be the causes for wars to start (Asad, 2007, 49).

The island serves as a liminal space where secular and religious worldviews collapse into each other, reflecting Asad’s critique of secularism as a historical, power-laden construct rather than a neutral, universal condition. It disrupts secular modernity in multiple ways—through Jacob, a mystical protector whose role frames the island as essential to the world’s stability, and through its perceived isolation, which strips away the usual structures that separate science from faith, forcing the survivors to engage with both.

It almost acts as a perfect example and a failed example of Asad’s analogy of secularism as a garden to be cultivated in a jungle. That is to say, secularism is a garden, an ordered, cultivated space that must be constantly maintained against the perceived chaos of the jungle, or religious and “non-rational” forces (Asad, 2003). Yet, on the island, this attempt at control repeatedly collapses, suggesting that the boundaries between science and faith, like those of secularism itself, are far more unstable than they first appear.

This island is also a place where agency—or, in the show’s case, in plainer words, fate and free will—is challenged: How do I reconcile with being stuck on this island? How do I know what to believe? Why are we stuck here? What are ways in which I could leave? Why do I need to go back? Do I have to consider becoming the Protector of this place, thus making it my main focus even though I was once so desperate to leave?

Even when the Oceanic Six do leave the island and return to the real world, this world, which is modern and secular, insists on rational explanations for events the survivors understand as supernatural. This is a clear example of Asad’s idea of secularism’s regulatory power.

And, when they enter the flash-sideways/alternate/purgatory world, this could be an example of an ultimate collapse of these epistemological boundaries—science, faith, and narrative authority dissolve into a post-secular reality where knowledge is experiential and relational rather than objective. Characters must "let go" of their attachments before moving on, similar to religious ideas of reaching enlightenment or heaven. But the fact that this world is not "real" raises questions about interpretations of the afterlife—is salvation a metaphysical truth, or just another constructed reality?

Conclusion:

This show is, to put it mildly, absolutely wild. There is so much packed into it, and it goes every which direction it might go (or at least, that the writers allowed). It can be very profound at times and has impacted thousands of people for thousands of reasons.

That being said, there are heavy themes of secularism and religion, especially the discourse between them, present throughout the series. To reiterate, both main and side characters grapple with profound personal struggles at the intersection of these worldviews, manifesting in a diverse spectrum of experiences. Narratives emanating from both secular and religious perspectives actively shape these characters, not only on an individual level but also as members of a complex, interconnected community. Even the very island itself, a liminal space where the boundaries of science and faith blur, becomes a potent site for this ongoing discourse. Beyond a mere backdrop, the island serves as a crucible, testing the limits of established epistemologies and revealing the constructed nature of our perceived realities. Through the characters' journeys, Lost compels us to reconsider the seemingly rigid binaries that define our understanding of knowledge, authority, and even destiny. Ultimately, the series transcends its genre, offering a nuanced exploration of how we construct meaning in a world where the rational and the mystical are inextricably intertwined, leaving us to ponder the enduring questions of belief, reason, and the very nature of truth itself.

By giving us these dramatizations of the secular and the religious, Lost not only exemplifies some of the ins and outs of both but also manages to critique them in ways that are similar to scholarly works. The show presents a world where epistemologies are historically contingent, socially constructed, and, in some cases, challenged. Through this lens, Lost becomes more than a survival mystery, it serves as a compelling exploration of the constructed nature of knowledge, challenging the rigid boundaries between secular and religious worldviews.

—

If you want to read more about the intersections of secularism, religion, the colonial projects and more, I highly suggest reading: Tomoko Masuzawa’s “The Invention of World Religions,” Talal Asad’s “Formation of the Secular,” & “On Suicide Bombing,” “Objectivity” by Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Saba Mahmood's "Politics of Piety," and “The Book of Jerry Falwell” by Susan Friend Harding. I will say, however, that in terms of accessible readability, Harding’s work is the best, followed by Masuzawa’s, Daston’s, and Galison’s, Mahmood's, then Asad’s.

[chunkymamatam]

I know I've been talking a lot about TikTok recently but I'm on it a lot and I see a lot of discourse that I like to talk about. Especially when it comes to things like shifting.

Like while I understand a lot of us go to places that to this reality are just fiction and that can be confusing for some people, I also don't get what people are confused about. Shifting is literally the mutiverse theory meets Astral projection. It's not that difficult to understand and I feel like a lot of the time when people ask and you try to explain this, they're not actually seeking to understand, they're seeking to ridicule. Purposely obtuse and unwilling to understand in any capacity.

I also think its interesting when people diagnose shifters with spiritual psychosis because of the practice, then in the same breath don't say anything like that about people who astral project or talk with their deity. Like sure, some people might have that issuee but that's not because of the practice of reality shifting. Literally ANY spiritual and religious practice can cause that. I see this a lot with Christian/Catholic sects but no one wants to talk about that either.

There's nothing wrong with being Christian, religious, or spiritual in any way, obviously. I was raised Christian and now I have very wide beliefs spiritually. I'm just saying that I literally don't see these accusations nearly as often in any other spiritual group or practice and I've seen far more people displaying signs of mental unrest and psychosis in the aforementioned groups that just don't get "called out" like they do with Reality shifters.