#I am all for discussing different interpretations

[yamayuandadu]

Sisterhood in context: a reassessment of Inanna's Descent

Unless either ancient aliens or creationism are involved, the general public has an at best limited interest in the literature of ancient Mesopotamia. It is thus quite surprising to see how commonly two specific passages from Inanna’s Descent - those in which Ereshkigal is addressed as the eponymous figure’s sister - seem to be repeated out of context in the least expected places. Elaborate explanations that the two were not only sisters, but in fact deities so closely related they are basically mirror images of each other, or perhaps even two parts of a greater whole, permeate the internet, and the world of Jungian literature. Arguably the most famous and commercially successful portrayal of both of them in modern fiction is based on this idea, too. Were Inanna and Ereshkigal really sisters in the first place, though? In one of my recent articles, I brought up that Alhena Gadotti expressed doubts over whether this statement can be taken literally. In this article I will try to demonstrate why she might be correct, and what that would mean for the interpretation of Inanna's Descent. I will investigate what the primary sources actually have to say about Ereshkigal’s family (or lack of it), and what circumstances could lead to someone being called a sibling c. 1800 BCE without actually being one. In order to demonstrate how the metaphorical use of kinship terms functioned, I’ll briefly summarize a case in which a nephew managed to legally oblige his maternal uncle to call him father, rather than brother.

The reception of Inanna’s Descent, from the 1800s BCE to the 2000s CE

As I already pointed out in the intro, Inanna’s Descent is probably one of the best known Mesopotamian myths. It was evidently reasonably popular when it was initially composed in the early second millennium BCE, too (Maurizio Viano, The Reception of Sumerian Literature in the Western Periphery, p. 79). The most recent survey I am aware of indicates that fifty-eight Old Babylonian (c. 2000 BCE - 1600 BCE) copies are known, most from Nippur and Ur. Furthermore, there is a single unusual Middle Babylonian (late second millennium BCE) copy, also from Nippur. It significantly postdates all of the other examples. It’s only an excerpt, though (specifically lines 26-35 - Inanna’s instructions for Ninshubur). The other side of the same tablet is instead inscribed with part of the god list An = Anum (The Reception…, p. 42-43).

In the first millennium BCE and Akkadian version arose. It is only known from three copies, with two coming from Assurbanipal’s library and one, slightly older, from Assur (Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, p. 498). It’s not a direct translation, and alters the plot to a significant degree (Dina Katz, The Image of The Nether World in Sumerian Sources, p. 260). It has been suggested that extracts such as the one discussed above had a role in its composition, though no copies of Inanna’s Descent actually date to the first millennium BCE (The Reception…, p. 43).

Inanna refers to Ereshkigal once as her “sister” (nin) and once as “older sister” (nin gal) at two different points early on in the narrative (Anna Jordanova, Untersuchungen zur Gestalt einer Unterweltsgöttin: Ereškigal nach den sumerischen und akkadischen Quellentexten, p. 40):

Ereshkigal is then technically addressed as Inanna’s sister once more by the doorman quoting her words afterwards.

These two specific lines are one of the main reasons why today Inanna’s Descent holds the questionable distinction of being regularly tormented with questionable interpretations more than the overwhelming majority of widely available Mesopotamian literary texts. The most notable contributors to this state of affairs were undeniably the devotees of Carl Jung. All the way back in 1949 Jungian par excellence, Joseph Campbell, boldly proclaimed in The Hero with a Thousand Faces that “Inanna and Ereshkigal, the two sisters, light and dark respectively, together represent, according to the antique manner of symbolization, the one goddess in two aspects” (p. 89). Note that Samuel N. Kramer’s original translation of Inanna’s Descent - Inanna’s Descent to the Nether World. The Sumerian Version of Ištar’s Descent from 1937 (followed up with Ishtar in the Nether World According to a New Sumerian Text in 1940) - was still pretty recent back then. The myth thus was besieged by questionable interpretations almost right from the start.

By the 1980s, the Jungian (mis)interpretation of the myth was well established enough to be the topic of entire books on its own. The most notable example is Sylvia Brinton Perera’s Descent to the Goddess: A Way of Initiation for Women. I feel obliged to point out right away that the photo on the cover isn’t Inanna; in fact, it’s not a Mesopotamian work of art at all, but rather a votive figurine from Susa in Elam (the southwest of modern Iran), specifically SB 7799 from the Louvre’s collection. The proportions are usually less exaggerated, as you can see on this example from the MET’s collection.

The author describes Inanna’s Descent as a work from “an age when the Great Goddess was still vital” (Descent to the Goddess…, p. 10). She promptly declares that since Ereshkigal is addressed as Inanna’s sister, “she is her shadow, or complement: together the two goddesses make the bipolar wholeness pattern of the archetypal feminine mother-daughter biunity of the Great Goddess” (Descent to the Goddess…, p. 43-44). She also claims Ereshkigal was originally a grain goddess and that she is identical with Ninlil (Descent to the Goddess…, p. 21) and inexplicably compares her with Kali and Medusa (Descent to the Goddess…, p. 33). While this is beyond the scope of this article, she also delivers probably the worst, most uninformed take on Ninshubur I’ve ever seen (Descent to the Goddess…, p. 63-64), discussing which however is beyond the scope of this article. I suppose some books can in fact be judged by their covers. Regrettably, another book from the 1980s which propagated similar ideas attaches them to probably the single most popular edition of Inanna’s Descent. In Samuel N. Kramer’s and Diane Wolkstein’s Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth: her Stories and Hymns from Sumer one can learn that Ereshkigal is “the other, neglected side of Inanna” (Inanna, Queen…, p. 158). Note that Kramer cannot be blamed for that baffling statement. It’s entirely on Wolkstein, who was not an Assyriologist and by own admission was convinced Inanna is a moon goddess (Inanna, Queen…, p. XV). While there are individual aspects of Kramer’s scholarship I take issue with, it needs to be stressed that, by his own admission, his interpretations of the texts he studied were rudimentary and tentative (to be fair, in part because there genuinely wasn’t much to fall back on when he started), and he hoped other authors will elaborate upon them or provide better proposals outright (Jerrold S. Cooper, Was Uruk the First Sumerian City?, p. 53). I used to be very critical of him for a time, but it is clear to me now that he was well aware of own shortcomings.  It’s also hard to deny that he had a unique talent at making the general public aware of his findings. It’s just that in this specific case it apparently backfired on him, and his honest work was used to promote ideas of dubious validity at best.

Jungian ideas also found their way into a tome which my regular audience probably needs no introduction to, Barbara G. Walker’s The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, which refers to Ereshkigal both as an “Underworld counterpart” (p. 282), “dark alter ego” (p. 698) and “twin” (p. 452) of Ishtar (and for good measure treats them as analogs of Kore and Persephone, somehow; p. 8). Even if you aren’t familiar with this book, multiple game developers evidently are (for instance Fate’s “occult consultant” Kiyomune Miwa; see here for an example of a Walker-fueled rampage, and here for a translation), and eagerly make use of it. 

Jungian authors, and probably Walker in particular, are thus quite likely why arguably the most popular modern takes on both Ishtar and Ereshkigal are palette swaps of each other from a gacha game:

Supplementary materials assert that they are “a divinity with the same attributes split into two”, “two alternate yet inseparable sides” (sic).

On a more lofty note, Jungian interpretations also influenced a novel by the Nobel Prize in Literature laureate Olga Tokarczuk, Anna In w Grobowcach Świata (“Anna In in the Catacombs of the World”; as you can imagine, the name of the protagonist is a pun on Inanna). In particular, the plot, at least to me, seems to echo Sylvia Brinton Perera’s bizarre lament about Ninhursag’s absence from the myth (Descent to the Goddess…, p. 64; unclear to me why she’s not lamenting the absence of, say, Dagan or Ishtaran or Belet Nagar). The novel is not translated into English, but I honestly don’t think the international audience is missing out. While the acclaim the author enjoys is warranted (The Books of Jacob in particular is excellent, if you are willing to commit to a 900 pages long tome), this is not her finest work, to put it lightly (which pains me to say since it’s also the only modern adaptation which indicates some genuine familiarity with Ninshubur).

However, Jungians are hardly the only group to develop questionable ideas based on two lines from a single text and its loose adaptation. Authors associated with the Helsinki school of Assyriology seems to present them not only as fundamentally two hypostases of the same goddess, but also as a representation of duality between a “sinful soul” and “purified soul”, with the controversial and not particularly representative Burney Relief held to be a depiction of them both at once, somehow (Pirjo Lapinkivi, The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection, p. 48-49; stay tuned for a separate article explaining why the Burney Relief should be treated as a curiosity at best). And they’re somehow gnostic Sophia in the end ( The Neo-Assyrian…, p. 77; part of this page appears to be straight up copy pasted from p. 49-49).

It needs to be stressed this is considered a controversial product of flawed methodology at the absolute best (Alhena Gadotti, ‘Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld’ and the Sumerian Gilgamesh Cycle, p. 13; Wiebke Meinhold, Pirjo Lapinkivi, The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection (review), p. 118-119, with references to earlier literature; note in particular the criticism of the Burney Relief interpretation). All of this effectively goes back to efforts to validate the personal faux-gnostic, faux-tantric beliefs of a single author, Simo Parpola (see Jerrold Cooper, Assyrian Prophecies, the Assyrian Tree, and the Mesopotamian Origins of Jewish Monotheism, Greek Philosophy, Christian Theology, Gnosticism, and Much More). The subject of such inquiries has been mockingly described as a fabricated “Ishtar of Helsinki” detached from actual study of primary sources and their reception (Julia M. Assante, Bad Girls and Kinky Boys? The Modern Prostituting of Ishtar, Her Clergy and Her Cults, p. 49; see here under “Sexualization of lamenting” for my reservations about other aspects of this article, though, and note Assante herself became a promoter of fringe spiritual ideas later and it seems her only notable recent accomplishment is getting a page on RationalWiki, which indicates she believes in ectoplasm).

Even credible authors take the supposed sisterhood, and its alleged centrality to Mesopotamian thought, for granted quite often. To use just two examples: Julia Krul sees the presence of Ereshkigal in the pantheon of Uruk in the Seleucid period as a reflection of this connection (“Prayers from Him Who Is Unable to Make Offerings”: The Cult of Bēlet-ṣēri at Late Babylonian Uruk, p. 75)... However, Ereshkigal was actually worshiped there first in association with Nergal, as documented in Neo-Babylonian sources (Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period, p. 297) and then Belet-seri, as Krul points out herself (Prayers from Him…, p. 62-63).

Aleksandra Kubiak-Schneider inexplicably refers to Ereshkigal as a sister of Shamash (Hatra of Shamash. How to Assign the City Under the Divine Power?, p. 799), which can only be explained as a syllogism based on his well documented status as a brother of Ishtar… and the isolated reference to the latter being a sister of Ereshkigal. Note Ereshkigal is actually not mentioned in the source given by Kubiak-Schneider (Marco Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls. Syriac Magical Texts from Late-Antique Mesopotamia)… Note that my goal wasn’t to claim Krul or Kubiak-Schneider are unreliable - if you keep track of my wikipedia endeavors, the former in particular is basically one of my to-go sources on Uruk. I merely want to illustrate how firmly entrenched this idea is in scholarship.

Skepticism is not entirely unheard of, though. As I already said, this article was directly inspired by Alhena Gadotti’s offhand comment: “[Inanna’s Descent] indicates that she [Ereshkigal] was Inana’s sister, but whether this is merely a title or a kinship term is unclear” (Gilgamesh, Enkidu…, p. 13). At first, I was worried that this might be an entirely isolated view. However, a survey of relevant publications revealed that Gadotti is actually not alone in her doubts. Essentially the same conclusion was reached by Anna Jordanova, who depended on an earlier study by Erica Reiner (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 418). 

Reiner, as far as I can tell, was the first person who suggested that the use of the term “sister” might not be literal, but rather reflect the use of kinship terms in diplomacy - to call someone a “brother” or “sister” in this context was to call them an equal (Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut. Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria, p. 37). While she depended on the late Akkadian adaptation of Inanna’s Descent, as opposed to the text this article focuses on, Jordanova notes that the point is applicable to the original too (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 40-41). The objective of the rest of this article will be to evaluate how likely it is that Reiner, and the few authors who followed in her footsteps, are correct. As I promised, to that end I’ll investigate what primary sources have to say about Ereshkigal’s genealogy, how common the use of kinship terms as titles was, in particular in the time period when Inanna’s Descent came to be, and finally if it is attested in the case of deities, and Inanna and Ereshkigal in particular.

Finally, I will offer my own proposal for a reassessment of this section of the myth. Not a retranslation let alone new restoration, mind you - that, as far as I am aware, is not necessary.

Ereshkigal and her peers

Since I wrote a few paragraphs about the history of Ereshkigal in another article earlier this year, I won’t repeat myself here for the most part, and will move straight to the point. If by some miracle you are reading one of my Mesopotamia articles and don’t recognize her, you can find the basics here, under A crash course in Ereshkigal’s career, from Early Dynastic Lagash to Seleucid Uruk, with sources provided. Ereshkigal’s genealogy is unclear at best. No source actually addresses her directly as a daughter of another deity (Alhena Gadotti, Never Truly Hers: Ereškigal’s Dowry and the Rulership of the Netherworld, p. 15).

In contrast, Inanna’s parentage is remarkably standardized - she is consistently recognized as a daughter of Sin (Nanna) and Ningal, regardless of the language of the text and time period (The Pantheon…, p. 111; Julia M. Asher-Greve, Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Goddesses in Context: On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, p. 230). As a matter of fact, she is directly referred to as “Sin’s daughter” even in the Akkadian adaptation of the discussed myth basically right off the bat, in line 2 (Your Thwarts…, p. 34). The most extensive monograph on Sin currently available, Aino Hätinen’s The Moon God Sîn in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times doesn’t mention Ereshkigal at all in the section The Family and Household of Sîn (p. 289-329) - or anywhere, else, for that matter, she’s not even in the index (p. 613-620), which indicates there’s no meaningful connection between them to speak of. A quick survey of Mark G. Hall’s earlier A Study of the Sumerian Moon God, Nanna/Suen also reveals no traces of Ereshkigal in a similar chapter (The Relationship of Nanna/Suen to Other Deities in the Pantheon: Genealogy and Cultic Ties, p. 721-754).

There’s thus no reason to undermine one of the points Jordanova makes: no indication of any familial connection between Inanna and Ereshkigal exists outside of the isolated lines from Inanna’s Descent and its later adaptation (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 40).

While Ereshkigal’s genealogy remains undefined, multiple literary texts preserve references to marital relations between her and other deities (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 506). Gugalanna, who plays the role of her husband in Inanna’s Descent, will be discussed later in his own section.

Nergal on a cylinder seal from the early second millennium BCE (wikimedia commons)

As documented in the relatively well known myth Nergal and Ereshkigal, Ereshkigal could be paired with Nergal. However, this was a relatively late tradition. It probably developed at some point between the late Old Babylonian period and the Middle Babylonian period (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 287). Furthermore, they were not recognized as husband and wife consistently. Ereshkigal wasn’t even the goddess most commonly regarded as Nergal’s wife. That distinction instead belongs to Laṣ (Frans A. M. Wiggermann, Nergal A. Philological in RlA vol. 9, p. 219-220).

Ninazu could be inconsistently described as either the son of Ereshkigal or, in incantations, as her husband (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 226). Jordanova argues that in a single first millennium BCE formula he might be implicitly understood as the son of Nergal and Ereshkigal (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 231). It’s possible that Ereshkigal was initially basically a replacement for him as the deity of the underworld, though (Goddesses in Context…, p. 19). Furthermore, a distinct tradition provided him with a completely different parentage, rendering him entirely unrelated to Ereshkigal (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 229-230). Furthermore, starting in the Ur III period, and especially from the Old Babylonian period onwards, Ninazu was usually paired with Ningirida, as documented in multiple genres of texts (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 232).

Nungal, the goddess of prisons, is described as Ereshkigal’s daughter in the hymn Nungal A, with Anu addressed as her father (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 374-375).

Ereshkigal’s court is elaborated upon in multiple sources, too. Her arguably most commonly mentioned servant was Namtar (ironically missing from Inanna’s Descent, though present in a major role in the Akkadian adaptation). He’s consistently designated as her “vizier” (sukkal). His entire family seems to be in Ereshkigal’s employ, too. In the god list An = Anum, his mother Mardula’anki is listed as Ereshkigal’s advisor (with an additional note describing her as a “rodent”); his wife Hushbisha and daughter Hedimmeku are there too (Wilfred G. Lambert, Ryan D. Winters, An = Anum and Related Lists, p. 196). A single source - the incantation series Utukkū Lemnūtu - makes Namtar a son of Ereshkigal and Enlil (sic) instead of a servant (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 260-262). Next to Namtar, the deity with arguably the strongest claim to a “professional” bond with Ereshkigal is Belet-seri. Probably the most famous passage involving her can be found on tablet XII of the Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (Prayers from Him…, p. 52; I really like a-gnosis’ illustration of this passage):

It’s possible that her portrayal in literary texts reflects a role analogous to that of a king’s personal secretary (ṭupšar ekalli; Prayers from Him…, p. 51-52). Furthermore, the fact Ereshkigal is aided by a female scribe (instead of just making Namtar do overtime) might be a reflection of historical reality in its own right, as evidence from Old Babylonian Mari and Sippar and Neo-Assyrian Nineveh and Kalhu seems to indicate it was customary for high-ranking women to employ female clerks (Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, p. 483). Julia Krul suggests that by the Seleucid period Belet-seri might have started to be perceived as Ereshkigal’s “vizier” (thus effectively replacing Namtar), though there is no direct evidence for this. On the other hand, it does seem that she was portrayed in an intercessory role (Prayers from Him…, p. 76), as far as I can tell in contrast with Namtar, in spite of his title which in theory did have similar implications. A few other attested servants of Ereshkigal include Mutu (“death”), designated as an advisor (An = Anum…, p. 196); Bitu, the doorkeeper from Inanna’s Descent and other literary texts (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 266-267); and the cleaners Qāssu-tābat und Ninšuluḫa (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 342).

A peculiar inclusion in An = Anum’s Ereshkigal section is Allatum. She is explained simply as an alternate name of Ereshkigal herself - only one of multiple, at that (An = Anum…, p. 23-24). However, she originated as a distinct goddess, Allani (“the lady”), who fulfilled an analogous function to Ereshkigal in the Hurrian pantheon. She was first introduced to lower Mesopotamia in the Ur III period (c. 2100 BCE), possibly from the Diyala area (Tonia Sharlach, Foreign Influences on the Religion of the Ur III Court. p. 99). She was still worshiped as a distinct deity in Old Babylonian Nippur (Foreign Influences…, p. 100).

Can the real Gugalanna please stand up?

Gugalanna requires a separate section, in part because of an oddly persistent misconception which I feel obliged to clear up, in part because he’s relevant for the passage this article revolves around.

I’ll start with the misconception: the idea that Gugalanna is one and the same as the Bull of Heaven is oddly widespread online, seemingly just because of the meaning of his name (“great bull of heaven”). It’s repeated on most of the shoddy pop-history resources such as World History Encyclopedia, for instance. Various new age, neopagan and fringe christian websites do so too. Outside of Inanna’s Descent, Gugalanna is attested only in the god list An = Anum (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 366). He appears immediately after Ereshkigal herself (tablet V, line 199), though he’s absent from the Old Babylonian forerunner (An = Anum…, p. 24). It should be noted that going by this source Gugalanna’s supposed bovine credentials are up for debate - in contrast with Inanna’s Descent the spelling of his name there doesn’t use the sign gu, “bull”, but rather one of its homophones. The compound gugal would thus mean not “great bull”, but rather “canal inspector”, making him “the canal inspector of heaven” (or “of the god Anu”). It’s entirely possible that the “bovine” variant “great bull of heaven” was only a folk etymology (Dietz Otto Edzard, Gugalʾana in RlA vol. 3, p. 694).

Impression of a Middle Assyrian (c. 1200 BCE) seal with a winged bull (wikimedia commons)

The bull of heaven (GU.AN.NA = alû), meanwhile, has plenty of attestations. However, this name does not refer to a god in the first place, but merely to a constellation - the forerunner of Taurus (Andrew R. George, Manfred Krebernik, Two Remarkable Vocabularies: Amorite-Akkadian Bilinguals!, p. 119). Or at least of a part of Taurus, since the northern stars counted as a part of it formed a separate constellations in Mesopotamian astronomy, the Chariot (Hermann Hunger, David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, p. 271). The perception of the Bull of Heaven as a constellation is directly reflected in the standalone Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven already, as evident especially in the passage describing the creature grazing in the sky (Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, p. 11).

Andrew R. George’s seminal monograph on the Epic of Gilgamesh doesn’t even feature Gugalanna in the index (The Babylonian Gilgamesh…, p. 951-961; I went through every single page mentioned under “Bull of Heaven” to confirm Gugalanna isn’t hiding somewhere in there). As far as I am aware, neither does Sophus Helle’s more recent but less extensive commentary on the same classic. It’s not exactly hard to find articles where the two are discussed as entirely separate figures, too (ex. Uri Gabbay, Drums, Hearts, Bulls, and Dead Gods: The Theology of the Ancient Mesopotamian Kettledrum, p. 34). The only relatively recent publication to present Gugalanna and the Bull of Heaven as one and the same - without full conviction, to be entirely fair - appears to be Louise M. Pryke’s 2017 pop-history book Ishtar (p. 107). There are no sources provided; the fact that on the very same page Pryke appears to be unaware Neti is a misreading, and that Ereshkigal’s doorkeeper is actually named Bitu (as first suggested in the early 1980s; Michael P. Streck, Divine door-keepers A. In Mesopotamia in RlA vol. 14, p. 163), doesn’t exactly fill one with optimism. It would be fine for a layperson to be mistaken, especially since ETCSL still has “Neti” in Inanna’s Descent due to the site’s age, but the author isn’t a layperson in this case.

I had to go back to the late 1990s to find another claim that Gugalanna was one and the same as the bull of heaven in an academic publication. Nicolas Wyatt outright referred to the creature defeated by Gilgamesh as Gugalanna and as husband of Ereshkigal, without providing a source for this claim (Calf in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 181). This might simply be a mistake based on the phonetic similarity between the names - Wyatt specializes in Ugarit, not Mesopotamia, and the editors of the dictionary this entry was published in aren’t Assyriologists either.

Perhaps the most perplexing paper supporting equating Gugalanna and the Bull of Heaven has been written in 1986 by Tzvi Abusch (you might remember him from my article about Inanna and gender; check under Maternal obsessions: do deities even follow gender roles?) who, to put it bluntly, appears to fantasize about carnal relations between the Bull of Heaven and both Ereshkigal and Inanna. In the same passage he also boldly declares not only Ereshkigal AND Inanna, but also Circe and Calypso (sic) were “death goddesses”, to give you an idea what sort of paper we are dealing with (Ishtar's Proposal and Gilgamesh's Refusal: An Interpretation of "The Gilgamesh Epic", Tablet 6, Lines 1-79, p. 161). However, Abusch’s ideas about the Epic of Gilgamesh, in contrast with his studies on Maqlu (which are perfectly fine, though I prefer Daniel Schwemer and Markham J. Geller when it comes to exorcistic literature) are not exactly taken seriously by other Assyriologists (Gary Beckman, Male and Female in the Epic of Gilgamesh: Encounters, Literary History, and Interpretation by Tzvi Abusch [review], p. 902; The Babylonian Gilgamesh…, p. 471 for a criticism of the passage under discussion). The only positive evaluation from within the past 20 years I’m aware of comes from Pirjo Lapinkivi (The Neo-Assyrian Myth…, p. 48), whose work is itself at best controversial (see Meinhold’s review linked earlier).

Given the nature of the majority of publications equating Gugalanna with the Bull of Heaven, I think it is safe to conclude that there is no merit in this claim. However, the inquiry cannot stop here. The idea that Gugalanna is not a distinct god, but merely a title of some other deity, is fairly widespread (ex. The Image of The Nether World…, p. 440). A contributing factor is the fact that in Inanna’s Descent the name is written without the determinative used to designate names of deities, which makes it appear more like a title than a proper name (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 276). Accordingly, numerous possible identities have been proposed.

Surprisingly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone online citing the only proposal Jeremy Black and Anthony Green opted to include in Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary, even though it’s an accessible work aimed at general audiences. They suggest that Gugalanna might have been identical with the minor god Ennugi, following the assumption that the “canal inspector” version of the name was the original, and thus the best indicator of his character (p. 77). 

Ennugi certainly is an interesting option, as he was an underworld deity himself, as indicated by the meaning of his name, “lord of no return”. On top of that, he appears in association with Ereshkigal (though as a servant - specifically a doorkeeper - not spouse) in Nergal and Ereshkigal and, under the variant name Ennugigi, in An = Anum (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 335). However, his canal-inspecting qualifications, on which the identification with Gugalanna ultimately rests in his case, are up for debate. The key passage supposedly attesting to them, which originates in Atrahasis but is best known from its partial adaptation from the Standard Babylonian version of the Epic of Gilgamesh, might be the result of textual corruption, with gallu, a designation of an (underworld) constable, accidentally turned into gugallu, ie. “canal inspector” (The Babylonian Gilgamesh…, p. 879). 

This uncertainty probably explains why the possibility of Ennugi being Gugalanna is not addressed in most of the few subsequent studies dealing with one or both of them. Jordanova’s is an exception (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 277). However, ultimately she only accepts the assumption that “canal inspector of heaven” was likely the original meaning of Gugalanna’s name, and that his identity is to be sought among weather and irrigation deities (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 366). She also notes an apparent connection between Ishkur (the original weather god par excellence) and the underworld can be found in an Early Dynastic myth (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 369), but that’s beyond the scope of this article. I might return to this point in the future, though.

An alternate proposal is that Gugalanna might have been a title of Tishpak, the tutelary god of Eshnunna, though the evidence is pretty weak. In the Old Babylonian predecessor of An = Anum, Tishpak follows Ereshkigal and Allatum and precedes Namtar’s family. He is thus placed roughly where Gugalanna is in the later revised and expanded edition of the list. However, he isn’t particularly closely linked with Ereshkigal anywhere else (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 92). Furthermore, as per the most recent edition of the text, it seems he is actually followed by his usual wife anyway (An = Anum…, p. 50).

A further proposed identification has been rendered entirely implausible by the 2000s, but is worth bringing up here for historical reasons and to further stress there was never really a widespread Assyriological consensus that Gugalanna is literally a bull, let alone the Bull of Heaven. In the 1980s Wilfred G. Lambert suggested that he was identical with the minor underworld god Alla. He based this hypothesis on the assumption that Allatum was only ever an alternate name of Ereshkigal. At the time this was a relatively sound proposal - Allatum’s name does look like Alla with an Akkadian feminine ending added (something like “Mrs. Alla”), and couples of deities with matching names are not unparalleled (cf. Wer and Wertum). Furthermore, Alla is one of the few gods regularly portrayed as dying (specifically as the source of raw materials for the creation of mankind), which Lambert assumed could be what’s being referenced in Inanna’s Descent (Theology of Death, p. 63-64). However, as I already noted before, it is now certain that Allatum was a distinct goddess in origin - and in particular that she had nothing to do with Alla (Tonia Sharlach, An Ox of One's Own: Royal Wives and Religion at the Court of the Third Dynasty of Ur, p. 264). Alhena Gadotti quite boldly suggests interpreting Gugalanna as one of the multiple bovine epithets of Nergal. She points out that he was already called Guanungia, “bull whose might cannot be opposed”, in the Early Dynastic period, and that the earliest written form of his name used the early cuneiform sign ZATU 219 - a schematic representation of the head of a bull (Never Truly Hers…, p. 15).

However, in an earlier assessment of the discussed passage of Inanna’s Descent Manfred Hutter concluded that nothing not only in the myth itself, but in Old Babylonian literature in general, indicates that a connection between Ereshkigal and Nergal already existed in the early second millennium BCE (Altorientalische Vorstellungen von der Unterwelt: Literar- und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu “Nergal und Ereškigal”, p. 56). Dina Katz has also rejected the interpretation of Gugalanna as Nergal, though entirely based on the mistaken assumption that he wasn’t perceived as a god associated with the underworld yet in the second millennium BCE (Inanna’s Descent and Undressing the Dead as a Divine Law, p. 230). In reality, the Zame Hymns from the third millennium BCE already assign this role to him and refer to his cult center Kutha as the “residence of the netherworld’s god” (Manfred Krebernik, Jan J. W. Lisman, The Sumerian Zame Hymns from Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ With an Appendix on the Early Dynastic Colophons, p. 107).

Still, even if the identification with Nergal is unsustainable, Gadotti raises a second interesting point - nothing in the passage indicates that Inanna is necessarily saying the truth. In other words, in the context of this specific myth, Ereshkigal might very well not have a husband named Gugalanna, let alone a dead husband named so; at the absolute minimum, there’s definitely no funeral happening (Never Truly Hers…, p. 15). Similar observations have been made by Anna Jordanova. She points out that only Inanna mentions Gugalanna, Ereshkigal does not. Furthermore, while the myth later does affirm that she is experiencing great sadness, nothing she says indicates it has anything to do with a deceased husband (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 275).

Kinship terms in diplomatic language and beyond, or how to become a sibling

With Ereshkigal’s family connections now fully explained, it’s time to move on to the second major topic which will require some explanation. As I already mentioned, Erica Reiner was seemingly the first author to suggest that she is only designated as a “sister” metaphorically. Some historical context will be necessary to explain where this idea even came from.

As early as in the third millennium BCE, kinship terms could be applied metaphorically. Through their use the idealized image of a family was wishfully projected onto other relationships (Amanda H. Podany, Brotherhood of Kings. How International Relations Shaped the Ancient Near East, p. 29). 

A damaged statue of an unidentified Eblaite ruler (wikimedia commons) The very first diplomatic letter presently known, sent by a certain Ibubu, an official in the court of Irkab-Damu of Ebla, to an envoy of Hamazi, a kingdom most likely located in the northeast of Mesopotamia, already uses formulas evoking this idea: “I am (your) brother and you are (my) brother”, he reassures the other party. However, in all due likeness it was not the oldest letter ever sent - Ibubu was relying on a convention which must have been known to both his fellow Eblaites and to people of Hamazi (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 27). Presumably a similar sentiment is expressed in inscriptions of Enmetena of Lagash in which a non-aggression pact of sorts between him and his neighbor Lugalkiginedudu of Uruk is referred to as “brotherhood” (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 33). 

A fresco depicting Zimri-Lim in the company of deities during his investiture (wikimedia commons) While the earliest evidence is ultimately incredibly fragmentary, the Old Babylonian period offers much more numerous and better preserved sources (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 71). A treasure trove of evidence for how diplomacy was conducted, and what terminology was employed to that end, can be found in texts from the archive discovered in the palace of Zimri-Lim of Mari (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 69-70). The core principle known from earlier sources was still intact: an equal could be referred to as a brother. Furthermore, a ruler of a superior status was referred to as father, one of inferior status as a son (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 70). While uncommon, cases where the ruler of one kingdom would recognize multiple other ones as fathers are attested for example in Emar and Carchemish (Nathan Wasserman, Yigal Bloch, The Amorites. A Political History of Mesopotamia in the Early Second Millennium BCE, p. 391). The term used to designate a head of state could also change due to the loss of prestige of a kingdom. For instance, Aplaḫanda of Carchemish and Zimri-Lim referred to each other as brothers. However, Aplaḫanda’s successor Yatar-Ammī was only recognized by the king of Mari as a son - a king of inferior status. This reflected the loss of influence of the kingdom (The Amorites…, p. 391).

Old Babylonian texts from Mari indicate the existence of specific ceremonial ways to establish a bond of political “brotherhood” (atḫūtum) or “blood relation” (dāmum), such as sacrificing a donkey foal (The Amorites..., p. 58). Swearing an oath with gods acting as witnesses was an option too, as evident in a letter sent to the most famous Old Babylonian king of Mari, Zimri-Lim, by his ally from Niḫriya, a kingdom located on the Balikh River (The Amorites…, p. 71).

Note that establishing bonds of brotherhood with one political entity didn’t automatically mean all of its own bonds were transferred as well. For instance, two Amorite confederations inhabiting the Sinjar Mountains in the times of Zimri-Lim, Numḫā and Yamutbal, established such a bond with Simʾalites (the confederation Zimri-Lim’s family originated in) - but simultaneously considered each other bitter enemies, not brothers (The Amorites…, p. 69-70).

There are also cases where a ruler could claim to be another’s brother without actually establishing a bond with him. This was considered a grave insult. For instance, at one point Zimri-Lim petitioned Yarim-Lin I of Yamhad to do something about one of his subordinates, Dādī-ḫadun, who started calling himself and Zimri-Lim brothers, despite evidently not being his equal. Yarim-Lin I agreed with Zimri-Lim, and instructed Dādī-ḫadun to refer to him as father rather than brother, in accordance with their respective status. Interestingly, it was seemingly entirely irrelevant in this context that Dādī-ḫadun was Zimri-Lim’s maternal uncle - hard to think of a better indication how the diplomatic bonds, despite borrowing kinship terminology, were ultimately distinct (The Amorites…, p. 382-383).

While I focused on kinship terminology in a diplomatic context, it should be stressed that it was applied metaphorically to many aspects of life. A respected expert in a given field was referred to as “father” by other members of the same profession, for instance. Business partners could call each other “brothers” in order to assure each other they are reliable. A trusted friend could be a metaphorical brother, too (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 29).

There are even examples of love poetry where kinship terminology is applied metaphorically (Frans Wiggermann, Sexuality A. In Mesopotamia in RlA vol. 12, p. 416). Despite the implications such statements might have from a modern perspective, actual incest was a strong taboo - to the point even divine genealogy was sometimes subject of scrutiny to avoid implications of it. That might have been the original purpose behind providing some gods - especially Enlil - with ridiculously extensive family trees (Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, p. 389). The most extensive example furnishes him with 21(!) generations of ancestors (Babylonian Creation…, p. 409). Of course, demonstrating how widespread the metaphorical use of kinship terms was among the historical inhabitants of Mesopotamia doesn’t automatically prove that the same applies to gods. Even though the earliest religious sources already reflect a pantheon which is “hierarchical, well organized and geographically inclusive” (Jerrold S. Cooper, Enki and the World Order. A Sumerian Myth, p. 3) and it is certain that gods were supposed to be bound by similar familial connections as humans (Brotherhood of Kings…, p. 28-29), they were not necessarily expected to follow social conventions, as well documented for the case of gender roles (Ilona Zsolnay, Do Divine Structures of Gender Mirror Mortal Structures of Gender?, p. 116).

Luckily, the evidence for metaphorical use of kinship terms in regards to gods is abundant too. Both “father” and “mother” are attested as epithets of deities - either as a designation of their status as a major member of the pantheon, or as a tutelary deity of a specific city, as in the case of, say, Ninura in Umma (Goddesses in Context…, p. 139-140). Notably, the application of “mother” as an epithet was completely detached from a deity’s connection with motherhood or lack of it (Jeremy Black, Songs of the Goddess Aruru, p. 48). One of the most curious examples of this phenomenon might be a hymn in which Inanna addresses Ninshubur as her “mother” as a display of endearment (Frans A. M. Wiggermann, Nin-šubur in RlA vol. 9, p. 497).

Enki and the World Order (a composition I’ll return to later in this article) labels Enki as son of Enlil to indicate his status as an underling (nubanda, “lieutenant”), rather than his genealogy (Enki and…, p. 10). The Poem of the Mattock (or The Song of the Hoe as per the ETCSL translation) refers to Gilgamesh metaphorically as the younger brother of Nergal in order to highlight his own role in the underworld, despite also bringing up his well established parentage fundamentally incompatible with a literal interpretation of this statement (The Babylonian Gilgamesh…, p. 107-108). An entire paper has been dedicated to the use of the title “brother” in the Baal Cycle from Ugarit (Aaron Tungendhaft, How to Become a Brother in the Bronze Age: An Inquiry into the Representation of Politics in Ugaritic Myth; the author regrettably leaves out the situation between Baal and Anat, though) - which, like Mesopotamia c. 1800 BCE, pretty firmly belonged to the spectrum of Amorite-influenced cultures (Mary E. Buck, The Amorite Dynasty of Ugarit. Historical Implications of Linguistic and Archaeological Parallels, p. 262)

Conclusions: is it really about sisterhood?

The evidence gathered in the preceding section is by no means complete - dozens upon dozens of texts would have to be analyzed to provide every single instance of a deity or another literary character utilizing kinship terms metaphorically. If we add diplomatic texts, private letters, and other genres where such formulas were regularly used by rulers and ordinary people, the number would in all due likeness go up to thousands. Still, I hope the relatively small sample I provided illustrates that Reiner’s and Jordanova’s arguments (and Gadotti’s suspicion) rest on a sound foundation. While it is a minority position, I do think it’s sensible to assume that 

What was the rationale for employing these formulas in Inanna’s Descent, though? And why the change between “older sister” and just “sister”? Jordanova argues that Inanna refers to Ereshkigal as her older sister when she bangs at her door because in the beginning of the narrative her status is lower; when she switches to calling her just “sister” instead, the intent is to show that she aims to make them equal by usurping Ereshkigal’s position - which she temporarily does in the very same passage (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 40-41). She also points out the language is hardly unparalleled when it comes specifically to Ereshkigal - in Nergal and Ereshkigal, despite lack of a family connection to speak of between the eponymous protagonists, they are similarly metaphorically described as siblings in order to show they came to function as equals sharing control over the underworld (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 41). One is tempted to add that in the same myth Ereshkigal is addressed as the sister of “the gods”  treated as a collective when she is invited by them to the banquet held in heaven (Untersuchungen zur Gestalt…, p. 418) - such a letter would obviously aim to present the parties as equals. Jordanova’s argument is arguably strengthened further by the fact there is a clear parallel for Inanna metaphorically referring to another deity as her sister while seeking to improve her own status at their expense or at least by being formally proclaimed equally influential in the same spheres of activity, too. Enki and the World Order includes a relatively long passage in which Inanna complains about the unique functions (garza) assigned to other goddesses, including Nintu, Ninisina, Nisaba, Ninmug and Nanshe (Enki and…, p. 6-7). She refers to three of them - Ninisina, Ninmug (Enki and…, p. 49) and Nisaba as her “sisters” (Enki and…, p. 51; Jerrold Cooper argues that in the case of Ninisina, this presumably reflects her paramount importance in the eyes of the kings of Isin; Enki and…, p. 2). This myth is chiefly known from copies from around 1800-1700 BCE (Enki and…, p. 2), much like Inanna’s Descent.

Ereshkigal would thus be just one of multiple deities who, in different narratives, are the (temporary) target of Inanna’s jealousy. Ereshkigal is her “sister” when she temporarily usurps her throne; Ninmug or Nisaba are her “sisters” when she wants Enki to assign the same position to her, too. None of them need to have any deeper connection to her otherwise. While this alone would be a satisfying conclusion, I would like to propose one more adjustment. I think Gadotti’s comment about Gugalanna is particularly illuminating, and warrants further consideration. If Inanna is lying about his death - or perhaps made him up on the spot - could it be that the entire quote is intended as her attempt to fool Ereshkigal’s doorkeeper? Could calling her “older sister” be dishonest humility, as opposed to admission of inferior position? Could it be that Inanna is effectively doing what Dādī-ḫadun did to Zimri-Lim? This is obviously pure speculation, and speculation of an obsessive hobbyist at that - don’t take it too seriously. I think it would be an interesting, period-appropriate approach to take in a retelling, though. If the foundation of the idea that Inanna and Ereshkigal is so shaky, why does it occupy such a prominent place in the reception of the myth this article revolves around - and, really, of these two figures in general? Personally I think it’s down just to its relatively early translation, and subsequent publication of its questionable interpretations in books aimed at general audiences. Ultimately most of the non-academic publications I’ve discussed in the first section go back to  Campbell, not Kramer. People are thus exposed to an artificial image of Inanna and Ereshkigal as closely related polar opposites, life and death, light and dark, and so on, with the supposed sisterhood as the glue binding it all, but ultimately a secondary concern. And while it’s hard to object to the perception of Ereshkigal as the goddess of death - because that’s really who she was at the core - the Inanna compared to her by Campbell or Walker is really something manufactured on the spot. She is not really the favorite literary character of Old Babylonian audiences - a goddess with multiple spheres of activity including but not limited to love, war, the sky and investiture of rulers - but rather some sort of simplistic personification of “life” or “fertility” or some other similarly nebulous concept. At the absolute best, a reverse Ereshkigal. Truthfully, the problem isn’t just that Inanna and Ereshkigal aren’t really particularly closely related to each other, or whether they really are sisters. The issue with the popular perception of the myth is more that in reality they were not opposites of each other more than any two randomly selected deities with different primary functions. You could very well argue that Inanna, as a war deity, was a goddess of “inflicting death” much in the way Nergal was; meanwhile, Ereshkigal is hardly portrayed as incapable of exhibiting strong emotions like her, including lust. It’s quite literally the core of the plot of Nergal and Ereshkigal that she does feel it! Neither of them existed simply to be the polar opposite of the other, and neither of them can be defined just by her role in a single myth, let alone in a simplified summary of it. Given the torment Inanna’s Descent had to be put through by Cambell and his imitators in order to render Inanna and Ereshkigal polar opposites of each other, one is tempted to imagine a hypothetical scenario where Enki and the World Order gets translated first instead. Ninmug, as an artisan deity, is credited with the creation of assorted works of art (Enki and…, p. 49); Inanna, meanwhile, “destroyed that which should not be destroyed, (...) razed that which should not be razed” (Enki and…, p. 53) - would the supposed duality exemplified by supposed “sisterhood” be transferred to them? Perhaps in the alternate 2025 there would be a  gacha game where Ninmug is an Inanna recolor? 

Ultimately, deities with multiple appearances in literary texts simply cannot be boiled down to simple archetypes - whether they are literally siblings or not.

[linderosse]

Heya folks! I'm Lin! Some of you may know me as the author of a humble Zeldas-meet comic series called the Wielders of Wisdom, part of my larger Zelda AU called Wisdomverse.

Every creator has different views on how content should be interpreted, and I figure I should make mine clear for folks who are interested, as well as clarify some things about the Wisdomverse and the history of its creation and influences. These are just some of my thoughts on the series and fandom as a whole with respect to my comics; I'm taking this opportunity to state them in text form.

Extremely, extremely long post. Folks who know me know I like writing longposts-- this is even longer. You have been warned!

Please feel free to read or ignore as you wish— if you’re here for my artwork, no worries! And if you’d like, there’s a tl;dr section at the end; please feel free to skip to it.

As always, I reserve the right to edit parts of this if my views change, or if I'm convinced otherwise. And as always, I welcome everyone else’s thoughts on the matter.

Why I Create:

I began the Wisdomverse because I love the Zelda series.

I've been a Zelda fan for nearly twenty years now, and have completed every single mainline game, plus a fair few of the others, and 100%ed a few of them or played challenge modes as well. The Zelda series has its flaws and it definitely has some inconsistencies. But each new game continues to amaze me nonetheless.

Wielders of Wisdom, part of the Wisdomverse AU, is a comic series that features the Zeldas summoning each other to help deal with different problems in their own eras. As a tactical RPG superfan (FE!!! TriStrat!!!) and a huge fan of fairplay mystery plots, I wanted to write a story featuring Wisdom at its core. I've now been working on the Wisdomverse off and on for about two years, maybe a little more, though theories and characterizations from much longer ago have made it in.

I am super glad that my comic has brought people to Zelda. It’s so cool to hear that people started playing the games because they saw my artwork.

I have a story I want to share, and mysteries I want the characters to solve. I look forward to continuing it.

The Influence of LU

On one hand, the Wisdomverse began as an LU spinoff.

I created the Wielders with the LU Chain in mind— not necessarily based on LU canon, but based on mine and others’ versions of the Chain at the time using our interpretations of the Zelda games themselves as source material. The core characterizations of LU are brilliant, and I love them— particularly the combination of Links that make up Legend and Four. I had seen Link-meets before, but combining Links was a novel idea to me. It allowed me to express my love for the lesser known Zelda games just as much as the popular ones.

And folks, LU sparked so much Zelda fan content, which was difficult to find at scale before. I was there in the old-ish days (not the truly old days, I must admit), writing Zelda fanfic and reading it on FFnet (under a different username which shall not be named 😆). LU made it so much easier! The comic is great too, but the framework revitalized my love of the Zelda fandom.

My characters in Wisdomverse still use the LU fanon Zelda nicknames as a tribute to all of us LU fans out there. I came up with everything else about the girls, but not their nicknames. I was there for the tail end of those discussions, and adopted the nicknames because I can't see the Zeldas any other way now. I can, of course, explain why we chose each and every one of those nicknames. But the nicknames do not belong to me; nor to the creator of LU. They are a creation of the LU fandom. Shoutout to those guys, y'all are great.

Characters of my Own

On the other hand, I… have actually seen folks assume that all my work in personalizing the Zeldas for my comics, writing their characters, rebalancing and clarifying their powers and abilities, setting up their stories, and designing their outfits and jobs to make them as unique as possible— that this was all done by the creator of LU as well. I have been sent angry and confused DMs because I made certain decisions, like making Tetra and Phantom different characters, like they are in the canon games, despite Wind also representing Spirit Tracks in LU. Or making Legend and Fable twins when Jojo confirmed they’re not related in LU— ironic, considering that it seems to be the opposite sentiment that sparked the newer discourse. This is actually why I made that info post about it a year or two back, if anyone is wondering.

These assumptions were a little sad to see, of course. I understand the frustration when one's work is attributed to someone else. I wasn't really offended by the mistake, though. It is reasonable, in a fandom as large as Zelda, for ideas to be misattributed. Most folks understood completely when I corrected them. The ones that didn't, I simply ignored.

Fans

In fact, in my experience, LU fans have almost always been super polite and excited to learn new things about the franchise, or learn new headcanons and ways to connect the dots between canon elements. Writing “The Secrets We Keep” is a lot of fun, because I know quite a lot about the games, and I get to work it into the story and hear people go, “Oh, I didn’t know that! And you’ve connected these two things? That’s so cool!” I love getting to see that side of the fandom.

Many LU fans I’ve met also know a ton about the franchise— I never thought I could learn so many new things about a series I already know very well! From glitches and exploits to theories about the origin of weapons and materials; I love hearing it. Some of it has been incorporated into Wisdomverse :) (but not the glitches and exploits; that would be cheating XD).

As I said, the very few folks that were rude, I ignored. That’s to be expected in any group of people.

Building on Others’ Ideas

I myself have used headcanons that belong to other people. Shoutout to raycatzdraws and snowylynxxx for their Spirit design that I iterated on. I definitely wasn’t the originator of the Legend|Fable siblings hc, or the hc that Wild had a sister, etc. Of course, I know the reasons and canon source material for all those hcs. But I no longer know who first connected the dots to come up with them.

Fandom is hard to source. Heck, I’ve seen some people who came to Wisdomverse through other sites assume that I created LU (of course I did not). One commenter on a YouTube video even assumed that Fable’s Cane of Somaria from the Wisdomverse was inspiration for the trirod in the actual Echoes of Wisdom game. (I wish! The Cane is simply a canon item from ALttP/OoA; I promise I had no hand in EoW’s development). Such is the way of life in a convoluted fandom. Ray said it best in a comment somewhere I still remember— we’re all out here playing a game of fandom telephone.

Fandom Telephone

As I’ve been saying for years on stream, that’s one of the things I like best about the Zelda fandom: the fact that there are so many interpretations of everything, and all of us build on each others’ work. The Silmarillion and MDZS fandoms are the same way (shoutout to fandoms where the source material contradicts itself and fans interpret things however they want 😆). Unlike in a normal game of telephone, however, the result at the end of the line is still just as valid as the original message. It’s about creativity, not accuracy. A game of telephone is boring as hell if everyone just perfectly repeats the initial phrase. Variety is the spice of creation.

I personally prefer intentional variety based on interpretations of the games' canon. In fact, I tend to stick as close to canon as possible while telling the story I want to tell. Folks who've read The Secrets We Keep are probably used to my long Game Notes for each chapter.

But accidental variety works too! You don’t have to stick to canon if you don't want to! And no one at all should be enforcing that.

Gatekeeping

I've finished every mainline Zelda game. I have 100%ed many of them, and played some on challenge modes. I know all popular timeline theories by heart, including of course my own timeline for Wisdomverse. I can probably list the titles, release years, and consoles of most Zelda games, plus tons of other useless trivia. To be clear, I knew most of this before discovering LU.

I’d like to think I’m therefore qualified to say: let everyone write or draw or play what they want!

You are still a fan if the only Zelda game you’ve played is Breath of the Wild! You are still a fan if you’ve never played a Zelda game and just love LU! You are still a fan if you’ve never read LU either and are just vibin’ with the characters on AO3! You are still a fan if you don’t know what LU is but think the Wisdomverse girls are cool!

You can check my old posts to confirm that I’ve said this over and over again— I ain’t here to gatekeep the Zelda fandom. No one should be. There is no excuse for anyone to belittle someone for not knowing a detail about the games. Or for having a particular viewpoint on the series. The Zelda fandom has always been a wholesome place, and I know we can keep it that way.

And since tons of Zelda and LU fans are just as knowledgeable about the series as me, if not more, I’m sure all of us are happy to tell folks anything they’d like to know— only if they want to know it, because there should never be requirements to be in a fandom.

Perhaps because I’m from the Silm fandom, I am used to this sentiment. I’ve read the Silmarillion four times, but tons of folks just read the wiki pages or fics and are totally accepted into the fandom. I personally believe Zelda— any fandom, really — should be just as open and free.

Is Wisdomverse still a part of LU?

People have been asking me this for a while. I’ve responded to it in the past, but my answer may have changed slightly.

LU is a great story, and I have to give Jojo massive credit for the amazing framework, designs, and characterization. The core characters that make up the LU Links still match the Wis Zeldas, of course, and The Secrets We Keep is still very much continuing starring the LU Links as I envision them.

But many things about the Wisdomverse have deviated from LU canon now— not because I have changed them, but because I adopted these traits into my stories long before Jojo clarified them about her Links. At this point, the Wisdomverse Info page clarifies all theories that differ from the games themselves, not just LU. Jojo has made decisions that fit the story she wants to tell, and I have made different ones that fit my story.

In Wisdomverse, Spirit and Phantom exist separately from Tetra and Wind, like in Zelda canon. Shadow and the FSA manga are also canon, because the plot fits neatly into Four's character arc in the games. TotK is canon; I have already released my future Wild and Flora designs. The events of Hyrule Warriors are canon. The visiting Links that accompanied Legend in Triforce Heroes are Silent and Hyrule. Legend and Fable are twins, because I follow the ALttP siblings theory. And my comic Echo of the Past has made it quite clear that Echoes of Wisdom and Cadence of Hyrule are canon as well, and I have plans for them :).

There are probably more changes as well; these are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. As far as I know, none of these things are true anymore in base LU.

Some of these changes were imposed to make my series more accurate to the games. Some of them were imposed because that was how I viewed the series, long before LU even existed. And some of them were imposed so I can tell the story I want to tell.

Tagging

I have been using “wis sun” “wis echo” “wisdomverse” “wielders of wisdom” etc tags for my stuff for a while now.

Echo of the Past, for example, is entirely my own thing, and has no LU influence or characters whatsoever. The idea to combine EoW, CoH, and AoL into Echo was mine and mine alone. Silent, Echo, Dawn, and the Prince are all my characters, and are using my designs and personalities. I don’t think that counts as LU anymore, so I removed all the LU tags when posting. I don’t mind if you want to tag it as LU when reblogging, though! From a practical standpoint, that only helps me out XD.

To be clear, when I use the LU Link designs, I will still tag the post with their info. The creator deserves credit for their design, and folks who chance upon the art deserve to know I did not create the LU Links.

This means that I am possibly the one creator that isn’t technically writing/drawing LU but is kind of okay with my posts being tagged as LU.

But please also tag them as Wisdomverse. I put a lot of work into my characters. I want people to know that.

And please don't tag other creators' works as Linked Universe. I allow it at the moment because of the specifics of the Wisdomverse, and the fact that I want to credit LU for the nine Link designs I'm using along with my Zeldas. I don't think any other creators with separate AUs allow this.

Building off of my Works

That said, I hope no one feels like I am imposing my views over the LU characters— or even my Zeldas.

I stated that I view Dusk as ace, for example, and that Fable is lesbian. But if you want to use the Wisdomverse framework, summoning system, and characterization while shipping Dusk with Midna, or Fable with Legend or something, be my guest!

I personally don’t mind anyone interpreting my characters in any way as long as you’re aware that I believe differently. I may even state that I personally disagree with that part of the interpretation, but that’s totally fine! Do what you wish! If you were inspired by me, feel free to tag me— I love it. Other creators may not share this opinion, and that is also completely valid, but I love to see people build on my ideas, even if they’re taking their own spin on it.

I only ask that folks don’t directly ship the Zeldas with each other, because no matter what canon you’re using, they’re all direct descendants of each other, and that… gets a bit icky. I actually personally don't mind Linkcest (not a fan, but not opposed to it), but the LU creator has requested that folks don't ship their Links and I respect that. I guess if you want to ship the Links that I designed: Spirit, Silent, or post-TotK Wild... go for it? I obviously ship those three with their Zeldas, but I ain't about to stop folks from making a really, really strange crackship XD.

TL;DR

Can’t deny the massive influence LU has had on the Zelda fandom as a whole. I appreciate it!

However, it is a bit sad to see my ideas credited to LU sometimes.

The Wisdomverse has deviated quite a bit from LU at this point, and is sort of its own thing that sometimes uses the LU designs and characterizations for the Links. 2.5/11 Links in Wis use my own designs. All 11 Zeldas use my own designs.

I don’t mind if you tag Wis content as LU when applicable! Please also tag it as Wisdomverse though— I’d appreciate that :).

LU fans have almost always been very knowledgeable and polite to me in the past. Shoutout to the LU fandom. Y’all are great.

Anyone who wants can be a Zelda fan! No gameplay required, and no gatekeeping allowed.

Anyone who wants can make fan content interpreting my work in any way; I will not be offended!

The Zelda community has always been a wholesome place to me, and I hope to see it continue that way.

Congrats on making it this far— or for skipping to the tl;dr’s :).

Thanks for reading, and see you around!

Masterpost

[justdeltarunethings]

The Phone Call, Carol, and the Knight

Part 3

First | Previous

One of the biggest points of discussion (and contention) is the identity of the "Phone Voice". This is, of course, referring to the person or entity that speaks to Kris over the phone in the kitchen, the closet, and at the end of the normal route.

There are two points that seem to seed themselves into a lot of theorizing that I am going to clarify my position on, outright, and strongly. The first of these points is, simply, "The phone voice is the Knight."

That sentence is acting like a poison to this discussion, rippling into every corner of the dialogue. So let me say this clearly.

THE PHONE VOICE IS NOT exactly THE KNIGHT.

The only reason to jump to this conclusion is that the voice knows about the shelter, the codes, and the dark fountains, and even where the next one is going to be. But anyone can have that information, with a few exceptions.

Often when I see people saying that the phone voice cannot be Carol, this is WHY they are saying that. They're usually DessKnight theorists, and if the phone voice is the Knight, then it can't be Carol. Incidentally...

Second is something you've probably noticed on a casual perusal of DR theories that talk about this. People will say something like... "The phone voice(s?)"

Again, I'm gonna come down strong on a side here.

THE KITCHEN PHONE CALL IS TWO PEOPLE TALKING TO EACH OTHER, NOT ONE PERSON TALKING TO KRIS.

Something about that phone call bugged me the first time through, and it didn't solidify until my second playthrough, after some theorizing but before digging through what other people were saying too much.

At one point, the "phone voice" says "Without... soul... Kris... will..." and later "...Kris... Dark World... No soul... Can't..."

I know a lot of the DR audience is into anime, and I know Carol is a massive weeb, and I know that in Japanese the more theatrical speech in media often foregoes first and second person pronouns and just uses the whole name instead, but this is a line in English. This is not a natural speech pattern. This isn't how someone speaking to Kris would talk.

On my second playthrough, the answer to this became extremely obvious. This voice ISN'T talking to Kris. They're talking to someone else.

That's not highlighted text spoken in a more forceful tone of voice like I and many others assumed it was at first. That's a different voice. It explains the strange speech patterns, and frankly everything about that phone call.

Kris called someone, that person patched in a third party, (or Kris called into the party line) and those two parties had a discussion that no longer involved Kris as an active component.

So now we have two voices to contend with: White Text, and Red Text. One person who seems to be organizing all of these events, and one person who is very very concerned that Susie will find that code.

Everyone assumed that Carol was "The Voice", now the White Text, and honestly I agree. I know I'm pushing against the knee-jerk interpretation by disagreeing with DessKnight, but in this case I don't see any reasonable argument against Carol being the white text.

All I ever see are explanations for why "I'll be right there" does not in fact mean the thing it says and instead means something different (and as unnatural as referring to someone to their face with their name), and then by a totally unrelated accident Carol showed up right afterwards to do the thing that the voice wanted done.

The only compelling argument is that Carol shows up anyway in the Snowgrave route. But even then, there's a cut to black at the end of the bedroom scene where anything could have happened, and since the call history has been deleted after leaving the Holiday manor in BOTH routes, it's reasonable to think that Kris panic-called Carol to tell her both about the guitar and that Noelle might be hurt, and then went to the bathroom to attack the SOUL.

Further to this point, the Snowgrave route in the manor in chapter 4 is MUCH shorter than the regular route. There's only the one conversation with Noelle compared to the kitchen phone call, the basement scene, the living room scene under the angel, the entire Tom & Jerry scene in Dess's closet, and the next living room scene where Susie has the guitar.

That would mean that Carol would have to show up earlier during Snowgrave for no reason, OR there's a significant amount of time between the bedroom scene and the bathroom scene. And the latter just opens up the possibility that Kris DID place the call even more. Especially since that was what they were going to do in the first place.

So, Carol is the White Text. Who's the red text? It's someone who doesn't want Susie to get the code, and by extension enter the shelter. Someone who's working with Kris (This part is pretty widely accepted but I'll get into it more later).

The most obvious candidate is, of course The Knight.

But then, that lets me finally, definitively say something I've handled softly before this point. Namely...

Carol is the white text, The Knight is the red text. Therefore Carol CANNOT be the Knight!

And that's the second most likely candidate for the Knight's identity (popularity wise) knocked out of the running without a fight. Never mind that she still seems to be giving the Knight orders...I'm sure that's not important.

With this piece of the theory in place, things are going to stabilize a little bit more. We're gonna take a reaaaaaally close look at the Knight and what they're up to, and in doing so we're going to expose...

The Plan.

[cute-little-fly]

Basically this!

I have discussed the show with a lot of people that don’t like it, that disagree with me, and sometimes I have learned a new perspective that I didn’t considered before, other times I have made other people see other ways some things can be viewed or interpreted that were not the way they saw it.

Both parts kept their opinion, but we both gained some insight.

Some of these people I am saying are openly negative towards the show and really… I don’t mind it. It’s just that the fixation some people have on how much they enjoy hating it, and bother people that like it it’s kinda weird… I am in other fandoms and they all have their own issues but the amount of people that enjoy hating this show should be studied… at the end of the day it’s just a show. An option you can watch, or pass. For a lot of people it’s cathartic and good, why can’t they just accept it?

I don’t mind people thinking Viv is a mid or mediocre writer. For me it’s just that show works with some of us, and doesn’t work with others for different reasons. For me it’s just about that. IMO the characters are very well done, even if the writing it’s not always perfect and for me that’s enough. I am not a war criminal for that lmao.

I think a lot of antis need to realize the reason why people are so aggressive towards them isn’t because they are in the Vivziepop cult it’s because they are having their tone matched. If someone says they think viv is a mediocre writer and her shows have a tone problem or mishandle sensitive topics I might disagree but it’s not that big of a deal we can discuss or agree to disagree. If someone comes at me in their dedicated hate blogs to tell me that Vivziepop is a narcissist abusive monster because her cartoon didn’t meet the vibe check and I’m somehow morally complicit in thought crimes I’m going to tell you to fuck off.

Exactly! It's not about not being able to criticize a show's creator or writing. It's about the exaggeration and downright lies that are spread about said creator. Like, for example, I love Stolitz. But I am not going to crucify someone who doesn't. I maybe try to say my piece in why I like it to them, if they are open to discussion. But, sometimes, it's just about people having different opinions, and that's fine. What I am not going to do is harass a creator until she litterly can't take it anymore and leaves the plattform! Like, it's hard to be nice to someone who calls you slurs and tells you to kill yourself for liking/creating something they don't. You have to draw the line somewhere. And that line for me, is when you start to go after and bully REAL people over a fictional show and characters.

Thank you for the ask! 💕

[liliadrawingstuff]

Answers.

I NEED ANSWERS

[rewvyu]

I think the OP post is generally right on most stuff, but I will fill in some of my own understanding and interpretation on top of what is already said.

Before I start, I want to give a disclaimer: I have not done any deep dive into 1.7 story and NPC conversations. There are probably more hints to the history of Miraland and specifically Wishfield in 1.7. Most of my knowledge I am about to share are from pre-1.5 era. I will probably not reference much or any of 1.7 story in this post too. Should there be any mistake, feel free to correct me.

I have tried to categories them in chronological order of when each notable event took place. I may be wrong though, so take it with a grain of salt.

Veilfall:

Personally, I don't remember or kept any record of this being mentioned in game pre-1.7. I probably missed some stuff, and I haven't really review and dig deeper into 1.7's story which may contain more information on this. My interpretation for Veilfall, is when all the gods including The Wishing One disappeared. Some might argue, "Wait! What about Ena that we met her earlier before the retcon? She was physically there with Nikki and Momo!" Well my answer to that is perhaps that was a memory/projection of Ena which is probably why in the retcon version she appeared differently—ghostly/glowy(?).

Mistveil War:

For Mistveil War era, I have came across and kept much more records from pre-1.7. The Mistveil War happened in Wishfield according the Wishfield's NPC conversations. As seen in the picture below.

War Against The Dark:

While I have not collected much information on this, this war most likely happened after the Mistveil War. Since only after that the world of Miraland have the Eight.

Queen Philomia's Death:

I did a full story coverage of Philomia back in 1.3, for those that are interested you can read it in my blog post. Based on Wishfield citizens, it is believe that Philomia death is about 3 centuries ago. Which is considered quite recent compared to other historic lore we now know.

Umbraso War:

This war is believed to have started around 1001-1002 A.W. which is an even more recent event that happen within Miraland. It is believed that Empire of Light is aiming to expand their region by taking over Umbraso based on NPCs conversation and lore notes so far.

Nikki's Graduation Dance Ball & Miraland Isekai Incident:

You know what happened here 🥹

The Fake Wish Bottle Coma Incident:

This part doesn't need any introduction if you have played the main story, so I won't go through this.

Last of Ena:

Yea, she is gone for real.

Reunion of Philomia and Olivia:

I pretty much covered this as mentioned earlier. I did a full story coverage of Philomia back in 1.3, for those that are interested you can read it in my blog post.

The Blue Tears of Serpentine Ruins:

This is where we are now. I won't be discussing this, as you can already find out for yourself 😌

Even though I have more lore notes and records, this will be all for now. 🫠 EDIT:

I totally forgot about Silvergale arc where we got more lore hints during the Bubble Season. But OP already kinda covered it so I guess I won't have to 🫡

So far it seems like the Miraland timeline is:

- Veilfall: some sort of apocalypse type event? Fantatic Wisher ghost says that’s when their god vanished- so there was some god before the Eight

- Whimancer period: people can use Whim but not particularly well/without a lot of precision. This is the time period the current quest story with Sith is going to take place

- rise of the Eight: stone tablets of some kind are discovered and shared; Whim becomes more refined and “Stylists” become the new term for people who can use Whim. Unclear if the Eight are actual gods, Whimancers/Stylists who ascended to godhood, or just powerful Whimancers/Stylists who were revered as gods

- fall of the Wishing One: as established in earlier story quests, the Wishing One is betrayed and either dies (Florawish belief) or becomes the Silvergale (Stoneville belief)

- 2 artifacts are left behind by the Wishing One: Auerum Vase and the scepter

- time passes (unclear how long)

- Mistveil War: religious extremist group (Fanatic Wishers) is trying to get the scepter; war breaks out and a lot of people die

I’m a little unclear on the chronology for the stuff with Queen Philomia and the war with the Heartcraft Kingdom and where all that fits in, and we don’t have any info on the other 6 gods afaik but it seems like the timeline is getting a little more established with this patch.

[wardensantoineandevka]

look, I'm gonna be real, a lot of responses to my post about Lucanis and how he doesn't at all have any conflict in himself over being a killer for hire that are arguing that, well, we don't KNOW that because the game doesn't delve into it and MAYBE he might if he unpacked his childhood trauma right now or was given a choice earlier in life or was trained differently or hated Caterina or something else really are all just "what if the world was made of pudding". folks, I'm trying to reckon with the character as written.

[mcybree]

yknow I wasnt feeling like finishing my flower husbands essay (I feel less of a push to now that I dont technically Have To meticulously prove/justify my stance— people do just. agree with me now! which is insane) but I’m starting to think maybe it’s still needed actually

[pumpkinrootbeer]

got some tags that got me thinking. is Evan a asshole on purpose? is Jared? The answer is No (imo) for both of them.

they're both assholes yes but neither one is out to hurt people. they're not *trying* to be an asshole. my post was more abt pointing out that evan is a very selfish often cruel character whose anxiety gets used by the audience as a shield against the horrible things he does while everyone acts like jared is trying to get evan to bomb the Pentagon. most of the show Evan uses the excuse of "helping the Murphys" to justify what he's doing. but he's not helping them, he's actively hurting them and dragging out their grieving process! it is a horrific thing he does! this is something the show criticizes through jared bc is evan reaaaaally just trying to help a grieving family or does he like the attention.

even the "no one deserves to be forgotten" motif is a farce because they are remembering connor in name only. connor is forgotten because of evan and in his place is a false fake version of connor that Evan invented. evan uses connors death to prop himself up and make himself look better. but did he do this on purpose? no. but it felt good, so he kept doing it.

again! a really really big part of the show is evan does a lot of mean shitty things but can't admit, even to himself, that he's doing mean things. "I don't even think mean things!" It's not really until "good for you" and "words fail" that he realizes why he was really doing all of this. that he can't keep lying to everyone AND himself. lying to yourself is a huge theme of the show, see "Did you fall or did you let go?"

and wow this got way longer than i intended but imo basically evan isn't trying to be an asshole but it also can't accurately be described as accidental. he's doing these asshole things on purpose but not to be an asshole, if that makes sense?

and to briefly touch on my "Jared isn't an asshole on purpose either" statement: Jared does the shit not to hurt people but to try and make them laugh or to get himself attention. he's making shitty mean spirited jokes to cover up his own insecurity but he's not trying to hurt people. when he's trying to hurt someone he's gets real passive aggressive but I'm not explaining this part super well because I already wrote an Evan manifesto but whatever. autism explosion beam

[mushroom-snake-coding]

(First off, no need for any apologies. I am glad you responded to my response with a very impressive debate. Like legitimately, you have broadened my horizons and have made me consider several more nuances. For that I thank you.

That said, I’m going to try and make this my last response. Life has gotten a bit busier than I have hoped and I would rather spend my free time crocheting my little characters or doing my other creative hobbies than engaging in debates that I cannot even vote for at the moment. Please know that if you respond to this, I will acknowledge it and read it through, but will not write anything, so that neither of us have to engage in this cycle of debate anymore.)

The reason I say good quality education should be available to the public, is because it is actually helping people get jobs, not because of any teacher or “unwritten rule”. We have something called Career Tech Education (CTE) which allows students to learn about the basics of several careers. We have a class where students can learn to repair a car, criminal justice, culinary, health, computer science. But since my initial point was about ELA (I call it English), we can apply that to modern day usage as well. Wasn’t there a clause stating something along the lines of AI not being regulated for the next ten years which a member of our government did not fully read through in the “Big Beautiful Bill”? Wouldn’t teaching people to read everything and understand the deeper meanings of this help us avoid these types of mistakes?

But I will admit that this is technically a political stance, and we can say that some ethnics are backed by religion. And to determine what should be taught in school will require more thoughtful discussions by a group of people with diverse perspectives, knowledge, and experiences rather than a simple rule.

Second, exposing the research you are proposing, is not something I am necessarily against. But in education, people usually try to give information that will give some value to students. What is the point of giving this research? Sure a certain race could statistically be correlated with higher or lower IQs but there has to be a point in giving this? Do certain races have a different historical background that caused the IQ gaps? Is it a cultural reason? If it is a genetic reason, wouldn’t it be better to measure by ethnicity? Perhaps we are even learning this to understand the limitations of using race and IQ as measurements. But all in all I did not mean giving students random statistics with no reason to use them or no knowledge to interpret them.

And lastly, “public education being funded by violence” is definitely a new take I have heard. And I cannot necessarily deny it. Public education is funded by taxes, and taxes are enforced by law, which can be violent. And in turn, anything enforced by law can be violent, so can an entire government. So I assume you advocate for a smaller government with less control, or no government. But that itself comes with its pros and cons. If the government stops using violence to enforce laws, what’s stopping a person from murdering someone else? Or maybe they enforce all the laws except taxes? Well that doesn’t exactly work either, because the government needs some income to function or else no one would work in it. Or if we just stop supporting public education, there would be several children running around, several of them not being able to do basic reading/writing/math or being able to think critically, so a very vulnerable population, which could lead to a future generation of very uneducated adults who do not strive for a better system.

I do not mean to say that our current system is perfect. The most ideal system in my opinion is not the same for each country. It depends on the size, people’s values, a community mindset or an individualistic one, and many more. And the thing is, these can all change over time, so an ideal system would be able to adapt.

But my initial point of discussion was about how my state is changing our system of teaching, which I feel is lowering the quality and will probably negatively impact the future generations of children who are using the public school system. I did feel that it was politically motivated and was a bit upset with that. But hey all I can really do about it is encourage people I know to keep reading books and maybe write an email to our state education department.

Hate what they are doing with the Education Department here in my state. Apparently teacher aren’t supposed to teach from the books, just excerpts. And apparently it’s “unnecessary” but we’re all pretty sure it’s an attempt at censorship. I’m so angry, we’re all angry.

Conservative kids, liberal kids, immigrant kid, Christian kids, Atheist kids, FFA kids, Art kids, Tech kids, Medical kids were all huddled around this fucking schedule that our teacher has to teach next year. They’re not gonna teach books like Lord of The Flies, Long Way Down, Fahrenheit 451, only few excerpts. We all hate it.

Why don’t politicians do us a favor and stay out of education? Stop forcing us to read out of context information and teaching us ideals from that. Let us GET THE FULL STORY AND NOT YOUR SPOONFED PROPAGANDA.

They did it with the bible according to my Christian friends. Take few words out of context and tell us to follow that. Fuck that.

Keep your political agenda out of our education. You criticize teacher of doing this, but you do it yourself. Stop censoring our stuff. Stop hiding history. Stop hiding science. Stop hiding ideas. Let us be EDUCATED if you want this to be the best country in the world.

[inkykeiji]

Thank you so much for answering my question! I'm kinda new to fanfiction (not that I didnt know it existed but I literally have never seen or engaged with any until like a month ago lol) and so I just wanted to get your perspective on something I dont really understand yet. I'm autistic so I guess sometimes it's just hard for me to see/imagine characters as anything but how they are in canon, but I understand that it would be totally boring to write fanfic that only follows canon! I kinda see fanfic as that writers version of the character, like that's your specific version of Dabi and other writers have their versions of Dabi and maybe they're completely different 🤔 and I guess in my head it made more sense to me to just make a new character to make them exactly how you want and then you wouldn't have to worry about canon at all lol (because my mind wont let me see characters differently sometimes) but I get it now that you explained :) so if you dont mind me asking in your au's what happened differently in dabi/ touyas life to make him a sexual person? In canon I dont really see Dabi as a sexual person like he couldn't be bothered with relationships or anything sexual, like I almost see him as being asexual. So what kind of changed for him in your au's to make him more sexual and willing to have relationships? And thanks again for taking the time to explain for me, I really appreciate it 😊💕

hello again!! c: oh i’m glad i could help! <3 i mean, ultimately, just like all other fiction, it’s all personal preference. some people only like to read in-canon fic and some people only like to read AUs and some people like both, etc etc etc and it’s all totally and completely fine! i think you seeing fanfic as that specific writer’s version of a character/characters makes complete sense and, in a way, is also true—we are each expressing our own interpretations of him! so i absolutely get where you’re coming from there c: and i think your reasoning for being confused makes sense, too!

oh that’s a good question! unfortunately, i don’t have an answer for you, though, because i personally have always interpreted canon dabi as someone who would use casual sex (and drugs!) to try (and fail) to fill the gaping void in his chest. it is 100% fine if you disagree with me, and i will always encourage anyone to interpret any character however they’d like to. the beauty with art and fiction is that there’s technically no wrong answer to a lot of this stuff—if you personally see dabi as someone who is asexual, then he is asexual! if i see him as a sexual being, then he is a sexual being! we can have our own conflicting views on him and who he is, because he isn’t real, and he can be whoever we want him to be. does that make sense? let me know if you have any other questions or something seems unclear and i will try my best to further explain myself! <3

[arolesbianism]

Oxygen not included tag situation is getting DIRE I just had someone come at me and try to tell me to me face that nothing ingame states or implies the printing pod is sentient. You will not disrespect Olivia’s name in this manner…

Hhhholy shit I. How. I cannot even fathom how one could make such a bold statement without pulling out any sort of source considering literally everything in game far more than implies all of that and more. Me when I fucking lie. Me when I start making shit up. Me when I ignore multiple entire sections of the database. Me when I haven't played the video game. I'm so sorry for your loss and let it be known that however you handled that I would have handled it worse I am already at my wits end with more reasonable misunderstandings there's a reason I deliberately don't go talk to other oni fans my poor heart can't take the risk let alone the actuality

[puc-puggy]

the transandrophobia discourse is poisoned by separatist feminist theory that terfs and radfems have been maliciously injecting into feminist conversations, so here's The Will To Change excerpts by bell hooks again.

libratory feminism sees no difference between men and women except those manufactured by patriarchy. misogyny is a symptom of patriarchy the system, not a structure by which to interpret patriarchy the system. replacing "sexism" with "misogyny" does not change the nature of the analysis, which is a weak one. patriarchy the system can induce the symptom of misogyny in any person subjected to that system. using sexism/misogyny/male chauvinism is not a useful lens of analysis when looking at patriarchy because women are misogynists too. let's not move backward on that. women are misogynists too and men are allies.

the recent "trans men are misogynists" allegations I've seen lodged against trans men are:

unprepared to be treated like a predator, may cry about it

asked that only trans men attend a trans mens' support group

discussed male loneliness instead of talking about violence against women

all of these are actually feminist discussions. so the backlash seems like angry feminist reactions to Men Having Feelings, which is not a new thing. in fact, hooks addresses it directly.

i see men being mocked for having their feelings hurt, men being mocked for wanting to discuss their feelings, and men being mocked because they're thinking about men and manhood in new and complex ways. exactly what the doctor ordered.

i am not seeing challenges to patriarchy here. I am seeing reinforcement of patriarchal expectations of masculinity on trans men who do not want to perform those expectations. i am seeing separatist radfem bullshit in the assumption that trans men have lost or never had a valuable perspective on misogyny or gender or sexism and cannot tell when the shape of discrimination they're facing has changed. i am seeing toxic separatist radfem bullshit shut down liberatory feminist discussion because one of the speakers is trans in the wrong direction.

[mothford]

[fuiru]

A 44 year old man goes to a K-Pop Concert

I promised you a report on the K-pop concert that I, a 44-year-old accountant, went to a couple of weeks ago with my wife and daughter in Toronto. So here it is.

The band we saw were Ateez. They're my daughter's favourite band and my wife's second favourite. I know most of my mutuals are similarly aged like me and may not be familiar with them so let me give you a brief primer on Ateez.

Imagine the most attractive eight men you can think of, just unfathomably beautiful specimens of aesthetic perfection, and make them sing songs that somehow combine the subjects of 'dancing like nobody is watching' with 'we live in a dystopian hellscape that we must all work together to overthrow'. Give them an ongoing music video story lore that literally nobody - not even the band themselves - understand, so that online discussion of their visual motifs looks more like the fevered rantings of a conspiracy theorist, complete with speculation about alternate realities and time being a Moebius strip. There is also a giant sand timer, for some reason.

That's Ateez. That's what you need to know.

Now, K-pop concerts are very different to the gigs I've been going to for the last 28 (!) years. There's no support act, for a start. Also the band perform for like, three hours, with breaks for costume changes and interpretive dance. Furthermore, hanging above everything is the constant looming threat of mandatory military service.

So this being my first such concert, I wasn't sure what to expect. What happened was difficult to explain, but I will try as I am already six paragraphs into this write-up and I'm too invested to stop now. Here goes:

In his Wicked + Divine comics series, Kieron Gillen places modern pop icons as deities, feeding upon and gaining strength from the worship of their fans at the altar of musical performance. I thought I understood that metaphor. I thought I understood it AS a metaphor. I was wrong, because that night Ateez WERE Gods with a capital G and we were their worshippers, a crowd emanating adoration (in the religious and non-religious senses), bestowing strength upon them and gaining their strength in return.

If that sounds weird, it probably is. But as pointed out above, I have lived over four decades and never yet experienced anything like the overwhelming passion of that crowd, the utter abandon with which they conveyed their love for the band.

"But Fuiru, what of the actual music?" you ask. Thinking back, there was a moment in one of their songs - I can't remember which - where I watched the stage, and the people around me, taking it in, and I thought, "Man, I just love Music". But that doesn't answer your question, sorry.

Ateez's music is bloody great. As a tiresome indie/rock/metal kid I'm resisting the urge to add the usual tiresome indie/rock/metal caveat of "...for pop music" because honestly that does it a disservice. They have some genuinely amazing songs. Halazia is an absolute fucking masterpiece that descends into furious hardcore breakbeat. Bouncy is a big, brash racket that somehow is also a perfect pop song. Utopia, Wonderland, and Guerrilla are similarly superb. The obligatory boy band slow number is represented by Dancing Like Butterfly Wings which will make you cry because you will forever associate it with your twelve year old daughter being pointed to and waved at by her favourite Ateez member (Seonghwa) because of her Seonghwa-branded lightstick.

That might just be me, though.

So in summary: being a 44 year old dad at his first K-pop concert rules and you should endeavour to partake in the experience if the opportunity arises.

Finally, for any Atiny reading this: my bias would be San or Seonghwa but my wife and daughter said they were taken so it’s Mingi. My concert outfit (designed and created by my offspring) reflects this.

[hellyeahscarleteen]

NEW: A Letter To The Trans Teen Thinking About Giving Up

The SCOTUS decision on U.S. v. Skrmetti was devastating. This decision does massive harm just by existing, and will absolutely do harm to many young #trans people in the United States. But please don't interpret this decision as a death sentence, or believe anyone who tells you that without the government's support, you or all young trans people in the United States will die. As Andy Izerson explains in this deeply caring and thoughtful letter for trans teens, trans people have always existed and survived without the government's help, and you can exist and survive yourself now without it if you must (you shouldn't have to, but you can), because we always have each other. "I really wish that the circumstances were different and I was writing you this letter to say, “Great news friend! The supreme court gave us a break today!” or to say, “Guess what, here’s how to run your endocrine system on manual without having to ask anybody’s permission!” or to say, “The state has given up on trying to destroy us!” From the bottom⁠ of my heart, I’m so sorry that this sucks so bad. I wouldn’t blame you if you feel scared, because I’m scared, too. But listen: there’s a story of the future that has you in it. That story has some scary parts and some parts that hurt, but it also has some beautiful parts. There’s a future you who is surrounded by meaning and connection and beauty, and who has people around them that will catch them when they stumble and hug them when they get up. There’s a future you who doesn’t depend on the state for anything because they are seen and held and loved by community, who can reach out their own hand to the next generations of queer and trans people and pass along some of this stuff to them, just like I’m passing⁠ it to you now. There’s a future you who is living a life that’s cooler than you can even imagine in the present, and who doesn’t feel the way you feel in the wake of this decision. And I am determined to meet that person and high five them." You'll find the letter here:

And don't forget: we're some of that community you can always reach out to for help and support <3